The final ‘that it might be fulfilled’ statement in Matthew is found in 27.9-10. This quotation produces what has been seen by some as a problem for at first sight it appears to be citing Zechariah when it is said by Matthew to be citing Jeremiah. But such a problem only arises for those who fail to recognise Matthew’s emphasis. His main emphasis is in fact not on Zechariah’s prophecy but on the brief citations from Jeremiah in the last part of the ‘quotation’ (verse 10). Matthew clearly considers these latter as important enough to draw attention to them by referring to Jeremiah whose words are seen as underlying the whole.

Certainly it is true that the first part of what is said is a loose citation from parts of Zechariah 11.12-13, but the main point of the citation is not to do with that, (that is simply indicating the value put on a prophet by the Temple authorities), but is on what was done with the price. And that was to purchase a field connected with a potter. And it is this last idea that has in mind a combination of Jeremiah 19.1 and 32.12-14, as Matthew’s attribution of the prophecy to Jeremiah confirms. He was thus not in error when he cited Jeremiah. (He only ever mentions in these ‘fulfilment’ contexts Isaiah and Jeremiah). He was rather drawing attention to:

• 1). where he wanted the emphasis to be placed, and
• 2). the connection of the citations with the prophet who first forecast the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

  This very fact tends to confirm that he is not using these quotations as a glib ‘O look, the prophecy has been fulfilled’, but as an indication that what occurs in the Old Testament is filled to the full in the New.

  Perhaps here, in order to see this better, we should first list what Matthew tells us about the incident with Judas. He tells us that:

  • 1). The chief priests and the elders took council against Jesus (27.1), (thereby bringing themselves under God’s judgment).
  • 2). Judas brought back the thirty pieces of silver, which was the value set on Jesus as a prophet (see 26.15), and then cast down the pieces of silver into the Sanctuary (27.3, 5), an act which probably in his view cast some of his guilt back on the chief priests and elders.
  • 3). The chief priest took the pieces of silver which were the price of blood and bought with them something which belonged to a potter, namely in this case a field, which was subsequently seen as defiled (27.6-7).
  • 4). The field was renamed ‘the field of blood’.

  With his wide knowledge of the Old Testament Matthew immediately saw here connections with three Old Testament prophecies, one of which was in Zechariah and two in Jeremiah, all of which pointed to judgment coming on the elders and chief priests and those involved with them, and which, in the case of Jeremiah, were very much connected with a forthcoming destruction of the Temple. Matthew considered that now those prophecies were being ‘filled to the full’. Salvation history, and irrevocable judgment, was seen to be repeating itself in Jesus.

  We may see the combinations here a little complicated, but we must remember that Matthew’s initial Jewish and Jewish-Christian readers would be more used to such combinations. We may present them as follows:

  • 1). In Jeremiah 19.1 the same ‘elders of the people and the elders of the priests’ (the elders and the chief priests - Matthew 27.1) were connected with an incident in which Jeremiah purchased from a potter an earthen container which he would use in order to reveal that they were under God’s judgment. In the same way in Matthew 27 the chief priests and elders would purchase something from a potter which would indicate judgment on themselves (it became ‘the field of blood’). In Zechariah 11.11-12 similarly the chief priests (the traffickers of the sheep who pay the wages of Temple prophets) are acting against Zechariah, and they pay out thirty pieces of silver as the value of a prophet.
  • 2). In Zechariah 11.11-12 the price of thirty pieces of silver was paid as the value of a prophet, (as in Matthew 26.15; 27.3, 5) but the prophet, in accordance with God’s word, cast it to the potter in the house of the Lord as an indication of judgment on them. In Jeremiah 19.10 the earthen container bought from the potter was similarly cast down in front of his opponents (compare Matthew 27.5), in the Valley of Hinnom, again in his case as a symbol of judgment against the elders and chief priests, and as a portent of the coming destruction of Jerusalem.
  • 3). In Jeremiah 19.1 an earthen container was bought from a potter which would be used to indicate defilement and judgment (compare Matthew 27.6-8). And in Jeremiah 32.7-14 a field was bought, whose title deeds were put in an earthen container similar to that bought from the potter in 19.1 (see Jeremiah 32.14 with 19.1, and compare Matthew 27.10). This purchase of land would be evidence that after judgment had come on Jerusalem, mercy would eventually follow so that fields would have value again (Jeremiah 32.15). Meanwhile the earthen container that had been broken in Jeremiah 19.10 had been cast down in a defiled place (19. 3-13), symbolising that Jerusalem was defiled (19.13). Compare Matthew 27.5.
  • 4). In Jeremiah 19.6 the valley where the casting down took place had its name changed to the Valley of Slaughter (compare Matthew 27.8).

  The comparisons reveal why Matthew could see how these Old Testament passages, as brought together as one, (although he could have used them individually and protracted the narrative) were finding a ‘filling full’ (eplerowthe) in what happened in Matthew 27. He is demonstrating how what had happened with the prophets at the hands of the Jewish leaders, had also happened in the case of Jesus at the hands of the Jewish leaders, thus identifying Him with them, while at the same time showing that all that had happened to them was summed up in Him. Jesus’ opponents were ‘filling up’ (plerowsate) the measure of their fathers who had persecuted the prophets (compare Matthew 23.32-36).

  The same people were seen to be involved in Zechariah/Jeremiah (the elders and leading priests) as in Matthew 27.1; the same amount of money was involved in both (thirty pieces of silver); something was purchased from a potter in both (Jeremiah 19.1; Matthew 27.10) which indicated judgment on the elders and chief priests; something was cast down indicating judgment on the chief priests and elders in both (Zechariah 11.13/Jeremiah 19.10 and in Matthew 27.5); in the case of Matthew 27.10 a field connected with a potter was bought, and in the case of Zechariah/Jeremiah, as an evidence of the coming judgment and the hope that would follow, a field was bought whose title deeds were put in an earthen container (Jeremiah 32.14) which was similar to that bought from a potter (Jeremiah 19.1), and thirty pieces of silver were cast to the potter in the house of the Lord (Zechariah 11.13); in both Matthew 27.7 and Zechariah/Jeremiah land was seen as defiled (Jeremiah 19.13); in both cases there was a change of name to something gruesome (Matthew 27.8/Jeremiah 19.6). And through what was signified by the purchases from the potters, and by the purchases of the fields, judgments were threatened on Jerusalem which would result in Jerusalem being destroyed (Matthew 27.25 with 23.37; 24.15-20/Jeremiah 19.7-9), although each also pointed forward to a future hope after judgment for God’s true people (Jeremiah 32.15, see also Jeremiah 31.37-40).

  Matthew therefore wanted his readers, as a result of this joint citation and especially as a result of his reference to Jeremiah, to consider the whole background behind them as considered above and connect them with what was happening in these last chapters of his Gospel. Far from being a naive citation it is a deeply thought out application of Scripture, and required similar application from his readers who with their knowledge of the Scriptures would more appreciate what was in Matthew’s mind than some of us might.

  Perhaps it will assist in an appreciation of what Matthew is saying if we place the prophecies, and their ‘filling full’, side by side.

  • --------------MATTHEW----------------------ZECHARIAH 11/JEREMIAH 19/32
  • They took the thirty pieces of silver ----they weighed for my hire thirty pieces of silver (Z).
    The price of Him Who was priced,----the goodly price that I was valued at by them (Z)
    Whom certain of the children of Israel did price,
    And they gave them for the field------ Buy you my field and put the title deeds
    ----------------------------------------------------in an earthen container (J32).
    Of the potter----------------------------------Buy a potter’s earthen container (J19).
    ------------------------------------------------- cast it to the potter -- in the house of YHWH (Z).
    As the Lord appointed me.------------ -Then I knew that this was the word of the Lord (J32).
  
  (Almost this phrase is found in
  Joshua 24.31 LXX with autois
  instead of moi).

  We thus see here a combination of ideas in Zechariah 11 and Jeremiah 19 & 32, which associate with ideas in Matthew 27.1-10, with the initial ‘they’ in all cases referring to the chief priests and the elders.

  In Matthew 27.10 we have reference to a purchase made in connection with a potter (for which compare Zechariah 11.13/Jeremiah 19.1), and the purchase of a field (for which compare Jeremiah 32.25) as something which can be described as ‘what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet’, thus drawing attention to the place of Jeremiah 19/32 in the scheme. This concerned something which ‘was purchased’ in connection with a potter, namely in Matthew’s case ‘the field connected with a potter’ and it is done ‘as the Lord appointed me’. The reference to being ‘spoken by Jeremiah the prophet’ would serve to confirm that we must look in Jeremiah for such an event or events, and there we find both a purchase from a potter, and the purchase of a field, both being significantly connected with the Jewish leaders and being at the command of the Lord.

  So the purchase of a field in accordance with the Lord’s appointment was stated in Jeremiah 32, although in that chapter there is no mention of a potter. However, in Zechariah 11 the price of thirty pieces of silver for a prophet is mentioned, and that is tossed ‘to the potter in the house of the Lord’. And in Jeremiah 19 something is bought which is connected with a potter and which actually links with the purchase in Jeremiah 32 by means of the parallel ‘earthen containers’. One container is bought from a potter, the other (clearly at some stage bought from a potter) contains the title deeds of the purchase of the land. So Matthew is combining the ideas together so that the thirty pieces of silver which were tossed to the potter in the house of the Lord, in connection with the chief priests and elders (the traffickers of the sheep), and the thirty pieces of silver which in Matthew were cast to the chief priests and elders, and were used to buy a field connected with a potter, are seen as parallel. This all being connected with the purchase of something from a potter which was cast down in order to declare God’s judgment on the elders and chief priests, which is found in Jeremiah 19, and connects with Matthew 27.5, and the purchase of a piece of land (Matthew 27.10; Jeremiah 32.9-14) which was also indicative of judgment (Jeremiah 32.25). The simmering chief priests and elders in the days of Jesus were filling full the behaviour of their fathers who had had the same attitude towards Zechariah and Jeremiah (compare Matthew 23.32-36), and the implication might well be that they will suffer the same end, although it is not spelled out here. (The complicated connections might be seen as revealing the devious thinking of a tax collector).

  The earthen vessel/container, which is bought from the potter in Jeremiah 19.1 and which contains the deeds of the property bought in Jeremiah 32.12-14, is one of the key ideas that connects the two passages in Jeremiah, the others being the connection with the chief priests and elders and the common theme of judgment, although in the case of 32.12-25 partly a judgment reversed, (but see 32.25), while the idea of buying from the potter connects with the thirty pieces of silver cast to the potter in Zechariah 11. (It was common practise in Matthew’s time to connect Old Testament verses by key words and key ideas). Matthew therefore sees the purchase of a field connected with a potter for thirty pieces of silver as too much of a coincidence not to be seen as completing the ‘filling to the full’ of these prophecies, when they are all connected with the behaviour of the leaders of the Jews towards God’s prophets, and in the case of Jeremiah with the destruction of Jerusalem although with hope lying beyond.

  So we discover from this that the ‘quotation’ in Matthew 27.9-10 is in fact not just a quotation, and certainly not one which has been naively fulfilled, but is a worked statement on the basis of a combination of Old Testament passages, at least one of which we would expect to find in Jeremiah because of the ascription. This method of combining prophecies together under the name of the one name considered most crucial (or possibly the last quoted) is also found in Mark 1.2-3 where words from Malachi and Isaiah are combined under the name of Isaiah. Compare also Romans 3.10-18 which is a miscellany under ‘as it is written’, although no one is named there.

  It is thus not accidental that in Matthew the account of the consequences of Judas’ betrayal follows immediately on the description of the betrayal of Jesus by the chief priests and elders of the people (verses 1-2, 3, see also vv. 12, 20). It is because he intends to connect them with his theme from the prophets. The prophecies are probably therefore to be seen as having influenced the order in which Matthew 27.1-10 was written, although not in such a way as to distort the truth. (Had he been inventing all this he could easily have made the parallels much closer).

  But we are almost certainly intended to see from this that the dire things that happened to Judas as a consequence of what he did, were a warning also of worse things to come on the chief priests and elders of the people because of what they would do. And the words of Zechariah and Jeremiah, and the connection with a ‘field connected with a potter’ (verses 7 & 10), all of which are connected with the idea of judgment on the leaders of the Jews, are seen as a confirmation of it. The potter’s field, the Field of Blood, stood as a witness against Israel ‘to this day’.

  Compare how in Jeremiah 19.1 onwards the elders of the people and the elders of the priests (i.e. the chief priests) have betrayed the covenant, so that Jeremiah is told by God to buy an earthen container from the potter, take the elders and chief priests to the scene of their betrayal of the covenant, dramatically break the earthen container before them, and warn them that that is what God will do to Israel. And this is connected with ‘the valley of Slaughter’. Apart from the buying of the land introduced from Jeremiah 32 the ideas are remarkably similar to those in Matthew 27.

  This demonstrates that in Matthew’s view the whole incident is pregnant with the deepest significance in the light of what ‘the Lord’ had said about the potter (Jeremiah 19.1) and his field (Jeremiah 32.8), and that also in connection with the chief priest (elders of the priests) and the elders of the people (Jeremiah 19.1) or all the Jews that sat in the court of the guard (Jeremiah 32.12). Yet, as he often does with his quotations, he provides them with the material and leaves them to read into it what his full thoughts are on the basis of their knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures. What happened in Jeremiah is being repeated. And once we look into what this means we discover that he clearly sees the whole incident of Judas as symbolic of what will happen to Jerusalem (Matthew 24.15-22, compare Jeremiah 19.7-9) as a result of its betrayal by Jesus. Indeed the vivid description in Jeremiah 19.7-9 is so descriptive of the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans that had it not been totally impossible we might have felt it necessary to declare that it was written after that siege, thus dating Jeremiah in 80-90 AD!

  So while he cited Zechariah’s words first, Matthew’s ascription of the whole citation to Jeremiah demonstrates that it is Jeremiah's contribution that he sees as finally basic to the lesson being taught, because it was his words that were the specific symbol of Israel's judgment (or alternately because Jeremiah’s contribution comes last, but in this case as we have seen he had a purpose in mentioning Jeremiah). This is why he mentions Jeremiah, indicating that that is the clue as to where we should look for the significance of the event. Furthermore the fact that the potter's field in Matthew was bought for burying Gentiles in, and that burials were a reminder of coming death, might further have suggested to him the many Gentiles as well as Jews who would die in the coming destruction of Jerusalem as forecast by Jesus (Matthew 24; see especially Luke 21.20). It certainly adds to the overall sense of death and judgment.

  Alternative Explanations of the Citing of Jeremiah’s Name.

  One different possible explanation of this problem given is that Jeremiah was the first book in a possible ‘prophets division’ of the Hebrew Old Testament at this time and that Jesus quoted Zechariah as from Jeremiah because the Book of Zechariah was in the section of the Hebrew Bible that began with the Book of Jeremiah. However, we do not know that the Book of Jeremiah ever occupied this leading position in a third division of the Hebrew Bible in Matthew's day, although it is possible. But what counts most against it is that the quotation was not in fact wholly from Zechariah.

  Others suggest that Zechariah is actually taking up something which had previously also happened to Jeremiah and which Jeremiah had passed on in the oral tradition. Thus it was something 'said' by Jeremiah, (a fact known by tradition in Matthew's time) and taken up by Zechariah and applied to himself. Zechariah was in fact clearly dependent on Jeremiah for some of his thought, and it is argued that that included this particular thought. There is, of course, no way of either demonstrating or disproving this.

  But the main likelihood, indeed we would rate it more highly than that, the almost certain likelihood, is that Matthew saw in the potter’s field an amazing connection with the combined prophecies of Jeremiah mentioned, and wanted his readers to see the connection too.

  Return to Home Page for further interesting articles

  IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?

  If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus. (But preferably not from aol.com, for some reason they do not deliver our messages).

  FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.

  THE PENTATEUCH --- GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS --- NUMBERS --- DEUTERONOMY --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- SAMUEL --- KINGS --- PSALMS 1-50--- ECCLESIASTES--- SONG OF SOLOMON --- ISAIAH --- JEREMIAH --- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL --- --- HOSEA --- --- JOEL ------ AMOS --- --- OBADIAH --- --- JONAH --- --- MICAH --- --- NAHUM --- --- HABAKKUK--- --- ZEPHANIAH --- --- HAGGAI --- ZECHARIAH --- --- MALACHI --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- READINGS IN ROMANS --- 1 CORINTHIANS --- 2 CORINTHIANS ---GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS--- PHILIPPIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- HEBREWS --- JAMES --- 1 & 2 PETER --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- JUDE --- REVELATION --- THE GOSPELS & ACTS