So Matthew here saw Hosea as declaring that God’s call from Egypt was a continuing process that had not yet been completed. God had called but as yet His people had not truly responded. And then he saw Hosea as going on to describe the continuation of that call as outlined in the following verses. For the idea all the way through Hosea 11 is that while Israel may have left Egypt physically, they had not done so spiritually. In their hearts they were still in Egypt, as was evidenced by their idolatry and lack of love for the Lord. And thus the call of God had not been inwardly effective. Their hearts still needed to be ‘called out of Egypt’. But because the call was the call of God it was still active, and would remain active until it came about.

Thus Hosea sees that there is only one solution to this problem. In order to achieve His purpose God would have to return His people to Egypt so that He might be able to call them out again, so that this time, hopefully, having learned their lesson, His previous call might be made effective, with the result that they would be wholly delivered from Egypt. Thus, (following RSV, again translated with LXX in mind), he says in verse 5, ‘they will return to the land of Egypt, and Assyria will be their king, because they refused to return to Me’. In other words, God is saying, the initial result of their calling out of Egypt will have to be temporarily reversed by their being returned to Egypt (and to Assyria) to await another deliverance. And that theologically there must be another deliverance comes out in the fact that, although the calling of God may be delayed, it cannot be cancelled. ‘The gifts and calling of God are without repentance’ (Romans 11.29). For the promises to Abraham must be fulfilled.

Alternatively, if we read in the text the negative as in MT, we must translate as, ‘Shall they not return to Egypt, and Assyria be their king, because they would not return to Me?’. (This is an equally possible translation of MT). That this translation is required is evidenced in verse 11 which again shows them as later being in both Egypt and Assyria. So whichever way the text is taken, whether as in LXX or as in MT, the same thing is in mind. The idea basically is that their particular calling has been reversed because of their disobedience, so that they are being returned to Egypt, and to its equivalent Assyria, but that that calling will then need to be ‘fulfilled’ or brought to completion at a later time. God had indeed called His son out of Egypt, but because as yet ‘he’ had not fully and completely come out, God will repeat His call, or ‘make it full’. For as God’s original call must finally be effective because of Who He is, there will have to be a further re-calling out so that His purposes are really fulfilled.

That this is so comes out in that in verse 11 Hosea once more sees Israel as again coming out of Egypt. ‘They will come trembling like birds from Egypt and like doves from the land of Assyria, and I will return them to their homes (or ‘make them dwell in their houses’)’. The idea here is that God, having first removed them from their homes and having taken them back to Egypt and Assyria because their hearts had proved to be still there, would once again ‘bring them out of Egypt’, and this time would bring ‘home’ not only their bodies but their hearts, so that they would worship and serve Him only. His call out of Egypt would therefore at last be fully effective, it would be carried out to the full. It would be ‘fulfilled’.

So to Hosea God’s original call was to be seen as still in process of completion, and ‘out of Israel have I called My son’ was to be seen as still having to be fulfilled. We should note that this is not Matthew’s view. This is Hosea’s view which Matthew accepts. But even then, as always, we must assume that its completion will depend on their final obedient response to Him. For if the calling is really God’s it must finally be effective. Until that was so the call of God could not be said to have been ‘fulfilled’. And the problem was, as Matthew saw clearly, that that kind of obedience had never really happened. Even in his own time he recognised that their hearts were still ‘in Egypt’, and that in fact over a million Jews literally were still there, largely in Alexandria..

So when Matthew cites this verse in respect of Jesus coming out of Egypt, having first represented Jesus as the expected seed of Abraham, and as thus the representative of Israel; as David’s son, the Messiah who was to be Israel’s representative before God (for the king always represented his people); and as the One who had in His ancestors returned from Exile (1.12), it is with these factors in mind. Matthew is saying, ‘as yet, while God called His son out of Egypt, this calling of Israel out of Egypt has not yet been fully consummated’, and we should note that this was just what Hosea had also declared. God did call with a call which must eventually be effective because it was His, but the problem was that in their hearts Israel had up to this point not come. So at the time of the birth of Jesus Israel was therefore still to be seen as ‘in Egypt’ in their hearts. And this could not have been more emphasised than by the fact that in the time of Jesus there were over a million Jews in Egypt just as Hosea had said.

‘And thus,’ says Matthew, ‘God has now acted in Jesus in such a way as to commence the final deliverance from Egypt.’ He has now brought out of Egypt the One Who represents in Himself the seed of Abraham, the son of David, the children of the Exile, He Who is the new Israel, the Messiah, the Servant, the One Who embodies in Himself the whole of Israel, so as to bring back Israel to Him and also in order to be a light to the Gentiles (Isaiah 49.3, 6). His heart will not be left in Egypt. He will come out totally, in body, soul and spirit. Nor will the hearts of those who follow Him remain in Egypt.

Through Jesus therefore this prophecy, says Matthew, which had never been fully completed, will come to its final consummation, so that the true Israel might finally be delivered from ‘Egypt’. By this means the prophecy is being ‘brought to completion’, it is ‘being filled full’. His return from exile, like that of His forebears before Him, is the beginning of a new coming out of Egypt. The idea is that in Jesus God’s purposes for Israel will now come into fulfilment. Thus far from Matthew’s quotation being naive, it is full of deep significance, and that by taking it in its true context. (We may not like his interpretation, but we have no right to despise it, for it is based firmly on what Hosea was saying, and would certainly have spoken quite clearly to his Jewish readers. This is a further indication of how much Matthew, in his Gospel, has in mind the Jews, both Christian and otherwise).

That Jesus did in fact see Himself as Israel in this way comes out in His description of Himself as the Son of Man (which in Daniel 7 represented both Israel and their king) and especially in John 15.1-6, where He depicts Himself as the true Vine. It is also found in His recognition that He Himself would need to found a new nation (‘My congregation’). This last comes out clearly later on in Matthew, for there He speaks of founding ‘My congregation’ (the new congregation of Israel - 16.18; 18.17-18) on the rock of His Messiahship. Furthermore He also speaks of the ‘bringing forth of a new nation’ in 21.43, which will replace the old. So the thought in Matthew’s words in 2.15 is to be seen as far more complicated than just a simplistic ‘fulfilling’ of some convenient words which have been misapplied. It is not an attempt to ‘prove’ anything by a rather conveniently worded prophecy. Rather it is indicating that Jesus is an essential part of Israel’s ongoing history and promised deliverance, and is evidence of the final fulfilling of that first call of God to His people. God had called them out of Egypt, but the calling had not succeeded, and now therefore He will finally make that call effective so that they will never yearn to return there again, but will at last respond to God’s cords of love (Hosea 11.4) through Jesus Christ, just as Isaiah had in his own way promised (19.23-25).

Rather therefore than being a naive claim to be a successful piece of fortune-telling, it is a declaration that God’s calling is always finally effective, even though its fulfilment might take over a thousand years.

3). ‘Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, “A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and she would not be comforted, because they are not” (2.17-18).

We must apply similar methods of interpretation to Matthew 2.17-18 as we have done previously. Here we read, ‘Then was fulfilled (or ‘filled to the full’) that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, “A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and she would not be comforted for they are not.” ’ It is then often asked, ‘what has Ramah to do with Bethlehem-judah?’ As we have already seen it need not have anything to do with it. It may simply be indicating where Rachel was to be found in her tomb at Ramah. However, other significant facts are that Ramah was on the way between Bethel and Bethlehem, and that Rachel’s death was also in fact connected with Bethlehem (Genesis 35.16-19). But that is clearly not the full answer, and again we must consider its context, this time in Jeremiah 31.15.

In Jeremiah’s prophecy these words in reality stand very much on their own, but the principle behind them is nevertheless clear and that is that Israel are seen as weeping, and this in terms of their deceased ancestress Rachel. And she is weeping because many of their people are either dead or in exile, because ‘they are not’. As with the quotation from Hosea he has in mind those who are far from the land and ‘in exile’. This Ramah was presumably the Ramah near Gibeon (Joshua 18.25) some miles north of Jerusalem, in Benjamite territory. In contrast Bethlehem-judah was six miles south of Jerusalem in the territory of Judah. But Jeremiah’s words are not based on the association of the one with the other but almost certainly on the fact that Rachel was thought to be buried near Ramah.

(In 1 Samuel 10.2 it is said to have been at Selsah, on the border of Benjamin, which is not definitely identified, but must have been near Ramah, while Genesis 35.16, 19 says that it was ‘on the way to Ephrath’, the old name for Bethlehem, a road that passed through what would later be Benjamite territory by Ramah. It was thus on the approach to Bethlehem (see also Ruth 4.11). We must remember that in ancient days geography was not an exact science and places would therefore be identified by the nearest well known name).

But the vivid picture is not of the children of Ramah. It is of Rachel in her tomb at Ramah weeping because all her children, the whole of Israel, were suffering (we must remember that she was mother of Joseph and Benjamin, and therefore grandmother of Ephraim and Manasseh, and that the children of her maid would also be seen as hers, but she is probably to be seen as weeping for all Israel and Judah). And her weeping was because they were no longer before her eyes. Many were in Exile, others were dead. The verse is then followed by the promise that there is hope for their latter end (Jeremiah 31.17), hope following the Messianic feast (Jeremiah 31.13-14) when presumably Rachel will be able to cease weeping, and when will be fulfilled the change of heart and mind in Israel that God requires (Jeremiah 31.31-34). Thus Rachel’s weeping is seen by Jeremiah as something that would carry on until the end times when through God’s activity it would cease because God’s work of restoration would begin. It was therefore very appropriate for what Matthew saw as the beginning of ‘the last days’, the times of the Messiah. For the Messiah would remove the necessity for this kind of weeping. And to Matthew this exiling of the One Who represented Israel, and needless destruction of twenty or so male children by Herod, was therefore to be seen as the last throes of the old dispensation as Rachel continued to weep for her children.

Rachel’s death was a tragic one, although not in an uncommon way, for she died in childbirth (Genesis 35.16-19) as did so many women in those days. Her tears would thus have been seen as very apt for a situation where children were involved. And the fact that she was depicted as weeping for children who were lost to her, and would continue to do so until they were brought home, made it very applicable to this case. Thus Matthew is simply pointing out that Rachel (as representative of mother Israel) wept whenever children who were born in Israel ‘were not’ as a result of man’s inhumanity. And that was why this slaughter of Israel’s children was to be seen as one of ‘her’ causes of weeping, and a very significant one because it heralded the coming of the Messiah. He is taking the verse as signifying the perpetual grief of the symbolic Rachel for Israel’s suffering, in whatever form that suffering takes, right up to the end times, and especially in such cases as this, until her children return to her. She is therefore also weeping for the return of the Exiled One. So the present generation are to be comforted by the thought of the past, and to see their suffering as part of the completion of the process whereby finally the good times would come through the appearance of the Messiah.

Each time Israel suffered, a partial fulfilment of these words was to be seen. At such times Rachel was to be seen as weeping in Ramah, especially when the problems related to children. And now when the coming of the Messiah seemed to be bringing hope to the world, it was not, says Matthew, to be seen as surprising that this weeping was intensified as a result of the sufferings that accompanied His birth. This weeping then represented and symbolised the birth pangs of the Messianic age which had been so clearly portended (Isaiah 13.8; 26.17; Jeremiah 4.31; 6.24; Micah 4.9-10. See also 2 Esdras 16.38-39). And ‘Rachel’ therefore felt them most intensely. Who better to have in mind in view of how she died? Here at last Jeremiah’s words were being ‘filled to the full’

So Matthew clearly saw that the weeping for these children in Bethlehem was all part of the weeping of ‘Rachel’, a weeping that was expected in the end to result in the coming of the Messianic Banquet (Jeremiah 31.13-14). And he knew that it would speak to the hearts of those who were still weeping, awaiting His coming. He may well also have wanted the actual mothers of these slain sons to know that ‘Rachel’, as one who understood such situations, was weeping for them, something which would help to comfort all who were finding their suffering difficult to understand. It would make them aware that God was not insensitive to their cries, but knew what was happening (compare Luke 18.7). Matthew may even himself have known people who were still grieving over their lost sons in Bethlehem. But even more was he aware of unbelieving Israel’s constant weeping as they looked ahead in hope of deliverance. Thus again, far from being a naive application of words that were irrelevant, this is to be seen as something pregnant with meaning concerning the coming of Jesus, and as having a direct message at that time for his Jewish readers. The weeping of Israel was soon coming to an end. For Israel would finally be ‘called out of Egypt’ in Jesus, and true Israel would genuinely respond in their hearts, and would no longer need to see themselves as in Exile and away from where God could be worshipped (John 4.20-23), and all because of the activity of Jesus.

This then links his use of this prophecy, with the previous one. When God ‘called His son out of Egypt’ it followed a time when Rachel truly had been weeping for her children, for the Gentile world had been seeking to destroy them in the form of Pharaoh’s annihilation of the sons of Israel (Exodus 1.15-22), a destruction that Herod was now imitating. But one son survived that annihilation and led Israel out of Egypt. Now Rachel is weeping for her children again, but again one child will survive the annihilation, and will ‘lead His people out of Egypt’. It is to be the end of Rachel’s sorrows.

4). ‘And He came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, that He should be called a Nazarene’ (2.23).

The first thing to be noted here is that this is not seen as a direct citation, and that it is referred to ‘the prophets’ as a whole. It is thus seen as a general principle spoken of by the prophets which is to be ‘filled to the full’. Here the emphasis is on the significance of Jesus coming to live in Nazareth. The question is therefore in what way the prophets can have suggested that Jesus would be ‘called a Nazarene’.

In fact the answer to that question would have been more obvious to the Jews of Matthew’s day than it is to us. Nazareth was in Galilee, and Galilee was despised by the people of Judah as ‘Galilee of the Gentiles’. While Jewish Galileans were accepted as being full Jews (although many of their fathers had been forced to become so by compulsory circumcision) they were seen as a little unorthodox, and even their Rabbis were not seen as quite as orthodox as they should be. Thus they were ‘looked down on’ by their more orthodox brethren in Judea and Jerusalem (see for example John 7.41, 52). But even more looked down on were the residents of Nazareth in Galilee. Nazareth was a smallish out of the way town in the hills, away from the main thoroughfares which it overlooked from a height, and it had somehow gained a reputation for being a backward nonentity. Thus if Galilee was despised, Nazareth was even more despised, for it was despised even by those who lived in Galilee. It was the lowest of the low. Thus Nathaniel could say, ‘Can anything good come out of Nazareth?’ (John 1.46). And at the time that Matthew was written (whenever it was) the Jews looked down on Christians and called them ‘the sect of the Nazarenes’, which was intended to be upsetting and insulting (Acts 24.5).

So Matthew’s point here is that quite deliberately Joseph and Mary went back to live in that unpretentious town in the hills where Mary at least had once had her home, thus fulfilling all the Old Testament prophecies which spoke of the Coming One as being the lowliest of men (see especially Psalm 22.6; Isaiah 53.1-5; Zechariah 9.12; 11.7-14). Here therefore ‘He shall be called a Nazarene’ indicates that He would be seen as the lowest of the low, as the Scriptures had declared would be the case.

Matthew has previously not mentioned any connection with Nazareth, and that has been deliberate. For he had been concerned to emphasise the Davidic connection of Jesus, and His royal birth and treatment by the Magi, but now he also seeks to draw attention to His lowliness as He ‘returns from Exile’, thus filling in both aspects of Zechariah 9.12. The One Who was the Son of David, and honoured by the Magi, had like Israel of old fled to Egypt, and had now descended in status to lowly Nazareth.

So to conclude, ‘He will be called a Nazarene’, a phrase which may well have become proverbial, is a picturesque way of saying ‘He will be lowly and despised’. And the factor that brought this idea to Matthew was the fact that Jesus was brought up in Nazareth, that Jesus and His family did go to live in the most despised of place..

Other have connected the words with Isaiah 11.1, where the ‘branch’ is a ‘netser’. Thus ‘He will be called a netser’. But the connection of this with Nazareth is tenuous, and if Matthew had intended that he would surely have drawn attention to the fact, for it is not obvious in the Greek. The same is true of interpretations that seek to connect the idea with Nazirites. All also founder on the fact that Matthew referred it to ‘the prophets’ not ‘the prophet’. Thus the probability is that we are to see Matthew as reading into the words ‘He will be called a Nazarene’ all the contempt that was intrinsic in the idea of being an inhabitant of Nazareth.

The Isaianic Prophecies.

It is possibly significant that the next six citations are all stated openly to be the words of Isaiah the Prophet. (1.23 was also a citation from Isaiah, but not by name). Matthew wants us to see that Jesus is now, from the commencement of John’s ministry, filling to the full what had been declared by Isaiah. In other words he is especially seeking in these chapters to lay the emphasis on Jesus’ fulfilment of the prophecies of Isaiah, as both the coming Son and the coming Servant.

(We exclude 13.35 because the reading in Aleph,Theta,f13 which cites Isaiah as speaking in 13.35 is explainable as being copied from 8.17 by someone who did not know his Old Testament well enough. It occurred because it was in a sequence of Isaianic prophecies. For some copyists tended to try to remove anonymity. The reading must therefore be rejected),

These prophecies of Isaiah are:

• 5) ‘For this is he who was spoken of through Isaiah the prophet, saying, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make you ready the way of the Lord, make His paths straight” (3.3).
• 6) ‘And leaving Nazareth, He came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying, “The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, Toward the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles, the people that sat in darkness saw a great light, and to them that sat in the region and shadow of death, to them did light spring up” (4.14-16).
• 7) ‘That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, “Himself took our infirmities, and bare our diseases” (8.17).
• 8) ‘That it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying, “Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, My beloved in whom My soul is well pleased, I will put My Spirit on Him, and He will declare judgment to the Gentiles. He will not strive, nor cry aloud, nor will any one hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed will He not break, and smoking flax will He not quench, until He sends forth judgment unto victory. And in His name will the Gentiles hope” (12.17-21).
• 9) ‘And to them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which says, “By hearing you will hear, and will in no wise understand, and seeing you will see, and will in no wise perceive. For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest haply they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should turn again, and I should heal them” But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. For truly I say to you, that many prophets and righteous men desired to see the things which you see, and did not see them, and to hear the things which you hear, and did not hear them’ (13.14-17).
• 10) ‘That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet (Psalm 78.2), saying, “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things which have been hidden from the foundation of the world” (13.35).
• 11) ‘Well did Isaiah prophesy of you saying, “This people honours me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.” (15.7-9).

It will be noted that the first two suggest glorious royalty (Matthew 1.1-2.12), the second two emphasise the lowly Servant (Matthew 2.13-23), and the last three (including 13.35) emphasise the fact that Jesus has come to reveal His truth to those who will hear, and refer to the dullness of the hearing of Israel. The message is that the King and Servant as promised by Isaiah has come in order to bring to completion the promises of the Old Testament but that, apart from the favoured few, the people have failed to hear Him.

The Final Prophecies.

The last four prophecies concentrate on the final days of Jesus. He has come as the King, but also as One Who is meek and lowly; He will not call on divine powers in order to avoid His coming humiliation, for they are declared to be necessary by the Scriptures (that is, to be in the will of God); He is being delivered into the hands of men in accordance with the Scriptures (again in accordance with the will of God); and His humiliation reaches its climax in that His blood money is only sufficient to purchase a potter’s field to bury Gentiles in (the mention of Jeremiah as the source indicates that this purchase of the potter’s field is the emphasis of that citation).

• 12) ‘Now this is come about that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet, saying, “Tell you the daughter of Zion, Behold, your King comes to you, meek, and riding on an ass, and on a colt the foal of an ass” (21.4-5).
• 13) ‘Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures, The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner. This was the Lord’s doing and it was marvellous in our eyes” (21.42).
• 14) “How then should the scriptures be fulfilled that thus it must be?” (26.54).
• 15) ‘In that hour said Jesus to the multitudes, “Are you come out as against a robber with swords and staves to seize me? I sat daily in the temple teaching, and you took me not. But all this is come about, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him, and fled’ (26.55-56).
• 16) ‘Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, whom certain of the children of Israel did price, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me” (27.9-10).

Note the order in the quotations, first the King rides in lowly sovereignty into Jerusalem, then His triumph is assured in spite of the activities of men in rejecting Him, then He refuses to call on God to defend Him, even though He could have done so, in order that the Scriptures might be fulfilled, (in other words so that God’s will might be done through the activities of men), then He is arrested at the instigation of ‘the crowds’ (again in accordance with the will of God as revealed through the Scriptures for the same purpose), and finally His blood money, the blood money of the King of the Jews, is used to purchase a field to bury Gentiles in. And all this so that the Scriptures might be brought to completion through His humiliation and death as described in them, prior to His being made the head of the corner.

The Potter’s Field.

The final 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 because they fail to recognise the brief citations from Jeremiah in the last part of the ‘quotation’ (verse 10). Matthew clearly considers these 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). The emphasis is on what was done with the price. And that was to purchase a field connected with a potter. And this last idea 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 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 in a verse which drew on more than one source, 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. Compare the way in which two separate quotations are brought together in Mark 1.2-3. 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).

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?