Matthew 27:6-10 (ESV) – But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money.” So they took counsel and bought with them the potters field as a burial place for strangers. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potters field, as the Lord directed me.” [V6. There are echoes of Zechariah 11 here. The priests were faced with a decision: what to do with the money? What Old Testament law specifically was it against? We’re not certain. There’s a possibility it’s based on Deuteronomy 23:13. More likely it was based on other rabbinical teachings concerning the usages of money. (Remember earlier in Jesus’ ministry—Matthew 15:3ff & Mark 7:9ff—Jesus had spoken of money they deemed dedicated to God. Likely they had also determined certain kinds of money not appropriate for God (not unlike some organizations today which won’t receive gambling winnings and money they deem gained from evil purposes). ‘blood money’—this is no admission of guilt on their part; no admission that Jesus was an innocent man who’d been betrayed. No, this was simply an expression meaning money gained in connection with a man’s death. They felt that made it unworthy of being allowed into the Temple treasury. V7. And in their decision as to how best to use the money, the continued to fulfill Zechariah 11:13. The bought a piece of property. Acts 1:18-19 says it was a field called ‘Akeldama’ in Aramaic, or translated: ‘field of blood.’ Acts also says it was Judas who bought the field, but this appears to be just a roundabout way of saying it was his money they used to purchase it. In essence it was purchased in his name with his money after his death; and it was all arranged by the chief priests. Luke also tells us in his Acts account that this field of blood is the very same place where Judas hanged himself. Thus, it was ‘field of blood’ for two different reasons. Now Matthew doesn’t say this all happened immediately, and very well may not have happened until several days or even weeks later. Matthew’s just telling us what eventually happened with the money. Some have speculated that it was called the potter’s field because it was unsuitable for crops and had been used for clay for pottery. Quite possible. A field like that would have been used until the clay was used up; at that point it would have been of no real value to the potter, or to a farmer, or to anyone else really. The chief priests showed how magnanimous and compassionate they were by using this blood money to set up a cemetery for foreigners (could be Gentiles, but not necessarily; could just be referring to Jews who died in Jerusalem while visiting—certainly a good possibility over time as thousands and thousands of pilgrims flocked to the city during feast/festival times each year). ‘to this day’—until now—the fact that Matthew adds this phrase shows he’s writing some time much later than the time it actually happened. V9-10. These verses have raised questions over the years since the reference is much more in line with Zechariah 11:12ff than anything in Jeremiah. A couple things may be the reason. “A Talmudic tradition states that the prophetic writings were placed in the canon in this order: Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, etc. Many Hebrew manuscripts follow this order. Thus Matthew cited the passage from the roll of the prophets and by the name of the first book.”—Oxford NIV Scofield Study Bible, page 1017. If this is the case, Matthew is just loosely referencing how folks would know this section of the Scripture. It’s not that he’s wrong; he’s just not being as exact as he could have been. Or maybe more to the point, he’s just referencing it in a colloquial way. JB Coffman wrote: “An equivalent case today would be a quotation credited to ‘Romans’ or to the ‘New Testament.’ studylight.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?bk=39&ch=27 Another possibility is the prophet Jeremiah (chapters 18:1-4, especially 19:1-13, and 32:6-9) does talk about a potter, a burial field/place, and theme. Matthew’s mention of Jeremiah then merges his themes with those of Zechariah. This would appear to make a lot of sense as well. So while what Matthew wrote here more closely aligns itself with Zechariah’s wording, it’s thematically tied in with what Jeremiah wrote as well; and Jeremiah was the major of the two. Matthew interprets both Zechariah and Jeremiah to show that the people rejected God’s Shepherd/Servant.]
Posted on: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 11:32:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015