Did Matthew commit an error? What does this mean for inerrancy, if he did? If ….

At the end of my study I conclude that Matthew was far from making an error. He was in fact a genius. Truly a genius.

The translation is mine. If you don’t read Greek, ignore the left column. For more translations, go to biblegateway.com.

Let’s begin.

Was It Jeremiah or Zechariah? (Matthew 27:3-10)

3 Τότε ἰδὼν Ἰούδας ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν ὅτι κατεκρίθη, μεταμεληθεὶς ἔστρεψεν τὰ τριάκοντα ἀργύρια τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσιν καὶ πρεσβυτέροις 4 λέγων· ἥμαρτον παραδοὺς αἷμα ἀθῷον. οἱ δὲ εἶπαν· τί πρὸς ἡμᾶς; σὺ ὄψῃ. 5 καὶ ῥίψας τὰ ἀργύρια εἰς τὸν ναὸν ἀνεχώρησεν, καὶ ἀπελθὼν ἀπήγξατο. 6 Οἱ δὲ ἀρχιερεῖς λαβόντες τὰ ἀργύρια εἶπαν· οὐκ ἔξεστιν βαλεῖν αὐτὰ εἰς τὸν κορβανᾶν, ἐπεὶ τιμὴ αἵματός ἐστιν. 7 συμβούλιον δὲ λαβόντες ἠγόρασαν ἐξ αὐτῶν τὸν ἀγρὸν τοῦ κεραμέως εἰς ταφὴν τοῖς ξένοις. 8 διὸ ἐκλήθη ὁ ἀγρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἀγρὸς αἵματος ἕως τῆς σήμερον. 9 τότε ἐπληρώθη τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἰερεμίου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος· καὶ ἔλαβον τὰ τριάκοντα ἀργύρια, τὴν τιμὴν τοῦ τετιμημένου ὃν ἐτιμήσαντο ἀπὸ υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ, 10 καὶ ἔδωκαν αὐτὰ εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν τοῦ κεραμέως, καθὰ συνέταξέν μοι κύριος.

3 Then, when Judas, the one who betrayed him, saw that he was condemned, he was moved with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and elders, 4 saying I have sinned, betraying innocent blood!” But they said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself!” 5 And after he threw the silver coins into the temple, he withdrew and went away and hanged himself. 6 The chief priests, taking the silver coins, said, “It is not lawful to place them in the treasury, since it is the price of blood.” 7 After taking counsel, they bought with them the Potter’s field for a burial place for strangers. 8 Therefore, that field was called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then the word spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled, saying: And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one who had been priced, on whom some of the sons of Israel set the price; 10 and they gave the coins for the potter’s field, just as the Lord commanded me. (Matt. 27:3-10; referencing Zech. 11:12-13

Comments

The quoted words come from Zechariah, yet they are introduced as if they come from Jeremiah. Was Matthew in error?

As usual, I like to refer to commentators. I learn from them and see them as a community of teachers. Also, for me, there is safety in numbers.

Craig Blomberg says that Matthew and other biblical authors incorporated, in addition to direct verses from the OT, patterns and types in the OT into their narratives:

But Matthew attributes the citation to Jeremiah. Many commentators thus point to Jer 32:6–9, in which Jeremiah buys a field for seventeen shekels of silver. Better still, however, is the interpretation which sees Jer 19:1–13 in Matthew’s mind, especially with its references to “the blood of the innocent” (v. 4), the “potter” (vv. 1, 11), the renaming of a place in the Valley of Hinnom (v. 6), violence (v. 1), and the judgment and burial by God of the Jewish leaders (v. 11). Matthew is again employing typology and combining allusions to texts in both Jeremiah and Zechariah. (comment on 27:6-10)

Next, David Turner has a simple table about Matthew citing Zechariah (p. 495):

Matt. 21:4-9 …… Zech. 9:9

Matt. 21:12-13 … Zech. 14:21

Matt. 26:15-16 … Zech. 11:12

Matt. 26:26-29 … Zech. 9:11

Matt. 26:30-35 … Zech. 13:7

Matt. 27:3-10 …. Zech. 11:12-13

Matt. 27: 51-53 … Zech. 14:4-5

But please note: those allusions do not actually name Zechariah. This will agree with R. T. France, below. Nowhere does Matthew actually name minor prophets, but only two major ones, Isaiah and Jeremiah (and Daniel).

Turner then adds:

[…] Matthew notices the similarities between his historical tradition and Zech. 11 […] and views Zech. 11 typologically. Zechariah 11 and Jer. 19 combine to form “a pattern of apostasy of rejection that must find its ultimate fulfillment in the rejection of Jesus” (Carson 1984: 566). Matthew finds correspondence between the shepherd doomed to slaughter (Zech. 11:7) and Jesus. The thirty silver coins thrown to the potter in the Lord’s house (Zech. 11:13) correspond to Judas’s coins thrown into the temple and used to buy the potter’s field. Matthew does not make up a story to fit Zechariah but reads Zechariah in light of his conviction that Jesus’s passion is anticipated in biblical pattern and prediction. The concept of typological fulfillment is based on a providential view of history. (p. 659)

This long quotation simply says that Matthew is condensing and merging two passages from Jeremiah and Zechariah. Then we get the added bonus of the statement that Matthew is not inventing history to fit the OT prophet, but fitting history (Judas really did get thirty silver coins and toss them aside and so on) into prophetic typology.

In the next formulas, the arrow means “leads to” or “produces”:

Not this:

OT verses → Matthew’s fiction

But this:

Matthew’s true account → His finding OT patterns and typology

Therefore under the inerrant inspiration by God’s Spirit, Matthew combines Zechariah and Jeremiah. But why not name Zechariah? France may answer the question, below.

Craig Keener says that Matthew reapplies Zechariah’s prophecy with Israel’s restoration.in Jeremiah. “Matthew may well allude to Jeremiah 18-19 (regarding the potter […] as well; in this case he evokes a prophecy of the impending destruction of Jerusalem (Jer. 19:10-13; Mat 27:25)”. Keener had already noted that Matthew may also have followed the Jewish interpretive strategy of revocalizing Hebrew words to come up with a new interpretation: yoṣer (“potter”) and ‘oṣer (“treasury”).. “If the priests prevented the money from making it to the ‘treasury,’ Scripture would be fulfilled when it reached the ‘potter'” The point is that Matthew was simply conforming to the Jewish interpretations of OT verses (p. 657).

Grant Osborne says that the connection to Jeremiah is that he bought a field (Jer. 32:6-15) and visited a potter (Jer. 18:2-12).

Then Osborne writes: […] “Matthew fused the two together and simply mentioned Jeremiah as the earlier (Rabbinic ‘weightier’) of the two; from Jeremiah comes the ‘field’ and the ‘purchase’ idea. Osborne follows Robert Gundry’s insights. Matthew is taking from Jeremiah 19 and the acted parables there: potter’s jar (v. 1), the Valley of Ben-Hinnom (v. 2, which may be identical to the field that Judas bought or acquired), the change of the name to “the valley of Slaughter” (v. 6), and the breaking of the jar (vv. 10-11).

Osborne continues:

So Matthew’s quote here partakes of the imagery from Jer. 19 (which can also be alluded to in Zech. 11), though it is mainly taken from Zech. 11). The main emphasis is on fulfillment, i.e. God’s sovereign control and knowledge of all events in salvation history […] this constitutes “fulfillment” in verbal detail from Zechariah but “fulfillment” in thematic substance from Jeremiah. (comment on 27:9)

To understand Osborne, the last sentence in the excerpt is key.

R. T. France is an excellent commentator. I have not read all commentaries on Matthew, but so far France is the best among all the other excellent ones.

In any case, he says that Matthew “creatively compiled formula-quotation … a mosaic of scriptural motifs” (p. 1042). Matthew attributed quotations name only the major prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah (2:17; 3:3; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:14; 15:7; 27:9), with an allusion to Daniel (24:15), while formal quotations taken from the minor prophets are left anonymous (2:5, 15; 11:10; 21:4; 26:31).

That is to say, Matthew is simply following his preference to name the “all-star” (my words) prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah (and Daniel), while the “minor league” (my words) prophets go unnamed. I can’t fault Matthew for being consistent, though it would take a better commentator than I am to explain Matthew’s decision; but I like Osborne’s idea of Matthew choosing the “weightier” one, evidently a rabbinic practice..

Then France lists these echoes in Jeremiah, based on the text from Zechariah 11:12:13, which presumably caught Matthew’s attention:

(1) In Jeremiah 18:1-11 Jeremiah went to the house of the potter (same Greek word in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and here in Matthew).

(2) In Jeremiah 19:1-13, he used a “potter’s jug” as a visual aid for a sermon delivered in the valley of Hinnom (near the Potsherd Gate), denouncing the people for the shedding of “innocent blood’ (v. 4, the phrase used as in Matt. 27:4).”

(3) In Topheth, where people sacrificed children through fire, in the valley of Hinnom, they shall bury people there until there is no more room to bury.

(4) In Jeremiah 32, in a narrative where earthenware jars are prominent, Jeremiah bought a field.

Then France summarizes the evidence, using the familiar word “pattern” again:

Echoes of all these Jeremiah passages, especially Jer 19:1-13, would no doubt be heard by readers well versed in the OT, so that they would recognize Matthew’s adapted version of Zech 11:13 not as a quotation of that text alone but as a mosaic of familiar and related prophetic motifs. This is not simple proof-texting, but the product of long and creative engagement with Scripture which delights to draw connections between passages and to trace in the details as well as in the basic meaning of the text the pattern of god’s fulfillment of his prophetically declared agenda. (pp. 1043-44)

Translation: Matthew knew the major prophets really well and made connections with motifs and imagery that fulfill the  OT prophecies by types and patterns. His skill is the “product of long and creative engagement with Scripture.”

Conclusion and Recommendations

Sometimes the NT authors directly quoted verses, and other times the writers borrowed concepts and patterns and types and strung them together and referred to one main author (in this case Jeremiah). They were inerrantly inspired to draw from the OT as best fits their narrative purposes. Specifically, God inerrantly inspired Matthew to incorporate concepts in Jeremiah into the quotation from Zechariah

To me, Matthew is a genius because he deftly incorporated Jeremiah and Zechariah together. He was not making an error, but was being consistent with his preference in naming only Isaiah and Jeremiah (and Daniel), while leaving the minor prophets unnamed.

I learned amazing things in my study.

Jesus fulfills Messianic prophecy:

Messianic Prophecies

Recommendations

My view of Scripture: It’s very high, but I don’t believe in “total inerrancy” or “hyper-inerrancy”:

‘Total’ Inerrancy and Infallibility or Just Infallibility?

Begin a series on the reliability of the Gospels. Start with the Conclusion which has quick summaries and links back to the other parts:

15.. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels: Conclusion

See this part in the series that puts differences in perspective:

13..  Are There Contradictions in the Gospels?

The Gospels have a massive number of agreements in their storylines:

14.. Similarities among John’s Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels

But the bigger picture is to not allow your faith to become so brittle that it snaps in two because of these puzzles and differences. It’s time to stop demanding no discrepancies or else you will leave the Christian faith.

But in Matthew’ referencing the OT, there was no error. Just his genius at work.

SOURCES

To see the bibliography, please click on this link and scroll down to the bottom:

Matthew 27