Does Matthew make a mistake in attributing the prophecy to Jeremiah?

Explanation:

When Matthew says that the prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled, he really means the prophecy of Zechariah.⁴ We can deduce this by recalling the situation in which Matthew reports that a prophecy has been fulfilled and noting that Matthew’s quote matches both linguistically and thematically an episode from the prophecy of Zechariah.

Judas betrays Jesus to the chief priests and elders for thirty shekels of silver (Matthew 26:14–16). After Jesus is betrayed, Judas repents, and brings the thirty shekels back to the chief priests and elders (Matthew 27:3). The chief priests and elders recognize that the money is blood money (Matthew 27:6), so they use the thirty shekels, which was the price paid for Jesus, to buy a field from a potter (Matthew 27:7). Matthew explains that this was to fulfill the prophet Jeremiah, and then he offers us a loose quotation from Zechariah 11:12–13. How do we know the quote is from Zechariah?

In Zechariah 11:1–17 we read that God makes Zechariah a shepherd over the people of Israel (Zechariah 11:4), but the people despise him (Zechariah 11:8), that is, they reject him. Because they despise him, Zechariah will no longer shepherd the people, and they pay him thirty shekels for his effort in the community (Zechariah 11:12). In other words, just as the chief priests paid thirty shekels to make Jesus go away (to his death), so the people of Israel paid Zechariah thirty shekels to go away. Then the Lord tells Zechariah to throw the money to the potter (Zechariah 11:13).

The parallels between Zechariah 11 and Matthew 27 cannot be overlooked. In both accounts the people get rid of the shepherd for thirty shekels of silver, and in both accounts the silver is given to the potters. While the details differ in that Zechariah gives the money to the potter, while the chief priests and Pharisees use it to buy the potter's field, Matthew’s point is that Jesus typologically fulfills the prophecy of Zechariah.⁵

Counterargument:

While it is undeniable that Matthew has Zechariah in mind when he says that the prophecy was fulfilled in Matthew 27:9, this does not mean that he makes a mistake by mentioning Jeremiah. That is because biblical authors sometimes see that a prophecy is a fulfilled by a combination of two prophets.⁶ For example, in Mark 1:2–3, Mark combines Malachi 3:1 with Isaiah 40:3 but he does not specify that he has two prophets in mind. Thus, there are likely elements of Jeremiah that Matthew has in mind and he combines these with elements of Zechariah. Since Jeremiah was a more well-known prophet Matthew says that Jeremiah is fulfilled when in fact, elements of both Jeremiah and Zechariah are fulfilled.⁷

Response to counterargument:

The notion that biblical authors sometimes combine multiple prophets is true, but one has to offer us the passage from Jeremiah that Matthew has in mind. When it comes to Mark 1:2–3, it is easy to see that he combines Malachi 3:1 with Isaiah 40:3 because he quotes these passages very closely. On the other hand, there is no passage from Jeremiah that is anything like the quote in Matthew 27:9. So how can Matthew combine elements from Jeremiah with Zechariah when there is nothing in Jeremiah that resembles Matthew 27:9?

Response to response to counterargument:

While it is true that it is not easy to see which passage from Jeremiah that Matthew has in mind, there are potential candidates including Jeremiah 18:1–11, Jeremiah 19:1, and Jeremiah 32:6–15. See Interpretation 2 for more details.

Explanation:

Matthew says that the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled when the chief priests and elders bought the potter’s field for thirty shekels of silver. Most likely Matthew made a mistake because the prophecy he quotes comes from Zechariah 11:12–13. That Matthew makes a slight mistake when he attributes a prophecy is not uncommon. For example, in Matthew 2:6, Matthew 2:23, and Matthew 21:5, Matthew refers to a prophecy being fulfilled but does not name a prophet, probably because he did not know which prophet the quotes came from. And in the case of Matthew 13:35 his attribution is wrong.⁸ Matthew states that the prophecy comes from Isaiah when in fact it comes from the Psalms.⁹

Counterargument:

Unfortunately, this argument will not do. First, when it comes to Matthew 2:6, Matthew uses the plural prophets when he says, so that the prophets might be fulfilled. The reason he uses the plural is likely because he has in mind the general theme of several prophets in mind, and not just any one prophet in particular. When it comes to Matthew 2:6 and Matthew 21:5, while it is true that Matthew does not mention any prophet specifically, this does not mean that he was ignorant of which prophet is in view. Rather it might simply mean that he decided not to mention the prophet’s name. On the other hand, we have good reason to think that Matthew knew exactly which prophet he quoted in Matt 2:6 and Matthew 21:5. That is because in both Matthew 2:6 and Matthew 21:5, Matthew offers fairly lengthy quotes that are a close match to the prophet from which they originate. It is hard to see how Matthew could reproduce such lengthy quotes with such accuracy and not know where the quotes originated.

Finally, when it comes to Matthew’s apparent mistake from Matthew 13:35, this notion is based on a textual variant that is not widely attested or accepted.¹⁰ That is, the earliest Greek texts do not include the name of Isaiah, so that no prophet is mentioned. Instead, Matthew simply says that this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet (Matthew 21:4), and then the quote follows.

Possible weaknesses:

The weakness of this view is that it is hard to accept the notion that a biblical writer could make a mistake. Further, even if it is the case that Matthew 27:9 is not a reference to Jeremiah, this does not mean that Matthew made a mistake, but it could be that reference to Jeremiah is a textual variant. In other words, Matthew may have referred to Zechariah, and a copyist wrongly recorded Jeremiah.

Explanation:

Matthew recalls when Judas returned the betrayed money to the chief priests and elders, who use it to buy a field from a potter. Matthew then says that this fulfilled the prophet Jeremiah, before quoting from what seems to be Zechariah 11:12–13. Still, it is important to note that Zechariah does not say anything about a field. Instead, we read that the people gave the thirty shekels of silver to Zechariah (Zechariah 11:12), and he threw them into the house of the Lord, to the potter (Zechariah 11:13). Of course, when Matthew presents us with the fulfilment, he writes that thirty shekels are paid and are given for the potter’s field.

So Zechariah does not say that the money was used for a field, and Matthew says that the prophecy of Jeremiah is fulfilled. These two factors imply that we ought to look to Jeremiah to determine if there is a prophecy from Jeremiah that matches the chief priests using the thirty shekels of betrayal money to buy a field. And in fact, we do find such a prophecy in Jeremiah 19:1–11 (see argument b for an explanation on how Jeremiah 19:1–13 is supposedly fulfilled).¹⁵

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument can be drawn out in two steps. First, one must concede that Matthew does not quote verbatim from either Zechariah or Jeremiah. Rather, he likely sees a typological prophecy fulfillment and so alters the text of the prophecy slightly to demonstrate how it is typologically fulfilled by the chief priests rejecting Jesus and buying a field with the betrayal money.¹⁶ In other words, whether Matthew has in mind Zechariah only or a combination of Zechariah and Jeremiah, he does not quote from either prophet wholly verbatim. Still, his quote does align very closely with Zechariah 11:12–13. There Zechariah is paid thirty shekels of silver and he throws the money to the potter. In context, Zechariah is the shepherd sent by God to the people, but the people reject him, so they pay him thirty shekels of silver to go away, and he gives the money to the potter.

Now consider the event captured by Matthew. The chief priests and elders have rejected the Shepherd, Jesus Christ, for thirty shekels of silver, and the thirty shekels are given to a potter (for a field). That the money is given to the potter for a field is an important detail for Matthew, but it has no bearing on the fact that the rejection money paid to get rid of both shepherds (Zechariah and Jesus) is given to a potter. That a field is not mentioned by Zechariah is inconsequential.

As to why Matthew says that the event fulfilled a prophecy from Jeremiah, one can only surmise. Maybe Matthew made a mistake, or there is a textual variant that omits Jeremiah or replaces it with Zechariah. In either case, that a field is not mentioned in Zechariah 11:12–13 is not enough to say that Matthew 27:9 is not a fulfillment of Zechariah 11:12–13.

Explanation:

Matthew explains that when the chief priests and elders buy a field from a potter with the betrayal money, this fulfills the prophet Jeremiah. So what prophecy from Jeremiah does Matthew have in mind? First, we should point out that the quote from Matthew in Matthew 27:9 closely resembles Zechariah 11:12–13. Still, Matthew says that Jeremiah is fulfilled, and we know that biblical authors sometimes combine two prophecies but only mention one prophet’s name (Mark 1:2–3), so we want to identify which aspect of Jeremiah has been fulfilled.

Most likely Matthew has in mind Jeremiah 19:1–13. That is because there are both grammatical and thematic links between Matthew 27:9 and Jeremiah 19:1–13. First, when it comes to the grammatical links, Jeremiah uses the term potter in Jeremiah 19:1 while Matthew writes that they bought a potter’s field (Matthew 27:10). Further in Matthew 27:4 Judas says that he has betrayed innocent blood. Likewise in Jeremiah 19:4 we read that judgment is coming upon Judah and Jerusalem because they have filled this place with innocent blood.¹⁷

There is also a thematic link. Specifically, in Matthew 27:8 we learn that the field bought by the chief priests and elders is known as the field of blood, and in Jeremiah 19:6 we learn that Topheth is to be called the valley of Slaughter.¹⁸

Thus, when Matthew says that the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled, he likely has Jeremiah 19:1–13 in mind. The people have betrayed God, and this leads to a field of death.¹⁹

Counterargument:

Unfortunately, Jeremiah 19:1–13 and the events described by Mathew in Matthew 27:3–10 are only coincidentally similar. First, we should point out that the thirty shekels is an important element of Matthew 27:3–10, and is not mentioned by Jeremiah. Second, the sin of shedding innocent blood is a common theme in the Old Testament, so this connection is not as dramatic as it first seems. Further, Jeremiah speaks of a field to bury the sinful Jews of Jerusalem, while Matthew speaks about a field for burying strangers. In light of this, we must admit that it is not possible to explain the mention of Jeremiah on the basis of Jeremiah 19:1–13.²⁰

Response to counterargument:

The argument here is not that Matthew uses the exact phraseology of Jeremiah. Nor is the argument that Matthew identifies an event with a particular text.²¹ Rather, the notion here is that Matthew sees that a certain event fulfills a particular text. Typology is when prophets describe events that will later find their ultimate fulfilment in the life of Jesus Christ. We can broadly summarize Jeremiah 19:1–13 as the people of Judah rejecting God, which leads to a polluted field where the Jews will be buried as foreigners. Likewise, in Matthew 27:3–10, Jesus, who is God, has been rejected for the sum of thirty shekels, and this leads to a field of blood where foreigners are buried.²²

Possible weaknesses:

The problem with this view is that if Matthew does suggest that the return of the betrayal money and purchase of the potter’s field are a fulfillment of Jeremiah, it is not clear which element of Jeremiah he has in mind. Some authors point to Jeremiah 18:2–3, others Jeremiah 19:1–13, and others Jeremiah 32:6–15. On the other hand, the connection between Matthew 27:9–10 and Zechariah 11:12–13 is obvious and clear. Thus, compared with the connection Matthew 27:9–10 has with Zechariah 11:12–13, and the connections with Jeremiah seem ad hoc.