has been practised shall be made like that place. But taking it so, we still miss at least a relationship between the nature of that symbolical action with the earthen pitcher, and the nature of the place where it must needs occur- -a relationship which we are led so much the more to expect, in that the particular designation of the spot, viz., that it lay close by the pottery-gate, points to something of the kind. We must, therefore, still seek for information what nen was, apart from the worship of Moloch which was celebrated there, and apart from the defilement of the place by Josiah. To find this out we must fall back upon the name as our only resource. h f 6 This no with which we are now concerned is different in signification, and in all likelihood as to its root also, from ngh, vomit,'s as we see from the extant form. To derive this last from the Persian is a disheartening venture, and to call the of this name paragogic, a dubious makeshift, especially since in that way no root of the word is discovered. Is not a rather the original form, which, when the appellative noun became a proper name, was shortened into non? In the same way лņp became shortened would be a prefix-consonant, Then into 'to be open' would be formed from the Hophal just as from the Hiphil.m The signification, ‘opening, pit,' suits without violence that place in which alone the word occurs as an appellative. Shortened into n or non it would be the designation of a place where the potters dig their clay, and whose immediate proximity gave the name pottery-gate to one of the gates of Jerusalem. Now also the plural D with non is explained thence, in that there would be several of these clay pits, which, however, according to a usus loquendi, current in German [and English] also, might together be called the pit." The pitcher which Jeremiah had bought of a potter in Jerusalem, and broke in pieces at the pit, was made out of clay from the same place in which it was now broken to pieces. Clay it was and to clay it returned when its owner did not choose to make use of it. With violence, however, was it reduced back to the condition whence it had been taken; the prophet broke it into shards as a sign that the city, as a figure of which it served, would be brought to a terrible end. Jehovah has not merely power over Israel like a potter, who instead of a spoilt vessel makes another, but also like the possessor of a piece of pottery, who can beat it in f Hitzig on Jer. vii. 32. i Gesenius on Isa. xxx. 30. m Ewald, s. 260. n g Job xvii. 6. h Isa. xxx. 33. Gramm. s. 322. • Jer. xviii. 6. pieces, so that it again becomes what it was ere the potter fetched the clay to give it form and shape. We see, therefore, that npn is that aypòs Tou xɛpaμéws, of which Matthew says that it is found in a text of Jeremiah. For that it should have been written in Matthew Tav nepaμéwv, if the place where the potters procured their clay P had been intended, is manifestly incorrect. Matthew has consequently taken the weightiest circumstance with which he was immediately concerned, viz., the place, in the purchase of which the Scripture was fulfilled, from Jeremiah. Jeremiah's prediction was fulfilled a second time, after the first fulfilment had been proved to be merely a preliminary one, by the fact that Jerusalem was rebuilt, without the accomplishment of the prophet's promise of Israel's glory. A second and greater crime against the God of Israel than that of apostacy to the worship of Moloch-a second and greater crime against the law than that of the shedding of innocent blood - a second and greater crime against a divine office than the former mockery of the messengers sent by God to warn them,' and therefore also a second and more terrible visitation of Jerusalem impended. That crime was the murder of the Son of God, and this visitation proclaimed its approach by the purchase of the potter's field. In the presence of the elders and priests Jeremiah had pronounced his sentence; in the instance before us the elders and priests themselves called down that curse of Jeremiah upon themselves and upon Jerusalem, in that they bought with the price of the treason of Judas the potter's field. Thereby that passage of Jeremiah was fulfilled with great exactness in the manner in which Matthew cites it, inasmuch as Jeremiah did not then first take the elders and priests with him when he went out with the pitcher to the clay-pit, but before that, when he proceeded to purchase the pitcher. They were to be not mere witnesses, but participators of the action, which the people, represented by its rulers, had occasioned, and the prophet, acting in the name of Jehovah, performed. A corresponding prophetic action took place in the present instance also, as Matthew points out. God, the Father of the prophet Jesus, brought about the remorse of Judas and the decision of the rulers: and accordingly that prophecy of punishment for the rejection of Christ which was involved in the purchase of the potter's field. This prophecy, and its fulfilment by the Romans, together complete the accomplishment of that prophecy of Jeremiah, viz., of his prophetic action on the one P Fritzsche in loc. ¶ See the remarks in my Weissagung und Erfüllung, erste Hälfte, s. 326. r 2 Chron. xxxvi. 16. Matt. xxvii. 3. See my remarks ut sup. p. 29. hand, and on the other of its subject-matter, so far as that belonged to the future. Inasmuch as Matthew sees the former fulfilled, he knows with certainty that the latter also will be accomplished. If our exposition has so far kept to the right path, it cannot be in the least doubtful whether λaßov is to be taken to be the first person singular, or the third person plural." Only the latter corresponds as to the narrative of Matthew himself, οἱ δὲ ἀρχιερεῖς λαβόντες τὰ ἀργύρια, so also to the point of view in which he adduces the passage of Jeremiah. But immediately with this λaßov begin words which, the mention of the ȧypos Tou negaμéws excepted, belong throughout to Zechariah; to be sure, not even to him in this form, inasmuch as, instead of the first person singular, in which the shepherd appointed by Jehovah there says 1, ἔλαβον stands as the third person plural: further, after the rendering of the words by nps, that of the foregoing clause is inserted; and lastly, with an omission אֶדֶר הַיְקָר אֲשֶׁר יָקַרְתִּי מֵעֲלֵיהֶם and a mere echo of the ,וָאֲשְׁלִיךְ אֹתוֹ בֵּית יְהוָה of the following sin, the words καὶ ἔδωκαν αὐτὰ εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν τοῦ κεραμέως, which are foreign to Zechariah, accompanied by xalà ouvéтažé μ xúρios, which correspond to the introductory clause of the verse in Zechariah, nini, form the conclusion of this remarkable citation. That Matthew has erroneously attributed a text of Zechariah to Jeremiah is improbable on two accounts. In the first place, because he has taken the chief circumstance with which the citation is concerned, not out of Zechariah but out of Jeremiah; y and secondly, because he pays no attention in his citation to a most weighty point in Zechariah, viz., to the clause in m'a qhựsı, although he keeps it in view in his narrative in the words pias τὰ ἀργύρια ἐν τῷ ναῷ. On the other hand, I have not been able in the former part of my work so to understand the text in Zechariah as to find with Hengstenberg a reference to Jeremiah's nineteenth chapter: hence also the justification of the Evangelist, in naming the prophecy cited after Jeremiah, presents itself to me otherwise than to that learned man. in Zechariah denotes not so much the place whither the shepherd flings his hire as rather the paltriness of that hire. His thought comes into contact with that of Jeremiah only in so far as with him the shepherd treats the Temple-court as a clay-pit, and under the supposition that this will become a clay-pit, casts down in that " Paulus in loc. * Fritzsche and Olshausen in loc. z Christologie, ii. s. 250. holy place the money which is to be thrown to the potter who works in clay. Zechariah thereby pronounces a curse upon the holy place, just as Jeremiah had also done; but he does so independently of Jeremiah. Accordingly Matthew combines together two different predictions of essentially the same purport, exactly as Mark in one instance deals with prophecies of Isaiah and Malachi.a Matthew found in Jeremiah the place which the Jewish rulers purchased; in Zechariah the price for which they bought it, as well as the circumstance that they themselves gave the money for the purpose. In Zechariah thirty shekels of silver are the hire with which the people rewarded its shepherd, inasmuch as it only acknowledged what he had accomplished for it in common with all the world, not what he had accomplished for it in particular. Now that pastoral office, in virtue of which God administered the affairs of the world, and those of His people in particular, had reached its culmination in Jesus. When God sent His Son, the time had arrived when Israel was to show that it acknowledged God's providence. But Israel was only inclined to acknowledge the same on condition of its freeing them from heathen oppression and giving them power over the heathen world; not, however, in the fact that Jesus was ready to help them to fulfil their calling by redeeming them from their sins. Thus the people gave glory to God only in the same sense in which the few sheep of the flock of slaughter' in the passage of Zechariah pay their shepherd a hire. The conduct of the Jewish people towards Jesus accordingly corresponds to the prophecy of Zechariah concerning the finale at which the Divine superintendence of Israel will arrive ; and the punishment which Zechariah announces will certainly not fail to overtake those who do not recognise in Jesus the Messiah, the revelation of the goodness of God. In like manner, however, as we elsewhere observe that God always gave a sign by which it was possible to recognise the fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecy, e. g. the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, his flight into Egypt, his education in Nazareth, his public appearance in Capernaum, his entry into Jerusalem, and other similar instances: so in this case also the sum of money with which the Jewish rulers rewarded the traitor serves as a token that that prophecy of Zechariah is fulfilled. It is not proper to say that the rulers in that they bid so small a sum, showed their low estimate of Jesus; for there can be no doubt that, from their fear of Jesus, they would have paid a higher price. But Judas, in that he at all deemed money a sufficient reward, made it clear a Mark i, 2, 3. Hengstenberg, ut sup. s. 256. what his Saviour and his own share in the kingdom were worth in his eyes. We have also observed, however, that Judas and Caiaphas together represent the Jewish people, viz., the latter the hardened, and the former the apostates. Caiaphas gave up nothing in bringing Jesus to death, for he had had no part in him; on the other hand, Judas set no higher value on his part in Jesus than was implied in his surrendering him for thirty pieces of silver. In Zechariah the people cares not whether its shepherd rules it with the staff pan or not; it rewards him for his ruling with the staff by, which alone it deems of any value, and does not ask for the special providence which he had assigned to them. In like manner Judas also, when he saw that Jesus did nothing to set up the kingdom of Israel according to his mind, was easily seduced by his covetousness to relinquish the part which Jesus had assigned to him in his kingdom for a small sum of money. For the mere desire for money certainly does not explain the decision of Judas; besides, Mark and Luke describe his treason thus, that a promise of money on the part of the rulers only weighed in the scale as an additional motive to confirm the apostle in his willingness to commit the treason. That in the Old Testament the shepherd receives that sum as hire, and in the New, on the other hand, the betrayer of Jesus,d makes no difference; inasmuch as in both cases the stress lies on the fact, that the Jewish people values its part in God and the Saviour at no more than thirty shekels of silver. This view of the matter makes itself known also in the in way which Matthew, not content with having named the pan by, subjoins to them besides the words which in Zechariah went before, viz., D. He translates them, TÙY TIMÈV TOŨ τὴν τιμὴν τετιμημένου, ὃν ἐτιμήσαντο ἀπὸ υἱὼν Ισραήλ. He has paid no regard to, a proof that he lays stress not on the smallness of the sum, but only on the fact that Jesus was appraised at allthat his worth was brought into comparison with a sum of money. With so much the more emphasis does he give prominence to this conception. Concerning the use of anò in the phrase inò viv 'Iopan, there is room for a difference of views. To supply Tives before it is by no means so very harsh; and thus taken, the words might be a reminiscence of Jer. xix. 1, and of the Greek version of that passage. But thus understood they neither correspond to the thought of Zechariah, nor does overμnovo yield any new thought by itself. Both these reasons again are also valid against combining the preposition with aßov. On the e Strauss, Leben Jesu, îi. s. 378. d Paulus, Comm. üb. d. N. T. s. 683. f Fritzsche in loc. |