Hey fam,
This passage in Matthew is often pointed to as a supposed Bible contradiction. In Matthew 27:9-10, we read:
The issue comes in when people realize that the line about the thirty pieces of silver looks like it comes from Zechariah 11:12-13, not from Jeremiah.
And yet, Matthew clearly attributes it to Jeremiah. So what is going on here?
The Core of the Objection
Matthew says Jeremiah. Then he immediately mentions thirty pieces of silver, a detail that is taken directly from Zechariah. Critics argue that this creates a contradiction or an error in attribution.
But Matthew was not confused, and he did not misquote the Old Testament. He was making a composite reference, blending material from more than one prophetic source and placing it under the name of the prophet whose message shaped the full context.
Why Matthew Named Jeremiah
1. Matthew was combining multiple prophetic texts.
He used the number and act from Zechariah, but the setting and symbolism were drawn from Jeremiah. Zechariah gave the amount. Jeremiah gave the pictureâpotters, fields, blood, and divine judgment.
2. Jeremiah carried thematic weight in Jewish tradition.
Among the prophets, Jeremiahâs name often represented a larger prophetic message. He was considered a major voice of judgment and covenantal consequence. So citing him was a way of framing the prophecy within a broader narrative.
3. Jewish citation practices allowed this.
In Mark 1:2, a prophecy that includes words from both Isaiah and Malachi is simply credited to Isaiah. This was not considered an error. It was a normal literary practice to refer to the major prophet whose themes dominated the message.
Prophetic Themes from Jeremiah
The story of Judas, the betrayal, the money, and the field touches several major themes in Jeremiahâs writings:
Together, these passages connect the ideas of field, pottery, money, blood, and judgmentâexactly what unfolds in the aftermath of Judasâs betrayal.
What the Early Church Fathers Said
This was not a surprise to the early church. It was addressed and explained:[/i]
Greek Wording Matters
Matthew says, âwhat was spoken through Jeremiah,â rather than, âwhat was written.â That suggests he is referring to a broader prophetic message, possibly known through oral tradition, rather than a verbatim quote.
A Simple Modern Analogy
If someone says, âMartin Luther King Jr. said, âAll men are created equal,ââ that sounds natural, even though the phrase itself comes from the Declaration of Independence. King gave voice and power to that phrase in his context. So we credit him with the message. Matthew is doing something very similar with Jeremiah.
Conclusion
Matthew did not misquote or misattribute anything. He intentionally drew from Zechariah for the detail and from Jeremiah for the surrounding meaning. His readers would have recognized both sources and understood that this was a prophetic collage, not a contradiction.
This is not evidence of error. It is an example of how the Holy Spirit guided the biblical authors to show how multiple streams of prophecy came together in the life, betrayal, and sacrifice of Jesus.
Has anyone here run into this objection in a debate or conversation? How have you responded? Would love to hear your input. Let's help each other handle these tough passages with confidence and clarity.[/i]
This passage in Matthew is often pointed to as a supposed Bible contradiction. In Matthew 27:9-10, we read:
đ Matthew 27:9-10Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one whose price had been set by the sons of Israel; and they gave them for the Potterâs Field, just as the Lord directed me."
The issue comes in when people realize that the line about the thirty pieces of silver looks like it comes from Zechariah 11:12-13, not from Jeremiah.
đ Zechariah 11:12-13And I said to them, "If it is good in your sight, give me my wages; but if not, never mind!" So they weighed out thirty shekels of silver as my wages. Then the Lord said to me, "Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them." So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the Lord.
And yet, Matthew clearly attributes it to Jeremiah. So what is going on here?
The Core of the Objection
Matthew says Jeremiah. Then he immediately mentions thirty pieces of silver, a detail that is taken directly from Zechariah. Critics argue that this creates a contradiction or an error in attribution.
But Matthew was not confused, and he did not misquote the Old Testament. He was making a composite reference, blending material from more than one prophetic source and placing it under the name of the prophet whose message shaped the full context.
Why Matthew Named Jeremiah
1. Matthew was combining multiple prophetic texts.
He used the number and act from Zechariah, but the setting and symbolism were drawn from Jeremiah. Zechariah gave the amount. Jeremiah gave the pictureâpotters, fields, blood, and divine judgment.
2. Jeremiah carried thematic weight in Jewish tradition.
Among the prophets, Jeremiahâs name often represented a larger prophetic message. He was considered a major voice of judgment and covenantal consequence. So citing him was a way of framing the prophecy within a broader narrative.
3. Jewish citation practices allowed this.
In Mark 1:2, a prophecy that includes words from both Isaiah and Malachi is simply credited to Isaiah. This was not considered an error. It was a normal literary practice to refer to the major prophet whose themes dominated the message.
Prophetic Themes from Jeremiah
The story of Judas, the betrayal, the money, and the field touches several major themes in Jeremiahâs writings:
- Jeremiah 18Â speaks of the potter shaping clay, as God shapes the destiny of nations.
đ Jeremiah 18:1-6The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, "Arise and go down to the potterâs house, and there I will announce My words to you." So I went down to the potterâs house, and there he was, making something on the wheel. But the vessel that he was making of clay was spoiled in the hand of the potter, so he remade it into another vessel, as it pleased the potter to make. Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying, "Am I not able, house of Israel, to deal with you as this potter does?" declares the Lord. "Behold, like the clay in the potterâs hand, so are you in My hand, house of Israel."
- Jeremiah 19Â describes a potterâs jar being shattered in a valley associated with bloodshed and judgment.
đ Jeremiah 19:1-13âThis is what the Lord says: âGo and buy a potterâs earthenware jar, and bring some of the elders of the people and some of the senior priests. Then go out to the Valley of Ben-hinnom, which is by the entrance of the Potsherd Gate, and proclaim there the words that I tell youâŠâ
âI will make this city like Topheth⊠For they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to BaalâŠââ
(Selected from verses 1â5, 12â13 for reference)
âI will make this city like Topheth⊠For they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to BaalâŠââ
(Selected from verses 1â5, 12â13 for reference)
- Jeremiah 32Â involves Jeremiah buying a field as a prophetic sign under divine direction.
đ Jeremiah 32:6-9And Jeremiah said, "The word of the Lord came to me, saying, 'Behold, Hanamel the son of Shallum your uncle is coming to you, saying, "Buy for yourself my field which is at Anathoth, for you have the right of redemption to buy it."' Then my uncleâs son Hanamel came to me in the courtyard of the guard in accordance with the word of the Lord, and said to me, 'Buy my field, please, that is at Anathoth...' So I bought the field which was at Anathoth from Hanamel my uncleâs son, and I weighed out the silver for him, seventeen shekels of silver."
Together, these passages connect the ideas of field, pottery, money, blood, and judgmentâexactly what unfolds in the aftermath of Judasâs betrayal.
What the Early Church Fathers Said
This was not a surprise to the early church. It was addressed and explained:[/i]
- Jerome noted that some manuscripts may have read âZechariah,â but he still affirmed that Jeremiah was cited for his thematic role.
- Origen believed the combination of texts was intentional and the prophetic voice unified.
- Chrysostom explained that prophets often spoke to the same fulfillment, and it was valid to attribute the message to one main figure.
Greek Wording Matters
Matthew says, âwhat was spoken through Jeremiah,â rather than, âwhat was written.â That suggests he is referring to a broader prophetic message, possibly known through oral tradition, rather than a verbatim quote.
A Simple Modern Analogy
If someone says, âMartin Luther King Jr. said, âAll men are created equal,ââ that sounds natural, even though the phrase itself comes from the Declaration of Independence. King gave voice and power to that phrase in his context. So we credit him with the message. Matthew is doing something very similar with Jeremiah.
Conclusion
Matthew did not misquote or misattribute anything. He intentionally drew from Zechariah for the detail and from Jeremiah for the surrounding meaning. His readers would have recognized both sources and understood that this was a prophetic collage, not a contradiction.
This is not evidence of error. It is an example of how the Holy Spirit guided the biblical authors to show how multiple streams of prophecy came together in the life, betrayal, and sacrifice of Jesus.
Has anyone here run into this objection in a debate or conversation? How have you responded? Would love to hear your input. Let's help each other handle these tough passages with confidence and clarity.[/i]
This post was last modified: 06-29-2025, 10:44 PM by ris3n.