By Johann Peter Lange
Edited by Rev. Marcus Dods
THE HISTORICAL DELINEATION OF THE LIFE OF JESUS.
THE TREASON OF THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL AGAINST THE MESSIAH. THE DECISION OF THE SANHEDRIM. THE PASCHAL LAMB AND THE LORD'S SUPPER. THE PARTING WORDS. THE PASSION, DEATH, AND BURIAL OF JESUS. THE RECONCILING OF THE WORLD.
SECTION VI
Jesus brought before the
judgment-seat of Pilate. the end
of Judas
(Mat 27:1-10. Mar 15:1.
Luk 23:1. Joh 18:28)
The fanatical train of
hypocrites composed of the
members of the high council,
which wished to give itself the
credit of a gigantic theocratic
procession of zealots, as it
advanced with its sacrifice from
the house of the high priest to
the residence of Pilate, shows
to us the Jewish people in that
fatal moment in which it
consummates the great treason
against its Messiah—in which it
goes and, in an act of
desperation, perpetrates a
self-murder on its own
theocratic popular life, and
thus lays the foundation for
Jerusalem’s becoming for long
future ages a desolation, a
field of blood, a place of
burial for wandering strangers.
This proceeding of the
world-historical Jews found in
the gloomy proceeding of Judas,
in the most expressive features
of frightful reality, its
symbolical manifestation. It is
not known what became of him
after the hour of the betrayal.
But it is plain that he could
have found no peace. Immediately
the sentence of death is
pronounced upon Jesus, he is
aware of it: he sees it probably
because the procession then
begins to form.
And, now he begins to see
clearly, he is startled, and
begins to repent of what he had
done. His remorse is very great;
for it induces him immediately
to make the greatest sacrifices,
by turns: his alliance with the
high priests,—the pieces of
silver,—his life itself. But it
is evident from his first step
that his repentance is terribly
gloomy,—that an impure element
of despair poisons it, and
changes it into a sorrow unto
death.
His sorrow has been sought to be
explained in connection with the
view, that by his deed he wished
to compel the Lord to manifest
Himself as the Messiah. Now, it
is said, he saw that his project
had failed, and with the failure
remorse took possession of him.
But in this case he would, in
the utterance of his sorrow,
have in some way expressed his
nobler, better intention, and
his repentance would probably
have had another issue.
Moreover, on this supposition he
would certainly not have assumed
the absolute failure of his
intention in this moment. The
same superstition which would
have allowed him to hope that,
in the moment of his being taken
prisoner, Jesus would decide
upon the revelation of His
power, would have continued to
keep him in suspense even to the
moment of the crucifixion
itself.1
And, moreover, it must perhaps
be supposed that something of a
feeling of disappointed impure
expectation poisoned his
repentance. Certainly he had not
conceived that the whole reward
of his deed of shame was to
consist in thirty pieces of
silver. After such endeavours as
his, he must have counted upon
special marks of distinction
from the high council. This
expectation expresses itself
instinctively in his hastening,
at the beginning of his
repentance, to the high priests.
But it was just in this
expectation that he was
deceived. He must now feel that
the rulers of the people have
long ago dropped him again, as
an instrument become needless.
The Judas is already forgotten
by them, or, what is still
worse, they might already have
begun to regard him with
contempt. Under this experience
his conscience may begin to
work. The life of Jesus passes
once more before his soul. His
last words echo in his ears. And
now, at the moment when Jesus is
consigned by the high priests to
the Romans, it is evident to
him, that all the curse and all
the shame of this, Israel’s
great deed of sacrilege, will
recoil upon him above all
others. And as a compensation
for all this degradation and
this curse, he has only the
thirty pieces of silver in his
hand. The most frantic avarice
could no longer maintain his
apparent peace against the grief
of his ambition, and against the
fear of his soul—the distress of
his conscience. Hence originates
the terrible condition which
soon drives him comfortless to
death.
The great gloom of his sorrow is
first of all shown in his
fancying that he can repair his
fault again by himself. He
hastens to the high priests and
elders. He goes not to Christ,
but to them, in the delusion
that they could, or that they
would advise him. Thus gloomy is
the beginning. His
acknowledgment, ‘I have sinned,
in that I have betrayed innocent
blood,’ is a grand testimony to
the righteousness of Jesus, in
the mouth of a man who would
gladly have disburdened his
conscience with any kind of
appearance of reproach against
Him; but it is too little to
appear as the measure of a
penetrating repentance. Had such
a repentance inspired him, he
would have borne a more worthy
testimony to the honour of
Jesus; he would also have
counted it a happiness to be
able to die by His side, instead
of one of the malefactors. That
his having recourse to those
enemies of Jesus was a new
source of error, is shown by the
harsh rejection conveyed in the
abrupt words thrown to him,
which were his portion, ‘What is
that to us? See thou to that.’
Thus thrust forth from the cold
hierarchical spirits, who
doubtless, a few hours
previously, had seemed as if
they received him as an angel of
light, he hurried forward, and
now he sought for peace in the
desolate temple. There he threw
from him the thirty pieces of
silver, probably into one of the
boxes for offerings,2 and
retreated back into solitude (ἀνεχώρησε).3
But the offering of the
blood-stained gift in the temple
could not allay the deadly storm
in his soul. He went thence and
hanged himself.
As soon as the high priests knew
of the donation which Judas had
made to the temple, they
scrupled to place these pieces
of silver in the proper treasury
of God. ‘It is not allowed,’ say
they; ‘for it is the price of
blood.’4 And then, in their
pretended holy zeal, they had
another sitting about the
application of the thirty pieces
of silver—about the blood-money
which they had given to the
traitor-how it might be applied
in a religious manner, and yet
apart from the sanctuary. This
is again so characteristic a
feature of refined sanctimonious
wickedness, that here also only
a want of perception could
attribute such a trait to the
invention of the Church. They
came to the conclusion of buying
the potter’s field, and of
making it into a place of burial
for strange pilgrims. Hence,
says the Evangelist, that field,
well known in Jerusalem, is
named the field of blood to this
very day. He adds, Then was
fulfilled the word which was
spoken by the prophet Jeremiah,
when he said, They took the
thirty pieces of silver, the
price of him that was valued,
whom they of the children of
Israel did value, and gave them
for the potter’s field, as the
Lord appointed me.
It is first of all remarkable,
that this passage, literally,
does not appear at all in the
prophet Jeremiah. And then,
again, that the passage in the
prophet Zec 11:13, to which
evidently the quotation of the
Evangelist primarily refers, has
not been literally quoted. This
phenomenon has been sought to be
accounted for in many ways.5 It
is probably best to suppose here
an entirely free application of
the prophetic word by the
Evangelist. In the eleventh
chapter, the prophet Zechariah
depicts the misery of Israel, as
it is being destroyed by the
wickedness of its shepherds. He
himself, the prophet, is
speaking in symbolical manner in
the name of Jehovah, as the
representative of the chief
shepherd. He rules in this
capacity over shepherds and
sheep, with the staff suffering,
and the staff gentleness. But
the corruption prevails to that
degree that he sees himself
compelled to break to pieces the
staff gentleness, which up to
that time he had wielded on
behalf of the suffering, nobler
sheep, whereby the existing
covenant was abolished.
Therewith also precisely his
service of chief shepherd over
the people is at an end; and in
order to bring to light the
greatness of its ingratitude, he
requires that his reward should
be weighed out to him. The sheep
of the flock, however, think so
little of him, that they appoint
for him a compensation of thirty
pieces of silver,—this
contemptibly small sum, which
signifies a trifling
amount,—whereby not only his
assiduity, but his life itself
is put at a value, since his
life was pledged for the sheep.
But now, when Jehovah has been
thus despised in His chief
shepherd, He Himself comes
forward as the speaker. Cast it
away ‘for the potter,’6 He
says—the goodly price that I was
prized at of them. And, says the
prophet, I took the thirty
pieces of silver, and threw them
into the house of the Lord ‘for
the potter.’
It is now probably evident that
the prophet is here depicting
the Old Testament theocracy in
its universalism, consequently
in its typical features, as they
are fulfilled in Messianism—that
he here depicts it to its close,
even to the abrogation of the
ancient covenant with Israel,
expressed by the final breaking
of the staff ‘gentleness.’ Hence
the prophet represents Jehovah
as He is valued in His Messiah
by the people at the close of
that covenant, after all His
care. Even the circumstance that
the thirty pieces of silver are
indicated as bad or polluted
coin, which was to be thrown
away, or in any case to be
melted down, is deeply
significant.
Thus that passage in Zechariah,
penetrated with typical
elements, could not be
overlooked by the Evangelist.
Especially the fundamental
thoughts which distinguished it
were entirely prophetic. There
and here Jehovah had been valued
at thirty pieces of silver:
there, in the work of His
prophet; here, in the life of
the Messiah. There and here this
price had been destined to be
treated with rejection, to be
exchanged. And yet the
Evangelist found the literal
application of the passage
difficult, on account of formal
dissimilarities between the
typical and the real
transaction. He intimates an
unlikeness: what was ordered to
the prophet to do there, Judas
and the high priests in common
perform here, in that the former
brings the money into the
temple, the latter lay it out in
the valley of Gehinnom.
Moreover, in that place of the
prophet, the circumstance, that
instead of the money a potter’s
field was bought, was not
expressed. But this circumstance
was typically foreshadowed in
substance with great clearness
by the prophet Jeremiah, namely,
in
Jer 32:1-44. There the prophet
is commissioned by the Lord, at
a time when the hope of the
people appears to be gone, when
the Babylonish captivity is
impending, actually to buy a
field at Anathoth, which his
relative offers to him for
purchase. He was thereby to put
forward a symbolical sign that
there still exist the promise of
God and the hope of the prophets
for the restoration of the land
and of the people. The prophet
amplifies this comforting
thought throughout the whole
chapter. He describes how the
land is profaned, especially by
the service of Moloch, in the
valley Ben-Hinnom
(Jer 32:35)-how it must
therefore become a desert.
Nevertheless, he says, the land
should again be dwelt in. In
this land, given up to
desolation, shall still be
bought fields for money
(Jer 32:43), in the land of
Benjamin and around Jerusalem,
and thus round about through the
land.
This then is probably the living
and great word of Jeremiah,7
which the Evangelist quotes
according to the meaning, whilst
he more closely defines it by
the representations of the
prophet Zechariah. Jeremiah
bought a despised neglected
place in the land, for a sign
that others also would come and
buy such abandoned places. And
thus, after all, these came and
bought the most abominable spot
in the land, the potter’s field
in the valley of Gehinnom,—bought it in the hope
that in future times many
pilgrims would continue to come
to Jerusalem, and actually
bought it for the price which
had been paid for the Lord
Himself. They knew not what they
did, the Evangelist seems to
say; but unconsciously they
established a great and hopeful
sign for the future, in a
similar manner to that in which
Caiaphas unconsciously was
constrained to utter the great
doctrine of the atonement in
that sentence, It is better that
one man should die than that the
whole nation should perish.
The citation of Matthew in this
place very much reminds one of
that quotation, The prophets
said that He should be called a
Nazarene.8
The Apostle Peter also,
according to Luke (Act 1:17),
spoke of the end of Judas, in
that passage wherein, after the
ascension, he refers to the
vacancy which had arisen in the
company of disciples by the
falling away of Judas. ‘He was
numbered with us,’ he says, ‘and
had obtained the lot of this
ministry. Now this man purchased
a field with the reward of
iniquity; and falling headlong,
he burst asunder in the midst,
and all his bowels gushed out.
And it was known unto all the
dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch
as that field is called, in
their proper tongue, Aceldama,
that is to say, The field of
blood.’ Previously the apostle
said, that what the Holy Ghost,
by the mouth of David, spake
before concerning Judas, must
needs have been fulfilled; and
now he cites the psalms referred
to: ‘His habitation must become
desolate, and let no man dwell
therein,’ is freely declared in
the first one (Psa 69:25): ‘His
bishoprick let another take,’
runs the second (Psa 109:8). The
first passage expresses the
positive curse which befalls the
enemies of the true servant of
God, who can say of himself,
‘The zeal of Thine house hath
consumed me, and the reproaches
of them that reproached Thee
fall upon me.’ The second is
associated with the very
terrible words of the curse
which is pronounced upon those
who returned to the singer,
consecrated to God, his love
with hatred. Both the psalms
express in powerful forms of
feeling the presentiment of that
experience which the Messiah
must undergo on the part of His
worst enemy, and are also
certainly psalms which have
found their fulfilment in the
life of Jesus.
It has often been found
difficult to harmonize9 the
differences between the account
of Matthew and that of Peter
(according to the statement of
Luke), especially in the two
critical points of the
narrative. According to Matthew,
for instance, Judas met his
death by hanging himself;
according to Peter, by a fall.
According to the former, the
high priests bought the potter’s
field; according to Peter, one
might think that he himself
purchased for himself that piece
of ground with the pieces of
silver.10 But even if we had to
do with the narrative of Peter
alone, we should still be
compelled to ask, whether it is
actually the meaning of that
narrative that Judas bought that
piece of ground with his money.
What is intended here by this
dry notice, in a place which
expresses the highest contrast
with rhetorical vivacity? This
Judas, the apostle desires to
say, had with the others
obtained the glorious lot of
carrying on with them the
apostolic service—was, just as
they were, appointed to the
inheritance of the whole world;
and now that corner of a field
in the valley of Gehinnom is
given to him as the reward of
unrighteousness. And how is it
fallen to his lot? First of all,
by his terrible death-fall the
plot of ground became his own by
his being precipitated on to its
soil, bursting asunder, and, so
to speak, dissolving into the
dreadful inheritance. Thus,
first of all, the plot of ground
received the name of the field
of blood among the inhabitants
of Jerusalem, who were aware of
the circumstance of his suicide;
although the more informed knew
also that the field might be
named, on altogether a different
ground, the field of
blood—namely, on account of the
blood-money for which it was
acquired. In this manner the
apostle has at the same time
hinted at the inducement which
might lead the high council to
buy the field for the thirty
pieces of silver. The first
consideration which led to this
was the burial of Judas. The
place which by the suicide of
Judas had lately become
infamous, might easily be
attainable at a cheap rate, and
it was an obvious thing to bury
the shattered body quickly in
the same spot where his bowels
were scattered. The high council
had, moreover, its special
reasons for getting rid of the
remembrance of Judas as soon as
possible. But since the wretched
man had once destined his money
for a pious purpose, the high
council clung to the notion of
making a charitable application
of it. And it was entirely
worthy of the inventive genius
of the pharisaic spirit, that
they appropriated the piece of
field in which Judas lay buried
for a burial-place for the
strangers who should die in
Jerusalem.
As to the manner of the
disciple’s death itself,
Casaubon has already discovered
the harmony: that, according to
Matthew, Judas hanged himself
over an abyss, the rope gave
way, or the branch to which he
hung broke, and thus, according
to the account of Peter, he fell
down headlong and was burst
asunder. Against this lively
representation it has been
objected, that it is entirely
inexplicable why Matthew should
in this case only relate one
half of the proceeding, and
Peter only the other.11 This
question is answered, however,
from the different points of
view of the two men. Matthew
wished to depict the despair of
Judas in his death, but the last
critical act of that was, that
he hanged himself. What was
beyond that, the Evangelist
neglects, because he had to
represent there the
characteristic conduct of the
Sanhedrim with respect to their
Old Testament types. Peter, on
the other hand, was concerned
beforehand with the lot of
Judas—with his office and
inheritance vacated, which he
had forsaken that he might go to
his own place (acquired by him
and suitable to him), (ver. 25).
Thus he looks at his end in the
special purpose and result, in
the moment when, shattered in
death, he was spread out on the
field of blood, and thus in the
special meaning perished in his
inheritance. The manner in which
the obtaining by purchase of the
field for the thirty pieces of
silver occurred, Peter could not
describe, since it was in his
mind to represent, in a
painfully rhetorical antithesis,
the ironical working of the
curse, that instead of the
curse-laden money, the disciple
should only receive an
inheritance equally accursed.
The time which elapsed from the
beginning of the despair of
Judas to his end is not
specified, but probably the
single incidents unfolded
themselves towards his death in
rapid succession. Its beginning,
however, leads us back to the
death-journey of his people—the
procession of the Sanhedrim.
From the sixth year after the
birth of Christ, Judea, with the
deposition of Archelaus, had
lost its independence, and,
together with Samaria, had been
annexed by Cæsar Augustus to the
Roman province of Syria. Judea
was thus under the Roman
proprætor or præses of Syria,
but was governed by a special
procurator, who was, indeed,
subordinate to the proprætor,
but generally occupied the place
of the governor, commanded the
troops of his district,
exercised justice, and managed
the administration. This
procurator usually resided in
Cæsarea by the sea; but he came
often to Jerusalem, especially
at the time of the festivals,
and, indeed, accompanied by a
body of troops. It was natural
that at a time when the entire
power of the people of Israel
was gathered together, and
dangerous disturbances might so
easily arise, the Roman power
should be induced to present
themselves in their highest
dignity in this place to the
people subdued and striving
against their bondage. Besides
this political necessity,
however, the governors had also
an individual interest in being
present at the great
festival-times of this
remarkable people, especially at
the Passover. At this time were
assembled here the Jewish great
men (as, for instance, at this
time, Herod Antipas is
represented as present from
Galilee); hither came many
dignified strangers, partly from
curiosity, partly from religious
creed; and, under these
circumstances, a showy worldly
life must needs have been
developed.
Moreover, it was characteristic
of Pilate to wish to be there,
for both aspects of the festival
excited and attracted him with
equal force. He liked to let the
Jews feel his power—to treat
them with the most imperious
insolence, to practise acts of
violence and oppression, for
which especially there was
abundant opportunity at such
festivals.12 Moreover, it was in accordance
with the frivolous worldliness
of the weak-charactered,
inconstant man, that precisely
the worldly side of the
Passover-fest attracted him
strongly. And thus at this time
also he might have promised
himself considerable enjoyment,
without foreboding that this
festival was also ordained to
sit in judgment upon his
character—to present him to
posterity as a type of the moral
powerlessness of the proud
world-spirit as it had been
cultivated among the masterful
Romans, and to place him in a
position in which he laid the
more definite foundation for his
subsequent tragical end.
The procession arranged by the
Sanhedrim went from the
session’s hall of the high
council over the temple-mountain
in a northerly direction to the
palace of the governor, which
stood at the northern foot of
the mountain. As the house of
the high priest was on the
northern declivity of the upper
city, or of the hill of Zion,
and as a high covered way ran
along over the valley Tyropæum,
which united the temple-mountain
with the hill of Zion, Jesus had
probably been previously brought
in the train of the high council
over this high covered way into
the council-chamber on the
temple-mountain; and, as we may
suppose that the Galilean
prince, Herod, when he was in
Jerusalem, resided in the palace
of Herod, which likewise was
situated on the northern side of
Mount Zion, so Jesus was
probably at a subsequent period
led backwards and forwards once
more over that high covered way
from the common hall to the
temple-mountain—an ignominious
spectacle for the inhabitants of
Jerusalem.
───♦───
Notes
1. Strauss takes great pains, in
his section on the death of the
traitor (ii. 480), to disconnect
the end of Judas as well from a
relation to the rope as to the
fall, in order to, leave him to
‘retire into obscurity’ after
his ‘departure from the company
of Jesus’—‘in which obscurity
the historical knowledge of his
subsequent fate was lost’. He
attempts to explain the origin
of the several narratives
concerning his end from the
Passages of the Psalms referred
to. What wholly different forms,
however, from those of the
evangelic accounts must have
originated in a mythical
counterfeit of the evangelical
history according to externally
conceived passages of the
Psalms, he has himself
illustrated (p. 490); and how
freely, not especially in this
case, Matthew has expounded, not
perhaps the New Testament
history according to the Old
Testament, but the Old Testament
according to the New Testament
history.
2. Pilate caused disturbances by
his acts of violence in Judæa
and Samaria, was accused to
Vetellius, the præses of Syria,
suspended, and sent to Rome by
him, where he was deposed about
the year 36 after Christ.
Subsequently he is said to have
made away with himself under the
Cæsar Caius Caligula. Many
judgments have been passed upon
his character. Compare Winer’s
R. W. B., the article concerning
him. Neander, 459.
3. The high priest’s palace
after the exile was situated at
the foot of the Mount Zion
(Neh 3:14-21); whilst the
Asmonæans established a secular
fortress on the northern side of
the temple-mountain, named
Baris, which Herod the Great
restored anew, and named
Antonia, in honour of
Antonius.—(Joseph. de Bello Jud.
i. 21, 1). Sepp, upon these
notices, remarks (iii. 465):
‘For the rest, we find here
declared as on a monument, by
the position of the different
judicial palaces on Zion on the
one side, and on Moriah on the
other side, that the spiritual
jurisdiction was secularized,
and the secular power was
established in the place of the
spiritual.’ Doubtless Pilate now
dwelt in the palace which was
connected with the fortress
Antonia, where the soldiery were
stationed at his command. There
also was the prætorium, the
house of the governor and
judge—as the tradition,
moreover, has assumed. But the
special palace of Herod was
situated in the upper city,
where Herod built two gorgeous
palaces. (See Josephus as above,
and v. 4, 4.)
|
|
1) [And, as Ellicott very distinctly shows (p. 340, note), the expressions of our Lord Himself concerning Judas (John xvii. 12; Matt. xxvi. 24) militate strongly against the idea that the traitor only wished to force our Lord to declare Himself.—ED.] 2) [It is decidedly against this supposition that Judas is said to have cast the money down ἐν τῷ ναῷ,, in the holy place, where only the priests might enter. Meyer sees the violence of his despair in this, that it hurried him into a forbidden place. Were there a dropping of the money into a box intended, not ῥίψας but βάλῶν would have been used. Comp. Mark xii. 41-4. Besides, that such an interpretation detracts considerably from the power of the scene.—ED.] 3) That Judas, after the offering of the money in the temple, before his suicide, experienced one more interval of solitude, is suggested not only by the expression ἀνεχώρησε, but also by the following passage, καί ἀπελθών, &c. As soon as he had confessed his sin, offered a human satisfaction, then made a donation to the temple, he tries to live as an anchoret (a monk), but all in vain ! [So Bynsous, who says (ii. 430) the word is used de secessu in locum desertum, atque ab hominum consortio remotum.'—ED.] 4) Compare Deut. xxiii. 18. 5) Olshausen, iv. 201 ; Friedlieb, 101. [The leading suppositions are, that Ἱερεμίου is a wrong reading, that the prophecy existed in some writing of Jeremiah which is now lost, or was uttered by him but not recorded, or was erased by the Jews from the existing book of his prophecy. Meyer and Alford follow Augustine in supposing that Matthew has here made an error through want of accuracy in memory. Lightfoot’s view is peculiar: that Jeremiah stood at the head of the prophets, and that therefore any of them might be quoted under his name, as any book of the Hagiographa may be cited under the title of ‘the Psalms.’ Calvin’s decision is perhaps as much as can be made of the difficulty: ‘Quomodo Hieremiw nomen obrepserit, me nescire fateor, nec anxie laboro. Hieremim nomen errore positum esse pro Zacharia, res ipsa ostendit : quia nihil tale apud Hieremiam legitur, vel etiam quod accedat.’ Bynieus has carefully collected all the opinions up to his time (ii. 450-78).—ED.] 6) I can only thus explain the determining expression אֶל־הַיּוֹצֵד as it is more closely defined by the circumstance that the pieces of silver were brought into the temple, and according to the rendering of the LXX., εἰς τὸ χωνευτήριον. In the temple there was probably a reservoir which contained the metal for melting, and close by also a division for worthless material, with the inscription אֶל־הַיּוֹצֵד ‘for the potter,’ or in other words, ‘destined for the potter,’ who provided the temple-vessels—to be taken away into the valley of Gehinnom. "The LXX. had that arrangement in view; and in order to explain the unintelligible word, chose the comprehensive definition: for the melting-furnace. The conjecture of Hitzig, that instead of יוֹצֵד should be read יוֹצָד = אוֹצָד treasury—temple treasury, God’s coffer—departs from the obvious and appropriate meaning, a instead, adopts one which contradicts the connection. For it cannot be the purpose of Jehovah to lay up these pieces of silver as a treasure in His treasure-coffer. On the grammatical difficulties of this interpretation, see Hengstenberg (Christology, iv. 40). But if the word is referred directly to the potter in the valley of Gehinnom—so that the expression would convey the meaning of ‘to an unclean place’ (‘to the dogs,’ or ‘to the hangman, according to Hengstenberg), it gives, it is true, a very suitable thought, but the thought is still not appropriately Suggested : but especially this is true of the circumstance that the prophet was first of all to place the money in the temple. Hengstenberg indeed gives a more exact explanation of the latter destination. Because the temple was the place where the people appeared before the presence of the Lord, there must the people be reproached with their shameful ingratitude, by the giving back of the contemptible piece. From thence it must be conveyed to the potter. The LXX. induces us to abide by the above explanation. It is acknowledged that in the temple the several boxes for offerings had fill their special destinations. One thing might still he asked, Ought not the potters of the temple also to have charge of the business of melting down and remolding for themselves? 7) Olshausen, indeed, thinks that the reference of the quotation to Jer. xxxii. 6 deserves no consideration. 8) See above, vol. i. p. 316. 9) On the several attempts at harmonizing, see Strauss, ii 48. 10) In connection with this is the different motive for the naming of the field the field of blood as given in Matthew and in Peter. See what follows. 11) Strauss, ii. 483. 12) Luke xiii. 1
|