← Back to sermon library

Matthew 27, I'll begin reading 
in verse 1. When morning came, all the chief 
priests and elders of the people plotted against Jesus to put 
Him to death. And when they had bound Him, 
they led Him away and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate the governor. 
Then Judas, his betrayer, seeing that he had been condemned, was 
remorseful and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the 
chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned by betraying innocent 
blood. And they said, What is that to 
us? You see to it. Then he threw down the pieces 
of silver in the temple and departed and went and hanged himself. 
The chief priest took the silver pieces and said, it is not lawful 
to put them into the treasury because they are the price of 
blood. And they consulted together and bought with them the potter's 
field to bury strangers in. Therefore, that field has been 
called the field of blood to this day. Then was fulfilled 
what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took 
the thirty pieces of silver, the value of him who was priced, 
whom they of the children of Israel priced, and gave them 
for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me. Now Jesus stood 
before the governor, and the governor asked him, saying, Are 
you the king of the Jews? Jesus said to him, It is as you 
say. And while he was being accused 
by the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then Pilate 
said to him, Do you not hear how many things they testify 
against you? But he answered him not one word, 
so that the governor marveled greatly. Now at the feast, the 
governor was accustomed to releasing to the multitude one prisoner 
whom they wished. And at that time, they had a 
notorious prisoner called Barabbas. Therefore, when they had gathered 
together, Pilate said to them, whom do you want me to release 
to you, Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ? For he knew 
that they had handed him over because of envy. While he was 
sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him saying, 
have nothing to do with that just man, for I have suffered 
many things today in a dream because of him. But the chief 
priests and elders persuaded the multitudes that they should 
ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. The governor answered 
and said to them, which of the two do you want me to release 
to you? They said, Barabbas. Pilate said to them, what then 
shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ? They all said 
to him, let him be crucified. Then the governor said, why, 
what evil has he done? They cried out all the more, 
saying, let him be crucified. When Pilate saw that he could 
not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he 
took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, 
I am innocent of the blood of this just person. You see to 
it. And all the people answered and 
said, his blood be on us and on our children. Then he released 
Barabbas to them. And when he had scourged Jesus, 
he delivered him to be crucified. Amen. Well, let us pray. Our 
Father in heaven, we thank you for the written word, certainly 
as it displays to us the glory of the Savior. We thank you for 
the life and the ministry and the death and ultimately the 
resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, who went through these 
things, not because he was a malefactor, a guilty man, a sinful man, but 
rather he did this in covenant with the Father and the Spirit 
to save the elect from all of our sins. God, may we never minimize 
this truth and this reality. Certainly, as we view a God who 
is absolutely holy, as Scripture set him forth, and as we see 
ourselves before you as miserably unholy, God, may we make much 
of the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. May we ever live near 
that precious fountain that is open for sin and for uncleanness. God, for any and all who have 
come here this morning that have not come, that have not believed, 
who have not looked and lived. We pray that by the power of 
Your Holy Spirit, through the preaching of Your Word today, 
that You would come, Lord God, and save to the uttermost all 
who draw nigh unto God through Jesus Christ the Lord. Father, 
help us to see this as the grand end, the grand purpose, the grand 
design and the proclamation of Your Gospel. We pray that for 
our meeting place here. We pray for other churches in 
Chilliwack We pray for churches throughout Canada. We pray that 
your gospel would run swiftly and be glorified, and that a 
multitude would turn unto you from their useless idols. And 
Father, help us now, fill us with your Holy Spirit, forgive 
us for our sins and our transgressions, and we ask through Christ the 
Lord. Amen. Our focus this morning is on 
verses 6 to 10. Last week I introduced chapter 
27, verses 1 to 10, by highlighting that it was thematic rather than 
chronological. In other words, the priests are 
in the temple according to verse 5, so it's not strictly chronological. What Matthew is doing here is 
he is doing several things, and I just want to rehearse that. 
First, he is showing the fulfillment of Christ's words. Christ's words 
to Peter are fulfilled in the previous section, wherein Peter 
denies Jesus as Jesus had spoken. And then here we see what happens 
to Judas, ultimately, who hanged himself. Secondly, we see the 
contrast between Peter and Judas. Thirdly, we see a continual emphasis 
upon the culpability or responsibility of these religious leaders. These 
were foul men that had indeed carried out the mass or the greatest 
execution of an innocent man in history. Also, Matthew is 
conspicuously showing us the fulfillment of Old Testament 
prophecy throughout his gospel. In fact, we have a fulfillment 
passage sort of formula in verse 9. This is the 10th in Matthew's 
gospel. And then, of course, the section 
treats the question, whatever happened to Judas? Luke and John 
record nothing concerning Judas's disposition. Luke, however, does 
in Acts chapter 1, and so Matthew includes this here to explain 
to us what happens with Judas. So this morning, last week, we 
considered the murderous decision of the Sanhedrin. in verses 1 
and 2. We looked at the miserable end 
of Judas Iscariot in verses 3 to 5, and this morning we'll take 
up the use of this blood money in verses 6 to 10. And there's 
two specifics that we'll look at. First, the purchase of the 
field in verses 6 to 8, and then secondly, how this does fulfill 
Scripture. But note in the first place, 
Judas has gone to them. He has said that he doesn't want 
the 30 pieces of silver. He has demonstrated the remorse. 
And they say in turn, what is that to us? You see to it. He has said, I have sinned by 
betraying innocent blood. They make no observation. They 
give no consideration. They take no concern whatsoever 
to the fact that the man who betrays Jesus says that Jesus 
was innocent. These men are bent on the destruction 
of the Lord Jesus, inconsistent with their previous conspiracy 
to commit murder. So they have disregard for this, 
and then of course Judas throws the pieces of silver in the temple, 
he departs, and then he goes and he hangs himself. Notice 
in verses 6 to 8, their refusal to put the money in the treasury. 
Verse 6, the chief priest took the silver pieces and said, it 
is not lawful to put them into the treasury because they are 
the price of blood. Now, the likely background to 
this particular statement is Deuteronomy 23, 18. In verse 
17, there's a prohibition in Deuteronomy 23 against being 
a harlot in Israel, against being a perverted person, against being 
a sodomite. And then in 23, 18, specifically, 
Moses, under the inspiration of the Spirit, says, you shall 
not bring the wages of a harlot or the price of a dog to the 
house of Yahweh your God for any vowed offering. For both 
of these are an abomination to the Lord your God." So by implication, 
these Pharisees, or rather these religious leaders, assume that 
this is money that is ill-gotten. And based on that prohibition 
in Deuteronomy 23, 18, we cannot take this money and put it back 
into the treasury. And so, in a sense, the background 
is right. In a sense, what they are suggesting 
is accurate. But it's obvious that they are 
engaged in hypocrisy in their refusal to accept this money. They speak of something being 
unlawful here. Notice in verse 26, it is not 
lawful to put them into the treasury because they are the price of 
blood. The them are the 30 pieces of silver. They speak of unlawfulness 
while they are in the process of a conspiracy to commit murder. 
Go back to chapter 26, verses 3 to 5. Chapter 26, verses 3 
to 5. Then the chief priests, the scribes 
and the elders of the people assembled at the palace of the 
high priest, who is called Caiaphas. and plotted to take Jesus by 
trickery and kill Him. But they said, not during the 
feast, lest there be an uproar among the people." Notice in 
verse 59, Jesus before this Sanhedrin. Verse 59, the chief priests, 
the elders, and all the council sought false testimony against 
Jesus to put Him to death. After they highlight that he 
is guilty of blasphemy, according to verse 66, they said he is 
deserving of death. So they speak of unlawfulness 
while they are in the process of a conspiracy to commit murder. As well, they speak of unlawfulness 
when they are the ones who gave the money to Judas to begin with. Notice in verses 14 to 16, their 
conspiracy, verses 3 to 5, and then Judas comes with their answer 
in verse 14. It says, then one of the 12, 
called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, what 
are you willing to give me if I deliver him to you? And they 
counted out to him 30 pieces of silver, so from that time 
he sought opportunity to betray him. So on the one hand, they 
can take that 30 pieces of silver, presumably out of the treasury, 
and hand it to the man that's going to betray Jesus. And now 
the man that betrays Jesus feels guilt, feels remorse, to the 
point of suicide, and he takes that money, he says, I cannot 
hold on to it, and he gives it back to them. And suddenly, now, 
the law matters to them. Suddenly, now, they are concerned 
with the prohibition of Deuteronomy 23, 18. They don't care one bit 
about Deuteronomy 5, 17, which is a prohibition against murder, 
but with reference to Deuteronomy 23, 18, we can't allow this blood 
money into our precious temple. It is bare, utter hypocrisy that 
these men engage in. Listen to Leon Morris. He said, 
apparently, they had not scrupled to take the money out of the 
temple treasury to bring about Jesus' death, but they now had 
tender consciences about putting it back. To them, it was no crime 
to use it to bring about a death. You see the perversity involved 
in this? You see the absolute wretchedness 
in this? To them it was no crime to use 
it to bring about a death, but it was a crime to put it into 
their treasury when it had been used for the purpose for which 
they expended it. Calvin says, hence it plainly 
appears that hypocrites, by attending to nothing more than the outward 
appearance, are guilty of gross trifling with God. You can turn 
to John chapter 18. John chapter 18, to see something 
similar. I alluded to it last week, but 
it bears repetition now to see it in this connection. Notice 
in John 18 at verse 28, same scene, John just gives us details 
that the other gospel writers do not. But it's the same situation, 
it's post-trial before the Sanhedrin. It's on the way to Pilate's house 
so that Jesus can be condemned as a capital offender. Notice in verse 28, then they 
led Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium. And it was early 
morning, but they themselves did not go into the Praetorium, 
lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover. 
These guys are living examples of what Jesus condemns in Matthew 
chapter 23 on several occasions. You are like hypocrites who whitewash 
the tomb so that in feast days men do not come into contact 
with dead men's bones, but you're like that insofar as you are 
filled with dead men's bones. You're like the person that cleanses 
the outward cup, makes sure it's all shiny and bright and sparkly, 
and then the inside is filled with putridity and disgustingness. He says you are like those who 
strain out a gnat when it comes to the winemaking process, and 
yet you'll swallow the camel. This earned from Jesus the brand 
of hypocrite to these scribes and these Pharisees, and it's 
displayed here in the passion narrative of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
Remorseful Judas comes back. Again, not repentant Judas, but 
remorseful Judas. He throws down the pieces. They 
say it is not lawful to put them into the treasury because they 
are the price of blood. Suddenly, these men now have 
scruples about the law of Moses." Now, notice as well, they purchased 
this potter's field, and the specific reason, I think there's 
a lot of specific reasons, but in the text, notice in verse 
7, it says, they consulted together and bought with them the potter's 
field to bury strangers in. What are they doing? They're 
taking unclean money. It is the money that was for 
the price of blood, and they're buying an unclean thing. It's 
not necessarily a bad thing to have a field wherein to bury 
strangers. It's not necessarily an evil 
thing, but it is intriguing. You know, here they are fastidious 
in terms of the ceremonial law, and they are purchasing a field 
for dead bodies. I mean, it's just insanity, the 
kinds of things that we'll do when we strain out gnats and 
swallow camels. We'll look like these pathetic, 
miserable creatures. And then notice, as well, they 
refer to it specifically as the field of blood. And when we compare 
this with Acts chapter 1, again, you'll see something a bit different 
recorded there by Luke. Not contradictory, but a little 
bit different. It seems to be called the field 
of blood in Acts because Judas' blood was shed there. Here it's 
called the field of blood because it's a burial site for strangers. So again, I'm going to harmonize 
the differences between or show the consistencies between Matthew 
and Acts. The betrayer hanged himself, 
according to Matthew's gospel. In Luke, according to Acts chapter 
one, his body burst open and his entrails gushed out. So the 
idea is he hanged himself and then the rope of the limb broke 
and his body was ruptured by the fall and his entrails gushed 
out. No inconsistency, no disharmony. The religious leaders bought 
the field according to Matthew's gospel. In Acts, it tells us 
that Judas did this. Literally, he acquired it. The 
idea seems to be simple enough with reference to harmony there. 
Judas acquired it by the fact that these wretches used the 
money to buy the field. It was originally Judas' money. 
And then in terms of the field of blood reference, the field 
is called the field of blood as it was bought with the blood 
money in Matthew. The name is due, or at least 
appears to be due, to Judas' blood shed there in Acts 119. 
Now, we often read narrative chronologically. And I've already 
pointed out, this is not chronological. They didn't necessarily do this 
on this particular day. They could have bought the field 
on Sunday, and Judas could have heard of that, and that's where 
Judas then goes and he hangs himself. A lack of information 
does not mean it's necessarily inconsistent or it's not harmonious 
or it's filled with discrepancies. You'll meet this with pagans. 
You'll meet it with believers, professing believers. You'll 
meet it in Christian commentaries. We'll see that as we move through 
the passage in just a moment. Oh yeah, they just got it wrong. 
Brethren, our inspired Word of God does not get it wrong. Paul is right in 2 Timothy chapter 
3. All Scripture is given by inspiration 
of God, and it's profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, 
and for instruction in righteousness. It's not wrong in this place 
and wrong in another place. In verse 9, you may have already 
observed that Jeremiah doesn't say what Matthew ascribes to 
him there. Guess what people do with that? 
The Bible's wrong. The Bible's inconsistent. The 
Bible can't get simple things like an inscription to an author 
right, so why in the world would we believe it? More troubling 
are the commentators that say, yeah, it's no big deal. Matthew 
got it wrong. But that's okay. Well, I'm going 
to suggest if Matthew got Jeremiah's name wrong, then what's to say 
he didn't get the cross wrong? What's to say he didn't get Matthew 
20, 28 wrong? The moment you open the door 
and allow for a little bit of wrong in the Bible, it's open 
season on everything in the Bible. Brethren, the Scriptures have 
stood, will continue to stand, the task of those who engage 
in these onslaughts. It's not going to falter, it's 
not going to fail, because God is the Lord God of truth, and 
when He speaks, it is accurate. So there is harmony to be found 
in this particular two accounts. Now let's look at this fulfillment 
of Scripture in verses 9 and 10. Then was fulfilled what was 
spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, and now he quotes Zechariah 
11, 12, and 13. He says, and they took the 30 
pieces of silver, the value of him who was prized, who may of 
the children of Israel prized, and gave them for the potter's 
field as the Lord directed me. I'm not going to lie to you. 
This is a bit of a difficult section. I'm going to lean heavily 
on R.T. France, D.A. Carson, and Davies 
and Allison, because I think they make the best description 
or explanation of this passage. We're not going to get too detailed. 
We're not going to bog down in the details, but you as a believer 
need to understand why he says Jeremiah when it's Zechariah. You see, again, sometimes people 
just don't pay attention to these sorts of things until a God-hater 
comes and says, Matthew got it wrong. What do you do? It does seem like he got it wrong. 
Listen to John Calvin. He says, how the name Jeremiah 
crept in, I confess that I do not know. He's honest, candid. He goes on to say, nor do I give 
myself much trouble to inquire. I think that latter clause probably 
does suffice for many of us. Until Sophie the wash woman says, 
Matthew got it wrong. The God-hating PhD on the university 
says, Matthew got it wrong. What do we do then? Well, I seem 
to think there was a sermon about this one time, but I didn't really 
pay attention, because I typically don't pay attention. And so I'm 
not really skilled or able to do what Peter says. Peter says 
we need to always be ready to give a reason for the hope that 
is within us. Always. You can't say, hang on 
just a second, let me find it on my iPod and let my pastor 
scream at you that Matthew wasn't wrong. Now again, I think Calvin 
is right, that latter half. He says, nor do I give myself 
much trouble to inquire. Calvin lived in a bit of a different 
age where most people, even God-haters, believed that the Bible was the 
Word of God. So I think we fail to reckon 
with that reality. Many of our Puritan brothers 
and many of our Reformed brethren, they live in a context or a society 
where unbelievers believe the Bible was the Word of God. They 
didn't believe it to their salvation, they didn't embrace it for instruction 
in life, but they esteemed it and revered it and recognized 
it as indeed the Word of God. In our increasingly secular age, 
it's hard to find Christians to maintain verbal, plenary inspiration. That means the entirety of the 
Word of God is inspired by God. It's hard to find Christians, 
brethren, that actually affirm verbal plenary inspiration. We need to pay attention and 
see what's happening here. First, the apparent difficulty, 
Matthew ascribes the quotation to Jeremiah, but the texts are 
Zechariah 11, 12, and 13, and I'm going to argue Jeremiah 18, 
19, and 32. Matthew is beyond an exegete. Sometimes I read books in my 
office, and I have to confess, I'm not the brightest bulb in 
the chandelier, so I might take it down and read for a bit and 
say, you know what? I'm not getting that. I'm going to put it back 
on the shelf, and perhaps I'll visit it in a year or two. I 
don't know why I think I'll be brighter in a year or two. I'm 
not convinced that's always happened, but nevertheless, there are some 
theologians doing theology that I know that they're on the right 
track, and I know that they've got the ability, and I know, 
based on their conclusions and based on the fact that they're 
consistent with the entirety of the Christian church, that 
they're right, but my pea brain at times has difficulty following 
You know, the exegetical arguments, the biblical theological arguments, 
the systematic theological arguments, packaging it together, presenting 
it for consumption. I confess Matthew's doing that 
here. You see, we look at Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as sort 
of recorders, as those who are just holy historians that wrote 
down these words. They were theologians, brethren. It's like we've seen in our study 
in the former prophets on Wednesday night. Former prophets are Joshua 
through 2 Kings. It's not just history that those 
men are reporting. It is not just details. It's 
not just names. It's not just places. It is the 
doctrine of God Most High. in those writings. It is theology, 
and this is what Matthew is doing as a skilled exegete. He is weaving 
together for us these scriptural allusions to show us that, in 
fact, what is happening to Jesus was prophesied by not only Zechariah, 
but Jeremiah as well. there is in this passage something 
very glorious for us to behold. Now some have explained the reading 
here, Jeremiah the prophet, this way. Some have followed a minor 
textual variant that reads Zechariah. Probably driving that was pragmatism. If a minor variant approaches 
that says Zechariah, you could see where some would cleave to 
that. Some have said that there was an original text with neither 
prophet's name attributing Jeremiah then to a copyist's error. And some of these don't even 
deserve attention. Many have assumed Matthew made 
a minor mistake. Now, brethren, I make mistakes, 
I sin, I do horrible things, but I'm not given by inspiration 
of the Holy Spirit. I'm not an apostle of the Lord 
Jesus Christ. When he takes pen to hand, he 
doesn't make mistakes. Again, those are things that 
we have to repudiate and we have to dispense with. Others suggest 
that Matthew is referring to the entire collection of prophetic 
books that was at one time grouped under the name Jeremiah. Now, 
let's just move through the passage. I suggest a probable solution 
is this. The two texts serve as a bit 
of a composite. You don't know what a composite 
is. It's a little bit of this and a little bit of that. And 
sometimes in biblical studies, they say He conflates the two 
texts. He brings them together. We see or have seen Matthew do 
this already in his gospel. There are conflations. And at times when he conflates, 
he doesn't mention both prophets by name. Sometimes he doesn't 
mention either one of the prophets by name, but taking two texts 
from two different authors, he calls them the prophet. Turn with me to Matthew chapter 
two. just to get a feel for what Matthew is doing. Again, I don't 
want to bog down in the details, but it's important for you to 
see how Matthew is doing theology. And I'm also not convinced that 
in the ancient world, their sort of strictures against quotations 
and citing sources and that sort of thing were as strictly followed 
as they are today. I mean, take Hercules Collins, 
for instance, our Baptist brother from the 17th century. He basically 
took the Heidelberg Catechism, baptized it, and then called 
it the Orthodox Catechism. I bet he didn't go to jail for 
plagiarism either. I'm not suggesting that intellectual 
property ought to be a free-for-all, but the way that things are prosecuted 
today are not the way they've been done in the history of the 
church. You might read the church fathers, and you'll say, wow, 
they didn't, you know, they would have failed in their sword drill 
because they were off by a word. Well, Paul would have failed 
in some sword drills as well, because he was off by a word. 
Now, parents, make sure your kids aren't off by a word. They 
have to get it absolutely right. Just kidding. But the way that 
we impose what we believe ought to be certain types of scholarship 
and read it back, it's just not the way we should approach everything. They took passages, they brought 
it together to make theological observations and theological 
points. The purpose for Matthew in Matthew 27 isn't to make sure 
that Zechariah gets credit. You know, footnote two, Zechariah. That's not what he's about. I 
think Christian scholarship ought to model themselves after Lorraine 
Bettner. Lorraine Bettner was a man who 
lived in the early part of the 20th century. And in the copyright 
section, in the title pages of his books, he would say something 
like, anybody is free to take anything they want out of this 
book and use it however they want. That's good. It's really good. Again, I'm 
not saying go out and steal intellectual property, steal someone's hard 
work, don't cite them. I'm not suggesting that. Brethren, 
there's something refreshing about that kind of approach to 
scholarship. But notice in Micah chapter 2, 
verses 5 and 6, so they said to him in Bethlehem of Judea, 
for thus it is written, notice by the prophet, singular, two 
prophets are cited, Micah chapter 5 and 2 Samuel chapter 5. Again, notice in Matthew 21. 
Matthew chapter 21, just showing this conflation or composite 
or this building together two texts and ascribing it to one 
author. Matthew knows there is in fact 
one author and that author is God. But notice in Matthew chapter 
21, specifically at verse 5. Well, verse 4, it's a fulfillment 
formula again. All this was done that it might 
be fulfilled, which was spoken by the prophet, saying, tell 
the daughter of Zion, behold, your king is coming to you lowly 
and sitting on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey. That's 
two texts. It's a composite. It's a mosaic. It's a collage, if you will. And it was Isaiah and Zechariah. So this is not uncommon for Matthew 
to do this. Something interesting as well, 
whenever Matthew in the gospel refers to a minor prophet, he 
never gives their names. Again, I don't think he's trying 
to be mean. I don't think he's unhappy with Zechariah. It's 
just that that wasn't the concern. That wasn't the issue. It was 
the theology of the passage that mattered. He wanted us to trust 
him, that when he said, thus said the prophet Jeremiah, he's 
not lying to us. He is taking us back into the 
history of interpretation so that we'll understand something 
about the prophesied reality of what Christ is undergoing 
at this particular time. Also, when he quotes prophets, 
the only ones he mentions by name in his gospel are Isaiah 
most of the time, Jeremiah one other time, and then Daniel in 
terms of the abomination of desolation in Matthew chapter 24. So it's 
not the case that he always does it in a particular way and they 
always get credit for their work. No. Going back to chapter 27, 
I think that what Matthew is doing is that he is bringing 
together two texts to set forth to us a theology of fulfillment. And he mentions Jeremiah because 
it is the fact that Jeremiah was more widely known. But as well, the text that he 
cites or ascribes to Jeremiah is far more obscure, at least 
on a bare surface reading, so it would lead the reader back 
to Jeremiah. Let me give you an illustration 
of this. How many, don't raise your hand, 
have read Our Confession of Faith? I'm sure that if you've worked 
through there and you've looked at those proof texts before, 
you have thought, what does this text have to do with this doctrine? Again, don't raise your hands. 
Don't say, me, that's been my experience. That's been the experience 
of me and others that I have met. They say, you know, I read 
through that doctrinal articulation. It was really wonderful. And 
then I started checking on the proof text. And boy, I just didn't 
understand how this one related to the doctrine set forth here. 
A guy by the name of Richard Muller has well, well explained 
that those proof texts don't answer the way that we prove 
texts. In other words, we talk about 
baptism, so I'll give you five verses that deal with baptism. 
Sometimes those texts in our confession lead you to a discussion 
of that doctrine in the Reformed tradition. to means by which 
you enter into the stream of interpretation or how that doctrine 
has been handled throughout the life and history of the church. 
That's the reference to Jeremiah. Now what's happening specifically 
in these two passages, Zechariah 11 and Jeremiah chapters 18, 
19, and 32? Again, this is where we could 
get bogged down, but we're not. because I don't have the intellectual 
facility to get us bogged down, but as well because I don't want 
anybody to get lost. The bottom line is this. In Zechariah 
chapter 11, what we have going on is this scene wherein there 
are owners and bad shepherds who are abusing the sheep in 
Israel. They're slaughtering the people 
of God. It doesn't necessarily mean physically with knives and 
swords and whatnot, but through their false teaching. So Zechariah, 
who I think is a messianic type in that particular section, steps 
up to shepherd. He steps up to lead. And when 
he does so, the false shepherds despise him. He hates them and 
they hate him. So then he goes and he asks that 
he can resign from this particular task. He doesn't want to do this 
anymore because it's not something that is bringing any blessing 
or benefit to Israel as a whole. And so then Yahweh tells the 
shepherd to take those 30 pieces of silver and cast them into 
the potter's house. Now just in summary, I think 
that Carson is on the right path. He says there are differences 
between what you find in Zechariah 11 and what you find in the Passion 
Narrative. But he hones in on this. The 
central parallel is stunning. In both instances, Yahweh's shepherd 
is rejected by the people of Israel and valued at the price 
of a slave, the 30 pieces of silver. Yahweh says, take this 
princely price. It's probably ironic. It's not 
a princely price. According to Exodus 21, 32, this 
is the price of a slave, of a servant. So this is what Zechariah was 
given, and this is what he cast back into the potter's field 
there. In both instances, Yahweh's shepherd 
is rejected by the people of Israel and valued at the price 
of a slave. And in both instances, the money 
is flung into the temple and ends up purchasing something 
that is polluted. That's Zechariah 11. Now what 
about the Jeremiah passage? I think the themes here or the 
words potter, potter's field, innocent of blood. And the location of this field 
of blood, which scholarship generally places at the Valley of Hinnom, 
links us to Jeremiah not only 19 probably specifically, but 
18, 19, and then 32. If you have the New King James 
Version, you will see that verse 10, it is given as Jeremiah 32 
as the probable background for verse 10 in Matthew 27. I'm not 
sure what you have if you got ESV or NIV, but I know NKJV tells 
us that the probable background is Jeremiah 32. So what's happening 
with potters and potter's fields and valley of slaughter and that 
sort of thing back in Jeremiah? Well, it is intriguing. Jeremiah 
18, God tells the prophet to go to the potter's house and 
speak a message of condemnation concerning Israel. Jeremiah 19, 
God tells Jeremiah to take a potter's vessel, a potter's flask, and 
use that as something of a sermon illustration. In Jeremiah chapter 
19, he speaks of the Valley of Hinnom. He speaks of it having 
become a valley of slaughter. He speaks in verse five specifically 
as it being, parenthetically, a place where Israel sacrificed 
their children to gods who were not gods. And then dropping down 
in Jeremiah's message, there with the potter's flask, in Jeremiah 
19, he mentions that it will be turned into a burial site 
and it will be overflowing. You see, Matthew, with this brief 
citation concerning Jeremiah and Zechariah, brings us to consider 
what is going on in the prophets concerning the life and the ministry 
and ultimately the death of our Lord Jesus. Now I mentioned Jeremiah 
32 as well. That's an intriguing passage 
because it's a promise of good things to come. It's the promise 
of new covenant blessing. And as God is often want to do, 
He shows a spiritual message clothed in real physical garb. So He tells Jeremiah to go and 
buy a field, a regular field from his uncle Hanumel. Now, 
that's intriguing because if you understand where Jeremiah 
is in redemptive history, he would have had to have been a 
fool to buy any land in the confines of Israel. What's happening during 
Jeremiah's ministry? I will tell you. Babylon has 
come. Babylon is destroying the city 
of Jerusalem. Babylon is destroying the temple 
in Jerusalem. Babylon is seizing Judah Heights, 
and Babylon is bringing them back to Babylon. So, let's just 
put this in real simple terms. If the Russians came or the Americans 
came and they started destroying Chilliwack and they started taking 
you off to Idaho or to Iowa or some other place like that, would 
you be akin to buying land somewhere in this neighborhood? Probably 
not. You see, God told him as a lesson 
to Israel. Babylon is coming. Nebuchadnezzar 
will destroy city. Nebuchadnezzar will lay waste 
to temple. Nebuchadnezzar will take Israelites 
off into Babylon. But it will end. It will be a 
70-year period. God in Jeremiah 32 says, they 
will return to the land. Jeremiah's title deed to Hanumel's 
property was a lesson to Israel that while we are undergoing 
judgment, while we are reaping the consequences for our covenantal 
unfaithfulness, God is not covenantally unfaithful. He will restore Judah. He will put them back in their 
land. He is the one who says, I will put the fear of me in 
their hearts. This is Jeremiah 32, that they 
will not depart from me. He says, I will rejoice to do 
them good. You see, Zechariah 11, this messianic 
figure that is cut off and takes the price of a slave and throws 
it into the potter's house. Jeremiah, the prophet, stands 
in the potter's house, speaks a message of condemnation concerning 
Israel and Jerusalem specifically in chapter 18, does the same 
thing in chapter 19, but at the Valley of Hinnom, again, where 
persons argue that the field of blood was located. He is there 
declaring to them it's going to be turned into a burial place 
and it's going to overflow with bodies, but he doesn't stop there. I think this is important in 
terms of the Jeremiah 32. It's easy for us to get bogged 
down in a position like this, and even the whole narrative 
that I read, and feel sad. And we should feel sad. I mean, 
that our fellows would do this kind of thing to a holy man, 
to an innocent man, ought to make us all hang our head in 
shame. The narrative doesn't end with the crucifixion. The 
narrative doesn't end with Israel in Babylon. The narrative ends, 
with reference to the prophet Jeremiah, with persons returning 
back to Judah, taking those title deeds to previously owned lands, 
and building houses again, and having families again, and enjoying 
the blessings of Yahweh again. So the narrative shows us, or 
demonstrates to us, that what is happening here, first and 
foremost, is according to the prophetic word. And as well, 
Matthew, in all of his fulfillment passage formula, tells us that 
the Old Testament scriptures are authoritative for the New 
Testament church. The Old Testament Scriptures are authoritative 
for the New Testament Church. There's continuity between the 
covenants. There's continuity between the 
Old and New Testaments. There is continuity in that our 
apostles use the Old Testament Scriptures. So if you ever think, 
well, I'm not going to go to Wednesday night Bible study because 
they just talk about the Old Testament there, or I'm not going to read 
my Old Testament because, you know, we got the New Testament. 
Listen to what your New Testament authors are telling you. Read 
your Old Testaments. So I think that's how we are 
to appreciate what is happening here. So there is judgment, exile, 
restoration. Those three themes are brought 
right into the passion narrative for us. and especially connect 
this to Olivet in Matthew 24 and 25, I think it strengthens 
the Preterist interpretation there. Because what they face, 
with reference to Babylon, is what these persons are going 
to face with reference to Rome, the Roman Empire. They are going 
to engage in the abomination of desolation. They are going 
to go through this tribulation. They are going to be slaughtered. When you read the language in 
Jeremiah chapter 19, you might get offended because it speaks 
of a totality judgment upon the nation of Israel. It's such that 
New Testament writers say, well, it's unfair that God would deal 
with people that way. It's absolutely not unfair. It's 
righteous and it's just. Especially when He has told us, 
if you do this, you will be cursed. And we go out and we do it. We 
get cursed and we blame God. So that's what I think is happening 
here. Again, I think Carson summarizes. 
Matthew sees in Jeremiah 19 and Zechariah 11, not merely a number 
of verbal and thematic parallels to Jesus' betrayal, but a pattern 
of apostasy and rejection that must find its fulfillment in 
the rejection of Jesus, who was cheaply valued and rejected by 
the Jews, and whose betrayal money was put to a purpose that 
pointed to the destruction of the nation. Now, if you missed 
all that, I apologize. I do apologize, but I think it's 
important. Matthew didn't get it wrong. 
Matthew didn't cite Jeremiah when he should have cited Zechariah. 
Matthew's not distorting biblical texts. Matthew is saying to us, 
the reader, come with me. I wanna show you what the Old 
Testament says about Jesus. Typically, we're skilled in the 
direct fulfillment sort of thing. This happened and thus was fulfilled, 
like Zechariah 9 in Matthew 21. When Jesus rides into Jerusalem 
on that colt, it's easily connected to Zechariah 9 because there 
the messianic figure rides into Jerusalem on a colt. Here Matthew's 
asking us to stretch our minds a little bit and to join him 
in the theological exercise, to join him in the theological 
process, to join him in this survey, not only of Zechariah 
and what's happening there, to Zechariah, who's a messianic 
figure, but as well with reference to Jeremiah, when he went to 
the potter's house, he spoke this message in the valley of 
Hinnom, and then he purchased this field from his uncle Hanumel, 
so that it would bespeak of God's grace to them, that they would 
in fact return to the land. Well, brethren, in conclusion, 
a few observations and then we'll go. In the first place, we ought 
to appreciate and we ought to learn from the hypocrisy of these 
religious leaders. First, they uphold Deuteronomy 
23.18 while disregarding Deuteronomy 5.17. They uphold Deuteronomy 23, 18 
while disregarding Deuteronomy 5, 17. And I'll say with Jesus, 
they should have done the one but not neglected the other. 
Isn't that Christ's argument in Matthew chapter 23? You tithe 
the mint and the anise and the cumin, but you neglect the weightier 
matters of the law, justice, mercy, and faith. He doesn't 
say, stop tithing. He says, that you should have 
done, even the mint and the anise and cumin. But you're not supposed 
to neglect the weightier matters of the law, justice, mercy, and 
faith. The leaders seek ceremonial purity 
while disregarding the sixth word. We see that in the passage 
in John 18. They want to be able to eat the 
Passover tonight, so we can't go into this pagan praetoria. 
Never mind that we have the only innocent man that's ever lived 
and we're presenting him to the pagan in this praetorium so that 
he can give the death order and he be executed. You see, that's 
hypocrisy. That's the fruit of legalism. 
It's the fruit of swallowing camels while straining out gnats, 
or cleansing the outside of the cup while the inside is full 
of extortion and indulgence, or being a whitewashed tomb on 
the outside and yet full of dead man's bones and all uncleanness 
on the inside. That's hypocrisy. Now, brethren, 
as one who's been called a Pharisee a few times in my life, I think 
we need to be very careful about the way that we exercise that 
terminology with others. Judas wasn't a Pharisee. He at 
least had remorse. Peter denied Christ thrice, but 
he wasn't a Pharisee. We're all hypocrites. None of 
us live the way we ought. None of us are wholly harmless 
and undefiled, are we? None of us at the end of the 
day look at ourselves in the mirror and say, that was a grand 
old day because I did everything right. Again, as one who's been 
called a Pharisee on a few occasions, let me just encourage you that 
not everybody you think is a Pharisee is a Pharisee. There's remaining 
corruption, there's flat out Peter-like denial, but repentance. Again, I wouldn't even argue 
Judas was a Pharisee. And by Pharisee, I mean religious 
leaders. The Sanhedrin at this time was Sadducee heavy, but 
Pharisee has become the term, right? Oh, there's such Pharisees 
because they don't see it my way. There's such Pharisees because 
they don't do it my way. You ever been called a Pharisee? 
It doesn't feel too good. I mean, they're notoriously for 
being wicked, right? It's like somebody saying, you're 
just like Hitler. Well, gee, thanks. I appreciate 
that. I'm going to go home and sleep 
well now. You're the enemy of all that 
is good. If they're a believer in Jesus 
Christ, praise God that they're a believer in Jesus Christ, because 
they need that blood. I can't stand when I hear people 
say, I'm not going to go to church because it's full of hypocrites. 
What better place for hypocrites to be? We're all hypocrites, 
aren't we? Oh, not me, brother. You know what's really hard about 
being a pastor? It's having to deal with people, and you have 
the same sins that they do. Sometimes they come to you like, 
you're the guru, you're the authority. Can you help me, brother so-and-so, 
with such and such? Sure, I'll give it a shot. You 
don't always tell them, though. I struggle with such and such, 
too. Did you know that? Your elders, pastors, they're 
not like Jesus. Holy, harmless, and undefiled. 
We are unholy, harmful, and thoroughly defiled. Praise God for Jesus. These men were notoriously wicked. Brethren aren't. They're foolish. They're sinful. They're idiotic. They're hard-hearted at times. Numbskulled. Must be very careful 
about bandying the term Pharisee. I mean, today in the Christian 
church, you preach the law of God, you're a Pharisee. Again, it's the sociological 
equivalent or the ecclesiastical equivalent of calling somebody 
a racist in our day. You don't come back from that, 
do you? You're a political leader and 
you say something that wasn't absolutely positively perfect 
and you're branded a racist, what happens? You don't unring 
that bell, brethren. It happens in the church. He's 
a Pharisee. Because I sin? Because I got 
remaining corruption? Because I'm not holy, harmless, 
and undefiled? Last time I checked, this is 
the reason why Jesus came into this world. Not to call the righteous, 
but sinners to repentance. Praise God for that. So be careful. about bandying the term. Let's 
see what the Pharisees, again, arguably, there probably weren't 
even a lot of them in the Sanhedrin. There's probably a study there, 
a dissertation for somebody. It's probably already been written 
on the culpability of the Pharisees at the time of the death of Jesus. 
Again, it was Sadducee heavy, 71 persons that made this up. Certainly there would have been 
Pharisees there. The high priest was a Sadducee. Sadducees sort 
of, you know, were the driving force in that getup. So, Pharisee 
simply as religious leader. Consider, just to see, as I said, 
I maintain that 23, 3 to 10, is Matthew's means by which he 
continues to set before us, not anti-Semitically, but theologically, 
that the culpability continues to rest with these leaders. Everybody's 
involved, brethren. I'm not saying these Jews. It's 
not an anti-Semite thing. Again, that's a bell you can't 
unring. Go out and blog today. Butler's an anti-Semite. See 
what happens to me tomorrow. I'm not picking on these men 
because they were Semitic. Judas was a professing disciple 
and was an apostle, and he betrayed Jesus. Pilate's a pagan, he's 
a Gentile, and he gives the kill order. Everybody's guilty in 
the crucifixion of Jesus. Why does He do what He does? 
Matthew 20, 28 links it to the elect. The Son of Man came not 
to be served, but to serve and to give His life a ransom. For 
who? For many. Why does Christ go to the cross? 
Why does Christ give His blood? Why does Christ go to His death? 
Who's responsible according to Matthew 20, 28? The many. You and I, the elect. I'm not 
picking on these Jews. I'm not picking on them because 
they're Jews. Matthew's not picking on them because they're Jews. 
John is not. Some suggest that John and Matthew 
were anti-Semitic. Jews that were anti-Semitic. 
That's just incredible to me. I am picking on them because 
they're vile, wretched, terrible human beings. It has nothing 
to do with the fact that they're Jewish. We Gentiles are vile, 
wicked, miserable, wretched human beings as well, aren't we? Is this Paul's point, Romans 
chapter one to three? What's he there to do? Well, 
you Jews, you're messed up. He does that. You Gentiles, you're 
messed up. He does that. Why? 319, so that 
all the world can become guilty before God. Not can become in 
the sense that this is what we're striving for, but in the sense 
that God holds all men everywhere guilty. This is the preface, 
the introduction, the forward, the backdrop for his gospel presentation. You see, Paul's argument is brilliant. One to three, we are terrible 
human beings. Romans 4 to 11, this is how God 
saves you. But consider the responsibility 
or culpability of these men. We've already seen, one, their 
conspiracy to commit murder, chapter 26, 3 to 5. Second, the 
payment due to Judas, 26, 14 to 16. They bribed the man that's 
going to deliver up the Lord Jesus. Third, the utter disregard 
of Judas' statement concerning the innocence of Christ. It's 
like he didn't even say anything. He's innocent. We don't care. 
We don't care. We're not gonna let facts stand 
in the way of a perfectly good crucifixion. We're not gonna 
let facts stand in the way of us ridding ourselves of this 
troublemaker. We're not gonna let your claims, whatever they 
may be, stop us from what we've undertaken. The continual accusation 
of Christ in the presence of Pilate. Notice in verse 12. While 
he was being accused by the chief priests and elders, he answered 
nothing. They're right there feeding Pilate. They say in John's 
gospel, when Pilate says, why are you here? Well, if he wasn't 
guilty, we wouldn't be here. Imagine that. I know I've mentioned 
that before, but it's so perplexing to me. God had to be in control 
of all this. I speak as a man because, I mean, 
it's just crazy. We would go nuts today if this 
kind of due process was carried out. I mean, when I was growing 
up in, you know, at least in the 80s, I remember this big 
thing, you know, the police would get a search warrant, and it 
would say beige, and it would get thrown out because the house 
was brown. Or, you know, somebody, you've heard that, right? It's 
just travesty. I mean, beige, brown, come on. 
I think you're, we're in the ballpark, it's that house, the 
numbers match, the road is the same, the zip code, but no, it 
said beige and brown. Or you've heard the travesty 
of justice when somebody breaks into your house and steals your 
goods and he hurts himself so he sues you? We as Canadians 
and Americans don't like that sort of thing, do we? It's just 
not fair. You want to talk about just not 
fair? Imagine hearing your lawyer say or the prosecuting attorney 
say to the judge, if he weren't guilty, we wouldn't be here. 
Huh? What? They beg the question. as well, the continual pressure 
placed upon the multitudes. Notice in verse 20, but the chief 
priests and elders persuaded the multitudes that they should 
ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. We don't like these pesky 
things called facts concerning His innocence. Give us Barabbas. 
Now brethren, there were going to be three crucifixions that 
day. These two thieves next to Jesus, 
guess who their ringleader was? Guess who would have occupied 
the center cross on that day? It was Barabbas. He was the worst 
of those three men. Criminal or thief is just too 
light. It almost suggests they went 
into Walmart and stole Snickers bars. These men were violent 
revolutionary types. We'd call them terrorists today. 
Give us Barabbas. What was that guy? Chemical Ali. Give us Chemical Ali and deliver 
up Jesus. Give us Saddam Hussein and deliver 
up Jesus. You know, name your guy. Give 
us Hitler and destroy Jesus. Notice as well, their mocking 
of Christ while he's on the cross, 27, 41 to 43. Likewise, the chief 
priests also, mocking what the scribes and elders said, he saved 
others, himself he cannot save. If he is the king of Israel, 
let him now come down from the cross and we will believe in 
him. He trusted in God, let him deliver 
him. Now, if he will have him, for 
he said, I am the son of God. This is not legit. They're not 
saying, well, if he can actually come down the cross, then we 
will. No, it's mockery. It's scoffing. You think, well, 
it has to be over now. No, it doesn't have to be over 
now, because they then go to the governor and say, secure 
his tomb so that his disciples can't come and steal the body 
and sort of give vent to his lie that he would be raised on 
the third day. Well, it certainly has to stop. 
No, then they bribe guards later in chapter 28. Don't tell anybody, 
tomb's empty. See, Matthew wants us to remember 
that while everybody's guilty to be sure, in this particular 
narrative, these men bear a large share of it. And then finally, 
what Judas says and what the religious leaders reject was 
in fact true. In other words, if you come here 
this morning and you're not a believer, I realize you undergo this every 
week. You may feel like I'm picking on you. I'm not. But I always 
think it's important for us to declare and describe and state 
the beauty of the Christian gospel. I think every text in the scripture 
certainly confronts us with that. And the fact that he is innocent 
is theologically huge, theologically significant, theologically powerful. He was innocent because the law 
prescribed that the sacrifice be innocent. In other words, 
when God, through Moses, tells Israel how they approach him 
in the tabernacle, then temple, you know what they're supposed 
to do when they go out to their flock? They find the male without 
blemish. Don't pick one that's defected. 
Don't pick one that's lame. Don't pick one that's maimed. 
Don't pick one that's, you know, got three legs and it's hobbling 
around. You pick the best. You pick the 
one without blemish. You pick the one that's innocent 
because it's going to typify my son. He is innocent because 
the law demands perfect, exact, entire, and perpetual obedience. I can't do that. I can't do that 
in the first five seconds of the day when I'm opening my eyes. 
I don't think you can either, because if your mind doesn't 
shoot with love to God and love to brethren, you have violated 
the law. Five seconds was generous, really 
generous. See why Israel was taught the 
Shema when they woke up? Hear, O Israel, the Lord our 
God, the Lord is one. And we look at that, well, that's 
all external, and that's all just wrote. Hey, it got the mind at least 
going Godward. Perhaps we as Christians ought 
to recite the Shema as we wake up in the morning. But he was 
innocent because the law demands perfect, exact, entire, and perpetual 
obedience. As well, he is innocent because 
he perfectly fulfilled all that the Father gave him for his people. Doesn't Matthew's gospel start 
off this way? Jesus comes to be baptized and 
John the Baptist says, no, no, no, I should be baptized by you. And Jesus says, permit it, for 
it is necessary to fulfill all righteousness. There's a mouthful 
of theology there as well, because you and I are guilty, vile, helpless 
sinners. We have offended God at every 
point, we have rejected Him, we have rebelled against Him, 
we have taken His holy law and we have tossed it over and over 
again onto the ground and stomped on it. We not only transgress 
what is written, but we lack conformity unto the law. The 
law tells us don't commit adultery. We go out and commit it. If we 
don't go out and commit it, we commit it in our minds. The law 
tells us to respect one another's reputation. So what do we do? 
We bear false witness against them. The law tells us not to 
be murderers. What do we do? We may not go 
out and physically ascend the clock tower and pick off people, 
but we kill them in our hearts. We violate the law. If you have 
this concept or this notion this morning that I'm pretty good. 
He's treating me pretty poorly right now. I'm an upright guy. I'm an upright girl. I'm only 
eight. I haven't done anything really 
bad. Where did we get that concept of what is really bad and what 
isn't? How come everybody else's sin is really bad? Ours isn't 
as bad. Because we're sinners, we're 
vile, we're helpless, we're guilty, we have offended God. So there 
needs to be one who does exactly what the Father says. There needs 
to be one who is our champion, our victor, our redeemer, our 
friend. See, Christ had to shed His blood. We see it here. It's Scripture. 
Scripture says Messiah must be cut off. Scripture says He must 
be executed. Scripture says all these things, 
so there's that divine necessity in terms of must-ness, because 
the Father purposed it so, that there's must-ness to save us 
from our sins. We need His blood to cleanse 
us. We need His righteousness to 
furnish us. We need His blood to forgive. 
We need His righteousness to clothe. There is that blessed, 
beautiful type of this, and the prophet Zechariah, we're going 
to close just after this. Zechariah's come to play a lot 
this morning, and he's often cited by Matthew. Zechariah is 
behind the scenes in the Passion narrative, or all the way beginning 
in chapter 21, when Jesus enters into Jerusalem. Zechariah's there. 
But it's the latter chapters, Zechariah 9 to 14, that are more 
preeminent towards the end of Matthew's gospel. I want to direct 
your attention, you don't need to physically turn there unless 
you'd like to, so you see that I'm not lying to you. But in 
Zechariah chapter 3, there's a man by the name of Joshua. 
And we never think there's two Joshuas in the Bibles. We think 
this is the son of Nun that went in and conquered Canaan. No, 
it's not. This was a long time after the 
conquest in Canaan. This Joshua in Zechariah 3 was 
a high priest. And this Joshua, as high priest, 
represented Israel. And we have this intriguing scene 
where Joshua, the high priest, is standing before God Most High. And the devil is right there 
to accuse him. This is one of the jobs that 
the devil does. In fact, that's how you translate 
the word devil or Satan, rather. It's adversary. He is our adversary. He is our accuser. He's always 
there chomping at the heels of God's people. Oh, you couldn't 
be a Christian. Look at you. You couldn't be. Just knock it 
off. I mean, so we see this scene, 
Yahweh, Joshua the high priest, and there's the devil right there 
to accuse. There's something that's intriguing about this 
scene because Joshua is dirty. Not, I went out and played in 
the mud today, dirty mom, but I went out and vomited in the 
dirt. I went to the bathroom in the dirt, and then I rolled 
around in the dirt. Again, you're going to say, that's 
offensive, Pastor Butler. It bothers me. This is the description 
that's given. He's filthy. Not a little grimy, 
because he played with his army men in the backyard. He's filthy. He's utterly putrid. He smells. He stinks. He's gross. What is 
God saying? This is Israel. It is intriguing 
as well because the devil never opens his mouth. And Yahweh says, 
the Lord rebuke you. I think the significance there 
is that Yahweh says, essentially, I don't need to hear what you 
have to say, accuser. I don't need to hear what you 
have to say, devil. I see him in his filth. I know 
him in his filth. I understand that this is putridity. 
I understand that he's defiled. I understand that he's engaged 
in absolute, abject, utter wickedness and rebellion against me. And 
that's the whole purpose for this particular vision. So the 
devil never utters a word and then Yahweh gives the command, 
take those filthy garments off. It's going the right way, isn't 
it? Is this what mom says to you when you come in after a 
day at play? Take those filthy garments off. Do you know what 
that answers to or typifies or points forward to? That cleansing 
power of the blood of Jesus. Isn't this what happens when 
we believe the gospel? We are washed. That blessed, 
beautiful text in 1 Corinthians 6, verses 9 and 10. Do not be 
deceived, neither idolaters, or fornicators, or sodomites, 
or revilers, or drunkards. None of them are going to enter 
into the kingdom of heaven, but such were, Corinthians, some 
of you. It's the implication that within 
the Corinthian church there were ex-idolaters, ex-sodomites, ex-revilers, 
but you've been washed, you've been justified, you've been sanctified. So in the prophet Zechariah, 
when Yahweh gives the order to take the garments off, the filthy 
garments off, it's the first aspect with reference to justification. 
But it doesn't stop there. See, then Yahweh says, take these 
beautiful garments and clothe Joshua, the high priest. This 
is where the innocence of our Lord Jesus comes to play. We 
need to be clothed with the righteousness of Jesus. The scriptures are 
clear that God the Father made Him, God the Son, the Lord Jesus 
Christ, who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become 
the righteousness of God in Him. So if you've come here this morning 
and you're not a believer, I end where I hopefully will always 
end until my dying breath, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. As 
he said at that last great day of the feast, if any man thirst, 
let him come to me and drink. Don't leave here today in your 
sin. Don't leave here today in your filth. Don't leave here 
today underestimating the things that have been said. Well, that 
filth may be on a man like Hitler. That filth may be on a man like 
Pol Pot. That filth may be on a man like 
Charles Manson. But that filth isn't on me. The 
Bible says we're all filthy. The Bible says we're all guilty. 
The Bible says all of us are justly liable to the condemnation 
of a holy God. The way of escape is through 
faith in Jesus Christ. Believe and you shall be saved. Let us pray. Father in heaven, 
we thank you for your word. We thank you for what is written, 
for our encouragement and for our instruction. We ask God in 
heaven that you would seal it to our hearts, help us to be 
a faithful people, forgive us for our unfaithfulness, wash 
us afresh in the blood of the Lamb, And for any and all here 
that have not believed the gospel, we pray that today would be the 
day of salvation. Do this for your glory. Do this 
for the good of sinners here. And go with us now, we pray, 
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. We'll close with a brief 
time of meditation.