Matthew 27:9,10

‘Then was fulfilled what was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him who was priced, whom certain of the children of Israel did price, and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.”

Surveying what had happened Matthew, or his sources, now recognised in them a deep significance. It brought to their minds a number of prophecies, one in Zechariah, and two in Jeremiah. This practise of stringing prophecies together was quite common in Jesus' day. Compare Mark 1:2, and there also it was the last prophecy referred to which was dignified with the name of the prophet. Note that the emphasis in the passage just prior to the quotation is much more on the potter's field, than on the price paid. ‘They bought -- the potter's  field  -- that  field  was called, the Field  of Blood' (Matthew 27:7). And that that is then immediately followed by the reference to the quotation. It is the field which is being emphasised.

The suggestion that here Matthew made a mistake which remained uncorrected is naive. He knew perfectly well who had spoken of thirty pieces of silver which were ‘cast to the potter' (Zechariah 11:12 MT). But he also knew who had spoken of buying an earthen vessel from a potter in order by it to indicate God's judgment, something which was then specifically connected with the Elders and Senior Priests of the people (Jeremiah 19:1), and who had then spoken of buying a field whose deeds were put in a potter's earthenware container, as an indication both of God's coming deliverance, and His judgment (Jeremiah 32:6). And this would have been especially significant to him in that in Jeremiah 19:6 reference is made to a change of name to ‘the Valley of Slaughter' (compare ‘the field of Blood'). Thus to him it was quite clear that God was ‘filling to the full' what He had prophesied. Here all was being acted out before them.

This is further backed up by the fact that he uses the phrase here which he only elsewhere uses to introduce a quotation from Jeremiah (Matthew 2:17). The other previous named prophecies (Matthew 3:3 to Matthew 15:7, see also Matthew 20:28), which have different introductions and are Isaianic, have been put within a Jeremaic sandwich (Matthew 2:17 and here). (See ‘that it might be fulfilled' in the introduction). The prophet of Doom and Death thus encloses the promises of the prophet of Deliverance and Life.

Excursus on The Prophecy Concerning the Potter's Field.

The quotation found here has produced what has been seen by some as a problem, for at first sight it appears to be citing words from Zechariah, when it is said by Matthew to be citing Jeremiah. But such a problem only arises because they fail to recognise the citations from Jeremiah in the last part of the ‘quotation' (Matthew 27:10). Matthew clearly considers these last as important enough to draw attention to them by referring to Jeremiah, whose words are thus seen as underlying the whole.

Certainly it is true that the first part of what is said is a loose citation from parts of Zechariah 11:12, but the main point of the citation is not to do with that, (that is simply indicating the value put on a prophet by the Temple authorities), but is on what was done with the price. And that was to purchase a field connected with a potter, the emphasis being on ‘field' (Zechariah 11:7). And this last idea has in mind a combination of Jeremiah 18:1 (where the people are clay in the Potter's hands); Jeremiah 19:1 (where the potter's vessel made of such clay is bought and destroyed) and Jeremiah 32:12 (where a field is bought whose deeds are placed in a clay jar, indicative of hope). This is what Matthew's attribution of the prophecy to Jeremiah confirms. He was not in error when he cited Jeremiah. (And indeed in these ‘fulfilment' contexts he only ever mentions Isaiah and Jeremiah). He was rather drawing attention to:

1). Where he wanted the emphasis to be placed, and

2). The connection of the citations with the longsuffering prophet who first forecast the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. The name of Jeremiah opens the named prophecies of Matthew at a time of suffering, and now closes them, again at a time of suffering.

This very fact tends to confirm that he is not using these quotations with a glib ‘O look, the prophecy has been fulfilled' idea, but as an indication that what occurs in the Old Testament is filled to the full in the New. Perhaps here, in order to see this better, we should first list what Matthew tells us about the incident with Judas. He tells us that:

1). The chief priests and the elders took council against Jesus (Matthew 27:1), (thereby bringing themselves under God's judgment).

2). Judas brought back the thirty pieces of silver, which was the value set on Jesus as a prophet (see Matthew 26:15), and then cast down the pieces of silver into the Sanctuary (Matthew 27:3; Matthew 27:5), an act which probably in his view cast some of his guilt back on the chief priests and elders.

3). The chief priest took the pieces of silver which were the price of blood and bought with them something which belonged to a potter, namely in this case a field, which was subsequently seen as defiled (Matthew 27:6).

4). The field was renamed ‘the field of blood'.

With his wide knowledge of the Old Testament Matthew immediately saw here connections with three Old Testament prophecies, one of which was in Zechariah and two in Jeremiah, all of which in the Old Testament pointed to judgment coming on the elders and chief priests and those involved with them, and which, in the case of Jeremiah, were very much connected with a forthcoming destruction of the Temple. Matthew considered that now those prophecies were being ‘filled to the full'. Salvation history, and irrevocable judgment, were seen to be repeating themselves in Jesus.

To us the combinations found here may be a little complicated, but we must remember that Matthew's initial Jewish and Jewish-Christian readers would be more used to such combinations. We may present them as follows:

1). In Jeremiah 19:1 the same ‘elders of the people and the elders of the priests' (compare the elders and the chief priests - Matthew 27:1) were connected with an incident in which Jeremiah purchased from a potter an earthen container which he would use in order to reveal that they were under God's judgment by hurling it into a valley, the name of which would be altered to ‘the valley of slaughter'. In the same way in Matthew 27 the chief priests and elders would purchase something from a potter which would indicate judgment on themselves, and its name was altered to ‘the field of blood'). In Zechariah 11:11 similarly the chief priests (the traffickers of the sheep who pay the wages of Temple prophets) are acting against Zechariah, and they pay out thirty pieces of silver as the value of a prophet, which is cast to the potter.

2). In Zechariah 11:11 the price of thirty pieces of silver was paid as the value of a prophet, (as in Matthew 26:15; Matthew 27:3; Matthew 27:5) but the prophet, in accordance with God's word, cast it to the potter in the house of the Lord (the one who probably made the sacred vessels) as an indication of judgment on them. In Jeremiah 19:10   the earthen container  bought from the potter was similarly cast down in front of his opponents (compare Matthew 27:5), in the Valley of Hinnom, again in his case as a symbol of judgment against the elders and chief priests, and as a portent of the coming destruction of Jerusalem.

3). In Jeremiah 19:1 an earthen container was bought from a potter which would be used to indicate defilement and judgment (compare Matthew 27:6). And in Jeremiah 32:7 a field was bought, whose title deeds were put in  an earthen container  similar to that bought from the potter in Matthew 19:1 (see Jeremiah 32:14 with Matthew 19:1, and compare Matthew 27:10). This purchase of land would be evidence that after judgment had come on Jerusalem and it had been burned down, mercy would eventually follow so that fields would have value again (Jeremiah 32:15). Meanwhile the earthen container that had been broken in Jeremiah 19:10 had been cast down in a defiled place (19. 3-13), symbolising that Jerusalem was defiled (Matthew 19:13). Compare Matthew 27:5.

4). In Jeremiah 19:6 the valley where the casting down took place had its name changed to the Valley of Slaughter (compare Matthew 27:8).

The comparisons reveal why Matthew could see how these Old Testament passages, as brought together as one, (although he could have used them individually and protracted the narrative), were finding a ‘filling full' (eplerowthe) in what happened in Matthew 27. He is demonstrating how what had happened with the prophets at the hands of the Jewish leaders, had also happened in the case of Jesus at the hands of the Jewish leaders, thus paralleling Him with Jeremiah, while at the same time showing that all that had happened between Jeremiah and the Elders and Senior Priests was summed up in Him and His relationships to the Chief Priests and Elders. Jesus' opponents were ‘filling up' (plerowsate) the measure of their fathers who had persecuted the prophets (compare Matthew 23:32).

The same people were thus seen to be involved in Zechariah/Jeremiah (the elders and leading priests) as in Matthew 27:1; the same amount of money was involved in both cases (thirty pieces of silver); something was purchased from a potter in both examples (Jeremiah 19:1; Matthew 27:10) which indicated judgment on the elders and chief priests; something was cast down indicating judgment on the chief priests and elders in both (Zechariah 11:13 /Jeremiah 19:10 and in Matthew 27:5); in the case of Matthew 27:10 a field connected with a potter was bought, and in the case of Zechariah/Jeremiah, as an evidence of the coming judgment and the hope that would follow, a field was bought whose title deeds were put in an earthen container (Jeremiah 32:14) which container was similar to that bought from a potter (Jeremiah 19:1), and thirty pieces of silver were cast to the potter in the house of the Lord (Zechariah 11:13); in both Matthew 27:7 and Zechariah/Jeremiah land was seen as defiled (Jeremiah 19:13); in both cases there was a change of name to something gruesome (Matthew 27:8 /Jeremiah 19:6). And through what was signified by the purchases from the potters, and by the purchase of the field, judgments were threatened on Jerusalem which would result in Jerusalem being destroyed (Matthew 27:25 with Matthew 23:37; Matthew 24:15 /Jeremiah 19:7), although each also pointed forward to a future hope after judgment for God's true people (Jeremiah 32:15, see also Jeremiah 31:37).

Matthew therefore wanted his readers, as a result of this joint citation, and especially as a result of his reference to Jeremiah, to consider the whole background behind them as considered above and connect them with what was happening in these last Chapter s of his Gospel. Far from being a naive citation it is a deeply thought out application of Scripture, and required similar application from his readers who with their knowledge of the Scriptures would more appreciate what was in Matthew's mind than some of us might.

Perhaps it will assist in an appreciation of what Matthew is saying if we place the prophecies, and their ‘filling full', side by side.

MATTHEW Zechariah 11 /Jeremiah 19/32 They took the thirty pieces of silver they weighed for my hire thirty pieces of silver (Z).  The price of Him Who was priced, the goodly price that I was valued at by them (Z)  Whom certain of the children of Israel did price,  And they gave them for the field Buy you my field and put the title deeds  in an earthen container (J32).  Of the potter Buy a potter's earthen container (J19).  cast it to the potter -- in the house of YHWH (Z).  As the Lord appointed me. Then I knew that this was the word of the Lord (J32).  (Almost this phrase is found in  Joshua 24:31 LXX with autois instead of moi). It is thus connected with covenant renewal.

We thus see here a combination of ideas in Zechariah 11 and Jeremiah 19, 32, which is associated with ideas in Matthew 27:1, with the initial ‘they' in all cases referring to the chief priests and the elders.

In Matthew 27:10 we have reference to a purchase made in connection with a potter (for which compare Zechariah 11:13 /Jeremiah 19:1), and the purchase of a field (for which compare Jeremiah 32:25) as something which can be described as ‘what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet', thus drawing attention to the place of Jeremiah 19/32 in the scheme. This concerned something which ‘was purchased' in connection with a potter, namely in Matthew's case ‘the field connected with a potter' and it is done ‘as the Lord appointed me'. The reference to being ‘spoken by Jeremiah the prophet' would serve to confirm that we must look in Jeremiah for such an event or events, and there we find both a purchase of an earthenware vessel from a potter, and the purchase of a field, connected with an earthenware vessel (made by a potter), both being significantly connected with the Jewish leaders and being at the command of the Lord. All this then connects with the thirty pieces of silver being cast to the potter (Zechariah 11). They are cast to the potter (Zechariah 11), used to buy an earthenware vessel from a potter (Jeremiah 19), while an earthenware vessel then contains the deed from the purchase of a field (the earthenware representing the people of Israel (Jeremiah 18:6).

The simmering Chief Priests and Elders in the days of Jesus were thus filling full the behaviour of their fathers who had had the same attitude towards Zechariah and Jeremiah (compare Matthew 23:32), and the implication might well be that they will suffer the same end, although it is not spelled out here. (The complicated connections might be seen as revealing the devious thinking of a tax collector).

The earthen vessel/container, which is bought from the potter in Jeremiah 19:1 and which contains the deeds of the property bought in Jeremiah 32:12, is one of the key ideas that connects the two passages in Jeremiah, the others being the connection with the chief priests and elders and the common theme of judgment, although in the case of Jeremiah 32:12 partly a judgment reversed, (but see Jeremiah 32:25), while the idea of buying from the potter in Jeremiah 19:1 connects with the thirty pieces of silver cast to the potter in Zechariah 11. (It was common practise in Matthew's time to connect Old Testament verses by key words and key ideas). Matthew therefore sees the purchase of a field connected with a potter for thirty pieces of silver as too much of a coincidence not to be seen ‘filling to the full' these combined prophecies, when they are all connected with the behaviour of the leaders of the Jews towards God's prophets, and in the case of Jeremiah with the destruction of Jerusalem, although with hope lying beyond.

The ‘quotation' in Matthew 27:9 is thus not just a single quotation, and is certainly not one which is seen as having been naively ‘fulfilled', but is a carefully worked statement on the basis of a combination of Old Testament passages, at least one of which we would expect to find in Jeremiah because of the ascription. This method of combining prophecies together under the name of the one name considered most crucial (or possibly the last quoted) is also found in Mark 1:2 where words from Malachi and Isaiah are combined under the name of Isaiah. Compare also Romans 3:10 which is a miscellany under ‘as it is written', although no one is named there.

It is clearly not therefore accidental that in Matthew the account of the consequences of Judas' betrayal follows immediately on the description of the betrayal of Jesus by the chief priests and elders of the people (Matthew 27:1, see also Matthew 27:12; Matthew 27:20). It is because he intends to connect them with this theme from the prophets. The prophecies may well therefore be seen as having influenced the order in which Matthew 27:1 was written, although not in such a way as to distort the truth. (Had he been inventing all this he could easily have made the parallels much closer).

And we are almost certainly intended to see from this that the dire things that happened to Judas as a consequence of what he did, were a warning also of worse things to come on the chief priests and elders of the people because of what they would do, with the words of Zechariah and Jeremiah, and the connection with a ‘field connected with a potter' (Matthew 27:7; Matthew 27:10), all of which are connected with the idea of judgment on the leaders of the Jews, being seen as a confirmation of it. The potter's field, the Field of Blood, stood as a witness against Israel ‘to this day'. Indeed the vivid description in Jeremiah 19:7 is so descriptive of the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans that had it not been totally impossible we might have felt it necessary to declare that it was written after that siege, thus dating Jeremiah in 80-90 AD!

So we may sum up by saying that while he cited Zechariah's words first, Matthew's ascription of the whole citation to Jeremiah demonstrates that it is Jeremiah's contribution that he sees as finally basic to the lesson being taught, because it was his words that were the specific symbol of Israel's judgment (or alternately because Jeremiah's contribution comes last, but in this case as we have seen he had a purpose in mentioning Jeremiah). This is why he mentions Jeremiah, indicating that that is the clue as to where we should look for the significance of the event. Furthermore the fact that the potter's field in Matthew was bought for burying Gentiles in, and that burials were a reminder of coming death, might further have suggested to Matthew the many Gentiles as well as Jews who would die in the coming destruction of Jerusalem as forecast by Jesus (Matthew 24; see especially Luke 21:20). It certainly adds to the overall sense of death and judgment.

End of Excursus.