If so please EMail us with your question to jonpartin@tiscali.co.uk and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer. EMailus.

The Prophecy of The Potter's Field - Matthew 27.9-10.

In Matthew 27.10 we have reference to ‘what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet’ concerning ‘the potter’s field’ which was purchased ‘as the Lord appointed me’. This would seem to suggest that he is combining in his thoughts two prophecies of Jeremiah, one concerning the purchase by Jeremiah of a potter’s earthen container (Jeremiah 19.1) which he dramatically smashes before ‘the elders of the people and the elders of the priests’ (compare Matthew 27.1) as a symbol of coming judgment on the people in general (Jeremiah 19.10-11), and the other the purchase of a field, the title deeds of which were put in an earthen vessel in the view of the leaders of the people (Jeremiah 32.12-14) as a sign that God had not forgotten His own. Both purchases were at the specific command of the Lord, (in other words ‘as the Lord appointed me’). Matthew clearly sees them as represented in the purchase of the potter’s field (Matthew 27.7). The earthen vessel/container is presumably seen as the key idea that connects the two. (It was common practise in Matthew’s time to connect Old Testament verses by key words and key ideas).

The ‘quotation’ in Matthew 27.9-10, (it is in fact not a quotation, it is a worked statement on the basis of two or more Old Testament passages, at least one of which we would expect to find in Jeremiah), is actually a combination extracted from two or more ‘prophecies’ welded together. The first is loosely taken with omissions which refer to ‘the potter in the house of the Lord’ from Zechariah 11.12a-13, ‘And they took the thirty pieces of silver --- the price of him who was priced.’ The comment is then added, ‘whom certain of the children of Israel did price’ (not in Zechariah).

The second is ‘they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me,’ which also is not in Zechariah. (Thus to call all this a quotation from Zechariah is totally deceptive. Only two phrases out of five are taken from Zechariah). As we have suggested above this was probably a combination of the ideas found in Jeremiah 19.1 and 32.12-14, so combined to fit in with the actual purchase of the potter’s field. These three prophecies in Zechariah and Jeremiah were seen as connected because of reference to ‘the potter’ and (in Jeremiah) to ‘the earthen vessel/container’. And also because they appear in similar contexts speaking of God’s judgment on Israel.

This method of combining prophecies together under the name of the one considered most crucial is also found in Mark 1.2-3 where words from Isaiah and Malachi are combined under the name of Isaiah. Compare Romans 3.10-18 which is a miscellany under ‘as it is written’, although no one is named there.

In this regard it is important to note that the description of the incident prior to Matthew 27.9-10, the description of Judas’ remorse and subsequent suicide, described in detail in Matthew 27.3-8, follows immediately after reference to the betrayal of Jesus by ‘the chief priests and elders of the people’ (verses 1-2 compare Jeremiah 19.1), and is loaded with the thought of betrayal of Jesus and its consequences, as those who are similarly described in Jeremiah 19.1 (‘the elders of the people and the elders of the priests’) had also betrayed God’s people and covenant and were to reap the consequences.

It is not accidental that 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 (verses 1-2, 3, see also vv. 12, 20). We are intended to see that the dire things that happened to Judas as a consequence were a warning of worse things to come on the chief priests and elders of the people. The words of Jeremiah and the connection with a potter’s field are seen as a confirmation of it.

As we shall see the reference, connected with the previous narrative, to words of Jeremiah concerning the purchase in Matthew 27.10 of something possessed by a potter, ‘the potter’s field’, as the Lord commanded, is seen by Matthew as a remarkable ‘fulfilment’ of Jeremiah’s prophecies concerning the purchase of the potter’s earthen container at God’s command (Jeremiah 19.1), and his purchase of the field, also as a result of the word of the Lord, the title deeds to which were also to be put in an earthen vessel (Jeremiah 32.8). Matthew saw this as no coincidence. The reference to ‘what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet’ demonstrates that Jeremiah 19 at least was in Matthew’s mind (see later), and probably also Jeremiah 32. Indeed they seem to have influenced the way in which Matthew 27.1-10 was written.

That Matthew clearly wants us to connect the two incidents, his citing of the ‘words of Jeremiah the prophet’ at the end of his narrative (verse 9) implies. He wants us to see, not only the awfulness of what happened to Judas, but also that the betrayal of Jesus by the chief priests and the elders will also bring on them similar consequences as came on those who heard the words of Jeremiah originally. What happened to Judas is to be seen as a picture of what will happen to the chief priests and elders, and their land. And he cites the similar situation in Jeremiah in order to bring this out. For the buying of an earthen container from a potter (Jeremiah 19), and the buying of a field whose title deeds are put in an earthen vessel (Jeremiah 32), are both in Jeremiah symbols, in one way or another, of God’s judgment on Jerusalem, and are connected with the leaders of Israel, in Jeremiah 19.1 in remarkably similar terms.

We begin by observing that we have here in Matthew 27. 3-8 a vivid picture of Judas’ betrayal of Jesus, his remorse, the price of thirty pieces of silver paid to Judas, the return of it to ‘the chief priests and elders of the people’ in the Temple (he goes to where they were betraying the covenant - 21.12-13) , his dramatic casting down of the silver before them therein, their attempt to reject the blame which is clearly theirs, followed by his awful death resulting from the whole. This money is then, significantly to Matthew, taken by the chief priests and used to buy a potter’s field as a burial ground for Gentiles, which is called ‘the field of blood’.

This connects with Jeremiah 19.1 onwards where the elders of the people and the elders of the priests (the chief priests) have betrayed the covenant, so Jeremiah is told by God to buy an earthen container, take them to the scene of their betrayal of the covenant, dramatically break the earthen container before them, and warn them that that is what God will do to Israel. And this is connected with ‘the valley of Slaughter’.

Our first question must be, can we doubt in context that Matthew undoubtedly intends us to see in this returning of the money to the chief priests and elders, a returning on the chief priests and elders of some of the guilt of what Judas has done, a lesson in picture form of the judgment they deserve to receive for what they too have done in betraying Jesus (verses 1-2), in the same way as the broken earthen container did for Israel? And while the chief priests and elders try to dismiss the idea, all Matthew’s readers will surely know (as we do) that the chief priests and elders also cannot avoid that guilt for what they have done as previously described in those verses 1-2.

That this is so, the final reference in Matthew 27:9-10 is in fact intended to bring home. For it demonstrates that Matthew’s view of the whole incident is that it is pregnant with a deeper significance in the light of what Jeremiah the prophet said about the potter (Jeremiah 19.1) and his field (Jeremiah 32.8), that also in connection with the chief priest (elders of the priests) and the elders of the people (Jeremiah 19.1) or all the Jews that sat in the court of the guard (Jeremiah 32.12). Yet as the Gospels often do he gives us the material and leaves us to read into it what his full thoughts are. Note, he says to us, that all this is a fulfilment of prophetic words as spoken by Jeremiah the prophet. And once we look into what this means we discover that he clearly sees the whole incident of Judas as symbolic of what will happen to Jerusalem (Matthew 24.15-22, compare Jeremiah 19.7-9) as a result of its betrayal by Jesus.

At first sight the quotation is often seen as being taken from Zechariah 11:12-13, (the first part certainly is). It is seen as citing it as a fulfilment of that prophecy. But that is to totally ignore verse 10 and the question as to why Matthew attributes the main words to Jeremiah. Can we really think that he was so ignorant and careless that he did not know its source? The answer lies in noting the fact that it is only the ‘first part’ that comes from Zechariah, while the quotations lying behind ‘the second part’, clearly the most important part from Matthew’s point of view, actually do come from Jeremiah. And that it is the part from Jeremiah that is at the centre of his thoughts is confirmed by his reference to Jeremiah.

So the words of Jeremiah that are in mind (‘that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet’) are those of the ‘buying’ of something ‘from a potter’ (Jeremiah 19), and the buying of ‘a field’ (Jeremiah 32), both ‘as appointed by the Lord’. That is why Matthew puts it that Jeremiah has said, ‘They gave them (the pieces of silver) for the potter’s field as the Lord appointed me’ (Matthew 27.10). These two prophecies in Jeremiah were both specifically prophecies connected with destruction on Jerusalem, (although in the latter case hope springs from it), something which Matthew wants us to see as being fulfilled in symbol in what happened to Judas, and which he has already told us in the words of Jesus will also happen to Jerusalem (Matthew 24.15-22).

We must note carefully what Matthew does say is spoken by Jeremiah. It is the purchase with the money obtained by betrayal of ‘a potter’s field as appointed by the Lord’. It is actually only because that potter’s field was bought with thirty pieces of silver that he cites part of Zechariah’s prophecy at all, and that is probably because he sees that as also adding to the significance of the purchase, for that was another betrayal in which a price was paid, and he clearly saw it as significant that the price was of the amount received and handed back to the chief priests by Judas. But that is not his principle point. His principle point is that there is the taking of the price (mentioned in Zechariah) and then a purchase with that money of something that belonged to the potter, the purchase of a field, both of which tasks were appointed by the Lord to Jeremiah and which are only mentioned in Jeremiah once we combine Jeremiah 19 and 32. It is this that is the primary idea in the reference.

And this is clear from the fact that the latter descriptions certainly do not occur in Zechariah. The only prophetic purchase appointed by the Lord of something from a potter is found in Jeremiah 19:1-13, and the only mention of a prophetic purchase of a field appointed by the Lord occurs in Jeremiah 32.6-15.

But how does he fuse these two together? The purchase in Jeremiah 19.1 is of a potter’s ‘earthen container’. The land purchased in Jeremiah 32 results in a title deed which is placed in an ‘earthen vessel’. The connection is in key ideas. This would be why Matthew connected the two in his thoughts in the light of the purchase of the potter’s field.

If that is so Matthew clearly sees the purchase of ‘the potter’s field’ as significant in the light of these two prophecies, fusing the two ideas together because he sees the 'coincidences' as important, and seeing it as an indication of the Lord’s hand in the situation, and he indicates this fact by informing us that what is central in his thinking are the words of Jeremiah concerning his purchase of a potter’s earthen container, and a deed of title to a field placed in such an earthen vessel.

At this stage therefore we may conclude that it very possible that we are to see Matthew as combining in his mind Jeremiah 19:1-13, which refers to the purchase of a potter's earthen vessel, which is then shattered (by being cast down on the ground?) as a symbol of the judgment coming on them, with Jeremiah 32.6-15 where the field is bought at God's command, again as a symbol of the judgment, this time already on Israel. This then being combined with Zechariah 11:12-13, where there is no mention of a purchase. The combination simply occurring because Zechariah names the correct price which is 'cast to the potter'. Matthew may well have seen all these events as combined and portrayed in this incident, connected through the word ‘potter’ and the ‘earthen vessel/container’. Each contains an aspect of what actually happened in Matthew, the purchase with thirty pieces of silver cast ‘to the potter’ (Zechariah), for something bought from ‘the potter’, an ‘earthen container’ (Jeremiah 19), namely a field with its title deeds put in ‘an earthen vessel’ (Jeremiah 32), all of which point to judgment on Israel.

However, while he cites Zechariah’s words first, his mention of the words of Jeremiah demonstrates that it is Jeremiah's contribution that he sees as finally basic to the lesson being taught, because they were the specific symbol of Israel's judgment. This is why he mentions Jeremiah. 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 burials symbolised coming death, might addedly have suggested to him the many Gentiles who would die in the coming destruction of Jerusalem forecast by Jesus (Matthew 24; see especially Luke 21.20). It certainly added to the overall sense of death and judgment. But that is by the way.

But let us now consider the passages in a little more detail. In both Jeremiah 19 and in Matthew 27 something is bought that belonged to the potter (in Jeremiah’s case a potter’s earthen container, in Matthew’s a potter’s field). And in Jeremiah 19 he is to go to ‘the elders of the people and to the elders of the priests’, while in similar descriptions Matthew 27.1 speaks of, ‘the chief priests and the elders of the people’ being involved. In Jeremiah 19 Jeremiah is to take them to the valley of Hinnom where their sins were being committed, while in the case of Matthew 27 the Temple was where their sins were being committed ( 21.12-13). In Jeremiah 19 he is to smash the vessel in front of them as a symbol of judgment, while in Matthew Judas casts down the silver in front of them in the Temple as a somewhat similar symbol. Jeremiah 19 refers to ‘the valley of Slaughter’, Matthew refers to ‘the field of Blood’. We can thus see how along with the idea of the purchase of a field and the placing of its title deeds in an earthen vessel in Jeremiah 32, the ideas in Jeremiah 19 & 32 were seen to parallel the Judas incident and were fused in his mind because of the purchase of ‘the potter’s field’. All this being symbolic of the judgment coming on Jerusalem. This then influenced how he described what he wrote in Matthew 27.1-10.

Added to this is the fact that in Jeremiah 32 Jeremiah was told to buy a field. This was ‘the word of the Lord’ (Jeremiah 32.8). So he bought the field and paid its price, presenting the purchase documents, the title deeds, before the leaders of the people. They were then to be put in an earthen vessel (thus being connected with the potter in Jeremiah 19). The purchase of the field was symbolic of Judah and Jerusalem's present ruin, but declared hope for some in the future. It does not require much thought to connect the earthen vessel containing the deeds of the land with the earthen container smashed in front of the leaders in Jeremiah 19, especially in view of the other connections in it. Here is the connection with Matthew’s ‘buying of the potter’s field’ as first elucidated by Jeremiah.

Thus Matthew sees the purchase of something from the potter, connected with a purchased field through the earthen container, as very significant in the light of the purchase of a potter’s field, and as connecting with what Jeremiah ‘said’ about the devastating judgment coming on Jerusalem. Indeed Jeremiah 19.7-9, 15 might well have been spoken by Matthew, for Matthew cites elsewhere similar ideas spoken by Jesus (24.15-22).

Carson sums it up as follows, ". . . what we find in Matthew, including vv. 9-10, is not identification of the text with an event but fulfilment of the text in an event, based on a broad typology governing how both Jesus and Matthew read the OT . . ." (Carson, "Matthew," p. 565).

This understanding of it as a 'fulfilment' explains why Matthew describes the Judas’ incident as he does. He saw in Jeremiah 19 and 32 and Zechariah 11 not just several verbal parallels but also a pattern, a pattern of what apostasy and rejection resulted in, and saw that it found its ultimate fulfilment in what happened to Jesus at the hand of the chief priests and elders which would result in God’s judgment on them.

A final word is required on what Matthew means by fulfilment. ‘That it might be fulfilled’, accompanied by a reference to Scripture is found regularly in his Gospel. But it is a mistake to think that he is merely citing proof texts, and saying ‘look how they were fulfilled’. In fact what we have seen above demonstrates the opposite. What he is doing is bringing out what he sees as the remarkable way in which Old Testament truths find their constant fulfilment in events connected with the life of Jesus, and seeking from them to bring out the deeper significance of events.

Alternative Explanations of the Citing of Jeremiah’s Name.

One different possible explanation of this problem given is that Jeremiah was the first book in a possible ‘prophets division’ of the Hebrew Old Testament at this time and that Jesus quoted Zechariah as from Jeremiah because the Book of Zechariah was in the section of the Hebrew Bible that began with the Book of Jeremiah. (suggested by Lenski, pp. 1082-83; Walvoord, Matthew: . . ., p. 227.) However, we do not know that the Book of Jeremiah ever occupied this leading position in a third division of the Hebrew Bible in Matthew's day, although it is possible. But what counts most against it is that the quotation was not wholly from Zechariah.

Others suggest that Zechariah is actually taking up something which had previously also happened to Jeremiah and which Jeremiah had passed on in the oral tradition. Thus it was something 'said' by Jeremiah, (as known by tradition in Matthew's time) and taken up by Zechariah and applied to himself. Zechariah was in fact clearly dependent on Jeremiah for some of his thought, and it is argued that that included this particular thought.

But the main likelihood, indeed we would rate it more highly than that, the probable likelihood, is that Matthew saw in the potter’s field an amazing connection with the combined prophecies of Jeremiah mentioned (or at least with Jeremiah 19), and wanted us to see the connection too.