Matthew 27:9–10

Thirty pieces of silver was the price of a slave who had been killed. If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver (Exodus 21:32). Oh, what unfathomable love! The Lord from heaven became like a slave. He looked for love and did not find it. Love was refused to Him. Instead He was insulted, mocked, and treated like a miserable slave.

It was a sober business transaction, and in that lies its bitter contempt — it was undesigned. They thought Him a wicked man, but even so, not worth more than a few shekels' reward... We often see twenty times as much offered for the capture of some common criminal. This was a long time ago. Yes, but there are millions of people around us who would not give up even that much to have Christ now.

In Zechariah it is "I said to them," whereas in Matthew it is Judas who speaks to the chief priests, the representatives of the nation. This brings out a very interesting principle in the ways of God. It was Judas' sin that betrayed the Lord. But Jehovah used the sin of Judas to test the chief priests, to see what they thought Christ was worth. So He passes over the go-between and says, "I said to them, If you think good, give me my price."

And yet it was the act of Israel through its leaders. It was all theirs, though they would have liked to make it all Judas': the valuing, the selling and the buying.

Nothing in Jeremiah matches the words quoted, but there is something similar in Zechariah 11:12-13. The text says Jeremiah spoke the words. So the reference may be to something he said, and not to what he wrote. Another explanation is this. The Jews of old placed Jeremiah at the start of the Book of the Prophets, with Ezekiel, Isaiah and the twelve shorter prophets following. So 'Jeremiah' may have been a heading for the whole collection. Zechariah is quoted in the New Testament, but he is never named there.

R. Isaac Chizzuk Emuna, a Jewish scholar, attacked Matthew's credit with determination, yet he raised no objection to the use of Jeremiah's name instead of Zechariah's here. It is almost incredible that he could have overlooked so obvious an oddity if he had thought it a fault. The fair conclusion seems to be that this learned Jew knew such a way of quoting was even more Jewish in style — and so more fitting in Matthew — than naming the exact prophet.

Had they not in fact bought for themselves, in every land into which they were to be scattered, "a burial place for strangers"? Strangers they have indeed been ever since. How often their graves have been in a "field of blood" — and in a "potter's field" too, as the quotation here declares. Not just the field on the slope of the valley of Hinnom, but the field of the great Potter of Jeremiah 18.

That meant nothing to religious leaders. They had no scruples about betrayal, bribing false witnesses and murder. Yet they could still be religious about how the money was handled. As the price of blood it was not fit for the treasury, so it could buy a field to bury strangers in. And so they were fulfilling prophecy.

Notice again that the Lord passes over all the human means by which this prediction was carried out. In the Gospel we find that Judas cast the pieces of silver down in the temple, and that the chief priests bought the potter's field with them. Both alike were only instruments in the Lord's hands, even while they acted on the promptings of their own evil hearts, and so both actions are tied here to the prophet's words.

If a believing woman showed what she thought Jesus was worth — so wasteful, in the eyes of unbelief that weighs everything by usefulness — what was His value in the eyes of the bribing priests and of the betrayer? … A slave's price was enough for the despised Lord of all!

It was a plain business deal, and that is where its bitter contempt lies: the insult was not even meant. They thought Him a wicked man. But even so, not worth more than a few shekels' reward… We often see twenty times as much offered for the capture of some common criminal. This was a long time ago. Yes, but there are millions of people around us who would not give up even that much to have Christ now.

The difficulty comes from the Jewish way of citing Scripture. The claim that Matthew did not know the plain fact that the passage he used is in Zechariah is absurd even on human grounds. The writer of this Gospel uses the Old Testament with great depth and accuracy all the way through. He cannot reasonably be charged with a blunder that would shame an intelligent Sunday-school pupil.

Notice that Matthew 27 does not say it was written by Jeremiah; it says it was spoken by Jeremiah. Is there anything in Jeremiah that can be linked with this prophecy? In Jeremiah we do find a similar action by the prophet, matching Zechariah 11:13… His name appears in Matthew's Gospel to point out that Jeremiah also spoke of the same event: the rejection of the true Shepherd.

They bought a burying-ground for strangers. In their eyes strangers were unclean enough for that, as long as they themselves were not defiled by such money. Yet it was the time of God's grace to the stranger, and judgment on Israel. What is more, by doing this they set up a lasting memorial of their own sin, and of the blood that has been shed… The world is a field of blood, but it speaks better things than that of Abel.

Here Jeremiah's prophecy is said to be fulfilled. It speaks not only of Judas, but of Israel valuing their Messiah at thirty pieces of silver. But in exchange they have received for themselves the potter's field, the field of blood! This was by the appointment of Jehovah, in sovereign, righteous government.

They had indeed cast this money to the potter, and ever since they have been like a vessel spoiled on the wheel, waiting to be re-moulded. This is the meaning of their discipline through all the long years since.