Why does Matthew 27:9 attribute the prophecy to Jeremiah when it is from Zechariah?

The fact that Matthew 27:9 cites Zech. 11:12-13 as a prophecy of Jeremiah sometimes causes a problem to Bible readers. A comparison of both passages shows that Zechariah does not write anything of buying a field while Matthew wants to explain precisely the purchase of the potter’s field. Jeremiah 32:6-7 however mentions the purchase of a field. Matthew obviously links the thought of buying a field in Jer. 32 with the 30 pieces of silver the price of the estimate in Zech. 11. While referring to both passages he only mentions the more known prophetical book of Jeremiah (a similar reference of Malachi and Isaiah is found in Mark 1:2-3).

The field that was bought with the thirty pieces of silver paid to Judas for the betrayal of the Lord is thus called. Matt. 27:7-10. It is added, "then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet." Nothing is found in Jeremiah corresponding to the words quoted; but there is something similar in Zechariah 11:12-13. Jeremiah is said to have spoken the words; the reference therefore may be to something he had said, and not to what he had written. Or it is possible that as the Jews anciently placed Jeremiah at the beginning of the Book of the Prophets (Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the twelve minor prophets following), 'Jeremiah' may have been a sort of heading for the whole. Zechariah is quoted in the N.T. but never named there. See ACELDAMA.

The wages of the good Shepherd, thirty pieces of silver, and these thrown into the house of Jehovah to the potter is to be considered next. Thirty pieces of silver was the price of a slave who had been killed. If the ox gore a manservant or a maidservant, the owner shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver (Exodus 21:32). Oh, what unfathomable love! The Lord from heaven became like a slave. The love He looked for He found not. It was refused to Him, and instead He was insulted, mocked, and treated like a miserable slave. There was one of the twelve who was called Judas Iscariot. He went to the chief priests and said, What are you willing to give me, and I will deliver Him unto you? And they weighed unto him thirty pieces of silver (Matt. 26:15). The money at the command of Jehovah is thrown away by the prophet with indignation into the house of Jehovah, to the potter. Perhaps the prophet never knew the real significance of his act, but we know it from the New Testament. "Then Judas which betrayed Him, when he saw that He was condemned, repented himself and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned in that I betrayed innocent blood. But they said, What is this to us? See thou to it. And he cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary, and departed and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, it is not lawful to put them into the treasury since it is the price of blood. And they took counsel and bought with them the potters' field to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called the field of blood unto this day. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah, the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of Him that was priced, whom certain of the children of Israel did price, and they gave them for the potters' field, as the Lord appointed me" (Matt. 27:3-10). How striking the fulfillment. However, here is a difficulty. In Matthew it is stated that Jeremiah spoke the prophecy, and Zechariah's name is not mentioned at all. How can this be explained?

The prophecy certainly as it was fulfilled was not given by Jeremiah at all, but through Zechariah. There can be no doubt that his name should appear here instead of Jeremiah, but that Jeremiah's name is quoted must have a meaning. Let us notice that it does not say in Matthew 27 that it was written by Jeremiah, but it is stated that it was spoken by Jeremiah. Is there anything in Jeremiah which can be linked with this prophecy? We have indeed in Jeremiah a similar action of the prophet, corresponding to Zechariah 11:13, and which is seen fulfilled in the gospel. Read Jeremiah 18 and 19. The word "Tophet" used there means an unclean place, a burial ground. Jeremiah's name appears in Matthew's Gospel, to call attention to the fact that Jeremiah also spoke of the same event, the rejection of the true Shepherd.

The difficulty as to the quotation from Jeremy the prophet, which seems actually to be from Zechariah, has often been commented upon. Unbelief seeks to prove a contradiction. Faith reverently inquires and gets answers which meet the difficulties. Jeremiah is the first who speaks of the potter, and it is appropriate that what he says (compare Jer. 19 with Zech. 11:13) of Israel's sin and their rejection, together with the burial place in the valley of Hinnom, should be connected with the detail of the purchase of that burying place as predicted in Zechariah.

This prophecy, we know, is in the book of Zechariah. The name "Jeremiah" may have crept into the text when there was nothing more than "by the prophet"; or it might be because Jeremiah stood first in the order prescribed by the Talmudists for the books of prophecy; for which reason, very likely, also, they said, "Jeremiah, or one of the prophets," as in Matthew 16:14. But this is not the place for discussion on the subject.

Q. Matthew 27:9. Why does Matthew here quote the prophecy as Jeremiah, when it is really Zechariah? A CHRISTIAN FRIEND.

A. The difficulty is due to the Jewish manner of citation, felt by many friends of inspiration and often pressed by adversaries. But it is remarkable that R. Isaac Chizzuk Emuna, in his determined assault on Matthew's credit, finds no objection to the use of Jeremiah's name instead of Zechariah's in this place. Yet it is almost incredible that he could have overlooked so obvious a peculiarity if he had regarded it as a fault, as he does object to Matthew's application of this prophecy to the Messiah, but not to his method of citing which to us westerns is apt to look strange. Hence the just inference appears to be that this learned Jew knew that such a form of citation was even more characteristically Jewish (and therefore more appropriate in Matthew) than the more simple and precise mention of the particular prophet in question.

The true point then is the principle on which the inspired writer thus cited. The imputation that he did not know the very palpable fact that the passage used was in Zechariah is even on human grounds absurd; for the evangelist abounds in the most profound and accurate use of the Old Testament throughout, and hence cannot fairly lie open to the charge of such a blunder as would be unworthy of an intelligent Sunday scholar.

"To bury strangers in" I suppose the "strangers" would be Jews who came to the feasts and died while there, as we get elsewhere "devout Jews from all parts under heaven." So now if they died, there was a cemetery for them. "The field of blood" I have not a doubt this name belongs to their land, "Aceldama." In Zech. 11:13, it is "I took" and J. N. D. so translates it here. But it is curious that this 9th verse says "Jeremiah," and all sorts of ways have been resorted to to get over the difficulty. Jeremiah (Jer. 18) does not speak of the potter's house, and Matthew does not say "that which was written," but "that which was spoken" by Jeremiah. Zechariah wrote it afterwards, but Jeremiah may have said it first. The word of God is not wrong; those who think they find a blemish in it are wrong. There are some whose bent of mind is to try to pick out blemishes in the word of God. There is a well-known case in which two clever men agreed to use their ability to expose it; but their study of it for that purpose resulted in their conversion.

The silver pieces he cast into the temple and the priests, as covetous as Judas, stoop down to pick them up. That which follows is only reported in this Gospel, in the other Gospel records no mention is made of the fate of Judas. It is put only in the Gospel of Matthew on account of its dispensational bearing. The priests judge very religiously that it is not lawful to put the money into the Corban, the treasury of the temple. They decide to buy with the pieces of silver, the field of the potter for a burying ground for strangers. This was in partial fulfillment of what was spoken by Jeremias. The full prophecy is found in Zechariah, but the Spirit calls here attention to what is also spoken by Jeremias. We read in that book (Chapters 17 and 19) of a potter's field, which was situated on the side of the valley of Hinnom. That valley is also called "Tophet", a fearful type with its awful memories of Gehenna. Perhaps there, Judas had ended his earthly existence, and after hanging himself had fallen down, and burst asunder. This potter's field was bought with the blood money.

"By a fiction of law the money was still considered to be Judas', and to have been applied by him in the purchase of that potter's field, for the charitable purpose of burying in it strangers. But from henceforth the name of potter's field, became popularly changed into that of "field of blood." And yet it was the act of Israel through its leaders. It was all theirs, though they would have fain made it all Judas': the valuing, the selling and the purchasing. And "the potter's field", the very spot on which Jeremiah had been divinely directed to prophecy against Jerusalem and against Israel, how was it now all fulfilled in the light of the completed sin and apostasy of the people, as prophetically described by Zechariah! This Tophet of Jeremiah, now that they had valued and sold at thirty shekels Israel 's Messiah-Shepherd -- truly a Tophet, and become a field of blood! Surely not an accidental coincidence this, that it should be the place of Jeremiah's announcement of judgment, not accidental, but veritably a fulfillment of this prophecy. (Edersheim Life and Times of the Messiah.)

The manner of Christ’s death. We are told in Matthew 27:9, that the betrayal of Christ by Judas for thirty pieces of silver was the fulfilment of the prophecy of Jeremiah the prophet, and when we turn to Zechariah 11:12-13, five centuries before the event, we find it prophesied.

Infidels have sought to make great capital out of the fact that Matthew says that Jeremiah prophesied in this particular instance, whilst we read that it was Zechariah who actually wrote the prophecy. The answer is that Jeremiah, a major prophet, covered the minor prophets, just as an order given by a junior master in a school might be attributed to the head master, or by a junior officer to his colonel or general. So we get the expression in Matthew 16:14, “Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” The Jews have a saying, “The spirit of Jeremiah was upon Zechariah,” and many students believe that Zechariah put down in writing what had been spoken by Jeremiah.

In the fourth year of king Darius we find a strain of prophecy, but broken up like the former into various sections. As to the idea that there was any different writer, it need scarce be said that it is a dream, and quite unworthy of serious consideration for a Christian. One may in grace notice it for the sake of others, and seek the removal of the diligently gathered difficulties; but there is no sufficient internal ground whatever for such a thought. There is, it is true, the remarkable fact that Matthew, in quoting words in Zechariah 11, gives us the name of Jeremiah. But this is merely a difficulty, not a ground for denying Zechariah's title to the latter half or the last quarter of his prophecy. It is quite possible that Jeremiah may have predicted the same thing, and that Zechariah may have written what Jeremiah predicted, without affirming that this is the solution of the difficulty. Again, it appears that it was customary among the Jews in quoting from the prophets to take the great characteristic prophet, and to class others under his name. Thus there is a choice of solutions of the particular difficulty in question, which the late Dean of Canterbury was not justified in branding a "means of evading," any more than he is to be followed in the frightful alternative of imputing an inaccurate memory to the evangelist and so compromising the Gospel. But in no way does the point fairly touch Zechariah, though some no doubt would like thereby to lower both the Old Testament and the New. It is enough to notice these facts by the way, in order not to be detained by such external points, while aiding any who may be perplexed by such an objection.