Matthew 27:9–10 has long troubled readers of the Gospel:
“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.’” (NKJV)
The difficulty here is that no single passage in the book of Jeremiah contains these exact words. Portions of the language appear to echo or be a paraphrase of Zechariah 11, but that’s not the author Matthew said he cited. Because of this, many critics have concluded that Matthew simply made a mistake—that he misattributed a quotation, confused his sources, or failed to check his references. In this article, I will show how Matthew’s use of Jeremiah is deliberate, sophisticated, and deeply rooted in Scripture. What appears at first glance to be an error turns out to be an invitation to read more carefully, to think canonically, and to dig beneath the surface.
Before I address the issue at hand, let me set down a principle found in the very scriptures itself. In 2 Chronicles 36:20–21, where the author explains the Babylonian exile as the fulfilment of “the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah.”:
20 And those who escaped from the sword he carried away to Babylon, where they became servants to him and his sons until the rule of the kingdom of Persia, 21 to fulfil the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her Sabbaths. As long as she lay desolate she kept Sabbath, to fulfil seventy years.
Jeremiah indeed prophesied seventy years of exile (Jer 25:11–12; 29:10), but the explanation that the land would “enjoy its sabbaths” during its desolation comes not from Jeremiah at all, but from Leviticus 26:33–35. The Chronicler weaves together the Law, the Prophets, and contemporary history, then attributes the whole prophetic pattern to Jeremiah without apology or clarification.
The same phenomenon appears in Mark 1:2–3, where a composite quotation from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 is attributed solely to Isaiah. In each case, the biblical author is not confused, nor attempting to mislead the reader. Rather, he assumes an audience sufficiently familiar with the Scriptures to recognize the allusions and follow the theological logic.
Matthew stands firmly within this ancient, biblical tradition. His attribution of this prophecy to Jeremiah is not an error to be corrected, but a clue to be followed. The question, then, is not whether Matthew was wrong—but what he was trying to teach his readers by pointing them to Jeremiah in the first place.
With that in mind, we now turn to the prophetic background Matthew expects us to explore.
Zechariah 11
9 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, 10 and gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me.” – Matthew 27:9-10
13 And the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—that princely price they set on me. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord for the potter. 14 Then I cut in two my other staff, [d]Bonds, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel. – Zechriah 11:13
Before we start, it is important to mention that Matthew does not keep the same order of phrases or clauses as Zechriah. Importantly, reversing the order of phrases or clauses was a common and accepted literary device in Jewish writings of the time. As Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner point out in their commentary on 1 Corinthians, such alterations were
“an accepted part of citation technique in antiquity” (The First Letter to the Corinthians, p. 127).
A clear example of this occurs when comparing for example Isaiah 64:4, “we have not heard, neither have our eyes seen…” whereas 1 Corinthians 2:9 reverses the order: “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard…”. So to make it more clear, let me re-order Zechriah’s phrases to match Matthew’s while keeping everything the same. We get:
Matthew 27:9-10
1)And they took the thirty pieces of silver,
2)the price of the one whose price had been set by the sons of Israel;
3)and they gave them for the Potter’s Field,
4)as the Lord directed me
Zech 11:13
1)So I took the thirty shekels of silver and
2)that magnificent price at which I was valued by them.’
3)Throw it to the potter…threw them to the potter in the house of the Lord,”
4)Then the Lord said to me
I have shuffled around and coloured each phrase in Zech 11:13 to show that every essential element of Zechariah 11:13—the thirty pieces of silver, the valuation, and the act of casting the money away—is present in Matthew’s citation. So Matthew has unmistakeably referenced and paraphrased Zechariah 11:13. Let’s diver deeper by analysing Zechariah 11 in context, please take note that the orange texts is my commentary and notes for a better underatanding and not part of the citation:
Zechariah 11:4-13
4 Thus says the Lord my God, “Feed the flock for slaughter, 5 whose owners slaughter them and feel no guilt; those who sell them say, ‘Blessed be the Lord, for I am rich’; and their shepherds do not pity them. 6 For I will no longer pity the inhabitants of the land,” says the Lord. “But indeed I will give everyone into his neighbour’s hand and into the hand of his king. They shall attack the land, and I will not deliver them from their hand.”[In this chapter, God tells Zechariah to act as a shepherd symbolising, or more properly to act out, a parable/prophecy what God, their true Shepherd, will do. Zechariah is basically acting as YHWH. Because the kings of Israel, who were appointed to shepherd the nation, allied themselves with the Gentile nations in pursuit of their approval, love, and most particularly their wealth, they neither realized nor cared that such alliances would lead the flock into adopting foreign customs, committing idolatry, and thereby bringing God’s judgment upon themselves. This had short term impacts (ie. Antiochus Epiphanes) as well as long term impacts (the Roman Emperor Vespasian in 70AD]
7 So I fed the flock for slaughter, in particular the poor of the flock. I took for myself two staffs: the one I called Beauty, and the other I called Bonds; and I fed the flock. 8 I dismissed the three shepherds in one month. My soul loathed them, and their soul also abhorred me. 9 Then I said, “I will not feed you. Let what is dying die, and what is perishing perish. Let those that are left eat each other’s flesh.” 10 And I took my staff, Beauty, and cut it in two, that I might break the covenant which I had made with all the peoples. 11 So it was broken on that day. Thus the poor of the flock, who were watching me, knew that it was the word of the Lord. 12 Then I said to them, “If it is agreeable to you, give me my wages; and if not, refrain.” So they weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of silver.
[Zechariah takes two staffs, named Beauty and Bonds representing God’s favour in uniting the Northern and Southern tribes. The “three shepherds” whom “Zechariah” (in reality YHWH) dismisses is highly debatable, likely symbolize corrupt rulers or leadership classes—kings, priests, prophets. Regardless of their identity, what matters most is that the leaders entrusted with guiding the people had become intolerable both to God and to the flock. There is mutual rejection: God loathes and rejects them, and they reject His rule. Because of this, God will being destruction upon His people, even to the point that they each other’s flesh for survival. The cutting of the staff Beauty signifies the breaking of God’s protective covenant arrangement with the surrounding peoples. The restraint that had held hostile nations in check would be removed, exposing Judah to oppression and invasion. Yet “the poor of the flock”—the humble and faithful remnant—recognized that this was truly the word of the Lord. Though many remained blind, the spiritually attentive understood that these judgments were not random events but covenant consequences.
When Zechariah asks for his wages and receives thirty pieces of silver, the amount is deliberately contemptuous. It is the price of a slave in the Law signalling how little the people valued the Shepherd who cared for them. They valued God as worth almost nothing, as a slave:
Exodus 21:32 – 32 If the ox gores a male or female servant, he shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
13 And the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—that princely price they set on me. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord for the potter. 14 Then I cut in two my other staff, Bonds, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.
[In this final symbolic act, Zechariah is instructed to cast the rejected “princely price” of thirty pieces of silver into the temple and give it to the potter. The act is deliberately shocking: what was offered as the value of the Shepherd is treated as contemptible and thrown away in God’s house. This signifies that the people have not merely undervalued the Shepherd, but have rejected God’s own care, and their “payment” is exposed as morally worthless. The mention of the potter likely evokes the idea of reshaping or judgment, and in later interpretation becomes associated with the temple treasury and those who work in clay—symbols of human frailty under divine authority. Because of this betrayal of YHWH, Zechariah’s next action—cutting the staff called Bonds—signifies the breaking of unity among the people such that God is now bringing judgement upon His people.]
Together, these acts complete the enacted prophecy: God the Shepherd is rejected and undervalued as a slave for 30 pieces of silver, His protective order is withdrawn, and the people are left to fragmentation and judgment. In light of the event Matthew witnessed and known, this becomes unmistakable. Its all about Jesus. Linking this to Christ, it says in Psalm 22:
Psalm 22:12, 21 – 12Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled Me…21 Save Me from the horns of the wild oxen!
Roman philosopher Seneca the Younger, in De Consolatione ad Marciam 20.3 says about crucifixion: “And so display that slave punishment…”
This shows that Jesus, God the Shepherd, is valued by Judas, as well as the Israelite leaders, representing the nation as a whole, as worth only 30 pieces of silver, the price of a slave. Interestingly, the Jews (figuratively oxen/bulls) gored Jesus by crucifixion, and it was Judas who got paid 30 pieces of silver meaning that Judas received compensation for the death of his slave, Jesus. This shows that Jesus stooped so low, and humbly so, that He even allowed Judas to be as His master, and in return, the oxen and bulls (Israel) was killed in 70AD and were destroyed, fulfilling Exo 21:32. Going forward, because of this injustice to Jesus, Jesus Himself brought destruction upon Israel in 70AD. This imagery is again touched upon by Zechariah in Zechariah 13:7
“Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd,
Against the Man who is My equal,”
Says the Lord of hosts.
“Strike the Shepherd,
And the sheep will be scattered;
Then I will turn My hand against the little ones.
How this shows again that this Shepherd is Jesus, who is YHWH’s equal in nature and status can be read at my other article here: Zechariah 13:7 – YHWH’s consubstantial Shepherd
But one thing still remains: Why the Potter’s Field? Matthew’s purpose is to explain how Zechariah’s words were fulfilled, not merely to repeat them. In Zechariah 11, the prophet tells us that the thirty pieces of silver are “thrown” to the potter, but he offers no explanation as to why the money is thrown rather than simply given, nor why it ends up with a potter in the first place. Matthew supplies the missing historical details.
By connecting Zechariah’s imagery to Judas, Matthew shows why the silver was thrown: Judas, overwhelmed by guilt, flung the money into the temple rather than returning it honourably. Matthew also clarifies why the silver goes to the potter—it is used to purchase the potter’s field. In this way, Matthew is not altering the prophecy but unfolding its fulfilment.
Let’s get an even deeper understanding:
Jeremiah 19
But if Zechariah 11:13 contains all the necessary details, why not simply paraphrase Zechariah and stop there—especially when paraphrasing was entirely normal within first-century Jewish citation practices (cf. Mark:1:2 paraphrases the substance of Malachi 3:1, Matthew has clearly done the same here). There is no question that Zechariah supplies the immediate verbal background. Yet this only sharpens the real question: why does Matthew attribute the fulfilment to Jeremiah?
The answer appears to lie in Matthew’s deliberate theological linkage between Zechariah and Jeremiah. By naming Jeremiah, Matthew directs the reader beyond Zechariah’s imagery to Jeremiah’s potter prophecies. In doing so, Matthew is not correcting Zechariah with Jeremiah, nor confusing the two, but reading them together as a unified prophetic witness. Jeremiah provides the interpretive framework within which Zechariah’s thirty pieces of silver find their fullest and most ominous significance.
Here is Jeremiah 19:
19 Thus says the Lord: “Go and get a potter’s earthen flask, and take some of the elders of the people and some of the elders of the priests. 2 And go out to the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, which is by the entry of the Potsherd Gate; and proclaim there the words that I will tell you, 3 and say, ‘Hear the word of the Lord, O kings of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem. Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: “Behold, I will bring such a catastrophe on this place, that whoever hears of it, his ears will tingle.
4 “Because they have forsaken Me and made this an alien place, because they have burned incense in it to other gods whom neither they, their fathers, nor the kings of Judah have known, and have filled this place with the blood of the innocents 5 (they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind), 6 therefore behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord, “that this place shall no more be called Tophet or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter. 7 And I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place, and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies and by the hands of those who seek their lives; their corpses I will give as meat for the birds of the heaven and for the beasts of the earth. 8 I will make this city desolate and a hissing; everyone who passes by it will be astonished and hiss because of all its plagues. 9 And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and everyone shall eat the flesh of his friend in the siege and in the desperation with which their enemies and those who seek their lives shall drive them to despair.” ’
10 “Then you shall break the flask in the sight of the men who go with you, 11 and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts: “Even so I will break this people and this city, as one breaks a potter’s vessel, which cannot be made whole again; and they shall bury them in Tophet till there is no place to bury. 12 Thus I will do to this place,” says the Lord, “and to its inhabitants, and make this city like Tophet. 13 And the houses of Jerusalem and the houses of the kings of Judah shall be defiled like the place of Tophet, because of all the houses on whose roofs they have burned incense to all the host of heaven, and poured out drink offerings to other gods.” ’ ”
The parallels between Jeremiah 19 and Matthew 27 are striking—even down to specific details.
Because the people, particularly the “elders/priests”, persisted in wickedness rather than repentance, God announced judgment: Jerusalem would be overthrown and the temple destroyed. This was true in Jeremiah’s generation, and Matthew insists it was equally true in Jesus’ generation. Matthew has already drawn explicit attention to this pattern when Jesus laments over Jerusalem, declaring that the city which kills the prophets will be left “desolate” because they rejected the Messiah (Matt 23:37–38). The death of Jesus was the decisive moment that brings Israel’s accumulated guilt to its fullness—and with it, the long-threatened judgment upon Jerusalem.
What followed was Jeremiah’s oracle condemning Jerusalem “because they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent” (Jer 19:4). In Matthew’s account, Judas returns the thirty pieces of silver to the temple, confessing, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood” (Matt 27:4). The language is unmistakably aligned.
In Jeremiah 19, it was the false god Baal that insigated the death of the innocent children who were offered as burnt offering. In the New Testament, Baal is one of Satans names (Beelzabub – Matthew 12:24–27; Luke 11:15–19). And in Matthew 27, it was Satan who insitigated the death of the innocent Child of God, Jesus (John 13:1-3; 27:4) whos death was offered up as a burnt offering (Ephesians 5:2; Hebrews 9:26; 10:10).
Jeremiah also announces that the Valley of Ben Hinnom will be renamed: it will no longer be called Topheth, but “the Valley of Slaughter” (Jer 19:6), a name marking judgment and bloodshed. Matthew records a similar transformation. When the priests purchase the potter’s field with Judas’s silver, the site receives a new name: “the Field of Blood” (Matt 27:8). In both cases, locations once associated with potters become permanently marked by bloodshed.
What emerges is not a loose association, but a deliberate prophetic correspondence. Matthew is not merely borrowing language from Zechariah; he is invoking Jeremiah’s potter imagery, judgment oracle, and blood-guilt motif to frame the death of Jesus as the climactic moment in Israel’s covenant history. He is the ultimatum of the Old Testament. The shattered jar of Jeremiah anticipates the shattered city of Matthew’s generation. The prophecy is not mistaken—it is profound.
Jeremiah declares that the judgment for rejecting the Lord would be so severe that it would drive even mothers to eat their own children (Jer 19:9), a shocking sign of covenantal curse for shedding innocent blood. Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian whose works were widely read and later appropriated by Christian writers, records in The Jewish War a harrowing episode from the siege of Jerusalem. He recounts the fate of a wealthy woman named Mary who, driven by starvation during Titus’s siege, killed and roasted her own infant son. When intruders discovered her preparing a meal, she revealed that the flesh before them was her child and chillingly invited them to partake of what remained. This story appears in Flavius Josephus’ The Jewish War IV, ch.3. par.4. No wonder when Jesus, speaking of the destruction of the Temple, said, “But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days!” (Matthew 24:19)
With that said, it all connects, like an amazing puzzle only God could create.
Matthew’s citation is therefore not intended as a verbatim quotation. Rather, it functions as a prophetic paraphrase which explains and demonstrates how the symbolic actions described by Zechariah and Jeremiah took concrete historical form in the events surrounding Jesus’ betrayal and death.