Matthew 27:9 · Bible study
Matthew 27:9 Commentary: Why Jeremiah? The Puzzle of Prophecy Fulfilled
Greek · 10 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Matthew 27:9 quotes Zechariah but names Jeremiah. Explore the debate, the meaning of the thirty silver pieces, and the fulfillment in Christ's betrayal.
Research Summary
- Meaning: Matthew sees the thirty silver pieces of Judas’ betrayal and the potter’s field purchase as fulfilling a pattern found in Zechariah, attributed to the prophetic tradition headed by Jeremiah.
- Key words: ἐπληρώθη (aorist passive: a specific event fulfills the Scripture); τετιμημένου / ἐτιμήσαντο (perfect participle + aorist middle of τιμάω: assigning value, ironically a cheap price).
- Main debate: Why does Matthew name Jeremiah when the quotation is from Zechariah? Proposed answers: scribal error, Jeremiah as the first prophet in the canon, or an apocryphal source.
- Theological theme: The rejection and undervaluation of the Messiah, and God’s sovereignty in bringing redemption even through sordid human dealings.
- Best use: A case study in New Testament use of the Old, helpful for teaching on prophecy, fulfillment, and the unity of Scripture across human authorship.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
Then what was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on Him by the people of Israel,
WEB World English Bible 2000
Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled, saying, “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him upon whom a price had been set, whom some of the children of Israel priced,
KJV King James Version 1769
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;
ASV American Standard Version 1901
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through 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;
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
Then was fulfilled that spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, `And I took the thirty silverlings, the price of him who hath been priced, whom they of the sons of Israel did price,
Darby Darby Bible 1890
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremias the prophet, saying, And I took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was set a price on, whom [they who were] of the sons of Israel had set a price on,
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremias the prophet, saying: And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was prized, whom they prized of the children of Israel.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Entonces se cumplió lo que fué dicho por el profeta Jeremías, que dijo: Y tomaron las treinta piezas de plata, precio del apreciado, que fué apreciado por los hijos de Israel;
Assim se cumpriu o que foi dito pelo profeta Jeremias, que disse: Tomaram as trinta moedas de prata, preço avaliado pelos filhos de Israel, o qual eles avaliaram;
Alors s’ accomplit ce qui avait été annoncé par Jérémie, le prophète: Ils ont pris les trente pièces d’ argent, la valeur de celui qui a été estimé, qu’ on a estimé de la part des enfants d’ Israël;
Da ist erfüllt, was gesagt ist durch den Propheten Jeremia, da er spricht: “Sie haben genommen dreißig Silberlinge, damit bezahlt war der Verkaufte, welchen sie kauften von den Kindern Israel,
Toen is vervuld geworden, hetgeen gesproken is door den profeet Jeremia, zeggende: En zij hebben de dertig zilveren penningen genomen, de waarde des Gewaardeerden van de kinderen Israels, Denwelken zij gewaardeerd hebben;
Allora s’adempì quel che fu detto dal profeta Geremia: E presero i trenta sicli d’argento, prezzo di colui ch’era stato messo a prezzo, messo a prezzo dai figliuoli d’Israele;
Tedy się wypełniło, co powiedziano przez Jeremijasza proroka, mówiącego: I wzięli trzydzieści srebrników, zapłatę oszacowanego, który był oszacowany od synów Izraelskich;
Тогда сбылось реченное через пророка Иеремию, который говорит: и взяли тридцать сребренников, цену Оцененного, Которого оценили сыны Израиля,
這就 應了 先知 耶利米 的 話，說：「 他們用 那三十塊 錢，就是被估定 之人的價錢， 是以色列 人 中 所估定的，
Then came true that which was said by Jeremiah the prophet, And they took the thirty bits of silver, the price of him who was valued by the children of Israel;
Verse in Context
Original Language (Koine Greek)
New Testament · Koine Greek · Matthew 27:9
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators agree that the words cited in Matthew 27:9 come from Zechariah 11:12-13, not from the book of Jeremiah. The quotation follows the narrative of Judas returning the thirty silver pieces and the priests’ purchase of the potter’s field (vv. 3-8). The Greek verb ἐπληρώθη (‘was fulfilled’) is aorist passive, pointing to a specific event that completed a pattern set by the earlier text. Nearly every source, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, Calvin, Gill, the Cambridge Bible, notes the discrepancy and offers explanations. All affirm that Matthew intends to show that the betrayal and its aftermath align with an Old Testament type, regardless of how we explain the name. The lexical range of τιμάω (to price, to honor) carries an irony: the chief priests assign a valuation of thirty pieces of silver, the price of a slave under Exodus 21:32, to the One they should have honored.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Scribal error: The name ‘Jeremiah’ crept in accidentally; original may have read ‘Zechariah’ or simply ‘the prophet’. Supported by Calvin, Wesley, and some manuscript evidence.
- Jeremiah as head of the prophetic corpus: In the Hebrew canon, Jeremiah stood first among the prophets; quoting that book could stand for the whole collection. Supported by Lightfoot, Gill, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown.
- Zechariah’s prophecy written by Jeremiah: Some argue Zechariah 9–14 came from Jeremiah; thus the words were originally Jeremiah’s. Supported by older scholars like Mede, cited by Gill.
What is clear: Matthew is intentionally linking the event of Judas’ betrayal and the potter’s field purchase to an Old Testament passage that speaks of a rejected shepherd valued at thirty pieces of silver.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Source of the quotation | All traditions agree the words are found in Zechariah 11:12-13, not in the canonical book of Jeremiah. | Some (e.g., Calvin, Wesley) call it a scribal mistake; others (e.g., Lightfoot, Gill) defend the attribution by an ancient Jewish division where Jeremiah led the prophets; a few point to an apocryphal saying of Jeremiah. |
| Meaning of 'fulfilled' | Matthew saw a divinely ordained correspondence between Zechariah's acted parable and the events of Jesus' betrayal and burial. | Evangelicals stress that the Old Testament prediction was literally realized; liberals often see it as creative interpretation or midrash. The degree of authorial intent behind the wording is debated. |
| Significance of thirty pieces of silver | It echoes Exodus 21:32, the price of a slave, and emphasizes the cheap valuation of Israel's shepherd. | Some commentators (e.g., Barnes) emphasize the irony of pricing the Son of God at slave-value; others (e.g., Gill) connect it with the potter's field as unclean ground, symbolizing the rejection of Christ by the nation. |
Historical & Cultural Context
Thirty pieces of silver was the compensation a slave owner received if an ox killed his slave (Exodus 21:32). By the first century, this amount had become proverbial for a cheap life. The priests’ purchase of a potter’s field, land where potters dug clay and discarded broken ware, thus of little value, became the burial ground for strangers, known as ‘the Field of Blood.’ The temple treasury (Corban) could not accept blood money, so the priests used the returned silver in a backhanded act of piety. Matthew’s citation echoes the passage in Zechariah 11, where the prophet acts out the rejection of God’s shepherd: the people pay him thirty pieces, and God tells him to throw it to the potter in the temple. Zechariah’s symbolic action prefigures the rejection of the Good Shepherd centuries later. Jewish tradition, as reported by Lightfoot and cited by several commentators, had divided the Old Testament into the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets, with Jeremiah standing first among the latter. Thus quotations from the prophetic corpus might be attributed to Jeremiah by way of naming the whole division. Others point out that ancient manuscripts vary: some omit the prophet’s name entirely, and a few read ‘Zechariah.’ This cultural and literary background sets the stage for the puzzle Matthew’s readers faced.
Textual Notes
The earliest Greek manuscripts (including Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) read ‘Jeremiah’ without variation. However, a few later witnesses diverge: one eleventh-century manuscript (Colbert’s) reads ‘Zechariah’; the later Syriac margin also has ‘Zechariah’, and some Old Latin copies omit the name entirely. The Coptic and Ethiopic traditions include Jeremiah. The Byzantine text-type that underlies the King James Version reads ‘Jeremy’. Because the reading is so stable in the earliest Greek witnesses, most text critics conclude that ‘Jeremiah’ is original. The variant readings are secondary attempts to solve the apparent discrepancy.
Reception History
Early church fathers like Jerome knew of the difficulty; he mentions a Hebrew apocryphal work of Jeremiah that contained the words. In the Middle Ages, commentators such as Thomas Aquinas followed Jerome’s lead, positing a lost prophecy. The Reformation era saw renewed debate: Calvin called it an obvious scribal error, while John Lightfoot offered the canonical-order solution (the prophets beginning with Jeremiah). Matthew Henry and Jamieson-Fausset-Brown repeat Lightfoot’s argument with approval. Wesley dismissed the mention of Jeremiah as ‘a mistake’. Modern evangelical scholarship often adopts the Lightfoot hypothesis or the scribal-error view, while Catholic exegetes often point to the unity of prophetic tradition. Across all centuries, the verse has been a test case for how readers handle apparent difficulties in the Bible, some with defensive harmonization, others with patient investigation.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The Price of a Slave: Thirty silver coins, the valuation of a gored slave, becomes the valuation of the Son of God. Matthew forces us to ask: What do we think Jesus is worth?
- The Potter’s Field: Blood money buys a burial ground for outsiders. The rejection of Christ becomes a place of grace for the nameless and the stranger.
- The Prophetic Puzzle: Naming Jeremiah when the words are Zechariah’s reminds us that all the prophets spoke of Christ. The details matter, but the whole Scripture coheres in him.
Five-point outline
- Fulfillment formula: ‘Then was fulfilled’ (v.9), Matthew uses this pattern to anchor God’s control behind human scheming.
- The betrayal money: Judas returned the coins; the priests could not put blood money in the treasury.
- The purchase: They buy a potter’s field, a place of waste, now made sacred.
- The name of the field: ‘Field of Blood’ testifies against the leaders and to the innocent blood.
- The Jeremiah reference: An apparent mistake that points to the unity of the prophetic testimony.
Illustration hooks
- Cheapened value: A friend is valued at the price of a used phone, how little we sometimes value people made in God’s image.
- Unexpected purchase: A company buys a dump site and turns it into a memorial park, something worthless repurposed for honour.
- Wrong author credit: A student quotes Shakespeare but names Marlowe; the quote is still true, but the ascription raises questions that lead to a deeper understanding of both writers.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Does this mean the Bible has a mistake? How do we trust Scripture when the wrong prophet is named?
- Why would the priests care about blood money if they were happy to condemn Jesus?
- What does ‘thirty pieces of silver’ mean for how we value Christ in our daily choices?
Leading a Discussion
Matthew 27:9 sits at the hinge of the passion story. Judas betrays Jesus for money, the priests use that money to buy a potter's field, and Matthew hears the echo of an old prophecy. But the prophecy is from Zechariah, not Jeremiah. Why? This puzzle opens a window into how the New Testament reads the Old. Before you study the passage, notice what you feel about this discrepancy, curiosity, doubt, or trust that an answer exists.
Discussion questions
- Read Matthew 27:3-10 slowly. What stands out about the sequence of events, Judas’ remorse, the priests’ response, the purchase of the field?
- Why do you think the priests refuse to put the thirty coins into the treasury? What does this say about their understanding of ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ money?
- Now read Zechariah 11:12-13. How close is Matthew’s wording? In what ways does the original context of a rejected shepherd fit Jesus’ story?
- Matthew names Jeremiah. Look at the explanations from early church tradition: a) a scribal error, b) Jeremiah as the first book in the Prophets section, c) an apocryphal saying of Jeremiah. Which explanation seems most likely to you, and why?
- If Matthew himself made a mistake, what does that mean for the doctrine of Scripture? If the attribution was intentional for a theological reason, what does that imply about how the Gospel writers used the Old Testament?
- The phrase ‘the price of him that was valued’ uses the same Greek root for ‘honour’ and ‘price’ (τιμή). The priests set a price; they also dishonour Jesus. Where in your life do you cheapen what God calls precious?
- How does this passage encourage you that God can use even twisted human motives (greed, legalism, betrayal) to accomplish his saving purposes?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Exodus 21:32 | If the bull gores a male servant or a female servant, thirty shekels of silver shall be given to their master, and the ox shall be stoned. |
| Leviticus 27:2 | “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, ‘When a man consecrates a person to Yahweh in a vow, according to your valuation, |
| Leviticus 27:7 | If the person is from sixty years old and upward; if he is a male, then your valuation shall be fifteen shekels, and for a female ten shekels. |
| Zechariah 11:12 | I said to them, “If you think it best, give me my wages; and if not, keep them.” So they weighed for my wages thirty pieces of silver. |
| Zechariah 11:13 | Yahweh said to me, “Throw it to the potter—the handsome price that I was valued at by them!” I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them to the potter in Yahweh’s house. |
| Matthew 1:22 | Now all this has happened that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, |
| Matthew 26:15 | and said, “What are you willing to give me if I deliver him to you?” So they weighed out for him thirty pieces of silver. |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
10 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke addresses the apparent misattribution by noting an ancient Jewish division of the Old Testament. The third section began with Jeremiah and included other prophets, so quoting from that division under Jeremiah's name was standard practice, making the attribution accurate.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes addresses the puzzle of Matthew quoting words from Zechariah while attributing them to Jeremiah. He offers several explanations: the prophetic books were sometimes named after their first book, a scribal error could have changed Zechariah to Jeremiah by a single letter, or Jeremiah may have originally spoken the words later recorded by Zechariah.
Calvin's Commentaries Reformed 1564
Calvin notes that the name Jeremiah in the verse is a scribal error; the quotation actually comes from Zechariah. He argues that this passage genuinely applies to Christ when read with the apostles' method, where the shepherd's rejection and meager payment of thirty pieces of silver picture Christ's contemptuous treatment.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The commentator notes that the citation attributed to Jeremiah actually comes from Zechariah, with wording that matches neither the Hebrew nor Greek exactly. The difference likely comes from quoting from memory, or possibly Jeremiah's name stands for the entire prophetic section of Scripture.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva Notes draw attention to the precise fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy: the chief priests valued the Messiah at precisely thirty pieces of silver, the price of a slave. They emphasize that it was the children of Israel themselves who set this price on the one whom God had valued above all.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill addresses the apparent discrepancy that Matthew credits Jeremiah with a prophecy found in Zechariah. His main solution is that the latter prophets in the Jewish ordering began with Jeremiah, so any passage from that section could be cited under his name. He also affirms the prophecy clearly fits the Messiah and the thirty pieces of silver.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB explains why Matthew attributes a prophecy from Zechariah to Jeremiah. He notes that in the traditional Hebrew arrangement of the prophetic books, Jeremiah stood first. So citing the entire prophetic collection under Jeremiah's name was a common Jewish convention, not an error.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange emphasizes that Judas felt remorse only when he saw the consequences of his betrayal, not true repentance toward God. Unlike Peter's godly sorrow that led to life, Judas's worldly regret drove him to despair, ending in suicide rather than seeking forgiveness.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry highlights that the Jewish leaders could not legally execute Jesus themselves, since the Romans had taken the power of capital punishment from them years earlier. This political reality forced them to bring him to Pilate, and Henry notes their morning council came after they had spent the night consulting with their pillows.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley explains that the event fulfills what was figuratively represented in the Old Testament. He also corrects a common scribal error: Matthew is not quoting Jeremiah, as many later copies wrongly add, but Zechariah.