How does Jesus fulfil Zechariah 11:12-13?

Matthew’s Gospel relates how Zechariah’s prophecy was fulfilled in Judas’ betrayal of Jesus when the former was paid thirty shekels of silver (Matt 26;14-15; 27:3-10). However, the episode is confusing for several reasons. Matthew identifies the prophecy as from Jeremiah and several aspects of the sign-act do not match exactly the fulfilment. The thirty shekels in Zechariah is the ‘wage’ for shepherding, while in the NT, it is the reward for betrayal. The silver in the prophecy is thrown to the potter in the temple, while in Matthew’s account Judas throws the money into the temple, but then the religious leadership uses it to buy the Potter’s Field as burial ground. How are we to understand fulfilment in Matthew’s interpretation?

Types of fulfilment

First, Matthew frequently uses this formula that something happened in Jesus’ life in order that a prophecy might be fulfilled. However, the connections that he makes are not the type of straightforward prediction and fulfilment like an arrow hitting the bullseye. Rather, they are what might be called a typological fulfilment. A type in the Bible describes a pattern of behaviour or sequence of events that recur, and an earlier one foreshadows the later one. Thus, for instance, Joseph is a type of Christ in that he is treated as the firstborn son by his father, evidenced also by the double inheritance he receives (Gen 48:22; 49:26), is persecuted because of his brothers’ jealousy, sold as a slave into exile, yet is raised to high office and saves his family. The exact details do not match; Joseph does not die and rise from the dead and he saves not from sin but from famine, but the sequence of suffering, humiliation and glory (cf. Phil 2:5-11) is recognisable and so is the attitude of saving those who rejected him. This kind of approach then requires us not to look for superficial equations but a deeper structure or pattern and to consider the larger context of a passage rather than merely a similarity between some details.

Parallels with Zechariah 11

As we have seen, Zechariah 11:4-17 describes Israel’s leadership as one that does not care for the flock. Moreover, the prophet in his role of good shepherd points to Israel’s messianic king and ultimately to God, so when he receives his wages, the amount reflects the people’s valuation of the Lord Himself (Zech 11:13). He is rejected, paid off and got rid of, as it were. In the gospels likewise, Israel’s leadership is more concerned for themselves and the volatile peace they enjoy under the Romans (e.g. John 11:47-48) than the truth and the ultimate well-being of the flock. The thirty shekels to get rid of Jesus, the Good Shepherd (i.e. messianic king and ultimately God), symbolically equates Jesus’ life to be worth no more than a slave’s (Exod 21:32). Thus, God’s people repeatedly have bad, self-serving shepherds who reject the leadership God provides and devalue God Himself as their ultimate Shepherd-King. Such behaviour results in death and exile in the Old Testament (Zech 11:9) and the pattern is repeated when about forty years after Jesus’ crucifixion, the Romans destroy Jerusalem and the temple (AD 70) and eventually ban Jews from Jerusalem (AD 132).

Interlinking of texts for reflection

The connection between the potter in Zechariah and the Potter’s Field is perhaps even less straightforward and here, another Jewish technique comes into play. Rabbinic interpretation often links together several passages that, to the outsider, look random connections based on superficial similarities. The point of such linkage, however, is to allow these texts to interact with each other to spark deeper reflection. Jews knew their Scriptures inside out, so snippets of quotation and hints were enough for them to make connections. This is where the reference to Jeremiah is important because God taught him an object lesson in the potter’s house and gave him a prophecy relating to pots (more on this in a moment). Why he is named when the Zechariah connection is more obvious is not entirely clear. Some suggest that it is because the first book in the prophetic collection was Jeremiah at this time (rather than Isaiah, as in our modern Bibles) and the name thus points to the prophets as the source of the quotation. Others suggest that Jeremiah is named because he is the more notable figure. Finally, he may be mentioned because the connection to him is less obvious from the quote, so it gives the reader a prod in the right direction.

Connections with Jeremiah 18

Two texts are particularly relevant here: Jer 18:1-17; 19:1-15. In the former passage, the prophet sees a pot spoiled in the potter’s hand, then re-made into another vessel (Jer 18:1-4). God then asks rhetorically if He has not the same right as the potter (the word in Hebrew also means ‘creator’) to reshape the vessel and the point explained is that God responds to our actions (Jer 18:5-10). If people are evil and God intends to judge them, but they repent, He will not bring punishment on them. Conversely, if people God intends to bless turn away from Him, He has every right to judge them. This latter scenario is Judah’s, and the object lesson is followed by a pronouncement of judgment (Jer 18:11-18). This idea resonates with the description in Zechariah 11:13-14, where the shepherd’s wage is thrown to the ‘potter’ (the word may also mean a moulder of metal) in the temple. Gold and silver offered to God would have been put in the temple treasury or used for fashioning vessels for temple use. There is no direct equivalence between the two images, but the potter re-shaping an object for different use in Zechariah evokes the divine Potter’s right to re-fashion a pot (people) for a different purpose than originally intended.

Connections with Jeremiah 19

In Jeremiah 19, the prophet is instructed to take a potter’s jar and break it at the entrance to the valley of Ben-hinnom (on the south side of Jerusalem, by the Potsherd Gate; Jer 19:2, 11). The name of the gate suggests that this was an area where clay was taken from to make vessels. It was an unclean place because sacrifices were offered to other gods here (Jer 7:31; 2 Chron 28:3); its impurity compounded by shedding ‘the blood of the innocent’ (Jer 19:4), a reference to child sacrifice. The shattering of the jar in Jeremiah’s symbolic action points to irreversible judgment and this will be so severe that the valley will be renamed ‘the Valley of Slaughter’ (Jer 19:6). So many will die that the carcasses will pile up in the city exposed to birds and beasts of prey, a desecrating act for the body of the dead (Jer 19:7). The valley will become a burial ground because there will be no other place for it (Jer 19:11), thus making the valley doubly defiled (because of their idolatry and now because of corpses that cause impurity).

Several key words recur in Matthew to connect it to Jeremiah 19. Judas’ remorse focuses on the guilt he feels for betraying ‘innocent blood’, but like Pilate, he is only a pawn in the religious leadership’s murderous intent, so that they are the ones who, like the people in Jeremiah’s time, shed ‘innocent blood’. They sacrifice Jesus’ life to maintain the status quo of their positions and the semblance of peace with Rome. It is ironic that they are squeamish about putting blood money in the temple treasury (Matt 27:6) but unconcerned about their part in taking someone’s life. The renaming of the Potter’s Field as Field of Blood (Matt 27:7-8) is reminiscent of the renaming in Jeremiah (Valley of Slaughter) and the location of the two places is the same. Once again, the ground is doubly defiled because it is bought with impure, blood money and because it will serve as a cemetery for the dead. This is likely for pilgrims who happen to die while in Jerusalem and cannot be transported back home (burials had to be done promptly in a hot climate). However, the connection with Jeremiah 19 gives it an ominous ring. The Jewish leadership are digging their own graves with the execution of Jesus, and the burial ground foreshadows the people’s death and exile as it did in Jeremiah’s lifetime.

Conclusion

While this exercise of tracing interconnected thoughts in Matthew’s presentation is sobering, the gospel writer’s juxtaposition of Peter’s denial with Judas’ betrayal along with the religious authorities’ unbending action raises the question how Peter could be restored while Judas and the Jewish leadership moved towards their own destruction. The answer is in Jeremiah 18-19, in God’s responsive nature. If people repent, God gives them a new start (Jer 18:8, 11). Even when judgment is no longer avoidable (Jer 19:11), Israel’s story shows God’s compassion that brought the people back from exile and gave them a new start. This tenacious love of God is our only hope that calls us to turn back to Him.

If you enjoyed this post, please share it with others.