Zechariah 11:13

And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

11:4-14 Christ came into this world for judgment to the Jewish church and nation, which were wretchedly corrupt and degenerate. Those have their minds wofully blinded, who do ill, and justify themselves in it; but God will not hold those guiltless who hold themselves so. How can we go to God to beg a blessing on unlawful methods of getting wealth, or to return thanks for success in them? There was a general decay of religion among them, and they regarded it not. The Good Shepherd would feed his flock, but his attention would chiefly be directed to the poor. As an emblem, the prophet seems to have taken two staves; Beauty, denoted the privileges of the Jewish nation, in their national covenant; the other he called Bands, denoting the harmony which hitherto united them as the flock of God. But they chose to cleave to false teachers. The carnal mind and the friendship of the world are enmity to God; and God hates all the workers of iniquity: it is easy to foresee what this will end in. The prophet demanded wages, or a reward, and received thirty pieces of silver. By Divine direction he cast it to the potter, as in disdain for the smallness of the sum. This shadowed forth the bargain of Judas to betray Christ, and the final method of applying it. Nothing ruins a people so certainly, as weakening the brotherhood among them. This follows the dissolving of the covenant between God and them: when sin abounds, love waxes cold, and civil contests follow. No wonder if those fall out among themselves, who have provoked God to fall out with them. Wilful contempt of Christ is the great cause of men's ruin. And if professors rightly valued Christ, they would not contend about little matters.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

And the Lord said unto me, Cast it - As a thing vile and rejected, as torn flesh was to be cast to dogs Exodus 22:31, or a corpse was cast unburied Isaiah 14:19; Isaiah 34:3; Jeremiah 14:16; Jeremiah 22:19; Jeremiah 26:23; Jeremiah 36:30, or the dead body of Absalom was cast into the pit 2 Samuel 18:17, or the dust of the idolaltars into the brook Kedron by Josiah 2 Kings 23:12, or the idols to the moles and the bats (Isaiah 2:20, add Ezekiel 20:8); or Judah and Israel from the face of God 2 Kings 13:23; 2 Kings 17:20; 2 Kings 24:21; Jeremiah 52:3 into a strange land (Deuteronomy 29:27, (28 English); Coniah and his seed, a vessel in which is no pleasure, Jeremiah 22:28, into a land which they knew not; or the rebels against God, said, "let us cast away their cards from us" Psalm 2:3; or wickedness was cast into the Ephah Zechariah 5:1-11 :18; once it is added, "for loathing" Ezekiel 16:5.

Unto the potter - The words exactly correspond with the event, that the "thirty pieces of silver" were "cast" or flung away o; that their ultimate destination was the potter, whose field was bought with them; but that they were not cast directly to him, (which were a contemptuous act, such as would not be used whether for a gift or a purchase), but were cast to him "in the house of the Lord." They were "flung away" by the remorse of Judas, and, in God's Providence, came to the potter. Whether any portion of this was a direct symbolic action of the prophet, or whether it was a prophetic vision, in which Zechariah himself was an actor, and saw himself in the character which he described, doing what he relates, cannot now be said certainly, since God has not told us. It seems to me more probable, that these actions belonged to the vision, because in other symbolic actions of the prophets, no other actors take part; and it is to the last degree unlikely, that Zechariah, at whose preaching. Zerubbabel and Joshua and all the people set themselves earnestly to rebuild the temple, should have had so worthless a price offered to him; and the casting a price, which God condemned, into the house of God, at the command of God, and so implying His acceptance of it, were inconsistent. It was fulfilled, in act consistently, in Judas' remorse; in that he "flung away the pieces of silver," which had stained his soul with innocent blood, "in the temple," perhaps remembering the words of Zechariah; perhaps wishing to give to pious uses, too late, money which was the price of his soul; whereas God, even through the chief priests, rejected it, and so it came to the potter, its ultimate destination in the Providence of God. Osorius: "He saith, "cast it unto the potter," that they might understand that they would be broken as a potter's vessel."

A goodly price, that I was prized at of them - Literally, "the magnificence of the value, at which I was valued of them!" The strong irony is carried on by the, "at which I was valued of them," as in the idiom, "thou wert precious in my sight" 1 Samuel 26:21; Psalm 72:14; 2 Kings 1:13-14; Isaiah 43:4. Precious the thought of God to David Psalm 139:17; precious the redemption of the soul of man Psalm 49:9; and precious was the Shepherd who came to them; precious was the value, whereat He was valued by them o. And yet He, who was so valued, was Almighty God. For so it stands: "Thus saith the Lord God, Cast it unto the potter, the goodly price that I was prized at of them." The name, "the potter," connects the prophecy with that former prophecy of Jeremiah Jer 19:1-15, denouncing the judgment of God for the shedding of innocent blood, whereby they had defiled "the valley of the son of Hinnom, which was at the entry of the gate of the pottery, o, and which, through the vengeance of God there, should be called "the valley of slaughter" Jeremiah 19:6.

The price of this innocent Blood, by the shedding of which the iniquities of their fathers were filled up, should rest on that same place, for whose sake God said, "I will break this people and this city, as one breaketh a potter's vessel, that cannot be made whole again" Jeremiah 19:11. So then Matthew may have quoted this prophecy as Jeremiah's, to signify how the woes, denounced on the sins committed in this same place, should be brought upon it through this last crowning sin, and "all the righteous blood which had been shed, should come upon that generation" o

None of the other cases of mixed quotation come up to this. Mark quotes two prophecies, of Malachi and of Isaiah as Isaiah's Mark 1:2-3. Matthew blends in one, words of Isaiah Isa 62:1 and Zechariah Zechariah 9:9 as "the prophet" Matthew 21:4-5. Our Lord unites Isaiah 56:7, and Jeremiah 7:11, with the words," It is written."

Of earlier fathers "Tertullian" simply quotes the prophecy as Jeremiah's (adv. Marc. iv. 40). "Origen" says, "Jeremiah is not said to have prophesied this anywhere in his books, either what are read in the Churches, or reported (referuntur) among the Jews. I suspect that it is an error of writing, or that it is some secret writing of Jeremiah wherein it is written." (in Matt. p. 916.) "Euscbius" says, "Consider since this, is not in the prophet Jeremiah, whether we must think that it was removed from it by some wickedness, or whether it was a clericai error of those who made the copies of the Gospels carelessly." Dem. Ev. x. p. 481).

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

13. Cast it unto the potter—proverbial: Throw it to the temple potter, the most suitable person to whom to cast the despicable sum, plying his trade as he did in the polluted valley (2Ki 23:10) of Hinnom, because it furnished him with the most suitable clay. This same valley, and the potter's shop, were made the scene of symbolic actions by Jeremiah (Jer 18:1-19:15) when prophesying of this very period of Jewish history. Zechariah connects his prophecy here with the older one of Jeremiah: showing the further application of the same divine threat against his unfaithful people in their destruction under Rome, as before in that under Nebuchadnezzar. Hence Mt 27:9, in English Version, and in the oldest authorities, quotes Zechariah's words as Jeremiah's, the latter being the original author from whom Zechariah derived the groundwork of the prophecy. Compare the parallel case of Mr 1:2, 3 in the oldest manuscripts (though not in English Version), quoting Malachi's words as those of "Isaiah," the original source of the prophecy. Compare my [1189]Introduction to Zechariah. The "potter" is significant of God's absolute power over the clay framed by His own hands (Isa 45:9; Jer 18:6; Ro 9:20, 21).

in the house of the Lord—The thirty pieces are thrown down in the temple, as the house of Jehovah, the fit place for the money of Jehovah-Messiah being deposited, in the treasury, and the very place accordingly where Judas "cast them down." The thirty pieces were cast "to the potter," because it was to him they were "appointed by the Lord" ultimately to go, as a worthless price (compare Mt 27:6, 7, 10). For "I took," "I threw," here Matthew has "they took," "they gave them"; because their (the Jews' and Judas') act was all His "appointment" (which Matthew also expresses), and therefore is here attributed to Him (compare Ac 2:23; 4:28). It is curious that some old translators translate, for "to the potter," "to the treasury" (so Maurer), agreeing with Mt 27:6. But English Version agrees better with Hebrew and Mt 27:10.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

The Lord, God the Father, with detestation of so vile an affront and undervalue of his Son, said unto me; to Zechariah, in this theatre personating Christ sometimes.

Cast it unto the potter; as being so little it would hardly purchase any thing but what was cheapest among them, a little earthenware.

A goodly price that I was prized at of them: in an irony God upbraids the shepherds of his people, who prized the great Shepherd no higher.

I took; Zechariah, who in this part now emblematically doth what Judas will with horror do when he hath sold innocent blood and betrayed it.

Cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord; or rather, east them into the house of the Lord for the potter, all which the Jewish rulers act over in their prosecuting Christ unto death.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And the Lord said unto me,.... The Prophet Zechariah, in a visionary way representing the sanhedrim of the Jews, the chief priests, scribes, and elders:

Cast it unto the potter; for the purchase of his field, in order to make a burying ground of it for strangers:

a goodly price that I was prised at of them; this is sarcastically said; meaning that it was a very poor price; and showed that they had no notion of the worth and value of Christ, the Pearl of great price:

and I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord; it is a question with some what these pieces of silver were; they are commonly understood of silver shekels. So the Targum, in Genesis 20:16 renders pieces of silver by shekels of silver; and Eusebius (m) calls these here thirty staters, the same with shekels; which, if common shekels, reckoned at one shilling and three pence, made but thirty seven shillings and sixpence; and if shekels of the sanctuary, which at most were but two shillings and sixpence, thirty of these would make but three pounds fifteen shillings; and therefore may be truly called, ironically speaking, "a goodly price"; being no more than the price of a servant, as before observed: but Drusius objects to this, seeing a potter's field was bought with this money; and asks, who can believe that a field near so populous a city as Jerusalem could be bought for thirty shekels? and observes, from R. Elias Levita (n), that it is a rule with their doctors, that all silver mentioned in the law signifies shekels; in the prophets, pounds; and in the Hagiographa, talents: this is said, but not proved: to understand these of pounds, indeed, would make the price considerable, and sufficient for the purchase of a large field; for a silver maneh or pound with the Jews was of the value of sixty shekels, Ezekiel 45:12 and thirty of these make two hundred and seventy pounds; but then this would not in an ironical way be called "a goodly price": and as to the objection about the purchase of a field with such a sum of money as thirty shekels amount to, it may be observed, what Grotius seems rightly to conjecture, that this was a field the potter had dug up, and had made the most of it, and so was good for nothing but for such an use, for which it was bought, to bury strangers in. It is also a difficulty to fix it certainly to whom this money was ordered to be given, and was given. It is here said "to the potter"; but Jarchi and Kimchi observe, that some of their interpreters render it the "treasurer"; and being sometimes changed for one another; thus, the Targum paraphrases it,

"under the hand of the treasurer;''

and so others (o); and indeed the money was given to the chief priests and elders, some of whom might be in that office, Matthew 27:3 though there is no need of such an alteration of the word, since the money Judas took for betraying Christ, and cast into the temple to the priests, they took up, and gave it to the potter for the field they bought of him with it; and, in the evangelist, the phrase by way of explanation is rendered, "for the potter's field", and may be here properly enough translated, "for the potter"; as the particle is sometimes used (p); that is, to be given to him for purchase money (q): and whereas the money is said to be cast, or given to him, "in the house of the Lord", i.e. in the temple, it appears a fact, in the accomplishment of this prophecy, that it was cast into the temple, Matthew 27:5 and was took up by the priests; who, in all probability, sent for the potter thither, and agreed with him for his field, and paid him his money there; for there is no reason to believe that he had a workhouse for his business in the temple; though it may be he had one near it; see Jeremiah 18:1 and worked for the service of it, since earthen vessels were used in temple service (r). The accomplishment of all this is in Matthew 27:7.

(m) Demonstr. Evangel. l. 10. p. 479. (n) In Tishbi, p. 130. (o) "Ad thesaurarium", Pagninus, Vatablus. (p) Vid. Nold. Ebr. Part. Concord. p. 63. (q) "pro figulo", Cocceius; "conferendos in figulum", Junius & Tremellius, Piscator; "ut detur ad figulum", Burkius. (r) Vid. Misn. Parah, c. 5. sect. 1.

Geneva Study Bible

And the LORD said to me, Cast it to the {q} potter: a glorious price that I was valued at by them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.

(q) Showing that it was too little to pay his wages with, which could hardly suffice to make a few tiles to cover the temple.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

13. Cast it] “as a thing vile and rejected, as torn flesh was to be cast to dogs (Exodus 22:31), or a corpse was cast unburied (Isaiah 14:19), or the dead body of Absalom was cast into the pit (2 Samuel 18:17), or the dust of the idol-altars into the brook Kidron by Josiah (2 Kings 23:12), or the idols to the moles and the bats (Isaiah 2:20), or Judah and Israel from the face of God into a strange land (2 Kings 13:23); Coniah and his seed, a vessel in which is no pleasure, into a land which they knew not (Jeremiah 22:28), or the rebels against God said, let us cast away their cords from us (Psalm 2:3), or wickedness was cast into the Ephah (Zechariah 5:8); once it is added, for loathing (Ezekiel 16:5).” Pusey.

a goodly price] or, the goodly price, R. V. This is, of course, ironical.

to the potter in the house of the Lord] to the potter; because his business was to make the most worthless of vessels, the last and least “to honour” of those found “in a great house” (2 Timothy 2:20), and thus the unworthiness of the “price” was shewn, as being only deserving of such a destiny. In the house of the Lord: both because He it was who, whether in the person of His servants or of His Son, was the real subject of the insulting valuation, and also because a formal and national character was given to the transaction, by its thus taking place before Jehovah and in His House. This explanation, which seems to be the simplest and most satisfactory, of this confessedly difficult passage, does not necessarily involve the supposition that the potter was in the house of the Lord, when the pieces of silver were cast contemptuously down there. It is enough if, in the vision or symbolical action of Zechariah, they were in some way clearly declared to be for him.

Like the earlier prophecy of the King (Zechariah 9:9), this prophecy of the Shepherd is remarkable for its literal fulfilment. The “thirty pieces of silver” were literally the “goodly price” paid for Him, “whom they of the children of Israel did value. “The potter” was literally the recipient of it, as the purchase-money of his exhausted field for an unclean purpose (Matthew 27:5-10).

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 13. - The Lord said unto me. The Lord takes the insult as offered to himself in the person of his representative. Cast it unto the potter; Κάθες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ χωνευ τήριον, "Lay them in the foundry, and I will see if it is approved;" Vulgate; Projice illud ad statuarium; the Syriac and Targum have, "Put it into the treasury" (Malachi 3:10). This involves an alteration of the text, and is in itself an improbable reading, as God could not be made to tell the prophet to throw this despicable wage into his treasury, unless, perchance, it is said ironically. There may be an undesigned coincidence here. In Matthew 27:5 the council discuss the propriety of putting the thirty pieces of silver into the treasury. But taking our present text as genuine, commentators usually consider the phrase as a proverbial expression for contemptuous treatment; as the Greeks said, ἐς κόρακας, as the Germans say, "zum Schinder," "to the knacker," and we, "to the dogs." There is, however, no trace elsewhere of any such proverb, nor do we know how it could have arisen; it likewise does not very well suit the last clause of the verse, "I cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord." If we substitute the supposed analogous expression, "I threw them to the dogs," we see how unseemly would be the proverb in this connection. The rendering of the Jews in old time, adopted recently by Knabenbauer, "Cast them to the Creator," is considered by Dr. Pusey to be unidiomatic, and involves great difficulties. It seems simpler to consider that the command, "cast it to the potter," implies contemptuous rejection of the sum, and at the same time intimates the ultimate destination to which, in the sight of Omniscience, it was directed. The potter is named as the workman who makes the meanest utensils out of the vilest material. That this was ordered and executed in vision is plain; how much the prophet understood we cannot tell. The ambiguous and highly typical order was explained and fulfilled to the letter by the action of Judas Iscariot, as the evangelist testifies (Matthew 27:5-10). A (the) goodly price, etc. This is ironical, of course. Such was the price at which they estimated the good Shepherd's services. Cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord. This rejection of the paltry wage took place in the house of the Lord (in the vision), because the insult had been really offered to him, and this was the natural place where oblations would be made; thus the transaction was represented as formal and national. Whether the potter was seen in the temple we know not. The prophet was made to connect him in some way with the business; and we learn from the fulfilment that the potter did in the end receive the money, which was paid for his field applied to an unclean purpose. In Matthew 27:9 the two verses, 12, 13, with some variations, are quoted as "spoken by Jeremy the prophet." Hence some attribute this part of Zechariah to Jeremiah; and others think that in St. Matthew the present name is a mistake. The probability is that the evangelist did not name any prophet, but that some early transcriber, remembering the purchase of the field in Jeremiah 32:6-12, attributed the quotation to that prophet. Or we may suppose that inspiration did not extend to all minor details, nor save the writers from unimportant errors. Zechariah 11:13

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

With the breaking of the staff Favour, the shepherd of the Lord has indeed withdrawn one side of his pastoral care from the flock that he had to feed, but his connection with it is not yet entirely dissolved. This takes place first of all in Zechariah 11:12-14, when the flock rewards him for his service with base ingratitude. Zechariah 11:12. "And I said to them, If it seem good to you, give me my wages; but if not, let it alone: and they weighed me as wages thirty silverlings. Zechariah 11:13. Then Jehovah said to me, Throw it to the potter, the splendid price at which I am valued by them; and so I took the thirty silverlings, and threw it into the house of Jehovah to the potter. Zechariah 11:14. And I broke my second staff Bands, to destroy the brotherhood between Judah and Israel." אליהם (to them), so far as the grammatical construction is concerned, might be addressed to the wretched among the sheep, inasmuch as they were mentioned last. But when we bear in mind that the shepherd began to feed not only the wretched of the sheep, but the whole flock, and that he did not give up any one portion of the flock by breaking the staff Favour, we are forced to the conclusion that the words are addressed to the whole flock, and that the demand for wages is only intended to give the flock an opportunity for explaining whether it is willing to acknowledge his feeding, and appreciate it rightly. The fact that the prophet asks for wages from the sheep may be explained very simply from the fact that the sheep represent men. The demand for wages is not to be understood as implying that the shepherd intended to lay down his office as soon as he had been paid for his service; for in that case he would have asked for the wages before breaking the first staff. But as he does not ask for it till afterwards, and leaves it to the sheep to say whether they are willing to give it or not ("if it seem good to you"), this demand cannot have any other object than to call upon the sheep to declare whether they acknowledge his service, and desire it to be continued. By the wages the commentators have very properly understood repentance and faith, or piety of heart, humble obedience, and heartfelt, grateful love. These are the only wages with which man can discharge his debt to God. They weighed him now as wages thirty shekels of silver (on the omission of sheqel or keseph, see Ges. 120, 4, Anm. 2). "Thirty," - not to reward him for the one month, or for thirty days - that is to say, to give him a shekel a day for his service (Hofm., Klief.): for, in the first place, it is not stated in Zechariah 11:8 that he did not feed them longer than a month; and secondly, a shekel was not such very small wages for a day's work, as the wages actually paid are represented as being in Zechariah 11:13. They rather pay him thirty shekels, with an allusion to the fact that this sum was the compensation for a slave that had been killed (Exodus 21:32), so that it was the price at which a bond-slave could be purchased (see at Hosea 3:2). By paying thirty shekels, they therefore give him to understand that they did not estimate his service higher than the labour of a purchased slave. To offer such wages was in fact "more offensive than a direct refusal" (Hengstenberg). Jehovah therefore describes the wages ironically as "a splendid value that has been set upon me."

As the prophet fed the flock in the name of Jehovah, Jehovah regards the wages paid to His shepherd as paid to Himself, as the value set upon His personal work on behalf of the nation, and commands the prophet to throw this miserable sum to the potter. But the verb hishlı̄kh (throw) and the contemptuous expression used in relation to the sum paid down, prove unmistakeably that the words "throw to the potter" denote the actual casting away of the money. And this alone is sufficient to show that the view founded upon the last clause of the verse, "I threw it into the house of Jehovah to the potter," viz., that hayyōtsēr signifies the temple treasury, and that yōtsēr is a secondary form or a copyist's error for אוצר, is simply a mistaken attempt to solve the real difficulty. God could not possibly say to the prophet, They wages paid for my service are indeed a miserable amount, yet put it in the temple treasury, for it is at any rate better than nothing. The phrase "throw to the potter" (for the use of hishlı̄kh with 'el pers. compare 1 Kings 19:19) is apparently a proverbial expression for contemptuous treatment ( equals to the knacker), although we have no means of tracing the origin of the phrase satisfactorily. Hengstenberg's assumption, that "to the potter" is the same as to an unclean place, is founded upon the assumption that the potter who worked for the temple had his workshop in the valley of Ben-hinnom, which, having been formerly the scene of the abominable worship of Moloch, was regarded with abhorrence as an unclean place after its defilement by Josiah (2 Kings 23:10), and served as the slaughter-house for the city. But it by no means follows from Jeremiah 18:2 and Jeremiah 19:2, that this potter dwelt in the valley of Ben-hinnom; whereas Jeremiah 19:1, Jeremiah 19:2 lead rather to the opposite conclusion. If, for example, God there says to Jeremiah, "Go and buy a pitcher of the potter (Jeremiah 19:1), and go out into the valley of Ben-hinnom, which lies in front of the potter's gate" (Jeremiah 19:2), it follows pretty clearly from these words that the pottery itself stood within the city gate. But even if the potter had had his workshop in the valley of Ben-hinnom, which was regarded as unclean, he would not have become unclean himself in consequence, so that men could say "to the potter," just as we should say "zum Schinder" (to the knacker); and if he had been looked upon as unclean in this way, he could not possibly have worked for the temple, or supplied the cooking utensils for use in the service of God - namely, for boiling the holy sacrificial flesh. The attempts at an explanation made by Grotius and Hofmann are equally unsatisfactory. The former supposes that throwing anything before the potter was equivalent to throwing it upon the heap of potsherds; the latter, that it was equivalent to throwing it into the dirt. But the potter had not to do with potsherds only, and potter's clay is not street mire. The explanation given by Koehler is more satisfactory; namely, that the meaning is, "The amount is just large enough to pay a potter for the pitchers and pots that have been received from him, and which are thought of so little value, that men easily comfort themselves when one or the other is broken." But this does not do justice to hishlı̄kh involves the idea of contempt, and earthen pots were things of insignificant worth. The execution of the command, "I threw it ('ōthō, the wages paid me) into the house of Jehovah to the potter," cannot be understood as signifying "into the house of Jehovah, that it might be taken thence to the potter" (Hengstenberg). If this were the meaning, it should have been expressed more clearly. As the words read, they can only be understood as signifying that the potter was in the house of Jehovah when the money was thrown to him; that he had either some work to do there, or that he had come there to bring some earthenware for the temple kitchens (cf. Zechariah 14:20). This circumstance is not doubt a significant one; but the meaning is not merely to show that it was as the servant of the Lord, or in the name and by the command of Jehovah, that the prophet did this, instead of keeping the money (Koehler); for Zechariah could have expressed this in two or three words in a much simpler and clearer manner. The house of Jehovah came into consideration here rather as the place where the people appeared in the presence of their God, either to receive or to solicit the blessings of the covenant from Him. What took place in the temple, was done before the face of God, that God might call His people to account for it.