What is the context?
When Judas sees that Jesus has been condemned, he returns the thirty pieces of silver and acknowledges that he has sinned by betraying innocent blood. The chief priests and elders refuse responsibility. He throws the money into the temple, leaves, and takes his own life.
The word translated filled with remorse comes from μεταμέλομαι, metamelomai (meh-tah-MEH-loh-my), to regret or change one's mind afterward. Thayer's entry includes this verse as well as Matthew 21:29 and 32, where a change of mind can lead to a right response. It cautions against an absolute word-based division between emotional regret and real repentance. Judas' response must therefore be understood from the account as a whole, rather than decided by the Greek word alone.
The chief priests call the money blood money and say it cannot go into the treasury. They use it to buy a potter's field for burying foreigners, which Matthew says became known as the Field of Blood. Their concern about the money's proper use stands beside Judas' acknowledgment that an innocent man has been betrayed.
Matthew explicitly relates the silver and field to prophetic fulfillment, naming Jeremiah. The thirty pieces and silver thrown in the temple closely recall Zechariah 11:12–13. The naming of Jeremiah requires explanation; it should neither be silently changed to Zechariah nor passed over as though the wording raised no question.
How is this passage commonly understood?
Christian readings commonly see both the tragedy of Judas' guilt and the leaders' refusal to face their own wrongdoing. Calvin on 27:3 distinguishes Judas' distress from a return to God, while Wesley on 27:4–7 emphasizes the contrast between the leaders' concern about the treasury and their treatment of innocent blood.
Readers differ over the reference to Jeremiah. The US Catholic bishops' note on 27:9–10 describes an explanation in which Matthew combines Zechariah's silver with Jeremiah's potter, field, and burial-place passages. Calvin on 27:9 instead thought Jeremiah's name had been written by mistake in place of Zechariah's. These are explanations offered by particular sources; the text quoted above retains Jeremiah as the BSB gives it.
Readers also compare Matthew's hanging and the priests' purchase of the field with the fatal fall and Judas' acquisition of a field in Acts 1:18–19. Walvoord on 27:3–10 treats Acts as adding details to the death Matthew describes; the US Catholic bishops' note on 27:5–8 treats them as different traditions about his death. Neither account states that a rope broke, so that familiar reconstruction should be recognized as a proposed way of joining the accounts rather than a recorded event.
Where does this fit in God's plan?
The connection to the prophets brings Jesus' rejection into a larger pattern of refusing God's shepherding care. Zechariah 11:10–13 portrays the shepherd's work met with a contemptuous payment, while Jeremiah 19:1–13 joins a potter's vessel, innocent blood, judgment, and burial. These provide supported connections, rather than a reason to make every detail of Judas' story a prediction with only one possible explanation.
Acts 1:15–20 also relates Judas, the field, and the loss of his place among the apostles to Scripture. The disciples must face the betrayal within their own circle as they prepare to continue the work entrusted to them. Human failure is taken seriously without making it the end of God's mission.
What is our position?
We don't have a position on this passage yet. When our study reaches a conclusion the text supports, it will appear here.