Albert Barnes Commentary Matthew 27

When the morning was come. This was not long after He had been condemned by the Sanhedrin. Peter's last denial was probably not far from three o'clock, or near the break of day. As soon as it was light, they consulted together to take His life. The sun rose at that season of the year in Judea not far from five o'clock, and the time when they assembled was not long after Peter's denial.

The Chief Priests—took counsel. They had agreed that He deserved to die, on a charge of blasphemy. Yet they did not dare to put Him to death by stoning, as they later did to Stephen (Acts 7:1) and as the law commanded in case of blasphemy, for they feared the people.

They therefore consulted, or took counsel together, to determine on what pretext they could deliver Him to the Roman emperor, or to fix some charge of a civil nature by which Pilate might be induced to condemn Him. The charge which they settled on was not that on which they had tried Him, and on which they had determined He ought to die (Matthew 26:66), but that of perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, (Luke 23:2). On this accusation, if substantiated, they supposed Pilate could be induced to condemn Jesus. On a charge of blasphemy they knew He could not, since that was not an offense against the Roman laws, and over which, therefore, Pilate claimed no jurisdiction.

To put Him to death. To devise some way by which He might be put to death under the authority of the Roman governor.

And when they had bound him. He was bound when they took him in the garden, John 18:12. Probably, when he was tried before the Sanhedrin in the palace of Caiaphas, he had been released from his bonds—as he was surrounded by multitudes there and supposed to be safe. As they were now about to lead him to another part of the city, they bound him again. The binding probably consisted of nothing more than tying his hands.

Pontius Pilate the governor. The governor, appointed by the Romans over Judea, commonly resided at Caesarea. He usually came up to Jerusalem for the great feasts, when most of the Jews were assembled, to administer justice and to suppress any tumults that might arise. The title Pilate received was that of governor, or procurator.

The duties of the office were chiefly to collect the revenues due to the Roman emperor and, in certain cases, to administer justice. Pilate was appointed governor of Judea by Tiberius, then emperor of Rome. John says in John 18:28 that they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the hall of judgment—that is, to the part of the praetorium, or governor's palace, where justice was administered.

The Jews, however, did not enter themselves, to avoid being defiled, so that they could eat the Passover. In Numbers 19:22, it is said that whosoever touched an unclean thing should be unclean. For this reason, they would not enter the house of a heathen, so that they would not contract any defilement that would render them unfit to keep the Passover.

Then Judas—when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself. This shows that Judas did not suppose that the affair would result in such a calamitous outcome. He probably expected that Jesus would have worked a miracle to deliver himself, and not have allowed this condemnation to come upon him.

When he saw Jesus taken, bound, tried, and condemned; when he saw that all likelihood that Jesus would deliver himself was gone, he was overwhelmed with disappointment, sorrow, and remorse of conscience. The word rendered repented himself, it has been observed, does not necessarily denote a change for the better, but any change of views and feelings.

Here it evidently means no other change than that produced by the horrors of a guilty conscience and by deep remorse for his crime and its unexpected results. It was not saving repentance; that leads to a holy life: this repentance led to an increase of crime in his own death. True repentance leads the sinner to the Saviour; this led away from the Saviour to the gallows.

Judas, if he had been a true penitent, would have come to Jesus then, confessed his crime at his feet, and sought pardon there. But, overwhelmed with remorse and the conviction of vast guilt, he was not willing to come into his presence, and added to the crime of a traitor that of self-murder. Assuredly, such a man could not be a true penitent.

I have sinned, I have been guilty. I have done wrong.

In that I have betrayed the innocent blood. This means betraying an innocent person to death. Blood is used here for life, or for the person. The meaning is that he knew and felt that Jesus was innocent.

This confession is a remarkable proof that Jesus was innocent. Judas had been with him for three years; he had seen him in public and private, heard his public teaching and his private views, and observed him in all circumstances. If Jesus had done anything evil, or promoted anything against the Roman emperor, Judas was competent to testify to it.

Had he known any such thing, he would have stated it. He would have come forward to vindicate himself. His testimony, as a disciple of Jesus, would have been far more valuable to the chief priests than that of any other man. He might not only have escaped the horrors of a troubled conscience and an awful death but could also have looked for an ample reward.

The fact that he did not make such a charge—that he fully and frankly confessed that Jesus was innocent, and that he gave up the ill-gotten price of treason—is complete proof that, in Judas’s belief, the Saviour was free from crime, and even from the suspicion of crime.

What is that to us? This way of speaking indicated that they had nothing to do with his remorse of conscience or his belief that Jesus was innocent. They had secured what they wanted—the person of Jesus—and now cared little for the traitor’s feelings.

So it is with all wicked men who use others to accomplish their crimes or gratify their passions: they will care little for the effect on the instrument. They will soon cast him off and despise him. In thousands of instances, these instruments of villainy and the panders to the pleasures of others are abandoned to remorse, wretchedness, crime, and death.

And he cast down, etc. This was an evidence of his remorse of conscience for his crime. His ill-gotten gain now did him no good. It would not produce relief to his agonized mind. He attempted, therefore, to obtain relief by throwing back the price of treason. But he attempted it in vain. The consciousness of guilt was fastened to his soul; and Judas found, as all will find, that to cast away or abandon ill-gotten wealth will not alleviate the guilty conscience.

In the temple. It is not quite certain what part of the temple is meant here. Some have thought it was the place where the Sanhedrin was accustomed to sit; others, the treasury; others, the part where the priests offered sacrifice. It is probable that Judas cared little, or thought little, about which particular part of the temple he went to. In his deep remorse, he hurried to the temple, probably cast the money down in the most convenient place, and fled to some location where he might take his life.

And went and hanged himself. The word used in the original here has given rise to much discussion about whether it means that he was suffocated or strangled by his great grief, or whether he took his life by suspending himself. It is generally acknowledged, however, that the latter is its most usual meaning, and it is certainly the most obvious meaning.

Peter says, in giving an account of the death of Judas (Acts 1:18), that Judas, falling headlong, burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. Some have supposed there is difficulty in reconciling these two accounts, but there is really no necessary difference. Both accounts are true.

Matthew records the mode in which Judas attempted his death by hanging. Peter speaks of the result. Judas probably passed out of the temple in great haste and perturbation of mind. He sought a place where he might perpetrate this crime. He would not, probably, be very careful about the fitness of the means he used.

In his anguish, his haste, his desire to die, he seized upon a rope and suspended himself; and it is not at all remarkable, or indeed unusual, that the rope might prove too weak and break. Falling headlong—that is, on his face—he burst asunder, and in awful horrors died—a double death, with double pains and double horrors—the reward of his aggravated guilt.