Charles Ellicott Commentary Matthew 27

Took counsel — A better translation is held a council. (Compare the use of the word in Acts 25:12.) In keeping with the Jewish rule that a sentence was not to be given at the same sitting as the trial, another formal meeting was held to confirm the previous decision and determine the next step. It ended, as the next verse shows, with the decision to send our Lord to Pilate, leaving the responsibility of punishment to him.

As the subsequent events show, this began a kind of diplomatic struggle over the limits of ecclesiastical and imperial authority. The religious leaders sought to make the Roman governor their instrument, while the governor tried to avoid the responsibility of appearing to act in that capacity.

Pontius Pilate — It is helpful to review the key known facts about the history of the Governor, or more accurately, the Procurator of Judea, whose name is notable for its unique place in the creeds of Christendom. He must have belonged, by birth or adoption, to the gens of the Pontii. One of its members, C. Pontius Telesinus, was the leader of the Samnites in their second and third wars against Rome (321–292 BC).

The name Pilatus means “armed with the pilum, or javelin,” and may have originated in an early military achievement. However, when applied to Mount Pilatus in Switzerland, it has been suggested that the name is a shortened form of Pileatus, from pilea (a cap), referring to the mountain's often cloud-capped summit. When Judea formally became a Roman province after the deposition of Archelaus, a procurator—a collector of revenue invested with judicial power—was appointed to govern it. This official was subject to the Governor of Syria (Luke 2:2) and typically resided in Caesarea.

Pontius Pilate, whose earlier career is unknown, was appointed as the sixth holder of that office in AD 25–26. Before our Lord's trial, his administration had already been marked by a series of outrages against Jewish religious feelings.

1. He moved his army's headquarters from Caesarea to Jerusalem, and the troops brought their standards—bearing the image of the emperor—into the Holy City. The people were stirred into a frenzy and rushed in crowds to Caesarea to implore him to spare them this religious outrage. After five days of stubborn refusal and a failed attempt to suppress the uprising, Pilate finally yielded (Josephus, Antiquities 17.3.1–2; The Jewish War 2.9.2–4).
2. He hung up gilded shields in his Jerusalem palace, inscribed with the names of pagan gods, and refused to remove them until he received a direct order from the emperor Tiberius (Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius, 38).
3. He took money from the Corban, or the Temple treasury, to build an aqueduct. This led to another uprising, which was suppressed by slaughtering not only the rioters but also innocent bystanders (Josephus, The Jewish War 2.9.4).
4. On some unknown occasion, he killed some Galileans while they were in the very act of offering sacrifices (Luke 13:1). This likely caused the hostility between him and the tetrarch Antipas mentioned in Luke 23:12.

It is important to remember these prior actions, as they reveal his character while we follow him through the series of vacillations we are about to examine.

Then Judas, which had betrayed him — A better translation is the betrayer, as the Greek participle is in the present tense. The narrative that follows is found only in Matthew, but another version of the same events is given in Acts 1:18. Here, as in the case of Peter, we have to guess at the motives. Had he expected any other result than this? Was he hoping that his Lord, when forced into a decision, would assert His claim as the Christ, display His power, and triumph over His enemies? And was he hoping that in this way he would gain both the reward for his treachery and the credit for having helped establish the Kingdom? This has been maintained by some eminent writers, and it is certainly possible. However, the mere remorse of one who, after acting in the frenzy of criminal passion, sees the horrifying consequences of his deeds, provides an adequate explanation for what follows.

Repented himself — The Greek word used here is not the one commonly used for “repentance,” which involves a change of mind and heart. Instead, it is closer to regret—a simple change of feeling. The coins that he had once gazed on and eagerly clutched were now hateful to him, and their touch felt like molten metal from a furnace. He had to get rid of them somehow. It is terribly suggestive that in this case, unlike Peter’s repentance, there were no tears.

I have sinned in that I have betrayed —More accurately, I sinned in betraying.

What is that to us? —As we read these words, we instinctively feel that as deep as the guilt of Judas was, the guilt of those who mocked him was even deeper. Humanly speaking, we might say that a word of sympathy and true counsel might have saved him even then.

His confession was like the seed of repentance, but this rejection drove him back into despair. He did not have the courage or faith to turn to the great Absolver, and so his life ended in a blackness of darkness. If we ask, "Is there any hope?" we dare not answer.

Possibly, as at least one of the great teachers of the Church has suggested (Origen, Horn. in Matt. 35), mingled with his agony was some confused thought that in the world of the dead, behind the veil, he might meet his Lord and confess his guilt to Him.

He cast down the pieces of silver in the temple—The Greek word for “temple” used here (as in Matthew 23:16, Matthew 26:61, and John 2:19) specifically denotes not the entire building, but the sanctuary, which only the priests could enter. It seems they had been standing and talking with Judas in front of the veil that screened it from the outer court, and he hurled the silver into the Holy Place.

Hanged himself—The word is the same as that used for Ahithophel in the Greek version of 2 Samuel 17:23, and it is a perfectly accurate translation. Comparing this brief account with Acts 1:18 presents some difficulties, which are best examined in the notes on that passage. In short, the horrors recorded there may have been caused by the self-murderer’s lack of skill, or by a trembling agony that prevented him from tying the noose firmly enough.