Charles Ellicott Commentary Matthew 27:19

"And while he was sitting on the judgment-seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that righteous man; for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him." — Matthew 27:19 (ASV)

The judgment seat — The chair of judgment was placed upon a Mosaic pavement and was indispensable to the official action of any provincial ruler (Compare to the note on John 19:13).

His wife sent to him — Under the old regime of the Republic, provincial governors were not allowed to take their wives with them, but the rule had been relaxed under the Empire, and Tacitus records (Annals iii. 33, 34) a vain attempt to revive its strictness. Nothing more is known about the woman mentioned here, but the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus (ii. 1) gives her name as Procula and states that she was a proselyte to Judaism. This latter fact is probable enough. About this time, both at Rome and in other cities, such as, for example, Thessalonica and Beroea (Acts 17:4; Acts 17:12), Jews had gained considerable influence over women of the higher classes and carried on an active work of proselytism.

With that just man — The word is striking, as it shows the impression that had been made on Pilate’s wife by all she had seen or heard. As contrasted with the priests and scribes, He was emphatically the “just,” the “righteous” One.

In a dream because of him — Questions arise in our minds about the nature of the dream. Was it, as some have thought, a divine warning intended to save her husband from the guilt he was about to incur? Did it come from the Evil Spirit, designed to hinder the completion of the atoning work? Was it simply the reflection of the day-thoughts of a sensitive and devout woman? We have no data to answer such questions. However, the very absence of data makes it safer and more reverential to adopt the last view, as it involves less presumptuous conjecture in a realm we have not been called to enter. What the dream was like may be a subject for a poet’s or—as in a well-known picture by a living artist—for a painter’s imagination, but it does not fall within the province of the interpreter.