Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary Matthew 27
Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary
Matthew 27
Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary
Matthew 27
"Now when morning was come, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:" — Matthew 27:1 (ASV)
Whether this formal decision was reached as a final stage of the first meeting or at a separate meeting held either in Caiaphas’s house or the temple precincts, we cannot say with certainty. Luke 22:66 implies a meeting in the council chamber.
The religious authorities decided just how to present their case to Pilate. If their own concern was Jesus’ “blasphemy” (26:65), they were nevertheless more likely to get Pilate to sentence him to death by stressing the royal side of messiahship rather than blasphemy, since to Pilate that would suggest treason.
"and they bound him, and led him away, and delivered him up to Pilate the governor." — Matthew 27:2 (ASV)
Jesus is led to Pontius Pilate, prefect appointed by Tiberius Caesar in A. D. 26. Prefects held the power of life and death, apart from appeal to Caesar (see comment on Lk 23:1–5). Extrabiblical sources portray Pilate as a cruel, imperious, and insensitive ruler who hated his Jewish subjects and took few pains to understand them. He stole money to build an aqueduct; and when the population of Jerusalem rioted in protest, he sent in soldiers who killed many. He defiled Jerusalem more than once (cf. Lk 13:1). Both the Sanhedrin trial and the trial before Pilate were necessary for capital punishment. Without the Sanhedrin, Pilate would never have taken action against Jesus unless he had become convinced Jesus was a dangerous Zealot leader; without Pilate the Sanhedrin might whip up mob violence against Jesus, but it would not be a legally binding death sentence.
"Then Judas, who betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders," — Matthew 27:3 (ASV)
Verse 3 looks back to 26:14–16, 20–25. Judas’s “remorse” is not necessarily repentance. He recognizes not only that he is guilty of betrayal but that Jesus whom he has betrayed is “innocent.” The Jewish leaders’ callous response condemns them, for Judas’s comments should have meant something to them. He betrayed innocent blood; they condemned innocent blood.
"saying, I have sinned in that I betrayed innocent blood. But they said, What is that to us? see thou [to it]." — Matthew 27:4 (ASV)
Verse 3 looks back to 26:14–16, 20–25. Judas’s “remorse” is not necessarily repentance. He recognizes not only that he is guilty of betrayal but that Jesus whom he has betrayed is “innocent.” The Jewish leaders’ callous response condemns them, for Judas’s comments should have meant something to them. He betrayed innocent blood; they condemned innocent blood.
"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary, and departed; and he went away and hanged himself." — Matthew 27:5 (ASV)
Exactly where Judas threw the money is uncertain. He then went out and hanged himself. The chief priests refuse to allow the blood money to supplement the funds of the “treasury” (cf. Dt 23:18). Matthew again points out the propensity of the Jewish leaders for ceremonial probity even in the face of gross injustice (cf. 12:9–14; 15:1–9; 23:23; 28:12–13).
With this probity in view, the chief priests decide to buy the potter’s field to meet a public need. This field, used for burying foreigners, probably did not belong to “the potter” but was a well-known place, perhaps the place where potters had long obtained their clay. If depleted, it might have been offered for sale. Regarding the relationship of this passage to Ac 1:18–19, see comments in Acts.
Jump to: