Matthew 27

CHAPTER XXVII

Matthew 27:1

1 Now, when it was morning, all the high priests and the elders of the people passed a resolution against Jesus to put him to death. And having bound him, they led him away and delivered him up to Pilate, the governor. We have already stated the Jewish law regarding capital crimes. It required that the verdict of death should be rendered at a second session of the Sanhedrin which was to be held after an interval of at least a day; moreover, night sessions were illegal. Now the Sanhedrin was determined to rush Jesus to death, for it feared an uprising of the people in case of a delay. So the illegality of the night session was simply disregarded.

But the formality of holding a second session was found feasible even though in this case it was illegal because it would confirm an illegal night session; yet it lent a show of legality to the procedure by being a second session. Mark makes it plain that this second, early morning session was attended by the three groups that made up the Sanhedrin and even adds, “the whole Sanhedrin.” This was a plenary session although the entire number of seventy-one judges was not required to be present and some probably were absent.

The expression συμβούλιονἔλαβον does not mean “took counsel” in order to put Jesus to death. It was entirely plain how they must proceed to secure that death: Pilate had to be asked to confirm the death verdict they had pronounced upon Jesus. This case would be similar to others in which the Sanhedrin had decreed death. The Roman government had reserved the right of inflicting the death penalty; the Sanhedrin had lost that right. It could decree but had to ask the Roman governor to carry out the execution of the death penalty. The expression means, “to pass a resolution,” and the resolution that had to be passed in this case was the confirmation of the death verdict that had been pronounced at the night session; and Burton (R. 1089) is right: the ὥστε clause states the contents of that resolution, “to put him to death.” So in all due formality the final vote on the death penalty was taken.

The next step followed as a matter of course: the Sanhedrin had to apply to Pilate. B.-P. 1248 defines συμβούλιονλαμβάνειν as consilium capere, einen Beschluss fassen; R. 109. Luke 22:66–71 gives us some of the details; it relates how Jesus was re-examined, how he reaffirmed that he was the Son of God, and how this was declared to be sufficient to condemn him.

Matthew 27:2

2 After these formalities had been settled, the Sanhedrists, with Caiaphas, of course, in the lead, led Jesus away and in due form delivered him up to Pilate, the Roman governor.

Matthew 27:3

3 At this point Matthew introduces the account regarding the end of Judas. Then Judas who betrayed him, having seen that he was condemned, having repented, returned the thirty pieces of silver to the high priests and elders, saying, I did sin by betraying innocent blood! But they said: What is that to us? Thou wilt see to it! And having hurled the silver into the Sanctuary, he left the place and, having gone, hanged himself. On returning from Gethsemane, Judas must have remained near the high priest’s palace in order to see what would happen.

Matthew’s “then” takes us to the moment when the procession formed that was to take Jesus to Pilate. “Then” Judas saw, saw with his own eyes what had happened, “that he was condemned,” and that they were taking him to his death. This explains the participle μεταμεληθείς, “having repented.” Judas repented of the consequences not of the sin itself. Already that shows the spurious nature of his repentance. Many a criminal is exceedingly sorry when the consequences of his sin catch up with him, but the sin itself does not frighten him. Matthew calls Judas ὁπαραδιδοὺςαὐτόν and uses the timeless qualitative present participle. The betrayer saw what his betrayal had brought about.

After his conscience had been thus awakened by remorse, the blood money burns in Judas’ hands, and he attempts to return it. It is not necessary to think that this scene took place in the Temple, and that some of the high priests and elders were busy with duties there. No; this scene took place before Caiaphas’ palace. Here Judas confronts the Sanhedrin itself and not only one or two of its representatives; for according to Matthew’s usage “the high priests and elders” indicates the body as such. In his state of desperation Judas offered the thirty pieces of silver to them in public, and his remorse becomes evident in the confession, “I did sin, having betrayed innocent blood!” His true sin Judas did not realize or confess. To him Jesus is no more than “innocent blood,” a guiltless man who is now being regarded as guilty of death.

Because Judas’ betrayal was leading to this result, he is sorry, he makes confession, and he wants as much as possible to free himself from these bloody consequences by returning the money to the Sanhedrin. Note that μεταμεληθείς is the ingressive, “having begun to repent” (R. 858); and παραδούς is constative (R. 859) and expresses action that is simultaneous with that of ἥμαρτον (R. 860) and is causal (R. 1128): “because I betrayed,” etc.

There is no evidence to assume that Judas wanted to reverse his bargain and that he wanted to repurchase Jesus from the Sanhedrin. His return of the silver was due to psychological reasons. Since Jesus is being led to his death, this silver becomes blood money and thus burns his hands with blood guilt. The money that was at one time greedily grasped becomes intolerable to him. His conscience will not let him keep it; it seeks at least the easement that riddance of this money will bring. From start to finish these were the same thirty pieces of silver, and in themselves underwent no change whatever; and yet they were completely changed: once so attractive, they are now so utterly abhorrent.

Matthew 27:4

4 The Sanhedrists have no desire to waste much time on Judas; besides, they were through with him the moment he had performed his part of the bargain for which he had been paid even in advance (26:15). Their brief answer does not refer to this pitiful sum of money, which they refuse to accept, but to the remorseful confession when they say: “What is that to us? Thou wilt see to it!” Cold, hard as stone are these spiritual leaders of the Jews. A soul in travail means absolutely nothing to them, in fact, not even a soul they themselves have helped to get into this desperate travail. They are busy even now in taking the victim of Judas’ sin to be murdered on the cross.

What a fool Judas was to expect relief from such men! But the one who could have helped him he did not find. Oh, he was only a few paces away and could have been found easily enough. But Judas saw in him only a “rabbi” (26:25, 49) and even now only “innocent blood” and not the Messiah and Son of God; and his heart was stirred only by remorse (revulsion because of the consequences of his act) and not by repentance (grief over his sin itself). The expression τίπρὸςἡμᾶς; has classical support, R. 626; and the future ὄψει (also written ὄψῃ) is volitive and thus equal to an imperative: “see thou to it,” R. 874.

Matthew 27:5

5 Remorse now drives Judas to his last desperate acts. He hurls the silver “into the ναός or Sanctuary.” Some think that this was the place (they call it the room) in the Temple where the receptacles for the receipt of money stood in the court of the women. But then ἱερόν would have been the proper word. The term ναός refers to the Sanctuary which included the Holy and the Holy of Holies. Judas went up to the top of the priestly court, took the sack of silver, and flung it into the open entrance of the Holy Place. Then he turned and “went away,” to what place is not stated; and, “having gone away,” he committed suicide by hanging himself. Acts 1:18 adds the further terrible details. Remorse—suicide: they often go together.

Matthew 27:6

6 The priests saw what Judas had done and promptly picked up the money. Matthew concludes the account at this place, his readers will understand that this happened after Jesus’ death. But the high priests, having taken the pieces of silver, said, It is not lawful to throw them into the treasury since it is blood price. And after passing a resolution they bought with them the field of the potter for burial for strangers. Wherefore that field was called Field of Blood until this day. The high priests alone act in this case.

The silver was, no doubt, brought to them with the request that they state what should be done with it. Perhaps they made a deduction from Deut. 23:18 and declared it to be unlawful (οὐκἔξεστι) to deposit this silver in the κορβανᾶς (related to κορβᾶν, Mark 7:11, “gift”), the Temple treasury or treasure which was made up of all the taxes and the votive gifts of the people. The reason stated is that this silver is “blood price.” So they, indeed, recognize this silver as what it really is but not as themselves having made it “blood price” by paying it, perhaps out of this very treasury, but as Judas having earned it as a “blood price” by selling Jesus’ blood for this sum. Here, indeed, are the fine casuists: it would be a crime to put such money back into the Temple treasure, but it was no crime to pay it to Judas.

Matthew 27:7

7 As in v. 1, συμβούλιονλαβόντες does not mean “to take counsel” but “to resolve” or “to pass a resolution,” which resolution was, of course, carried out. This was to devote the money to a long-felt need, namely to provide a burial place “for strangers,” certainly not for Gentiles (whom the Jews hated to see in Jerusalem) but for poor Jews who visited the festivals, etc., and happened to die while in the city, or for such as wanted to spend their latter days in the Holy City and thus wanted to die there. It may be true that the authorities had neglected this matter, and that now a way was found to meet this long-delayed need. One thing is certain in regard to the location of this field: it was Levitically pure ground otherwise it would never have been accepted for use as a cemetery. Thus it could not have been located in Tophet, the valley of Hinnom or at some similar place. The site cannot be determined at this date.

The two things that were certain are indicated by the two articles: “the (well-known) field of the (well-known) potter.” Perhaps both became so well known after this piece of ground had been bought.

Matthew 27:8

8 The purchase of this field by means of this money gave the place the name “Field of Blood,” and Matthew says that the name continued “until today,” i.e., when he wrote his Gospel. This is one of the assured indications in the Gospel itself that it was not written after the destruction of Jerusalem when the long siege had destroyed the identity of a large number of sites in the city itself. How long before the destruction Matthew wrote is, of course, not indicated by this phrase. In Acts 1:14 a different reason is assigned for calling this field Chaqual Dema’, “The Field of Blood,” namely the horrible end of Judas. It is difficult to understand why this should be regarded as a discrepancy since both names center in Judas, a man who was guilty of blood and who had a bloody end. It was the bloody feature that drew and held public attention. The English would use a perfect tense instead of the aorist ἐκλήθη because of the reference to the present in the phrase “until today,” R. 848.

Matthew 27:9

9 Then was fulfilled what was spoken through Jeremiah, the prophet, saying: And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one that has been priced, whom they of the sons of Israel priced, and they gave them for the field of the potter just as the Lord did appoint to me. Matthew uses the regular formula to indicate the fulfillment of a prophecy. The fact that τὸῥηθὲνδιά involves all the essential points of verbal inspiration has been shown in connection with 1:22; and Matthew uses this expression constantly. The fact that Matthew wrote “through Jeremiah, the prophet,” has caused a great deal of discussion since not Jeremiah but Zechariah 11:12, 13, records this prophecy. The reading “Jeremiah” is textually confirmed. The exegetes are divided in their interpretations: some think that Matthew was guilty of a lapse of memory, others that this is impossible, but that a solution or explanation must be found.

Some find an excuse for Matthew’s faulty memory by referring to Jer. 18:2–12; 19:1–15 which speak about a potter; they think that this confused Matthew. But this view destroys the inspiration and the infallibility of the Scripture.

If “Jeremiah” cannot be explained by any information that is available to us today, the exegete should be entirely ready to confess his ignorance and to wait until the explanation has been found. But in this case it has been found by Lightfoot. One of the older ways of dividing the Scriptures was to begin with the law and to call this part “The Law.” Next the section commencing with the Psalms was called “The Psalms” although it contained other writings. The third part began with Jeremiah and included all the other prophets‚ and yet the whole was called “Jeremiah.” Light-foot cites the Baba Bathra and Rabbi David Kimchi’s Preface to the prophet Jeremiah as his authorities. Horn, Introduction, 7th ed. II, 290. Thus any passage taken from this third section of the Old Testament would be quoted as coming from “Jeremiah.” We honor the efforts of those who have sought to find the prophecy in Jeremiah’s own book; but after all is said and done, neither Jer. 18:2–12, nor 19:1–15, nor both combined, will answer; we must go to Zech. 11:12, 13.

We cannot in this case expect an exact quotation, because the prophecy of Zechariah is a symbolic action, and the fulfillment is ordinary history. So it becomes Matthew’s aim to present the striking correspondence between the two as this appears in the main points. Some have the idea that every prophecy must be a statement that this and that will happen, and that the fulfillment must then be recorded word for word: and just exactly so it did happen. That is why we find so much discussion regarding Matthew’s deviation from the wording of Zechariah. But a verbatim quotation would not convey what had to be conveyed when this prophecy is combined with its remarkable fulfillment.

The two points of the symbolic prophecy and its fulfillment pertain to the thirty pieces of silver as the price paid for Jesus and to the payment of this sum to the potter. Delitzsch writes: “The moment we carry the form of the prophecy back to the idea, the difference is dissolved into harmony.” In Zechariah the payment of thirty pieces of silver was made in order to get rid of Israel’s Shepherd. That same price was paid to get rid of Jesus who is Israel’s Shepherd. At such a miserable price the Jews valued Jesus and gladly paid it to get rid of him. All that Zechariah thus states in regard to this price Matthew restates interpretatively in order to impress upon us this shameful point: “the thirty pieces of silver the price of the one that has been priced, whom they of the sons of Israel priced.” The emphasis is on this miserable price, and the ἀπό phrase states the subject in the sense of οἱἀπό, “they from the sons of Israel,” i.e., the Jewish leaders. Here Matthew gives us the substance of what Zechariah states regarding the price, but he combines it with the fulfillment which occurred with the payment of this sum to Judas.

Matthew 27:10

10 The second point is that eventually this sum was paid over to the potter. In the prophecy God does this, in the fulfillment the high priests do it. But this is not a difference, for God so guided the action of the high priests that they made this astonishing disposition of the silver. Even this feature is added that the thing was done “in the house of the Lord.” There the money was found, and there the high priests decided to pay it for the potter’s field. This Matthew states by again combining prophecy with fulfillment, each interpreting the other: “And they took … and gave them for the field of the potter.” This money did not lose its identity by being mixed with other money that was in the Temple fund. A special purchase was made with it, and by that purchase it was made to stand out forever by lending its name to the field purchased as “the Field of blood.” The final clause, “even as the Lord did appoint unto me,” repeats Zech. 11:13: “And the Lord said unto me,” which states the order of the Lord regarding what was to be done with the money. It was the Lord’s will that directed this disposition of the money, and that will was carried out: by being invested in that field of the potter the money was forever to stand out and apart as the blood money the leaders of Israel paid to get rid of their Messiah forever. Καθά = καθʼ ἅ, “just as,” “according as.”

Matthew 27:11

11 Now Jesus stood before the governor. And the governor asked him, saying, Thou, art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said to him, Thou sayest it. With exceeding brevity Matthew mentions this incident from Pilate’s examination of the prisoner that had been turned over to him for the execution of the death penalty. We must add John 18:20–37, and especially John’s fuller version of Matthew’s account in v. 37. In order to understand how Pilate came to ask about Jesus’ being a king, we must add Luke 23:2, the series of charges against Jesus, the last of which was that he pretended to be “Christ, a King.” After hearing these charges, Pilate took Jesus into the Prætorium and examined him privately by taking up the central charge in which all the rest were involved.

John shows how the direct question was reached: “Thou, art thou the King of the Jews?” This question shows how little like a king Jesus appeared to Pilate; of course, he was thinking of a political king. Yet Jesus affirms that he is a king: “Thou sayest it.” The difference between σὺλέγεις and σὺεἶπας, “thou art saying it,” and, “thou didst say it” (English, “hast just said it”), is rather slight, R. 915. It is the regular way of affirming the contents of a question; compare 26:25, 64. From John we learn that Jesus told Pilate what kind of a king he was, namely a spiritual and not a political king, and that Pilate was fully convinced of the latter.

Matthew 27:12

12 A second incident is briefly sketched. And in being accused by the high priests and elders he answered nothing. Then Pilate says to him, Dost thou not hear how many things they are witnessing against thee? And he did not answer him on not even a single utterance so that the governor wondered greatly. This is the second great silence of Jesus; the first is recorded in 26:63, the third in John 19:9. It must be placed where Matthew and Mark have it, after Pilate’s examination of Jesus and his declaration to the Sanhedrin that he was guiltless.

Then a flood of vicious accusations of all kinds bursts from the Sanhedrin, “the high priests and elders,” one Greek article; this is the regular title for this body. After Jesus had again been brought out of the Prætorium to face his accusers, he “answered nothing.” When the shouting of angry accusations subsided, when all eyes turned on Jesus, he simply looked at the governor who was seated on the judicial seat on the platform before the Prætorium, and since every ear was straining to hear, the silence became only the more intense. Not a word came from Jesus’ lips.

Matthew 27:13

13 Pilate breaks the strange silence with the astonished question, “Dost thou not hear how many things they are witnessing against thee?” Yet the situation should not confuse us. It may appear to be fair and strict justice when the accused is permitted to face his accusers and to speak freely in his own defense. But Pilate has himself just pronounced Jesus guiltless after due investigation of the charges that were first preferred. Does that verdict not stand? If Pilate is uncertain after hearing all this added testimony, it is Pilate’s business to examine farther into the case just as he made an examination at the beginning of the trial. The silence of Jesus speaks eloquently against Pilate.

Why does Pilate by means of his question shift the responsibility upon Jesus? It is the duty of this Roman judge either to silence all these angry accusations or, if he cares to do so, to examine into one or more of them. It is because of his cowardice that he does not forthwith enforce his verdict of innocence by using his legionaries, if necessary, to disperse this Sanhedrin and its following but allows that verdict still to be questioned and turns the task of upholding it over to the prisoner Jesus. Secondly, the silence of Jesus is directed against the Jews and expresses his contempt for their accusations; they are not worthy of a word on his part.

Matthew 27:14

14 Even after Pilate’s urgent question had been asked the lips of Jesus remained sealed. Matthew makes it strong by adding “on not even a single utterance,” ῥῆμα, spoken word that came from Jesus’ accusers. At least as far as Pilate was concerned, that silence went home. This, indeed, was no ordinary prisoner. Not for one moment did Pilate deem Jesus guilty because he remained silent. He felt the very opposite. The astounding patience of Jesus, his willingness to suffer unjustly, and the majesty of his person by following the course he did had made a deep impression on Pilate. It has been well said that Pilate was touched by something akin to what we feel when we see in him the Lamb that opened not his mouth.

Matthew 27:15

15 The vacillation of Pilate which finally brought Jesus to the cross culminated in Pilate’s scheme to induce the Jews to choose Jesus in place of Barabbas. Now festival by festival the governor was accustomed to release to the multitude one prisoner whom they wanted. And they had then a notorious prisoner called Barabbas. Accordingly, having been brought together, Pilate said to them: Whom do you want that I release to you? Barabbas? or Jesus, who is called Christ? For he knew that because of envy they delivered him up.

Κατά is distributive (R. 608), hence ἑορτήν needs no article; yet “festival by festival” refers only to the annual Passover festival (John 18:39). The pluperfect εἰώθει is regularly used in the imperfect sense (R. 888) and is iterative in this case (R. 884). How far back this custom of setting one prisoner free at the Passover dates no one knows; yet it seems certain that it was followed before the Romans came into power and was continued by them as being so well established as to be considered a necessity (Luke 23:17). The people of the Jews were permitted to select the prisoner they wanted freed (ὃνἤθελον, iterative imperfect).

Matthew 27:16

16 At this time an especially notorious prisoner was being held whose name was Barabbas. The εἶχον refers to the Jews. This was their prisoner, not in the sense that they confined him in prison, but that he was one of their race, a Jew. Matthew indicates his evil character by the use of only the neutral adjective ἐπίσημος, “a mark (σῆμα) placed on him.” The fact that this was a most vicious mark we learn from the other evangelists: Barabbas was a robber who had been caught in an insurrection in which he had committed murder. The name “Barabbas” is recorded only for the purpose of identifying the man whom the Jews preferred to Jesus. The evangelists do not play with its composition: “son of Abba,” with “Abba” denoting some prominent rabbi and thus forming a sort of parallel to Jesus’ title “Son of God.” The textual evidence for the view that this man was called “Jesus Barabbas” is so inferior as to require no discussion.

Yet some would retain “Jesus” on the plea that no scribe would have inserted “Jesus” and that, therefore, it must be original. But the reverse seems to be true. Those who desire to allegorize and to play with names and with words seem to have inserted “Jesus” in order to obtain: “Jesus, the Son of God,” and “Jesus Barabbas (the son of Abba).” We discard these fancies and the poor evidence adduced in support of them.

Matthew 27:17

17 From Mark we learn that the people were the first to think of this custom and perhaps sent a delegation to Pilate to ask that he observe it. They did this probably because Pilate was available to them at this time. They certainly selected a favorable moment. According to Luke 23:16, Pilate had just made the offer to the Sanhedrin to chastise Jesus and to let him go. The request of the people opened a new way to Pilate to release Jesus with Jewish consent, and he embraced it with avidity. He calls the Sanhedrists together and submits his proposition.

The nomination of the prisoners, one of whom would be pardoned, seems to have rested with the governor. Whether more than two were ever nominated seems to be unknown. On this occasion at least Pilate nominates only two in order to make the selection certain in advance. He takes the worst criminal he has in prison at this time, this Barabbas, and as the only alternative he offers “Jesus, who is called Christ,” or, as Mark and John write, “the King of the Jews.” He is fully certain in his mind that the Jews cannot possibly unite on the selection of Barabbas.

The proposition is announced to the Sanhedrin, but we see that not this body as such but the Sanhedrin together with the people have the right to make the choice. So Jesus is placed beside a murderer, the man whom Pilate declared innocent beside the man whose bloody guilt was beyond doubt. The flagrant injustice to Jesus is glaring: he is treated as a condemned criminal, is placed beside another of the same kind, and the people are to make a choice between the two. Strange to say, Pilate who is guilty of this injustice expects the Sanhedrin and the Jews to make a just choice. Although he is himself fearfully remiss, he expects others to be true to higher ideals.

Matthew 27:18

18 Matthew, like Mark, openly states the reason that moved Pilate to resort to this method to free Jesus. He knew all along (ᾔδει, second past perfect, always used as an imperfect) that the motive of the Sanhedrists in delivering Jesus to him was nothing but pure “envy.” The people were flocking to Jesus, and this made the Sanhedrists envious. But we see that Pilate rested his reliance on the people and trusted that these would vote in favor of Jesus in spite of the Sanhedrin. In this as in many other things that occurred in connection with this trial Pilate was sadly mistaken.

Matthew 27:19

19 Matthew alone reports the next incident. And while he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying: Nothing to thee and to that just one! For I did suffer many things today along in a dream because of him. At this critical moment when Pilate was about to observe the old custom and had laid the fate of Jesus into the hands of the Jews themselves; while he was sitting on the βῆμα, the judge’s chair on the raised platform in front of the Prætorium, about to hear the choice of the Jews and to make decree accordingly, a strange interruption occurs. The governor’s wife herself is in such distress of mind that she feels constrained to send a messenger to Pilate in the midst of his judicial affairs, yea, on account of these very affairs, because they deal with Jesus. Since the days of Augustus, Roman magistrates were permitted to take their wives along with them to their posts in the provinces.

The message consists of a most fervent warning: Μηδὲνσοὶκαὶτῷδικαίῳἐκείνῳ, “nothing to thee and to that just one!” i.e., nothing common to you two, nothing by which you interfere with him. She calls him “that just one” because she knows that her husband is compelled to deal with Jesus as a judge, and she warns him by calling Jesus “just.” The designation “that just one” thus explains itself and is the right term in the right place. This designation is evidently based on her dream. Whether the messenger reported the dream, or whether Pilate took time to ask why his wife was sending this message, we are unable to say. But the main point was impressed upon him: his wife had suffered (ἔπαθον, aorist, whereas we should prefer the perfect) all kinds of agonies (πολλά) this very day, most likely before arising from sleep, “along in a dream” (κατά to denote extent as in 1:20) because of him. The language is transparent: she suffered on her husband’s account.

She most likely dreamed of him as having Jesus, “that just one,” before his judgment seat. In her dream Jesus appeared wholly guiltless, and the dream probably suggested that Pilate was on the verge of condemning this just man. She suffered agony because she feared that Pilate might do this. Either in her dream or immediately after awakening, when the dream was still very vivid in her mind, the terrible consequences of such an act on her husband’s part overwhelmed her. She felt that she must at all hazard stop him from an act such as that.

Tradition names the wife of Pilate, Procla or Claudia Procla, but this tradition has little to support it. Imagination has busied itself with this woman and her dream; but all we have are the facts that Matthew reports. We are safe in adding only so much, that Pilate and his wife knew not a little about Jesus (note v. 18) and discussed him and his position among the Jews, perhaps they had done so the day before or that very night. Tradition makes the wife favorably inclined toward Jesus, if not a kind of proselyte to Judaism; and the Greek Church canonized her. But this is again altogether uncertain. To deduce from her dream that Pilate had sent the Roman cohort to help in the arrest of Jesus is unwarranted; for under those circumstances Jesus would not have been turned over to the Jews but would have been held in the custody of Pilate himself.

The dream has been studied psychologically, but its psychological possibility under the known circumstances cannot be assailed. We may well believe that the dream and the wife’s reaction to it were providential. It then becomes a part of the hindrances that God put in Pilate’s way in order to deter him from the crime of judicial murder. Judas had been warned, Peter likewise, and Jesus himself warned Pilate in unmistakable language (John 18:36, etc.; 19:8, etc.)

Matthew 27:20

20 But the high priests and the elders persuaded the multitudes that they ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. And the governor, answering, said to them, Whom of the two is your will that I release to you? And they said Barabbas! Because the high priests and the elders acted separately, each circulating among the crowds, we have two articles with “high priests” and “elders.” The effective aorist ἔπεισαν (R. 835) states that the Sanhedrists actually did persuade the multitudes. In the case of their own ὑπηρέται or following this was easily done. But they seem to have had no difficulty with regard to the many who had come to swell the crowd before the Prætorium.

Matthew says, they “persuaded,” but Mark uses a stronger term, “they stirred up” or incited the crowd. Just how this was done is not stated. It has been suggested that the Sanhedrists pointed out that Pilate was trying to protect Jesus, and the Jewish opposition to Pilate was thus associated with Jesus. These and similar arguments may have been used. The one thing that was decisive was the fact that “the high priests” and “the elders” wanted Barabbas. The crowd yielded to their authority and thus became stirred up sufficiently to make this strange choice.

The ἵνα clause is subfinal (R. 993) and states what the crowds were persuaded to do. The middle of αἰτέω is used in business transactions and hence is in place, R. 805.

Matthew 27:21

21 A sufficient interval must have been allowed the people to permit the assembled crowd to determine upon its choice. The participle ἀποκριθείς is frequently added when one speaks in response to a situation. The time had come to ask what choice the Jews would make. In ἀπὸτῶνδύο the preposition is partitive. R. 577. In all confidence Pilate asks for the choice, for he thinks that he had certainly made sure the election of Jesus by associating him with Barabbas. With a shock of disillusionment he heard the unanimous shout, “Barabbas!” His scheme to free Jesus in this way had failed completely. He had underestimated the influence and the power of the Sanhedrin; he had counted on others acting with some moral consideration when he himself could not rise to even simple justice.

Matthew 27:22

22 The whole pitiableness of Pilate comes to view. Throughout he had not acted the judge, determined the case, rendered the verdict, and enforced it through his legionaries, if necessary. No; he wants the accusers to offer him a verdict, the very verdict that nothing in the world could move them to pronounce. All they did was to hold out against him firmly to the end. All that Pilate did was to yield to them more and more until he surrendered completely. Pilate says to them, What, then, shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?

They all say, Let him be crucified! But he said, Why, what evil did he do? And they kept yelling exceedingly, Let him be crucified! Now when Pilate saw that he gained nothing, but rather that a tumult was arising, having taken water, he washed his hands before the multitudes, saying: Innocent am I of the blood of this just one! You yourselves shall see to it! And, answering, all the people said, His blood on us and on our children!

Then he released to them Barabbas; but having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.

The complete helplessness of Pilate is revealed by his question to the Jews and to their leaders. Οὗν refers to the request for Barabbas’ release. This will leave Jesus on Pilate’s hands. When he calls Jesus “Christ” he certainly does not intend to cast a reproach on Jesus but to arouse a favorable sentiment toward Jesus among the Jews. Here, too, Mark has “the King of the Jews,” so that we must conclude that both titles were used. But instead of arousing a favorable feeling Pilate aroused the very opposite. He the governor, the ruler of the whole country, asks these Jews what he should do with Jesus!

So he did not know what to do? So he was not in the least sure of himself? Did he want the Jews to say that he should release Jesus also? But these Jews who obediently followed their high priests and their elders in demanding Barabbas instead of Jesus were the last to be moved by “Christ” and “King of the Jews.”

Pilate had asked what he should do. He certainly got his answer, and Matthew says it came from “all”: “Let him be crucified!” Probably the Sanhedrists were the first to shout, σταυρωθήτω, and the whole crowd of the Jews then joined in this cry. If Pilate did not know what to do, the Jews knew and told him. The question has been asked as to how these Jews, whose death penalty was stoning, came to demand crucifixion in the case of Jesus. The fact that Barabbas was to have been crucified, and that Jesus was now to take his place, seems a doubtful answer. The one satisfactory answer is that the Jews had turned Jesus over to Pilate to be executed by him. The Romans had deprived them of the right of inflicting the death penalty, so they held Pilate to its execution, and he could do this only by means of crucifixion.

Matthew 27:23

23 The γάρ in Pilate’s next question is little more than an intensive particle, R. 1149; it is like the German denn in questions, B.-D. 452, 1. Here we have the spectacle of the supreme judge trying to convince the accusers by means of the argument of the innocence of the accused! For Pilate’s question, “Why, what evil did he do?” intends to tell the Sanhedrists that Jesus has done no κακόν, “good-for-nothingness,” and that they are unable to prove anything of that kind against him. But when the judge lowers himself to such a degree, not he but the accusers will dictate the verdict.

Pilate received the answer he deserved: no more shouting of accusations (v. 12) but the most frantic yelling, ἔκραζον, imperfect, continuous: “Let him be crucified!” The mob spirit was beginning to rise, and it is a terrible thing in the East. The more they yelled, the more agitated and wild the scene became. Even now one word on the part of Pilate could have gained control: a sharp military order to the cohort of 600 legionaries to clear the place of Jews in short order and to protect Jesus from molestation. But such a courageous and just act was beyond Pilate’s ability. His very vacillation encouraged the Jewish insistence that he bow to their will. In that loud yelling and the threatening tone it began to assume we see where the mastery really lies.

Matthew 27:24

24 The complete surrender follows. Pilate finally saw that he had gained nothing, but rather that a tumult was arising; in other words, he saw that he had lost out completely. Both ὠφελεῖ and γίνεται are present tenses that are retained from the original thought in the Greek: “He sees that he gains nothing,” etc. After the past verb “saw” the English requires a past tense. Even now Pilate is not honest; he tries to shift the guilt of his condemning an innocent man to the most horrible death from his own soul to that of the Jews.

The symbolical act of washing the hands in water in order to make the impression that they are clean of blood, is scarcely of pagan origin although there are points of contact in the few examples adduced. Among pagans such washings were performed after the murder and would not be followed by a judge. We may go back to Deut. 21:6 for the beginning of this act; and then we may add Ps. 26:6; 73:13; 2 Sam. 3:28; the apocryphal Susanna v. 46; also Acts 20:26. When Pilate became supreme judge of the Jews he also became acquainted with this Jewish symbolical act; and this their own custom he now uses with great impressiveness before these Jews. The middle ἀπενίψατο means, “he himself washed his hands,” R. 810, and ἀπέναντι means “right in the presence of” the multitude so that all might see and understand.

The word ἀθῷος (see v. 4) means “without penalty,” “innocent.” Here Pilate finally pronounces a judgment, but alas, it is not a just judgment on Jesus but a judgment on himself, and even then it is unjust, a verdict that cannot stand when it is compared with the evidence. No man can pronounce a verdict on himself, for then every criminal would be acquitted on the instant. Pilate is a judge, indeed, but he cannot pronounce judgment on himself; he is under a higher judge, under God himself who will render the verdict regarding his guilt.

Here Jesus is again called “this just one” (the more assured reading over against “this one”), and the designation used by Pilate’s wife in v. 19 is repeated. If Jesus is, indeed, “just,” δίκαιος, one who has God’s verdict in his favor, how can Pilate or any other man remand him to death as being unjust, yea as being a wicked criminal, and yet hope to be regarded innocent in the court of God?

Now Pilate refers the guilt to the Jews: “You yourselves shall see to it!” It is the same word the Sanhedrists had hurled at Judas (v. 4); it now comes back to them. The future ὄφεσθε is again volitive with an imperative tone. This time Pilate spoke the truth. Since that day the Jews have seen to it as their present condition very plainly shows.

Matthew 27:25

25 Something demoniacal possesses these Jews. As far as the blood with which Pilate dreads to stain his hands is concerned—these Jews make light of it. They offer to take it completely off the governor’s hands and to load it upon themselves. That implies that they assume all the guilt, that they make themselves liable for any punishment that may follow, that they will face God’s justice and will suffer his wrath. And to this sacrilegious declaration they add even their children, all future generations of Jews. Why did these Jews have to challenge God’s justice in so horrible a way? Why did they not keep still and let Pilate indulge in his little performance with the water? Was the devil riding them so completely that they cared not what damnation they called down on themselves?

This prophetic word has been, confirmed. The curse the Jews so gayly and so unanimously (note πᾶςὁλαός) took upon themselves that morning has turned out to be a curse indeed. They are now a separate people, are scattered over the whole earth, they have no country, no government, no entity and are a disturbing element among the nations. Even this fact shows that Jesus’ blood is still upon them. Die Selbstverwuenschung traf mit dem Ratschlusse der goettlichen Vergeltung zusammen und ward zur unwillkuerlichen Prophetic. Meyer.

God is not mocked. The idea that the blood of Christ brings only pardon is true indeed, but this pardon is intended only for the penitent and not for those who trample on that blood, Heb. 10:29. If the blood of Abel cursed impenitent Cain, the blood of Christ must far more curse those who shed it and their children who still consent to that shedding by spurning Christ.

Matthew 27:26

26 All the synoptists report that Pilate released Barabbas to the Jews but delivered Jesus to be crucified. Matthew and Mark insert the detail that Pilate scourged Jesus. But this compactness of writing merely summarizes, and we must remember that these statements are merely three facts which occurred in that order. We see this in connection with v. 27–31, which Matthew and Mark narrate by itself; but the mockery did not occur after Jesus had been ordered to be crucified. It would have been senseless at that time. The scourging and the mockery belong together, and it is John who furnishes the key to both.

The proof that has been adduced to show that scourging preceded crucifixion is, therefore, beside the mark. Pilate’s object in scourging (and in mocking) Jesus was the very opposite, he wanted to free Jesus from the cross.

When Pilate’s scheme with regard to Barabbas failed, he did not give up. From Luke 23:16 we learn that at the beginning of the trial he had offered the compromise to scourge Jesus and to let him go. He now reverts to this idea and has Jesus scourged. Matthew and Mark use only the one word φραγελλώσας, “having scourged” Jesus, the Latin flagellare; John has the regular Greek term μαστιγοῦν. Stripped of clothes, the body was bent forward across a low pillar and the back was stretched and exposed to the blows. In order to hold the body in position the victim’s hands must have been tied to rings in the floor or in front at the base of the pillar and his feet to rings behind. We cannot agree that the hands were tied behind the back, for this would place them across the small of the back where some of the blows were to fall and would shield the ribs where the whipends were to lacerate the flesh.

The Romans did not use rods as the Jews did, each rod making only one stripe and cutting only the back; they used short-handled whips, each provided with several leather lashes and ugly, acorn-shaped pieces of lead or lumps of bone that were fastened to the end of each short lash. The strokes were laid on with full force, the officer often shouting, Adde virgas! (Livy, 26, 16), or Firme! (Suetonius, Caligula, 26), in order to get more vigor into the action. Two whips were applied, one from each side. The effect was horrible. The skin and the flesh were gashed to the very bone in every direction, and where the armed ends of the lashes struck, deep bloody holes were torn. See Josepus, Wars, 6, 6, 3; Eusebius 4, 15.

The scourging of Jesus must have taken place outside of the Prætorium, before the eyes of Pilate and of the assembled Jews; for both Matthew and Mark report that for the purpose of mockery, which, according to John, at once followed the scourging and really formed its completion, the soldiers took Jesus into the Prætorium, into the αὐλή or courtyard where the whole cohort found room. To the scourging we may attribute the fact that Jesus broke down under the weight of the cross and died long before the usual time when those who had been crucified passed out of life. The object Pilate had in mind in scourging (and also in mocking) Jesus was to show these Jews what this insignificant man really was about whom they were making such a violent demonstration: a joke of a king; let them look for themselves. Crucify him? act as though this harmless, helpless dreamer amounted to so much? The very idea was ridiculous. But this attempt on the part of Pilate to have the Jews content themselves with less than the actual death of Jesus also failed, and Matthew and Mark thus at once add that Pilate ordered Jesus to be crucified.

Matthew 27:27

27 Matthew and Mark narrate the mockery as a separate event. John 19:1–16 gives us the details in order, and shows how the scourging and the mockery occurred simultaneously in order to make a pitiful and a ridiculous figure of Jesus. This was Pilate’s last effort to save Jesus’ life. When that failed, John tells us, then and not until then, did Pilate order the crucifixion. Then the soldiers of the governor, having taken Jesus into the Praetorium, gathered together to him the entire cohort. And having stripped him, they threw around him a scarlet cloak.

And having plaited a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head and a reed in his right hand. Τότε indicates only the general time and not the sequence after the delivery to crucifixion. This is clear from John’s account. This mockery followed and completed the scourging. This answers the question as to how an act such as this mockery of Jesus could be staged.

This mockery did not customarily accompany the scourging. The mockery of Jesus was so exceptional that nothing resembling it has ever been found. Those who suppose that Jesus was scourged as one who had already been condemned to the cross think that the mockery was staged merely to fill in the time until the cross and the other paraphernalia needed for the execution had been made ready. But even then, why fill in the time with this peculiar type of mockery? If Jesus was scourged only in preparation for crucifixion, this mockery remains unexplained. Those who note that Jesus had not as yet been condemned to the cross regard the mockery as an inspiration that came to the soldiers who guarded Jesus.

It is then supposed that Pilate gave his silent consent and paid no attention to the noise going on in the Prætorium. These are unsatisfactory explanations.

“The soldiers of the governor,” who were guarding Jesus under the governor’s orders, “having taken Jesus into the Prætorium” implies that they took Jesus there on an order from Pilate. They could not and did not move this prisoner about on their own initiative. John 19:4 shows that Pilate himself was in the Prætorium while Jesus was being mocked, for it is he who comes out after the mockery with Jesus, who had been dressed as a mock king. This was a stage play that Pilate engaged in with regard to Jesus in order, if possible, to save his life from the cross. He argued: “Who would insist on crucifying such a pitiful travesty of a king?”

On Pilate’s order the whole cohort was assembled in the courtyard. A σπεῖρα, manipulus, is the tenth part of a legion, 600 men, with auxiliary troops running up to 1, 000, so that the commander was called a chiliarch. Such a cohort was the force that Pilate had with him at Jerusalem, it was the garrison of Antonia. The idea is not that the entire cohort was present to a man, but that as many as were not detained otherwise could and did come. The court was thus thronged with legionaries. Pilate’s orders were to show the Jews what sort of a king their Jesus was.

Matthew 27:28

28 Either reading, ἐκδύσαντες, or ἐνδύσαντες, leaves us with a problem, and the textual authority for either is almost equal. “They, having stripped him,” reads as though Jesus was stripped in the Prætorium. Had he been clothed while he was outside, and were his clothes again taken off him when he was led into the Prætorium after the scourging? “Having stripped him” may refer to the stripping that took place in the court.

The other reading would seem to indicate that in the Prætorium the soldiers clothed Jesus with his own clothes, some say with only the tunic, leaving off his outer robe. But what soldier would have carried Jesus’ clothes into the Prætorium? or had Jesus been ordered to carry them himself?

In order to dress Jesus as a king they bring out an old, worn soldier’s cloak and throw that around Jesus’ shoulders. Imagine how the rough, soiled cloth made the bloody wounds on Jesus’ back shoot with pain. John calls the χλαμύς or “soldier’s cloak” a ἱμάτιον, an outer garment. Matthew says that its color was scarlet, John says that it was purple; but the color could not have been very distinct, for the sagum or paludamentum was old, worn, soiled, and faded with age. This scarlet cloak was to take the place of the royal purple mantel that was worn by kings and thus was intended to enrobe Jesus as a king.

Matthew 27:29

29 But other means are at hand to lend a royal touch to the proceedings. They plait a crown of ἄκανθαι, twigs that were full of thorns, and set that, bristling with thorns, on Jesus’ head. A crown suggested itself naturally for a king. On some coins emperors were pictured with a laurel wreath. The problem as to how to improvise the right kind of a mock crown for Jesus was probably solved by the thorny bush that grew in the courtyard. What plant this was no one knows.

The purpose was fully met. It made this king ridiculous and did it in a cruel way. Everybody would recognize the circlet as a crown. And what a bloody crown it was! Trickles of blood disfigured the contused face of Jesus. He did not appear in the artistic elegance of so many of our great painters but in the stark hideousness of brutal reality.

To the royal robe and the crown a royal scepter lends the final touch. This was a reed that had been found somewhere and had been thrust into Jesus’ right hand. The king is dressed for his part, now follows the mock adoration with its further brutalities. And having kneeled before him, they continued to mock him, saying, Hail, the King of the Jews! The soldiers thus acclaimed Jesus as the King of the Jews. On χαίρειν as used in greetings see the word spoken by Judas in 26:48; and note the imperfect (durative) ἐνέπαιζον.

The article is frequently used with the vocative, which then sometimes has the nominative form. The cutting sarcasm of this adoration was intended to humiliate the soul of Jesus as much as possible. Jesus was in reality not only the King of his nation but the very King of kings, God’s own Son! The mind staggers before the scene here depicted.

Matthew 27:30

30 And having spit on him, they took the reed and kept beating on his head. And when they finished mocking him they took off him the cloak and put on him his clothes and led him away to crucify him. This spitting upon Jesus (see 26:67) is the most disgusting insult human beings can offer anyone. It intends to show what these pagan soldiers really thought of Jesus; he was a king fit only to be spit upon. So with the scepter of his kingly authority they showered blows upon the thorn-crowned head of Jesus. The fact that the thorns were driven more deeply into the head and that the blows themselves inflicted torturing pain was only incidental.

The real point of this continuous striking of the king’s head with the king’s own scepter was to demonstrate to this king that his authority was less than nothing. Any man could take this scepter and knock this king in the head with it, and what could he do? John 19:3 adds the detail that they also gave him blows with their hands, slapped him soundly right and left. How long this went on none of the evangelists intimates. Pilate finally intervened with an order and, as John reports in full, took Jesus out with him and presented him to the Jewish crowd outside the Prætorium, and we know with what result.

Matthew 27:31

31 It was after this vain spectacular effort on the part of Pilate to save Jesus from death, that he was at last remanded to the cross. Matthew has stated this fact already in v. 26. So he adds that, after the soldiers were through with their mockery, Jesus was led away to be crucified. The aorist ἐνέπαιξαν stresses the completion, “when they finished mocking him”; R. 840 shows that we should use the past perfect in such a connection. The fact that Jesus was naked during the mockery, save for the red cloak, appears from what is now said: that robe was removed in front of the Prætorium, and the ἱμάτια (note the plural), the clothes of Jesus which had been left lying there since their removal for the scourging were again put upon Jesus for the journey to the cross. Verbs of clothing have two accusatives, one of the person and the other of the clothes, R. 483.

Matthew 27:32

32 Now, while going out, they found a man, a Cyrenean, by name Simon. Him they impressed to bear the cross. Immediately after the sentence had been pronounced Jesus was led to the place of execution. There was no law that required a delay. In the provinces no such law existed. The imperial laws on this point applied only to Roman citizens. Matthew summarizes a good deal with the one present participle ἐξερχόμενοι: the procession is formed, Jesus bears his cross and is passing through one of the gates of the walled city. All this lies in the “they going out.” This must be “going out of the city,” for the procession (think of the Jews in it) never went out of the Prætorium.

Executions always took place outside of the city, this was true with regard to the Jews (Num. 15:25; Acts 7:58; Heb. 13:12) as well as the Romans. The prisoners were generally led through the most populous streets; and the place of execution would be near a highway where many people would congregate. The traditional via dolorosa which is now shown in Jerusalem as the street over which Jesus passed is of late construction; the city was completely destroyed several times, and even many of its levels were greatly changed; in some places the declivities were filled with debris so that some of the present streets are sixty to eighty feet above the original levels.

Matthew only implies that Jesus bore his cross and that for some reason another man had to be provided to relieve him of this burden. Mark and Luke write in the same way. We are certainly right in thinking that Jesus broke down under the load, broke down so completely that even his executioners saw that no blows and cursings of theirs could make him stagger on. The effect of all the abuse heaped on Jesus since his arrest became apparent. The cross was not a light load. Much has been written regarding its shape, as to whether it was an X or a T or had a crossbeam, †, and whether the beams were fastened together before the procession started.

All the evidence points to that form of the cross which the church everywhere accepts, but it is often pictured as being entirely too high. Jesus bore this cross and not merely the crosspiece or patibulum, John 19:17. By literally bearing his cross Jesus lends a powerful effect to his figurative words about our taking up our cross and bearing it after him, 10:38; 16:24.

The evangelists offer little to describe Simon. He hailed from Cyrene but was now a resident of Jerusalem, was one of the many Cyrenians dwelling there (Acts 2:10). Mark names his sons who, it is agreed, later on held prominent positions in the church. From these data the conclusion is drawn that this strange contact with Jesus led to Simon’s conversion and thus to the prominence of his sons in the church. Mark and Luke know that he had been out in the country that morning and was just coming into the city at this hour. No Jew would, of course, work in the field on this festival day and to assume this in the case of Simon is unwarranted.

The executioners of Jesus seized this Jew and forced him to carry Jesus’ cross. They pounced on the first man that came along, perhaps caught Simon right at the city gate, where he could not flee. No Jew would willingly touch a cross because he regarded it as accursed. No Roman soldier would disgrace himself by carrying a cross for a criminal. So the soldiers caught a Jew and probably thought it a good joke on this unsuspecting Jew that he had to carry another Jew’s cross. On the interesting Persian word ἀγγαρεύω see 5:41; and ἵνα is merely a substitute for the infinitive, R. 993.

Matthew 27:33

33 And having come to a place called Golgotha, which is to say, Skull’s Place, they gave him to drink wine having been mixed with gall. And having tasted it, he was not willing to drink. By means of the participle ἐλθόντες Matthew places us on Golgotha, which Aramaic name he translates into Greek: Κρανίον, or Κρανίουτόπος, in English, Cranium or Cranium Place. It was evidently so called because the hill had the shape of a cranium, the round top of a skull. There is some dispute in regard to the site, but it has been certain for a long time that the site now shown in Jerusalem in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is spurious. Far more acceptable is the skull like hill outside the walls which is now a Mohammedan cemetery, a hill rising above the recently discovered “Garden Tomb” (also called “Gorden’s Tomb” after its discoverer). This place bears many marks of being the place of both the crucifixion and the entombment in the garden which is beneath and away from the hill.

Matthew 27:34

34 Regarding the actual crucifixion Matthew and Mark report only the offer of doped wine which Jesus refused. Matthew calls it wine mixed with χολή. This was not actual gall, but the drink was so called because of its bitter taste. Mark reports that the drink was wine mixed with myrrh, and this tells us what the bitter substance was. Myrrh was added to the wine in order to give it a stupefying effect. This was not an evidense of mercy on the part of the executioners; it was quite the opposite, for it was intended to make their labor of crucifying easier.

A man who had been heavily doped with this drink could be easily handled. After one taste of this Jesus refused to drink more of this stupefying drink, and the imperfect ἤθελε reads as though he was repeatedly urged to drink and as repeatedly refused. He intended to go through the final ordeal with a perfectly clear mind; he intended to endure all without avoiding a single agony. After a generous drink of this wine Jesus could not have spoken as he did and made his death what it was.

Matthew 27:35

35 And having crucified him, they apportioned his garments by casting lot. Among the astounding features of the Scripture are the records of the supreme events: one word to describe the scourging of God’s Son, one word to state his crucifixion, one word to record his resurrection. Events so tremendous, words so restrained! Who guided these writers to write in such an astonishing manner? This is one of the plain marks of divine inspiration. Matthew uses only a participle, σταυρώσαντες, “having crucified him,” as though this were the minor action and the dividing of the clothes the major action. It is the evident intention of all the evangelists not to describe the awful act of crucifixion. The fact, not the details, is to occupy the reader’s mind.

From the mass of evidence that has been collected we gather that, first of all, the cross was firmly planted in the ground. Only by way of exception were the crosses high. That on which Jesus was crucified raised his feet no more than a yard above the ground, for the short stalk of hyssop was able to reach Jesus’ mouth. A block or a heavy peg was fastened to the beam, and on this the victim sat straddle. The victim either climbed up himself, assisted, perhaps, by the executioners, or he was lifted to the seat, and his body, arms, and legs were tied with ropes. Then the great nails (of which the ancient writers speak especially) were driven through the hands and the feet.

A hundred years ago nearly everybody was certain that the feet of Jesus were not nailed to the cross in spite of Luke 24:39, “Behold my hands and my feet!’ Exhaustive investigation has convinced all who have seen the evidence that also the feet were nailed, and each foot with a separate nail. The central seat or peg kept the body from settling to one side after the ropes had been removed. None of the older writers mentions a loincloth. The agony of crucifixion need not be described; we mention only the hot sun, the raging thirst, the delay of death which sometimes did not occur until after four days of lingering torture. It was a great relief for the malefactor to learn that he was to die on that very day.

John gives a detailed account of the division of Jesus’ garments (19:23, 24). Matthew states only that this customary division was made, and that in this case it was done “by casting lot.” How this was done is not indicated. A common way was to place lots in a helmet and to shake them until one was thrown out; another way was to reach into the helmet and to draw a lot. If the former way was used, one man would be designated, and the first lot that was thrown out would be his, the lot being marked for a certain portion of the four divisions that had been arranged; John tells us that there were four divisions. For the valuable tunic of Jesus three lots would be blank, and the other would be marked to win. The clothes of the victim were the perquisites of the executioners, the victim being regarded as one who was already dead.

The soldiers were great gamblers. The fact that they gambled for the clothes of Jesus was nothing exceptional. The soldiers who crucified the two malefactors probably did the same.

The textual evidence is strongly against the addition of the reference to the fulfillment of Ps. 22:19 to Matthew’s account. This seems to have been introduced from John 19:24, where it is genuine.

Matthew 27:36

36 And sitting down, they continued to guard him there. This implies that the bloody work had been completed. All that remained to be done was to guard the cross against interference. In addition to the four executioners this guard included a detachment of Roman soldiers under a centurion that would be strong enough to cope with any situation that might arise.

Matthew 27:37

37 And they put above his head his indictment, having been written, This is Jesus, the King of the Jews. Then they crucify with him two robbers, one on the right, and one on the left. Verse 36 shows that the work had been completed and that the soldiers were sitting and guarding Jesus. But Matthew narrates two other events that had occurred before the soldiers rested: the placing of the superscription and the crucifixion of the malefactors. John tells us the full story of the superscription: that Pilate wrote this title, placed it on the cross, and refused to alter it at the bidding of the Jews. Matthew writes that here on Golgotha the inscription was put above the head of Jesus.

This answers the view that it was fastened to the cross when the procession left the Prætorium. “Having been written” means, of course, at the Prætorium and by Pilate’s order. It is possible that the inscription was an afterthought of Pilate’s and that it was delivered to the centurion on Golgotha by a messenger; but it is more probable that the inscription was at once delivered to the centurion, not for the purpose of display on the way out to Calvary, but to be affixed to the cross at the time of the execution.

Matthew reports only that such a superscription was attached to the cross, but he calls it the αἰτία, the charge or “indictment” against Jesus. The crime committed by Jesus, then, was the fact that he was “the King of the Jews.” From the start Pilate picked out this charge as being the central one among all that the Jews preferred. But throughout the trial before Pilate, Jesus appears as “the King of the Jews” whom the Jews most violently disown. They finally declare that they have no king save Cæsar. And thus they forced Pilate to condemn Jesus as “the King of the Jews.” To the very last the Jews had hurled at Pilate: “King, King!” which he knew was false and which he knew they knew was false. So Pilate has his revenge on these Jews.

They shall have Jesus on the cross, but only as a king, only as their king. Let all the world read: “The King of the Jews”! By adding nothing further Pilate really proclaims the innocence of Jesus even here on the cross. Pilate sets it down as a simple fact that Jesus is, indeed, the King of the Jews. Jesus had fully explained what kind of a king he was. So this accusation was at the same time a vindication.

Matthew 27:38

38 The second act that Matthew narrates is the crucifixion of two robbers, one on Jesus’ right, and the other on his left. The present tense σταυροῦνται, “they do crucify,” draws our attention to this unexpected spectacle, for Matthew has hitherto said nothing about these robbers. Matthew lets us draw our own conclusions, yet he aids us when he writes, “with him,” and especially when he notes, “one on the right, and one on the left.” The Greek idiom ἐκ views the two sides, right and left, as projecting “out from” Jesus. Being crucified between robbers, he was certainly numbered with the transgressors, Isa. 53:12. This is Pilate’s estimate of this King of the Jews. Why these two robbers were ordered to be crucified with Jesus we do not know.

But we surmise that it was done in order to insult the Jews and to degrade their king even in his crucifixion. The two robbers were to cast shame on Jesus and thus on the Jews. It is not necessary to discuss the placing of one robber on each side of Jesus; this was done automatically. Since there was one important victim who was even distinguished by a superscription, the two unimportant victims would be so placed that the main criminal would occupy the central place.

Matthew 27:39

39 And those passing by kept blaspheming him, shaking their heads and saying: Thou that destroyest the Sanctuary and buildest it in three days, save thyself! If thou art God’s Son, come down from the cross! In the same way also the high priests, mocking together with the scribes and elders, kept saying: Others he saved, himself he cannot save. He is King of Israel—let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He has trusted in God—let him now rescue him if he wants him. For he said, I am God’s Son.

We see who “those passing by” were when we listen to what they say. These are Jews of the city, for they repeat the very things that were said during the night session of the Sanhedrin. What was brought as evidence against Jesus by the last two witnesses was this very matter of destroying and building the Sanctuary (26:61); and what was used to condemn Jesus was his own declaration that he was the Son of God (26:63–66). People who came from a distance could not have used these words when blaspheming Jesus; this could be done only by people of the city who had heard of the whys and the wherefores of Jesus’ trial and condemnation.

Matthew and Mark call the words these people spoke to Jesus blasphemy, which means to speak against God or anything pertaining to God in anger or in derision. Here God was being mocked in the person of his own Son. The shaking of their heads has been regarded as a gesture of indignation, of malignant joy, of derision, and of mockery, or of these together. But this is putting a good deal into this simple gesture. To shake the head means “no.” Each situation modifies this no, but the negation remains in the gesture. So these people shake their heads in order to express their negation and complete disapproval of the statements they attribute to Jesus, that about destroying and building the Sanctuary, and that about his being the Son of God.

Matthew 27:40

40 Note the deductions implied in the two mocking statements. If Jesus can do so tremendous a thing as to replace the great Sanctuary (Holy and Holy of Holies) in three days, then he ought to be able to save himself from his present predicament. But it is evident that he cannot do this. So he was the one that talked so big and is now able to do nothing for himself!

This mockery was the worse because of the grave misunderstanding of the words of Jesus on which it rested (John 2:19). What Jesus had said was that, if the Jews continued their course of rejecting the Messiah, God’s true Sanctuary among his people, they would thus destroy their own Sanctuary, this symbol of the Messiah, which, of course, could not remain after the Messiah had been rejected. Then, Jesus said, he would raise up the Sanctuary, the true one, himself, from the death in the tomb, that death by which the Jews destroyed their own Sanctuary, yea, their own nation. That time was at hand now. And these mockers attended to it that what Jesus had three years ago prophesied concerning the Sanctuary should now not be forgotten at the start of its fulfillment: Articulated participles are often used in address (R. 1107) and in the Greek need no added σύ. They are almost like nouns: “the destroyer,” “the builder,” for the tense is quite timeless.

The same deduction is repeated: it should be as nothing for the Son of God to come down from the cross right there before everybody, not in the least hurt or harmed by what had been done to him. But, of course, Jesus could not do this. Fine Son of God he was! Those who deny the deity of Jesus point to the absence of the article before υἱός and state that this expression means no more than ein Liebling Gottes. But this is unwarranted. For it is the intention of these people to repeat 26:63, 64, where the article is absolutely definite.

Besides, the article is not needed where only one object or person of a class exists; and the Jews knew about only one Father and consequently only one Son and, we may add, only one Spirit. The Jews of Jesus’ day were not Unitarians as the Jews of today are. In their opposition to Jesus they never denied that God has a Son who is equal with himself but denied only that Jesus could be that Son.

Matthew 27:41

41 In this third great mockery to which Jesus was subjected also the Sanhedrin as such took part; and ὁμοίως indicates that they descended to the same low level. Matthew puts this fact beyond doubt when he departs from his usual way of naming only two groups and here names all three: “the high priests, together with the scribes (so far not named in the passion history) and elders.” The implication is not that only a few of the Sanhedrists persisted to the end and that the rest were detained by duties at the Temple, and the like. No; so fascinated were they that as many as possible remained, the bulk of their body at least. Even here in public these men throw their dignity to the winds, forget who they are, and, like the common herd, give way to their basest passions. What they are capable of in this respect 26:67, 68 has fully shown. They cannot now spit on him and strike him but they can certainly wound him with their cowardly and insulting tongues.

The chief contribution of these men to the mockery is, “Others he saved, himself he cannot save!” Again a deduction is involved. This is not a frank admission that Jesus “did save others”; it is a denial that he actually saved others. And this denial is based on Jesus’ being unable to save himself. All his miracles in helping others are here derided. They must be spurious since he cannot now help himself.

The evidence that this interpretation is correct we have in the second slander. Here again we have the direct statement: “King of Israel is he!” But again it is said only in mockery. The opposite is intended. This denial rests on Jesus’ inability to do what his mockers demand, namely to come down from the cross. So they tell this pseudo-King: “Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe him!” This faith would be worthless because it would be based on sight alone. It would also in an instant turn and doubt what it had seen. This whole mockery reveals the mind of these Sanhedrists, their conceptions of what their Messiah-King should be, and of what is due him on their part.

All the derisions beneath the cross turn on the power of Jesus: his power to replace the Sanctuary, and his power as the Son of God to step down from the cross; again, his power to save others, and his power as Israel’s King to leave the cross. That power is mocked as being nothing but sham and pretense because Jesus does not use it in his own behalf. But the mockery is silly on the basis of its own deduction. If Jesus would care to use this power of his, why should he have waited until this time to exercise it? Would he not have saved himself from the very start? These mockers think only of power that is, first of all, used in self-interest. Of grace and mercy that care only for others at the complete expense of self they know nothing. And so their mockery exposes only themselves.

Matthew 27:43

43 Another deduction the Sanhedrists make from the Sonship of Jesus. If he is God’s Son he naturally trusts God with a Son’s trust. “Very well,” the Sanhedrists shout aloud, “he has trusted on God—let him rescue him now if he wants him!” The fact that this is a reference to his Sonship is explained by the γάρ clause: “For he said, I am God’s Son.” So Jesus is told that God himself disowns him, God will not have him. The proof is again ocular: God does not intervene with a miracle to rescue this Son from death by crucifixion.

Matthew 27:44

44 To the Jewish mockery another is added. Moreover, the robbers that were crucified reproached him with the same thing. The hearing about saving others and the coming down from the cross deeply affected these robbers in their excruciating pain. So they, too, shouted to Jesus to save himself and also them; and when he made no response, they, too, mocked his inability. Οἱλῃσταί plainly refers to both robbers, R. 409, and a grammatical explanation that regards this as a plural of the category is without warrant. While at first both reproached Jesus, before so very long one of these robbers came to repentance, cf., Luke’s account. Luke also informs us that the Roman soldiers joined in reviling Jesus.

The chorus was thus rather unanimous. There is no discrepancy between Luke’s account and that of the rest. Considering all that had transpired here on Golgotha, even psychologically a complete turn to repentance is perfectly in line. But aside from any explanations one may venture to give the facts as recorded by the evangelists remain certain.

Matthew 27:45

45 Now from the sixth hour a darkness came on all the earth until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus shouted with a great voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is: My God, my God, for what purpose didst thou forsake me? But some of those standing there, when they heard, were saying, This fellow calls Elijah! And immediately one of them, having run and having taken and filled a sponge with sour wine and having put it around a reed, was giving him a drink. But the rest were saying, Let us see whether Elijah comes to save him!

The first great sign in connection with the crucifixion of Jesus is this strange darkness that ἐγένετο, “occurred,” from the sixth Jewish hour, our noon, until the ninth, our three o’clock. This darkness occurred when the sun was at its zenith, shining with strongest light, and continued for three hours into the afternoon. All astronomical learning points to the fact that this could not have been a natural eclipse of the sun. This cannot take place when the moon is about full. A search through ancient records also produces no satisfactory results. We can arrive at only one conclusion: this “darkness” was wholly miraculous exactly as were the following signs. God darkened the sun’s light by means of his own just as he shook the earth and split the rocks.

The fact that this darkness covered exactly what Matthew says, “all the earth,” (γῆ cannot here mean country) ought to be accepted. When the light of the sun is shut off, the day half of the globe becomes dark. Yet some contend that ἐπὶπᾶσαντὴνγὴν means only “over all the Jewish land,” or even over only Jerusalem and the vicinity. Γῆ is taken in the sense of “land, region, country.” But then it seems strange that “all” should be added. Those who translate “all the earth” sometimes weaken their correct translation by saying that this is only “a popular way” of writing, and that, since the darkness was rather extensive, the evangelists wrote, “over all the earth,” although they did not mean that.

Luke writes τοῦἡλίουἐκλείποντος, “the sun failing,” thus indicating that the cause of this strange darkness lay in the sun itself and not in clouds or vapor that interfered with the rays of the sun. When the sun itself “fails,” the entire day-side of the earth will be in darkness. Some think that the darkness set in gradually and then grew greater up to a certain point and receded after that. The evangelists offer no support for this intensification. Why the darkness continued for just three hours, from high noon until three o’clock, we are not told.

Various reasons for the darkness have been offered. One is that nature suffered together with Jesus; another that is frequently offered is that the sun could not endure to look upon Jesus’ sufferings, yet it looked upon the first three hours of those sufferings; and the sun cannot be personified in the way that is here attempted. Nearer to reality is the explanation that this darkening of the sun was a moral reaction against the killing of Jesus. It was more. This darkness signified judgment. It was not a mere reaction of the natural sun but a sign wrought in the sun by God. Darkness and judgment go together, Joel 2:31; 3:14, 15; Isa. 5:30; 13:9, etc.; and other passages dealing with the judgment, including Matt. 24:29; Mark 13:24, etc.; Luke 21:25.

Matthew 27:46

46 The judgment thus symbolized by the miraculous darkness was not one that was to be executed at some future time, perhaps at the end of the world, but one that took place during the very darkness itself, on the cross itself, in the person of the dying Savior himself. The darkness and the agonized cry of Jesus go together. Δέ is continuative, “now,” or “and,” indicating that what follows belongs to what precedes although it is somewhat different. “About the ninth hour” is just before the darkness ended. At the time of this climax of the sign of judgment “Jesus shouted with a great voice.” It is the agony he is now enduring, has endured for these three hours, that makes his cry so loud and strong. He is very near to death; these last three hours with their darkness complete his expiatory suffering. Matthew, like Mark, has preserved the words of the cry in the original: “Eli, Eli (Hebrew), lama sabachthani?” (Aramaic). Mark has “Eloi,” the Aramaic instead of the Hebrew; he disregards the Hebrew form used by Jesus. The Hebrew “Eli” or “Elei” (a variation in writing) was fully understood by the Jews although they at this time spoke Aramaic.

The words of this cry are found also in Ps. 22:1, although neither Matthew nor Mark mention the fact. The evidence that this is a prophetic psalm is stated in the author’s The Old Testament Eisenach Selections, 428, etc. David is not speaking of himself as a type, so that Jesus would be the antitype; David is prophetically describing the suffering Messiah. Even the skeptic David Strauss saw that Ps. 22 furnished “complete in advance” (prophetically) what occurred on Golgotha. The omniscient Spirit of prophecy alone could have placed at the head of this psalm that supreme cry of agony on the cross. For it is not due to the fact that David wrote this line that Christ made it his cry on the cross, but because Christ would thus cry out on the cross David wrote it as a prophet. The ideas that Christ spoke aloud the entire psalm, perhaps also the following psalms, or that he spoke aloud only the first line and silently went through the rest, are without support and destroy the force of Christ’s cry.

The idea that either the physical agonies or the inner mental distress of Jesus led to this cry is unsatisfactory, since men have often suffered both and yet have felt deep inner comfort in the fact that God was with them. Nor can the forsaking of which Jesus complains be only an abandonment to the wicked power of his enemies; for this would imply that Jesus had so low an idea of God and of fellowship with him that he felt his nearness only in fortunate days and lost that feeling when his enemies seemed to triumph over him. Again, this cry was not uttered only by his human nature, as though his human nature had been unclothed of the divine and left to stand alone in these three hours of agony in the darkness. Such Nestorianism misunderstands the agony suffered on the cross. Jesus does not lament that the divine nature or its divine powers have forsaken him but that another person (“thou”) has left him.

Some have supposed that, when Jesus uttered this cry, he virtually tasted of death, and that this is what he had in mind when he spoke of being forsaken of God. But Jesus died, actually died later and in his actual death was not forsaken of God, for he commended his soul into his Father’s hands. And no virtual dying can exceed the actual dying in intensity. Again, it is true enough that the death of the sinless Son of man must have been infinitely more bitter than the death of any sinful man can possibly be. But again we must reply that this does not explain the forsaking; for if God does not forsake the repentant sinner in the hour of death, how could he forsake his sinless Son when death came to him?

We must note the difference between Jesus’ experience in Gethsemane and that on Golgotha. In the garden Jesus has a God who hears and strengthens him; on the cross this God has turned wholly away from him. During those three black hours Jesus was made sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21), was made a curse for us (Gal. 3:13), and thus God turned completely away from him. In the garden Jesus wrestled with himself and brought himself to do the Father’s will; on the cross he wrestles with God and simply endures. With his dying powers he cries to God and now no longer sees in him the Father, for a wall of separation has risen between the Father and the Son, namely the world’s sin and its curse as they now lie upon the Son. Jesus thirsts for God, but God has removed himself.

It is not the Son that has left the Father, but the Father the Son. The Son cries for God, and God makes no reply to him.

What is involved in the fact that God forsook or abandoned Jesus during those three awful hours no man can really know. The nearest we can hope to come toward penetrating this mystery is to think of Jesus as being covered with the world’s sin and curse and that, when God saw Jesus thus, he turned away from him. The Son of God bore our sin and its curse in his human nature, this nature supported by the divine. That is why Jesus cried, “my God,” and not, “my Father.” But the possessive is important. Even though God turned from him and left him, he cries to him and clings to him as his God. Here the divine perfection of Jesus appears. He is the Lamb without blemish although he was made sin and a curse in the hour of his sacrifice.

The vocative, Θεέμου, appears only here in the New Testament; Mark has ὁΘεός, the nominative form with the article used as the vocative. R. 705 states that τοῦτʼ ἔστι explains only the vocative whereas it introduces the Greek translation of the entire cry. The ἱνατί is distinct from διατί (διὰτί). We are compelled to translate both with “why,” but the former means, “for what purpose?” while the latter asks for the ground or the reason. So Jesus cries, “For what purpose didst thou forsake me?” The matter that is hidden from Jesus in this fearful ordeal is the object God has in forsaking Jesus. What purpose did this forsaking and this so dreadful suffering of Jesus serve as regards the redemption that was now almost completely accomplished?

We need not be surprised to hear from Jesus himself that this purpose was hidden from him; for in his humiliation other things, too, were kept from him (24:36). All that we are able to say is that only thus, by actually forsaking Jesus, could the full price of our redemption be paid.

To be forsaken of God is undoubtedly to taste his wrath. Jesus endured the full penalty for our sins when God turned from him for three hours while Jesus hung on the cross. During those hours the penalty was paid to the uttermost farthing; and after that had been done, God again turned to Jesus. The forsaking is often combined with the death, yet the two are quite distinct. The forsaking had been completed before the death set in. When Jesus died he placed his soul into the hands of his Father and thus was certainly not forsaken.

But while they are distinct, the forsaking and the death are closely connected. The death was the penalty for the sins of the world, and thus in connection with it this forsaking of the dying Savior was necessary. After this had been endured, Jesus could cry, “It is finished!” and then yield his soul into his Father’s hands.

Matthew 27:47

47 The loud, agonizing cry of Jesus was heard for some distance. “Some of those standing there” answered it. Their answer is bald mockery. These must have been the Jews who had mocked Jesus before he spoke this word. The soldiers cannot be referred to; for what did they know about Elijah? The darkness had lasted for so long a time that its impression had gradually faded away. These wicked mockers pervert the first two words of Jesus and disregard the rest.

They well knew that “Eli, Eli” meant “my God, my God,” for the Hebrew for Elijah is Elijahu or Elijah, LXX, Ἠλιού or Ἠλίας. Yet the malicious minds of these Jews made a joke of this cry of Jesus’ and went on to say, “This fellow is calling Elijah!” The point of this silly joke was the Jewish belief that Elijah would not only precede the Messiah and introduce him to the Jews but would also live at the side of the Messiah and attest him as the Messiah. So the mockery amounted to this “Now that this fellow is about at his end, he is frantically calling for Elijah to rescue him and to proclaim and to confirm him as the Messiah!” This was the reply men made to the Savior in that terrible hour when he drank the bitter cup of agony for the sin and the guilt of the world

Matthew 27:48

48 At this point Matthew abbreviates We must insert John 19:28, 29, the word of Jesus, “I thirst.” It was the untold agony that lent such great force to the cry, “My God,” etc But now the darkness gave way to the full light of the sun, and the agony of being forsaken of God had subsided. Jesus feels himself sinking and knows that his death is at hand. He does not intend slowly to sink into unconsciousness but to die with a loud shout of triumph. For this reason Jesus asks for a drink to moisten his parched lips so as to enable him to speak his last words with a loud and a triumphant voice. Matthew reports only the fact that Jesus received the drink he asked for. The “one” that ran to answer Jesus’ request must have been a soldier, for the soldiers alone had sour wine (ὄξος) for the very purpose of moistening the throats of the crucified whose tortures included the most raging thirst.

We need not trouble about the question as to whether this wine helped to prolong life; for, if it did, the very object of crucifixion was such prolonged torture. The centurion very likely gave a sign of assent, and thus one of the soldiers ran for the wine.

The soldier took a reed, fixed a sponge to one end of it, dipped this into the wine, and held it up to Jesus’ lips, who drank the wine from the sponge. John tells us that the reed was a stalk of the hyssop plant which has stems that are approximately eighteen inches long. This indicates the height of the cross. So short a reed was able to reach the mouth of Jesus. Like ἔλεγον in v. 47, ἐπότιζεν is imperfect, picturing the action in progress; all the auxiliary actions are indicated as such by the participles. The present instance is interesting, since there are no less than four such participles, for all or most of which the English would employ finite verbs.

Matthew 27:49

49 While this was in progress, the rest kept up their mockery regarding Elijah. These must have been the Jews. Carried away by their shouting, the soldier who gave Jesus the drink joined in the same cry, Mark 15:36. Ἄφες (like the plural ἄφετε in Mark 15:36) is to be construed with the volitive subjunctive ἴδωμεν; it is much like a particle. Hence we do not translate, “Let be; let us see,” etc. (our versions), as though these Jews wanted to keep the soldier from giving Jesus the drink. We translate, “Let us see,” or, “We shall see,” R. 430; B.-D. 364, 2; B.-P. 199. The fact that ἄφες is singular while ἴδωμεν is plural makes no difference.

The mockery of this word of the Jews lies in the intimation that, perhaps, Elijah will actually come. Thus these Jews make sport of the cry of Jesus. The future participle is rare in the New Testament, but here we have an example in σώσων. It is used to express purpose, “in order to save him.” Every time these Jews speak of Jesus being saved they gloat over the fact that they now have him beyond all saving, at a point where he must certainly die. With such mockery ringing in his ears, Jesus goes to his end.

Matthew 27:50

50 John alone reports the next cry, “It is finished!” and Luke alone the last, “Father, into thy hands,” etc. Matthew and Mark abbreviate by at once reporting the death. And Jesus, having cried again with a great voice, let go the spirit. All the synoptists speak of the mighty shout of Jesus with which he died. He rallied all his powers for these last two words and spoke them as a victor whose triumph is won. Matthew indicates that he is acquainted with these final words, for he mentions “the great voice.”

All the evangelists use choice words when reporting Jesus’ death. None is content to say only that “he died.” They also refer to the spirit or πνεῦμα, none of them only to the ψυχή although dying is also expressed by use of the latter. As a true man Jesus has both a ψυχή and a πνεῦμα. These two are one, namely the immaterial part of a human being. When they are used in their distinctive sense, ψυχή is the immaterial part as it animates the body while πνεῦμα is that same part as it contains the ἐγώ and is open to a higher world and is able to receive impressions from the Spirit of God. This distinction conveyed by the Greek terms is largely lost in the English where “soul” and “spirit” are more nearly alike.

We at once see this when we note that the Greek derives its adjective ψυχικός from ψυχή. We have no corresponding English derivative from “soul” to express the fact that the immaterial part of our being is moved by the lower influences of the body.

While it is true that, when Jesus died, his ψυχή ceased to animate his body which now hung lifeless on the cross, yet it was eminently proper that the evangelists did not describe his dying by a reference to the ψυχή but only by a reference to his πνεῦμα; for the ψυχή of Jesus did not rule his person, it was always his πνεῦμα or “spirit” that exercised complete control. So it is true enough that, when Jesus died, he breathed out his ψυχή‚ and his body became inanimate; but much more is implied when it is stated that his πνεῦμα and all its spiritual powers left his body. Yet the exalted expressions used by the evangelists should not lead us to think that Jesus’ death differed from our own. The separation of soul and spirit from the body occurred in him just as it occurs in us. Nor was the Logos separated from the human nature of Jesus when he died. Body, soul, and spirit constitute the human nature of Jesus just as they do ours, but in him the ἐγώ or personality was the Logos.

The death of Jesus in no way affected the union of the Logos with his human nature. This death affected only the human nature, for it alone is able to die. God’s Son died according to his human nature, and according to that alone. Compare Delitzsch, Biblische Psychologie, 400, etc.

The πνεῦμα of Jesus left his body, and thus he died. John 10:17, 18 does not prove that Jesus did not die from physical causes but by a mere volition of his will. That passage deals with the entire action of Jesus in giving himself into death for us. He laid down his life when, as he said in advance, he voluntarily entered his passion, the end of which would be death by crucifixion. The physical suffering killed Jesus, the Scriptures assign no other cause for his death. Yet we must conceive of his death as being one of peace and joy and triumphant return to his Father after the hard and bitter work of redeeming the world.

Certain older medical authorities have believed that the death of Jesus was induced by a rupture of the walls of his heart, so that we might satisfy our sentimental feelings by saying that Jesus “died of a broken heart,” although breaking a man’s heart is not at all physical. Our latest and best authorities inform us that this is quite impossible. A lesion such as that could result only from a degeneration of the heart, and this occurs only in older persons when disease has left its effects. This applies also to the tentative suggestion that perhaps some artery burst and thus caused death.

Where did the πνεῦμα of Jesus go after his death? Into his Father’s hands (Luke 23:46), into Paradise with the malefactor (Luke 23:43), into the glory the Son had from eternity (John 17:5); these expressions refer to heaven, the eternal abode of God and of his angels and the saints.

Matthew 27:51

51 And lo, the curtain of the Sanctuary was rent in two from above to below, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were rent, and the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints that had been asleep were raised and, having gone out of their tombs, after his resurrection went into the holy city and appeared to many. Jesus is dead, his lips are silent; now God speaks in a language of his own. It has been long noted that the wording of this passage is both beautiful and highly impressive. Καί after καί piles one great sign upon another. The interjection ἰδού ushers them in, and they are certainly astounding. The first is the rending of the curtain in the ναός or Sanctuary, but this is first only in the narrative, for all these signs occurred simultaneously the moment Jesus bowed his head in death. Each in its way proclaimed the tremendous significance and the effect of the Savior’s death.

The καταπέτασματοῦναοῦ is the inner curtain or veil that hung between the Holy and the Holy of Holies. In the Herodian Sanctuary a second curtain hung in front of the Holy. This, too, was at times called καταπέτασμα, and the plural is used to designate both curtains. But the regular term for this outer curtain was κάλυμμα, and only occasionally the other term was used. Yet this has led some to think that Matthew referred to the outer curtain. But if Matthew had the outer curtain in mind he would have used the distinctive term for this curtain and not the standard term for the inner one.

The inner curtain is described in Exod. 26:31; 36:35; 2 Chron. 3:14. Josephus, Wars, 5, 5, 4, has the following: “This house, as it was divided into two parts, the inner part was lower than the appearance of the outer and had golden doors of 55 cubits altitude and 16 in breadth. But before these doors there was a veil of equal largeness with the doors. It was a Babylonian curtain; embroidered with blue, and fine linen, and scarlet, and purple, and of a contexture that was truly wonderful. Nor was this mixture of colors without its mystical interpretation, but was a kind of image of the universe. For by the scarlet there seemed to be enigmatically signified fire, by the fine flax the earth, by the blue the air, and by the purple the sea; two of them having their colors the foundation of this resemblance; but the fine flax and the purple have their own origin for that foundation, the earth producing the one, and the sea the other. This curtain had also embroidered upon it all that was mystical in the heavens, excepting that of the (twelve) signs (of the zodiac) representing living creatures.” The thickness of the curtain corresponded with its great size, and its strength was according.

All at once this mighty curtain “was rent in two,” and that “from above to below” as if an unseen hand severed it by starting at the top. The two pieces exposed the Holy of Holies. Consternation must have struck those who saw the sight. Jesus died at three o’clock, thus the curtain must have been rent at the time the priests were busy with the evening sacrifice. Many eyes thus saw what had happened. The sound of the rending may have attracted general attention. We have no reason to think that only one or two priests who were at the moment busy in the Holy discovered that the curtain had been rent.

This rending was miraculous. We have no intimation that it was caused by the earthquake, the curtain being stretched so tightly that, when the earth shook, it split in two. Then, indeed, it would not have split from the top to the very bottom but would have been torn in several directions. The idea that it was fastened to a great beam at the top, and that this beam broke in two, thus tearing the curtain, lacks sufficient evidence to make it acceptable.

The sign involved in this torn curtain is easily understood. Only once a year the high priest alone dared to pass inside this curtain, on the great Day of Atonement when he carried in the blood for the cleansing of the nation. In Herod’s Sanctuary the Holy of Holies was empty, for the ark of the covenant that had stood there in Solomon’s Temple had been destroyed. When this curtain was rent, God proclaimed that the ministration of the Jewish high priest had come to an end. What this high priest and his annual function typified had reached an end, because now the divine High Priest, Jesus, had come and had entered into the Holy of Holies of heaven itself with his own all-atoning blood. Heb. 9:3–15; Heb. 6:19, etc., 10:19, etc.

The second sign was the earthquake and the rending of the rocks, πέτραι (not πέτροι, detached boulders), cliffs of rocky masses. These showed deep fissures and rents as a result of the earthquake. This earthquake is also a miraculous sign that was wrought directly by God in connection with his Son’s death. An alternative is unacceptable, namely that this earthquake occurred accidentally just at this time and was merely coincidental with Jesus’ death. Matthew alone reports this sign and the next, but this is no reason to call them myths or to deny their reality. Think of the earthquake that occurred at the time of Jesus’ resurrection. We feel that God would manifest such mighty signs in connection with the death of his Son.

Nebe refers to the Old Testament for the interpretation of this earthquake. It always denotes the presence and the intervention of God among men and shows his might and his greatness as the God of the covenant (Exod. 19:19; 1 Kings 19:11; Ps. 68:9; 114:4, 6; Hag. 2:7; also Acts 4:31; 16:26); revealing himself as the righteous Judge in his wrath (2 Sam. 22:8; Ps. 18:7; 77:18; Isa. 5:25; 13:13; 24:18; 29:6; Jer. 10:10; 49:21; Nah. 1:5; Joel 2:10; Hag. 2:6; also Rev. 6:12; 8:5; 11:13). These Old Testament passages which are corroborated by those of the New Testament explain this sign. The earthquake and the rending cliffs indicate the presence of God at the death of his Son, the presence of the covenant God in his might and his greatness for all who believe and of the Judge in his wrath for all unbelievers.

We need seek no farther. The earth is not protesting against the death of Jesus, refusing to receive his body, or to bear those who crucified him. This earthquake is not a sign that indicates a renewal of the earth. Allegory is out of place. These rent rocks do not symbolize hard hearts that are at last rent by Jesus and by the gospel.

Matthew 27:52

52 The third sign is most incredible to the critically minded. Not, indeed, the fact that the tombs were opened but the fact that these saints arose and appeared to persons in Jerusalem. Especially unacceptable to us is the supposition that this resurrection of the saints is connected with Christ’s descent into hell. Some think that he descended there at the time of his death and released the saints in hades (realm of the dead); others say that he made this descent and effected this release at the time of his resurrection.

In the rocky country of Palestine the dead were usually not placed into graves that had been dug in the earth but into chambers that had been carved out of rocky elevations and were closed with a stone slab. Yet we are not ready to adopt the view that the quaking of the earth dislocated these slabs so that the tombs were opened and the dead within them were exposed. The opening of the tombs was a separate miracle of God’s. Matthew does not intend to say that all tombs were opened, but that only the bodies of the saints were raised. When he restricts this resurrection to the saints he intends to say that only their tombs were opened. He does not say that all the saints had their tombs opened and were raised to life but only “many” of them, a certain large number that had been selected by God.

This proves the presence of the hand of God and thus a miracle. Nothing is said about those that were not saints. There was no reason for raising them to life at the time of Jesus’ death. Matthew leaves the impression that these tombs of the saints were opened the moment Jesus died. The immediate effect of his death was this opening of the tombs and the resurrection of the saints. This, then, is the significance of the miracle: it is a sign that Jesus’ death conquered death, these risen saints prove his great victory.

Death could no longer keep these saints in their tombs.

“They were raised,” ἠγέρθη, means exactly what it says. Their souls returned from heaven and were again united with their bodies but not in order that they might again live on this earth. They arose with glorified bodies such as we shall have at the last day. Their “bodies” arose, their σώματα, for the resurrection has reference only to dead bodies. This shuts out a speculation such as that these saints arose with “spiritual bodies,” i.e., other than their actual dead bodies. They arose at once, and their now glorified bodies left the tomb.

The supposition that they were “gradually” made alive and then finally at the time of the resurrection of Jesus on Sunday made their way out of the tomb, is untenable. The Scriptures present only an instantaneous resurrection and not one that is gradual. Even Lazarus did not return to life gradually. The perfect participle κεκοιμημένων, “having slept” and thus being asleep at the moment of the miracle, merely matches ἁγίων, “saints,” and does not support the view that these were New Testament saints, believers who had come to faith through Jesus’ words and deeds. These were Old Testament saints.

Matthew 27:53

53 These risen saints did not at once enter heaven with their glorified bodies; they had a duty to perform here on earth before their translation to the heavenly home. There was no interval of time between their resurrection and the leaving of their tombs. The opening of the tombs, the return to life, and the leaving of the tombs occurred at the same moment. This implies that the phrase “after his resurrection” be construed with the main verb εἰσῆλθον and not with the preceding participle ἐξελθόντες. These glorified saints did not remain in their open tombs until after Christ’s resurrection. If the question is asked where they remained until Sunday, the answer is: where Jesus remained during the intervals between his appearance during the forty days after his resurrection. God had no trouble to find a place for these saints.

The reason that these saints were not allowed to leave their tombs until after Jesus’ resurrection is the thought that Jesus would then no longer be “the Firstborn from the dead,” these glorified and risen saints would have preceded him. But this view overlooks ἠγέρθη in v. 52: their resurrection took place on Friday afternoon. If this was the case—and Matthew’s statement is very plain—then their resurrection would after all precede that of Jesus. It does not follow that of Jesus merely by having their risen bodies remain in their tombs until Sunday or until later. Jesus remains “the Firstborn from the dead” (Col. 1:18) because he alone conquered death, and even these saints arose only through the blessed power of Jesus.

The phrase μετὰτὴνἔγερσιναὐτοῦ is placed before εἰσῆλθον because of its emphasis. Already the death of Jesus brought resurrection to these saints, hence the account of this occurrence is properly connected with the death of Jesus and not with his resurrection. The main point is the resurrection of these saints; secondary to this is their appearance to people in the Holy City. This occurred after the resurrection of Jesus because this appearance was a sign-testimony to the resurrection of Jesus.

Matthew does not intimate who these saints were. Speculation has named Job, the patriarchs, and others and some have thought of recently deceased believers who appeared to their relatives, Simeon and Anna, for instance. But these are guesses. Jerusalem is still called the “Holy City” although it rejected Christ. This may well be due to the fact that the work of Christ’s grace was to continue in Jerusalem until Pentecost when the Christian Church was established in this city.

As we are left without identification of the risen saints, so also the “many” to whom they appeared in the Holy City are left unnamed. Some think that these must have been believers. Yet in Acts 1:15 the believers were only 120 in number. The indefinite πολλοῖς is without restriction. Jesus did not appear to any of his enemies. May it not be possible that he sent these saints to them instead?

The great importance of this resurrection of the saints for us is the fact that the resurrection is not merely a future event; it has already begun in the case of these saints. Not only Jesus is risen from the death, an advance number of the saints has risen with him. This is an assurance that we shall also rise. What finally became of these risen saints? Some think that they ascended to heaven with Jesus; but it seems best to assume that after they had appeared to those in Jerusalem they were at once translated into heaven.

Matthew 27:54

54 Now the centurion and those with him guarding Jesus, having seen the earthquake and the things that occurred, feared exceedingly, saying, Truly, this was God’s Son! We now learn that no less an officer than a centurion was in command of the detail that crucified Jesus. We cannot determine how many soldiers were ordered out for the purpose of this execution; some think of only twelve, four for each person crucified, yet for the sake of safety an additional guard may well have been added. Matthew combines the centurion with those “with him,” the soldiers “guarding Jesus.” All of these heathen men are affected alike, all of them express themselves in the same way. They are upset by the earthquake in particular and in addition by all else that occurred, τὰγενόμενα, or that is occurring, τὰγινόμενα (a variant reading). The latter expression includes all that happened on Golgotha. Mark lays emphasis on the way in which Jesus died: ὅτιοὕτωςἐξέπνευσεν; but this οὕτως is quite the same as that which Matthew specifies.

All these soldiers were greatly frightened. The ἐφοβήθησαν was more than reverence in this connection. The nature of this fright and the thought that inspired it are revealed by their exclamation, “Truly, this was God’s Son!” Their fear was a religious fear. This centurion and his soldiers knew how Jesus was brought to the cross. The centurion had observed the conduct of Jesus throughout this ordeal. He had witnessed the mockery of the Jews in which even his soldiers had joined, and the word regarding Jesus’ being God’s Son had been a part of that mockery. Then came the death with the loud cry, “Father,” and immediately the earthquake and the rending rocks. Considering all this together with this climax, we see how the centurion came to exclaim as he did.

This Gentile, called Longinus in tradition, comes to faith beneath the dead Savior’s cross. His confession is strong because of its ἀληθῶς, “truly.” This adverb is set over against the Jewish unbelief and mockery. Whatever the Jews may say, the centurion sees that the truth is the divine Sonship of Jesus. Θεοῦυἱός is without articles, and R. 781 thinks that the context alone decides whether this means “the or a Son of God.” But this is not correct in regard to the articles; for even “the Son of God” might be read as referring to one of several Sons. Θεοῦυἱός is like a proper name, Gottessohn, and hence has no articles. The centurion did not apply this name to Jesus in the sense in which it was used in his pagan mythology, namely the human offspring of some pagan god, but in the sense it had in Jewish usage. Yet he says, “This was God’s Son,” using ἦν‚ for this divine Son was man and was now dead. Luke reports that the centurion said, “This one was righteous,” δίκαιος, thus pronouncing a verdict upon Jesus that was the opposite of the Jewish sentence.

We conclude that this officer said both: “righteous and God’s Son,” for the two go together. Legend reports that this centurion became a believer, and there is evidence that the legionaries who were at this time stationed in Jerusalem were Gauls or Germans.

Matthew 27:55

55 Moreover, there were there many women beholding from afar, such as did follow Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him; among whom was Mary the Magdalene, and Mary, the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. All the synoptists mention these friends of Jesus who witnessed his death. In Luke 23:49 two classes are mentioned: the women and the γνωστοί or acquaintances of Jesus. From John’s Gospel we learn that he was the only one of the eleven present. The women were, indeed, dear friends of Jesus, for they had ministered of their substance to him during his travels in Galilee, Luke 8:3. The hardships endured by Jesus in his arduous work had moved them to relieve him in such ways as they could.

They had followed him on his last journey to Jerusalem, and now in this terrible tragedy their love conquered all fear. Here they stood with bleeding hearts watching their Lord and Master die. They stood “afar” because of necessity. The soldiers kept a space free about the crosses, and the wicked Sanhedrists crowded up as close as they dared, and a mob of people came to see the θεωρία or spectacle. It was not fear that caused these friends and these women to stand some distance from the cross but the situation in which they found themselves. During a lull in the disturbance about the cross, when the Sanhedrists had grown weary of mocking, Jesus’ mother and John and two other women went to the cross, unhindered by the soldiers.

Matthew 27:56

56 Matthew honors three of these women especially. As Peter was the leader among the Twelve, the men, so “Mary the Magdalene,” so named from her home town to distinguish her from the other Marys, was the foremost among the women. The Mary who was the mother of James and Joses was the wife of Clopas and a sister of the mother of Jesus. These two women stood beneath the cross with Jesus’ mother and with John. The third woman named by Matthew is Salome (Mark 15:40), “the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (James and John). This expression indicates that Zebedee had died. Instead of giving her name, as Mark does, Matthew states her great distinction, the fact that she was the mother of two of Jesus’ apostles (see also 20:20, etc.).

Matthew 27:57

57 Matthew now proceeds to an account of the burial of Jesus. And evening having come, a rich man from Arimathæa came, his name Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus; he, having gone to Pilate, asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be duly given up. As wonderful as are the signs that occurred in connection with Jesus’ death, so wonderful is the burial of his body. It is laid away in the most astounding manner. Its interment was a fulfillment of Isa. 53:9: “And he made his grave … with the rich in his death.” Jesus was dead.

What was to become of his body? His friends, the women, and John were utterly helpless and unprepared. It seemed as though the sacred body would be taken away by the soldiers and thrown into a pit with the bodies of the two malefactors. What else could be done? God took care of his Son’s dead body.

Ὀψία (supply ὥρα) is used to designate both evenings: the first from three to six o’clock, the second from six until night. Jesus died at three o’clock, and the evening Matthew has in mind is the first. Now help suddenly appeared. Joseph of Arimathæa came and took full charge of the proper disposal of Jesus’ body. The form ἧλθεν does not imply that “he came” from the country and thus arrived at Golgotha, or that he had just now arrived from the city. He must have been among the spectators and now, when Jesus was dead, came forward to take charge of his body.

Joseph is named from his home town in order to distinguish him from other Josephs, and Arimathæa is the town of Rama which was originally in that part of Samaria which was transferred to Judea, thus making the town “a city of the Jews,” Luke 23:51. Construe, “a man from Arimathæa,” and not, “came from Arimathæa.” ΤοὔνομαἸωσήφ, “the name Joseph,” is a nominative absolute that is merely inserted into the sentence. Matthew reports only two details regarding Joseph: his wealth and his discipleship. From Mark and from Luke we learn that he was a noble and a godly man, and from Luke that he was a Sanhedrist but one who had been opposed to the action of the Sanhedrin in regard to Jesus. In what manner he showed his opposition we do not know. John adds that for fear of the Jews Joseph had kept his faith in Jesus hidden until this time. The Jews had officially threatened to expel any man from the synagogue who confessed Jesus, and this meant cutting such a man off from all connection with the Jewish religion and ostracizing him from his nation.

This man, who had been fearful and cowardly thus far, does an astonishing thing. He casts all his fears to the winds and boldly takes charge after Jesus had died. Joseph is a great and an influential man, and when he “came” there on Golgotha that implied that he spoke to the centurion about his wanting the body and his going to Pilate to secure its possession. The centurion gladly consented to wait. At the request of the Jews the bones of the malefactors had already been broken and the spear thrust into Jesus’ side.

Matthew 27:58

58 Joseph hurries to Pilate, and προσελθών implies that he went right into the Prætorium in order to make his request of the governor. But we need not suppose that by thus entering a Gentile abode Joseph broke with the entire Jewish religion. He merely made himself liable to ceremonial pollution for that day. This the Sanhedrists had avoided when they brought Jesus to Pilate in the morning, but they did so only because they wanted to be fit to eat the Chagiga in the afternoon. Joseph was not concerned about eating this sacrificial meal, he intended to bury Jesus and would at any rate be ceremonially unclean because he had handled Jesus’ dead body.

Pilate was surprised that Jesus was already dead, so much so that he sent for the centurion and verified the fact. Then, however, he readily granted the request and ordered the centurion “duly to give” (ἀποδίδωμι, ἀπο of obligation) the body to Joseph. But this should not be considered an exceptional favor. The Romans quite generally allowed the relatives and the friends of men who had been executed to bury their bodies if they so desired.

Matthew 27:59

59 Joseph did not hurry back from Pilate to Golgotha. Mark tells us that he first bought fine linen for the body. The point is that he bought only the linen and not the spices. Matthew says nothing about Nicodemus, but John reports that he bought only the spices and not the linen. It is natural to suppose that these two men, both of whom were Sanhedrists, met early enough to confer with each other and thus to divide their purchases for the burial. So Joseph returns to Golgotha. And having taken the body, Joseph wrapped it in clean linen cloth and placed it in his own new tomb, which he hewed in the rock cliff; and having rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb, he went away.

It is Joseph who took the body; he is active throughout this burial scene. He took full charge, and the others who helped let him lead. That, too, seems to be the reason that the synoptists say nothing about Nicodemus. Joseph must have been a masterful man. How he took the body is not indicated, but we see that he must have had help. At least three men were present counting John, besides a number of women.

It is possible that at the direction of the centurion the soldiers, too, helped. Perhaps the body was lowered from the cross after the nails had been drawn out. Means to reach the crosspiece must then have been at hand, they were the same that had been used when crucifying Jesus. Perhaps the entire cross was lifted from its socket in the ground, lowered gently to the ground, and the nails then extracted. We do not know the details.

All that Matthew, like Mark and Luke, tells us is that Joseph wrapped the body in σινδών, cloth of fine linen, that he had just purchased and thus was clean and fresh. This was torn into long strips that were to be wrapped around the limbs and the body. It is John who tells us that the entire body was first wrapped with linen strips, between the folds of which the aromatic spices were sprinkled; only the head was left free, for it was to be covered with a special cloth after the body had been placed into the tomb. The blood stains must have been removed before this was done; perhaps the sour wine of the soldiers was used for this purpose with the centurion’s permission. No anointing of the body was possible here on Golgotha; Mary of Bethany had attended to that in advance (26:12, etc.).

Matthew 27:60

60 Where could the body of Jesus be taken now that so suddenly a tomb became a vital necessity? It is Joseph who meets this need. He himself had an entirely new tomb that had been hewed out of the solid rock of a cliffside. Luke and John tell us that no one had as yet been buried in this tomb. John also adds the detail that this tomb of Joseph’s was near Golgotha, which made it especially available when the friends of Jesus were pressed for time, for the Sabbath began with the setting of the sun. The body could scarcely be carried any great distance. This fine new tomb of his Joseph offers for the body of Jesus. There he places the body for its sacred rest.

“A new tomb,” where no decay or odor of death had as yet entered, this was a fitting place for the body of Jesus which no corruption or decomposition dared to touch (Acts 2:27). Here his holy body could have sweet rest after all its dreadful, painful work had been done. Yet Jesus was not intended for a tomb. He needed one only on our account and only until the third day. Luther writes: “As he has no grave for the reason that he will not remain in death and the grave; so we, too, are to be raised up from the grave at the last day through his resurrection and are to live with him in eternity.”

Quite recently in a quiet spot just outside of the walls of the present Jerusalem, at the foot of a skull-shaped hill (Golgotha, most likely), the so-called “Garden Tomb” has been discovered. This corresponds in every detail with the data the Gospels furnish in regard to Joseph’s tomb. It is an ample chamber, hewn out of the solid cliff, the face of which is smooth and perpendicular. The floor is not sunken, does not need to be. It is a rich man’s tomb, for it has a vestibule and in the main chamber along the three sides only three places for bodies, the center being left unused. It is a new tomb, for only one place for a body has been finished, the other two are not completed.

In the place toward the cliff the floor is hewn out a little in the shape of a human body. The three places for bodies along the sides of the three walls are cut out boxlike, the bottom of each being level with the floor. At the footend of the place finished for a body, and likewise at the headend, between this and the end of the next place for a body, the stone is left thick enough to afford a seat, so that an angel could sit, “one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain” (John 20:12), and the angel at the feet would also be “sitting on the right side” (Mark 16:5) as one enters the vestibule. These heavier rock sections across the footend and on the left of the headend are still intact, while the thinner wall along the side of the body has mostly broken down. When the author viewed this tomb he was deeply impressed and compelled to say, “If this is not the actual tomb into which Jesus was laid it duplicates it in every respect.” So many fake sites are shown in the Holy Land that to view a site like this leaves an unforgettable impression.

The great stone that was rolled before the door of the tomb was a flat, upright slab, circular like a great wheel. This moved in a groove next to the cliff and was wheeled back to the left to expose the door and forward to close it. The groove slanted upward from the door so that, when the stone was wheeled to the left, it had to be blocked in order to hold it. The bottom of the slant was just in front of the door where the stone would come to rest on a level. After the body was duly placed in the tomb, the circular slab closed the entrance as indicated.

This stone was not a “boulder.” It is never called πέτρος but always λίθος, and it is difficult to imagine how a rough boulder could do anything but merely block a rectangular door. When all had been done, Joseph “went away.” This simple verb reads as though we are to think of Joseph’s action as being the Lord’s providence to provide the proper burial for his Son through this man’s hands. No man could have guessed that one, yea, two, of the very members of the Sanhedrin would give a rich burial to Jesus whom the Sanhedrin as such brought to the cross.

Matthew 27:61

61 There was there Mary the Magdalene and the other Mary sitting in front of the burial place. These two Marys have been mentioned in v. 56: Luke tells us that the women who had come out of Galilee with Jesus also followed to the tomb and saw how the body was laid in its place in the tomb. When Joseph left after the tomb had been closed, these women, with the exception of the two named, departed. These two lingered on, loth to leave until the shadows fell.

Matthew 27:62

62 Now on the morrow, which is after the Preparation, there were gathered together the high priests and the Pharisees unto Pilate, saying Lord, we came to remember that that deceiver said while yet alive, After three days I arise. Matthew alone reports this incident. On its very face it is so credible, so impossible of invention, that it cannot be a myth. “The morrow” was Saturday, and in all likelihood the morning hours of this day. This designation of time would seem to be sufficient, for the ἥτις clause only repeats this thought by using other terms. Matthew adds this second designation of the day because he wants to bring out its sacredness in contrast with the desecration perpetrated by these Jews. The παρασκευή is “the Preparation,” the day preceding this high Passover Sabbath, namely Friday, when everything had to be prepared in advance so that this Sabbath Saturday could be spent in perfect quiet in a most solemn manner.

Matthew does not write “Sabbath,” for the day after the preparation is not just an ordinary Sabbath; he wants to convey more, namely the high Passover Sabbath. Only this Sabbath had a παρασκευή.

It was not the Sanhedrin as such that went to Pilate. There was no marching in a body to the governor’s residence. This would have attracted attention, both because it violated this high and holy day by their going into a Gentile’s abode and because it would have made known the purpose of this visit. Matthew never designates the Sanhedrin by the terms “the high priests and the Pharisees” (compare 21:45, the only other place in which this expression is used). When two terms are used to designate the Sanhedrin, we have “the high priests and the scribes,” or, “the high priests and the elders.” Here, then, after a quiet agreement among themselves the high priests and the Pharisees, all of them Sanhedrists, proceed to Pilate singly at an agreed time as though they were private persons. Yet, as far as Pilate was concerned, he might have thought that he had the official Sanhedrin before him.

Now these Jews have no scruples about entering the residence of the Gentile governor, for πρὸςΠιλᾶτον naturally has this meaning. Even this high day does not deter them. On Friday, when they had a Jewish crowd about them, they pretended that they dared not enter the Gentile Prætorium. We see how they played fast and loose with their own religious regulations. Men who had stooped to murder would certainly be capable of lesser transgressions.

It is a fair conclusion that the prime movers in the present undertaking were the Pharisees. It was not that they believed that Jesus would or could rise from the dead, yet they believed in the resurrection and had taught the people to believe in it also. They were the ones, therefore, who feared that the people might come to believe that Jesus had actually risen. The high priests were Sadducees, and these scoffed at the resurrection as being an absurdity (22:23, etc.). They, therefore, would have no fears such as the Pharisees had. And yet they consented to go to Pilate with the Pharisees. As in other instances, especially when opposition to Jesus was to be evidenced, they yielded to the Pharisees.

Matthew 27:63

63 In humble fashion these Jews address the governor with Κύριε, “Lord.” This, too, is done only in order to gain their end. They tell him: “We came to remember (it has just come to our minds again) that this deceiver said while yet living, After three days I arise!” It was probably true that since Jesus had died this word of his again came to their minds. Ἐμνήσθημεν is to be understood in the middle sense and most likely is an ingressive aorist. A vile epithet is used to designate Jesus, “that deceiver,” which recalls the violent accusations they had made to Pilate the day before. Ἐκεῖνος is here used in a vicious, derogatory sense. “Deceiver” refers to the alleged deceptions practiced upon the people when Jesus pretended to be the Messiah and (as these Jews claimed) a political king. They scorn, as always, to use the name “Jesus.”

It has been asked, “When did Jesus tell these Sanhedrists that he would rise after three days?” Passages such as 21:42; 26:61; 27:40 will scarcely give the answer; much better Isaiah 12:38. But we see no reason for excluding what Jesus told his own disciples about his death and his resurrection. These repeated and emphatic announcements could easily have found their way to members of the Sanhedrin. At least, these men sum it up most correctly, “After three days,” etc.

It is certainly astonishing that these enemies of Jesus remember this word and promise of his after his death while his own disciples never grasped the word in its true meaning and now had let it pass completely from their minds. The present tense ἐγείρομαι is a futuristic present which is frequently used in predictions (R. 870) and includes the idea of the certainty of the event.

Matthew 27:64

64 Order, therefore, the burial place to be made safe until the third day; lest, perhaps, his disciples, having come, steal him and tell the people, He was raised from the dead; and the last deception will be worse than the first. Why this request to Pilate? Why did the Sanhedrists not place a detachment of their Temple police (their ὑπηρέται) in front of the tomb about which they seem to know? The answer is that the Temple police had only the Temple area under their jurisdiction and could not be sent anywhere else. The Roman government would also allow no show of military force outside of the Temple. So these Sanhedrists go to Pilate to furnish the desired guard. When Jesus was to be arrested in Gethsemane, the real force was the Roman cohort, the Temple police only went along. “The burial place to be made safe” leaves it to Pilate as to how he will do this; the obvious way was, of course, to assign a guard.

The assumption of these Jews is that, of course, Jesus could not possibly make good his word, nor would a whole legion of Roman troops be able to prevent such a thing. But these deceivers and liars imagine that other people are like themselves. They fear that the disciples of Jesus may also recall the promise of Jesus to arise; and since Jesus would be unable to do so, they may try to play a trick by stealing the body out of the tomb and by disposing of it secretly while they fool the people by spreading the report that he was raised from the dead.

We see how evil minds work. If these Jews had known the state of the disciples, they would have seen how foolish their fears were. But providence was again at work. These Sanhedrists, the implacable enemies of Jesus who cannot be content with his death, must proceed involuntarily to aid in establishing the certainty of Jesus’ resurrection. By having the tomb guarded they made certain that no deception had been perpetrated, that the body most certainly had remained in the tomb, and that, therefore, Jesus truly arose on Sunday. Both ἐγείρομαι (v. 63) and ἠγέρθη may be regarded as passives used as actives: “I rise—he rose.” Because they are active in sense, both verbs exalt Jesus in the highest degree, for he himself rises by his own power.

The Jews fear that “the last deception will be worse than the first.” Πλάνη is plainly intended to match πλάνος used in v. 63. “Deceiver” and “deception” go together. “Error” in our versions is wrong. By the first deception the Jews have in mind what Jesus did to the people during his life by stirring up the people, etc., as these Jews intended Pilate to believe. Thus the last deception would occur after his death. It would keep the people stirred up more than ever, for they would now be thinking that Jesus was again alive, yea had returned from the dead. The people would eagerly listen to anything that purported to come from him. Of course, these Jews spoke of rising and resurrection only in the sense of a return to this life. That they had the secret fear that Jesus might make good his word, namely in this sense, cannot be maintained.

Matthew 27:65

65 Pilate said to them, Have a guard! go make it as safe as you know how. Curt and masterful is Pilate’s reply. The matter is of little moment to the governor. He is pleased

that they defer to him in so small a thing and thereby admit that he alone has authority to guard the tomb. Ἔχετε is an imperative and not an indicative (our versions), for to say that the Jews have a guard would mean that they have men of their own for the purpose of guarding. Pilate grants them a guard made up of his own soldiers. The word κουστωδία is the Latin custodia, a term that was used also in the Aramaic. Pilate turns the entire matter over to the Jews. Since they are so concerned, let them not trouble Pilate any further but themselves go and make the place as safe as they know how. We must construe ὑπάγετεἀσφαλίσασθε together, the first verb is only auxiliary to the second.

Matthew 27:66

66 And they, having gone, made the burial place safe, sealing the stone, the guard with them. The Jews hasten to carry out their plan. They even sealed the stone, which does not mean that they fastened the stone so that it could not be moved but that they affixed a seal by connecting the stone with the rock wall at the door, so that any tampering with the stone would at once break the seal and thus reveal what had been done. How this sealing was done is not indicated. It was a simple matter that did not require the private seal of Pilate or that of the Sanhedrin. The circular flat stone lay close against the wall of rock.

All that needed to be done was to make a connection between stone and wall, one that, if it were broken, could not be restored. The final phrase introduced by μετά is quite loosely attached to the sentence, and we need not try to construe it with either σφραγίσαντες or ἠσφαλίσαντο. It is independent and merely states that the guard was with the Jews when they were at the tomb and made things as safe as they knew how.

Quietly Jesus rested in his tomb. Presently he would arise. In vain are all the foolish proceedings of his enemies.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handworterbuch, etc.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner