Matthew 27

OGC

‹ Chapter 26 Matthew — All Chapters Chapter 28 ›

SPECIAL STUDIES THE KIND OF MESSIAH GOD HAS IN MIND ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

From the very first page of his Gospel Matthew flashes before his readers a series of radical claims for Jesus that must be taken seriously and examined carefully. Before the reader has completed two Chapter s, Matthew has already introduced Jesus of Nazareth as:

The descendant of the principal heirs of the promises God gave to the Hebrew people, Abraham and David (Matthew 1:1-17). Yet, He descends from at least three Gentile ancestresses.

He comes from God by the activity of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18-25).

Rather than liberate His people from their national enemies, He comes to save them from their sins (Matthew 1:21). He is named Jesus (Javeh saves) and Immanuel, God with us (Matthew 1:23).

Though He is the ruler who shall pastor God’s people (Matthew 2:6), He is the object of the indifference of the clergy and the persecution of the powerful (Matthew 2:1-23).

The very inauspicious circumstances surrounding His birth, combined with the disgusting nickname, the Nazarene (Matthew 1:23), point to a suffering Messiah from the very beginning.

John the Baptist presented Jesus as the Judge who would execute the justice of God and who alone was qualified to immerse men in the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:1-12)! Yet, Matthew’s Messiah appeared for the first time in public as just another common man among the sinners who presented themselves to John for baptism (Matthew 3:13-15). Despite His humanness, He is God’s beloved Son and anointed with the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:16-17).

The Messiah relived the same trials of His own people, proving Himself faithful to God as His authentic Son, responding to the temptations, not as would an angel, but, rather, with the attitude of a true human being who is a worshiper of God (Matthew 4:1-11).

The Messiah is concerned with the enlightenment of the benighted among the Gentiles (Matthew 4:12-17; Isaiah 9:1 f.).

As the new Moses Jesus is not merely a great Lawgiver who repeats what God told him, but actually rises above the Mosaic Law to say what He personally requires (Matthew 5:21; Matthew 5:27; Matthew 5:32; Matthew 5:34; Matthew 5:39; Matthew 5:44). Further, He is a Messiah who will fulfil the Law, bringing it to its proper completion (Matthew 5:17).

Jesus is a Messiah who has time for, and is powerfully competent to help, the impure nature’s most violent forces (Matthew 8:23-27), demoniacs (Matthew 8:28 to Matthew 9:1), paralyzed sinners (Matthew 9:1-8), the outcasts of society (Matthew 9:9-13), the pious but ignorant (Matthew 9:14-17), and many others (Matthew 9:18-34). Despite the multiplicity of appeals for His help, He regards people with genuine compassion (Matthew 9:36-38), as an abandoned flock over which God assumes the care. (Cf. Ezekiel 34.)

Jesus presents Himself as Teacher and Master and Lord of the House. He expects His followers to suffer for His sake, and assumes upon Himself the role of Lawyer, or Advocate, at the Judgment of God. (Cf. Matthew 10:18; Matthew 10:22; Matthew 10:32-33; Matthew 10:37-39.)

Even the mighty miracles of Jesus do not force people to believe in Him (Matthew 11:2-24). They merely push His hearers into two positions: belief or unbelief. John the Baptist himself hesitated in the presence of contradictions in his own mind, the works notwithstanding (Matthew 11:2-19). The Galileans did not understand their need to submit to Jesus by repenting (Matthew 11:20-24). The wise and understanding could not grasp the wisdom and source of His work (Matthew 11:25-27). He is the kind of Messianic King that is comprehensible only to the man who is ready to do the will of the Father (Matthew 12:50).

In contrast to the austere John the Baptist, Jesus is a Messiah whose life is full of the fulness of the human life (Matthew 11:16-19). Notwithstanding the different life-style of the two messengers of God, the results demonstrated that God had acted with wisdom in sending them precisely as He did.

Jesus reveals everything willingly to those who submit to His instruction and commit themselves to learn from Him (Matthew 11:28-30). This intention involves growth of character, not automatic righteousness. Still, He is gentle and lowly in heart, and able to move mercifully among contrasting levels of society and help people.

Jesus is the kind of Messiah who does not overwhelm His opposition with a brilliant burst of supernatural power, forcing their belief and submission. Rather, He generously meets their questions, doubts, objections and cavils with answers sufficient to convince the common, honest listener (Matthew 12:1-50). In fact, when the opposition demands the supernatural fireworks, He who could call down 10,000 angels gave a common, perfectly acceptable sign. (Cf. Matthew 16:1-4.)

Jesus is the Servant of Javeh (Matthew 12:18-21 = Isaiah 42:1-4).

Jesus recognizes no claims of blood or kinship of the flesh, only moral ties cemented by obedience to the will of God (Matthew 12:46-50).

Jesus respects the human freedom of His own townspeople at Nazareth, however severely He must have been tempted to do many mighty works there just to show -’em! (Matthew 13:54-58).

Even in His own ministry, Jesus respected His own time schedules, not only bending every lesson to prepare for the cross in His life, but avoiding unnecessary conflicts that would tend to abbreviate the time available to teach His disciples (Matthew 14:13 a; cf. Matthew 4:12; Matthew 15:21; Matthew 16:4 b).

He is realistic about the overconfidence of His followers, since He knows that they can be influenced by popular leaders and parties-’ skepticism about Him (Matthew 16:5-12). However, He has no fear to entrust the mission of the Church-Kingdom to men dedicated to Him (Matthew 16:13-20).

He does not swerve from the predetermined plan of God, notwithstanding the most strenuous efforts of earthly friends to dissuade Him from being the type of Messiah God has in mind (Matthew 16:21-28).

He will be the glorious Judge of every man, repaying each according to what he has done, thus fulfilling in full all that John the Baptist predicted of Him (Matthew 16:27).

He is the glorious Messiah foreshadowed by the Law and the prophets, to whom all must listen and obey (Matthew 17:1-8). However, He would suffer the same fate as John (Matthew 17:10-13).

Despite His real exemption from paying tribute to God’s temple, because He is God’s Son, still He meekly pays it, in order not to scandalize those who would not understand His standpoint and miss His message because of it (Matthew 17:24-27).

He is the kind of Messiah who refuses to recognize artificial claims to honor and greatness. Rather, His rule of greatness is the degree to which anyone renders service to the weakest, smallest, least important in the Kingdom (Matthew 18:1-35).

He is the kind of Messiah that refuses earthly power-structures as a means of ruling over men, choosing rather the path of service as the ransom for man (Matthew 20:20-28).

Despite His dissimilarity to everything Messianic in the popular mind, Jesus really is God’s kind of Messianic King (Matthew 21:1-17).

He is the kind of Messiah that, despite His autonomous miracle-working power and God-given authority, does not undervalue nor forget the importance of His lesser servants-’ ministry (Matthew 21:23-27).

He is really the chief corner stone God planned to use (Matthew 21:42), really God’s Son (Matthew 21:33-43).

No mental image of the Messiah is adequate that sees His Messiahship as having only earthly regality, such as that of a Son of David reigning on a material throne in Jerusalem, In fact, the true Messiah, as David himself admits, must be thought of as the Lord of David (Matthew 22:41-46).

Jesus is objective, willing to recognize truth wherever it is found and correctly taught, even if it is a Pharisee that teaches it (Matthew 23:2-3).

Jesus is Israel’s truest Patriot (Matthew 23:37-39), but true Prophet (Matthew 24:1-28) and Son of man (Matthew 24:29-44; cf. Daniel 7:13-14).

He is the glorious Messianic King before whom all nations will be tried, whose judgment affects the eternal destiny of each one, and whose judgment is based upon how each one treated the least of these my brethren (Matthew 25:31-46).

He is not a helpless victim going innocently to an unexpected, tragic death, but the Son of man fully self-possessed moving majestically and consciously toward victory. He willingly pours out His blood to establish a new covenant and provide forgiveness (Matthew 26:1-2; Matthew 26:12-13; Matthew 26:26-29).

Jesus is not the kind of Messiah that would abandon His vacillating disciples, even though He proved to them that He knew what their reaction would be to His death, despite their good intentions (Matthew 26:30-35).

Jesus is a fully human Messiah who could really suffer, flinching at the thought of death (Matthew 26:36-46).

Though under arrest and abandoned by His Apostles and betrayed by His Apostle, He remains the real Master of the situation (Matthew 26:47-56).

He is definitely innocent of any guilt, according to His betrayer-Apostle (Matthew 27:4), the wife of Pilate (Matthew 27:19) and Pilate himself (Matthew 27:18; Matthew 27:24).

He is self-controlled despite temptations to return accusations and insults (Matthew 26:62-63; Matthew 26:67-68; Matthew 27:12-14; Matthew 27:27-31; Matthew 27:40; Matthew 27:43).

Jesus is proven to be the Messiah of God even in His death, as shown by His fulfilment of the ancient prophecies (Matthew 27:32-48). His death signaled the end of an era and the beginning of another (Matthew 27:51-54).

Jesus is the victorious Christ to whom universal authority has been granted and who orders His people to participate in His personal mission to teach the entire world (Matthew 28:18-20). His presence with His people until the end of time guarantees His concrete interest in their affairs and His care for them.

WHO IS JESUS ACCORDING TO MATTHEW?

Jesus is the fulfilment of all God’s promises to ancient Israel:

He is the descendant of Abraham and David (Matthew 1:1-17; Genesis 12:2 f.; 2 Samuel 7:11 ff.).

He is the Son of the virgin (Matthew 1:23; Isaiah 7:14) God with us (Isaiah 7:14).

He is the Ruler, the Shepherd of Israel born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:6; Micah 5:2).

He was God’s reason for calling Israel out of Egypt (Matthew 2:15; Hosea 11:1).

He is what it means to be called a Nazarene (Matthew 2:23; cf. Psalms 22; Isaiah 53; Isaiah 49:6 f.).

He is the Lord for whom John the Baptist must prepare (Matthew 3:3; Malachi 3:1 ff.).

He is the greater than John, who must immerse with the Holy Spirit and with fire unquenchable (Matthew 3:11-12; Malachi 3:2; Malachi 4:1; Joe 2:28 ff.).

He is God’s Son possessed of the Spirit of God (Matthew 3:17; Isaiah 61:1-2; Isaiah 42:1).

He is willing to do anything God requires (Matthew 3:15; Matthew 4:1-11).

He is the great light to the Gentiles (Matthew 4:12-17; Isaiah 9:1-2).

k. He is the fulfilment of the Law and Prophets (Matthew 5:17-48).

He is the great Servant of Jahweh who bears our infirmities (Matthew 8:17; Isaiah 53:4).

He is the great Servant of Jahweh in whom Gentiles may hope (Matthew 12:15-21; Isaiah 41:1-2).

He is Zion’s true King (Matthew 21:5; Zechariah 9:9).

He is Jahweh incarnate whose praise on the lips of children silences His enemies (Matthew 21:16; Psalms 8:2).

He is the stone the builders rejected (Matthew 21:42; Matthew 21:44; Psalms 118:22-23).

He is David’s Son and David’s Lord (Matthew 22:44 f.; Psalms 110:1).

He is the Pierced One over whom Israel would bitterly wail (Matthew 24:30; Zechariah 12:10-14).

He is the great Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (Matthew 24:30 b; Daniel 7:9-14; Matthew 26:64).

He is the stricken Shepherd (Matthew 26:31; Zechariah 13:7).

He is the Servant of God sold for the price of a slave (Matthew 27:9 f.; Zechariah 11:12 f.; Jeremiah 32:6-9).

He is the despised and afflicted Servant of God (Matthew 27:46; Psalms 22:1 ff.).

To the discerning reader, well-schooled in Old Testament literature, Jesus would appear to be everything God had taught Israel to expect, even if Matthew did not explicitly cite every possible reference.

Beyond what had specifically been prophesied, Jesus is One greater than Moses, the Law and the Temple, the Sabbath.

While demanding a standard that is higher than Mosaic legislation (Matthew 5:22; Matthew 5:28; Matthew 5:32; Matthew 5:34; Matthew 5:39; Matthew 5:44), He expected men to be perfect as God (Matthew 5:48). He blessed people who suffered for His sake (Matthew 5:11; Matthew 16:24-27; Matthew 10:18-39; Matthew 24:9; Matthew 24:13)

He not only expected that men accept His teachings as the rock-foundation of their lives (Matthew 7:24-27), but proclaimed Himself the divine Judge with whom all must have to do at the final Day (Matthew 7:21-23).

He possessed the right of earth to forgive sins which only God could do (Matthew 9:1-7).

He demands absolute loyalty to Himself, a loyalty evidenced by public confession and rewarded by presentation personally to the Heavenly Father (Matthew 10:32-33; Matthew 10:37-39). To receive the least disciple in Jesus-’ name is to receive God (Matthew 10:40-42)!

Moses could point men to the Law and Prophets (Deuteronomy 18:15-18), but Jesus invited men to Himself (Matthew 11:28-30), because the Father had intrusted everything to Him (Matthew 11:27).

Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath and must do what is good in it (Matthew 12:1-14). He introduced principles greater than the Temple (Matthew 12:6).

Jesus claimed a unique Sonship to God, unshared with any other (Matthew 7:21; Matthew 10:32 f.; Matthew 11:25-27; Matthew 12:50; Matthew 15:13; Matthew 16:27; Matthew 18:10; Matthew 18:19; Matthew 18:35; Matthew 20:23; Matthew 21:37 ff.; Matthew 22:2; Matthew 26:53; Matthew 26:39; Matthew 26:42).

Jesus is the Owner of the world (Matthew 13:24-30; Matthew 13:37-43).

He did not correct men who confessed Him to be God’s Son (cf. Matthew 8:29), but rather praised them (Matthew 14:33; Matthew 16:16 f.). See also Matthew 27:54.

Jesus is to be heard, while Moses and Elijah must forever fade into the background (Matthew 17:3; Matthew 17:5; Matthew 17:7).

Jesus and His Apostles will judge all Israel (Matthew 19:28) not Moses and the Prophets.

Jesus is the One whose life must be given as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28).

Jesus is the Sender of the New Testament prophets, wise men and teachers (Matthew 23:34).

Jesus, as Son of Man in the Danielean sense, is final judge of the entire human race (Matthew 25:31-46).

Jesus-’ blood ratifies the covenant, because poured out for the forgiveness of sins of many people (Matthew 26:28).

Jesus is Someone greater than the great ones of the Old Testament.

He is greater than Jonah who brought Ninevah to its knees before God (Matthew 12:39-41).

He is greater than Solomon whose God-given wisdom brought the Queen of the South to hear him (Matthew 12:42).

Matthew’s conclusion (Matthew 28:1-20).

Jesus is risen from the dead (Matthew 28:1-10).

(1)

Vindicated by angels (Matthew 28:1-7).

(2)

Seen by women (Matthew 28:8-10).

Jesus-’ greatness denied by Jewish gold and Roman lies (Matthew 28:11-15) c. Jesus-’ Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20).

(1)

Jesus-’ authority is universal and the basis of His final orders.

(2)

Jesus-’ final commission is to disciple every nation and edify the baptized believers by committing to them everything Jesus taught the original witnesses.

(3)

Jesus-’ promise to be with His people till the very end.

THE TITLES OF JESUS IN MATTHEW’S GOSPEL

Jesus-’ personal name Jeshua or Jehoshua means Javeh is salvation or Javeh saves, a fact made specific by Matthew’s citation of the angel’s words: He will save His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21).

Jesus is the son of David by virtue of His genealogy (Matthew 1:1-17), a fact underlined by the angel’s address to Joseph: Joseph, son of David. (Matthew 1:20), and stated by others elsewhere. (Cf. Matthew 9:27; Matthew 15:22; Matthew 20:30; Matthew 21:9; Matthew 21:15; Matthew 22:41-46.)

Matthew considered it essential for even Hebrew readers to see the significance of Jesus-’ fulfilment of the prophecy about the Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14), whereby the child born is evidence of God with us, Emmanuel in Hebrew (Matthew 1:23).

From the Gospel’s title forward, Matthew speaks of Jesus as Christ, God’s Anointed (Matthew 1:1; Matthew 1:16-18; Matthew 2:4; Matthew 11:2; Matthew 16:16; Matthew 16:20; Matthew 22:42; Matthew 23:10; Matthew 24:5; Matthew 24:23; Matthew 26:63; Matthew 26:68; Matthew 27:17; Matthew 27:22).

Jesus is Lord (Matthew 3:3; Matthew 7:21 f.; Matthew 21:3; Matthew 24:42; Matthew 24:48; Matthew 25:11; Matthew 25:19). There are many texts in Matthew where people address Jesus as Lord, however with the common meaning of Sir or Mister. Yet, there is also a growing importance evident in some of the uses of this title, especially when used in conjunction with other titles. (Cf. Matthew 8:25; Matthew 14:28; Matthew 14:30; Matthew 15:22; Matthew 20:31).

Jesus is the Ruler of God’s people (Matthew 2:6).

Jesus is God’s Son (Matthew 2:15; Matthew 3:17; Matthew 8:29; Matthew 14:33; Matthew 16:16; Matthew 17:5; Matthew 26:63; Matthew 27:40; Matthew 27:43; Matthew 27:54). Jesus proves Himself a genuine Son of God by His obedience to the Father’s will (Matthew 4:3; Matthew 4:6).

Although not a specific title, Jesus is, however, pictured as the Forgiver of sins on earth (Matthew 9:6).

He is the Servant of Javeh (Matthew 12:18).

He is, upon reflection, the Owner of the world. (Cf. Matthew 13:24; Matthew 13:27; Matthew 13:37-38.)

Jesus is the prophet (Matthew 21:11).

Jesus is addressed as, or described as Teacher (Matthew 8:19; Matthew 9:11; Matthew 10:24 f.; Matthew 12:38; Matthew 17:24; Matthew 19:16; Matthew 22:16; Matthew 22:24; Matthew 22:36; Matthew 23:8; Matthew 26:18). He thinks of Himself as the disciples-’ one Leader (Matthew 23:10).

Jesus pictures Himself as the King of the Kingdom of God judging the servants of God (Matthew 25:31-34; Matthew 25:40). In His meek Messianic entry into the Holy City He fulfilled the style of Kingship pictured in Zechariah 9:9 which sees Him as Israel’s King (Matthew 21:5).

Jesus calls Himself the Son of Man (Matthew 8:20; Matthew 9:6; Matthew 10:23; Matthew 11:19; Matthew 12:8; Matthew 12:32; Matthew 12:40; Matthew 13:37; Matthew 13:41; Matthew 16:13; Matthew 16:27-28; Matthew 17:9; Matthew 17:12; Matthew 17:22; Matthew 19:28; Matthew 20:18; Matthew 20:28; Matthew 24:27; Matthew 24:30; Matthew 24:37; Matthew 24:39; Matthew 24:44; Matthew 25:31; Matthew 26:2; Matthew 26:24; Matthew 26:45; Matthew 26:64). Because of the evident allusion to the Danielic vision of the Son of man (Daniel 7:13-14) and the greatness of that personage who comes on the clouds of heaven, and because Matthew’s Gospel was written after Jesus-’ vindication in His resurrection, ascension and glorification, should not all of the Son of man passages be read in this light? Granted that the original hearers of this expression would not have understood this much, what would this prove? They did not understand many things about the other titles either.

REACTIONS TO JESUS ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

DISCIPLES: TRUST AND OBEDIENCE, ALTHOUGH NOT WITHOUT SOME FAILURES.

The first disciples (Matthew 4:18-22) called to participate in Jesus-’ ministry.

Amazement of the Apostles at the calming of the tempest on the sea (Matthew 8:23-27).

Willingness of Matthew to leave all and follow Him (Matthew 9:9-13).

Instances where Jesus-’ disciples are under attack for following His thinking rather than Pharisean or other popular interpretations. (Cf. Matthew 9:14; Matthew 12:2; Matthew 15:2.)

Willingness of disciples to be babes to accept Jesus-’ revelations (Matthew 11:25 ff.).

The disciples prove the reality of their discipleship by going to Jesus for explanations and answers (Matthew 13:10-17; Matthew 13:36).

The disciples are baffled about how to feed the 5000, but offer themselves ready helpers when Jesus indicates the course to follow (Matthew 14:15-18).

Peter trusted Jesus to enable him to walk on the sea, but when his faith failed, Jesus-’ rescue and general mastery of the sea and the situation caused the disciples to confess Him thus: Truly you are God’s Son (Matthew 14:28-33)!

Troubled by Jesus-’ intransigence in the face of the theological opposition to His ministry, the disciples fear offending the Pharisees (Matthew 15:12). However, Jesus-’ puzzling answer draws out the disciples-’ real discipleship to Him, when Peter asks for explanations (Matthew 15:15).

Unable to grasp Jesus-’ enigmatic warning against the influence of popular leaders and parties, they prove themselves unable to trust Jesus to create bread out of nothing, apparently not remembering the two recent miracles of multiplication of food (Matthew 16:8 ff.).

Despite many popular opinions to the contrary, the Twelve in the person of Peter confess Jesus-’ true identity. However, they (Peter) react vigorously to any mention of His future suffering (Matthew 16:13-23).

Peter’s exuberant suggestion to place Jesus, Moses and Elijah on equal terms, had to be corrected by God’S: This is my beloved Son, listen to Him (Matthew 17:1-13)! His desire to remain on the mountain only points up his lack of comprehension

concerning the way in which the Messianic mission should be realized.

The nine disciples-’ failure to heal the epileptic boy is attributed to a lack of sufficient fundamental faith (Matthew 17:14-20).

The second announcement of Jesus-’ suffering is received with great sorrow (Matthew 17:22-23).

Peter supposed Jesus to be subject to the Temple-tax, from which, as Son of the Temple’s Owner, He was really exempt (Matthew 17:24-27).

The disciples supposed that Jesus-’ Kingdom was one in which human greatness was to be measured by the power wielded over others (Matthew 18:1-35).

The disciples were astonished that marriage can be dissolved for only one reason, i.e. fornication, and conclude that celibacy is the only solution (Matthew 19:9-12).

The disciples rebuked people who desired that Jesus bless their children (Matthew 19:13-15).

The disciples were astonished that wealth should be considered a grave danger to one’s eternal salvation (Matthew 19:26). Despite Jesus-’ warning, Peter asked what (wealth, position, authority or other) they would receive as rewards for their self-denial (Matthew 19:27)!

James and John, still refusing to admit the spiritual nature of God’s Kingdom, seek power and position for themselves (Matthew 20:20-28). The others were indignant at the two brothers, jealous that James and John had asked for the coveted positions first.

It is conceivable that some of the crowds present during the triumphal entry actually welcomed Jesus as God’s Messianic King without ulterior motives, despite their own mistaken notions about God’s intentions for Him (Matthew 21:1-11).

Despite Jesus-’ sternness and vigor shown while cleansing the temple, the needy and the little children came to Him with their problems and their praise (Matthew 21:12-17).

The disciples were astonished at the withering of the fig tree (Matthew 21:18-22).

The disciples asked for explanations about the prophecy of Jerusalem’s fall (Matthew 24:3).

Mary of Bethany lovingly anointed Jesus for His burial (Matthew 26:6-13).

The Twelve were shaken that one of their number should betray Jesus and they humbly asked in self-doubt whether it were they (Matthew 26:20 ff,).

Peter rejected the idea that he should deny Christ (Matthew 26:31-35). All agreed that they would die with Christ.

In the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus refused to be defended by the sword, all forsook Jesus and fled (Matthew 26:51-56).

Peter denied the Lord (Matthew 26:69-75).

Disciples remained at the cross and saw to Jesus-’ burial (Matthew 27:55-61).

Women behold first the empty tomb and then Jesus risen, then go to inform His disciples (Matthew 28:1-10).

The Eleven behold Him in Galilee and are commissioned to evangelize the world (Matthew 28:16-20). Although most worshiped Him, some doubted!

JOHN THE BAPTIST: PERPLEXITY

At Jesus-’ baptism: I should be baptized by you, and you come to me? (Matthew 3:14).

Indirectly through his disciples: We fast, as do the Pharisees, but your disciples do not (Matthew 9:14 ff.).

In prison: Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another? (Matthew 11:2 ff.),

The apparent officiousness of Jesus-’ mother and brothers shares something of this same perplexity about Him. (Cf. Matthew 12:46-50.)

THE MULTITUDES: READINESS TO RECEIVE MATERIAL BLESSINGS, SLOWNESS TO SURRENDER ALL TO JESUS.

First summary of ministry (Matthew 4:23-25).

Astonishment at His teaching as one having authority, not as their scribes (Matthew 7:28-29).

Desire for a qualified, convenient discipleship (Matthew 9:18-22).

Glorifying God for having given authority to forgive sins to men like Jesus (Matthew 9:1-8).

Blind men, healed, disobedient to Jesus-’ requests for privacy (Matthew 9:30-31).

Marveling at Jesus-’ healing of dumb demoniac (Matthew 9:32-33).

Fickleness in not committing themselves to the wisdom represented in the respective ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus (Matthew 11:7-19).

Refusal to repent, despite the quantity of proof of Jesus-’ authority to require it (Matthew 11:20-24).

Half-surprised belief asked: Can this be the Son of David? after the liberation of a blind and dumb demoniac (Matthew 12:22-23).

Great crowds listened to the enigmatic Sermon in Parables, but apparently few bothered themselves to ask Jesus its real meaning (Matthew 13:2; Matthew 13:34; Matthew 13:36; cf. Matthew 13:10-17).

Crowds flocked together for the Messianic excitement, but not necessarily to believe anything Jesus might say, on the basis of His divine credentials (Matthew 14:13 bff.).

The rich young ruler offered to follow but the price was too high (Matthew 19:16-22).

Great crowds joined in the Triumphal Entry of the Messiah for various motives (Matthew 21:2-11).

THE ENEMIES: DEDICATED OPPOSITION

Pharisees attacked Jesus-’ acceptance of the outcasts of Hebrew society (Matthew 9:9-13). Their reaction is that of men who live in a situation of security and certainty about their own rightness and their judgment of those who disagree with them.

Pharisees raise objections to Jesus-’ flagrant disregard for their private interpretations of the Sabbath Law, views that push them to blind, inhuman mercilessness to God’s creatures for whose benefit God gave His law (Matthew 12:1-14). They begin to plot His destruction.

Finding no suitable alternative explanation for His obviously supernatural power, the Pharisees must resort to the accusation that His good deeds were done in harmony with Satan and through his power (Matthew 12:22-45). But this rejection of God’s Spirit as the source of Jesus-’ power, is forever not to comprehend God’s Kingdom as revealed by Jesus (Matthew 12:28).

The Nazarenes, while not opposing Jesus with the vehemence shown on His former major visit to Nazareth (cf. Luke 4:16-30), nevertheless totally under evaluated Him, found themselves without adequate explanation of their local Son, and so confirmed their own unbelief (Matthew 13:54-58).

Jesus definitely withdrew from Herod’s country when news arrived of the latter’s murder of John the Baptist, Jesus-’ forerunner (Matthew 14:1-13 a; cf. Luke 9:9).

Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem attack Jesus over His disrespect for the traditions of the elders (Matthew 15:1-20).

Pharisees and Sadducees challenge Him to prove His authority by providing them some sign from heaven (Matthew 16:1-4).

Pharisees tested Jesus on the divorce question (Matthew 19:3-9).

Chief priests and scribes object to the children’s praise of Jesus in highly Messianic terms (Matthew 21:15-17).

All the religious authorities, at various times and ways, attempt to trap Jesus by argument and are bested (Matthew 21:23 to Matthew 22:46).

The Sanhedrin decided the death of Jesus and finally succeeded in carrying it out (Matthew 26:1-5, Matthew 26:47 to Matthew 27:44). They accepted full responsibility for His death, freeing the political authority from this responsibility (Matthew 27:24-25).

To guarantee against fraudulent resurrection, the religious authorities sealed the tomb (Matthew 27:62-66).

To counteract resurrection testimonies, the Sanhedrin bribed false witnesses (Matthew 28:11-15).

THE KIND OF KINGDOM GOD HAS IN MIND ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

By presenting Jesus as the humble babe of Bethlehem, adored by foreigners and rejected by His own people, then rescued by fleeing into a foreign country, Matthew pictures the hard reality of a Kingdom of God whose true value can be appreciated only through the eyes of faith and by the spiritual long view of things. Those who dreamed of a triumphalistic Messianic Kingdom must see the lowliness and suffering of Him of whom Matthew must speak (Matthew 2).

Matthew alone quotes Jesus-’ justification for His own immersion by John the Baptist (Matthew 3:15). Jesus-’ Messiahship is founded on the principle that We must do everything God says to, whether we understand it perfectly or not, whether we agree that it applies to us or not, whether it is popular or not, whether our best friends think we should or not,just because God said to do it! This is a Kingdom that collides with all notions of a Messianic utopia where we all get to do what WE want to.

The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) is the first concrete answer Matthew includes to the question: What does it mean to fulfil all righteousness? What does it mean to submit ourselves to the Kingdom of God, i.e. to His plans and will? If this Sermon is a manifesto of the Kingdom, and if Jesus Himself is the realization of all that God intended in the Old Testament Law (Matthew 5:17-20), and if His Word is that which God now substitutes for that Law (Matthew 5:21-48), then THE KINGDOM IS JESUS HIMSELF present among men. He is the new Law. Consequently, the Church is none other than the totality of those who follow HIM toward that fulfilment of God’s plan that Jesus has reached. The promise of obtaining the Kingdom is directed to those aware of their spiritual poverty (Matthew 5:3), the persecuted for doing God’s will (Matthew 5:10), and those whose obedience to God’s will exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5:20).

The continued presence of threatened judgment upon the believer stands out in stark contrast with pre-Christian Jewish views of the Messianic Kingdom, according to which, in the days of the Messiah, the people of God would be miraculously and instantly purified. (Cf. Matthew 5:19 a, Matthew 5:20; Matthew 5:22; Matthew 5:26; Matthew 5:29-30; Matthew 6:1; Matthew 6:14-15; Matthew 7:2; Matthew 7:13-14; Matthew 7:19; Matthew 7:21-23; Matthew 7:26-27).

If the Kingdom of God and His righteousness is to be sought first, above and beyond all human necessities (Matthew 6:33), then it is not a Kingdom that eliminates the struggles involved in our human existence, but rather becomes the goal of our efforts despite the continued existence of these normal necessities (Matthew 6:24-34). The Kingdom must be understood as a present reality, present IN the humdrum of our existential world, not merely an eschatological release from that reality. The purpose of this insertion of the Kingdom INTO the sinful world is to be light to illuminate its darkness, salt to save it from its corruption (Matthew 5:13-16).

The non-nationalistic, non-racial character of the Kingdom is underlined in the account of the healing of the centurion’s servant (Matthew 8:5-13). The specifically racial and nationalistic claims of the Jews received a serious blow dealt by Jesus-’ comments on the exceptional faith of the Roman.

The Kingdom’s standard of judgment is not based upon precise performance of rituals, but upon the real sincerity of one’s motives for all that he does (Matthew 5:8; Matthew 5:11; Matthew 5:19-20; Matthew 5:22; Matthew 5:28; Matthew 5:32; Matthew 5:37; Matthew 5:44-47; Matthew 6:1 ff., Matthew 6:24; Matthew 7:12; Matthew 7:18-20; Matthew 7:23).

God’s Kingdom is His mastery over human uncleanness and disease (Matthew 8:1-4; Matthew 8:14-17). It means His personal entrance into our human misery and bearing it Himself (Matthew 8:17 = Isaiah 53:4).

God’s rule must be considered as absolute, more demanding than the highest human need or responsibilities (Matthew 8:18-22).

God’s Kingdom includes His control over the elements of the natural world (Matthew 8:23-27).

God’s Kingdom is manifest in His total mastery over Satan’s kingdom (Matthew 8:28 to Matthew 9:1).

God’s Kingdom is evident in His right to forgive man’s sin (Matthew 9:2-8).

The Kingdom of God is not a sect of purists (the pure, the true Church), but a movement that is genuinely open to all without distinction. If Matthew the publican can belong to it, ANYONE can (Matthew 9:9-13)!

The Kingdom is not triumphalistic, does not force men to believe or be righteous, but it proceeds because of its missionary spirit. Its missionaries, because they labor where frictions among men are the bitterest, where selfishness explodes in all its forms, must expect persecutions and death (Matthew 10:16 ff.). Even though God is present and judging His people, He may not intervene to halt those who kill them (Matthew 10:28). Jesus-’ disciples are to be identified with Him in suffering and service (Matthew 10:16-40).

The unification of all men in the Kingdom of God can only come about by the elimination of all false unities, even those founded upon blood relationships (Matthew 10:34-39).

The Kingdom of God, in its earthly manifestation, can suffer opposition and violent attempts to force it to be something other than what it was designed to be (Matthew 11:12). This is in perfect harmony with the absolute freedom of the human will to accept its teachings or not (Matthew 11:14).

God’s government of heaven and earth includes His gracious will to hide significant truth from those who pride themselves as being the wise and understanding, while revealing the truth to humble, sincere disciples, the babes (Matthew 11:25-30).

The rule of God over His people lifts them over the highest institutions of the Mosaic Law, the Sabbath and the Temple (Matthew 12:1-14). The Son of man is lord of the sabbath.

The operational power of the Spirit of God working in Jesus of Nazareth is positive proof that the Kingdom of God has come and that Satan is really defeated and plundered (Matthew 12:22-29)!

Something greater than the wisdom of Solomon and the testimony of Jonah is involved in Jesus-’ representation of God’s Kingdom (Matthew 12:38-43).

The Kingdom of God is not founded upon fleshly ties, not even to the Messiah Himself, much less to Abraham, but upon doing what the Father in heaven wills (Matthew 12:46-50).

Jesus presented the secrets of the Kingdom of heaven to everyone listening, but in parabolic form so as to distinguish between listeners. Those who trusted Jesus enough to come to Him for explanations, received more information about the nature, progress and destiny of the Kingdom of God, because they gained the explanations of the unforgettable parables they already possessed. Those who did not care enough for truth, or did not trust Jesus to know what He was about, not only did not gain this vital information, but also lost the value of the parables they had heard (Matthew 13:10-17; Matthew 13:34-35). Thus, the Church is made up of those who desire to trust and learn from Jesus even those truths of the Kingdom that are unclear, unpalatable, or seem wrong.

The kind of Kingdom God has in mind has the following characteristics:

The effectiveness of God’s rule in individual lives depends directly upon each one’s personal openness to truth and his willingness to let God rule (Matthew 13:1-9; Matthew 13:18-23). If so, the Kingdom is not a materialistic regime that conquers by force of arms, but by the painfully slow process of planting truth in men’s hearts, which are of widely varied character.

The temporary presence of evil in the Kingdom of God is not His fault, because He is not the source of evil. Rather, He has inaugurated a process whereby final judgment will reveal the truly righteous and segregate the wicked. The righteous, the congregation of the Messiah, really are the citizens of His Kingdom (Matthew 13:24-30; Matthew 13:36-43). The continued presence of evil in the world is clear proof of man’s moral freedom to decide his own fate (Matthew 13:47-50). The Kingdom is the work of a God who knows the time of its maturing and of the final day.

Despite its microscopic beginnings, the Kingdom of God will grow and become a mighty empire, because of its internal life and extensive expansion (Matthew 13:31-32).

The Kingdom will grow quietly in the world, without great noise and commotion, but its progress will not be hindered until its intensive, transforming power influences all it touches (Matthew 13:33).

Whether discovered accidentally or sought deliberately, the Kingdom of God, when discovered and appreciated at its true value, is worth all it costs (Matthew 13:44-46).

The theologian who is a disciple of the Kingdom is a wealthy man who can bless his guests with treasured truth, the best of the old and the finest of the new (Matthew 13:52).

It is not a kingdom in which external purity and ceremony has any real importance, but where the real purity of one’s heart, as this is manifested in his spirit of obedience to whatever God requires, is everything (Matthew 15:1-20).

It is a Kingdom whose King, the Son of David, has time to bless even CANAANITES, despite the limitations of His personal mission to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:21-28)!

It is a Kingdom where half-Jewish, half-Gentile populations can sit down to the Messianic banquet together, not because of personal worthiness, but because of the Messiah’s bounty and graciousness (Matthew 15:29-39).

It is a Kingdom, rather, that one enters by death to self, and by acknowledgment of the true identity and consequent rights of the King (Matthew 16:13-28). The community of the Messiah (The Church of Christ), then, is but the subjective manifestation of the Messiah’s objective rule. The Church is, in short, the people of the Kingdom, the necessary result of the proclamation of God’s sovereignty, a proclamation which calls into being a real assembly or communitary reality: the Church. It was to begin in the lifetime of Jesus-’ earthly disciples (Matthew 16:28).

The Kingdom’s power, while at the disposition of the disciples, is not automatic nor divisible from faith (Matthew 17:14-21).

The sons of the Kingdom are free citizens, above even the obligatory Temple-tax (Matthew 17:24-27).

Death to self, absolutely essential to entrance in the Kingdom, manifests itself in a refusal to recognize any standard of greatness other than the amount of service one renders to the weakest, smallest, least important in the Kingdom (Matthew 18:1-35). No pride in achievement can justify unmercifulness or harsh treatment of any member of the Kingdom, however seemingly insignificant.

The Kingdom God has in mind is a community of the Messiah, yet it admits its internal problem and deals with them in an orderly manner (Matthew 18:15-35). The problem of continued sinning and consequent need for forgiveness is to remain a live one, even after the beginning of the Kingdom. It is a Kingdom whose common life is characterized by its concern for the little ones, its reconciliation of brethren, its forgiveness of offenses, its purity of intentions, its harmony of life and its common prayer.

The Kingdom God has in mind is concerned with a right understanding of male-female relationships (Matthew 19:3-12). Celibacy, even for sake of the Kingdom, is not possible for everyone.

The Kingdom of God belongs to the children and such as they, not those whose adulthood makes them too proud to come to Jesus (Matthew 19:13-15).

The Kingdom God has in mind does not belong exclusively to the wealthy, whom most people would automatically judge most qualified for it, being the most blessed by God who furnishes the power to become wealthy (Matthew 19:13-30).

In God’s Kingdom earth’s value-systems and power structures have no importance, except in a negative way in the sense that they are condemned among believers (Matthew 19:23-26).

Loyalty to Jesus Christ, as this is manifest in the sacrifices made for His sake, will be richly rewarded in that expression of God’s Kingdom in the world to come (Matthew 19:27-30).

In fact, God’s Kingdom attributes no priority to anyone on the basis of supposed merits or personal achievements, because the basis of blessing is the free choice and mercy of the King (Matthew 20:1-16).

The usual, earthly power-structures have no relation to anything Jesus has in mind for His Kingdom. Rather, the measure of greatness and power is service and usefulness to others, not self-seeking and self-aggrandisement (Matthew 20:20-28).

God intends that His Kingdom shall belong to people who will produce the results God desires. Therefore, it cannot long remain the private possession of those who do not (Matthew 21:23-43).

The Kingdom of Heaven is a question of free choice that may be accepted or rejected, but not, however, without serious consequences. Many are invited into it, but few prove finally acceptable (Matthew 22:1-14).

Surprisingly, God’s Kingdom does not conflict with normal, constituted human authority nor vice versa, and may be considered consistent with it when properly exercised (Matthew 22:15-21).

While the present phase of the Kingdom of God is played out on earth’s stage, the resurrection of the dead ushers men into a different state of life with the God of the living (Matthew 22:23-33).

The religion and ethics of God’s Kingdom may be summed up as love for God and unselfish service to one’s neighbor (Matthew 22:34-40).

The son of David, long-awaited Messianic King, must also be the Lord of David (Matthew 22:41-46).

In God’s Kingdom, there are not to be many chiefs, just one Father, one Teacher, one Leader. Everyone else is one of the brothers (Matthew 23:7-10).

Nor is God’s Kingdom to be exclusive and sectarian on the basis of human traditions and proselytization. Rather, its concerns will be with the things that count: justice, mercy and faith, inward purity, consciousness of God, moral understanding, hatred of sin (Matthew 23:13-36).

The Kingdom God has in mind and of which Jesus is the Messianic King, will not be without its prophets, wise men and theologians, sent as Christian missionaries to save Israel (Matthew 23:34). Not only is their preparation emphasized here, but also their mission of mercy to an unworthy people.

The way in which God’s Kingdom would be carried on will create a situation in which constant vigilance and constant preparation are absolutely essential to please the King (Matthew 24:36 to Matthew 25:13). There remains the live possibility of losing everything, despite one’s privileged position as servant of the King. The King’s arrival will be delayed (Matthew 24:45; Matthew 25:5). But the daily life of the citizen must be one marked by faith, sobriety, alertness and dedicated service.

The Kingdom involves a trust of the King’s goods left in custody of His servants, to be utilized for His benefit (Matthew 25:14-30). The King’s return will be delayed (Matthew 25:19). This only emphasizes the greatness of the opportunity to make good use of His goods for His glory.

The Kingdom involves a proper, personal care for the world’s needy to whom service is to be rendered as if to the King Himself (Matthew 25:31-46).

The Kingdom God has in mind is based on covenant sealed in Jesus-’ blood, furnishing the forgiveness of sins (Matthew 26:28). The fruit of the vine which symbolized the blood of the covenant would be shared with Jesus-’ disciples in the Father’s Kingdom (Matthew 26:29).

Since Jesus was tried and crucified by the Romans and Jews as the King of the Jews, and since God vindicated Jesus-’ right to this title by raising Him from the dead, it should be clear to Matthew’s readers that God’s Kingdom, the Kingdom of Israel as God envisioned it, was not to be of the type usually dreamed of in current Jewish speculation, but precisely the Kingdom Jesus continuously and consistently represented to them. It is almost as if Matthew were saying: The exclusively Jewish -King of the Jews-’ is dead, never to rise again, not crucified by His own people, but by the King Himself. In His place there arose the true King of the new Israel, the King of the universe with authority in heaven and on earth. (Cf. Matthew 28:18.)

While our King is one in the daily expectation of whose return from a long trip we are to live (cf. Matthew 24:45-48; Matthew 25:5; Matthew 25:19), He is always near us, by our side, and His faithfulness will not fail (Matthew 28:20).

Whereas in Mark we read of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God, the object of the announcement being the person of Jesus Himself, in Matthew the characteristic expression is the gospel of the Kingdom, almost as if it is meant that the object of the Gospel, the purpose of the Christian message is the actual proclamation of the Kingdom. (Cf. Matthew 4:23; Matthew 9:35; Matthew 24:14 in contrast to Mark 1:1; Mark 1:14).

Because the Kingdom of God expresses the will of God, His Kingdom is evident in His choice to reveal His plans, not to the intelligentsia, but to little children (Matthew 11:25-26).

God does not will that any of these little ones should be lost through neglect or stumbling blocks of other disciples (Matthew 18:14).

WHATEVER God wills is the essence of the Kingdom of God in one’s life, regardless of how deeply that cuts across our choices or preferences (Matthew 26:39).

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

Despite the variety of events in the history of the Jewish people, as these are noted in the record of Jesus-’ genealogy, God was silently working to bring His Messiah into the world (Matthew 1:1-17).

Despite the real perplexities of Joseph about his beloved Mary, God was taking care of Jesus by providing Him a legal father and protection for His mother, Despite human experience of a virgin birth, God chose this method to come into the world, so that in the human Jesus, we learn what it means to have God with us (Matthew 1:18-25).

Despite the clever planning of a murderous king, God rescued Jesus from harm and furnished sufficient funds for an extended sojourn in Egypt by gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh (Matthew 2:1-21).

God will severely judge an unrepentant Israel, notwithstanding her claims to physical descent from Abraham, unless she embraces the Lord for whom John prepared the way (Matthew 3:1-12).

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus underscored again and again the Fatherhood of God and His Fatherly care. (Cf. Matthew 5:16; Matthew 5:45; Matthew 5:48; Matthew 6:1; Matthew 6:4; Matthew 6:6; Matthew 6:8; Matthew 6:14-15; Matthew 6:18; Matthew 6:26; Matthew 6:32; Matthew 7:11.) Despite the terror of the persecutions which would tempt Christians to close themselves up in monastic seclusion, their purpose must be to glorify their Father who watches over their most secret thought and cares for their most fundamental needs.

The Mission of the Twelve is born in prayer to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest (Matthew 9:38). It is His field for which He is responsible and into whose service we pray He will raise up laborers. Despite the temptations to deny everything because of the terrors of the persecutions, God watches over His creation and will bless with victory all who proclaim His Word, although He may not intervene to halt those who would kill the body (Matthew 10:26-31). He will not forget even the smallest help given His people (Matthew 10:40-42).

Notwithstanding the incomprehension encountered by Jesus among His own people, God’s sovereign decision to reveal Himself and His will in precisely the way Jesus had followed was gratefully accepted by Jesus (Matthew 11:25-27). God’s design actually worked and was being realized by Jesus-’ works. The sovereign Lord of heaven and earth is not forced to bow before those who believe themselves lords of the world (the wise and understanding) (Matthew 11:25).

It is God who can guarantee that all the sacrifices of Christ and His people will only result in life lived at its best (Matthew 16:24-28). Life belongs to God, and only He can transform it. All that Jesus demands becomes comprehensible, if seen as obedience to God who by resurrection defeats our death, even as He did it for Jesus (Matthew 16:21).

It is God who speaks from heaven, confirming Jesus-’ ministry, notwithstanding what all human judgment must pronounce a failure in His mission and procedure and results (Matthew 17:5). Success, in God’s view, must be obtained at the cross, both by Jesus and by each single disciple.

With God all things are possible, even the damnation of men despite their wealth and the saving of those who sacrifice all they possess for Jesus-’ sake, and who would be considered poor in human judgment (Matthew 19:23-30).

The absolute Lordship of God is manifest in His free gift of grace to those whom He wishes to bless, regardless of the apparent unworthiness of these latter (Matthew 20:1-16). Rather than measure the recompense on the basis of one’s achievements, Jesus reaffirms that everything depends upon the free choice and mercy of God.

The sovereignty of God is underlined in the Parables of the Vineyard and the Marriage Feast, in that the owner of the vineyard can (and should) put the former share-farmers to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants, and in that the king can rightfully send his troops to destroy the murderers of his messengers, burn their city, and replace them with just anyone who would come. But, even so, all must conform to his terms for remaining in his grace (Matthew 21:33 to Matthew 22:14).

Jesus-’ quotation of Zec 13:7 points to God as the Ruler of history and who does everything according to His plan for man’s salvation, even if this is not the kind of Messianism that man would design (Matthew 26:31-32).

Even in the attitude of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36-46) we see the theme of human weakness in the presence of the will of God that must be carried out to the utmost. Temptation to give in is something that continually hangs over man, and only God can furnish him the strength to endure it.

The Garden arrest must take place according to the Scriptures, because God, who ordered these events and is back of the Scriptures, is the final, real Actor in every event (Matthew 26:56).

After Jesus-’ victory and receiving universal authority, He promises His people that, while they carry out His mission on earth, He will be with them until the end of the age. This means that His people are those disciples who are determined to follow the same path He did, confiding only in the blessing of God (Christ), sure that they will never be alone, since He, the sovereign God in Christ, is always guarding them (Matthew 28:16-20).

The sovereignty of God is seen in the picture of Jesus as the Man over whom God had been watching even before His birth and had foreseen and prepared for every part of His life. This is especially emphasized in His fulfilment of prophecies. Among Matthew’s at least forty formal quotations of the Old Testament, the following are expressly cited as being particularly indicative of God’s preparation for and care of Jesus even before His appearance on earth:

**MATTHEW

OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGE**

Hosea 11:1 (cf. Exodus 4:22)

Matthew 2:23

prophets Isaiah 52:13 to Isaiah 53:12; Psalms 22; Isaiah 11:1?

Psalms 8:2 (LXX Matthew 8:3)

Psalms 118:26; Jeremiah 22:5

Matthew 24:29-31

Isaiah 13:10; Ezekiel 32:7; Joe 2:10; Joe 2:31; Joe 3:15;

Isaiah 34:4 b; Haggai 2:6; Haggai 2:21; Zechariah 12:10; Zechariah 12:12;

Daniel 7:13-14; Isaiah 27:13; Deuteronomy 30:4; Zech.

Psalms 110:1; Daniel 7:13-14

Matthew 27:9-10

Zechariah 11:12-13; Jeremiah 32:6-15

Matthew 27:46

Psalms 22:1

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

What kind of information did Jesus reveal about God’s Fatherhood? While clearly picturing Him as the Lord your God (Matthew 4:10; Matthew 22:37), as the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell (Matthew 10:28), as the sovereign Lord of heaven and earth (Matthew 11:25) and as king of the kingdom of God (Matthew 18:23; Matthew 18:35), etc., our Lord laid heavy emphasis on God’s fatherly character. Does Jesus picture Him as a celestial Santa Claus or as an unquestioning, all-accepting divine Grandfather or otherwise? Consider these revelations:

All our good deeds must be done so that others-’ praise will go to our Father (Matthew 5:16).

Loving kindness to enemies makes us true sons of our Father in heaven (Matthew 5:44). His perfection is our standard (Matthew 5:48).

Our acts of righteousness must be done with a view to being rewarded by our heavenly Father alone (Matthew 6:1-18).

In contrast to dead, pagan deities whose devotees must hopelessly, endlessly cry to them, our heavenly Father knows that we need daily necessities (Matthew 6:32), and He gives only good gifts to those who ask Him (Matthew 7:11).

Entrance into heaven’s Kingdom depends on doing the will of Jesus-’ Father (Matthew 7:21).

Early disciples, on trial for their Christian testimony, may depend with full confidence on the Spirit of our Father speaking through them (Matthew 10:20).

Nothing sinister can happen to a faithful disciple, apart from what our Father permits (Matthew 10:29),

However, it is before Jesus-’ Father in heaven that the disciple will be acknowledged or disowned, according to his attitude and faithfulness on earth (Matthew 10:32 f.).

Jesus sustained a unique, unshared relationship to this Father, whom He could call my Father in a way distinct from the relationship to this Father known by every disciple, because the Father had committed all things to Him (Matthew 11:25-27).

The kinship to Jesus that really counts is not physical, based on a coincidental or miraculous fleshly relationship, but rather spirit, based on doing the will of His heavenly Father (Matthew 12:50).

Although temporarily obscured in this life, after the judgment the righteous will be perfectly obvious in the kingdom of their Father (Matthew 13:43).

Any doctrine not finding its origin in the will of Jesus-’ heavenly Father will be eradicated, and those who follow blind leaders who hold such doctrines will suffer the consequences along with them (Matthew 15:13).

Jesus-’ Father in heaven revealed to Peter the true identity of Jesus (Matthew 16:17).

Our Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost, so their angels are granted instant access to His presence (Matthew 18:14; Matthew 18:10).

Jesus-’ return to earth will be surrounded with His Father’s glory (Matthew 16:27).

All of the might of Jesus-’ Father in heaven is at the disposition of two humble disciples who agree to ask Him for something in prayer (Matthew 18:19).

However, Jesus-’ Heavenly Father will not tolerate any unwillingness to forgive in His subjects (Matthew 18:35).

It is Jesus-’ heavenly Father whose will determines places of honor in His Kingdom (Matthew 20:23).

God is the only one who rightly deserves to be called Father in the high, ethical sense of Provider of spiritual life and guidance (Matthew 23:9).

The Father alone knows the day of Christ’s return (Matthew 24:36).

The righteous will finally be blessed by the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 25:34), and not unlikely, He is the author of the curse upon the wicked (Matthew 25:41).

Jesus viewed the glorious Messianic Kingdom as belonging to His Father (Matthew 26:29).

Jesus pleaded with His Father to remove the cup of suffering (Matthew 26:29; Matthew 26:42), and remained stedfastly confident that His Father could at once put more than twelve legions of angels at His disposal (Matthew 26:53).

THE KIND OF JUDGMENT GOD WILL EXERCISE ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

John preached repentance and deeds as all-important for spiritual preparation for the Messiah’s coming, not pretended fleshly ties to Abraham. The judgment, while involving all of Israel, will examine each one individually (Matthew 3:1-12). The Messiah Himself would be personally responsible to execute summary judgment.

Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, underlined the inner purity of heart, the kind of motivated person that seeks God’s will and man’s good above personal interest. Only this kind of person will have God’s approval. (Cf. Matthew 5:3-10, Matthew 5:21 ff., Matthew 5:27 ff., Matthew 5:44-48.) The rigor by which men deal with others will be the measure of severity or clemency by which they themselves are to be judged (Matthew 5:7; Matthew 6:12; Matthew 6:14 f.; Matthew 7:1-5). Men will be judged on the basis of what they do with JESUS-’ words (Matthew 7:21-27). All are judged by their deeds and attitudes (Matthew 7:15-23). Jesus Himself will decide the fate of all (Matthew 7:22). God will not judge men merely by the standards of the most pious theologians of the day, the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5:21), but against the standard of perfection itself (Matthew 5:48)!

In the dialogue with the Gadarene demons, they demand to know if Jesus is come to punish them before the time of the final judgment (Matthew 8:29). This suggests without stating it that Jesus Himself is the final Judge by whom these dark spirits must be judged and sentenced. How much more would mankind be judged by Him? Before the time, however, means that the demons, and evil in general, are yet free to do their worst, even if drastically curbed for awhile and in limited ways. (The demons are cast out of the poor sufferers.)

God desires to exercise a judgment tempered with mercy, not merely the rigid, heartless censorship practiced by the Pharisees (Matthew 9:9-13, especially Matthew 9:13; Matthew 12:7).

God will save the man who endures to the end (Matthew 10:22).

God will not destroy in hell those who, however frightened by persecutors and death, give their testimony boldly and confess Jesus before men (Matthew 10:26-33).

God will judge sinners on the basis of their attitude toward His Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31 f.), on the basis of the character of their heart as this is seen in their words, (Matthew 12:33-37), and on their opportunities to know the truth (Matthew 12:38-42), and on the basis of the practical emptiness of their sterile lives (Matthew 12:43-45).

For the emphases on judgment in the Sermon in Parables (Matthew 13), see Note at the end.

God judges men’s ideas on the basis of their origin, not upon their acceptability to current scholarship (Matthew 15:13). If their ideas did not originate in the truth of God, they will be eradicated in judgment.

God cannot tolerate any rivals to Jesus His Son, not even the greatest Law-givers and Prophets of Old Testament religion (Matthew 17:5; Matthew 17:5). Men must see Jesus only (Matthew 17:8).

Greatness in the Kingdom of God is measured by God’s concern for the least, the last and the lost (Matthew 18:10-14). Anything that causes these to be lost must be eliminated on the penalty of eternal destruction (Matthew 18:8-9). God will use the same rigor of judgment with which men treat one another (Matthew 18:23-35).

The lesson of the barren fig tree cursed (Matthew 21:18-22) is that God eliminates useless, unfruitful creatures, with a suddenness and severity that may surprise the observer, but with undoubted justice, because of the richness of opportunities to produce what, by their nature, they should be expected to produce.

The severe condemnations of Pharisaism and Jerusalem (Matthew 23:1-39) teach that God’s judgment condemns making religion a burden (Matthew 23:1-4), proud humility (Matthew 23:5-12), partisan zeal (Matthew 23:13-15), the art of evasion (Matthew 23:16-22), loss of the sense of moral proportions (Matthew 23:23-24), external purity in contrast to inner pollution (Matthew 23:25-28), abuse of God’s messengers (Matthew 23:29-36), rejection of Love’s appeals (Matthew 23:37-39). They are without excuse, because they know God’s will and do not do it (Cf. v. 3).

The great Eschatological Discourse deals with judgment upon Israel, then upon the world (Chapter s 24, 25). The bases of judgment mentioned are readiness, faithfulness, usefulness, faithfulness to Jesus.

NOTE that all the major discourses recorded by Matthew proceed to a climax in judgment:

The Sermon on the Mount ends on the parable of judgment against the house built on the sand foundation (Matthew 7:24-27).

The Sermon on the Apostolic Mission rises to a climax from fear of human persecutors to concern for not being acknowledged by Jesus in the presence of God the Father (Matthew 10:26-33). The result of God’s judgment will be determined by the positions taken during this life (Matthew 10:34-39).

The Sermon on John the Baptist, Shall We Look For Another Christ? emphasizes the theme of judgment upon the most favored cities where Jesus had bestowed His richest favors of blessing, healing and teaching. Judgment, says Jesus, will be in proportion to the light against which we have sinned (Matthew 11:20-24). The very choice to hide certain truth from the wise and understanding while revealing them to babes, is itself a judgment in which Jesus fully concurs (Matthew 11:25 ff.).

The Sermon on the Kingdom of Heaven, told in truth-hiding parables, is itself a masterpiece of judgment executed upon those who had no desire for truth (Matthew 13:10-17). The parable of the Sower emphasizes the grounds of the difference in reactions to truth and consequent judgment upon individuals (Matthew 13:1-9; Matthew 13:18-23). The parable of the Weeds underscores the certainty of judgment, despite what appears to be unnecessary delay in its coming. It explains also the impossibility to pronounce premature judgments on our part (Matthew 13:24-30; Matthew 13:36-43). The parables of the Yeast and the Mustard Seed pronounce God’s judgment upon the progress of the Kingdom, despite man’s opinions to the contrary (Matthew 13:31-33). The parables of the Hidden Treasure and the Precious Pearl express God’s judgment of the value of the Kingdom: it is worth all it costs the individual who acquires it (Matthew 13:44-46). The story of the Dragnet repeats the message of the final, inexorable division of the world’s people (Matthew 13:47-50).

The Sermon on Personal Relations in the Kingdom thunders judgment without mercy against the unmerciful, by means of the parable of the Two Debtors (Matthew 18:23-35).

The Sermon on the Sins of the Religious (Matthew 23), while itself almost entirely a thundering denunciation of a multitude of sins, rises to its dramatic climax in the words: You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth.. Truly, I say to you, all this will come upon this generation (Matthew 23:33-36).

The Sermon on the End of the World (24, 25) underlines again and again not only the fall of everything not in God’s plans, but also the necessity for immediate, personal preparation.

BY THEIR FRUITS YOU WILL KNOW THEM THE IMPORTANCE OF BEARING FRUIT AND DOING WHAT JESUS DEMANDS ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

John the Baptist defined repentance by demanding that those who pretend to repent should prove their sincerity by producing fruits worthy of repentance, i.e. the characteristic deeds of a changed life. Unless these deeds were forthcoming, punitive judgment would overtake the unfruitful, despite all pretenses and claims to the contrary (Matthew 3:1-12).

The Messiah Himself insists upon being baptized by John to fulfill all righteousness, i.e. to do what God defines as right for any man (Matthew 3:14-15). The plan of God can be brought to fulfilment only in this way, not by fleeing one’s responsibility, but by accepting it completely.

The Sermon on the Mount is packed with blessings, admonitions and teaching to underscore the importance of deeds:

The active peacemakers are the sons of God (Matthew 5:9). Only those who ardently desire to do the will of God will truly be satisfied in the Kingdom (Matthew 5:6).

The true salt and light are useful to God (Matthew 5:13-16).

Doing and teaching is God’s standard of greatness in the Kingdom (Matthew 5:19).

Worshiping (Matthew 5:24), almsgiving (Matthew 6:2-4), praying (Matthew 6:7 ff.) and fasting (Matthew 6:16 ff.) are assumed to be part of the normal activity of the godly disciple, but are not more important a part of personal piety than active reconciliation (Matthew 5:21-26), personal self-denial (Matthew 5:27-32), absolute honesty (Matthew 5:33-37), merciful generosity (Matthew 5:38-42), and actively blessing one’s enemies (Matthew 5:43-48).

The same judgment threatened against imposters is the standard for unfruitful disciples (Matthew 7:19).

Real union with Christ is to be enjoyed, not by family relationship to Him by blood or by accidents of birth in the right family or people, but by obedience to the will of the Father (Matthew 12:46-50).

The Sermon in Parables (chapter 13) links the disciples-’ fruit-bearing to his understanding the word of the Kingdom (Matthew 13:19; Matthew 13:23) as well as to his moral character (Matthew 13:21-22). Interest is shown, further, in the differing quantities of fruit borne even among the fruitful disciples. The Kingdom demands total commitment (Matthew 13:44-46).

Only total commitment to the will of God, even in the prospect of suffering and death, will be rewarded with life in its highest and best sense (Matthew 16:24-28). Every man will be repaid for what he has done.

Instead of commanding the rich young ruler to trust Him, Jesus told him something to do (Matthew 19:21). Although this implicitly involved total trust in Jesus to know what must be done to inherit eternal life, the deed is in the foreground. (Contrast John 6:29.) Life is to be had in doing what God wills (Matthew 19:17).

Men will be rewarded on the basis of what they have given up for Jesus-’ sake (Matthew 19:29).

The cursing of the fig tree because it had no fruit, just leaves, becomes an enacted lesson on the destiny of the fruitless, pretentious Israel that refused to believe Jesus (Matthew 21:18-22), It is also a warning to every believer concerning the damnation of useless-ness and the punishment of proud promises without performance. It applies to Jesus as well, because He too has made tremendous promises which could only be kept by going to the cross.

The Parable of the Two Sons emphasizes actually doing the will of the Father, as opposed to merely professing obedience without really doing it (Matthew 21:28-32).

The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Matthew 21:33-46) explains that the Kingdom of God will not remain the private possession of those who do not produce the results God intends. Rather, it will rightly pass over to those who will (Matthew 21:41; Matthew 21:43).

In all the lessons on vigilance during the eschatological wait for the Lord’s return, the emphasis is laid upon usefulness in the Lord’s service, doing the job He assigns, making the preparation that is needed for His return, utilizing the goods He entrusts to our custody, and caring for the people made in His image (Matthew 24:45 to Matthew 25:46).

The Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) includes the order to teach them to observe all that I have commanded you. The teaching has as its goal the production of the results Jesus desired.

THE KIND OF RIGHTEOUSNESS GOD HAS IN MIND ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

It is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness (Matthew 3:15) is not merely Jesus-’ reason for being baptized by John the Baptist, but His reason for living as He did and His model for us.

In the Sermon on the Mount, the Law of Moses is not despised, but fulfilled; not denied, but surpassed. Since Christ has come to fulfil God’s promises and standards, He Himself takes over the function of the Law, and becomes the Law. The Law is already the realization of the Kingdom of God among men in the person of Jesus Himself, a law that cannot be codified, but must be totally accepted. It is no longer sufficient to perform certain actions. What counts is the spiritual attitude with which they are performed and the intentions that motivated them. In fact, much of Jesus-’ teaching can be found in the Old Testament in one form or another. What is radically new about His view of righteousness is its new motivation: for my sake (cf. Matthew 7:21-27), i.e. because the demands made are authoritative and final because of Jesus-’ authority. Everything depends upon accepting Jesus as the Christ, and having His power to live the kind of life described herein. Otherwise, everything falls back into a legalistic, hence, impossible, concept of righteousness. The standard is no longer a codified one, but God’s own character, the goal for which He furnishes the Spirit to help us surpass the evil that dominates us (Matthew 5:48). Only this kind of righteousness will surpass that of the sterile religionists and bring glory to God (Matthew 5:10; Matthew 5:20). But it is a way to travel, an attitude to pursue, rather than a virtue intrinsic to discipleship. It is a search (Matthew 6:33). Man is blessed in the measure he desires it (Matthew 5:6).

The Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9-10) asks that God manifest His holiness, rule and will on earth, all in perfect harmony with the expectations created by the Old Testament doctrine of the Messianic age. The kind of righteousness Jesus has in mind, then, is that attitude which sanctifies God, seeks first His Kingdom and His righteousness and does His will (Matthew 6:33).

There is no necessary separation between the concerns of the Kingdom of God and those of life lived on this earth, no false dichotomy between spirit and matter. While much Jewish apocalyptic had pictured a materialistic Kingdom, Jesus pictures it as something to be spiritually understood and appreciated. While other Jews prepared for a purely spiritual Kingdom with no earthly reality, Jesus recognized the human situation that is to continue until the end of the world, a situation in which God’s people will need food, clothing and shelter, just like all men anywhere (Matthew 6:24-34). The difference, however, is in what each chooses as his personal preoccupation: desire to please the Heavenly Father, or worry about personal needs.

The patterns of piety under the Old Testament system are definitely old, out-moded, worn, however useful in their time, but definitely to be substituted with new forms, new content (Matthew 9:14-17). The wedding-joy of the Messianic Kingdom must not be marred by the severe piety that rightly characterized pre-messianic times. Jesus is not merely reforming Judaism with its legal system, but making a qualitative leap into a new relationship with God.

Righteousness, i.e. right thinking and doing, then, according to Jesus, means coming to Him, believing in Him, studying in His school, receiving peace of soul from Him alone (Matthew 11:28-30). The life-style pictured for the disciple cannot be divorced from the Christology of Matthew, because the invitations to enter into the Kingdom of God are intimately associated with invitations to embrace the person of Jesus Christ the King.

This submission to God’s will as it is revealed in Jesus means denying oneself for His sake and willingly accepting any suffering encountered in the line of duty for which all must answer to Jesus (Matthew 16:24-28).

Righteousness, in Jesus-’ eyes, does not seek control over others nor promotes self-importance (Matthew 18:1-35). Rather, real righteousness is humble, concerned about others-’ weaknesses and welfare and problems, dedicated to restoring harmony among men, and aware of its own need of God’s mercy. (Cf. also Matthew 19:13-15.)

Righteousness, as Jesus defines it, does not seek easy escape from marital responsibility (Matthew 19:3-9).

Righteousness not only does not hinder those weaker than oneself, but seeks to become like them in humility (Matthew 19:13-15).

Perfection is a question of removing everything that would hinder perfect service to God and others (Matthew 19:16-30). Strikingly, this answer is given to answer the request: What good deed must I do to have eternal life?

Righteousness does not depend upon one’s own merits or efforts, but upon the free choice and generosity of God (Matthew 20:1-16).

Righteousness does not express itself in self-seeking preeminence and priority over others, but in self-giving service for others (Matthew 20:20-28).

Real righteousness does not consist in professing allegiance to God yet without producing the results that this allegiance should produce (Matthew 21:18-22, Matthew 21:28 to Matthew 22:14).

All of religion and ethics may be expressed in the two great commandments (Matthew 22:34-40).

True religion consists in doing and teaching what God has ordered, regardless of the hypocrisy obvious in the life of those who occupy the teaching position (Matthew 23:2-3).

Righteousness consists in humble recognition of our equality under Christ our only superior (Matthew 23:8-12). True greatness is measured by service.

The weightier matters of the law (are) justice, mercy and faith, although the positive ordinances are not to be neglected either (Matthew 23:23).

The kind of righteousness Jesus has in mind is not a settled question, in the sense that any disciple can think himself to possess it perfectly. Rather, it is a life to be lived every day in the shadow of the real possibility of losing it (Matthew 24:12-13). It is a life lived under the daily tension of constant preparedness for whatever events signal the end for each one (Matthew 24:42 to Matthew 25:13). It involved a proper utilization of the Lord’s goods left in our custody (Matthew 25:14-30). Every earthly decision involves our taking a position in the presence of God and Christ the Judge (Matthew 25:31-46). The Christian ethic is not simply contemplative, but is highly practical, and by which all will be judged: did your trust of the Messiah make you generously helpful with your fellowman?

THE PARTICIPATION OF THE GENTILES IN THE MESSIANIC KINGDOM ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

The Gentiles are a special class to themselves, whose reaction to Jesus deserves special note. In fact, although Matthew mentions none among Jesus-’ regular disciples or enemies, because His mission was principally to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, he does purposely include numerous mentions of them all in a favorable sense. The only significant negative Gentile personages are Pontius Pilate and his wife who figure in Jesus-’ trials, and while not pictured as particularly believers, both underline Jesus-’ innocence in different ways (Matthew 27:18-19; Matthew 27:24). Pilate’s final decision to protect himself rather than an innocent man, needs no comment. The soldiers of the battalion that mocked Jesus (Matthew 27:27-31) are negative, minor figures as are also the soldiers at the tomb who became involuntary witnesses to the reality of Jesus-’ resurrection (Matthew 27:62-66; Matthew 28:11-15).

Consider, however, the following positive, deliberately apologetic instances Matthew included to show that the Messianic Kingdom, rightly understood, is open to everyone, regardless of birth, race, language or national background:

At least three of the four women mentioned in Jesus-’ genealogy are Gentiles: Rahab the Canaanite (Joshua 2:11; Hebrews 11:31); Ruth the Moabitess (Rth 1:16 f; Rth 2:12); Bathsheba the wife of Uriah the Hittite (2 Samuel 11; 1 Kings 15:5). The Messiah cannot be a pureblood Hebrew: He is part pagan by unquestionable genealogy,

The adoration by the Magi, standing in stark contrast to the indifference of Jerusalem and the clergy and the suspicions of a murderous king, points to a Messiah whose mission concerns not only Israel, but all peoples (Matthew 2:1-12).

John the Baptist preached: God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham and insisted that repentance and righteousness are the essential qualities for participation in the Messianic Kingdom (Matthew 3:1-10). If fleshly descent from Abraham is clearly subordinate to spiritual kinship to Abraham through faith and obedience to God, then, the logical conclusion may well be that even non-Hebrews will be permitted to share in the Messianic Kingdom on this same basis.

The universality of the Messiah’s ministry is underlined by Matthew’s quotation of Isa 9:1-2 linking Jesus-’ ministry in Galilee of the Gentiles with the already well-attested prophecy that had already sung of God’s concern for the benighted pagans (Matthew 4:12-17).

Remarkable for its absence in all of Jesus-’ teaching is any blessing of Israel above all other nations, any special honor given to uniquely Jewish practices, rites or customs, circumcision.

Unhesitatingly, Jesus blessed and praised the Gentile centurion of Capernaum and unblushingly stated Gentile participation in the Kingdom banquet to the exclusion of privileged Jews (Matthew 8:5-13).

The account of the Syro-phoenician womanherself a CANAANITEunderlines most vigorously the high quality of the faith of Gentiles when once brought into living contact with Christ and His message.

The participation of a half-Jewish, half-pagan population of Decapolis at the second miraculous multiplication of food, subtly underlines their common participation at the Messianic banquet (Matthew 15:29-39; cf. Mark 7:31; Mark 8:1-10).

In the parable of the wicked husbandmen, Jesus affirms: The Kingdom of God will be taken away from you (Jewish leaders especially) and given to a nation producing the fruits of it (Matthew 21:43). The new nation would not be merely Gentile, but a new people of Gentile-Jewish extraction who love and serve Jesus.

In the parable of the marriage feast, the King, angered by those who were invited and had rejected His invitation, destroyed those murderers and burned their city, because they were unworthy, and ordered His servants to bring in just anyone they could find (Matthew 22:1-14). The evident allusion is to the destruction of Jerusalem and the privileged Jews who should have been most ready to accept God’s invitation. Nevertheless, the non-Jews are offered the. same privileges, but must not presume upon God’s grace. (Cf. Romans 11:22.)

This gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations (Matthew 24:14)!

The Judgment of Christ, at which all nations will be gathered, separated and judged, will be settled, not on the basis of one’s Jewishness, but on the basis of each one’s usefulness in helping the least of Christ’s brethren (Matthew 25:31-46).

The kindness of Mary of Bethany in anointing Jesus for His burial will be told in memory of her, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world (Matthew 26:13).

Pilate’s wife was the only voice urgently raised to protest Jesus-’ innocence at His trial before the Gentile court.

A Gentile centurion at the crucifixion is the only non-disciple quoted by Matthew as having made a statement favorable to Jesus: Truly this was God’s son (Matthew 27:54)!

In virtue of Jesus-’ universal authority, all nations are to be evangelized and discipled (Matthew 28:18-20).

Matthew 27:1-2

SECTION 71 JESUS IS CONDEMNED BY THE FULL SANHEDRIN

(Parallels: Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66 to Luke 23:1; John 18:28)

TEXT: 27:1, 2

1 Now when morning was come, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death: 2 and they bound him, and led him away, and delivered him up to Pilate the governor.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Do you think that the early morning hour of this consultation held by the authorities of Israel exposes their intentions as evil? Why?

What relationship is there between this consultation and the others held during the night? If those were definitive, why bother to hold another now?

Is there any evidence that the entire decision-making body of Israel was not assembled in plenary session to deal with Jesus? If so, give the proof.

How does this hearing resemble the earlier, night sessions as to strategy? How does it differ? What is repeated? What is omitted?

Why do you think the Jews did not kill Jesus outright themselves? After all, they stoned Stephen. Why take Him to Pilate now?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

Very early, that is, as soon as morning came, the national council of the elders was immediately convened so, all the chief priests and theologians led Jesus away from there to their council chamber. This entire Sanhedrin held a consultation to decide the best procedure for getting Jesus executed. If you are the Christ, they demanded, tell us so! But His reply was, If I tell you, you will not believe me. If I ask you a question, you will not answer. But from now on I, the Son of man, will be seated at the right hand of Almighty God! Then they all asked, Are you God’s Son, then? He said to them, You said it. I am! What further testimony do we need? they asked. We have heard it ourselves from his own mouth! At this, the whole assembly rose, tied Jesus-’ hands and led Him from Caiaphas to the Praetorium and turned Him over to Pilate the governor. It was still early.

SUMMARY

To ratify the results of the night hearings, a brief show-trial is held before a hastily convened full Sanhedrin. Only the principle issue guaranteed to produce a unanimous verdict of guilty was raised: Jesus-’ allegedly false claim to be God’s Son, hence, to be deity despite His obvious humanity. The tactic succeeded in its intent and a relatively united senate sentenced Him to death. To accomplish this, they must work through the Roman governor, to whom they now go.

NOTES

Matthew 27:1 **Now when morning was come, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death. **It was Friday morning, Nisan 15. The Synoptics picture the plotters as astir at daybreak as soon as possible (Proìas genoménes; Mark 15:1: euthùs proì; Luke 23:1: hos egéneto heméra). Even after a hurried-up morning session, their arrival at Pilate’s headquarters could still be described as early (John 18:28: proi). Contrary to the opinion of some, their haste is not dictated by the supposed need to complete everything before the afternoon slaying of the Paschal lambs which had actually taken place the day before. (Cf. on Matthew 26:17.) Rather, it was to dispose of Jesus speedily before His supporters could get wind of it and block everything by a riot (Matthew 26:5).

And the chief priests and the elders of the people. (For terminology see notes on Matthew 26:59.) Mark’s expression (kaì hòlon tò sunédrion) is simply explanatory, even the entire Sanhedrin. Perhaps because Matthew had already named the entire Sanhedrin, he left it to the discernment of the reader to deduce that the same authorities who began the trials would certainly conclude them (Matthew 26:59; Matthew 26:65 f. = Mark 14:55; Mark 14:63 f.). However, the full Sanhedrin is explicitly named (Mark 15:1 hòlon tò sunédrion: Luke 22:66 eis tò sunédrion autôn). Mark’s expression confirms the impression that this is no mere sectional interest or party tribunal but a plenary session of the national Sanhedrin itself. Luke’s explicit the assembly of the elders of the people. led him away to their council (Luke 22:66) excludes the supposition that there is a contradiction between John and the Synoptics as to the location or participants of the morning trial. (See below on Matthew 27:2.)

The brevity of this pro forma session must not lead to discount the importance of what did or did not occur there. Here again all respect for legal conventions was subordinated to what these leaders judged a higher consideration: the speedy removal of the Nazarene. If judgments of Jewish capital crimes must be unanimous, who heard the objections of Joseph of Arimathea and probably of Nicodemus (Luke 23:50 f.)? Further, the arguments that (1) the unanimity must be obtained by a quorum of 23, not necessarily all 71 members, and that (2) they could have hand-picked the jury without informing some of the meeting, are obviated by Mark who unequivocally declares that the priests, elders and scribes present constituted the whole Sanhedrin (Mark 15:1; cf. Luke 2:66: tò presbutérion toû laoû; Acts 22:5). The absence of a few notable councilors does not alter the criminal responsibility of the resounding majority vote against Jesus. This determination of Jesus-’ death by the supreme council of Israel harmonizes precisely with His many predictions (Matthew 16:21 f.; Matthew 20:17 ff.).

That the perfunctory questioning of Jesus at the morning consultation was in some details similar to that of the night meetings, is to be expected. Those former hearings were preliminary. This is the formal trial to keep up the appearance of justice (two hearings in serious criminal cases; day-time sentence, etc.). Thus, because the night sessions would not be considered final, even though the previous testimony of Jesus counted against Him, the main issue of His claims would be repeated for confirmation in the daytime session.

Took counsel against Jesus to put him to death. For a skeleton transcript of the central issue, see Luke 22:67-71. Because His fate is already determined, this brief, formal session is held to plot the most effective means of executing their sentence. No mention is made of witnesses or testimony, because the fiasco of the previous night must not be repeated (Matthew 26:59-61). Because only Jesus-’ self-incrimination as divine Messiah could swing the jury against Him, this is the exclusive tactic followed by the morning questioning. And yet, because blasphemy would not be a criminal offense in Roman jurisprudence, all their night-time activities would accomplish nothing until Pilate approved their judgment. Therefore, the most persuasive way of stating the case must be found that would convince Pilate to cooperate in confirming their verdict to execute Jesus. They faced the live possibility that Pilate would not simply ratify their verdict, and demand to try Jesus-’ case himself. From the results of their deliberations, it appears that they were unable to establish a clear case (John 18:29 f.), hoping that turning Him over as an evil-doer to Pilate would have been sufficient bluff to convince Pilate to rubber-stamp their verdict without opening the case. If pressed, they would emphasize the political impact of Jesus-’ religious pretenses. So, to make Jesus out to be a threat to the Roman political machine, the trumped up charges decided upon are (1) perverting the nation; (2) forbidding to give tribute to Caesar; and (3) claim to be an anointed king (Luke 23:2; Luke 23:5; John 18:14; John 19:12).

Matthew 27:2 and they bound him, and led him away, and delivered him to Pilate the governor.

When the Jews rejected as king over all Palestine the wicked Archelaus, latest scion of Herod the Great, they sought direct Roman intervention (Ant. XVIII, 13, 1-3; Wars, II, 6, 1; 7, 3; 8, 1). Procurators were appointed as civil and military governor of Judea and Samaria with their usual residence located at Caesarea, the Roman administrative capital of Palestine. (Cf. Acts 23:23; Acts 23:33; Acts 25:1; Acts 25:4; Acts 25:6; Acts 25:13.) This latest, Pontius Pilate, ruled from 26-36 A.D. (For further study on Pilate, see Josephus Ant. XVIII, 3, l-2; 4, 1-2; 6, 5; Wars II, 9, 2-4; Tacitus, Annals XV, 44; Eusebius, Eccl Hist. I, 9, 10; II, 2, 5, 7 Philo, De Legstionem ad Caium, c. 38.) However, because of the extremely highly volatile concentration of people of Jewish feasts when nationalistic sentiment ran high, Roman troops accompanying the governor rolled into Jerusalem to preside personally over the maintenance of order. Although Jesus had been sentenced to death, Israel’s authorities did not at this time possess the right to execute the death penalty (John 18:31; cf. Ant. XX, 9, 1; Wars II, 8, 1). So, the decision of the Sanhedrin to hand Jesus over to Pilate was, politically, a foregone conclusion. To avoid having to stone Jesus publicly and risk civil war with His massive popular following, the remaining obstacle to carrying out their plan consisted in convincing Pilate.

When they delivered him to Pilate, as John has it, they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium, i.e. from where Caiaphas-’ authority as God’s high priest was supreme (apò toû Kaïa) to the Praetorium (eis tò praitòiori), the Roman jurisdiction of Pilate (John 18:28). Unless the high priest’s palace were the temporary meeting place of the Sanhedrin, they did not depart from Caiaphas-’ palace (as many read John’s wording), because they already left his palace that morning to take Jesus into their council for the final trial (Luke 22:66: sunéchthe tò presbutéruib toû laoû. kaì apégagon autòn eis tò sunédrion autôn).

However, it is also possible that the Sanhedrin met in Caiaphas-’ Palace and walked from it to the Praetorium. There are cryptic Jewish reports that the Sanhedrin did not meet in its rightful meeting lace for forty years before the fall of Jerusalem, (Cf. Y. Sanhedrin, 1, 18a, 34*; Abodah Zarah,* 8b, cited by Barrett, John, 445.) Was this due to the curbing of the Sanhedrin’s power by Rome, or by Herod earlier, or both? In that political environment possibly a large room in the palace of Caiaphas was utilized more or less regularly in this capacity. In this case, Luke’s language (Luke 22:66) means that Jesus was led away from His overnight prison to this ad interim meeting place of the full Sanhedrin in the high priest’s palace. Either way, however, John does not confuse trials, locations or contradict the Synoptics, as he has been charged.

So, this confirmatory session occurred in the relatively normal chamber for such decisions, the meeting place of the Sanhedrin. In a body (Luke 23:1) they walked from the council to the Praetorium. Even this impressive display of moral force may be intended as part of a bluff to impress Pilate with the gravity of trying the rabble-rouser they bring before him.

FACT QUESTIONS

At what time of day did this consultation occur?

Who attended it? Specify who constituted this council.

Where was this session held? Prove your answer.

Explain why the chief priests and elders would need another session, if they had already sentenced Jesus to death the night before.

Why would questions that were already answered the night before be repeated at this session?

What specifically was the council deciding about Jesus? On what charge(s) was He arraigned before them?

Was their decision unanimous concerning Jesus? (Cf. Luke 23:50 f.; John 19:38)

What action did they take immediately?

Who was Pontius Pilate? Why did the Jews deliver Jesus to him when they themselves had pronounced His death sentence?

Matthew 27:2-31

SECTION 73 JESUS IS TRIED BY PILATE, CONDEMNED AND SCOURGED

(Parallels: Mark 15:2-20; Luke 23:1-25; John 18:28 to John 19:16)

TEXT: 27:2, 11-31

2 and they bound him, and led him away, and delivered him up to Pilate the governor. 11 Now Jesus stood before the governor; and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest. 12 And when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. 13 Then saith Pilate unto him, Heareth thou now how many things they witness against thee? 14 And he gave him no answer, not even to one word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly. 15 Now at the feast the governor was wont to release unto the multitude one prisoner, whom they would. 16 And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. 17 When therefore they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, whom will ye that I released unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ? 18 For he knew that for envy they had delivered him up. 19 And while he was sitting on the judgment-seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that righteous man; for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. 20 Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. 21 But the governor answered and said unto them, Which of the two will ye that I release unto you? And they said, Barabbas. 22 Pilate saith unto them, What then shall I do unto Jesus who is called Christ? They all say, Let him be crucified. 23 And he said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out exceedingly, saying, Let him be crucified. 24 So when Pilate saw that he prevailed nothing, but rather that a tumult was arising, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man; see ye to it. 25 And all the people answered and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. 26 Then released he unto them Barabbas; but Jesus he scourged and delivered to be crucified.

27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Praetorium, and gathered unto him the whole band. 28 And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. 29 And they platted crown of thorns and put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand; and they kneeled down before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! 30 And they spat upon him, and took the reed and smote him on the head. 31 And when they had mocked him, they took off from him the robe, and put on him his garments, and led him away to crucify him.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Where did Pilate get the idea Jesus claimed to be a King of the Jews?

Even though the authorities charged Jesus with perverting the nation, refusing to give tribute to Caesar and claiming to be a king, why do you suppose Matthew limited the interrogation by Pilate to the latter accusation?

Why did Jesus say, You have said so instead of answering frankly Yes or No?

Why did not Jesus answer the charges laid against Him?

What made Pilate marvel at Jesus-’ silence?

What do you think caused Pilate to decide so rapidly that Jesus was innocent, even though He admitted to being a king?

Why was a choice offered between Jesus and Barabbas? If Pilate really wanted justice for Jesus, why refer so important a choice to a mob like that?

Why do you think Pilate limited the choice of prisoners for release just to these two?

How do you suppose the governor learned the true, secret motive for the leaders-’ determination to eliminate Jesus?

If Pilate knew Jesus were innocent, why did he not acquit Him immediately and throw the hierarchy’s case out of court?

What is your opinion of Pilate’s wife’s dream? Was it from God? or the natural result of her own perplexity about Jesus? What effect do you think her urgent message had on Pilate’s judgment?

In the shouts of Crucify Him! Away with Him! do you see any evidence of fickleness in the crowds? Are these the same people who a few days before yelled, Hosanna to the Son of David?

Why do you think Pilate finally gave up trying to defend Jesus-’ right to a fair trial? Why would he have been so anxious to please the Jewish people? Was it his nature to be conciliatory?

What could have caused the riot that Pilate so deeply feared?

The crowds yelled, His blood be on us and on our children. Do you think God gave them their wish? In what way(s)?

Do you think Pilate’s act of washing his hands before the multitude really freed him from responsibility for Jesus-’ political assassination?

Why did Pilate scourge Jesus, if he was so sure of His innocence? What would he have done to Him if he thought he were guilty?!

Why did the soldiers cruelly mock Jesus? Does not even a condemned man have rights?

What does Jesus-’ behavior under fire reveal about Him? How does His example help you?

How does Pilate’s behavior under fire differ from yours when called upon to stand up for truth and righteousness? In what shameful ways are we tempted to repeat his moral spinelessness?

Despite the fact that the political charges against Him were false, do you think Jesus was a politician in any sense? Did He intend to form public policy? To what extent?

Since the major responsibility for Jesus-’ death lies with the people of God, what lessons come out of this realization?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

The entire Sanhedrin stood up, tied Jesus and led Him from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor and turned Him over to Pilate. It was early in the morning. They personally did not enter the governor’s palace, so as to avoid ceremonial uncleanness and be able to eat the festal meals of the Passover week. So Pilate went outside to them. What charge do you bring against this man? Pilate began. If this guy had not done something wrong, they snapped, we would not have handed him over to you! To this Pilate retorted, All right, YOU take him and judge him under your own law! To this the Jews objected, But we are not permitted to execute anyone. (This is how Jesus-’ words came true when He predicted the nature of His impending death.) They opened their case against Jesus, alleging, We discovered this fellow subverting our nation, opposing payment of taxes to Caesar and asserting that he himself is an anointed king. Pilate re-entered the palace and summoned Jesus. When He stood before the governor, Pilate put this question to Him: Are YOU the King of the Jews? Are you using the word -king-’ as YOU would use it (to mean rebel against Roman authority), Jesus countered, or as others would use it (to mean Hebrew Messiah)? I am not a Jew, am I? Pilate objected. It was your own people and the hierarchy that turned you over to me! What have you done anyway? I am not an earthly king, Jesus responded. If I were, my men would be fighting to prevent my being handed over to the Jews. My kingdom, however, does not have its source in this sort of thing. Pilate pressed Him, So you ARE a king? Yes, you may say that I am a king, Jesus responded. The very reason I was born and the task for which I came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone who is open to truth listens to me. What is truth? Pilate mused. So saying, he went back outside to the Jewish authorities and the crowd and announced, As far as I-’m concerned, I find no basis for a charge against this man. The religious authorities began multiplying accusations against Jesus. Confronted by these charges, He made no defense. So Pilate questioned Him once more, Have you nothing to say for yourself? Do you not hear all the accusations they level against you? Nevertheless, He offered no rebuttal, not even to one single charge. The governor was completely astounded. But the priests persisted, He’s a rabble-rouser, teaching all over the land of the Jews. He began in Galilee and has come all the way here! When Pilate heard Galilee, he wondered whether Jesus might be a Galilean. Upon ascertaining that He came under Herod’s jurisdiction, he referred the case of Herod, who was personally present in Jerusalem at that time. When Herod saw Jesus, he was uncommonly pleased, because he had been wanting to have a look at Him for a long time. He had been hearing about Him and was even hoping to see Him perform some miracle. Although Herod plied Him with many questions, Jesus completely ignored them. The hierarchy and the theologians stood by, violently pressing their accusations. Then Herod and his soldiers treated Jesus with contempt and made fun of Him. Then they dressed Him in an elegant robe and sent Him back to Pilate*.* That very day Herod and Pilate became personal friends. Previously, in fact, they had been mutual enemies.

Pilate reconvened the religious and civil authorities and the people. You have brought this man before me, he began, on a charge of subversion. Here I have examined him in your presence, but I find him not guilty of any of your accusations against him. So did Herod, so he referred him back to us. Clearly, he has done nothing to deserve death. I propose, therefore, to have him whipped and released. Now at every Passover festival it was customary for the governor to grant amnesty to one prisoner, anyone the crowd chose. However, among the revolutionaries in jail for assassinating someone during the uprising, there was a notorious prisoner, called Jesus Barabbas. So when the crowd went up to petition Pilate to grant them the usual privilege, Pilate said, You have a custom that I should release one man for you during the Passover festival. Whom do you want me to release for you? Jesus Barabbas or Jesus the so-called Christ, -the king of the Jews-’? (In fact, he well knew that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him because they were jealous.) While Pilate was sitting on the tribunal, his wife sent him a message that read, Have nothing to do with that innocent man. In fact, I have suffered a great deal today because of a dream I had about him. Meanwhile, however, the religious and civil authorities instigated the mob to demand the release of Barabbas to them and to demand Jesus-’ execution. So, when the governor repeated his question, Which of the two do you want me to release to you? they all yelled with one voice, Not this guy! Get him out of here! We want Barabbas! Now Barabbas was a brigand who had been imprisoned for an insurrection that had broken out in the city and for murder. Wanting to release Jesus, Pilate addressed them once more, But in that case, what am I to do with Jesus, the man you call Christ, the King of the Jews? Again they all roared back, To the cross with him! Nail him to a cross! For the third time Pilate argued with them, Why? What harm has he done? I have found in him no basis for the death penalty! I repeat: I will just punish him and let him go. At this Pilate took Jesus and had Him lashed with a scourge. The soldiers twisted a thorny wreath and crowned Him with it, and threw over Him a reddish-purple cloak. They came up to Him repeatedly, saying, O King of the Jews, we salute you! then slapped Him in the face. Pilate went out again and addressed the Jews, Look, I am bringing him out to you to show you that I find him not guilty! So Jesus came out, wearing the thorny crown and the purple robe. Pilate proclaimed, Here is the man! When the chief priests and their henchmen caught sight of Him, they roared, Crucify him! Crucify him! Pilate, exasperated, retorted, YOU take him and do the crucifying! I find him NOT GUILTY! We have a law, the Jews returned, and by that law he ought to die, because he claimed to be God’s Son. When Pilate heard this, he became deeply alarmed. He went back into the palace again and quizzed Jesus, Where ARE you from anyway?! Jesus, however, gave him no answer. So Pilate continued, You refuse to talk to me? Don-’t you realize that I have the authority to set you free and the authority to nail you to a cross?! You would have no authority over me, Jesus began, if it had not been delegated to you from God. This is why the people who handed me over to you are guilty of the greater injustice. From this point on Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jews kept shouting, If you let that man go, you are no friend of Caesar! Anyone who claims to be a king defies Caesar! When Pilate heard this, he had Jesus brought out and sat down on the judge’s seat at a place called the Stone Pavement. (Gabbatha is the Hebrew word for it.) The time was now about six o-‘clock in the morning on Friday of Passover week. Pilate announced to the Jews, Here is your King! But they kept insisting, shouting all the louder and demanding, Take him away! Get him out of here! Hang him on a cross!

Shall I crucify your king?! demanded Pilate. We have no king, the chief priests replied, but Caesar! So, when Pilate realized that he was getting nowhere and a riot was brewing, he took water and washed his hands in the presence of the crowd, affirming, I am not responsible for this man’s death. It is your concern. At this all the people shouted back, We-’ll take the responsibility for his deathwe and our descendants! Their shouting won the battle. Pilate decided to grant their demands. Desiring to satisfy the people, he released the man who had been imprisoned for terrorism, the one they wanted, even Barabbas! Having already scourged Jesus, he surrendered Him over to them to be crucified just as they desired. Then the governor’s soldiers led Jesus away into the courtyard of the barracks (i.e. the governor’s headquarters). There they mustered the entire battalion before Jesus. Next they stripped Him and robed Him in a scarlet mantle. Weaving a wreath of thorny branches they put it on His head, and placed a reed staff in His right hand. They bowed low before Him in mock salute: Long live the King of the Jews! They spit on Him and took the reed and began beating Him over the head with it. After this mockery was over, they stripped Him of the purple cloak, and dressed Him in His own clothes and led Him out to be crucified.

SUMMARY

After all-night trials before Jewish authorities, in the early morning hours Jesus was tried hurriedly by the entire Sanhedrin, hauled before Pilate who quickly recognized Jesus-’ innocence of the charges of political insurrection. This verdict was confirmed by Herod and a dream of Pilate’s wife. Pilate drove for an easy compromise by proposing to release Jesus under the Passover-amnesty, and then by trying to arouse sympathy for Jesus by scourging Him. None of this dallying worked to convince the adamant Jewish opposition to Jesus. Rather, the mob howled for the release of a terrorist and for the execution of Pilate’s uncondemned prisoner, Jesus. Before the final verdict Pilate wavered toward outright sympathy for Jesus, but at last crumbled before political blackmail. Jesus was mocked by Pilate’s and Herod’s men. Throughout the barrage of Jewish accusations and Roman crudity, Jesus maintained a majestic calm, His spirit under God’s control, saying nothing more than absolutely necessary to affirm His true mission and identity.

NOTES THE JUDGE ON TRIAL

Our Lord who will judge the world in righteousness permitted Himself to be tried and condemned before such sinners, even though He had done no violence nor was any deceit in his mouth (Isaiah 53:9). He knew where this was all leading, and was prepared to go to the limit undeservedly!

For Jesus-’ consignment to Pilate, see on Matthew 27:2. Pilate was both procurator and prefect. An agent of the emperor to whom he was directly responsible for the management of the financial affairs of the province, he was procurator (Tacitus, Annals, XV, 44). As administrative official and magistrate over the province of Judea, he was prefect. (Concerning Pilate, cf. Ant. XVIII, 2, 2; 3, 1f.; Matthew 4:1 f.; Wars, II, 9, 2-4.) His long administration was due more to Tiberius-’ negligence than to Pilate’s virtue as a ruler (Ant. XVIII 6, 5).

Prefect he was; perfect he was not. That he was given to maladministration was no secret. Philo of Alexandria wrote a letter to the Emperor Caligula for Herod Agrippa I, characterizing this procurator as inflexible, merciless and stubborn. Among the defects of his administration are cited fraud, violence, theft, torture, insults, frequent executions without due trial and a constant, intolerable cruelty (De Legatione ad Caium § 38). Even though the Jews considered Pilate cruel, when it is their turn to be crude and cruel, they need him. Often visible in Jesus-’ trial is an abandonment of strict justice in favor of expediency that seems to be characteristic of the man. Even though he was not given to compliant accommodation, his political wisdom would demand he be no more provocative than necessary. In fact, the priestly aristocracy had few serious problems with Pilate, since in the ten years of his mandate (26-36 A.D.), he never substituted Caiaphas, high priest from 18-37 A.D. But an uneasy calm does not mean peace or agreement when it is merely a cease-fire and the protagonists continue to maneuver for supremacy. So it must not be supposed that Pilate would willingly collaborate with the aristocracy to eliminate Jesus as a favor to them.

The Jewish rulers knew their man and the strategy to use to break him. They simply pressured him constantly until he cracked. That he would crumble was never in question, the only uncertainty being how soon. On both sides, when one tactic failed, another was introduced. The Jews simply had more flexibility, more determination to achieve their goal and more audacity.

Summarizing, Matthew focuses on the main points of Pilate’s interrogation, without specifying, however, what the Roman knew about the case or the reason for his questions. While Jesus was hauled inside the Praetorium, His legalistic accusers, refusing to enter a contaminating pagan building, piously waited outside. There Pilate, deferring to their scruples, met them to learn the nature of the charges lodged against Jesus (John 18:28 f.).

PLAN A: They attempt to bluff the Prefect into signing Jesus-’ death warrant without opening the case. Labelling Jesus an evil-doer they both imply they have already judged Him by due process of Jewish law and that Pilate should simply rubber-stamp the verdict of their court. Grasping their insinuation, he implied that, if the obvious Jewishness of the question rendered it so difficult of explanation before a Roman tribunal, they themselves should try the case. (Cf. Acts 18:12-15.) He did not wish to embroil himself in a local religious quarrel. Since he did not foresee a capital sentence involved, it is clear he had no secret agreement with Caiaphas to eliminate a mutual Enemy, as some suspect. The rulers are thus forced to uncover their own judiciary impotence: legally, they themselves cannot execute the death penalty (John 18:29-32). Even if, as some affirm on the basis of texts such as Ant. XX, 9, 1; Wars VI, 2, 4; Acts 6:12 to Acts 7:60; Acts 22:30; Acts 21:28 f; Acts 22:30; Acts 25:9-11; possibly Mishna, Sanh. 7.1f.; Gemara 52b; Tosephta 9.11, the Sanhedrin could pronounce a death sentence in religious cases, they had cut the ground from under themselves by referring Jesus-’ case to Pilate on a strictly political charge.

The same authority that had stripped this high council of the power of the death penalty also required the Roman judges to examine capital cases, not privately, but publicly; not on vague suspicions but on specific accusations. In harmony with the essentially public character of Roman justice (cf. Acts 16:19 f; Acts 17:6; Acts 18:12; Acts 18:17; Acts 25:6 f.; War II, 9, 3; II, 14, 8), this Roman magistrate justly refused to hand down a death penalty in a case untried by him. So, he rightly chose to open and try the case himself.

PLAN B: They are forced to prefer formal charges on which to proceed legally against the Defendant: We found this man subverting our nation, He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar, and claims to be Christ a king (Luke 23:2). These three accusations rise in a crescendo from a generic indictment of subversion to two specific counts of hostility to Roman authority, that culminate in His claim to be an anointed monarch (christòn basiléa). The real charge, blasphemy, is carefully kept out of sight, lest the Procurator throw their case out of court without even hearing it (cf. Acts 18:14-16).

The clergy’s procedure is completely unprincipled. There is no objective validity in their blatantly political accusation that Jesus claims to be king of the Jews, because they attribute to Him their own subjective views as to what Messiahship means. If, as they conceived it, political and military power were wrapped up in Messiah-ship, then, for Jesus to claim to be Son of David, hence truly king of the Jews, is tantamount to claiming to be supernatural Ruler, the Son of man and Son of God and claiming the right to exercise His regal power on behalf of Israel against all her enemies, now particularly Rome! So, from their own standpoint, it is not completely correct to say that the Jews radically transformed their own religious quarrels into political accusations of such a nature as would interest the governor, because, for them, the true Messiah would be both religious, political and supernatural. They had astutely formulated an indictment large enough to convict Jesus before any court, Roman or Jewish.

Two judges meet

Matthew 27:11 Now Jesus stood before the governor; and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest. In the Praetorium now, Jesus stood before the governor. Anyone, whose scruples permitted him to enter, could witness this interrogation.

This experienced governor knew men and could sense that this quiet, dignified man before him was perhaps a harmless religious fanatic, but certainly no wild-eyed revolutionary or rival claimant to Caesar’s authority. The situation was too unreal for Pilate to take the charge seriously, but, for form’s sake, he must ask this ridiculous question. Selecting the main thrust of the accusations, Pilate perhaps meant, Do YOU, who lack every indication of proud ambition and the other marks of world power, claim to be the Jew’s king? However, this question contains an unfortunate misunderstanding. King of the Jews smacks of a state title as compared with the more intimately religious expression, the King of Israel (Matthew 27:42; cf. John 1:49). So, before answering it, the Lord must clarify the issue, Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me (John 18:34)?

The question is not Pilate’s own desire to know about God’s Messianic Kingdom. This is but the opening gambit of the trial. The personality of Jesus had not yet begun to produce any effect on Pilate. Instead, he is repeating only the Jewish charges.

Further, if the question were Pilate’s own, the title, the King of the Jews, would suggest seditious connotations, but if Jewish, Jesus could explain its true Messianic connotations.

Although Pilate comprehended Him, as a Roman he denied sharing Jewish expectations, implying no personal interest in such things. He had based this question on strictly Jewish premises. Then, to clarify the indefinite, blanket accusations, Pilate tried a direct approach, pressing his Prisoner to talk about His activities. Jesus explained simply that the essentially unworldly character of His royal authority excluded any earthly political ambitions, Jewish or Gentile. This excludes the use of contemporary world power to establish the universal supremacy He envisioned. That no military uprising had materialized to rescue Him was circumstantial evidence that His dominion is not a thing of this world. Still perplexed, Pilate came back, So you are a king after all (John 18:33-37)?

Thou sayest implies, therefore, The words are yours. I must qualify the terminology, inasmuch as it does not accurately reflect my own view of my identity. I cannot answer your question with an unqualified yes or no, but I shall answer it, Yes, with reservations. (See notes on Matthew 26:64.) Some editors see Jesus-’ answer in all four Gospels (sù legeìs hòti basileùs eimi) as a question: Would you say so [that I am a king]? Using Pilate’s own definition of king, Jesus challenged him to decide on the basis of the knowable facts of His life, ministry and movement. To interpret Jesus-’ answer this way neither considers it a doubtful answer nor ambiguous, as if the doubt were His, but to show by what route Jesus amply removed the doubt concerning the meaning of Pilate’s words. To clarify a doubt does not create ambiguity, but removes it.

Next, the Lord proceeded to explain of what sort kingdom He is ruler. The sovereignty of truth, rather than military might or political acumen, is the basis of the Kingdom over which He was born to rule (John 18:37-38). His Kingdom’s universal character denied exclusively Jewish privilege and was open to everyone who is of the truth [and] hears my voice (John 18:37). Although the superficial Pilate, governed by a worldly realism, failed to see how idealistic, absolute truth could have anything concrete to do with earthly rule, he correctly grasped that this divine realism was the true sense in which Jesus claimed to be King of the Jews. (Cf. Zechariah 9:9; Isaiah 9:6; Psalms 2:6; Psalms 110:1, etc.) In this light, Pilate could only acquit Jesus of being a political agitator.

At this point Pilate went out to the Jews and announced Jesus-’ acquittal (John 18:38). The trial should have been over, but Pilate lacked the decisiveness and conscience of a Claudius Lysias to throw Roman power into the equation and save Jesus. (Cf. Acts 23:16-35.) There followed no order to release the Nazarene, no dismissal of the throng, nothing. Pilate’s first judicial error was perhaps perceived essential to avoid turning his audience into bitter accusers before Tiberius.

He apparently took Jesus outside with him (John 18:38; cf. Matthew 26:12 f.). This afforded him opportunity for a direct confrontation between the accusers and the Accused. Furious over the Roman acquittal, the chief priests opened fire, unleashing an avalanche of imputations (Mark 15:3). Perhaps they poured out details to support the initial charges (Luke 23:2): He stirs up the people teaching through all Judea, from Galilee even to this place (Luke 23:5). The thrust of these furious efforts would be to establish the widespread character of His defiance toward the authorities, their traditional law and leadership, pointing to a rebellious spirit toward authority capable of deep hostility toward Roman supremacy.

Majestic silence

Matthew 27:12 And when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he answered them nothing. Jesus-’ attackers are one solid front: elders, i.e. Sanhedrinists, and the chief priests. Matthew’s one article treats both groups as one unit. For both of these holders of religio-political power Jesus was a danger because in various ways He put in doubt some of the fundamental tenets of traditional Judaism (Matthew 12:8; Matthew 15:1-20; John 4:21; Mark 7:19, etc.). His preaching of the Kingdom of God, even if theoretically the hope of the aristocracy too, could be interpreted as a threat to their political and social position.

Having already answered the one question on which His testimony was required, He answered them nothing. Why should He participate in a mindless debate where only irreligious political considerations are paramount, its sinister charges false and no one is seriously interested in the truth? (Cf. Isaiah 50:6-9.) Here is exemplified the moral power of a God-controlled life under fire: when they hurled their insults at Him, He did not retaliate; when He suffered, He made no threats. Instead, He entrusted Himself to Him who judges justly (1 Peter 2:18 ff.).

Magnificent imperturbability under strain

Matthew 23:13 Then saith Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? Having observed the Lord’s unfanatical, deep sincerity and wisdom, the procurator recognized how unfounded were the charges, but, as dispassionate magistrate, he could not appear to favor the accused by answering them himself. It was up to Jesus to refute them. Pilate had never concluded a trial where there were no counter-arguments. Had Jesus answered the charges, He would have relieved Pilate of the responsibility.

Jesus, the man who had a brilliant comeback for everyone, should be worshipped not only for His treasured sayings, but also for His marvellous silence in the presence of people who prejudged Him and whose only principle of truth and justice was a calculating pragmatism. Such prejudice and expediency has no taste for final truth. Neither takes the Lord seriously, so why should He talk?

The might of meekness

Matthew 27:14 And he gave him no answer, not even to one word: insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly. Pilate is surprised and perplexed by Jesus-’ adamant silence, because He had been so pleasant and helpful before. Why not talk now? Was he above all fear of death? He was certainly not the political trouble-maker of wild-eyed demagogue the authorities had described Him to be. The judge sees Him as the victim of a vicious plot, admirably unmoved by the ferocity of His enemies and patient to a fault.

Yet His mysterious suffering in silence is not the dumbness of stupidity but the discipline of self-possession. His consciousness of mission gave Him moral power immeasurably superior to His seemingly powerful accusers. While everyone around wavered or plotted, Jesus continued to keep His mind on what was really happening:

Jesus knew that, without His making a strenuous personal defense, Pilate could discern for himself the falseness and ill-disgusted malice of the charges. No rebuttal is so powerful as that which arises from arguments supplied by the opposition.

Without disrespect for this court, Jesus need not answer charges which its judge had already recognized as unfounded (Luke 23:4; John 18:38). Did Pilate’s former verdict mean nothing?

Would Pilate have had the moral courage to free Him, had He satisfactorily silenced every charge?

Even if arguments and counter-arguments could keep such dead-end investigations going for months, Jesus is not here to win the debate or be justified, but to give His life for the sins of the world. He would not now frustrate the reason for His whole earthly mission (Matthew 20:28; John 12:23-33).

Jesus could wait for His truer, worthier justification in the Father’s approval (John 5:41; John 5:44; John 7:18). Pilate could not guess, however, that Jesus-’ impressive silence had already been decided long before (Isaiah 53:7).

The prefect was bogged down in the uncomfortable dilemma of doing his duty as an objective magistrate in which case he must anger the Jewish high council and commit political suicide or please the Jews, corrupt his office and commit moral suicide. Just then the chance word, Galilee, in the prosecution’s desperate harangue suggested a possible escape: the embarrassing Prisoner is a Galilean, therefore, under the jurisdiction of Herod to whom He could be referred (Luke 23:5-12). This is another error, because why, after acquitting Him, send Jesus to Antipas? The trial has started to slide into bargaining and maneuvering that will become uncontrollable.

However, Pilate was to learn that his clever little master-stroke of diplomacy only half-succeeded. Even if the petty king deeply appreciated the unexpected courtesy (cf. Luke 9:9) and became his ally, nevertheless, this shrewd politician bounced the responsibility back into Pilate’s court. Unfortunately for Pilate, the delay of sending Jesus to Herod gave the hierarchy time to regroup and organize their strategy to demand the release of Barabbas (Mark 15:8).

Nevertheless, the interrogation before Herod, reported in Pilate’s summation (Luke 23:14 f.), served to underscore Jesus-’ innocence recognized by all magistrates to whom His case was submitted. (It is unlikely that jealous Antipas would have returned a really guilty man to his Roman rival with whom he appears to have had a jurisdictional dispute.) As protectors of the innocent, both Herod and Pilate were obligated to acquit Jesus without hesitation. But because both men declined to save Jesus despite the falsity of the charges against Him, history rightly charges them with moral complicity along with the Sanhedrin and priesthood (Acts 4:25-27).

In fact, Pilate was on the point of releasing Jesus when he wavered. First, he inconsistently expressed willingness to scourge an innocent man to pacify the priests. These, however, discerned that a magistrate who offered to concede this much might yet be pressured to give the death sentence (Luke 23:16). To break him, all they needed was patience.

Next, the idea of liberating the Nazarene gave him another idea: why not liberate Him as an act of clemency?

THE BLOCKED EMERGENCY EXIT

Matthew 27:15 Now at the feast the governor was wont to release unto the multitudes one prisoner, whom they would. Of apparently Jewish origin (cf. John 18:39: You have a custom), this practice was continued by Roman rulers to foster political good-will toward Rome in this occupied, restless nation, by releasing one prisoner among the Jews-’ countrymen. (Cf. Ant. XX, 9, 3.) At the feast (katà heortpen: feast after feast) seems to be a general expression for the celebration, not necessarily to the supper itself. (Cf. at the Passover John 18:39.)

Was this custom first appealed to by Pilate as an excuse for releasing Jesus (cf. John 18:39), or by the Jews who, upon hearing Pilate’s proposal to release Jesus, are reminded of this yearly custom and so appeal to its usual terms to get what they want? Or was this mechanism urged by a disciple in a futile, desperate effort to save Jesus, which His enemies twisted into a weapon against Him? (Cf. Mark 15:8; see the PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY for my tentative sequence of events.) Whatever the sequence, it is clear that, to deflect their unreasoning fury from Jesus, Pilate promptly seized upon this suggestion, hoping to appeal to the best in these men by presenting a prisoner already sufficiently punished as the candidate for liberation this year. However, this gave the people, rather than the governor, the right to name the man to be released. Even so, Pilate is prepared to take this risk, because it would verify his suspicion that Jesus-’ popularity, rather than treason, lay at the base of the jealousy of the ruling class.

Although the official antagonism to Jesus had turned up nothing concretely treasonable, Pilate’s political sixth sense may have detected further developments possible in the case. What did the people think about a political king? Pilate would not be as much interested in whether Jesus or anyone else considered himself a political messiah, as in whether the people thought He was and why. So, if they chose to follow this harmless Teacher, as Pilate imagined they would, Rome would have no problems from Him or them. If they chose the true terrorist instead, real trouble was ahead for Roman authority. In this event Barabbas would serve contemporaneously as a test case to measure this danger and as a means to save Jesus.

THE TRUE ALTERNATIVE TO JESUS CHRIST

Matthew 27:16 **And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. **A notable prisoner indeed! The chance pawn in this dirty game was apparently one of several notorious terrorists who had committed murder to the insurrection (Mark 15:7) which started in the city of Jerusalem (Luke 23:19; Luke 23:25). Further, John (John 18:40) indicates: Now Barabbas was a robber (leistés). Although leistés certainly is a robber, highwayman, bandit, this term also depicted a revolutionary, insurrectionist (Arndt-Gingrich, 474; Rocci, 1144). When the campaigns of the underground do not enjoy adequate financial backing, its clandestine activities must be financed by banditry. (Cf. Josephus, Wars II, 12, 5; cf. Ant. XVIII, 1, 1; XVII, 10.)

While both Roman and Jewish authorities agreed that upsetting the status quo was as unwelcome as it was dangerous, they would not necessarily have agreed on what should be done with these insurrectionists or when.

The Roman governor could consider it his duty to crucify these terrorists, making it indisputably clear by this show of Roman justice who is really in power and what happens to those brazen souls that dare defy the Empire. The maximum effect could be gained by such exemplary executions especially on a feast day when Jerusalem would be crowded with pilgrims from all over the Empire. (Cf. Varus-’ iron-fisted approach: Wars, II, 5, 2.)

The Jewish authorities could well surmise that other Jewish terrorists would vindicate the death of its popular patriotic heroes, and the escalation must explode in revolt. (Cf. Ant. XVII, 6, 2-4; Matthew 9:1-3.) Therefore, the charged atmosphere of a feast like the Passover was the worst possible moment for eliminating elements subversive even to the Jewish authorities themselves. (Cf. Wars II, 12, 1.)

Consequently, even though the Sadducean priesthood, because of its virtual dependence upon Rome, was favorable to the execution of all subversives, since an explosive Jewish Palestine Liberation Organization threatened the delicate balance in the political and economic interests of Caiaphas and company, these latter must have clearly discerned that, to avoid touching off an explosive grass-roots rebellion, they must save the life of Barabbas almost as much as they must eliminate the Nazarene.

A chance pawn in a dirty game

Matthew 27:17 When therefore they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ? The Jews-’ gathering together suggests two situations that are not mutually exclusive:

A temporary recess had been called while Jesus was sent to Herod (Luke 23:7-16). The elders, chief priests and their henchmen are now reassembled. Their numbers could qualify as a crowd (Mark 15:8).

A crowd is beginning to gather outside the Praetorium as word of the trial spreads over the city (Matthew 27:17; Mark 15:8).

So, if Pilate grasped the political tensions which dictated the choices of the Jewish politicians, he could pit their own fears against them and save the Nazarene rabbi. Pilate was no fool. He too sensed that the charged atmosphere of a popular feast was no time to make an exaggerated display of Roman force by crucifying the insurrectionists without risking the very peace he was charged with maintaining. His ploy is to play these two radically contrasting types of men against each other in the hope that the Jews themselves would have understood that there is no serious reason to execute Jesus. By presenting the Jewish public with a relatively easy either/or choice, they would be morally bound to request the release of Jesus. Further, he perceived that if he could succeed in dividing the Jewish public from their leadershiphad not the masses enthusiastically acclaimed the Galilean a few days earlier?he could hope these popular supporters could out-shout the rulers and rescue Jesus. This would free Pilate to crucify Barabbas later and Roman justice would be satisfied.

Some manuscripts write the terrorist’s name Jesus Barabbas. (Cf. A Textual Commentary, 67f.) It would appear that Barabbas-’ personal name was Jesus, and was suppressed by Christian scribes out of reverence for Christ. Whether Pilate understood it or not, Jewish listeners could catch the striking word-play in the governor’s options: Jesus (= Savior) Barabbas (= son of a father) or Jesus (= Savior) who is called Christ, who had called God His Father.

Jesus who is called Christ is not Pilate’s sarcastic invention nor the dreamed-up conviction of his wife, but the authorities-’ original accusation (Luke 23:2). That Mark and John substitute the King of the Jews for Christ, suggests that these terms were in some sense synonymous and echo the authorities-’ charge. Further, by using this title, he reminded any friends Jesus had in the crowd of His claim to be Messiah, expecting them to react positively to the Man who just a day or so before was thus acclaimed by so many. It also handed Pilate the advantage of sounding out the crowd’s attitude toward a title which their rulers considered a terrible insult when applied to Jesus. This choice had all the advantages. So what could go wrong? But Pilate was not to crawl out of his dilemma so easily.

The real motivation

Matthew 27:18 For he knew that for envy they had delivered him up. The requirements of his office demanded that Pilate cultivate informers among the Jews to keep him abreast of events and current opinion. He was aware that the Galilean’s real crime was not insurrection, about which the rulers would be considerably less concerned, but the intolerable competition of His wide popularity and influence as a teacher. The prefect could guess that, if Jesus were really guilty of the crimes attributed to Him, He would not be the object of such violent hatred as these Sanhedrinists and priests manifest. The simplest explanation for their behavior is that they were uncontrollably jealous of Him.

An unsolicited vote for Jesus

Matthew 27:19 **And while he was sitting on the judgment-seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that righteous man; for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. **Pilate has taken his place on the judge’s bench (béma) located at the Pavement (John 19:13). His own conclusions reassured by Herod’s favorable finding, the Prefect launched his easy alternative, and now awaits the Jewish answer. At this point he is interrupted by an urgent note from his wife.

Her husband had arisen early to open the Roman tribunal for justice. Sleeping late, she was-shaken by a vivid dream so convincing that she felt compelled to warn Pilate against trifling with the guileless Jesus. Whether or not this Roman gave particular credence or signs as from God, this ominous message clearly confirmed the conclusion to which he himself had already come: Jesus is innocent. But his wife’s advice was to prove impossible. To have nothing to do with that righteous man was something Pilate could not do. Although he must decide, he was trying every means to escape his responsibility as judge. He should simply have thrown the case out of court, but he chose not to.

Is it significant for Matthew’s readers that, beside Pilates-’ feeble efforts, the only voice raised in Jesus-’ defense in that terrible hour was that of a Gentile woman? Did God speak to her as to the other Roman, Cornelius (Acts 10)? Was the timing planned to be God’s merciful second warning to Pilate to beware of trifling with truth and to defend Him in justice? Why record this weird, eventually ineffectual dream? Did God wish the guiltlessness of His Son established beyond all doubt, even defended by a Gentile woman?

When in doubt, let others do your thinking

Matthew 27:20 Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. While it is unquestionably the chief priests and their associates who lead the drive for Jesus-’ destruction, the elders of the people (cf. Matthew 26:3; Matthew 26:47; Matthew 26:57; Matthew 26:59; Matthew 27:1; Matthew 27:3; Matthew 27:41; Matthew 27:62?; Matthew 28:12) are as much involved in persuading the multitudes to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus as are the ecclesiastics. The united shout of these august elders of Israel in the front row alone would effectively sway the others. Taking no chances, they and their henchmen also actively infiltrated the crowd to advise and intimidate, inciting it to act. (anéseisan > se ìo, shake up, stir up, instigate. cf. Mark 15:11). As the crowd grew, every new-comer could be instructed how to vote when the issue was raised. With what arguments? A vote for Barabbas was a vote for nationalism and freedom. As for the Galilean prophet, had not the nation’s highest tribunal itself heard His blasphemy? No one is allowed to see the contradiction that Jesus is accused before Pilate of the same crime for which they recommend Barabbas to the people.

Were there any present who, just a few days earlier, had shouted, Hosanna? Although it is quite possible that, at this early morning hour, few if any of Jesus-’ Galilean followers were stirring or had yet learned of His betrayal, arrests and trials, nevertheless, in a city where the many transfers of Jesus from Caiaphas to Pilate to Herod and back would not be missed and the excited word-of-mouth news of His trials must have sent a shock-wave of horror among His followers, why would they not appear? But if some disciples came, their shock at seeing their presumed Messiah dragged around as a beaten man in the hands of a pagan prefect may have proved too much. How could that poor beggar be the true Christ of God? Again, lately He had not acted much like a world leader, refusing to use His supernatural power to obliterate opposition to His program. So their own deep doubts and disillusionment, the unrelenting pressure of the priests-’ partisans and the anonymity of the crowd conspired to counsel this radical shift of loyalty, making them quite ready to yell for the imposter’s death. However, the suspicion that the crowds were fickle may itself be unjust. Granted, Sunday’s hero may become Friday’s criminal in the popular ratings. But that crowd at the Praetorium and those shouting Hosanna at the Triumphal Entry may not be the same people, because Matthew clearly distinguished the Jerusalemites from Jesus-’ supporters (Matthew 21:10 f.). Who can deny that the voices of any friends of Jesus would have been totally ignored, shouted down or completely unheard in the roar of the multitude?

The moment of truth

Matthew 27:21 **But the governor answered and said unto them, Which of the two will ye that I release unto you? And they said, Barabbas. **Perhaps bringing out the two men together in the prevailing juridical confusion, Pilate called for a decision. But under the influence of the hierarchy, the crowds bypassed Pilate’s candidate in favor of Barabbas, perhaps even admired by the baser elements of this mob. In a wall of sound his answer came back, Barabbas! (Luke 23:18). Although true before, now as never, our Lord was despised and rejected by men (Isaiah 53:3).

The inescapable question

Matthew 27:22 Pilate saith unto them, What then shall I do unto Jesus who is called Christ? They all say, Let him be crucified. Pilate found himself, not with a neat political solution, but obligated to release a dangerous criminal and with Jesus still on his hands for judgment. In addressing them once more Pilate desired to release Jesus (Luke 23:20).

Some attack Pilate’s question as devoid of historical authenticity, because it could hardly be admitted that a Roman governor would submit the choice of punishment for the prisoner not to be released. He could dicker with them over which prisoner to release, given the annual custom to liberate one. But by what rule would he barter with them over the sentencing of the other? But is this the correct question? Granted, Pilate appears incredibly willing to leave the fate of Jesus to their caprice. But does this simply prove that the man fell beneath the responsibilities of his high office? Many anomalies in this trial find their explanation in Pilate’s character.

They all say, Let him be crucified. Their repeated, vehement reply is unmistakable, unanimous rejection (Mark 15:13; Luke 23:21). Over any other form of execution, they demand the prolonged shame and cruel torture of a Roman crucifixion. (Cf. Numbers 25:4; Deuteronomy 21:22 f.; 2 Samuel 21:6; Wars VII, 6, 4.) However even a Jew had crucified Jews before (Ant. XIII, 14, 2; Wars, I, 4, 6). Such a sentence would resoundingly crush all suspicion that the Nazarene were Israel’s Messiah. Hanging Him on a tree would leave Him under the stigma of being, not the Chosen of God, but the Cursed of God (Deuteronomy 21:22 f.; Galatians 3:13). Christ crucified would always be a scandal to unbelieving Israel (1 Corinthians 1:23). Further it would deflect all bitterness over His death to the Romans and significantly defuse the possibility of a grass-roots uprising against Jewish leaders among His followers.

When truth is on the other side, yell louder

Matthew 27:23 And he said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out exceedingly, saying, Let him be crucified. Two opposite views of Pilate’s earnest protest are possible:

Unwilling to believe their unjust popular choice, Pilate stubbornly and quite unstrategically continued a verbal duel with a mob after it expressed its will. It would have been easier to tame a hurricane with a lullaby!

Pilate combines frankness and subtlety by openly implying Jesus innocence while learning whether the crowd really believes the position they have taken.

Either way, this question represents the third clear expression of Pilate’s conviction of the groundlessness of their charges and that Jesus has done nothing deserving death. (a. Luke 23:4 = John 18:38. b. Luke 23:14 f. c. Luke 23:22.) John registers two more attempts of Pilate to convince the Jews of Jesus-’ juridical innocence (John 19:4; John 19:6).

Exasperated by this non-trial, Pilate tried another tack by scourging Jesus: the tender mercy of lashing a man half to death (Luke 23:22; John 19:1 ff.; see notes on Matthew 27:26)! To appeal to their humanity, he brought out the pitiful Figure. But the well-oiled religious machine rolled over compassion and demanded Jesus-’ crucifixion. Again Pilate threw the case out of court (John 19:4; John 19:6). Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no crime in him (John 19:6).

Even this answer is attacked as having no historical truth, because the Jews, if they could carry out the death sentence, would have stoned Jesus (as the penalty for blasphemy) or they would have strangled Him (as penalty for false prophecy). Consequently, these protestations of Jesus-’ innocence on the part of Pilate are viewed as an artifice of the Evangelist to place the blame more firmly on the Jews. But the criticism itself is invalid, in that Pilate’s language is spoken in his own idion in terms of his own Roman penal code (crucify him). He talks like a Roman, not intending to express himself in harmony with the Jewish penal code (strangulation or stoning). Others see his words as simply ironic, since Pilate knew they had no right to crucify anyone.

The prefect finally determined to release Jesus, only to find himself blocked by blackmail: If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend; everyone who makes himself a king sets himself against Caesar (John 19:12). Pilate should have answered that Jesus had convincingly proven that His kingdom in no way imperiled Caesar. However, no longer reasoning calmly, the governor began to react out of brute fear, because the Jews had touched a sensitive nerve in this time-serving petty politician.

John times this moment as 6:00 a.m. Friday morning of Passover week (John 19:14 = 6th hour from midnight, sometimes referred to as Roman time). Mark notes that Jesus was on the cross three hours later, at 9:00 a.m. (Mark 15:25 = 3rd hour reckoned according to Jewish time from 6:00 a.m.; cf. Mark 15:33 = Matthew 27:45 = Luke 23:44). This early hour was facilitated by the opening of Roman tribunals at daybreak (Westcott). Their time notices were estimated relatively, i.e. by the sun, not measured by Swiss watches or Roman buglers.

Pilate dramatically sat down on the judgment seat, brought Jesus out before the mob, and with obvious irony announced, Here is your King (John 19:13 f.)! Suggesting that this victim of Roman justice is the only king the Jews are likely to have, his vengeful taunt only infuriated the mob. But, Pilate, like Caiaphas, uttered an unintended truth: this representative Man shall yet be shown to be the only true King of the people of God.

But they cried out exceedingly, saying, Let him be crucified. Despite Pilate’s repeated efforts to be reasonable, the authorities have no intention of reasoning or letting others do so. To cover their lack of proof and verifiable arguments, they substitute the angry shouting of the death chant.

Perhaps stunned that Jesus had no friends, when every earlier indication suggested otherwise, Pilate countered, Shall I crucify your king (John 19:15)? This may not be sarcastic, because by calling Him your king, he makes one final stab at the conscience of anyone who might rise to claim Him. But because it suited their purpose, the chief priests made a most self-degrading declaration, We have no king but Caesar. This claim of loyalty to Caesar constitutes the definitive heresy of the official representatives of theocratic Israel: in their desperate bargaining, they surrender the fundamental truth that God is their true King. (Cf. Judges 8:23; 1 Samuel 8:7; 1 Samuel 12:12.) Whether they intend it or not, their claim denies their own faith and irresponsibly cancels Israel’s theocratic position under the immediate sovereignty of God and, consequently, its nationalistic hopes. Although God’s kingship would be unfailingly present with the Davidic dynasty (cf. 2 Samuel 7:12-16), they publicly renounce the hope that another would arise to set up the Kingdom of the Messiah. Casting themselves on the loving kindness of Caesar rather than on God’s covenant promise, they unwittingly sealed their destiny. In that generation the legions of their chosen king, Caesar, invaded Palestine to wipe out their Temple, their City and their nation (Luke 19:41 ff; Luke 23:27 ff.).

The pressures of the practical, the immediate, the tangible

Matthew 27:24 So when Pilate saw that he prevailed nothing, but rather that a tumult was arising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man; see ye to it. This visual demonstration had a double value:

It returned crowd control back to Pilate. Their increasingly violent shouting had made it abundantly clear that he must act decisively to get the situation back under control. By this deliberate theatrical gesture, he got their attention. Curious, they stopped yelling.

Not only used among Gentiles, but also possibly part of Pilate’s cultural awareness of Jewish practice, this ceremony was clear to the Jews in that it claimed innocence of a crime perpetrated by others (Deuteronomy 21:6-9; 2 Samuel 3:28; Psalms 26:6; Psalms 73:13; cf. Acts 20:26). Pilate’s solemn act did more than disclaim all responsibility for the judicial murder of their man, Jesus. It communicated to Israel not only his intention to exonerate his court but also the clear message that no tribunal would dare continue to demand sentence of death. In this thoroughly Jewish idiom he washed his hands of the case, not merely of the guilt of Jesus-’ crucifixion. Everyone should have dropped the question right there.

In reality, however, this unjust judge could not so easily exempt himself from real responsibility, because (1) no less than five times he had declared Jesus innocent. To permit this execution now is tantamount to murder. (2) Although it was the Jews alone who demanded Jesus-’ death, he was a magistrate! As representative of the constituted authority in Palestine with the power of life and death at that time, he could not, on the basis of law and justice, turn Him over to them. See ye to it attempts to dump blame on others for acts that stain his own hands. (Cf. the rulers-’ disclaimer to Judas, Matthew 27:4.) The mistakes in his career plus the compromises on this day rose up to block his desire to save the most innocent victim of injustice in his career. He had sinned so long he could not now do right.

Here is written the moral paralysis of one supposedly powerful man. What brought about Pilate’s surrender?

The emotion-driven mob is in an ugly mood. The governor had every reason to be nervous, because he had provoked bloody riots in similar circumstances during his administration. (Cf. Luke 13:1 f.) His mission was to maintain the peace in the provinces, but he had already several unforgiven, unforgotten incidents on his record. With upwards of three million Jews in and around Jerusalem and only a cohort with which to maintain order, violence was Pilate’s least defensible option. (Cf. Wars II, XIV, 3; VI, 9, 3 for Passover crowd estimates in 65 and 70 A.D.)

When it finally surfaced, the real, root charge bewildered him: We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he has made himself the Son of God (John 19:7; Leviticus 24:16). Since Roman authority was committed, wherever possible, to respect Jewish laws and traditions, Pilate was trapped between two legal codes, the Roman, which acquitted Jesus, and the Jewish, which would execute Him.

The rulers pressured Pilate by insinuating that they could ruin him politically by accusing him before a suspicious Tiberius for appearing to condone treason (John 19:12).

Mark uncovered another motivation, wishing to satisfy the crowd. (Mark 15:15). Political opportunism pure and simple.

Pilate jumped to the unwarranted conclusion that Jesus-’ popularity had evaporated. So why should anyone risk his own neck by throwing his weight behind a friendless wretch?

So, in Pilate’s battle with his conscience, obedience lost out to expedience. Rather than risk his own political future, the now cowardly Pilate would sacrifice an innocent man. What is one Galilean more or lessespecially if his own people are clamoring for his elimination? Little could any of them guess that this expedient not only temporarily saved people’s lives by quenching a revolt in the making, but procured eternal salvation for all humanity!

Portentous words with far-reaching consequences

Matthew 27:25 And all the people answered and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. In the mind of Matthew what sense or value would the expression, all the people, have? Does he mean to inculpate the entire Jewish nation, when, as is likely, only a small, probably hand-picked minority of the people were present in front of the Praetorium that morning? All the people, as a technical phrase, may refer to the normal method of judgment and execution among the Jews. Whereas the witnesses cast the first stones, the death of the condemned is accomplished by the hand of all the people (Leviticus 20:2; Leviticus 20:27; Leviticus 24:14; Numbers 15:35 f.; Deuteronomy 13:9; Deuteronomy 17:7; Deuteronomy 21:21). In the sense that this cry is instigated by Israel’s highest authorities acting in their official capacity, it becomes tantamount to inculpating the whole nation.

They who had maneuvered so long to bring about His death could smell victory in the air at last. Nothing can stop them now, so they recklessly utter this fearful self-curse. His blood be on us, and on our children. Blood on someone’s head means guilt for the life and death of either that person or someone else (2 Samuel 1:16; 2 Samuel 3:28 f; cf. 2 Samuel 14:9; Jeremiah 51:35; Acts 18:6). Eagerly seizing Pilate’s it is your responsibility! (Matthew 27:24), the authorities and their supporters welcome the fearful responsibility for Jesus-’ execution.

Was their proud death-wish realized? In reality, it became an unintended, self-fulfilling prophecy. It would be one more of the paradoxes of this awful history, that, having preferred a violent terrorist over the Son of God, they would be destroyed by violence (Matthew 22:7; Matthew 23:34 ff.; Matthew 24:15 ff.; Wars). Witness the deposing, banishment, suicide and death of the protagonists, Annas, Caiaphas, Herod, Pilate. Others would be crucified sooner or later (Wars II, 14, 9; V, 11, 1). All those who did not submit to Jesus-’ Lordship suffered the terrible war. (Cf. Matthew 24:15 ff.) And on our children: how long this awesome fate must hang over their descendants, God only knows, because only He could know their individual responsibility and attitude toward His Son. (Cf. Deuteronomy 5:9; 1 Thessalonians 2:14 ff.) Complete release from this terrible curse was offered all Israel from the very next Pentecost onward (Acts 2; Acts 3:17-26). Each person evidenced his personal repudiation of the rulers-’ sentence by his own conversion to Jesus (Acts 2:40; Acts 3:26; Acts 5:31; Hebrews 10:29).

And yet, this assumption of full responsibility for Jesus-’ death was only a hypocritical gambit to obtain an immediate objective, because, the outraged priests accused the early Gospel preachers, You have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood (Acts 5:28).

But the inclusion of this mob-rule outcry on the part of Matthew is not a Christian effort to heap undeserved guilt on Israel, for Matthew paints Pilate in dark colors too. (See on Matthew 27:26.) Who, except on the basis of mere assertion, can prove that this supposed apologetic interest of Matthew is his tardy, prejudicial rewriting of history rather than the product of objective reporting? Must his facts be doubted, solely because they lead to conclusions distasteful to modern critics who, in the name of ecumenicity and tolerance, seem determined at all cost to diminish Jewish responsibility for this execution? In the name of justice, modern Germans can exercise a mature self-criticism that rightly condemns their nation’s Jewish holocausts. Is it asking too much that everyone, including the Jews and their modern apologists, rise to the same objectivity to recognize and rectify the judicial farce perpetrated against Jesus so long ago? Further, God’s punishment of Israel does not preclude mercy and forgiveness to everyone who turns in penitent faith to Jesus, be he Jewish or Gentile. Certainly, the Holy Spirit could never intend this verse to justify racial hatred or anti-Semitism. But it will do no good toward racial understanding to attempt to rewrite the facts on this ugly page of history. They can only be admitted and forgiven.

So far from being an anti-Jewish diatribe, Matthew’s testimony preaches that the only way the stain of blood-guiltiness can be taken from any of us is through the mercy of that One Jew the power of whose blood can cleanse us from all unrighteousness (Matthew 20:28; Matthew 26:27).

The unjustifiable sentence

Matthew 27:26 Then released he unto them Barabbas; but Jesus he scourged and delivered to be crucified. So he collapsed, the tool of a race he despised, forced into a deed with which he had no sympathy. Is this gutless capitulation by Pilate a formal sentence? After Pilate’s repeated protestations of Jesus-’ innocence (Luke 23:4; John 18:38; Luke 23:14 f.; Matthew 27:23 = Mark 15:14 = Luke 23:22; John 19:4; John 19:6; Matthew 27:24), it would seem juridically impossible that any death sentence could be given. Luke seems to affirm that Pilate gave sentence that their demands should be granted (Luke 23:24: kaì Pilâtos epékrinen genésthai tò aìtema autôn).

Even though epikrìno can mean decide, decree, choose, judge (Rocci, 717), Arndt-Gingrich (294f) render Luke 23:24 he decided that their demand should be granted.

This does not appear to be formal condemnation of Jesus on the basis of law, but merely the authorization required for crucifixion, extracted under duress. He only did what was necessary to get them off his back. Pilate’s frequent executions without preliminary sentencing suggest that he might not have given formal sentence here either.

Symbolically, the prefect handed Him over to the priests (John 19:16) to the will of the people (Luke 23:25) but literally to the soldiers who did the will of the priests and people (Matthew 27:27). But Jesus he. delivered to be crucified (paradìdomi). How many times Jesus was consigned to others: by Judas to the Sanhedrin, to Pilate and now to the soldiers! But none could have touched Him, had not God consigned Him to suffering and death (Isaiah 53:4; Isaiah 53:6; Isaiah 53:10; Isaiah 53:12).

But Jesus he scourged and delivered to be crucified. One must twist the facts to assert that the Gospel writers, living in a Roman world, tended more and more to excuse the Romans and incriminate the Jews with whom they had less to do. Although Pilate could and should have saved Jesus, it is an uncontestable fact that he, speaking for Caesar who spoke for the civilized world, sitting on a Roman tribunal and acting as a Roman judge, turned the uncondemnable Jesus over to Roman soldiers for a Roman-style execution.

But having released unto them Barabbas, Pilate must now take seriously the position of Jesus, whether he wanted to or not. He had played his last card and lost. His remaining choice is to scourge and deliver [Jesus] to be crucified (tòn dè lesoûn fragellòsas parédoken hìna staurothêi). Does this argue that the Romans scoured Jesus twice?

The participle (phragellòsas) could be translated as the ASV. However, because this rendering unnecessarily creates the impression that Jesus was scourged twice, it is better rendered, having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified. Thus, Matthew and Mark merely summarize Jesus-’ tortures, rather than affirm that He was scourged again at this point, i.e. twice. (Cf. John 19:1-4.) Despite their postponing mention of the scourging until now, Matthew and Mark incidentally confirm John’s account. Lenski (Matthew, 1097) argues that because Pilate’s plan was to release Jesus after the mocking and scourging, it is less likely that these two events were repeated after the trial, but go together during it. He thinks John’s sequence definitive and exclusive.

If it be thought that crucifixion is the paramount concern of the Jews, therefore, of Pilate, then perhaps care was taken not to exaggerate the scourging, lest the victim die under it before he could be crucified, then would not a second lashing in the same day be thought detrimental to this goal? Scourging intensified the poor wretch’s suffering and hastened his death. On the other hand, Jesus-’ cross was carried by another: was He already too weakened to bear it Himself? Further, the prefect marvelled that Jesus died so quickly. (Mark 15:44).

Jesus-’ he scourged. A degrading punishment in itself, scourging, often if not always, preceded crucifixion. (Cf. Wars II, 14, 9; V, 11, 1; Livy xxxiii, 36 cited by *I.S.B.E.,*2704.) Many died from this brutal torture inflicted by a whip made of leather thongs loaded with pieces of bone or metal. (Cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. IV, 15, 4.) The only worthwhile comment and explanation of this wholly unjustifiable act is Isaiah’S: He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed (Psalms 53:5).

Some view this scourging as reason for doubting the historicity of the account, because juridically absurd. In fact, despite one declaration of Jesus-’ innocence after another, Pilate ordered Jesus scourged and permitted his soldiers to torment Him?! (Luke 23:22; John 19:1-4!) If Jesus was innocent, why scourge Him? If guilty, why not crucify Him without hypocritically protesting His innocence?! Several reasons:

Scourging prior to the verdict even for innocent people was not at all thought irregular in that cruel era, being justified as part of the regular preliminary investigation to extract confessions or information (Acts 22:24; Eusebius, loc. cit.). Unsurprisingly, Pilate reiterated Jesus-’ innocence after the flagellation (John 19:4).

Jesus was not totally innocent: He had created what the rulers defined as disorders in Jewish society. For these, scourging would be judged an adequate penalty, from Pilate’s point of view.

However, as the lesser of two evils Pilate unjustly subjected Jesus to a terrible scourging to bypass the worse death sentence, hoping that the crowd, moved to pity, would be content with this and allow His release (Luke 23:22; John 19:1-8). By presenting a battered, ridiculous clown-king, Pilate could argue the absurdity of thinking this contemptible dreamer able to foment the revolution with which they accused Him. Neither understanding his Prisoner nor His accusers, Pilate could not have been more wrong: they would settle for nothing less than His death,

ROMAN SPORTS ILLUSTRATED

Matthew 27:27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Praetorium, and gathered unto him the whole band. Is this a second mocking, the first having taken place earlier at the time of the scourging (John 19:1-3)? Or, should this paragraph be considered parallel to that earlier event, i.e. only one mocking, taking place in connection with the scourging? One must not assume that evil men bent on mocking God’s Son must stop, satisfied with only one session of ridicule! That Luke (Luke 23:11) reports the derision by Herod and his men does not exclude a renewal of this crude sport by Pilate’s men.

To face His accusers Jesus had been brought out of the Praetorium. (Cf. John 18:28; John 19:13.) Now they return inside the open courtyard (Mark 15:16: aulês; cf. Matthew 26:69). The whole band (hòlen tén speîan) would normally number 600 men. (See on Matthew 26:47.) Here, the expression presumably includes everyone not on duty elsewhere. The number would be large because it is more than likely that the detachment would be confined to their barracks during the Passover, ready for action but keeping a low profile to avoid unnecessary incidents. Naturally bored by confinement, they were ready for any diversion these circumstances afforded.

What these Romans did may not be as significant as why they did it. Because Jesus was a condemned King of the Jews, however misunderstood His own position thereabouts, these pagan Romans (some think they were Syrians in the service of Rome) waste no time to show contempt for the subject people by ridiculing the Jews-’ Messianic expectations. (Cf. Wars II, Matthew 12:1 f.; Philo of Alexandria, In Flaccum, 36-39, recounted a similar mockery by the Greeks during a visit of King Agrippa to Alexandria. Later, after the ill-fated Bar-Cochbah uprising in 114-117 A.D., Romans in Egypt did a similar burlesque. Flusser, Jesus, 172.)

Further, although Jesus was condemned to death, did He have no rights? Could these soldiers do with Him as they pleased? Here is exposed the seamier side of Roman justice and crude barracks life among the glorious Roman troops. Were such activities encouraged by their superiors to keep morale high and the troops merciless and hard? That Pilate tacitly approved is suggested by there being no evident punishment of its perpetrators and by his publicly presenting Jesus costumed by the soldiers. To make a buffoon of the object of Jewish hatred furthered his purpose too (John 19:5). He may have simply ordered his men to show the Jews what sort of a king their Jesus was (Lenski, Matthew, 1100).

The Jewish clown-king ridiculed

Matthew 27:28 And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. Was He a king? Let him be stripped of his peasant rags and robed worthily of his office! Was this Herod’s gorgeous mantle (Luke 23:11), or, as is more likely, the common maroon-colored cloak of the soldier in imitation of the royal purple? On His bruised, bleeding back, anything would be rough.

Matthew 27:29 And they platted a crown of thorns and put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand; and they kneeled down before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! A thorny plant close at hand is rapidly twisted into a rude wreath. Whether it was their purpose to scoff or to wound him with the thorns is unimportant since, by weaving Him a wreath (stéfanon) of such thorns, they achieve both. Its leaves consciously imitated the laurel crown of the Emperor. The scepter in his right hand was but a reed. Who could guess that He would turn this reed into a rod of iron with which to rule the nations (Revelation 12:5; Revelation 19:15; Psalms 2:9)?

They kneeled down before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! Their sarcastic, pretended reverence for a crowned king is hardly aimed at Jesus personally about whom they may have known very little, much less personally hated. He is a thing, a symbol, not a real man before them. The rude mockery of these Romans aimed to degrade the Jews as a people for whom they had little love.

Matthew 27:30 And they spat upon him, and took the reed and smote him on the head. As the time for His crucifixion drew near, the already rough game becomes more sadistic. The blows drive the crown of thorns further onto His head. Redemption is expensive! God’s program, however, remained unchanged: Jesus must become Master through the caricature of His royalty which He endured (Hebrews 5:8 ff.).

Matthew 27:31 **And when they had mocked him, they took off from him the robe, and put on him his garments, and led him away to crucify him. **Did Jesus wear the crown of thorns to the cross? Although Pilate presented Jesus as a clown-king with robe and crown to the chief priests and officers (John 19:5), the purpose of the mocking is past. If they took off from him the robe, and put on him his garments, then the scarlet cloak and thorn-crown may have also been tossed aside, now useless.

What is to be done with Jesus Christ? Ever since Pilate asked it, everyone must confront this fateful question. Despite the falsity of political charges against Jesus, His message is far more political than the threatened armed revolution of the Zealots. Even if Christianity is no nationalistic rival to constituted authority, its uncompromising message of first loyalty to God and its impartial treatment of all men is far more radical and dangerous to the lords of this earth than that of small-time revolutionaries (Matthew 18:1 ff.; Matthew 20:25-28; Luke 22:25-27). It is an immature comprehension of the Christian message that fails to see how profoundly far-reaching Christ’s demands are. This is not to foresee a City of God overtake the whole earth before Christ’s return. It is to recognize how deeply all His claims on our allegiance and service reach into human society to transform it.

How many situations have we faced when, like Pilate, we should have defended Christ against a surging mob of unbelievers, and failed? Let us return in the grace of Christ, unashamedly determined to stand by Him no matter the cost. Let us dare to be the Christian our conscience demands. But poor Jesus took that mockery, because He loved us unto death and could foresee how it would break our hearts to see Him endure it. These sufferings of Christ must awaken in us more than repugnance and indignation toward those who perpetrated them. Instead, they must stir in us a hatred toward those sins of our own that made this suffering necessary.

FACT QUESTIONS

From available sources prepare a file on Pilate.

Although Matthew does not state it, what must have been the charge brought before Pilate against Jesus? On what reasonable basis could Pilate have known to ask this?

Describe the political ramifications of each segment of this trial before Pilate, showing the pressure points involved.

Discuss: Pilate had as much political motive to crucify Jesus as did the Jews themselves, and his attempts to save Jesus are a fabrication of the Gospel writers.

To what question did Jesus answer Thou sayest? What did He mean?

Explain how Jesus could confess to being a king, but Pilate would never consider it treason.

List the various efforts which Pilate made to release Jesus or to get out of condemning Him.

Was Pilate the first to remind the Jews of the political favor granted them of releasing a prisoner during the feast? How do you know?

When did Pilate’s wife report her dream to Pilate? When did she have it? What was her testimony to Jesus-’ character?

Explain why Pilate’s effort to trade Barabbas off for Jesus-’ release did not work.

Explain the people’s expression: His blood be on us and on our children.

When was Jesus scourged? Was He scourged more than once?

Where, when and how was He mocked by the soldiers? How many participated in this?

Give good reasons why Roman soldiers, who presumably would have no personal spite against Jesus, could be so cruel.

List every evidence of Jesus-’ moral stature as His trial before Pilate reveals this.

SECTION 74 JESUS IS CRUCIFIED AND BURIED

(Parallels: Mark 15:20-46; Luke 23:26-54; John 19:16-42)

DID MATTHEW FORGET THE PROPHECIES?

Anyone who has followed Matthew this far has encountered a formidable array of prophetic quotations that establish Jesus-’ divinely authenticated Messiahship. By contrast, Matthew now strangely omitted a number of prophetic fulfillments surrounding the crucifixion. Perhaps this is because this master writer knew that his Jewish readers would be so permeated with Psalms 22 that Jesus-’ Aramaic cry on the cross would, alone, be sufficient to suggest the details of the entire Psalm. (Could this have been Jesus-’ own purpose for shouting these specific words rather than something else?) Further, Isaiah’s Servant of Jahveh may be discerned in every part of this entire section (Isaiah 53). Simply to underscore every allusion of word of the Psalmist or Prophet fulfilled in some phase of Jesus-’ crucifixion is to produce the startling effect of a well-underlined page.

Matthew’s confidence, that the unshakeable certainty of his facts possessed persuasive didactic power, may have prompted him to tell them simply, letting their own eloquence speak convincingly to the Jewish heart. Thus, his readers-’ own conclusions about Jesus, the fine result of their personal reflections on God’s Word, would be far more powerful than had Matthew spelled them all out. However, since the prophecies would be less well-known to the non-Jewish readers of other Gospel writers, these latter rightly cited them for their extremely significant didactic value.

Matthew 27:3-10

SECTION 72 JESUS-’ BETRAYER COMMITS SUICIDE

TEXT: 27:3-10

3 Then Judas, who betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4 saying, I have sinned in that I betrayed innocent blood. But they said, What is that to us? see thou to it. 5 And he cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary, and departed; and he sent away and hanged himself. 6 And the chief priests took the pieces of silver, and said, it is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is the price of blood. 7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in. 8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day. 9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, whom certain of the children of Israel did price; 10 and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Do you think Judas expected Jesus to be condemned to death?

How would you differentiate between the repentance of Peter and that of Judas? Of what value to the modern Christian is a detailed study of Judas Iscariot?

Do you see any value in the testimony Judas gave to Jesus-’ innocence? If so, what value is there? If not, why not?

Do you think that in testifying to Jesus-’ innocence, Judas shows any love for Him?

What was it that so completely crushed Judas and drove him to suicide?

What does the priests-’ scruple about the proper use of the blood money indicate about them?

When the priests-’ called it blood money, do you think they unconsciously admitted Jesus-’ innocence? If not, what would this expression mean to them?

Why do you think they selected a potter’s field? Did God direct

their choice or was this simply the only land available or what?

Why do you think Matthew attributed the prophecy quoted to Jeremiah instead of to Zechariah whose words more nearly resemble it? Did Matthew forget who wrote the prophecy?

Why do you think Matthew recorded the death of Judas?

PARAPHRASE

When Judas, Jesus-’ betrayer, realized that He was really condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver money to the chief priests and elders. I have sinned in betraying an innocent man to his death, he said. What has that got to do with us? they retorted. That is your problem! He then hurled the money into the sanctuary and left. Then he went off and hanged himself. The chief priests, however, picked up the coins, arguing, It is not legal to put this money into the temple fund, because it is tainted with blood. So, after discussing the matter, they used this sum to purchase the Potter’s Field, as a cemetery for foreigners. This is why that field has been called The Field of Blood ever since. In this way the words of the prophet Jeremiah came true:

They took the thirty pieces of silver, the amount some Israelites had established to pay for him, and they gave them for the Potter’s Field, as the Lord had ordered me.

SUMMARY

Incredibly for Judas, Jesus was condemned. Shocked, the betrayer attempted to make amends but was rudely rebuffed by heartless hypocrites. After hurling the money into the Temple’s Holy Place, Judas committed suicide. On a scruple, the priests did not put the money into the treasury but purchased a piece of land as a burial ground for foreigners. Unintentionally on the part of the Jewish authorities, they hereby enacted the ancient prophecy.

NOTES A SHATTERED LIFE: FUTILE REPENTANCE AND RESTITUTION

Matthew 27:3 Then Judas, who betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself. Then (tòte) synchronizes Judas-’ awakening with Jesus-’ consignment to Pilate immediately following the condemnation by the Sanhedrin (Matthew 27:2). For the first time he grasped the horrible result of his betrayal: they were dragging the Lord off to His death! It is unclear just where or how Judas learned of the sentence. Unlike Peter, however, Judas would have had no public motive to distrust Jesus-’ foes. So, he could have witnessed the entire morning trial, hence did not need to wait until after Pilate’s condemnation to hurry to the Temple to plead with the returning priests alone. Instead, Judas returned the money to the chief priests and elders, i.e., to the Sanhedrin, since Matthew’s expression contextually refers to that body (Matthew 26:3; Matthew 26:47; Matthew 26:57; cf. Matthew 26:59; Matthew 27:1 = Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66). Therefore, he stood before members of the supreme council, because, if Judas considered the Jewish sentence definitive, it being only a matter of time until Pilate carried it out, it. is conceivable that, to halt this avalanche, he interrupted them even as they were preparing to go to Pilate.

Edersheim (Life, II, 573) notes that during the trials before Pilate a definite break occurred when Pilate sent Jesus to Herod, after which the governor had to reconvene Jesus-’ accusers (Matthew 27:17; Mark 15:8; Luke 23:13). So, it is alternatively possible that Judas-’ intervened with the individual chief priests and elders on Jesus-’ behalf during this recess.

Judas. repented himself (metameletheìs). He felt profound regret (Matthew 21:30; 2 Corinthians 7:8; Hebrews 7:21). He was driven by circumstances to renounce the view that, we believe, stood at the base of his plot to betray Him, i.e. that Jesus must defend Himself. The unexpected consequences of his crime throw him into deep remorse, but do not save him. True repentance takes the sinner to the Lord, not away from Him to an improvised gallows. He found his fearful responsibility unbearable. (Cf. Cain’s reaction, Genesis 4:13 f.)

However, some say this verse is not proof that he had not planned for Jesus to suffer, because a person can regret the consequences of his act, even if he clearly foresaw them. Accordingly, Judas could have intended Jesus-’ death, but now regrets it. While study of his motives is a matter of considerable conjecture on our part, nevertheless, his confession (v. 4) need not militate against the view that the condemnation took him by surprise. In fact, what one plans for what he conceives of as good may smash back with terrific force, convincingly revealing itself as evil. To betray an innocent man to death was not necessarily his purpose, but simply to betray an innocent man to get Him to act on His own behalf to escape death, although high-risk planning, is also compatible with Judas-’ shock.

Judas … brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders. Because his deed burdened him with intolerable guilt, he wanted desperately to reverse his disastrous bargain. Naturally, he would return the money, but he could not hope to redeem Jesus from his enemies with this miserable sum, but by courageous, public testimony to Jesus-’ innocence. Did he hope that, if he offered new testimony after sentencing, they must hear Jesus-’ case again? Even if they took him for a necessary but despised tool in their plans and an unwelcome intrusion, they must hear him out.

The betrayer’s testimony

Matthew 27:4 saying, I have sinned in that I betrayed innocent blood. But they said, What is that to us? See thou to it. I have sinned is the shocked reaction of a man unnerved at seeing the totally unexpected enormity of his blunder. Whatever the glamor of his former ambition, the enticement of what he imagined has now vanished. Only grim reality holds him in its grip, leaving him broken by remorse. His is the anguish of a man who would turn back the clock to rid his soul of this haunting hour. (Cf. Esau’s grief, Hebrews 12:16 f.) Admirably, Judas took personal responsibility for his actions. He blames no one but himself. Yet this is not the repentance of a man who would fling himself at the foot of the cross to beg forgiveness of his Victim. Turning to Him is just not Judas-’ way.

Is it true that in testifying to Jesus-’ innocence, Judas shows no love for Him? His had always been that kind of self-interested friendship that manipulated his true Friend. Unquestionably, his shock is deep and genuine. Was he revolted only by the consequences of his act and not also at the heinous sinfulness of it? Yet, stark awareness of the abominableness of our sins, alone, does not break our hearts and lead us, repentant, to Jesus. Only undiminished confidence in God’s gracious forgiveness can convince us to do that. Despite his long discipleship under Jesus, Judas did not believe this.

I betrayed innocent blood is the soul-cry of a tormented conscience seeking elementary justice for Another. However, innocent blood, as a Mosaic legal term (Exodus 23:7; cf. Deuteronomy 27:25), would not have halted those heartless judges or procured a stay of execution for Jesus. They refused to reopen the case, because Jesus was sentenced for blasphemy and Judas-’ defense did not refute the accusations on which it was founded. However, Judas-’ anguished pleas disprove the later Talmudical claim that for 40 days a herald went through Israel inviting anyone to come forward to defend the Nazarene, but none came. (Cf. Bab. Talmud, Seder Nezikin.)

Sadly, these anguished cries do not mitigate Judas-’ guilt, because, however innocent of all wrong-doing he considered Jesus, he never personally surrendered to the practical ramifications of Jesus-’ self-understanding, never bowed to His Lordship, never accepted the doctrine of the cross. (See notes on Matthew 26:14; Matthew 26:25; Matthew 26:49 f.) Rather than confess his sin to these calloused priests, had he thrown himself upon the mercy of Jesus, he could have been forgiven. For pardon this frenzied soul turned to the wrong people.

But they said, What is that to us? They treat his belated testimony as immaterial, because they condemned Jesus for a claim they themselves heard and rejected as false, whereas Judas-’ generic defense seems to concern only Jesus-’ general good character against which they had no specific complaint. See thou to it translates two words, sù òpsei (future indicative of horào), capable of two meanings:

If they intended a simple future tense, then they say: What is your testimony of Jesus-’ innocence to us? He is guilty and you yourself (sù) shall see it.

Because in the Hebrew a future indicative can communicate an imperative sense, many render it as the ASV: See thou to it, You will take care of the problem yourself! (Cf. Acts 18:15, òpsesthe autoì.)

They had achieved the only goal that mattered. Rather than point this pitiful man they had used back to God as his hope from despair, they heartlessly tossed aside their despised, now useless tool.

The appalling power of unresolved guilt

Matthew 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary, and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. So, if Jesus were taken from Caiaphas-’ palace (see on Matthew 27:2) somewhere on the south side of the Temple, to Pilate’s quarters in the Antonia castle on the north side, Judas, failing to stop them, took a short-cut through the Temple and disposed of the money, while the others took Jesus to Pilate.

Shattered, the friendless traitor entered the Temple. The reward of his iniquity burned his hands and his agonized soul. Attempting to obtain relief, he entered the Temple and in an insane gesture of spite against the priests who rejected his attempt to save Jesus, hurled away this concrete reminder of his guilt. Two views of his act are possible:

He simply cast the money down at the priests-’ feet in any part of the Temple. (Some manuscripts have en tô naô.) Plummer (Matthew, 385) affirms that Josephus uses naòs of the collective Temple-buildings, so our author could have too. However, Matthew does not affirm that Judas did this in the presence of priests. Yet, if he senselessly hurled it into the treasury, his vindictiveness at being repulsed by the authorities is clearer: if they would not listen to his claim to justice for Jesus, now they must take back the money, wanted or not.

Judas could have hurled (hrìpsas) the coins with violent force through the open doors of the sanctuary into the Holy Place. (Better manuscripts have eis tòn naòn.) The arrangement of the Temple which makes this act possible demands that he stand in the Court of the Women at the Nicanor Gate at the top of the fifteen steps leading to the Court of the Priests. (Cf. Wars, V, 5, 4.)

He. departed (anechòresen) but apparently did not seek the understanding fellowship of other disciples. In the solitude of his self-counsel, did he believe them incompetent to help him?

He went away and hanged himself. No man commits suicide casually. There is a strange consistency in Judas-’ final act. Because his root-motivation seems to have been selfish ambition that clamored for instant solutions, he would not hesitate to eliminate anyone or anything that hindred his happiness.

Was Judas-’ final act of self-oblivion the attempt to escape the curse for betraying the innocent for a bribe (Deuteronomy 27:25)? Or did he even think of this? Did he remember Jesus-’ fearful prophecy Matthew 26:24)? Was it not the frenzied desperation of a man so tortured by his own conscience that he would rather become his own executioner than tolerate its accusations? Even so, did he not curse himself by hanging himself (Deuteronomy 21:22 f.)? The sad irony is that salvation for Judas was as close as Jesus, had he but believed itand Him!

Judas, according to Matthew, hanged himself. Luke says, however, he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out (Acts 1:18). The alleged contradiction is resolved by noting that, whereas Luke describes the result of Judas-’ suicide, our author documents the way he died, i.e. by hanging. Whether Judas-’ decaying body remained suspended several days and either the limb or rope would not support his weight, or whether these broke when he fell headlong and his body was grotesquely impaled on a sharp rock from which he could not extricate himself, the conditions are supplied to harmonize both testimonies. Thus, the Acts account incidentally supplements Matthew’S.

**LAUNDERING CRIMINAL MONEY: CALLOUSNESS ABOUT JUSTICE BUT SANCTIMONIOUS SCRUPULOUSNESS ABOUT TRIVIA

Matthew 27:6 And the chief priests took the pieces of silver, and said, it is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is the price of blood. **Judas-’ unanticipated move left these legalists a dilemma. Possibly founded on Deuteronomy 23:18, their argument may have concluded that nothing abominable to God be considered acceptable as a proper offering (eis tòn korbanân: given to God; cf. Mark 7:11). The treasury, cf. Mark 12:41; Luke 21:1; John 8:20; Josephus, Wars, II, 9, 4.

Is calling this money the price of blood the unwitting admission that they purchased the death of an objectively innocent man? From their point of view, no, because these sophists could call it the price of blood merely from its connection with a person’s death which they completely justify. Their scruple is morally frivolous, because they had been ready to withdraw it perhaps from the holy treasury itself to secure the death of Jesus, but were unwilling to accept it back when it has been used for its intended purpose!

Matthew 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in. This purchase may have occurred after the crucifixion, in which case, Matthew recorded it ahead of time, to avoid breaking into the story following. Because the land in question is described as the potter’s field, some deduce that its value was too clayey for agriculture, hence suitable only for stripping its clay for pottery. Because the priests buy it for a cemetery, its clay may already have been depleted, leaving only an abandoned excavation good for nothing. Hence the potter would sell the worn-out land for such a low sum.

To bury strangers in seems to express a warmly humanitarian, religious purpose: non-Jews would not now have to be buried together with the Hebrews. However, rather than to Gentiles, strangers (xénois) may refer merely to Jewish pilgrims whom death overtook at Jerusalem, hence would not have a proper burial place. Either way, the unscrupulousness of these priests is nicely buried under the guise of long-neglected civic responsibility. The blood money has now been laundered by this act of charity.

The supposed contradiction between Matthew and Acts relative to the reason for renaming the field, the field of blood, is without foundation. (Cf. Matthew 27:6-9; Acts 1:18 f.) In both accounts the same money, the reward of [Judas-’] iniquity, purchased the field. In both cases it was Judas who furnished both the situation and the means whereby this purchase took place, even if others legally acted in his name and with money that remained his even though he were dead. (Cf. other examples of deeds by representative agents, John 19:1; Acts 2:23.) Nowhere did Luke state that Judas kept the money and with it personally bought the field. Even if reading Acts alone seems to suggest this view, Luke’s original readers could have compared it with Matthew’s account and harmonize them to get all the facts, if they wished, just as we today.

Matthew 27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day. This verse explains the source of a traditional place-name. However, does this make its facts untrue, as alleged by some? Matthew and Acts furnish two valid, not irreconcilable reasons for calling the field Akeldama, the field of blood: in both the blood in question is primarily that of Christ, for whose betrayal by Judas the blood money (the reward of his iniquity) has been spent. Luke however furnished an additional gory reason to call the terrible place Akeldama. He revealed a fact Matthew omitted: that the field in question was, by an ironic twist of history, the very one where Judas himself came to a violent end (Acts 1:18 f.). Luke’s parenthetical remark merely summarizes for his reader’s what was already well-known, without disputing Matthew’s narrative.

The priests denominated this area a field to bury strangers in, but popular sentiment, aware of the life-blood which that field represented, gave it a truer name, The field of blood, a perpetual reminder that the authorities had not buried their injustice after all.

Unto this day dates the writing of Matthew’s Gospel as quite some time after the resurrection, time enough for this new local tradition (Akeldama) to take root in the popular language. However, if the siege and destruction of Jersualem in 70 A.D. may be thought to have obscured place names as the sites themselves were obliterated under debris, unto this day whispers that the Gospel was not penned after that event.

**HISTORY REPEATS ITSELFONLY MUCH LOUDER

Matthew 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, whom certain of the children of Israel did price.** No such text can be found in Jeremiah and the evident source of the concept is Zechariah 11:12 f. as a comparison of Matthew with Zechariah will show:

*Matthew:

Zechariah:*

They took the silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.

And the Lord said to me, Throw it to the potterthe handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord to the potter.

That the genuineness of Matthew’s quotation cannot be questioned is proven by the surprising observation that its apparent clumsiness vouches for its historicity. A clever forger would have been more careful not to include such palpable blunders as attributing to Jeremiah what Zechariah wrote. He would have smoothed out the wrinkles. Attempts to explain why Matthew attributes the prophecy to Jeremiah the prophet are various.

A TEXTUAL EMENDATION IS INVOLVED

Matthew always omitted the name of Zechariah when citing his writings (Matthew 21:5; Matthew 24:31; Matthew 26:31). Why not also here? Some ancient translations do not name any prophet at this point. So, perhaps some extremely early, ill-informed scribe, remembering the potter-passages of Jeremiah (Matthew 18:2; Matthew 19:2, etc.) inserted Jeremiah the prophet by mistake, and this reading became common among the majority of manuscripts. However, see b.

Similarly, some suggest an extremely early scribal error accomplished by a misreading and consequent substitution of only two Greek letters: an I for a Z and an M for an R. Compare: ZRIOY and IMIOY, the abbreviated forms of Zechariah and Jeremiah respectively. However, the reading, Jeremiah, is believed to be firmly established (Textual Commentary, 66).

A QUESTION OF JEWISH TRADITION IS INVOLVED

Circulating in Matthew’s time was a genuine quotation of a now lost writing of Jeremiah himself or perhaps an unwritten, traditional statement attributed to him, i.e. Zechariah recorded oral tradition of Jeremiah’s preaching. Accordingly, Matthew finally documents this, pointing not to the man who recorded it, but to him who first pronounced the prophecy. Jewish tradition said, The spirit of Jeremiah is in Zechariah. Or, vice versa it represents a Jewish deletion of this passage from the canonical Jeremiah (Eusebius, Dem. Ev. X, 4)

The scroll on which Zechariah was copied bore the name of Jeremiah, its leading book. The Talmud calls this roll Jeremiah, even though it contains Zechariah among the other books. Thus Matthew quotes not an author but a section of the Old Testament. (See critical introductions to the Old Testament.) This is a less likely solution, because Matthew wrote, Jeremiah the prophet, an expression that would seem not to refer to the organization of the Old Testament on numerous scrolls, but to the man himself.

Whatever the final solution to this problem, despite our present uncertainty as to which is the true explanation, nevertheless, since a number of alternative hypotheses are available, not charge of contradiction or lapse of memory can be proven against Matthew. Until a more clearly definitive solution arises, we can simply confess our limitations and await further information.

Perhaps the most satisfactory solution is to see this quotation as a Targum or free paraphrase by Matthew who utilized ideas drawn from both prophets, because of a common key word or subject matter, to summarize both, but attributed the whole to the more important (or better known?) of the two. Rightly Hendriksen (Matthew, 948) asked, Where in Zechariah is there mention of a plot of ground, used for burial purposes, which became known as -the Field of Blood,-’ because innocent blood had been shed? He notes the following parallels from Jeremiah 19 :

Judah and Jerusalem have shed innocent blood (Jeremiah 19:4; Matthew 27:4).

Chief priests and elders are mentioned prominently (Jeremiah 19:1; Matthew 27:3; Matthew 27:6-7).

A potter is mentioned (Jeremiah 19:1; Jeremiah 19:11; Matthew 27:7; Matthew 27:10).

Topheth, that is, the valley of Hinnomthe very valley where, according to tradition, the Potter’s Field was locatedhas its name changed to the Valley of Slaughter, which is about the same as the Field of Blood (Jeremiah 19:6; Matthew 27:8; cf. Acts 1:19).

And this valley becomes a well-known burial place (Jeremiah 19:11; Jeremiah 7:32; Matthew 27:7).

Also possibly parallel to Israel’s repudiation of Jesus is Israel’s rejection of God’s prophet’s troublesome preaching of repentance and their attempt to eliminate him on false charges (Jeremiah 18:15-17).

Perhaps, by writing Jeremiah, Matthew intended to draw the reader’s attention to concepts in the major prophet which are resumed in Zechariah and succinctly expressed in this latter prophet’s words. Matthew even boiled these down to an apt, interpretative statement that appropriately expressed Israel’s memorializing its shameful rejection of Christ. In this case Matthew is not so much interested in finding a direct prophecy in Jeremiah 18, 19, 32 as in pointing out how both prophets spoke of Israel’s contempt for God shown by the nation’s ungratefulness for God’s blessings, sins which are even more significantly repeated in Israel’s repudiation of God’s greatest Prophet, the Messiah.

So, what is Matthew teaching us? From one point of view, the enacted prophecy of the prophet’s hurling the miserable sum to the potter is possibly a symbolic forepicturing of the priests-’ hurling Judas-’ miserable wages to the potter to buy his field. However, only an amazing correspondence is pointed out between the prophetic words in Jeremiah and Zechariah and the historic event in Jesus-’ time, without intending a literal fulfillment. (See notes on Matthew 2:17.) Accordingly, Matthew finds in this event a situation which tragically resembles and culminates the earlier situation of God’s prophets.

Honing this concept even further, we see that Matthew gives an interpretative paraphrase of the prophecy. Rather than quote it verbatim, he explains its meaning, i.e. that Jesus-’ contemporaries repeated substantially the same rejection of God’s prophets as had any previous generation. (Cf. Matthew 21:33-39; Matthew 22:1-6; Matthew 23:29-37.) In Zechariah, specifically, Israel paid no more than thirty pieces of silver for God’s Shepherd. When Israel’s authorized representatives similarly valued Jesus at the price of a slave, they merely repeated Israel’s chronic shameful contempt for God. The pitiful sum given for the Good Shepherd stands in dramatic contrast with His true value and the high estimation that Israel should have set on Him. They characteristically undervalued God’s guidance, hence this insulting wage was once again paid for the services of God’s Shepherd, but, in this case, it was God’s Son. Nevertheless, it was returned with disdain to the Lord’s House. And, by another ironic twist of history this lordly sum went again to pay the potter!

Thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, whom certain of the children of Israel did price. Not insignificantly, in Israel it was a priestly function to decide what people were worth (Leviticus 27:8), The value the nation, in the person of its authorized representatives, the priests, placed on the services of God’s prophet was the ancient, legal price of an injured slave or a woman (Exodus 21:32; Leviticus 27:4). So Israel’s contempt for the Lord is again repeated in their crass devaluation of His Son. They hated Jesus because they hated the Father who sent Him (Matthew 10:40; Luke 10:16; John 15:23; John 16:3). The treatment of the prophet-shepherd was not accidental, but a true, moral preview of Israel’s treatment of the prophet’s Lord, Jesus.

Matthew 27:10 and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me. Both in the prophecy as well as in the fulfillment God disposed of the money through agents. Because this money was found in the house of the Lord, it was as if God Himself had received it, and the priests, by purchasing the field, unconsciously were throwing His 30 shekels to the potter whose field it was. Their disposition of the money produced an astonishing evocation of the ancient words all in accordance with the will of the Lord. Rather than disappear into the oblivion of the treasury, that blood money was memorialized in the purchase of the field of Blood, until unbelieving Israel should be destroyed in a City of Blood.

Matthew does not chronicle Judas-’ death to establish him as a classic example of evil, a monster of wickedness or a man apart. Rather, Judas-’ is the tragic story of a double-minded disciple who followed Jesus for the wrong motives, whose discipleship was blocked by his refusal to let Jesus be Lord in everything,

FACT QUESTIONS

In what sense did Judas repent? Contrast the repentance of Peter and that of Judas, showing why one led to life and the other to death.

What was it that convinced Judas to repent?

By whom had Jesus been condemned when Judas saw it and repented?

Where and how did Judas return the betrayal money? Where were the priests when he approached them? Defend your answer.

On what Scriptural basis could the priests have established their decision to refuse to accept the blood money into the temple treasury?

Who were the strangers for whom the potter’s field was bought as a cemetery? Why should a special cemetery for them be needed?

Indicate the source of the prediction Matthew cites as fulfilled here. Who wrote the prophecy? Deal with the supposed contradictions connected with this question.

How does the book of Acts report this account? What differences distinguish the two accounts? How harmonize these divergences?

Why was the field called the field of blood?

Matthew 27:32-34

ON THE WAY TO GOLGOTHA

TEXT: 27:32-34

32 And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to go with them, that he might bear his cross.

33 And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, The place of a skull, 34 they gave him wine to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted it, he would not drink.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Do you think that Jesus carried His entire cross or merely the crossbeam?

Why do you think the soldiers forced Simon of Cyrene to carry Jesus-’ cross? Had Simon done something wrong or did Jesus simply need this help?

Do you think they suspected him of being a secret follower of Jesus and intended to make him share His humiliation?

Why was Jesus crucified outside of town?

Why, if Matthew is writing for Jews, did he feel it necessary to translate the term Golgotha, which any of them could have understood without the translation? Did he simply copy from Mark, as some assert?

Why did someone offer Jesus some wine to drink? Was this normal?

Why do you think Jesus refused it?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

So the soldiers took Jesus along, leading Him out to crucify Him. He went out, carrying His own cross. As they were leaving the city, they happened upon a man named Simon. (He was a Cyrenian, the father of Alexander and Rufus.) He was passing by on his way in from the country. The soldiers seized him and pressed him into service. They made him shoulder the cross to carry it behind Jesus. Also following Him was a large number of people, including grief-stricken women who were wailing for Him. Jesus, however, turned to them to say, Women of Jerusalem, do not cry for me. Weep, instead, for yourselves and for your children, because, remember, the time is coming when the wail will be, -How fortunate are those women who never had any children, never gave birth to babies or nursed them!-’ That will be a time when people will begin to cry to the mountains, -Fall on us,-’ and to the hills, -Hide us.-’ For if people do this when the wood is tender and green, what will happen when it is old and dry? Two other men, both criminals, were led away to be executed with Him. The soldiers brought Him to the place called Skull-place. (In Aramaic it is called Golgotha.) There He was offered wine drugged with myrrh, but, after tasting it, He refused to drink it.

SUMMARY

Jesus carried His cross to the edge of Jerusalem where it became apparent He could bear it no more. The Romans impressed a Cyrenian, forcing him to carry it out to Calvary. Jesus-’ suffering excited the compassion of women but He refused it as misdirected. On Golgotha He also rejected a compassionate anesthetic. His humiliation was increased through guilt by association, since He was to suffer with two criminals.

NOTES

Shame converted to glory

Matthew 27:32 And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to go with them, that he might bear his cross. Whether or not condemned men normally shouldered an entire crosseither already assembled or the unjoined beamsor merely the horizontal cross-arm to the place of execution, John described Jesus as going out bearing his own cross (John 19:17; cf. Matthew 27:32; Luke 23:26), Jesus-’ attempt to bear His own cross gives character to His challenge that we take up our cross and follow Him (Matthew 10:38; Matthew 16:24).

At the edge of Jerusalem, utterly exhausted from His trials and the pain of the scourging, He apparently collapsed under its weight, unable to continue. However, the soldiers-’ duty was to guard the condemned men against escape or liberation. Because they dare not expose themselves to attack by helping him, a substitute is required to carry Jesus-’ cross. Seeing Simon just then coming into town, the soldiers requisitioned his services to carry it, following Jesus to Calvary. (So, the Synoptics.) The impressment of Simon’s help implies that his strength was needed to bear the cross, not merely the upper crosspiece. That Simon came from Cyrene, an important north African city, does not decide whether this Jew were a resident of the Jerusalem area to be distinguished from hundreds of other Simons by his city of origin, or one of the millions of Passover pilgrims who arrived from Jewish colonies around the Roman world. (Cf. Acts 2:10; Acts 6:9; Acts 11:20; Acts 13:1; 1Ma. 15:23; 2Ma. 2:23*; Ant.* XIV, 7, 2; XVI, 6, 1.5;* Against Apion,* II, 4.) He is later identified as the father of Alexander and Rufus, men apparently well-known to the early Church (Mark 15:21; Romans 16:13?) That he was selected out of the crowd for so lowly a service does not prove him a slave, because the Romans would not bother about his social status but judge him on his strength to carry the cross to the place of execution. Impressment or requisition of anyone’s service for certain limited service was the Roman right. (Cf. Matthew 5:41.)

But that he was coming in from the country does not prove (1) that he were a farmer who had been working in the fields that day, nor, consequently, (2) that the day in question were anything but Friday morning of Passover week, as if travelling were forbidden on regular feast days. To suppose him to be a farmer one must also see him as returning from field work about nine o-‘clock a.m. (Cf. Mark 15:25.) Perhaps out meditating in the glorious morning air of a country springtime, he was just returning for the hour of prayer at the temple.

The death march was composed of a centurion leading probably 12 soldiers divided into three details responsible for guarding the two malefactors and Jesus (Luke 23:32). Wending their way through the crowded streets of the city, they encounter a great multitude of the people and of womenprobably not His followerswho, out of well-meaning, motherly sympathy, raised a funeral lament for this popular young man so unjustly condemned to death (Luke 23:27 ff.). A death wail of the wailing women was customary and would be taken up almost immediately upon death. (Cf. Matthew 9:23; Luke 8:52. See Matthew 11:17.) Ever grateful, compassionate and self-forgetful, the Lord paused to warn these unbelieving sentimentalists of their own future desperation when at the fall of Jerusalem, their sons would be massacred by wicked men and their own death would be preferable to their fear and wretchedness. (Cf. Matthew 24:19.) Despite the immediate atrocity He Himself must undergo, He could picture His own future as glorious (Hebrews 12:2).

The turning-point of world history

Matthew 27:33 And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, The place of a skull. Mark’s they brought him (Mark 15:22: pherousin autón), suggests that, since Jesus-’ collapse required help in bearing the cross, the soldiers perhaps supported Him, half-carrying Him to Golgotha ... the place of a skull. Calvary (calvus, bald, scalp calvariae locus) is simply a Latin word that translates the Greek, krànion, (Cf. Latin cranium.) Matthew translates this Aramaic word, not for his Hebrew readers, but for those who read only Greek. (Cf. Matthew 27:46.)

Hebrew law and practice placed executions outside of the camp of Israel or its towns. (Cf. Leviticus 24:14-23; Numbers 15:35 f.; Joshua 7:24 ff.[?]; 1 Kings 21:13; Acts 7:58.) Further, Jesus, who is to be the sin offering for the world, is also symbolized by offerings taken outside the camp of Israel (Exodus 29:14; Leviticus 4:12; Leviticus 4:21; Leviticus 9:8-11; Leviticus 16:10; Leviticus 16:21 f., Leviticus 16:27; Numbers 19:3; Numbers 19:9). Thus, also Jesus-’ final torment occurred outside the gate of Jerusalem, yet near the city apparently near a main road (Hebrews 13:11 f.; John 19:20; Matthew 27:39). The precise location of this place of a skull has been obscured by the following difficulties:

The macabre name would be derived, not from unclean skulls lying about (which would require the reading: kranìôn gen.pl. tòpon), but from some historic or topological reference:

its proximity to a cemetery of which nothing is stated in the text;

its regular use as a place for public executions, which is even less supported;

its shape bore free resemblance to a skull. Luke terms it simply Skull (kranion, not kranìou tòpos), as if this were sufficient to describe the place.

Its location may well be affected by the history of Jerusalem:

Around 44 A.D. Herod Agrippa initiated an ambitious project of urban expansion that may have enclosed Golgotha within the city about 14 years after Jesus died there (Wars V, 4, 2f.).

In 70 A.D. after a devastating siege, Jerusalem was virtually destroyed and sites around it were altered by the war itself.

After the ill-fated Bar Cochbah uprising, Hadrian rebuilt the already desolated city as Aelia Capitolina, a Roman city constructed on the ruins of the former Jewish capital.

Any site is affected by the location of the northern wall of Jerusalem in 30 A.D., an archeological puzzle not yet definitively settled.

The traditional site is covered by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. A more convincing candidate is a hill north of the Damascus Gate, which has two small caves that give the appearance of eye sockets of a skull without a jaw. Discovered by Otto Thenius, this site was popularized as Gordon’s Calvary. The quite ancient, apparently unused rock-hewn tomb located in a garden at its base argues favorably for this site, although some date the tomb in the second century. Certainty that this location today resembles its appearance two thousand years ago is, however, lacking. That this tomb was apparently never used nor developed in successive ages is motive to ponder..

Matthew 27:34 they gave him wine to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted it, he would not drink. Charitable Jews and Romans both customarily gave condemned men a heavily drugged drink. The former aimed at deadening the pain. The latter were simply facilitating their work of crucifixion: it is easier to handle a drugged man (Proverbs 31:6 f.; cf. Plin. 20, 18; Sen. Ep. 83 cited by Farrar, 638).

Matthew says the wine was mixed with gall; Mark has myrrhed wine (esmurnisménon oìnon) (Mark 15:23). Wine flavored with myrrh was known in the ancient world (Arndt-Gingrich, 766). Perhaps myrrhed connotes spiced without necessarily specifying myrrh. So, Matthew indicates the particular drug involved as gall. But is gall (cholês) anesthetic? The LXX used cholé to translate Hebrew words for (1) gall; (2) poison; (3) wormwood. (See Arndt-Gingrich, 891.) However, in addition to bitter, poisonous substances, gall may have associated with it the idea of anesthetic, espcially when the Hebrew word rosh, translated gall, referred, among other things, to poppy (papamer somniferam, I.S.B.E. 1167).

Or vice versa, cholé often translated gall, simply points generically or figuratively to any bitter substance (Lamentations 3:15; Proverbs 5:4; perhaps also Psalms 69:21), and the particular bitter element added to this wine was myrrh.

They kept trying to give Him the pain-deadener (Mark 15:23: edidoun). Jesus-’ refusal of this kindness had nothing to do with its bitter taste, as if the drink’s bitterness were intended as an additional cruelty. Although His was not a stoic refusal to shield Himself from pain, some think that He was determined to experience death at its worst to make Himself like His brethren even in this respect (Hebrews 2:9; Hebrews 2:17). Others think He refused, that His sacrifice might be conscious. More simply, the price for keeping His mind clear until the last was having to endure pain as any other man. Even though the use of a powerful drug can be justified for others facing excruciating pain and natural death, His refusal illustrates what it means to be alert and on guard, so as not to enter into trials unaware of their insidious temptations and unprepared (Matthew 26:41).

When he had tasted it, he would not drink. If He did not want any, why taste it? Did He not know what it was? He simply did not use His miraculous knowledge when a taste would supply Him the information. (Cf. notes on Matthew 21:19.)

Could a Jewish reader see an allusion to Psalms 69:21 in this?

FACT QUESTIONS

Where according to Jewish law must executions occur?

Whom did the soldiers compel to carry Jesus-’ cross?

Where was he coming from at the time?

Explain why he was compelled to bear Jesus-’ cross: (a) what right did the Romans have to do this? (b) what need was there to find someone else to carry the cross? (c) how may this incident be harmonized with John’s Gospel that affirms Jesus carried His own cross?

Define the terms: Golgotha and Calvary. From what language does each word come? For what possible motive(s) was the area called this?

Locate the two more famous sites identified for the crucifixion. Explain why identifying the one true location is uncertain at best.

Explain the purpose of the wine mingled with gall.

Matthew 27:35-37

THE DEATH OF CHRIST Crucifixion and accusation

TEXT: 27:35-37

35 And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments among them, casting lots; 36 and they sat and watched him there. 37 And they set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Why remove Jesus-’ clothes? Only to leave Him naked on the cross?

Why would soldiers even want the second-hand clothing of a condemned man? Are not these pretty meager spoils?

Do you think the soldiers were deliberately crass to roll dice for Jesus-’ clothes?

Do you think David intended to prophesy the sufferings and death of Jesus in Psalms 22 or was he merely describing his own sufferings caused by his own enemies? On what basis do you answer as you do?

What do the prophecies about Jesus-’ death tell us about its meaning?

Why would Matthew, who cited so many fulfillments of prophecy in the life and ministry of Christ, suddenly abandon this method during the crucifixion scenes, when so many noteworthy fulfillments were available? Would not his readers appreciate his bringing them up?

Why do you think Pilate formulated the accusation on the cross in precisely those words? Was he expressing his personal contempt toward Jesus or toward the Jews or both?

How do you account for the differences between the Gospels as to the correct reading of the inscription on Jesus-’ cross? Did the sign say different things? Or did it say only one thing? Decide!

Matthew hardly describes the act of crucifixion itself: the nails, the size and configuration of the cross, the ropes, the raising, etc. What does this suggest about his purpose or view of the matter?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

At Golgotha the soldiers crucified Jesus and, along with Him, the two criminals, one on His right hand and the other on His left. Jesus was in the center. He prayed, Father, forgive these people, because they do not know what they are doing. Pilate also prepared the written notice, indicating the charge against Him and had it put on the cross over His head. The title read: THIS IS JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. Many Jews read this sign, since the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city of Jerusalem, and the sign was written in Hebrew, Latin and Greek. This is why the chief priests protested to Pilate, You should not write, -The King of the Jews,-’ but, -This guy said, I am the King of the Jews.-’ What I have written, Pilate answered, is going to remain that way. After nailing Jesus to the cross, the soldiers distributed His clothes in four parts, a share for each soldier, rolling dice for them to determine who should receive what. However, His tunic was seamless, woven all the way from the neck down. So they talked it over, Rather than tear it, let us roll the dice for it to decide who will get it. This resulted in the fulfillment of Scripture, which says, They divided my garments among them, and rolled dice for my clothes. This is exactly what the soldiers did. It was about nine in the morning when they crucified Jesus. Then they sat down to guard Him there.

SUMMARY

On the central cross between two criminals they crucified Jesus who prayed for the forgiveness of His tormentors. Pilate’s statement of the charge irritated Jewish sentiment but remained the unchanged declaration of Jesus-’ Kingship. The platoon in charge of Jesus divided His personal clothing by rolling dice for it, then relaxed on the ground as they guarded Him.

**NOTES … THEY HAVE PIERCED MY HANDS AND MY FEET. I CAN COUNT ALL MY BONES: PEOPLE STARE AND GLOAT OVER ME THEY DIVIDE MY GARMENTS AMONG THEM

AND CAST LOTS FOR MY CLOTHING. (Psalms 22:16 b - Psalms 22:18)**

Matthew 27:35 And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments among them, casting lots. With great simplicity Matthew omits the ugly details of the crucifixion. But an understanding of his hideous form of capital punishment will explain the contempt and aversion early Christians faced as they preached Christ crucified. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 1:18 ff.; Galatians 5:11.) Study these texts of Jesus-’ contemporary:

Illustrations of crucifixion: Ant. XI, 1, 3; 4, 6; XX.6, 2; Wars II*, 5, 2;*

Matthew 12:6; Matthew 13:2 Crucifixion’s brutality: Ant. XII, 5, 4; Wars I, 4, 6; V.11, 1; II, 14, 9; VII, 6, 4

Crucifixion perpetrated by Jew against Jews: Wars I, 4, 6

Release from crucifixion: Josephus-’ Life, 75

Interest in the painful details is not totally dwarfed into insignificance by the moral issues that were resolved at Calvary, because (1) other Gospels record more of these details, and (2) the details themselves render far more vivid the cost of our salvation. This hideous death involved painful wounds, forced immobility, difficult breathing, exposure to the elements, insects, taunting by enemies, all contributing to a slow, agonizing death. However, in contrast to the commentaries, the spartan brevity of the Gospel writers turns the attention away from these physical tortures to the spiritual issues at stake here. Jesus-’ suffering was unique in that He who had known the closest possible comradeship with God must submit to the torments of the damned.

First they stripped Jesus of His clothes. Next came the actual nailing Him to the cross. This was done while it was yet lying on the ground. The belief that Jesus carried only the horizontal cross-member while the vertical pole awaited Him on Golgotha raises other questions: would Jews permit the upright poles of crosses, normally a Roman method of execution, to remain permanently erected so near the Holy City, near a public road? If so, how many? It is simpler to see that His entire cross was brought from the Praetorium. (See on Matthew 27:32; John 19:17.) Some anatomists believe that the nails were driven through His wrists rather than through the palms, because the body weight would have pulled against the nails and torn out away before long. But was the nailing of the hands to keep them in place or to support the body? A wooden support on which the crucified could sit seems to have been the only other relief (Alford, I, 293; Farrar, Life, 639). Apparently Jesus-’ feet were not merely bound to the cross, but also nailed (Luke 24:39).

Then the cross was raised and dropped into a hole dug to receive the lower end of the upright timber. The height of the erected cross needed to be only slightly taller than a man. Disputes about the form of the cross are futile, as the Romans would probably spend little effort to build this rude wooden device not intended for beauty or comfort but for disgrace and death. However, its form permitted the affixing of the accusation above His head (Matthew 27:37). The fine, polished-wood beams of crosses today represent the reality about as unconvincingly as our lives reflect that of Him who died there.

He made intercession for the transgressors (Isaiah 53:12)

No sooner had Jesus been nailed to the tree than He prayed His unforgettable Intercessory Prayer: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do (Luke 23:34; cf. Isaiah 53:12). Here the soldiers first experience a direct, personal contact with Jesus-’ magnanimity. Not an outburst of fury against them but a pained prayer of pardon for them! His spirit found an excuse for this outrage perpetrated against God, not only by the soldiers who were simply following orders, but especially by those who turned Him over to them (John 19:11), and generally everyone whose sins put Him there. They did not dream that they were crucifying the Lord of Glory (1 Corinthians 2:8), killing the Author of Life (Acts 3:15-17) and fulfilling the prophets (Acts 13:27). Because the Son’s suffering was a crime against the majesty of God, He begged the Father to hold back His wrath, lest the divine purpose be compromised by an untimely rescue. If God were ever tempted to stomp the world out of existence and rescue His dear Son, this was the day! (Cf. Stephen’s expression: Acts 7:60.) By His own readiness to forgive, He cleared His own heart of all vindictiveness. This was no blanket pardon that ignores each man’s attitude toward God. Rather, because individual pardon is not given without personal repentance, His prayer is tantamount to asking God to give men a merciful opportunity to repent.

They parted his garments among them, casting lots. That Jesus was stripped completely is a shamefully real possibility. Nakedness would disgrace Him in His suffering. (Cf. Revelation 16:15.) However, Edersheim (Life, II, 584), believed that every concession would be made to Jewish custom, and we may thankfully believe that on the Cross He was spared the indignity of exposure. Such would have been truly un-Jewish.

The garments of the condemned became the meager spoils of the four soldiers ordered out on this crucifixion detail. In Jesus-’ case the royal garment and the crown of thorns were now gone (Matthew 27:31). He had only His own five articles of clothing to divide among four soldiers. After His belt, sandals, cloak and head-gear, all of approximately the same value, had been distributed, one valuable article remained: Jesus-’ one-piece, continuously woven tunic (chitòn: tunic, shirt). Since this could not easily be divided without ruining it, the men decided that a decision of chance would determine its new owner. Casting lots is the normal way of obtaining something by a means completely out of human control (Luke 1:9; Acts 1:17, cf. Matthew 27:26; 2 Peter 1:1). By turning Jesus-’ garments over to new owners, they treat Him as a criminal as good as dead. However, shocking to the Psalmist or us, these soldiers-’ deed was but their normal practice, hence not intentionally malicious toward Jesus personally. In fact, the clothes of the two robbers were not unlikely distributed in the same manner. But even this crude bit of official business attended to by dice-rolling military men was foreseen in the divine purpose (Psalms 22:18). The prophecy’s literal fulfillment is the more remarkable because it was executed by men totally unaware of its existence. Unintentionally, they too point to Jesus as the Man intended by the prophet.

Mark notes the hour of crucifixion as the third hour when they crucified Him (Mark 15:25), or nine o-‘clock a.m. as the Jews reckoned time.

Matthew 27:36 And they sat and watched him there. Although this squad of soldiers can now relax somewhat, their purpose for being there was not only to attest to the death of the crucified but also to guard against any last-minute attempts to rescue any of the crucified (watched - guarded, etéroun). Perhaps even at this point when the physical exertion of the crucifixion was completed, they took a break for a drink and, as a crude joke, toasted the health of the King of the Jews, deriding Him (Luke 23:36 f.).

Pilate’s revenge

Matthew 27:37 And they set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. Because the crucifixion was a public affair, its purpose was to discourage the spectators from crimes against the state. The crudely lettered accusation was borne to the cross either as a placard around the neck of the condemned or carried by one of the soldiers. Specifying the crime for which the condemned is executed, it drove home a grim warning to others who might be tempted to make the mistake of committing a similar crime. This argues that accusations were probably nailed to the thieves-’ crosses too. To give the inscription the widest publicity possible, it was written in the common languages of the era, Greek, the universal tongue, Latin, the official language, and Aramaic, the local dialect.

There is no contradiction between the Gospels over the exact reading of the title’s inscription, because

The basis of each version may be a free rendering by each author as he translated it out of Hebrew, Greek or Latin. Perhaps the title varied somewhat in each of the three languages. Should the Gospel writers be blamed for these variations?

Matthew calls it his accusation written; Luke, an inscription and John, a title. Pilate’s wording may have expressed the accusation even more fully than the composite of all the Gospel writers-’ summaries.

Even if each language repeated all the elements verbatim, our authors preserved the essential message unchanged in meaning. There is no contradiction where no author denies the wording of the others, and when each seeks only to quote the substance of the accusation without quarrelling over details given or omitted by the others. They simply do not tell all they know. Even with minor variations, the central message can correctly be recovered: This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.

Since this ambiguously expressed title was dictated by Pilate himself, some see it as the ironic expression of the haughty prefect’s cynicism. Certainly an accusation per se was no mere second thought by the wily Roman, especially if such titles were common practice. Pilate may have ordered it nailed to His cross to clear his record with Caesar, since the basic charge of blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God would not interest Roman jurisprudence. In theory, it named Jesus-’ crime. In reality, its wording gave Him a title. No crime whatsoever is indicated. Admittedly, Pilate was crucifying the Nazarene, but he nonetheless ennobled Him to the rank of king! He had cleverly transformed the accusation into a vindictive insult to those who had forced him to authorize the execution of this innocent man.

Because Jesus had interpreted for Pilate the true meaning of His claim, the latter comprehended the unpolitical nature of Jesus-’ Kingdom. Against this spiritual King of the Jews the charge of political insurrection remained unproven. So, the governor’s inscription, which unconditionally affirms His kingship, becomes Jesus-’ definitive clearing of the political charges. This accusation was Pilate’s final protest of Jesus-’ innocence and, by reflection, his public exposure of the rulers-’ bitter jealousy. For Pilate to crucify Him with two malefactors does not negate this view, because this guilt by association is not intended by Pilate to humiliate Jesus, for He must die anyway, but to embitter the Jews in their moment of victory.

Although Pilate could not have intended it this way, the official title, the King of the Jews, when considered as a phrase in Matthew’s Gospel, even if unexpectedly and subtly yet truly and profoundly reflects the divine purpose. How little they knew: He was not merely King of the Jews, but the Lord of the universe and King over all men (Matthew 28:18; Revelation 17:14). Even so, He arose out of Israel and rules over all who become part of the true Israel of God (Romans 9:5; Galatians 6:16). It is not improbable that Jewish readers of Matthew would notice the not insignificant coincidence that the Gentile wise-men asked, Where is He that is born king of the Jews! and the Gentile governor proclaimed: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. These two astonishing facts with which the amazing life of the Nazarene begin and conclude become unexpected signposts leading one to take the evidence for His identity seriously. Was Israel blind to its true King? (Cf. Matthew 27:54.)

FACT QUESTIONS

Describe the crucifixion, using all the facts available in the Gospels. How was Jesus crucified? Who actually did it? Who was with Him? Who were the spectators? Where did they stand or sit?

Describe the division of Jesus-’ garments among the soldiers.

What prophecy was fulfilled in the peculiar disposition made of Jesus-’ clothes?

Why did the soldiers sit down and watch Jesus? In what sense watch Him?

For what purpose was the sign attached to the cross?

Quote the inscription Pilate ordered attached to the cross above Jesus.

Matthew 27:38-44

Reviling abuse and shame heaped upon Jesus

TEXT: 27:38-44

38 Then are there crucified with him two robbers, one on the right hand and one on the left. 39 And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, 40 and saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself: if thou art the Son of God, come down from the cross. 41 In like manner also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, 42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. He is the King of Israel; let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe on him. 43 He trusteth on God; let him deliver him now, if he desireth him: for he said, I am the Son of God. 44 And the robbers also that were crucified with him cast upon him the same reproach.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Men rightly marvel at the sad beauty of Jesus-’ last words on the cross. Study them and pause to reflect how few they are. Then think on the words that Jesus, hanging there in His pain-wracked body, did NOT say.

Why do you think two robbers were executed with Him?

Why do you suppose the robbers reviled Jesus too? Did they know Him? If not, what could they have possibly had against Him to justify their railing?

How would you harmonize their reviling with Luke’s report of the penitent robber?

In what way was Jesus severely tempted on the cross? Was Satan there that day?

Do you think that the crowds or their rulers would have really believed Jesus, if He had performed the supreme miracle of ripping out the nails and leaping down from the cross? Why do you say that?

In what sense is it true that those who mocked Jesus were saying more truth than they knew? That is, in what way do they unintentionally glorify Jesus?

In contrast to the political charges the authorities had leveled against Jesus before Pilate, what do these openly religious accusations spat out at Him at the crucifixion reveal about those who tried to crucify Him on purely political grounds?

Is there any evidence in the scoffers-’ words that they had any misgivings about crucifying Jesus or that they had possibly made a tremendous mistake? Do you think they are putting up a bold front to keep their courage up and their doubts down?

Since Jesus never once relented in His conviction that He was the Christ, what possible conclusions could His enemies have drawn about Him?

Even if in quite another sense, we too are like the two robbers, crucified with him (Romans 6:6; Galatians 2:20). What is our commonest reaction to the shame, the scoffing and the pain that go with it? What should our reaction be?

From Jesus-’ refusal to grant their demand by descending from the cross and their conclusions about it, what may be learned (1) about the program of God; (2) about the validity of human resentment when God denies man’s requests?

From Jesus-’ silence in the presence of their demands, what may be learned about Him?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

They crucified two bandits with Him, one on His right and the other on His left. The people stood there, staring. Passers-by jeered at Him, shaking their heads and sneering, Aha! You were the one who was going to destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days, were you? Save yourself! If you are God’s Son, step down from the cross! Similarly, even the rulers, the chief priests with the theologians and elders, sneered at Him, commenting to one another, He saved others, but he cannot even save himself? Let him save himself, if he is the Anointed of God, His Chosen One! Let this Christ, this King of Israel, come down from the cross now! If we could see him do that, we would believe in him! He trusts in God, does he? Let God rescue him now, that is, if He wants him! After all, he did say, -I am God’s Son.-’ The soldiers too made fun of Him, by coming up and offering Him a drink of their sour wine, saying, If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself! In fact, there was the inscription over Him, which read: This is the King of the Jews. Similarly, even the bandits that were crucified with Him also insulted Him. One of them hanging there, abused Him, Aren-’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us too while you-’re at it! But the other checked him, Have you no fear of God at all?! Both you and He are facing death and judgment before God. But with us it is a question of common justice, since we are getting what we deserve for what we did. But this man has done nothing improper. Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingly power. I solemnly assure you, Jesus answered, you will be with me in Paradise this very day! Standing by Jesus-’ cross were four women: His mother and His maternal aunt, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. When Jesus saw His mother there and His dearest disciple, John, nearby, He addressed His mother, Lady, he is now to be your son. Then He said to the disciple, She is now your mother. So from that time on, the disciple took her into her own care and keeping.

SUMMARY

Passers-by, clergy, soldiers and fellow-sufferers alike taunted Jesus, daring Him to save Himself because of His claim to be the Messiah. Jesus remained silent until one of the bandits repented and asked to be part of Jesus-’ Kingdom. This request Jesus granted. Then He turned His mother over to John to care for.

NOTES

He was numbered with the transgressors (Isaiah 53:12)

Matthew 27:38 Then are there crucified with him two robbers, one on the right hand and one on the left. After Jesus was crucified, His guards sat down to guard Him there (Matthew 27:36). It would appear, therefore, that, although the two robbers were part of the procession from the Praetorium to Golgotha (Luke 23:32 f.; John 19:18), they were crucified after Jesus (Then, tòte) by two other quaternions of soldiers, as if the raising of each cross required the combined strength of the men. However, it is probable that none of the soldiers rested until the crucifixion of all three was complete.

In the purpose of God Jesus was crucified between two sinners, one on the right hand and one on the left. Although men intended it quite otherwise, this providential arrangement pictures the true significance of the cross; our King Himself is the dividing line that separates the living from the dead, the sheep from the goats, the believing from the lost. (Cf. Matthew 25:33.) But He identified with us in our sins by dying among common sinners.

That these robbers (leistaì) are not revolutionaries or insurrectionists like Barabbas (see on Matthew 27:16), but common bandits (cf. Wars, II, 12, 5; 13, 2; 14, 1) is suggested by two considerations:

To preserve the calm against predictable violence, were a Jewish folk hero to be crucified by Roman power, they could never permit that two real patriots be executed with Jesus. (Cf. notes on Matthew 27:16-21.)

The self-incrimination of the repentant robber (Luke 23:41) is less understandable, if he considered crucifixion the just sentence for promoting a religio-patriotic revolution against Rome. Contrarily, if his own conscience condemned common banditry and highway robbery, his self-accusation makes better sense.

Luke’s word, criminals (kakoùrgoi) apparently confirms this view (Luke 23:32 f., Luke 23:39). Therefore, to crucify Jesus between common criminals is to amplify His guilt by association, insinuating that He is no better than they.

All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their head (Psalms 22:7)

Matthew 27:39 **And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads. **If the crosses were located near a main road for maximum publicity of this exemplary punishment, then they that passed by would be many. By this characteristic gesture of wagging their heads (cf. Psalms 109:25; Isaiah 37:22; Jeremiah 18:16; Lamentations 1:12; Lamentations 2:15), they unintentionally fulfill prophecy (Psalms 22:6-7). Milling around the cross and snarling at Him like so many wild animals, they show their inhumanity. (Cf. Psalms 22:12 f., Psalms 22:16). Railed on him (eblasphémoun autòn), from the Christian standpoint, means they insulted the deity of Christ. But, because they repudiate His claims as false, in their own view they are hurling the abuse that He justly deserved. Nevertheless, they are inexcusable, because His divine credentials were completely adequate to convince the good and honest among them.

40 and saying, Thou that destroyest the temple and buildest it in three days, save thyself: if thou art the Son of God, come down from the cross. Because they misapply His cryptic Temple prophecy to the Jerusalem sanctuary, they presume that anyone who could replace that grand structure in just three days, could surely perform the smaller wonder of rescuing himself from a cross. Consequently, they wrongly interpret His inaction now as proof He had made exorbitant, unjustified claims.

But even as they poured ridicule on Him, by crucifying Him they were bringing about the true meaning of the very prophecy they misinterpreted, for He spoke of the temple of His body. God would rebuild it in three days. Jesus Himself was God’s true dwelling among His people. Although they repudiated this Temple by crucifying Jesus, God would raise up that Dwelling of God, of which the Jerusalem temple was but a dim, feeble symbol. But by crucifying Jesus, they guaranteed the Temple’s desolation, since their rejection would bring God’s wrath upon them in that one generation. Thus, they would themselves destroy this temple [in Jerusalem] but after three days Jesus would resurrect a far more glorious Temple, the true dwelling place of God in the Spirit!

In the person of these worldlings, their lord, Satan, is back and launching one attack after another (Luke 4:13). If thou art the Son of God echoes Satan’s original seduction and repeated here for the same reasons (cf. Matthew 4:3; Luke 4:13). They, like him, know of only one style of Sonship, that of self-interest, personal rights and self-vindication. They argue that a true Son of God would never agonize on a cross!

In the Jewish accusation note the absence of the article. Even without it, His claim to be the Son of God (huiòs toû theoû) is one of the bitter bones of contention for which they crucified Jesus. (Cf. also Matthew 27:43; see notes on Matthew 26:63 ff.) Yet they fully grasped His claim and crucified Him for it.

Apparently the presence or absence of the definite article made no significant theological difference for the Jews. (Cf. Matthew 26:40; Matthew 26:43; John 19:7 without article; however, Matthew 26:63; Mark 14:61 and Luke 22:70 f. have the definite article.) They crucified Jesus for claiming to be huiòs theoû or ho huiòs toû theoû. This animus had begun early (John 5:18). They understood the meaning of His words and repudiated it, but their understanding should be definitive enough for Christian theology too: He claimed to be, not a son of a god, but the Son of God. (Cf. Luke 1:35 in Greek.) Moreover, titles or names are definite whether or not they have the article (here: huiòs theoû). This grammatical understanding of the article also affects the centurion’s view, as he heard the Jews use these terms.

**MANY BULLS SURROUND ME;

STRONG BULLS OR BASHAN ENCIRCLE ME.

ROARING LIONS TEARING THEIR PREY

OPEN THEIR MOUTHS WIDE AGAINST ME. (Psalms 22:12 f.)**

Matthew 27:41 In like manner also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said. Abandoning the dignity of their age and office, the revered leaders of Israel lower themselves to show their contempt in like manner, i.e. like uncultured, undisciplined passersby. The unsanctified fellowship of the nation’s leaders appeared at Golgotha in person, their old, common fear now replaced with common childish glee and wisecracking. Perhaps they had originally intended not to attend the crucifixion, but when the offending title on the cross came to their attention and no appeals to Pilate could get it corrected, they determined to counteract its forceful influence by discrediting Him personally. To sway the impressionable crowds even then milling around Golgotha, they could transform the Nazarene’s death into even more effective propaganda against Him and His movement.

FOR THE TRANSGRESSION OF MY PEOPLE HE WAS STRICKEN. (Isaiah 53:8)

Matthew 27:42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. He is the King of Israel; let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe on him. They triumph over their former fears that He would use His undeniably miraculous power to save Himself. They can afford to do it now because He is so obviously helpless to do so just when He needed it most for Himself. They admit that He saved others? They objectively admit nothing. Just as they do not believe that He is the King of Israel, so they debate this proposition too: He saved others? Everyone talks about how He saved others from the common trials of life, from various sicknesses and even from death. The truth of these tales would be instantly and most certainly verified, if this miracle-worker could free Himself from His own woes! Although intellectually unable to account for the source of His power, they treat His miracles as spurious, judging everything in the light of His present failure to perform in this supposedly critical, definitive test.

It is at this point that the chasmic distance between our Lord and all human demagogues is most noticeable; these authorities had attempted to save their institutions, their positions and themselves from the certain dissolution they see must result from Jesus-’ self-giving ministry (John 11:47-53). Nevertheless, by trying to save what they deemed the most important things in their lives, they lost them (Matthew 16:24 ff.). By sacrificing. Himself, He won everything.

He is the King of Israel: the Messiah. He had tacitly accepted this title as royal authority was attributed to Him during the Triumphal entry. For maximum effect Jesus-’ detractors deliberately aired these popular views to show their groundlessness when applied to one who is now so obviously unable to realize all the glorious hopes predictable of a true King of Israel. Let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe on him. These hypocrites express their openness to become His disciples upon His immediate descent from the cross as the decisive, unmistakable credential they had always been asking for. (Cf. Matthew 12:38 ff.; Matthew 16:1 ff.; Mark 8:11 f.; John 2:18; John 6:30.) The power of this diabolical temptation lies in the self-assertive desire to perform His most telling miracle to date, which, in the estimation of sinful men, would shake these hypocrites like nothing else. But this is precisely the moment not to perform the self-vindicating miracle required. He must keep His mind on the true challenge: Let him come out of the tomb alive and victorious and we will believe on him. The true test of His identity is not their proposals, but the successful accomplishment of God’s will!

Matthew 27:43 He trusteth on God; let him deliver him now; if he desireth him: for he said, I am the Son of God. The enemies maliciously worded their blasphemous railing to call to mind Psalms 22:8, perhaps just to explode the false martyrdom of Jesus and disprove His claims. To the words of the Psalm they add the word, now, demanding that God instantly test the worth of Jesus-’ confident assertions by revealing their basis in some tangible way. They could safely apply Messianic prophecies to Him, since, in their view, He was indisputably incapable of fulfilling any Messianic texts like Psalms 22:8. It was the resurrection that would turn their own sword against them. The unhurried God could not be bullied into an untimely miracle that would compromise His eternal plan. Even so, the temptation is real: Jesus-’ personal confidence in the faithfulness of God is put to the supreme test. (Cf. Psalms 22:4 f.; John 11:42.) This will give special poignance to His later cry of loneliness (Matthew 27:46).

I am the Son of God. (See notes on Matthew 27:40; Matthew 26:63 ff.) Their underlying argument is that God really cares about His true Son and would never leave Him to die, never subject Him to such an ignominious death as crucifixion. Jesus, however, is left to die. Therefore, He was not a true Son of God. Nevertheless, for good and sufficient reasons, God’s mighty love made Him sacrifice this His only Son (John 3:16). Similarly, God’s love for His saints does not always compel Him to deliver them from pain or death. Even their death can praise Him, as did the compelling example of Jesus.

The apparently unassailable logic of the Sanhedrists had as its special target the conviction of the masses who passed by. Their arguments would make sense to anyone who could be stampeded into deciding instantly before all the evidence was in. After all, if Jesus could not come down from the cross, or if God would not rescue Him, would not that prove Him an imposter?

Matthew 27:44 And the robbers also that were crucified with him cast upon him the same reproach. Robbers: see note on Matthew 27:38. There is no evidence that these bandits simply shared the crowd’s malice toward Jesus. They may have known little about Him. Perhaps they angrily blame Jesus because His crucifixion was the reason they were being executed sooner than expected. Although the two reproach Jesus, only the impenitent one blasphemed. (Matthew: oneidizon, reproach, revile, heap insults upon, Arndt-Gingrich, 573; Luke: eblasphémei.)

There is no inconsistency with Luke’s account of the penitent bandit. Matthew and Mark simply report how the two robbers began insulting him together. Luke does not assert that only one of them offended Jesus. Rather he tells that, when one of them did so, his fellow scolded him. Apparently, the marvelous conversion of the penitent robber began sometime during the three hours together with Jesus on the cross before the unnatural darkness. As time dragged by, the penitent’s slow death forced him to reflect upon the state of his own soul, upon his own real guilt as opposed to Jesus-’ guiltlessness and upon His marvelous self-control during agonies that the dying thief understood only too well. (Cf. Luke 23:40 f.) His reason calmed him. The other bandit, however, kept up his tirade, demanding: Save yourself and us (Luke 23:39)! Unrepentant, he wanted to escape his apparently sealed destiny and so incited Jesus to use His great, pretended powers to effect their release. The other bandit shamed him into silence by defending Jesus, Both you and He must soon stand before God. He has no sin to answer for, but does not the threat of divine justice warn you not to aggravate your guilt by mocking your fellow-sufferer?

This robber’S lone voice raised in protest against Jesus-’ unjustifiable crucifixion is the only one recorded. No longer justifying himself, he cast in his lot with a King whose only visible throne was a roughhewn tree like his own. It is not known what this robber knew previously about Jesus-’ mission and message. Nevertheless, while others remained unmoved even after Jesus arose from the dead, this man witnessed the King Himself being conquered by death and still surrendered his believing heart! No wonder that Jesus graciously assured him far more than he asked, a place with Him that very day in the invisible world where only believers enjoy the presence of God! (Cf. Luke 23:46; 2 Corinthians 12:2 f.; Revelation 2:7.)

Peter’s comment on Jesus-’ self-possession is most eloquent (1 Peter 2:23 f.). His silence is evidence of self-mastery and power over temptation. By His acceptance of whatever God’s grace sent, He demonstrated total trust in God’s provision (Matthew 6:25 ff.). In this most desperate situation He lived out His own doctrine of non-retaliation (Matthew 5:38 ff.). By this extremely convincing example He showed what it means to save one’s life giving it away (Matthew 16:24 ff.). He did not respond to their cruel jibes, because it was a moral impossibility for Him to satisfy their demands and save a lost world too. He ignored their challenge because His mighty love and His will to save them held Him nailed to the cross,

But why should God remain shockingly silent and seemingly unperturbed, when, alone, His own dear Son was brutally tortured and killed by religious bigots who dared God to intervene? For those who have eyes to see it, He bared His patient heart fully as much by His refusal to interfere now as by His other revelations elsewhere. But the Father was not wholly absent or dispassionate. (Cf. Matthew 27:45; Matthew 27:51.) The living God sometimes appears silent and unfaithful to His promise to save, seeming to deny the rightness of the plan He Himself taught and the confidence of His children. But Jesus did not waiver. His death becomes an act of faith in the love of God, notwithstanding this seeming indifference of Heaven.

FACT QUESTIONS

Describe the kind of robbers who were crucified with Jesus.

What was the prophecy fulfilled by His being crucified with them?

List all the various titles for Jesus mentioned in this section as these are hurled at Jesus to taunt Him. (You may include those reported by Mark and Luke too.)

What prophecy was fulfilled by the reproaches of the people?

List the various insulting statements by which the crowds taunted Jesus, explaining what they meant by them.

Explain what Jesus-’ refusal to accept the crowd’s challenges proves about His true identity.

Matthew 27:45-50

DARKNESS AND DEJECTION

TEXT: 27:45-50

45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? 47 And some of them that stood there, when they heard it, said, This man calleth Elijah. 48 And straightway one of them ran, took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. 49 And the rest said, Let be; let us see whether Elijah cometh to save him.

THE SADDEST MOMENT IN HISTORY

50 And Jesus cried again with a loud voice, and yielded up his spirit.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

What do you think caused this great darkness? Why do you decide this way?

How much territory do you think the darkness covered? How would you decide this?

Do you see any relationship, on the one hand, between the darkness on the day Jesus died and His cry of abandonment by the Father, and, on the other hand, the outer darkness and separation from the presence of the Lord to be suffered by the damned? If so, what connection is there?

What sacrifice was sacrificed every day at the ninth hour? Do you see any connection between this and Jesus-’ death?

Why do you suppose Jesus cried out the words, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Did He just make up these words? Why would Jesus repeat them at this terrible moment?

If Jesus were somehow deity, how could He cry out to God? If He were deity, is He merely talking to Himself? If He is a man talking to God, then is He not merely human? How do you solve this puzzle?

Since Jesus spoke in Aramaic, someone shouted, He calls for Elijah. On what rational basis could this confusion arise?

Why did Jesus drink the wine offered Him now, when He had refused the wine mingled with gall earlier? What is the difference?

When someone offered Jesus a drink, others tried to hinder him. Why would anyone object to giving the thirsty man a drink on that occasion?

Can we, who so placidly read the account of Jesus-’ crucifixion, really understand what that simple word crucified meant to Jesus who endured it?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

About noon an unnatural darkness similar to a solar eclipse came over the whole country and lasted until three o-‘clock in the afternoon. About three, Jesus shouted, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? (This means: My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?) Some of the bystanders who heard it commented, Hey! this man is calling Elijah! After this, since Jesus knew that His task had now been completed, in order that the Scripture might receive complete fulfillment, He said, I am thirsty. Now there was a jug full of a diluted sour wine drink, so someone immediately ran to it, took a sponge and soaked it with the wine, put it on a hyssop stick and held it up to Jesus-’ mouth to drink. But the others said, Wait, let’s see if Elijah comes to save him! whereupon the first man retorted, Let me do this, let’s see if Elijah is coming to take him down! When Jesus had drunk the sour drink, He gave a mighty shout, It is finished! Father, I intrust my spirit into your hands! With these words He bowed His head, yielded up His spirit and breathed His last.

SUMMARY

Three hours of darkness marked the last half of Jesus-’ crucifixion, at the end of which He quoted the appropriate words of Psa 22:1. Here, too, His words were twisted into an appeal to Elijah. Thirsty, Jesus asked for a drink. They gave Him the cheap, soldier’s beverage. Refreshed, He triumphantly announced the successful completion of His mission, calmly committed His soul to the Father and surrendered His life.

NOTES

The darkest day in world history

Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. Jesus had now been on the cross almost three hours, from roughly nine o-‘clock until noon when the ominous darkness began (Mark 15:25). Although Luke’s language suggests a natural solar eclipse (Luke 23:44 f.; eklipòntos), this is excluded by two physical factors:

Passover’s usual full moon (Exodus 12:18; Leviticus 23:5). Every Jewish month begins with a new moon. Passover occurs two weeks after the new moon, or at the time of a full moon. But a full moon demands a specific relation of the moon and sun to the earth whereby the moon can reflect the sun’s light without obstruction. On the contrary, a solar eclipse is created by the moon’s obstructing the sun’s light. The relative positions of sun, moon and earth during an eclipse are more like their conjunction around the time of a new moon. Hence, a natural eclipse could only have occurred two weeks before this Passover when Jesus died.

Even though a solar eclipse may take four hours from the first moment that the moon begins to cover the sun until it reveals it completely again, the usual duration of a total eclipse lasts rarely longer than 9 minutes, hence far shorter than the three hours indicated by the Gospel writers for this unnatural darkness.

Because the sun could be darkened by ways other than by a natural eclipse, Luke’s language, therefore, may be justified by supernatural power: God could easily have produced a strange darkening resembling an eclipse. God was not entirely absent; rather, by His withdrawing the world’s light, He manifested His presence and concern. But evidence of His presence did not stop here (Matthew 27:51 ff.).

Did the darkness extend over the entire earth or only of some significant area of Judea or Palestine? The cause of the darkness determines its extent. Since the sun’s light failed (Luke 23:45), it would normally affect all the earth’s entire daylight hemisphere. Thus, it is clear that all the land (pâsan tèn gên) may well mean that more than just the entire region surrounding Jerusalem was enveloped in darkness. (Cf. Mark 15:33 = Luke 23:44.) Neither is impossible with God. But the former seems better supported.

What meaning should be given to this phenomenon?

Neither in prophecy nor in Jewish traditional expectations was the darkness a sign directly or specifically connected with the death of the Messiah (Edersheim, Life, II, 605).

It was not Nature protesting against the wickedness of Jesus-’ execution nor mourning His wretchedness. This view fails to explain why Nature waited three hours to act. Further, it animistically gives personality to what are but elements in the natural world, the impersonal creative expressions of God’s word. Even so, God could utilize these natural elements as a superhuman, audiovisual means to protest violently against the death of their Creator. (Cf. Matthew 27:51-53.) It is as if heaven and earth were in convulsion, mourning Him who created them. In the timing of these phenomena coincidental with the death of Christ, there is a hint that all creation depends on Him, for He sustains it by His mighty word and that earth’s destiny ultimately rises or falls with Him (Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:17; 2 Peter 3:5-7).

In apocalyptic language the turning of the sun into darkness is a popular symbol for a radical change in world affairs, because these changes often involve great judgments of God (Isaiah 5:30; Isaiah 13:10; Isaiah 50:3; Isaiah 60:2; Joe 2:10; Joe 2:31; Joe 3:14 f.; Amos 5:18; Amos 5:20; Amos 8:9 f.; Revelation 6:12 ff.; cf. 2 Peter 2:17). Though these and such poetic allusions as Jeremiah 15:9 or Job 9:7 are not pertinent to the Messiah’s death nor to be taken literally, nevertheless, a people embued with these concepts, by an association of ideas would be prone to think first of God’s judgment as the ultimate cause of this literal effect in nature.

Did God screen the last tormented hours of His Son’s life from the curious stares of jeering crowds? Was it also relief from the sun during its hottest brilliance?

Was this a miraculous heavenly sign Jesus-’ enemies had demanded? (Cf. Exodus 10:21 ff.) Although this could have happened by natural causes, the marvelous coincidence with Jesus-’ suffering points to a supernatural origin. In context with the other-worldly events on that day (Matthew 27:51-53), the darkness may have been only a prelude aiming to capture the attention of the most calloused, stirring them to reflection on the odd coincidence between the death of that Galilean Prophet and these signs from heaven. Who indeed was He for whom these portents speak?

Because Jesus-’ cry of abandonment came in close connection with the end of the darkness (Matthew 27:45 f.), the darkness is suggestive of the outer darkness and utter separation from the presence of the Lord to be suffered by those who do not let Jesus-’ suffering be the price of their redemption. (Cf. Matthew 8:12; Matthew 22:13; Matthew 25:30; 2 Peter 2:17; Jude 1:13; 2 Thessalonians 1:9.)

Because the crowd seems to be considerably less vociferous at the end of the phenomenal black-out, the terror of the darkness must have quieted the bitter enthusiasm of a majority of the mockers. Mostly His friends and the soldiers remain. Luke 23:48 may mean that many simply did not dare leave in the darkness.

… Stricken, smitten by God and afflicted. (Isaiah 53:4)

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? The Lord had been hanging on the cross nearly six hours from midmorning until midafternoon, around three o-‘clock. (Cf. Mark 15:25; Mark 15:33.)

Matthew quotes Jesus verbatim in Aramaic, then translated the meaning into Greek for his non-Aramaic readers. In what sense did God forsake Jesus? His choice of words, Psalms 22:1, is not coincidental, but intentional and highly revealing.

It can be validly argued that David simply prophesied Jesus-’ suffering on the cross; as does Lenski (Matthew, 1118): 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. However, other equally reverent views are also possible.

It is not the cry of personal guilt nor because God did not approve of Jesus-’ obedient life and ministry. Otherwise, why justify Him so completely by the convincing stamp of approval given in the resurrection?

Nor is this an abandonment of Jesus-’ humanity by His deity, the splitting of His divine-human personality. (Cf. Philippians 2:5-11.) His unique unity of mind, purpose and nature with the Father is not now interrupted (John 10:30). Only He who has fully experienced the comradeship of equality with God can know what it means to suffer its loss by being so completely forsaken by Him. Jesus does not sense a loss of part of Himself, but of the fellowship of God.

Rather, the source of this unaccustomed inaccessibility to the divine Throne lies in His very humanness, for it is as God’s creature, as Man, that He cries out. (Cf. John 8:29.) Incarnation means He completely shared in our humanity (Hebrews 2:14; Hebrews 4:15). Is it a human cry crushed out of ANY GODLY MAN who struggles with the torment over the injustice of his suffering, life and death, evil and good? Otherwise why express Himself in the precise words of the Psalmist’s complaint (Psalms 22:1)? He really felt the intensely depressing loneliness all of us feel at such an hour, and this cry gives appropriate words to His pain. Jesus knew in that moment what we go through: He has been there (Hebrews 5:7-9; 1 Peter 2:21)! But there is much more.

His cry reveals a psychological abandonment by God that was morally necessary to render Jesus-’ victory more glorious and meaningful to man. As Man at His weakest, stripped of any help unavailable to any other man, He defeated Satan and all he could hurl at Him in this last supreme effort (2 Corinthians 13:4; see notes on Matthew 4:2 f.). All who are tempted must see that in Jesus of Nazareth God’s adversary has been met and defeated by One who, though deserted to die, remained completely able to parry his every temptation with unconquerable determination and courage! By His having to undergo all the fury and hate of God’s enemy as do we, He became the more amply qualified to be our Lord and Savior. But so much more conclusively He also condemned yielding to sin and wiped out every whining justification on the ground of the weakness of our human condition or that we feel abandoned by God to our fate. He has been there and won! His classic victory has shown us all how.

The awful accumulation of sin of the entire human race was being borne by Him who considered intolerable the slightest suggestion of sin. This takes us into the very essence of atonement. Far more than any other, THIS Man must feel the awesome loneliness and isolation of the sinner, not through any fault of His own, but because He deliberately chose to become the sin-bearer of the entire human race (Isaiah 53:6; Matthew 20:28; Romans 5:6 ff.; 2 Corinthians 5:15; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 2:20; Galatians 3:13; 1 Timothy 2:6; Titus 2:14; Hebrews 9:12; Hebrews 9:26; Hebrews 9:28; Hebrews 10:10; 1 Peter 1:19). In this cry for the hearing of the whole human race of which He is the only completely voluntary member, He shouts the true meaning of unrepented sin and its consequences: a holy God cannot look upon evil (Habakkuk 1:13). Nothing could remove the sin Jesus bore, except His own death. His God-forsaken humanness gives real meaning to His sacrifice. Until this was completed, perhaps the Father was forced by His own character and love for Jesus to turn His gaze from His own dear Son. The only Man who deserved to live is facing the wrath of God, the curse and sentence of death, the wages of sin. He underwent the ultimate horror of separation from God that we might not have to (Hebrews 13:5)! He bore our curse and our burdens alone (Isaiah 53:4-6; Isaiah 53:10). His grief, pain, loneliness and desolation were real. And should He NOT cry out? Was this not the very definition of hell: to be segregated from the light of the Father’s face, tormented by Satan’s worst and responsible for the accumulated sin of all of Adam’s race?

His cry, My God, expresses no conflict with the divine purpose, but a first-hand experience of the price demanded by His total cooperation with the divine plan. Even near the extreme limit of His strength and oppressed by His sense of being forsaken, His My God breathes the same unwavering confidence and obedient spirit of His earlier Not my will but yours be done. He is determined not to surrender His godly trust. This God is not deity of others, but His God. Whatever theological impact His sense of abandonment by God has, His life ended like His suffering began, in prayer, Father. (Luke 23:34; Luke 23:46), conscious of His communion with God. (Cf. John 16:32.)

For the sensitive Hebrew, this significant choice of words would communicate His application of the entire Psalms 22 to His own life situation. Hebrews entitled literary works by their opening line. Genesis is entitled Bereshith = In the beginning.; Exodus becomes Veeleh shmoth. These are the names.; Leviticus is Vayyikra-’, And he called., etc. Psalms 113 is called Hallel from its opening word. A dying Christian, unable to finish the phrase, Nearer My God to Thee. would communicate to those at his bedside that he was thinking of that great hymn. In a similar way, Jesus, whose whole soul was permeated with Scripture, may have been expressing Himself in the words of Psalms 22 precisely because of the appropriateness of the Psalmist’s words to communicate His immediate situation. The attentive believer could discern how truly and completely Jesus was experiencing even the loneliness of abandonment by God Himself. And yet, in the presence of despair and tragedy, He shouted with poignant power to uncomprehending disciples everywhere that in God’s Word lie power, hope and security. Man can live confident of every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, but he can also die that way!

Just as He withstood Satan’s original temptations by unshaken dependence on God’s Word, so He beat Satan down at the final challenge in the same way. If in the shadow of the cross, He sang the Scripture (Matthew 26:30), should it be thought strange that this godly Man should rivet His attention on the purpose of God by hurling at His own unrelieved pain and the injustice of His suffering the words of God expressed in this Psalm? Like Jesus-’ suffering, the Psalm begins in despondency and depression. But the final word sings of invincible faith in the glorious victory of God: … dominion belongs to the Lord and He rules over the nations (Psalms 22:31)! To express the greatest moments of our lives is there any language like that of Scripture whereby we identify with something eternal, objective and grander than our poor feeble words can conceive? How much more so for the Son of God who thought those words first?!

This cry, according to Matthew’s text, begins in Hebrew, Eli, and concludes in Aramaic, whereas Mark, according to the best manuscripts, reports Jesus-’ words all in Aramaic. (Cf. A Testual Commentary, 70, 120.)

At the ninth hour every day the second daily sacrifice was offered in the Temple. (Cf. Acts 3:1; Numbers 28:1-8; Numbers 29:6; 1 Chronicles 16:40; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 2 Chronicles 13:11; Ezra 3:3; Ezra 9:4 f.; Psalms 141:2; Daniel 8:11-13; Daniel 9:21; Daniel 11:31; Daniel 12:11.)

Matthew 27:47 And some of them that stood there, when they heard it, said, This man calleth Elijah. Who said this? Definitely Jews, because a Roman soldier could hardly be expected to know of the Jewish scribes-’ erroneous expectation that this undying prophet would return to earth (Matthew 17:10; cf. 2 Kings 2:11; Malachi 4:5 f.). Several motives for their reaction are possible:

Perhaps because His mouth and throat were dry, as shown by His later request for a drink, and His breathing difficult as His chest muscles strained, the hubbub and noise combined with the similar-sounding words to hinder many from hearing the words clearly.

Perhaps because the words are Aramaic, some Hellenistic Jew who understood little Hebrew or Aramaic could mistake the word Eli for a prayer to Elijah (Elei) not understanding the rest of the sentence. But the bilingual Jews present could have corrected the misconception based on mere linguistic error.

More likely it was the malicious irony of prejudice. What bilingual Aramaic-speaking Jew would have mistaken this citation of Psa 22:1 for an invocation of the prophet Elijah? It is plausible that those who heard the original cry understood it all too well. But their unbelieving bias against Jesus made a crude pun of it by turning Eli into Elias thus devising but another form of heartless ridicule. They had insisted that God save Him. Now, when God would not rescue Him, they ridicule as if Jesus had turned to Elijah. If Elijah was scheduled to come before the Messiah, Jesus Himself could not be the Messiah. By implication, He is ridiculed as appealing to the forerunner of the very Christ He claims to be (cf. Matthew 11:11; Matthew 11:14; Matthew 17:10-13).

My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth. (Psalms 22:15).

They gave me vinegar for my thirst (Psalms 69:21).

Matthew 27:48 **And straightway one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. **This sentence of Matthew does not appear to fit the context of the preceding verse. What does the reaction of the man, who ran straightway to prepare Jesus a drink, have to do with His cry of abandonment (Matthew 27:46) or the conclusion that He was appealing to Elijah (Matthew 27:47)? John’s account removes this obscurity: straightway after crying out His sense of abandonment. Jesus also said, I thirst (John 19:28 f.).

The fact that straightway one of them ran sounds like instant military obedience to orders (from the centurion?). Crucifixion was normally an ordeal that lasted a day or two, depending on the endurance of its victims. Because terrible thirst also characterized this torture, that a sponge and vessel of vinegar were present argue that this was the normal way the soldiers gave drink to the executed. Drinking from a cup would be difficult for the crucified to manage, hence the other method: a sponge filled with vinegar fastened to a reed. The commonness of the method appears to argue, therefore, that giving Him a drink was not unusual but a normal kindness offered any dying man. John reported what kind of stick it was, i.e. hyssop. Since the crosses need not have been tall to accomplish their purpose, the soldiers could almost reach Him to give Him a drink (Luke 23:36). So, a short hyssop stick to reach the lips of the crucified.

As its name implies, the vinegar drink was sour (òxos) in taste. But the soldiers who brought it for their own lunch called it posca, the regular diluted sour wine of the military. It relieved thirst more effectively than water and, because it was cheaper than regular wine, it was a favorite beverage of the lower ranks of society and of those in moderate circumstances (Arndt-Gingrich, 577; cf. Rth 2:14). Although He had turned down drugged wine before. Jesus accepted this wine because of His severe thirst and since this wine was not anesthetic. Instead, it gave Him the needed clarity of mind and voice for the last effort of His life. Just as Jesus would not begin His suffering drugged by myrrhed wine, so now He would not leave it so weak He could not talk. He would go out with power. The drink provided the energy for what He must do next.

Could a Hebrew reader miss the connection between this and Psalms 22:15 or Psalms 69:21?

Matthew 27:49 And the rest said, Let be; let us see whether Elijah cometh to save him. Despite the uncanny midday darkness just concluding, these skeptics continue to scoff at the possibility of a spectacular intervention of the supernatural to rescue Jesus (to take him down from the cross, Mark 15:36).

Matthew 27:50 And Jesus cried again with a loud voice, and yielded up his spirit. Again (= Matthew 27:46) The drink cleared His throat and refreshed Him sufficiently so that, summoning what remained of His dying energy and with a voice still strong with life, He could shout triumphantly the victory cry of the completed mission: It is finished (John 19:30)! Who would NOT shout, if He was sure his entire life work on earth was perfectly completed, the aim and purpose of Scriptures fulfilled, the redemption of man realized and God’s will done?!

Articulate to the very last, He appropriately yielded up his spirit in the unshaken confidence and prayer of a loyal Son in full, familiar fellowship with God, Father, into your hands I commit my spirit (Luke 23:46; cf. Psalms 31:5)! He lay down His life calmly, without reluctance, sure.

That He yielded up his spirit is fact, but what this means our limited experience of death may not permit us to know.

It seems to be a quibble to say that none of the Gospel writers say, He died, but used, rather, the euphemism, He yielded up his spirit (apheken tò pneôma) whereby Jesus-’ death per sè is thought to be His own voluntary act. However, when the identical idiom is used to describe the death of other people, would it mean they too laid down their lives, i.e. died as an act of their will (LXX of Gen 35:18; 1Es. 4:21; cf. Acts 7:59)? Further, the Epistles do not consider He died a misleading expression, but utilize it almost exclusively. Consequently, it is questionable whether the Gospel writers intended that this euphemism bear the theological sense of He caused Himself to die.

The question is complicated by the fact that this expression may be no more than an apt euphemism for He expired or He breathed His last (exépneusen, Mark 15:37 = Luke 23:46). Does this expression mean that death was taking charge of His body, so He committed Himself, i.e. His personality, His mind, will, emotions, conscience and imagination, to God? (Cf. 1 Peter 4:19.)

It would seem, therefore, that this prayer alone, not His death itself, was His own deliberate act. It is His prayer which expresses in what sense He yielded up his spirit when He simply surrendered His life, His real self, back to God the Giver. (Cf. Acts 7:59; Ecclesiastes 12:7.) It cannot mean that, unwilling to wait until natural causes took their course, He willed Himself to die in a self-chosen moment by a death bordering on suicide. Although these supernatural options were potentially available for the unique Son of God, His experience of death would be less like our own, if He saved Himself from a prolonged natural death, unless we could do the same. His laying down His life to take it up again refers not merely or specifically to this instant of death,although, of course, it includes itbut, rather, to that absolute freedom of choice whereby He submitted voluntarily to His entire passion. (Cf. John 10:17 f; John 19:30.) To think that Jesus died of natural causes does not detract from the grandeur or voluntary character of His death, because the Son of God could have foreseen these natural causes and prepared for them in harmony with every phase of His atonement. So, although the moral and juridical results of His death are vastly different from ours, the Scriptures do not describe its cause on any basis other than its physical similarity to ours. (Cf. Hebrews 2:9-17; Hebrews 5:7 ff.)

Jesus died after only a few hours on the cross. Pilate was surprised that He were already dead, since, as implied by the Jews-’ request for the summary execution of those crucified (John 19:31), sometimes several days passed before death overtook the crucified. Therefore, Jesus-’ relatively rapid death may be attributed principally to the terrible scourging from which many men died before getting to the cross. Exhaustion played an important part, because, if Jesus-’ discomfort on the cross was augmented by His inability to breathe except by repositioning His body, His ability to do this was limited to His physical strength already weakened by scourging, hunger and fatigue, ending in suffocation. It is certain that the spear would and did not kill Him, because when that happened, He had already died (John 19:33 f.). Some suggest that heart failure or rupture would explain both His death and the issuing of blood and water. However, medical authorities are not agreed on the exact cause of His death. The fact that He died is authenticated by His executioners, so we need not go further. To investigate the physical cause is a matter of medical interest, not a dogma of faith.

Do the poetic expressions of Psa 22:14; Psalms 69:20 help define the solution? Other expressions from these Psalms are taken literally, why not these? Perhaps only in the sense that what was true of the Psalmist could be infinitely more appropriate of the Christ. The Psalmist spoke more truth than he understood. (Cf. 1 Peter 1:10 ff.; Luke 10:24.) Even so, such exegesis involves a figurative application to the Psalmist, but literal one to Christ. The bare, literal fulfillment is not all that God wants man to see. In this sense it is not shallow sentimentalism to think that Jesus died of a broken heart, because the literal fact points to the higher reality: it hurt Him deeply to bear the guilt and penalties of our sin! Our sinfulness killed Him. Beyond His chosen mortality, is it impossible that the psychological burden He bore literally crushed the life out of Him? Until we understand the psychosomatic equation of our own being, we shall not begin to be able to analyze what happened when Jesus died. Here is where analysis must give way to humble gratitude and worship.

FACT QUESTIONS

At what hour did the unusual darkness occur? How long did it last?

What is the only saying of Jesus quoted by Matthew verbatim?

What did Jesus mean to communicate by this? To whom was it addressed?

What, if anything, does Psalms 22 have to do with the crucifixion? Give details.

How did someone give Jesus a drink?

What did they offer Him to drink? Why offer Him this?

What objection was made to this kindness and why? What is the meaning of Let be?

About what time did Jesus die?

Explain what is meant by He yielded up His spirit.

What sacrifice was killed at the Temple at the ninth hour? What else occurred normally at that same time in the Temple?

Matthew 27:51-53

MIRACLES ACCOMPANYING THE DEATH OF CHRIST

TEXT: 27:51-53

51 And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake; and the rocks were rent; 52 and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming forth out of the tombs after his resurrection they entered into the holy city and appeared unto many.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Why attribute to God what an earthquake may have actually done, i.e. the ripping of that veil? What causes earthquakes anyway? What happened that day anyway?

Assuming that the veil of the temple was miraculously torn from the top to the bottom, what do you suppose was the purpose of God for this gesture?

What kind of impression do you think the rending of this great curtain must have made on the priests, not to mention the one who might have been burning incense before it at the hour of prayer? (Cf. Matthew 27:46 with Acts 3:1; Luke 1:9 f.)

Since the veil of the temple was visible to none but priests who could have witnessed it, would priests be likely to tell the story of the end of that from which they derived their livelihood? If so, excluding inspiration for the moment, how could this great secret still leak out and be recorded by Matthew?

What divine purpose do you discern in the opening of the tombs and the resurrection of the saints after Jesus-’ own resurrection?

Who do you think these saints were?

What became of them after their resurrection? Did they have to die all over again? Where did they go?

PARAPHRASE

At this point the great veil in the sanctuary split in two from top to bottom. There was an earth tremor and boulders cracked. Even tombs were opened. The bodies of many holy people who had died were resurrected to life. They left their tombs after Jesus arose from the dead and went into the Holy City and appeared to many people.

SUMMARY

Miracles accompanied the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus: the great Temple curtain that veiled the Most Holy Place was ripped in two from the top by unseen hands! An earthquake split great rocks. Many saintly people who had died were resurrected and after Jesus-’ resurrection made their appearance in Jerusalem before many witnesses.

NOTES

Matthew 27:51 **And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake; and the rocks were rent. **The heavy veil in question was located in the sanctuary to curtain off the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place (Exodus 26:31 ff; Exodus 36:35; 2 Chronicles 3:14; Hebrews 9:2 f.; see also Wars, V, 54f.). In the tabernacle first, then in the temple, it served to distinguish the area of the common priests from the symbolic dwelling place of God. So long as this great veil remained intact, the atonement of man’s sin was possible only through intercession by sinful high priests and imperfect sacrifices, on the Day of Atonement. Access to the glory of God and the fellowship with Him through prayer were barred by this veil too. (Cf. Hebrews 6:19.) Incense and prayer were offered outside it. (Cf. Acts 3:1; Luke 1:8-21.) Jewish tradition (Mid. 4, 7; I.S.B.E., 2938) declares the veil consisted of two exceedingly heavy draperies about 50 cm. apart. For this to be rent in two from the top to the bottom would be little short of a mighty miracle.

So, when the great veil came ripping in two and fell apart, the Holy of Holies lay exposed. However, since great golden doors stood behind the veil (1 Kings 6:31 f.; Wars, V, 5, 4f.), the priests could not yet gaze with impunity into that dark, bare room. The ark of the covenant had been gone for centuries. Where once the Glory of Israel spoke to His people from between the cherubim, there was now nothing (Wars, V, 5, 5; Mish., Yom. 5, 2). Until that great veil was replaced, the priests could verify that one more symbol of the great separation between man and God broke down seemingly of its own accord. Ever more clearly Ichabod was being engraved upon the Temple; its glory was at last departing never to return. Pagans had gazed upon the emptiness of the Holy of Holies before (Ant. XIV, 4, 4; Wars, I, 7, 6; cf. VI.4, 7 also Ant. XII, 5, 4?). Now, however, the Temple’s obsolescence is being dramatically revealed to men just at the hour that the Nazarene, Jesus of Nazareth, expired. Matthew’s Gospel practically shouts to those who knew the facts best, Priests of God and men of Israel, is there any connection between these events?

The ominous rending of this massive curtain, particularly from the top to the bottom at the moment of Jesus-’ death, would suggest that God Himself opened the way for man to enter boldly into His presence and He did it through the perfectly atoning sacrifice of Christ (Hebrews 6:19 f.; Hebrews 9:8; Hebrews 9:11-12; Hebrews 9:24 ff.; Hebrews 10:19 ff.) Further, this great veil was rent at the afternoon hour of prayer near the ninth hour when the officiating priest was in the process of offering incense at the incense altar located just in front of the veil. (Cf. Acts 3:1; Luke 1:8-21.) The last daily sacrifice of the Old Covenant, whereby Israel consecrated itself daily to the Lord, was being sacrificed that afternoon. Unexpectedly, the old, symbolic ministry of the entire Levitical system, having fulfilled its purpose, came to the end of its usefulness, finding its perfect completion in Jesus. Godet (P.H.C. XXIV, 596) wrote:

As the high priest rent his robe in the presence of a great scandal, so God rent the veil which covers the Holy of Holies, where formerly He had manifested Himself. It implied a desecration of the most holy place, and consequently of the Temple, with its courts and altar and sacrifices. The Temple is profaned, abolished by God Himself. The efficacy of sacrifice has henceforth passed to another blood, another altar, and a new order of priesthood.

This event has tremendous significance for understanding millennial questions. Shall the Jerusalem Temple be rebuilt here on earth and its worship restored? By ripping apart that mighty veil, God proclaimed the end of that typical ministry because of the arrival of a superior ministry that was perfect and final, when Jesus our divine High Priest entered once for all forever into the true Holy of Holies, the presence of God, to intercede with his own blood for us. The veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom. What God has rent asunder, let not man join together!

Even without special revelation Matthew could have learned of rending of the great veil from a great many of the priests who were obedient to the faith (Acts 6:7). Indeed, could their conversation be explained by their insight into the meaning of this very sign?

The rocks were rent not improbably as a result of the earthquake.

In this earthquake some discern a symbol of the shaking that began with the death of Christ, a shaking of all that is impermanent or contrary to the Government of God in the moral world until only that which is eternal shall remain. (Cf. Haggai 2:6 f.; Hebrews 12:26 f.)

Beginning from the starting point of literal earthquakes unquestionably caused by the Lord, it was possible for Jewish poets and prophets to develop poetic imagery based on fearful convulsions in nature whereby the covenant God of Israel revealed His majesty, might and holy wrath against sinners (Exodus 19:19; Psalms 68:8; Psalms 114:4-8; 2 Samuel 22:8; Psalms 18:7; Psalms 77:18; Isaiah 5:25; Isaiah 13:13; Isaiah 24:18 f; Isaiah 29:6; Jeremiah 10:10; Jeremiah 49:21; Joe 2:10 f.; Nahum 1:5 f.; Haggai 2:6; cf. Acts 4:31; Acts 16:26; Revelation 6:12; Revelation 8:5; Revelation 11:13; Revelation 16:18). Thus, for people prepared in this way by their literary heritage, it would be a short mental step from God the cause of the literal to His moral reasons for doing it.

Because Matthew points out that the Romans discerned the connection between the earthquake and the things that were happening (Matthew 27:54: idòntes tòn seismón kai tà ginòmena) and the fact that they reacted positively to what they saw, it would appear that anyone should be able to see a significant connection between these natural phenomena and Jesus-’ death. Although earth’s natural course regularly continues without interruption when other mortals suffer, here, however, it is brusquely interrupted just at the moment of THIS MAN’S death, and becomes one more portent that points to His world-shaking significance.

Matthew 27:52 and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming forth out of the tombs after his resurrection they entered into the holy city and appeared unto many. Since many tombs were carved into the stone face of cliffs, even the opening of the tombs could be produced by the tremor as the rocks were rent. But here its effect stops. Other power is required to give life to the dead.

The fact that the saints are raised, not at the time their tombs are opened, but after his resurrection implies that their own resurrection is a result of His and dependent upon it. Death has been self-defeated by the death of our Lord. Life was not merely guaranteed for others but actually produced by His own resurrection. These resurrected saints become an earnest of what shall occur when Phase II of Jesus-’ earthly victory shall occur at His Second Coming.

A simple reading of the text argues that they arose when He died, hence before He arose.

But, if they rose first, they unquestionably remained in their graves until after his resurrection, since coming forth out of the tombs is connected with entering into the holy city. But even if they arose first, like Lazarus and many others, Christ remains the first-born from the dead, the first-fruits of them that slept (1 Corinthians 15:20; Colossians 1:18). He alone is the first to rise by His own power to die no more and guarantee life for all men by the power of His own immortality. These saints were raised only by virtue of His death and resurrection. In this sense His uniqueness is not affected by the hypothesis of their prior resurrection.

A better view, better supported by the grammar, is to see the words as constituting one complex idea: they arose and, coming out of the graves after His resurrection, entered (egérthesan Kai exelthòntes. metà tèn égersin autoû eisêlthon). The resurrections and appearances in Jerusalem all occurred after Jesus arose.

Lenski (Matthew; 1130) and Hendriksen (Matthew, 976) argue that only their entrance into the holy city occurred after Jesus-’ resurrection, whereas they left their tombs at the moment of Christ’s death. But to connect after his resurrection with their entrance into the holy city ungrammatically divides a participle (exelthòntes) from its main (eisêlthon) and links it with a verb from which it is separated by and (kaì).

The solution to the problem of when they arose is perhaps only literary in character, in that Matthew summarized the effects of Christ’s death in one place and proceeded to report the resurrection and Great Commission together without returning to report the saints-’ resurrection in its chronological order. This is accepted literary style well documented in Scripture, but gives rise to the debate.

They appeared unto many: who are the many? Believers? Enemies? Since Jesus Himself appeared only to preselected believers (Acts 10:40 f.), perhaps these saints were sent to appear to His enemies. Their appearance in the holy city, Jerusalem (Matthew 4:5; cf. Isaiah 48:2; Isaiah 52:1), points to the directness and power of the evidence. Here, the nation of Israel was gathered for the Passover. Thus, critics at the very heart of Judaism could easily examine the facts: The amazing resurrections occurred after the Galilean from Nazareth was crucified! Could there be any connection? Would not this proof that God had visited His people serve to prepare minds for the Gospel of a risen Christ preached just over a month later?

What happened to these resurrected saints after their appearances during the post-resurrection period is not stated. Their spectacular resurrection was incomparably surpassed by the world-shaking tidings that are the heart of the Gospel: Christ Jesus arose! Possibly they eventually joined Jesus for the ascension. (Cf. Ephesians 4:8 a [= Psalms 68:18]: When he ascended on high he led a host of captives.. Were these resurrected saints His captives to embellish His triumphant return to glory?)

God had neither totally abandoned Jesus nor absented Himself from the crucifixion, merely because He did not intervene to save His Son. He too was there. These miraculous events could not occur unless God had cared enough to intervene in this way. These supernatural acts say, Notice, I am here!

FACT QUESTIONS

What unusual events accompanied the death of Jesus?

Locate the veil of the temple, indicating its function there.

At what hour was this great curtain torn?

What other events usually occur at that same period in the Temple?

When, precisely, did the resurrections cited occur?

What unusual events occurred after Jesus-’ resurrection?

Matthew 27:54-56

THE WITNESS

TEXT: 27:54-56

54 Now the centurion, and they that were with him watching Jesus, when they saw the earthquake, and the things that were done, feared exceedingly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God. 55 And many women were there beholding from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: 56 among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

List every fact in the entire crucifixion to which the centurion and his men were witnesses, that could have contributed to convince them of Jesus-’ true identity,

When so many other people were present from whom one would more likely expect such a grand confession of Jesus-’ identity, does it not appear a bit suspicious that it was actually the despised Gentiles who confessed Him? Does it make sense to you that the confessors should be uncultured Roman soldiers, rather than men of thought and culture trained in righteousness by the Mosaic Law?

Why do you think so many women were present?

What fact would explain why Mary, Jesus-’ mother, is not named in Matthew’s list, whereas John affirmed that she was definitely at the cross, and Jesus addressed her directly?

Can you explain why Jesus-’ friends would remain at a distance? Would there have been more than one reason? If so, what were they?

John affirms that the women named stood close to the cross, whereas the Synoptics all describe them as looking on from a distance. Who is right? How would you resolve this obvious divergence?

The mother of Zebedee’s children had asked Jesus that James and John be placed on His left and right in His Kingdom. What do you think went through her mind as she saw the King hanging on a cross between two bandits, one on His left hand and one on His right?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

The centurion was standing facing Jesus. When he and the men, who were guarding Him, felt the earthquake and saw what was taking place, especially how Jesus died, they were deeply shaken. The centurion gave glory to God by exclaiming, Unquestionably, this man was innocent! He really was God’s Son! When all the people, who had gathered to witness this spectacle, saw what took place, they returned home, expressing their deep grief. All those who knew Jesus and the numerous women who, when He was in Galilee, regularly followed Him and looked after His needs, stood off at a distance, watching it all. Among those who had come up with Him to Jerusalem were Mary of Magdala, Mary the mother of James the Little and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons, Salome.

SUMMARY

The officer and men in charge of the execution reacted to the dramatic events that occurred in connection with Jesus-’ death, especially the way Jesus Himself gave up His life, by confessing Jesus-’ innocence and deity. Other spectators expressed their deep grief, while Jesus-’ acquaintances remained at a distance, watching the scene.

NOTES

All the ends of the earth will remember

and turn to the Lord, And all the families of the nations

will bow down before Him, For dominion belongs to the Lord

And he rules over the nations (Psalms 22:27 f.).

Matthew 27:54 Now the centurion, and they that were with him watching Jesus, when they saw the earthquake, and the things that were done, feared exceedingly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God. Although the centurion’s expression is most memorable, apparently several of the Romans were deeply affected by the things that were done. Matthew reports the fine confession as the conviction of several soldiers (pl. légontes, saying). Independently of the degree of information and understanding each man had about the true God, they discern in the fearful events surrounding the death of this man something more than a routine execution. Does raw superstition ordinarily praise God (Luke 23:47)? Or is this the Evangelist’s evaluation, i.e. the Romans unconsciously glorified God by their confession? The csnturion stood facing Him, so was in an excellent position to observe everything (Mark 15:39). There is little opportunity for deception in his case. Most impressive for military men who have witnessed many men die is the lordly composure and self-mastery evident in the way THIS MAN concluded His life (hoùtôs, Mark 15:39). Whereas they themselves had mocked Him before (Luke 23:36 f.), they had time to gain a healthy respect for someone so self-disciplined even in death as not to reply to the vile outpourings of venomous minds, but pray for the offenders instead (1 Peter 2:23 ff.).

Son of God: did the centurion really attest to the divine identity of Christ, or did his words represent a heathen notion: a son of the gods concerning whose undeserved death the gods were angry? A primary consideration for determining the centurion’s meaning must be the language that he had been hearing all morning. Further, was this centurion involved in guarding Jesus during His trial before Pilate? (Cf. John 19:7.) If so, what other impressions of Him had begun to form at that time? Unquestionably alert at the cross, he heard the native leaders hurl this very charge at the Man on the central cross: He said, -I am the Son of God-’ (theoû eimi huiòs; Matthew 27:40; Matthew 27:43, see notes.). This was the claim that sealed His fate. We may grant that the centurion probably did not use their words with the full theological grasp of the Jewish leaders themselves. Nevertheless, if he had been reflecting on this underlying charge, even if it was not actually expressed in the title on His cross, then it would not be at all surprising to hear him conclude that the Jewish leaders were wrong. He was the Son of God after all.

The Romans had also heard Jesus utter two prayers unquestionably addressing God as Father (Luke 23:34; Luke 23:46). Contrary to the Jewish verdict, the Man on the central cross is not merely innocent (kikaios; Luke 23:47), but also truthful about what He claimed to be, superhuman. To stare death in the face and keep up the false pretense is abnormal unless significantly true. Nevertheless, His dying words commended His spirit to the Father whose Son He claimed to be. This too convinced the soldiers Jesus was righteous. Perhaps no single fact produced this conviction, but the combination of events rising to a dramatic climax: His character under fire, His readiness to die for His convictions and the portentous, unearthly circumstances surrounding His death, led them to conclude He was God’s Son. Even in death He powerfully convinced them and they became the first Gentiles to be led to confess the truth about Jesus. Lenski (Luke, 1156) is right: Why reduce these confessions to the lowest possible level? If they amounted to next to nothing, why were the inspired writers allowed to set them down for all time?

This centurion was not known to be a God-fearer from the beginning, like his fellow officers at Capernum (Matthew 8:10) and Caesarea (Acts 10:1 f.). Nevertheless, to maintain that he was a polytheistic pagan is to affirm more than is known, especially since he had heard much that day. Most remarkable is that they make this startling admission, even though Jesus did not utilize the power typical of a Son of God to save Himself from execution.

Love that would not go away

Matthew 27:55 And many women were there beholding from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him. Jesus-’ friends now stood beholding from afar for many reasons; a few perhaps for fear of being implicated with Jesus, others out of sheer decency to Jesus because their grief would increase His burden, others because helpless to prevent this tragedy, others because uncomprehending and yet rooted there by love stronger than fear. Practically everyone would keep his distance so long as the soldiers guarding the crosses maintained a security zone around the crucifixion area. Until the other two criminals died, the soldiers would cordon off Calvary. And so long as Jesus-’ powerful enemies monopolized the perimeter around the cross, His friends would maintain their distance.

The Gospel writers emphasize the presence of devoted Galilean women who had followed. ministering to Him, especially when He was in Galilee (Mark 15:41). These constituted an essential support group, preparing food, washing clothes, etc., so that Jesus and the apostles might labor unhindered. The normalness of this service is more evident when it is remembered that of the women named by the Gospel writers, three are mothers or aunts of a number of the apostles and Jesus. (See on Matthew 27:56.) Such wealthy women as Joanna and Susanna distinguished themselves by contributing heavily to the group’s financial support (Luke 8:1-3). Even though inexcusable, the absence of the men is somewhat understandable, since they could be accused of a violent rescue plot, whereas the women, normally, would not bear arms. But where were the Eleven? Although John was there, the others are conspicuous for their absence. We may charitably imagine them silently beholding from afar, so that John, Mary and a couple of women could venture near the cross unchallenged.

Matthew 27:56 Among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the author of James and Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. His mother had also been present (John 19:25 ff.). Mary Magdalene was the grateful disciple from Magdala in Galilee (Luke 8:2), absolutely not to be identified with the woman of Luk 7:37. Mary the mother of James and Joses was presumably wife of Clopas, brother of Joseph, hence Mary’s sister-in-law. If Salome was the mother of the sons of Zebedee, then she was Mary’s sister (John 19:25). No doubt these dear women all possessed courage and love, but the latter two, probably Jesus-’ aunts, had also a kinswoman’s right to be there. For fuller notes on these women, see Special Study, The Brethren of the Lord, my volume III, 185ff., esp. 188.

These four women stood much closer to the cross earlier (John 19:25). It is entirely possible that they arrived near the cross shortly before Jesus-’ death. (Study John’s sequence: John 19:25-30.) However, that they were closer earlier and have now moved away from the cross to watch the end, may be perceived from two considerations suggested by McGarvey (Evidences of Christianity, 44):

Since John’s account omits the great darkness, Jesus-’ consignment of Mary to His disciple very likely preceded it. Without some clear gesture visible to all, it would not be clear precisely to whom His words Woman, behold your son! and Behold your mother! were addressed. Because His hands were nailed to the cross, the only gesture possible was a nod of the head or a movement of His eyes as He spoke to each one. These would not be visible once the darkness began, hence must be sought for during the first three hours of daylight.

If the women arrived at the cross early, before His enemies began defiantly jeering at Jesus, then as this painful scene degenerated, making it both dangerous and painful for Jesus-’ disciples to remain near, they would naturally desire to withdraw to a safe distance where we find them when Jesus expired.

Further, if the onset of the alarming darkness caused the soldiers to clear the area around the cross for security, the women would have to keep their distance with the others. This is where we find them in the Synoptics. If, when Jesus consigned His mother to him, John immediately guided her away from this terrible place, this would explain why Mary is not named at this later time. John, however, returned to see the end (John 19:35).

FACT QUESTIONS

Who or what is a centurion?

Quote the testimony that the centurion and his men bore to Jesus.

What is meant by the Romans-’ exclamation? List everything they could have witnessed that day which would lead to the astonishing conclusion involved in the exclamation.

Of what force or value is this Roman testimony, especially in a Jewish Gospel like Matthew?

Name the disciples present at the crucifixion.

In what way(s) had the women contributed to Jesus-’ ministry?

Explain the probable kinship of two of these women to Jesus.

Give a reasonable hypothesis why Jesus-’ mother is not named in Matthew’s list of women.

Matthew 27:57-61

Jesus is Buried

TEXT: 27:57-61

57 And when even was come, there came a rich man from Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus-’ disciple: 58 this man went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded it to be given up. 59 And Joseph took the body, and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60 and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb, and departed. 61 And Mary Magdalene was there, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Why did Joseph of Arimathea approach Pilate for permission to request the body for burial? What further interest would Pilate have in this question?

Why did it take particular courage for Joseph to request the body of Jesus? What could it possibly have cost him?

What do you suppose brought Joseph, a secret disciple, out into the open in this bold way?

How many disciples of Joseph’s caliber do you think moved in the circles of Jewish high society?

Why was everybody in such a great hurry to bury Jesus-’ body?

Do you think Joseph’s solution to bury Jesus in his own new tomb was a temporary or a permanent one in Joseph’s mind?

Why did they roll a great stone to the door of the tomb? Why not just shut the door?

Why do you think the women followed Nicodemus and Joseph to the tomb?

Why were there only two women at the tomb? Were they helping in some way or just watching? If the latter, what good would this do? Of what special importance to us is their being there watching?

Do you think you could have buried Jesus? Would you have done it?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

The time was already after mid-afternoon. Since it was Preparation Day, that is, the day before the Sabbath, a man of means named Joseph of Arimathea came forward. An honored member of the Sanhedrin, he was a good, upright man who had dissented from that council’s plot and its execution. He lived in the expectation of personally seeing the beginning of God’s Kingdom. He too was Jesus-’ disciple, however secretly, because he was intimidated by the unbelievers in Israel. He found the courage to go straight to Pilate and request that he might take away Jesus-’ body. Pilate was surprised to hear that He were dead so soon. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus were already dead. When he heard the centurion’s report that He was dead for some time, Pilate ordered that the body be consigned to Joseph. So Joseph purchased a linen sheet and lowered the body from the cross. Nicodemus, the man who had called on Jesus by night, arrived too, bringing a 33 kg. (75 lb.) mixture of myrrh and aloes. They took His body and wrapped it along with the spices in the clean linen sheet, like the Jews usually prepare their dead for burial. Now in the area where Jesus was crucified there was a garden in which Joseph had recently carved his own new tomb right into the rock. It was so new that no one had been buried in it yet. So, because it was the Jewish Friday and the Sabbath was beginning, and since the tomb was conveniently close, they laid Jesus-’ body there. They rolled a heavy stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away. Two women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and Nicodemus. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, the mother of Joses, were there sitting across from the tomb, observing how and where His body was laid there. Then they went home and prepared spices and ointments. Then they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.

SUMMARY

Two secret disciples of Jesus came out into the open: Joseph of Arimathea, a godly Jewish senator, and a rabbi, Nicodemus. Joseph boldly requested Pilate’s permission to bury Jesus and received it. Nicodemus brought the necessary burial spices. Once the body was ready, they laid it in Joseph’s new tomb nearby. The two Marys watched the men work, then went home to prepare other burial spices, then rested on Saturday.

NOTES

… With the rich in his death. (Isaiah 53:9)

What was to happen to Jesus-’ body when His leaderless disciples were caught completely unprepared to deal with the problem? God provided an unexpected solution.

Matthew 27:57 And when even was come, there came a rich man from Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus-’ disciple. Because these events occurred after three o-‘clock on Friday afternoon (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:42), the dawning of the Sabbath at sundown was not far away. So, when even was come (opsias genoménes) would mean the first evening, according to the ancient Hebrew idiom for the middle of the afternoon, as opposed to the second evening at sundown. (See Exodus 12:6 in Hebrew: between the two evenings.) It is highly doubtful (1) that any orthodox Jew would begin to bury at sundown when Jesus-’ death made this possible three hours earlier; or (2) that getting burial permission from Pilate, going to the cross, taking Jesus down, embalming and entombment could all have been accomplished in just a few minutes. It is more likely that Joseph and Nicodemus acted according to the usual custom of burying the dead shortly after death. Consequently, we may see them beginning sometime shortly after three o-‘clock (Cf. Matthew 9:23 f.; Matthew 27:46; Matthew 27:50.)

Even if pagans commonly left victims of crucifixion hanging until they rotted or were eaten by scavengers, Jewish law demanded that they be removed the same day of the execution lest they desecrate the land (Deuteronomy 21:22 f.; cf. Joshua 8:29; Joshua 10:26 f.; Wars IV, 5, 2). Traditional preparation for the Sabbath, too, would render it doubly important that the bodies not remain on the cross, desecrating also the Sabbath. So the Jews asked Pilate to order that death be accelerated for the crucified so they could be removed (John 19:31 ff.).

Although burial preparations begun on Friday could proceed on the Sabbath (Edersheim, Life, II, 786; cf. Shabbath 23.4f. cited by Barrett, John, 465), Jesus-’ friends would be actuated by the same logic as His enemies to terminate them whereinsofar possible before the Sabbath began. (See on Matthew 27:61.) To avoid the indignity of the common grave of criminals for Jesus, they must act rapidly. But who could care appropriately for this? From an unexpected quarter, there came a rich man. named Joseph, also. Jesus-’ disciple (ematheteùthe tô Iesoû, discipled to Jesus. Cf. Matthew 13:52; Matthew 28:19; Acts 14:21). He hurried to Pilate, arriving shortly after the Jews obtained the governor’s permission to kill the condemned men. (See on Matthew 27:58.)

Arimathaea, if identified with Ramathaim, birthplace of Samuel (1 Samuel 1:1), lay about 14.5 km. (9 mi.) northwest of Jerusalem. There is another Ramathaim about 73.5 km. (45 mi.) northwest of Jerusalem. Others place Arimathaea on the Jewish side of the border between Judea and Samaria about 35 km. (24 mi.) northwest of Jerusalem. (Cf. Luke 23:50.) Although he was from Arimathea, he had since moved to the Jerusalem area, perhaps more easily to serve the Jewish Senate. The permanence of this move is suggested by his having built his tomb there. Thus, his name, Joseph of Arimathea, only serves to distinguish him from many other men of the same name in Jerusalem.

Joseph’s position as honored member of the Sanhedrin makes his intervention here remarkable, because he had dissented from that body’s majority decision to crucify Jesus. However, his charitable character makes his deed predictably plausible. (Cf. Mark 15:43; Luke 23:50 f.) Matthew omits every other distinctive except the fact that he was a rich man, perhaps to permit the sensitive reader to focus on this fulfillment of prophecy (Isaiah 53:9). Most of Jesus-’ disciples were poor, obscure people and such lavish entombment would have been inaccessible for them. Unknown to them, God had reserved a man who had both loving devotion and wealth equal to the task of burying Jesus with dignity.

Matthew 27:58 This man went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded it to be given up. Crises produce different reactions in people: those who had no hesitancy about admitting their discipleship to Jesus do not even come forward to claim His body, while it is the secret disciples who boldly step in to do this.

Considerable courage was required for this godly Sanhedrinist to approach Pilate, requesting for himself the corpse of someone who was not kin to him and whom his own colleagues condemned and Pilate executed as a criminal. He risked having to explain his connections with the Crucified. Although Joseph’s loyalty had been hidden, it was genuine. Jesus-’ death shocked him into action and gave him the boldness he had not possessed until now (John 19:38; Mark 15:43).

Whereas Jesus-’ disciples had neither wealth nor connections, Joseph’s loving respect moved him to throw his prestige into the balance by exerting his influence as a member of the Sanhedrin to obtain the body and his wealth to secure an honorable burial. It was at the time of His severest humiliation that these aristocrats first confess Him. In this they join the believing centurion and the penitent robber. Despite His being lifted up, Jesus has already begun to draw men unto Himself (John 12:32; cf. John 8:28).

Joseph apparently arrived at the Praetorium so shortly after the Jewish delegation had obtained the order for the bone-smashing, that Pilate was surprised that Jesus were already dead (Mark 15:44). Some consider Pilate’s surprise incomprehensible, since he himself had just ordered that the condemned men’s death be accelerated. Therefore, because he could assume that the soldiers-’ obedience to this order would assure the death of Jesus along with the others, his wonder, expressed after his own order, is thought impossible. However, because Pilate’s order assumed that all three men were yet alive and must be quickly dispatched, he does not expect anyone to arrive so soon requesting one of the corpses. Perhaps even the Jews who approached Pilate did not know Jesus was dead, hence could not inform him of this. (Alternatively: they knew it but would not inform him, so he would order Jesus-’ legs broken too.) However, the governor had not yet received a final report on the execution of his order. Therefore, because he must not consign Jesus-’ body to one of His friends until it be quite certain that He was no longer alive, the prefect rightly demanded the positive certification from the centurion in charge. Only upon receiving the centurion’s certification of Jesus-’ death, did Pilate grant Joseph the right to remove the body (Mark 15:44 f.). That men survive for several days on the cross has nothing to do with the governor’s surprise, because he had ordered the end of their survival!

That Jesus-’ body had not yet been removed from the cross need not seem strange. Joseph may have gone directly to the centurion at the cross and informed him of his intention to approach Pilate. The centurion, knowing that Jesus was dead and His side pierced, may have ordered his men to leave the body for Joseph to remove. Their duty ended with making certain the men executed were actually dead. To crush the legs of a man already demonstrably dead would be an unnecessary barbarity. Certainty of His death was assured by the fatal stab of the lance (John 19:31-37).

That these two secret disciples were so prepared for the burial of Jesus should not surprise, because anyone could foresee the political disaster to which Jesus-’ collision course with the priesthood and the Pharisees must lead, making them pessimistic, hence, more ready for the crisis of His death than others. Further, Jesus-’ crucifixion that morning made His death that evening a foregone conclusion because of the Jewish tradition of not leaving bodies hanging overnight. So, both Joseph and Nicodemus found their course charted for them, and began buying the necessary linen and spices that day. Charitable burial of the dead was all the contingency plan they needed to move decisively when the emergency arose. (Cf. Tobit 2:16ff.; Tobit 2:21:ff.) That Joseph went straight to Pilate even into the Praetorium, thus defiling himself by traditional definitions is unimportant, because by touching a dead body, he would defile himself anyway.

Matthew 27:59 And Joseph took the body, and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth. We need not suppose that Joseph worked alone. Not excluding servants, he could work with the women, perhaps John and any soldiers yet stationed at the cross. Perhaps Nicodemus-’ large quantity of spices were delivered by others who could help too. Taking the body down from the cross, it was perhaps first washed then taken to the tomb for final preparations, the linen and the spices.

Joseph had just bought this clean linen cloth (Mark 15:46). That he could do so during that Passover is established. (See notes on Matthew 26:17.) This linen was clean, i.e., not defiled by previous contact with something defiling, as another dead body. Nicodemus too came forward with a large quantity of spices: myrrh and aloes for the embalming (John 19:39-42; 100 lìtras = 100 ROMAN pounds = 33 kg = 75 lb.; cf. Psalms 45:8; 2 Chronicles 16:14). This profuse evidence of his final devoted service is not unusual in its richness. (Cf. Mary’s generosity, John 12:3; Ant. XVII, 8, 3: The burial of Herod I, required 500 servants to bear the spices!) The linen cloth (sindòn) was apparently long enough not only to envelope the full body front and back, but also to be cut into strips (cf. pl. onthònia: John 19:40; John 20:5-7; cf. John 11:44 keirìaì). Then, spices in powder-form were sprinkled liberally into the various wrappings of the linen cloth as it was being wound around Jesus-’ body before being bound (Mark 15:46; John 19:40; cf. John 11:44). Then His head was covered by a large special cloth (John 20:7). Such embalming is totally inconsistent with belief in an immediate resurrection. For these disciples Jesus-’ death ended His ministry on earth and they express their last devotion in this way.

That these two men coordinated their efforts is suggested by their individual purchases: Nicodemus brought the spices without the linen and Joseph the linen without the spices. Neither item would be considered appropriate or complete without the other. Perhaps their kindred spirits had drawn them together much earlier, but only the death of Christ brought their secret discipleship out into the open.

The new focal point of history

Matthew 27:60 and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb, and departed. Joseph’s own new tomb was located in a garden in the general vicinity of the crucifixion (John 19:41; cf. notes on Matthew 27:33). Even though Joseph had lived at Arimathea, he owned this garden near Jerusalem and, not impossibly, planned to be buried there. Its very nearness to the place of crucifixion may have prompted his offer, because time was not materially available for a distant burial. Its nearness to Jerusalem providentially facilitated the investigation of Jesus-’ resurrection. His new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock seems to have been a man-made cave carved horizontally into the stone face of a hill, rather than vertically down into the soil. (Cf. Isaiah 22:16; Luke 8:27; Matthew 8:28.) Although it was large enough for at least two people to enter (Mark 16:5; Luke 24:3; John 20:5 ff., John 20:12), its doorway appears to have been low, requiring anyone to stoop to look inside (John 19:5; John 19:11). That Luke and John describe the tomb as where no one had ever yet been laid, denotes the honor Joseph showed the Lord by not hesitating to place His body in a completely new tomb intended for his own use. (Cf. Luke 23:53; John 19:41.) Joseph could not have foreseen that his new tomb would have been utilized so quickly or for something so significant. Nor could he imagine that what he so unselfishly surrendered to the Lord’s use would be so amazingly and so soon restored to him for his own use! Is anything sacrificed for the Lord’s service ever really lost? (Cf. Matthew 19:29; Matthew 13:44; Hebrews 10:34.)

Nicodemus-’ 100 Roman pounds of embalming spices would not exclude the addition of more spices on the part of the women. Concerning these large quantities, McGarvey (Evidences of Christianity, 42) rightly noticed that the Jewish custom of burying was not like the Egyptian embalming. (Cf. John 19:40.) This latter view of burial aimed at conserving the body by arresting decomposition, whereas the Jews apparently utilized spices only to mask the odor of decomposition without arresting it. Naturally, the greater the quantity of spices utilized, the more adequately this would function. This would account for the 33 kg. (75 lb.) of spices brought by Nicodemus as well as the preparation or purchase of additional spices by the women, one on Friday evening and the other on Saturday just after sunset when Sunday began (Luke 23:56; Mark 16:1).

Why was Jesus not buried in one of the two places set aside by the Sanhedrin for executed criminals? (See Flusser, Jesus, 161, who cites Mishna. Sanh. 6, 5.) Is the choice of burial site evidence that the glorious Sanhedrin of Israel was not responsible for the condemnation of Jesus or that He did not get a true trial before the highest council of Israel? If so, then Jesus was condemned by a kangaroo court, not by the true fathers of modern Judaism who must be defended at the expense of the Gospels. But that this thesis is unfounded is proven by the consideration that the decisively daring move made by Joseph of Arimathea pre-empted conciliar action to bury Jesus elsewhere. Further, the prestigious position of Joseph as a respected member of the council, was his highest credential to convince Pilate to release the body to him (Mark 15:43). That Joseph acted without the knowledge and consent of the council may be assumed without proof, because, if the contrary were true, the Mishnaic citation of Flusser only proves, if anything, that the burial rule was of more flexible application in Jesus-’ time than Flusser’s defense of the Sanhedrin would allow.

Matthew 27:61 And Mary Magdalene was there, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre. Mark identifies the other Mary as Joses-’ mother. (See on Matthew 27:56.) These loyal-hearted women from Galilee desired to see both the tomb and how Jesus-’ body was laid in it, so followed Nicodemus and Joseph (Luke 23:55). Because He was not to have an entombment in the regular cemetery at Jerusalem and since they had not yet seen Joseph’s tomb, they needed to know where He was laid (Mark 15:47). This information would be needed when they returned to complete the embalming after the Sabbath. Perhaps they originally intended to care for the body themselves, but found that others had come forward with care more adequate than they themselves could have given. They undoubtedly drew much comfort from knowing that their Lord was appropriately buried with respect by two of the nation’s leaders. Thus, while Joseph and Nicodemus proceed, the women sit over against the sepulchre, watching to see how His body was laid. However, they did not remain at the tomb for long, because before sunset they left the tomb to prepare more spices and ointments to complete the embalming as soon as the Sabbath ended (Luke 23:56). That they could purchase whatever was needed that festal Friday is already illustrated at Matthew 26:17. However, despite the urgency of embalming a body before decay would render their work impossible, they respected God’s will and did no work on Saturday. The women’s observing the tomb and the position of the body became a precious part of the evidence for Christ’s resurrection, since they knew precisely which tomb had contained the body of Jesus. On resurrection morning they did not return to the wrong tomb and mislead others into thinking He has arisen.

Without detracting one bit of the glory of these faithful women who followed the body to the tomb, where were all the men? Surely after Jesus-’ death, they might hope that the pressure were over. No one came forward, because fear of the Jews haunted them until after the resurrection. (Cf. John 20:19.) Even if Joseph and Nicodemus were present and personally committed, the women acted themselves with greater courage than most of the men.

Instead of frantic wailing of mourning, Jesus-’ burial was quiet, serene, and majestic. Two statesmen, who until shortly before were afraid to admit their sympathy with Jesus-’ movement, now openly, tenderly and magnificently cared for His body. This loving care was completely different from what His enemies could have anticipated. Perhaps they imagined that His body would have been abandoned or tossed into the grave of common criminals. Instead, what had taken place was but the prelude of His glorification.

FACT QUESTIONS

What time of day did the burial occur?

On what day was Jesus buried?

What prophecy (or prophecies) were fulfilled in Jesus-’ burial? Give the reference and a brief quotation to identify the text.

Describe Joseph of Arimathea, telling what you know of his character, economic strength and position in the Jewish society.

What was Joseph’s interest in Jesus?

Describe the embalming and burial procedure followed by Joseph.

List the people who probably helped Joseph with the burial procedure.

Describe the tomb of Jesus, its location, its style, its closure, etc.

What were the women doing at Jesus-’ tomb?

Matthew 27:62-66

SECTION 75 JESUS-’ TOMB IS GUARDED

TEXT: 27:62-66

62 Now on the morrow, which is the day after the Preparation, the chief priests and, the Pharisees were gathered together unto Pilate, 63 saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said while he was yet alive, After three days I rise again. 64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest haply his disciples come and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: and the last error will be worse than the first. 65 Pilate said unto them, Ye have a guard; go, make it as sure as ye can. 66 So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, the guard being with them.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Why do you suppose the Jews waited till Saturday to think about guarding Jesus-’ tomb against the disciples? Did not they risk quite a bit already? At about what time do you think they approached Pilate requesting a guard?

Why did they request the guard just until the third day?

How did they seal the tomb? How would this help protect the tomb from unauthorized manipulation?

Why would the Jews have no scruple about setting the guard on duty during the Sabbath?

Why do you suppose Pilate was so willing to concede them a guard at the tomb? What personal interest did he have in guarding the tomb against tampering?

How do these accurate precautions contribute directly to your faith?

PARAPHRASE

Next day, that is, the day after Friday, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered in a group before Pilate to say, Sir, we recall that this imposter, while he was still alive, said, -After three days I shall rise again.-’ Order, therefore, that the tomb be closely guarded until the third day, so that his disciples cannot go and steal the corpse, and tell the people, -He has risen from the dead.-’ The last piece of deception will be worse than the first. You have a guard of soldiers, Pilate answered, Go, guard it as well as you know how. So they went to make the tomb secure by setting a seal on the stone and by mounting a guard.

SUMMARY

Jewish leaders, unwilling to risk a counter-move on the part of Jesus-’ disciples by spiriting away the body and claiming a faked resurrection, requested official permission to guard His tomb. Pilate sanctioned this move.

NOTES HISTORY’S MOST FUTILE PRECAUTIONS

Matthew 27:62 **Now on the morrow, which is the day after the Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees were gathered together unto Pilate. **That the Preparation is not a readying for the Passover but the normal weekly preparation for the Sabbath is authentically evidenced by Josephus (Ant. XVI, 6, 2) and by the practice of the Galilean women (Luke 23:56; Mark 16:1; cf. John 19:31; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54). Modern Greek continues the use of Preparation as the normal word for Friday. (See fuller notes on Matthew 26:17.) Hence, the morrow, which is the day after the Preparation is the Sabbath. It is not clear whether the Jews presented their request to the procurator after sundown on Friday (= Saturday) or after sunrise on Saturday. Since Jesus had expired around three p.m. and was buried shortly before sunset, the guard could move in almost immediately as soon as the prefect gave the word. The Jewish authorities undoubtedly acted as decisively as cunning foresight permitted them to perceive the direction a potential counter-attack of the Nazarene’s disciples might take.

The chief priests and the Pharisees were gathered together unto Pilate, perhaps not as a body, but privately lest their going to Pilate appear to be a violation of the Sabbath. Further, that these religious authorities went to Pilate on the Sabbath involves no incongruity for men who already violated every principle of their own jurisprudence to put Jesus on the cross. They could have little scruple about the Sabbath violation involved in standing guard on the Sabbath, since Gentile rather than Jewish soldiers would be employed for this.

However, when Matthew could have written more simply, his involved wording, morrow, which is the day after the Preparation, seems as if he were studiously avoiding the expression morrow, which is the Sabbath. (Cf. Mark 15:42.) Nevertheless, he could identify the day when the guard was set in two ways: (1) call it the Sabbath or (2) call it the day after Jesus died, i.e. the day after Friday. If his primary interest is to establish that the guard was set reasonably soon after the burial, then by choosing the latter expression he assures the reader that the guard was placed soon enough to avoid the theft of the body feared by Jesus-’ enemies and, thus, to guarantee the reality of the resurrection. Thus, Matthew’s complicated expression actually certifies that the authorities would not leave the tomb unguarded for even one night during which a resurrection hoax could be executed. Thus, morrow is intended in the Jewish sense, i.e., after sunset on Friday evening (= Saturday).

Matthew 27:63 saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said while he was yet alive, After three days I rise again.

At first glance it is astonishing that the Lord’s enemies recalled a prediction of Jesus that should have emboldened His disciples, and did everything feasible to hinder it, while the disciples themselves neither remembered it nor did anything to enhance it! (Cf. John 20:9; Luke 24:25 ff.; cf. Acts 17:3.) But God makes even men’s unbelief to praise Him: Jesus-’ followers, because they did not yet believe He would rise, remained completely out of the situation and did not compromise the evidence. They thus facilitated the enemies-’ efforts at tightening security around Jesus-’ tomb to avoid a faked resurrection. These very precautions become our most convincing proof that the resurrection really occurred and that the hypothesis of a hoax is itself false.

How could the skeptical leadership of Israel remember what the most devoted disciples did not? Many, especially Phraisees, knew that Jesus predicted it (Matthew 12:38; Matthew 12:40; cf. Matthew 27:46). Jesus had predicted it in cryptic language of signs (John 2:18 ff.; Matthew 12:38 ff; Matthew 16:4) and in frank expressions (Matthew 16:21; Matthew 17:9; Matthew 17:22 f.; Matthew 20:17 ff.). His disciples puzzled over its meaning among themselves (Mark 9:9 f.). Precisely because puzzling, the meaning of these prophecies might be debated beyond the circle of the inner group of disciples, and consequently leak out to a wider group, especially to the ever vigilant Pharisees. Again, all of Jesus-’ great well-known claims to come from God and return to Him supported the resurrection concept (John 7:33; John 7:36; John 8:21-30; John 10:17-21). Finally, because He had resurrected Lazarus right under His opponents-’ nose, His predictions of His own resurrection took on startlingly new power and meaning. Study the Sanhedrin’s panic in this light (John 11:45 ff., John 11:57). There was no question that He had said it.

Rather, the difference in remembering is psychologically explicable on the basis of each group’s reaction to it; the disciples wanted to believe Jesus would never need a resurrection, the enemies wanted to believe He could never accomplish it once they got Him dead. The disciples were stunned by their grief and blinded by their distorted vision of an immortal political Christ, but His enemies dreaded Jesus-’ influence even while dead.

Precautions against imposture

Matthew 27:64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest haply his disciples come and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: and the last error will be worse than the first. The Jews-’ suggestion, Command, argues that they had no intention of employing the Levitical Temple police to guard an unclean tomb area during the feast. Jewish guards may have had no authority beyond the Temple itself, hence, Roman soldiers were required.

Concerning the phrase, Until the third day, McGarvey (Jesus and Jonah, 68) wrote:

Why say till the third day, if he was to rise after three days? We would have said, till the fourth day; for if he was to rise after three days it would not be earlier than the fourth day, though it might be later. Evidently they understood the time included in the expression after three days as terminating on the third day. And as Jesus had been buried near the close of a day, and they expected him to rise, if at all, on the third day, they must have counted the small fraction of a day that remained after his burial as one of the three days. Their expression, till the third day, also shows that they expected him to rise before the third day would end, and that they therefore count a part of that day as a day.

They obviously meant to bracket the period He predicted for His entombment, so if the guard were set on Saturday (= even Friday night), the guard would remain until Monday, i.e. all day Saturday, Sunday and Monday. This, because the Jews were unaware of the disciples-’ objective confusion and must utilize the broadest interpretation of the day count supposedly being used by anyone planning a hoax. Their alarm would be in force until Sunday evening (= Monday’s beginning).

Lest haply his disciples come and steal him away. These guilty men who had stooped to betrayal to ensnare Jesus and deception to sentence Him to death, now fear that His men would also make use of some trick to recover the advantage. Little did they realize that these very followers, even after personally seeing Jesus risen from the dead, could hardly grasp what to do with this earth-shaking fact until Pentecost, much less make use of it to embarrass the Jews before then. They were emotionally incapable of simulating a resurrection!

The last error (plàne, deception) proclaimed by the Galileans, that He had risen, will be worse than the first proclaimed by that deceiver (ekeînos ho plànos, Matthew 27:63), that He was the political Messiah, the king of the Jews. They imply that they fear Jesus-’ disciples-’ potential political power, if they could ever be persuaded that He were risen, whether true or not.

Matthew 27:65 Pilate said unto them, Ye have a guard: go, make it as sure as ye can. This could be weary indifference, even though the prefect was as much concerned about quelling tendentious rumors as the Jews were. Ye have a guard (échete koustodian) is a positive reaction that grants the request: You have what you requested from me. He does not refer to their own detachment of Temple police. They had come to him requesting something they did not already possess or could have used without his permission. When the Roman soldiers report back to the chief priests after the resurrection (Matthew 28:11), this only confirms their being at the disposal of the Jews, as Pilate affirms here.

Make it as sure as ye can are words more precious to the Christian than any other order the Roman governor ever gave. They secure the authenticity of the resurrection by guarding against the imposture of stealing the body.

Matthew 27:66 So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, the guard being with them. This latter phrase suggests that the Jewish authorities were not content to entrust this critical detail to the Roman military, but actually supervised it personally. And would not their suspicions demand that someone be sent into the tomb to assure them that the body were really there before sealing the door? Then, after stretching a cord across the face of the great stone door from one side of the tomb door to the other, embedding each end of the cord in sealing wax, they pressed an official seal into the hot wax to give the seals authority. The purpose of the seals is not to hold the door shut, but to threaten anyone from opening it without due authorization from him whose seals they were (cf. Daniel 6:17). So long as the seals remained intact, it would prove that no one had bribed the soldiers to open the door. Backing up the seals was the Roman guard (Koustodia, Latin: custodia).

It should cause no surprise that the historical reliability of this section has been attacked by critics. Certainly, it has tremendous apologetic value, in that it proves that Jesus was really buried and that His body could not have been stolen, because the tomb was guarded against precisely this eventuality. But does this prove that Matthew invented his facts? For a Gospel in circulation among Hebrews who could ascertain the truth through private investigation and interviewing the enemies of Jesus, it would be worse than simply fraudulent, were these fictitious facts. The fundamental basis of Christianity, the certainty of Christ’s resurrection, would be undermined by doubts at its source, the tomb of Joseph.

God would have the last laugh however, because that guard and that seal meant that these non-disciples would be forced to be the very first to bring the astounding news to Jesus-’ enemies that all their precautions had been futile (Psalms 2:4; Psalms 76:10). The disciples had indeed not tampered with the tomb or the body. He arose!

FACT QUESTIONS

What day follows the day of Preparation?

On what day was the guard placed on watch?

Who set the guard at the tomb?

Why was the guard placed there?

Why was Pilate requested to cooperate?

For how long was the guard to watch the tomb?

Why and how did they seal the tomb?

Explain Pilate’s expression: You have a watch.

Show how the Jews-’ diligence to avoid all deception served to establish incontrovertibly the reality of Jesus-’ resurrection.

Old Green Commentaries

The College Press Bible Study Textbook Series — 59 volumes by 25 authors, published between 1961 and 1992 and affectionately known as the 'old green' commentaries for their green hardback bindings. Each volume is a commentary, workbook and teaching manual in one, written by Restoration Movement …

View all chapters →

Old Testament

GEN EXO LEV NUM DEU JOS JDG RUT 1SA 2SA 1KI 2KI 1CH 2CH EZR NEH EST JOB PSA PRO ECC SOS ISA JER LAM EZK DAN HOS JOL AMO OBA JON MIC NAH HAB ZEP HAG ZEC MAL

New Testament

MAT MRK LUK JHN ACT ROM 1CO 2CO GAL EPH PHP COL 1TH 2TH 1TI 2TI TIT PHM HEB JAS 1PE 2PE 1JN 2JN 3JN JUD REV

‹ Chapter 26 Matthew — All Chapters Chapter 28 ›