Matthew 27: 1 – 26
Unwise remark
1 When morning came, all the chief priests and elders of the people plotted against Jesus to put Him to death. 2 And when they had bound Him, they led Him away and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate the governor. 3 Then Judas, His betrayer, seeing that He had been condemned, was remorseful and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4 saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” And they said, “What is that to us? You see to it!” 5 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed and went and hanged himself. 6 But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, because they are the price of blood.” 7 And they consulted together and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in. 8 Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced, 10 and gave them for the potter’s field, as the LORD directed me.” 11 Now Jesus stood before the governor. And the governor asked Him, saying, “Are You the King of the Jews?” Jesus said to him, “It is as you say.” 12 And while He was being accused by the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing. 13 Then Pilate said to Him, “Do You not hear how many things they testify against You?” 14 But He answered him not one word, so that the governor marveled greatly. 15 Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to releasing to the multitude one prisoner whom they wished. 16 And at that time they had a notorious prisoner called Barabbas. 17 Therefore, when they had gathered together, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release to you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?” 18 For he knew that they had handed Him over because of envy. 19 While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, “Have nothing to do with that just Man, for I have suffered many things today in a dream because of Him.” 20 But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. 21 The governor answered and said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” They said, “Barabbas!” 22 Pilate said to them, “What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” They all said to him, “Let Him be crucified!” 23 Then the governor said, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they cried out all the more, saying, “Let Him be crucified!” 24 When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it.” 25 And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.” 26 Then he released Barabbas to them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.
Have you ever said something that you wish you could recall it? You probably haven’t but I confess that I have and yes on more than one occasion. Here are a couple of unique remarks that were not wise.
"The other car collided with mine without giving warning of its intention."
"No one was to blame for the accident, but it never would have happened if the other driver had been alert."
"I had been shopping for plants all day and was on my way home. As I reached an intersection, a hedge sprung up, obscuring my vision."
Accused, Defending His Own Case: "Did you get a good look at my face when I took your purse?"
Lawyer: "What is your date of birth?"
Witness: "July 15th."
Lawyer: "What year?"
Witness: "Every year."
Lawyer: "This myasthenia gravis -- does it affect your memory at all?"
Witness: "Yes."
Lawyer: "And in what ways does it affect your memory?"
Witness: "I forget."
Lawyer: "You forget. Can you give us an example of something that you've forgotten?"
Lawyer: "How old is your son, the one living with you?"
Witness: "Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which."
Lawyer: "How long has he lived with you?"
Witness: "Forty-five years."
Lawyer: "Did you blow your horn or anything?"
Witness: "After the accident?"
Lawyer: "Before the accident."
Witness: "Sure, I played for ten years. I even went to school for it."
These unwise statements were meant to be serious but as you can see some bring a chuckle. However, in today’s scripture a crowd of Jewish people made a statement that has come back and hurt them for thousands of years. See if you can pick out what that statement is as we go through today’s verses.
Matthew lays great stress on the part played by the Chief Priests and Elders in bringing about a verdict against Jesus, and emphasizes their evil motive, their blood guilt and the blood guilt of the people of Jerusalem, in contrast with the total innocence of Jesus, using the account of Judas’ blood guilt and remorse, and Pilate’s washing of his hands to remove blood guilt, in order to bring both messages home. The result is that Jesus is delivered up to be crucified in spite of the acknowledgement by Pilate and his wife of His innocence. The emphases of the passage are on the behavior and blood guilt of the Chief Priests and Elders in obtaining their political ends, something constantly emphasized throughout, and the continuing fact of the declaration of Jesus’ innocence.
The chapter starts out with the Chief Priests and Elders seeking how they can have Jesus sentenced to death, followed by Judas coming to them and returning the blood money. They then try to repudiate their guilt, and finally act in such a way that they actually ‘fill to the full’ a prophecy which points to God’s coming vengeance on them for what they have done.
1 When morning came, all the chief priests and elders of the people plotted against Jesus to put Him to death.
‘Now when morning was come.’ Compare ‘when evening was come’ in 26.20. The evening had brought the depiction of His death in the Lord’s Supper, followed by His anguish and arrest, the morning will now bring His sentence and execution.
This was the official meeting of the Sanhedrin meeting by daylight which followed the unofficial hearing during the night. Now the remainder of the counsel had to be convinced of Jesus’ guilt. But it would not be too difficult to convince most of them, given what Jesus had said. It must be very possible that some members were not present (for example Joseph of Arimathea), probably because they had been ‘accidentally’ overlooked, or ‘could not be found’. Alternatively, the vote which would presumably have taken place may not have been unanimous, but it is questionable if that would have accorded with their wishes.
2 And when they had bound Him, they led Him away and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate the governor.
Jesus is again put in bonds. This may well have been to impress Pilate with how dangerous He was. A bound man, who had also been roughed up, looked so much more sinister. And then He was led away and delivered up to Pilate the governor for.
Matthew then introduces an incident concerning Judas, which will bring out the guilt of the Chief Priests and Elders, and what the consequence of their decision is going to be, and will highlight the innocence of Jesus (‘I have betrayed innocent blood’). As we have seen above Judas’ guilt will then be compared with Pilate’s relative innocence. But in both cases the emphasis is being placed on the major guilt of the Chief Priests and Elders and their cronies. They were unquestionably the instigators of the whole.
This must not be taking anything away from Judas’ own guilt and its consequences, and from the fact that this is the first stage in emphasising Jesus’ innocence. But Matthew wants us to know that the Chief Priests and Elders bear the main guilt following it with the indication that Jesus was totally innocent.
‘Pilate the Governor.’ When Herod the Great died he was succeeded by his son Archelaus as ruler over Judaea, Samaria and Idumaea. But in 6 AD Archelaus was replaced because he was considered to have been a poor ruler, a causer of dissension among the people, and he was followed by a series of Roman Governors. These followed in quick succession until Pilate was appointed in 26 AD. He would be of equestrian rank and in fact lasted for ten years. Ruling over a volatile province like Judaea and Samaria that demonstrated a reasonable level of rough efficiency. While sometimes it gave rise in his actions, (he never quite really understood the Jewish mentality), and sometimes brutal (like most Roman Governors over volatile provinces) he also knew how to back down when it was necessary for the peace of the province. Furthermore, he had probably also recently been called to task by Caesar. What happened here therefore fitted in with the pattern. He was after all not too particularly bothered about Jewish squabbles concerning a man claiming to be a prophet, and he soon recognized that Jesus was certainly not a revolutionary. But given his roughness he was concerned about providing justice, only, however, until expediency became necessary. He knew something of the Jews and he had learned when to back down, and he did not consider the matter of much importance. Six months and it would be forgotten. So when he found that they were adamant and that the decision appeared to be popular he backed down.
3 Then Judas, His betrayer, seeing that He had been condemned, was remorseful and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
All that Matthew feels about Judas comes out here. ‘Judas who betrayed Him.’ It says all that needs to be said. Then he describes Judas’ actions following the betrayal. When he saw that Jesus was condemned he had a complete change of heart and filled with regret and remorse he brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the Chief Priests and Elders. He wanted to transfer some of his guilt on to them, and possibly also in his naivete hoped to cancel the agreement. For when someone wanted to cancel a contract under which he had received payment and had no specific person to whom to repay it, the custom was to repay it to the Temple, thus cancelling the contract. Thus, by this act Judas was repudiating the contract, although it was, of course, too late. What he had offered had already been made use of.
4 saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” And they said, “What is that to us? You see to it!”
Meeting with the Chief Priest’s representatives he declared to them that he had sinned in betraying innocent blood. Compare Deuteronomy 27.25 where a curse is pronounced on the one who betrays innocent blood. Judas no doubt belatedly recognized that he had come under that curse. We can, however, also compare 1 Samuel 19.5 where to kill David is to sin against innocent blood, how much more then to kill the Son of David. Furthermore, innocent blood was also connected in Jeremiah 19.4 with the casting of the potter’s clay vessel into the Valley of Hinnom, which connects with the prophecy in verse 10, and which to some extent parallels Judas’ action in verse 5. Thus, we are reminded by the phrase ‘innocent blood’, that Judas has put himself under a curse, has betrayed the son of David, and has brought judgment on Jerusalem.
Perhaps Judas hoped that even now he could change their attitude towards Jesus by declaring His innocence. He quite probably actually believed that they were men of principle and conscience, who could be convinced of their error. He soon discovered his mistake. Their reply indicated his error. They could not have cared less. ‘That’s your affair’, was their callous reply. ‘What’s it got to do with us? You see to it.’ In fact, it should, of course, have had a great deal to do with them, for here was a soul in torment for whom they were supposed to show concern. But they wanted to wash their hands of the whole affair. They had got what they wanted. Judas no longer mattered.
But for Matthew there is also a deliberate contrast here with Pilate’s declaration of his own innocence. Compare “I have sinned in that I betrayed innocent blood” with “I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man” (27.24). ‘Righteous man’ indicated that Pilate agreed with Judas about Jesus’ innocence. In contrast with Judas, however, he does not feel blood guilty, but he undoubtedly was. For a man given judicial responsibility cannot wash his hands in innocence when he fails to fulfil it. Note that both end with ‘see you to it’ (one singular ‘you’, one plural ‘you’). The Chief Priests and Elders were trying to deny responsibility, as, in a similar way, was Pilate. But both failed to achieve their purpose. Interestingly only Judas appears as honest in this sequence, even if his honesty is an admission of guilt.
5 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed and went and hanged himself.
Having failed to persuade the Chief Priests to accept the money back, which would have been tantamount to thereby admitting that they shared his guilt, Judas took the next best step and brought the money to the Sanctuary. It was a recognized method of repudiating a transaction that when the price could not be handed back to the original party to a contract within the deadline contained in the contract, it could instead be paid over to the Temple, who would hold it on the missing recipient’s behalf. Perhaps Judas had this in mind. If they would not receive the money, then he would make them take it. He did not want it staining his hands. So he approached the Sanctuary and hurled the thirty pieces of silver down, possibly through the very doorway of the Sanctuary. It was not quite in accordance with official procedure, but it was the only way that he could at least partly purge his screaming conscience. And then he abruptly left and went and hanged himself.
There is a vivid description of the result of this hanging in Acts 1.18, which suggests that he hung himself by putting the rope round his neck and jumping over a precipice or from a tree, with the awful result that the rope broke and his body crashed to the ground and ‘burst open’. Alternately as his body hung there the hot sun might have brought about a quick decomposition of the body (no one would want to touch a dead body during the Feast until it was necessary, whatever the other requirements) so that it may have rotted, and thus eventually have fallen with awful results. It was the kind of thing that would be a sign from God, although that is only hinted at, not stated. Note the contrast with the careful anointing and burial of the body of Jesus (26.6-13; 27.57-60). Judas was left accursed, but God was watching over His Son.
6 But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, because they are the price of blood.”
The Chief Priests, who had paid the price of blood out of the Temple treasury, now became awfully pious. It was one thing betraying and destroying an innocent man, but they felt that it would be a gross sin to break the Temple rules. Thus, they had the pieces of silver gathered up, piously indicated that as blood money it could not go into the Treasury (the place of dedicated money from which it had come) and set it apart for the good of Gentiles who were after all already unclean. It would not do for the Temple or the Jewish race to be tainted by blood money (initially paid out by their representatives for this purpose). It is all so typical of the hypocrisy of men and women through the ages, especially those in authority, that the truth of the matter cannot be doubted, and the matter of fact way in which the story is told confirms its accuracy. No lesson is drawn from what happened.
7 And they consulted together and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in.
So, they then discussed the matter together, and finally came up with the idea of buying ‘the potter’s field’ which had come up for sale, and could be used for burying non-Jews in. The field may simply have been popularly named this, having at some stage been used by potters, or it may in fact have belonged to a well known potter. Alternatively, it may have been the site of a one-time clay quarry in the Valley of Hinnom, now exhausted, from which the potters’ clay had once come, but only now useful as a burial ground for the not too particular.
In Acts we learn that Judas ‘bought the field’. But there is no genuine discrepancy. The Chief Priests would have agreed that it was bought courtesy of Judas. It was his money that bought the field.
8 Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.
‘For which reason’ might look back to the decision of the Chief Priests, or it may look back on the whole story. The name ‘field of blood’ might well have piously been given to it by the now ultra-pious Chief Priests in recognition of where its purchase price had come from. It sounds like a typical piece of false piety. But more popularly, in the public imagination, the name may well have also been pointing to Judas’ gruesome death because of which the price had been obtained (Acts 1.19), especially if it was the field where Judas hung himself.
9 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced, 10 and gave them for the potter’s field, as the LORD directed me.”
Surveying what had happened Matthew, or his sources, now recognized in them a deep significance. It brought to their minds a number of prophecies, one in Zechariah, and two in Jeremiah. This practice of stringing prophecies together was quite common in Jesus’ day. Compare Mark 1.2-3, and there also it was the last prophecy referred to which was dignified with the name of the prophet.
The examination before Pilate is described with remarkable conciseness. Matthew feels that he has already made clear the nature of the charges against Jesus (. The main difference lies in the fact that instead of the charge being that He is the Messiah, the Son of God, it is that He is declaring Himself to be ‘the King of the Jews’. The religious charge has become a political, one that should concern Pilate. He is said to be claiming to be a self-appointed King over against the ruler appointed by Caesar.
Once again, however, in the face of the charges brought by the Chief Priests and Elders He says nothing. His dignified silence brings home their guilt, and He leaves them to condemn themselves, while at the same time impressing Pilate. ‘As a sheep before his shearers is dumb, so He opened not His mouth’ (Isaiah 53.7). Jesus would not deign to answer the false charges of ‘the shearers’, a vivid picture of those who sought to tear away His innocence, but He was quite willing to speak with Pilate alone. For the false rulers of the Jews He had no time. They had revealed themselves for what they were.
11 Now Jesus stood before the governor. And the governor asked Him, saying, “Are You the King of the Jews?” Jesus said to him, “It is as you say.”
It is made clear here in what terms the Chief Priests and Elders have brought their charge. It is on the basis that He is claiming to be ‘the King of the Jews’. This was the kind of claim that Pilate would be interested in, a political charge of prospective treason. The people of Israel did not speak of themselves as ‘Jews’. They were ‘Jews’ to outsiders. But the title carries within it the idea of the Expected One seen from a Gentile point of view. It thus carried within it intrinsically a threat to law and order, and the peace of the realm.
So when Pilate asks Jesus if He is, as His accusers have stated that He has claimed, the King of the Jews, His reply is again, ‘It is you who have said it’. Once more it is not a denial but an indication that He is being misrepresented. He is in a sense the King of the Jews, but not in the sense in which His accusers have used the term. In John 18.34 He puts it this way, ‘do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about Me?’ The quiet way in which Jesus replies carries with it its own indication of innocence. Pilate would have expected a vociferous denial, or a belligerent and snarling agreement. What he was not expecting from this bound and disreputable looking figure (made disreputable looking by the treatment that He had received) was a reasoned reply.
‘The Governor.’ Pilate was strictly a Praefectus (testified to by an inscription that has been discovered), a military man put in charge of overseeing the running of a state where trouble might be expected. It was his responsibility to oversee the governing of the state and maintain its peaceful state without necessarily himself being directly involved in running it on a continual basis. As long as peace was maintained, and taxes were paid they could run themselves, apart from when he felt it necessary to step in. All major decisions, however, lay in his hands, especially decisions concerning treason, and he could go about dealing with them almost as he would, as long as he maintained the peace. Thus this was a decision which very much depended on him. But first he had to be sure of the nature of the charge. And while outwardly it appeared quite simple (Jesus was setting Himself up as a king) it was clear to him that neither side were quite saying what he would normally have understood by the charge. On the one hand it was clear that the rulers of the Jews had religious motives for their action, and on the other there was nothing about Jesus that suggested the revolutionary. Furthermore, he must have had some previous intelligence about Jesus. What had been going on in Jerusalem would not have been totally ignored by his spies and informers, and he had good cause to know that Jesus was not an insurrectionist. Thus, he was baffled, and yet very much impressed with Jesus.
But he was a man on a knife edge. While he disliked the Jewish rulers, and despised them, there was on the other hand the sad fact that certain complaints had gone to Tiberius Caesar about him in the not too distant past so that he had recently suffered a rebuke at Caesar’s hands. Thus, while he did not necessarily want to do what the Jews were asking of him unless they could demonstrate their case and would indeed have gained some pleasure from thwarting them, he knew that he could not afford to have another complaint made against him on a doubtful matter. And his problem was increased further by Jesus’ unwillingness to defend himself openly. Roman custom laid much emphasis on the right of a man to defend himself, and His silence thus presented him with another difficulty. For while he could see that the prisoner was not anything like He was portrayed as being, that would not be obvious in any report reaching Caesar. All that that would say was that the prisoner had offered no defense. The conclusion would be obvious. This explains the ambivalent attitude that he displays.
12 And while He was being accused by the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing.
The prosecutors, and the witnesses for the prosecution then brought their case before Pilate. The responsibility is again laid directly on the Chief Priests and Elders. But to Pilate’s amazement Jesus made absolutely no reply. The more they screamed the louder was Jesus’ silence. It was as though this battered and bound prisoner was looking at His accusers with disdain because He was fully aware that all their accusations were false. He certainly did not give the appearance of being either a fervent insurrectionist, or a truculent wrongdoer. And Pilate who was experienced in such matters, also recognized the weakness of their case. He was fully aware of the kind of people that they were, having almost certainly noted which members of the Sanhedrin were actively present, something which probably told him a great deal. And he was aware that they had not gone to all this trouble against other insurrectionists. But he still could not understand why Jesus said nothing. Before him people were not in the habit of standing there in dignified silence. They usually cringed and pleaded.
13 Then Pilate said to Him, “Do You not hear how many things they testify against You?”
So, He tried to badger Jesus into making a defense. “Do you not hear how many things they witness against you?” Surely Jesus could at least dispose of some of the charges, and at the same time explain His true position. Note how we have an indication here of the wide-ranging charges that they had brought against Him, simply hoping that one would impress Pilate. These included perverting the nation, calling on people not to pay their taxes to Caesar, and claiming to be a king (Luke 23.2).
Pilate was not used to silent prisoners apart from those whose guilt was obvious. And it would in fact be difficult to understand what follows if we did not have the explanation given in John 18.33-38, for it is impossible to believe that, in view of His silence, Pilate made no attempt to interrogate Him and reason with Him privately. The defense given by the accused was an important part of Roman justice. Matthew is, however, not interested in the detail. He simply wants it recognised that Pilate was not really wanting to be involved in the case.
14 But He answered him not one word, so that the governor marveled greatly.
Jesus continued to maintain His silence in the face of His accusers. He stood there as regally as His situation would permit, (sufficiently to impress Pilate), and not one word left His mouth. This constant silence in the face of the accusations is a constant feature of the narratives in all the Gospels, which are in their own way consistent in this regard throughout. He disdains to argue about what should not have needed to be argued, before those who did not want to know the truth, because He knew that they had not a jot of evidence against Him and yet would proceed anyway. But when alone with Pilate He is willing to speak with him (John 18.33-38), not so much in order to rebut the arguments as to make plain His true position to him. He does not, however, at any time, make any attempt to obtain His freedom. He lets the world pass judgment on itself, if it is unwilling to face the obvious truth. In this lies the evidence of His complete certainty about His future.
Matthew now confirms that the Chief Priests and Elders are the main causes of Jesus’ death, in that, having delivered Jesus to Pilate with the aim of having Him executed, it is they who press the charges, and they who arouse the Jerusalemites to call for His crucifixion and release ‘Jesus Barabbas’. At the same time he reveals that both Pilate and his wife see Jesus as innocent, the latter in a way that suggests supernatural intervention. Central to the passage is the question, ‘what then shall I do with Jesus Who is called Messiah?’, a question which produces the response, ‘Let Him be crucified’. Jerusalem has given its verdict.
15 Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to releasing to the multitude one prisoner whom they wished.
Unsure what to do next Pilate then took advantage of a local custom to obtain Jesus’ release. We have no external evidence of this custom in connection with Palestine, although there is a hint of it in Rabbinic tradition, but the granting of amnesties to please the people was a common practice among ancient rulers, and there are therefore no good grounds for denying this rather unique one. It was the kind of practice that could easily grow up as a means which was used in order to keep the people content. It is arguable that it could only apply to prisoners who had not yet been condemned.
However, the fact of this custom would mean that the crowd attracted to the Praetorium on this morning of the first day of the week would be likely to contain more than its fair share of Jewish belligerents who were wanting to obtain the release of a favoured figure. They had therefore in the main probably come specifically to obtain the release of Barabbas. Furthermore, they were probably those who would show little favor towards Jesus Whom they probably saw as ‘soft on the Romans’.
16 And at that time they had a notorious prisoner called Barabbas.
The word ‘notable’ here simply indicates well known. He was someone well known to the crowds as a patriot and featured strongly in the minds of his captors as a notorious insurrectionist.
Barabbas and his fellow-insurrectionists were murderers, although probably seen as patriots by certain of the Jews because they would be acting against the Romans in the name of God. It was in fact from such as these that many expected the Messiah to come. Such men would thus have had a certain amount of popular support among the more belligerent Jews, and the presence of such Jews at this time would be expected because of the well know custom. That custom would also mean that at least two men would have been brought there by arrangement to be offered to the crowds, which would explain why two other insurrectionists were already there, who would be executed along with Jesus, and why there was a crowd gathered here at all at this time. Apart from those deliberately brought together by the Chief Priests and Elders with a view to obtaining support for their case, and a few sightseers, this crowd would therefore have been very much one which favoured the insurrectionists. We must not therefore parallel them with the crowds who had welcomed Jesus (21.9), except by way of contrast. These before Pilate may well in fact mainly have been Jerusalemites. It is thus going far beyond the evidence to suggest that it was the whole Jewish race that condemned Jesus. Indeed, had a consensus been taken among the Jews of Palestine at that time Jesus would probably have been revealed as highly favored. That is why, far from it being true that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus, we will rather discover that many would shortly respond to Him fully, both in Jerusalem and throughout the world.
‘Notable.’ The word be either positive or negative in its significance. He was probably seen as notorious by Pilate, and as a hero by the Jews. He was the kind of man who appealed to their patriotism, the kind who carried into practice what they often thought in their hearts.
17 Therefore, when they had gathered together, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release to you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?”
So Pilate, having recognized that for the sake of peace, and in order to prevent a further complaint to Caesar, he would possibly have to yield to the demands of the rulers in Jerusalem, sought a way out of his dilemma by appealing to the crowds. Surely given the opportunity, once given a choice between Jesus and the notorious Barabbas, they would choose Jesus, the prophet with Messianic connections Who, as he knew from his spies, was so popular? So, aware of the general popularity of Jesus, and not yet aware of the exact composition of the crowd. He probably thought that the way the decision would go would be obvious. He therefore put to them the choice, ‘Barabbas, or Jesus Who is called Messiah’. If they made the expected response, then he would have sufficient answer to Caesar for any charge that he had set free a man guilty of treason. But, of course, the problem with this approach was that once the crowd sided with the Chief Priests, and with Barabbas whose freedom many of them were there to obtain, it made his position untenable. Any charge to Caesar would now look as black as could be.
18 For he knew that they had handed Him over because of envy.
And the reason that Pilate was so desirous of getting Jesus released was because he was aware of the motives of the Jewish rulers. He recognized that they were acting out of spite and jealousy against Someone of Whom they were afraid because He had continually exposed them, and against Someone Who was more popular than they were. (Constant information would have come back to Pilate about Jesus’ activities. With the excitement He aroused among the crowds He was the kind of person Who would have been kept under strict observation). And he knew that if he could but get the crowds on Jesus’ side and arrange the release, accordingly, using the custom previously referred to, he would be off the hook. However, the problem that he had was that he still did not understand the mentality of certain Jews. Nor did he consider the fact that someone being championed by him was unlikely to be chosen. The last thing any of them wanted to do was to please Pilate.
19 While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, “Have nothing to do with that just Man, for I have suffered many things today in a dream because of Him.”
Meanwhile a further event took place which added to his confusion. He received a note from his wife. She may well have been informed about the case briefly when Pilate was called on to examine it, and servant’s gossip would soon let her know that it was Jesus Who was being arraigned. And it is very likely that she had herself heard Jesus preaching and had been impressed by Him. Thus the thought that this ‘righteous man’ was being brought in for trial would certainly help to explain from a human point of view why she had nightmares about it as she lay there and wondered what was going on. These nightmares might well then have been seen by her as sent by the gods, and have thus resulted in this warning sent to her husband before he had passed his judgment. It was a very superstitious age, and it is quite likely that she would not want her husband involved in condemning someone who was so clearly a favorite of the gods. Nor need we doubt that God was in it to emphasize Jesus’ innocence.
20 But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus.
‘The Chief Priests and Elders are the evil force behind what is happening and they are using all their influence in order to get Jesus condemned. Here the crowds are almost certainly made up of a mixture of supporters of the Chief Priests and Elders, friends and supporters of the insurrectionists, who have come to see Barabbas set free in accordance with custom, and possibly a few local sightseers, who have gathered at that early hour of the morning, all mainly representing Jerusalem (there is no dissenting voice). To Matthew it is Jerusalem that condemns Jesus as verse 25 makes clear. (Jerusalem was no safe place for Jesus).
21 The governor answered and said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” They said, “Barabbas!”
Having painted the picture found in verses 18-20 Matthew now comes back to Pilate’s question to the crowds. Pilate wants them to make a choice between the two. Their reply confirmed his fears. They asked for Barabbas whom they probably saw as something of a hero. He had done what they would have liked to do but had never dared to.
22 Pilate said to them, “What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ? They all said to him, “Let Him be crucified!”
Pilate then made a further attempt to avoid the inevitable. Perhaps he could get the crowds to suggest leniency for Jesus. So he asks them what he should do to Jesus. But by doing so he has handed the initiative over to the crowds, and the Chief Priests and Elders had done their work too well. They had no doubt incited the crowds by talk of blasphemy and contrasted Jesus with the heroic insurrectionists. Thus, it was now the crowds who yelled out, “Let him be crucified.” They were aware of what had been intended for Barabbas. Thus, in their view it would be a suitable end for One Whom Pilate was trying to protect, a ‘favorite’ of the Romans.
23 Then the governor said, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they cried out all the more, saying, “Let Him be crucified!”
Pilate protested Jesus’ innocence, but that was enough to guarantee that they would have no mercy. They liked to think that they had Pilate on the ropes, and as Jerusalemites or zealot sympathizers they had little sympathy for Jesus. Thus they repeated their demand even more strongly, “Let him be crucified.”
This cry makes clear that we are not talking about an average crowd. This was not just calling for the death sentence on a blasphemer, but for a curse on someone so that He would be totally despised. No ordinary Jewish crowd would have asked for this kind of punishment for Jesus. This was a crowd which saw Him as a traitor, which fits in with the idea that they were either close supporters of the Chief Priests or supporters of the insurrectionists, and thus saw Jesus with His peace-loving ways as an enemy of the people.
24 When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it.”
By this time Pilate was angry and frustrated, both because his scheme had failed and because of his disgust at their willingness to have an innocent man crucified. (We are often disgusted when we see in others something that is despicable, even if we have often excused the same thing in ourselves. It is one of the oddities of human nature). And he remembered the note from his wife. So he hammered his brain as to how he could get back at the crowds, and from the knowledge of their ways that he had built up over the last few years he thought of something that would demonstrate what he thought of them. He would use their own custom and wash his hands of guilt for the prisoner’s sentence. Possibly he also hoped that it might make them change their minds as it brought home to them what they were doing. It was one thing for them to heap on him the responsibility of crucifying someone but let them consider that in this case it would be they who were actually causing the crucifixion of one of their own. They could not in this case blame it on their cruel conquerors. They and they alone were demanding it. He may thus by washing his hands publicly have been seeking to face them up to what was involved, in the hope of then being able to inflict a lighter sentence.
The method by which he did this was by using a Jewish custom mentioned in Deuteronomy 21.6 and expanded in thought in Psalm 26.6; 73.13. It was something that had clearly made quite an impression on him. The idea behind it was that those involved in washing their hands were demonstrating that they were not involved in some sin. And that was precisely what an angry Pilate wished to convey to them. He wanted them to know that while they as a bloodthirsty crowd could seemingly behave in this way it simply disgusted all ‘good men’ like himself. Using their own symbolism was a clever way of indicating his contempt. It rammed home his point even more effectively. If he was aware at all of its context he would know that by it they would recognize that they were being accused of the murder of this victim. But alternately it may simply have become a recognized Jewish method of setting aside guilt as in Psalm 73.13. Either way, however, it was a pointed indication of what he thought of them. Let them face up to what they were doing and recognize that if they did this thing they could not then throw the blame onto him. Could they really crucify one of their own after all that they had said time and again about crucifixion?
“I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man.” The reference to ‘this righteous man’ indicates how much his wife’s note was on his mind. And it would seem also to be clear that something about Jesus had come home to Pilate, tough-minded soldier though he was, so that he really felt that he must distance himself from this treatment of Him. Anyone who knows human nature will recognise how typical this is of what has happened throughout history. Again, and again when danger has faced men who in it reveal true fearlessness and goodness, it has moved leading men to seek to exonerate them or lessen their sentence, even though they have often failed to achieve their aim. Such courage can be very moving to those who judge men. It was not otherwise with Pilate. However, as far as Matthew is concerned his words simply confirms the verdict already given by Judas about Jesus (verse 4). It was the innocent Who was about to die, as even the vilest of men recognized. And he wants the point to come over to his readers emphatically.
‘See you to it.’ The Chief Priests had tried to divert the blame from themselves in a similar way. But neither they, nor Pilate here, succeeded. We cannot so easily divest ourselves of guilt over things in which we have had a part, try as we will.
25 And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”
The people recognized quite clearly what Pilate was trying to do and had been worked up into such a fever that they replied vociferously, “His blood be on us, and on our children.” They had recognized the symbol and were quite ready to take the blood guilt on themselves if it would frustrate Pilate. They treated the death of Jesus as lightly as the Chief Priests had treated Judas. But little were they aware of how literally God would take it, for within forty years their city would become a blood bath the like of which has rarely been seen since. Then they would bear their blood guilt indeed.
‘All the people.’ Strictly this means ‘all who were present there’, that is, all the crowd as they called out as one. They knew the pressure that unanimity could apply. Compare ‘all Jerusalem’ in 2.3. Once again, the whole city was, as it were, aroused against Jesus. We should recognize that the idea is not that the whole Jewish nation will bear the guilt, and indeed many of that nation would come to Christ in the years that followed. It is rather that Jerusalem will bear the guilt, as indeed it did in a terrible way.
(As we have constantly stressed the guilt cannot be laid at the door of the Jewish nation, except in so far as it can be laid at the doors of all men. It is strange how people who would never take on themselves the guilt of a crime in which they were not directly involved, will nevertheless happily apply such guilt to others.
26 Then he released Barabbas to them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.
But Pilate could not escape the blame as easily as that, and Matthew clearly indicates his guilt in these words. In the end it is Pilate who frees Barabbas, and then has Jesus scourged, and finally handed over to his executioners so that He might be crucified. His hands were therefore guilty and washing his hands could never remove that stain.
