Matthew 27
BolesMatthew 27:1-10
- PETER’S THREE DENIALS;
JESUS BEFORE PILATE;
THE DEATH OF JUDAS
Matthew 26:69 to 27:10
69-75 Now Peter was sitting without in the court.—Parallel records are found in Mark 14:66-68; Luke 22:55-57; John 18:18 of Peter’s denials. These denials were made during the trials of Jesus before Annas and the Sanhedrin. The first denial was made in the apartment of Annas; John was acquainted with the high priest and had passed in, but afterwards returned and brought Peter into the vestibule by requesting the maidservant who kept the door to let Peter through. She noticed Peter at that time with John, and then seeing him remaining behind in the room where the servants were, asked him if he was not one of the friends of Jesus. It is probable that she had no design of injuring him, but simply wondered at his remaining there while John had passed in. She said, “Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilaean.” Thou “also” or as well as John was with him, then why do you shrink or refuse to go in with him?
It does not seem that Peter was at any time this night in any particular danger. “But he denied before them all.” In his denial he said, “I know not what thou sayest.” He denied that he was a disciple of Jesus; this was a bold and shameful act; he denied that he understood what was said. Perhaps he was permitted to waver that he might see that none should dare to trust in his own strength.
And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him.—Parallels of this are found in Mark 14:69-72; Luke 22:58-62; and John 18:25-27. Peter went out into the porch, that is, the small room btween the doorway and the larger rooms; he was in a fearful state; he could not bear the looks of those around the fire and he went away to hide his confusion. The cock crowed for midnight. Another maid saw him, and Luke records that a man spoke to him at the same moment; this occurred between one and two o’clock in the morning. The scene of the trial had gone on. Peter was engaged in watching its progress.
We may suppose that his mind was confused by the strange meekness and submission of Jesus. This maiden said, “This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth.” “And again he denied with an oath, I know not the man.” These were the very words in which Jesus had predicted his denial. (Luke 22:34.) Peter denied all knowledge of Jesus, whether as the Christ or as Jesus; he cut himself loose from him for a time by his denial. It appears that two maidens and a man at the same place recognized him at once and accused him of being one of the disciples of Jesus; to them all Peter denied with an oath, a very convincing proof that he was not a disciple of Jesus as he thought.
And after a little while they that stood by came and said to Peter, Of a truth thou also art one of them.—This was about an hour after, or between two and three o’clock in the morning. Peter was now desperate, angry, and filled with evil passions and returned to the room where the fire was burning, resolved to stick to his denial. (John 18:25.) The repetition of sin never leaves a man as it found him; he changed rapidly; Peter lost his shame; his Master was condemned, and he had lost something of his love, and in the consequences of ruin to all his earthly hopes he denied knowing Jesus and emphasized his denial by cursing and swearing. Proof was given that he was one of the disciples of Jesus as “thy speech maketh thee known.” The dialect of the Galileans was recognized and distinguished them from others. A kinsman of Malchus observed him, and, with others, urged on him this peculiarity, as a reason for supposing him to be a follower of Jesus. Peter was in great fear and also in bitter anger. He began to anathematize himself, and to swear with oaths that he had no acquaintance with Jesus.
Peter does not seem to have been in any danger; the Pharisees showed no desire to injure him or the other disciples of Jesus; the matter does not seem to have been urged in anger against him. Peter, like the wicked, was in fear where no fear was. (Psalms 53:5.) Perhaps Peter never forgot this dreadful night. It was now three o’clock in the morning. Luke records that Jesus turned and “looked” upon Peter; the cocks at the same moment crew. Won by the look of tender compassion, and reminded of the prophecy of his fall, the mysterious foreknowledge of Jesus flashed again upon him. The spell of evil was broken, “and he went out, and wept bitterly.”
Neither of the four writers of the gospel manifests the least desire to suppress the sad fall of Peter. Mark says, “And when he thought thereon, he wept” (Mark 14:72), while Matthew records that he “wept bitterly.” Luke records that “he went out, and wept bitterly.” (Luke 22:62.) It is remarkable that John, who records the denial, omits any record of his repentance. However, we know that he did repent. Peter might well shed bitter tears even though his denial was only a sin of infirmity. The frankness and honesty of the historians are to he observed; not one of them attempts to suppress this shameful act of Peter he was committed with the “keys of the kingdom of heaven,” but with fairness and integrity the writers record his denial. When Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote, Peter was still alive; in fact, Mark probably wrote under the direction of Peter. No impostors would have recorded this event.
27:1, 2 Now when morning was come.—This was early Friday morning, between three and six o’clock, called the morning watch. Parallel records are found in Mark 15:1; Luke 23:1-2; and John 18:28-32. Jesus has been subjected to the trials before the Sanhedrin. “The chief priests and the elders of the people,” which composed the Sanhedrin, “took counsel against Jesus to put him to death.” This was a matter of no little importance and difficulty to them, and it required shrewd management of their part to get the consent of the stern and obstinate Pilate to put Jesus to death. Pilate, the Roman governor, was an idolater and would disregard the charge of “blasphemy,” as he cared nothing for the God or religion of the Jews. They must therefore prepare their charges beforehand, and offer to Pilate some charges against Jesus which he would regard as contrary to Roman law, and at the same time excite his prejudice against Jesus and enlist his sympathy for them. It was no small task to prepare such charges; they had to manufacture them, as there were no real charges to be made against Jesus.
In their council they planned to prefer the charges that Jesus had perverted the nation of the Jews, forbidding to give tribute to Caesar and making himself a king. (Luke 23:2.) The Sanhedrin had to deal with the affections of the people as well as the obstinate Pilate. They were shrewd enough to have their charges and plans well formed before they delivered Jesus to Pilate.
They bound him, and led him away, and delivered him up to Pilate the governor.—Jesus had been bound in the garden of Gethsemane when he was first arrested; he had probably been loosed, and had to be bound again. It was their custom to send prisoners bound to the Roman governor as a sign that they had already condemned them. “Pilate the governor” had been appointed “procurator” of Judea by the Roman emperor Tiberius, about six years before this event; he continued in the office for four years afterward, in all ten years. Pilate was described by King Agrippa who knew him well as a man naturally inflexible and obstinately self-willed. He frequently defied the Jewish people until the clamor against him succeeded in effecting his disgrace with the emperor Caligula. He was banished to Vienne in Gaul, where he is said to have died by his own hand. His usual residence was Caesarea, but
3-10 Then Judas, who betrayed him.—The remorse of Judas, which Matthew relates in this place, as if to dispose of it, may be supposed to have occurred after the final condemnation of Jesus. Matthew does not mean by placing his record of the event at this place to say that it occurred just at this time, but as a consequence of the condemnation. It is not likely that any of the chief priests and elders would have been found in the temple until after the sentence of Pilate. When Judas saw that Jesus had been condemned, he “repented himself.” It is impossible to analyze and follow the mazes of his dark mind in its terrible progress of crime and despair. Many have speculated about the motives of Judas in betraying Jesus. They may be summed up as follows: (1) Anger at the public rebuke given him by Jesus in the house of Simon the Leper (Matthew 26:6-14); (2) avarice, covetousness, the price of thirty pieces of silver (John 12:6); (3) a much larger covetousness, an ambition to be the treasurer, not merely of a few poor disciples, but of a great and splendid temporal kingdom of the Messiah; he would hasten on the coming of that kingdom by compelling Jesus to defend himself; he began to fear that unless he did something desperate there was to be no kingdom after all; (4) perhaps he abandoned what seemed to him a failing cause, and hoped by his treachery to gain a position of honor and influence in the Pharisaic party; (5) and finally, anger and spite at the goodness which continually condemned him awakened his conscience, and called him to a life he was determined not to live.
In the New Testament he is termed a thief (John 12:6) and a devil (John 6:70), meaning that his prevailing passions were avarice and malice. Also Satan entered into him, and gave a supernatural keenness to these passions. His repentance was only horror and remorse at the effect of his anger and covetousness; it was not that deep repentance which seeks God’s mercy and forgiveness.
He confessed, “I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood.” He had broken the law of God. (Exodus 23:7.) Humble confession and restitution, though necessary to true repentance, do not always prove that one is penitent. He had betrayed “innocent blood” in that he had given the life of an innocent person into the hands of those who would put him to death; he became an agent or factor in the crucifixion of Jesus. Judas is an unwilling, yet a very valuable, witness to the innocence of Jesus; he had been his disciple and had known him in all situations for about three years; he had heard all his teachings, public and private; surely, if it were possible to have found a fault with Jesus, Judas would have urged it now as an excuse for his betrayal.
[The sin of Judas was from a lack of moral principle, a true regard for truth and justice. From this sin there seemed to be no recovery. Under a sense of shame and disgrace, he confessed his sin, returned the bribe, hanged himself, and went to “his own place.” (Acts 1:25.) ]
What is that to us? see thou to it.—Judas had brought the thirty pieces of silver back to “the chief priests and elders” and had confessed that he had betrayed “innocent blood”; but these men refused to give Judas any encouragement in correcting the wrong that he had done. They did not care for his feelings; Judas had done what they wished and they had paid him for it; as to the rest they did not care what became of Judas. This reply to Judas was in harmony with their conduct all along. They should have paused and examined the cause of Judas’ conduct, or, at least, they should have tried to satisfy him that they had done right in condemning Jesus. It is to be observed that Judas “repented” only when his sin was completed. When the chief priests and elders refused to take the thirty pieces of silver back, Judas “cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary and departed.” This was the end of all his dreams of avarice; the thirty pieces of silver which he had received burned into his soul with a guilt of remorse that he could not drive away; it was the price of blood and his ingratitude to Jesus rose up before him until his whole soul was in agony which he could not endure, “and he went away and hanged himself.” He seems to have done this in such haste and confusion of mind that the rope gave way and he was precipitated down a steep place, and disemboweled on the sharp rocks. (Acts 1:18.) Everyone who was hanged on a tree was pronounced accursed by the law of Moses. (Deuteronomy 21:22-23.)
[There is no conflict between Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18. In Acts it is said, “And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.” He hanged himself, the rope broke, he fell, his belly burst, and his bowels gushed out. Instead of there being a contradiction between the statement in Matthew and in Acts, the two accounts supplement each other and harmonize.]
And the chief priests took the pieces of silver.—They gathered up the silver and said that “it is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is the price of blood.” Money which had been made abominable by certain crimes was in no case to be offered to Jehovah. (Deuteronomy 23:18.) The treasury here meant the “alms chest” which was kept in the court of the women, and all that was placed in it was solemnly devoted to the service of Jehovah. Judas confessed to having betrayed “innocent blood,” and the priests to having bought it; they thus condemned themselves. They took “counsel” as to what they would do with the money and finally decided to buy “the potter’s field, to bury strangers in.” This was evidently after the death of Jesus. The “potter’s field” was a field which the potters had used; it is said in Acts 1:18 of Judas that he purchased a field with the reward of iniquity, and was the first to mark it as a field of blood by his own death. Judas did not make this purchase only in the sense of furnishing the means to purchase it; perhaps the priests also put his name prominent in the purchase. It is usual for a writer to represent one as doing that which he causes another to do.
They wanted this field to bury the Jews who came to Jerusalem from foreign places and died while there attending the feasts. The field bought by the money perpetuated the memory of the foul bargain both of Judas and the Sanhedrin.
This field “was called, The field of blood, unto this day.” It was called in the native tongue “Akeldama” (Acts 1:19), which means the field of blood. The facts of this account of the death of Jesus were perpetuated by the existence of this field as a burying place. Matthew in referring to it shows that he challenges investigation into the truth of his record. At the time that Matthew wrote it was still familiar to the Jews; it was some years after the crucifixion before Matthew wrote this record. Matthew was not afraid for anyone to check his record with the facts; this is a proof of his sincerity and accuracy. “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet.” We meet here a difficulty. No such passage occurs in the writings of Jeremiah'.
There is something like it in Zechariah 11:12-13. There are four explanations why the name “Jeremiah” is used here instead of “Zechariah.” (1) The names may have been mistaken in transcribing as they are sometimes written in a contracted form—“Iriou” for Jeremiah, and “Zriou” for Zechariah; in this form it would be only the mistake of one letter and could easily be made by one in transcribing. (2) Jeremiah may be used here for the book of the prophets, as being the first in rank on the list; that is, Jeremiah and Zechariah and some of the other prophets grouped together and the name “Jeremiah” given to the group, when the actual quotation was from Zechariah. (3) That the word “Jeremiah” was not writen by Matthew but was added by some unlearned transcriber. (4) That Matthew referred to some action and words of Jeremiah not recorded by him in his prophecies, but handed down in some traditional form, and recorded in substance by the prophet Zechariah.
Our ignorance must bear the blame of difficulty that arises here; we believe firmly in the inspiration of Matthew and the accuracy of his record. These minor difficulties are left in our path as a trial of our faith. The price of the thirty pieces of silver was the price of a common slave; hence they rated Jesus at the price of a slave.
Matthew 27:11-26
- JESUS BEFORE PILATE
11-14 Now Jesus stood before the governor.—Parallel records are found in Mark 15:2-5; Luke 23:3-4; and John 18:33-38. It was now probably between 6:30 and 8:30 Friday morning. By the law (Numbers 19:22) whoever touched any unclean person, among whom the later Jews reckoned Gentiles, was unclean, and unable to celebrate the Passover. (Acts 10:28.) The Jews on this account would not go into the castle of Antonia, which was occupied by Pilate; to accommodate them, a sort of court of judgment seat had been prepared outside the walls of the castle, called in Hebrew “Gabbatha,” or the pavement (John 19:13), probably a raised space, paved with stones. The seat for Pilate was fixed here and a door leading into the inner hall; Jesus was carried within, and arraigned before the Romans; Pilate came to hear the accusations against Jesus, and after hearing them he went in and examined Jesus. He asked him, “Art thou the King of the Jews?” This qustion Pilate asked after hearing the accusation of the Jews. (John 18:28; John 18:40.) As the Messiah, Jesus claimed to be King; but his kingdom could not in any way disturb the lawful temporal authorities of the Roman government. The charge made against him rested on this claim, which the priests knew he would not deny.
The Jews also falsely added that Jesus had forbidden to pay tribute to Caesar. (Luke 23:2.) Jesus answered Pilate, “Thou sayest.” This meant “thou sayest what I am”; it meant yea, it is so. Jesus then explained to him that his kingdom was “not of this world.” (John 18:36.) Pilate seems thereupon to have taken something like a right view of the case, thinking Jesus a teacher of truth, and fond of using royal titles to enhance the dignity of his teaching. Pilate was fully satisfied of the innocency of Jesus. (John 18:38.)
And when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.—He made no reply to idle clamors against him; there was true wisdom in the course he pursued. Jesus answered Pilate when questioned and satisfied him of his innocence; but he did not plead for his life against the accusations of the Jews; he saw that there was no use to answer the Jews who were determined to have him put to death. Pilate asked him why he did not reply to the Jews when “they witnessed” against him. Pilate marveled at his manner, so gentle, firm, suffering, meek, so devoid of impatience, anger, haste, or any human infirmity. Pilate could not understand why he did not make reply to the accusations that his own people made against him. Jesus’ silence and lack of fear, his open, ready confession of their main charge that he was a King in the realm of truth were a full and entire refutation.
He submitted, as to the will of God, with a truly royal patience. Jesus ignored the many charges that they brought against him. (Mark 15:3.) Jesus knew that Pilate did not believe the charges that the Jews brought against him, hence he was silent. We are not to understand that Jesus appeared in any degree sullen, but that he did not pretend to refute the charges brought against him; he replied readily to all proper questions.
15-18 Now at the feast the governor was wont to release Jesus, because he couldn’t find reason to charge Him with any crime. Further details of this event are found in Mark 15:6-14; Luke 23:13-19; and John 18:39-40. Pilate did not understand the silence of Jesus; he was perplexed and at this juncture he learned that Jesus had lived in Galilee which was under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas. Herod was at Jerusalem at this time hence, Pilate in order to escape from a difficulty, and at the same time pay a mark of respect to Herod, sent Jesus to Herod. (Luke 23:5-12.) This was the first step to Pilate’s fall—a compromise with conscience. After Herod had returned him it was more difficult for Pilate to make his decision. Jesus was silent before Herod, and Herod sent him back to Pilate. Pleased with the mutual compliment, these rulers made a peace contract.
“Now at the feast,” which was the Passover Feast. It was the custom to release some prisoner on the petition of the Jews; this was done during the feast in order to secure popularity and give importance to the visit which Pilate made to Jerusalem. In a conquered country there would always be political prisoners and others who were held in high esteem by the conquered people. To release one of these would be an act of grace especially pleasing to the people. There was “a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.” He was well known for his hold, seditious spirit, and rendered notorious for a particular act of rebellion; his crimes were popular. (Luke 23:19.) He had led a rebellion against the Romans, and in the confusion resulting, had committed murder. He is stamped by inspiration as a “robber.” If the Jews had written Barabbas’ biography, perhaps they would have pronounced a eulogy upon him; but inspiration calls him a robber.
Pilate put the question directly to the Jews, “Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?” Pilate saw clearly that every accusation against Jesus was groundless.
His first experiment of sending Jesus to Herod had failed; he now proposes a new plan. This was his second compromise with his conscience. He ought at once to have given him his freedom and rebuked the Jews for their false charges against him. The priests went among the people and persuaded the people to vote for Barabbas’ release. “Jesus who is called Christ” is the mildest title that he could use without exciting further prejudice against Jesus. Afterwards to annoy the priest, he gave Jesus the royal title of King of the Jews. Pilate’s error lay in not foreseeing that in giving the choice to the multitude he in a measure lost it himself. “For he knew that for envy they had delivered him up.” The word “envy” in ancient writings implies somewhat more than it does now.
It signified all those hostile feelings which are included under the general term “unpopularity.” Fear of his power with the people, jealousy at his purity, his wisdom and miracles, a mean desire to crush a good and great man, with all the wicked, malicious feelings of a fickle multitude are ranked under the word “envy” as used here. John explains what their envy was when he says, “Behold how ye prevail nothing; lo, the world is gone after him.” (John 12:19.) Again they said, “If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him.” (John 11:48.) We find here that the subjects dictate to their conqueror; the people prefer a murderer to the Son of God.
In their blind rage and determination to put Jesus to death the Jews work out the plan of salvation for others—of ruin to themselves.
19-23 And while he was sitting on the judgment-seat.—The seat or throne erected in the open court for judgment is here meant. Pilate had thus far passed in and out before the people in an informal and friendly manner; he now assumes the seat of power, and by the act shows that he proceeds to a regular trial. At this juncture he received word from his wife telling him to “have thou nothing to do with that righteous man.” Pilate’s wife was named Procula; tradition relates that she was led by her dream to become a Christian. She warns her husband, Pilate, the governor, to have nothing to do with the condemnation of Jesus as he is a righteous man. It is probable that Pilate would have heeded this warning had he not already compromised with the enemies of Jesus. His wife added the reason for sending the warning as she had “suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.” Dreams were considered by all the ancient nations as indications of the divine pleasure in difficult cases. Among the Jews it was one mode of revelation. (1 Samuel 28:6; 1 Samuel 28:15; Daniel 2:1-2.) In the New Testament, the angel of the Lord is said to have appeared in dreams to Joseph. (Matthew 1:20; Matthew 2:12.) This dream of Pilate’s wife was correct, and Pilate believed it to be a true admonition.
Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.— The Jewish rulers understood the intention of Pilate; they saw that he was seeking to release Jesus; they were as determined that he should not do this; therefore they persuaded the multitude to cry for the release of Barabbas. It seems that Pilate had not taken into consideration that he had yielded his right to decide when he put the matter to the Jews as to which they desired him to release. He gave the multitude the right to decide and bound himself to abide by their judgment. Pilate now saw this and was terrified by the consequence of his own compromise, by the admonition of his wife, by the innocence of Jesus, and threatened by the mob with present sedition, and future complaint to the arbitrary tyrant Tiberius, Pilate wavered and yielded. The multitude through the influence of the leader was now ready, and when Pilate asked the question which he should release, they answered at once “Barabbas.” Next, Pilate asked what should be done with “Jesus who is called Christ?” The leaders and multitude were ready and made reply, “Let him be crucified.”
Why, what evil bath he done?—This question was asked of them three times; Pilate was so anxious for the escape of Jesus, yet so intimidated by the dilemma in which he had placed himself that he was ill at ease. He offered another compromise with them, that he would scourge Jesus and let him go; but the passions of the crowd gained impetus by Pilate’s indulgence. “Let him be crucified” was the shout which went up from the multitude which had a few days before shouted Hosanna. Crucifixion was perhaps the punishment due to Barabbas, and the offer of his name may have suggested it. At least the leaders had led the multitude to demand the release of Barabbas and the crucifixion of Jesus.
24-26 So when Pilate saw that he prevailed nothing.—Pilate now makes another appeal to the feelings of the Jews; what follows is not so much a trial of Jesus as it is a battle between Pilate and the Jews. Pilate tried several expedients by which he hoped to avoid the responsibility of doing the right thing, namely, that of releasing Jesus. His expedients were as fol-lows: (1) Sending Jesus to Herod to avoid making a decision himself , (2) summoned not only the rulers, but the people to hear the report from the court of Herod; he declared that Herod agreed with his former declaration that Jesus was in-nocent (Luke 23:13-15); (3) he proposed to scourge Jesus in the hope that the Jews would accept that punishment as a substitution for the penalty of death; (4) to follow his custom of releasing a prisoner at their feast with the hope of releasing Jesus; (5) by attempting to throw all the responsibility on the Jews after pronouncing him innocent; (6) finally after scourging him by bringing him before them while he was still suffering and bleeding from the scourging calculated to excite their pity for him and saying, “Behold, the man!” (John 19:5-6.)
Pilate called for a basin of water, and in the presence of the crowd he washed his hands, saying that he was not responsible for the death of Jesus, and placing the responsibility on the Jews. Pilate did everything that he could do to release Jesus but the right thing, which was to declare him innocent and by the authority by which he had enforced his verdict. He was too weak to do this. The Jews washed their hands with water in case of suspected murder to declare their innocence. (Deuteronomy 21:6.) Pilate was the judge and was bound either to condemn or pardon Jesus; he attempted to do neither. Certain responsibilities cannot be put away. The Jews replied, “His blood be on us, and on our children.” They said that they would take the responsibility and the penalty it was an awful imprecation, and was fearfully answered.
Jesus had said that on that generation should come all the righteous blood shed on the earth. (Matthew 23:35.) The Jews blinded by prejudice called down the curse upon themselves. Barabbas was released, “but Jesus he scourged and delivered to be crucified.” He ordered Jesus to be scourged. Scourging increased the pains of that mode of death; it was termed “the horrible scourge” from its severity. The scourge was made of several thongs with a handle; the thongs were made rough with bits of iron or bone, for tearing the flesh, and has been called “a scorpion.” The last argument that Pilate had was given he had left the choice with the people and there was nothing further that he could do but deliver Jesus into the hands of the executioners. This he did. In doing this he gave the sentence that he had tried so hard to avoid giving.
We now behold Pilate as a judge who condemned a man whom he knew to be innocent.
In the providence of God we see Jesus condemned to death, while at the same time he is declared by Pilate, Herod, Procula, Judas, the Roman centurion, and one of the thieves on the cross as innocent.
Matthew 27:27-44
- ROMAN MOCK JESUS;
THE OF JESUS
27-31 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus.—Jesus was taken from the presence of the governor and Jews “into the Praetorium” which was the common hall; the sentence had been given in the open air; the soldiers took Jesus into the hall adjoining their own quarters in order to make preparations for his execution. “The whole band” was gathered; “band” here means cohort and was the tenth part of a legion; it varied in number from three hundred to one thousand men according to the size of a legion. This “band” stripped him, and put on him “a scarlet robe.” Probably they stripped him of his outer robe in order to carry on their brutal treatment. “A scarlet robe” was put on him; it was probably some wornout garment of royalty; this robe mentioned was a military cloak of purple worn by the Roman emperors and chief men. It was put on Jesus to ridicule his title of royalty; the insult in their mind was probably meant as a mark of contempt toward the whole Jewish nation. “They platted a crown of thorns and put it upon his head”; this crown of thorns was woven by a few turns of the flexible branches of a thorny bush which grew near Jerusalem. They crowned Jesus with this mock wreath in ridicule and put “a reed in his right hand”; this was in imitation of the sceptre carried by kings. (Esther 4:11.) These reeds grew in Palestine in marshy places, especially along the banks of the Jordan. In their mockery these soldiers now had Jesus with an old worn and faded robe, a crown of thorns on his head, and a reed as a sceptre in his hand. They further mocked him by kneeling “down before him” and said, “Hail, King of the Jews!” This was the usual salutation that they gave to their emperors. It was notorious that the sceptre had departed from Judah and the priests had for almost the first time declared, “We have no king but Caesar.” The Roman soldiers mock at the Jewish nation in the person of Jesus.
They further mocked him by spitting upon him, “and took the reed and smote him on the head.” We do not wish to linger over this scene of insolence and outrage which they heaped upon Jesus; it is difficult to believe that one human being can be so depraved as to so treat another one, to say nothing of so treating the Son of God. They smote him on the head to drive the sharp thorns into the living flesh, thus mercilessly adding to their horrid cruelty. “These cruelties were doubtless perpetrated while a part of the band was engaged in preparation for the execution. After mocking him with heartless and cruel mockery for some time, “they took off from him the robe and put on him his garments, and led him away to crucify him.” The time of day was probably about eight o’clock in the morning. He was led to a spot without the city gates. (Hebrews 13:11-12.) We do not know the exact spot as none of the writers of the gospel tell us the direction in which he was led from the city. While Jesus was led forth, a multitude, mostly women, followed him weeping, and Jesus addressed them with a prophecy of the sorrows which the sins of their countrymen were bringing upon them. (Luke 23:27-31.)
32 And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene.— Many think that they went out of the city by the Damascus gate, but we do not know. They found a man of Cyrene by the name of Simon; he was a Jew dwelling in that part of Libya called Pentapolis Cyrenaica, in which was a large colony of Jews. He had come to Jerusalem to attend the feast. “They compelled” him “to go with them, that he might bear his cross.” It was customary for the victim to bear his own cross to the place of execution; this was a part of the punishment inflicted on the victim. Simon was “compelled” to bear the cross of Jesus; he did it unwillingly; it was an ignominious office. A great company of people and women followed, bewailing and lamenting his fate. It is thought that Jesus was weary from his long vigils and sufferings, and was staggering under the weight of his cross.
It is not known whether Simon carried the full load of the cross or whether he carried only one end of it, while Jesus continued to carry the other end. It was customary for a soldier to go in advance of the victim and carry a white wooden board on which was written the nature of the crime next came four soldiers, under a centurion, with the hammer and nails, guarding the victim, who bore the cross on which he was to suffer.
33-37 And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha.—This is the Hebrew name for the place and John tells us that it means “The place of a skull.” (John 19:17.) It is not known why it was so called; some think that it was a hill in the place of a skull; others think that it was a common place of execution of criminals and skulls could be around there. It has been given the name of “Calvary” from a Latin derivation. Matthew omits in his detail the horrible work of nailing him to the cross, and describes some of the scenes which took place while he was on the cross. They “gave him wine to drink mingled with gall”; Mark says that they “offered him wine mingled with myrrh:but he received it not.” (Mark 15 23.) The wine of the Roman soldiers hardly deserved the name as it soon fermented and became sour to the taste. “Gall” and “myrrh” are words meaning in this case the same thing, a bitter infusion. This had the effect of stupefying the mind and nerves and shortened the life. It was offered by some pitying person to shorten the agonies of Jesus.
And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments among them.—They nailed him to the cross. The cross was made of two pieces of wood, placed one across the other, in the shape familiar to every one. The hands of the victim was nailed or tied to the transverse beam, and the feet crossed on each other and nailed to their place. Sometimes the victim was nailed to the cross before it was erected; then another mode was that of erecting the cross first and nailing the victim to it. We do not know which method was used in the crucifixion of Jesus. It is generally believed that Jesus was first nailed to the cross and that then it was fixed in an upright position in the earth and then was left under the charge of a guard until death slowly came to relieve the indescribable agonies of the sufferer.
Sometimes the agonies continued for days, and again they were of short duration. The Jewish law prohibited leaving a body hanging on a tree longer than one day. (Deuteronomy 21:22-23.) Crucifixion was a Roman method of putting to death; it was a horrible, lingering death, combining horrors of mind and body which words failed to describe; it was an ignominious punishment, reserved for slaves or the basest criminals; but to the mind of a Jew, it carried also the terrors of a religious curse. We cannot analyze the sufferings one by one the agonies, the shame, the horror and anguish of our Savior’s death no tongue can tell and no pen can describe.
They parted his garments among them, casting lots.—They divided his garments into four parts, to every soldier a part. (John 19:23.) The clothes belonged to the executioners the coat or upper garment of Jesus was without seam, woven throughout. The four soldiers were unwilling to tear it, and therefore cast lots for it, which fulfilled a prophecy. (Psalms 22:18.) It was now the third hour, that is, nine o’clock in the morning. (Mark 15:35.) It was the hour of offering up the lamb in the daily sacrifice of the temple; this lamb, which since the time of Moses had never ceased to be offered daily while the Jews had a temple or a city, was a type of Christ the true lamb of God. (1 Corinthians 5:6-7.) The soldiers sat down and watched him there; the soldiers who had crucified Jesus were made responsible for him until his death. They watched to prevent his friends from coming to steal away his body. It was the custom to place a placard above the head of the victim describing the crime that had been committed. This was done with respect to Jesus and the accusation was written in three languages—Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. The accusation was: “THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.” It was painted or engraved in black letters on a white ground, and put over his head; this was done by order of Pilate.
To make it well known, and to insult as many Jews as possible, Pilate caused it to be written in these three languages so that none could fail to read it. John gives the full sentence “JESUS OF , THE KING OF THE JEWS.” (John 19:19.) The place of execution was a public place and the inscription was read by “many of the Jews.” John was an eyewitness to the crucifixion and has given accurately the inscription, while the other writers have given the meaning of it. It was on this accusation that Jesus had been condemned by the Roman authorities; no other crime had been brought against him. It seems that Pilate wished to vindicate himself for the part he had in the crucifixion and wanted it to appear that Jesus was a political aspirant for the throne as King of the Jews.
38-44 Then are there crucified with him two robbers.—Judea at that time abounded in robbers. Pilate did not reside in Jerusalem, but took advantage of his occasional visits there to pass judgment on criminals whom he found condemned. We do not know who these two robbers were; some have thought that they were companions of Barabbas. The design was to insult Jesus and the Jewish nation by making it appear that Jesus was a companion of such wretches. In doing this they fulfilled a prophecy of Isaiah which says, “He poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors.” (Isaiah 53:12.) Jesus was crucified between these two robbers. Those who passed by “railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself.” This meant that Jesus had made the pretense of being able to destroy the temple and rebuild it in so short a time; he was now asked to show his power by rescuing himself from the cross.
They further derided him by saying that he could not save himself therefore he could not save others. They thought that the certain death of Jesus was positive proof that he was an impostor. Many who passed by and reviled him were evil men; some may have been good men who did not believe that he was the Son of God.
In like manner also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders.—These religious people and leaders and teachers of the people left their work and joined the revilers of the Son of God; they had haunted him, contradicting him, and persecuting him all through his personal ministry, and now they would not let him have a peaceable hour in which to die. They tormented him up to his last moments. They said, “He saved others; himself he cannot save.” This was evidence to them that he was a pretender and impostor. They further reviled him by saying, “He is the King of Israel”; they added that if he would “now come down from the cross” they would “believe on him.” We are caused to wonder at this savage joy in the Jewish rulers; however it is easily explained if we remember that they were afraid of Jesus even unto this hour. They asked him to perform a miracle in rescuing himself from the cross. Jesus did no miracle in his course on such a motive as this.
This was the same proposition that Satan made to him at his temptation soon after his baptism. (Matthew 4:3; Matthew 4:6.) It is to be noted that even at this time they had no evil to charge against him. If they could have found anything wrong in his life or teaching, they would have thrown it in his face at this time. They become unwilling witnesses to the goodness and purity of his life. They would not have believed on him had he come down from the cross; he had done miracles as great as that and they had not believed on him. They said that he trusted in God and that he claimed to be the Son of God, and now let God deliver him. How sadly they misunderstood him!
They thought that because God permitted him to be crucified he was not the Son of God. How faulty was their reasoning!
And the robbers also that were crucified with him cast upon him the same reproach.—At first both robbers did this, but one of them afterward repented; there is no contradiction in the accounts given by Matthew and Luke. Either both of the robbers did this at first, and then one changed; or with much greater probability, some think, the expression is simply a general one. The record is clear that both robbers joined in the ridicule. (Luke 23:39-43.) Jesus had had the robber Barabbas preferred before him he has been placed in his crucifixion between two robbers; he has been reviled by the soldiers who executed him, by the people who passed by, by the religious teachers who came out of the city to help upon him their cruelty, and now even by those who were suffering on the cross by his side.
Matthew 27:45-61
- DEATH AND BURIAL OF JESUS
45-50 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness.—The supernatural darkness continued three hours, from noon until three o’clock in the afternoon. The Jews divided the daylight into twelve parts. This darkness is mentioned also by Mark and Luke, but is omitted in John’s record. The Passover always occurred at the full moon, when an eclipse of the sun is physically impossible, as the course of the moon is in the opposite part of the heaven. We do not know any physical cause for this darkness; we only know it to be a fact, whether or not we ever can determine the physical causes for this darkness. How widely this darkness extended is not told except it was “over all the land until the ninth hour”; certainly it was over the country around Jerusalem. Darkness was typical of the powers of darkness which seemed to be prevailing; it was also typical of the great sufferings of the atoning for sin and the dark hour of sin and depravity that could crucify God’s beloved Son it could also typify the darkness of sin over all the earth, which was to be dispelled by the cross of Jesus and by his resurrection from the dead, when he brought light and life by his resurrection.
About the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice.—This was three o’clock in the afternoon at the time when the lamb for the daily evening offering was sacrificed. (.) At this time Jesus cried with a loud voice and said, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” This is part of the twenty-second Psalm. This cry classes itself with the agonies of Gethsemane in the point that both involve the deep mysteries of the atonement—those which pertain to the mutual relations of the Father and the Son in those sufferings and that death under which his blood was shed for the “remission of sins.” We cannot fathom the depth of the wisdom of God in thus giving his Son as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. Jesus here applied Psalms 22:1 to himself as prophetic; it is uttered by him to show that he is enduring an intolerable agony, deeper than any external affliction. We have seven recorded statements that Jesus made while on the cross. We cannot determine the exact chronological order of these seven utterances. Some think that this one was the fourth in order.
Those who stood by and heard did not understand the language and thought that he called for Elijah. The mistake may easily have been made by some one sitting near, as the words resembled the sound of the name of Elias in Hebrew.
The boldness which had prompted them to taunt Jesus had vanished, and hearing him cry out at this time, they may have expected in terror that the fiery prophet would descend in the chariot of fire to carry him away; hence, “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 was done in kindness, and seems to show that his enemies had quailed before the darkness. He had also said, “I thirst,” and some one ran to relieve it. Some one filled the sponge with sour wine or vinegar, such as the soldiers used, and putting it upon a reed of hyssop, so as to reach his lips, as he hung on the cross, gave it to him to quench the dreadful feverish thirst which he endured. John says, “There was set there a vessel full of vinegar.” (John 19:29.) It did not have the qualities that stupefy and shorten life; hence when it was presented to him, he drank it. Some of them said, “Let us see whether Elijah cometh to save him.” Their attitude toward Jesus is now changed and they begin to fear. “Jesus cried again with a loud voice, and yielded up his spirit.” Jesus uttered the words, “It is finished” (John 19:30), and then, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit” (Luke 23:46). His work, his agony, his sacrifice, were finished.
His humiliation, the work of redemption, the types and prophecies, the imperfect covenant of the Mosaic law, the faith and patience of the saints, the great power of sin and Satan, the curse lifted—all were finished. The soul of Jesus was not taken from him by necessity as our lives are (John 10:18); he died for the sins of the world; he gave his life a ransom for many.
51-56 And behold, the veil of the temple was rent.—We have a description of the veil of the tabernacle in Exodus 26:31-33. This veil divided the tabernacle into two parts as the veil of the temple divided it into two parts, the holy place and the most holy. This veil was rent by the tempest and concussion of the earthquake. This signified the breaking down of the partition wall between Jew and Gentile, and the opening of the way for all men into the innermost recesses of the true temple, which is the church of God. It also signified the opening of those heavenly regions that the Holy Spirit should come down to bless men; and finally, it showed the desertion of the temple by Jehovah and the end of the Jewish covenant. It was divided into two pieces.
About this time of day the priest was burning incense before the holy of holies, and must have witnessed it. “The earth did quake”; an earthquake is a violent quaking or concussion of the earth, accompanied by fearful rending of it in various places, and tempestuous winds in the air. The rending of the rocks by this earthquake opened the tombs of certain saints, “and many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised.” The opening of graves occurred at the moment that Jesus died, while the resurrection and visible appearance in the city of the bodies of the saints occurred “after his resurrection.” Matthew mentions the last event here because it is associated with the rending of the rocks, which opened the rock-hewn sepulchres in which the bodies of the saints had been placed. No one knows what became of the saints that were raised. Some think that they lived again in the flesh as did Lazarus and others who had been raised from the dead, while others think that they ascended to heaven. Matthew is the only historian that records this event. The scripture frequently speaks of death as asleep. (Deuteronomy 31:16; John 11:11.)
Now the centurion, and they that were with him watching Jesus, when they saw the earthquake, and the things that were done, feared exceedingly.—It is not stated that the centurion knew anything about what had occurred to the tombs. The “centurion” was a Roman officer over a hundred soldiers his duty on this occasion was to watch the bodies of the crucified until they were entirely dead. Not only the centurion, but those “that were with him” were awe-stricken and said, “Truly this was the Son of God.” There were many of them and many exclamations. Luke records that the centurion glorified God and said, “Certainly this was a righteous man.” (Luke 23:47.) This language seems to intimate that he had some knowledge of the true God; we have in him a disinterested witness to the divine character of our Lord which is invaluable. He was a plain man, a soldier and a heathen, he had no prejudices to mislead him or bias him even in favor of Jesus; he gave his unsolicited testimony to the divinity of Jesus from what he saw at the crucifixion.
And many women were there beholding from afar.—These women had followed him from Galilee and had ministered unto him. This company of women, of which frequent mention is made, were relatives of some of his disciples. (Luke 22:49, John 19:25.) Their sex protected them from the dangers to which men might have been exposed; a few of them stood with the mother of Jesus near the cross. They remained “last at the cross” with John. It was fitting that this sex which had originally led the way to our common misery away from God should follow to the last Jesus who had taken flesh of them to expiate our common sin. Woman was the first to sin and to lead man to sin, but she was the last at the cross and the first at the empty tomb, and the first to bear the good news that Jesus had been raised from the dead. Among these women were “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” Jesus had cast seven demons out of Mary Magdalene; this Mary was probably the wife of Cleophas, or Clopas (John 19:25).
There is much division of opinion as to the identity of some of these persons. The mother of Zebedee’s children was Salome, and the mother of the apostles James and John. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was with them; they were “faithful unto death.”
57-61 And when even was come.—At about five o’clock in the afternoon before sunset “a rich man from Arimathaea, named Joseph” went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus to bury it, he came to the cross and found that Jesus was dead, and then went in to the city to Pilate. “Arimathaea” was the same as the Old Testament town “Ramathaim-zo-phim,” which was the birthplace of Samuel. (1 Samuel 1:19.) Joseph was a pious man and highly spoken of by the writers of the gospel. He was “a councillor of honorable estate” (Mark 15:43), and “himself was looking for the kingdom of God”; he went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body. He was a good man and opposed the wickedness of his fellow councillors (Luke 23:51), and was, with an allowed prudence, a disciple of Jesus. (John 19:38.) He dared not remove the body of Jesus without permission; he knew the feeling of all parties and was probably a man entitled to the respect of Governor Pilate. It was usual to leave the bodies of those who were crucified to decay in the places where they died. Pilate granted him the permission to take the body from the cross and make such disposition of it as he wished.
And Joseph took the body, and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth.—The body of a dead person was rolled in swaths of linen; Nicodemus joined him and brought with him servants bearing “a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds.” (John 19:39.) There was so little time left before the Sabbath—Saturday—that thy hastily disposed of the body, intending to supply the other necessary things on the first day of the week; so they returned from the sepulchre and made preparations to that effect. (Luke 23:56; Luke 24:1.) The body was placed in Joseph’s “own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock.” This tomb stood in a garden or enclosed place and was very near the place of crucifixion. It was a new tomb, and judging by the size of it, there was room for only a single body. It had two portions, an outer chamber or vault, and an inner one which was narrow and smaller, where the body was placed. There could be no mistake as to the resurrection; it was a solid rock, a new tomb without other bodies, and sealed and guarded by soldiers. It was impossible to remove the body by force or deception. In this burial a prophecy was fulfilled, which seemed strange that it should be spoken of one “numbered with the transgressors” (Isaiah 53:12), that he should make his grave with the rich. A “great stone” was rolled against the door or entrance of the tomb.
This act of Joseph is remembered for his thoughtfulness and love for the Master. He was “a good and righteous man” (Luke 23:50); he was “looking for the kingdom of God” (Mark 15:43; Luke 23:51); he became a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews he did not openly follow him (John 19:38). The scenes around the cross seem to have kindled in him new life and he summoned courage to perform this public act of service. “And Mary Magdalene was there, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.” These women were present to note the place of the burial and to give expression to their grief; they probably remained till sunset or the close of the day. They simply watched the tomb for a while and then went home to prepare spices and ointment for the completion of the embalming, and then rested over the Sabbath day, when they could perform their own service of love to the body.
- GUARD PLACED AROUND THE TOMB;
OF JESUS
Matthew 27:62 to 28:10
62-66 Now on the morrow.—This was the next day, “which is the day after the Preparation.” Friday, the sixth day of the week, was called the day of Preparation, as all labor for the seventh day was to be done then. (Exodus 16:22.) This year it was the Passover; the next day after it was the Sabbath and called by John “a high day.” (John 19:31.) Some think that the term “Preparation” became, before Matthew wrote, the solemn designation among the Christians to distinguish the Friday of crucifixion. The “chief priests and the Pharisees” conferred with each other as to what should be done; hence, they went to Pilate sometime during the day to make their request; their principles forbade their doing any labor on the Sabbath. We may suppose that they obtained consent either before the Sabbath began or immediately after it closed. They probably had examined the tomb and saw that the body was safe and the tomb sealed. Matthew is the only one that records these circumstances. The chief priests and Pharisees were aware that Jesus had predicted his own resurrection.
Hence, they said to Pilate, “We remember that that deceiver said while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.” They were afraid that he would rise, hence they thought to forestall the possibility of it by a powerful Roman guard around the tomb. However they did not express that fear to Pilate; they deceived Pilate as to their fear and cast aspersion on the disciples of Jesus. They approached Pilate as though it had just occurred to them that something might take place with respect to the body. Jesus had repeatedly said to his disciples that he would be raised on the third day and the public had learned of this. (Matthew 12:40; John 2:19 10:15-18.)
Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day.—They spoke of Jesus as “that deceiver,” and that his disciples would attempt to practice deception with respect to his resurrection. They asked for the.power and authority of the Roman government to prevent his disciples from attempting to practice any deception. They thought him to be a pretender as to the Messiahship. They were shrewd in their malice; they said that if the sepulchre was not guarded his disciples might “come and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead.” If this should be done, they knew that his disciples could point to the empty tomb as evidence that he had been raised from the dead. Their shrewdness and precaution in making it sure that no one would molest the tomb are commended to all. If the tomb should be found empty, it would give the disciples of Jesus an advantage over them, and they thought that this “last error will be worse than the first.” Here they acknowledge that they had made an error.
That which they called an error was beyond their control after the resurrection; they could no longer conspire against Jesus, nor stop the spread of the faith in him. In their attempt to put an end to the influence of Jesus, they did exactly what was needed to make it more sure that he was the Messiah and that he actually rose from the dead.
It was taken for granted that he was dead, but they feared deception on the part of his disciples. It may be that “the last error” has reference to the people in thinking that Jesus was the Messiah because he had risen from the dead. It would be worse for the people to think that he was the Messiah because he had risen from the dead than it would be to believe him to be the Messiah because of his teaching. They could more easily pervert, contradict, and refute his teachings, so they thought, than to deny his resurrection. Note that these chief priests and Pharisees said to Pilate “after three days” that Jesus had said he would rise again; hence they asked for a guard “until the third day,” that is, until the third day had passed; again they understood “after three days” and “until the third day” to mean the same and that they would need the guard no longer.
Pilate said unto them, Ye have a guard.—That is, Pilate said take a guard and do as you wish. Some have understood this to mean that Pilate refused to give permission to use a guard that he refused to have anything further to do with them and that if they wanted the tomb guarded they should guard it with the temple officers or their own officials. However, it seems clear that Pilate gave permission for them to use the Roman guard as the imperative construction of the Greek verb bears this out. Pilate gave them permission to detail a Roman guard for this purpose and commanded them to “make it as sure as ye can.” They had permission to take all the armed men that they needed, and to make the sepulchre sure to their satisfaction. “So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, the guard being with them.” The stone was rolled over the door of the tomb and sealed; the Roman guard was stationed around it whose duty was to watch with unsleeping vigilance on pain of death. In sealing the tomb one or more cords were stretched across the stone rolled before the opening into the tomb and sealed at each end to the rock by wax or sealing clay. The guard of Roman soldiers was placed at the entrance of the tomb as a double means of preventing fraud.
The sepulchre was watched so no fraud could have been practiced. We may infer that the Jews.saw to it that the tomb was sealed and the guard placed around it, for had the soldiers alone sealed it, the Jews might have said that the soldiers had suffered the disciples to steal the body; they could not say this since they sealed the tomb and placed the guard around it. It is probable that Pilate’s seal was used as the Roman guard was held responsible for it.