Matthew stressed Jesus' righteousness for his readers by highlighting the injustice of His trials.
"The breaches in law are so numerous as to be unbelievable . . ."1026
". . . even the ordinary legal rules were disregarded in the following particulars: (a) The examination by Annas without witnesses. (b) The trial by night. (c) The sentence on the first day of trial. (d) The trial of a capital charge on the day before the Sabbath. (e) The suborning of witnesses. (f) The direct interrogation by the High Priest."1027
It may be helpful to take a brief overview of Jesus' trials since none of the Gospel evangelists gives the complete picture. There were essentially two trials, one Jewish and one Roman. The Jewish trial began when Annas informally examined Jesus late Thursday night (John 18:12-14, 19-23). During this examination, members of the Sanhedrin were evidently assembling. His accusers then brought Jesus before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin who decided He was guilty of blasphemy (Matt. 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65). At sunrise on Friday the Sanhedrin decided to send Jesus to Pilate for trial (Matt. 27:1-2; Luke 22:66-71). The Roman trial began with Jesus appearing before Pilate (Matt. 27:11-14; John 18:28-38a). Pilate then sent Jesus to Herod for interrogation (Luke 23:6-12). Finally Herod sent Jesus back to Pilate for a second examination (Matt. 27:15-31; John 18:38b-19:16). The trials were over and Jesus was at Golgotha by mid-morning, about 9:00 a.m. (Mark 15:25).
Matthew omitted Jesus' hearing before Annas (John 18:12-14, 19-23). Quite possibly Annas lived in one wing of the same building in which the Sanhedrin met.1028
26:57 Josephus wrote that the building in which the Sanhedrin normally met stood close to the western wall of the temple enclosure.1029The exact location is presently unknown. However this meeting of the Sanhedrin took place in Caiaphas' house or palace (Luke 22:54).1030While Annas examined Jesus, the Sanhedrin members assembled.
As mentioned earlier, Caiaphas was the official high priest then. He would have presided over the Sanhedrin. He was probably a Sadducee. The Sadducees held the power in Israel then. The scribes were the official teachers of the law, and the elders were the lay representatives of the people. The chief priests, mainly Sadducees, were also present (v. 59). These were the three groups that composed Israel's chief ruling body.
26:58 All the disciples had fled and left Jesus (v. 56; cf. Mark 14:54; Luke 22:54; John 18:15-18), but Peter followed at a safe distance as Jesus' guards led Him across the Kidron Valley, into Jerusalem, and into the high priest's house. This house contained an open courtyard in the middle, which was typical. Peter positioned himself inconspicuously, he thought, near a fire in the courtyard to observe what would happen (cf. John 18:15-16).
26:59-63a The phrase "whole Council"or "whole Sanhedrin"need not mean that all 70 members plus the high priest were present since only 23 constituted a quorum (cf. Luke 23:50-51).1031The chief priests were also the legal experts, so they evidently took the lead in conducting the trial. Matthew wrote that they tried to get false testimony against Jesus. This does not mean they looked for liars, but they looked for witnesses who would document their conviction that Jesus was a law breaker. To do that the witnesses would have to give false testimony.
The Mosaic Law required at least two witnesses in cases of capital offense. The lawyers had to interview several people before they finally found two that would agree on a charge against Jesus. This was another way that Matthew stressed Jesus' innocence. Interpreting with wooden literalism one might take Jesus' words as a threat to desecrate the temple, but Jesus had spoken metaphorically (John 2:19-21). He had meant that He was the true temple, the place where people met God and where God met them. Most ancient Near Eastern people regarded the desecration of a temple as a capital offense, and the Jews shared this viewpoint (cf. Jer. 26:1-19).
Even though the religious leaders oppressed and afflicted Jesus, He did not open His mouth. He was silent, like a lamb going to the slaughter and as a sheep before its shearers (v. 63a; cf. Isa. 53:7).
26:63b Frustrated by Jesus' silence the high priest tried to cut through to the basic issue. Did Jesus claim to be the Messiah or not?
"In terms of the plot of Matthew's story, this unexpected query raises the problem as to the source from which the high priest has even gotten the idea to question Jesus about being the Son of God. This source is Jesus himself and his narration of the parable of the wicked husbandmen [21:33-45]. As the presiding officer of the Sanhedrin, the high priest has knowledge of the claim to divine sonship which Jesus made in telling his parable to the chief priests and the elders. At the trial, therefore, the high priest seizes on Jesus' own claim . . . and hurls it back at Jesus as a weapon by which to destroy him."1032
Caiaphas demanded that Jesus answer under oath by the living God. "Son of God"was an equivalent title with "Messiah"(cf. 2:15; 3:17; 11:27; 16:13-20). If Jesus refused to answer, He would break an oath imposed on Him legally by the high priest. If He denied the charge, He would have had no further influence even though the Sanhedrin might acquit Him. If He affirmed the charge, He would appear to be an impostor given the presuppositions of the Sanhedrin. From their viewpoint, the Messiah would not allow others to imprison Him and put His life in jeopardy.
26:64 Jesus gave the same answer to Caiaphas that He had given to Judas (v. 25). It was "affirmative in content, and reluctant or circumlocutory in formulation."1033Caiaphas took it as a yes (v. 65). Jesus then proceeded to expand or qualify His response because the religious leaders' concept of Messiah was inadequate. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah but not the Messiah Caiaphas and his cronies had in mind.
Jesus alluded to Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13 to show that He was not a political Messiah in the popular mold. He was a Messiah who would receive a kingdom from the Ancient of Days and return to reign in great power and honor. This was one of Jesus' clearest claims of messiahship (cf. 16:27; 23:39; 24:30-31; 26:29). It constituted both a revelation and a threat to Israel's leaders. From now on, Jesus claimed, His hearers would not see Him as He stood before them then. In the future they would see Him as the Messiah and their Judge.
26:65-66 Rending one's garments expressed indignation or grief (cf. 2 Kings 18:37). It became a traditional response to blasphemy (cf. Acts 14:14).1034However it was illegal for the high priest to rend his garments (Lev. 21:10). The punishment for blasphemy in the Mosaic Law was death (Lev. 24:16).
26:67-68 Jesus' messianic claims did not impress or intimidate His accursers. They proceeded to humiliate Him for what they considered to be His false pretensions. Jesus' passive acceptance of these indignities only reinforced their assumption and encouraged them to be even more hostile (cf. Isa. 53:7). Mark and Luke recorded that they blindfolded Jesus (Mark 14:65; Luke 22:64). Perhaps Matthew's omission of this fact suggests that the leaders and or their servants beat Jesus so badly that He could not see who was doing the beating even if they had not blindfolded Him (cf. Isa. 52:14). If He was the Messiah, He should have been able to tell (prophesy in the sense of revealing something unknown) who hit Him.
All four evangelists recorded three denials, but the details differ slightly.
26:69-70 Peter was warming himself near the fire in the center of the courtyard (Mark 14:65; Luke 22:55; John 18:18). The servant girl's words expressed both curiosity and accusation. She referred to Jesus derogatorily as "the Galilean"(cf. Mark 14:67). Residents of Judea, and especially Jerusalem, regarded Galileans as inferior to themselves because the area was mainly rural. Evidently several people overheard her comment and may have joined in her questioning. Peter replied with words similar to a formal legal oath.1035
26:71-72 Peter withdrew to the gateway leading from the street into the courtyard perhaps because that area was darker and there were fewer people there. There another girl pointed him out to others standing about as one who had been with Jesus "of Nazareth,"another derogatory slur in view of the bad reputation of Nazareth. Peter denied her accusation this time with an oath. Matthew did not mean that Peter used profanity, but he invoked a curse on himself if he was lying. He appealed to something sacred to confirm his truthfulness (cf. 5:33-34; 23:16-22).
26:73-75 A third person, one of the high priest's servants who was a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off in Gethsemane (John 18:26), approached Peter with some bystanders about an hour later (Luke 22:59). They accusingly asked Peter again if he was not one of Jesus' disciples since he was a Galilean. Galileans had an accent that set them off as distinctive.1036This shows how thoroughly residents of Jerusalem connected Jesus' ministry with Galilee since it was the site of most of His activity. Most if not all of His disciples were Galileans.1037Peter denied that he knew Jesus a third time using more oaths to confirm his testimony. Immediately a rooster crowed. Peter heard it and remembered Jesus' prediction that he would deny Jesus before the cock crowed (v. 34). Peter left the courtyard and wept bitterly over his cowardice and failure. This is Matthew's last reference to Peter.
Matthew probably recorded this incident because it illustrates Jesus' ability to foretell the future, a messianic characteristic. It also reveals the weakness of the disciples whom Jesus had taken such pains to prepare for His passion but without success. Their concept of the Messiah and the kingdom was still largely that of most people in Israel then, though they had come to recognize Jesus as God. Only Jesus' resurrection would clarify their understanding of His messiahship and kingdom program.
Matthew's narrative directs the reader's attention from the courtyard back to the Sanhedrin's council chamber (v. 68).
Evidently the chief priests and elders had to decide how they would present Jesus' case to Pilate to secure the verdict they wanted from him. The title "governor"is a general one. Really Pilate was a prefect (procurator) whom Tiberius Caesar had appointed in 26 A.D.1038Judea and Samaria had become one Roman province in 6 A.D. that Pilate now governed (in 33 A.D.). Normally he lived in Caesarea, but during the Jewish feasts he often came to Jerusalem because it became a potential trouble spot then. "Pontius"was his family name.
27:3 Judas evidently felt remorse because he realized that he had condemned an innocent man to death. His remorse (Gr. metamelomai) resulted in a kind of repentance (Gr. metanoeo), but it was not complete enough. The first of these two Greek words does not indicate "sorrow for moral obliquity and sin against God, but annoyance at the consequences of an act or course of acts, and chagrin at not having known better."1039Judas was sorry for what he had done and tried to make amends, but He never believed that Jesus was the Son of God (cf. Acts 1:16-19).
27:4 Judas' testimony to Jesus' innocence is an important part of Matthew's witness that Jesus was the Messiah. The response of the Sanhedrin members likewise proved their guilt. It should have meant something to them that Judas said that Jesus was innocent. Judas betrayed innocent blood, and they condemned innocent blood.1040They were wrong in thinking they could avoid responsibility for Jesus' death because of Judas' guilt in betraying Him.
"They are guileful' and callous,' purchasing the services of Judas to betray Jesus yet leaving Judas to his own devices in coming to terms with his burden of guilt (26:14-16; 27:3-4)."1041
27:5-8 Judas threw the 30 pieces of silver that he had received for betraying Jesus into the temple sanctuary somewhere. Perhaps Judas thought he could atone for his sin to some extent with this gift. Then he went out and hanged himself (cf. 2 Sam. 17:23 LXX). Many scholars believe this was in the region of gehenna, the city dump of Jerusalem, near the confluence of the Kidron and Hinnom valleys south of the city.
The chief priests properly refused to receive the silver into the temple treasury (cf. Deut. 23:18). Here again they appear scrupulous about ritual observance of the law while at the same time they failed to defend what is more important, namely the innocence of Jesus (cf. 12:9-14; 15:1-9; 23:23: 28:12-13). They decided to use the money for a public project, a graveyard for foreigners. The place they used had evidently been an area of land from which potters obtained their clay but which by now had become depleted.
The account of Judas' death in Acts 1:18-19 is slightly different, but it is easy to harmonize the two stories. Probably the chief priests bought the grave with Judas' money. Judas evidently hanged himself, and then the corpse apparently fell to the ground and burst open. Perhaps the branch from which he hanged himself broke, or his body may have fallen when it began to decompose. The place of his suicide could have received the name "field of blood"before or after Judas' death. If before, Judas may have chosen to kill himself on the field that his money had purchased. It seems more likely, however, that the Sanhedrin pruchased the field sometime after the events of this night.
27:9-10 This difficult fulfillment seems to be a quotation from Zechariah 11:12-13, but Matthew attributed it to Jeremiah. Probably Matthew was referring to Jeremiah 19:1-13, which he condensed using mainly the phraseology of Zechariah 11:12-13 because of its similarity to Judas' situation.1042
"Joining two quotations from two Old Testament books and assigning them to one (in this case, Jeremiah) was also done in Mark 1:2-3, in which Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1 are quoted but are assigned to Isaiah. This follows the custom of mentioning the more notable prophet first."1043
In Jeremiah 19 Israel's rulers had forsaken God and made Jerusalem a place for foreign gods. The valley where the prophet delivered his prophecy and where he smashed the vessel received the name "Valley of Slaughter"symbolic of Judah and Jerusalem's ruin. Similarly in Matthew 26-27 the rejection of Jesus led to the polluting of a field that is symbolic of death and the destruction of Israel, which foreigners were about to bury. In Zechariah 11 and in Matthew 26-27 the people of Israel reject God's shepherd and value him at the price of a slave. In both passages someone throws the money into the temple and eventually someone else uses it to buy something that pollutes.
". . . what we find in Matthew, including vv. 9-10, is not identificationof the text withan event but fulfillmentof the text inan event, based on a broad typology governing how both Jesus and Matthew read the OT . . ."1044
This understanding of the fulfillment also explains the changes Matthew made in the texts he said the events involving Judas fulfilled. Matthew saw in Jeremiah 19 and Zechariah 11 not just several verbal parallels but a pattern of apostasy and rejection that found its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus.1045
A different explanation of this problem is that Jeremiah was the first book in the prophets division of the Hebrew Old Testament. Jesus quoted Zechariah as from Jeremiah because the Book of Zechariah was in the section of the Hebrew Bible that began with the Book of Jeremiah.1046However, it is uncertain that the Book of Jeremiah occupied this leading position in the third division of the Hebrew Bible in Matthew's day.
Pilate was a cruel ruler who made little attempt to understand the Jews whom he hated.1047He had treated them unfairly and brutally on many occasions, but recently Caesar had rebuked him severely.1048This probably accounts for the fairly docile attitude he displayed toward the Sanhedrin in the Gospel accounts. He wanted to avoid another rebuke from Caesar. However, his relations with the Jews continued to deteriorate until 39 A.D. when Caesar removed him from office and banished him. In the Gospels Pilate appears almost for Jesus, but he was probably favorable to Jesus because he hated the Sanhedrin that opposed Him. Pilate may also have dealt with Jesus as he did because Jesus posed no threat whatsoever to him from his viewpoint. Conviction by both the Sanhedrin and Pilate were necessary to condemn Jesus. These inveterate enemies united against Him.1049
27:11 The location of this trial is uncertain. It probably took place in the fortress of Antonia that stood just northwest of the northern temple courtyard wall. This was the site of Peter's later imprisonment and miraculous release (Acts 12:3-11) and Paul's defense before the people of Jerusalem and imprisonment (Acts 21:27-23:30). However, Jesus may have stood before Pilate in Herod's palace. It stood near the Jaffa Gate in western old Jerusalem.
Pilate's question grew out of Jesus' claim to be Israel's Messiah (26:64) that the Sanhedrin undoubtedly reported to Pilate (cf. 2:2). This was a political charge whereas the charge that Caiaphas had brought against Jesus had been religious (26:61, 63). Jesus responded to Pilate's question with the same affirmative but qualified statement that He had formerly given Judas (26:25) and the Sanhedrin (26:64). He was the King of the Jews but not in the way that Pilate would have thought of such a person. He was not a military rebel come to throw off Rome's yoke violently. Matthew recorded Jesus' claim to be the Messiah again.
27:12-14 Having responded to the charge against Him, Jesus made no further attempt to defend or clear Himself (cf. 26:63). Pilate could hardly believe that Jesus would not try to defend Himself. Obviously Jesus was not trying to avoid the Cross (cf. Isa. 53:7). Such an attitude led Pilate to conclude that Jesus was either foolish or crazy.
Only Luke reported that now Pilate sent Jesus to Herod Antipas for questioning (Luke 23:6-12). Herod then returned Jesus to Pilate.
27:15 Evidently it had become traditional for Pilate to release one Jewish prisoner, that he had taken, as a favor to the Jews each Passover. He probably did this to improve relations with his subjects on a politically important occasion.
27:16 Barabbas' name means "son of the father."Jesus, of course, was the true Son of the Father. The Greek word translated "notorious"(episemos) really means eminent or outstanding (cf. Rom. 16:7). He was a famous prisoner but not necessarily one that the Jews regarded as an undesirable character. On the contrary, he had evidently been leading an insurrection against the Roman government (cf. Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19; John 18:40). These guerrilla actions were fairly common then.1050Many of the Jews would have viewed Barabbas as a hero rather than as a villain. He was more of a messianic figure, in the minds of most Jews, than Jesus was.
Possibly the two men crucified with Jesus were Barabbas' partners. Matthew used the same Greek word to describe them as the other evangelists used to describe Barabbas (i.e., lestes, "rebels"or "insurrectionists,"v. 38). All three were more than common robbers.
Jesus really took the place of one rebel, Barabbas, because the people preferred one who tried to overthrow Rome's power to the Messiah that God had provided for them. This shows their insistence on having a Messiah of their own design (cf. 1 Sam. 8:5, 19-20).
27:17-18 The "them"(NASB) or "crowd"(NIV) is the multitude of common people (v. 15; cf. Mark 15:8). Pilate saw that the Sanhedrin was trying to get him to eliminate someone they saw as a threat to their own authority, namely Jesus. He knew the Sanhedrin had no special desire to advance the welfare of Rome. Pilate undoubtedly knew that Jesus enjoyed great popularity among the Jewish people (cf. 21:1-16). Therefore he appealed to the people to let him know which prisoner they wanted him to release. He undoubtedly thought the crowd would request Jesus thus giving him a reason to humiliate the Sanhedrin by releasing Jesus.
27:19 Pilate's wife interrupted him as he sat on the judgment seat about to render a verdict in Jesus' case. Matthew probably recorded this incident because it is another indication of Jesus' innocence. Somehow Pilate's wife had come to conclude that Jesus was a righteous person, that He did what was right. It is impossible to tell if her dream was a supernatural revelation from God or something less. Obviously God permitted it so she would encourage her husband to release Jesus.
"Pilate's wife' (27:19) serves as a foil for Pilate himself: her warning to Pilate not to have anything to do with that innocent man (Jesus) contrasts with Pilate's decision to accede to the Jewish demand that Jesus be put to death. Barabbas' (27:15-26) serves as foil for Jesus; a notorious prisoner is set free, whereas an innocent man is delivered up to be crucified."1051
27:20-21 The Sanhedrin members persuaded the crowd to insist that Pilate release Barabbas and crucify Jesus (cf. Mark 15:11). Initially this may seem incredible, but remember that both Jesus and Barabbas were popular with the people. Pilate seemed to the people to be favoring Jesus' release, but their religious leaders favored Barabbas' release. It was quite natural that the Jewish people would side with their leaders against Pilate given such a choice. The Sanhedrin had previously sowed doubts about Jesus in the people's minds by circulating reports that He had blasphemed. Jesus Himself had failed to attempt what Barabbas had attempted, namely overthrowing Rome's authority over Israel. This may have been another reason the people wanted Barabbas released.
27:22-23 Pilate tried to reverse his tactical error by asking more questions, but mob sentiment against him and his choice became stronger with each question he asked the crowd. First, Pilate offered a milder sentence for Jesus, but the crowd would have none of it (v. 22). Second, he attested Jesus' innocence, but the crowd's original answer had become a mob chant that the governor could not change or silence.
"One can almost picture this scene, somewhat like a football stadium in which the crowd shouts Defense!' Their cheer was Crucify, crucify!'"1052
The Jews wanted Pilate to crucify Jesus rather then to punish Him another way because, for the Jews, a person hanging on a tree was a demonstration that he was under God's curse (Deut. 21:23).
27:24 Washing one's hands to symbolize one's innocence was a Jewish custom, not a Roman custom (cf. Deut 21:6; Ps. 26:6).1053Evidently Pilate did this to show contempt for the Jews. Pilate could wash his hands with a clear conscience because he had tried to release Jesus, but the Jews would not allow him to do so. This is not saying he was innocent of guilt, but he undoubtedly felt justified in doing what he did. Pilate delivered Jesus up for crucifixion out of cowardice and fear of the Jews whom he despised. He could no more pass his personal responsibility for Jesus' death off on the people than the chief priests and elders could avoid their responsibility for it by blaming Judas (v. 4).
27:25 The people's response was not new (2 Sam. 1:16; 3:28; cf. Acts 18:6; 20:26). "All the people"in the context refers to the crowd present, not just the Sanhedrin or the whole Jewish nation. This phrase did not cover the Jews who believed on Jesus but unbelieving Israel. Therefore it is inappropriate to use this verse to justify anti-Semitism.1054
"The viciousness of their anger could hardly be described more graphically than by this horrible utterance."1055
"Owing to the leaders' abject repudiation of Jesus, they unwittingly effect, not the salvation of Israel as they had anticipated, but just the opposite, Israel's demise as God's special people: they bring a curse upon themselves and the people (27:25); they provoke the destruction of Jerusalem (22:7); and they unknowingly make themselves responsible for the transfer of God's Rule to another nation, the church, which becomes God's end-time people (21:43; 16:18; 13:38)."1056
27:26 Under Mosaic Law the Jews could not scourge someone with more than 40 lashes (Deut. 25:3; cf. 2 Cor 11:24). However here the Romans, not the Jews, were scourging Jesus. They had no limit on the number of lashes they could impose on a prisoner. They customarily used a leather whip with pieces of bone and or metal embedded in the thongs, a flagellum. Scourging with this whip often turned human flesh into pulp and exposed the bones and internal organs.1057People frequently died from this type of flogging. The Romans used it to weaken prisoners before crucifixion. After this beating, Pilate sent Jesus to die (cf. Isa. 53:6, 12). This scourging fulfilled Jesus' words in 20:19.
Matthew's account of the trial before Pilate makes Jesus' innocence clear.1058As in the religious trial, Jesus stood before an unjust judge whose personal prejudices guided him rather than justice. The self-sacrifice of the Suffering Servant also comes through in this trial. No one took Jesus' life from Him as a martyr. He laid it down for others in self-sacrifice.
