Matthew 27a

 The unusual, perhaps even extra-judicial (as in a kangaroo court) proceedings unfold, but who is in charge? The Roman prefect, Pilate? He likely has heard about Jesus since his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Pilate normally did not live in Jerusalem but was here for Passover to be sure that any crowd that gathered did not turn into a riot. From Pilate’s perspective, from that time, Jesus has not caused any problem. 

 It is the chief priestly families and elders of the people who have been pushing the issue. The betrayal, the arrest, the abuse, the prying questions fishing for an actionable charge–all this happened under cover of darkness. What happened behind closed doors did not stay there since Matthew tells us this story.

27: 1-2.   When morning came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people conferred together against Jesus in order to bring about his death. They bound him, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate the governor.

 Almost satisfied that they have extracted from Jesus an actionable charge, the authorities come together for the final decision. What charge will work best to convince the Romans to act? That he claims to be the Messiah? No, why would the Romans care about that? That he claims to be the Son of God? Not likely, although the emperor also claims to be a son of a god. That he claims to be a king? Yes. That charge can be phrased so as to imply treason since there is only one apex ruler, and that is the emperor himself. This charge fits with the text of the Gospel according to Luke. 

“They began to accuse him, saying, “We found this man inciting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to Caesar and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king.” (Luke 23: 2). But, even in Luke, that claim is a hard sell to Pilate.  

 For Matthew’s account of Pilate’s response, we will have to wait until verse 11. Matthew inserts another story before continuing.  

27: 3-5.  When Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. He said, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” But they said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.” Throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself. 

 Judas, like Peter, was apparently hanging around to see how things would turn out. When Jesus was led away in chains like a condemned criminal, the depth of Judas’ betrayal became clear. The word for ‘repented’ here is metamelomai ‘to repent, regret, or change one’s mind’. The same word appeared a few chapters ago in the parable of the two sons.

“What do you think? A man had two sons; he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ He answered, ‘I will not,’ but later he changed his mind and went. The father went to the second and said the same, and he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but he did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him, and even after you saw it you did not change your minds and believe him” (Matthew 21: 28-32).

 This has led some readers to believe that Judas repented, and it may well be. The word comes from meta ‘with’ or ‘after’ and melo ‘care’ or ‘concern’. Judas tries to rid himself of the guilt of having betrayed an innocent man. The punishment? “You shall do to the false witness just as the false witness had meant to do to the other” (Deuteronomy 19: 15-19; see also Deuteronomy 27: 25). 

 Judas confesses his sin in a bid to correct his error and save his soul. The temple authorities, however, are not interested in his soul. In effect, they say, “Not our problem. Take care of it yourself.”

27: 6-10.  But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since they are blood money.” After conferring together, they used them to buy the potter’s field as a place to bury foreigners. For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one on whom a price had been set, on whom some of the people of Israel had set a price, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”

 Matthew tries to locate Judas’ behavior in prophecy and in doing so has left us with a problem. But, it is only a problem by today’s standards of Biblical interpretation. In Matthew’s time, scribes and rabbis often linked parts of Scripture according to subject or even the use of a similar word in two different passages. Matthew is drawing here from one verse in Jeremiah and another verse in Zechariah. He mashes them together and gives the credit to the more famous prophet: Jeremiah. 

 It is Zechariah who takes on the persona of a shepherd whose sheep will not follow him. He asks for his wages and is paid 30 shekels which the Lord then says that he should throw into the temple treasury. The word for treasury could also, with different vowels (there are only consonants in ancient Hebrew), be read as ‘potter’ (R. V. G. Tasker, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, 1961, pages 258-259). 

 From Jeremiah, Matthew is apparently drawing the story of the prophet buying a field as a statement about God’s promise to restore the fortunes of the Jews after the Exile. Jeremiah then says to his disciple, Baruch, “Take these deeds … and put them in an earthenware jar (a pot), in order that they may last for a long time. For thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Houses and fields and vineyards shall again be bought in this land” (Jeremiah 32: 6-15).

 In sum, “Judas in returning the money to the Temple did what Zechariah did; but the priests in purchasing a field with the money did what Jeremiah did” (Tasker, page 259). 

27: 11-14.  11 Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” Jesus said, “You say so.” But when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he did not answer. Then Pilate said to him, “Do you not hear how many accusations they make against you?” But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed.

 Once again, if we understand the idioms of the time period, Jesus’ answer is “Yes, it is as you say.” Jesus does not speak further, however, because Pilate’s perception of a king (the emperor) is not the same as Jesus’ perception of a king. Likewise, the chief priests and elders’ perception of the Messiah is not the same as Jesus’ understanding.

 For Pilate, silence implies that Jesus has no defense, that is, that he is guilty. This may have disappointed Pilate, in part, because wants the Jewish authorities to know that he is in charge and will not play along with their games.  

27: 15-18.  Now at the festival the governor was accustomed to release a prisoner for the crowd, anyone whom they wanted. At that time they had a notorious prisoner called Jesus Barabbas. So after they had gathered, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Messiah?” For he realized that it was out of jealousy that they had handed him over. 

Pilate did offer them a choice, though he certainly did not want to release Jesus Barabas who was a known insurrectionist and criminal. There is, of course, an irony here in having two prisoners named Jesus, yet more so because one was named Bar-Abbas which means ‘son of ‘the father’. So we have Jesus the son of the Father and Jesus a son of the father. Pilate knows which one is more of a danger to him, and it is not the Jesus of whom the Jewish leaders are jealous. 

27: 19.  While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, “Have nothing to do with that innocent man, for today I have suffered a great deal because of a dream about him.” 

 Pilate is apparently waiting for a definitive answer about which Jesus to release when a message comes from his wife. Two historical scenes come to mind. It was Caesar’s wife Calpurnia who had a dream of Caesar wounded and bleeding and so begged him not to go to the Senate that day. He ignored her warning and went to his own destruction. 

 The other scene is the familiar story of the Magi at Christ’s birth. Though Jesus was silent (he was a new born baby), these foreign rulers paid homage to him. They were then warned in a dream not to return to King Herod, which premonition they followed (Ben Witherington III, Matthew, 2006, page 510).

 Which Jesus will Pilate pardon? We will take up the matter again next week.