IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 2, Number 19, May 8 to May 14, 2000

COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 27:1-26

by Dr. Knox Chamblin


IV. THE END OF JUDAS. 27:3-10.

A. Judas' Remorse. 27:3-5.

1. The realization. vv. 3-4a. Behind "seized with remorse" is the aorist passive of metamelomai, literally, "it is a care to one afterwards." The term is distinct from, but overlaps with, metanoeo, "change one's mind, repent"; BAGD use "repent" for both. Judas was remorseful, because he "saw that Jesus was condemned" (v. 3). Any attempt to say more, will depend on our interpretation of the betrayal itself (see the comments on 26:14-16).

a. If Judas was a fervent nationalist who sought to force Jesus into becoming a Warrior-Messiah, the present action represents profound disenchantment with that way of salvation, or else deep regret that the "innocent one" (v. 4, favoring athoon over dikaion) has become a pawn in a political struggle.

b. If Judas advocated the way of suffering, then his remorse signals profound disillusionment - for he realizes that Jesus always determined to take this course and never entertained the idea of joining forces with the Zealots. (See Dorothy Sayers' poignant portrayal of the remorseful Judas, in The Man Born to be King, British ed., 262-63, 274-76.)

c. Judas has already been revealed as a slave of Mammon. The act of 27:3 expresses his final, horrified realization of his bondage to that Power. He now sees with terrifying clarity that Jesus has been a Slave of God, and that he himself has been a slave of Money - allowing himself to be so mastered by it that he has "betrayed innocent blood," indeed the blood of the supremely Innocent One. This is his sin (v. 4a). He passionately breaks free of that bondage by returning the coins and ending his life.

2. The response, v. 4b. The authorities remain resolutely hardened against Jesus and against his innocence. Their guilt is now intensified by their refusal to acknowledge their guilt. Their response seems to have contributed to Judas' awful awareness of the reality of evil. He now sees not only that Jesus is the most innocent of men, but that the supposed spiritual leaders of Jewry are the most evil of men. Judas' sudden realization of his own sin, enables him to perceive with awful clarity the true condition of the chief priests and elders - both their murderous opposition to Jesus and their failure to recognize the enormity of the deed. That which drives Judas to suicide is loathsomeness of sin - both his own and that of the men Mammon has used to seduce him.

B. The Purchase of the Field. 27:6-10.

1. The law. Judas had thrown the thirty coins "into the temple" (NIV) or "in the temple" (RSV), v. 5a; on these alternatives, see Carson 566, n. 5. The chief priests pick up the coins and say, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money" (v. 6). The law in question is that of Deut 23:18; money acquired by sinful means (in this case from prostitution) was "dirty money" and could thus not be given to God (Craigie, Deuteronomy, 299-300). Underlying "treasury" is the Aramaic korbanas, corresponding to korban, "a gift consecrated to God" (Mk 7:11; Mt 15:5 uses the Greek equivalent doron).

2. The action. "So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners" (v. 7). The use of OT prophecy in vv. 9-10 rests upon the historical fact recorded in v. 7. Matthew does not create events to conform to OT prophecies; rather he begins with the actual events of Jesus' life and then asks how those events and prophecies illuminate each other. We need not resort to the view that Matthew's language in v. 6 arose from his reading el-ha'otsar ("to the treasury") at Zech 11:13 rather than el-hayotser ("to the potter"), or from a desire to create a word play out of Zechariah's language or to express an historical sequence based on the word play. The relationship between treasury and potter is already provided in the actual sequence of events - which in turn provides a connection with Zech 11:13 (the prophet threw the thirty pieces of silver "into the house of the LORD to the potter"), and the basis for a word play on the corresponding Hebrew terms. Cf. the comments on 1:22-23. On the relation of 27:5-8 to Acts 1:18-19, see Carson 562.

3. The prophecy. "Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: 'They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me'" (27:9-10).

a. Matthew's indebtedness to Zechariah. The quotation recalls Zech 11:12-13, particularly the prophecy's reference to "thirty pieces of silver" (cf. comments on Mt 26:15) and "the potter." Yet a comparison between Mt 26:9-10 and Zech 11:12-13 reveals significant differences. Having made such a comparison, R. T. France concludes that Matthew's use of Zech is "quite original, [indeed] unique" (Jesus and the Old Testament, 207). France's judgment is that Matthew has altered and supplemented Zech to fit the facts of Passion Week (ibid.). This accords with the point made under 2., and does partially explain 27:9-10. But there is a further explanation, namely Matthew's use of Jeremiah.

b. Matthew's indebtedness to Jeremiah. The introductory formula (v. 9a) indicates that the following quotation at least includes a reference to Jer. Alternative explanations are not convincing (see Carson, 563). But what passage(s) in Jer does Matthew have in view? NIV mg. cites Jer 32:6-9 (where Jeremiah buys the field in Anathoth). Krister Stendahl (in Peake's Commentary on the Bible, 796b) argues that Matthew alludes to both 32:6-15 and 18:2-3 (where Jeremiah visits the potter's house). There is good reason to think that Matthew refers principally to Jer 19 (thus Gundry, 556-57; and Carson, 563, following Hengstenberg and Moo). Here Jeremiah buys a clay jar from a potter (v. 1a; cf. Mt 27:7, 10, Jer 18). Then, joined by "some of the elders of the people and of the priests" (v. 1b; cf. Mt 27:1), he goes to the Valley of Ben Hinnom, near the entrance of the Potsherd Gate (v. 2). Here he proclaims Yahweh's imminent judgment upon Judah for her unfaithfulness to him and her adulterous unions with other gods (19:3-9), one effect of which has been to fill Jerusalem with "the blood of the innocent" (v. 4b, a reference to child sacrifice, v. 5; cf. Mt 27:4). As a sign of what is to befall Judah and Jerusalem, the prophet is instructed to smash the pottery jar (v. 10). In consequence of this judgment, people will henceforth call this place the Valley of Slaughter (v. 6; cf. Mt 27:8), and it shall become a crowded burial site (v. 11; cf. Mt 27:7). Jer 32:6-9 should not be omitted from consideration: for it refers, as does neither Jer 19 nor Zech 11, to the actual purchase of a field.

c. Matthew's own artistry. Matthew draws upon three OT passages, Zech 11, and Jer 19 and 32. Each one shows affinities with present events, that the other two do not: e.g. Zech 11 alone speaks of thirty pieces of silver (the purchase price of the field in Anathoth was "seventeen shekels of silver," 32:9), Jer 19 alone of a burial site, and Jer 32 alone of the purchase of a field. That Matthew speaks of only one prophet in his introductory formula, is not unusual (cf. Mk 1:2-3). That he speaks of Jeremiah is not surprising: Jeremiah is the more prominent prophet, and the one to whom Matthew is here more greatly indebted. It might also be suggested that had Matthew not referred expressly to Jeremiah, the reader would not so readily detect the allusion to Jer 19. Matthew then weaves all these materials together in his own creative way for the purpose of interpreting the present episode (vv. 3-8) within the context of the Passion of Jesus. Cf. Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, 25.

4. Matthew's theological message. Both Zech 11 and Jer 19 speak of judgment. In Zech 11 an exchange of thirty pieces of silver expresses Judah's rejection of Yahweh and his prophet, and helps to account for the execution of judgment. In Jer 19 the shedding of innocent blood precipitates judgment and the establishment of a burial site whose very name witnesses to the severity of the judgment. Matthew here presents Judas' and the authorities' actions against Jesus, as a mirror of, and as a basis for, the judgment that God will execute against them. "Matthew sees in Jeremiah 19 and Zechariah 11 not merely a number of verbal and thematic parallels to Jesus' betrayal but a pattern of apostasy and rejection that must find its ultimate fulfillment in the rejection of Jesus, who was cheaply valued, rejected by the Jews, and whose betrayal money was put to a purpose that pointed to the destruction of the nation" (Carson, 566).


V. JESUS BEFORE PILATE. 27:1-2, 11-26.

A. The Double Trial.

The Jewish tribunal has already found Jesus guilty of a capital crime, and therefore deserving of death (v. 1). But the Romans reserved for themselves the right of capital punishment, as the Jewish authorities recognized (Jn 18:31). So it was necessary for Jesus to be handed over to Pilate, the Roman governor (v. 2).

B. The Accusation.

The Sanhedrin condemned Jesus for his alleged blasphemy (26:65). As such a charge would carry no weight with Pilate, "the chief priests and the elders" (v. 12) now accuse Jesus of claiming to be "the king of the Jews" (thus we infer from Pilate's opening question, v. 11). The Jews bring the charge most calculated to win Roman ratification of their own verdict. Jesus is represented as a threat to stability in the province, as one who might foment rebellion against Rome. Cf. Lk 23:2.

C. Jesus' Response.

Here as during the previous trial, Jesus makes no reply to the charges brought against him (v. 14, cf. 26:63). Again, when Pilate directly asks him, "Are you the king of the Jews?," Jesus replies with the very words he used in answering Caiaphas, Su eipas (v. 11, cf. 26:64). As before, the words are "affirmative in content, and reluctant or circumlocutory in formulation" (see the comments on 26:64). Jesus is indeed the King of the Jews (Mt 1-2, et seq.). But he is not their king in the sense alleged by his accusers and conceived by Pilate; cf. especially Jn 19:33-37.

D. The Choice.

The choice is to be made between Barabbas and Jesus (27:15, 17). The powerful irony of this situation is that Jesus poses no threat, and Barabbas a great threat, of political unrest. According to Mk 15:7, Barabbas "was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising" (cf. Jn 18:40). The tragic irony of Pilate's choice is underscored by Luke: "He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, the one they asked for, and surrendered Jesus to their will" (23:25).

E. The Judgment.

1. Against Jesus. In the end pressure from the crowd forces Pilate into condemning Jesus. The charge against him is neither substantiated by the crowd (their response shows that Jesus lacks needed support for a popular uprising) nor accepted by Pilate (v. 23, "Why? What crime has he committed?"; cf. Lk 23:14). A flogging (v. 26) customarily preceded crucifixion.

2. Against the Jews. By insisting on Jesus' death, the crowd (like their leaders) stands condemned; indeed they invoke judgment on themselves (v. 25). That the Gentiles, Pilate and his wife, insist on Jesus' innocence (27:19, 24), highlights the Jews' guilt. To suggest that Matthew portrays Pilate and his wife as disciples (Gundry, 561-64), goes too far: for Matthew records that Pilate capitulated to the crowd, and had Jesus flogged (v. 26).