Matthew Chapter 27
Takes up right after Peter's denial of Christ. A narration of events.
As morning comes - the morning after the Passover was eaten, the religious elite come up with a plan to get Jesus put to death. Their plan is to let Rome do it. So they gather up, and deliver Jesus to Pilate, governor at the time.
3 Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, [Mat 27:3 ESV]
He changed his mind, but there is nothing here of repentance. He didn't weep bitterly as Peter did, and it doesn't say he prayed. He went back to those he conspired with, as if returning the money would wash off the blood. They are not at all sympathetic to his change of heart. They essentially laugh at him. He threw down the money, and went and hanged himself. Not a lot of details here in Matthew.
Then this verse:
6 But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money." [Mat 27:6 ESV]
But it was ok for them to turn money that was already in the treasury to blood money? Such hypocrisy is hard to fathom. How did they not see that the guilt was on them no matter what they did with the silver. (Zec 11:12,13)
2022 - This verse:
"11 Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus said, "You have said so."" [Mat 27:11 ESV]. Here is that phrase again. In Greek, σὺ λέγεις. Soo legays, or something like that. This is now the third time that Jesus has used this phrase. The first two times it was aorist tense, meaning that no particular time was in view. Those were translated "you have said it yourself". This time, it is in the present tense. More like "you say so yourself". In Mt 26:25, Jesus says this to Judas. Perhaps the aorist is used because it was always intended that the Son of Man would be betrayed. In Mt. 26:64, Jesus says this to the High Priest, and the aorist is used. It was always that Jesus would be betrayed by his own people. But...is there a prophecy anywhere that says the High priest would do so? And the last time, in present tense, Jesus says it to Pilate. He was no one. He was not "prophesied"...or was he? Jesus said several times that he would be handed over to the Gentiles. In all three cases, the phrase is used in the narrative of events, as Matthew tells the story. Matthew was there when Jesus spoke to Judas, but not when he spoke to the High Priest or to Pilate. So no clue there. Perhaps the aorist was used because both Judas and the High Priest already knew the answer to the question. Pilate though, was perhaps still undecided about what he would believe about Jesus.
2022 - It is also interesting that Jesus answered Pilate's direct question, but would not answer the charges by the chief priests and elders.
2024 - Perhaps aorist is used because the betrayal is something a lot bigger than a moment...or because the betrayal was spread over time, and was not just a single event.
2024 - Looking at various translations I fine "Thou sayest", "it is as you say", "you said it", "you have said so", "you say so", "you yourself say it"...What I am trying to understand is whether Jesus answer is a direct answer - in which case either yes or no would have been much simpler - or he is answering in this odd way because he has never in his whole life ever claimed to be king, but he knows that at his NEXT appearance, he most certainly will be. Perhaps THIS also explains the aorist tense! It is also likely that Pilate had reports from various places - the religious elite not least of all - that there was this man wandering around Galilee proclaiming a kingdom, and Pilate himself had wondered aloud if he claimed to be a King, perhaps suggested that only a would be King would proclaim a kingdom. In this case, Jesus was saying "I do not say I am king, but YOU have said I am". I have just always been fascinated by Jesus' answers as he was tried. "You have said so" is not really a defense, but it is an answer that implied his own innocence. And we can fairly easily make the case that this is exactly how Pilate understood it. He states three times that Jesus has done nothing wrong. I prefer, then, the translations along the lines of "You have said so" to the NASB95 translation that says "It is as you say", especially when in the present tense. This would be an admission of guilt, basically saying "Yes, I am King of the Jews". Pilate would have had no problem condemning one who claimed authority that Rome had not granted.
When the Jews recite their charges against Jesus before Pilate, Jesus makes no defense whatever. Matthew says "not even to a single charge". This silence at such a time amazes Pilate.
Pilate offers to free either Jesus or Barabbas. Barabbas was even less deserving of release than others who were in prison at the time. Even the religious elite would likely have been glad that Barabbas was finally locked up and slated for execution. Pilate does this on purpose, to make them squirm. We know this from this verse:
18 For he knew that it was out of envy that they had delivered him up. [Mat 27:18 ESV]
Also, during this interval, Pilate's wife sent him word that she'd had a dream about Jesus, and she urges Pilate to leave him alone. Pilate asks again who they want him to free. The elite have persuaded the crowd to ask even more loudly for Barabbas. Pilate sees the irrationality of this, and asks why they want Jesus crucified, since he has done nothing at all that can be considered criminal? This just incites the crowd, and they grow more frenzied, bordering on riotous. Pilate wants to avoid riots. So as a gesture, Pilate washes his hands, and the people say let his blood be on us. Pilate releases Barabbas, and before sending Jesus to the cross, Pilate goes ahead and has him scourged. There is definitely still blood on Pilate's hands too.
The Roman soldiers take time to mock Jesus, to put the thorny crown on his head, and to spit on him before they put his own clothes back on him and lead him off to be crucified. The cruelty involved here...mocking a man about to die. Jesus submits to it, though it comes from Gentiles, and not from his own people.
Matthew doesn't tells us anything about Herod's part in all this. He just leaves that all out. Matthew puts it all squarely on Pilate, the Governor at the time.
Simon of Cyrene carries Jesus' cross. He doesn't volunteer...it says they compel him to do it. When they get to Golgotha Jesus is offered gall mixed with wine. MSB says gall just means bitter. In Mark, we're told there was myrrh mixed into the wine, and myrrh is a narcotic. That is why Jesus refused. He wanted his full faculties for the hours to come. For instance, per MSB, he needed to be conscious to minister to the thief who would ask forgiveness.
The way Matthew writes it, Jesus was crucified first, and they had sat down to watch. They cast lots for his clothing. Only then were the two thieves crucified on either side of him. The chief priests, scribes, and elders themselves come and mock Jesus as he is on the cross. But Matthew doesn't mention the Pharisees here. They are not mentioned as being present - at least not so far in Matthew. But what guilt did the mocking of these other "officials" of the Temple bring upon Israel?
The robbers crucified beside him join in with those mocking Jesus, as if they are with the "good guys", following the elite instead of the Messiah. Do they represent those who are good at religion though they miss the entire point? Those who are in the church building but not part of the church of God?
Three hours of darkness, from noon until three. Matthew records Jesus saying "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" from the cross. And these people around the cross, rather than trying to ease his suffering, try to prolong it by offering him sour wine so he will live longer and perhaps Elijah will come. They are more interested in seeing a "ghost" than in showing mercy. Truly heartless.
2023 - 54 When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, "Truly this was the Son of God!" [Mat 27:54 ESV]. Footnote 6 in TCR ESV says "or a son". I looked in BLB and there is no definite article in the statement of the guard(s). Further, it is "they said". I have always thought there was a single centurion that made this statement. I have seen movies about how this centurion was converted and believe. If there was no definite article, and this is something the guards just sort of all decided, then none of them believed. They were superstitious, the believed gods could cause signs, and they believed this is what was happening. But as I read it now, they equated Jesus' father with any other god in the Roman pantheon. They did not see Jesus as the only son of the one true God.
Jesus dies on the cross. Matthew does not mention the thief who repents. The veil is torn. The earth shakes, rocks split, dead rise from their tombs. Many rise. They walked into town, and a lot of people saw them. The Bible says nothing further about them. Who were they? Why were they raised? As a sign? Jesus said there'd only be the sign of Jonah. Matthew tells us they were saints that were raised. It wasn't just random resurrections. I have never thought to try and put this resurrection into consideration when reading apocryphal verses. Could this be a fulfillment of some of those?
Here's something interesting:
56 among whom were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. [Mat 27:56 ESV]. Mary's sons, James, Joseph, and Jesus. I think there may also have been a Simon that it names, but still...It's a practical argument that Mary had other children after Jesus. 2022 - Or this is another Mary. James and Joseph were surely common names.
2023 - This is about three women. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Less (Little James, not John's brother), and Mary the wife of Zebedee and mother of Big James and John. This gets more clear as we read about Jesus being laid in the tomb and about the morning of his resurrection.
2023 -If you look at vs 55, just before this verse, it talks about many women "looking on from a distance". So this group was not at the foot of the cross. Jesus' mother was all the way up on the hill, near the soldiers, right at the very cross. These others were significantly further away. This is likely also the reason that Jesus' mother did not follow the "funeral procession". My guess is that John took Mary home with him after Jesus died - she would have been too distraught to take that long walk to the tomb - and that is why she is not mentioned as being there either at the burial or at the resurrection.
Joseph of Arimathea asks Pilate for Jesus' body. He wraps Jesus in nothing but a linen shroud, lays it in the tomb, and rolls the stone in front of it. No burial spices are mentioned. Mary Magdalen and the other Mary were there when the stone was rolled into place, watching. Does it say "the other Mary" because this was not Jesus' mother, but perhaps Lazarus' sister? Hmm...You would also wonder, in vs 56 above, why they wouldn't identify Mary, his mother, instead of Mary mother of James and Joseph. We know his mother was there, from other gospels.
There was no guard that first night. (2023 - Not sure I'm right here...in fact, pretty sure I am not. The whole concept of a "day" beginning at sundown tends to confuse me. In the Bible Study note labeled "After Jesus' Burial", I conclude that the religious elite got their Roman guard after sundown on Friday - so actually on the Sabbath - but that would have been the first night - they maybe just arrived kind of late.)) The next day, this verse:
63 and said, "Sir, we remember how that impostor said, while he was still alive, 'After three days I will rise.' [Mat 27:63 ESV] The Pharisees are mentioned here. They weren't at the cross, but they are here now, making sure they don't look bad later.
They most certainly knew that Jesus claim to rebuild the temple in three days was a reference to himself. They accused him of meaning the real temple, and claimed that it was a crime to even say it. Yet they knew he was speaking figuratively. The elite manipulated the ignorance of the crowd. The elite were the "press" of that time. Pilate gives them soldiers to guard the tomb for three days.