Third section the judgment upon the church itself second picture of judgment

Footnotes:

1]Comp. on this intricate question Winer: Realwörterbuch, sub Pascha; De Wette. and Meyer: on John 12:1; John 13:1; John 18:28, and the other disputed passages; Bleek: Beitrüge zur Evangelien-Kritik, p107; Wieseler: Chronologische Synopse, p339; Ebrard: Kritik der Evang. Geschichte; Weizel.: Die christliche Paschafeier der ersten Jahrhunderts; Lange: Leben Jesu, i. p187; ii. p1166, and Geschichte des Apot,. Zeitalters, i. p71.—[Also Gust. Seyffarth: Chronologia Sacra. Untersuchungen über das Geburtsjahr des herrn, Leipz1846, pp, 119–148; and among English works, E. Greswell: Dissertations upon the Principles and Arrangement of an Harmony of the Gospels, 2d ed. Oxf1837, 4vols.; vol. iii. p 133 sqq.; Alford: Com. on Matthew 26:17-19 (p248 sqq.); Robinson: Harmony, etc.; Sam. L Andrews: The Life of our Lord upon the Earth, New York, 1863, pp425–460. Of English writers Andrews, Robinson, and Wordsworth agree with Dr. Lange’s view that Christ ate the regular Jewish Passover on Thursday evening, at the close of the 14 th of Nisan, and was crucified on Friday the 15 th, the first day of the feast; while Greswell, Alford, Ellicott, and others, side with the opposite view according to which Christ instituted the holy communion (either in connection with the real, or a merely anticipatory passover, or a πάσχα μνημονευτικόν, as distinct from the πάσχα θύσιμον, or an ordinary meal—for their views differ in these details) on the 13 th of Nisan (Thursday evening), and died on the 14 th (Friday afternoon) when the paschal lamb, of which He was the type, was slain and the Jewish Passover proper began. Seyffarth agrees with the latter as to the date of the month, but differs from both parties and from the entire tradition of the Christian Church as to the day of the week, by putting the crucifixion on a Thursday instead of Friday, and by extending the Saviour’s rest in the grave to the full extent of three days and three nights till Sunday morning. (See below, p457.) The chronological difficult) concerning the true date of Christ’s death and the true character of His last Supper divides the Greek and Latin Church, but was not made an article of faith in either. The Greek writers generally hold that Christ, as the true Paschal Lamb, was slain at the hour appointed for the sacrifice of the Passover (the 14 th of Nisan), and hence the Greek Church uses leavened bread in the Eucharist. The Latin Church, using unleavened bread in the Eucharist, assumes that Christ Himself used it at the institution of this ordinance, and that He ate therefore the true Paschal Supper on the first day of unleavened bread, i.e., the 14 th of Nisan, and died on the day following. In this whole controversy it should be constantly kept in mind that the Jewish day commenced six hours before the Julian day, and run from sunset to sunset, or from six o’clock in the evening till six o’clock in the evening, and that the day when Christ instituted the holy communion, embraces the whole history of the passion, crucifixion, and burial.—P. S.]

2][This is the interpretation of W. Bäumlein, the latest commentator on the fourth Gospel. He explains the πρὸ τῆς ἑορτῆς τοῦ πασχα unmittelbar vor dem Paschafeste, i.e, immediately before the Passover. Compare such expressions as πρὸ δείπνου, πρὸ ἡμέρας. Ewald, however (Commentar, p343), explains: “am Tage vor dem Pascha-feste, i.e., a day before the Passover (the 14 th of Nisan).—P. S.]

3][Comp. the same argument more fully stated by Andrews: Life of our Lord, p446—P. S.]

4][Lightfoot, ad John 18:28, makes the same remark.—P. S.]

5][The German original reads here and afterward φάγειν (infin. from ἔφαγον, used as aor. ii. of ἐσθίω); but the Edinb. trsl. ought not to have copied such an obvious typographical error.—P. S.]

6][Comp. the remarks of Andrews l. c. p447 sqq.. who urges that John in six out of the nine times in which he uses the word πάσχα, applies it to the feast generally; that Hebrews, writing last of all the Evangelists, speaks of Jewish rites indefinitely as of things now superseded: that therefore the term, to eat the Passover, might very well be used by him in a more general sense with reference to the sacrifices which followed the paschal supper on the 14 th of Nisan. The most recent commentary on John’s Gospel, by W. Brumlein, Stuttgart, 1863, p166, arrives at the same conclusion with Wieseler, that πάσχα here means the חֲגִ־גָה or feast offering, i.e., the voluntary sacrifices of sheep or bullock which the Jews offered on the festivals.—P. S.]

7][The term: παρασκευή, preparation, occurs six times in the Gospels ( Matthew 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:14; John 19:31; John 19:42), and in all these cases it means προσάββατον, “the day before the Sabbath,” as Mark 15:42 expressly explains it. So the Germans call Saturday Sennabend, the Sunday-eve. Hence it is equivalent to Friday, and so rendered in Syriac. The Jews observed Friday afternoon from3 o’clock as the time for preparation for the Sabbath which commenced at sunset (Joseph. Antiq. xvi6, 2). The only difficulty is with John 19:14 : “it was the preparation of the Passover,” which Dr Lange should have mentioned before John 19:31, as an argument urged by the friends of the opposite view, inasmuch as it seems to place the trial and crucifixion before the beginning of the Passover. But we have no clear proof that there was a special preparation day for a feast (a Passover eve) as well as for the weekly sabbath; Bochart, Hieroz. p567: Sacri scriptores aliam Parasceven seu Præparationem non norunt, quam Sabbuti. And, then, if παρασκευτή became the usual term for Friday, the phrase must mean the Friday of the Passover, i.e., the paschal week, according to the wider usage of πάσχα in John. Campbell translates: “Now it was the preparation of the paschal Sabbath;” Norton: “The preparation day of the paschal week.” As the 14 th of Nisan was universally regarded as the beginning of the Passover, it is very unlikely that John should have gone out of his way to give it the came of the preparation for the Passover in the sense of Passover eve. Tholuck and Wieseler quote from Ignatius ad Phil. c18, the expression: σάββατον τοῦ πάσχα, and from Socrates, Ilist. Eccl. 5:22: σάββατον τῆς ἑορτῆς. Bäumlein in loc.: “Esist der Rüsttag der Paschazeit; denn wie wir gesehen haben, τὸ πάσχα bezeichnet bei Johannes die ganzs Paschafestzeit. Johannes wollte hervorheben, an welchem Wochentage der Paschazeit Jesus gekreusigt ward, wie nachher hereorgehoben wird, duss die Auferstehung aufden ersten Tug der Woche, also den dritten Tag nach der Kreuzigung fiel.” To this we may add the higher reason that John wished to expose the awful inconsistency and crime of the Jews in putting the Saviour to death on the very day when they should have prepared themselves for the service of God in His temple on the coming sabbath doubly sacred by its connection with the great Passover.—P. S.]

8][It may be added that the Jews attempted several limes to seize Jesus on sabbaths or festival days, Luke 4:26; Luke 4:29 (on a sabbath); John 7:30; John 7:32 (in the midst of the feast of tabernacles, τῆς ἑορῆς μεσούσης, Matthew 26:14); 7:37, 44, 45 (on the last day if the feast); 10:22, 39 (at the feast of the dedication).—P. S.]

9][The church fathers have the tradition that Christ died on the viii Cal. Apriles, i.e, on the 25 th of March, three days after the vernal equinox. The most definite testimony is that of Tertullian, which may be turned, however, against the view of Dr. Lange: “Quœ passio facta est sub Tiberio Cœsare, Consulibus Rubellio Gemino et Fusio Gemino, mense Martio, temporibus Paschœ, die viii. Calend. Aprilium, die primo asumorum [this seems to be the 14th of Nisan, as in Matthew 26:17 and parallels], quo agnum ut occiderent ad vesperum, a Moyse fuerat præceptum.’ Adv Judges 8. De Bapt. c19.—P. S.]

10][Ebrard held originally the other view, that Christ died on the 14 th of Nisan, and was rather suddenly converted to the opposite side by Wieseler (Chronol. Synopse, Hamburg, 1848, pp333–390), but then he again returned to his first view in consequence of the clear, calm, and thorough investigation of Bleek (Beiträge zur Exangelien-Kritik, Berlin, 1846, pp107–156). Comp. Ebrard: Dan Evangelium Johannis, p 42 sqq, where he defends Wieseler’s view, and his Wissen schafhiche Kritik der Evang. Geschiehte, 2d ed1850, p506 sqq, where he returns is to his first view with the honest confession: “The plausible and acute arguments of Wieseler have since been so thoroughly refuted by Bleek that no false pride of consistency can prevent me from returning openly to my original opinion as expressed in the first edition of this work.”—P. S.]

11][All omitted in the Edinb. trsl.—P. S.]

Verses 1-10

EIGHTH SECTION

JESUS AND HIS BETRAYER.—JUDAS AND THE HIGH-PRIESTS

Matthew 27:1-10

( Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66 to Luke 23:1; John 18:28)

1When [But, δέ] the morning was come, all the chief priests and [the, οἱ elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death: 2And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.^[FN1] 3Then Judas, which [who] had betrayed^[FN2] him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself [regretting, μεταμεληθείς],^[FN3] and brought again [brought back] the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and [the] elders, 4Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent^[FN4] blood [I sinned, or erred, in betraying innocent blood, ἥμαρτον παραδοὺς αῖμα ἀθῶον].^[FN5] And they said, What is that [it] to us? see thou to that,[it]. 5And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed [withdrew, or isolated himself, ἀνεχώρησε],^[FN6] and went [away hence] and hanged himself 6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood 7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in 8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day 9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy [Jeremiah]^[FN7] the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued [priced],^[FN8] whom they of the children of Israel did value [priced. Genesis 37:28; Zechariah 11:12-13; Jeremiah 18:1; Jeremiah 19:12; Jeremiah 32:6 ff]; 10And gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me [to me].^[FN9]

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Matthew 27:1 When the morning was come.—The formal meeting of the council must have taken place after six o’clock in the morning. The night of His betrayal into the hands of the high-priests was past, and the morning of His betrayal to the Gentiles had dawned. The deed, commenced in the night, was sufficiently developed and matured to be finished in clear day-light.—All the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel.—This meeting of the Sanhedrin, which Luke describes in his Gospel, was intended at the same time to meet all the forms of law, and definitely to express the grounds of the charge against Jesus. But, as we have already seen, in point of fact, it only served to cover those violations of the law into which their reckless fanaticism had hurried them. One of the main objects of the Sanhedrin now was, to present the charge in such a light as to oblige Pilate to pronounce sentence of death. Accordingly, they agreed on the following course of procedure: 1. They demanded the absolute confirmation of their own sentence, without further inquiry into their proceedings ( John 18:30). 2. Failing to obtain this, they accused Jesus as King of the Jews, i.e, as Messiah, in the ambiguous, semi-religious and semi-political sense of that title3. When (according to John) Jesus repudiated the political character of His kingdom, they preferred against Him the charge of making the religious claim that He was the Son of God. But as the effect of this accusation proved the very opposite from what they had expected, they returned to the political charge, now threatening Pilate with laying before the Emperor the fact that Jesus had made Himself a king. No doubt the general outline of this procedure was planned and sketched in the meeting of the Sanhedrin. Of course, they could not have foreseen that Pilate himself would offer them the means to overcome his opposition, by setting Jesus and Barabbas before them on the same level.—All the priests, elders, and scribes.—[Matthew mentions only the first two of these three classes, but Luke, Luke 22:66, adds also the scribes.—P. S.] “Besides their common hatred, each of these three estates had their own special motive for hostility to the Lord. The priests were indignant that He should lay greater stress on obedience than on sacrifice; the elders were offended that He judged traditionalism by the standard of revelation; the scribes, that He contended against the service of the letter by the spirit of the word. In a thousand different ways had they felt their prejudices shocked, and their ambition and pride humbled. At last the hour of revenge had come. Thus they led Him before their supreme council. The language used by Luke ( Luke 22:66) seems to imply that they led Jesus, in formal procession, from the palace of the high-priest into the council-chamber, on the area of the temple. It is scarcely probable that they would have conducted Him, with such formalities, from the prison-chamber to the upper hall of the high-priest’s palace. According to the Talmud, sentence of death could only be pronounced in the Gazith (the council-hall on the temple-mountain). See Friedlieb, p97 (who, however, questions the correctness of this statement). At any rate, it would appear indispensable that a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin should assemble on the temple-mountain” (Leben Jesu, ii3, p1786). On Sabbaths and feast-days the Sanhedrin met in an uncovered space, which was enclosed by a wall, in the vicinity of the court of the women, and not in the Gazith. In ordinary circumstances, judicial matters were not carried on upon the Sabbath-day. “Hence, notwithstanding the studied semblance of legality, the whole procedure was characterized by irregularity and violence.” Wichelhaus, p211.

To put Him to death.—The resolution had been finally taken during the night, and their present object was to put that sentence and the charge against Jesus into proper form, as a means toward the end in view.

Matthew 27:2. And when they had bound Him, they led Him away.—They bound Him, even when they first seized Him ( Matthew 26:50; John 18:12). These fetters He also still bore when led from Annas to Caiaphas ( John 18:24). They seem to have been removed during His examination before Caiaphas. After that they appear to have been again put upon the Lord. Now they proceed in a body (Luke) to hand over to the Roman procurator Him whom they had condemned. They calculated upon producing, by their formal procession in a body, so early in the morning, and that on the first day of the feast, the impression that Jesus had committed some fearful and unheard-of crime. For this purpose they now put Him again in fetters. Besides, this early and pompous procession would tend to terrify the friends of Jesus among the people, and to anticipate any possible movement in His favor. If Pilate had once sentenced Jesus, there would be less cause for apprehension on the score of a popular tumult. “The procession of the Sanhedrin passed from the council-chamber across the temple-mountain, in a northerly direction, toward the palace of the governor, which lay at the northern base of the temple-mountain. As the house of the high-priest was situated on the northern slope of the Upper City, or of Mount Zion, and a lofty archway led across the valley of the Tyropæon, connecting the temple-mountain with Mount Zion, it seems probable that Jesus may, before that, have been brought in formal procession across this high archway into the council-chamber on the temple mount. As we may assume that Herod, the ruler of Galilee, resided, during his stay at Jerusalem, in the palace of Herod, which also stood on the northern slope of Mount Zion, Jesus must afterward have again been led from the hall of judgment, on the temple mount, across that archway and back—a spectacle of ignominy and woe.” (From the author’s Leben Jesu, ii3, p1502.)

And delivered Him.—The original παρέδωκαν contains an allusion to the second great betrayal of the Saviour. “After Judea became a Roman province (upon the deposition of King Archelaus), the Sanhedrin no longer possessed the jus gladii. Comp. John 18:31.” Meyer.

Pontius Pilate.—The sixth Roman procurator of Judæa, and successor of Valerius Gratus. He held this office for ten years during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius (Joseph. Antiq. xviii4, 2). His arbitrary conduct, however, led to repeated risings of the Jews, which he suppressed by bloody measures (Joseph. Antiq. xviii3, 1; De Bello Jud. ii9, 2). He was accused before Vitellius, the Præses of Syria, who deposed and sent him to Rome, to answer before the Emperor for his administration. He was probably deposed from his office the same year as Caiaphas from the priesthood—in36 p. C. (ær. Dion.). According to Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiastes 2:7, and the Chronic. of the first year of Cajus, he committed suicide during the reign of Cajus Caligula. The opinion entertained of him by the Jews was affected by their fanaticism on the one hand, and on the other by his proud contempt of the Jewish nation. He affords one of the earliest instances of that antagonism between the Roman and heathen spirit of the world and Jewish fanaticism which, under the administration of his successors, attained such immense proportions, and at last burst forth in open war for independence. The bitter and derisive contemptuousness which he ever and again displayed, led to frequent conflicts with the leaders of the Jews, in which the obstinate determination and cunning of the latter generally secured the victory. This aversion to the Jews made it easier for him to take a favorable view of the cause of Jesus. To this must be added, the moral impression produced by the person of Jesus, the religious awe which the mysterious religious character of the Messiah evoked, and the warning of his wife. Under the influence of such feelings, he made unmistakable efforts to withdraw Jesus from the vengeance of His enemies, whose minds and motives he easily read, or at least sought to avoid having any part in His condemnation. Hence he sent Jesus to Herod, placed him side by side with Barabbas, solemnly washed his hands, presented Him to the people after He had been scourged, etc. But he was too weak and unrighteous to pronounce what he must have felt a righteous sentence, and boldly to adhere to it as a matter of duty, instead of resorting to these numerous paltry devices. Hence also his carnal and devilish wisdom was overmatched by the superior cunning and skill of the Jewish priesthood. Pilate may serve as a type of the complete unbelief, worldly-mindedness, and morally impotent civilization of the ancient Greek and Roman world. According to the word of the Lord Himself, Pilate was guilty, but his sin was less than that of the priesthood which had delivered the Christ into his hands ( John 19:11). Ordinarily, Pilate appears not to have been so yielding. Philo, legatio ad Caj.: “His disposition was unyielding, nor was he moved to leniency toward daring malefactors.” For the literature and history of Pilate, comp. Danz, Univ. Wörterbuch, sub Pontius Pilate. On the defence set up by some writers for Pilate, see Heubner, Com. p484, note. See also especially, Lavater, “Pontius Pilate, or Human Character in all its Phases.” Winer, art. Pilate [and other Bibl. Encyclop.]. The apocryphal tales connected with Pilate are recorded in the “Acta Pilati.” They are of a twofold character: 1. Such as were invented by Christians; 2. such as were of heathen origin, defamatory in their nature, circulated in the schools by order of Maximums about the year311. See Heubner, p427. The introduction of “Pontius Pilate” in the Creed shows that in the mind of the Church he was regarded as representing the ancient world, and in general the spirit of the world.

The governor, ἡγεμόνι,—the more general term. The more special designation of the office was ἐπίτροπος, procurator. Winer: “The official title of procurator or eparch was given to the chiefs of administration—commonly Roman knights—who were appointed along with the governors both of imperial and senatorial provinces, and whose duty it was to attend to the revenues of the imperial treasury, and to decide on all legal questions connected with this department. Occasionally they occupied the place of governor in smaller provinces, or in districts which had been conjoined with larger provinces, but were separately administered, when they had the command of the troops stationed in their district and administered the law even in criminal cases; the president of the province retaining, however, the superintendence of such administration, and being empowered to receive and hear accusations against the procurator. Comp. Joseph. Antiq. xviii5, 2; xx6, 2; Bell. Judges 2, 4, 3.”—After the banishment of Archelaus (six years after Christ), when Judæa and Samaria were conjoined with the province of Syria, the government of Palestine was administered by a procurator. This governor of Palestine generally resided at Cæsarea, by the sea; but during the Passover he was in Jerusalem, whither the male population of the whole country flocked, and where it was his duty not only to preserve order, but also the prestige of the Roman power. If the presidents of Syria were in Palestine, they, of course, exercised sovereignty in the country. In regard to succession of the procurators, which was interrupted by the reign of Herod Agrippa from41–44, see Winer, art. Procurator, and K. von Raumer’s Palestine, p338 et seq.

Matthew 27:3. Then Judas ... when he saw.—He might readily learn that Jesus had been condemned. But he also saw it, from the procession in which the Pharisees conducted Jesus to Pilate, which could have no other object than to secure His condemnation.—Repented himself (regretted, felt sorrow, remorse).^[FN10]—This repentance was not genuine, as occasioned by the consequences of his deed, but false, as caused by these consequences, and these alone. It seems, then, that he had not anticipated such an issue. This circumstance has frequently been adduced in support of the idea, that the object of Judas in betraying the Lord had been to induce Him to display His majesty and glory as the Messiah. But in that case we would have expected that his repentance would lead him now to cling to Jesus. Yet he seems to have expected that, as on former occasions, so now, Jesus would miraculously deliver Him self from the power of His enemies; and that in any case he would have his own honor promoted by the turn things would take (see above). Moreover, by the very fact, that after His betrayal Jesus surrendered Himself unto death, Judas was filled with terror and anguish, seeing in this the fulfilment of Christ’s prediction, and an indication that all His other sayings, notably that concerning His betrayer, would also be fulfilled. Reckoning in his own mean way, Judas expected an ordinary result; and the fact that all his anticipations proved so utterly false, and the issue proved so entirely extraordinary, filled his mind with awe.