Jesus Before Pontius Pilate

Continuing a Bible study of the gospel accounts:

(Matthew 27:1) When the morning had come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put Him to death.

At the end of the last chapter, Jesus had just been betrayed by the kiss of Judas and apprehended and brought before Caiaphas the high priest.  He was found guilty of blasphemy in a mock trial and sentenced to death.  The next morning the chief priests and elders plotted on how they would put Jesus to death.

(2) And when they had bound Him, they led Him away and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate the governor.

They bound Jesus again and took Him to Pontius Pilate, the governor appointed by the Romans over Judea.  It is written that the sanhedrin had the power of life and death themselves in everything that concerned religion.  Perhaps their case against Him was not strong enough, or more likely they wanted it taken out of their hands, perhaps because they feared the reaction of the people.  Whatever the reason, they put Him in the hands of a Gentile magistrate, fulfilling Jesus's prophecy in Matthew 20:19 that He would be delivered to the Gentiles.

(3) Then Judas who had betrayed Him, when he saw that He was condemned, repented himself, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders.

When Judas saw that Christ was condemned to death, he began to feel remorse and brought the thirty pieces of silver back to the chief priests and elders.  Perhaps Judas thought Jesus would have freed Himself through some miracle, and he had just seen a chance to make some money.  Now Judas "repented himself."  It is important to note there is a difference in the original word used here, "metamellomai" and the word more commonly used for repent, "metanoia."  Judas's type of repenting was more of a changing of his mind, perhaps some remorse caused by fear of the consequences of his actions.  It was a self-centered repentance like when we say that a person was not really sorry, only sorry he got caught.  A true godly repentance, "metanoia," represents a changed heart and behavior, a turning from sin to God.

(4) Saying, "I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood." And they said, "What is that to us? You see to it."

In changing his mind about his actions, Judas took the money back to the chief priests and elders, telling them he had sinned and betrayed innocent blood.  Once again, there is no evidence that Judas truly repented before God, falling on his face before Almighty God, humbling himself, asking for forgiveness in the realization of what he had done to His Lord.  Remember that God sees the heart and He is always just and righteous, but under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Matthew wrote that Judas was only sorry for himself.  The chief priests and elders declared that was of no concern of theirs.  If he felt he had sinned, he should go take care of that himself.  They had what they wanted, Jesus, and they had condemned Him for blasphemy; they didn't care about Judas's guilt or that he considered Jesus to be innocent of their charges.

(5) And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Judas then threw down the pieces of silver and went out and hanged himself.  There has been much discussion about how Judas actually died, because Peter later stated in Acts 1:18, that "falling headlong, he burst open in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."  Surely both statements are true.  If Judas had hung himself on a tree near a precipitous valley or something like that, the limb could have broken causing him to fall and tumble headfirst and his body dashed to pieces on the sharp rocks.  Matthew stated Judas hanged himself; he didn't say whether or not he actually died at that point.  He may have died, and then fallen; or a limb could have broken before he died and he died grotesquely upon the rocks.

(6) And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood."

The chief priests picked up the pieces of silver Judas had thrown down, but said it was not lawful to put them in the temple treasury because it was blood money.  It is remarkable that they were so scrupulous about the source of the money in their treasury, but not so when condemning innocent blood, as Judas had told them.

(7) And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field in which to bury strangers.

They consulted together and decided to use the pieces of silver to buy the potter's field, which was probably so called because the earth had been dug for pottery, and it was probably now used up and good for nothing.  They were able to buy it for just thirty pieces of silver and used it as a cemetery for strangers.

(8) Therefore that field was called the Field of Blood to this day.

Matthew declared that that potter's field had been called the Field of Blood, because it had been purchased by the price of blood, ever since then and up to the day he wrote that scripture.

(9) Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of Him who was valued by the people of Israel, (10) And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me."

That prophecy was actually spoken by Zechariah:

And I said to them, "If you think it good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed out for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said to me, "Cast it to the potter, a goodly price at which I was priced by them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord. (Zechariah 11:12-13)

It is believed by the older commentators I study that a subsequent copyist probably mistakenly added the name of the prophet, as Matthew's usual mode of writing was to say only, "by the prophet" (Matthew 1:22, Matthew 2:5, Matthew 2:15, Matthew 13:35, and Matthew 21:4).  Many early manuscripts omitted the name, and that is most likely how Matthew wrote it.  Matthew's point was not about who made the prophecy, but that prophecy had been fulfilled.

(11) And Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked Him, "Are You the King of the Jews?" And Jesus said to him, "You say."

Probably thinking their claim of blasphemy would not matter to Pilate, the chief priests and elders most likely had told him that Jesus professed to be king to incite anger and judgment by the government.  Therefore, Pilate asked Jesus point blank if He was the King of the Jews.  Jesus answered only, "You say," which was not really an admission or a denial.  The account in John 18:36 went on to say that Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world, so He admitted that He had a kingdom, but not a worldly kingdom that would have rivaled Caesar.

(12) And when He was accused by the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing.

Evidently, the chief priests and elders then had their turn to spout all their accusations before Pilate and in front of Jesus, but He said nothing.  There was really no use.  They were false claims, but He knew they intended to kill Him regardless, so He did not try to answer.  This fulfilled another prophecy by Isaiah, in Isaiah 53:7, "He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He didn't open His mouth; He was brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so He did not open His mouth."

(13) Then Pilate said to Him, "Do You not hear how many things they witness against You?" (14) And He answered him not a word, so that the governor marveled greatly.

Pilate, pressing Jesus to defend Himself, asked Him if He had heard all the things of which the chief priests and scribes had accused Him.  Jesus did not answer him, and that amazed Pilate.  It was at this point that Luke added that Pilate asked Jesus if He was a Galilean.  Probably wanting an excuse to free Him, Pilate was likely relieved that being a Galilean made Jesus under Herod's jurisdiction.  He sent Him to Herod, who saw no cause for death in Him, and sent Him back to Pilate.

(15) Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to releasing to the people a prisoner, whomever they wished.

It appears that at the Passover Feast the governor had a custom of releasing one prisoner of the people's choosing.  It was not law, but a custom that may have originated in an effort for the Romans to show some bit of respect for the Jews.

(16) And they had then a notable prisoner called Barabbas.

At that time Pilate had an infamous prisoner named Barabbas imprisoned.  Being notable, he was a known criminal; he was either a repeat offender or had done a horrific thing to be so well known.  The account in Luke states that he had been guilty of sedition and murder.

(17) Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said to them, "Who do you want me to release to you? Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ?" (18) For he knew that out of envy they had delivered Him.

When the people were gathered together, Pilate asked them who they wanted released to them, Barabbas, the notable criminal, or Jesus whose only "crime" was that He was called the Christ.  The account in Luke states that Pilate found Jesus to be innocent and not worthy of death and had planned to release Him at the feast.  He was most likely certain the people would choose to release Jesus rather than the infamous Barabbas.  Pilate knew it could only be envy that made the chief priests and elders want to kill Jesus, for there was no fault in Him.

(19) When he was sat down on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, "Have nothing to do with that just Man, for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of Him."

While Pilate was on his judgment seat, his wife sent a message to him asking him not to involve himself with condemning whom she called a just Man.  She had had dreams about Him, and was convinced of His innocence or perhaps feared the judgment that might come upon her family if Pilate condemned Jesus.

(20) But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus.

Now that the decision to kill Jesus was out of their hands, the chief priests and elders urged the people to ask for Barabbas.  They probably incited a riot of excitement in the people, for how else could people who had so recently led a procession for Him, crying "Hosannah!" now be persuaded to call for His death?

(21) The governor answered and said to them, "Which of the two do you want me to release to you?" They said, "Barabbas!"

The governor responded to the crowd by asking which of the two prisoners they wanted released to them.  Unbelievably, the crowd answered Barabbas.  This was surely done because of the instigation of the chief priests and elders.  It shows the danger of wicked church elders who can easily persuade their flocks, and the danger of a mob mentality.

(22) Pilate said to them, "What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?" All said to him, "Let Him be crucified!"

Pilate, probably incredulous, asked the people what then would they have him do with Jesus, a Man he had judged as innocent.  The crowd shouted to crucify Jesus!  Pilate, if he had indeed found Jesus innocent and not worthy of death, should have released Him after his finding.  However, it was God's will that Jesus die on the cross.  

(23) And the governor said, "Why? What evil has He done?" But they cried out all the more, "Let Him be crucified!"

Pilate asked the multitude why they should call for Jesus's crucifixion; what evil had He done?  Instead of answering his question, the crowd just shouted all the more to crucify Him.

(24) When Pilate saw that he could not prevail, but rather a tumult had developed, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, "I am innocent of the blood of this just person; you see to it."

Pilate had lost control of the mob, and therefore took water and washed his hands before the crowd declaring his innocence of the blood of this just Jesus.  If the crowd wanted Him crucified, then it was up to them to have it done.

(25) Then all the people answered and said, "His blood be on us and our children."

The people declared it would be their responsibility, and they even decided for their children!  They had no idea what they were asking for, nor what a prophetic statement they had made.

(26) Then he released Barabbas to them, and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.

Pilate did what the people asked and delivered free Barabbas to them.  He then scourged Jesus.  If he considered Him innocent, why did he have to do that?  He then delivered Jesus to be crucified.  Why?  Because he had no power over the people?  I have long pondered over Pilate's actions.  Was he innocent or not?  At the very least, he was a very weak ruler, letting the people rule over him.  It seems he found Jesus innocent from the beginning, but was happy to have someone else make the decision when he sent Jesus to Herod.  When it came time to release a prisoner, he again pushed off the decision to the people.  Since he was the governor, and he had found Him innocent, and even Herod had found no fault in Him, it seems it would have been his duty to release Him.  He apparently feared going against the chief priests and elders.  I'm sure he thought the people would call for Jesus's release opposite such a wicked prisoner as Barabbas, but he should have been man enough to make the decision himself.  He wanted to pass the decision to someone else and he would bear no responsibility to anyone.

Pilate had even received confirmation from his wife's dreams that he should not condemn Jesus, but he allowed the chief priests and elders to stir up the crowd against Jesus, even knowing that they did it out of envy.  He repeatedly put the question to the people (Luke states three times), indicating his desire to free Jesus, but being the weak ruler he was, he allowed the people to make the decision.  When the people asked that Barabbas be released, he could have released him and then dealt with Jesus as a just ruler should have, but he asked the people what he should do about Jesus!  When they said they wanted Him crucified, he asked why, what evil had He done to deserve crucifixion.  Weak and fearful as he surely was, he gave in to the people.  He said he washed his hands and declared his innocence from that decision, but he really was not innocent.  He failed miserably in his duty as a governor of the people, being so weak.  However, we know that it was God's will that Jesus be crucified.  I don't believe that God forced Pilate to make decisions against his will; I believe Pilate was chosen to allow this because he was a weak man.  Since he had washed his hands of it all, why then did he scourge Jesus?  Only God knows the heart of a man and he will judge Pilate righteously.  This incident proved to be a perfect illustration of what was taking place.  Jesus, judged as innocent, was condemned by the same judge, just the same.  Jesus, the perfect soul having no sin in Him, was nonetheless willed by God to be condemned to die on a cross.

(27) Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered to Him the whole band of soldiers.

The soldiers of the governor then took Jesus into the praetorium, which is actually the original word used.  It means the common judgment hall of the governor, or his court room.  They gathered an entire band of soldiers around Him, as if they really needed that!

(28) And they stripped Him and put on Him a scarlet robe.

The soldiers stripped Jesus and put a scarlet robe on Him.  They did it to mock Him, but by their actions, they were representing prophecy.  In Isaiah 1:18 it says, "...though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow..."  Jesus took on the world's scarlet sins to make them white as snow.

(29) And when they had plaited a crown of thorns, they put it on His head, and a reed in His right hand; and they bowed the knee before Him and mocked Him, saying, "Hail! King of the Jews!"

The soldiers braided a crown of thorns and put it on Jesus's head to mock Him, but also to torture Him.  They put a reed in His hand to act as a staff and then bowed before Him in mockery, calling out, "Hail, King of the Jews!"  It gives me chills to think these men mocked God Himself!

(30) And they spit on Him and took the reed and struck Him on the head.

Again, it is chilling to think of these men spitting in the face of God and beating Him about the head!  Little did they know He could have struck them all dead with one word, but He allowed Himself to be mocked and tortured for all us lowly sinners, including those soldiers who did this, if we only accept His gift of salvation.

(31) And after they had mocked Him, they took the robe off Him and put His own clothes on Him, and led Him away to be crucified.

After the soldiers had had their vicious fun, they took the robe off Him and put His clothes back on Him.  They then led Him away to be crucified.

(32) And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name; they compelled Him to bear His cross.

The account in John tells us that Jesus did bear His cross for a while until His tortured and beaten body could do it no more.  The soldiers then found a man of Cyrene, a city in Libya, Africa, named Simon, and forced him to carry Jesus's cross.

As this is another very long chapter, I will end the post here.  This first half of the chapter dealt with the events leading up to Jesus's crucifixion after His apprehension and mock trial in chapter 26.  The actual crucifixion takes place in the second half of this chapter.