Mga Komentaryo sa Bibliya

Matthew 27:3. Then Judas—repented himself, &c.— St. Matthew introduces this account of the fate of Judas, as we see, immediately after the Jews had delivered Jesus to Pilate; but after this the Jews must have been so intent on persuadingPilate to consent to his death, that there was hardly time for the Sanhedrim's adjourning to the temple where this occurrence happened, before they had prevailed with Pilate to condemn him; and as Judas must have often heard his Master say that he should be crucified, Pilate's order for his execution must have more sensibly affected him, than the Jews passing sentence on him; as they had not then the power of putting any one to death; and therefore this event, most probably, happened immediately after the condemnation of Jesus by Pilate. The word τοτε, then, with which the Evangelist begins this history, may be taken in some latitude, to introduce the mention of an occurrence which happened about that time, whether a little before or after, and need not be interpreted with so much rigour, as to determine it to an assertion of observing the exactest order in all circumstances. See Doddridge, Gerhard, &c. Dr. Macknight however is of a different opinion; "Because," says he, "Judas cast down this money in the temple, it is thought that the council adjourned thither, before they carried Jesus to the governor, and that Judas found them there; but they were too much in earnest to delay their revenge one moment; besides, they had now no time to spend in the temple: he might come to the priests immediately after they had condemned his Master, while they were yet in the high priest's palace; or he might accost them as they were passing along the street to the praetorium; or he might find them standing before the praetorium; into which they would not enter, lest they should be defiled: this latter seems to be the true supposition; for the historian insinuates, that Judas addressed the priests, after they had carried Jesus to the governor. When they refused the money, he left them, and went to hang himself; but taking the temple in his way, he threw down the whole sum in the treasury, or that part of the women's court where the chests were placed for receiving the offerings of the people who came to worship. This money mightbe gathered up by the Levite porters, who always waited at the gates of the temple, (1 Chronicles 26:0.) and might be carried by them to the priests, with an account how they got it."

return to '

Matthew 27:5. And went and hanged himself— When Judas found that he could not prevent the horrid effects of his treachery, his conscience lashed him more furiously than before, suggesting thoughts which by turns made the deepest wounds in his soul. His Master's innocence and benevolence, the usefulness of his life, the favoursthat he had received from him, with many other considerations, crowded into his mind, and racked him to such a degree, that his torment became intolerable. Wherefore, unable to sustain the misery of those agonizing passions and reflections, he makes a full confession of his Master's innocence, returns the wages of iniquity, and goes and hangs himself. St. Peter seems to give a different account of the traitor's death:—Falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out, Acts 1:18. And to reconcile the two passages, Tob 3:10 is commonly brought to prove that the word απηγξατο, in St. Matthew, may signify suffocation with grief, in consequence of which a man's bowels may gush out; and instances are cited from Virgil, Eclogue Matthew 7:26.:

Invidia rumpantur ut ilia Codro. and from Josephus, Antiq. 15. 100: 13 where one Zenodorus is mentioned, who is supposed to have died in this manner. The Talmudists make such a suffocation the punishment usually inflicted by God upon such persons as bore false witness against their neighbour. But as the above-quoted instances may be otherwise understood, it is more natural to suppose that Judas hanged himself on some tree growing out of a precipice, and that the branch breaking, or the knot of the rope wherewith he hanged himself opening, he fell down headlong, and dashed himself to pieces, so that his bowels gushed out. St. Peter's phrase, ελακησε μεσος, he burst asunder, favours this conjecture; for ληκεω signifies properly lacero cum strepitu, to rend or tear with a noise or cracking, and so may imply that Judas burst asunder by falling from an height. See Le Clerc, Grotius, and Wetstein. Thus perished Judas Iscariot the traitor,—a miserable example of the fatal influence of covetousness and worldly passions, and a standing monument of the divine vengeance, fit to deter future generations from acting contraryto conscience through love of the world; for which this unhappy wretch betrayed his Master, Friend, and Saviour, and cast away his own soul!

return to '

Matthew 27:11. And Jesus stood, &c.— See John 18:29; Joh 18:40 and Luk 23:2 for a more full account of our Saviour's appearance before Pilate.

return to '

Matthew 27:14. And he answered him to never a word, &c.— Jesus made no reply to the heavycharges laid against him; nay, he continued mute, notwithstanding the governor expressly required him to speak in his own defence. See Isaiah 53:7. A conduct so extraordinaryin such circumstances, astonished Pilate exceedingly; for he had good reason to be persuaded of Christ's innocence. Indeed his humble appearance was a sufficient refutation of the charge which the Jews brought against him; and his silence servedinsteadofthemostelaboratedefence;andpossibly Jesus might decline making any public defence, lest the common people, moved by what he must have said, should have asked his release, and prevented his death; in which respect, he has shewn his followers a noble example of courage and submission to the divine

return to '

Matthew 27:15. Now at that feast, &c.— Pilate had already sent Jesus to Herod, having learned that he belonged to Galilee; and Herod had sent him back to him. Luke 23:6-11. At former passovers the governor had courted the favour of the people, by gratifying them with the pardon of any one prisoner whom they pleased. There was no law to oblige him to this; but as acts of grace are generally popular things, this seems to have been first freely used by the Romans, to please their tributaries, and now by custom was in a manner established.

return to '

Matthew 27:16. A notable prisoner— A notorious criminal. Heylin. It seems he was the head of the rebels; (see John 18:40. Luke 23:19; Luke 23:25.) the ringleader of a sedition, in which murder had been committed.

return to '

Matthew 27:18. (For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.) Pilate had probably heard of the stir made by the rulers on this occasion; and, as a prudent magistrate, could not but have inquired into the reason of it. The modesty with which Jesus appeared before him, must have given credit to the report that he had received; and theconfidence which Jesus placed in his innocence, by not replying to any charge that was brought against him, might have been sufficient to convince Pilate,that there was no fault in him. Nicodemus, or Joseph of Arimathea, might have been consulted by Pilate at the first appearance of the tumult; for Joseph of Arimathea most probably was personally acquainted with Pilate, as may be inferred from his going to him to beg the body of Jesus. We can have no doubt of their being acquainted, if Joseph was one of the council who assisted Pilate in managing the affairs of his province, and particularlyin judging causes. All governors of provinces had a council of this kind. Accordingly we find it mentioned, Act 25:12 by the name of Συμβουλιον . It is objected to Joseph's being a member of Pilate's council, that it was composed of Romans only; yet even on this supposition he might be a member of it, since he might have enjoyed the privileges of a Roman citizen, as well asSt. Paul. What other reason can be assigned for his being called Βουλητης, a counsellor, Luk 23:50 and an honourable counsellor? Mark 15:43 a name not commonly given to the members of the Sanhedrim, whose proper title was αρχοντες, rulers. Further, St. Luke tells us, Luk 23:51 that Joseph did not consent to the counsel (Βουλη ) and deed of them; that is to say, he did not agree to the advice which the governor's council gave, when they desired him to gratify the Jews. See Macknight, Grotius, and Lardner's Credibility, b. 1 Chronicles 2:0.

return to '

Matthew 27:19. When he was set down, &c.— Or, While he was sitting on, &c. While Rome was governed by a commonwealth, it was unusual for the governors of provinces to take their wives with them; but afterwards it grew customary, and the motion made against it in the fourth year of Tiberius was rejected with some indignation. This circumstance ascertains the time of the event, and affords a strong proof of the veracity of the sacred historian. Possibly the word σημερον, rendered this day,may imply, that she had dreamed these things that morning, since Pilate rose; and as the heathens imagined those dreams most significant which came about break of day, she might on that account lay the greater stress upon them. Jansenius thinks, and very probably, that she had now a representation or foresight of those calamities which afterwards befel Pilate and his family. Josephus assures us, that Pilate, having slain a considerable number of seditious Samaritans, was deposed from his government by Vitellius, and sent to Tiberius at Rome, who died before he arrived there. And Eusebius tells us, that quickly after having been banished to Vienne in Gaul, he laid violent hands upon himself, falling on his own sword. Agrippa, who was an eye-witness to many of his enormities, speaks of him in his oration to Caius Caesar, as one who had been a man of the most infamous character. The words δικαιω εκεινω, would be rendered more properly, that just or righteous one.

return to '