Chú giải Kinh Thánh

Matthew 27:6. κορβανᾶν, the treasury, referred to by this name by Joseph. (B. J. ii. 9, 4).—τιμὴ αἵματός ἐστι: exclusion of blood money from the treasury, an extension of the law against the wages of harlotry (Deuteronomy 23:18).

Matthew 27:7. τὸν ἀγρὸν τ. κεραμέως, the field of the potter. The smallness of the price has suggested to some (Grotius, e.g.) that it was a field for potter’s clay got cheap because worked out. But in that case it would naturally be called the field of the potters.—ξένοις most take as referring to Jews from other lands dying at Jerusalem at passover time.

Matthew 27:8. ἀγρὸς αἵματος = aceldama, Acts 1:18, name otherwise explained there.—ἕως τῆς σήμερον: phrase frequent in O. T. history; sign of late date of Gospel, thinks De Wette.

Matthew 27:9-10. Prophetic reference, τότε, as in Matthew 2:17, not ἵνα or ὅπως.—διὰ Ἰερεμίου, by Jeremiah, in reality by Zechariah (Zechariah 11:13), the reference to Jeremiah probably due to there being somewhat similar texts in that prophet (Jeremiah 18:2-3, Jeremiah 32:6-15) running in the evangelist’s mind. A petty error. More serious is the question whether this is not a case of prophecy creating “facts,” whether the whole story here told is not a legend growing out of the O. T. text quoted. So Brandt, who thinks the betrayal the only fact in the story of Judas, all the rest legendary (E. G., p. 11). The truth rather seems to be that facts, historical traditions, suggested texts which otherwise would never have been thought of. This may be inferred from the manipulation necessary to make the prophecy correspond to the facts: ἔλαβον, 1st person singular in Sept[149], 3rd person plural here = they took; the expression “the children of Israel” introduced with apparent intention to make the nation responsible for the betrayal; the substitution of the phrase “the field of the potter” for “the house of the Lord”. And after all the manipulation how different the circumstances in the two cases! In the one case it is the prophet himself, valued at a petty sum, who cast his price into the House of the Lord; in the other, it is the priests, who bought the life of the prophet of Nazareth for a small sum, who give the money for a potter’s field. The only real point of resemblance is the small value set upon a prophet in either case. It is a most unsatisfactory instance of prophetic fulfilment, almost as much so as that in Matthew 2:23. But its very un-satisfactoriness makes for the historicity of the story. That the prophetic text, once associated with the story in the minds of believers, reacted on the manner of telling it, e.g., as to the weighing of the price (Matthew 26:15), and the casting of the money into the holy place (Matthew 27:5), is conceivable.

[149] Septuagint.

Matthew 27:11-26. Jesus before Pilate (Mark 15:2-15, Luke 23:2-7; Luke 23:13-25).

Matthew 27:11. ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς: δὲ resumes an interrupted story (Matthew 27:2).—σὺ εἶ, etc.: Art Thou the King of the Jews? The question reveals the form in which the Sanhedrists presented their accusation. They had translated “Christ” into “King of the Jews” for Pilate’s benefit, so astutely giving a political aspect to what under the other name was only a question of religion, or, as a Roman would view it, superstition. A most unprincipled proceeding, for the confession of Jesus that He was the Christ no more inferred a political animus than their own Messianic expectations.—σὺ λέγεις = yes. One is hardly prepared for such a reply to an equivocal question, and there is a temptation to seek escape by taking the words interrogatively = dost thou say so? or evasively, with Theophy. = you say, I make no statement. Explanations such as are given in John 18:33-37 were certainly necessary.

Matthew 27:12. he accusations here referred to appear to have been made on the back of Pilate’s first question and Christ’s answer. Mark indicates that they were copious. In Luke the charge is formulated before Pilate begins to interrogate (Matthew 23:2). The purpose of their statements would be to substantiate the main charge that Jesus claimed to be King of the Jews in a sense hostile to Roman supremacy. What were the materials of proof? Possibly perverse construction of the healing ministry, of the consequent popularity, of Christ’s brusquely independent attitude towards Rabbinism, suggesting a defiant spirit generally.—οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίνατο (note use of 1st aorist middle instead of the more usual ἀπεκρίθη). Jesus made no reply to these plausible mendacities, defence vain in such a case.

Matthew 27:13. ilate noting His silence directs His attention to what they have been saying.

Matthew 27:14. καὶ οὐκ ἀπεκρίθη: still no reply, though no disrespect to the governor intended.—ὤστε θαυμάζειν, etc., the governor was very much (λίαν, at the end, emphatic) astonished: at the silence, and at the man; the silence attracting attention to the Silent One.—A new type of Jew this. The result of his observation is a favourable impression; how could it be otherwise? Pilate was evidently not alarmed by the charge brought against Jesus. Why? Apparently at first glance he saw that the man before him was not likely to be a pretender to royalty in any sense that he need trouble himself about. The σὺ in an emphatic position in Matthew 27:11 suggests this = You the King of the Jews! Then there was nothing to bear out the pretension: no position, prestige, wealth, following; no troops, etc. (Grotius).