Matthew 27:1–14
27 When morning came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death. 2 And they bound him and led him away and delivered him over to Pilate the governor.
3 Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus1 was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, 4 saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.” 5 And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself. 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.” 7 So they took counsel and bought with them the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers. 8 Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, 10 and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me.”
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.” 12 But when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he gave no answer. 13 Then Pilate said to him, “Do you not hear how many things they testify against you?” 14 But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed.
1 Greek he
Section Overview
The passion narrative of Matthew 26–27 regularly juxtaposes mutually interpretive scenes. Forgoing explicit commentary, Matthew lets observant readers find the significance of contrasting events. So Judas plans to betray Jesus, while an overconfident Peter falters and denies Jesus (26:14–16, 69–75). Again, Peter promises he will never deny Jesus, then denies Jesus three times (26:30–35, 69–75). This creates a contrast between the good confession of Jesus and the lies of Peter (26:57–75). The Jewish authorities scheme to kill an innocent man, while fussing over the proper use of a tainted donation (27:1–2, 6–7). And as men hatch plots and contradict themselves, Jesus serenely walks the path the Father has set for him (26:42; 27:11–14; cf. Heb. 12:1–2).
Section Outline
IX. Death, and Resurrection (26:1–28:20) . . .
I. Condemned by the Sanhedrin (27:1–2)
J. The Despair of Judas and the Calm of Jesus (27:3–14)
The narrative flow of chapter 27 is simple. The Jewish leaders plot to kill Jesus and deliver him to Pilate for execution (vv. 1–2). But before that happens (vv. 11–14), Judas interrupts (vv. 3–10). Crushed by regret at betraying Jesus, he attempts to return his “blood money,” thirty pieces of silver. The priests show contempt for his grief but devote themselves to ritual law by refusing his “donation,” although he is merely returning money they have given him (vv. 3–6). Refusing the blood money, they buy a field for the burial of outsiders, which Matthew connects to themes in Jeremiah and Zechariah (vv. 7–10).
The account of Judas’s meeting with the priests interrupts the line leading to Jesus’ execution. The intercalation of an apparently disparate scene leads readers to see it in light of the whole, a series of contrasts suggesting how they might instruct the community of faith. In verses 1–14 and beyond, Jesus is passive but in control while Judas is active but out of control. Jesus is quiet under Pilate’s questions, while Judas is anxious under the burden of guilt. The priests, meanwhile, plot to destroy Jesus, an innocent man, while caring nothing for Judas, whom they have helped to corrupt. When they reject Judas’s blood money, they show close interest in laws governing ritual purity while disregarding weightier matters, such as love for Judas and justice for Jesus (cf. 23:23–24).
Response
This narrative informs the Christian walk in vital ways. First, Judas’s tragic effort to undo his betrayal of Jesus manifests the futility of attempts to do something to atone for one’s own sins. Various religions promote this approach. Since extreme cases can be instructive, one may consider the bloody flagellants of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and (occasionally) medieval Christianity. Sadly, the practice of penance shows that certain strands in Christendom still encourage people to perform actions to regain God’s favor or avert his punishment. But Matthew urges men and women to believe in Jesus, who gives his life as a ransom for many (8:13; 9:28; 18:6; 20:28).
Second, we observe that the sins of Judas and Peter have a similar gravity but a different outcome. Judas acts deliberately, while Peter falls into sin due to unwarranted self-confidence, but the greater issue is that Judas only feels remorse while Peter repents. Bare remorse turns inward and brings condemnation, while repentance turns upward and finds God’s grace.
Third, we should consider the silence of Jesus when falsely accused (27:14). Although no one should assume the right to imitate Jesus at every point, his silence embodies his instruction, “Do not resist the one who is evil” (5:39). There is a time to forgo self-defense. There is an accuser who will not listen and a judge with no interest in justice. Beyond that, when falsely accused we may remember that we all have sins that go undetected. We are criminals who are falsely accused of one crime but remain erroneously unindicted for twelve others.
Finally, we note the word “betray” (Gk. paradidōmi), which appears fifteen times in chapters 26–27. Because it can mean to betray, deliver, or hand over, it is the Greek term behind each use of “deliver” in the ESV: when Judas delivers Jesus to the authorities in the garden, when the Jewish authorities deliver Jesus to Pilate, when Pilate delivers Jesus to be crucified (26:15; 27:2, 18, 26). The Greek reader would understand that each of these deliveries or handings-over is also a betrayal. According to the Gospels, Judas hands Jesus over to the priests from greed, the priests hand him over to Pilate from envy, Pilate hands him over to the soldiers due to cowardice, and they kill him (v. 26). Yet, as Octavius Winslow wrote, it finally was “not Judas, for money; not Pilate, for fear; not the Jews, for envy;—but the Father, for love” (cf. Romans 4:25; 8:32). No one took Christ’s life from him; he set it down of his own accord (John 10:11–18). This calls for love for Jesus and confidence in him.
Greek he
27:1–2 In 26:57–68, Caiaphas interrogated Jesus the night before his crucifixion. This hearing was apparently informal and preliminary, not a trial proper. In the morning, the chief priests and elders formally “take counsel” and resolve to put Jesus to death (27:1). Matthew does not give a legal report of proceedings; he states the thrust of events in ways that disclose the character of each actor in the drama. The stress on innocent blood and blood money (vv. 4, 6, 8, 24–25) points to the core issue: the authorities know Jesus is innocent, yet they determine to kill him. They deliver him to Pilate, technically the Roman prefect or procurator, described by Matthew with the general term “governor.” But first the tragic end of Judas breaks into the narrative.
27:3–8 The remorse of Judas demonstrates that someone realizes that Jesus’ condemnation is unjust. Once Judas sees the consequences of his betrayal, he “change[s] his mind” (v. 3). This is not repentance; the verb is metamelomai, which typically means to change one’s feelings or to feel remorse or regret. (It occasionally means “repent,” but the normal term for repentance is metanoeō.) He knows he has sinned, but he confesses it to men, not God. He tells the priests, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” But the priests care nothing for Judas’s conscience. Their reply is brutish: “What is that to us? See to it yourself” (v. 4). Indeed, Judas should see to his guilt, for the law says, “Cursed be anyone who takes a bribe to shed innocent blood” (Deut. 27:25). But “What is that to us?” is dead wrong. This is their affair. They paid the bribe; they know Jesus is innocent; they should see to the forgiveness of sins. Like Pilate at Matt. 27:24, they declare themselves to be innocent. But the phrase “not my problem” does not dissolve problems, and protesting innocence does not remove guilt.
In an act of protest, rage, self-hatred, or despair, Judas hurls the pieces of silver into the temple, goes out, and hangs himself. In Greco-Roman culture, suicide was judged honorable in some cases, but in Scripture suicidal acts are tinged with sin and despair (Judg. 16:30; 2 Sam. 17:23). Judas feels his guilt for betraying an innocent man and, most shamefully, a friend. By law he is accursed, and the priests will not help, so he takes the penalty on himself (Num. 35:33–34). He acts “in an anguished attempt to atone for his sin” and kills himself. The account of Judas’s death offers no hope for his restoration.
The priests judge the money to be contaminated and ineligible for the temple treasury (Deut. 23:18), but they are blind “to their own complicity.” They gave the “blood money” to Judas. Ignoring their role, they “take counsel” again (cf. Matt. 27:1) and make a ruling that is technically correct but morally corrupt—harsh to Judas and malicious to Jesus. They determine to put the money to practical use and buy a potter’s field (probably after the supply of clay is exhausted and the ground useless) for the burial of strangers. Henceforth it will be called a “field of blood” (vv. 7–8 AT).
27:9–10 Matthew links this to prophecy, reminding readers that events continue to unfold according to God’s patterns and plans. It is challenging to see exactly how Judas’s betrayal fulfills Jeremiah, for reasons that technical commentaries explore in detail. First, Matthew says the event fulfills Jeremiah, but the quotation is from Zechariah. It was fairly common for rabbis and NT authors to create composite quotations from several Scriptures and name just one of them. Thus, Mark 1:2 combines parts of Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1 while citing Isaiah alone. Matthew combines quotations from two prophets on several occasions (Matt. 11:10; 21:5, 13). Here he links a loose rendering of Zechariah 11:12–13 to themes from several passages in Jeremiah.
The quotation from Zechariah is inexact both in its wording and in its correspondence to events in Matthew. In Zechariah, God calls the prophet to shepherd a flock “doomed to slaughter.” Zechariah becomes shepherd of this flock and destroys its foes (Zech. 11:4–8a). But the flock “detest” Zechariah, so he leaves them and severs their covenant (Zech. 11:8b–11). Their rejection of Yahweh’s prophet amounts to a rejection of Yahweh himself. Zechariah tells them to pay him whatever they please, and they give him thirty pieces of silver. Because this is the price of a slave (Ex. 21:32), it is an insult, and Zechariah throws the silver “into the house of the Lord, to the potter” (Zech. 11:13).
Zechariah 11 and Matthew 27 differ in several ways. For example, in Zechariah the money goes to the shepherd, while in Matthew it goes to Judas. But Zechariah and Matthew align at essential points. Above all, a shepherd offers to care for God’s people, but the people reject him. They give him thirty pieces of silver, the price of a slave, but the money is returned. The basic pattern is clear: The Lord’s faithful servant is rejected and despised by his people.
It is not immediately clear how Judas’s actions fulfill Jeremiah. Although Matthew does not cite a passage from Jeremiah, linguistic threads link Matthew to Jeremiah 18; 19; 26; and 32. The links to Jeremiah 18 and 32 occur more superficially, through the words “potter” and “field.” Jeremiah 19 has a tangential link (potters) and substantive links: for violation of the covenant and for filling “this place with the blood of innocents,” the prophet tells elders and priests that God’s judgment is sure (Jer. 19:1–9).
The thematic ties between Jeremiah 26 and Matthew 27 are strong, and there is linguistic connection as well. In Jeremiah 26, the prophet faithfully declares God’s word. The priests and elders hear him out (Jer. 26:1–9) but judge that he “deserves the sentence of death” for prophesying against Jerusalem (Jer. 26:10–11). Jeremiah summons the officials and the people to repent, although he acknowledges, “I am in your hands” (Jer. 26:12–14). But he warns them that if they kill him, they “will bring innocent blood” on themselves and the city (Jer. 26:15). This is the verbal parallel: Jeremiah 26:15 and Matthew 27:4 and 27:24 all mention “innocent blood,” a phrase hardly common in Scripture, appearing barely twenty times. Deuteronomy 27:25 sets the agenda: “Cursed be anyone who takes a bribe to shed innocent blood.” Jeremiah would then prefigure the death of Christ if his innocent blood were shed. Jeremiah, roughly like Isaac, is almost slain, but Jesus is slain after the authorities condemn him and the people cry for his crucifixion (Matt. 26:66; 27:2, 23). Jesus is passive in the hands of his enemies (26:47–53, 63; 27:2, 14, 30–31, 42), and they do indeed shed his innocent blood.
As Craig Blomberg has written, Matthew sees typological parallels or “analogical correspondence” rather than tight fulfillments of Jeremiah and Zechariah. Jeremiah, Zechariah, and Jesus all suffer at the hands of unjust rulers, who place themselves under God’s judgment. The pattern and the prophecy both show that Israel’s rejection of Jesus takes place according to God’s plan.
27:11–14 Thanks to Judas, the Jewish authorities can deliver Jesus to Pilate, but a problem remains. They seek Jesus’ death, nothing less, but they lack the right to execute him (John 18:31). Further, they have to declare Jesus guilty of a capital crime according to both Jewish and Roman law, even though he has done nothing wrong.
The Jewish authorities base their case on Jesus’ confession that he is the Christ. They ignore his legally exculpatory explanation that he is not the Messiah as they imagine him, and they declare him guilty of blasphemy. Blasphemy would hardly interest Pilate, but sedition would gain his attention, so the priests recast their accusation in political terms. In Luke 23:2 the priests bring charges that sound overtly political, saying in effect, “He leads the nation astray, forbids the payment of taxes, and claims to be Christ, a king.” Matthew does not sound so political, but it is safe to assume that the priests slip Pilate the question “Are you the King of the Jews?” (Matt. 27:11). This foundational charge occurs in all four Gospels, and the reply is identical in all four: “You have said so.” In the Greek, “you” is emphatic: “You, Pilate, are the one who says this.” This resembles the guarded affirmation of 26:64. Jesus cannot deny that he is King of the Jews, yet he is not king as Pilate understands it, for his kingdom is “not of this world” (John 18:36).
When the chief priests and elders accuse Jesus, he falls silent once again (Matt. 27:12; cf. 26:63; Isa. 53:7). As the accusations continue, Pilate marvels (Matt. 27:12–14). Roman law may have dictated that a man who refuses to defend himself is legally guilty, but Pilate clearly doubts that Jesus is either guilty or dangerous.