Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-SEVEN

Part V

In His dealing with the false accusations made by these religious leaders, our Lord was following the pattern foretold by the prophet Isaiah, “He was treated badly, but he never protested. He said nothing, like a lamb being led away to be killed. He was like a sheep that makes no sound as its wool is being cut off. He never opened his mouth to defend himself.”¹ Pilate couldn’t understand Jesus’ silence, but what he didn’t know was that our Lord was on a mission. Therefore, the Master stood silent because He felt the same way His royal ancestor did, “LORD, You are my source of strength, so I have been an example to others.”²

It also fulfilled what was told to another high priest, “Listen, Joshua, you who are the high priest, and listen, you fellow priests seated before him. You are all examples to show what will happen when I bring my special servant. He is called, the Branch.”³ This is quite contrary to what a German philosopher said: “Those who keep silent are almost always lacking in subtlety and refinement of the heart; silence is an objection, to swallow a grievance must necessarily produce a bad temper.”⁴

Chrysostom follows up on the intent of the questioning: “Do you see what He is asked first? Is this the same charge that they had been continually bringing forward in every circumstance? They could see that Pilate was not ready to take into account subtle matters of Jewish law. So they directed their accusation outwardly to state charges of political disloyalty. They did the same later with the apostles, always charging them with political motivations, always bringing forward some trumped-up idea that they were after worldly power. They were treating Jesus now as if He were a mere man and as if He were under suspicion of treason.… What they were really interested in was finding some charge that would have Him put to death.”⁵

Verses 13-14: So Pilate said to Him, “Don’t you hear all these charges they are making against you? Why don’t you answer?” But Jesus said nothing, and this really surprised the governor.

Here Christ exemplifies the ultimate in what we find so impossible today, that is: “innocent silence.” Jesus said more by remaining silent than if He would have embarked on a long discourse defending Himself. It is a lesson for us, that when we are unjustly accused, we can stand strong and not give in to the urge of trying to explain the unexplainable. If we do feel any necessity to utter a response, Jesus gives us an example of that too, “Father forgive them, they know not what they do.”

Maximus of Turin gives us his eloquent sermon on our Lord’s unusual silence in the face of these baseless accusations: “It might seem remarkable to you, brothers, that the Lord should be accused by the chief priests before the procurator Pilate and should be silent and that He should not refute their wickedness by His response, since indeed a defense which follows quickly is the only way to refute a persistent accusation. It might seem remarkable, I say, brothers, that the Savior should be accused and should remain silent. Silence is occasionally understood as an affirmation, for when a person does not wish to respond to what is asked of him he appears to confirm what is raised against him. Does the Lord then confirm his accusation by not speaking? Clearly, He does not confirm His accusation by not speaking; rather He despises it by not refuting it. For one who needs no defense does well to keep silent, but let one who fears to be overcome defend himself and one who is afraid of being vanquished hasten to speak. When Christ is condemned, however, He also overcomes, and when He is judged He also vanquishes, as the prophet says: ‘that you should be justified in your words and should vanquish when you are judged.’⁶ Why was it necessary for Him, therefore, to speak before being judged, when for Him judgment was a complete victory?”⁷

Verses 15-16: Every year at Passover time the governor would free one prisoner—whichever one the people wanted him to free. At that time there was a man in prison who was known to be a trouble-maker. His name was Bar-Abbas.

Jewish historian Josephus tells us about this custom: “When Albinus heard that Gessius Florus was coming to succeed him, he was desirous to appear to do something that might be grateful to the people of Jerusalem; so he brought out all those prisoners who seemed to him to be most plainly worthy of death and ordered them to be put to death accordingly. But as to those who had been put into prison on some trifling charge, he accepted money for their fines and dismissed them.”⁸

So apparently, this act by Pilate was sanctioned by Rome as long as those prisoners “who seemed most worthy of death” were not released. This is interesting, since this incident with Lucceius Albinus, the procurator of Judea, took place around 64 AD. Could it be that what happened as a result of this custom allowed Bar-Abbas to be set free? But why would Pilate choose someone, who was not guilty of a capital crime that warranted a death sentence be granted a reprieve in place of someone for whom the death sentence was being asked? Perhaps Pilate didn’t see any reason to condemn Jesus to death and hoped these religious leaders would see it the same way and agree.

There has been some discussion about the name Bar-Abbas. The Aramaic Version reads “Bar-Abba” meaning, “father’s son” which some scholars take to be the equivalent of what we would say today as, the father’s “pet son.” In other words, he was a spoiled brat just like his father. But his name has come down to the English-speaking world as Barabbas. When checking a well-known Jewish Book of Genealogies we find that Bar-Abba was a common name among the Jews, appearing over 47 times, including Jeremiah Bar-Abba, Hiyya Bar Abba, Ammi Bar Abba, Abba Bar Abba, Samuel Bar Abba, Aha Bar Abba, etc.⁹

There is a humorous story in Jewish tradition about this name. Someone went to the cemetery and was asked who they were looking for. They answered, “I am looking for Abba. They said to him: There are many Abbas here. I want Abba bar Abba, he said. They replied: There are also several Abba bar Abbas here. He then said to them: I want Abba bar Abba the father of Samuel; where is he? They replied: He has gone up to the Academy of the Sky.”¹⁰ So it appears that Bar-Abbas was something like a nickname.

In addition, when the Jews translated the Gospels, in the Münster Edition it reads, “Bar Rabba,” which means, “the son of a master.” But we find an interesting play on words in the Complete Jewish Bible, were verse 16 reads, “There was at that time a notorious prisoner being held, named Yeshua Bar-Abba.” With our Lord’s name also being Yeshua, that would make Pilate’s question in verse seven more interesting when put this way: “Pilate asked the crowd, ‘Whom do you want me to set free for you? Yeshua the son of Abba? or Yeshua the Son of God?” But even this would not be enough to persuade them.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-SEVEN

Part IV

One early church bishop and theologian gives us his assessment on all that transpired with Judas Iscariot and how it could be spiritually understood. He writes: “This field then is this entire world, in which we who have been dispersed and scattered bear the fruit of good work for the Lord. Yet perhaps you might ask me if the field is the world, who the potter is who could have the ownership of the world. Unless I am mistaken, the potter is the one who made the vessels of our body from clay. Scripture says of Him, ‘Then the Lord God formed the man from the dust from the earth.’¹ The potter is the One who, with the warmth of His own breath, made alive the slimy clay of our flesh and with fiery heat put together the fluid and earthly matter of our bodies.”²

The bishop’s sermon was entitled, “The Potter’s Field.” Let’s see where he takes his listeners: “The potter, I say, is the one who brought us into existence with His own hands and who is refashioning us for His glory through Christ. The apostle says, ‘We are being changed into His likeness from one degree of glory to another.’³ That is to say, we who from our previous condition have broken to pieces because of our own misdeeds are restored in a second birth through the loving kindness of this same Potter. We who have been struck by death because of Adam’s transgression rise anew through the grace of the Savior. Clearly, this Potter is the one of whom the blessed apostle says, ‘What will that being molded say to its molder?’ And again, ‘Has the potter no right over the clay to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for common use?”⁴”⁵

Then the bishop concludes: “The field of this potter, then, was bought with Christ’s blood for travelers. For travelers, I say, who were without home or country and were cast about as exiles throughout the earth, rest is provided by the blood of Christ so that those who have no possession in the world might have a burial place in Christ. Who do we say that these travelers are if not very devout Christians who, renouncing the world and possessing nothing in the world, rest in the blood of Christ? For the Christian who does not possess the world utterly possesses the Savior. Christ’s burial place then is promised to travelers so that the one who preserves himself from fleshly vices like a traveler and stranger may merit Christ’s rest. For what is Christ’s burial place if not the Christian’s rest? We, therefore, are travelers, in this world, and we sojourn in this life as passersby, as the apostle says: ‘While we are in this body we are away from the Lord.’⁶ We are travelers, I say, and a burial place has been bought for us at the price of the Savior’s blood. ‘We have been buried with Him,’ the apostle says, ‘through baptism in His death.’⁷ Baptism, therefore, is Christ’s burial place for us, in which we die to sins, are buried to evil deeds and are restored to a renewed infancy, the conscience of the old person having been dissolved in us for the sake of another birth.”⁸

What the bishop does not say at this point is the role this potter’s field, as he describes it here, in Judas Iscariot’s painful and unnecessary death. Could it be, that in his mind the reason Judas does not have the hope that he describes for all believers who also die and are buried in the field, is because even though he went there repentant, he tried to pay the price for his own sin? Had he gone there to pray and ask God for forgiveness, then perhaps he too could have arisen as a new creature in Christ Jesus.

Verse 11: Jesus stood before Pilate, the governor, who asked Him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “What you say is true.”

When it comes to how a trial is conducted, the Rabbis state explicitly: “Those who are subject to trial must stand when they receive the judgment pertaining to them.”⁹ And they go on to say: “The judges seat themselves, and the litigants remain standing before them.”¹⁰ Thus, while Pilate was sitting, as was the custom, we notice that Jesus was standing.

This also fits the procedural policies of the Jewish tribunal system. It says: “The witnesses have to stand when they give testimony, [since it is said, ‘And the two parties to the dispute shall stand before the Lord.”¹¹ No wonder we read in John’s Apocalypse: “And I saw those who had died, great and small, standing before the throne. Some books were opened. And another book was opened—the book of life. The people were judged by what they had done, which is written in the books.”¹²

Early church scholar Origen has this to say about Pilate’s question: “Truly Jesus ‘did not consider equality with God something to be grasped¹³ and not once but often humbled Himself on behalf of humanity. See now, ‘having been made the judge of every creature¹⁴ by the Father, the King of kings and Lord of lords, to what extent He humbled Himself. He compliantly stood before the governor of the land of Judea, who asked Him perhaps deridingly or doubtingly, ‘Are you the king of the Jews?’ Jesus thought this question was proper, and He replied, ‘It is as you say.’ Before that, having been entreated by the chief priest to say whether He was the Christ, the Son of God, He answered, ‘You have said it yourself.’¹⁵ Notice the two questions. The first one, ‘If you are the Christ the Son of God,’ was germane to Christ as a Jew. The Roman governor did not state his question by saying, ‘Are you the Christ?’ but rather, ‘Are you the king of the Jews?‘”¹⁶

Then early church preacher Chrysostom asks: “What is Christ’s answer to Pilate’s question? ‘You have said so.’ He confessed that He was [indeed] a king, but a heavenly king. This would be made clearer elsewhere when He replied more specifically to Pilate, ‘My kingship is not of this world.’¹⁷ He gives a reason that cannot be doubted: ‘If my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over.’¹⁸ There was, of course, no excuse for even making such accusations, either from the governor or priests. For in order to refute this suspicion, He paid a tax and taught others to pay it.¹⁹ And when others wanted to make Him a king, He fled.’²⁰”²¹

Verse 12: But then, when the leading priests and the older Jewish leaders made their accusations against Jesus, He said nothing.

Yet, while standing there quietly, once again Jesus chooses not to refute the charges being made against Him. This brings up a very important principle in logic. Is it necessary to answer yes or no to an absurd question, or defend oneself against ridiculous charges? Sometimes it is proper in order for the truth to be told, and once it is revealed then it is up to the accuser to disprove it. At other times, when the question or accusation is posed in such a way that any response would show doubt or uncertainty, then use their own words against them. In other words, Jesus was open to answering proper questions, but He was silent in reaction to false accusations. There was no need for Him to become defensive. The only One He had anything to prove to was His Father in Heaven. Then the Father’s judgment would prove Him right or wrong.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-SEVEN

Part III

One can only imagine the horror and grief felt by Judas once he realized he had betrayed the Son of God. As we can see, it proved too much for him to handle. Instead of running to Jesus and asking forgiveness, or weeping in repentance as Peter did, he repeated what another betrayer of our Lord’s royal ancestor, king David. After trying, but failing, to turn the people against him so that his son Absalom could take over, we read: “When Ahithophel saw that the Israelites did not do what he suggested, he saddled his donkey and went back to his hometown. He made plans for his family and then hanged himself.”¹

Jewish scholars have a particular take on those who slander or do something to betray another, and how it affects them. In one document, the Rabbis’ ask: “Why does this affliction commence in the bowels and end up in the throat?”² And on another occasion, some Rabbis were discussing what happened to thousands of disciples of Rabbi Akiba who did not treat each other with respect. Rabbi Hiyya ben Abin told them, “All of them died a cruel death.” So they asked what kind of death? Rabbi Nahman told them that they all choked to death.³ In other words, they were hanged. I can only imagine that the hardest part of being strangled by a rope comes when one is no longer able to breathe and call for help.

So in their minds, Judas Iscariot died the worst kind of death because he strangled himself by hanging. But before he did this, he tried to compensate for his sinful betrayal by throwing the bribe money back at the leading priests. Were they then convicted of what they had done? There is no evidence that they felt any shame. After all, their intent was to ruin one man’s life, now they saw that they had ruined two. But it doesn’t seem to have bothered them. In fact, they told Judas that it was now his problem, not theirs.

Verse 6: The leading priests picked up the silver coins off the Temple floor. They said, “Our law does not allow us to keep this money with the Temple money because this money has paid for a man’s death.”

Obviously, the leading priests were quoting a verbal tradition that forbid them from accepting bribe money as an offering, even though it was their money, to begin with. But their claim was based on not mixing this tainted money with the money in the holy treasury which was called the Korban.⁴ As a matter of fact, Flavius Josephus tells us that when Pilate used money from this sacred treasury to build aqueducts to bring water into the city from some 400 furlongs⁵ away, the people were so upset that they rioted and ended up with many of them beaten and trampled to death.

So by refusing to take the money that Judas returned, we see the unbelievable hypocrisy of these leading priests. The very money paid by them to initiate this hideous act was now seven times more repulsive than putting blood money into the temple treasury. Yet, while they greedily and unashamedly plotted the death of the Son of God, they piously and sanctimoniously refused to violate the Temple or its traditional laws. But they had an, even more, sinister motive in refusing this refund. Should their act of bringing Jesus to trial backfire and the people rise up in His support, they wanted to be able to declare their innocence of any involvement in His arrest and torture. So instead, they invested the bribe money in real estate.

Chrysostom had something to say about their actions. He writes: “If they had put the blood money into the treasury, their deed might have remained relatively more hidden. But the religious leaders make clear their guilt to all subsequent generations by buying the piece of land for burial. They thereby unconsciously declare their guilt. So do not imagine that someone might do a good work through murder and use the reward for some supposed good purpose. Such alms are satanic. Such reasoning is twisted. Do not be naive about this. There are still many who imagine that they are permitted to violently take countless things that belong to others. Then they make an excuse for their violence if they give some ten or a hundred gold pieces to charity. Of these the prophet has said, ‘You have covered my altar with tears.’⁶ Christ is not willing to be fed by covetousness. He does not accept these gifts. Why do you insult your Lord by offering these unclean things? It is better to leave people to pine with hunger than to feed them from these polluted sources.”⁷

And Origen offers his insights: “Because the quality of resting places for the dead varies (for many are buried in their ancestral tombs which were secured by a pledge, but those who suffer misfortune are often buried in the graves of the homeless), those who received payment in exchange for the blood of Jesus used it to acquire a potter’s field for the purpose of having a place in which to bury those foreigners who could not supply a pledge to secure a proper tomb. If it is suitable to interpret these foreigners typologically, we can consider those persons to be foreigners who remained strangers to God until the end and alien to His covenants. Vagabonds such as these meet their end buried in a potter’s field acquired with blood money. The righteous are able to say, ‘We are buried with Christ in a new tomb cut from the rock in which no dead body had yet been laid,’ but those foreigners who remain finally estranged from Christ and alien to God will have to say, ‘We are buried with strangers in the field which is called the “Field of Blood.’”⁸

Verses 7-8: So they decided to use the money to buy a field called Potter’s Field. This field would be a place to bury people who died while visiting in Jerusalem. That is why that field is still called the Field of Blood.

Matthew says that this piece of land became known as Potter’s Field, known in Aramaic as “Aceldama or Hakeldama,” meaning “Field of blood.” In fact, one early Church scholar reported that while living in Bethlehem in 386 AD, such a field was pointed out as existing on the south side of Mount Zion in the infamous Hinnom Valley that became a symbol of hell.⁹ We also see that Matthew links the purchase of this field with 30 pieces of silver to a saying by the prophet Jeremiah.

Verses 9-10: This showed the full meaning of what Jeremiah the prophet said: “They took 30 silver coins. That was how much the people of Israel decided to pay for his life. They used those 30 silver coins to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”

While there is certainly a mention of the LORD saying: “Jeremiah, go and buy a clay jar from a potter,”¹⁰ and also a plea for Jeremiah to buy the field of his uncle, Hanamel ben Shallum,¹¹ there is no mention of 30 pieces of silver. However, there is a remark about 30 pieces of silver being thrown into the Temple treasury, but it does not involve buying a field.¹²

Some scholars try to explain it this way: “The words here quoted are not found in Jeremiah, but in Zechariah; and a variety of conjectures have been formed, in order to reconcile this discrepancy. The most probable opinion seems to be, that the name of the prophet was originally omitted by the Evangelist, and that the name of Jeremiah was added by some subsequent copyist. It is omitted in two MSS. of the twelfth century, in the Syriac, later Aramaic, two of the Italian, and in some other Latin copies.”

By removing the name, it then allows for this quote by Matthew to be ascribed to Zechariah. On the other hand, St. Jerome reports that when reading an apocryphal work, contributed to the prophet Jeremiah, which was shown to him by a Nazarene sect, he did read about Jeremiah buying a potter’s field for 30 pieces of silver. Another argument is that in the early coalition of the Old Testament documents, they were not identified in the same way then as now. For instance, 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings were once one book. In fact, Jewish Rabbis taught: “The order of the Prophets is, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the Twelve Minor Prophets.”¹³ But, because of Judas Iscariot’s chosen end, this becomes only an asterisk in the real story of what happens next.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-SEVEN

Part II

Pontius Pilate was assigned to his office in 26 AD, some four years before Jesus started His ministry, and it would end in 36 AD, about three years after our Lord’s death. According to Dr. John Gill, there is an ancient tradition that says Pilate was banished to Vienne in Dauphiné,¹ where he was reduced to such a low point that two years later he killed himself with his own sword.² It should be noted, that the first name “Pontius” is only mentioned three times in the New Testament.³ But we can get a different glimpse of Pilate from other writings:

Pilate was one of the emperor’s lieutenants, having been appointed governor of Judea. He, not more with the object of doing honor to Tiberius than with that of vexing the multitude, dedicated some gilt shields in the palace of Herod, in the holy city; which had no form nor any other forbidden thing represented on them except some necessary inscription, which mentioned these two facts, the name of the person who had placed them there, and the person in whose honor they were so placed there. But when the multitude heard what had been done, and when the circumstance became notorious, then the people, putting forward the four sons of the king, who were in no respect inferior to the kings themselves, in fortune or in rank, and his other descendants, and those magistrates who were among them at the time, entreated him to alter and to rectify the innovation which he had committed in respect of the shields; and not to make any alteration in their national customs, which had hitherto been preserved without any interruption, without being in the least degree changed by any king of emperor. “But when he steadfastly refused this petition (for he was a man of a very inflexible disposition, and very merciless as well as very obstinate), they cried out: ‘Do not cause a sedition; do not make war upon us; do not destroy the peace which exists. The honor of the emperor is not identical with dishonor to the ancient laws; let it not be to you a presence for heaping insult on our nation. Tiberius is not desirous that any of our laws or customs shall be destroyed. And if you yourself say that he is, show us either some command from him, or some letter, or something of the kind, that we, who have been sent to you as ambassadors, may cease to trouble you, and may address our supplications to your master.’” But this last sentence exasperated him in the greatest possible degree, as he feared least they might in reality go on an embassy to the emperor, and might impeach him with respect to other particulars of his government, in respect of his corruption, and his acts of insolence, and his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, and his cruelty, and his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never-ending, and gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity. Therefore, being exceedingly angry, and being at all times a man of most ferocious passions, he was in great perplexity, neither venturing to take down what he had once set up, nor wishing to do any thing which could be acceptable to his subjects, and at the same time being sufficiently acquainted with the firmness of Tiberius on these points. And those who were in power in our nation, seeing this, and perceiving that he was inclined to change his mind as to what he had done, but that he was not willing to be thought to do so, wrote a most supplicatory letter to Tiberius. And he, when he had read it, what did he say of Pilate, and what threats did he utter against him! But it is beside our purpose at present to relate to you how very angry he was, although he was not very liable to sudden anger; since the facts speak for themselves; for immediately, without putting any thing off until the next day, he wrote a letter, reproaching and reviling him in the most bitter manner for his act of unprecedented audacity and wickedness, and commanding him immediately to take down the shields and to convey them away from the metropolis of Judaea to Caesarea, on the sea which had been named Caesarea Augusta, after his grandfather, in order that they might be set up in the temple of Augustus. And accordingly, they were set up in that edifice. And in this way he provided for two matters: both for the honor due to the emperor, and for the preservation of the ancient customs of the city.⁴

You can read about this same event from a Jewish historian’s point of view, written at about the same time.⁵ And from a Christian perspective we read: “It is worthy of note that Pilate himself, who was governor during the time of our Savior, is reported to have fallen into such misfortunes under Caius, whose times we are recording, that he was forced to become his own murderer and executioner; and thus divine vengeance, as it seems, was not long in overtaking him. This is stated by those Greek historians who have recorded the Olympiads, together with the respective events which have taken place in each period.”⁶

Verses 3-5: Judas Iscariot saw that they had decided to kill Jesus. He was the one who had handed Him over. When he saw what happened, he was grief stricken over what he had done. So he took the 30 silver coins back to the priests and the older leaders. Judas said, “I sinned. I handed over to you an innocent man to be killed.” The Jewish leaders answered, “We don’t care! That’s your problem, not ours.” So Judas threw the money into the Temple. Then he went out and hanged himself.

The patriarch Job could have certainly given Judas Iscariot this advice, “You know that the joy of the wicked does not last long. That has been true a long time, ever since Adam was created here on earth. Those who don’t appreciate God are happy for only a short time.”⁷ Whatever he expected to happen as a result of his betraying the Messiah, did not come to fruition. Some speculate that he wanted to force Jesus into being the champion Messiah they all expected. The Anointed One who would free them from Roman rule and set up the kingdom of David once more. But his conscience got the best of him after his betrayal, and he realized what a terrible deed he had committed against a holy man who had been his best friend.

Usually, the one betrayed suffers the most humiliation, but in this case, the betrayer was devastated. He may have felt like Manasseh who killed many innocent people and filled Jerusalem with their blood, and the Lord would not forgive him of his sin.⁸ So he could not live with himself any longer. What Judas says here is quite interesting. First, he admits his act as a betrayal. This meaning: selling out a trusted leader to the enemy for a price. Second, he exclaims that it was innocent blood he betrayed. What was Judas thinking about Jesus before he got this revelation; didn’t he know that after following Jesus for three years it was obvious that He was innocent of the charges leveled against Him by these religious leaders?

As mentioned before, some say that Judas’ act was motivated by a desire on his part to force Jesus out into the open as the true Messiah; to push Him into seizing the reigns of power as king of the Jews. But this could hardly be a valid reason for him to betray his Lord, especially under the circumstances at the time. After all, if you sell out someone to the opposition it’s in order to ensure a victory for your benefit. However, under this premise, and his status as an acknowledged follower of Jesus, Judas had everything to lose and nothing to gain once Jesus was defeated. If Christ did, in fact, fulfill the Pharisee’s concept of the Messiah and did turn the tables on them and usurp power, Judas would have lost in what he was attempting to win because he would have been branded a traitor and exiled.

Some say that Judas Iscariot may have had misgivings over whether Jesus was just Messiah-like, instead of being the real thing because He established no center for learning and did little to build His kingdom filled with ardent followers and protected by a mighty army. Therefore, Judas was bent on proving either himself wrong or Jesus wrong. It was through unbelief Judas missed the reality of Jesus’ mission as the Lamb of God who came to take away the sins of the world. He did not come to win the world through a demonstration of overwhelming power, but by the manifestation of irresistible love.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-SEVEN

Part I

Verses 1-2: Early the next morning, all the leading priests and older leaders of the people met and made the decision to have Jesus killed. They tied His hands, led Him away, and handed Him over to Pilate, the Roman governor.

Here we find circumstances similar to those that Samson,¹ and later to King David, had to endure.² These leading priests and elders were accurately described by Solomon: “The wicked cannot sleep until they have done something evil. They will not rest until they bring someone down. Evil and violence are their food and drink.”³ And the prophet Micah identified them with precision, “They lie on their beds making their evil plans. Then when the morning light comes, they do what they planned, because they have the power to do what they want.”⁴ Micah’s mention of “when the morning light comes” certainly corresponds with what Matthew says here about this starting early the next morning. The Hebrew Version of this text renders it: “…you rise at dawn.”

In the Greek Textus Receptus, that the English KJV is based on, it mentions that “all” the leading priests and elders met. The Syriac and Persic versions leave out the word “all”, but it is retained in the Vulgate Latin, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions, Münster’s Hebrew Gospel, as well as the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew by Hugh J. Schonfield. But we must remember that the group that met late the night before were described as Scribes, and Elders, and the leading priests, and the whole Sanhedrin.⁵ Now in the morning, it reads: “…all the chief sages and elders took counsel against Jesus.”⁶ So apparently Matthew wanted his readers to know that while not every single one of the priests and elders was there for all these gatherings, the hierarchy of the Jewish religious leadership was involved.

We are told in Jewish writings: “The High Court of 71 judges was not required to sit all together in their place in the Temple. Instead, when it was necessary for them to gather together, they would all gather together. At other times, whoever had private affairs would tend to his concerns and then return. The above applies provided there would be no less than 23 judges in attendance whenever they were sitting. If a judge needs to leave, he should look at his colleagues who remain. If there are 23 remaining, he may leave. If not, he should not leave until another comes.”⁷

Leo the great had a message for this mean-spirited tribunal. He writes: “O religious leaders [of the Jews], this morning was far from your time of rising dominance, as it might have seemed to you. Your sun was, in fact, beginning to set. The dawn you expected did not come. A night of blackest darkness was brooding over your spiteful hearts. Out of this morning would come the overthrow of the Temple and its altars, the overriding of the law and the prophets, the undoing of the kingship and priesthood, turning youth toward continual lament. For you set out that morning on a mad and bloody course. You offered up to die the Author of life, the Lord of glory. Pilate—that terror-stricken judge—was overcome by your shouts, so that he chose a man for pardon who was a murderer and demanded the crucifixion of the Savior of the world.”⁸

We are also informed when these tribunals normally convened: “Until when should the judges hold session? A minor Sanhedrin and a court of three should hold sessions from after the morning service until the end of the sixth hour of the day. The supreme Sanhedrin, by contrast, would hold sessions from the time of the slaughter of the morning sacrifice until the offering of the afternoon sacrifice. On Sabbaths and on festivals they would hold sessions in the House of Study on the Temple Mount.”

For a better understanding of the Sanhedrim, here they are described by membership:

HEBREW TRIBUNALS

1. THE GREAT SANHEDRIN (Lower + Minor + 23 Members + 2 Presiding Officers)

a. The Grand Council

b. It convened in Jerusalem

c. Consisted of the high court of justice and the supreme tribunal of the Jews.

d. It numbered 71 members.

e. Its powers were:

Legislative

Executive

Judicial

2. THE MINOR SANHEDRIN (23 Members constituted a minor Sanhedrin in any city or town)

3. THE LOWER SANHEDRIN (23 Members located at the entrance to the Temple Mount, next to the eastern Shushan Gate.)

The reaction of these religious leaders would be no surprise to the Master. Look at what He said earlier about the Son of Man: “They will hand Him over to foreigners, who will laugh at Him and beat Him with whips, and then they will kill Him on a cross. But on the third day after His death, He will be raised to life again.”⁹ He also knew that one Messianic Psalm had already predicted this: “Their kings and leaders join together to fight against the Lord and His chosen king.”¹⁰

It is also interesting that in a collection of writings by ancient Jewish Rabbis, they too saw this as related to the Messiah.¹¹ Just as Abraham tied Isaac and led him away to be sacrificed, likewise these leading priests would tie up the Son of God for the same purpose. But first, they had to take Him to Pilate in order to get the death sentence they wanted.

We find this event recorded by a Roman historian who writes: “Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus,and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.”¹²

And we also have this recorded by a Jewish historian: “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it is lawful to call Him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those that loved Him from the beginning did not forsake Him; for He appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning Him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this very day.”¹³ We also told by the Jewish historian that Pilate fell out of favor with Rome, “So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome, and this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, which he dare not contradict; but before he could get to Rome Tiberius died.”¹⁴

“The most beautiful things in this world cannot be seen or touched – they are felt by the human heart.” These words were spoken by Miss Helen Keller who was born June 27, 1880, in the city of Tuscumbia, Alabama. Her father was a retired Confederate Army captain and editor of the local newspaper; her mother was an educated young woman from Memphis, Tennessee. When Keller was 19 months old, she was afflicted by an unknown illness, possibly scarlet fever or meningitis, which left her deaf and blind.

A young lady named Anne Sullivan came to Tuscumbia to be Helen’s teacher on March 3, 1887. She used a technique called “finger play,” in which she spelled the names of familiar objects into Helen’s hand. At first, Helen didn’t understand until one day Anne spelled the word “w-a-t-e-r” while pumping water over her hand. Later, Helen would write about this touching scene:

Suddenly I felt a misty consciousness as of something forgotten—a thrill of returning thought, and somehow the mystery of language was revealed to me. I knew then that “w-a-t-e-r” meant the wonderful cool something that was flowing over my hand. That living word awakened my soul, gave it light, hope, joy, set it free! …Everything had a name, and each name gave birth to a new thought. As we returned to the house every object which I touched seemed to quiver with life.

Perhaps we can understand this same principle if we were to apply it to the term “born again.” If you were to try and communicate that to a person who is blinded by sin and cannot see the light of God’s Word, they too will stare at you with a quizzical look, just like Nicodemus did when Jesus told him he needed to be born again to understand the Kingdom of God. But once they feel the love of God flow over their soul as it washes their sins away, then, and only then, will they be able to understand what those words mean. Just like Helen Keller said: “The most beautiful things in this world cannot be seen or touched – they are felt by the human heart.” – Dr. Robert R Seyda

I once read where the only survivor of a shipwreck was washed up on a small, uninhabited island. He prayed fervently for God to rescue him, and every day he scanned the horizon for help, but none seemed forthcoming. He eventually managed to build a little hut out of driftwood to protect him from the elements and in which to store his few possessions.

Then one day, after scavenging for food, he returned only to find his little hut going up in flames, the smoke rolling up to the sky. The worst had happened; everything was lost. He was stunned with grief and anger. “God, how could you do this to me!” he cried.

He started to lay down in the sand, but he was awakened by the sound of a ship’s horn as it approached the island. When it reached the shore, the weary man asked his rescuers: “How did you know I was here?” “We saw your smoke signal,” they replied.

It is easy to get discouraged when things are going bad. But we shouldn’t lose heart, because God is at work in our lives, even in the midst of pain and suffering. Remember, the next time your little hut is burning to the ground — it just may be the smoke signal that summons the grace of God.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX

One of the longest chapters in Matthew begins with the revelation of a plot by the Jewish chief priests and elders who assembled at high priest Caiaphas’ house, not just to marginalize this rogue prophet from Galilee named Jesus son of Joseph, but to put an end to His life and ministry. Politically and militarily He was no match for the Judeans and Romans. He had no huge armed following. He went around preaching peace and healing the sick. But one wrong move on their part could cause the many followers He did have to riot, and that would not sit well with the Roman governor.

In the meantime, Jesus warned His followers that such a secret plan was underway. But they were distracted by a woman who came to the house of Simon the Leper in Bethany and poured out very expensive perfume on our Lord’s head while He was eating. Some of His disciples thought it was a disgrace that such fine perfume was wasted instead of selling it so they could help feed the poor. But much to their surprise, Jesus rebuked them saying: “This is a wonderful thing she has done by preparing me for burial, and her act of reverence will be preached around the world.”

While all this was going on in Bethany, Judas Iscariot, one of Jesus’ own disciples was secretly meeting with the chief priests and elders at Caiaphas’ house to discuss their plan on arresting Jesus and bringing Him to trial. Judas agreed to point Him out with a greeting and kiss on the cheek. Such a betrayal is hard to imagine, especially after Judas had seen His Master heal the sick, cleanse lepers, and raise the dead. On the other hand, Peter brazenly stood up and proclaimed himself as his Master’s protector, only to be told that before this was all over he would have thrice denied even knowing Jesus.

But Jesus had other things to do. So with Passover coming in a few days, He sent His disciples into the next village to arrange a place so that He could eat His last meal with them to commemorate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. It was at this meal Jesus would identify His betrayer. And it was also here that He would use the meal’s bread and wine to commemorate His own sacrifice as the Passover Lamb of God to take away the sins of the world.

His disciples were shocked that anyone would betray their Lord and Master. But Judas Iscariot would be singled out as the culprit who would do this cowardly deed for thirty pieces of silver. Once the meal was over, He led them over to the Garden of Gethsemane at the foot of the Mount of Olives He asked them to pray with Him as He faced this awesome and earth shattering task that was planned before the world began. But they were not up to the challenge and fell asleep.

Jesus woke them up just in time to see the armed group of Temple guards along with some of the leading priests and elders arrive for His betrayal and the hands of Judas Iscariot. Peter did as he said he would do. He drew the dagger that was tucked in his belt and swung wildly in defense of his Lord, cutting off the ear of the high priest’s servant. But Jesus had no interest in such bravery, no matter how well-intentioned it was. So He healed the servant’s ear out of the graciousness of His heart.

But even that kind deed went unnoticed, as the guards seized Him, tied His hands, and led him off to the high priest’s palace where members of the Sanhedrin were waiting for Him. Jesus’ interrogation by these priests and elders was a sham and disgrace, as they broke many of their verbal laws on how such an inquiry should be conducted. What no doubt was intended to be a formal hearing, soon deteriorated into a humiliating exercise of hatred and pride. The man who was known for His kindness in feeding the hungry, healing the sick, raising the dead, and preaching the good news of God’s kingdom, was laughed at, spit on, slapped in the face, and called a liar.

While all this was going on inside the high priest’s house, outside the brave and bodacious Peter, affectionately called the Rock, was doing exactly what Jesus said he would do. And that was denying that he was one of Jesus’ followers, and then swearing in God’s name that he did not know who this blasphemer was. But the sudden crowing of a rooster, brought Peter back to reality as he remembered what Jesus said about his denying Him three times. It was enough to bring Peter to tears as he quickly left the court of the high priest’s house and went out into the darkness to weep bitterly for his failure to stand up for the One who would soon be lifted up on a cross to die for him.

As we will see in the next chapter, Peter handled his betrayal one way but Judas Iscariot handled it another. All of this should give us reasons to ask if our loyalty to Jesus is ever tested and we fail Him too, whose example will we follow. May God richly bless you for you love and desire to know more about Him by knowing more about His Word. We will begin chapter twenty-seven of Matthew on Monday. See you then!

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX

Part XXIV

In this picture of Jerusalem: (1) is Mt. Olives; (2) the Temple Mount (Mt. Moriah); (3) Mt. Zion. At the very top is Mt. Calvary, and at the very bottom is the Valley of Gehenna.

By looking at the picture above of the locations of Mount Zion, where the Temple was; Mount Olives, where the Garden of Gethsemane was located; Mount Moriah where Abraham went to sacrifice Isaac and where Mount Calvary is located just to the north; and then to the south were the Valley of Gehenna lies, the place associated with the fiery end for all unbelievers, when you draw lines between Mt. Zion and Mt. Olives, and then between Mt. Calvary and the Valley of Gehenna, that runs parallel to the Kidron Valley, you will see the sign of the cross.

Most significant is that all sinners must come to the foot of the cross to be redeemed and saved. Redeemed from the bondage of sin, and saved from the fire of hell. So it’s there that a sinner decides to look up toward Calvary and accept Jesus the Christ as their Lord and Savior, or to reject Him and continue their walk toward eternal damnation. He made the choice to die as a payment for their sins, now they must make the decision to accept His sacrifice or die for their sins.

To sum up what we have learned from Matthew’s account until now, let’s look at this compilation of facts, courtesy of Dr. David Stern:¹

Prophecy:                                     Location:                            Fulfillment:

The Messiah                                 In the Old                           In the New

would be –                                      Testament –                          Testament –

Hated without a cause                   Isaiah 49: 7                           Jn 15: 24– 25

Rejected by the rulers                     Psalm 118: 22                      Mt 21: 42, Jn7: 48

Betrayed by a friend                        Psalm 41: 9,                        Mt 26: 21– 25, 47– 50;

                                                         15( 12– 14)                          Jn 13: 18– 19; 8 Ac 1: 16– 1

Sold for 30 pieces of silver              Zechariah 11: 12                Mt 26: 15

Subject to having his price               Zechariah 11: 13                Mt 27: 7

given for a potter’s field

Forsaken by his disciples                Zechariah 13: 7                     Mt 26: 31– 56

Struck on the cheek                        Micah 4: 14( 5: 1)                  Mt 27: 30

Spat on                                             Isaiah 50: 6                           Mt 26: 67, 27: 30

Mocked                                            Psalm 22: 8– 9 (7– 8)           Mt 26: 67– 68;

                                                                                                        27: 31, 39– 44

Beaten                                              Isaiah 50: 6                            Mt 26: 67; 27: 26, 30

Executed by crucifixion                    Psalm 22: 17( 16)                 Mt 27: 35;

(i.e., having hands and                                                                    Jn 19:18, 37; 20: 35

feet pierced

Executed without having                     Exodus 12: 46,                     Jn 19: 33– 36

a bone broken                                       Psalm 34: 21( 20)

Thirsty during his execution                Psalm 22: 16( 15)                  Jn 19: 28

Given vinegar to quench                      Psalm 69: 22( 21)                   Mt 27: 34

that thirst

Considered a transgressor                     Isaiah 53: 12                           Mt 27: 38

Buried with the rich when dead             Isaiah 53: 9                            Mt 27: 57— 60

The one whose death would                  Isaiah 53: 5– 7, 12                 Mk 10: 45; Jn 1: 29, 3: 16;

atone for sins of mankind                                                                      Ac 8: 30– 35

Raised from the dead                               Isaiah 53: 9– 10;                   Mt 28: 1– 20;

                                                                 Psalms 2: 7, 16: 10               Ac 13: 33; 1 Cor 11: 4– 6

Ascended to the right                               Psalms 16: 11,                       Lk 24: 51; Ac 1: 9– 11,

hand of God                                              68: 19( 18), 110: 1                 7: 55

“Cut off, but not for himself,”                  Daniel 9: 24– 26                     Rom 5: 6

69 x 7 years after rebuilding

of the wall of Jerusalem

The overarching message of this whole story of the passion of Christ is that He did it freely in obedience to His Father’s will. Not to save Himself, for He needed no salvation, but for those who needed salvation but could not save themselves. Because of this, He who was the Way, the Truth, and the Life could share with those who otherwise would have been hopelessly lost for eternity, the joy of eternal life.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX

Part XXIII

Verses 73-74a: A short time later those standing there went to Peter and said, “We know you are one of them. It’s clear from your accent.” Then Peter began to curse. He said, “I swear to God, I don’t know that man!”

Peter wasn’t fooling anyone. Those standing around him noticed that when he spoke, he did so with a Galilean accent. We could say, this was Peter’s shibboleth moment.¹ But having an accent wasn’t all there was to it. We know that later when some of these same religious leaders heard Peter and John teaching with such courage and eloquence, they found it hard to believe because they knew them as being illiterate Galileans by their accent.²

Of course, it would be natural for those who looked at Peter as the founder of the church and the successor of Christ to find some alibi for such a terrible act of denial. Jerome has this to say: “Not that Peter spoke a different language or belonged to a foreign nation … but since each province and region had their own characteristics and vernacular, one could not help having a certain sound to his speech. For instance, the Ephrathites in the book of Judges cannot pronounce the word synthema.³ In the other Gospel we read that after Peter’s denial and the crowing of the cock, the Savior looked at Peter and, by His very gaze, aroused bitter tears in him.⁴ It was not permissible that Peter, on whom the light of the world had gazed, should remain in the darkness of denial.”⁵

Even Jewish tradition tells us that Galileans were not a well-spoken people. Rabbi Judah once said: “The Judeans who cared for the beauty of their language retained their learning, but the Galileans who did not care for the beauty of their language did not retain their learning.”⁶

Verses 74b-75: As soon as he said this, a rooster crowed. Then he remembered what Jesus had told him: “Before the rooster crows, you will say three times that you don’t know me.” Then Peter went outside and cried bitterly.”

By this time, Peter was all but lost in his confusion and bewilderment. But then something hit him like an arrow out of the dark, it was the crowing of a rooster. Some skeptics have dismissed a rooster crowing near the high priest’s house early in the morning because their verbal teachings forbid keeping chickens inside Jerusalem.⁷

We read that the Rabbis established ten special regulations that apply to anyone living in Jerusalem, and number nine reads, “That no chickens should be raised there.”⁸ And, another revered Rabbi adds this: “We may not raise chickens within Jerusalem, because they may cause ritually pure articles [to become impure]. Similarly, a priest may not raise chickens throughout the Land of Israel, because they cause ritually pure articles [to become impure].”⁹ But then, Jewish scholars tell us: “We have learned: Rabbi Judah ben Baba gave testimony concerning a chicken that was stoned in Jerusalem.”¹⁰ As with anything, there are always cracks in the floor and privileges are given to a few.

Origen gives us his input on how he sees Peter’s denial and the consequences: “Upon examining Peter’s denial, we note that ‘as yet the Spirit had not been given because Jesus was not yet glorified.’¹¹ For this reason, neither was it possible for Peter at the time to profess belief in Jesus nor was he to be criticized for not professing belief in Him, since it is said to those who profess belief: ‘It is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.’¹² We, however, since the Spirit of the Father has the power to speak in us and since it is in our power to ‘make room’ in us for the Holy Spirit and not ‘for the devil,’¹³ if we should deny Christ, we would have no excuse.”¹⁴ It appears that Origen is making the case that before Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead, it was impossible to believe in Him as Lord and Savior because the work of redemption had not been completed.

Origen then goes on to make this point: “Perhaps all people when they deny Jesus … seemingly deny Him before the crowing of the cock, when the sun of justice has not yet risen for them and its rising is not yet at hand. But if upon the rising of the sun for the soul ‘we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries.‘¹⁵”¹⁶ Although Origen finds cause not to accuse Peter of treason, no such excuse will be given to anyone who comes to know Jesus as the true Son of God and their Savior. But what do we do then with Peter’s earlier confession based on a revelation from the Holy Spirit, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God?”¹⁷

Although nine of the disciples fled the scene while John accompanied Jesus to this meeting at the high priest’s house, with Peter following far behind, after His resurrection our Lord still went in search of them. First, to Mary Magdalene just outside the borrowed tomb.¹ Then the two followers on the road to the village of Emmaus.² Later on in the upper room in Jerusalem where the disciples were hiding, minus Thomas.³ But then He came back a second time for Thomas’ sake.⁴ And finally up in Galilee where He told them they were to meet Him.²²

This fits in with two parables Jesus told about a shepherd who left his flock of 99 sheep and went out in search of one that was lost.¹ Then, of the woman who lost one of her ten coins but did not stop until she found it.² However, there is also the story of the father who waited for his prodigal son, who had taken his inheritance and wandered off into a life of immoral living, to come back home in a spirit of repentance.³ What does this mean for those to whom God sends out His Spirit to find and lead back to Him? Did not Jesus tell His disciples early on in Matthew that whoever was willing to acknowledge Him as their Lord while here on earth, He would proudly acknowledge them before His Father in heaven? But if they failed to acknowledge Him, then He too would deny they were His before the Father.⁴ What a serious warning this is, and perhaps, more than the rooster’s crow, is what brought Peter to tears when he realized what he had done by denying Jesus as his Lord before these people in the high priest’s courtyard.