Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Matthew 27:1 - 27:10
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
JESUS AND HIS BETRAYER.—JUDAS AND THE HIGH-PRIESTS
Mat_27:1-10
(Mar_15:1; Luk_22:66 to Luk_23:1; Joh_18:28)
To put Him to death.—The resolution had been finally taken during the night, and their present object was to put that sentence and the charge against Jesus into proper form, as a means toward the end in view.
Mat_27:2. And when they had bound Him, they led Him away.—They bound Him, even when they first seized Him (Mat_26:50; Joh_18:12). These fetters He also still bore when led from Annas to Caiaphas (Joh_18:24). They seem to have been removed during His examination before Caiaphas. After that they appear to have been again put upon the Lord. Now they proceed in a body (Luke) to hand over to the Roman procurator Him whom they had condemned. They calculated upon producing, by their formal procession in a body, so early in the morning, and that on the first day of the feast, the impression that Jesus had committed some fearful and unheard-of crime. For this purpose they now put Him again in fetters. Besides, this early and pompous procession would tend to terrify the friends of Jesus among the people, and to anticipate any possible movement in His favor. If Pilate had once sentenced Jesus, there would be less cause for apprehension on the score of a popular tumult. “The procession of the Sanhedrin passed from the council-chamber across the temple-mountain, in a northerly direction, toward the palace of the governor, which lay at the northern base of the temple-mountain. As the house of the high-priest was situated on the northern slope of the Upper City, or of Mount Zion, and a lofty archway led across the valley of the Tyropæon, connecting the temple-mountain with Mount Zion, it seems probable that Jesus may, before that, have been brought in formal procession across this high archway into the council-chamber on the temple mount. As we may assume that Herod, the ruler of Galilee, resided, during his stay at Jerusalem, in the palace of Herod, which also stood on the northern slope of Mount Zion, Jesus must afterward have again been led from the hall of judgment, on the temple mount, across that archway and back—a spectacle of ignominy and woe.” (From the author’s Leben Jesu, ii. 3, p. 1502.)
And delivered Him.—The original ðáñÝäùêáí contains an allusion to the second great betrayal of the Saviour. “After Judea became a Roman province (upon the deposition of King Archelaus), the Sanhedrin no longer possessed the jus gladii. Comp. Joh_18:31.” Meyer.
Pontius Pilate.—The sixth Roman procurator of Judæa, and successor of Valerius Gratus. He held this office for ten years during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius (Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 4, 2). His arbitrary conduct, however, led to repeated risings of the Jews, which he suppressed by bloody measures (Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 3, 1; De Bello Jud. ii. 9, 2). He was accused before Vitellius, the Præses of Syria, who deposed and sent him to Rome, to answer before the Emperor for his administration. He was probably deposed from his office the same year as Caiaphas from the priesthood—in 36 p. C. (ær. Dion.). According to Eusebius, Hist. Ecc_2:7, and the Chronic. of the first year of Cajus, he committed suicide during the reign of Cajus Caligula. The opinion entertained of him by the Jews was affected by their fanaticism on the one hand, and on the other by his proud contempt of the Jewish nation. He affords one of the earliest instances of that antagonism between the Roman and heathen spirit of the world and Jewish fanaticism which, under the administration of his successors, attained such immense proportions, and at last burst forth in open war for independence. The bitter and derisive contemptuousness which he ever and again displayed, led to frequent conflicts with the leaders of the Jews, in which the obstinate determination and cunning of the latter generally secured the victory. This aversion to the Jews made it easier for him to take a favorable view of the cause of Jesus. To this must be added, the moral impression produced by the person of Jesus, the religious awe which the mysterious religious character of the Messiah evoked, and the warning of his wife. Under the influence of such feelings, he made unmistakable efforts to withdraw Jesus from the vengeance of His enemies, whose minds and motives he easily read, or at least sought to avoid having any part in His condemnation. Hence he sent Jesus to Herod, placed him side by side with Barabbas, solemnly washed his hands, presented Him to the people after He had been scourged, etc. But he was too weak and unrighteous to pronounce what he must have felt a righteous sentence, and boldly to adhere to it as a matter of duty, instead of resorting to these numerous paltry devices. Hence also his carnal and devilish wisdom was overmatched by the superior cunning and skill of the Jewish priesthood. Pilate may serve as a type of the complete unbelief, worldly-mindedness, and morally impotent civilization of the ancient Greek and Roman world. According to the word of the Lord Himself, Pilate was guilty, but his sin was less than that of the priesthood which had delivered the Christ into his hands (Joh_19:11). Ordinarily, Pilate appears not to have been so yielding. Philo, legatio ad Caj.: “His disposition was unyielding, nor was he moved to leniency toward daring malefactors.” For the literature and history of Pilate, comp. Danz, Univ. Wörterbuch, sub Pontius Pilate. On the defence set up by some writers for Pilate, see Heubner, Com. p. 484, note. See also especially, Lavater, “Pontius Pilate, or Human Character in all its Phases.” Winer, art. Pilate [and other Bibl. Encyclop.]. The apocryphal tales connected with Pilate are recorded in the “Acta Pilati.” They are of a twofold character: 1. Such as were invented by Christians; 2. such as were of heathen origin, defamatory in their nature, circulated in the schools by order of Maximums about the year 311. See Heubner, p. 427. The introduction of “Pontius Pilate” in the Creed shows that in the mind of the Church he was regarded as representing the ancient world, and in general the spirit of the world.
The governor, ἡãåìüíé ,—the more general term. The more special designation of the office was ἐðßôñïðïò , procurator. Winer: “The official title of procurator or eparch was given to the chiefs of administration—commonly Roman knights—who were appointed along with the governors both of imperial and senatorial provinces, and whose duty it was to attend to the revenues of the imperial treasury, and to decide on all legal questions connected with this department. Occasionally they occupied the place of governor in smaller provinces, or in districts which had been conjoined with larger provinces, but were separately administered, when they had the command of the troops stationed in their district and administered the law even in criminal cases; the president of the province retaining, however, the superintendence of such administration, and being empowered to receive and hear accusations against the procurator. Comp. Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 5, 2; xx. 6, 2; Bell. Judges 2, 4, 3.”—After the banishment of Archelaus (six years after Christ), when Judæa and Samaria were conjoined with the province of Syria, the government of Palestine was administered by a procurator. This governor of Palestine generally resided at Cæsarea, by the sea; but during the Passover he was in Jerusalem, whither the male population of the whole country flocked, and where it was his duty not only to preserve order, but also the prestige of the Roman power. If the presidents of Syria were in Palestine, they, of course, exercised sovereignty in the country. In regard to succession of the procurators, which was interrupted by the reign of Herod Agrippa from 41–44, see Winer, art. Procurator, and K. von Raumer’s Palestine, p. 338 et seq.
Mat_27:3. Then Judas ... when he saw.—He might readily learn that Jesus had been condemned. But he also saw it, from the procession in which the Pharisees conducted Jesus to Pilate, which could have no other object than to secure His condemnation.—Repented himself (regretted, felt sorrow, remorse).—This repentance was not genuine, as occasioned by the consequences of his deed, but false, as caused by these consequences, and these alone. It seems, then, that he had not anticipated such an issue. This circumstance has frequently been adduced in support of the idea, that the object of Judas in betraying the Lord had been to induce Him to display His majesty and glory as the Messiah. But in that case we would have expected that his repentance would lead him now to cling to Jesus. Yet he seems to have expected that, as on former occasions, so now, Jesus would miraculously deliver Him self from the power of His enemies; and that in any case he would have his own honor promoted by the turn things would take (see above). Moreover, by the very fact, that after His betrayal Jesus surrendered Himself unto death, Judas was filled with terror and anguish, seeing in this the fulfilment of Christ’s prediction, and an indication that all His other sayings, notably that concerning His betrayer, would also be fulfilled. Reckoning in his own mean way, Judas expected an ordinary result; and the fact that all his anticipations proved so utterly false, and the issue proved so entirely extraordinary, filled his mind with awe.
And brought back the thirty pieces of silver.—The way of spurious penitence in contradistinction to the genuine repentance of Peter. His first disposition is to attempt some outward rectification of his deed in the sight of men, without previous humiliation before God, and seeking of refuge with Him. In connection with this, it is also a question whether he did not also entertain the hope of a still higher reward for his betrayal. The second stage and feature is expressed in the word ἀíå÷þñçóå , the force of which is too little understood [and not adequately rendered in our authorized version by “he departed”]. It conveys to us the idea that “he retired or withdrew” into solitude—desolation, a desert place—“and went away thence and hanged himself.”—The third stage was that of absolute despair. The precise time when Judas brought back the thirty pieces of silver is not mentioned. But from the circumstance that Matthew connects it with the leading away of Jesus unto Pilate, we infer that he approached the priests and elders during the time of their appeal to the Roman governor, and the transactions connected with it. We can readily conceive that many opportunities for this may have offered, when they were not otherwise engaged, as, for example, during the examination before Herod.
Mat_27:4. I (have) erred.—Luther translates ἥìáñôïí here: I have done (did) evil; de Wette as the authorized Engl. Version]: I have sinned. The word bears either construction. Accordingly, we prefer rendering it, I (have) erred, which seems to express the mind and the views of Judas more fully. The desire to make his guilt appear as small as possible is also evident from the explanation which he offers of his conduct.—In that I betrayed innocent blood, i.e., that by my betrayal I have caused the bloody death of one who is innocent. This admission may be taken as a grand testimony in favor of the innocence of Jesus, which must be added to that of Pilate, and to the indirect testimony of the Sanhedrin itself, which could prefer no other accusation against Jesus than that He had designated Himself the Messiah and the Son of God. If Judas could have recalled any circumstance, however trifling, which might have cast a shadow upon the Lord, we may readily believe he would gladly have appeased his conscience in that manner. Still this declaration about innocent blood cannot in any way be construed into the testimony of a penitent disciple. It seems to us that, in his remorse and anguish, Judas, with his carnal millennarian views, would now view Jesus in the light of an innocent enthusiast. The balance of evidence is strongly against the reading áἷìá äßêáéïí .
What is it to us? see thou to it!—Bengel: Impii in facto consortes post factum deserunt.
Mat_27:5. In the temple.—Meyer rightly calls attention to the distinct and definite meaning of the expression. “It is neither beside the temple (Kypke), nor in the council-chamber, Gazith (Grotius), nor is it equivalent to ἐí ôῷ ἱåñῷ (Fritzsche and others); but—as the term íáüò always implies, and in the sense which every reader must attach to the preposition ἐí —in the temple-building, i.e., in the holy place where the priests were. Thither Judas now cast the pieces of silver. In his despair, he had penetrated where priests alone were allowed to enter.” If, as seems probable, this took place on the morning of Christ’s death, we can readily understand how he found the temple empty, and thus was able to cast down the money in the sanctuary, as a testimony against the hierarchy. “There lay that blood-money, the price of the betrayal of innocent blood, from which the field was called, The field of blood—a. testimony against Israel.” Hengstenberg, Christologie, iii. 2, p. 464.
And he withdrew himself (anchorite-like into solitude), and went away hence.—We have here not one movement of Judas, but two: the verb ἀíå÷þñçóå is separated and distinguished by êáß from ἀðåëèþí , and the latter indicates the going away from the deed, which had been designated by ἀíå÷þñçóå . From the locality where his suicide took place, we may infer that he had first attempted to retire from the world, and to lead a life of penitence as an anchorite in the valley of Gehinnom. But his despair allowed him no rest, and he committed that awful deed which the religion and the history of his people (Saul, Ahithophel) alike condemned.
And hanged or strangled himself.—Meyer (following de Wette) observes: “We must not be led by the statement in Act_1:18 to attach any other than its primary meaning to the word ἀðÜã÷ïìáé (such as, he was consumed by anguish of conscience, Grotius, Hammond, Heinsius, etc.), as the only one which accords with the simple historical narrative. To reconcile the difference, it is generally assumed, that after having hanged himself, Judas fell down headlong. In that case, Matthew would simply have recorded one part, and Luke the other, of his sad end (thus Kuinoel, Fritzsche, Olshausen, etc.). This cutting in pieces of the narrative, is, however, not only arbitrary, but unsupported by Act_1:18, which does not even explicitly record the fact of a suicide,” etc. Accordingly, Meyer supposes that there were two different traditions about the end of the betrayer, the relative historical value of which cannot be exactly determined, bearing to the end that Judas had met with a violent and fearful death, in a manner which tradition variously represented as suicide by hanging (Matthew), or as falling headlong and bursting asunder in the midst (Act_1:18), or finally, as a swelling of the body, and crushing by carts and wagons (Papias according to Œcum.).” In considering this question, we must, in the first place, avoid being confused by the apocryphal legend. (See the passage in Winer, art. Judas, Note 4.) Next, we must bear in mind the different point from which Matthew here, and Peter in Acts 1. view the same event. Matthew simply records the successive stages of Judas’s despair, terminating in suicide by hanging himself. Peter, on the other hand, views the death of Judas as the condign reward of a wicked part, in opposition to the part of the apostleship which he was to have obtained. Viewed in this light, Judas had first voluntarily gotten the reward of iniquity, and ultimately (involuntarily) a field, upon which he fell dying, all his bowels gushing out. That the words of Peter do not mean that Judas had purchased a field with the thirty pieces of silver, appears from the rhetorical character of his address, in which he assumes a knowledge of the facts of the case, and by the explanatory clause, added to the words: he purchased—and fall ing headlong, etc. The expression, “purchased” or gained for himself, is ironical, with special reference to the circumstance that he hanged himself in the field which was afterward purchased for the thirty pieces of silver. Accordingly, we adopt the view so vividly sketched by Casaubonus. That writer suggests that Judas (according to Matthew) hanged himself over a precipice in the valley Of Gehinnom. The branch broke, or the rope was torn, and Judas (according to the report of Peter) fell down headlong and burst asunder. Winer, indeed, carpingly objects, that the effects described by Peter could in that case only have resulted if the body had fallen on jagged pieces of rock. But we may safely leave a criticism which is driven into difficulties in search of rocks, among the rocky valleys around Jerusalem.
Mat_27:6. It is not lawful.—Wetstein: Argumento ducto ex Deu_13:18. Sanhedr. fol. 112.—Thus unconsciously condemning their own hypocrisy who had paid this same price of blood.
Mat_27:7. And they took counsel;—i.e., resolved in council. No doubt this took place after the crucifixion, although soon afterward.—And bought the potter’s field.—Evidently a well-known place. A field used for potteries would, of course, be a waste and comparatively valueless spot.—To bury strangers in.—The expression does not refer to Jews from other countries (as Meyer supposes), who in a religious point of view were not strangers, nor to professing heathens, who were left to themselves, but to Gentile proselytes (of the gate), to whom a certain regard was due, while priestly exclusiveness would not allow them to repose in properly consecrated graves. Thus, even in this act of cheap charity and pious provision on the part of a Sanhedrin which slew the Lord of glory, Pharisaism remained true to itself. The price of blood and the field of blood are declared quite suited for “strangers.” The field of blood, or Aceldama (Act_1:19), is on the steep face of the southern hill, opposite Mount Zion, which bounds the valley of Ben Hinnom. Tradition points out the spot. “In a corner where some graves or natural caves, in a semi-dilapidated condition, are found, is the Aceldama or field of blood of tradition. In support of the accuracy of this view, I may state, that above it there is a considerable stratum of white clay, where I repeatedly observed people working. Eusebius and Jerome are the first who mention the tradition in the Onomasticon. This place of sepulture, which till the fourteenth century belonged to the Latins, became afterward the property of the Armenians. Probably it ceased to be used for interments since the last century, although it is impossible exactly to determine the date. A large vaulted sepulchre in a rock, or rather a cave, served to indicate the locality of the field of blood.” Krafft, Topogr. of Jerus., p. 193.—The field of blood adjoins “the Hill of Evil Counsel,” where Caiaphas, according to tradition, possessed a country house, in which the death of Jesus had been resolved upon (Mat_26:3). Braune confounds this with the Hill of Offence, on the southern top of the Mount of Olives. In the Middle Ages it was believed that the soil of the Aceldama had the power of consuming bodies in one, or at least in a few days. Accordingly, shiploads of it were, during the thirteenth century, transported to the Campo Santo at Pisa.
Mat_27:9. That which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet.—De Wette observes: “Neither this nor any similar passage is found in Jeremiah. Accordingly, some Codd. and Versions omit these words. But a similar passage occurs in Zec_11:12. Hence Cod. 22, Syr. p. in m. read Æá÷áñßïõ . But even Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustine found the common reading, which, in fairness, cannot be disputed. Origen, Homil. 35, supposes that the passage is found in an apocryphal book of Jeremiah. Jerome found the passage in an apocryphal writing of Jeremiah, which a Nazarene showed him, but he thought it was borrowed from Zechariah. To us it seems probable that the Evangelist has been misled by the statement in Jer_18:2, to name that prophet instead of Zechariah. The quotation from Zechariah is freely made, the phraseology being different both from the Hebrew text and from the Sept.” The following are various attempts at removing the difficulty: 1. It was a mistake of memory (Augustine); 2. the reading “Jeremiah” is spurious (Rupert von Deutz, etc.); 3. it occurred in a work of Jeremiah which has been lost (Origen, etc.); 4. it was an oral statement of that prophet (Calovius, etc.); 5. the Jews have expunged the passage from the book of Jeremiah (Eusebius). “If the passage has been found in an Arabic book, or in a Sahidic or Coptic lectionary, these must be regarded as interpolations from our passage.” Meyer,—In reference to the above, we remark,—1. That it is very improbable our Evangelist should have confounded the prophecies of Zechariah—with which he evidently was quite familiar, quoting without naming them, as in Mat_21:5; Mat_26:31—with those of Jeremiah 2. It seems impossible to identify the passage before us with Jer_18:2, since it contains no reference to a purchase on the part of the prophet. 3. On the other hand, however, we find a connection between the quotation of Matthew and Jer_32:8, especially Mat_27:14 : “Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel, Take these evidences [letters], this evidence of the purchase which is sealed, and this evidence which is open, and put them in an earthen vessel, that they may continue many days. For thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Houses, and fields, and vineyards, shall be possessed [in German, purchased] again in this land.” These words must be taken along with Mat_27:8, where the Lord commanded the prophet to act in this manner. These words are now paraphrased by the Evangelist, in connection with materials furnished by Zechariah and by Jewish history, so as to exhibit the ðëÞñùóéò of what the prophet intended to convey, viz., that the boldest purchase should yet be made, by which the price set upon the Messiah would be given for a potter’s field to be a burying-place for pious pilgrims. The meaning of the quotation is as follows: At the command of the Lord, Jeremiah bought a field at Anathoth, at a time when Jerusalem seemed to be in the hands of the king of Babylon, in order thereby symbolically to express the idea that Jerusalem was still a place of hope, and that it had a blessed future in store. Thus unconsciously had the Sanhedrin, by its purchase of the potter’s field as a burying-place for strangers, symbolically and prophetically expressed the idea that Jerusalem was yet destined to be the place of pilgrimage of countless worshippers. Thus they unconsciously prophesied, as Caiaphas did, according to Joh_11:50; and thus had they fulfilled the prediction of Jeremiah (Mat_27:15; Mat_27:43-44). 4. The Evangelist sums up in a brief sentence the grand thought of Jeremiah (as he had done in Mat_2:23), referring in it to Zec_11:12, without, however, quoting that passage. There the typical Shepherd of the people of God (who is the same as Jehovah himself) has His price fixed by His sheep. They give it as thirty pieces of silver, the well-known price of a slave. Jehovah says: “Cast it to the potter, àֶìÎäַéּåöֵø : a goodly price that I was prized at by them.” (On the meaning of these obscure words, comp. the author’s “Leben Jem,” ii. 3, p. 1494.) The Sept. adds, by way of explanation, “to the melting-pot.” (An anomalous explanation by Hitzig, mentioned by Meyer, who thinks he finds in it a rectification of the Sept. and the punctuation of the text.) This is to imply that the money was impure, and required to be melted over again. 5. Matthew also distinctly alludes to Gen_37:28—the purchase-money of Joseph when sold by his brethren. 6. Accordingly, the passage in question combines four different quotations: (a)“And they took the thirty pieces of silver,” which is derived from the narrative, with a special reference to Zechariah; (b)“the price of Him that was valued”—also after Zechariah; (c) “whom they bought of the children of Israel” [as in the margin of the authorized version]—after Genesis 37; (d) “and gave them for the potter’s field”—the narrative of the text, with a special reference to Zechariah; (e) “as the Lord appointed to me”—the key of the whole passage, quoted from Jer_32:6; Jer_32:8. They gave the whole price for which they bought and sold the Saviour for a potter’s field, to serve as a place of burial for believing Gentile pilgrims. Thus, while sealing their own doom, they have unconsciously made Jerusalem a city of the future—but of a future which shall bring advantage to believing Gentile pilgrims—they have purchased for them a resting-place in death.
Mat_27:9. Of Him that was valued or priced, ôïῦ ôåôéìçÝíïõ .—Meyer thinks that “the expression is intended to give the Hebrew äַéְ÷ָø (pretii). But the Evangelist evidently read äַéָּ÷ָø (cari, œstimati), and applies it to Jesus as the valued One êáô ̓ ἐîï÷Þí ; Euthym. Zigabenus: ôïῦ ðáíôßìïõ ÷ñéóôïῦ , comp. Theophylact, and of late Ewald: the invaluably valuable One, who nevertheless was valued at so low a price.” This view implies not only that Matthew had intended closely to follow Zechariah, but that he had at the same time misunderstood and misrepresented him. It attaches to the verb ôéìÜù a twofold and a contradictory sense. The meaning of the words really is: “of Him that was valued”—the sense favored by most critics, including de Wette and Hofmann. Nor is there any tautology about it, as the words ä Ì íἐôé ìÞóáíôï ἀðü mean: whom by valuing they purchased, or, whom they bought. Thus the expression, “of Him that was valued,” would seem specially to refer to the passage in Zechariah—the priests being the subject of the verb ἐôéìÞóáíôï .—Whom they bought of the children of Israel (=Jacob).—This does not mean that Christ had been valued by the whole people (Hofmann); nor, at the instigation of the children of Israel (Meyer); nor, from among the children of Israel, i.e., for a man of Israel (Baumgarten-Crusius); but, bought from the children of Israel (Castellio, Luther, and others). Judas is here the representative of the whole treacherous nation; and the passage alludes to the sons of Jacob, who sold Joseph.—For the potter’s field, åἰòôüí ,—for the purchase thereof. The allusion here to Zec_11:13 is very slight. The passage in the prophet, “Cast it àֶìÎäַéּåֹöֵø ” (and that, as appears from the sequel, in the temple), is rendered by the Sept. åἰò ôὸ ÷ùíåõôÞñéïí , to the melting furnace. Hitzig proposes to read éåֹöָø , the treasure, hence, Cast it into the temple treasury. But, irrespective of the fact, that this is merely an arbitrary conjecture, it would give a wrong meaning, as the small price was to be treated with contempt, not with honor and distinction. Hengstenberg explains it: Cast it to the potter=the executioner. But these two terms are certainly not identical. The potter forms the vessels for the temple, and puts the old into new forms. Accordingly, we conjecture that in the court of the temple, where the various vessels were arranged, there was a place bearing the inscription “To the potter,” which was equivalent to “the melting furnace.” Into this receptacle, designated by its inscription, Jehovah directs the thirty pieces of silver to be cast.—Thus “to the old iron” cast the price, according to which they have valued Him as equal with “old iron.” Gerlach regards the thirty pieces of silver as the hire of a shepherd for a year. But it is well known to have been the price for a slave.—As the Lord appointed to me.—Referring not to the passage in Zechariah, but to the narrative of Jeremiah referred to, that the Lord had commanded him, by way of symbol, to purchase the field at Anathoth.
2. The Repentance of Judas.—Terrible and mysterious as is the guilt, so awful and sad is the repentance of the traitor, as it ultimately terminates in the blackness of despair. The ancients were wont to place it side by side with the penitence of Cain, as the counterpart of true repentance. Thus much is evident, that from first to last his penitence was unhealthy and godless. For its source and origin was not his guilt, but the consequences resulting from it (“when Judas saw that,” etc.). Secondly, in its course and progress it did not appear as repentance toward God, in the economy of salvation. We see him seeking first to offer human satisfaction before the priests; next, retiring as a penitent into solitude; and lastly, casting himself, in his suicide, headlong into the abyss of despair. We note the opposite of all this in Peter. Here we have first bitter weeping, repentance toward God, and return to Christ; and then human satisfaction, offered in the strength of the pardoned soul and in newness of life. Lastly, there is the sad termination in the case of Judas,—his repentance being the sorrow of the world, which worketh death (2Co_7:10). At the outset, he wants the genuineness and sincerity in dealing with an offended God which constitutes the grand characteristic of true repentance; during the course of it, that faith which flies for refuge to the sovereign mercy of God, who is able and willing to pardon; and hence, in the end, the victory of hope and love over despair. Heubner remarks: “When the conscience of a sinner awakens and fills him with terror he is hopelessly lost if he lose faith—faith in the grace of God, who is able and willing to pardon, and faith in an atoning and all-sufficient Saviour. Hence it is absolutely necessary to keep firm hold of faith.” However, ingenuousness and truth are the condition of ability to believe. He that doeth the truth cometh to the light. The same writer remarks; “Satan has two arts by which he seduces men. Before we sin he cries out: Spera! and after we have sinned: Despera!” (See the quotation from Luther, Works, vol. xix. 1498.)
3. Suicide: Saul, Ahithophel, Judas.—“Suicide, if not freely and voluntarily committed, but arising from physical disturbance, may expect pardon from God.” In his “Table talk,” Luther expressly says (Walch’s edition, Matthew 48 § 13, p. 1039), “that all cases of suicide are not condemned.” (Which may be added to Stäudlin’s History of the opinions on Suicide, p. 116.) Heubner: “When suicide is committed freely, and with full consciousness and reflection, it is always the result of sinful estrangement and alienation from the Creator, and of despair in everlasting love. True, it is very generally also the consequence of gross sins which torment the soul, and of violent passions. These alone, however, do not lead men to their eternal downfall; it is unbelief alone. Hence it is that suicides are now so much more common.”—What makes suicide at once detestable and horrifying is, in the first place, the false and wicked combination of the most extreme contradictions,—self-love and self-abandonment, deliverance and destruction, healing and murder, rebellion against God and forth stepping to His judgment-bar; in the second place, the fact that the self-murderer perverts to his own destruction that moment which God had appointed to be the crisis of his perfected salvation (see Act_16:27); in the third place, the circumstance that the self-murderer, regardless of consequences, anticipates and neutralizes, in a cowardly and wicked manner, the act of free surrender of the soul to God in death, which is its highest spiritual form (see the author’s Positive Dogmatik, p. 1243). Suicide is, so to speak, the theatrical exhibition and full development of sin’s self-destructive nature, and is the natural type of eternal self-condemnation. Truth accordingly must never in its testimony cease to war against suicide, regarded in itself; she cannot compromise with it, but must ever condemn it as the evidence of despairing unbelief. But as suicide is often the result of bodily and mental weakness, the twin child of madness, we should deal with actual cases in a forbearing, mild, and cautious spirit. We should act similarly in those cases where remorse in after-life leads to suicide, though that act appears to be merely the natural consequence of the preceding heinous crime committed by the miserable persons. The spiritual suicide of Judas was consummated in the moment of his treachery against his Lord and Master. Heubner’s statement: “We may fall ever so low, if we only hold fast the faith,” is as liable to misconception as many similar remarks of Luther. Faith is ethical in its very nature, and cannot be separated from moral laws. Unon other points connected with suicide, consult the Systems of Ethics. We should not return to the confessional, because the reserve of ungodly men and their brooding lead them to self-destruction; but we should, throughout the Evangelical Church, recommend the practice of a free confession of heart.
4. Appropriation of the Blood-Money.—“Hypocritical conscientiousness. Their scruples arose from Deu_23:18 :—‘Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow; for even both these are an abomination unto the Lord thy God.’ The instruments of the wicked are a source of disgust and dread to them, especially those to whom the stain of blood attaches as a memorial of their guilt. They are agents to awaken conscience, and threaten punishment. These wretches suffered blood to stain their hands and lie upon their consciences, but they would not allow the temple treasury to be defiled. The money-chest they valued above their conscience. They would not transgress by receiving defiled money, for they feared to render their treasury valueless: this was their reverence for God (Mat_23:24). There is a proper solicitude, however, which we should all have, to keep our property undefiled.”—“They appropriated the money to a charitable purpose; but it is impossible to remove the guilt and disgrace of former days by acts of mercy.” Heubner. Similar institutions were common in the Middle Ages. The cloister of Königsfelden in Switzerland was the fruit of Queen Agnes’ bloody vengeance.
5. The Field of Blood.—Even in the acts of charity performed by the Sanhedrin, the characteristic traits of its members come to view; the most complete hypocrisy, making the money-chest of God’s house more sacred than God Himself and God’s acre. They purchase for a paltry sum, and that the price of blood, a field of blood, to inter pious pilgrims from heathen nations, who were not reckoned to be fully Jewish proselytes. So the charity of the Middle Ages sought out beggars upon whom to expend its kind offices, and these it furnished with beggars’ broth. Unconsciously, these hypocrites were compelled to perpetuate the memory of their sinful acts; and in this act, besides, was given unconsciously a plastic type of the Sanhedrin. Without willing it, they had to fulfil Jeremiah’s prophecy. The purchase of the potter’s field to be a resting-place for foreign pilgrims becomes prophetical of this, that Jerusalem, Palestine, and Israel’s entire inheritance, was destined to be a resting place for the believing Gentile world.
6. Here for the first time Christian grave-yards took the place of isolated sepulchres, as was the custom among the Jews. And who was probably the first interred in that field? This history preaches mildness and tenderness.
Starke:—We should be up early, not to injure our neighbor, but to praise God, Psa_108:2-3, and to attend honestly to our calling, Psa_104:23.—Zeisius: Christ has been bound that He might free us from the bonds of sin, death, the devil, and hell.—He also thereby sanctified and blessed the bonds of our afflictions, especially those endured for the gospel.—Canstein: Satan blinds the eyes to precipitate man into sin; and then he opens them again, that despair may seize the sinner.—Do not be such a fool as to commit a sin to gain the world’s favor; for it will draw its head out of the noose, and leave thee to be hanged.—Quesnel: There is a kind of hirelings and false shepherds, to whom it is of no consequence whether their sheep stray and are lost or not.—Zeisius: Do but see how far greed will lead a man.—Canstein: The anguish of an evil conscience deprives a man of his judgment, so that he is no more his own master; for when he thinks by self-murder to free himself from: torment, he only plunges himself into eternal torment.—Thou canst find many a companion in sin; but when thy poor conscience will have comfort, thou art forsaken by them all.—Hast thou sinned deeply, despair not; arise, and repent truly.—Nova Bill. Tub.: Christ has given the grave money for our burial, and has purchased for us, poor pilgrims who have nothing of our own, a resting place.—Canstein: The wicked themselves must assist in establishing divine truth.
Gossner:—“See thou to that:” such is their absolution.
Gerlach:—It was a remarkable circumstance in the passion history of Christ, that He must be delivered up to the Gentiles. Not the Jews only were to reject and crucify the Son of God, but the Gentiles also; and His blood crieth for mercy on behalf of Jews as well as Gentiles.
Heubner:—The witness of Judas. He was the spy whom Satan had been permitted to place among the confidential friends; he was Satan’s appointed fault-finder, who should pay attention to discover any fault that might be committed. But he had to confess he had betrayed innocent blood.—That Judas might have gained pardon, if he had believed, is acknowledged by, e. g., Chrysostom, in Sermon 1 on Repentance, and by Leo the Great, in the 11th Sermon on the Passion.—Even the most glorious opportunities of virtue and religion, even the companionship and conversation of the most holy and most lovable of men, are perverted to its own ruin by a corrupted spirit.—An evil germ, small at first, but nourished and tended, produces fruits ever more and more poisonous.—They care for the bodies of dead foreigners, but let the souls of the living perish.—The perpetuation of sinful acts through memorials, names, etc., against the will and expectation of evil-doers.—How are the children of God, yea, Christ Himself, valued in this world! To how many are philosophers, artists, heroes, or millionnaires far more precious!
Braune:—Common minds become small criminals, great characters great criminals, as men judge: the former are base, the latter more wicked. (Still the deed of Judas was the very depth of baseness.)—He seeks to clear himself only before his own conscience and his accomplices, not before God, and that he would do without Jesus. He wanted faith, and hence he prayed not and sought not.—Themselves they have stained, God’s treasury they would not defile.—Schulz: The end of Judas: 1. His despair; 2. his ruin.
[Burkitt:—Behold! a disciple, an apostle, first a traitor, then a self-murderer. Behold! all ye covetous worldlings, to what the love of that accursed idol has brought this wretched apostle. Behold! Judas, once shining in the robes of a glorious profession, now shining in the flames of God’s eternal wrath and vengeance. Lord! how earnest ought we to be for thy preserving grace, when neither the presence, the miracles, the sermons, the sacraments of Christ, could preserve and secure a professor, a disciple and apostle from ruinous apostasy. Let him that standeth take heed lest he fall.—Doddridge:—The irresistible force of conscience in the worst of men.—The testimony of the traitor to the innocence of Jesus.—The wrath of man shall praise the Lord.—D. Brown:—The true character of repentance is determined neither by its sincerity nor by its bitterness, but by the views under which it is wrought. Judas, under the sense of his guilt, had nothing to fall back upon; Peter turned toward Jesus, who was able and willing to forgive. In the one case we hare natural principles working themselves out to deadly effect; in the other, we see grace working repentance unto salvation.—Wordsworth:—Judas, a type of the Jews, in his sin and end (?).—P. S.]
Footnotes:
Mat_27:2.—[ Ôῷ ἡëåìüíé , here= ἐðßôñïðïò , procurator, which was the proper official character and title of Pilate; but ἡëåìþí is a more general term which applies to proconsuls, legates, or procurators. Hence governor may be retained. Vulgate and Beza translate: præsidi (but this title belonged to the President of Syria (Luk_2:2), Pilate’s superior); Castalio: prœtori (in the wider acceptation of early Roman history); Tyndale, Coverdale, Cranmer, Genevan, Bishops: deputy (but this is used for ἀíèýðáôïò , proconsul, in Act_13:7-8; Act_13:12; Act_18:12; Act_19:38); Campbell: procurator (correct, but not so generally intelligible as governor); Luther: Landpfleger; Ewald and Lange: Statthalter.—P. S.]
Mat_27:3.— Ðáñáäïýò according to B., L., cursive MSS., Lachmann, [and Tregelles. Tischendorf and Alford retain the usual reading: ðáñá äé äïýò .]
Mat_27:3.—[It is worth while to mark in the translation the difference between ìåôáìÝëïìáé , to change one’s care, and ìåôáíïÝù , to change one’s mind or purpose, and thus between the repentance of Peter, who abhorred the cause, his sin, and the remorse of Judas, who shrunk back from the effect; or the godly sorrow which lends to life, and the worldly regret which leads to death.—P. S.]
Mat_27:4.—In place of ἀèῶïí (innocent) some manuscripts and translations read äßêáéïí (righteous), which has too little authority.
Ver.4.—[So in accordance with the concise earnestness of the Greek, and the state of Judas. “The fewer words the better.” Similarly Ewald: Ich sündigte übergebend [better: verrathend] unschuldiges Blut, and Conant: I sinned, etc. But Lange: Ich habe gefehlt, etc., I erred; Luther: Ich habe übel gethan, I did evil, which draws a nice distinction between blundering and sinning, and is perhaps better suited to the case of Judas, who, like Cain and Saul, had no real sense of sin itself in its horrible guilt and enormity, and hence no true repentance, but shrunk back in dismay from the consequences of sin. The Greek ð ̔́ ìáñôïí , however, admits of both translations. Comp. Lange’s Exeg. Notes, Coverdale correctly omits the article before innocent, but the other older English Versions unmeaningly profix it.–P. S.]
Mat_27:5.—[Lange lays stress on ἀíå÷þñçóå , and translates: zog sich surück (einsiedlerisch in die Oede), See his Exeg, Notes—P. S.]
Mat_27:9.—Jeremiah is left out by several cursive MSS. and in the Syriac and Persian translations. Cod. 22, and others, ad Æá÷áñßïõ . [Cod. 22 is an inferior MS. of the eleventh century, and can therefore hardly claim any authority On the difficulty of the true reading, see the Exeg. Notes.—P. S.]
Mat_27:9.—[So Conant, who substitutes priced for valued, to retain the verbal correspondence between price and priced as in the Greek ôÞí ôéìÞí ôïῦ ôåôéìçìÝíïõ . Comp. Ewald, who translates: den Schatz des Geschätzten, weichen schätzten, etc.—P. S.]
Mat_27:10.—[ ÅõíÝôáîÝìïé , either appointed to me, as Scrivener and Conant propose, or commanded me, as Coverdale has it. The appointed me of the Authorized Version is susceptible of another meaning. Thus correct Mat_28:16.—P. S.]
[Comp. Crit. Note on Mat_27:3, p. 501.—P. S.]
[So Dr. Lange translates in his Version: Ich habe gefehlt. See the Critical Note on Mat_27:4, p. 501.—P. S.]
[Adopted by Alford: “The citation is probably quoted from memory and inaccurately.” He refers to similar mistakes in the apology of Stephen, Act_7:4; Act_7:16, and in Mar_2:26. Wordsworth cuts the Gordian knot in a manner directly opposite, though equally unsatisfactory, viz.: by the bold dogmatic assert on that the name of Jeremiah is here purposely substituted for that of Zechariah to teach us that all prophecies proceed from one Spirit, and that the prophets are merely channels, not sources, of the Divine truth. But this object could have been reached much better by substituting the Holy Spirit or the Scripture for the name of the writer —P. S.]
[Dr. Lange might have added a sixth attempt to solve the difficulty, viz.: that the book of Jeremiah, being actually arranged by the Jews as the first of all the prophets (Bava Bathra) gave its name to the whole body of their writings. So Lightfoot and Scrivener.—P. S.]
[Gottesacker, also Friedhof, is the German name for grave-yard.—P. S.]