Matthew 27:11-31

The Roman Trial

Matthew 27:11-14     Initial Questioning

Presumably, the chief priests and elders had told the governor beforehand that Jesus claimed to be the Christ/Messiah (or its equivalent King of the Jews).  Matthew was not concerned with further details of the alleged charge against Jesus.

Jesus answered Pilate, but would not add another word during his whole trial.  Even then, his answer, The words are yours, was ambiguous, since Pilate did not seem to read it as an acceptance of guilt.  

Jesus’ silence in the face of the accusations made against him by the chief priests and elders was his way of actively resisting them: he challenged their deceit while quietly affirming his own dignity.

Matthew 27:15-23     Pilate’s Plea to the Crowd: Barabbas or Jesus?

For some unstated reason, Pilate did not immediately choose to confront the chief priests and elders openly – though normally he showed no such reluctance.  Instead, he had the idea that he would have the crowd demand Jesus’ release.

So Matthew brought the crowd on stage, but gave no indication of its composition – whether they were Judeans or Galileans – nor did he given any indication of the size of the crowd.  His interest was not historical detail, but theology.  Until now (apart from the arrest in Gethsemane),  in the Gospel had been either enthusiastic or non-committal, but they had certainly not progressed to a faith response in Jesus.

The word Barabbas in Hebrew meant “son of the father”.  The term, notorious, carried overtones of armed insurrection.  Barabbas followed the way of the world – violence; Jesus the Messiah had chosen the way of God’s Kingdom – non-violence.  Perhaps Matthew shaped the proceedings to underline the openness of the Jerusalem crowds to the unquestioned use of violence.  (Forty years later, their option to use violence to throw off Roman rule would result in the definitive destruction both of the temple and of the rest of the city of Jerusalem.)

This was the only time that Matthew would use the word, jealousy, to indicate the motivation of the Jewish leadership.  The word may have reflected more Matthew’s understanding than Pilate’s.

This incident was unique to Matthew – and he gave no reason why he chose to insert it.  It served to underline the innocence of Jesus, and the accurate perceptions of women (like the unnamed woman who anointed Jesus’ head before his supper [26:7]).  The mention of dream connected the incident to the Infancy Narratives, where dreams were God’s providential way of taking care of Jesus.  God was not absent from these current proceedings.

According to Matthew’s construction, did knowledge of Pilate's wife’s dream make any difference to Pilate?  Matthew gave no clear indication.  Simply, he may have wanted to increase Pilate’s guilt by having him ignore a supernatural message.  (Generally Matthew’s account of the trial tended to exonerate Pilate from much of the motivational responsibility.  He preferred to direct the guilt onto the religious authorities, and eventually onto the manipulated crowds.)

Pilate’s later gesture of washing his hands [verse 24] may have satisfied his conscience (if he was aware of it).

Matthew chose to draw attention to the responsibility of the chief priests and elders, without excusing the crowds entirely.  

Pilate’s stratagem did not work. 

In calling for Jesus’ crucifixion, the crowds attested to their belief that Jesus was a violent agitator for change – given that crucifixion was understood as the political punishment for enemies who threatened Roman authority.

Matthew 27:24-26     The Roman Governor Formally Sentences Jesus

Pilate’s gesture was ludicrous.  He could not avoid responsibility for pronouncing the death sentence, even if he claimed he was under pressure to avoid a riot (as if it were likely he would be deterred by an unorganised rioting Jerusalem crowd!). 

Matthew’s Picture of the Jewish Crowds

Throughout his narrative, Matthew had made frequent and pointed references to the crowd.  The crowd had overheard much of Jesus’ teaching.  At times they were astounded by it [7:28; 22:33].  At times Jesus spoke to them directly.  At significant moments they were the recipients of his compassion [9:36; 14:14].  They responded to his teaching with awe [9:8] and amazement [12:23; 15:31].  Some regarded him as a prophet [21:45].  On one occasion, they laughed at him [9:25].

Until his passion began, they were generally receptive, enthusiastic and captivated by his wonderful deeds, but they remained uncommitted.  They stayed on the surface.

Under the influence of the leaders in Jerusalem, they allowed themselves to be manipulated, and finished up demanding Jesus’ crucifixion – a further illustration of the power of the sin of the world.

Beneath their superficial enthusiasm, did they unconsciously feel envious (as Matthew had indicated the leadership had been [27:18]), threatened and resentful?

Now, towards the end of his narrative, Matthew broadened his previous identification of the crowd to the people as a whole.  Their answer to Pilate’s question regarding his judgment of Jesus, His blood is on us and on our children, was unique to Matthew.  It was his way to condemn mainline Judaism of his day, and their entrenched rejection both of Christ and of the whole Christian movement.

In later centuries, the people’s cry was used by many Christians as justification for violent anti-Semitism.  But no small, unorganised and unauthorized crowd can speak for the people as a whole.  Matthew, himself, and most of his community, were Jews.  The crowd did not speak on behalf of them.

More than likely, Matthew understood the people's preference for Barabbas, the rebel leader, and their rejection of Jesus, as a foretaste of the nation's choice in 70 AD of the way of violent revolt against Roman rule, that resulted in the consequent destruction of the temple and of the city with its inhabitants, the crowd's children. 

Whipping was the customary way to prepare a criminal for crucifixion.

The Kingdoms of the World Execute Jesus

Matthew 27:27-31     The Roman Cohort Mocks Jesus

A cohort numbered about six hundred soldiers.  They would have been brought by Pilate to Jerusalem to handle possible riotous outbreaks among the fervent crowds.  No doubt, some would have been on duty patrolling the streets and the outer temple area.  Possibly, the rest would have been sitting around seeking ways to distract themselves.  Their sadism had a welcome object.

Though Pilate ordered that Jesus be whipped, Matthew gave no details; indeed, he made no reference to the fact that it happened.  Instead, he showed the soldiers resorting to mockery.  Most likely, the crimson robe belonged to one of the soldiers.  By mentioning that the (mock) wreath was made of thorns, Matthew may have implied that it was intended to inflict real pain, as well as to ridicule him.  That the reed was suitable to strike him with may also have indicated that it was not soft and flexible, but rigid and hard.

Matthew did not concentrate on Jesus’ physical pain.  His interest was in the irony of the soldiers’ mocking Jesus as king.  Their action served to emphasise the unbelieving world’s inability to see, and the stark difference between its ways of mockery and brutality and the values of God’s Kingdom.

Next >> Matthew 27:32-56