TEXT [Commentary]

K. Jesus’ Trial before Pilate (27:11-26; cf. Mark 15:1-15; Luke 23:1-25; John 18:28–19:16)

11 Now Jesus was standing before Pilate, the Roman governor. “Are you the king of the Jews?” the governor asked him.

Jesus replied, “You have said it.”

12 But when the leading priests and the elders made their accusations against him, Jesus remained silent. 13 “Don’t you hear all these charges they are bringing against you?” Pilate demanded. 14 But Jesus made no response to any of the charges, much to the governor’s surprise.

15 Now it was the governor’s custom each year during the Passover celebration to release one prisoner to the crowd—anyone they wanted. 16 This year there was a notorious prisoner, a man named Barabbas.[*] 17 As the crowds gathered before Pilate’s house that morning, he asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you—Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?” 18 (He knew very well that the religious leaders had arrested Jesus out of envy.)

19 Just then, as Pilate was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent him this message: “Leave that innocent man alone. I suffered through a terrible nightmare about him last night.”

20 Meanwhile, the leading priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas to be released and for Jesus to be put to death. 21 So the governor asked again, “Which of these two do you want me to release to you?”

The crowd shouted back, “Barabbas!”

22 Pilate responded, “Then what should I do with Jesus who is called the Messiah?”

They shouted back, “Crucify him!”

23 “Why?” Pilate demanded. “What crime has he committed?”

But the mob roared even louder, “Crucify him!”

24 Pilate saw that he wasn’t getting anywhere and that a riot was developing. So he sent for a bowl of water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood. The responsibility is yours!”

25 And all the people yelled back, “We will take responsibility for his death—we and our children!”[*]

26 So Pilate released Barabbas to them. He ordered Jesus flogged with a lead-tipped whip, then turned him over to the Roman soldiers to be crucified.

NOTES

27:11 Are you the king of the Jews? Here the story of Jesus’ trial resumes from 27:2. Pilate’s examination of Jesus (cf. Mark 15:1-15; Luke 23:1-25; John 18:28–19:16) naturally begins with a concern about Jesus’ kingship. Pilate’s loyalty to Caesar would cause him to be concerned about any potential rivals (cf. John 18:36-37).

You have said it. In response, Jesus used the mild though enigmatic affirmation “you have said it” for the third time in the passion narrative (cf. 26:25, 64).

27:12-14 Jesus remained silent. Jesus did not say a word in response to the accusations of the Jewish religious leaders (26:60-66); this amazed Pilate, who urged him to defend himself. Although Jesus remained silent (cf. Isa 53:7), it was clear to Pilate that Jesus’ kingship was no threat to Roman authority (27:17-18). The religious leaders persisted in hounding Jesus to death as they continued to accuse him, refused Pilate’s offer of clemency for Jesus, and incited the crowd to pressure Pilate to execute him (27:12, 20).

27:15-17 it was the governor’s custom each year . . . to release one prisoner. Matthew explains that it had become customary for the Romans to release a Jewish prisoner at Passover as a gesture of good will, and that they were currently holding “a notorious prisoner, a man named Barabbas.” Pilate offered the crowd their choice of Barabbas or Jesus, probably thinking that the crowd would prefer the enigmatic Jesus to the notorious Barabbas. A fascinating feature of 27:17 is that a few ancient manuscripts have Barabbas’ full name as “Jesus Barabbas” (Metzger 1994:56). This makes for an interesting contrast between Jesus Barabbas (which may mean “son of the father” or “son of the teacher”) and Jesus who is called Messiah.

27:18 the religious leaders had arrested Jesus out of envy. Pilate had correctly perceived that there was nothing substantial in the charges against Jesus, and that the leaders were motivated by envy.

27:19 Leave that innocent man alone. Pilate’s wife described Jesus as “innocent” (lit. “just, righteous”), and this no doubt contributed to Pilate’s conclusion that Jesus was innocent.

a terrible nightmare about him. As Pilate learns of his wife’s nightmare, another testimony to Jesus’ innocence enters into the narrative. Dreams were often viewed as significant and prophetic in the ancient world, and the Bible contains many divine revelations in the form of dreams (1:20; 2:12, 13, 19).

27:20-23 the leading priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas. Matthew parenthetically notes the nefarious influence of the leaders on the crowd. When Pilate asked again which prisoner should be released, they called for Barabbas.

Crucify him! When he asked about Jesus’ fate, they demanded he be crucified. When Pilate protested that Jesus was innocent, this only incited the crowd to shout more loudly for Jesus to be crucified. Jesus’ former popularity with the crowd has evaporated (21:9, 11, 26; 26:5), but this is not surprising in that the crowd’s expectations of a political-military Messiah were dashed when Jesus was arrested. Jesus’ messianic credentials had been discredited in their view. It is also possible that this crowd is composed of Jerusalem residents instead of the Passover pilgrims who had praised Jesus when he entered Jerusalem (Blomberg 1992:412).

27:24 a riot was developing. Pilate could see that he had a near-riot on his hands, so he gave in to the crowd.

washed his hands. This was done to signify Pilate’s non-participation in the decision to crucify Jesus (Deut 21:6-8; Ps 26:6; 73:13).

I am innocent of this man’s blood. Pilate affirmed that the crowd, not he, would be responsible for Jesus’ blood, and the crowd responded by accepting that responsibility for themselves and their children.

27:25 We will take responsibility for his death. Lit., “his blood be on us”—an expression which occurs elsewhere in both Testaments (Lev 20:9; Deut 19:10; Josh 2:19; 2 Sam 1:16; Jer 26:15; 51:35; Ezek 18:13; 33:4; Acts 5:28; 18:6; 20:26).

we and our children! The statement that their children will also be responsible for Jesus’ death assumes the solidarity of the family (Josh 7:24; 2 Kgs 24:3-4; Jer 31:29; Lam 5:7; Ezek 18:2, 19-32). These awful incriminating words recall Jesus’ prediction in 23:35-36 to the effect that the blood of all the righteous since Abel would come upon his contemporaries. It is likely that the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 was God’s judgment upon the crowd and its children (Davies and Allison 1997:591-592). The view that this verse constitutes a blood libel for all Jews of every period of time is patently false. (See the commentary below for further discussion of this matter.)

27:26 Pilate released Barabbas. The notorious criminal Barabbas was preferred to the humble messiah Jesus.

He ordered Jesus flogged. This flogging was a horrible, flesh-ripping experience (Josephus War 2.306, 308; 5.449; 7.200-202) and would hasten Jesus’ death once he was crucified.

COMMENTARY [Text]

Jesus’ trial before Pilate involves two cycles of interrogation (27:11, 12-14), followed by an explanation of the customary Passover prisoner release and the availability of Barabbas (27:15-16). Then there are two cycles of Pilate asking the crowd whom they want to have released (27:17-20, 21), followed by two protests of Jesus’ innocence (27:23; 27:24-25), followed by the delivery of Jesus for crucifixion (27:26). Besides Pilate and the crowd there are two other characters: Pilate’s wife, who was for Jesus (27:19), and the leading priests and elders, who were against Jesus (27:12). Both the crowd and Pilate were influenced by the religious leaders; Pilate did not heed his wife.

Anti-Semitism? Matthew 27:20-25 takes its place alongside Matthew 23 as a passage frequently cited as being blatantly anti-Semitic (e.g., Sandmel 1978:66). Some conclude that Matthew portrays Pilate positively in order to exonerate or exculpate the Romans and indict or inculpate the Jews (e.g., Hill 1972:351), but Matthew’s portrayal of Pilate is not really that positive; it coheres with the other ancient sources in presenting Pilate as insecure and unjust (See the notes on 27:1-2; Davies and Allison 1997:579). Pilate knew that Jesus was innocent, but he did not stop the miscarriage of justice. He knew that Jesus should be released instead of Barabbas, but he acceded to the wishes of the crowd because it was expedient to do so. His symbolic handwashing was pathetically inadequate and hypocritical, especially coming from one charged by the emperor with administering justice in Judea. The handwashing was meant to show that Pilate did not consent to the crowd’s wish, but the shot was his to call, not the peoples’. If he did not consent, neither should he permit. Pilate comes across as a cowardly ruler who abdicated his responsibility. His only concern was with how all this impacted him. He lacked sufficient fortitude even to take his wife’s advice and leave Jesus alone. “Pilate’s title is ironic: the governor leaves the governing to others” (Davies and Allison 1997:583). Thus, Pilate must share in the guilt for Jesus’ crucifixion.

But what of Matthew’s famous “blood libel” text, 27:25? Is this intended to inculpate the Jews as a nation forever? In response to Pilate’s washed hands and denial of responsibility for Jesus’ death, the crowd clearly accepts that responsibility for themselves and their children. This passage has been frequently understood during the church’s history as teaching that the Jews as a nation are to be viewed as despicable Christ-killers (as in Beare 1981:531). This interpretation is false, since all the founders of the church were Jewish and many Jews have believed in Jesus throughout the church’s history. Matthew himself was a Christian Jew writing to Christian Jews in conflict with non-Christian Jews over the identity of Jesus the Jewish Messiah.

One way Christians have disavowed the blood libel view is to regard Matthew 27:25 as fiction (Beare 1981:531). But this merely adds a mistake about the historicity of the passage to the previous mistake about its meaning. On its surface the text is limited to those present before Pilate and their children, not the Jews as a nation at that time or at any other time (Saldarini 1994:32-33). The comment was made in the heat of the moment, not as a carefully reasoned theological position. There is no guarantee that a God of grace would hold the crowd to its rash statement any more than the twelve disciples would be held unforgivable for deserting Jesus and Peter for denying Jesus three times. Likewise, one should not expect that a God of justice would pardon Pilate for his diffidence and empty show of cleansing his hands.

If anything is clear in Matthew’s Gospel, it is that Jesus came to save sinners—exemplified by such notorious people as tax collectors and harlots (9:13; 21:31). Sinners like these would likely be prevalent in the crowd that took responsibility for the blood of Jesus and there is no doubt that in Matthew’s theology such sinners would be forgiven upon repentance. It is also clear in Matthew’s Gospel that Jesus saved his most severe criticisms for the religious leaders whom he viewed as hypocrites. Perhaps this theme is an important part of the response to the “blood libel” view of Matthew 27:25. One notes in 27:20 that it was the leading priests and elders who persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas. If Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries were an especially wicked generation (12:45; 23:36), it was largely because their leaders were especially wicked themselves. These corrupt leaders of Israel, then, are the ones to blame for the crowd’s unfortunate statement in 27:25, and for Pilate’s unprincipled acquiescence to the crowd’s inflamed request (Davies and Allison 1997:593). This coheres perfectly with the Matthean theme of Jesus’ conflicts with the leaders of Israel. So, in one sense, these leaders were responsible for the blood of Jesus, but in the most profound sense, all humans, Jews and Gentiles alike, are responsible for Jesus’ pouring out his blood to forgive sins and inaugurate the new covenant. This was the plan of the heavenly Father, and Jesus drank the cup the Father gave him. Ultimately, then, it is those who do not believe in Jesus, Jews and Gentiles alike, who will be held responsible for the blood of Jesus (Hagner 1995:828).