Choices (Matthew 27:1-26)

Matthew now brings his readers closer to the cross and does so by referring to some of the trials that Jesus experienced on this important day.

The religious trial (Matthew 27:1-2)

Events start to move quickly as Friday morning comes. Matthew here describes the official meeting of the Sanhedrin, which probably occurred at daybreak. It met to ratify the decisions taken earlier about Jesus by the Jewish leaders. 

‘When morning came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death. And they bound him and led him away and delivered him over to Pilate the governor.’

This trial was followed by the trials before Pilate, although Matthew combines them and does not mention that Jesus was sent by Pilate to appear before Herod and then sent back by him to Pilate. The disciples of Jesus are not part of the account, apart from what Judas said and did, because they have fled from the situation. Nevertheless, several people and groups are mentioned and what is common to them is that they all make choices about Jesus and reveal what they think about him.

So Matthew begins with a brief account of the official gathering of the Sanhedrin as they considered how to have Jesus executed. Given that the authority for such a decision lay with the Roman governor, it is not surprising that they decided to bring the case to Pilate since he alone could authorise the decision they wanted to implement.

Yet at the same time, there are two details connected to it that we should observe. First, they helped fulfil the prediction of Psalm 2 which describes how Jewish and Gentile rulers took counsel together against the Messiah. Second, they ran the risk of making themselves unclean for the Passover by going to a Gentile building that had not been searched for leaven (Luke tells us that the priests refused to enter Pilate’s presence). Pilate came out to meet with them in order to overcome their scruples.

In all their actions here, we see that the Sanhedrin hated Jesus without a reason for their animosity. Although they were the religious and civil leaders of Israel, their choice showed what was in their hearts, which was hatred of Jesus, despite all the good he had done in the three years of public ministry.

The choice of Judas (Matthew 27:3-10)

Matthew gives more space to what happened to Judas than he gives to the decision of the Sanhedrin. Three details can be noted about what happened to Judas. 

First, Judas was full of remorse regarding his action of betraying Jesus, but his remorse was not an expression of repentance for his sin. Judas felt the situation deeply and was clearly distressed at what he had done in betraying the Saviour. All of us know what it is to regret doing something because our conscience condemns us. What is the difference between remorse and repentance? Remorse is accompanied by lack of hope of reversing the effects of one’s sin whereas repentance is accompanied by hope of forgiveness and restoration to God’s favour. 

Second, even although he was an apostate now rather than an apostle, Judas bore witness to the uniqueness of Jesus. As far as we know, he was the only one of the twelve to say such a thing on this particular day. Nine of the other disciples of Jesus had fled and left him. Peter had denied Jesus in the house of Caiaphas. John had been in that house, but there is no record that he stood up for Jesus at that time. Judas however affirmed that Jesus was innocent. But he made a choice to end his own life and in doing so revealed what was in his heart, which was despair because he did not recognise that Jesus was a Saviour.

The third detail concerns who paid for the field that is connected to the death of Judas. In order to discover this, we need to bring together this account and the comments Peter makes about the field in Acts 1. A surface reading might assume that the priests purchased the field in their name. But they could not do so because the money belonging to Judas could not be accepted by them for use by the temple. In a strange way, Judas gave money away in the temple but not as an expression of worship. It looks as if Judas had indicated to the owner of the field that he wished to buy it, but then had changed his mind and tried to give the money back to the priests. They used the unacceptable money to confirm the arrangement that Judas had initiated. And he ended his life at the field he had wanted for himself, which is a reminder that divine providence can cause ill-gotten gains to be a source of sorrow and judgement.

In passing we can note that Matthew here does not refer to a particular prophecy by Jeremiah. Instead he combines material from Jeremiah and Zechariah and sees in those ideas aspects that reflect what happened to Jesus. They include the amount of money, the getting rid of the money, and the purchase of the field. It was acceptable practice for writers to combine statements by different people but only mention one of them. Mark does this when beginning his gospel – he includes prophecies by Isaiah and Malachi, but only mentions the former.

The choice of Pilate (Matthew 27:11-26)

The question of Pilate to Jesus about his role reveals the charge that the Sanhedrin had made against Jesus. Although the Sanhedrin had found Jesus guilty of blasphemy they knew that accusation would carry little weight with Pilate because he gave no place to the God of Israel. But the Sanhedrin knew that Pilate would take an accusation of rebellion against Caesar very seriously. 

What details can be deduced about Pilate on this occasion? First, he was puzzled by Jesus because he made no attempt to defend himself. There was something about the demeanour of the Saviour that made Pilate wonder who was before him. Second, Pilate was a perceptive man because he was aware that the motive behind the accusation of the Sanhedrin was envy of Jesus. 

Third, Pilate was a superstitious man because he paid attention to the dream that his wife had about Jesus. The Romans tended to pay attention to dreams because they assumed the gods used them to convey messages. Some people wonder if God had spoken to the wife of Pilate in this dream, and given her a message for him to release Jesus, but that is not possible because that was not the divine purpose for Jesus. It is possible that God wanted her to grasp that Jesus was innocent, and get her to say so, which she did, but then she added her own interpretation which was that Jesus should be released. In other words, the Heavenly Father was ensuring that various testimonies to the innocence of Jesus were made at that time.

Fourth, Pilate was a clever man because he asked the people to choose between a man who had been found guilty of rebellion (Barabbas) and Jesus. Perhaps he imagined that the crowd would recognise the big difference between Jesus and Barabbas and let him release Jesus in line with the custom of releasing a prisoner at Passover.

Fifth, Pilate was an unprincipled man because he decided to condemn an innocent man in order to preserve his own position. He would be in trouble with his superiors if a riot occurred under his watch. Therefore, he made a choice and revealed what was in his heart, which was indifference regarding Jesus and a focus on maintaining his position in life. 

Sixth, Pilate was a man given to meaningless gestures as occurred when he washed his hands and said he was innocent in condemning Jesus. Despite his protest, he did condemn the Saviour. He needed more than a few drops of water to cleanse him from any sin, and since condemning Jesus was the worst of Pilate’s sins his action was pointless. Like many, he tried to blame others for his wrongdoing.

The choice of the crowd and the priests (Matthew 27:15-26)

It is not possible to work out if the members of the crowd were the same people who had welcomed Jesus into the city earlier that week. Whoever they were, they made a decision about Jesus for which they were responsible. What led to their decision, given that the choice offered to them was stark in that it was between choosing sinful Barabbas or sinless Jesus? 

First, they listened to the wrong spiritual guides, and in doing so they were not the first or the last to do so. Second, they chose a man who was connected to earthly deliverance instead of the One who could give eternal deliverance. Barabbas had been involved in an insurrection and had been condemned. Perhaps, if he was released, he would have another go against the Roman authorities. 

Third, they brought on themselves a terrible fate when they said that they and their children could be judged for this action of rejecting Jesus. Sadly, this was a prediction that came true forty years later when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem. Whatever else we deduce from their behaviour, we can see that sin has consequences.

We can see the hostility towards Jesus in the way Matthew describes the desire of the leaders – they wanted to destroy Jesus – and the insistence of the crowds that Jesus should be crucified. Jews regarded crucifixion with abhorrence because it signified that a person was cursed by God. The crowd was composed of individuals whose estimation of Jesus was that he deserved to be cursed by God, and in saying their hearts revealed what they thought of Jesus.

Nothing is known about Barabbas apart from what is said about him on this occasion. His name means ‘son of a father’ and there is a contrast here with Jesus who was the Son of God. It is impossible to know what the father of Barabbas thought of what his son had done, but we know what the Father of Jesus thought of his activities.

It is very likely that Barabbas had been sentenced to die with his two companions who were later crucified beside Jesus. So in a literal sense, Jesus went to the cross instead of Barabbas. This does not mean that Barabbas became a believer, but his experience does provide an illustration of how one is saved. Barabbas deserved to die for his sins, but One who was innocent took his place and paid the penalty, with the outcome that Barabbas went free. We deserve to die for our sins, Jesus went to Calvary to pay the penalty for our sins, and when we trust in him we are freed from condemnation and enjoy the blessings of spiritual freedom.

The choice of Jesus (Matthew 27:15-26)

Clearly, several terrible things happened to Jesus on this important morning. He had to endure the travesty of justice engaged in by the Sanhedrin, the manipulative processes followed by an unjust judge (Pilate), the strident expressions of hatred against him and the assertions that he deserved to be cursed by God, and the terrible pain inflicted on him when he was scourged on the orders of Pilate.

Jesus had the power to deal with all his opponents here. One word would have been sufficient to deal with the Jewish rulers, with Pilate, with the crowd and with the soldiers who scourged him. Yet he chose to proceed with what was placed before him, and his decision reveals his heart of love for his Father and his will as well as for his people whose place he would take in the sea of wrath that would soon engulf the cross. In an environment of hate and indifference, Jesus revealed that his choice was to obey his Father and deliver his people from the penalty they were due.

The basic thrust of this set of trials is to stress the innocence of Jesus and the sinfulness of humans. As far as his innocence was concerned, Judas stated it, Pilate’s wife affirmed it, Pilate himself realised it. In fact, Jesus was the only innocent person there. A wide range of sins were committed around his trials. The question is, what should an innocent man do when faced with the cross? Jesus gives the answer: such a person should love those who deserved to be punished and make his way there to save them from divine justice. And in observing his actions, we see the heart of Jesus and the choices he wanted to make.