Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 27:3

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 27:3” utilice nuestra app.

Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

3 10. The remorse of Judas. He returns the silver Shekels. The use made of them. Peculiar to St Matthew

3. when he saw that he was condemned ] It has been argued from these words that Judas had not expected this result of his treachery. He had hoped that Jesus would by a mighty manifestation of His divine power usher in at once the Kingdom whose coming was too long delayed. The whole tenour of the narrative, however, contradicts such an inference.

repented himself ] A different Greek word from that used, ch. Mat 3:2; it implies no change of heart or life, but merely remorse or regret. See note ch. Mat 21:29; Mat 21:32.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Then Judas, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself – This shows that Judas did not suppose that the affair would have resulted in this calamitous manner. He probably expected that Jesus would work a miracle to deliver himself, and not suffer this condemnation to come upon him. When he saw him taken, bound, tried, and condemned – when he saw that all probability that he would deliver himself was taken away – he was overwhelmed with disappointment, sorrow, and remorse. The word rendered repented himself, it has been observed, does not of necessity denote a change for the better, but any change of views and feelings. Here it evidently means no other change than that produced by the horrors of a guilty conscience, and by deep remorse for crime at its unexpected results. It was not saving repentance. That leads to a holy life this led to an increase of crime in his own death. True repentance leads the sinner to the Saviour. This led away from the Saviour to the gallows. Judas, if he had been a true penitent, would have come then to Jesus; would have confessed his crime at his feet, and sought for pardon there. But, overwhelmed with remorse and the conviction of vast guilt, he was not willing to come into his presence, and added to the crime of treason that of self-murder. Assuredly such a man could not be a true penitent.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 3. Judas – when he saw that he was condemned, repented] There is much of the wisdom and goodness of God to be seen in this part of Judas’s conduct. Had our Lord been condemned to death on the evidence of one of his own disciples, it would have furnished infidels with a strong argument against Christ and the Christian religion. “One of his own disciples, knowing the whole imposture, declared it to the Jewish rulers, in consequence of which he was put to death as an impostor and deceiver.” But the traitor, being stung with remorse, came and acknowledged his crime, and solemnly declared the innocence of his Master, threw back the money which they gave him to induce him to do this villainous act; and, to establish the evidence which he now gave against them and himself, in behalf of the innocence of Christ, hanged himself, or died through excessive grief and contrition. Thus the character of Christ was rescued from all reproach; infidelity deprived of the power to cry “imposture!” and the Jewish rulers overwhelmed with eternal infamy. If it should ever be said, “One who knew him best delivered him up as an impostor,”-to this it may be immediately answered, “The same person, struck with remorse, came and declared his own guilt, and Christ’s innocence; accused and convicted the Jewish rulers, in the open council, of having hired him to do this iniquitous action, threw them back the bribe they had given him, and then hanged himself through distress and despair, concluding his iniquity in this business was too great to be forgiven.” Let him who chooses, after this plenary evidence to the innocence of Christ, continue the objection, and cry out imposture! take heed that he go not and do LIKEWISE. Caiaphas, Pilate, and Judas have done so already, and I have known several, who have called Christ an impostor, who have cut their own throats, shot, drowned, or hanged themselves. God is a jealous God, and highly resents every thing that is done and said against that eternal truth that came to man through Jesus Christ, by the Holy Spirit. Indeed, there is one class of Deists, viz. those who are vicious in their lives, and virulent in their opposition to Christianity, who generally bring themselves to an untimely end.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Matthew (who alone reports this piece of history) interrupts his relation of our Saviours trial before Pilate, with an account of Judass end. We must not interpret Then strictly, so as to think Judas did this at the time when Christ was carried before Pilate, but some short time after; for they went immediately from the high priests hall to the judgment hall, and stayed there until Christ was condemned by Pilate, before they returned to come into the temple. But possibly it was that day, after Pilate had condemned him, or within some short time after that Judas (as it is said) repented himself; that is, began to be terrified in his conscience for what he had done. The consciences of the worst of men will not always digest mire and dirt, but sometimes throw it up, yea, though it hath first incurably poisoned them. Sin is sweet in the month, but bitter in the belly. All repentance is not saving. Nor doth all confession of sin obtain remission. Judas here repents, and confesseth he had sinned, and his particular sin, in betraying an innocent person; yet he findeth no mercy, he hath not a heart to beg forgiveness, nor to apply himself to Christ for remedy. But the answer of the chief priests and elders is very remarkable:

What is that to us? see thou to that. Wretched Judas! he had been the servant of these wicked mens lusts, and for a poor wages served them in the highest act of villany. He falls into a distress of conscience for what he had done. What miserable comforters do they prove! Tempters never make good comforters. Those who are the devils instruments, to command, entice, or allure men to sin, will afford them no relief when they come to be troubled for what they have done: nor will it now satisfy the conscience of Judas, to remember that he had a warrant for apprehending Christ, and acted ministerially. The priests will not take the money, he throws it down in the temple, and goes and hangs himself. How great is the power of conscience, smiting for the guilt of sin! Judas could have no hope of a better life, so as all his happiness lay in the time of this present life; yet he is not able to allow himself that. The devil that entered into his heart to tempt him, now entereth again to persuade him to put an end to his misery in this life, by hastening himself to an eternal misery. Let all apostates, turning persecutors of innocent persons, read this, and tremble. There is a difficulty of reconciling this text to that of Luke, Act 1:18, where it is said of him, that falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. That which is usually said is, that he fell from the place where he hanged himself, and with the fall burst himself. I know there are some others, who think that the word need not be translated, he hanged himself, but he was suffocated or strangled. Some think the devil strangled him, and threw him down a precipice. Others, that he was suffocated by some disease, which caused a rupture of his body. Others think (as we translate it) that he hanged himself, and swelling, his body brake, and his bowels gushed out. Concerning the manner of his death, we can determine nothing, but that he was strangled, and his bowels gushed out; both these the Scripture asserts, but how it was we cannot certainly tell.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

3. Then Judas, which had betrayedhim, when he saw that he was condemnedThe condemnation, eventhough not unexpected, might well fill him with horror. But perhapsthis unhappy man expected, that, while he got the bribe, the Lordwould miraculously escape, as He had once and again done before, outof His enemies’ power: and if so, his remorse would come upon himwith all the greater keenness.

repented himselfbut,as the issue too sadly showed, it was “the sorrow of the world,which worketh death” (2Co7:10).

and brought again the thirtypieces of silver to the chief priests and eldersA remarkableillustration of the power of an awakened conscience. A short timebefore, the promise of this sordid pelf was temptation enough to hiscovetous heart to outweigh the most overwhelming obligations of dutyand love; now, the possession of it so lashes him that he cannot useit, cannot even keep it!

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Then Judas, which had betrayed him,…. Before, he is described as he that shall, or should, or doth betray him; but now having perpetrated the horrid sin, as he that had done it.

When he saw that he was condemned; that is, that Jesus was condemned, as the Syriac and Persic versions read, either by the Jewish sanhedrim, or by Pilate, or both; for this narrative concerning Judas may be prophetically inserted here, though the thing itself did not come to pass till afterwards; and the sense be, that when he, either being present during the whole procedure against Christ; or returning in the morning after he had received his money, and had been with his friends; finding that his master was condemned to death by the sanhedrim, who were pushing hard to take away his life; that they had delivered him bound to the Roman governor; and that he, after an examination of him, had committed him to the soldiers to mock, and scourge, and crucify him; and seeing him leading to the place of execution,

repented himself: not for the sin, as committed against God and Christ; but as it brought a load of present guilt and horror upon his mind, and exposed him to everlasting punishment: it was not such a repentance by which he became wiser and better; but an excruciating, tormenting pain in his mind, by which he became worse; therefore a different word is here used than what commonly is for true repentance: it was not a godly sorrow for sin, or a sorrow for sin, as committed against God, which works repentance to salvation not to be repented of; but a worldly sorrow, which issues in death, as it did in him. It did not spring from the love of God, as evangelical repentance does, nor proceed in the fear of God, and his goodness; but was no other than a foretaste of that worm that dieth not, and of that fire which cannot be quenched: it was destitute of faith in Christ; he never did believe in him as the rest of the disciples did; see Joh 6:64, and that mourning which does not arise from looking to Jesus, or is not attended with faith in him, is never genuine. Judas’s repentance was without hope of forgiveness, and was nothing else but horror and black despair, like that of Cain’s, like the trembling of devils, and the anguish of damned souls. It looks as if Judas was not aware that it would issue in the death of Christ: he was pushed on by Satan, and his avarice, to hope, that he should get this money, and yet his master escape; which he imagined he might do, either through such a defence of himself, as was not to be gainsaid; or that he would find out ways and means of getting out of the hands of the Jews, as he had formerly done, and with which Judas was acquainted: but now, there being no hope of either, guilt and horror seize his mind, and gnaw his conscience; and he wishes he had never done the accursed action, which had entailed so much distress and misery upon him:

and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders: which was the sum he; had covenanted for, and they had agreed to give him, on condition of delivering Jesus into their hands, which he had done: and it appears from hence, that the money had been accordingly paid him, and he had received it. But he being filled with remorse of conscience for what he had done, feels no quietness in his mind; nor could he save of what he had desired, but is obliged to return it; not from an honest principle, as in the case of true repentance, but on account of a racking and torturing conscience.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Repented himself (). Probably Judas saw Jesus led away to Pilate and thus knew that the condemnation had taken place. This verb (first aorist passive participle of ) really means to be sorry afterwards like the English word repent from the Latin repoenitet, to have pain again or afterwards. See the same verb in Mt 21:30 of the boy who became sorry and changed to obedience. The word does not have an evil sense in itself. Paul uses it of his sorrow for his sharp letter to the Corinthians, a sorrow that ceased when good came of the letter (2Co 7:8). But mere sorrow avails nothing unless it leads to change of mind and life (), the sorrow according to God (2Co 7:9). This sorrow Peter had when he wept bitterly. It led Peter back to Christ. But Judas had only remorse that led to suicide.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Repented himself [] . See on Mt 21:29.

What is that to us? They ignore the question of Christ ‘s innocence. As to Judas ‘ sin or conscience, that is his matter. Thou wilt see to that.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

3. Then Judas, perceiving that he was condemned. By this adverb ( τότε) then, Matthew does not fix the exact point of time; for we shall find him shortly afterwards adding, that Judas, when he saw that the priests disdainfully refused to take back the reward of his treason, threw it down in the temple. But from the house of Caiaphas they came straight to the Pretorium, and stood there until Christ was condemned. It can scarcely be supposed that they were found in the temple on that day; but as the Evangelist was speaking of the rage and madness of the council, he inserted also the death of Judas, by which their blind obstinacy, and the hardness of their hearts like iron, were more fully displayed.

He says that Judas repented; not that he reformed, but that the crime which he had committed gave him uneasiness; as God frequently opens the eyes of the reprobate, so as to begin to feel their miseries, and to be alarmed at them. For those who are sincerely grieved so as to reform, are said not only ( μεταμελεῖν), (241) but, also ( μετανοεῖν), (242) from which is derived also ( μετάνοια), (243) which is a true conversion of the soul to God. So then, Judas conceived disgust and horror, not so as to turn to God, but rather that, being overwhelmed with despair, he might serve as an example of a man entirely shut out from the grace of God. Justly, indeed, does Paul say, that the sorrow which leads to repentance is salutary, (2Co 7:10😉 but if a man stumble at the very threshold, he will derive no advantage from a confused and mistaken grief. What is more, this is a just punishment with which God at length visits the wicked, who have obstinately despised his judgment, that he gives them up to Satan to be tormented without the hope of consolation.

True repentance is displeasure at sin, arising out of fear and reverence for God, and producing, at the same time, a love and desire of righteousness. Wicked men are far from such a feeling; for they would desire to sin without intermission, and even, as far as lies in their power, they endeavor to deceive both God and their own conscience, (244) but notwithstanding their reluctance and opposition, they are tormented with blind horror by their conscience, so that, though they do not hate their sin, still they feel, with sorrow and distress, that it presses heavily and painfully upon them. This is the reason why their grief is useless; for they do not cheerfully turn to God, or even aim at doing better, but, being attached to their wicked desires, they pine away in torment, which they cannot escape. In this way, as I have just said, God punishes their obstinacy; for although his elect are drawn to him by severe chastisements, and as it were contrary to their will, yet he heals in due time the wounds which he has inflicted, so that they come cheerfully to him, by whose hand they acknowledge that they are struck, and by whose wrath they are alarmed. The former, therefore, while they have no hatred to sin, not only dread, but fly from the judgment of God, and thus, having received an incurable wound, they perish in the midst of their sorrows.

If Judas had listened to the warning of Christ, there would still have been place for repentance; but since he despised so gracious an offer of salvation, he is given up to the dominion of Satan, that he may throw him into despair. But if the Papists were right in what they teach in their schools about repentance, we could find no defect in that of Judas, to which their definition of repentance fully applies; for we perceive in it contrition of heart, and confession of the mouth, and satisfaction of deed, as they talk. Hence we infer, that they take nothing more than the bark; for they leave out what was the chief point, the conversion of the man to God, when the sinner, broken down by shame and fear, denies himself so as to render obedience to righteousness.

(241) The import of those Greek words is brought out more fully in our Author’s French version. “ Car ceux qui sont vrayement desplaisans pour s’amender, non seulement cognoissent leurs fautes, mais aussi changent de courage, ce qui est bien ici exprimé;” — “for those who are truly dissatisfied with themselves so as to reform, not only know their faults, but also have the resolution to amend, which is well expressed here.” He then goes on to say that Matthew attributes to Judas “ une repentance que les Grecs nomment μεταμέλεια, qui est forcee, et laisse l’homme tout abruti; non pas celle qu’ils nomment μετάνοια, qui est un vraye conversation de l’homme à Dieu;” — “a repentance which the Greeks call metameleia, ( μεταμέλεια,) which is forced, and leaves the man altogether brutish; not that which they call metanoia, ( μετάνοια,) which is a true conversion of the man to God.”

(242) The import of those Greek words is brought out more fully in our Author’s French version. “ Car ceux qui sont vrayement desplaisans pour s’amender, non seulement cognoissent leurs fautes, mais aussi changent de courage, ce qui est bien ici exprimé;” — “for those who are truly dissatisfied with themselves so as to reform, not only know their faults, but also have the resolution to amend, which is well expressed here.” He then goes on to say that Matthew attributes to Judas “ une repentance que les Grecs nomment μεταμέλεια, qui est forcee, et laisse l’homme tout abruti; non pas celle qu’ils nomment μετάνοια, qui est un vraye conversation de l’homme à Dieu;” — “a repentance which the Greeks call metameleia, ( μεταμέλεια,) which is forced, and leaves the man altogether brutish; not that which they call metanoia, ( μετάνοια,) which is a true conversion of the man to God.”

(243) The import of those Greek words is brought out more fully in our Author’s French version. “ Car ceux qui sont vrayement desplaisans pour s’amender, non seulement cognoissent leurs fautes, mais aussi changent de courage, ce qui est bien ici exprimé;” — “for those who are truly dissatisfied with themselves so as to reform, not only know their faults, but also have the resolution to amend, which is well expressed here.” He then goes on to say that Matthew attributes to Judas “ une repentance que les Grecs nomment μεταμέλεια, qui est forcee, et laisse l’homme tout abruti; non pas celle qu’ils nomment μετάνοια, qui est un vraye conversation de l’homme à Dieu;” — “a repentance which the Greeks call metameleia, ( μεταμέλεια,) which is forced, and leaves the man altogether brutish; not that which they call metanoia, ( μετάνοια,) which is a true conversion of the man to God.”

(244) “ Et Dieu, et leur propre conscience.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

SECTION 72
JESUS BETRAYER COMMITS SUICIDE

TEXT: 27:310

3 Then Judas, who betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4 saying, I have sinned in that I betrayed innocent blood. But they said, What is that to us? see thou to it. 5 And he cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary, and departed; and he sent away and hanged himself. 6 And the chief priests took the pieces of silver, and said, it is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is the price of blood. 7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potters field, to bury strangers in. 8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day. 9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, whom certain of the children of Israel did price; 10 and they gave them for the potters field, as the Lord appointed me.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Do you think Judas expected Jesus to be condemned to death?

How would you differentiate between the repentance of Peter and that of Judas? Of what value to the modern Christian is a detailed study of Judas Iscariot?

Do you see any value in the testimony Judas gave to Jesus innocence? If so, what value is there? If not, why not?

Do you think that in testifying to Jesus innocence, Judas shows any love for Him?

What was it that so completely crushed Judas and drove him to suicide?

What does the priests scruple about the proper use of the blood money indicate about them?

When the priests called it blood money, do you think they unconsciously admitted Jesus innocence? If not, what would this expression mean to them?

Why do you think they selected a potters field? Did God direct

their choice or was this simply the only land available or what?

Why do you think Matthew attributed the prophecy quoted to Jeremiah instead of to Zechariah whose words more nearly resemble it? Did Matthew forget who wrote the prophecy?

Why do you think Matthew recorded the death of Judas?

PARAPHRASE

When Judas, Jesus betrayer, realized that He was really condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver money to the chief priests and elders. I have sinned in betraying an innocent man to his death, he said.
What has that got to do with us? they retorted. That is your problem!
He then hurled the money into the sanctuary and left. Then he went off and hanged himself.
The chief priests, however, picked up the coins, arguing, It is not legal to put this money into the temple fund, because it is tainted with blood. So, after discussing the matter, they used this sum to purchase the Potters Field, as a cemetery for foreigners. This is why that field has been called The Field of Blood ever since. In this way the words of the prophet Jeremiah came true:

They took the thirty pieces of silver, the amount some Israelites had established to pay for him, and they gave them for the Potters Field, as the Lord had ordered me.

SUMMARY

Incredibly for Judas, Jesus was condemned. Shocked, the betrayer attempted to make amends but was rudely rebuffed by heartless hypocrites. After hurling the money into the Temples Holy Place, Judas committed suicide. On a scruple, the priests did not put the money into the treasury but purchased a piece of land as a burial ground for foreigners. Unintentionally on the part of the Jewish authorities, they hereby enacted the ancient prophecy.

NOTES
A SHATTERED LIFE: FUTILE REPENTANCE AND RESTITUTION

Mat. 27:3 Then Judas, who betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself. Then (tte) synchronizes Judas awakening with Jesus consignment to Pilate immediately following the condemnation by the Sanhedrin (Mat. 27:2). For the first time he grasped the horrible result of his betrayal: they were dragging the Lord off to His death! It is unclear just where or how Judas learned of the sentence. Unlike Peter, however, Judas would have had no public motive to distrust Jesus foes. So, he could have witnessed the entire morning trial, hence did not need to wait until after Pilates condemnation to hurry to the Temple to plead with the returning priests alone. Instead, Judas returned the money to the chief priests and elders, i.e., to the Sanhedrin, since Matthews expression contextually refers to that body (Mat. 26:3; Mat. 26:47; Mat. 26:57; cf. Mat. 26:59; Mat. 27:1 = Mar. 15:1; Luk. 22:66). Therefore, he stood before members of the supreme council, because, if Judas considered the Jewish sentence definitive, it being only a matter of time until Pilate carried it out, it. is conceivable that, to halt this avalanche, he interrupted them even as they were preparing to go to Pilate.

Edersheim (Life, II, 573) notes that during the trials before Pilate a definite break occurred when Pilate sent Jesus to Herod, after which the governor had to reconvene Jesus accusers (Mat. 27:17; Mar. 15:8; Luk. 23:13). So, it is alternatively possible that Judas intervened with the individual chief priests and elders on Jesus behalf during this recess.

Judas . . . repented himself (metamelethes). He felt profound regret (Mat. 21:30; 2Co. 7:8; Heb. 7:21). He was driven by circumstances to renounce the view that, we believe, stood at the base of his plot to betray Him, i.e. that Jesus must defend Himself. The unexpected consequences of his crime throw him into deep remorse, but do not save him. True repentance takes the sinner to the Lord, not away from Him to an improvised gallows. He found his fearful responsibility unbearable. (Cf. Cains reaction, Gen. 4:13 f.)

However, some say this verse is not proof that he had not planned for Jesus to suffer, because a person can regret the consequences of his act, even if he clearly foresaw them. Accordingly, Judas could have intended Jesus death, but now regrets it. While study of his motives is a matter of considerable conjecture on our part, nevertheless, his confession (v. 4) need not militate against the view that the condemnation took him by surprise. In fact, what one plans for what he conceives of as good may smash back with terrific force, convincingly revealing itself as evil. To betray an innocent man to death was not necessarily his purpose, but simply to betray an innocent man to get Him to act on His own behalf to escape death, although high-risk planning, is also compatible with Judas shock.

Judas . . . brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders. Because his deed burdened him with intolerable guilt, he wanted desperately to reverse his disastrous bargain. Naturally, he would return the money, but he could not hope to redeem Jesus from his enemies with this miserable sum, but by courageous, public testimony to Jesus innocence. Did he hope that, if he offered new testimony after sentencing, they must hear Jesus case again? Even if they took him for a necessary but despised tool in their plans and an unwelcome intrusion, they must hear him out.

The betrayers testimony

Mat. 27:4 saying, I have sinned in that I betrayed innocent blood. But they said, What is that to us? See thou to it. I have sinned is the shocked reaction of a man unnerved at seeing the totally unexpected enormity of his blunder. Whatever the glamor of his former ambition, the enticement of what he imagined has now vanished. Only grim reality holds him in its grip, leaving him broken by remorse. His is the anguish of a man who would turn back the clock to rid his soul of this haunting hour. (Cf. Esaus grief, Heb. 12:16 f.) Admirably, Judas took personal responsibility for his actions. He blames no one but himself. Yet this is not the repentance of a man who would fling himself at the foot of the cross to beg forgiveness of his Victim. Turning to Him is just not Judas way.

Is it true that in testifying to Jesus innocence, Judas shows no love for Him? His had always been that kind of self-interested friendship that manipulated his true Friend. Unquestionably, his shock is deep and genuine. Was he revolted only by the consequences of his act and not also at the heinous sinfulness of it? Yet, stark awareness of the abominableness of our sins, alone, does not break our hearts and lead us, repentant, to Jesus. Only undiminished confidence in Gods gracious forgiveness can convince us to do that. Despite his long discipleship under Jesus, Judas did not believe this.

I betrayed innocent blood is the soul-cry of a tormented conscience seeking elementary justice for Another. However, innocent blood, as a Mosaic legal term (Exo. 23:7; cf. Deu. 27:25), would not have halted those heartless judges or procured a stay of execution for Jesus. They refused to reopen the case, because Jesus was sentenced for blasphemy and Judas defense did not refute the accusations on which it was founded. However, Judas anguished pleas disprove the later Talmudical claim that for 40 days a herald went through Israel inviting anyone to come forward to defend the Nazarene, but none came. (Cf. Bab. Talmud, Seder Nezikin.)

Sadly, these anguished cries do not mitigate Judas guilt, because, however innocent of all wrong-doing he considered Jesus, he never personally surrendered to the practical ramifications of Jesus self-understanding, never bowed to His Lordship, never accepted the doctrine of the cross. (See notes on Mat. 26:14; Mat. 26:25; Mat. 26:49 f.) Rather than confess his sin to these calloused priests, had he thrown himself upon the mercy of Jesus, he could have been forgiven. For pardon this frenzied soul turned to the wrong people.

But they said, What is that to us? They treat his belated testimony as immaterial, because they condemned Jesus for a claim they themselves heard and rejected as false, whereas Judas generic defense seems to concern only Jesus general good character against which they had no specific complaint. See thou to it translates two words, s psei (future indicative of horo), capable of two meanings:

If they intended a simple future tense, then they say: What is your testimony of Jesus innocence to us? He is guilty and you yourself (s) shall see it.

Because in the Hebrew a future indicative can communicate an imperative sense, many render it as the ASV: See thou to it, You will take care of the problem yourself! (Cf. Act. 18:15, psesthe auto.)

They had achieved the only goal that mattered. Rather than point this pitiful man they had used back to God as his hope from despair, they heartlessly tossed aside their despised, now useless tool.

The appalling power of unresolved guilt

Mat. 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary, and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. So, if Jesus were taken from Caiaphas palace (see on Mat. 27:2) somewhere on the south side of the Temple, to Pilates quarters in the Antonia castle on the north side, Judas, failing to stop them, took a short-cut through the Temple and disposed of the money, while the others took Jesus to Pilate.

Shattered, the friendless traitor entered the Temple. The reward of his iniquity burned his hands and his agonized soul. Attempting to obtain relief, he entered the Temple and in an insane gesture of spite against the priests who rejected his attempt to save Jesus, hurled away this concrete reminder of his guilt. Two views of his act are possible:

He simply cast the money down at the priests feet in any part of the Temple. (Some manuscripts have en t na.) Plummer (Matthew, 385) affirms that Josephus uses nas of the collective Temple-buildings, so our author could have too. However, Matthew does not affirm that Judas did this in the presence of priests. Yet, if he senselessly hurled it into the treasury, his vindictiveness at being repulsed by the authorities is clearer: if they would not listen to his claim to justice for Jesus, now they must take back the money, wanted or not.

Judas could have hurled (hrpsas) the coins with violent force through the open doors of the sanctuary into the Holy Place. (Better manuscripts have eis tn nan.) The arrangement of the Temple which makes this act possible demands that he stand in the Court of the Women at the Nicanor Gate at the top of the fifteen steps leading to the Court of the Priests. (Cf. Wars, V, 5, 4.)

He . . . departed (anechresen) but apparently did not seek the understanding fellowship of other disciples. In the solitude of his self-counsel, did he believe them incompetent to help him?

He went away and hanged himself. No man commits suicide casually. There is a strange consistency in Judas final act. Because his root-motivation seems to have been selfish ambition that clamored for instant solutions, he would not hesitate to eliminate anyone or anything that hindred his happiness.

Was Judas final act of self-oblivion the attempt to escape the curse for betraying the innocent for a bribe (Deu. 27:25)? Or did he even think of this? Did he remember Jesus fearful prophecy Mat. 26:24)? Was it not the frenzied desperation of a man so tortured by his own conscience that he would rather become his own executioner than tolerate its accusations? Even so, did he not curse himself by hanging himself (Deu. 21:22 f.)? The sad irony is that salvation for Judas was as close as Jesus, had he but believed itand Him!

Judas, according to Matthew, hanged himself. Luke says, however, he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out (Act. 1:18). The alleged contradiction is resolved by noting that, whereas Luke describes the result of Judas suicide, our author documents the way he died, i.e. by hanging. Whether Judas decaying body remained suspended several days and either the limb or rope would not support his weight, or whether these broke when he fell headlong and his body was grotesquely impaled on a sharp rock from which he could not extricate himself, the conditions are supplied to harmonize both testimonies. Thus, the Acts account incidentally supplements Matthews.

LAUNDERING CRIMINAL MONEY:
CALLOUSNESS ABOUT JUSTICE BUT SANCTIMONIOUS SCRUPULOUSNESS ABOUT TRIVIA

Mat. 27:6 And the chief priests took the pieces of silver, and said, it is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is the price of blood. Judas unanticipated move left these legalists a dilemma. Possibly founded on Deu. 23:18, their argument may have concluded that nothing abominable to God be considered acceptable as a proper offering (eis tn korbann: given to God; cf. Mar. 7:11). The treasury, cf. Mar. 12:41; Luk. 21:1; Joh. 8:20; Josephus, Wars, II, 9, 4.

Is calling this money the price of blood the unwitting admission that they purchased the death of an objectively innocent man? From their point of view, no, because these sophists could call it the price of blood merely from its connection with a persons death which they completely justify. Their scruple is morally frivolous, because they had been ready to withdraw it perhaps from the holy treasury itself to secure the death of Jesus, but were unwilling to accept it back when it has been used for its intended purpose!

Mat. 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potters field, to bury strangers in. This purchase may have occurred after the crucifixion, in which case, Matthew recorded it ahead of time, to avoid breaking into the story following. Because the land in question is described as the potters field, some deduce that its value was too clayey for agriculture, hence suitable only for stripping its clay for pottery. Because the priests buy it for a cemetery, its clay may already have been depleted, leaving only an abandoned excavation good for nothing. Hence the potter would sell the worn-out land for such a low sum.

To bury strangers in seems to express a warmly humanitarian, religious purpose: non-Jews would not now have to be buried together with the Hebrews. However, rather than to Gentiles, strangers (xnois) may refer merely to Jewish pilgrims whom death overtook at Jerusalem, hence would not have a proper burial place. Either way, the unscrupulousness of these priests is nicely buried under the guise of long-neglected civic responsibility. The blood money has now been laundered by this act of charity.

The supposed contradiction between Matthew and Acts relative to the reason for renaming the field, the field of blood, is without foundation. (Cf. Mat. 27:6-9; Act. 1:18 f.) In both accounts the same money, the reward of [Judas] iniquity, purchased the field. In both cases it was Judas who furnished both the situation and the means whereby this purchase took place, even if others legally acted in his name and with money that remained his even though he were dead. (Cf. other examples of deeds by representative agents, Joh. 19:1; Act. 2:23.) Nowhere did Luke state that Judas kept the money and with it personally bought the field. Even if reading Acts alone seems to suggest this view, Lukes original readers could have compared it with Matthews account and harmonize them to get all the facts, if they wished, just as we today.

Mat. 27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day. This verse explains the source of a traditional place-name. However, does this make its facts untrue, as alleged by some? Matthew and Acts furnish two valid, not irreconcilable reasons for calling the field Akeldama, the field of blood: in both the blood in question is primarily that of Christ, for whose betrayal by Judas the blood money (the reward of his iniquity) has been spent. Luke however furnished an additional gory reason to call the terrible place Akeldama. He revealed a fact Matthew omitted: that the field in question was, by an ironic twist of history, the very one where Judas himself came to a violent end (Act. 1:18 f.). Lukes parenthetical remark merely summarizes for his readers what was already well-known, without disputing Matthews narrative.

The priests denominated this area a field to bury strangers in, but popular sentiment, aware of the life-blood which that field represented, gave it a truer name, The field of blood, a perpetual reminder that the authorities had not buried their injustice after all.

Unto this day dates the writing of Matthews Gospel as quite some time after the resurrection, time enough for this new local tradition (Akeldama) to take root in the popular language. However, if the siege and destruction of Jersualem in 70 A.D. may be thought to have obscured place names as the sites themselves were obliterated under debris, unto this day whispers that the Gospel was not penned after that event.

HISTORY REPEATS ITSELFONLY MUCH LOUDER

Mat. 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, whom certain of the children of Israel did price. No such text can be found in Jeremiah and the evident source of the concept is Zec. 11:12 f. as a comparison of Matthew with Zechariah will show:

Matthew:

Zechariah:

They took the silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potters field, as the Lord commanded me.

And the Lord said to me, Throw it to the potterthe handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord to the potter.

That the genuineness of Matthews quotation cannot be questioned is proven by the surprising observation that its apparent clumsiness vouches for its historicity. A clever forger would have been more careful not to include such palpable blunders as attributing to Jeremiah what Zechariah wrote. He would have smoothed out the wrinkles. Attempts to explain why Matthew attributes the prophecy to Jeremiah the prophet are various.

A TEXTUAL EMENDATION IS INVOLVED

Matthew always omitted the name of Zechariah when citing his writings (Mat. 21:5; Mat. 24:31; Mat. 26:31). Why not also here? Some ancient translations do not name any prophet at this point. So, perhaps some extremely early, ill-informed scribe, remembering the potter-passages of Jeremiah (Mat. 18:2; Mat. 19:2, etc.) inserted Jeremiah the prophet by mistake, and this reading became common among the majority of manuscripts. However, see b.

Similarly, some suggest an extremely early scribal error accomplished by a misreading and consequent substitution of only two Greek letters: an I for a Z and an M for an R. Compare: ZRIOY and IMIOY, the abbreviated forms of Zechariah and Jeremiah respectively. However, the reading, Jeremiah, is believed to be firmly established (Textual Commentary, 66).

A QUESTION OF JEWISH TRADITION IS INVOLVED

Circulating in Matthews time was a genuine quotation of a now lost writing of Jeremiah himself or perhaps an unwritten, traditional statement attributed to him, i.e. Zechariah recorded oral tradition of Jeremiahs preaching. Accordingly, Matthew finally documents this, pointing not to the man who recorded it, but to him who first pronounced the prophecy. Jewish tradition said, The spirit of Jeremiah is in Zechariah. Or, vice versa it represents a Jewish deletion of this passage from the canonical Jeremiah (Eusebius, Dem. Ev. X, 4)

The scroll on which Zechariah was copied bore the name of Jeremiah, its leading book. The Talmud calls this roll Jeremiah, even though it contains Zechariah among the other books. Thus Matthew quotes not an author but a section of the Old Testament. (See critical introductions to the Old Testament.) This is a less likely solution, because Matthew wrote, Jeremiah the prophet, an expression that would seem not to refer to the organization of the Old Testament on numerous scrolls, but to the man himself.

Whatever the final solution to this problem, despite our present uncertainty as to which is the true explanation, nevertheless, since a number of alternative hypotheses are available, not charge of contradiction or lapse of memory can be proven against Matthew. Until a more clearly definitive solution arises, we can simply confess our limitations and await further information.

Perhaps the most satisfactory solution is to see this quotation as a Targum or free paraphrase by Matthew who utilized ideas drawn from both prophets, because of a common key word or subject matter, to summarize both, but attributed the whole to the more important (or better known?) of the two. Rightly Hendriksen (Matthew, 948) asked, Where in Zechariah is there mention of a plot of ground, used for burial purposes, which became known as the Field of Blood, because innocent blood had been shed? He notes the following parallels from Jeremiah 19 :

Judah and Jerusalem have shed innocent blood (Jer. 19:4; Mat. 27:4).

Chief priests and elders are mentioned prominently (Jer. 19:1; Mat. 27:3; Mat. 27:6-7).

A potter is mentioned (Jer. 19:1; Jer. 19:11; Mat. 27:7; Mat. 27:10).

Topheth, that is, the valley of Hinnomthe very valley where, according to tradition, the Potters Field was locatedhas its name changed to the Valley of Slaughter, which is about the same as the Field of Blood (Jer. 19:6; Mat. 27:8; cf. Act. 1:19).

And this valley becomes a well-known burial place (Jer. 19:11; Jer. 7:32; Mat. 27:7).

Also possibly parallel to Israels repudiation of Jesus is Israels rejection of Gods prophets troublesome preaching of repentance and their attempt to eliminate him on false charges (Jer. 18:15-17).

Perhaps, by writing Jeremiah, Matthew intended to draw the readers attention to concepts in the major prophet which are resumed in Zechariah and succinctly expressed in this latter prophets words. Matthew even boiled these down to an apt, interpretative statement that appropriately expressed Israels memorializing its shameful rejection of Christ. In this case Matthew is not so much interested in finding a direct prophecy in Jeremiah 18, 19, 32 as in pointing out how both prophets spoke of Israels contempt for God shown by the nations ungratefulness for Gods blessings, sins which are even more significantly repeated in Israels repudiation of Gods greatest Prophet, the Messiah.

So, what is Matthew teaching us? From one point of view, the enacted prophecy of the prophets hurling the miserable sum to the potter is possibly a symbolic forepicturing of the priests hurling Judas miserable wages to the potter to buy his field. However, only an amazing correspondence is pointed out between the prophetic words in Jeremiah and Zechariah and the historic event in Jesus time, without intending a literal fulfillment. (See notes on Mat. 2:17.) Accordingly, Matthew finds in this event a situation which tragically resembles and culminates the earlier situation of Gods prophets.

Honing this concept even further, we see that Matthew gives an interpretative paraphrase of the prophecy. Rather than quote it verbatim, he explains its meaning, i.e. that Jesus contemporaries repeated substantially the same rejection of Gods prophets as had any previous generation. (Cf. Mat. 21:33-39; Mat. 22:1-6; Mat. 23:29-37.) In Zechariah, specifically, Israel paid no more than thirty pieces of silver for Gods Shepherd. When Israels authorized representatives similarly valued Jesus at the price of a slave, they merely repeated Israels chronic shameful contempt for God. The pitiful sum given for the Good Shepherd stands in dramatic contrast with His true value and the high estimation that Israel should have set on Him. They characteristically undervalued Gods guidance, hence this insulting wage was once again paid for the services of Gods Shepherd, but, in this case, it was Gods Son. Nevertheless, it was returned with disdain to the Lords House. And, by another ironic twist of history this lordly sum went again to pay the potter!

Thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, whom certain of the children of Israel did price. Not insignificantly, in Israel it was a priestly function to decide what people were worth (Lev. 27:8), The value the nation, in the person of its authorized representatives, the priests, placed on the services of Gods prophet was the ancient, legal price of an injured slave or a woman (Exo. 21:32; Lev. 27:4). So Israels contempt for the Lord is again repeated in their crass devaluation of His Son. They hated Jesus because they hated the Father who sent Him (Mat. 10:40; Luk. 10:16; Joh. 15:23; Joh. 16:3). The treatment of the prophet-shepherd was not accidental, but a true, moral preview of Israels treatment of the prophets Lord, Jesus.

Mat. 27:10 and they gave them for the potters field, as the Lord appointed me. Both in the prophecy as well as in the fulfillment God disposed of the money through agents. Because this money was found in the house of the Lord, it was as if God Himself had received it, and the priests, by purchasing the field, unconsciously were throwing His 30 shekels to the potter whose field it was. Their disposition of the money produced an astonishing evocation of the ancient words all in accordance with the will of the Lord. Rather than disappear into the oblivion of the treasury, that blood money was memorialized in the purchase of the field of Blood, until unbelieving Israel should be destroyed in a City of Blood.

Matthew does not chronicle Judas death to establish him as a classic example of evil, a monster of wickedness or a man apart. Rather, Judas is the tragic story of a double-minded disciple who followed Jesus for the wrong motives, whose discipleship was blocked by his refusal to let Jesus be Lord in everything,

FACT QUESTIONS

In what sense did Judas repent? Contrast the repentance of Peter and that of Judas, showing why one led to life and the other to death.

What was it that convinced Judas to repent?

By whom had Jesus been condemned when Judas saw it and repented?

Where and how did Judas return the betrayal money? Where were the priests when he approached them? Defend your answer.

On what Scriptural basis could the priests have established their decision to refuse to accept the blood money into the temple treasury?

Who were the strangers for whom the potters field was bought as a cemetery? Why should a special cemetery for them be needed?

Indicate the source of the prediction Matthew cites as fulfilled here. Who wrote the prophecy? Deal with the supposed contradictions connected with this question.

How does the book of Acts report this account? What differences distinguish the two accounts? How harmonize these divergences?

Why was the field called the field of blood?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(3) Then Judas, which had betrayed him.Better, the betrayer. The Greek participle is in the present tense. The narrative which follows is found only in St. Matthew, but another version of the same facts is given in Act. 1:18. Here, too, as in the case of Peter, we have to guess at motives. Had he looked for any other result than this? Was he hoping that his Lord, when forced to a decision, would assert His claim as the Christ, put forth His power, and triumph over His enemies, and that so he would gain at once the reward of treachery and the credit of having contributed to establish the Kingdom? This has been maintained by some eminent writers, and it is certainly possible, but the mere remorse of one who, after acting in the frenzy of criminal passion, sees the consequences of his deeds in all their horror, furnishes an adequate explanation of what follows.

Repented himself.The Greek word is not that commonly used for repentance, as involving a change of mind and heart, but is rather regret, a simple change of feeling. The coins which he had once gazed on and clutched at eagerly were now hateful in his sight, and their touch like that of molten metal from the furnace. He must get rid of them somehow. There is something terribly suggestive in the fact that here there were no tears as there had been in Peters repentance.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

139. REPENTANCE AND DEATH OF JUDAS, Mat 27:3-10 .

Matthew now interrupts his narrative of the fate of the Saviour to give his final account of Judas. It hardly seems probable that Judas would give up all for lost before the final sentence and surrender of Jesus by Pilate.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

3. Saw that he was condemned The actual perception of the result, and the clear consciousness of the enormity of the crime, produced in Judas’s mind a revulsion. A conscious feeling also that he had sinned beyond mercy, seems to have possessed his soul. He felt that his trifling gains could never be used; and, with a desperate desire to know the worst of his case, he rushed through the gate of a voluntary death into the presence of his final Judge. Repented himself Such a repentance as brings no true reformation. It was guilt starting back from the consequence of its doings. There is much repentance of this kind in the world of the lost.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘Then Judas, who betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,’

All that Matthew feels about Judas comes out here. ‘Judas who betrayed Him.’ It says all that needs to be said. Then he describes Judas’ actions following the betrayal. When he saw that Jesus was condemned he had a complete change of heart, and filled with regret and remorse he brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the Chief Priests and Elders. He wanted to transfer some of his guilt on to them, and possibly also in his naivete hoped to cancel the agreement. There may be a suggestion here that things had not turned out as Judas had expected. Possibly he had hoped that his actions would spur Jesus into Messianic action. On the other hand it may simply be that seeing Jesus condemned made him realise just what he had done.

‘Then — when he saw.’ Compare Mat 2:17. It may be no coincidence that the same phrase introduces a connection with Jeremiah’s prophecies in both instances, especially as both prophecies are also introduced with a unique parallel phrase, ‘then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet’. As we have seen there is good reason for seeing Matthew as using these prophecies as a framework in order to drawing attention to gloom and suffering, and attempts on Jesus’ life, at both the beginning and the end of his Gospel. Judas is seen as having ‘achieved’ what Herod had failed to ‘achieve’, shedding the blood of Jesus, but only to his deep regret.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The remorse and death of Judas:

v. 3. Then Judas, which had betrayed Him, when he saw that He was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

v. 4. saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? See thou to that.

v. 5. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the Temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Here we see both facts, as Luther says, namely, that the sin enters in a very smooth way, but afterwards causes a terrible end. Judas had probably been under the impression that Jesus would do as He often had done, make use of His divine power, throw off His bonds, and walk away a free man. But the procession to the governor’s palace showed him definitely that there would be no miraculous deliverance in this case. Christ’s condemnation by the Jews had been voted upon, and it was to be expected that the governor would agree to the demand of the Jews. As this certainty was brought home to him, his eyes were suddenly opened to the heinousness of his offense against Jesus. Deep remorse and sorrow over this took hold of him, a repentance nursed by Satan, as seeing only the depth, the abyss of the transgression. His first thought was not to make an open confession of his sin to the Lord, humbly imploring the forgiveness which was even now being earned for this sin also, but to get rid of the fruits and proof of his sin. So he returned the thirty pieces of silver, the reward of iniquity, attempting to hand the money back to the high priests and elders that had accepted the offer of betrayal from him. He realized now that his betrayal of innocent blood, of the blood of an innocent, holy man, was a grievous sin. But he met with a cool reception, being told that this was no concern of theirs; he must attend to his own affairs. That is the manner of the tempters and deceivers: Before the sin is committed, they exhibit a kind face, but when the victim of their wiles is tortured by harrowing remorse, they disclaim all responsibility. Let each one take care of himself, is their cry at such a time. In this case the devil took care of his own. For Judas took the money which the high priests and elders rejected, threw it in the Temple, probably with the idea of making partial expiation for his sin, and then committed suicide by hanging. That was the end of a repentance which did not turn to the Savior, but despaired of ever finding mercy. The sorrow of the world worketh death, 2Co 7:10. “That is the other peculiarity of sin, which we should note carefully. In the beginning it sleeps, and seems to be an easy, harmless thing. But it does not sleep long, and when it awakens, it becomes an unbearable burden, which it is impossible to carry, unless God helps in a special way. This we see in the case of poor Judas… For when he sees the Lord being led to Pilate, and now must fear that His life is forfeited, he repents and sees for the first time what he really has done. There sin awakens and shows itself in its way so fierce and terrible that he cannot endure it. Before this he had loved the money, the thirty pieces of silver, so dearly that it seemed a small matter to him to betray and to sell Christ the Lord; but now he is changed: If he had the money and goods of the whole world, he would give it all in return for the assurance that the life of Christ the Lord might be saved.”

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Mat 27:3. Then Judasrepented himself, &c. St. Matthew introduces this account of the fate of Judas, as we see, immediately after the Jews had delivered Jesus to Pilate; but after this the Jews must have been so intent on persuadingPilate to consent to his death, that there was hardly time for the Sanhedrim’s adjourning to the temple where this occurrence happened, before they had prevailed with Pilate to condemn him; and as Judas must have often heard his Master say that he should be crucified, Pilate’s order for his execution must have more sensibly affected him, than the Jews passing sentence on him; as they had not then the power of putting any one to death; and therefore this event, most probably, happened immediately after the condemnation of Jesus by Pilate. The word , then, with which the Evangelist begins this history, may be taken in some latitude, to introduce the mention of an occurrence which happened about that time, whether a little before or after, and need not be interpreted with so much rigour, as to determine it to an assertion of observing the exactest order in all circumstances. See Doddridge, Gerhard, &c. Dr. Macknight however is of a different opinion; “Because,” says he, “Judas cast down this money in the temple, it is thought that the council adjourned thither, before they carried Jesus to the governor, and that Judas found them there; but they were too much in earnest to delay their revenge one moment; besides, they had now no time to spend in the temple: he might come to the priests immediately after they had condemned his Master, while they were yet in the high priest’s palace; or he might accost them as they were passing along the street to the praetorium; or he might find them standing before the praetorium; into which they would not enter, lest they should be defiled: this latter seems to be the true supposition; for the historian insinuates, that Judas addressed the priests, after they had carried Jesus to the governor. When they refused the money, he left them, and went to hang himself; but taking the temple in his way, he threw down the whole sum in the treasury, or that part of the women’s court where the chests were placed for receiving the offerings of the people who came to worship. This money mightbe gathered up by the Levite porters, who always waited at the gates of the temple, (1 Chronicles 26.) and might be carried by them to the priests, with an account how they got it.”

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Mat 27:3 ] as Jesus was being led away to the procurator. From this Judas saw that his Master had been condemned (Mat 26:66 ), for otherwise He would not have been thus taken before Pilate.

] His betrayer , Mat 26:25 ; Mat 26:48 .

, . . .] cannot be said to favour the view that Judas was animated by a good intention (see on Mat 24:16 , Remark 2), though it no doubt serves to show he neither contemplated nor expected so serious a result. It is possible that, looking to the innocence of Jesus, and remembering how often before He had succeeded in disarming His enemies, the traitor may have cherished the hope that the issue would prove harmless. Now: “vellet, si posset, factum infectum reddere,” Bengel. Such was his repentance, but it was not of a godly nature (2Co 7:9 f.), for it led to despair .

] he returned them (Mat 26:52 ; Thuc. v. 75, viii. 108; Xen. Anab. ii. 6. 3, al ), i.e. he took them back (Gen 43:21 ; Jdg 11:13 ; Jer 28:3 ), Heb.

. . . .] from which it is to be inferred that Matthew did not look upon this as a full meeting of the Sanhedrim (Mat 27:2 ).

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

DISCOURSE: 1406
IMPENITENCE

Mat 27:3-5. Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the Chief Priests and Elders, saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? See thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

AS Jesus was by his own death to take away the sins of others, it was necessary, not only that he should have no sin himself [Note: Joh 3:5.], but that his innocence should be made to appear by every species of evidence that could be adduced to confirm it. Accordingly, it pleased God so to overrule events, that the witnesses brought against him should not agree in their testimony; that the very judge who was to condemn him should repeatedly pronounce him guiltless; and that even the wretch who betrayed him should, with very peculiar solemnity, attest his innocence.

We might from this circumstance proceed to prove the Messiahship of Jesus, and the consequent truth of the religion which he has established. But it is our intention to enter more deeply into the passage before us; and to consider, not merely the general result of Judas confession, but the various characters delineated in the words before us.
And here we have a very striking picture of,

The thoughtless sinner

[Judas, it should seem, never thought that his Master would suffer himself to be apprehended and put to death. He had often seen Jesus escaping in a miraculous manner out of the hands of his enemies [Note: Luk 4:30. Joh 8:59.], and confounding the people who came to apprehend him, so that they could not prosecute their purpose [Note: Joh 7:45-46.]: and therefore he expected that he would act in a somewhat similar manner on this occasion. It was in the hope of this that he was prevailed upon to sell and betray his Lord. Had he foreseen all the consequences that followed, it is probable he would not, at least for so small a sum, have subjected his Master to such miseries, and himself to such infamy and ruin.

And is it not thus with sinners in general? Do they not all proceed to gratify their own inclinations under the idea that no great evil shall arise from it, either to themselves or others? Had David the remotest thought that his numbering of the people would issue in the destruction of seventy thousand of his subjects? Or did he, when sending for Bathsheba, foresee the murder of Uriah, together with about forty others; or the hardening of so many thousands, in that and every age, against the ways of God?
Let us come still nearer home: does the seducer consider what he is likely to bring upon the person whom he tempts from the path of virtue? Does he contemplate her shame and sorrow, or the inconsolable anguish of her parents; or the temporal and eternal ruin which she herself will bring on others? Does he contemplate her infamous life, her lothesome death, her endless misery? Ah! were he to have one glimpse of all the consequences of his conduct, we can scarcely conceive any man so abandoned as to purchase a momentary gratification at so high a price. Does he also consider the consequences as they respect himself? Alas! he thinks of nothing but the indulgence of his lusts: he considers the bait, without adverting to the hook: he promises himself that nothing very calamitous shall result from his conduct: he trusts that through the mercy of God it shall pass unnoticed; or that he shall, by repentance, make compensation for it; or that he shall, by some other means, enjoy the pleasures of sin, without experiencing its bitter consequences. With these vain hopes he goes forward, till he finds, too late, that the evils which he would not anticipate, he is not able to control.]

II.

The awakened sinner

[Thoughtless as is the career of the wicked, they cannot always ward off conviction. Even Judas at last repented himself. What a different aspect had sin when his eyes were opened, from what it had when he was blinded by his covetousness! The wages of iniquity, which at first promised him so much happiness, were now a burthen to him, insomuch that he tendered them to the chief priests again, and, when they refused his offer, cast them down in the temple with indignation and abhorrence. He proceeded further: he confessed and aggravated his sin; and strove to undo the evil he had committed; yea, and indirectly testified against the wickedness of the priests, who had conspired to shed, and tempted him to betray, the innocent blood of Jesus.
All this indeed proceeded only from a selfish terror, and from a vain hope of pacifying his conscience by these means. In the midst of all, there was no real contrition, any more than in Saul [Note: 1Sa 26:21.] or Pharaoh [Note: Exo 9:27.]: there was no prayer to God; no faith in Christ. Though, therefore, he was awakened and terrified, he was far from being truly converted to God.

In him we may see the picture of thousands, both in ancient and modern times. Many will make restitution of their ill-gotten gain: many under a sense of guilt will confess some heinous crime; especially when the consequences of it far exceed their expectations. We do not wish indeed to depreciate the value of such changes: but it is incumbent on us to declare that they are far from constituting true repentance. They argue an awakened, but not a converted mind. There must be, in addition to all this, a deep humiliation, a lively faith, and an earnest crying unto God for mercy. And if, like Judas, we do not hate sin, but only its consequences; if we confess to man only, and not to God; if we labour to expiate our guilt by restitution or reformation, instead of fleeing for refuge to the blood of atonement; we shall, like him, have no solid benefit from our repentance: our very sorrows will be only an earnest of hell itself.]

III.

The hardened sinner

[While some are awakened to a sense of their guilt, others proceed in the commission of the most horrible iniquities without remorse or concern. The conduct of Judas in criminating himself before those at whose instigation he had betrayed his Lord, should certainly have operated to suspend their proceedings, and to bring them to repentance. But they were bent on the accomplishment of their blood-thirsty purposes, and were alike deaf to the confessions of their agent and to the voice of their own conscience.
But shall we say that this was a singular case? Would to God that similar instances did not perpetually occur! Return to the case of the seducer. See him, when the unhappy victim of his wiles comes to him under the most insupportable agonies of mind, and calls on him for comfort and support:; what answer so common as that given in the text? The obdurate wretch, forgetful of all the obligations of honour and conscience, replies in answer to all her complaints, What is that to me? look thou to that. Thus it is also with those who tempt the inconsiderate youth to extravagance; and, having caught him in their net, demand their debts with unfeeling menaces and inexorable rigour. Perhaps in none is such conduct more manifest than in the gamester, who, having gained the property of his companion, discards all thought of his personal and domestic troubles, and, rejoicing over the spoils which he has gotten, says in his heart, What is that to me? see thou to that.
Numberless other instances might be adduced to shew, how sin hardens the heart against the temporal distresses of those whom we ourselves have beguiled. And how are we affected by their spiritual trouble? Here, for the most part, our indifference rises to contempt:; and, instead of being led by the penitence of our companions to follow their good example, we load them with opprobrious names, alike regardless of their sorrows and of our own safety.]

IV.

The despairing sinner

[There is a repentance unto salvation; but there is also a repentance which leaves room for everlasting penitence a repentance to be repented of. Such was the remorse which Judas felt on this occasion. It carried him far,: would to God that all were even as much affected with their sins as he!) but still he stopped short of true repentance. Having no faith in Jesus [Note: Joh 6:64; Joh 6:70-71.], he abandoned himself to despair; and, to terminate the present agonies of his mind, he put a period to his existence.

Such despair is not uncommon:; nor is it uncommon to behold it issuing in suicide. Indeed, it is a very principal device of Satan to urge men to this fatal act, because it most effectually secures his object, the destruction of their souls. He first hides from them the consequences of transgression; then represents to them their guilt as unpardonable; and then suggests, that death will put a period to their sorrows. This temptation is most strongly felt by those who have sinned against light and knowledge. Putting away a good conscience, they are left to make shipwreck of their faith. And it seems a just and righteous retribution, that they who so ungratefully reject the counsel of God, should ultimately perish in their own corruptions.]

Address
1.

Let us not condemn religion for the faults of those who profess it

[How absurd would it be to bring the treachery of Judas as an argument against the truth of Christianity! Does Christianity encourage treason? Did even the traitor himself approve of his own conduct? If all the twelve Disciples had been traitors, it would not have altered the nature of true religion: that is unalterably pure and holy: and where its operation is effectual, it transforms men into the image of their God.]

Let us guard against the love of the world

[This was the root of Judas apostasy. He loved money, and was a thief from the beginning: and at last, from indulging in petty thefts, he was prevailed upon for gain to betray his Lord. Thousands of others also are, from the very same principle, yet daily erring from the faith, and piercing themselves through with many sorrows [Note: 1Ti 6:10.]. Let us then beware, lest this root of bitterness springing up, trouble, and defile, and destroy our souls. We shall find at last, that to gain the whole world, and lose our own souls, is an unprofitable bargain.]

Let us carefully improve the means of grace

[The traitor enjoyed every privilege which man could possess: he had even been warned by Jesus respecting the very crime he was going to commit. Happy had it been for him if he had improved the warning! He would then have shunned the fatal act which precipitated him to his own place. Happy also would it be for us, if we made a suitable improvement of the warnings and instructions given to us! We should then avoid every species of iniquity, and our feet would be guided into the way of peace.]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

XXVII

CHRIST BEFORE PILATE AND HEROD

Harmony, pages 196-206 and Mat 27:3-30 ; Act 1:18-19 ; Mar 15:1-19 ; Luk 23:2-25 ; Joh 18:28-19:16 .

You will understand that our Lord was tried before the Sanhedrin, as we saw in the last chapter, on the charge of blasphemy, penalty for which was stoning. We will find in this discussion that Jesus is first tried before the court of Pilate on the charge of treason, and then differently charged with sedition, the penalty of these two charges being crucifixion, and on the same two charges he was tried before the Galilean court of Herod. We have yet to consider his trial before the court of God on the charge of sin, with the penalty of physical and spiritual death, and finally, we will consider his trial before the court of hell on the charge of sin, with the penalty of passing under the power of the devil.

So that this discussion commences at the last verse on page 196 of the Harmony, Mat 27:2 , “And they bound him, and led him away, and delivered him up to Pilate, the governor”; or, as Mark puts it, Mar 15:1-2 , “They bound Jesus and carried him away, and delivered him up to Pilate”; or, as Luke expresses it, Luk 23:1 , “And the whole company of them rose up, and brought him before Pilate”; or, as John has it, Joh 18:28 , “They led Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the palace; and it was early.”

We have seen in the preceding discussion that Jesus was tried before the Sanhedrin, the supreme Jewish court, on the charge of blasphemy, and condemned. We have seen that in every step of the proceedings they violated their own criminal law. Just now the important thing to note is that they also violate the Roman law. In this particular they had no right to even try a capital offense. Of course, we know that a capital offense is one of which the penalty is death. That is, capital offense comes from the word caput (root, “cap,” connected with kephala) , meaning “the head.” And capital offense is one in which one loses his head. The right to-try-such an-offense Rome never granted to the conquered provinces. The position is untenable that any conquered province might try and condemn, but the Roman representative had to execute.

On this point Mr. Greenleaf says, “If they (the Sanhedrin) had condemned him, they had not the power to pass sentence, this being a right which passed from the Jews by conquest of their country, and really belonged to’ the Romans alone. They were merely citizens of the Roman province; they were left in the enjoyment of their civil laws, the public exercises of their religion, and many other things relating to their police and municipal regulations.” They had not the power of life and death. This was a principal attribute of sovereignty which the Romans took care to reserve to themselves always, whatever else might be neglected. Tacitus says that the imperial right among the Romans was incapable of being transmitted or delegated, and that right was the jurisdiction of capital cases, belonging ordinarily to the Roman governor or general. The word is praeses , answering to our word president, or governor of the province, the procurator, having for his principal duties charge of the annual revenue and the cognizance of capital cases. Some procurators, like Pontius Pilate, had the jurisdiction of life and death, but it could not be expected that Pilate would trouble himself with the cognizance of any matter not pertaining to the Roman law, which consists of an alleged offense against the God of the Jews, and was neither acknowledged nor even respected by the Romans. Of this the chief priests and elders were well aware.

To show that Mr. Greenleaf is right in that contention, I will give three instances from the New Testament upon that point. The first is Act 18 , in the city of Corinth, and under the Roman governor Gallic. When Paul was accused under him, and brought before the judgment seat, Gallic says: “If indeed, it were a matter of wrong or of wicked villainy, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you, but if they are questions about words and names and your own law, look to it yourselves; I am not minded to be a judge of these matters.” So a little later, when the mob treated the chief of the synagogue with indignities, it is said, “But Gallic cared for none of these things,” i.e., as a Roman officer he had nothing to do with them. So it was impossible for Pilate to take cognizance of anything brought against any matter of the Jewish religion, such as the accusation of blasphemy.

The next case that I cite is in Act 23 , where the chiliarch, or military tribune, called Claudius Lysias, writes a letter to Felix, who at that time was governor (Act 23:27 ) : “This man was seized by the Jews, and was about to be slain of them, when I came upon them with the soldiers and rescued him, having learned that he was a Roman. And desiring to know the cause wherefore they accused him, I brought him down into their council; whom I found to be accused about questions of their law, but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds.”

The next case that I cite is from Act 25 ) when Festus was governor in place of Felix. So we see we have Pilate, Felix, Festus, and Gallic, all testifying upon the point to which I am now speaking. Festus cited Paul’s case to King Agrippa (Act 25:14 ): “There is a certain man left prisoner by Felix, about whom, when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me, asking for sentence against him. To whom I answered, that it was not the custom of the Romans to give up any man, before that the accused have the accusers face to face, and have had opportunity to make his defense concerning the matter laid against him. When, therefore, they were come together here, I made no delay, but on the next day sat on the judgment seat, and commanded the man to be brought. Con-erning whom, when the accusers stood up, they brought no charge of such evil things as I supposed: but had certain questions against him of their own religion.” And he declined to take any jurisdiction of such a question.

Further upon this point, I now give what the great French lawyer, Dupin, says: Let us distinctly establish this point; for here I entirely differ in opinion from Mr. Salvador. According to him (p. 88), “the Jews had reserved the power of trying, according to their law; but it was in the hands of the procurator alone that the executive power was invested; every culprit must be put to death by his consent, in order that the senate should not have the means of reaching persons that were sold to foreigners.” No; the Jews had not reserved the right of passing sentence of death. This right had been transferred to the Romans by the very act of the conquest; and this was not merely that the senate should not have the means of reaching persons who were sold to foreign countries; but it was done, in order that the conqueror might be able to reach those individuals who should become impatient of the yoke. It was, in short, for the equal protection of all, as all had become Roman subjects; and to Rome alone belonged the highest judicial power, which is the principal attribute of sovereignty. Pilate, as the representative of Caesar in Judea, was not merely an agent of the executive authority, which would have left the judiciary and legislative power in the hands of the conquered people he was not simply an officer appointed to give an exequatur or mere approval (visa) to sentences passed by another authority, the authority of the Jews. When the matter in question was a capital case, the Roman authorities not only ordered the execution of a sentence, but also took cognizance ( coynito ) of the crime; it had the right of jurisdiction a pnon, and that of passing judgment in the last resort. If Pilate himself had not had this power by special delegation, vice praesdis, it was vested in the governor, within whose territorial jurisdiction the case occurred; but in any event we hold it to be clear that the Jews had lost the right of condemning to death any person whatsoever, not only so far as respects the execution, but the passing of the sentence. M. DUPIN, Testimony of the Evangelists, pages 601-602.

We must not forget that Judea was a conquered country, and to the Roman governor belonged the right of taking cognizance of capital cases. What then was the right of the Jewish authorities in regard to Jesus? The Jews had not the right reserved of passing sentence of death. This right had been transferred to the Romans by the very act of conquest; and this was not merely that the Roman senate should not have the means of reaching persons who were sold to foreign countries, but that Rome might have charge of all cases of life and death. Pilate, as the representative of Caesar in Judea, was not merely an agent of the executive authority, he having left the judiciary in the hands of the Jews; not simply an officer appointed to execute a Jewish sentence passed by any authority, but when the matter in question was a capital case the Roman authorities could not only order the execution of the sentences, but they also claimed the right of passing upon the crime itself, with the right of jurisdiction over the question, and of passing judgment in the last resort. The Jews had lost the right to try a man for a capital offense, or to condemn to death any person whatever. This is one of the best settled points in the provincial law of the Romans.

If the Jews had the right of trial in capital cases, and the Roman power was exercised merely to execute a Jewish sentence, then when the accusation was brought before Pilate the proceedings would have been after this fashion: “Jesus has violated the Jewish law of blasphemy, and we have condemned him to death, and do bring him to you that you may approve and execute the sentence.” But what are the facts? When they bring Jesus before Pilate they say not one word about the offense of blasphemy, but bring a new charge. Pilate puts the question, “What accusation bring you against this man?” And they began to accuse him, saying, “We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a King.”

That is the charge they prefer against him before the Roman Court. That is the new case. And Pilate examines whether Jesus Christ was guilty of treason against the Roman governor in claiming to be a king. So he examines the case by asking questions of Jesus himself: “Art thou the King of the Jews?” And after Pilate had finished his investigation he brought in his verdict of the case before him. He has heard the people and he has heard Jesus, and now here is his sentence: “And Pilate said unto the chief priests and the multitudes, I find no fault in this man.” (Top of page 200 in the Harmony.) That is the decision.

The decision having been rendered upon that charge of treason, they bring another charge (Luk 23:5 , Harmony page 200) : “But they were the more urgent, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, and beginning from Galilee even unto this place.” This is what we call sedition, that is, stirring up a tumult; so they changed the accusation. When they bring that charge against him before Pilate he merely notes the fact that they have spoken of Galilee, and as Herod, the tetrarch of Galilee, happened to be in Jerusalem at this time, and as the offense, according to this charge, commenced in Herod’s territory, Pilate wishing to avoid the responsibility of deciding the case, refers it to Herod.

We will see how it goes before Herod. On page 201 of the Harmony we find that Herod, after maltreating him, sends him back to Pilate. Page 203 shows that Pilate announces Herod’s verdict: “I, having examined him before you, found no fault in this man touching those things whereof you accused Him; no, nor yet Herod: for he sent Him back unto us; and behold, nothing worthy of death hath been done by Him.” So there we have a double verdict, that under the second charge Herod finds no offense against the Roman law, and Pilate says the same thing that he hath done nothing worthy of death. No fault in him under either of the accusations. So that is the third verdict of equivalence that has been pronounced twice by Pilate and once by Herod.

Pilate now wishes to smooth things, for he knew that the Jews were very turbulent, and that the position of the Roman officer in Judea was always a hazardous one, since accusations could be made against him to Rome. Pilate had been moved by a message from his wife. She had had a dream. So she sends to Pilate while on his judgment throne, and says, “Have thou nothing to do with this man.” Now, the Jews were urging Pilate on from one side, and his wife restraining him on the other. Burns, in “Tam O’Shanter,” says, about the attitude of men toward the good counsel of their wives: Ah, gentle dames! it gars me greet To think how many counsels sweet, How many lengthened, sage advices, The husband frae the wife despises!

Therefore, Pilate proposes an expedient. He says, “There is a custom among you that at feast time some guilty man shall be pardoned. Now, you have a man here, a murderer and a robber, whose name is Barabbas, and it is within my province to pardon a man. Suppose you let me pardon Jesus, or, would you prefer that I pardon Barabbas?” It is a strange thing to the lover of justice that after Pilate had twice acquitted this Man he now proposes to pardon him. He could not pardon a man that had been acquitted. The Jews make their choice; they say: “Not this man, but Barabbas; release that robber to us; don’t you release this man.” Pilate then has Jesus crowned with thorns to show his contempt for their accusation that he would be a king, and invests him with purple, and brings him before the Jews, and exclaims (in words, that, put together, make a great text for a sermon: “Ecce homo”; “Behold the man!” “Ecce Rex!” “Behold the King!” When the Jews persisted that they preferred that Barabbas should be released to them, then Pilate put this question, which has been the theme of many sermons, “What then shall I do with Jesus, who is called the Christ?”

Very many years ago at a meeting of the old General Association, Dr. A. E. Clemmons, pastor at Marshall, Texas, and Shreveport, Louisiana, preached a sermon from that text, and made this stirring application: This question comes to every man. Every man is under obligation to accept Jesus Christ as King, and if he rejects Christ then the question arises, “What shall I do with Jesus? He is in the world; he is preached in ten thousand pulpits; I cannot ignore him; I must make some disposition of him; what shall I do with him? Shall I count him as an impostor, or shall I accept him as my Saviour?”

Having made that point clear, Dr. Clemmons then passed to his last question: “In not trying to dispose of Jesus Christ you reject him. Then later the question will come to you in this form, ‘What will Jesus, who is called the Christ, do with me?’ ” Showing that there would come a time when the despised Nazarene would occupy the throne of eternal judgment, and according to the manner in which you disposed of him when the question was up to you, so will he dispose of you when the question is up to him.

Their answer to the question was, “Crucify him! Away with him! Crucify him!” Pilate says, “Why don*t you take him and crucify him yourselves?” Then they said, “We have no jurisdiction; we have not this power of life and death; you have. We bring the case to you, and we tell you now that we charge him with being an enemy of Caesar, claiming himself to be a King; and if you let this man go, you are not Caesar’s friend.” It was a favorite custom of the Jews to prefer charges against the governors of Judea before the Roman court at Rome itself, and many a governor of Judea was recalled on charges preferred against him at Rome. When Pilate heard that, he was terrified. He knew that it was an easy thing to shake the confidence of Caesar in any of his subordinates, and he was afraid. He therefore fell upon another expedient. He washed his hands, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this man; I wanted to let him go; you forced me to put him to death; you are responsible.” Then they said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”

When you see Pilate go through that form of washing his hands, as if by washing his hands he could divest himself of the responsibility to render just judgment, you are reminded of the incident in the play of Shakespeare’s Macbeth, in which Lady Macbeth, having instigated the death of the king, Duncan, and stirred up her husband to usurp that king’s throne, her conscience and her imagination were always washing off the blood spots on her hands. The great author relates how she became insane; and she was all the time going to the basin and washing her hands, then looking at them and saying, “This blood on my hands would make the sea red; all of the ocean cannot wash it the stain of blood on this lily-white hand.”

Pilate never recovered from his cowardly betrayal of his trust. History and tradition both tell us that he was pursued by undying remorse, and there is a tradition that when he was banished to the foot of the Alps, every time a storm was about to come a dark mist would gather over a mountain named after Pilate. There is a very thrilling reference to that in one of Scott’s novels. Whenever the people looked up and saw Mount Pilatus wrapped in mist they would cross themselves and say, “Avoid thee, Satan.” So tradition and history have tied the name of Pilate to that cloud-covered mountain.

And Pilate finally signs the death warrant of Jesus of Nazareth, whom he had twice acquitted, and concerning whom he had said, “I find no fault in him; he is guilty of no crime.” On page 206 of the Harmony we have an account of the indignities Christ suffered at the hands of the soldiers. Let the reader study that for himself.

QUESTIONS 1. Who brought the case of Jesus before Pilate and what great illconsistency in the Jews manifested at the palace?

2. In what particular did they violate the Roman law in the trial of Jesus?

3. What was the testimony of Tacitus on this point?

4. Was it the province of Pilate under Roman law to merely execute a sentence of the Sanhedrin concerning an offense against Jewish law or must he assume original and complete jurisdiction and try the case brought before him solely in view of an offense against Roman law?

5. What three special cases in the Acts illustrate this fact and what the point in each case?

6. What was the testimony of Dupin?

7. If the Jews had the right in capital cases, and the Roman power was exercised merely to execute a Jewish sentence, then when the accusation was brought before Pilate, what would have been the proceedings?

8. But what are the facts in the case?

9. What, therefore, was Pilate’s first demand and what was their answer?

10. What was Pilate’s second demand and their reply?

11. Would he have counted within his jurisdiction a charge of blasphemy against the Jewish God?

12. What threefold accusation against Roman law, therefore, did the Sanhedrin substitute for the charge of blasphemy and wherein consisted the atrocious malice of their accusation?

13. What one word covers all these accusations?

14. Was this threefold charge within Pilate’s jurisdiction?

15. What question, therefore, did Pilate ask Jesus, what was his answer, then what question did he ask Pilate and why?

16. What explanation did Christ here make to Pilate as to the nature of his kingdom and what was Pilate’s first verdict in the case?

17. What new charge did his accusers now prefer against him?

18. What was the legal term of this offense, was it a punishable offense against Roman law and was it within Pilate’s jurisdiction?

19. What circumstance in the new charge enabled Pilate to evade trying the case by referring it to another tribunal?

20. In referring a case from one Roman court to another, was it customary and necessary to make a formal statement of the case? (See Act 23:26-30 ; Act 25:25-27 .)

21. Would such a statement in this case include the charge of treason, of which Pilate himself had acquitted Jesus, as well as the new charge of sedition and why?

22. How did Herod receive Christ, what interest did he manifest in our Lord, what was the procedure of the trial before Herod and how did this incident affect the relation of Herod and Pilate?

23. Under Roman law in this case would Herod announce his verdict directly to the Sanhedrin or would he send it through Pilate, and why?

24. What was Herod’s verdict on both counts as announced through Pilate?

25. What was Pilate’s verdict on the new charge?

26. What is now the legal status of the case?

27. What was, therefore, Pilate’s plain duty?

28. What Latin proverb of law would now be violated if the defendant’s life is again placed in jeopardy on either of these adjudicated cases?

29. Why, then, does Pilate hesitate and parley with the accusers?

30. What admonition came to Pilate on the judgment seat?

31. Cite the reference in Burns’ “Tarn O’Shanter” to a husband’s disregard of wifely admonitions.

32. What expedient does Pilate now suggest in order to save the life of Jesus and vet placate his proud accusers?

33. What was the infamy of this proposal?

34. Under Pilate’s proposal what deliberate choice did the Sanhedrin make?

35. How do the apostles subsequently bring home to them with terrific effect this unholy and malicious choice? (See Act 3:14-15 .)

36. How did Pilate again seek to appease their wrath?

37. What text for a sermon cited, what is the application and what was their answer to Pilate’s question?

38. How does the Sanhedrin now confess their mere pretense in making charges against Roman law and terrify Pilate by stating the case under Jewish law?

39. What were the circumstances of Pilate’s reopening of the case, what examination followed, what effort did Pilate again make and what was the result?

40. Why could not Pilate render a formal verdict on this count?

41. To what old charge do the Jews recur and thereby bully the cowardly Pilate into once more occupying the judgment seat, thereby reopening the case under Roman law?

42. What time in the day was it now, reconciling John’s sixth hour with the time in the other Gospels?

43. Why does Pilate now say, “Shall I crucify your king”?

44. By what dramatic form does Pilate now seek to divest himself of responsibility and guilt in the judicial murder of one whom he still declares innocent, but condemns, what incident in the classics referred to, and what the tradition concerning Pilate?

45. In what awful words do the bolder Jews assume the responsibility for Christ’s death?

46. To what indignities was Jesus then subjected?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

Ver. 3. Then Judas, which had betrayed him ] Might not Judas have sang care away, now that he had both the bag and the price of blood, but he must come and betray himself. While he played alone, he won all; but soon after, his own “wickedness corrected him, and his backslidings reproved him,”Jer 2:19Jer 2:19 . Sin will surely prove evil and bitter, when the bottom of the bag is once turned upward. A man may have the stone, who feels no fit of it. Conscience will work once; though for the time, one may feel no fit of accusation: Laban showed himself at parting. “Knowest thou not that there will be bitterness in the latter end?” 2Sa 2:26 . But the devil deals with men as the panther does with the beasts: he hides his deformed head, till his sweet scent have drawn them into his danger. Till we have sinned, Satan is a parasite; when we have sinned he is a tyrant. But it is good to consider that of Bernard. At the day of judgment a pure conscience shall better bestead one than a full purse. In die iudicii plus valebit conscientia pura quam marsupia plena.

When he saw that he was condemned ] He hoped, belike, that Christ would, as at other times he did, have delivered himself by a miracle. Let no man flatter himself, as if there were no such hurt in sin; for like dirty dogs, it doth but defile us in fawning: and like a treacherous host, though it welcome us into the inn with smiling countenance, yet it will cut our throats in our beds. Judas was first nibbling upon the silver bait, after which the hook of conscience troubled him.

He repented ] That is, he changed his mind ( ), from thinking well of his former actions. So those miscreants in Malachi are said to “return and discern,” &c., Mal 3:18 . So Rodolphus, Duke of Suabia, when, at the pope’s instigation, taking up arms against Henry the emperor, he had lost his right hand in the battle, he sent for his bishops and other his confederates, and said unto them: Lo, this is that hand wherewith I swore that allegiance to my sovereign, which by your means and motion I have violated. Videte an recta via me duxeritis, &c. Consider whether you have led me on in a right way or not. (Func. Chronol.)

” Hic fuit ille cui Papa coronam misit cum ista inscriptione,

Petra dedit Petro, Petrus diadema Rodulpho. “

And brought again the thirty pieces ] So did James Abbes bring to the Bishop of Norwich his forty pence fastened upon him by the bishop; which when he had received (saith Mr Fox) and was gone from the bishop, who had prevailed with him to recant, his conscience began to throb, and inwardly to accuse this fact, how he had displeased the Lord by consenting to their beastly illusions. In which combat with himself, being piteously vexed, he went to the bishop again, and there threw him his money, and said, it repented him that he ever consented to their wicked persuasions in taking of his money. Hereupon the bishop with his chaplains laboured afresh to win him again, but he was better resolved, and crying out to God for pardon of his sin (which Judas did not) he obtained mercy, and suffered martyrdom.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

3 10. ] REMORSE AND SUICIDE OF JUDAS. Peculiar to Matthew . This incident does not throw much light on the motives of Judas. One thing we learn for certain that our Lord’s being condemned, which he inferred from His being handed over to the Roman governor, worked in him remorse , and that suicide was the consequence . Whether this condemnation was expected by him or not, does not here appear; nor have we any means of ascertaining, except from the former sayings of our Lord respecting him. I cannot (see note on ch. Mat 26:14 ) believe that his intent was other than sordid gain to be achieved by the darkest treachery. To suppose that the condemnation took him by surprise , seems to me to be inconsistent with the spirit of his own confession, Mat 27:4 . There expresses his act his accomplished purpose . The bitter feeling in him now is expressed by , of which he is vividly and dreadfully conscious, now that the result has been attained.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

3. ] Observe it was . . which he brought back clearly the price of the Lord’s betrayal, not earnest-money merely; for by this time, nay when he delivered his Prisoner at the house of Annas, he would have in that case received the rest .

Observe also , His betrayer , the part. pres. being used as a designation, as in , “ the Tempter ,” ch. Mat 4:3 .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Mat 27:3-10 . The despair of Judas . Peculiar to Matthew; interesting to the evangelist as a testimony even from the false disciple to the innocence of Jesus, and the wickedness of His enemies, and as a curious instance of prophecy fulfilled.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Mat 27:3 . connects the repentance of Judas with the leading of Jesus away to Pilate which he regarded as sealing his fate. What happened was but the natural result of the apprehension which he himself had brought about, and he doubtless had the natural issue in view at the moment of apprehension. But reaction had set in, partly as a matter of course in a “two-souled” man, partly at sight of the grim reality: his Master led to death by his assistance ( ). , regretting, rueing what he had done: wishing it were undone. ( W.H [148] as in Isa 38:8 ), returned the thirty pieces of silver, a sign in such a nature that the repentance as far as it went was very real.

[148] Westcott and Hort.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 27:3-10

3Then when Judas who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” But they said, “What is that to us? See to that yourself!” 5And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. 6The chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, “It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood.” 7And they conferred together and with the money bought the Potter’s Field as a burial place for strangers. 8For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one whose price had been set by the sons of Israel; 10and they gave them for the Potter’s Field, as the Lord directed me.”

Mat 27:3 “Then when Judas who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned” This phrase involves an ambiguous pronoun antecedent, He. The Williams and Phillips translations of the NT assume that it refers to Judas, but all the other modern translations refer this pronoun to Jesus. Notice the capital “He” in NASB. NIV, TEV, JB, and NRSV even insert the name “Jesus” for the pronoun.

“he felt remorse” There were two words in Greek which translate “repentance.” The one used here was not the normal word used in Mat 3:2, which meant “a change of mind and actions.” Here the word meant ” sorrow afterwards” but with the implication of no real change (cf. Mat 21:29; 2Co 7:8). The best context in the NT to compare the connotations of these terms is 2Co 7:8-10. See SPECIAL TOPIC: REPENTANCE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT at Mat 3:2.

“thirty pieces” This is an allusion to Zec 11:12. This was the price of a gored slave (cf. Mat 26:15; Exo 21:32).

Mat 27:4 “innocent blood” There is a Greek manuscript variant at this point. All of the English translations which are compared in this commentary have “innocent.” However, the ancient uncial manuscript B originally had “innocent,” but a later copyist put “righteous” from Mat 23:35. This was followed by the Vulgate and the Diatessaron. The Septuagint uses both adjectives to describe the noun “blood” ; ” innocent” appears fourteen times and “righteous” appears four times in the LXX. UBS4 gives “innocent” a “B” rating (almost certain).

Mat 27:5 “into the Temple sanctuary” This Greek word usually referred to the Central Shrine made up of the Holy Place and Holy of Holies as separate from the complete Temple area (cf. Joh 2:9).

“hanged himself” This was not a theological proof-text about suicide bringing damnation. There are several suicides mentioned in the OT: Jdg 9:54; Jdg 16:30; 1Sa 31:4-5; 2Sa 17:23; 1Ki 16:18. Nothing negative is ever said about these acts. It was Judas’lack of true repentance that sealed his lostness, not his taking his own life.

The account of Judas’death in Act 1:18 does not contradict Matthew’s account but supplements it. Apparently Judas hanged himself over a cliff and later the rope broke and his body fell and broke open.

SPECIAL TOPIC: ISCARIOT

Mat 27:6 “it is the price of blood” They had no qualms about giving the money for Jesus’ betrayal, but they felt uncomfortable taking it back! What irony!

Mat 27:7 “they. . . bought the Potter’s Field” This was possibly a clay quarry which had been depleted and, therefore was of little value. It may have been an allusion to Jeremiah 18-19. From Jerome’s time (4th century A.D.) it was said to have been in the valley of Hinnom near Jerusalem.

Mat 27:8 “Field of Blood” This translates the Aramaic term Hakeldama, found in Act 1:19. Jerome’s Vulgate puts the Aramaic term in this verse.

Mat 27:9 “spoken through Jeremiah the prophet” This is a direct quote from Zec 11:12-13. Jeremiah Mat 19:11 also speaks of a potter and Jer 32:7-9 mentions the buying of a field. This has caused commentators great problems.

1. Augustine, Beza, Luther, and Keil said Matthew quoted the name Jeremiah in error

2. The Peshitta, a 5th century A.D. Syriac translation and the Diatessaron just removed the prophet’s name from the text

3. Origen and Eusebius said a copyist caused the problem

4. Jerome and Ewald said it is a quote from an apocryphal writing ascribed to Jeremiah

5. Mede said Jeremiah wrote Zechariah, chapters 9-11

6. Lightfoot and Scofield said Jeremiah was listed first in the Hebrew division of the canon known as “the prophets” and, therefore, his name stands for that section of the canon

7. Hengstenberg said that Zechariah quoted Jeremiah

8. Calvin said an error has crept into the text

9. F. F. Bruce and a JB footnote said it was a composite quote from Zechariah and Jeremiah

I think #6 is the best explanation.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

which had betrayed Him = that delivered Him up.

repented himself. Greek. matamelomai. App-111.

the thirty pieces, &c. Compare Mat 26:15.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

3-10.] REMORSE AND SUICIDE OF JUDAS. Peculiar to Matthew. This incident does not throw much light on the motives of Judas. One thing we learn for certain-that our Lords being condemned, which he inferred from His being handed over to the Roman governor, worked in him remorse, and that suicide was the consequence. Whether this condemnation was expected by him or not, does not here appear; nor have we any means of ascertaining, except from the former sayings of our Lord respecting him. I cannot (see note on ch. Mat 26:14) believe that his intent was other than sordid gain to be achieved by the darkest treachery. To suppose that the condemnation took him by surprise, seems to me to be inconsistent with the spirit of his own confession, Mat 27:4. There expresses his act-his accomplished purpose. The bitter feeling in him now is expressed by , of which he is vividly and dreadfully conscious, now that the result has been attained.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Mat 27:3. , that He was condemned) sc. Jesus, by the Priests.-, repenting himself)[1169] Judas had not anticipated this catastrophe: he would now wish, if he could, to render that, which was done, undone.[1170]-, brought again) sc. in the morning.

[1169] B. G. V. Reute es ihn. B. H. E. Gereute es ihn.-(I. B.)

[1170] Cf. Gnomon on ch. Mat 3:8, voc. .-(I. B.)

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

The Traitor’s Remorse and Suicide

Mat 27:3-4. Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.

Perhaps Judas expected that Jesus would miraculously deliver himself from his captors; and when he saw that he was condemned, remorse seized him, and he carried back to his fellow-criminals the reward of his infamy. There was one good result of his despairing confession: “I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood.” Judas had been with our Lord in public and in private; and if he could have found a flaw in Christ’s character, this would have been the time to mention it; but even the traitor, in his dying speech, declared that Jesus was “innocent.” The chief priests and elders had no more pity for Judas than they had for Jesus; no remorse troubled them, they had secured the Saviour, and they cared nothing for any of the consequences of their action. As for the traitor, he had made his bargain, and he must abide by it.

Mat 27:5. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Those terrible words, and went and hanged himself, reveal the real character of the repentance of Judas. His was a repentance that needed to be repented of; not that godly sorrow which worketh repentance unto salvation. In the history of the Church of Christ, there have been a few instances of remorse like that of Judas, driving men to despair, if not to actual suicide. May God in mercy preserve us from any more repetitions of such an awful experience!

Mat 27:6-8. And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

Whether Judas bought the field in which he committed suicide (Act 1:18), or whether the chief priests, hearing how he meant to spend the pieces of silver, carried out his intention, makes no real difference in the result. The field of blood became the perpetual memorial of the infamy of Judas. When he sold his Lord, he little thought what would be done with the money received as the price of the betrayal. In the fullest sense possible, he was guilty of the blood of the Lord; that blood was upon him, not to seal his pardon, but to confirm his condemnation.

Mat 27:9-10. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; and gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me.

Even the disposal of the thirty pieces of silver fulfilled an ancient prophecy. The dark sayings of the prophets as well as their brighter utterances shall all be proved to be true as, one by one, they come to maturity.

The fate of Judas should be a solemn warning to all professing Christians, and especially to all ministers. He was one of the twelve apostles, yet he was a son of perdition, and in the end he went to his own place. Each of us has his own place, heaven or hell; which is it?

“Lord! when I read the traitor’s doom,

To his own place consign’d,

What holy fear, and humble hope,

Alternate fill my mind!

Traitor to thee I too have been,

But saved by matchless grace,

Or else the lowest, hottest hell

Had surely been my place.”

Fuente: Spurgeon’s The Gospel of the Kingdom

Judas: Mat 26:14-16, Mat 26:47-50, Mar 14:10, Mar 14:11, Mar 14:43-46, Luk 22:2-6, Luk 22:47, Luk 22:48, Joh 13:2, Joh 13:27, Joh 18:3

repented: Job 20:5, Job 20:15-29, 2Co 7:10

Reciprocal: Gen 42:21 – they said Exo 21:32 – General Exo 32:35 – General Deu 27:25 – General 2Ki 5:27 – leprosy Psa 15:5 – nor taketh Psa 35:8 – into Psa 109:18 – so let Zec 11:13 – Cast Mat 10:4 – and Mat 26:15 – thirty Mat 26:24 – but Mat 26:75 – And he Mar 3:19 – Judas Mar 6:26 – General Mar 10:22 – sad Mar 14:21 – but Luk 6:16 – Judas Iscariot Luk 14:30 – General Luk 22:5 – and covenanted Joh 6:71 – being Act 1:18 – this Act 1:25 – from Act 8:20 – Thy 1Ti 6:9 – which

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

27:3

Condemn is a legal and judicial term as used in this place. Thayer defines the original, “To give judgment against one, to judge worthy of punishment, to condemn.” The word is stronger than a mere accusation and means that the case had been decided officially against Jesus and that no way could be used for him to escape death. Judas had not expected this to happen; see the comments on this subject at chapter 26:48. The pronouns are to be understood as follows: “When he [Judas] saw that he [Jesus] was condemned.” Repented himself does not mean that Judas had repented in the sense of “repentance unto salvation” (2Co 7:10), for in that case his conduct afterward would have been righteous. Instead, it means he reversed the money part of the transaction by returning the pieces of silver.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Mat 27:3. Then Judas. Probably on Friday morning.

When he saw. This he could see from the procession to Pilates judgment-hall.

That he was condemned. That Judas did not expect this issue, seems contrary to the words of his confession (Mat 27:4). This circumstance shows that his object was not to induce Jesus to display His glory; in that case his repentance would have led him to Christ and not to suicide.

Repented himself, felt sorrow or remorse; not the word usually translated repent. Remorse is caused by the consequences of sin; repentance is only occasioned by them; in remorse the sorrow is for the consequences, in repentance for the cause, and the sin itself. A terrible prophecy respecting the fate of the betrayer (chap. Mat 26:24) had been joined with the prediction of this effect of the treachery. As the latter had been fulfilled, Judas must have felt the terrors springing from the former.

Brought back the thirty pieces of silver. He probably received them during the night. Peter first repented in solitude before God; Judas attempted some rectification before men. The bringing back of the money really supports the view that his one great motive was avarice. Remorse, calling for rectification before men, would point to the moving cause of his crime. It is unlikely that more was to have been paid him.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Here we have a sad relation of Judas’s desperate death, after an hypocritical life, as also of the horror of his mind and conscience before his death.

Observe here, 1. The time when Judas repented; after it was too late. When he saw that he was condemned, he repented.

Observe, 2. The repentance itself, in the several parts and branches of it; he was sorrowful for the fact, he made confession of his sin, and made restitution for the wrong done. He repented, saying, I have sinned; and cast down the thirty pieces of silver.

Learn thence, that a wicked man, when conscience is thoroughly awakened, may make confession of his sin, express some sorrow for it, and endeavour also the making of some satisfaction and restitution for the wrong and injury done by it. They that mourn for sin as sin; they that mourn more for the intrinsic evil that is in sin, than for the penal or consequential evils that follow sin; they that confess sin voluntarily and freely, particularly, penitently, believingly, with an eye of sorrow upon their Saviour; they that make restitution as an act of obedience to the command of God, and as an act of justice and righteousness to their neighbour; such persons’ repentance shall find acceptance with God.

Observe, 3. The answer and reply which the wicked high priests and elders make to despairing Judas.

1. They excuse themselves, What is that to us? It is natural to all sinners to shift sin from themselves, and to lay it at any door rather than their own. Those that have had a share in the pleasure and profit of sin, are yet very desirous to throw the odium and guilt of it upon others. What is that to us? say these monsters in sin. O wonderful stupidity! could they think it nothing to them to hire a man to betray innocent blood? Was not the money given, the price of blood, and the field they bought called the field of blood? yet do they impudently say, What is that to us?

2. As they excuse and acquit themselves, so they load and burden him; Look thou to that. Lord! What miserable comforters are companions in sin to one another, when distress and sorrow comes upon them. When sin comes to be questioned, in order to its being punished, every sinner is for shifting for himself, and leaves his fellow in the lurch. Let us then remember the words of the Holy Ghost, He that walketh with wise men shall be wise, but a companion of fools shall be destroyed.

How jolly soever sinners are together, when in the height of their lusts, they are but miserable comforters to one another upon a sick-bed, or under the lashes of an awakened conscience. But though they may avoid each other now, there is a time coming when it will be impossible; at the great day, the sinner shall see both his companions in sin, then here, the vilest of monsters.

Observe, 4. The sad and fatal end of Judas; He went forth and hanged himself. Horror and despair took hold upon him, and seized his conscience; which was so intolerable that he ran to the halter for a remedy.

Learn thence, 1. That conscience is a powerful, though invisible executioner; the wrath of man may be endured, but the wrath of God is insupportable, and the eruptions of conscience are irresistible. O how intolerable are those scourges that lash us in this tender and vital part! Judas, awakened with the horror of his fact, conscience begins to rouse, and the man is unable to bear up under the furious revenge of his own mind.

There is an active principle in men’s breasts and bosoms, which seldom suffers daring sinners to pass in quiet to their graves. Guilt is naturally troublesome and uneasy; it disturbs the peace and serenity of the mind, and fills the soul with storms and thunder, both in life and death! How vainly did Judas hope to take sanctuary in a grave, and to meet with that ease in another world which he could not find in this. Thus ended this miserable man, Judas.

Behold! ye professors of religion, the terrible example of God’s justice on a deceitful hypocrite. Behold! a disciple, and apostle, first a traitor, and then a self-murderer. 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 the fatal mischief of a ruinous apostasy. Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Mat 27:3-5. Then Judas, when he saw that he was condemned Which probably he thought Christ would have prevented by a miracle; repented himself Of the fatal bargain he had made, and the great guilt he had thereby contracted; and being pierced with the deepest remorse and agony of conscience on that account; to make some reparation, if possible, for the injury he had done, he came and confessed his sin openly before the chief priests, scribes, and elders, bringing again the money with which they had hired him to commit it, and earnestly begging that they would take it back. It seems he thought this the most public testimony he could give of his Masters innocence, and of his own repentance. I have sinned, in that I have betrayed innocent blood: and they said, What is that to us? They answer with the steady coolness of persons who knew no shame or remorse for their wickedness. See thou to that But was it nothing to them that they had thirsted after this innocent blood, and hired Judas to betray it, and had now condemned it to be shed unjustly? Was this nothing to them? Ought it not to have given a check to the violence of the prosecution; a warning to take heed what they did to this just man? Thus do fools make a mock at sin, as if no harm were done, no hazard run by the commission of the greatest wickedness. Thus light did these Jewish priests and elders make of shedding innocent blood! When Judas found that he could not prevent the dreadful effects of his traitorous conduct, his conscience, being enraged, lashed him more furiously than before, suggesting thoughts which by turns made the deepest wounds in his soul. His Masters innocence and benevolence, the usefulness of his life, the favours he had received from him, with many other considerations crowding into his mind, racked him to such a degree, that his torment became intolerable; he was as if he had been in the suburbs of hell. Wherefore, unable to sustain the misery of those agonizing passions and reflections, he threw down the wages of his iniquity, (which the chief priests and elders would not take back,) in the temple Probably in the treasury, before the Levite porters and others who happened to be there, and then went away in despair, and hanged himself Making such an end of a wicked life as one might expect those to make into whom Satan enters, and who are given up to the love of money, for which this wretch betrayed his master, friend, and Saviour, and cast away his own soul. See Mat 24:24. The word , here rendered, he hanged himself, plainly denotes strangling, but does not say whether by hanging or otherwise. The term used in those places where hanging is mentioned is different from this. Our translation follows the Vulgate, laqueo se suspendit. The Syriac renders it, he strangled himself. St. Peter seems to give rather a different account, Act 1:18. Falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And to reconcile the two passages, Tob 3:10 is adduced to prove that the word in Matthew may signify suffocation with grief in consequence of which a mans bowels may gush out; and instances are cited of persons who are supposed to have died in this manner. But as these instances may be otherwise understood, it is more natural to suppose that Judas hanged himself on some tree growing out of a precipice; and that the branch breaking, or the knot of the handkerchief, or whatever else he hanged himself with, opening, he fell down headlong, and dashed himself to pieces, so that his bowels gushed out. Peters phrase, , he burst asunder, favours this conjecture. Macknight. Thus perished Judas Iscariot the traitor, a miserable example of the fatal influence of covetousness, and a standing monument of the divine vengeance, proper to deter future generations from acting contrary to conscience, through the love of the world. Some have said, that he sinned more in despairing of the mercy of God than in betraying his Master, but it is probable his sin was in its own nature unpardonable; at least it appeared so to him; at which we cannot wonder, if he noticed, as it is probable he did, the words uttered by Christ at his last supper with his disciples, Wo to that man, &c. It had been good for that man if he had not been born. Doubtless the terrors of the Almighty set themselves in array against him; and all the threatenings and curses written in Gods book entered his soul, as water may into the bowels, or oil insinuate itself into the bones, as was foretold concerning him, Psa 109:18-19, and drove him to this desperate shift for the escaping of a hell within, to leap into a hell before him, which was but the perfection and perpetuity of the horror and despair felt in his soul. Thus we see in him, that even sorrow for sin, if it be not according to God, worketh death, even the worst kind of death, death eternal, while godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation. And as we saw the latter of these kinds of sorrow exemplified before in the story of Peter, so we see the former exhibited here in this of Judas.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

CXXXII.

REMORSE AND SUICIDE OF JUDAS.

(In the temple and outside the wall of Jerusalem. Friday morning.)

aMATT. XXVII. 3-10; eACTS I. 18, 19.

a3 Then Judas, who betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned [Judas, having no reason to fear the enemies of Jesus, probably stood in their midst and witnessed the entire trial], repented himself, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4 saying, I have sinned in that I betrayed [719] innocent blood. [There are two Greek words which are translated “repented,” the one properly so translated, metanoeo, which means literally “to know after” and which therefore means a change of mind or purpose; and the other, metamellomai, which is used here and which means literally “to care after,” indicates a sorrow for the past. The first should be translated “repent;” the second, “regret.” Trench draws the distinction thus: “He who has changed his mind about the past is in the way to change everything; he who has an after care may have little or nothing more than a selfish dread of the consequences of what he has done.” Considering the prophecy which had been uttered with regard to Judas’ act ( Mat 26:24), he had good reason to fear the consequences. While he testifies as to the innocence of Jesus, he expresses no affection for him.] But they said, What is that to us? see thou to it. [The rulers did not share with Judas the wish to undo what had been done. They have been censured for not receiving the testimony which Judas gave as to the innocence of Jesus. But as they condemned Jesus upon his own testimony, any evidence which Judas might give would be, from their standpoint, irrelevant and immaterial. Could Judas testify that Jesus was indeed the Son of God? If our Lord’s own testimony to this effect was regarded as blasphemy, nothing which Judas could say would change the case. But the testimony of Judas, in the free, untechnical court of public opinion, is of vast weight and importance. It shows that one who had every opportunity of knowing Jesus, and who was sordid enough to betray him, was yet forced for conscience’ sake to admit that there was no reason why he should have done so.] 5 And he cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary, and departed [Judas found the chief priests in the sanctuary. Having obtained from Pilate the condemnation of Jesus, they hastened back to the temple to discharge their morning duties. This gave the soldiers time to mock Jesus, and Pilate time to order and prepare the crucifixion. And so, though Jesus was sentenced at six o’clock in the morning ( Joh 19:14), he was not crucified [720] until the third hour, or nine o’clock ( Mar 15:25). Thus the priests were enabled to be present at the crucifixion, or at least very soon after the crosses were erected. Judas, finding that they would not receive his money, cast it down before them that his hands might be no longer burnt by holding it]; and he went away and hanged himself. 6 And the chief priests took the pieces of silver, and said, It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is the price of blood. [The law of God made no provision as to the uses of blood money; it was the tradition of the elders which thus forbade to put it into the treasury. Theirs was a strange conscience indeed, which could take out the Lord’s money (and, under the then existing Jewish theocratic government, all public money was the Lord’s money) and spend it for blood, but when it was so spent they could not put it back! Moreover, theirs was a strange admission. If the money given to Judas was properly expended for the arrest of a real criminal, it was justice money, and not blood money at all.] 7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in. [That is, the foreigners who died in Jerusalem. Whether rich or poor, they were not wanted in Jewish graveyards. The potter’s field, being excavated for clay, would be of little value, and would sell cheap.] 8 Wherefore that field was called, the field of blood, unto this day. [This mark of time shows that Matthew’s Gospel was written a good many years after the crucifixion.] 9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, whom certain of the children of Israel did price; 10 and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me. [This quotation is not found in any writings of Jeremiah which we have, and as there are no other indications of lost writings of that prophet, it is reasonable to suppose that Matthew refers to Zec 11:12, Zec 11:13; and that early transcribers miscopied the name, which, in the Greek, could be done by changing only two letters; viz.: i for [721] z and m for r. The prophecy is one of the third class described on p. 51.] e18 (Now this man obtained a field with the reward of his iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch that in their language that field was called Akeldama, that is, The field of blood.) [This parenthesis contains the words of Luke inserted in the midst of a speech made by Simon Peter to explain the meaning of his words. His account of Judas’ death varies in three points from that given by Matthew, but the variations are easily harmonized. 1. Evidently Judas hung until his abdomen was partially decomposed; then his neck giving way, the rope breaking, or something happening which caused his body to fall, it burst open when it struck the ground. 2. Judas is spoken of as purchasing the field, and so he did, for the priests bought it with his money, so that legally it was his purchase. 3. The field was called “The field of blood” for two reasons, and each Evangelist gives one of them.]

[FFG 719-722]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

REMORSE AND SUICIDE OF JUDAS

Mat 27:3-10; Act 1:18-19. Matthew: Then Judas, the one having betrayed Him, seeing that He was condemned; giving way to remorse, brought the thirty pieces of silver to the high priests and elders, saying, I sinned, betraying the innocent blood, And they said, What is that to us? You see to it. Repented, in E. V. is incorrect, as it is not metanoeo, the word properly translated repent in the New Testament, but metamelomai, which means to be flooded with remorse. When man repents, God always saves. Hell is full of remorse, but no repentance. If the lost souls in perdition could repent, salvation would take them out quickly. Repentance is one of the graces of the Holy Spirit; who never visits people in hell: Judas had passed the dead-line possessed by Satan, so that he could not repent. The remorse that seized him was really a prelude of hells torment. That is the reason why he committed suicide. Even this prelude of damnation is so awful as to drive people precipitately into suicide.

And throwing down the money in the temple, he went away, and having gone, hanged himself. The Temple Campus is very near Pilates judgment- hall. I am perfectly satisfied that Judas had no thought of the matter turning out as it did. He did not believe they could arrest Him or hurt Him, as he had seen them try it over and over, and always fail. We are not apologizing for him. He had yielded to the love of money and become a poor backslider, thus opening the door for Satan to tempt him along that line.

Jesus had pronounced him a thief, doubtless because of his intention to sell Him for money when he was satisfied that they could not take Him. Judas, as well as the other eleven, was on the constant outlook for Him to put forth His miraculous power, which he had so often witnessed, extricate Himself from His enemies, and, as they hoped, ascend the throne of Judea. Now that he sees the last hope of His release is gone, Pilate having ceased to labor for His deliverance, signed His death-warrant, and acquiesced in His crucifixion, he gives way to despair, and is inundated with a flood of intolerable remorse, so that, rushing to the temple, where the money was kept, and throwing it all down, he ran away off out of the city, beyond the deep Valley of Hinnom, and hanged himself.

Then indeed he purchased the ground from the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he bursts open in the middle, and all his bowels ran out. This was known to all those living at Jerusalem, so that that place is called, in their language, Aceldama, that is, Place of blood. (Act 1:18-19.)

Judas was a robust Jew, corpulent and heavy. In his precipitation, crazy with remorse, he hanged himself to a tree whose limb extended out over the deep chasm of Hinnom. The rope broke, and he fell a great way, and was dashed to pieces on the rocks beneath. N. B. The Israelites, and especially in that day, either buried in caves or in stone sepulchers hewn out of the cliff. During my recent tour, I visited the tombs of Aceldama, and went into a number of them as large as an ordinary room in a dwelling, where, on the shelves prepared for the dead bodies, I saw great piles of bones, illustrating the custom of bringing a corpse into a tomb, and laying it on the dry bones of others which have long been there wasting. I saw vast piles of human bones in those tombs, confirming this Scripture in reference to the purchasing of this portion of those rugged cliffs with the money which Judas threw: down. So many Jews, from all parts of the world, thronged the metropolis during the festivals, that it was not improbable that many strangers would die and be buried there. A reason why they sold it so readily was because the death of Judas had defiled it, and in Jewish estimation rendered it unclean. You see all this predicted in Zec 11:12, and Jer 32:6. The sad fate of Judas should put a tremor on us all when we contemplate the love of money, as his financial office as apostolical treasurer surely prepared the way for his apostasy and ruin. I never would have a money office.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Mat 27:3-10. The Death of Judas.Mt. only, but for a variant account see Act 1:18 f. This section breaks the narrative, and its historicity is not beyond question. The evangelist has in mind Zec 11:12 f.*, which he curiously attributes to Jeremiah, influenced perhaps by Jer 32:6-15; Jer 18:2. There was in Jerusalem a cemetery for strangers, or more likely for criminals, known as the field of blood (possibly before it was so used it had been called the potters field), and the story here given is the Christian explanation of the name.

Mat 27:5. treasury: cf. mg. of Zec 11:13. The difference in Heb. is between tsr and ytsr.

Mat 27:6. Cf. Deu 23:18.

Mat 27:9 f. The story has influenced the text just as the original text influenced and modelled the story.

Mat 27:10. they gave: read I gave (mg.).

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

27:3 {1} Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

(1) An example of the horrible judgment of God upon those who sell Christ as opposed to those who buy Christ.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

The suicide of Judas Mat 27:3-10 (cf. Act 1:18-19)

"Peter has sinned by words, under the pressure of the moment, and for him there can be a new start; Judas has sinned in deed, in a premeditated, settle course of action which has now borne fruit which, too late, he wishes he could have undone." [Note: France, The Gospel . . ., pp. 1039-40.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Judas evidently felt remorse because he realized that he had condemned an innocent man to death. His remorse (Gr. metamelomai) resulted in a kind of repentance (Gr. metanoeo), but it was not complete enough. The first of these two Greek words does not indicate "sorrow for moral obliquity and sin against God, but annoyance at the consequences of an act or course of acts, and chagrin at not having known better." [Note: Vincent, 1:117.] Judas was sorry for what he had done and tried to make amends, but He never believed that Jesus was the Son of God (cf. Act 1:16-19).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles