Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 27:24
When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but [that] rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed [his] hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye [to it.]
24. When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing ] St Luke relates a further attempt on Pilate’s part to release Jesus, “I will chastise Him and let Him go” (Luk 23:22). Will not the cruel torture of a Roman scourging melt their hearts?
St John, at still greater length, narrates the struggle in Pilate’s mind between his sense of justice and his respect for Jesus on the one hand, and on the other his double fear of the Jews and of Csar. (1) He tried to stir their compassion by shewing Jesus to them crowned with thorns and mangled with the scourging; (2) hearing that Jesus called Himself the “Son of God,” he “was the more afraid;” (3) at length he even “sought to release Him,” but the chief priests conquered his scruples by a threat that moved his fears, “If thou let this man go thou art not Csar’s friend.” This was the charge of treason which Tacitus says ( Ann. iii. 39) was “omnium accusationum complementum.” The vision of the implacable Tiberius in the background clenched the argument for Pilate. It is the curse of despotism that it makes fear stronger than justice.
took water, and washed his hands ] Recorded by St Matthew only. In so doing Pilate followed a Jewish custom which all would understand. Deu 21:6; Psa 26:6.
see ye (to it) ] See note Mat 27:4.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
He took water … – The Jews were accustomed to wash their hands when they wished to show that they were innocent of a crime committed by others. See Deu 21:6; Psa 26:6. Pilate, in doing this, meant to denote that they were guilty of his death, but that he was innocent. But the mere washing of his hands did not free him from guilt. He was bound as a magistrate to free an innocent man; and whatever might be the clamour of the Jews, he was guilty at the bar of God for suffering the holy Saviour to be led to execution, in order to gratify the malice of enraged priests and the clamors of a tumultuous populace.
See ye to it – That is, take it upon yourselves. You are responsible for it, if you put him to death.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Mat 27:24
When Pilate saw that he could pervail nothing.
Pilate a type of self-justifying rejectors of the gospel
Observe the resemblance in his evasive pleas.
1. Assuming that the matter presented had no claims on him-Take ye Him.
2. Substituting a favourable opinion of Christ for a decision-I find in Him no fault at all. I have the highest regard for the Christian religion, say some.
3. Assmning that it was out of his power to decide-And as soon as he knew that He belonged to Herods jurisdiction he sent Him to Herod (Luk 23:7). A law is in the way, perhaps the Divine decree: the law of inherited corruption.
4. Proposing a compromise-I will therefore chastise Him and release Him. With Christ in some things quiets conscience.
5. Surrendering the rights of judgment What shall I do with Jesus? I submit the case to your decision.
6. Turning censor-Why, what evil hath He done? (S. V. McCorkle.)
Pilate and his modern imitators
I. Whoever does wickedness through others is not less wicked than they, but more. Pilate was no less guilty because the Jews hated and condemned Christ first. As soon as he said to them, Take Him; see ye to it, he did all that was necessary to make him a partaker in their villainy..
II. Evil which many men commit is not distributively borne. If a thousand men commit a murder, each man is not guilty of one thousandth part of that murder; but of the whole.
III. Evil actions are not less guilty because they are done for reasons of state. Pilate sacrificed Christ from political considerations.
IV. Wickedness which a man can prevent, and which he does not prevent, inculpates him. (H. W. Beecher.)
Better to be a Puritan than a Pilate
There is another point. This makes me a Puritan. I had rather be a Puritan than a Pilate. What is a Pilate? A Pilate is one of those courtly gentlemen, polished, tasteful expert, who is not disturbed nor warped by convictions in over-measure; who looks upon all moral qualities as a gambler looks upon cards, which he shuffles, and plays according to the exigency of his game-and one just as easy as another. A Pilate is a man who believes in letting things have their own way. Do not sacrifice yourself. Do not get in the way of a movement. Do the best thing. Live in peace with your time. Be not like the fool, who stands in his own light. Maintain good appearances-that is profitable. See to it that you do not go too far, one way or another. Study the interest of Number One all through. And, whatever comes, see that you come out uppermost. Do not be gross, brutal, fanatical-that is not profitable. Preserve your balance. See that you keep your eye on the chances. If they go this way, you go with them far enough to reap them. If they go the other way, go with them. Do not be too scrupulous. Be just enough so to gain your ends. Use men, use events, use everything that is profitable. Do not use your conscience too much i This is the language of the Pilates of our day. Those men who ride astride of the times, and of administrations, and of policies; those men who are polished, cold, calculating, speculating-these are the Pirates-the Pilates, I mean! It was a blunder of the lip, but, after all, it hit right! (H. W. Beecher.)
Lessons from the incidents
I. Men have not always that strict regard to justice and honour, that might be reasonably expected from their stations and characters.
II. Truth and innocence are frequently overpowered by numbers, and oppressed by noise and tumult.
III. A party spirit does oftentimes hurry men to the most fatal extremities. (William West.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 24. Pilate – took water, and washed his hands] Thus signifying his innocence. It was a custom among the Hebrews, Greeks, and Latins, to wash the hands in token of innocence, and to show that they were pure from any imputed guilt. In case of an undiscovered murder, the elders of that city which was nearest to the place where the dead body was found, were required by the law, De 21:1-10, to wash their hands over the victim which was offered to expiate the crime, and thus make public protestation of their own innocence. David says, I will wash my hands in innocence, so shall I compass thine altar, Ps 26:6. As Pilate knew Christ was innocent, he should have prevented his death: he had the armed force at his command, and should have dispersed this infamous mob. Had he been charged with countenancing a seditious person, he could have easily cleared himself, had the matter been brought before the emperor. He, therefore, was inexcusable.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Mark saith, Mar 15:15, So Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him to be crucified.
Luke saith, Luk 23:24,25, And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required. And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will.
John saith, Joh 19:13, When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the Judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. Here are three accounts given of Pilates coming over to the Jews desire to condemn Christ, contrary to the conviction of his own conscience, for he had twice declared that he found no fault in him. Matthew saith, he saw he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made.
Mark saith, he did it to content the people. John saith, it was upon the hearing of that saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesars friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar. His fear of being accused to the emperor Tiberius, as favouring one who made himself a king, especially if his opposing the Jews in their desire of his death should have caused a tumult, was questionless the great thing that moved him to give judgment in this case contrary to his own conscience; and this is the meaning of his contenting the people, mentioned by Mark. It is plain by the whole story he had no mind to gratify or gain favour with them, but considering how jealous and suspicious a prince Tiberius was, it was Pilates interest to quiet them, and to give them no occasion of accusing him unto the emperor.
He took water, and washed his hands before the multitude. It was the law of God in manslaughter, where he that slew the man was not known, the priests and elders of the city that (upon measure) should be found nearest to the dead body, should take a heifer, and bring it to a rough valley, and strike off its head, and wash their hands over the head of the beheaded heifer, and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it, Deu 21:1-7. Some think that Pilate, living amongst the Jews, had learned this rite from them; but others think that it was a rite used in protestations of innocency amongst other people, as well as the Jews. But it was a great fondness in Pilate, to think this excused him, and freed him from the guilt of our Saviours death. For there was such an inseparable guilt clave to the act, as nothing could expiate but that blood which he spilt. Those who take upon them the trust of executing laws, had need to take heed what they do, for the law will not excuse them in the court of heaven, unless it be found according to the law of God. What Pilate did he did but ministerially, the law condemned, not he: but if it be understood of the law of God about blasphemy, to which the Jews undoubtedly referred, Joh 10:33,36, it was misapplied. If it were a Roman law, Pilate ought to have considered the equity and justice of it, and whether the fact was proved or not. Pilate had twice owned there was no fault in him. His washing his hands could not purge him of the murder, whereof he was guilty in his condemnation; he did but protest against what he immediately was about to do.
Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children: his blood, that is, the guilt of his blood, be upon us, &c. A most sad imprecation, the effect of which hath been upon that miserable people now more than sixteen hundred years.
Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, &c. The scourging was before this, and so recorded by St. John, for we cannot imagine that he was twice scourged.
He delivered him to be crucified; not to the Jews, but to his own officers, for it was a civil crime that he was accused of before Pilate, and crucifying was a Roman punishment.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
When Pilate saw he could prevail nothing,…. That it was to no purpose to talk to them, and in favour of Jesus; he saw they were determined upon his crucifixion, and that nothing else would satisfy them:
but that rather a tumult was made; there was an uproar among the people, and he might fear the consequences of it, should he not grant their request; otherwise, as Philo the p Jew says of him, he was, , “naturally inflexible, rigid, and self-willed”: but he knew the temper of these people, and had had experience of their resoluteness, when they were determined on any thing; as in the case of his introducing the golden shields into the holy city, of which the same author speaks: and was then obliged, though sore against his will, as now, to yield unto them:
He took water, and washed his hands before the multitude; either in conformity to a custom among the Jews, whereby they testified their innocence as to the commission of murder; see De 21:6, or to a Gentile one, used when murder was committed, for the lustration or expiation of it q:
saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person; though this did not clear him from all guilt in this matter: he ought to have acted the part of an upright judge, and not have yielded to the unrighteous requests of the people; he ought not to have scourged an innocent man, and much less have condemned and delivered him to be crucified, as he did; though in this he bore a testimony to the innocence of Christ, and which is somewhat remarkable in him; who was, as Philo says r, notoriously guilty of receiving bribes, of injuries, rapine, and frequent murders of persons uncondemned:
see ye [to it]; you must be answerable for this action, and all the consequences of it. The Syriac version renders it, “you have known”; and the Persic version, “you know”: and the Arabic version, “you know better”; [See comments on Mt 27:4].
p De Legat. ad Caium, p. 1034. q Vid. Ovid. Fast. l. 2. Anticlidis Redit. l. 74. Triclinius in Ajac. Sophocl. 3. 1. r Ubi supra. (De Legat. ad Caium, p. 1034.)
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Washed his hands ( ). As a last resort since the hubbub () increased because of his vacillation. The verb means to wash off and the middle voice means that he washed off his hands for himself as a common symbol of cleanliness and added his pious claim with a slap at them.
I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man (or
this blood );
see ye to it . ( or as some manuscripts have it, .) The Jews used this symbol (Deut 21:6; Ps 26:6; Ps 73:13). Plummer doubts if Pilate said these words with a direct reference to his wife’s message (26:19), but I fail to see the ground for that scepticism. The so-called Gospel of Peter says that Pilate washed his hands because the Jews refused to do so.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Mat 27:24
. But Pilate, perceiving that he gained nothing by it. As sailors, who have experienced a violent tempest, at last give way, and permit themselves to be carried out of the proper course; so Pilate, finding himself unable to restrain the commotion of the people, lays aside his authority as a judge, and yields to their furious outcry. And though he had long attempted to hold out, still the necessity does not excuse him; for he ought rather to have submitted to any amount of suffering than to have swerved from his duty. Nor is his guilt alleviated by the childish ceremony which he uses; for how could a few drops of water wash away the stain of a crime which no satisfaction of any kind could obliterate? His principal object in doing so was not to wash out his stains before God, but to exhibit to the people a Mark of abhorrence, to try if perhaps he might lead them to repent of their fury; as if he had employed such a preface as this, “Lo, you compel me to an unrighteous murder, to which I cannot come but with trembling and horror. What then shall become of you, and what dreadful vengeance of God awaits you, who are the chief actors in the deed?” But whatever might be the design of Pilate, God intended to testify, in this manner, the innocence of his Son, that it might be more manifest that in him our sins were condemned. The supreme and sole Judge of the world is placed at the bar of an earthly judge, is condemned to crucifixion as a malefactor, and — what is more — is placed between two robbers, as if he had been the prince of robbers. A spectacle so revolting might, at first sight, greatly disturb the senses of men, were it not met by this argument, that the punishment which had been due to us was laid on Christ, so that, our guilt having now been removed, we do not hesitate to come into the presence of the Heavenly Judge. Accordingly, the water, which was of no avail for washing away the filth of Pilate, ought to be efficacious, in the present day, for a different purpose, to cleanse our eyes from every obstruction, that, in the midst of condemnation, they may clearly perceive the righteousness of Christ.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(24) He took water, and washed his hands.The act belonged to an obvious and almost universal symbolism. So in Deu. 21:6 the elders of a city in which an undiscovered murder had been committed were to wash their hands over the sin-offering, and to say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. (Comp. also Psa. 26:6.) Pilate probably chose it, partly as a relief to his own conscience, partly to appease his wifes scruples, partly as a last appeal of the most vivid and dramatic kind to the feelings of the priests and people. One of the popular poets of his own time and country might have taught him the nullity of such a formal ablution
Ah nimium faciles, qui tristia crimina cdis
Flumine tolli posse putetis aqu.
Too easy souls who dream the crystal flood
Can wash away the fearful guilt of blood.
Ovid, Fast. ii. 45.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
24. Washed his hands An emblem of his own innocence of the murder. See note on Mat 26:18.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘So when Pilate saw that he prevailed nothing, but rather that a tumult was arising, he took water, and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man. You see to it.” ’
By this time Pilate was angry and frustrated, both because his scheme had failed and because of his disgust at their willingness to have an innocent man crucified. (We are often disgusted when we see in others something that is despicable, even if we have often excused the same thing in ourselves. It is one of the quirks of human nature). And he remembered the note from his wife. So he cudgelled his brain as to how he could get back at the crowds, and from the knowledge of their ways that he had built up over the last few years he thought of something that would demonstrate what he thought of them. He would use their own custom and wash his hands of guilt for the prisoner’s sentence. Possibly he also hoped that it might make them change their minds as it brought home to them what they were doing. It was one thing for them to heap on him the responsibility of crucifying someone, but let them consider that in this case it would be they who were actually causing the crucifixion of one of their own. They could not in this case blame it on their cruel conquerors. They and they alone were demanding it. He may thus by washing his hands publicly have been seeking to face them up to what was involved, in the hope of then being able to inflict a lighter sentence.
The method by which he did this was by using a Jewish custom mentioned in Deu 21:6 and expanded in thought in Psa 26:6; Psa 73:13. It was something that had clearly made quite an impression on him. The idea behind it was that those involved in washing their hands were demonstrating that they were not involved in some sin. And that was precisely what an angry Pilate wished to convey to them. He wanted them to know that while they as a bloodthirsty crowd could seemingly behave in this way it simply disgusted all ‘good men’ like himself. Using their own symbolism was a clever way of indicating his contempt. It rammed home his point even more effectively. If he was aware at all of its context he would know that by it they would recognise that they were being accused of the murder of this victim. But alternately it may simply have become a recognised Jewish method of setting aside guilt as in Psa 73:13. Either way, however, it was a pointed indication of what he thought of them. Let them face up to what they were doing and recognise that if they did this thing they could not then throw the blame onto him. Could they really crucify one of their own after all that they had said time and again about crucifixion?
“I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man.” The reference to ‘this righteous man’ indicates how much his wife’s note was on his mind. And it would seem also to be clear that something about Jesus had come home to Pilate, tough-minded soldier though he was, so that he really felt that he must distance himself from this treatment of Him. Anyone who knows human nature will recognise how typical this is of what has happened throughout history. Again and again when danger has faced men who in it reveal true fearlessness and goodness, it has moved leading men to seek to exonerate them or lessen their sentence, even though they have often failed to achieve their aim. Such courage can be very moving to those who judge men. It was not otherwise with Pilate. However, as far as Matthew is concerned his words simply confirms the verdict already given by Judas about Jesus (Mat 27:4). It was the innocent Who was about to die, as even the vilest of men recognised. And he wants the point to come over to his readers emphatically.
‘See you to it.’ Compare Mat 27:4. The Chief Priests had tried to divert the blame from themselves in a similar way. But neither they, nor Pilate here, succeeded. We cannot so easily divest ourselves of guilt over things in which we have had a part, try as we will.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Pilate’s last attempt to reason:
v. 24. When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person; see ye to it.
v. 25. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us and on our children. From the beginning, Pilate had miscalculated badly: He had not insisted upon proper legal procedure in demanding definite charges with sufficient testimony; he had not reckoned with mob influence, the chief priests outgeneraled him. It had now gotten to the point where he was facing a tumult which might develop into an insurrection. And so he continues the weakling’s course in trying to shift the blame from his own person. Calling for some water, he washed his hands before all the people as a token of his innocence. He wanted to be held blameless in the entire matter; the guilt of this innocent blood should not rest upon him. In making this statement, he was either a hypocrite or a coward. Either he wanted to salve his conscience by declaring Christ’s innocence openly, or he declared that he was forced into a condemnation against his sincere belief. In either case he was guilty, though he places the whole blame on the Jews. “But thus it always happens with the blood of Christ the Lord and with that of His Christians. The older Herod murders the innocent children about Bethlehem. His son murders the holy John the Baptist. And both of them thought they might get some benefit out of such murder. Pilate here also does not consider it a serious matter that he condemns Christ to death. He fondly imagines that, as he thinks of it, God will also think of it, and consider him blameless. But without doubt the wrath of God did not hesitate about coming, and the house, generation, and name of Pilate was annihilated, and body and soul condemned to hell and everlasting fire. There he found out how innocent he was of this blood. ” The governor’s action only brought out a most blood-curdling curse on the part of the people: May the blood of this man be upon us and upon our children! If this man be innocent, and we demand His death as a guilty person, may the punishment of such a crime be visited upon us, and upon our children after us! A little more than a generation later, this terrible curse was visited upon them, then their account was demanded of them with a heavy reckoning, in one of the most horrible judgments of God that history knows of.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mat 27:24. Pilatetook water, &c. It is well known that the Jews in some cases were appointed to wash their hands, as a solemn token that they were not themselves concerned in a murder committed by some unknown person. See Deu 21:6-9. In allusion to which law the Psalmist says, I will wash mine hands in innocency, that is to say, in testimony of my innocence. But as this was also a rite which was frequently used by the Gentiles in token of innocence, it is more probable that Pilate, who was a Gentile, did it in conformity to them. He thought possibly, by this avowal of his resolution to have no hand in the death of Christ, to have terrified the populace; for one of his understanding and education could not but be sensible that all the water in the universe was not able to wash away the guilt of an unrighteous sentence. The following lines of Ovid may be justly applied to Pilate:
Ah! nimium faciles, qui tristia crimina caedis Fluminea tolli posse putetis aqua! Fast. l. ii. v. 45.
Ah! ye easily self-deceived, who fondly imagine that you can wash away the horrid guilt of murder with the water of the stream!
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 27:24 The circumstance of Pilate’s washing his hands, which Strauss and Keim regard as legendary, is also peculiar to Matthew.
] that it was all of no avail , Joh 12:19 . “Desperatum est hoc praejudicium practicum,” Bengel.
] that the tumult is only aggravated thereby .
] he washed his hands , to show that he was no party to the execution thus insisted upon. This ceremony was a piece of Jewish symbolism (Deu 21:6 f.; Joseph. Antt. iv. 8. 16; Sota viii. 6); and as Pilate understood its significance, he would hope by having recourse to it to make himself the more intelligible to Jews. It is possible that what led the governor to conform to this Jewish custom was the analogy between it and similar practices observed by Gentiles after a murder has been committed (Herod, i. 35; Virg. Aen. ii. 719 f.; Soph, Aj. 654, and Schneidewin thereon; Wetstein on our passage), more particularly as it was also customary for Gentile judges before pronouncing sentence to protest, and that “ ” ( Constitt. Ap. ii. 52. 1; Evang. Nicod. ix.), that they were innocent of the blood of the person about to be condemned; see Thilo, ad Cod. Apocr. I. p. 573 f.; Heberle in the Stud. u. Krit. 1856, p. 859 ff.
] a Greek author would have used the genitive merely (Maetzner, ad Lycurg . 79). The construction with is a Hebraism ( , 2Sa 3:27 ), founded on the idea of removing to a distance. Comp. Hist. Susann. 46, and , Act 20:26 .
.] See on Mat 27:4 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
DISCOURSE: 1408
PILATES PROTEST
Mat 27:24-25. When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
IT was appointed under the law, that the beasts offered in sacrifice should be without blemish: and, for ascertaining their fitness to be offered, the strictest scrutiny was made. In the various examinations which our blessed Lord underwent, there was an exact accomplishment of this type: and the testimonies given by all who were concerned in his death, seem to have been providentially appointed for the manifesting of his fitness for the great work he had undertaken, even the work of saving a ruined world by the sacrifice of himself. His hour was now come that he should be delivered up to death: and Pilate, who had investigated every charge that was brought against him, and had already a great many times attested his innocence, now in the most solemn manner entered his protest against the procedure of his blood-thirsty enemies, and declared, that in putting him to death they would murder a just and inoffensive man; of which atrocious act they, and they only, should bear the guilt. In reply to this, they said, that if he would only leave them to execute their purpose, they were willing to take all responsibility from him, and all consequences on themselves; His blood be on us, and on our children. Thus, even they, at the very time that they demanded his death, unwittingly acknowledged the truth of Pilates assertions, and set their seal to this blessed truth, that Jesus was cut off, not for his own sins, but for the sins of those whom he came to save.
Let us however take a nearer view of this subject; and distinctly consider,
I.
Pilates vain protest
In some respects Pilate may be considered as having acted a bold and honest part; for
This protest of his was very solemn
[It should seem that the washing of the hands in token of innocence, was a custom not unknown to the Romans: and, among the Jews, it was prescribed by God himself; when murder had been committed by some unknown person, and those who, from their proximity to the spot, might be supposed to have had some knowledge of the transaction, were called to clear themselves [Note: Deu 21:6-7.]. By this significant action did Pilate proclaim his determination not to embrue his hands in innocent blood; accompanying it with a solemn testimony in favour of the person accused, and an admonition to his enemies that they, and they only, must be answerable for his death.
Thus far we approve, and applaud his protest.]
But it was vain
[In some cases, such a protest would have really acquitted him in the sight both of God and man
If the matter had been to be determined by a majority of voices, his conscience would have been clear. This was the case when Joseph, one of the Jewish council, was out-voted in the Sanhedrim; and God himself acquits him of any participation in their guilt [Note: Luk 23:51.].
If the act had not been in itself sinful; and circumstances had occurred that rendered that necessary, which, under other circumstances, would have been inexpedient and improper; then his protest would have cleared him, even though he had done the act against which he protested: for this was the case of Paul, when he was compelled by the intrigues of false teachers to confirm his apostolic authority by an appeal to visions, of which it would otherwise have been inexpedient for him to boast [Note: 2Co 12:1; 2Co 12:11.].
But Pilate was a governor and a judge, whose duty it was, no less to protect the innocent, than to punish the guilty. He had no right to sacrifice the life of an innocent person to the clamours of a mob. He should have told them plainly, that he would rather sacrifice his situation, and even life itself, than be guilty of such horrible injustice. And, however menacing the rising tumult might appear, he should have adhered to the path of duty, and risked all consequences. In not doing this, he neglected his office; and, by consenting to their wickedness, made himself a partaker of it. It was to no purpose to enter a protest against the act, and then join in the commission of it. His saying, I am innocent, did not make him innocent: on the contrary, we are assured, on infallible authority, that in the sight of God he is considered as a confederate with the very people whom he thus professed to condemn [Note: Act 4:27.].]
Nor less vain are many similar protests that are made amongst ourselves
[What is more common than to reply, in justification of ourselves, I must do so? One says, I must be guilty of such and such frauds: it is not my fault, but the fault of the trade: one cannot carry on trade without it. Another, whilst he conforms to the sinful customs of the world, urges a similar excuse; I must do so, else I shall incur the odium of singularity, and endanger both my reputation and interest. I acknowledge that the things are wrong; but I must do them. Know then, that, if you must do them, you must also answer for them at the tribunal of God: and that, in that day, not he who acquitteth himself shall be approved, but he whom the Lord acquitteth [Note: 2Co 10:18.].]
Let us now turn our attention to,
II.
The peoples rash engagement
The guilt and punishment of murder were, among the Jews, expressed by the blood of the murdered person being upon them [Note: Mat 23:35.]. By this imprecation, therefore, the people meant to relieve Pilates conscience, and to pacify his fears; engaging, that the crucifixion of Christ should never be considered as his act, but theirs; and that the consequences of it, if any, should come, not on him, but on them and their children. But,
What a rash engagement was this!
[What answer would it be to Csar, if, being summoned to give an account of the injustice committed, and the dishonour brought thereby upon the whole Roman empire, Pilate should say, The people forced me to it? Were not the people his subjects? and had he not the Roman soldiers at his command, to keep them in awe? To what purpose was he entrusted with this power, if he did not exercise it? Would this promise, of taking the responsibility on themselves, remove it from him? Assuredly not: on him, and not on them, would Csars displeasure fall.
But, supposing they could protect him from Csars anger, could they heal the wound which this act would inflict upon his conscience? Would this stern monitor be silent at their bidding? No: its remonstrances would be heard in spite of them; and to his dying hour would the voice of innocent blood cry out against him.
Thus, as it respected him, their engagement was vain and nugatory; but not so as it respected themselves: God held them to it: and made them feel the fearful responsibility attaching to it. But a few days elapsed, before they expressed their fears lest their imprecations should be answered [Note: Act 5:28.]: and before that generation passed away, the Divine judgments came upon them to the uttermost; insomuch that the Jewish historian, who was himself a spectator of the fact, declares, that such multitudes of the captive Jews were crucified during the siege of Jerusalem, that there wanted room for the crosses to stand upon, and wood to make them of. Then was their request fulfilled: then was the blood of Christ on them indeed, and on their children; and, from that hour to the present moment, have they been made an astonishment, and an hissing, and perpetual desolations [Note: Jer 25:9.].]
And how much better are the engagements which many amongst us are ready to take upon themselves?
[When we endeavour to prevail on persons to act against the convictions of their conscience, we are ready to laugh at their scruples, and to ridicule their fears; and with great confidence to pledge our words, that their compliance with our advice will be attended with no bad consequence whatever. But, when we have prevailed over their credulity, can we fulfil our word? Can we in many cases avert even the temporal consequences of their conduct? How much less can we silence the clamours of their guilty consciences! And least of all can we stand between God and their souls in the day of judgment
But though we cannot fulfil our engagements to them, we must, together with them, answer for our conduct to God; and perish under the accumulated guilt of ruining their souls. Their blood will be required at our hands ]
Let us learn then from hence,
1.
To discard the fear of man
[You see how true is that declaration, that the fear of man bringeth a snare [Note: Pro 29:25.]. Had Pilate in the first instance withstood, as he ought, the clamours of the people, he had never embrued his hands in the Saviours blood. He might have fallen a sacrifice to their rage, it is true; but he would have had reason to all eternity to rejoice that he had died in such a cause. And we would ask of you, What are your feelings now in reference to any sinful compliances you may have been drawn into, or any injuries you may have suffered in consequence of your non-compliance? Do you not even now see that it is better to regard God than man [Note: Act 4:19.]? Then fear not man, who can only kill the body; but God, who can destroy both body and soul in hell: yea, I say unto you, fear Him [Note: Luk 12:4-5.] Let the conduct of Levi be our pattern [Note: Deu 33:9.]and the command of Jesus our rule [Note: Luk 14:26-27.].]
2.
To maintain always a good conscience
[God has given us a conscience, to be his vicegerent in the soul. It may be said, that Paul sinned in following his conscience [Note: Act 26:9.]. We answer, that he sinned, not in following his conscience, but in having such a misguided conscience. We should by a constant study of the Scriptures, and by fervent prayer for the teachings of Gods Spirit, get our conscience enlightened and rectified. If we neglect to do this, we are answerable before God for all the errors we run into. But still we must follow the light we have. We must listen to the dictates of conscience at all times, and follow them without reserve. Every thing that it enjoins we must do [Note: Jam 4:17.], and nothing that it forbids [Note: Rom 14:22.]. If it even suggest a doubt, we must not proceed till that doubt be removed [Note: Rom 14:23.]. Nothing is more terrible than an accusing conscience [Note: Mat 27:3-4.]; nothing more delightful than testimonies of its approbation [Note: 2Co 1:12.]. Labour therefore with all your might to acquire a good conscience, and exercise yourselves night and day to maintain it [Note: Act 24:16.].]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it .
Ver. 24. He took water ] Too weak an element to wash off guilt; which is not purged but by the blood of Christ, or fire of hell.
And washed his hands ] An old ceremony, used in this case, both by Jews Deu 21:6-7 Act 18:6 and Gentiles, as the scholiast upon Sophocles testifieth. And it was as much as to say, the guilt of innocent blood doth no more stick to my conscience than the filth now washed off doth to my fingers. a Sed quid hoc est, saith one: Manus abluit Pilatus, et cor polluit. “O Jerusalem, wash thy heart from wickedness,” saith the prophet, Jer 4:14 . God and nature begin at the heart. And cleanse your hands, ye sinners, but withal, “Purify your hearts, ye doubleminded,” saith the apostle,Jas 4:8Jas 4:8 . The very Turks before prayer wash both face and hands, sometimes the head and privates. But bodily exercise only profiteth little.
See ye to it ] See thou to that, said they to Judas,Mat 27:4Mat 27:4 . See ye to it, saith Pilate to them. “With what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again,” Mat 7:2 . They are paid in their own coin: their own very words, by a just judgment of God, are regested upon them.
a , .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
24. ] Peculiar to Matt.
] rightly rendered in E. V. that he prevailed nothing not ‘that it prevailed nothing.’ The washing of the hands , to betoken innocence from blood-guiltiness, is prescribed Deu 21:6-9 , and Pilate uses it here as intelligible to the Jews.
The Greeks would have used the gen. after without : so , Aristoph. Nub. 1413. See Khner, Gram. ii. p. 164.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 27:24 . , that it was no use, but rather only provoked a more savage demand, as is the way of mobs. , etc.: washed his hands, following a Jewish custom, the meaning of which all present fully understood, accompanying the action with verbal protestations of innocence. This also, with the grim reply of the people (Mat 27:25 ), peculiar to Mt.; a “traditional addition” (Weiss).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 27:24-26
24When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this Man’s blood; see to that yourselves.” 25And all the people said, “His blood shall be on us and on our children!” 26Then he released Barabbas for them; but after having Jesus scourged, he handed Him over to be crucified.
Mat 27:24 “a riot was starting” This was always a possibility during feasts with Jerusalem being so crowded with exuberant pilgrims. Rome always stationed extra troops from Caesarea in the Fortress Antonio during feast days.
“washed his hands in front of the crowd” This was a Jewish custom, not a Roman practice (cf. Deu 21:6-7; Psa 26:6; Psa 73:13).
Mat 27:25 “His blood shall be on us and on our children” This was a grave oath, especially in light of the OT view of corporate guilt (cf. Exo 20:5-6; 2Sa 3:29). This was a self-curse! It was fulfilled in A.D. 70.
Mat 27:26 “scourged” This was a severe punishment! It is often fatal. It always preceded crucifixion, but it seems initially from Joh 19:1; Joh 19:12 that this possibly was another attempt by Pilate to gain sympathy for Jesus.
The Gospels use different words to describe this brutal beating.
1. phragello in Mat 27:26; Mar 15:15, translated by NASB as ” scourged”
2. der in Luk 22:63, translated by NASB as “beating”
3. mastigo in Joh 19:1, translated by NASB as “scourged” (cf. Mat 20:19; Mar 10:34; Luk 18:33)
This terrible beating always preceded crucifixion. It was so severe that many died from it. A person was unclothed and their hands tied to a stake in the ground. Then a whip of leather thongs with pieces of rock, metal, or bone braided into the end of the nine thongs was lashed across the exposed back. It is recorded that these thongs
1. blinded the victim
2. opened the ribs to the bone
3. knocked out teeth
There was no limit to the number of lashes given by the two soldiers, one on each side.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Was made = arose, or was brewing.
washed. Greek. aponipto. Occurs only here. See App-136.
innocent = guiltless.
of = from. Greek. apo. App-104. Same as in verses: Mat 27:9, Mat 27:57. Not the same as in verses: Mat 27:12, Mat 27:29, Mat 27:48.
blood. Put by Figure of speech Synecdoche (of Species), App-6, for murder, as in Mat 23:35. Deu 19:12. Psa 9:12. Hos 1:4.
Person = [One].
see ye = ye will see. Greek. opsomai. App-133.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
24.] Peculiar to Matt.
] rightly rendered in E. V. that he prevailed nothing-not that it prevailed nothing. The washing of the hands, to betoken innocence from blood-guiltiness, is prescribed Deu 21:6-9, and Pilate uses it here as intelligible to the Jews.
The Greeks would have used the gen. after without : so , Aristoph. Nub. 1413. See Khner, Gram. ii. p. 164.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 27:24. , he availeth nothing[1187]) Why not Pilate? This practical prejudging is desperate, when men say, We do nothing.[1188]-, nothing, is in the nominative, or the accusative; cf. Joh 12:19.-, rather) not greater. He feared a sedition.-, …, saying, etc.) A protestation contrary to fact.-, righteous) Pilate adopted this word from his wifes warning; Mat 27:19.- , see ye to it) As the Jews said to Judas, so Pilate says to the Jews. A formula of rejection; see Act 18:15.
[1187] E. V. He prevailed nothing.-(I. B.)
[1188] Sc. We make no progress, we are effecting nothing; and therefore it is useless to persist in the endeavour.-(I. B.)
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
and washed: Deu 21:6, Deu 21:7, Job 9:30, Job 9:31, Psa 26:6, Jer 2:27, Jer 2:35
just: Mat 27:4, Mat 27:9, Mat 27:54, Joh 19:4, Act 3:14, 2Co 5:21, 1Pe 3:18
Reciprocal: Gen 37:22 – Shed Exo 23:2 – follow Exo 30:13 – an half shekel Lev 22:19 – General Jos 2:19 – his blood 1Sa 19:5 – sin against innocent 2Sa 3:28 – guiltless Psa 18:4 – floods Psa 83:2 – lo Isa 5:23 – take Isa 37:29 – tumult Jer 26:16 – General Jer 26:19 – Thus Jer 36:25 – made Mat 27:19 – that just Mar 6:26 – General Mar 7:4 – except Mar 10:22 – sad Mar 15:14 – Why Luk 23:4 – I find Luk 23:5 – they Luk 23:14 – have found Luk 23:41 – but Joh 13:9 – not Joh 18:38 – I find Joh 19:6 – Take Act 18:15 – look Act 25:10 – as thou Eph 5:15 – See Jam 4:8 – Cleanse Jam 5:6 – have 1Pe 2:22 – did
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
7:24
Although Pilate was a Roman official, he was somewhat acquainted with the Jewish history because of the frequent appearances of the leading men of that nation in Roman affairs. In Deuteronomy 21 is a provision in the law to dispose formally of a case of death for which it was not known who was responsible. The elders of the city nearest the body that was found were technically held to be guilty, or at least to have guilty knowledge thereof. The Lord knew that in some cases this would be unjust toward innocent persons, so a ceremony was ordained that included the washing of the hands which settled the case and cleared them of all responsibility. Pilate thought he could use that ceremony and thus avoid all responsibility for the death of Jesus. He failed to consider, however, that the Mosaic ceremony was in force only in cases where the elders actually were innocent or did not know anything about the case, while Pilate did have knowledge of the merits of the case and even had pronounced Jesus not guilty (Luk 23:4). He therefore could not escape responsibility by this misuse of the law intended only for the protection of the innocent.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 27:24. When Pilate saw that he prevailed nothing. The mob triumphed (see Luk 23:23). It was a dangerous time for an insurrection and Pilate would have been called to account for it, since the Jews were constantly presenting complaints at Rome. He could not have made a defence to his superiors; so he preferred to sanction wrong, knowing and confessing it to be such.
Took water and washed his hands, etc. A symbolical act, well understood by the Jews (Deu 21:6), to express freedom from guilt. But he condemned himself, even while he washed his hands.
This righteous man. Significant language just here, when this righteous man is about to suffer the punishment of one (Barabbas) confessedly guilty. He suffered, the just for the unjust.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Two things are here observable in Pilate’s washing of his hands.
1. By this action he pronounces our Saviour’s innocency, and was willing thereby to testify his own, that he did not consent to our Saviuour’s death; washing the hands being and usual ceremony, in prostestation of a person’s innocency.
But, 2. It was great folly and madness in Pilate, to think that washing of his hands did or could free him from the guilt of innocent blood. “O Pilate! thou hadst need rub hard, if thou meanest to scour from thy soul the guilt of that crimson sin which thou hast committed; thy guilt cleaves so close unto thee that nothing can expiate it but the blood which thou hast spilt.”
Neither was it any excuse of Pilate’s sin, that what he did was to please the people, and to gratify their importunity. It is a fond apology for sins, when persons pretend they were not committed with their own consent, but at others instigation and importunity.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Mat 27:24-25. When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing That he could not convince them what an unjust, unreasonable thing it was for him to condemn a man whom he believed to be innocent, and whom they could not prove to be guilty; and that instead of doing any good by his opposition to their will, a tumult was made Through their furious outcries; he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude Pilate did this, says Origen, according to the custom of the Jews, being willing to assert Christs innocency to them, not in words only, but by deed. Thus, in the instance of a murder, committed by an unknown hand, the elders of the city nearest to the place where the dead body was found, were to wash their hands over a heifer slain by way of sacrifice to expiate the crime, and to say, Our hands have not shed this blood, Deu 21:6. Alluding to which ceremony, the psalmist, having renounced all confederacy with wicked and mischievous men, says, I will wash my hands in innocency. But as washing the hands in token of innocence was a rite frequently used. also by the Gentiles, it is much more probable that Pilate, who was a Gentile, did this in conformity to them. He thought, possibly, by this avowal of his resolution to have no hand in the death of Christ, to have terrified the populace; for one of his understanding and education could not but be sensible that all the water in the universe was not able to wash away the guilt of an unrighteous sentence. Saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it Nevertheless, solemn as his declaration was, it had no effect; for the people continued inflexible, crying out with one consent, His blood be on us and on our children That is, We are willing to take the guilt of his death upon ourselves. The governor, therefore, finding by the sound of the cry that it was general, and that the people were fixed in their choice of Barabbas, passed the sentence they desired. He released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired, but he delivered Jesus to their will, Luk 23:25. In this conduct, notwithstanding his efforts to save Jesus, he was utterly inexcusable, and the more so the more he was convinced of Christs innocence. He had an armed force under his command sufficient to have scattered this infamous mob, and to have enforced the execution of a righteous sentence. But if not, he ought himself rather to have suffered death than to have knowingly condemned the innocent. Accordingly, as the ancient Christians believed, great calamities afterward befell him and his family, as a token of the displeasure of God for his perversion of justice in this instance. According to Josephus, he was deposed from his government by Vitellius, and sent to Tiberius at Rome, who died before he arrived there. And we learn from Eusebius, that quickly after, having been banished to Vienne in Gaul, he laid violent hands upon himself, falling on his own sword. Agrippa, who was an eye-witness to many of his enormities, speaks of him, in his oration to Caius Cesar, as one who had been a man of the most infamous character.
As to the imprecation of the Jewish priests and people, His blood be on us and on our children, it is well known, that as it was dreadfully answered in the ruin so quickly brought on the Jewish nation, and the calamities which have since pursued that wretched people in almost all ages and countries; so it was particularly illustrated in the severity with which Titus, merciful as he naturally was, treated the Jews whom he took during the siege of Jerusalem; of whom Josephus himself writes, [Bell. Jud., 50. 5:11, (al. Mat 6:12,) 1,] that , having been scourged, and tortured in a very terrible manner, they were crucified in the view and near the walls of the city; perhaps, among other places, on mount Calvary; and it is very probable, this might be the fate of some of those very persons who now joined in this cry, as it undoubtedly was of many of their children. For Josephus, who was an eye-witness, expressly declares, that the number of those thus crucified was so great that there was not room for the crosses to stand by each other; and that at last they had not wood enough to make crosses off. A passage which, especially when compared with the verse before us, must impress and astonish the reader beyond any other in the whole story. If this were not the very finger of God, pointing out their crime in crucifying his Son, it is hard to say what could deserve to be called so. Elsner has abundantly shown, that among the Greeks, the persons on whose testimony others were put to death used, by a very solemn execration, to devote themselves to the divine vengeance, if the person so condemned were not really guilty. See Doddridge.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Verse 24
A tumult. Popular tumults were always greatly dreaded by Roman officers. They feared not only the danger which they themselves, personally, and their immediate administration, incurred, but also the displeasure of the imperial government at Rome, by which the rulers of the provinces were held to a very severe responsibility for the preservation of public order. Pilate, therefore, after resisting the popular animosity against Jesus, till he found himself upon the eve of a tumult, dared to go no farther, but yielded, though solemnly protesting against the injustice of the decision.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
27:24 {4} When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but [that] rather a tumult was made, he took water, and {g} washed [his] hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the {h} blood of this just person: see ye [to it].
(4) Christ being acquitted by the testimony of the judge himself is nonetheless condemned by him, in order to acquit us before God.
(g) It was a custom in ancient times that when any man was murdered, or there were other slaughters, to wash their hands in water to declare themselves guiltless.
(h) Of the murder; a Hebrew idiom.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Washing one’s hands to symbolize one’s innocence was a Jewish custom, not a Roman custom (cf. Deu 21:6; Psa 26:6). [Note: Carson, "Matthew," p. 570.] Evidently Pilate did this to show contempt for the Jews. Pilate could wash his hands with a clear conscience because he had tried to release Jesus, but the Jews would not allow him to do so. This is not saying he was innocent of guilt, but he undoubtedly felt justified in doing what he did. Pilate delivered Jesus up for crucifixion out of cowardice and fear of the Jews whom he despised. He could no more pass his personal responsibility for Jesus’ death off on the people than the chief priests and elders could avoid their responsibility for it by blaming Judas (Mat 27:4).