Chapter Twenty-Seven

1–2. The Sanhedrin’s decision to deliver the Savior to the court of Pilate. – 3–10. The death of Judas. – 11–14. Trial before Pilate. – 15–26. Barabbas and condemnation to crucifixion. – 27–31. Mockery by the soldiers. – 32–38. The journey to Golgotha and crucifixion. – 39–49. Mockings and insults. – 50–56. The death of Jesus Christ. – 57–61. The burial of Jesus Christ. – 62–66. The sealing of the tomb and posting of a guard.”

Matthew 27:1. When the morning had come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus, to put him to death; (Compare Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66).” Whether Luke 22:66 applies to the second meeting of the Sanhedrin or to the first, which took place at night, is difficult to say with certainty.” In view of the similarity of Luke 22:66-71 to Matt 26:64-66 and Mark 14:62-64, one might suppose that Luke’s account refers to the first night meeting of the Sanhedrin. But on the other hand, the expression Luke 22:66: \”and when day had come,\” – causes one to refer both this and the further account to the second, morning, session of the Sanhedrin. Based on the testimony of the evangelists, only two assemblies of Christ’s judges can be established: one – after midnight and another – with the coming of day, at dawn. In the Mishnah the procedure of trial is described as follows. The Sanhedrin is likened to half of a round threshing floor, so that the judges could see each other (that is, they sat in a semicircle). Two court scribes stood before them, one on the right and one on the left, and wrote down the words of those defending and the words of the accusers, and three rows of disciples (\”talmidim hachamim\”) sat before them (Sanhedrin, IV, 3, 4: Talmud, trans. Pereférkovitch, vol. 4, pp. 270–271). Each one knew his place. In cases involving life and death, special forms of procedure and pronouncement of judgment were prescribed. Judges were to gather in pairs, eat less, not drink wine all day, discuss the case all night, and the next day rise early and come to court. Whoever brought an accusatory argument could bring a defending argument, but not the other way. If they found acquittal for the accused, they freed him, but if not, they stood up for counting. If twelve judges acquitted and eleven accused, the accused was considered acquitted. But if eleven acquitted and twelve accused, this was not sufficient to pronounce a guilty verdict, which could only happen if two more were added to the accusers. This continued until either acquittal followed, or the necessary majority for accusation was achieved. The maximum reached here was 71 – the number of members of the great Sanhedrin. Thus, for acquittal a simple majority was required, but such a majority was not sufficient for conviction; the number of accusers had to exceed the number of those defending by two people (Sanhedrin, V, 5: Talmud, trans. Pereférkovitch, vol. 4, p. 277). Local courts usually sat on the second and fifth days of the week (Ketub. I, 1). But whether the Sanhedrin always observed this is unknown. On holidays and especially on the Sabbath no court could be held. Since in criminal cases the verdict for execution had to be announced only a day after the court session, criminal cases could not be heard before the Sabbath or a holiday. All these provisions were marked by humaneness. But they were forgotten during the trial of Christ. Usually the meetings of the Sanhedrin took place in the temple (in the hall of the so-called \”lishkat haggazit\” or in other temple buildings).” \”If, when condemning Jesus Christ, the Sanhedrin gathered in the high priest’s palace, then here we must see an exception to the general rule, to which the judges were forced by nighttime, because at night the temple gates were locked.\” \”Other meetings of the Sanhedrin in the high priest’s palace cannot be established\” (Schürer, Geschichte, II, p. 265).” That the second court session was in the high priest’s house is indicated by John 18:28. Nothing is known about a second interrogation; perhaps there was none at all. The conclusion is given only by Matthew – that the members of the Sanhedrin resolved to put Jesus Christ to death (θανατῶσαι), but nowhere is it clear that crucifixion was assumed from the very beginning. As for holidays, there were ordinances that nothing was to be done on them. But these ordinances were hardly observed. One day of rest was the Sabbath, and all other holidays were not rest days in the proper sense. This is evident from the fact that the departure of the Hebrews from Egypt was not a day of rest. The Gospels, which report on the activities of Christ’s enemies and also of those who buried Him on the first Passover day, serve in the present case as a reliable source of information that on Passover ordinary activities did not cease.\”

Matthew 27:2. and bound him, and led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate, the governor. (Compare Mark 15:1; Luke 23:1; John 18:28).” In meaning the narrative of the synoptics is the same here. John adds: \”it was morning; and they (the enemies of Christ) did not enter into the judgment hall, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover.\” If John had ended his statement with the word \”be defiled,\” it would have been fully comprehensible, because here it would be understood as defilement in general from pagans. But his words \”that they might eat the Passover\” show that in the evening of that day Christ’s enemies intended to eat the Passover. Since it is impossible to admit that they in this case departed from the lawful ordinances prescribing the eating of the Passover from the 14th to the 15th of Nisan, from this it is concluded that Christ Himself observed the Passover from the 13th to the 14th of Nisan, that is, earlier than the time established by the law. The question about this is very difficult, and it cannot be considered settled to this day. As noted above, the most probable opinion is that by \”Passover\” John 18:28 is meant \”hagiga,\” that is, the peace offerings brought during the Passover week. The laws concerning them are set forth in a separate Talmudic tractate, which is called \”Hagiga\” (see Talmud, trans. Pereférkovitch, vol. 2, pp. 513–533). They argue that if \”Passover\” John 18:28 meant the eating of the Passover lamb, then the Jews would have nothing to fear from defilement, because from it they could be freed by ablutions before evening. But entering the governor’s residence in the morning on the first day of Passover and becoming defiled made it impossible for the members of the Sanhedrin to offer peace Passover offerings (\”hagiga\”), which were also called Passover. \”No competent Jewish archaeologist will deny that Pesach (Passover) can refer to ‘hagiga’. The motive assigned by John to the members of the Sanhedrin implies that in the present case Pesach was to refer to ‘hagiga’, not to the Passover lamb.\” The word \”bound\” shows that the Savior during the night trial in the Sanhedrin’s assembly was unbound; but now, when He was finally condemned, He was bound again, so as to lead Him to Pilate. The reason for being led to Pilate consisted in the fact that from the time when Judea together with Samaria and Idumea was converted into a Roman province (after Archelaus), the Jews had been deprived of jus gladii (the right of the sword) and jus vitae aut necis (the right of life or death). Therefore the members of the Sanhedrin could not themselves carry out their verdict (this was ultra vires) and had to submit it for confirmation by Pilate. Pilate ruled Judea for quite a long time. He was the fifth procurator of Judea. Philo accuses him \”of bribery, violence, rapine, outrages, insults, unreasonable and frequent murders, endless and intolerable cruelties.\” The information about Pilate given in various places by Josephus Flavius and in the New Testament is essentially in agreement with what Philo says about Pilate, and shows that his characterization was not written under the influence of hatred and irritation, which the Jews generally harbored toward pagans, and especially toward the procurators. The verse being examined serves as one of the most important unintentional proofs, brought by the evangelists, of the idea that the members of the Sanhedrin, having condemned Christ to death, knew what they were counting on, and were confident that they would obtain confirmation of their verdict from such a person as Pilate. He was appointed to the office of procurator by the emperor Tiberius in the 12th year of his reign (26 A.D.). Before Pilate the procurators were Coponius, Marcus Ambivius, Annius Rufus, and Valerius Gratus. At the end of 36 A.D., by complaint of the Samaritans brought to the legate of Syria Vitellius, Pilate was removed from office and sent to Rome for trial. He arrived there soon after the death of the emperor Tiberius and was exiled to detention in Vienna (in Gaul), where, according to Eusebius (\”Church History,\” II, 17), he took his own life in the reign of Gaius Caligula. The name of Pilate in Greek is written in different ways: Πειλᾶτος and Πιλᾶτος (Πιλάτος). It is supposed that Pontius (Πόντιος, Pontius) was his name, indicating his connection by birth or adoption with the ancient Samnite family Pontii, while Pilate was the family name. The meaning of the word \”Pilate\” has been explained in various ways. Some wrote Pileatus – this word indicated a person wearing pileus or pileum – a hat made of felt, which was put on slaves when they were freed (manumissio). If such an origin were correct, one could think that Pilate descended from some freed slaves. Others derived Pilate’s family name from pilum – a javelin, a spear. But both of these derivations are doubtful, as is also the idea that Pilate is not a name but a family name (in our Creed – \”under Pontius Pilate\”: Pilate is the name, Pontius is the family name). Pilate was a Roman procurator of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea. Procurators were appointed by the emperor himself, but were subordinate to the governor of Syria, or propraetor. In Greek the office of procurator was called ἐπίτροπος – a word that appears in Matt 20:8; Luke 8:3; Gal 4:2. But in the Gospel of Matthew he is called ἡγεμών – \”leader\” (Matt 27:2; Matt 28:14); perhaps Luke also calls him this way (Luke 20:20).”

Matthew 27:3. 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, The death of Judas is related by Matthew and in Acts 1:16-20. There is no doubt that both of these places relate to the same event. But in details both accounts are completely different. That Judas brought back the pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, throwing them in the temple, is not mentioned in the Acts. Conversely, it is reported that Judas himself bought a field with this money. The accounts of Judas’s death are also different. According to Matthew, he hanged himself; according to Luke (Acts) – he fell headlong, \”and burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.\” On the basis of these and other differences, some considered either both accounts \”legendary,\” or only Matthew’s account, or Luke’s. But in reality there is no actual difference in the accounts of Matthew and Acts. The origin of the disagreement has been explained by the fact that neither Matthew nor Luke, nor other persons, were obviously eyewitnesses to Judas’s death, and therefore in their accounts they transmitted only such information as was circulated among the people. It is well established that the \”field of blood\” in both accounts is the same. It is equally certain that the apostle Peter in the Acts means nothing other by the words \”unrighteous gain\” than the thirty pieces of silver about which Matthew writes. But the money which Judas once secretly took for himself from the bag could not be \”unrighteous gain.\” Judas probably bought the land himself as soon as he received the money for the betrayal, in the middle of the week or on Thursday. But soon after that he renounced his purchase, still without having paid the money. He brought it to the chief priests and elders, then left and hanged himself. Peter, saying that Ps 68:26 was fulfilled on Judas, explains how the land belonging to Judas got the name \”field of blood.\” He derives the name \”field of blood,\” evidently, from the bloody end of Judas, not from money for blood, as Matthew does. But both these derivations do not exclude each other. It is very probable that Judas died on the field he had bought. This could have given the chief priests reason to buy just that field where Judas hanged himself.” On the meaning of μεταμέλομαι see the commentaries on Matt 21:32. Μεταμεληθείς here does not mean \”repented\” in the \”biblical sense,\” but – came to his senses, because if Judas had truly repented, he would have been forgiven, as Peter was. The word μεταμεληθείς has a special meaning here. When Judas saw that the Savior was condemned to death, he did not repent, did not feel sorrow, but only lost his last hope. In fact, he failed to win over the chief priests and their party. The deed was done, and Judas, from among the disciples of Christ, was now completely unnecessary to Christ’s enemies. On the other hand, the disciples of Christ, after Judas’s action, could not receive him back into their midst. Thus Judas found himself alone with himself and his money. He felt himself solitary in this world, and this solitude was terrible. He had no friends. Under such circumstances, Judas’s crime could take on ever more monstrous dimensions in his eyes, began to seem to him as it truly was, without any embellishment, reinterpretation, and justification in the sense of practical utility and necessity. Before committing any sinful deed it always appears in an attractive light; otherwise there would be no inducements to sin and people could do without it. Before the betrayal, Judas could view his deed in no other way than from its pleasant sides; these were profit and favor with important and influential persons – Judas’s imagination painted all this in the most rosy and attractive light. Then there was no need to worry if someone could suffer from the satisfaction of Judas’s greed. He decided to commit the crime and committed it. But as soon as it was committed, all its attractiveness instantly disappeared and only filth remained. \”The road, the streets, the people – all seemed to witness against Judas and for Christ.\” Christ was now condemned to death and delivered to Pilate. Judas received no injuries from Him; everything said to him by Christ tended only to the correction and improvement of the traitor. He began to reflect on all this (μεταμεληθείς) and felt what an awful position he now found himself in. For Judas the entire spiritual filth became unbearable, it even prevented his true repentance. What was to be done? The received pieces of silver weighed on him, and he resolved to part with them. But how? Give this money to the poor? He could have done that if he had truly pitied the poor. But what good would that have done? The poor would have received the money and left Judas. Criminals ordinarily think little of charity. All the attractiveness of charity disappears when it is done with ill-gotten means. Judas thought it best to return the money to those from whom it had been received. By this he could to some extent reduce the crime committed by the traitor, and it could at least take on the appearance of a disinterested act. The verb ἔστρεψεν is the same as in the Septuagint Isa 38:8 – here it means to return something, to turn one’s own thing back; in other cases ἀποστρέφειν is ordinarily used.”

Matthew 27:4. Saying: I have sinned by betraying innocent blood. They said to him: What is that to us? Look to it yourself. Sic in inferno quoque sentient damnati (so also shall the condemned feel in hell). Judas came to the chief priests and elders, apparently at first with a simple proposal to take back the money. He held it in his hands. As a reason for their return he put forward his sin, which consisted in having delivered an innocent Christ to death. There are no signs that this repentance of Judas was entirely sincere. He speaks as ordinary people usually speak, calling themselves sinners, but on the contrary not thinking at all either of repentance or of correction. Judas’s eyes showed none of the tears which Peter shed. Will the very persons who took part in condemning Christ not find some means, by their finger moistened in water, to cool somewhat the internal flame that now burns all Judas’s entrails? But he met here only a cold, indifferent attitude both toward himself and toward his deed, which amounted to complete contempt. Christ’s enemies did not repent of having delivered Him to Pilate. So should have thought all who were party to this deed, including Judas. If Judas now thinks otherwise, sees clearly that he acted not as he should have, then what is that to them (σὺ ὄψῃ – see 1 Sam 25:17; Acts 8:15)? He must himself take care of how to extricate himself from the difficult position he has placed himself in, and not someone else. No one compelled him to betray. If he had not hurried with it, Christ could have been taken even after the holiday. Then it might have turned out even better. But now how much popular commotion! The participation of Judas in the seizure of Christ was unnecessary, useless, because He could not be saved anyway when the great Sanhedrin had spoken for His death. Judas is only a small person, a insignificant spoke in an enormous wagon, a weak spring in a wound-up machine. Judas felt that he had done an accursed deed, and there remained nothing for him but to violently end his life. In the law it was said: \”cursed is he who takes a bribe to shed innocent blood! And all the people shall say, Amen\” (Deut 27:25). (See 1 Macc 1:37; 2 Macc 1:8.)”

Matthew 27:5. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. Dreadful irritation and indignation were reflected on Judas’s face after the calm but caustic words spoken to him by the chief priests and elders. His irritation was expressed in the fact that, holding all thirty pieces of silver in his hands, he threw them over the wall that separated in the temple the men’s court from the priests’ court, threw them with such force that all of them or some of them flew or rolled across the marble floor all the way to the temple, to its very doors. Then Judas quickly withdraws to an unknown place – into seclusion (ἀνεχώρησεν) – and, coming to the field he had purchased, takes off the long belt with which his body was girded, fastens it to some tree and hangs himself (compare 2 Sam 17:23). The breathless body of Judas hung on the tree at first, then fell, tumbled down a cliff and broke so that his entrails spilled out (Acts 1:18).” Simple as this narrative is in itself, it encounters considerable difficulties, apart from Acts 1:18 and continuing. First, the question of the place where Judas threw the pieces of silver. It is called ναός – temple. This word is often found in the New Testament both in the literal and figurative sense (for example, 1 Cor 3:16). Where it is used in the literal sense, one must understand only the temple that corresponded to the tabernacle, and not the places and courts around the temple (see Matt 23:35). But in that case the question arises: how could Judas penetrate into the very temple itself, that is, into the vestibule or into the Holy Place, when access there was allowed only to priests? In response to this, Zahn and others accept that by ναός here one must understand not the temple itself, but the entire τό ἱερόν, that is, all the temple buildings. In such a broader meaning the word is found in Josephus Flavius. Some think that Judas first brought the money to the house of Caiaphas and even to Pilate – to the praetorium, where the members of the Sanhedrin were, the ones accusing Christ, and since they did not wish to take the money there, he went to the temple and threw it there. It is much more probable that this was not the temple itself in the proper sense, but the temple together with the priests’ court, as in Matt 23:16; Matt 26:61. Thus Judas threw the money into the priests’ court.” Further, the question arises: how could the chief priests (ἀρχιερεῖς) be in the temple together with the elders, when they were occupied with the trial of Jesus Christ before Pilate? According to Augustine’s opinion, Judas brought the money to the temple after three o’clock in the afternoon on Friday, when Christ died on the Cross, and the priests after that were occupied with worship. Others explained the matter by the fact that not all members of the Sanhedrin were before Pilate and that part of them (perhaps even to observe order in the temple) remained in the temple. Some think that Judas met the chief priests and elders in the temple when Christ was led to Herod.” In the final analysis, it is still difficult to say when Judas’s death occurred, on that very day when Christ died, or somewhat later. The evangelist, it seems, assigns his death to a time before Christ’s own death.\”

Matthew 27:6. 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. Thus the money was again in the hands of the chief priests. They had given it for innocent blood, so to speak, bought it with it, and this money returned to them. Here, perhaps, there is a symbolic meaning: innocent blood cannot be bought for any money. It is shed without loss, without material damage on the part of those shedding it. The money itself was not unclean, but it should not have been placed in the temple’s treasury by analogy with Deut 23:18. Having picked up the money, Christ’s enemies began to deliberate on what deed to apply it to. They, evidently, belonged to the temple. From the temple they were taken and to the temple they returned. But this was the \”price of blood,\” that is, the price for blood. Therefore it could not be placed in the \”Korban.\” The word \”Korban,\” as Schürer shows (Geschichte, II, p. 25), is Aramaic (like Abba, Golgotha, Akeldama, Ephatha, etc.), which became common among people during the time of Christ. This term does not occur in Rabbinical writings. The word properly means a sacrificial offering, but here – the temple’s treasury.”

Matthew 27:7. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in. Perhaps the expression \”from them\” (ἐξ αὐτῶν; in the Russian translation – \”with them\”) here does not show that only thirty pieces of silver were spent and that the potter’s field cost exactly that much. Perhaps it cost somewhat more, so that the leaders of the temple added more money for its purchase. There was purchased a certain field of a potter known to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. It may be indicated by Jeremiah (Jer 18:2). This place was located to the south of Jerusalem and was separated from it by the valley of Hinnom. It is approximately 90 feet in length and 45 in width. Until the beginning of the 18th century foreigners were buried there. It is impossible to determine with precision for whom the cemetery was intended, for the burial of stranger Jews, or of pagans. The first is more likely.”

Matthew 27:8. Therefore that field is called the Field of Blood to this day. The inhabitants of Jerusalem called this field of the potter on their native language (Aramaic) \”Akeldama,\” that is, \”the field of blood.\” And even now around Jerusalem on the north spur of the Mount of Evil Counsel they show the field of blood. Jerusalem pottery workers even now extract clay from the vicinity of this place.” In some codices instead of \”called\” – \”was called\” (ἐκλήθη). This expression shows, of course, that considerable time passed between the event and the writing of Matthew’s Gospel. Ἐκλήθη – testimonium publicum rei factae.”

Matthew 27:9. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; Matthew 27:10. And gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me. The words quoted by the evangelist are not found in the prophet Jeremiah. They occur in Zechariah (Zech 11:12-13). To explain why the name of Jeremiah is placed here instead of Zechariah, many conjectures have been proposed. Some thought that here was simply an error of the evangelist; that the quotation was borrowed from some secret work of Jeremiah, where it was written exactly as the evangelist says (esse aliquam secretam Ieremiae scripturam in qua scribitur – Origen). Jerome read in some Hebrew book, brought to him by a Hebrew belonging to the Nazarene sect, that what is written here is found word for word (ad verbum) in some apocrypha of Jeremiah. But despite this testimony, it seems to Jerome that the text was taken rather from the Book of the prophet Zechariah. With this opinion of Jerome, Euthymius Zigabenus agrees, who says: \”In the book of Jeremiah being read this is not written. Therefore, certainly (λοιπὸν οὖν), this is related in his apocrypha (ἐν τῇ ἀποκρύφῳ αὐτοῦ ἱστόρηται).\” The word λοιπόν shows that Zigabenus had no exact information about this matter. Some considered the word \”Jeremiah\” to be not authentic, pointing to a similar inaccuracy in Stephen’s speech (Acts 7:4) and in Mark (Mark 2:26). They argued that the name of Jeremiah stood first in the book of the prophets, and therefore his name was also used to designate the Book of the prophet Zechariah; that chapters 9–11 of the prophet Zechariah were written much earlier than the time of Zechariah (based on internal features) and before the Babylonian exile and that the words pronounced by Jeremiah were placed in the book of Zechariah, because they were transmitted orally until the time of Zechariah and entered his book; that the prophecy of Zechariah in its main parts is a repetition of the prophecy of Jeremiah (Jer 18-19), and therefore Matthew, naming Jeremiah, points to the original author of the prophecy; that here was an error not of the evangelist, but a simple mistake of the copyists, who replaced the name of Jeremiah with the name of Zechariah because of the similarity of these names (in abbreviation Ζριου and Ἱριου, that is, Zechariah and Jeremiah). The evangelist’s expression was translated thus: \”then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah and the prophet.\” The simplest explanation is that the evangelist’s thought is focused on the purchase of land from a potter. Since only the prophet Jeremiah speaks of this land, the evangelist places his name at the beginning of his quotation, while from the words of Zechariah he took only \”thirty pieces of silver,\” changing the remaining expressions of Zechariah so that in the evangelist’s quotation they became completely unrecognizable. This explains why Zechariah’s words: \”cast them, that is, the pieces of silver, into the treasury of the house of the Lord\” (in the Russian Synodal translation Zech 11:13 – \”potter’s field\”), through a light change of Hebrew letters were remade by the evangelist into \”the potter’s field\” (εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν τοῦ κεραμέως).” Ἔλαβον in Matthew can be translated: \”I took\” and \”they took.\” In the Septuagint Zech 11:13 it is otherwise – first person singular: \”I took.\” The correct translation: \”they took.\”” The price of him that was valued – magna vis verborum. In the Septuagint in the indicated place of Zechariah these words are not found. In the Hebrew the speech is ironic, which they translate: \”what an excellent price, at which they valued Me!\” Ἀπὸ υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ should be connected with ἐτιμήσαντο, not with ἔλαβον and τοῦ τετιμημένου.” \”They gave\” in the Greek is read differently: ἔδωκαν (they gave) and ἔδωκα (I gave). The first reading is more correct, and in correspondence with it ἔλαβον should also be taken as plural.” The real meaning of the evangelist’s words is clear. The chief priests and elders took the money, for which innocent blood was bought by them – thirty pieces of silver, which were the price of the valued Christ, \”whom the sons of Israel did value,\” and used this money to buy the \”field of blood,\” belonging to the potter. In this case the prophecy of Jeremiah, spoken to the kings of Judea and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, was fulfilled.”

Matthew 27:11. Jesus stood before the governor. And the governor asked Him: Are you the King of the Jews? Jesus said to him: You say so. (Compare Mark 15:2; Luke 23:3; John 18:33-37).” The Synoptic Gospels omit the account of John (John 18:28-32). In Luke (Luke 23:2), the trial before Pilate begins with an accusation made by the multitude that the Saviour corrupts the people and forbids giving tribute to Caesar. The next accusation, that He calls Himself ‘Christ, the King,’ provides the immediate reason for Pilate to ask Christ whether He is the King of the Jews. In John (John 18:33-37), all this is recounted much more fully than in the Synoptists. According to Roman law: a person cannot be condemned unless accused. Pilate’s question was based on the fact that Christ was accused of appropriating Messianic dignity to Himself. Even though the Messiah stood before Pilate now bound and in a humiliated state, this did not prevent Pilate from asking Him: ‘Are you the King of the Jews?’ Here it is assumed that the Accused had at one point truly proclaimed Himself King of the Jews, but His attempts to acquire a kingdom had failed. Instead of a royal throne, He was seized, bound, and brought to trial. Yet, despite even this, He might now continue to maintain His former belief about His own high dignity. If He were released, He might again proclaim Himself King. Christ answers Pilate almost as He answered Caiaphas before: ‘you say so’ (Matt 26:64). But there the past tense was used—‘you said’ (σὺ εἶπας); here it is present (σὺ λέγεις). There it was in response to an oath; here, to a plain question. There it was in response to a question about the dignity of the Son of God; here, about royal dignity. But if the question posed by Pilate was natural and understandable, then Christ’s answer was at least unusual. Who, being bound and brought to trial, would say that he is a king? Now we understand that Christ’s royal dignity was contained in His humiliation, and that He spoke with complete accuracy and precision, in no way exaggerating. But then it was not understood by Pilate or those around him. Christ’s answer was not ambiguous, but a direct affirmation of His royal dignity. It did not contain the meaning: ἐγὼ μέν τοῦτο οὐ λέγω, σὺ δὲ λέγεις (I do not say this, but you do). Compare (John 18:37), where also σὺ λέγεις. To the account of the Synoptists, John (John 18:34-38) adds a narrative about how it became clear to Pilate in what sense the Saviour called Himself King. He is a King not of earth, but of heaven. He came not for external worldly dominion over men, but to testify to the truth. Pilate understood that this was simply some deluded person. And not only from these words. Based on certain information, one may suppose that Pilate had known before about the personality and activity of the Saviour (Matt 27:18; Mark 15:10). It could not be that he knew nothing, for example, about Christ’s entry into Jerusalem. In all this, Pilate saw no signs of Christ’s desire to acquire royal dignity for Himself. Therefore, Pilate concluded his trial with a complete acquittal of the Saviour: ‘I find no fault in this man’ (Luke 23:4; John 18:38).

Matthew 27:12. And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. (Compare Mark 15:3).” The interrogation by Pilate, though brief, is ended. What follows can no longer be properly attributed to formal Roman judicial procedure. This is a simple, ordinary conversation, as happens in all courts between judges and the public after the formal session is concluded and judgment is pronounced. The Jews, evidently, were not satisfied with Pilate’s verdict and began to bring new accusations against Christ. What they consisted of, nothing is known. But it is seen that Pilate did not attach any importance to them, and he does not consider it necessary even to examine them. Mark notes only that the chief priests accused Him of many things (πολλά). The Savior answered nothing to these accusations.” The classical ἀπεκρίνατο is rare in the New Testament.”

Matthew 27:13. Then Pilate says to Him: Do you not hear how many things they testify against you? (Compare Mark 15:4).” There is irony in Pilate’s words toward the accusers and their accusations. There were very many accusations, but not one of them was any good. Such accusations could only come from the Jews, and from them alone. Speaking with them, Pilate also addresses Christ, inviting Him to answer the accusations. At this point the whole matter seems to have a comparatively calm appearance. Perhaps at this time the verdict was being written.\”

Matthew 27:14. And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly. (Compare Mark 15:5).” Christ gave no answer to Pilate concerning the new accusations. Although the law did not require this, Pilate was greatly astonished at Christ’s silence. At this time, probably the crowd of people was increasing more and more. Of the further events, we find a detailed account only from Luke (Luke 23:5-16). From the new accusations it was evident that Christ ‘incites the people, teaching throughout Judea, beginning from Galilee to this place’ (Luke 23:5). The word ‘Galilee’ gave Pilate the occasion to ask whether He was from Galilee, and then to send Christ to Herod for trial. Herod sends Christ back to Pilate.

Matthew 27:15. At the feast, the governor had a custom of releasing to the people one prisoner whom they desired. (Compare Mark 15:6; Luke 23:17; this verse in Luke is considered spurious).” The words of Pilate, as related by Luke (Luke 23:13-16), did not satisfy the people. One feels that it is seized with ever greater irritation and a thirst for blood. Pilate sees that the matter could have serious consequences which he had not foreseen, and therefore decides on a new step. There was a custom to release to the people during the Passover feast a prisoner, whoever they would want. How ancient such a practice was is completely unknown. In the Talmud there is no mention of such a custom. Among the Romans there was something similar, but the information about it is very brief and unclear. Among the Greeks prisoners were freed at the festivals of Demeter or in the so-called Thesmophoria. The identical expression of Matthew and Mark κατὰ δὲ ἑορτήν, which can be translated as \”on account of the feast\” or \”for the feast\” (the word \”Passover,\” added in the Russian translation, is not in the original), shows that this custom was observed generally at festivals, not only at the Passover. The release of one prisoner at Passover reminded of the liberation of the Hebrews from Egypt (id congruebat liberationi ex Aegypto). Pilate seized upon this idea to free Jesus Christ. Here was something similar to what happens among us when criminals are freed by manifesto. Pilate could have used his power in the present case. But, as usually happens, his tainted conscience made him weak and he had not the will to resist the crowd, which was becoming more and more enraged.”

Matthew 27:16. And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas; (Compare Mark 15:7-8).” The account of Mark is more detailed than Matthew’s. Mark reports that Barabbas had companions who committed murder during the insurrection.” The word εἶχον in Russian is not expressed: \”they had.\” In the Vulgate this word is placed in the singular and refers to Pilate: \”he had\” (habebat autem tunc vinctum insignem). The first reading is more correct, while the Vulgate reading is not proven with certainty. The plural \”they had\” or \”there was with them\” does not mean, however, that Barabbas was in the power of the Jews, not Pilate. From the further words of Pilate it is clear that Barabbas was in fact in his power. But at the same time it is clear that this prisoner was a Jew and came from the people. The change of \”they had\” to \”he had\” was, evidently, a correction. Barabbas was in prison at that very time (τότε), when Jesus Christ was on trial before Pilate. This was a robber \”notable\” (ἐπίσημος) or even famous – latro notissimus, summo scelere insignis. Thus John Chrysostom: \”The evangelist did not simply say: they had a robber, but a notable robber, famous for his crimes, who had committed countless murders.\” Here there may be some exaggeration, because in Mark (Mark 15:7) and Luke (Luke 23:19) only one murder by Barabbas is mentioned. It is difficult to say whether it is true that his other name, the same as Christ’s, was Jesus, added in Matthew in some codices, and among others in the Syro-Sinaitic. \”In many codices,\” says Origen, \”it is not said that Barabbas was also called Jesus, and this may perhaps be correct – the name Jesus should not have been borne by any of the criminals.\” Some think that Barabbas’s name Jesus is spurious. Others, on the contrary, assert that if Origen found the name Jesus in many manuscripts, this constitutes almost decisive proof of its authenticity. It is more probable, however, that it is spurious. Barabbas means \”son of the father\” (\”bar\” means son and \”abba\” means father). Jerome explains it as \”son of the teacher.\””

Matthew 27:17. So when they had gathered together, Pilate said to them: Whom do you wish that I release to you: Barabbas, or Jesus, called Christ? (Compare Mark 15:9; John 18:39).” At Mark 15:8 it is added that the \”people\” (ὄχλος), probably in response to Pilate’s proposal, \”began to cry out and beg Pilate that he\” (in some codices \”always\”) \”do for them,\” that is, to release a prisoner for them because of the feast. Since in Mark the people make the request and Pilate answers them, then, correspondingly, we can refer in Matthew in this verse αὐτῶν not to the members of the Sanhedrin, but to the people, that is, to the same ὄχλος, mentioned in verse 15. But, having heard the request, Pilate himself, probably, chose Barabbas. If, as seen from the Gospels, Pilate wanted by this step to free Christ, then it is difficult to think that he would point out such a person who could, in his opinion, be freed by the people. From this it is clear that Barabbas was not, as some think, a political criminal defending the rights of the people against the Romans. He was a simple robber, dangerous to human society.\”

Matthew 27:18. For he knew that for envy they had delivered him. (Compare Mark 15:10.)” This whole narrative supposes that Pilate had been previously acquainted with the person and activities of Christ. He knew also of the attitude toward Him of His enemies, of the fact that they \”delivered Him for envy\” (\”hatred,\” \”ill will,\” \”malevolence\”). Since the people only later joined with the members of the Sanhedrin, it is thought that παρέδωκαν (\”delivered\”) refers here to them precisely, not to the people.”

Matthew 27:19. Meanwhile, as he sat on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him: Have nothing to do with that Righteous One, for I have suffered much in a dream because of Him today. When the question about Barabbas arose, Pilate was sitting on his judgment seat. His wife sent him a message about her dream. In ancient times of the republic, the wives of governors were not allowed to accompany their husbands to the provinces, but later these laws were relaxed, and the custom of taking wives became established from the time of Augustus. Who was and how was called the wife of Pilate, no completely reliable information is available. According to tradition, she was called Procla or Claudia Proculla and is numbered by the Greek Church among the saints (October 27; in the church calendar of Archbishop Sergius she is listed in the second index, where are named persons not recognized with certainty as saints). It is certain only that she either had seen Christ before, or knew about Him. The dream of Pilate’s wife, according to some, was from God, according to others – from the devil. In the first sense, Origen, Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Augustine and others express themselves.”

Matthew 27:20. But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. (Compare Mark 15:11.)” This was, probably, at the time when Pilate was sitting on his judgment seat. The chief priests and elders talked with the people surrounding them and persuaded (ἔπεισαν) them to ask for Barabbas and to destroy Jesus Christ.”

Matthew 27:21. Then the governor asked them: Which of the two do you wish that I release to you? They said: Barabbas. (Compare Luke 23:18-19; John 18:40.)” In the previous verse it was only reported of conversations between the chief priests and elders with the people. It is not seen that they said anything to Pilate. But, perhaps, from different sides rumors reached him that the people would demand Barabbas. From this ἀποκριθείς – \”answering.\” Literally: \”answering, the governor said to them.\” This means that Pilate, having heard unclear and indefinite shouts, wanted to ascertain precisely whom the people desired to free. Or one can explain it thus, that Pilate waited some time and offered his question only when he saw that the Jews were ready to give an answer.”

Matthew 27:22. Pilate says to them: What then shall I do with Jesus, called Christ? They all say: Let Him be crucified. (Compare Mark 15:12-13; Luke 23:20-21.)” \”Him\” after \”say\” is not in many codices. From the accounts of the evangelists it is not seen that before there was talk about the cross. The popular leaders desired only the death of Jesus Christ, of which they asked Pilate, but it is doubtful whether they wished precisely crucifixion. If they had wished for it before, then for us the question of Pilate would not be fully understood, what should he do with Jesus, called Christ. The declaration of the people about crucifixion came out as if suddenly and unexpectedly. The narrative, apparently, is not complete, and it does not say some minor details. Perhaps from the words of Pilate or from rumors about the crimes previously committed by Barabbas, the people knew that Barabbas was to be condemned precisely to crucifixion. Crucem meritus erat Barabbas. The reminder by Pilate of Barabbas immediately changes the whole situation. If not to ask for the release of Barabbas, then he will be crucified. Better to save him from such a death. Let Jesus, called Christ, take crucifixion in his place instead! Let Him precisely be crucified in place of Barabbas! And thus the cry \”let him be crucified\” began to be repeated by the excited and enraged crowd, which became more and more savage under the influence of the chief priests and elders.” The word σταυρωθήτω (let him be crucified) in Hebrew is short, terrible, and excitative – began to be uttered from one end to the other among the agitated crowd. They cried πάντες οὐκ οἱ ὄχλοι μόνοι, καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι (all, not only the peoples, but also the chief priests and elders – Zigabenus).” After ποιήσω (\”shall I do\”) two accusatives τί and Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν; such constructions are characteristic of Greek speech (compare Xenophon \”Cyropaedia\”, 3, 2, 15 – οὐδεπώποτε ἐπαύοντο πολλὰ κακὰ ἡμᾶς (instead of ἡμῖν) ποιοῦντες).”

Matthew 27:23. The governor said: What evil has He done? But they cried out all the more: Let Him be crucified. (Compare Mark 15:14; Luke 23:22-23.)” Luke gives a more detailed account here than the other Synoptists. He reports the continuation of the ‘great cry’ and how the shout of the people and the chief priests ‘overwhelmed’ (κατίσχυον) Pilate. These shouts threw Pilate into great confusion. He found no fault in the Accused. He was ready to release Him. Pilate’s wife sent word to him to do nothing harmful to the Righteous One. And suddenly the cross! Even Pilate, who thirsted for blood and was cruel, was astonished. ‘What evil (what wrong—κακόν) has He done?’ But now the frequent accusations and arguments cease, and the demand for the cross grows louder and louder. Pilate’s question remains unanswered and is even drowned out by a loud elemental cry: ‘Let Him be crucified.’ Thus Pilate’s thoughtless proposal about Barabbas provoked a terrible explosion.

Matthew 27:24. Pilate, seeing that nothing avails but the confusion increases, took water and washed his hands before the people, and said: I am innocent of the blood of this Righteous One; see to it yourselves. There is no account of this in the other evangelists. Therefore the reasons for such an action of Pilate are not entirely clear. Most likely the matter is explained by the fact that the popular cries drowned out his speech. Then Pilate resorts to a visual method of explanation, which was understandable to the Jews. One can suppose that when water was brought to Pilate, the crowd immediately became silent, as usually happens when one turns to visual clarification. The crowd did not know what would happen next and for a moment quieted down, so that the explanatory words of Pilate could be heard by all.” Οὐδὲν ὠφελεῖ – the subject (not expressed) is \”he,\” and οὐδέν – the accusative case (compare John 12:19). Therefore the literal translation is: \”he does not help anything, that is, cannot achieve anything because of the popular noise, and his objections only increase this noise and confusion. Pilate washes his hands before the whole people.\”” \”In the blood of this just person\” – the word \”just\” is not in codices BDabff, the Syro-Sinaitic, and in Origen, but it appears in many other codices, including the Sinai and Peshitta. The reading ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος τούτου, that is \”of this blood,\” is more probable. In Greek the word ἀθῷος is used without the preposition ἀπό, and the evangelical expression ἀθῷος... ἀπό... is a Hebraism, where ἀπό corresponds to the Hebrew word \”min\” (from).” ‘See to it yourselves’—a formula of rejection; it is better to translate it with future tense: not ‘see to it yourselves,’ but ‘you will see’ (in the Slavonic translation it is correct—‘you will see’; in the Vulgate—vos videritis; in the German translation—ihr werdet zusehen; but in Luther it is imperative—sehet ihr zu). Pilate wants to say that the people will see his innocence. The authenticity of this verse is questioned by some. The custom of washing the hands \”for cleansing from death\” existed among pagans, but among them ablutions were performed after death. The ablution performed by Pilate was a purely Jewish custom, which was based on Deut 21:6-8 (compare Talmud, tractate Sota IX, 6; Ps 25:6). Pilate’s words are almost a literal repetition of 2 Sam 3:28. \”That a Roman governor so strongly assimilated a Jewish way of expression and figurative language – this is incredible, and it is even more incredible that he so unmanfully disclaims responsibility for the pronounced verdict.\” But to assume that Pilate was completely unacquainted with any Jewish customs is also incredible, especially since he had a wife, perhaps a Jewess or Judaizing woman (in the Gospel of Nicodemus, ch. 2, Pilate says to the Jews: οἴδατε ὅτι ἡ γυνή μου θεοσεβής ἐστιν, καὶ μᾶλλον ἰουδαΐζει σὺν ὑμῖν. Λέγουσιν αὐτῷ. Ναί, οἴδαμεν – you know that my wife is pious and much Judaizes with you. They say to him: Yes, we know). But even if we do not assume all of this, in that case one cannot assert that Pilate could not have performed ablution before the people. This is such an act which could be performed by anyone. Pilate’s ablution is not so consistent with Deut 21:6 and sq., and 2 Sam 3:28, as to say that Pilate acted on the basis of a legal prescription or repeated biblical expressions. The most probable supposition is that in the present case he adapted himself to Jewish customs, which he was familiar with. As for \”responsibility,\” Pilate, it seems, is not thinking about it now, because crucifixion of Christ, at least in Pilate’s eyes, was not yet finally decided at this point.”

Matthew 27:25. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. According to Jewish custom, when judges pronounced a death sentence, as a sign that they had given a just verdict and would be responsible for the death of the condemned, they laid hands on his head and said: ‘Your blood be on your head’ (2 Sam 1:16; compare Matt 23:35; Acts 18:6; Jer 2:35). The Jews wanted to say that if Christ were crucified, they took responsibility for His execution upon themselves—and not only they themselves, but their children as well should answer for it. It is clear that these words were originally spoken not by all those present, but only by some, and only then began to spread among the agitated crowd. Perhaps some cried: τό αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἐφ´ ἡμᾶς, and others added: καὶ ἐπὶ τεκ´να ἡμῶν. It should be noted that the Hebrew or Aramaic cry might have been somewhat shorter than the Greek or Russian text, and thus was more suitable for shouts from an enormous crowd of people. It is clear that the children of the Jews were responsible for the blood of the Righteous One only to the extent that they participated or participate in the malice of their ancestors.

Matthew 27:26. Then he released Barabbas to them, and Jesus, after beating, he handed over for crucifixion. (Compare Mark 15:15; Luke 23:24-25; John 19:1.)” Let us note that Barabbas was the first person who, because of his accidental connection with Christ, was freed from this dreadful punishment. If Christ had accomplished His work of redemption without freeing people from crucifixion, it would have been incomplete. Therefore His crucifixion is one of the most important aspects of His work of redemption. Subsequently, crucifixion in Christian states was abolished. The Savior was condemned to crucifixion. Scourging was carried out before crucifixion. The Romans had the custom of scourging condemned prisoners, and Jesus Christ was delivered to the soldiers for this purpose – this was monstrous injustice and cruelty, because He had been declared innocent twice. The terrible punishment before crucifixion was carried out with such barbarism that it was known by the name of \”near death.\” And indeed, the victim was often deprived of consciousness during the punishment and frequently died before crucifixion. Blows were inflicted with whips, not clubs, because Pilate did not have lictors with him. Flagellis caedebantur apud Romanos servi (liberi virgis) et fere capite damnati, nudi et ad columnam adstricti, antequam in crucem agerentur\” (Slaves were scourged among the Romans with whips (freemen with rods) and nearly those condemned to death, naked and bound to a post, before they were led to the cross – \”Cicero In Verrem\” V, 66). The whip consisted of leather straps, sometimes furnished with lead tips or sharp nails and small bones, which furrowed the back and chest and covered the exhausted victim with a mass of wounds and bruises. Flagella erant aculeata, ossiculis pecuinis fere catenata, unde \”horribile flagellum\” dixit Horatius (The whips were furnished with points, usually bound with animal bones, hence – \”the terrible whip,\” as Horace expressed it, – Sermones, I, 3, 119). The condemned person, stripped naked, with bound hands and bent, was bound to a post while the blows were inflicted by the executioner. Captain Warren ascribed to himself the discovery in an underground room in Jerusalem of the place where Christ was scourged. Scourging was usually carried out corpore denudato. The word φραγελλώσας is a Latinism (with the change of λ to ρ) from flagellare – \”to scourge.\” The proper Greek word for this is mastigoаn. Scourging was carried out, it is thought, before the praetorium, in view of Pilate and the people.” The word αὐτοῖς after παρέδωκεν is not in the best manuscripts. The meaning is that Pilate \”released to them\” (ἀπέλυσεν αὐτοῖς), that is, to the Jews, Barabbas, but Jesus Christ was delivered for scourging and crucifixion not \”to them,\” but to his soldiers. Therefore the word \”to them\” after \”delivered\” is correctly omitted in the Russian translation. The attempts to represent the matter somewhat differently and to prove that the Jews had the right to carry out crucifixion (Alexander Yannai), that Pilate only agreed to this execution, while the Jews themselves crucified Christ independently of Pilate and his soldiers, do not withstand criticism in view of the clear testimony of all the Gospels, that it was not the Jews themselves who participated in the crucifixion of Christ, but only Pilate’s soldiers.”

Matthew 27:27. Then the soldiers of the governor, taking Jesus into the praetorium, gathered the whole band around Him (Compare Mark 15:16.)” \”The residence of the Jewish procurator was not Jerusalem, but Caesarea. Since the dwelling of the chief military or civil authority was called a praetorium, the πραιτώριον τοῦ Ἡρώδου (the praetorium of Herod) in Caesarea (Acts 23:35) is nothing other than the palace built by Herod, where the procurator lived. Under special circumstances, namely during great Jewish holidays, when protective measures were necessary because of the masses gathered in Jerusalem, the procurator came to Jerusalem and lived there in Herod’s former palace. The praetorium in Jerusalem, where Pilate was during the condemnation of Jesus Christ, is therefore the well-known palace of Herod on the western border of the city. It was not only a princely residence, but also a strong fortress, where several times (during insurrections in 4 B.C. and 66 A.D.) large detachments of troops were able to defend themselves against the risen people. Therefore, during the procurator’s stay and the military detachment accompanying him here, they had their quarters\” (Schürer, Geschichte, I, p. 457). If the soldiers led Christ \”within the hall, that is, into the praetorium\” (Mark 15:16), here we must understand the courtyard in Herod’s palace. The soldiers gathered here the \”whole cohort\” (ὅλην τὴν σπεῖραν – Matthew and Mark), or Roman cohort, which consisted of approximately 500 men. The word \”cohort,\” or cohort, does not need to be understood here in its literal meaning. Perhaps fewer than one cohort gathered, but perhaps more. It is understandable that ἐπ´ αὐτόν means not \”against Him,\” but \”toward Him,\” for mocking Him. It is supposed that the place of mockery was not where the scourging took place. If the latter took place near the judge’s seat and under his view (at the lithostratus or Gabbatha), then the former – in the inner courtyard.”

Matthew 27:28. And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. (Compare Mark 15:17.)” Mark does not say that Christ was stripped beforehand for mocking. According to Matthew, the soldiers strip (ἐκδύσαντες) Jesus Christ. Thus, according to Matthew, after scourging, Christ’s own garments were put back on Him, and now the soldiers again took them off, in order to put on Him a \”scarlet cloak\” (χλαμύδα κοκκίνην). But one cannot say with certainty how many times Christ was clothed and unclothed before crucifixion, twice or three times. Mark calls this scarlet cloak a purple robe, that is, a red garment. It had the appearance of a cloak, fastened with a clasp on the right shoulder and covering the left side of the body to the knees. This cloak was worn by Roman and Macedonian kings and other persons; it can often be seen on busts and statues of emperors and generals. By putting this \”cloak\” on Christ, the soldiers wanted to mock His royal dignity, which in their eyes was completely imaginary.”

Matthew 27:29. And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! (Compare Mark 15:17-18; John 19:2-3.)” In all three evangelists the \”crown of thorns\” is called almost identically: στέφανον ἐξ ἀκάνθων (Matthew and John) and ἀκάνθινον στέφανον (Mark). What plant was used to weave the crown is difficult to say. Ἄκανθα means \”thornbush,\” of which there is much in Palestine (see commentaries on Matt 7:16). It is supposed that this was an ordinary thorny plant, which the Arabs call nawa or pivka, with many small thorny prickles, it is very flexible. Some say it was rhamus paliurus or the so-called spina christi. Around Jerusalem there is even now much thorny thornbush. Having placed the thorny crown on Christ’s head, the soldiers then gave Him in His right hand a \”reed\” (κάλαμον), a reed stalk or cane, or simply any stick, which was to represent a royal scepter. Thus before them was a mocking King, who seemed a king precisely because He was the negation of every royal dignity. The soldiers approached Christ with feigned and mocking expressions of respect and loyalty, greeting Him with the usual greeting χαῖρε (hail), O King of the Jews, while kneeling before Him.”

Matthew 27:30. And they spat upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head. (Compare Mark 15:19; John 19:3.)” John says only that the soldiers struck Christ on the cheeks, passing over the other insults. Mark, using the past imperfect tense of the verbs (ἔτυπτον and ἐνέπτυον – struck and spat), indicates that the same mockery was repeated several times. According to Matthew, it is somewhat different: having spat on Him, they took the rod and struck (understood as several times) Him on the head.”

Matthew 27:31. And after that they had mocked him, they took off from him the robe, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him. (Compare Mark 15:20; Luke 23:26; John 19:17.)” John inserts here a rather lengthy narrative, which is not in the synoptics, about how Pilate brought the tortured Christ to the Jews, and about a new interrogation of Pilate (John 19:4-16). Apparently, only after this did the soldiers take off the cloak or scarlet robe from Him and put on Him again His own garments, and then led Him away to crucifixion.”

Matthew 27:32. And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross. (Compare Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26.)” Cyrene or Cyrenaica was located in Egypt. There were many Jews there, and information about them is found sufficiently in the New Testament. They were at the Feast of Pentecost in Jerusalem (Acts 2:10), and had their synagogue there (Acts 6:9). Judging by the name – Simon – the Cyrenian mentioned here was a Hebrew. But his sons (Alexander and Rufus – Mark 15:21) were called one – by a Greek name, and the other – by a Latin name. It was supposed that Simon came from slaves and was one of the followers of Christ and a Christian. His person appears mysterious. Speaking of the laying of the Cross on him, Bengel remarks that nec judaeus, nec romanus ullus erat qui vellet tollere crucis onus (neither Jew nor Roman would wish to bear the weight of the Cross). If Simon was a follower of Christ, the matter is explained simply. Simon was coming \”from the field\” (Mark and Luke). This is considered decisive proof that at that time, as Khvolson and others express it, it was a \”weekday,\” because work was not allowed on holidays. But, as noted above, from the expressions of Mark and Luke in any case one cannot make a precise conclusion that Simon was coming precisely from field work. These expressions can simply mean that he was coming in the direction from the field (ἀπ´ ἀγροῦ). He apparently showed sympathy for the suffering Christ, and, noticing this, the soldiers seized him and proposed (but hardly forced) him to help Christ carry His Cross and thereby accelerate the procession. Simon gladly agreed and carried the Cross together with the Savior Himself. This Cross was made by the soldiers themselves out of logs, perhaps roughly nailed together, so that it could be placed on the shoulder, and since it was taller than the man who was condemned to crucifixion, the lower end of it dragged along the ground during the procession. On ἀγγαρεύω see commentaries on Matt 5:41.” In Luke (Luke 23:27-32) a speech of Christ is added to the Jerusalem women, which is not encountered in the other evangelists.”

Matthew 27:33. And coming to the place called Golgotha, which means Skull Place, Matthew 27:34. They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink. (Compare Mark 15:22; Luke 23:33; John 19:17.)” The word \”Golgotha\” is the Hellenized form of the Hebrew \”Gulgoleth\” – \”skull\” (Judg 9:53), also \”head\” in the sense of \”man,\” \”person,\” \”individual\” (Exod 38:26; 1 Chr 23:3). This word was applied to mountains and hills that resembled a human skull in outward appearance. Where Golgotha, where Christ was crucified, was located, is not known with precision. Based on Heb 13:12, the conclusion is drawn that it was outside of Jerusalem (\”outside the gates\”), but not far from it (John 19:20). In Aramaic this place was called \”gogaltha.\” One \”l\” was dropped from the word \”Golgotha,\” probably in the popular pronunciation of this word. All four evangelists explain the word \”Golgotha,\” calling it κρανίου τόπος, κράνιον, which means \”place of a skull\” or \”skull.\” Probably it was a rounded bare hill. In 366 A.D. a church was built at the place where Golgotha was supposedly located, which stood here until 614, when it was burned by the Persians. After this, new church buildings were constructed here. But in 936 everything perished from flames again. In October 1810, a temple of the Resurrection of Christ was built by the Greeks at the place where Golgotha was presumed to be.” The evangelists do not provide details of how the crucifixion of Christ was accomplished, limiting themselves only to the statement that He was crucified. From this one can conclude that He was crucified in the ordinary way in which this most terrible of all executions was carried out. The cross was not as tall as painters depict it. It ordinarily rose above the ground eleven feet and rarely – twelve. The feet of the crucified were not more than four feet from the ground. It is unknown whether the hands and feet of the Savior were nailed to the Cross before or after the Cross was erected in the ground. In crucifixions both happened. In the first case the person being crucified was fastened to the Cross, then either from the ground, or perhaps from a platform or ladder, his hands and feet were nailed to him. In the second case the cross was laid on the ground, the person being crucified was stretched on it and, perhaps fastened with ropes, his hands and feet were fastened to the cross with nails, after which the ropes or cords were removed. This latter kind of punishment was more terrible than the first, because when the cross was lifted and erected in the ground, the whole body shook, and from this occurred the most unbearable, the most dreadful pains, especially since the executioners who carried out such executions usually felt no pity toward the criminal, just as people sometimes feel no pity for animals, sometimes treating them very roughly and subjecting them to terrible tortures. The executioner ordinarily nailed the right hand and right foot first, then the left hand and left foot. But if several people performed the execution, the hands and feet were nailed simultaneously. Sometimes both feet were nailed together, sometimes separately. Sometimes nails were replaced by ropes alone. This was, apparently, easier, but in reality – even more terrible, because the crucified hung on the cross longer.” Probably, before the crucifixion, Christ was given a drink, which Matthew calls wine (not vinegar), mixed with gall (οἶνον μετὰ χολῆς μεμιγμενον), and Mark – wine with myrrh (ἐσμυρνισμένον οίνον). Instead of οἶνος in several codices όξος – vinegar, generally a sour drink (so in the Russian translation). So also in the Epistle of Barnabas VII, 5, where this text is cited, and in Ps 68:22 (translation of the Seventy). It is supposed that οἶνος was corrected here to όξος in accordance with the expression of the indicated verse from the Psalm. And some even say that in fact no drink was offered to Christ, and prove this by the fact that He could not fail to accept this \”beneficial\” drink, and that Matthew (and Mark) transformed this beneficial drink into an \”uneatable\” one, into \”wine with gall,\” in order to show the fulfillment of Ps 68:22; \”the humanitarian act of the soldiers Matthew turned into an expression of enemy malice.\” But such a view is based on an incorrect understanding of the evangelist’s speech. Χολή, of course, means \”gall\” (compare Jer 8:14), but not always; sometimes – simply bitterness (Job 20:14), wormwood (Prov 5:4; Lam 3:15) and poison, bitter and dulling the mental faculties (Deut 29:18). In the latter sense is it used by Matthew οἶνον μετὰ χολῆς μεμιγμένον. And Matthew’s speech has no relation to Ps 68:22 (Zahn). The drink was probably prepared by compassionate Jerusalem women and given to the condemned to ease their crucifixion sufferings. But Jesus Christ did not wish to drink it.”

Matthew 27:35. And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: (Compare Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:23.)” The order of events in the synoptics is changed compared to John. In John (John 19:18-22) here are placed the accounts of crucifixion with Christ of two robbers and the attachment to the Cross of the inscription of Christ’s guilt, and only after this John recounts the dividing of Christ’s garments; then, that the soldiers guarded Christ (only in Matthew, verse 36), then about the cross inscription, and finally, about the crucifixion together with Christ of two robbers. If John’s order is to be recognized as exact, then the synoptics’ accounts should be arranged in such an order: John 19:18 = Matt 27:38 = Mark 15:27 = Luke 23:33 (with the addition of Luke 23:34); John 19:19 = Matt 27:37 = Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38. Then only in John the account John 19:20-22, and verse 23 of John coincides with Matt 27:35 = Mark 15:24 = Luke 23:34. Singling out Matthew alone, we find that by agreement with John the order of events should be thus: Matt 27:38.” The garments of the condemned, as is the case even now, belonged to the executioners. However, Edersheim remarks: \”It is commonly supposed that such was the general Roman custom. But there are no proofs of this, and later it was clearly forbidden\” (Ulpianus, Digestae, XLVIII, 20, 6). But if it was forbidden, then evidently the custom existed before. From the account of John (John 19:23) it is seen that Christ’s garments were divided into four parts because the crucifixion was carried out by four soldiers (quaternio). The other evangelists do not speak of this, limiting themselves only to the remark that the soldiers divided Christ’s garments. To these words of Matthew and Mark was added in ancient times an addition \”that it might be fulfilled that which was spoken\”... \”casting lots,\” borrowed from Ps 21:19, authentic in John (John 19:24), but correctly omitted in Matthew (Mark 15:28 is spurious) both in the Russian and Slavonic texts. Thus, in relating the division of garments, Matthew and Mark, evidently, did not think that here is fulfilled, and most wonderfully and originally, an ancient prophecy. Only John, and much later, remembered this.” Opinions about whether Christ was crucified completely naked, or as He is depicted on the cross, with a loincloth (lenteum), differ. Usually before crucifixion all garments were removed from the condemned. Athanasius the Great, Ambrose, Augustine, and others affirmed that Christ was crucified completely naked. Indeed, nothing can prove that he had a subligaculum. Only in the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus it is said that expoliaverunt eum vestimentis et praecinxerunt lenteo et coronam de spinis imposuerunt super caput ejus. \”After they had mocked Him, they led Him away to crucifixion and, having stripped Him, took His garments and, sitting, waited until He expired. And they divided His garments, as is customarily done with the condemned of the lowest kind, with the outcast, with the defenseless and helpless; they divided those garments which had wrought so many miracles and which, however, had no effect at that time, for Christ held back His ineffable power\” (St. John Chrysostom).”

Matthew 27:36. and sitting down they watched him there; The soldiers to whom the crucifixion was entrusted were subject to the strictest responsibility in case the condemned was somehow freed from punishment and escaped.”

Matthew 27:37. And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. (Compare Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19.)” In all evangelists the content of the inscription is different. Literally: \”this is Jesus, King of the Jews\” (Matthew), \”King of the Jews\” (Mark), \”King of the Jews this\” (Luke), \”Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews\” (John). Evidently, all evangelists reproduced this inscription from memory, translating it into Greek from Hebrew and Latin, but its content is substantially the same in all of them. With such a difference it is difficult, of course, to decide what the genuine inscription was. It is thought that in Matthew οὗτός ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς ὁ βασιλεύς τῶν Ἰουδαίων – is an exact reproduction of the Latin inscription (Hic est Iesus Rex Judaeorum). How long this inscription remained after the Savior’s body was taken down from the Cross, and how long the Cross itself stood on Golgotha, nothing is known. Similarly, it is not known whether the soldiers themselves attached this inscription over Jesus Christ’s head, but probably they did. This could have been done by the soldiers already after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.”

Matthew 27:38. Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left. (Compare Mark 15:27; Luke 23:33; John 19:18.)” Completely unknown people, probably caught and convicted of serious criminal offenses, robberies, brigandage, murders, insurrections, etc. In tradition the unrepentant robber is called Gestas, and the repentant – Dismas.”

Matthew 27:39. And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, Matthew 27:40. And saying: You who destroy the temple and build it in three days! Save yourself; if you are the Son of God, come down from the cross. (Compare Mark 15:29-30.)” Adversariorum scommata possunt numerari septem (The mockeries of enemies can be counted as seven – Bengel). As always happens, a multitude of people gathered to watch the public execution, who passed by the Cross in crowds (παραπορευόμενοι) nearby. Those passing by reviled Christ, cursed Him, expressing their malice and mockery by wagging or shaking of the head (see Job 16:4; Ps 21:8; Isa 37:22; Jer 8:16; Lam 2:15). Not all, of course, remembered the words of Christ about the destruction of the temple and its restoration in three days. But it is seen that these words once struck the popular ear, were reproduced at the trial before Caiaphas, and were probably passed from mouth to mouth. The existing reality was completely opposite to such an assertion of Christ. Everything here spoke only of extreme suffering and humiliation. Beautiful crosses with representations of the Savior exist only in the imagination of artists. In reality there was nothing of the sort. We should imagine nothing here except the utmost horror and the utmost human poverty and suffering. And this horror, these sufferings aroused not compassion, but mockery!”

Matthew 27:41. Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders and Pharisees, said, Matthew 27:42. He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. (Compare Mark 15:31; Luke 23:35.)” In all synoptics different expressions, but the essence is conveyed identically. The word \”Pharisees\” appears in Matthew in less important codices and is considered spurious. Generally, there is strong variation in the text: \”likewise,\” \”likewise and,\” \”likewise even and,\” with \”scribes and elders,\” with \”elders and scribes\”; with \”scribes and elders and Pharisees,\” with \”scribes and Pharisees.\” These people probably addressed mockeries both to Christ Himself and to the people, pointing to Him, pronouncing blasphemies, recalling His healings and words about Himself as Savior. In all these mockeries actual facts from His life are pointed out, completely misunderstood or distorted by those mocking Him. But if He had now come down from the Cross and thus saved Himself, this would be a lesser miracle compared to His Resurrection. Resurrexit, et non credidistis. Ergo si etiam de cruce descenderet, similiter non crederitis (He rose, and you did not believe. Therefore if He had even come down from the Cross, you would similarly not have believed. – Jerome). In general the mockeries were marked by stupidity and shortsightedness. The people surrounding Christ could not and did not wish to understand that to free others from danger, men must often sacrifice and do sacrifice their own lives.”

Matthew 27:43. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God. These words are not found in the other evangelists. It is unknown whether all these insults reached the ears of the Savior. In all probability they did. Those who pronounced mockeries spoke here in part with Old Testament texts (see Ps 21:9; Wis 2:13-18). \”If he be willing, he wants Him\” (εἰ θέλει αὐτόν), that is, if He is pleasing, acceptable to Him. This is a Hebraism (in Hebrew – \”gaphetz bo\”).”

Matthew 27:44. The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth. (Compare Mark 15:32.)” Matthew and Mark present similar testimony here: both thieves reviled Christ. But Luke (Luke 23:39 and following) speaks only of one thief who reviled, while the other restrained him. This difference has long attracted attention. Origen, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus and others believed that at first both thieves reviled Christ, then one of them, witnessing Christ’s patience, repented, began to restrain the other and at last spoke his words (Luke 23:42). But Jerome says that here there is a rhetorical device called in Greek σύλληψις – a word meaning “grasping,” which here can be translated as “shortening,” “combining” – pro uno latrone uterque inducitur blaspemasse (the evangelist makes both thieves blaspheme instead of just one). Augustine says that Matthew, telling the story briefly, put the plural number instead of the singular. Meyer calls this generic plural, which has necessary connection to verse 38. These interpretations can be agreed with and we can suppose that Matthew and Mark, who do not speak of the repenting thief, wished generally to show that the insults were heard at first not only from among the people (not all), from chief priests, elders and scribes, but also from the thieves. Luke further notes that they were heard also from the soldiers (Luke 23:36-37), which is not in Matthew and Mark. There was a mass of insults and blasphemy, and really it was hard to even distinguish from whence they came. If Luke singles out from this mass of revilers one thief, this certainly does not contradict Matthew or Mark in any way. Τό αὐτό does not mean “in the same way,” but “the same thing,” that is, the mockeries and insults, according to the construction ὀνειδίζειν τινά τι – “to reprove someone for something.” In John here is introduced the account of the women standing at the cross and the commending of the Mother of God to John.

Matthew 27:45. And from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour; (Cf. Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44.) The Synoptics here consistently determine the time of the appearing of darkness. Earlier, precise time indication is found in John, who counts according to Roman (and Asian Minor) time (John 19:14 – should be read as “Friday of the Passover,” or Paschal Friday – παρασκευ τοῦ πάσχα, and not “before the Passover,” as in the Russian translation; see in Tischendorf) and says that Christ was on trial before Pilate in the sixth hour of the morning – by our time reckoning. Then Mark by Hebrew reckoning notes that the crucifixion took place at the third hour of the day, that is, by our count – the ninth. Now all the Synoptics unanimously affirm that darkness spread from the sixth to the ninth hour, that is, for three hours after the crucifixion, by our count (adding six), from twelve to three o’clock in the afternoon. The origin of this darkness, which spread over all the earth (ἐπὶ πάσαν τὴν γῆν – Matthew; ἐφ´ ὅλην τὴν γῆν – Mark and Luke), to the present time has not been explained, and there is no reason to hope it will be explained. Here we can only find the fulfillment of an ancient prophecy (Amos 8:9-10). From ancient commentators the most thorough discussion of this subject is found in Origen, who said that about this fact “nowhere in history is it reported” and that the darkness could not be a result of a solar eclipse, because the Passover was celebrated during the vernal equinox at full moon. He thinks that as other signs during the sufferings and death of Christ were given only in Jerusalem, so the darkness until the ninth hour spread only over all Judea, and explains the darkness by the appearance of very dark clouds, which increasingly spread over the Jewish land and Jerusalem, so that they blocked the sun’s rays. This opinion of Origen has not been refuted till now, although there have been repeated attempts to present this phenomenon as miraculous. Discussing this subject, Origen refers, among other things, to the testimony of the writer Phlegon (a native of Tralles, freedman of the Emperor Hadrian), who in the second century of the Christian era wrote the annals of the Olympiads. Phlegon says that in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad there was a solar eclipse far more complete than any known before then. In the sixth hour of the day night came, so that stars appeared in the sky. There was also a great earthquake in Bethany, which caused great devastation in Nicaea. But the solar eclipse of which Phlegon speaks could not have lasted for three hours. It is most likely that the appearance of darkness should be explained by an approaching earthquake. Such an assumption is entirely in accord with Origen’s account of the appearing of “very dark clouds” or clouds. Such phenomena are not uncommon before earthquakes. Zahn remarks that under ἡ γῆ of the Synoptics here should be understood only Judea.

Matthew 27:46. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice: Eli, Eli! lama sabachthani? that is: My God, My God! why have you forsaken me? (Cf. Mark 15:34.) The Savior hung on the cross about six hours. His death was approaching. His physical and moral sufferings became unbearable. No human words or descriptions can express the full depth of these sufferings. One can only say that they were opposite to all possible earthly pleasures. The sufferings equaled as it were a renunciation by the Most High of His faithful Servant, His beloved Son. This means that at this time Christ experienced the mystery of the very greatest sufferings. When Christ “was poured out like water, all His bones scattered and His heart became like wax, it melted within His breast, His strength dried up like a potsherd, and His tongue stuck to His mouth,” when “they divided His garments,” – in this last, most extreme and horrible human misfortune, – at this time from the lips of the Sufferer came a terrible dying cry, indicating that all hope of salvation and return to life had now vanished. The words of Christ are the only ones that Matthew and Mark report during the suffering on the cross. They are taken from Psalm 21. In the ancient Hebrew language here are only four words: “eli, eli, lama azavtani.” The Hebrew “azavtani” was replaced by the Aramaic, equal in meaning “sabachthani”; and “lama” (according to the best readings) – “lemma” (λεμά), which was written, however, in different ways: λεμα, λαμα, λιμα, λημα. “Azavtani” comes from the Hebrew verb “azav” – “to leave,” “to abandon,” “to deprive of help.” In codex D of Mark is ζαφθάνει, which was a later assimilation of Greek with Hebrew. The Aramaic “sabachthani” the evangelists translate with the Greek ἐγκαταλείπω, which means both “simply to leave” and “to leave someone helpless in times of troubles and sufferings” (cf. Acts 2:27; Rom 9:29; 2 Cor 4:9; 2 Tim 4:10; Heb 10:25). The translation was made in order to indicate what real meaning was contained in these words of Christ, which were incomprehensible to those around Him. Some say that here Christ expressed “a subjective feeling, which should not be confused with the objective abandonment of Him by God.”

Matthew 27:47. And some of those standing there, hearing this, said: He is calling for Elijah. (Cf. Mark 15:35.) The name Elijah in Hebrew is spelled differently than Eli or Eli – “My God” from El – “God” and the attachment of the possessive pronoun. But in pronunciation “Elijah” and “My God” are similar in Hebrew. The name Elijah means “God is Jehovah.” It was natural that “some of those standing” there, perhaps not hearing clearly or simply not understanding the last words of Christ, thought that He was calling Elijah to come to His aid. “This one” or “that one” (οὗτος) – an expressive word, spoken with the purpose of showing that it was not the thieves crucified with Christ who were calling Elijah, but rather He who was crucified in their midst.

Matthew 27:48. And immediately one of them ran and took a sponge, filled it with vinegar and put it on a reed, and gave Him to drink; (Cf. Mark 15:36; John 19:28-29.) It is not entirely clear in Matthew and Mark why, hearing that Jesus Christ was calling Elijah, one of those standing (the evangelists do not say who, probably a Roman soldier) at once ran and gave Jesus Christ a drink. But this is entirely clear in John. Since the account in John 19:29 fully corresponds in sense to Matt 27:48 and Mark 15:36, we can conclude that the word of Jesus Christ “I thirst” (John 19:28) was the real reason for offering Him vinegar, or sour grape drink, which in Latin was called posca, – almost corresponding to our “kvass” – was made from grapes and was the common drink of Roman soldiers. But if the “kvass” or sour drink (ὄξος – a word found in the New Testament only here in Matthew and the parallels and also Luke 23:36) was here because it was needed by Roman soldiers to quench their thirst, it is not easy to explain the appearance here of a “sponge” (σπόγγος in Matthew, Mark and John). It was thought that sponges were probably here on hand precisely for the purpose of giving drinks to the condemned when it should be needed. On the part of the soldier who offered the sponge with drink to the lips of Christ, this was an act of mercy. But other soldiers, apparently, began to mock his action and repeated what one had done, and said: “if you are the King of the Jews, save yourself” (Luke 23:36-37). There is no need to assume that this offering of drink by soldiers was the same as that which was done before the crucifixion. Jesus Christ accepted this drink. But the view that He, having tasted the drink, asked for it again, is not supported by anything.

Matthew 27:49. And the others said: Wait, let us see if Elijah will come to save Him. (Cf. Mark 15:36.) In Mark the plural – “wait.” At the sight of the humane action of the soldier, there were found people who turned this into a subject of mockery. In Matthew the words are spoken to the soldier by “others.” In Mark the soldier speaks them to “others.” It is clear that both could have happened. Probably, in Mark it is about another soldier, not the one who first offered the sponge.

Matthew 27:50. And Jesus, crying out again with a loud voice, gave up His spirit. (Cf. Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46; John 19:30.) The Synoptics do not contain the word found in John – “It is finished”; in Matthew, Mark and John there are not the words found in Luke: “Father! Into your hands I commend my spirit.” All the Synoptics use the expression “a loud cry” here. Whether this cry contained words or was without words is difficult to say. Judging from the fact that the same expression is used in Matt 27:46 and in the parallel in Mark, we can think that Christ, even before His death, spoke some words, which probably were not heard and therefore did not reach us. But it could have been otherwise. Zahn holds to the first opinion. “Gave up His spirit” – a common popular expression, indicating death.

Matthew 27:51. And behold, the veil of the temple tore in two from top to bottom; and the earth trembled; and the stones were split; (Cf. Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45.) Luke connects the tearing of the veil with the fact that “the sun grew dark.” Here are all the signs of the beginning of an earthquake. Many believe that this was not a natural earthquake, but a miraculous one. But what kind of earthquake can be unnatural? The tearing of the veil, as well as many other circumstances which are reported in the apocrypha, in the Talmud and by Josephus Flavius, – all this could be the result of an earthquake. Under the veil of the temple here should be understood the veil that separated the holy of holies from the sanctuary. According to Jerome, non velum templi scissum, sed super liminare templi mirae (infinitae) magnitudis corruisse (fractum esse atque divisum – not the veil of the temple was torn, but a beam of the temple of tremendous size collapsed). This account Jerome found in the Gospel of the Hebrews. It is clear that this was possible during an earthquake, but the tearing of the veil is not excluded by this.

Matthew 27:52. And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the departed saints rose The death of Christ and the Resurrection were accompanied by amazing phenomena not only here on earth, but also in the world of the departed. They were completely new. If before people rose receiving the same mortal body as before, now the Resurrection resembled the Resurrection of Christ Himself; the saints rose with a new, glorified body and appeared to many in Jerusalem, although, like Christ Himself, they did not dwell among them. Who these saints were and how they were recognized is completely unknown.

Matthew 27:53. And having come out of the graves after His Resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many. The Apostle Paul says that “Christ has risen from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died” (1 Cor 15:20) and that “He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, so that He might come to have first place in everything” (Col 1:18). If the Gospel did not have the words “after His Resurrection,” it might seem that Christ was not the “first-born” and that the saints rose before Him. On this basis it is thought that the expression “after His Resurrection” was not in the original text and is a later insertion made to reconcile this account with the above words of the Apostle Paul. We do not know precisely what the very appearance consisted of. But if, as explained above, the bodies of the risen saints were like the Body of Christ Himself, they could appear in Jerusalem just as He did, after His Resurrection. The evangelist’s expression “after His Resurrection” has no grounds to be considered a later and inauthentic insertion. We can only think that the evangelist, amidst terrible events, as it were anticipates the joy of the Resurrection and relates events that occurred afterwards to the time that occurred before.

Matthew 27:54. And the centurion and those with him, who were guarding Jesus, seeing the earthquake and all that was happening, were greatly afraid and said: Truly, He was the Son of God. (Cf. Mark 15:39; Luke 23:47.) The mention of the centurion shows that besides the soldiers who were crucifying Christ, there was another detachment on watch at the place of crucifixion, a hundred men under the command of a centurion. This was entirely natural and possible given the great crowd. Centurions are called in different ways in the New Testament: ἐκατοντάρχος, χης (see commentaries to Matt 8:5), κεντυρί ον (centurio) and ταξίαρχος. Little is known of the centurion present at the crucifixion. According to tradition, he was called Longinus, later received baptism and preached Christ in his homeland in Cappadocia, for which he received a martyr’s death. Both the Person of the Crucified and “all that was happening” at the crucifixion made a strong impression on him, and he spoke the words which he either heard from the lips of Christ at trial or from others: “Truly, He was the Son of God.” But if during the death of Christ and the earthquake that followed or occurred during it, the centurion was forced to remain with the soldiers on Golgotha, then others, abandoning all their mockeries and insults, began to quickly leave for their homes from the terrible sight of Golgotha, striking their breasts (Luke 23:48).

Matthew 27:55. And there were also many women there, looking from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, serving Him; (Cf. Mark 15:40; Luke 23:49.) The women stood and looked from afar, being unable to do anything to ease the sufferings of the Crucified One. They are named further. Cf. Luke 8:3.

Matthew 27:56. Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. (Cf. Mark 15:40-41.) Matthew first speaks of the service of the women and then names them by name; Mark does the opposite. Matthew speaks only of many women who followed Christ from Galilee, serving Him; Mark makes a distinction between the Galilean women and “many others” who came with Him to Jerusalem. But it is not precisely known whether there were also Jerusalem women there, besides the Galilean ones. About the sisters of Lazarus, who probably were there, the evangelists do not mention. About the women standing at the cross, see the commentaries to Matt 20:20. Instead of “Joseph” in important codices the reading is “Joseph.” But in codices ABCD and many translations Ἰωσῆ – Joseph, which, however, is not confused with the one mentioned in Matt 13:55. Mark calls James “the lesser” or “the smaller” (τοῦ μικροῦ), probably to distinguish him from James the son of Zebedee. It is supposed that James was called this because he was small in stature.

Matthew 27:57. And when evening came, a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus, came; (Cf. Mark 15:42-43; Luke 23:50-51; John 19:38.) In John (John 19:31-37) before this is recounted the breaking of the legs of the thieves and the piercing of Jesus’ side with a spear. The Synoptics omit this account. The next day – the Sabbath – a day of rest. It began with “the appearing of three stars in the sky,” or approximately six o’clock in the evening according to our count. This was the “second” evening, with the arrival of which on account of the Sabbath coming, all activity ceased. The first evening began around three or four o’clock in the afternoon. The interval between the first and second evening was called the time “between evenings.” At this time, if there was a Paschal day, at least some work was permitted, as is clearly seen from the Gospels, which in this as in all other cases serve as more reliable historical sources than, for example, the Talmud. Joseph, in all probability, lived in Jerusalem, although all the evangelists call him a man “from Arimathea.” It is unknown which Arimathea (Rama) is meant here: whether Rama in the tribe of Benjamin, or in the tribe of Ephraim – the birthplace of the prophet Samuel (see commentaries to Matt 2:17-18). Cf. 1 Macc 2:34. Probably the latter. John adds that Joseph was a secret disciple of Jesus Christ – “from fear of the Jews.”

Matthew 27:58. He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered that the body be given up; (Cf. Mark 15:43-45; Luke 23:52; John 19:38.) The Romans usually left the bodies of executed criminals on the crosses. This time the Jews did not want to leave the bodies on the crosses because of the coming of a great day – the Paschal Sabbath. Thus, the request addressed by Joseph to Pilate was in this case in accord with the wishes of the Jews themselves, and certainly with Pilate’s, who knew that he had condemned an innocent Man to death. Thus, granting Joseph’s request could not meet with obstacles from anyone. Both he and Nicodemus now wished to pay their last respects to their Teacher. As there was little time before the Sabbath, the burial had to be hurried.

Matthew 27:59. And taking the body, Joseph wrapped it in a clean linen shroud (Cf. Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53; John 19:38-41.) John tells about the burial more than other evangelists. It was carried out in the usual way. The enemies of Christ were at ease after His execution and took almost no precautions. The shroud in Greek in all the Synoptics is σινδών – a thin linen or cotton material of foreign origin, obtained from India (“sind,” “ind,” “India”) and, according to the testimony of Herodotus (“History,” II, 86), used by Egyptians (λούσαντες τὸν νεκρὸν κατειλίσσουσι πᾶν αὐτοῦ τὸ σῶμα σινδόνος βυσσίνης – having washed the corpse, they wrap its entire body in a linen shroud). The burial rites of the Egyptians, described by Herodotus, are interesting and can serve to explain the Gospel passages. Comparing the accounts of Christ’s burial with these Egyptian rites, one can come to the conclusion that Joseph and Nicodemus intended to embalm the body of Christ.

Matthew 27:60. And placed it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a great stone against the door of the tomb, and departed. (Cf. Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53; John 19:41-42.) Luke and John add that in this tomb “no one had ever been laid”; Matthew and John call the tomb new. In this tomb Joseph intended to be buried himself, which is why in Matthew we find the expression: ἐν τῷ καινῷ αὐτοῦ μνημείῳ. Probably the great stone rolled against the tomb was not outside it, but in the cave itself. This can be concluded from John 20:1.

Matthew 27:61. And Mary Magdalene was there and the other Mary, who sat opposite the tomb. (Cf. Mark 15:47; Luke 23:55-56.) A reference to the women mentioned in verse 56. While other women withdrew, the two Marys sat opposite the tomb, observing how the burial was taking place. But Luke tells the story somewhat differently.

Matthew 27:62. On the next day, which is after the Day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered to Pilate The following account until the end of the chapter is only in Matthew. Regarding the time of the visit of the chief priests and Pharisees to Pilate, opinions vary greatly. Meyer thinks that “Preparation” (παρασκευ) refers to either the day before the Sabbath or before a feast. From the expressions of the evangelists (Matt 27:62 – μετὰ τὴν παρασακευήν; Mark 15:42 – ἐπεὶ ἦν παρασκευή; Luke 23:54 – ἡμέρα ἦν παρασακευή; John 19:14 – ἦν δὲ παρασακευὴ τοῦ πάσχα; John 19:31 – ἐπεὶ παρσακευὴ ἦν; John 19:42 – ἐπεὶ οὖν διὰ τὴν παρασκευὴν τῶν Ἰουδαίων) one can conclude that all the evangelists speak not of the Preparation before the Paschal meal, but before the Sabbath on the Paschal week. Because otherwise their expressions could be understood to mean that among the Jews there were Preparations before Preparations (when the latter fell on a feast), which has not yet been proven. The Jews came to Pilate not at night from Friday to Saturday, but on the Sabbath itself, when the Savior was already buried. It is supposed that this was in the evening on the Sabbath itself, when it had already passed. But there is hardly need for this. Rolling a stone, sealing the tomb and setting a guard – all this did not belong to the activity of the Jews themselves.

Matthew 27:63. And said: Sir! We remember that that deceiver said, when he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again; “Deceiver” – has an intransitive and transitive meaning: one who is deceived himself and deceives others (cf. 2 John 1:7; 2 Cor 6:8; 1 Tim 4:1). “When he was yet alive” – these words, against the theory of resurrection according to which Jesus Christ was taken down from the cross and revived, show that Christ was now dead. The further speech is a recollection of what Christ Himself said (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31 and others; John 2:19). The word ἐγείρομαι is in the present tense.

Matthew 27:64. Therefore order the sepulcher to be made secure until the third day, lest his disciples come and steal him away, and tell the people, He is risen from the dead; and the last deception will be worse than the first. This is the last fear of the enemies of Christ. When their wish was satisfied, they became almost completely reassured. In several codices after the words “steal him away” is added – “at night” – a word which is not authentic and therefore not transmitted in the Russian translation. Ἔσται does not depend on μήποτε. In the Russian translation correctly. These circumstances are related in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter 8:28–33 with many apocryphal fabrications.

Matthew 27:65. Pilate said to them: You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you can. Pilate apparently does not attach the importance to all this that the enemies of Christ attached to it. Ἔχετε is taken as an imperative, that is, Pilate says “you have,” and not “you do have” – as in the Russian translation. If he had said “you have,” it would be unclear what guard is meant, since it is doubtful whether the Jews would have posted a guard from the temple by Jews themselves. In such a case there would be no need to turn to Pilate with a request to order the tomb guarded. If we take Pilate’s words as an imperative, it will mean that Pilate ordered them to take Roman soldiers, saying: take yourselves a guard.

Matthew 27:66. They went and made the sepulcher secure, sealing the stone, and posting the guard. Literally (as in the Slavonic): “and sealed the stone with the guard.” So as to avoid ambiguity, a comma was placed after τὸν λίθον. But it is more correct to think that they sealed the tomb not by themselves, but with the help of the soldiers, on whom the responsibility for the integrity of the tomb was placed. This is expressed by μετὰ τῆς κουστωδίας. How the tomb was sealed is unknown. Probably either from top to bottom or across a cord was stretched, which was sealed on both ends.