Глава 27
Machine translation from the original · Show original
1–2. Resolution of the Sanhedrin on handing over the Savior to Pilate. – 3–10. Death of Judas. – 11–14. Pilate's trial. – 15–26. Barabbas and the condemnation to crucifixion. – 27–31. Bullying of warriors. – 32–38. Procession to Golgotha and crucifixion. – 39–49. Slanders and ridicule. – 50–56. Death of Jesus Christ. – 57–61. Burial of Jesus Christ. – 62–66. Sealing the coffin and assigning guards.
Matthew 27:1. When the morning had come, all the chief priests and the elders of the people had a meeting concerning Jesus, to put Him to death;
(Cf. Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66).
Whether Luke 22:66 refers specifically to the second meeting of the Sanhedrin, or to the first one, which took place at night, is difficult to say positively.
Due to the similarity of Luke 22:66–71 with Matthew 26:64–66 and Mark 14:62–64, one might assume that Luke's account refers to the first night meeting of the Sanhedrin. But, on the other hand, the expression of Luke 22:66: “and how the day came,” forces us to attribute this and the subsequent story to the second, morning meeting of the Sanhedrin. Based on the testimony of the evangelists, it can only be established that there were two meetings of the judges of Christ: one after midnight and the other with the onset of day, at dawn. The Mishnah Sanhedrin describes the court procedure as follows. The Sanhedrin is likened to half a round threshing floor, so that the judges could see each other (i.e. they sat in a semicircle). Two court scribes stood before them, one on the right and the other on the left, and wrote down the words of the exonerators and the words of the accusers, and three rows of disciples (“talmidim hachamim”) sat before them (Sanhedrin, IV, 3, 4: Talmud, trans. Pereferkovich, vol. 4, pp. 270–271). Everyone knew their place. In cases where it was a matter of life and death, special forms of procedure and announcement of the verdict were prescribed.
The judges had to meet in pairs, eat less, not drink wine all day, discuss the case all night, and the next day get up early and come to court. Whoever brought an accusatory argument could bring an exculpatory argument, but not vice versa. If they found an excuse for the defendant, then they released him, and if not, then they stood up for the count. If twelve judges acquitted and eleven judges convicted, then the defendant was considered acquitted. But if eleven were acquitted and twelve were accused, then this was not enough to pronounce a verdict of guilty, which could only take place if two more were added to the number of accusers. This continued until either an acquittal followed or the required majority for prosecution was achieved. The maximum reached here was 71 - the number of members of the great Sanhedrin.
Thus, a simple majority was required for acquittal, but such a majority was not sufficient for prosecution; it was necessary that the number of those accusing exceed the number of acquitters by two people (Sanhedrin, V, 5: Talmud, trans. Pereferkovich, vol. 4, p. 277). Local courts usually met on the second and fifth days of the week (Ketub. I, 1). But whether this was always observed by the Sanhedrin is unknown. There could be no trial on holidays and especially on Saturdays. Since in criminal cases the death penalty had to be announced only one day after the trial, criminal cases could not be tried before a Saturday or a holiday. All these decisions were distinguished by their humanity. But they were forgotten during the trial of Christ. Usually, meetings of the Sanhedrin took place in the church (in the hall of the so-called “lishkat gagazit” or in other premises of the church).
“If, during the condemnation of Jesus Christ, the Sanhedrin gathered in the palace of the high priest, then here we must see an exception to the general rule, which the judges were forced to do at night, because at night the gates of the church were locked.” “Other meetings of the Sanhedrin in the palace of the high priest cannot be proven” (Schürer, Geschichte, II, S. 265).
That the second meeting of the court took place in the house of the high priest is indicated by John 18:28. Nothing is known about the secondary interrogation; perhaps it never happened at all. The conclusion is indicated only by Matthew - that the members of the Sanhedrin decided to put Jesus Christ to death (θανατῶσαι), but it is not clear from anywhere that execution on the cross was intended from the very beginning. Regarding holidays, there were regulations so that nothing could be done on them. But these regulations were hardly observed. There was only one rest on Saturday, and all the other holidays were not rest in the proper sense. This is also evident from the fact that the exodus of the Jews from Egypt was not a day of rest. The Gospels, which report on the activities of Christ’s enemies, as well as those who buried Him on the first Easter day, serve in this case as a reliable source of information that normal activities did not stop on Easter.”
Matthew 27:2. and, having bound Him, they took Him away and handed Him over to Pontius Pilate, the governor.
(Cf. Mark 15:1; Luke 23:1; John 18:28).
The meaning of the weather forecasters' story here is the same. John adds: “It was morning; and they (i.e., the enemies of Christ) did not enter the praetorium, so as not to be defiled, but so that they could eat the Passover.” If John had ended his speech with the word “to be defiled,” then it would have been completely understandable, because here it would have meant defilement from the pagans in general. But his words “so that the Passover could be eaten” show that on the evening of that day the enemies of Christ intended to eat the Passover. Since it is impossible to allow them in this case to deviate from the legal decrees that prescribed the Passover to be eaten from the 14th to the 15th of Nisan, it is concluded from this that Christ Himself celebrated the Passover from the 13th to the 14th of Nisan, i.e. before the time established by law. The question of this is very difficult, and it cannot be considered resolved to this day. As stated above, the most likely opinion is that the “passover” in John 18:28 means “chagigah”, i.e. Peaceful Easter sacrifices offered during Easter week. The laws about them are set out in a separate Talmudic treatise, which is called “Chagiga” (see Talmud, trans. Pereferkovich, vol. 2, pp. 513–533).
They prove that if the “passover” of John 18:28 meant eating the Passover lamb, then the Jews would have nothing to fear from defilement, because with the help of washing they could be freed from it until the evening. But the entry into the praetorium on the morning of the first Easter day and the desecration made it impossible for the members of the Sanhedrin to offer the peace offerings for the Passover ("chagigah"), which was also called the Passover. “No competent Jewish archaeologist will deny that Pesach (Passover) can also refer to “chagigah.” The motif attributed to the members of the Sanhedrin by John implies that in the present case the Passover was supposed to refer to the “chagigah” and not to the Passover lamb.”
The word “having bound” shows that the Savior was untied during the night trial in the meeting of the Sanhedrin; now that He was finally condemned, He was again tied up to be taken to Pilate. The reason for the transfer to Pilate was that from the time when Judea, along with Samaria and Idumea, was converted into a Roman province (after Archelaus), jus gladii (the right of the sword) and jus vitae aut necis (the right of life or death) were taken away from the Jews. Therefore, the members of the Sanhedrin could not carry out their sentence themselves (this was ultra vires) and had to submit it to Pilate for approval. Pilate ruled Judea for quite a long time. He was the fifth procurator of Judea. Philo accuses him of “bribery, violence, predation, excesses, insults, reckless and frequent murders, endless and unbearable cruelties.”
Information about Pilate, reported in various places by Josephus and in the New Testament, essentially agrees with what Philo says about Pilate, and shows that his characterization was not written under the influence of hatred and irritation, which the Jews had in general towards the pagans, and especially towards the procurators. The verse under discussion serves as one of the most important proofs, unintentionally given 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 sentence from such a person as Pilate. He was appointed to the post of procurator by Emperor Tiberius in the 12th year of his reign (26 AD). Before Pilate, the procurators were Coponius, Marcus Ambivius, Annius Rufus and Valerius Gratus. At the end of 36 AD, following a complaint from the Samaritans brought to the legate of Syria, Vitellius, Pilate was removed from office and sent to Rome for trial.
He arrived there shortly after the death of Emperor Tiberius and was exiled to captivity in Vienna (in Gaul), where, according to the testimony of Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, II, 17), he took his own life during the reign of Guy Caligula. Pilate's name is spelled differently in Greek: Πειλᾶτος and Πιλᾶτος (Πιλάτος). It is assumed that Pontius (Πόντιος, Pontius) was his name, indicating his connection by origin or adoption with the ancient Samnite surname Pontii, and Pilate was his surname. The meaning of the word "Pilate" has been explained in different ways. Some wrote Pileatus - the word indicated a person wearing a pileus or pileum - a hat made of felt, which was worn by slaves when they were set free (manumissio). If such a production were correct, then one would think that Pilate was descended from some slaves who were set free. Others derived the name Pilate from pilum - dart, spear. But both of these proceedings are doubtful, just as it is doubtful that Pilate is not a name, but a surname (in our Creed - “under Pontius Pilate”: Pilate is a name, and Pontius is a surname). Pilate was the Roman procurator of Judea, Samaria and Idumea.
Procurators were appointed by the emperor himself, but were subordinate to the ruler of Syria, or propraetor. In Greek, the office of procurator was called ἐπίτροπος - a word found in Matthew 20:8; Luke 8:3; Gal.4:2. But in the Gospel of Matthew he is called ἡγεμών - “leader” (Matthew 27:2, 11, 14–15, 21, 23, 27; Matthew 28:14); Perhaps Luke also calls him that (Luke 20:20).
Matthew 27:3. Then Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He was condemned, and, repenting, returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
The death of Judas is told in Matthew and Acts 1:16–20. There is no doubt that both of these places tell the same story. But in detail, both stories are completely different. The fact that Judas returned the pieces of silver to the high priests and elders, throwing them in the church, is not mentioned in Acts. On the contrary, it is reported that Judas himself bought a field with this money. Testimonies about the death of Judas are also different. According to Matthew, he hanged himself; according to Luke (Acts) - he fell down, “his belly was cut open, and all his entrails fell out.” Based on these and other differences, some considered either both stories “legendary”, or only the story of Matthew, or Luke. But in fact there is no real difference in the accounts of Matthew and Acts. The origin of the disagreement was explained by the fact that neither Matthew, nor Luke, nor other persons were, as is self-evident, eyewitnesses to the death of Judas, and therefore in their stories they conveyed only that information that was widespread among the people. It is firmly established that the “land of blood” in both stories is one and the same.
It is equally certain that the Apostle Peter in Acts with the words “unrighteous wages” means nothing more than the thirty pieces of silver about which Matthew writes. But the money that Judas once secretly appropriated for himself from the box could not be “unrighteous bribe.” Judas probably bought the land himself as soon as he received the money for his betrayal, on Wednesday or Thursday. But soon after, he abandoned his purchase without paying the money. He brought them to the high priests, then left and hanged himself. Peter, saying that Ps. 68:26 was fulfilled in Judah, explains how the land that belonged to Judah received the name “land of blood.” He derives the name "land of blood" apparently from the bloody end of Judas, and not from blood money, as Matthew did. But both of these productions do not exclude one another. It is very likely that Judas died on the field he purchased. This could have given the high priests a reason to buy the very field where Judas hanged himself.
For the meaning of μεταμέλομαι, see comments on Matthew 21:32. Μεταμεληθείς here does not mean “having repented” “in the biblical sense,” but having come to his senses, because if Judas had truly repented, he would have been forgiven, like Peter. 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 regret, but only lost his last hope. In fact, he failed to pester the high priests and their party. The deed was done, and Judas, one of Christ’s disciples, was now completely unnecessary for the enemies of Christ. On the other hand, the disciples of Christ, after the act of Judas, also could not return him to their midst. Thus, Judas was left alone with himself and his money. He felt alone in this world, and this loneliness was scary. He had no friends.
Under such circumstances, the crime of Judas could take on more and more monstrous proportions in his eyes; it began to seem to him as it really was, without any embellishment, reinterpretation and justification in the sense of practical benefit and necessity. Before committing any sinful act, it is always presented from an attractive side, otherwise there would be no reason to sin and people would do without it. Before his betrayal, Judas could view his act only from its pleasant aspects; it was profit and the favor of important and influential persons - Judas’s imagination painted all this in the most rosy and attractive light. Then there was no need if anyone could suffer from satisfying Judas's greed. He decided to commit a crime and committed it. But as soon as it was done, all its attractiveness instantly disappeared and only the stench remained. “The road, the streets, the people - everything seemed to testify against Judas and for Christ.” Christ was now condemned to death and handed over to Pilate.
Judas did not receive any offense from Him; everything Christ said to him tended only to edify and correct the traitor. He began to think about all this (μεταμεληθείς) and felt what a terrible situation he was now in. For Judas, all his spiritual stench became unbearable, it even prevented his real repentance. What to do? The pieces of silver he received weighed heavily on him, and he decided to part with them. But how? Give this money to the poor? He could have done this if he really pitied the beggars. But what good would that do? The beggars would have received the money and left Judas. Criminals usually think little about charity. All the attractiveness of charity disappears when it is done with the help of improperly acquired means. Judas considered it best to return the money to those from whom it had been received. This could at least somewhat brighten up the crime committed by the traitor, and it could at least take on the appearance of a selfless act.
The verb ἔστρεψεν is the same as in the Seventy Isaiah 38:8 - here it means to return something, to turn back something; in other cases, ἀποστρέφειν is usually used.
Matthew 27:4. saying: I have sinned by betraying innocent blood. They said to him: What is that to us? see for yourself.
Sic in inferno quoque sentient damnati (this is how the condemned will feel in hell). Judas appeared to the chief priests and elders, apparently initially with a simple offer to take the money back. He held them in his hands. As the basis for their return, he presented his sin, which consisted in the fact that he betrayed the innocent Christ to death. There is no trace that this repentance of Judas was completely sincere. He speaks as people usually say who call themselves sinners, but in fact do not think at all about repentance or correction. In the eyes of Judas, the tears with which Peter shed were completely unnoticeable. Will not those who themselves took part in the condemnation of Christ find any means to, with their finger dipped in water, at least somewhat cool the internal flame that was now burning all the insides of Judas? But here he met only a cold, indifferent attitude towards himself and his work, amounting to complete contempt. The enemies of Christ did not repent at all for betraying Him to Pilate.
Everyone involved in this matter, including Judas, must have thought so. If he now thinks differently, sees clearly that he did not act as, in his opinion, he should have acted, then the high priests and elders have nothing to do with this. He must take care himself (σὺ ὄψῃ - cf. 1 Samuel 25:17; Acts 8:15) about how to get out of the difficult situation in which he put himself, and not someone else. Nobody forced him to betray. If he had not rushed with him, then Christ could still have been taken after the holiday. Then it might have turned out even better. And now there is so much noise from the people! Judas's participation in the capture of Christ was unnecessary, useless, because He still could not be saved when the great Sanhedrin spoke in favor of His death. Judas is just a small man, an insignificant spoke in a huge chariot, a weak spring in a running machine. Judas felt that he had done a damned thing, and he had no choice but to violently commit suicide.
The law said: “Cursed is he who takes a bribe to kill a soul and shed innocent blood!” And all the people will say: Amen” (Deut. 27:25). (Cf. 1 Mac.1:37; 2 Mac.1:8.)
Matthew 27:5. And, throwing away the pieces of silver in the church, he went out, went and hanged himself.
Terrible irritation and indignation were reflected on Judas’s face after the calm but caustic words spoken to him by the high priests and elders. His irritation was expressed in the fact that he, holding all thirty pieces of silver in his hands, threw them over the wall that separated the court of men from the court of priests in the church, threw them with such force that all of them or some of them flew or rolled along the marble floor all the way to the church, to its very doors. Then Judas quickly retires to an unknown location - into solitude (ἀνεχώρησεν) - and, arriving at the land he had bargained for, he takes off the long belt with which his body was girded, ties it to some tree and strangles himself (cf. 2 Samuel 17:23). The lifeless body of Judas first hung on a tree, then fell off, fell from the rapids and broke so that his entrails fell out (Acts 1:18).
Simple as this story is in itself, it contains, independently of Acts 1:18 et seq., significant difficulties. First of all, the question of the place where Judas threw the silver pieces. It is called ναός - church. This word is often found in the New Testament both in the literal and figurative (for example, 1 Cor. 3:16) sense. Where it is used in the literal sense, it is necessary to understand only the church corresponding to the tabernacle, and not the places and courts around the church (see Matt. 23:35, 27:51). But in this case, the question arises of how Judas could penetrate into the church itself, i.e. in the porch or in the sanctuary, when entry there was accessible only to priests? In response to this, Tsang and others accept that by ναός here we must understand not the church itself, but all τό ἱερόν, i.e. all church buildings. In this broader sense the word is found in Josephus. Some think that Judas first brought the money to the house of Caiaphas and even Pilate - to the praetorium, where there were members of the Sanhedrin who accused Christ, and since they did not want to accept the money there, he went to the church and threw the money there.
Much more likely is the opinion presented above that it was not the church itself in the proper sense, but the church together with the courtyard of the priests, as in Matthew 23:16, 21, 35; Matthew 26:61. Judas thus threw the money into the priests' courtyard.
Next, the question is presented, how were the high priests (ἀρχιερεῖς) in the church along with the elders when they were busy trying Jesus Christ before Pilate? According to Augustine, Judas brought the money to the church after three o'clock in the evening on Friday, when Christ died on the Cross, and the priests were then busy with worship. Others explained the matter by saying that not all members of the Sanhedrin were with Pilate and that some of them (perhaps even to monitor order in the church) remained in the church. Some think that Judas met the chief priests and elders in the church when Christ was taken to Herod.
In the end, it is still difficult to say when Judas died, whether on the same day when Christ died, or a little later. The Evangelist, apparently, dates his death to a time before the death of Christ Himself.”
Matthew 27:6. The high priests, taking the pieces of silver, said: it is not permissible to put them in the church treasury, because this is the price of blood.
Thus, the money was again in the hands of the high priests. They gave them for innocent blood, so to speak, bought it with them, and this money returned to them. There may be a symbolic meaning here: innocent blood cannot be bought for any money. It is spilled without loss, without material damage on the part of the persons spilling it. Money in itself was not unclean, but it should not have been put into the church treasury by analogy with Deut. 23:18. Having picked up the money, the enemies of Christ began to talk about what to use it for. They obviously belonged to the church. They were taken from the church of God and returned to the church. But this was the “price of blood,” i.e. price for blood. Therefore, they could not be lowered into the “corvana”. The word “korvana,” as Schürer shows (Geschichte, II, S. 25), is Aramaic (as Abba, Gavvafa, Akeldama, Golgotha, Effatha, etc.), which became popular during the time of Christ. This term does not appear in rabbinic writings. The word actually means a sacrificial gift, but here it means the church treasury.
Matthew 27:7. Having held a meeting, they bought a potter's land with them for the burial of strangers;
Perhaps the expression “of them” (ἐξ αὐτῶν; in Russian translation - “on them”) here does not show that only thirty pieces of silver were spent and that the potter’s land was worth exactly that much. Perhaps it cost a little more, so the church leaders added more money to purchase it. A potter's land known to the inhabitants of Jerusalem was purchased. Jeremiah may have pointed to it (Jer. 18:2, 19:2, 19:6–7). This place was located south of Jerusalem and was separated from it by the Ginnom Valley. It is about 90 feet long and 45 feet wide. Until the beginning of the 18th century, wanderers were buried there. It is impossible to determine with accuracy for whom the cemetery was intended, for the burial of either newly arrived Jews or pagans. Most likely the first.
Matthew 27:8. Therefore, that land is called “land of blood” to this day.
The inhabitants of Jerusalem called this potter's land in their dialect (Aramaic) "akeldama", i.e. "land of blood" And at the present time they still show near Jerusalem on the northern spur of the mountain of evil council the land of blood. Jerusalem potters still extract clay from the environs of this place.
In some codes, instead of “called” - “was named” (ἐκλήθη). This expression shows, of course, that a significant time passed between the event and the writing of the Gospel of Matthew. Ἐκλήθη – testimonium publicum rei factae.
Matthew 27:9. Then what was spoken through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled, saying: And they took thirty pieces of silver, the price of the One who was valued, whom the children of Israel valued,
Matthew 27:10. and they gave them for the potter's land, as the Lord said to me.
The prophet Jeremiah does not have the words cited by the evangelist. They are found in Zechariah (Zechariah 11:12–13). Many conjectures have been proposed to explain why Jeremiah's name is placed here instead of Zechariah. They thought that this was simply a mistake by the evangelist; that the quote was borrowed from some secret work of Jeremiah, where it was written exactly like that in the evangelist (esse aliquam secretam Ieremiae scripturam in qua scribitur - Origen). Jerome read in some Jewish book brought to him by a Jew who belonged to the Nazarene sect, that what is written here is found word for word (ad verbum) in one of the apocrypha of Jeremiah. But, despite this evidence, it seems to Jerome that the text was taken rather from the Book of the Prophet Zechariah. Evfimy Zigavin agrees with this opinion of Jerome, who says: “This is not written in the readable book of Jeremiah. So, of course (λοιπὸν οὖν), this is told in his apocrypha (ἐν τῇ ἀποκρύφῳ αὐτοῦ ἱστόρηται)". The word λοιπόν shows that Zigavin did not have accurate information about this matter.
The word Ἱερεμίου was considered inauthentic; a similar inaccuracy was pointed out in the speech of Stephen (Acts 7:4, 16) and in Mark (Mark 2:26). They argued that the name of Jeremiah stood first in the book of the prophets, and therefore the Book of the Prophet Zechariah was also named after him; that chapters 9-11 of the prophet Zechariah were written much earlier than the time of Zechariah (based on internal signs) and before the Babylonian captivity and that the words spoken by Jeremiah were placed in the book of Zechariah because they were transmitted orally before the time of Zechariah and were included in 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, indicates the original author of the prophecy; that there was no mistake here by the evangelist, but a simple mistake by the scribes, who replaced the name of Jeremiah with the name of Zechariah due to the similarity of these names (in abbreviation Ζριου and Ἱριου, i.e. Zechariah and Jeremiah). The evangelist’s expression was translated as follows: “then what was spoken through Jeremiah and the prophet was fulfilled.”
The simplest explanation is that the evangelist's thought is centered on the purchase of land from the potter. Since this land is spoken of only by the prophet Jeremiah, the evangelist put his name in the title of his quotation, and from the words of Zechariah he took only “thirty pieces of silver,” changing the rest of Zechariah’s expressions so that they became completely unrecognizable in the evangelist’s quotation. This explains why the words of Zechariah: “throw them away, i.e. pieces of silver into the treasury of the house of the Lord" (in the Russian Synodal translation of Zechariah 11:13 - "potter's ground"), through a slight change in Hebrew letters, were converted by the evangelist into "potter's ground" (εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν τοῦ κεραμέως).
Ἔλαβον in Matthew can be translated: “I took” and “they took.” In the “Seventy” Zechariah 11:13 it is different – the first person singular: “I took.” The correct translation is “they took.”
The price of the Appraised – magna vis verborum. The Seventy in the indicated place in Zechariah do not have these words. In Hebrew the speech is ironic, which is translated: “the excellent price at which they valued Me!” Ἀπὸ υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ should be associated with ἐτιμήσαντο, and not with ἔλαβον and τοῦ τετιμημένου.
“Dali” is read differently in Greek: ἔδωκαν (gave) and ἔδωκα (gave). The first reading is more correct, and in accordance with it, ἔλαβον should also be taken as the plural.
The real meaning of the evangelist’s words is clear. The chief priests and elders took the money with which they had purchased innocent blood—thirty pieces of silver, which was the price of the Valued Christ, “whom the sons of Israel valued,” and used this money to purchase the “land of blood” that belonged to the potter. In this case, the prophecy of Jeremiah, spoken to the kings of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, was fulfilled.
Matthew 27:11. Jesus stood before the governor. And the ruler asked Him: Are you the King of the Jews? Jesus said to him: You speak.
(Cf. Mark 15:2; Luke 23:3; John 18:33–37).
Forecasters miss John's story (John 18:28–32). In Luke (Luke 23:2), Pilate's interrogation begins with the accusation expressed by the “multitude” that the Savior is corrupting the people and forbidding giving taxes to Caesar. The further accusation that He calls Himself “Christ the King” gives the immediate reason for Pilate to ask Christ whether He is the King of the Jews. John (John 18:33–37) sets out all this in much more detail than the weather forecasters. According to Roman law, nocens nisi accusatus fuerit, condemnari non potest (an innocent person, unless accused, cannot be condemned). Pilate's question was based on the fact that Christ was accused of appropriating Messianic dignity to Himself. If the Messiah stood before Pilate now bound and in a humiliated state, this did not prevent Pilate from asking Him the question: “Are you the King of the Jews?” It is assumed here that the Accused once actually declared Himself the King of the Jews, but His attempts to acquire a kingdom for Himself were unsuccessful. Instead of the royal throne, He was captured, bound and brought to trial.
But, despite this, He may still continue to hold to His former opinion about His own high dignity. If He is released, He will probably declare Himself King again. Christ answers Pilate in almost the same way as He answered Caiaphas before: “you say” (Matthew 26:64). But there the past tense is “you said” (σὺ εἶπας), here it is the present tense (σὺ λέγεις). There - in response to a spell, here - in response to a simple question. There - in response to the question about the dignity of the Son of God, here - about the royal dignity. But if the question proposed by Pilate was natural and understandable, then Christ’s answer was at least unusual. Who, being bound and brought to judgment, would say that he is a king? We now understand that the royal dignity of Christ lay in His humiliation and that He spoke absolutely accurately and correctly, without exaggerating at all. But then this was not clear either to Pilate or to the people around him. Christ's answer was not ambiguous, but was a direct assertion of His royal dignity.
It did not contain such a meaning: ἐγὼ μέν τοῦτο οὐ λέγω, σὺ δὲ λέγεις (I don’t say this, but you say it). Wed. John 18:37, where also σὺ λέγεις. To the report of the weather forecasters, John (John 18:34–38) adds a story about how it was clarified for Pilate in what sense the Savior called Himself a King. He is not an earthly King, but a heavenly one. He came not for external worldly dominion over people, but to testify to the truth. Pilate realized that this was just some deluded person. And not only from these words. Based on some data, it can be assumed that Pilate was previously aware of the identity and activity of the Savior (Matthew 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 did not see any signs of Christ’s desire to acquire royal dignity for Himself. Therefore, Pilate ended his interrogation with a complete justification of the Savior: “I find no guilt in this man” (Luke 23:4; John 18:38).
Matthew 27:12. And when the chief priests and elders accused Him, He answered nothing.
Pilate's interrogation, although brief, ended. What follows can no longer be attributed, in fact, to the formal Roman judicial procedure. This is a simple, ordinary conversation, such as happens in all courts between the judges and the public at the end of the formal hearing and the pronouncement of the verdict. The Jews, obviously, were not happy with Pilate’s verdict and began to bring new accusations against Christ. What they consisted of is unknown. But it is clear that Pilate did not attach any importance to them; he does not even consider it necessary to disassemble them. Mark only notices that the high priests accused Him of many things (πολλά). The Savior did not answer these accusations.
Classical ἀπεκρίνατο is rare in the New Testament.
Matthew 27:13. Then Pilate said to Him: Do you not hear how many testify against You?
In Pilate's words one can hear the irony of the accusers and their accusations. There were a lot of accusations, but none of them were any good. Only Jews could present such accusations, and they alone. While talking with them, Pilate also turns to Christ, inviting Him to answer the accusations. The whole matter appears to be relatively calm for now. Perhaps the verdict was being written at that time.”
Matthew 27:14. And he did not answer a single word, so the ruler was very surprised.
Christ did not answer Pilate to the new accusations. Although this was not required by law, Pilate was greatly amazed at the silence of Christ. At this time, the crowd of people probably increased more and more. We find a detailed account of further events only in Luke alone (Luke 23:5–16). From the new accusations it was clear that Christ “was stirring up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee to this place” (Luke 23:5). The word “Galilee” gives Pilate a reason to ask if He is from Galilee, and then send Christ to Herod for trial. Herod sends Christ back to Pilate.
Matthew 27:15. On Easter, the ruler had the custom of releasing to the people one prisoner they wanted.
(Compare Mark 15:6; Luke 23:17; this verse in Luke is considered inauthentic).
Pilate's words, as set out in Luke (Luke 23:13–16), did not satisfy the people. One feels that he is becoming increasingly irritated and thirsty for blood. Pilate sees that the matter could have serious consequences that he did not foresee, and therefore decides to take a new step. There was a custom to release to the people during the Easter holiday one prisoner whom they demanded. How ancient this custom was is completely unknown. There is no hint of this custom in the Talmud. The Romans had something similar, but the reports about it are very brief and unclear. Among the Greeks, prisoners were released on the holidays of Demeter or the so-called. Thesmophoria. The identical expression of Matthew and Mark κατὰ δὲ ἑορτήν, which can be translated “for the sake of the holiday” or “for the holiday” (the word “Easter” added in the Russian translation is not in the original), shows that this custom was observed generally on holidays, and not during Easter alone. The release of one prisoner on Easter was reminiscent of the liberation of the Jews from Egypt (id congruebat liberationi ex Aegypto). Pilate seized on this idea to free Jesus Christ.
Here there was something similar to what happens here, when criminals are released based on manifestos. Pilate could have used power in this case. But, as usually happens, his stained conscience made him weak and he did not have the will to resist the crowd, which was becoming more and more enraged.
Matthew 27:16. At that time they had a famous prisoner called Barabbas;
Mark's account is more detailed than Matthew's. Mark reports that Barabbas had accomplices who committed murder during the rebellion.
The word εἶχον is not expressed in Russian: “they had.” In the Vulgate this word is put in the singular and refers to Pilate: “he had” (habebat autem tunc vinctum insignem). The first reading is more correct, and the reading of the Vulgate is not proven with certainty. The plural “had” or “they had” does not mean, however, that Barabbas was in the power of the Jews, and not of Pilate. From Pilate’s further words it is clear that Barabbas was precisely in his power. But at the same time, it is clear that this prisoner was a Jew and came from the people. The change from “they” to “he” was obviously a proofreading. Barabbas was in prison precisely at the time (τότε) when Jesus Christ was on trial before Pilate. This was a “remarkable” robber (ἐπίσημος) or even famous - latro notissimus, summo scelere insignis. Also John Chrysostom: “The Evangelist did not just say: they had a robber, but a famous robber, famous for his atrocities, who committed countless murders.” There may be some exaggeration here, because Mark (Mark 15:7) and Luke (Luke 23:19) speak of only one murder of Barabbas.
It is difficult to say whether his other name, identical with the name of Christ, Jesus, added by Matthew in several codices, and by the way, in Syro-Sinai, is genuine. “In many codes,” says Origen, “it is not said that Barabbas was also called Jesus, and this may be correct - none of the villains should have been called by the name Jesus.” Some think that Barabbas' name Jesus is not genuine. Others, on the contrary, argue that if Origen found the name Jesus in many lists, then this constitutes almost decisive proof of its authenticity. It is more likely, however, to think that it is not genuine. Barabbas means “son of the father” (“bar” - son and “abba” - father). Jerome explains - “the son of a teacher.”
Matthew 27:17. So, when they had gathered, Pilate said to them: whom do you want me to release to you: Barabbas, or Jesus, who is called Christ?
(Cf. Mark 15:9; John 18:39).
Mark 15:8 adds that the “people” themselves (ὄχλος), probably in response to Pilate’s proposal, “began to shout and ask Pilate for what he” (in several codes “always” is added) “has done for them,” i.e. release one prisoner for the sake of the holiday. Since in Mark the people propose a request and Pilate answers them, then, accordingly, we can attribute in Matthew in this verse αὐτῶν not to the members of the Sanhedrin, but to the people, i.e. besides ὄχλος, which is mentioned in the 15th verse. But, having listened to the request, Pilate himself probably chose Barabbas. If, as can be seen from the Gospels, Pilate wanted to free Christ with this step, then it is difficult to think that he pointed here to such a person who could, in his opinion, be freed by the people. From this it is clear that Barabbas was not, as is thought, a political criminal who defended the rights of the people against the Romans. He was a simple robber, dangerous to human society.”
Matthew 27:18. for he knew that they had betrayed Him out of envy.
This entire story assumes that Pilate had prior knowledge of the person and work of Christ. He also knew about the attitude of His enemies towards Him, that they “betrayed Him out of envy” (“hatred”, “dislike”, “ill will”). Since the people only later joined the members of the Sanhedrin, they think that παρέδωκαν (“betrayed”) here refers specifically to them, and not to the people.
Matthew 27:19. While he was sitting in the judgment seat, his wife sent him to say: Do not do anything to the Righteous One, because now in a dream I have suffered a lot for Him.
When the question of Barabbas arose, Pilate was sitting in his judgment seat. Pilate's wife sent him to tell him about her dream. In the ancient times of the Republic, the wives of rulers were not allowed to accompany their husbands into the provinces, but these laws were subsequently relaxed, and the custom of taking wives was established from the time of Augustus. Who Pilate’s wife was and what her name was, there is no completely reliable information about this. According to legend, she was called Prokla or Claudia Prokul and was canonized by the Greek Church (October 27; in the month book of Archbishop Sergius she is listed in the second index, where persons are named who are not undoubtedly recognized as saints). The only certainty is that she either saw 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 Zigavinus, Augustine and others speak out.
Matthew 27:20. But the chief priests and elders stirred up the people to ask Barabbas and to destroy Jesus.
This was probably while Pilate was sitting in the judge's seat. The high priests and elders talked with the people around them and convinced them (ἔπεισαν) to ask Barabbas and destroy Jesus Christ.
Matthew 27:21. Then the governor asked them: which of the two do you want me to release to you? They said: Barabbas.
(Cf. Luke 23:18–19; John 18:40.)
The previous verse only reported the conversations of the chief priests and elders with the people. It is not clear that they said anything to Pilate. But perhaps rumors reached him from different sides that the people would demand Barabbas. Hence ἀποκριθείς - “answering.” Literally: “the ruler answered and said to them.” This means that Pilate, having heard unclear and indefinite cries, wanted to make sure exactly whom the people wanted to free. Or it can be explained in such a way that Pilate waited for some time and proposed his question only when he saw that the Jews were ready to give an answer.
Matthew 27:22. Pilate says to them: What will I do to Jesus, who is called Christ? Everyone tells him: let him be crucified.
(Cf. Mark 15:12–13; Luke 23:20–21.)
“He” after “they say” is not found in many codes. From the messages of the evangelists it is not clear that earlier there was talk about the cross. The people's leaders only wanted the execution of Jesus Christ, which is what they asked Pilate to do, but it is doubtful whether they specifically wanted execution on the cross. If they had wanted her earlier, then Pilate’s question would not be entirely clear to us, what should he do with Jesus, who is called Christ. Statements from the people about execution on the cross came somehow suddenly and unexpectedly. The story is apparently incomplete, and some small details are left out. Perhaps, from the words of Pilate or from rumors about the crimes Barabbas had previously committed, the people knew that Barabbas should be condemned to execution on the cross. Crucem meritus erat Barabbas. Pilate's reminder to the people about Barabbas immediately changes the whole state of affairs. If you do not ask for Barabbas' release, he will be crucified. It is better to spare him from such an execution. Let Jesus, who is called Christ, suffer the death of the cross in his place! Let it be He who will be crucified instead of Barabbas!
And thus the cry of “let him be crucified” began to be repeated by the excited and enraged crowd, which became more and more furious under the influence of the high priests and elders.
The word σταυρωθήτω (let him be crucified) in Hebrew - short, terrible and exciting - began to rush from one end to the other among the indignant crowd. They shouted πάντες οὐκ οἱ ὄχλοι μόνοι, καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι (everyone, not only the peoples, but also the high priests and elders - Zigavin).
After ποιήσω (“I will do”) two accusatives τί and Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν; such phrases are characteristic of Greek speech (cf. Xenophon “Cyropedia”, 3, 2, 15 - οὐδεπώποτε ἐπαύοντο πολλὰ κακὰ ἡμᾶς (instead ἡμῖν ) ποιοῦντες ).
Matthew 27:23. The ruler said: what evil has He done? But they shouted even more loudly: let him be crucified.
(Compare Mark 15:14; Luke 23:22–23.)
Luke talks here in more detail than other weather forecasters. He reports the continuation of the "great cry" and that the cry of the people and the high priests "overcame" (κατίσχυον) Pilate. These cries caused Pilate great confusion. He found no fault in the Defendant. He was ready to let Him go. Pilate's wife sent to tell him not to do anything bad to the Righteous One. And suddenly a cross! Even the bloodthirsty and cruel Pilate was amazed. “What evil (what bad - κακόν) did He do?" But now the frequent accusations and reasoning stop and the spontaneous demand of the cross is heard more and more strongly. Pilate’s question remains unanswered and is even drowned out by a loud spontaneous cry: “let him be crucified.” So Pilate’s rash proposal about Barabbas caused a terrible explosion.
Matthew 27:24. Pilate, seeing that nothing helped, but the confusion was increasing, took water and washed his hands before the people, and said: I am innocent of the blood of this Righteous One; look you.
There is no story about this among other evangelists. Therefore, the reasons for such an act of Pilate are not entirely clear. The most likely explanation for the matter is that the people's cries drowned out his speech. Then Pilate resorts to a visual method of explanation that was understandable to the Jews. It can be assumed that when Pilate was served water, silence immediately reigned in the crowd, as usually happens when appealing to visual explanations. The crowd did not know what would happen next and fell silent for a moment, so that Pilate’s explanatory words could be heard by everyone.
Οὐδὲν ὠφελεῖ is the subject (unexpressed) “he”, and οὐδέν is the accusative case (cf. John 12:19). Therefore, the literal translation is: “it does not help anything, i.e. nothing can be achieved as a result of the popular noise, and its objections only increase this noise and confusion. Pilate washes his hands in plain sight, in front of all the people.”
“In the blood of this Righteous One” - the word “Righteous” is not in the BDabff, Syro-Sinaitic and Origen codices, but it is found in many other codices, among other things in the Sinaitic and Peshitta. A more likely reading: ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος τούτου, i.e. “in this blood.” In Greek the word ἀθῷος is used without the preposition ἀπό, and the Gospel expression ἀθῷος ... ἀπό... is a Hebraism, and ἀπό corresponds to the Hebrew word “min” (from).
“Look” – formula rejiciendi – formula of negation, rejection; it is better to translate in the future tense: not “you look”, but “you will see” (in the Slavic translation it is correct - “you will see”; in the Vulgate - vos videritis; in the German translation - ihr werdet zusehen; but in Luther the imperative is sehet ihr zu). Pilate wants to say that the people will see his innocence.
The authenticity of this verse is highly questioned by some. The custom of washing hands “to cleanse oneself from death” also existed among the pagans, but among them the washings were performed after death. The washing that Pilate performed was a purely Jewish custom, which was based on Deut. 21:6-8 (cf. Talmud, tractate Sota IX, 6; Ps. 25:6, 72:13). Pilate's words are an almost literal repetition of 2 Samuel 3:28. “That a Roman ruler should so thoroughly adopt the Jewish mode of expression and figurative language is incredible, and even more incredible that he should so unmanly deflect responsibility for the sentence pronounced.” But to assume that Pilate was completely unfamiliar with any Jewish customs is also incredible, especially since his wife was, perhaps, a Jew or a Judaizer (in the Gospel of Nicodemus, chapter 2, Pilate says to the Jews: οἴδατε ὅτι ἡ γυνή μου θεοσεβής ἐστιν, καὶ μᾶλλον ἰουδαΐζει σὺν ὑμῖν. Ναί, οἴδαμεν - you know that my wife is pious and practices Judaism with you a lot. They say to him: yes, we know).
But even if we do not assume all this, then even in this case it cannot be argued that Pilate could not perform his ablutions before the people. This is an act that could be committed by anyone. Pilate's washing is not so consistent with Deut. 21:6ff and 2 Samuel 3:28 as to say that Pilate acted on the basis of a legal prescription or repeated biblical expressions. The most likely assumption is that in the present case he applied himself to Jewish customs of which he was aware. As for “responsibility,” Pilate, apparently, is not thinking about it yet, because Christ’s death on the cross, at least in the eyes of Pilate, has not yet been finally decided.
Matthew 27:25. And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”
According to Jewish custom, judges, when they determined the death penalty, as a sign that they had pronounced the correct sentence and would be responsible for the death of the condemned person, laid their hands on his head and said: “Your blood is on your head” (2 Sam. 1:16; cf. Matt. 23:35; Acts 18:6; Jer. 2:35). The Jews wanted to say that if Christ was crucified, then they would accept responsibility for His execution - and let not only they, but also their children, be responsible for it. It is clear that these words were initially spoken not by all those present, but only by a few, and only then began to be heard among the excited crowd. Perhaps some said: τό αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἐφ´ ἡμᾶς, and others added: καὶ ἐπὶ τεκ´να ἡμῶν. It should be noted that the Hebrew or Aramaic shout could be somewhat shorter than the Greek or Russian text and, thus, was more convenient for the shouts of a huge crowd. It is clear that the children of the Jews were responsible for the blood of the Righteous One only to the extent that they took or are taking part in the evil of their ancestors.
Matthew 27:26. Then he released Barabbas to them, and beat Jesus and handed him over to be crucified.
(Compare Mark 15:15; Luke 23:24–25; John 19:1.)
Let us note that Barabbas was the first person who, due to his accidental connection with Christ, was freed from this terrible execution. If Christ had completed His work of redemption without freeing people from the penalty of the cross, it would have been incomplete. Therefore, His death on the cross is one of the most important aspects of His redemptive work. Subsequently, execution on the cross was abolished in Christian states. The Savior was condemned to execution on the cross. Flagellation took place before the crucifixion. The Romans had the custom of scourging a condemned prisoner, and Jesus Christ was given over to the soldiers for this purpose - this was a monstrous injustice and cruelty, because He was twice declared innocent. The terrible punishment before the crucifixion was carried out with such barbarity that it was known as “near death.” Indeed, the victim often fainted during the punishment and often died before crucifixion. The blows were inflicted with whips, not sticks, because Pilate did not have lictors.
Flagellis caedebantur apud Romanos servi (liberi virgis) et fere capite damnati, nudi et ad columnam adstricti, antequam in crucem agerentur" (The Romans subjected slaves to flagellation (freemen were punished with rods), usually condemned to death, naked, tied to a stake, before being taken to the cross - "Cicero In Verrem" V, 66). The scourge consisted of leather belts, sometimes equipped with lead tips or sharp nails and bones, which furrowed the back and chest and covered the exhausting victim with a mass of wounds and bruises. Flagella erant aculeata, ossiculis pecuinis fere catenata, unde “horribile flagellum” dixit Horatius (The whips were equipped with points, usually cattle bones were tied to them, hence the “terrible scourge,” as Horace put it - Sermones, I, 3, 119). Naked, with his hands tied and bent over, the condemned man was tied to a stake while the blows were delivered by the executioner. Captain Warren credited himself with the discovery of the site of the Savior's scourging in an underground room in Jerusalem. Flagellation was usually carried out corpore denudato. The word φραγελλώσας is a Latinism (with the change from λ to ρ) from flagellare - “to scourge.” The proper Greek word for this is mastigoan. The scourging was carried out, as they think, in front of the praetorium, in full view of Pilate and the people.
The word αὐτοῖς after παρέδωκεν is not found in the best manuscripts. The meaning is that Pilate “released them” (ἀπέλυσεν αὐτοῖς), i.e. to the Jews, Barabbas, but he handed Jesus Christ over to be scourged and crucified not by “them,” but by his soldiers. Therefore, the word “to them” after “betrayed” is omitted correctly in Russian. Attempts to present the matter somewhat differently and prove that the Jews enjoyed the right to carry out the execution of the cross (Alexander Yannai), that Pilate only agreed to this execution, and the Jews themselves crucified Christ, independently of Pilate and his soldiers, do not stand up to criticism in view of the clear testimony of all the Gospels that it was not the Jews themselves who took part in the crucifixion of Christ, but only Pilate’s soldiers.
Matthew 27:27. Then the governor’s soldiers, taking Jesus to the praetorium, gathered the entire regiment against Him.
“The residence of the Jewish procurator was not Jerusalem, but Caesarea. Since the dwelling of the main military or civil commander was called praetorium, then πραιτώριον τοῦ Ἡρώδου in Caesarea (Acts 23:35) is nothing more than the palace built by Herod, where the procurator lived. Under special circumstances, namely on major Jewish holidays, when protective measures were needed due to the masses gathering in Jerusalem, the procurator arrived in Jerusalem and lived there in the former palace of Herod. The Praetorium in Jerusalem, where Pilate was at the time of 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 the uprisings in 4 BC and 66 AD) large detachments of troops were able to defend themselves against the indignant masses of the people. Therefore, during the stay of the procurator and the military detachment accompanying him, he had his own apartment here” (Schürer, Geschichte, I, S. 457).
If the soldiers took Christ “inside the courtyard, that is, to the praetorium” (Mark 15:16), then here we need to understand the courtyard in Herod’s palace. The soldiers gathered here “the entire Spira” (ὅλην τὴν σπεῖραν – Matthew and Mark), or Roman cohort, which consisted of approximately 500 people. The word "spira", or cohort, does not need to be understood here in its literal meaning. Perhaps there was less than one cohort, but perhaps more. It is clear that ἐπ´ αὐτόν does not mean “against Him,” but “towards Him,” to mock Him. It is assumed that the place of desecration was not where the scourging took place. If the latter took place not far from the ruler’s judge’s chair and in his sight (at the lyphostroton or gavvafa), then the first took place in the courtyard.
Matthew 27:28. and having undressed Him, they put purple robe on Him;
Mark does not say that Christ was previously stripped for shame. In Matthew, the soldiers undress (ἐκδύσαντες) Jesus Christ. Thus, according to Matthew, after the scourging, Christ was put on His own clothes and now the soldiers took them off again to put on Him a “scarlet robe” (χλαμύδα κοκκίνην). But it is definitely impossible to say how many times Christ was dressed and undressed before the crucifixion, twice or three times. Mark calls this scarlet chlamys porphyry, i.e. red clothes. It looked like a cloak, fastened with a buckle 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 others, and can often be seen on busts and statues of emperors and generals. By putting this “chlamys” on Christ, the soldiers wanted to ridicule His royal dignity, which in their eyes was completely imaginary.
Matthew 27:29. and having woven a crown of thorns, they placed it on His head and gave Him a reed in His right hand; and, kneeling before Him, they mocked Him, saying: Hail, King of the Jews!
(Compare Mark 15:17–18; John 19:2–3.)
The three evangelists call the “crown of thorns” almost identically: στέφανον ἐξ ἀκάνθων (Matthew and John) and ἀκάνθινον στέφανον (Mark). It is difficult to say which plant was used to weave the crown. Ἄκανθα means “thorn,” which is abundant in Palestine (see comments on Matthew 7:16, 13:7). It is believed that it was an ordinary thorny plant, which the Arabs call nawa or beer, with many small prickly needles, it is very flexible. Some say that it was rhamus paliurus or the so-called. spina christi. There are still a lot of thorny bushes near Jerusalem. Having placed the crown of thorns on the head of Christ, the soldiers then placed in His right hand a “reed” (κάλαμον), a reed stick, and in general any kind of stick, which was supposed to mean the royal scepter. Thus, before them was a mocking Tsar, who seemed to be a Tsar because in him there was, in fact, a denial of all royal dignity.
The soldiers approached Christ with feigned and mocking expressions of respect and devotion, greeted Him with the usual greeting χαῖρε (hello), King of the Jews, and knelt before Him.
Matthew 27:30. and they spat on Him and, taking a reed, beat Him on the head.
(Compare Mark 15:19; John 19:3.)
John only says that the soldiers beat Christ on the cheeks, keeping silent about the other insults. Mark, using the past imperfect tenses of the verbs (ἔτυπτον and ἐνέπτυον - beat and spat), indicates that the same reproach was repeated several times. Matthew has it a little differently: after spitting on Him, they took a stick and beat (implied several times) Him on the head.
Matthew 27:31. And when they mocked Him, they took off His scarlet robe, and clothed Him in His own clothes, and led Him away to be crucified.
(Compare Mark 15:20; Luke 23:26; John 19:17.)
John inserts here a rather long story, which the weather forecasters do not have, about how Pilate brought the tortured Christ to the Jews, and about the new interrogation of Pilate (John 19: 4–16). Apparently, after this, the soldiers took off His chlamys or scarlet robe and put His own clothes on Him again, and then led Him to be crucified.
Matthew 27:32. As they went out, they met one Cyrene man named Simon; this one was forced to bear His cross.
(Compare Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26.)
Cyrene or Cyrenaica was located in Egypt. There were many Jews there, and there is enough news about them in the New Testament. They were at the Feast of Pentecost in Jerusalem (Acts 2:10) and had their own synagogue there (Acts 6:9, 11:20, 13:1). Judging by the name - Simon, then the Cyrenean mentioned here was a Jew. 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 assumed that Simon came from slaves and was one of the followers of Christ and a Christian. His personality seems mysterious. Speaking about the placing of the Cross on him, Bengel notes that nec judaeus, nec romanus ullus erat qui vellet tollere crucis onus (neither a Jew nor a Roman would want to bear the weight of the Cross). If Simon was a follower of Christ, then the matter is explained simply. Simon walked “from the field” (Mark and Luke). This is considered decisive evidence that at that time, as Khvolson and others put it, it was a “weekday”, because it was not allowed to work on holidays. But, as noted above, from the expressions of Mark and Luke, in any case, it is impossible to draw an exact conclusion that Simon was coming from field work.
These expressions may simply mean that he walked only in the direction from the field (ἀπ´ ἀγροῦ). He, in all likelihood, reacted with sympathy to the suffering Christ, and, noticing this, the soldiers captured him and offered (but hardly forced) to help Christ carry His Cross and thereby speed up the procession itself. Simon willingly agreed and bore the Cross along with the Savior Himself. This Cross was made by the soldiers themselves from logs, perhaps roughly knocked together, so that its corner could be placed on the shoulder, and since it was taller than the height of the man who was condemned to crucifixion, its lower end dragged along the ground during the procession. On ἀγγαρεύω see comments on Matthew 5:41.
Luke (Luke 23:27–32) added Christ’s speech to the women of Jerusalem, which is not found in other evangelists.
Matthew 27:33. And, having come to a place called Golgotha, which means: Place of Execution,
Matthew 27:34. They gave Him vinegar mixed with gall to drink; and, having tasted it, did not want to drink.
(Compare Mark 15:22; Luke 23:33; John 19:17.)
The word "Golgotha" is a Hellenized form of the Hebrew "gulgolet" - "skull" (Judges 9:53), also "head" in the meaning of "man", "face", "person" (Exodus 38:26; 1 Chronicles 23:3). This word was applied to mountains and hills that resembled a human skull in appearance. It is not known with certainty where Golgotha was located, on which Christ was crucified. Based on Hebrews 13:12, the conclusion is drawn that she was outside Jerusalem (“outside the gates”), but not far from it (John 19:20). In Aramaic this place was called “Gogalta”. One "l" fell out in the word "Golgotha", probably in the popular pronunciation of this word. All four evangelists interpret the word "Golgotha", calling it κρανίου τόπος, κράνιον, which means "place of the skull" or "skull". It was probably a rounded bare hill. In 366 A.D. on the site where Golgotha supposedly was, a church was built, which stood here until 614, when it was burned by the Persians. After this, new church buildings were built here. But in 936 everything was destroyed by fire again. In October 1810, on the site of the supposed Golgotha, the Greeks built the Church of the Resurrection of Christ.
Evangelists do not provide details about how the crucifixion of Christ took place, limiting themselves only to reports that He was crucified. From this we can conclude that He was crucified in the usual way, in which this most terrible of all executions was carried out. The cross was not as high as its painters write. It usually rose eleven feet above the ground and rarely twelve. The crucified man's feet were no higher than four feet from the ground. It is not known whether the Savior’s hands and feet were nailed to the Cross before or after the Cross was hoisted into the ground. At crucifixions both happened. In the first case, the person being crucified was tied to the Cross, then either from the ground, or perhaps from a stand or ladder, his hands and feet were nailed. In the second case, the cross was laid on the ground, the person being crucified was spread out on it and, perhaps tied, his arms and legs were attached to the cross with nails, after which the leashes or ropes were removed.
This last type of execution was more terrible than the first, because when the cross was lifted and planted in the ground, the whole body shook, and this caused the most unbearable, most terrible pain, especially since the executioners who carried out this kind of execution usually did not feel any pity for the criminal, just as people do not feel any pity for animals, sometimes treating them too roughly and subjecting them to terrible torture. The executioner usually nailed first the right arm and right leg, and then the left arm and left leg. But if there were several people carrying out the execution, then the arms and legs were nailed at the same time. Sometimes both legs were nailed together, sometimes separately. In some cases, instead of nails, only ropes were used. This was apparently easier, but in fact it was even more terrible, because in such cases the crucified person 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 ὀνος in several codes όξος is vinegar, generally a spicy drink (as in the Russian translation). So it is in the Epistle of Barnabas VII, 5, where this text is quoted, and in Ps. 68:22 (translation of the Seventy). It is assumed that οἶνος was corrected here to όξος according to 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 help but accept this “beneficent” drink and that Matthew (and Mark) turned this beneficent drink into “unacceptable” (ungeniessbare), into “wine with gall” in order to show here the fulfillment of Ps. 68:22; “Matthew turned the humane act of the soldiers into an expression of enemy malice.” But such a view is based on a misunderstanding of the evangelist’s speech. Χολή, of course, means “bile” (cf.
Jer.8:14), but not always, sometimes - just bitterness (Job.20:14), wormwood (Prov.5:4; Lamentations 3:15) and poison, bitter and darkening mental faculties (Deut.29:18, 32:32). It is in this latter sense that Matthew uses οἶνον μετὰ χολῆς μεμιγμένον. And Matthew’s speech has nothing to do with Ps.69:22 (Tsan). The drink was probably prepared by compassionate Jerusalem women and given to the condemned in order to ease their suffering on the cross. But Jesus Christ did not want to drink it.
Matthew 27:35. Those who crucified Him divided His clothes, casting lots;
(Compare Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:23.)
The order of events among the weather forecasters is changed compared to John. John (John 19:18–22) contains stories about the crucifixion of two thieves with Christ and the attachment of the inscription of Christ’s guilt to the Cross, and only after this John talks about the division of Christ’s clothes; then that the soldiers guarded Christ (only in Matthew, verse 36), then about the inscription of the cross and, finally, about the crucifixion of two thieves along with Christ. If we recognize the order in John as accurate, then the stories of the weather forecasters should be arranged in this order: John 19:18 = Matthew 27:38 = Mark 15:27 = Luke. 23:33 (with the addition of Luke 23:34); John 19:19 = Matthew 27:37 = Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38. Then John alone has the story John 19:20–22, and the 23rd verse of John coincides with Matthew 27:35 = Mark 15:24 = Luke 23:34. Selecting Matthew alone, we find that in agreement with John, the order of events should be as follows: Matthew 27:38, 37, 35, 36.
The clothes of the condemned, as is the case now, belonged to the executioners. However, Edersheim notes: “People usually think that this was a general Roman custom. But there is no evidence for this, and later it was clearly prohibited" (Ulpianus, Digestae, XLVIII, 20, 6). But if it was prohibited, then, therefore, the custom existed before. From the message of John (John 19:23) it is clear that Christ's clothes were divided into four parts because the crucifixion was carried out by four soldiers (quaternio). Other evangelists do not talk about this, limiting themselves to only noting that the soldiers shared the clothes of Christ. To these words, Matthew and Mark added the ancient addition “that what was spoken might be fulfilled” ... “they cast lots,” borrowed from Ps. 21:19, authentic from John (John 19:24), but correctly issued from Matthew (Mark 15:28 is not authentic) in both Russian and Slavic texts. Thus, in reporting the division of clothing, Matthew and Mark obviously did not think that an ancient prophecy was being fulfilled here, and, moreover, in a very surprising and original way. Only John remembered this, and much later.
Opinions vary as to whether Christ was crucified completely naked, or as He is depicted on the cross, with a lenteum. Usually, before crucifixion, all clothes were removed from the condemned. Athanasius the Great, Ambrose, Augustine and others argued that Christ was crucified completely naked. Indeed, nothing can prove that he had a subligaculum. Only in the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus is it said that expoliaverunt eum vestimentis et praecinxerunt lenteo et coronam de spinis imposuerunt super caput ejus. “After they had mocked Him, they led Him to be crucified and, having exposed Him, took His clothes for themselves and, sitting down, waited for Him to give up the ghost. And they divided His clothes, as usually happens with those condemned of the lowest kind, with the outcast, with the defenseless and helpless; divided those vestments that produced so many miracles and which, however, did not have any effect at that time, since Christ retained His ineffable power” (St. John Chrysostom).
Matthew 27:36. and, sitting, they guarded Him there;
The soldiers who were entrusted with the crucifixion were subject to the strictest liability in the event that the condemned man was somehow freed from punishment and saved.
Matthew 27:37. and they placed an inscription over His head, signifying His guilt: This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.
(Compare Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19.)
All evangelists have different contents of the inscription. Literally: “this is Jesus, the King of the Jews” (Matthew), “this King of the Jews” (Mark), “this King of the Jews” (Luke), “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews” (John). Obviously, all the evangelists reproduced this inscription from memory, translating it into Greek from Hebrew and Latin, but its content is essentially the same for all of them. Given such a difference, it is difficult, of course, to resolve the question of what the original inscription was. They think that Matthew has οὗτός ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς ὁ βασιλεύς τῶν Ἰουδαίων - an exact reproduction of the Latin inscription (Hic est Iesus Rex Judaeorum). How long this inscription hung after the removal of the Savior’s body from the Cross and how long the Cross itself stood on Calvary is unknown. In the same way, it is not known whether the soldiers themselves attached this inscription above the head of Jesus Christ, but probably they did. This could have been done by soldiers after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
Matthew 27:38. Then two thieves were crucified with Him: one on the right side, and the other on the left.
(Cf. Mark 15:27; Luke 23:33; John 19:18.)
Completely unknown people, probably caught and convicted of important criminal offenses, robberies, robberies, murders, disturbances, etc. In legend, the unrepentant robber is called Gestas, and the repentant one is called Dismas.
Matthew 27:39. Those who passed by cursed Him, shaking their heads.
Matthew 27:40. and saying: Destroying the church and creating in three days! save yourself; if you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.
Matthew 27:41. Likewise the high priests, with the scribes and elders and Pharisees, mockingly said:
Matthew 27:42. he saved others, but he cannot save himself; if He is the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe in Him;
(Compare Mark 15:31; Luke 23:35.)
All weather forecasters have different expressions, but they convey the essence in the same way. Слово «фарисеи» встречается у Матфея в менее важных кодексах и считается неподлинным. Вообще же в тексте здесь сильное колебание: «подобно», «подобно и», «подобно же и», с «книжниками и старейшинами», со «старейшинами и книжниками»; with “the scribes and the elders and the Pharisees,” with “the scribes and the Pharisees.” Эти люди обращались, вероятно, с насмешками и к Самому Христу, и к народу, указывая при этом на Него, произнося богохульства, припоминая Его исцеления и речи о Себе как Спасителе. Во всех этих насмешках указывается на действительные факты из Его жизни, совершенно непонятые или извращенные насмехавшимися над Ним людьми. Но если бы Он теперь сошел с Креста и таким образом спас Себя Самого, то это было бы чудом меньшим сравнительно с Его Воскресением. Resurreхit, et non credidistis. Ergo si etiam de cruce descenderet, similiter non crederitis (воскрес, и вы не поверили. Если бы, следовательно, и сошел с Креста, то все равно не уверовали бы. – Иероним). In general, ridicule was characterized by stupidity and myopia.
The people around Christ could not and did not want to understand that in order to save others from danger, people often had to sacrifice and sacrifice their own lives.
Matthew 27:43. trusted in God; Let him deliver Him now, if He pleases Him. For He said: I am the Son of God.
These words are not found in other evangelists. It is unknown whether all these insults reached the ears of the Savior. In all likelihood, they did. Those who uttered ridicule spoke here partly from Old Testament texts (cf. Ps. 21:9; Wis. 2:13–18). “If He pleases Him” - literally: “if He wants, He wants Him” (εἰ θέλει αὐτόν), i.e. if He pleases, He pleases. This is Hebraism (in Hebrew – “hafetz bo”).
Matthew 27:44. Likewise, the thieves who were crucified with Him reviled Him.
The testimony of Matthew and Mark is similar here: Christ was reviled by both robbers. But Luke (Luke 23:39 et seq.) speaks only of one thief who reviled him, and another appeased him. This difference has long attracted attention. Origen, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigavinus and others believed that at first both thieves blasphemed Christ, then one of them, seeing the long-suffering of Christ, repented, began to calm the other and finally uttered his words (Luke 23:42). But Jerome says that here is a figure of speech called in Greek σύλληψις - a word that means “grasping”, here it can be translated as “reduction”, “union” - pro uno latrone uterque inducitur blaspemasse (instead of one robber, the evangelist makes both speak evil). Augustine says that Matthew here, speaking briefly, put the plural instead of the singular. Meyer calls this plural gender, which has a necessary relation to verse 38.
We can agree with these interpretations and assume that Matthew and Mark, who do not speak about the repentant thief, generally wanted to show that curses were initially heard not only from among the people (not all), the high priests, elders and scribes, but also from the robbers. Luke also notes that they were also heard from the soldiers (Luke 23:36–37), which is not the case in Matthew and Mark. There was a lot of slander and blasphemy, and, in fact, it was difficult to even make out where they were coming from. If Luke singles out one robber from this mass of detractors, then this, of course, does not in the least contradict either Matthew or Mark. Τό αὐτό does not mean “in the same way,” but “the same,” i.e. ridicule and blasphemy, according to the construction of ὀνειδίζειν τινά τι - “to blame someone for what.” John here introduces a story about the women who stood at the Cross and the commission of the Mother of God to John.
Matthew 27:45. From the sixth hour there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour;
(Compare Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44.)
Forecasters here similarly determine the time of darkness. Previously, an exact indication of the time is found in John, who counts according to Roman (and Asia Minor) time (John 19:14 - should be read “Friday of Easter”, or Easter Friday - παρασκευ τοῦ πάσχα, and not “before Easter”, as in the Russian translation; see Tischendorf) and says that Christ was on trial at Pilate at six o'clock in the morning - according to our time count. Then Mark, according to the Jewish account, notes that the crucifixion took place at the third hour of the day, i.e. in our opinion - in the ninth. Now all weather forecasters unanimously claim that darkness spread from the sixth to the ninth hour, i.e. three hours after the crucifixion, according to our count (adding six), from twelve to three o'clock in the afternoon. The origin of this darkness, which spread throughout the whole earth (ἐπὶ πάσαν τὴν γῆν - Matthew; ἐφ´ ὅλην τὴν γῆν - Mark and Luke), has not yet been explained, and it cannot be hoped that it will be explained. Here one can find only the fulfillment of an ancient prophecy (Amos 8:9–10).
Of the ancient interpreters, the most detailed discussion on this subject is found in Origen, who said that this fact “is not reported anywhere in history” and that darkness could not be a consequence of a solar eclipse, because Easter was celebrated during the March full moon. He thinks that just as other signs during the suffering and death of Christ were given only in Jerusalem, so the darkness until the ninth hour spread only throughout Judea, and explains the darkness by the appearance of the darkest clouds, which spread more and more over the land of Judea and Jerusalem, so that they covered the rays of the sun. This opinion of Origen has not yet been refuted, 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 Trallian, freedman of Emperor Hadrian), who wrote the chronicles of the Olympiads in the 2nd century of the Christian era. Phlegon says that in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad there was a solar eclipse much more complete than had been known until then.
At six o'clock in the afternoon it became night, so that the stars appeared in the sky. There was also a strong earthquake in Bethany, which caused great devastation in Nicaea. But the eclipse of the sun that Phlegon speaks of could not last for three hours. The most likely explanation for the appearance of darkness is an approaching earthquake. Origen’s testimony about the appearance of “darkest clouds” or clouds is in complete agreement with this assumption. Such phenomena are not uncommon before earthquakes. Tsang notes that the ἡ γῆ of the weather forecasters here should be understood only as Judea.
Matthew 27:46. and about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice: Either, Or! Lama Savakhthani? that is: My God, My God! Why have you forsaken me?
The Savior hung on the Cross for about six hours. His death was approaching. His physical and moral suffering became unbearable. No human words or descriptions can express the full depth of this suffering. One can only say that they were the opposite of all kinds of earthly pleasures. Suffering was equivalent to the renunciation of the Most High from His faithful Servant, His beloved Son. This means that at that time Christ learned the secret of the greatest suffering. When Christ “was poured out like water, all His bones crumbled and His heart became like wax, melted in the midst of His entrails, His strength dried up like a potsherd, and His tongue clung to His throat”, when “His garments were divided” - in this last, most extreme and terrible of human calamities - at that time a terrible dying cry was heard from the lips of the Sufferer, indicating that all hope of salvation and the return to life has now disappeared. The words of Christ are the only ones given by Matthew and Mark during the time of suffering on the Cross. They are taken from Psalm 21.
In ancient Hebrew there are only four words: “eli, eli, lama azavtani.” The Hebrew “azavtani” is replaced by Aramaic, which is equal in meaning to “savakhthani”; and “lama” (according to the best readings) is “lemma” (λεμά), which was written, however, in different ways: λεμα, λαμα, λιμα, λημα. “Azavtani” is from the Hebrew verb “azav” - “to leave”, “to leave”, “to deprive of help”. In Codex D in Mark there is ζαφθάνει, which was a later assimilation of the Greek into the Hebrew word. The evangelists translate the Aramaic “sabachthani” into Greek ἐγκαταλείπω, which means “simply leaving” and “leaving someone helpless in times of trouble and suffering” (cf. Acts 2:27; Rom. 9:29; 2 Cor. 4:9; 2 Tim. 4:10, 16; Heb. 10:25, 13:5). The translation was made in order to indicate what the real meaning was in these words of Christ, which were incomprehensible to the people around Him. Some say that here Christ expressed “a subjective feeling that cannot be confused with the objective abandonment of Him by God.”
Matthew 27:47. Some of those standing there, hearing this, said: He is calling Elijah.
The name Elijah in Hebrew is spelled differently than Eli or Or - "My God" from El - "God" and the addition of a possessive pronoun. But the pronunciation of “Elijah” and “My God” in Hebrew is similar. The name Elijah means "God is Jehovah." It was natural that “some of those standing,” perhaps not hearing or simply not understanding the last words of Christ, thought that he was calling Elijah to Himself for help.
“This” or “this” (οὗτος) is an expressive word spoken to show that it was not the thieves crucified with Christ who called Elijah, but rather He who was crucified among them.
Matthew 27:48. And immediately one of them ran, took a sponge, filled it with vinegar and, putting it on a reed, gave Him to drink;
(Compare Mark 15:36; John 19:28–29.)
In Matthew and Mark it is not entirely clear why, having heard that Jesus Christ was calling Elijah, one of those standing (the evangelists do not say who exactly, probably a Roman soldier) immediately ran and gave Jesus Christ a drink. But this is quite clear in John. Since the story of John 19:29 completely coincides in meaning with Matthew 27:48 and Mark 15:36, we can conclude from this that the word of Jesus Christ “I thirst” (John 19:28) was the real reason for offering Him vinegar, or a sour grape drink, which in Latin was called posca - almost corresponds to our “kvass” - was prepared from grapes and was an ordinary drink Roman soldiers. But if “kvass” or sour drink (ὄξος - the word is found in the New Testament only here in Matthew and parallels and also Luke 23:36) was here because the Roman soldiers needed it to quench their thirst, then it is not easy to explain the appearance of “sponge” (σπόγγος in Matthew, Mark and John) here. It was thought that the sponges were probably on hand here precisely for the purpose of giving the convicts something to drink whenever they needed it. On the part of the warrior who brought the sponge with drink to the lips of Christ, this was an act of mercy.
But the other soldiers, apparently, began to ridicule his act 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 accept that this offering of drink by the soldiers was the same as that which was made before the crucifixion. Jesus Christ took this drink. But the opinion that He, having tasted the drink, asked for more, is not supported by anything.
Matthew 27:49. and others said, “Wait, let’s see if Elijah will come to save Him.”
Mark's plural is "wait". Seeing the warrior’s humanitarian act, there were people who turned it into a subject of mockery. In Matthew, the words are spoken to the warrior by “others.” In Mark, the warrior speaks them to “others.” It is clear that it could be both. Mark probably talks about a different warrior than the one who brought the sponge the first time.
Matthew 27:50. Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and gave up the ghost.
(Cf. Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46; John 19:30.)
The weather forecasters do not find the word found in John - “it is finished”; Matthew, Mark and John do not have the words found in Luke: “Father! into Your hands I commend My spirit." All weather forecasters use the expression “loud cry” here. Whether this cry was with words or without words is difficult to say. Judging by the fact that the same expression is used in Matthew 27:46 and in parallel in Mark, one can think that Christ, even before His death, uttered some words that were probably not heard and therefore did not reach us. But it could have been different. Tsang holds the first opinion.
“Gased up the spirit” is a common popular expression indicating death.
Matthew 27:51. And behold, the curtain of the church was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook; and the stones dissipated;
(Compare Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45.)
Luke connects the tearing of the veil with the fact that “the sun was darkened.” Here are all the signs of an earthquake. Many people accept that it 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 reported in the Apocrypha, the Talmud and Josephus, could all have been a consequence of the earthquake. The veil of the church here should be considered 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 - it was not the veil of the church that was torn, but the timber of the enormous church that collapsed). Jerome found this message in the Gospel of the Jews. It is clear that this was possible during an earthquake, but this does not exclude tearing of the veil.
Matthew 27:52. and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were resurrected
The Death of Christ and Resurrection was accompanied by amazing phenomena not only here on earth, but also in the afterlife. They were completely new. If earlier people were resurrected, receiving the same mortal body as before, now the resurrection resembled the Resurrection of Christ Himself, the saints were resurrected with a new, glorified body and appeared to many in Jerusalem, although, like Christ Himself, they did not live among them. Who these saints were and how they were recognized is completely unknown.
Matthew 27:53. and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.
The Apostle Paul says that “Christ is risen from the dead, the firstborn from those who sleep” (1 Cor. 15:20) and that “He is the firstfruits, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he may have the preeminence” (Col. 1:18). If the Gospel did not contain the words “after His resurrection,” it would seem that Christ was not the “firstborn” and that the saints were resurrected before Him. On this basis, they think that the expression “after His resurrection” was not in the original text and is a later insertion made to agree this news with the above words of the Apostle Paul. We do not know exactly what the phenomenon itself was. But if, as explained above, the bodies of the resurrected saints were similar to the Body of Christ Himself, then they could appear in Jerusalem in the same way as He did after His resurrection. There is no reason to consider the evangelist’s expression “after His resurrection” to be a later and inauthentic insertion. One can only think that the evangelist, amidst the terrible events, somehow warns the joy of the Resurrection and relates the events that happened after to a previously former time.
Matthew 27:54. The centurion and those who were guarding Jesus with him, seeing the earthquake and everything that happened, were greatly afraid and said: Truly this was the Son of God.
(Compare Mark 15:39; Luke 23:47.)
The mention of the centurion shows that, in addition to the soldiers who crucified Christ, at the site of the crucifixion there was another detachment of one hundred people under the command of the centurion. This was quite natural and possible due to the gathering of a huge crowd. Centurions are called differently in the New Testament: ἐκατοντάρχος, χης (see comments on Matthew 8:5), κεντυρί ον (centurio) and ταξίαρχος. Little is known about the centurion who was at the crucifixion. According to legend, he was called Longinus, after which he was baptized and preached Christ in his homeland in Cappadocia, for which he suffered martyrdom. Both the very Face of the Crucified One and “everything that happened” during the crucifixion made a strong impression on him, and he uttered the words that he himself heard either from the lips of Christ at the trial, or from others: “Truly He was the Son of God.” But if during the death of Christ and the earthquake that followed or during it, the centurion was forced to remain with the soldiers on Calvary, then others, leaving all their ridicule and mockery, began to quickly go home from the terrible Calvary spectacle, striking themselves in the chest (Luke 23:48).
Matthew 27:55. There were also many women there, watching from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, serving Him;
(Compare Mark 15:40; Luke 23:49.)
The women stood and watched from afar, unable to do anything to ease the torment of the Crucified One. They are named further. Wed. Luke 8:3.
Matthew 27:56. among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Josiah, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.
Matthew speaks first of the ministry of women, and then calls them by name; Mark is the opposite. Matthew speaks only of many women who followed Christ from Galilee, serving Him; Mark makes a distinction between the Galilean women and the “many others” who came with Him to Jerusalem. But it is not known for sure whether there were Jerusalem women here, besides the Galilean ones. The evangelists do not mention the sisters of Lazarus, who were probably here. For the women who stood at the Cross, see comments on Matthew 20:20. Instead of "Josiah", important codices read "Joseph". But in the ABCD codes and many translations Ἰωσῆ is Josiah, who, however, is not confused with the one mentioned in Matthew 13:55.
Mark calls James “small” or “lesser” (τοῦ μικροῦ), probably in contrast to James of Zebedee. It is also believed that Jacob was called that way because he was short in stature.
Matthew 27:57. When evening came, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also studied with Jesus;
(Cf. Mark 15:42–43; Luke 23:50–51; John 19:38.)
John (John 19:31–37) before that tells about breaking the legs of thieves and about piercing the side of Jesus Christ with a spear. Forecasters miss this story. The next day - Saturday - is a day of rest. It began with the “appearance of three stars in the sky,” or approximately six o’clock in the evening according to our count. This was the “second” evening, from which, on the occasion of the onset of Saturday, all activities ceased. The first evening began around three or four o'clock in the afternoon. The period between the first and second evenings was called the time “between evenings.” At this time, even if there was an Easter day, it was allowed to perform at least some work, which is clearly seen from the Gospels, which in the present, as in all other cases, serve as a more reliable historical source than, for example, the Talmud. Joseph, in all likelihood, lived in Jerusalem, although all the evangelists call him a man “from Arimathea.” It is not known which Arimathea (Rama) is meant here: is Rama in the tribe of Benjamin, or in the tribe of Ephraim - the homeland of the prophet Samuel (see.
comments on Matthew 2:17–18). Wed. 1Mac.2:34. Probably the last one. John adds that Joseph was a secret disciple of Jesus Christ - “out of fear from the Jews.”
Matthew 27:58. He came to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered the body to be given up;
(Cf. Mark 15:43–45; Luke 23:52; John 19:38.)
The Romans usually left the bodies of executed criminals on crosses. This time the Jews did not want to leave the bodies on the crosses on the occasion of the great day - Easter Saturday. Thus, the request addressed by Joseph to Pilate was in this case in agreement with the desires of the Jews themselves, and, of course, with Pilate, who knew that he had put to death an innocent Man. Thus, the satisfaction of Joseph's request could not be hindered by anyone. He and Nicodemus now wanted to pay their last respects to their Teacher. Since there was little time left before the onset of Saturday, it was necessary to hurry with the burial.
Matthew 27:59. and Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean shroud.
(Cf. Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53; John 19:38–41.)
John tells more about the burial than other evangelists. It happened in the usual way. The enemies of Christ calmed down after His execution and took almost no precautions. The Shroud in Greek for all weather forecasters is σινδών - thin linen or paper material of foreign origin, obtained from India (“Sind”, “Ind”, “India”) and, according to Herodotus (“History”, II, 86), used by the Egyptians (λούσαντες τὸν νεκρὸν κατειλίσσουσι πᾶν αὐτοῦ τὸ σῶμα σινδόνος βυσσίνης - washing the dead, wrapping his whole body is linen syndon). The burial rites of the Egyptians, described by Herodotus, are interesting and can serve to explain the Gospel passages. Comparing the news of the burial of Christ 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 he laid him in his new tomb, which he had carved out of the rock; and, having rolled a large stone to the door of the tomb, he left.
(Cf. Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53; John 19:41–42.)
Luke and John add that “no one has yet been laid in this tomb”; Matthew and John call the tomb new. Joseph wanted to be buried himself in this coffin, which is why we find the expression in Matthew: ἐν τῷ καινῷ αὐτοῦ μνημείῳ. Probably, the large stone rolled against the coffin was not outside it, but in the cave itself. This can be concluded from John 20:1.
Matthew 27:61. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb.
(Cf. Mark 15:47; Luke 23:55–56.)
A reference to the women mentioned in verse 56. While the other women withdrew, the two Marys sat opposite the coffin, watching the burial take place. But Luke tells it a little differently.
Matthew 27:62. On the next day, which followed Friday, the chief priests and Pharisees gathered to Pilate
The further story until the end of the chapter is only in Matthew. Opinions vary greatly regarding the timing of Pilate's visit by the high priests and the Pharisees. Meyer thinks that Friday (παρασκευ) is called either the day before Saturday or before the holiday. From the expressions of the evangelists (Matthew 27:62 – μετὰ τὴν παρασακευήν; Mark 15:42 – ἐπεὶ ἦν παρασκευή; Luke 23:54 – ἡμέρα ἦν παρασακευή; παρσακευὴ ἦν ; John 19:42 – ἐπεὶ οὖν διὰ τὴν παρασκευὴν τῶν Ἰουδαίων) can be derived that all the evangelists speak not about the Friday before the Easter supper, but before the Saturday of Easter week. Because otherwise their expressions could be understood in the sense that the Jews had Fridays before Fridays (when the holiday occurred on the latter), which has not yet been proven.
The Jews came to Pilate not on the night from Friday to Saturday, but on Saturday itself, when the Savior was already buried. It is believed that this was on the evening of Saturday itself, when it had already passed. But this was hardly necessary. Rolling the stone, sealing the coffin and assigning guards - all this did not belong to the activities of the Jews themselves.
Matthew 27:63. and they said: Master! We remembered that the deceiver, while still alive, said: after three days I will rise again;
“Deceiver” has an intransitive and transitive meaning: one who errs himself and misleads others (cf. 2 John 1:7; 2 Cor. 6:8; 1 Tim. 4:1).
“While still alive” - these words, contrary to the theory of the resurrection, according to which Jesus Christ was taken down from the Cross and brought to life, show that Christ was now dead. Further speech serves as a reminder of what Christ Himself spoke about (Matthew 16:21, 17:23, 20:19; Mark 8:31, 9:31, etc.; John 2:19). The word ἐγείρομαι is placed in the present tense.
Matthew 27:64. So give orders that the tomb be guarded until the third day, so that His disciples, coming at night, do not steal Him and say to the people: He has risen from the dead; and the last deception will be worse than the first.
This is the last alarm of the enemies of Christ. When their desire has been satisfied, they become almost completely calm. In several codes, after the words “they stole Him” - “at night” - a word that is not authentic and therefore not conveyed in the Russian translation. Ἔσται does not depend on μήποτε. The Russian translation is correct. These circumstances are recounted 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 and protect it as best you can.
Pilate obviously does not attach the importance to this whole matter that the enemies of Christ attached to it. Ἔχετε is considered imperative, i.e. Pilate says “have”, not “have”; as in the Russian translation. If he had said “you have,” then it would be unknown what kind of guard is meant here, because it is doubtful that the Jews would have assigned a church guard of Jews to the tomb. In this case, there would be no need for them to turn to Pilate with a request to command the guarding of the coffin. If we take Pilate’s words as imperative, then this will mean that Pilate ordered them to take the Roman soldiers, saying: take your guard.
Matthew 27:66. They went and placed a guard at the tomb and put a seal on the stone.
Literally (as in Slavic): “sealing the stone with the guard.” To avoid ambiguity, a comma was placed after τὸν λίθον. But it is more correct to think that they sealed the coffin not themselves, but with the help of soldiers, who were responsible for the integrity of the coffin. This is expressed by μετὰ τῆς κουστωδίας. It is unknown how the coffin was sealed. Probably either a cord was stretched from top to bottom or across, which was sealed at both ends.
You might be interested in: