New Testament Studies
3/27/25
Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2018). "Matthew 27" (part 1) In Matthew 21:1-28:20. (pages 1490-1595). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)
"Matthew 27:1-2 Jesus Is Transferred to Pilate." (pp. 1490-1492).
Gibbs takes Jesus' hearing as a preliminary action, which required the Jewish leaders to exercise caution in the way they would present Jesus to Pilate (Gibbs 2018, p. 1491). For this reason, they "took counsel" (27:1) about the best way to arrange for Jesus' death at the hands of the Romans. We realize that while the Sanhedrin instigated Jesus' death, he was executed by the order of Pontius Pilate.
"Matthew 27:3-10 Indifference to Despair: The Chief Priests and Judas." (pp. 1493-1513).
Matthew 27:3-10 describes Judas' despair, his return of the money given to him for betraying Jesus, his death, and the move of the chief priests to purchase a burial place. Gibbs provides extensive notes on the text and grammar (Gibbs 2018, pp. 1493-1499). He then goes on to observe that "Judas . . . serves as a contrast with the chief priests and elders, and the unit primarily says something about them and their actions" (Gibbs 2018, p. 1499). They are shown as intent on having Jesus executed.
In Matthew 27:3-5, Judas is described in terms of repentance, as he returns the silver he had been paid to the chief priests, and as he made confession of sin (Gibbs 2018, p. 1500). He was, however, not absolved, but was rather rejected by them, provoking him to suicide. At the same time that Jesus is being taken to provide forgiveness for the world, the chief priests refuse forgiveness for a penitent sinner (Gibbs 2018, p. 1501).
Matthew 27:6-8 demonstrates the failure of the chief priests to understand purity. They decide to take defiled money, the price of blood, which was thrown into the temple, thus defiling the temple, and purchase a plot of land which would be used to bury foreigners (Gibbs 2018, p. 1502). This land would be considered impure both due to the presence of foreigners and due to its use for burial. They failed to understand the grace and forgiveness available in Christ.
In Matthew 27:9-10, Gibbs finds that Matthew has deliberately connected Zechariah 11 and Jeremiah 19 with a fulfillment in the work of Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1503). The prophecy speaks to divine judgment coming upon those who would reject the prophetic work of the one chosen as Israel's shepherd. Here Jesus is shown as the antitype, or fulfillment, of the shepherd in Zechariah 11 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1504). The connection of Jeremiah would be very easy to overlook without Matthew's specific reference. However, the connection does show in the concept of innocent blood and a potter (Gibbs 2018, p. 1505). This also brings the connection of judgment against Jerusalem into prominence (Gibbs 2018, p. 1506).
Gibbs makes application of Matthew 27:3-10 by observing that God's plan to redeem the world cannot be stopped even by evil such as that of the chief priests and Judas (Gibbs 2018, p. 1506). The sin rooted in the opponents' lives is to be seen as terrible and destructive to themselves and others. Yet it is incapable of stopping Jesus, who alone provides the forgiveness and restoration needed by sinners (Gibbs 2018, p. 1507). Gibbs further observes that, at this point in the narrative, there is no substantial difference between Judas and Peter. Both have fallen away. Neither is, in any real way, a disciple of Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1508). The disciples have all fallen away. This is without exception, including both Peter and Judas (Gibbs 2018, p. 1509). Gibbs finds this highly significant for our understanding that there is nothing in us which makes us naturally turn to Jesus. Rather, Jesus comes and finds us when we are spiritually hopeless (Gibbs 2018, p. 1511).
"Matthew 27:11-26 Pilate Condemns Jesus to Death by Crucifixion." (pp. 1514-1536).
Gibbs provides detailed grammatical notes for Matthew 27:1-26. The narrative has numerous grammatical irregularities, possibly emphasizing the tumultuous events of Jesus' presentation to Pilate and Pilate's eventual sentencing of Jesus.
Gibbs reviews the identity of Pontius Pilate briefly, observing that we know with certainty only two of the three Roman names of Pilate, lacking his praenomen, though some legends suggest it was Lucius (Gibbs 2018, p. 1521). He likely served as prefect of Judea and Samaria from AD 26-36 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1522). He was portrayed negatively by both Philo and Josephus, though Gibbs is quick to remind readers that they were hostile witnesses (Gibbs 2018, p. 1522). Pilate held considerable power and influence as prefect. The length of his time in office and the coins minted during his tenure suggest that he was not intent on causing a mass revolt among the Palestinian Jews (Gibbs 2018, p. 1523).
The interview of Jesus with Pilate would not have required any particular procedure or interaction with Roman law, since Jesus was almost certainly not a Roman citizen (Gibbs 2018, p. 1525). Pilate was free to hear the issue or not, and to act based on his own understanding of the case. Just the same, as the Roman prefect, he would have needed to bear in mind both Roman interests and enough of the Jewish interests to prevent a local rebellion. In Matthew 27:11-26, then, Pilate interprets the accusation against Jesus, and does so with little assistance of witnesses or legal precedent.
The difficulty presented to Pilate in Matthew 27:11-14 is that Jesus, presented to him, chooses not to respond. Gibbs observes that Jesus' assent to Pilate's question, "You are saying" (so), is not a denial but also fails to be a strong affirmation (Gibbs 2018, p. 1527). Jesus' silence afterward makes the interview more difficult, rather than clarifying matters. In verses 15-23, then, Gibbs takes Pilate to be turning some elements of his judgment over to the Jews, possibly so as to insure his future relationships with the Jewish leaders.
The custom of releasing a prisoner at this time cannot be found outside of the canonical Gospels (Gibbs 2018, p. 1527). In Gibbs' estimation, Pilate's suggestion of releasing Barabbas may have served as a test of how dangerous the Sanhedrin actually thought Jesus was (Gibbs 2018, p. 1528). Pilate specifically refers to Jesus as the one called the Christ, or the Messiah. Gibbs, with many others, finds Matthew's report about Pilate's wife and her dream to be cryptic. He briefly entertains the possibility of this as a divine revelation as were the other instances of dreams recorded in Matthew (Gibbs 2018, pp. 1527-1528). This could certainly lead Pilate to his opinion of Jesus' innocence. Gibbs notes that there is no inherent inconsistency about God's plan that Jesus would be executed and his issuing warnings. He also knows that his warning will not be heeded (Gibbs 2018, p. 1528). If, however, the dream is not intended to relate this incident with others in Matthew, it could simply serve as yet another demonstration that Pilate would remain guilty in his decision to have Jesus executed (Gibbs 2018, p. 1529). Regardless, the outcry of the crowd is described as forceful. Pilate ultimately concedes to them and condemns Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1530).
Gibbs sums up the decision of Pilate, "As is so often the case with political decisions, both ancient and modern, power and compromise take precedence over truth or justice" (Gibbs 2018, p. 1531). Though Pilate washes his hands and proclaims his own innocence, Jesus remains the one who is genuinely innocent. The crowds, and "all the people," ask that Jesus' blood should be upon them. Gibbs explores the interpretation of this call (Gibbs 2018, p. 1532). Pilate cannot possibly be innocent of the blood of Jesus. As prefect, he is responsible. Likewise, Gibbs takes the call of the people as ineffective from the standpoint of calling a curse down on themselves (Gibbs 2018, p. 1533). They have no understanding of who Jesus is or what he is doing. Rather, their response illustrates the theme, common in Matthew, that all Israel stands guilty before God (Gibbs 2018, p. 1534). They will be displayed as guilty before God as the people of Jerusalem face persecution at the hands of the Romans, culminating with the sacking of the city in the year 70 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1534). Gibbs finally notes the irony that this incident and Pilate's decision does shed the blood of Jesus, which proves salvific.
3/27/25
Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2018). "Matthew 27" (part 1) In Matthew 21:1-28:20. (pages 1490-1595). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)
"Matthew 27:1-2 Jesus Is Transferred to Pilate." (pp. 1490-1492).
Gibbs takes Jesus' hearing as a preliminary action, which required the Jewish leaders to exercise caution in the way they would present Jesus to Pilate (Gibbs 2018, p. 1491). For this reason, they "took counsel" (27:1) about the best way to arrange for Jesus' death at the hands of the Romans. We realize that while the Sanhedrin instigated Jesus' death, he was executed by the order of Pontius Pilate.
"Matthew 27:3-10 Indifference to Despair: The Chief Priests and Judas." (pp. 1493-1513).
Matthew 27:3-10 describes Judas' despair, his return of the money given to him for betraying Jesus, his death, and the move of the chief priests to purchase a burial place. Gibbs provides extensive notes on the text and grammar (Gibbs 2018, pp. 1493-1499). He then goes on to observe that "Judas . . . serves as a contrast with the chief priests and elders, and the unit primarily says something about them and their actions" (Gibbs 2018, p. 1499). They are shown as intent on having Jesus executed.
In Matthew 27:3-5, Judas is described in terms of repentance, as he returns the silver he had been paid to the chief priests, and as he made confession of sin (Gibbs 2018, p. 1500). He was, however, not absolved, but was rather rejected by them, provoking him to suicide. At the same time that Jesus is being taken to provide forgiveness for the world, the chief priests refuse forgiveness for a penitent sinner (Gibbs 2018, p. 1501).
Matthew 27:6-8 demonstrates the failure of the chief priests to understand purity. They decide to take defiled money, the price of blood, which was thrown into the temple, thus defiling the temple, and purchase a plot of land which would be used to bury foreigners (Gibbs 2018, p. 1502). This land would be considered impure both due to the presence of foreigners and due to its use for burial. They failed to understand the grace and forgiveness available in Christ.
In Matthew 27:9-10, Gibbs finds that Matthew has deliberately connected Zechariah 11 and Jeremiah 19 with a fulfillment in the work of Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1503). The prophecy speaks to divine judgment coming upon those who would reject the prophetic work of the one chosen as Israel's shepherd. Here Jesus is shown as the antitype, or fulfillment, of the shepherd in Zechariah 11 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1504). The connection of Jeremiah would be very easy to overlook without Matthew's specific reference. However, the connection does show in the concept of innocent blood and a potter (Gibbs 2018, p. 1505). This also brings the connection of judgment against Jerusalem into prominence (Gibbs 2018, p. 1506).
Gibbs makes application of Matthew 27:3-10 by observing that God's plan to redeem the world cannot be stopped even by evil such as that of the chief priests and Judas (Gibbs 2018, p. 1506). The sin rooted in the opponents' lives is to be seen as terrible and destructive to themselves and others. Yet it is incapable of stopping Jesus, who alone provides the forgiveness and restoration needed by sinners (Gibbs 2018, p. 1507). Gibbs further observes that, at this point in the narrative, there is no substantial difference between Judas and Peter. Both have fallen away. Neither is, in any real way, a disciple of Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1508). The disciples have all fallen away. This is without exception, including both Peter and Judas (Gibbs 2018, p. 1509). Gibbs finds this highly significant for our understanding that there is nothing in us which makes us naturally turn to Jesus. Rather, Jesus comes and finds us when we are spiritually hopeless (Gibbs 2018, p. 1511).
"Matthew 27:11-26 Pilate Condemns Jesus to Death by Crucifixion." (pp. 1514-1536).
Gibbs provides detailed grammatical notes for Matthew 27:1-26. The narrative has numerous grammatical irregularities, possibly emphasizing the tumultuous events of Jesus' presentation to Pilate and Pilate's eventual sentencing of Jesus.
Gibbs reviews the identity of Pontius Pilate briefly, observing that we know with certainty only two of the three Roman names of Pilate, lacking his praenomen, though some legends suggest it was Lucius (Gibbs 2018, p. 1521). He likely served as prefect of Judea and Samaria from AD 26-36 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1522). He was portrayed negatively by both Philo and Josephus, though Gibbs is quick to remind readers that they were hostile witnesses (Gibbs 2018, p. 1522). Pilate held considerable power and influence as prefect. The length of his time in office and the coins minted during his tenure suggest that he was not intent on causing a mass revolt among the Palestinian Jews (Gibbs 2018, p. 1523).
The interview of Jesus with Pilate would not have required any particular procedure or interaction with Roman law, since Jesus was almost certainly not a Roman citizen (Gibbs 2018, p. 1525). Pilate was free to hear the issue or not, and to act based on his own understanding of the case. Just the same, as the Roman prefect, he would have needed to bear in mind both Roman interests and enough of the Jewish interests to prevent a local rebellion. In Matthew 27:11-26, then, Pilate interprets the accusation against Jesus, and does so with little assistance of witnesses or legal precedent.
The difficulty presented to Pilate in Matthew 27:11-14 is that Jesus, presented to him, chooses not to respond. Gibbs observes that Jesus' assent to Pilate's question, "You are saying" (so), is not a denial but also fails to be a strong affirmation (Gibbs 2018, p. 1527). Jesus' silence afterward makes the interview more difficult, rather than clarifying matters. In verses 15-23, then, Gibbs takes Pilate to be turning some elements of his judgment over to the Jews, possibly so as to insure his future relationships with the Jewish leaders.
The custom of releasing a prisoner at this time cannot be found outside of the canonical Gospels (Gibbs 2018, p. 1527). In Gibbs' estimation, Pilate's suggestion of releasing Barabbas may have served as a test of how dangerous the Sanhedrin actually thought Jesus was (Gibbs 2018, p. 1528). Pilate specifically refers to Jesus as the one called the Christ, or the Messiah. Gibbs, with many others, finds Matthew's report about Pilate's wife and her dream to be cryptic. He briefly entertains the possibility of this as a divine revelation as were the other instances of dreams recorded in Matthew (Gibbs 2018, pp. 1527-1528). This could certainly lead Pilate to his opinion of Jesus' innocence. Gibbs notes that there is no inherent inconsistency about God's plan that Jesus would be executed and his issuing warnings. He also knows that his warning will not be heeded (Gibbs 2018, p. 1528). If, however, the dream is not intended to relate this incident with others in Matthew, it could simply serve as yet another demonstration that Pilate would remain guilty in his decision to have Jesus executed (Gibbs 2018, p. 1529). Regardless, the outcry of the crowd is described as forceful. Pilate ultimately concedes to them and condemns Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1530).
Gibbs sums up the decision of Pilate, "As is so often the case with political decisions, both ancient and modern, power and compromise take precedence over truth or justice" (Gibbs 2018, p. 1531). Though Pilate washes his hands and proclaims his own innocence, Jesus remains the one who is genuinely innocent. The crowds, and "all the people," ask that Jesus' blood should be upon them. Gibbs explores the interpretation of this call (Gibbs 2018, p. 1532). Pilate cannot possibly be innocent of the blood of Jesus. As prefect, he is responsible. Likewise, Gibbs takes the call of the people as ineffective from the standpoint of calling a curse down on themselves (Gibbs 2018, p. 1533). They have no understanding of who Jesus is or what he is doing. Rather, their response illustrates the theme, common in Matthew, that all Israel stands guilty before God (Gibbs 2018, p. 1534). They will be displayed as guilty before God as the people of Jerusalem face persecution at the hands of the Romans, culminating with the sacking of the city in the year 70 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1534). Gibbs finally notes the irony that this incident and Pilate's decision does shed the blood of Jesus, which proves salvific.
RSS Feed