[And He Walks With Me] Matthew 27
1 Jewish law required that at least one night must pass between a guilty verdict and sentencing. The theory was that a good night’s sleep would allow opportunity for feelings of mercy to arise within the council. Between the late-night trial described in 26:57-66, the overnight abuse described in 26:67-68, and the emphatic use of proias (Πρωΐας – G4405), meaning early morning or daybreak,[309] it is unclear how much sleep council members would have had by time they reconvened to pass sentence. The whole account emphasizes the whirlwind hastiness with which the process was executed in clear violation of at least the spirit of the Jewish legal tradition.
Luke 22:66-71 records a more detailed account of this second meeting of the Sanhedrin.
2 Roman law allowed the Jewish Sanhedrin a great deal of autonomy in cultural matters, but the power of execution was reserved exclusively for the Romans. Therefore, the Sanhedrin had to involve Pilate, the governor.
3-4 Acts 1:16-19 provides a parallel account of Judas’ suicide, but Matthew is the only gospel which records Judas’ fate. Further, only Matthew describes Judas’ remorse for having betrayed Jesus. Notice, however, that Matthew’s account is careful to not indicate that Judas repented of his sin. The Greek word translated by the CSB and others as remorse is matameletheis (μεταμεληθεὶς – G3338), meaning “to care afterwards” or “regret.” It is formed from a combination of the Gk prefix meta and the middle voice of the term melei (μέλει – G3199).[310] In contrast, the term translated in Matthew 3: as repent is metanoeite (Μετανοεῖτε – G3340). This term is formed from a combination of the same prefix meta and the term noeo (νοέω – G3539) and means “to change one’s mind,” which would implicitly lead to changed behavior.[311] The two terms are related in that a person who repents often experiences regret for their past actions, but the choice of this specific term to describe Judas’ experience is clearly intended to convey the idea that Judas’ sense of guilt failed to produce a changed mind and behavior. This failure is seen in the fact that, while he returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, he did not offer a sin offering or rush back to the apostles.[312]
The shortcomings of Judas’ remorse is here contrasted to the utter callousness of the chief priests and elders. Judas’ regret was inadequate, but “their hearts [were] even more hardened than Judas’s.”[313]
5 The phrase threw the silver into the temple may suggest that Judas tossed the money over a barrier between the Court of Jews and the inner courtyard where only the priests could enter.[314]
Rabbis taught that suicide was morally wrong because all life belongs to God and is therefore his to give and take. Therefore, suicide was considered self-murder and prohibited under the sixth commandment. Judas chose suicide instead of repentance.
It should be noted that Judas’ fate would have been similar to Jonah’s (see Jonah 1), had God not intervened in Jonah’s case. Both opted for suicide over the pain of authentic repentance.
6-10 The chief priests continued their moral and legal gymnastics. They had no qualms about putting an innocent man to death, but they fully recognized that the silver Judas returned was blood money. The concept seems to be based on the principal of Deuteronomy 23:18, where the prostitute’s wages are considered detestable to the Lord your God.[315] Therefore, instead of adding the silver to the temple treasury, they used it to purchase a burial place for foreigners. That is, their egregious sin was spun in such a way that the community would perceive them as fully righteous and generous. The full magnitude of their hypocrisy is here displayed (see Matthew 6:2, 5, 16; 7:5; 15:7; 22:18; 23:13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29; 24:51).
11 The accusation that Jesus claimed to be king of the Jews was, to the Romans, tantamount to treason. The title “king” was reserved for people appointed by the emperor and senate to rule over the empire’s various subject states. Claiming the title for oneself was essentially rejecting the authority of the emperor and inviting others to follow suit. The execution method of crucifixion was generally applied in such cases, and it was tailored to strip the insurrectionist of every semblance of dignity and power.[316]
12, 14 Jesus’ silence is striking but necessary. On the one hand, he could not deny the accusation that he was the king of the Jews without lying. On the other hand, if he acknowledged the truth of the accusation, he would have been immediately condemned. It also stood in stark contrast to the typical criminal, who would insist on his own innocence or plead for mercy; placed him in the company of other Jewish martyrs who refused to respond to those who persecuted them;[317] and stood as a fulfillment of Isaiah 53:7.
15 The festival is a reference to the Passover Feast.
The governor’s custom… to release… a prisoner was a ploy to ingratiate the Jews. It would seem that this custom was established by an earlier governor. In fact, there is evidence that it was common in the ancient world for authorities to release prisoners at festivals. Pilate merely continued the tradition.
16-18 The term rendered by the CSB as notorious is episemon (ἐπίσημον – G1978). In its most basic sense, it means that Barrabas was notable or recognizable. Given that he was being held with two others for crucifixion, which was reserved exclusively for people found guilty of insurrection, it is difficult to discern whether he was popular or despised by the people. If he was popular with the people, then Pilate’s offer to release Barabbas or Jesus may have been a chance for the people to choose the “king” they preferred. The hype leading to Jesus’ arrival on Palm Sunday was no doubt rooted in the idea that he was going to overthrow Rome and establish himself as king, but in the days since his arrival, he spent more time criticizing the Jewish leaders than challenging Rome in any way. This eroded the expectation that he was the messiah and made Barabbas the more appealing hero.
18 Pilate recognized envy when he saw it, and even he knew it was in no way righteous or godly. Even the most secular people recognize when the self-professed people of God fall short of God’s standard of righteousness.
19 Pilate already recognized that the rationale for holding, let alone crucifying, Jesus was thin, at best. Now, his wife sent word about a dream she had which confirmed that Jesus was a righteous man. Given the common perception in the ANE that God used dreams to foretell the future and communicate his will (see note on Genesis 40:8), and especially since she thought the matter so urgent that she sent word while he was sitting on the judge’s bench, this would have been seen as an ominous warning.
20-24 This exchange illustrates well the tension Pilate felt in this moment. On the one hand, he was notoriously indifferent to violence, but on the other, Roman laws demanded at least a semblance of justification for executions, and especially crucifixions. A key third consideration was that he was also under tremendous pressure to maintain the pax romana, or the peace of Rome. This peace was characterized by the absence of armed conflict, but only because the Roman army enjoyed absolute supremacy. Thus, tensions were constantly high, especially among the Jews who resented the Romans, and frequently boiled over in the form of riots and uprisings. The crowds gathered so early in the morning, encouraged by the chief priests and the elders, and shouting for Jesus’ blood had all the essential ingredients of just such a thing, and Pilate knew that, if Jerusalem erupted in violence, his career would be over. It was a classic case of having to choose between what is right and what is popular or expeditious. In the end, Pilate chose what was popular (i.e., it satisfied all the people) and expeditious (i.e., it ensured he would keep his job), and he appeased the crowd to prevent the riot.
24-25 The chief priests and the elders instigated the crucifixion, but they enlisted both Pilate and all the people into their scheme to give it the appearance of legitimacy. Pilate, of course, washed his hands to indicate that he was not responsible, but the fact that he did not do what he could to stop the crucifixion made him complicit. The people may not have pounded the nails, but their raised voices implicated them. Indeed, everyone at the stone pavement that day took pains to avoid responsibility, but they were all collectively guilty. Moreover, the Gentile Pilate and the Jewish people of Jerusalem were representative of all people everywhere, and their complicity implicates us all. Christ followers would do well to remember, then, that despite what they may think they would say or do if they were in that courtyard, they have each washed their hands while wrongs were perpetrated, raised their voices in indirect support, or persuaded the crowds at one point or another and are therefore just as guilty of the crucifixion as anyone else.
26 The process of crucifixion was intended to grind the would-be rebel into nothing. It began with a public flogging which would literally pulverize the victim’s flesh using a flagellum consisting of a leather whip with bone, iron, and metal bits embedded at the end. The leather would sting and perhaps even lacerate the skin, but the bits would grab flesh and tear it away in strips and chunks, often to the bone beneath. Under Jewish law, a person could be flogged no more than 39 lashes, but Romans had no such limit. Under their system, the flogging continued until the flogger could continue no longer. Consequently, victims occasionally died from the flogging even before reaching the cross.[318]
27 The governor’s residence occupied a portion of Herod the Great’s palace.
The demonstration of Rome’s supremacy continued with the assembly of the whole company of soldiers. A Roman company (literally, cohort) consisted of several hundred soldiers. It is possible that this was a smaller unit within the company,[319] but the point was the same: Rome’s strength was overwhelming and irresistible.
28 The degradation continued as the soldiers stripped him. It is key to notice that this term is at the beginning of the sentence, which is typically done for emphasis. Indeed, Matthew could have used a third-person (singular) passive verb to indicate that Jesus was stripped of his clothing, but instead, he used the third-person (plural) active to emphasize that it was the soldiers doing the action.[320] In most cultures, public nudity was the ultimate humiliation, and the point here was again to show that the would-be rebel was utterly powerless to stop it. This theme would continue through the following verses as well.
The word rendered here as scarlet (CSB, KJV) is kokkinen (κοκκίνην – G 2847). The color was familiar to first-century Jews because it was often associated with royalty and Roman soldiers wore a cape that was dyed scarlet. Often, as this cape aged, it would fade into a shade of purple (see Mark 15:17; John 19:2).[321] This act would have again symbolized Rome’s power over the would-be rebel, sending the message that Rome had every right to tell the victim what to do, just as it did its soldiers, but the victim was not good enough to wear a real soldier’s cape and had to settle for a discarded old rag.
29 In the Roman world, vassal kings (e.g., Herod the Great) wore garlands.[322] These kings had some authority, but it was given to them by the Roman Senate. They were, therefore, obligated to do the empire’s bidding, and the empire could strip their power at any time. This crown of thorns was no doubt intended to convey the message that Jesus was still utterly subject to Roman power.
30 Spitting on someone was a demonstration of extreme spite. This was magnified by the fact that Gentiles’ spittle was considered impure.[323]
31 It should be noted that there was not much left of Jesus’ own clothes except tattered remnants.
32-34 The brutality of crucifixion continued with the victim being compelled to carry the patibulum, or the crosspiece to which the person would be nailed, to the crucifixion site. Typically, this piece weighed between thirty and forty pounds and was strapped across the shoulders which were already shredded by flogging (see note on vs 26), resulting in more pain. Then, upon reaching the site of the crucifixion, the victim was nailed to the patibulum, which was then secured to the vertical beam (i.e., the palus), and the whole thing was then hoisted into the air. In Jesus’ case, the injuries and blood loss caused by the flogging were so severe that it was quickly apparent that he would be unable to carry the cross to the crucifixion site.[324]
32 Located along the Mediterranean coast in modern Libya, the city of Cyrene was home to a diverse population, including considerable numbers of both Greeks and Jews.[325]
Simon was almost certainly a Jewish pilgrim who made the trek from Cyrene to Jerusalem for the Passover feast. People who made such a long trek generally remained in Jerusalem through Pentecost, fifty days later. Here, he was at the wrong place at the wrong time when the guards drafted him to carry Jesus’ cross. Christian tradition holds that this incident was so impactful that Simon later became a Christian.[326] In fact, many scholars postulate that his name is here recorded because he, or perhaps one of his children, would have been familiar to a significant portion of Matthew’s readers and would affirm the veracity of the account (see Mark 15:21).
33 Jesus was led to the crucifixion site, a place called Golgotha. The name is a transliteration (i.e., a conversion from one alphabet to another) of the Aramaic word for “skull.”[327] Matthew provides this clarification for his audience, which was primarily Jews living abroad who were more familiar with Greek than Aramaic or even Hebrew. In fact, Matthew and other New Testament authors generally quoted from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament, rather than the original Hebrew because Greek was more comfortable for the majority of Jews scattered across the Roman world.
The exact location of Golgotha is today a subject for debate. Generally, scholars favor one of two sites. The first is located within the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which was built in the fourth century AD on the site that was recognized by Christians at that time as the location of both the crucifixion and the empty tomb. Archaeological evidence indicates that the city walls were not extended to enclose this site until 41-44 CE, and it was probably near a major road in and out of the city. The site was also the location of a limestone quarry which was exhausted of useable stone, filled and cultivated as a garden or orchard, and by the first century CE contained a large cemetery. Given the preponderance of evidence, scholars generally agree this is most likely the authentic site of Golgotha. The other possible site, initially proposed in 1842 by Otto Thenius, is a rocky hill just north of the Old City known as Skull Hill. In 1883, General George Gordon affirmed this proposal, pointing out that two large holes in the cliff resembled the eyes of a skull. Subsequently, the hill became known popularly as “Gordon’s Calvary.” This hill is located atop a large cemetery which includes one tomb with inscriptions indicating it belonged to a person named Jesus. However, Jesus has historically been a relatively common name among Jews because it is a variant of Joshua, which was the name of an Old Testament hero (see the book of Joshua) and the high priest when the Jews returned from exile (see Zechariah 3:1). Additionally, archaeological evidence indicates the tombs in this cemetery were used much earlier than the first century, making it unlikely that any were the new tomb cut by Joseph of Arimathea (see vss 57-61).[328]
Jewish tradition was to offer a bit of compassion to those who would be executed by offering them wine mixed with frankincense to numb the senses. In contrast, the Romans offered Jesus wine wine and gall. Gall is a bitter, possibly poisonous herb, that would only intensify his thirst. Given that he was apparently already in hypovolemic shock, this was yet another form of torture.[329]
35-36 Finally, we reach the actual act of crucifixion. None of the gospel writers provide a detailed account of this because the first readers did not need one. The horrors of crucifixion were known by everyone in the first century. For modern readers, historical and archaeological evidence indicates that crucifixion was an especially brutal form of execution. First, it was done near a main road leading into town so that everyone coming and going would see what remained of the person who aspired to be king and understand the cost of defying the empire. Agents would take note of sympathizers who came so they also could be arrested. Consequently, people would gather to hurl insults and spit on the victim. Second, the person was stripped naked and the arms were nailed or tied to the crossbeam, which was then hoisted into place. This placed tremendous strain on the arms and musculature. Nails were then driven through the feet or ankles. This provided a way to lift oneself in order to breathe, but it damaged the skeletal structure and nerves of the legs so that doing so was excruciating. Third, in a final act of humiliation, the guards would laugh and carry on as they divided the scraps of fabric that were the victim’s last earthly belongings and then sit down to watch because there was no real threat of escape. Fourth, people often hung on the cross for several days. During that time, they were exposed to the elements. This would result in sunburn, windburn, hypothermia or overheating, depending on the conditions. At the same time, birds would perch upon the victim and bite at his flesh and eyes. With his hands tied, there was no way to defend himself. With the arms locked into a horizontal position, it was impossible to exhale without using the injured legs to push upward. As shock, exhaustion, and dehydration set in, the victim’s respiration would slow, and he would eventually pass out and die of mechanical asphyxiation. Sometimes, this process was expedited by breaking the legs so the victim could no longer push upward to exhale.
It is interesting that only Matthew recorded that the guards sat down and were guarding him there. It could be that Matthew introduced the guards here so he could record their reactions in 27:54, 62-66; 28:11-15. However, I wonder if the purpose was to point out their posture. Rather than remaining on their feet, ready for Jesus’ followers to attempt a rescue, the soldiers reclined to once again reinforce the victim’s utter impotence against the mighty empire.
37 A sign was posted with the written charge: This is Jesus, the King of the Jews. In most cases, this served as a way to deter others from rebelling against the empire, the unspoken message being that this is what happens to people who imagine they might overthrow Rome and make themselves king. In Jesus’ case, however, the statement was true.
38 The word translated criminals (CSB) is lestai (λῃσταί – G3027). Through the centuries, it has been rendered differently. The KJV, for example, translated the term as thieves, while the NKJV and ESV chose robbers. These translations are consistent with Strong’s, which traces the word to leizomai (ληΐζομαι) meaning “to plunder.” Thayer’s, however, points out that this word is not the term used for a typical thief.[330] Rather, it was the same word used to describe Barabbas in vs 16 and was more of a rebel or insurrectionist.[331] Revolts were relatively common in and around Jerusalem, and the Passover was the prime time for such things. Typically, bands of outnumbered and outgunned would-be revolutionaries utilized guerrilla tactics until they were caught. They were then executed in public to send the message that attempts to overthrow the empire were futile. The Passover was an ideal time, and crucifixion was an ideal method, to send this message because so many Jews were present in Jerusalem for the festival.
39-40 Again, we see that the crucifixion was not the work of only the Jewish leaders. They would mock Jesus in vss 41-43, but here, it is normal people who were passing by. They may not have signed the death warrant or pounded the nails, but by passing by and yelling insults at [Jesus], they were signalling their complicity.
44 Perhaps the most startling development here is that even the criminals who were crucified with [Jesus] taunted him. It is not uncommon for people to think of Jesus as weak or despicable, and in doing so, forget that they themselves are hanging on the very next cross.
45-50 In concert with Mark 15:25, this passage makes it possible to assemble an approximate timeline of the crucifixion. At 9 am, the nails were driven and Jesus was raised onto the cross. At 12 pm, darkness came over the whole land. At 3 pm, Jesus gave up his spirit.
46 In total, the gospels record seven things Jesus said from the cross. This is the only one of the seven that Matthew and Mark record.
Jesus’ cry here should not be interpreted to mean that the Father and Holy Spirit actually abandoned Jesus. Just as Jesus was able to see Nathanael while he was under the fig tree (see John 1:43-51), the other members of the Trinity were still present with Jesus even as he felt abandoned. Job described a similar feeling in Job 23:8-9, and most – perhaps all – Christ-followers will also have such an experience at some point in their lives. Indeed, the fact that Jesus, the second member of the Trinity, felt this way makes clear that his followers should not consider themselves immune. In fact, while such estrangement from God should not be permanent, Jesus’ experience normalizes the feeling so that never having such an experience should be considered anomalous.
48-49 The sour wine offered to Jesus was a wine mixed with vinegar. This was popular among soldiers and common people because it was both cheaper than regular wine and better at relieving thirst than water because it replenished electrolytes. There is some debate whether this was an act of mercy by an individual or another effort to mock and prolong Jesus’ suffering. John indicates that Jesus received the sour wine, but the synoptic gospels all focus on the crowd’s response to this offer. Namely, the majority was interested only in prolonging Christ’s suffering for their own entertainment.[332]
50 There is here a subtle hint at the true nature of Christ’s death. Typically, crucifixion victims died of asphyxiation, but the process was deliberately prolonged. Thus, the victim normally grew progressively weaker and, as respiration slowed, hypoxia set in, leading to a loss of consciousness some time before expiring. In Jesus’ case, this was exacerbated by the loss of blood he experienced during the flogging. Yet, Jesus cried out again with a loud voice just before he gave up his spirit. This indicates that, although the guards deemed him too weak to carry his own cross in vs 32, he was still strong enough to breathe relatively well. This all suggests the supernatural nature of Jesus’ death because he either (a) mustered supernatural strength to cry out moments before he expired or (b) supernaturally chose the exact moment of his death. In reality, it was probably a combination of both scenarios.
51 The curtain of the sanctuary was first described in Exodus 26:31-35. It was intended to separate the most holy place, where the ark of the testimony was kept representing the very presence of God, from the holy place. Only priests were allowed to enter the holy place daily to attend to the lampstand and incense offering that were constantly burning there. Only the high priest was allowed to enter the most holy place, and then only once per year. This was intended as a poignant illustration of God’s transcendence, but when the curtain was torn in two from top to bottom, it signified that the separation between God and people was removed. It also served as a symbol of God’s disapproval of Israel’s temple activity. Significantly, the curtain in Herod’s temple was sixty feet tall and thirty feet wide. Thus, tearing it from top to bottom was no small thing, indicating the magnitude of what Christ did on the cross and making clear that God himself removed the separation between God and people.[333]
It is important to remember that only priests were allowed into the holy place. Therefore, only priests would ever see the curtain screening the most holy place. Because people would have interpreted the tearing of the curtain as a sign of judgment, the priests would have done everything possible to prevent the tear from becoming public knowledge. It is likely, then, that the apostles learned about this only weeks later when a number of priests became believers (see Acts 6:7).[334] No doubt, the torn curtain played a critical role in drawing them to Christ!
There is geological evidence of a significant seismic event in the region of Palestine ca. 31 CE, but it is virtually impossible to definitively correlate the quake mentioned here with that event. The reality is that earthquakes are common because Palestine is located on a major fault line. Also, it is impossible to date this seismic event with enough precision to definitively determine a date of the crucifixion.[335] Moreover, the earthquake in and of itself was not particularly significant. In fact, it may have been noteworthy only because it happened at the exact moment of Jesus’ death. Earthquakes may have been common in the region, but even hardened Roman soldiers had to think the timing of this one was more than a coincidence (see vs 54).
52-53 Only Matthew records that the tombs were also opened and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. The phrase fallen asleep was used throughout the New Testament to describe “a person who has died but whose eternal destiny is secure.” The physical opening of the tombs could be attributed to the natural effects of the earthquake, but the raising of the dead was a clearly divine act, indicating that the earthquake was supernatural. Indeed, the incident is strongly suggestive of Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of dry bones in Ezekiel 37:1-14. All of this combines to provide clear support for the efficacy of Jesus’ work on the cross and foreshadows the resurrection of Christ.[336]
54 The key to convincing those who were keeping watch over Jesus was not a conquering army, vast wealth, or blistering oratory. Indeed, while such things may compel people to superficially profess faith and conform to behavior standards, the key to authentic conversion will always be allowing God to do God’s thing (e.g., the earthquake and accompanying events in vss 51-53) and those who do not yet follow Jesus to choose whether or not they will believe. While it is difficult to describe the centurion’s words here as a definitive, lasting conversion, it was at least a confession.
55-56 Women had a certain advantage over men in this moment. In the male-dominated society of the ANE, they were largely ignored as potential leaders for insurrection. Thus, while a group of men lingering near the cross would have been viewed with suspicion and possibly even arrested for conspiring with the victim to overthrow the government, even many women were not scrutinized for following Jesus to Golgotha and watching from a distance. Thus, they were able to see and hear everything that happened. In fact, John 19:25-27 shows at least some of them were allowed to get close enough to talk with Jesus. Never underestimate or dismiss the contributions of those who are generally overlooked.
Matthew further hints at the significance of these women to Jesus’ ministry by noting that they had followed Jesus from Galilee and looked after him. How the women ministered to Jesus is elaborated slightly in Luke 8:3.
With the apostles sidelined (see 26:56), Mary Magdalene here moves to the forefront. See notes on 15:39 and 18:6-7 for more information about Mary Magdalene’s identity. Each of the four gospels mentions that there were women at the cross. Matthew, Mark, and John include a partial list of the women who were present. We know it is partial because the three lists are not congruent: John lists four women, while Matthew and Mark mention only three, and the names between them do not match so that, by collating them, there at least four and possibly as many as eight different women named. Significantly, Mary Magdalene is the only person who definitively appears in all three lists, indicative of the central role she would play in the crucifixion and its aftermath.
Mary the mother of James and Joseph and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses (Mark 15:40) are almost certainly the same person. If this is the case, then she is distinct from Jesus’ mother Mary because James the younger was not Jesus’ brother James. Many scholars also suggest she was Mary the wife of Clopas in John 19:25.
The mother of Zebedee’s sons was the mother of James and John, who were among the first to follow Jesus (see Matthew 4:21-22). Most scholars equate her with Salome in Mark 15:40, and at least some believe she was Jesus’ aunt (i.e., his mother’s sister) in John 19:25.
57-60 The timing of Jesus’ death can be confusing to modern readers because terms that we use were understood differently by first-century Jews. Evening, for example, began with the evening sacrifice, which was placed on the altar at 3 pm. Thus, the phrase when it was evening means only that it happened between then and sunset, which was generally considered 6 pm. This was crucial because, for Matthew’s original readers, sunset marked the transition of one day into the next. Thus, sunset marked the beginning of the Sabbath, when all work was supposed to be stopped, and Joseph had only three hours to learn of Jesus’ death, approach Pilate, purchase the fine linen in the market, retrieve the body, move it to the tomb, and set the stone into place. This was not nearly enough time to give Jesus what was considered a proper burial.
Joseph was an extremely common name among Jewish men. The identification of Arimathea is a matter of debate. Some associate it with the birthplace of Samuel, Ramathaim (1 Samuel 1:1, 19), which was about twenty miles northwest of Jerusalem in the hilly region traditionally occupied by the tribe of Ephraim.[337]
There is no plausible explanation for why Joseph came forward to claim the body and bury except that which Matthew provides: namely, that he had also become a disciple of Jesus. John 19:38 adds that he was a secret disciple, but Mark 15:43 uses the word boldly to describe his approach to Pilate. By piecing together these bits, one can reasonably surmise that, while his colleagues on the Sanhedrin were spying on Jesus and plotting against him to protect their own power, Joseph became convinced that Jesus really was the Messiah. Fearing the social and political fallout of this decision, Joseph did not tell anyone except perhaps Nicodemus (John 19:39). Instead, he surreptitiously tracked Jesus and his teachings. No doubt, he observed the plotting of the chief priest and co. during the first part of the week, but because nothing had come of their previous plotting against Jesus (see Matthew 12:14), he assumed this also would go nowhere. When Jesus was arrested and put on trial Thursday night, he maintained his silence. This could have been because he (a) was fearful of reprisal, (b) still doubted the plot would go this far, (c) was not yet completely convinced of Christ, or (d) was deliberately excluded from the proceedings by other members of the council who recognized he was at least sympathetic to Jesus. Jesus’ death and the accompanying cosmic signs (e.g., the darkness of vs 45, which lifted at the exact moment Jesus expired; the tearing of the curtain and earthquake of vs 51; the opened tombs of vs 52), however, catalyzed a reaction in Joseph. His faith and courage solidified, and he emerged from the shadows. Every follower of Christ must have a similar moment. The question is, what will be the catalyst for yours?
According to Luke 23:50, Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin. This raises some interesting questions about the trial process (e.g., Was Joseph present? Did he protest?). It also explains his ability to approach Pilate and ask for Jesus’s body. Namely, he could do so under the guise of official Sanhedrin business. In Pilate’s eyes, Jesus was the Sanhedrin’s prisoner, and the disposal of his body was the Sandredin’s responsibility.
The degree of respect Joseph offered to Jesus’s body is significant. Because Jesus was a victim of crucifixion, a form of punishment reserved for insurrectionists (see note on vs 38), those who took and buried the body would bear additional scrutiny from the Roman authorities: did they sympathize with the criminal and his cause? Joseph’s actions certainly suggested that he did, which meant he was risking reprisal from the other members of the Sanhedrin and the Romans.
Joseph placed Jesus’ body in his new tomb, which he had cut into the rock. The geology of Palestine made it virtually impossible to dig a six-foot-deep (two-meter-deep) hole in the ground to bury people. Thus, tombs were generally cut into the soft limestone of a cliff or hillside, often in an abandoned quarry. A rectangular chamber was formed in the hillside, and a stone was rolled in front of a low entry to prevent wild animals from feeding on the bodies. Because such tombs were labor intensive to create and real estate was at a premium because of the area’s relatively dense population, tombs were often reused by several generations of a family. Thus, the dead were laid on benches or recessed burial slots cut into the walls of the tomb, and the bodies would remain there for 1-3 years until the flesh had decayed. Then, the bones were collected and placed in stone receptacles called ossuaries so the place could be freed for the next family member who died.[338]
61 In all likelihood, the other Mary is a reference to Mary the mother of James and Joseph in vs 56. See notes on vss 55-56.
62-66 Matthew is the only gospel to record this meeting between the chief priests and the Pharisees and Pilate. In fact, none of the other gospels mention guards at any point after the crucifixion. The most likely explanation is that Matthew, who wrote for a Jewish audience, was responding to rumors circulating among Jews that Jesus’ body was stolen by his disciples.[339] It would have been difficult enough to steal Jesus’ body from a tomb which was closed. To add a seal on the stone and guards in front of it made the rumor utterly ridiculous.
The way Matthew established the timeline here is curious. Preparation day was Friday, when Jews prepared everything they would need so they did not have to work on the Sabbath, which began at sundown Friday and continued until sundown Saturday. Thus, the following meeting happened at (or shortly after) sundown Friday, as soon as Joseph was finished burying the body. This was the Sabbath, but instead of saying that, Matthew described it as the next day, which followed preparation day. This wording appears pointed, perhaps to suggest that the actions of the chief priests and the Pharisees negated the Sabbath. Indeed, those who typically led the observance of the Sabbath and claimed responsibility to hold others accountable to do the same now conspired with the secular authorities against the Lord of the Sabbath.
Rabbinical tradition governing what could and could not be done on the Sabbath was extrapolated from Exodus 16:29. As such, there was some debate concerning the finer points of what was acceptable. For instance, the Qumran community (i.e., the curators of the Dead Sea Scrolls) apparently determined that a thousand cubits (1,500 feet) was the maximum distance a person could walk on the Sabbath, while many other rabbis allowed up to two thousand cubits (3,000 feet).[340]
[309] “G4405 – prōia – Strong’s Greek Lexicon (KJV)”, n.d. Emphasis comes from the fact that this word was placed at the beginning of the sentence.
[310] “G3338 – metamelomai – Strong’s Greek Lexicon (KJV)”, n.d.
[311] “G3340 – metanoeō – Strong’s Greek Lexicon (kjv)”, n.d.
[312] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 27:3-4
[313] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 27:3-4
[314] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 27:3-4
[315] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 27:6-10
[316] Keener and Walton 2016, Matthew 27:11
[317] Keener and Walton 2016, Matthew 27:14
[318] Keener and Walton 2016, Matthew 27:26
[319] Keener and Walton 2016, Matthew 27:27
[320] Technically, ekdusantes (ἐκδύσαντες – G1562) is an aorist active nominative plural participle.
[321] Keener and Walton 2016, Matthew 27:28
[322] Keener and Walton 2016, Matthew 27:29
[323] Keener and Walton 2016, Matthew 27:30
[324] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 27:32-34
[325] Keener and Walton 2016, Matthew 27:32
[326] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 27:32
[327] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 27:33
[328] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 27:33; “Calvary”, n.d.
[329] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 27:34
[330] “G3027 – lēstēs – Strong’s Greek Lexicon (KJV)”, n.d.
[331] Barker and Kohlenberger 2004, Matthew 27:16
[332] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 27:47-49
[333] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 27:51
[334] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 27:51
[335] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 27:51b-53; ChatGPT, response to “does the earthquake of Mtt 27:51 help us date the crucifixion?,” Jan 22, 2026, https://chat.openai.com
[336] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 27:51b-53
[337] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 27:57
[338] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 27:60
[339] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 27:62-63
[340] Arnold 2011, Matthew 27:62