blood. 1 And they said, What is parted, and went and hanged 2 that to us? see thou to that. himself. 5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and de 12 Kin. xxiv. 4. The meaning is, that he knew and felt that Jesus was innocent. This confession is a remarkable proof that Jesus was innocent. Judas had been with him three years. He had seen him in public and private, he had heard his public teaching and his private views, he had seen him in all circumstances, and if he had done anything evil, or advanced anything against the Roman emperor, Judas was competent to testify it. Had he known any such thing, he would have stated it. He would have appeared to vindicate himself. His testimony, being a disciple of Jesus, would have been to the chief, priests far more valuable than that of any other man; and he might not only have escaped the horrors of a troubled conscience and an awful death, but have looked for an ample reward. That he did not make such a charge, that he fully and frankly confessed that Jesus was innocent, and that he gave up the ill-gotten price of treason, is full proof, that, in the belief of Judas, the Saviour was free from crime, and even the suspicion of crime. What is that to us? This form of speaking denoted that they had nothing to do with his remorse of conscience, and his belief that Jesus was innocent. They had secured what they wanted, the person of Jesus, and they cared little now for the feelings of the traitor. So all wicked men, who make use of the agency of others for the accomplishment of crime, or the gratification of passion, will care little for the effect on the instrument. They will soon cast him off and despise him, and in thousands of instances the instruments of villainy and the panders to the pleasures of others, are abandoned to remorse, wretchedness, crime, and death. 5. And he cast down, &c. This was an evidence of his remorse of conscience for his crime. His ill-gotten gain now did him no good. It would not produce relief to his agonized mind. He attempted, therefore, to obtain relief by throwing back the price of treason. But he attempted it in vain. The consciousness of guiit was fastened to his soul; and Judas 6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not 2 Psa. lv. 23. 2 Sam. xvii. 23. Acts i. 18. found, as all will find, that to cast away or abandon ill-gotten wealth will not alleviate the guilty conscience. In the temple. It is not quite certain what part of the temple is here meant. Some have thought it was the place where the sanhedrim was accustomed to sit; others, the treasury; others, the part where the priests offered sacrifice. It is probable that Judas cared little, or thought little, to what particular part of the temple he went. In his deep remorse he hurried to the temple, and probably cast the money down in the most convenient place, and fled to some situation where he might take his life. And went and hanged himself. The word used in the original, here, has given rise to much discussion, whether it means that he was suffocated or strangled by his great grief or whether he took his life by suspending himself. It is acknowledged on all hands, however, that the latter is its most usual meaning, and it is certainly the most obvious meaning. Peter says, in giving an account of the death of Jesus, Acts i. 18, that Judas, "falling headlong burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." There has been supposed to be some difficulty in reconciling these two accounts, but there is really no necessary difference. Both accounts are true. Matthew records the mode in which Judas attempted his death by hanging. Peter speaks of the result. Judas probably passed out of the temple in great haste, and perturbation of mind. He sought a place where he might perpetrate this crime. He would not, probably, be very careful about the fitness of the means he used. In his anguish, his haste, his desire to die, he seized upon a rope and suspended himself; and it is not at all remarkable, or indeed unusual, that the rope might prove too weak and break. Falling headlong, that is, on his face, he burst asunder, and in awful horrors died a double death, with double pains and double horrors, the reward of his aggravated guilt. 6. It is not lawful, &c. It was forbidden, Deut. xxiii. 18, to take what was lawful for to put them into the | 8 Wherefore that field was calltreasury, because it is the price of ed, 2 The field of blood, unto this blood.1 day. 7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. 1 Deut. xxiii. 18. Isa. lxi. 8. esteemed as an abomination, and to offer it to God. The price of blood, that is, of the life of a man, they justly considered as an improper and unlawful offering. The treasury. The treasury was kept in the court of the women. See Notes, ch. xxi. 12. It was composed of a number of small chests placed in different parts of the courts to receive the voluntary offerings of the people, as well as the half shekel required of every Jew. The original word, here rendered treasury, contains the notion of an offering to God. What was given there was considered as an offering made to him. The price of blood. The life is in the blood. The word blood, here, means the same as life. The price of blood, means the price by which the life of a man has been purchased. This was an acknowledgment that in their view Jesus was innocent. They had bought him, not condemned him justly. It is remarkable that they were so scrupulous now about so small a matter comparatively as putting this money in the treasury, when they had no remorse about murdering an innocent being, and crucifying him who had given full evidence that he was the Messiah. Men are often very scrupulous in small matters, who stick not at great crimes. 7. And they took counsel, &c. They consulted among themselves about the proper way to dispose of this money. And bought with them. In Acts i. 18, it is said of Judas that "he purchased a field with the reward of his iniquity." By the passage in the Acts is meant no more than that he furnished the means, or was the occasion of purchasing the field. It is not of necessity implied that Judas actually made the contract, and paid down the money to buy a field to bury strangers in, a thing which would be in itself very improbable; but that it was by his means that the field was purchased. It is very frequent in the scriptures, as well as in other writings, to represent a 9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken 3 by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the 2 Acts i. 19. 3 Zech. xi. 12, 13. man as doing that which he is only the cause or occasion of another's doing. See ch. xxvii. 59, 60. John xix. 1. Acts ii. 23. The potter's field. Probably this was some field well known by that name, which was used for the purpose of making earthern vessels. The price paid for a field so near Jerusalem may appear to be very small; but it is not improbable that it had been worked till the clay was exhausted, and was neither fit for that business nor for tillage, and was therefore considered as of little value. To bury strangers in. Jews, who came up from other parts of the world to attend the great feasts at Jerusalem. The high priests, who regarded the Gentiles as abominable, would not be inclined to provide a burial place for them. 8. The field of blood. The field purchased by the price of blood. The name by which this field was called was Aceldama. Acts i. 19. It was just without the walls of Jerusalem, on the south of mount Zion. It is now used as a burying-place by the Armenian Christians in Jerusalem, who have a magnificent convent on mount Zion. To this day. That is, to the day when Matthew wrote this gospel, about thirty years after the field was purchased. 9. Spoken by Jeremy the prophet. The words quoted here are not to be found in the prophecy of Jeremiah. Words similar to these are recorded in Zech. xi. 12, 13, and from that place this quotation has been doubtless made. Much difficulty has been experienced in explaining this quotation. Anciently, according to the Jewish writers, Jeremiah was reckoned the first of the prophets, and was placed first in the Book of the Prophets; thus, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the twelve minor prophets. Some have thought that Matthew, quoting this place, quoted the Book of the Prophets under the name of that which had the first place in the book, i. e., Jeremiah; and though the words the price | 10 And gave them for the potwhom ter's field, as the Lord appointed me. thirty pieces of silver, of him that was valued, they of the children of Israel did value; 11 And Jesus stood before the 1 Exod. xxi. 32. 2 Or, whom they bought of governor: and the governor asked the children of Israel. are those of Zechariah, yet they are quoted correctly as the words of the Book of the Prophets, the first of which was Jeremiah. Others have thought that there was a mistake made by ancient transcribers, writing the name Jeremiah instead of Zechariah; and it is observed that this might be done by the change of only a single letter. It was often the custom to abridge words in writing them. Thus, instead of writing the name of Jeremiah in full, it would be written in Greek, Iriou. So Zechariah would be written Zriou. By the mere change of Z into I, therefore, the mistake might easily be made. Probably this is the correct explanation. Others have supposed that the words were spoken by Jeremiah, and that Zechariah recorded them, and that Matthew quoted them as they were, the words of Jeremiah. The passage is not quoted literally; and by its being fulfilled is meant, probably, that the language used by Zechariah on a similar occasion would express also this event. It was language appropriate to this occasion. The price of him that was valued. That is, the price of him on whom a value was set. The word rendered valued, here, does not, as often in our language, mean to esteem, but to estimate; not to love, approve, or regard, but to fix a price on, to estimate the value of. This they considered to be thirty pieces of silver, the common price of a slave. They of the children of Israel did value. Some of the Jews, the leaders or priests, acting in the name of the nation. ¶ Did value. Did estimate, or fix a price on. 10. And gave them. In Zechariah it is, I gave them. Here it is represented as being given by the priests. The meaning is not, however, different. It is, that this price was given for the potter's field. As the Lord appointed me. That is, commanded me. The meaning of the place in Zechariah is this: He was directed to go to the Jews as a prophet, a pastor of the people. They treated him, as they had done others, with great contempt. He asks them to give him his price, i. e. the price which they thought he and his pastoral labours were worth, or to show their estimate of his office. If they thought it of value, they were to pay him accordingly; if not, they were to forbear, that is, to give nothing. To show their great contempt of him and his office, and of God who had sent him, they gave him thirty pieces of silver, the price of a slave. This God commanded, or appointed him to give to the potter, or to throw into the pottery, or to throw away. So in the time of Jesus the same thing was substantially repeated. Jesus came as the Messiah. They hated and rejected him. To show their contempt of him and his cause, they valued him at the price of a slave. This was thrown down in the temple, taken by the priests, and appropriated to the purchase of a field owned by a potter, worn out, and of little or no value; all showing at how low a price, through the whole transaction, the Son of God was estimated. Though the words quoted here are not precisely like those in Zechariah, yet the sense and general structure are the same. 11. And Jesus stood before the governor. Many things are omitted by Matthew in the account of this trial, which are recorded by the other evangelists. A much more full account is found in John xviii. 28-40. ¶ And the governor asked him, &c. This question was asked on account of the charge which the Jews brought against Jesus, of perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar. Luke xxiii. 2. It was on this charge that, after consultation, they had agreed to arraign him before Pilate. They had condemned him for blasphemy; but they well knew that Pilate would altogether disregard an accusation of that kind. They therefore attempted to substitute a totally different accusation from that on which they had professed to find him guilty; to excite the jealousy of the Roman governor, and to procure his death on a false charge of treason against the Roman emperor. Thou sayest. him, saying, Art thou the king of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest. 1 12 And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? 14 And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly. 15 Now 3 at that feast the go 13 Then saith Pilate unto him, vernor was wont to release unto That is, thou sayest right, or thou sayest the truth. We may wonder why the Jews, if they heard this confession, did not press it upon the attention of Pilate as a full confession of his guilt. It was what they had accused him of. But it might be doubtful whether, in the confusion, they heard the confession; or if they did, Jesus took away all occasion of triumph by explaining to Pilate the nature of his kingdom. John xviii. 36. Though he acknowledged that he was a king, yet he stated fully that his kingdom was not of this world, and that therefore it could not be alleged against him as treason against the Roman emperor. This was done in the palace, apart from the Jews, and fully satisfied Pilate of his innocence. John xviii. 23. 12. When he was accused, &c. To wit, of perverting the nation, and of forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar. Luke xxiii. 2, 5. Probably this was done in a tumultuous manner, and in every variety of form. He answered nothing. He was conscious of his innocence. He knew that they could not prove these charges. They offered no testimony to prove them; and, in conscious innocence, he was silent. 13. They witness against thee. This means, rather, that they accused him. They were not witnesses, but accusers. These accusations were repeated and pressed. They charged him with exciting the people, teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee to Jerusalem, and exciting them to sedition. xxiii. 5. Luke 14. To never a word. That is, not at all. He said nothing. This is a way of speaking, denoting that it was remarkable. It is an emphatic way of saying that he answered nothing. There was no need of his replying. He was innocent, and they offered no proof of guilt. Besides, his 3 Mark xv. 6-13. Luke xxiii. 17-25. John xviii. 39, 40. appearance was full evidence in his favour. He was poor, unarmed, without powerful friends, and alone. His life had been public, and his sentiments were well known, and the charge had on the face of it the aspect of absurdity. It deserved therefore no answer. ¶ Marvelled greatly. Wondered exceedingly, or was much surprised. He was probably more surprised that he bore this so meekly, and did not return railing for railing, than that he did not set up a defence. The latter was unnecessary. The former was unusual. The governor was not accustomed to see it, and was therefore greatly amazed. It was at this time that Pilate, having heard them speak of Galilee, Luke xxiii. 5, asked if he was a Galilean. Having ascertained that he was, and probably desirous of freeing himself from any further trouble in the affair, under pretence that he belonged to Herod's jurisdiction, he sent Jesus to Herod, who was then at Jerusalem, attending the feast of the passover. Luke xxiii. 6-12. Herod, having examined him, and finding no cause of death in him, sent him back to Pilate. Pleased with the respect which had been shown him, Herod laid aside his enmity against Pilate, and they be came friends. The cause of their friendship does not appear to be at all that they were united in opposing the claims of Jesus to be the Messiah, but the respect which Pilate had shown in sending Jesus to him. 15-23. See also the parallel places in Mark xv. 6-14; Luke xxiii. 17-23; John xviii. 39, 40. 15. At that feast. The feast of the passover. The governor was wont to release, &c. Was accustomed to release. From what this custom arose, or by whom it was introduced, is not known. It was probably adopted to secure popularity among the Jews, and to render the go the people a prisoner, whom they | them, Whom will ye that I release would. unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? 16 And they had then a notable' prisoner, called Barabbas. 17 Therefore, when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto I Mark xv. 7. Luke xxiii. 18. John xviii. 40. Acts iii. 14. vernment of the Romans less odious. Any little indulgence granted to the Jews during the heavy oppression of the Romans, would serve to conciliate their favour, and to keep the nation from sedition. It might happen often that when persons were arraigned before the Romans, on charge of sedition, some peculiar favourite of the people, or some leader, might be among the number. It is evident that if they had the privilege of recovering such a person, it would serve much to allay their feelings, and make tolerable the yoke under which they groaned. 16. A notable prisoner. The word notable means one that is distinguished in any way, either for great virtues or great crimes. In this place it evidently means the latter. He was perhaps a leader of a band who had been guilty of sedition, and had committed murder in an insurrection. Luke xxiii. 19. He was, 17. Whom will ye that I release, &c. Pilate was satisfied of the innocence of Jesus. Luke xxiii. 13-16. therefore, desirous of releasing him. He expected to release one to the people. He knew that Jesus, though condemned by the chief priests, was yet popular among the people. He therefore attempted in this manner to rescue him from the hands of the priests, and expected that the people would prefer him, to an odious and infamous robber and murderer. Had the people been left to themselves, they would probably have preferred Jesus. Jesus which is called Christ. That is, Jesus who claims to be the Messiah. Pilate probably did not believe it, or care much for it. He used the name which Jesus had acquired among the people. Perhaps, also, he thought that they would be more likely to ask him to be released, if he was presented to them as the Messiah; Mark adds, ch. xv. 9, that he asked them whether they would that he should release the king of the Jews? It is probable that he He asked the question in both ways. Perhaps it was several times repeated, and Matthew has recorded one way in which it was asked, and Mark another. He asked them whether they would demand him who " was called the Christ," expecting that they would be moved by the claims of the Messiah, claims which when he entered Jerusalem in triumph, and in the temple, they had acknowledged. asked them whether they would have "the king of the Jews," probably to ridicule the priests who had delivered him on that charge. He did it to show the people how absurd the accusation was. There he stood, apparently, a poor, inoffensive, unarmed, and despised man. Herod set him at nought and scourged him, and sent him back. The charge, therefore, of the priests, that he was a king opposed to the Roman emperor, was supremely ridiculous; and Pilate expecting the people would see it to be so, hoped also that they would ask him to be released. 18. For he knew that for envy, &c. This was envy at his popularity. He drew away the people from them. This Pilate understood probably from his knowledge of the pride and ambition of the rulers, and from the fact that no danger could arise from a person that appeared like Jesus. If Pilate knew this, he was bound to release him himself. As a governor and judge, he was bound to protect the innocent, and should in spite of all the opposition of the Jews, at once have set Jesus at liberty. But the Scriptures could not then have been fulfilled. It was necessary, in order that an atonement should be made, that Jesus should be condemned to die. At the same time, it shows the wisdom of the overruling providence of God, that he was condemned by a man who was satisfied of his innocence, and who proclaimed before his accusers his full belief that there was no fault in him. 19. Have thou nothing to do, &c. That is, do not condemn him. Perhaps |