After the priests charge Jesus with blasphemy, Jesus is led away to be crucified (Matthew 27:31-37). Jesus cannot carry his own cross, so Simon of Cyrene is forced to carry it to Golgotha (27:32). Four soldiers escort the condemned prisoner from Pilate’s residence to the execution site. If all three prisoners were sent together, there would be twelve soldiers escorting three condemned men. The prisoner was forced to carry the crossbeam to the execution site. This beam would be lashed to the person’s shoulders and arms by rope. Known as the patibulum, this heavy crossbeam was strapped to the condemned man’s shoulders with ropes.
Jesus was weak from several beatings in the last five hours and he is unable to carry the cross to the place of execution. The Roman soldiers, therefore, force Simon the Cyrene to carry it for him. The verb ἀγγαρεύω means “requisition” or “forced into service” or “requisition” (BDAG), or “press into service” (BrillDAG). Matthew used it in 5:14, “if someone forces you to go one mile…”
Who was Simon of Cyrene? All three synoptic Gospels mention Simon by name, although the name is a common Jewish name in the first century. Mark adds he is the father of Alexander and Rufus. Rufus is possibly mentioned in Romans 16, traditionally the sons of Simon go to Rome. Alexander is possibly to be identified in Acts 19:33. Both Alexander and Rufus are common names so some caution is required. The fact Mark does not mention many names with this kind of detail may imply he used Simon or his sons as a source for this detail of the crucifixion (Schnabel, Jesus in Jerusalem, 100).
Undoubtedly Simon was a Jew. He has a Jewish name; Cyrene had a sizable Jewish colony (Jews from Cyrene were at Pentecost, Acts 2:10); he is in Jerusalem at Passover. Cyrene was a prosperous region in North Africa (modern Libya) with an excellent climate for agriculture (Gasque, “Cyrene (Place).” ABD, 1:1230). Josephus says Jews from Cyrene sent offerings to the temple (Antiquities, 16.6.5).
According to later traditions, Simon became a believer. This makes some sense since he probably would have stayed around the site of the crucifixion to see what happened, probably providing some witness to the believers in Rome.
After Judas hangs himself, The priests use the money to purchase a potter’s field (Matthew 27:6-8). The priests realize the money is unclean and must not be included in the temple treasury. It is “blood money.” They decide to use the money for charity: they buy a plot of land to use as a graveyard for the poor. If someone who made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem died in the city, they likely could not transport the body home for burial. There was a constant need for graves for visitors in Jerusalem. Matthew adds the comment that the place was called the “field of blood” to this day. The Greek ἀγρὸς αἵματος translates Akeldama (Acts 1:18-19), a Greek transliteration (Ἁκελδαμάχ) of the Aramaic phrase חֲקֵל דְּמָא)), “field of blood.”
Tombs in Valley of Himmon
The traditional location for this site is in the valley of Hinnom, an area that was the source of potter’s clay for Jerusalem. This explains the use of the prophecy of Jeremiah since the field is used by potters.
For Matthew, all this fulfilled the prophecy of Jeremiah (27:9-10). But did Jeremiah prophesy this? The problem is Matthew quotes Zechariah 11:13, not Jeremiah.
Zechariah 11:12–13 (ESV) Then I said to them, “If it seems good to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them.” And they weighed out as my wages thirty pieces of silver. 13 Then the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—the lordly price at which I was priced by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord, to the potter.
One way to solve the problem is to take “Jeremiah” as the title for the Prophets in general, the second section of the Hebrew Bible. In Luke 24:44 Jesus refers to the third section of the Hebrew Bible as the Psalms, the first book of the section. This is not satisfactory since Jeremiah is not the first book of the section and there is no other place I know where a writer used Jeremiah as shorthand for the “book of the prophets.”
It is better to see how Matthew has blended the Potter’s house prophecy from Jeremiah with the potter in Zechariah 11:13. Matthew points out several passages in Zechariah fulfilled in events of Jesus’s final week. At triumphal entry Jesus went out of his way to ride a donkey into the city (Zech 9:9); the thirty pieces of silver (Zech 11:12); “strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter” (Zech 11:17) and throwing the money in the house of the Lord (Zech 11:30) and the “potter” (Zech 11:30).
In Jeremiah 19:2 the Lord sends Jeremiah to a potter’s house to preach a sermon predicting the fall of Jerusalem and the scattering of Judah among the nations. He smashes a flask at the potter’s workshop as an illustration of what is about to happen to Jerusalem: it will be shattered, unable to be repaired. Although the word (יוֹצֵר) can refer to melting metal and recasting it, it is the same word used for the potter’s workshop in Jeremiah 19:11, strengthening the connection between these two passages.
In Jeremiah 32:9, Jeremiah weighs out 17 shekels of silver and buys a field from his cousin in the village of Anathoth. He makes sure the deed is legally written and witnessed by all, then he places an open and a sealed deed in an earthenware vessel and buried it “so that it would last a long time” (39:14). The point of these prophetic actions is that the exile will come to an end, “Houses and fields and vineyards shall again be bought in this land.” Both Jeremiah 32 and Zechariah 11 refer to the weighing out of silver and the purchase of land.
There is one other possible connection between Jeremiah 19 and Zechariah 11. The location of the potter’s house in the Valley of Himmom, the traditional location of Judas’s suicide, and the “field of blood.” Jeremiah 19:6 states the place will no longer be called “Topheth, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter.” Slaughter (הֲרֵגָה) is rare in the Hebrew Bible, found in Jeremiah 7:32 (a parallel passage to 19:6) and Zechariah 11:4, 7.
For Matthew, even Judas’s betrayal and arrest are therefore part of the plan of God. Both Peter and Judas betrayed the Lord, and both show some sort of remorse. Although he does not experience restoration in the Gospel of Matthew, we know Peter goes on to lead the disciples in the book of Acts, Judas dies a humiliating death at his own hand.
As Peter is betraying Jesus in the high priest’s courtyard, Judas sees the results of his own betrayal. When the priests hand Jesus over to be executed, Judas regrets his actions, is driven to despair, and will eventually kill himself. The answer to the question ”How did Judas die?” is not simple because there are two versions of Judas’s death, one in Matthew and another in Acts. Matthew is difficult to reconcile with Acts, although there are many attempts to show the two stories are complementary.
The chief priest and the elders decide to put Jesus to death, but rather than order him to be stoned, they hand him over to Pilate, the Roman governor, to be executed as a rebel (Matthew 27:1-2). The chief priests and elders do not recommend Jesus be stoned for blasphemy but handed over to the Romans to be executed as a political criminal. This deflects blame to the Romans and gives them plausible deniability if Jesus’s followers want to start any kind of riot.
Since verse 3 says Judas sees Jesus led away to Pilate and is deeply shaken, regretting his actions. Does this mean Judas was with Jesus during the hearing before the Sanhedrin? It is likely he followed Jesus back to Caiaphas’s house and may have watched everything, including Jesus’s agreement that he is the Messiah and his prediction he will stand at the right hand of the Father in judgment. Maybe that was the exact moment Judas realized what he had done, that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, and he had handed him over to the Gentiles for execution!
Judas was “seized with remorse (NIV) or “changed his mind” (ESV) or “repented” (NRSV; 27:3-4a). Matthew uses a verb (μεταμέλομαι) which refers to being sorry about something. It is rare in the New Testament and can have the sense of repentance like the much more common word for repentance (μετάνοια). For example, this word is used in LXX 1 Samuel 15:35, the Lord regretted he had made Saul king. The middle form (as in Matthew 27:3) refers to “experiencing second thoughts” (BrillDAG). In classic Hellenistic Greek, there is an overlap between remorse and repentance, but in the biblical literature “a change not so much in consciousness as in one’s feelings in relation to a thing or a deed” (EDNT 2:414).
So did Judas regret his actions but not genuinely repent? His actions seem to lean toward repentance and certainly despair, which drove him to suicide.
Judas tries to return the money to the Temple and in despair, hangs himself (Matthew 27:4b-8). When he returns the money, he confesses, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood” (27:3-4a). In the Old Testament, shedding innocent blood is a source of pollution. In Genesis 4, Abel’s innocent blood demanded justice. Psalm 106:38, for example, the people shed innocent blood sacrificing to the gods of the Canaanites.
The priests say deny any responsibility and do offer him comfort or absolution (27:4b). Matthew’s focus is not on Judas’s remorse but on how his remorse contrasts with the Jewish authorities (Wilson, Matthew 13-28, 387). They do not express any regret they have caused the death of an innocent man, Jesus. Nor are they bothered by the fact they are going to cause the suicide of Judas.
Judas, in despair, hangs himself (Matthew 27:5b). By hanging himself, Judas is enacting a curse on himself. Deuteronomy 27:25 says, “Cursed be anyone who takes a bribe to shed innocent blood.” Deuteronomy 21:23, “A hanged man is cursed by God.” In the Dead Sea Scrolls, a traitor was executed by hanging (11Q19, LXIV, 7-9).
In Acts 1:18, Judas “and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.” The usual strategy is to harmonize the two stories. Judas hung himself from a tree hanging off a cliff, the rope breaking, and his actual death coming when he “fell headlong.”
So how did Judas die? Matthew and Luke seem to remember a slightly different story. Even though the details can be reconciled, it is important to understand that Matthew is interested in showing that Judas’s betrayal fulfills prophecy (27:9-10). Luke also shows Judas fulfilled prophecy, but the focus is on selecting a replacement disciple. This explains the emphasis in his version of the story.
When Jesus predicted all the disciples would fall away, Peter twice declared he would never disown Jesus (Matthew 26:31-35). Jesus had already told the disciples that one of them would betray him (26:23-25).
Peter is undoubtedly offended. He has been faithful to Jesus from the beginning and is willing to go to prison and die with Jesus. In Matthew 26:35, Peter uses a strong negative. He will certainly NOT deny his Lord. The verb (ἀπαρνέομαι) can have the sense of denying a fact, but it is used for repudiating something, such as turning from idols (Isa 31:7, casting away an idol).
Despite the strong declaration of loyalty to Jesus, Jesus says Peter will deny Jesus three times before dawn that very day! For Romans, the rooster crowed three times during the night (12:30, 1:30, and 2:30 AM).
Despite this bold declaration of loyalty, he quickly denies Jesus three times (26:69-7). Peter is wavering between cowardice and courage, not yet denying, yet not standing next to Jesus at the trial either.
First, while Peter waits outside, “a single young girl” approaches him and says, perhaps innocently, that Peter was with “Jesus of Galilee” (26:69-70).The girl’s age is not specific, but the wording implies she is a child. Since she is a serving girl, she is perhaps no older than a teen. Her question includes a hint of superiority. Peter’s denial is “to all of them,” indicating that more than just the young girl is listening.
Second, as Peter goes further outside, another servant girl tells some bystanders that Peter was with Jesus of Nazareth.” Peter denied this with an oath (26:71-72). He leaves the courtyard, maybe thinking that sitting in the dark would prevent people from recognizing him. Another girl talks to him, this time stating to those around the entrance to the house Peter was with Jesus. He denies it with an oath this time. Oaths were considered binding; he claims what he says is the truth in powerful language. In Matthew 5:33, Jesus tells his disciples not to swear oaths; if one does swear an oath, it is “from the evil one” (5:37).
Third, bystanders approach Peter and ask him once again if he is a follower of Jesus, and he denies it for the third time with an oath and a curse (26:73-74a). The bystanders have evidence: Peter’s accent gives him away as a Galilean. Those from Galilee were said to have a vulgar accent. His third denial is the strongest. He not only swears an oath but also “invokes a curse” (καταθεματίζω). Even though the word is not in the middle voice, most translations add the words “on himself.” It is not that he swears at the bystanders (like modern “cursing at someone”). Mark used a slightly different word (ἀναθεματίζω). In both cases, this is the act of cursing yourself if what you say is not true. For example, in Acts 23, ἀναθεματίζω used to intensify an oath, something like “may we be cursed (by God) if we do not kill Paul by tomorrow.”
Just as Peter makes this third and strongest denial, he hears the crowing of the rooster, and he realizes what he has done (26:74b-75). Now Peter remembers the words of Jesus, that he would deny the Lord three times, and he realized that he had in fact, fulfilled that prophecy. These three denials match the three times that Peter failed to stay awake and pray with Jesus. Now he has lied and cursed himself. He has fallen into that temptation that the Lord had predicted.
Matthew reports that Peter went out and “wept bitterly.” Peter is not named again in the gospel. Peter has “gone out” three times, further away from where Jesus is and further into the darkness.
Is “weeping bitterly” a sign Peter repented? Most readers understand this bitter weeping as indicating that he realized his sin and truly repented. However, the word “repent” does not appear here (although it does for Judas!) Matthew moves Peter further outside into the darkness with each denial.
A common theme in Matthew is that not all disciples are true disciples. In Matthew 7:21-23, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” Similarly, Matthew 8:12 says, “while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” In the conclusion to the wedding banquet parable, one guest is found without wedding garments and is cast out “into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 22:1-12).
At this point, Peter knows he has ultimately denied the Lord and has no hope of reconciliation. If he has rejected association with Jesus and Jesus is about to die, there will be no opportunity for him to beg for forgiveness or to die along with Jesus (as he had recently boasted). Only after the resurrection does Peter realize the Lord has forgiven his denial. John records his “restoration,” and Luke tells us that Peter is the first to enter the tomb and discover the empty grave clothes. The book of Acts demonstrates that Peter was truly repentant and restored as the leader of Jesus’s disciples.
When asked if he is the Messiah, Jesus replied, “You have said so.” If the answer was ambiguous in English, the meaning was not lost on the high priest, he immediately tears his clothes and cried out that Jesus spoke blasphemy (Matthew 26:65-66).
Typically the tearing of clothes is a symbol of mourning, but it was also practiced when someone blasphemed in one’s presence. Davies and Allison cite m. Sanhedrin. 7:5, which “tells of judges who, as a symbolic, ritual act, rend their clothes in response to blasphemy” (Matthew, 3:533) But the high priest was not supposed to tear his clothes (Lev 21:10), although this may not apply if he is not wearing the priestly vestments at the time.
The high priest calls for the group to render their verdict, and they answer that he is “worthy of death” (KJV, “guilty of death”). The word ἔνοχος is used in judicial contexts for a punishment (“worthy of death” in this case). According to Leviticus 24:16, anyone who blasphemes the Lord should be put to death. The chief priest and scribe gathered all agree, what Jesus has said qualifies as blasphemy and that he ought to be put to death.
Could the Sanhedrin execute criminals? Most scholars agree they did not, only the Romans had the right to execute people. This should be nuanced since in Acts 7 Stephen is executed for blasphemy with some official oversight (Saul was giving approval). Stephen’s death might be considered a lynching, an illegal execution. But it was over a religious matter so the Romans might have looked the other way.
The real issue is not whether the Sanhedrin or the High Priest had the authority to kill Jesus, but whether he could risk the political ramifications of executing someone the huge Passover crowd thought was a prophet, and possibly the Messiah. As with the arrest, the group meeting to decide what to do with Jesus does not know whether Jesus has armed disciples hiding out in and around Jerusalem who would be willing to defend him to the death.
This means the High Priest and his group of advisors need to find a way to hand Jesus over to the Romans. If there are armed disciples of Jesus willing to start an insurrection, let the Romans slaughter them! Politically, they can wash their hands of any blame for the death of the beloved holy prophet and teacher.
After the group condemns Jesus, they begin to spit on him and slap him (26:67-68). In Mark, we are told at this point Jesus was blindfolded, and those that hit him taunted him by demanding Jesus prophesy. This is all to mock him for claiming to be the Messiah. The true Messiah, to their mind, would have destroyed those that tried to do this to him. Something like, “You claim to be the Messiah, but this proves you are not! “Cruel and vindictive belittlement” is the fate of the discredited prophet (Nolland, Matthew, 1136). The temple authorities decided to hand Jesus over to the Romans, to Pilate as a politically dangerous insurrectionist who ought to be executed publicly by crucifixion.
Jesus stood before his accusers and boldly confirmed he is the Messiah and he will be the eschatological judge who inaugurates the coming kingdom. At the same time, Peter has been also boldly confirming in the outer courtyard; but his boldness is a denial that he has anything to do with Jesus.
