Matteo 27:44 Commento

When the morning was come,.... Or, as soon as it was day, as Luke says, Luk 22:66. The sanhedrim had been up all night, which, after eating the passover, they had spent in apprehending, trying, and examining Jesus, and the witnesses against him; and had come to an unanimous vote, that he was guilty of death; upon which they either put Jesus out of the room for a while, or went into another themselves, to consult what further steps should be taken: or if they went home to their own houses, they very quickly got together again, and met in the temple, where they seem to be, Mat 27:5, unless the story of Judas is, by anticipation, inserted here; and in their council chamber, where they led Jesus, and examined him again concerning his being the Son of God; see Luk 22:66, all which shows how intent they were upon this business, and with what eagerness and diligence they pursued it; their feet ran to evil, and they made haste to shed blood. This was the time of their morning prayers, of their saying their phylacteries, and reciting the "shema", "hear, O Israel! the Lord our God is one Lord", according to their canon, which is this (e): "from what time do they read the "shema" in the morning? from such time that a man can distinguish between blue and white: says R. Eliezer, between blue and green; and he finishes it before the sun shines out. R. Joshua says, before three hours had elapsed:'' but religion, rites, ceremonies, and canons, must all give way to the accomplishment of what their hearts were so much set upon: all the chief priests and elders of the people. The Syriac and Persic versions leave out the word "all", but it is retained in the Vulgate Latin, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions, and in Munster's Hebrew Gospel, and that very rightly. The Scribes and elders met at Caiaphas's house before, Mat 26:57, but it being in the night, they might not be all together; Annas particularly seems to have been absent, Joh 18:24, but now they all assemble together, as in a case of necessity they were obliged to do: their rule was this (f); "the sanhedrim, consisting of seventy and one (as this was), are obliged to sit all of them as one, (or all, and everyone of them,) in their place in the temple; but at what time there is a necessity of their being gathered together, , "they are all of them assembled"; but, at other times, he who has any business may go, and do his pleasure, and return: yet so it is, that there may not be less than twenty three sitting continually all the time of their sitting; (their usual time of sitting was from the morning daily sacrifice, to the evening daily sacrifice (g);) one that is under a necessity of going out; this looks upon his companions that remain, and if twenty three remain, he may go out; but if not, he may not, until the other returns.'' This being now a case of necessity, and great importance, they are all summoned and gathered together, unless we except Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus; who yet might be there, though they did not consent to their counsel and deed, as is certain of the former, Luk 23:51, these took counsel against Jesus; God's holy child Jesus, his anointed, the Messiah; and which was taking counsel against the Lord himself; and so the prophecy in Psa 2:2, had its accomplishment: what they consulted about was to put him to death; it was not what punishment to inflict upon him, whether scourging or death; that was before determined; they had already condemned him to death: but now they enter into close consultation what death to put him to, and in what manner; whether privately, he being now in their hands; or whether by the means of zealots, or by the Roman magistrate; or whether it should be by stoning, which must have been the case, if they put him to death according to their law; and by their authority; or whether by crucifixion, which they chose as the most ignominious and painful; and therefore determined to deliver him up to the Roman governor, and use their interest with him to put him to death, according to the Roman law. (e) Misn. Beracot, c. 1. sect. 2. (f) Maimon. Hilch. Sanhedrin, c. 3. sect. 2. (g) lb. c. 3. sect. 1. Bernidbar Rabba, sect. 1. fol. 177. 3.

Now from the sixth hour,.... Which was twelve o'clock at noon, there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour; till three o'clock in the afternoon, the time the Jews call "between the two evenings"; and which they say (c) is "from the sixth hour, and onwards". Luke says, the sun was darkened, Luk 23:45. This darkness was a preternatural eclipse of the sun; for it was at the time when the moon was in the full, as appears from its being at the time of the passover; which was on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan, the Jews beginning their months from the new moon: and moreover, it was over all the land, or earth, as the word may be rendered; and the Ethiopic version renders it, "the whole world was dark"; at least it reached to the whole Roman empire, or the greatest part of it; though some think only the land of Judea, or Palestine, is intended: but it is evident, that it is taken notice of, and recorded by Heathen historians and chronologers, as by Phlegon, and others, referred to by Eusebius (d). The Roman archives are appealed unto for the truth of it by Tertullian (e); and it is asserted by Suidas, that Dionysius the Areopagite, then an Heathen, saw it in Egypt; and said, "either the, divine being suffers, or suffers with him that suffers, or the frame of the world is dissolving. Add to this the continuance of it, that it lasted three hours; whereas a natural eclipse of the sun is but of a short duration; see Amo 8:9. The Jews (g) have a notion, that in the times of the Messiah "the sun shall be darkened, , "in the middle of the day", (as this was,) as that day was darkened when the sanctuary was destroyed. Yea, they speak (h) of a darkness that shall continue a long time: their words are these: "the king Messiah shall be made known in all the world, and all the kings shall be stirred up to join together to make war with him; and many of the profligate Jews shall be turned to them, and shall go with them, to make war against the king Messiah; so , "all the world shall be darkened" fifteen days, and many of the people of Israel shall die in that darkness. This darkness that was over the earth at the time of Christ's sufferings, was, no doubt, an addition to them; the sun, as it were, hiding its face, and refusing to afford its comforting light and heat to him; and yet might be in detestation of the heinousness of the sin the Jews were committing, and as expressive of the divine anger and resentment; for God's purposes and decrees, and the end he had in view, did not excuse, nor extenuate their wickedness; as it shows also their wretched stupidity, not to be awakened and convinced by the amazing darkness, with other things attending it, which made no impression on them; though it did on the Roman centurion, who concluded Christ must be the Son of God. It was an emblem of the judicial blindness and darkness of the Jewish nation; and signified, that now was the hour and power of darkness, or the time for the prince of darkness, with his principalities and powers, to exert himself; and was a representation of that darkness that was now on the soul of Christ, expressed in the following verse; as well as of the eclipse of him, the sun of righteousness, of the glory of his person, both by his incarnation, and by his sufferings, (c) T. Hieros Pesachim, fol. 31. 3. (d) In Chronicis. (e) Apolog. c. 21. (g) Zohar in Exod. fol. 4. 1. (h) Ib. fol. 3, 4.

It is appropriate that both thieves be understood to have blasphemed the Lord at first. Afterwards, however, one of them converted and believed because of the wonders he heard performed by the Lord and also, perhaps, because he saw miraculous changes in the heavens and the falling of an untimely darkness.

The thief who was saved may be a sign of those who after many sins have believed on Christ.

That both the thieves cast in His teeth the manner of His Passion, shows that the cross should be an offence to all mankind, even to the faithful.

At first both reviled Him, but afterwards not so. For that you should not suppose that the thing was arranged by any collusion, and that the thief was not a thief, he shows you by his wanton reproaches, that even after he was crucified he was a thief and a foe, but was afterwards totally changed.

Yet nevertheless, even when these things were said and done, they prevailed nothing, not even at the very time. At any rate, he, who was depraved in such great wickedness, and who had spent his whole life in murders and house-breakings, when these things were being said, then confessed Him, and made mention of a kingdom, and the people bewailed Him. And yet the things that were done seemed to testify the contrary in the eyes of those who knew not the mysterious dispensations, that He was weak and of no power, nevertheless truth prevailed even by the contrary things.

Here, through a figure of speech called syllepsis, instead of only one thief, both are described as having mocked Jesus. According to Luke, however, after one thief blasphemed, the other thief confessed his faith and rebuked the first. The Gospels do not disagree with each other. At first each thief blasphemed. But after the sun had fled, the earth shook, rocks split apart and darkness fell, one of the thieves believed in Jesus and recanted his initial denial by a subsequent confession. Along with the two thieves each crowd of both the Gentiles and the Jews at first mocked the Lord.

(Verse 44) Now even the robbers who were crucified with him were reviling him. Here, in a figurative sense known as σύλληψις, both robbers are depicted as blaspheming him. However, Luke asserts that while one blasphemed, the other confessed, and contrary to expectations, rebuked the blasphemer (Luke 23). It is not that the Gospels are inconsistent; rather, both robbers initially blasphemed, but then, as the sun set and the earth shook, and with rocks splitting and darkness descending, one believed in Jesus and rectified his previous denial with a subsequent confession. Among the two thieves, both the Gentiles and the Jews initially blasphemed the Lord. Later, one of them, struck by the magnitude of the signs, repented and to this day scolds the Jews for blaspheming.

Or it may be said that at first both reviled Him; but when the sun had withdrawn, the earth was shaken, the rocks were rent, and the darkness increased, one believed on Jesus, and repaired his former denial by a subsequent confession. Or, in the two thieves both nations, Jews and Gentiles, at first blasphemed the Lord; afterwards the latter terrified by the multitude of signs did penitence, and thus rebukes the Jews, who blaspheme to this day.

(de Cons. Ev. iii. 16.) It may seem that Luke contradicts this, when he describes one of the robbers as reviling Him, and as therefore rebuked by the other. But we may suppose that Matthew, shortly alluding to the circumstance, has used the plural for the singular, as in the Epistle to the Hebrews we have, Hare stopped the months of lions, (Heb. 11:33.) when Daniel only is spoken of. And what more common way of speaking than for one to say, See the country people insult me, when it is one only who has done so. If indeed Matthew had said that both the thieves had reviled the Lord, there would be some discrepancy; but when he says merely, The thieves, without adding 'both,' we must consider it as that common form of speech in which the singular is signified by the plural.

Had He then been prevailed on by their taunts to leave the cross, He would not have proved to us the power of endurance; but He waited enduring their mockery; and He who would not come down from the cross, rose again from the tomb.

The thieves also, which were crucified with Him, likewise reproached Him. The two thieves were symbolic of the two races, the Jewish and the Gentile, for both races had transgressed the law and reviled Christ, just as both these thieves at first reviled Him. But later the one thief understood Who He was and confessed Him as King; whereupon he also said, "Remember me, Lord, in Thy kingdom" (Lk. 23:42). So, too, did the Gentile race confess Christ, while the other thief, the Jewish race, blasphemed.

"The thieves also that were crucified with him reproached him." But what is it that here it says both reproached him, while in Luke 23:39 only one did? Augustine resolves this by saying that sometimes it is customary in Scripture for the plural to be put for the singular, as in Hebrews 11:33: "they stopped the mouths of lions," i.e., he stopped, namely Daniel. And it is a manner of speaking, just as one says: these peasants are hostile to me, even if only one is hostile to him. So Matthew speaks. Or otherwise, according to Jerome, at the beginning both reproached him; but one, seeing the miracles he was working, repented. And this, as Chrysostom says, happened by divine dispensation. Hence those are signified who after many crimes return to Christ.