Matthew 27:18Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

When the Lord chose not to vindicate Himself, fully aware that doing so would not lead to His release, Pilate sought alternative means and ultimately adhered to tradition, suggesting that if they refused to free Jesus, then at least in His condemned state, He might be granted some joy during the festival. How could Pilate believe they would demand the crucifixion of the innocent Jesus while allowing the guilty thief to go free? Understanding that Christ is blameless yet facing envy, he posed this question to them, thereby revealing his own weakness, for he should have been willing to endure suffering for righteousness' sake. Consequently, he is deserving of condemnation for obscuring the truth.

In the Gospel of the Hebrews, this Barabbas is referred to as the son of their teacher, and he faced condemnation for acts of treason and murder. Pilate then poses a question to the crowd about whom they wish to be freed: the thief or Jesus. He is confident that they will select Jesus, understanding that their betrayal stemmed from jealousy. Hence, it is clear that envy was the driving force behind the crucifixion on the cross.

He considered and understood that the crowd would never choose Barabbas, the murderer, over Himself. Thus, filled with boldness, he inquired, "Whom do you wish for me to release to you?" As noted in the Gospel of Mark (Mark 15:8), prior to this query, the people started to shout and seek what he had consistently provided for them. Their plea was for the liberation of a prisoner. Seizing this timely moment, Pilate dared to pose his question.

The Sanhedrin approached Pilate following their meeting with Herod. Pilate sensed that his scheming had done little to alleviate his predicament and had left him entangled in the same troubles as before. What options did he have regarding the arrogant Sanhedrin? How should he address the purity of Jesus? He informed the Sanhedrin that after conducting an inquiry, which included their presence, he found Jesus Christ to be innocent, and Herod's judgment echoed the same sentiment—it deemed Him not deserving of death. Pilate concluded that it was his decision to either punish Jesus or release Him. The Sanhedrin remained silent, and Pilate understood that this was not the response they anticipated (Luke 23:13-16). Thus, the internal struggle of weakness versus conscience continued for Pilate.

For he was aware, the holy Evangelist notes, that he had been betrayed out of jealousy. St. Chrysostom highlights the distortion of tradition, stating that it was customary for the people to plead for the condemned, and for the governor to grant them release. Now the roles have reversed: the governor demands a choice from the people, who, far from being subdued, grow even more agitated and shout in rage out of envy. Pilate then presents them with the option of selecting between Barabbas and Jesus Christ, opting not to deliver a verdict himself; where then is the justice of which the ancient Romans prided themselves? It is clear that Pilate would soon align himself with Caiaphas, having already formed an alliance with Herod.

Pilate, observing the unwavering resolve of the chief priests, proposed to at least release Jesus, as it was customary to free a prisoner during the Passover. This way, the judgment of the Sanhedrin could be upheld, and the accused might remain alive. To appease their animosity towards Jesus, Pilate ordered Him to be scourged. However, the crowd shouted, following the directives of the chief priests: Release not Jesus, but Barabbas. As Pilate found himself in a dilemma regarding his decision in this matter, a message arrived from his wife. She had recently experienced a dream that deeply concerned her about the righteous man. Without mentioning His name, she urged Pilate that He should not be condemned, which he recognized to be the situation (Matt. 27:19).

Upon learning that Herod had only ridiculed Jesus without formally condemning Him, Pilate stepped out to the Lyphostron and addressed the chief priests, the leaders of the people, and the crowd, saying, “You have brought this man before me as one who misleads the nation; I have examined Him in your presence and found no guilt in Him regarding the accusations you bring against Him, nor has Herod, as I sent Him to him, and nothing was discovered in Him that merits death” (Luke 23:14-15). “Therefore, I will release Him.” However, if you still deem Him deserving of punishment, I am willing to chastise Him; yet after chastisement, I will release Him” (Luke 23:16). Is this what a fair judge does?

Faced with the challenge of addressing a case that caused him displeasure, and wanting to spare what he believed was an innocent individual while upholding the integrity of his initial verdict, Pilate sought to invoke the mercy and goodwill of the populace. It was a customary practice of the Roman governor during the Passover to grant the release of a prisoner based on the desires of the crowd. Aware that the allegations against Jesus stemmed from the religious leaders and elders, and recognizing that the people had recently expressed a fervent admiration for Christ, Pilate proposed the release of two prisoners: Jesus and the notorious thief and murderer Barabbas. He hoped that the people would choose the one they had joyfully hailed as the son of David.

Out of envy, they were resentful of the authority that the Lord Jesus held over the crowds, as well as of the affection and respect that the people showed toward Christ. This was evident to Pilate, both from Jesus' demeanor and from the actions of His adversaries, who spread false accusations.