What Role Did Pilate’s Wife Play in the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ?

[Chrysostomos]

Judging by the texts of all the Gospels, it wasn’t only the cries of the crowd that influenced Pontius Pilate—after all, even after the first declaration of Christ’s innocence, the crowd expressed its discontent, and after the second, they chanted with the same intent, and in the end, already after the sentence, the prefect washed his hands—which was, at the very least, the fourth demonstration of Pilate’s opinion about Jesus’s innocence. There was also a fifth, indirect one: Pilate defended the ambiguous inscription on the cross—“King of the Jews.”

So, what influence on Pilate determined his temporary retreat from the truth?
“…his wife sent him a message, saying: do not do anything to that Righteous One, because I have suffered much today in a dream because of Him.” (Matthew 27:19)
Tell me, at what exact moment did the prefect’s wife send her husband the message about her dream?
Before the trial began?
No.
Perhaps she intervened right after Pilate sent Jesus to Herod? After all, there was time to talk—it was a very convenient moment, her husband was already focused on the problem. Why not approach him, talk to him? Was she not awake? Too early? But the crowd was shouting so loudly that it could have woken even the dead. Yes, theoretically, one could have gone back to sleep. But in practice, it would have been impossible for a dreamer who received a divine instruction to save the Great Righteous One—if the dream really happened.

There was another convenient moment for the prefect’s wife to talk to her husband: during the flogging and the preparations for it. However, even during the flogging, the prefect’s wife did not demonstrate her supposed holiness.
So, the prefect’s wife had plenty of time and convenient opportunities to talk to her husband. Thus, this single, very late intervention by a dreamer who had long since awakened is suspicious—if she truly, as we are led to believe, wanted to protect Jesus. Her systematic non-intervention already suggests that, to use biblical language, she was by no means driven by a desire to protect Jesus.

And the circumstances under which she finally did intervene dispel any remaining doubts.
So, when they had gathered, Pilate said to them: “Whom do you want me to release to you: Barabbas, or Jesus, who is called Christ? For he knew that they had handed Him over out of hostility.”

Meanwhile, as he sat on the judgment seat, his wife sent him a message, saying: “Do not do anything to that Righteous One, because I have suffered much today in a dream because of Him.”
But the chief priests and elders incited the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus destroyed.
Then the governor asked them, “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” They said, “Barabbas.”
(Matthew 27:17-21)

In Greek, the fact that the sentences are not isolated but related to each other was indicated by a special particle common to all types of sentences, both compound and complex. In other words, this particle in English can mean anything—“and,” “but,” “when,” “then,” “for,” “also,” “plus that,” and so on—that is, it can indicate completely opposite meanings.
For example:
“Meanwhile, as he sat on the judgment seat, his wife sent him a message, saying: ‘Do not do anything to that Righteous One, because I have suffered much today in a dream because of Him.’
ALSO/AND the chief priests and elders incited the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus destroyed.”
(Matthew 27:19,20)

It turns out that this is who briefly clouded Pilate’s mind, resulting in his betrayal of the Truth to crucifixion! HIS WIFE!
Here the text is distinctly organized according to the principles of a frame-by-frame montage style, which can mislead only those who refuse to develop critical thinking (those who love neither truth nor Truth).
“What happened is what they aimed for”—this is a well-known principle for exposing the secret intentions of “influential benefactors,” who supposedly “didn’t get what they wanted.”
So, the patrician, familiar from birth with all the subtleties of governance, chose a critical moment: the crowd is chanting—“Barabbas!”—the chief priests are puffed up, but Pilate holds firm and, for the third time, definitively declares—once and for all!—that Jesus is innocent. The trial will end in a few seconds—as soon as the prefect rises from the judgment seat!
That’s when the “dreamer” intervenes.
And the exasperated prefect, rising, said: “I have washed my hands of this matter and what you do is all on you”

 

[Chrysostomos]

To bring clarity and order to the discussion, let us now turn to the foundational text of Matthew 1, which establishes the lineage of Jesus Christ, and connect it to the earlier analysis of Pilate’s wife and her role in the events surrounding Jesus’s trial. The Greek text and its translation provide critical insights into the linguistic nuances that affect our understanding, particularly the use of particles like “δὲ” (de) and “ἀλλά” (alla), which shape the flow and meaning of biblical narratives. We will build on the previous analysis to show how these linguistic details reinforce the interpretation of Pilate’s wife not as a defender of Jesus, but as a figure exerting pressure to abandon him to the crowd’s will.

Reassessing the Genealogy and Its Implications
The opening of Matthew’s Gospel, Κεφάλαιον Α' (Chapter 1), begins with the genealogy of Jesus Christ:
1 βίβλος γενέσεως ’Ιησου̃ Χριστου̃ υἱου̃ Δαυὶδ υἱου̃ ’Αβραάμ
1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

This lineage, tracing Jesus back to David and Abraham, sets the stage for his identity as the promised Messiah. The subsequent verses detail the generations:
2 ’Αβραὰμ ἐγέννησεν τòν ’Ισαάκ ’Ισαὰκ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τòν ’Ιακώβ ’Ιακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τòν ’Ιούδαν καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτου̃
2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

And so on, through verses 3 to 7, listing figures like Phares, Zara, Booz, and David, with the particle “δὲ” (de) consistently used to connect each generation: “δὲ” appears repeatedly to link one event or person to the next, functioning as a connective rather than a contrast. For example:
6 ’Ιεσσαὶ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τòν Δαυὶδ τòν βασιλέα Δαυὶδ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τòν Σολομω̃να ἐκ τη̃ς του̃ Οὐρίου
6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

Here, “δὲ” does not introduce opposition but continuity—“and” or “then.” This usage is crucial for understanding its role in later passages, such as Matthew 27:19-20, where the same particle appears.

The Role of Greek Particles: “δὲ” vs. “ἀλλά”
As noted earlier, the Greek language employs specific particles to indicate relationships between clauses. The particle “ἀλλά” (alla) is a strong adversative conjunction, meaning “but,” “nevertheless,” or “on the contrary.” It introduces a sharp contrast or alternative, as seen in several examples from Matthew:
Matthew 6:13: “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil” (καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκη̨ς ἡμα̃ς εἰς πειρασμόν ἀλλά ῥυ̃σαι ἡμα̃ς ἀπò του̃ πονηρου̃). Here, “ἀλλά” contrasts temptation with deliverance.

Matthew 9:13: “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice” (ἔλεος θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν ἀλλά). Again, “ἀλλά” marks a clear opposition.

In contrast, “δὲ” (de) is a milder connective, often translated as “and,” “also,” “then,” “yet,” or “moreover.” It does not typically denote opposition but rather addition or continuation. For instance:
Matthew 13:8: “But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit” (ἄλλα δὲ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὴν γη̃ν τὴν καλὴν καὶ ἐδίδου καρπόν). Here, “δὲ” links the new information (“other fell”) to what came before, without contradiction.

This distinction is vital when re-examining Matthew 27:19-20, where Pilate’s wife sends her message:
“καθημένου δὲ αὐτου̃ ἐπὶ του̃ βήματος ἀπέστειλεν πρòς αὐτòν ἡ γυνὴ αὐτου̃ λέγουσα μηδὲν σοὶ καὶ τω̨̃ δικαίω̨ ἐκείνω̨ πολλὰ γὰρ ἔπαθον σήμερον κατ' ὄναρ δι' αὐτόν. δὲ ἀρχιερει̃ς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι ἔπεισαν τοὺς ὄχλους ἵνα αἰτήσωνται τòν Βαραββα̃ν τòν δὲ ’Ιησου̃ν ἀπολέσωσιν.”

Translated literally: “While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, ‘Have nothing to do with that just man, for I have suffered many things today in a dream because of him.’ ALSO/AND the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask for Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.”

If Matthew had intended to present a contrast—e.g., Pilate’s wife advocating for Jesus while the crowd demanded his death—he would have used “ἀλλά” instead of “δὲ.”

 

[Chrysostomos]

Clarifying Pilate’s Wife’s Intent
Returning to our earlier analysis, the use of “δὲ” in Matthew 27:19-20 supports the interpretation that Pilate’s wife was not trying to save Jesus. Her message—“Have nothing to do with that just man, for I have suffered many things today in a dream because of him”—is not a plea for his release but a warning. The particle “γὰρ” (gar), meaning “for” or “because,” explains her suffering as a reason to avoid involvement, not to intervene on Jesus’s behalf. When followed by “δὲ,” her action is linked to the subsequent pressure from the chief priests and elders, suggesting a cumulative effect: her words and their agitation together pushed Pilate toward relinquishing Jesus to the crowd.
This reading aligns with the genealogy’s structure in Matthew 1, where “δὲ” connects events in a chain, building toward a larger purpose. Just as the generations lead inexorably to Christ, the events of the trial lead inexorably to his crucifixion, with Pilate’s wife playing a pivotal, albeit indirect, role in that outcome.

Conclusion: Order and Clarity
To reduce misunderstandings and diverging interpretations, we must translate “δὲ” in Matthew 27:19-20 as “and” or “also,” not as a contrasting “but.” The corrected translation should read:
“When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. AND the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.”
This translation reveals that Pilate’s wife was not a savior figure but a catalyst for his decision to abandon Jesus. Her “dream” was likely a strategic maneuver, exploiting the tense atmosphere to urge Pilate to prioritize stability over justice. The linguistic evidence from both Matthew 1 and 27 underscores a narrative of continuity and pressure, not contrast or redemption, in her actions.