Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 26:3
Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas,
3. the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders ] i. e. the Sanhedrim or Synedrion (Greek), or Sanhedrin (the later Hebrew form of the word), the supreme council, legislative and administrative, of the Jewish people.
A. The history of the Sanhedrin. Many learned Rabbis endeavoured to trace the origin of the Sanhedrin to the council of 70 elders whom Moses, by the advice of Jethro, appointed to assist him. But it is improbable that this council existed before the Macedonian conquest. (1) The name is Greek, not Hebrew. (2) It finds its equivalent among the political institutions of Macedonia. Finally, (3) no allusion to the Sanhedrin is to be found in the Historical Books or in the Prophets.
B. Constitution. The President or Nasi (prince) was generally, but not always, the high priest; next in authority was the vice-president or Ab Beth Dn (father of the house of judgment); the third in rank was the Chacham (sage or interpreter). The members were 71 in number, and consisted (1) of the chief priests or heads of the priestly “courses” (see Luk 1:5); (2) the scribes or lawyers; (3) the elders of the people or heads of families, who were the representatives of the laity.
C. Authority and functions. The Sanhedrin formed the highest court of the Jewish commonwealth. It originally possessed the power of life and death, but this power no longer belonged to it; Joh 18:31, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death,” a statement which agrees with a tradition in the Talmud, “forty years before the temple was destroyed judgment in capital causes was taken away from Israel.”
All questions of the Jewish law, and such as concerned the ecclesiastical polity, religious life of the nation and discipline of the priests fell under the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin.
D. Place of meeting. In the present instance the Sanhedrin met at the high priest’s house; from ch. Mat 27:6 we may conjecture that the Temple was sometimes the place of meeting, but their usual house of assembly at this particular epoch was called the “Halls of Purchase,” on the east of the Temple Mount (Dr Ginsburg in Kitto’s Encyc. Bib. Lit. and Lightfoot’s Hor. Hebr.).
Caiaphas ] Joseph Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Annas, was appointed high priest by the Procurator Valerius Gratus a. d. 26, and was deposed a. d. 38. The high priesthood had long ceased to be held for life and to descend from father to son; appointments were made at the caprice of the Roman government. Annas who had been high priest was still regarded as such by popular opinion, which did not recognise his deposition. St Luke says, “Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 3. Then assembled together the chief priests] That is, during the two days that preceded the passover.
The high priest, who was called Caiaphas] Caiaphas succeeded Simon, son of Camith, about A. D. 16, or, as Calmet thinks, 25. He married the daughter of Annas, who was joined with him in the priesthood. About two years after our Lord’s crucifixion, Caiaphas and Pilate were both deposed by VITELLIUS, then governor of Syria, and afterwards emperor. Caiaphas, unable to bear this disgrace, and the stings of his conscience for the murder of Christ, killed himself about A. D. 35. See Joseph. Ant. b. xviii. c. 2-4.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Mar 14:1, saith, The chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death. Luke saith much the same with Mark. They had before this been seeking how to destroy him, Luk 19:47; nor was it the first time they had made a formal council about it, Joh 11:47; but now again they met. The place is named, that was the high priests hall; the councillors were the chief priests, scribes, and elders. The matter of their deliberation was to kill Christ, and how they might do it by subtlety, for they were afraid of the people, who had a great esteem for our Saviour, because of the many miracles he had wrought.
But they said, Not on the feast day: that was now within two days, and in order to it the city was full of people, and they were afraid (as they were concerned, being a conquered people, and having but a precarious liberty for their religion) of causing any tumults: this awed them, not any great religion for the festival, for all things now were out of order with them. Their high priest was chosen annually, and at the will of their conquerors; some little appearance they had of their ancient religious government, but it was in no due order.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
Then assembled together the chief priests,…. About the same time, two days before the passover, that Jesus said these things to his disciples, as is plain from Mr 14:1. By “the chief priests” are meant, either such who had been high priests, or such as were the heads of the twenty four courses of the priests; or rather, the principal men of the priesthood, who were chosen out of the rest, to be members of the great sanhedrim:
and the Scribes; the doctors, of the law, who wrote out copies of the law for the people, and interpreted it to them in a literal way: this clause is left out in the Vulgate Latin, and in Munster’s Hebrew Gospel, and in the Arabic and Ethiopic versions, and in the Alexandrian copy, and some others, but is retained in, the Syriac version; and no doubt, but these men had a place in this grand council:
and the elders of the people; these were the civil magistrates; so that this assembly consisted both of ecclesiastics and laymen, as the sanhedrim did, of priests, Levites, and Israelites t: these came
unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas; his name was Joseph, but his surname Caiaphas; a word not of the same original with Cephas, as Camero thought; for these two words begin with different letters, nor are the rest the same. Now, though a king of Israel might not sit in the sanhedrim, yet an high priest might, provided he was sufficiently qualified with wisdom u. The president of this grand council at this time, should be Rabban Gamaliel, Paul’s master; unless it was Caiaphas, at whose house they were: how they came to meet at the high priest’s palace, deserves inquiry; since their proper and usual place of meeting, was a chamber in the temple, called Gazith w, or the paved chamber: now let it be observed, that according to the accounts the Jews themselves give, the sanhedrim removed from this chamber, forty years before the destruction of the temple x; and which, as Dr. Lightfoot conjectures, was about a year and a half before the death of Christ; and as others say y, four years; at least three years and a half before that time: but then, though the sanhedrim removed from the paved chamber, they met at Chanoth, “the sheds”, which was a place within the bounds of the temple, in the mountain of the house; and the question still returns, how came it to pass they did not meet there? To me the reason seems to be, that they chose not to meet there, but at the high priest’s palace, because of privacy, that it might not be known they were together, and about any affair of moment; and particularly this: the high priest’s house was always in Jerusalem, and he never removed from thence; nor did he go from the temple thither only in the night, or an hour or two in the day; for he had an apartment in the temple, which was called the chamber of the high priest, where he was the whole day z.
t Maimon. Hilch. Sanhedrin, c. 2. sect. 1. u lb. sect. 4. w Misn. Middot c. 5. sect. 3. x T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 15. 1. Avoda Zara, fol. 8. 2. Sanhedrin, fol. 41. 1. Maimon. Hilch. Sanhedrin, c. 14. sect. 13. Juchasin, fol. 21. 1. y Edzard. not. in Avoda Zara, c. 1. p. 236. z Maimon. Cele Hamikdash, c. 5. sect. 7.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Then were gathered together the chief priests and elders of the people ( ). A meeting of the Sanhedrin as these two groups indicate (cf. 21:23).
Unto the court ( ). The atrium or court around which the palace buildings were built. Here in this open court this informal meeting was held. Caiaphas was high priest A.D. 18 to 36. His father-in-law Annas had been high priest A.D. 6 to 15 and was still called high priest by many.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Palace [] . But the word never means palace in the New Testament. It is the court, the open court or hall, forming the center of an oriental building, and often used as a meeting – place. Rev., court. Wyc., hall.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
Mat 26:3
. Then were assembled the chief priests. Matthew does not mean that they assembled during the two days, but introduces this narrative to show, that Christ was not led by any opinion of man to fix the day of his death; for by what conjectures could he have been led to it, since his enemies themselves had resolved to delay for a time? The meaning therefore is, that by the spirit of prophecy he spoke of his own death, which no man could have suspected to be so near at hand. John explains the reason why the scribes and priests held this meeting: it was because, from day to day, the people flocked to Christ in greater multitudes, (Joh 11:48.) And at that time it was decided, at the instigation of Caiaphas, that he should be put to death, because they could not succeed against him in any other way.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
SECTION 62
JESUS IS PLOTTED AGAINST BY THE RULERS
TEXT: 26:35
3 Then were gathered together the chief priests, and the elders of the people, unto the court of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas; 4 and they took counsel together that they might take Jesus by subtlety, and kill him. 5 But they said, Not during the feast, lest a tumult arise among the people.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS
a.
The Gospels recount numerous clashes between Jesus and the authorities before this Last Week. What are the immediate causes of this present plotting, those elements which had not been so much factor prior to this Last Week?
b.
Why do you think they assembled in the high priests court, rather than in the regular meeting place of the Sanhedrin?
c.
Why do you think they concluded that they must take Jesus by subtlety? Was guile or deceit the stated purpose of this august body of religious leaders?
d.
Why did these, the highest authorities in the nation, fear the people so? Were their fears justified?
e.
Their final conclusion to postpone Jesus assassination until after the feast clashes with Jesus private pronouncement concerning that event. What does this fact reveal about them? about Jesus?
f.
Why do you think Matthew put these two conflicting decisions together here in one context?
g.
If you were the highest religious authority among your people and thought you must deal with a blaspheming, rebellious teacher and false prophet worthy of death, what would you do? Would you brave the wrath of the nation in the name of righteousness in your pursuit of Gods honor, or would you cower and plot, as do these? Are you sure? What does this problem tell you about the leaders? and about yourself?
PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY
The Passover celebration was not only two days away, the feast when the Jews eat bread without any yeast in it. The clergy, the theologians and the judicial rulers of the nation assembled at the residence of the high priest, Caiaphas. There they plotted together, looking for some cunning plan whereby they could ensnare Jesus and dispose of Him. Because they were afraid of the people, they kept saying, Not during the Passover Feast, or the people may riot!
SUMMARY
The same day that Jesus predicted His own death at the Passover, the nations rulers assembled to discuss the plan which would make His words reality. Contrary to His prediction, they determined it must not happen during the feast or even publicly.
NOTES
1. THE ALLIANCE OF THE DESPERATE
Mat. 26:3 Then were gathered together the chief priests, and the elders of the people, unto the court of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas. Then, i.e. two days before the Passover (Mar. 14:1). That Matthew does not mean next in order, after the foregoing prediction, but at the time just alluded to, is easily inferred also from Jesus notice of the time (Mat. 26:2). If so, at about the same time He prophesied that the supreme authorities of Israel would crucify Him during the Passover, they themselves were debating to put off their attempts until after the festivities. This timing is the more psychologically probable, if their fruitless sallies against Jesus and His exposures of their ignorance and hypocrisy occurred this same day, driving this resentful, embittered leadership to regroup to plot strategy.
How many previous consultations had been held to plot the demolition of the Nazarenes popularity? The opposition that now exploded as an obsession to kill Jesus had begun very early (Joh. 5:16 ff.; Mat. 12:14; Joh. 7:1; Joh. 7:19; Joh. 7:25; Joh. 7:30 ff.; Joh. 8:37; Joh. 8:40; Joh. 8:59; Joh. 10:31 f., Joh. 10:39). But these sporadic, flailing attempts had aborted. The spectacular resurrection of Lazarus right under the nose of the leaders had gained new followers for Jesus (Joh. 11:45). This daring miracle spurred the shaken authorities to instant action to combine forces in a concentrated, cooperative drive to stop the Galilean Prophet (Joh. 11:47-54). Out of that plenary session of the Sanhedrin (sungagon . . . sundrion) came the determination to make Jesus a political scapegoat by death. From then on Jesus became a hunted man (Joh. 11:57). But even so, no one came forward with interesting intelligence data, because Jesus was adroitly avoiding population centers by moving in out-of-the-way places like Ephraim (Joh. 11:54) or travelling in the company of His admirers. This rendered secret capture impossible (Mat. 19:1 f; Mat. 20:29; Joh. 12:19). So, because the prior conciliar decision had not procured the Galileans elimination, and because He continued to wound the collective pride of the nations leaders (see on Mat. 26:4), a fresh consultation must be held to establish which strategy would lead infallibly to decisive success.
This private conclave is composed of the chief priests, of official clergy, the scribes (Mar. 14:1; Luk. 22:2) or theologians, and the elders of the people, or national senate of Israel. The chief priests are not only the high priest actually in office as well as those who had been dismissed from office by the political rulers, but also those priests in charge of the Temple administration in its various services. Together, these formed a priestly aristocracy quite distinct from their brethren, the common priests. Despite their political dismissal, these former high priests continued to exercise considerable influence, even if informally. (Consider the implications of Act. 4:6; Act. 23:5 in the light of Joh. 11:49; Joh. 11:51.) Modern attempts to free the orthodox Pharisees and elders of the people from guilt fail to prove these plotters were only Sadducean priests and their lackeys. (Cf. Flusser, Jesus, 85, 159ff.) The silence of the Gospel Passion narratives in itself proves nothing about Pharisean participation in the Passover plot, because they omit all mention of the Sadducees too. Each group is presented not under its party label, but in the person of those men whose official function as priests or scribes gave them this platform from which to attack Jesus officially. From this consultation on, then, party loyalties no longer count; just the final goal. Hence, the Gospel writers accurately picture Jesus opposition as one united front composed of every section of their national religious and political leadership. (Cf. the apostolic preaching, Act. 3:17; Act. 4:5; Act. 4:8; Act. 4:23; Act. 5:21; Act. 13:27.)
The theory that the godly Pharisees in the Jewish Senate disapproved of the Sadducean priesthoods political betrayal of Jesus to the Romans cannot be sustained by appeal to the silence of the Synoptics. It is said that the Evangelists could not credibly report the Pharisean protest against the Sadducees without appearing self-contradictory, since they desired to give an anti-Pharisean flavor to their pre-Passion stories (Flusser, Jesus, 85). The better hypothesis is that no concerted protest of the Pharisees ever rose to defend Jesus. What were the Pharisees doing in the arresting party in Gethsemane: protecting Jesus by reading Him His rights to a fair trial and warning him against self-incrimination (Joh. 18:3)?! And, if they were alerted for the arrest, did they abandon their duty during the trials, if in fact they were pro-Jesus? And how explain the strange reappearance of the Pharisees to insure the tomb against imposture, if they had supposedly abandoned the Sanhedrin which brought about a victory for them (Mat. 27:62)?
Granted, not all scribes are Pharisees nor are all Pharisees scribes. (Cf. Mar. 2:16.) However, since the Pharisees had been ousted from political power by John Hyrcanus (Ant. XIII, 10, 57) and Alexander Jannaeus (ibid., 13, 5), they utilized the scribes role as interpreters of the Law to qualify themselves for positions of influence because of their accurate knowledge of tradition and its importance in legal interpretation. As opposed to the priesthood which was virtually, but not totally, closed to Pharisees (cf. Josephus, Life, 39), the Sanhedrin offered opportunities to implement their viewpoints at the highest level, whereinsofar their influence could command a majority of the elders that composed it. (See Bowker, Jesus and the Pharisees, Introduction. Cf. note at Mat. 8:19.) Thus, the combination, chief priests and the elders of the people along with the scribes (Mar. 14:1; Luk. 22:2) combines the units that comprised the Sanhedrin.
Their gathering together into the court of the high priest, rather than in the Sanhedrins usually assembly hall (of hewn stone) may have several explanations:
1.
Was this a night meeting at the close of their long day of disastrous debate with Jesus? Perhaps no night meeting of this sort could be held in the Temple.
2.
This closed session emphasizes the selective nature of this assembly, as if the question of the Galilean Prophet could not be suitably handled in an open forum. Would such councilors as Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea have been welcome or even informed of this scheming, if suspected of bias toward Jesus? (Cf. Joh. 3:1; Joh. 7:50 ff.; Mar. 15:43; Luk. 23:50 f.)
3.
Perhaps even non-members of the Sanhedrin, whose astuteness could be pressed into service to promote the success of the conspiracy, could more easily be brought into the plot, if held outside the Sanhedrins hall.
The court of the high priest (tn auln to archieros) is the identical place where Peter denied Jesus, being the courtyard within which the men awaiting the outcome of Jesus trials had built a fire (Joh. 18:15). The courtyard itself is surrounded by the buildings of the palace proper. It would appear from the denial accounts that both Annas, the old patriarch among the chief priests, and Caiaphas, his son-in-law and high priest then in office, lived in different apartments in this same palace complex. (Cf. Joh. 18:13; Joh. 18:24 and notes on Mat. 26:57.)
Because aul, by extension, seems to refer to the entire palace in some contexts (cf. Mar. 15:16 pretorium; perhaps also Luk. 11:21; 1Ma. 11:46), some argue that this insidious plot occurred, not where servants could overhear in an open courtyard, but in some large room of the high priests apartment, as if he were a king in his court. (Cf. Arndt-Gingrich, 120f.; Rocci, 302.) Besides the lack of evidence that aul refers to the house itself (cf. Moulton-Milligan, 92), may it not be assumed that the chief priests, Annas and Caiaphas, would have servants like their masters, of if not, could order them to leave during the deliberations, thus actually insuring their privacy?
So it was to Joseph Caiaphas they came. (Cf. Josephus, Ant. XVIII, 2, 2; Mat. 4:3.) This past master of Roman-Jewish diplomacy succeeded in retaining his office from 1836 A.D. in an epoch when the high-priesthood was almost a yearly turnover, having become the unfortunate victim of Herodian politics continued by Rome. (Josephus [Ant. XX, 10, 1] counts 28 high-priests in 107 years, an average of 3.8 years for a function that should have been for life!)
2. THE ATROCITY DETERMINED
Mat. 26:4 and they took counsel together that they might take Jesus by subtlety, and kill him. All their sectarian differences and private animosities are sublimated by their shared, intense bitterness that goads them to recognize and destroy their common enemy. What recent events demanded this urgent plotting? Had not Jesus encountered opposition from these same leaders before? Why so brutal and why now?
1.
They were genuinely alarmed at their losses sustained after Jesus raised Lazarus (Joh. 12:10 f., Joh. 12:19).
2.
They were envious of His wide popular acceptance witnessed in His Messianic Entry into Jerusalem (Mat. 21:1-11; esp. Luk. 19:39 f.; Joh. 12:19).
3.
The priesthood was especially stung by His furious denunciations of their Temple monopoly (Mat. 21:12-17).
4.
They launched futile attacks against Him only to find themselves publicly humiliated, exposed as incompetents and unable to defend themselves against His incisive brilliance and devastating accusations (Mat. 21:23 to Mat. 22:46).
5.
They stood defenseless before His scathing expose of their hypocrisy (Mat. 23:1-39).
6.
Perhaps their greatest, most fundamental motivation is their unwillingness to repent. Rather than turn to Him, they turn on Him. Resentment, not repentance, is their reaction.
This assembly is not gathered to decide what should be done about Jesus, because this is already a foregone conclusion. Rather, their unscrupulous pondering is to determine how (t ps, Luk. 22:2) He could be eliminated most certainly and quietly. Jesus judicial murder is premeditated.
They determine to act by subtlety (en dlo). This contrasts with the public police arrest they had attempted earlier without success (Joh. 7:32; Joh. 7:45 ff.). Because subtlety has the flavor of deceit, cunning and treachery, it suggests that the leaders of the nation deliberately abandoned all conscience to seek out unashamedly deceitful means to trap Jesus. But this expression may not at all represent what those rulers thought they were doing. Rather, they were seeking some stratagem, some cunning plan, to arrest Jesus which would not compromise their public image or cripple their authority. From their point of view, they were working on strategy. They probably argued, This must be done discretely. Jesus later exposed their underhandedness to their face (Luk. 22:52 f.; Joh. 18:20 ff.).
3. THE ATTACK DELAYED
Mat. 26:5 But they said, Not during the feast, lest a tumult arise among the people. But they said (legon d, better: they kept saying) graphically pictures a nervousness that firmly insisted on postponement. This verb stands out in elegant contrast to Jesus prophecy (Mat. 26:2). All urgency implied in their dedication and determination to destroy the Nazarene, must be subordinated to this prime consideration.
Not during the feast means not during the seven-day festival of Unleavened Bread that began with the Passover proper but continued another week. Originally two separate feasts, these naturally came to be treated as one, since anyone who came for the one must remain for the other. The celebration of national liberation from bondage naturally lent itself to stirring the patriotic spirit and potentially set the stage for nationalistic uprisings. That Jesus was Galilean, believed to be the long-awaited Messiah by those who came from Galilee, the hot-bed of liberationist terrorism, was reason enough for the authorities to conclude to wait another ten days before acting. That the feast involved three days of solemn rest would not have stopped them, only calculating prudence.
Lest a tumult arise among the people. Their determination to postpone all action is based on several considerations:
1.
Their chief danger does not lie with Jesus Himself. Apparently, something in His demeanor convinces them that He would not utilize His miraculous power in self-defense. Otherwise, would they have dared strike out at the unpredictable, awesome supernatural might He could bring to bear?
2.
His unjustified popularity with the crowds constituted their principle preoccupation, because, during a feast attended by thousands of Jews from all over the world (cf. Act. 2:5-11), He would be surrounded by sympathetic Galilean supporters who hailed Him as their Messiah (Luk. 21:37 f.). Should the rulers make their move publicly, they risked open insurrection, if not civil war.
3.
Consequently, the Jewish rulers had no doubt that an untimely insurrection would try the patience of the Roman authorities whose decisive reaction would reduce still further the already painfully minimal authority of the Sanhedrin (cf. Joh. 11:48). In this tension we hear the cunning voice of Caiaphas repeatedly cautioning, lest his own careful diplomacy, that walked a long political tight-rope between Jewish loyalties and cooperation with Rome which gave him his high-priesthood, be wrecked by avoidable civil disorder and rioting.
4.
The only factor that was not a consideration for their postponement was the high holiness of the feast. Had they thought that they could murder an innocent Man during the feast, nothing would have hindered them from so desecrating it, if they could but achieve their unholy purpose. They only fear that an insurgent, enraged populace would impede the plot. These rulers knew their people and had good reason for caution, because of all the tumults and seditious precedents they could have cited. (Cf. Josephus, Ant. XX, 5, 3 = Wars II, 12, 1.4; the Passover tragedy under Archelaus, Ant. XVIII, 9, 3; 10, 2.9.)
But this careful deliberation was to come to nothing because of the unsuspected presence of a traitor in Jesus own following. Rather than follow their own carefully chosen counsel of caution, their burning desire for vengeance overpowered their reason. The stupidity of Satan defeated him: too quickly he moved his pawn, Judas, into conjunction with the religious and political hierarchy, forcing him to sacrifice caution for temporary advantage and risk long-term failure. Notwithstanding Caiaphas worries and the councils precautions, they were all forced to deal with Jesus publicly at the feast. These high councilors are an integral part of a higher plan of which they have no knowledge. Earlier, when they wanted to capture Jesus, He could not be touched. Now when they are unwilling to do it, because of personal considerations, He decided it against their willand won. Further, despite the fact that they were forced to kill Jesus during the Passover, no one rioted. Literally everyone miscalculated Jesus voluntary submission to death. This gauged just how seriously so many misunderstood the will of God, and how truly Jesus comprehended and obeyed it.
FACT QUESTIONS
1.
On what day did the authorities assemble to plot Jesus judicial murder?
2.
Explain the various names used for the Jewish national feast: why do Mark and Luke call it the Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread?
3.
Is this plotting by the authorities the first of its kind, or had they done this before? If so, when?
4.
List the Jewish national leaders that formed this consultation against Jesus. Explain the historic political or religious position of each group, showing their partys interest in silencing Jesus.
5.
Where did this meeting occur? Who presided over the meeting?
6.
Explain the authorities fear of an uproar if Jesus were to be arrested during the feast.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(3) Then assembled together.We learn from Joh. 11:49-50. that the plan, as far as Caiaphas was concerned, had been formed before, immediately after the raising of Lazarus. What had happened sincethe kingly entry, the expulsion of the money-changers, the way in which our Lord had baffled their attempt to entrap Him in His speechwould all work as so many motives to immediate action. The meeting now assembled may have been either a formal session of the Sanhedrin, or an informal conference of its chief members prior to the regular meeting. The former seems, on the whole, the more probable. The chief priests were the heads of the twenty-four courses; the elders of the people were the representativeshow elected or selected we do not knowof the citizens of Jerusalem. St. Mark and St. Luke name scribes instead of elders. These two bodies may have been identical, but more probably the scribes of the Council represented the whole class of interpreters of the Law, who bore that name in its wider sense.
The high priest, who was called Caiaphas.The name was a distinctive one added to his proper name of Joseph. Of his previous history we know that he had married the daughter of Annas, who had filled the office of high priest before him (Joh. 18:13), and who still occupied, possibly as Nasi or President, an influential position in the Council and retained his titular pre-eminence. (See Note on Luk. 3:2.) He had been high priest from the commencement of our Lords ministry, and had, therefore, watched His ministry in Jerusalem with a jealous fear. We may probably trace his influence in the mission of the scribes from Jerusalem, whom we have seen as opponents of that ministry in Galilee (Mar. 3:22; Luk. 5:17). The meeting in his house implied a coalition of parties commonly opposed, for Caiaphas and his personal adherents were Sadducees (Act. 5:17), and as such, courted the favour of their Roman rulers (Joh. 11:48), while the scribes were, for the most part, Pharisees, and assertors of national independence.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
3. Then assembled The evangelist suddenly changes the scene. While Jesus is innocently, with his disciples, predicting his own death, a dark band of conspirators are assembling to make his prediction true.
Assembled chief priests scribes elders The three classes of men here mentioned made up the Sanhedrim, or great council of seventy, the supreme legislature, especially in ecclesiastical matters, of the Jewish nation. The chief priests were, (in addition to the high priest,) the ex-high priests, the heads of the priestly courses, and eminent men of the priestly order. The elders were laymen of age, wisdom, and ability. The scribes were the learned class, whether of Levitical descent or otherwise. How the members of the Sanhedrim were elected is not certain. Of this body the high priest was the usual summoner and president. At his right hand sat the vice-president; at his left the hakim, or counsellor, who gave legal opinions. From these the members sat extending in a semicircle, around the council-room. From the heat of the climate, this council often held its sessions very early in the morning, as in the case of our Saviour’s arraignment. The Sanhedrim’s session-room was at the hall Gazith, at the southeast corner of the Court of Israel. See Plan of Temple.
High priest The high priest was at the head of the Jewish sacerdotal system, the sacred representative of the nation. Aaron, brother of Moses, was first consecrated high priest, and the orifice remained in his family for some fifteen hundred years. To him belonged the most solemn of the sacred rites, and the decision of difficulties in religious matters. The high priest was often judge in general matters and supreme magistrate of the nation. When invested with the ephod and the urim and thummim, he became the medium of prophetic responses.
The exterior vestments of the high priest were his tunic or gown, richly embroidered, extending to his feet. Next the robe of the ephod, which was a garment put on by an opening at the top, and hung down part of the way to the feet, having suspended on its lower border a row of alternate bells and pomegranates. Over this the ephod, consisting of two richly adorned oblong pieces of cloth, hanging so as to cover the breast and the back, and fastened at the top by shoulder-pieces, gemmed with an onyx; around these was a broad girdle of fine linen, purple, blue, and scarlet. On his head was a turban or mitre, with an inscription on the forehead: “Holiness to the Lord.” The breastplate rested upon the ephod, and was studded with four rows of precious stones, three in a row, bearing the names of the twelve tribes. To these were originally added the urim and thummim, in regard to the form of which scholars differ, while they agree that it was a divine oracle by which God made revelation through the high priest.
Until the time of Herod this dignity descended with due regularity in the Aaronic line; but the Herodian and Roman rulers made changes at will, and appointed a new high priest so frequently that the office became almost annual, and a number of ex-high priests were living. These formed a part of the chief priests mentioned in this verse.
Caiaphas Joseph Caiaphas succeeded Simon son of Canith as high priest about the year 27, in the reign of the emperor Tiberius. His wife was daughter of Annas, who had formerly been high priest, and was still highly revered by the Jews, and before whom, according to John, Jesus was first brought. Caiaphas was deposed in the year 38, after which nothing is known of his history.
Palace of the high priest The word , here rendered palace, signifies more properly the court, or square yard, enclosed in the centre of the building, and under the open sky. The meaning was, however, extended sometimes so as to include, or at any rate imply, the entire building or mass of buildings.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Then were gathered together the chief priests, and the elders of the people, to the court/palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas,’
This gathering took place in the palace of the High Priest, which would be built around a central courtyard. It is possible that they gathered in the courtyard around which the palace was built before proceeding to a room overlooking the court, or alternatively that they gathered in a room which could be seen as a part of the courtyard, because it opened out onto it. Or the word can be seen as applying to the palace which was built around the court, and centred on it. The gathering was composed of Chief Priests and Elders. The Chief Priests were the leading authorities of the Temple and included the High Priest, the Temple Treasurer, the Leaders of Priestly Courses, the Captain of the Temple, and so on. All were priests in authority. The Elders would be those members of the lay aristocracy, including some Scribes, especially Sadducean Scribes, who were hand in glove with the Chief Priests. These were all ‘rulers of the people’, although the official Sanhedrin would also additionally include some Scribes of the Pharisees and other lay members, who had seemingly not been invited. Those gathered here were the ones called in because of their united agreement, and because the High Priest knew that they would be in sympathy with him. Jesus had offended these men by His condemnations of the Temple and its trafficking and by His whole attitude towards them. They would feel that what He taught demeaned them in the people’s eyes. We note that the Scribes of the Pharisees, and the Pharisees as such, were not heavily involved at this stage, although some of the above might have been Pharisees. This gathering was a matter of political expediency, for these were the men who more directly ran the country (under the Romans) and were concerned constantly to appease the Roman government, even though not being on the best of terms with the governor. They constantly made concessions in order to survive. And they were afraid that Jesus’ activities could only bring trouble on them. Their aim above all things was to maintain the status quo, which guarded their own wealth, and their concern was probably mainly political and financial rather than religious, although in Judaism such attitudes were all very closely combined. We can see from their attitude why Jesus had declared that the Temple had to be destroyed, for that was their power base.
We learn here for the first time in Matthew that the official High Priest at the time was Caiaphas. He would be the chairman of the Sanhedrin and politically very influential. His father-in-law Annas was also seen as High Priest by the Jews. He had been deposed by the Romans. The Jews, however, considered that the High Priesthood was for life. Thus they now saw themselves as having at least two High Priests (see Luk 3:2), and paid Annas great honour. (Once a man was High Priest, and had officiated as such on the Day of Atonement, he was High Priest for life).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Members of the Sanhedrin Meet In Order To Plot Jesus’ death (26:3-5).
Matthew now passes quickly from Jesus confident declaration concerning His ‘delivering up’ to the to-ing and fro-ing of the Jewish leaders. It is clear that they did not share His certainty. They were not sure quite what to do. All they did know was that somehow they must get rid of Him.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Testimony of Jesus Christ Mat 26:3-30 records the predictions of Jesus Christ regarding His impending death and betrayal. This passage of Scripture reflects the testimony of Jesus Christ regarding the Passion.
Literary Evidence of the Theme Mat 26:3-30 contains literary evidence of the theme of betrayal. The Greek word is used thirty-one times throughout the Gospel of Matthew. Of the fifteen times this word refers directly to the betrayal of Judas Iscariot, eleven of these uses are concentrated within Mat 26:1 to Mat 27:10. The other five uses are found in Mat 10:4; Mat 17:22; Mat 20:18-19 as predictions of His future betrayal.
Literary Evidence of the Structure Mat 26:3-30 contains literary evidence of its structure in the form of contrasting plots placed alongside one another. For example, the assembly of the Jews to plot the death of Jesus (Mat 26:3-5) is immediately followed by Jesus assembling in a leper’s house and predicting His death (Mat 26:6-13). These two passages of Scripture contrast divine providence and man’s free will at work together in God’s divine plan of redemption. Also, Judas Iscariot’s visit to the chief priests to betrayal Jesus (Mat 26:14-16) is immediately followed by Jesus gathering with His disciples to observe the Passover meal in which He reveals Judas as the betrayer (Mat 26:17-30). Again, a contrast is made between divine providence and man’s free will. Both of these contrasting passages open with the Greek word (Mat 26:3; Mat 26:14).
Here is a proposed outline:
1. The Predictions of Jesus’ Death Mat 26:3-13
2. The Predictions of Jesus’ Betrayal Mat 26:14-30
Mat 26:3-13 The Predictions of Jesus’ Death In Mat 26:3-13 the evangelist places two events two together in order to contrast the roles of man and God leading up to the crucifixion of Christ Jesus. While the Jewish leaders are secretly plotting to kill Jesus (Mat 26:3-5), He is telling His disciples of His impending death (Mat 26:6-13). Both scenes work together to introduce the events of the impending Passion, reflecting the dual roles of divine providence and man’s free will in God’s plan of redemption.
Here is a proposed outline:
1. The Jews Plot to Kill Jesus Mat 26:3-5
2. Jesus Is Anointed at Bethany Mat 26:6-13
Mat 26:3-5 The Jews Plot to Kill Jesus ( Mar 14:1-2 , Luk 22:1-2 , Joh 11:45-53 ) Mat 26:3-5 tells us about the plot by the Jewish leaders to kill Jesus. This story will stand in direct contrast to the following passage in which Jesus meets with His disciples in the house of Simon the leper and predicts His own death, an event that was currently being plotted by the Jews (Mat 26:6-13).
Of the parallel passages to Mat 26:3-5 in the Gospels, John’s account is the lengthiest of this event, perhaps because he places more emphasis upon Jesus being rejected by the Jews in his Gospel.
Man Plan His Steps, But God Controls the Outcome of Redemptive History In Mat 26:3-5 the Jewish leaders were determined to control the outcome of the death of the Son of God. The Jewish people had just honored Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem by crying “Hosanna to the Son of David” (Mat 21:8-9) The crowds were willing to accept Him as their new king. Although the Jewish leaders wanted to kill Jesus quietly without the notice of the people, they had not yet factored in the betrayal of Judas Iscariot, which Matthew adds to the plot in Mat 26:14-16. When Judas presented himself to the Jewish leaders, they were subject to the time of this betrayal, which took place during the festive days in Jerusalem. It was necessary that prophecy by fulfilled and that the Passover Lamb of God be sacrificed on the Day of Atonement. While the Jewish leaders believed they were organizing this most wicked scheme of all humanity, God was taking control of its outcome for redemptive reasons according to Pro 16:9, “A man’s heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps,” and Pro 19:21, “There are many devices in a man’s heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand,” and Psa 33:10-11, “The LORD bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought: he maketh the devices of the people of none effect. The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.”
Mat 26:3 Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas,
Mat 26:3
Mat 26:4 And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him.
Mat 26:4
Mat 26:5 But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people.
Mat 26:5
[663] John Gill, Matthew, in John Gill’s Expositor, in e-Sword, v. 7.7.7 [CD-ROM] (Franklin, Tennessee: e-Sword, 2000-2005), comments on Matthew 26:5.
Jesus Christ was crucified on the Day of Atonement in fulfillment of divine prophecy. The outcome of this event was beyond the control of the Jews although the Jews felt they were determining their own destiny as a people.
Mat 26:6-13 Jesus Is Anointed at Bethany ( Mar 14:3-9 , Joh 12:1-8 ) Mat 26:6-13 records the account of the woman who anointed Jesus’ feet with spikenard ointment and wiped His feet with her hair. John’s Gospel tells us that the woman’s name was Mary. While the Jewish leaders meet in the glorious palace of the high priest (Mat 26:3-5), which should have been a place of righteous judgment, Jesus and His disciples gather in the house of Simon the leper, who is considered an outcast by society.
Mat 26:6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,
Mat 26:6
Mat 26:7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.
Mat 26:7
[664] R. F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, R. K. Harrison, and Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), “Alabaster.”
[665] Regarding the storage of perfumes, Pliny writes, “Unguents keep best in boxes of alabasterunguents, too, improve with age; but the sun is apt to spoil them, for which reason they are usually stowed away in a shady place in vessels of lead” ( Natural History 13.3) Regarding the value of perfumes, Pliny writes, “These perfumes form the objects of a luxury which may be looked upon as being the most superfluous of any” ( Natural History 13.4) Regarding the sprinkling of the feet, Pliny writes, “We have known the very soles even of the feet to be sprinkled with perfumes; a refinement which was taught, it is said, by M. Otho to the Emperor Nero.” ( Natural History 13.4) Pliny also writes, “This stone is called ‘alabastrites’ by some, and is hollowed out into vessels for holding unguents, it having the reputation of preserving them from corruption better than anything else.” ( Natural History 36.8) See Pliny, The Natural History of Pliny, vol. 3, trans. John Bostock and H. T. Riley, in Bohn’s Classical Library, ed. Henry G. Bohn (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1855), 166-167; Pliny, The Natural History of Pliny, vol. 6, trans. John Bostock and H. T. Riley, in Bohn’s Classical Library, ed. Henry G. Bohn (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1857), 329-330.
[666] Aelian writes, “On a time Venus came to him, desiring to pass over: he received her courteously, not knowing who she was, and with much care conveyed her whither she desired; for which the Goddess gave him an Alabaster Box of Ointment, which Phaon using, became the most beautiful of men, and the Wives of the Mitylenans fell in love with him.” ( Various History 12.18) See Thomas Stanley, trans., Claudius Aelianus His Various History (London: Thomas Dring, 1665, Thomas Basset, 1670, 1677) 212-257.
Mat 26:7 Comments – John records the story of Mary of Bethany anointing the feet of Jesus with costly perfume and wiping them with her hair (Joh 12:3). Luke records a similar incident when a sinful woman washed the feet of Jesus with her tears and wiped them with her hair, then anointed his feet with perfume (Luk 7:37-38). Matthew and Mark record the incident of a woman pouring perfume on Jesus’ head (Mat 26:7, Mar 14:3).
Joh 12:3, “Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.”
Luk 7:37-38, “And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.”
Mar 14:3, “And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.”
Richard Trench reflects a popular view that these stories record variations of the same event. [667] This view has its origin in the hermeneutical principle of approaching the four Gospels as a collection of primarily the same events, but from different perspectives by their respective authors. However, there is no justification in assuming that these four accounts are the same event. I approach the four Gospels with the principle that each Evangelist offers a testimony of Jesus as the Son of God with different emphasis and each one chose events as their narrative material by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that fit their theme. For example, Jesus Christ visited many synagogues on the Sabbath and may have read from the book of Isaiah on numerous occasions, with an example recorded in Luk 4:14-30. Jesus could have preached the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) a number of times, as recorded in the Sermon on the Plain (Luk 6:17-49). For example, today many travelling ministers of the Gospel in the field ministry repeat their sermons as they travel to various churches. In addition, Jesus may have cleansed the Temple on at least two occasions (Mat 21:12-17, Joh 2:12-22).
[667] Richard Trench says, “It may be taken as agreed on by all that the two earlier Evangelists and the last, in their several records of the anointing of Christ by a woman, refer to one and the same event (Matt. xxvi. 7; Markxiv. 3; John xii. 8).” See Richard Chenevix Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord (London: Kegan Paul, 1906), 297.
Mat 26:12 Comments – Since Jesus’ body never received an anointing for burial, a pre-ceremonial anointing was given. The nature of His death did not allow the customary washing and anointing of the body in preparation for burial. It was not until the third day that some of the women came to the tomb for the purpose of preparing the body properly for burial (Luk 24:1).
Luk 24:1, “Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.”
This is the fifth mention of Jesus’ death. Verse 2 was the fourth mention.
Mat 26:13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.
Mat 26:13
Mat 26:14-30 The Predictions of Jesus’ Betrayal – In Mat 26:14-30 the evangelist places two events two together in order to contrast the roles of man and God leading up to the crucifixion of Christ Jesus. While Judas Iscariot is plotting the betrayal of Jesus (Mat 26:14-16), He is telling His disciples who is about to betray Him (Mat 26:17-30). Both scenes work together to introduce the events of the impending Passion, reflecting the dual roles of divine providence and man’s free will in God’s plan of redemption.
Here is a proposed outline:
1. Judas Seeks to Betray Jesus Mat 26:14-16
2. Jesus Predicts His Betrayal Mat 26:17-30
Mat 26:14-16 Judas Seeks to Betray Jesus ( Mar 14:10-11 , Luk 22:3-6 ) Mat 26:14-16 records the account of how Judas Iscariot went to the chief priests and betrayed Jesus Christ for thirty pieces of silver. Within the development of the narrative plot of Matthew’s epilogue, this passage reaches back to Mat 26:3-5 for its context. However, this story is placed prior to Jesus’ prediction of His betrayal by Judas in Mat 26:17-25.
Mat 26:14 Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests,
Mat 26:15 Mat 26:15
Exo 21:32, “If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.”
Lev 27:1-8 also gives similar values upon those who make a vow before God. That is, when someone made a vow to God, the priests were to set a value on the offering that the person is to bring before God to confirm the vow.
This event was the fulfilling of the prophecy in the book of Zec 11:12-13, according to Mat 27:9-10.
Zec 11:12-13, “And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.”
Mat 27:9-10, “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; And gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me.”
Mat 26:14-15 Comments Judah Sold Joseph – Note that it was Judah’s idea to sell Joseph, his brother in the book of Genesis.
Gen 37:26-27, “And Judah said unto his brethren, What profit is it if we slay our brother, and conceal his blood? Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmeelites, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother and our flesh. And his brethren were content.”
The name “Judas” is the New Testament word for the Hebrew name “Judah.” Also, it was Judas that sold Jesus for thirty pieces of silver.
Mat 26:16 And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.
Mat 26:16
Mat 26:17-30 Jesus Predicts His Betrayal ( Mar 14:12-26 , Luk 22:7-50 ; Luk 22:21-23 , Joh 13:21-30 , 1Co 11:23-25 ) Mat 26:17-30 records the preparation of the Passover meal (Mat 26:17-19) and the prediction of Jesus’ betrayal during the eating of the meal (Mat 26:20-30). The Gospels of Matthew and Mark follow each other closely with their text, placing an emphasis in this passage of Scripture upon the betrayal of Jesus. This passage of Scripture stands in contrast to the preceding event of Judas Iscariot making an agreement with the Jewish leaders to betray his Master. [668] As Judas Iscariot makes a covenant with the Jewish leaders, Jesus demonstrates the blood of the new covenant in the Passover meal.
[668] Davies and Allison note the literary element of contrast between 26:14-16 and 26:17-19, saying, “The disciples’ question offers a striking contrast with the question in v. 15: Judas asks how he can betray Jesus; the others ask how they can serve him.” See W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew: Commentary on Matthew XIX-XXVIII, vol. 3, in The International Critical Commentary (London: T. & T. Clark Ltd, 2004), 456-457.
The Institution of the Lord’s Supper Mat 26:26-30 records the institution of the Lord’s Supper as Jesus explained the significance of the bread and the wine. The Jews understood that the Passover Meal was to consist of the Passover lamb and unleavened bread. They understood that the lamb and its shed blood served as an atonement for the sins of the people. Therefore, when Jesus presented the cup and the bread as His blood and body, they could not help but relate this symbolism to the Passover lamb.
Mat 26:17 Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?
Mat 26:17
Lev 23:5-6, “In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD’S passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.”
Although these were two festivals under the Law, they eventually blended into a single festive occasion in Jerusalem. [669] For example, Philo the Jew writes:
[669] C. D. Yonge, The Works of Philo Judaeus, the Contemporary of Josephus, vol. 3 (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1855), 284.
“And there is another festival combined with the feast of the passover, having a use of food different from the usual one, and not customary; the use, namely, of unleavened bread, from which it derives its name.” ( The Special Laws 2.150)
By the first century, the Jews referred to these two events singularly as either the Passover of Feast of Unleavened Bread. [670] Robert Gundry notes that Josephus refers to Nisan 14 th as the first day of the festival on numerous occasions, as well as referring to this eight-day festive occasion as the Feast of Unleavened Bread. [671] For example, Josephus writes:
[670] R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, in New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007), 981.
[671] Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook of a Mixed Church Under Persecution, 2 nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 524.
“Whence it is that, in memory of the want we were then in, we keep a feast for eight days, which is called the feast of unleavened bread.” ( Antiquities 2.15.1)
“As the Jews were celebrating the feast of unleavened bread, which we call the Passover, it was customary for the priests to open the temple gates just after midnight.” ( Antiquities 18.2.2)
“As now the war abroad ceased for a while, the sedition within was revived; and on the feast of unleavened bread, which was come, it being the fourteenth day of the month Xanthicus [Nisan], when it is believed the Jews were first freed from the Egyptian.” ( Wars 5.3.1)
Mat 26:18 “My time is as hand” – Comments This is His hour of crucifixion.
Mat 26:19 Comments Some scholars draw a parallel between Mat 26:19 and Exo 12:28. In both passages Moses and Jesus send the people to prepare for the Passover. The people did as they were commended and departed to prepare the Passover meal.
Exo 12:28, “And the children of Israel went away, and did as the LORD had commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they.”
Mat 26:23 Comments This Passover meal was communal in nature in that all of the disciples share the food in the same dish.
Mat 26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.
Mat 26:24
“it had been good for that man if he had not been born” King Solomon makes a similar statement in Ecc 4:3, “Yea, better is he than both they, which hath not yet been, who hath not seen the evil work that is done under the sun.”
Mat 26:25 Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.
Mat 26:26 Mat 26:26
Mat 14:19, “And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.”
Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Mat 26:28 Mat 26:28
Jer 31:31, “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:”
These words of the new covenant are reminiscent of the words of Moses when he instituted the old covenant.
Exo 24:8, “And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.”
Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.
Mat 26:29
Mat 26:30 And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.
Mat 26:30
Mat 26:30 Comments In Mat 26:30 Jesus and His disciples were following the ancient Jewish tradition of reciting or singing the “Hallel,” consisting of six psalms (113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118). [672] The title of this group of psalms is taken from the opening word of Psalms 113, which is “Hallelujah” (Praise the Lord). The Jews understood that these psalms mentioned a number of events related to the Exodus of the children of Israel and their journey in the wilderness.
[672] See the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Pesachim 95a-b, 118a-b and the Mishna, Tractate Pesachim 10.6-7. In addition, Philo the Jew mentions the Jewish traditiuon of songs during the Passover meal, saying, “And each house is at that time invested with the character and dignity of a temple, the victim being sacrificed so as to make a suitable feast for the man who has provided it and of those who are collected to share in the feast, being all duly purified with holy ablutions. And those who are to share in the feast come together not as they do to other entertainments, to gratify their bellies with wine and meat, but to fulfil their hereditary custom with prayer and songs of praise.” ( The Special Laws 2.148) See C. D. Yonge, trans., The Works of Philo Judaeus, The Contemporary of Josephus (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1855), 284.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The conspiracy:
v. 3. Then assembled together the chief priests and the scribes and the elders of the people unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas,
v. 4. and consulted that they might take Jesus by subtlety and kill Him.
v. 5. But they said, Not on the feast-day, lest there be an uproar among the people. Matthew purposely places the two events side by side: Jesus, out in Bethany, solemnly declaring that He is being delivered to be crucified; the chief priests together with the chief council of the Jews, the Sanhedrin, meeting, not in the usual place, which was in a hall called Gazith, or House of the Polished Stones, on the south side of the Temple-space, next to the Court of Israel, but in the open court in the center of the high priest’s palace, where there was less danger of eavesdroppers. Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Hannas, or Annas, the former high priest, held the office that year, Joh 11:49, according to the arrangement instituted by the Romans, by which the appointment was made by the year, instead of for life, as formerly. As they came together in a stealthy manner, so their discussions harmonized with their intentions, which were to take Jesus by cunning or craft, with the final object, as the evangelist bluntly puts it, not of convicting Him by due process of law, but of killing Him. Only one scruple they voiced, namely, that the actual arrest should not be done at the feast, especially not on the day of the Passover meal, lest an uproar or tumult of the people arise, that might rapidly assume such proportions as to be beyond the control of the authorities. It was all a matter of expediency, of policy, of politics, with them; they were a merciless band of murderers. It was very difficult to say which way the whim of the many thousands of pilgrims might sway them at the crucial moment, whether on the side of their religious leaders or on the side of the Prophet of Nazareth. Therefore crafty care was demanded.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mat 26:3. Who was called Caiaphas See Joh 11:49. Joseph Caiaphas was made high-priest by Valerius Gratus, as we learn from Josephus, Antiq. b. 18. 100: 3 and afterwards deposed by Vitellius, ch. 6. We may infer from Act 5:17 that Caiaphas was of the sect of the Sadducees.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 26:3-5 . ] i.e . at the time that Jesus was saying this to His disciples. Fatal coincidence.
.] It is usual to understand the palace of the high priest, in direct opposition to the use of [22] in the New Testament (not excluding Luk 11:21 ). We should rather interpret it of the court enclosed by the various buildings belonging to the house (see Winer, Realw . under the word Huser ; Friedlieb, Archol. d. Leidensgesch . p. 7 f.), such courts having been regularly used as meeting-places. Comp. Vulg. ( atrium ), Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, Maldonatus. This meeting is not to be regarded as one of the public sittings of the Sanhedrim (on the probable official meeting-place of this body at that time, the so-called taverns , see Wieseler, Beitr . p. 209 ff.), but as a private conference of its members.
. ] who bore the name of Caiaphas . Comp. Mat 2:23 . This was a surname ; the original name was Joseph (Joseph. Antt. xviii. 2. 2); but the surname having become his ordinary and official designation, it was used for the name itself: hence , not or . Caiaphas (either = , depressio , or , rock ) obtained his appointment through the procurator Valerius Gratus, and, after enjoying his dignity for seventeen years, was deposed by Vitellius, Joseph. Antt. xviii. 2. 2, 4. 3.
, ] they consulted together, in order that they , Joh 11:53 .
] namely: let us arrest him, and put him to death ! For the absolute , comp. on Gal 5:13 . The reference is to the entire period over which the feast extended , not to the place where it was celebrated (Wieseler, Chronol. Synops . p. 367). It is true no scruple was felt, especially in urgent and important cases (comp. on Act 12:3 f), about having executions (Sanhedr. f. 89. 1) during the feast days (although most probably never on the first of them, on which, according to Mischna Jom tob v. 2, the trial took place; comp. on Joh 18:28 , and see, above all, Bleek’s Beitr . p. 136 ff.), and that with a view to making the example more deterrent (Deu 17:13 ). But the members of the Sanhedrim dreaded an uprising among the numerous sympathizers with Jesus both within and outside the capital (a very natural apprehension, considering that this was just the season when so many strangers, and especially Galilaeans, were assembled in the city; comp. Joseph. Antt. xvii. 9. 3; Bell. i. 4. 3), though, by and by, they overcame this fear, and gladly availed themselves of the opportunity which Judas afforded them (Mat 26:14 ). “Sic consilium divinum successit,” Bengel. To regard as meaning: previous to the feast ! as though, during the feast itself, the execution were to be considered as already a thing of the past (Neander, p. 678; Hausrath), would be quite in keeping with John’s statement as to the day on which the crucifixion took place (comp. on Mar 14:2 ); but it would not suit the connection as found in Matthew and Mark, because, according to them, the consultation among the members of the Sanhedrim had taken place so very shortly before the Passover (Mat 26:2 ) that the greater part of the multitude, whose rising was apprehended, must have been present by that time.
[22] Of course is used as equivalent to (see, for example, the passages from Polyb. in Schweighuser’s Lex . p. 101), not only by later Greek writers (Athen. Deipn . iv. p. 189 D; Herodian, i. 13. 16, frequently in the Apocr.), but also by Homer (see Duncan, Lex ., ed. Rost, p. 181), Pindar, and the Tragedians, etc. Never, however, is it so used in the New Testament. Even in Joh 18:15 , . is undoubtedly the court of the house.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
“Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, (4) And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtlety, and kill him. (5) But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people.”
From what hath been observed before, in the introduction of this subject, in holding forth Christ, as the representative of his Church and people, we shall now enter upon it with a clearer apprehension, in beholding the chief priests here forming their council for killing Jesus. And although they had no consciousness, what instruments they were in the Lord’s hand, for the accomplishing the sacred purposes of his will; yet they were. (as Peter told some of them, after his soul was enlightened by the, coming of the Holy Ghost, on the day of Pentecost,) by wicked hands, doing all that they did, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God. Act 2:23 . See also to this purport, Act 13:27-28Act 13:27-28 .
Reader! it is very blessed to behold Christ thus representing: his redeemed as their head and husband; and the Chief Priests and Scribes, thus becoming God’s instruments, for the purpose of bringing Christ into the very situation, where our sins must have brought us, but for his interposition. His being made both. sin and a curse for us, became the only possible means, whereby we might be redeemed from both forever. We shall have the clearest views of these grand points, as we prosecute the subject, if so be, the Lord the Holy Ghost be our teacher! Matchless instructor! vouchsafe this blessing!
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
3 Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas,
Ver. 3. Then assembled together, &c. ] Here was met a whole council of caitiffs (wretches) to crucify Christ. General councils may err then in necessary and fundamental points: as the Council of Ariminum and Seleucia (held in two cities, because no one was able to contain them for multitude, yet) decreed for Arius against the deity of Christ. The truth of God may be locked up within the hearts of such a company, as in competition of suffrages cannot make a greater part in a general council.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
3 5. ] CONSPIRACY OF THE JEWISH AUTHORITIES. Mar 14:1 .Luk 22:2Luk 22:2 . This assembling has no connexion with what has just been related, but follows rather on the end of ch. 23.
. is in Jos. Antt. xviii. 2. 2, . Valerius Gratus, Procurator of Juda, had appointed him instead of Simon ben Kamith. He continued through the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate, and was displaced by the proconsul Vitellius, A.D. 37. See note on Luk 3:2 , and chronological table in Prolegg. to Acts, Vol. II.
. does not mean ‘surnamed,’ but (see Mat 26:14 ) implies that some name is to follow, which is more than, or different from, the real one of the person.
. . ] This expression must be taken as meaning the whole period of the feast the seven days. On the feast-day , i.e. the day on which the Passover was sacrificed (E. V.), they could not lay hold of and slay any one, as it was a day of sabbatical obligation ( Exo 12:16 ). See note on Mat 26:17 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 26:3 . , two days before Passover. points to a meeting of the Sanhedrim. denotes the meeting place, either the palace of the high priest in accordance with the use of in later Greek (Weiss), or the court around which the palatial buildings were ranged (Meyer) = atrium in Vulgate, followed by Calvin. In the latter case the meeting would be informal. In any case it was at the high priest’s quarters they met: whereupon Chrys. remarks: “See the inexpressible corruption of Jewish affairs. Having lawless proceedings on hand they come to the high priest seeking authority where they should encounter hindrance” (Hom. lxxix.). , Caiaphas, surname, Joseph his name, seventeen years high priest ( vide Joseph. Ant., 18, 2, 2; 4, 3).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 26:3-5
3Then the chief priests and the elders of the people were gathered together in the court of the high priest, named Caiaphas; 4and they plotted together to seize Jesus by stealth and kill Him. 5But they were saying, “Not during the festival, otherwise a riot might occur among the people.”
Mat 26:3 “the chief priests and the elders” This was the short designation for the Sanhedrin. See Special Topic at Mat 20:18.
“in the court of the high priest” This referred to the central courtyard of Caiaphas’and possibly Annas’mansion.
“Caiaphas” Caiaphas was the High Priest, appointed by Rome, in exchange for a price, from A.D. 18-36. He was the son-in-law of Annas, High Priest from A.D. 6-15. This powerful family was motivated more by politics and wealth than by spirituality. It is unfair to judge all Sadducees or, for that matter, the Sanhedrin, by them.
Mat 26:4 “they plotted together to seize Jesus by stealth and kill Him” They decided early in His ministry to kill Him, but they were seeking an opportunity when the common people were not present (cf. Mat 12:14; Mar 14:1; Luk 22:2; Joh 5:18; Joh 7:1; Joh 7:19; Joh 7:25; Joh 8:37; Joh 8:40; Joh 11:53). They were jealous of His popularity and fearful of His teachings and actions.
Mat 26:5 “during the festival” The Passover was combined with the Feast of the Unleavened Bread to form an eight day feast (cf. Exodus 12 and Josephus’Antiquities of the Jews 3.10.5).
“a riot might occur among the people” Many pilgrims from Galilee and the Diaspora were present in Jerusalem for observance of the Passover. The Passover was required for all male Jews of twenty years and above (cf. Lev 23:2; Lev 23:4; Lev 23:17; Lev 23:44; Num 29:39). Jerusalem swelled to three times its normal population during the three mandatory annual feasts. The Romans always brought in extra soldiers during the feast days (cf. Mat 27:24).
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
palace = court, with access from the street. Should he so rendered in verses: Mat 26:58, Mat 26:69. Mar 14:54, Mar 14:66; Mar 15:16. Luk 11:21; Luk 22:55. Joh 18:15, as it is in Rev 11:2. It is rendered “hall” in Mar 15:16. Luk 22:55.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
3-5.] CONSPIRACY OF THE JEWISH AUTHORITIES. Mar 14:1. Luk 22:2. This assembling has no connexion with what has just been related, but follows rather on the end of ch. 23.
. is in Jos. Antt. xviii. 2. 2, . Valerius Gratus, Procurator of Juda, had appointed him instead of Simon ben Kamith. He continued through the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate, and was displaced by the proconsul Vitellius, A.D. 37. See note on Luk 3:2, and chronological table in Prolegg. to Acts, Vol. II.
. does not mean surnamed, but (see Mat 26:14) implies that some name is to follow, which is more than, or different from, the real one of the person.
. .] This expression must be taken as meaning the whole period of the feast-the seven days. On the feast-day, i.e. the day on which the Passover was sacrificed (E. V.), they could not lay hold of and slay any one, as it was a day of sabbatical obligation (Exo 12:16). See note on Mat 26:17.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 26:3. , were gathered together) Thus also in Mat 26:57, and ch. Mat 27:1; Mat 27:17; Mat 27:27; Mat 27:62; cf. Luk 22:66; Mat 28:12; Act 4:5; Act 4:26-27.- , the chief priests) They took the principal part in that matter; they were supported, however, by the scribes, the lawyers, and the elders of the people, who formed the remainder of the Jewish council.- , who was called) St Matthew wrote for readers of times and places, in which the names of Caiaphas and Judas (see Mat 26:14) would not be known from any other source.[1110]
[1110] This remark holds good rather of the present Greek translation, subsequently written for more general circulation, than of the original Hebrew Gosp. of St Matthew, written especially for the Jews, to whom the names Caiaphas and Judas would be familiar.-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
assembled: Mat 21:45, Mat 21:46, Psa 2:1, Psa 2:2, Psa 56:6, Psa 64:4-6, Psa 94:20, Psa 94:21, Jer 11:19, Jer 18:18-20, Joh 11:47-53, Joh 11:57, Act 4:25-28
the palace: Mat 26:58, Jer 17:27, Mar 14:54
Caiaphas: This was Joseph, surnamed Caiaphas, who succeeded Simon son of Camith, in the high-priesthood, about ad 25. About two years after our Lord’s death, he was deposed by Vitellius governor of Syria; and unable to bear his disgrace, and perhaps the stings of conscience for the murder of Christ, he killed himself about ad 35. Joh 11:49, Joh 18:13, Joh 18:14, Joh 18:24, Act 4:5, Act 4:6
Reciprocal: Exo 3:16 – elders 2Ki 23:4 – priestss of the second order 1Ch 24:5 – the governors 2Ch 34:13 – scribes Psa 22:13 – gaped Psa 26:10 – In Psa 31:13 – while Psa 41:7 – against Psa 58:1 – O congregation Psa 62:4 – consult Psa 64:2 – secret Psa 64:5 – commune Psa 71:10 – take Psa 86:14 – assemblies Psa 119:95 – wicked Pro 1:11 – let us lurk Pro 24:2 – General Jer 11:9 – General Jer 19:1 – the ancients of the people Jer 26:8 – the priests Mat 2:4 – the chief Mat 2:7 – General Mat 21:15 – when Mat 21:38 – This Mat 27:1 – all Mat 28:12 – General Mar 11:18 – and Mar 14:53 – and with Luk 19:47 – the chief priests Luk 20:19 – the same Luk 22:2 – General Act 4:1 – the priests Act 4:27 – of a
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
26:3
Then assembled means a gathering of the members of the Sanhedrin, the highest court of the Jews in the time of Christ. The word is usually rendered “council” in the New Testament, but it is sometimes referred to as an assembly as it is in this verse. The word is from the Greek, SUNEDRION which Thayer defines, “Any assembly (especially of magistrates, judges, ambassadors), whether convened to deliberate or to pass judgment; in the Scriptures 1. any session of persons deliberating or adjudicating [judging]. 2. specifically, the Sanhedrin, the great council at Jerusalem.” He follows his definition with the following information. “Consisting of seventy-one members, viz., scribes and elders, prominent members of the high priestly families (hence called . . .), and the high-priest, the president of the body. The fullest periphrasis [wordy description] for Sanhedrin is found in Mat 26:3; Mar 14:43; Mar 14:53. The more important causes were brought before this tribunal, inasmuch as the Roman rulers of Judea had left to it the power of trying such cases, and also of pronouncing sentence of death, with the limitation that a capital sentence pronounced by the Sanhedrin was not valid unless it were confirmed by the Roman procurator [an agent]. The Jews trace the origin of the Sanhedrin to Num 11:16.” All of this information from Thayer-is important, and the reader should make a note of it for ready reference, for the subject will be mentioned several times in the New Testament study.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Of the present Authority of the Council, and of its Place.
Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas.
[Assembled together unto the palace of the high priest.] Those ominous prodigies are very memorable, which are related by the Talmudists to have happened forty years before the destruction of the Temple.
“A tradition. Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, the western candle” (that is, the middlemost in the holy candlestick) “was put out. And the crimson tongue” (that was fastened to the horns of the scapegoat, or the doors of the Temple) “kept its redness. And the lot of the Lord” (for the goat that was to be offered up on the day of Expiation) “came out on the left hand. And the gates of the Temple, which were shut over night, were found open in the morning. Rabban Jochanan Ben Zaccai said, ‘Therefore, O Temple, wherefore dost thou trouble us? We know thy fate; namely, that thou art to be destroyed: for it is said, Open, O Lebanon, thy gates, that the flame may consume thy cedars.’ ” “A tradition. Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, judgment in capital causes was taken away from Israel.” “Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, the council removed and sat in the sheds.”
With these two last traditions lies our present business. What the Jews said, Joh 18:31; It is not lawful for us to put any man to death; signifies the same thing with the tradition before us, “Judgments in capital causes are taken away from Israel.” When were they first taken away? “Forty years before the destruction of the Temple,” say the Talmudists: no doubt before the death of Christ; the words of the Jews imply so much. But how were they taken away? It is generally received by all that the Romans did so far divest the council of its authority, that it was not allowed by them to punish any with death; and this is gathered from those words of the Jews, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.”
But if this, indeed, be true, 1. What do then those words of our Saviour mean, they will deliver you up to the councils? 2. How did they put Stephen to death? 3. Why was Paul so much afraid to commit himself to the council, that he chose rather to appeal to Caesar?
The Talmudists excellently well clear the matter: “What signifieth that tradition (say they) of the removal of the council forty years before the ruin of the Temple? Rabh Isaac Bar Abdimi saith, ‘It signifieth thus much, that they did not judge of fines.’ ” And a little after; “But R. Nachman Bar Isaac saith, ‘Do not say that it did not judge of fines, but that it did not judge in capital causes.’ And the reason was this, because they saw murderers so much increase that they could not judge them. They said therefore, ‘It is fit that we should remove from place to place, that so we may avoid the guilt.’ ” That is, the number and boldness of thieves and murderers growing so great that, by reason thereof, the authority of the council grew weak, and neither could nor dared put them to death. “It is better (say they) for us to remove from hence, out of this chamber Gazith, where, by the quality of the place, we are obliged to judge them, than that, by sitting still here, and not judging them, we should render ourselves guilty.” Hence it is that neither in the highest nor in the inferior councils any one was punished with death. (“For they did not judge of capital matters in the inferior councils in any city, but only when the great council sat in the chamber Gazith,” saith the Gloss.) The authority of them was not taken away by the Romans, but rather relinquished by themselves. The slothfulness of the council destroyed its own authority. Hear it justly upbraided in this matter: “The council which puts but one to death in seven years is called Destruction. R. Lazar Ben Azariah said, ‘Which puts one to death in seventy years.’ R. Tarphon and R. Akiba said, ‘If we had been in the council’ (when it judged of capital matters), ‘there had none ever been put to death by it.’ R. Simeon Ben Gamaliel said, ‘These men have increased the number of murderers in Israel.’ ” Most certainly true, O Simeon! For by this means the power of the council came to be weakened in capital matters, because they, either by mere slothfulness, or by a foolish tenderness, or, as indeed the truth was, by a most fond estimation of an Israelite as an Israelite, they so far neglected to punish bloodshed and murder, and other crimes, till wickedness grew so untractable that the authority of the council trembled for fear of it, and dared not kill the killers. In this sense their saying must be understood, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death; their authority of judging not being taken from them by the Romans, but lost by themselves, and despised by their people.
Notwithstanding it was not so lost, but that sometimes they exercised it; namely, when they observed they might do it safely and without danger. “Dat veniam corvis,” etc. spares crows, but vexeth pigeons. Thieves, murderers, and wicked men armed with force, they dared not call into their judgment; they were afraid of so desperate a crew: but to judge, condemn, torture, and put to death poor men and Christians, from whom they feared no such danger, they dreaded it not, they did not avoid it. They had been ready enough at condemning our Saviour himself to death if they had not feared the people, and if Providence had not otherwise determined of his death.
We may also, by the way, add that also which follows after the place above cited, In the day of Simeon Ben Jochai, judgments of pecuniary matters were taken away from Israel. In the same tract this is said to have been in “the days of Simeon Ben Shetah,” long before Christ was born: but this is an error of the transcribers.
But now, if the Jewish council lost their power of judging in pecuniary causes by the same means as they lost it in capital, it must needs be that deceits, oppressions, and mutual injuries were grown so common and daring that they were let alone, as being above all punishment. The Babylonian Gemarists allege another reason; but whether it be only in favour of their nation, this is no fit place to examine.
That we may yet further confirm our opinion, that the authority of that council in capital matters was not taken away by the Romans, we will produce two stories, as clear examples of the thing we assert: one is this; “R. Lazar son of R. Zadok said, ‘When I was a little boy, sitting on my father’s shoulders, I saw a priest’s daughter that had played the harlot compassed round with fagots and burnt.’ ” The council no doubt judging and condemning her, and this after Judea had then groaned many years under the Roman yoke; for that same R. Lazar saw the destruction of the city.
The other you have in the same tract, where they are speaking of the manner of pumping out evidence against a heretic and seducer of the people: “They place (say they) two witnesses in ambush, in the inner part of the house, and him in the outward, with a candle burning by him that they may see and hear him. Thus they dealt with Ben Satda in Lydda. They placed two disciples of the wise in ambush for him, and they brought him before the council, and stoned him.” The Jews openly profess that this was done to him in the days of R. Akiba, long after the destruction of the city; and yet then, as you see, the council still retained its authority in judging of capital causes. They might do it for all the Romans, if they dared do it to the criminals.
But so much thus far concerning its authority: let us now speak of its present seat. “The council removed from the chamber Gazith to the sheds, from the sheds into Jerusalem, from Jerusalem to Jafne, from Jafne to Osha, from Osha to Shepharaama, from Shepharaama to Bethshaarim, from Bethshaarim to Tsippor, from Tsippor to Tiberias,” etc. We conjecture that the great bench was driven from its seat, the chamber Gazith, half a year, or thereabout, before the death of Christ; but whether they sat then in the sheds [a place in the Court of the Gentiles] or in the city, when they debated about the death of Christ, does not clearly appear, since no authors make mention how long it sat either here or there. Those things that are mentioned in Mat 27:4-6, seem to argue that they sat in the Temple; these before us, that they sat in the city. Perhaps in both places; for it was not unusual with them to return thither, as occasion served, from whence they came; only to the chamber Gazith they never went back. Whence the Gloss upon the place lately cited, “They sat in Jafne in the days of Rabban Jochanan; in Osha, in the days of Rabban Gamaliel; for they returned from Osha to Jafne,” etc. Thus the council, which was removed from Jerusalem to Jafne before the destruction of the city, returned thither at the feast, and sat as before. Hence Paul is brought before the council at Jerusalem when Jafne at that time was its proper seat. And hence Rabban Simeon, president of the council, was taken and killed in the siege of the city; and Rabban Jochanan his vice-president was very near it, both of them being drawn from Jafne to the city, with the rest of the bench, for observation of the Passover.
Whether the hall of the high priest were the ordinary receptacle for the council, or only in the present occasion, we do not here inquire. It is more material to inquire concerning the bench itself, and who sat president in judging. The president of the council at this time was Rabban Gamaliel, (Paul’s master,) and the vice-president, Rabban Simeon his son, or Rabban Jochanan Ben Zaccai (which we do not dispute now). Whence therefore had the chief priest, here and in other places, the precedence and the chief voice in judging? For thus in Stephen’s case the high priest is the chief of the inquisition, Act 7:1; also in Paul’s case, Act 23:2; see also Act 9:1. Had the priests a council and judgment seat of their own? Or might they in the chief council, when the president was absent, hear causes of life and death? To this long question, and that enough perplexed, we reply these few things:
I. We confess, indeed, that the priests had a bench and council of their own, yet denying that there was a double council, one for ecclesiastical, the other for civil affairs, as some would have it.
We meet often with mention of the chamber of the counsellors; next the court…Concerning which thus the Babylonian Joma; “The tradition of R. Juda. What, was it the chamber of? Was it not the chamber of the counsellors? At first it was called the chamber of the counsellors; but when the high priesthood came to be bought with money, and changed yearly as the king’s presidents are changed every year, from that time forward it was called the chamber of the presidents.”
Hear the Glosser on this place: “The high priests were wicked, and did not fulfil their whole year; and he that succeeded the other changed this building and adorned it, that it might be called by his own name.” Hear also the Gemara: “The first Temple stood four hundred and ten years, and there were not above eighteen priests under it. The second stood four hundred and twenty years, and there were more than three hundred under it. Take out forty years of Simeon the Just, eighty of Jochanan, ten of Ismael Ben Phabi, and eleven of Eleazar Ben Harsum, and there doth not remain one whole year to each of the rest.”
Behold the chamber of the counsellors; properly so called, because the priests did meet and sit there not to judge, but to consult; and that only of things belonging to the Temple! Here they consulted, and took care that all persons and things belonging and necessary to the worship of God should be in readiness; that the buildings of the Temple and the courts should be kept in repair; and that the public Liturgy should be duly performed: but in the meantime they wanted all power of judging and punishing; they had not authority to fine, scourge, or put to death, yea, and in a word, to exercise any judgment; for by their own examination and authority they could not admit a candidate into the priesthood, but he was admitted by the authority of the council: “In the chamber Gazith sat the council of Israel, and held the examinations of priests: whosoever was not found fit was sent away in black clothes, and a black veil; whosoever was found fit was clothed in white, and had a white veil, and entered and ministered with his brethren the priests.”
2. We meet also with mention of the council house of the priests. “The high priests made a decree; and did not permit an Israelite to carry the scapegoat into the wilderness.” But in the Gloss, The council of the priests did not permit this. “The council of the priests exacted for the portion of a virgin four hundred zuzees, and the wise men did not hinder it.”
First, This was that council of which we spoke before in the chamber of the counsellors. Secondly, That which was decreed by them concerning the carrying away of the scapegoat belonged merely to the service of the Temple, as being a caution about the right performance of the office in the day of atonement. Thirdly, and that about the portion of a virgin was nothing else but what any Israelite might do: and so the Gemarists confess; “If any noble family in Israel (say they) would do what the priests do, they may.” The priests set a price upon their virgins, and decreed by common consent, that not less than such a portion should be required for them; which was lawful for all the Israelites to do for their virgins if they pleased.
3. There is an example brought of “Tobias a physician, who saw the new moon at Jerusalem, he and his son, and his servant whom he had freed. The priests admitted him and his son for witnesses, his servant they rejected: but when they came before the bench; they admitted him and his servant, and rejected his son.” Observe, 1. That the council is here opposed to the priests. 2. That it belonged to the council to determine of the new moon, because on that depended the set times of the feasts: this is plain enough in the chapter cited. 3. That what the priests did was matter of examination only, not decree.
4. “The elders of the city (Deu 22:18) are the triumvirate bench”: ‘at the gate’ (Mat 26:24) means the bench of the chief priest. The matter there in debate is about a married woman, who is found by her husband to have lost her virginity, and is therefore to be put to death: Deu 22:13; etc. In that passage, among other things, you may find these words, Mat 26:18; “And the elders of that city shall lay hold of that man and scourge him.” The Gemarists take occasion from thence to define what the phrase there and in other places means, “The elders of the city”: and what is the meaning of the word gate; when it relates to the bench: “That (say they) signifies the triumvirate bench: this the bench or council of the high priest”: that is, unless I be very much mistaken, every council of twenty-three; which is clear enough both from the place mentioned and from reason itself:
1. The words of the place quoted are these: “R. Bon Bar Chaija inquired before R. Zeira, What if the father [of the virgin] should produce witnesses which invalidate the testimony of the husband’s witnesses? If the father’s witnesses are proved false, he must be whipped, and pay a hundred selaim in the triumvirate court; but the witnesses are to be stoned by the bench of the twenty-three, etc. R. Zeira thought that this was a double judgment: but R. Jeremias, in the name of R. Abhu, that it was but a single one: but the tradition contradicts R. Abhu; for To the elders of the city; Mat 26:5, is, To the triumvirate-bench; but at the gate; means the bench of the high priest.” It is plain, that the bench of the high priest is put in opposition to the triumvirate bench; and, by consequence, that it is either the chief council, or the council of the twenty-three, or some other council of the priests, distinct from all these. But it cannot be this third, because the place cited in the Talmudists, and the place in the law cited by the Talmudists, plainly speak of such a council, which had power of judging in capital causes. But they that suppose the ecclesiastical council among the Jews to have been distinct from the civil, scarce suppose that that council sat on capital causes, or passed sentence of death; much less is it to be thought that that council sat only on life and death; which certainly ought to be supposed from the place quoted, if the council of the high priest did strictly signify such a council of priests. Let us illustrate the Talmudical words with a paraphrase: R. Zeira thought, that that cause of a husband accusing his wife for the loss of her virginity belonged to the judgment of two benches; namely, of the triumvirate, which inflicted whipping and pecuniary mulcts; and of the ‘twenty-three,’ which adjudged to death; but Rabbi Abhu thinks it is to be referred to the judgment of one bench only. But you are mistaken, good Rabbi Abhu; and the very phrase made use of in this case refutes you; for the expression which is brought in, “To the elders of the city,” signifies the triumviral bench; and the phrase, “at the gate,” signifies the bench of twenty-three; for the chief council never at in the gate.
2. Now the council of twenty-three is called by the Talmudists the bench; or the council of the chief priest; alluding to the words of the lawgiver, Deu 17:9; where the word priests denotes the inferior councils, and judge the chief council.
II. In the chief council, the president sat in the highest seat, (being at this time, when Christ was under examination, Rabban Gamaliel, as we said); but the high priest excelled him in dignity everywhere: for the president of the council was chosen not so much for his quality, as for his learning and skill in traditions. He was (a phrase very much used by the author of Juchasin; applied to presidents), that is, keeper, father; and deliver of traditions; and he was chosen to this office, who was fittest for these things. Memorable is the story of Hillel’s coming to the presidentship, being preferred to the chair for this only thing, because he solved some doubts about the Passover, having learned it, as he saith himself, from Shemaiah and Abtalion. We will not think it much to transcribe the story: “The sons of Betira once forgot a tradition: for when the fourteenth day [on which the Passover was to be celebrated] fell out on the sabbath, they could not tell whether the Passover should take place of the sabbath or no. But they said, There is here a certain Babylonian, Hillel by name, who was brought up under Shemaiah and Abtalion; he can resolve us whether the Passover should take place of the sabbath or no. They sent therefore for him, and said to him, ‘Have you ever heard in your life, [that is, have you received any tradition,] whether, when the fourteenth day falls on the sabbath, the Passover should take place of the sabbath or no?’ He answered, ‘Have we but one Passover that takes place of the sabbath yearly? or are there not many Passovers that put by the sabbath yearly? namely, the continual sacrifice.’ He proved this by arguments a pari; from the equality of it, from the less to the greater, etc. But they did not admit of this from him, till he said, ‘May it thus and thus happen to me, if I did not hear this of Shemaiah and Abtalion.’ When they hear this they immediately submitted, and promoted him to the presidentship,” etc.
It belonged to the president chiefly to sum up the votes of the elders, to determine of a tradition, to preserve it, and transmit it to posterity; and, these things excepted, you will scarce observe any thing peculiar to him in judging which was not common to all the rest. Nothing therefore hindered but that the high priest and the other priests (while he excelled in quality, and they in number) might promote acts in the council above the rest, and pursue them with the greatest vigour; but especially when the business before them was about the sum of religion, as it was here, and in the examples alleged of Paul and Stephen. It was lawful for them, to whose office it peculiarly belonged to take care of scared things, to show more officious diligence in matters where these were concerned than other men, that they might provide for their fame among men, and the good of their places. The council, indeed, might consist of Israelites only, without either Levites or priests, in case such could not be found fit: “Thus it is commanded that in the great council there should be Levites and priests; but if such are not to be found, and the council consists of other Israelites only, it is lawful.” But such a scarcity of priests and Levites is only supposed, was never found; they were always a great part, if not the greatest, of the council. Rabban Jochanan Ben Zacchai, the priest, was either now vice-president of the council, or next to him. Priests were everywhere in such esteem with the people and with the council, and the dignity and veneration of the high priest was so great, that it is no wonder if you find him and them always the chief actors, and the principal part in that great assembly.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 26:3. Then gathered together. The uncertainty of His enemies, despite their hostile desire, is in contrast with His clear statement of what would come to pass. And the scribes is probably inserted from Mar 14:1; Luk 22:2, Yet the scribes formed a part of the Sanhedrin, which was probably assembled on this occasion.Unto the court. Not the palace, but the court it inclosed; comp. Mat 26:69; Luk 22:55.
Who was called Caiaphas. Josephus says he was originally called Joseph; the form here used may point to an additional name. John (Joh 11:51; Joh 18:13) says he was high-priest that same year, and son-in-law of Annas, who had also been high priest and was still called so (Act 4:5). The office was hereditary in the family of Aaron, and held for life; but Antiochus Epiphanes (B. C. 160) sold it to the highest bidders, and the Romans removed the incumbent at pleasure. Caiaphas was appointed by a Roman proconsul, his predecessor having been deposed, and was removed by a Roman emperor about six years after this time. Though of the party most hostile to the Romans, he and his associates raised the cry: We have no king but Cesar (Joh 19:15). The direct connection of this event is probably with the close of chap. 23
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Mat 26:3-5. The chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders They together constituted the sanhedrim, or great council, which had the supreme authority both in civil and ecclesiastical affairs. Assembled together unto the palace of the high-priest Namely, to deliberate how they might take Jesus, and put him to death; and consulted how they might take him by subtlety Privately, by some artifice, without giving an alarm to his friends. But they said, Not on the feast-day This was the result of human wisdom. But when Judas came, they changed their purpose. So the counsel of God took place, and the true paschal Lamb was offered up on the great day of the paschal solemnity.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Opposition to Jesus had been rising for some time (cf. Mat 12:14; Mat 21:45-46). Matthew’s mention of this plot’s advance toward its climax following Jesus’ prediction (Mat 26:2) has the effect of showing that His enemies’ conspiracy was ultimately a result of Jesus’ sovereign authority. He was not a powerless pawn under their control. He was really orchestrating His own passion.
The chief priests and elders represented the clerical and lay members of the Sanhedrin respectively (cf. Mat 21:23). At this time Rome appointed Israel’s high priest. Annas had been the high priest until A.D. 15 when the Romans deposed him and set up his son Eleazar in his place. Eleazar served for about two years (A.D. 16-17) until the Romans replaced him with Joseph Caiaphas in A.D. 18. Caiaphas held the office until his death in A.D. 36. [Note: Carson, "Matthew," p. 524. Compare the list of high priests from the accession of Herod the Great to the destruction of Jerusalem in Edersheim, The Life . . ., 2:702.] His unusually long tenure reflects his political skill and his acceptability to the Roman prefects.
The Old Testament regarded the high priest as high priest until his death. Consequently the Jews still viewed Annas as the high priest. This probably explains why Matthew and John spoke of Caiaphas as the high priest (Joh 11:49), but Luke said Annas was the high priest (Luk 3:2; Act 4:6). Annas was Caiaphas’ father-in-law and continued to exercise much power even after the Romans forced him out of office.
The Jewish leaders plotted to execute an innocent man in the very place where justice should have been strongest. The spiritual leader of Israel, the high priest, took a leading role in this travesty. Matthew’s original Jewish readers could not help marveling at this injustice. However the chief priests and elders were representatives of the people, so the people shared part of the blame. The leaders resorted to deceit because they could not trap Jesus with questions and turn the crowds against Him or take Him by force.
"In portraying the leaders throughout the passion, Matthew orchestrates numerous variations both on this theme of ’deception’ and on the related theme of ’self-deception.’" [Note: Kingsbury, Matthew as . . ., p. 123.]
Jerusalem’s population swelled with pilgrims during Passover season. Since Jesus had a large following, especially among the Galileans, the leaders realized that they had to plan to do away with Him secretly and carefully lest popular sentiment turn against them. They did not know how to solve their problem until Judas volunteered to hand Jesus over to them privately.