Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 26:65
Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
65. rent his clothes ] This act was enjoined by the Rabbinical rules. When the charge of blasphemy was proved “the judges standing on their feet rend their garments, and do not sew them up again.” Clothes in the plural, because according to Rabbinical directions all the under -garments were to be rent, “even if there were ten of them.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Then the high priest rent his clothes – The Jews were accustomed to rend their clothes as a token of grief. This was done often as a matter of form, and consisted in tearing a particular part of the garment reserved for this purpose. It was not lawful for the high priest to rip his clothes, Lev 10:6; Lev 21:10. By that was probably intended the robes of his priestly office. The garment which he now tore was probably his ordinary garment, or the garments which he wore as president of the Sanhedrin – not those in which he officiated as high priest in the things of religion. This was done on this occasion to denote the great grief of the high priest that so great a sin as blasphemy had been committed in his presence.
He hath spoken blasphemy – That is, he has, under oath, arrogated to himself what belongs to God. In asserting that he is the Son of God, and therefore equal in dignity with the Father, and that he would yet sit at his right hand, he has claimed what belongs to no man, and what is therefore an invasion of the divine prerogative. If he had not been the Messiah, the charge would have been true; but the question was whether he had not given evidence that he was the Messiah, and that therefore his claims were just. This point – the only proper point of inquiry – they never examined. They assumed that he was an impostor, and that point being assumed, everything like a pretension to being the Messiah was, in their view, proof that he deserved to die.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 65. The high priest rent his clothes] This rending of the high priest’s garments was expressly contrary to the law, Le 10:6; Le 21:10. But it was a common method of expressing violent grief, Ge 37:29; Ge 37:34; Job 1:20, and horror at what was deemed blasphemous or impious. 2Kg 18:37; 2Kg 19:1; Ac 14:14. All that heard a blasphemous speech were obliged to rend their clothes, and never to sew them up again. See Lightfoot.
He hath spoken blasphemy] Quesnel’s note on this is worthy of notice. “See here a false zeal, a mask of religion, and a passionate and seditious way of proceeding, tending only to incense and stir up others, all which are common to those who would oppress truth by cabal, and without proof. By crying out, ‘heresy, blasphemy, and faction,’ though contrary to all appearance, men fail not to stir up those in power, to gain the simple, to give some shadow of authority to the ill-disposed, to cast devout but ignorant people into scruples, and thereby to advance the mystery of iniquity, which is the mystery of all ages.” This was the very plan his Catholic brethren adopted in this country, in the reign of Queen Mary, called the bloody queen, because of the many murders of righteous men which she sanctioned at the mouth of her Catholic priesthood.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Mark hath much the same, Mar 14:63,64, only he saith, they all condemned him to be guilty of death. Luke saith, Luk 22:70,71, Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am? And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth. This rending of clothes was a thing very ordinary amongst the Jews, used by them in testimony of sorrow and of indignation. They used it in causes of great sorrow and mourning, even before the Israelites were formed into a nation; we find it practised by Reuben and Jacob, Gen 37:29,34, and by Jacobs sons, Gen 44:13; by Joshua and Caleb, Num 14:6, by Jephthah, Jdg 11:35. Indeed he that was high priest was forbidden to do it, Lev 21:10, and, in order to it, to come near a dead body, Lev 21:11; which command yet the Jews restrain to his priestly garments, but upon other occasions he might rend his clothes, as Caiaphas here did. It was usual in case of blasphemy, both to show their sorrow for it and detestation of it, 2Ki 19:1; Jer 36:24; Act 14:14. So as they convicted our Saviour, not upon oaths of witnesses, but upon words which they interpreted to be blasphemy. The high priest, being but the president in this council, asks the opinion of the rest of the council. They all condemn him as guilty of a capital crime, which is here phrased
guilty of death, that is, one who by their law ought to die.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
Then the high priest rent his clothes,…. Both his outer and inner garments. This he did, to show his zeal for the honour and glory of God, his grief and concern at the profanation of his holy name by a false oath, and his abhorrence of, and indignation at the blasphemy he supposed Christ to be guilty of, in asserting himself to be the Son of God. Some have thought, that Caiaphas in this action, transgressed the law, in Le 21:10, where it is said, that “the high priest–shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes”: and it is one of the Jews’ negative precepts i, that
“an high priest is prohibited, , “ever” to rend his garments:”
and that therefore being transported with passion at the greatness of the supposed crime, could not forbear expressing his detestation of it in this manner, though it was forbidden him: but it does not appear to have been unlawful: as for the law in Leviticus, it only regards the rending of garments at funerals, or in mourning for the dead, as the context shows; and so Jonathan ben Uzziel paraphrases the text, “nor rent his clothes”: “in the time of mourning”; and so the Jewish k interpreters, in general, expound it; and besides, this prohibition, according to them, only regards the manner of rending: their rule is this l;
“an high priest rends below, and a common person above:”
the sense of which, according to their commentators, is m,
“that if anyone dies for whom an high priest is obliged to rend his garments, he must rend below, at the extreme part of his garment, near his feet; and as for what is written, nor rend his clothes; the meaning is, he shall not rend as other men do, above, over against the breast, near the shoulder, as the rest of the people.”
Moreover, a priest might not go into the sanctuary, nor perform any part of service with his clothes rent; the canon runs thus n,
“the judgment, or the law of them that rend their garment, and of those that uncover the head, is one and the same, as it is said, Le 10:6, lo! if he is in service, and rends his garments, he is guilty of death by the hands of heaven, though his service is right, and not profaned.”
And indeed no man, whether a priest or an Israelite, might go into the temple with his clothes rent; and a priest might not rend his sacerdotal garments, on any account; yet such were not these that Caiaphas now had on; but in case of hearing blasphemy, everyone, be he what he would, was obliged to rend his garments o:
“Whosoever hears the cursing of the name (of God) is obliged to rend, even at the cursing of the surnames he is obliged to rend; and he that hears it from an Israelite, both he that hears, and he that hears from the mouth of him that hears, he is obliged to rend; but he that hears from the mouth of a Gentile, is not obliged to rend; and Eliakim and Shebna would not have rent, but because Rabshakeh was an apostate.”
So when witnesses expressed the blasphemy of such they testified against, the judges were obliged to rise up and rend their garments; concerning which, take the following rule p:
“a blasphemer is not guilty, unless he expresses the name (of God); says R. Joshua ben Korcha, all the day the witnesses are examined by the surnames; but when the cause is finished, they do not put to death because of the surnames, but they bring every man out, and ask the chief among them, and say to him, say expressly what thou hast heard, and he says it: then the judges stand upon their feet, , “and rend their garments”, and do not sow them up again; and then the second and the third say, I have heard the same as he.”
From all which it appears, that Caiaphas did what was the custom of the nation to do in such a case. The observation, that some learned men have made, that the high priest’s rending his garments, was, though without his intention, an emblem and presage, of the rending of the priesthood from him, and his brethren, and the entire change of it; as the abolition of the whole ceremonial law, was signified by the rending of the vail of the temple in twain; and as the removing of the kingdom from Saul, was represented by Samuel’s rending his mantle; and the revolt of the ten tribes to Jeroboam, by Abijah’s rending his garment into twelve pieces, and giving ten to him; would have had a much better foundation to be built on, were these clothes that Caiaphas rent, his priestly ones: but such they were not; for both the high priest, and the other priests, only wore their sacerdotal garments in the temple; nor was it lawful for them to go out in them elsewhere; for so the Jews say q;
“it is forbidden to go out into the province; city, or country, in the garments of the priesthood; but in the sanctuary, whether in the time of service, or not in the time of service, it was lawful.”
In the temple, there were chests on purpose for the garments of the priests r; from whence they took them, and where they laid them up when they had performed their service: of these there were ninety six in number; for as there were twenty four courses, there were four chests for every course; in which the garments were put by themselves, the breeches by themselves, the girdles by themselves, the bonnets by themselves, and the coats by themselves; sealed up with an inscription on them, showing what was in them: and when the men that belonged to such a course, came to perform their service in turn, they opened these chests, and clothed themselves: and when they went out of their service, they put them up in them again, and sealed them; and as for
“the high priest, he left his golden garments, , “in his chamber”, (an apartment in the temple, peculiar to him, and for this use,) in the night, and at whatsoever time he went out of the sanctuary s”
Nor might he go abroad with them, unless , “in great necessity” t; as Simeon the Just went out in priestly garments to meet Alexander the Great, to appease him, being warned of God so to do: hence the Apostle Paul knew not Ananias the high priest,
Ac 23:5, which he must have done, had he had on his priestly garments: for when the priests were not in the temple, and out of service, they wore no distinguishing habits, but were dressed as laics, and as the common people were u. The reason of Caiaphas’s rending his clothes, is expressed in, the next clause,
saying, he hath spoken blasphemy: not only because Jesus asserted that he was the Messiah, but also the Son of God; hereby making himself equal with God, which is the sense in which the Jews always understood this phrase; and he appearing to them to be but a mere man, they charged it as blasphemy against God, to assume such a character and relation to himself:
what further need have we of witnesses? of seeking after others, as they had done: or of further examining and taking the depositions of those, who were before them: he was for putting a stop to the process, and bringing the cause at once to an issue: and therefore addresses the court in the following manner;
behold now, ye have heard his blasphemy: out of his own mouth, as
Lu 22:71, expresses it; and with their own ears, and at that very time; so that they had no need of recourse to things past, or examine witnesses about what they had heard from him formerly: and therefore he proposes, that they would attend to, and take notice of his present words; and which, as he suggests, were shocking and astonishing: for the word, “behold!” may not only be a note of attention, but of astonishment.
i Moses Kotsensis Mitzvot Tora, pr. neg. 302. k Jarchi, Aben Ezra, &c. in loc. l Misn. Horayot, c. 3. sect. 5. m Bartenora & Maimon. in ib. n Maimon. Hilch. Biath Hamikdash, c. 1. sect. 14, 17. o Maimon. Hilch. Obede Cochabim, c. 2. sect. 10. Vid. T. Hieros. Sanhedrin, fol. 25. 1. p Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 7. sect. 5. q T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 69. 1. & Tamid, fol. 27. 2. r Misn. Tamid, c. 5. sect. 3. s Maimon. Hilch. Cele Hamikdash, c. 8. sect. 8, 9, 10. t Moses Kotsensis Mitzvot Tora, pt. affirm. 173. u Maimon. ib. c. 10. sect. 4. Joseph. de Bello Jud. l. 6. c. 15.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
He hath spoken blasphemy (). There was no need of witnesses now, for Jesus had incriminated himself by claiming under oath to be the Messiah, the Son of God. Now it would not be blasphemy for the real Messiah to make such a claim, but it was intolerable to admit that Jesus could be the Messiah of Jewish hope. At the beginning of Christ’s ministry he occasionally used the word Messiah of himself, but he soon ceased, for it was plain that it would create trouble. The people would take it in the sense of a political revolutionist who would throw off the Roman yoke. If he declined that role, the Pharisees would have none of him for that was the kind of a Messiah that they desired. But the hour has now come. At the Triumphal Entry Jesus let the Galilean crowds hail him as Messiah, knowing what the effect would be. Now the hour has struck. He has made his claim and has defied the High Priest.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
65. Then the high priest rent his garments. By this we see how little advantage was derived by wicked men from the miracles by which Christ had proved his Divinity. But we need not wonder, that under the mean garb of a servant, the Son of God was despised by those who were unmoved by any anxiety about the promised salvation. For if they had not entirely laid aside every pious feeling, their deplorable condition ought to have led them to look anxiously for the Redeemer; but when they now, without making any inquiry, reject him when offered to them, do they not as far as lies in their power, destroy all the promises of God? The high priest first pronounces Christ to be a blasphemer, to which the others afterwards assent. The rending of the clothes plainly shows how boldly and wickedly those who profanely despise God make false pretensions of zeal. It would indeed have been praiseworthy in the high priest, if he heard the name of God shamefully profaned, not only to feel inward resentment and excruciating pain, but to make an open display of his detestation; but while he refused to make inquiry, he contrived an unfounded charge of blasphemy. And yet, this treacherous hypocrite, while he assumed a character which did not belong to him, taught the servants of God with what severity of displeasure they ought to regard blasphemies, and condemned by his example the shameful cowardice of those who are no more affected by an outrage on religion, than if they heard buffoons uttering their silly jokes.
Then they spat in his face. Either Luke has inverted the order of the narrative, or our Lord twice endured this highly contemptuous treatment. The latter supposition appears to me to be probable. And yet, I have no doubt that the servants were emboldened to spit on Christ, and to strike him with greater insolence, after they had seen that the council, so far as their decision had influence, condemned him to death. The object of all these expressions of contempt was, to show that nothing was more unlikely than that he should be a prince of prophets, who, in consequence of being blindfolded, (233) was not able even to ward off blows. But this insolence was turned by the providence of God to a very different purpose; for the face of Christ, dishonored by spitting and blows, has restored to us that image which had been disfigured, and almost effaced, by sin.
(233) “ Lequel ayant seulement un voile devant les yeux;” — “who having only a veil before his eyes.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(65) Then the high priest rent his clothes.The act was almost as much a formal sign of condemnation as the putting on of the black cap by an English judge. The judges in a Jewish trial for blasphemy were bound to rend their clothes in twain when the blasphemous words were uttered, and the clothes so torn were never afterwards to be mended. In Act. 14:14 the same act appears, on the part of Paul and Barnabas, as the expression of an impulsive horror, as it had done of old when Eliakim rent his clothes on hearing the blasphemies of Rabshaken (2Ki. 18:37). A comparison of the Greek word here and in Mar. 14:63 shows that it included the tunic or under-garment as well as the cloak.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
65. The high priest rent his clothes ”This was not contrary to the law of Lev 21:10; for that referred either (but improbably) only to the sacred vestments at the time of sacrifice, or (more properly) only to lamentation for the dead. We see in 1Ma 11:71 , and in several passages of Scripture, that high priests rent their garments; indeed Sepp tells us that it was prescribed to them actually that they should rend them from below upward.” Stier.
Spoken blasphemy In claiming to be the Son of GOD and Judge of mankind. The skill of the high priest is successful in eliciting some ground of charge against JESUS. But it is at a terrible cost, for he fairly makes issue with the Judge of the earth! Jesus Christ affirms himself in the presence of the Jewish nation to be the Messiah, and they pronounce him worthy of death for the claim. What a commentary is all subsequent history upon the issue of that moment!
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Then the high priest tore his clothing, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy, what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They answered and said, “He is worthy of death.” ’
What Jesus had said was sufficient for the High Priest and the assembled company. In a dramatic gesture the High Priest tore his clothes, a common way of indicating great agitation, and repudiation of what has been said. And he may well indeed have been genuinely appalled. If Jesus had been a deceiver he would have had a right to be so. Where they all failed was in their inability to recognise the truth of the matter and the fact that by His life and teaching and acts of power He had justified the claim. Like many moderns they refused even to give Him a chance.
Then he declared that witnesses were no longer required as the accused had convicted Himself out of His own mouth. He was clearly guilty of blasphemy. And that made Him worthy of death. The charge of blasphemy, however, was overplayed. Jesus had not used the Name of God lightly, indeed He had been careful not to use it at all. And thus He could not genuinely be charged with blasphemy. But they felt that what He had said was sufficient for them. They were not too concerned with the niceties of the situation. It enabled them to declare Him as worthy of death, and that was what mattered. And all present seemingly agreed.
They would undoubtedly have been shocked by what He had said. In their eyes deeply religious men did not speak in this way (they did not themselves). And as it happened it gave them the verdict that they wanted, so that they no doubt felt that Jesus had played into their hands. In the end it was the verdict of politicians who had been determined to get their way, and were gleeful now that they had got it. However, it was still not enough. A charge of blasphemy might impress the Sanhedrin, but it would not be sufficient to force Pilate to act. He would only be interested in a civil charge. He cared little about blasphemy against the God of the Jews. Indeed he no doubt indulged in it himself in private. Where it strengthened their hand was in justifying themselves afterwards before the people and also in enabling them to convince a later gathering of the full Sanhedrin (Mat 27:1) that He must be got rid of.
‘They answered and said, “He is worthy of death”.’ It is noteworthy that no vote was taken. This was only the preliminary enquiry in order to establish the case, which might therefore help to explain why official procedures were not absolutely required or followed. It was conviction by acclamation by people who were against Him from the beginning.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The sentence:
v. 65. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard His blasphemy.
v. 66. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.
v. 67. Then did they spit in His face, and buffeted Him; and others smote Him with the palms of their hands,
v. 68. saying, Prophesy unto us, Thou Christ, Who is he that smote Thee?
It was the sign of the greatest grief, of the deepest mourning, for a Jew to tear open his outer garment. Here was an act of theatrical affectation without true emotion. He is shocked beyond measure, so he declares by his action, by the blasphemy out of the mouth of Jesus. There is no more need of trial, no more need of witnesses, he declares. His reference is to Lev 24:15, to the penalty for blasphemy, and to Deu 18:20, to that for being a false prophet. In his eagerness Caiaphas entirely overlooked the fact that he had not proved a case of blasphemy against Jesus. But his acting had its effect. No formal vote was taken, the cries of assent coming from all sides being counted as sufficient evidence of universal agreement. And now followed a scene during which not only the servants and the Temple police, but also the members of the great council forgot the last shred of their assumed dignity and humanity, giving way to, the vilest and lowest ways of venting their spite against Jesus. Spitting into His face, striking Him with their clenched fists, slapping Him with the open palms of their hands were only some of the ways in which they amused themselves. It was like an orgy of devils. They tried to ridicule His ability to foretell the future; in short, devilish hatred had unhindered sway. For in reality they were baffled, in spite of their apparent victory. Thus did they fill out the morning hours of that miserable night. And, like them, the enemies of the truth of Christ, unable to find a real accusation against the Christians, will find excuses to vent their spite against them and attempt to hinder their work.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mat 26:65. Then the high-priest rent his clothes Though the high-priest was forbidden to rend his clothes in some cases, when others were allowed to do it, (Lev 10:6; Lev 21:10.) yet in case of blasphemy or any public calamity it was thought allowable. Caiaphas therefore, by this action, expressed in the strongest and most artful manner his horror at hearing so vile a wretch, as he pretended our Lord was, thus claiming the sovereignty over Israel, and a seat at the right-hand of God, and this when adjured upon oath on so solemn an occasion. That the high-priest was clothed in ordinary apparel on this occasion, appears from Exo 29:29-30 where the pontifical garments are ordered to descend from father to son, and therefore were to be worn only at their consecration, and when they ministered.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 26:65 . As may be seen from 2Ki 18:17 , the rending of the garments as an indication of unusual vexation was indulged in above all on hearing any utterance of a blasphemous nature. See Buxtorf, Lex. Talm . p. 2146; Schoettgen, p. 234; Wetstein on our passage. Maimonides, quoted by Buxtorf as above, thus describes the usual mode of proceeding in such cases: “Laceratio fit stando, a collo anterius, non posterius, non ad latus neque ad fimbrias inferiores vestis. Longitudo rapturae palmus est. Laceratio non fit in interula seu indusio linteo, nec in pallio exteriori: in reliquis vestibus corpori accommodatis omnibus fit, etiamsi decem fuerint .” The last-mentioned particular may serve to account for the use of the plural ( 1MMal 2:14 ). That part of the law which forbade the high priest to rend his garments (Lev 10:6 ; Lev 21:10 ) had reference merely to ordinary mourning for the dead. Comp. 1Ma 11:71 ; Joseph. Bell. ii. 15. 4.
] in so far as by falsely pretending to be the Messiah, the Son of God, and by further arrogating to Himself participation in divine honour and authority, Mat 26:64 , He had been guilty of insulting the majesty of God; comp. Joh 5:18 ; Joh 10:33 . The pain of the high priest no doubt represented the genuine vexation of one who was most deeply moved; but the judgment which he formed regarding Jesus was based upon the gratuitous assumption that He was not the Messiah, and indicates a predisposition to find Him guilty of the capital charge (Lev 24:16 ). For . . ., comp. Plat. Rep. p. 340 A.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
Ver. 65. Then the high priest rent his clothes ] Which the high priest ought not by the law to have done, howsoever, Lev 10:6 ; Lev 21:10 , and here had no colour of cause at all to do; no, not so much as Joab had, when for company, and at his Lord’s command, he rent his clothes at Abner’s funeral, whom he had basely murdered, 2Sa 3:31 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
65. ] In Lev 21:10 (see also Lev 10:6 ) the High-priest is ordered not to rend his clothes ; but that appears to apply only to mourning for the dead . In 1Ma 11:71 , and in Josephus, B. J. ii. 15. 4, we have instances of High-priests rending their clothes. On rending the clothes at hearing blasphemy, see 2Ki 18:37 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 26:65-68 . : At last they have, or think they have, Him at their mercy. , etc.: a very imposing act as the expression of true emotion; in reality a theatrical action demanded by custom and performed in accordance with rule: length and locality of rent, the garments to be rent (the nether; all of them, even if there were ten, said the Rabbinical rule: note the plural here, ), all fixed. A common custom among Eastern peoples. It was highly proper that holy men should seem shocked immeasurably by “blasphemy”. : Was it blasphemy for a man to call Himself Messiah in a country where a messiah was expected? Obviously not. It might be to call oneself Messiah falsely. But that was a point for careful and deliberate examination, not to be taken for granted. The judgment of the high priest and the obsequious vote of the Sanhedrim were manifestly premature. But it does not follow from this that the evangelist’s account of the trial is unhistorical (Brandt, p. 62). The Sanhedrists, as reported, behave uo more .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Matthew
THE REAL HIGH PRIEST AND HIS COUNTERFEIT
JESUS CHARGED WITH BLASPHEMY
Mat 26:65
Jesus was tried and condemned by two tribunals, the Jewish ecclesiastical and the Roman civil. In each case the charge corresponded to the Court. The Sanhedrin took no cognisance of, and had no concern with, rebellion against Caesar; though for the time they pretended loyalty. Pilate had still less concern about Jewish superstitions. And so the investigation in each case turned on a different question. In the one it was, ‘Art Thou the Son of God?’ in the other, ‘Art Thou the King of Israel?’ The answer to both was a simple ‘Yes!’ but with very significant differences. Pilate received an explanation; the Sanhedrin none. The Roman governor was taught that Christ’s title of King belonged to another region altogether from that of Caesar, and did not in the slightest degree infringe upon the dominion that he represented. But ‘Son of God’ was capable of no explanation that could make it any less offensive; and the only thing to be done was to accept it or to condemn Him.
So this saying of the high priest differs from other words of our Lord’s antagonists, which we have been considering in recent pages, in that it is no distortion of our Lord’s characteristics or meaning. It correctly understands, but it fatally rejects, His claims; and does not hesitate to take the further step, on the ground of these, of branding Him as a blasphemer.
We may turn the high priest’s question in another direction: ‘What further need have we of witnesses?’ These horror-stricken judges, rending their garments in simulated grief and zeal, and that silent Prisoner, knowing that His life was the forfeit of His claims, yet saying no word of softening or explanation of them, may teach us much. They are witnesses to some of the central facts of the revelation of God in Christ. Let us turn to these for a few moments.
I. First, then, they witness to Christ’s claims.
Again, when He infringed Rabbinical Sabbath law by a cure, and they said, ‘This Man has broken the Sabbath day,’ His vindication was worse than His offence, for He answered, ‘My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.’ And then they sought the more to kill Him, because He not only brake the Sabbath, but also called God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.’ And again, when He declared that the safety of His sheep in His hands was identical with their safety in His Father’s hands, and vindicated the audacious parallelism by the tremendous assertion, ‘I and My Father are One,’ the charge of blasphemy rang out; and was inevitable, unless the claim was true.
These outstanding instances are but, as it were, summits that rise above the general level. But the general level is that of One who takes an altogether unique position. No one else, professing to lead men in paths of righteousness, has so constantly put the stress of His teaching, not upon morality, nor religion, nor obedience to God, but upon this, ‘Believe in Me’; or ever pushed forward His own personality into the foreground, and made the whole nobleness and blessedness and security and devoutness of a life to hinge upon that one thing, its personal relation to Him.
People talk about the sweet and gentle wisdom that flowed from Christ’s lips, and so on; about the lofty morality, about the beauty of pity and tenderness, and all the other commonplaces so familiar to us, and we gladly admit them all. But I venture to go a step further than all these, and to say that the outstanding differentia, the characteristic which marks off Christ’s teaching as something new, peculiar, and altogether per se, is not its morality, not its philanthropy, not its meek wisdom, not its sweet reasonableness, but its tremendous assertions of the importance of Himself.
And if I am asked to state the ground upon which such an assertion may be vindicated, I would point you to such facts as these, that this Man took up a position of equality with, and of superiority to, the legislation which He and the people to whom He was speaking regarded as being divinely sent, and said, ‘Ye have heard that it hath been said to them of old time’ so and so; ‘but I say unto you’: that this Man declared that to build upon His words was to build upon a rock; that this Man declared that He-He-was the legitimate object of absolute trust, of utter submission and obedience; that He claimed from His followers affiance, love, reverence which cannot be distinguished from worship, and that He did not therein conceive that He was intercepting anything that belonged to the Father. This Man professed to be able to satisfy the desires of every human heart when He said, ‘If any man thirst let him come to Me and drink.’ This Man claimed to be able to breathe the sanctity of repose in the blessedness of obedience over all the weary and the heavy laden; and assured them that He Himself, through all the ages, and in all lands, and for all troubles, would give them rest. This Man declared that He who stood there, in the quiet homes of Galilee, and went about its acres with those blessed feet for our advantage, was to be Judge of the whole world. This Man said that His name was ‘Son of God’; and this Man declared, ‘He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.’
And then people say to us, ‘Oh! your Gospel narratives, even if they be the work of men in good faith, telling what they suppose He said, mistook the Teacher; and if we could strip away the accretion of mistaken reverence, and come to the historical person, we should find no claims like these.’
Well, this is not the time to enter into the large questions which that contention involves, but I point you to the incident which makes my text, and I say, ‘What need we any further witnesses?’ Nobody denies that Jesus Christ was crucified as the result of a combination of Sanhedrin and Pilate. What set the Jewish rulers against Him with such virulent and murderous determination? Is there anything in the life of Jesus Christ, if it is watered down as the people, who want to knock out all the supernatural, desire to water it down-is there anything in the life that will account for the inveterate acrimony and hostility which pursued Him to the death? The fact remains that, whether or not Evangelists and Apostles misconceived His teaching when they gave such prominence to His personality and His lofty claims, His enemies were under the same delusion, if it were a delusion; and the reason why the whole orthodox religionism of Judaism rejoiced when He was nailed to the Cross was summed up in the taunt which they flung at Him as He hung there, ‘If He be the Son of God, let Him come down, and we will believe Him.’
So, brethren, I put into the witness-box Annas and Caiaphas and all their satellites, and I say, ‘What need we any further witnesses?’ He died because He declared that He was the Son of God.
And I beseech you ask yourselves whether we are not being put off with a maimed version of His teaching, if there is struck out of it this its central characteristic, that He, ‘the sage and humble,’ declared that He was ‘likewise One with the Creator.’
II. Secondly, note how we have here the witness that Jesus Christ assented always to the loftiest meaning that men attached to His claims.
In like manner when, on the other occasion to which I have already referred, the Pharisees stumbled at His claims to forgive sins, He said nothing to soften down that claim. If He had meant then only what some people would desire to make Him mean when He said, ‘Thy sins be forgiven thee’-viz., that He was simply acting as a minister of the divine forgiveness, and assuring a poor sinner that God had pardoned him-why in common honesty, in discharge of His plain obligations of a teacher, did He not say so-not for His own sake, but for the sake of preventing such a tremendous misunderstanding of His meaning? But He let them go away with the conviction that He intended to claim a divine prerogative, and vindicated the assertion by doing what only a divine power could do: ‘That ye may know that the Son of Man hath power enough on earth to forgive sins, He saith unto the sick of the palsy, Take up thy bed and walk.’ There was no need for Him to have wrought a miracle to establish His right to tell a poor soul that God forgave sin. And the fact that the miracle was supposed to be the demonstration and the vindication of His right to declare forgiveness shows that He was exercising that prerogative which belongs, as they rightly said, to God only.
And in precisely the same manner, the commonest obligations of honesty, the plain duty of a misunderstood Teacher, to say nothing of the duty of self-preservation, ought to have opened His lips in the presence of the Jewish authorities, if they understood wrongly and set too high their estimate of the meaning of His claims. His silence establishes the fact that they understood these aright.
And so, all through His life, we note this peculiarity, that He never puts aside as too lofty for truth men’s highest interpretations of His claims, nor as too lowly for their mutual relation the lowest reverence which bowed before Him. Peter, in the house of Cornelius, said, ‘Stand up! for I myself also am a man.’ Paul and Barnabas, when the priests brought out the oxen and garlands to the gates of Lystra, could say, ‘We also are men of like passions with yourselves.’ But this meek Jesus lets men fall at His feet; and women wash them with their tears and wipe them with the hairs of their head; and souls stretch out maimed hands of faith, and grasp Him as their only hope. When His apostle said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ His answer was, ‘Blessed art thou, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,’ and when another exclaimed, ‘My Lord and my God!’ this Pattern of all meekness accepted and endorsed the title, and pronounced a benediction on all who, not having seen Him, should hereafter attain a like faith.
Now I want to know whether that characteristic, which runs through all His life, and is inseparable from it, can be vindicated on any ground except the ground that He was ‘God manifest in the flesh.’ Either Jesus Christ had a greedy appetite for excessive adoration, was a victim to diseased vanity and ever-present self-regard-the most damning charge that you can bring against a religious teacher-or He accepted love and reverence and trust, because the love and the reverence and the trust knit souls to the Incarnate God their Saviour.
III. And so, lastly we have here witness to the only alternative to the acceptance of His claims.
‘Thou art the King of Glory, O Christ;
Thou art the everlasting Son of the Father.’
Oh, brethren, if it is true that God has come in the flesh, and that that sweet, gracious, infinitely beautiful life is really the revelation of the heart of God, then what a beam of sunshine falls upon all the darkness of this world! Then God is love; then that love holds us all; did not shrink from dying for us, and lives for ever to bless us. If these claims are true, what should our attitude be but that of infinite trust, love, submission, obedience, and the shaping of our lives after the pattern of His life?
These rejectors, when they said, ‘He speaketh blasphemies,’ were sealing their own doom, and the ruined Temple and nineteen centuries of wandering misery show what comes to men who hear Christ declaring that He is the Son of the living God and the Judge of the world, and who find nothing in the words but blasphemy. On the other hand, if we will answer His question, ‘Whom say ye that I am?’ as the apostle answered it, we shall, like the apostle, receive a benediction from His lips, and be set on that faith as on a rock against which the ‘gates of hell’ shall not prevail.
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 26:65-66
65Then the high priest tore his robes and said, ” He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy; 66what do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death!”
Mat 26:65 “Then the high priest tore his robes” This was a sign of a deeply disturbed spirit caused by the blasphemy (cf. Act 14:14). The penalty for blasphemy from Lev 24:15 was death. Jesus deserved to die on the basis of Deu 13:1-3; Deu 18:22 if He was not the Coming One, the Messiah, the Son of God, the Savior of the world. There is no middle ground here. Either He is who He claimed to be or He is a blasphemer who deserved death (cf. Josh McDowell’s, Evidence That Demands a Verdict).
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
clothes = robe.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
65.] In Lev 21:10 (see also Lev 10:6) the High-priest is ordered not to rend his clothes; but that appears to apply only to mourning for the dead. In 1Ma 11:71, and in Josephus, B. J. ii. 15. 4, we have instances of High-priests rending their clothes. On rending the clothes at hearing blasphemy, see 2Ki 18:37.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 26:65. , rent) as if his garments were too tight for the intensity of his feelings. That old custom had some suitableness to the emotions which it indicated.-, need) They had the greatest need, because the innocence of Jesus was undisproved.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
the high priest: Lev 21:20, 2Ki 18:37, 2Ki 19:1-3, Jer 36:24, Mar 14:63, Mar 14:64
He: Mat 9:3, 1Ki 21:10-13, Luk 5:21, Joh 10:33, Joh 10:36
Reciprocal: Gen 37:34 – General Gen 39:17 – General Lev 21:10 – uncover Lev 24:11 – blasphemed Num 14:6 – rent their clothes 2Ki 5:7 – that he rent Job 15:6 – own mouth Isa 19:1 – rideth Isa 36:22 – with their Isa 53:8 – General Mar 2:7 – speak Luk 2:34 – for a Luk 22:71 – General Joh 18:20 – I spake Joh 19:11 – he Act 7:56 – the Son Act 14:14 – they
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
6:65
Decisions of the Sanhedrin were to be made by the vote of the members who should be uninfluenced by any interested person. The high priest violated the rules of justice by announcing a conclusion (“he hath spoken blasphemy”) before they had voted.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard this blasphemy.
[Then the high priest rent his clothes.] “When witnesses speak out the blasphemy which they heard, then all, hearing the blasphemy, are bound to rend their clothes.” “They that judge a blasphemer, first ask the witnesses, and bid him speak out plainly what he hath heard; and when he speaks it, the judges standing on their feet rend their garments, and do not sew them up again,” etc. See there the Babylonian Gemara discoursing at large why they stand upon their feet, why they rend their garments, and why they may not be sewed up again [Sanhedrim cap. 7. hal. 10].
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 26:65. Then the high-priest rent his clothes, his upper-garment, not the high-priestly robe, which was worn only in the temple. Rending the clothes was a sign of mourning or of indignation (Act 14:14), but in the former sense was forbidden to the high-priest (Lev 10:6; Lev 21:10). Instances of the high-priests using this sign of indignation occur in the first Book of the Maccabees and Josephus. The Jews found in 2Ki 18:37, a precedent for rending the clothes on occasions of real or supposed blasphemy. Such an action, at first natural, became a matter of special regulation, hence more theatrical than real.
He hath spoken blasphemy. This implies: (1.) That our Lord had on oath claimed to be Divine, else it could not be called blasphemy; (2.) that the high-priest, while compelling Him to be a witness in His own case at once declared His testimony to be false, else it could not be called blasphemy. Every one who hears of Jesus now must accept either His testimony respecting Himself or the verdict of the high-priest.
What further need, etc. They had difficulty in getting witnesses. The true witness answered; they refused to believe, but found His confession sufficient for their purpose.
Behold now ye have heard the blasphemy. The high-priest assumes that they all agree with him, the whole verdict being spoken in hot haste.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Mat 26:65. Then the high-priest rent his clothes Though the high-priest was forbidden to rend his clothes, (that is, his upper garments,) in some cases, where others were allowed to do it, (Lev 10:6; and Lev 21:10;) yet in case of blasphemy, or any public calamity, it was thought allowable, 2Ki 19:1; 1Ma 11:71; Caiaphas, therefore, by this action, expressed in the strongest and most artful manner, his horror at hearing so mean and vile a person as he thought Jesus to be, claiming the sovereignty over Israel, and a seat at the right hand of God, and this when adjured upon oath on so solemn an occasion.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
26:65 Then the high priest {g} rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
(g) This was a peculiar custom among the Jews: for so were they bound to do when they heard any Israelite blaspheme God, and it was a tradition of their talmud in the book of the magistrates, in the title, of the four kinds of death.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Rending one’s garments expressed indignation or grief (cf. 2Ki 18:37). It became a traditional response to blasphemy (cf. Act 14:14). [Note: Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:5.] However it was illegal for the high priest to rend his garments (Lev 21:10). The punishment for blasphemy in the Mosaic Law was death (Lev 24:16). At this time, blasphemy consisted of claiming for oneself a unique association with God, reflected in sitting at God’s right hand, not just misusing God’s name. [Note: See Darrell L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus, pp. 30-183.] It also included speaking against the temple and Israel’s leaders. [Note: Ibid., pp. 111-12, 206-9.]