Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 26:57

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 26:57” utilice nuestra app.

And they that had laid hold on Jesus led [him ]away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.

57 68. Jesus is brought before Caiaphas. The first and informal Meeting of the Sanhedrin

St Mar 14:53-65; St Luk 22:54; Luk 22:63-65

St Luke reports this first irregular trial with less detail than the other synoptists, but gives the account of the second formal sitting at greater length.

It is not clear whether the private examination, related by St Joh 18:19-23, was conducted by Annas or Caiaphas. Probably Jesus was first taken to Annas, whose great influence (he was still high priest in the eyes of the people) would make it necessary to have his sanction for the subsequent measures. The examination, narrated Joh 18:19-23, according to this view, was by Annas; “had sent,” Mat 26:24, should be translated “sent.”

The subjoined order of events is certainly not free from difficulties, but is the most probable solution of the question:

(1) From the garden Gethsemane Jesus was taken to Annas; thence, after brief questioning (St Joh 18:19-23),

(2) To Caiaphas, in another part of the Sacerdotal palace, where some members of the Sanhedrin had hastily met, and the first irregular trial of Jesus took place at night; Mat 26:57-68; Mar 14:52-65; Luk 22:54 and Luk 22:63-65.

(3) Early in the morning a second and formal trial was held by the Sanhedrin. This is related by St Luke ch. Luk 22:66-71; and is mentioned by St Matthew ch. Mat 27:1; and in St Mar 15:1.

(4) The trial before Pontius Pilate, consisting of two parts: ( a) a preliminary examination (for which there is a technical legal phrase in St Luk 23:14); ( b) a final trial and sentence to death.

(5) The remission to Herod, recorded by St Luke only, Mat 23:7-11; between the two Roman trials, ( a) and ( b).

The question is sometimes asked, Was the trial of Jesus fair and legal according to the rules of Jewish law? The answer must be that the proceedings against Jesus violated both (1) the spirit, and (2) the express rules of Hebrew jurisdiction, the general tendency of which was to extreme clemency.

(1) The Talmud states: “the Sanhedrin is to save, not to destroy life.” No man could be condemned in his absence, or without a majority of two to one; the penalty for procuring false witnesses was death; the condemned was not to be executed on the day of his trial. This clemency was violated in the trial of Jesus Christ.

(2) But even the ordinary legal rules were disregarded in the following particulars: ( a) The examination by Annas without witnesses. ( b) The trial by night. ( c) The sentence on the first day of trial. ( d) The trial of a capital charge on the day before the Sabbath. ( e) The suborning of witnesses. ( f) The direct interrogation by the High Priest.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Mat 26:57-58

But Peter followed Him afar off.

Danger of following Jesus afar off

I. What induced the apostle to follow Jesus afar of. It was fear of men, of the evil which might fall upon him. He might persuade himself that he could render no help to his Master. Compare the attachment of Ruth to Naomi. The apostle had some affection for Christ, or he would not have followed at all. The only safety is in following fully. Thus Peters self-confidence was rebuked.

II. Who were the companions with whom the apostle sat down? And what was his danger in doing so? He was in company hostile to Jesus, but did not resent their hostility. He did not side with his Lord. Evil communications corrupt good manners. There was a gradual descent in the fall of the apostle. He was first alarmed, and consulted his safety by flight; then he followed Jesus, but afar off; then he entered into the palace; then he sat down among the servants; then he listened without rebuke to their scoffs against Jesus; then he denied that he was a disciple; then he denied with oaths and curses. One step led to another.

III. what was the apostles state of mind when he went into the high priests palace? And how did this expose him to the danger of falling under temptation? He went in to see the end. Peter was not resolved how he would act. He might think that Christ would avow Himself; put forth His omnipotent power; or that he would acknowledge Jesus. He was in a state of mind easily to be overcome by temptation. He wanted to make his attachment for Christ such as to secure his own safety. (T. Stark.)

Following Christ afar off

I. The symptoms of following Christ afar off.

1. A gradual departure from Him. The first step was self-confidence; the second step was an ignorant zeal for Christ and the use of carnal weapons in His cause. The next step was an abandonment of the cause he had espoused-Then all the disciples forsook Him.

2. A disinclination to commune with Him.

3. Indifference to meet Him at public ordinances.

4. An attempt to stretch Christian liberty to the utmost.

II. The sad consequences of following Christ afar off.

1. Such a course grows worse and worse.

2. Such a state brings its own punishment.

3. Such a course is unspeakably offensive to Jesus Christ.

III. Some of the remedies for this state of mind. Consider-

1. Whom you follow.

2. The obligations you are under to follow the Lord closely.

3. What advantages you derive from following Him closely.

4. Who has promised to help you to follow Him.

5. If the consequences of following Christ afar off be so dreadful, what must be the consequence of not following Him at all. (J. Sherman.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 57. They – led him away to Caiaphas] John says, Joh 18:13, that they led him first to Annas; but this appears to have been done merely to do him honour as the father-in-law of Caiaphas, and his colleague in the high priesthood. But as the Sanhedrin was assembled at the house of Caiaphas, it was there he must be brought to undergo his mock trial: but See Clarke on Joh 18:13.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Mark saith, Mar 14:53, They led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests, and the elders, and the scribes. Luke saith no more but, Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priests house, Luk 22:54. John saith, Joh 18:12,13 Then the band, and the captain, and the officers of the Jews, took Jesus, and bound him, and led him away to Annas first; for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year. All things were now out of order in the Jewish church. Regularly, their high priests were to be such as derived from the eldest son of Aaron, and were to hold in their place for life; but they were now chosen annually, and their conquerors ruled the choice as they pleased. Yet some think, that in this the Jews kept something of their ancient form, and the high priest was chosen regularly of the house of Aaron and for life; but the Romans when they listed turned him out, and sold the place to another; and such a one was Caiaphas, who was at that time high priest, son-in-law to Annas. Their carrying of Christ first to Annass house, was no more than to stay there a while till Caiaphas, and the council, which was appointed to meet that morning at the house of Caiaphas, could assemble.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

And they that had laid hold on Jesus,…. Who were the band, and the captain, and the officers of the Jews, as Joh 18:12, or as the Jews themselves say q, the elders of Jerusalem; who not only laid fast hold on him, but bound him; and that both for greater security of him, some of them perhaps knowing how he had made his escape from them formerly; or at least taking the hint from Judas, to hold him fast, and lead him away safely; and by way of reproach and contempt, thereby showing that he was a malefactor, and had done some crime worthy of bonds; and having him thus in fast and safe custody, they

led him away to Caiaphas, the high priest; who was high priest that year; for the priesthood was frequently changed in those times, and men were put into it by the Roman governor, through favour or bribery. The year before this, Simeon, or Simon ben Camhith, was high priest; and the year before that, Eleazar, the son of Ananus; and before him, Ishmael ben Phabi, who were all three, successively, made high priests by the Roman governor: as was also this Caiaphas, this year; and who by Josephus r, and in the Talmud s likewise, is called Joseph. From whence he had his name Caiaphas, is not certain: Jerom t says, it signifies “a searcher”, or “a sagacious person”; but may be better interpreted, he adds, “one that vomits at the mouth”; deriving the word, as I suppose, from , “to vomit”, and , “the mouth”; [See comments on Mt 26:3]. It was to the house, or palace of this man, the high priest, that Jesus was led;

where the Scribes and elders were assembled: a council was held about a week before this, in which Caiaphas assisted, and then gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient, that one man should die for the people, Joh 11:47, whether that was held at his house, or elsewhere, is not certain, very probably it might; however, it is clear from Mt 26:2, that two days ago, the chief priests, Scribes, and elders, were assembled together in his palace, to consult about putting Jesus to death; and here they were again met together on the same account, waiting to have him brought before them.

q Toldos Jesu, p. 16, 17. r Antiq. l. 18. c. 14. s T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 47. 1. t De Heb. nominibus, fol, 104. col. 4. Tom. 3.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Christ in the High Priest’s Palace.

57 And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled. 58 But Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest’s palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end. 59 Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death; 60 But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses, 61 And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. 62 And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? 63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. 64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 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. 66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death. 67 Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, 68 Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?

We have here the arraignment of our Lord Jesus in the ecclesiastical court, before the great sanhedrim. Observe,

I. The sitting of the court; the scribes and the elders were assembled, though it was in the dead time of the night, when other people were fast asleep in their beds; yet, to gratify their malice against Christ, they denied themselves that natural rest, and sat up all night, to be ready to fall upon the prey which Judas and his men, they hoped, would seize.

See, 1. Who they were, that were assembled; the scribes, the principal teachers, and elders, the principal rulers, of the Jewish church: these were the most bitter enemies to Christ our great teacher and ruler, on whom therefore they had a jealous eye, as one that eclipsed them; perhaps some of these scribes and elders were not so malicious at Christ as some others of them were; yet, in concurrence with the rest, they made themselves guilty. Now the scripture was fulfilled (Ps. xxii. 16); The assembly of the wicked have enclosed me. Jeremiah complains of an assembly of treacherous men; and David of his enemies gathering themselves together against him, Ps. xxxv. 15.

2. Where they were assembled; in the palace of Caiaphas the High Priest; there they assembled two days before, to lay the plot (v. 3), and there they now convened again, to prosecute it. The High Priest was Ab-beth-din–the father of the house of judgment, but he is now the patron of wickedness; his house should have been the sanctuary of oppressed innocency, but it is become the throne of iniquity; and no wonder, when even God’s house of prayer was made a den of thieves.

II. The setting of the prisoner to the bar; they that had laid hold on Jesus, led him away, hurried him, no doubt, with violence, led him as a trophy of their victory, led him as a victim to the altar; he was brought into Jerusalem through that which was called the sheep-gate, for that was the way into town from the mount of Olives; and it was so called because the sheep appointed for sacrifice were brought that way to the temple; very fitly therefore is Christ led that way, who is the Lamb of God, that takes away the sin of the world. Christ was led first to the High Priest, for by the law all sacrifices were to be first presented to the priest, and delivered into his hand, Lev. xvii. 5.

III. The cowardice and faint-heartedness of Peter (v. 58); But Peter followed afar off. This comes in here, with an eye to the following story of his denying him. He forsook him as the rest did, when he was seized, and what is here said of his following him is easily reconcilable with his forsaking him; such following was no better than forsaking him; for,

1. He followed him, but it was afar off. Some sparks of love and concern for his Master there were in his breast, and therefore he followed him; but fear and concern for his own safety prevailed, and therefore he followed afar off. Note, It looks ill, and bodes worse, when those that are willing to be Christ’s disciples, are not willing to be known to be so. Here began Peter’s denying him; for to follow him afar off, is by little and little to go back from him. There is danger in drawing back, nay, in looking back.

2. He followed him, but he went in, and sat with the servants. He should have gone up to the court, and attended on his Master, and appeared for him; but he went in where there was a good fire, and sat with the servants, not to silence their reproaches, but to screen himself. It was presumption in Peter thus to thrust himself into temptation; he that does so, throws himself out of God’s protection. Christ had told Peter that he could not follow him now, and had particularly warned him of his danger this night; and yet he would venture into the midst of this wicked crew. It helped David to walk in his integrity, that he hated the congregation of evil doers, and would not sit with the wicked.

3. He followed him, but it was only to see the end, led more by his curiosity than by his conscience; he attended as an idle spectator rather than as a disciple, a person concerned. He should have gone in, to do Christ some service, or to get some wisdom and grace to himself, by observing Christ’s behaviour under his sufferings: but he went in, only to look about him; it is not unlikely that Peter went in, expecting that Christ would have made his escape miraculously out of the hands of his persecutors; that, having so lately struck them down, who came to seize him, he would now have struck them dead, who sat to judge him; and this he had a mind to see: if so, it was folly for him to think of seeing any other end than what Christ had foretold, that he should be put to death. Note, It is more our concern to prepare for the end, whatever it may be, than curiously to enquire what the end will be. The event is God’s, but the duty is ours.

IV. The trial of our Lord Jesus in this court.

1. They examined witnesses against him, though they were resolved, right or wrong, to condemn him; yet, to put the better colour upon it, they would produce evidence against him. The crimes properly cognizable in their court, were, false doctrine and blasphemy; these they endeavoured to prove upon him. And observe here,

(1.) Their search for proof; They sought false witness against him; they had seized him, bound him, abused him, and after all have to seek for something to lay to his charge, and can show no cause for his commitment. They tried if any of them could allege seemingly from their own knowledge any thing against him; and suggested one calumny and then another, which, if true, might touch his life. Thus evil men dig up mischief, Prov. xvi. 27. Here they trod in the steps of their predecessors, who devised devices against Jeremiah,Jer 18:18; Jer 20:10. They made proclamation, that, if any one could give information against the prisoner at the bar, they were ready to receive it, and presently many bore false witness against him (v. 60); for is a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants are wicked, and will carry false stories to him, Prov. xxix. 12. This is an evil often seen under the sun, Eccl. x. 5. If Naboth must be taken off, there are sons of Belial to swear against him.

(2.) Their success in this search; in several attempts they were baffled, they sought false testimonies among themselves, others came in to help them, and yet they found none; they could make nothing of it, could not take the evidence together, or give it any colour of truth or consistency with itself, no, not they themselves being judges. The matters alleged were such palpable lies, as carried their own confutation along with them. This redounded much to the honour of Christ now, when they were loading him with disgrace.

But at last they met with two witnesses, who, it seems, agreed in their evidence, and therefore were hearkened to, in hopes that now the point was gained. The words they swore against him, were, that he should say, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days, v. 61. Now by this they designed to accuse him, [1.] As an enemy to the temple, and one that sought for the destruction of it, which they could not bear to hear of; for they valued themselves by the temple of the Lord (Jer. vii. 4), and, when they abandoned other idols, made a perfect idol of that. Stephen was accused for speaking against this holy place,Act 6:13; Act 6:14. [2.] As one that dealt in witchcraft, or some such unlawful arts, by the help of which he could rear such a building in three days: they had often suggested that he was in league with Beelzebub. Now, as to this, First, The words were mis-recited; he said, Destroy ye this temple (John ii. 19), plainly intimating that he spoke of a temple which his enemies would seek to destroy; they come, and swear that he said, I am able to destroy this temple, as if the design against it were his. He said, In Three days I will raise it up— egero auton, a word properly used of a living temple; I will raise it to life. They come, and swear that he said, I am able, oikodomesai—to build it; which is properly used of a house temple. Secondly, The words were misunderstood; he spoke of the temple of his body (John ii. 21), and perhaps when he said, this temple, pointed to, or laid his hand upon, his own body; but they swore that he said the temple of God, meaning this holy place. Note, There have been, and still are, such as wrest the sayings of Christ to their own destruction, 2 Pet. iii. 16. Thirdly, Make the worst they could of it, it was no capital crime, even by their own law; if it had been, no question but he had been prosecuted for it, when he spoke the words in a public discourse some years ago; nay, the words were capable of a laudable construction, and such as bespoke a kindness for the temple; if it were destroyed, he would exert himself to the utmost to rebuild it. But any thing that looked criminal, would serve to give colour to their malicious prosecution. Now the scriptures were fulfilled, which said, False witnesses are risen up against me (Ps. xxvii. 12); and see Ps. xxxv. 11. Though I have redeemed them, yet they have spoken lies against me, Hos. vii. 13. We stand justly accused, the law accuseth us,Deu 27:26; Joh 5:45. Satan and our own consciences accuse us, 1 John iii. 20. The creatures cry out against us. Now, to discharge us from all these just accusations, our Lord Jesus submitted to this, to be unjustly and falsely accused, that in the virtue of his sufferings we may be enabled to triumph over all challenges; Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect?Rom 8:33; Rom 8:34. He was accused, that he might not be condemned; and if at any time we suffer thus, have all manner of evil, not only said, but sworn, against us falsely, let us remember that we cannot expect to fare better than our Master.

(3.) Christ’s silence under all these accusations, to the amazement of the court, v. 62. The High Priest, the judge of the court, arose in some heat, and said, “Answerest thou nothing? Come, you the prisoner at the bar; you hear what is sworn against you, what have you now to say for yourself? What defence can you make? Or what please have you to offer in answer to this charge?” But Jesus held his peace (v. 63), not as one sullen, or as one self-condemned, or as one astonished and in confusion; not because he wanted something to say, or knew not how to say it, but that the scripture might be fulfilled (Isa. liii. 7); As the sheep is dumb before the shearer, and before the butcher, so he opened not his mouth; and that he might be the Son of David, who, when his enemies spoke mischievous things against him, was as a deaf man that heard not, Ps. xxxviii. 12-14. He was silent, because his hour was come; he would not deny the charge, because he was willing to submit to the sentence; otherwise, he could as easily have put them to silence and shame now, as he had done many a time before. If God had entered into judgment with us, we had been speechless (ch. xxii. 12), not able to answer for one of a thousand, Job ix. 3. Therefore, when Christ was made sin for us, he was silent, and left it to his blood to speak, Heb. xii. 24. He stood mute at this bar, that we might have something to say at God’s bar.

Well, this way will not do; ali aggrediendum est vi–recourse must be had to some other expedient.

2. They examined our Lord Jesus himself upon an oath like that ex officio; and, since they could not accuse him, they will try, contrary to the law of equity, to make him accuse himself.

(1.) Here is the interrogatory put to him by the High Priest.

Observe, [1.] The question itself; Whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God? That is, Whether thou pretend to be so? For they will by no means admit it into consideration, whether he be really so or no; though the Messiah was to be the Consolation of Israel, and glorious things were spoken concerning him in the Old Testament, yet so strangely besotted were they with a jealousy of any thing that threatened their exorbitant power and grandeur, that they would never enter into the examination of the matter, whether Jesus was the Messiah or no; never once put the case, suppose he should be so; they only wished him to confess that he called himself so, that they might on that indict him as a deceiver. What will not pride and malice carry men to?

[2.] The solemnity of the proposal of it; I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us. Not that he had any regard to the living God, but took his name in vain; only thus he hoped to gain his point with our Lord Jesus; “If thou hast any value for the blessed name of God, and reverence for his Majesty, tell us this.” If he should refuse to answer when he was thus adjured, they would charge him with contempt of the blessed name of God. Thus the persecutors of good men often take advantage against them by their consciences, as Daniel’s enemies did against him in the matter of his God.

(2.) Christ’s answer to this interrogatory (v. 64), in which,

[1.] He owns himself to be The Christ the Son of God. Thou hast said; that is, “It is as thou hast said;” for in St. Mark it is, I am. Hitherto, he seldom professed himself expressly to be the Christ, the Son of God; the tenour of his doctrine bespoke it, and his miracles proved it: but now he would not omit to make a confession of it, First, Because that would have looked like a disowning of that truth which he came into the world to bear witness to. Secondly, It would have looked like declining his sufferings, when he knew the acknowledgment of this would give his enemies all the advantage they desired against him. He thus confessed himself, for example and encouragement to his followers, when they are called to it, to confess him before men, whatever hazards they run by it. And according to this pattern the martyrs readily confessed themselves Christians, though they knew they must die for it, as the martyrs at Thebais, Euseb. Hist. 50.8, 100.9. That Christ answered out of a regard to the adjuration which Caiaphas had profanely used by the living God, I cannot think, any more than that he had any regard to the like adjuration in the devil’s mouth, Mark v. 7.

[2.] He refers himself, for the proof of this, to his second coming, and indeed to his whole estate of exaltation. It is probable that they looked upon him with a scornful disdainful smile, when he said, “I am;” “A likely fellow,” thought they, “to be the Messiah, who is expected to come in so much pomp and power;” and to that this nevertheless refers. “Though now you see me in this low and abject state, and think it a ridiculous thing for me to call myself the Messiah, nevertheless the day is coming when I shall appear otherwise.” Hereafter, ap arti— modo–shortly; for his exaltation began in a few days; now shortly his kingdom began to be set up; and hereafter ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, to judge the world; of which his coming shortly to judge and destroy the Jewish nation would be a type and earnest. Note, The terrors of the judgment-day will be a sensible conviction to the most obstinate infidelity, not in order to conversion (that will be then too late), but in order to an eternal confusion. Observe, First, Whom they should see; the Son of man. Having owned himself the Son of God, even now in his estate of humiliation, he speaks of himself as the Son of man, even in his estate of exaltation; for he had these two distinct natures in one person. The incarnation of Christ has made him Son of God and Son of man; for he is Immanuel, God with us. Secondly, In what posture they should see him; 1. Sitting on the right hand of power, according to the prophecy of the Messiah (Ps. cx. 1); Sit thou at my right hand; which denotes both the dignity and the dominion he is exalted to. Though now he stood at the bar, they should shortly see him sit on the throne. 2. Coming in the clouds of heaven; this refers to another prophecy concerning the Son of man (Dan 7:13; Dan 7:14), which is applied to Christ (Luke i. 33), when he came to destroy Jerusalem; so terrible was the judgment, and so sensible the indications of the wrath of the Lamb in it, that it might be called a visible appearance of Christ; but doubtless it has reference to the general judgment; to this day he appeals, and summons them to an appearance, then and there to answer for what they are now doing. He had spoken of this day to his disciples, awhile ago, for their comfort, and had bid them lift up their heads for joy in the prospect of it, Luk 21:27; Luk 21:28. Now he speaks of it to his enemies, for their terror; for nothing is more comfortable to the righteous, nor more terrible to the wicked, than Christ’s judging the world at the last day.

V. His conviction upon this trial; The High Priest rent his clothes, according to the custom of the Jews, when they heard or saw any thing done or said, which they looked upon to be a reproach to God; as Isa 36:22; Isa 37:1; Act 14:14. Caiaphas would be thought extremely tender of the glory of God (Come, see his zeal for the Lord of hosts); but, while he pretended an abhorrence of blasphemy, he was himself the greatest blasphemer; he now forgot the law which forbade the High Priest in any case to rend his clothes, unless we will suppose this an excepted case.

Observe, 1. The crime he was found guilty of; blasphemy. He hath spoken blasphemy; that is, he hath spoken reproachfully of the living God; that is the notion we have of blasphemy; because we by sin had reproached the Lord, therefore Christ, when he was made Sin for us, was condemned as a blasphemer for the truth he told them.

2. The evidence upon which they found him guilty; Ye have heard the blasphemy; why should we trouble ourselves to examine witnesses any further? He owned the fact, that he did profess himself the Son of God; and then they made blasphemy of it, and convicted him upon his confession. The High Priest triumphs in the success of the snare he had laid; “Now I think I have done his business for him.” Aha, so would we have it. Thus was he judged out of his own mouth at their bar, because we were liable to be so judged at God’s bar. There is no need of witnesses against us; our own consciences are against us instead of a thousand witnesses.

VI. His sentence passed, upon this conviction, v. 66.

Here is, 1. Caiaphas’s appeal to the bench; What think ye? See his base hypocrisy and partiality; when he had already prejudged the cause, and pronounced him a blasphemer, then, as if he were willing to be advised, he asks the judgment of his brethren; but hide malice ever so cunningly under the robe of justice, some way or other it will break out. If he would have dealt fairly, he should have collected the votes of the bench seriatim–in order, and begun with the junior, and delivered his own opinion last; but he knew that by the authority of his place he could sway the rest, and therefore declares his judgment, and presumes they are all of his mind; he takes the crime, with regard to Christ, pro confesso–as a crime confessed; and the judgment, with regard to the court, pro concesso–as a judgment agreed to.

2. Their concurrence with him; they said, He is guilty of death; perhaps they did not all concur: it is certain that Joseph of Arimathea, if he was present, dissented (Luke xxiii. 51); so did Nicodemus, and, it is likely, others with them; however, the majority carried it that way; but, perhaps, this being an extraordinary council, or cabal rather, none had notice to be present but such as they knew would concur, and so it might be voted nemine contradicente–unanimously. The judgment was, “He is guilty of death; by the law he deserves to die.” Though they had not power now to put any man to death, yet by such a judgment as this they made a man an outlaw among his people (qui caput gerit lupinum–he carries a wolf’s head; so our old law describes an outlaw), and so exposed him to the fury either of a popular tumult, as Stephen was, or to be clamoured against before the governor, as Christ was. Thus was the Lord of life condemned to die, that through him there may be no condemnation to us.

VII. The abuses and indignities done to him after sentence passed (Mat 26:67; Mat 26:68); Then, when he was found guilty, they spat in his face. Because they had not power to put him to death, and could not be sure that they should prevail with the governor to be their executioner, they would do him all the mischief they could, now that they had him in their hands. Condemned prisoners are taken under the special protection of the law, which they are to make satisfaction to, and by all civilized nations have been treated with tenderness; sufficient is this punishment. But when they had passed sentence upon our Lord Jesus, he was treated as if hell had broken loose upon him, as if he were not only worthy of death, but as if that were too good for him, and he were unworthy of the compassion shown to the worst malefactors. Thus he was made a curse for us. But who were they that were thus barbarous? It should seem, the very same that had passed sentence upon him. They said, He is guilty of death, and then did they spit in his face. The priests began, and then no wonder if the servants, who would do any thing to make sport to themselves, and curry favour with their wicked masters, carried on the humour. See how they abused him.

1. They spat in his face. Thus the scripture was fulfilled (Isa. l. 6), He hid not his face from shame and spitting. Job complained of this indignity done to him, and herein was a type of Christ (Job xxxi. 10); They spare not to spit in my face. It is an expression of the greatest contempt and indignation possible; looking upon him as more despicable than the very ground they spit upon. When Miriam was under the leprosy, it was looked upon as a disgrace to her, like that of her father spitting in her face, Num. xii. 14. He that refused to raise up seed to his brother, was to undergo this dishonour, Deut. xxv. 9. Yet Christ, when he was repairing the decays of the great family of mankind, submitted to it. That face which was fairer than the children of men, which was white and ruddy, and which angels reverence, was thus filthily abused by the basest and vilest of the children of men. Thus was confusion poured upon his face, that ours might not be filled with everlasting shame and contempt. They who now profane his blessed name, abuse his word, and hate his image in his sanctified ones; what do they better than spit in his face? They would do that, if it were in their reach.

2. They buffeted him, and smote him with the palms of their hands. This added pain to the shame, for both came in with sin. Now the scripture was fulfilled (Isa. l. 6), I gave my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair; and (Lam. iii. 30), He giveth his cheek to him that smiteth him; he is filled with reproach, and yet keepeth silence (v. 28); and (Mic. v. 1), They shall smite the Judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek; here the margin reads it, They smote him with rods; for so errapisan signifies, and this he submitted to.

3. They challenged him to tell who struck him, having first blindfolded him; Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, who is he that smote thee? (1.) They made sport of him, as the Philistines did with Samson; it is grievous to those that are in misery, for people to make merry about them, but much more to make merry with them and their misery. Here was an instance of the greatest depravity and degeneracy of the human nature that could be, to show that there was need of a religion that should recover men to humanity. (2.) They made sport with his prophetical office. They had heard him called a prophet, and that he was famed for wonderful discoveries; this they upbraided him with, and pretended to make a trial of; as if the divine omniscience must stoop to a piece of children’s play. They put a like affront upon Christ, who profanely jest with the scripture, and make themselves merry with holy things; like Belshazzar’s revels in the temple bowls.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Luke follows a different order from Matthew and Mark in the narrative; but when we come to the proper place, we will endeavor to reconcile the points in which they differ. It will be proper, in the meantime, to glance briefly at those things which claim our attention in the words of Matthew and Mark. First, in order to remove the offense of the cross, we ought to consider the advantage which we have derived from Christ’s emptying of himself, (Phi 2:7😉 for thus will the inestimable goodness of God, and the efficacy of his grace, be found to remove by its brightness every thing in it that was disagreeable or shameful. According to the flesh, it was disgraceful that the Son of God should be seized, bound, and made a prisoner; but when we reflect that by his chains we are loosed from the tyranny of the devil, and from the condemnation in which we were involved before God, not only is the stumbling-block, on which our faith might have struck, removed out of the way, but in place of it there comes an admiration of the boundless grace of God, who set so high a value on our deliverance, as to give up his only-begotten Son to be bound by wicked men. This will also be a pledge of the astonishing love of Christ towards us, that he spared not himself, but willingly submitted to wear fetters on his flesh, that our souls might be freed from fetters of a far worse description.

Mat 26:57

. But they who had seized Jesus led him to Caiaphas. Though the Jews had been deprived of what is called, the higher jurisdiction, there still lingered among them some vestiges of that judicial authority which the Law confers on the high priest, (Deu 1:8😉 so that, while they had lost the absolute authority, (223) they retained the power of administering moderate correction. This is the reason why Christ is brought before the high priest to be interrogated; not that a final sentence may be pronounced on him by theft tribunal, but that the priests may afterwards present him before the governor, under the aggravating influence of their decision. (224) Caiaphas the high priest was also named Joseph, and this man—as we are told by the historian Josephus—was appointed to be high priest by Valerius Gratus, governor of Judea, when Simon, the son of Camithus, was deposed from that office. (225) The Evangelists give his surname only, (226) perhaps because he was more generally named, and better known, by it.

Matthew says that the priests assembled in the house of Caiaphas; and that they were already assembled at midnight, before Christ was brought, but because the place of meeting had been appointed, that, as soon as the information reached them, they might meet hastily at an early hour in the morning; though we have lately seen that some who belonged to the order of the priesthood went out by night, along with the soldiers, to seize Christ. But we have frequently seen, in other passages, that the Evangelists were not very exact in adhering to the order of time. In this passage, certainly, they had no other object in view than to show that the Son of God was oppressed by a wicked conspiracy of the whole council. And here a frightful and hideous spectacle is placed before our eyes; for nowhere else than at Jerusalem was there at that time either a temple of God, or lawful worship, or the face of a Church. The high priest was a figure of the only Mediator between God and men; those who sat along with him in the council represented the whole Church of God; and yet all of them unite in conspiring to extinguish the only hope Of salvation. But as it had been declared by prediction of David, that

the stone which the builders rejected would nevertheless become the head-stone of the corner, (Psa 118:22😉

and as Isaiah had foretold that

the God of armies would be to the whole people of Israel a stone of stumbling, on which they would dash themselves, (Isa 8:14)

the Lord wisely made provision that such wickedness of men should not perplex believing souls.

(223) “ La puissance de condamner à mort;” — “the power of condemning to death.”

(224) “ Estant desja chargé par leur jugement, et que cela soit un prejudice contre luy;” — “being already accused by their decision, and that this may excite a prejudice against him.”

(225) Ant. 18:2. 2. — Repeated allusions have been made, in earlier portions of the Commentary, to this remarkable passage in the writings of the great Jewish historian. The reader will find it quoted at length. — Harmony vol. 1, p. 177, n. 1 — Ed.

(226) That is, instead of calling him Joseph Caiaphas, they call him simply Caiaphas.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

CRITICAL NOTES

Mat. 26:57. To Caiaphas.Apparently after a preliminary examination before Annas (Joh. 18:13; Joh. 18:19-24). Where the scribes and the elders were assembled.It was against the rules of Jewish law to hold a session of the Sanhedrin or Council for the trial of capital offences by night. Such an assembly on the night of the paschal supper must have been still more at variance with usage, and the fact that it was so held has, indeed, been urged as a proof that the Last Supper was not properly the Passover. The present gathering was therefore an informal one (Plumptre).

Mat. 26:58. Sat with the servants.Officers (R.V.). They would be clustering about in the outer part of the court, which was open to the sky, while the Sanhedrin would be meeting in the inner or canopied compartment, which would be partially, or almost completely, separated from the outer part by drawn drapery. Certain officers would be privileged, no doubt, to be moving inward and outward on duty, or at discretion (Morison).

Mat. 26:61. I am able to destroy the temple of God.The actual words of Jesus spoken (Joh. 2:19) in the first year of His ministry were, Destroy (a weaker Greek verb, and not I am able to destroy) this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. (The word is appropriate to raising from the dead, and is quite different from the verb to build.) The attempt was to convict Jesus of blasphemy in asserting a superhuman power (Carr).

Mat. 26:63. I adjure thee.When such a formula of adjuration was employed, a simple affirmation or negation was regarded in law as sufficient to constitute a regular oath (Lange.)

Mat. 26:64. Power.The Hebrews often called God Power (Bengel).

Mat. 26:65. 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 (Carr).

Mat. 26:67. Spit in his face.Among the Jews an expression of the greatest contempt (Deu. 25:9; Num. 12:14). Buffeted.Struck Him with clenched fist. We learn from St. Mark (Mar. 14:65) and St. Luke (Luk. 22:63) that these acts of outrage were perpetrated, not by the members of the Sanhedrin, but by the officers who had the accused in their custody, and who, it would seem, availed themselves of the interval between the two meetings of the Council to indulge in this wanton cruelty (Plumptre).

Mat. 26:68. Saying, Prophesy.They had blindfolded Him (Mar. 14:65).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Mat. 26:57-68

Meekness.We are brought, in this part of the story, to the house of Caiaphas, the high priest, with its inner and outer courts (Mat. 26:58; Mat. 26:69), and its outermost porch. In the inner court are the scribes and elders, gathered together irregularly and in haste (so is the opinion of some), under the presidency of Caiaphas, and with our Blessed Lord in the midst. In the outer court are the officers and servants of Caiaphas and some others beside (Mat. 26:58). If we suppose ourselves looking on with these last at what takes place farther in, there are three things we shall see. We shall see the Saviour, first, unjustly accused; secondly, more unjustly examined; and thirdly, most unmercifully insulted.

I. Unjustly accused.The conduct of His judges was unjust, first, in its object and aim. Witness is said to have been sought by them for the foregone purpose of putting Jesus to death (Mat. 26:59). Practically, therefore, they had settled the case before it was opened; and were pre-judges, therefore, instead of judges, if so we may speak. They seem to have been unjust, next, in regard to the kind of witness which they were ready to takewhich they seem, indeed, to have sought (Mat. 26:59 again). At any rate, it is clear that they did not concern themselves much as to where it came from. Good or bad, it was acceptable to them if it promised to answer their end. It is observable, also, that in regard to this unscrupulousness, they seem to have been all of one mind. The whole council (see, however, Joh. 19:39; Joh. 3:2; Luk. 23:51) interested themselves in this infamous search. The whole council did so, moreover, with equal obstinacy and hate. They had many disappointments, even from their standard (Mat. 26:60), but were not to be put off on that ground. They only sought for more still. Once more they showed themselves unjust by acting, finally, on what was notoriously inadequate ground for their purpose. According to the law which they sat to administer, no accusation was to be held validleast of all in a case like this, which was of a capital kindunless there were at least two consentient witnesses to the matter in hand (Deu. 17:6; Deu. 19:15; cf. Joh. 8:17; 2Co. 13:1; 1Ti. 5:19). What they actually did was to act on testimony which was fatally short of this mark; which was visibly short of it, so it seems to be meant (see Mar. 14:59, and compare Mat. 26:61 here with Joh. 2:19). Answerest thou nothingso Caiaphas said in effectto all this accumulation of witness (Mat. 26:62)? Why art thou treating all that these witness against Thee as undeserving of reply? For so, in reality, the Saviour did by not replying at all. And in this, moreover, to put it otherwise, was all the reply that He gave. To all this storm of accusationthis mockery of justicethis perversion of lawthis subornation of perjuryHe answers by His silence. Jesus held His peace. It was at once the most dignified and the meekest thing He could do. And so aggravated, finally, the exceeding unseemliness of their violent desire to do wrong.

II. More unjustly examined.So far, we may say that, practically, the prosecution had failed. Jesus had treated the witness brought against Him as unworthy of reply; and they had not been able on their part, to prove it anything more. Another, therefore, and most unfair, proceeding, is resorted to next. The Saviour is known as a preacher of truth. They will appeal to His truth. In Gods Name they will require Him to tell them who He really professes to be (see Mat. 26:63). In this way it was hoped to entrap Him into some fatal admission or snare, and so, as it were, to cause His very integrity to furnish the kind of evidence they desired. The whole stratagem was utterly unworthy of any one who sat as a judgemost unworthy of such a judge as the high priest of Gods people. Yet see, on the other side, how the true High Priest, the Lord of Glory, replied. In the first place, with truest respect for Gods appointed officer and deputy. Silent to the witnesses, He will not be silent to him. On the contrary, to his solemn adjuration He gives an equally solemn reply (contrast Act. 23:3). With deepest respect, in the next place, for the requirements of truth. Being thus asked for the truth, He will give it, at whatever cost to Himself. He will give it even when asked for, as now, in the interest of falsehood and wrong. Am I the Christ? Yes, I am. In calling Me so thou hast said what is true (Mat. 26:64). In the spirit, lastly, of the truest faithfulness towards all who are there. Nevertheless, notwithstanding your purpose of evil, notwithstanding your unbelief and contemptI say now to you all (a tous vous qui tes ici, Lasserre),that there will be a dayand that an early day (henceforth) which shall prove all that I say; and when, in fact, instead of My standing at your judgment-seat you will be standing at Mine (Mat. 26:64). Be warned, therefore, in time.

III. Most unmercifully insulted.On the part of Caiaphas himself. With much affectation of grief at having obtained that which he wished, and which, according to him, rendered unnecessary any further calling of witness (Mat. 26:65). Also with much simulation of anxiety to be truly just in this case. Let those who are his assessors say exactly what they think of such words. Let the sentence due to the Man before them be declared by them, rather than him (ibid.). No one would think, from the manner of any of them, that they had come there resolved on His death. Nothing, He is to understand, but the height of horror could have brought them to that pass. He is simply to be looked onthis is what it all comes toas beyond the reach of defence! On the part, next, of all that stand by. With their coarse natures they carry out in action what the others have expressed by their words. And that with such outrageous coarseness, that one hardly likes, even now, to express it plainly in words. Suffice it to note, on the one hand, that it was with the deepest contempt for His person. Even if the accused did deserve to be smitten, why do so on His head? Even if He ought to be shamed, why so in the loathsome way specified here? Also, with the deepest contempt for His office. If thou be the Christ, at least tell us who it is that strikes Thee. Think of a prophet who cannot prophesy this! Such language may be described as spitting on His honour itself.

Do we not see a picture in this sad story:

1. Of the worst of our race.See what human nature can descend to when influenced by envy (Mat. 27:18) and hate! What injustice! What cruelty! What hypocrisy! What effrontery! And this, moreover, on the part of men so privileged as these were! And all, also, in hatred of One against whom no witnesses of any kind could be found!

2. Of the Best of our race.How wonderful the meekness which bore all this without a word of reproach! And that notwithstanding the countless other excellences with which that meekness was joined. Such was the height to which this Man attained! To this, also, in some measure, He has helped some of His to attain (see Act. 7:60; Rom. 9:3)!

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES

Mat. 26:58. Peters fall.To see the end! It is one of those natural expressions which make the Bible so human.

I. Like the rest of the disciples, Peter no sooner saw the capture of the Lord than he forsook Him and fled. He has scarcely fled when he turns to followbut he follows afar off, as one who would disguise even while he yields to the impulse.In the very midst of the high priests servants he seats himself, hoping by the parade of confidence to disarm suspicion. But he had miscalculated his own powers. He was too good a man to be a good actor. The part was overplayed. He had rushed into unnecessary danger, and he could neither tell the truth bravely nor utter a falsehood quietly. He had come to see the end, and yet that natural impulse was dangerous for him. It had temptation in it. It brought him to the edge of that fall which might have been his ruin. But for that determination to see the end Peter might have been as Matthew, might have been as Andrew, almost as Thomasdoubter, not denier; if deserter, yet not rebel. It was the sight of Christ on His trial which gave possibility to the blasphemy: I know not the man.

II. There is responsibility in seeing the end to us, as well as for Peter.It is possible so to see as to see not for the better, but for the worse. This is so when we either contemplate the cross carelessly or turn its very grace into a licence for sin,C. J. Vaughan, D.D.

Mat. 26:63-64. Jesus, the Son of God.Let me read you the words of the late Judge Greenleaf, at the time of his death Law Professor in Harvard Law School: If we regard Jesus simply as a Jewish citizen, and with no higher character, His conviction seems substantially right in point of law, though the trial were not legal in all its forms. For, whether the accusations were founded on the first or second commands in the Decalogue, or on the law laid down in the 13th chapter of Deuteronomy, or that in the 18th chapter and 20th verse, He had violated them all by assuming to Himself powers belonging alone to Jehovah; and, even if He were recognised as a prophet of the Lord, He was still obnoxious to punishment, under the decision in the case of Moses and Aaron before cited. It is not easy to perceive on what ground His conduct could have been defended before any tribunal, unless upon that of His superhuman character. No lawyer, it is conceived, would think of placing his defense on any other basis (Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists; with an Account of the Trial of Jesus. By Simon Green-leaf, LL.D.). This is the ground of our faith in Jesus as the Divine Son of God. In this supreme hour of His life, when the claim meant death to Himself, when, if it were false, it meant falsity running through all human history and to all time, He claimed Divinity under the solemn sanction of His oath and in the presence of eternity. There is no room to build a tomb to Jesus of Nazareth beside the tomb of Confucius of China, Buddha of India, Socrates of Greece. He was either less than a philosopher or more than a man. He was either the Son of God or to be acquitted of blasphemy only by being regarded as an enthusiast. He was either deserving of condemnation or He is entitled to the highest loyalty and allegiance that human hearts can give Him.Lyman Abbott, D.D.

Mat. 26:64. Christs reply to the high priest.

1. That Christ is the Son of God is a truth judicially deponed by Himself, being adjured to answer upon His oath, and being now ready to die. Thou hast said, saith He; or, I am the same whom thou inquirest for.
2. Such as will not receive Christs word as Divine shall be forced to acknowledge His power to be Divine, for thus saith He: Nevertheless (or though ye believe Me not), yet ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power; and this came to pass
(1) In His resurrection;
(2) in His Spirit poured forth on the Apostles;
(3) in the conversion of multitudes of souls;
(4) in the overthrow of the Jewish church and nation in their own time, not long after.
3. Such as will not acknowledge Jesus to be the Son of God, for their salvation, shall see Him come to judge them at the last day.David Dickson.

Mat. 26:65-68. Christs good confession counted blasphemy.

1. A man given over to unbelief, though he pretend to desire to know truth, yet will he not believe when truth is told him (no, not when it is confirmed by the oath of Him who cannot lie, and when it is proved by many miracles), but he will affront his own conscience in all this. He hath spoken blasphemy, said the high priest when Christ had told the truth which before was proved by His works, and was undertaken to be proved yet more.
2. Profane and graceless hypocrites, when it may serve their turn, will put on the mask of marvellous zeal to the glory of God. The high priest doth rend his clothes and saith, You have heard His blasphemy.
3. Partiality and malice, in Christs cause especially, can hardly be hid; for the high priest, even when he will seem to do justice, doth first condemn Christ of blasphemy and then asketh the voices of the Council.

4. Assemblies and councils may err so far as to agree in one to condemn Christ to death (Mat. 26:66).

5. Albeit Christ be most free of blasphemy, yet, because they in whose room He did stand are guilty of it and of all sorts of sin, therefore it is provided by Divine Justice that Christ shall be condemned for our cause and sentence given thus: He is guilty of death.
6. What must we be worthy of when Christ is spit upon, buffeted, blindfolded, and mocked for our cause?Ibid.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

SECTION 69
JESUS IS TRIED BEFORE CAIAPHAS

(Parallels: Mar. 14:55-65; Luk. 22:63-65; Joh. 18:24)

TEXT: 26:5768

57 And they that had taken Jesus led him away to the house of Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together. 58 But Peter followed him afar off, unto the court of the high priest, and entered in, and sat with the officers, to see the end. 59 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death; 60 and they found it not, though many false witnesses came. But afterward came two, 61 and said, This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and build it in three days. 62 And the high priest stood up, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? 63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God. 64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven. 65 Then the high priest rent his garments, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy: what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard the blasphemy: 66 what think ye? They answered and said, He is worthy of death. 67 Then did they spit in his face and buffet him: and some smote him with the palms of their hands, 68 saying. Prophesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee?

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Why were so many of the Jewish leaders available to meet in the middle of the night?

Do you see any indication in the Gospels that the Jews considered what they were doing in any sense a formal trial?

If everyone is so sure Jesus must be put to death, why could no unimpeachable witnesses be found to testify against Him? What does this tell you about (1) the Sanhedrin and priesthood of Israel? (2) about Jesus?

Was it really the authorities true purpose to find false witness? Did they seek no true witnesses at all?

Is there any sense in which the following testimony is true? This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days. What part is true and what is false?

Do you think the Sanhedrin would really crucify Jesus for predicting the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem? Should not they simply wait out the fulfillment before acting against Him? How could this charge ever become a lever powerful enough to move Pilate to crucify Him?

Why did the high priest challenge Jesus to speak in His own defense? Was he interested in hearing Jesus position?

Why did Jesus remain silent during the attacks against Him? Did He not have anything to say? Is not His silence evidence of guilt?

Do you think Caiaphas understood what his own question meant? What do you think he meant by Christ and Son of God? j, Did Jesus admit to being the Christ, the Son of God? What did He mean by saying, You have said so? Is not this ambiguous? Why not just come out and say yes or no?

Why did not Jesus work a mighty miracle there in the presence of the Sanhedrin to substantiate His claim to divine Messiahship? Would not this have avoided the charge of blasphemy? Or would the Sanhedrin have accepted this God-given testimony to His true identity and authority?

Jesus asserted that the Sanhedrin would see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven. How would this (a) reveal His true identity and right to speak for God? (b) warn those elders of the judgment of God upon them?

How did Jesus affirmations constitute a basis for their judgment of blasphemy? What was there about His statement that in their mind justified this conclusion?

Why did they not need to seek any witnesses after His confession to being the Christ, the Son of God?

How did their judgment that He was guilty of blasphemy justify their verdict of death?

How does the demand that Jesus prophesy reveal the beliefs of those who struck Him? Who were they? What were their beliefs?

What does this section teach us about the violent energy of prejudice and party spirit?

Why bother to study the illegal trials of Jesus? Has not the resurrection turned all this into a bad episode that is better forgotten? If so, then, why did the Gospel writers dedicate so much space to Jesus Passion that someone could describe all the Gospels as a Passion account preceded by an extremely long introduction?

What does Jesus conduct before the Sanhedrin tell you about Him?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

Then those who seized Jesus led Him away to the residence of the high priest, first to Annas, because he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. It was Caiaphas who had advised the Jews that it was in their interest that one man be sacrificed to save the people.

[At this point John records Jesus preliminary hearing before Annas (Joh. 18:19-23). Luke teaches that Peters denials, recorded by the other Synoptics after Jesus arraignment before the high priests, were taking place simultaneous with it.]

Annas then sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest. All the Jewish clergy, the scholars and ruling elders were assembled there. Now the chief priest and the whole Sanhedrin began trying to find evidence against Jesus, however false it might be, on which a death sentence could be based. However, they were not finding any. Even though many witnesses volunteered, their statements did not agree. Finally, two came forward to submit this deposition against Him, declaring, We heard this guy say, I can tear down this manmade temple and build another in three days that is not made by man. Yet even so, their testimony was conflicting.
So the high priest stood up in his place among the other members of the council and questioned Jesus, Are you not going to answer? What is this evidence these men bring against you?
But Jesus remained silent and offered no answer.
Then the high priest demanded point-blank, I am ordering you on your oath by the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of our Blessed God!
Thats right: its just as you say, Jesus replied, I am! Nevertheless, I can assure you that, in the future, you will all see me, the Son of man seated at the right hand of Almighty God and coming on the clouds of heaven.
At this point the high priest tore his robes and cried, He has blasphemed! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, you are all witnesses to His blasphemy! What is your verdict?
They unanimously condemned Him, He deserves death! Now some of the men who were holding Jesus began to make sport of Him, spitting in His face and beating Him with their fists. Some slapped Him. They also blindfolded Him and teased, Show us you are a prophet, you Christ! Guess who hit you! Even the guards who took charge of Him, beat Him and made many more insulting remarks against Him.

SUMMARY

After His capture, Jesus was arraigned before Annas and Caiaphas for questioning. They hoped to establish His guilt upon objective evidence, but despaired of finding any, Caiaphas put Jesus on oath to confess His position. Unequivocably Jesus announced His divine Messiahship before the highest court in the nation. His announcement, however, became the accusation upon which they sentenced Him to death for blasphemy. His captors then began to mistreat their prisoner.

NOTES

Why study the Passion stories? Has not the resurrection turned them into a bad episode to forget? However, the Gospel writers do not relegate these facts into second place, because the resurrection actually drives us to re-evaluate the Lords suffering. As we pour over these facts, incredulous, we exclaim: Jesus loved us this much! Further, if in the death of Christ the love of God is made manifest, then our grasp of His magnificence is affected by our grasp of these chapters. It affects the way we think about God. Further, the scandal of the cross affects our self-consciousness as the Church and as individual believers. How do we participate appropriately in the suffering of Christ? (1Pe. 2:21 ff; 1Pe. 4:13 ff.; Php. 3:10; 2Co. 1:5 ff.; Col. 1:24), unless Christs way of living and dying becomes our way?

1. THE HEARING BEFORE CAIAPHAS BEGINS

Mat. 26:57 And they that had taken Jesus led him away to the house of Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together. Many note a number of technical violations of Jewish jurisprudence surrounding these hearings (cf. Mishna, Sanh. 4.1), illegalities which point to a deliberate intention to deny Jesus basic justice. Sadly, on the basis of these judicial anomalies the accuracy of the Gospels has been questioned on the assumption that our authors deliberately create a story critical to the Jews, since the Sanhedrin must be supposed to have acted in full consciousness of its high duty according to its laws. However, the Synoptics, writing while that high tribunal was yet functioning in Israel, presuppose the notoriety of the facts they recount. Hence theirs is the duty of recounting those details that affect our understanding of Jesus, yet without declaring inexactitudes easily refuted by the well-informed. Again, because opposition to Him did not begin that terrible night, no objection to the historicity of the Gospels can be raised that is not ultimately resolved in harmony with the well-known purpose of Jesus enemies. (See Farrars masterful expression, Life, 588f.) Again, what may be known of their existing laws comes from later times that may describe the ideal more than the real, what should have been more than what was (Edersheim, Life, II, 553f.). So, if the Gospels are not to be impugned, should this mockery of justice be dignified with the title of official trials? What did these elders of Israel themselves think they were doing? Two positions are possible:

THERE NEVER WAS AN OFFICIAL JEWISH TRIAL. It might be argued that because the Romans had, with one notable exception (Wars, VI, 2, 4), deprived the Sanhedrin of the power to execute the death sentence (Joh. 18:31; cf. Wars, II, 8, 1; Ant. XX, 9, 1; Y. Sanhedrin I, 18a.34; 7, 24b, 41), it is therefore more probable that in capital cases this court practically functioned as would a grand jury. They could examine accusations against Jesus, and if the evidence warranted, bring formal charges on which He could be tried by the Roman judicial system. Accordingly, this Supreme Council was not intending to try Jesus according to their judiciary procedures. Hence, the judicial injustices that are usually mentioned in connection with Jesus hearings before the Sanhedrin are simply irrelevant. However, the Jews argument that Pilates insistence that they try Jesus is pointless (Joh. 18:31), is not merely a demurring on the ground that they are not competent to try capital cases. It implies, rather, that in some sense they had already officially judged Jesus and that He must be executed on their findings, hence Pilates authorization is the only requirement lacking before the already decided execution can occur.

Perhaps the reason they do not stone Jesus outright, as in the case of Stephen (Acts 7) or murder Him as the 40 conspirators planned to do with Paul (Acts 23)all without Roman blessingis Jesus far greater popular support which could touch off riots, if they dared suppress Him with violence.

THERE WAS A JEWISH TRIAL OF SORTS but what occurred that night is not its main deliberation, but its culmination. In every segment of the national leadership a groundswell consensus against Jesus had been growing for months. When an objective voice of protest had been raised in the Senate against this railroading, it was ruthlessly stilled (Joh. 7:51). Accordingly, what took place this night was but a final hearing to create a case whereby Jewish responsibility for Jesus death could be placed on Pilates shoulders, exonerating the Sanhedrin and priesthood of blame before the people. Witnesses were called, evidence heard and a vote taken to legitimize the proceedings, but no effort was made to follow strict procedure to protect Jesus rights, since His execution was already a settled matter. However, did the Hebrew legislation have no appropriate procedure for conducting these hearings? Finally, the special morning session for the final sentencing is damning evidence of their intention to legitimize their act (Mat. 27:1 = Mar. 15:1 = Luk. 22:66 to Luk. 23:1). Whatever may be said about their procedure, the Jewish leaders themselves treated their own acts as official, legitimized by certain apparently indispensable formalities (witnesses, testimony, voting). Even if they are not acting as the Sanhedrin in regular session or even a quorum thereof, it is certainly not as private citizens. So, before Pilate, they argue as representatives of the Jewish people who have already properly investigated, judged and condemned Jesus (Joh. 19:7; cf. Joh. 18:30 f.).

Therefore, rather than assault the Evangelists accounts as inaccurate, we should treat these sessions as a religious heresy trial masked as a preliminary investigation with reference to the Roman trials. It really counted.

What does it matter, if no legal procedure is respected, when the avowed purpose of its perpetrators is not strict adherence to rules of evidence but to eliminate Jesus? Men who instigate a judicial murder are not models of consistency nor quibble over technicalities when they sense victory within their grasp. (Cf. the procedure at Naboths crooked trial. 1Ki. 21:7-14). Was it that they scrupulously avoided calling it a trial according to the rules, but, by a twisted concession to justice, observed some of the forms to absolve themselves before the nation, if that ever became necessary? By what canon may it be determined that the Sanhedrin under no condition would violate its own judiciary procedure, if a sufficient number of its members considered the eliminating of a dangerous, false Messiah, to be politically more crucial than strict adherence to its own legal conventions?

So, if Jesus judicial murder were already decided (Joh. 11:45-52), why need a trial? Because they must yet formulate some official justification that would satisfy the people and secure the indispensable cooperation of Pilate. To justify to the Jewish people the arraignment of a Hebrew before a Roman court, they must first judge and excommunicate him as a transgressor of Jewish law.

Caiaphas and the other authorities were not the first to question Jesus, since John clearly names Annas, the political boss and deposed high priest (cf. Ant. XX, 9, 2), as the man before whom the first preliminary hearing took place (Mat. 18:13 ff.; cf. Luk. 3:2; Act. 4:6 calls Annas high priest). Perhaps this semi-private, unofficial hearing aimed at uncovering some line of accusation or juridical pretext that would sway the Sanhedrin. Further, this examination gained time to assemble both the witnesses and jurors. Without getting much satisfaction, Annas then sent Him bound to his son-in-law, Caiaphas the high priest (Joh. 18:24). Apparently this palace complex was constructed around a central courtyard open to the sky, surrounded by the various apartments on different floors (cf. aul, Mat. 26:58; Mat. 26:69; Luk. 22:55). If Annas and Caiaphas lived in separate apartments in the same building, this move could be easily accomplished without going out into the street of the City. Peter and the others remained in the same courtyard for the second hearing (Mat. 26:58; Joh. 18:15 f., Joh. 18:28).

Caiaphas the high priest . . . the scribes and the elders were gathered together. (See notes on Mat. 26:3.) Even if the language might admit of a few exceptions (were Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea summoned?), this constitutes the whole council (t sundron hlon, Mat. 26:59). For this closed session they are not met in regular court session in their official council chamber, as they would next day (Luk. 22:66), but in the capacity of Sanhedrin members acting as a more or less official caucus (Mat. 26:59). Matthew and Mark report the substance of this main session, without repeating it during the official ratification next day in the regular meeting-place of the Sanhedrin (Mat. 27:1 = Mar. 15:1 = Luk. 22:66).

Does the whole council stand for an official quorum of 23? (Bemidb. R.1, cited by Edersheim, Life, II, 555.) Although the Sanhedrin was composed of 71 members, to decide a death sentence, the presence of 23 judges was sufficient. Some would exonerate the gentler Pharisees from the injustices perpetrated. Flusser (Jesus, 159, citing Mishna Sanh. 4, 1; cf. Josephus, Ant. XX, 9, 1) argued that a Sadducee-packed quorum could have sentenced Jesus to death whereas the more equitable Pharisees would have brought about the dismissal of the high priest, Annas, claiming that this Sanhedrin session was illegal, having been called without the governors consent. This bypasses the following considerations:

In his case cited it appears that Flusser overstates his case by giving Pharisees this honor, but. granted his conclusion, it would not prove Pharisean favor to Christ, because the case cited served purely political interests of the Pharisees by putting the Sadducees in disfavor with Rome and proved themselves better subjects of Caesar than the high priest.

The arresting party was also sent by the Pharisees (Joh. 18:3). The Pharisees were alarmed about a supposed faked resurrection plot (Mat. 27:62). Did they abandon their cause during the hearings?

Luke calls the morning session the assembly of the elders of the people gathererd together with the chief priests and scribes (sunchthe t presbutrion to lao, archieres te ka grammates). Cf. Lukes use of sundrion, Act. 4:15; Act. 5:21; Act. 5:27; Act. 5:34; Act. 5:41; Act. 6:12; Act. 6:15; Act. 22:30; Act. 23:1; Act. 23:6; Act. 23:15; Act. 23:20; Act. 23:28; Act. 24:20, as a general expression for the Supreme Sanhedrin of Israel. Mark has: the chief priests and the elders and scribes and [ka = even?] the whole council. By what logic would Pharisees have been excluded from this?

Nor can it be concluded that absence of all reference to the Pharisees in the trial of Jesus meant that they were too small a minority to have an effective role in the courts, least of all in the Great Sanhedrin. (So Bowker, Jesus and the Pharisees, 42.) Does not this completely underestimate the influence of the great Gamallel (Act. 5:34 ff.)? Further, if the Sadducees must follow the traditions of the Pharisees, then were not these latter a highly influential part of that body that must decide on points of law and tradition? Mishna Yom. 1.8 [= Bab. Talm. Yoma 19b; = Pal. Talm. Yoma 1.5] Act. 23:6-10) The Pharisees dominated the national leadership from early times. (Ant. XIII, 15, 5-16, 2 [= Wars I, 5, 13] = 78 B.C.; XVII, 2, 4 = befoRevelation 4 B.C.; XVIII, 1, 4 = idem.) The bitter hatred of the Pharisees induced them to cooperate with their natural enemies, the Sadducees and the Herodians, to eliminate Jesus (cf. Mar. 3:6; Joh. 7:32; Joh. 7:47 ff.; Joh. 11:57).

That the wiser, more conscientious elders on this high tribunal should have been present and sentenced Jesus to death without raising a single dissenting voice, thus perpetrating this gross violation of justice, is not incredible. The consideration that His elimination in the name of national peace was the less of two evils may have anesthetized the conscience of stricter observers of the Law or of any friends Jesus may have had in the council (Joh. 11:50).

Gathered: awaiting the arrival of Jesus after His arrest. That there were so many people available to meet all night long, if necessary to crucify Jesus, should come as no surprise.

These men listed are assembled in the crucial session that must conclude the final, authoritative judgment on the Nazarene. Because the ring-leaders are determined to sentence Him to death, they will stop at nothing until their goal is reached. The others recognize the national emergency involved (Joh. 11:45 ff.).

But that many others, not directly connected with the hierarchy, could be convoked at will, was possible, because every night of the year 240 Levites and 30 priests were on guard duty in the Temple (Edersheim, Temple, 148151). Caiaphas could have tapped any one of these for special duties, should the need arise for false witnesses or mob scenes in this judiciary farce. Edersheim (ibid.) wrote,

Perhaps it was on this ground that, on the morning of the Passover, they who led Jesus from Caiaphas thronged so early the judgment-hall of Pilate. Thus, while some of them would be preparing the Temple to offer the morning sacrifice, others were at the same moment unwittingly fulfilling the meaning of that very type, when He on whom was laid the iniquity of us all was brought as a lamb to the slaughter.

2. PETER ENTERS THE COURTYARD TO OBSERVE

Mat. 26:58 This verse will be treated in connection with the next section because it relates directly to Peters denials.

3. THEY SEEK VAINLY FOR WITNESSES

Mat. 26:59 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death. Because divisions among the Jewish parties in the Sanhedrin made confusion in technical procedure inevitable, a clear-cut and unified legal definition of Jesus guilt was not simple. Consequently, they must cast about to obtain a sufficient consensus on a commonly acceptable charge.

They sought false witness? Some suggest that they consciencelessly coached paid witnesses to falsify the evidence. If they paid Judas, why not also others? But was this predicable of the whole council? From their own point of view, were they not, rather, seeking evidence that appeared plausible enough to stand up in court? However, because their purpose is to secure a death sentence, regardless of the facts, they must seek evidence however flimsy to sustain it. They already had their conclusion: that they might put him to death. But, because there was public opinion and a Roman procurator to content, they were now seeking a procedural foundation on which to establish it. This, says Matthew, is tantamount to seeking false witness. That they sought any witness points to their attempt to give an appearance of legality, hence points to a trial, even if it bypasses almost every rule of their jurisprudence.

The unanimous verdict reached by this session is suspect because no sincere effort was expended to investigate objectively. (Cf. Deu. 19:18.) Why did not they have at least one defender to serve as Devils Advocate to question the majority opinion and speak on behalf of the accused? But this is the injustice of prejudice.

Mat. 26:60 and they found it not, though many false witnesses came. But afterward came two. The Law required at least two consistent witnesses (Deu. 17:6; Deu. 19:15). That the critical minds of these theological lawyers found it not, though many false witnesses came, is a marvel, because Jesus had been such a prominent, public figure constantly exposed to the careful scrutiny of thousands. They were slightly unsuccessful for several reasons:

Consistent false witnesses did not exist. His opposition simply could not uncover two men who could testify to a single fault worthy of the death sentence, This becomes striking presumptive evidence of His innocence. Jesus challenge to Annas was not helpless flailing but logical and extremely appropriate:

I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing secretly. Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them. They know what I said (Joh. 18:19-23).

But, because the closed-minded authorities are interested not in truth but in a legal smokescreen that assures the cross for the Nazarene, none of the multitudes would be called to testify. Only those witnesses whose loyalty to the Sanhedrin remained unquestioned could be permitted to testify.

They found it not, because they must construct a doubly solid case not only according to Jewish jurisprudence to satisfy Jewish public opinion, but that would also stand up in court and convince the Roman governor. It was this kind of false testimony that they could not find, even though many would-be witnesses came forward.

Further, the conflict in the witnesses may testify to their own deep uncertainty as to what kind of charge to bring against Him and whether He could be proven to be a rebel against the central authority, despite the authorities own seriously divided conflicts of interpretation, This uncertainty would lead to the kind of exploratory debate and conflict that kept the witnesses from agreeing, leading to a serious difficulty in obtaining a consensus.

On what basis can they objectively avoid condemnation for a blatant violation of ancient law because they do not punish these who witness falsely against Jesus (Deu. 19:16-21)?

One witness whom they could have called, but who did not offer his own testimony against Christ, was still lurking in the shadows to see how this trial would end. Were there anything compromising in Jesus doctrine or character that could be alleged against Him as proof that He was nothing but an imposter, Judas Iscariot could have furnished that evidence. But this man who knew Him so well and even turned Him over to His enemies, could not and would not accuse Him of anything wrong, even though his testimony would have vindicated his betrayal. Judas silence is no proof of Jesus innocence, because Iscariots motives undermine his testimony. He could support a magical Messiah who, despite character defects and doctrinal irregularities, enriched him. (Cf. notes on Mat. 26:14; Mat. 26:25; Mat. 26:48-50.) However, his silence indicates that his motives had not been revenge, As far as Judas is concerned, his participation in this crisis has ended. However tardy, he testified to Jesus innocence (Mat. 27:3 f.).

But afterward came two, the legal minimum. Were these two priests who had challenged Jesus first purification of the Temple (Joh. 2:18 f.)?

Mat. 26:61 and said, This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and build it in three days. Many see this deposition as (1) deliberately twisted to make Jesus true statement appear dangerous, or (2) a different version based on their misunderstanding. Paradoxically, however, Jesus could actually have said this, without meaning, naturally, what these two witnesses thought He meant. In fact, this is a free paraphrase of His declaration at the first Temple cleansing (Joh. 2:19). But as on that occasion the Jews thought that He meant the Herodian Temple still under construction, even so now these false witnesses assume He meant that same structure. In fact, Marks version more clearly reflects their understanding: We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands (Mar. 14:58). However, His predictions of Jerusalems fall and the destruction of the temple could also cause the two strains of Temple-prophecy to be blended in mens minds, whereas Jesus referred to two separate objects: the destruction of the Temple and His own death and resurrection (Luk. 19:41-44; Mat. 22:7; Mat. 23:36-39). Their witness is still false because of their added inferences, even if not intentionally wrong as to form.

The great irony of their accusations is that they were substantially correct, even if misunderstood and perhaps somewhat garbled. For if, by the temple of God, Jesus intended Gods dwelling on earth in its ideal, highest sense, He referred to His own body in which all the fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily, (Col. 2:9; Col. 1:19; cf. Joh. 2:21), then He conclusively proved that He was able to lay down His life (destroy this temple of God) and take it up again (rebuild it in three days) (Joh. 10:17 f.). And, in His resurrection, not only did He build it in three days, but He made possible the construction of an indestructible temple of God, formed out of living stones for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit (Eph. 2:21 f., 1Pe. 2:5).

Thus, if Jesus really did say (as Mark quotes the false witnesses): temple made with hands . . . another not made with hands, He really did effect this as well. With His death and resurrection our Lord brought to an end the Old Covenant with its earthly temple under construction for already more than 46 years (Joh. 2:20). It would be 40 years more before that building were demolished. Nevertheless, its relation to the program of God ended with the cross. The new, gloriously spiritual Temple, the Church, became an instant possibility when Jesus conquered death (Joh. 2:21 f.). Because God dwelt in Him, the new Temple was erected instantly and permanently. Now, in the Church, which was born shortly thereafter, God dwells in all who are in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:26 f.; Eph. 2:19 ff.; Rom. 8:1; Col. 2:10). This Church is made without hands, just as He is reported to have predicted! (Cf. Dan. 2:34 f., Dan. 2:44 f.)

The accusation of hostility to the Temple made sense, because, if it could be established that Jesus repudiated the centrality of the Temple and, by implication, its authority, He could be tried as a rebel. Further, the Romans had an interest in assuring the protection of holy places in the Empire as a guarantee of the stability of law and order among the peoples who worshiped thereat. From the political standpoint, therefore, if this accusation proved well-founded, Caiaphas would have a telling capital accusation with which to consign Jesus over to the Roman procurator. Had not Jesus openly attacked the Temple monopoly twice (Joh. 2:13 ff.; Mat. 21:12 ff.)? If proven, the quoted threat was potentially plausible ground for a capital case with the Romans.

Then, too, His absurd claim to be able to rebuild the Temple in three days smacked of an assertion to possess superhuman power, which, in turn, borders on sacrilege. This consideration may have suggested to Caiaphas another approach to try, the claim of deity, as a more likely accusation with which to eliminate Him (Mat. 26:63).

4. THE HIGH PRIEST QUESTIONS JESUS UNDER OATH

Mat. 26:62 And the high priest stood up, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these witness against thee? The agitated pontiff leaped to his feet because he realized that these unprovable and judicially unpunishable declarations are the worst that can be alleged against the Nazarene.

The foregoing evidence was so insufficient, distorted and contradictory that no solid conclusion could be based on it. The case could not rest on such flimsy testimony. If the judges themselves remained unconvinced, how could they persuade Pilate?!

Jesus so-called threat to destroy the Temple was a reckless boast at worst and certainly not yet fact, i.e. still in the realm of prophecy, hence could not yet serve as a basis of final incrimination. Further, His zeal for the purity of Gods Temple, recently expressed in its purification, undermined any supposed intention on His part to destroy it (Mat. 21:12 f.). Again, His promise to rebuild the Temple, while absurd if He could not do it, could be thought to testify against His reputed repudiation of it as a permanent institution.

The normal, instinctive reaction of an undefended accused person would be self-defense.

Perhaps the Nazarene could be induced to give the damning evidence inadvertently Himself. The priests baited question means: Are you going to give no justification or explanation for these pretentious words attributed to you? Does not this accumulation of testimony deserve a reply? But this pretense of fairness in offering an opportunity for self-defense against apparently ruinous, unshakable testimony is an ill-disguised trap leading Jesus to self-incrimination. Caiaphas is not simply presiding now but manipulating the session to achieve his own declared purpose (Joh. 11:45-53).

All of the malice of His enemies could not bring forward any sin against Him. Their best effort was a misunderstood repetition of a figurative statement. He must die, if at all, for His most majestic claim, which, proven true by His resurrection, vindicated His life and authorized His teaching.

Mat. 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God.

Jesus held his peace: Although Jesus may have been able to ignore the more absurd accusations, surely the temptation to respond to and correct misunderstandings of His teachings would have been sorely felt. Here is impressive proof of Jesus total self-mastery. (Cf. Heb. 12:3; Isa. 53:7.) Though He had the right to answer His accusers, He declined to exercise that right. The key to our Lords majestic, disciplined silence here may be the combination of various factors:

His keen awareness that the real issue is not whether or not He had said this or that. The real question is His identity and His consequent right to say anything that God wants said.

His confidence that the Father, in time and history, would interpret His teaching correctly and prove His claims well-founded. Rather than demand His rights through violent self-assertion, He would achieve His victory through meek self-denial.

His certainty that a fair trial was not to be expected. The purpose of this trial is not to clear the innocent and punish the guilty, but to punish the innocent and save the guilty. To correct their willed misconceptions is hopelessly useless.

His accusers were actually self-defeated, hopelessly entangling themselves in their own unbased accusations and consequently refuting each others testimony.

I adjure thee by the living God: I put you on your oath by the living God. Jesus does not quibble with the fuming pontiff about the rightness of swearing in court before the national tribunal. Rather, He tacitly accepts the formulation and proceeds to speak as under oath before God and these witnesses. He does this without any mental reservation about swearing, because He always spoke everything He ever said in the full awareness that His Father is ever present and hears all. His example, then, is proof that swearing is not evil in all circumstances. (See notes on Mat. 5:33-37.)

Further, in obedience to God, He must give testimony in court even if it is self-incriminating. (Cf. Lev. 5:1; see Joshuas application of this: Jos. 7:19.) This does not violate the rule that one witness is no witness (Num. 35:30; Deu. 17:6; Deu. 19:15), because, as Caiaphas observes, by His utterance He made them all witnesses. If there were a juridical principle in Mosaic legislation whereby the accused must not be compelled to incriminate Himself, Jesus waived His privilege and chose to testify.

Tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of Gad. Caiaphas knew that Jesus offence lay, so far as jurisdiction was concerned, in His approach to authority, because in numerous ways He claimed direct authority and power from God. His debates turned on whether He were Gods Son and authorized representative or not (Joh. 5:17 f., Joh. 5:21-28; Joh. 6:29-59; Joh. 8:24; Joh. 8:46 f., Joh. 8:51; Joh. 8:58; Joh. 10:30-38; Joh. 12:44 ff.). Caiaphas could also guess that, whatever Pilate thought of Jesus concept of Messiahship, the governor would recognize that, to let Him continue a proclamation which so radically challenged fundamental concepts of the Jewish system, meant that He could disrupt the delicate balance among the holders of political and religious power in Israel. Hence, Pilate could sense a political threat. So, if the Galilean could be induced to repeat His claims in court, He could be crucified for sacrilege and rebellion.

That Caiaphas had to resort to this blunt procedure establishes several things all favorable to Jesus:

It proves how desperate he was to find some telling evidence on which to establish the death sentence. The clumsy prosecution has failed, and Caiaphas knows it.

It measured how completely Jesus imperturbable calm nettled the cunning priest. There was really nothing to criticize in His dignified behavior under fire, even though it thwarted their purpose and plotting.

It suggests how well-established and thoroughly embarrassing to them were His majestic miracles. Each miracle inevitably brought only glory to God and blessing to men or was connected with some grand Messianic declaration or claim to Deity and established His right to make those declarations. So, to bring up any of His claims was a tremendous risk for Caiaphas, because to do so would inevitably bring up also the unquestionably supernatural proof of their validity.

The Christ, the Son of God. Old Testament passages revealed the divinity of the Christ (Psa. 2:7; Isa. 7:14; Isa. 9:6; Zec. 12:10; Zec. 13:7; cf. Dan. 7:13 f.). So, if the charge of blasphemy is to be based on a human claim to equality with God with divine authority and rights, then the terms of Caiaphas question must be somewhat equivalent, even if some Jews failed to equate them.

That Caiaphas, in this night session, formulated his question so that Christ and the Son of God refer to the same person, whereas in the formal morning trial these terms are separated into two distinct questions (Luk. 22:67; Luk. 22:70), does not prove we have two contradictory reports of one questioning. In the night trial Caiaphas is more succinct, combining the two potentially separate claims into one self-incriminating answer. In the morning the court proceeded successive steps to establish an unshakable conviction of Jesus guilt.

To be the Son of God is tantamount to being equal with God (Joh. 5:18). Were the Son of God merely a Jewish paraphrase for the Christ, they could not have accused Jesus of blasphemy. The claim to be the Messiah was, alone, not strictly punishable with death nor considered blasphemy per s. This claim, even if proven groundless, did not sully the honor of God. But to claim to be Son of God meant deity, and, if untrue, was blasphemy. Jesus claimed it, they reject it and Jesus does not correct their understanding. They understood Him, and He them. Unquestionably, Caiaphas formulated this last-ditch challenge, knowing that Jesus made these claims (Joh. 5:17 f; Joh. 10:30-39; Mat. 21:37-46; Mat. 22:41-46). He thus forced Him to repeat them before the council to convince them of the charge that must unequivocally lead to His condemnation for blasphemy.

That Jesus will go on trial before Pilate for His confession to being the Son of God does not come out in the early stages of Pilates interrogations. Nonetheless, this claim was a key issue on which a later phase of the trial turned, because Pilate, upon hearing this claim, lost his nerve (Joh. 19:7 f.). Unquestionably, the Jews did not unveil this issue in the original charges, because such a claim could bring only a laugh from the hardened Roman, not a death sentence. However, launched at the appropriate moment, it shook the governor. His claim to be the Christ offered a more volatile issue with politically dangerous overtones which would instantly carry substantially more weight with the Procurator.

5. JESUS CONFESSES HIS DEITY AND MESSIAHSHIP

Mat. 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven. The appropriate answer to unjust accusations and crumbling testimony had been silence earlier. Now, because the truth is at stake, silence would be a denial of His true identity on which everything else hinged. To affirm His deity with clarity and conviction would offer the testimony which these men needed to hear, not merely to convict Him, but to be told that truth, His Messianic self-consciousness, for which He was willing to die. During His public ministry, because of common misconceptions of Messiahship, He had maintained His Messianic reserve, often masking His true identity in public and avoiding publicity. Now, however, all reserve must give way to unhesitating affirmation before the competent authorities of His people. Of all His public declarations, this is the most decisive, emphatic affirmation.

His answer is a model of succinctness, because He could have argued His case, citing miracles without end. Instead, His statements are three, composed of His initial confession followed by two supporting statements:

Thou hast said (sepas) expresses a sense of reservation about the affirmation: The words are yours. Blass-Debrunner (441, 3) note the emphasis on the personal pronoun (s):

You say it yourself, not I (277, 1, for emphasis or other contrast) in which there is always something of an implication that the statement would not have been made had the question not been asked. . . . Cf. Mat. 27:11; Mat. 26:25; Mar. 15:2; Luk. 23:3; in Joh. 18:37 s lgeis, hti (not that, but because, for, . . . basiles eimi, cf. Luk. 22:70 humes lgete, hti eg eimi).

With this Arndt-Gingrich (225) substantially agree: As an answer s epas sc. aut = you have said it = Yes. (Bl-D . . . 331, 3. Not a simple affirmative ans., but one that is forced: Const. Apost. 15, 14, 4 ouk epen h krios nai, allhti su epas. However, what should be made of Marks version with its unequivocal answer, eg eimi? (See below.)

The you have said must not be misinterpreted to suggest that Jesus confession of His own Messiahship was unclear and equivocable. Rather, because the concepts of Christhood and divine Sonship in the mind of the high priest and of the Sanhedrin were as unclear and equivocable as those held by so many others in the first century who were ignorant of Gods true planning, with respect to Caiaphas formulation Jesus MUST formally demur. The content of the high priests wordsas the Sanhedrin understood themmay not precisely coincide with the content of Jesus confession. Nevertheless, lest anyone conclude that He were not the Christ, the Son of God in any sense, He could not actually say no to Caiaphas formulation. Hence, before saying, Yes, I am, He lodged a mild objection based on His own well-founded doubt about the acceptability of the formulation proposed. This He did in the well-known words, You have said. The words are yours, however, yes, in a sense that you have not understood and with reservations about what you think these terms mean, yes, I am the Christ, the Son of God.

To affirm that Thou hast said is an idiom for I am is not proved by Mar. 14:62. Marks version simply eliminates the subtle reservation Jesus expressed, and gives His general meaning. For Marks presumably Gentile readership, the Messianic concept would be less garbled by Jewish nationalism than for Matthews Jewish audience for whom Jesus mild taking exception would be especially edifying, hence reported verbatim.

Thou hast said, however, does not mean You yourself affirm what is true, as if Jesus saw an unconscious or unwilling tribute to His divine authority and identity in the words of the very man whose denial of it drove him relentlessly to crucify Jesus. Caiaphas fully understood what he meant by his own question and repudiated Jesus claim to being anything near what Caiaphas thought his question meant.

Further, the violent reaction of the high priest (Mat. 26:65) and of the court is fully justified from their own view, only if we correctly understand Jesus answer to be unequivocally positive because sustained by the comment that follows it. It is highly unlikely that the Jewish clergy would have cried Sacrilege! or Blasphemy! if their Prisoners total answer ultimately hid behind ambiguities.

Nevertheless continues His mild objection to mistaken connotations in the popular use of these terms. Rather than simply admit to being the Christ in any political revolutionary sense, Jesus proceeded to interpret His Messiahship in terms of Gods definitions. He knew quite clearly what He was doing, because in refining His answer, He went even further than the priest asked.

Henceforth ye shall see: from this moment at the beginning of His suffering they could discern His royal Lordship by His accession to the Throne. This glorification actually began with His betrayal (Joh. 13:31). The manifestation of the triumph and Lordship of Jesus was even then becoming evident in the world, and needs not await some eschatological realization at the end of the world, for it had already begun with His Passion. Rather than defeat Him, His crucifixion, resurrection and ascension represent the very means of His accession to power and glory. His earthly humiliation is about over: the way of the cross leads home. Shortly, He would return to the Father, the Holy Spirit would be given, His Church would be started and the Jewish State would live to see the vindication of Jesus daring claims!

Henceforth ye shall see: Jesus sustaining argument, that demonstrates the truthfulness of His former claim, is composed of two unquestionably Messianic Scriptures. (For further notes, see my Vol. II, pp. 446449: The Coming of the Son of Man. See notes on Mat. 24:29-31.)

the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power (Psa. 110:1). This masterful concept of a Man seated on Gods glorious throne as supreme King and Judge of all the world is the sort of self-consciousness one would expect of someone who considered Himself the Lords Elect, the Servant of Jahveh, His own unique Son who alone knows the Father. It is this very self-awareness of His own deity that gave Him the courage, when on trial for His life, to identify Himself unequivocally as the Messianic Son of man. The right hand of Power is an idiomatic Hebrew paraphrase for Gods almighty right hand.

the Son of man . . . coming on the clouds of heaven (Dan. 7:13 ff.). This refers to Jesus ascension and incoronation. For this concept, see full notes on Mat. 24:29-31 esp. Mat. 24:30. That this has nothing to do with the Second Coming is established by Jesus time-schedule: henceforth you shall see. . . . They would not have to wait in line two millennia to get a glimpse of it.

Because in Daniel the Son of man comes TO GOD to receive His Kingdom and He must rule, as David writes, until His triumph is absolute and total, Jesus prophesies His exaltation and triumph over His enemies.

Thus, just as before Pilate Jesus declared Himself to be the King of a Kingdom not of this world (Joh. 19:36 f.), so also before the high priest He declared Himself to be the Son of man, Gods universal King of whom Daniel spoke. Jesus prophesied that they would live to see the fulfillment of these prophetic truths realized in Himself, Unless they repented, their roles would rapidly be reversed: He would be their King and Judge; they the judged. His heavenly glorification would eclipse them in every way, and His vindication exclude them from that glorious Kingdom which He coming must usher in. This dramatic vindication occurred just forty years later when He poured out terrible, punitive judgment on them, their City and their Temple.

With the crucifixion, they would suppose the Nazarene question closed. Instead, not four days later the religious clique discovered they had not heard the last of Jesus of Nazareth. Less than two months later, shaken by a flourishing spiritual movement that threatened their religious hegemony, they arraigned before their council a couple of ex-fisherman, saying to them, We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name. Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and are determined to make us guilty of this Mans death (Act. 5:28). What is the significance of this complaint? The Sanhedrin and the priesthood were just beginning to reckon with Jesus the Christ ascended to the throne of the universe. Everything they attempted to stop His growing movement utterly failed. He had won. And His victory song went on. The Apostles hammered on this concept (Act. 2:33-36; Act. 3:13; Act. 5:31 f.; Rom. 8:34; Heb. 1:3 f., Heb. 1:13; Heb. 10:12 f.; 1Pe. 3:22). The Christians found their hope and power in it (Act. 4:24 ff; Act. 7:55). As they went through their trials, they looked up, not only for the coming of Christ, but to the Christ now reigning in heavenly majesty.

6. JESUS IS CONDEMNED TO DEATH FOR BLASPHEMY

Mat. 26:65 Then the high priest rent his garments, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy: what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard the blasphemy. Jesus had neither yielded nor evaded, but His confession turned the course of the trial. Rent his garments: among Orientals this was the customary way of expressing extreme shock, dismay and indignation. This was accomplished by gripping the garment at the neck in front and tearing it a bit. May we not judge our own sense of Gods high holiness by how profoundly we are shocked by a blatant case of treating God with disrespect? (Cf. Isa. 36:22 where men appropriately tore their clothes at hearing blasphemy; cf. 1Ma. 11:71; Josephus, Wars, II, 15, 4; Act. 14:14.) Rent his garments, i.e., not his official dress, which was worn during his official functions as high priest, but his personal clothes (pl. himtia; chitnos, Mar. 14:63) as president of the Council. Although a high priest was prohibited from expressing personal grief in this way (Lev. 21:10), he protests in his official position against what he considers blasphemy (Sanhedrin 7, 5). According to Rabbinical rules the judges must be standing on their feet, rend their garments and not sew them up again (P.H.C., XXII, 587).

So, in theory, the high priest was expressing holy grief at this profanation of the honor and holiness of God. In reality, however, because Jesus self-incrimination was more thorough than expected, Caiaphas was neither grieved nor shocked, but greatly relieved at surpassing so easily what had appeared an impossible obstacle. Inwardly he was fiercely jubilant. With imitation horror and hidden malice the cunning Caiaphas prejudiced the Council vote by his dramatic cry of blasphemy!

What further need have we of witnesses? The previous trouble with conflicting witnesses is now obviated. The whole council is now itself a witness to Jesus assertions, hence all of them could now testify to the nation as to the crime for which the Nazarene would die. Paradoxically, they had found but one faithful Witness (Rev. 3:14). Although they repudiated His testimony, yet they intended to sentence Him on the basis of His word alone!

Blasphemy: For a man not to substantiate His claims to divinity when on trial for His life is to stand self-convicted. But they ignore how many hundreds of times Jesus had already validated His Messiahship and divine Sonship by incontestable supernatural proof during His ministry (Joh. 7:31; Joh. 10:38; Joh. 12:37; Joh. 14:10 f.). Since all previous evidence in favor of Jesus is excluded a priori, only what occurs at this trial counts. However, they suppose they must judge Him here and now on the sole basis of arguments in the trial. So, His present answer is treated as an assertion unsupported by immediately evident proof. Lacking this support, His judges must pronounce it blasphemy. So Jesus is defeated in the eyes of His enemies. By claiming to be, in some sense, divine, He appeared to attack the basic tenet of Israel: monotheism, for how could there be but one God (Deu. 6:4), if He were somehow God too? This realization would strike the unthinking unbeliever with tremendous impact.

However, the issue is clear: either Jesus was divine or He was not. If He was not, He spoke blasphemy and deserved to be condemned. If He spoke the truth, He was Gods Son and they deserve death who condemned Him. If He lied, it was the greatest folly ever committed because done in full awareness that this deception would send Him to the cross. If false, we could perhaps excuse His claim as that of a deluded fanatic. However, if His claim to be divine is true, do we worship Him?

Mat. 26:66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is worthy of death. The triumphant Caiaphas charged the obsequious jury to do its duty. Ramming through a quick voice vote, he finally obtained his consensus of action in this unanimous verdict (Mar. 14:64). Since death was the normal penalty for blasphemy (Lev. 24:15 f.), for being a false prophet (Deu. 18:20), a seducer (Deuteronomy 13) or a rebel (Deu. 17:12), Jesus had no chance and could be considered worthy of death, indicted on whatever count His enemies found pragmatically successful. Formal sentencing would follow early the next morning (Mat. 27:1 = Luk. 22:66 ff.). That later trial simply marks this one as informal and exploratory in character and its test vote the expression of a legal opinion. Even if not the formal de jure determination of the Sanhedrin met in regular session, Jesus condemnation and death were the de facto product of its members. They expressed the decision and aims of a significant cross section of Israels leadership and its supreme tribunal. (See on Mat. 26:3.)

Their superficial judgment is totally incomprehensible, if we suppose that they condemned Jesus for claiming to be a Messiah on the strictly political level, for there were later, openly political messiahs in abundance whom the Sanhedrin did not bring to trial as they did Jesus. (See on Mat. 24:4 f., Mat. 24:11, Mat. 24:23-26. Was that only because those political messiahs were so often halted by Roman might, hence the Sanhedrin did not have to deal with them?) On the contrary, Jesus claim to Messiahship consisted in supernatural identity, His claim to be the Son of God. In this He was a threat to them.

7. FRENZIED DISPLAY OF HATRED

Mat. 26:67 Then did they spit in his face and buffet him: and some smote him with the palms of their hands. Since their Prisoner had not defended Himself by a devastating display of supernatural might, they viewed Him as innocuous and their courage returned. Before covering His face, they spit in his face. To the legal injustice they add insult and shame. (Cf. Num. 12:14; Deu. 25:9; Job. 30:10.)

Who really abused Jesus? They points to the Sanhedrists, whereas Luk. 22:63 mentions the guards. But the latter did not have Jesus yet, because they received him with blows after the Councilors themselves had begun the mocking (Mar. 14:65). However, it matters little, because the shameless brutality of their lackeys proved they had the full approval of their masters. These savagely attack their defenseless Victim. This inhumanity shames those who showed it, not Him who tolerated it.

Mat. 26:68 saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee? Without a piece of information from Lukes Gospel (Luk. 22:64), some unfriendly critics might judge this sentence a piece of absurdity, since if the smiter were then standing before Jesus, what purpose could he have had in taunting Jesus by challenging: Tell us who struck you! Luke, however, reports that they had blindfolded Jesus to keep Him from seeing who His attackers were. McGarvey (Evidences of Christianity, 92) wrote:

If Matthew had been making up his story, he would probably have been on his guard against such omissions; but as he was conscious of writing only the truth, he left his statement to take care of itself.

Did the Jews cover their Prisoners face to symbolize the death sentence? (Cf. Mar. 14:65; Est. 7:8.) If so, this would rationalize the blindfolding by His tormentors, This man had claimed to be a prophet. Let him prove it. Because He could not see who hit Him, any faked prophecy would be impossible, if He were no real prophet. Thou Christ sneers at His Messianic claims in much the same way the Romans insulted Jesus by allusion to His supposedly political position (Mat. 27:27-29).

Jesus chose to ignore these challenges, not because He could not prophesy, but because this was not the time for proof and answers but for death and reconciliation. He tolerated far more than these insulting gestures and painful blows. As Edersheim (Life, II, 562) put it:

. . . these insults, taunts, and blows which fell upon that lonely Sufferer, not defenseless, but undefending, not vanquished, but uncontending, not helpless, but majestic in voluntary self-submission for the highest purpose of lovehave not only exhibited the curse of humanity, but also removed it by letting it descend on Him, the Perfect Man, the Christ, the Son of God.

But, ironically, to accept this suffering is not the mere exercise of moral grandeur that dwarfed those who thus abused Him. In a world gone awry where the purest of the race is mocked, for Him to suffer is to triumph, because Gods plan, salvation made possible by His death as an atonement for sins, is progressing right on schedule. Again, He took this cruel mockery not merely because it too was foreseen in prophecy (Psa. 22:6 f.; Isa. 50:6; Isa. 52:14; Isa. 53:3). Unjustly accused, unfairly tried and unkindly insulted, Jesus bore the unjust accusations, the unfair trial and the unkindly insults patiently, because He was committed to US. It was because He was committed to do Gods will that He loved us so. This same divine toughness can be ours, to the degree to which we turn ourselves over to God in the same way He did: Not my will, but yours be done.

FACT QUESTIONS

According to what logical procedure would it be normal for Jesus to be taken first to Annas, as John says, rather than to Caiaphas, as the Synoptics report? What prior right(s) did Annas possess?

What was the difference between this session before Caiaphas and the one before Annas recorded by John (Joh. 18:19-23)? How does it differ from that of Luke (Luk. 22:66 f.)?

Who constituted this jury that judged Jesus case? What reasons justified each mans or groups opposition to Jesus?

State briefly what was charged against Jesus at this stage of His trial. What is the fundamental accusation back of all the Sanhedrins deliberations that justifies their resistance to Jesus?

Were the witnesses against Jesus at His trials few or many? What was the character of the witnesses who came forward?

On what occasion(s) did Jesus affirm what they report?

In what way does this Synoptics report of the false testimony about the destruction of the temple corroborate the testimony of John?

Did Jesus answer any of their accusations? If so, which and how?

Was there anything illegal about the high priests putting Jesus on oath to speak: I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God? Prove your answer.

10.

What was Jesus reply? What is the source and meaning of the language He used?

11.

What is meant by Caiaphas tearing his clothes?

12.

Define blasphemy as this is used by the Sanhedrin to describe Jesus crime. Then, show why Jesus was not guilty as charged.

13.

What was the Mosaic punishment for blasphemy and for being a false prophet? Where are these laws stated? (book and chapter)

14.

What sentiment is expressed by spitting in Jesus face? Who did it?

15.

On the basis of what specific law did the rulers decide Jesus must die?

16.

List every evidence of Jesus moral stature as His trial before Caiaphas reveals this.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(57) To Caiaphas the high priest.St. John alone, probably from the special facilities which he possessed as known to the high priest, records the preliminary examination before Annas (Joh. 18:13; Joh. 18:19-24). It was obviously intended to draw from our Lords lips something that might serve as the basis of an accusation. Caiaphas, we must remember, had already committed himself to the policy of condemnation (Joh. 11:49-50). The whole history that follows leaves the impression that the plans of the priests had been hastened by the treachery of Judas.

Where the scribes and the elders were assembled.It was against the rules of Jewish law to hold a session of the Sanhedrin or Council for the trial of capital offences by night. Such an assembly on the night of the Paschal Supper must have been still more at variance with usage, and the fact that it was so held has, indeed, been urged as a proof that the Last Supper was not properly the Passover. The present gathering was therefore an informal oneprobably a packed meeting of those who were parties to the plot, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimatha, and probably not a few others, like the young ruler of Luk. 18:18, not being summoned. When they had gone through their mock trial, and day was dawning (Luk. 22:68), they transformed themselves into a formal court, and proceeded to pass judgment.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

134. JESUS BEFORE CAIAPHAS AND THE SANHEDRIM, Mat 26:57-68 .

We should not know from Matthew that our Lord was led to Annas, or Hananiah, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, before he was led to Caiaphas. John details the facts that occurred before Annas. From Annas, he was sent bound to Caiaphas, who was then the high priest, and whose residence may have adjoined that of Annas. While Christ was before Annas, the Sanhedrim was assembling at the palace of Caiaphas, preparatory to the arraignment of Jesus before them.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

57. Where the scribes and the elders were assembled The usual place of assemblage for the great Sanhedrim was at the council room in the temple precincts. But this being an extraordinary, perhaps irregular and partial meeting, is held at the palace of the pontiff.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And those who had taken Jesus led him away to the house of Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together.’

After a private examination under the shrewd Annas (Joh 18:19-24), probably in his private rooms in Caiaphas’ palace (he was Caiaphas’ father-in-law), a pre-examination which failed to produce what they were hoping for, (a grounds for convicting Jesus), Jesus was led away to Caiaphas where a larger group of Chief Priests, Scribes and Elders had by this time gathered. There were thus representatives present from all three sections of the Sanhedrin, although probably hand-picked. As it was still Passover night they would have been somewhat hastily gathered, and no doubt, as anyone who knows anything about politics will know, selected with some discrimination as to who was invited (politicians never change. Only their names change).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Arraignment of Jesus Before Selected Members of the Sanhedrin (26:57-68)..

What follows is not an official meeting of the Sanhedrin which could only meet by day, but a gathering of enemies of Jesus who were members of the Sanhedrin, meeting under the chairmanship of Caiaphas the High Priest, together with any whom they thought might be persuaded to support them, brought together in order to try to find a way of having Him convicted, preferably of treason. That this is so comes out in that both the other Synoptic Gospels make quite clear in their own way that when morning came an official meeting of the Sanhedrin had to be called (Mar 15:1; Luk 22:66) despite the previous examinations. We do not know whether even at that stage men like Joseph of Arimathea (Luk 23:50), Nicodemus (Joh 3:1; Joh 7:50-51) and Gamaliel (Act 5:34) were called. It is quite possible that they ‘could not be found’ until it was too late, for we learn of no voices speaking up on His behalf, and it appears doubtful if things would have gone quite so smoothly for the conspirators had any of these been present. Gamaliel for one would unquestionably have appealed for reason, as he did in Acts, and would have protested if anything was rushed through.

We are unfortunately hampered also by the fact that we have no information about Sadducean court procedures. All surmises about such procedures are made either from the text, or by considering Pharisaic regulations in the Mishnah, and these last, constructed by men chastened as a result of the fall of Jerusalem when a deep sense of their responsibility for justice had hit home, are from a later period and likely to differ to quite some extent from those under the rule of the Sadducees. Furthermore they are to a certain extent idealistic. The Mishnah cannot therefore simply be quoted as though it were the end of the matter. We are thus to some extent feeling our way in our consideration of such matters. But there is no genuine reason for doubting that (accepting that we only have a summary of the proceedings) things went exactly as described, for there was clearly sufficient regard for justice in what is described to indicate that this was not an account simply invented in order to blacken the reputations of those present, but was based upon genuine procedures, which were a credit to Judaism. Indeed it is quite apparent from what happened that it was these very requirements of justice that put these very people into a position of some difficulty in what they were trying to do, because with all their dislike of Jesus they did to their credit acknowledge the need on the whole to conform to recognised practise however tiresome they might have felt it to be, simply, if for no other reason, because there were those on the Sanhedrin who would demand it. It should be noted that the official Sanhedrin did not usually meet in the High Priest’s house but in a recognised place within the Temple area. Thus this was in the nature of a preliminary meeting.

Analysis.

a And those who had taken Jesus led him away to the house of Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together. But Peter followed him at a distance, to the court of the high priest, and entered in, and sat with the officers, to see the end (Mat 26:57-58).

b Now the chief priests and the whole council sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death (Mat 26:59).

c And they did not find it, although many false witnesses came. But afterward came two, and said, “This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days”. And the high priest stood up, and said to him, “Do you answer nothing? What is it which these witness against you?” (Mat 26:60-62).

d But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us whether you are the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mat 26:63).

e Jesus said to him, “You have said” (Mat 26:64 a)

d Nevertheless I say to you, From now on you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Mat 26:64 b).

c 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?” (65-66a).

b They answered and said, “He is worthy of death” (Mat 26:66 b).

a Then they spat in his face and hit him, and some smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, “Prophesy to us, you Messiah. Who is he who struck you?” (Mat 26:67-68).

Note that in ‘a’ the leaders of the Jews get together and Peter comes there ‘to see the end’, and in the parallel we find the end attained by the leaders of the Jews as some of them indicate their verdict physically. In ‘b’ the council members seek a means of putting Jesus to death, and in the parallel they think that they have found it and declare Him to be worthy of death. In ‘c’ they seek witnesses against Jesus, and in the parallel they dispense with the need of witnesses. In ‘d’ the High Priest asks Jesus whether He is the Messiah, the son of God, and in the parallel Jesus reveals that in the near future it will be made perfectly evident to them that He is the glorious Son of Man. Centrally in ‘e’ He declares, ‘You have said it’.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Fulfillment of Peter’s Denial – In Mat 26:57-75 Jesus is brought before the Sanhedrin while Peter denies Jesus three times in fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction.

Here is a proposed outline:

1. Jesus Stands before the Sanhedrin Mat 26:57-68

2. Peter Denies Jesus Three Times Mat 26:69-75

Mat 26:57-68 Jesus Stands Before the Sanhedrin ( Mar 14:53-65 , Luk 22:54-55 ; Luk 22:63-71 , Joh 18:13-14 ; Joh 18:19-24 ) Mat 26:57-68 records the event of Jesus standing trial before the Jewish Sanhedrin.

Mat 26:57 Comments The Jewish leaders had gathered at the palace of Caiaphas to plan the death of Jesus (Mat 26:3). Thus, this was the logical place to bring Him immediately after His arrest.

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 26:57-59 Comments John the Apostle Followed Jesus Into the Temple – In the parallel passage of Joh 18:15-16 we see that the apostle John followed Jesus into the Temple court.

Joh 18:15-16, “And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest. But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.”

Mat 26:64 Comments Mat 26:64 records the tenth mention of His death in the Gospel of Matthew. The false witnesses claimed Jesus would destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days, while the high priest asked Jesus if He were the Messiah, the Son of God. Jesus, as the Living God, acknowledged their confessions and declared that afterwards, that is, after His resurrection, He will ascend to the right hand of God. Thus, Jesus took their confessions and explained the work of redemption that would result from these events.

Mat 26:68 Comments The Jewish people had come to recognize Jesus as a prophet. He had also delivered many prophetic sayings during the course of His public ministry.

Mat 26:69-75 Peter Denies Jesus Three Times ( Mar 14:66-72 , Luk 22:56-62 , Joh 18:15-18 ; Joh 18:25-27 ) Mat 26:69-75 records Peter’s three denials of the Lord Jesus Christ. Peter played a key role in the narrative plot by confessing the deity of Jesus Christ (Mat 16:16). This event that marked a turning point in the public ministry of Jesus Christ as He began to focus upon His crucifixion after this confession.

Mat 26:73 Comments – Aramaic was the common language of the people of New Testament Palestine. We see that there were different dialects of this language even among the Jews. In the New Testament era, the speech of the Galileans was pronounced different than that of Judea. We see an example of this in the Old Testament, where the Ephraimites spoke differently from the Gileadites.

Jdg 12:6, “Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand.”

Mat 26:75 Comments – God’s Word is quick to be recalled by Peter when it is fulfilled.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Trial before Caiaphas and the Denial of Peter.

To the house of Caiaphas:

v. 57. And they that had laid hold on Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.

v. 58. But Peter followed Him afar off unto the high priest’s palace, and went in, and sat with the servants to see the end.

The palace of Caiaphas, according to most investigators, lay at the extreme southwest corner of the city of Jerusalem. It was evidently built in the form of a quadrangle about an open court. On the one side of the palace lived Annas, the father-in-law, on the other Caiaphas, the families occupying the upper stories, while the servants had the apartments on the ground floor. The entrance to the palace was through an arched door and passageway, which was usually guarded by one of the servants. After a short, preliminary hearing before Annas, Joh 18:13, arranged in the interval until all the members of the council might be assembled, Jesus was led before the highest court of the Jewish Church, consisting of scribes and elders, according to their office, of Pharisees and Sadducees, according to their sectarian tendencies, but all agreed upon that one point, that this man must be removed. Peter, in the meantime, led partly by affection, partly by inquisitiveness, followed the band from a distance, and, having obtained leave to enter the courtyard of the palace, sat with the servants about a fire of coals which the cool spring night made necessary, to see the end, to find out what would happen to the Master. Many a Christian has thought himself strong enough to withstand temptation, to ignore attack and ridicule, when venturing into the midst of the children of the world, but has found out to his great sorrow that such experiments are fraught with too great danger.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Mat 26:57. Led him away to Caiaphas It appears from Joh 18:13 that Jesus was first led to Annas, because he wasfather-in-law of Caiaphas; besides, that having been himself a high-priest, and very much concerned in this whole matter, it was but natural that he should have this honour done him. St. Matthew makes no mention of Annas, because nothing remarkable happened at his house, our Lord having stayed there no longer than what was just necessary to acquaint the council that they were going to lead him to Caiaphas.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Mat 26:57 f. The Synoptists make no mention of the judicial examination before Annas (Joh 18:13 ); their narrative is for this reason incomplete, though it does not exclude such examination (Luk 22:66 ). As for the trial before the members of the Sanhedrim, which took place at the house of Caiaphas, John merely alludes to it, Mat 18:24 , where, however, is not to be taken as a pluperfect.

] a well-known pleonasm: in later Greek the is dropped. Lobeck, ad Phryn . p. 93. Bengel appropriately observes: “medius inter animositatem Mat 26:51 et timorem Mat 26:70 .”

] not the palace but the court , as in Mat 26:3 .

] see Lobeck, ad Aj. 741; Paralip . p. 538.

] exitum rei ; Mal 3:14Mal 3:14 , common in classical writers. Luther renders admirably: “wo es hinaus wollte” (what the upshot would be).

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

SIXTH SECTION

CHRIST BEFORE CAIAPHAS

26:5768

(Mar 14:53-65; Luk 22:54-71; Joh 18:12-24)

57And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high-priest where the scribes and the elders were assembled. 58But Peter followed him afar off unto the high-priests palace [the court of the high-priest],91 and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end. 59Now the chief priests and [the] elders,92 and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to [that they might, ] put him to death; 60But [And, ] found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none.93 At the last [But at last, ] came two false witnesses, 61And said, This fellow [man]94 said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in [within] three days. 62And the high-priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? [what do these witness against thee?] 63But Jesus held his peace [was silent].95 And the high-priest answered [spoke to the meaning of His silence]96 and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us Whether thou be [art] the Christ, the Son of God. 64Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said [it]: nevertheless [besides, ] I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in [on] the clouds of heaven. (Dan 7:13) 65Then the high-priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have [ye have now] heard his blasphemy. 66What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty 67[worthy, ]97 of death. Then did they spit [they spit] in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands,98 68Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Chronological Order of Event.1. The preparatory examination by Annas, Joh 18:13; John 2. the examination during the night before Caiaphas; 3. the formal and final examination before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin on Friday morning (Matt., Mark, Luke). This threefold examination by the ecclesiastical tribunal was followed by another threefold examination on the part of the secular authorities,first, by Pilate; then by Herod (Luke); and, lastly, a second time by Pilate. Between these examinations the following events intervened:1. The mocking and buffeting on the part of the servants of the temple, between the second and the third examination by the ecclesiastical authorities. 2. The being set at nought after the second examination by the secular rulers, or before Herod; the white robe. 3. The setting at nought and buffeting after His third examination; the scarlet robe.Matthew and the other two Evangelists pass over the examination of the Lord by Annas. It is, however, related with all its particulars by John; and, indeed, was quite in accordance with the views of the Jews. Though Annas had been deposed, the Jews seem still to have considered him as their real high-priest; while, at the same time, they were obliged in an official capacity to acknowledge Caiaphas, whom the Romans had appointed that same year. As Caiaphas was the son-in-law of Annas, they would, in all probability, order their domestic arrangements so as to meet the views of the Jews without giving offence to the Romans. Accordingly we would suggest that both lived in one and the same palace; which would also account for the fact, that while the examination was successively carried on in two different places, the guard seems to have remained in the same inner court of the palace. This is evident from a comparison of the narrative of Peters denial as given by John, in its relation to that of the same event as recorded by the other Evangelists. Similarly, this would also explain the fact, that in the three first Gospels we only read of Christ being led before Caiaphas. From the peculiar practical view taken by Matthew, we can readily understand why he should have only recorded the official examination. In general, we infer that the examination by Annas was mainly an attempt on the part of the old priest (whom Klopstock, without adequate grounds, represents in a milder light) to ensnare the Lord in His words, and thus to elicit some tenable grounds of accusation. The examination by Caiaphas was merely a formal matter. The only importance attaching to it is, that the testimony of Christ, to the effect that He was the Christ, the Son of God, was there declared to be blasphemy, and deserving of death. The circumstances as now detailed will enable us to understand how Matthew and Mark relate first the examination by the high-priest, and then the denial by Peter, while this order is reversed in the Gospel by Luke. Evidently the threefold denial on the part of Peter extended from the first to the second examination of the Master.

Mat 26:57. Where the scribes and the elders were assembled.In accordance with our former remarks, we conclude that this was a preliminary meeting of the Sanhedrin, quite distinct from the regular and formal meeting which took place early on the following morning. It is quite characteristic of the Evangelists, that John details the first examination, Luke the third, while Matthew and Mark record the second. John evidently apprehended the rejection of Christ by the Jews as originating in the hatred of Annas and the priests, which decided the rest of the procedure; Luke viewed it in the light of its political bearing; the other two Evangelists described it in its relation to the central idea of the hierarchy as this unfolded itself to their intuitions.

Mat 26:58. Afar off.As it were, not with the cordial closeness of a disciple, but like a mere spectator or observer.

Unto the court or hall.Not the palace, as in Luther [and in our authorized version]. The expression was applied, among the Greeks, both to the hall or court in front of the house, and to the dwelling itself. In Eastern and Jewish houses it was the inner court surrounded by side halls.99 Here the hall of the palace, the court-yard. According to the account given by John, He had obtained immediate access into the inner hall, and then procured admission for Peter. Tradition asserts that John had become acquainted with the family of the high-priest while still engaged in his original calling as fisherman. As in all eastern houses, so in this palace, the windows of the room or the openings of the hall in which Jesus was examined, would open into the inner court, which, according to Mar 14:66, must have been somewhat lower than the rest of the house. There Peter, and perhaps John also, heard part of the examination that went on. Accordingly, the accounts in the three first Gospels bear evident marks of having been derived from eyewitnesses, who, however, had not heard all that had passed. But the account given by John was manifestly supplemented from more full and satisfactory reports. Gerlach.

Mat 26:59. And all the council.So Matthew adds from his ideal theocratic point of view. The expression must evidently be taken in a general sense. In their official capacity as a council, the whole assemblage were animated by the same spirit of hatred and murder. Individual exceptions, such as Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, are left out of view by the historian. Besides, they may not have been present at this meeting. It will be remembered, that when, on a much earlier occasion, Nicodemus attempted to speak in favor of Jesus, he was threatened with excommunication, Joh 7:50, etc. Again, according to Joh 9:22, the council had formerly passed a resolution to excommunicate any person who should own Jesus as the Christ. Hence it seems probable that Nicodemus had taken no further part in the deliberations of the council against Jesus. Similarly, we conceive that Joseph of Arimathea had also, on an earlier occasion, spoken in the same spirit as Nicodemus, Luk 23:51. Other members of the Sanhedrin may have been frightened and kept away in like manner by the threat of excommunication. From Luk 22:70 we infer that these members of the council were not present even at the formal and official examination which took place in the morning. Finally, it deserves notice that the procedure of the Sanhedrin against Jesus may be said to have extended, from first to last, throughout the whole of His official career. This appears most clearly from the account furnished in the Gospel of John. Mat 2:18 : first attendance at the Passover in the year 781; comp. Mat 4:1; Mat 5:16 : festival of Purim, 782. Commencement of the persecutions in Galilee.Mat 7:1; Mat 9:14 : feast of Tabernacles, in the year 782. Excommunication pronounced upon the adherents of Jesus, Mat 9:22. Open and full persecutions in Galilee.Joh 10:22 : feast of the Dedication of the Temple, in the winter of the year 782. Joh 10:31 : attempt to stone Jesus. Joh 11:57 : pronouncing of the ban or injunction, that any one who knew where Jesus was, should immediately indicate the same to the council.Mat 12:10 : the decisive meeting of the council on the evening before Christs entry into Jerusalem, when the resolution was also taken to kill Lazarus. Then followed the three examinations during the night of the betrayal, when it was no longer a matter of question whether Jesus should be put to death,the main object only being to observe some kind of legal form, and to fix upon a sufficient ground of accusation. Of course, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea could not be present on these occasions.

Sought false witness against Jesus.Meyer: , i. e., as viewed by the historian. But it ought to be kept in mind that the priests acted not merely under the impulse of fanaticism, but with a fixed determination to find proof against Christ, whether it were rightly or wrongly obtained. The remark of de Wette, that they would have preferred to have found true witness, and did not purposely seek for false, seems somewhat superfluous, as this would of course be the case. It is sufficient, that they were fully conscious that true witness could not be obtained.

Mat 26:60. But found none.According to Mar 14:56, their witness agreed not together. By the law of Moses, at least two witnesses were required to agree if the accusation was to be sustained (Num 35:30 Deu 17:6; Deu 19:15). Hence in the following clause the emphasis rests on the word two. At last the smallest requisite number was found!

Mat 26:61. This man said.A perversion of the statement of Jesus in Joh 2:19 (), which had referred to His body. Misunderstood and altered, observes Meyer; but whether intentionally or not, cannot be decided. But a witness is fully responsible, if not for his understanding of the words which he reports, yet for the accuracy of his quotation. A witness from hearsay, who professes to have himself heard a certain statement, or an accuser who has not accurately heard what he reports, must also be regarded as a false witness.

Within three days, , not after three days.From this passage, as well as from the treatment of Stephen (Act 6:13), we learn that statements derogatory to the temple were treated as blasphemy. Nor is it difficult to infer the reason of thisthe temple being regarded as the symbol of the Jewish religion. Jesus held his peace, in lofty self-consciousness, not merely because the witness was false, but also because, even if true, it was really no evidence of hostility to the temple, since, along with the statement of its destruction, it had held out the promise of its restoration; and because the whole of this preliminary questioning pointed forward to His avowal of His Messianic character, to which, after all, the inquiry must ultimately come.

Mat 26:62. And the high-priest arose.The chief-priest loses his self-possession, and rises up. Perhaps more accurately it may be characterized as a piece of theatrical affectation, the high-priest pretending to be filled with holy indignation.Answerest Thou nothing?Meyer: The arrangement of the following clause into two distinct queries is exceedingly characteristic of passionate hatred, and quite warranted by the phraseology, as may mean to answer something, and may be equivalent to , .

Mat 26:63. And the high-priest answered.He understood the meaning of Christs silence, and hence answered His silent speech. Meyer rightly observes: He replied to the continuous silence of Jesus by formally proposing to Him to answer on oath the question, whether He was the Messiah. On this everything depended, in order to secure that the sentence of death pronounced against Him should be confirmed by the Roman authorities. Comp. Joh 18:19.

I adjure Thee.Gen 24:3; 2Ch 36:13. When such a formula of adjuration was employed, a simple affirmation or negation was regarded in law as sufficient to constitute a regular oath. See Michaelis, Laws of Moses, 302. Grotius: , Hebraice , modo est jurejurando adigere, interdum vero obsecrare. Solebant judices talem adhibere, ut aut testibus testimonium aut reis confessionem exprimerent. Another formula of the same kind is mentioned in Joh 9:24. The judge adjured the witness, who, by a simple Yea and Amen, made the oath his own.

By the living God.Not in the sense of pointing Thee to Him, but in that of putting the oath as in His presence, and in view of Him as the judge and avenger. The living God Himself was invoked as the witness and the judge of any untruth, Heb 6:13; Heb 10:31.Thou hast said, .An affirmation (Mat 26:25), and consequently an oath. The conduct of Christ is not inconsistent with Mat 5:34, since in the present instance the Lord was placed before the constituted authorities of the land, and acted as bound in law. Rationalists have understood the words of Jesus as implying: Thou sayest it, not I! He tells them now that He is the Christ. Braune.

The Son of God.More fully reported in Luk 22:67, and Mat 26:70. From that passage it appears that the expression, Son of God, was not merely intended as a further addition to the term Christ (de Wette), but meant to express the Christian idea attaching to the latter designation.

Mat 26:64. Besides, .A particle of transition, intended to introduce a new statement, Luk 19:27. Not profecto (Olshausen), nor quin (Kuinoel), [nor nevertheless, as in the authorized Engl, version], but, besides, or over, beyond My affirmation of this adjuration. Meyer.100 Besides this, I shall henceforth manifest Myself as the Messiah over you; My Messianic glory shall appear before your eyes. Thus, of His own accord did Jesus now add His royal testimony to the confession which He had been forced to make.From hence shall ye see.The expression must not be limited to the final appearing of Christ, but refers to His whole state of exaltation,to that personal exaltation which reveals itself in the almighty power and universal influence exercised by Him throughout the course of history.Sitting on the right hand of power.= (Buxtorf, Lex. Talm., p. 3855). Power, one of the main attributes of the Deity, here the abstract for the concrete, to indicate how, under this influence, His apparent impotence would at once be transformed into omnipotence. According to Psa 110:1, sitting at the right hand refers to the exaltation of the Messiah, and to the manifestation of His ; more especially to His share in the government of the world, in the form of festive rest and absolute supremacy.And coming in the clouds of heaven.The expression does not merely refer to His final advent (de Wette), but to the whole judicial administration of Christ, which commenced immediately after His resurrection, but especially at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, and shall be completed in the end of the world.

Mat 26:65. Then the high-priest rent his clothes.He rent his Simla, or upper garment (not his high-priestly robe, which he only wore in the temple; comp. Reland, Antiq. ii, 100, 50, 11). A mark of indignation, Act 14:14; on other occasions, of mourning (2Sa 1:11); and in this sense interdicted to the high-priest (Lev 10:6; Lev 21:10), but only on ordinary occasions. This prohibition, however, does not seem to have applied to extraordinary occurrences: 1Ma 2:14; Joseph. Bell. Judges 2, 15, 4. De Wette. The practice of rending the clothes on occasions of supposed blasphemy was based on 2Ki 18:37. Buxt. Lex., p. 2146. Originally it was simply a natural outburst of most intense pain, such as grief or indignation, or of both these emotions. Hence it would be voluntary, and not subject to a special ordinance. But at a later period, when many of these outbursts were more theatrical than real, their exercise was regulated by special rules, according to Maimonides, quoted by Buxtorf, just as similar manifestations were made the subject of regulation in the medival Church. The rent made in the garment was from the neck downward, and about a span (palmus) in length. The body dress and the outer garment were left untouched: in reliquis vestibus corpori accommodatis omnibus fit, etiamsi decem fuerint Hence .Saurin: Here was an infallible high-priest; was it duty implicitly to trust and to follow him? An argument against the Romish conception of faith as a blind submission to the absolute authority of the Church and the pope.101

He hath spoken blasphemy.An explanation of his symbolical action, and at the same time the pronouncing of sentence, which, according to the law, would in such a case be that of death. On the supposition of their unbelief, and of their view that the statement of Christ was false, His declaration that He was the Messiah, as well as of the manner in which He sustained that office, would be peculiarly repugnant to them. But then, even on the high-priests own showing, it was he, and not Christ, who was guilty of blasphemy, since he had, in his authoritative capacity, obliged Jesus to take this oath. Thus the conduct of the judges themselves led to what they regarded as the crime, which in turn they condemned, thus condemning themselves. But viewed in its true light and spirit, the presumptuous high-priest alone and his compeers were the blasphemers.

What further need have we of witnesses?An involuntary admission that they were at a loss for witnesses. At the same time, it also implies that they wished to found the charge against Jesus solely upon His own declaration that He was the Messiah. In point of fact, a confession of guilt would render a further examination of witnesses unnecessary. Caiaphas, however, presupposes that the members of the Sanhedrin shared his own unbelief. In his hot haste he takes this for granted: Behold, ye have now heard His blasphemy.

Mat 26:66. He is worthy of death.As they imagined, according to the law, Lev 24:16; comp. Deu 18:20. A full statement of the sentence, which Caiaphas had already implied when he declared Jesus guilty of blasphemy. According to de Wette and Meyer, this was merely a preliminary expression of opinion on the part of the Sanhedrin, while the formal resolution was only arrived at next morning, Mat 27:1. In our view, this sentence was already full and final, although in point of form it may not have been quite complete. For, (1) the Sanhedrin had probably to be convoked in a formal manner; (2) that tribunal was, according to Jewish law, prohibited from investigating any capital crime during the night. Besides, all haste in pronouncing condemnation was interdicted; nor could a sentence of death be pronounced on the same day on which the investigation had taken place. Probably the Sanhedrin may have wished to elude this provision by entering on the examination during the night. But this object was not in reality secured, since the Jewish day commenced in the evening. See Friedlieb, Archol. of the History of the Passion, p. 95. On other violations of the proper legal procedure in this case, see p. 87. (3) According to Roman law, a sentence pronounced before the dawn was not regarded as valid (Sepp. Leben Jesu, 3:484). (4) What was most important, the Jews were required to couch their sentence of condemnation in the form of a charge which they might hope Pilate would sustain; for the Roman governor was required to confirm the Jewish verdict of death (Joseph. Arch. 20:9, 1). The ill-treatment of the Lord immediately afterward shows that the Sanhedrin regarded even this first sentence as final. It is sad that many modern Jews are still found attempting to defend the sentence of death pronounced upon Jesus. Thus the Liber Nizzachon, ed. by Wagenseil, 1681, p. 50; and Salvador, Histoire des Institutions de Moise et du Peuple Hebr., Paris, 1828, 2:85. They maintain that Jesus was rightly condemned, because, 1. He arrogated to Himself Divine dignity (Deu 13:1), and because, 2. His work and mission tended toward the overthrow of Judaism, the undermining of the authority of the highest tribunal, and consequently the ruin of the people. Compare, on the other hand, von Ammon, Fortbild d. Christenth., vol. iv. Heubner.

Mat 26:67. Then they spit in His face.With reference to the ill-treatment to which the Lord was subjected before the Sanhedrin, we must call to mind that, even in the house of Annas, He was struck by one of the officers (Joh 18:22). De Wette and Meyer are mistaken in supposing that this ill-treatment is recorded in another connection in Luk 22:63. Manifestly the latter Evangelist there refers to what had taken place at a period intermediate between the first examination before Caiaphas and the final examination on the following morning, related in Mat 26:66, which describes this final meeting, in terms similar to the narrative of the first examination given by Matthew. That the two meetings must have resembled each other, is evident from the circumstance that the second was in part merely a repetition of the first, certain formalities being now observed. There are, however, certain peculiarities about each of them. In reference to the account of the ill-treatment itself, we notice that the narratives of the various Evangelists supplement, but do not contradict, each other. In all probability, the spitting in His face occurred immediately after His condemnation. It may be regarded as a consequence of the sentence, spitting being considered among the Jews as the expression of the greatest contempt (Deu 25:9; Num 12:14). This insult was punished with a fine of four hundred drachmas [the drachma being equal to about 15 American cents]. Even to spit before another was regarded as an offence, and treated as such, by heathen also. Thus Seneca records that it was inflicted at Athens upon Aristides the Just, adding, at the same time, that with considerable difficulty one individual was at last found willing to do it. Braune. But as those who were excommunicated were regarded as beyond the pale of the law, this expression of contempt was specially applied to them (comp. Isa 50:6). Accordingly, the members of the Sanhedrin may have considered themselves warranted to take part in this manifestation of sanctimonious zeal. Their conduct served as the signal for bodily maltreatment on the part of the officers by striking Him with fists (described by the term ). The other particulars added by Matthew took place on a later occasion. From the narratives of Mark and Luke (see my Life of Jesus, 2:3, p. 1477) we gather that, after the sentence pronounced by Caiaphas, Jesus was led through the hall, where the servants were warming themselves, into another prison, and that at the very moment when Peter denied Him for the third time. There the guard which was to watch the person of Jesus till the final examination on the following morning, commenced to maltreat Him, as fully detailed in the Gospel by Luke. This guard was, therefore, different from the officers who had formerly insulted Him. The expression is generally referred to smiting with the hand [so also in the E. V.: they smote Him with the palms of their hands]; but Beza, Ewald, Meyer, and others, apply it to smiting with rods102 Both renderings are equally warranted by the text. From Luke and Mark we infer that the scoffing which now took place was accompanied and followed by smiting with rods.

Mat 26:68. Prophesy unto us, Thou Christ.The scoffing was directed against His prophetic dignity, or, as they supposed, against the prophetic title which He claimed. According to Luk 22:64, they blindfolded and then struck Him on the face, asking Him to prophesy which of them had inflicted the indignity. Fritzsche interprets it as meaning: Predict to us who shall smite Thee; but in that case it would have been needless to have covered His face. As a prophet, He was to tell them what He could not see. The devilish fanaticism of the superiors had communicated itself to the lowest officials, and spread in the way of sympathy from the Jewish temple guard even to the Roman soldiers. The officers became a band of murderers around Him (see Psalms 22; the bulls of Bashan).

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. Jesus, silent before His accusers, a living expression of the truth, in its concrete form, as confidently relying on its eternal victory. Before His bright consciousness of truth all false testimonies melted away, as shadows and mist are chased by the rays of the sun. The last false testimony, for which the requisite number of witnesses had been procured (although the expressions in Matthew and Mark differ in reference to it), could scarcely weigh against Him, since, along with the miraculous destruction of the temple, it spoke of its miraculous restoration. After all, it only implied that He asserted His ability to perform the works of the Messiah. Thus His enemies were ultimately obliged to try Him simply upon the issue whether He was the Messiah. This alone, of all the charges, now remained. In other words, they dared to set their own miserable authority against all the glorious evidences by which He was accredited as the Messiah and the Son of God.
2. Properly speaking, the saying of Christ, Destroy this temple, etc., which two years previously He had uttered at the time of the Passover, properly meantYou seek to kill Me; kill Me then: I shall rise again. It was the curse of their fanatical dulness and misunderstanding, and of their false hearing, that they converted this very saying into a charge on which they condemned Him to death.
3. The ancient Church allegorically interpreted Christs silence before the secular and the ecclesiastical tribunals, as implying that He answered not a word because, as poor, guilty sinners, we must and would have been silent at the judgment-seat of God. But the tribunals of Caiaphas and Pilate could only in point of form and appearance serve as an emblem of the judgment-seat of God. In reality, they exhibited the fact, that the secular and religious authorities of the ancient world were wholly devoted to the service of darkness, and hence given up by the Lord to the judgment of self-condemnation. On the other hand, however, this judgment of self-condemnation, which sinful humanity executed upon itself in condemning the Christ of God, is the sentence which Christ by His silence took upon Himself as the woe of humanity, in order to transform, by His sympathy and self-surrender, the punishment of the world into an expiatory atonement.
4. Christ, the Son of God.The former title was probably mentioned first, because, as it did not embody the real ground of accusation, the high-priest may have expected that Jesus would more readily assent to the query when couched in that form. For, even in the eyes of such a tribunal, the mere claim to Messiahship could not by any possibility be regarded as a crime deserving of death, so long as no attempt whatever had been made to prove the falseness of the assertion. All this appears still more plainly from the narrative as given by Luke, in which the question, Art Thou then the Son of God? is put separately from the other, seemingly called forth by the announcement that they would see Him sitting on the right hand of the power of God.Many, in fact most Jews at that time, understood that title (Son of God) as only referring to the Messianic kingship of Jesus, without connecting with it the idea of eternal and essential Sonship. But Caiaphas evidently intended this expression to imply something more than the former designation of Christ. He and the Sanhedrin wittingly attached to it the peculiar meaning which, on previous occasions, had been such an offence to them (Joh 5:18; Joh 10:33); and Jesus, fully understanding their object, gave a most emphatic affirmation to their inquiry. Of all the testimonies in favor of the divinity of Christ, this is the most clear and definite. Gerlach.

5. The testimony and the oath of Christ.Calmly did He utter the reply which insured His death. The Faithful Witness (Revelation 1) did not falter or fail. And at the very moment when He surrendered Himself to an unrighteous judgment unto death, did the full consciousness of His kingly glory burst upon Him.

6. By the sentence of the Sanhedrin, the people of Israel rejected their Messiah, apparently with all due observance of legal forms (although in contravention of several legal ordinances), but in utter violation of the spirit and import of the law. Thereby the nation rejected itself, and destroyed the theocratical and political import of its temple. See Eph 2:15. It was in reality the Sanhedrin itself which, by condemning Jesus, condemned the temple, the city, the theocracy, and the whole ancient world. From this sentence of death upon the Lord, the world can only recover in and through the new life in Christ.

7. Besides, I say unto you, etc.On the right hand of powerof the majesty of God, Psalms 110Jesus here announces to His judges the judgment of His future advent. He intimates that henceforth they were to be continually visited by dreadful visions of His sovereignty. They would ever see Him. Wherever omnipotence would manifest itself, there would He also appear along with it, since all its operations should be connected with His kingdom. Above all the clouds which were to darken the sky, would He ever and again appear as the light of new eras, as the morning star, and the sun of a brighter and better future,and that from this time onward, until the final revelation of His glory over the last clouds which would ascend from a burning world (Leben Jesu). These words of our Lord show that His coming in the clouds of heaven referred not only to His final and visible advent at the last day, but also to the events heralding and typifying His return. Gerlach.

8. With this grand utterance the Lord Jesus directly met His enemies on the very ground of Scripture to which, in their hypocrisy, they had appealed. The reference here is to the prediction of Daniel, in Mat 7:13, concerning the glory of the Son of Man; hence also the final application of this prophecy to the Son of Man, who from the first had referred it to Himself.

9. We might reasonably have expected that, after Christ had been condemned by an ecclesiastical tribunal on the charge of blasphemy, such accusations would not again have been laid by or before any who professed to be His disciples, but that all such questions would have been left to be settled by the Lord Himself. But the Inquisition has pursued the path first trodden by Caiaphas. The Church of Christ must commit the judgment upon such sins to God Himself, while the State may enact such laws against blasphemy and crimes of sacrilege as it may deem necessary for the well-being of the land.
10. The last council of traditionalism in its full and final blindness, an antitype of similar councils in the Christian Church.

11. The spitting upon Jesus, as predicted in Isaiah 53. Gerlach: Condemned as a blasphemer, He was treated as an outlaw, and exposed to every indignity and attack.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The Son of God surrendered into the hands of sinners.The holy Judge before the iniquitous judgment of the world.The judgment of the world upon the Judge of the world: 1. The false witnesses over against the Faithful Witness of God; 2. the criminal occupying the seat of the high-priest, and the High-Priest standing in the place of the criminal; 3. blasphemy in the garb of zeal, for God, and the loftiest praise of God designated as blasphemy; 4. the suicide of the world in the sentence pronounced upon the Prince of life, and the life of the world in the readiness of Christ to submit unto death; 5. the picture of hell and the picture of heaven in the insults heaped upon the Lord.The judgment of man on the Saviour (a judgment of God): 1. The world given up to complete and full blindness and guilt unto death; 2. the Son of God given up to complete and full suffering, and to love of redemption.In the judgment of man, that of God is ever present. It appears either: 1. By means of the judgment of man; or else, 2. beyond and above the sentence of man.How frequently have spiritual tribunals pronounced their own sentence!False witness as gradually developing and appearing in the course of history.The misapprehensions of fanaticism the source of its mistakes.The holy silence of the Lord, a most solemn divine utterance: 1. Concerning the guilt of the world, and His own innocence; 2. concerning its implacableness and His gracious compassion.The holy utterance of the Lord after His holy silence.His oath; in taking it, Jesus, the Eternal One, swore by Himself (Isa 45:23).The oath of Jesus the seal of truth.The Faithful Witness who seals and confirms all that God has said, 2Co 1:20; Rev 3:14.The assumed appearance of zeal and genuine holy indignation.What further need have we of witnesses? or, how malice always betrays itself.Hereafter (or, henceforth) ye shall see; or the roll of thunder in the distance.Christs abiding consciousness of His royal rank as appearing in, and standing the test of, the hour of its severest trial.The appeal of Christ to His own judgment-seat as unto the tribunal of God.The insults offered unto the Lord, or the bitter mocking of Satan in the fury of man.How hell seeks to scoff at the King of heaven.The dark shadows which ever follow hypocritical religiosity: 1. It is always connected with coarseness and rudeness; 2. it seems to take pleasure in satanic malice and love of mischief.How ingenious fanaticism has ever proved in calling for the torments of hell, while boasting that it alone possessed the keys of the kingdom of heaven.Infectious character of the evil example set by spiritual leaders.The peace of Christ during that dreadful night, like the moon above dark lowering clouds.The long and anxious hours.Daniel in the lions den; Christ among tigers and serpents.The spiritual prison-house.When led before the secular authorities, He was set free from the authority of the spiritual rulers.The sorrow and pain which the enemies of the Lord prepared for themselves, when inflicting pain upon Him.The moral desolation which, from the beginning to the end, ever accompanies a spurious zeal for religion: 1. It falsifies and perverts testimony; 2. it applies the law against truth and righteousness; 3. turns judgment into mockery of judgment; 4. it transforms the ministers of justice and the people into lawless murderers; 5. it involves even the secular power in its guilt and ruin.Moral rudeness also in the service of the evil one.Moral rudeness, the delight and the instrument of hypocritical cunning.The sufferings and the gentleness of Jesus amidst the coarse rudeness of the world.The sufferings of the members of Christ (His martyrs) amidst the coarse gibes of the world.The covering of the face of Jesus a sign that, even while setting Him at nought, they dared not encounter the light of His eyes.The spitting in His face a scoffing of the highest personality and individuality, implying at the same time self-rejection of their own human individuality.An emblem also of all sin, as it tends to efface personality.The impotence of human and satanic malice against the triumphant self-consciousness of the Divine Saviour,The heavenly pattern of perfect patience and endurance.The sins which He there bore, He bore for all, and for us among the number.

Starke:Canstein: Even the true Church and its whole solemn assembly may err and fail, if they set aside the word of God, Exo 32:7-10.We may follow Jesus, yet not in the right spirit or manner.Danger of fellowship with men of the world (Peter warming himself by the fire of coals).If we are weak, we must avoid fellowship with those whose intercourse might have a tendency to render us still more weak.Solemn ordinances of God against false witnesses, Exo 23:1; Deu 19:18. But these wicked judges not only admitted, but even suborned false witnesses.While seeking to entangle Jesus, they entangled themselves.Canstein: Even the most sacred ordinances of God are capable of being desecrated by men.Zeisius: The enemies of Christ at one and the same time accusers, witnesses, and judges: thus frequently even in our own day.Quesnel: A most vivid picture of what envy still does every day against the people of God.Hedinger: Attend, O my soul; thy Saviour suffers for the false witness of thy tongue, for thy hypocrisy, etc.When wicked rulers and judges occupy the high places, vile persons will always be found ready to lend themselves as their tools.Zeisius: If the words of Christ, who was eternal Wisdom and Truth, were perverted, why should we wonder that His servants and children suffer from similar misrepresentations?The testimony of Christ after His silence; similarly, may we not remain silent when the glory of God or His truth are in question.Zeisius: The confession that Christ is the Son of God, to this day the rock of offence (to Jews, Turks, heathens, and unbelieving professors of Christianity).Judicial blindness of the servants of Satan in declaring truth to be blasphemy, and blasphemy truth.Canstein: by this Christ expiated the sins which are committed in judicial procedures.Zeisius: The spitting upon Jesus, etc., the expiation of our sins, that our faces might not be ashamed before God, but that we might obtain eternal honor and glory.Quesnel: You who adorn and paint your faces, behold the indignity offered to the face of Jesus, for your sakes!The members of Christ should willingly and readily submit to every kind of scorn and insult.Men dare to insult the Almighty as if He could be blindfolded.

Gerlach:While Peter denied Jesus, He confessed before Caiaphas that good confession by which our souls are saved.Here we behold Jesus taking a solemn and judicial oath, to the effect that He was the Son of God; which He still further confirmed by adding that they would see Him again in the glory of His exaltation, as Judge of the world, and as their Judge.The vast contrast between Jesus, who entered watching and praying into the temptation, which He had overcome within before He encountered it without, and Peter, who in self-confidence rushed into danger, without any preparation.The insults heaped upon Jesus were not only the expression of the personal hatred of His enemies, but intended, if possible, completely to destroy His influence and position in popular estimation.

Heubner:For our sakes, Christ had to go many a road of sorrow, surrounded by the band of the wicked. Let us count: 1. The road from Gethsemane to Annas; 2. that from Annas to Caiaphas; 3. from Caiaphas to Pilate; 4. from Pilate to Herod; 5. from Herod to Pilate; 6. from Pilate to the hall of judgment (although Pilate lived in the Prtorium, the soldiers occupied another part; hence it was not from Pilate to the judgment-hall, but from the hall of judgment to where the soldiers were); 7. from thence to Golgotha. These sorrowful roads Jesus would not have been obliged to tread, had not our feet declined from the ways of God.Christ led before Caiaphas: the true High-Priest before the spurious, the Just before the unjust, the Innocent One before His bitter enemies, who had long before resolved upon His death, Joh 11:50.A night trial. The prince of darkness himself presided unseen over this meeting.The members of the Sanhedrin deceived themselves and each other by the tacit assumption of possessing divine authority.(Rambach.) Let us not be deceived by the semblance of outward dignity and position, but seek grace to have our eyes opened so as to penetrate through the mist, and the pretensions of those who at heart are the enemies of Christ.Christ was arraigned before two tribunals: the ecclesiastical, which took cognizance of the first, and the secular tribunal, which took cognizance of the second, table of the law. We have transgressed both tables of the law.They sought false witness: the sentence had been beforehand resolved upon.Falsehood must enter into the service of murder.Though many false witnesses came: society abounds in venal instruments of iniquity.Every false witness is in opposition to the holy God of truth; hence such will not only be put to shame, but even their false testimony must ultimately subserve the truth.Calumny omits or adds (or perverts), as it may serve its purpose, so as to give falsehood the semblance of truth.It is the peculiar artifice of the evil one to mix some element of truth in every lie.Thus have the enemies of revelation frequently perverted the Bible.The silence of Jesus: 1. Wise; 2. dignified; 3. putting His enemies to shame and condemning them; 4. conciliatory; 5. a holy example to His followers. (The biographies of Franke, Rengeltaube, Boos, Zinzendorf, and others.)The great and grievous damage often resulting from controversies is solely caused by our own premature and hasty conduct.The solemn confession of Jesus: 1. Wise and necessary: 2. holy and sacred; 3. heroic, or unshrinking, 1Ti 6:13; 1 Timothy 4. unhesitating and decided; 5. an example to His martyrs.The different bearing and relationship in reference to the truth (on the part of Jesus, of Pilate, of the high-priests, of the false witnesses, of Judas).Nevertheless (but, besides), I say unto you. A most solemn thunder-call to His enemies. Its confirmation appeared immediately on His death (the darkness, the earthquake, etc.).They who will not believe in the divine character of Jesus must soon experience it to their terror and confusion.It is terrible to His enemies, but most comforting to His friends.The faithfulness of the Lord met by the mere semblance of the fear of God.A painful and sleepless night to the Lord. Under the Old Testament, the high-priest was wont to spend the night before the day of atonement waking; so the true High-Priest also. A consolation this to sufferers during their sleepless nights.Subordinates imitate their superiors and the higher classes, 1Co 2:8.The face of man the characteristic and special index of his individuality; to spit upon the face, is to set at nought the peculiar individuality of the man. In the present instance it was Jesus. His face was the face of God, Joh 14:9. His holy face, which angels adore, veiling their countenances, was here insulted. A setting at nought of His person, and at the same time of His prophetical office.Beware of a scoffing spirit, and of fellowship with scorners, Psa 1:1Alas! how frequently is Christ still set at nought among us, wittingly and unwittingly, by neglect and contempt of His word, or by jokes and witticisms in connection with it! For the present He bears with it, but the time shall come when judgment will be passed upon those daring scoffers.Let the reproach of Christ be our choicest adorning.

J. W. Knig:What a change! In the night (of the nativity), when heaven descended upon earth, etc., the seraphim opened their song of joy and praise, etc. In this, the last night of His life, the Lord of heaven is set at nought.Rieger:This question, whether Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, still proves the testing-point of unbelief and worldly mindedness. He that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God overcometh the world.Braune:No criminal has ever endured what Jesus had to suffer; at least in no other case have cruelty and malice been so grievously at work.As on that occasion, in the obscurity of night, so still, many an attempt against Christ is made in the darkness of the world of this life.

Footnotes:

[91]Mat 26:58.[Comp. Crit. Note 3 on Mat 26:3, p. 459, on the true meaning of .P. S.]

[92]Mat 26:59.B., D., L., al., [also Cod. Sinait.], omit . Probably an unnecessary insertion from Mat 26:57. [Lachmann and Alford omit it, but Tischendorf retains, and Meyer defends it.P. S.]

[93]Mat 26:60.The second is omitted in B., C., and Origen. Comp. Meyer on the probability of an insertion and the manner of its origin. [The text. rec., which is supported by the majority of MSS., reads: , , but Griesbach and the critical editors omit before , and , or at least the last two words, on the authority of three Alexandrine uncials (B., C., L.), to which must now be added also Cod. Sinait., and the Vulgate (cum multi falsi testes accessissent) and later versions. Dr. Conant, following this reading, renders: though many false witnesses came. Lachmann, however, while he omits , retains in brackets. So Lange in his German Version. The case is hardly clear and important enough to justify us to disturb the Authorized English Version.P. S.]

[94]Mat 26:61.[In the original simply , which the English Version generally renders: this; in some cases: this man. Fellow is too disrespectful in modern English, especially if applied to Christ, and should be omitted here, Mat 26:71; Mat 12:24.P. S.]

[95]Mat 26:63.[Lange, and all the German Versions: Schwieg stille. This is all the Greek expresses, while to hold ones peace seems to imply the suppression of feeling or emotion. Silence is often better than speech, and in this case was the best answer.P. S.]

[96]Mat 26:63.B., C., and other MSS., and some translations (Vulgata) omit the , probably on account of the difficulty of its meaning in its connection with the previous silence.

[97]Mat 26:66.[Or: worthy to die, Tyndale, Cranmer, Cheke, Genevan, Bishops; or: he deserves to die, Campbell; or: he is deserving of death, Scrivener. The rendering of in the Authorized Version is borrowed from Wiclif, Coverdale, and the Rhemish N. T., and retained by Conant and the revised Version of the Am. Bible Union, but it is hardly justifiable now after the old Saxon sense of guilt (=debt) has become obsolete. In the same antiquated sense guilty is used Mar 14:64; 1Co 11:27.P. S.]

[98]Mat 26:67.[The words: with the palms of their hands, should be omitted as not necessarily implied in , which means to strike with a stick as well as with the hand. Hesychius derives from . The margin of the Authorized Version reads: Or, rods, following the Genevan Version and Beza (le frappait de leur verges). So also Bengel, Meyer, Ewald, and Lange. This is preferable here, since , and others, introduces a new kind of abuse differing from buffeting, and since Mark (14:65) ascribes the to the servants. But the word is better left indefinite. Older English Versions add: on the face. So Lange: schlugen ihm ins Angesicht. See Exeg. Notes.P. S.]

[99]The entrance to this enclosed area, or court-yard, was through the porch, , Mat 26:71, or , Mar 14:68. Comp. Crit Note on Mat 26:3. p. 459.P. S.]

[100][So also Alford: There shall be a sign of the truth of what I say, over and above this confession of mine.P. S.]

[101][The Edinb. ed. omits the last sentence, and turns Saurin, the well-known French Reformed pulpit orator who died at the Hague in 1730, Into Saurin is, as if he were some old Latin divine.P. S.]

[102][Comp. the Crit. Note No. 8, p. 490,P. S.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

“And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.”

Every verse in the concluding scene of Christ’s life is momentous. But the limits of this “Poor Man’s Commentary, ” will not admit of our enlarging on the subject, as might be wished. Nevertheless, the apprehension of Christ, and the leading him away, are too important; as points, in the wonderful subject, to as to be hastily passed by. He, who at a word of his mouth, smote to the ground the band of armed men which came to take him, (Joh 18:6 ) cannot be supposed to have been bound and led away, but for the answering some important; purpose. It may well merit therefore our attention.

In entering into a proper apprehension of this subject, always preserving in view and never losing sight of the voluntary sufferings of Jesus; let us first attend to what is said of Christ, under the spirit; of prophecy. Jesus complains, of the bulls of Basan compassing him around; and the dogs and assembly of wicked men inclosing him; by which we plainly understand, that Jesus, as the hind of the morning was to be hunted, until he was brought into the dust of death. Psa 22 title of the Psalm, and Psa 22:12-15 verses.

Now the binding of Christ, was a part of the service of the sacrifice. Isaac his type was bound and put upon the altar. Gen 22:9 . And hence, all the sacrifices under the Jewish law were bound at the horns of the altar. Psa 118:27 . But these things were all figurative of the sins and iniquities of his people binding Christ. For as chains and fetters tye down the body: so sin and iniquity bend down the soul. Here Christ, cries out, Innumerable evils have compassed me about mine iniquities have taken hold of me, so that I am not able to look up: they are more than the hairs of my head; my heart hath failed me. Psa 40:12 . These are very precious views of Christ, when restoring that he took not away. Psa 69:4 . So that the binding of Christ, became a necessary part to set forth the binding of all the sins of his people on Christ, when Jehovah laid on him the iniquity of us all. And it is a very very precious thought, to the soul of every truly regenerated believer, that all the sins of his redeemed, without the omission of a single infirmity or sin; in thought, or word, or deed, were laid upon Christ, as the sacrifice was used to be bound on the altar. Hence, the High Priest, under the Jewish dispensation, was commanded to be thus particular, on the great day of atonement. And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgression in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat: and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man (a man of opportunity, as the margin hath it, and as Christ was) into the wilderness, as Christ was led away when bound. Lev 16:21 .

Reader! do not overlook this grand feature in the person, office, and character of Christ. When Christ was bound and led away, he then fulfilled all that this type and shadow represented of him; and the whole, and not a single sin, either of omission or commission, belonging to his redeemed was left out.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

57 And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.

Ver. 57. Where the scribes and the elders were ] A full council then may err. See Trapp on “ Mat 2:4 “ See Trapp on “ Mat 26:3 “

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

57 68. ] HEARING BEFORE CAIAPHAS. Mar 14:53-65 . (Luk 22:54 ; Luk 22:63-65 .) Joh 18:24 . Previous to this took place a hearing before Annas, the real High-priest (see note on Luk 3:2 ), to whom the Jews took Jesus first; who enquired of Him about his disciples and his teaching ( Joh 18:19-23 ), and then ( Joh 18:24 ) sent Him bound to Caiaphas. Only John, who followed , relates this first hearing. See notes on Joh 18:12-24 , where this view is maintained. It may be sufficient here just to indicate the essential differences between that hearing and this . On that occasion no witnesses were required, for it was merely a private unofficial audience. Then the High-priest questioned and our Lord replied: whereas now, under false witness and reproach, He (as before Herod) is silent.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

57. . ] He was , Annas having been deposed, and since then the High-priests having been frequently changed by the Roman governors.

. ] Probably they had assembled by a preconcerted design, expecting their prisoner. This was a meeting of the Sanhedrim, but not the regular assembly, which condemned him and handed Him over to Pilate. That took place in the morning , Luk 22:66-71 (where see note).

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Mat 26:57-68 . Before Caiaphas (Mar 14:53-65 ; Luk 22:54 ; Luk 22:66-71 ). , to Caiaphas, who sent them forth, and who expects their return with their victim. , where, i.e. , in the palace of Caiaphas. . .: scribes and presbyters, priests and presbyters in Mat 26:3 . Mk. names all the three; doubtless true to the fact. , were assembled, waiting for the arrival of the party sent out to arrest Jesus. In Mk. the coming together of the Sanhedrim appears to be synchronous with the arrival of Jesus. This meeting happens when the world is asleep, and when judicial iniquity can be perpetrated quietly.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Matthew

THE REAL HIGH PRIEST AND HIS COUNTERFEIT

Mat 26:57 – Mat 26:68 .

John’s Gospel tells us that Jesus was brought before ‘Annas first,’ probably in the same official priestly residence as Caiaphas, his son-in-law, occupied. That preliminary examination brought out nothing to incriminate the prisoner, and was flagrantly illegal, being an attempt to entrap Him into self-accusing statements. It was baffled by Jesus being silent first, and subsequently taking His stand on the undeniable principle that a charge must be sustained by evidence, not based on self-accusation. Annas, having made nothing of this strange criminal, ‘sent Him bound unto Caiaphas.’

A meeting of the Sanhedrin had been hastily summoned in the dead of night, which was itself an illegality. Now Jesus stands before the poor shadow of a judicial tribunal, which, though it was all that Rome had left a conquered people, was still entitled to sit in judgment on Him. Strange inversion, and awful position for these formalists! And with sad persistence of bitter prejudice they proceeded to try the prisoner, all unaware that it was themselves, not Him, that they were trying.

They began wrongly, and betrayed their animus at once. They were sitting there to inquire whether Jesus was guilty or no; they had made up their minds beforehand that He was, and their effort now was but to manufacture some thin veil of legality for a judicial murder. So they ‘sought false witness, . . . that they might put Him to death.’ Matthew simply says that no evidence sufficient for the purpose was forthcoming; Mark adds that the weak point, was that the lies contradicted each other. Christ’s presence has a strange, solemn power of unmasking our falsehoods, both of thought and deed, and it is hard to speak evil of Him before His face. If His calumniators were confused when He stood as Prisoner, what will they be when He sits as a Judge?

Only Matthew and Mark tell us of the two witnesses whose twisted version of the word about ‘destroying the Temple and rebuilding it in three days’ seemed to Caiaphas serious enough to require an answer. Their mistake was one which might have been made in good faith, but none the less was their travesty ‘false witness.’ Their version of His great word shows how easily the teaching of a lofty soul, passed through the popular brain, is degraded, and made to mean the opposite of what he had meant by it. For the destruction of the Temple had appeared in the saying as the Jews’ work, and Jesus had presented Himself in it as the Restorer, not the Destroyer, of the Temple and of all that it symbolised. We destroy, He rebuilds. The murder of Jesus was the suicide of the nation. Caiaphas and his council were even now pulling down the Temple. And that murder was the destruction, so far as men could effect it, of the true ‘Temple of His body,’ in which the fulness of the Godhead dwelt, and which was more gloriously reconstituted in the Resurrection. The risen Christ rears the true temple on earth, for through Him the Holy Ghost dwells in His Church, which is collectively ‘the Temple,’ and in all believing spirits, which are individually ‘the temples’ of God. So the false witnesses distorted into a lie a great truth.

The Incarnate Word was dumb all the while. He ‘was still and refrained’ Himself. It was the silence of the King before a lawless tribunal of rebels, of patient meekness, ‘as a sheep before her shearers’; of innocence that will not stoop to defend itself from groundless accusations; of infinite pity and forbearing love, which sees that it cannot win, but will not smite. Jesus is still silent, but one day, ‘with the breath of His lips shall He slay the wicked.’ Caiaphas seems to have been annoyed as well as surprised at Jesus’ silence, for there is a trace of irritation, as at ‘contempt of court,’ in his words. But our Lord’s continued silence appears to have somewhat awed him, and the dawning consciousness of his dignity is, perhaps, the reason for the high priest’s casting aside all the foolery of false witnessing, and coming at last to the real point,- the Messianic claims of Jesus.

Caiaphas was doing his duty as high priest in inquiring into such claims, but he was somewhat late in the day, and he had made up his mind before he inquired. What he wished to get was a plain assertion on which the death sentence could be pronounced. Jesus knew this, and yet He answered. But Luke tells us that He first scathingly pointed to the unreality and animus of the question by saying, ‘If I tell you, ye will not believe.’ But yet it was fitting that He should solemnly, before the supreme court, representative of the nation, declare that He was the Messiah, and that, if He was to be rejected and condemned, it should be on the ground of that declaration. Before Caiaphas He claimed to be Messiah, before Pilate He claimed to be King. Each rejected Him in the character that appealed to them most. The many-sidedness of the perfect Revealer of God brings Him to each soul in the aspect that most loudly addresses each. Therefore the love in the appeal and the guilt in its rejection are the greater.

But Christ’s self-attestation to the council was not limited to the mere claim to the name of Messiah. It disclosed the implications of that name in a way altogether unlike the conceptions held by Caiaphas. When Caiaphas put in apposition ‘the Christ’ and ‘the Son of God,’ he was not speaking from the ordinary Jewish point of view, but from some knowledge, of Christ’s teaching, and there are two charges combined into one.

But Jesus’ answer, while plainly claiming to be the Messiah, expands itself in regard to the claim to be ‘Son of God,’ and shows its tremendous significance. It involves participation in divine authority and omnipotence. It involves a future coming to be the Judge of His judges. It declares that these blind scribes and elders will see Him thus exalted, and it asserts that all this is to begin then and there ‘henceforth’, as if that hour of humiliation was to His consciousness the beginning of His manifestation as Lord, or, as John has it, ‘the hour that the Son of Man should be glorified.’ Nor must we leave out of sight the fact that it is ‘the Son of Man’ of whom all this is said, for thereby are indicated the raising of His perfect humanity to participation in Deity, and the possibility that His brethren, too, may sit where He sits. Much was veiled in the answer to the council, much is veiled to us. But this remains,-that Jesus, at that supreme moment, when He was bound to leave no misunderstandings, made the plainest claim to divinity, and could have saved His life if He had not done so. Either Caiaphas, in his ostentatious horror of such impiety, was right in calling Christ’s words blasphemy, and not far wrong in inferring that Jesus was not fit to live, or He is the everlasting ‘Son of the Father,’ and will ‘come to be our Judge.’

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 26:57-58

57Those who had seized Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together. 58But Peter was following Him at a distance as far as the courtyard of the high priest, and entered in, sat down with the officers to see the outcome.

Mat 26:57 “Those who had seized Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas, the high priest” From the parallel in Joh 18:12, we realize that He was taken first to the residence of Annas, who was really the power behind the office. Apparently Annas and Caiaphas lived in the same home. Selected members of the Sanhedrin were already being assembled there. The phrase, “the scribes and the elders,” along with the High Priest, describes the full designation of the Sanhedrin.

SPECIAL TOPIC: Illegalities of the Sanhedrin’s Night Trial, Mat 26:57-68

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

laid hold on = seized.

were assembled = had gathered together.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

57-68.] HEARING BEFORE CAIAPHAS. Mar 14:53-65. (Luk 22:54; Luk 22:63-65.) Joh 18:24. Previous to this took place a hearing before Annas, the real High-priest (see note on Luk 3:2), to whom the Jews took Jesus first;-who enquired of Him about his disciples and his teaching (Joh 18:19-23), and then (Joh 18:24) sent Him bound to Caiaphas. Only John, who followed, relates this first hearing. See notes on Joh 18:12-24, where this view is maintained. It may be sufficient here just to indicate the essential differences between that hearing and this. On that occasion no witnesses were required, for it was merely a private unofficial audience. Then the High-priest questioned and our Lord replied: whereas now, under false witness and reproach, He (as before Herod) is silent.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

We shall read two or three short portions of Gods Word in order to bring before you the wonderful contrast to which I am about to direct your thoughts.

Mat 26:57. And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.

It was night, but these wicked men could sit up for this gruel deed, to judge the Lord of glory, and to put the innocent One to shame. They led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.

Mat 26:58. But Peter followed him afar off unto the high priests palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end.

I have heard Peter represented as if he did wrong to follow Christ afar off. I think he was the bravest of all the apostles, for scarcely one of them followed Christ at all at that time. Afterwards, John bethought himself, and came into the judgment hall. Peter kept at a distance from his Lord, but he did follow him, and he did go into the high priests palace. He went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end. Peter was right enough in following Christ; it was afterward, when the temptation came, that he fell so grievously.

Mat 26:59-60. Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death; but found none:

Because they did not agree, they would not hold together. This is the weakness of falsehood, that it contradicts itself. These men felt that they must have some show of truth-likeness even in condemning Christ, and this they could not get at first even from their false witnesses.

Mat 26:60-61. Yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses, and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.

Brethren, observe, that this was a little twisting of Christs words, but that slight wresting made them as different as possible from what Christ had really said. I suppose that, if you want to know how this twisting or wresting is done, any one of our general elections will give you the most wonderful examples of how everything that any man may say can be twisted to mean the very reverse of what he said. If there is one thing in which English people are expert beyond all others, it is in the art of misquoting, misstating, and misrepresenting. As our Lord was wronged in this fashion, nobody need be surprised if the like should happen unto him. This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.

Mat 26:62. And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?

What was the good of answering? What is ever the good of answering when the only evidence brought against one is palpable and willful misrepresentation? So the Saviour was silent; and thus, he not only proved his wisdom, but he also fulfilled that marvellous prophecy of Isaiah, He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

Mat 26:63. But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ the Son of God.

Now came the answer, the good confession that our Lord witnessed before his cruel adversaries.

Mat 26:64. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

How that sentence must have come with the vividness of a lightning flash before their faces! What a declaration of power from One who stood there bound before his enemies, apparently helpless, and about to die!

Mat 26:65-68. 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. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death. Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?

Our Lord had told these mockers that they should one day see him coming in the clouds of heaven. Let us read in the Book of the Revelation concerning that great event.

This exposition consisted of readings from Mat 26:57-68. Rev 6:12-17; Rev 19:11-16; Rev 20:11-15; Rev 21:1.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible

Mat 26:57-68

2. TRIAL BEFORE CAIAPHAS AND SANHEDRIN

Mat 26:57-68

57-62 And they that had taken Jesus.-The company had been sent out by the authority of the high priest, so when Jesus was arrested they “led him away to the house of Caiaphas the high priest.” They carried Jesus away first to the house of Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, where he was followed by Peter and John. (Luk 22:54-57; Joh 18:13-17.) The first denial of Peter occurred at this time as he stood in the lower hall warming himself. (Mat 26:69-70; Mar 14:66-68 , Luk 22:55-57; Joh 18:18.) After this denial a cock was heard to crow for midnight; meanwhile Annas inquired of Jesus concerning his doctrine; but as Annas was no longer high priest, Jesus refused to answer him. (Joh 18:22-24.) Then Annas sent him to Caiaphas who was the actual high priest. Peter followed him and entered with the crowd. It is thought that with this event Thursday closed according to Roman time. According to Jewish time it had been Friday since sunset. Annas was a man of great energy and influence and was called high priest through courtesy; some think that he had been high priest, but had been deposed by Roman authorities and his son-in-law, Caiaphas, had been honored with the office. Jesus’ presence before Annas formed no part of the trial which is recorded by Matthew. The Sanhedrin had been assembled and was ready when they arrived with Jesus. The Sanhedrin constituted the Supreme Court of all matters touching their religion. The first question, on the arrest of Jesus, was, had he violated the law in any particular that was worthy of death?

But Peter followed him afar off.-The two events, the trial of Jesus and the denial of Peter occurred at the same time. It was left to the choice of the writer as to which would be recorded first. Matthew records the trial of Jesus first and finishes his record of the trial, and then gives the denials of Peter all at once; Mark, who wrote under the direction of Peter, has given the words which passed, and John has followed the order of time. Peter followed afar off, but even this manifested his love for Jesus. By following at all, he manifests love for Jesus; by following afar off he showed fear. He compromised with his fears and his love; Satan made it impossible for him to remain mutual. He occupied the dubious ground of compromise with sin. He came “unto the court of the high priest, and entered in, and sat with the officers, to see the end.” Peter remained among the servants in the vestibule as if he were a mere spectator; this was the first compromise, and while Jesus was before Annas, the first denial occurred. He sat with the servants around a fire of coals; it was cold enough that night for a fire. He is found among the enemies of Jesus and it is exceedingly difficult to remain loyal to Jesus while he is consorting with his enemies.

The Sanhedrin now has Jesus before it; he is its prisoner; but it has no charges against him. “Now the chief priests and the whole council sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death.” They sought for some testimony which would convict him of death; there was no difficulty in finding witnesses who testified with vague accusations of hatred and bigotry, but for a long time they could not find any two whose testimony was consistent. They sought to examine Jesus by questions about his teachings and his disciples, that they might find some inconsistencies in his teaching or some false doctrine; then they sought to convict his disciples of some violations of the law so that they might blame Jesus with the mistakes of his disciples. But Jesus refused to answer their questions; he was there to suffer rather than to teach. He had lately spoken their doom in the woes of chapter twenty-three; he left them to proceed for themselves and to make out a charge of impiety to a capital degree, in their own way. They were sorely pressed for materials to aid their malice and to make out their charge. Finally, after examining “many false witnesses,” two were found who said, “This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.” This was a perversion of the truth; Jesus had not said this, but two witnesses testified that he had said this. The law required two witnesses. (Deu 17:6-7; Heb 10:28.) The falsehood of these two witnesses lay, not in their affirming an untruth, but in perverting the truth and wresting an innocent speech into a crime. “This man said,” literally “this fellow said”; “this one,” pointing at Jesus. Jesus had said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” (Joh 2:19.) Jesus did not say that he would destroy the temple; but in these words by telling them to destroy it, he avoided the only charge which they sought to make out against him. (Act 6:14.) Jesus had reference to his body and spoke of it as the temple; he meant that should they destroy his body or put him to death in three days he would be raised from the dead. Now these witnesses quote him as saying, “I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.” (Mar 14:58.) This was an ingenious and wicked perversion of his words. Their words contained two distinct accusations: (1) a conspiracy to destroy the temple; (2) a claim to the power of doing a miracle against their holy place. The first they knew was false; the second they thought best to say nothing about. The high priest attempted to get Jesus to make some reply to this accusation, “but he held his peace, and answered nothing.” It was useless for Jesus to make reply to the testimony of these witnesses; they were not seeking the truth and they would pervert his words.

63-68 And the high priest said unto him.-After attempting to extort something from Jesus in reply to the testimony that had been given, and failing in this, Caiaphas then attempted to put Jesus under oath and either make him testify or violate the law of Moses. He said, “I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God.” The high priest, angered by the failure to get Jesus to speak, and eager to arouse the passion of the assembly against him, changed his ground and compelled Jesus to speak. “I adjure thee” was the usual form of putting a man under oath. (Lev 5:1.) When thus adjured by any one having authority, it was wrong for any pious Jew to keep silence or conceal the truth. Jesus, notwithstanding the improper rage of the high priest, obediently and meekly replied to “the ruler of his people.” Jesus answered, “Thou hast said.” This was equivalent to an affirmative answer; it meant yes I am “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” “The Christ” means the same as “the Messiah”; the first is Greek and the latter Hebrew, and both mean “anointed.” This was equivalent to “the Son of God.” The two words are used to express the same thing. (Mat 16:16; Luk 22:67; Luk 22:70.) Jesus meant to say that “I affirm in this solemn hour that I am the Christ the Son of God, though I must die for the claim.” Jesus knew that he would be charged with blasphemy when he made the answer; he then added, “Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” This means his second coming; notwithstanding his present humiliation and crucifixion as a criminal before them, yet he

Then the high priest rent his garments, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy.-Rending his garments was a sign of his horror and indignation at a blasphemer. The Jews expressed great grief or mourning by such significant gestures; the high priest was strictly forbidden to do this from fear of God, whose servant he was. (Lev 10:6; Lev 21:10.) “He hath spoken blasphemy.” He thought that he had put Jesus under oath and that now he claimed under oath to be the Son of God. If the claim of Jesus was not true, then he was guilty of blasphemy but if his claim be the truth, then he was not guilty of this serious charge. Caiaphas and the chief priests and elders disbelieved him, not from want of evidence, but from want of will; they did not want to believe him. They condemned him as an impostor, without a pretense of examining his claims and life, whether he had taught the truth or done miracles of mercy. Caiaphas then said to the other members of the Sanhedrin, “What further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye?” In his rage he now put the matter before the Sanhedrin for a decision. They are to vote “guilty” or “innocent.” The charge against Jesus is blasphemy. Caiaphas had already voted, and the other members of the Sanhedrin had already prejudged Jesus and a formal sentence is pronounced against him. “He is worthy of death.” He has done that for which the law of Moses adjudges the punishment of death. (Lev 24:10-16.) Stoning was the punishment for this crime. (Act 7:58; Act 14:19.) The Sanhedrin could not enforce their own sentence for fear of the Roman government. They either feared the Roman governor or the people they thought it safer to resort to the Roman governor to carry out their plans. In doing this they fulfilled the purposes of God as expressed by the prophets. It was now the morning watch, between three and six A.M. of Friday. (Luk 22:63-70.) Luke says “as soon as it was day,” that is, when the day was dawning. The denials of Peter, which had now taken place, marked the time as after three o’clock in the morning.

Then did they spit in his face and buffet him.-Spitting in the face was a mark of the highest contempt; their rage had carried them to this point; the members of the Sanhedrin lost all the dignity and mercy which they had and degraded themselves by heaping upon Jesus such abuse. They struck him on the head with their fists; this treatment was intended to show their hatred of him as a blasphemer; this was an impotent substitute for stoning to death. They “smote him with the palms of their hands”; they struck him on the face or mouth; this was to mark their horror of what he had spoken. At the same time that they were abusing him they asked him to “prophesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee?” Mark says that they had blindfolded him before they struck him and requested that he use his power as a prophet to tell them who had smitten him. These cruel mockeries were as disgraceful to the Sanhedrin as they intended them to be to Jesus. They became guilty of blasphemy themselves as they were so abusing the Son of God. Because Jesus was silent, they imagined themselves to be just and triumphant; they misunderstood his silence. They had passed their sentence before daylight and had decided to take Jesus before Pilate; they had some hours to wait before Pilate’s court opened. They put in the time while waiting for Pilate abusing Jesus. Jesus could have with one look or word smitten them dead, but he endured all their indignities in silence; he suffered them all that we might learn to suffer in silence as did he. (Heb 12:1-2.)

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

the True Answer to False Witness

Mat 26:57-66

This meeting of the Jewish leaders had been hastily summoned; but their difficulty was to substantiate a charge that would warrant the death sentence. They had to go back to the beginning of Christs ministry for the one charge that seemed sufficient for their purpose. But see Joh 2:19; Mar 14:58. In the meanwhile our Lord opened not His mouth. He left His reputation in the care of the Father, to whom He also committed His soul. It is a good example to follow. Do what is right and let God vindicate you!

It was only when Jesus was directly challenged as to His unique relationship to God, that He opened His lips. There is an evident reference in His words to Dan 7:13-14. The court instantly recognized that in His reply He claimed to be equal with God. To be the Son of God was to be God. See also Joh 5:18. Note that word henceforth, which suggests that though it is hidden from us, the Kingdom is already set up, as was Davids even when Saul was still on the throne.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

Chapter 82

The Son of God

Excommunicated and Condemned

And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled. But Peter followed him afar off unto the high priests palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end. Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death; But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses, And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 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. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death. Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?

(Mat 26:57-68)

In the passage before us we see the Lord of glory dragged before the ecclesiastical court of the Jews, before Caiaphas, the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders. Everybody who was anybody among the Jews was represented in this assembly of madness. The whole religious world of the day, all who claimed to reverence the Word of God, honor the law of God, walk in the ways of God, and worship in the name of God were represented in this blood-thirsty religious mob. These men were not the religious kooks and crackpots, but the leaders of mainstream religion, both conservative and liberal, both the orthodox and the unorthodox. All of them had come together now for the third time in one week (Joh 11:47-50; Mat 26:2-3) to excommunicate the Lord of glory and condemn him to death. They were determined to get rid of Christ and his Gospel, while maintaining their religious status quo. They wanted to keep their temple, and their priesthood, and their religious customs, and the name of God; but they were determined to put an end to the influence of the Son of God and the Gospel of his grace.

I hope you have not missed my point. This is what I am saying. This is what I want you to see. It is as evident as the noon day sun throughout the Scriptures. The religious world, the mainstream religious world, in all its branches and denominations, is now and always has been opposed to Christ, his gospel, and his kingdom.

Every church in the world is acceptable in the religious world, except the church of God. Every religious notion in the world is acceptable in the religious world, except the Gospel of Gods free and sovereign grace in Christ. Every way of salvation promoted by the perverse imaginations of men is acceptable in the religious world, except the declaration that Christ is the only Way, the declaration that salvation is to be had only by the shedding of his blood for the satisfaction of divine justice, that righteousness can be obtained only by divine imputation, and that salvation is the gift and operation of Gods free, sovereign, effectual grace.

The Sacrifice Bound

And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled. In a way it was only fitting that our Savior be brought before the high priest of the Jews at this time. The great day of atonement was at hand. The wondrous types of the paschal lamb, the mercy-seat, and the scapegoat were about to be fulfilled. Now, before he is led forth to be crucified, the high priest, by the arrangement of providence, pronounces sin to be upon the head of the innocent Lamb of God (Lev 16:21).

Ever remember that our Saviors sufferings were voluntarily endured. He, who had by his mere word smitten the band of soldiers who came to arrest him (Joh 18:6), was not bound and led away against his will. This, too, came to pass according to the purpose of God, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled. In Psalms 22 our Savior cried, Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me roundDogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me.

Our blessed Savior was bound as the sacrifices of old, just as Isaac was bound and put on the altar (Gen 22:9), and all the sacrifices of the law were bound at the horns of the altar (Psa 118:27). The binding of the sacrifices in the Old Testament typically pictured the sins and iniquities of Gods elect binding the Lord Jesus. Robert Hawker observed, For as chains and fetters tie down the body, so sin and iniquity bend down the soul. And our blessed Savior cried, as one whose soul was bound, when he was restoring that which he took not away, O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from theeInnumerable evils have compassed me about: mine iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up; they are more than the hairs of mine head: therefore my heart faileth me (Psa 40:12; Psa 69:5). Perhaps, the binding of our Substitute was intended of God to set forth the binding of all the sins of his people to him, when the Lord God had laid on him the iniquity of us all, making him sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. I said, perhaps that was the intent of our God in the providential binding of our Redeemer, because it cannot be stated with certainty. But Robert Hawker made another observation concerning the binding of our sins to our Savior that is a matter of certainty. He wrote.

It is a very, very precious thought, to the soul of every truly regenerated believer, that all the sins of his redeemed, without the omission of a single infirmity or sin; in thought, or word, or deed, were laid upon Christ, as the sacrifice was bound on the altar. Hence, the High Priest, under the Jewish dispensation, was commanded to be thus particular, on the great day of atonement. And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgression in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat: and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man (a man of opportunity, as the margin hath it, and as Christ was) into the wilderness, as Christ was led away when bound (Lev 16:21).

When our blessed Savior was bound, led away, and, at last, put to death as our sin-atoning Sacrifice, he fulfilled all the typical sacrifices of the law that foreshadowed and represented him. Thus, he who was made sin for us put away all the sins of all his people by the sacrifice of himself.

Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin

Caiaphas represents the very worst of lost, unregenerate religious leaders. John Gill tells us that his name means one that vomits at the mouth. Though he had all the proper outward credentials of a high priest, he obtained his office by the appointment of man (The Roman Governor), either as the result of bribery or as a favor done to him, rather than by the appointment of God.

Like most religious leaders who obtain their offices and positions by the appointment of men, Caiaphas was a pragmatic leader for the people. He knew, at least in theory, certain aspects of divine truth; but he was a subtle politician. When it was to his advantage to do so, he could act very manly and speak truth in the face of others. I do not know how much, if anything, he understood about what he said; but he certainly spoke the truth in Joh 11:47-54. He had no interest in the glory of God, the people of God, or the souls of men; but he did speak the truth. There are multitudes just like him in pulpits and positions of great leadership and influence around the world today.

High office in the church is no indication that a man is Gods servant. Read the Bible with your eyes open. The chief agents of our Lords crucifixion and death were the priests, the elders, and the scribes of Israel. These priests could trace their lineage back to Aaron. They held the highest offices of religion. They led the people in their acts of worship. They lived austere lives of devotion. At least they publicly appeared to live such lives. But these men were the murderers of the Son of God! Beware, hold no man in high esteem because he is reputed as a great preacher or religious leader. The teaching of any man who comes in the name of God must be tested by the standard of Holy Scripture (Isa 8:20; 1Jn 4:1-6).

Peter and the Lords Enemies

But Peter followed him afar off unto the high priests palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end (Mat 26:58). I do not want to say more than is suggested by this verse; but it is placed here by divine inspiration to prepare us for that which is later revealed about Peters denial of the Lord Jesus.

Peter followed him. After first forsaking the Lord with all the rest, Peter and John turned back to follow him. Peter alone is mentioned here because it is Peter who is being considered. But we must not be too severe in our judgment of Peter. John Gill wrote, Peters following Christ showed love to him. He was loth (reluctant) to leave him. His bowels (heart) moved towards him. He wanted to know how it would fare with him, and what would become of him. But, sadly, that is not all that we are told.

Peter followed him, but he followed him afar off. As Matthew Henry observed, Some sparks of love and concern for his Master were in his breast, and therefore he followed him; but fear and concern for his own safety prevailed, and therefore he followed him afar off…Here began Peters denying him; for to follow him afar off is, by little and little, to go back from him.

Next we are told that Peter went in and sat with the servants. He went in not to speak for Christ, but to screen himself, hoping not to be identified with Christ and his disciples. In fear and unbelief this bold disciple played the hypocrite. Foolishly and needlessly, he put himself in the way of temptation. He had no intention when he came to the high priests house of denying his Lord; but he put himself in the path of danger by putting himself in the company of the Lords enemies. When a servant of Christ by his own choice sits with the servants of the wicked, sin and sorrow speedily follow. (C. H. Spurgeon)

The reason why Peter followed and went in was to gratify his curiosity about the most sacred of all things, the death of Christ. Look what the Holy Spirit tells us. He went in to see the end. Peter went in simply to indulge his curiosity! He wanted to see what was taking place. He wanted to see how the Lord would be condemned and delivered up to die. Perhaps he wanted to see what he knew no one else would see.

Whatever the case, his curiosity nearly destroyed him. Let us be warned. The desire to satisfy curiosity may be very advantageous in carnal things, but in spiritual matters it is always ruinous.

The Chief Priests and their False Witnesses

Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death; But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses, And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? (Mat 26:59-62)

Even though they were plotting the murder of the Lord of Glory, these men were meticulous in their religious duty. They knew that the law required at least two witnesses for anyone to be convicted of a capital crime. Before long, two men were found who perverted the Lords words into an accusation of blasphemy. Though these two false witnesses could not get their tales together, it sufficed to give these religious infidels a conscience soothing grounds for murder.

Falsehood and ridicule are Satans favorite weapons. The old serpent is a liar and the father of all lies (Joh 8:44). Throughout our Lords earthly ministry he was constantly accused of being an evil man and of doing wicked deeds. This was nothing new for him. We must not be surprised to find men and women who oppose the gospel of the grace of God falsely accusing Gods saints of wickedness.

Do not believe the evil reports that reprobate men give of Gods saints. Gospel preachers particularly are the objects of scandalous gossip inspired by Satan. That has always been the case. It is the case now, and so it will continue until time shall be no more. I have never known any man to be used of God who was not the object of scandalous rumor at one time or another. More often than not, the rumors are started by religious people pretending to seek the honor of God and promote the cause of righteousness.

Do not be surprised when you attempt to serve God if you are falsely accused of evil; and do not be surprised when faithful gospel preachers are accused of evil. Those who despise, but cannot repudiate our doctrine, try to repudiate our names.

Blood-Thirsty Religionists

But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 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. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death. Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee? (Mat 26:63-68)

Here we see the Son of God enclosed by the assembly of the wicked (Psa 22:16). When accused by these false witnesses, our Lord held his peace. When he saw that his enemies were determined to have his blood, he choked their spite with silence. But Jesus held his peace because the Scripture must be fulfilled which said, He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth (Isa 53:7). Caiaphas was infuriated by the Saviors composure and silence.

Then, in Mat 26:64 our Savior plainly declared himself to be the Christ, God the Son. He told this enraged mob that he would be seated upon the right hand of power, of omnipotence, and that they would see it; that is to say, it would be made manifest to them. The right hand of power is the right hand of God. Being seated there signified his finished work. Being seated upon the throne of God also implied that his work was accepted by God. Here our blessed Savior made a claim of deity, which the Jews clearly understood. Indeed, if Jesus of Nazareth is not God, he was guilty of blasphemy and did deserve to die (Lev 24:16).

Then our Master gave a bold declaration of his second coming and the fact that these godless reprobates would see him again in judgment. Almost the last word spoken by our Lord before his crucifixion was about his second coming. Let us never question it.

After that, in great pomp and pretense, the high priest contemptuously condemned our Redeemer to be crucified, ripping his garments as he screamed blasphemy! (Mat 26:65-68). Caiaphas ripped his clothes in a pretense of righteous indignation only to hide the malignity of his murderous heart. He denounced the Son of God as a blasphemer only to disguise his own blasphemous heart.

The penalty for blasphemy was death by stoning; but our Lord had foretold that he would be crucified. Therefore, rather than stoning him on the spot, these men spit upon him, as they beat and mocked the Son of God. Then they delivered him up to the Romans to be crucified. All of this the Son of God voluntarily endured as our Substitute. John Trapp wrote

Christ was content to be spit upon to cleanse our faces from the filth of sin, to be buffeted with fists and beaten with rods to free us from that mighty hand of God (1Pe 5:6), and from those scourges and scorpions of infernal fiends.

See how patient Jesus stands,

Insulted in His lowest case!

Sinners bound His almighty hands,

And spit in their Creators face!

What multitudes there are who daily repeat the crimes of this blood-thirsty mob by their willful unbelief! Unbelief is nothing less than what these elite, sophisticated, barbaric religionists did. It is spitting in the face of God (1Jn 5:10).

The Good Shepherd laid down his life for his sheep as a voluntary sacrifice and sin-offering (John 116-18); and he did it according to the will and purpose of God Almighty (Act 2:23). All that was done to our Savior was done according to the purpose of God, and had been beforehand revealed in the Old Testament Scriptures (Act 4:27-28; Act 13:27-29).

After these things, after suffering the wrath of men, our Savior yet had to endure the wrath of God to save us. That, too, he voluntarily endured for us, as our Substitute (2Co 5:21). The day shall soon come when the Lord of Glory will respond to the challenge of mockery in Mat 26:68. Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee? (2Th 1:7-10; Rev 1:7; Rev 20:11).

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

The King before the Jewish High Priest

Mat 26:57. And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.

Some of the chief priests and elders were so enraged against Christ that they went to Gethsemane with the Roman cohort that was sent to arrest Jesus; the rest of them met at the house of Caiaphas the high priest, waiting for their victim to be brought to them. It was night, or early morning; but they were only too willing to sit up to judge the Lord of glory, and put the King of Israel to shame.

Mat 26:58. But Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest’s palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end.

Peter was not to be blamed because he followed afar off, for at first he and John were the only two disciples who followed their captive Master. John went with Jesus into the high priest’s palace, and by his influence Peter was also admitted. Attracted by the fire, Peter sat with the servants; a dangerous place for him, as it soon proved. When a servant of Christ by his own choice sits with the servants of the wicked, sin and sorrow speedily follow.

Mat 26:59-61. Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death; but found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses, and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.

The enemies of Jesus wanted to put him to death; they must therefore have at least two witnesses against him, for by the law of Moses the evidence of one witness was not sufficient to convict any person accused of a crime deserving the death penalty. The chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness, but found none; until at the last came two false witnesses, who wrested Christ’s words, and misrepresented his meaning; but even they did not agree in their testimony (Mar 14:59), and therefore Jesus could not be condemned.

Mat 26:62. And the high “priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?

“What was the use of answering? There really was nothing to answer except palpable and wilful misrepresentation. Our Lord also knew that the council had determined to put him to death; and beside that, there was another prophecy to be fulfilled: “He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.”

Mat 26:63-64, But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

The time for Christ to speak had come. First he answered the high priest’s solemn adjuration, and declared that he was “The Christ, the

Son of God.” There was no longer any reason for concealing that fact. Then he uttered a prophecy that must have startled his accusers. He stood there bound, apparently alone and helpless before his powerful enemies, who expected soon to put him to death; yet the Prophet-King declared that they should be witnesses of his future glory, and see him “sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” His hearers rightly understood him to claim to be divine, and gladly do we acknowledge the justice of his claim.

Mat 26:65-66. 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. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

If he had not been God Incarnate, he would have been guilty of blasphemy, and would have deserved to die. By the law of Moses, a blasphemer was to be stoned to death (Lev 24:16). Christ’s works had proved that he was God, so his words were not those of a blasphemer; but his confession gave his enemies the opening they were seeking, and they declared him to be unworthy to live: They answered and said, “He is guilty of death.” He had foretold that he would be crucified, whereas the punishment for blasphemy was death by stoning; so further forms of trial must be gone through before the end would come.

Mat 26:67-68. Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?

Oh, what shameful indignities and cruelties were heaped upon our precious Saviour!

“See how the patient Jesus stands,

Insulted in bis lowest case!

Sinners have bound the Almighty

hands, And spit in their Creator’s face.”

Put together these two texts: Then did they spit in his face,-” And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.” In the day of his humiliation, they struck him, and mocked him, saying, “Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?” Unless they repented of their wickedness, the day will come when the Divine Judge will point out each one of them who then abused him, and he will say, “Thou art the man!”

Fuente: Spurgeon’s The Gospel of the Kingdom

led

A comparison of the narratives gives the following order of events in the crucifixion day:

(1) Early in the morning Jesus is brought before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin. He is condemned and mocked Mat 26:57-68; Mar 14:55-65; Luk 22:63-71; Joh 18:19-24.

(2) The Sanhedrin lead Jesus to Pilate, Mat 27:1; Mat 27:2; Mat 27:11-14; Mar 15:1-5; Luk 23:1-5; Joh 18:28-38.

(3) Pilate sends Jesus to Herod Luk 23:6-12; Joh 19:4.

(4) Jesus is again brought before Pilate, who releases Barabbas and delivers Jesus to be crucified Mat 27:15-26; Mar 15:6-15; Luk 23:13-25; Joh 18:39; Joh 18:40; Joh 19:4-16.

(5) Jesus is crowned with thorns and mocked Mat 27:26-30; Mar 15:15-20; Joh 19:1-3.

(6) Suicide of Judas Mat 27:3-10.

(7) Led forth to be crucified, the cross is laid upon Simon: Jesus discourses to the women Mat 27:31; Mat 27:32; Mar 15:20-23; Luk 23:26-33; Joh 19:16; Joh 19:17.

For the order of events at the crucifixion (See Scofield “Mat 27:33”)

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

Psa 56:5, Psa 56:6, Mar 14:53, Mar 14:54, Luk 22:54, Luk 22:55, Joh 11:49, Joh 18:12-14, Joh 18:24

Reciprocal: 1Ki 13:4 – Lay hold Psa 22:16 – assembly Mat 21:39 – caught Joh 18:13 – led Act 4:13 – they took Act 6:12 – and caught

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

6:57

Led him away to Caiaphas. Joh 18:13 says they led him to Annas first who was the father-in-law of the high priest. Just what official position (if any) this Annas had at this time is a disputed point. But he was a former high priest and perhaps as a preliminary hearing Jesus was taken before him through respect for his former position, and in view of his relation to Caiaphas.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

WE read in these verses how our Lord Jesus Christ was brought before Caiaphas the high priest, and solemnly pronounced guilty. It was fitting that it should be so. The great day of atonement was come. The wondrous type of the scape-goat was about to be completely fulfilled. It was only suitable that the Jewish high priest should do his part, and declare sin to be upon the head of the victim, before he was led forth to be crucified. May we ponder these things and understand them. There was a deep meaning in every step of our Lord’s passion.

Let us observe in these verses, that the chief priests were the principal agents in bringing about our Lord’s death. It was not so much the Jewish people, we must remember, who pushed forward this wicked deed, as Caiaphas and his companions, the chief priests.

This is an instructive fact, and deserves notice. It is a clear proof that high ecclesiastical office exempts no man from gross errors in doctrine, and tremendous sins in practice. The Jewish priests could trace up their pedigree to Aaron, and were his lineal successors. Their office was one of peculiar sanctity, and entailed peculiar responsibilities. And yet these very men were the murderers of Christ!

Let us beware of regarding any minister of religion as infallible. His orders, however regularly conferred, are no guarantee that he may not lead us astray, and even ruin our souls. The teaching and conduct of all ministers must be tried by the Word of God. They are to be followed so long as they follow the Bible, but no longer. The maxim laid down in Isaiah must be our guide: “To the law and the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isa 8:20.)

Let us observe, in the second place, how fully our Lord declared to the Jewish council His own Messiahship, and His future coming in glory.

The unconverted Jew can never tell us at the present day, that his forefathers were left in ignorance that Jesus was the Messiah. Our Lord’s answer to the solemn adjuration of the high priest is a sufficient reply. He tells the council plainly that He is “the Christ, the Son of God.” He goes on to warn them that though He had not yet appeared in glory, as they expected Messias would have done, a day would come when he would do so. “Hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” They would yet see that very Jesus of Nazareth, whom they had arraigned at their bar, appear in all majesty as King of kings. (Rev 1:7.)

It is a striking fact which we should not fail to notice, that almost the last word spoken by our Lord to the Jews, was a warning prediction about His own second advent. He tells them plainly that they would yet see Him in glory. No doubt he referred to the seventh chapter of Daniel, in the language that he used. But He spoke to deaf ears. Unbelief, prejudice, self-righteousness covered them like a thick cloud. Never was there such an instance of spiritual blindness. Well may the Church of England litany contain the prayer, “From all blindness,-and from hardness of heart, Good Lord deliver us.”

Let us observe, in the last place, how much our Lord endured before the council, from false witness and mockery.

Falsehood and ridicule are old and favorite weapons of the devil. “He is a liar, and the father of it.” (Joh 8:44.) All through our Lord’s earthly ministry we see these weapons continually employed against Him. He was called a glutton, a winebibber, and a friend of publicans and sinners. He was held up to contempt as a Samaritan. The closing scene of His life was only in keeping with all the past tenor of it. Satan stirred up his enemies to add insult to injury. No sooner was He pronounced guilty, than every sort of mean indignity was heaped upon Him. “They spit in his face, and buffeted him.” “They smote him with the palms of their hands.” They said mockingly, “Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, who is he that smote thee?”

How wonderful and strange it all sounds! How wonderful that the Holy Son of God should have voluntarily submitted to such indignities, to redeem such miserable sinners as we are! How wonderful, not least, that every tittle of these insults was foretold seven hundred years before they were inflicted! Seven hundred years before, Isaiah had written down the words, “I hid not my face from shame and spitting.” (Isa 50:6.)

Let us draw from the passage one practical conclusion. Let it never surprise us, if we have to endure mockery, and ridicule, and false reports, because we belong to Christ. The disciple is not greater than His Master, nor the servant than His Lord. If lies and insults were heaped upon our Savior, we need not wonder if the same weapons are constantly used against His people. It is one of Satan’s great devices to blacken the characters of godly men, and bring them into contempt. The lives of Luther, Cranmer, Calvin, and Wesley supply abundant examples of this. If we are ever called upon to suffer in this way, let us bear it patiently. We drink the same cup that was drunk by our beloved Lord. But there is one great difference. At the worst, we only drink a few bitter drops. He drank the cup to the very dregs.

Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels

Mat 26:57. To Caiaphas the high priest. Appointed by the Romans, Annas having been deposed, as frequently occurred (comp. Mat 26:8).

Where the scribes and elders were gathered together. Mark inserts the chief-priests, indicating a meeting of the Sanhedrin or council (Mat 26:59). The examination before Annas would allow time for them to come together. But it was not the final assemblage of that body (see chap. Mat 27:1-2; Luk 22:66-71).

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Subdivision 2. (Mat 26:57-75; Mat 27:1-54.)

The Cross.

The Lord of glory is now in the hands of men; and we are to see what is in their hearts to do with Him. The perfect and ordained trial of man it is, this opportunity of theirs, and in result the world is manifest in all its dreadful alienation from God. The Cross gives character to all that is before us now; men are acting, and God too is acting in view of it, although the special, anticipated cup is not taken till the Cross is actually reached, and even then is confined to the three hours of intensest suffering marked off by the preternatural darkness from all the rest. Those will lose much of what God would teach us as to the mystery of atoning suffering who do not see the distinct meaning here. All the ground is holy, all the suffering necessary; but the more on this account, not less, must be the meaning of such differences as we find here.

1. Christ is now before men’s judgment-seats, the ecclesiastical, as we call it, and the civil; before the high priest and the governor; the Jew and the Gentile. The charge before each is different: in the one case, blasphemy; in the other, rebellion. The last was to the Jew every way a false charge, made to serve a purpose, and by the Roman so fully seen through that it was but like mocking him to his face to prefer it. The whole land as soon to go up in flames in opposition to the hated tyranny of the Gentile; and Pilate had already tasted the temper of these men now so careful to maintain the authority of Caesar. Nay, they were using him in all this for their own purposes, as he well knew, and making him the instrument of their malice. For an upright man the escape for him was easy; but being the man he was, it was impossible.

The first charge was the real one, though here too they might seek false witness to establish it. But the essential provocation for them was in this, what He had already told them to their faces. They were saying, “This is the Heir: come, let us kill Him and seize on His inheritance.” “They have seen,” He declares, “and hated both Me and My Father.”

Certainly, not even to themselves, would they have admitted this. Not only was there a multitude that blindly followed them, but the leaders too were in the deepest sense “blind” also, as again He had told them. There is, in the awful mystery of our fallen nature, a blindness which is all the more intense because intentional, – an ignorance which is the fruit of know ledge. And such was the misery of these unhappy men; with whom the very light in them was darkness, knowing not because they would not know, and condemned therefore even because they did not.

But this was the ground, then, of His accusation, as they declared themselves, “by our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God” (Joh 19:7). This was the issue, though they never faced it, “Was He the Son of God?” Confessedly even, that they never meant to lace. Scripture had silenced them. David in Spirit had certainly called his Son his Lord. Why this? They had no answer, and they would not seek one.

(1) He on His part stood by this issue – would not accept another – would not take the Kingdom upon any other ground. “Thou art the Son of God” must in the lips of a disciple be the basis of the other affirmation; “‘Thou art the King of Israel.” False witness, such as they sought, they did not need to condemn Him, nor would He plead one way or the other against it. Let them put the real question, He will answer under oath, and does. “Tell us if Thou be the Christ the Son of God.” And He answers, “Thou hast said, Moreover I say unto thee that from henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.”

There is His counter-challenge. He, yet in their hands, patiently subject to all the indignities they can heap upon Him, – He is just at the end – at the end for ever, of all this humiliation. “From henceforth” all will be changed for Him and for them. And He summons forth Daniel again to link that manhood of His, which they deemed a sufficient disproof of His highest claim, with those prophetic scriptures to which, through all that was in contradiction to it, the heart of the nation clung. Let them give heed to the voices, then, which out of the past spoke with new energy in the living present. Affirmed as such, with all the glory of His words and works to give authority to His witness, Christ the Son of God was there.

But it avails only for His condemnation, and to set loose the fury of wild passion stirred by the breath of satanic enmity: for this was their hour and the power of darkness (Luk 22:53). Frenzied with the majesty of that calm Presence in which they stand, they break out in insult and defiance of all His claim. Rending his clothes as in horror, the high-priest declares the trial over; He has blasphemed, He has condemned Himself. To which they all agree, that He is worthy of death. Then the pitiful form of justice being ended, the spirit beneath is free to manifest itself; and all the depths of men’s hearts are poured out.

(2) The true witness of the Master is followed by the denial of the disciple, – the foremost of them all, and under his Master’s eye. Three times over and even with noisy profanity, he denies companionship with or knowledge of Him; until it would seem, this reckless overflow of a heart too like their own; assures them, more than his denial, that indeed he cannot be a follower of “Jesus the Nazarene.” Only the Eye that Peter discerns presently upon him can find still under all this the partaker of the old intimacy, the man to whom the Eternal Father had revealed His Son. Alas for this other self we carry with us, and which would disown the Christ that we think we could die for! Matthew does not indeed record the look of Jesus upon His fallen disciple, but how, when immediately the cock crew, he remembered the words of prophetic warning that had been addressed to him, but which had been surely part of the provision made for him to sustain the faith which Christ had prayed in that critical moment might not fail, even though it might seem to have already failed. With an awful spasm of conviction, out he went into the night, a crushed and broken man.

Night! but already the darkness was not unrelieved. That which had brought it into his soul was that which heralded the coming day.

2. The charge made before the high-priest was, as already said, the real one, and was the truth. He did affirm Himself to be what they charged Him with affirming, and was condemned for His own true witness. The charge before the governor was on the contrary a fictitious charge, with just so much truth in it only as would make it serve their purpose. Pilate hears it, hears His own declaration that He is a King, nay, that He is King of the Jews, and having heard and examined, declares Him innocent, and does so to the end. The Kingdom that He claimed was not to be established by human power, nor might they draw sword on His behalf. He had exhorted them to give to Caesar what was Caesar’s, and declared that they that took the sword should perish by the sword. Caesar had nothing to fear, therefore, except it were possibly from a quarter where to resist would be hopeless.

But the Jews had not the power of inflicting a penalty of death, and had need, therefore, of the Roman governor for this purpose, and were, no doubt, full of grim satisfaction at the thought of having him in their hands, towards whom they had plenty of ground for ill-feeling, and little enough for good will. Crucifixion was not a Jewish penalty: they might hang the dead upon a tree, but not the living. The Lord, the Yielder up of His own life, had declared that He was to be delivered to the Gentiles to be crucified.

There was a spiritual reason governing all here. For the curse of the law was to be upon Him, and the public, open sign of the curse was hanging on a tree (Deu 21:23); but the infliction of this as a Jewish penalty would have carried this beyond death, and altered its significance. In the hands of the Gentiles alone would crucifixion answer to its end. But this we must look at further in a little while.

In connection with this charge before the governor it is that we see God bringing forward His witnesses to the spotlessness of His beloved Son. Matthew especially dwells upon this, because Matthew gives us all through the governmental side of things, and even the aspect of the Lord’s sacrificial work (the trespass-offering) is governmental.* The witness of Pilate is given more fully here than elsewhere; that of Judas, and that of the dream of Pilate’s wife, are only in this Gospel. Correspondingly we have the purchase of Aceldama with the money cast back to them by Judas, which is surely significant. The witness of the acceptance of His work we shall look at in its place. The four testimonies previously mentioned are all found in the present section. They are the evidence in rebuttal of the charge brought against Him.

{*See Introduction pp. 27, 28, and the notes on the offerings, vol. 1, pp. 296-300.}

(1) Israel deliver up their King, then; to the Gentiles. It is done formally, by the heads of the nation; whom we hear little later refusing positively any king but Caesar, as the result of counsel taken to put Jesus to death. The evangelist breaks off at once to follow the course of Judas to the end.

(2) A hope seems to have remained or freshly risen in the heart of Christ’s betrayer that, after all, He might not be condemned. Perhaps the words here do not convey as much as that, but rather the horror produced by the actual thing when now accomplished, never to be undone. What tales have we of deeds deliberately done, which when done have assumed at once a new shape of terror and dismay, as if never contemplated before. With what different eyes might the traitor have seen the actual condemnation of his Lord and Master from those with which he had looked on to it, however certain. Clearly it is the awful agony of remorse that awakes now in Judas, and not repentance. He cannot keep the money he has gained, to which even for the chief priests the blood-stain indelibly attaches. Nay, he shrieks out even in their ears the confession of his sin in having betrayed the innocent blood. But there it ends: “innocent blood;” not holy or righteous, still less “the Holy and the Righteous One”: the glory of the Son of God has no part in it – neither heals nor even smites him. There is no turning to Him with whom he had companied so long, – no sense of any one to whom he can turn. There is, in short, no faith, and therefore no repentance. “He cast the silver pieces into the temple” – practically, the sanctuary, the part proper to the priests alone, – “and departed and went away and hanged himself.” In this we see again the opposite of faith. How many times must he have seen the miraculous deeds which testified that “the Son of man had power on earth to forgive sins”! but he seems to remember nothing of all this, or else cannot believe in the divine mercy toward himself; and thus he plunges headlong into irrecoverable ruin.

(3) So the money is on the hands of those who scruple to defile the treasury with it, though as to their souls they have no such care. But the price of blood they cannot put into the “Corban,” among the offerings to Jehovah, and so they take counsel, and buy with it the potter’s field – a special place known as that – “to bury strangers in.” “The expression,” says Lange, “does not refer to Jews from other countries (as Meyer supposes), who in a religious point of view were not strangers; nor to professing heathens, who were left to themselves; but to Gentile proselytes (of the gate), to whom a certain regard was due, while priestly exclusiveness would not allow them to rest in properly consecrated graves. Thus even in this act of cheap charity and pious provision on the part of a Sanhedrin which slew the Lord of glory, Phariseeism remained true to itself. The price of blood and the field of blood are declared quite suited for ‘strangers.'”

But this is on man’s side only; on God’s there was surely a witness of what Israel had really acquired for themselves with this fatal blood-money. Had they not in fact purchased for themselves in every land into which they were to be cast “a burial-place for strangers”? Strangers they have indeed been ever since, and their graves how often in a “field of blood:” – a “potter’s field” too, as the quotation here declares; not simply that which lay on the slope of the valley of Hinnom, but the field of the Great Potter of Jer 18:1-23, in which “the word of Jehovah came to me,” says the prophet, “saying, O house of Israel, cannot I do with you, as this potter? saith Jehovah. Behold, as the clay in the potter’s hand, so are ye in My hand, O house of Israel.”

They had indeed cast this money to the potter, and they have been ever since as a vessel marred upon the wheel, and to be re-moulded. This is the meaning of their discipline in all the long years since.

(4) Jesus before the governor at once declares Himself the King of the Jews; but to all the accusations of the Jews replies nothing whatever; so that Pilate marvels.

But now the question of His acceptance or rejection is to be pressed on all the people; and again we see how the government of God has arranged every thing to this end. First, there has been established a custom of releasing a prisoner at the time of the paschal feast, and the people had the decision as to what prisoner it should be. Then they had at this time a prisoner of a notable kind, most suitable every way for comparison and by way of contrast with the spotless Victim now before them. This is at once suggested by his name, Barabbas, which is “son of the father.” The Syriac and some other versions, with some cursive MSS., even read “Jesus Barabbas,” an insertion very hard to explain if not genuine. All Christian feeling would naturally be against it, and certainly favor omission rather than insertion. Together, the names would be an awful diabolic assumption of titles most significant in the Lord.

Mark and Luke add that he had been cast into prison for sedition; thus had actually committed the crime with which they were falsely charging Jesus. Added to which, he was a robber and a murderer. Thus for the people to choose Barabbas would seem impossible, when now Pilate desired to know whether he should release this notorious criminal or “Jesus who is called Christ.”

The mercy of God has given Pilate warning also from a wholly unexpected quarter. “As he was sitting on the judgment-seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have nothing to do with that just man, for I have suffered many things today in a dream because of him.” It was the very thing most calculated, perhaps, to act upon the sceptical Roman; a voice out of that dark border-land which by its very darkness seems to attract the imaginative faculty, to fill it with possibilities the less challengeable the less they are defined. Outside of all priestly influence also, his wife is made the witness to his conscience, and against these priests whose measure he has long since taken and whose motives he penetrates. “He knew that for envy they had delivered Him.”

In his uneasiness Pilate would fain put the responsibility which he cared not to face upon the people. Not the chief priests but the popular voice shall determine what is to be done, and the people also shall decide but one way, if he can accomplish it, – it shall be Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ!

But the unhappy people are under the control of their leaders, and urgently insist upon their choice of Barabbas. It is the heart of man exposed to its depths, – the mind of the flesh, which is enmity against God; and when Pilate, still anxious to escape the fatal responsibility, puts it to them, (as he had no right to do,) what they would have done with Jesus then, immediately the awful cry breaks out from the crowd as with one voice, “Let Him be crucified!” Pilate asks in vain, “Why? what evil hath He done?” The only answer is the more vehement cry, “Let Him be crucified!”

It is the popular vote, after He has been among them three or more years, borne witness to by a constant display of power in grace that ministered to every need of man; by wondrous words that went even beyond this, and revealed, as light from heaven; the whole face of the world, while bringing in for it the glory of what is beyond and above it; Himself in Himself the incarnate glory of God, the seal and perfection of all that He uttered. The end is full, absolute rejection; hatred for His love, passionate hatred as if for some unspeakable wrong, that dooms Him to death, a death of shame, of unutterable anguish, the death of a criminal, a frightful and accursed death. They deliver up the Prince of life and desire a murderer to be granted to them. One cannot but realize in this Jesus Barabbas of Matthew the shadow of one to come, in whom man’s natural choice will find its final expression, and of whom the Lord said to the Jews, I am come in My Father’s name, and ye receive Me not: if another come in his own name, him ye will receive” (Joh 5:43). Another will come in his own name, God allowing all the thoughts of man’s heart to come out in full public expression, – another “saviour,” the son of another father, true “child of the devil,” in whom the unbelief as to Christ shall come to faith, and the crop of sin at last be harvested. “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work, only he who now letteth” (hindereth) will hinder until he be taken out of the way and then shall that wicked one be revealed, the son of perdition; whom the Lord shall consume with the breath of His mouth, and destroy with the manifestation of His presence: even him whose coming is after the working of Satan; with all. power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish, because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2Th 2:7-11).

Awful are words like these, but they are words of truth, and to be fulfilled in days that are yet before us. The common application to Popery destroys for us in large measure its power for warning, and teaches us to look for its fulfilment in what has been manifested for centuries, and the day of Christ has not yet come. Not in the Christian Church, but in the Jewish temple of God

” will this defiance of God be uttered, and where Christ was rejected, there shall antichrist be installed. Israel have, alas! saved their Barabbas, to enthrone him in a day which every sign of the times assure us to be very near at hand. And as the Gentiles then joined hands with the Jews to put Jesus to death, so shall they join hands also to enthrone antichrist.

(5) The government of God in all this shows itself, and the power of the enemy itself works in compelled subjection to it. We find now Israel invoking it, and not in vain. Pilate, determined to escape the responsibility of that which under pressure he is about to do, adapts to his purpose part of the Jewish ritual in the case of an unknown murder, and washes his hands in the presence of the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just man: see ye to it.” “And all the people answered and said, His blood be upon us and on our children.” Thus, if they cannot lift the load from Pilate, they accept their own responsibility in the fullest way; and ever since, flee as they might into all the countries of the earth, the avenger of blood has been behind them. No effectual city of refuge has been found for them; nor will be until they look upon Him whom they have pierced, and in repentance and faith find it in Him the source of all their blessing.

Barabbas is released, and Pilate has the One whom he has owned to be righteous scourged, preparatory to crucifixion.

3. With one more step we come to the Cross itself, the lowest point of Christ’s humiliation, and the place of deepest suffering, but not only this: the Cross has a character peculiarly its own, and here alone do we reach what is in the proper sense, atonement. This is, however, contested by so many, and is of such importance in itself that we must look at it in this place sufficiently to understand the character of what is before us.

If sin-bearing be, as it plainly is, an absolute necessity for atonement, Scripture declares without any obscurity whatever, that it was on the Cross He bore sin, and only there. “Who His own self,” says the apostle, “bare our sins in His own body on the tree” (1Pe 2:24). Scripture says this, and only this. It never speaks of our Lord as a sin-bearer in life, but in death; including, however, in death not simply the act of death, the expiring, but the suffering connected with it, “the death of the cross”: suffering which gave its character to the death itself.

To distinguish it from mere dying, the circumstances are associated with it in a way that at first seems strange enough, to be put (as they are) as if essential to atonement itself. Thus it is said, “Jesus, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered without the gate” (Heb 13:12). Why without the gate? does not that seem a mere circumstance, quite separable from the suffering itself even; and certainly from the power of the precious blood of Christ to sanctify?

Yet, when we examine the connection with the preceding verse, we find that this suffering without the gate, or what is implied in it, is undoubtedly contemplated in the type to which the apostle is referring: “For the bodies of those beasts whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high-priest for sin; are burned without the camp.” “Burned without the camp” certainly answers to “suffered without the gate.” And here, notice that the distinction between those offerings whose blood went into the sanctuary and those that did not, was not in the burning, (for all were burnt, though indeed not all wholly burnt,) but in the place of burning: the emphasis is laid upon this very thing.

But what, then, is the meaning? the ordinary place of burning was upon the altar in the tabernacle-court, and there was the place of which it was said, in connection with the blood, “I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul” (Lev 17:11).

Yet the blood of what was burnt upon the altar could not go in where the blood of that which was burnt on the ground outside the camp could and did go.

Notice again, that this is the sin-offering, called this distinctively as that in which the judgment of sin is what is prominent – is differential. The judgment of sin; then; is that which is expressed in the banishment of what is nevertheless the “most holy” sin-offering into the holy place outside not merely the courts of Jehovah’s house, but outside the camp also, the place of a people in relationship with God.

Banishment from God is what is marked by it: for God is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, and that cannot look at sin; while sin and sin-offering are the same word in Scripture, a man’s sin-offering being that in which his sin was put before God. Thus outside the gate, as outside the camp, expresses either the place of one himself a sinner, or the place of One “made sin” for sinners.

“The Tree” intensifies still more this thought; for “cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree;” and the cross is thus a death of curse. “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written; Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree” (Gal 3:13). Here again; what might seem merely circumstantial is made to express that which marks the death of Christ as truly propitiatory, the bearing of sin’s awful penalty. Here is the “cup” from which the Lord necessarily shrank, but which nevertheless He drank in obedience to the Father’s will, as requisite for our redemption. Death and judgment are man’s natural portion, because of sin; not death only and there an end, but “after death the judgment” (Heb 9:27). Thus death alone could not be what Christ had to bear, and death simply was but its least part. Death is provisional, temporal, a governmental infliction, not an absolute necessity. For judgment in its full character resurrection must come in: death yields up to judgment, and judgment is eternal.

We must not look at the “curse of the law,” then, as if it were mere circumstance – the hanging on a tree. That was but the outer garb of a reality more fearful far. Man could give man the cross: atonement was not an effect of suffering at the hands of man, but of suffering Godward. And this is what the cry of abandonment on the cross expresses. It was not that He had been given up into the hands of men; and to make it that would be to make Him less than the many of His people who have suffered such physical agonies at the hands of others without any such thought of being forsaken of God as is heard in this desolate cry. Nay, the psalmist, in that prophetic psalm to which the very words of the cry refer us, has distinguished carefully between this and all that saints ever suffered: for “our fathers trusted in Thee,” he says: “they trusted in Thee, and Thou didst deliver them; they cried unto Thee, and were not confounded; but I am a worm and no man . . . be not far from me” (Psa 22:4-6; Psa 22:11; and see the notes on the Psalm). The sorrow here is an unequalled sorrow, and wholly different from any other.

How different from anything that could be true of Him in that wondrous life He had lived, in which His testimony was, “And He that sent Me is with Me: the Father hath not left Me alone; for I do always the things that please Him” (Joh 8:29). How would such a cloud in any other place than this have marred the glory of that life of manifest communion with God, which in its unbroken perfection shone out in Him. Nay, how it would have shadowed the divine glory revealed in Him, that He, being what He was, should have been yet ever in the distance of the sinner’s place with God! Or do we think that what is involved in this is only the bearing some results of God’s government of a fallen world, – as one of an exiled family, though innocent, not being able to sleep at Jerusalem (!) and such things? If that were all, what need of the cross at all? Is it possible that any one can fail to see the difference – the total, absolute contrast, between the forsaking of God and His being ever with Him? between His life-work and His sacrificial death?

Another thing that results from all this, and the want of perception of which has clouded for many the full intelligence of the atoning work, is the need of realizing that the penalty upon sin that had to be lifted from us could not be satisfied or modified, by the infinite glory of the blessed Sufferer. Such thoughts appeal to us very strongly and from two different directions. We think of the Father’s Son; of the Word made flesh, and shrink confounded from the thought of what seems to be suggested by it, as if a schism (though but for a moment) in the divine nature, or between the divine and human in the Lord. Or, again, contrasting the eternity of the penalty upon man with the actual brief endurance of the Lord’s suffering, we incline at once to say, here certainly there was modification of the penalty, and a very great one.

Now in the first case, we are simply baffled by the inscrutability of that which the Lord assures us is inscrutable, the mystery of His divine-human Person, which for those who have not been content to accept the necessary limitations of creature-understanding, darkened now by sin; have constantly ended in the acceptance of some impairment either of humanity or divinity in Him. But neither in this way have they escaped from perplexity, nor, had they done so, could they have found the inscrutable Christ of Scripture. We can but accept Scripture, in its declarations and its silences; and in doing so, we shall find a Christ never impaired in His humanity by His divinity, capable as Man of being understood by men; One capable of all that is proper to man; capable of faith, nay, the supreme example of it; capable of a will which, though holy, He gave up to the Father; capable of being tempted in all things like as we are, sin apart” (Heb 4:15). Can we reconcile it all with that higher glory of deity in Him, which gives new glory to His humanity itself? We should gain nothing by the attempt, but lose wholly. We need a Christ whom we can know, but yet not wholly know; with whom there are inner recesses of light which no man may explore; and that is what we find in Him.

As to the second case, the eternity of the penalty is no necessary element in it, except where the sins or the sinful condition eternally abide: and that is the case wherever the atonement provided has no effect. It is a common mistake to argue against the eternity of the penalty from the time during which the Lord endured it, or upon the same ground for a modification of the penalty as He endured it. Indeed, some will have no penalty at all in His case, but a substitute for it; while others say an equivalent or one modified in some way. The Scriptures cannot be made to agree with any of these thoughts. Christ honored the God of judgment by taking the very judgment lying upon man: He was made a curse for us; He was made sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. But let us go now with the solemn history before us.

(1) And here the indications of the divine meaning in the Cross are found in that which is nevertheless but the awful display of diabolic cruelty at the hands of man. A new class of men are the soldiers to whom Pilate has given Him up, and in them man comes to a new trial. They have heard the justification by the judge of the One whom he sends as innocent to an agonizing death. They are not Jews, these soldiers, care nothing about the Sanhedrin, are not pressed to what they do by the chief priests or the outcries of a people whom they despise as senseless and bigoted fanatics. There was not only in general no love between them and the Jews, but the fiercest scorn and enmity. Nor are they forced by their office as executioners to that for which now as their own special mocking and insult, not to be lost willingly by any of. them, they gather the whole band.

How the various classes of men are made to bear witness against themselves through all this scene: most freely acting out the very depths of their hearts, while overruled by the divine purpose to show out the glory of the Man so seemingly helpless in their hands. These are the men of blood and iron, the men with whom might is right, the men who delight to pull down others from their excellency; men with no wrongs even imagined to repay, but simply at their business, which they enter into with the zest of the amphitheatre, the cruel Roman frenzy, which possessed all sections of the people. Now they have a king in their hands – a King! – and with an inscrutable dignity about Him which nothing that man has done can touch. Now it is their turn: what can they do that has not yet been done, and which shall accomplish what all else has failed in?

Herod had mocked Him with a royal robe; it should be theirs to crown Him; but with what? with bay, laurel, myrtle? He takes satire easily, as it were, unconsciously: can they not make Him feel it, this impenetrable Man? You see the brutal jest of the soldier: crown Him? yes, crown Him! make the satire pungent: crown Him with thorns.

So they stripped Him, and put on Him a scarlet cloak, and having plaited a crown of thorns, put it upon His head, and a reed in His right hand. And they mocked Him, saying, “Hail, king of the Jews!”

But they could not know how, ever after, we should be gazing with eager adoration at this wondrous Figure just as with their cruel hands they had arrayed it and how the centuries should see in all they had done, no more their malignant mockery, but indeed the divinely significant emblems of God’s glorious King.

The scarlet cloak or pallium was such as was worn by kings and emperors, but its color was produced from the coccus; it was a death-stain.

Thorns are the sign of the curse which He was now taking to remove it from us.

And the reed, the type of weakness, becomes the symbol of His power, – or at least of the way through which He has taken it: “He was crucified through weakness.” Yet the cross is that which has annulled every foe that was against us, while it has made Him the Sovereign of an Empire soon to be universal: “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Me.”

How plain that every detail here is under the government of divine wisdom, and proclaiming in fact His glory. They have failed, and cast aside their mockery, to turn it into mere brutality as useless. They have failed; every foe must fail. The King goes on to His throne.

(2) Of the Cross we have first the human side, – a cross which man may be permitted to carry after Him: and so Simon; the “hearkener,” the “obedient,” is seen at the outset, here. For by dull hearing we may escape the world’s impressment after this fashion; though as Simons we shall find it companionship with the Lord. Still we must remember that there was another Simon who had professed readiness to take this place and more, and did not though he afterwards did. We have to learn the secret of power, even though we have the will; and that the strength we need is made perfect in weakness.

So the place of a skull is reached, the objective point which had been before the Lord all through. A scene of death was the attraction for the Lord of life; for none other could it have had any. But He comes into it, therefore, not to be merely a visitor, but to “taste death” in its reality. He refuses therefore the stupefying draught* offered to those led to execution, and gives Himself up to the full endurance of all that is before Him. Then they crucify Him and divide His garments among them, casting lots; all the while the light of prophecy steadily shining upon all this, as the great Eye of God, though unheeded, heeding silently, until the time comes for interference. And meanwhile still for faith there runs through all the deeper meaning which, if we could not read it, we should be satisfied must be there. But is He not in fact providing at His own cost the clothing which is to cover men’s nakedness, and that by divine appointment also, (of which the lot in Israel spoke,) even for His enemies? Certainly thus alone it is that any one of us can say, “He has covered me with the robe of righteousness” (Isa 61:10).

{*The “gall” mingled with the wine was probably “wormwood,” a strongly stupefying ingredient, though the Septuagint use it for various bitter substances. The “vinegar,” an alternative reading here, and with evident reference to Psa 69:21, was no doubt simply the sour wine in common use.}

Nay, was it not we, the sinners enriched by Him, who guarded Him there, keeping Him upon that cross of shame which He could not leave, because of our necessities? This was indeed more than all the legions of the Roman army, that which made rescue for Him impossible, and kept all the hosts of heaven from breaking through for His relief.

His title is His accusation: He is Jesus, the King of the Jews; and for that they class Him with robbers, who is presently to sit down upon the Father’s throne; and the passers-by revile Him, wagging their heads as they see Him there who according to their false accusation was to destroy the temple and in three days was to build it up again. In fact it was they who were now destroying it, and in a little while they will begin to realize the true application; “In three days I will rise again.”

But against all His claims, the cross is in their minds a conclusive argument. The Son of God upon a cross! He must, if He is to be believed at all, come down from the cross. And the priests follow, mocking Him with the same arguments: “He is the King of Israel? well, let him come down from the cross, and we will believe.” And then they use, all unconsciously, almost the words of the mockers of the twenty-second psalm: “He trusted in God: let Him deliver Him, if He will have Him.” Nay, even “the robbers who were crucified with Him, reproached Him” with His powerlessness and lack of help. He is the King with the reed-sceptre and the crown of thorns!

(3a) Deeper the chasm under Him yawns. A preternatural darkness settles down upon the whole land for three hours together, from the sixth to the ninth hour. When it disappears the crisis is over, He Himself declares that “It is finished” (Joh 19:30), and then; in the language here, dismisses His spirit and departs. His work is accomplished: the rent veil and the graves broken through remain as the tokens of what is accomplished.

It is surely a superficial thought that the sympathy of nature with her suffering Lord is what the darkness falling over all expresses. The Lord, as it passes away, Himself interprets it in a different manner. If God be Light, darkness is the natural sign of His turning away. The three days’ darkness in Egypt we have seen to have such a meaning. The final “outer darkness” of the lost is the most distinct and awful expression of it – darkness outside, -away from the presence and glory of God. It is the rejection by God of those who have rejected Him. It is the necessity of a holy nature which cannot have fellowship with evil. And Christ in the darkness is the sign of His being the Sin-bearer of His people, – the sign of that which was to Him was the deepest agony that He could suffer, the forsaking of God.

We have already in some measure considered the meaning of this. It is not here that we shall find the doctrine of atonement, but the fact, the making it, with presently the consequences Godward and manward, which show how perfectly it has been made. Christ in the sinner’s place, the reality of substitution, God’s judgment upon sin owned and borne by Him who knew no sin, -that is what is before us here. These three hours are apart from all other in human history; in which have been manifested, as nowhere else, both man and God; evil and good have come together; the good, not by power interposing for it, but by its own intrinsic blessedness, o’er-mastering the evil; God glorified, so as to bring Him in in answer to it, in righteousness the justifier of every one that believeth in Jesus.

To those standing by the cross the Lord’s words are a call for Elias; a misinterpretation, probably, of the soldiery, rather than the Jews, but who had caught up some of the common Jewish beliefs which they would have heard expressed around them. Would Elias come and take Him down? Conscience getting roused, they still it with faint mockery addressed to the man who ministers the vinegar to the agonizing thirst of crucifixion; “Let be: let us see whether Elias will come to save Him.”

(b) But the end now is reached. Still, master of Himself, not conquered of death but yielding Himself to it, He cries with the loud voice of unexhausted strength, and dismisses His spirit. The expression is peculiar to Matthew, the royal Gospel, and very unhappily obscured in the common translation.* It is the explicit assertion, as to the moment of death, of what He had Himself before declared: “No man taketh My life from Me, but I lay it down of Myself; I have authority to lay it down, and authority to take it again” (Joh 10:18). Notice that here it is the simple expression of authority and thus absolutely in place in the Gospel of Matthew, one of those more hidden harmonies of inspiration, which we are apt to let through mere inadvertency escape us. But what a testimony to Him whose royal title was proclaimed upon a cross, whose sceptre was a reed, whose crown was of thorns, and lately in the deepest agony of One suffering for sin! But such are the mysteries of our salvation, now made so fully intelligible to us, yet still the mysteries of a “love that passeth knowledge.”

{*”Yielded up the ghost,” (R.V.) “yielded up His spirit.”}

(c) The peculiar agony passed of the forsaking of God, there remains but death to complete atonement. All that lay upon man is then taken; God’s righteousness approved and manifested, sin in its reality as before Him exposed. The result begins at once to be apparent in a double way. The veil of the temple is rent in the midst; and on the other hand the quaking earth opens the graves, “and many bodies of the saints that slept arose, and came out of the graves after His resurrection, and went into the holy city and appeared unto many.”

This latter sign is, again; a thing peculiar to Matthew. As the effect of the Lord’s work, it would naturally have reference to that special aspect of the work which is presented here; and this we have seen already to be in Matthew the trespass- (which is the governmental) offering.

This is easily understood, if we consider the difference between that which is the necessary part of the penalty upon sin, as resulting from the very nature of God, and therefore unchangeable as that nature, and that which it may please Him to affix to it as the special brand of His displeasure.

As has often been said, while “God is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, and cannot look at sin,” and therefore His separation from it is an unchangeable necessity, – death (I am speaking of what we ordinarily call that) is, in man’s case, such a governmental brand, and can be removed from him without change on his part, or atonement for him. This is important to realize as bearing upon the resurrection of the wicked. It has been often argued and with apparent justification from a certain statement in Scripture, that the resurrection even of the wicked is due only to Christ’s atoning work, and so in their case also has a redemptive character. Here is not the place to discuss the fundamental passage; but the Lord’s own words assure us that as, on the one hand, there is a “resurrection of life,” so, on the other, there is a “resurrection of judgment” (Joh 5:29, R.V.). As, on the one hand, life claims even the bodies of the heirs of life, so on the other, does judgment claim the bodies of the unsaved. And thus it is said, “after death the judgment” (Heb 9:27), which takes place, as we see in the book of Revelation, only when “death and hades” have given up the dead.

Thus death has place in God’s dealings with man this side of eternity only; and indeed, though it be the brand upon sin; yet still as part of a discipline of mercy. As the removal of man from the place for which he was originally created, and the sundering of all sweet, familiar ties, sending him out alone, naked as he came into the world, but with neither the ignorance nor innocence with which he came into it, to meet he knows not perhaps what, yet fears with a true instinct, if he knows not, – death is the constant appeal to him as to the ruin in which he is, – the “Adam, where art thou?” of God who seeks him. Whatever, then; the final issue, death has no part in it. For even the second death is no repetition of the first, but that in which it is swallowed up and lost; while the saint inherits life eternal.

Notice, now, the peculiar way in which the resurrection of the saints of which Matthew speaks here is connected with the work of atonement. They do not come out of their graves till “after His resurrection.” They do not actually rise till then. Plainly, because Christ is the “first-fruits” of them that sleep, the “First-born from the dead;” and none, therefore, could precede Him.* On the other hand, it is when the Lord dies that the graves open: it is this that opens them; we are intended to find connection between this death and the apparition of living men brought up out of death. No phantom merely, we are assured; “bodies of the saints that slept” arising; not to take again their place among men; but as those that belong to another sphere, glowing with the light of it.

{*For this is not a restoration to mortal life once more, as in the case of Lazarus, of the daughter of Jairus, and the son of the widow of Nain; or it would not exemplify, as is plainly intended here, the power of atonement.}

The rending of the veil of the sanctuary precedes in the account here, as it preceded in order of occurrence, the resurrection of the saints. It is plainly connected with the three hours of darkness, in the same way in which the latter is connected with the Lord’s death. The veil was the sign of that “thick darkness” in which under the law God dwelt. “The way into the holiest was not made manifest.” None could see God and live. If Moses himself is permitted to see His glory, it is after He is gone by: thus with His face turned away.

Here, then; is the darkness of the Cross, the darkness in which man abides, spite of all that he can do in his own behalf. He sits in darkness and the shadow of death. Pass the veil he cannot. His Deliverer must come out after him, even to where he is; but having come there in the perfection of that marvelous obedience, cannot abide there. The veil is rent in the divine way, from top to bottom. The light of the glory of God streams forth, God fully manifested in righteousness and in love, and by that way, the way of the Cross which has revealed Him, men be they what they may can draw near, if they will, to Him, – nay, find in His presence thus their one possible sanctuary of refuge.

The resurrection of the saints that follows here is but that which completely fits them for that place, and puts them fully into it. Restitution Godward, with its overplus of glory being fully made, man too can receive his overplus of compensating blessing. If the first paradise be not restored, he shall enter in Christ the paradise of God. Thus the trespass-offering view of the Cross is here complete.

(d) The fruit of it is seen also in another way. The Gentile centurion and those that are with him, convinced by all that they have seen and heard, confess Him to be, not the King of the Jews merely, but the Son of God. Thus the Roman soldier takes his place with Peter the apostle in proclaiming that which Israel has denied. The dispensational intimation here, according to the character of Matthew’s Gospel, seems to be shown in this, that what in Mark and Luke is given as the individual faith of the centurion is here testified as shared by “those that were with him.” It is the general faith of a Gentile company.

Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary

Judas having made good his promise to the high priest, and delivered Jesus a prisoner into their hands, these wolves of the evening no sooner seize the Lamb of God, but they thirst and long to suck his innocent blood. Yet lest it should look like a downright murder, they will allow him a mock-trial, by abusing the law, and perverting it to injustice and bloodshed; accordingly, they industriously suborn false witnesses to take away his life, not sticking at the grossest perjury, so they might destroy him. The chief priests and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death. Abominable wickedness! innocency itself cannot protect from slander and false accusation. No man is so innocent or good whom false witness may not condemn.

Yet observe farther, our Lord’s meekness and patience, his submissive silence under all these wicked suggestions and false accusations; Jesus held his peace, verse 63. Guilt is clamorous and impatient; innocence is silent, and careless of misreports.

Learn hence, That to bear the revilings, contradictions, and false accusations of men, with a silent and submissive spirit, is an excellent and Christ-like temper. Our Lord stood before his unjust judges and false accusers, as a sheep before his shearer, dumb, and not opening his mouth. Although a trial for his life was managed most maliciously and illegally against him, when he was reviled, he reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not, but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously. O let the same humble mind be in us, which was also in Christ Jesus.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Mat 26:57-58. And they led him away to Caiaphas From Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, to whom they had carried him first; where the scribes and the elders Or chief members of the sanhedrim; were assembled Doubtless by a summons from Caiaphas, and were waiting for Jesus to be brought before them. But Peter followed him afar off Variously agitated by conflicting passions: love constrained him to follow his Master; fear made him follow him afar off. Unto the high-priests palace Or, the court of the high-priests house, as Campbell translates it. From Mat 26:69, as well as from what we are told in the other gospels, it is evident that Peter was only in the court without, which, though enclosed on all sides, was open above, nor was it any wise extraordinary to kindle a fire in such a place. And went in and sat with the servants , rather, with the officers, the servants of the public, or official servants of those in authority, as the word commonly means. These were unfit companions for Peter, as the event showed.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

CXXVI.

SECOND STAGE OF JEWISH TRIAL. JESUS CONDEMNED

BY CAIAPHAS AND THE SANHEDRIN.

(Palace of Caiaphas. Friday.)

aMATT. XXVI. 57, 59-68; bMARK XIV. 53, 55-65; cLUKE XXII. 54, 63-65; dJOHN XVIII. 24.

d24 Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest. [Foiled in his attempted examination of Jesus, Annas sends him to trial.] band there come together with him all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes. a57 And they that had taken Jesus led him away to the house of Caiaphas the high priest, cand brought him into the high priest’s house. awhere the scribes and the elders were gathered together. [It is very likely that Annas had apartments in the same palace with Caiaphas, and that from these apartments Jesus was led into some hall large enough to hold the Sanhedrin, which was now convened. But this was not its formal session as a court; it was more in the nature of a caucus, or committee of the whole.] b55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought afalse witness against Jesus, bto {athat they might} put him to death; 60 and they found it not, though many false witnesses came. b56 For many bare false witness against him, and their witness agreed not together. aBut afterward came b57 And there stood up certain, atwo, band bare false witness against him, a61 and said, {bsaying,} aThis man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. b58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands. 59 And not even so did their witness agree together. [What Jesus [696] had really said will be found at Joh 2:19-22. Though his words were misunderstood at that time, being applied, not to his body, but to Herod’s temple, yet it is not unlikely that the Jewish rulers, hearing our Lord’s prediction that he would rise from the dead after three days ( Mat 27:62, Mat 27:63), came to understand the import of his words. If so, the record itself shows the willingness of the Sanhedrin to receive false witnesses against Christ, for its judges received testimony which they knew to be utterly immaterial if rightly construed. The accounts of the two Evangelists, moreover, show how the witnesses failed to agree. A man could only be condemned on the testimony of two witnesses as to some fact or facts constituting a ground for condemnation– Deu 17:6, Deu 19:15.] a62 And the high priest stood up, bin the midst, and asked Jesus, aand said unto him, {bsaying,} Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? a63 But Jesus held his peace. band answered nothing. [While the testimony then before the court might be used to show that Jesus was recklessly boastful, it was insufficient to justify a sentence of blasphemy. A threat to destroy the temple might be thus construed ( Jer 26:9-11, Act 6:13, Act 6:14); but a promise to rebuild the temple, if destroyed, was altogether different. The high priest, knowing this, sought to extort from Jesus some additional evidence. With great cunning and effrontery he assumes that the testimony is all that could be possibly desired, and demands of Jesus what he has to say in answer to it. But our Lord did not suffer himself to seem so easily deceived. He gave no explanation, since the future would explain his meaning, and speak the real truth to all who had ears to hear it.] aAnd bAgain the high priest asked him, and saith {asaid} unto him, bArt thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? aI adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God. [Seeing that Jesus was not to be lured into an answer, and well knowing his perfect frankness, Caiaphas resolved, in his desperation, to question Jesus plainly and [697] bluntly. His question is twofold: 1. Art thou Christ? 2. Art thou the Son of God? The latter of these would constitute blasphemy, and the former, by showing a boastful spirit, would tend to confirm the charge. Perhaps, too, Caiaphas anticipated the future, and foresaw how useful this claim to be the Messiah would prove when a hearing was had before Pilate ( Luk 23:2). Originally the Messiah was recognized as the Son of God ( Psa 2:7), but if the Jews had ever generally entertained such an idea, they had lost it before Jesus’ day, The Messiah might of course be called the Son of God in that secondary sense in which Adam was thus called ( Joh 1:49, Luk 3:38). But Jesus had used the term in an entirely different sense, and his usage had been extremely offensive to the Jews ( Joh 5:17, Joh 5:18, Joh 10:30-39, Mat 22:41-46). Caiaphas evidently wished Jesus to answer this question in that new sense which the Lord had given to the words. Caiaphas had no legal right to ask either of these questions. No man can be compelled to testify against himself, but he knew the claims of Jesus, and realized that if Jesus repudiated them he would be shamed forever, and if he asserted them he could be charged with blasphemy. Taking advantage, therefore, of the situation, Caiaphas put the question with the usual formula of an oath, thus adding moral power to it, for, under ordinary circumstances, one was held guilty if he refused to answer when thus adjured ( Lev 5:1). When their own witnesses failed, these rulers called the “faithful witness”– 1Ti 6:13, Rev 1:5.] b62 And Jesus said, {asaith} unto him, Thou hast said: bI am: and anevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on {bwith} the clouds of heaven. [Jesus freely confessed the truth which his church is called upon to confess. “Right hand of Power” was commonly understood to mean the right hand of God. By the words “nevertheless” and “henceforth” Jesus brings the present state of humiliation into contrast with his future state of glory. Hard as it might be for them to believe it, the day would come when he should [698] sit in judgment and they should stand on trial before him.] 63 And a65 Then the high priest rent his garments, {bclothes,} and saith, {asaying,} He hath spoken blasphemy: what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard the blasphemy: 66 what think ye? [Though Jesus had given the very answer which the high priest was longing to hear, yet he hypocritically pretends to be shocked at it, and rends his clothes and feigns horror. Evidently he feared the effect of the clear, calm answer of Jesus and sought to counteract its influence on his colleagues.] They answered and said, He is worthy of death. bAnd they all condemned him to be worthy of death. [This was not the final, formal sentence, but the mere determination of the council at the preliminary hearing.] c63 And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and beat him. b65 And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, a67 Then did they spit in his face and buffet him: c64 And they blindfolded him, aand some smote him with the palms of their hands, 68 saying, {band [began] to say unto him,} aProphesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee? band the officers received him with blows of their hands. c65 And many other things spake they against him, reviling him. [To spit in the face has been an insult in all ages and in all lands. See Num 12:14, Deu 25:9, Job 30:10. Jesus, having stood out for examination, is now given back to the officers to be led away into the council chamber. These officers received Jesus with many indignities. They seek to make his high claims contemptible, and to make it appear that instead of being divine he is hardly worthy to be regarded as human.] [699]

[FFG 696-699]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

ARRAIGNMENT OF JESUS AND DENIAL OF PETER

Mat 26:57-75; Mar 14:53-72; Luk 22:54-62;Joh 18:13-27. And they led Him first to Annas; for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. It is said that there was a controversy between the Jews and Romans in reference to the high-priesthood, the latter favoring Annas and the former Caiaphas. I visited the house of Caiaphas and the judgment-hall during both my tours in Jerusalem. The presumption is, the tribunal of Annas was in the same house, as it is very large. N.B. All the houses in Jerusalem are stone.

Hence their durability.

And Caiaphas was the one counseling the Jews that it is profitable for one man to die for the people. This is an example in which God, at least momentarily, imparted the gift of prophecy to an unconverted man, his official position giving him a prominence highly conducive to the efficacy of his prophecy.

And Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus. And that disciple was known to the high priest, and entered with Jesus into the judgment-hall of the high priest. You see here, John is speaking of himself, as he never calls his own name. Gnostos, known, is claimed also to convey the idea of kinship. From considerations, doubtless, of this character, Caiaphas permitted him to go along with them by the side of Jesus, the soldiers mistaking him for a Jewish priest, because of the robe with which it is said he was invested, having procured it at the house of Rabbi Amos, a friend of Jesus. Such was the affright of the other nine that they kept hidden away at a distance, Peter leaving them, and venturing to follow along with the crowd after Jesus; while, as you see, John remained with him unmolested, and of course not recognized except by Caiaphas, or he would have gotten into the same trouble which overtook Peter.

And Peter stood at the door without. Then the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, came out, and spoke to the porter, and led in Peter. And the servants and officers having made a fire because it was cold, were standing round it, and warming themselves. They have no chimneys to the houses in Jerusalem; but as this was April 13th, about 2 A.M., it was quite chilly, and they built a fire in the open court of the great quadrangular building, and were warming round it, while Jesus stood at the tribunal of Caiaphas in the judgment-hall.

And Peter was standing with them warming. Then the damsel porter says to Peter, Art thou not one of the disciples of this Man? He says, I am not. And Simon Peter was standing warming; then they said, Art thou not of His disciples? He denied, and said, I am not. Mar 14:68-70 : And he went out into the portico, and the cock crew. And the damsel seeing him again, began to speak to those standing by, This man is one of them. And he denied it. Joh 18:26-27 : One of the servants of the chief priest, being a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, says, Did I not see thee with Him in the garden? Then Peter again denied, and immediately the cock crew. Now, see that you get this whole matter clear in reference to Peters denial. Remember, the building is a large quadrangular, with an open court in the center, roofless. Here, while Peter is warming by the fire, the damsel doorkeeper identifies and interrogates him. He positively denies that he is one of the disciples of the Man then on trial in the contiguous judgment- hall. Then Peter goes away from the fire, and is standing in the portico leading from the open court into the judgment-hall. There the same damsel porter again recognizes and interviews him, certifying that he is one of that Mans disciples. Again Peter denies, with an oath (doubtless of affirmation). Now, after a few minutes, while Peter is still in the portico, the kinsman of Malchus, whose ear Peter had cut off with a sword, accuses him, very positively identifying him obviously.

Mat 26:74. Then he began to anathematize and swear, I know not the Man. And immediately the cock crew. The E. V. curse and swear is very likely to mislead the reader into the conclusion that Peter indulged in blasphemy and profanity, which is unwarranted in the original, which simply conveys the idea that he anathematized; i.e., confirmed his statement by invoking an anathema on himself, and used an oath of affirmation. The idea that he cursed and swore, after the manner of wicked people, indulging in blasphemy and profanity, is not sustained by the Greek. You must remember, however, that Jesus condemns all sorts of swearing, except the oath of affirmation administered by persons in authority, as you see He Himself responded when under oath administered by Caiaphas. Of course, Peter was guilty of falsification in a very aggravated form, augmenting it by the invocation of an anathema and by the oath of affirmation, in all probability using some trivial oath, like swearing by the temple. The solution of the matter is, Peter felt that his life was in danger, more especially when accused the third time by the kinsman of a man whose ear he had cut off. Peters courage was all right till Jesus made Him put up the sword and let His enemies alone; then a reaction took place, intensified by these accusations, so that he gave way to fear, and acted foolishly and wickedly, denying his Lord and confirming his denial by an oath.

Luk 22:60-62. And immediately, he still speaking, the cock crew. And the Lord, turning, looked on Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He said to him, Before the cock crows, thou shalt deny Me thrice. And having gone out, he wept bitterly. Mar 14:72 : And having gone out, he continued to weep. The third denial was there in the portico, where the people were standing aside a little, when Jesus, turning His head, looked on him so impressively as to remind him of everything He had told him about the three denials, simultaneously breaking his heart, and inundating him with gushing penitential tears, so that he rushes out of the crowd, and, as Mark says, continued to weep, Mark and Luke adding their testimony that he wept bitterly. Precipitation was Peters great and prominent infirmity, and when manipulated by Satan a terrible stumbling- block as in the above case, when, giving way to fear, he denied his Lord; not, as E. V. would lead you to infer, indulging in blasphemous oaths, horrific to think of and especially on the part of an apostle, yet not only certifying that he knew Him not, but even confirming his repudiation by solemn imprecations and an oath of affirmation. But when sanctified by the Holy Ghost, this thunderbolt impetuosity became a mighty enginery, pre- eminently qualifying him for the apostolical seniority and leadership with which the Holy Spirit honored him on the day of Pentecost as well as subsequently. We may recognize this fact, somewhat in his favor, that he followed on, manifesting a desire to help his Lord if possible, while the other nine fled away, seeking places of safety. We are no apologists for Peters cowardly repudiation of his Lord, even under these trying circumstances; yet we do believe that the popular verdict against him, as a rule, is more condemnatory than he deserves. His unworthy conduct, however, demonstrates the crying necessity of the second work of grace. After his Pentecostal baptism, we see him serving as apostolical speaker, facing the combined authorities of Church and State, preaching all day, and spending the ensuing night in jail. From that notable hour, on Sunday morning, when the Holy Ghost and fire descended on them from heaven, till he was nailed to the cross on the Campus Martius in Rome, he was never known to flicker an iota, amid the combined antagonism of earth and hell. He truly lived a hero and died a martyr.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Mat 26:57-68. The Trial before the Sanhedrin (Mar 14:53-63*; see also Luk 22:54 f., Luk 22:66-71).There are no striking divergences from Mk.s narrative.

Mat 26:57. Apparently we are to think of the Sanhedrin as having been in (informal) session since Mat 26:3.

Mat 26:58. Peter comes to see the end, not to warm himself as in Mk.

Mat 26:59. Syr. Sin. says witness (so Mk.), not false witness.

Mat 26:61 is more simple and perhaps more original than Mk.

Mat 26:63. Caiaphas demands that Jesus should take an oath. We should perhaps take the ambiguous reply, Thou hast said, as a refusal (cf. Mat 5:34) to do this. Mk. has interpreted it as an affirmation of Messiahship.

Mat 26:64. from henceforth: this adverb (cf. Mat 26:29; Mat 23:39) here refers to a single moment in the future. It is not to be taken with I say. Jesus is here no doubt speaking of Himself. For the thought cf. Dan 7:13, Psa 110:1. The power is a Jewish periphrasis for God. Note Lk., the power of God.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

Verse 57

Were assembled; for preliminary consultation and the examination of the prisoner. The regular meeting of the council took place some hours afterwards, in the morning, (Matthew 27:1; Luke 22:66,) and was held probably in the temple. (Matthew 27:5.)

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

26:57 {16} And they that had laid hold on Jesus led [him] away to {a} Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.

(16) Christ being innocent is condemned by the high Priest for that wickedness of which we are guilty.

(a) From Annas to Caiaphas, before whom the multitude was assembled; Joh 18:13 .

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

The trial before the Sanhedrin 26:57-68 (cf. Mar 14:53-65; Luk 22:54; Luk 22:63-65)

Matthew omitted Jesus’ hearing before Annas (Joh 18:12-14; Joh 18:19-23). Quite possibly Annas lived in one wing of the same building in which the Sanhedrin met. [Note: Carson, "Matthew," pp. 552-53.]

"This is the point at which Jesus’ death is sealed; all that follows involving the Roman prefect is only the formal implementation of a verdict already decided by the Jewish authorities." [Note: France, The Gospel . . ., p. 1016.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Josephus wrote that the building in which the Sanhedrin normally met, the "chamber of hewn stone," stood close to the western wall of the temple enclosure. [Note: Josephus, Antiquities of . . ., 5:4:2.] Part of this western wall is the modern Wailing Wall where Jews go daily to pray. The exact location of this chamber is presently unknown. However this meeting of the Sanhedrin took place in Caiaphas’ house or palace, the location of which is also debated (Luk 22:54). [Note: See the diagram of Jerusalem in New Testament Times at the end of these notes.] While Annas examined Jesus, the Sanhedrin members assembled.

As mentioned earlier, Caiaphas was the official high priest then. He would have presided over the Sanhedrin. He was probably a Sadducee. The Sadducees held the power in Israel then. The scribes were the official teachers of the law, and the elders were the lay representatives of the people. The chief priests, mainly Sadducees, were also present (Mat 26:59). These were the three groups that composed Israel’s chief ruling body.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

3. The trials of Jesus 26:57-27:26

Matthew stressed Jesus’ righteousness for his readers by highlighting the injustice of His trials.

"The breaches in law are so numerous as to be unbelievable . . ." [Note: Carson, "Matthew," p. 549.]

". . . even the ordinary legal rules were disregarded in the following particulars: (a) The examination by Annas without witnesses. (b) The trial by night. (c) The sentence on the first day of trial. (d) The trial of a capital charge on the day before the Sabbath. (e) The suborning of witnesses. (f) The direct interrogation by the High Priest." [Note: Carr, p. 297.]

France noted that these rules applied later, as reflected in the Mishnah (at the end of the second century A.D.), so not all of them may have been in force when Jesus was tried. [Note: France, The Gospel . . ., p. 1019.]

It may be helpful to take a brief overview of Jesus’ trials since none of the Gospel evangelists gives the complete picture. There were essentially two trials, one Jewish and one Roman. The Jewish trial, really a preliminary hearing, began when Annas informally examined Jesus late Thursday night (Joh 18:12-14; Joh 18:19-23). During this examination, members of the Sanhedrin were evidently assembling. His accusers then brought Jesus before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin who decided He was guilty of blasphemy (Mat 26:57-68; Mar 14:53-65). At sunrise on Friday the Sanhedrin decided to send Jesus to Pilate for trial (Mat 27:1-2; Luk 22:66-71). The Roman trial began with Jesus appearing before Pilate (Mat 27:11-14; Joh 18:28-38 a). Pilate then sent Jesus to Herod for interrogation (Luk 23:6-12). Finally Herod sent Jesus back to Pilate for a second examination (Mat 27:15-31; Joh_18:38 to Joh_19:16). The trials were over and Jesus was at Golgotha by mid-morning, about 9:00 a.m. (Mar 15:25).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles