Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 26:59
Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;
59. sought false witness ] See above (1): to seek witnesses at all was against the spirit of the law.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
False witness – That is, they sought for witnesses who would accuse him of crime of violation of the laws of the land or of God. We are not to suppose that they wished them to be false witnesses. They were indifferent, probably, whether they were true or false, if they could succeed in condemning him. The evangelist calls it false testimony. Before these witnesses were sought, we learn from John Joh 18:19-23 that the high priest asked Jesus of his disciples and his doctrine. Jesus replied that he had taught openly in the temple, and in secret had said nothing; that is, he had no secret doctrines which he had not been willing openly to teach, and he referred the high priest to those who had heard him. In a firm, dignified manner he put himself on trial, and insisted on his rights. If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me? Joh 18:23. This conversation took place, probably, before the council was assembled, and during this time the denials by Peter occurred. Luke informs us Luk 22:66 that the council came together as soon as it was day; that is, probably, near the morning, or not far from the break of day – after Peter had denied him and gone out.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 59. All the council sought false witness] What a prostitution of justice! – they first resolve to ruin him, and then seek the proper means of effecting it: they declare him criminal, and after that do all they can to fix some crime upon him, that they may appear to have some shadow of justice on their side when they put him to death. It seems to have been a common custom of this vile court to employ false witness, on any occasion, to answer their own ends. See this exemplified in the case of Stephen, Ac 6:11-13.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Mark expounds this latter verse, Mar 14:56, For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together. It is plain that they had taken up a resolution to destroy Christ one way or another, but they will make a show of justice in the execution of their malice. The council being set, it is not to be thought that they had then leisure to send about for witnesses, but out of their malice they screwed and sifted such witnesses as were brought, to see if they could get of them upon their oaths to affirm any thing against him which by their law was capital.
Many false witnesses came, yet they found none; that is, no two agreeing in the same story, as the law required, Deu 19:15, for a single testimony was none. Vox unius est vox nullius, A single witness is no witness, or none that could testify any thing of a capital nature. Many came and witnessed trivial things, but none witnessed any thing which touched his life; till
at last came two false witnesses.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
Now the chief priests and elders, and all the counsel,…. Or sanhedrim, which consisted, as the Jewish writers say u, of priests, Levites, and Israelites, of both ecclesiastics and laics; the ecclesiastics were the priests and Levites, and the laics the Israelites, or elders of the people; for if priests and Levites could not be found, a sanhedrim might consist of those only; and so those words in De 21:2, “thy elders”, are thus interpreted w,
, this is the great sanhedrim; and though a king of Israel might not sit in the sanhedrim, yet an high priest might, if he was a man of wisdom x, and it seems as if Caiaphas was now at the head of this council, by its being assembled at his palace; which though it was not the usual place where they met, yet might be chose at this time for greater secrecy. Now these thus assembled together,
sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death; they first take him up, and then seek out for witnesses against him; being determined, right or wrong, to put him to death, if possible; and false witnesses too, even those whose business it was, to examine and detect false witnesses, and to inflict the same punishment upon them, which they by their false testimony intended to have brought on another, De 19:18. And besides, it was in the night, when it was forbid by their canons to begin the trial of capital causes, or to receive and admit of witnesses y. Indeed the Syriac and Persic versions read, only witnesses, or witness, and leave out the word “false”; perhaps imagining, that men could never be so wicked, to seek out for false witnesses: but this need not be wondered at, when these men were bent upon the death of Christ at any rate; and were aware that nothing true could be objected to him, that would legally take away his life; and besides, their manner of procedure in judgment against a false prophet, a deceiver, and one that enticed to idolatry, and such an one they would have Jesus to be, was quite different from what they took with other persons: their canon runs thus z:
“the judgment of a deceiver, is not as the rest of capital judgments; his witnesses are hid; and he has no need, or ought not to have any premonition, or warning, as the rest of those that are put to death; and if he goes out of the sanhedrim acquitted, and one says I can prove the charge against him, they turn him back; but if he goes out condemned, and one says I can prove him innocent the do not return him.”
So in the Misna a it is said,
“of all that are condemned to death in the law, none have their witnesses hidden but this (the deceiver, or one that entices to idolatry)–and they hide his witnesses behind a wall, or hedge; and he (whom he endeavoured to seduce) says to him, say what thou hast said to me privately; and if he repeats it to him, he must say, how shall we leave our God that is in heaven, and go and serve stocks and stones! if he repents, it is well; but if he should say, so we are bound to do, and so it becomes us, they that stand behind the wall, or hedge, shall carry him to the sanhedrim and stone him.”
In the Gemara it is thus expressed b,
“they light up a lamp in the innermost house, and set the witnesses in the outermost house, so that they can see him and hear his voice, and he cannot see them.”
And then follows what is said before, to which is added, “so they did to Ben Stada”; by whom they mean Jesus of Nazareth. Moreover, this need not seem strange, that they took such a course with Christ, when in the case of Stephen, they suborned and set up false witnesses against him. The sanhedrim cannot be thought to do this in person, but they sent out their officers to seek for such men, as could or would produce anything against him, and no doubt promised them an handsome reward.
u Maimon. Hilch. Sanhedrin, c. 2. sect. 1, 2. Abarbinel in Tora, fol. 366. 2. w T. Hieros. Sota, fol. 23. 3. x Maimon. ib. sect. 4. y Maimon. ib. c. 3. sect. 3, 4. z lb. c. 11. sect. 5. a Sanhedrin, c. 7. sect. 10. b T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 67. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Sought false witness against Jesus ( ). Imperfect tense, kept on seeking. Judges have no right to be prosecutors and least of all to seek after false witness and even to offer bribes to get it.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
59. Sought false witness. By these words the Evangelists remark, that nothing was farther from the design of the priests than to inquire into the cause, so that, when the matter was thoroughly understood, they might decide what was proper. For they had previously resolved to put Christ to death, and now they only seek a pretense for oppressing him. Now it is impossible that equity can have any place where an examination of the cause is not the first step. In seeking false witnesses, their treacherous cruelty is manifested; and when, after being disappointed of their expectation, they still do not desist, this affords a still more striking display of their blinded obstinacy. Thus, amidst the darkness of their rage, the innocence of the Son of God shone so brightly, that the devils themselves might know that he died innocent.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(59) Sought false witness.The tense of the Greek verb implies a continued process of seeking. The attempt to draw the materials for condemnation from the lips of the accused had failed. The law of Moses required at least two witnesses (Deu. 17:6; Deu. 19:15), and these, it is natural to believe, were examined independently of each other. The haste which marked all the proceedings of the trial had probably prevented previous concert, and the judges could not, for very shame, convict in the face of a glaring discrepancy, probably as to time and place, between the witnesses who thus offered themselves.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
59. Sought false witness The consequences of their haste now alarmed the conspirators. Precipitated by the offer of Judas to betray Jesus, they had him on their hands before the accusation was planned and the evidence arranged. They have a criminal without a crime. As they dare not sentence him to death without some satisfactory inculpation, they are in a strait for charges and evidence.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Now the chief priests and the whole council sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death,’
Then the Chief Priests and the whole of the council who were present (only twenty three were required to make it official) sought to amass a case by which they could have Jesus sentenced to death. It is actually irrelevant as to whether the Sanhedrin had the power to put men to death, (it is possible that they could do so for blasphemy), for their aim was not to put Jesus to death themselves, even if they had had the power to do so, which is doubtful (Joh 18:31). They knew that that would totally discredit them in the eyes of the people. Their aim was rather to get Pilate to do it, but their problem then was that they had to find a charge which would carry weight with Pilate. The suggestion that they sought ‘false witness’ does not signify that they were trying to persuade people to invent charges, it simply means that they were looking for anyone who could say something against Jesus which might be helpful to their case. Such people had to be ‘false witnesses’ in the eyes of the writer for anything they said that was derogatory against Jesus would clearly not be fully true, but it does not mean that they were recognised as being such by those who called them. What the judges were looking for was true witnesses who could really demonstrate a case against Jesus, even though all they got in the end was false witnesses, none of whom agreed with each other on anything essential. So this does not brand the Chief Priests as necessarily exceptionally dishonest, it simply indicates that in their desperation to obtain a conviction they were willing to take advantage of anything that they could get their hands on. It should be noted that this band of witnesses must either already have been sought out in readiness for any trial that there might be, and thus have been all ready to be called on at a moment’s notice, or alternatively must have been hastily gathered as a result of enquiries among their own bands of servants and slaves, many of whom would no doubt previously have shown a discreet interest in what Jesus had to say.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The trial before Caiaphas:
v. 59. Now the chief priests and elders and all the council sought false witness against Jesus to put Him to death;
v. 60. but found none; yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses
v. 61 and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the Temple of God, and to build it in three days.
v. 62. And the high priest arose and said unto Him, Answerest Thou nothing? What is it which these witness against Thee?
v. 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.
v. 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. Note: The enumeration of the several sections of the Sanhedrin brings out all the more strongly the injustice of the proceedings. Men whose business it was to know the Law and to lead in all virtues were here the very ones to subvert right and to make a farce of justice. Also: They deliberately sought false witness. Knowing that the usual method of obtaining testimony against a criminal would have yielded no results, they exerted themselves most diligently to find such testimony as would enable them to judge Him worthy of death, but without success. The more men they examined with their obvious purpose in view, the more thoroughly just and holy Jesus stood before them. Even the last two witnesses that garbled the prophecy of Christ concerning the temple of His body, Joh 2:19, could not make their witness agree. The whole trial threatened to be a glorious justification of Jesus. But here the high priest Caiaphas, for fear of losing his case, forgot the dignity of his position as judge and turned accuser, if not plaintiff. He demanded that Christ defend Himself against the testimony which had been adduced. But Christ remained perfectly quiet, knowing that under the circumstances this silence was the best course. Since they wanted not justice, but His death at all costs, they would have pounced upon every word He might have uttered, and mutilated it beyond recognition. “Here see how unjustly the high priests deal with Christ the Lord. For they are at the same time accusers and judges. Therefore the Lord must be wrong in His case, no matter what He may say or do. In temporal affairs this would be a great dishonesty. But for these holy people nothing is sin, they have power in all things; they can do what they please, and challenge all who would accuse them of wrong or interpret something in an evil way. ” And now comes the climax of the sinful farce staged by the Sanhedrin. Most solemnly the high priest challenges Christ to state under oath whether He be in truth the Son of God. He was determined to draw an explanation from Christ which could be used as damaging evidence against Him at any cost. To continue silent now would be tantamount to a denial of a truth which was essential in His Messianic ministry. And so He answered with an emphatic: I am. But just as emphatically, and more so, He added a startling bit of information, namely, that the time would come when He would return in glory; in fact, this glorification was about to begin, with His entering, through suffering and death, into the glory of His Father. When these unjust judges will see Him again, it will be in the role of their Judge. And all the enemies of Christ will tremble and quake when this same Christ whom they have rejected will come to Judgment and demand a reckoning.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mat 26:59-60. Nowthe council sought false witness When the council found that Jesus declined answering the question whereby they would have drawn from him an acknowledgment of his being the Messiah, (see Joh 18:19; Joh 18:40.) they examined many witnesses to prove his having assumed that character: for by what afterwards happened it appears, that they considered such a pretension as blasphemy in his mouth, who, being nothing but a man, as they supposed, could not, without affronting the majesty of God, take the title of God’s Son, which of right belonged to the Messiah. In examining the witnesses, they acted like interested and enraged persecutors, rather than impartial judges; for they formed the questions after such a manner, as, if possible, to draw from them expressions which they might pervert into grounds of guilt, whereuponthey might condemn Jesus. But notwithstanding they were at the utmost pains to procure such a proof as in the eye of the law would justify the sentence which they were resolved at all hazards to pass upon Jesus, they exerted themselves to no purpose. As this was a great proof of Christ’s innocence (for otherwise his confederates might have been glad to purchase their own security by impeaching him), so is it a singular instance of the power of God over men’s minds; that for all the rewards which these great men could offer, no two consistent witnesses could be procured to charge Jesus with any gross crimes. Possibly the exertion of his miraculous power, in striking to the ground those who were most forward to seize him, might intimidate the spirits of some, who might otherwise have been prevailed upon. See Joh 18:6.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 26:59 f. ] and the whole Sanhedrim generally. This is a legitimate enough use of the words, even although certain individual members (Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea) did not concur in this proceeding.
] so called from the historian’s own point of view. Euthymius Zigabenus well remarks: , , , .
. .] with a view to putting Him to death , which could only be effected by their pronouncing in the first instance a capital sentence, and then having it ratified by the authority of the imperial procurator.
(see the critical remarks): and they found no means of doing so, even though many false witnesses had come forward . There were many who presented themselves to bear witness against Jesus; yet the Sanhedrim did not find what it wanted to find, doubtless because of the lack of that agreement between two of the witnesses at least which the law required (Num 35:30 ; Deu 17:6 ; Deu 19:15 ). See what immediately follows: . , and comp. Mar 14:56 . Though there was a show of complying with the ordinary forms of judicial process, they were nevertheless shamefully violated (in opposition to Salvador, Saalschutz), in that exculpatory evidence (Joh 18:20 f.) was never called for.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
XXVI
JESUS BETRAYED, ARRESTED, FORSAKEN; TRIED BY ANNAS, BY CAIAPHAS, AND BY THE SANHEDRIN
Harmony, pages 186-196 and Mat 26:47-75
In the last chapter we considered the sorrow of Christ in Gethsemane, and dipped somewhat into the account of the betrayal of our Lord. Just here we call attention particularly to the supplemental testimony of John’s Gospel that the Roman band or cohort, under its own prefect or miltary tribune, or chiliarch, was present when Jesus was arrested, and participated therein, indeed, themselves arresting, binding, and conducting Jesus to the Jewish authorities. This is a little difficult to understand, but we find no difficulty in the presence of the Temple guard, under the leadership of the Sanhedrin, and the mixed multitude irregularly armed, that came out for the purpose of arresting Jesus. Our trouble is to account for so strong a Roman force, under a high Roman officer, and the part they played in the matter, inasmuch as it was not an arrest for violating a Roman law, nor did they deliver the prisoner to Pilate, but to Annas and Caiaphas. From this supplemental story of John (Joh 18:2-14 ), certain facts are evidenced:
Judas, the betrayer of Christ, and who guided the arresting party, “received the Roman cohort,” usually about 600 men, under its own commanding officers. This could not have been without the consent of Pilate.
They evidently did not go out to make an ordinary arrest under Roman law, else would the prisoner have been delivered to Pilate. Yet the facts show that they did seize and bind Jesus and deliver him to Annas, one of the acting high priests, and thence to Caiaphas. As it was not customary for Roman legionaries in conquered states to act as a constabulary force for local municipal authorities in making an arrest touching matters not concerning the Empire, and as it is evident there were present an ample force of the Jewish Temple guard, besides an irregularly armed Jewish multitude subordinate to the Sanhedrin, then why the presence of this Roman force at all, and more particularly, why their participation in the arrest? The answer is as follows:
First, both the Sanhedrin and Pilate feared tumults at the crowded feasts when the city swarmed with fiery, turbulent Jews gathered from all the lands of the dispersion. Doubtless the Sanhedrin had represented to Pilate the presence in the city of a dangerous character, as they would charge, yet one so popular with the masses they dare not attempt to arrest him in the daytime, and even feared a mob rising in the night.
Second, their presence and intervention was necessary to protect the prisoner himself from assassination or lynch law. When they came to the garden and found Jesus there with a following of at least eleven men disposed to resist the arrest, and when they saw the whole Jewish guard fall before the outshining majesty of the face of Jesus as if stricken by lightning, and when they saw at least one swordstroke delivered in behalf of Jesus, then only, it became proper for the Roman guard to intervene. This necessity might arise from the fact that they could not trust the turbulent Jews with the management of this case. “We will arrest this man and protect him from their violence until delivered to their authorities to be tried for whatever offense with which he may be charged under their laws.” Indeed, humanly speaking, if that Roman cohort had not been present, he would have been mobbed before he reached any kind of a trial. The case of Paul (Act 21:30 ), and the intervention of Lysias, the chiliarch, illustrates the grounds of Roman intervention. It must be borne in mind that the Romans were silent, and did nothing until they saw the Temple guard unable to face the dignity of Jesus, and that a commencement, at least, of the struggle had been made by Peter to resist arrest.
As we are now coming to the climax of our Lord’s earth life, his betrayal, his trials, condemnation, execution, and resurrection, the literature becomes the richest in the world, and the bibliography most important. Particularly do we here find a unique and most powerful literature from the viewpoint of lawyers. They do not intrude into the theological realm to discuss the trial of Jesus as the sinner’s substitute before the court of God on the charge of sin, with the penalty of spiritual death, nor the trial of Jesus as the sinner’s substitute before the court of Satan on the charge of sin, with the penalty of physical death, but they discuss the legal aspects of his trial before the Jewish supreme court, the Sanhedrin, on the charge of blasphemy) with the penalty of stoning, and the trials of Jesus before the Roman courts of Pilate and Herod on the charges of treason and sedition. They answer the question: Under the Jewish law, which was not only civil and criminal, but ecclesiastical, was Jesus legally arrested, legally prosecuted, and fairly condemned, or was the whole case, as tried by the Sanhedrin, a case of malice, violating all the rights of the accused, and culminating in legal murder? In the same way these great lawyers and jurists expound the case before the Roman courts of Pilate and Herod, and from a lawyer’s viewpoint pronounce upon the Judgment of these cases under a judicial construction of the Roman law.
Under this first head of bibliography I give a list of these books by the great lawyers, every one of which ought to be in every preacher’s library. Do not waste money on inconsequential and misleading books. Do not fill your libraries with rubbish. Have fewer and greater books, and study them profoundly.
The Testimony of the Evangelists, by Dr. Simon Greenleaf. He was a law partner of Chief Justice Story, was for quite a while professor of law in Harvard University, and the author of that noted book, The Law of Evidence, which has been accepted in two continents as the highest and safest authority OD this great theme. Indeed, when we consider this splendid contribution by Dr. Greenleaf, we may almost forgive Harvard for its erratic infidel president emeritus, Dr. Charles v. Eliot, and many of its radical critic professors. This book of Greenleaf’s, over 600 pages, is divided into the following distinct parts:
The legal credibility of the history of the facts of the case, as given by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, of which there are no known existing autographs, but only copies. The question he raises is from the lawyer’s standpoint: “Before a human court, could these confessed copies be accepted as legal evidence of the history of the case?” That part of the case he demonstrates affirmatively in the first fifty-four pages.
Then he gives a harmony of these histories, pages 55-503, in order to compare the several histories on each fact given, not only of our Lord’s life and death, but of his resurrection and appearances. The point of this section is to show that the books, having been accepted as legal evidence, then these are a legal harmony of the testimony of the books.
He gives on pages 504-549 Tischendorf’s discussion of the various versions or translations of these histories, with notes of variations from the King James Version, to show that the legal harmony is not disturbed.
Having thus shown the legal credibility of the histories, and their legal harmony as witnesses, he applies the case by giving his account of the trial of Jesus before these three earthly courts, demonstrating that it was a case of legal murder, pages 550-566.
Then on pages 567-574 he gives an account of the trial of Jesus from a Jewish viewpoint. Mr. Joseph Salvador, a physician and a learned Jew, published at Paris a work entitled A History of the Institutions of Moses and of the Jewish People, in which, among other things, he gives an account of the course of criminal procedure in a chapter on the administration of justice, which he illustrates in a succeeding chapter by an account of the trial of Jesus, which he declares to be the most memorable trial in history. This last is the chapter Mr. Greenleaf publishes. Mr. Salvador ventures to say that he shall draw all of his facts from the evangelists themselves, without inquiring whether their history was developed after the event, to serve as a form of new doctrine, or an old one which had received fresh impulse. This was a daring venture on the part of Mr. Salvador. Relying upon these historians Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John for the facts, he contends that Jesus was legally arrested, legally tried, according to all the forms of Jewish law, and legally condemned.
The rest of Mr. Greenleaf’s book, pages 575-603, he gives to a reply to Salvador by the very distinguished French advocate and doctor of laws, M. Dupin, which is a most overwhelming demonstration of the fallacy of Mr. Salvador’s argument. This sixth section of Mr. Greenleaf’s Kook makes it invaluable to a biblical student.
The late Judge Gaynor, a jurist, and who later became mayor of New York City, delivered a legal exposition on the trial of Jesus Christ, purely from a lawyer’s standpoint. His conclusions are in harmony with Dr. Greenleaf and Dr. Dupin.
In two octavo volumes Walter M. Chandler, of the New York bar, has written perhaps the most critical examination of the whole subject from a lawyer’s standpoint. He devotes his first volume to the Jewish trial, and his second volume to the trials before the courts of Herod and Pilate. On all substantial points, and after a most exhaustive investigation of the legal points involved, he agrees substantially with Dr. Greenleaf, Dr. Dupin, and Judge Gaynor.
In only one point would the author think it necessary to criticize this great book by Mr. Chandler, and that does not touch the merits of the law of the case he discusses. I refer to that part of his second volume where, after bearing his most generous testimony to the many excellencies of the Jewish character and its many illustrious men and women in history, whether as prime ministers, financiers, philanthropists, or as contributors to special forms of literature, and after denouncing the persecution to which the Jewish people have been subjected by all nations, except the United States, he then seems to deny national responsibility to God and, particularly, any connection of the worldwide sufferings of the Jews with their national sin of rejecting the Messiah.
All my life shows my abhorrence of the persecutions of Jews and my admiration for their great men and women who have conferred lasting benefits on the race. The only point upon which I would raise a criticism is that he does not write as a lawyer when he seems to deny that nations, like individuals, are under responsibility to God for what is done by them, and through their acknowledged leaders. That part of his book cannot be sustained in either nature, law, or revelation. To sustain his contention on this point he must repudiate the univocal testimony of the entire Jewish Bible, whether law, prophets, or psalms, as well as the entire New Testament, Christ and the apostles, universal history, and nature as interpreted by true science.
Among the general works on the trial of Jesus (i.e., not confined to the legal phases of the case), I commend Edersheim’s Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah , a part of Farrar’s Story of a Beautiful Life, with Broadus’ Commentary on Matthew. It would cover the limits of a whole chapter to even name the books on the cross.
It was a strange episode of the young man in the linen garment: “And a certain young man followed with him, having a linen cloth cast about him, over his naked body: and they lay hold on him; but he left the linen cloth and fled naked” (Mar 14:51-52 ). Commentators have supposed that this young man was John Mark, who alone recounts the fact. They account for his presence and state thus: The upper room in which the Lord’s Supper was established was the house of his mother. When Judas gathered his arresting force he could not yet know that Jesus had left that room, and so first, he led his armed force to that house. This aroused the house, and Mark, himself a Christian, threw a linen robe about him and followed to Gethesame and so was present at the arrest of Jesus.
It is at least worthy of notice, that Melville, a great Scotch preacher, preached a sermon on the passage (Mar 14:51 f), contending that the young man in the linen robe was the antitype of the scapegoat (Lev 16 ). The sermon is a classical model in diction and homiletics, but is absolutely visionary. There is not a hint anywhere in the New Testament that his conjecture is at all tenable. I cite this fact to show you that preachers, in their anxiety to select texts that have the suggestion of novelty in them, will sometimes preach a sermon that will be sensational in its novelty, and yet altogether unscriptural in its matter, and to warn you against the selection of texts of that kind.
The next thought is the manner in which Judas identified the person of Christ, that he might be arrested. They were sure that some of the disciples would be with him, and they wanted to get the right man. So Judas gave this sign: “When we get to them I will step out and kiss the One that we want to arrest: that will be the sign to you. When you see me step out from you and kiss a certain Man in the group, that is the Man you want.” Christ submitted passively to the kissing of Judas, but said to Judas, “Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?” And that has gone down into history. Traitors betray with a kiss. It is to that incident Patrick Henry refers in his famous speech before the House of Burgesses in Virginia, when he said to them, “Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss,” that the English government would furnish bouquets in compliments, while mobilizing armies and fleets for conquest.
The incident of the sword. Some-find, it difficult to reconcile Luk 22:22 with Mat 26:51-55 ; Luk 22:51 ; Joh 18:10-11 ; Joh 18:24 . The explanation seems to be simple. In his charge (Mat 10 ), while he was alive and they were in his service, they must depend upon him for defense and support. But while he was dead they must defend and support themselves. This, of course, could apply only after his death and until his resurrection. Peter was both too soon to fight, for he was not yet dead, and too late to go back to his fishing, for Christ was then risen.
Only those preachers whose Christ is dead should use the sword or resume self-support.
When Christ was arrested, all the disciples, without any exception (and there were eleven of them), forsook him and fled, and now at midnight he is led through the silent streets of Jerusalem, hemmed in by a cohort of Roman soldiers, who are attended by officers of the Sanhedrin and their servants. They bring him, strange to say, first to the house of Annas. This man Annas is one of the most remarkable men in Jewish history. He had himself been high priest; his son-in-law, Caiaphas, is high priest at this time; six of his sons became high priests. It made no difference to him who was official priest, he, through sons and sons-in-law, was the power behind the throne. He was very wealthy, lived in a palatial home, and was a Sadducee, like Dr. Eliot, and believed in neither angel, spirit, nor resurrection of the dead. He believed also in turning everything over to the Romans. That is, he aligned himself with what is called the “Herod party,” or “Roman party.” The patriot Jews hated him. Josephus draws an awful picture of him.
Mr. Salvador, in alleging that Christ was tried according to the forms of Jewish law, forgets that the Jewish law forbade the employment of spies in their criminal trials, and yet they brought Judas. He forgets that Jewish law forbade a man’s being arrested at night that it forbade any trial of the accused person at night. He forgets that an accused person should be tried only before a regular court. And yet the first thing they did was to bring Jesus to the house of Annas for a private examination, while the guard waited outside at the door till Annas got through with him. On page 190 of the Harmony we have an account of what took place in the house of Annas. The high priest catechised Jesus. Annas is called the high priest as well as Caiaphas. He asked Jesus about his disciples and about his doctrines. Jesus said, “I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in synagogues, and in the Temple, where all of the Jews came together; and in secret spake I nothing. Why asketh thou me? Ask them that have heard me.” So to conduct an examination of that kind at all; to conduct it at night; to conduct it not in the presence of a full court; to allow the prisoner to be struck, were all violations of the Jewish law concerning the administration of justice.
Notice what the Jewish trial is. Dr. Broadus shows the preliminary examination before Annas; second, the trial before the Sanhedrin that night, in the house of Caiaphas; third, the meeting of the Sanhedrin the next morning. It was not proper that a man should be tried except in the place of meeting, the Sanhedrin, and in this they violated the law. It was not proper that he should be tried at night, as Jesus is tried this night in the house of Caiaphas.
Let us now see what were the developments that night at the house of Caiaphas. “Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together” (Joh 18:24 ; Mat 26:57 ). That constituted the Sanhedrin chief priests, elders, and scribes. The chief priests were Sadducees; the scribes were Pharisees. The Sanhedrin, according to a Jewish account, consisted of seventy-two twenty-four chief priests, twenty-four elders, and twenty-four scribes. The Sanhedrin was the supreme court in matters ecclesiastical and criminal. They had some lower courts that were appointed by the Sanhedrin. Any town of just 100 or 200 population had a court of three. If it was a larger population it had a court of twenty-three, but the Sanhedrin was the high or supreme court in all matters ecclesiastical and criminal. When the Romans conquered Judea, as was usual with the Romans, they took away from the people the right of putting anybody to death by a sentence of their own courts. They refer to this, saying, “We are not allowed by the Romans to put a man to death under sentence of our law.” That is, when Pilate had said to them, “Why do you not try him before your own law?” they said, “We are not permitted to put a man to death under our law.” That night there were assembled the Sanhedrin, as the record says: “Now the Sanhedrin was seeking [imperfect tense, denoting continued action, not only sought, but were seeking] false witnesses against Jesus.” They were seeking these witnesses with a view to putting him to death. They had previously decreed his death; and now they were simply trying to find somebody that would swear enough to justify them. Not even that Sanhedrin, when they heard the multitude of these false witnesses, could find two of them agreed upon any one point. And the Mosaic law solemnly declared that there must be two witnesses to every fact. But at last there came two false witnesses, and here is what they testified: “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.’ “
That is the sum of the evidence, and all the other testimony was thrown out as incompetent. Both these men lied. He never said that, but away back in his early ministry, when he first cleansed the Temple, and when he first came into conflict with these people, he had said these words: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it again.” He was speaking of the temple of his body, but he never said that he would destroy that Temple (of Jerusalem) and in three days build another.
But they were not satisfied with that, so the high priest violated the law by asking Jesus to speak. It was a principle of the Jewish law that one should not be forced to testify against himself. A man might testify for himself) but he is protected by the judge who sits on the bench from giving evidence against himself. Jesus knew all that, so he paid no attention. So the chief priest had to get at that matter in another way He did have a right in certain cases, to put a man on oath before God, and this is what he did: “I adjure thee [which means to swear by the living God, the highest and most solemn form of the judicial oath put thee on thy oath] before the living God that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.” To that Jesus responded.
Under the solemn oath before God he swore that he was the Messiah, and that hereafter that very crowd of people would see him sitting at the right hand of the throne of God in heaven.
I preached a sermon once from this text: “I adjure thee by the living God.” A young lawyer was present. He had never heard such a thing before. In the sermon I presented the character of Christ, against whom no man could prove an accusation; the devil himself found nothing in him; all the enemies of the great doctrines of the New Testament admitted the spotless character of Jesus of Nazareth. And yet this Man swore by the living God that he was the Messiah. All of the latent infidelity in the lawyer disappeared under that sermon. To this day he will testify that there got on his mind in the discussion of that single fact that Jesus was the Son of God. Would such a man swear to a false-hood? Is it credible that he would? He knew what “Messiah” meant that it meant he was the God-anointed One, to be the Prophet, the Sacrifice, the Priest, and the King, and he swore that he was. After his oath they should have tried his claims by the law, the prophets, and the facts of his life.
When he had given that testimony under oath the high priest rent his robe. The law required that whenever they heard a blasphemy they were to rend their clothes, and unless Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God; unless God was his Father, while Mary was his mother; unless he was the God-anointed Prophet, Sacrifice, Priest, and King, then it was blasphemy. And therefore Mr. Greenleaf, who is the author of The Law of Evidence, a law book which passes current in all the law books on this continent and in Europe, in mentioning the trial of Jesus Christ, says, No lawyer of any reputation, with the facts set forth in the Gospels, would have attempted to defend Jesus Christ, except on the assumption that he was the Messiah and divine, because all through the Book that is his claim. If he was not divine, he did blaspheme. Therefore when he took that oath, that court should have investigated the character of his claim as the Messiah, but instead of that they assumed the thing that they should have investigated and called it blasphemy.
Another great violation of the law takes place: “What further need of witnesses have we? We have heard the blasphemy; what think ye?” And now they vote that he is worthy of death; they condemned him to be worthy of death. Their law declared that a vote of condemnation should never be taken the day of the trial. There had to be at least three intervening days, and here at night they pass sentence on no evidence but the oath of Jesus Christ, and that without investigating the matter involved. Then they allowed the following indignities: They spat in his face and buffeted him; they smote him with the palms of their hands after they had blindfolded him. Then one would slip up and slap him, saying, “Prophesy who hit you.”
I shall omit in my discussion here all this testimony concerning the denial of Peter, because I want to bring all of the history of Peter together. I pass that point for the present. I merely remark that the case of Judas and the case of Peter, connected with the arrest and the trial of Jesus Christ, have an immensity of pathos in the tragedy of the twelve the first one and the last one on the list.
That is the Jewish trial except this one additional fact: When it was morning, or as soon as it was day, they held their final meeting, and confirmed their night decision. They had a law that the Sanhedrin must come together for a final meeting in a case of this kind, and that if anybody had voted to acquit in the first meeting he could not change his vote, but if anybody had voted to condemn in this meeting he might ratify or he might change his vote and acquit. There were to be three days between these meetings. Having thus finished the Jewish trial, which was in violation of all the forms of the law, as soon as daylight comes they carry Jesus to Pilate.
The first trial of Jesus, then, was before the Jewish Sanhedrin; the accusation against him was blasphemy; the penalty under that law was to be put to death by stoning, but they had not the power to put to death. So now they must bring the case before the court of Pilate. And here Mr. Salvador says that the Jewish Sanhedrin’s condemnation of Jesus Christ on the charge of blasphemy was confirmed by Pilate. There never was a statement more untrue. Pilate declined to take into consideration anything that touched that Jewish law. When he tried him he tried him ab initio, that is, “from the beginning,” and he did not consider any charge that did not come under the Roman law. Therefore, we see this people, when they bring the case before Pilate, present three new charges. The other case was not touched on at all, but the new charges presented were as follows: First, “he says that he himself is King”; the second is, “he teaches that Jews should not pay tribute to Caesar”; and third, “he stirreth up the people,” which was one of the things that the Roman was always quick to put down anywhere in the wide realm of the Roman world. A man who stirred up the people should be dealt with in a speedy manner. Treason was a capital offense. So they come before Pilate and try him in this court on the threefold charge, viz.: “He says he is King; he forbids this people to pay tribute to Caesar,” interrupting the revenue coming into Rome, which was false, for he taught to the contrary; and “he stirreth up the people.” We have had, then, the history of his case, so far as his trial before the Jewish Sanhedrin is concerned. In the next chapter we will take up his first trial before the court of Pilate.
QUESTIONS 1. What two facts concerning the arrest of Christ are evident from John’s supplemental story?
2. Why the presence of the Roman legionaries and their participation in the arrest of Jesus?
3. What illustration in Acts of the intervention of the chiliarch to protect a prisoner?
4. What unique and powerful literature on the trials of Jesus is mentioned?
5. What question do they answer?
6. What three books from the viewpoint of the lawyer commended?
7. What are the six distinct parts of Greenleaf’s Testimony of the Evangelists?
8. On what one point does the author dissent from Mr. Chandler?
9. What general works on the trials of Jesus commended?
10. Who was the young man spoken of in Mar 14:51-52 , and how do the commentators account for his presence and state on this occasion?
11. What noted Scotch preacher preached a sermon on this incident, what was his interpretation of this young man and what the lesson here for the preacher?
12. How did Judas identify Christ as the one to be arrested, what saying originated from this incident and what reference to it in the early history of our country?
13. How do you reconcile Luk 22:22 with Mat 26:51-55 ; Luk 22:51 ; Joh 18:10-11 ; Joh 18:24 ?
14. Upon Christ’s arrest what prophecy of his was fulfilled?
15. After his arrest where did they lead him, why to him, and what were the characteristics of this man?
16. Of what did the Jewish trial consist?
17. Give an account of what took place at the house of Annas.
18. Where did they take Jesus when they left the house of Annas, by what body was he tried there, of what was that body composed, and what were the limitations of its power under the Roman government?
19. Describe the trial of Jesus before this court.
20. What was the testimony of Jesus under oath, what should have been their course after his oath, what charge did they bring instead, and under what circumstances would their charge have been sustained?
21. What indignities did Jesus suffer in this trial?
22. What two pathetic cases connected with the arrest and trial of Jesus?
23. What the last act of the Jewish trial?
24. After the Jewish trial where did they lead Jesus, how did Pilate try him, what the threefold charge brought by the Jews against Jesus, and what the legal name of these offenses?
25. In what great particulars did the Jews violate their own law in the arrest and trial of Jesus as defined by Mr. Salvador?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
59 Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;
Ver. 59. Sought false witness ] Here Christ is convented and examined in the spiritual court with a great deal of injustice and subordination. They first sought false witness, as if they had obeyed our Saviour, who bade them ask those that heard him what he had said unto them,Joh 18:21Joh 18:21 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
59. . ] , , , . Euthym [177] But is this quite implied? Is it not the intention of the Evangelist to represent that they sought false witness , not that they would not take true if they could get it, but that they knew it was not to be had?
[177] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116
This hearing is altogether omitted in Luke, and only the indignities following related, Mat 26:63-65 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 26:59-68 . The trial .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Mat 26:59 . . . , the whole Sanhedrim, cf. in Heb 3:16 , the statement in both cases admitting of a few exceptions. , false evidence, of course in the first place from the evangelist’s point of view ( in Mk.), but substantially true to the fact. They wanted evidence for a foregone conclusion; no matter though it was false if it only looked true and hung fairly well together. Jesus was apprehended to be put to death, and the trial was only a blind, a form rendered necessary by the fact that there was a Procurator to be satisfied.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 26:59-64
59Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death. 60They did not find any, even though many false witnesses came forward. But later on two came forward, 61and said, ” This man stated, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.'” 62The high priest stood up and said to Him, “Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?” 63But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Mat 26:59 “kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus” This seems to imply that they were looking for two witnesses who could agree on some charge because OT legal precedent required two witnesses to condemn a person (cf. Num 35:30; Deu 17:6; Deu 19:15).
The Sanhedrin could not find two consistent testimonies against Jesus (Mat 26:60-61). Finally they found two similar testimonies (cf. Mar 14:59) connected with Jesus’ statement about destroying the temple (cf. Joh 2:19).
There were many illegal elements in this night trial (see Special Topic at Mat 26:57). These Jewish leaders would have rationalized this by illegally sacrificing this one man to save the whole nation from Roman retaliation.
Mat 26:61 This is an allusion to Jesus’ statement recorded in Joh 2:19, although He may have made the statement often. He is referring to the coming destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 by Titus and His new resurrection body (cf. Mat 16:21; Mat 17:23; Mat 20:19), which will be the new focus of worship for YHWH’s people. The sacrificial system is replaced by the once-and-for-all sacrifice of Christ (cf. Hebrews). The central focus of acceptance and worship has changed! Jesus is the new temple (cf. Joh 2:19-21), as are His followers (cf. 1Co 3:16-17; 1 Cor. Mat 6:19).
Mat 26:63 “But Jesus kept silent” This was also true during his later trial which was recorded in Mat 27:12; Mat 27:14. This fulfilled the prophecy of Isa 53:7.
“And the high priest said to Him, ‘I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God'” Self-incrimination by means of an oath was illegal but effective, for Jesus would not be silent in the face of an oath in the name of YHWH. The name “YHWH,” from Exo 3:14, was from the Hebrew verb “to be,” which means the ” ever-living, only-living God” (cf. Mat 16:16). It was the covenant name for the God of Israel.
These leaders recognized that Jesus, at least by His words and deeds, was claiming to be the promised Messiah (note how the titles “Messiah” and “Son of God” are equated). They saw Him as one of many false Messiah’s because He was not committed to the oral traditions and their authority.
Mat 26:64
NASB”You have said it yourself”
NKJV”It is as you said”
NRSV”You have said so”
TEV”So you say”
JB”The words are your own”
NJB”It is you who say it”
This same affirmative idiom is found in Mat 26:25. It was somewhat ambiguous. Possibly Jesus was saying, “Yes, I am the Messiah, but not in the sense you think” (cf. Mar 14:62).
“I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven” These Hebrew scriptural idioms affirmed His self-understanding. Being at the right hand of the power (i.e., YHWH) was an allusion to Psa 110:1. Coming on the clouds in heaven was an allusion to Dan 7:13 (cf. Mar 13:26; Mat 24:30; and Rev 1:7). With these OT phrases, Jesus was asserting unambiguously His full and divine Messiahship. He knew this would lead to His death for blasphemy (i.e., claiming to be equal with God).
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
council = Sanhedrin.
sought = were seeking.
false witness. Greek. pseudomarturia. Occurs only in Matthew, here, and Mat 15:19.
against. Greek. kata. Not the same word as in Mat 26:55.
to put = so that they might put, &c.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
59. .] , , , . Euthym[177] But is this quite implied? Is it not the intention of the Evangelist to represent that they sought false witness, not that they would not take true if they could get it, but that they knew it was not to be had?
[177] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116
This hearing is altogether omitted in Luke, and only the indignities following related, Mat 26:63-65.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
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:
Neither for love nor money.
Mat 26:60. Yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none.
That is, none that agree; the lie that one man spoke was refuted by the next.
Mat 26:61. At last came two false witness, and said this
They did not say any other word, as if they did not know any word in any language vile enough for him. This; our translators have very properly put in the word fellow.
Mat 26:61. Fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.
He never said anything of the kind; it was a most wicked misrepresents of what he had said. If men wish to find an accusation against us, they can do it without any materials.
Mat 26:62-64. 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 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.
He binds them over to make their appearance before him when he becomes the judge, and they shall take the ,place of the criminal.
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?
He looks round upon the seventy elders of the people who were sitting there in the great council, and They answered and said, He is guilty of death:. Probably Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were not there;: they were the only two friends the Lord had in the Sanhedrim.
Mat 26:66-68. 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?
This ended the regular ecclesiastical trial of Christ. A little time was spent, before Pilate, the judicial ruler, was ready to see Christ, but soon as the dawn was come, they dragged him before another tribunal. We shall now turn to Luke 23.
This exposition consisted of readings from Mat 26:59-68; Luke 23.
Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible
Mat 26:59. , sought) Upon this arose that host of false witnesses. No greater act of injustice was ever committed than that against our Lord: in respect of God, however, it was the highest exercise of justice.[1159]
[1159] Inasmuch as the holiness of God demanded such an awful sacrifice for the sins, such a precious ransom for the souls of men.-(I. B.) Rom 3:26.-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
sought: Deu 19:16-21, 1Ki 21:8-13, Psa 27:12, Psa 35:11, Psa 35:12, Psa 94:20, Psa 94:21, Pro 25:18, Mar 14:55, Mar 14:56, Act 6:11-13, Act 24:1-13
Reciprocal: Gen 39:14 – he came Exo 20:16 – General Exo 23:1 – an unrighteous witness 1Sa 22:9 – Doeg 1Ki 21:10 – two men Neh 6:13 – that Psa 2:2 – rulers Psa 22:13 – gaped Psa 31:13 – while Psa 52:2 – Thy Psa 55:3 – for they Psa 64:6 – search Psa 109:2 – the mouth Psa 119:69 – proud Psa 120:2 – from lying lips Pro 6:19 – A false Pro 12:17 – but Pro 24:28 – not Ecc 3:16 – General Isa 32:7 – instruments Jer 20:10 – I heard Jer 26:8 – the priests Eze 22:9 – men that carry tales Hab 1:4 – for Mat 5:22 – the council Mat 10:17 – councils Mat 21:15 – when Luk 6:7 – that Luk 22:63 – the men Luk 23:2 – forbidding Joh 11:53 – put Joh 18:21 – ask Act 4:27 – the people Act 24:9 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
6:59
The persons referred to here were leading men of the Jews who composed the council (Sanhedrin). The description of this court and the extent of its powers may be seen at verse 3. Before they could obtain any action from the Roman court, the Sanhedrin must first try and condemn the prisoner. Sought false witness is very significant. They knew that nothing could be said truthfully against Jesus, hence they would have to rely on witnesses who were willing to give false testimony.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 26:59. The whole council. The Sanhedrin, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were probably absent (Luk 23:51), since their opposition would have been in vain (comp. Joh 7:50; Joh 9:22). It was not the first time this body had consulted against Him. See Joh 7:45-53; Joh 9:22; Joh 11:57; Joh 12:10.
Sought false witness. Knowing that true witness could not be had, they actually sought false witness. Such a sin is greatest in judges.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Mat 26:59-60. The chief priests, and all the council, sought false witness When the council found that Jesus declined answering the questions, whereby they would have drawn from him an acknowledgment of his being the Messiah, they examined many witnesses to prove his having assumed that character; for it appears, by what happened afterward, that they considered such a pretension as blasphemy in his mouth, who, being nothing but a man, as they supposed, could not, without affronting the majesty of God, take the title of Gods Son, which of right belonged to the Messiah. But, in examining the witnesses, they acted like interested and enraged persecutors, rather than impartial judges; for they formed their questions after such a manner as, if possible, to draw from them expressions which they might pervert into suspicions of guilt, whereupon they might condemn Jesus. But found none, though many false witnesses came Notwithstanding they were at the utmost pains to procure such a proof as in the eye of the law would justify the sentence which they were resolved at all hazards to pass upon Jesus, they exerted themselves to no purpose. Because, though they suborned many witnesses, these, in giving their testimony, contradicted one another; a circumstance which the most illiterate person in the court could not but be sensible invalidated their evidence. As this was a great proof of Christs innocence, so it is a singular instance of the power of God over mens minds, that, for all the rewards these great men could offer, no two consistent witnesses could be procured to charge him with any gross crime. Possibly, the exertion of his miraculous power, in striking to the ground those that were most forward to seize him, might intimidate the spirits of some who might otherwise have been prevailed upon. At last came two false witnesses Such they were, although part of what they said was true, because our Lord did not speak some of the words they mentioned at all; nor any of them in the sense in which they represented them as being spoken. See Macknight and Doddridge.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
JESUS CONDEMNED BY THE SANHEDRIN
Mat 26:59-68; Mar 14:55-65; Luk 22:63-71;Joh 18:19-24. Then the high priest asked Jesus concerning His disciples and teaching. Jesus responded to Him, I spoke boldly to the world. I always taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together, and I spoke nothing in secret. Why do you ask Me? Ask those who heard what I said to them; behold, they know the things which I said. He, speaking these things, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, Do you thus answer the high priest? Jesus responded to him, If I spoke wickedly, testify concerning the wickedness; but if truly, why do you smite Me? Then Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest. Evidently, Annas and Caiaphas had their tribunals in the same great quadrangular building standing on Mount Zion, and now visited by the thirty thousand pilgrims annually going to Jerusalem. Having first been arraigned at the tribunal of Annas, He is now, about day-dawn, led bound to the tribunal of Caiaphas. You see how the high priest endeavored to make Him confess, hoping to utilize His own testimony against Himself, as they had no witnesses to amount to anything, and thus condescended to a very cowardly stratagem, which even if he had succeeded, the law pronounces the weakest of all evidence. It was awfully barbaric for that officer to smite a prisoner in bonds. You see, Jesus vindicates Himself reminding the man of the criminal impropriety of this uncouth assault upon a defenseless prisoner illustrating the right of all His followers to vindicate themselves from false accusation, violence, and tyranny, and refuting the idea somewhat prevalent that we are never to advocate our rights and vindicate ourselves against the oppression of the wicked.
Luk 22:66. And when it was day, the eldership of the people, the chief priests, and the scribes were assembled, and led Him into the Sanhedrin. As they had been on His track, like bloodhounds, three years, eager to take, His life (but restrained by the fear of the people; and well they might be, because a bloody civil war would have broken out immediately), such is their fear of the people that they attack Him at midnight, aiming to secure the death-warrant and kill Him before day. In this they are disappointed and woefully disconcerted, being unable to convene the Sanhedrin till day dawn, though keeping couriers running at race-horse speed all night, (notifying and urging them up. The Sanhedrin was the highest court of the politico-ecclesiasticism, the successor of the eldership organized by Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, during their wilderness peregrinations.
Mar 14:55-59. And the high priest and all the Sanhedrin continued to seek testimony against Jesus to put him to death, and they found none. Matthew says false testimony. Of course, they preferred true testimony if they could get it; but as there was none, they were anxious to take any kind they could get. For many continued to testify falsely against Him, and their testimonies were not equal, i. e., they contradicted one another, which in law invalidates both, so that they are thrown out of court. And certain ones, rising up, falsely testified against Him, saying, We heard Him saying, That I will destroy this temple, made with hands, and in three days I will build another, made without hands. Indeed their testimony was not equal; i. e., they contradicted one another. Perhaps some of the witnesses gave it correctly; but you have only to look at Joh 2:19, Destroy this temple, and I will build it in three days, to see that the above witnesses were false, as they testified that He said, I will destroy this temple, made with hands, and build another, made without hands. By comparison, you see that these witnesses did not quote Him correctly, as their testimony would make it mean that great stone edifice standing on Mount Moriah; while He did not mean that at all, but the temple of His body. Why did He not correct them when so grossly misrepresenting Him? Because it would have done no good, as Satan was in them, and they were thirsting for His blood.
Mat 26:62-66. The high priest, standing up, said to Him, Do You answer nothing? What are they witnessing against Thee? And Jesus was silent. Under temptation, the better policy is, like Jesus, to keep silent. You should never speak while under severe provocation. The high priest, responding, said to Him, I assure Thee by the living God, that Thou mayest tell us if Thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus says to him, Thou sayest it. That is an Oriental form of affirmation. Here, you see, Jesus answers while under oath of affirmation, administered by the high priest. Hence you see His indirect approval appertaining to the civil oath of affirmation. Paul (1Th 5:23) administers a solemn oath to the Thessalonian saints to read his letter to all the members of the Church.
Moreover I say unto you, Hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven. The first clause of this wonderful prophecy of our Lord was fulfilled when they saw Him rise from the dead and ascend up to heaven from Mount Olivet; while the second clause, coming in the clouds of heaven, will be fulfilled when Jesus shall ride down on a cloud and receive all the kingdoms of this world (Dan 7:9-14) and reign forever. In this wonderful sentence there is not so much as a comma, yet those two clauses are separated by many centuries, the former being verified in a few days, and the latter still pending.
Then the high priest tore His robes, saying, That He blasphemed; what need of testimony have we yet? Behold, now , you have heard His blasphemy. What seems good to you? And they, responding, said, He is worthy of death. Mark says this verdict was unanimous, So here you see the issue of His prosecution before the Sanhedrin They unanimously condemned Him to die for blasphemy, according to the law of Moses. (Lev 24:16.) Thus you see, good and just laws become vehicles of tyranny and persecution when in the hands of bad men, and are no guarantee of fight and justice when the devil is in the administrators. Jesus died under the verdict of Divine law, and so did all the martyrs, there being no trouble about the law; but Satan was in the preachers and ruling elders. So it is this day. Some of the brightest saints that walk beneath the skies, have been excommunicated, while drunkards, libertines, blasphemers, and thieves have been retained without impeachment. Such was the case in the days of Luther and Wesley, and always will be so when Diabolus gets into the clergy and official laity.
Luk 22:63-65. And the men who had charge of Jesus began to mock Him, beating Him; and covering Him, continued to strike His face, and ask Him, saying, Prophesy, who is the one smiting thee? And blaspheming Him as to many other things, they continued to speak against Him. The truth of it is, Jesus had no trial, it was a mockery; to their infinite shame, barbarically abusing Him while a prisoner in chains, which is revolting to the very idea of civil, not to say ecclesiastical administration. Nicodemus certifies that Jewish law never condemned a man till he met his accusers face to face, and had a fair and impartial trial. Festus, the Roman proconsul, makes the same statement in reference to imperial law. Hence, Jesus was mobbed and outlawed. But did He not come into the world to die? Most assuredly; and He would have died to redeem the world from sin, death, and hell if neither Judas nor Caiphas had ever been born. Yet that is no apology for the diabolical treason, perfidy, and murder which they committed, overtly, without excuse.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
The phrase "whole Council" or "whole Sanhedrin" need not mean that all 70 members plus the high priest were present since only 23 constituted a quorum (cf. Luk 23:50-51). [Note: Carson, "Matthew," p. 553.] Perhaps Matthew meant that representatives from all parts of the Sanhedrin were present. The chief priests were also the legal experts, so they evidently took the lead in conducting the trial. Matthew wrote that they tried to get false testimony against Jesus. This does not mean they looked for liars, but they looked for witnesses who would validate their conviction that Jesus was a lawbreaker. To do that the witnesses would have to give false testimony.
The Mosaic Law required at least two witnesses in cases of capital offense. The lawyers had to interview several people before they finally found two that would agree on a charge against Jesus. This was another way that Matthew stressed Jesus’ innocence. Interpreting with wooden literalism one might take Jesus’ words as a threat to desecrate the temple, but Jesus had spoken metaphorically (Joh 2:19-21). He had meant that He was the true temple, the place where people met God and where God met them. Most ancient Near Eastern people regarded the desecration of a temple as a capital offense, and the Jews shared this viewpoint (cf. Jer 26:1-19). Jesus had not, as far as the Gospel records go, said that He would or could destroy the temple. He had only said it would be destroyed. Neither had He said He would rebuild the temple.
Even though the religious leaders oppressed and afflicted Jesus, He did not open His mouth. He was silent, like a lamb going to the slaughter and as a sheep before its shearers (Mat 26:63 a; cf. Isa 53:7).