Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 26:61
And said, this [fellow] said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.
61. I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days ] 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.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And said, This fellow said … – Mark has recorded this testimony differently. According to him, they said, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another. made without hands. Probably both forms of giving in the testimony were used on the trial, and Matthew has recorded it as it was given at one time and Mark at another, so that there is no contradiction. Mark adds, But neither so did their witnesses agree together. That which they attempted to accuse him of is what he had said respecting his body and their destroying it, Joh 2:19; Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. This he spoke of his body; they perverted it, endeavoring to show that he meant the temple at Jerusalem. They neither stated it as it was, nor did they state correctly its meaning, nor did they agree about the words used. It was therefore very little to their purpose.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 61. I am able to destroy the temple of God]
1st. These words were not fairly quoted. Jesus had said, Joh 2:19, Destroy this temple, and I will build it again in three days.
2dly. The inuendo which they produce, applying these words to a pretended design to destroy the temple at Jerusalem, was utterly unfair; for these words he spoke of the temple of his body.
It is very easy, by means of a few small alterations, to render the most holy things and innocent persons odious to the world, and even to take away the life of the innocent.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Mark saith, Mar 14:57-59, And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. But neither so did their witness agree together. These are called by the evangelists, false witnesses. Our Saviour said, Joh 2:19, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up, speaking of his body, as John tells us there, Joh 2:21. He did not say, I will destroy this temple made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. But Mark saith these witnesses could not agree in their tale, or their testimony, though agreeing was not sufficient to make him guilty of a capital crime. The high priest must use some other arts.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And said, this fellow said,…. Or saith, as De Dieu observes, the Syriac version of this place should be rendered; that is, he has not only said in times past, referring to Joh 2:19, but continues to say it, and glory in it:
I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days; in which they did injury, both to his words and sense: he did not say, “I am able to destroy the temple”, but only said, “destroy this temple”; signifying neither his power, nor his will and inclination to it; but put it upon the Jews, and left it to them to do it: nor did he say one word about the temple of God, or as it is in Mr 14:58, “this temple that is made with hands”; the temple at Jerusalem, which was made by the hands of men, and devoted to the worship of God; but only “this temple”, referring to his body, or human nature; in which he, the Son of God, dwelt, as in a temple; nor did he say that he was able to “build” it in three days, but that he would “raise it up” in three days; intending the resurrection of his body by his own power, after it had been dead three days; and so they perverted his sense, as well as misquoted his words; applying that to the material temple at Jerusalem, what he spoke of the temple of his body, and of its resurrection from the dead, on the third day; designing hereby to fix a charge, both of sacrilege and sorcery upon him: of sacrilege, in having a design upon the temple of God to destroy it; and of sorcery, or familiarity with the devil, and having assistance from him, or knowledge of the magic art, that he could pretend in three days to rebuild a temple, which had been forty and six years in building; and was what could never be done, but by help of Beelzebub, the prince of devils, by whom it was insinuated he did all his miracles.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
I am able to destroy the temple of God ( ). What he had said (Joh 2:19) referred to the temple of his body which they were to destroy (and did) and which he would raise again in three days as he did. It was a pitiful perversion of what Jesus had said and even so the two witnesses disagreed in their misrepresentation (Mr 14:59).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
(61) This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God.It is remarkable that the two Gospels which record the charge do not record the words in which it had its starting-point. Apparently, the second cleansing of the Temple (Mat. 21:12) had revived the memory of the first, and brought back to mens minds the words that had then been spokenDestroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up (Joh. 2:19). What was now reported was a sufficiently natural distortion of what had then been said. St. Mark adds that even then the witnesses did not agree. There were still discrepancies as to time, place, and the exact words, that did not fit in with the established rules of evidence.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
61. This fellow The word fellow is added by the translators; but the contempt implied in the word is also implied in the Greek word for THIS. Destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days This was false testimony so far as the sense was concerned; but it seemed to contain more consistent fact and more plausible charge than anything else they could procure. Our Lord had said, (Joh 2:19🙂 “Destroy the temple and I will build it again in three days.” There was surely no hostility to the temple in this; for the destroying was supposed to be performed by them, and the rebuilding by himself.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Mat 26:61 . The expression Joh 2:19 , which Jesus had made use of with reference to His own body , was not only misunderstood by those witnesses, but also misrepresented (John: ): whether wilfully or not, cannot be determined. But in any case the testimony was objectively false, and even in the case of the two who agreed it was in all probability subjectively so. Comp. Act 6:13 f.
.] not: after three days (Gal 2:1 ), but: during three days. The work of building was to extend over this short period, and would then be complete. See on Gal 2:1 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
61 And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.
Ver. 61. I am able to destroy the temple ] Novum crimen Caie Caesar. For, what if Christ had said so? Could not he as easily have reared a temple as raised the dead, restored the blind, &c.? But the truth is, he never said so, but was misreported and falsely accused (saith Father Latimer), both as touching his words and meaning also. He said Destruite, Destroy ye; they made it Possum destruere, I am able to destroy. He said Templum hoc, this temple, meaning his own body; they added manufactum, made with hands, to bring it to a contrary sense, &c. Thus mutilando vel mutundo, by chopping or changing, ill-minded men do usually deprave and wrest to a wrong meaning the most innocent passages and practises. So true is that of the comedian,
Nihil est quin male narrando possit depravarier:
Tu id quod boni est excerpis, dicis quod mali est.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
61. ] See ch. Mat 27:40 : the false witness consisted in giving that sense to His words , which it appears by ch. Mat 27:63 they knew they did not bear . There is perhaps a trace, in the different reports of Matt. and Mark, of the discrepancy between the witnesses . There is considerable difference between . and . . . The instance likewise of his zeal for the honour of the temple which had so lately occurred, might tend to perplex the evidence produced to the contrary.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 26:61 . , this person said: then follows a version of a word really spoken by Jesus, of a startling character, concerning destroying and rebuilding the temple. An inaccurate report of so remarkable a saying might easily go abroad, and the version given by the two witnesses seems from Mat 27:40 to have been current. They might, therefore, have borne wrong evidence without being false in intention. , in an emphatic position, makes Jesus appear as one boasting of preternatural power, and , as irreverently parading His power in connection with a sacred object. . ., literally through three days = after: for similar use of the preposition, vide Gal 2:1 . The meaning is: after three days I will complete the rebuilding, so that in effect is = in Joh 2:19 .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
I am able to destroy. This was “false”. He said “Destroy ye”. The false witnesses helped to fulfill it.
Temple. Greek. naos, the shrine. See note on Mat 23:16.
in. Greek. dia. Perhaps better “within”. See Mar 2:1. Act 24:17. Gal 1:2, Gal 1:1.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
61.] See ch. Mat 27:40 : the false witness consisted in giving that sense to His words, which it appears by ch. Mat 27:63 they knew they did not bear. There is perhaps a trace, in the different reports of Matt. and Mark, of the discrepancy between the witnesses. There is considerable difference between . and . . . The instance likewise of his zeal for the honour of the temple which had so lately occurred, might tend to perplex the evidence produced to the contrary.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 26:61. , …, I am able to destroy, etc.) He had not said so. False evidence seizes upon some true particulars; and a great calumny may frequently be produced by no great change of words. They distort the expression used by our Lord three years before, and now unconsciously subserve to its fulfilment.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
This: Mat 26:71, Mat 12:24, Gen 19:9, 1Ki 22:27, 2Ki 9:11, Psa 22:6, Psa 22:7, Isa 49:7, Isa 53:3, Luk 23:2, Joh 9:29, Act 17:18, Act 18:13, Act 22:22
I am: The words of our Lord were widely different from this statement of them; so that the testimony of these witnesses was false, though it had the semblance of truth. Mat 27:40, Jer 26:8-11, Jer 26:16-19, Mar 15:29, Joh 2:19-21, Act 6:13
Reciprocal: Lev 19:16 – stand Deu 19:15 – at the mouth Psa 56:5 – they Psa 89:51 – footsteps Amo 7:11 – Jeroboam Zec 6:12 – he shall build Mat 27:63 – After Mar 14:57 – and bare Act 7:1 – Are 2Co 13:1 – In
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
6:61
The testimony of these had nothing to do with’ any capital offence. Had Jesus said what they claimed, it still would not have made him guilty of anything serious, but only a claim as to what he said he could do if he chose. But even this was false, for he never said anything like what they affirmed. Another thing, according to Mar 14:59, even these two witnesses disagreed with each other, and that would have thrown their testimony out of court had it been even on the subject of capital offences. According to Deu 17:6; Deu 19:15 there must be at least two witnesses who testify to the same thing before a man could be condemned to death.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 26:61. This man. Fellow conveys a sneer, not contained in the original.
Said; see Joh 2:19, for what our Lord really said.
I am able to destroy the temple, etc. The testimony as recorded by Mark (Mar 14:58) differs in form, but the same Evangelist says (Mat 26:59) their witness did not agree. Differing in minor circumstances, they probably agreed in making the saying one derogatory to the temple. Such were regarded as blasphemous by the Jews (Act 6:13); the temple being the symbol of their religion. The witnesses were probably guilty of wilful misinterpretation. The Sanhedrin knew what the true sense of the words was (chap. Mat 27:63), and the witnesses were probably fully aware of it. Our Lords zeal in cleansing the temple (chap. Mat 21:12-13) should have been an evidence to all that He would not speak slightingly of it. Besides, if they supposed He meant the temple in Jerusalem, they heard His promise of restoring it, which could not imply hostility to the temple itself. The words of our Lord are a prophecy of His death, and yet of His ultimate victory; this, in their blindness and fanaticism they could make a ground for condemnation.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 61
This was a false interpretation put upon his language, as recorded John 2:19. That they knew very well what the Savior’s real meaning was, is rendered probable from their acknowledgment, in the Matthew 27:63.