Matthew 26:57

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.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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-priest’s palace — Or, the court of the high-priest’s 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 — Των υπηρετων, 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.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

§ 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.

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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 take—which 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 valid—least of all in a case like this, which was of a capital kind—unless 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 nothing”—so Caiaphas said in effect—“to 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 accusation—this mockery of justice—this perversion of law—this subornation of perjury—He 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 God’s 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 judge—most unworthy of such a judge as the high priest of God’s 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 God’s 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 contempt—I say now to “you” all (“a tous vous qui êtes ici,” Lasserre),—that there will be a day—and 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 on—this is what it all comes to—as 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. Peter’s 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 follow—but he follows afar off, as one who would disguise even while he yields to the impulse.—In the very midst of the high priest’s 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 Thomas—doubter, 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. Christ’s 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 Christ’s 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. Christ’s 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 Christ’s 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.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

SIXTH SECTION

CHRIST BEFORE CAIAPHAS

26:57–68

(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-priest’s 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, ὅπως] put him to death; 60But [And, καί] found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none.93 At the last [But at last, ὕστερον δέ] 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, πλήν] 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, ἔνοχος]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 Peter’s 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 αὐλή 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 Christ’s 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: ψευδομαρτυρίαν, 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 (λύσατε), 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, διά, 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 this—the 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 ἀπο κρίνεσθαίτι may mean to answer something, and τί may be equivalent to ὅ, τι.

Mat_26:63. And the high-priest answered.—He understood the meaning of Christ’s 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: ἐξορκίζειν, Hebraice השביע, modo est jurejurando adigere, interdum vero obsecrare. Solebant judices talem δρκισμόν 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, εῖπας.—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, πλήν.—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.—Τῆςδυνάμεως=הַיְבוּרָה (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 δόξα; 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 mediæval 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 τὰἱμάτια.—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-priest’s 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, Archœol. 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 κολαφίζειν). 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 ἐῤῥάπισαν 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 meant—You 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 Christ’s 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 power—of the majesty of God, Psalms 110—“Jesus 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.—Christ’s 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 lion’s 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 Prœtorium, 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_1:1—Alas! 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. König:—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 αὐλή.—P. S.]

[92]Mat_26:59.—B., D., L., al., [also Cod. Sinait.], omitκαὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι. 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 οὐχ εῦ̓ρον 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: καὶ πολλῶν ψευδομαρτύρων προσελθόν των, οὐχ εῦ̔ρον, but Griesbach and the critical editors omit καί before πολλῶν, and οὐχ εῦ̔ρον, 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 καί, retains οὐχ εῦ̔ρον 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 οῦ̔τον, 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 ἐσιώπα expresses, while to hold one’s 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 ἀποκριθείς, 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 ἔνοχος θανάτου 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 ἐῤ ῥάπισαν, which means to strike with a stick as well as with the hand. Hesychius derives ῥαπίζειν from ῥάβδος. 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 οἱ δέ, and others, introduces a new kind of abuse differing from buffeting, and since Mark (14:65) ascribes the ῥαπίζειν to the servants. But the word is better left indefinite. Older English Versions add: on the face. So Lange: schlugen ihm in’s Angesicht. See Exeg. Notes.—P. S.]

[99]The entrance to this enclosed area, or court-yard, was through the porch, πυλών, Mat_26:71, or προαύλιον, 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.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 26:57-68.

Jesus Sentenced By The Sanhedrin

This is found also in Mar 14:53-66 Luk 22:54, Luk 22:63-65 Joh 18:12-14, Joh 18:19-24.

The trial of our Lord may be divided into two main parts, the Jewish and the Roman trial. Each of these must be subdivided. (1) The Jewish trial comprises (a) The examination before Annas, Joh 18:12-14, Joh 18:19-23; (b) The sentence by an informal session of the Sanhedrin, Mat 26:57-68 Mar 14:53-65; (c) The formal trial before the Sanhedrin, which sends him to Pilate for sentence, Mat 27:1 f.; Luk 22:66-71. (2) The Roman trial includes (a) The first examination before Pilate, Mat 27:11-14 Joh 18:28-38; (b) The reference to Herod, Luk 23:6-12; (c) The, final appearance before Pilate, Mat 27:15-31 Joh 18:39 to Joh 19:16. It is noticeable that John gives a good deal as to the Roman trial that is not found in the other Gospels, particularly as to Pilate’s private inquiries. Mark continues to resemble Matt. Luke has some matter not found in the others.

Our present section contains the trial before an informal session of the Sanhedrim It may be divided into Mat 26:57 f., 59-63a; 63b-66; 67 f.

I. Mat 26:57 f. Jesus Is Brought Before Caiaphas And The Scribes And Elders. Peter Follows And Looks On

(Mar 14:53 f.; Luk 22:54 Joh 18:15, Joh 18:24)

They that had laid hold on Jesus, at Gethsemane. Led him away to Caiaphas, the high priest. The appended ’where’ implies that this means to the house of Caiaphas, and that is distinctly stated in Luke. Caiaphas was the son-in-law of Annas, Ananus, or Hanan, who had long before been high priest himself, and among the numerous changes of the time, was succeeded by five sons and this son-in-law (Josephus, "Ant.," 18, 2, l f.; 20, 9, 1.) The family were all Sadducees (Josephus, Talmud), and were specially odious to the Pharisees, the "house of Annas" becoming a by-word (Talmud). Joseph Caiaphas was deposed shortly after Pilate lost the procuratorship, A. D. 36 ("Ant.," 18, 4, 2 f.) The time when he was made high priest depends on an obscure statement of Josephus. ("Ant.," 18, 2, 2.) His expressions leave hardly more than four years between Annas and Caiaphas. Either Annas officiated about A. D. 7-21, and then Caiaphas A. D. 25-36, or Annas A. D. 7-14, and then Caiaphas A. D. 18-36. The son Eleazar came between Annas and Caiaphas; Jonathan and Theophilus (Keim) A. D. 36 f.; Matthias. A. D. 42 f.; Annas, junior ("Ant.," 20, 9, 1) A. D. 63. This makes the last a different person from the high priest Ananias of Act 23:2, Act 24:1, A. D. 58. The character of Caiaphas appears from Joh 11:49-52, and from the trial of Jesus, to have been shrewd, self-seeking, and unscrupulous. Where the scribes and the elders were assembled. Mark mentions also (Mar 14:53) ’all the chief priests,’ and these are expressly mentioned just after by Matthew, Mat 26:59. These were the three classes composing the Sanhedrin (see on "Mat 26:59".) Instead of ’were assembled’ (Com. Ver.), it is better to translate were gathered together, for the former would indicate a formal session of the Sanhedrin, while the Greek term is neutral on that point. Mark’s phrase is simply ’there come together with him,’ and the fact seems to be that this was an informal gathering before dawn, whereas, a formal session could not be held till ’morning was come.’ (Mat 27:1)

It was apparently while the dignitaries were gathering at that unseasonable hour, that Jesus was first questioned by Annas. (Joh 18:12-14) Annas and Caiaphas were both regarded as high priests, (Luk 3:2) the former still in popular estimation holding the office as long as he lived, while the latter only was recognized by the Romans. So in 1Ki 4:4, Zadok and Abiathar are mentioned as priests, it having been stated in 1Ki 2:35 that the king put Zadok in the room of Abiathar. An action would be valid in the eyes of both the people and the Romans if known to have the approval of both Caiaphas and Annas. This was easier from the fact that Caiaphas was son-in-law to Annas; and the supposition (Euthym. and various recent writers) that Annas at this time lived with Caiaphas in the high priest’s official residence, each having his own reception room, will account for all the statements in the several Gospels. It is also a plausible conjecture (Wieseler, Ewald), that Annas may have been at this period president (Nasi) of the Sanhedrim John distinctly states that they "led him to Annas first; for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, who was high priest that year." (Rev. Ver.) Then after mentioning some things about Caiaphas and about Peter, John states that the "high priest" questioned Jesus "of his disciples, and of his teachings" (Rev. Ver.); but the Saviour declined a response, saying that he had taught publicly, and those who had heard him could be asked. Then John adds (correct text, Rev. Ver.), "Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest." This seems to leave no doubt that the high priest who first vainly interrogated Jesus was Annas. Many of the ablest recent writers have taken this view, while not a few still think otherwise.[1] Thus understood, this was not a trial, but a mere personal interrogation by an aged ex-high priest. John gives no account of the trial before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, that having been fully described by the earlier Gospels. Indeed, it may be (Weiss, "Life") that John mentions this preliminary examination only because of its connection with the first of Peter’s denials.

[1] Vedder ("Bibl. Sac.," Oct. 1882), calls it a "clumsy and improbable hypothesis," and says, "There is some thing ludicrous in the statement, ’Now Annas sent him away bound to Caiaphas,’ if the sending away consisted in a removal from one apartment to another in the same house." But he has laid an unwarranted stress upon the apo, failing to notice that stello is not used in New Testament (except twice in the middle voice), and apostello is frequently employed where there is no distinctive notion of sending away. Moreover, sending from one audience room to another, across a large court, was not a trifling removal.

But Peter followed him afar off, viz., followed him from Gethsemane (compare on Mat 26:56). Really attached to the Master, and still self-confident, he was yet alarmed by the probable consequences of his smiting the high priest’s servant, and so he took a middle course; John went along with the party who conducted Jesus; the other disciples fled; Peter followed at a distance. Alexander: "However unexpected the fact here recorded, there is probably no reader who, as soon as it is stated, does not feel it to be perfectly in keeping with what he knows already of the character of Peter, who would scarcely seem to be himself if he continued in concealment, and whose re-appearance on the scene, and subsequent performance there, exhibit just the strength and weakness which together constitute the native temper of this great apostle. "Unto the high priest’s palace, see on "Mat 26:3". The building was doubtless four-square, surrounding an open court. Upon this court opened the rooms, one of which formed the audience room of the high priest, and probably another that of Annas. John gives the further details that Peter reached the house only after the procession had all entered and the gate was closed; and that he (John), being "known unto the high priest,"... went out "and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter." And sat with the servants, or officers. Tyndale, etc., ’servants,’ Greek huperetes, see on "Mat 8:6". John adds (Joh 18:8) that "the servants (douloi) and the officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold." At the time of the passover it is quite hot in Jerusalem at mid-day, but frequently grows cold towards morning. As to the fact that Matt. says ’sat,’ and John ’standing,’ it is easy to meet so trifling a difficulty by remembering that they would be likely to change posture. To see the end, He was anxious as to the matter, and determined to see it through, but not humble, watchful, and prayerful, (Mat 26:40 f.) or he would not have become involved in such difficulty. The further account of Peter see below in Mat 26:69-75. Bengel: "Here mid-way between courage (Mat 26:51) and cowardice. (Mat 26:70.)"

II. Mat 26:59-63 a. Vain Attempts To Convict Jesus By False Witness

Mar 14:55-59.

Luke does not mention this informal gathering of the Sanhedrin, but only the formal session "as soon as it was day." (Luk 22:66; compare Mat 27:1) Many expositors identify the two meetings; but the supposition of a previous informal meeting is natural in itself, as many of the rulers would be anxiously awaiting the result of Judas’ expedition, and this supposition accounts for all the phenomena of the narrative; accordingly it is adopted by Wieseler, Alford, Godet, Keim, and various other recent writers. Edersh. insists that neither of these was a regular session of the Sanhedrin, and there was no formal condemnation of Jesus by that body; but his line of argument is far from convincing. Geikie adopts the same view from the Jewish writer Jost. Chief priests, and elders, and all the council or Sanhedrin. The phrase suggests that the chief priests formed a part of the Sanhedrin, and that this was a full meeting. While no exception is here mentioned, we know from Luke (Luk 23:50 f., R.V.) that Joseph of Arimathea "had not consented to their counsel and deed," and we infer the same as to Nicodemus from the accounts in John. It would not be an improbable supposition that the rulers had avoided informing Nicodemus of this meeting. (compare Joh 7:50-52) A quorum of the Sanhedrin was twenty three (Lf.), but this was "all the Sanhedrin," a very full meeting.

The Sanhedrin was in the time of our Lord the highest court of the Jews. Our knowledge of its constitution and functions is but fragmentary. It arose during the Greek or the Maceabaean period. The very name is a mere Hebrew spelling of the Greek sunedrion (’sitting together’), the h of hedra, lost in the Greek compound, being restored in the transliteration, as has frequently happened. The Mishna supposes that the Sanhedrin was a survival of the council of seventy formed by Moses, (Num 11:16) and infers that it also must have contained seventy members, or adding one for Moses, then seventy-one. It is probable that this was the number, but we cannot certainly determine. The constitution of the body is not described by the Talmud, but the New Testament shows (Mat 27:1 Mar 15:1 Luk 22:66) that it consisted of chief priests, elders, and scribes, though we know not in what proportions, nor what sort of elders were included. As to the chief priests and the scribes, see on "Mat 2:4". The chief priests are usually mentioned first, and would naturally be the ruling section of the body. They were for the most part Sadducees, while the scribes were probably all Pharisees. The presidency of the body seems to have been elective, but the high priest was commonly the person elected. The Sanhedrin tried (Schürer) all the more important secular and religious, civil and criminal causes, the less important being tried by inferior local tribunals. It seems highly probable, though not certain (see the difficulties well stated by Vedder, p. 666 ff.), that the Sanhedrin’s death-sentence could at this period be executed only by the procurator’s permission. In Joh 13:31, the Jews say to Pilate, "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." Some argue that the Romans had taken away this power when Judea first became a province, as they are known to have done in some other provinces. The Jerus. Talmud says (Sanh. i, 1; vii, 2), "Forty years before the destruction of the temple, judgments upon life and death were taken away from Israel." This date is probably given (Schürer) in a round number, as was natural three hundred years later. The crucifixion was probably in the forty-first year before the destruction of the temple. The stoning of Stephen was a tumultuary proceeding, and probably occurred at a time when there was no procurator. The regular place of meeting of the Sanhedrin was at a hall either in or near the temple area (Josephus and the Mishna differ). It is stated in the Talmud that forty years before the destruction of the temple the Sanhedrin ceased to meet in its hall, and met in shops; these may have been in the outer court of the temple, which the Saviour more than once cleansed. At any rate, a special meeting at the high priest’s residence would not be surprising in such an emergency as the trial of Jesus, when in various ways they were departing from custom. Moreover, it may have been only the informal meeting that was held at the high priest’s house; the formal session of Mat 27:1, may have been at their hall—notice especially ’led him away’ in Luk 22:66 (Rev. Ver., correct text).

Sought false witness, imperfect tense, describing them as engaged in seeking. To, or, that they might, put him to death. They must have sufficient evidence for sentencing him to death, in order that they might gain the Roman governor’s authority to execute the sentence. Though many false witnesses came.[1] This was easy to bring about through the continued exertions of influential men, compare Act 6:11; in fact, they had no doubt been for some time hunting up witnesses. (Mat 26:4 f.) Anywhere in Asia, not to speak of other countries, there are hangers on about the courts ready to sell testimony. Mark explains (Mar 14:56) that ’their witness agreed not together.’ The Sanhedrin could not afford to disregard the ordinary forms of judicial procedure. Their proceedings could not be permanently kept secret. The law expressly forbade the death penalty upon the testimony of a single witness. (Num 35:30 Deu 17:6) Here there were many witnesses, each making a separate accusation, but not two to the same count. It is vain to conjecture what were the various and conflicting false testimonies. At the last (afterward) came two. The Com. text adds ’false witnesses,’ from the preceding verse. We might suppose that these two agreed in their testimony; but Mark (Mar 14:59, Rev. Ver.) says, "and not even so did their witness agree together," probably meaning that it did not so agree concerning the circumstances and terms of the alleged statement as to be credible. The Mishna, treatise ’Sanhedrin,’ gives detailed directions concerning witnesses, one of which is ("Sanh.," V., 1) that each witness must be asked seven questions as to the alleged offence, viz:, in what period of seven years (counting from the Sabbatical year) it occurred, in what year of the period, in what month, day of the month, day of the week, hour of the day, and at what place; and the limits are indicated within which two witnesses may differ upon one or another question, without invalidating their testimony. (Compare Wünsche, or "The Criminal Code of the Jews," London, 1880.) Observe that in Mark (Mar 14:58) the witnesses declare, "We heard him say," etc., with emphasis on "we"; and so they could be required to give time and place. We of course do not know how far these strict rules were actually observed two centuries before the Mishna was written down. But while the Sanhedrin was bent on conviction, it would for that reason be all the more careful to observe customary forms. Notice that there seems to have been no call for evidence in Jesus’ defence, though he had intimated to Annas (Joh 18:20 f.) that such evidence might he easily found. The medieval Jewish fables tried to remove this obvious injustice by declaring that heralds made proclamation for forty days, and no witness appeared in Jesus’ behalf. It is hardly necessary to say that Jewish writers do not now claim any respect for these fables, though some of them try to soften the guilt of the Sanhedrin. This fellow (rather, man) said. The Greek for ’this’ does not in itself carry such contempt as Tyndale, etc., expressed by ’fellow.’ I am able to destroy. Mark has ’I will destroy,’ substantially equivalent; and so as to the other slight differences between Matt. and Mark. ’Destroy’ is literally, ’pull down,’ same word as in Mat 5:17. The temple, is here naon, the central house, see on "Mat 4:5". In three days, or, more correctly, after three days, literally, ’with an interval of three days,’[2] as in Act 24:17 Gal 2:1. This alleged statement was evidently a perversion of what Jesus had said at the first passover of his ministry, (Joh 2:19) "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." He did not even suggest the idea of himself destroying the temple, which the Jews would naturally call impious; and we know, as the Sanhedrin might have learned from him if they had desired, that he meant the expression in a merely figurative sense. But we find the same conception still cherished among the Jews in Act 6:14. It might be (Edersheim) a good pretext to use with Pilate, that Jesus would encourage popular violence against public and sacred buildings. The Egyptian of Act 21:38 promised his followers that from the Mount of Olives they would see the walls of Jerusalem fall at his command, and could march in. But this could hardly be seriously treated as a ground for sentence of death; so the high priest eagerly urges Jesus to answer the accusation, hoping that thus he will somehow criminate himself. This eagerness is indicated by the fact that he arose, or stood up, Mark likewise, and also by the second question, what is it, etc., by which he seeks to arouse the accused into attention and response. It is much more natural to understand the Greek as two questions than as one. But Jesus held his peace, literally, was silent, compare Isa 53:7. He knew that no explanation or self-defence would be heeded, that his condemnation and sentence was a foregone conclusion; compare on Mat 27:14. He was fully prepared for the foreseen result, (Mat 26:42) and now awaited it in calm silence. Origen remarks that the utter failure, notwithstanding diligent effort, to find anything against Jesus, shows that his life was most pure and wholly irreprehensible.

[1] The common text here presents an interesting example of a "conflate reading." True text, ’and they found it not, though many false witnesses came.’ Rev. Ver., some documents, ’and though many false witnesses came they found it not.’ Conflate text,’ and they found it not, and though many false witnesses came they found it not.’ Any body can see that the last was formed by combining the other two; and there are many such readings in the Common Greek text (compare Westcott Hort, Int. sec. 132 ff.).

[2] Meyer and many are here misled by taking dia in the sense of ’through,’ and overlooking its primary sense of ’between,’ from which one derivative sense was that of interval. In Mat 27:40 and Joh 2:19 the phrase employed literally means ’In three days.’

III. Mat 26:63-66. Jesus Is Condemned Upon His Own Testimony

Mar 14:60-64. Luke, who gives no account of the informal meeting, presently introduces much the same matter into his account of the formal session held "as soon as it was day." (Luk 22:66-71) It is very improbable that this was all repeated in the formal session (Clark’s "Harmony"), and very easy to understand that Luke has thrown all the examination together, while some portions of it would very likely be repeated. The only matter of great practical importance was that Jesus was condemned by the Sanhedrin, and upon his own confession.—Finding that the false testimony does not suffice for a conviction, and that the accused will not discuss it, the high priest essays a bold stroke. He demands a categorical answer, upon oath, to the question whether Jesus is the Messiah. And the high priest answered and said unto him. The Com. text seems to be here right in its reading.[1] The ’answered’ means responded to the situation presented by the persistent silence of Jesus (compare on Mat 11:25). I adjure thee, means exactly ’I put thee on oath.’ See the same Greek term in Gen 24:3, ’I will make thee swear by the Lord,’ and compare Lev 5:1 (Rev. Ver.), where it is declared to he a sin if one who has witnessed a matter "heareth the voice of adjuration" and does not tell what he knows. Compare also 1Ki 22:16. The high priest used the most solemn form of oath, by the living God. If one answered after such an adjuration, he answered on oath; the mere ceremony of putting on oath is conventional, as in some parts of our country men take an oath by pointing to heaven, in other parts by kissing the Bible. So then Jesus spoke on oath before a court of justice, which shows conclusively that he did not mean to condemn all such oaths when he said, "Swear not at all" (see on "Mat 5:34"); that he spoke of oaths familiarly used in conversation. That thou tell us, The peculiar Greek construction is explained on Mat 5:29. Whether thou be the Christ, the Messiah, see on "Mat 2:4". Here (Mark and Luke also) K. James rightly inserted the article, though Tyn., Cram, Gem, had simply ’Christ,’ as K.J. has in many other places. Luke here gives only ’the Christ’; Mark adds ’the Son of the Blessed’; Matt., the Son of God. It is evident from Joh 19:7 that ’the Son of God’ was understood to mean the Messiah, and that claiming to be the Son of God was considered blasphemy. But it does not follow that the Jews used or understood the phrase as denoting divinity, since they spoke of blasphemy quite loosely (see on "Mat 26:65"), and there is no indication in the Jewish books that the Messiah was expected to be divine.—According to our ideas and legal usages, very different from those prevailing in many other countries, it is unjust to cap on an accused person to give testimony against himself; and so it is often said that the high priest dealt unjustly in calling on Jesus to testify. The law of Moses provided that in some cases of uncertainty the accused should take an oath upon the matter; see Exo 22:10 f.; Num 5:19 ff.; 1Ki 8:31 f. Thus the high priest’s course was not formally illegal, though in spirit and intent it was unjust. It is of late coming to be provided in our laws that an accused person may testify in his own behalf, but cannot be required to criminate himself.

[1] Answered’ is omitted by à B L, Memph., Origen, Cyril, and various documents, but it may well be an "Alexandrian" alteration due to the apparent incongruity of answering one who was silent.

64. Jesus knew that the question was designed to secure a ground of conviction. But he was no longer silent. Now that the crisis had arrived, that his ’hour’ was come, he would not decline to say distinctly, before the highest Jewish tribunal, that he was the Messiah. He had long urged the disciples to "tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ," or the Messiah (see on "Mat 16:20"), because the crisis must not be precipitated before his work of teaching and healing in every district of the Holy Land was completed. Only a few days before the end he had quietly avoided saying to the rulers that he was the Messiah, while allowing the people to think so (see on "Mat 21:15 f."). But he will not pass to his death as "despised and rejected" without having borne distinct public testimony that he is the Messiah. Thou hast said, viz., hast said what is true, a formula of affirmative answer found also in the Talmud (compare above on Mat 21:4 f.). In Mark it is directly ’I am.’ In Luke (Luk 22:67 f.) the answer is preceded by a censure of their unbelief and unfairness. Nevertheless, Although they now scorn his claim to be the Messiah, and reject all the evidence in his teachings and his works, yet they will henceforth see his Messiahship indubitably manifested. Hereafter, henceforth is the real meaning. So Luk 22:69, the Greek in both cases being literally ’from now.’ The word refers to something that would be true onward from the time of speaking. The Saviour’s death, resurrection, and ascension, the miracles wrought by his apostles and other gifts of the Spirit, the spread of the gospel and its beneficial effects, would go on manifesting him to be the Messiah, sitting on the right hand of power; and finally they would behold his second coming in, on, the clouds of heaven. For the phrase, ’the Son of man,’ see on "Mat 8:20". This expression would remind the rulers of Dan 7:13. By this title Jesus had long virtually claimed to be the Messiah, though not distinctly asserting it in public. ’Power’ (so Mark and Luke) is the abstract for the concrete (Meyer); Talmud and Midrash (Gill, Wün.) sometimes use the term ’power’ to denote God, as "The Ten Commandments came from the mouth of power." In Mat 22:42-45 Jesus had spoken of sitting on the right hand of God as a definitely Messianic phrase, and derived from Psalms 110. As to ’coming on the clouds of heaven,’ compare on Mat 24:30; that was said to the disciples in private; this to the Sanhedrin.

Mat 26:65 f. The high priest has accomplished his object and proceeds to make much of the confession. Rent his clothes, the usual expression of grief, horror, (Act 14:14) or other violent and uncontrollable emotion. The custom, which existed also among the early Greeks and Romans, doubtless originated (Bengel) in the fact that excited emotions often cause one’s garments to seem confining. ’Rent’ is a compound verb, thoroughly rent to pieces; compare 2Ki 18:37, 2Ki 19:1. Mark has the more specific term which denotes the under-garments, of which several were sometimes worn; see on "Mat 5:40". The Talmud directs (Lightfoot) that when the judges in a case of blasphemy rend their garments, they must not be sewed up again. Maimonides shows that at least in his time even this expression of uncontrollable emotion was formulated by custom; a man rent all garments except the innermost and outermost; and rent from the front of the neck downwards to the length of a hand. The high priest was forbidden in the law (Lev 10:16, Lev 21:10) to rend his clothes; bait this was in mourning for the dead, because such mourning unfitted him for the performance of official duties, and it was not understood as prohibiting the practice on other occasions; see examples in 1Ma 11:71; Josephus "War," 2, 15, 4. He hath spoken blasphemy. It is not entirely clear, but seems probable, that the high priest here understood the phrase ’the Son of God’ as claiming divinity; compare Luk 22:70. At any rate Jesus had distinctly claimed it in the added words about sitting at the right hand of power, etc. In Joh 5:18, R.V., he was accused of "making himself equal with God," because he "said God was his Father," and in Joh 10:30, for saying "I and my Father are one,"the Jews sought to stone him," because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." It is very hard to determine how much the Jews really meant by these charges, as accusatory expressions are apt to be stronger than would be used in calm declaration. Nor is the question important to us, since the Saviour left no doubt as to the meaning of his answer, and the New Testament as a whole teaches that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the highest and fullest sense. And certainly, if Jesus had only been a human teacher, he would surely now have explained himself to that effect. What think ye? This was the regular Greek phrase for putting any question to the vote. They answered and said. They took no. formal vote, but decided by acclamation. He is guilty of death, or liable to death (Rev. Ver. margin), as in Mat 5:21 f., ’in danger of.’ So Tyn., Cran., Gen, ’worthy to die’; K. James followed Wyc. and Rheims, ’guilty of death,’ compare Num 35:31. The same term is here used in Mark. Death was the legal punishment of blasphemy. (Lev 24:16) The Mishna requires ("Sanh." v, 5) that where Numbers vote would condemn to death, the matter must be postponed to the next day, when after the night’s reflection any of those who voted to condemn may change, but not contrariwise. If this rule existed in the traditional law at the time of our Lord, we can image the Sanhedrin evading it by construing that they had virtually voted to condemn Jesus some time before, (Joh 11:47-53) or that the meeting after dawn (Mat 27:1) was virtually another session, with a portion of night for reflection—which would have been a device quite after their fashion. It is, however, probable, as Edersheim and Schürer remark, that these were largely ideal regulations, expressing what the Rabbis thought ought to be done, and by no means strictly followed.

IV. Mat 26:67 f, Jesus Spit Upon, Buffeted, And Mocked

Mar 14:65 Luk 22:63-65. Observe that while Luke has transferred the examination and condemnation to the regular session after dawn, he puts this outrage and mocking first, in the same order as Matt. and Mark. Then did they spit in his face. This would most naturally mean the members of the Sanhedrin, mentioned in the preceding sentence, but might mean (compare Mat 27:2) the subordinate officials who had Jesus in custody, and so Luke has it, (Luk 22:63) "the men that held Jesus." Mark’s statement (Mar 14:65, Rev. Ver.) "some began to spit on him... the officers received him with blows of their hands," explains that some members of the Sanhedrin joined the subordinates in these outrages. (Compare Act 7:57, Act 23:2) They would be encouraged (Keim) by finding that they could with impunity smite him whose reported miracles had often made them tremble. Buffeted him, smote him with the fist. So Tyn., Cram, ’buffeted hym wyth fistes.’ Smote him with the palms of their hands, as in Mat 5:39, and so Latin Versions, Memph., and Gothic; or perhaps (Rev. Ver. margin),’ smote him with rods,’ as Geneva. The same two terms occur in Mar 14:65. Luke says (Luk 22:63 B. U. Ver.) they "mocked him, beating him." Prophesy, meaning, speak by divine inspiration, not necessarily, nor even most commonly in Scripture, involving a prediction. Here, with his face covered (Luke and Mark), he would need superhuman knowledge to tell who smote him, and such knowledge the Messiah might be expected to have. Matt. alone gives the taunting address, thou Christ, or simply ’Christ.’ Luke adds, Rev. Ver., "And many other things spake they against him, reviling him." Here the Jews mock Jesus as a pretended prophet; in Mat 27:27 if., the Romans will mock him as a pretended king. Amid all these insults of word and deed he was still silent. Compare 1Pe 2:23.

Homiletical And Practical

Mat 26:58. Jerome: "Following afar, on the road to denial." Bengel: "Sat with the officers, inopportune good-fellowship."—’to see the end.’ Henry: "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."

Mat 26:59. Jesus condemned, but righteous. After the failure of false witnesses, he could be condemned only through his confession of what should have been a reason for reverencing him. The traitor confessed him to be righteous. (Mat 27:4) Pilate found no fault in him. (Luk 23:14) The centurion at the cross declared him righteous. (Luk 23:47) The day is coming when every tongue will confess that he is Lord. (Php 2:11)

Mat 26:61. Bengel: "By no great change of words is often made a great calumny."

Mat 26:63. Origen: "We learn from this passage to despise the utterances of calumniating and false witnesses, not holding them worthy of reply or of resistance, when by their contradictions they resist each other. It is a greater thing to maintain a brave and self-respecting silence, than to defend oneself to no purpose."

Mat 26:64. Henry: "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."

Mat 26:66. Hall: "O Saviour, this is not the last time wherein thou hast received cruel dooms from them that profess learning and holiness. What wonder is it, if thy weak members suffer that which was endured by so perfect a head."

John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (American Baptist Publication Society, 1886) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.’

Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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")

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 Peter’s 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 Man’s 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. Peter’s 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 Peter’s 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 Peter’s 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.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

26:57–27:26 The Gospels record Jesus as undergoing five hearings: (1) an informal hearing before Annas (John 18:13-24); (2) a night hearing before the Sanhedrin (Matt 26:59-66); (3) a morning hearing before the Sanhedrin (27:1-2); (4) a hearing before Herod Antipas (Luke 23:6-12); and (5) a two-stage trial before Pilate (Matt 27:11-31; see Luke 23:6-12). It all amounts to two trials, a Jewish trial and a Roman trial.

26:57-68 This hearing might have been little more than an unofficial preliminary hearing designed to establish consensus on the terms of the charges. The Jewish leaders were under considerable pressure to keep this incident secret, lest their actions cause a riot (see 21:26, 46; 26:5, 55; John 11:45-53).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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, ἀπέστειλεν is not to be taken as a pluperfect.

ἀπὸ μακρόθεν] a well-known pleonasm: in later Greek the ἀπό is dropped. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 93. Bengel appropriately observes: medius inter animositatem Mat_26:51 et timorem Mat_26:70.

τῆς αὐλῆς] not the palace but the court, as in Mat_26:3.

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

τὸ τέλος] exitum rei; 3Ma_3:14, common in classical writers. Luther renders admirably: wo es hinaus wollte (what the upshot would be).

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 26:57-68 . Before Caiaphas (Mar 14:53-65 ; Luk 22:54 ; Luk 22:66-71 ). πρὸς Καιάφαν , to Caiaphas, who sent them forth, and who expects their return with their victim. ὄπου , where, i.e. , in the palace of Caiaphas. γρ . καὶ πρ .: scribes and presbyters, priests and presbyters in Mat 26:3 . Mk. names all the three; doubtless true to the fact. συνήχθησαν , 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.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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. Jesus was first taken to the house of 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. Possibly ‘the high priest’ (Joh 18:19) was Caiaphas, but the expression ‘therefore Annas sent him bound unto Caiaphas’ (Mat 26:24) makes this improbable.

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; 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.

57. ἀπήγαγον. ἀπάγειν is used technically of carrying off to prison. Cp. Act 12:19, ἐκέλευσεν ἀπαχθῆναι, ‘to be led off to execution.’

συνήχθησαν. St Mark describes the members of the Sanhedrin entering with Jesus (συνέρχονται αὐτῷ) to this pre-arranged irregular meeting.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Christ being innocent is condemned of the high Priest for that wickedness whereof we are guilty.

From Annas to Caiaphas, before whom the multitude was assembled, John 18:13.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(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 Lord’s 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 one—probably a packed meeting of those who were parties to the plot, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathæa, 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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But Peter followed him afar off,.... The Ethiopic version adds, alone; and which seems to be the true case; for though there was another disciple who also followed Jesus, and is thought to be John, yet it looks as if they followed him separately, and not together; for the other disciple went into the palace with Jesus, but Peter not till afterwards, being espied by his fellow disciple standing without. These two it seems, having a little recovered themselves from the fright they had been put into, stopped and turned back, and followed after Jesus, to see what would be the issue of things. Peter's following Christ, showed love to him; he was lothe to leave him, his bowels moved towards him, and he wanted to know how it would fare with him, and what would become of him; and yet keeping at a distance, following him afar off, betrayed fear, lest he should be observed, and taken up, and come into danger: however, he proceeded on his way in a slow pace, till he came

into the high priest's palace, and went in and sat with the servants, to see the end; of the matter, or business, as the Ethiopic and Persic versions add; to see how it would go with him, whether he would exert his divine power, and deliver himself out of their, hands, which he knew he was able to do, when he would again join him; or what punishment they would inflict upon him, whether they would scourge him, and then let him go; or whether they would sentence him to death; that so he might know how to provide for his own safety: all which was indulging curiosity, and the carnal reasonings of his mind; and it showed want of integrity at that time, and some degree of hypocrisy, in placing himself among the servants of the high priest, as if he was none of the followers of Jesus, but was of the same complexion and cast with them: he had got into bad company, and was in the way of temptation; and though he had no design in following Jesus, and in going into the high priest's palace, and seating himself among the servants to deny his Lord, yet all this led on to it; for which reason these several circumstances are taken notice of, the account of which denial of his, is afterwards related.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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"}

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

To Caiphas. Our Saviour Christ was led in the night time, both to Annas and Caiphas: and first to Annas; (John xviii. 13,) perhaps because the house of Annas was in their way; or that they had a mind to gratify the old man with the sight of Jesus, now taken prisoner and bound with ropes. (Witham) --- After the chief priests had bribed Judas to betray Christ, they bring him to Caiphas, not as to this judge, but as to his enemy, to insult over him: and then they began to examine him concerning his doctrine and disciples, that they might find some heads of accusation from his answers: thus they shewed that they acted contrary to common justice, in apprehending a person before they had any thing to lay to his charge. (Jansenius) --- Josephus relates that Caiphas had purchased the high priesthood for that year; although Moses, at the command of God, had ordained that a regular succession be kept up, and the son should succeed the father in the high priesthood. It is no wonder then if an iniquitous judge passed an iniquitous sentence. (St. Jerome)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

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 priest’s 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 Annas’s 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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vers. 57-68. Jesus before Caiaphas, informally condemned to death. (Mar_14:53-65 Luk_22:54, 63-65 Joh_18:24)

Led him away to Caiaphas. The synoptists omit all mention of the preliminary inquiry before Annas. (Joh_18:13, Joh_18:19-24) His palace was nearest to the place of capture, and the soldiers appear to have received orders to conduct the Prisoner thither, Annas having vast influence with the Romans, and being the principal mover in the matter. What passed before him is not recorded, none of the disciples being present at the examination. The synoptists take up the account when Jesus was sent bound to Caiaphas, who St. John (Joh_18:14) notes was the one who for political reasons had urged the judicial murder of Jesus. Where (i.e. in whose house) the scribes and the elders were assembled. This seems to have been an informal meeting of the leading Sanhedrists, hastily convened, not in their usual place of meeting, but in a chamber of Caiaphas"s palace. Some years before this time the right of pronouncing capital sentences had been removed from the council; and hence the necessity of assembling in the hall Gazith (where only such sentences could be delivered) existed no longer.

Vers. 57-75. The palace of Caiaphas.

I THE PRELIMINARY TRIAL.

1. The meeting of the Sanhedrin. St. John tells us that our Lord was led first before Annas, for a hasty informal examination. Perhaps it was thought that the astute Annas, with that snake-like cunning which was attributed to him, might elicit something which might tell against the Prisoner. But the craft of the old high priest and the brutality of his officers were alike unavailing; and the Lord was sent to Caiaphas. The Sanhedrin had assembled at his house. In their haste and malice they violated the rules of their court. They met in the night; they assigned no counsel to the Prisoner; they called no witnesses in his favour; they passed judgment of death at once.

2. The witnesses. In their intense wickedness they deliberately sought false witness to destroy the Innocent; they could not find it. Even the perversion of the Lord"s words, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," could not be sustained. "Neither so," says St. Mark, "did their witness agree together." The Lord preserved a calm and holy silence amid this falsehood and calumny. We flash into indignation when we are unjustly accused. Let us learn meekness of our Lord.

II THE INTERVENTION OF CAIAPHAS.

1. His questions. He started up in fierce excitement. He urged the Lord to speak. And when Christ still answered nothing, he put him upon his oath, and addressed to him directly the awful question, "Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" It was a flagrant violation of all the rules of judicial procedure. The judge constitutes himself the accuser; he tries to force the Accused to acknowledge the charge. He had, at a previous meeting of the Sanhedrin, (Joh_11:49-52) maintained the necessity of putting Jesus to death. Did he think that Jesus was indeed the Christ; and, thinking this, did he seek to slay him? Was his guilt like the guilt of Herod, who sought to destroy the young Child that was born King of the Jews? Certainly Caiaphas had "prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation." But probably that prophecy was unconscious; probably he did not understand the full meaning of his words. If he understood it, his guilt would be too awful to contemplate; it would be beyond the limits of human guilt; it would be hellish, Satanic.

2. The Lord"s answer. When he was adjured by the living God, put upon his oath solemnly by the high priest, the Lord kept silence no longer. "Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said;" or, in the equivalent words of St. Mark, "Jesus said, I am." Standing bound before his judge, knowing that he was pronouncing his own death warrant, he asserted in simple majesty the tremendous truth. He was the Son of God. Caiaphas should one day know it in that day when "he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him." Caiaphas should see him then, the Son of God, but manifested as the Son of man, (for it is as the Son of man that he shall execute judgment, Mat_25:31Jo Mat_5:27 Dan_7:13) "sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

3. The condemnation. Caiaphas had gained his point now. He rent his clothes (an action forbidden to the high priest, Lev_21:10) in affectation of horror. There was no further need of witnesses, he said; for the Sanhedria had heard the awful words awful words, which he called blasphemy; which we know were the truth of God. Caiaphas at once put the question to the council; and at once, without hesitation, and, it appears from St. Mark, unanimously, they condemned him to be guilty of death. He was condemned to death who is the Lord of life the Life of the world. He was condemned who is the All-holy One, who knew no sin. He was judged who is the Judge of all; before whose judgment seat quick and dead must one day stand; who shall say to some, "Come, ye blessed;" and, alas! to others, "Depart from me.

4. The mocking. They spat on his face; they buffeted him; they derided his sacred office; they bade him prophesy; they called him "Christ" in bitter mockery. Fearful guilt, horrible brutality, Satanic cruelty. We shudder as we read the words; we feel shame for our fellow creatures, for our common human nature. They covered that face which is the light of the world; they spat upon him whom all the angels of God worship; they buffeted him who had gone about doing good; they scoffed at him whose holy soul was filled with sacred. love, who had come down from heaven for them, who was ready to die for them that they might live. What a contrast! their rough, savage brutality, and his sweet, heavenly dignity; their violence, and his meekness; their noisy clamour, and his calm holy silence. May we learn of him the lesson which he taught, "Blessed are the meek"!

III THE DENIALS OF ST. PETER.

1. The first denial. He had followed afar off when the disciples fled. He had been vehement, as usual, in his protestations of fidelity and steadfastness. For a time he had stood true to his words; he only had attempted resistance; he only had drawn the sword, and struck a bold blow in defence of his Lord. It was a daring action. Resistance was evidently useless. The Lord interfered; he saved his apostle from the consequences of his rashness. But he yielded himself to his enemies. And then at once St. Peter"s courage failed him. He shared the panic fear of the disciples; he fled like the rest. But he soon turned from his flight. He deeply loved the Lord, and he was full of anxiety for him; he followed afar off. St. John, it seems, was able to procure his admission into the hall of the high priest"s palace. He sat there with the servants, warming himself at the fire (small details like this give a human interest to the narrative, and evince its simple truthfulness), anxious to see the end. He had thrown himself into danger, as he had done once before on the Sea of Galilee; and again the event proved that he had miscalculated his courage, his endurance. A damsel came to him, saying, "Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee." It was not a soldier, only a damsel; and she seems to have addressed him out of curiosity. He was in no more danger than St. John, whom, it seems, the damsel knew as a disciple of Jesus. But at once he lost courage. He denied before them all, saying, "I know not what thou sayest." His first words, as reported by St. Matthew and St. Mark, are not a direct falsehood. He begins by equivocating, shuffling, pretending not to understand words which were plain to any one. His fall shows us how dangerous it is to tamper with the truth; an evasion soon leads to falsehood, to a wicked oath; it shows us the need of watchfulness and prayer, the danger of self-confidence. It is a sad picture of vacillation, cowardice, falsehood. Very strange too it would be, were it not that we find the like instability in our own weak, wavering, sinful hearts. It was sad for Peter that he overestimated his firmness, and went into the high priest"s palace; but his weakness has turned to the good of the Church. This precious episode is full of sacred lessons. It tells us of our utter weakness, of the need of constant watchfulness and constant prayer. And it tells of the blessed love of Christ, of the constraining power of his loving, mournful look fixed upon the faithless disciple.

2. The second denial. Peter went into the porch; he feared to linger among the crowd of servants round the fire; he was anxious to escape from those inquiring eyes, from those busy tongues. But he had thrust himself into temptation, and the temptation thickened around him. He was not left alone in the porch. Another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, "This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth." And now he sinned more deeply than before. He denied with an oath, "I do not know the Man." And this was Peter, the rock-like apostle, to whom the Lord had entrusted the keys of the kingdom of heaven; Peter, who a few hours before had said, "Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee;" Peter, who had drawn the sword in his Lord"s defence! The trembling self-distrustful question, "Lord, is it I?" is more becoming in a Christian than that proud self-confidence which so often goes before a fall.

3. The third denial. Satan had desired to have him, and Satan would not easily let him go. He still lingered about the door. He had sinned exceedingly, but his sin had not wholly driven his love for his Master out of his heart. He trembled for his life; and yet a strange fascination kept him in that dangerous place. An hour longer, St. Luke tells us, he remained there a most miserable hour it must have been. But he was to fall more deeply yet. He talked, it seems, to hide his terror. His provincial accent showed the Galilaean. "Surely thou also art one of them," they said again; "for thy speech bewrayeth thee." Then, alas! for our poor human nature, Peter "began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the Man." This was the climax of his guilt first the evasion, then the false oath, then this awful result of the first equivocation, cursing and swearing.

4. His repentance. Peter swore, "I know not the Man." But the Lord knoweth them that are his; he knew his sinful follower still. "The Lord turned and looked upon Peter." We may well be thankful to the Evangelist St. Luke for having recorded, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that touching fact. The Lord was in the hands of his enemies, condemned to death, mocked, buffeted; but he thought of his apostle. He had saved him from the swords of the soldiers; now he saved him from Satan. That holy, loving, mournful look went straight to Peter"s heart. The crowing of the cock, heard at the same time, brought to his remembrance the warning words of Christ; "and he went out, and wept bitterly." Oh that we might have faith to know and feel that that loving, mournful look is now fixed upon us! Still the Lord looks round about upon all things. He reads the hearts. How often does he even now see sins like St. Peter"s cowardice, falsehood, blasphemy and that among men who are called by his Name, who have been baptized into his Church! How often do men even now deny the Lord that bought them, sometimes in words, still more commonly by their life and conduct] He sees us out of heaven. Oh that we could realize that look of mournful tenderness, of yearning, compassionate love! The consciousness that that look is seeking us out, that it has found us, that it is fixed upon us in longing affection, must surely bring us to our knees, to true repentance, to those blessed tears which are precious in the sight of the angels of God; for they tell of a sinner that repenteth. "The Lord turned, and looked upon Peter." Look on us, O Lord; and by the power of that holy look win our souls from sin unto God, from selfishness to thine own most blessed love.

LESSONS.

1. "Rend your heart, and not your garments." Caiaphas rent his clothes; it was mere affectation. Let us come to God with a penitent heart, confessing our sin.

2. The Lord was cruelly mocked and derided. Let us learn of him the blessedness of Christian meekness.

3. Peter denied the Lord, and that thrice. "Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

Vers. 57-68. Christ before Caiaphas.

The key to the examination of our Lord by Caiaphas is found in the fact that Caiaphas was the person who had declared it to be expedient that one man should die for the people. This, reduced from the high-sounding phraseology of an abstract maxim to its practical significance as a policy, meant that justice to individuals must not be too scrupulously cared for if the good of the state seems to require injustice; that at any cost of injustice to an individual the Jewish people must ingratiate themselves with Rome. If any bewildered counsellors disliked the idea of putting an innocent man to death, Caiaphas had his answer ready, "Ye know not anything; could we have a better opportunity of showing our zeal for Rome than by sacrificing a Person who claims to be King of the Jews? What though he be innocent? He is a poor Galilaean, whose death is of no consequence. He is connected with no good family which can expose us. By his execution we shall merit the confidence of Rome." Thus Jesus was made a scapegoat, on whom might be laid much treachery and infidelity of which the Romans justly suspected the Jews. An examination begun from this point of view was of no significance as a means of evincing truth. Jesus was prejudged. His death was a much desired boon to the community. But some show of legal form must be gone through. Cite the legal process in capital cases, and show how it was transgressed, and in what points adhered to. Significance of the silence of Jesus. It is beneath him to reply to questions put under pretext of examining, but really for the purpose of betraying the accused into some expression which might condemn him. The false man is best replied to by silence. His conscience is more likely to be stirred. Such seems to have been the result in Caiaphas"s case. At least there is an appearance of sincerity in the words, "I adjure thee," etc. (ver. 63). He seems to have been impressed by the manner of Christ. He had probably never before had an opportunity of studying him, and he has discernment enough to see that this is no ordinary fanatic nor demagogue. To this appeal Jesus at once replies. And on this reply, on his own confession, and not on anything witnessed against him, he is condemned. Jesus" confession, that he is the Christ, the Son of God..Nothing could exceed the solemnity of the circumstances in which the confession was made. There is no doubt that Jesus laid claim to superhuman dignity; to a dignity which it was blasphemy for any mere man to claim. It was for this he was condemned (see Liddon"s "Bampton Lectures," 288). Comparing the conduct of the high priest with that of the servants who mocked and abused Christ, we gather two suggestions for practical teaching.

1. How much wrong we may inflict upon Christ by resisting conviction.

2. How much wrong we may do him in ignorance by adopting the judgments passed upon him by others, and declining the duty of considering his claims ourselves. D.

Vers. 57-68. The demoralized council.

The tribunal before which Jesus was arraigned was composed of "all the chief priests," with the high priest at their head, and all the "elders and scribes." It was the Sanhedrin, by the Jews claimed to have originated in the time of Moses, and by learned critics acknowledged to have been at least as ancient as the time of Jonathan Maccabaeus. Once a venerable judicial assembly, it had now degenerated into a cabal.

I ITS COUNCILORS ARE MURDERERS.

1. They had beforehand plotted the death of Jesus.

(1) The faithfulness of his preaching had mortified their pride. The spirit of murder was in the hatred and resentment which they cherished toward him.

(2) After the raising of Lazarus, they consulted together what they must do to the Miracle worker, and Caiaphas gave forth his memorable decision. In advising assassination, be prophesied under an inspiration which he did not understand. His accomplices understood him only as he intended. "So from that day forth they took counsel that they might put Jesus to death". (see Joh_11:45-53) "Man proposeth; God disposeth.

(3) Fear from the popularity of Jesus alone prevented them from procuring his assassination without even the semblance of a trial. (see Luk_20:19 Luk_22:2) How questionable is the virtue that is fostered by fear!

(4) Judas knew his market. He knew where "blood money" could be procured. (see Mat_27:3-8) Satan, in the councillors, was "glad" to "commune" with "Satan" in the traitor. (see Luk_22:3-6)

2. They assembled to carry their plot into effect.

(1) They first resolve to ruin Jesus, then seek out the means to do it. So notorious was this that it is recorded as a historic fact. (cf. ver. 59; Act_6:11-13)

(2) There is murder in their haste. The Jewish canons enjoin that "Capital causes should be tried in the day, and punished in the day. " But with indecent haste, in the same night that their treachery succeeded in seizing Jesus, the court is gathered. They were evidently waiting for the summons. And he is condemned in the night. It was "the hour" as well as "the power of darkness.

(3) Note: That gate of the city looking toward Gethsemane was called "the sheep gate," because the animals appointed for sacrifice were led that way. Admire the providence which ordained that through this gate also the very Lamb of God should be led to the slaughter. The Law prescribed that the victims for sacrifice should be led to the priest. (see Lev_18:5) Herein also is a prophecy. One evangelist records that Jesus was first led to Annas. (see Joh_18:13) This was to honour Annas, and to gain time for the assembling of the council. God makes the subtlety of the devil in men to praise him.

II THE WITNESSES ARE LIARS.

1. They cannot give a consistent testimony.

(1) No man could be legally condemned upon the testimony of a single witness. (see Deu_17:6) The witnesses must also agree in their testimony. They must speak with "one mouth." The unsupported testimony of a single witness is stronger than the conflicting testimony of many.

(2) The number of the witnesses against Jesus was sufficient. The retainers of the priests knew that "they sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death," and "many false witnesses" accordingly "came". (cf. vers. 59, 60 Psa_27:12 Psa_35:11 Mar_14:56)

(3) But their testimony was conflicting. Suborned men are bound to say something for their hire. But "the legs of the lame are not equal." This would be evident under cross-examination from Joseph of Arimathaea; and possibly Nicodemus also was found to be a protestant. (see Luk_23:50, 51Jo 19:39)

2. They fail to prove an offence against the Law.

(1) Blasphemy was an offence against the Law, punishable with death. (see Lev_24:16) But what is blasphemy? To speak evil of God, or maliciously to rail against or deny his work.

(2) The Jews had a traditional disposition to account it blasphemy to predict the destruction of the temple. (cf. Jer_26:11, 12 Act_6:13, Act_6:14) The Pharisees also confounded their traditions with the Law.

(3) By means of this tradition, then, they sought to fasten the crime of blasphemy upon Jesus. Two witnesses deposed, "This Man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days." Here note:

(a) They were in a strait when they had to go back to what had passed three years before. (see Mar_14:58 Joh_2:19)

(b) This allegation was, in effect, a falsity; for it suppressed some words of Christ, with the action which explained them, and added words he had not spoken. False testimony lays hold on some basis of truth. Half-truths are often the most vicious lies.

(c) In perverting the meaning of the words of Jesus, his enemies unconsciously bring about their fulfilment.

3. The judges themselves became lying witnesses.

(1) Jesus had maintained a dignified silence while the other witnesses gave their evidence. It was too manifestly frivolous and malicious to require explanation or refutation. "There is a time to speak, and a time to keep silence.

(2) Caiaphas then sought to make Jesus a witness against himself (see ver. 62). Still he held his peace. (see Psa_38:12-14 Isa_53:7) The personal Word, like the written Word, declines to answer questions that are idle and insincere.

(3) Unable to make the testimony matter for the charge of blasphemy, Caiaphas had to shift his ground. He now had recourse to adjuration. This was the refuge of rage at the rebuke of that silence which stung him to the quick. What a temper in which to make an appeal to the living God!,

(4) Jesus now at length responded. For

(a) had he refused to answer when adjured, they would have accused him of contempt for the Name of God. Note: Persecutors take advantage of the consciences of good men.

(b) He responded for an example to others of reverence for such a solemn form.

(c) He answered because now it was no longer a question of admitting or denying a false accusation, but of admitting or denying a great truth to confess whether he were the Christ or not (ver. 64). The "nevertheless" should rather be "moreover: Not only do I confess myself the Christ, but you yourselves will have to confess it when he who now appears before you as in weakness will be revealed in power". (see Rev_1:7)

(5) Then came the climax of rage when he was adjudged worthy of death for speaking blasphemy" (see vers. 65, 66).

III THE JUDGMENT IS INIQUITOUS.

1. It ignored the reasons of the claims of Jesus.

(1) The Jews expected their Messiah to be the Son of God. In so expecting they were justified by prophecy. (see Psa_2:7, Psa_2:12) The terms of the adjuration acknowledged this. And they understood the title to express Divinity. To call himself the Son of God was, in their estimation, to make himself equal with God. (see Joh_10:33)

(2) Therefore, unless Jesus were Divine, he could not have been the Christ. Otherwise his claim to be "the Christ, the Son of God," would indeed have been a blasphemy. But he had vindicated his claim by infallible proofs. He verified in himself the prophecies concerning Messiah, and wrought many miracles, as his judges very well knew. (see Joh_11:47)

(3) Before proceeding to condemn him, it was their duty to answer the argument from prophecy and miracle. But this they never attempted. Rage and violence were their substitutes for justice and truth.

(4) And they aggravated their crime by delivering the Blessed One to the insolence of their myrmidons, who blindfolded him and smote him, and asked him to prophesy as to whose fist was lifted against him. (cf. ver. 67; Isa_50:5, 6 Luk_22:64) He well knew; but he refuses to prophesy when men close their ears against the truth. The wretches also spat in his face, which was a mark of the most profound contempt. (see Num_12:4 Job_16:10 Job_30:10 Isa_1:6 Mic_5:1)

2. It will be reviewed at another tribunal.

(1) "What contrasts are here! The Deliverer in bonds! The Judge of all attainted! The Prince of glory scorned! The Holy One condemned for sin! The Son of God accused of blasphemy! The Resurrection and the Life sentenced to die! The High Priest forever condemned by the high priest for a year!" (Steir).

(2) To the eternal confusion of the unrighteous council, God ordered it that our Lord should be condemned on the very evidence of his own innocence, purity, and truth. In accusing him of blasphemy they were the blasphemers.

(3) They will yet have to answer before him for their injustice and cruelty. He will one day come with the clouds of heaven, as the Prophet Daniel has described him. (cf. Dan_7:13, Dan_7:14) The terrors of that judgment day will be a sensible conviction to the most obstinate infidel. J.A.M.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

They led him away to Caiaphas - From the house of Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, to whom they had carried him first. Mark xiv, 53; Luke xxii, 54; John xviii, 12.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

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.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [CXXVI. Second Stage of Jewish Trial].

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]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

57. Led him away to the house of Caiaphas, the high priest. He was first examined by Annas, the former high priest, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, probably while the Sanhedrim was assembling in the darkness of the night (John 18:13). For the trial of Christ, compare Mark 14:53–64; Luke 22:54–71; John 18:13–18. Scribes and elders were gathered. Mark says the “chief priests” also. It was a gathering of the Sanhedrim. Those who were favorable to Jesus, like Joseph and Nicodemus, were probably not called.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

This begins the account of Jesus' trial before the council of Jewish religious leaders.

Peter followed him

"Peter followed Jesus"

courtyard of the high priest

an open area near the high priest's house

He went inside

"Peter went inside"

translationWords

Caiaphas

high priest

scribe

elder

Peter

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

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 (John, vv. 19-23), and then (ver. 24) sent Him bound to Caiaphas. Only John, who followed, relates this first hearing. See notes on John, vv. 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.

57. Καϊάφαν τὸν ἀρχ.] He was ἀρχιερεὺς τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου, Annas having been deposed, and since then the High-priests having been frequently changed by the Roman governors.

ὅπου οἱ γρ.] 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).

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

57-75. From Mar 14:53-72.

(M) 57. And they seized Jesus, and led Him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.] Mk. has: “And they led Jesus away to the high priest. And there come together all the high priests and the elders and the scribes.”—οἱ δέ] δέ (also in Lk.) for καί, as often. —πρὸς τὸν ἀρχιερέα] Mt. adds the name as in v. 3.—ὅπου—συνήχθησαν] for Mk.’s καὶ συνέρχονται, avoiding hist. pres., as often.— οἰ γραμ καὶοἰ πρες.] the more usual order for Mk.’s οἱ πρες, καὶ οἱ γραμ. Mk. prefixes οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς. Mt. omits, as already implied in πρὸς τὸν ἀρχιερέα.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.