Bible Study series: Matthew 26:57-68. The Sanhedrin sentenced him to die because he said they would see him as the Son of Man rising to the Ancient of Days (God). For them, this was blasphemy, which carried the death penalty.
A warm welcome to this Bible study! I write to learn, so let’s learn together. I also translate to learn. The translations are mine, unless otherwise noted. If you would like to see many others, please click on this link:
In the next link to the original chapter, I comment more and offer the Greek text. At the bottom you will find a “Summary and Conclusion” section geared toward discipleship. Check it out!
In this post, links are provided for further study.
Let’s begin.
Scripture: Matthew 26:57-68
57 The ones who arrested Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the teachers of the law and the elders were assembled. 58 Peter followed him from a distance until the courtyard of the priest, and going inside, he sat down with the servants to see the outcome.
59 Now the chief priests and all of the Council were seeking for false testimony against Jesus, so that they may put him to death; 60 and they found no one, although many false witnesses came forward. Finally, two came forward 61 and said, “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God within three days and build it.’” 62 And the chief priest got up and said to him, “You answer nothing to what these men testify against you?” 63 But Jesus kept remaining silent. And the chief priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God that you tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God!” 64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I say to you: From now on you will see ‘the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power’ [Ps. 110:1] and ‘coming on clouds of heaven’” [Dan. 7:13].
65 Then the high priest tore his garments, saying, “He has blasphemed! Why do we need any more witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy! 66 What do you think?” They answered and said, “He deserves death!” 67 Then they spit on his face, hit him with fists, and slapped him, 68 saying, “Prophesy to us, Messiah! Who struck you?” (Matt. 26:57-68)
Comments:
Here we have a scene of irony. This term means that you think you know something, but in reality you do not; you are ignorant.
Comic irony: In the 1960s sitcom Hogan’s Heroes, Col. Klink brags that there has never been a successful escape from Stalag Thirteen. The truth: there are all kinds of escapes and they successfully accomplish their missions. Stalag Thirteen is like “Mole City” under his feet.
Tragic irony: King Oedipus believes he is wise, and he will investigate why a plague is attacking Thebes. But he is ignorant of the fact that he is the cause, until later on in the play. He learns the truth too late. It is tragic.
A biblical example is Job and his friends. They were trying to figure out why Job met with disasters, and though they had a small level of understanding—and the poetry is beautiful—they really did not know as much as their confidence allowed. God showed up on the scene and told them so.
Divine irony of the wise and powerful: Caiaphas and the council should know who the Messiah is because they are wise about matters of the law. They have read the Messianic prophecies. In reality, however, they cannot discern or figure out that the Messiah is standing right in front of them. They are victims of divine irony. God knows; Jesus knows, but they do not, even though they believe that they do. Not only do they not see that he is the true Messiah, they accuse him of blasphemy.
One more preliminary:
Now we come to the preliminary trial, before the dispositive one before Roman officials. The Jews could not really execute anyone based on their religious law (John 18:31 is proven right). R. T. France has a thorough treatment of the topic about the legality of the preliminary trial. First, a capital trial must take place in a courtroom, not the high priest’s house. Second, the hearing for the defense must begin, which did not happen here. Third, the trial must not be held before a festival. So does that mean the Gospels are inaccurate? No, because those three rules were laid out in the second century. Since this is a preliminary trial, the legality of the format and place of the trial do not arise. So we have to focus on the content—the accusation, Jesus’s admission to being the Messiah, the Son of God, and the guilty verdict. That’s the heart of the entire pericope in the first place.
Further, Mark 14:55 says the whole Sanhedrin met, but this was probably in the morning, so the preliminary trial was protracted.
Osborne has written on the historicity of the Sanhedrin trial. The Mishnah is a written book in which the oral traditions and laws were collected in about A.D. 200.
1.. Many Mishnaic regulations were more theoretical and never regarded as mandatory laws.
2.. The Mishnah represents a post-70 AD context (Jerusalem was sacked in AD 70), so we don’t know for sure if the Mishnah represented the details of Jewish life during the time of Jesus.
3.. In an emergency situation (the trial of a dangerous figure, namely, Jesus the night before the Passover), laws could be flexible.
4.. The Mishnaic regulations were written in a Pharisaic setting, while the Sadducees controlled the trial here.
5.. The Gospel portray the religious leaders as ignoring judicial procedures, hurrying to find Jesus guilty.
6.. Much material in the four Gospels are held in common; the only difference is the arrangement.
7.. The four Gospels favor the view that this an official but informal interrogation rather than a formal trial; it was legal, but not an official trial. The Jewish leaders merely needed to find evidence with which they could accuse Jesus and convince Pilate to crucify him.
Source: Osborne, pp. 993-94.
In his commentary on Luke’s Gospel, Darrell L. Bock lists the irregularities of Jesus’s trial before the Sanhedrin. The tractate in the Mishnah is in fact called the Sanhedrin (recall that the Mishnah is a book of oral law and traditions compiled in about AD 200):
|
Irregularities at Jesus’ Trial |
|
| A | Proceedings in high priest’s house, instead of the temple (m. Sanh. 11.2) |
| B | Jesus was tried without a defense council (m. Sanh. 4.1) |
| C | By pronouncing the divine name, Jesus was accused of blasphemy without actually blaspheming in the technical sense (m. Sanh. 7.5) (but see more on blasphemy, below) |
| D | Verdict came in one day, instead of the required two days (m. Sanh. 4.1) |
| E | Jesus was tried on a feast day (though which exact time the Last Supper was held is debated) |
| F | Contradictory testimony can nullify evidence (m. Sanh. 5.2) |
| G | Pronouncement of guilt by high priest contradicts normal order, which starts with the least senior member (m. Sanh. 4.2) |
| Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Vol. 2. (Baker 1996), p. 1792, slightly edited, comment on Luke 22:66. | |
57:
This scene continues immediately on the previous one. Those who physically laid their hands on him led him away to the high priest and the teachers of the law and the elders. See v. 3 for the high priest and the elders. By way of review, this is who the teachers of the law were:
“teachers of the law”: Some translations call them scribes.
See this post and find them by scrolling down. The groups are in alphabetical order.
Quick Reference to Jewish Groups in Gospels and Acts
Jesus denounced them and the Pharisees in Matt. 23.
58:
Peter is inserted into this scene, in this one verse. The cameras, so to speak, will circle back around to him in vv. 69-75. He sits down by the fire (says Luke 22:55), warming himself. The high priest was very wealthy to have a courtyard in Jerusalem. It was semi-roofed (France). Peter wanted to see the outcome (telos in Greek, pronounced teh-loss). Evidently, this means the end of the whole trial. Was Jesus going to make a deal with the council? Would he guarantee to work miracles against the Romans and liberate Israel? Does the “end” mean Jesus’s life was coming to a close? Today we know with perfect hindsight, that it is the final option, but did Peter really believe Jesus’s prediction at least three times that he was going to die (16:21; 17:12, 22-23; 20:17-19)? It may have been dawning on him that this was the end of his Messiah’s life.
59-63:
The Sanhedrin is the highest Jewish court and council. They were looking for witnesses who would testify against him, so they could put him to death. Matthew says the “whole Sanhedrin,” but recall that the Sanhedrin had seventy members (modeled on the Old Testament seventy elders), plus the high priest. Twenty-three made a quorum. And the trial may have gone on a while, as the other Gospel writers imply. Remember Matthew is nicknamed the Abbreviator, so he streamlines his narrative.
In any case, the Sanhedrin found no one, even though many came forward and bore false witness. Matthew says “false witnesses.” Is this Matthew’s opinion, or did the council also consider their testimony not to be reliable? The last half of v. 60 and v. 61 may provide the answer. Two men said that they heard him say those words about destroying the temple and then building it again. Deut. 19:15 says that out of the mouths of two or three witnesses, every fact should be established or backed up. Here they are.
John 2:19-21 shows Jesus speaking these words at the beginning of his ministry. John explains that he was speaking of the temple of his body. So Jesus remained silent when the high priest challenged him on this point. Why should he explain himself? It would look like he was shifting his ground. “I meant this as my body—when you kill it, I’ll raise it back up.” It’s easy to imagine that they would have considered him as dodging the real accusation. “Oh, now you change your mind! Ha! We won’t allow it!” They could accuse him of intending to overthrow the temple, as witnessed by his cleaning the temple, soon after he entered the city (Matt. 21:12-13). After all, Jesus said in the face of the Pharisees that something greater than the temple was here (Matt. 12:6). Reports like these must have come back to the Jerusalem establishment. It was illegal to defame the temple (see Exod. 22:28 for the principle and Jer. 26:1-19 for its application). Jesus was mocked on the cross for saying that he could rebuild the temple (Matt. 27:40). Stephen got stoned to death for criticizing the temple and the irreligious behavior of it guardians (Acts 6:13-14; 7:48-50).
Jesus, instead of belaboring this point about the temple, wanted to go for the heart of the issue—his true identity. He is the Messiah (Christ) the Son of the living God.
But just for a moment, he remained silent, until he spoke the truth, by quoting Scripture, so let’s not overinterpret the silence here. It just means he did not fight back aggressively in a trial with many words. Peter explains:
For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. (1 Pet. 2:21-23, ESV)
Now let’s turn to the remarkable verse in Isaiah’s accurate prophecy.
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth. (Is. 53:7, ESV)
I like the image of the lamb, for it can be matched with this verse: “The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’” (John 1:29, ESV). This one is also relevant: “For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed” (1 Cor. 5:17, ESV).
The high priest got fed up with Jesus’s silence, so he arose and asked him about the two men’s accusation. His rising indicates he was taking charge of the whole trial. Enough is enough, he seemed to think. The high priest charged him under oath to speak up about the next accusation: Are you the Messiah, the Son of the living God? Remember Peter’s words:
… Simon Peter said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 In reply, Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah, because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven has.” (Matt. 16:16-17)
The high priest had heard rumors that Jesus claimed he was the Christ (or Messiah), the Son of the living God. He accepted praise from people (Matt. 21:9). He explained Ps. 110:1 more thoroughly and completely, right in the face of the Pharisees (Matt. 22:41-46). They were members of the Sanhedrin, or they told the establishment about these words and his Messianic actions after entering Jerusalem in Matt. 21.
In any case, once again we have a severe case of irony. They were the authority figures, experts in the law, but they could not perceive the Messiah right in front of them. They thought they knew the truth, but they actually did not. God did not reveal to the high priest the truth of Jesus’s true identity, though he did reveal it to a lowly fisherman, Peter. (See the introductory comments under v. 68 for more information about irony.)
Another “Jesus” (Joshua) ben Ananias, during the Jewish wars with Rome (A.D 66-70), challenged the temple system, pronouncing woe on the city and temple. But he did not attract followers, and the authorities considered him insane, so they flogged him and let him go. I bring up this historical fact to show that Jesus was different. He represented a real political threat, so they had to execute him (Keener, pp. 610-611).
Caiaphas didn’t fully understand the meaning of the Son of God, but we do now, so let’s look at it from our fuller knowledge with some systematic theology.
Let’s dip into systematic theology again. Jesus was the Son of the Father eternally, before creation. The Son has no beginning. He and the Father always were, together. The relationship is portrayed in this Father-Son way so we can understand who God is more clearly. Now he relates to us as his sons and daughters. On our repentance and salvation and union with Christ, we are brought into his eternal family.
6. Titles of Jesus: The Son of God
When Did Jesus “Become” the Son of God?
64:
First Timothy 6:13 says Jesus made a good confession. It is probable that this verse refers to what Jesus is about to say.
Then Jesus clearly states, once again, who he was by two famous Messianic prophecies. Jesus proclaims before Caiaphas the high priest and the Sanhedrin that from now on they will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven. The first half of the confession refers to the Messiah being glorified:
The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool” (Ps. 110:1, ESV, emphasis added).
The enemies in Matthew’s context are the very ones putting him on trial. But it is also bigger than that. The second half of v. 64 refers to the Son of Man in Dan. 7:13-14, when he comes in the clouds of heaven:
13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. (Dan. 7:13-14, NIV, emphasis added)
The Ancient of Days is God. Jesus was about to ascend and be enthroned on high, sitting next to God. So his coming here in v. 23 refers to his ascension and enthronement. Jesus was granted authority over heaven and earth (28:18), and the fact that the gospel was spreading all over their known world indicates that the ascended Jesus has authority and dominion over Caiaphas and the council. This makes the most sense of v. 64, in light of Ps. 110:1 and Dan. 7:13-14.
And no, v. 64 does not refer to the grand and glorious Second Coming when the whole earth will be overtaken by his glorious appearing.
See my comments on Matt. 24 and 25 for how Jesus’s ascension and enthronement (and later coming-in-judgment on the temple) and the parousia (Second Coming) must be kept distinct.
Bottom line: Jesus will rise in authority in three shortened days, and the high priest and Sanhedrin will feel its effects by the power of the church in Acts. Peter stood before them, preaching powerfully. Here is just one sample in Acts 5:17-32:
17 At this time, the chief priests and those with him, who were of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with envy 18 and nabbed the apostles and put them in public prison. 19 But at night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the prison and led them out and said, 20 “Go and steadfastly speak to the people in the temple all the words of this salvation and life!” 21 They obeyed and went to the temple at daybreak. The high priest and those with him arrived and summoned the Council [Sanhedrin] and all elders of the descendants of Israel and sent to the prison to escort them out. 22 But the assistants did not find them in the prison, so they turned back and announced, 23 “We found the jail locked up very securely and the guards standing at the doors, but, opening them, we found no one inside.” 24 As the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard this account, they were perplexed about all of this—what might happen.
25 Someone came in and announced to them, “Amazing! The men whom you put in prison are in the temple standing and teaching the people!” 26 Then the captain left with the assistants and led them away without violence, for they feared the people stoning them. 27 Leading them onwards, they stood them right in front of the Council [Sanhedrin]. The high priest examined them, 28 “We ordered you strictly not to teach in this name! And look at you! You have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man’s blood on us!” 29 But Peter answered and the apostles replied, “We have to obey God rather than man! 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had done away with by hanging him on wood. 31 It is this man whom God exalted the Overall Ruler and Savior at his right hand, to grant repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are witnesses of this storyline and of the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to all who obey him!” (Acts 5:17-32, my tentative translation)
Now Jesus is the one with authority from on high, and then his church was gradually overtaking the nation of Israel and going way beyond that tiny nation.
After Stephen said the temple was of no real importance because God does not live in an object made with hands (Acts 7:44-50), much like Jesus’s false accusers emphasized the temple made with hands, Stephen says he saw the exalted Son of Man:
Being full of the Holy Spirit and fixing his gaze on heaven, he [Stephen] saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; 56 and he said, “Look! I see the heavens opening wide and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” (Acts 7:55-56, emphasis added)
“right hand of Power”: the right hand indicates power, since most people were right-handed and worked tools and swung swords and threw spears with it. Keener says that the priestly aristocracy’s “choosing (probably correctly) to construe Jesus’ words as associating himself with God’s majesty, they may imply that Jesus has lowered God’s majesty to his own level” … (p. 651).
65-66:
This truthful confession caused the high priest to tear his robes, which represents extreme sorrow, perhaps even of outrage, and a pronouncement of guilt. It symbolized distancing one’s holy self from a blasphemer. Keener writes: “Most uses of ‘blasphemy’ in fact were nontechnical. … Then again, this may simply represent another example of twisting the rules to get the job done, so frequent in the rest of the narrative” (p. 651).
The chief priests, elders, and teachers of the law conclude that he committed blasphemy (see Mark 14:62-64 // Luke 22:69-71), which deserves death (Lev. 24:10-16, 23). They sentence him to death—all because they could not interpret Scripture correctly. The punishment was stoning the guilty party (Lev. 24:16), but that’s not the Roman method of execution.
Now the question is: Can they make the charge of blasphemy stick before the Roman authorities? They did not allow Jews to execute people (except for a Gentile entering unlawfully into the temple holy place). No, they could not make it stick, so they have to add politics to the charge against him. They falsely accuse him of making himself king (27:11). And there is no king but Caesar.
In any case, the chief priests, elders and teachers of the law are still swimming around in human ignorance. They are about to advocate the crucifixion of their true Messiah, which also fulfills Scripture they don’t understand: Is. 53. The Messiah has to suffer and die. Their ignorance is just irony—the irony of justice. God did not reveal who his Son truly was to them. So some call this divine irony. God uses people’s arrogance and ignorance, combined, so they can lead themselves into judgment, out of their own free will, dark and unenlightened though it may be.
Blomberg:
Now the council has clear testimony which they regard as blasphemous. Jesus has equated himself with God or at least associated himself much too closely with him. This is a capital offense. The high priest tears his clothes in the traditional sign of outrage and/or grief (cf. 2 Kgs 18:37; Acts 14:14; and, for a closer parallel involving blasphemy, m. Sanh. 7:5). The proceedings need continue no longer. (comment on 26:65-68)
Darrell L. Bock wrote a book on blasphemy happening before the destruction of the temple in AD 70 and particularly before the Mishnah was collected in AD 200. Here are some of his conclusions.
1.. Blasphemy centered on the misuse of the divine name and acts of blasphemy.
2.. Few were allowed to approach the throne of the holy God—not even the archangel Michael was allowed to sit on the right hand of God, so Jesus’s claiming he was about to sit at the right hand of God was blasphemy.
3.. This was not a capital trial but a hearing, so the Sanhedrin did not have to be technically correct.
4.. Sources of the information of the trial was plentiful (Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus), so this trial / hearing is not a fiction.
5.. Two levels of blasphemy: Jesus claims to have comprehensive authority from God; and then he claims to be the judge of Jewish leaders (violating Exod. 22:28 on not cursing God’s leaders). This latter claim could be used against Jesus because he could be accused of challenging Rome’s authority.
Source: Osborne, p. 999.
In his commentary (Luke 9:51-24:53. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Vol. 2. [Baker 1996]), Bock says that in the early second century, Rabbi Akiva was involved in a dispute because he said that David would have a “session” (being seated) at God’s right hand, which other Rabbis said profaned the shekinah, which was considered blasphemy (m. Sanh. 6.4).
Bock continues:
For most Jews, the idea of coming directly into God’s presence and sitting with him in constant heavenly session without cultic purification or worship was an insult to God’s uniqueness. It was the essence of blasphemy since a human seated by God diminishes his stature. The dispute with Rabbi Akiva makes this clear, as does the leadership’s response to Jesus. Biblical figures who go into God’s presence are first cleansed (Isa. 6, Ezek. 1). In early rabbinic tradition, only God sits in heaven. Anything else insults his person. … One could stand with him, but not sit with him … Thus, when Jesus says that he can sit at God’s right side, then implications emerge about Jesus’ person. The leadership understands these implications. The defendant claims to be the Judge. (p. 1799)
Then Bock states the irony: “With strong irony, the Jews think that Jesus is on trial, but what they do to him does not matter, since he is the true Judge. The very remarks that the Jews think lower God’s stature, in fact, show how exalted Jesus is” (pp. 1799).
67-68:
They physically abuse him and sneer at him. “Prophesy, Messiah! Who slapped you?” Jesus is practicing what he preached in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:38), because he didn’t struggle or punch back.
Here’s Isaiah’s prophecy:
As many were astonished at you—his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance. (Is. 52:14, ESV)
Jewish tradition says that the true Messiah could judge people by smell (Carson, p. 622).
Matthew does not record that Jesus was blindfolded, but Mark 15:65 and Luke 22:64 do.
Matthew alone seems to indicate that the council did this, while Mark 14:65 say “some” (i.e. attendants and temple guards), and Luke 22:63 say the men who were held Jesus abused him. However, Matthew does mention these attendants and guards; he seems to indicate that the members of the council did this. If so, then these acts also symbolize distancing their “holy selves” from a convicted criminal. But I think we should insert Mark’s and Luke’s versions, here. Remember my nickname: Matthew the Abbreviator. He trims out a lot (except for his doublets, like two Gadarene demoniacs).
But please don’t overinterpret this verse or the whole preliminary trial by applying it to the government today. Since Jesus did not resist or punch back, some interpreters say the state should not resist or punch back. Wrong. The state has the right to “slap back” when citizens are harmed. Paul, writing by the inspiration of the Spirit, says that God ordained government, and its “ministers” carry the sword (Rom. 13:1-4). God’s “ministers” can use violence to fight violent offenders and protect people. So Paul hands the sword over to the State. The Church, as the church, has no right to hit people with swords or execute them, and certainly not for religious reasons.
See my post:
Should the State ‘Turn the Other Cheek’?
Let’s apply this entire scene to our lives. As I noted in other chapters, first-century Israel was an honor-and-shame society. Verbal and active confrontations happened often. By active is meant actions. Here the confrontation is both verbal and acted out. Jesus won the actual confrontation, and this victory opened the door to his verbal victory with religious leaders who were binding people up with traditions. They needed to be loosed from them. Jesus shamed the leaders to silence. It may seem strange to us that Jesus would confront human opponents, because we are not used to doing this in our own lives, and we have heard that Jesus was meek and silent.
More relevantly, for many years now there has been a teaching going around the Body of Christ that says when Christians are challenged, they are supposed to slink away or not reply. This teaching may come from the time of Jesus’s trial when it is said he was as silent as a sheep (Acts 8:32). No. He spoke up then, as well (Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:32; Luke 23:71; John 18:19-23; 32-38; 19:11). Therefore, “silence” means submission to the will of God without resisting or fighting back physically. But here he replied to the religious leaders and defeated them and their inadequate theology. Get into a discussion and debate with your challengers. Stand toe to toe with them. In short, fight like Jesus! With anointed words!
Of course, caution is needed. The original context is a life-and-death struggle between the kingdom of God and religious traditions. Get the original context, first, before you fight someone in a verbal sparring match. This was a clash of worldviews. Don’t pick fights or be rude to your spouse or baristas or clerks in the service industry. Discuss things with him or her, if it is appropriate. But here Jesus was justified in replying to these oppressive religious leaders.
GrowApp for Matt. 26:57-68
1. Jesus was going through the trial of his life—literally. Have you ever had to fight for your life or knew someone who did? What’s your or his or her story?
RELATED
9. Authoritative Testimony in Matthew’s Gospel
1. Church Fathers and Matthew’s Gospel
2. Archaeology and the Synoptic Gospels
14. Similarities among John’s Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels
1. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels: Introduction to Series
SOURCES AND MORE
To see the bibliography, please click on this link and scroll down to the bottom. You will also find a “Summary and Conclusion” for discipleship.
Dr. Jim's Essential Bible Teaching 