CRITICAL NOTES
Matthew 26:57. To Caiaphas.—Apparently after a preliminary examination before Annas (John 18:13; John 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).
Matthew 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).
Matthew 26:61. I am able to destroy the temple of God.—The actual words of Jesus spoken (John 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).
Matthew 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.)
Matthew 26:64. Power.—The Hebrews often called God “Power” (Bengel).
Matthew 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).
Matthew 26:67. Spit in his face.—Among the Jews an expression of the greatest contempt (Deuteronomy 25:9; Numbers 12:14). Buffeted.—Struck Him with clenched fist. We learn from St. Mark (Mark 14:65) and St. Luke (Luke 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).
Matthew 26:68. Saying, Prophesy.—They had blindfolded Him (Mark 14:65).
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Matthew 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 (Matthew 26:58; Matthew 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 (Matthew 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” (Matthew 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” (Matthew 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, John 19:39; John 3:2; Luke 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 (Matthew 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 (Deuteronomy 17:6; Deuteronomy 19:15; cf. John 8:17; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 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 Mark 14:59, and compare Matthew 26:61 here with John 2:19). “Answerest thou nothing”—so Caiaphas said in effect—“to all this accumulation of witness (Matthew 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 Matthew 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 Acts 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 (Matthew 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 (Matthew 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” (Matthew 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 (Matthew 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 Acts 7:60; Romans 9:3)!
HOMILIES ON THE VERSES
Matthew 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.
Matthew 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.
Matthew 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.
Matthew 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 (Matthew 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.