TEXT [Commentary]

H. Jesus Appears before the Sanhedrin (26:57-68; cf. Mark 14:53-65; Luke 22:54-55, 63-71)

57 Then the people who had arrested Jesus led him to the home of Caiaphas, the high priest, where the teachers of religious law and the elders had gathered. 58 Meanwhile, Peter followed him at a distance and came to the high priest’s courtyard. He went in and sat with the guards and waited to see how it would all end.

59 Inside, the leading priests and the entire high council[*] were trying to find witnesses who would lie about Jesus, so they could put him to death. 60 But even though they found many who agreed to give false witness, they could not use anyone’s testimony. Finally, two men came forward 61 who declared, “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the Temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’”

62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Well, aren’t you going to answer these charges? What do you have to say for yourself?” 63 But Jesus remained silent. Then the high priest said to him, “I demand in the name of the living God—tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”

64 Jesus replied, “You have said it. And in the future you will see the Son of Man seated in the place of power at God’s right hand[*] and coming on the clouds of heaven.”[*]

65 Then the high priest tore his clothing to show his horror and said, “Blasphemy! Why do we need other witnesses? You have all heard his blasphemy. 66 What is your verdict?”

“Guilty!” they shouted. “He deserves to die!”

67 Then they began to spit in Jesus’ face and beat him with their fists. And some slapped him, 68 jeering, “Prophesy to us, you Messiah! Who hit you that time?”

NOTES

26:57 the home of Caiaphas, the high priest, where the teachers of religious law and the elders had gathered. Cf. Mark 14:53-65; Luke 22:54-55; John 18:13-14, 19-24.

26:58 Peter followed him at a distance. It is briefly mentioned that Peter followed from a distance and sat down in the high priest’s courtyard to see what would happen. This sets the scene for the story of Peter’s three denials in 26:69-75.

26:59-61 high council. Lit., “Sanhedrin” (5:22; 10:17).

were trying to find witnesses. They had evidently been trying for some time to obtain false testimony against Jesus (9:3; 12:10, 24, 38; 16:1; 19:3), but nothing admissible was found despite the fact that many were willing to testify falsely. Eventually two men (18:16; cf. Deut 17:6; 19:15) came forward who testified that Jesus claimed to be able to destroy the Temple of God and rebuild it in three days (26:61). There is no previous record of anything resembling this in the synoptic Gospels, not even 24:2 (cf. 27:40), but the false charge evidently came from a misunderstanding (or a twisting) of Jesus’ teaching recorded in John 2:18-22 (cf. Acts 6:13-14). Action against the Temple would be viewed as treason by many Jews and as sedition by the Roman authorities. Jesus’ actions against the money changers and merchants in the Temple (21:12ff) were public knowledge and perhaps were viewed as corroborating the false testimony. The leaders of the Sanhedrin appear to have already decided that Jesus was a blasphemer, so it was easy for them to justify their actions. (For a fine summary discussion of the trial of Jesus, see Corley in Green and McKnight 1992:841-854.)

26:62-64 Jesus remained silent. When Caiaphas asked Jesus to respond to these charges, he initially kept silent (cf. 27:14; Isa 53:7; Acts 8:32).

I demand in the name of the living God—tell us whether you are the Messiah, the Son of God. This has the force of putting Jesus under oath. The title “Son of God” was interpreted messianically (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7; 89:26-27). This question and Jesus’ answer appear to have little relevance to the charge against Jesus, but the key Matthean motif of Jesus’ divine sonship is raised.

You have said it. Jesus responded by ambiguously affirming the high priest’s own words (cf. 26:25).

you will see the Son of Man seated in the place of power at God’s right hand and coming on the clouds of heaven. Jesus continued by citing Dan 7:13, with introductory words from Ps 110:1, to the effect that he is indeed the glorious Son of Man who will come from the right hand of God (cf. 19:28; 24:30; 25:31; John 1:51; 1 Enoch 62:5). The NLT’s “sitting at God’s right hand in the place of power” redundantly renders what is lit. “sitting at the right hand of the Power.” Here “Power,” an attribute uniquely associated with God, stands for God by metonymy. Blomberg (1992:403) is correct in pointing out that 26:64 is “the Christological climax of the Gospel thus far.”

26:65-68 tore his clothing to show his horror. He showed his disgust by tearing his robes. This was a sign of extreme emotion, whether sorrow or anger (e.g., Gen 37:29; 2 Kgs 18:37-19:1; Job 1:20; Acts 14:14; m. Sanhedrin 7:5; Jdt 14:19; 1 Macc 11:71; Josephus War 2.316; but cf. Joel 2:13). The NLT brings this out by adding the words “to show his horror.”

Blasphemy! The high priest regarded Jesus’ speaking of himself in terms of Daniel’s Son of Man as an outrageous blasphemy. He evidently viewed the Son of Man as a quasi-divine figure and believed that Jesus had arrogated divine prerogatives to himself. He asked why any more testimony was needed since he believed that Jesus’ words in 26:64 were sufficient proof of his guilt. The Sanhedrin evidently agreed with his assessment that Jesus deserved to die (cf. Lev 24:16).

they began to spit in Jesus’ face. See Isa 50:6.

beat him with their fists. Possibly some used whips or clubs (BDAG 903-904).

Prophesy to us, you Messiah! As they beat Jesus, they taunted him by sarcastically calling him the Messiah and asking him to prophecy to them about who was hitting him. Jesus exemplified his own teaching (5:38-42; cf. Isa 50:4-9).

COMMENTARY [Text]

This passage lays out the first of Jesus’ two trials, although the term “trial” may be a misnomer here. The narrative of the trial before the high priest Caiaphas accomplishes two literary purposes. First, the sordid nature of the whole process is clearly exposed (26:59-61). Second, and more importantly, the claims of Christ to be Israel’s Messiah are climactically pressed before the leaders of Israel. In a clear allusion to Daniel 7:13, Jesus acknowledges that he is the messianic Son of Man who will return to judge his false accusers and judges (26:64). Yet the leaders reject Jesus’ testimony, accuse him of blasphemy, and treat him with sarcasm and utter contempt (26:65-68). It is Jesus’ affirmation that he will return as the glorious Son of Man to judge his judges that seems to infuriate them. Such an eschatological reversal would be intolerable. Davies and Allison (1997:537) point out several aspects of the trial story that make irony its chief literary feature.

Christology. The terse exchange between Jesus and Caiaphas in 26:62-64 contains one of the most explicit affirmations of Jesus’ identity in all of Matthew. Jesus’ citation of Dan 7:13 (and perhaps Ps 110:1) shows that he understood his identity and future mission in terms of the glorious, exalted Son of Man. Hagner (1995:799) rightly says, “Nowhere does Jesus reveal himself more than here.”

The time frame implied by Jesus’ words “in the future” in 26:64 is rather broad. Jesus will be installed as the glorious Son of Man at his resurrection, and Caiaphas himself will be confronted with this reality—the person Caiaphas judged unjustly will someday judge him justly. After the resurrection, Jesus would speak as the exalted Son of Man, prefacing his commission to the disciples with the words, “I have been given all authority” (28:18).

But the resurrection only inaugurates the glorious reign of Jesus (cf. John 7:39; 12:23, 32-33; 17:4-5; Acts 2:32-33; 13:33-37; Phil 2:9-11; Rev 5:5-10). That reign will be consummated by his return to judge and rule the earth (6:10; 13:41-43; 16:27; 19:28; 24:30; 25:31; cf. 2 Sam 7:12-16; Ps 2; Luke 1:32-33; Acts 17:30-31; 1 Cor 15:20-28; Rev 1:7; 2:26-27; 11:15; 19:11-16; 20:4-6). The resurrection vindicates Jesus’ claims and seals the doom of his enemies. The return to earth realizes the final judgment, where all humanity will stand before the Son of Man. Unbelievers will be condemned, believers will be rewarded, and Jesus will reign in glory over his people in a new world from which the curse has been removed.

Anti-Semitism? On the historical level it is clear that this trial was not carried out according to the just legal procedures that are found in m. Sanhedrin 4–7 (Brown 1994:357-363). According to this tractate, trials were not to be held at night, and capital cases could not be decided in one day. Several other details of Matthew’s narrative are at odds with the Mishnaic laws for trials. One can explain this anomaly in different ways. One line of reasoning argues that the Mishnaic traditions were theoretical, not actual, and that they were written down over one hundred and fifty years after the trial of Jesus, but these traditions purport to be orally transmitted from earlier times. Non-evangelicals sometimes accuse Matthew of inventing much, or all, of the story for propaganda purposes (Beare 1981:519ff). In this view, Matthew’s goal was to blame the Jews and exonerate the Romans in order to curry favor for Christianity with the Roman authorities.

But if Matthew and his community still identified themselves as Jews, this argument breaks down. Instead, Matthew preserves accurate historical information in his narrative in order to show that the religious leaders did not follow their own standards in dealing with Jesus (cf. the case of Stephen in Acts 6:11ff). It was expedient for them to break their own rules in order to quickly be rid of Jesus before the crowds became aware of what they were doing and before the Feast of Unleavened Bread went into full swing. Matthew did not want to indict Israel as a nation, not even all the Jews of his own day, let alone all Jews who have lived subsequently. Rather, the trial narrative must be seen as part of Matthew’s consistent negative portrayal of the Jerusalem establishment as corrupt leaders who left Israel like scattered sheep without a shepherd (9:36). These leaders did not interpret the law and the prophets in a manner that focused on the weightier matters. Instead, they sought to follow human traditions, which obscured the righteousness of the law (15:1-14). When Matthew, as a Jew writing to Jews, highlighted the corruption of the Jerusalem establishment, he was not being anti-Semitic, and Christians who take him that way make a serious error. Those who support their own anti-Semitic bias by appealing to Matthew should be roundly condemned in the strongest possible terms.

From Matthew’s own theological standpoint, it was not ultimately the corrupt religious leaders or the weak Roman governor who were responsible for killing Jesus. Rather, it was God’s plan being accomplished by the deeds of sinful men, Jews and Gentiles alike, so that sinners from every ethnic group might believe in Jesus the Messiah and be forgiven their sins by the shedding of his blood.