Episode Transcript
PRAYER OF CONSECRATION
Wake up, sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.
Abba, I belong to you.
I lift up my heart to you.
I set my mind on you.
I fix my eyes on you.
I offer my body to you as a living sacrifice.
Abba, we belong to you.
Praying in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, amen.
Matthew 26:57–68 (NIV)
Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the teachers of the law and the elders had assembled. But Peter followed him at a distance, right up to the courtyard of the high priest. He entered and sat down with the guards to see the outcome.
The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward. Finally two came forward and declared, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’”
Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”
“You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”
“He is worthy of death,” they answered.
Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him and said, “Prophesy to us, Messiah. Who hit you?”
CONSIDER THIS
Demonstrating its connection with the religious authorities, the crowd that had arrested Jesus now took him to the house of Caiaphas, the high priest. According to Josephus (AD 37–100), the reputation of Caiaphas among the people was not very good, for it was known that he “had purchased the high priesthood from Herod for one year only.”1 The Gospel of John differs slightly from our text in Matthew in that Jesus was brought first to Annas, the former high priest who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas. At any rate, Caiaphas was accompanied by the teachers of the law and the elders. These are some of the same religious leaders who had plotted earlier to kill Jesus (Matt. 26:3–5). In short, the men who were about to judge Jesus were some of the ones who had already conspired against him in the first place.
Everything about the trial that was conducted at the house of Caiaphas smacked of irregularity. We don’t know exactly what standards should have been applied in this first-century setting, but later Jewish tradition, almost two centuries later as reflected in the Mishnah (a rabbinic commentary), indicated that such a trial should have taken place during the day in the temple courts since it involved the Sanhedrin, and certainly not on the eve of a festival.2 Indeed, the haphazard nature of this assembly suggests that it was quickly put together due, in part, perhaps to the recent information received from Judas and those in league with him. Here was an opportunity to be exploited. The religious leaders had been frustrated earlier when they couldn’t carry out their designs during the day, when crowds were present, for they feared there would be “a riot among the people” (v. 5). The time to strike was now.
Another peculiarity of the trial had to do with the basic approach of Caiaphas and the religious leaders, especially in terms of their line of questioning. Our text states that “the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin [or at least all who were present] were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death.” But why look for false evidence at all? Would it not be better to look for true and sound evidence which would be overwhelmingly convincing? Given this difficulty, it appears that the use of the phrase “false evidence” in this context could mean at least one of two things. First of all, from the perspective of the religious leaders, it would seem to indicate that they did not believe any true evidence was available to convict Jesus of a charge worthy of death—so they had to concoct or manufacture, through an interrogation process, whatever evidence they needed. The second possibility here is that the language of “false evidence” is an editorial comment on the part of Matthew, who knew full well that any evidence of a capital offense against Jesus, even if the religious leaders believed it to be true, simply had to be false.
Given its serious nature, an offense worthy of death would require the agreement of at least two witnesses. Many false witnesses did indeed come forward, but as the Gospel of Mark relates: “their statements did not agree” (Mark 14:56). Finally, two people emerged, and they declared: “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’” Since temple worship was at the heart of the Jewish faith at this time, then this last charge would indeed be taken very seriously. It could also help the religious leaders with respect to their ultimate goal.
Since the Jews at the time were under the authority of Rome, they were not permitted to carry out executions. The Romans would not be interested in offenses against religious law—the laws of Leviticus, for example—except when such an offense had a consequence for the state. The intent to destroy the temple could, after all, be viewed as a sign of insurrection, a challenge to Roman governance. This could work. No doubt emboldened by this recent line of testimony, Caiaphas questioned Jesus: “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” But Jesus remained silent, a silence reminiscent of the suffering servant of Isaiah 53:7: “He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep, before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.”
Magnifying the importance of the words that would soon be spoken, Caiaphas turned up the heat, so to speak, and bellowed: “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” Recognizing the severity of oaths, in light of his earlier teaching, “But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all” (Matt. 5:34a), Jesus responded very carefully: “You have said so.” So Christ replied in the affirmative (How could he not, in light of his person and ministry?), but he did so in an indirect way rather than a direct one. It was one and the other at the same time. Jesus was not making a statement about himself using his own words. Instead, he was making a statement about himself using the very words of the high priest. Given the circumstances, fraught with verbal peril, it was a wise answer, truthful in so many respects. Indeed, in the way that Jesus had formulated his response in Matthew’s account, if Caiaphas took exception to it, then he would, on some level, have taken exception to his own words!
Jesus, however, did not leave it at that. He continued to speak: “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Knowing the Scriptures as they did, Caiaphas and the religious leaders would have heard in the words of Jesus a clear reference to Daniel 7:13–14, a passage that described the Son of Man as a glorious, triumphant figure who would come, “with the clouds of heaven” (v. 13). They would also have heard in his response echoes of Psalm 110:1 in which “The LORD says to my lord: ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.’” They quickly got the message. Being thought of as a footstool, if they had recognized the full extent of what Jesus was actually saying, would not, of course, be well received. Not surprisingly then, the high priest was furious, and so he tore his clothes (something that high priests should never do, by the way3) and cried, “He has spoken blasphemy!” This had been a familiar charge, one made earlier (John 10:33) by many of the religious leaders who were now present at this ad hoc assembly and trial. The big difference, of course, was that now they would have the means, the wherewithal, to make the charge matter. It would stick.
Once Caiaphas and the religious leaders had determined, in their minds at least, that what Jesus had spoken was blasphemy, and therefore was worthy of death, they proceeded to degrade and humiliate him. They spat in his face, struck him with their fists, and slapped him. And as if this were not enough degradation, they then began to mock him: “Prophesy to us, Messiah. Who hit you?” Consider, then, this behavior of the high priest and the religious leaders for a moment. Bear in mind that Jesus had clearly taught earlier, in order that his followers would not be deceived by false prophets, that those claiming to represent the Most High would be known not by what they said or how they dressed or what position they held, but simply by what they did: “By their fruit you will recognize them” (Matt. 7:16a). In light of this consideration, who then bore the face of God to the people better, the high priest and his compatriots or Jesus? We cannot avoid asking this question.
THE PRAYER
Lord, in your Word, I read how you faced unjust men in power with humility and honesty. Remind me that irrespective of whether those in power today rule justly or unjustly, the desires and goals of this world are not mine. Help me to walk and talk respectfully, with humility and honesty, just as Jesus did, so that others may recognize me as your follower.
