Now they that had seized Jesus led [him] away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.
The men who had seized Jesus now march Him through the dark to the house of Caiaphas, where the nation's religious leaders are already waiting. He is entirely in their hands — and yet He goes because He chose to submit when His hour came.
One quiet verb carries the weight of this verse. A writer follows it back to Isaiah.
That word "led" has a very sweet place. It speaks of the Lord submitting quietly when His time came. He was "like a lamb that is led to the slaughter." And turn to Isaiah 50. Only a Divine Person could say, "I clothe the heavens with blackness." Yet the same One gave His back to those who strike. None could touch it, till He gave it. Luke tells us He submitted Himself to them: "This is your hour, and the power of darkness." Jew and Gentile, led on by the devil, could do as they pleased against the Son of God. But in the very thing in which they acted proudly, God was above them.
No one had to wake the scribes and elders. They had already gathered to wait, and the late hour shows what they were after.
Though this was late at night, the high priest Caiaphas, with scribes and elders, had gathered to wait for their victim. They meant to reach their evil ends as fast as possible. That way no calm, careful process of law could catch up with them before they were rid of Him. The people who would gather there at night would be the most excitable, and the easiest for the inflamed leaders to sway.
Another writer pictures the faces in that room.
First we see Him before Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled. They were expecting Him. What triumph must there have been on their faces! On that memorable night they had Him at last — the One they hated and despised, brought in tightly bound, under arrest in Gentile hands.
The timing was not just unusual. Their own rules for trials that could end in death ruled out a hearing at night.
Even trials about money had to be held in the daytime. Trials for a man's life had to take place during the day too — and if the verdict was condemnation, the sentence had to wait until the second day. They condemned the Lord Jesus and declared Him worthy of death, and this before the night of His arrest was over.
The man presiding did not hold his office the way Scripture had arranged it. He owed his position to Rome.
He received his office from the Roman governor Valerius Gratus. That governor made and unmade high priests, one might say, at his will... God's order in the high priesthood was set aside. A Gentile, Valerius Gratus, put in, it would seem, whomever he pleased from the house of Aaron.
Readers comparing the four accounts notice differences in order. One explanation is that there were two separate meetings, not one.
Comparing the Gospels, I think we have two sessions of the chief priests and elders. The first is when they bring the blessed Lord there, to Caiaphas. He is questioned and examined, struck and ill-treated. When day came, they met formally in council, to give the proceedings proper form. This time there were no witnesses. So, on the strength of what the Lord had said during the night, they put the question to Him directly, and He answers yes. Once they pronounce their judgment, they lead Him away to Pilate.
The verdict did not rest on the witnesses they had brought in.
Before Caiaphas they count Him guilty of death. The lying witnesses did not succeed. His own confession of the truth condemned Him. He was the Son of God, come in fullness of grace and truth. Yet from now on they would see Him as the Son of Man, sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven. The first is where He is now; the second is how He will be seen when He comes in power and glory.
- Led. The verb marks submission, not defeat — none could touch His back till He gave it.
- Led at night. The leaders were assembled and waiting so that no careful process of law could catch up with them.
- Led illegally. Their own rule set trials for life in the daytime, with sentence held over to a second day. They condemned Him before that night ended.
- Led to a Rome-made priest. God's order for the high priesthood had been set aside, and a Roman governor seems to have picked whom he pleased from Aaron's family.
- Led to a verdict He gave them. Their false witnesses failed. They condemned Him on His own confession. Then He pointed them to the day they will see the Son of Man at the right hand of Power.
And Peter followed him at a distance, even to the palace of the high priest, and entering in sat with the officers to see the end.
Peter's story runs alongside the Lord's trial in this chapter. He still follows his Master, but at a distance. He ends up seated among the men who arrested Him, waiting to see how it would end.
Some translations call this place a "palace."
This term represents several Hebrew words. It may mean castle, fortress, the king's residence, or any large building… In the New Testament the palace of the high priest means his court. Matthew 26:3, 58, 69.
The men he sat with held official posts.
"One under authority," an official servant. Matthew 26:58; Mark 14:54, 65; John 18:36. Also translated "minister" and "officer."
Commentators read his following differently. One sees real love spoiled by self-confidence:
In submission to the Father's will, the Lord lets them lead Him away to appear before the Jewish council. Peter, with true love to the Lord, "followed Him." But he acts in self-confidence. So he follows without the mind of the Lord, and follows "afar off." It happens too often with us as well. Following without divine guidance, he enters into temptation without divine support, and learns only the utter weakness of the flesh.
Another judges the whole move a mistake from the start:
Perhaps when they had all fled, he remembered his promise to the Lord, and so at a distance he followed. It would have been far better for Peter if he had not followed at all.
Underneath the move was fear of the world.
It was a little of that same spirit the Lord warned against — eating and drinking with the drunkard. That is, it was association with the men of the world when they were set on the deepest enmity against the Lord Jesus… He feared the world. He feared the men among whom he found himself. There is nothing that so destroys confession as fear of the world… He wanted, no doubt, to see what was going on. I do not say there were not deeper and better things at the bottom of his heart, but he did it in concealment. He was off the ground of faith.
The seat he chose looked like safety and was the opposite.
I have no doubt Peter intended to stand close by the Lord and take all the consequences. But first we see him fail by fleeing, and again by following at a distance. There is a present danger in that for the Christian. We should always be known as the Lord's, in any circumstances… Here Peter was going in and sitting with the servants as if he were one of the crowd. He thought no one would recognise him. But in his presumption he took the very place of danger.
This slip was one link in a chain.
It is terribly dangerous for the Christian to sit down among the enemies of Christ. The very fact that he does so proves that decline has set in and made serious progress. In Peter's case the stages of decline are strongly marked. First, boasting in his own strength. Second, sleeping when he ought to have been praying. Third, drawing his sword when he ought to have been meekly bowing his head. Fourth, following at a distance. Fifth, making himself comfortable among the open enemies of Christ.
The same warning reaches us.
There he was, among the enemies of the Lord, far away from Jesus. No wonder Satan was too strong for him. And if we who are the Lord's now go among worldly people and try to warm ourselves at the world's fire, we can only expect Satan to trip us up too. It was a frightening position for Peter. He sat at the fire among the men who had just taken his Master prisoner. They had bound Him, and they were plotting His death.
Peter was not the only one inside that night, and the difference between the two is instructive.
Where was John all this time? Another Scripture tells us that John went in with Jesus. At first "all the disciples left him and fled" (Matthew 26:56). He is left alone. After a while John gathers courage and comes back. Peter followed at a distance. Are we following the Lord at a distance? If so, we shall not be kept. What about John? Nobody challenged him. He was very near Christ. The man who follows at a distance is bound to be found out and tripped up.
- Distance first. Peter still follows, but "afar off." Love without the Lord's mind leads him into temptation without divine support.
- Distance chooses company. The court belonged to the high priest, and the men there were officers on duty. Peter sat among the very people who had arrested his Master.
- Distance is a stage, not an accident. Boasting, sleeping, striking with the sword, following afar off, then settling in among Christ's enemies. One step leads to the next.
- Distance turns a witness into a watcher. He came "to see the end," in concealment, off the ground of faith — and fear of the world destroys confession.
- Distance is not required. John went in near to Christ and nobody challenged him; the one who follows at a distance is the one who gets tripped up.
And the chief priests and the elders and the whole sanhedrim sought false witness against Jesus, so that they might put him to death.
It is the middle of the night, and Israel's supreme court is sitting. The men want false witness, not evidence — and that exposes both the innocence of the prisoner and the state of the judges.
The court did not sit to weigh a case. It sat to find covering for a decision already taken.
In the scene that follows we see, in the chief priests and their council, how deep into wickedness religious human nature can sink. They had already decided to put Christ to death. So the trial that follows was not an attempt to find out whether He had done anything worthy of death. It was a horrible device to cover murder with a show of justice. With malice in their hearts, they seek not the truth, but witnesses "against Jesus to put Him to death."
They were not a mob. They were the men appointed to enforce the very law they were breaking. Their own Scriptures had said long before that the Messiah would be treated this way.
As a nation, Israel was especially guilty of false witness against the Messiah. The Spirit of Christ foreshadowed this sin in the prophets: "False witnesses have risen up against me, and men who breathe out cruelty"; "they charged me with things I knew nothing about" (Ps. 27:12; Ps. 35:11). And so, at the right time, the Anointed One presented Himself to the chosen people. It was not the rabble but the religious leaders of the Jews who looked for false witness against Jesus to put Him to death. In doing this they broke the law they were set to administer (Ex. 23:1).
The problem went beyond the hunt for witnesses. The timing and the order of proceedings also broke the rules of Hebrew courts.
The haste of the whole proceeding completely violated Hebrew law. Trials, even in money matters, had to be held in the daytime. Trials for life also had to take place during the day. And if condemnation followed, the sentence had to wait until the second day. The Lord Jesus was condemned and declared worthy of death, and this before the night of His arrest was even over. Then the law required two or three witnesses to satisfy the court that there was a matter to try. "Their sworn statement began every proceeding. Until they gave it in public against a man, the law held him not merely innocent but unaccused."
Their failure to find a charge is itself testimony. Enemies watched Him closely and came up with nothing they could use.
He walked so perfectly before God and before man that His enemies found nothing. Their sharp eyes never left Him, yet not one action gave them ground for a truthful accusation. Every attempt to catch something out of His mouth to destroy Him failed. So they turned to false witnesses, who twisted His words to produce even the appearance of a charge against Him. And how could it be otherwise with that holy and spotless life?
The law had a clear answer for a case with no evidence.
But did the chief priests succeed? "And they found none, though many false witnesses came forward." They could find nothing. Therefore, He ought to have been freed.
This spirit did not stop with them.
It is deeply instructive to see how religious apostasy always leads the way in insulting God, in persecuting the people of God, and in bloodthirsty cruelty. Nothing sears the conscience, hardens the mind, and steels the heart like the form of godliness without the power. Outward religious worship and service can be full of fuss and busy activity. Where grace and truth do not rest the mind and hold up the heart, that activity has always destroyed even the kinder feelings of people.
The method did not die with them: verdict first, evidence afterwards, with Scripture itself used for the job.
They sought witnesses for the purpose that was already in their hearts. And are not those who bring such witness commonly, if not always, of the same spirit? Do they not dare even to search Scripture to justify the condemnation they have already decided on? And yet how often they are forced to throw out their own witnesses! How little they can quote without misquoting.
- Verdict — the death sentence was settled before the court met. The hearing only dressed murder up as justice.
- Lawlessness — the men breaking the law were the men appointed to keep it. A night trial, a same-night sentence, a hunt for lies their own Scriptures forbade.
- Failure — they found no charge. By their own rules He should have walked free. His enemies became the strongest witnesses to His innocence.
- Foretold — the Psalms had already described false witnesses rising against Him. They charged Him with things He knew nothing about.
- Warning — religious form without reality produced this cruelty. It still does, wherever people collect evidence to prop up a verdict they have already reached.
And they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. But at the last two false witnesses came forward
The council has already decided that Jesus must die; what it lacks is evidence. This verse records that search falling apart. Witness after witness gave them nothing. Then two men came forward with a twisted version of words He had once spoken.
The order of events exposes the court. Sentence came first, and the hunt for proof came after.
In the scene that follows we see how far into wickedness religious human nature can sink, in the chief priests and their council. They had already decided to put Christ to death. So the trial that follows was not held to find out whether He had done anything worthy of death. It was a horrible device to cover murder with a show of justice. With malice in their hearts, they do not look for the truth. They look for witnesses "against Jesus to put Him to death." They find none. So they fall back on false witnesses, only to find that these will not serve their purpose either. The false witnesses condemned themselves by contradicting one another.
One writer turns this into a question for the reader: people who set out to justify a conclusion they have already reached will use even Scripture to do it.
They sought witnesses for the purpose that was in their hearts before. And are not those who bring such witness, commonly, if not constantly, of such a spirit? Do not they dare even to search Scripture to justify the condemnation they have determined on already? And yet how often are they obliged to put out of court their own witnesses! How little can they quote without misquoting.
His accusers had watched Him closely. Their empty-handed search says more about Him than about them.
But what can they say against Him? What evil had He done? They had watched Him closely. One group after another had tried to trap Him. Pharisees and Sadducees had come to test Him. They found nothing in Him. In one of His great talks, which they had heard, He had asked, "Which one of you convicts Me of sin?" There was no answer. He was the sinless One, the perfect and holy One... They could find nothing. Therefore, He ought to be freed.
The collapse was not bad luck. Men willing to lie under oath could not keep their stories straight.
But the power of God was at work behind the scenes, and every attempt to pin these made-up charges on Him came to nothing. They tried many times... One accusation after another broke down, as the false witnesses grew confused and contradicted each other. It seems as though God wrapped their usually sharp minds in a fog of confusion.
When the lies fell apart, the court fell back on His own words.
They found the will, but not the power; they were ready to testify, but even in that they could not succeed. Man fails in everything, except in malice against Jesus... The law required two or three witnesses to agree, but these did not agree. So in the end Jesus was rejected, not on man's false testimony, but on the true testimony of God. It was for His own testimony that they condemned Him. He came witnessing to the truth, and He witnessed to it right up to death.
The law fixed their number at two. Their charge twisted words He had spoken at the very start of His ministry.
There had to be two. Under Jewish law, they needed two witnesses to put anyone to death. God laid that down, and we can see the wisdom of it... They had to go all the way back to the start of the Lord's public ministry, in John 2. He said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." They were to do the work of destroying, and He, as a Divine Person, would do the restoring and the raising to life... They made out that He had said He would destroy it. It does not agree at all.
The warning here reaches past courtrooms into ordinary conversation.
We have no way now of knowing what the different accusations were. Only one of them is recorded, and it shows well how careful we need to be when we repeat someone's words. How much harm is done by misrepresenting what someone said, even without meaning to.
The prophets had spoken of this long before. And the men who administered the law were the ones who broke it.
As a nation, Israel was especially guilty of false witness against the Messiah. The Spirit of Christ pointed to this sin long before, through the prophets: "False witnesses have risen against me, and they breathe out violence" — "they ask me of things that I do not know" (Ps. 27:12; Ps. 35:11). So when the appointed time came, the Messiah presented Himself to the chosen people. It was not the crowd but the religious leaders of the Jews who looked for false witness against Jesus to put Him to death. In doing so they broke the very law they were appointed to administer (Ex. 23:1).
- Decided — The council was not weighing evidence. The death sentence came first. The search for witnesses came after, to dress murder up as justice.
- Defeated — Years of close watching, and now lies under oath, turned up nothing. Their failure proves His spotless life. By their own finding, He should have gone free.
- Distorted — The one charge we know of twists His words in John 2. They would destroy the temple of His body; He would raise it up. The lesson reaches into how we repeat anyone's words.
- Disagreed — Even the two could not match their stories, so the two-witness rule God gave held. The judges broke the very law they were meant to administer.
- Declared — No lie would stand, so they condemned Him on His own true words. He witnessed to the truth right up to death.
and said, *He* said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and in three days build it.
The council had already decided the verdict; what it lacked was evidence. Two men supplied it at last, by twisting words Jesus had spoken at the start of His ministry.
The search for witnesses was not about finding the truth. It was about dressing up a decision already made.
Before the high priest the false witnesses condemn themselves by contradicting each other. They looked for witnesses to serve the purpose already in their hearts. And are not those who bring such testimony usually, if not always, of that spirit? Do they not even dare to search Scripture to justify the condemnation they have already settled on? And yet how often they must throw out their own witnesses! How little they can quote without misquoting. They themselves were now seeking to destroy the temple of God, just as His words had implied they would. No one else could replace it, but He would raise it up again.
Why did the council need exactly two men? And what had Jesus really said? The change they made was small but total: He had told them to do the destroying.
Under Jewish law they had to have the testimony of two witnesses to put any man to death. God laid that down, and we can see the wisdom of it... It shows they had to go right back to the very beginning of the Lord's public ministry in John 2. He said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." They were to do the work of destruction. He would do the restoring and reviving as a Divine Person... They implied that He had said He would destroy it. It does not agree at all.
The trial kept failing, and the failure was not an accident.
There was no thought of a fair trial. His judges had no shame. They wanted testimony that would let them pass the sentence of death on Him. But the power of God was at work behind the scenes, and every attempt to pin the invented charges on Him came to nothing... One accusation after another broke down. The false witnesses fell into confusion and contradicted one another. It is as though God wrapped their normally sharp minds in a fog.
The saying was about His own body. That makes it a claim about who He is, not a boast about demolition work.
As a present fact, the Lord justifies what He had just done before their eyes. He does this by His relationship with God as His Father. He gives the Jews a sign in the temple of His body, as the witness of His resurrection power. "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." He is ever God; He is the Son; He gives life and raises from the dead... Christ was the true sanctuary, not the one man had laboured over so long in Jerusalem. Man might pull Him down — destroy Him, so far as man could — but He was God, and in three days He would raise up this temple.
The charge turned the truth inside out, and the lie did not stop in the courtroom.
A small amount of truth is twisted, as often happens, into the most terrible form of falsehood. The temple of God was indeed to be destroyed, but not by Him; and restored, but not in the way their testimony implied. In fact, no one knew better than they did that He meant nothing of this kind. Later we see how this distortion spread among the people, who took it as the real ground for His condemnation. So easily people nurse a false suggestion along until they accept it as truth.
The words invented at the trial became the taunt of the crowd at the cross.
His words were turned against Him, not only at His trial, but in His dying moments. "And those who passed by reviled Him, wagging their heads and saying, Aha! You who destroy the temple and build it in three days, save Yourself, and come down from the cross." How little they knew! His very words were about to come completely true.
- Temple plotted. The council fixed the verdict first and looked for evidence after. It kept throwing out its own witnesses.
- Temple misquoted. Jesus had told them to do the destroying. The witnesses made it sound like His own threat.
- Temple contradicted. The witnesses fell into confusion and contradicted each other, and the charge came to nothing.
- Temple revealed. He meant His body — the true sanctuary, not the building in Jerusalem. Raising it would be the sign of His resurrection power.
- Temple fulfilled. The crowd shouted the same twisted words at the cross while the destroying was under way. Three days later His words came true.
And the high priest standing up said to him, Answerest thou nothing? What do these witness against thee?
A court that had spent the night hunting for evidence found none, and the prisoner would not help them. The high priest stands up and demands an answer, and gets only silence — why would the Son of God refuse to defend Himself?
By this point the case had already fallen apart. The court had recruited witnesses, and they contradicted each other. The high priest's question tries to rescue a case that has collapsed.
They looked for witnesses for a purpose already fixed in their hearts... How little they can quote without misquoting. It was they who even now were seeking to destroy the temple of God, just as His words had implied they would. No one else could replace it, but He would raise it up again. Still there was no agreement. So the high priest turns to Jesus, to make Him answer what needed no answer, and so make something out of nothing. He is therefore silent.
The men asking the question were the judges. What they did first shows what this trial really was.
We are not told that someone misled them into accepting false evidence. We are not told that someone pushed it on them and tempted them. No, it says they "sought false witness against Jesus, to put Him to death." They SOUGHT it. Has there ever, we wonder, been another trial on earth where the judges began by hunting for liars to condemn the accused? So it was here; and faced with it Jesus held His peace.
His silence was not total. There was one question He would answer.
Finally the high priest has to appeal to Christ Himself. Faced with all this hatred and malice the Lord "held His peace, and answered nothing." Peter watched these solemn scenes, and years later he tells us that "when he was reviled, he did not revile in return." "Like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth" (Isa. 53:7). To the accusations of malice He had nothing to say. But when they challenged the glory of His Person, He witnesses to the truth, whatever it costs. This is the perfect example for all His servants. Having failed to carry out their wicked purpose with malicious lies, they now seek to condemn the Lord for witnessing to the truth. All the devil achieved was to bring to light the truth about the glory of the Person of Christ and to expose the utter wickedness of religious flesh.
Caiaphas fails here and changes his method. He puts Jesus on oath, and the silence ends at once. The law itself required a witness under oath to speak.
The high priest, angry at the Lord's silence, demands that He answer such charges; but there was nothing to answer: He remains silent. Caiaphas knew that no charge of evil could stand against Him. So he changed his tactics and charged Him by the living God to declare whether He is the Son of God. Could He be silent then? No. Leviticus 5:1 is clear: a witness who knows a fact and is put under oath must say what he knows or be guilty.
The silence also matched what He had come to do.
But to man's testimony against Him the Lord gives no answer. Defending Himself was not His object, and He was not teaching now. He stood as the willing Victim, the Lamb for the slaughter.
He was not powerless in that room.
Not a word did He speak. Why was this? Answer me that. These small creatures of His own hand insulted their Creator. He could have thrown them out of existence with a single word. Why then did He keep silence?... The love of His heart for sinners brought Him to this.
The Lord's silence became a pattern for His people.
Paul brings before the Corinthians the meekness of Christ. He never asserted His rights or defended Himself. When people reviled Him, He did not revile in return. The chief priests may slander Him, but "Jesus held His peace." They bring false charges against Him before Pilate, but "he gave him no answer." Herod mocks Him, but "he made no answer." It would be good for us if, when we face slander and insult, we caught something of the Lord's spirit and show the meekness that refuses to assert our rights, stand on our dignity, or defend ourselves.
- Nothing to answer — the witnesses contradicted each other, so the high priest was trying to make something out of nothing.
- Nothing to defend — He was not there to clear His name but to stand as the willing Victim, the Lamb led to slaughter.
- Nothing withheld — silence under malice, but full confession the moment they put Him on oath about who He is.
- Nothing forced — He could have destroyed His accusers with a word; love for sinners kept Him quiet.
- Nothing lost — false evidence could never convict Him. They condemned Him for telling the truth, and that is the example He left His followers.
But Jesus was silent. And the high priest answering said to him, I adjure thee by the living God that thou tell us if *thou* art the Christ the Son of God.
The high priest has run out of witnesses. So he changes tactics. Instead of hunting for evidence against Jesus, he puts Him under oath and asks Him who He is.
Up to this moment Jesus has said nothing at all, and the silence runs right through His trial. One writer traces it across every court He stood in and gives the reason for it:
In the presence of all His accusers His resource was in God. He committed Himself to Him who judges righteously. The Jewish council accused Him falsely, and He "remained silent." Before Pilate, He "gave no answer" to the Jews' accusations, and not a word to Pilate himself. The mocking Herod questioned Him in many words, "but He answered him nothing" (Luke 23:9). He was silent before men because He had a resource in God.
The silence was not stubbornness, and it was not absolute. Under Israel's law, a witness put under oath in God's name had to speak. That law explains why the Lord answered this question and no other:
The Lord's silence angers the high priest, who demands that He answer such charges. But there was nothing to answer, so He remains silent. Caiaphas knew that no charge of evil could stand against Him. So he changed his tactics and put Him under oath by the living God to say whether He is the Son of God. Could He be silent then? No. Leviticus 5:1 is clear: if someone witnesses a fact and hears the voice of the oath, he must tell what he knows or be guilty.
Another writer weighs what that oath meant to an Israelite, and what honouring it cost the Lord:
An oath was all the more solemn for an Israelite, because Jehovah lived among them to judge... Our Lord was silent before man's deep hypocrisy and false witness. Yet even in a day of utter ruin, in proceedings that mocked all righteousness, we hear Him answer the wicked high priest at once when he put Him under oath. He knew it would seal His condemnation to death.
Caiaphas does not ask a vague question. He uses the full Messiah-title as Israel knew it from their own Scriptures:
The high priest turns and puts Him under oath to answer whether He is the Christ, the Son of God. That matches, as we have seen, His title in Psalm 2 — His true, full Messiah-title among the Jews. To this the Lord at once answered that He was. For now it was His own testimony, and He must give the whole truth.
Why did Caiaphas not ask this at the start? One writer finds a reason in the order of events:
Just one thing remained: to put a question to Him — a question He could not refuse to answer. Why did they not do this at once? First He had to appear as the Holy One, the Lamb of God, without spot or blemish... The high priest knew he would succeed if he put that question about His Sonship to Him. But little did he know what he was doing; the blessed One could not be condemned by false witnesses. Only His own confession of who He was — the confession of the truth — could bring about His condemnation.
The move also broke Israel's own rules of justice. One writer cites a senior judge's study of the trial:
Further, the law of the Jews was, "Our law condemns no one to death upon his own confession." It was "a basic principle with us that no one can damage himself by what he says in judgment." So Caiaphas "putting the question to the accused," and founding a condemnation on the answer, "was the last violation of formal justice."
One writer defines confession by what the Lord did here, and by what it cost Him:
Confession stands by the truth of God against the lie of man, and stands by it at the risk of everything. Our Jesus made this confession... The high priest put Him under oath to say whether He was the Christ, the Son of the Blessed. He stood by the confession of the truth and of His glory, saying, "You have said so." But this cost Him everything. At once they began to spit on Him, to strike Him, to cover His face shamelessly, and to lead Him off as their prey.
- Silent — He answered no accusation. There was nothing to answer, and His resource was in God.
- Sworn — the law said a witness under oath must speak. The oath, not the pressure, opened His mouth.
- Spotless — the false witnesses had to fail first, so the Lamb stood without spot or blemish before any charge stuck.
- Spoken — man's false testimony could not condemn Him. His own true word did, and He gave it knowing it meant death.
- Standing — true confession stands by the truth of God at the cost of everything.
Jesus says to him, *Thou* hast said. Moreover, I say to you, From henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.
The court could find no case against Jesus, so the high priest put Him under oath to say who He was. His answer sealed His death sentence — and told His judges where they would next see Him.
Through the false accusations Jesus said nothing. But a rule in the law of Israel made the oath a different matter.
The high priest, angry at the Lord's silence, demands that He answer these charges. But there was nothing to answer, so He stays silent. Caiaphas knew that no charge of evil could stand against Him. So he changed his tactics. He put Him under oath before the living God to say whether He is the Son of God. Could He be silent then? No. Leviticus 5:1 is clear: if someone witnesses a fact and hears a solemn call to speak under oath, he must say what he knows or be guilty. The law required Him to tell the truth, and He does. "You have said so," He answers — and it is absolute truth that He is the Son of God.
The word of God tells us not to swear at all. Yet here the Lord answers under oath.
He put the Lord on His oath, according to Jewish law. This gives us light. We are told, "Do not take an oath at all." The word of God condemns anyone who takes an oath by his own choice. But when the governing authorities put us on oath, we ought to submit to it. The Lord did here. If they order us to sin, then we must obey God rather than man, but we are not called to oppose them.
The hunt for witnesses collapsed. What finally secured the verdict was the truth He spoke about Himself.
Before Caiaphas (vv. 57-68) they judge Him worthy of death — not because the false witnesses succeeded, but because of His own confession of the truth. He was the Son of God, come in the fullness of grace and truth. Yet from now on they would see Him as the Son of Man, seated at the right hand of Power and coming in the clouds of heaven. The first is His place now; the second is His appearing in power and glory.
The title He chose sent His judges back to their own Scriptures. They knew the passage — and still called it blasphemy.
This answer really gave the clue to the difficulty the Jews had raised before: that He, being a man, made Himself God (John 10:33). The solution lay in their own Scriptures. The Son of man of Daniel 7 is a Divine Person. They understood that well. But instead of letting the light from the Lord's words shine into their hearts, they accused Him of blasphemy. They were completely blind — must we not say blind on purpose?
Two pictures stand together in what follows: a seat and a return.
He does not stop there. They needed the truth about how they themselves would one day be brought into complete subjection to Him, not only as Son of God, but as Son of Man. They would see Him seated at the right hand of power, at rest because God had approved His great work of redemption. They would see Him coming in the clouds of heaven, in supreme victory over all creation. Wonderful declaration of the glory to be given Him as Son of Man. The high priest then makes Christ's true confession the one issue. He tears his clothes, disobeying the plain instruction of Leviticus 21:10. Then he accuses the Lord of blasphemy for telling the truth about who He is.
The phrase "from now on" matters. The Greek points to something starting at once, and Luke's account keeps only the first half of the saying.
So Matthew 26:64 says, "From now on" (ap' arti) "you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." Luke always looks at the present, general result, so he keeps only "seated at the right hand of Power" (chapter 23:69). It was in either case immediate (apo tou nun).
After the resurrection He appeared only to His own. The council that condemned Him never saw Him then — but they will.
The risen Lord showed Himself to certain of His disciples (John 21:1), but not to any of His enemies. He came to Peter and John, Thomas and Cleopas, but not to Caiaphas, Pilate or Herod, or any of their followers. His enemies judged Him unjustly, and He quietly submitted to it. Yet by His own testimony before the Sanhedrin (Matthew 26:64) they will still "see the Son of Man" on the day He appears, when He comes with clouds of glory and majesty to judge all evildoers.
- Silence — He answered nothing to lies, because there was nothing there to answer.
- Oath — the solemn call to speak before God required an answer; He obeyed lawful authority instead of resisting it.
- Confession — no false witness could convict Him; His own true words about Himself condemned Him.
- Seated — the right hand of Power is His place now, because God approved His work of redemption.
- Coming — the same men who judged Him will see Him come on the clouds, in victory over all creation.
Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He has blasphemed what need have we any more of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard the blasphemy.
Caiaphas could not convict Jesus on evidence, so he put Him under oath. The answer gave him what he wanted: a claim he could call blasphemy. Tearing his own robe, he declared the trial over, and in doing so broke the very law he claimed to be defending.
The false witnesses had collapsed, and the question "What further witnesses do we need?" admits it. What sentenced Jesus was His own answer about who He is. That same answer pointed forward to His exaltation.
Before Caiaphas (verses 57-68) He is counted guilty of death — not because the falsehood of the witnesses succeeded, but because of His own confession of the truth. He was the Son of God, come in the fullness of grace and truth. Yet from now on they would see Him as the Son of Man, sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. That is His present position, and that is how He will be seen when He comes in power and glory.
One rule in the law explains why He answered at all.
Caiaphas changed tactics and put Him on oath before the living God to say whether He is the Son of God. Could He stay silent then? No. Leviticus 5:1 is decisive: anyone who is a witness to a fact and hears the call to swear must say what he knows, or be guilty. He is required to tell the truth, and He does.
Unbelief could read His answer only one way. Not one voice in the council spoke against the verdict, and He did not resist what came next.
In the eyes of these leaders, blinded by unbelief, the truth appears as blasphemy, and without a dissenting voice "they all condemned Him as deserving death." He is in perfect submission to the Father's will. Soon He will be exalted to the right hand of power and come again in glory. Yet now He offers no resistance to the outrages of those who spit in His face and strike Him with their hands.
Israel's law gave the high priest a specific rule about his clothes. Caiaphas broke it as he passed sentence.
Leviticus 21 deals with special instructions for the priests... Even more strict were the rules for the high priest himself, as seen in verses 10-15. So when Caiaphas tore his clothes, as recorded in Matthew 26:65, he clearly broke the command of verse 10. Some who have looked into the matter have said that every possible rule of justice, both divine and human, was broken in the condemnation of our Lord.
That act cost the high priest more than his robe:
In his frenzy the high priest tore his clothes, by which act he destroyed his priesthood, and pronounced the Lord guilty of blasphemy.
The rule about torn robes pointed beyond Caiaphas. It says something about the priesthood of Christ Himself.
A priest was never to tear his garments, though Caiaphas did this when questioning the Lord Jesus (Matt. 26:65), an offence for which the law demanded the death penalty. For above all, the High Priest is a picture of the Lord Jesus. Will His garments of priestly dignity ever be torn? Absolutely not! For this would show some failure or fault in His priestly work. Thank God this is impossible. He remains faithful and true forever!
The council did not reach its verdict that night. It had already decided, and the hearing only supplied a reason.
The scribes and elders agree with him in condemning the Lord as worthy of death, not for anything He had done, but because of who He is. Of course they had decided beforehand that He must be put to death. Now they feel it necessary at least to put on a show of religious zeal.
Under their law, a charge of blasphemy meant death. The insults that followed were real suffering. But not every suffering of Christ did the same work.
If it was blasphemy, the blasphemer had to be put to death; and here is this wicked man bursting with rage... Here he does it in pretended righteous indignation... It is very solemn to think about this — to think Who He was Who had all these indignities heaped on Him! But this is no part of His atoning work. Atonement was made when He suffered at the hand of God. He suffered at the hands of men for righteousness — for God. He suffered at the hand of God for sin — for us.
- No evidence. The false witnesses failed. The verdict rested on His own true confession of who He is.
- One tear. Christ's claim did not give way that night. The only things torn were the high priest's robe and the law that forbade him to tear it.
- Truth misnamed. Unbelief could call that confession nothing but blasphemy. The council condemned Him for who He is, not for anything He had done.
- Priesthood forfeited. The torn robe cost Caiaphas his own priesthood. The true High Priest's garments can never be torn, because His work has no fault.
- Two sufferings. What He bore from men here was for righteousness; atonement came when He suffered at the hand of God, for us.
What think ye? And they answering said, He is liable to the penalty of death.
This is the moment the council pronounces its sentence on Jesus. Everything turns on the answer He had just given about Himself, under oath.
Every effort to convict Him by witnesses had failed. So the high priest put the prisoner Himself under oath.
It was the Lord's own confession that they condemned Him on. He put the Lord on His oath, according to Jewish law. This gives us light. We are told, "Do not take an oath at all." The word of God condemns taking an oath by our own choice. But when the governing authorities put us under oath, we ought to submit to it. The Lord did here.
He could have saved His life by denying who He was.
If no one can prove Him guilty, He will not deny the truth. He confesses the glory of His Person as Son of God. He also declares what they would see from now on. They would see the Son of man no longer in the meekness of One who would not break the bruised reed. They would see Him coming in the clouds of heaven, and sitting on the right hand of power. He gave this witness. For that He is condemned — for what He said of Himself, for confessing the truth. The false witnesses did not succeed. The priests and the heads of Israel were guilty of His death. Their guilt came from their own rejection of the testimony He gave to the truth.
One writer points out the law the high priest broke, and how the rest of the council answered.
The high priest tears his clothes, disobeying the plain command of Leviticus 21:10. He accuses the Lord of blasphemy for answering truthfully about who He is. The scribes and elders agree with him in condemning the Lord as worthy of death, not for anything He had done, but because of who He is.
They were not short of light. Their own Scriptures already told them who the Son of man is.
The Son of man of Daniel 7 is a Divine Person. They understood that well. But instead of letting the light from the Lord's words shine into their hearts, they accused Him of blasphemy. They were completely blind — must we not say blind on purpose? They would not be helped. They judged Him guilty of death.
The high priest's outburst cost him his own office. Their verdict also fixed the kind of death they wanted for Him.
Then the high priest saw how useless the proceedings were. In his excitement he rose from his seat. He charged Him in the name of the living God to tell them whether He was the Christ, the Son of God. To that charge the Lord had one answer — whatever the consequences, He must bear witness to the truth. In his frenzy the high priest tore his clothes, and by that act he destroyed his priesthood, and pronounced the Lord guilty of blasphemy. Their verdict recalls the command in Deuteronomy 21:22 about a man who is put to death and hanged on a tree: such a man is cursed by God. From that time on they were determined that He should be hanged on a tree — not only the target of their accusations, but, as they hoped, cursed by God.
The insults that follow this verdict are not the same thing as the cross.
It is very solemn to think about this — to think who He was who had all these insults heaped on Him! But this is no part of His atoning work. Atonement was made when He suffered at the hand of God. He suffered at the hands of man for righteousness — for God. He suffered at the hand of God for sin — for us. There is nothing so jealously guarded in the word of God as the Person of Christ.
Their verdict was not the last word spoken about Him. Resurrection was God's reply to the court.
Men treated Him as someone unfit for decent society, unfit even to live in this world. They treated Him with every indignity. Is He left without any justification at all? No, certainly not! Man crucified Him, but God raised Him. His resurrection is His justification, for by it God has declared that man's treatment and judgment of Him was wrong.
That reversal is not His alone.
If man condemned Him, God would justify Him — and that very word is applied to us in Romans 8.
- Confession. No witness could convict Him. They condemned Him on His own answer under oath. He gave that answer rather than deny the truth.
- Blindness. Daniel 7 had already shown them a divine Son of man. They called that same truth blasphemy. Their blindness was not for lack of light.
- Collapse. The high priest tore his robe, which the law forbade. That act destroyed his own priesthood.
- Distinction. He suffered at the hands of men for righteousness; He suffered at the hand of God for sin. Only the second is atonement.
- Reversal. Man's verdict was death. God's answer was resurrection. That same word of justification is applied to us.