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.