Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Matthew 26:57 - 26:68
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
(Mar_14:53-65; Luk_22:54-71; Joh_18:12-24)
Mat_26:57. Where the scribes and the elders were assembled.—In accordance with our former remarks, we conclude that this was a preliminary meeting of the Sanhedrin, quite distinct from the regular and formal meeting which took place early on the following morning. It is quite characteristic of the Evangelists, that John details the first examination, Luke the third, while Matthew and Mark record the second. John evidently apprehended the rejection of Christ by the Jews as originating in the hatred of Annas and the priests, which decided the rest of the procedure; Luke viewed it in the light of its political bearing; the other two Evangelists described it in its relation to the central idea of the hierarchy as this unfolded itself to their intuitions.
Mat_26:58. Afar off.—As it were, not with the cordial closeness of a disciple, but like a mere spectator or observer.
Unto the court or hall.—Not the palace, as in Luther [and in our authorized version]. The expression áὐëÞ was applied, among the Greeks, both to the hall or court in front of the house, and to the dwelling itself. In Eastern and Jewish houses it was the inner court surrounded by side halls. Here the hall of the palace, the court-yard. According to the account given by John, He had obtained immediate access into the inner hall, and then procured admission for Peter. Tradition asserts that John had become acquainted with the family of the high-priest while still engaged in his original calling as fisherman. “As in all eastern houses, so in this palace, the windows of the room or the openings of the hall in which Jesus was examined, would open into the inner court, which, according to Mar_14:66, must have been somewhat lower than the rest of the house. There Peter, and perhaps John also, heard part of the examination that went on. Accordingly, the accounts in the three first Gospels bear evident marks of having been derived from eyewitnesses, who, however, had not heard all that had passed. But the account given by John was manifestly supplemented from more full and satisfactory reports.” Gerlach.
Mat_26:59. And all the council.—So Matthew adds from his ideal theocratic point of view. The expression must evidently be taken in a general sense. In their official capacity as a council, the whole assemblage were animated by the same spirit of hatred and murder. Individual exceptions, such as Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, are left out of view by the historian. Besides, they may not have been present at this meeting. It will be remembered, that when, on a much earlier occasion, Nicodemus attempted to speak in favor of Jesus, he was threatened with excommunication, Joh_7:50, etc. Again, according to Joh_9:22, the council had formerly passed a resolution to excommunicate any person who should own Jesus as the Christ. Hence it seems probable that Nicodemus had taken no further part in the deliberations of the council against Jesus. Similarly, we conceive that Joseph of Arimathea had also, on an earlier occasion, spoken in the same spirit as Nicodemus, Luk_23:51. Other members of the Sanhedrin may have been frightened and kept away in like manner by the threat of excommunication. From Luk_22:70 we infer that these members of the council were not present even at the formal and official examination which took place in the morning. Finally, it deserves notice that the procedure of the Sanhedrin against Jesus may be said to have extended, from first to last, throughout the whole of His official career. This appears most clearly from the account furnished in the Gospel of John. Mat_2:18 : first attendance at the Passover in the year 781; comp. Mat_4:1; Mat_5:16 : festival of Purim, 782. Commencement of the persecutions in Galilee.—Mat_7:1; Mat_9:14 : feast of Tabernacles, in the year 782. Excommunication pronounced upon the adherents of Jesus, Mat_9:22. Open and full persecutions in Galilee.—Joh_10:22 : feast of the Dedication of the Temple, in the winter of the year 782. Joh_10:31 : attempt to stone Jesus. Joh_11:57 : pronouncing of the ban or injunction, that any one who knew where Jesus was, should immediately indicate the same to the council.—Mat_12:10 : the decisive meeting of the council on the evening before Christ’s entry into Jerusalem, when the resolution was also taken to kill Lazarus. Then followed the three examinations during the night of the betrayal, when it was no longer a matter of question whether Jesus should be put to death,—the main object only being to observe some kind of legal form, and to fix upon a sufficient ground of accusation. Of course, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea could not be present on these occasions.
Sought false witness against Jesus.—Meyer: øåõäïìáñôõñßáí , i. e., as viewed by the historian.” But it ought to be kept in mind that the priests acted not merely under the impulse of fanaticism, but with a fixed determination to find proof against Christ, whether it were rightly or wrongly obtained. The remark of de Wette, that they would have preferred to have found true witness, and did not purposely seek for false, seems somewhat superfluous, as this would of course be the case. It is sufficient, that they were fully conscious that true witness could not be obtained.
Mat_26:60. But found none.—According to Mar_14:56, “their witness agreed not together.” By the law of Moses, at least two witnesses were required to agree if the accusation was to be sustained (Num_35:30 Deu_17:6; Deu_19:15). Hence in the following clause the emphasis rests on the word two. At last the smallest requisite number was found!
Mat_26:61. This man said.—A perversion of the statement of Jesus in Joh_2:19 ( ëýóáôå ), which had referred to His body. “Misunderstood and altered,” observes Meyer; “but whether intentionally or not, cannot be decided.” But a witness is fully responsible, if not for his understanding of the words which he reports, yet for the accuracy of his quotation. A witness from hearsay, who professes to have himself heard a certain statement, or an accuser who has not accurately heard what he reports, must also be regarded as a false witness.
Within three days, äéÜ , not after three days.—From this passage, as well as from the treatment of Stephen (Act_6:13), we learn that statements derogatory to the temple were treated as blasphemy. Nor is it difficult to infer the reason of this—the temple being regarded as the symbol of the Jewish religion. Jesus held his peace, “in lofty self-consciousness,” not merely because the witness was false, but also because, even if true, it was really no evidence of hostility to the temple, since, along with the statement of its destruction, it had held out the promise of its restoration; and because the whole of this preliminary questioning pointed forward to His avowal of His Messianic character, to which, after all, the inquiry must ultimately come.
Mat_26:62. And the high-priest arose.—“The chief-priest loses his self-possession, and rises up.” Perhaps more accurately it may be characterized as a piece of theatrical affectation, the high-priest pretending to be filled with holy indignation.—Answerest Thou nothing?—Meyer: The arrangement of the following clause into two distinct queries is exceedingly characteristic of passionate hatred, and quite warranted by the phraseology, as ἀðï êñßíåóèáßôé may mean to answer something, and ôß may be equivalent to ὅ , ôé .
Mat_26:63. And the high-priest answered.—He understood the meaning of Christ’s silence, and hence answered His silent speech. Meyer rightly observes: “He replied to the continuous silence of Jesus by formally proposing to Him to answer on oath the question, whether He was the Messiah. On this everything depended, in order to secure that the sentence of death pronounced against Him should be confirmed by the Roman authorities.” Comp. Joh_18:19.
I adjure Thee.—Gen_24:3; 2Ch_36:13. When such a formula of adjuration was employed, a simple affirmation or negation was regarded in law as sufficient to constitute a regular oath. See Michaelis, Laws of Moses, § 302. Grotius: ἐîïñêßæåéí , Hebraice äùáéò , modo est jurejurando adigere, interdum vero obsecrare. Solebant judices talem äñêéóìüí adhibere, ut aut testibus testimonium aut reis confessionem exprimerent. Another formula of the same kind is mentioned in Joh_9:24. “The judge adjured the witness, who, by a simple Yea and Amen, made the oath his own.”
By the living God.—Not in the sense of “pointing Thee” to Him, but in that of putting the oath as in His presence, and in view of Him as the judge and avenger. The living God Himself was invoked as the witness and the judge of any untruth, Heb_6:13; Heb_10:31.—Thou hast said, åῖðáò .—An affirmation (Mat_26:25), and consequently an oath. The conduct of Christ is not inconsistent with Mat_5:34, since in the present instance the Lord was placed before the constituted authorities of the land, and acted as bound in law. “Rationalists have understood the words of Jesus as implying: Thou sayest it, not I!” “He tells them now that He is the Christ.” Braune.
The Son of God.—More fully reported in Luk_22:67, and Mat_26:70. From that passage it appears that the expression, Son of God, was not merely intended as a further addition to the term Christ (de Wette), but meant to express the Christian idea attaching to the latter designation.
Mat_26:64. Besides, ðëÞí .—A particle of transition, intended to introduce a new statement, Luk_19:27. “Not profecto (Olshausen), nor quin (Kuinoel), [nor nevertheless, as in the authorized Engl, version], but, besides, or over, beyond My affirmation of this adjuration.” Meyer. Besides this, I shall henceforth manifest Myself as the Messiah over you; My Messianic glory shall appear before your eyes. Thus, of His own accord did Jesus now add His royal testimony to the confession which He had been forced to make.—From hence shall ye see.—The expression must not be limited to the final appearing of Christ, but refers to His whole state of exaltation,—to that personal exaltation which reveals itself in the almighty power and universal influence exercised by Him throughout the course of history.—Sitting on the right hand of power.— ÔῆòäõíÜìåùò = äַéְáåּøָä (Buxtorf, Lex. Talm., p. 3855). Power, one of the main attributes of the Deity, here the abstract for the concrete, to indicate how, under this influence, His apparent impotence would at once be transformed into omnipotence. According to Psa_110:1, “sitting at the right hand” refers to the exaltation of the Messiah, and to the manifestation of His äüîá ; more especially to His share in the government of the world, in the form of festive rest and absolute supremacy.—And coming in the clouds of heaven.—The expression does not merely refer to His final advent (de Wette), but to the whole judicial administration of Christ, which commenced immediately after His resurrection, but especially at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, and shall be completed in the end of the world.
Mat_26:65. Then the high-priest rent his clothes.—“He rent his Simla, or upper garment (not his high-priestly robe, which he only wore in the temple; comp. Reland, Antiq. ii, 100, 50, §11). A mark of indignation, Act_14:14; on other occasions, of mourning (2Sa_1:11); and in this sense interdicted to the high-priest (Lev_10:6; Lev_21:10), but only on ordinary occasions. This prohibition, however, does not seem to have applied to extraordinary occurrences: 1Ma_2:14; Joseph. Bell. Judges 2, 15, 4.” De Wette. The practice of rending the clothes on occasions of supposed blasphemy was based on 2Ki_18:37. Buxt. Lex., p. 2146. Originally it was simply a natural outburst of most intense pain, such as grief or indignation, or of both these emotions. Hence it would be voluntary, and not subject to a special ordinance. But at a later period, when many of these outbursts were more theatrical than real, their exercise was regulated by special rules, according to Maimonides, quoted by Buxtorf, just as similar manifestations were made the subject of regulation in the mediæval Church. The rent made in the garment was from the neck downward, and about a span (palmus) in length. The body dress and the outer garment were left untouched: “in reliquis vestibus corpori accommodatis omnibus fit, etiamsi decem fuerint” Hence ôὰἱìÜôéá .—Saurin: Here was an infallible high-priest; was it duty implicitly to trust and to follow him? An argument against the Romish conception of faith as a blind submission to the absolute authority of the Church and the pope.
He hath spoken blasphemy.—An explanation of his symbolical action, and at the same time the pronouncing of sentence, which, according to the law, would in such a case be that of death. On the supposition of their unbelief, and of their view that the statement of Christ was false, His declaration that He was the Messiah, as well as of the manner in which He sustained that office, would be peculiarly repugnant to them. But then, even on the high-priest’s own showing, it was he, and not Christ, who was guilty of blasphemy, since he had, in his authoritative capacity, obliged Jesus to take this oath. Thus the conduct of the judges themselves led to what they regarded as the crime, which in turn they condemned, thus condemning themselves. But viewed in its true light and spirit, the presumptuous high-priest alone and his compeers were the blasphemers.
What further need have we of witnesses?—An involuntary admission that they were at a loss for witnesses. At the same time, it also implies that they wished to found the charge against Jesus solely upon His own declaration that He was the Messiah. In point of fact, a confession of guilt would render a further examination of witnesses unnecessary. Caiaphas, however, presupposes that the members of the Sanhedrin shared his own unbelief. In his hot haste he takes this for granted: Behold, ye have now heard His blasphemy.
Mat_26:66. He is worthy of death.—As they imagined, according to the law, Lev_24:16; comp. Deu_18:20. A full statement of the sentence, which Caiaphas had already implied when he declared Jesus guilty of blasphemy. According to de Wette and Meyer, this was merely a preliminary expression of opinion on the part of the Sanhedrin, while the formal resolution was only arrived at next morning, Mat_27:1. In our view, this sentence was already full and final, although in point of form it may not have been quite complete. For, (1) the Sanhedrin had probably to be convoked in a formal manner; (2) that tribunal was, according to Jewish law, prohibited from investigating any capital crime during the night. Besides, all haste in pronouncing condemnation was interdicted; nor could a sentence of death be pronounced on the same day on which the investigation had taken place. Probably the Sanhedrin may have wished to elude this provision by entering on the examination during the night. But this object was not in reality secured, since the Jewish day commenced in the evening. See Friedlieb, Archœol. of the History of the Passion, p. 95. On other violations of the proper legal procedure in this case, see p. 87. (3) According to Roman law, a sentence pronounced before the dawn was not regarded as valid (Sepp. Leben Jesu, 3:484). (4) What was most important, the Jews were required to couch their sentence of condemnation in the form of a charge which they might hope Pilate would sustain; for the Roman governor was required to confirm the Jewish verdict of death (Joseph. Arch. 20:9, 1). The ill-treatment of the Lord immediately afterward shows that the Sanhedrin regarded even this first sentence as final. “It is sad that many modern Jews are still found attempting to defend the sentence of death pronounced upon Jesus. Thus the Liber Nizzachon, ed. by Wagenseil, 1681, p. 50; and Salvador, Histoire des Institutions de Moise et du Peuple Hebr., Paris, 1828, 2:85. They maintain that Jesus was rightly condemned, because, 1. He arrogated to Himself Divine dignity (Deu_13:1), and because, 2. His work and mission tended toward the overthrow of Judaism, the undermining of the authority of the highest tribunal, and consequently the ruin of the people. Compare, on the other hand, von Ammon, Fortbild d. Christenth., vol. iv.” Heubner.
Mat_26:67. Then they spit in His face.—With reference to the ill-treatment to which the Lord was subjected before the Sanhedrin, we must call to mind that, even in the house of Annas, He was struck by one of the officers (Joh_18:22). De Wette and Meyer are mistaken in supposing that this ill-treatment is recorded in another connection in Luk_22:63. Manifestly the latter Evangelist there refers to what had taken place at a period intermediate between the first examination before Caiaphas and the final examination on the following morning, related in Mat_26:66, which describes this final meeting, in terms similar to the narrative of the first examination given by Matthew. That the two meetings must have resembled each other, is evident from the circumstance that the second was in part merely a repetition of the first, certain formalities being now observed. There are, however, certain peculiarities about each of them. In reference to the account of the ill-treatment itself, we notice that the narratives of the various Evangelists supplement, but do not contradict, each other. In all probability, the spitting in His face occurred immediately after His condemnation. It may be regarded as a consequence of the sentence, spitting being considered among the Jews as the expression of the greatest contempt (Deu_25:9; Num_12:14). “This insult was punished with a fine of four hundred drachmas [the drachma being equal to about 15 American cents]. Even to spit before another was regarded as an offence, and treated as such, by heathen also. Thus Seneca records that it was inflicted at Athens upon Aristides the Just, adding, at the same time, that with considerable difficulty one individual was at last found willing to do it.” Braune. But as those who were excommunicated were regarded as beyond the pale of the law, this expression of contempt was specially applied to them (comp. Isa_50:6). Accordingly, the members of the Sanhedrin may have considered themselves warranted to take part in this manifestation of sanctimonious zeal. Their conduct served as the signal for bodily maltreatment on the part of the officers by striking Him with fists (described by the term êïëáößæåéí ). The other particulars added by Matthew took place on a later occasion. From the narratives of Mark and Luke (see my Life of Jesus, 2:3, p. 1477) we gather that, after the sentence pronounced by Caiaphas, Jesus was led through the hall, where the servants were warming themselves, into another prison, and that at the very moment when Peter denied Him for the third time. There the guard which was to watch the person of Jesus till the final examination on the following morning, commenced to maltreat Him, as fully detailed in the Gospel by Luke. This guard was, therefore, different from the officers who had formerly insulted Him. The expression ἐῤῥÜðéóáí is generally referred to smiting with the hand [so also in the E. V.: they smote Him with the palms of their hands]; but Beza, Ewald, Meyer, and others, apply it to smiting with rods Both renderings are equally warranted by the text. From Luke and Mark we infer that the scoffing which now took place was accompanied and followed by smiting with rods.
Mat_26:68. Prophesy unto us, Thou Christ.—The scoffing was directed against His prophetic dignity, or, as they supposed, against the prophetic title which He claimed. According to Luk_22:64, they blindfolded and then struck Him on the face, asking Him to prophesy which of them had inflicted the indignity. Fritzsche interprets it as meaning: Predict to us who shall smite Thee; but in that case it would have been needless to have covered His face. As a prophet, He was to tell them what He could not see. The devilish fanaticism of the superiors had communicated itself to the lowest officials, and spread in the way of sympathy from the Jewish temple guard even to the Roman soldiers. The officers became a band of murderers around Him (see Psalms 22; the bulls of Bashan).
2. Properly speaking, the saying of Christ, “Destroy this temple,” etc., which two years previously He had uttered at the time of the Passover, properly meant—You seek to kill Me; kill Me then: I shall rise again. It was the curse of their fanatical dulness and misunderstanding, and of their false hearing, that they converted this very saying into a charge on which they condemned Him to death.
3. The ancient Church allegorically interpreted Christ’s silence before the secular and the ecclesiastical tribunals, as implying that He answered not a word because, as poor, guilty sinners, we must and would have been silent at the judgment-seat of God. But the tribunals of Caiaphas and Pilate could only in point of form and appearance serve as an emblem of the judgment-seat of God. In reality, they exhibited the fact, that the secular and religious authorities of the ancient world were wholly devoted to the service of darkness, and hence given up by the Lord to the judgment of self-condemnation. On the other hand, however, this judgment of self-condemnation, which sinful humanity executed upon itself in condemning the Christ of God, is the sentence which Christ by His silence took upon Himself as the woe of humanity, in order to transform, by His sympathy and self-surrender, the punishment of the world into an expiatory atonement.
4. Christ, the Son of God.—“The former title was probably mentioned first, because, as it did not embody the real ground of accusation, the high-priest may have expected that Jesus would more readily assent to the query when couched in that form. For, even in the eyes of such a tribunal, the mere claim to Messiahship could not by any possibility be regarded as a crime deserving of death, so long as no attempt whatever had been made to prove the falseness of the assertion. All this appears still more plainly from the narrative as given by Luke, in which the question, ‘Art Thou then the Son of God?’ is put separately from the other, seemingly called forth by the announcement that they would see Him sitting on the right hand of the power of God.—Many, in fact most Jews at that time, understood that title (Son of God) as only referring to the Messianic kingship of Jesus, without connecting with it the idea of eternal and essential Sonship. But Caiaphas evidently intended this expression to imply something more than the former designation of Christ. He and the Sanhedrin wittingly attached to it the peculiar meaning which, on previous occasions, had been such an offence to them (Joh_5:18; Joh_10:33); and Jesus, fully understanding their object, gave a most emphatic affirmation to their inquiry. Of all the testimonies in favor of the divinity of Christ, this is the most clear and definite.” Gerlach.
5. The testimony and the oath of Christ.—Calmly did He utter the reply which insured His death. The Faithful Witness (Revelation 1) did not falter or fail. And at the very moment when He surrendered Himself to an unrighteous judgment unto death, did the full consciousness of His kingly glory burst upon Him.
6. By the sentence of the Sanhedrin, the people of Israel rejected their Messiah, apparently with all due observance of legal forms (although in contravention of several legal ordinances), but in utter violation of the spirit and import of the law. Thereby the nation rejected itself, and destroyed the theocratical and political import of its temple. See Eph_2:15. It was in reality the Sanhedrin itself which, by condemning Jesus, condemned the temple, the city, the theocracy, and the whole ancient world. From this sentence of death upon the Lord, the world can only recover in and through the new life in Christ.
7. Besides, I say unto you, etc.—On the right hand of power—of the majesty of God, Psalms 110—“Jesus here announces to His judges the judgment of His future advent. He intimates that henceforth they were to be continually visited by dreadful visions of His sovereignty. They would ever see Him. Wherever omnipotence would manifest itself, there would He also appear along with it, since all its operations should be connected with His kingdom. Above all the clouds which were to darken the sky, would He ever and again appear as the light of new eras, as the morning star, and the sun of a brighter and better future,—and that from this time onward, until the final revelation of His glory over the last clouds which would ascend from a burning world” (Leben Jesu). “These words of our Lord show that His coming in the clouds of heaven referred not only to His final and visible advent at the last day, but also to the events heralding and typifying His return.” Gerlach.
8. With this grand utterance the Lord Jesus directly met His enemies on the very ground of Scripture to which, in their hypocrisy, they had appealed. The reference here is to the prediction of Daniel, in Mat_7:13, concerning the glory of the Son of Man; hence also the final application of this prophecy to the Son of Man, who from the first had referred it to Himself.
9. We might reasonably have expected that, after Christ had been condemned by an ecclesiastical tribunal on the charge of blasphemy, such accusations would not again have been laid by or before any who professed to be His disciples, but that all such questions would have been left to be settled by the Lord Himself. But the Inquisition has pursued the path first trodden by Caiaphas. The Church of Christ must commit the judgment upon such sins to God Himself, while the State may enact such laws against blasphemy and crimes of sacrilege as it may deem necessary for the well-being of the land.
10. The last council of traditionalism in its full and final blindness, an antitype of similar councils in the Christian Church.
11. The spitting upon Jesus, as predicted in Isaiah 53. Gerlach: “Condemned as a blasphemer, He was treated as an outlaw, and exposed to every indignity and attack.”
Starke:—Canstein: Even the true Church and its whole solemn assembly may err and fail, if they set aside the word of God, Exo_32:7-10.—We may “follow” Jesus, yet not in the right spirit or manner.—Danger of fellowship with men of the world (Peter warming himself by the fire of coals).—If we are weak, we must avoid fellowship with those whose intercourse might have a tendency to render us still more weak.—Solemn ordinances of God against false witnesses, Exo_23:1; Deu_19:18. But these wicked judges not only admitted, but even suborned false witnesses.—While seeking to entangle Jesus, they entangled themselves.—Canstein: Even the most sacred ordinances of God are capable of being desecrated by men.—Zeisius: The enemies of Christ at one and the same time accusers, witnesses, and judges: thus frequently even in our own day.—Quesnel: A most vivid picture of what envy still does every day against the people of God.—Hedinger: Attend, O my soul; thy Saviour suffers for the false witness of thy tongue, for thy hypocrisy, etc.—When wicked rulers and judges occupy the high places, vile persons will always be found ready to lend themselves as their tools.—Zeisius: If the words of Christ, who was eternal Wisdom and Truth, were perverted, why should we wonder that His servants and children suffer from similar misrepresentations?—The testimony of Christ after His silence; similarly, may we not remain silent when the glory of God or His truth are in question.—Zeisius: The confession that Christ is the Son of God, to this day the rock of offence (to Jews, Turks, heathens, and unbelieving professors of Christianity).—Judicial blindness of the servants of Satan in declaring truth to be blasphemy, and blasphemy truth.—Canstein: by this Christ expiated the sins which are committed in judicial procedures.—Zeisius: The spitting upon Jesus, etc., the expiation of our sins, that our faces might not be ashamed before God, but that we might obtain eternal honor and glory.—Quesnel: You who adorn and paint your faces, behold the indignity offered to the face of Jesus, for your sakes!—The members of Christ should willingly and readily submit to every kind of scorn and insult.—Men dare to insult the Almighty as if He could be “blindfolded.”
Gerlach:—While Peter denied Jesus, He confessed before Caiaphas that good confession by which our souls are saved.—Here we behold Jesus taking a solemn and judicial oath, to the effect that He was the Son of God; which He still further confirmed by adding that they would see Him again in the glory of His exaltation, as Judge of the world, and as their Judge.—The vast contrast between Jesus, who entered watching and praying into the temptation, which He had overcome within before He encountered it without, and Peter, who in self-confidence rushed into danger, without any preparation.—The insults heaped upon Jesus were not only the expression of the personal hatred of His enemies, but intended, if possible, completely to destroy His influence and position in popular estimation.
Heubner:—For our sakes, Christ had to go many a road of sorrow, surrounded by the band of the wicked. Let us count: 1. The road from Gethsemane to Annas; 2. that from Annas to Caiaphas; 3. from Caiaphas to Pilate; 4. from Pilate to Herod; 5. from Herod to Pilate; 6. from Pilate to the hall of judgment (although Pilate lived in the Prœtorium, the soldiers occupied another part; hence it was not “from Pilate to the judgment-hall,” but from the hall of judgment to where the soldiers were); 7. from thence to Golgotha. These sorrowful roads Jesus would not have been obliged to tread, had not our feet declined from the ways of God.—Christ led before Caiaphas: the true High-Priest before the spurious, the Just before the unjust, the Innocent One before His bitter enemies, who had long before resolved upon His death, Joh_11:50.—A night trial. The prince of darkness himself presided unseen over this meeting.—The members of the Sanhedrin deceived themselves and each other by the tacit assumption of possessing divine authority.—(Rambach.) Let us not be deceived by the semblance of outward dignity and position, but seek grace to have our eyes opened so as to penetrate through the mist, and the pretensions of those who at heart are the enemies of Christ.—Christ was arraigned before two tribunals: the ecclesiastical, which took cognizance of the first, and the secular tribunal, which took cognizance of the second, table of the law. We have transgressed both tables of the law.—They sought false witness: the sentence had been beforehand resolved upon.—Falsehood must enter into the service of murder.—Though many false witnesses came: society abounds in venal instruments of iniquity.—Every false witness is in opposition to the holy God of truth; hence such will not only be put to shame, but even their false testimony must ultimately subserve the truth.—Calumny omits or adds (or perverts), as it may serve its purpose, so as to give falsehood the semblance of truth.—It is the peculiar artifice of the evil one to mix some element of truth in every lie.—Thus have the enemies of revelation frequently perverted the Bible.—The silence of Jesus: 1. Wise; 2. dignified; 3. putting His enemies to shame and condemning them; 4. conciliatory; 5. a holy example to His followers. (The biographies of Franke, Rengeltaube, Boos, Zinzendorf, and others.)—The great and grievous damage often resulting from controversies is solely caused by our own premature and hasty conduct.—The solemn confession of Jesus: 1. Wise and necessary: 2. holy and sacred; 3. heroic, or unshrinking, 1Ti_6:13; 1 Timothy 4. unhesitating and decided; 5. an example to His martyrs.—The different bearing and relationship in reference to the truth (on the part of Jesus, of Pilate, of the high-priests, of the false witnesses, of Judas).—Nevertheless (but, besides), I say unto you. A most solemn thunder-call to His enemies. Its confirmation appeared immediately on His death (the darkness, the earthquake, etc.).—They who will not believe in the divine character of Jesus must soon experience it to their terror and confusion.—It is terrible to His enemies, but most comforting to His friends.—The faithfulness of the Lord met by the mere semblance of the fear of God.—A painful and sleepless night to the Lord. Under the Old Testament, the high-priest was wont to spend the night before the day of atonement waking; so the true High-Priest also. A consolation this to sufferers during their sleepless nights.—Subordinates imitate their superiors and the higher classes, 1Co_2:8.—The face of man the characteristic and special index of his individuality; to spit upon the face, is to set at nought the peculiar individuality of the man. In the present instance it was Jesus. His face was the face of God, Joh_14:9. His holy face, which angels adore, veiling their countenances, was here insulted. A setting at nought of His person, and at the same time of His prophetical office.—Beware of a scoffing spirit, and of fellowship with scorners, Psa_1:1—Alas! how frequently is Christ still set at nought among us, wittingly and unwittingly, by neglect and contempt of His word, or by jokes and witticisms in connection with it! For the present He bears with it, but the time shall come when judgment will be passed upon those daring scoffers.—Let the reproach of Christ be our choicest adorning.
J. W. König:—What a change! In the night (of the nativity), when heaven descended upon earth, etc., the seraphim opened their song of joy and praise, etc. In this, the last night of His life, the Lord of heaven is set at nought.—Rieger:—This question, whether Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, still proves the testing-point of unbelief and worldly mindedness. He that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God overcometh the world.—Braune:—No criminal has ever endured what Jesus had to suffer; at least in no other case have cruelty and malice been so grievously at work.—As on that occasion, in the obscurity of night, so still, many an attempt against Christ is made in the darkness of the world of this life.
Footnotes:
Mat_26:58.—[Comp. Crit. Note 3 on Mat_26:3, p. 459, on the true meaning of áὐëÞ .—P. S.]
Mat_26:59.—B., D., L., al., [also Cod. Sinait.], omit êáὶ ïἱ ðñåóâýôåñïé . Probably an unnecessary insertion from Mat_26:57. [Lachmann and Alford omit it, but Tischendorf retains, and Meyer defends it.—P. S.]
Mat_26:60.—The second ïὐ÷ åῦ ̓ ñïí is omitted in B., C., and Origen. Comp. Meyer on the probability of an insertion and the manner of its origin. [The text. rec., which is supported by the majority of MSS., reads: êáὶ ðïëëῶí øåõäïìáñôýñùí ðñïóåëèüí ôùí , ïὐ÷ åῦ ̔ ñïí , but Griesbach and the critical editors omit êáß before ðïëëῶí , and ïὐ÷ åῦ ̔ ñïí , or at least the last two words, on the authority of three Alexandrine uncials (B., C., L.), to which must now be added also Cod. Sinait., and the Vulgate (cum multi falsi testes accessissent) and later versions. Dr. Conant, following this reading, renders: though many false witnesses came. Lachmann, however, while he omits êáß , retains ïὐ÷ åῦ ̔ ñïí in brackets. So Lange in his German Version. The case is hardly clear and important enough to justify us to disturb the Authorized English Version.—P. S.]
Mat_26:61.—[In the original simply ïῦ ̔ ôïí , which the English Version generally renders: this; in some cases: this man. Fellow is too disrespectful in modern English, especially if applied to Christ, and should be omitted here, Mat_26:71; Mat_12:24.—P. S.]
Mat_26:63.—[Lange, and all the German Versions: Schwieg stille. This is all the Greek ἐóéþðá expresses, while to hold one’s peace seems to imply the suppression of feeling or emotion. Silence is often better than speech, and in this case was the best answer.—P. S.]
Mat_26:63.—B., C., and other MSS., and some translations (Vulgata) omit the ἀðïêñéèåßò , probably on account of the difficulty of its meaning in its connection with the previous silence.
Mat_26:66.—[Or: “worthy to die,” Tyndale, Cranmer, Cheke, Genevan, Bishops’; or: “he deserves to die,” Campbell; or: “he is deserving of death,” Scrivener. The rendering of ἔíï÷ïò èáíÜôïõ in the Authorized Version is borrowed from Wiclif, Coverdale, and the Rhemish N. T., and retained by Conant and the revised Version of the Am. Bible Union, but it is hardly justifiable now after the old Saxon sense of guilt (=debt) has become obsolete. In the same antiquated sense guilty is used Mar_14:64; 1Co_11:27.—P. S.]
Mat_26:67.—[The words: with the palms of their hands, should be omitted as not necessarily implied in ἐῤ ῥÜðéóáí , which means to strike with a stick as well as with the hand. Hesychius derives ῥáðßæåéí from ῥÜâäïò . The margin of the Authorized Version reads: Or, rods, following the Genevan Version and Beza (“le frappait de leur verges).” So also Bengel, Meyer, Ewald, and Lange. This is preferable here, since ïἱ äÝ , and others, introduces a new kind of abuse differing from buffeting, and since Mark (14:65) ascribes the ῥáðßæåéí to the servants. But the word is better left indefinite. Older English Versions add: on the face. So Lange: schlugen ihm in’s Angesicht. See Exeg. Notes.—P. S.]
The entrance to this enclosed area, or court-yard, was through the porch, ðõëþí , Mat_26:71, or ðñïáýëéïí , Mar_14:68. Comp. Crit Note on Mat_26:3. p. 459.—P. S.]
[So also Alford: “There shall be a sign of the truth of what I say, over and above this confession of mine.”—P. S.]
[The Edinb. ed. omits the last sentence, and turns Saurin, the well-known French Reformed pulpit orator who died at the Hague in 1730, Into Saurin is, as if he were some old Latin divine.—P. S.]
[Comp. the Crit. Note No. 8, p. 490,—P. S.]