Matthew 26:57-75
Jesus is Formally Tried and Pronounced Guilty
Matthew 26:57-68 The Jewish Trial
(Mk 14:53-65; Lk 22:66-71) 57 Those who had hold of Jesus led him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and elders were assembled.Matthew’s use of words contained echoes of the later assemblies of Jews in the synagogues of the Diaspora.
58 Peter was following him from a distance right up to the courtyard of the high priest. He went inside and sat down with the officers to see the end.Contrary to what Matthew had noted earlier, not all the disciples had fled. Peter followed at a distance, without hope, waiting simply to see how this would end.
59 The high priest and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false testimony against Jesus so that they could kill him;60 but they found none although many false witnesses came forward. Finally two came up 61 and said, “This man declared, ‘I can destroy the temple of God, and within three days I can build it’.”Already, the chief priests and the elders had determined the guilt of Jesus. The trial was simply a show, though the show did not proceed at first as they would have wished. Matthew’s narrative had contained no mention of any claim by Jesus that might have given some basis for the accusation brought by the two false witnesses.
62 The chief priest stood up and said to him, “Do you answer nothing to the evidence these people bring against you?” 63 Jesus remained silent.Jesus saw no point in answering a judge who had already determined his verdict.
… So the high priest said to him,“I put you under oath by the living God.Tell us if you are the Christ, the son of God.” 64 Jesus said to him, “The words are yours. What is more, I tell you,for the future you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Almighty and coming on the clouds of heaven.”The high priest’s question seemed to have no connection to any previous testimony – unless Caiaphas read Jesus’ silence as acceptance of the charge against him, and, therefore, a claim to be able to do what God alone could do. Peter had confessed Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God; and Jesus had commended his insight. Jesus took no oath, but his answer to the chief priest was clearly affirmative. Yet, given the possibly ambiguous term Christ/Messiah, Jesus identified himself as the Son of Man as well. In doing so, he also clearly evoked the message that he would be the final judge, who would do away with all kingdoms and powers of this world.
Jesus gave no indication when they would see him clearly revealed as the Son of Man. Matthew would sustain the suspense.
65 Then the high priest tore his vestments, and said, “He has blasphemed. What further need have we of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy now yourselves. 66 What do you think?” They answered and said, “He is guilty of death.”The council made no investigation of Jesus’ claim. They had already decided that issue. Tearing vestments was a customary ritual of indignation in cases of blasphemy.
67 They then spat in his face and hit him with their fists. Others hit him with their open palms, 68 and said to him, “Prophesy for us, Christ. Who is it who hit you?”Out of view of the Galilean crowds, the members of the council felt free to humiliate Jesus.
Matthew 26:69-75 Peter Denies Jesus
(Mk 14:66-72; Lk 22:54-62) 69 Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. A female slave approached him and said, “You were with Jesus, the one from Nazareth, too.” 70 In front of everyone, he denied it. “I do not know what you are talking about”, he said. 71 As he was going out through the gateway, another female slave saw him and said to the others who were there, “This man was with Jesus, the one from Nazareth.” 72 Again he denied it on oath, “I do not know the man.” 73 After a while, the ones standing around came up to Peter and said, “For sure you are one of them; your accent clearly makes you one.” 74 Then he began to curse and to swear, “I do not know the man”.Peter’s fear before the two female slaves and a nondescript bystanders stood in stark contrast to the silent and courageous dignity of Jesus before the council. There, Jesus had confessed to be the Messiah, the Son of God, the very words that Peter himself had used at Caesarea Philippi [16:16].
Peter’s denial was a clear illustration of the sin of the world. Alone, Peter had no hesitation proclaiming the identity of Jesus and his deep love for him. However, in the presence of hostile company, he totally compromised his integrity and his friendship. His unconscious desire to be accepted within the group exposed him to the contagion of their hostility towards their victim. The flesh, the human person in social relationships, had indeed proved weak.
Matthew had constructed his narrative to bring into clear relief the difference between Jesus and Peter:
- In Gethsemane, Jesus had prayed three times; Peter had fallen asleep three times.
- At Caiaphas’s palace, Jesus was accused three times, and maintained his integrity; Peter was accused three times, and compromised his integrity;
- Jesus took no oath; Peter denied on oath.
The crowing of roosters announces the dawning of the new day. With the crowing of this rooster, light began to dawn for Peter He saw the truth of what he had done, the reality of his sin.
The distraught response of Peter would stand in stark contrast to the response, soon to be declared, of Judas.
Next >> Matthew 27:1-10