Commentaires bibliques

Matthew 26:57-68. Before Caiaphas (Mark 14:53-65; Luke 22:54; Luke 22:66-71).—πρὸς Καιάφαν, to Caiaphas, who sent them forth, and who expects their return with their victim.—ὄπου, where, i.e., in the palace of Caiaphas.—γρ. καὶ πρ.: scribes and presbyters, priests and presbyters in Matthew 26:3. Mk. names all the three; doubtless true to the fact.—συνήχθησαν, were assembled, waiting for the arrival of the party sent out to arrest Jesus. In Mk. the coming together of the Sanhedrim appears to be synchronous with the arrival of Jesus. This meeting happens when the world is asleep, and when judicial iniquity can be perpetrated quietly.

Matthew 26:58 is the prelude to the story of Peter’s denial, hich is resumed at Matthew 26:69 after the account of the trial. Similarly in Mk. Lk. gives the story without interruption.—μακρόθεν, from afar: Peter followed his Master, having after a while recovered from the general panic; more courageous than the rest, yet not courageous enough; just enough of the hero in him to bring him into the region of temptation.—ἕως τ. αὐ. Cf. Mk., Matthew 26:54.—ἰδεῖν τὸ τέλος, to see the end; a good Greek phrase. Motives: curiosity and honest interest in the fate of his loved Master. Jerome puts these alternatively: “vel amore discipuli vel humana curiositate”.

Matthew 26:59-68. The trial.

Matthew 26:59. τ. συν. ὅλον, the whole Sanhedrim, cf. πάντες in Hebrews 3:16, the statement in both cases admitting of a few exceptions.—ψευδομαρτυρίαν, false evidence, of course in the first place from the evangelist’s point of view (μαρτυρίαν in Mk.), but substantially true to the fact. They wanted evidence for a foregone conclusion; no matter though it was false if it only looked true and hung fairly well together. Jesus was apprehended to be put to death, and the trial was only a blind, a form rendered necessary by the fact that there was a Procurator to be satisfied.

Matthew 26:60. οὐχ εὗρον: they found not false witness that looked plausible and justified capital punishment.—πολλῶν π. ψ.: it was not for want of witnesses of a kind; many offered themselves and made statements, but they did not serve the purpose: either trivial or inconsistent; conceivable in the circumstances: coming forward on the spur of the moment from the crowd in answer to an invitation from prejudiced judges eager for damnatory evidence. Those who responded deserved to be stigmatised as false. None but base, mea n creatures would have borne evidence in such a case.—δύο, only two had anything to say worth serious attention.

Matthew 26:61. οὗτος ἔφη, this person said: then follows a version of a word really spoken by Jesus, of a startling character, concerning destroying and rebuilding the temple. An inaccurate report of so remarkable a saying might easily go abroad, and the version given by the two witnesses seems from Matthew 27:40 to have been current. They might, therefore, have borne wrong evidence without being false in intention.—δύναμαι, in an emphatic position, makes Jesus appear as one boasting of preternatural power, and τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, as irreverently parading His power in connection with a sacred object.—διὰ τ. ἡ., literally through three days = after: for similar use of the preposition, vide Galatians 2:1. The meaning is: after three days I will complete the rebuilding, so that διὰ in effect is = ἐν in John 2:19.

Matthew 26:62. ἀναστὰς ὁ ἀρ.: the high priest rose up not because he felt the evidence just led to be very serious, rather in irritation because the most damaging statements amounted to nothing more serious. A man could not be sentenced to death for a boastful word (Grotius).—οὐδὲν ἀποκρίνῃ … καταμαρτυροῦσιν: either one question as in Vulg[143]: “nihil respondes ad ea quae isti adversum te testificantur?” or two as in A. V[144] and R. V[145], so also Weizsäcker: answerest Thou nothing? what do these witness against Thee? It is an attempt of a baffled man to draw Jesus into explanations about the saying which will make it more damaging as evidence against Him. What about this pretentious word of yours; is it true that you said it, and what does it mean?

[143] Vulgate (Jerome’s revision of old Latin version).

[144] Authorised Version.

[145] Revised Version.

Matthew 26:63. ἐσιώπα: Jesus seeing the drift of the questions gave the high priest no assistance, but continued silent.—ἐξορκίζω (ἐξορκόω more common in classics). The high priest now takes a new line, seeing that there is no chance of conviction any other way. He puts Jesus on His oath as to the cardinal question of Messiahship.—εἱ σὺ εἰ ὁ Χριστὸς, etc.: not two questions but one, Son of God being exegetical of the title Christ. If He was the one He was the other ipso facto.

Matthew 26:64. σὺ εἶπας: in current phrase = I am. Was Jesus morally bound to answer? Why not continue silent? First, the whole ministry of Jesus had made the question inevitable. Second, the high priest was the proper person to ask it. Third, it was an important opportunity for giving expression to His Messianic self-consciousness. Fourth, silence would, in the cirumstances, have amounted to denial.—πλὴν not = “nevertheless,” but rather = nay more: I have something more startling to tell you. What follows describes the future of the Son of Man in apocalyptic terms, and is meant to suggest the thought: “the time is coming when you and I shall change places; I then the Judge, you the prisoners at the bar”.