Mat 26:60-66 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 60. False witnesses . Witnesses that would accuse him of crime; of violation of the laws of the land or of God. We are not to suppose that they wished them to be false witnesses. They were indifferent, probably, whether they were true or false, if they could succeed in condemning him. The evangelist calls it false testimony, Before these witnesses were sought, we learn from that the high priest asked Jesus of his disciples, and his doctrine. Jesus replied, that he had taught openly in the temple, and in secret had said nothing; that is, he had no secret doctrines which he had not been willing openly to teach, and he referred them to those who had heard him. In a firm, dignified manner, he put himself on trial, and insisted on his rights. "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?" This conversation took place probably before the council was assembled, and during this time the denials by Peter occurred. Luke informs us, that the council came together as soon as it was day; that is, probably near the morning, or not far from break of day--after Peter had denied him, and gone out. Found they none . That is, they found none on whose testimony they could with any show of reason convict him. The reason was, as Mark says, that "their witness agreed not together." They differed about facts, times, and circumstances, as all false witnesses do. Two witnesses were required by their law, and they did not dare to condemn him without conforming, in appearance at least, to the requirements of the law. (a) "the last"

Matthew 26:60-66

Verse 60. False witnesses. Witnesses that would accuse him of crime; of violation of the laws of the land or of God. We are not to suppose that they wished them to be false witnesses. They were indifferent, probably, whether they were true or false, if they could succeed in condemning him. The evangelist calls it false testimony, Before these witnesses were sought, we learn from Jn 18:19-23 that the high priest asked Jesus of his disciples, and his doctrine. Jesus replied, that he had taught openly in the temple, and in secret had said nothing; that is, he had no secret doctrines which he had not been willing openly to teach, and he referred them to those who had heard him. In a firm, dignified manner, he put himself on trial, and insisted on his rights. "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?" This conversation took place probably before the council was assembled, and during this time the denials by Peter occurred. Luke informs us, Lk 22:66 that the council came together as soon as it was day; that is, probably near the morning, or not far from break of day--after Peter had denied him, and gone out.

Found they none. That is, they found none on whose testimony they could with any show of reason convict him. The reason was, as Mark says, Mk 14:56 that "their witness agreed not together." They differed about facts, times, and circumstances, as all false witnesses do. Two witnesses were required by their law, and they did not dare to condemn him without conforming, in appearance at least, to the requirements of the law.

(a) "the last" Ps 27:12, 35:11 Verse 61. And said, This fellow said, etc. Mark has recorded this testimony differently. According to him, they said, "We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands." Probably both forms of giving in the testimony were used on the trial, and Matthew has recorded it as it was given at one time, and Mark at another; so that there is no contradiction. Mark adds, "But neither so did their witness agree together." That which they attempted to accuse him of, is what he had said respecting his body, and their destroying it. Jn 2:19, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." This he spoke of his body; they perverted it, endeavouring to show that he meant the temple at Jerusalem. They neither stated it as it was, nor did they state correctly its meaning: nor did they agree about the words used. It was, therefore, very little to their purpose.

(b) "I am able" Jn 2:19-21 Verses 62,63. Jesus held his peace. Was silent. He knew that the evidence did not even appear to amount to anything worth a reply. He knew that they were aware of that, and that feeling that, the high priest attempted to draw something from him, on which they could condemn him.

I adjure thee by the living God. I put thee upon thy oath before God. This was the usual form of putting an oath among the Jews. It implies, calling God to witness the truth of what was said. The law respecting witnesses also made it a violation of an oath to conceal any part of the truth; and though our Saviour might have felt that such a question, put in such a manner, was very improper, or was unlawful, yet he also knew that to be silent would be construed into a denial of his being the Christ. The question was probably put in anger. They had utterly failed in their proof. They had no way left to accomplish their purpose of condemning him, but to draw it from his own lips. This cunning question was therefore proposed. The difficulty of the question consisted in this: If he confessed that he was the Son of God, they stood ready to condemn him for blasphemy; if he denied it, they were prepared to condemn him for being an impostor, for deluding the people under the pretence of being the Messiah.

The living God. Jehovah is called the living God, in opposition to idols, which were without life. �

The Christ. The Messiah, the Anointed. Mt 1:1.

The Son of God. The Jews uniformly expected that the Messiah would be the Son of God. In their view it denoted also that he would be Divine, or equal to the Father, Jn 10:31-36. To claim that title was, therefore, in their view, blasphemy; and as they had determined beforehand, in their own minds, that he was not the Messiah, they were ready at once to accuse him of blasphemy. Verse 63. Mt 26:62

(e) "But Jesus" Isa 53:7, Mt 27:12,14 Verse 64. Thou hast said. This is a form of assenting or affirming. Thou hast said the truth; or, as Lk 22:70 has it, "Ye say that I am." This was not, however, said immediately. Before Jesus acknowledged himself to be the Messiah, he said to them, Lk 22:67-69 "If I tell you, ye will not believe: and if I also ask you" --i.e., propose the proofs of my mission, and require you to give your opinion of them--" ye will not answer me, nor let me go."

Nevertheless. This word should have been translated moreover, or furthermore. What follows is designed to explain and give confirmation to what he had said.

Sitting on the right hand of power. That is, of God, called here the Power; equivalent to the Mighty, or the Almighty. It denotes dignity and majesty; for, to sit at the right hand of a prince was the chief place of honour. Mt 20:21.

Coming in the clouds of heaven. See Barnes Mt 24, Mt 25. The meaning of this is, You shall see the sign from heaven which you have so often demanded; even the Messiah returning himself as the sign, with great glory, to destroy your city, and to judge the world.

(f) "shall ye" Dan 7:13, Jn 1:51, 1Thes 4:16, Rev 1:7 (g) "hand of power" Ps 110:1, Acts 7:55 Verse 65. Then the High Priest rent his clothes. The Jews were accustomed to rend their clothes, as a token of grief. This was done often as a matter of form, and consisted in tearing a particular part of the garment reserved for this purpose. It was not lawful for the high priest to rend his clothes, Lev 10:6, 21:10. By that was probably intended the robes of his priestly office. The garment which he now rent was probably his ordinary garment, or the garments which he wore as president of the sanhedrim--not those in which he officiated as high priest in the things of religion. This was done on this occasion to denote the great grief of the high priest, that so great a sin as blasphemy had been committed in his presence.

He hath spoken blasphemy. That is, he has, under oath, arrogated to himself what belongs to God. In claiming to be the Messiah; in asserting that he was the Son of God, and therefore equal in dignity with the Father; and that he would yet sit at His right hand--he has claimed what belongs to no man, and what is therefore an invasion of the Divine prerogative. If he had not been the Messiah, the charge would have been true. But the question was, whether he had not given evidence that he was the Messiah, and that therefore his claims were just. This point, the only proper point of inquiry, they never examined. They assumed that he was an impostor; and that point being assumed, everything like a pretension to being the Messiah was, in their view, proof that he deserved to die. Verse 66. What think ye? What is your opinion? What sentence do you pronounce? As president of the sanhedrim he demanded their judgment.

He is guilty of death. This was the form which was used when criminal was condemned to die. The meaning is, he is found guilty of a crime to which the law annexes death. This sentence was used before the Jews became subject to the Romans, when they had the power of inflicting death. After they were subject to the Romans, though the power of inflicting capital punishment was taken away, yet they retained the form, when they expressed their opinion of the guilt of an offender. The law under which they condemned him was that recorded in Lev 24:10-16, which sentenced him that was guilty of blasphemy to death by stoning. The chief priests, however, were unwilling to excite a popular tumult by stoning him, and they therefore consulted to deliver him to the Romans to be crucified, under the authority of the Roman name, and thus to prevent say excitement among the people.

(h) "death" Lev 24:16, Jn 19:7