Today’s blog takes us into Matthew’s Gospel.  We will take a look at Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin in Matthew 27:57-68.  It’s pretty long so grab a big cup of coffee and dive right in.  Our goal is to apply some of the principles and historical background that you have been learning and to go a little bit more in-depth than your workbook and DVD’s.

Jesus’ fate was sealed at his trial before the Sanhedrin.  Since entering Jerusalem, he had been engaged in a seemingly irresolvable and bitter power struggle with the Jewish hierarchy. They were greatly offended by his authoritative teaching and his bold claim that He shared a unique relationship with God.  The religious establishment of Jerusalem had the upper hand in this conflict because they had the power of legal process on their side.  With the assistance of one of Jesus’ former disciples, they devised a plan to finally defeat the Galilean preacher. 

While Jesus was praying in the Garden of Gethsemane, He was arrested by Jewish authorities.  His disciples attempted to fight back, but He forbade them.  Then He is led away, alone, to the high priest’s house.  Throughout His ministry, He was always accompanied by his disciples.  However, He must now face his accusers alone.  This was to be no fair trial, however.  The verdict had already been decided. This scene of hopelessness and despair is paradoxically also the fullest exposition of who Jesus is. He may be defenseless against the schemes of the Sanhedrin, but this passage also reveals that he is the Suffering Servant, the Messiah, the Son of God, and the Son of Man.  The messianic secret that has defined his ministry is now lifted, for his special status could only be understood in light of the cross.

Caiphas hastily convened available members of the Sanhedrin in order to determine Jesus’ guilt and to specify the charges against him. Most commentators concur with John’s proclamation that the Jews were not permitted to carry out the death penalty at that time (John 18:31).  The lynching of Stephen recorded in Acts 6 and the martyring of James the Just recorded by Josephus were unofficial aberrations.  Because the Sanhedrin lacked the authority to issue punishment, this trial of Jesus was akin to a preliminary hearing where the charges were merely delineated. Nonetheless, the Sanhedrin was given significant latitude in local affairs, especially in regard to religious matters, in the 1^st century.  Pilate would likely accept whatever verdict they reached here.  The hearing then is less than a formal capital trial but more than an innocuous information-gathering session.

Interestingly enough, almost every component of Jesus’ “trial” contradicts the guidelines of a capital trial laid in the 2^nd century document m. Sanhedrin, which listed the rules of the Sanhedrin counsel. Jesus was tried in the middle of the night; the document requires trials to be held during daytime.  The setting of Jesus’ hearing was Caiphas’ house; the tract demands that all trials be held in one of three appointed courtrooms.  The defense should have had an opportunity to speak first, but Jesus was not given opportunity to speak until after the two false witnesses brought their charges. The crude violence of spitting, slapping, and striking would have unquestionably violated the m. Sanhedrin.

Although the m. Sanhedrin (a 2^nd century document) probably represents what was customary in the 1^st century practice, there is no way to know how strictly these rules were applied in Jesus’ day.  It is always misleading to apply a later document to an earlier situation.  Furthermore, this was not a formal, capital trial so the council would not have technically been required to follow those guidelines.  On the other hand, Jesus’ hearing does maintain a sense of formality.  For example, two witnesses with agreeing testimonies were required before the trial could continue.  The chief priest tore his garment when he pronounced the charge of blasphemy as he would in a legitimate hearing.  Matthew goes to great pains to present the legitimacy of the Sanhedrin trial. He wants his readers to understand that it was the religious authorities, not just Pilate and the Romans, who were responsible for the death of Jesus. This perhaps reflects the hostility between Judaism and Christianity in the age of Matthew’s church.

The high priest’s house was certainly not the usual meeting place of the Sanhedrin.  They usually met on the western end of the temple mount. However, this is a hastily called “trial” in the middle of night to deal with what they considered to be an emergency.  Caiphas was the high priest from 18-36 AD.  He obtained his position through his father-in-law Annas, and many still considered the latter to be the “high-priest emeritus.”  Therefore, it is fitting that John records that Jesus was first taken to Annas.

The Sanhedrin was composed of three components: chief priests, scribes, and elders.  Only two of the three are mentioned here.  It is unlikely that the entire Sanhedrin had at this time convened because the hearing was called at short notice at an inconvenient time. Matthew may not have mentioned the “chief priests” here because it was assumed that the high priest would represent their interests.  The presence of the scribes at the hearing is indispensable because they were the legal experts. They would specify which laws Jesus violated.

Although many witnesses came forward to testify, they could find no testimony to admit.  Jewish law required at least two witnesses in agreement to establish a charge.  This is an egregious example of adhering to the letter in the law while ignoring the spirit of the law.  It mattered not whether the testimonies were true as long as they could find two people to say the same thing. 

Mark indicates that the accusation of the two witnesses concerning the temple was inadmissible because “even their testimonies did not agree. (Mk 14:57-59)” According to Mark’s account, the Sanhedrin settled on the subjective charge of blasphemy because they were unable to find credible witnesses to uphold the temple charge. 

The witnesses took exception to Jesus’ claim to be able to destroy and rebuild the temple.  The saying attributed to Jesus seems to be convoluted from some things that he actually said.  In John 2:19, he speaks of the temple of his body being destroyed and raised again in three days.  Even though Matthew does not record this, it is possible that the witnesses had that expression in mind. 

Explicitly in Matthew, Jesus had predicted that the temple would be destroyed but never claimed that he would be the one to do it (Matthew 24:1-2).  He claimed to be greater than the temple in 12:6.  These sayings combined with his acted parable in 21:12-17 could easily be misconstrued into a threat against the temple.  It was apparently a popular misconception. On the cross, Jesus was taunted, “You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself!  If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross. (Mt. 27:40, NASB)" The stigma followed the early church as seen in the lynching of Stephen in Acts 6:13-14.

The charge against Jesus had been established by two witnesses and required a response from the defense.  He could have easily explained that He never personally threatened the temple, but he remained silent. Jesus does not defend himself.  Aside from the defiant outburst coming in verse 64, Jesus is done speaking.  He will only utter a two-word response to Pilate before his cry of dereliction from the cross.  Jesus understands that his death is inevitable and necessary; there is nothing left to say. The reader is expected to see Jesus as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah here. Like Isaiah 53:7 records, “He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth; like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers; he did not open His mouth.”

The recent events in Jerusalem would have been enough to motivate the chief priest to ask Jesus if He was indeed the Christ, the Son of God.  Jesus approached the city as the messianic king of Zechariah 9:9 (21:1-11), cleansed the temple (21:12-13), and refused to silence those crying Hosanna before him (21:15-16). His teaching had been pointed especially in the question about Messiah as the Son of David (22:41-46) and the Parable of the Landowner’s Son (21:33-46).  Furthermore, the betrayer Judas could have intimated Peter’s confession and Jesus’ claim in 11:27.

The chief priest, hoping to bait Jesus into blasphemy, asks: Are you the Christ, the Son of the Living God? In 2 Samuel 7:14, God promises David that He would take David’s son as His own.  According to Jewish literature found at Qumran, the title Son of God was associated with the Messiah in Jesus’ day.  To the Jews, the term Son of God denotes a filial (family) relationship rather than an ontological (essence or being) reality. They had not conjectured that the Messiah would actually partake in God’s divinity.  In a sense, the terms “Messiah” and “Son of God” were synonymous. However, Jesus’ following statement shows that Jesus believed he had an inimitable relationship with the Father.  There was nothing blasphemous about claiming to be the Messiah (people did it quite often), but claiming to be the type of Messiah that shares the prerogative of God was indeed unacceptable.  In this case, it seems that Son of God means something more than Messiah.

Jesus finally breaks his silence; however, he does not provide a defense.  Instead, he exacerbates the problem by making the boldest public claim of his ministry.  Jesus responds: “you said it”, to respond to the high priest’s question.   He uses the same evasive language in response to Pilate’s question: “Are you the King of the Jews? (Mt. 27:11).”  It is seems to be a qualified affirmative answer.  He is the Messiah, the Son of God, but not in the way that the high priest is suggesting.  In other words, Jesus is saying “yes, but no.”

Jesus acknowledges that he is the Messiah and the Son of God, but reformulates those terms based on his understanding.  He chooses to refer to Himself as The Son of Man rather than the Christ or the Son of God.  The Son of Man, according to Daniel 7:13, is brought to God’s throne as a representative of the saints.  Based on 1 Enoch (a Jewish book written during the intertestamental period), the Son of Man came to be associated with the messianic deliverer. The term can simply mean “human” or “man”, but modern scholarship has generally concurred that Jesus used it in an official sense to describe his mission.  He preferred the title because it was not as easily misinterpreted as “Messiah” or “Son of David.”  

As the Son of Man, the Sanhedrin would soon see him sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven. Jesus brings Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13-14 together to make a remarkable statement: “From now on, you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven (27:64, ESV).”  The right hand symbolized power and privilege and testifies of his special status with God.  He is more than the Messiah; he will soon reign alongside God. 

Jesus’ claim here is the immediate cause of his death. His bold proclamation has put the final stamp on his fate.  However, the phrase “from now on you will see” puts everything in perspective. The Sanhedrin may have the advantage temporarily, but the reader knows by this statement that the story is not over.  Regardless of what happens next, it is only a matter of time before Jesus can say: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. (28:18b)” The Sanhedrin would witness his vindication through his resurrection. 

The chief priest finally has what he needs to convict Jesus.  It was beyond blasphemy for a poor Galilean preacher to claim to sit at the right hand of God. The tearing of the robe was a highly symbolic act that accompanied the charge of blasphemy in the Jewish court.  It was a traditional gesture of mourning or displeasure.  However, it was especially remarkable when the chief priest tore his robe.  Leviticus 21:10-22 forbade priests from tearing their garments while mourning the death of a friend or close relative.  This reinforces the severity of the blasphemy charges!

At the very beginning of the pericope, Matthew informs the reader that the Sanhedrin intends to kill Jesus (v. 59).  It is now official.  All semblance of a formal trial is lost when the council engages in ignoble physical abuse. Mark says that only “some” along with their “servants” engaged in the violence.  Luke blames only those holding Jesus. Typical of the love-hate relationship Matthew seems to have with Judaism, he makes no such concessions.  He depicts a mob scene; the quasi-official trial has descended into a predictably undignified end.

Isaiah 11:3 records that Israel’s deliverer would be able to recognize an attacker by smell only, and Mark mentions that Jesus was blindfolded.  It is likely, then, that they were mocking his messianic status when they demanded that he prophesy concerning who was striking him.  Paradoxically, he had prophesied in 16:21 that he would experience this rejection.  The gift of prophecy they were mocking had predicted that he would find himself in this predicament.