On Trial in the High Priest’s House (Matthew 26:57-75)

Matthew omits a detail found elsewhere (Jesus was taken first to the house of Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas) and instead focuses on the trial before Caiaphas. The fact that there were two high priests shows that those leaders paid no attention to the instructions of God about that role – the law stipulated that there could only be one high priest at a given time. Annas should have been the high priest, but the Roman authorities had also made his son-in-law Caiaphas high priest in a form of rotation.

This particular trial does not seem to have involved the full Sanhedrin because it met later that day (Matt. 27:1). Perhaps Caiaphas had invited those members he could rely on or maybe some could not attend because the meeting was arranged suddenly. Jesus went through six trials at this time: (1) At the home of Annas, (2) at the home of Caiaphas, (3) the Sanhedrin, (4) before Pilate, (5) before Herod, and (6) before Pilate. 

The people present here had met in anticipation of the arrest of Jesus. So they knew that Jesus would be on trial soon. Matthew wants his readers to anticipate this. Yet he also seems to point to someone else who will be on trial and that is Peter. He is not on trial before Caiaphas, but he is about to discover truths about himself and about Jesus. After all, the list of those who bore false witness is not limited to the lying witnesses before the council. Sadly, Peter while not with them still bears false witness to his relationship with Jesus. So he was on trial as well.

The false witnesses

The first detail that we can observe is the corruption of the priesthood. Here are the descendants of Aaron, the men privileged to lead the worship of God and offer sacrifices in the temple, face to face with their God and with the One who was depicted in all the sacrifices they offered. Instead of worshipping him they put him on trial; instead of expressing gratitude that soon he is about to make it unnecessary for them to offer another sacrifice they resolve to execute him and cut off his memory. How sad to see the catastrophic decline in the spirituality of the visible kingdom of God!

At the same time, we can see that they were involved in the fulfilment of God’s great purpose of salvation. They had no concept that this was the case, yet their ignorance did not excuse them, nor did it mean that God had been manipulating events by reacting to their sins by adjusting his plan. Of course, we cannot understand how God brings about his purpose, part of which includes the sinful thoughts and actions of humans without him being the cause of those thoughts and actions.

We can see the development of their sinful thoughts and actions as the trial proceeds. The priests and the council are looking for false evidence and keep going until suitable claims are made that they can use to condemn Jesus. Those who offered lies as testimony revealed their hearts through their words. Eventually two individuals stated that Jesus had said he could destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days. Such an action of destruction of the temple by an ordinary person would be sacrilege and a claim to rebuild it so quickly was a claim to incredible supernatural powers or sorcery. No doubt, the council saw both as blasphemous.

The alleged claim was close to a statement made by Jesus early in his public ministry and which was recorded by John in his Gospel: ‘So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?"Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he was speaking about the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken’ (John 2:18-22). Jesus did not say that he would destroy the temple, but the two witnesses distorted what he said.

The response of Jesus

When Caiaphas asked Jesus about that false claim, he remained silent. We may wonder why he did not explain what he had meant. Perhaps it was because the members of the court were not interested in Truth. Maybe it was because he was not under the authority of the kangaroo court who had arranged this unjust trial. His silence was maintained even after he was found guilty and treated with contempt by those who spat on him and taunted him to identify who had slapped him. Whatever the reason for his silence, one obvious impression is that throughout the farcical trial he retained his amazing dignity. Sometimes we know that silence speaks far more powerfully than words. In the case of Jesus, it would have been powerful if he had spoken or if he had remained silent. Matthew wants us to admire the One who knew what was happening and who knew where he was going.

The high priest then put Jesus on oath, demanding that he say whether he was the Messiah. Of course, his question was not that of a genuine seeker. Instead he wanted a statement from Jesus that would be self-condemning. The Saviour gave him an answer that was much more than a yes. Jesus claimed that he was the One called the Son of Man in Daniel’s prophecy (Dan. 7:13-14). 

In that prophecy, the Son of Man rides on the clouds of glory into the presence of God and receives from him authority to reign over all things. Here, in response to the high priest’s question, Jesus refers to his ascension and to a subsequent appearance of him in his glory. He is referring to his reign which began with his ascension and which will climax with his return to judge the world

Jesus tell Caiaphas that he will see the activities of Jesus – he says that this will be the future of Caiaphas and others. The observation will be a continuous one. In a short time, Caiaphas would see the amazing activities of Jesus as he worked to bless people through the gospel. The high priest after his death would continue to be aware of the exalted place of Jesus. And he will yet see the glory of Jesus on the day of judgement when the roles of judge and prisoner will be reversed and at which true justice will be enacted. This does not mean that Caiaphas became a believer. 

The response of Caiaphas

On hearing this claim by Jesus, Caiaphas tore his robes. He pretended to be distressed at the claims of Jesus. In his mind, he would have been pleased at having something to condemn Jesus with, but it would be more influential for him to show pretended horror at the claims of Jesus. Words often need actions, and here Caiaphas provides both by tearing his robe and stating that Jesus had committed blasphemy. 

It was not difficult for Caiaphas to get the agreement of this with him to condemn Jesus to death. They knew that before this could happen, they would have to get the agreement of the full Sanhedrin and of Pilate, the Roman governor. Those meetings are described in the next chapter.

Before we consider the experience of Peter, we can make two brief applications. First, we should admire the behaviour of Jesus as he serves his Father perfectly in this most corrupt of locations. Second, we should see the fulfilment of prophecies such as Psalm 2 which describe the strength of the opposition that religious leaders had against Jesus. 

The trial of Peter

We know from elsewhere that John, because he had contact with the high priest in some way previously and was known to his servants, had been responsible for getting Peter into the courtyard. In verse 57, Peter had decided to follow Jesus at a distance in order to see what would happen. We can regard this interest as revealing both Peter’s love for Jesus and his misunderstanding at that time of the mission of Jesus.

Matthew gives a brief account of the three denials of Peter. With two of them he denied in response to servant girls that he knew Jesus and on the third occasion he denied to the group that he knew Jesus. On the second and third occasions he strengthened his denials by using religious words in the form of oaths and curses. No doubt, one of the reasons for him speaking in this way was that he was afraid of what might happen if he identified himself with Jesus.

After he had denied Jesus for the third time, he heard the cook crowing and recalled the prediction of Jesus concerning those denials. The recollection of this prediction caused Peter to weep bitterly. Obviously, his weeping revealed his love for Jesus and his regret at acknowledging that he knew Jesus. His response was not full repentance because he does not yet understand the cross of Jesus. At that time, Peter would not have known about the possibility of forgiveness through the cleansing work of the death of his Master. So he was being prepared in providence for repentance that would become real in his experience when he later met the risen Jesus.

In this situation, Peter was a false witness. How unlike his Master he was! Jesus bravely faced the fury and the contempt of the leaders whereas Peter could not withstand a few comments by bystanders. Why did Peter end up like this? He was there because he loved Jesus, of that there is no doubt. But while he loved Jesus, Peter had been guilty of two obvious sins. One was his ongoing refusal to accept the teachings of Jesus about his death and the other was his self-confidence that he would remain loyal to Jesus. When examining ourselves, it is good to ask about our love, but we should also ask about those sins expressed by Peter because that is why we are told about them. Do we accept the teachings of Jesus and obey them? Do we deal with the sin of self-confidence, because everyone has it to some extent?

At the same time, Peter felt the power of the word of Christ. He had resisted the prediction of his denials when Jesus first gave it, but now that word came with real power into his heart. Peter now knew that the effects of it dealing with him after he had fallen. He realised that he had failed, and he would feel the power of that in his heart for a while, until Jesus met him on the first day of the week. Although it was devastating for him to experience this power, it was good for him. And it is good for us to feel the power of the Word as well. Sometimes we want to limit it to spiritual comfort, but God also uses his Word in other ways that are good for us. Like Peter, we have to face up to our sins.

Although he had fallen so badly, Peter was now on the path of spiritual recovery, although he did not realise that at the time. He was in the hands of God, who was working to provide Peter with what he needed. The tears of sorrow would yet lead to the tears of repentance and restoration. But meanwhile we can see the immense contrast between the perfect Saviour and the imperfect disciple as they were on trial in the high priest’s house.