His Word Today

The following article is by Pastor Dr. Burk Parsons. Dr. Parsons is editor of Tabletalk magazine and senior pastor of Saint Andrew’s Chapel in Sanford, Fla. He is co-translator and coeditor of A Little Book on the Christian Life by John Calvin.

“Shame—we all feel it, or at least we should. We are all sinful, and our sin brings shame. Although shame has all but disappeared from our culture’s vocabulary and is largely ignored by many in the church, it exists nonetheless and must be recognized and reckoned with.”

“If we are honest with ourselves, and more importantly, honest with God, we cannot help but admit that we feel shame as a result of our sin. Whether we sin in private or in public—and whether we perhaps even pretend not to have it—shame is undeniably real. We feel shame because God in His grace created all human beings with the capacity to feel shame as a consequence of their sin.”

John Calvin wrote, “Only those who have learned well to be earnestly dissatisfied with themselves, and to be confounded with shame at their wretchedness truly understand the Christian gospel.”

“If we have never truly felt the shame of our sin, we have never truly repented of our sin. For it is only when we recognize what wretches we are that we are able to sing “Amazing Grace” and know what a sweet sound it truly is.”

“Even when we are young children—from the very first moment in our lives when we know we’ve done something wrong—we blush and hang our heads in shame. The question is not whether we feel shame, but what we do with our shame. Some try to hide their shame, some try to ignore it as long as possible, some grow callous and complacent toward their shame, and some wallow in their shame and live their lives in quiet desperation. However, as Christians, we have a place to go with our shame—the foot of the cross. We have a Redeemer who has taken our shame to the cross. So we sing, “Bearing shame and scoffing rude, in my place condemned he stood, sealed my pardon with his blood: Hallelujah, what a Savior.”

“Jesus Christ redeemed us not only from His wrath and hell in the future but from having to wallow in the mire of guilt and shame in the present. Jesus promised us not only eternal life in the future, but abundant life that begins in the present. Jesus lived and died not only for the guilt of our sin but for the shame of our sin. He endured the cross, despising its shame, so that we would not have to wallow in shame.”

“Our Lord calls us to bring our shame to Him, whereas Satan wants us to bear the constant weight of our shame and wallow in it for the rest of our lives. But if we live each day bearing the shame of yesterday, and we’re worried about the shame of tomorrow, we will never experience the joys of abundant life in Christ today. Therefore, let us lift our weary eyes from gazing upon our shame and fix our eyes of Christ, the author and finisher of our faith.”

Soli deo Gloria!

“And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly.” (Matthew 26:75 ESV)

The following article is from John Calvin’s Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Calvin provides biblical insight, not only regarding Peter’s denial of the Lord Jesus Christ but also the temptations all believers in Christ face.

“Peter’s fall, which is here related, is a bright mirror of our weakness. In his repentance, also, a striking instance of the goodness and mercy of God is held out to us. This narrative, therefore, which relates to a single individual, contains a doctrine which may be applied to the whole Church, and which indeed is highly useful, both to instruct those who are standing to cherish anxiety and fear, and to comfort those who have fallen, by holding out to them the hope of pardon.”  

“First it ought to be observed, that Peter acted inconsiderately, when he entered into the hall of the high priest. It was his duty, no doubt, to follow his Master; but having been warned that he would revolt, he ought rather to have concealed himself in some corner, so as not to expose himself to an occasion of sinning. Thus it frequently happens that believers, under an appearance of virtue, throw themselves within the reach of temptation. It is therefore our duty to pray to the Lord to restrain and keep us by his Spirit, lest, going beyond our measure, we be immediately punished.”

“We ought also to pray, whenever we commence any undertaking, that he may not permit us to fail in the midst of our efforts, or at the beginning of the work, but may supply us with strength from heaven till the end. Conviction of our weakness ought not, indeed, to be a reason for indolence, to prevent us from going wherever God calls us; but it ought to restrain our rashness, that we may not attempt anything beyond our calling; and it ought also to stimulate us to prayer, that God, who has given us grace to begin well, may also continue to give us grace to persevere.”

“We ought also to observe, that almost in a single moment Peter thrice gave way; for this shows how unsteady we are, and how liable to fall, whenever Satan drives us. Certainly we shall never cease to fall, if the Lord do not stretch out his hand to uphold us.”

“When the rigor of the grace of Christ was extinguished in Peter, whoever might afterwards meet hit and interrogate him about Christ, he would have been ready to deny a hundred or a thousand times. Although, then, it was very base in him to fall thrice, yet the Lord spared him by restraining the tongues of enemies from making additional attacks upon him.”

“Thus, also, it is every day necessary for the Lord to bridle Satan, lest he overwhelm us with innumerable temptations; for though he does not cease to employ many instruments in assailing us, were it not that the Lord, paying regard to our weakness, restrains the violence of his rage, we would have to contend against a prodigious amount of temptations. In this respect, therefore, we ought to praise the mercy of the Lord, who does not permit our enemy to make advances against us, almost the hundredth part of what he would desire.”

Soli deo Gloria!

⁷³ After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, “Certainly you too are one of them, for your accent betrays you.” ⁷⁴ Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know the man.” And immediately the rooster crowed. ⁷⁵ And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly.” (Matthew 26:73–75 (ESV)

⁷⁰ But again he denied it. And after a little while the bystanders again said to Peter, “Certainly you are one of them, for you are a Galilean.” ⁷¹ But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know this man of whom you speak.” ⁷² And immediately the rooster crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, “Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.” And he broke down and wept.” (Mark 14:70–72 (ESV)

 ⁵⁹ And after an interval of about an hour still another insisted, saying, “Certainly this man also was with him, for he too is a Galilean.” ⁶⁰ But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about.” And immediately, while he was still speaking, the rooster crowed. ⁶¹ And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the saying of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.” ⁶² And he went out and wept bitterly.” (Luke 22:59–62 (ESV)

²⁶ One of the servants of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, “Did I not see you in the garden with him?” ²⁷ Peter again denied it, and at once a rooster crowed.” (John 18:26–27 (ESV)

Jesus had experienced two of His three religious trials. Simon Peter’s denial of Jesus also transpired in three trials, as Jesus predicted (Matt. 26:30-35). Therefore, it is wise to examine each denial in order of their occurrence. The purpose of this is not to just voyeuristically observe a historical event. Rather, it is also to identify the circumstances of this historical event and how it may apply in our own lives as believers in Christ.

Peter faced the testimony of three questioners like Jesus did (Caiaphas, two witnesses (Matt. 26:57–64, 69–74), but that is where the similarity ends. The Lord affirmed the truth throughout His hearing before the powerful and influential men. However, Peter denied the truth before weak and insignificant in that culture. Ultimately, Peter fulfilled Jesus’ prediction and denied the Lord three times. This was because Peter relied on his own power, not on the Spirit of God. Peter’s denial of Jesus became so intense Matthew recorded Peter “began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, ‘I do not know this man of whom you speak’.”

John Calvin says that any man “who is not supported by the hand of God, will instantly fall by a slight gale or the rustling of a falling leaf.”

 “He must have said something like, “May God do this or that to me if it be true that I am or ever was a disciple of Jesus.” He stands there invoking upon himself one curse after another. And the louder this Galilean talks, the more, without realizing it, he is saying to all those standing around, “I’m a liar,” explains Dr. William Hendriksen.

Grammatically, all four Gospel accounts display cause and effect. This means a preceding cause will result in its corresponding effect. Peter’s third denial of knowing Jesus, the preceding cause, resulted in the prophesied effect, the rooster crowed twice. This event was not a coincidence but rather was within the providence, purposeful sovereignty, of God.

However, another effect played out in this scene. Matthew, Mark and Luke all recorded Peter’s bitter weeping. Bitterly (πικρῶς; pikros) means to be swallowed up with grief so great as to be in despair and agony. This is sorrow so nasty it causes the individual to give up (2 Cor. 2:7).

“When Peter hears the crowing of the rooster, and sees Jesus looking at him, with eyes so full of pain, yet also of pardon, his memory of Christ’s warning prediction (26:34) is suddenly awakened. How it came about that Peter is at last permitted to leave the palace is not stated. Can it have been because now the attention of all the underlings, and perhaps of everybody else, is fixed upon Jesus? However that may be, Peter goes out and weeps as only Peter can weep: bitterly, profusely, meaningfully, his heart being filled with genuine sorrow for what he has done,” states Dr. Hendriksen.

“Yet hope remains for Peter. Though he has sinned greatly, his tears (26:75) and later restoration (John 21:15–19) show a repentant heart. No matter the depth of our sin, while we draw breath it is never too late to return to the Lord. He mercifully forgives all, without exception, who mourn their transgressions,” concludes Dr. R. C. Sproul.

Soli deo Gloria!

⁷¹ And when he went out to the entrance, another servant girl saw him, and she said to the bystanders, “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.” ⁷² And again he denied it with an oath: “I do not know the man.” (Matthew 26:71–72 (ESV)

⁶⁹ And the servant girl saw him and began again to say to the bystanders, “This man is one of them.” ⁷⁰ But again he denied it.” (Mark 14:69–70a (ESV)

⁵⁸ And a little later someone else saw him and said, “You also are one of them.” But Peter said, “Man, I am not.” (Luke 22:58 (ESV)

²⁵ Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, “You also are not one of his disciples, are you?” He denied it and said, “I am not.” (John 18:25 (ESV)

Jesus had experienced two of His three religious trials. Simon Peter’s denial of Jesus also transpired in three trials, as Jesus predicted (Matt. 26:30-35). Therefore, it is wise to examine each denial in order of their occurrence. The purpose of this is not to just voyeuristically observe a historical event. Rather, it is also to identify the circumstances of this historical event and how it may apply in our own lives as believers in Christ.

Peter remains in the high priest’s courtyard. Fear gripped him and an initial denial of knowing Jesus proceeded from his lips. However, he did not leave. His loyalty to Jesus was displayed more by his bodily behavior than his lying words.

“It seems that in his frustration as a result of the first embarrassment, Peter tried to get out of the building. He had been in the roofless courtyard, among the palace servants and temple guards, warming himself by the fire (Mark 14:54), but now things are becoming “too hot” for him. He is probably afraid that at any moment an underling may grab him and make him a prisoner. Perhaps the thought occurs to him, “What will happen to me if they find out that I’m the man who slashed off the ear of Malchus?” So he must try to escape from the palace as quickly as possible,” explains Dr. William Hendriksen.

Luke recorded a little time had passed since Peter’s first denial (Luke 22:58a). Matthew stated Peter was now at the courtyard’s entrance (Matt. 26:71a). John wrote Peter was standing and warming himself, presumably by another fire (John 18:25a). The time reference and Peter’s behavior are not contradicted by the Gospel writers.

It was then a second servant girl approached Peter (Matt. 26:71b). Mark wrote she was the servant girl (Mark 14:69a). Initially, it may appear Mark was saying it was the same girl who previously approached Peter, but this not necessarily the case. There were many servant girls of the high priest (Mark 14:26). Luke said it was someone else and mentioned no particular gender (Luke 22:58a). John stated it was an unidentified group of people (bystanders, Matt. 26:71) who joined the servant girl’s inquiry (John 18:25a).

The servant girls said to the bystanders, “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth” (Matt. 26:71b), ““This man is one of them” (Mark 14:69b), “You also are one of them” (Luke 22:58b), and “You also are not one of his disciples, are you?” (John 18:25b).

“The portresses are unwilling to let him out. He gets no farther than the entranceway or vestibule which via the gate leads to the road. Several people are standing around. It would seem that the portress who is about to go off duty has already told the news about Peter to the girl who has come to relieve her. So both of these girls (cf. Matt. 26:71 and Mark 14:69) now say to those who are standing around, “This fellow was with Jesus the Nazarene.” The constant reference to “of Galilee,” “the Nazarene” may imply scorn, but this is by no means certain. See on Matt. 2:23 and also on John 1:46. At least one male bystander chimes in with what the girls are saying (Luke 22:58),” states Dr. Hendriksen.

In all four Gospel accounts, Peter denied knowing the Lord. “And again he denied it with an oath: “I do not know the man” (Matt. 26:72), “But again he denied it” (Mark 14:71a), ““Man, I am not” (Luke 22:58), and “I am not” (John 1 8:25).

“Note “the man,” as if Jesus were a complete stranger to him. This time Simon is beside himself with rage and frustration. He does something that he had not done during the first denial. With an oath he begins to deny his connection with Jesus. Forcefully he maintains, “I don’t know the man.” Christ’s oath (Matt. 26:63, 64) and Peter’s (Matt. 26:72, 74), what a contrast! The former confirms the truth; the latter sanctions the lie,” concludes Dr. Hendriksen.

Soli deo Gloria!

⁶⁹”Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. And a servant girl came up to him and said, “You also were with Jesus the Galilean.” ⁷⁰ But he denied it before them all, saying, “I do not know what you mean.” Matthew 26:69–70 (ESV)

⁶⁶ “And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came, ⁶⁷ and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him and said, “You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus.” ⁶⁸ But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you mean.” And he went out into the gateway and the rooster crowed.” (Mark 14:66–68 (ESV)

⁵⁴ “Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest’s house, and Peter was following at a distance. ⁵⁵ And when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat down among them. ⁵⁶ Then a servant girl, seeing him as he sat in the light and looking closely at him, said, “This man also was with him.” ⁵⁷ But he denied it, saying, “Woman, I do not know him.” (Luke 22:54–57 (ESV)

¹⁵ “Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he entered with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest, ¹⁶ but Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the servant girl who kept watch at the door, and brought Peter in. ¹⁷ The servant girl at the door said to Peter, “You also are not one of this man’s disciples, are you?” He said, “I am not.” ¹⁸ Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves. Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.” (John 18:15–18 (ESV)

“Apparently, one reason Caiaphas and the other priests and elders become incensed during the trial of Jesus is His pledge that even they will one day recognize Him, whom they now deny, as Messiah. This seems to be one of our Lord’s points in Matthew 26:64. His promise that the Sanhedrin will see Him on the clouds likely alludes to several things, including Jerusalem’s destruction in AD 70 and Jesus’ being seated at the right hand of the Father (the session of Christ). Moreover, Daniel 7:13–14, wherein the Son of Man judges creation, is clearly being echoed. Jesus is saying that the Jewish leaders who judge Him will one day be judged by Him. They cannot take this role reversal, and so they spit on Him at the close of t heir trial (Matt. 26:67–68),” states Dr. R. C. Sproul.

Jesus had experienced two of His three religious trials. Simon Peter’s denial of Jesus also transpired in three trials, as Jesus predicted (Matt. 26:30-35). Therefore, it is wise to examine each denial in order of their occurrence. The purpose of this is not to just voyeuristically observe a historical event. Rather, it is also to identify the circumstances of this historical event and how it may apply in our own lives as believers in Christ.

Make no mistake. Simon Peter was a true believer and disciple of Jesus. He was not an apostate, which is a biblical renouncer or defector. Judas was an apostate. However, it is clear Peter committed apostasy. What is the difference? Judas was an apostate. It was who he was. Peter committed apostasy, which is what he did, but of which he later repented.

Jesus told Peter in the upper room earlier that evening Satan sought permission from the Lord to sift the apostle like wheat. ³¹ “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you,  that he might sift you like wheat, ³² but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” ³³ Peter said to him, “Lord, I am ready to go with you both to prison and to death.” ³⁴ Jesus said, “I tell you, Peter, the rooster will not crow this day, until you deny three times that you know me.” (Luke 22:31–34 (ESV)

Peter’s first trial occurred by a night fire in the courtyard of the high priest’s residence. The guards who seized Jesus in Gethsemane kindled a fire. Nights in the dessert can become chilly and cold (John 18:18). Peter was warming himself by the fire. It was at that moment, which all four Gospels report, one of the servant girls of the high priest recognized Peter as one of Jesus disciples and said so. “You also were with Jesus the Galilean,” (Matt. 26:69). Luke wrote she looked at Peter closely (Luke 22:56). This was not a case of mistaken identity.

However, the bold and impetuous fisherman and the leader of the twelve denied he knew Jesus. He said, ““I do not know what you mean” (Matt. 26:70), “I neither know nor understand what you mean” (Mark 14:68), and “Woman, I do not know him” (Luke 22:57). John records, “¹⁷ The servant girl at the door said to Peter, “You also are not one of this man’s disciples, are you?” He said, “I am not.” (John 18:17).

“As the trial of our Savior winds down, the “trial” of another is beginning. Peter’s actions at this moment are unlike the rest of the disciples. At least he has continued to follow the Lord at a distance (Matt. 26:56, 58),” continues Dr. Sproul.

Matthew Henry notes that this does not bode well for the one whom Jesus once called His rock (Matt.16:13–20): “To follow [Christ] afar off, is by little and little to go back from him.”

Peter’s hearing before the servants in the courtyard manifests the truth of this observation. More to come.

Soli deo Gloria!

⁶⁹”Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. And a servant girl came up to him and said, “You also were with Jesus the Galilean.” ⁷⁰ But he denied it before them all, saying, “I do not know what you mean.” Matthew 26:69–70 (ESV)

⁶⁶ “And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came, ⁶⁷ and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him and said, “You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus.” ⁶⁸ But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you mean.” And he went out into the gateway and the rooster crowed.” (Mark 14:66–68 (ESV)

⁵⁴ “Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest’s house, and Peter was following at a distance. ⁵⁵ And when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat down among them. ⁵⁶ Then a servant girl, seeing him as he sat in the light and looking closely at him, said, “This man also was with him.” ⁵⁷ But he denied it, saying, “Woman, I do not know him.” (Luke 22:54–57 (ESV)

¹⁵ “Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he entered with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest, ¹⁶ but Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the servant girl who kept watch at the door, and brought Peter in. ¹⁷ The servant girl at the door said to Peter, “You also are not one of this man’s disciples, are you?” He said, “I am not.” ¹⁸ Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves. Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.” (John 18:15–18 (ESV)

Simon Peter’s denial of Jesus transpired in three instances, as Jesus predicted (Matt. 26:30-35). Therefore, it is wise to examine each denial in order of their occurrence. The purpose of this is not to just voyeuristically observe a historical event. Rather, it is also to identify the circumstances of this historical event and how it may apply in our own lives as believers in Christ.

Make no mistake. Simon Peter was a true believer and disciple of Jesus. He was not an apostate, which is a biblical renouncer or defector. Judas was an apostate. However, it is clear Peter committed apostasy. What is the difference? Judas was an apostate. It was who he was. Peter committed apostasy, which is what he did, but of which he later repented.

Each and every believer in Christ has committed acts of subtle, if not overt, denials of Jesus. It may be due to fear, embarrassment, intimidation or comfortability. We do not know what to say or what to do when someone confronts us and asks if we’re a believer in Christ and why. We mumble, and stumble, over our words and fail to give a clear answer for the confidence we have in Christ. Ironically, Peter addressed this challenge in his first epistle.

¹³ Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? ¹⁴ But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, ¹⁵ but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, ¹⁶ having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. ¹⁷ For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.” (1 Peter 3:13–17 (ESV)

Observe what Peter directed the elect exiles (I Peter 1:1) to always be prepared to do. (1) Be zealous for what is good; (2) Do not fear suffering and those who inflict it; (3) Honor Christ as holy; (4) Always be prepared to defend the hope you have in Christ; (5) Always speak to unbelievers with gentleness and respect; (6) Realize you may be slandered for your good behavior; and (7) Understand it is better to suffer for obeying the Lord than doing evil.

A.W. Pink writes, “In view of this solemn and awful fact, the writer earnestly calls upon himself and each reader to get down before God and sincerely cry, “Search me, O God: reveal me to myself. If I am deceived, undeceive me ere it be eternally too late. Enable me to measure myself faithfully by Thy Word, so that I may discover whether or not my heart has been renewed, whether I have abandoned every course of self-will and truly surrendered to Thee; whether I have so repented that I hate all sin, and fervently long to be free from its power, loathe myself and seek diligently to deny myself; whether my faith is that which overcomes the world (1 John 5:4), or whether it be only a mere notional thing which produces no godly living; whether I am a fruitful branch of the vine, or only a cumberer of the ground; in short, whether I be a new creature in Christ, or only a painted hypocrite.” If I have an honest heart, then I am willing, yea anxious to face and know the real truth about myself.”

Soli deo Gloria!

⁶⁶ “What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves death.” ⁶⁷ Then they spit in his face and struck him. And some slapped him, ⁶⁸ saying, “Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?” (Matthew 26:66–68 (ESV)

⁶⁴ “You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death. ⁶⁵ And some began to spit on him and to cover his face and to strike him, saying to him, “Prophesy!” And the guards received him with blows.” (Mark 14:64–65 (ESV)

⁶³ “Now the men who were holding Jesus in custody were mocking him as they beat him. ⁶⁴ They also blindfolded him and kept asking him, “Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?” ⁶⁵ And they said many other things against him, blaspheming him.” (Luke 22:63–65 (ESV)

“There’s none so blind as those who will not see.” — John Heywood, English Poet

Caiaphas demanded Jesus tell him if He was the Son of God. Jesus replied “I am” (Mark 14:62). He used the phrase (ἐγώ εἰμί; ego eimi) to reference the divine name of Yahweh. This is the name the LORD revealed to Moses (Ex. 3:14; Deut. 32:39; Isaiah  41:4; 43:10, 13, 25; 45:18; 52:6; Hosea 13:4; Joel 2:27). It is the name Jesus invoked with the Pharisees (John 8:58). It is the name prefacing Jesus’ seven “I Am” statements of deity in John’s Gospel (John 6; 8:12; 9: 10; 11; 14; 15).

When Caiaphas heard Jesus say this, the high priest tore his garments. This was a symbolic gesture of shock, horror and fury (Gen. 37:29; 2 Kings 18:37; 19:1; Ezra 9:3; Jer. 36:24; Joel 2:13). Caiaphas then said, ““He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy” (Matt. 26:65).

Blasphemy (βλασφημία; blasphemia) means to slander and utter an insult towards God. Caiaphas accused Jesus of blaspheming God. The hypocritical irony was that Caiaphas was the one blaspheming God. The very God who stood before him.

To add injury to insult, the emboldened Jewish religious leaders, consisting of the high priests, scribes and the elders (Matthew 26:57), verbally declared Jesus to be guilty of death. This would be their judgment because Leviticus 24:16 says, “Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.”  Their judgment of Jesus would become Jesus’ judgment upon them.

Additionally, the religious leaders and guards began to verbally and physical mock and abuse the Lord. They struck Him, slapped Him, and spit on Him. They blindfolded Him and proceeded to demand Jesus tell them who hit Him. Luke concludes the scene by saying, “And they said many other things against him, blaspheming him.”(Luke 22:65).

 “Today’s passage reveals that the Sanhedrin want Christ executed because they believe Him to be a blasphemer. Our Savior, as prophesied, has remained silent through most of His trial (Matt. 26:62–63; see Isa. 53:7), but Jesus finally declares Himself to be the Christ under oath (Matt. 26:64). The claim to be the promised son of David is not blasphemous in itself; rather, it is the kind of Messiah that Jesus claims to be that is the problem for the Jewish leaders. In asserting that He will be seated at the right hand of “Power,” Jesus puts Himself on God’s level, appropriating to Himself Yahweh’s power and authority,” explains Dr. R. C. Sproul.

“This would be blasphemy indeed were He incorrect, but Jesus, the incarnate Son of God, has all divine power and authority (9:1–8). Caiaphas and the others could see this if they would look, but their own power and position, which holds first place in their hearts, blinds them to the truth (26:65–66; see Matt.12:22–32).”

John Calvin writes, “this insolence was turned by the providence of God to a very different purpose; for the face of Christ, dishonored by spitting and blows, has restored to us that image which had been disfigured, and almost effaced, by sin.”

“In spitting upon Jesus and striking Him, the leaders are the ones who commit blasphemy. However, as Let us never forget the high price Jesus paid to purchase us and always live after the example He gives as the true image of God,” concludes Dr. Sproul.

Soli deo Gloria!

⁶² And the high priest stood up and said, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” ⁶³ But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” ⁶⁴ Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” ⁶⁵ Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy.” (Matthew 26:62–65 ESV)

 ⁶⁰ “And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” ⁶¹ But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” ⁶² And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” ⁶³ And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need? ⁶⁴ You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death.” (Mark 14:60–64 (ESV)

It is Matthew and Mark who provide an extensive report of Jesus’ appearance before Caiaphas. Following the chief priests’ efforts to convict Jesus by false testimony and lying witnesses, Caiaphas began interrogating the Lord. Unlike Isaiah, the disciples, and even Peter, who had a sense of un-doneness in the presence of the Son of God (Isaiah 6:1-7; Luke 5:1-11; 8:22-25; John 12:36-43), the high priest possessed no such understanding. Caiaphas approached the Lord with an arrogance befitting his ignorance.

¹⁴ The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14 (ESV)

⁵ For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. ⁶ For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. ⁷ For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.” (Romans 8:5–7 (ESV)

Caiaphas treated the Lord Jesus with disrespect because he was a natural person, according to I Corinthians 2:14. To be natural (ψυχικός; psychikos) refers to the fallen, sinful nature which does not accept or receive anything from the Holy Spirit. Caiaphas did not receive Jesus as Lord because the high priest, in spite of his religious position and authority, was at heart an unforgiven and rebellious sinner.  

Caiaphas demanded Jesus tell him if He was the Son of God. Jesus replied “I am” (Mark 14:62). He used the phrase (ἐγώ εἰμί; ego eimi) to reference the divine name of Yahweh. This is the name the LORD revealed to Moses (Ex. 3:14; Deut. 32:39; Isaiah  41:4; 43:10, 13, 25; 45:18; 52:6; Hosea 13:4; Joel 2:27). It is the name Jesus invoked with the Pharisees (John 8:58). It is the name prefacing Jesus’ seven “I Am” statements of deity in John’s Gospel (John 6; 8:12; 9: 10; 11; 14; 15).

Jesus also said that He was the Son of Man. This was a reference to this title of deity from Daniel 7:13-14.

¹³ “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. ¹⁴ And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.” (Daniel 7:13–14 (ESV)

When Caiaphas heard Jesus say this, the high priest tore his garments. This was a symbolic gesture of shock, horror and fury (Gen. 37:29; 2 Kings 18:37; 19:1; Ezra 9:3; Jer. 36:24; Joel 2:13). Caiaphas then said, ““He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy” (Matt. 26:65).

Blasphemy (βλασφημία; blasphemia) means to slander and utter an insult towards God. Caiaphas accused Jesus of blaspheming God. The hypocritical irony was that Caiaphas was the one blaspheming.

“Here the hypocrisy of the high priest becomes very clear. He acts as if he is overwhelmed with grief, though he could have shouted for joy. The man puts on a real show. He tears his high priestly robe, and says, “He has blasphemed,” using the word “blasphemed” in its gravest sense: unjustly he has claimed for himself the prerogatives that belong to God alone,” explains Dr. William Hendriksen.  

“Not that claiming to be the Messiah would in and by itself constitute blasphemy. But representing oneself as the fulfilment of Daniel’s prophecy, that is, as the One who, coming with the clouds of heaven, would receive a. authority to judge all the nations, and b. everlasting dominion (see Dan. 7:13, 14); such a claim—and it was indeed this claim that Jesus was making—could be made only by God! Hence, either a. Jesus was indeed divine, “the Son of God,” in the fullest sense of that term, or else b. he was guilty of blasphemy, punishable by death (Lev. 24:16).”

People often say “seeing is believing.” Caiaphas was seeing Jesus, but he was not believing in Jesus. Jesus said it this way to Thomas: “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:29 (ESV)

Soli deo Gloria!

⁵⁹ “Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, ⁶⁰ but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. At last two came forward ⁶¹ and said, “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.’ ” (Matthew 26:59–61 (ESV)

⁵⁵ “Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but they found none. ⁵⁶ For many bore false witness against him, but their testimony did not agree. ⁵⁷ And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, ⁵⁸ “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’ ” ⁵⁹ Yet even about this their testimony did not agree.” (Mark 14:55–59 (ESV)

Justice should be about discovering truth. It is being morally righteous by following, and upholding, the letter and the spirit of law. The chief priests and the whole council were not seeing justice in their trial against Jesus. They sought to condemn Him any way they could.

Matthew and Mark alone record the account of the false witnesses against Jesus. The chief priests and the whole council sought this false testimony. The Jewish religious leaders displayed a complete lack of integrityleaders. The irony was they could not find anything to condemn Jesus although many false witnesses came forward.

The only accusation they could find was Jesus’ statement “‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.’ ” (John 2:18-20). However, Jesus was referring to His resurrection from the dead (John 2:21-22).

The title chief priests is plural. This refers to both Annas and Caiaphas. The whole council refers to the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was the Supreme Court or “high council” of Judaism. It contained 71 members and they met in Jerusalem. The Sanhedrin is prominent in the Passion narratives of the Gospels as the religious court that tried Jesus. They also appear Acts as the judicial body who investigated and persecuted the growing church (Acts 3-5).

“The name Sanhedrin (Greek, sunedrion, from sun, “together,” and hedra, “seat”) occurs for the first time in the reign of Herod the Great (Antiquities 14.9.3–5). This is the term used throughout the NT (22 times), along with “the elders” (Lk 22:66; Acts 22:5) and “gerousia” (Acts 5:21),” states the Tyndale Bible Dictionary.

“Probably this trial took place in a large upper room of that wing of the palace where Caiaphas lived. The question might be asked, “But why have a trial at all, since the Sanhedrin had decided a long time ago that Jesus must be put to death (John 11:49, 50), an agreement which very recently had been reconfirmed (Matt. 26:4)?” Answer: the verdict must be made official and reasons must be formulated, so that the sentence that subsequently will be based upon it can be justified before the Jews, and so that the indispensable co-operation of the Gentiles—especially of Pilate—can be obtained,” explains Dr. William Hendriksen.

“Our Savior’s trial is the greatest miscarriage of justice ever committed. Matthew makes this plain, stating that the council seeks “false testimony” (v. 59). Whatever they feel about their actions — and they likely believe themselves to be doing God’s will — Caiaphas and his cohorts only want evidence against Jesus. They could care less about the truth and are probably frustrated in their inability to build a case against Him (vv. 59–60a). Even as this chaos surrounds Him, our Lord remains in control, refusing to answer the false charges (vv. 62–63a,” states Dr. R. C. Sproul.

John Calvin writes, “Christ is silent not only because the objection [is] frivolous, but because, having been appointed to be a sacrifice, he [has] thrown aside all anxiety about defending himself,”

God remains in control.

Dr. Clothier