57And those who had laid hold of Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled. 58But Peter followed Him at a distance to the high priest's courtyard. And he went in and sat with the servants to see the end.
59Now the chief priests, the elders, and all the council sought false testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, 60but found none. Even though many false witnesses came forward, they found none. But at last two false witnesses came forward 61and said, "This fellow said, "I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days."'
62And the high priest arose and said to Him, "Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?" 63But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, "I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!"
64Jesus said to him, "It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."
65Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, "He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy! 66What do you think?"
They answered and said, "He is deserving of death."
67Then they spat in His face and beat Him; and others struck Him with the palms of their hands, 68saying, "Prophesy to us, Christ! Who is the one who struck You?"
The last text ended with the disciples abandoning Jesus. Peter did not completely abandon Jesus. He did not stay at Jesus’ side but he followed along behind in order to see what would happen.
It didn’t make much sense to me when I read the fact that many false witnesses came forward, but they found none. Found none what? False testimony? But if the false witnesses didn’t bring false testimony, what does it mean that they came forward? Footnotes in my Bible said that their Jewish law said they needed 2-3 witnesses to collaborate an accusation. Apparently, even though many false witnesses came forward, no two of them had the same story. Finally two came forward with the story of Jesus claiming the ability to destroy the temple of God and build it in three days.
Is this based on something Jesus actually said? I cannot find any reference to it in the book of Matthew. Is the offense here that Jesus would even mentioning destroying the sacred temple? Or is the absurdity to them that he could rebuild such a structure in just three days? Could Jesus have defended Himself by explaining how the temple would be destroyed and that in three days would be restored? Could He have explained that the destruction would not have been by his hands but by the hand of God, that the reason for the destruction would have been due to them and not simply something that Jesus brought about? Could He have explained that the temple that would be rebuilt would be through His resurrection and would not be simply a brick and stone structure? They prodded Jesus to defend himself, but Jesus would say nothing. They asked Him to explain His side of what He was being accused of, but He kept silent.
Is a claim of an ability to destroy the temple and rebuild it enough to sentence someone to death? They had no witnesses that He was actually attempting to do such a thing, just that He claimed He could do it. I wonder if this still was no case against Jesus, so Caiaphas, changed tactics. Instead of trying to bring forth witnesses that would report the evil things Jesus had done, Caiaphas wanted to trap Jesus in blasphemy. So Caiaphas asked Him whether or not He was the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus answered that it was as they said, it was the truth. But why the next statement that Jesus made?
Here are the chief priests, the elders, and all the council. Jesus was nowhere near the image of what they would expect the Son of God to be. Jesus was a lowly man. The Son of God would be expected to be sitting on a throne in power and glory. So Jesus explained, yes, it doesn’t look too good right now, but the next time you see Me, I will be sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven. Don’t be fooled by the lowly image you see here. There is a reason for it.
Caiaphas could not, would not, believe Jesus. Therefore in his mind, it had to be blasphemy. And blasphemy was deserving of death.
They spat on His face, beat Him, and struck Him. They taunted Him. If He had been the powerful Christ that He claimed to be, there should have been none more powerful than Him. And yet He was struck down. Who struck Him down? And even they, mere elders and council members, were easily able to strike Him without mortal retribution from God. It reminds me of the playground bully who taunts someone “You aren’t so tough! I could beat you easily!”
This event is so hard to imagine. In just the previous text, Jesus said He could pray to His Father and He would provide Him with more than twelve legions of angels to defend Him, yet He took this abuse. He probably could have prayed to His Father and He would have provided Him with more than a dozen expert lawyers to free Him from this judgment from the Jewish council, but He took the judgment without question. For how could the scripture be fulfilled otherwise? It must happen thus.
This is only the start of the abuse that Jesus took, and He did it for us. He did way more for us than could have been done from some remote king sitting on a throne somewhere. Was Jesus the kind of Christ they were looking for? No, but He was the kind we needed. And He did everything exactly as it needed to be done for our sakes, regardless of what it meant would happen to Him.