The Adventure Link
CSI: Jerusalem
The Testimony Unfolds
Matthew writes, “Now the chief priests, the elders, and all the council sought false testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, but found none. Even though many false witnesses came forward, they found none” (Matthew 26:59–60).
It was not the business of the council to solicit anyone’s testimony.
They were supposed to be acting in the capacity of impartial judges, not prosecuting attorneys. By openly soliciting damaging testimony against Jesus, they forfeited any perception of impartiality. But they probably believed that if their conspiracy against Jesus did not succeed now, it would never succeed. So they were desperate. They were determined to press the issue against Jesus until they found some reasonably credible complaint against Him—even if it meant destroying any vestige of legitimacy that might have been left in their illegal hearing.
The phrase “even though many false witnesses came forward, they found none” means that many people came forward who were willing to bear false witness against Jesus, but none were found credible enough to sustain a charge against Him. According to Mark, the false witnesses contradicted one another: “Their testimonies did not agree” (Mark 14:56). They couldn’t even find liars who were clever enough to fabricate a tale that agreed with the lies of others.
But finally two false witnesses came forward and said, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days’ ” (Matthew 26:60–61). Mark’s account sheds even more light on what these false witnesses were claiming: “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands’ ” (Mark 14:58). Mark adds, “But not even then did their testimony agree” (v. 59). The details of their stories still didn’t quite jibe—but there were enough similarities in what they said to give their testimony a veneer of credibility. One witness apparently claimed he had heard Christ say if the temple were torn down, He would be able to rebuild it in three days (Matthew 26:61). The other claimed what He actually said was that He would destroy the temple and rebuild a new temple made without hands (Mark 14:58).
They both were obviously referring to a statement Jesus had made early in His ministry, after He cleansed the temple the first time. Here is John’s account of what really happened:
So the Jews answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?” Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” But He was speaking of the temple of His body. (John 2:18–21)
The incident actually took place at Passover in the first year of Jesus’ public ministry—three years to the day before this trial at Caiaphas’s house. Most of Jesus’ hearers on that occasion wrongly assumed that He was speaking of the destruction of the actual temple. His meaning was deliberately ambiguous, and only after the resurrection did the disciples fully understand that the saying was a reference to the temple of His body (v. 21). But most of the crowd assumed He was speaking about the Jerusalem temple (v. 20). The two witnesses at Caiaphas’s house had evidently both been present that day three years before, and they had not forgotten the incident, even though neither was able to give a precise account of what Jesus really claimed. The inconsistency in their testimony shows how badly Jesus’ words were misunderstood by the people who originally heard Him.
But the testimony of those two witnesses nonetheless served Caiaphas’s purposes. The testimony could be twisted to suggest that Jesus was advocating the total overthrow of the Jewish religion (by replacing the current temple with another). Furthermore, the Sanhedrin could charge Him with high blasphemy for claiming that He could rebuild the temple by miraculous means (“without hands”—Mark 14:58). After all, Herod’s temple had been under construction for forty-six years (John 2:20), and although it was not yet completely finished, it was already one of the most spectacular edifices in the world. So Jesus’ claim probably seemed arrogant in the extreme to anyone who assumed he was speaking about destroying and rebuilding Herod’s temple. Therefore it was this claim that Caiaphas focused on. He asked Jesus, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?” (Matthew 26:62).
Since there were obvious discrepancies in the stories told by the witnesses, their testimony should have been automatically disallowed and the case against Jesus dismissed. But the Sanhedrin was obviously in no mood for that. They had already secretly determined to eliminate the threat they imagined Jesus posed to their power, and to do that, they needed credible evidence against Him. Now they seemed to have it—or at least these witnesses’ testimony could be spun into something akin to proof that He was guilty of blasphemy. And so “the high priest arose and said to Him, ‘Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?’ ” (Matthew 26:62).
Jesus responded with utter silence. It is easy to picture Him looking directly into Caiaphas’s eyes with steely calm. He had no obligation to testify against Himself. And just as He had done previously with Annas, He made that point with Caiaphas in a dramatic way—by simply declining to testify against Himself. Centuries before, the prophet had foretold that very silence: “He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so He opened not His mouth” (Isaiah 53:7).
Finally in frustration, Caiaphas charged Jesus with an oath: “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” (Matthew 26:63). Obviously Caiaphas was familiar with Jesus’ claims. He knew that Jesus had publicly “said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God” (John 5:18). Prior to this occasion, Jesus had repeatedly identified Himself as both Messiah (the Christ) and the Son of God (John 4:25–26; 9:35–37; Matthew 16:20). Claiming to be God certainly would have been sufficient grounds for charging any ordinary man with blasphemy, and blasphemy was a capital crime under Moses’ law (“Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death”—Leviticus 24:16.)
But Caiaphas still needed credible testimony to prove that Jesus had made such claims, and all he had was hearsay. The testimony of the two witnesses was also flawed. It would have to do, unless better evidence could be found. But before moving on, Caiaphas first placed Jesus under oath and demanded that He tell them whether He was Christ, the Son of God.
Jesus gave him precisely what he hoped for. He replied, “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” (Matthew 26:64). Mark records that Jesus furthermore declared, “I am”—which was the proper name by which God revealed Himself to Moses (Exodus 3:13–14)—and thus provided personal testimony from the accused in support of the Sanhedrin’s accusation that He claimed to be God. The promise of His coming on the clouds of heaven was another clear declaration of His Messiahship, an unmistakable reference to the well-known Messianic prophecy in Daniel 7:13–14: I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then 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 the one which shall not be destroyed.
It was all Caiaphas needed to hear.
The adventure and investigation continues.....
