High-Priestly Inquisition
HIGH-PRIESTLY INQUISITION
MATTHEW 26:57-75
The cock-crow was a moment of truth for Peter and it broke his heart.
Members of the Sanhedrin awaited Jesus at the high priest’s residence. Joseph Caiaphas, son-in-law of Annas (who had held the high-priesthood AD 6–15), was appointed high priest by the Roman governor Valerius Gratus in AD 18 and remained in office for what was in those days the unusually long term of eighteen years. On Jesus’ arrival, Caiaphas and his colleagues were not so much concerned to try him formally as to find evidence against him of which the Roman governor would take cognizance. Since the sanctity of the temple was protected by Roman authority, a threat to its safety would have been an offense against Roman provincial law, but the attempt to convict Jesus of having uttered such a threat was unsuccessful, and Jesus refused to say whether or not he had spoken such words as the witnesses alleged. An attempt to fasten quite a different charge on him was (from the high priest’s viewpoint) more successful. Challenged to say whether or not he claimed to be the Messiah (acclaimed by God as his Son in Psalm 2:7), he replied in effect that the expression was the high priest’s, and that he did not necessarily make the claim in the sense which the high priest intended: what he did claim was that “from now on”—“henceforth” rather than “hereafter”—the Son of Man would be seen enthroned at the right hand of the Almighty and coming with the clouds of heaven (26:64). In thus combining Daniel 7:13f. (cf. 16:27f.; 24:30) and Psalm 110:1 (cf. 22:43f.) He was understood (rightly) to be speaking of himself. The reference is not so much here to his advent at the end-time as to the triumph and exaltation which would follow on his present humiliation and condemnation: vindicated by God, he would visit his people in judgment or blessing, according to their attitude of heart, and they would see the kingdom of God established in power. His judges could scarcely believe their ears: this voluntary affirmation was tantamount to a claim to be the peer of the Most High, and thus constituted a capital offense in Jewish law (blasphemy) as well as providing evidence which could be presented to the Roman governor as a clear basis for the death sentence. The tearing of the clothes (26:65) was a prescribed expression of horror at hearing blasphemy. The actions of 26:67f. are probably those of the police who guarded Jesus (but cf. Acts 23:2).
Peter’s denial, which is inserted effectively between Jesus’ appearance before the high priest and his accusation before Pilate, fulfills the prediction of 26:34. His following at a distance and mingling with the crowd by night in the palace courtyard is much to his credit; if his courage failed in the moment of sudden testing, it was a further proof of his Master’s saying: “the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (26:41). His repentance (26:75), unlike Judas’ (27:3), was the making of him. “Godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret, but worldly grief produces death” (2 Corinthians 7:10).