Jesus has been taken into custody. Think of it. The word that was with God and was God in the beginning has been seized in a garden and has been taken and escorted to the place where he's going to appear before the Jewish high court. Jesus' trial, when you look at the four Gospels, seems to have involved both Jewish and Roman elements. The Jewish elements come first. And it seems that the Jewish elements occurred in three phases. So I'm not going to say these are three different trials. I'm going to say one set of proceedings over three phases. The first phase isn't reported by Matthew. We learn it from the other Gospels, though, where Jesus is taken first to Annas, who was the former high priest. He's Caiaphas' father-in-law. He's still alive, and Jesus appears before him, and John 18 tells you some of that dialogue. Matthew reports in Matthew 26, in our passage this morning, phase two. Phase two, he appears before the current high priest, whose name is Caiaphas. And he appears also before the assembled Sanhedrin, the Jewish council, the high court, basically the Jewish Supreme Court, is going to render a verdict on Jesus in phase two. or at least come to a decision. Phase three seems to occur around dawn, right when you would expect our idea of morning to be taking place. And it seems that the entire Sanhedrin has been assembled at this point, and they are going to send him to Pilate, who is going to usher in what are the Roman proceedings. So, zooming back out, Jesus' condemnation takes place in two different realms, both under the Jews and then under the Romans. The Jewish trial had three phases. We're looking at phase two, and then phase three is briefly reported in Matthew 27, 1-2. Phase one, you can get from the other Gospels, where he goes to the former high priest named Annas. Likely, though, in the same home, which is why going to a particular location could have involved seeing both men very quickly in a short amount of time. So in Matthew 26 to 57, Jesus is taken to the home of the high priest for trial. And at this time in history, the high priest was no longer the admired, respected position rooted in the Old Testament like it was since the Romans are now in power, it's become a political office. In fact, the Romans appoint the high priest at this time for Israel. Yeah, you heard that right. The Romans, at their discretion and will, are appointing who the high priest is. Which is why, in the Old Testament, you would have high priests serving until death. In this case, in Matthew 26, the former high priest is still alive. This is unusual. But it shows how much influence the Romans are having on the way the Jews are conducting their faith and how they are practicing even the high priesthood. The current high priest has been reigning since AD 18. and he finished in A.D. 36, and so his name is Caiaphas and Jesus is before him. So here's Jesus in front of the current high priest of Israel. There are certain features of this trial, though, that stand out to scholars because what takes place isn't exactly the normal way of conducting trials when you look at how later Jewish tradition spoke of Jewish court proceedings. For example, this trial is held at night, in the early, early hours when it is still dark, instead of during the fullness of the day, which seemed to have been more customary. It's unusual here. It's held in the high priest's home. which doesn't seem to be rooted in any kind of customary practice. That's another unusual element here. The trial is held right before festival activities are going to begin. Remember, this is Passover week, where Jesus will be crucified, and having Jewish trial proceedings right before festival activities wasn't supposed to happen, because deliberations were to take longer than a mere day. So then, to give you another example, This particular Jewish proceeding did not wait till the following day in order to determine a verdict. It happened at the same gathering. It happened at the same gathering. They didn't sleep on it. They didn't return to render after careful thinking and deliberation what they've thought to issue as a verdict. Also, the reasons for conviction are given, but no reasons for defense. And not only should a defense have been present, reasons for defense seem to have been offered first in Jewish traditional custom. Also, the witnesses that are brought forward disagree with one another. We learn very quickly in the passage that the Jewish court isn't interested in finding authentic, genuine witnesses anyway. They simply want to put Jesus to death, and they just need whatever they can substantiate as any sort of witness, false or not, to come up with that verdict. For these reasons, and maybe more, the Jewish trial proceedings have been viewed as many to have been targeting Jesus with this conspiracy in the background, in many senses sidelining what normal Jewish court proceedings would be. They want to act so quickly and are so determined to get rid of Him. In our passage this morning, we see in four parts Jesus and Peter in verses 57 and 58, Jesus and the false witnesses in verses 59 to 61. Jesus and the high priest in verses 62 to 66. And then Jesus and the mockers at the end of the passage, verses 67 and 68. He seems to be pairing and contrasting Jesus with multiple groups here. So we'll look at each group in their terms. Jesus and Peter, first of all, in verse 57, it tells us that those who seized Jesus led him to Caiaphas. So the journey's now gonna begin from Gethsemane. That's where Jesus was seized. He'd been praying there with most of his disciples forming sort of an outer layer of a group, and then Peter, James, and John, and then Jesus with the Father praying, and then the betrayer comes. And with Judas come all of these accomplices, this arresting party that's going to take him away. It tells us in verse 57 that when Jesus is brought to Caiaphas, it tells us this is where scribes and elders had gathered. Now, let's make a couple observations here. Again, this isn't like 3 in the afternoon. This is in the early morning hours of the Friday Jesus will be crucified on, and the scribes and the elders are gathered there. in an unusual sense. It's not as if this was normal and they certainly didn't live at the high priest's house. Multiple people in various angles are involved then in targeting Jesus. These seem to be the very elders and scribes that have dispatched the previous arresting party. And now, the arresting party having completed what they set out to do in Gethsemane, they're now returning to the appointed, agreed upon place. We're going to meet at Caiaphas' house. That's where this showdown will take place. So the people are already gathered and waiting. They're all involved here. It tells us in verse 58 that one of the disciples named Peter is following at a distance. So he's not been arrested with Jesus, right? And he's not with the guards, so to speak. It's as if he's tailing them from far off, just far away, to where he can see where they're going. And at a distance he follows, as far as the courtyard of the high priest. So he doesn't go into the actual home, but with various open windows and doors and visibility, he's able to at least see what's happening in the courtyard of the high priest's home. He's not alone there, he's there with some guards. And this moment of introducing Peter here is important because Matthew's gonna tell you what happens with Peter and others in this exchange of, aren't you the one with Jesus that we saw? I don't know the man. And so what Matthew's doing in verse 58 is telling you how Peter got there. He's going to return to the Peter story next week when we look at it. And so right now we just need to know this is how Peter got to the courtyard itself. More on that soon to come. through 61 tell us about Jesus and the false witnesses. The chief priests and the whole council were seeking false testimony. Now the chief priests were those who conducted regular priestly work at the temple. These were the priests who let out in the service and maintenance of the temple, if you will. But they're not the only ones that are there. It tells us the whole council. So more than just some religious leaders, a court has gathered. The council here refers to what's known as the Sanhedrin. It was a court consisting of 70 members plus the high priest. So when they're all gathering, there's 71. The high priest was basically the president of the Sanhedrin. This group could meet with a quorum of only 23. Now, what's a quorum? Remember, a quorum is the number of people necessary for that group to be considered in formal process. What's the minimum number of people? According to later Jewish tradition that's evaluating these proceedings in these decades, it's as if A 23-member group could function as a Sanhedrin in a formal sense, hearing testimony, issuing a verdict. So it's unclear how many of the Jewish court members are there at this point. Now I know it says that the whole council is there, but one way that can be taken is the whole council in the sense of its quorum. I don't know how likely it is that all 71 members are there present at that moment, though it certainly could have been. The phrase doesn't have to mean that, though by the time morning gets there in Matthew 27, surely the rest of the council has arrived. This is a lot of people to coordinate, even if you're dealing with 20-something people or if you're dealing with 70 people. That's a lot of names to coordinate. It's not like they could send out a group text, right? We're gonna see, let's meet at Caiaphas's house. This is a lot of stuff happening behind the scenes and happening in very short order. It's probably just a couple days earlier that Judas, possibly on Wednesday or Tuesday evening of Passion Week, had gone seeking to betray him for 30 pieces of silver. So in a very short amount of time, they're coordinating a lot of forces behind the scenes. They're arming people with clubs and swords. They're finding out from Judas where Jesus would customarily meet, and it happened to be at the Garden of Gethsemane. There's a lot of coordination that is necessary. They are striving and making great efforts, great efforts to take Jesus down. And it tells us in verse 59, they're seeking false testimony. Just think about that for a moment, friends. They are seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death. These are not people who are interested in hearing his side of the story in order to more thoughtfully deliberate whether he's truly innocent of these charges. And there certainly is no innocent until proven guilty. They have determined his guilt. They know the verdict that they want. And now they just need a means that will help justify that. with any sort of hodgepodge gathering that this might be in the unusual proceedings that are taking place. Their goal is clear. Their goal is clear. Any testimony will do so long as it convicts Jesus. In verse 60, they found none. They found that, though many false witnesses came forward. So here it is unfolding, these proceedings, and they're not getting what they want. Now Matthew doesn't tell us in detail why here, but Mark 14, 56 helps us. We learn in Mark 14, 56 that all these false witnesses were coming forward and their testimonies didn't match up. Well, now that's awkward. Because even if they're not fully giving the benefit of the doubt to Jesus at all, they're at least wanting their Jewish proceedings to have a sort of congruency of testimony. Even if it's false testimony, they're wanting it to be heard and to condemn Jesus. And they want to turn him over to the Romans that he might be executed. But all these false witnesses that are coming don't have the consistent testimony that they need until at last two people come forward. Two people. By the way, according to the law of Moses, in order to have these sort of proceedings substantiate what they needed, it needed to be at least two to three witnesses. So it's important here that the numbers acknowledge as two. The narrative doesn't tell us how many came forward by this point. What is it? Dozens? Who knows? But many false witnesses. And we don't even know how long the testimony was given, though probably throughout the rest of the early morning hours to sunrise. It doesn't tell us what they were claiming about Jesus, but apparently the Sanhedrin had not yet heard the consistent testimony they wanted for the verdict they had already decided. So witnesses kept coming, and these two come forward to say this in verse 61. This man said, I'm able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days. So these two witnesses think Jesus has made an audacious claim. Now, where would these witnesses get this idea? John 2.19 could be a helpful source here, because early in Jesus' ministry, He said, destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it back up. So you have this language of temple destruction, you have the number three days of the idea of rebuilding a temple, that comes from something He said earlier in John 2.19. Notice though that the witnesses are not accurately quoting Jesus. Jesus was not actually speaking of the physical temple in John 2.19. The disciples realized after the resurrection, he was talking about his body. Because Jesus came to fulfill the temple. All that it stood for, all that it was pointing to, all of its sacrifices, Jesus was the true temple. And Jesus would be destroyed at crucifixion and rebuilt by resurrection, if you will. He would be the temple of God to end all other temples. In this case, they don't quote him rightly when he had said, destroy the temple, talking to them about himself, take me. In three days, they say that he claimed, I'm going to destroy the temple, and therefore implying the physical temple itself, that he's somehow gonna do that, destroy that, and in three days build it back up. Now, the Israelites know about temple destruction. In 586 BC, over 600 years earlier, the Babylonians had taken down a temple. So if their history teaches them anything, a man isn't going to take down the temple, an army is going to. That's what they know. That's what their history tells them. And so therefore, Jesus, in making any sort of statement to them that sounds like he's against the temple, is alarming because it probably means not only him, but anybody else he's stirring up to do this. Jesus seems to be a bigger threat than we realize, right? The Sanhedrin is listening to this testimony and he's claiming that he's going to destroy the temple and then rebuild it first of all. What kind of army is he going to have that's going to destroy that? And then who is this guy that he's claiming to rebuild it in three days? It took them years to rebuild the Jerusalem temple. This is really a distortion of Jesus' words, but it's abundantly clear in Matthew's Gospel that Jesus does have a posture against the temple that makes them uncomfortable. In Matthew 12, 6, Jesus says, What? What made the temple so great? I mean, it wasn't the city that it was in. In fact, the presence of the temple in Jerusalem is what made the city so great. is the fact that the temple had a most holy place, that behind this veil was the Ark of the Covenant, and this is where the manifest presence of God would be, over the cherubim, the glory of God in this temple. Jesus says something greater than the temple is here. If the temple is where the presence of God is, and that's what makes it great, then how can Jesus be greater than the temple unless we can say something about Jesus that's not just making a statement about a man? something more. What is it about Jesus that makes him greater than the temple? There's nothing greater than the temple. Not only that, but in Matthew 21, on Monday of Passion Week, Jesus marches into Jerusalem And he goes into the place where buying and selling are taking place for sacrifices that are going to be offered, and money is being exchanged, and he begins to overturn tables, and turn over chairs, and drive out buyers and sellers and money changers, because they had conducted all of this business in the court of the Gentiles, prohibiting the worship of the nations. That was not supposed to happen. They were misusing the temple of God. And Jesus had previously cursed a fig tree coming into the temple and overturning tables. This was a symbol of judgment that he was bringing. He was evaluating the state of Israel's religious practices, and it was insufficient, inadequate, dishonoring to God, full of disobedience to the hilt. So Jesus has adopted some postures toward the temple and said some things that have alarmed people, including what John 2.19 records, that Matthew seems to record here with the distorted words of the two witnesses. Destroy this temple, and in three days I will build it has been changed into, this man said, I'm going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days. They view him as a threat to the most precious institution they have. It's the temple, people. that temple. There was nothing greater. And for Jesus to make the claims that he did is so shocking that the high priest cannot handle it. He says in verse 62, in standing up, have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you? So in verses 62 to 66, we see Jesus and the high priest. The camera just zooms in if we were watching this live, and it's just focusing on those. You see on TV sometimes how they do a split screen, and somebody's face is on here, and the other person's face is on there. We're just looking at Jesus and the high priest right now. And they're talking, and well, Jesus is silent for a moment, but the high priest is saying, have you no answer? He's provoked by this. Because any threat made against the temple of God was considered a crime. Any threat made against the temple of God. And again, they remember in their history, the Babylonians and the whole army had destroyed the temple 600 years earlier and had to be rebuilt. So here's Jesus purportedly speaking about the destruction of the temple. Him and what army? It was a deadly, serious charge. And in verse 62, he says in the second question, what is it that these men testify against you? He's so alarmed by this anti-temple stance. But Jesus in verse 63 remains silent. He remains silent. Some scholars point to Isaiah 53 7, which may be in the background here. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, like a sheep before its shearers is silent. So he did not open his mouth. Jesus is portrayed here as the righteous suffering servant who before his accusers, his false accusers with their distorted testimony before this high priest who's really just a political puppet for the Romans, Jesus is being accused. The word that had become flesh and that had been with God in the beginning. He's being accused before them and does not speak. He does not speak. This provokes the high priest even more. Look at the language of verse 63 that comes next. He says, I adjure you by the living God. This is a way of putting Jesus under oath. He's wanting Jesus, by the living God, to say whatever He's going to say next, under oath. He says, tell us if you're the Christ, the Son of God. This exhortation is important because it brings about the utmost seriousness to whatever Jesus is going to say. The high priest is putting Him under oath. The high priest uses two terms here. Tell us if you're the Christ, the Son of God. The word Christ means anointed one. It's the Messiah title from the Old Testament. It's rooted in the Old Testament hope for a deliverer that God was going to send an anointed one, a promised one. He's going to send him in an appointed time for deliverance. This title is full of royal overtones in the Old Testament because this Christ would be a son of David who would rule. God promised David in 2 Samuel 7 that from your offspring I'm going to raise up one who's going to rule forever on the throne. So they're anticipating this deliverer. They're waiting on him and they know when he comes he's going to rule. That's what's been promised. But there's another layer on this as well. In Psalm 2, Israel's kings were considered a kind of son of God. I mean, not the son of God in the sense of they shared the very nature of God, but sons of God in the sense that they were representatives because Israel was considered to be the corporate son of God in Exodus 4.22. Psalm 2 is appropriate because the king in Psalm 2 is considered to be God's son, the anointed one. So the Son of David or the Christ could be considered synonymous with Son of God here. In other words, the high priest may simply use these kingly royal titles and not actually implying something divine about Jesus, at least from his perspective. And now if that's the case, then of course Jesus is the promised Messiah. He is the King. He's God's son in the sense that he rules on David's throne, just as other kings were considered to be God's appointed son at the time. But, but, there is a layer in Matthew's gospel that we cannot overlook. There is something true of Jesus that was not true of any of Israel's kings. Jesus was actually and fully the Son of God, capital S, capital O, capital N. He was the eternal, pre-existent Son of God who in the fullness of time took on flesh at the incarnation. In Matthew 2.15, out of Egypt, I called my son is applied by the Father's words speaking about His Son whom He sent, the Son whom had existed before the world began. In Matthew 3.17, when Jesus is baptized, this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. And more and more in Matthew 8.29, the demons say, what do you want with us? Holy Son of God. Have you come to torment us before the time? They know who Jesus is. They're not looking at any of The kings of Israel in the Old Testament. This is different. He's a Son of God that is set apart from anyone else that would have considered themselves a royal son at the time they ruled. In Matthew 4.33, Jesus walking on the water. In Matthew 14, they declare Him to be the Son of God there in the boat. In Matthew 16.16, Peter says, I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of the living God. In Matthew 17.5, on the Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus is transfigured before them, and they behold His glory, Peter, James, and John do. And the Father speaks through a cloud and says that this is My beloved Son. We look at those verses in survey form, like I've just cited them to you, to say Jesus is before this high priest, who may be thinking that Son of God and King are simply these fitting titles for the Christ or Messiah. And Jesus certainly is the son of David in that sense. He is the Christ, but he's a son of God in the way that no one else had ever been. And Matthew's gospel has labored to show us that. So there's some irony here. Notice Jesus's answer. You know, if there was a court reporter that had been sort of typing away, this is a moment where you really want to get the next statement down verbatim. What is he going to say? I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you're the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus says to him in verse 64, you have said so. Which is a positive affirmation of the words used. It is as you say, Jesus is saying. It's an indirect way of affirming the words. The difference is, there's more connected to these words than even the high priest realizes. And even in Jesus' day, there were some misunderstandings about these titles that Jesus' ministry was still working to clarify. And in short order, he would go to a cross, which added a layer to the idea of what the Messiah would do, that even Peter and the disciples struggled to process, that the deliverer would go to die. So Jesus says, you have said so. The priest has used the right words. The problem may be what the high priest implies with those words. He does not have the fullness of understanding, not as Jesus does. For example, when the Messiah came, the common view in that day was that he would overcome and swiftly crush evil, he would overthrow the political oppressors, Israel would be vindicated, the kingdom of God established, and righteousness would just reign and rule. Now the Messiah's coming would be a glorious thing, but Jesus of Nazareth must first die. He must be given over, he must suffer, he must die, and on the third day be raised. So Jesus agrees with the high priest. He's the Christ, the Son of God. But Jesus is on trial and headed for death. That doesn't seem very Messiah-like. This doesn't seem very Promised One, Son of David-like. He's right there, having been arrested and betrayed by one of his own. So just to be a bit clearer, To inflame the sensitivities of the proceedings even more, Jesus goes on to say the following words. But I tell you, as if a way of building on these titles, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven. Now the opening, but I tell you, is preparing for something major and Jesus drops a bomb, a huge major one indeed, of all the claims in Matthew's gospel, this is the climactic claim before his death. You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the power and coming on the clouds of heaven. The word, the power there is another word for God. Seated at the right hand of God. He was viewed as the all powerful one. It was just a substitute, a way of honoring God's power and omnipotence. This is an allusion to Old Testament texts. Jesus isn't sort of searching his Rolodex with, all right, sort of, what could I say to them? He knows what the Old Testament has predicted, and he's identifying himself with two crucial texts. And friends, these texts are so powerful, words fail to capture them in fullness. In Psalm 110 and Daniel 7, Psalm 110 and Daniel 7. First Daniel 7. In Daniel 7, verses 13 and 14, beasts rising from the sea have been intimidating in Daniel's vision. And someone, like a son of man, rides with the clouds to the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7. It's a heavenly scene. That's where the Ancient of Days is. Thrones are set up in Daniel 7. And the Ancient of Days in heaven receives the Son of Man, and the Son of Man receives authority over all nations in Daniel 7. Over all nations. So there's this vision where the Son of Man receives comprehensive authority. Not only that, the Son of Man arrives to reign in Daniel 7. He comes with the clouds, the text says, which is a picture of exaltation. People didn't come with the clouds to the Ancient of Days. That's never even said of an angel. This picture of going to the Ancient of Days with the clouds of heaven is this picture of exaltation and vindication and glory beside the One who reigns in heaven. What is going on here? Whoever is with the Ancient of Days is no mere man and no angel either. By invoking the language of Daniel 7, 13, and 14, Jesus is applying the oft-used title in the Gospels, the Son of Man, he's applying it to himself. He is claiming before this high priest to be the one who will receive authority over all nations and who will be with God, and this is quite a future he's painting. He tells Caiaphas, you will see this. speaking to him. You will see this. This is what's coming. This is what, in other words, will be known. I mean, this, this and Daniel 7 was a vision, and I don't think he's saying Caiaphas is going to have a vision. But in other words, what the Old Testament has promised is coming true. The Son of Man has come. This is what's going to be true. And it's going to happen in Caiaphas' time. Now, Caiaphas is to know that in the future, Jesus will be vindicated and exalted. This is what Jesus is looking at the high priest. Jesus is on trial, the false witnesses have come forward, and Jesus is saying, here's what's coming for me. Everybody knows who they're talking about. They're all talking about Jesus. Jesus isn't now talking about some of the third party. The priest doesn't interpret it that way. The high priest knows Jesus is talking about himself. And what Jesus says to him is that my future, my future involves vindication and exaltation with God. That's quite a claim. My future involves vindication and exaltation with God. And this is not a promise for the distant future. Jesus says, from now on, you will see this. From now on, here's what's coming, and soon. Now, if that wasn't enough, he adds another phrase in this statement of verse 64 that invokes Psalm 110, the language of sitting at the right hand of God. Okay, so the idea of the Son of Man coming with the clouds to the Ancient of Days, that's all from Daniel 7. But the idea of coming to God at His right hand is uniquely Psalm 110. Listen to Psalm 110 verse 1. The Lord says to my Lord, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool. The Jews believed that Psalm 110 was a messianic prophecy. And that's completely clear by the way Jesus uses Psalm 110 earlier in Matthew 22. They're talking in Matthew 22 about the Christ, the Son of David. And Jesus talks about Psalm 110 with that and asks them a question, because it's agreed upon that that is a messianic prophecy. So Psalm 110 was about the future Son of David, the Messiah. In his words to the high priest, Jesus says that the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of God. Jesus is the Lord in Psalm 110, to whom God is speaking, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool. And the room at that moment was filled with enemies. And Jesus is citing a psalm that promises that the right hand of God will be occupied by Him, that all of His enemies would be under His feet like a footstool, like a king would prop His feet on, reigning over and being exalted over. This psalm, like Daniel 7, is about vindication and exaltation of this figure. No one would be at the right hand of God who is a mere man or angel. That someone would have to be divine, worthy of such a position. And as Jesus invokes Psalm 110, He is telling the high priest that from now on, the right hand position of God will be the one I occupy. I will occupy the right hand of God. Coming on the clouds of heaven, if you will. This picture of exaltation. and heavenly reign. Caiaphas needs to know that. And uniquely in the Old Testament, Daniel 7 and Psalm 110 share this picture of heavenly enthronement. Psalm 110 also says something else, and then we'll move forward to the next part. Psalm 110 tells us something especially meaningful given that he's talking to a high priest. A high priest whose line of priests before him would have originated in the tribe of Levi. Now Caiaphas wouldn't be priest forever. His father-in-law wasn't. The Romans were putting people in power at their will. But even earlier than the Romans, the high priesthood was something people would serve until death. But you always needed another high priest because they wouldn't stop dying. You always needed one. Psalm 110 is especially appropriate here. Jesus is talking to the high priest, and Jesus is not from Levi. He's from the tribe of Judah, the kingly tribe. And He's the final and full Son of David. But in fulfilling the right hand role spoken about, Jesus must have a permanent priesthood. Psalm 110 verse 4, the Lord has sworn and will not change His mind, so the Lord is speaking now to this figure at the right hand, you are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. So Jesus is not only the Lord's anointed who will sit at the right hand of God, that figure in Psalm 110 is the one who's going to be priest forever. The Old Testament priests were from Levi, but they kept dying. An eternal, forever priesthood would be established by Jesus because he would die and then be raised in overcoming death. And his resurrection seals the permanence of his priesthood. So he's speaking to this high priest here, and Caiaphas doesn't know it at the time, but Jesus is about to work him out of a job. Caiaphas will not be a legitimate high priest. The one who will establish a permanent priesthood is looking at him. Caiaphas is looking at the Psalm 110 guy. Caiaphas is looking at the Daniel 7 guy. That's what's happening in Matthew 26. What a scene. What a scene. And Jesus quotes from Psalm 110, and Psalm 110 also says, God has sworn and will not change His mind. You know, Caiaphas wants to put Jesus under oath. God has made a previous oath with Psalm 110. And He will not change His mind. A permanent priesthood is coming through this figure who will sit at the right hand of God. In verse 65, The high priest loses his mind. Okay? He flips, he tears his robes. He begins screaming, he's uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You've heard his blasphemy. The high priests were not to tear their garments. Not even when their loved ones die. Leviticus 21 forbids them to even tear their robes at the death of a loved one. And robe tearing was a picture of mourning and grief. This high priest is so distressed, the high priestly vestments and all of their glory and accoutrements, he's just ripping them right there in court, overcome with distress at this scene. So that's being torn. In Matthew 27, the temple veil is going to be torn. A lot of things are tearing. A lot of things are happening. A high priesthood is being established. A new temple is going to be destroyed and raised on the third day. Jesus is bringing fulfillment to this whole scene. Oh, if they even realized what was unfolding. Caiaphas begins to cry out. He's uttered blasphemy. Even though Jesus said, didn't say here, I'm God. They don't miss the meaning of what he's saying here. That's exactly what he's claiming. He's claiming prerogatives and positions and authority that are only belonging to God, not to any mere man or angel. They know what Jesus is saying. The charge means that he would either claim to be God or he described to himself prerogatives belonging only to God. And so Jesus has made himself out to be divine. The one at the right hand in heaven, the one who will have authority over all nations and subject all enemies, the one who will reign forever and be a priest forever. Caiaphas cannot handle this, so he loses his mind. In verse 66, he looks at the assembled people, however many have gathered at this point, and he says, what's your judgment? And they say he deserves death. They're all in agreement here. That's what he deserves. There was probably no deliberation. Let's think about this a while. Now, they've heard all they need to hear. They've heard the words for themselves. The penalty for blasphemy was death. And that's the court's verdict. Now. The Jews could not execute people under Roman law. They could give a verdict of execution. but they could not carry out the penalty under Roman law themselves unless permitted. So they, in their outrage and in their verdict of execution, they're going to have to convince the Romans that Jesus is a threat. And that is where the scene will shift to the Roman trials in Matthew 27 and forward. So we're looking at the second phase where this Jewish trial through these hours of the night has been unfolding with all these false witnesses leading to this cry of a verdict. He deserves death. Verses 67 and 68 say, then they spit in his face and they struck him and some slapped him. saying, prophesy to us, you Christ, who is it that struck you? So commotion follows the verdict. There's disorder in the court now. Order, order, that is not a word that is spoken here. There's disorder in the court and the people who are apparently near Jesus begin to spit on him and to strike him and slapping his face. These actions are demeaning and dehumanizing. going up to them and spitting on him, slapping him, striking him. Listen to Isaiah 50 verse 6, which is no doubt in the background here. Isaiah 50 verse 6 says, I gave my back to those who strike, and my cheeks to those who pull out the beard. I hid not my face from disgrace and spitting. This is about the work of the suffering servant who would come. who receives the blows from sinners here at this trial. The scene in the high priest's home that night must have seemed the complete opposite of what Jesus' titles implied. Christ, Son of David, Son of Man, Son of God. This Jesus is going to subject all enemies under His feet? That's hard to believe. I see my spit on His face. This Jesus is going to sit at the right hand of God? That's hard to believe. I can see my handprint on his cheek. This Jesus is going to go to the Ancient of Days and receive authority over all nations? That's hard to believe. I have his blood on my fist. The scene in those hours must have seemed the opposite of what these titles would have implied. They don't believe Jesus. They say, prophesy to us you Christ. Who is it that struck you? They're mocking him. Verses 67 and 68 involves Jesus and his mockers. They're probably hitting him from the side and from behind, not only slapping him in the face. Luke 22, 64 tells us they blindfolded him, which helps us explain why Matthew reports this question. Who is it that struck you? Because he can't see. If Jesus really is who He claims to be, then let Him identify His attackers. Let Him name some names and put a stop to it. Jesus has made incredible claims, demonstrating through His miracles and other titles used in Matthew's Gospel and the other Gospels to show that we should be asking the question that the disciples asked early on. What sort of man is this? That the winds and seas obey Him? That demons flee at His command? that bread and loaves are multiplied to feed thousands, that the dead are raised, that paralytics get up and walk, that he pronounces forgiveness of sins. When that person sinned against someone else, Jesus in some way is able to grant forgiveness as if it was ultimately done to him. Who is this man? C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity says, I'm trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing people often say about Jesus. That I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but don't accept his claim to be God. Lewis said, that's the one thing we must not say. A man who's merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said wouldn't be a great moral teacher. He'd be a lunatic. or the devil of hell, or he would be telling the truth. The high priest of Israel had the important role, friends, of going to the temple on the Day of Atonement. In Leviticus 16, the process for this is reported. Once a year, the high priest would go through the outer court, into the inner court, into the most holy place itself, behind the veil. No one else was permitted to go there, and he did it once a year. It was a privilege to be in the presence of God, where the glory of God would be in that most holy place. The holy of holies, the most holy place, was a place of God's manifest presence. And it was covered by a veil. And on the day of atonement, the high priest would represent the people in what he did behind that veil. In such a moment, the high priest would be in the very presence of God. Look at the irony here in Matthew 26. The high priest is not in the temple. He's away from the most holy place, and yet he is in the presence of God. He is face to face with the Psalm 110 man and Daniel 7 guy. Caiaphas didn't have to pass behind an actual veil of the most holy place. Caiaphas is in the very presence of God because that is where Jesus is. Jesus is the son of God, the son of man, and the son of David. He's the last Adam and the suffering servant and the perfect high priest. He was crucified, raised, and vindicated. He ascended, he reigns, and he will return. We should turn to Jesus. He is a refuge for sinners. We should flee from sin and cling to him. He has the only name which saves. Christ alone is our rescuer. He was accused so that we might be pardoned. He was condemned that we might be delivered. Praise be to God for His Son.