Commentary on the Gospels

Trial by Jewish Authorities

Matthew 26:57-75 and parallel passages
(Mark 14:53-72; Luke 22:54-71; John 18:12-27)

Coming into the city

The soldiers that arrested Jesus in the Garden ushered Him back into the city and brought Him to the high priest’s palace (Matt. 26:58; Mark 14:54; John 18:15). The word translated "palace" in these texts and "hall" in Luke 22:55 has as its primary meaning "an open space or courtyard."¹ In Luke’s Gospel, we learn that next to the courtyard was "the high priest's house" (Luke 22:54). The word translated "house" refers to any large dwelling.² We infer that it was the dwelling place of Caiaphas since, in his account of Jesus’ arrest and trial, Luke attaches the title of high priest to no one else. To gain access to the adjoining courtyard, visitors from the city had to pass through a "door" (the correct translation³) with a door keeper (John 18:16).

Yet John informs us that Jesus was "led away to Annas first" (John 18:13). In other words, Annas was the first Jewish leader who confronted Jesus inside the house of Caiaphas. Who was Annas? He was Caiaphas’s father-in-law. Why was he given a central role in Jesus’ trial? Because he was a former high priest who retained considerable power and influence. The high priesthood in the era of Jesus was determined by Roman appointment. However much the Jews resented Roman intrusion into their religious affairs, they could not resist it. Annas held the office of high priest from AD 6 to 15.⁴ When he vacated the office, he remained a central figure because his successors chosen by Rome were members of his close family. At various times five of his sons as well as one grandson and one son-in-law, Caiaphas, held the same office. The longest serving of these was Caiaphas, who was high priest from 18 to 36.⁵

Throughout his life, Annas remained a powerful figure, who might be justly described as the power behind the throne. From the perspective of the Jewish nation and perhaps also of Roman authorities, he was still considered a high priest. We find proof of this perspective in the writings of Luke. In Luke 3:2, he identifies Caiaphas and Annas as high priests simultaneously. Also in Acts 4:6, Luke points to him rather than Caiaphas as the high priest even though the man currently holding the office was Caiaphas. Thus, Annas was in essence the high priest de facto.

The house of Caiaphas, generally known as his palace, was probably located in the upper city near the western wall. If so, it was about a half mile southwest of the nearest corner of the Temple.⁶ No remains unearthed by archaeologists have been identified as his palace, but from the layout of a few other residences excavated in the same area of the city, it is likely that he lived in sumptuous surroundings.⁷ Since the palace courtyard was both "without" (Matt. 26:69) and "beneath" (Mark 14:66) in relation to where the high priest questioned Jesus inside the building, we can draw either of two inferences. Either this confrontation took place in an upper story of the palace, or the courtyard sloped upward to the building’s entrance.

Although most of Jesus’ disciples fled away when He was arrested, Peter and John merely retreated out of sight into the darkness. Then, while staying far enough behind the company of soldiers to avoid being seen, they followed Jesus back into the city, where they apparently decided that it was now safe to hasten forward until they were much closer to Jesus. After they reached the wall enclosing the private courtyard set before the palace of Caiaphas, John joined Jesus and His escort at the outer door. The "damsel" (the young woman) in charge of limiting admission to people approved by the leaders allowed John to enter because he "was known unto the high priest" (John 18:16). What this means has been the subject of much speculation. Since his father Zebedee operated a fishing business that made him wealthy enough to hire servants (Mark 1:20), and since there was a heavy trade in salted fish between Galilee and Jerusalem, is it possible that Zebedee was a direct supplier of food to houses of the high priests?⁸ Or was Zebedee a wealthy man known to the priests because of his generous contributions to the Temple? Or had John been a promising student of leading rabbis in Jerusalem before he became a disciple of Jesus? We do not know the answer.

But whereas John accompanied Jesus through the courtyard and into the palace, Peter remained outside the entrance. After some time John returned and brought Peter inside as well. John’s reputation was good enough that when he vouched for Peter, the servant girl at the door let him in. Yet she immediately had some misgivings and asked Peter, "Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples?" But he, apparently with no hesitation or look of guilt that would arouse her suspicion, said, "I am not" (John 18:17).

Why did the girl say "also"? Did she know that John was a disciple? Apparently she did, but perhaps she did not yet view Jesus and His followers as evil men. We will show that later in the evening, after it became common knowledge throughout the palace complex that Annas and Caiaphas were hostile toward Jesus, she changed her mind (Matt. 26:69; Luke 22:56).

The servants and soldiers who had already entered the courtyard were in the process of building a fire to combat the coldness of the night. The best chronology of events sets the calendar date as April 3rd.⁹ In Palestine at that time of year, the temperature before dawn might indeed fall to a level that people with sparse clothing by modern standards would find uncomfortable. Peter joined them, at first standing in their midst, but then taking a seat close to the fire (Matt. 26:58; Mark 14:54; Luke 22:55; John 18:18).

Hearing before Annas

Jesus had by now been conducted into the palace of Caiaphas, where He would be examined in two hearings serving as preparation for His trial the next morning. He was first taken not before Caiaphas himself, but before Annas. Perhaps Caiaphas was still busy preparing for his encounter with Jesus. It was therefore Annas who began interrogating Him, focusing in particular on two questions of chief interest.

1. Jesus was asked about His disciples (John 18:19). It is unlikely that he wanted information about any followers who were merely fishermen or even tax collectors. Rather, he likely suspected that Jesus had secret disciples in high offices. His suspicion was correct (John 12:42–43). One who is prominent in John’s Gospel is Nicodemus (John 3:1–21; 7:45–52; 19:38–42). Another is Joseph of Arimathaea (John 19:38–42). Now we understand why Jesus faced Annas alone before He was brought before the whole Sanhedrin, or even before any leaders besides Annas and Caiaphas. These two high priests wanted to know which members of the Sanhedrin had ties to Jesus. They wanted to exclude these men from participation in Jesus’ trial, on the grounds that they were prejudiced in His favor. Another probable reason is that they viewed any supporter of Jesus as worthy of condemnation. If they could find out which of their colleagues were drawn to Jesus and His teaching, they could prosecute them and purge the Sanhedrin of such heretics. In response to the first question, Jesus said nothing.
2. Jesus was asked about His doctrine (John 18:19). Annas was trying to trap Jesus into discrediting Himself by saying something obviously contrary to Jewish religion or Roman law. The rulers had been trying the same ploy for years without success. Just a few days earlier, they had come to Jesus with trick questions while He was teaching in the Temple, but the wisdom of His answers brought Him admiration rather than opposition (Luke 20:19–40). Yet Annas, meeting Jesus face-to-face, could not resist matching wits with Him. He wanted to be admired by his own friends and supporters as the first who ever put Jesus in His place. But Jesus refused to be drawn into cross-examination. He understood the plight of Jewish rulers. They could not put Jesus out of the way without the cooperation of Pilate, but they anticipated that Pilate would be reluctant to condemn a man like Jesus, who was no revolutionary. Indeed, Pilate proved to be very reluctant, because Jesus was only a religious teacher who was popular among the kind of Jews who were good citizens. That Jesus claimed to be somebody special in the distant world of Jewish religion was of no concern to Pilate. Therefore, the Jewish leaders knew that gaining Pilate’s assent to severe punishment of this man would be impossible unless they could convincingly portray Him as a serious threat to the nation’s peace and stability. Anticipating the difficulty in laying out a convincing case against Jesus, Annas began probing Him with questions, hoping to trap Him into saying something before many witnesses that might be construed as hostile to Roman authority. But perceiving that the high priest was not seeking justice, but rather attempting to draw some words out of His mouth that might be construed as anti-Roman, Jesus refused to cooperate. He never felt obliged to speak truth to men who were not seekers after truth. Therefore, Jesus answered the high priest’s question with a brief rebuke. "Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said" (John 18:20–21). As the righteous One, Jesus refused to cooperate and reminded the high priest of what justice required. He was not showing disrespect. In mercy, He was prodding the man to do right, for under Jewish law (based on Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15) a man could not be put on trial until witnesses had provided evidence against him.¹⁰

An officer standing nearby responded to Jesus’ words by striking Him on the cheek with the palm of his hand and rebuking Him. "Answerest thou the high priest so?" (John 18:22). This blow to Jesus’ face was a fairly mild introduction to all the horrible abuse that His body would suffer in the coming hours. What was Jesus’ reaction? Did He fire hateful words back at the officer? No, He asked a question intended to bring conviction to the man’s heart that he had done wrong, that in God’s eyes he was guilty of treating Jesus unjustly. Jesus said, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?" (John 18:23). In other words, no one should be punished for wrongdoing until his guilt has been established by a fair examination of all relevant evidence. Far from doing wrong, Jesus had demonstrated that He was no less than a divine prophet because, like prophets of old, He had shown a ruler how to win God’s approval.

Hearing before Caiaphas

When Annas realized that he was gaining no ground by interrogating Jesus, he terminated the first hearing and sent Jesus to stand before Caiaphas (John 18:24). The second hearing was evidently in the same building, but in a space large enough to accommodate many members of the Sanhedrin, which the Gospel writers call "the council," as well as others who would participate (Matt. 26:59; Mark 14:55).

It was Caiaphas’s intent to build a good case against Jesus before actually taking Him to trial. The trial would be held in the morning before the full Sanhedrin, the ruling council of the Jews. To execute Jesus, it would be necessary to present sufficient evidence that He had committed a capital offense. The law viewed the evidence as sufficient only if it was based on the same testimony from two or three witnesses (Deut. 19:15).

In anticipation of this hearing, the authorities had apparently succeeded in finding many Jews who were willing to accuse Jesus of either criminal words or criminal conduct. All their allegations were false, but the council was not seeking truth. It was only seeking to take Jesus off the national scene. Therefore, the council had enlisted "many" to testify against Jesus. Yet, at the beginning of the hearing, they failed to find any two witnesses who agreed with each other (Matt. 26:60; Mark 14:56). All who were summoned to portray Jesus as a lawbreaker offered different stories until at last two came forward who claimed that Jesus said, "I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands" (Mark 14:57–58; cf. Matt. 26:60–61). The words attributed to Jesus were indeed close to some of His actual words. Just before the very first Passover during His years of ministry, He went up to Jerusalem.

13 And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,

14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:

15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;

16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.

17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?

19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

John 2:13–22

Jesus was prophesying His resurrection. But because the witnesses hostile to Jesus did not understand what Jesus meant by His promise in verse 19, they twisted His words slightly. When speaking of the future destruction of a temple, He had not said "the temple of God," as one witness testified (Matt. 26:61), nor even "this temple that is made with hands," as the other witness testified (Mark 14:58), but merely "this temple" (John 2:19). And He did not promise "to build it in three days," as one witness testified (Matt. 26:61), nor even "within three days" to "build another made without hands," as the other witness testified (Mark 14:58), but merely "in three days" to "raise it up" (John 2:19). It is evident that as well as being incorrect both in reconstruction and interpretation of His words, the testimonies of these two witnesses did not exactly agree (Mark 14:59). One seemed to say that the rebuilt Temple would be essentially the same as the one destroyed; the other, that they would be different. The council was therefore left without any legally acceptable charge to bring against Jesus.

The claim that Jesus threatened to destroy the Temple was singled out by the high priest as the most promising charge against Jesus because Roman authorities allowed Jewish leaders to punish, even to execute, anyone who desecrated the Temple.¹¹ Although it seems that the Romans did not generally interfere when local officials executed people for moral offenses such as adultery, they had a different perspective on cases with major political implications. If a man with a formidable presence on the national scene—a man like Jesus—was accused of a capital offense, they reserved the right both to render judgment and to end His life. Yet, as Caiaphas was fully aware, the Romans might view the charge that He threatened to destroy the Temple and raise it up in three days as within the scope of Jewish authority.

We might think that the two erroneous quotations of Jesus were close enough to serve as evidence against Him. But it is likely that not all members of the Sanhedrin were present for this hearing, and it is likely moreover that Caiaphas was greatly worried that some of the absent members who came to Jesus’ actual trial would demand testimony from two sources in perfect agreement.

Having failed so far to build a good case against Jesus, Caiaphas now recognized that His only remaining option was to draw damning evidence from Jesus Himself. He started by demanding that Jesus reply to the testimony already given (Matt. 26:62; Mark 14:60). He was hoping that Jesus would stumble into self-defensive words that would support charges against Him. But with a show of wisdom that must have driven Caiaphas deeper into frustration, Jesus kept silent (Matt. 26:63; Mark 14:61).

As Caiaphas sank deeper into frustration, he decided to grill the prisoner standing before him. He confronted Jesus with the question, "Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" (Mark 14:61; cf. Matt. 26:63). Perhaps he chose the name "Blessed" to suggest, in a show of piety, that he felt unworthy to speak the very name of God. How did Caiaphas know that he was accurately stating who Jesus considered Himself to be? From the beginning of His ministry, Jesus’ claim to be Christ was no secret. He had revealed it to His disciples when they started to follow Him (John 1:41), and later revealed it to many others. Even the blind beggar along the road hailed Him as the son of David, a title the Jews reserved for Christ (Luke 18:38). Jesus was more sparing in His use of the title "Son of God." Nevertheless, He announced this title as His true name just a few months before as He was teaching in the Temple (John 10:29-38). Lest His enemies be tempted to scoff at this claim, He exhorted them to recall all His miraculous works. It is no surprise, then, that Caiaphas was well aware of the lofty titles that Jesus assumed for Himself.

When Caiaphas commanded Him to say who He was, He readily confessed that He was Christ, the Son of God. Lest there be any doubt as to His meaning, He declared what would be a coming proof of His exalted station. He said, "Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven" (Matt. 26:64; cf. Mark 14:62). In two ways He was affirming that He was indeed the Christ.

1. His words obviously allude to Daniel’s description of a scene that came before him in a night vision. "I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed" (Daniel 7:13–14). Jesus identified Himself as the figure who appears in this prophecy as the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven. Since this figure would someday assume authority over the whole world, Jesus was obviously identifying Himself as the Messiah.
2. He also placed Himself "on the right hand of power." "Power" refers to God Himself, for He holds all the power in the universe. Jesus was now pointing to a prophecy of David, who said in Psalm 110, "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool" (Ps. 110:1). In a recent confrontation with the Jewish leaders who bitterly opposed Him, He had rebuked them for ignoring Psalm 110 (Luke 20:41–44). He pointed out that David refers to the second Lord, the Lord who would overthrow many kings (Ps. 110:5) and countries (Ps. 110:6), as "my Lord." This future conqueror was known to the Jews by the name given Him elsewhere in prophecy. He was the Messiah (Dan. 9:25). Thus, from Psalm 110 the Jews understood that the Messiah would be David’s Lord. However, other prophecies plainly teach that the Messiah would also be David’s descendant (Ps. 89:3–4; Isa. 11:1–5; Jer. 33:15–17). David’s willingness to concede the title "Lord" to his descendant implies that this coming figure on the world scene would be far more than a mere man, for a human son never deserves to be the lord of a good father. Although in verse 1 of Psalm 110, His title "Lord" is the Hebrew word Adon, which can refer either to God or to a human authority,¹² the same "Lord at thy right hand" reappears in verse 5 as "the Lord," which in Hebrew is Adonai, a title reserved for God. Never does the Old Testament grant this title to a mere man.¹³ Yet verse 1 in this psalm carefully distinguishes between David’s Lord and another Lord who is even higher in authority, for He is the One who invites David’s Lord to sit at His right hand. His title rendered "LORD" is actually the divine name "Jehovah."¹⁴ Thus we learn from Psalm 110 that the Godhead consists of at least two distinct persons. The Lord who speaks must be God the Father, and David’s Lord—the One appointed to reign over all—must be God the Son.

Jesus’ answer to Caiaphas not only affirmed that He was the Christ, but also that He was indeed the Son of God. He pictured Himself "sitting on the right hand of power"; that is, on the right hand of Jehovah. With reference to a king seated on his throne, "on his right hand" points to the place occupied by a son with the status of crown prince. It follows that the two Lords in Psalm 110 must be God the Father and God the Son. Thus, in a few impactful words, Jesus trumpeted His affirmation that both titles brought into question by Caiaphas rightfully belonged to Him.

Jesus answered the high priest’s question fully and forthrightly because He respected the questioner’s God-given authority to ask it. Yet Caiaphas and his colleagues failed to take Jesus’ claims seriously. As religious leaders, they had a duty to investigate whether this man fit the picture of the Messiah in Old Testament prophecy, and whether His character and works were consistent with His claims. Instead, they leaped to the conclusion that He was a liar and rejoiced that no further investigation was necessary. Why not? Why did they have no further need of two witnesses who agreed in their testimony that Jesus had committed a crime (Matt. 26:65; Mark 14:63)? Because, in their view, Jesus had condemned Himself by His own words before them all. They all heard Him speak words which they considered to be blasphemous. So, without further delay, they pronounced Him guilty of an offense requiring the death penalty (Matt. 26:66; Mark 14:63–64). In mock outrage, the high priest tore his robe (Matt. 26:65; Mark 14:63). No doubt the Gospel writers include this detail to show that he was nothing but a hypocrite, for rending his priestly garments was a direct violation of Mosaic law (Lev. 21:10).

When Jesus first came before Caiaphas, the high priest was probably fearful of what Jesus might do. He had no doubt heard accounts of Jesus’ miracles, perhaps even had heard about His miraculous escapes from mobs bent on killing Him (John 8:59; 10:39). Still, Jesus had never brought harm to any of His enemies, so Caiaphas and his friends probably felt reasonably secure. And as the interview continued without any sign that Jesus would try to save Himself or to retaliate against His captors, they grew more comfortable. They even began to feel as if they had the upper hand. It seemed that for some reason Jesus was paralyzed and helpless. So, after the verdict had been pronounced, they began, at first tentatively and then boldly, to attack Him with physical blows. Soon, His appearance of weakness made them drunk with power. They spit upon Him, smote Him with their fists, blindfolded Him and slapped Him across the face, mocked Him, taunted Him, dared Him to prove that He was God by naming His attackers, and made Him the butt of many other crude blasphemies (Matt. 26:67–68; Mark 14:65; Luke 22:63–65).

This frenzy of violence was strictly in violation of Jewish law. Who committed it? The rabble working for the priests or the priests themselves? Luke says that His tormentors were the men that held Him (Luke 22:63). But Mark provides further information (Mark 14:64-65). The wording suggests that the "some" who buffeted Him belonged to the larger group of "all" who condemned Him. Moreover, the writer distinguishes between the "some" and the servants. It would appear that some of the rulers took part in this back-alley beating of Jesus, as if they were common thugs.

Peter’s denial of Jesus

In the meantime, while Jesus’ interrogation was under way, Peter was sitting next to a fire out in the courtyard together with servants of the leaders who were gathered inside the house of Caiaphas. Since John’s account of what happened outside includes some details missing from the other Gospel accounts, we may assume that he was still in the courtyard as well. No doubt Peter was trying to be as inconspicuous as possible. But a maid of the high priest spotted him and called out to everyone, "Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee" (Matt. 26:69; cf. Mark 14:66–67; Luke 22:56). In a voice loud enough for all to hear, Peter vehemently denied her accusation (Matt. 26:70; Mark 14:68; Luke 22:57). He went so far as to insist that he did not know what she was talking about (Mark 14:68). Apparently, her question made some bystanders suspicious of Peter as well, and they pushed the same question at him. But he insisted, no doubt in strong words, that he was by no means a disciple of Jesus (John 18:25). This exchange between Peter and the people around him counted as his first denial of Christ.

Immediately afterward, Peter heard a cock crowing (Mark 14:68). Near the close of the Last Supper, Jesus had warned Peter that he would deny Jesus three times before he heard a cock crow two times (Mark 14:72). It is of course by no means unusual for a cock to crow more than once during the arrival of a new day. The first time is often two hours before dawn, then followed by more crowing as the sun rises.¹⁵

The first crowing heard by Peter probably occurred when there was only a glimmer of new light. Its haunting sound in the darkness was no doubt God’s instrument to rebuke Peter for his disloyal words and to deter him from continuing on such a cowardly path. But he gave no heed to this warning voice cutting through the night air. The other Gospel writers make no mention of this first crowing heard in the courtyard and instead focus on the crowing heard at dawn after Peter’s third denial (Matt. 26:34, 74; Luke 22:34, 60, 61; John 13:38; 18:27). The later sound of an avian voice full of gloom was more significant because it not only reminded Peter of Jesus’ sad prediction, but also plunged him into deep regret.

To escape any more threatening dialogue with people around the fire, Peter went to the "porch" (Matt. 26:71). Since the Greek word refers to a gateway,¹⁶ Matthew is probably telling us that Peter returned to the gateway where he first entered the courtyard. There, he was seen by another maid, probably the same one who allowed Peter and John to pass through the gate when they first arrived. She had been hesitant to admit Peter because even then she suspected that he was a disciple of Jesus. Now when she saw Peter again, she confidently told the people nearby that this man was surely "one of them"—that is, an associate of the man under arrest (Matt. 26:71; Mark 14:69; Luke 22:58). Again, he denied it (Mark 14:70), even swearing with an oath that the charge was false (Matt. 26:72). It seems that some men in the group of bystanders who overheard the maid backed her up by pressing the same accusation, for he replied with the emphatic words, "Man, I am not" (Luke 22:58). This counted as his second denial of Christ.

Then, about an hour later (Luke 22:59), evidently after the two hearings in the house of Caiaphas were brought to completion, news that Jesus faced condemnation must have spread to all the servants and soldiers waiting in the courtyard. The suspicion that Peter was one of His disciples resurfaced, for if he was, they now viewed him as likely an offender who should also be seized and brought to justice. So they began flinging in his face some strong evidence that he had been lying when he denied any connection to Jesus. Especially suspicious was his speech, for he talked like a Galilean, not a Judean (Matt. 26:73; Mark 14:70; Luke 22:59). One of the men who witnessed Jesus’ arrest—in fact, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had chopped off with his sword—insisted that he had seen Peter in the Garden (John 18:26). But in response to all these voices linking him with the condemned religious teacher, Peter did not courageously admit that he was His follower and friend. Much less did he affirm any love for Jesus. Instead he chose the path of lies. Again, now for the third time, he denied that he knew the man (Matt. 26:74; Mark 14:71; Luke 22:60; John 18:27), and to convince the crowd of onlookers that he was telling the truth, he began "to curse and to swear" (Matt. 26:74; Mark 14:71). The Gospel writers are probably suggesting that Peter used crude language to bolster his denial—a mixture of oaths invoking damnation on himself if he was lying and of curses on others for targeting him with false accusations (Matt. 26:74; Mark 14:71).

What happened next? He heard the second crowing of a cock, and at that moment, apparently as Jesus was being led away from the house of Caiaphas to the Temple for His coming trial before the Sanhedrin, Peter’s Lord and Master for the past three years turned and looked at him (Luke 22:61). How was that possible? Since the palace was located near the western wall of the city, we may assume that its courtyard entered by visitors from the east was situated on its eastern side. The Temple was also east of the palace. It is therefore likely that as the captors of Jesus led Him away, they went through the same courtyard where Peter was still waiting after coming through its outer gate.

If Peter had any doubt concerning who Jesus was, it evaporated under the sunshine of Jesus’ ability to predict exactly what Peter would do before the cock crowed in the morning. Now as Peter looked upon the face of Jesus, he recognized Him as the embodiment of divine love who came to this world to offer us the greatest of all conceivable gifts, the gift of eternal life. Peter’s heart stung with sharp realization that he could not in any way justify his wretched words of denial. His soul was quickly crushed by guilt. He "went out, and wept bitterly" (Matt. 26:75; Luke 22:62; cf. Mark 14:72).

Official trial

Now that Caiaphas had put together a foolproof case against Jesus, he moved quickly to try Jesus according to the law. The hearing at his house did not meet the legal requirements. A trial had to be conducted before a quorum of the Sanhedrin. So, he summoned the council members to come at daybreak—"as soon as it was day" (Luke 22:66; cf. Matt. 27:1; Mark 15:1; John 18:28)—to the council chambers. In Jerusalem on April 3rd, 2023, sunrise was at 6:25 AM.¹⁷

The Mishnah, a work dating from about AD 200 that provides an exhaustive collection of Pharisaical pronouncements on all legal questions, states that the trial in any capital case had to be conducted during the daytime.¹⁸ Yet the placement of Jesus’ trial after dawn was probably not intended to assure its legality. From the perspective of teachings in the Mishnah, this trial was otherwise very out-of-step with legitimate procedure. For one thing, it was held on the day before a festival day. For another thing, the verdict was not withheld for at least a day after completion of the trial.¹⁹

Annas and Caiaphas did not feel bound by such legal trivia. They had sufficient power to overlook them. Yet their power was far from absolute, since in many policies and decisions they could not proceed without support from virtually the whole Sanhedrin. For example, if they tried to hold Jesus’ trial before daybreak, many members of its members may have refused to attend simply because of the inconvenience.

Scholars are not certain where the council met at this time, but the Mishnah states that the Sanhedrin met on the Temple Mount at a building called the Chamber of Hewn Stone.²⁰ The same source affirms that this chamber was directly south of the Temple itself.²¹ It is likely that although its interior space fell within the Court of Priests that surrounded the Temple, its doors opened onto the Court of Gentiles outside the sanctuary.²² The Babylonian Talmud, an enormous fifth-century expansion of the Mishnah, states that forty years before the Temple was destroyed in AD 70, in about AD 30, the Sanhedrin lost its right to try capital cases and moved to another location.²³ If correct, the Chamber of Hewn Stone was not the place of Jesus’ trial in AD 33. Evidence favoring this conclusion is that when the Sanhedrin changed location, they also lost the right to administer capital punishment,²⁴ and in Jesus’ case, execution had to be authorized by the Roman governor. Where then was Jesus’ trial conducted? The Talmud states that after the Sanhedrin left the Chamber of Hewn Stone, it moved from place to place, first to a site called Hanuth,²⁵ which was probably another chamber on Temple Mount,²⁶ then to a location outside the Temple in the city of Jerusalem.²⁷ Corroborating testimony comes from Josephus. When describing the walls of the city shortly before its destruction, he clearly sets the "council-house" outside Temple Mount on its western side.²⁸

Our best assessment, therefore, is that Jesus’ trial was conducted at Hanuth within the walls of the Temple. By identifying the place of His trial we arrive at a better conception of what happened. The outwardly pious religious leaders denounced and condemned God in the flesh within a chamber just steps away from the sacred building which they routinely visited to profess a boundless love for the same God.

When Jesus was brought before the religious rulers, Mark says the whole Sanhedrin was present (Mark 15:1), but he probably means the legal equivalent of the whole Sanhedrin. A quorum was only 23 members out of 70.²⁹ It is clear from the record that no supporters of Jesus attended. Among them were Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaea, whom Mark identifies as an "honourable counsellor" (Mark 15:43). It is possible that these two stayed away voluntarily, because they wanted to escape the wrath of Caiaphas and his allies. But since later in the same day Joseph was not afraid to approach Pilate and seek custody of Jesus’ body, and Nicodemus was not afraid to assist in Jesus’ burial (Mark 15:43; John 19:38–39), it seems more likely that the only counselors summoned to Jesus’ trial were His outspoken critics.

The agenda for this session of the Sanhedrin was very simple—to rubber stamp the verdict already rendered at the house of Caiaphas. The trial took only minutes, because the case against Jesus rested on His answer to a simple question. In fact, His examiner, whoever it was, did not repeat Caiaphas’ question exactly. Caiaphas had asked, "Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" (Mark 14:61). Now, the examiner divided the question into two questions, for good reason, because the titles Christ (the Greek form of the title "Messiah") and Son of God did not have the same significance. If Jesus only called Himself the Messiah, He could not be held guilty of blasphemy, for the Jews believed that the Messiah would be a man and not God. They had no concept of the Trinity, although it is taught in the Old Testament. Indeed, if He only called Himself the Messiah, they could not turn this claim into an offense without proving that He was not the Messiah.

So, the examiner opened the interrogation by asking Jesus whether He was the Messiah (Luke 22:67), reserving until later the question whether He was the Son of God. The court was confident that Jesus would answer both questions because He had already answered them at the hearing before Caiaphas. Why did Jesus cooperate? Because, although these men of power were hostile toward Him and were hardened against the truth, they derived their authority from God. They had every right to test a man who claimed to be somebody special. To refuse to cooperate would have been a sin, and Jesus was sinless.

Before answering the question, however, Jesus chided the court for being prejudiced against Him. He said, "If I tell you, ye will not believe: And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go" (Luke 22:67–68). What did He mean? He meant that if He demanded proof of their charge that He was an imposter, they would be unable to present a valid case against Him, yet they would still not release Him.³⁰ He was not showing lack of respect. He was urging them to do right. He was warning them against speeding along to a miscarriage of justice that would leave them accountable to God for condemning His own Son. He was pleading with them to hear what He said, to engage in dialogue with Him, to open their hearts to the truth. After all, He was the one who established the laws they were enforcing, who set up the institutions that gave them authority. Surely, He had a right to counsel these men who owed Him everything—not only their positions in society, but life itself—that they needed to fulfill His purpose in giving Israel these laws and institutions. His purpose was justice and righteousness. Yet they were racing to a travesty of justice and a mockery of righteousness.

After exhorting the court to do right, Jesus then affirmed that He was the Messiah. "Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God" (Luke 22:69). As He did in the hearing before Caiaphas, He alluded to two Old Testament prophecies showing that the Messiah would be God in the flesh. He would be a man (Daniel 7:13–14), yet He would also be God (Ps. 110:1).

The examiner said nothing in rebuke because the court did not intend to contest this first claim, the claim that He was the Messiah. Rather, the examiner moved on immediately to the next question, indeed the critical question that would determine Jesus’ fate. Besides the examiner’s voice, other voices immediately took up the same words, and soon they reechoed throughout the chamber. The question was, "Art thou then the Son of God?" (Luke 22:70).

In meekness Jesus answered truly and promptly, and He framed His answer to enlarge the question slightly. They asked whether He was the Son of God. Lest anyone think that the Son could in any degree be lacking His Father’s divine nature, Jesus said, "Ye say that I am" (Luke 22:70). A better translation would be, "What you say, that I am."³¹ He was giving Himself the name I AM, the name for the God who is eternal and self-existent. He was saying, "Yes, I am God, the very God who made you, the God you believe you have been worshiping in the Temple, the God you have tried to please with all your observances of the law."

But as far as His enemies were concerned, it was self-evident that He was not God, because He was a man. Therefore, the claim did not need to be investigated. It was flagrant blasphemy. Also, since the blasphemy came from His own mouth, no further witnesses were required. Thus, the court immediately reached a verdict of guilty, and the rulers began to arrange His death (Luke 22:71–23:1). The first step was to conduct Him to Pilate.

Death of Judas

When Jesus was led away from the chamber where the Sanhedrin met within the Temple complex, one observer was apparently Judas. He must have returned from the Garden of Gethsemane with Jesus’ captors and stayed near the scene of Jesus’ hearings in the house of Caiaphas. Then, when Jesus was conducted to His trial before the Sanhedrin, Judas must followed at a distance and taken an observer’s position somewhere near the chamber at the Temple where they met. As he stood outside in the darkness and considered what was likely to happen, his heart sank into worry and agitation. Then fear that Jesus was going to be condemned welled up and released sharp pains of guilt. To gain relief from a bad conscience, he probably began telling himself that Jesus would not be found guilty of any capital offense. Yet soon afterward, likely right after the dawn of a new day, news of Jesus’ condemnation spilled out of the trial chamber to Judas and to others nearby, and a short while later Judas saw Jesus Himself coming out of the building in the custody of soldiers. Then all self-justification collapsed under his feet and he fell into a pit of remorse. He repented of the great evil he had done (Matt. 27:3, 4).

Under the dictates of a conscience which now spoke to him in a loud, commanding voice, he sought out the chief priests and elders and tried to return the thirty pieces of silver which had been his reward for betraying Jesus. He confessed to them that he had betrayed innocent blood, but they said, "What is that to us? See thou to that" (Matt. 27:4). In other words, "Your feelings of guilt are your problem. Deal with them yourself and leave us alone. We could not care less." Desperate to overcome the distress in his heart, Judas cast down the thirty pieces of silver and rushed away to commit suicide (Matt. 27:5). That he went directly to the Temple after Jesus was condemned is an incidental fact supportive of our belief that Jesus’ trial was in the Temple complex.

Matthew says that Judas hanged himself (Matt. 27:5), but in the Upper Room, after Jesus’ resurrection and before the Day of Pentecost, Peter said that he fell headlong so that his body split open (Acts 1:18). The exact meaning of the words is essential to a true picture of what happened. Matthew’s word "hanged," based on a word meaning "to strangle," normally referred to being hanged from a noose.³² "Falling headlong" renders two Greek words strongly suggesting that Judas fell to a prone position.³³ The Greek basis of "burst in the midst" indicates a hard blow generating a sound.³⁴ Giving due attention to all the information which the accounts provide has led to consensus among Bible students that Judas must have hanged himself beside a cliff overlooking a field near the city.³⁵ To remove support for his feet, he must have jumped over the side, but the rope broke and his body tumbled down upon sharp rocks below, with a noisy hard impact causing his body to split open and his bowels to spill out. (A human body falling from only fifty feet would, in the absence of air resistance, accelerate to about forty-five miles an hour before hitting the ground.)

Peter says that Judas used his payoff from the priests to purchase the field where he died (Acts 1:18). Matthew assigns the purchase to the priests, using the silver pieces that Judas had returned (Matt. 27:6–7), but Matthew apparently views the priests as agents for Judas. Because they had declined to take back the blood money, it remained his, and, as a result, the purchased field was his also. They could not put the silver pieces into the treasury of contributions to the Temple because it was blood money. Mosaic law forbade the priests to take any offering coming from a transaction that was possible only in an evil world (Deut. 23:18).³⁶ So instead, they used the blood money to buy a field where they might bury strangers; that is, foreigners who died while visiting Jerusalem.

Exactly when did Judas commit suicide? Matthew informs us that he plunged into despair "when he saw that he [Jesus] was condemned." Jesus’ trial and crucifixion were on the day of Passover, a Friday. Therefore, the flurry of Judas’s desperate actions leading to his death must have fallen on the same Friday, or on the next day at the latest. Since Friday was the Feast of Passover, the priests were too busy then to shop for a field to buy, and they were forbidden to conduct ordinary business on the next day, which was a High Sabbath (John 19:31), so it appears certain that the purchase was made after Judas ended his life. No doubt their selection of the field was guided by knowledge that the previous owner of the money they were using had recently died there. If his body had been cast into a pit at the site of his self-destruction, they may have decided that it was only fitting to give him proper ownership of his burial ground.

The field that they purchased was a potter’s field (Matt. 27:7), presumably so named because often in the past and now in the present, it had belonged to a potter. Therefore, its purchase was a literal fulfillment of Zechariah’s prophecy foretelling what would happen to the thirty pieces of silver that Israel would use to purchase the death of their Messiah (Matt. 27:7–10; cf. Zech. 11:12–13). Using condensed figurative language, Zechariah says that the LORD would ask the nation of Israel how much they thought He was worth, and they would set His price at thirty pieces of silver. An ancient Jewish reader would have understood that this was the compensation given the master of a slave who had been gored by an ox (Exod. 21:32). To express His contempt for His assessed valuation, the LORD would command that the money be "cast . . . to the potter in the house of the LORD." Indeed, it appears that the thirty pieces of silver that Judas returned to the priests in the Temple was soon given to a potter or, if he had died recently, to his family.

Yet Zechariah’s prophecy also had far deeper significance. On a symbolic level, the "potter in the house of the LORD" represents the Jewish religious leaders responsible for the spiritual standing of the pot representing the Jewish nation. The basis for this imagery is an incident recorded in the Old Testament Book of Jeremiah (Jer. 18:1–6; 19:1–4, 10, 11).³⁷ Jeremiah took a "potter’s earthen bottle" (that is, a pot) to a field in the valley near the city and there broke it to picture the future mass murder of Jews a few years later, when the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem in divine punishment for the nation’s idolatry (Jer. 19:12–15). Therefore, without the prophecy of Jeremiah, we would not fully understand Zechariah’s reference to a potter who received the blood money cast away by Judas’s hands.

Jeremiah also gives us a much fuller perspective on why the field where Judas died became known as "the field of blood" (Acts 1:19).

1. To achieve this perspective, we must first consider events after Jesus’ death. Then, according to Matthew, the field received this name because it was purchased with blood money (Matt. 27:8). Peter’s explanation is that the name remembered Judas’s bloody suicide (Acts 1:18–19). Both explanations are correct. The whole story was well known to the people of Jerusalem. The name Field of Blood readily won acceptance because in the popular mind the field was remembered as the place where blood paid for blood.
2. Next, we must recognize that this field, which became known as Aceldama (Acts 1:19), was very likely in the same valley near Jerusalem where Jeremiah performed the symbolic act of breaking a pot.³⁸ The valley visited by Jeremiah was, according to a literal translation, "the valley of the son of Hinnom, which is by the entry of Potsherd Gate" (Jer. 19:2).³⁹ There can be no doubt concerning which places these names refer to because the same names are still in use today. Hinnom Valley lies south-southwest of the old City of David,⁴⁰ and Aceldama (now spelled "Akeldama") lies on the south side of the Hinnom Valley where it joins the Kidron Valley, bordering the east side of Jerusalem.⁴¹ It is significant that the area near the ancient Potsherd Gate abounds with the kind of clay needed by potters.⁴²
3. Third, we must see the larger significance in the name Field of Blood. In Jeremiah’s day, God’s wrath fell upon Israel because the valley was full "with the blood of innocents" (Jer. 19:4). The atrocities soon to be committed by the Babylonians, with the result that the same valley would be filled with bloody corpses, would be just repayment for the nation practicing infant sacrifice in that place. Thus, when the New Testament informs us that a field in the Hinnom Valley became known as the Field of Blood soon after Jesus’ death, we who are familiar with Jeremiah’s prophecy are able to detect a prophetic warning that God would again repay blood with blood. Indeed, less than forty years later, the Jewish nation suffered divine retribution for sending their Messiah to a bloody crucifixion. In AD 70, the Romans not only destroyed Jerusalem, but also killed perhaps a million Jews.⁴³ At each stroke of God’s wrath—the first unleashed by the Babylonians, the second by the Romans—countless Jews met a bloody death either in or near the field where Judas died.

It is therefore obvious that a full perspective on what happened to the thirty pieces of silver requires us to study the writings of both Jeremiah and Zechariah. Yet although Matthew refers to the first prophet, he makes no mention of the second. Why? Has he made a mistake? No, a good explanation proceeds from two facts. First, when New Testament writers quote an Old Testament prophecy, they seldom name the prophet. Presumably, they want to emphasize that it came from God, not man. The few exceptions are prophecies derived from one of the major prophets. A minor prophet is never identified as a source. In fact, Zechariah is never mentioned anywhere in the New Testament. But although we have explained why Matthew omits any reference to Zechariah, we have not explained why he points to Jeremiah. The likely reason is that some of Matthew’s words are an obvious quotation of Zechariah, since he is the only prophet who specifically referred to the exchange of thirty pieces of silver at Jesus’ betrayal. But all echoes of Jeremiah in the Gospel writer’s words are easy to miss unless they are brought to the reader’s attention. Therefore, Matthew names Jeremiah as a source.