Matthew 26:57-75

Matthew 26:57-75

The Jewish trial and Jesus’s faithful confession is contrasted with Peter’s denial. This could hardly be called a trial, because "trial" implies a legal proceeding and these proceedings were hardly legal. Having an agenda the chief priests cared little about how they achieved their goals. They would have preferred truthful witnesses, but any would do as long as their goals were achieved. They must get two witnesses to agree in their testimony on a capital crime. They end up with, “This man stated, ‘I am about to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’” This is hardly a crime that meets the criteria of blasphemy or capital punishment. Additionally, Jesus never said that. It is at best a distortion of what He said in the first temple cleansing in John 2:19. But this was the kind of charge the chief priest would be excited about. The temple was their power base and cash cow. It was Jesus’s denunciation of the temple practices that first excited their opposition. Zach 6:12 refers to one called “the branch”, “And He will build the temple of the Lord.” The priest would have seen in the charge of building a temple a Messianic allusion.

Jesus remained silent, doing nothing in His own defense, determined to move forward to fulfill the Father’s will. Jesus breaks His silence but it is almost as if to give them the evidence that they have failed to trump up. At this point, the high priest did not have enough to get an indictment not to mention a conviction. Had Jesus never spoken a word in His defense or even remained silent the chief priest would have had no case. The high priest charges Jesus under oath to testify if He is the Christ.

Jesus’s statement provides their grounds for a charge in a way their false witnesses never could. In verse 64, Jesus declares without any doubt who He is. Yes, He is the Messiah the Christ and they would see Him sitting on the right had of God and coming on the clouds. The two phrases allude to Dan 7:13, not two successive events but parallel descriptions of the vindication of the Son of Man. While not technically blasphemy, taking God’s name in vain, Jesus assumes the prerogatives of God and God alone. And would be a form of blasphemy. Unless of course it is true!

In contrast to Jesus who is willing and almost forcefully moving into the power of the chief priest, Peter hovers on the outer edges and tries to escape and his denial intensifies. First, he denies any knowledge of what is going on. But his accent gives him away; he is no local hanger-on. So, he takes an oath to reinforce his claim to ignorance. Finally, he curses and swears, directing the curse at Jesus. He has proved his point; he doesn’t act like a friend of Jesus. The crowing rooster sends Peter out to bewail his failure. Interestingly, Peter is never named in this Gospel again.

"Dear God in the frustrations and troubles of life, keep me from denying Jesus, with my actions and words. May there never be any doubt about my being friends with Him. AMEN."