The Pulpit Commentary — Matthew — Volume 2 — Section 527

appen.ns to hal"e entered the court with the feared to elicit one or hi■ crushing repllea guard that held the Prisoner; but Peter or unanswerable questions. They were glad remained without till introduced by his to fall back upon something else, whioh fellow-apostle, who WR.S known to the servant especially concerned Annns and Caiaphaa, who kept the door (John xviii. 16). With and their gainful trading in the aaored the serve.nta. These were the officen of the oonrts (see the next note), Sanhedrin, and the high priest's servants. Ver. 61.-Thia fellow (oi.,.os). Contemptu- They retired from the presence-chamber to ously, displaying their animosity by the the open court, and sat round a charcoal fire disrespectful use of the pronoun. I am which they made there. Peter at one time able to destroy the temple of God, and to sat with them, at another moved restlessly build it in three days. This is a distorted about, endeavouring to show indifference, account of what our Lord said at hia first but really betraying himself. The end. The purgation of the temple, when o.sked to give result of the examination. This verse is a sign in proof of hi~ authority. Speaking parenthetical, interrupting the course of the metaphorically of his body, he had made narrative in order to prepare the way for this announcement," Destroy ye this temple, the BCOOunt of Peter's denial (vers. 69-75). and in three d!lys I will raise it up" (John Ver. 59.-The chief priests, [a.nd elders,] iL 19). At the time the Jews had not and all the OOlllloil. The words in brackets understood the words, and they now pervert are probably spnrions; they are omitted by them into a criminal accusation, whioh might the best uncials aud the Vulgate. The take the form of charging him with being words cannot imply strictly that the whole either an impions fomenter of disturbance, Sanhedrin was present and consenting to or a pretender to superhuman powe?lt, the present proceedings ; for we know that Divine or Satanic. In either case, the charge such members BI Nicodemus and Joseph of would bring him into collision with the Arimathma did not consent to the infamons Roman authorities, which was the real object deeds of the rest (Luke x:riii. 51 ; John xix. of this preliminary inquiry. We must not 89). Sought (,({i.,.ow, t.aere ,eeking) false forget that Christ had twioe interfered with witneas. The Sanhedrists had decided on the traffic in the temple, which was carried Christ's death ; it only remained to find on to the great profit of the avaricious family such a charge against him as would compel of Annas, and that the ma.lice of the high the Roman authorities to deal summarily priests was on this account greatly em- with him. For their purpose the truth of bittered. the accusation was immaterial, so long as it Ver. 62.-The high priest [Caiaphas} was established, according to Law (Dent. a.rose. As if in indignation at the outrage xviL 6 ; xix. 15), by two or three witnesses offered by this vaunt to Jehovah and the examined apart. They knew well that sanctuary. But the indignation was assumed Christ could be condemned on no true and theatrioal; for even this charge had testimony, hence they scrupled not to seek broken down, owing to th,e disagreement false. If they had meant to deal fairly, of the two witnesses (Mark :riv. 59). Some- they would have allowed BOme who knew thing more definite must be secured before him to speak in his favour; but this was any formal appeal could be made to the the very last thing which they desired or Sanhedrin or the procnrator. Anawereat would have sa.nctioned. thou nothing 1 The ang1·y president en- Ver. 60.-J!'ound none. Repeated twice deavours to browbeat the P1isoner, and to- (according to the Received Text), show- make him criminate himself by intemperate ing the earnestness of the pursuit and the language or indisoreet admission. What absolute failure of the attempt. What was is it which theae witness against thee f offered was in.sufficient for the purpose, or The Received Text (followed here by West- inconsistent (Mark xiv. 56). 1'he second cott and Hort) divides the high priest'1t " found noue " is thought by many modern words into twoquedtions, as in the Authorized editors to be not genuine, and is accordi11gly Version. The Vulgate unites the two into expunged. It does not occur in the Vulgate. one, Nihil respondes ad ea quai isti adversum At the last came two fa.lie witnessea. When u te,tifica,ntur 1 Alford, 'l'ischendorf, eto., the case B08med hopelesa and on the point print, OvB~v C&1fDtcp[v'!1 .,.[ oi'TOt ITOU ICD.TD.J14fr of breaking down, some of the Sanhedrists' 'Tupoii,r,v; "Answerest thou not what it own creaturee came forward with a distorted is which these witness against thee?,.. account of Christ's words spoken long before. Caie.phe.s professes a desire to hear Christ'&· They brought no a.ccnsation founded on any explanation of the words jnst alleged of i,ia late utterances in the temple, or age.inst him. when Le wu charged with blasphemy and Ver. 63.-.Tesus held hill peaoe; '"'".,,11·: threatened with stoning (John L 33); they continued nknt (cf. oh. :uvii. 12-14). remembered kt:enly how he had discom- " He was oppressed, 11nd he was e.IDicted,, fited them on auch occasiona, and they yet he opened not his mouth," etc. (Isa. I.iii.. e. XXVI. 1-76.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDL.'m TO ST. MATTHEW. 533