← Back to sermon library

with me in your Bibles to Matthew 
chapter 26. Matthew chapter 26, we come to 
the trial of our Lord Jesus Christ. We're going to spend a little 
bit of time before we actually look at our text this morning 
on the general setting, what's happening here in terms of the 
passion, in terms of Christ's ultimate deliverance up to Pilate, 
and then crucifixion. But I do want to read beginning 
in Matthew 26 at verse 47. And while he was still speaking, 
behold, Judas, one of the twelve, with a great multitude, with 
swords and clubs, came from the chief priests and elders of the 
people. Now his betrayer had given them a sign, saying, Whomever 
I kiss, he is the one sees him. Immediately he went up to Jesus 
and said, Greetings, Rabbi, and kissed him. But Jesus said to 
him, Friend, why have you come? Then they came and laid hands 
on Jesus and took him. And suddenly one of those who 
were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, 
struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. But 
Jesus said to him, put your sword in its place, for all who take 
the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I 
cannot now pray to my Father and He will provide me with more 
than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures 
be fulfilled that it must happen thus? In that hour Jesus said 
to the multitudes, have you come out as against a robber with 
swords and clubs to take me? I sat daily with you, teaching 
in the temple, and you did not seize me. But all this was done 
that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all 
the disciples forsook him and fled. And those who had laid 
hold of Jesus led him away to Caiaphas, the high priest, where 
the scribes and the elders were assembled. But Peter followed 
him at a distance to the high priest's courtyard, and he went 
in and sat with the servants to see the end. Now the chief 
priests, the elders, and all the council sought false testimony 
against Jesus to put him to death, but found none. Even though many 
false witnesses came forward, they found none. But at last 
two false witnesses came forward and said, this fellow said, I 
am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three 
days. And the high priest arose and said to him, do you answer 
nothing? What is it these men testify against you? But Jesus 
kept silent, and the high priest answered and said to him, I put 
you under oath by the living God. Tell us if you are the Christ, 
the Son of God. Jesus said to him, It is as you 
said. Nevertheless, I say to you hereafter, 
you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the power 
and coming on the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest tore his 
clothes, saying, he has spoken blasphemy. What further need 
do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard his 
blasphemy. What do you think? They answered 
and said, he is deserving of death. Then they spat in his 
face and beat him, and others struck him with the palms of 
their hands, saying, prophesy to us Christ, who is the one 
who struck you? Amen. Well, let us pray. Our 
Father in heaven, we thank you for this written word given by 
inspiration of God Most High. We thank you for its profitability 
to us in all things. We thank you that it sets forth 
to us the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ our Lord. And God, 
as we follow this narrative closely, we know He did this for us men 
and for our salvation. And in this we greatly rejoice. 
how we praise You for His life, for His death, for His resurrection, 
how we praise You for His current session and the fact that He 
will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. And 
our hearts desire an earnest plea to You, God, is that the 
Holy Spirit would work in our hearts and in our minds now, 
and that those who are outside of Christ would see the great 
love of God for sinners, and that by Your grace they would 
believe the gospel, so that they would be able to meet Him on 
that day when He returns in glory. God, help us all to be safely 
folded in the grace and the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ. Help 
us all to be looking to Him in faith, walking in those things 
that are pleasing in your sight. Do forgive us now for our sins 
and our transgressions. Wash us in the blood of the Lord 
Jesus Christ and help us as well, Lord God, to know the presence 
and the power of your Holy Spirit. Grant us help as we move through 
this passage and we pray through Christ our Lord. Amen. Well, 
as we look at particularly verses 57 to 68, it does break down 
into four sections. We're only gonna focus on verses 
57 to 61 this morning, but I do wanna map it out for you just 
so you have some idea of what's happening here. First, we have 
the setting of the hearing in verses 57 and 58. Secondly, the 
testimony of the witnesses in verses 59 to 61. Thirdly, the 
examination by the high priest in verses 62 to 64, and then 
a formal charge of blasphemy in verses 65 to 68. Now, this 
council of Jewish leaders is referred to as the Sanhedrin. That's simply a word that we 
find here in verse 59, where it says, all the council. Council 
is Sanhedrin. It was a political Or rather, 
a criminal and ecclesiastical court wherein they heard particular 
crimes and offenses that were done with reference to God's 
law. But as we look at this particular 
section, it's important that we also have a mind on understanding 
what's happening in other gospel narratives. When you try and 
harmonize them, you'll see some details that are lacking, perhaps, 
in Matthew, that are present, say, in Luke. And it's oftentimes 
the case that persons look at that and say, well, it's an unhistorical 
or an unreliable historical witness. So I think it's good for the 
people of God to have a good understanding of what's happening 
here in all four accounts. So we're going to look first 
at the setting of the hearing in verses 57 to 58. And I want 
to consider first the broader setting, before we actually get 
to our text, several comments concerning the Sanhedrin and 
what they were attempting to do. Now, this may be a bit different 
than the way we typically go in a particular sermon, but as 
I said, this is very important information for us to have, not 
only in terms of our own benefit, our own encouragement, but also 
apologetically, so we can answer sort of the onslaughts of unbelievers 
when it comes to the historical record. So the broader setting, 
and as well, it's a very important section of Scripture. If you've 
been following the news lately, you'll note that OJ Simpson received 
parole. Well, of course, in his murder 
trial, that's been called the trial of the century. Well, the 
trial of Jesus Christ is the trial of the millennia, and it's 
very important that the people of God understand what is happening 
as we read this particular section. So first of all, the identity 
of the Sanhedrin. As I've already mentioned, it 
was a Jewish ecclesiastical political council made up of leading priests, 
teachers of the law, and elders. Now at the time of Christ, it 
was Sadducee heavy. The Pharisees had more influence 
outside of Jerusalem in the countryside and whatnot. So the Sadducees 
were the heavy influence here in the Sanhedrin at that particular 
time. It was made up of 70 members 
plus the high priest. Now most likely, not all of them 
were present at this particular hearing. Perhaps as the hours 
went on, more and more continued to show up at this particular 
event. There were necessary 23 for a 
quorum. So in order to convict, in order 
to carry out the particular desire of the Sanhedrin, they needed 
23 positive votes. Now, secondly, we ought to observe 
the goal of the Sanhedrin. It's already stated prior to 
us arriving at this particular hearing. The goal is stated, 
notice in chapter 26, at verses 3 to 5. It says, then the chief priests, 
the scribes and the elders of the people assembled at the palace 
of the high priest who was called Caiaphas. A very similar situation. This was the Sanhedrin. Again, 
if not all 71 members, certainly a good deal of them. And note 
specifically, they plotted to take Jesus by trickery and kill 
him, but they said not during the feast, lest there be an uproar 
among the people. Go back to chapter 12 at verse 
14. You can see that this has already been in their minds for 
quite some time. Chapter 12 at verse 14. It was 
in the Sabbath dispute, the Sabbath controversy. At 1214 it says, 
then the Pharisees went out and plotted against him how they 
might destroy him. So this was already a prevailing 
desire among the enemies of Christ, the leaders, the Pharisees, the 
Sadducees, the priests, the teachers of the law, the scribes. So chapter 
12, verse 14 indicates the prevailing tenor at the time. Now this was 
informal. When we get to 26, 3 to 5, this 
is more of a formal setting where they're actually conceiving a 
plan in order to kill the Lord Jesus Christ. We move to the 
trial there, specifically in our text this morning, and we 
see that they've already hatched this. They've already got an 
already agreed upon guilty verdict. Now they just need to shape the 
narrative in order to support that. But it's not only this. There were other times that they 
met in private with the intent to strategize on how to remove 
Christ or how to deal with Christ. Notice in John chapter 11. This 
is probably a week prior to the passion itself. In John chapter 
11, specifically in verses 45 to 57, you see this gathering 
together again, the chief priests, the Pharisees, this council, 
they're asking, what shall we do? In verse 49, Caiaphas, being 
high priest that year, said to them, you know nothing at all, 
nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man 
should die for the people. and not that the whole nation 
should perish." Now, unbeknownst to him, he is speaking the glorious 
truth of substitutionary atonement. He is speaking the glorious truth 
that one must die for the many. But that's not the tenor in which 
he speaks it. But the point is, brethren, that 
at least on two prior occasions to our text this morning, the 
Sanhedrin had met together conceiving a plan or plot to destroy the 
Lord Jesus Christ. Now we have to ask ourselves, 
with such an atmosphere, can we expect that Christ is going 
to get a fair trial? Now, of course, I understand 
this is in God's decree. I understand that the Lord has 
purposed all things whatsoever that transpires, and we see this 
affirmed even with reference to the crucifixion in the prayer 
of the apostles in Acts chapter 4. But in the spirit of prosecuting, 
or rather the spirit of persevering through this passage, we ought 
to notice the great injustices that did prevail upon our Lord, 
because I think it does indeed heighten our appreciation for 
what He went through on our behalf. Somebody says something ill about 
us that may even be a bit true. We get offended. We get upset. If people don't put us in the 
most positive light, boy, we're offended. We're going to unfriend 
them on Facebook. We're going to thumb down their 
post. We're going to be all kinds of upset because they don't esteem 
us and revere us and hold us up to this glowing sort of a 
consideration. And yet our Lord Jesus Christ, 
who is holy, harmless, and undefiled, takes this sort of abuse for 
us men and for our salvation. You ought to appreciate in this 
particular passage the glory and the majesty and the excellence 
of our Savior. So we see on at least two prior 
occasions the Sanhedrin convene. There might have been a third 
one, if you go back to John chapter 9. John chapter 9, in that situation 
where Jesus heals the blind man. Notice what his parents testify 
in verse 22. His parents said these things 
because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had agreed already 
that if anyone confessed that he was Christ, he would be put 
out of the synagogue. Most likely, that was a formal 
decision, a formal ecclesiastical decision. So the point is, is 
that prior to even arriving here at Matthew 26, verse 57, the 
Sanhedrin had a particular goal. They had a particular mind. They 
had a particular intention. And if you go back to the passage 
in Matthew 26, you see it specifically there as well. They want to put 
him to death according to verse 59. Notice when Caiaphas charges 
him with blasphemy. They respond in verse 66, he 
is deserving of death. John Calvin said, for they had 
previously resolved to put Christ to death, and now they only seek 
a pretense for oppressing him. This is unfair. This is unholy. This is unrighteous. This is 
ungodly. Again, the eternal decree of 
God Most High, everything that happens, happens according to 
His plan. But brethren, that never removes 
a consideration of the responsibility of men. And we need to appreciate 
this. On the one hand, that our Savior 
went through this for us and for our salvation. But on the 
other hand, we ought to see the prevailing opinion that men hold 
concerning the Christ. Not only in the first century, 
but that sort of an attitude is prevalent today. If they could 
crucify Him again, they would probably most certainly crucify 
Him again. R.T. Frantz says the final clause 
in verse 59, so that they could have him executed, indicates 
that this was not to be an impartial hearing. The verdict had already 
been decided, verse 4. And the only problem is how it 
may be justified. When the verdict precedes the 
charge, a proper trial is not to be expected. Imagine if you 
knew this of yourself going into the courtroom, that judge and 
jury had already condemned you. You were already guilty. There's 
no way you're leaving that courtroom until you have heard that he 
must die. That is a terrible situation, 
and yet our Lord undergoes it for us men and for our salvation. Thirdly, we ought to appreciate 
the challenge to the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin, in fact, approach 
this as a capital case. It's very explicit in their intention 
in verse 59. They actually seek false testimony 
so that they may put him to death. When Caiaphas alleges blasphemy 
on the part of the Lord Jesus Christ, what do they say? He 
is deserving of death. So they treated this as a capital 
case, but they did not possess authority to engage in capital 
punishment. They were in a bit of a bind 
here. They couldn't just dispatch with Jesus, and so they have 
to proceed in the manner in which they did. The Sanhedrin did not 
possess authority to carry out capital punishment. You can look 
at John chapter 18. John chapter 18. Again, setting 
up the broader context in terms of the trial of Jesus. We ought 
to appreciate not only what Christ went through, but how this Sanhedrin 
functions in this particular situation. But in John chapter 
18, verse 31, then Pilate said to them, you take him and judge 
him according to your law. Therefore the Jews said to him, 
it is not lawful for us to put anyone to death, that the saying 
of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spoke signifying by 
what death he would die. Now, if it's charged that in 
John 19, six, Pilate says, you take him and crucify him, for 
I find no fault in him. I think that that was a bit of 
biting sarcasm. I don't think that Pilate was 
actually suggesting to these men, OK, I'm going to overturn 
the law as a subject people to the Roman Empire. You now have 
the authority to carry out capital punishment. That's not what's 
happening here. Probably a sarcastic taunt, because 
he just said, I find no fault in him. He sees what's happening 
in terms of this whole situation. Again, not the way that we see 
it. He doesn't see it as a regenerate man. But certainly, Pilate sees 
things a bit clearer than they did at this particular time. 
Now, there were two exceptions, and they were unauthorized exceptions 
with reference to the later history of Christ's church, the death 
of Stephen. They didn't turn him over to 
the civil government for execution. They drove him out of the city 
and they stoned him to death. That was unauthorized. They were 
not supposed to do that. And as well, the death of James 
the Just, the brother of the Lord Jesus Christ. Again, they 
didn't go to the civil magistrate. They stoned him. They executed 
him. So these two unauthorized exceptions 
to what was the rule, and there is a lot of research done concerning 
this, they did not possess the authority to execute criminals 
at this particular time. So that brings us, fourthly, 
to consider the design of the Sanhedrin. What's their function? 
What's their purpose? What are they doing in this particular 
situation? They need to build a case. so 
that they can deliver Jesus over to Pilate, so that Pilate, who 
has authority for capital punishment, can execute the Lord Jesus Christ. They've got to build a case. If they just come to Pilate and 
say, yeah, he's a bad guy, which they actually do. In fact, when 
Pilate questions them in John's narrative, why did you bring 
him to me? They completely beg the question. 
They say, well, if he were not an evildoer, we wouldn't have 
brought him to you. What kind of a kangaroo court 
is this? What kind of a situation is this? It is the animosity and the enmity 
of man against God and against His Christ. I think if ever there's 
an application of Psalm 2, the nation's raging and the people's 
plotting a vain thing, it's in the crucifixion account of our 
Lord Jesus Christ. The apostles see it that way 
in Acts chapter 4. They cite Psalm 2 and then they 
apply it to the various parties involved at the crucifixion of 
our Lord Jesus Christ. So they need to build their case 
in order to present him over to Pilate for execution. Now 
here specifically, they allege blasphemy. Now as far as Pilate's 
concerned, he most likely isn't going to execute for blasphemy. 
That's something that is unique to Jewish law. I'm sure they 
probably had violations in the empire for similar sorts of things, 
but Leviticus 24 very specifically mandates execution for those 
who blaspheme. The whole question of blasphemy 
is an interesting one that we'll deal with when we get to that 
particular portion. Some suggest, however, that the 
particular charge leveled here in terms of temple destroying 
could be seen as a form of blasphemy. And even pagans took temple destroying 
seriously. Pagans would execute persons 
for desecrating or destroying temples, so they need to build 
their case. In a parallel, in Luke's gospel, 
what's the charge that is brought forth there? Tax evasion. You ever want to get a magistrate 
in your pocket to dispatch with somebody, it's going to be on 
that. We can't have this fellow wandering around the streets 
of Galilee and Jerusalem telling persons not to pay their taxes. 
Oh boy, that's a surefire way to get that magistrate in your 
pocket, no pun intended. And then as well, we see in John 
19, 12, the pressure exerted by the Jews prevailed upon Pilate. Now most likely what we are dealing 
with in this particular section is a sort of formal slash informal 
hearing, probably like a grand jury hearing to try and gather 
up evidence to see if we have enough to pursue a case against 
this particular person. Now that brings us fifthly with 
reference to the Sanhedrin, their portrayal on the pages of the 
New Testament. Now, if this was in fact a formal 
trial, it was a formally functioning trial, they violated many particular 
mandates. Now, capital trials were to be 
conducted during daytime. Capital trials must be conducted 
in specified courtrooms, not in Caiaphas's house. Capital 
trials must have the defense speak first. Capital trials must 
not be decided on the same day. Therefore, they cannot be held 
on a day or an eve of a feast or of the Sabbath. They have 
to be decided the same day. Now, there's two different approaches 
to this evidence with reference to this particular situation. 
The older view sees this as a violation of those laws. In other words, 
the Sanhedrin operated in a way that was just ungodly. They operated contrary to established 
law. Now, many of the newer commentators 
say that the laws that I just rehearsed came later. In fact, 
they were written later, after the destruction of Jerusalem 
in AD 70. So the argument is, what was happening later doesn't 
reliably tell us what was happening at the time of the Lord Jesus 
Christ. So I'm going to proceed this way. It's probably more 
of an informal hearing, but it certainly should have been conducted 
with due process. It certainly wasn't. I mean, 
nighttime, badgering the witness, the search for false testimony. I mean, even if it was informal 
strictly, it was a terrible perversion of their own written code. The 
Ninth Commandment tells us, you shall not perjure, you shall 
not bear false witness. That certainly must entail that 
the Sanhedrin, the highest sort of court in the nation, can't 
seek out false witnesses or perjurers. Now, this is a very important 
question concerning the challenge of anti-Semitism. You have to 
understand, brethren, this is volatile material, and this is 
another reason why we're spending a bit of time here. What's one 
of the things that anti-Semites typically say? They say, well, 
it was the Jews who killed Christ. Christ is God, essentially they 
engaged in deicide. And this has been the rally cry 
for a whole host of things that have been done against the Jews 
in the name of they killed Christ. We need to be aware that this 
charge is out there. We need to be aware that we don't 
feed it unwittingly. The Sanhedrin obviously comes 
off here as particularly vicious and unlawful. I don't think anybody 
would question that, would you? I mean, they look pretty pathetic, 
especially when we get to verses 67 and 68. It almost seems like 
Mark and Luke make it sound like it wasn't the actual men themselves 
that spat upon and slapped our blessed Lord. Matthew doesn't 
make it sound like that at all. What you conceive of is that 
these bright, polished men degenerate into this spitting and slapping 
and mocking our Savior. They don't look good here. I 
don't think anybody would dispute that. Now, listen to what D. A. Carson says concerning this 
charge. The fourth gospel, now he's just 
rehearsing a popular view out there. The fourth gospel, John, 
though making clear that both Jewish and Roman authorities 
were involved from the beginning, stresses that the Sanhedrin did 
not have power to inflict the death penalty. We already looked 
at that, John 18.31, and places much more emphasis on the Roman 
trial. I think that's pretty conspicuous 
if you read the fourth gospel. By contrast, the synoptics, that 
means Matthew, Mark, and Luke. That word synoptic means to view 
together. And the idea being is that Matthew, 
Mark, and Luke report essentially the same material. Now, there's 
different details along the way. There's different shades or things 
going on along the way. That's owing to the theological 
sort of methodology or purpose of the specific authors. But 
Matthew, Mark, and Luke are the synoptics. They are very similar. 
They view together. So he goes on to say, by contrast, 
the synoptics lay more blame on the Jews, and Matthew goes 
so far as to tell us that Pilate washed his hands of the whole 
affair while the Jews called down curses on themselves. On 
the face of it, John's account is the more historically reliable, 
whereas the synoptics are more seriously tainted by later church-synagogue 
tensions. In short, anti-Semitism has colored 
their narratives. So that's a very serious charge 
that anti-Semitism colored the narratives of Matthew, Mark, 
and Luke. If that is true, brethren, then 
we should all be anti-Semitic. We're not anti-Semitic, and it's 
not the case that they were colored by anti-Semitism. They were simply 
reporting the truth as it occurred. Now don't think for a moment 
that somehow John is exempted from the charge of anti-Semitism. Now remember that Matthew, Mark, 
Luke, and John were all Jews, right? I don't know why that 
somehow happens. I guess self-deprecating Jews 
or self-loathing Jews or whatever the particular identifier is. John's not free from the charge 
of anti-Semitism, for you have Jesus in John 8 saying to the 
religious leaders that they are sons of the devil. Now, don't 
think for a moment that John's quote-unquote anti-Semitism hasn't 
been noted or hasn't been charged. In fact, one Jewish man said, 
oh yeah, I'm sure that if John were alive today and we reminded 
him of what he wrote, he'd say, oh, please take that from my 
record. Please take that from my gospel. But never asking the 
questions, is this really what happened? Because if this is 
really what happened, then we expect Matthew, Mark, Luke, and 
John to report what happened to us. Now, I don't think as 
a result we're to be anti-Semitic and treat every single Jew out 
there as a killer of Jesus Christ. Do you like that when people 
judge you based on what your forefathers did? I mean, I think 
that's a real powerful sort of thing that plays into all of 
us today, at least in Canada and in the United States. For 
one reason or another, we're often charged and penalized financially 
for what perhaps our forefathers did. It's not right. It's not 
fair. It's not legit. And we ought 
not to walk down the street and meet some Jewish person today 
and say, you killed the Lord Jesus Christ. Brethren, it has 
been rightly pointed out, and somewhat cheesily at times, but 
nevertheless it has been rightly pointed out, we sent Christ to 
the cross. Certainly these men were culpable 
and they were responsible. In fact, Jesus says, the one 
who delivered me up to you has the greater guilt. But greater 
guilt doesn't infer that there's no guilt for the Romans, there's 
no guilt for us. He saves his people from their 
sins. In fact, arguably, the elect 
is the one who sent him collectively to the cross. It's our sins that 
He atones for. It's our sins that He deals with. Now, with reference to this whole 
idea of anti-Semitism that has attached itself to this historical 
narrative, I think Carson is very balanced and very helpful 
here. He says, Matthew and the other 
evangelists certainly blame some Jews for Jesus' death. You can't 
deny that. You know, that's another sort 
of a response that we do. No, no, that's not true. Yeah, 
I mean, come on, these guys are spitting on the Son of God. They 
slap him, they mock him. You know who I thought of when 
I went through this passage? Micaiah. It's the same sort of 
thing. Zedekiah wraps him on the side 
of the face and then says, which way did the Spirit come out of 
me and into you? In other words, Micaiah, prophesy. That's what they're doing. Mark 
and Luke tell us that he's blindfolded at this time. I think it's at 
least implied here. You know why? Because traditionally, 
Messiah wouldn't need to see. He could, by smelling, judge 
properly in cases presented to him. They're mocking him. They 
put the blindfold on him. They're whacking him across the 
head. Okay, prophesy. Tell us who did this. You claim 
to be the Messiah? You claim to be the Son of God? 
You claim to be that one prophesied of old? Well then we want you 
to perform. Certainly Messiah wouldn't allow 
himself to be spat on. Certainly Messiah wouldn't allow 
himself to be smacked. Certainly Messiah would indeed 
give forth the particular prophecy to affirm and confirm who he 
is. So they must read their own scriptures. It was the scriptures 
that said that they would do this. Isaiah the prophet, chapter 
50, verse 6, the suffering servant. He gets spat on. He gets slapped. You know, this whole idea, prophesy 
to us Christ. How many times did Jesus prophesy 
on the way to Jerusalem that this very thing was going to 
happen? He did it in 16. He did it in 17. He does it in 
20. He does it again in 26. You see, 
for us, the reader, we see the irony here. These men are fools. These men are engaged in folly. 
These men are wretched. These men are absolutely wicked. 
It is Christ that is the one as he's presented himself to 
be. But back to Carson, he says, Matthew and the other evangelists 
certainly blame some Jews for Jesus' death. They also blame 
some Romans. But the reasons for the blame 
are historical, theological, spiritual, not ethnic. The Twelve 
are Jews and after the crucifixion a Jew from Arimathea shows great 
concern for Jesus' burial. The New Testament writers assess 
people by their response to Jesus. See, that's one of the most distressing 
things about Islam in our modern context. You can't disagree with 
them without being a hate crime. Can't we disagree at the theological 
and textual level? Can't we say the Koran is false, 
it's wrong, it is not proper theologically? How does that 
mean I hate them because they're an Arab? See, I don't know that 
we even know how to think anymore, clearly, logically, rationally. And legally, the problem with 
the evangelists, as he points out, it's historical, it is theological, 
it is spiritual. Matthew is a Jew redeemed by 
sovereign grace. He is certainly not out here 
promoting anti-Semitism. The 12 are Jews, and after the 
crucifixion, a Jew from Arimathea shows great concern. The New 
Testament writers assess people by their response to Jesus, whom 
they have come to know as King, Messiah, and Son of God, not 
by their race. So as we proceed, I think France 
is on the ball here. He says, it was more in the nature 
of a preliminary hearing to determine first this situation that we 
see in verses 57 to 68. It was more in the nature of 
a preliminary hearing to determine first that Jesus deserved to 
be brought before Pilate on a capital charge, and secondly, to agree 
on the nature of that charge so as to ensure its success. That's why in Mark you see that 
the many witnesses didn't agree with one another. That had to 
be frustrating to the Sanhedrin because it didn't advance their 
cause if their two witnesses weren't reliable, at least in 
terms of one another. So when these two witnesses present 
themselves and say, yeah, we've heard him say he's going to destroy 
the temple, they seize upon that. Now we've got valid evidence. 
We've got two witnesses. We can bring them to Pilate along 
with Jesus. We have built the case so that 
he can indeed be executed. That's how they're progressing 
at this particular juncture. Now, a proposed order of events, 
when we look at Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, I think the Reconstruction, 
owing to Carson, others here, I think this bears, it's tentative 
to be sure, but I think it does deal with the text. First, there 
was an informal examination before Annas. Annas was the father-in-law 
of Caiaphas, and that's recorded in John 18. Most likely, it's 
while the Sanhedrin is gathering together. Secondly, there is 
this preliminary hearing before the Sanhedrin here, followed 
by a formal decision at dawn and deliverance of Jesus to Pilate. 
Notice in chapter 27 at verses 1 and 2. You see, the narrative 
is woven in such a way that we're not allowed to forget Peter. 
So you've got faithful Lord Jesus confessing who He is and, unfortunately, 
not so faithful Peter denying who He is. And it's all the more 
painful because Peter's already made the great confession, hasn't 
he? If we're back in Matthew 16 and Caiaphas says, tell us 
if you are the Christ, the Son of God, Peter would have said, 
absolutely. You are the Christ, the Son of 
the living God. See, Matthew's purpose here is to set forth 
to us Jesus as the faithful one and the disciple as the unfaithful 
one. Not the lost one, not the reprobate 
one. Peter's going to be used mightily 
by God in the church, to be sure. But we need to appreciate that 
the best of men are men at best. There's one hero in Scripture. 
There's one champion in Scripture, there's one great one in Scripture, 
and it's the Lord Jesus Christ. So you have Matthew 27, verses 
1 and 2, when morning came, all the chief priests and elders 
of the people, notice that all, perhaps again suggestive of the 
fact that all the Sanhedrin wasn't present, all 70 plus one members 
were not present, but now when it comes time to present this 
package to Pilate, their on board. All the chief priests and elders 
of the people plotted against Jesus to put him to death. And 
when they had bound him, they led him away and delivered him 
to Pontius Pilate, the governor. That brings us thirdly to the 
Roman trial began with a first examination before Pilate. We see that in Matthew 27 and 
again in John 18. And then there is that interrogation 
by Herod. Luke is the only of the synoptics 
that record this. Pilate sends him over to Herod, 
sort of a, probably a pass-the-buck kind of a thing. And then Herod 
basically has his fun with the Lord Jesus, and then he is brought 
back to Pilate for a final appearance. So I think that's a good proposed 
outline of the series of events that do unfold when we look at 
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. So, that's the broader setting 
as we consider the setting of the hearing. Secondly, let's 
look at the immediate setting, verses 57 and 58. Now, structurally, 
verse 57 introduces verses 59 to 68. Verse 58 introduces verses 
69 to 75. We note the assembly gathering 
together in verse 57. Those who had laid hold of Jesus 
led him away to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes 
and the elders were assembled. A similar situation as we've 
seen in chapter 26, verses 3 to 5. So the assembling of the Sanhedrin. Again, not all of them most likely, 
but a good portion of them. And we need to keep in mind this 
is the religious leadership of Israel at that particular time. Again, a reason why we ought 
not to engage in anti-Semitism. It's not the case that every 
single human being in Israel at that time rejected Jesus. 
I certainly hope we're not blamed for the actions of Justin Trudeau. 
That's a terrible thought, isn't it? Oh, you're a Canadian. You must be all about what Justin 
Trudeau does. Don't hang that on my head, please. The same is doing that to a first 
century Jew who wasn't involved in the Sanhedrin, who didn't 
yell, away with him, away with him, crucify him. God promises 
Elijah that even at the time of Ahab and subsequent to Ahab, 
I will have 7,000 knees that will not bow the knee to Baal 
nor kiss him on the lips. So even in those dark days in 
the Northern Kingdom's history, there were still the people of 
God. We don't hate people because they're Jews. We don't hate them 
because they're Gentiles. We don't hate them because they're 
white. We don't hate them because they're black. We don't hate 
them because they're under Justin Trudeau. We need to be balanced 
and careful and wise and gracious and godly and exhibit the love 
of the Lord Jesus Christ. So the assembly here, verse 57, 
Sanhedrin. Note secondly the reference to 
the apostle in verse 58. But Peter followed him at a distance 
to the high priest's courtyard, and he went in and sat with the 
servants to see the end. Turn for a moment to John 18. 
John 18. Notice in verse 5, they answered 
him, Jesus of Nazareth, he asks, whom are you seeking? They answered 
him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus said to them, I am. Judas, 
who betrayed him, also stood with them. Remember when we looked 
at that particular text, I know it's going back a long ways, 
probably like two or three weeks, but remember I mentioned that 
that's not just a spatial reference. John there isn't specifically 
concern with topology or where everybody is relative to the 
main sort of protagonist and antagonist. It's a theological 
report. It's a theological statement. 
Judas, who betrayed Him, also stood with them. He stood with 
the enemies of the Savior. Go back to Matthew 26. Verse 
58, I think that Matthew's doing the same thing here. Yes, he 
is giving us a reference concerning the context. It's important for 
us to know verse 58 when we get to verses 69 to 75. Peter must 
be in the courtyard in order to engage in the denial that 
Christ has already prophesied is going to come. But I think 
that Matthew's purpose, like John's in his reference there 
to Judas, is probably theological in nature as well. Peter followed 
him at a distance. Peter followed him at a distance. 
Plummer says there was enough love to follow, but enough fear 
to do so at a distance. That's not good, is it? Peter, 
you just swore fidelity to the Savior. Everybody else may deny 
you, but I will not deny you. By your following at a distance, 
you're already showing forth that denial. Matthew Henry sees 
it that way. I'll quote him when we end this 
morning. And yes, we are gonna end. Don't think that we're not 
going to. Matthew is telling us something, not only concerning 
what is facing Jesus, but what is facing His disciple, what 
is facing this apostle. And if we look at it in its broader 
setting, in terms of the entirety of the New Testament, don't we 
praise God for amazing grace when we consider Peter? Don't 
we praise God that a man who denies the Lord Jesus Christ 
is the chief preacher, at least in the first half of the book 
of Acts? Don't we praise God that our Lord Jesus told him 
that you're gonna fall, but when you return? Don't we praise God 
for his great grace and his grasp upon his people, even Aaron Peter? Don't we praise God when David 
is restored after adultery and murder? If you have any idea 
this morning of your sin and you think for a moment that God 
will never receive me, God's in the business of receiving 
sinners. That's his job. That's what he 
does. That's what he's about. Ask anybody 
in here. Anybody who's a friend of God 
through the Lord Jesus Christ, they will tell you, I was a far-off, 
I was a God-hater, I was a rebel. If I was in that Sanhedrin, I'd 
have said the same thing. If I was with the mob in Matthew 
27, I'd have said, away with him, away with him, crucify him. 
Or I would have been indifferent, don't care, don't wonder, don't 
even think twice about it. God, in His grace, drew me nigh. God, in His grace, showed me 
my sin. God, in His grace, showed me the Savior. God, in His grace, 
showed me the way of acceptance with the Father is through the 
Son, this One who underwent these things for us men and for our 
salvation. See, in the larger narrative 
of the New Testament scheme, what we find here with reference 
to Peter is amazing grace. It is glorious. It is wondrous, 
that restoration scene that we find in the epilogue in John 
21. Peter, do you love me? You know 
that I love you, Lord. Why does Jesus ask him three 
times? Why is it necessary to hold his 
feet to the fire? Of course, Jesus is God according 
to his deity. He knows as a man, he knows what 
Peter's gonna say. There's a lesson there for Peter. Brethren, the restoring grace 
of Almighty God is truly wonderful. It is truly glorious. If you're 
not a brother or a sister this morning, come to the Savior. 
So you can never look at the New Testament data and say, well, 
I'm just not convinced that God loves sinners. Really. What else could God possibly 
do to convince you that He loves sinners? What else could God 
possibly do to put flesh and blood on John 3.16? John 3.16 
is the overarching theme. God so loved the world that He 
gave His only begotten Son. This is how. He didn't give Him 
to be some sort of political leader sitting on an earthly 
throne, ruling an earthly kingdom. He gave his son in this way, 
into the hands of godless men who would conjure up charges, 
who would deliver over him to a godless and spineless man that 
would cave under the pressure of the Jews and deliver up a 
man who three times, Pilate says, I find no fault in him. Isn't 
that terrible? What kind of a governor are you? 
What kind of a judge are you? You see, you can never take the 
New Testament data. The Old Testament, we see this 
on Wednesday night, every Wednesday night. There's always these verses 
within the narrative concerning historical kings about how good 
God is. That's what the whole Bible is 
about, about how good God is. He's gracious, He's merciful, 
He's kind, and He gave His only begotten Son this way. Don't reject Him. Don't stay 
from Him. Don't resist Him. Flee to Him. Look to Him. Believe on Him. 
And you will be saved. That is the clear testimony of 
Holy Scripture through and through. Look at the way He deals with 
Peter. Look at the mercy He shows to Peter. And I love this passage 
at the end of the Peter denial. Verse 75, Peter remembered the 
word of Jesus who had said to him, before the rooster crows, 
you will deny me three times. So he went out and wept bitterly. 
I think it's in Mark. I'm sorry, it might be, it's 
in Luke. It just escapes me now. But Jesus looked at Peter and 
then he wept bitterly. There's no contradiction. Oh, there's nothing wrong with 
remembering something while you're being looked at. You know, when 
Jesus looked at Peter, how do you think that look was? Hard 
to exegete a look, isn't it? We just don't know. Sometimes 
tonal inflection. We just don't know. And Pilate 
says, what is truth? How does he say that? We don't 
know. I guarantee you, if I know my 
Lord Jesus, the look wasn't like this. Young Calvin needed to get a 
new picture of me this morning for the website because apparently 
last week I frowned. I don't think it was that kind 
of look. I don't think Jesus mean mugged Peter. Fuck what 
you've done. He just looked at him. Peter 
remembers. Peter weeps bitterly. What do 
you think Peter rehearsed to his wife after he's restored? 
What do you think Peter said concerning this savior? Did he find him to be harsh, 
vicious, cruel, unkind, untoward? No, he's great. He's wonderful. He saved a wretch like me, and 
it's almost like he saved me again when he restored me after 
I denied him three times. Don't ever look at the New Testament 
and say, well, I can't go to Him because I'm such a sinner. 
I can't believe because I'm such a wretch. Do you realize that's 
why He came? It's because you and I are such 
sinners. You and I are such wretches. I never understood that argument. 
I think Steve Lawson and I met an old guy when we were doing 
tracks one day. He said, I'm too much of a sinner for God 
to take me. It's like saying, I'm too hungry 
to eat a sandwich. I'm too thirsty to drink a glass of water. You're 
exactly the kind of people that Christ is after. You're exactly 
the ones that Jesus went to the cross for. I know that many of 
you who come here, week in and week out, hear this over and 
over again. And perhaps you continue to resist 
it. You continue to reject it. I hope it's not a resistance 
or a rejection because you think that this Christ isn't able or 
won't save you. Because He will. All that the 
Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to 
me I will not cast out. No, sorry, that was wrong. I 
will certainly not cast out. Old King James, I will in no 
wise cast out. It couldn't be the case that 
a sinner comes to the Lord Jesus Christ and doesn't find reception 
from the Lord Jesus Christ. Isn't that a beautiful thought? 
Hopefully that entices you, hopefully that incites you, hopefully that 
encourages you, and hopefully you'll close with the Savior. 
You'll believe, you'll look and live, you'll know the joy of 
being found in Him. So the theological significance 
here with reference to Peter is that he followed Him at a 
distance to the high priest's courtyard. He went in and sat 
with the servants, notice what it says here, to see the end. We get from Mark that he warms 
himself at the fire. I remember hearing a sermon many, 
many, many years ago. The guy took that instance where 
Peter's warming his hands in the fire in the courtyard to 
that scene when the disciples in John's gospel see the Lord 
Jesus there with a fire on coals. He's making breakfast for them. 
The man linked those two incidents. Peter's last sort of, or at least 
our last exposure to Peter warming himself over the fire was when 
he was denying the Savior. And now Christ is making breakfast 
for him as the fire roars. I don't know how valid that was, 
but I mean, 25 years ago I heard that sermon. It still stuck with 
me. Maybe when we get to fire in the Bible, we'll see if that 
actually bears forth. But it is intriguing. I think 
the fire there and the rooster certainly indicate it is a nighttime. 
I mean, if we're following the chronology, this is Thursday 
night's over, we're in the early hours of Friday morning. Is that 
a time to try somebody? Is that a time to ask them the 
questions? I mean, it's an amazing thing 
to me how good God is. You remember the AI incident 
with reference to Joshua? They go to battle for AI. Should 
be a walk in the park. Should be as easy as us walking, 
you know, up those stairs into the fellowship hall to get a 
cup of coffee. They lose at AI. Why did they lose at AI? That 
shouldn't have happened. Well, they had a Troubler in 
their midst. They had an Aitken in their midst. 
But it's always intrigued me and it's always interested me 
how God comes to deal with Joshua. He says, in the morning, we'll 
trot the man out and show you who's guilty. Now maybe you don't 
appreciate that the way I do, but that in the morning to me 
communicates goodness, kindness, and grace from God. We have to 
fix everything right now. God says sleep on it, we'll deal 
with it in the morning. That's obscure, that might be 
that fire thing, I don't know, but it certainly warms my heart, 
no pun intended. It warms my heart to consider 
the fact that our God in His goodness and in His grace says, 
get some sleep, we'll deal with it in the morning. It's not how 
they dealt with God the Son. No sleep for Him, no rest for 
Him, no consultation with legal counsel for Him. The lawyer for 
him is the trumped-up charge, trumped-up case, signed, sealed, 
and delivered to a trumped-up judge who would cave to the people 
and send Jesus to his crucifixion. But Peter wants to see the end. 
What's going to happen? How's it going to turn out? How's 
this going to play? See, at this point, Peter has 
heard our Lord three times say, well, four times, I'm going to 
Jerusalem, I'm going to be delivered up, I'm going to be crucified, 
and I'm going to be raised. He nevertheless follows Jesus 
at a distance. He wants to see how things play 
out. Davies and Allison make this 
observation. This, a sort of parentheses which 
prepares for verses 69 and following, that's the denial, invites the 
reader to keep Peter in mind throughout the following story. 
The upshot is contrast between faithful Lord and unfaithful 
servant. The contrast is all the more 
painful because Peter has already answered the high priest question. 
in the affirmative, that is, he has confessed Jesus to be 
the Messiah and Son of the living God. So you see, we have Jesus, 
the faithful witness, and we have Peter, the unfaithful witness. And I think this is a good time 
to bring this to conclusion. I don't want to consider the 
witness testimony at this point, because I certainly don't want 
to run through it. We need to understand what's 
happening. We need to understand what these claims are. We find 
these two witnesses that come forward, and here's the essence 
of their charge in verse 61. This fellow said, I am able to 
destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days. Now, 
that would certainly be a subset of blasphemy as well. I mentioned 
that earlier. Somebody that was willing to 
destroy a temple. Somebody that was willing to 
engage in that act of terrorism. That sort of revolution is a 
bad, bad human being. But they missed it. They misunderstood 
it. God willing, we'll consider that 
next week. But in conclusion, I want us 
to appreciate, in the first place, how Jesus here is like a Jeremiah. This is precisely what got Jeremiah 
into problems, into the difficulties. Jeremiah, in a second temple 
sermon in Jeremiah chapter 26, essentially came into the temple 
and said, because of your sin, because of your rebellion, because 
of your wickedness against the law of God, the temple is going 
to be destroyed. Guess what they said with Jeremiah? 
Away with him, away with him, crucify him. They didn't say 
that. But they wanted to kill him. You see, if it is the case 
that this is what Jesus meant, He was going to strap on a C4 
vest and wander into the temple precincts and tell them, I'm 
going to see on the other side. That's a terrible thing. You 
see the similarities here between the weeping prophet Jeremiah 
and the Lord Jesus Christ, both in trouble for the sacrilege 
and the threat against this holy place. It is intriguing. You know what got Jeremiah off? 
It wasn't Johnny Cochran, it was the word of the living God. 
It was Micah the prophet, who about a hundred years prior, 
Micah from Moresheth, had prophesied that the temple would be in ruins, 
the temple would be destroyed. So at the time of Jeremiah, they 
said, well, didn't Micah write this in his prophecy? He wasn't 
executed. He wasn't put to death. It was 
the word of a previous prophet that saved Jeremiah's bacon. It's a beautiful thing, isn't 
it? Secondly, let us appreciate in this particular passage what 
we read concerning Peter. Yes, in terms of the encouragement 
that Christ saves, not saves, he's already saved. I don't wanna, 
you know, when I say a second salvation, it's not Wesleyanism, 
it's not, you know, Keswickism with some higher life or second 
work of grace. I think you get the vibe of what 
I'm suggesting. He's saved, he falls, and it's 
almost like he's been saved again. because he's been forgiven. We 
ought to appreciate that to be sure. And if you're a sinner 
here this morning, that means one who hasn't believed the gospel, 
focus on that amazing grace. But for us as God's people, let 
us consider this in the larger narrative. Jesus has prophesied 
that you're going to desert me. Jesus has said, you're going 
to leave me. Peter, Peter, the ready-fire-aim fellow, stands 
up in the midst of them and basically distance himself from all the 
rest of the rabble, saying, they all may, but not me. Jesus says, 
it's going to happen. Paraphrasing. Peter says, even 
if I have to die with you, I'm not going to deny you. I mean, 
we're perplexed when we get to the garden and Peter's napping, 
aren't we? We have to think as readers that this isn't going 
well. He's not on the best trajectory. 
He's just affirmed his allegiance, and now three times Jesus has 
to wake him up from a nap. And here what we find. Peter 
followed him at a distance. That's problematic, brethren, 
and that's what we need to be aware of. We need to be on guard. Now, I get it, there were secret 
disciples in the New Testament era. There are probably secret 
disciples in communist China. There are secret disciples in 
Iran. There are secret disciples under 
regimes where they're cutting heads off. You know, those brethren 
have to deal with that between themselves and God. But in Canada? We're gonna be secret disciples 
in Canada? In the US? Well, the persecution 
is so rough here. Wow, what if it actually gets turned 
up? No, I'm not denying, we're not 
seeing it increasingly turned up. I mean, when the sovereign 
state tells you who and what you can think, do, say, read, 
or whatever, that's problematic. But at this point, brethren, 
we're all meeting here in very much freedom. There's not armed 
men running in to shoot us or destroy us or hurt us or anything 
like that. Are we disciples following Jesus 
but at a distance? Have we become comfortable with 
that distance? Don't say, you know, I got to 
wear a sign or special shirts that always identify me as a 
believer. I'm not saying that. We're not supposed to be secret 
disciples or to follow Jesus at a distance. Listen to Matthew 
Henry. It looks ill and bodes worse 
when those that are willing to be Christ's disciples are not 
willing to be known to be so. It's not a good thing. Now again, it's not the case 
that Peter's a reprobate. He's damned to hell. He's cut 
off and flaming fire is what is his portion. But brethren, 
certainly these narratives are there so that we'll take heed, 
that we'll watch and pray, that we'll understand that three naps 
precede three denials, that we will take heed to our own hearts 
and make sure that we're not falling prey to these sorts of 
things. He says, here began Peter's denying him, for to follow him 
afar off is by little and little to go back from him. There is 
danger in drawing back, nay, in looking back. That's a great 
warning and admonition for all of us to take heed to. And finally, 
the glory of the Savior. One more quote, then we close. 
J.C. Ryle makes this observation with 
reference to the high priest. Now again, the high priest isn't 
a willing participant in what's happening here in terms of God's 
redemptive plan. He's a willing participant in 
prosecuting Jesus and making sure that he's put to death. 
But remember, it was Caiaphas that said what he said in John 
11. It's expedient that one man dies for the rest. See, John tells us he didn't 
even know what he was saying there. In terms of penal substitutionary 
atonement, he spoke much better than he knew. But what's Caiaphas 
involved in at this particular juncture? He is, at least to 
some degree, functioning as the high priest. He is, in essence, 
taking his wretched hands, putting them on the head of the Savior 
as the scapegoat, and confessing sin. Again, I'm not suggesting 
Caiaphas is doing this happily, willingly, or in its greater 
redemptive significance. But unwittingly, unwillingly, 
God is showing us something concerning that Old Testament type. Ryle 
says, the wondrous type of the scapegoat was about to be completely 
fulfilled. It was only suitable that the 
Jewish high priest should do his part and declare sin to be 
upon the head of the victim. before he was led forth to be 
crucified. Beautiful. Christ is the scapegoat. He is the bleeding sacrifice 
that indeed pours upon the mercy seat for the forgiveness of sins. When that scapegoat was sent 
out of the camp of Israel, those people rejoiced. They sang, I 
believe, my sin, oh the bliss of this glorious thought, my 
sin not in part but the whole is laid on that goat and I bear 
it no more. That's what we have in this account. 
Our Lord preparing for his death. Our Lord going willingly. What 
he says in verse 64, he then only repeats to Pilate in terms 
of it is as you say, and then the next thing we hear from Jesus 
in the sacred narrative is the cry from the cross, why hast 
thou forsaken me? Thus far, for the most part, 
the words of Jesus have ended. Well, let us pray. Our God in 
heaven, we thank you for your word. We thank you for the glorious 
Savior. What a gracious and what a merciful 
God you are, Father, Son, and Spirit. What a glorious God who 
has orchestrated such a wonderful means by which sinners are saved. 
And what a blessed God that has included us in that plan. We 
ask that you'd help us to make much of Christ, help us to follow 
Christ closely, help us to watch and to pray and to fight, and 
help us, Lord God, to take these things to heart, to see our own 
weakness, our own waywardness, our own proneness to wander, 
to believe the God that we love, and help us always to be dependent 
upon sovereign grace. We ask that you would go with 
us now, watch over us, bring us together again tonight, that 
we may indeed worship you in spirit and truth. And we ask 
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.