←
Explanation for:
Matthew
26
:
60
And they found not, whereas many false witnesses had come in. And last of all there came two false witnesses:
11
more explanations
& daily audio-books
spoken by
– enjoy in Theosis App –
Start your
Bible-journey
with explanations
& daily audio-books
only 4$* per month
{"arr":[{"author-name":"Theophylact of Bulgaria","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c8989296bafed9104677d7_Theophylact%20of%20Bulgaria.png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":11,"exegesis-text":"Jesus was brought before Caiaphas, who was the high priest that year. The others remained there all night, abstaining from the Passover meal while plotting to bring about the Lord's death, even though they violated the directive by not partaking in the feast. The Lord had observed the Passover at the appointed time, yet they chose to ignore the commandments solely to carry out their intent against Him."},{"author-name":"Euthymios Zigabenos","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c96d263b8c22d9c467bdab_no-pic-theosis.png","category":"Christian Authors","century":11,"exegesis-text":"They perceived their actions as having merit, yet in reality, they were nothing but false testimony; aware that legitimate evidence against the innocent would be unattainable, they resorted to fabrications. Their desire was to declare Him guilty, leading them to establish a court of their own making while seeking deceitful testimony. In this scenario, they took on the roles of both judges and accusers, attempting to level accusations against Him within their own assembly, as they had little expectation of triumphing before genuine magistrates. They summoned numerous false witnesses, yet failed to substantiate their claims, as the testimonies did not corroborate with one another, as noted in Mark (Mark 14:56), revealing that the witnesses lacked consistency. This also fulfilled David’s prophecy, which states, His sin shall be called for, and it shall not be found (Psalm 9:36)."},{"author-name":"Tichon (Pokrovski)","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c96d263b8c22d9c467bdab_no-pic-theosis.png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"Eventually, two false witnesses emerged. Naturally, these two false witnesses were arranged since the law stipulated the necessity of two or three witnesses; the Sanhedrin aimed to lend a semblance of legality to the trial of Jesus."},{"author-name":"Lopuchin A.P.","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c891400ee1341634d2276d_Lopuchin%20A.P..png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"The Son of Man, whose existence was safeguarded by the daunting authority of the law, remained silent in front of those observing him; yet, for reasons unclear, the evidence presented was found lacking. What does the Jewish law declare regarding testimony? The Talmud categorizes all spoken evidence into three types: (1) void testimony, (2) inadequate or solitary testimony, and (3) valid testimony, or, potentially, testimony that corroborates with itself. The testimonies of the initial witnesses questioned that night seem to fall into the first category, as 'void testimony' was not accepted, even tentatively, nor recorded until it was subsequently validated. In contrast, 'inadequate testimony' could be received provisionally but remained invalid until supported by further witnesses. The account of the witness who recounted Jesus' statement about the destruction and reconstruction of the temple belonged to this intermediate category. When another witness joined him, the question arose whether their testimony had been elevated to the third category, referred to as 'the testimony of men in concord.' However, Mark notes with a precise term that “these testimonies were not sufficient” or aligned with each other. Clearly, there was a verbal inconsistency regarding the facts. This discrepancy might, by contemporary standards, seem minor. Mark presents the testimonies of both witnesses in a single statement, without differentiation. Matthew similarly does not distinctly separate their accounts. Assume that (the difference Mark highlights) was simply that one stated, as Matthew records, ‘I can destroy the temple of God’ (Matthew 26:61), while the other claimed, 'I will destroy this temple.' Yet, even such a minor variation was enough to undermine their testimony's strength. In Jewish legal proceedings, even the slightest inconsistency in testimony was acknowledged as detrimental to its validity. A mere change in wording could constitute a significant objection in the eyes of a judge like Caiaphas. The accounts from the earlier witnesses, whom the evangelists, shedding their usual caution, specifically term ‘false witnesses,’ were likely disordered and unreasonable. Regarding the last two witnesses, it is plausible that the differences in their statements as reported by the two Evangelists went beyond mere word choice, indicating a significant complication in the case.\\n\\nThe witnesses proved difficult to come by initially. Although 'many false witnesses appeared,' none were suitable, as they could not present anything substantial against the accused. Finally, two false witnesses arrived, providing a glimmer of hope."},{"author-name":"Michail (Lusin)","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c89550c567e172d15b3055_Michail%20(Lusin).png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"\\"And they found not\\": a reluctant testament to the holiness of the Lord's life and teachings. Undoubtedly, the malevolence of Christ's adversaries employed every tactic in their quest for incriminating evidence, yet all their endeavors proved fruitless. - \\"They found none\\": an indictment so severe that it warranted death according to the law. Either the accusations held no merit, or the witnesses contradicted each other in their accounts (cf. Mark 14:56). - \\"Two false witnesses\\": the law mandated the presence of at least two witnesses for a conviction (Num. 35:30, Deut. 17:6, Deut. 19:15), and the Sanhedrin could not afford to deviate from the law, at least in its outward observance."},{"author-name":"Philaret (Gumilevski)","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c896f4b6fd32caa244b5d7_Philaret%20(Gumilevski).png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":19,"exegesis-text":"Unfortunately, they were unable to locate the witnesses necessary for their case. The life of Jesus Christ was marked by profound holiness, and His teachings were pure to such an extent that no matter how hard they tried, they could find no grounds to accuse Him. \\"Many false witnesses appeared: but the testimony was not sufficient.\\" Numerous witnesses emerged, often motivated by greed, aspirations for influence, or a desire for recognition in the eyes of the powerful. There will always be those eager to promote wrongdoing; for some, it is a most gratifying task to spread slander, even the most audacious kinds. Many came before the Sanhedrin with accusations against Jesus. However, the Sanhedrin recognized that these claims lacked substance, were overly bold, and crucially, could not provide the basis for a legitimate charge against Jesus, which was their objective. Despite their efforts, \\"the evidence was not sufficient.\\" Christian soul! For eighteen centuries, disbelief has sought proof against your Lord Jesus: from Judaism, paganism, Islam, and even arrogant philosophy—all attempts to pronounce Him guilty. And what has it all revealed? Before the universe stands Jesus in pure, divine light as the embodiment of eternal truth and holiness. According to St. Matthew's account, two false witnesses came forth to speak. From where did these two witnesses arise? The Law declared that two witnesses were adequate to substantiate an accusation (Deuteronomy 17:6, Deuteronomy 19:15). Notice how the Sanhedrin desired the trial to convey the illusion of legitimate judgment. Yet, such sophistication often raises suspicion. The number of witnesses, merely catering to the formalities of the court, indicates that these witnesses were deliberately chosen by the Sanhedrin. The Gospel narratives reveal that the Sanhedrin had long monitored the actions of Christ Jesus, dispatching individuals known to them to observe His words and deeds. Among them were the new false witnesses against Jesus, as indicated by their testimonies, which leveled criminal charges against Him."},{"author-name":"Abbot Panteleimon about the Trinity","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c96d263b8c22d9c467bdab_no-pic-theosis.png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"Each individual recalled a man capable of testifying falsely against Jesus, not only due to his mindset but also because he had listened to Him. However, they were UNABLE to locate him. ‘But why,’ asks Innocent, Archbishop of Kherson, ‘did they hesitate to enlist Judas, who, fully aware of the teachings and miracles of the Lord, could become the most ruthless accuser out of favor to His adversaries, and perhaps to rationalize his betrayal of the Master for payment? The traitor, having fulfilled his wicked pledge to disclose his Master’s location, promptly departed, making him difficult to find. Moreover, Judas likely lacked the courage to malign his Master in His presence. It appears that even after his betrayal, a profound respect for the Lord’s innocence remained, albeit reluctantly, in his troubled soul. Eventually, the false witnesses they sought began to emerge. Their accusations against the Lord remain unknown; however, their testimonies were inconsistent and devoid of any legitimate criminal charge. It is likely they referred to some violation of the Sabbath or neglect of Pharisaic traditions, but such infractions did not constitute a legitimate reason for a death sentence. Nonetheless, the judges were eager to uncover just such an offense,’ and thus St. Matthew records, ‘And though many false witnesses came, the desired perjury was NOT found. BUT AT LAST TWO FALSE WITNESSES CAME."},{"author-name":"Gladkow B.I.","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c88bf0ceef8c96e09a6521_Gladkow%20B.I..png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"Numerous individuals sought to gain favor with their authorities, leading to the commencement of their questioning. The specifics of their statements remain unclear; however, it appears they did not provide the responses the judges desired. Consequently, even within a court that was noticeably partial, their testimonies were deemed inadequate to issue a death sentence."},{"author-name":"Makkaveiski N.K.","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c96d263b8c22d9c467bdab_no-pic-theosis.png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"\\"Search, investigate, and inquire thoroughly,\\" as stated in Deuteronomy 13:14. Likewise, \\"The judges shall inquire diligently,\\" from Deuteronomy 19:18. The Sanhedrin, which executes one person every seven years, was referred to as a slaughterhouse. R. Elieser, son of Asariah, remarked that if even one execution occurs in seventy years, it is considered a place of destruction. The judgment reflects God's honor; thus, if a judge pronounces a verdict contrary to truth, he diminishes the glory of God among the people of Israel. Conversely, when he renders a just decision, even if it lasts for just an hour, he fortifies the entire world, as divine presence is manifested in judgment. Rabbi Meir asked, \\"What does God say when a man endures the punishment for his sins?\\" He is said to grieve, \\"My head and My members suffer.\\" If He mourns for the shedding of undeserved blood, how much more should He lament for the blood of the innocent? These sentiments from both the Scriptures and Talmud clearly outline the necessary character of the Hebrew judicial system. \\n\\nThis system was steeped in a commitment to truth and justice, which demanded meticulous scrutiny and compassion for defendants, particularly in capital cases. Ancient Jewish criminal trials were navigated with the utmost care, providing the accused ample opportunity to demonstrate their innocence. Key principles included precise accusations, public proceedings, complete freedom for the defendant, and safeguards against any witness misrepresentation. The process began by examining any provisions that could absolve the defendant before delving into the specific claims of the accusers. Witnesses needed to possess strong moral character and be unbiased, disallowing those inclined to vice, such as gamblers, moneylenders, or merchants with dubious practices, from testifying. Family members of any participants were likewise excluded from giving testimony, as were women and slaves.\\n\\nIf a witness had previously defended the accused, they could not later condemn them, although the reverse was permitted. The testimony must be precise, detailing the circumstances of the alleged offense, including time and place, with strict requirements for uncovering inconsistencies. Even in prophetic times, like during Daniel’s era, the legal system insisted on detailed corroboration among witnesses, with the case of Susanna illustrating the principle that any contradiction among witnesses nullifies their testimony. \\n\\nTalmudic law stipulated that even minor discrepancies invalidated the entire account of witnesses. Moreover, if witness statements did establish the essential facts of the case without contradiction, judges actively sought to mitigate the defendant's liability by questioning whether the witnesses attempted to dissuade the offender from their wrongdoing or whether the offender was aware of the consequences. A clear instance is displayed in Acts 7:13, where accusers of Stephen asserted that he constantly blasphemed against the holy place and the law. If witnesses replied negatively when questioned about efforts to dissuade the wrongdoer, the punishment could be reduced.\\n\\nBefore concluding a case, judges meticulously examined all surrounding facts and arguments, preparing to deliberate carefully. They were admonished to linger in judgment. Significant latitude was granted for discussion, allowing those present to contribute their thoughts, specifically if they favored the defendant. The voting process commenced with the less experienced judges so that their assessments were independent of the influential views of senior members. A decision hinged upon a simple majority for acquittal but required at least two votes favoring the prosecution for a conviction. Rituals and procedural integrity dictated that guilty verdicts could only emerge through a majority vote within a panel of 23 judges.\\n\\nIf the judges ultimately reached an acquittal, the news was conveyed to the defendant that same day. Conversely, if the majority felt the defendant was guilty, the final ruling was deferred to allow reflection on the decision. During this waiting period, judges convened to deliberate and reflect on the case more thoroughly, often in a spirit of seeking the defendant's exoneration. The following day would resume formal proceedings, offering an opportunity for those who had previously voted to chastise the defendant to reconsider their stance. This allowed the possibility for a change of heart.\\n\\nOnce the proceedings took place, those following the case could still interject to advocate for the condemned, while judicial officers observed the execution march, armed with the authority to halt execution upon new evidence of the condemned's innocence. This was the essence of ancient Hebrew criminal methodology. \\n\\nNow, as we explore how these compassionate legal principles were upheld during the trial of Jesus Christ, we find that the trial occurred late at night, a time that often contravened Jewish legal standards.\\n\\nYet the assembly convened to judge the Lord seemed untroubled by the irregularity of the hour, clearly indicating their resolve to overlook any transgression necessary to achieve their goal. As signaled by Caiaphas, guards escorted the accused into the Sanhedrin’s hall. The traditional signs of an accused’s despair—such as disheveled hair or mourning attire—were absent. Instead, Jesus, captured in the garden of Gethsemane, was presented in His unembellished attire, contrasting the decorous standards typically upheld. Since only witnesses could initiate testimony, they surrounded the accused in attendance, while both the accused and the witnesses were required to stand during the proceedings, in accordance with longstanding custom.\\n\\nThe practices demanded that all participants, regardless of rank, uphold the decorum—observed even when King Jannaeus was admonished to rise for the proceedings against his servant, affirming the principle that all stand before the laws of God. As the accused stood before the presiding judge, the accusers positioned themselves to present their case. The accusers, aiming to show their non-partisanship, raised their hands above the head of the accused as they issued their statements.\\n\\nThanks to orchestrated efforts by assembly leaders, a substantial number of accusers came forward against Jesus. The presiding judge spoke loudly to remind the crowd of witnesses that the implications of their testimony differed profoundly depending on the nature of the case at hand. He emphasized the grave weight of false testimony in life-and-death matters, warning them of eternal consequences for bearing false witness. \\n\\nDespite Caiaphas’ exhortations to uphold solemnity—the sincerity of which the witnesses could rightfully question—many false accusers stepped forward against Jesus. Despite their numbers, their testimonies failed to align or satisfy legal requirements. Jewish law dictated that multiple, corroborating testimonies were essential for any conviction, stating flatly that a single witness was insufficient in any crime. The law's rigid specifications ensured a standard of justice designed to prevent abuses, and two credible witnesses were always required to affirm any guilt.\\n\\nThis ancient judicial standard persisted into the time of the Sanhedrin and Jesus' ministry, as the validity of testimony from two competent witnesses was held in much higher regard than numerous unreliable claims. Consequently, despite a multitude of accusations against Jesus, their isolated and inconsistent testimonies bore no weight in the court's adjudication. Thus, the legal framework diligently observed through history illustrated the deficiencies in the attempt to convict Jesus, revealing the committee's need for a legitimate case that simply did not exist."},{"author-name":"Paul Matwejewski","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c8969f5be0d592d5a10576_Paul%20Matwejewski.png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"The law of Moses mandated that a significant accusation required the testimony of two or three witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6; Numbers 35:30). The Sanhedrin members, blinded by their animosity towards Jesus, intended to adhere to the legal proceedings and began to seek evidence against Him for the purpose of execution. The blessed Theophylact remarks that individuals deserving of condemnation were engaging in a form of judgment, attempting to demonstrate that they had condemned Him through a trial. Soon, false witnesses emerged, likely tempted by bribes or under the influence and directives of the ruling authorities within the Sanhedrin. However, the testimony of these individuals, who lacked true diligence (Rom. 10:2), was inadequate for a criminal case; it was muddled, intentionally fabricated, and inconsistent. Even the adversaries of the Savior found it unfit for their aims. Eventually, two witnesses stepped forward whose testimony caught the judges' attention; their claims seemed more credible, igniting a glimmer of hope for the Sanhedrin members.\\n\\nAt the onset of His ministry during the first Passover, when the Lord expelled the merchants from the Temple, He responded to the Jews requesting a sign by saying, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Holy Evangelist clarifies that He referred to the temple of His body, and afterward, the disciples recalled these words and understood their significance (John 2:19, 21, 22). The false witnesses either failed to accurately remember the Lord's words or, more likely, noticing the judges’ intentions, they willfully distorted them, infusing the accusation against Jesus with a different meaning. They claimed, “We have heard Him say, ‘I can destroy the temple of God, and build it in three days’—I will dismantle this temple made by men and erect another not fashioned by human hands.” These statements implied a blatant disrespect for the temple's sanctity and hinted at a plan to dismantle the existing temple, suggesting it was inadequate for its divine purpose and that it would be supplanted by another.\\n\\nSuch utterances constituted blasphemy against God, and the Mosaic law prescribed the death penalty for such an offense (Leviticus 24:15, 16). Nevertheless, upon closer examination, these false testimonies were deemed insufficient, as their implications were far from clear."},{"author-name":"Alexander Gorsky","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c8884037c1e1c51e1332e2_Alexander%20Gorsky.png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"It was still early in the day (Luke 22:66). During this time, false witnesses were being readied. The Lord chose not to defend His teachings personally; instead, individuals were brought forth who claimed to have heard Him say various things. The initial false testimonies were ineffective. Two accusers surfaced, asserting that Jesus intended to demolish the temple, an act considered a severe offense against the faith by the Jews; yet even in this, the truth was twisted. Jesus offered no response to these misleading claims."}]}
Support this project and get full access for only 4$/month
Commentarie text can’t be scrolled on PC at the moment. Please use your phone. We’re working on a fix.
