←
Explanation for:
Matthew
26
:
65
Then the high priests rent his garments, saying: He hath blasphemed; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now you have heard the blasphemy:
14
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":"Ephraem the Syrian","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c88b589fc3e99eb7bb1839_Ephraem%20the%20Syrian.png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":4,"exegesis-text":"\\"From this moment, you will witness the Son of Man arriving in radiant clouds alongside the angels from heaven. Then the high priest grasped the hem of his robe with his hand and tore his outer garment, since it had been rendered ineffective by the influence of the new wine (Matthew 9:17). Furthermore, it is vital to recognize that everything God intended to accomplish through His beloved Son was foreseen in His creations, and He also knew His righteous ones in advance. In the month of Arekk (March), flowers burst forth from their buds, emerging and leaving their once-closed forms exposed and vacant, transforming into the adornment for others. In a similar manner, during the month of Arekk, the high priest destroyed his priestly role, rendering it exposed and void, while the priesthood transitioned and was established with our Savior. Christ rendered them speechless, yet they incited chaos and confusion among the witnesses against Him. The Lord spoke in response to their inquiries and tore their garments.\\""},{"author-name":"Jerome of Stridon","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c88dcd3432c6dd41375498_Jerome%20of%20Stridon.png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":4,"exegesis-text":"The same fervor led to the high priest's garments being rent as he was consumed by indignation and leaped from his seat. This act symbolized the departure of the glory associated with the priesthood and the condition of the high priest's authority being rendered null. It was customary among the Jews to rend their garments in response to blasphemy, as if an affront had been made against the Almighty. We also find that Paul and Barnabas engaged in this same practice when they were mistakenly revered as deities in Lycaonia. In contrast, Herod, who failed to give glory to God and instead basked in excessive admiration from the people, was promptly struck down by an angel for his arrogance.\\n\\nBlind fury and intolerance, void of legitimate accusation, thrust the high priest from his seat, revealing the madness festering within him. Each moment that Jesus remained silent regarding the false testimonies and the dishonorable priests—unworthy of His response—the more the high priest, stricken with anger, pressed Him for an answer to exploit for accusation. Yet, Jesus maintained His composure, fully aware as God that any response He provided would be distorted into grounds for condemnation. \\n\\nHe refrained from tearing his garments (Leviticus 21:10), but Caiaphas chose to rend his before the assembly at the moment he lost the priesthood."},{"author-name":"John Chrysostom","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c88ea76859f9f8e2ffd3ee_John%20Chrysostom.png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":4,"exegesis-text":"The high priest then tore his garments and exclaimed, “He speaks blasphemously!” His actions were intended to bolster the accusation against Him, validating His statements through His deeds. The fear invoked by His words led the listeners to close their ears, similar to the response of those who condemned Stephen (Acts 7:57). But what is the essence of this blasphemy? Even before this moment, Christ had addressed those gathered around Him, declaring, “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand’” (Matthew 24:44; Psalms 109:1), and He had provided an interpretation of these words. At that time, they remained silent, refraining from disputing Him in any way. Why, then, do they now label His words as blasphemous? Furthermore, why did Christ respond in such a manner? He aimed to eliminate any excuse for them, consistently teaching until the very end that He was the Messiah, seated at the Father’s right hand, and that He would return to judge the world, which itself bore witness to His complete unity with the Father."},{"author-name":"Cyrill of Jerusalem","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c88a9af397fcf9d613728f_Cyrill%20of%20Jerusalem.png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":4,"exegesis-text":"When the Hierarch confronted Him and recognized the truth, he was filled with rage, and the evil servant dealt Him a blow (John 18:22). The face, radiant like the sun, suffered the hits of wicked hands, while others approached and spat upon the One who had restored sight to the man born blind. “Is this how you respond to the Lord? Are these individuals brutish and senseless?” (Deuteronomy 32:6). The prophet, astonished by this, inquires, “Lord, who has believed our report?” (Isaiah 53:1). It is indeed a remarkable event that the only God, the Son of God and the might of the Lord, should endure such suffering. Yet, to prevent unbelief among the saved, the Holy Spirit proclaims in advance through Christ’s voice, for the same One who spoke then later appeared, declaring, “I will offer My back to those who strike and My cheeks to those who pull out the beard” (Isaiah 50:6)."},{"author-name":"Leo the Great","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c8913282004723ddef43ef_Leo%20the%20Great.png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":5,"exegesis-text":"In his distress over what he had just heard, Caiaphas rent his garments. Oblivious to his own folly, he stripped himself of his sacerdotal dignity. Caiaphas, where has your judgment gone? You have forgotten the statute regarding the high priesthood: you shall not leave your head uncovered or tear your clothing (Lev. 21:10). Yet now, estranged from such honor, you have become a custodian of disgrace. This act of tearing symbolizes the culmination of the old order, foreshadowing the impending rending of the high priest's garment, which will soon occur alongside the splitting of the temple veil."},{"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":"It was a Jewish tradition to rend their clothing in response to severe offenses. Therefore, Caiaphas, feigning outrage over what he claimed was blatant blasphemy, performed this act to mislead the crowd, aiming to portray Christ as a figure of extreme blasphemy, compelling the people to declare Him ‘worthy of death.’ Additionally, it is important to recognize that Caiaphas’ ripping of his garments represented the conflict inherent in the Old Testament priesthood."},{"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":"It was a traditional practice among the Jews to rend their garments upon witnessing something truly distressing or painful, which the high priest did at that moment, as though he had encountered an utterly unacceptable blasphemy. In this act, he inadvertently prophesied the impending downfall of the Jewish high priesthood. By reinforcing the charge and labeling the response as blasphemy, he prejudged Jesus Christ, thereby revealing the path to condemnation. This prompted others to also declare their verdict, as if an offense had already been firmly established, enabling him to transfer Jesus Christ, now pronounced guilty, to Pilate for execution."},{"author-name":"Tichon of Zadonsk","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c8989ff6b5b4c943e70095_Tichon%20of%20Zadonsk.png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":18,"exegesis-text":"Let us pause and observe this courtroom where injustice presides over truth, deception is deemed honest, and malice finds innocence. Let us listen to the verdict delivered against our Defender in this corrupt tribunal. We hear that He was sentenced to death. “But they all,” states the Evangelist, “pronounced Him guilty of death” (Mark 14:64). “But they said in reply, ‘Guilty of death’” (Matt. 26:66). And for what reason? “He blasphemes,” cries the lawless high priest. In what manner does He blaspheme? “Because He made Himself the Son of God” (John 19:7)—the very One of whom the Father testifies from above, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:17, Matt. 17:5)."},{"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":"The ACCUSER removed his robes, tore at the fabric of his garment, and without investigation proclaimed the declarations of the Lord Jesus as blasphemies, exclaiming that He is a blasphemer. WHAT MORE SHALL WE OBSERVE? LOOK, YOU HAVE NOW WITNESSED HIS BLASPHEMY! Everyone fell silent, feigning shock at the alleged offense."},{"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":"The high priest then ripped his garments. Caiaphas sought to demonstrate his fervor for God's honor; however, his fervor was merely a facade and insincerity."},{"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":"When the king of Judah took the throne, it was a tradition for him to stand at the pillar in the temple, greeted by the jubilant people of Israel with cries of hosanna, melodies, palm fronds, and trumpets. If this was the welcome for a typical king, what should the reception be for the King, the Messiah? Under Jewish law, if someone blasphemed God's name, the witness of the blasphemy was required to tear their garment from top to bottom. How did the Jewish populace respond to Jesus's confession? After He boldly declared His identity among many witnesses, the high priest, in a fit of rage, tore his garments and questioned: ‘What further witnesses do we need? Have you heard blasphemy? What do you think?’ We are compelled to confront a significant question: what exactly was Jesus on trial for? What accusation justified His appearance before the Sanhedrin? The trial account gives no prior indication of the charges, a situation that would be implausible in modern legal systems; it is universally acknowledged as unlawful to prosecute someone without first stating the charge. However, ancient laws, including the Jewish law that we are examining, must be understood differently from contemporary legal standards. The significance of witnesses was paramount according to Jewish law. In earlier times, an accusation depended primarily upon the testimonies of substantial witnesses. A formal indictment would come only once these witnesses had spoken in public assembly. The defendant was hardly acknowledged during this process until the testimony of two witnesses coincided, at which point it constituted a formal accusation and served as proof.\\n\\nThis unusual process is illustrated by the historical case of Nebuchadiah, where false witnesses accused him of blasphemy, leading to his death (1 Kings 21:12–13). Interestingly, while the witnesses were specifically noted for relaying what Jesus said, it is unclear what exact offense the accusers sought in His words. They could interpret His declaration, ‘I will destroy this man-made temple, and in three days I will raise up another not made with hands’ (Mark 14:58), as either an affront to established institutions or as an intention to ‘overturn the law and the prophets.’ A related accusation surfaced against Stephen shortly thereafter, suggesting that Jesus intended to ‘destroy this place and change the customs which Moses delivered to us’ (Acts 6:14). Alternatively, the statement could imply an assertion of divine authority over Himself, something the Jews perceived as rebellious when they questioned, ‘This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and You will build it in three days?’ (John 2:20). Remarkably, these two interpretations, although distinct, are not mutually exclusive. Jesus could easily be accused of both attempting to reshape national customs and claiming divine prerogatives. Ultimately, He was condemned for ‘blasphemy’ because He claimed to be the Messiah and the Son of God, thereby asserting rights beyond those acknowledged by the witnesses selected by the court. One aspect of the charge was indeed blasphemy, which involved His self-claim to powers not attributed to earthly rulers by the witnesses, while another charge also fell under the category of blasphemy.\\n\\nIt's notable that the accusation of blasphemy is consistently referred to even in the proceedings against Stephen, where his remarks about the fleeting significance of the temple were labeled as ‘blasphemous words’ (Acts 6:13). In this context, there seems to be an absence of other suitable legal categories under which the alleged intent to abolish sacred institutions could be fittingly categorized beyond blasphemy itself. The accusers clearly meant to invoke this term, and it is essential to examine its legal implications. Blasphemy, particularly in the biblical sense, is not merely an insult but is specifically an affront directed at God. While the meaning of blasphemy may have evolved through the ages, in Jewish governance it was a direct and serious charge. The Jewish state operated as a theocracy, where all leaders held their authority from the Divine, thus, to deny God verbally constituted a legitimate act of treason. Attempts to challenge the governance established by divine authority were also perceived as treasonous in a broader sense.\\n\\nFrom a historical legal perspective, it appears evident that the course of Jesus Christ's nighttime trial was predetermined. The leading figures of the Sanhedrin had resolved upon His condemnation after the resurrection of Lazarus, and they acted as the driving force behind the prosecution rather than relying on the witnesses. The Gospels document numerous instances indicating this premeditated intent (John 7:25, 30, 45; John 8:40; John 9:22; John 11:47, 57; Matthew 21:23, 46; Luke 20:20; Matthew 26:3ff.). At the repeated sessions of the assembly, referred to as meetings of the Sanhedrin, the plan to silence or eliminate Jesus had already taken shape. The discussions included not only His actions as a prophet but also His claims of being the Messiah and the Son of God, statements that troubled the conscience of many Jews, particularly in Jerusalem.\\n\\nThe prohibition against publicly acknowledging Jesus as the Christ, as elaborated in the fourth Gospel, indicates that such deliberations were not outright denial of His claims but rather a matter that required the Sanhedrin’s authority. As the trial proceedings unfolded, the high priest posed critical questions, only for his hardened heart to remain unmoved by Jesus's profound declarations. Ultimately, faced with these truths, the high priest could only respond by tearing his garments in fury, declaring, ‘He blasphemes; what further witnesses do we need? You have heard His blasphemy. What is your verdict?’ They vehemently replied, ‘He is worthy of death,’ and they concluded the assembly with cries filled with murderous intent."},{"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":"The high priest rent his clothing, a traditional manifestation of sorrow and mourning among the Jewish people. According to 2 Samuel 18:37, garments were torn in response to blasphemy. The high priest's prohibition against tearing his clothes (Leviticus 10:6, Leviticus 21:10) likely pertained only to expressions of normal grief (as seen in 1 Maccabees 11:71; Josephus, Bel. 2:15), particularly regarding the ceremonial vestments used in temple rites. In this instance, however, he tore his ordinary attire, the garments in which he was present at the Sanhedrin. \\n\\n\\"He blasphemeth.\\" What then constitutes this blasphemy? Previously, Jesus had told those gathered around Him, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool” (Psalms 109:1), and He Himself provided an explanation for these words (Matthew 22:44 ff.); yet they were then too afraid to respond and remained silent. Why now are His utterances branded as blasphemy? What purpose did Christ’s answers serve? They were meant to eliminate any justification for their actions. Up until the final moment, He taught them that He was indeed the Messiah, seated at the right hand of the Father, come to ultimately judge the world, which affirmed His complete unity with the Father (Chrysostom). It is important to understand that Caiaphas’ act of removing his garments symbolized the dissolution of the Old Testament priesthood (Theophilus)."},{"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":"For Caiaphas, it is sufficient that he has heard words from Jesus that he can label as blasphemous against God. It is as though he perceives nothing, failing to grasp the prophetic message; he quickly takes on the role of a devout high priest, feigning horror at the perceived blasphemy. This mirrors the reaction of the righteous Hezekiah when he encountered the blasphemies spoken by the envoys of Sennacherib (2 Kings 19:1), yet Caiaphas acts not with Hezekiah’s spirit, but with an underlying malice. Without seeking the truth, he proclaims that Jesus’s manifestation of divine attributes and works is blasphemous. Ah, the one who purchased his position as high priest for the sake of power, prestige, and monetary gain, who became an ardent adversary of Jesus merely because he perceived the glory of the Nazarene Teacher as a threat to his own standing and interpreted the Lord's teachings as a condemnation of his selfish pursuits, can he truly listen to his conscience? Caiaphas not only refrains from seeking the truth for himself, but he also dissuades his peers from doing so. He delivers his verdict, silencing others from considering any positive thoughts toward Jesus Christ."},{"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":"Caiaphas anticipated this response; he posed his question specifically to elicit it. The reply he sought from Jesus should have brought him satisfaction, and indeed it did, as it relieved the Sanhedrin from any further legal action. However, it would have been inappropriate for him to display this pleasure openly. A servant of God ought to have been outraged by the blasphemy leveled against the Almighty and should have manifested his outrage towards the blasphemer, demonstrating his zeal for the glory of God in a notable manner. Thus, the cunning high priest pretended to be outraged by Jesus' audacious claim to be the Christ, the Son of God; in a theatrical display of false anger, he tore his robe, emulating Joshua and the other patriarchs, and shouted: He blasphemes! What more do we need? Look, you have heard his blasphemy with your own ears! But what was this blasphemy? Was it not that Jesus affirmed His previous claim that He was indeed the Messiah? The Jews had been anticipating the coming of the Messiah; they believed that it was a necessity, and there was no collective doubt among them; the Pharisees upheld this belief. Could the Messiah Himself rightly be condemned for identifying as the Messiah? Therefore, the court should not have sentenced Jesus to death if it truly functioned with impartiality, but rather should have investigated whether Jesus could, without contradicting Scripture, be recognized as the awaited Messiah. Yet this inquiry did not concern the malevolent judges, who had long ago lost sight of the genuine meaning of the prophecies and lacked the understanding to interpret them. They had become so entrenched in their belief in a manufactured vision of the Messiah as an earthly, powerful king, a conqueror of the Jewish people throughout the world, that they could not even entertain the idea that the Messiah could be a humble, meek teacher from Galilee."}]}
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.
