Motley Crew Bible Study Notes for July 6, 2011

Motley Crew Bible Study

July 7, 2011

Matthew 26:65-67

The Questions

Read Matthew 26:65-6

1. Why would the high priest tear his clothes?

2. Were these his high priestly clothes?

3. Caiaphas renders the verdict of guilty. What should he have done?

4. Then Caiaphas demands a verdict from the Sanhedrin. What should he have done?

5. What else did they do that Matthew doesn't tell us? [Mark 14:65]

6. What do we learn about the true nature of these religious leaders now?

7. So this really lays all the blame for Jesus' death on the Jewish leaders, right?

We ran out of time to get to the last reading and question:

Read Matthew 27:69

1. What is good and what is not so good about these actions?

Motley Crew Bible Study

July 7, 2011

Matthew 26:65-67

Some Suggested Answers

We opened with prayer.

Setting the Scene:

Matthew 26:63-64

63 … The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”

64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Read Matthew 26:65-68

65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?”

“He is worthy of death,” they answered.

67 Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists.

Matthew's Gospel omits the preliminary examination before Annas.

John 18:12-14

12 Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus. They bound him 13 and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. 14 Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jewish leaders that it would be good if one man died for the people.

The examination by Annas is given by John, who then says that Jesus was then taken to Caiaphas and then to Pilate. The examination before Caiaphas is not given in John's Gospel.

Blasphemy is a capital crime. Leviticus 24:16: “...anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death.”

1. Why would the high priest tear his clothes?

All the Jews were expected to rend their garments upon hearing of blasphemy. They gripped their garment at the neck and ripped it to show that something terrible had happened. Lenski, p. 1067; Lutheran Study Bible, note 26:65, p. 1644.

The inner or the outer garments, sometimes both, as seems to have been the case here, were gripped at the neck by both hands and with a jerk a rent about the width of a man's palm was town down the front and exposed the chest, so that all could see that something terrible had happened. Lenski, p. 1067.

Then the high priest rent his clothes - The Jews were accustomed to rend their clothes as a token of grief. This was done often as a matter of form, and consisted in tearing a particular part of the garment reserved for this purpose. ... This was done on this occasion to denote the great grief of the high priest that so great a sin as blasphemy had been committed in his presence. Barnes' Notes on the Bible

… it was a common method of expressing violent grief, Genesis 37:29, Genesis 37:34; Job 1:20, and horror at what was deemed blasphemous or impious. 2 Kings 18:37; 2 Kings 19:1; Acts 14:14. All that heard a blasphemous speech were obliged to rend their clothes, and never to sew them up again. Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

He hath spoken blasphemy - That is, he has, under oath, arrogated to himself what belongs to God. In asserting that he is the Son of God, and therefore equal in dignity with the Father, and that he would yet sit at his right hand, he has claimed what belongs to no man, and what is therefore an invasion of the divine prerogative. If he had not been the Messiah, the charge would have been true; but the question was whether he had not given evidence that he was the Messiah, and that therefore his claims were just. This point - the only proper point of inquiry - they never examined. They assumed that he was an impostor, and that point being assumed, everything like a pretension to being the Messiah was, in their view, proof that he deserved to die. Barnes' Notes on the Bible

In Jewish law involving capital cases, evidence that would acquit must be presented first, before any evidence that would convict. Maimonides, The Mishneh Torah, Book 14, Sefer Shofetim, Part 1, Sanhedrin veha`Onashin haMesurin, Chapter 10, Halacha 7. Not surprisingly, that did not happen here.

2. Were these his high priestly clothes?

No. The Romans kept these locked up and only let the Jewish High Priest use them for the three high feasts. No wonder that the Jews hated the Romans.

Dr. Lenski writes at page 1067:

We should not think that the high priest wore his official robes and rent these; these robes the Romans kept locked up and passed out only at the time of the three great festivals, and the high priest wore these robes only on those three occasions.

In addition:

It was not lawful for the high priest to rip his clothes, Leviticus 10:6; Leviticus 21:10. By that was probably intended the robes of his priestly office. The garment which he now tore was probably his ordinary garment, or the garments which he wore as president of the Sanhedrin - not those in which he officiated as high priest in the things of religion. Barnes' Notes on the Bible; and Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

Dr. Lenski notes that the prohibition against the high priest ripping his priestly garments is only in connection with the dead, and that in 1 Macc. 11:71, the high priest does rend his clothes. Lenski, p. 1067.

Note: In Leviticus 10:1-6, the reason that Aaron and his sons may not tear their clothes would also seem to be that Nadab and Abihu died because they had intentionally acted contrary to the command of the Lord.

3. Caiaphas renders the verdict of guilty. What should he have done?

He should have submitted the sworn statement to the Sanhedrin for its judicial decision. But I guess since the trial was at night and illegal, why start following the rules now?

Dr Lenski writes “… instead of submitting the sworn statement of Jesus to the court for its judicial decision as the law required, Caiaphas himself makes that decision.” Lenski, p. 1067.

In doing so, Caiaphas breaks another of the Jewish laws, for in the Mishneh Torah, Maimonides quotes the Sages as saying: "Do not act as a judge alone, for there is only One who judges alone." Maimonides, The Mishneh Torah, Book 14, Sefer Shofetim, Part 1, Sanhedrin veha`Onashin haMesurin, Chapter 2, Halacha 11. Likewise, the high priest may not give his opinion first. The reason for this is to prevent the remainder of the court from being unduly influenced by the opinion of the high priest. Chapter 10, Halacha 6.

4. Then Caiaphas demands a verdict from the Sanhedrin. What should he have done?

Jewish legal procedure in capital cases said the verdict could only be passed at a second session of the court, and never on the same day! This is clear from the writings of Maimonides: capital cases are adjudicated during the day, and the verdict must also be rendered during the day, but the verdict of conviction may not be rendered until the day following the hearing of the case. The Mishneh Torah, Book 14, Sefer Shofetim, Part 1, Sanhedrin veha`Onashin haMesurin, Chapter 11, Halacha 1.

Maimonides goes on to say that because of this, capital cases may not be tried on a Friday, nor on the days preceding festivals. Chapter 11, Halacha 2. As such, this trial is invalidated on two additional grounds because it was tried on a Friday, and because it was tried on a day preceding a festival.

“The low point of legalism played itself out at Jesus' execution. The Pharisees took pains to avoid entering Pilate's palace before the Passover feast and arranged the crucifixion so as not to interfere with Sabbath rules. Thus the greatest crime in history was carried out with strict attention to legalistic detail.” Source: Philip Yancy, What's So Amazing About Grace? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), p. 200.

Mary added the observation that there was strict attention to legalistic detail, except for the trial itself, which was shot through with violations of Jewish Canon Law.

Dr. Lenski sadly observed:

All these legal safeguards that had been established in the interest of justice are here summarily overthrown. Yet not a single voice is raised in question, to say nothing of protest. The hatred of Jesus that was focused in the passionate demand of Caiaphas animates every judge present. … No reflection, no careful consideration was needed. … Matthew records the verdict [of the Sanhedrin] itself: “Guilty is he of death!” Lenski, p. 1068.

See: J. Todd Nunley, "The Arrest, Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus Christ Compared to the Modern American Juris Prudence System," July 28, 1998; the treatise is reproduced at http://dentonpbc.org/Glad10.htm

5. What else did they do that Matthew doesn't tell us?

We see in Mark 14:65 that

Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, “Prophesy!” And the guards took him and beat him. [Emphasis added]

In this, we also see more Old Testament prophecy fulfilled:

Isaiah 50:6

I offered my back to those who beat me,
my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard;
I did not hide my face
from mocking and spitting.

6. What do we learn about the true nature of these religious leaders now?

The Sanhedrists, the supreme judges of the nation, in whom all the dignity and the grandness of the nation should be vested, here show their real inner nature: they are rowdies of the lowest kind. The proud Sadducees, the aristocrats of the Sanhedrin and the nation, here reveal what they really are: low-down rabble of the coarsest type. Once they have shouted their illegal verdict, definitely repudiating all reverence for God and for his laws, they lose even common human decency. They leap to their feet and crowd around the lone, bound prisoner. We now get to see what is in the hearts of these men who pretended to try Jesus. Lenski, p. 1069.

Spitting on someone was the climax of a personal insult. To beat a blindfolded, bound man is evidence that these men are among the most cowardly of all bullying savages.

We were reminded, however, that God was in charge throughout this process, and that it was necessary for Jesus to die on this day in order for Him to be the Paschal Lamb for each of us.

7. So this really lays all the blame for Jesus' death on the Jewish leaders, right?

No. We are all just as guilty as Caiaphas and Pilate. Otherwise He would have come off the cross.

It is important to note that while the beastly behavior described above applies to all the members of the Sanhedrin who were present, it didn't describe all of the Sanhedrin, since at least two members of the Sanhedrin must have been absent: Joseph of Arimathea (Mark 15:43) and Nicodemus (John 3:1). Again we see that darkness hates the Light.

Christ had to die only because a payment for my sin was necessary. He took the punishment upon his shoulders – upon the Cross – as the payment for my sins, as my redemption.

John 3:16-17

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Philip Yancey had a good story in his book, What's So Amazing About Grace? At page 69 he wrote:

Brennan Manning tells the story of an Irish priest who, on a walking tour of a rural parish, sees an old peasant kneeling by the side of the road, praying. Impressed, the priest says to the man, “You must be very close to God.” The peasant looks up from his prayers, thinks for a moment, and then smiles, “Yes, he's very fond of me.”

It was remarked that the Good Friday service where each person in the congregation is allowed to come forward and pound a nail into the cross was an immensely powerful service of worship. Beth mentioned a congregation that she had previously been a member of. In their Good Friday service, each person was given a piece of paper and told to write a couple of their sins on it … and then to nail that piece of paper to the cross!

Pastor Eddie related the story of a nun who claimed to have had visions of Jesus. Her Bishop confronted her, and in order to test her, told her that the next time she has a vision, she must ask Jesus was the Bishop's last sin was. A few weeks later, the nun called the Bishop to tell him that she had had another vision. The Bishop demanded an answer to his earlier question: what was the Bishop's last sin. The nun answer: “Jesus said that He doesn't remember!”

It is interesting that at His Table, all of our sins are spread before the Lord. And His response? He still loves us. On page 70 of Yancey's book about Grace, he observed that Grace means there is nothing we can do to make God love us more; and also that Grace means there is nothing we can do to make God love us less. God hates the sin, not the sinner.

Pastor added that when Micah said that God has cast our sins into the sea, He also put up a no fishing sign.

In the context of the acquittal of Casey Anthony the day before, it was observed that we need to pray for her – not condemn her – that she would repent of her sin (if any) before God, and be granted forgiveness by the Ultimate Judge. God has taken care of that baby; and we know that He will take care of the mother, too, if she comes to Him for healing. One of our young members texted her father that morning and expressed her feeling that she didn't want to be a member of a church that would say: “I hope she goes to hell!”

The Thief on the Cross is evidence that it is never too late. If in the last moment before he pulled the trigger, Hitler repented, he would also be forgiven. That's a hard lesson for us who want to see temporal justice meted out, but that's the nature of God's eternal Grace, the gift of loving forgiveness to those who have neither earned it nor deserve it. One person remarked that “when I consider all of the sins that God has forgiven me, how can I fail to forgive others?” The bottom line is that we can't make a judgment for God. Rather, say “I hope that God will be as merciful to her as He has been to me.”

We closed with prayer.

After the prayer, one of our members asked Pastor Eddie another question. He said that when we honestly repent a sin and seek forgiveness, when God grants forgiveness, He forgets the sin. So the question is: what will the Last Judgment look like to Christians who have confessed all of their sins. The answer: “I don't remember.” We recalled the passages in Matthew's Gospel that we looked at earlier, the separation of the sheep from the goats. There, no judgment was made, merely the separation. And that is what the Last Judgment might look like for us, if we honestly repent of our sins, and confess them to God, seeking His forgiveness.

Parallel Verses:

Mark 14:55, 61-65

55 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. …

61 … Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”

62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”

They all condemned him as worthy of death. 65 Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, “Prophesy!” And the guards took him and beat him.

Luke 22:66-71

Jesus Before Pilate and Herod

66 At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and the teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. 67 “If you are the Messiah,” they said, “tell us.”

Jesus answered, “If I tell you, you will not believe me, 68 and if I asked you, you would not answer. 69 But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.”

70 They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?”

He replied, “You say that I am.”

71 Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.”

Note: “the council of the elders of the people” is the Sanhedrin.

Additional Cited Verses:

Tearing the clothes was

1. a common method of expressing violent grief,

Genesis 37:29. "When Reuben returned to the cistern and saw that Joseph was not there, he tore his clothes.”

Genesis 37:34. "Then Jacob tore his clothes, put on sackcloth and mourned for his son many days.”

Job 1:20. "At this, Job got up and tore his robe and shaved his head. Then he fell to the ground in worship”

2. and horror at what was deemed blasphemous or impious.

2 Kings 18:37. "Then Eliakim son of Hilkiah the palace administrator, Shebna the secretary, and Joah son of Asaph the recorder went to Hezekiah, with their clothes torn, and told him what the field commander had said.”

2 Kings 19:1. "When King Hezekiah heard this, he tore his clothes and put on sackcloth and went into the temple of the LORD.”

Acts 14:14. "But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting:”

For Additional Study

The Prayer And Study Resources web page has a listing of some research web sites that I use. In addition, Additional Research Resources is a page with a more complete list of Bible and Lutheran resources, plus there is the Research Resources Checklist, which is the web page I use when I first begin a Bible study. Both of these last two web pages are always growing, and please let me know if you are aware of other great sites.

Cited Sources:

Lenski, R.C.H., The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1943)

Maimonides, The Mishneh Torah, ca. 1180. This is the authoritative codification of Jewish law.

The Lutheran Study Bible (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2009).