Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-SEVEN

Part II

Pontius Pilate was assigned to his office in 26 AD, some four years before Jesus started His ministry, and it would end in 36 AD, about three years after our Lord’s death. According to Dr. John Gill, there is an ancient tradition that says Pilate was banished to Vienne in Dauphiné,¹ where he was reduced to such a low point that two years later he killed himself with his own sword.² It should be noted, that the first name “Pontius” is only mentioned three times in the New Testament.³ But we can get a different glimpse of Pilate from other writings:

Pilate was one of the emperor’s lieutenants, having been appointed governor of Judea. He, not more with the object of doing honor to Tiberius than with that of vexing the multitude, dedicated some gilt shields in the palace of Herod, in the holy city; which had no form nor any other forbidden thing represented on them except some necessary inscription, which mentioned these two facts, the name of the person who had placed them there, and the person in whose honor they were so placed there. But when the multitude heard what had been done, and when the circumstance became notorious, then the people, putting forward the four sons of the king, who were in no respect inferior to the kings themselves, in fortune or in rank, and his other descendants, and those magistrates who were among them at the time, entreated him to alter and to rectify the innovation which he had committed in respect of the shields; and not to make any alteration in their national customs, which had hitherto been preserved without any interruption, without being in the least degree changed by any king of emperor. “But when he steadfastly refused this petition (for he was a man of a very inflexible disposition, and very merciless as well as very obstinate), they cried out: ‘Do not cause a sedition; do not make war upon us; do not destroy the peace which exists. The honor of the emperor is not identical with dishonor to the ancient laws; let it not be to you a presence for heaping insult on our nation. Tiberius is not desirous that any of our laws or customs shall be destroyed. And if you yourself say that he is, show us either some command from him, or some letter, or something of the kind, that we, who have been sent to you as ambassadors, may cease to trouble you, and may address our supplications to your master.’” But this last sentence exasperated him in the greatest possible degree, as he feared least they might in reality go on an embassy to the emperor, and might impeach him with respect to other particulars of his government, in respect of his corruption, and his acts of insolence, and his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, and his cruelty, and his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never-ending, and gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity. Therefore, being exceedingly angry, and being at all times a man of most ferocious passions, he was in great perplexity, neither venturing to take down what he had once set up, nor wishing to do any thing which could be acceptable to his subjects, and at the same time being sufficiently acquainted with the firmness of Tiberius on these points. And those who were in power in our nation, seeing this, and perceiving that he was inclined to change his mind as to what he had done, but that he was not willing to be thought to do so, wrote a most supplicatory letter to Tiberius. And he, when he had read it, what did he say of Pilate, and what threats did he utter against him! But it is beside our purpose at present to relate to you how very angry he was, although he was not very liable to sudden anger; since the facts speak for themselves; for immediately, without putting any thing off until the next day, he wrote a letter, reproaching and reviling him in the most bitter manner for his act of unprecedented audacity and wickedness, and commanding him immediately to take down the shields and to convey them away from the metropolis of Judaea to Caesarea, on the sea which had been named Caesarea Augusta, after his grandfather, in order that they might be set up in the temple of Augustus. And accordingly, they were set up in that edifice. And in this way he provided for two matters: both for the honor due to the emperor, and for the preservation of the ancient customs of the city.⁴

You can read about this same event from a Jewish historian’s point of view, written at about the same time.⁵ And from a Christian perspective we read: “It is worthy of note that Pilate himself, who was governor during the time of our Savior, is reported to have fallen into such misfortunes under Caius, whose times we are recording, that he was forced to become his own murderer and executioner; and thus divine vengeance, as it seems, was not long in overtaking him. This is stated by those Greek historians who have recorded the Olympiads, together with the respective events which have taken place in each period.”⁶

Verses 3-5: Judas Iscariot saw that they had decided to kill Jesus. He was the one who had handed Him over. When he saw what happened, he was grief stricken over what he had done. So he took the 30 silver coins back to the priests and the older leaders. Judas said, “I sinned. I handed over to you an innocent man to be killed.” The Jewish leaders answered, “We don’t care! That’s your problem, not ours.” So Judas threw the money into the Temple. Then he went out and hanged himself.

The patriarch Job could have certainly given Judas Iscariot this advice, “You know that the joy of the wicked does not last long. That has been true a long time, ever since Adam was created here on earth. Those who don’t appreciate God are happy for only a short time.”⁷ Whatever he expected to happen as a result of his betraying the Messiah, did not come to fruition. Some speculate that he wanted to force Jesus into being the champion Messiah they all expected. The Anointed One who would free them from Roman rule and set up the kingdom of David once more. But his conscience got the best of him after his betrayal, and he realized what a terrible deed he had committed against a holy man who had been his best friend.

Usually, the one betrayed suffers the most humiliation, but in this case, the betrayer was devastated. He may have felt like Manasseh who killed many innocent people and filled Jerusalem with their blood, and the Lord would not forgive him of his sin.⁸ So he could not live with himself any longer. What Judas says here is quite interesting. First, he admits his act as a betrayal. This meaning: selling out a trusted leader to the enemy for a price. Second, he exclaims that it was innocent blood he betrayed. What was Judas thinking about Jesus before he got this revelation; didn’t he know that after following Jesus for three years it was obvious that He was innocent of the charges leveled against Him by these religious leaders?

As mentioned before, some say that Judas’ act was motivated by a desire on his part to force Jesus out into the open as the true Messiah; to push Him into seizing the reigns of power as king of the Jews. But this could hardly be a valid reason for him to betray his Lord, especially under the circumstances at the time. After all, if you sell out someone to the opposition it’s in order to ensure a victory for your benefit. However, under this premise, and his status as an acknowledged follower of Jesus, Judas had everything to lose and nothing to gain once Jesus was defeated. If Christ did, in fact, fulfill the Pharisee’s concept of the Messiah and did turn the tables on them and usurp power, Judas would have lost in what he was attempting to win because he would have been branded a traitor and exiled.

Some say that Judas Iscariot may have had misgivings over whether Jesus was just Messiah-like, instead of being the real thing because He established no center for learning and did little to build His kingdom filled with ardent followers and protected by a mighty army. Therefore, Judas was bent on proving either himself wrong or Jesus wrong. It was through unbelief Judas missed the reality of Jesus’ mission as the Lamb of God who came to take away the sins of the world. He did not come to win the world through a demonstration of overwhelming power, but by the manifestation of irresistible love.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-SEVEN

Part I

Verses 1-2: Early the next morning, all the leading priests and older leaders of the people met and made the decision to have Jesus killed. They tied His hands, led Him away, and handed Him over to Pilate, the Roman governor.

Here we find circumstances similar to those that Samson,¹ and later to King David, had to endure.² These leading priests and elders were accurately described by Solomon: “The wicked cannot sleep until they have done something evil. They will not rest until they bring someone down. Evil and violence are their food and drink.”³ And the prophet Micah identified them with precision, “They lie on their beds making their evil plans. Then when the morning light comes, they do what they planned, because they have the power to do what they want.”⁴ Micah’s mention of “when the morning light comes” certainly corresponds with what Matthew says here about this starting early the next morning. The Hebrew Version of this text renders it: “…you rise at dawn.”

In the Greek Textus Receptus, that the English KJV is based on, it mentions that “all” the leading priests and elders met. The Syriac and Persic versions leave out the word “all”, but it is retained in the Vulgate Latin, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions, Münster’s Hebrew Gospel, as well as the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew by Hugh J. Schonfield. But we must remember that the group that met late the night before were described as Scribes, and Elders, and the leading priests, and the whole Sanhedrin.⁵ Now in the morning, it reads: “…all the chief sages and elders took counsel against Jesus.”⁶ So apparently Matthew wanted his readers to know that while not every single one of the priests and elders was there for all these gatherings, the hierarchy of the Jewish religious leadership was involved.

We are told in Jewish writings: “The High Court of 71 judges was not required to sit all together in their place in the Temple. Instead, when it was necessary for them to gather together, they would all gather together. At other times, whoever had private affairs would tend to his concerns and then return. The above applies provided there would be no less than 23 judges in attendance whenever they were sitting. If a judge needs to leave, he should look at his colleagues who remain. If there are 23 remaining, he may leave. If not, he should not leave until another comes.”⁷

Leo the great had a message for this mean-spirited tribunal. He writes: “O religious leaders [of the Jews], this morning was far from your time of rising dominance, as it might have seemed to you. Your sun was, in fact, beginning to set. The dawn you expected did not come. A night of blackest darkness was brooding over your spiteful hearts. Out of this morning would come the overthrow of the Temple and its altars, the overriding of the law and the prophets, the undoing of the kingship and priesthood, turning youth toward continual lament. For you set out that morning on a mad and bloody course. You offered up to die the Author of life, the Lord of glory. Pilate—that terror-stricken judge—was overcome by your shouts, so that he chose a man for pardon who was a murderer and demanded the crucifixion of the Savior of the world.”⁸

We are also informed when these tribunals normally convened: “Until when should the judges hold session? A minor Sanhedrin and a court of three should hold sessions from after the morning service until the end of the sixth hour of the day. The supreme Sanhedrin, by contrast, would hold sessions from the time of the slaughter of the morning sacrifice until the offering of the afternoon sacrifice. On Sabbaths and on festivals they would hold sessions in the House of Study on the Temple Mount.”

For a better understanding of the Sanhedrim, here they are described by membership:

HEBREW TRIBUNALS

1. THE GREAT SANHEDRIN (Lower + Minor + 23 Members + 2 Presiding Officers)

a. The Grand Council

b. It convened in Jerusalem

c. Consisted of the high court of justice and the supreme tribunal of the Jews.

d. It numbered 71 members.

e. Its powers were:

Legislative

Executive

Judicial

2. THE MINOR SANHEDRIN (23 Members constituted a minor Sanhedrin in any city or town)

3. THE LOWER SANHEDRIN (23 Members located at the entrance to the Temple Mount, next to the eastern Shushan Gate.)

The reaction of these religious leaders would be no surprise to the Master. Look at what He said earlier about the Son of Man: “They will hand Him over to foreigners, who will laugh at Him and beat Him with whips, and then they will kill Him on a cross. But on the third day after His death, He will be raised to life again.”⁹ He also knew that one Messianic Psalm had already predicted this: “Their kings and leaders join together to fight against the Lord and His chosen king.”¹⁰

It is also interesting that in a collection of writings by ancient Jewish Rabbis, they too saw this as related to the Messiah.¹¹ Just as Abraham tied Isaac and led him away to be sacrificed, likewise these leading priests would tie up the Son of God for the same purpose. But first, they had to take Him to Pilate in order to get the death sentence they wanted.

We find this event recorded by a Roman historian who writes: “Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus,and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.”¹²

And we also have this recorded by a Jewish historian: “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it is lawful to call Him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those that loved Him from the beginning did not forsake Him; for He appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning Him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this very day.”¹³ We also told by the Jewish historian that Pilate fell out of favor with Rome, “So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome, and this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, which he dare not contradict; but before he could get to Rome Tiberius died.”¹⁴

“The most beautiful things in this world cannot be seen or touched – they are felt by the human heart.” These words were spoken by Miss Helen Keller who was born June 27, 1880, in the city of Tuscumbia, Alabama. Her father was a retired Confederate Army captain and editor of the local newspaper; her mother was an educated young woman from Memphis, Tennessee. When Keller was 19 months old, she was afflicted by an unknown illness, possibly scarlet fever or meningitis, which left her deaf and blind.

A young lady named Anne Sullivan came to Tuscumbia to be Helen’s teacher on March 3, 1887. She used a technique called “finger play,” in which she spelled the names of familiar objects into Helen’s hand. At first, Helen didn’t understand until one day Anne spelled the word “w-a-t-e-r” while pumping water over her hand. Later, Helen would write about this touching scene:

Suddenly I felt a misty consciousness as of something forgotten—a thrill of returning thought, and somehow the mystery of language was revealed to me. I knew then that “w-a-t-e-r” meant the wonderful cool something that was flowing over my hand. That living word awakened my soul, gave it light, hope, joy, set it free! …Everything had a name, and each name gave birth to a new thought. As we returned to the house every object which I touched seemed to quiver with life.

Perhaps we can understand this same principle if we were to apply it to the term “born again.” If you were to try and communicate that to a person who is blinded by sin and cannot see the light of God’s Word, they too will stare at you with a quizzical look, just like Nicodemus did when Jesus told him he needed to be born again to understand the Kingdom of God. But once they feel the love of God flow over their soul as it washes their sins away, then, and only then, will they be able to understand what those words mean. Just like Helen Keller said: “The most beautiful things in this world cannot be seen or touched – they are felt by the human heart.” – Dr. Robert R Seyda

I once read where the only survivor of a shipwreck was washed up on a small, uninhabited island. He prayed fervently for God to rescue him, and every day he scanned the horizon for help, but none seemed forthcoming. He eventually managed to build a little hut out of driftwood to protect him from the elements and in which to store his few possessions.

Then one day, after scavenging for food, he returned only to find his little hut going up in flames, the smoke rolling up to the sky. The worst had happened; everything was lost. He was stunned with grief and anger. “God, how could you do this to me!” he cried.

He started to lay down in the sand, but he was awakened by the sound of a ship’s horn as it approached the island. When it reached the shore, the weary man asked his rescuers: “How did you know I was here?” “We saw your smoke signal,” they replied.

It is easy to get discouraged when things are going bad. But we shouldn’t lose heart, because God is at work in our lives, even in the midst of pain and suffering. Remember, the next time your little hut is burning to the ground — it just may be the smoke signal that summons the grace of God.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX

One of the longest chapters in Matthew begins with the revelation of a plot by the Jewish chief priests and elders who assembled at high priest Caiaphas’ house, not just to marginalize this rogue prophet from Galilee named Jesus son of Joseph, but to put an end to His life and ministry. Politically and militarily He was no match for the Judeans and Romans. He had no huge armed following. He went around preaching peace and healing the sick. But one wrong move on their part could cause the many followers He did have to riot, and that would not sit well with the Roman governor.

In the meantime, Jesus warned His followers that such a secret plan was underway. But they were distracted by a woman who came to the house of Simon the Leper in Bethany and poured out very expensive perfume on our Lord’s head while He was eating. Some of His disciples thought it was a disgrace that such fine perfume was wasted instead of selling it so they could help feed the poor. But much to their surprise, Jesus rebuked them saying: “This is a wonderful thing she has done by preparing me for burial, and her act of reverence will be preached around the world.”

While all this was going on in Bethany, Judas Iscariot, one of Jesus’ own disciples was secretly meeting with the chief priests and elders at Caiaphas’ house to discuss their plan on arresting Jesus and bringing Him to trial. Judas agreed to point Him out with a greeting and kiss on the cheek. Such a betrayal is hard to imagine, especially after Judas had seen His Master heal the sick, cleanse lepers, and raise the dead. On the other hand, Peter brazenly stood up and proclaimed himself as his Master’s protector, only to be told that before this was all over he would have thrice denied even knowing Jesus.

But Jesus had other things to do. So with Passover coming in a few days, He sent His disciples into the next village to arrange a place so that He could eat His last meal with them to commemorate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. It was at this meal Jesus would identify His betrayer. And it was also here that He would use the meal’s bread and wine to commemorate His own sacrifice as the Passover Lamb of God to take away the sins of the world.

His disciples were shocked that anyone would betray their Lord and Master. But Judas Iscariot would be singled out as the culprit who would do this cowardly deed for thirty pieces of silver. Once the meal was over, He led them over to the Garden of Gethsemane at the foot of the Mount of Olives He asked them to pray with Him as He faced this awesome and earth shattering task that was planned before the world began. But they were not up to the challenge and fell asleep.

Jesus woke them up just in time to see the armed group of Temple guards along with some of the leading priests and elders arrive for His betrayal and the hands of Judas Iscariot. Peter did as he said he would do. He drew the dagger that was tucked in his belt and swung wildly in defense of his Lord, cutting off the ear of the high priest’s servant. But Jesus had no interest in such bravery, no matter how well-intentioned it was. So He healed the servant’s ear out of the graciousness of His heart.

But even that kind deed went unnoticed, as the guards seized Him, tied His hands, and led him off to the high priest’s palace where members of the Sanhedrin were waiting for Him. Jesus’ interrogation by these priests and elders was a sham and disgrace, as they broke many of their verbal laws on how such an inquiry should be conducted. What no doubt was intended to be a formal hearing, soon deteriorated into a humiliating exercise of hatred and pride. The man who was known for His kindness in feeding the hungry, healing the sick, raising the dead, and preaching the good news of God’s kingdom, was laughed at, spit on, slapped in the face, and called a liar.

While all this was going on inside the high priest’s house, outside the brave and bodacious Peter, affectionately called the Rock, was doing exactly what Jesus said he would do. And that was denying that he was one of Jesus’ followers, and then swearing in God’s name that he did not know who this blasphemer was. But the sudden crowing of a rooster, brought Peter back to reality as he remembered what Jesus said about his denying Him three times. It was enough to bring Peter to tears as he quickly left the court of the high priest’s house and went out into the darkness to weep bitterly for his failure to stand up for the One who would soon be lifted up on a cross to die for him.

As we will see in the next chapter, Peter handled his betrayal one way but Judas Iscariot handled it another. All of this should give us reasons to ask if our loyalty to Jesus is ever tested and we fail Him too, whose example will we follow. May God richly bless you for you love and desire to know more about Him by knowing more about His Word. We will begin chapter twenty-seven of Matthew on Monday. See you then!

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX

Part XXIV

In this picture of Jerusalem: (1) is Mt. Olives; (2) the Temple Mount (Mt. Moriah); (3) Mt. Zion. At the very top is Mt. Calvary, and at the very bottom is the Valley of Gehenna.

By looking at the picture above of the locations of Mount Zion, where the Temple was; Mount Olives, where the Garden of Gethsemane was located; Mount Moriah where Abraham went to sacrifice Isaac and where Mount Calvary is located just to the north; and then to the south were the Valley of Gehenna lies, the place associated with the fiery end for all unbelievers, when you draw lines between Mt. Zion and Mt. Olives, and then between Mt. Calvary and the Valley of Gehenna, that runs parallel to the Kidron Valley, you will see the sign of the cross.

Most significant is that all sinners must come to the foot of the cross to be redeemed and saved. Redeemed from the bondage of sin, and saved from the fire of hell. So it’s there that a sinner decides to look up toward Calvary and accept Jesus the Christ as their Lord and Savior, or to reject Him and continue their walk toward eternal damnation. He made the choice to die as a payment for their sins, now they must make the decision to accept His sacrifice or die for their sins.

To sum up what we have learned from Matthew’s account until now, let’s look at this compilation of facts, courtesy of Dr. David Stern:¹

Prophecy:                                     Location:                            Fulfillment:

The Messiah                                 In the Old                           In the New

would be –                                      Testament –                          Testament –

Hated without a cause                   Isaiah 49: 7                           Jn 15: 24– 25

Rejected by the rulers                     Psalm 118: 22                      Mt 21: 42, Jn7: 48

Betrayed by a friend                        Psalm 41: 9,                        Mt 26: 21– 25, 47– 50;

                                                         15( 12– 14)                          Jn 13: 18– 19; 8 Ac 1: 16– 1

Sold for 30 pieces of silver              Zechariah 11: 12                Mt 26: 15

Subject to having his price               Zechariah 11: 13                Mt 27: 7

given for a potter’s field

Forsaken by his disciples                Zechariah 13: 7                     Mt 26: 31– 56

Struck on the cheek                        Micah 4: 14( 5: 1)                  Mt 27: 30

Spat on                                             Isaiah 50: 6                           Mt 26: 67, 27: 30

Mocked                                            Psalm 22: 8– 9 (7– 8)           Mt 26: 67– 68;

                                                                                                        27: 31, 39– 44

Beaten                                              Isaiah 50: 6                            Mt 26: 67; 27: 26, 30

Executed by crucifixion                    Psalm 22: 17( 16)                 Mt 27: 35;

(i.e., having hands and                                                                    Jn 19:18, 37; 20: 35

feet pierced

Executed without having                     Exodus 12: 46,                     Jn 19: 33– 36

a bone broken                                       Psalm 34: 21( 20)

Thirsty during his execution                Psalm 22: 16( 15)                  Jn 19: 28

Given vinegar to quench                      Psalm 69: 22( 21)                   Mt 27: 34

that thirst

Considered a transgressor                     Isaiah 53: 12                           Mt 27: 38

Buried with the rich when dead             Isaiah 53: 9                            Mt 27: 57— 60

The one whose death would                  Isaiah 53: 5– 7, 12                 Mk 10: 45; Jn 1: 29, 3: 16;

atone for sins of mankind                                                                      Ac 8: 30– 35

Raised from the dead                               Isaiah 53: 9– 10;                   Mt 28: 1– 20;

                                                                 Psalms 2: 7, 16: 10               Ac 13: 33; 1 Cor 11: 4– 6

Ascended to the right                               Psalms 16: 11,                       Lk 24: 51; Ac 1: 9– 11,

hand of God                                              68: 19( 18), 110: 1                 7: 55

“Cut off, but not for himself,”                  Daniel 9: 24– 26                     Rom 5: 6

69 x 7 years after rebuilding

of the wall of Jerusalem

The overarching message of this whole story of the passion of Christ is that He did it freely in obedience to His Father’s will. Not to save Himself, for He needed no salvation, but for those who needed salvation but could not save themselves. Because of this, He who was the Way, the Truth, and the Life could share with those who otherwise would have been hopelessly lost for eternity, the joy of eternal life.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX

Part XXIII

Verses 73-74a: A short time later those standing there went to Peter and said, “We know you are one of them. It’s clear from your accent.” Then Peter began to curse. He said, “I swear to God, I don’t know that man!”

Peter wasn’t fooling anyone. Those standing around him noticed that when he spoke, he did so with a Galilean accent. We could say, this was Peter’s shibboleth moment.¹ But having an accent wasn’t all there was to it. We know that later when some of these same religious leaders heard Peter and John teaching with such courage and eloquence, they found it hard to believe because they knew them as being illiterate Galileans by their accent.²

Of course, it would be natural for those who looked at Peter as the founder of the church and the successor of Christ to find some alibi for such a terrible act of denial. Jerome has this to say: “Not that Peter spoke a different language or belonged to a foreign nation … but since each province and region had their own characteristics and vernacular, one could not help having a certain sound to his speech. For instance, the Ephrathites in the book of Judges cannot pronounce the word synthema.³ In the other Gospel we read that after Peter’s denial and the crowing of the cock, the Savior looked at Peter and, by His very gaze, aroused bitter tears in him.⁴ It was not permissible that Peter, on whom the light of the world had gazed, should remain in the darkness of denial.”⁵

Even Jewish tradition tells us that Galileans were not a well-spoken people. Rabbi Judah once said: “The Judeans who cared for the beauty of their language retained their learning, but the Galileans who did not care for the beauty of their language did not retain their learning.”⁶

Verses 74b-75: As soon as he said this, a rooster crowed. Then he remembered what Jesus had told him: “Before the rooster crows, you will say three times that you don’t know me.” Then Peter went outside and cried bitterly.”

By this time, Peter was all but lost in his confusion and bewilderment. But then something hit him like an arrow out of the dark, it was the crowing of a rooster. Some skeptics have dismissed a rooster crowing near the high priest’s house early in the morning because their verbal teachings forbid keeping chickens inside Jerusalem.⁷

We read that the Rabbis established ten special regulations that apply to anyone living in Jerusalem, and number nine reads, “That no chickens should be raised there.”⁸ And, another revered Rabbi adds this: “We may not raise chickens within Jerusalem, because they may cause ritually pure articles [to become impure]. Similarly, a priest may not raise chickens throughout the Land of Israel, because they cause ritually pure articles [to become impure].”⁹ But then, Jewish scholars tell us: “We have learned: Rabbi Judah ben Baba gave testimony concerning a chicken that was stoned in Jerusalem.”¹⁰ As with anything, there are always cracks in the floor and privileges are given to a few.

Origen gives us his input on how he sees Peter’s denial and the consequences: “Upon examining Peter’s denial, we note that ‘as yet the Spirit had not been given because Jesus was not yet glorified.’¹¹ For this reason, neither was it possible for Peter at the time to profess belief in Jesus nor was he to be criticized for not professing belief in Him, since it is said to those who profess belief: ‘It is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.’¹² We, however, since the Spirit of the Father has the power to speak in us and since it is in our power to ‘make room’ in us for the Holy Spirit and not ‘for the devil,’¹³ if we should deny Christ, we would have no excuse.”¹⁴ It appears that Origen is making the case that before Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead, it was impossible to believe in Him as Lord and Savior because the work of redemption had not been completed.

Origen then goes on to make this point: “Perhaps all people when they deny Jesus … seemingly deny Him before the crowing of the cock, when the sun of justice has not yet risen for them and its rising is not yet at hand. But if upon the rising of the sun for the soul ‘we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries.‘¹⁵”¹⁶ Although Origen finds cause not to accuse Peter of treason, no such excuse will be given to anyone who comes to know Jesus as the true Son of God and their Savior. But what do we do then with Peter’s earlier confession based on a revelation from the Holy Spirit, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God?”¹⁷

Although nine of the disciples fled the scene while John accompanied Jesus to this meeting at the high priest’s house, with Peter following far behind, after His resurrection our Lord still went in search of them. First, to Mary Magdalene just outside the borrowed tomb.¹ Then the two followers on the road to the village of Emmaus.² Later on in the upper room in Jerusalem where the disciples were hiding, minus Thomas.³ But then He came back a second time for Thomas’ sake.⁴ And finally up in Galilee where He told them they were to meet Him.²²

This fits in with two parables Jesus told about a shepherd who left his flock of 99 sheep and went out in search of one that was lost.¹ Then, of the woman who lost one of her ten coins but did not stop until she found it.² However, there is also the story of the father who waited for his prodigal son, who had taken his inheritance and wandered off into a life of immoral living, to come back home in a spirit of repentance.³ What does this mean for those to whom God sends out His Spirit to find and lead back to Him? Did not Jesus tell His disciples early on in Matthew that whoever was willing to acknowledge Him as their Lord while here on earth, He would proudly acknowledge them before His Father in heaven? But if they failed to acknowledge Him, then He too would deny they were His before the Father.⁴ What a serious warning this is, and perhaps, more than the rooster’s crow, is what brought Peter to tears when he realized what he had done by denying Jesus as his Lord before these people in the high priest’s courtyard.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX

Part XXII

I have often told young believers, especially new Christians, when you are made fun of, ridiculed, laughed at, degraded, assaulted, and even persecuted for the sake of Christ, He is the one they are venting their anger at, not you. So let Him defend Himself, and thereby defend you. And what can you give to Him for all He’s done for you? Time, effort, expense, emotions, words, or deeds? Yes, all of these. But most of all, be willing to give your all to the One who gave His all for you.

How could these people who expected nothing but the fullest respect from others, now treat a prophet who was admired and revered by thousands of their fellow Jews with such dishonor? Even their own traditions spoke against such behavior. The Rabbis taught: “He that spits before, or in the presence of his master, is guilty of death.”¹ In other words, spitting in the presence of those who are admired was considered a nauseous and filthy act. But how much more must it be so, to spit in the face of a prophet, a healer, a Savior, a Lord, and a soon to be King? How could they ignore the very laws they required and enforce on others?

The Rabbis also taught: “If one makes a fist and boxes another man’s ear, he has to pay him on account of degradation a set fee of a sela² for degradation. If he slapped him the Rabbis set a higher fee for greater shame and he has to pay him two hundred zuz;³ if he did it with the back of his hand, he has to pay him four hundred zuz. If he pulled his ear, plucked his hair, spat so that the spittle reached him, removed his garment from upon him… he must pay four hundred zuz.”⁴ We read nowhere that those who tried to humiliate and mock the Son of God this way were ever given such punishment. Not because they weren’t liable, but because no penalty or fine could be set high enough for doing such to the Messiah.

But our Lord took it without murmur. According to Mark,⁵ and Luke,⁶ they blindfolded Him. And being defenseless with His hands tied, it gave His attackers one more opportunity to insult Him by asking Him to guess who had just hit Him. It was so rude and uncivil that these religious leaders would play a children’s game we know today as “Blindman’s Bluff.” Not only was it disgraceful and childish, but approved by the high priest. Jewish historian Flavius Josephus tells this story about how high priest Caiaphas were regarded by the Romans at this point in Jesus’ journey to the cross.

NOTE: Caesar Vitellius, the 8^th Emperor of Rome, made a fateful decision for the high priest Caiaphas just a few years after this in 36 AD: Vitellius came into Judea, and went up to Jerusalem; it was at the time of that festival which is called the Passover. Vitellius was there magnificently received, and released the inhabitants of Jerusalem from all the taxes upon the fruits that were bought and sold, and gave them permission to take care of the high priest’s vestments, with all their ornaments, and to have them under the custody of the priests in the temple, which power they used to have formerly, although at this time they were laid up in the tower of Antonia, the citadel so called, and that on the following occasion: There was one of the [high] priests, named Hyrcanus; and as there were many of that name, he was the first of them; this man built a tower near the temple, and after he had so done, he lived there, and had these vestments with him, because it was lawful for him alone to put them on, and he had them stored there when he went down into the closet and took his ordinary garments; the same things were continued to be done by his sons, and by their sons after them. But when Herod came to be king, he rebuilt this tower, which was very conveniently situated, in a magnificent manner; and because he was a friend to Antonius, he called it by the name of Antonia. And as he found these vestments lying around there, he kept them in the same place, believing, that while he had them in his custody, the people would initiate no opposition against him. The things credited to Herod was done by his son Archelaus, who was made king after him; after whom the Romans, when they entered on the government, took possession of these vestments of the high priest, and had them stored in a stone-chamber, under the seal of the priests, and of the keepers of the temple, the captain of the guard lighting a lamp there every day; and seven days before a festival they were delivered to them by the captain of the guard, when the high priest having purified them, and made use of them, stored them again in the same chamber where they had been stored before, and this the very next day after the feast was over. This was the practice at the three yearly festivals, and on the fast day; but Vitellius put those garments under control of the Jews, as in the days of their forefathers, and ordered the captain of the guard not to trouble himself to inquire where they were laid, or when they were to be used; and this he did as an act of kindness, to obligate the nation to him. Besides which, he also deprived Joseph, who was also called Caiaphas, of the high priesthood, and appointed Jonathan the son of Ananus, the former high priest, to succeed him. After which, he took his journey back to Antioch.⁷

Verses 69-70: While Peter was sitting outside in the yard, a servant girl came up to him. She said, “You were with Jesus, that man from Galilee.” But Peter told everyone there that this was not true. “I don’t know what you are talking about,” he said.

It’s interesting to note that these girls must have seen Peter with Christ on some previous occasion in another location. It could have been almost anyplace, but what happened here after Jesus was arrested caused them to believe and identify him not only as being “in” Jesus’ company at one time but here they were able to identify Peter as being “of” Jesus’ company. How true that is with Christians. One may see someone at a religious concert, or convention, or church, but there is something that makes them look different when you know they are not just present but in His presence. If Jesus had an opportunity to look over at Peter from inside the palace, perhaps these words from the prophet Isaiah came to His mind, “You did not remember me. You did not even notice me! So who were you worrying about? Who were you afraid of? Why did you lie? Look, I have been quiet for a long time. Is that why you didn’t honor me?”⁸

Verses 71-72: Then he left the yard. At the gate, another girl saw him and said to the people there, “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.” Again, Peter said he was never with Jesus. He said, “I swear to God I don’t know the man!”

You would think, that dismissing any association with Jesus just to throw off those who were suspicious would be the most Peter would have done. But it got worse. The next girl to point him out as a disciple, not only got a denial, but it was done in God’s name! Didn’t he know how God felt about this, “When you take an oath, I, the LORD, the God of Israel, am the one whose name you use, but you are not honest and sincere.”⁹

Early church leader Jerome had something to say about Peter’s swearing by God’s name that he didn’t know who Jesus was. He writes: “I know that some people with a soft spot in their hearts for the apostle Peter have interpreted this passage to the effect that Peter did not deny God but man, and what he meant was ‘I do not know the man because I know God.’ The wise reader realizes how frivolous this interpretation is, for those who thus defend the apostle make the Lord guilty of a lie. If Peter did not deny Him, then the Lord lied in saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.’ Notice what He says: ‘You will deny me’—not ‘the man.’”¹⁰

It is obvious that Jerome had little patience with those in the early church who elevated Peter to such a high status of reverence that they did not want to hear any criticism of him. But Peter’s sobbing and weeping under conviction after his denial, tells us all we need to know about how guilty he felt. Yet this same double standard is practiced by some individuals today when someone reacts to their bad words or conduct by saying, “I thought you were a Christian,” only to have them respond, “I am, but not like those holiness people.”

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX

Part XXI

The question now is, did Jesus use the unmentionable four Hebrew Tetragrammaton YHWH, which we know today as Yahweh, or was Caiaphas wrong in what he claimed Jesus did? Whatever the case, with his face flushed in anger and his clothing torn, the high priest turns to those in the room and screams, “Did you hear what He just said! Is there anything more you need to hear! What do all of you have to say to a man who just insulted God?” This so enraged those assembled that they screamed back, “Kill Him for what He just said! He needs to die! He is guilty as charged!” That is, except for one person. Luke tells us that Joseph of Arimathea did not join the mob in calling for Jesus to be executed. Not only because, we find out later, that he believed in Him as the Messiah,¹ but also because he may have been against their not finishing the proper examination of evidence as required by their own laws.

In the Jewish Mishnah, we read, “Both civil and capital cases require inquiry and examination. As it is written: ‘One and the same law will be demanded for you.’² Therefore, the Torah compares civil and capital cases. Regarding capital cases it is written: ‘Then you will inquire and investigate and ask thoroughly.’³”⁴ Furthermore, Rabbi Maimonides comments, “What are the differences between cases involving financial matters and cases involving capital punishment? Cases involving financial matters are adjudicated by three judges, while cases involving capital punishment are adjudicated by 23… For this reason, we do not adjudicate cases involving capital punishment on Fridays, nor on the days preceding festivals. The rationale is that the defendant may be convicted and it is impossible to execute him on the following day, but it is forbidden to postpone his execution until after the Sabbath. Hence, we imprison him and begin his trial on Sunday.”⁵

Not only that but the older Jerusalem Talmud has these restrictions: “…do they judge capital cases by night [as David was judging Nabal]! He said to her, ‘The trial concerning him was completed while it was still day.’”⁶ Furthermore: “In capital cases, they try the case by day and complete it the following day.”⁷ Also, we read: “In capital cases, they come to a final decision or acquittal on the same day, but on the following day for conviction.”⁸ That leads to this: “Therefore they do not judge capital cases on the eve of the Sabbath or on the eve of a festival.”⁹ We might ask, did any of the accusers of Jesus even care that they were breaking their own law?

Verse 67: Then some standing around Jesus spit in His face, and they punched Him with their fists. Others slapped Him. They teased Him by saying, “Show us that you are a prophet, Messiah! Tell us who just hit you!”

Now we see, that in Jesus’ case they began the trial late at night, examined a few false witnesses, stopped abruptly based on the high priest’s charge of blasphemy, and passed the sentence of condemnation, and all of it on the eve of a grand festival, their Passover. Then Matthew reveals that some became so infuriated that they began to physically abuse our Lord. Spitting was a sign of disrespect and demeaning.¹⁰ Remember, His hands were tied, and Luke tells us: “They blindfolded Him and said, ‘Prophesy to us! Who hit you that time?’”¹¹ But Jesus already knew that this had been prophesied.¹² The same way with His beating that almost made Him unrecognizable.¹³ But He was just doing what the prophet Jeremiah said.¹⁴

Early church writer Chrysostom gives us his impression of this account and the courage it took for the Gospel writers to record it. He says: “Note with admiration the self-restraint of the disciples. Observe how carefully they relate these things. This clearly shows their disposition to love the truth. They relate with all truthfulness the things that seem to be insulting. They disguise nothing. They are not ashamed of anything. Rather, they account it as a very great glory, as indeed it was, that the Lord of the universe should endure suffering such things for us. This shows both His unutterable tenderness and the inexcusable wickedness of those men who had the heart to do such things to Him that was so mild and meek. His words were such as to change a lion into a lamb.… All of these things the prophet Isaiah had foretold. He had proclaimed it beforehand: ‘Like as many were astonished at you, so shall your form be held inglorious of men, and your glory of the sons of men.’¹⁵”¹⁶

Early church scholar Origen also had impassioned words for what took place here. He writes: “It was necessary for Him to teach these things by example, ‘giving His back to whips and His cheeks to fists’ and not turning His face away ‘from insults and spitting.’¹⁷ Thus He would, by suffering these things in our place, deliver us (as I believe) who should have suffered all that disgrace. Truly He did not ‘die for us’¹⁸ that we might not die but that we need not die for ourselves. And He was spat upon and beaten for us, so that we who were liable for all these things because of our sins might not just suffer them, but gracefully accept and suffer them for the sake of justice. Paul makes it clear that the Savior ‘humbled Himself becoming obedient all the way to death, even to the death of the cross.”¹⁹ … ‘On account of all this, God exalted Him.’²⁰ God not only exalted Him because of the death He underwent for our sake but also because of the buffeting and the spitting and all the rest.”²¹

Origen continues: “Christ did not turn His face away ‘from insult and spitting,’²² so His face might be glorified more than the face of Moses²³ — with so much glory that compared to the glorification of Moses’ face was outshone, even as the light of a lamp is outshone by that of the sun and even as knowledge, which knows in part, is outshone ‘when that which is perfect has come.’²⁴ But they also buffeted the holy head of the church.”²⁵

Then Origen finishes: “Not content with spitting in His face and buffeting Him, they even struck His face with the palms of their hands, and, mocking Him, they said, ‘Prophesy to us, O Christ! who is it that struck you?’ On account of this … they have been struck and punished. Yet they were unwilling to accept any discipline, as Jeremiah had prophesied about them: ‘You admonished them and they did not grieve; they were unwilling to receive correction.’²⁶ And now whoever harms anyone in the church and does these things to Him spits on the very face of Christ, and, buffeting Christ, they slap Him with the palms of their hands.”²⁷ Some believe that Origen was not talking about the punishment that came to those who at Jesus’ trial did such horrible things to our Lord, but to Jews as a whole, over the centuries that followed. This no doubt reveals the disgust that Christians had during the Middle Ages for Jews that culminated in the concentration camps during WWII.

It is amazing to imagine that the One who could turn water into wine, calm the stormy winds and waves on the Sea of Galilee, curse a fig tree so that it withered in moments, and drive out demons by the thousands into a herd of swine, just stood there and took all this disgraceful punishment without striking back or saying a word. But the most remarkable factor is that He did it for all those He came to redeem and save. As the prophet Isaiah said: “He was oppressed and treated harshly, yet He never said a word. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter. And as a sheep is silent before the shearers, he did not open his mouth.”²⁸

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX

Part XX

Verse 64: Jesus answered, “Let it be as you have said. But let me tell you, in the future, you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right side of God. And you will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Our Lord was not about to leave anything hanging in the air, so He replies quickly. British Bible commentator Charles Elliott puts it as succinctly as it can be said: “No words in the whole Gospel records are more decisive against the views of those who would be inclined to see in our Lord only a great moral teacher, like Socrates or Cakya Mouni.¹ At the very crisis of His history, when denial would have saved His life. He asserts His claim to be much more than this, to be all that the most devout Christians have ever believed Him to be. At such a moment, when men stand face to face with seeming failure and with death, dreams, and delusive claims, for the most part, melt away. Here claims that men have presumed to think of as delusive were strengthened and intensified, and reproduced as in the calmness of assured conviction.”²

Jesus knew what their intentions were if He made such a claim. So He quickly out maneuvered and nonplussed His prosecutors by letting them know that killing Him will not end His mission. He is bound for heaven to sit at the Father’s right hand, and nothing they can do will be able to stop Him. But what really concerned them, is that being at the right hand of God means having direct access to divine power and authority.

This came from a clear understanding that here on earth, the one who stood by the right hand of the king was the spokesman for the king. And for Jesus to claim that position was the ultimate insult to these Jewish leaders. It was like saying, He will be more revered and higher than Moses. In fact, in the Babylonian Talmud, we find this perception of the power behind the words that God spoke to Moses on Mount Moriah in Sinai. “Rabbi Ishmael recited; [The words] ‘I’ and ‘Thou’… were heard from the mouth of Omnipotence.”³ The “I” is the first word of the first commandment, and “Thou” is the first word of the second commandment.⁴

So how could this disillusioned itinerant teacher from Galilee believe He would one day speak with the omnipotence voice of God? No doubt this is what the apostle John was getting at,⁵ and the writer of Hebrews as well.⁶ We can also believe that many of these same individuals would be there that day when Stephen was stoned for his witnessing, and heard him exclaim, “I see the Son of Man standing at God’s right side.”⁷ Not only that, but Jesus mentions the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven.

There is an interesting correlation between Exodus 13:22 and 1 Chronicles 3:24 concerning such a positioning to represent God’s presence. In the Jewish Bible, Exodus 13:22 reads in the Hebrew: “Lo-yamish amud he’anani yomam ve’amud ha’esh laylah lifney ha’am.” (The pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire at night never left their position in front of the people). The term “he’anani” is a name that has been associated with the Messiah. In a Jewish Targum we read this comment: “And he’Anani – ‘This is the King Messiah who is to be revealed.’ – Rabbi Jarchi says the same, and refers to Daniel 7:13: “Behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds (ananey) of heaven.”⁸ So Jesus was not making up some story here, it was already contained in their Scriptures.

This may also give us a new understanding of Matthew’s quote: “The people living in darkness have seen a great light; upon those living in the region, in the shadow of death, light has dawned.”⁹ Maybe this will also help you better understand why the high priest was so furious at what Jesus said. As a result, the high priest tore his clothes in the customary display of anger or grief.¹⁰ How could this peasant prophet from Galilee ever claim to be the One spoken of by Daniel?¹¹ Was this carpenter’s son from Nazareth so arrogant as to believe He was the One David spoke of in his psalm?¹²

Verses 65-66: When the high priest heard this, he tore his clothes in anger. He said, “This man has said things that insult God! We don’t need any more witnesses. You all heard his insulting words. What do you think?” The Jewish leaders answered, “He is guilty, and He must die!”

Could it be that by tearing his clothes, the high priest himself was guilty of violating the word of God? Doesn’t it say in their teachings: “The high priest was chosen from among his brothers. The anointing oil was poured on his head. In this way, he was chosen for the special job of being high priest. He was chosen to wear the special clothes, so he must not do things to show his sadness in public. He must not let his hair grow wild. He must not tear his clothes?”¹³

As a matter of fact, one respected Rabbi, in his commentary on priestly garments, states: “Priests are forbidden from entering the Temple grounds when their garments are torn. The source of this prohibition is God’s statement, ‘Your garments must not be torn; otherwise, you will die.’” This commandment is also repeated regarding the high priest in the verse, ‘He may not tear his garments.‘”¹⁴

However, we find this taboo was lifted under certain conditions. “Whoever hears the blasphemy of God’s name is obligated to rend his garments. Even when one hears the blasphemy of other terms used to describe God, one is obligated to rend his garments. The above applies when one hears the blasphemy from a fellow Jew. In that instance, both the one who hears the actual blasphemy and the one who hears it from the witnesses is obligated to rend his garments… Before his execution, all the witnesses, and the judges place their hands on the head of the blasphemer and tell him: ‘You are responsible for your death. You brought it upon yourself.’ Only a blasphemer – and none of the other offenders executed by the court – has the judges and witnesses place their hands upon his head, as Leviticus 24:14 states: ‘And all those who hear shall place their hands on his head.’”¹⁵

So it looks like the high priest was in line with the commandments by tearing his clothes. It also appears that the “placing their hands upon his head,” was carried out in a violent form by those standing by when this took place. But wait a minute, we also read, “The blasphemer is liable only if he utters the Divine Name. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karhah says: The entire day of the trial, the witnesses are examined by using a substitute for the Divine Name [i.e., the witnesses testify that he said] May Yose smite Yose [Yose having four letters which, numerically, adds up to Elokim which was substituted for the Divine Name]… Thereupon, he did so by using the Divine Name. The judges then stood up and rent their garments, which were not resewn in a manner so that the tear would no longer be noticeable.”¹⁶

When it came to wearing their sacred garments, Jewish verbal law gives the guidelines: “Come and hear: As to priestly garments, it is forbidden to go out in them in the province, but in the Sanctuary whether during or outside the time of the service (i.e. outside the Temple), it is permitted to wear them, because priestly garments are permitted for private use.”¹⁷ This is repeated in, “Come and hear: It is forbidden to go out into the town in priestly garments, but it is permissible to walk about in them in the Temple whether at the time of service or otherwise, since the priestly garments may be made general use of. This is conclusive.”¹⁸