Matthew 26: 57 – 75
Campfire coldness
57 Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the teachers of the law and the elders had assembled. 58 But Peter followed him at a distance, right up to the courtyard of the high priest. He entered and sat down with the guards to see the outcome. 59 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. 60 But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward. Finally, two came forward 61 and declared, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’” 62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 63 But Jesus remained silent. 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.” 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. Others slapped him 68 and said, “Prophesy to us, Messiah. Who hit you?” 69 Now Peter was sitting out in the courtyard, and a servant girl came to him. “You also were with Jesus of Galilee,” she said. 70 But he denied it before them all. “I don’t know what you’re talking about,” he said. 71 Then he went out to the gateway, where another servant girl saw him and said to the people there, “This fellow was with Jesus of Nazareth. 72 He denied it again, with an oath: “I don’t know the man!” 73 After a little while, those standing there went up to Peter and said, “Surely you are one of them; your accent gives you away.” 74 Then he began to call down curses, and he swore to them, “I don’t know the man!” Immediately a rooster crowed. 75 Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken: “Before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.” And he went outside and wept bitterly.
For all you outdoor enthusiasts I want to say something which I hope will not offend you. I do not like camping. My idea of going on a camping trip is to make a reservation at a Howard Johnson’s or some other chain motel. I had my fill of camping after spending 6 years in the US Army.
As I put together today’s sermon I think about Peter trying to get warm at the campfire of the enemy. I thought that there was a campfire that gave forth no warmth but was cold to be around.
Many people who I know including my relatives love to go on camping trips. Hey, It’s their lives let them enjoy their own ways.
Where I live presently is a town outside the city of Philadelphia. We have two types of summer trips for people to enjoy. They can go to the shore and enjoy the beach and all its activities, or many choose to go to the Pocono mountain areas to enjoy camping out.
I have found it quite amazing that you can leave 90-degree weather and within a couple of hours experience temperatures that are in the 50 and 60’s at night.
So, for those of you who might be talked into going on one of these weekend camping experiences I want to give you a few pointers on surviving cold-weather camping.
The moon makes the snow-draped forest glow, and the retreat of the summertime camping in remote mountainous areas means you have plenty of space to yourself. But a camping trip requires a little more thought and planning than your average summer outing.
The first thought you must address is that you dress properly. You want clothes that can keep you warm during periods of inactivity. Chances are you'll create plenty of heat during that backcountry trek, but it's tougher to maintain a comfortable temperature when you stop moving.
So, layer up. Start with polyester thermal underwear for the base layer. Choose breathable fleece to inhibit the accumulation of perspiration during exertion. If you prefer natural fibers, choose merino wool and wool-fleece blends that offer the warmth of wool without the itchiness. Pack a scarf or neck gaiter that you can take off and on easily to regulate body temperature and take a lightweight jacket that is both waterproof and breathable.
Layering can also keep your head and feet warm. Fleece or wool stocking caps can be made windproof when covered with a detachable hood. Leave your cotton socks at home. Instead, choose wool or wicking polyester socks designed for hiking. Boots don't have to be expensive, but they should be waterproof or water-repellent, especially if you plan on hiking through wet areas.
I have learned the hard way is that you never neglect your hands. Your external parts such as hands and feet tend to get gold first. If you allow this to happen you get cold all over. To keep warm, pack polyester glove liners and gloves, then gauntlets to layer over them. Stock up on chemical heating pads for when you need a little heat boost.
When you arrive at a side you must think about a fire. As soon as you arrive at your campsite, start your fire before doing any other setup. Plan and always pack fire sources. You can go low-tech with tightly packed dryer lint stuffed into old pill bottles or film canisters, or high-tech with magnesium fire starters.
A major factor in thinking about maintain a campfire is to choose the right campsite. You do not want to put yourself and others in jeopardy if you set the whole woods on fire.
Summer campers might prefer the shadiest and most secluded spot, however, the morning sun can be a welcome companion. Take note of where the sun will first appear at sunrise and angle your tent to take advantage of the early rays while shielding the door from the wind.
You may not feel thirsty in cold weather but staying hydrated is just as important in cold wather as it is in summer warmth. Drink water (warm or cold), hot tea, or hot chocolate—the latter also provides high-calorie fuel for your outdoor adventure.
As you breathe in a warm tent on a cold night, condensation will form on your tent, even if it's a four-season model. Be ready for wet weather and dampness. There's not a lot you can do about condensation, but the next morning be sure to dry out your sleeping bag before using it again. To minimize condensation, you can vent your tent at night—it won't hold in heat as well, but it will stay dryer.
The old wisdom of stripping down before you get into a sleeping bag doesn't make sense. Put on everything you brought before you turn in for the night. And if the campfire is still going, heat some water, pour it into a heat-proof water bottle, and snuggle into your bag with it.
The key to a successful outdoor excursion is to remember that even a little bit of heat can go a long way. I am sorry to say that Peter just walked into someone else’s campfire without any foresight and as we all know it did not turn out very well for him.
What follows is not an official meeting of the Sanhedrin which could only meet by day, but a gathering of enemies of our Lord Jesus who were members of the Sanhedrin, meeting under the chairmanship of Caiaphas the High Priest, together with any whom they thought might be persuaded to support them, brought together in order to try to find a way of having Him convicted, preferably of treason. That this is so comes out in that both the other Synoptic Gospels make quite clear in their own way that when morning came an official meeting of the Sanhedrin had to be called (Mark 15.1; Luke 22.66) despite the previous examinations. We do not know whether even at that stage men like Joseph of Arimathea (Luke 23.50), Nicodemus (John 3.1; 7.50-51) and Gamaliel (Acts 5.34) were called. It is quite possible that they conveniently ‘could not be found’ until it was too late, for we learn of no voices speaking up on His behalf, and it appears doubtful if things would have gone quite so smoothly for the conspirators had any of these been present. Gamaliel for one would unquestionably have appealed for reason, as he did in Acts, and would have protested if anything was rushed through.
57 Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the teachers of the law and the elders had assembled.
After a private examination under the shrewd Annas (John 18.19-24), probably in his private rooms in Caiaphas’ palace (he was Caiaphas’ father-in-law), a pre-examination which failed to produce what they were hoping for, (a grounds for convicting Jesus), Jesus was led away to Caiaphas where a larger group of Chief Priests, Scribes and Elders had by this time gathered. There were thus representatives present from all three sections of the Sanhedrin, although probably hand-picked. As it was still Passover night they would have been somewhat hastily gathered, and no doubt, as anyone who knows anything about politics will know, selected with some discrimination as to who was invited.
58 But Peter followed him at a distance, right up to the courtyard of the high priest. He entered and sat down with the guards to see the outcome.
Meanwhile Peter and another disciple (John 18.15) followed the arresting party at a distance, and entering the court of the High Priest’s palace, (the other disciple was known to those present and was actually able to enter the palace), Peter sat among the lower level officials who were gathered there, in order to discover what would happen to Jesus. Peter was clearly no coward and had acted with typical impulsiveness.
Please notice the interesting parallel. On the one hand Jesus is being challenged before the Jewish leaders, on the other one of His followers is being challenged before the followers of the Jewish leaders, the One accomplishing His end of giving His last warning to the Jewish leaders and remaining unbowed, the other failing to achieve his end and ending up in flood of tears. It is being made clear that on this night of Satan’s seeming pre-eminence only Jesus came through satisfactorily, both here and in the Garden. The total and abject failure of the Apostles was an indication of what powers were at work against them that night.
59 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death.
Then the Chief Priests and the whole of the council who were present (only twenty-three were required to make it official) sought to amass a case by which they could have Jesus sentenced to death. It is irrelevant as to whether the Sanhedrin had the power to put men to death, (it is possible that they could do so for blasphemy), for their aim was not to put Jesus to death themselves, even if they had had the power to do so, which is doubtful (John 18.31). They knew that that would totally discredit them in the eyes of the people. Their aim was rather to get Pilate to do it, but their problem then was that they had to find a charge which would carry weight with Pilate. They were looking for anyone who could say something against Jesus which might be helpful to their case., but it does not mean that they were recognized as being such by those who called them. What the judges were looking for was true witnesses who could really demonstrate a case against Jesus, even though all they got in the end was false witnesses, none of whom agreed with each other on anything essential. In their desperation to obtain a conviction they were willing to take advantage of anything that they could get their hands on. It should be noted that this band of witnesses must either already have been sought out in readiness for any trial that there might be, and thus have been all ready to be called on at a moment’s notice, or alternatively must have been hastily gathered as a result of enquiries among their own bands of servants and slaves, many of whom would no doubt previously have shown a discreet interest in what Jesus had to say.
60 But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward. Finally, two came forward 61 and declared, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’”
A good number of witnesses came to present their case against Jesus, no doubt expecting suitable reward for their helpfulness, but it appears that they continually contradicted each other (Mark 14.56, 59). The aim had apparently been to spread the net wide among disillusioned people, hoping in that way that they would come up with something. For they felt that surely there must be something that He had done or said that could put Him in a bad light. But as the time went by, all too quickly, nothing promising seemed to be appearing.
However, hope began to grow when two witnesses were found who both stated that Jesus had said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.’ That was at least a start, for it meant that they had the required twofold witness (Deuteronomy 17.6) and that the subject matter was serious, for in those days men of all nations considered that the desecration of Temples was a serious matter. But the twofold problem was that when examined in more detail the evidence was clearly not considered enough to bring a charge, probably because under questioning it was not sufficiently definite, while their attempt at using it to get the accused to convict Himself failed because Jesus simply disdained to answer. It thus did not seem to be much to build a case on, especially as there appeared to be some doubt about what the exact details were (Mark 14.59).
We know that in fact their testimony was partially true, for Jesus had said something about someone destroying a temple which He would rebuild in three days (John 2.19). But what they had failed to observe was that Jesus had not actually said that He Himself would destroy the Temple (He had said that ‘if they did it’), and that He had said ‘this Temple’, meaning the Temple of His body (John 2.19). No wonder then that the witnesses disagreed on what was said.
62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?”
The tribunal then set about trying to question Jesus on the matter, only to be met with what they saw as an obstinate silence. And this went on until in exasperation the High Priest railed at Jesus for not defending Himself. He had heard what these men had said against Him. Why did He not say something? For the truth was that they knew that it would be difficult to convict the man when He remained silent and was not obviously guilty of anything. But Jesus was not going to waste His time giving explanations which He knew that no one wanted to hear. He knew perfectly well that they did not want the truth. They simply wanted Him to admit something that would enable them to convict Him. And He had nothing like that to admit. He was quite happy for the witnesses to continue contradicting each other. But what He wanted most was for His accusers to face up to themselves, and to the truth.
Messianic expectation included the idea that the Temple would be restored by the Messiah (Daniel 9.26-27), and if that be so the move that now took place from considering the idea of restoring the Temple to looking at the question of Messiahship was natural. So He had spoken of restoring the Temple. Did that then mean that He was claiming to be the Messiah? Let Him now make clear what it was that He had intended by whatever He had said when He spoke of restoring the Temple!
‘He (the High Priest) stood up.’ This was unusual in a hearing and indicated how exasperated the High Priest had become. They were just not getting anywhere, and time was racing by.
63 But Jesus remained silent. 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.”
But Jesus continued to say nothing until eventually the High Priest in desperation, and probably totally exasperated, overstepped the mark and used his power of adjuration. This was the power given to the High Priest as God’s earthly representative to adjure a stubborn witness to tell the truth in the Name of God. In response to such a solemn adjuration a reply then had to be given, otherwise there would be an offence against God. However, it was never intended to be used to get a conviction from an accused man’s own mouth. But the High Priest in his desperation and exasperation ignored that small distinction and called on Jesus in the Name of the living God to say whether He did claim to be ‘the Messiah, the Son of God’. The crucial element in this charge was the claim to be the Son of God. It was not considered blasphemy to claim to be the Messiah, even if it was disapproved of, thus some such charge as a claim to be the Son of God must certainly have been made by someone.
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.”
Jesus then seemingly played right into their hands. He could not remain silent when He was being questioned about His very purpose for being here. So He first of all replied (as He was required to), with the words ‘You have said.’ This was an indirect acknowledgement of the truth of the claim based on the accuser’s own statement. He was basically saying, ‘you have said so, so surely it must be true.
Jesus, however, then went further. For it was to testify to this that He had come. And He certainly did not want to deny the very truth on which He stood. He then informed them that, ‘From now on you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.’ As far as Jesus was concerned this was a declaration that in the very near future they would be made aware in no uncertain fashion that the Kingdom of Heaven had come and was active on earth, and that that would be as a result of the fact that the Son of Man would have taken His throne as described in Daniel 7.13-14.
‘Sitting at the right hand of power (i.e. God)’ was a specific claim that He would be enthroned and would share God’s Rule, ‘coming on the clouds of Heaven’ was a specific claim that like God He would act invisibly on earth (Psalm 104.3).
‘The right hand of Power’ signified ‘the right hand of God’, the place of supreme authority, and Matthew later makes clear that the future activities of the disciples on earth will in fact be a manifestation of His active presence (‘I am with you always’) precisely because He has been given all authority in Heaven and earth (28.18-20). The words ‘right hand of Power’ have in mind Psalm 110.1 which Jesus had earlier quoted about Himself (22.41-45).
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.
What Jesus had said was enough for the High Priest and the assembled company. In a dramatic gesture the High Priest tore his clothes, a common way of indicating great agitation, and repudiation of what has been said. And he may well indeed have been genuinely appalled. If Jesus had been a deceiver, he would have had a right to be so. Where they all failed was in their inability to recognize the truth of the matter and the fact that by His life and teaching and acts of power He had justified the claim. Like many moderns they refused even to give Him a chance.
Then he declared that witnesses were no longer required as the accused had convicted Himself out of His own mouth. He was clearly guilty of blasphemy. And that made Him worthy of death. The charge of blasphemy, however, was overplayed. Jesus had not used the Name of God lightly, indeed He had been careful not to use it at all. And thus, He could not genuinely be charged with blasphemy. But they felt that what He had said was enough for them. They were not too concerned with the niceties of the situation. It enabled them to declare Him as worthy of death, and that was what mattered. And all present seemingly agreed.
They would undoubtedly have been shocked by what He had said. In their eyes, religious men did not speak in this way. And as it happened it gave them the verdict that they wanted, so that they no doubt felt that Jesus had played into their hands. In the end it was the verdict of politicians who had been determined to get their way and were gleeful now that they had got it. However, it was still not enough. A charge of blasphemy might impress the Sanhedrin, but it would not be enough to force Pilate to act. He would only be interested in a civil charge. He cared little about blasphemy against the God of the Jews. Where it strengthened their hand was in justifying themselves afterwards before the people and in enabling them to convince a later gathering of the full Sanhedrin (27.1) that He must be got rid of.
‘They answered and said, “He is worthy of death”.’ It is noteworthy that no vote was taken. This was only the preliminary enquiry to establish the case. It was conviction by acclamation by people who were against Him from the beginning.
67 Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him 68 and said, “Prophesy to us, Messiah. Who hit you?”
Having obtained the verdict which they needed Jesus was first openly repudiated by symbolic actions (spitting was an acknowledged way of showing legally based contempt - Deuteronomy 25.9) and then handed over to the guards for horseplay. It is quite likely that members of the Sanhedrin initially took part. It was an official and open way of indicating legally based contempt for the accused. They would indeed feel it necessary to indicate their view of this man openly, and no doubt considered that by spitting on Him, slapping Him and mocking His ability to prophesy, they were doing precisely that. In those days even, high level people expressed their contempt more openly and physically than they do now, and that was what they were doing here. Being able to identify those who slapped him was, according to some traditions, in line with what the Messiah was expected to be able to do. So, such an idea probably made them feel justified in behavior that disgusts us (including many modern Jews). Then He would be left in the hands of the guards who would simply imitate their betters.
The guards then also proceeded to spit in His face and knock Him around while others continued the idea of slapping Him and crying out, ‘Come on, you Messiah, prophesy who it was who hit you.’ To have a supposed Messiah and prophet at their mercy was too good an opportunity to miss, and they were after all only following the example of their superiors, even if a little more brutally. Convicted prisoners were looked on as fair game. Their treatment of Him would probably be good for a few drinks among their fellow-guards as they recounted the experience afterwards. Little were they aware that they were fulfilling prophecy (Isaiah 50.6) and that they would go down in history for it.
It is probably not accidental that the mockery of Jesus concerning His being unable to prophesy is now followed by an example of the fulfilment of one of His prophecies (26.34). Even as they mocked Him one of His prophecies was in process of fulfilment. As ever Jesus will not give ‘signs.’ He will not prophesy for the amusement of the guards. But He will use His powers to help His own.
69 Now Peter was sitting out in the courtyard, and a servant girl came to him. “You also were with Jesus of Galilee,” she said. 70 But he denied it before them all. “I don’t know what you’re talking about,” he said.
Peter, who is in the courtyard in the High Priest’s palace, is undergoing his own kind of trial. We should recognize that he must at the time have been under great, almost unbearable, tension, and he was so as the kind of man who did not find it easy to survive under this kind of pressure, for he was more a man who responded to impulse. Thus, he had put himself in a vulnerable position. Furthermore, the slow passage of time, and the constant uncertainty as the night dwindled away, with him sitting in the semi-darkness among those whom he in his own mind saw as potential enemies and betrayers, must have been adding its own pressure. So, when he was approached by a servant girl who identified him, his mind must have frozen, with the result that he automatically blurted out a denial. His courage had failed him. And yet we should call to mind that he still had the courage to remain where he was. When we remember what in his view his fate could well have been if he was exposed that was a courageous thing to do. And the lie was to some extent justifiable in the light of the circumstances, (in his view he was in danger of his life), although Matthew certainly calls it a denial.
He was in fact probably in no actual danger. There were no charges that could be laid against him unless Jesus was convicted of a criminal offence which included His disciples, and all knew that the One Whom all had really wanted to restrain was safely in custody and had yet to be officially tried. Nor have we any grounds for thinking that they were interested in arresting His disciples, who were probably just looked on as merely deluded. (It would be different once they became the main preachers). And none of the disciples had seemingly been involved in the incident in the Temple. So, no one was wanting to arrest the disciples. But that was certainly not how a Peter, shaken by his experiences of the night, saw it. He remembered what had happened in the Garden and he probably feared for his life.
71 Then he went out to the gateway, where another servant girl saw him and said to the people there, “This fellow was with Jesus of Nazareth. 72 He denied it again, with an oath: “I don’t know the man!”
Then a second maid servant identified him. But by this time, he had had time to think and there was less excuse, and when he denied it on oath it made the situation even worse.
73 After a little while, those standing there went up to Peter and said, “Surely you are one of them; your accent gives you away.” 74 Then he began to call down curses, and he swore to them, “I don’t know the man!” Immediately a rooster crowed.
Note how his denial is depicted as having grown deeper. It was even more so the third time when he was partly identified by his accent, and this time by men. Then he took a further step downwards, for then he vociferously and forcefully denied knowing Jesus with cursing and swearing. Fears for his own safety had thus caused him to deny his Master three times in ever growing intensity.
75 Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken: “Before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.” And he went outside and wept bitterly.
Then he heard a cock crow, and what Jesus had said flooded back to him, and racing from the courtyard he found a deserted place and broke down in tears. He could not believe what he had done. So, while Jesus was going on triumphantly on His way to the cross without flinching, Peter retired aware that he was a total failure, repenting in bitter tears. He had failed his test. The night belonged to only One person. It is, however, indicative of the mercy of God that shortly afterwards he would become God’s chief spokesman.
