John Calvin Commentary Matthew 26:57

"And they that had taken Jesus led him away to [the house of] Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together." — Matthew 26:57 (ASV)

Luke follows a different order from Matthew and Mark in the narrative; but when we come to the proper place, we will attempt to reconcile the points in which they differ. In the meantime, it will be proper to briefly consider those things that claim our attention in the words of Matthew and Mark.

First, to remove the offense of the cross, we should consider the advantage we have derived from Christ’s emptying of Himself (Philippians 2:7); for in this way, the inestimable goodness of God and the efficacy of His grace will be found to remove by its brightness everything in it that was disagreeable or shameful.

According to the flesh, it was disgraceful for the Son of God to be seized, bound, and made a prisoner. But when we reflect that by His chains we are freed from the tyranny of the devil, and from the condemnation in which we were involved before God, not only is the stumbling block, on which our faith might have struck, removed, but in its place comes an admiration for the boundless grace of God, who set so high a value on our deliverance as to give up His only-begotten Son to be bound by wicked men.

This will also be a pledge of the astonishing love of Christ towards us, that He did not spare Himself but willingly submitted to wear fetters on His flesh, so that our souls might be freed from fetters of a far worse kind.

But they who had seized Jesus led Him to Caiaphas. Though the Jews had been deprived of what is called the higher jurisdiction, some vestiges of that judicial authority which the Law confers on the high priest (Deuteronomy 1:8) still lingered among them; so that, while they had lost the absolute authority,²²³ they retained the power of administering moderate correction.

This is the reason why Christ is brought before the high priest to be interrogated; not so that a final sentence might be pronounced on Him by that tribunal, but so that the priests might afterwards present Him before the governor, under the aggravating influence of their decision.²²⁴

Caiaphas the high priest was also named Joseph, and this man—as we are told by the historian Josephus—was appointed to be high priest by Valerius Gratus, governor of Judea, when Simon, the son of Camithus, was deposed from that office.²²⁵ The Evangelists give his surname only,²²⁶ perhaps because he was more generally named, and better known, by it.

Matthew says that the priests assembled in the house of Caiaphas; and that they were already assembled at midnight, before Christ was brought. However, it was also true that the place of meeting had been appointed so that, as soon as the information reached them, they could meet hastily early in the morning, although we have recently seen that some who belonged to the order of the priesthood went out by night with the soldiers to seize Christ.

But we have frequently seen in other passages that the Evangelists were not very exact in adhering to the order of time. In this passage, certainly, they had no other objective than to show that the Son of God was oppressed by a wicked conspiracy of the whole council.

And here a frightful and hideous spectacle is placed before our eyes: for at that time, nowhere else than in Jerusalem was there a temple of God, lawful worship, or the face of a Church. The high priest was a figure of the only Mediator between God and men; those who sat with Him in the council represented the whole Church of God; and yet all of them united in conspiring to extinguish the only hope of salvation.

But as it had been declared by David’s prophecy that the stone which the builders rejected would nevertheless become the head-stone of the corner, (Psalms 118:22); and as Isaiah had foretold that the God of armies would be to the whole people of Israel a stone of stumbling, on which they would dash themselves, (Isaiah 8:14), the Lord wisely made provision that such wickedness of men should not perplex believing souls.

²²³ “La puissance de condamner à mort;” — “the power of condemning to death.”;” — “the power of condemning to death.”

²²⁴ “Estant desja chargé par leur jugement, et que cela soit un prejudice contre luy;” — “being already accused by their decision, and that this may excite a prejudice against him.”;” — “being already accused by their decision, and that this may excite a prejudice against him.”

²²⁵ Ant. 18:2. 2. — Repeated allusions have been made, in earlier portions of the Commentary, to this remarkable passage in the writings of the great Jewish historian. The reader will find it quoted at length. — Harmony vol. 1, p. 177, n. 1 — — Ed.

²²⁶ That is, instead of calling him Joseph Caiaphas, they call him simply , they call him simply Caiaphas.