Matthew 26 65

Matthew 26:65 kjv

Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

Matthew 26:65 nkjv

Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, "He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy!

Matthew 26:65 niv

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.

Matthew 26:65 esv

Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy.

Matthew 26:65 nlt

Then the high priest tore his clothing to show his horror and said, "Blasphemy! Why do we need other witnesses? You have all heard his blasphemy.

Matthew 26 verses

Matthew 26 65 Meaning

Matthew 26:65 details the immediate and dramatic reaction of Caiaphas, the High Priest, to Jesus's declaration of His divine identity and future glorious return. Caiaphas, interpreting Jesus's words as a claim to deity by a mere man, tore his clothes as a sign of horror and profound grief, declaring Jesus guilty of blasphemy. He then asked the assembly if they needed further witnesses, highlighting that Jesus's own words had provided the perceived evidence of this gravest of offenses. The verse captures the climactic moment when the Jewish leadership condemned Jesus based on His true identity, which they tragically misconstrued as an offense worthy of death.

Matthew 26 65 Context

Matthew 26:65 is situated during Jesus's trial before the Sanhedrin, the supreme Jewish judicial council, immediately following His arrest in Gethsemane. The Jewish leaders, specifically the High Priest Caiaphas, were desperately seeking grounds to condemn Jesus to death (Mt 26:59). After failing to find reliable false witnesses, Caiaphas directly questioned Jesus's identity, demanding to know if He was "the Christ, the Son of God" (Mt 26:63). Jesus's affirmative, albeit nuanced, response (Mt 26:64), particularly His reference to Himself as "the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven," directly evoked the imagery of the divine, glorified figure from Daniel 7. For Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, this claim, coming from a man they viewed as merely human, constituted the gravest offense under Jewish law: blasphemy against God. The immediate, theatrical reaction of Caiaphas (tearing his clothes) was meant to shock and rally the council, ensuring their unanimous agreement on a death sentence.

Matthew 26 65 Word analysis

• Then (Τότε – Tote): This Greek word indicates an immediate temporal sequence, signifying Caiaphas's instantaneous reaction to Jesus's answer in the previous verse. It emphasizes the direct and rapid shift in the trial's proceedings.
• the high priest (ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς – ho archiereus): Refers to Caiaphas. As the leading religious authority, his judgment carried immense weight. His actions were meant to establish the standard for the entire council.
• tore (διεσπάραξεν – diesparaxen): This verb means to tear or rend forcefully. It conveys a strong, almost violent action.
• his clothes (τοὺς ἱματίας αὐτοῦ – tous himatias autou): The outer garments worn. The act of tearing clothes was a highly symbolic gesture in ancient Judaism. It signified extreme grief, mourning, indignation, or, as here, horror and outrage in response to what was perceived as blasphemy or dire news. This act, done publicly by the high priest, was meant to display the severity of Jesus's alleged transgression.
• saying (λέγων – legōn): Introduces Caiaphas's verbal pronouncement.
• He has blasphemed (Ἐβλασφήμησεν – Ebasthēmēsen)!: Blasphemy (βλασφημία – blasphēmia) in Jewish law, especially against God's name or attributes (Lev 24:16), was a capital offense. To the Sanhedrin, Jesus, a human, claiming divine equality or identity (as interpreted from His response as "Son of God" and "Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven"), was the ultimate offense against the one true God. They understood His claim literally and profoundly rejected it as illegitimate and sacrilegious.
• What further need (Τί ἔτι χρείαν – Ti eti chreian): A rhetorical question, conveying that no more evidence or testimony is required. It suggests the High Priest believes the case is unequivocally closed and proven directly from Jesus's own mouth.
• have we (ἔχομεν – echomen): Referring to the Sanhedrin, implying their collective agreement on the sufficiency of Jesus's "confession."
• of witnesses (μαρτύρων – martyrōn): Earlier attempts to find false witnesses failed or produced conflicting testimonies (Mt 26:60-61). Caiaphas implies that Jesus's own words now serve as the perfect, irrefutable witness against Him.
• Look (Ἰδε – Ide): An interjection demanding immediate attention, drawing the assembly's focus to what was just heard.
• now (νῦν – nyn): Emphasizes the immediate present.
• you have heard (ἠκούσατε – ēkousate): Direct appeal to their sense of hearing. They are all implicated in having directly witnessed the alleged blasphemy, removing any doubt.
• His blasphemy (τὴν βλασφημίαν – tēn blasphēmian): Reiteration of the specific crime, cementing it as the formal charge. This statement ensured that every member of the council heard and processed Jesus's words as undeniable blasphemy, forming a unified basis for their condemnation.

Matthew 26 65 Bonus section

The act of tearing clothes was legally prescribed for judges or the high priest when blasphemy was heard. While not tearing their clothes when innocent parties were blasphemed against, it was obligatory for God being blasphemed. However, Mosaic Law forbade the High Priest from tearing his clothes (Lev 10:6, Lev 21:10), especially at mourning. Some interpretations suggest an exception was made for acts of extreme zeal against perceived blasphemy. Regardless, Caiaphas's action served a crucial function: by tearing his garments, he publicly signified that Jesus's statement constituted the capital crime of blasphemy against God. This effectively closed the trial concerning the collection of evidence, setting the stage for the sentencing. His immediate declaration that no further witnesses were needed revealed the strategic cunning in cornering Jesus into an "incriminating" statement. The irony is that the true High Priest (Jesus) was being condemned for alleged blasphemy by a high priest acting against God's ultimate revelation.

Matthew 26 65 Commentary

Matthew 26:65 captures the pivotal moment in Jesus's trial where His true identity, veiled and revealed throughout His ministry, became the direct cause of His condemnation by the Jewish authorities. Caiaphas's dramatic tearing of his clothes was not merely an outburst but a highly symbolic legal declaration of horror and an official pronouncement that blasphemy had occurred. This act served multiple purposes: it visually emphasized the severity of Jesus's supposed crime, influenced the assembly by demonstrating Caiaphas's outrage, and signaled the completion of the evidentiary phase.

The accusation of blasphemy against Jesus underscores the profound misunderstanding and spiritual blindness of the religious leaders. While they meticulously applied the letter of the law against one who they perceived as merely human, claiming divinity, they failed to recognize the actual fulfillment of divine prophecy standing before them. Jesus's silence throughout much of the false testimony and His direct, yet concise, answer here demonstrates His willingness to confirm His divine status, knowing it would lead to His condemnation. His affirmation of being "the Christ, the Son of God" and the "Son of Man" coming with the clouds was a claim to shared authority with God, an inherent part of His identity as the Messiah, which was tragically misinterpreted as an offense against God Himself. This verse highlights the profound irony that the very truth of who Jesus is—the divine Son—became the specific grounds for His legal demise, fulfilling prophecy and God's sovereign plan for redemption.