TRV
Translation
King James Version
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.
Complete Jewish Bible
At this, the cohen hagadol tore his robes. "Blasphemy!" he said. "Why do we still need witnesses? You heard him blaspheme!
Berean Standard Bible
At this, the high priest tore his clothes and declared, “He has blasphemed! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.
American Standard Version
Then the high priest rent his garments, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy: what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard the blasphemy:
World English Bible Messianic
Then the high priest tore his clothing, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Behold, now you have heard his blasphemy.
Geneva Bible (1599)
Then the hie Priest rent his clothes, saying, Hee hath blasphemed, what haue wee any more neede of witnesses? beholde: nowe yee haue heard his blasphemie.
Young's Literal Translation
Then the chief priest rent his garments, saying, --`He hath spoken evil; what need have we yet of witnesses? lo, now ye heard his evil speaking;
See on the biblical-era map
In the KJVVerse 24,120 of 31,102
Study This Verse
Matthew Henry (1662–1714) — Commentary on the Whole Bible. This section covers . Public domain.
Copy as
John ChrysostomAD 407
Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 84
Wherefore also they were all assembled together, and it was a council of pestilent men, and they ask some questions, wishing to invest this plot with the appearance of a court of justice. For "neither did their testimonies agree together;" so feigned was the court of justice, and all things full of confusion and disorder.
"But false witnesses came, and said, This fellow said, I will destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it." And indeed He had said, "In three days," but He said not, "I will destroy," but, "Destroy," and not about that temple but about His own body.
What then doth the high priest? Willing to press Him to a defense, that by that he might take Him, he saith, "Hearest Thou not what these witness against Thee? But He held His peace."
For the attempts at defense were unprofitable, no man hearing. For this was a show only of a court of justice, but in truth an onset of robbers, assailing Him without cause, as in a cave, or on a road.
Wherefore "He held His peace," but the other continued, saying, "I adjure Thee by the living God, that Thou tell us whether Thou be the Christ, the Son of the living God. But He said, Thou hast said. Nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy." And this he did to add force to the accusation, and to aggravate what He said, by the act. For since what had been said moved the hearers to fear, what they did about Stephen, stopping their ears, this high priest doth here also.
And yet what kind of blasphemy was this? For indeed before He had said, when they were gathered together, "The Lord said unto my Lord. Sit Thou on my right hand," and interpreted the saying, and they dared say nothing, but held their peace, and from that time forth gainsaid Him no more. Why then did they now call the saying a blasphemy? And wherefore also did Christ thus answer them? To take away all their excuse, because unto the last day He taught that He was Christ, and that He sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come again to judge the world, which was the language of one manifesting His full accordance with the Father.
Having rent therefore his clothes, he saith, "What think ye?" He gives not the sentence from himself, but invites it from them, as in a case of confessed sins, and manifest blasphemy. For, inasmuch as they knew that if the thing came to be inquired into, and carefully decided, it would free Him from all blame, they condemn Him amongst themselves, and anticipate the hearers by saying, "Ye have heard the blasphemy;" all but necessitating and forcing them to deliver the sentence. What then say they? "He is guilty of death;" that having taken Him as condemned, they should thus work upon Pilate thereupon to pass sentence. In which matter those others also being accomplices say, "He is guilty of death;" themselves accusing, themselves judging, themselves passing sentence, themselves being everything then.
But wherefore did they not bring forward the Sabbaths? Because He had often stopped their mouths; and moreover they wanted to take Him, and condemn Him by the things then said. And the high priest anticipated them, and gave the sentence as from them, and drew them all on by rending his vestments, and having led Him away as now condemned unto Pilate, thus did all.
John Chrysostom (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)AD 407
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
When the Chief Priests were thus assembled, this conventicle of ruffians sought to give their conspiracy the character of a legal trial. But it was entirely a scene of confusion and uproar, as what follows shows, Though many false witnesses came, yet found they none.
Why did they not bring forward now His breaking the Sabbath? Because He had so often confuted them on this point.
He said this with a design to draw from Him some indefensible answer which might be made a snare for Him. But Jesus held his peace, for defence had availed nothing when none would listen to it. For here was only a mockery of justice, it was in truth nothing more than the anarchy of a den of robbers.
This He did to give weight to the accusation, and to confirm by deeds what He taught in words.
Then, after rending his garment, he did not give sentence of himself, but asked of others, saying, What think ye? As was always done in undeniable cases of sin, and manifest blasphemy, and as by force driving them to a certain opinion, he anticipates the answer, What need we any further witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What was this blasphemy? For before He had interpreted to them as they were gathered together that text, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, (Matt. 22:44.) and they had held their peace, and had not contradicted Him. How then do they call what He now says blasphemy? They answered and said, He is guilty of death, the same persons at once accusers, examiners, and sentencers.
(Hom. lxxxv.) As hunters who have started their game, so they exhibit a wild and drunken exultation.
Observe how circumstantially the Evangelist recounts all those particulars even which seem most disgraceful, hiding or extenuating nothing, but thinking it the highest glory that the Lord of the earth should endure such things for us. This let us read continually, let us imprint in our minds, and in these things let us boast.
JeromeAD 420
Commentary on Matthew
(Vers. 65, 66.) Then the high priest tore his garments, saying: He has blasphemed. What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think? And they answered, saying: He is deserving of death. The same fury that had driven him from the priestly throne now provokes him to tear his garments. He tore his garments to show that the Jews had lost the glory of priesthood and that the high priests had an empty seat. But it is also a Jewish custom, when they hear something blasphemous and seemingly against God, to tear their garments. We read that Paul and Barnabas did the same when they were esteemed as gods in Lycaonia. However, Herod, because he did not give honor to God but acquiesced to the excessive favor of the people, was immediately struck by an angel.
JeromeAD 420
COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.26.63
Blind anger and impatience, bereft of grounds for a false accusation, dislodged the high priest from his seat, and he displayed the rabid state of his mind with a vehement bodily gesture. The more Jesus kept silent over the false witnesses and dishonorable priests indignant at his response, all the more did the high priest, overcome with rage, provoke him to give an incriminating reply. Still Jesus kept quiet, because as God he knew that whatever he replied would be twisted into grounds for accusation.
JeromeAD 420
COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.26.65
The one whom fury had lifted out of his priestly throne was impelled by that same fury to tear his garments. When Caiaphas tore his robes, he demonstrated that the Jews had lost the glory of the priesthood and that the seat of the high priest was now vacant. But it is the custom of the Jews to tear their clothes when they hear any blasphemy against God. We read that Paul and Barnabas did this when they were honored and worshiped as gods in Lycaonia.
Jerome (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)AD 420
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
He went in, either out of the attachment of a disciple, or natural curiosity, seeking to know what sentence the High Priest would pass, whether death, or scourging.
At last came two false witnesses. How are they false witnesses, when they repeat only what we read that the Lord spoke? A false witness is one who takes what is said in a different sense from that in which it was said. Now this the Lord had spoken of the temple of His Body, and they cavil at His expressions, and by a slight change and addition produce a plausible charge. The Lord's words were, Destroy this temple; (John 2:19.) this they make into, I can destroy the Temple of God. He said, Destroy, not 'I will destroy,' because it is unlawful to lay hands on ourselves. Also they phrased it, And build it again, making it apply to the temple of the Jews; but the Lord had said, And I will raise it up again, thus clearly pointing out a living and breathing temple. For to build again, and to raise again, are two different things.
Headlong and uncontrolled rage, unable to find even a false accusation, moves the High Priest from his throne, the motion of his body showing the emotion of his mind. And the High Priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing to the things which these witness against Thee?
For as God, He knew that whatever He said would be twisted into an accusation against Him. But at this His silence before false witnesses and ungodly Priests, the High Priest was exasperated, and summons Him to answer, that from anything He says he may raise a charge against Him.
The same fury which drew the High Priest from his seat, impels him now to rend his clothes; for so it was customary with the Jews to do whenever they heard any blasphemy, or any thing against God.
And by this rending his garments, he shows that the Jews have lost the priestly glory, and that their High Priest's throne was vacant. For by rending his garment he rent the veil of the Law which covered him.
They spit in his face, and buffeted him, to fulfil the prophecy of Esaias, I gave my cheek to the smiters, and turned not away my face from shame and spitting. (Isa. 50:6.)
But it would have been foolish to have answered them that smote Him, and to have declared the smiter, seeing that in their madness they seem to have struck Him openly.
Leo the GreatAD 461
SERMON 44.2.32
To emphasize his alarm over the words he had just heard, Caiaphas “tore his garments.” Unaware of his own madness, he deprived himself of priestly honor. Caiaphas, where does reason reside in your mind?… You are oblivious to the command you read concerning high priests: “Do not let the hair of your heads hang loose, and do not rend your clothes.” But you, who have now forfeited your dignity, are the very object of disgrace. And in token of the end of the old regulation, the same rending that rips your priestly attire will soon also tear apart the veil of the temple.
Glossa Ordinaria (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)AD 1274
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
(ord) Prophesy unto us is said in ridicule of His claim to be held as a Prophet by the people.
Source: Quotations drawn from early Church Fathers and historical Christian theologians (AD 100–1500). Some quotes address the surrounding passage context rather than this verse alone.
Copy as
Continue studying Matthew 26:65 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
CNTR CollationThe earliest Greek manuscripts of this verse, collated letter by letter.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
SUMMARY
Matthew 26:65 records the dramatic and pivotal moment when Caiaphas, the high priest, publicly condemns Jesus for blasphemy. Reacting with a symbolic tearing of his garments, Caiaphas declares that Jesus's claim to divine sonship and future glory constitutes the ultimate offense against God, thereby signaling that no further witnesses or deliberation are needed for a capital conviction in his judgment. This act underscores the religious establishment's profound rejection of Jesus's messianic and divine claims.
CONTEXT
EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS
Key Word Analysis
Verse Breakdown
Literary Devices
Matthew 26:65 is rich with Symbolism, primarily seen in Caiaphas's act of tearing his clothes. This ancient Jewish custom, signifying extreme grief, horror, or indignation, is employed here to underscore the high priest's perceived outrage at Jesus's declaration. It is a dramatic visual representation of the gravity of the alleged offense and a public pronouncement of condemnation. The passage also employs Dramatic Irony, as Caiaphas condemns Jesus for "blasphemy" for claiming to be the Son of God, yet Jesus is, in fact, the divine Son of God. The high priest, in his zealous attempt to uphold God's law, unwittingly condemns the very embodiment of God's truth. This irony highlights the spiritual blindness of the religious authorities. Furthermore, there is an element of Foreshadowing in Caiaphas's swift and decisive judgment. His declaration that no further witnesses are needed foreshadows the predetermined nature of Jesus's condemnation and the ultimate rejection He would face from the religious and political powers, leading directly to His crucifixion.
THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS
Matthew 26:65 profoundly illustrates the clash between divine truth and human perception, particularly when religious authority is confronted by the living God. Caiaphas's reaction, while rooted in a zealous (though misguided) interpretation of the law against blasphemy, reveals a spiritual inability to discern the true identity of Jesus. The high priest, in his dramatic act of rending his garments, unknowingly participates in the unfolding of God's sovereign plan, where the Messiah would be rejected by His own people and condemned by their leaders, ultimately to bear the sins of the world. This moment underscores the tragic irony of humanity condemning its Creator, yet it also highlights the steadfastness of Jesus, who, despite knowing the fatal consequences, boldly affirmed His divine nature. It sets the stage for the ultimate sacrifice, demonstrating that even human injustice can serve God's redemptive purposes.
REFLECTION AND APPLICATION
Matthew 26:65 challenges us to examine our own hearts and assumptions when confronted with truth, especially when that truth is uncomfortable or challenges our preconceived notions and established systems. Caiaphas, representing the pinnacle of religious authority, was so entrenched in his understanding of God that he failed to recognize God Himself standing before him. His dramatic reaction serves as a sobering reminder that even sincere religious zeal can lead to profound error and injustice if it is not aligned with the Spirit of God and a humble openness to His revelation. For believers, this passage calls for discernment, courage, and faithfulness. It encourages us to stand firm in declaring Jesus's true identity, even when it is unpopular or leads to opposition, just as Jesus Himself did. It also reminds us that true authority comes from God, not from human titles or institutions, and that God's ultimate plan will prevail despite human resistance or condemnation.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Why did the high priest tear his clothes?
Answer: The high priest, Caiaphas, tore his clothes as a dramatic and customary sign of extreme grief, horror, or indignation in ancient Jewish culture. In this specific context, it was a public declaration of his outrage and condemnation of what he perceived as Jesus's ultimate blasphemy—claiming divine identity. According to Jewish law, blasphemy was a capital offense, and the tearing of garments signaled that the offense was so egregious that no further witnesses or deliberation were needed for a verdict. It was a powerful symbolic act meant to convey the gravity of the perceived sin and to sway the Sanhedrin to a unanimous conviction.
Was Jesus truly blaspheming according to Jewish law?
Answer: From the perspective of the Sanhedrin and Caiaphas, Jesus's claims to be "the Christ, the Son of God" and the "Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven" (Matthew 26:64) were indeed considered blasphemy. Under Mosaic Law, claiming divine prerogatives or equality with God by a mere human was a capital offense (Leviticus 24:16). However, from a theological perspective, Jesus was not blaspheming because He is the Son of God and possessed the divine authority He claimed. His statement was a declaration of truth, not a false claim. The conflict arose from the Sanhedrin's inability or unwillingness to recognize Jesus's true divine identity.
What was the significance of the high priest's statement, "what further need have we of witnesses?"
Answer: Caiaphas's rhetorical question indicated that, in his view, Jesus's own words constituted sufficient and undeniable evidence for a conviction of blasphemy. Typically, Jewish law required two or three witnesses for a capital offense (Deuteronomy 19:15). By declaring that no further witnesses were needed, Caiaphas was asserting that Jesus's direct claim to divine sonship was self-incriminating and openly heard by all present, making additional testimony redundant. This effectively streamlined the trial, pushing for an immediate and unanimous condemnation based on Jesus's own confession.
CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT
Matthew 26:65, though a scene of profound human injustice and spiritual blindness, stands as a crucial moment in the unfolding of God's redemptive plan, ultimately fulfilled in Christ. Caiaphas's condemnation of Jesus for blasphemy, based on Jesus's declaration of His divine identity and future glory, paradoxically affirms the very truth for which Jesus was condemned. The high priest's dramatic act of tearing his clothes, meant to signify the ultimate offense against God, actually foreshadows the tearing of the temple veil at Jesus's death (Matthew 27:51), symbolizing the direct access to God now made possible through Christ's sacrifice, rendering the old priestly system and its symbolic garments obsolete. Jesus, the true High Priest, was unjustly condemned by the earthly high priest, yet His "blasphemy" was, in reality, the declaration of His true nature as the Son of God, the very one through whom salvation would come. His steadfastness in the face of certain death, rooted in His divine identity, paved the way for His resurrection and ascension, where He truly sits "on the right hand of power" (Hebrews 1:3), fulfilling the very prophecy for which He was accused. Thus, the human condemnation of Jesus as a blasphemer becomes the divine confirmation of His unique, saving identity as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.