at
night; their purpose was to convict the Prisoner in time to have Him
brought before the Roman authorities as early as possible in the
morning--as a criminal duly tried and adjudged worthy of death. The lack
of two hostile witnesses who would tell the same falsehoods was a
serious hindrance. But, "at the last came two false witnesses, and said,
This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build
it in three days." Others, however, testified: "We heard him say, I will
destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I
will build another made without hands."[1257] And so, as Mark observes,
even in this particular their "witness" or testimony did not agree.
Surely in a case at bar, such discrepancy as appears between "I am able
to" and "I will," as alleged utterances of the accused, is of vital
importance. Yet this semblance of formal accusation was the sole basis
of a charge against Christ up to this stage of the trial. It will be
remembered that in connection with the first clearing of the temple,
near the commencement of Christ's ministry, He had answered the
clamorous demand of the Jews for a sign of His authority by saying
"Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." He spoke
not at all of Himself as the one who would destroy; the Jews were to be
the destroyers, He the restorer. But the inspired writer is particular
to explain that Jesus "spake of the temple of his body," and not at all
of those buildings reared by man.[1258]

One may reasonably inquire as to what serious import could be attached
to even such a declaration as the perjured witnesses claimed to have
heard from the lips of Christ. The veneration with which the Jews
professed to regard the Holy House, however wantonly they profaned its
precincts, offers a partial but insufficient answer. The plan of the
conspiring rulers appears to have been that of convicting Christ on a
charge of sedition, making Him out to be a dangerous disturber of the
nation's peace, an assailant of established institutions, and
consequently an inciter of opposition against the vassal autonomy of the
Jewish nation, and the supreme dominion of Rome.[1259]

The vaguely defined shadow of legal accusation produced by the dark and
inconsistent testimony of the false witnesses, was enough to embolden
the iniquitous court. Caiaphas, rising from his seat to give dramatic
emphasis to his question, demanded of Jesus: "Answerest thou not