Matthew 26:57 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?”
Look at verse 64. Now, I've always heard the teachers and the preachers put the emphasis on the first part "you have said so". One preacher actually said, "He didn't confess to anything". But consider for a moment, the preachers and the teachers weren't there.... and maybe it's as insignificant to say, "you have said so" as it was to say "truly" or "verily". He did confess.... He confessed to being on a Mission. He confessed that He was working to get back to Heaven so He could sit on the right hand of His Father again. He did confess to planning to return.
I think it's interesting they didn't bring up the fact His disciples pulled the wheat off the plants on the Sabath so they could eat. Why didn't they drag the blind man back to testify that Jesus healed his eyes on the Sabath. Why didn't they accuse Jesus of making a man climb a tree? Why didn't they get Jesus for holding a banquet for thousands of men, not once, but twice, without a permit. How about causing destruction of property when those men cut a hole in the roof to lower a paraplegic down to Jesus, wasn't that a crime? Or why not arrest Him because He didn't follow maritime laws when He walked on water or when He yelled at the waves and wind and made them quiet down? OOOOHHHH how about charging Him with waking the dead!
They charged Him with threatening the Temple. Why not charge Him for causing a public disturbance? After all, He did throw that fit in the Vender's Courtyard. Vender's Courtyard.... wait.... I apologize, there was no Vender's Courtyard in the Temple. It wasn't on the designs handed down to Solomon. God didn't plan for the Vender's Courtyard. Wasn't that the meat of the rampage? Why not arrest Him on those charges?
They wanted to put Him to death because He said it would take three days to rebuild.
Talk about trumped up charges!