62The high priest stood up, and said to him, “Have you no answer? What is this that these testify against you?”63But Jesus held his peace. The high priest answered him, “I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God.”
64Jesus said to him, “You have said it. Nevertheless, I tell you, after this you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of the sky.”
65Then 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.66What do you think?” They answered, “He is worthy of death!”
62 The high priest stood up, and said to him, “Have you no answer? What is this that these testify against you?”
63 But Jesus held his peace. The high priest answered him, “I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God.”
64 Jesus said to him, “You have said it. Nevertheless, I tell you, after this you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of the sky.”
65 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.
66 What do you think?” They answered, “He is worthy of death!”
TYNDALETyndale New Testament (1534)
62 And the chefe preste arose and sayde to him: answerest thou nothinge? How is it that these beare witnes ageynst the?
63 But Iesus helde his peace: And the chefe Preeste answered and sayd to him: I charge the in the name of the lyvinge God that thou tell vs whether thou be Christ the sonne of God.
64 Iesus sayd to him: thou haste sayd. Neverthelesse I saye vnto you hereafter shall ye se the sonne of man syttinge on the right honde of power and come in the clowddes of the skye.
65 Then the hye preste rent his clothes sayinge: He hath blasphemed: what nede we of eny moo witnesses? Behold now ye have hearde his blasphemy:
66 what thinke ye? They answered and sayd: he his worthy to dye.
Show all 3 translations
GNVGeneva Bible (1599)
62 Then the chiefe Priest arose, and sayde to him, Answerest thou nothing? What is the matter that these men witnesse against thee?
63 But Iesus helde his peace. Then the chiefe Priest answered, and saide to him, I charge thee sweare vnto vs by the liuing God, to tell vs, If thou be that Christ the Sonne of God, or no.
64 Iesus saide to him, Thou hast saide it: neuerthelesse I say vnto you, hereafter shall ye see the Sonne of man, sitting at the right hande of the power of God, and come in the cloudes of the heauen.
65 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.
66 What thinke yee? They answered, and said, He is guiltie of death.
Daniel 7:13(v64)“I saw in the night visions, and behold, there came with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of…
Mark 14:62(v64)Jesus said, “I am. You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of the sky.”
Psalms 110:1(v64)Yahweh says to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool for your feet.”
Hebrews 1:3(v64)His Son is the radiance of his glory, the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, who, when he had…
Revelation 1:7(v64)Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, including those who pierced him. All the tribes of the earth will mourn…
Show all 76 cross-references
Leviticus 5:1(v63)“ ‘If anyone sins, in that he hears a public adjuration to testify, he being a witness, whether he has seen or known, if he doesn’t report…
Luke 21:27(v64)Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
Matthew 24:30(v64)and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky. Then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man…
John 19:7(vv63, 66)The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.”
Isaiah 53:7(v63)He was oppressed, yet when he was afflicted he didn’t open his mouth. As a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before…
Matthew 16:27(v64)For the Son of Man will come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will render to everyone according to his deeds.
Hebrews 12:2(v64)looking to Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising its shame, and…
Matthew 16:16(v63)Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Matthew 25:31(v64)“But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory.
Matthew 26:25(v64)Judas, who betrayed him, answered, “It isn’t me, is it, Rabbi?” He said to him, “You said it.”
Matthew 27:12(v63)When he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.
1 Thessalonians 4:16(v64)For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with God’s trumpet. The dead in Christ will…
John 1:50-51(v64)Jesus answered him, “Because I told you, ‘I saw you underneath the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these!” He…
John 18:19-24(v62)The high priest therefore asked Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching. Jesus answered him, “I spoke openly to the world. I…
John 19:9-11(v62)He entered into the Praetorium again, and said to Jesus, “Where are you from?” But Jesus gave him no answer. Pilate therefore said to him,…
Acts 1:11(v64)who also said, “You men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who was received up from you into the sky, will come…
Acts 7:55-56(v64)But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up steadfastly into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of…
Revelation 20:11(v64)I saw a great white throne, and him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. There was found no place for them.
John 10:36(vv63, 65)do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God?’
John 18:37(vv63–64)Pilate therefore said to him, “Are you a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this reason I have been born, and for…
Numbers 14:6(v65)Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, who were of those who spied out the land, tore their clothes.
1 Samuel 14:26(v63)When the people had come to the forest, behold, honey was dripping, but no one put his hand to his mouth; for the people feared the oath.
Jeremiah 36:24(v65)The king and his servants who heard all these words were not afraid, and didn’t tear their garments.
Matthew 9:3(v65)Behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man blasphemes.”
Matthew 27:11(v64)Now Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus said to him, “So you say.”
Matthew 27:12-14(v62)When he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then Pilate said to him, “Don’t you hear how many things they…
Mark 14:60(v62)The high priest stood up in the middle, and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer? What is it which these testify against you?”
Mark 14:63-64(v65)The high priest tore his clothes, and said, “What further need have we of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?” They…
Luke 22:70(v64)They all said, “Are you then the Son of God?” He said to them, “You say it, because I am.”
Luke 23:9(v62)He questioned him with many words, but he gave no answers.
John 6:69(v63)We have come to believe and know that you are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
John 10:33(v65)The Jews answered him, “We don’t stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy: because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
Leviticus 21:20(v65)or hunchbacked, or a dwarf, or one who has a defect in his eye, or an itching disease, or scabs, or who has damaged testicles.
1 Samuel 14:28(v63)Then one of the people answered, and said, “Your father directly commanded the people with an oath, saying, ‘Cursed is the man who eats…
1 Kings 21:10-13(v65)Set two men, wicked fellows, before him, and let them testify against him, saying, ‘You cursed God and the king!’ Then carry him out, and…
1 Kings 22:16(v63)The king said to him, “How many times do I have to adjure you that you speak to me nothing but the truth in Yahweh’s name?”
2 Kings 18:37–19:3(v65)Then Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, came with Shebna the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder, to…
2 Chronicles 18:15(v63)The king said to him, “How many times shall I adjure you that you speak to me nothing but the truth in Yahweh’s name?”
Psalms 2:6-7(v63)“Yet I have set my King on my holy hill of Zion.” I will tell of the decree: Yahweh said to me, “You are my son. Today I have become your…
Psalms 38:12-14(v63)They also who seek after my life lay snares. Those who seek my hurt speak mischievous things, and meditate deceits all day long. But I, as…
Proverbs 29:24(v63)Whoever is an accomplice of a thief is an enemy of his own soul. He takes an oath, but dares not testify.
Isaiah 9:6-7(v63)For a child is born to us. A son is given to us; and the government will be on his shoulders. His name will be called Wonderful Counselor,…
Daniel 3:16(v63)Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered the king, “Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter.
Matthew 26:63-66(v63)But Jesus held his peace. The high priest answered him, “I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us whether you are the Christ, the…
Matthew 27:14(v63)He gave him no answer, not even one word, so that the governor marveled greatly.
Matthew 27:40(v63)and saying, “You who destroy the temple, and build it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross!”
Matthew 27:43(v63)He trusts in God. Let God deliver him now, if he wants him; for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’ ”
Matthew 27:54(v63)Now the centurion, and those who were with him watching Jesus, when they saw the earthquake, and the things that were done, feared…
Mark 14:61(v63)But he stayed quiet, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”
Luke 5:21(v65)The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, “Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?”
Luke 22:66-71(v63)As soon as it was day, the assembly of the elders of the people were gathered together, both chief priests and scribes, and they led him…
John 1:34(v63)I have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God.”
John 1:49(v63)Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are King of Israel!”
John 3:16-18(v63)For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For…
John 5:18-25(v63)For this cause therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also called God his own…
John 8:25(v63)They said therefore to him, “Who are you?” Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been saying to you from the beginning.
John 10:24(v63)The Jews therefore came around him and said to him, “How long will you hold us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.”
John 19:9(v63)He entered into the Praetorium again, and said to Jesus, “Where are you from?” But Jesus gave him no answer.
John 20:31(v63)but these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.
Acts 7:52(v66)Which of the prophets didn’t your fathers persecute? They killed those who foretold the coming of the Righteous One, of whom you have now…
Acts 8:32-35(v63)Now the passage of the Scripture which he was reading was this, “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter. As a lamb before his shearer is…
Acts 14:14(v65)But when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of it, they tore their clothes, and sprang into the multitude, crying out,
Romans 14:10(v64)But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of…
1 John 5:11-13(v63)The testimony is this, that God gave to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has the life. He who doesn’t have…
Leviticus 24:11-16(v66)The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name, and cursed; and they brought him to Moses. His mother’s name was Shelomith, the…
Numbers 5:19-21(v63)The priest shall cause her to take an oath and shall tell the woman, “If no man has lain with you, and if you haven’t gone aside to…
1 Samuel 14:24(v63)The men of Israel were distressed that day; for Saul had adjured the people, saying, “Cursed is the man who eats any food until it is…
Acts 13:27-28(v66)For those who dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they didn’t know him, nor the voices of the prophets which are read every…
James 5:6(v66)You have condemned and you have murdered the righteous one. He doesn’t resist you.
1 Peter 2:23(v63)When he was cursed, he didn’t curse back. When he suffered, he didn’t threaten, but committed himself to him who judges righteously.
76 distinct cross-references across this passage (79 total citations).
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this passage (20 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Geneva Bible translators1599 · Public DomainOn vv62, 64, 65How cometh it to pass that these men witness…
How cometh it to pass that these men witness against thee?
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp1656 · Public DomainOn vv62–6662 And the high priest arose, and said unto…
62 And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
Ver. 62. Answerest thou nothing?] No, nothing, unless it had been to better purpose; for σιγαν χρη, η κρεισσονα σιγης λεγειν, saith the wise heathen. Either hold thy peace or say something that is worth hearing. And, πασιν απολογεισθαι θεραπευτικον. (Plato.) To answer every slight accusation is servile. Some are so thin they may be seen through, others so gross that they need no refutation. {a} These hypocrites were not worthy of an answer from our Saviour, who knew also that now was the time not of apologizing, but of suffering; therefore "as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth," Isa 53:7. Besides, he saw that his enemies were resolved to have his blood, and therefore held it more glorious, τη σιωπη το ονειδος πνιγειν, as Basil hath it, to choke their spite with silence, et iniuriam tacendo fugere, potius quam respondendo superare, as another saith, to set them down by saying nothing.
Read full note →
{a} Tenue mendacium pellucet. Sen.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole1685 · Public DomainOn vv62, 64, 65Mark speaks to the same purpose, Mar 14:60,61. The…
Mark speaks to the same purpose, Mar 14:60,61. The high priest expected a long defence, and so to have had matter of accusation against him out of his own mouth. Christ disappointeth him, saying nothing at all, either out of modesty, or not thinking what they said of any moment, or worthy of any reply, or perhaps seeing that they could not agree in their tale, so as what they said was of no force against him. The high priest therefore comes at last to examine him, ex officio. Mark saith, Mar 14:61, Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed. Luke, to give us the story of Peter, from his first coming into the high priest’s hall to his going out, entire, interrupts himself a little in his relation of their dealings with Christ, and then relates some indignities offered him which the other evangelists do not mention; which seem to have been offered him where the soldiers and the rabble had been before he appeared in the council: Luk 22:63-67, And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him. And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? And many other things blasphemously spake they against him. And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people, and the chief priests, and the scribes came together, and led him into their council. Then he mentions nothing of what the witnesses said, possibly because it was nothing of moment, nothing upon which they proceeded against our Saviour for his life, but goes on, saying, Art thou the Christ? tell us. Matthew saith, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the living God? Mark, the Son of the Blessed. It is plain both from this text, and from Joh 1:49, that the Jews did expect a Messiah who should be the Son of the ever living and blessed God; but whether they understood that he should be the Son of God by nature and eternal generation, or only by a more special adoption, than the whole Jewish nation was, (to whom the apostle saith belonged the adoption), I cannot say.
I adjure thee that thou tell us, that is, as some say, I charge thee upon thy oath to tell me; but it doth not appear that they had given any such oath to him, the guilty person was not wont to be forced by an oath to accuse himself, neither is it very probable that our Saviour would have taken such an oath. The sense therefore seemeth to be rather, I command, or require, or charge thee, as solemnly as if thou hadst taken an oath, (as in the presence of God), to tell us. Or, I charge thee with a terrible imprecation on thee, if thou speakest falsely, or wilt be silent, to declare if thou be the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt1703 · Public DomainOn v63We observed even now that our Lord was silent,…
We observed even now that our Lord was silent, and did make no reply to the false witnesses that evidenced against him at his trial; because being so manifestly contradictory, they did fall to the ground of themselves. But now when the question was solemnly put by the high priest, Art thou the Christ? he said, I am.
Thence learn, That although we are not obliged to answer every cavilling or ensnaring question, yet we are bound faithfully to own and freely to confess the truth, when we are solemnly called thereunto. Christ, who in the former verses was silent, and as a deaf man heard not, now witnesses a good confession; teaching us, both by his example and command, to confess and own both him and his truth, when lawfully required; when our silence would be a denying of the truth, a dishonour to God, and a scandal to our brethren. Christ knew that his answer would cost him his life, and yet he durst not but give it. Art thou the Son of the Blessed? Jesus said, I am.
Read full note →
Yea, farther observe, That as Christ answered directly and plainly at his trial, so he did not refuse to answer upon oath; I adjure thee by the living God, says the judge of the court, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ; that is, I requie thee to answer this question upon oath; for adjuring a person, or requiring him to answer upon oath, was the manner of swearing among the Jews. Now to this adjuration our Saviour answered plainly and directly, I am, Mar 14:61.
Hence learn, That swearing before a magistrate, upon a just and great occasion, is lawful; if Christ in the fifth of St. Matthew forbid all oaths, then here his practice was contrary to his own doctrine; but it is evident that Christ answered the magistrate upon oath, and so may we.
Observe lastly, The sentence of condemnation which the council passed upon him for owning himself to be the Son of God: He hath spoken blasphemy, and is worthy to die. Hereupon the unruly rabble affront him with the vilest abuses, and most horrid indignities; They spit in his face, they blindfolded him, they smote him with their fists and palms of their hands; and in the way of contempt and mockery, they bid him divine or prophesy who it was that smote him.
Learn hence, That there is no degree of contempt, no mark of shame, no kind of suffering, which we ought to decline or stick at for Christ’s sake, who hid not his face from shame and spitting upon our account. O monstrous impiety! How do they spit on that awful lovely face! How do they revile and blaspheme his noble office of a Prophet of the most high God! Prophesy, say they, in a mocking derision, who was it that smote thee? To such acts of inhumanity did the barbarous rage of the bloody Jews carry them.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
John Gill1763 · Public DomainOn vv62–66But Jesus held his peace,.... Knowing it would signify…
But Jesus held his peace,.... Knowing it would signify nothing, whatever he should say, they being set upon his death, the time of which was now come; and therefore he quietly submits, and says nothing in his own defence to prevent it. To be silent in a court of judicature, Apollonius Tyanaeus (c) says, is the fourth virtue; this Christ had, and all others:
and the high priest answered and said unto him; though Christ had said nothing, a way of speaking very frequent among the Jews, and in the sacred writings:
Read full note →
I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God; the Christ; the anointed, that David speaks of in the second Psalm, and who is there said to be the Son of God, Psa 2:2, to which the high priest seems to have respect; since there is no other passage, in which both these characters meet; and which was understood by the ancient Jews of the Messiah, as is owned by modern ones (d). Jesus was given out to be the Messiah, and his disciples believed him to be the Son of God, and he had affirmed himself to be so; wherefore the high priest, exerting his priestly power and authority, puts him upon his oath; or at least with an oath made by the living God, charges him to tell the truth, and which when ever any heard the voice of swearing, he was obliged to do, Lev 5:1.
(c) Philostrat. Vita Apollouii, l. 8. c. 1. (d) Jarchi & Aben Ezra in Psal. ii. 1. & Kimchi in ver. 12.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley1765 · Public DomainOn vv64–65Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man -…
Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man - He speaks in the third person, modestly, and yet plainly; Sitting on the right hand of power - That is, the right hand of God: And coming upon the clouds of heaven - As he is represented by Daniel, Dan. vii, 13, 14. Our Lord looked very unlike that person now! But nothing could be more awful, more majestic and becoming, than such an admonition in such circumstances!
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke1810 · Public DomainOn vv62–66Verse 62. Answerest thou nothing?] The accusation was so…
Verse 62. Answerest thou nothing?] The accusation was so completely frivolous that it merited no notice: besides, Jesus knew that they were determined to put him to death, and that his hour was come; and that therefore remonstrance or defence would be of no use: he had often before borne sufficient testimony to the truth.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson1811 · Public DomainOn vv62, 65Mat 26:62-64. And the high-priest arose, (Mark, stood up…
Mat 26:62-64. And the high-priest arose, (Mark, stood up in the midst,) and said, Answerest thou nothing? — When the high-priest found that Jesus took little notice of the things which the witnesses alleged against him, he rose from his seat in a passion, supposing that our Lord intended to put an affront upon the council, and desired him to give the reason of his conduct. But finding this in vain, in order to cut the trial short and insnare him, he adjured him, or required him to answer upon oath, whether or not he was the Christ. I adjure thee — Εξορκιζω σε. “This appears to have been the Jewish manner of administering an oath. The Hebrews השׂכיע, which in the Old Testament is commonly, by our interpreters, rendered, to make one swear, is justly translated by the LXX. ορκιζω, or εξορκιζω. Thus, Gen 24:3, where we have an account of the oath administered by Abraham to his steward, which is rendered in our Bible, I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, &c., is thus expressed in the LXX., εξορκιω σε Κυριον τον Θεον του ουρανου, &c. I adjure thee by Jehovah, the God of heaven and earth. After such adjuration by a magistrate, or lawful superior, the answer returned by the person adjured was an answer upon oath: a false answer was perjury; and even the silence of the person adjured was not deemed innocent.” He was under the necessity of giving an explicit answer, and of speaking the whole truth without disguise. Compare Exo 22:11; Lev 5:1; and Pro 29:24. See Campbell. “The craft of the question lay in this, that if Jesus answered it in the affirmative, they were ready to condemn him as a blasphemer; but if in the negative they proposed to punish him as an impostor, who, by accepting the honours and titles of the Messiah from the people, had deceived them.” Jesus saith, Thou hast said, that is, as Mark expresses it, I am. Being put upon oath, or, according to Jewish customs, adjured by the magistrate, he no longer declines answering. And he adds, Nevertheless, Gr. πλην, moreover, I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man — He speaks in the third person, modestly, yet plainly: sitting on the right hand of power — That is, of God: and coming in the clouds of heaven — As he is represented by Dan 7:13-14. Our Lord looked very unlike that person now! But nothing could be more awful, more majestic, and becoming, than such an admonition in such circumstances! The sending down of the Holy Ghost, the wonderful progress of the gospel, the destruction of Jerusalem, of the temple, and of the Jewish state, were unquestionable proofs and demonstrations shown forth by Jesus Christ of the infinite power wherewith he was invested at the right hand of God.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes1834 · Public DomainOn vv62, 64, 65, 66Jesus held his peace - Was silent. He knew…
Jesus held his peace - Was silent. He knew that the evidence did not even appear to amount to anything worth a reply. He knew that they were aware of that, and that feeling that, the high priest attempted to draw something from him on which they could condemn him.
I adjure thee by the living God - I put thee upon thy oath before God. This was the usual form of putting an oath among the Jews. It implies calling God to witness the truth of what was said. The law respecting witnesses also made it a violation of an oath to conceal any part of the truth; and though our Saviour might have felt that such a question, put in such a manner, was very improper or was unlawful, yet he also knew that to be silent would be construed into a denial of his being the Christ. The question was probably put in auger. They had utterly failed in their proof. They had no way left to accomplish their purpose of condemning him but to draw it from his own lips. This cunning question was therefore proposed. The difficulty of the question consisted in this: If he confessed that he was the Son of God, they stood ready to condemn him for “blasphemy;” if he denied it, they were prepared to condemn him for being an impostor, and for deluding the people under the pretence of being the Messiah.
Read full note →
The living God - Yahweh is called the living God in opposition to idols, which were without life.
The Christ - The Messiah, the Anointed. See the notes at Mat 1:1.
The Son of God - The Jews uniformly expected that the Messiah would be the Son of God. In their view it denoted, also, that he would be “divine,” or equal to the Father, Joh 10:31-36. To claim that title was therefore, in their view, “blasphemy;” and as they had determined beforehand in their own minds that he was not the Messiah, they were ready at once to accuse him of blasphemy.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary1859 · Public DomainOn vv63–66I adjure thee by the living God. They hoped…
I adjure thee by the living God. They hoped this might make him own himself God; for which they were for stoning him. (John x. 31.) --- St. Luke tells us, (xxii. 66,) that this question was put to Jesus, when it was day. St. Augustine thinks it was put to him first in the night, and again the next morning. We must not forget that when Christ was examined by the high priest, one of the servants standing by gave our blessed Redeemer a box on the ear, or on the face. See John xviii. 22. (Witham) --- Our divine Saviour as God knew perfectly well, that whatever he said would be condemned; and therefore the more Jesus was silent to what was alleged against him, the more did the high priest try to extort an answer from him, that he might have some accusation against the Lord of glory. Hence he exclaimed in that violent manner: I adjure thee, or I command thee by the living God, Greek: Exorkizo se kata tou Theou zontos. The law for witnesses is to be found in Leviticus v. 1; where the witness is pronounced guilty who should suppress the truth, after he has heard the Greek: phonen orkismou. This is the true meaning of that law, so very ill understood by many. See also Menochius, who on these very words of Leviticus says: if any one shall be called upon to say what he knows of a point that another has confirmed by oath, he shall carry his iniquity, i.e. the punishment of his iniquity, which God will inflict. (Menochius) --- See 1 Kings xiv. 24. 27; Numbers v. 19; 1 Thessalonians v. 27. The confession or denial of a person thus interrogated was decisive. (Challoner)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Daniel D. Whedon1874 · Public DomainOn vv62–6662. Answerest thou nothing? — Our Lord was most…
62. Answerest thou nothing? — Our Lord was most wisely silent; for what was there in his words, thus given in evidence, to answer? The high priest here behaves most unbecomingly in endeavouring to give importance to what he must have been conscious was nothing.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges1878 · Public DomainOn vv64–6664. Thou hast said] See note Mat_26:25.
64. Thou hast said] See note Mat_26:25.
Hereafter shall ye see] Cp. Dan_7:13; ch. Mat_16:27, Mat_24:30, Mat_25:31.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers1878 · Public DomainOn vv62–66(62) Answerest thou nothing?—A different punctuation gives, Answerest Thou…
(62) Answerest thou nothing?—A different punctuation gives, Answerest Thou nothing to what these witness against Thee? as one question. The question implies a long-continued silence, while witness after witness were uttering their clumsy falsehoods, the effect of which it is not easy to realise without a more than common exercise of what may be called dramatic imagination. I remember hearing from a distinguished scholar who had seen the Ammergau Passion-mystery, that, as represented there, it came upon him with a force which he had never felt before. In the silence itself we may perhaps trace a deliberate fulfilment of the prophecy of Isa_53:7. In 1Pe_2:23 we find a record of the impression which that fulfilment made on the disciples.
What is it . . .?—The question was clearly put, as it had been before Annas (Joh_18:19), with the intention of drawing out something that would ensure condemnation.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary1880 · Public DomainOn vv62–66The high priest Caiaphas arose. As if in indignation…
The high priest Caiaphas arose. As if in indignation at the outrage offered by this vaunt to Jehovah and the sanctuary. But the indignation was assumed and theatrical; for even this charge had broken down, owing to the disagreement of the two witnesses. (Mar_14:59) Something more definite must be secured before any formal appeal could be made to the Sanhedrin or the procurator. Answerest thou nothing? The angry president endeavours to browbeat the Prisoner, and to make him criminate himself by intemperate language or indiscreet admission. What is it which these witness against thee? The Received Text (followed here by Westcott and Hort) divides the high priest"s words into two questions, as in the Authorized Version. The Vulgate unites the two into one, Nihil respondes ad ea quae isti adversum te testificantur? Alford, Tischendorf, etc., print, Oudenh ti outoi sou katamarturousin ; "Answerest thou not what it is which these witness against thee?" Caiaphas professes a desire to hear Christ"s explanation of the words just alleged against him.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator1887 · Public DomainOn v63But Jesus held His peace.
Mat_26:63
But Jesus held His peace.
Read full note →
Silence the best reply to slander
It is reported of Titus Vespasian, that when any one spake ill of him he was wont to say that he was above false reports; and if they were true, he had more reason to be angry with himself than the relator. And the good Emperor Theodosius commanded that no man should be punished who spoke against him: for, what was spoken slightly, said he, was to be laughed at; what spitefully, to be pardoned; what angrily, to be pitied; and what truly, he would thank him for. Oh, that there were but such a frame of spirit in this carping age of ours, wherein men, like tinder, are ready to take fire upon the least spark that falls, to quarrel sometimes on the most inoffensive word that can be spoken; whereas the best way is to be silent.
Silence sometimes the wisest policy
A courtier in the retinue of Alexander the Great paid a visit to the studio of Apelles, the celebrated painter, and was received with the consideration due to his rank. This excited his vanity and talkativeness, which, unhappily, sallied forth upon the fine art in questions exposing his own ignorance. Apelles interrupted him at length in an undertone: Do you see those boys that are grinding my colours? While you were silent they admired you, dazzled with the splendour of the purple and gold with which your habit glitters; but ever since you began to talk about what you do not understand, they have done nothing but laugh at you.
The silence of Jesus
We learn that there may often be prudence, wisdom, dignity, and power.
I. It will appear evident that the silence of our Saviour in the midst of His enemies was the most effectual and suitable reply which He could have made to their accusations. These accusations were false and frivolous. His life and doctrine had been a sufficient reply. No verbal defence could have been so powerful.
II. No verbal defence would have availed him anything with those who were determined to procure His condemnation. It was not for Him to join in a war of words; His last hours should be tranquil. How solemnly His silence rebukes the vociferation of the priests and populace.
III. There are seasons and occasions when silence for ourselves may be better than speech, sharper than argument, more effectual than verbal reply.
1. When our characters are attacked. If we are so happy as to own a life which can defend us, let us be silent that the life may speak.
2. Silence is often the best reproof of profane conversation.
3. It is often the only reproof of mere locquaeity.
4. We are apt to talk too much, and lay too much stress on talking. (P. W. P. Greenwood, D. D.)
The silence of Jesus
I. Prejudice, whatever be its source, gets nothing out of the Scriptures.
II. Habitual indulgence in sin will also prevent us from getting any answer to our inquiries from Scripture. The Herods of to-day get no answer from Christ.
III. The influence of scepticism makes the Scriptures silent. Pilate did not believe there was any truth, and if there was it could not be known. (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)
The silence of Christ
I. On one occasion Christ was silent in the presence of an overwhelming sorrow. The Canaanitish woman, He answered her not a word. This was a touching case. This was the silence of love. Sometimes Christ is silent at the beginning of the Christian life; sometimes at its close.
II. On another occasion Christ was silent in the presence of captious inquirers. The woman taken in adultery. This was a critical moment. This was the silence of reserve. There are many occasions in life when silence is golden. Some men are naturally of a quiet disposition.
III. On another occasion Christ was silent in the presence of personal suffering. When arrested. This was a remarkable scene.
1. The time.
2. Place.
3. Persons. This was the silence of submission. (J. T. Woodhouse.)
The silence of Christ
I. It was wonderful He could, by a word, have made the world tremble; judge and witnesses fall dead before Him. Why was He silent? He came not to be His own advocate, but ours.
II. His silence was full of suffering, suffering that was vicarious and expiatory. All who are great sufferers endure most at times when one hears no sound from their lips. It is a relief to pain to cry out.
III. It was ominous. It foreshadowed ills. His silence said, What more can I do unto My vineyard? It is an appalling sign when Christ ceases to plead with us.
IV. Christ was inspired, and thus full of instruction.
1. Take the doctrine of our Lords Deity. This is established by a mass of evidence, but there is no stronger proof of it than the silence of Christ.
2. Apply it to the authenticity of the Old Testament Scriptures, that against which the destructive criticism of our day is making such fierce attacks, and what an argument we find.
3. Apply His silence to the perpetuity of the Sabbath law, and with what force it speaks.
V. Christs silence was beautiful. Difficult to restrain malice before enemies.
VI. It is exemplary. Self-imposed silence often a duty.
1. Because of the perils of speech.
2. Because of the blessings of the discipline of silence. (J. T. Blackburn.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
B. W. Johnson1891 · Public DomainOn vv62, 64, 65, 6662, 63. Answerest thou nothing? Under the false charges…
62, 63. Answerest thou nothing? Under the false charges Jesus maintained an impressive silence. “As a sheep before the shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.”
I adjure thee, etc. This was the formula for an oath. The High Priest, contrary to the principle of law which forbids that a prisoner shall be compelled to criminate himself, called on Jesus to be a witness against himself. To answer yes, or no, to such a question, was to answer under oath.
B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.
Alexander MacLaren1905 · Public DomainOn vv65–66
Matthew
THE REAL HIGH PRIEST AND HIS COUNTERFEIT
Read full note →
JESUS CHARGED WITH BLASPHEMY
Mat 26:65.
Jesus was tried and condemned by two tribunals, the Jewish ecclesiastical and the Roman civil. In each case the charge corresponded to the Court. The Sanhedrin took no cognisance of, and had no concern with, rebellion against Caesar; though for the time they pretended loyalty. Pilate had still less concern about Jewish superstitions. And so the investigation in each case turned on a different question. In the one it was, ‘Art Thou the Son of God?’ in the other, ‘Art Thou the King of Israel?’ The answer to both was a simple ‘Yes!’ but with very significant differences. Pilate received an explanation; the Sanhedrin none. The Roman governor was taught that Christ’s title of King belonged to another region altogether from that of Caesar, and did not in the slightest degree infringe upon the dominion that he represented. But ‘Son of God’ was capable of no explanation that could make it any less offensive; and the only thing to be done was to accept it or to condemn Him.
So this saying of the high priest differs from other words of our Lord’s antagonists, which we have been considering in recent pages, in that it is no distortion of our Lord’s characteristics or meaning. It correctly understands, but it fatally rejects, His claims; and does not hesitate to take the further step, on the ground of these, of branding Him as a blasphemer.
We may turn the high priest’s question in another direction: ‘What further need have we of witnesses?’ These horror-stricken judges, rending their garments in simulated grief and zeal, and that silent Prisoner, knowing that His life was the forfeit of His claims, yet saying no word of softening or explanation of them, may teach us much. They are witnesses to some of the central facts of the revelation of God in Christ. Let us turn to these for a few moments.
I. First, then, they witness to Christ’s claims.
The question that was proposed to Jesus, ‘Art Thou the Christ, the Son of the living God?’ was suggested by the facts of His ministry, and not by anything that had come out in the course of this investigation. It was the summing up of the impression made on the ecclesiastical authorities of Judaism by His whole attitude and demeanour. And if we look back to His life we shall see that there were instances, long before this, on which, on the same ground, the same charge was flung at Him. For example, when He would heal the paralytic, and, before He dealt with bodily disease, attended to spiritual weakness, and said, ‘Thy sins be forgiven thee,’ ere He said, ‘Take up thy bed and walk,’ there was a group of keen-eyed hunters after heresy sitting eagerly on the watch, who snatched at the words in a moment, and said, ‘Who is this that forgiveth sins? No man forgiveth sins, but God only! This man speaketh blasphemies!’ And they were right. He did claim a divine prerogative; and either the claim must be admitted or the charge of blasphemy urged.
Again, when He infringed Rabbinical Sabbath law by a cure, and they said, ‘This Man has broken the Sabbath day,’ His vindication was worse than His offence, for He answered, ‘My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.’ And then they sought the more to kill Him, because He not only brake the Sabbath, but also called God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.’ And again, when He declared that the safety of His sheep in His hands was identical with their safety in His Father’s hands, and vindicated the audacious parallelism by the tremendous assertion, ‘I and My Father are One,’ the charge of blasphemy rang out; and was inevitable, unless the claim was true.
These outstanding instances are but, as it were, summits that rise above the general level. But the general level is that of One who takes an altogether unique position. No one else, professing to lead men in paths of righteousness, has so constantly put the stress of His teaching, not upon morality, nor religion, nor obedience to God, but upon this, ‘Believe in Me’; or ever pushed forward His own personality into the foreground, and made the whole nobleness and blessedness and security and devoutness of a life to hinge upon that one thing, its personal relation to Him.
People talk about the sweet and gentle wisdom that flowed from Christ’s lips, and so on; about the lofty morality, about the beauty of pity and tenderness, and all the other commonplaces so familiar to us, and we gladly admit them all. But I venture to go a step further than all these, and to say that the outstanding differentia, the characteristic which marks off Christ’s teaching as something new, peculiar, and altogether per se, is not its morality, not its philanthropy, not its meek wisdom, not its sweet reasonableness, but its tremendous assertions of the importance of Himself.
And if I am asked to state the ground upon which such an assertion may be vindicated, I would point you to such facts as these, that this Man took up a position of equality with, and of superiority to, the legislation which He and the people to whom He was speaking regarded as being divinely sent, and said, ‘Ye have heard that it hath been said to them of old time’ so and so; ‘but I say unto you’: that this Man declared that to build upon His words was to build upon a rock; that this Man declared that He-He-was the legitimate object of absolute trust, of utter submission and obedience; that He claimed from His followers affiance, love, reverence which cannot be distinguished from worship, and that He did not therein conceive that He was intercepting anything that belonged to the Father. This Man professed to be able to satisfy the desires of every human heart when He said, ‘If any man thirst let him come to Me and drink.’ This Man claimed to be able to breathe the sanctity of repose in the blessedness of obedience over all the weary and the heavy laden; and assured them that He Himself, through all the ages, and in all lands, and for all troubles, would give them rest. This Man declared that He who stood there, in the quiet homes of Galilee, and went about its acres with those blessed feet for our advantage, was to be Judge of the whole world. This Man said that His name was ‘Son of God’; and this Man declared, ‘He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.’
And then people say to us, ‘Oh! your Gospel narratives, even if they be the work of men in good faith, telling what they suppose He said, mistook the Teacher; and if we could strip away the accretion of mistaken reverence, and come to the historical person, we should find no claims like these.’
Well, this is not the time to enter into the large questions which that contention involves, but I point you to the incident which makes my text, and I say, ‘What need we any further witnesses?’ Nobody denies that Jesus Christ was crucified as the result of a combination of Sanhedrin and Pilate. What set the Jewish rulers against Him with such virulent and murderous determination? Is there anything in the life of Jesus Christ, if it is watered down as the people, who want to knock out all the supernatural, desire to water it down-is there anything in the life that will account for the inveterate acrimony and hostility which pursued Him to the death? The fact remains that, whether or not Evangelists and Apostles misconceived His teaching when they gave such prominence to His personality and His lofty claims, His enemies were under the same delusion, if it were a delusion; and the reason why the whole orthodox religionism of Judaism rejoiced when He was nailed to the Cross was summed up in the taunt which they flung at Him as He hung there, ‘If He be the Son of God, let Him come down, and we will believe Him.’
So, brethren, I put into the witness-box Annas and Caiaphas and all their satellites, and I say, ‘What need we any further witnesses?’ He died because He declared that He was the Son of God.
And I beseech you ask yourselves whether we are not being put off with a maimed version of His teaching, if there is struck out of it this its central characteristic, that He, ‘the sage and humble,’ declared that He was ‘likewise One with the Creator.’
II. Secondly, note how we have here the witness that Jesus Christ assented always to the loftiest meaning that men attached to His claims.
I have already pointed out the remarkable difference between the explanations which He condescended to give to the Roman governor as to the perfectly innocent meaning of His claim to be the King of Israel, and His silence before the Sanhedrin. That silence is only explicable because they rightly understood the meaning of the claim which they contemptuously and perversely rejected. Jesus Christ knew that His death was the forfeit, as I have said, and yet He locked His lips and said not a word.
In like manner when, on the other occasion to which I have already referred, the Pharisees stumbled at His claims to forgive sins, He said nothing to soften down that claim. If He had meant then only what some people would desire to make Him mean when He said, ‘Thy sins be forgiven thee’-viz., that He was simply acting as a minister of the divine forgiveness, and assuring a poor sinner that God had pardoned him-why in common honesty, in discharge of His plain obligations of a teacher, did He not say so-not for His own sake, but for the sake of preventing such a tremendous misunderstanding of His meaning? But He let them go away with the conviction that He intended to claim a divine prerogative, and vindicated the assertion by doing what only a divine power could do: ‘That ye may know that the Son of Man hath power enough on earth to forgive sins, He saith unto the sick of the palsy, Take up thy bed and walk.’ There was no need for Him to have wrought a miracle to establish His right to tell a poor soul that God forgave sin. And the fact that the miracle was supposed to be the demonstration and the vindication of His right to declare forgiveness shows that He was exercising that prerogative which belongs, as they rightly said, to God only.
And in precisely the same manner, the commonest obligations of honesty, the plain duty of a misunderstood Teacher, to say nothing of the duty of self-preservation, ought to have opened His lips in the presence of the Jewish authorities, if they understood wrongly and set too high their estimate of the meaning of His claims. His silence establishes the fact that they understood these aright.
And so, all through His life, we note this peculiarity, that He never puts aside as too lofty for truth men’s highest interpretations of His claims, nor as too lowly for their mutual relation the lowest reverence which bowed before Him. Peter, in the house of Cornelius, said, ‘Stand up! for I myself also am a man.’ Paul and Barnabas, when the priests brought out the oxen and garlands to the gates of Lystra, could say, ‘We also are men of like passions with yourselves.’ But this meek Jesus lets men fall at His feet; and women wash them with their tears and wipe them with the hairs of their head; and souls stretch out maimed hands of faith, and grasp Him as their only hope. When His apostle said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ His answer was, ‘Blessed art thou, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,’ and when another exclaimed, ‘My Lord and my God!’ this Pattern of all meekness accepted and endorsed the title, and pronounced a benediction on all who, not having seen Him, should hereafter attain a like faith.
Now I want to know whether that characteristic, which runs through all His life, and is inseparable from it, can be vindicated on any ground except the ground that He was ‘God manifest in the flesh.’ Either Jesus Christ had a greedy appetite for excessive adoration, was a victim to diseased vanity and ever-present self-regard-the most damning charge that you can bring against a religious teacher-or He accepted love and reverence and trust, because the love and the reverence and the trust knit souls to the Incarnate God their Saviour.
III. And so, lastly we have here witness to the only alternative to the acceptance of His claims.
He hath spoken ‘blasphemy,’ not because He had derogated from the dignity of divinity, but because He had presumed to participate in it. And it seems to me, with all deference, that this rough alternative is the only legitimate one. If Jesus Christ did make such claims, and His relation to the Jewish hierarchy and His death are, as I have shown you, apart even from the testimony of the Evangelists, strong confirmation of the fact that He did-if Jesus Christ did make such claims, and they were not valid, one of two things follows. Either He believed them, and then, what about His sanity? or He did not believe them, and then, what about His honesty? In either case, what about His claims to be a Teacher of religion? What about His claims to be the Pattern of humanity? That part of His teaching and character is either the manifestation of His glory or it is like one of those fatal black seams that run through and penetrate into the substance of a fair white marble statue, marring all the rest of its pale and celestial beauty. Brethren, it seems to me that, when all is said and done, we come to one of three things about Jesus Christ. Either ‘He blasphemeth’ if He said these things, and they were not true, or ‘He is beside Himself’ if He said these things and believed them, or
‘Thou art the King of Glory, O Christ;
Thou art the everlasting Son of the Father.’
Now I know that there are many men who, I venture to say, are far better than their creed, and who, believing it impossible to accept, in their plain meaning, the plain claims of Jesus Christ to divinity, do yet cleave to Him with a love and a reverence and an obedience which more orthodox men might well copy. And far be it from me to say one word which might seem even to quench the faintest beam of light that, shining from His perfect character, draws any heart, however imperfectly, to Himself. Only, if I speak to any such at this time, I beseech them to follow the light which draws them, and to see whether their reverence for that fair character should not lead them to accept implicitly the claims that came from His own lips. I humbly venture to say that if we know anything at all about Jesus Christ, we know that He lived declaring Himself to be the Everlasting Son of the Father, and that He died because He did so declare Himself. And I beseech you to ponder the question whether reverence for Him and admiration of His character can be logically and reasonably retained, side by side with the repudiation of that which is the most distinctive part of His message to men.
Oh, brethren, if it is true that God has come in the flesh, and that that sweet, gracious, infinitely beautiful life is really the revelation of the heart of God, then what a beam of sunshine falls upon all the darkness of this world! Then God is love; then that love holds us all; did not shrink from dying for us, and lives for ever to bless us. If these claims are true, what should our attitude be but that of infinite trust, love, submission, obedience, and the shaping of our lives after the pattern of His life?
These rejectors, when they said, ‘He speaketh blasphemies,’ were sealing their own doom, and the ruined Temple and nineteen centuries of wandering misery show what comes to men who hear Christ declaring that He is the Son of the living God and the Judge of the world, and who find nothing in the words but blasphemy. On the other hand, if we will answer His question, ‘Whom say ye that I am?’ as the apostle answered it, we shall, like the apostle, receive a benediction from His lips, and be set on that faith as on a rock against which the ‘gates of hell’ shall not prevail.
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann1924 · Public DomainOn v65The sentence:
The sentence:
v. 65. 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.
Read full note →
v. 66. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.
v. 67. Then did they spit in His face, and buffeted Him; and others smote Him with the palms of their hands,
v. 68. saying, Prophesy unto us, Thou Christ, Who is he that smote Thee?
It was the sign of the greatest grief, of the deepest mourning, for a Jew to tear open his outer garment. Here was an act of theatrical affectation without true emotion. He is shocked beyond measure, so he declares by his action, by the blasphemy out of the mouth of Jesus. There is no more need of trial, no more need of witnesses, he declares. His reference is to Lev 24:15, to the penalty for blasphemy, and to Deu 18:20, to that for being a false prophet. In his eagerness Caiaphas entirely overlooked the fact that he had not proved a case of blasphemy against Jesus. But his acting had its effect. No formal vote was taken, the cries of assent coming from all sides being counted as sufficient evidence of universal agreement. And now followed a scene during which not only the servants and the Temple police, but also the members of the great council forgot the last shred of their assumed dignity and humanity, giving way to, the vilest and lowest ways of venting their spite against Jesus. Spitting into His face, striking Him with their clenched fists, slapping Him with the open palms of their hands were only some of the ways in which they amused themselves. It was like an orgy of devils. They tried to ridicule His ability to foretell the future; in short, devilish hatred had unhindered sway. For in reality they were baffled, in spite of their apparent victory. Thus did they fill out the morning hours of that miserable night. And, like them, the enemies of the truth of Christ, unable to find a real accusation against the Christians, will find excuses to vent their spite against them and attempt to hinder their work.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0On vv62, 65What is it that they are testifying against you?
What is it that they are testifying against you?
The chief priest is not asking Jesus for information about what the witnesses said. He is asking Jesus to prove what the witnesses said is wrong. AT: "What is your response to what the witnesses are testifying against you?"
Read full note →
Son of God
This is an important title that describes the relationship between the Christ and God. (See: Translating Son and Father)
the living God
Here "living" contrasts the God of Israel to all the false gods and idols that people worshiped. Only the God of Israel is alive and has power to act. See how you translated this in Matthew 16:16.
You have said it yourself
This is an idiom that Jesus uses to mean "yes" without being completely clear about what he means. AT: "You are saying it" or "You are admitting it" (See: Idiom)
But I tell you, from now on you
Here "you" is plural. Jesus is speaking to the high priest and to the other persons there. (See: Forms of You)
from now on you will see the Son of Man
Possible meanings are 1) the phrase "from now on" is an idiom that means they will see the Son of Man in his power at some time in the future or 2) the phrase "from now on" means that from the time of Jesus' trial and onward, Jesus is showing himself to be the Messiah who is powerful and victorious.
the Son of Man
Jesus is speaking about himself in third person. (See: First, Second, or Third Person)
sitting at the right hand of Power
Here "Power" is metonym that represents God. To sit at the "right hand of God" is a symbolic action of receiving great honor and authority from God. AT: "sitting in the place of honor beside the all-powerful God" (See: Metonymy and Symbolic Action)
Tyndale Open Study Notes2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0On vv63–6526:63 if you are the Messiah: This question from…
26:63 if you are the Messiah: This question from the high priest was prompted by Zech 6:12, which had predicted that the Messiah would rebuild the Temple (cp. Matt 26:61).
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv62, 64, 65 How cometh it to pass that these men witness…
How cometh it to pass that these men witness against thee?
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv62–66 62 And the high priest arose, and said unto…
62 And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
Ver. 62. Answerest thou nothing?] No, nothing, unless it had been to better purpose; for σιγαν χρη, η κρεισσονα σιγης λεγειν, saith the wise heathen. Either hold thy peace or say something that is worth hearing. And, πασιν απολογεισθαι θεραπευτικον. (Plato.) To answer every slight accusation is servile. Some are so thin they may be seen through, others so gross that they need no refutation. {a} These hypocrites were not worthy of an answer from our Saviour, who knew also that now was the time not of apologizing, but of suffering; therefore "as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth," Isa 53:7. Besides, he saw that his enemies were resolved to have his blood, and therefore held it more glorious, τη σιωπη το ονειδος πνιγειν, as Basil hath it, to choke their spite with silence, et iniuriam tacendo fugere, potius quam respondendo superare, as another saith, to set them down by saying nothing.
Read full note →
{a} Tenue mendacium pellucet. Sen.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv62, 64, 65 Mark speaks to the same purpose, Mar 14:60,61. The…
Mark speaks to the same purpose, Mar 14:60,61. The high priest expected a long defence, and so to have had matter of accusation against him out of his own mouth. Christ disappointeth him, saying nothing at all, either out of modesty, or not thinking what they said of any moment, or worthy of any reply, or perhaps seeing that they could not agree in their tale, so as what they said was of no force against him. The high priest therefore comes at last to examine him, ex officio. Mark saith, Mar 14:61, Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed. Luke, to give us the story of Peter, from his first coming into the high priest’s hall to his going out, entire, interrupts himself a little in his relation of their dealings with Christ, and then relates some indignities offered him which the other evangelists do not mention; which seem to have been offered him where the soldiers and the rabble had been before he appeared in the council: Luk 22:63-67, And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him. And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? And many other things blasphemously spake they against him. And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people, and the chief priests, and the scribes came together, and led him into their council. Then he mentions nothing of what the witnesses said, possibly because it was nothing of moment, nothing upon which they proceeded against our Saviour for his life, but goes on, saying, Art thou the Christ? tell us. Matthew saith, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the living God? Mark, the Son of the Blessed. It is plain both from this text, and from Joh 1:49, that the Jews did expect a Messiah who should be the Son of the ever living and blessed God; but whether they understood that he should be the Son of God by nature and eternal generation, or only by a more special adoption, than the whole Jewish nation was, (to whom the apostle saith belonged the adoption), I cannot say.
I adjure thee that thou tell us, that is, as some say, I charge thee upon thy oath to tell me; but it doth not appear that they had given any such oath to him, the guilty person was not wont to be forced by an oath to accuse himself, neither is it very probable that our Saviour would have taken such an oath. The sense therefore seemeth to be rather, I command, or require, or charge thee, as solemnly as if thou hadst taken an oath, (as in the presence of God), to tell us. Or, I charge thee with a terrible imprecation on thee, if thou speakest falsely, or wilt be silent, to declare if thou be the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain On v63 We observed even now that our Lord was silent,…
We observed even now that our Lord was silent, and did make no reply to the false witnesses that evidenced against him at his trial; because being so manifestly contradictory, they did fall to the ground of themselves. But now when the question was solemnly put by the high priest, Art thou the Christ? he said, I am.
Thence learn, That although we are not obliged to answer every cavilling or ensnaring question, yet we are bound faithfully to own and freely to confess the truth, when we are solemnly called thereunto. Christ, who in the former verses was silent, and as a deaf man heard not, now witnesses a good confession; teaching us, both by his example and command, to confess and own both him and his truth, when lawfully required; when our silence would be a denying of the truth, a dishonour to God, and a scandal to our brethren. Christ knew that his answer would cost him his life, and yet he durst not but give it. Art thou the Son of the Blessed? Jesus said, I am.
Read full note →
Yea, farther observe, That as Christ answered directly and plainly at his trial, so he did not refuse to answer upon oath; I adjure thee by the living God, says the judge of the court, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ; that is, I requie thee to answer this question upon oath; for adjuring a person, or requiring him to answer upon oath, was the manner of swearing among the Jews. Now to this adjuration our Saviour answered plainly and directly, I am, Mar 14:61.
Hence learn, That swearing before a magistrate, upon a just and great occasion, is lawful; if Christ in the fifth of St. Matthew forbid all oaths, then here his practice was contrary to his own doctrine; but it is evident that Christ answered the magistrate upon oath, and so may we.
Observe lastly, The sentence of condemnation which the council passed upon him for owning himself to be the Son of God: He hath spoken blasphemy, and is worthy to die. Hereupon the unruly rabble affront him with the vilest abuses, and most horrid indignities; They spit in his face, they blindfolded him, they smote him with their fists and palms of their hands; and in the way of contempt and mockery, they bid him divine or prophesy who it was that smote him.
Learn hence, That there is no degree of contempt, no mark of shame, no kind of suffering, which we ought to decline or stick at for Christ’s sake, who hid not his face from shame and spitting upon our account. O monstrous impiety! How do they spit on that awful lovely face! How do they revile and blaspheme his noble office of a Prophet of the most high God! Prophesy, say they, in a mocking derision, who was it that smote thee? To such acts of inhumanity did the barbarous rage of the bloody Jews carry them.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv62–66 But Jesus held his peace,.... Knowing it would signify…
But Jesus held his peace,.... Knowing it would signify nothing, whatever he should say, they being set upon his death, the time of which was now come; and therefore he quietly submits, and says nothing in his own defence to prevent it. To be silent in a court of judicature, Apollonius Tyanaeus (c) says, is the fourth virtue; this Christ had, and all others:
and the high priest answered and said unto him; though Christ had said nothing, a way of speaking very frequent among the Jews, and in the sacred writings:
Read full note →
I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God; the Christ; the anointed, that David speaks of in the second Psalm, and who is there said to be the Son of God, Psa 2:2, to which the high priest seems to have respect; since there is no other passage, in which both these characters meet; and which was understood by the ancient Jews of the Messiah, as is owned by modern ones (d). Jesus was given out to be the Messiah, and his disciples believed him to be the Son of God, and he had affirmed himself to be so; wherefore the high priest, exerting his priestly power and authority, puts him upon his oath; or at least with an oath made by the living God, charges him to tell the truth, and which when ever any heard the voice of swearing, he was obliged to do, Lev 5:1.
(c) Philostrat. Vita Apollouii, l. 8. c. 1. (d) Jarchi & Aben Ezra in Psal. ii. 1. & Kimchi in ver. 12.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv64–65 Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man -…
Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man - He speaks in the third person, modestly, and yet plainly; Sitting on the right hand of power - That is, the right hand of God: And coming upon the clouds of heaven - As he is represented by Daniel, Dan. vii, 13, 14. Our Lord looked very unlike that person now! But nothing could be more awful, more majestic and becoming, than such an admonition in such circumstances!
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv62–66 Verse 62. Answerest thou nothing?] The accusation was so…
Verse 62. Answerest thou nothing?] The accusation was so completely frivolous that it merited no notice: besides, Jesus knew that they were determined to put him to death, and that his hour was come; and that therefore remonstrance or defence would be of no use: he had often before borne sufficient testimony to the truth.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv62, 65 Mat 26:62-64. And the high-priest arose, (Mark, stood up…
Mat 26:62-64. And the high-priest arose, (Mark, stood up in the midst,) and said, Answerest thou nothing? — When the high-priest found that Jesus took little notice of the things which the witnesses alleged against him, he rose from his seat in a passion, supposing that our Lord intended to put an affront upon the council, and desired him to give the reason of his conduct. But finding this in vain, in order to cut the trial short and insnare him, he adjured him, or required him to answer upon oath, whether or not he was the Christ. I adjure thee — Εξορκιζω σε. “This appears to have been the Jewish manner of administering an oath. The Hebrews השׂכיע, which in the Old Testament is commonly, by our interpreters, rendered, to make one swear, is justly translated by the LXX. ορκιζω, or εξορκιζω. Thus, Gen 24:3, where we have an account of the oath administered by Abraham to his steward, which is rendered in our Bible, I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, &c., is thus expressed in the LXX., εξορκιω σε Κυριον τον Θεον του ουρανου, &c. I adjure thee by Jehovah, the God of heaven and earth. After such adjuration by a magistrate, or lawful superior, the answer returned by the person adjured was an answer upon oath: a false answer was perjury; and even the silence of the person adjured was not deemed innocent.” He was under the necessity of giving an explicit answer, and of speaking the whole truth without disguise. Compare Exo 22:11; Lev 5:1; and Pro 29:24. See Campbell. “The craft of the question lay in this, that if Jesus answered it in the affirmative, they were ready to condemn him as a blasphemer; but if in the negative they proposed to punish him as an impostor, who, by accepting the honours and titles of the Messiah from the people, had deceived them.” Jesus saith, Thou hast said, that is, as Mark expresses it, I am. Being put upon oath, or, according to Jewish customs, adjured by the magistrate, he no longer declines answering. And he adds, Nevertheless, Gr. πλην, moreover, I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man — He speaks in the third person, modestly, yet plainly: sitting on the right hand of power — That is, of God: and coming in the clouds of heaven — As he is represented by Dan 7:13-14. Our Lord looked very unlike that person now! But nothing could be more awful, more majestic, and becoming, than such an admonition in such circumstances! The sending down of the Holy Ghost, the wonderful progress of the gospel, the destruction of Jerusalem, of the temple, and of the Jewish state, were unquestionable proofs and demonstrations shown forth by Jesus Christ of the infinite power wherewith he was invested at the right hand of God.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv62, 64, 65, 66 Jesus held his peace - Was silent. He knew…
Jesus held his peace - Was silent. He knew that the evidence did not even appear to amount to anything worth a reply. He knew that they were aware of that, and that feeling that, the high priest attempted to draw something from him on which they could condemn him.
I adjure thee by the living God - I put thee upon thy oath before God. This was the usual form of putting an oath among the Jews. It implies calling God to witness the truth of what was said. The law respecting witnesses also made it a violation of an oath to conceal any part of the truth; and though our Saviour might have felt that such a question, put in such a manner, was very improper or was unlawful, yet he also knew that to be silent would be construed into a denial of his being the Christ. The question was probably put in auger. They had utterly failed in their proof. They had no way left to accomplish their purpose of condemning him but to draw it from his own lips. This cunning question was therefore proposed. The difficulty of the question consisted in this: If he confessed that he was the Son of God, they stood ready to condemn him for “blasphemy;” if he denied it, they were prepared to condemn him for being an impostor, and for deluding the people under the pretence of being the Messiah.
Read full note →
The living God - Yahweh is called the living God in opposition to idols, which were without life.
The Christ - The Messiah, the Anointed. See the notes at Mat 1:1.
The Son of God - The Jews uniformly expected that the Messiah would be the Son of God. In their view it denoted, also, that he would be “divine,” or equal to the Father, Joh 10:31-36. To claim that title was therefore, in their view, “blasphemy;” and as they had determined beforehand in their own minds that he was not the Messiah, they were ready at once to accuse him of blasphemy.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv63–66 I adjure thee by the living God. They hoped…
I adjure thee by the living God. They hoped this might make him own himself God; for which they were for stoning him. (John x. 31.) --- St. Luke tells us, (xxii. 66,) that this question was put to Jesus, when it was day. St. Augustine thinks it was put to him first in the night, and again the next morning. We must not forget that when Christ was examined by the high priest, one of the servants standing by gave our blessed Redeemer a box on the ear, or on the face. See John xviii. 22. (Witham) --- Our divine Saviour as God knew perfectly well, that whatever he said would be condemned; and therefore the more Jesus was silent to what was alleged against him, the more did the high priest try to extort an answer from him, that he might have some accusation against the Lord of glory. Hence he exclaimed in that violent manner: I adjure thee, or I command thee by the living God, Greek: Exorkizo se kata tou Theou zontos. The law for witnesses is to be found in Leviticus v. 1; where the witness is pronounced guilty who should suppress the truth, after he has heard the Greek: phonen orkismou. This is the true meaning of that law, so very ill understood by many. See also Menochius, who on these very words of Leviticus says: if any one shall be called upon to say what he knows of a point that another has confirmed by oath, he shall carry his iniquity, i.e. the punishment of his iniquity, which God will inflict. (Menochius) --- See 1 Kings xiv. 24. 27; Numbers v. 19; 1 Thessalonians v. 27. The confession or denial of a person thus interrogated was decisive. (Challoner)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv62–66 62. Answerest thou nothing? — Our Lord was most…
62. Answerest thou nothing? — Our Lord was most wisely silent; for what was there in his words, thus given in evidence, to answer? The high priest here behaves most unbecomingly in endeavouring to give importance to what he must have been conscious was nothing.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv64–66 64. Thou hast said] See note Mat_26:25.
64. Thou hast said] See note Mat_26:25.
Hereafter shall ye see] Cp. Dan_7:13; ch. Mat_16:27, Mat_24:30, Mat_25:31.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv62–66 (62) Answerest thou nothing?—A different punctuation gives, Answerest Thou…
(62) Answerest thou nothing?—A different punctuation gives, Answerest Thou nothing to what these witness against Thee? as one question. The question implies a long-continued silence, while witness after witness were uttering their clumsy falsehoods, the effect of which it is not easy to realise without a more than common exercise of what may be called dramatic imagination. I remember hearing from a distinguished scholar who had seen the Ammergau Passion-mystery, that, as represented there, it came upon him with a force which he had never felt before. In the silence itself we may perhaps trace a deliberate fulfilment of the prophecy of Isa_53:7. In 1Pe_2:23 we find a record of the impression which that fulfilment made on the disciples.
What is it . . .?—The question was clearly put, as it had been before Annas (Joh_18:19), with the intention of drawing out something that would ensure condemnation.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv62–66 The high priest Caiaphas arose. As if in indignation…
The high priest Caiaphas arose. As if in indignation at the outrage offered by this vaunt to Jehovah and the sanctuary. But the indignation was assumed and theatrical; for even this charge had broken down, owing to the disagreement of the two witnesses. (Mar_14:59) Something more definite must be secured before any formal appeal could be made to the Sanhedrin or the procurator. Answerest thou nothing? The angry president endeavours to browbeat the Prisoner, and to make him criminate himself by intemperate language or indiscreet admission. What is it which these witness against thee? The Received Text (followed here by Westcott and Hort) divides the high priest"s words into two questions, as in the Authorized Version. The Vulgate unites the two into one, Nihil respondes ad ea quae isti adversum te testificantur? Alford, Tischendorf, etc., print, Oudenh ti outoi sou katamarturousin ; "Answerest thou not what it is which these witness against thee?" Caiaphas professes a desire to hear Christ"s explanation of the words just alleged against him.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On v63 But Jesus held His peace.
Mat_26:63
But Jesus held His peace.
Read full note →
Silence the best reply to slander
It is reported of Titus Vespasian, that when any one spake ill of him he was wont to say that he was above false reports; and if they were true, he had more reason to be angry with himself than the relator. And the good Emperor Theodosius commanded that no man should be punished who spoke against him: for, what was spoken slightly, said he, was to be laughed at; what spitefully, to be pardoned; what angrily, to be pitied; and what truly, he would thank him for. Oh, that there were but such a frame of spirit in this carping age of ours, wherein men, like tinder, are ready to take fire upon the least spark that falls, to quarrel sometimes on the most inoffensive word that can be spoken; whereas the best way is to be silent.
Silence sometimes the wisest policy
A courtier in the retinue of Alexander the Great paid a visit to the studio of Apelles, the celebrated painter, and was received with the consideration due to his rank. This excited his vanity and talkativeness, which, unhappily, sallied forth upon the fine art in questions exposing his own ignorance. Apelles interrupted him at length in an undertone: Do you see those boys that are grinding my colours? While you were silent they admired you, dazzled with the splendour of the purple and gold with which your habit glitters; but ever since you began to talk about what you do not understand, they have done nothing but laugh at you.
The silence of Jesus
We learn that there may often be prudence, wisdom, dignity, and power.
I. It will appear evident that the silence of our Saviour in the midst of His enemies was the most effectual and suitable reply which He could have made to their accusations. These accusations were false and frivolous. His life and doctrine had been a sufficient reply. No verbal defence could have been so powerful.
II. No verbal defence would have availed him anything with those who were determined to procure His condemnation. It was not for Him to join in a war of words; His last hours should be tranquil. How solemnly His silence rebukes the vociferation of the priests and populace.
III. There are seasons and occasions when silence for ourselves may be better than speech, sharper than argument, more effectual than verbal reply.
1. When our characters are attacked. If we are so happy as to own a life which can defend us, let us be silent that the life may speak.
2. Silence is often the best reproof of profane conversation.
3. It is often the only reproof of mere locquaeity.
4. We are apt to talk too much, and lay too much stress on talking. (P. W. P. Greenwood, D. D.)
The silence of Jesus
I. Prejudice, whatever be its source, gets nothing out of the Scriptures.
II. Habitual indulgence in sin will also prevent us from getting any answer to our inquiries from Scripture. The Herods of to-day get no answer from Christ.
III. The influence of scepticism makes the Scriptures silent. Pilate did not believe there was any truth, and if there was it could not be known. (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)
The silence of Christ
I. On one occasion Christ was silent in the presence of an overwhelming sorrow. The Canaanitish woman, He answered her not a word. This was a touching case. This was the silence of love. Sometimes Christ is silent at the beginning of the Christian life; sometimes at its close.
II. On another occasion Christ was silent in the presence of captious inquirers. The woman taken in adultery. This was a critical moment. This was the silence of reserve. There are many occasions in life when silence is golden. Some men are naturally of a quiet disposition.
III. On another occasion Christ was silent in the presence of personal suffering. When arrested. This was a remarkable scene.
1. The time.
2. Place.
3. Persons. This was the silence of submission. (J. T. Woodhouse.)
The silence of Christ
I. It was wonderful He could, by a word, have made the world tremble; judge and witnesses fall dead before Him. Why was He silent? He came not to be His own advocate, but ours.
II. His silence was full of suffering, suffering that was vicarious and expiatory. All who are great sufferers endure most at times when one hears no sound from their lips. It is a relief to pain to cry out.
III. It was ominous. It foreshadowed ills. His silence said, What more can I do unto My vineyard? It is an appalling sign when Christ ceases to plead with us.
IV. Christ was inspired, and thus full of instruction.
1. Take the doctrine of our Lords Deity. This is established by a mass of evidence, but there is no stronger proof of it than the silence of Christ.
2. Apply it to the authenticity of the Old Testament Scriptures, that against which the destructive criticism of our day is making such fierce attacks, and what an argument we find.
3. Apply His silence to the perpetuity of the Sabbath law, and with what force it speaks.
V. Christs silence was beautiful. Difficult to restrain malice before enemies.
VI. It is exemplary. Self-imposed silence often a duty.
1. Because of the perils of speech.
2. Because of the blessings of the discipline of silence. (J. T. Blackburn.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain On vv62, 64, 65, 66 62, 63. Answerest thou nothing? Under the false charges…
62, 63. Answerest thou nothing? Under the false charges Jesus maintained an impressive silence. “As a sheep before the shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.”
I adjure thee, etc. This was the formula for an oath. The High Priest, contrary to the principle of law which forbids that a prisoner shall be compelled to criminate himself, called on Jesus to be a witness against himself. To answer yes, or no, to such a question, was to answer under oath.
B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On vv65–66
Matthew
THE REAL HIGH PRIEST AND HIS COUNTERFEIT
Read full note →
JESUS CHARGED WITH BLASPHEMY
Mat 26:65.
Jesus was tried and condemned by two tribunals, the Jewish ecclesiastical and the Roman civil. In each case the charge corresponded to the Court. The Sanhedrin took no cognisance of, and had no concern with, rebellion against Caesar; though for the time they pretended loyalty. Pilate had still less concern about Jewish superstitions. And so the investigation in each case turned on a different question. In the one it was, ‘Art Thou the Son of God?’ in the other, ‘Art Thou the King of Israel?’ The answer to both was a simple ‘Yes!’ but with very significant differences. Pilate received an explanation; the Sanhedrin none. The Roman governor was taught that Christ’s title of King belonged to another region altogether from that of Caesar, and did not in the slightest degree infringe upon the dominion that he represented. But ‘Son of God’ was capable of no explanation that could make it any less offensive; and the only thing to be done was to accept it or to condemn Him.
So this saying of the high priest differs from other words of our Lord’s antagonists, which we have been considering in recent pages, in that it is no distortion of our Lord’s characteristics or meaning. It correctly understands, but it fatally rejects, His claims; and does not hesitate to take the further step, on the ground of these, of branding Him as a blasphemer.
We may turn the high priest’s question in another direction: ‘What further need have we of witnesses?’ These horror-stricken judges, rending their garments in simulated grief and zeal, and that silent Prisoner, knowing that His life was the forfeit of His claims, yet saying no word of softening or explanation of them, may teach us much. They are witnesses to some of the central facts of the revelation of God in Christ. Let us turn to these for a few moments.
I. First, then, they witness to Christ’s claims.
The question that was proposed to Jesus, ‘Art Thou the Christ, the Son of the living God?’ was suggested by the facts of His ministry, and not by anything that had come out in the course of this investigation. It was the summing up of the impression made on the ecclesiastical authorities of Judaism by His whole attitude and demeanour. And if we look back to His life we shall see that there were instances, long before this, on which, on the same ground, the same charge was flung at Him. For example, when He would heal the paralytic, and, before He dealt with bodily disease, attended to spiritual weakness, and said, ‘Thy sins be forgiven thee,’ ere He said, ‘Take up thy bed and walk,’ there was a group of keen-eyed hunters after heresy sitting eagerly on the watch, who snatched at the words in a moment, and said, ‘Who is this that forgiveth sins? No man forgiveth sins, but God only! This man speaketh blasphemies!’ And they were right. He did claim a divine prerogative; and either the claim must be admitted or the charge of blasphemy urged.
Again, when He infringed Rabbinical Sabbath law by a cure, and they said, ‘This Man has broken the Sabbath day,’ His vindication was worse than His offence, for He answered, ‘My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.’ And then they sought the more to kill Him, because He not only brake the Sabbath, but also called God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.’ And again, when He declared that the safety of His sheep in His hands was identical with their safety in His Father’s hands, and vindicated the audacious parallelism by the tremendous assertion, ‘I and My Father are One,’ the charge of blasphemy rang out; and was inevitable, unless the claim was true.
These outstanding instances are but, as it were, summits that rise above the general level. But the general level is that of One who takes an altogether unique position. No one else, professing to lead men in paths of righteousness, has so constantly put the stress of His teaching, not upon morality, nor religion, nor obedience to God, but upon this, ‘Believe in Me’; or ever pushed forward His own personality into the foreground, and made the whole nobleness and blessedness and security and devoutness of a life to hinge upon that one thing, its personal relation to Him.
People talk about the sweet and gentle wisdom that flowed from Christ’s lips, and so on; about the lofty morality, about the beauty of pity and tenderness, and all the other commonplaces so familiar to us, and we gladly admit them all. But I venture to go a step further than all these, and to say that the outstanding differentia, the characteristic which marks off Christ’s teaching as something new, peculiar, and altogether per se, is not its morality, not its philanthropy, not its meek wisdom, not its sweet reasonableness, but its tremendous assertions of the importance of Himself.
And if I am asked to state the ground upon which such an assertion may be vindicated, I would point you to such facts as these, that this Man took up a position of equality with, and of superiority to, the legislation which He and the people to whom He was speaking regarded as being divinely sent, and said, ‘Ye have heard that it hath been said to them of old time’ so and so; ‘but I say unto you’: that this Man declared that to build upon His words was to build upon a rock; that this Man declared that He-He-was the legitimate object of absolute trust, of utter submission and obedience; that He claimed from His followers affiance, love, reverence which cannot be distinguished from worship, and that He did not therein conceive that He was intercepting anything that belonged to the Father. This Man professed to be able to satisfy the desires of every human heart when He said, ‘If any man thirst let him come to Me and drink.’ This Man claimed to be able to breathe the sanctity of repose in the blessedness of obedience over all the weary and the heavy laden; and assured them that He Himself, through all the ages, and in all lands, and for all troubles, would give them rest. This Man declared that He who stood there, in the quiet homes of Galilee, and went about its acres with those blessed feet for our advantage, was to be Judge of the whole world. This Man said that His name was ‘Son of God’; and this Man declared, ‘He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.’
And then people say to us, ‘Oh! your Gospel narratives, even if they be the work of men in good faith, telling what they suppose He said, mistook the Teacher; and if we could strip away the accretion of mistaken reverence, and come to the historical person, we should find no claims like these.’
Well, this is not the time to enter into the large questions which that contention involves, but I point you to the incident which makes my text, and I say, ‘What need we any further witnesses?’ Nobody denies that Jesus Christ was crucified as the result of a combination of Sanhedrin and Pilate. What set the Jewish rulers against Him with such virulent and murderous determination? Is there anything in the life of Jesus Christ, if it is watered down as the people, who want to knock out all the supernatural, desire to water it down-is there anything in the life that will account for the inveterate acrimony and hostility which pursued Him to the death? The fact remains that, whether or not Evangelists and Apostles misconceived His teaching when they gave such prominence to His personality and His lofty claims, His enemies were under the same delusion, if it were a delusion; and the reason why the whole orthodox religionism of Judaism rejoiced when He was nailed to the Cross was summed up in the taunt which they flung at Him as He hung there, ‘If He be the Son of God, let Him come down, and we will believe Him.’
So, brethren, I put into the witness-box Annas and Caiaphas and all their satellites, and I say, ‘What need we any further witnesses?’ He died because He declared that He was the Son of God.
And I beseech you ask yourselves whether we are not being put off with a maimed version of His teaching, if there is struck out of it this its central characteristic, that He, ‘the sage and humble,’ declared that He was ‘likewise One with the Creator.’
II. Secondly, note how we have here the witness that Jesus Christ assented always to the loftiest meaning that men attached to His claims.
I have already pointed out the remarkable difference between the explanations which He condescended to give to the Roman governor as to the perfectly innocent meaning of His claim to be the King of Israel, and His silence before the Sanhedrin. That silence is only explicable because they rightly understood the meaning of the claim which they contemptuously and perversely rejected. Jesus Christ knew that His death was the forfeit, as I have said, and yet He locked His lips and said not a word.
In like manner when, on the other occasion to which I have already referred, the Pharisees stumbled at His claims to forgive sins, He said nothing to soften down that claim. If He had meant then only what some people would desire to make Him mean when He said, ‘Thy sins be forgiven thee’-viz., that He was simply acting as a minister of the divine forgiveness, and assuring a poor sinner that God had pardoned him-why in common honesty, in discharge of His plain obligations of a teacher, did He not say so-not for His own sake, but for the sake of preventing such a tremendous misunderstanding of His meaning? But He let them go away with the conviction that He intended to claim a divine prerogative, and vindicated the assertion by doing what only a divine power could do: ‘That ye may know that the Son of Man hath power enough on earth to forgive sins, He saith unto the sick of the palsy, Take up thy bed and walk.’ There was no need for Him to have wrought a miracle to establish His right to tell a poor soul that God forgave sin. And the fact that the miracle was supposed to be the demonstration and the vindication of His right to declare forgiveness shows that He was exercising that prerogative which belongs, as they rightly said, to God only.
And in precisely the same manner, the commonest obligations of honesty, the plain duty of a misunderstood Teacher, to say nothing of the duty of self-preservation, ought to have opened His lips in the presence of the Jewish authorities, if they understood wrongly and set too high their estimate of the meaning of His claims. His silence establishes the fact that they understood these aright.
And so, all through His life, we note this peculiarity, that He never puts aside as too lofty for truth men’s highest interpretations of His claims, nor as too lowly for their mutual relation the lowest reverence which bowed before Him. Peter, in the house of Cornelius, said, ‘Stand up! for I myself also am a man.’ Paul and Barnabas, when the priests brought out the oxen and garlands to the gates of Lystra, could say, ‘We also are men of like passions with yourselves.’ But this meek Jesus lets men fall at His feet; and women wash them with their tears and wipe them with the hairs of their head; and souls stretch out maimed hands of faith, and grasp Him as their only hope. When His apostle said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ His answer was, ‘Blessed art thou, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,’ and when another exclaimed, ‘My Lord and my God!’ this Pattern of all meekness accepted and endorsed the title, and pronounced a benediction on all who, not having seen Him, should hereafter attain a like faith.
Now I want to know whether that characteristic, which runs through all His life, and is inseparable from it, can be vindicated on any ground except the ground that He was ‘God manifest in the flesh.’ Either Jesus Christ had a greedy appetite for excessive adoration, was a victim to diseased vanity and ever-present self-regard-the most damning charge that you can bring against a religious teacher-or He accepted love and reverence and trust, because the love and the reverence and the trust knit souls to the Incarnate God their Saviour.
III. And so, lastly we have here witness to the only alternative to the acceptance of His claims.
He hath spoken ‘blasphemy,’ not because He had derogated from the dignity of divinity, but because He had presumed to participate in it. And it seems to me, with all deference, that this rough alternative is the only legitimate one. If Jesus Christ did make such claims, and His relation to the Jewish hierarchy and His death are, as I have shown you, apart even from the testimony of the Evangelists, strong confirmation of the fact that He did-if Jesus Christ did make such claims, and they were not valid, one of two things follows. Either He believed them, and then, what about His sanity? or He did not believe them, and then, what about His honesty? In either case, what about His claims to be a Teacher of religion? What about His claims to be the Pattern of humanity? That part of His teaching and character is either the manifestation of His glory or it is like one of those fatal black seams that run through and penetrate into the substance of a fair white marble statue, marring all the rest of its pale and celestial beauty. Brethren, it seems to me that, when all is said and done, we come to one of three things about Jesus Christ. Either ‘He blasphemeth’ if He said these things, and they were not true, or ‘He is beside Himself’ if He said these things and believed them, or
‘Thou art the King of Glory, O Christ;
Thou art the everlasting Son of the Father.’
Now I know that there are many men who, I venture to say, are far better than their creed, and who, believing it impossible to accept, in their plain meaning, the plain claims of Jesus Christ to divinity, do yet cleave to Him with a love and a reverence and an obedience which more orthodox men might well copy. And far be it from me to say one word which might seem even to quench the faintest beam of light that, shining from His perfect character, draws any heart, however imperfectly, to Himself. Only, if I speak to any such at this time, I beseech them to follow the light which draws them, and to see whether their reverence for that fair character should not lead them to accept implicitly the claims that came from His own lips. I humbly venture to say that if we know anything at all about Jesus Christ, we know that He lived declaring Himself to be the Everlasting Son of the Father, and that He died because He did so declare Himself. And I beseech you to ponder the question whether reverence for Him and admiration of His character can be logically and reasonably retained, side by side with the repudiation of that which is the most distinctive part of His message to men.
Oh, brethren, if it is true that God has come in the flesh, and that that sweet, gracious, infinitely beautiful life is really the revelation of the heart of God, then what a beam of sunshine falls upon all the darkness of this world! Then God is love; then that love holds us all; did not shrink from dying for us, and lives for ever to bless us. If these claims are true, what should our attitude be but that of infinite trust, love, submission, obedience, and the shaping of our lives after the pattern of His life?
These rejectors, when they said, ‘He speaketh blasphemies,’ were sealing their own doom, and the ruined Temple and nineteen centuries of wandering misery show what comes to men who hear Christ declaring that He is the Son of the living God and the Judge of the world, and who find nothing in the words but blasphemy. On the other hand, if we will answer His question, ‘Whom say ye that I am?’ as the apostle answered it, we shall, like the apostle, receive a benediction from His lips, and be set on that faith as on a rock against which the ‘gates of hell’ shall not prevail.
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v65 The sentence:
The sentence:
v. 65. 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.
Read full note →
v. 66. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.
v. 67. Then did they spit in His face, and buffeted Him; and others smote Him with the palms of their hands,
v. 68. saying, Prophesy unto us, Thou Christ, Who is he that smote Thee?
It was the sign of the greatest grief, of the deepest mourning, for a Jew to tear open his outer garment. Here was an act of theatrical affectation without true emotion. He is shocked beyond measure, so he declares by his action, by the blasphemy out of the mouth of Jesus. There is no more need of trial, no more need of witnesses, he declares. His reference is to Lev 24:15, to the penalty for blasphemy, and to Deu 18:20, to that for being a false prophet. In his eagerness Caiaphas entirely overlooked the fact that he had not proved a case of blasphemy against Jesus. But his acting had its effect. No formal vote was taken, the cries of assent coming from all sides being counted as sufficient evidence of universal agreement. And now followed a scene during which not only the servants and the Temple police, but also the members of the great council forgot the last shred of their assumed dignity and humanity, giving way to, the vilest and lowest ways of venting their spite against Jesus. Spitting into His face, striking Him with their clenched fists, slapping Him with the open palms of their hands were only some of the ways in which they amused themselves. It was like an orgy of devils. They tried to ridicule His ability to foretell the future; in short, devilish hatred had unhindered sway. For in reality they were baffled, in spite of their apparent victory. Thus did they fill out the morning hours of that miserable night. And, like them, the enemies of the truth of Christ, unable to find a real accusation against the Christians, will find excuses to vent their spite against them and attempt to hinder their work.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv62, 65 What is it that they are testifying against you?
What is it that they are testifying against you?
The chief priest is not asking Jesus for information about what the witnesses said. He is asking Jesus to prove what the witnesses said is wrong. AT: "What is your response to what the witnesses are testifying against you?"
Read full note →
Son of God
This is an important title that describes the relationship between the Christ and God. (See: Translating Son and Father)
the living God
Here "living" contrasts the God of Israel to all the false gods and idols that people worshiped. Only the God of Israel is alive and has power to act. See how you translated this in Matthew 16:16.
You have said it yourself
This is an idiom that Jesus uses to mean "yes" without being completely clear about what he means. AT: "You are saying it" or "You are admitting it" (See: Idiom)
But I tell you, from now on you
Here "you" is plural. Jesus is speaking to the high priest and to the other persons there. (See: Forms of You)
from now on you will see the Son of Man
Possible meanings are 1) the phrase "from now on" is an idiom that means they will see the Son of Man in his power at some time in the future or 2) the phrase "from now on" means that from the time of Jesus' trial and onward, Jesus is showing himself to be the Messiah who is powerful and victorious.
the Son of Man
Jesus is speaking about himself in third person. (See: First, Second, or Third Person)
sitting at the right hand of Power
Here "Power" is metonym that represents God. To sit at the "right hand of God" is a symbolic action of receiving great honor and authority from God. AT: "sitting in the place of honor beside the all-powerful God" (See: Metonymy and Symbolic Action)
coming on the clouds of heaven
"riding to earth on the clouds of heaven"
translationWords
high priest
command
life
God
Christ
Son of God
Son of Man
right hand
power
heaven
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv63–65 26:63 if you are the Messiah: This question from…
26:63 if you are the Messiah: This question from the high priest was prompted by Zech 6:12, which had predicted that the Messiah would rebuild the Temple (cp. Matt 26:61).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.