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.”
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.”
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. What do you think?” They answered, “He is worthy of death!”
Then they spat in his face and beat him with their fists, and some slapped him,
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv64–65 This word distinguisheth his first coming from the latter.
This word distinguisheth his first coming from the latter.
Sitting with God in like and equal honor at the right hand of his power, that is, in greatest power: for the right hand signifieth among the Hebrews, that that is mighty and of great power.
Read full note →
Clouds of heaven, see also Matt. 24:30.
Matt. 16:27; Rom. 14:20; 2 Thess. 4:14
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv63–67 63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high…
63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
Ver. 63. I adjure thee by the living God] So had the devil done once before, horrendo impudentiae exemplo, Mar 3:7. Sed os Caiaphae et culeus Satanae in eodem sunt praedicamento. It is nothing with the devil and his to pollute and dishallow that nomen maiestativum, as Tertullian styleth it, that "glorious and fearful name of God," as Moses calleth it, Deu 28:58; and to call him in, at all turns, as an author or abettor, at least, of their abominable plots and practises. How much better that holy man that said, My heart, head, and tongue trembleth as often as I speak of God? {a} Yea, the very heathen sages had the same thoughts, that men ought to be better advised than to toss God’s reverend name upon their tongues as a tennis ball, or to wear his image for an ornament. {b} And surely, as St Mark relateth this history, one would think Caiaphas a very conscientious person. For he brings him in saying to our Saviour, "Art thou the son of that blessed one?" Mar 14:61. So he calls God by. a periphrasis, as if he were afraid once to name God, ευλογητου. Baruch hu, quasi ipsum Dei nomen exprimere vereatur; when as yet presently after, he profanely adjureth our blessed Saviour "by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ," &c. And this he doth, not out of any desire to know the truth; but as seeking an occasion from his bold and free confession of the truth, to put him to death; so going about to entitle God himself to his villanous enterprizes. See here the hateful nature of damned hypocrisy, and abandon it.
Read full note →
{a} Lingua, mente, et cogitatione horresco quoties de Deo sermonem habeo Nazianzen.
{b} εν δακτυλιω εικονα θεου υν περιφιρειν Praecept. Pyth.
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 vv64, 65, 67 Mark saith, Mar 14:62, And Jesus said, I am:…
Mark saith, Mar 14:62, And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see, &c. Luke saith, Luk 22:67-69, And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: and if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. What all the evangelists say put together, makes up our Saviour’s perfect answer. To what purpose (saith Christ) should I answer you? This is now but a captious question, not propounded by you to that end that you might be satisfied as to the truth, but only to ensnare me, for if I should tell you I am, you would not believe it. If I should argue the matter with you, you would give me no answer. I have given you proof enough, but yet, Caiaphas, thou hast said the truth, I am the Christ, the Son of the ever living, blessed God; and, to confirm you further, hereafter you shall see me, whom you think to be no more than the Son of man, sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming in the clouds of heaven. There is a time for a man to speak, and a time for him to hold his peace; in the matter of confession of truth. The seasons for silence, or speech, are to be judged from the honour and glory of God; when we cannot be silent without betraying the truth, we are bound to speak. Our Lord therefore, being so solemnly adjured in the name of God to tell them what was the truth, now confesseth, and denieth not, that he was the Son of God, and tells them, hereafter they should see it. Whether the term hereafter refers to the time soon following, (as απ’ αρτι, in this evangelist, and ’Aπο του νυν, in Luke, seem to signify), and be to be understood of Christ’s resurrection, his ascension into heaven, the coming of the Holy Ghost, and the carrying of the gospel to all nations, or to the day of judgment (which the New Testament often speaks of as a thing at hand, and that phrase, coming in the clouds of heaven, seems rather to signify); or (as others think) to both, referring the sitting on the right hand of power to the former, and the coming in the clouds to the latter; is hard to determine.
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 vv63–67 Jesus saith unto him, thou hast said,.... That is,…
Jesus saith unto him, thou hast said,.... That is, thou hast said right; or as Mark expresses it, "I am", Mar 14:62, the Christ, the anointed of God, who was so from everlasting, and in time; being before the world was, installed into, and invested with the office of mediator; and in the fulness of time, anointed with the holy Spirit without measure: he might truly say he was the Messiah, since all the characters of him in the books of the prophets, met in him; and all the miracles he was to work in proof of his Messiahship were wrought by him: as also that be was the Son of God, not by creation, as angels and men; nor by adoption, as saints; nor as man, or in the human nature, in which he was the son of man, and not the Son of God; nor was he begotten as man, whereas he is called the only begotten Son, and the begotten of the Father; and was he the Son of God as man not the first, but the third person must be his Father; besides, he was the Son of God before his incarnation: nor as mediator neither; be was the Son of God, antecedent to his office as mediator; his sonship is distinct from it, is an illustration of it, and what puts virtue into it; but he is so as God, as a divine person, by natural and eternal filiation; being begotten of the Father in the divine essence, and of the same nature; and having the same perfections with him, and in all things equal to him; and is the sense in which he always affirmed God to be his Father, and himself to be his Son. For this phrase, "thou hast said", as answering to an affirmation, "I am"; see Gill on Mat 26:25. Now, though Christ had so fully answered to the adjuration, and so strongly affirmed himself to be the Messiah, the Son of God, yet he knew they would not believe; and therefore refers them to an after proof thereof, which whether they would or not, would oblige them to acknowledge the whole:
nevertheless, I say unto you, hereafter shall ye see the son of man, sitting at the right hand of power: the Vulgate Latin, and Munster's Hebrew Gospel, read "the power of God", as in Luk 22:69, though it is not absolutely necessary; for "power" designs God himself, who is all powerful; as appears by the creation of all things out of nothing, the upholding of all things in their being, the redemption of men, the conversion of sinners, and the preservation of his saints. In the Jewish writings (e), God is frequently called,
Read full note →
"the power": such a thing, say they, we have heard,
"from the mouth of power", or might; that is, from God himself: and so he is by the Grecians called "power" (f): by "the son of man", is meant Christ in the human nature; who then appeared at their bar as a mere man, in a very despicable form and condition, but hereafter they should see him in a more glorious one, and at "the right hand of God": a phrase expressive of his exaltation, above all creatures whatever: respect is had to the prophecy of him in Psa 110:1. "Sitting" there, denotes his having done his work; and his continuance in his exalted state, until all enemies are subdued under him: and when he says they should "see" him, his meaning is not, that they should see him at the right hand of God with their bodily eyes, as Stephen did; but that they should, or at least might, see and know by the effects, that he was set down at the right hand of God; as by the pouring forth of the holy Spirit upon his disciples, on the day of pentecost; by the wonderful spread of his Gospel, and the success of it, notwithstanding all the opposition made by them, and others; and particularly, by the vengeance he should take on their nation, city, and temple; and which may be more especially designed in the next clause,
and coming in, the clouds of heaven. So Christ's coming to take vengeance on the Jewish nation, as it is often called the coming of the son of man, is described in this manner, Mat 24:27. Though this may also be understood of Christ's second coming to judgment, at the last day; when as he went up to heaven in a cloud, he will return, and come also in the clouds of heaven; see Act 1:9 Rev 1:7, when he will be seen by the eyes of all, good and bad; and when this sanhedrim, before whom he now was, will see him also, and confess that he is Lord and Christ, and the Son of God. Though the former clause seems to have regard to what would quickly come to pass, and what they should soon observe, and be convinced of; for , rendered "hereafter", may be translated "henceforwards"; or as it is in the Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions, "from this time"; meaning, that in a very little while, they should begin to see the effects of his being set down at the right hand of God, and which would be full proofs of it, and should see him come in the clouds of heaven, at the last day: reference seems to be had to Dan 7:13, where one like unto the son of man is said to come in the clouds of heaven, and which is understood of the Messiah by many, both of the ancient and modern Jews (g): with whom one of his names is "Anani" (h), which signifies "clouds",
(e) T. Bab. Maccot, fol. 24. 1. & Horayot, fol. 8. 1. Debarim Rabba, fol. 245. 4. Maimon. Hilch. Memarim, c. 5. sect. 15. & Melacim, c. 8. sect. 10. & alibi passim. (f) Sententiae Secundi, p. 21. Ed. Gale. (g) Zohar in Gert. fol. 85. 4. Bemidbar Rabba, sect. 13. fol. 209. 4. R. Jeshuah in Aben Ezra, in Dan. vii. 13. & Jarchi & Saadiah Gaon in loc. (h) Targum in 1 Chron. iii. 24. & Beckius in ib. Midrash Tillim apud Galatin. de arcan. Cathol. ver. l. 10. c. 1.
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, 67 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 vv63–67 Verse 63. I adjure thee by the living God]…
Verse 63. I adjure thee by the living God] I put thee to thy oath. To this solemn adjuration Christ immediately replies, because he is now called on, in the name of God, to bear another testimony to the truth. The authority of God in the most worthless magistrate should be properly respected. However necessary our Lord saw it to be silent, when the accusations were frivolous, and the evidence contradictory, he felt no disposition to continue this silence, when questioned concerning a truth, for which he came into the world to shed his blood.
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 vv65, 67 Mat 26:65. Then the high-priest rent his clothes —…
Mat 26:65. Then the high-priest rent his clothes — Though the high-priest was forbidden to rend his clothes, (that is, his upper garments,) in some cases, where others were allowed to do it, (Lev 10:6; and Lev 21:10;) yet in case of blasphemy, or any public calamity, it was thought allowable, 2Ki 19:1; 1Ma 11:71; Caiaphas, therefore, by this action, expressed in the strongest and most artful manner, his horror at hearing so mean and vile a person as he thought Jesus to be, claiming the sovereignty over Israel, and a seat at the right hand of God, and this when adjured upon oath on so solemn an occasion.
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 vv64–67 Thou hast said - This is a form of…
Thou hast said - This is a form of assenting or affirming. Thou hast said the truth; or, as Luke Luk 22:70 has it, “Ye say that I am.” This was not, however, said “immediately.” Before Jesus acknowledged himself to be the Messiah, he said to them Luk 22:67-68, “If I tell you ye will not believe, and if I also ask you” - that is, propose the proofs of my mission, and require you to give your opinion of them “ye will not answer me, nor let me go.”
Nevertheless - This word should have been translated: “moreover or furthermore.” What follows is designed to explain and give confirmation to what he had said.
Read full note →
Sitting on the right hand of power - That is, of God, called here the Power - equivalent to “the Mighty, or the Almighty.” It denotes dignity and majesty; for to sit at the right hand of a prince was the chief place of honor. See the notes at Mat 20:21.
Coming in the clouds of heaven - See the notes at Matt. 24; 25. The meaning of this is, You shall see “the sign from heaven” which you have so often demanded; even the Messiah returning himself “as the sign,” with great glory, to destroy your city and to judge the world.
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 vv63–67 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 vv63–67 63. Held his peace — Thus at once defeating…
63. Held his peace — Thus at once defeating the unjust judge, and calling to mind the prediction of the prophet: “As a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.” How valuable a gift is the talent for judicious silence! I adjure thee — The high priest now takes a new turn. The testimony said something about rebuilding the temple. Now the glorious rebuilding of the temple was one of the popular things ascribed to the Messiah. “This man then,” says the high priest to himself, “I understand to be a claimant to the Messiahship.” He therefore puts the adjuration, which every Jew was bound to answer truly. The Christ, the Son of God — The high priest doubtless knew that these two titles meant, according to prophecy, the same being. He joins the two together, with an air of great solemnity, for the purpose of making the claim to them both appear more formidable.
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 vv64–67 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 vv63–67 (63) I adjure thee by the living God .…
(63) I adjure thee by the living God . . .—The appeal was one of unusual solemnity. All else had failed to break through the silence, but this would surely rouse Him. Technically, the oath thus tendered to the accused was of the nature of an oath of compurgation, such as that recognised in Exo_22:11, Num_5:19-22, 1Ki_8:31, but it was skilfully worded so as to force upon our Lord the alternative either of denying what indeed He was, or of making a confession which would be treated as blasphemy. The records of St. John’s Gospel (Joh_5:18; Joh_8:58; Joh_9:37; Joh_10:24) show us that they had good means of knowing what answer to expect.
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 vv63–67 Jesus hold his peace; esiwpa : continued silent. (cf.…
Jesus hold his peace; esiwpa : continued silent. (cf. Mat_27:12-14) "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth," etc.. (Isa_53:7; cf. Psa_38:13, Psa_38:14) He knew it was of no use, and was not the moment, to explain the mystery of the words which he had used. Indeed, it was unfair to ask him to explain the discrepancies in the alleged testimony. "Attempts at defence were unprofitable, no man hearing. For this was a show only of a court of justice, but in truth an onset of robbers, assailing him without cause, as in a cave or on the road" (St. Chysostom, in loc. ). The case was best met by a majestic silence. Answered . Puzzled and embarrassed by Christ"s persistent silence, Caiaphas at last proceeds to put to him a question which he must answer, and which must lead to some definite result. I adjure thee by the living God. The high priest now addresses Jesus officially as the minister of Jehovah, and puts him under an oath to make an answer. To such an adjuration a reply was absolutely necessary, and the Law held a man guilty who kept silence under such circumstances. (Lev_5:1) The Christ, the Son of God. It is not to be supposed that Caiaphas by these words intended to imply that Messiah was one with God, of one nature, power, and eternity. It is not likely that he had risen above the popular Jewish conception of Messiah, which was of one inferior to God, though invested with certain Divine attributes. But he had heard that Jesus had more than once claimed God as his Father, so he now, as he hopes, will force a confession from the Prisoner"s lips, which will set the question at rest one way or the other, and give him ground for decisive action, and enable him to denounce Christ either as an acknowledged impostor or a blasphemer. His language is, perhaps, based on the second psalm, vers. 2, 6, etc.
Vers. 63-65. Christ and Caiaphas.
Read full note →
Jesus now stands face to face with the head of the old Jewish religion. The official leader of the nation is for the first time confronted by the Man who claims to be its true King. Caiaphas could not but look upon Christ with the jealousy a selfish man in power feels for his rival. But Jesus was more than a rival of the high priest. He laid claim to a rank which Caiaphas never dreamed of assuming. We do not wonder that the ecclesiastical judge examined his Prisoner with bitter prejudice.
I THE ADJURATION. Caiaphas charged Jesus, on oath, to declare whether he was the Christ, the Son of God.
1. It is most important to know what Jesus Christ claims to be. We have an interest in the high priest"s question quite apart from the judicial process. Our religion is centred in Christ. It is mere than an outgrowth of his life and teaching. It rests upon his Person; it lives in him; it is what he is. We cannot wholly disregard him without abandoning Christianity itself. An imperfect knowledge of Christ may be found with a true and saving faith in him. Still, the faith must be in him, and therefore we must know enough of him to trust him.
2. The greatest question about Christ is as to his Divinity and Messiahship.
(1) Is he the Christ? If he is, he is able to save; if he is, he has a right to claim a loyal following.
(2) Is he the Son of God? If he is, he comes to us clad with Divine power. Then we may trust that he cannot fail, and we have the best of all reasons for submitting to his kingly rule. Such questions as these about his nature and authority cannot be set aside as of merely speculative interest.
II THE REPLY. Jesus did not usually assert his Messiahship; much less did he directly confess his Divine nature, except on certain rare occasions. But he was now at the end of his life, and therefore his revelation of his nature and office could not hinder his work. Moreover, the high priest had a legal right to test his claims, and Jesus never opposed the execution of the law.
1. Jesus accepted the highest names ascribed to him. Could he do this if he did not know they were his by right? He was calm and reasonable, simple and humble, generous and unselfish. Yet he consented to be called "the Christ, the Son of God.
2. Jesus foresaw and predicted his own second advent. It is wonderful that a peasant from Galilee should speak thus before the greatest dignitary of his nation, amid all the pomp and splendour of the high priest"s palace, and in view of his own rejection and death.
III THE RESULT. Caiaphas took the words of Christ as if they were blasphemy and on this account pronounced him to be worthy of death.
1. His conduct was determined by an unjust prejudice. He assumed that the claims of Christ could not be true, and therefore he judged them to be blasphemous. Thus he approached Christ with a closed mind. If we have already made up our minds adversely to the claims of Christ, it is useless for us to examine them. but the only fair method is to approach him with an open mind, ready to weigh all he teaches, ready to accept all that he may give us good warrant for believing.
2. On his own assumption he was right. If the high claims of Christ were false, he was guilty of blasphemy. Caiaphas was more consistent than those people are who reject the Divine claims of Christ, and yet honour him as the best of men. W.F.A.
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 vv64–67 64. Thou hast said. That is, thou hast said…
64. Thou hast said. That is, thou hast said the truth in thy question. The Lord only breaks the silence to affirm his divinity under oath. It insured his death at their hands, for he was immediately condemned for the declaration. “At the very crisis of his history, when denial would have saved his life, he asserts his claim to the Divine Sonship and to a Godlike power.
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 vv65, 67 the high priest tore his clothes
the high priest tore his clothes
Tearing clothing was a sign of anger and sadness. (See: Symbolic Action)
Read full note →
He has spoken blasphemy
The reason the high priest called Jesus' statement blasphemy is probably that he understood Jesus' words in Matthew 26:64 as a claim to be equal with God. (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)
Why do we still need witnesses?
The high priest uses this question to emphasize that he and the members of the council do not need to hear from any more witnesses. AT: "We do not need to hear from any more witnesses!" (See: Rhetorical Question)
now you have heard
Here "you" is plural and refers to the members of the council. (See: Forms of You)
translationWords
high priest
blasphemy
testimony
worthy
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, 64, 65, 67 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.