Matthew 26:62

Matthew 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, Genesis 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 Exodus 22:11 ; Leviticus 5:1 ; and Proverbs 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 Daniel 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.

Matthew 26:62 . ἀναστὰς ὁ ἀρ .: the high priest rose up not because he felt the evidence just led to be very serious, rather in irritation because the most damaging statements amounted to nothing more serious. A man could not be sentenced to death for a boastful word (Grotius).— οὐδὲν ἀποκρίνῃ … καταμαρτυροῦσιν : either one question as in Vulg[143]: “nihil respondes ad ea quae isti adversum te testificantur?” or two as in A. V[144] and R. V[145], so also Weizsäcker: answerest Thou nothing? what do these witness against Thee? It is an attempt of a baffled man to draw Jesus into explanations about the saying which will make it more damaging as evidence against Him. What about this pretentious word of yours; is it true that you said it, and what does it mean? [143] Vulgate (Jerome’s revision of old Latin version). [144] Authorised Version. [145] Revised Version.

(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 Isaiah 53:7 . In 1Peter 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 (John 18:19), with the intention of drawing out something that would ensure condemnation.

Matthew 26:62 . With the sublime calm of one who is conscious of his own superior worth, Jesus meekly abstains from uttering a single word before this contemptible tribunal in the way of self-vindication, εἰδὼς δὲ καὶ , ὅτι μάτην ἀποκρινεῖται παρὰ τοιούτοις , Euthymius Zigabenus; whereas the high priest who finds, and that with considerable gratification, that the charge of being a Messianic pretender is now fully substantiated by the language of Jesus just deponed to (see Matthew 26:63 ), quite forgets himself, and breaks out into a passion. The breaking up of the following utterance into two questions: answerest thou not? what ( i.e. how heinous a matter) do these witness against thee ? is, so far as the latter question is concerned, neither feeble (de Wette) nor unnatural (Weiss), but entirely in keeping with the passionate haste of the speaker. This being the case, the two clauses should not be run into one.

We should neither, on the one hand, following Erasmus, with Fritzsche, take τί in the sense of cur , or ( ad Marc . p. 650) the whole sentence as equivalent to τί τοῦτό ἐστιν , ὃ οὗτοί σου καταμαρτυροῦσιν ; nor, on the other, with the Vulgate, Luther, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek, Keim, Weiss, should we adopt the rendering: “nihil respondes ad ea, quae isti adversum te testificantur?” This latter, however, would not be inconsistent with the strict meaning of the terms employed, for it is quite permissible to use ἀποκρίνεσθαί τι in the sense of: to reply to anything (see Ast, Lex. Plat . I. p. 239), and to take τί as equivalent to ὅ , τι (Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 216 [E. T. 251], who supposes “hörend” (hearing) to be understood before τί ).

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. 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 Matthew 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, John 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.