Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 26:62
And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what [is it which] these witness against thee?
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 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.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
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.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
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 priests 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.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And the high priest arose and said unto him,…. He rose up from his seat in great wrath and anger; partly being vexed, that they could get no other and better testimony; and partly because of Christ’s contemptuous silence, giving no answer to the witnesses, as judging they deserved none; and which highly provoked the high priest, and therefore in passion said,
answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? Is it true or false, right or wrong? The Vulgate Latin renders it, “dost thou answer nothing to those things which these witness against thee?” To which agree the Arabic version, and Munster’s Hebrew Gospel.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Mat 26:62
. And the high priest, rising up. It is certain that Christ was silent when false witnesses pressed hard upon him, not only because they did not deserve a reply, but because he did not seek to be now acquitted, knowing that his hour was come. But Caiaphas triumphs over him on account of his silence, as if he was struck dumb by being vanquished; which is usually the case with men who are conscious of having done wrong. But it is an instance of extreme wickedness that he insinuates that Christ is not free from blame, because witnesses speak against him. The question, What is it that those men testify against thee? amounts to this: “How comes it that those men oppose thee, but because they are urged by conscientious views? For they would not have appeared against thee without a good reason.” As if he did not know that those witnesses had been procured by fraud: but this is the way in which wicked men, when they find themselves in the possession of authority and power, throw off sham and indulge in arrogance. Christ was again silent, not only because the objection was frivolous, but because, having been appointed to be a sacrifice, he had thrown aside all anxiety about defending himself.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(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.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
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.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And the high priest stood up, and said to him, “Do you answer nothing? What is it which these witness against you?” ’
It would appear that the tribunal then set about trying to question Jesus on the matter, only to be met with what they saw as an obstinate silence. And this went on until in exasperation the High Priest railed at Jesus for not defending Himself. He had heard what these men had said against Him. Why did He not say something? For the truth was that they knew that it would be difficult to convict the man when He remained silent and was not obviously guilty of anything. But Jesus was not going to waste His time giving explanations which He knew that no one wanted to hear. He knew perfectly well that they did not want the truth. They simply wanted Him to admit something that would enable them to convict Him. And He had nothing like that to admit. He was quite happy for the witnesses to continue contradicting each other. But what He wanted most was for His accusers to face up to themselves, and to the truth.
It is quite possible that Messianic expectation included the idea that the Temple would be restored by the Messiah (see e.g. Zec 6:12-13 and consider the implications of Dan 9:26-27), and if that be so the move that now took place from considering the idea of restoring the Temple to looking at the question of Messiahship was natural. So He had spoken of restoring the Temple. Did that then mean that He was claiming to be the Messiah? Let Him now make clear what it was that He had intended by whatever He had said when He spoke of restoring the Temple!
‘He (the High Priest) stood up.’ This was unusual in a hearing and indicated how exasperated the High Priest had become. They were just not getting anywhere, and time was racing by.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 26:62-63. The high-priest arose, &c. When the high-priest found that Jesus took little notice of the things which the witnesses said against him, he fell into a passion, supposing that Christ intended to put an affront upon the council. For he arose from his seat, which judges seldom do, unless when in some perturbation, and spake to him, desiring him to give the reason of his conduct. The rabbies say, that a judge stands up only when he hears witnesses deposing that some person has blasphemed. But the high-priest finding this in vain, in order to cut the trial short, and ensnare Jesus, he adjured or called upon him to answer upon oath, whether he were the Christ. It appears that the Jewish high-priests had the power of administering that oath, which laid the person adjured under the necessity of giving an explicit answer, and of speaking the whole truth without disguise. The craft of the question put to our Lord lay in this, that if he answered 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.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 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, , , 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 Mat 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 in the sense of cur , or ( ad Marc . p. 650) the whole sentence as equivalent to , ; 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 in the sense of: to reply to anything (see Ast, Lex. Plat . I. p. 239), and to take as equivalent to , (Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 216 [E. T. 251], who supposes “hrend” (hearing) to be understood before ).
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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 , , saith the wise heathen. Either hold thy peace or say something that is worth hearing. And, . (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, , 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.
a Tenue mendacium pellucet. Sen.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
62. ] Dost thou not answer what it is which these testify against thee? i.e. wilt Thou give no explanation of the words alleged to have been used by Thee? Our Lord was silent; for in answering He must have opened to them the meaning of these his words, which was not the work of this His hour, nor fitting for that audience. It is not easy to say whether this sentence ought to be taken as one question or two. Meyer, in his former editions, maintained the latter, on the ground that would require after it. But he has now discovered in his fourth edition that may be constructed with an accusative simply, and that may be equivalent to . So that there is no serious objection remaining to the usual way of construction.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 26:62 . .: 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). : 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 Weizscker: 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.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
62.] Dost thou not answer what it is which these testify against thee? i.e. wilt Thou give no explanation of the words alleged to have been used by Thee? Our Lord was silent; for in answering He must have opened to them the meaning of these his words, which was not the work of this His hour, nor fitting for that audience. It is not easy to say whether this sentence ought to be taken as one question or two. Meyer, in his former editions, maintained the latter, on the ground that would require after it. But he has now discovered in his fourth edition that may be constructed with an accusative simply, and that may be equivalent to . So that there is no serious objection remaining to the usual way of construction.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 26:62. , …, what etc.?) A separate interrogation.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Answerest: Mat 27:12-14, Mar 14:60, Luk 23:9, Joh 18:19-24, Joh 19:9-11
Reciprocal: Mat 27:13 – Hearest Mar 15:4 – Answerest Act 7:1 – Are Act 8:32 – opened
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
6:62. The high priest was surprised that Jesus did not make any reply to the testimony of these witnesses. He tried to get him to say something or other but failed.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 26:62. And the high priest stood up. With a show of holy horror.
Answerest thou nothing? Silence would be a contempt of important testimony.
What do these witness against thee? Is it true or false? if true, what is its meaning? To make but one question of the high-priests language does not suit the vehemence natural to the occasion.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
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 . This appears to have been the Jewish manner of administering an oath. The Hebrews , which in the Old Testament is commonly, by our interpreters, rendered, to make one swear, is justly translated by the LXX. , or . 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., , &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. , 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.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
26:62 And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? {c} what [is it which] these witness against thee?
(c) How does it come to pass that these men witness against thee?