Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 26:63
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.
Mat 26:63
But Jesus held His peace.
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.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
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.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
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:
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, Ps 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, Le 5:1.
c Philostrat. Vita Apollouii, l. 8. c. 1. d Jarchi & Aben Ezra in Psal. ii. 1. & Kimchi in ver. 12.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Held his peace (). Kept silent, imperfect tense. Jesus refused to answer the bluster of Caiaphas.
I adjure thee by the living God ( ). So Caiaphas put Jesus on oath in order to make him incriminate himself, a thing unlawful in Jewish jurisprudence. He had failed to secure any accusation against Jesus that would stand at all. But Jesus did not refuse to answer under solemn oath, clearly showing that he was not thinking of oaths in courts of justice when he prohibited profanity. The charge that Caiaphas makes is that Jesus claims to be the Messiah, the Son of God. To refuse to answer would be tantamount to a denial. So Jesus answered knowing full well the use that would be made of his confession and claim.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
I adjure thee. I call upon thee to swear. The high – priest put Christ upon oath.
That [] . In order that; signifying the design with which he adjured the Lord.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
63. I adjure thee by the living God. The high priest thought that this alone was a crime sufficient to condemn Christ, if he professed that he was the Christ. But since they all boasted of expecting redemption from Christ, he ought first to have inquired if such was the fact. That there would be a Christ, by whose hands the people were to be delivered, they would not have ventured to deny. Jesus came publicly forward, bearing the title of the Christ. Why do they not consider the fact itself? Why do they not examine the signs, by means of which a correct decision might have been formed? But, having already determined to put Christ to death, they are satisfied with this pretense of sacrilege, that he claimed for himself the glory of Divinity. And yet Caiaphas examines the matter on oath, as if he had been prepared to yield as soon as it was fully ascertained; but all the while his whole mind is filled with a malicious hatred and contempt of Christ, and is so blinded by pride and ambition, that he takes for granted, that as soon as the fact has been ascertained, without inquiring whether it is right or wrong, he will have just grounds for condemning him.
If thou art the Christ, the Son of God. From the words of Caiaphas we may infer, that it was at that time common among the Jews to bestow on the Messiah the title of the Son of God; for this form of interrogation could not have originated in any other way than from the ordinary custom; and, indeed, they had learned from the predictions of Scripture that he was not less the Son of God than the Son of David. It appears, too, that Caiaphas employed this epithet, with the view either of terrifying Christ, or of exciting a prejudice against him; as if he had said, “See where you are going; for you cannot call yourself the Christ, without claiming, at the same time, the appellation of Son of God, with which Scripture honors him.” Such is also his reason for using the word Blessed, which Mark gives instead of God; for this pretended reverence (232) for God was intended to bring a heavier charge against Christ than that of profaning the holy name of God.
(232) “ Ce mot duquel Caiaphe use, faisant semblant d’avoir une grande reverence à la majesté Divine;” — “this word which Caiaphas employs, pretending to have a great veneration for the Divine majesty.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(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. Johns 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.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
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.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us whether you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” ’
But Jesus continued to say nothing until eventually the High Priest in desperation, and probably totally exasperated, overstepped the mark and used his power of adjuration. This was the power given to the High Priest as God’s earthly representative to adjure a stubborn witness to tell the truth in the Name of God. In response to such a solemn adjuration a reply then had to be given, otherwise there would be an offence against God. However, it was never intended to be used to get a conviction from an accused man’s own mouth. But the High Priest in his desperation and exasperation ignored that small distinction and called on Jesus in the Name of the living God to say whether or not He did claim to be ‘the Messiah, the Son of God’. We need not doubt that some such an impression had been given by some of the witnesses. The crucial element in this charge was the claim to be the Son of God. It was not considered blasphemy to claim to be the Messiah, even if it was disapproved of, thus some such charge as a claim to be the Son of God must certainly have been made by someone. Possibly it was partly based on Mat 22:42-45, perhaps connected with the parable of the wicked Tenants (Mat 21:37). Perhaps it even arose from what the evil spirits had cried out (Mat 8:29).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 26:63 . The high priest answers this second refusal to speak by repeating a formal oath , in which Jesus is adjured to declare whether He be the Messiah or not. For this confession would determine how far they would be justified in pronouncing a capital sentence, and such as the Roman procurator would not fail to confirm.
] means, like the earlier form : I call upon thee to swear , Dem. 1265, 6; Polyb. iii. 61. 10, vi. 21. 1, xvi. 31. 5. Comp. , Gen 24:3 , al. To give an affirmative answer to this formula was to take the full oath usually administered in any court of law. Michaelis, Mos. R. 302; Matthaei, doctr. Christi de jurejur. 1847, p. 8; Keil, Arch. II. p. 256. The fact that Jesus took the oath has been denied, though without any reason whatever, by Wuttke, Dllinger, Steinmeyer.
, . . .] by the living God. Comp. 1Ki 3:24 ; Jdt 1:12 ; common in Greek authors, see Khner, I. 1, p. 434; also Heb 6:13 , and Bleek thereon. The living God as such would not fail to punish the perjured, Heb 10:31 . It was the uniform practice in courts of law to swear by God. See Saalschutz, M. R. p. 614.
] ordinary, recognised designation of the Messiah, into which, naturally enough, the metaphysical conception does not enter here, however much it may have been present to the mind of Christ Himself in making the affirmation which follows.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
DISCOURSE: 1404
OUR LORDS CONDEMNATION BY THE JEWISH COUNCIL
Mat 26:63-66. And the high-priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou fell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said; nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 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. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.
THE ungodly in their pursuits often manifest a diligence which may put to shame the lukewarmness of Gods most zealous servants. Nor is it only in the gratification of their lusts that they display this ardour, but in their opposition to what is good. They feel themselves reproved by the blameless conversation of others, and would therefore gladly bring down all to their own level. Striking is that declaration of Solomon; They sleep not, except they have done mischief; and their sleep is taken away, unless they cause some to fall [Note: Pro 4:16.]. We have an awful illustration of this in the conduct of the Jewish governors towards our blessed Lord at all times, but especially at the close of his life. The high-priest and Scribes and elders had been occupied in examining witnesses against our Lord till midnight: yet, apprehensive that they had not gained such information as would warrant them to condemn him, they assembled, even the whole Sanhedrim, as soon as it was day [Note: Luk 22:66.], in the palace of the high-priest; and prosecuted their inquiries with redoubled earnestness, in order that they might effect his destruction without delay. The particular circumstances here recorded shall be noticed by us,
I.
In a way of easy illustration
In this trial of our Lord there are three things that require our attention;
1.
His examination
[His enemies had endeavoured to substantiate something against him by means of witnesses, but were defeated by the discordance of their testimony. The high-priest, therefore, had recourse to a method which his office authorized [Note: Num 5:19-21.], and from which he had little doubt of success; he adjured his prisoner, in the name of the living God, to declare the truth upon oath, and either to avow openly, or plainly to disavow, his pretensions to the office of their Messiah. Now if this had been done in a spirit of candour, and with a sincere desire of ascertaining the truth, we think he would have been fully justified in resorting to the measure: for the question was of infinite importance to the whole nation, inasmuch as their everlasting salvation depended on their receiving him if he were indeed the Messiah, and rejecting him if he were an impostor. The honour of God also was deeply implicated in it: and therefore it was right that he should exert his judicial authority to have the matter, which had so long agitated the nation, brought to a decision. But there was in the mind of the judge a predetermination to condemn him: and the adjuration had no other object than that of gaining from the mouth of our Lord himself a plea for effecting his destruction. And it is precisely thus that the inquiries of many about religion are made, not so much with a view to obtain useful information, as for the finding occasion against the Gospel, and against those who profess it.]
2.
His confession
[Whilst the people clamorously brought all kinds of accusations against him, our Lord held his peace; but when the high-priest adjured him in the name of the living God, he could no longer keep silence; but plainly and unequivocally said, I am the Christ; I am the Son of God [Note: See Mar 14:62.]. But, to cut off occasion from those who sought occasion against him, he brought to their remembrance a portion of Holy Writ, with which they were well acquainted, and which they were expecting about that time to be fulfilled [Note: Dan 7:13-14.]. It was universally known that Daniel spake of the Messiah; and that the Son of Man should establish an universal kingdom: and our Lord warns his enemies, that however they might despise him on account of the meanness of his present appearance, they should one day see him coming in the clouds of heaven, not only to punish Jerusalem, but to judge the world. This should have put them on their guard at least, and prevented that precipitate judgment which they were about to form: but the Scripture has no weight with men who are filled with prejudice; or rather, an appeal to it does but irritate them the more, and render them willing, though unconscious, instruments of fulfilling its predictions.]
3.
His sentence
[No sooner was this confession uttered, than the high-priest, to testify his abhorrence of what he called blasphemy, rent his clothes. This, though a common way of expressing grief or indignation among the Jews, was forbidden to the high-priest, whose august character was supposed to render him superior to all such transports of passion [Note: Compare 2Ki 18:37; 2Ki 19:1. with Lev 21:10.]. But, on this occasion, he who should have inclined to mercy was the first to condemn the prisoner, and to stir up the whole court against him. Little consideration is wanted, when religion is to be opposed: clamour will easily supply the want of argument, and prejudice supersede the necessity of proof: hence his assessors in judgment instantly adopted his sentiments; and all condemned Jesus, as a blasphemer, to suffer death. How awful to behold a number of persons, possessed both of the magisterial and sacerdotal office, branding as a blasphemer Gods only begotten Son, and, with malice truly diabolical, exclaiming, He is guilty of death! What must the heavenly hosts have felt, if they were spectators of this transaction! and how ought we to feel, when we consider, that we bear about with us the same evil dispositions, and, unless restrained by grace, should be as ready as they to renew the same scenes. We may imagine indeed, that the peculiarity of their situation led them to wickedness which we are incapable of committing: but it is a certain truth, that we in like circumstances should act as they did, if God did not interpose to enlighten and restrain our minds. The haste and acrimony with which godly persons are calumniated amongst us, shew clearly that we are actuated by the same principles as the Jews were, and, as far as occasion is afforded, are ready to tread in their steps.]
Let us next advert to the history,
II.
In a way of spiritual improvement
In this view much instruction may be gathered from it. We may learn from it,
1.
To inquire after Christ
[With what earnestness did the high-priest and elders pursue their inquiries; depriving themselves even of their rest, in order to acquire the information they desired! And are not we equally interested in the inquiry, Whether he be the Christ, the Son of God? Should we be content to take this matter upon trust, and not inquire into the grounds on which it stands, and the evidences which are adduced in its support? Or, having ascertained the truth of his Messiahship, should we not examine into the nature of his work, and office, and character? In our spirit, indeed, we cannot too widely differ from the Jews; but in our zeal and diligence we may well propose them to ourselves as objects of imitation. For what is there in the whole world that deserves our attention in comparison of this? St. Paul accounted all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus our Lord. Nor let us imagine that the study of the Holy Scriptures is to be confined to ministers: it is a work equally necessary for all, though all cannot devote the same portion of their time to it. And it is a work to which all are competent, as far as is necessary for their spiritual instruction. To all then would I say, Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of Christ.]
2.
To trust in him
[When we see our Lord sentenced to death without any fault whatever having been found in him, then we see what is to be our plea at the bar of judgment. This very circumstance of his having been condemned without cause frees us from condemnation. Having no sins of his own, his death was an expiation for our sin; and shall become effectual for the salvation of all who trust in him. To this agree the words of St. Peter: Christ once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God. Hence, whilst we confess ourselves to have deserved the deepest condemnation, we may point to him as our Surety and Substitute; and may say with the prophet, He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are healed. O that we may never lose sight of this blessed truth, which is the hope of all the ends of the earth! Let us contemplate it; let us glory in it; let it be the one labour of our souls to live by faith in him, and to say continually, He hath loved me, and given himself for me [Note: Gal 2:20.].]
3.
To confess him openly
[Our Lord well knew what would be the consequence of the confession that he made; yet would he not conceal the truth; and shall we be afraid to confess him? When he was not deterred by the most cruel death, shall we be intimidated by a reproachful name? Shall we not rather glory in being counted worthy to suffer shame for his sake? Yes; let us take up our cross cheerfully, and follow him without the camp, bearing his reproach. If persecution should menace us with its severest penalties, let us be ready to answer with the holy Apostle, None of these things move me; neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I may but finish my course with joy, and fulfil my duty to my Lord. Let us remember, that as he endured the cross, and despised the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, so shall we also, having overcome, be seated with him on his throne, as he sitteth on his Fathers throne.]
4.
Look forward to his second coming
[Ere long he will surely come again, according to his word; and every eye shall see him, and they also who pierced him. But with what eyes will his enemies behold him then! How glad would they then be, if they could hide themselves from his presence under rocks and mountains! Not so his believing people; they will rejoice and welcome his arrival as the commencement and consummation of all their joys. Thus saith the prophet; Hear the word of the Lord, ye that tremble at his word; your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my names sake, said, Let the Lord be glorified; but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed [Note: Isa 66:5.]. And to the same effect, only in far more awful language, is the testimony of the Apostle Paul [Note: 2Th 1:6-10.]; It is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled, rest, &c. &c. Look forward then, I say, to that day; remembering, that tribulation is the way to the kingdom, and that all who have been partakers of his sufferings now, shall, when his glory shall be revealed, be glad before him with exceeding joy [Note: 1Pe 4:13.]. Having suffered with him, ye shall also be eternally glorified together [Note: Rom 8:17. 2Ti 2:12.].]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
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 14:61Mar 14:61 . So he calls God by. a periphrasis, as if he were afraid once to name God, . 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.
a Lingua, mente, et cogitatione horresco quoties de Deo sermonem habeo Nazianzen.
b Praecept. Pyth.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
63. ] See Lev 5:1 .
, ‘I put thee under an oath,’ the form of which follows. The junction of . . with must not be pressed beyond the meaning which Caiaphas probably assigned to it viz. the title given to the Messiah from the purport of the prophecies respecting Him. It is however a very different thing when our Lord by his answer affirms this , and invests the words with their fullest meaning and dignity.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 26:63 . : Jesus seeing the drift of the questions gave the high priest no assistance, but continued silent. ( more common in classics). The high priest now takes a new line, seeing that there is no chance of conviction any other way. He puts Jesus on His oath as to the cardinal question of Messiahship. , etc.: not two questions but one, Son of God being exegetical of the title Christ. If He was the one He was the other ipso facto .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
held = continued holding.
I adjure Thee = I put Thee on Thine oath. Greek. exor-kizo. Occurs only here.
whether = if, &c. Throwing no doubt on the assumption: as in verses: Mat 26:24, Mat 26:39, Mat 26:42.
the Christ = Messiah. App-98. .
the Son of God. See App-98.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
63.] See Lev 5:1.
, I put thee under an oath, the form of which follows. The junction of . . with must not be pressed beyond the meaning which Caiaphas probably assigned to it-viz. the title given to the Messiah from the purport of the prophecies respecting Him. It is however a very different thing when our Lord by his answer affirms this, and invests the words with their fullest meaning and dignity.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 26:63. , the Son of God) Caiaphas, in common with the rest of his nation, did not entertain a merely political idea of the promised Messiah.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Jesus: Psa 38:12-14, Isa 53:7, Dan 3:16, Act 8:32-35, 1Pe 2:23
I adjure: Lev 5:1, Num 5:19-21, 1Sa 14:24, 1Sa 14:26, 1Sa 14:28, 1Ki 22:16, 2Ch 18:15, Pro 29:24
that: Mar 14:61, Luk 22:66-71, Joh 8:25, Joh 10:24, Joh 18:37
the Christ: Mat 16:16, Mat 27:40, Mat 27:43, Mat 27:54, Psa 2:6, Psa 2:7, Isa 9:6, Isa 9:7, Joh 1:34, Joh 1:49, Joh 3:16-18, Joh 5:18-25, Joh 6:69, Joh 10:30, Joh 10:36, Joh 19:7, Joh 20:31, 1Jo 5:11-13
Reciprocal: Exo 20:7 – take Deu 5:26 – living Jos 6:26 – adjured 1Sa 3:17 – God Ezr 10:5 – made Neh 5:12 – I called Son 2:7 – charge you Jer 10:10 – the living Mat 14:33 – Of Mat 27:12 – General Mar 5:7 – I adjure Mar 9:7 – This Mar 12:6 – one Mar 14:60 – General Luk 1:35 – the Son of God Luk 4:41 – Thou Luk 9:20 – The Luk 22:67 – Art Joh 4:26 – I that Joh 8:6 – as though Act 9:20 – that Act 19:13 – adjure Rom 1:3 – his Son 2Co 1:19 – the Son 1Th 5:27 – I charge Heb 1:2 – spoken Rev 7:2 – living
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THE HIGH PRIESTS QUESTION
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.
Mat 26:63
It was quite in keeping with the character of Caiaphas, that he would ignore all the decencies of a judicial investigation. The false witnesses having failed to agree, Caiaphas felt sure that if Christ were solemnly appealed to on the point of His Divine pretensions, He would speak out unhesitatingly, and the result, of course, would be immediately fatal to Him.
I. The high priests question.Caiaphas, therefore, rises from his seat, and coming forward, drawing himself up to his full height, begins to examine the Prisoner at the bar. He seems to have two questions. First, was He the Christ? This was a comparatively innocuous inquiry. The Jewish people were expecting a Christ. Well, to this inquiry the Saviour replied that it was useless for Him to speak on the subject, seeing that theyHis judgeshad, to His certain knowledge, pre-judged the question. Then the second and more awful question is put, and we observe that the area of it is widenedthat there is something added to the conception of the Christ, in order that the Answerer may be brought within sweep of the charge of blasphemy. In the name of God, tell us who you are? or, in the exact words of Scripture, I adjure Thee, by the Living God, that Thou tell us whether Thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
II. Christs reply.What does this mysterious Man say about Himself? He accepts the title. He announces that He is the Son of God; and He is immediately condemned to death by the unanimous vote of the Sanhedrists on the charge of blasphemyaye, and He deserved the condemnation, if He be not the eternal Son of God! And if He be, what are we to expect for those who reject and disown Him!
III. The Godhead of Jesus Christ lies at the very foundation of character; and without it the whole edifice is a rotten structure and collapses at a touch. And the Godhead of Jesus Christ runs like a golden thread throughout the Scriptures, from the beginning of the Old Testamentwhere it appears in the doctrine of the angel of the covenantdown to the very last chapter of the New. And if we wish to find a passage in which is concentrated the most striking, the most emphatic, and the most convincing teaching on the subject, we cannot do better than to repeatedly study with thankfulness and prayer the narrative of the trial of Jesus Christ before the Sanhedrists of Jerusalem.
Prebendary Gordon Calthrop.
Illustration
If the Godhead of Jesus Christ be a mere fiction, as some affirm it to be; if it is only the outcome of human admiration for the most remarkable character that ever appeared upon earth, what an opportunity is now presented to the Lord, of stating the truth about Himself, and stating it so clearly, so distinctly, so emphatically, so conclusively, that there shall never be any more doubt whatever resting upon the subject. Were He no more than man, He might have said sonay, He was bound to say so, if only to save you and me, and the millions of those who have professed faith in His name from the curse of idolatrous worship into which we have fallen; for idolatrous we assuredly are, if Jesus be not God from God, Light of Light, the Only-Begotten of the Father.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
6:63
But Jesus held his peace. There is a familiar rule that “silence gives consent” which would mean that if a man refused to deny a charge made against him it was taken as an admission of guilt. Under most circumstances that would be true, but Jesus knew he was bound to be condemned to die regardless of whether he replied or not. Besides, the pretended testimony was so ridiculous and contradictory that he considered it as beneath his dignity, hence he treated their statments with silent contempt. For an officer to adjure another person means to place him under oath. The high priest did this to Jesus and placed him under oath by the living God. Having bound Jesus with such an oath he asked him whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. This introduced another subject, different from the one for which he was supposed to be brought into the council. The question pertained to his divinity and hence was a vital one, being the central fact of the entire system that Jesus was introducing into the world. Of course he would not be silent on that and his answer will be given in the next verse.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 26:63. But Jesus held his peace. Before Annas He had spoken (Joh 18:19-23), but that was not an official hearing. Here under false witness and reproach He (as before Herod) is silent, in patience and confidence of victory. The testimony was false in fact, even if partially true in form. An answer would have involved an explanation, which his opposers either knew already or were too hostile to accept. The silence does not, as early interpreters thought, point to our silence before the judgment seat of God, had He not taken our place and been silent before His judges; for His silence led to their greater judgment and self-condemnation. His claim to be the Messiah was the ground of their hostility and also the only ground on which they could demand His death. His silence implied this, and served to bring the whole matter to an issue.
And the high-priest said. Our Lords silence compels the abandonment of the subterfuge. Yet the deceitfulness remained. They would not believe Him, as He afterwards told them (Luk 22:67). They merely offered the alternative of a conviction as a blasphemer or an impostor.
I adjure thee, etc. Gen 24:3; 2Ch 36:13. When a judge used this formula, the simple answer yea or nay, made it the regular oath of the witness.
By the living God. In His presence, a witness and judge of the answer.
The Christ, the Son of God. The latter term probably meant more than the former. Mar 14:61, and the question at the third examination (Luk 22:67; Luk 22:70), indicate that Caiaphas used it in a sense similar to that we now attach to it. He and the Sanhedrin wittingly attached to it the peculiar meaning which, on previous occasions, had been such an offence to them (Joh 5:18; Joh 10:33); and Jesus, fully understanding their object, gave a most emphatic affirmation to their inquiry. Of all the testimonies in favor of the divinity of Christ, this is the most clear and definite (Gerlach).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
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.
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.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Frustrated by Jesus’ silence the high priest tried to cut through to the basic issue. Did Jesus claim to be the Messiah or not?
"In terms of the plot of Matthew’s story, this unexpected query raises the problem as to the source from which the high priest has even gotten the idea to question Jesus about being the Son of God. This source is Jesus himself and his narration of the parable of the wicked husbandmen [Mat 21:33-45]. As the presiding officer of the Sanhedrin, the high priest has knowledge of the claim to divine sonship which Jesus made in telling his parable to the chief priests and the elders. At the trial, therefore, the high priest seizes on Jesus’ own claim . . . and hurls it back at Jesus as a weapon by which to destroy him." [Note: Kingsbury, Matthew as . . ., p. 87.]
Caiaphas demanded that Jesus answer under oath by the living God. "Son of God" was an equivalent title with "Messiah" (cf. Mat 2:15; Mat 3:17; Mat 11:27; Mat 16:13-20). If Jesus refused to answer, He would break an oath imposed on Him legally by the high priest. If He denied the charge, He would have had no further influence even though the Sanhedrin might acquit Him. If He affirmed the charge, He would appear to be an impostor given the presuppositions of the Sanhedrin. From their viewpoint, the Messiah would not allow others to imprison Him and put His life in jeopardy.