and if I should ask [you], ye would not answer me at all, nor let me go;
At daybreak the council asks Jesus one question: "If you are the Christ, tell us." His answer turns them down on both sides, and shows what happens when men ask about Christ with their minds already made up.
This was not a trial looking for truth. One commentator shows what each half of the Lord's reply exposes:
He responded that if He would tell them the truth, they would not believe Him. They had already made up their minds to disbelieve Him. On the other hand, if He would ask them the same question — that is, if He was Christ — they would not answer. They did not want to be involved in a discussion about who the Christ really is, in case they trapped themselves... Whatever He answered, it would not change their determination not to let Him go. They were only looking for some dishonest excuse for their murderous intentions.
The council — the Sanhedrin — asks about the Christ, not about the Son of God. One writer explains why that wording mattered:
Before the Sanhedrin they put this question to the Lord: "If you are the Christ, tell us." If He said yes, that answer might bring Him within the reach of Roman law. As the Christ, Pilate might hold that He claimed to be an earthly king over the Jews, and so denied the authority of Caesar... To His claim to be the Son of God, Pilate would have been completely indifferent. So before the Sanhedrin He was asked about His being the Messiah. If He admitted that, the council would have something solid to accuse Him of before Pilate.
Earlier the Lord had answered their questions fully and worked signs in front of them. Here He states plainly that words would now be wasted — and one writer ties this to the changed hour:
The Lord knew the time had come for Him to be handed over. It was their hour, not the time of testimony, and He left them to their own wickedness. "If I tell you, you will not believe." In the time of testimony to conscience, testimony was ample. Now they were the ones carrying out a plot to destroy Him out of jealousy. "If I should ask, you will not answer Me at all, nor let Me go." The Lord in truth judges their state.
A note on the wording: the closing phrase "nor let me go" stands in older English Bibles but not in the ESV, because manuscripts differ. One commentator lays out the evidence directly:
Several manuscripts, most cursives, the Syriac and Old Latin versions here add "nor let me go," which the editors leave out, following others.
Knowing they will not believe could have been reason enough for silence. It was not. Another writer notes that the Lord's certainty about their response never once shapes what He is willing to say:
A passage found only in Luke points this out. They ask, "If you are the Christ, tell us." He can say with assurance, "If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I also ask you, you will not answer Me, nor let Me go." It was in fact the incriminating question. They asked it for an evil purpose, so why should He give them the answer they were after? But this does not sway Him. What they make of it is for them to decide. That will not make Him hold back a testimony of such unspeakable importance to them.
This was not the first time Jesus met a question like this. One writer recalls how He handled it before:
Our Lord refused to continue talking with those who had clearly closed their eyes to the light. So when the Pharisees ask Him by what authority He does His miracles, He asks them a question of His own. It exposes their attitude toward God. What did they think of the baptism of John? Did they believe his call to repentance was a message from God, or only a human word? The Pharisees were not prepared to commit themselves either way.
Another writer traces such questions back to the will, not to a lack of evidence:
Man cannot deny that things come from heaven; but he will not believe. He may bring out his hard questions, like those of old, but with no real desire for the truth. What his conscience cannot deny, he will neither admit nor act on.
- Decided — they had already made up their minds not to believe, and the Lord said so to their faces.
- Loaded — they asked about the Christ, not the Son of God, because only that charge would stand before Pilate.
- Silent — the time for testimony to their conscience had ended. He left them to their own wickedness and judged their state.
- Faithful — He knew they would not believe or answer. He spoke anyway, because the testimony mattered that much to them.
- Exposed — the will, not the evidence, is the barrier. A man may raise hard questions with no real desire for the truth.
but henceforth shall the Son of man be sitting on the right hand of the power of God.
At daybreak Jesus stands before the council and refuses to argue His case. Then He says one sentence about where He is going next — and that sentence, not the witnesses, decides His death.
An older translation read "hereafter," which pushes the words far into the future. Commentators argue for "from now on," and they point out what Luke drops.
Luke reports His answer to the chief priests very briefly (Luke 22:66-71). He also leaves out the coming in the clouds of heaven and the future kingdom. He notices only the present position of Christ. Note: both in Matthew and Luke, instead of "Hereafter" we must read "From now on the Son of Man shall sit," or "you will see the Son of Man sitting." That is, He was taking this new position now.
The council asks Him about one title. He answers with another.
People brought lying testimony against Jesus, but it failed. He was condemned for the truth, which people would not believe. He refused to speak of His dignity as the Messiah. Man had already rejected that title, and His position as Son of Man at the right hand of the power of God was about to take its place.
"Son of Man" is the name Jesus keeps giving Himself. One writer explains why He preferred it.
It looks for the divine hand of power to rest on the man of that power — the Son of Man whom God had made strong for Himself. This is why the Lord keeps giving Himself the title Son of Man. Daniel 7 alone would not explain it, since that passage simply gives the Son of Man a special place. He is the One who is indeed rejected, but on whom God's right hand is to rest in power. To this the Lord refers in Luke 22:69.
The seat at God's right hand is not only an honour. It is the place of power, and He is waiting there.
This is Christ shown in judicial power. We think we have settled the ascension by saying He rose and went up. But you have to follow Him into the highest heavens in several characters. He is there personally, with the Father. He is there as priest, making intercession in the sanctuary. And He is there as One whom earth has sent — and whenever we get that form, we see Him going up in judicial glory. That is what is presented here. He has not gone up to heaven as a sanctuary, but as the place of power, waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.
Their question was a trap, and He knew it. He answers it anyway, and holds nothing back.
It was in fact the incriminating question. They asked it for an evil purpose, so why should He give them the answer they were fishing for? But this does not sway Him. What they make of it is for them to decide. He will not, for that reason, hold back a testimony of such unspeakable importance to them. He is in their hands, to work their cruel will on Him. Yet this only brings Him out of His present humiliation and sets Him free for the glory before Him. "From now on the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God." They understand the claim and challenge it. "Are you the Son of God, then?" they ask. "You say that I am," He answers. He is condemned, not on the word of other witnesses, but on His own.
Stephen later stands before that same council. He tells them what he can see in heaven.
Power, then, belongs to the crucified One. As Son of Man He will one day use it. Everything must be put under the feet of the One whom the Jews crucified and killed. Many of the council members had probably been there when the Lord Jesus declared that He was the Son of Man (Luke 22:69-71). They had a hand in judging Him worthy of death for saying it. Now Stephen tells them to their face that he can see the One who once stood at their bar standing at the right hand of God. The conclusion was plain — a child could draw it. Their guilt was undeniable.
- From now on. The turning point is the timing. This is not a distant promise. It is a position He begins to take at that hour, so "from now on" says it better than "hereafter."
- From Christ to Son of Man. They asked about His title as Messiah, which man had already refused. He answers with the title of the rejected One on whom God's right hand rests in power.
- From humiliation to the right hand. Their power over Him only served to bring Him out of His low place and set Him free for the glory ahead.
- From seat to footstool. He goes up not to a sanctuary but to the place of power. There He sits in judicial glory, waiting until His enemies are made His footstool.
- From His own mouth to their own eyes. He is condemned on His own testimony. Later the same council hears Stephen say he sees that Man at the right hand of God.
And they all said, *Thou* then art the Son of God? And he said to them, *Ye* say that I am.
At daybreak the whole council put one last question to Jesus, and His answer decided the case. Everything hangs on a few words: was this a confession, or a way of avoiding one?
Jesus had just spoken of the Son of Man at the right hand of God's power. The council drew their own conclusion, and He did not correct them.
They challenged Him about being the Christ. His answer showed that He knew two things: their unbelief was fixed, and so was their determination to condemn Him. Still, He claimed to be the Son of Man, who would soon wield the very power of God. They took this to mean that He must also claim to be the Son of God. This He indeed was, and His reply, "You say that I am," was an emphatic "Yes." They condemned Him to death for claiming to be the Christ, the Son of Man, the Son of God.
This daybreak hearing before the Sanhedrin — the Jewish ruling council — was separate from the night questioning before Caiaphas, the high priest. Rome would act on a claim to be the Christ. A claim to be the Son of God meant nothing to Pilate.
Before the Sanhedrin the question put to the Lord was, "If you are the Christ, tell us." Saying yes might bring Him within the reach of Roman law. Pilate might hold that as the Christ He claimed earthly rule over the Jews, and so denied the authority of Caesar. Before Caiaphas they asked the Lord if He was the Son of the Blessed, and when He said yes they judged Him worthy of death. Pilate would not have cared at all about a claim to be the Son of God. So before the Sanhedrin they asked Him about His Messiahship. If He admitted that, the council would have something solid on which to accuse Him before Pilate. He answered yes, and added that from now on the Son of Man would be seated at the right hand of the power of God — a reference to Psalm 110:1, speaking of His ascension. They well understood what that meant, and at once challenged Him.
He gave no answer about being the Messiah. He gave one about being the Son of God. Commentators point to a difference between a role given to Him and who He is in Himself.
The Lord answers nothing at all to the question about the Messiah, for that mission as such was ended. But when it came to His personal glory, He could not refuse to confess. That glory demanded the truth and their recognition of it, and could not do otherwise, though what followed was a shameful condemnation. It was not an office He held in relation to others, but the sure, necessary, and everlasting dignity of His Person in relation to the Father. He had to own this, or else not tell the truth.
The council meant the title as an accusation. What they forced into the open was the very thing on which faith rests.
If they all conclude that He is the Son of God, then whoever may affirm it or contradict it, He acknowledges it and does not deny it. He acknowledges that truth which is eternal life to every believer.
Their case rested on nothing but His own words, and He gave those words knowing what would follow. The reply quoted below comes from an older translation.
That was in fact the incriminating question. Since they asked it for an evil purpose, why should He give them the answer they were after? But this does not sway Him. What they make of it is for them to decide. He will not on that account hold back a testimony of such enormous importance to them… They understand the claim and challenge it: "Are you the Son of God, then?" they ask. "You say it: for I am," He answers. They condemn Him not on the word of other witnesses, but on His own.
The judges heard His confession and threw it out. Believed instead of rejected, it is what marks a Christian.
"Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God" (1 John 5:5)? He confessed this before His judges, and for it they condemned Him to death. The Jews, led by their rulers, insisted on His crucifixion, and Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they demanded.
- Question. The council wanted legal leverage. They could take a claim to be the Christ to Pilate. A claim to be the Son of God meant nothing to him — and that is what they got.
- Confession. His answer was a plain yes. He knew what they would do with it, and He told them the truth anyway.
- Person. He could leave an office unclaimed before men who had already refused it. He could not disown who He is in relation to the Father.
- Cost. No other witness convicted Him. His own words did, and they cost Him His life.
- Faith. The same words give eternal life to everyone who believes them. This faith overcomes the world.
And they said, What need have we any more of witness, for we have heard ourselves out of his mouth?
The council had been trying to build a case against Jesus. Now they stop, because His own words are all the proof they want. So what did they hear, and why did He say it?
The case built from false witnesses had already collapsed. What condemned Him was something else.
Men brought lying testimony against Jesus, but it failed. They condemned Him for the truth, which man did not believe. He refused to speak of His dignity as the Messiah. Man had already rejected that, and it was about to give way to His place as Son of Man at the right hand of the power of God.
He had said almost nothing to their earlier questions. Yet on the one point of who He is, silence was impossible.
But when it came to His personal glory, He could not refuse to confess it. That glory called for the truth, and necessarily for their recognition of it, even though the result was a shameful condemnation. This was not an office held in relation to others. It was the sure, necessary, and everlasting dignity of His Person in relation to the Father. He had to own it, or else not tell the truth.
The boast in this verse is that they heard Him with their own ears. That admission turns the trial inside out — the men on the bench become the guilty party.
The Lord had nothing to hide. No, He had to be condemned for the truth, because He was the Truth... They themselves had heard the truth, the glory of His Person, from the mouth of Truth — and as judges they condemn themselves completely. As they say, "We have heard it ourselves from His own lips," and they reject it. It was complete and final. They could go no further. As judges, they reject the Messiah, the Son of God, who bore witness to the truth, and they reject Him for doing it. After that they had only to complete their evil the way religious evil always does: by leading the world to finish the wickedness and complete its guilt.
There is a further problem with what the council does here. Their own law was against it.
Also, the law of the Jews said, "Our law condemns no one to death on his own confession," and, "it is a basic principle with us that no one can damage himself by what he says in judgment." So when Caiaphas put the question to the accused, "founding a condemnation on the answer was the last violation of formal justice."
This verdict was not a mistake. They already suspected the answer to their own question.
They asked the crucial question: was He the Son of God? His answer was positive. The form of the expression simply means, "as you say, so it stands: I am." He had not been advertising who He was, but the matter bothered their consciences. So much in His life and ministry was evidence that they were afraid He might be the Son of God. Yet they hated the thought of giving Him a place of honour, and despite every evidence they were determined to reject Him.
"We have heard it ourselves" sounds like an advantage. In fact hearing Christ speak and refusing Him is the heaviest position a person can occupy.
They were the rebellious people who had ears to hear but did not hear. This stubborn refusal to listen to their Messiah made their guilt as great as it could be. The Lord Himself said, "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin."
- They heard. The false evidence against Him had already failed. So the council rests its case on words Jesus spoke Himself.
- He confessed. He passed over the question about the Messiah. But He would not stay silent about who He is. To deny that would be to stop telling the truth.
- They condemned. The judges admitted they had heard the truth from His own mouth. They rejected it anyway, and sentenced Him for it.
- They broke their own law. Jewish law forbade putting a man to death on his own confession. The proof they call enough was itself a breach of justice.
- They were left without excuse. The evidence of His life troubled their consciences, yet they still refused Him. To hear Christ speak and then reject Him leaves no excuse.