But Jesus was silent. And the high priest answering said to him, I adjure thee by the living God that thou tell us if *thou* art the Christ the Son of God.
The high priest has run out of witnesses. So he changes tactics. Instead of hunting for evidence against Jesus, he puts Him under oath and asks Him who He is.
Up to this moment Jesus has said nothing at all, and the silence runs right through His trial. One writer traces it across every court He stood in and gives the reason for it:
In the presence of all His accusers His resource was in God. He committed Himself to Him who judges righteously. The Jewish council accused Him falsely, and He "remained silent." Before Pilate, He "gave no answer" to the Jews' accusations, and not a word to Pilate himself. The mocking Herod questioned Him in many words, "but He answered him nothing" (Luke 23:9). He was silent before men because He had a resource in God.
The silence was not stubbornness, and it was not absolute. Under Israel's law, a witness put under oath in God's name had to speak. That law explains why the Lord answered this question and no other:
The Lord's silence angers the high priest, who demands that He answer such charges. But there was nothing to answer, so He remains silent. Caiaphas knew that no charge of evil could stand against Him. So he changed his tactics and put Him under oath by the living God to say whether He is the Son of God. Could He be silent then? No. Leviticus 5:1 is clear: if someone witnesses a fact and hears the voice of the oath, he must tell what he knows or be guilty.
Another writer weighs what that oath meant to an Israelite, and what honouring it cost the Lord:
An oath was all the more solemn for an Israelite, because Jehovah lived among them to judge... Our Lord was silent before man's deep hypocrisy and false witness. Yet even in a day of utter ruin, in proceedings that mocked all righteousness, we hear Him answer the wicked high priest at once when he put Him under oath. He knew it would seal His condemnation to death.
Caiaphas does not ask a vague question. He uses the full Messiah-title as Israel knew it from their own Scriptures:
The high priest turns and puts Him under oath to answer whether He is the Christ, the Son of God. That matches, as we have seen, His title in Psalm 2 — His true, full Messiah-title among the Jews. To this the Lord at once answered that He was. For now it was His own testimony, and He must give the whole truth.
Why did Caiaphas not ask this at the start? One writer finds a reason in the order of events:
Just one thing remained: to put a question to Him — a question He could not refuse to answer. Why did they not do this at once? First He had to appear as the Holy One, the Lamb of God, without spot or blemish... The high priest knew he would succeed if he put that question about His Sonship to Him. But little did he know what he was doing; the blessed One could not be condemned by false witnesses. Only His own confession of who He was — the confession of the truth — could bring about His condemnation.
The move also broke Israel's own rules of justice. One writer cites a senior judge's study of the trial:
Further, the law of the Jews was, "Our law condemns no one to death upon his own confession." It was "a basic principle with us that no one can damage himself by what he says in judgment." So Caiaphas "putting the question to the accused," and founding a condemnation on the answer, "was the last violation of formal justice."
One writer defines confession by what the Lord did here, and by what it cost Him:
Confession stands by the truth of God against the lie of man, and stands by it at the risk of everything. Our Jesus made this confession... The high priest put Him under oath to say whether He was the Christ, the Son of the Blessed. He stood by the confession of the truth and of His glory, saying, "You have said so." But this cost Him everything. At once they began to spit on Him, to strike Him, to cover His face shamelessly, and to lead Him off as their prey.
- Silent — He answered no accusation. There was nothing to answer, and His resource was in God.
- Sworn — the law said a witness under oath must speak. The oath, not the pressure, opened His mouth.
- Spotless — the false witnesses had to fail first, so the Lamb stood without spot or blemish before any charge stuck.
- Spoken — man's false testimony could not condemn Him. His own true word did, and He gave it knowing it meant death.
- Standing — true confession stands by the truth of God at the cost of everything.
Jesus says to him, *Thou* hast said. Moreover, I say to you, From henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.
The court could find no case against Jesus, so the high priest put Him under oath to say who He was. His answer sealed His death sentence — and told His judges where they would next see Him.
Through the false accusations Jesus said nothing. But a rule in the law of Israel made the oath a different matter.
The high priest, angry at the Lord's silence, demands that He answer these charges. But there was nothing to answer, so He stays silent. Caiaphas knew that no charge of evil could stand against Him. So he changed his tactics. He put Him under oath before the living God to say whether He is the Son of God. Could He be silent then? No. Leviticus 5:1 is clear: if someone witnesses a fact and hears a solemn call to speak under oath, he must say what he knows or be guilty. The law required Him to tell the truth, and He does. "You have said so," He answers — and it is absolute truth that He is the Son of God.
The word of God tells us not to swear at all. Yet here the Lord answers under oath.
He put the Lord on His oath, according to Jewish law. This gives us light. We are told, "Do not take an oath at all." The word of God condemns anyone who takes an oath by his own choice. But when the governing authorities put us on oath, we ought to submit to it. The Lord did here. If they order us to sin, then we must obey God rather than man, but we are not called to oppose them.
The hunt for witnesses collapsed. What finally secured the verdict was the truth He spoke about Himself.
Before Caiaphas (vv. 57-68) they judge Him worthy of death — not because the false witnesses succeeded, but because of His own confession of the truth. He was the Son of God, come in the fullness of grace and truth. Yet from now on they would see Him as the Son of Man, seated at the right hand of Power and coming in the clouds of heaven. The first is His place now; the second is His appearing in power and glory.
The title He chose sent His judges back to their own Scriptures. They knew the passage — and still called it blasphemy.
This answer really gave the clue to the difficulty the Jews had raised before: that He, being a man, made Himself God (John 10:33). The solution lay in their own Scriptures. The Son of man of Daniel 7 is a Divine Person. They understood that well. But instead of letting the light from the Lord's words shine into their hearts, they accused Him of blasphemy. They were completely blind — must we not say blind on purpose?
Two pictures stand together in what follows: a seat and a return.
He does not stop there. They needed the truth about how they themselves would one day be brought into complete subjection to Him, not only as Son of God, but as Son of Man. They would see Him seated at the right hand of power, at rest because God had approved His great work of redemption. They would see Him coming in the clouds of heaven, in supreme victory over all creation. Wonderful declaration of the glory to be given Him as Son of Man. The high priest then makes Christ's true confession the one issue. He tears his clothes, disobeying the plain instruction of Leviticus 21:10. Then he accuses the Lord of blasphemy for telling the truth about who He is.
The phrase "from now on" matters. The Greek points to something starting at once, and Luke's account keeps only the first half of the saying.
So Matthew 26:64 says, "From now on" (ap' arti) "you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." Luke always looks at the present, general result, so he keeps only "seated at the right hand of Power" (chapter 23:69). It was in either case immediate (apo tou nun).
After the resurrection He appeared only to His own. The council that condemned Him never saw Him then — but they will.
The risen Lord showed Himself to certain of His disciples (John 21:1), but not to any of His enemies. He came to Peter and John, Thomas and Cleopas, but not to Caiaphas, Pilate or Herod, or any of their followers. His enemies judged Him unjustly, and He quietly submitted to it. Yet by His own testimony before the Sanhedrin (Matthew 26:64) they will still "see the Son of Man" on the day He appears, when He comes with clouds of glory and majesty to judge all evildoers.
- Silence — He answered nothing to lies, because there was nothing there to answer.
- Oath — the solemn call to speak before God required an answer; He obeyed lawful authority instead of resisting it.
- Confession — no false witness could convict Him; His own true words about Himself condemned Him.
- Seated — the right hand of Power is His place now, because God approved His work of redemption.
- Coming — the same men who judged Him will see Him come on the clouds, in victory over all creation.
Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He has blasphemed what need have we any more of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard the blasphemy.
Caiaphas could not convict Jesus on evidence, so he put Him under oath. The answer gave him what he wanted: a claim he could call blasphemy. Tearing his own robe, he declared the trial over, and in doing so broke the very law he claimed to be defending.
The false witnesses had collapsed, and the question "What further witnesses do we need?" admits it. What sentenced Jesus was His own answer about who He is. That same answer pointed forward to His exaltation.
Before Caiaphas (verses 57-68) He is counted guilty of death — not because the falsehood of the witnesses succeeded, but because of His own confession of the truth. He was the Son of God, come in the fullness of grace and truth. Yet from now on they would see Him as the Son of Man, sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. That is His present position, and that is how He will be seen when He comes in power and glory.
One rule in the law explains why He answered at all.
Caiaphas changed tactics and put Him on oath before the living God to say whether He is the Son of God. Could He stay silent then? No. Leviticus 5:1 is decisive: anyone who is a witness to a fact and hears the call to swear must say what he knows, or be guilty. He is required to tell the truth, and He does.
Unbelief could read His answer only one way. Not one voice in the council spoke against the verdict, and He did not resist what came next.
In the eyes of these leaders, blinded by unbelief, the truth appears as blasphemy, and without a dissenting voice "they all condemned Him as deserving death." He is in perfect submission to the Father's will. Soon He will be exalted to the right hand of power and come again in glory. Yet now He offers no resistance to the outrages of those who spit in His face and strike Him with their hands.
Israel's law gave the high priest a specific rule about his clothes. Caiaphas broke it as he passed sentence.
Leviticus 21 deals with special instructions for the priests... Even more strict were the rules for the high priest himself, as seen in verses 10-15. So when Caiaphas tore his clothes, as recorded in Matthew 26:65, he clearly broke the command of verse 10. Some who have looked into the matter have said that every possible rule of justice, both divine and human, was broken in the condemnation of our Lord.
That act cost the high priest more than his robe:
In his frenzy the high priest tore his clothes, by which act he destroyed his priesthood, and pronounced the Lord guilty of blasphemy.
The rule about torn robes pointed beyond Caiaphas. It says something about the priesthood of Christ Himself.
A priest was never to tear his garments, though Caiaphas did this when questioning the Lord Jesus (Matt. 26:65), an offence for which the law demanded the death penalty. For above all, the High Priest is a picture of the Lord Jesus. Will His garments of priestly dignity ever be torn? Absolutely not! For this would show some failure or fault in His priestly work. Thank God this is impossible. He remains faithful and true forever!
The council did not reach its verdict that night. It had already decided, and the hearing only supplied a reason.
The scribes and elders agree with him in condemning the Lord as worthy of death, not for anything He had done, but because of who He is. Of course they had decided beforehand that He must be put to death. Now they feel it necessary at least to put on a show of religious zeal.
Under their law, a charge of blasphemy meant death. The insults that followed were real suffering. But not every suffering of Christ did the same work.
If it was blasphemy, the blasphemer had to be put to death; and here is this wicked man bursting with rage... Here he does it in pretended righteous indignation... It is very solemn to think about this — to think Who He was Who had all these indignities heaped on Him! But this is no part of His atoning work. Atonement was made when He suffered at the hand of God. He suffered at the hands of men for righteousness — for God. He suffered at the hand of God for sin — for us.
- No evidence. The false witnesses failed. The verdict rested on His own true confession of who He is.
- One tear. Christ's claim did not give way that night. The only things torn were the high priest's robe and the law that forbade him to tear it.
- Truth misnamed. Unbelief could call that confession nothing but blasphemy. The council condemned Him for who He is, not for anything He had done.
- Priesthood forfeited. The torn robe cost Caiaphas his own priesthood. The true High Priest's garments can never be torn, because His work has no fault.
- Two sufferings. What He bore from men here was for righteousness; atonement came when He suffered at the hand of God, for us.
What think ye? And they answering said, He is liable to the penalty of death.
This is the moment the council pronounces its sentence on Jesus. Everything turns on the answer He had just given about Himself, under oath.
Every effort to convict Him by witnesses had failed. So the high priest put the prisoner Himself under oath.
It was the Lord's own confession that they condemned Him on. He put the Lord on His oath, according to Jewish law. This gives us light. We are told, "Do not take an oath at all." The word of God condemns taking an oath by our own choice. But when the governing authorities put us under oath, we ought to submit to it. The Lord did here.
He could have saved His life by denying who He was.
If no one can prove Him guilty, He will not deny the truth. He confesses the glory of His Person as Son of God. He also declares what they would see from now on. They would see the Son of man no longer in the meekness of One who would not break the bruised reed. They would see Him coming in the clouds of heaven, and sitting on the right hand of power. He gave this witness. For that He is condemned — for what He said of Himself, for confessing the truth. The false witnesses did not succeed. The priests and the heads of Israel were guilty of His death. Their guilt came from their own rejection of the testimony He gave to the truth.
One writer points out the law the high priest broke, and how the rest of the council answered.
The high priest tears his clothes, disobeying the plain command of Leviticus 21:10. He accuses the Lord of blasphemy for answering truthfully about who He is. The scribes and elders agree with him in condemning the Lord as worthy of death, not for anything He had done, but because of who He is.
They were not short of light. Their own Scriptures already told them who the Son of man is.
The Son of man of Daniel 7 is a Divine Person. They understood that well. But instead of letting the light from the Lord's words shine into their hearts, they accused Him of blasphemy. They were completely blind — must we not say blind on purpose? They would not be helped. They judged Him guilty of death.
The high priest's outburst cost him his own office. Their verdict also fixed the kind of death they wanted for Him.
Then the high priest saw how useless the proceedings were. In his excitement he rose from his seat. He charged Him in the name of the living God to tell them whether He was the Christ, the Son of God. To that charge the Lord had one answer — whatever the consequences, He must bear witness to the truth. In his frenzy the high priest tore his clothes, and by that act he destroyed his priesthood, and pronounced the Lord guilty of blasphemy. Their verdict recalls the command in Deuteronomy 21:22 about a man who is put to death and hanged on a tree: such a man is cursed by God. From that time on they were determined that He should be hanged on a tree — not only the target of their accusations, but, as they hoped, cursed by God.
The insults that follow this verdict are not the same thing as the cross.
It is very solemn to think about this — to think who He was who had all these insults heaped on Him! But this is no part of His atoning work. Atonement was made when He suffered at the hand of God. He suffered at the hands of man for righteousness — for God. He suffered at the hand of God for sin — for us. There is nothing so jealously guarded in the word of God as the Person of Christ.
Their verdict was not the last word spoken about Him. Resurrection was God's reply to the court.
Men treated Him as someone unfit for decent society, unfit even to live in this world. They treated Him with every indignity. Is He left without any justification at all? No, certainly not! Man crucified Him, but God raised Him. His resurrection is His justification, for by it God has declared that man's treatment and judgment of Him was wrong.
That reversal is not His alone.
If man condemned Him, God would justify Him — and that very word is applied to us in Romans 8.
- Confession. No witness could convict Him. They condemned Him on His own answer under oath. He gave that answer rather than deny the truth.
- Blindness. Daniel 7 had already shown them a divine Son of man. They called that same truth blasphemy. Their blindness was not for lack of light.
- Collapse. The high priest tore his robe, which the law forbade. That act destroyed his own priesthood.
- Distinction. He suffered at the hands of men for righteousness; He suffered at the hand of God for sin. Only the second is atonement.
- Reversal. Man's verdict was death. God's answer was resurrection. That same word of justification is applied to us.