Matthew 26 63

Matthew 26:63 kjv

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.

Matthew 26:63 nkjv

But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, "I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!"

Matthew 26:63 niv

But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God."

Matthew 26:63 esv

But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."

Matthew 26:63 nlt

But Jesus remained silent. Then the high priest said to him, "I demand in the name of the living God ? tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God."

Matthew 26 verses

Matthew 26 63 Meaning

Matthew 26:63 describes the pivotal moment in Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin where, after Jesus remains silent against multiple false accusations, the High Priest Caiaphas directly challenges Him under a solemn oath, demanding to know if Jesus claims to be the Christ, the Son of God. This forceful adjuration by Caiaphas elevates the accusation to the highest level, making any reply from Jesus legally and religiously binding, and carries the implication that a false answer under such an oath would be blasphemy.

Matthew 26 63 Context

Matthew 26:63 is set during the nocturnal trial of Jesus before the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin, following His arrest in Gethsemane. After being led to the house of Caiaphas, the High Priest, Jesus faces numerous false witnesses whose testimonies contradict each other and fail to provide a basis for conviction under Jewish law. This trial is extralegal in its timing (at night during Passover), reflecting the High Priest's urgency and malicious intent. Despite the chaotic and inconsistent accusations, Jesus largely maintains His prophetic silence, fulfilling Old Testament prophecy. Frustrated by the inability of the false witnesses to secure a conviction, Caiaphas himself takes over the direct examination. This verse marks Caiaphas's attempt to force Jesus to condemn Himself by demanding an oath concerning His messianic and divine identity.

Matthew 26 63 Word analysis

• But: Contrasts with Jesus' prior silence in the face of various accusations from false witnesses. It signifies a turning point where a direct confrontation with His identity begins.
• Jesus: From the Greek Iesous (Ἰησοῦς), derived from the Hebrew Yeshua or Yehoshua ("The Lord saves"). The central figure of the Gospel.
• was silent: Greek esiōpa (ἐσιώπα). Indicates complete and deliberate silence. This silence is profound, defying legal expectation to defend oneself, and is understood as a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy regarding the suffering Messiah (Isa 53:7; Acts 8:32). It also serves as a refusal to dignify the false accusations, speaking only when His divine identity is directly challenged.
• And the high priest: Referring to Caiaphas, the chief religious authority. His role carried immense religious, judicial, and political power within the Jewish hierarchy under Roman occupation. His action here is the culmination of his determination to eliminate Jesus (Jn 11:49-51).
• answered: Greek apokritheis (ἀποκριθείς), literally "having answered." In this context, it refers to his "reply" or "response" to Jesus' silence and the failed testimonies, indicating he was reacting to the lack of evidence by changing his strategy.
• and said to Him: Indicates a direct address to Jesus, a shift from interrogating witnesses to interrogating Jesus Himself.
• I adjure you: Greek exorkizō (ἐξορκίζω). This is a strong and formal adjuration, meaning "I put you on oath," "I solemnly charge you under oath." This bound Jesus to respond, as refusing to answer when put on oath by a recognized authority figure was a serious offense under Jewish law (Lev 5:1), tantamount to perjury or blasphemy if a false denial was made. It shifts the burden from external accusation to Jesus' own sworn testimony.
• by the living God: Greek Theou zōntos (Θεοῦ ζῶντος). Emphasizes the supreme, active, and true God of Israel, differentiating Him from pagan idols. Swearing by the "living God" invoked the highest possible authority and penalty for perjury. It imbued the oath with utmost solemnity and divine judgment, making a false declaration a direct affront to God Himself. This was the most serious form of oath.
• tell us: A direct demand for a declaration.
• whether you are the Christ, the Son of God: This is the heart of Caiaphas's question and the basis for the trial.
  • the Christ: Greek ho Christos (ὁ Χριστός), meaning "the Anointed One," the Messiah. This title referred to the divinely appointed king, deliverer, and saviour of Israel, prophesied in the Old Testament (e.g., Ps 2:2; Dan 9:25). For the Jews, this term had significant political and nationalist connotations alongside spiritual ones, focusing on liberation from foreign rule.
  • the Son of God: Greek ho huios tou Theou (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ). While "Son of God" could have a broader meaning in Jewish thought (e.g., righteous individuals, angels, the nation of Israel, or the Davidic king Ps 89:27), when juxtaposed with "the Christ" and considering Jesus' own claims (Jn 5:18, 10:30-33), Caiaphas was pushing for a confession of divine co-equality or unique divine essence, which the Sanhedrin would consider blasphemy. This was likely the very blasphemous claim they sought, which carried a death penalty (Lev 24:16). The phrasing pushes Jesus to confirm whether He claims not just messianic office but divine status.

Matthew 26 63 Bonus section

The act of adjuring by God's name was an ultimate appeal to divine judgment, demonstrating the solemnity of the judicial setting. For Caiaphas, this wasn't merely a formality but a calculated legal strategy. He wasn't seeking truth in the sense of open-minded inquiry, but rather seeking a statement from Jesus that would unequivocally confirm their prior condemnation, justifying a death sentence under Mosaic Law (for blasphemy). The irony is profound: in attempting to legally corner Jesus, the High Priest inadvertently facilitates Jesus' most direct and public declaration of His divine messianic identity before the very authorities who sought to silence Him. This also highlights a core conflict between Jesus' divine claims and the Jewish leaders' understanding of monotheism and messianic prophecy. Their inability to accept Jesus' divine Sonship led to their condemnation of the true Messiah.

Matthew 26 63 Commentary

Matthew 26:63 represents the crucial turning point in Jesus' religious trial, revealing the Sanhedrin's desperation and malicious intent. Faced with Jesus' unyielding silence against the inconsistent false testimonies, Caiaphas, as the highest religious authority, employs the gravest possible legal maneuver: an adjuration by "the living God." This tactic forces Jesus out of His silence, for to refuse to answer such an oath was to confess guilt, and to answer falsely was to commit perjury, itself a serious sin. By demanding to know if Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of God," Caiaphas consolidates the diverse accusations against Jesus into a singular, decisive theological question. The Sanhedrin's understanding of "Messiah" likely envisioned a political deliverer, while "Son of God" held various meanings, but Caiaphas aimed to corner Jesus into a statement that they would deem blasphemous—a claim to full deity or unique co-equality with God that exceeded their messianic expectations for a human king or prophet (Jn 10:33). This moment fulfills Isaiah's prophecy of the Suffering Servant's silence (Isa 53:7) until challenged about His core identity. Jesus' response in the subsequent verse (Mt 26:64) acknowledges the truth of their question, solidifying their grounds for condemning Him based on their misinterpretation of His divine Sonship as blasphemy, rather than truth.