Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary Matthew 26:59-63

"Now the chief priests and the whole council sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death; and they found it not, though many false witnesses came. But afterward came two, and said, This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. And the high priest stood up, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God." — Matthew 26:59-63 (ASV)

(59–63a) The Sanhedrin was composed of three groups: leading priests, teachers of the law, and elders. It had seventy members plus the high priest, but a mere twenty-three made a quorum. The “whole Sanhedrin” need not mean that everyone was present (cf. Lk 23:50-51). This group was looking “for false evidence” and obtained it from “false witnesses.”

Already convinced of Jesus’ guilt, they went through the motions of securing evidence against him. When people hate, they readily accept false witness; and the Sanhedrin eventually heard and believed just what it wanted. Matthew knew that Jesus was not guilty, so he describes the evidence as “false.” The two men who came forward may or may not have been suborned. At least two witnesses were required in a capital case. Their witness had an element of truth but was evilly motivated, disregarding what Jesus meant in Jn 2:19–21 (see comment on these verses). Interpreted with crass literalism, Jesus’ words might be taken as a threat to desecrate the temple, one of the pillars of Judaism. Desecration of sacred places was almost universally regarded as a capital offense in the ancient world, and in this Jews were not different from the pagans.

The high priest asks two questions in v.62. He probably hoped Jesus would incriminate himself. But, true to Isa 53:7, Jesus kept silent.

(63b) The high priest, frustrated by Jesus’ silence, tried a bold stroke that cut to the central issue: Was Jesus the Messiah or was he not? The question had been raised before in one form or another (16:1–4). He boldly charged Jesus to answer “under oath by the living God.” The outcome is now inevitable. If Jesus refuses to answer, he breaks a legally imposed oath. If he denies he is the Messiah, the crisis is over—but so is his influence. If he affirms it, then, given the commitments of the court, Jesus must be false. After all, how could the true Messiah allow himself to be imprisoned and put in jeopardy? The Gospels’ evidence suggests that the Sanhedrin was prepared to see Jesus’ unequivocal claim to messiahship as meriting the death penalty, and their unbelief precluded them from allowing any other possibility.