Matthew 26:62

KJV

And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what [is it which] these witness against thee?

KJV (with Strong's)

And {G2532} the high priest {G749} arose {G450}, and said {G2036} unto him {G846}, Answerest thou {G611} nothing {G3762}? what {G5101} is it which these {G3778} witness against {G2649} thee {G4675}?

Complete Jewish Bible

The cohen hagadol stood up and said, "Have you nothing to say to the accusation these men are making?"

Berean Standard Bible

So the high priest stood up and asked Him, “Have You no answer? What are these men testifying against You?”

American Standard Version

And the high priest stood up, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?

Commentary

### SUMMARY
Matthew 26:62 captures the high priest Caiaphas's exasperated challenge to Jesus during His illegal night trial before the Sanhedrin. Following a series of inconsistent and legally insufficient testimonies from false witnesses, Caiaphas, frustrated by Jesus' profound silence, directly demands a response from Him regarding the accusations leveled against Him, revealing the desperation of the Jewish leaders to secure a conviction.

### CONTEXT
* **Literary Context:** This verse is situated within the dramatic narrative of Jesus' arrest and trial before the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin, immediately following His betrayal in the Garden of Gethsemane and His apprehension (cf. [Matthew 26:47-56](/matthew/26-47-56 "Matthew 26:47-56 - Arrest of Jesus")). The preceding verses (cf. [Matthew 26:57-61](/matthew/26-57-61 "Matthew 26:57-61 - Jesus Before the Sanhedrin")) describe the assembly of the chief priests and elders, the search for false testimony, and the ultimate failure of multiple witnesses to provide a consistent or legally viable accusation against Jesus. Caiaphas's intervention in verse 62 marks a pivotal moment where the proceedings shift from relying on external, fabricated evidence to a direct confrontation, highlighting the leaders' inability to secure a conviction through conventional (albeit corrupted) means.
* **Historical & Cultural Context:** The trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin was highly irregular and illegal by Jewish law. It was held at night, on a feast day (Passover), without proper notice, and without the required two consistent witnesses for a capital charge (cf. [Deuteronomy 19:15](/deuteronomy/19-15 "Deuteronomy 19:15 - Requirement of Two Witnesses")). The high priest, Caiaphas, was the presiding officer, a powerful figure appointed by the Roman authorities, and deeply invested in maintaining religious and political order, which he perceived Jesus to be disrupting. His frustration in this verse underscores the Sanhedrin's desperate need to find a charge, preferably blasphemy, which was punishable by death under Jewish law, to justify handing Jesus over to the Roman authorities for execution.
* **Key Themes:** This verse contributes to several key themes within Matthew's Gospel and the broader Passion narrative. Firstly, it highlights **Jesus' Sovereign Silence**, which is not a sign of guilt or fear, but a deliberate act fulfilling prophetic expectations of the suffering servant who "opened not his mouth" ([Isaiah 53:7](/isaiah/53-7 "Isaiah 53:7 - The Suffering Servant's Silence")). Secondly, it underscores the **Illegitimacy and Corruption of the Trial**, as the high priest's direct intervention reveals the failure of the false witnesses and the court's desperation to condemn Jesus by any means necessary, even resorting to forcing a self-incriminating statement. Finally, it foreshadows the **Divine Necessity of the Passion**, demonstrating that despite human machinations and injustice, God's plan for redemption through Christ's suffering and death was unfolding precisely as ordained (cf. [Matthew 26:54](/matthew/26-54 "Matthew 26:54 - Fulfillment of Prophecy")).

### EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS
#### Key Word Analysis
* **arose (Greek, _anístēmi'_):** This verb (G450) signifies a physical act of standing up, but in this context, it carries the nuance of assuming an authoritative posture or taking decisive action. Caiaphas's act of rising from his seat indicates a shift in the trial's dynamic, moving from passive reception of testimony to active, direct interrogation, born out of his mounting frustration and a desire to take control of the failing proceedings.
* **Answerest thou nothing (Greek, _apokrínomai_ / _oudeís'_):** The verb "answerest" (G611, _apokrínomai_) means to reply or respond, often implying a conclusion reached. Coupled with "nothing" (G3762, _oudeís_), which means "not even one" or "none," the phrase forms a forceful rhetorical question. It expresses Caiaphas's astonishment and impatience at Jesus' complete silence in the face of grave accusations, demanding a verbal defense where none had been offered.
* **witness against (Greek, _katamartyréō'_):** This compound verb (G2649) combines "against" (κατά) with "to bear witness" (μαρτυρέω), specifically meaning "to testify to the detriment of someone" or "to bear witness against." It emphasizes the accusatory, hostile, and condemning nature of the testimonies being presented, highlighting that the witnesses were not merely observing but actively seeking to incriminate Jesus.

#### Verse Breakdown
* **"And the high priest arose":** This marks a significant turning point in the trial. Caiaphas, the chief magistrate of the Sanhedrin, physically stands up, signaling his personal intervention and profound frustration with the inability of the false witnesses to provide a consistent and legally sufficient case against Jesus. His action denotes a shift from a formal, albeit corrupted, judicial process to a direct, personal confrontation.
* **"and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing?":** This is a direct, impatient, and perhaps incredulous question posed by Caiaphas to Jesus. It reveals the high priest's exasperation with Jesus' steadfast silence in the face of serious accusations. It is a rhetorical question designed not to elicit information about Jesus' guilt or innocence, but to provoke a response, hoping Jesus would incriminate Himself or provide a statement that could be twisted into blasphemy.
* **"what [is it which] these witness against thee?":** This second part of Caiaphas's question is a direct challenge for Jesus to refute the accusations. It implicitly acknowledges the failure of the false witnesses to present a coherent or credible case, as Caiaphas himself must now summarize or prompt a response regarding the vague "what" that "these" (the false witnesses) have testified. It underscores the desperation of the court to find a legal basis for condemnation.

#### Literary Devices
The passage employs several potent literary devices. **Rhetorical Question** is prominently featured in Caiaphas's "Answerest thou nothing?" and "what is it which these witness against thee?" These are not genuine inquiries for information but expressions of frustration and attempts to pressure Jesus into speaking, highlighting the high priest's desperation and the trial's illegitimacy. **Contrast** is evident between the chaotic, inconsistent, and ultimately failed testimonies of the false witnesses and Jesus' profound, dignified, and strategic silence. This stark opposition underscores Jesus' sovereignty and control even in His apparent vulnerability. Furthermore, there is an element of **Dramatic Irony**: Caiaphas, in his attempt to condemn Jesus, unknowingly fulfills Old Testament prophecy regarding the silent suffering servant, and his desperate questioning ultimately sets the stage for Jesus' powerful, albeit brief, self-identification as the Son of God in the subsequent verses.

### THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS
Matthew 26:62 profoundly illustrates the divine sovereignty at play even amidst human injustice and corruption. Jesus' silence is not a sign of weakness but a deliberate act of submission to the Father's will and a fulfillment of prophetic scripture. It underscores His identity as the suffering servant, who, though innocent, willingly endures false accusation for the sake of humanity. This moment highlights the profound contrast between human attempts to control and condemn, and God's ultimate plan of redemption unfolding, demonstrating that even the most desperate acts of evil can be woven into the fabric of divine purpose. Jesus' silence speaks volumes, testifying to the truth of His mission and the corrupt nature of His accusers.

* [Isaiah 53:7](/isaiah/53-7 "Isaiah 53:7 - The Suffering Servant's Silence")
* [Mark 14:60-61](/mark/14-60-61 "Mark 14:60-61 - Jesus' Silence Before Caiaphas")
* [1 Peter 2:23](/1_peter/2-23 "1 Peter 2:23 - Christ's Example of Suffering")

### REFLECTION AND APPLICATION
Jesus' profound silence in the face of overwhelming and unjust accusations in Matthew 26:62 offers a powerful and counter-intuitive lesson for believers. In a world that often demands immediate self-defense and eloquent rebuttals, Jesus demonstrates that there are times when silence, coupled with unwavering trust in God's ultimate justice and sovereignty, is the most powerful response. His composure under immense pressure teaches us to discern when to speak and when to remain silent, not out of fear or inability, but out of a deeper reliance on God's plan. It encourages us to find our strength not in our own words or arguments, but in quiet submission to divine will, even when facing misunderstanding, false accusations, or intense scrutiny. This passage challenges us to cultivate a spirit of quiet trust and patient endurance, mirroring the Lord's example, knowing that God will ultimately vindicate His truth and His people.

#### Questions for Reflection
* **In what situations might silence be a more powerful or godly response than speaking, even when facing false accusations?**
* **How does Jesus' composure in this moment challenge our natural inclination to defend ourselves immediately?**
* **What does Jesus' silence reveal about His trust in the Father's plan, even amidst injustice?**
* **How can we cultivate a spirit of quiet trust and patience when we feel unjustly attacked or misunderstood?**

### FAQ
**Why did Jesus remain silent before Caiaphas's initial questions and the false witnesses?**

Answer: Jesus' initial silence (prior to Caiaphas's direct question in [Matthew 26:62](/matthew/26-62 "Matthew 26:62 - Caiaphas Questions Jesus' Silence")) was multifaceted and deeply significant. Theologically, it was a deliberate fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, particularly [Isaiah 53:7](/isaiah/53-7 "Isaiah 53:7 - The Suffering Servant's Silence"), which describes the suffering servant as "like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth." This silence underscored His identity as the sacrificial Lamb of God. Practically, it exposed the utter illegitimacy and corruption of the trial; the testimonies of the false witnesses were so inconsistent and contradictory that no coherent case could be built, rendering any defense from Jesus unnecessary and futile. His silence highlighted the court's desperation and their predetermined intent to condemn Him, regardless of the truth. It was a powerful, dignified, and sovereign act that revealed the injustice of the proceedings more effectively than any verbal defense could have.

### CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT
Matthew 26:62, with Caiaphas's frustrated demand for Jesus to speak, powerfully foreshadows and illuminates Christ's ultimate fulfillment as the silent, suffering servant. Jesus' profound silence in the face of overwhelming injustice and false accusation is not a sign of weakness, but a deliberate act of sovereign will, perfectly aligning with the prophetic portrait of the [Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world](/john/1-29 "John 1:29 - Jesus, the Lamb of God"). His refusal to defend Himself underscores His unique mission: He came not to argue His innocence, but to willingly offer Himself as a blameless sacrifice. This moment anticipates the cross, where His silence would be broken only by words of forgiveness and submission to the Father's will, ultimately securing redemption. His silence speaks volumes about His humility and obedience, even "becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross" ([Philippians 2:8](/philippians/2-8 "Philippians 2:8 - Christ's Obedience unto Death")). He is the one who, though reviled, "did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly" ([1 Peter 2:23](/1_peter/2-23 "1 Peter 2:23 - Christ's Example of Suffering")). Thus, Caiaphas's frustrated question inadvertently highlights the profound depth of Christ's redemptive work, where His quiet endurance became the loud declaration of God's saving grace.

Note: Commentary is generated by AI with a directive for Biblical fidelity. Always rely on the Holy Spirit for discernment. The Scripture text and cross-references are from verified, non-AI sources.

Cross-References

John 18:19

The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.

John 18:24

Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.

John 19:9

And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.

John 19:11

Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power [at all] against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

Matthew 27:12

And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.

Matthew 27:14

And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.

Luke 23:9

Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing.