The high priest stands (following biblical legal custom—see Trites 1977:187) and gives Jesus the opportunity to defend himself, as Jewish law demanded (v. 62), but Jesus chooses to remain silent (v. 63; compare Is 53:7). Perhaps exasperated, the high priest seeks to place Jesus under the curse of an oath, crying, I charge you under oath, or "I adjure you" (the beginning of an oath formula often used to secure testimony—m. Sebu`ot 4:5-13). Here the high priest explicitly asks Jesus whether he claims messianic authority (v. 63).

Jesus' answer is probably a reluctant yes (Catchpole 1971:226; Marshall 1990:86). He is the Messiah—but this was the priest's choice of wording rather than his (see F. Bruce 1972b:176 n. 45). Now that there remains no need to continue the messianic secret, Jesus reveals publicly that he is God's Son (again, 27:54; compare Kingsbury 1983:122; Perrin 1976:95; Hooker 1983:58-59). But Jesus must define that sonship, not allow the leaders' cultural preconceptions to define it for him (compare comment on 4:1-11). Thus by responding in scriptural allusions (26:64), Jesus defines his mission in terms his interrogators cannot misapprehend: he is both Son of Man (compare Dan 7:13-14; Mt 24:30) and Lord (Ps 110:1; Mt 22:44; see Dodd 1961:91). Jesus was greater than merely a messiah, a son of David (22:44).

By declaring that "from this point forward" (not simply in the future as in the NIV) he would reign (26:64), Jesus may seem to the Sanhedrin to claim that he is going to rule politically despite their power over him. But undoubtedly he means that his reign opens not with power but with the cross. In the words of the Fourth Gospel, the time has come for the Son of Man to be lifted up and glorified (Jn 12:23, 32-33; compare Is 52:13 LXX). Yet the ultimate fulfillment will be when even his enemies will see him at his coming in triumph as heavenly ruler (Mt 26:64; compare 24:30; Rev 1:7). That is, though they claim to judge Jesus now, he will ultimately prove their judge (see Kingsbury 1983: 124)—a claim certain to enrage unbelieving leaders who demand honor.

Such words would be offensive, but even if false they were not technically blasphemous (m. Sanhedrin 7:5). Nevertheless, most uses of blasphemy were nontechnical (R. Brown 1994:522-23), and the high priest might admit whatever he needed as blasphemy. Because the priestly aristocracy perceives Jesus as a political threat to the temple establishment and the peace of the nation, and because the charge of threatening the temple remains unproved by strict standards of investigation, they need another basis for conviction quickly. Again the leaders twist the rules to get the job done. By whatever means they construe his words as blasphemy, the high priest stands to rend his cloak as custom required when one heard blasphemy (m. Sanhedrin 7:5), following a traditional custom in mourning (as in 1 Macc 4:39-40; 5:14; 11:71).

The spirit of Jewish law opposed condemning a criminal on his own admission, but the Sanhedrin treats Jesus' words here not as admission of a crime but as a crime itself—blasphemy—to which they themselves are witnesses, obviating the need for other witnesses (Blinzler 1959:137; Stauffer 1960:125). Although the spirit of Jewish law probably prohibited witnesses from participating in sentencing the accused (Blinzler 1959:135), the court acts as witness. Finally, whatever else may have been illegal, the physical mistreatment of a prisoner certainly was; this would have shamed Jesus as well, for such treatment was inappropriate to the status he had claimed.