Matthew 22:60 and the Lord's Response to the High Priest
Matthew 22:60 and the Lord's Response to the High Priest
The verse in question, Matthew 26:60, does not directly relate to Matthew 22:60, which doesn't exist in standard biblical references. However, the context suggests the inquiry is about Jesus' response to the high priest during his trial, as recorded in Matthew 26:60 and parallel passages.
Jesus' response to the high priest is recorded in Matthew 26:64, where he says, "You have said so; yet I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven" [1]. The high priest's question was prompted by the lack of a direct answer from Jesus regarding the testimonies against him (Matthew 26:62-63) [1].
The high priest's reaction to Jesus' statement was to tear his clothes, declaring Jesus had spoken blasphemy (Matthew 26:65) [1]. Mark's account provides a similar narrative, with the high priest asking Jesus to respond to the testimonies against him (Mark 14:60) [2]. Jesus' response in Mark is, "I am; and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mark 14:62) [2].
The significance of Jesus' response lies in its reference to Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13, affirming his divinity and messianic identity. The phrase "I am" (εἰμί ἐγώ, eimi egō) in Mark's account is particularly noteworthy, as it echoes God's self-revelation to Moses in Exodus 3:14-15 [5].
Early Christian interpreters, such as Augustine, discussed the harmony between the Gospel accounts of Jesus' trial, highlighting the significance of Jesus' response as an affirmation of his divine identity [4]. The response was seen as a claim to divinity, which the high priest considered blasphemous.
In the context of Jesus' trial, his response to the high priest served as a pivotal moment, leading to the condemnation of Jesus by the Sanhedrin. The event is understood by many as a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies and a demonstration of Jesus' messianic and divine claims [3].
The trial scene, including Jesus' response, has been a subject of theological reflection throughout Christian history, with various traditions interpreting the event in light of their understanding of Christology and the nature of Jesus' mission [6]. The Reformed tradition, for example, has emphasized the significance of Jesus' response as an affirmation of his divine identity and messianic role [6].
Sources
- Matthew “The high priest stood up, and said to him, “Have you no answer? What is this that these testify against you?” -- Matthew 26:62”
- Mark “The high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer? What is it which these testify against you?” -- Mark 14:60”
- Treasury of Scripture Knowledge “Matthew 22:45 cross-references: John 8:58, Romans 1:3, Romans 9:5, Philippians 2:6, 1 Timothy 3:16, Hebrews 2:14, Revelation 22:16”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “NPNF1 Vol 6: Augustine — Homilies on the Gospels — CHAP. VI.--OF THE HARMONY CHARACTERIZING THE ACCOUNTS WHICH THESE EVANGELISTS GIVE OF WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THE LORD WAS LED AWAY TO THE HOUSE OF THE HIGH PRIEST, AS ALSO OF THE OCCURRENCES WHICH TOOK PL (part 2): have heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. And therefore (as Mark also observes in the same passage) their witness did not agree together."(14) Then Matthew gives us the following relation: "And the high priest arose and said unto Him, Answerest ”
- Mark (Protestant academic) “Tyndale House on Mark 14:63: 14:63-64 The high priest tore his clothing at Jesus’ response. This was a judicial act that indicated a guilty verdict and signified that there was no need to find other witnesses. The rest of the Sanhedrin agreed that Jesus was guilty and deserved to die. • Exactly what was blasphemous in Jesus’ reply is unclear. Perhaps it was his reply “I Am,” which was the way God referred to himself in Exod 3:14 (see John 8:58). However, Mark is not necessarily repeating the actual words Jesus said at his trial (cp. Matt 26:64; Luke 22:70), so these words could simply be indic”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 133: He laid aside the existence-form of God, and assumed for eternity, that of man. If this be so, then He is a man and nothing more. If an adult man, by a process of self-limitation, or self-contraction, assumes the existence-form of an infant, he is an infant, and ceases to be an adult man. If he assumes the existence-form of an idiot, he is an idiot; or of a brute, he has only the instincts and sagacity of a brute. If, therefore, the Logos became man by self-contraction, He is no longer God. According to the teaching of Scripture the asce”