There are two parts to Jesus' answer. First, claiming to be the Messiah: was this the blasphemy? To claim on your own to be the Messiah would be taken as proof that you most assuredly were not telling the truth, and thus, you could very well be charged with blasphemy. The blasphemy lay in saying one was the Messiah, for, by Jewish thinking, the Messiah is not to glorify himself. The blasphemy would then consist not in the particular title chosen but in the very temerity of using any title at all before God the Father had Himself announced the enthronement of His anointed one. Jesus' blasphemy in this regard was, by this view, a blasphemy of presumption to know God's mind.

But is the phrase used by Jesus indeed an affirmation? His silence before His accusers, and "evasive" answer, are part of the honor-shame paradigm: the honorable man never defends himself against a charge or answers directly a question posed by an enemy. Instead, one must shift the focus, which is exactly what Jesus does in the Son of Man statements that follow.

What about the statements regarding the Son of Man coming on the clouds? Was that blasphemy? "Son of Man" was one of Jesus' appellations for Himself. Therefore, Jesus was affirming for Himself this enthronement by God's side. Since God will not share His glory with another, this is a declaration of equality, and hence identity, with God. This amounts, then, to a constructive blasphemy—making oneself an assessor and peer of the Most High. It may not have met the technical, legal definition of blasphemy, but it was clearly recognized as such in the mouth of One who was presumed to not be deserving of it.