Mar 14:61-62<\/span><\/p>\n But He held His peace.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Eloquent silence<\/strong><\/p>\n There is a silence which is often more eloquent than speech, means more than any words, and speaks ten times more powerfully to the heart. Such, for example, is the silence when the heart is too full for utterance, and the organs of speech are choked by the whelming tide of emotion. The sight of a great man so shaken, and quivering with feeling, that the tongue can give no voice to what the heart feels, is of all human rhetoric the most potent. Such, also, is the silence of a wise man challenged to speak by those whom he feels unworthy of his words. The man who can stand and listen to the language of stolid ignorance, venomous bigotry, and personal insult, addressed to him in an offensive spirit, and offers no reply, exerts a far greater power upon the minds of his assailants, than he could by words however forceful. His silence reflects a moral majesty, before which the heart of his assailants will scarcely fail to cower. Such was the silence which Christ now maintained in this hall. (Homilist.<\/em>)<\/p>\n Verse 61<\/span>. Of the Blessed?<\/B><\/I>] , Or, of God the<\/I> blessed<\/I> one. , is added here by AK, ten others, Vulgate<\/I>, and one of the Itala<\/I>. It might be introduced into the text, put in Italics, if the authority of the MSS. and versions be not deemed sufficient. It appears necessary for the better understanding of the text. The adjective, however, conveys a good sense by itself, and is according to a frequent Hebrew form of speech.<\/P> <\/p>\n 61. But he held his peace, andanswered nothing<\/B>This must have nonplussed them. But they werenot to be easily baulked of their object. <\/P> Again the high priest<\/B>arose(Mt 26:62<\/span>), matters having nowcome to a crisis. <\/P> asked him, and said unto him,Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?<\/B>Why our Lordshould have answered this question, when He was silent as to theformer, we might not have quite seen, but for Matthew, who says (Mt26:63<\/span>) that the high priest put Him upon solemn oath,<\/I>saying, “I adjure Thee by the living God, that Thou tell uswhether Thou be the Christ, the Son of God.” Such an adjurationwas understood to render an answer legally necessary (Le5:1<\/span>). (Also see on Joh 18:28<\/span>.)<\/P><\/p>\n But he held his peace, and answered nothing<\/strong>,…. Knowing it would be to no purpose, and signifying hereby, that the things alleged against him were unworthy of an answer:<\/p>\n again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed<\/strong>? The Vulgate Latin adds, “God”: in Matthew it is “God” only, Mt 26:63<\/span>. This is one of the names and epithets of God, with the Jews; nothing is more common in their writings, than this abbreviature, , which is, , “the holy blessed he”; who is blessed in himself, and the fountain of all blessedness to his creatures, and who is blessed and praised by angels and saints; [See comments on Mt 26:63]<\/span>.<\/p>\n And answered nothing <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Mark adds the negative statement to the positive “kept silent” (<\/SPAN><\/span>), imperfect, also in Matthew. Mark does not give the solemn oath in Matthew under which Jesus had to answer. See on Matthew. <\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) ”But He held His peace, and answered nothing,”<\/strong> (ho de esiopa kai ouk apekrinato ouden) “Then He was silent and replied not one thing,” fulfilling the prophecy concerning Him, “as a sheep before his shearers is dumb so opened He not His mouth,” Isa 53:7<\/span>; “No guile” was found in His mouth, 1Pe 2:23<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “Again the high priest asked Him, and said unto Him,”<\/strong> (palin ho archiereus eperota auton kai legei auto) “And again the high priest quizzed Him, saying,” Mat 26:63<\/span>. He sought with an oath of adjuration, a second time, to get a self-condemning statement from Jesus, or one he could declare was self -condemning.<\/p>\n 3) “Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”<\/strong> (su ei ho Christos ho huios tou eulogetou) “Are you the Christ, (the Messiah) the Son of the Blessed One?” Jesus would not, could not, withhold the identity of His Divinity when asked, Mat 26:63<\/span>.<\/p>\n (61) The Son of the Blessed.<\/strong>In St. Matthew and St. Luke we have simply the Son of God; but the use of the Blessed as a name of God in doxologies and other solemn formul was a common practice.<\/p>\n 61<\/strong>. <\/strong> The Christ <\/em> See note on Mat 1:1<\/span>.<\/p>\n ‘Again the high priest asks him and says to him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”<\/p>\n ‘The High Priest asks Him.’ Matthew adds, “I adjure you by the living God.” This was requiring testimony from the prisoner under an oath before God. But while the inquisitor had the right to adjure witnesses in this way, who were then bound to reply and tell the truth under threat of severe penalty, it is very questionable whether it was legal to do the same to make a man incriminate himself. There were probably a number there who raised their eyebrows at his behaviour. But as it was not an actual trial it was seemingly not protested against, and to Mark it is irrelevant.<\/p>\n ‘The Messiah, the son of the Blessed.’ The question went beyond just asking whether He was the Messiah. Claiming to be the Messiah, while frowned on, would not necessarily have been looked on as blasphemy. But ‘Son of God’ was not a prominent Messianic title, although occurring in the Psalms of Solomon and in isolated references at Qumran. The idea may have been picked up from the parable of the wicked tenants (Mar 12:1-11<\/span>), from Jesus’ statement in Mar 12:35-37<\/span> that the Messiah would be not only David’s son but David’s Lord, and from Judas himself who may well have contributed information. It was a clever and leading question. A Messianic claimant could easily have said ‘yes’ thinking in terms of adoption by God as ‘His son’ as kings of Israel had been before him (Psa 2:7<\/span>), and then found himself unwittingly embroiled in a charge of blasphemy.<\/p>\n Mark does not mention the ‘adjuration’. As far as he was concerned the question was asked and Jesus gave a straight answer. To him that was the important point. He was concerned to bring out that Jesus clearly declared before the leaders of Judaism that He was the Messianic King. (Mark was not concerned about the legitimacy of the trial. He was concerned with its results).<\/p>\n Mar 14:61<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>The Son of the Blessed?<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> This is a very sublime and emphatical method of expressing the happiness of God. It conveys such an ideaof the divine blessedness, that, comparatively speaking, there is none happy but he. Seethe note on Mat 26:62-63<\/span>. It is plain from the parallel passage, Luk 22:67<\/span> that the answer of our Saviour, set down by St. Mark as well as St. Matthew, is an answer only to this question, Art thou the Son of God? <\/em>and not to that other, Art thou the Christ, <\/em>or the Messiah? which preceded, and which he had answered before; and though St. Matthew and St. Mark connect them together, as if making but one question, and omit all the intervening discourse, yet it is plain from St. Luke, that they were two distinct questions, to which Jesus gave two distinct answers; in the first whereof, according to his usual caution, he declined saying in plain and express words that he was the Messiah, though in the latter he owned himself to be the Son of God: <\/em>which, though they, being Jews, understood to signify the Messiah, yet he knew could be no legal or weighty accusation against him before a heathen; and so it proved. There was, however, a great deal of craft in the question, which consisted in this, that if Jesus answered in the affirmative, they were ready to condemn him as a blasphemer; but if in the negative, they proposed to have him punished as an impostor, who, by accepting the honours and titles of the Messiah from the people, had deceived them. See Locke’s Reasonableness of Christianity, p. 154. <\/p>\n 57 And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying,<\/p>\n<\/p>\n 58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n 59 But neither so did their witness agree together.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n 60 And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which<\/em> these witness against thee?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n 61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 61. The Son of the Blessed?<\/strong> ] So God is called, because to be everlastingly blessed and praised of men and angels. Hence God is frequently set forth in the commentaries of the Hebrew doctors by Baruch-hu, He that is blessed. So Zacharias begins his canticle with, “Blessed is the Lord God,” &c., Luk 1:68<\/span> . <\/p>\n 61.<\/strong> ] <\/strong> .,<\/strong> Heb. , the ordinary Name for God. “This is the only place in the N.T. where the well-known Sanctus Benedicous of the Rabbis is thus absolutely given.” Meyer.<\/p>\n Mar 14:61<\/span> . , etc.: one of Mk.’s dualisms, yet not idle repetition = He maintained the silence He had observed up to that point (imperfect), and He answered nothing to the high priest’s pointed question (aorist). : the high priest makes another attempt to draw Jesus into some self-condemning utterance, this time successfully. , the Blessed One, here only, absolutely, as a name for God. Usually, an epithet attached to (Wnsche, Beitrge<\/em> ).<\/p>\n the Christ = the Messiah. App-98. <\/p>\n the Blessed. Used by the Jews instead of the name, Jehovah. <\/p>\n 61.] ., Heb. , the ordinary Name for God. This is the only place in the N.T. where the well-known Sanctus Benedicous of the Rabbis is thus absolutely given. Meyer.<\/p>\n Mar 14:61. , of the Blessed) , the Blessed God.<\/p>\n he held: Psa 39:1, Psa 39:2, Psa 39:9, Isa 53:7, Mat 27:12-14, Act 8:32, 1Pe 2:23 <\/p>\n Art: Mar 15:2, Mat 11:3-5, Mat 16:16, Mat 26:63, Mat 26:64, Luk 22:67-70, Joh 10:24, Joh 18:37 <\/p>\n the Son: Psa 2:7, Psa 119:12, Isa 9:6, Isa 9:7, Mat 3:17, Mat 8:29, Joh 1:34, Joh 1:49-51, Joh 5:18-25, Joh 10:30, Joh 10:31, Joh 10:36, Joh 19:7, 1Ti 1:11, 1Ti 6:15 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Dan 7:13 – one like Mat 14:33 – Of Mar 5:7 – Son Mar 15:3 – but Mar 15:32 – Christ Luk 1:32 – the Son Luk 9:20 – The Luk 23:2 – that Joh 4:26 – I that<\/p>\n 1<\/p>\n Jesus said nothing in reply to the falsehoods of these men; in that way he fulfilled the prophecy in Isa 53:7. The high priest then asked Jesus a question touching his personality which was the same as his divinity. That was important and we will see that he answered it.<\/p>\n Mar 14:61. The high-priest asked him. Putting Him on oath, according to Mat 26:63<\/p>\n The Son of the Blessed, i.e., of God, since the Rabbis used a word of this meaning as the ordinary name for God. It occurs only here in the New Testament. The action of the high-priest indicates that this implied a distinct question: Do you claim, in claiming to be the Messiah (the Christ), to be also the Son of God.<\/p>\n 14:61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the {o} Blessed?<\/p>\n (o) Of God, who is most worthy of all praise?<\/p>\n But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? Mar 14:61-62 But He held His peace. Eloquent silence There is a silence which is often more eloquent than speech, means more than any words, and speaks ten … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 14:61”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-24801","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24801","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24801"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24801\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24801"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24801"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24801"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"