63<\/strong>. Then the high priest<\/em> ] Caiaphas had now gained his end. The Accused had spoken. He had criminated Himself. All was uproar and confusion. The high-priest rent his linen robes. This was not lawful for him to do in cases of mourning (Lev 10:6<\/span>; Lev 21:10<\/span>), but was allowable in cases of blasphemy (see 2Ki 18:37<\/span>). It was to be performed standing, and so that the rent was to be from the neck straight downwards. The use of the plural “his clothes,” by St Mark, seems to intimate that he tore all his clothes, except that which was next his body.<\/p>\n 63. Then the high priest rent hisclothes<\/B>On this expression of horror of blasphemy,<\/I> see2Ki 18:37<\/span>. <\/P> and saith, What need we anyfurther witnesses?<\/B> (Also see on Joh18:28<\/span>.)<\/P><\/p>\n Then the high priest rent his clothes<\/strong>,…. As was usual upon hearing blasphemy; which he now supposed the case, or at least would have it so thought:<\/p>\n and saith, what need we any further witnesses<\/strong>? or trouble ourselves to see for any more, or to hear and take the depositions of any others; [See comments on Mt 26:65]<\/span>.<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “Then the high priest rent his clothes and<\/strong> saith,” <\/strong>(ho de archiereus diareksas tous chitonas autou legei) “Then the High Priest rending (tearing) his tunic, said,” in a “sham” a feigned rage of emotion, assumed horror and indignation, tearing his outer garments, as persons in high positions wore two, Num 14:6<\/span>; Act 14:13-14<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “What need we any further witnesses?”<\/strong> (ti eti chreian echomen marturon) “What more need do we have of a witness?” Mat 26:65<\/span>.<\/p>\n (63) Then the high priest rent his clothes.<\/strong>It is noticeable that St. Mark uses the word for the inner garment, St. Matthew that for the outer.<\/p>\n ‘And the high priest tore his clothes and says, “What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” And they all condemned him to be worthy of death.’<\/p>\n It is significant that Jesus had replied by simply quoting Scripture. Strictly what had He said was not blasphemous. But the mood of the investigation and the High Priest’s histrionic behaviour put the worst interpretation on it, and to be fair it was an interpretation that we know to be true. Jesus was condemned because He made divine claims which they were not prepared to accept.<\/p>\n ‘The high priest tore his clothes.’ This was basically a manipulation of the reply. The tearing of the clothes was evidence of great emotion and symbolic of guilt and should only have occurred once the verdict had been reached. In other words he preempted the verdict and made known his view before the verdict was decided. Not that that concerned him. In his eyes it had never been the verdict that had been in doubt but the means of obtaining it.<\/p>\n “What further need have we of witnesses?” The point was that the man had condemned Himself, something He should not have been made to do. But we can sense the relief in the High Priest’s voice. Now the need for witnesses could be ignored. And he had made clear that he expected all of them to agree with him.<\/p>\n ‘You have heard the blasphemy.’ Strictly not blasphemy according to the Law where misuse of God’s name was the only grounds (Lev 24:15-16<\/span>). But the idea had later been widened, as is evident here, to signify insult to His Person (compare Mar 2:7<\/span>).<\/p>\n ‘And they all condemned him to be worthy of death.’ Note the phraseology, ‘to be worthy of death’. It was a recommendation not a sentence. This was an inquiry not a trial. Its view would have to be ratified by the official Sanhedrin meeting by daylight.<\/p>\n 63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 63. Rent his clothes<\/strong> ] So they used to do in case of blasphemy, to signify that their very hearts were rent with grief at so sad a hearing. <\/p>\n 63.<\/strong> ] <\/strong> not his priestly robe<\/em> , which was worn only in the temple, and when officiating: see on Mat 26:65<\/span> .<\/p>\n The plural, ., perhaps is due to the wearing of two inner garments by persons of note: see Winer, Realw. art. “Kleidung,” i. p. 662.<\/p>\n Mar 14:63<\/span> . , his tunics, or undergarments, of which persons in good position wore two.<\/p>\n rent his clothes. This was strictly forbidden. See Lev 10:6; Lev 21:10. <\/p>\n 63.] -not his priestly robe, which was worn only in the temple, and when officiating: see on Mat 26:65.<\/p>\n The plural, ., perhaps is due to the wearing of two inner garments by persons of note: see Winer, Realw. art. Kleidung, i. p. 662.<\/p>\n his: Isa 36:22, Isa 37:1, Jer 36:23, Jer 36:24, Act 14:13, Act 14:14 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Psa 12:8 – when Mat 26:65 – the high priest Mar 10:34 – spit Luk 22:71 – General<\/p>\n I AM<\/p>\n Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what thing ye?<\/p>\n Mar 14:63-64<\/p>\n Christ Himself asserted His Godhead in a manner which could not possibly be misunderstood. He allowed Himself to be put to death on a charge of blasphemy. The conclusion is inevitable. A denial of the Godhead of Christ involves consequences from which we should most of us shrinkconsequences which affect the nature and the character of Deity itself.<\/p>\n I. On the supposition that Christ was a mere man, or a created being, who allied Himself with human nature, the further supposition becomes inevitable, that in the bygone eternity God dwelt in a lonely and uncompanionable isolation.<\/p>\n II. The denial of the Godhead of Christ limits and impairs the Divine capability of manifesting love to man. If Jesus Christ were just a perfect man, and not the eternal Son of the Father, what did it cost God to part with Him? Nothing, that I can see. The self-sacrifice consisted in the surrender of His Son.<\/p>\n III. If Christ be not God, I cannot avoid the inference that God has done everything in His power to transfer my affection from the Creator to the creature.<\/p>\n The heart must be chilled towards God which does not recognise in Jesus Christ the eternal Son of the eternal Father.<\/p>\n Rev. Prebendary Gordon Calthrop.<\/p>\n ST.<\/p>\n 3<\/p>\n Decisions of the Sanhedrin were made by vote, supposed to be based on the testimony of valid witnesses. The statement of Jesus agitated the high priest so that he declared there was no need for witnesses.<\/p>\n Mar 14:63-64, are less full than the parallel verses, Mat 26:65-66.<\/p>\n Clothes, inner garments, two being sometimes worn by persons of consequence.<\/p>\n Mar 14:63-65. Then the high-priest rent his clothes Rending of clothes was an expression sometimes of deep grief, sometimes of holy zeal. The precepts, Lev 10:8; Lev 21:10; forbidding the high-priest to rend his clothes, relate only to the pontifical garments and to private mourning: that is, mourning on account of the calamities befalling himself or friends. Griefs of this kind the chief minister of religion was not to make public by any outward sign whatever. But it was neither unlawful nor unusual for him to rend his ordinary garments on account of public calamities, or instances of gross wickedness, as a testimony of his grief for the one and abhorrence of the other. See 1Ma 11:71. That the high-priest was clothed in his ordinary apparel on this occasion, appears from Exo 29:29-30, where the pontifical garments are ordered to descend from father to son; and therefore were to be worn only at their consecration, and when they ministered. And saith, What need we any further witnesses Namely, of his being guilty of blasphemy. Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? What punishment do you judge him to have deserved? They all condemned him, to be guilty of death Namely, all present; for it is probable Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, and some more, who were his disciples, or favourably disposed toward him, were not present: or if they were, they doubtless remonstrated against the iniquity of this sentence. And some began to spit on him See note on Mat 26:67-68.<\/p>\n Verse 63 <\/p>\n Rent clothes; with affected abhorrence of the blasphemy.<\/p>\n Rending one’s garments expressed indignation or grief (cf. Gen 37:29; Jdg 14:19; 2Ki 18:37). It had become the high priest’s traditional response to blasphemy (cf. Act 14:14). [Note: Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:5.] <\/span> However it was illegal for the high priest to rend his garments (Lev 21:10). The hypocrisy of the religious leaders is clear throughout their trial of Jesus. The Jews regarded blasphemy as any serious affront to God, not just speech that reviled Him (cf. Mar 2:7: Mar 3:28-29; Joh 5:18; Joh 10:33). At this time, blasphemy consisted of claiming for oneself a unique association with God, reflected in sitting at God’s right hand, not just misusing God’s name. [Note: See Darrell L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus, pp. 30-183.] <\/span> The Mosaic Law prescribed death by stoning for blasphemers (Lev 24:14), but this was not bad enough for Jesus. Jesus had foreseen this and had predicted death at the hands of the Gentiles as well as the Jews (Mar 10:33).<\/p>\n Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? 63. Then the high priest ] Caiaphas had now gained his end. The Accused had spoken. He had criminated Himself. All was uproar and confusion. The high-priest rent his linen robes. This was not lawful for him to do in … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 14:63”<\/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-24803","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24803","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=24803"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24803\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24803"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24803"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24803"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/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: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/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: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary<\/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: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"