Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

Then the high priest rent his garments, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy: what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard the blasphemy:

Then the high priests rent his garments, saying: He hath blasphemed; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now you have heard the blasphemy:

Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He has blasphemed: what need have we any more of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard the blasphemy.

Then the chief priest rent his garments, saying,, 'He hath spoken evil; what need have we yet of witnesses? lo, now ye heard his evil speaking;

Then the High Priest tore his robes and exclaimed, "Impious language! What further need have we of witnesses! See, you have now heard the impiety.

Then the high priest, violently parting his robes, said, He has said evil against God: what more need have we of witnesses? for now his words against God have come to your ears:

Then the high priest tore his garments, saying: "He has blasphemed. Why do we still need witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy.

Then the high priest tore his robes. "This is blasphemy!" he exclaimed. "Why do we want any more witnesses? You have just heard his blasphemy!

Then the high priest rent his garments. By this we see how little advantage was derived by wicked men from the miracles by which Christ had proved his Divinity. But we need not wonder, that under the mean garb of a servant, the Son of God was despised by those who were unmoved by any anxiety about the promised salvation. For if they had not entirely laid aside every pious feeling, their deplorable condition ought to have led them to look anxiously for the Redeemer; but when they now, without making any inquiry, reject him when offered to them, do they not as far as lies in their power, destroy all the promises of God? The high priest first pronounces Christ to be a blasphemer, to which the others afterwards assent. The rending of the clothes plainly shows how boldly and wickedly those who profanely despise God make false pretensions of zeal. It would indeed have been praiseworthy in the high priest, if he heard the name of God shamefully profaned, not only to feel inward resentment and excruciating pain, but to make an open display of his detestation; but while he refused to make inquiry, he contrived an unfounded charge of blasphemy. And yet, this treacherous hypocrite, while he assumed a character which did not belong to him, taught the servants of God with what severity of displeasure they ought to regard blasphemies, and condemned by his example the shameful cowardice of those who are no more affected by an outrage on religion, than if they heard buffoons uttering their silly jokes. Then they spat in his face. Either Luke has inverted the order of the narrative, or our Lord twice endured this highly contemptuous treatment. The latter supposition appears to me to be probable. And yet, I have no doubt that the servants were emboldened to spit on Christ, and to strike him with greater insolence, after they had seen that the council, so far as their decision had influence, condemned him to death. The object of all these expressions of contempt was, to show that nothing was more unlikely than that he should be a prince of prophets, who, in consequence of being blindfolded, [1] was not able even to ward off blows. But this insolence was turned by the providence of God to a very different purpose; for the face of Christ, dishonored by spitting and blows, has restored to us that image which had been disfigured, and almost effaced, by sin.

Footnotes

1 - "Lequel ayant seulement un voile devant les yeux;" -- "who having only a veil before his eyes."

Then the high priest rent his clothes - The Jews were accustomed to rend their clothes as a token of grief. This was done often as a matter of form, and consisted in tearing a particular part of the garment reserved for this purpose. It was not lawful for the high priest to rip his clothes, Leviticus 10:6; Leviticus 21:10. By that was probably intended the robes of his priestly office. The garment which he now tore was probably his ordinary garment, or the garments which he wore as president of the Sanhedrin - not those in which he officiated as high priest in the things of religion. This was done on this occasion to denote the great grief of the high priest that so great a sin as blasphemy had been committed in his presence.
He hath spoken blasphemy - That is, he has, under oath, arrogated to himself what belongs to God. In asserting that he is the Son of God, and therefore equal in dignity with the Father, and that he would yet sit at his right hand, he has claimed what belongs to no man, and what is therefore an invasion of the divine prerogative. If he had not been the Messiah, the charge would have been true; but the question was whether he had not given evidence that he was the Messiah, and that therefore his claims were just. This point - the only proper point of inquiry - they never examined. They assumed that he was an impostor, and that point being assumed, everything like a pretension to being the Messiah was, in their view, proof that he deserved to die.

The high priest rent his clothes - This rending of the high priest's garments was expressly contrary to the law, Leviticus 10:6 : Leviticus 21:10. But it was a common method of expressing violent grief, Genesis 37:29, Genesis 37:34; Job 1:20, and horror at what was deemed blasphemous or impious. 2-Kings 18:37; 2-Kings 19:1; Acts 14:14. All that heard a blasphemous speech were obliged to rend their clothes, and never to sew them up again. See Lightfoot.
He hath spoken blasphemy - Quesnel's note on this is worthy of notice. "See here a false zeal, a mask of religion, and a passionate and seditious way of proceeding, tending only to incense and stir up others, all which are common to those who would oppress truth by cabal, and without proof. By crying out, 'heresy, blasphemy, and faction,' though contrary to all appearance, men fail not to stir up those in power, to gain the simple, to give some shadow of authority to the ill-disposed, to cast devout but ignorant people into scruples, and thereby to advance the mystery of iniquity, which is the mystery of all ages." This was the very plan his Catholic brethren adopted in this country, in the reign of Queen Mary, called the bloody queen, because of the many murders of righteous men which she sanctioned at the mouth of her Catholic priesthood.

Then the high priest (g) rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
(g) This was a peculiar custom among the Jews: for so were they bound to do when they heard any Israelite blaspheme God, and it was a tradition of their talmud in the book of the magistrates, in the title, of the four kinds of death.

Then the high priest rent his clothes,.... Both his outer and inner garments. This he did, to show his zeal for the honour and glory of God, his grief and concern at the profanation of his holy name by a false oath, and his abhorrence of, and indignation at the blasphemy he supposed Christ to be guilty of, in asserting himself to be the Son of God. Some have thought, that Caiaphas in this action, transgressed the law, in Leviticus 21:10, where it is said, that "the high priest--shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes": and it is one of the Jews' negative precepts (i), that "an high priest is prohibited, "ever" to rend his garments:
and that therefore being transported with passion at the greatness of the supposed crime, could not forbear expressing his detestation of it in this manner, though it was forbidden him: but it does not appear to have been unlawful: as for the law in Leviticus, it only regards the rending of garments at funerals, or in mourning for the dead, as the context shows; and so Jonathan ben Uzziel paraphrases the text, "nor rent his clothes": "in the time of mourning"; and so the Jewish (k) interpreters, in general, expound it; and besides, this prohibition, according to them, only regards the manner of rending: their rule is this (l),
"an high priest rends below, and a common person above:
the sense of which, according to their commentators, is (m),
"that if anyone dies for whom an high priest is obliged to rend his garments, he must rend below, at the extreme part of his garment, near his feet; and as for what is written, nor rend his clothes; the meaning is, he shall not rend as other men do, above, over against the breast, near the shoulder, as the rest of the people.
Moreover, a priest might not go into the sanctuary, nor perform any part of service with his clothes rent; the canon runs thus (n),
"the judgment, or the law of them that rend their garment, and of those that uncover the head, is one and the same, as it is said, Leviticus 10:6, lo! if he is in service, and rends his garments, he is guilty of death by the hands of heaven, though his service is right, and not profaned.
And indeed no man, whether a priest or an Israelite, might go into the temple with his clothes rent; and a priest might not rend his sacerdotal garments, on any account; yet such were not these that Caiaphas now had on; but in case of hearing blasphemy, everyone, be he what he would, was obliged to rend his garments (o):
"Whosoever hears the cursing of the name (of God) is obliged to rend, even at the cursing of the surnames he is obliged to rend; and he that hears it from an Israelite, both he that hears, and he that hears from the mouth of him that hears, he is obliged to rend; but he that hears from the mouth of a Gentile, is not obliged to rend; and Eliakim and Shebna would not have rent, but because Rabshakeh was an apostate.
So when witnesses expressed the blasphemy of such they testified against, the judges were obliged to rise up and rend their garments; concerning which, take the following rule (p):
"a blasphemer is not guilty, unless he expresses the name (of God); says R. Joshua ben Korcha, all the day the witnesses are examined by the surnames; but when the cause is finished, they do not put to death because of the surnames, but they bring every man out, and ask the chief among them, and say to him, say expressly what thou hast heard, and he says it: then the judges stand upon their feet, "and rend their garments", and do not sow them up again; and then the second and the third say, I have heard the same as he.
From all which it appears, that Caiaphas did what was the custom of the nation to do in such a case. The observation, that some learned men have made, that the high priest's rending his garments, was, though without his intention, an emblem and presage, of the rending of the priesthood from him, and his brethren, and the entire change of it; as the abolition of the whole ceremonial law, was signified by the rending of the vail of the temple in twain; and as the removing of the kingdom from Saul, was represented by Samuel's rending his mantle; and the revolt of the ten tribes to Jeroboam, by Abijah's rending his garment into twelve pieces, and giving ten to him; would have had a much better foundation to be built on, were these clothes that Caiaphas rent, his priestly ones: but such they were not; for both the high priest, and the other priests, only wore their sacerdotal garments in the temple; nor was it lawful for them to go out in them elsewhere; for so the Jews say (q),
"it is forbidden to go out into the province; city, or country, in the garments of the priesthood; but in the sanctuary, whether in the time of service, or not in the time of service, it was lawful.
In the temple, there were chests on purpose for the garments of the priests (r); from whence they took them, and where they laid them up when they had performed their service: of these there were ninety six in number; for as there were twenty four courses, there were four chests for every course; in which the garments were put by themselves, the breeches by themselves, the girdles by themselves, the bonnets by themselves, and the coats by themselves; sealed up with an inscription on them, showing what was in them: and when the men that belonged to such a course, came to perform their service in turn, they opened these chests, and clothed themselves: and when they went out of their service, they put them up in them again, and sealed them; and as for
"the high priest, he left his golden garments, , "in his chamber", (an apartment in the temple, peculiar to him, and for this use,) in the night, and at whatsoever time he went out of the sanctuary (s).
Nor might he go abroad with them, unless , "in great necessity" (t); as Simeon the Just went out in priestly garments to meet Alexander the Great, to appease him, being warned of God so to do: hence the Apostle Paul knew not Ananias the high priest,
Acts 23:5, which he must have done, had he had on his priestly garments: for when the priests were not in the temple, and out of service, they wore no distinguishing habits, but were dressed as laics, and as the common people were (u). The reason of Caiaphas's rending his clothes, is expressed in, the next clause,
saying, he hath spoken blasphemy: not only because Jesus asserted that he was the Messiah, but also the Son of God; hereby making himself equal with God, which is the sense in which the Jews always understood this phrase; and he appearing to them to be but a mere man, they charged it as blasphemy against God, to assume such a character and relation to himself:
what further need have we of witnesses? of seeking after others, as they had done: or of further examining and taking the depositions of those, who were before them: he was for putting a stop to the process, and bringing the cause at once to an issue: and therefore addresses the court in the following manner,
behold now, ye have heard his blasphemy: out of his own mouth, as Luke 22:71, expresses it; and with their own ears, and at that very time; so that they had no need of recourse to things past, or examine witnesses about what they had heard from him formerly: and therefore he proposes, that they would attend to, and take notice of his present words; and which, as he suggests, were shocking and astonishing: for the word, "behold!" may not only be a note of attention, but of astonishment,
(i) Moses Kotsensis Mitzvot Tora, pr. neg. 302. (k) Jarchi, Aben Ezra, &c. in loc. (l) Misn. Horayot, c. 3. sect. 5. (m) Bartenora & Maimon. in ib. (n) Maimon. Hilch. Biath Hamikdash, c. 1. sect. 14, 17. (o) Maimon. Hilch. Obede Cochabim, c. 2. sect. 10. Vid. T. Hieros. Sanhedrin, fol. 25. 1. (p) Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 7. sect. 5. (q) T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 69. 1. & Tamid, fol. 27. 2. (r) Misn. Tamid, c. 5. sect. 3. (s) Maimon. Hilch. Cele Hamikdash, c. 8. sect. 8, 9, 10. (t) Moses Kotsensis Mitzvot Tora, pt. affirm. 173. (u) Maimon. ib. c. 10. sect. 4. Joseph. de Bello Jude. l. 6. c. 15.

Then the high priest rent his garments. A sign of mourning or indignation (Acts 14:14). It was a form that was always used when about to pronounce a judgment.
He hath spoken blasphemy. He did, if not Divine; he did not, if Divine. Either he spoke the truth, or the wicked Caiaphas spoke the truth and Jesus was false. If he spoke falsehood, the purest lips that ever formed human words spoke falsehood on the eve of death, when he knew that the falsehood would send him to death. Such an affirmation, from such a prisoner, at such an hour, can only be reconciled with a consciousness of divinity.

Then the high priest rent his clothes - Though the high priest was forbidden to rend his clothes (that is, his upper garment) in some cases where others were allowed to do it, Leviticus 21:10; yet in case of blasphemy or any public calamity, it was thought allowable. Caiaphas hereby expressed, in the most artful manner, his horror at hearing such grievous blasphemy.