False witnesses.

Discussion in 'Bible Study' started by calvin, Jan 14, 2012.

  1. Something I am wondering about lately is false witnesses and how they might relate to an issue and how they might not, even though they are identified as false witnesses.
    Matt 26:59 Matt 26:60 and Matt 26:61

    Also Mark 14:55 mark 14:56 mark 14: 57 mark 14:58 mark 14:59
    If the testimony of the two did not agree, then why was their testimony accepted? Mark 14:60 and Matt 26:62
    What Jesus said was :
    John 2:19
    It is obvious that the false witnesses claimed that Jesus would be the one tearing down the temple, which is not what He said or implied. But on the requirement of the testimony of two witnesses, why was this not enough? How does their testimony differ that they needed to get Jesus to say something they could condemn Him for?
  2. Consider this...........the Sanhedrin, priests, elders, in fact the enemies of Jesus were determined to put Him to death, but the Law of Moses (Deut. 17:6) declared it was nesessary that two witnesses testify against that said person before he could be condemned. BUT they could find no one to do that against Jesus.

    These rulers, the Sanhedrin of the Jews had already decided a verdict before Jesus was arrested and tried. They planned His death and sought out those who would lie against Jesus. The problem was according to Mark 14:56 even these liars could not agree on their story so they had to look further to find two who agreed even though they were lieing.

    McHenry states:
    He was at length charged with words spoken some years ago, which, as they were represented, seemed to threaten the temple, which they had made no better than an idol of (v. 57, 58); but the witnesses to this matter did not agree (v. 59), for one swore that he said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days (so it is in Matthew); the other swore that he said, I will destroy this temple, that is made with hands, and within three days, I will build not it, but another made without hands; now these two differ much from each other; oude iseµ eµn heµ martyria-their testimony was not sufficient, nor equal to the charge of a capital crime; they did not accuse him of that upon which a sentence of death might be founded, no not by the utmost stretch of their law.

    He was urged to be his own accuser (v. 60); The high priest stood up in a heat, and said, Answerest thou nothing? This he said under pretence of justice and fair dealing, but really with a design to ensnare him, that they might accuse him, Lu. 11:53, 54; 20:20. We may well imagine with what an air of haughtiness and disdain this proud high priest brought our Lord Jesus to this question; "Come you, the prisoner at the bar, you hear what is sworn against you; what have you now to say for yourself?" Pleased to think that he seemed silent, who had so often silenced those that picked quarrels with him.

    Still Christ answered nothing, that he might set us an example, 1. Of patience under calumnies and false accusations; when we are reviled, let us not revile again, 1 Pt. 2:23. And, 2. Of prudence, when a man shall be made an offender for a word (Isa. 29:21), and our defence made our offence; it is an evil time indeed when the prudent shall keep silence (lest they make bad worse), and commit their cause to him that judgeth righteously.
  3. Thanks major, Who is McHenry? He reads somewhat like Matthew Henry, but I gather he is not. goggled and only found a street photographer come evangelist with that name.

    I don't think my question has really been answered though; maybe I need to spend more time composing the question in such a way as to better present my query.
  4. You are correct..............it is Matthew Henry.

    It seems that I lost my mind for a moment.

Share This Page