Text -- Mark 14:12-21 (NET)

The Passover

14:12 Now on the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb is sacrificed, Jesus’ disciples said to him, “Where do you want us to prepare for you to eat the Passover?” 14:13 He sent two of his disciples and told them, “Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him. 14:14 Wherever he enters, tell the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher says, “Where is my guest room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?”’ 14:15 He will show you a large room upstairs, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there.” 14:16 So the disciples left, went into the city, and found things just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover. 14:17 Then, when it was evening, he came to the house with the twelve. 14:18 While they were at the table eating, Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, one of you eating with me will betray me.” 14:19 They were distressed, and one by one said to him, “Surely not I?” 14:20 He said to them, “It is one of the twelve, one who dips his hand with me into the bowl. 14:21 For the Son of Man will go as it is written about him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would be better for him if he had never been born.”

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Mar 14:12

When they sacrificed the passover ( hote to pascha ethuon ).

Imperfect indicative, customary practice. The paschal lamb (note pascha ) was slain at 6 p.m., beginning of the fifteenth of the month (Exo 12:6), but the preparations were made beforehand on the fourteenth (Thursday). See note on Mat 26:17 for discussion of "eat the passover."

Robertson: Mar 14:13

Two of his disciples ( duo tōn mathētōn autou ).

Luk 22:8 names them, Peter and John.

Robertson: Mar 14:13

Bearing a pitcher of water ( keramion hudatos bastazōn ).

This item also in Luke, but not in Matthew.

Robertson: Mar 14:14

The goodman of the house ( tōi oikodespotēi ).

A non-classical word, but in late papyri. It means master (despot ) of the house, householder. The usual Greek has two separate words, oikou despotēs (master of the house).

Robertson: Mar 14:14

My guest-chamber ( to kataluma mou ).

In lxx, papyri, and modern Greek for lodging-place (inn, as in Luk 2:7 or guest-chamber as here). It was used for khan or caravanserai .

Robertson: Mar 14:14

I shall eat ( phagō ).

Futuristic aorist subjunctive with hopou .

Robertson: Mar 14:15

And he ( kai autos ).

Emphatic, and he himself.

Robertson: Mar 14:15

A large upper room ( anagaion mega ).

Anything above ground (gē ), and particularly upstairs as here. Here and in Luk 22:12. Example in Xenophon. Jesus wishes to observe this last feast with his disciples alone, not with others as was often done. Evidently this friend of Jesus was a man who would understand.

Robertson: Mar 14:15

Furnished ( estrōmenon ).

Perfect passive participle of strōnnumi , state of readiness. "Strewed with carpets, and with couches properly spread"(Vincent).

Robertson: Mar 14:17

He cometh ( erchetai ).

Dramatic historical present. It is assumed here that Jesus is observing the passover meal at the regular time and hour, at 6 p.m. at the beginning of the fifteenth (evening of our Thursday, beginning of Jewish Friday). Mark and Matthew note the time as evening and state it as the regular passover meal.

Robertson: Mar 14:18

As they sat ( anakeimenōn autōn ).

Reclined, of course. It is a pity that these verbs are not translated properly in English. Even Leonardo da Vinci in his immortal painting of the Last Supper has Jesus and his apostles sitting, not reclining. Probably he took an artist’ s license for effect.

Robertson: Mar 14:18

Even he that eateth with me ( ho esthiōn met' emou ).

See Psalms 4:9. To this day the Arabs will not violate hospitality by mistreating one who breaks bread with them in the tent.

Robertson: Mar 14:20

One of the twelve ( heis tōn dōdeka ).

It is as bad as that. The sign that Jesus gave, the one dipping in the dish with me (ho embaptomenos met' emou eis to trublion ), escaped the notice of all. Jesus gave the sop to Judas who understood perfectly that Jesus knew his purpose. See Mat 26:21-24 for further details.

Vincent: Mar 14:13

A man

A slave probably, whose business it was to draw water. See Deu 19:11.

Vincent: Mar 14:13

Pitcher

Of earthenware: κεράμοιν , from κέραμος , potter's clay.

Vincent: Mar 14:14

My guest-chamber ( κατάλυμά μου )

Luk 22:11. The word is not classical, and as used by an oriental signifies a khan or caravanserai. Hence inn at Luk 2:7. My chamber. It was a common practice that more than one company partook of the paschal supper in the same apartment; but Christ will have his chamber for himself and his disciples alone.

Vincent: Mar 14:15

And he ( αὐτὸς )

The Greek is more emphatic. " He will himself show you." So Rev. Probably the owner of the house was a disciple.

Vincent: Mar 14:15

Furnished ( ἐστρωμένον )

Lit., strewed with carpets, and with couches properly spread.

Vincent: Mar 14:20

Dish ( τρυβλίου )

See on Mat 26:23.

Wesley: Mar 14:12

Mat 26:17; Luk 22:7.

Wesley: Mar 14:13

It was highly seasonable for our Lord to give them this additional proof both of his knowing all things, and of his influence over the minds of men.

Wesley: Mar 14:15

The word properly means, spread with carpets.

Wesley: Mar 14:17

Mat 26:20; Luk 22:14.

Clarke: Mar 14:13

Bearing a pitcher of water - How correct is the foreknowledge of Jesus Christ! Even the minutest circumstances are comprehended by it! An honest employment, howsoever mean, is worthy the attention of God; and even a man bearing a pitcher of water is marked in all his steps, and is an object of the merciful regards of the Most High. This man was employed in carrying home the water which was to be used for baking the unleavened bread on the following day; for on that day it was not lawful to carry any: hence they were obliged to fetch it on the preceding evening.

Clarke: Mar 14:14

Say ye to the good man of the house - ειπατε τῳ οικοδεσποτῃ - Say ye to the master of the house. The good man and the good woman mean, among us, the master and mistress of the house. A Hindoo woman never calls her husband by his name; but simply, the man of the house

Clarke: Mar 14:14

Where is the guest chamber? - Respectable householders, says Mr. Ward, have a room which they call the strangers’ room, (utit' hu -shala ), which is especially set apart for the use of guests. This appears to have been the custom in Judea also.

Clarke: Mar 14:15

Furnished - Spread with carpets - εστρωμενον - so this word is often used. See Wakefield. But it may also signify the couches on which the guests reclined when eating. It does not appear that the Jews ate the passover now, as their fathers did formerly, standing, with their shoes on, and their staves in their hands.

Clarke: Mar 14:19

And another said, Is it I? - This clause is wanting in BCLP, seventeen others, Syriac, Persic, Arabic, Coptic, Ethiopic, Vulgate, and four of the Itala. Griesbach leaves it doubtful: others leave it out.

Clarke: Mar 14:20

That dippeth with me in the dish - In the east, persons never eat together from one dish, except when a strong attachment subsists between two or more persons of the same caste; in such a case one invites another to come and sit by him and eat from the same dish. This custom seems to have existed among the Jews; and the sacred historian mentions this notice of our Lord’ s, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish, to mark more strongly the perfidy of the character of Judas.

Clarke: Mar 14:21

Goeth - That is, to die. See on Mat 26:24 (note).

Defender: Mar 14:12

The Passover lamb, commemorating the deliverance from Egypt some fifteen centuries earlier, was to be slain and eaten with unleavened bread on the fourteenth day of the first month (Exo 12:8). The unleavened bread (symbolizing absence of evil) was to be eaten for seven days. The Passover and its supper constituted a representation of Christ, who would shortly become "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (Joh 1:29), as "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us" (1Co 5:7). Apparently, Jesus had already made arrangements with Mark's family to have the supper there, for it was already "furnished and prepared" (Mar 14:15, Mar 14:16)."

Defender: Mar 14:17

The wording here is significant, perhaps indicating Mark's own personal perspective on the world-shaking events about to take place, beginning in a "large upper room" (Mar 14:15) in his own mother's home (Act 12:12). He described Jesus and the twelve as coming to the upper room, as though he was there before they arrived. This in turn suggests that he may have been a silent observer, or listener, as Jesus met with His disciples there in Mark's own upper room."

Defender: Mar 14:21

Some have tried to justify Judas' betrayal in terms of some supposed noble motive he may have had, but this is not the analysis revealed by Christ. Christ called him "a devil" (Joh 6:70) and said it would have been better for him if he had never been born. He was the treasurer of the group, a thief (Joh 12:6). who perhaps feared exposure. Also, he was actually possessed by Satan himself when he conceived and carried out his evil scheme (Joh 13:2, Joh 13:27)."

TSK: Mar 14:12

the first : Exo 12:6, Exo 12:8, Exo 12:18, Exo 13:3; Lev 23:5, Lev 23:6; Num 28:16-18; Deu 16:1-4; Mat 26:17; Luk 22:7

killed : or, sacrificed, 1Co 5:7, 1Co 5:8

Where : Mat 3:15; Luk 22:8, Luk 22:9; Gal 4:4

TSK: Mar 14:13

Go : Mar 11:2, Mar 11:3; Mat 8:9, Mat 26:18, Mat 26:19; Luk 19:30-33, Luk 22:10-13; Joh 2:5, Joh 15:14; Heb 4:13, Heb 5:9

TSK: Mar 14:14

The Master : Mar 10:17, Mar 11:3; Joh 11:28, Joh 13:13

where I : Rev 3:20

TSK: Mar 14:15

he will : 2Ch 6:30; Psa 110:3; Pro 16:1, Pro 21:1, Pro 21:2; Joh 2:24, Joh 2:25, Joh 21:17; 2Ti 2:19; Heb 4:13

upper : Act 1:13, Act 20:8

TSK: Mar 14:16

and found : Luk 22:13, Luk 22:35; Joh 16:4

TSK: Mar 14:17

Mat 26:20; Luk 22:14

TSK: Mar 14:18

as : Mat 26:21

Verily : Mar 14:9, Mar 14:25, Mar 3:28, Mar 6:11, Mar 8:12, Mar 9:1, Mar 9:41, Mar 10:15, Mar 10:29; Mat 5:18, Mat 6:2, Mat 6:5, Mat 6:16; Luk 4:24; Luk 11:51; Joh 1:51, Joh 3:3, Joh 3:5, Joh 3:11, Joh 5:19, Joh 5:24, Joh 5:25, Joh 6:26, Joh 6:32, Joh 6:47, Joh 13:38, Joh 21:18

One : Psa 41:9, Psa 55:13, Psa 55:14; Joh 6:70, Joh 13:21

TSK: Mar 14:19

and to : Mat 26:22; Luk 22:21-23; Joh 13:22

TSK: Mar 14:20

It is : Mar 14:43; Mat 26:47; Luk 22:47; Joh 6:71

dippeth : Mat 26:23; Joh 13:26

TSK: Mar 14:21

goeth : Mar 14:49; Gen 3:15; Psa. 22:1-31, 69:1-36; Isa 52:14, Isa 53:1-12; Dan 9:24, Dan 9:26; Zec 13:7; Mat 26:24, Mat 26:54, Mat 26:56; Luk 22:22, Luk 24:26, Luk 24:27, Luk 24:44; Joh 19:28, Joh 19:36, Joh 19:37; Act 2:23, Act 4:27, Act 13:27-29

but : Psa 55:15, Psa 109:6-20; Mat 18:7, Mat 27:3-5; Act 1:16-20,Act 1:25

good : Mat 18:6, Mat 18:7, Mat 26:24, Mat 26:25

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Mar 14:12-16

See the notes at Mat 26:17-19.

Mar 14:12

They killed the passover - The "paschal lamb,"which was slain in keeping the Passover.

Go and prepare - Go and provide a lamb, have it roasted, and properly prepared with the usual things to eat with it.

Mar 14:13

The city - The city of Jerusalem. They were now in Bethany, about 2 miles from the city.

A man bearing a pitcher of water - This could have been known only by the infinite knowledge of Christ. Such a thing could not have been conjectured, nor was there any concert between him and the man that "at that time"he should be in a particular place to meet them, for the disciples themselves proposed the inquiry. If Jesus knew a circumstance like that, then he in the same way must have known all things; then he sees "all"the actions of men - hears every word, and marks every thought; then the righteous are under his care, and the wicked, much as they may wish to be unseen, cannot escape the notice of his eye.

Mar 14:14

The goodman of the house - This signifies simply the "master"of the house. The original word expresses nothing respecting his character, whether it was good or bad.

The guest-chamber - A chamber for guests or friends - an unoccupied room.

Mar 14:15

A large upper room - The word used here denotes the upper room devoted to purposes of prayer, repose, and often of eating. See the notes at Mat 9:1-8.

Furnished and prepared - Literally, "spread"and "ready."Spread with a carpet, or with "couches"such as were used in eating. See the notes at Mat 23:6.

Barnes: Mar 14:17-31

See this passage explained in the notes at Mat. 26:20-35.

Mar 14:31

More vehemently - More earnestly, more confidently.

Poole: Mar 14:10-16

Ver. 10-16. See Poole on "Mat 26:17" , and following verses to Mat 26:19 .

Poole: Mar 14:17-21

Ver. 17-21. See Poole on "Mat 26:20" , and following verses to Mat 26:25 , where is opened whatever is necessary for the understanding of these words, in which nothing of moment is varied, save only that Matthew reports Judas as being at this time particularly discovered. John hath nothing of this, unless the supper mentioned Joh 13:1-38 were this supper, of which more shall be said in its order.

Lightfoot: Mar 14:12

And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?   

[And the first day of unleavened bread.] So Mat 26:17; Luk 22:7. And now let them tell me, who think that Christ indeed kept his Passover the fourteenth day, but the Jews not before the fifteenth, because this year their Passover was transferred unto the fifteenth day by reason of the following sabbath: let them tell me, I say, whether the evangelists speak according to the day prescribed by Moses, or according to the day prescribed by the masters of the traditions, and used by the nation. If according to Moses, then the fifteenth day was the first of unleavened bread; Exo 12:15; Exo 12:18: but if according to the manner of the nation, then it was the fourteenth. And whether the evangelists speak according to this custom, let us inquire briefly.  

Sometime, indeed, the whole seven days' feast was transferred to another month; and that not only from that law, Numbers_9, but from other causes also: concerning which see the places quoted in the margin [Hieros. In Maasar Sheni, folio 56.3. Maimonides In Kiddush. Hodesh. cap. 4.]. But when the time appointed for the feast occurred, the lamb was always slain on the fourteenth day.  

I. Let us begin with a story where an occasion occurs not very unlike that for which they of whom we speak think the Passover this year was transferred; namely, because of the following sabbath. The story is this: "After the death of Shemaiah and Abtalion, the sons of Betira obtained the chief place. Hillel went up from Babylon to inquire concerning three doubts. When he was now at Jerusalem, and the fourteenth day of the first month fell out on the sabbath [observe that], it appeared not to the sons of Betira, whether the Passover drove off the sabbath or no. Which when Hillel had determined in many words, and had added, moreover, that he had learned this from Shemaiah and Abtalion, they laid down their authority, and made Hillel president. When they had chosen him president, he derided them, saying, 'What need have you of this Babylonian? Did you not serve the two chief men of the world, Shemaiah and Abtalion, who sat among you?' " These things which are already said make enough to our purpose, but, with the reader's leave, let us add the whole story: "While he thus scoffed at them, he forgot a tradition. For they said, 'What is to be done with the people if they bring not their knives?' He answered, 'I have heard this tradition, but I have forgot. But let them alone; for although they are not prophets, they are prophets' sons.' Presently every one whose passover was a lamb stuck his knife into the fleece of it; and whose passover was a kid, hung his knife upon the horns of it."  

And now let the impartial reader judge between the reason which is given for the transferring the Passover this year unto the fifteenth day, namely, because of the sabbath following, that they might not be forced to abstain from servile work for two days together; and the reason for which it might with good reason be transferred that year concerning which the story is. The fourteenth day fell on a sabbath; a scruple ariseth, whether the sabbath gives way to the Passover, or the Passover to the sabbath. The very chief men of the Sanhedrim, and the oracles of traditions, are not able to resolve the business. A great article of religion is transacting; and what is here to be done! O ye sons of Betira, transfer but the Passover unto the next day, and the knot is untied. Certainly if this had been either usual or lawful, they had provided that the affairs of religion, and their authority and fame, should not have stuck in this strait. But that was not to be suffered.  

II. Let us add a tradition which you may justly wonder at: "Five things, if they come in uncleanness, are not eaten in uncleanness: the sheaf of firstfruits, the two loaves, the shewbread, the peace offerings of the congregation, and the goats of the new moons. But the Passover which comes in uncleanness is eaten in uncleanness; because it comes not originally unless to be eaten."  

Upon which tradition thus Maimonides: "The Lord saith, 'And there were some that were unclean by the carcase of a man,' Num 9:6; and he determines of them, that they be put off from the Passover of the first month to the Passover of the second. And the tradition is, that it was thus determined, because they were few. But if the whole congregation should have been unclean, or if the greatest part of it should have been unclean, yet they offer the Passover, though they are unclean. Therefore they say, 'Particular men are put off to the second Passover, but the whole congregation is not put off to the second Passover.' In like manner all the oblations of the congregation, they offer them in uncleanness if the most are unclean; which we learn also from the Passover. For the Lord saith of the Passover, [ul Num_9:2] that it is to be offered in its set time [note that]; and saith also of the oblations of the congregation, Ye shall do this to the Lord in your set times, and to them all he prescribes a set time. Every thing, therefore, to which a time is set, is also offered in uncleanness, if so be very many of the congregation, or very many of the priests, be unclean."  

"We find that the congregation makes their Passover in uncleanness, in that time when most of them are unclean. And if known uncleanness be thus dispensed with, much more doubted uncleanness." But what need is there of such dispensation? Could ye not put off the Passover, O ye fathers of the Sanhedrim, for one or two days, that the people might be purified? By no means: for the Passover is to be offered in its set time; the fourteenth day, without any dispensation. For,  

III. Thus the canons of that church concerning that day: in the light of the fourteenth day, they seek for leaven by candlelight. The Gloss is; "In the night, to which the day following is the fourteenth day." And go to all the commentators, and they will teach, that this was done upon the going out of the thirteenth day. And Maimonides; "From the words of the scribes, they look for and rid away leaven in the beginning of the night of the fourteenth day, and that by the light of the candle. For in the night time all are within their houses, and a candle is most proper for such a search. Therefore, they do not appoint employments in the end of the thirteenth day, nor doth a wise man begin to recite his phylacteries in that time, lest thereby, by reason of their length, he be hindered from seeking for leaven in its season." And the same author elsewhere; "It is forbidden to eat leaven on the fourteenth day from noon and onwards, viz. from the beginning of the seventh hour. Our wise men also forbade eating it from the beginning of the sixth hour. Nay, the fifth hour they eat not leaven, lest perhaps the day be cloudy, and so a mistake arise about the time. Behold, you learn that it is lawful to eat leaven on the fourteenth day, to the end of the fourth hour; but in the fifth hour it is not to be used." The same author elsewhere writes thus; "The passover was not to be killed but in the court, where the other sacrifices were killed. And it was to be killed on the fourteenth day afternoon, after the daily sacrifice."  

And now, reader, tell me what day the evangelists call the first day of unleavened bread; and whether it be any thing probable that the Passover was ever transferred unto the fifteenth day? Much less is it probable that Christ this year kept his Passover one day before the Passover of the Jews.  

For the Passover was not to be slain but in the court, where the other sacrifices were slain, as we heard just now from Maimonides: and see the rubric of bringing in the lambs into the court, and of slaying them. And then tell me seriously whether it be credible, that the priests in the Temple, against the set decree of the Sanhedrim that year (as the opinion we contradict imports), would kill Christ's one, only, single lamb; when by that decree it ought not to be killed before tomorrow? When Christ said to his disciples, "Ye know, that after two days is the Passover"; and when he commanded them, "Go ye, and prepare for us the Passover," it is a wonder they did not reply, "True, indeed, Sir, it ought to be after two days; but it is put off this year to a day later, so that now it is after three days; it is impossible therefore that we should obey you now, for the priests will not allow of killing before tomorrow."  

We have said enough, I suppose, in this matter. But while I am speaking of the day of the Passover, let me add a few words, although not to the business concerning which we have been treating; and they perhaps not unworthy of our consideration:  

"He that mourns washes himself, and eats his Passover in the even. A proselyte, which is made a proselyte on the eve of the Passover, the school of Shammai saith, Let him be baptized, and eat his Passover in the even: the school of Hillel saith, He that separates himself from uncircumcision [that is, from heathens and heathenism] is as if he separated himself from a sepulchre." The Gloss, "And hath need of seven days' purification." " There were soldiers at Jerusalem; who baptized themselves, and ate their Passovers in the even." A thing certainly to be noted, proselytes the same day made proselytes, and eating the Passover; and that as it seems without circumcision, but admitted only by baptism.  

The care of the school of Hillel in this case did not so much repulse a proselyte from eating the Passover, who was made a proselyte and baptized on the day of the Passover; as provided for the future, that such a one in following years should not obtrude himself to eat the Passover in uncleanness. For while he was in heathenism, he contracted not uncleanness from the touch of a sepulchre; but being made a proselyte, he contracted uncleanness by it. These are the words of the Gloss.  

[That we prepare that thou mayest eat the Passover.] For the Passovers were prepared by the servants for their masters. "If any say to his servant, 'Go and kill me the passover,' and he kills a kid, let him eat of it: if he kill a lamb, let him eat of it: if a kid and a lamb, let him eat of the former," etc.

Haydock: Mar 14:12

Whither wilt thou, &c. By these words the disciples teach us to direct our every step according to the will of God; therefore does their Lord tell them, with whom he would eat the pasch, to go two of them into the city. (St. Jerome)

Haydock: Mar 14:14

Were is my refectory: [2] where I may eat the pasch, or the paschal supper of the lamb sacrificed? Literally, in the Latin, where is my eating, or my refection? but it is generally agreed that here is meant a place to eat in. (Witham)

This is my Body.

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Ubi est refectio mea, ubi pascha manducem? Greek: Pou esti to kataluma, opou pascha ... phago.

Gill: Mar 14:12

And the first day of unleavened bread,.... Being come, which was the fourteenth of Nisan:

when they killed the passover; that is, "the Jews", as the Syriac and Persic versions supply; for any Israelite, that not a priest, might slay it: their canon runs thus ^x,

"an Israelite kills (the passover), and a priest receives (the blood), and gives it to his neighbour, and his neighbour to his neighbour, and he receives (the basin) full, and returns it empty; the priest that is near to the altar sprinkles it, at one sprinkling, over against the bottom of it.''

Upon which the commentators ^y observe, that the slaying of the passover by strangers; that is, such as are not priests, lawful. And so Philo the Jew, speaking of the passover, says ^z;

"at which time the common people do not bring their sacrifices to the altar, and the priests slay; but by the command of the law, συμπαν το εθνος, "the whole nation", does the work of a priest; every one particularly bringing the sacrifices for himself, and then slaying them with his own hands.''

But then it was always killed in the court of the temple, and after the middle of the day; See Gill on Mat 26:17;

his disciples said unto him, where wilt thou that we go and prepare, that thou mayst eat the passover: for it was now Thursday morning, and the passover was to be slain after the middle of the day, between the two evenings, and eaten in Jerusalem at night; and they were now at Bethany, near two miles from the city; and it was usual for servants to get ready the passover for their masters; See Gill on Mat 26:17.

Gill: Mar 14:13

And he sendeth forth two of his disciples,.... Peter and John, as appears from Luk 22:8;

and saith unto them, go ye into the city; the city of Jerusalem; for there only the passover might be eaten, Deu 26:2;

and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water; a servant of the master of the house that was sent for water, to mix with the wine, at the passover:

follow him; into the house to which he goes.

Gill: Mar 14:14

And wheresoever he shall go in,.... Into whatsoever house he shall enter, go in after him:

and say ye to the good man of the house; the owner, and master of it, who might be Nicodemus, or Joseph of Arimathea, or some man of note and wealth in Jerusalem, that might have some knowledge of Christ, and faith in him, though he did not openly profess him; since by only saying what follows, he would at once, as he did, direct them to a suitable and convenient room;

the master saith. The Syriac and Persic versions read, our master saith: he that is yours, and ours, our master Jesus; though that is not expressed, yet it was understood by the master of the family; which confirms the above conjecture, that he was a secret disciple of Christ.

Where is the guest chamber; the chamber provided for guests that might be expected at the passover:

where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? where it might be done conveniently, and in a proper and comfortable manner; See Gill on Mat 26:18.

Gill: Mar 14:15

And he will show you a large upper room,.... A room in the highest part of the house, large enough for such a company, for thirteen persons, which was the number of Christ and his disciples:

furnished and prepared; with a table, and a sufficient number of couches to sit, or lie upon, and with all proper vessels necessary on such an occasion:

there make ready for us; the passover.

Gill: Mar 14:16

And his disciples went forth,.... The two disciples, as the Arabic version has it, Peter and John, set out from Bethany to Jerusalem directly:

and came into the city; the city of Jerusalem:

and found as he had said unto them; a man bearing a pitcher of water, whom they followed to the house he went into, and addressed the master of the house, as Jesus had bid them; when he showed them an upper room, very commodious and fit for the purpose, as Christ had said; and which is a considerable proof of the prescience of Christ:

and they made ready the passover; they bought a lamb; they had it killed in the temple, according to rule; and they brought it to the house, where they were to sup, and got it roasted; and provided unleavened bread, and wine, and bitter herbs, and every thing that was proper for the feast; See Gill on Mat 26:19.

Gill: Mar 14:17

And in the evening he cometh with the twelve. In the afternoon, as it is very reasonable to suppose, Christ set out from Bethany with the rest of the twelve, with the other nine, and came to Jerusalem; where they were joined by Judas, who had covenanted with the chief priests to betray him, and by Peter and John, who had been sent before to prepare the passover; and when it was night, when the second evening had took place, he went with all twelve of them to the house, where the provision to eat the passover together was made for them; See Gill on Mat 26:20.

Gill: Mar 14:18

And as they sat and did eat,.... Or "as they lay along"; for such was their posture at the eating of the passover; See Gill on Mat 26:20,

Jesus said, verily I say unto you, one of you which eateth with me shall betray me; See Gill on Mat 26:21.

Gill: Mar 14:19

And they began to be sorrowful,.... And were so, all but Judas, at this saying of Christ's:

and to say unto him, one by one; even till it came to Judas himself,

is it I? that shall betray thee;

and another said, is it I? This clause is wanting in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic versions, and in two of Beza's copies; and indeed seems to be redundant, since the disciples are said before to express themselves in this manner, one by one; See Gill on Mat 26:22.

Gill: Mar 14:20

And he answered and said unto them,.... In order to relieve their minds, and point out the particular person:

it is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish; just at that very instant; See Gill on Mat 26:23.

Gill: Mar 14:21

The son of man indeed goeth,.... Out of this world by death,

as it is written; both in the book of God's decrees, and in the Scriptures of the Old Testament;

but woe to that man by whom the son of man is betrayed! whose sin will not be excused, nor lessened by fulfilling the decrees of God, and by accomplishing the prophecies of the Bible:

good were it for that man if he had never been born; so aggravating will be his crime, so dreadful his punishment; See Gill on Mat 26:24.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Mar 14:12

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “now” to indicate the transition to a new topic.

² tn The words “the feast of” are not in the Greek text, but have been supplied for clarity.

³ sn Generally the feast of Unleavened Bread would refer to Nisan 15 (Friday), but the following reference to the sacrifice of the Passover lamb indicates that Nisan 14 (Thursday) was what Mark had in mind (Nisan = March 27 to April 25). The celebration of the Feast of Unleavened Bread lasted eight days, beginning with the Passover meal. The celebrations were so close together that at times the names of both were used interchangeably.

⁴ tn Grk “his”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

⁵ sn This required getting a suitable lamb and finding lodging in Jerusalem where the meal could be eaten. The population of the city swelled during the feast, so lodging could be difficult to find. The Passover was celebrated each year in commemoration of the Israelites’ deliverance from Egypt; thus it was a feast celebrating redemption (see Exod 12). The Passover lamb was roasted and eaten after sunset in a family group of at least ten people (m. Pesahim 7.13). People ate the meal while reclining (see the note on table in 14:18). It included, besides the lamb, unleavened bread and bitter herbs as a reminder of Israel’s bitter affliction at the hands of the Egyptians. Four cups of wine mixed with water were also used for the meal. For a further description of the meal and the significance of the wine cups, see E. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 523-24.

NET Notes: Mar 14:13

¹ sn Since women usually carried these jars, it would have been no problem for the two disciples (Luke 22:8 states that they were Peter and John) to recognize the man Jesus was referring to.

NET Notes: Mar 14:16

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “so” to indicate the flow within the narrative.

² tn Grk “and came.”

³ sn The author’s note that the disciples found things just as he had told them shows that Jesus’ word could be trusted.

NET Notes: Mar 14:17

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.

² tn The prepositional phrase “to the house” is not in the Greek text, but has been supplied for clarity.

NET Notes: Mar 14:18

¹ tn Grk “while they were reclined at the table.”

sn 1st century middle eastern meals were not eaten while sitting at a table, but while reclining on one’s side on the floor with the head closest to the low table and the feet farthest away.

² tn Grk “Truly (ἀμήν, amhn), I say to you.”

³ tn Or “will hand me over”; Grk “one of you will betray me, the one who eats with me.”

NET Notes: Mar 14:20

¹ tn Grk “one who dips with me.” The phrase “his hand” has been supplied in the translation for clarity.

² sn One who dips with me in the bowl. The point of Jesus’ comment here is not to identify the specific individual per se, but to indicate that it is one who was close to him – somebody whom no one would suspect. His comment serves to heighten the treachery of Judas’ betrayal.

Geneva Bible: Mar 14:12

^{( 6 )} And the first day of unleavened bread, ^{( b )} when ^{( c )} they killed the ^{( d )} passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?

^{( 6 )} Christ being made subject to the law for us celebrates the passover according to the law: and in addition by a miracle shows that even though he will immediately suffer in the flesh, that he is yet God.

^{( b )} That is, upon this day, and at the evening of the same day, which was the beginning of the fifteenth. See Mat 26:17.

^{( c )} They used to sacrifice.

^{( d )} That is, spoken thus, by the figure of speech called metonymy, which is commonly used when talking about sacraments, and by the passover is meant the paschal lamb.

Geneva Bible: Mar 14:15

And he will shew you a large ^{( e )} upper room furnished [and] prepared: there make ready for us.

^{( e )} The Greek word signifies that part of the house that is highest from the ground, and because they used to eat supper in that part of the house they called it a supper room, no matter what they were using it for.

Geneva Bible: Mar 14:18

^{( 7 )} And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me.

^{( 7 )} The types in the law, which are to be fulfilled before long, are cancelled: and in place of them are put symbols of the new covenant corresponding to them, which will continue to the world's end.

Geneva Bible: Mar 14:20

And he answered and said unto them, [It is] one of the twelve, that ^{( f )} dippeth with me in the dish.

^{( f )} That regularly eats with me.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Mar 14:1-72

1 A conspiracy against Christ.

3 Precious ointment is poured on his head by a woman.

10 Judas sells his Master for money.

12 Christ himself foretells how he shall be betrayed by one of his disciples;

22 after the passover prepared, and eaten, institutes his last supper;

26 declares aforehand the flight of all his disciples, and Peter's denial.

43 Judas betrays him with a kiss.

46 He is apprehended in the garden;

53 falsely accused and impiously condemned of the Jews' council;

65 shamefully abused by them;

66 and thrice denied of Peter.

Maclaren: Mar 14:12-16

A Secret Rendezvous

And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, His disciples said unto Him, Where wilt Thou that we go and prepare that Thou mayest eat the passover? 13. And He sendeth forth two of His disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him. 14. And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guest chamber, where I shall eat the passover with My disciples? 15. And he will show you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us. 16. And His disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as He had-said unto them: and they made ready the passover.'--Mark 14:12-16.

THIS is one of the obscurer and less noticed incidents, but perhaps it contains more valuable teaching than appears at first sight.

The first question is--Miracle or Plan? Does the incident mean supernatural knowledge or a preconcerted token, like the provision of the ass at the entry into Jerusalem? I think that there is nothing decisive either way in the narrative. Perhaps the balance of probability lies in favour of the latter theory. A difficulty in its way is that no communication seems to pass between the two disciples and the man by which he could know them to be the persons whom he was to precede to the house. There are advantages in either theory which the other loses; but, on the whole, I incline to believe in a preconcerted signal. If we lose the supernatural, we gain a suggestion of prudence and human adaptation of means to ends which makes the story even more startlingly real to us.

But whichever theory we adopt, the main points and lessons of the narrative remain the same.

I. Christ As Elaborately Adopting Precautions To Conceal The Place.

The remarkable thing in the story is the picture it gives us of Christ as elaborately adopting precautions to conceal the place.

They are at Bethany. The disciples ask where the passover is to be eaten. The easy answer would have been to tell the name of the man and his house. That is not given. The deliberate round-aboutness of the answer remains the same whether miracle or plan. The two go away, and the others know nothing of the place. Probably the messengers did not come back, but in the evening Jesus and the ten go straight to the house which only He knew.

All this secrecy is in strong contrast with His usual frank and open appearances.

What is the reason? To baffle the traitor by pro-venting him from acquiring previous knowledge of the place. He was watching for some quiet hour in Jerusalem to take Jesus. So Christ does not eat the passover at the house of any well-known disciple who had a house in Jerusalem, but goes to some man unknown to the Apostolic circle, and takes steps to prevent the place being known beforehand.

All this looks like the ordinary precautions which a man who knew of the plots against him would take, and might mean simply a wish to save his life. But is that the whole explanation? Why did He wish to baffle the traitor?

(a) Because of His desire to eat the passover with the disciples. His loving sympathy.

(b) Because of His desire to found the new rite of His kingdom.

(c) Because of His desire to bring His death into immediate connection with the Paschal sacrifice. There was no reason of a selfish kind, no shrinking from death itself.

The fact that such precautions only meet us here, and that they stand in strongest contrast with the rest of His conduct, emphasises the purely voluntary nature of His death: how He chose to be betrayed, taken, and to die. They suggest the same thought as do the staggering back of His would-be captors in Gethsemane, at His majestic word, I am He … Let these go their way.' The narrative sets Him forth as the Lord of all circumstances, as free, and arranging all events.

Judas, the priests, Pilate, the soldiers, were swept by a power which they did not know to deeds which they did not understand. The Lord of all gives Himself up in royal freedom to the death to which nothing dragged Him but His own love.

Such seem to be the lessons of this narrative in so far as it bears on our Lord's own thoughts and feelings.

II. We Note Also The Authoritative Claim Which He Makes.

One reading is my guest-chamber,' and that makes His claim even more emphatic; but apart from that, the language is strong in its expression of a right to this unknown man's upper room.' Mark the singular blending here, as in all His earthly life, of poverty and dignity--the lowliness of being obliged to a man for a room; the royal style, The Master saith.'

So even now there is the blending of the wonderful fact that He puts Himself in the position of needing anything from us, with the absolute authority which He claims over us and ours.

III. The Answer And Blessedness Of The Unknown Disciple.

(a) Jesus knows disciples whom the other disciples know not.

This man was one of the secret' disciples. There is no excuse for shrinking from confession of His name; but it is blessed to believe that His eye sees many a hidden one.' He recognises their faith, and gives them work to do. Add the striking thought that though this man's name is unrecorded by the Evangelist, it is known to Christ, was written in His heart, and, to use the prophetic image, was graven on the palms of His hands.'

(b) The true blessedness is to be ready for whatever calls He may make on us. These may sometimes be sudden and unlooked for. But the preparation for obeying the most sudden or exacting summons of His is to have our hearts in fellowship with Him.

(c) The blessedness of His coming into our hearts, and accepting our service.

How honoured that man felt then! how much more so as years went on! how most of all now!

Our greatest blessedness that He does come into the narrow room of our hearts: If any man open the door, I will sup with him.'

The New Passover

And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the' Passover, His disciples said unto Him, Where wilt Thou that we go and prepare that Thou mayest eat the Passover? 13. And He sendeth forth two of His disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him. 14. And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guest chamber, where I shall eat the Passover with My disciples? 15. And he will shew you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us. 16. And His disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as He had said unto them: and they made ready the Passover. 17. And in the evening He cometh with the twelve. 18. And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with Me shall betray Me. 19. And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto Him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I? 20. And He answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with Me in the dish. 21. The Son of Man indeed goeth, as it is written of Him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born. 22. And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it. and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is My body. 23. And He took the cup, and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them: and they all drank of it. 24. And He said unto them, This is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. 25. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God. 26. And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.'--Mark 12:12-26.

This passage falls into three sections,

(1). The secret preparation for the Passover (Mark 12:12-17),

(2). The sad announcement of the betrayer (Mark 12:18-21),

(3). And the institution of the Lord's Supper (Mark 12:22-26).

It may be interesting to notice that in the two former of these Mark's account approximates to Luke's, while in the third he is nearer Matthew's. A comparison of the three accounts, noting the slight, but often significant, variations, should be made. Nothing in the Gospels is trivial. The dust of that land is gold.'

I. The Secret Preparation For The Passover.

The three Evangelists all give the disciples' question, but only Luke tells us that it was in answer to our Lord's command to Peter and John to go and prepare the Passover. They very naturally said Where?' as they were all strangers in Jerusalem. Matthew may not have known of our Lord's initiative; but if Mark were, as he is, with apparent correctness, said to have been, Peter's mouthpiece in his Gospel, the reticence as to the prominence of that Apostle is natural, and explains the omission of all but the bare fact of the despatch of the two. The curiously roundabout way in which they are directed to the upper room' is only explicable on the supposition that it was intended to keep them in the dark till the last moment, so that no hint might leak from them to Judas. Whether the token of the man with the waterpot was a preconcerted signal or an instance of our Lord's supernatural knowledge and sovereign sway, his employment as a silent and probably unconscious guide testifies to Christ's wish for that last hour to be undisturbed. A man carrying a water-pot, which was woman's special task, would be a conspicuous figure even in the festival crowds. The message to the householder implies that he recognised the Master' as his Master, and was ready to give up at His requisition even the chamber which he had prepared for his own family celebration of the feast.

Thus instructed, the two trusted Apostles left Bethany, early in the day, without a clue of their destination reaching Judas's hungry watchfulness. Evidently they did not return, and in the evening Jesus led the others straight to the place. Mark says that He came with the twelve'; but he does not mean thereby to specify the number, but to define the class, of His attendants.

Each figure in this preparatory scene yields important lessons. Our Lord's earnest desire to secure that still hour before pushing out into the storm speaks pathetically of His felt need of companionship and strengthening, as well as of His self-forgetting purpose to help His handful of bewildered followers and His human longing to live in faithful memories. His careful arrangements bring vividly into sight the limitations of His manhood, in that He, by whom all things consist,' had to contrive and plan in order to baffle for a moment His pursuers. And, side by side with the lowliness, as ever, is the majesty; for while He stoops to arrange, He sees with superhuman certitude what will happen, moves unconscious feet with secret and sovereign sway, and in royal tones claims possession of His servant's possessions.

The two messengers, sent out with instructions which would only guide them half-way to their destination, and obliged, if they were to move at all, to trust absolutely to His knowledge, present specimens of the obedience still required. He sends us out still on a road full of sharp turnings round which we cannot see. We get light enough for the first stage; and when it is traversed, the second will be plainer.

The man with the water-pot reminds us how little we may be aware of the Hand which guides us, or of our uses in His plans. I girded thee, though thou hast not known Me,'--how little the poor water-bearer knew who were following, or dreamed that he and his load would be remembered for ever!

The householder responded at once, and gladly, to the authoritative message, which does not ask a favour, but demands a right. Probably he had intended to celebrate the Passover with his own family, in the large chamber on the roof, with the cool evening air about it, and the moonlight sleeping around. But he gladly gives it up. Are we as ready to surrender our cherished possessions for His use?

II. The Sad Announcement Of The Traitor (Mark 12:18-21).

As the Revised Version indicates more clearly than the Authorised, the purport of the announcement was not merely that the betrayer was an Apostle, but that he was to be known by his dipping his hand into the common dish at the same moment as our Lord. The prophetic psalm would have been abundantly fulfilled though Judas's fingers had never touched Christ's; but the minute accomplishment should teach us that Jewish prophecy was the voice of divine foreknowledge, and embraced small details as well as large tendencies. Many hands dipped with Christ's, and so the sign was not unmistakably indicative, and hence was privately supplemented, as John tells us, by the giving of the sop.' The uncertainty as to the indication given by the token is reflected by the reiterated questions of the Apostles, which, in the Greek, are cast in a form that anticipates a negative answer: Surely not I?' Mark omits the audacious hypocrisy of Judas's question in the same form, and Christ's curt, sad answer which Matthew gives. His brief and vivid sketch is meant to fix attention on the unanimous shuddering horror of these faithful hearts at the thought that they could be thus guilty--a horror which was not the child of presumptuous self-confidence, but of hearty, honest love. They thought it impossible, as they felt the throbbing of their own hearts--and yet--and yet--might it not be? As they probed their hearts deeper, they became dimly aware of dark gulfs of possible unfaithfulness half visible there, and so betook themselves to their Master, and strengthened their loyalty by the question, which breathed at once detestation of the treason and humble distrust of themselves. It is well to feel and speak the strong recoil from sin of a heart loyal to Jesus. It is better to recognise the sleeping snakes, the possibilities of evil in ourselves, and to take to Christ our ignorance and self-distrust. It is wiser to cry' Is it I?' than to boast, Although all shall be offended, yet will not I.' Hold Thou me up, and I shall be safe.'

Our Lord answers the questions by a still more emphatic repetition of the distinctive mark, and then, in Mark 12:21, speaks deep words of mingled pathos, dignity, and submission. The voluntariness of His death, and its uniqueness as His own act of return to His eternal home, are contained in that majestic goeth,' which asserts the impotence of the betrayer and his employers, without the Lord's own consent. On the other hand, the necessity to which He willingly bowed is set forth in that as it is written of Him.' And what sadness and lofty consciousness of His own sacred personality and judicial authority are blended in the awful sentence on the traitor! What was He that treachery to Him should be a crime so transcendent? What right had He thus calmly to pronounce con-detonation? Did He see into the future? Is it the voice of a Divine Judge, or of a man judging in his own cause, which speaks this passionless sentence? Surely none of His sayings are more fully charged with His claims to pre-existence, divinity, and judicial authority, than this which He spoke at the very moment when the traitor's plot was on the verge of success.

III. The Institution Of The Lord's Supper (Mark 12:22-26).

Mark's account is the briefest of the three, and his version of Christ's words the most compressed. It omits the affecting Do this for remembering Me,' which is pro-supposed by the very act of instituting the ordinance, since it is nothing if not memorial; and it makes prominent two things--the significance of the elements, and the command to partake of them. To these must be added Christ's attitude in blessing' the bread and cup, and His distribution of them among the disciples. The Passover was to Israel the commemoration of their redemption from captivity and their birth as a nation. Jesus puts aside this divinely appointed and venerable festival to set in its stead the remembrance of Himself. That night, to be much remembered of the children of Israel,' is to be forgotten, and come no more into the number of the months; and its empty place is to be filled by the memory of the hours then passing. Surely His act was either arrogance or the calm consciousness of the unique significance and power of His death. Think of any mere teacher or prophet doing the like! The world would meet the preposterous claim implied with deserved and inextinguishable laughter. Why does it not do so with Christ's act?

Christ's view of His death is written unmistakably on the Lord's Supper. It is not merely that He wishes it rather than His life, His miracles, or words, to be kept in thankful remembrance, but that He desires one aspect of it to be held high and clear above all others. He is the true Passover Lamb,' whose shed and sprinkled blood establishes new bonds of amity and new relations, with tender and wonderful reciprocal obligations, between God and the many' who truly partake of that sacrifice. The key-words of Judaism--sacrifice,' covenant,' sprinkling with blood'--are taken over into Christianity, and the ideas they represent are set in its centre, to be cherished as its life. The Lord's Supper is the conclusive answer to the allegation that Christ did not teach the sacrificial character and atoning power of His death. What, then, did He teach when He said, This is My blood of the covenant, which is shed for many'?

The Passover was a family festival, and that characteristic passes over to the Lord's Supper. Christ is not only the food on which we feed, but the Head of the family and distributor of the banquet. He is the feast and the Governor of the feast, and all who sit at that table are brethren.' One life is in them all, and they are one as partakers of One.

The Lord's Supper is a visible symbol of the Christian life, which should not only be all lived in remembrance of Him, but consists in partaking by faith of His life, and incorporating it in ours, until we come to the measure of perfect men, which, in one aspect, we reach when we can say, I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.'

There is a prophetic element, as well as a commemorative and symbolic, in the Lord's Supper, which is prominent in Christ's closing words. He does not partake of the symbols which He gives; but there comes a time, in that perfected form of the kingdom, when perfect love shall make all the citizens perfectly conformed to the perfect will of God. Then, whatsoever associations of joy, of invigoration, of festal fellowship, clustered round the wine-cup here, shall be heightened, purified, and perpetuated in the calm raptures of the heavenly feast, in which He will be Partaker, as well as Giver and Food. Thou shalt make them drink of the river of Thy pleasures.' The King's lips will touch the golden cup filled with unlearning wine, ere He commends it to His guests. And from that feast they will go no more out,' neither shall the triumphant music of its great hymn' be followed by any Olivet or Gethsemane, or any denial, or any Calvary; but there shall be no more sorrow, nor sin, nor death'; for the former things are passed away,' and He has made all things new.'

Maclaren: Mar 14:19

Is It I?'

Mark 14:19.

THE scene shows that Judas had not as yet drawn any suspicion on himself.

Here the Apostles seem to be higher than their ordinary stature; for they do not take to questioning one another, or even to protest, No!' but to questioning Christ.

I. The Solemn Prophecy.

It seems strange at first sight that our Lord should have introduced such thoughts then, disturbing the sweet repose of that hallowed hour. But the terrible fact of the betrayal was naturally suggested by the emblems of His death, and still more by the very confiding familiarity of that hour. His household were gathered around Him, and the more close and confidential the intercourse, the bitterer that thought to Him, that one of the little band was soon to play the traitor. It is the cry of His wounded love, the wail of His unrequited affection, and, so regarded, is infinitely touching. It is an instance of that sad insight into man's heart which in His divinity He possessed. What a fountain of sorrow for His manhood was that knowledge! how it increases the pathos of His tenderness! Not only did He read hearts as they thought and felt in the present, but He read their future with more than a prophet's insight. He saw how many buds of promise would shrivel, how many would go away and walk no more with Him.'

That solemn prophecy may well be pondered by all Christian assemblies, and specially when gathered for the observance of the Lord's Supper. Perhaps never since that first institution has a community met to celebrate it without Him who walks amid the candlesticks,' with eyes as a flame of fire marking a Judas among the disciples. There is, I think, no doubt that Judas partook of the Lord's Supper. But be that as it may, he was among the number, and our Lord knew him to be the traitor.'

In its essence Judas's sin can be repeated still, and the thought of that possibility may well mingle with the grateful and adoring contemplations suitable to the act of partaking of the Lord's Supper. In the hour of holiest Christian emotion the thought that I may betray the Lord who has died for me will be especially hateful, and to remember the possibility then will do much to prevent its ever becoming a reality.

II. The Self-Distrustful Question, Is It I?'

It suggests that the possibilities of the darkest sin are in each of us, and especially, that the sin of treason towards Christ is in each of us.

Think generally of the awful possibilities of sin in every soul.

All sin has one root, so it is capable of passing from one form to another as light, heat, and motion do, or like certain diseases that are Protean in their forms. One sin is apt to draw others after it. None shall want her mate.' Wild beasts of the desert' meet with wild beasts of' the islands.' Sins are gregarious, as it were; they hunt in couples.' Then goeth he, and taketh with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself.'

The roots of all sin are in each. Men may think that they are protected from certain forms of sin by temperament, but identity of nature is deeper than varieties of temperament. The greatest sins are committed by yielding to very common motives. Love of money is not a rare feeling, but it led Judas to betray Jesus. Anger is thought to be scarcely a sin at all, but it often moves an arm to murder.

Temptations to each sin are round us all. We walk in a tainted atmosphere.

There is progress in evil. No man reaches the extreme of depravity at a bound. Judas's treachery was of slow growth.

So still there is the constant operation and pressure of forces and tendencies drawing us away from Jesus Christ. We, every one of us, know that, if we allowed our nature to have its way, we should leave Him and make shipwreck of faith and of a good conscience.' The forms in which we might do it might vary, but do it we should. We are like a man desperately clutching some rocky projection on the face of a precipice, who knows that if once he lets go, he will be dashed to pieces. There goes John Bradford, but for the grace of God!' But for this same restraining grace, to what depths might we not sink? So, in all Christian hearts there should be profound consciousness of their own weakness. The man who fears no fall' is sure to have one. It is perilous to march through an enemy's country in loose order, without scouts and rearguard. Rigorous control is ever necessary. Brotherly judgment, too, of others should result from our consciousness of weakness. Examples of others falling are not to make us say cynically, We are all alike,' but to set us to think humbly of ourselves, and to supplicate divine keeping, Lord, save me, or I perish!'

III. The Safety Of The Self-Distrustful.

When the consciousness of possible falling is brought home to us, we shall carry, if we are wise, all our doubts as to ourselves to Jesus. There is safety h asking Him, Is it I?' To bare our inmost selves before Him, and not to shrink, even if that piercing gaze lights on hidden meannesses and incipient treachery, may be painful, but is healing. He will keep us from yielding to the temptation of which we are aware, and which we tell frankly to Him. The lowly sense of our own liability to fall, if it drives us closer to Him, will make it certain that we shall not fall.

While the other disciples asked Is it I?' John asked Who is it?' The disciple who leaned on Christ's bosom was bathed in such a consciousness of Christ's love that treason against it was impossible. He, alone of the Evangelists, records his question, and he tells us that he put it, leaning back as he was, on Jesus's breast.' For the purpose of whispering his interrogation, he changed his attitude for a moment so as to press still closer to Jesus. How could one who was thus nestling nearer to that heart be the betrayer? The consciousness of Christ's love, accompanied with the effort to draw closer to Him, is our surest defence against every temptation to faithlessness or betrayal of Him.

Any other fancied ground of security is deceptive, and will sooner or later crumble beneath our deceived feet. On this very occasion, Peter built a towering fabric of profession of unalterable fidelity on such shifting ground, and saw it collapse into ruin in a few hours. Let us profit by the lesson!

That wholesome consciousness of our weakness need not shade with sadness the hours of communion, but it may well help us to turn them to their highest use in making them occasions for lowlier self-distrust and closer cleaving to Him. If we thus use our sense of weakness, the sweet security will enter our souls that belongs to those who have trusted in the great promise: He shall not fall, for God is able to make him stand.' The blessed ones who are kept from falling and presented faultless before the presence of His glory,' will hear with wonder the voice of the Judge ascribing to them deeds of service to Him of which they had not been conscious, and will have to ask once more the old question, but with a new meaning: Lord, is it I? when saw we Thee an hungered, and fed Thee?'

MHCC: Mar 14:12-21

Nothing could be less the result of human foresight than the events here related. But our Lord knows all things about us before they come to pass. If we admit him, he will dwell in our hearts. The Son of man goes, as it is written of him, as a lamb to the slaughter; but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed! God's permitting the sins of men, and bringing glory to himself out of them, does not oblige them to sin; nor will this be any excuse for their guilt, or lessen their punishment.

Matthew Henry: Mar 14:12-31

In these verses we have,

I. Christ's eating the passover with his disciples, the night before he died, with the joys and comforts of which ordinance he prepared himself for his approaching sorrows, the full prospect of which did not indispose him for that solemnity. Note, No apprehension of trouble, come or coming, should put us by, or put us out of frame for, our attendance on holy ordinances, as we have opportunity for it.

1. Christ ate the passover at the usual time when the other Jews did, as Dr. Whitby had fully made out, and not, as Dr. Hammond would have it, the night before. It was on the first day of that feast, which (taking in all the eight days of the feast) was called, The feast of unleavened bread, even that day when they killed the passover, Mar 14:12.

2. He directed his disciples how to find the place where he intended to eat the passover; and hereby gave such another proof of his infallible knowledge of things distant and future (which to us seem altogether contingent ), as he had given when he sent them for the ass on which he rode in triumph (Mar 11:6); " Go into the city (for the passover must be eaten in Jerusalem), and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water (a servant sent for water to clean the rooms in his master's house); follow him, go in where he goes, enquire for his master, the good man of the house (Mar 14:14), and desire him to show you a room."No doubt, the inhabitants of Jerusalem had rooms fitted up to be let out, for this occasion, to those that came out of the country to keep the passover, and one of those Christ made use of; not any friend's house, nor any house he had formerly frequented, for then he would have said, "Go to such a friend,"or, "You know where we used to be, go thither and prepare."Probably he went where he was not known, that he might be undisturbed with his disciples. Perhaps he notified it by a sign, to conceal it from Judas, that he might not know till he came to the place; and by such a sign to intimate that he will dwell in the clean heart, that is, washed as with pure water. Where he designs to come, a pitcher of water must go before him; see Isa 1:16-18.

3. He ate the passover in an upper room furnished, estrōmenon - laid with carpets (so Dr. Hammond); it would seem to have been a very handsome dining-room. Christ was far from affecting any thing that looked stately in eating his common meals; on the contrary, he chose that which was homely, sat down on the grass: but, when he was to keep a sacred feast, in honour of that he would be at the expense of as good a room as he could get. God looks not at outward pomp, but he looks at the tokens and expressions of inward reverence for a divine institution, which, it is to be feared, those want, who, to save charges, deny themselves decencies in the worship of God.

4. He ate it with the twelve, who were his family, to teach those who have the charge of families, not only families of children, but families of servants, or families of scholars, or pupils, to keep up religion among them, and worship God with them. If Christ came with the twelve, then Judas was with them, though he was at this time contriving to betray his Master; and it is plain by what follows (Mar 14:20), that he was there: he did not absent himself, lest he could have been suspected; had his seat been empty at this feast, they would have said, as Saul of David, He is not clean, surely he is not clean, 1Sa 20:26. Hypocrites, though they know it is at their peril, yet crowd into special ordinances, to keep up their repute, and palliate their secret wickedness. Christ did not exclude him from the feast, though he knew his wickedness, for it was not as yet become public and scandalous. Christ, designing to put the keys of the kingdom of heaven into the hands of men, who can judge only according to outward appearance, would hereby both direct and encourage them in their admissions to his table, to be satisfied with a justifiable profession, because they cannot discern the root of bitterness till it springs up.

II. Christ's discourse with his disciples, as they were eating the passover. It is probable that they had discourse, according to the custom of the feast, of the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt, and the preservation of the first-born, and were as pleasant as they used to be together on this occasion, till Christ told them that which would mix trembling with their joys.

1. They were pleasing themselves with the society of their Master; but he tells them that they must now presently lose him; The Son of man is betrayed; and they knew, for he had often told them, what followed - If he be betrayed, the next news you will hear of him, is, that he is crucified and slain; God hath determined it concerning him, and he agrees to it; The Son of man goes, as it is written of him, Mar 14:21. It was written in the counsels of God, and written in the prophecies of the Old Testament, not one jot or tittle of either of which can fall to the ground.

2. They were pleasing themselves with the society one of another, but Christ casts a damp upon the joy of that, by telling them, One of you that eateth with me shall betray me, Mar 14:18. Christ said this, if it might be, to startle the conscience of Judas, and to awaken him to repent of his wickedness, and to draw back (for it was not too late) from the brink of the pit. But for aught that appears, he who was most concerned in the warning, was least concerned at it. All the rest were affected with it. (1.) They began to be sorrowful. As the remembrance of our former falls into sin, so the fear of the like again, doth often much embitter the comfort of our spiritual feasts, and damp our joy. Here were the bitter herbs, with which this passover-feast was taken. (2.) They began to be suspicious of themselves; they said one by one, Is it I? And another said, Is it I? They are to be commended for their charity, that they were more jealous of themselves than of one another. It is the law of charity, to hope the best (1Co 13:5-7), because we assuredly know, therefore we may justly suspect, more evil by ourselves than by our brethren. They are also to be commended for their acquiescence in what Christ said; they trusted more to his words than to their own hearts; and therefore do not say, "I am sure it is not I, "but, " Lord, is it I? see if there be such a way of wickedness in us, such a root of bitterness, and discover it to us, that we may pluck up that root, and stop up that way. "

Now, in answer to their enquiry, Christ saith that, [1.] Which would make them easy; "It is not you, or you; it is this that now dips with me in the dish; the adversary and enemy is this wicked Judas."[2.] Which, one would think, should make Judas very uneasy. If he go on in his undertaking, it is upon the sword's point, for woe to that many by whom the Son of man is betrayed; he is undone, for every undone; his sin will soon find him out; and it were better for him that he had never been born, and had never had a being than such a miserable one as he must have. It is very probable that Judas encouraged himself in it with this thought, that his Master had often said he must be betrayed; "And if it must be done, surely God will not find fault with him that doth it, for who hath resisted his will? "As that objector argues, Rom 9:19. But Christ tells him that this will be no shelter or excuse to him; The Son of man indeed goes; as it is written of him, as a lamb to the slaughter; but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed. God's decree to permit the sins of men, and bring glory to himself out of them, do neither necessitate their sins, nor determine to them, nor will they be any excuse of the sin, or mitigation of the punishment. Christ was delivered indeed by the determinate counsel and fore-knowledge of God; but, notwithstanding that, it is with wicked hands that he is crucified and slain, Act 2:23.

III. The institution of the Lord's supper.

1. It was instituted in the close of a supper, when they were sufficiently fed with the paschal lamb, to show that in the Lord's supper there is no bodily repast intended; to preface it with such a thing, is to revive Moses again. But it is food for the soul only, and therefore a very little of that which is for the body, as much as will serve for a sign, is enough. It was at the close of the passover-supper, which by this was evangelized, and then superseded and set aside. Much of the doctrine and duty of the eucharist is illustrated to us by the law of the passover (Ex. 12); for the Old Testament institutions, though they do not bind us, yet instruct us, by the help of a gospel-key to them. And these two ordinances lying here so near together, it may be good to compare them, and observe how much shorter and plainer the institution of the Lord's supper is, than that of the passover was. Christ's yoke is easy in comparison with that of the ceremonial law, and his ordinances are more spiritual.

2. It was instituted by the example of Christ himself; not with the ceremony and solemnity of a law, as the ordinance of baptism was, after Christ's resurrection (Mat 28:19), with, Be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, by a power given to Christ in heaven and on earth (Mat 28:18); but by the practice of our Master himself, because intended for those who are already his disciples, and taken into covenant with him: but it has the obligation of the law, and was intended to remain in full force, power, and virtue, till his second coming.

3. It was instituted with blessing and giving of thanks; the gifts of common providence are to be so received (1Ti 4:4, 1Ti 4:5), much more than the gifts of special grace. He blessed (Mar 14:22), and gave thanks, Mar 14:23. At his other meals, he was wont to bless, and give thanks (Mar 6:41; Mar 8:7) so remarkably, that he was known by it, Luk 24:30, Luk 24:31. And he did the same at this meal.

4. It was instituted to be a memorial of his death; and therefore he broke the bread, to show how it pleased the Lord to bruise him; and he called the wine, which is the blood of the grape, the blood of the New Testament. The death Christ died was a bloody death, and frequent mention is made of the blood, the precious blood, as the pride of our redemption; for the blood is the life, and made atonement for the soul, Lev 17:11-14. The pouring out of the blood was the most sensible indication of the pouring out of his soul, Isa 53:12. Blood has a voice (Gen 4:10); and therefore blood is so often mentioned, because it was to speak, Heb 12:24. It is called the blood of the New Testament; for the covenant of grace became a testament, and of force by the death of Christ, the testator, Heb 9:16. It is said to be shed for many, to justify many (Isa 53:11), to bring many sons to glory, Heb 2:10. It was sufficient for many, being of infinite value; it has been of use to many; we read of a great multitude which no man could number, that had all washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb (Rev 7:9-14); and still it is a fountain opened. How comfortable is this to poor repenting sinners, that the blood of Christ is shed for many! And if for many, why not for me? If for sinners, sinners of the Gentiles, the chief of sinners, then why not for me?

5. It was instituted to be a ratification of the covenant made with us in him, and a sign of the conveyance of those benefits to us, which were purchased for us by his death; and therefore he broke the bread to them (Mar 14:22), and said, Take, eat of it: he gave the cup to them, and ordered them to drink of it, Mar 14:23. Apply the doctrine of Christ crucified to yourselves, and let it be meat and drink to your souls, strengthening, nourishing, and refreshing, to you, and the support and comfort of your spiritual life.

6. It was instituted with an eye to the happiness of heaven, and to be an earnest and fore-taste of that, and thereby to put our mouths out of taste for all the pleasures and delights of sense (Mar 14:25); I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, as it is a bodily refreshment. I have done with it. No one, having tasted spiritual delights, straightway desires sensitive ones, for he saith, The spiritual is better (Luk 5:39); but every one that hath tasted spiritual delights, straightway desires eternal ones, for he saith, Those are better still; and therefore let me drink no more of the fruit of the vine, it is dead and flat to those that have been made to drink of the river of God's pleasures; but, Lord, hasten the day, when I shall drink it new and fresh in the kingdom of God, where it shall be for ever new, and in perfection.

7. It was closed with a hymn, Mar 14:26. Though Christ was in the midst of his enemies, yet he did not, for fear of them, omit this sweet duty of singing psalms. Paul and Silas sang, when the prisoners heard them. This was an evangelical song, and gospel times are often spoken of in the Old Testament, as times of rejoicing, and praise is expressed by singing. This was Christ's swan-like song, which he sung just before he entered upon his agony; probably, that which is usually sung, Psa 113:1-9 to 118.

IV. Christ's discourse with his disciples, as they were returning to Bethany by moonlight. When the had sung the hymn, presently they went out. It was now near bedtime, but our Lord Jesus had his heart so much upon his suffering, that he would not come into the tabernacle of his house, nor go up into his bed, nor give sleep to his eyes, when that work was to be done, Psa 132:3, Psa 132:4. The Israelites were forbidden to go out of their houses the night that they ate the passover, for fear of the sword of the destroying angel, Exo 12:22, Exo 12:23. But because Christ, the great shepherd, was to be smitten, he went out purposely to expose himself to the sword, as a champion; they evaded the destroyer, but Christ conquered him, and brought destructions to a perpetual end.

1. Christ here foretels that in his sufferings he should be deserted by all his disciples; " You will all be offended because of me, this night. I know you will (Mar 14:27), and what I tell you now, is no other than what the scripture has told you before; I will smite the shepherd, and then the sheep will be scattered. "Christ knew this before, and yet welcomed them at his table; he sees the falls and miscarriages of his disciples, and yet doth not refuse them. Nor should we be discouraged from coming to the Lord's supper, by the fear of relapsing into sin afterward; but, the greater of our danger is, the more need we have to fortify ourselves by the diligent conscientious use of holy ordinances. Christ tells them that they would be offended in him, would begin to question whether he were the Messiah or no, when they saw him overpowered by his enemies. Hitherto, they had continued with him in his temptations; though they had sometimes offended him, yet they had not been offended in him, nor turned the back upon him; but now the storm would be so great, that they would all slip their anchors, and be in danger of shipwreck. Some trials are more particular (as Rev 2:10, The devil shall cast some of you into prison ); but others are more general, an hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, Rev 3:10. The smiting of the shepherd is often the scattering of the sheep: magistrates, ministers, masters of families, if these are, as they should be, shepherds to those under their charge, when any thing comes amiss to them, the whole flock suffers for it, and is endangered by it.

But Christ encourages them with a promise that they shall rally again, shall return both to their duty and to their comfort (Mar 14:28); " After I am risen, I will gather you in from all the places wither you are scattered, Eze 34:12. I will go before you into Galilee, will see our friends, and enjoy one another there."

2. He foretels that he should be denied particularly by Peter. When they went out to go to the mount of Olives, we may suppose that they dropped Judas (he stole away from them), whereupon the rest began to think highly of themselves, that they stuck to their Master, when Judas quitted him. But Christ tells them, that though they should be kept by his grace from Judas's apostasy, yet they would have no reason to boast of their constancy. Note, Though God keeps us from being as bad as the worst, yet we may well be ashamed to think that we are not better than we are.

(1.) Peter is confident that he should not do so ill as the rest of his disciples (Mar 14:29); Though all should be offended, all his brethren here present, yet will not I. He supposes himself not only stronger than others, but so much stronger, as to be able to receive the shock of a temptation, and bear up against it, all alone; to stand, though nobody stood by him. It is bred in the bone with us, to think well of ourselves, and trust to our own hearts.

(2.) Christ tells him that he will do worse than any of them. They will all desert him, but he will deny him; not once, but thrice; and that presently; " This day, even this night before the cock crow twice, thou wilt deny that ever thou hadst any knowledge of me, or acquaintance with me, as one ashamed and afraid to own me."

(3.) He stands to his promise; " If I should die with thee, I will not deny thee; I will adhere to thee, though it cost me my life:"and, no doubt, he thought as he said. Judas said nothing like this, when Christ told him he would betray him. He sinned by contrivance, Peter by surprise; he devised the wickedness (Mic 2:1), Peter was overtaken in this fault, Gal 6:1. It was ill done of Peter, to contradict his Master. If he had said, with fear and trembling, "Lord, give me grace to keep me from denying thee, lead me not into this temptation, deliver me from this evil,"it might have been prevented: but they were all thus confident; they who said, Lord, is it I? now said, It shall never be me. Being acquitted from their fear of betraying Christ, they were now secure. But he that thinks he stands, must learn to take heed lest he fall; and he that girdeth on the harness, not boast as though he had put it off.

Barclay: Mar 14:12-16

It may seem an unusual word to use in connection with Jesus, but, as we read the narrative of the last week of his life, we cannot help being struck with his efficiency of arrangement. Again and again we see that he did not leave things until the last moment. Long before, he had arranged that the colt should be ready for his ride into Jerusalem; and here again we see that all his arrangements had been made long beforehand.

His disciples wished to know where they would eat the Passover. Jesus sent them into Jerusalem with instructions to look for a man carrying an earthen pitcher of water. That was a prearranged signal. To carry a water-pot was a woman's duty. It was a thing that no man ever did. A man with a water-pot on his shoulder would stand out in any crowd as much as, say, a man on a wet day with a lady's umbrella. Jesus did not leave things until the last minute. Long ago he had arranged a last meeting-place for himself and for his disciples, and had arranged just how it was to be found.

The larger Jewish houses had upper rooms. Such houses looked exactly like a smaller box placed on top of a bigger box. The smaller box was the upper room, and it was approached by an outside stair, making it unnecessary to go through the main room. The upper room had many uses. It was a storeroom, it was a place for quiet and meditation, it was a guest-room for visitors. But in particular it was the place where a Rabbi taught his chosen band of intimate disciples. Jesus was following the custom that any Jewish Rabbi might follow.

We must remember the Jewish way of reckoning days. The new day began at 6 p.m. in the evening. Up until 6 p.m. it was 13th Nisan, the day of the preparation for the Passover. But 14th Nisan, the Passover day itself, began at 6 p.m. To put it in English terms, Friday the 14th began at 6 p.m. on Thursday the 13th.

What were the preparations that a Jew made for The Passover?

First was the ceremonial search for leaven. Before the Passover every particle, of leaven must be banished from the house. That was because the first Passover in Egypt (Exo 12 ) had been eaten with unleavened bread. (Unleavened bread is not like bread at all. It is like a water-biscuit.) It had been used in Egypt because it can be baked much more quickly than a loaf baked with leaven, and the first Passover, the Passover of escape from Egypt, had been eaten in haste, with everyone ready for the road. In addition leaven was the symbol of corruption. Leaven is fermented dough, and the Jew identified fermentation with putrefaction, and so leaven stood for rottenness. The day before the Passover the master of the house took a lighted candle and ceremonially searched the house for leaven. Before the search he prayed,

"Blessed art thou, Jehovah, our God, King of the Universe, who

hast sanctified us by thy commandments, and commanded us to

remove the leaven."

At the end of the search the householder said,

"All the leaven that is in my possession, that which I have seen

and that which I have not seen, be it null, be it accounted as the

dust of the earth."

Next, on the afternoon before the Passover evening, came the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb. All the people came to the Temple. The worshipper must slay his own lamb, thereby, as it were, making his own sacrifice. But in Jewish eyes all blood was sacred to God, because the Jew equated the blood and the life. It was quite natural to do so because, if a person or an animal is wounded, as the blood flows away, so does life. So in the Temple the worshipper slew his own lamb. Between the worshippers and the altar were two long lines of priests, each with a gold or silver bowl. As the lamb's throat was slit the blood was caught in one of these bowls, and passed up the line, until the priest at the end of the line dashed it upon the altar. The carcase was then flayed, the entrails and the fat extracted, because they were part of the necessary sacrifice, and the carcass handed back to the worshipper. If the figures of Josephus are anywhere nearly correct, and there were more than a quarter of a million lambs slain, the scene in the Temple courts and the blood-stained condition of the altar can hardly be imagined. The lamb was carried home to be roasted. It must not be boiled. Nothing must touch it, not even the sides of a pot. It had to be roasted over an open fire on a spit made of pomegranate wood. The spit went right through the lamb from mouth to vent, and the lamb had to be roasted entire with head and legs and tail still attached to the body.

The table itself was shaped like a square with one side open. It was low and the guests reclined on couches, resting on their left arms with their right arms free for eating.

Certain things were necessary and these were the things the disciples would have to get ready.

(i) There was the lamb, to remind them of how their houses had been protected by the badge of blood when the angel of death passed through Egypt.

(ii) There was the unleavened bread to remind them of the bread they had eaten in haste when they escaped from slavery.

(iii) There was a bowl of salt water, to remind them of the tears they had shed in Egypt and of the waters of the Red Sea through which they had miraculously passed to safety.

(iv) There was a collection of bitter herbs--horse radish, chicory, endive, lettuce, horehound--to remind them of the bitterness of slavery in Egypt.

(v) There was a paste called Charosheth, a mixture of apples, dates, pomegranates and nuts, to remind them of the clay of which they had made bricks in Egypt. Through it there were sticks of cinnamon to remind them of the straw with which the bricks had been made.

(vi) There were four cups of wine. The cups contained a little more than half a pint of wine, but three parts of wine were mixed with two of water. The four cups, which were drunk at different stages of the meal, were to remind them of the four promises in Exo 6:6-7,

"I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.

I will rid you of their bondage.

I will redeem you with an outstretched arm.

I will take you to me for a people, and I will be your God."

Such were the preparations which had to be made for the Passover. Every detail spoke of that great day of deliverance when God liberated his people from their bondage in Egypt. It was at that feast that he who liberated the world from sin was to sit at his last meal with his disciples.

Barclay: Mar 14:17-21

The new day began at 6 p.m., and when the Passover evening had come, Jesus sat down with the Twelve. There was only one change in the old ritual which had been observed so many centuries ago in Egypt. At the first Passover Feast in Egypt, the meal had been eaten standing (Exo 12:11). But that had been a sign of haste, a sign that they were slaves escaping from slavery. In the time of Jesus the regulation was that the meal should be eaten reclining, for that was the sign of a free man, with a home and a country of his own.

This is a poignant passage. All the time there was a text running in Jesus' head. "Even my bosom friend in whom I trusted, who ate of my bread, has lifted his heel against me." (Psa 41:9.) These words were in his mind all the time. We can see certain great things here.

(i) Jesus knew what was going to happen. That is his supreme courage, especially in the last days. It would have been easy for him to escape, and yet undeterred he went on. Homer relates how the great warrior Achilles was told that if he went out to his last battle he would surely be killed. His answer was, "Nevertheless I am for going on." With a full knowledge of what lay ahead, Jesus was for going on.

(ii) Jesus could see into the heart of Judas. The curious thing is that the other disciples seem to have had no suspicions. If they had known what Judas was engaged on, it is certain that they would have stopped him even by violence. Here is something to remember. There may be things we succeed in hiding from our fellow-men. But we cannot hide them from Jesus Christ. He is the searcher of the hearts of men. He knows what is in man.

"Our thoughts lie open to thy sight;

And naked to thy glance.

Our secret sins are in the light

Of thy pure countenance."

Blessed indeed are the pure in heart.

(iii) In this passage we see Jesus offering two things to Judas.

(a) He is making love's last appeal. It is as if he is saying to Judas, "I know what you are going to do. Will you not stop even yet?"

(b) He is offering Judas a last warning. He is telling him in advance of the consequences of the thing that it is in his heart to do. But we must note this, for it is of the essence of the way in which God deals with us--there is no compulsion. Without a doubt Jesus could have stopped Judas. All he had to do was tell the other eleven what Judas was planning, and Judas would never have left that room alive.

Here is the whole human situation. God has given us wills that are free. His love appeals to us. His truth warns us. But there is no compulsion. It is the awful responsibility of man that he can spurn the appeal of God's love and disregard the warning of his voice. In the end there is no one but ourselves responsible for our sins.

In Greek legend two famous travellers passed the rocks where the Sirens sang. The Sirens sat on these rocks and sang with such sweetness that they lured mariners irresistibly to their doom. Ulysses sailed past these rocks. His method was to stop the sailors' ears so that they could not hear and order them to bind himself to the mast with ropes so that, however much he struggled, he would not be able to answer to that seductive sweetness. He resisted by compulsion. The other traveller was Orpheus, the sweetest musician of all. His method was to play and sing with such surpassing sweetness as his ship passed the rocks where the Sirens were, that the attraction of the song of the Sirens was never even felt because of the attraction of the song he sang. His method was to answer the appeal of seduction with a still greater appeal.

God's is the second way. He does not stop us whether we like it or not, from sin. He seeks to make us love him so much that his voice is more sweetly insistent to us than all the voices which call us away from him.

Constable: Mar 14:1--15:47

VII. The Servant's passion ministry chs. 14--15

This section of Mark's Gospel records the climaxes of many themes that the writer had introduced. Mark chose to concentrate on the passion or sufferings of Jesus rather than simply to give a record of all the events of the last week of Jesus' life. Out of Mark's 661 verses, 242 (37%) deal with the last week, from the Triumphal Entry through the Resurrection, and 128 concern Jesus' passion and resurrection.³²⁸ Over half the events Mark recorded in the last week (53%) deal with Jesus' sufferings and triumph, the two major themes in the last three chapters

Constable: Mar 14:1-52

A. The Servant's anticipation of suffering 14:1-52

Several themes peak in this section. Here we have the clearest evidence that Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God (cf. 1:1; 8:29). Here, too, Jesus' conflict with the religious leaders, His foes, came to a head (cf. 3:1, 6; 11:18; 12:12). The ignorance and selfishness of Jesus' disciples, His friends, also peaked (cf. 3:19; 6:1-6; 8:31-10:52). Finally the Servant's ministry climaxed in His giving His life as a ransom for many (cf. 10:45).³²⁹

Constable: Mar 14:12-52

2. Jesus' sufferings because of desertion 14:12-52

The Servant's sufferings in anticipation of His death continue in this section of the text. They centered around two events, Jesus' observance of the Passover with His disciples and His agony in the Garden of Gethsemane with His Father.

Constable: Mar 14:12-16

Preparations for the Passover meal 14:12-16 (cf. Matt. 26:17-19; Luke 22:7-13)

The main feature of this pericope is the unusual method by which Jesus' directed His disciples.

14:12 The Jews commonly referred to the first day of the combined Passover and Unleavened Bread feasts as the feast of Unleavened Bread.³³⁴ Mark clarified for his Gentile readers that this was the day the Jews slew the Passover lamb, namely the fourteenth of Nisan. This would have been Thursday, April 2. Mark could say the Passover was two days away on Wednesday (v. 1) because the Jews ate the Passover lamb between sunset and midnight on the evening of the day they slew the lamb. For the Jews this was two days later since they began each day with sunset. The disciples had to prepare to eat the Passover within Jerusalem (Deut. 16:5-6) that very evening.

Wednesday		Thursday		Friday
April 1	Midnight 9:00 a.m. Noon3:00 p.m.	April 2The Jews slew their Passover lambs	Midnight 9:00 a.m. Noon3:00 p.m.	April 3 Jesus was crucifiedJesus died
14 Nisan	6:00 p.m.Midnight	15 Nisan The Jewsate their Passover lambs	6:00 p.m.Midnight	16 Nisan

14:13-16 The two disciples were Peter and John (Luke 22:8). Normally women carried water, so a man carrying a water jar would not be hard to find. Perhaps the man's carrying a water jar was a prearranged signal. Obviously Jesus had made arrangements to provide for His disciples' needs, but the Twelve had certain responsibilities in addition, namely the preparation of the food.

The whole record shows Jesus' sovereign control over the destinies of Himself and His disciples. Even as He approached the Cross Jesus was aware of and caring for His disciples. Nevertheless they had responsibilities as well. All of this is instructive for the teachable disciple who reads this account.

Constable: Mar 14:17-21

The announcement of Jesus' betrayal 14:17-21 (cf. Matt. 26:20-25; Luke 22:14, 21-23; John 13:21-30)

Mark did not record all that happened in the upper room. He stressed the announcement of Jesus' betrayal and Jesus' explanation of the significance of the bread and wine.

14:17 This would have been Thursday evening. Because the Jews began their days at sundown this incident would have happened at the beginning of the fifteenth of Nisan. Jesus came with the Twelve to the upper room. Luke 22:15-16, 24-30 and John 13:1-20 record what happened next.

14:18 Originally the Jews ate the Passover standing (cf. Exod. 12:11). However in Jesus' day they customarily reclined to eat it.³³⁵

"To betray a friend after eating a meal with him was, and still is, regarded as the worst kind of treachery in the Middle East [cf. Ps. 41:9]."³³⁶

The disciples heard for the first time that one of them would betray Jesus. Mark's account stresses Jesus' identification of His betrayer as one of the Twelve.

14:19-20 The disciples' grief expressed sadness at this announcement. Their question was a protestation of innocence but with a tinge of self-distrust. It expected a negative answer, but it was a question. Judas' motive in asking was obviously different from the others. Jesus' answer again implied the treachery of the betrayer. It also gave him an opportunity to repent since Jesus did not name him.

14:21 Jesus explained that His betrayal was part of divine purpose that the Old Testament had predicted (e.g., Ps. 22; Isa. 53). Nevertheless the betrayer would bear the responsibility for his deed and would pay a severe penalty.

"The fact that God turns the wrath of man to his praise does not excuse the wrath of man."³³⁷

The seriousness of Judas' act was in direct proportion to the innocence of the person he betrayed (cf. v. 9). "By whom the Son of Man is betrayed" (NASB) views Judas as Satan's instrument.

College: Mar 14:1-72

MARK 14

F. JESUS HONORED AND BETRAYED (14:1-11)

¹ Now the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were only two days away, and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some sly way to arrest Jesus and kill him. ²" But not during the Feast," they said, " or the people may riot."

³ While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.

⁴ Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, " Why this waste of perfume? ⁵ It could have been sold for more than a year's wages ^a and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly.

⁶" Leave her alone," said Jesus. " Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. ⁷ The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. ⁸ She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. ⁹ I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

¹⁰ Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Jesus to them. ¹¹ They were delighted to hear this and promised to give him money. So he watched for an opportunity to hand him over.

^a 5 Greek than three hundred denarii

Throughout chapters 14 and 15 every segment of the narrative relates directly to Jesus' death. The death and resurrection (chapter 16) of Jesus are the climactic events of Mark's Gospel and indeed of any telling of the gospel story.

The first two stories in Mark 14 are another instance of a " sandwich" in which one story frames another. In this case the story of the arrangements for Judas' betrayal brackets the story of the woman anointing Jesus for burial. The contrast is remarkable.

1-2. After the lengthy account of events set on Tuesday of Jesus' last week (11:20-13:37), the account of events on Wednesday is brief (14:1-11). Jesus does not enter the city of Jerusalem again until Thursday evening when he enters for the Passover meal. Mark, of course, does not say " Wednesday" but relates Wednesday and Thursday to the Passover celebration and the week-long Feast of Unleavened Bread. On the Passover see the introductory comments below on vv. 12-31. The Feast of Unleavened Bread was a week-long celebration of the Exodus connected with the Passover meal (Exod 12:15-20; 23:15; 34:18; Deut 16:1-8).

The religious leaders' fear of arresting Jesus in a public setting while Jerusalem was swelled with pilgrims to the Feast resonates with their earlier refusal to answer Jesus' question about John the Baptist " because they feared the people" (11:32). Both Jesus and John had significant followings among the people.

3. In the midst of the story of the arrangements for Jesus' betrayal Mark breaks to Bethany and a moving counter-story. The Greek text identifies the owner of the house Jesus was dining at as Simon the leper. The NIV translation " a man known as" presumably reflects the translators' opinion that if Simon were still a leper the Mosaic laws concerning cleanliness would prevent him from entertaining guests.

The expensive perfume is identified as nard, an oil extracted from a plant native to India. It was sealed in a small alabaster flask. The woman presumably broke the neck of the bottle to release the perfume.

4-5. The nard was worth more than three hundred denarii, each of which represented a day's wage for a common laborer - more than a year's wages altogether. Some of those present rebuked her for her extravagance. Would it not be better to sell the perfume and give the money to the poor?

6-9. Jesus, however, commended the woman's action. In the light of his impending death he interpreted it as preparing his body for burial. The Jewish burial custom was to lay the body in a niche within a natural or man-made cave until it decayed and could be removed to an ossuary (a wooden or stone box for the bones of the deceased). The body was prepared with perfume before or as it was placed in the niche. It is not likely that the woman knew the full import of her action, because she presumably did not understand that Jesus was about to die.

Jesus' statement about always having the poor is misunderstood if it is seen as in any way callous to the plight of the poor and the need to give to them. In fact, his wording alludes to Deut 15:11 in which " There will always be poor people in the land" leads to " Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." What justified the woman's extravagant act was Jesus' impending death.

Through the Gospels what this woman did has in fact been told throughout the world wherever the gospel has been preached. Here Jesus apparently uses the term " gospel" with reference to the message of his death and resurrection, a message to be proclaimed after his death.

10-11. Mark now returns to the story of betrayal begun in vv. 1-2. Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, provided a means for the chief priests to accomplish the goal of vv. 1-2, to arrest Jesus away from the crowd. It would not be long before Judas found the opportunity he was looking for.

G. THE PASSOVER MEAL (14:12-31)

Jesus' last meal before his death was the most important meal in the Jewish calendar (Exod 12:1-13, 21-27, 43-49; Num 9:1-14; Deut 16:1-8). During the afternoon hours of the 14th day of the month of Nisan the lambs were slaughtered for the Passover meal, which was eaten on the evening of the 15th day (which began, according to the Jewish calendar, at sundown). According to our system the preparation took place on Thursday afternoon and the meal was eaten Thursday evening. The day would have been in our month of March or April.

The Passover meal was an annual memorial to the Exodus, when the Lord " passed over" the Israelite homes and took the firstborn of each Egyptian family, provoking Pharaoh to let the Israelites escape into the desert. The Exodus was the benchmark event of Old Testament history just as the death of Jesus would become the benchmark event of New Testament history. It was no accident that Jesus' last meal and the meal during which he established the Lord's Supper memorial was the Passover meal.

1. Preparation for the Passover (14:12-16)

¹² On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples asked him," Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?"

¹³ So he sent two of his disciples, telling them," Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him. ¹⁴ Say to the owner of the house he enters, 'The Teacher asks: Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' ¹⁵ He will show you a large upper room, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there."

¹⁶ The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.

12. The first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread is another chronological marker, which brings us to Thursday. That afternoon the lambs would be sacrificed and all the other preparations for the Passover meal would be made. The meal involved the Passover lamb, unleavened bread, and bitter herbs (Exod 12:8).

13-16. These verses follow the same pattern as 11:1-6, when Jesus sent two disciples to bring the colt for his entry into Jerusalem. In both cases he sent two disciples, told them exactly what they would encounter, and gave them a message for the responsible party. In both cases, the disciples' mission went just as Jesus had said.

The Passover was eaten within the walls of Jerusalem. The house Jesus used had an upper room large enough for thirteen and furnished for dining.

2. Jesus Predicts His Betrayal (14:17-21)

¹⁷ When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. ¹⁸ While they were reclining at the table eating, he said," I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me - one who is eating with me."

¹⁹ They were saddened, and one by one they said to him," Surely not I?"

²⁰" It is one of the Twelve," he replied," one who dips bread into the bowl with me. ²¹ The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

17-20. Thursday evening Jesus and the Twelve came to the upper room for the Passover. All but one of the Twelve must have been shocked at Jesus' statement that one of them would betray him. With the rhetorical question " Surely not I?" each one denied any such intent. But Jesus reaffirmed that it would be someone at that very table, dipping bread into the bowl. One who was sharing the meal would commit the offense. Jesus probably alluded to Ps 41:9: " Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me."

21. Ps 41:9 may be part of what Jesus had in mind in speaking of the Son of Man going as it is written about him, although he may have been thinking of other Old Testament texts about his suffering (see comments at 8:31). In any event, even though the death of the Son of Man was prophesied, his betrayer would be culpable and would be punished severely.

3. The Institution of the Lord's Supper (14:22-25)

²² While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying," Take it; this is my body."

²³ Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it.

²⁴" This is my blood of the ^a covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them. ²⁵" I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God."

^a 24 Some manuscripts the new

22. Jesus used two of the items found in the memorial Passover meal and gave them a new meaning in relationship to his coming death. By so doing he established a new memorial meal.

The NIV translation that having taken the bread Jesus " gave thanks" is slightly misleading. For the bread Mark uses the term eujlogevw (eulogeô), " to bless." For the cup he uses the term eujcaristevw (eucharisteô), " to give thanks." There is, however, little difference. The bread which he used is not specified as unleavened, but must have been to be part of the Passover meal.

It seems extraordinarily unlikely that Jesus would expect the Twelve to understand " this is my body" literally when he (and his body) was personally with them at the table. The Passover meal itself involved a heavy use of symbolism and the apostles would surely have understood Jesus to be using the bread symbolically.

23-24. Wine would have been part of virtually every meal, including the Passover. Jesus' actions with respect to the cup of wine parallel those with respect to the bread, except he cannot break the wine into pieces for distribution and so he passes the cup for all to drink of it. His words reflect not only his coming death but its atoning value. The phrase " blood of the covenant" echoes Exod 24:8 in which, during the process of confirming the covenant at the foot of Mount Sinai, Moses sprinkled sacrificial blood on the Israelites and described it as " the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you." The shedding of Jesus' blood would inaugurate a new covenant with God. The statement that Jesus' blood is " poured out for many" alludes to Isa 53:12 (" he poured out his life unto death . . .For he bore the sin of many" ) and parallels Jesus' statement in Mark 10:45 that he would die " as a ransom for many." These two verses describe Jesus' death as a vicarious sacrifice which atones for the sins of the many.

25. Jesus implicitly speaks of his death in saying he will not drink the vine again until he drinks it in the kingdom of God. This statement parallels his statement in Luke 22:15-16 that he will not eat the Passover until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God. He presumably speaks of the messianic banquet, when " many will come from the east and the west and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 8:11; cf. Isa 25:6; Rev 19:9). At that time he will again eat and drink the Passover - in a transformed sense.

H. JESUS PREDICTS THE FLIGHT OF THE DISCIPLES AND PETER'S DENIAL (14:26-31)

²⁶ When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

²⁷" You will all fall away," Jesus told them," for it is written:

" 'I will strike the shepherd,

and the sheep will be scattered.' ^a

²⁸ But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee."

²⁹ Peter declared," Even if all fall away, I will not."

³⁰" I tell you the truth," Jesus answered," today - yes, tonight - before the rooster crows twice ^b you yourself will disown me three times."

³¹ But Peter insisted emphatically," Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the others said the same.

^a 27 Zech. 13:7 ^b 30 Some early manuscripts do not have twice.

Chapter 14 repeatedly underscores the failures of the Twelve. Judas arranges to betray Jesus (vv. 10-11), Jesus predicts the betrayal (vv. 18-21), Jesus predicts the flight of the others and in particular Peter's denial (vv. 27-31), the three cannot remain awake (vv. 37-38, 40-41), Judas betrays Jesus (vv. 43-45), the others flee (vv. 50-52), and Peter fulfills the prophecy of his denials (vv. 66-72). On the last two days before his death, Jesus' teachings on discipleship in Mark 8-10 seem to have fallen on deaf ears.

26. According to later rabbinic materials the singing at the conclusion of the Passover would have been from the Hallel Psalms (Pss 114-118). Leaving the city of Jerusalem, they went back to the Mount of Olives. Jesus had left the city, presumably for Bethany, each night since his entry on Sunday.

27. Jesus' prediction that the Twelve would all fall away was rooted in Zech 13:7. The latter chapters of Zechariah, 9-14, appear repeatedly in quotations or allusions in connection with Jesus' last days.

28. Jesus' references to his death are customarily accompanied by references to his resurrection (cf. 8:31; 9:9, 12, 31; 10:33-34). Although the shepherd will be struck down he will rise. There is also a note of hope here for the Twelve. Although the sheep will be scattered, they will reunite with the shepherd in Galilee. This verse forms the background to the message for the disciples from the angel at the empty tomb: " He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you" (16:7).

29-31. Peter was certain he would not be like the others. His declaration provoked a particularly foreboding prediction for Peter himself. That very night Peter would deny his connection with Jesus three times. This would happen before the cock crowed twice. (Several Graeco-Roman sources indicate that the second cock crow was associated with dawn.) But Peter - and the others - assured Jesus they would die with him if necessary. Their actions would demonstrate otherwise.

Mark presumably wants his audience to learn from the mistakes of the Twelve. Those who believe Mark was written in connection with the Neronian persecution see direct relevance to that setting throughout chapter 14. Although I date the setting of Mark too early for the Neronian persecution, it seems apparent that throughout the first several decades of early Christianity there would be Christians in various locations who could directly appropriate the lessons learned from Judas' betrayal (cf. 13:12), the flight of the Twelve, and Peter's denial.

I. PRAYER IN GETHSEMANE (14:32-42)

³² They went to a place called Gethsemane, and Jesus said to his disciples," Sit here while I pray." ³³ He took Peter, James and John along with him, and he began to be deeply distressed and troubled. ³⁴" My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death," he said to them. " Stay here and keep watch."

³⁵ Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. ³⁶" Abba, ^a Father," he said," everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will."

³⁷ Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. " Simon," he said to Peter," are you asleep? Could you not keep watch for one hour? ³⁸ Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak."

³⁹ Once more he went away and prayed the same thing. ⁴⁰ When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. They did not know what to say to him.

⁴¹ Returning the third time, he said to them," Are you still sleeping and resting? Enough! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. ⁴² Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!"

^a 36 Aramaic for Father

This third instance in which Mark speaks of Jesus praying (cf. 1:35; 6:46) is the most important of the three. It is well known to modern Christians as portraying the humanity of Jesus and as a model for prayer. In Mark's account the focus seems to fall on the contrast between how Jesus faced the impending crisis of his life in submissive prayer vs. the disciples' failure to prepare. In terms of Mark's focus on christology, the Gethsemane scene portrays Jesus as " overwhelmed with sorrow" at the prospects of the cross and yet unflinchingly submissive to the Father's will. In terms of the focus on discipleship, it calls on the reader to watch and pray as did Jesus and not to follow the example of the disciples.

32. The name Gethsemane comes from a Hebrew phrase meaning " oil presses." It was probably an olive grove with an oil press. This grove was located on the Mount of Olives. Jesus went there to pray in preparation for the events that he knew were imminent.

33-34. Once again he selected the three to go along with him. Mark's statement that he was distressed and troubled and Jesus' self-description as " overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death" graphically portray the distress he felt concerning his impending fate. Jesus' own comment probably means something like, " I am so very sorrowful that it is killing me." The exhortation to the three to " keep watch" should be viewed in the light of the use of the same word (grhgorevw, grçgoreô) in the parable of the Doorkeeper (13:34-37) and in 14:37-38. It has religious overtones of watching out for temptation and keeping alert against Satan. A similar idea is found in 1 Pet 5:8: " Be sober and watch (grçgoreô), for your adversary, the devil, as a roaring lion walks about seeking whom he will devour" (NRSV).

35-36. Jesus alone went on " a little farther" - Luke 22:41 says about " a stone's throw." There he " fell to the ground," a humble posture for prayer and another indication of his distraught condition. The metaphors of the hour passing from him and the cup being taken away from him are parallel descriptions of the same request. Both refer to his impending suffering and death. The metaphor of drinking a cup of suffering has already appeared in Mark 10:38-39. The metaphor of the hour is clarified in the immediate context when Jesus says, " The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners" (14:41).

The Aramaic word abba is transliterated into Greek three times in the New Testament: Mark 14:36; Gal 4:6; and Rom 8:15. In each case it is immediately translated by the Greek pathvr (patçr), which means " Father." These texts indicate that the Aramaic word became known and remembered even in the Greek speaking church. Its precise meaning on the lips of Jesus continues to be a matter of debate. In an influential study J. Jeremias argued that it was the term used by children for their fathers, that it therefore expressed an intimate family relationship, and that Jesus' use of the term was without precedent among the Jewish people. However, the form used by children for their parents was not abba , but abi (yba). The form used by Jesus was an unusual form of address and was, so far as existing evidence demonstrates, unprecedented as a personal address to God. It was not, however, the intimate term used by children for their fathers.

Jesus expressed his intense desire not to have to endure the suffering he knew awaited him in the immediate future. At the same time he expressed his acknowledgment of God's control of all things and his willingness to submit to the will of God, however different his own desires might be. Mark's summation of Jesus' prayer provides both insight into Jesus himself and a model for Christian prayer.

37-38. Despite the fact that Jesus had revealed to them the state of his heart (v. 34) the disciples fell asleep. Jesus perhaps chose to speak to Peter because he was the one who so boldly insisted that he would not leave Jesus and he was the one who would soon deny him three times. He, and the others, desperately needed to pray not to fail. The NIV should provide at least a footnote alternative to " fall into temptation." The verb e[lqhte (elthçte) is literally " come" not " fall" and the noun peirasmovn ( peirasmon ) may be translated " trial." The NRSV translates " come into the time of trial." That very evening Peter would encounter one of the great trials of his life. He was eager and willing to remain faithful to Jesus (" Even if all fall away, I will not" v. 29), but he would be too weak to live up to his intentions. He needed to pray. So did they all, because all the disciples would flee at the time of Jesus' arrest.

39-40. The threefold repetition of Jesus' prayer and the disciples' sleeping underscores both behaviors. The statement, " They did not know what to say to him," does not necessarily imply that he asked them anything. They knew what he expected.

41-42. The question " Are you still sleeping and resting?" is not an inquiry, but a criticism. They knew they were supposed to be praying. The word translated " Enough!" (ajpevcei, apechei ) is extraordinarily difficult to translate in this context. I am inclined to agree with Raymond Brown. After a survey of suggested alternatives, he chooses the translation " It is paid," which " preserves the most frequently attested meaning of apechei in ordinary life." Jesus is saying that Judas has received his money. The betrayal is at hand.

" The hour" is the hour Jesus prayed to avoid. When the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners he will suffer and die upon a cross. Jesus must know at this point that the hour will not pass from him (cf. v. 35).

J. BETRAYAL, ARREST, AND FLIGHT (14:43-52)

⁴³ Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.

⁴⁴ Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them:" The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard." ⁴⁵ Going at once to Jesus, Judas said," Rabbi!" and kissed him. ⁴⁶ The men seized Jesus and arrested him. ⁴⁷ Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

⁴⁸" Am I leading a rebellion," said Jesus," that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? ⁴⁹ Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled." ⁵⁰ Then everyone deserted him and fled.

⁵¹ A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, ⁵² he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.

The arrest apparently took place in the olive grove. Christologically, this scene portrays Jesus willingly submitting to the will of God and fulfilling the Scriptures. It begins Jesus' ordeal with the indignity of being arrested as though he were a criminal. In terms of discipleship, this is a low point in which the disciples serve as a strong counter example to the behavior Mark wants to commend. One of them betrays Jesus and the others flee, leaving him to face his ordeal alone.

43. The crowd with Judas is armed with swords and clubs. The reference to swords suggests the idea of military or paramilitary arms. This is not a lynch mob, but a delegation sent by the Sanhedrin. One member of the crowd is described in v. 47 as the servant of the high priest.

44-45. The crowd Judas was leading was not a group of men who knew Jesus well. The prearranged signal was a kiss. It is probable that a kiss was a common method of greeting at the time. With a kiss and the greeting " Rabbi," Judas perhaps sought to appear " disarmingly normal."

46-47. As the men seize and arrest Jesus as though he were a common criminal, someone present strikes out momentarily in defense and cuts off the ear of the servant of the high priest. John 18:10 identifies the sword wielder as Peter. His courage was short-lived, for in v. 50 he fled with the rest.

48-49. Jesus' complaint has two parts. " Am I leading a rebellion?" is a dubious translation of " Am I a criminal (lh/sthv", lçstçs)?" The word lçstçs is used in the Gospels and elsewhere of violent criminals of various types. It was lçstai (the plural form) who beat and robbed the man going down to Jericho who was later aided by the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30, 36). Such men could be involved in a rebellion (Mark 15:7; cf. John 18:40; Josephus, War 2.57), but they might be merely common thugs. Jesus' point is that coming after him with swords and clubs suggest he is a violent man who needs to be subdued with weapons.

The second part of Jesus' complaint is that he could easily have been arrested during one of his visits to the temple courts, visits characterized by public teaching. He had not hidden like some criminal who needed to be sought out in the hills.

Jesus viewed what had just happened and what it was leading to as the fulfilment of Scripture (cf. 8:31; 9:12; 10:45; 12:10-11; 14:21, 27).

50-52. One such fulfilment is immediately mentioned. In 14:27 Jesus had referred to Zech 13:7 in predicting the disciples' coming desertion. Now it is fulfilled. The English translation hides an unfortunate contrast between 1:18, 20 and 14:50. In the former verses the four fishermen " left" (ajfivhmi, aphiçmi) their nets and their families and followed Jesus. Now, along with all the others, they " left" (aphiçmi) Jesus. Mark does not identify the young man who even left his clothes behind when the arresting party got a hand on them. The point he apparently had in mind with this little extra is to illustrate the intensity of the desire to flee. This young man ran out of his clothes and fled naked rather than be caught along with Jesus.

K. JESUS AND PETER PUT ON TRIAL (14:53-72)

In another " sandwich" of two stories, Mark clearly juxtaposes the trial of Jesus and his brave confession before the high priest with the testing of Peter and his cowardly denials before a servant girl who worked for the high priest.

Some scholars have raised historical questions about the trial before the Sanhedrin based upon traditions found in the Mishnah. According to these traditions the trial contains various illegalities. For example, capital cases were not tried at night, such cases required two consecutive days of trial, and Jesus should have been offered a defense attorney. However, the Mishnah was compiled about A.D. 200 and there are serious dating problems with the legal traditions and their applicability to the days of Jesus. Furthermore, the Sanhedrin may very well have engaged in illegal proceedings in their efforts to destroy Jesus. Part of the impetus behind many historical critics with respect to the trial scene is the accusation that the portrayals of the trial are anti-Semitic. It is certainly true that racists have used the trials and various aspects of the sentencing and death of Jesus to promote anti-Semitic sentiments and to stir up hatred against all Jews. Such twisting of Scripture has been used to promote many grievous offenses including the Jewish holocaust of the mid-twentieth century. However, it is another matter to accuse the Gospels themselves (three of which were written by Jews) of anti-Semitism because they report the participation of some Jews, even of the leading council, in the death of Jesus. On the matter of anti-Semitism and on the historical debates consult Carson's commentary on Matthew.

1. Jesus' Trial before the Sanhedrin (14:53-65)

⁵³ They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, elders and teachers of the law came together. ⁵⁴ Peter followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. There he sat with the guards and warmed himself at the fire.

⁵⁵ The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. ⁵⁶ Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree.

⁵⁷ Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: ⁵⁸" We heard him say, 'I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.'" ⁵⁹ Yet even then their testimony did not agree.

⁶⁰ Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus," Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" ⁶¹ But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.

Again the high priest asked him," Are you the Christ, ^a the Son of the Blessed One?"

⁶²" I am," said Jesus." And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

⁶³ The high priest tore his clothes." Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. ⁶⁴" You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?"

They all condemned him as worthy of death. ⁶⁵ Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said," Prophesy!" And the guards took him and beat him.

^a 61 Or Messiah

53. The meeting of the high priest, the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes is clearly defined in v. 55 as an assembly of the Sanhedrin, the governing body of the Jews. On this occasion they met at the home of the high priest Caiaphas, whose term of office lasted nineteen years, from A.D. 18 to 37.

54. The next sentence begins the story of Peter's denials, which is completed in vv. 66-72. Peter kept his distance in following Jesus, but went on into the courtyard of the high priest. The guards he was sitting with are identified by the term uJphrevth" (hypçretçs), a term which in this context probably refers to police attendants as in Matt 5:25 (" the judge may hand you over to the officer" ) or Acts 5:26 (" the captain went with his officers and brought the apostles" ). John 18:3 identifies such hypçretas from the Sanhedrin as being among the arresting party. They now sat around the fire in the chilly spring night.

55-56. According to Mark the Jewish leadership had known since 3:6 what they wanted to do with Jesus. However, they had difficulty at first finding sufficient evidence to warrant the death penalty. Their witnesses could not agree. They needed the agreement of at least two witnesses (cf. Deut 17:6; 19:15; Num 35:30).

57-59. Mark provides a climactic example of the conflicting testimony. The accusation sounds like a genuine saying of Jesus recorded in John 2:19, " Destroy this temple and I will raise it again in three days." The alterations in the testimony against Jesus are significant. They say Jesus himself planned to destroy the " made-with-hands" temple. Jesus did not say that he himself would destroy the temple and he was not speaking of the temple made by hands. He had spoken metaphorically of his own body (cf. John 2:21). Mark does not say what aspects of the testimony there was disagreement upon, but in any case the witnesses were not completely consistent with one another.

60-62. Since the testimony against Jesus was getting nowhere, Caiaphas addressed him directly, initially asking for a response concerning the testimony against him. Receiving no answer, the high priest pursued the question of Jesus' messiahship. (In his question " Son of the Blessed One" stands in apposition to " Christ" and means essentially the same thing.)

Jesus answered this question directly and forcefully. He not only frankly admitted being the Christ, the Son of God, but he went on to add to the offense, bringing together allusions to Ps 110:1 (" The Lord says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet'" ) and Dan 7:13 (" Before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence" ) to assert that the Sanhedrin members themselves would one day see him enthroned at the right hand of God. Mark has already portrayed Jesus as citing Ps 110:1 in connection with the Messiah (12:36). In both cases what is being asserted is that he will reign at the right hand of God. The allusion to Dan 7:13 alters somewhat the imagery of Daniel. There the son of man figure comes to God on the clouds. In Mark it appears that he comes from his position at the right hand of God and to humanity (cf. 13:26). At this " coming on the clouds" his position as second in command will be seen by all, including his enemies in the Sanhedrin.

In these two verses the three major titles of Jesus in Mark are brought together. For treatments of " Christ" and " Son of God" see the comments on 1:1. For a treatment of " Son of Man" see the comments at 2:10. All three are messianic titles in the Gospels. Clearly, the title " Christ" would be recognized as such by virtually all first century Jews. The high priest's use of " Son of the Blessed One" in apposition to " Christ" suggests that he and others viewed that title as messianic as well. It is difficult to know to what extent the phrase " Son of Man" was recognized before Jesus as a messianic title.

63-64. Tearing one's clothes was a way of expressing great grief. In this case the high priest expressed his grief over hearing something he believed was offensive to God. I have already noted in the comments on 2:5 that the term blasphemy was understood loosely. Since the high priest viewed Jesus as a heretic, his claim to be the messiah was considered a major affront to God. As a blasphemer Jesus was condemned to death.

65. In ancient (e.g., Num 12:14; Deut 25:9) and in modern times, spitting in someone's face is a way of showing disdain for them. Matt 26:67-68 and Luke 22:64 make explicit what Mark's context suggests concerning the challenge to Jesus to prophesy. The opponents of Jesus blindfolded him; then, various ones would strike him and ask him to identify (by prophecy) who did the striking. This " game" seemed appropriate mockery for one who claimed to be sent from God. Mark's readers know the irony that the only one who saw clearly was the one blindfolded.

The mocking of Jesus after the Sanhedrin trial contains three basic elements: spitting in his face, the blindfolding " game," and a beating by the guards. The term translated " beat" is found in various ancient contexts, some of which involve beating someone with a club or rod and others of which involve striking someone with an open hand (slapping). The LXX of Isaiah 50:6-7 uses the noun form of the same word and was probably in Mark's mind as he wrote of Jesus being spit upon and slapped: " I gave . . . my cheeks to slaps; I did not turn my face from the shame of spitting. And the Lord God became my helper, and so I was not ashamed."

2. Peter's Denials (14:66-72)

⁶⁶ While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came by. ⁶⁷ When she saw Peter warming himself, she looked closely at him.

" You also were with that Nazarene, Jesus," she said.

⁶⁸ But he denied it." I don't know or understand what you're talking about," he said, and went out into the entryway. ^a

⁶⁹ When the servant girl saw him there, she said again to those standing around," This fellow is one of them." ⁷⁰ Again he denied it.

After a little while, those standing near said to Peter," Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean."

⁷¹ He began to call down curses on himself, and he swore to them," I don't know this man you're talking about."

⁷² Immediately the rooster crowed the second time. ^b Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken to him: " Before the rooster crows twice ^c you will disown me three times." And he broke down and wept.

^a 68 Some early manuscripts entryway and the rooster crowed ^b 72 Some early manuscripts do not have the second time . ^c 72 Some early manuscripts do not have twice.

V. 54 left Peter sitting in the courtyard with the guards warming himself around the fire. Having portrayed what happened indoors as Jesus appeared before the Sanhedrin, Mark now turns to what was happening at the same period of time to Peter.

66-68. The remark that Peter was " below" in the courtyard indicates that Jesus' hearing took place in an upper room. While Jesus was being interrogated by the high priest, outside Peter was interrogated by one of the high priest's servant girls. At some point she had seen him with the " Nazarene" (the man from Nazareth, cf. 1:24; 10:47; 16:6).

69-70a. The servant girl found Peter again and repeated her accusation, this time asserting he was one of them, that is, of Jesus' entourage. Peter made his second denial.

70b-71. Only a short time elapsed before another bystander joined the servant girl's accusation. He inferred she must be right because Peter was a Galilean. This time Peter's denial was vehement. He swore an oath that he did not even know Jesus. The NIV translation " began to call down curses on himself" provides an object for " began to curse," although there is not one in the Greek text. The NIV may be correct. The idea would be that Peter supported his oath by calling down curses upon himself if what he was saying was not true. Brown and others, however, believe the implied object of the cursing is Jesus. That is, Peter cursed Jesus and denied he had anything to do with him.

72. On the variant concerning the second rooster crowing and on the meaning of the references to the rooster crowing see the comments on v. 30. Peter recognized that he had just fulfilled Jesus' prophecy. His emphatic assertion that he would stay with Jesus even until death was broken. His spirit had been willing, but his flesh was weak. He broke down and wept.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

McGarvey: Mar 14:12-18

CXVII.
PREPARATION FOR PASSOVER.
DISCIPLES CONTEND FOR PRECEDENCE.
(Bethany to Jerusalem. Thursday afternoon and, after sunset, beginning of Friday.)
^aMATT. XXVI. 17-20; ^bMARK XIV. 12-17; ^cLUKE XXII. 7-18, 24-30.

   ^c7 And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be sacrificed. [See Exo 12:8), and a room for the feast must be secured.]  13 And he sendeth {csent} Peter and John, btwo of his disciples, csaying, God and make ready for us the passover, that we may eat.  9 And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we make ready?  10 And he said {bsaith} unto them, Go into the city, and ^cBehold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house whereinto he goeth.  ^b14 and wheresoever he shall enter in, say to {^c11 And ye shall say unto} the master of the house, {^aGo into the city to such a man, and say unto him,} ^cThe Teacher saith unto thee, ^aMy time is at hand; I keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. ^cWhere is the {bmy} guest-chamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? [It was customary for the residents of Jerusalem to open their houses for guests during this feast, and therefore Jesus might have presumed on the hospitality of almost anyone; but the probability is that the man to whom he sent this message was an acquaintance and a friend. It is not improbable that Jesus let Peter and John thus find the place that Judas might not know its whereabouts in time to bring the officers of the Sanhedrin so as to interrupt the feasts which meant so much to him and to his church.]  15 And he will himself show you a large upper room furnished and ready: and there make ready for us.  16 And the disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.  ^a19 And the disciples did as Jesus appointed them; and they made ready the passover.  ^b17 And  ^a20 Now when even was come, {bwhen it was evening} he cometh with the twelve [The law required that the paschal lamb should be slain "between the evenings." The Jews reckoned the two evenings as from three o'clock to sunset, and from sunset to nine o'clock, which was the end of the first watch. But [645] Josephus tells us that the lambs were killed from the ninth to the eleventh hours, or between the hours of three and five. It would take some time to dress the lamb and to roast it, so that it must have been about sundown or shortly afterward when Jesus and his disciples sat down to the feast.]  ^c14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the apostles with him.  15 And ahe was sitting at meat with the twelve disciples;  21 and che said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:  16 for I say unto you, I shall not eat it, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. [Jesus had desired to keep with his disciples this last type which stood so close to the thing typified. It was a feast commemorating a great deliverance from death through the sacrifice of a lamb, and the real sacrifice and deliverance of which it was typical were about to be fulfilled in the unfolding of the kingdom of God.]  17 And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:  18 for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. [Luke brings out the parallelism between the passover and the Lord's supper. Each consisted in eating followed by drinking, and the closeness of the parallel is emphasized by the use of almost the same words with regard to the cup. The passover was typical of the Lord's suffering before the event, and the Lord's supper is typical of the same thing after the event.]  24 And there arose also a contention among them, which of them was accounted to be greatest.  25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles have lordship over them; and they that have authority over them are called Benefactors.  26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.  27 For which is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am in the midst of you as he that serveth. [In sending to secure the room in which [646] the paschal supper was being eaten, Jesus had said, "My time is at hand." Such expressions were falsely construed by the apostles. They thought that Jesus was about to set up his kingdom, and began at once to contend for the chief places. Jesus rebukes this false ambition in much the same manner as he had previously. See Jam 1:2, Jam 1:3). For the rest of the passage compare the remarks on 2Sa 9:7, 2Sa 19:28), and indicate that the apostles, being about to participate in the Lord's condemnation and suffering, should in the end share his exaltation and its attendant joys.]

[FFG 644-647]

McGarvey: Mar 14:18-31

CXIX.
JUDAS' BETRAYAL AND PETER'S DENIAL FORETOLD.
(Jerusalem. Evening before the crucifixion.)
^aMATT. XXVI. 21-25, 31-35; ^bMARK XIV. 18-21, 27-31; ^cLUKE XXII. 21-23, 31-38;
^dJOHN XIII. 21-38.

   ^b18 And  ^d21 When Jesus had thus said, bas they sat and were eating, dhe was troubled in the spirit, and ^bJesus dtestified, and said, Verily, verily, I say [651] unto you, that one of you shall betray me. beven he that eateth with me.  ^c21 But behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. [The foreknowledge of Judas' crime did not relieve the Lord from the sting of it. By the use of the word "betray" Jesus revealed to Judas that he had perfect knowledge of the peculiar crime which he was about to commit. To induce repentance the enormity of the crime is pointed out in two ways: 1. It was the act of one, an act in which no other could be found willing to have a part. 2. It was the act of one whose hand rested on the table, who was admitted to the closest intercourse and fellowship.]  ^d22 The disciples looked one on another [in startled amazement], doubting of whom he spake.  ^a22 And they bbegan to be {awere} exceeding sorrowful [that the Lord should be betrayed was sorrow enough, but that one of the twelve should do the deed was an added grief],  ^c23 And they began to question among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing. band abegan bto say unto him one by one, aevery one, Is it I, Lord? [The form of the question in the Greek indicates that it expects "No" for an answer, so that it may be rendered, "Surely it is not I?"]  23 And he answered and said, bunto them, It is one of the twelve, ^aHe that dipped {bdippeth} ahis hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. [According to Oriental custom, knives and forks were not used. One dish served to hold the sop for several people, that they might dip their bread into it. In so large a company, two or three bowls would be used for convenience' sake. The words of Jesus, therefore, limited the circle of accused ones from twelve to four or five, and also further emphasized the tender and close intimacy between the traitor and the Master.]  ^b21 For the Son of man goeth, cas it hath been determined: beven as it is written of him: but woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had not been born. [Jesus was following with unfaltering step the path of suffering marked out by the prophets. [652] But this fact in no way exculpated the authors of his death. The prophecies referred to are many. As examples, see Psa 22:1, Isa 53:1-12. The woe pronounced upon Judas was no vindictive or vengeful wish; it is the solemn announcement of the divine judgment. The words of Jesus stop the mouths of the apologists for Judas. When the judge thus speaks in condemnation, who shall presume to argue in extenuation?]  ^d23 There was at the table reclining in Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. [John thus speaks of himself. His couch was in front of that of the Lord, so that when he laid his head back it rested upon Jesus' bosom. See Luk 22:53). Alford says, "I feel, with Meyer, that there is something awful in this termination -- 'it was night.'"]  31 When therefore he was gone out, Jesus saith, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him;  32 and God shall glorify him in himself, and straightway shall he glorify him. [The departure of Judas was the first step in the progress of the Lord's Passion, and in this moment of its beginning Jesus exults in the prospect of its end. Having just condemned the false pride and glory of men by washing his disciples' feet, Jesus rejoices that the true glory of God is about to be immediately manifested in himself -- the glory of humility, charity, service, and self-sacrifice, which was realized to the utmost in the person of Jesus.]  33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews [see Joh 13:1). It is found nowhere else in the Gospels. In the light of his near separation Jesus looked upon his apostles as about to be made orphan children. As to this new commandment, love had been commanded before (Lev 19:18), but the Christian love here commanded is different from that which the Jew was bade to feel for the Jew, just as the affection of a loving family differs from the mere broad and kindly spirit of neighborliness. A love which had Christ's heart as the standard would of necessity be new, and would distinguish those who possessed it from all men.]  ^b27 And  ^a31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended in me this night: for it is written [Zec 13:7], I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.  32 But  ^b28 Howbeit, after I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee. [The scattering would take place after the return of the apostles to Galilee, and there after his resurrection, Jesus would gather them together as their shepherd.]  ^d36 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered, Whither I go, thou canst not follow now; but thou shalt follow afterwards.  37 Peter saith unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee even now? I will lay down my life for thee. [Peter, grieved at the prospect of separation, can see no reason why he should not follow, since he is willing to pass even through the portal of the grave that he may do so. Though perhaps prevented by no moral inability, he was prevented by the plan of life which God had designed for him. It was not in accordance with the divine will that he should die at this time.]  38 Jesus answereth, Wilt thou lay down thy life for me?  ^c31 Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked to have you, that he might sift you as wheat:  32 but I made supplication for thee, that thy faith fail not [The language here suggests a repetition, in some degree, of Satan's conduct in the case of Job. See Job 1-2:10 Jesus, having insight into what was going on in the spirit world, made supplication that Peter [655] might be enabled to endure the trial]; and do thou, when once thou hast turned again, establish thy brethren. [The language sadly intimates that Satan's test would leave him in need of repentance. As the one who perhaps exercised the strongest influence over the other ten apostles, Peter is exhorted to use his own bitter experience for their benefit and strengthening.]  33 And he said unto him, Lord, with thee I am ready to go both to prison and to death.  ^a33 But Peter answered and said unto him, ^bAlthough, {^aIf} all shall be offended in thee, byet will not I. ^aI will never be offended. [Thus Peter repudiates the idea that he could not stand the test.]  ^b30 And Jesus saith {asaid} unto him, Verily I say unto thee, ^cI tell thee, Peter, bthat thou to-day, even this night, before the cock crow twice, cthou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me. ^dVerily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, cthis day, dtill {cuntil} dthou hast denied me thrice. [Mark speaks of two cock-crowings and shows that the denial of Peter occurred between them (Mar 14:68-72). But Matthew, Luke, and John speak of but one cock-crowing and place the denial before it. The discrepancy is not an important one. Luke and John look upon the night in its entirety and speak of the cock-crowing at three in the morning, the signal of the dawning day. Mark looks at the night in its details, and shows that the denials of Peter began at midnight, the time of the first cock-crowing, and were finished before the last, or about three in the morning. Peter appears to have been thunderstruck at this prediction, which showed the nature, the details, and the nearness of his sin. He lapsed into silence, and we hear no more from him during the discourses which followed. But he did not yield without one final protest, as the sequel shows.]  ^b31 But ^aPeter bspake exceedingly vehemently, asaith unto him, Even ^bIf I must die with thee, I will not deny thee. And in like manner {^aLikewise} also said all the disciples. [According to Matthew's account these accusations of our Lord and protestations of Peter were taken up again after [656] Jesus left the upper room and was on his way to Gethsemane. The reader may therefore conceive of them as occurring again in the opening lines of Isa 53:12] must be fulfilled in me, And he was reckoned with transgressors: for that which concerneth me hath fulfilment.  38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough. [In this passage our Lord draws a contrast between the favor with which his messengers had been received on their former mission and the trials and persecutions which awaited them in their future course. If they had prepared then to be received with joy, they were to prepare now to be opposed with bitterness; for the utter rejection of the Master would be followed by the violent persecution of the servants. The apostles took the words of Jesus literally, and showed two swords, and the Lord, for their future enlightenment, said, "It is enough," thus intimating that he did not mean a literal arming with carnal weapons, for had he done so, two swords would not have sufficed for twelve men.]

[FFG 651-655]

Lapide: Mar 14:1-72

CHAPTER 14

 1 A conspiracy against Christ. 3 Precious ointment is poured on his head by a woman. 10 Judas selleth his Master for money. 12 Christ himself foretelleth how he shall be betrayed of one of his disciples : 22 after the passover prepared and eaten, instituteth his supper. 26 declareth aforehand the flight of all his disciples, and Peter's denial. 43 Judas betrayeth him with a kiss. 46 He is apprehended in the garden, 53 falsely accused, and impiously condemned of the Jews' council : 65 shamefully abused by them, 66 and thrice denied of Peter.

Ver. 3. A woman having an alabaster box of ointment of precious spikenard. " Nard," says Pliny. ( l 12, c. 12), "is a shrub which has a heavy and thick, but short, black, and easily broken root. It has a strong smell, like cypress, and a pungent taste. The leaf is small and thick, and the tops unfold into ears, so that spikenard is spoken of as being doubly endowed with both leaves and ears." From the leaves of nard ointment is made—that which is called foliated; but that made from the ears or spikes is called spikenard ; and this is superior to the foliated, because it has more substance and marrow, so to say. Instead of nardus spicatus (Vulg.), the Syriac has nardus copitalis, i.e., chief, excellent, principal. As I have observed, the spikenard is superior to the foliated. The Greek has πιστικη̃ς, which the Vulg. of S. John translates pistici. Pisticus is the same as spiked. Wherefore the Arabic trans., the best.

Ver. 5. Three hundred pence. These were equivalent in value to thirty Roman aurei. So that for the thirty gold pieces which the miserable Judas accounted as lost in the anointing of Christ, he received thirty silver pieces for betraying Him.

Ver. 11 . They were glad. Not only that they were about to apprehend Him without tumult, being opportunely betrayed by Judas, but also because He was beginning to be hated by His own disciples."

Ver. 13. There shall meet you. "Observe the majesty of His Divinity," says S. Ambrose ( in Luk 22: 8). "He is speaking with His disciples, and yet He knows what is about to happen elsewhere."

Ver. 14. Where is My refectory? That is, the place where I may refresh Myself with My disciples, and partake of the lamb. The Greek is κατάλυμα, or inn ; the Syriac, place of dwelling ; Arabic, place in which I may eat the Passover.

Furnished : provided with tables, couches, or beds and tapestry, decorated also with leaves and flowers, and all other requisites for celebrating the Passover. The Greek, Syriac, and Arabic add, έτοιμον, i.e., prepared. For God had put it into the heart of the master of the house to prepare the supper-room for the sake of Christ, that He might find a place well adorned for the celebration of the Passover, that as soon as evening came there might be no delay, but that the lamb might be roasted and eaten, and all the other things accomplished which were to be done by Christ.

Ver. 23. Giving thanks : the Syriac adds, He blessed.

And they all drank of it, namely, after Christ had consecrated the chalice, saying, This is My blood, as it follows. There is, therefore, a prolepsis, or anticipation, which Mark makes use of to show that the disciples fulfilled the command of Christ. Drink ye all of it, as Matthew has, Mat 26:28.

Ver. 33. He began to fear and to be heavy : ε̉κθαμβει̃σθαι καί α̉δημονει̃ν, i.e., to be affrighted and sore distressed. The Arabic is, to be very sorrowful and afraid.

Ver. 36. Abba Father : Gr. α̉ββα̃ ό πατήζ, where Father is in the nominative, as Mark interprets the Syriac word α̉ββ by the Greek πατήζ ; or rather the nom. πατήζ is put for the voc. πάτεζ. For by a mark of affection, with the deepest feeling of the heart, Christ repeated the word Abba, or Father. Wherefore the Syriac has Abba Abi, i.e., Father, My Father. The Arabic has 0 Father. S. Augustine ( lib. de Consens. Evang. l. 4) thinks that Christ used both the Greek and the Syriac word; and that He spoke precisely as Mark has it, namely, άββα̃ ό πατήζ. For so the Apostle speaks, "In whom we cry, Abba Father" (Rom 8:15, Vulg.). "We must think," says S. Augustine, "that the Lord said 'Abba Father' to intimate the mystery of His Church, which was to be gathered out of Jews and Gentiles." And the Scholiast in S. Jerome says, "He speaks in Hebrew and Greek, because there is no distinction between Jew and Greek."

Ver. 38. The spirit indeed is willing : Syriac, willing and prompt.

Ver. 41 . The hour is come : Arabic, the end, i.e., of life, is present, and the hour is come.

Ver. 44. Lead Him away carefully : Gr. α̉σφαλω̃ς, i.e., securely, safely. Arab . Fear ye concerning Him; lest, that is, He glide away out of your hands, as He has done upon other occasions.

Ver. 47. One of them, namely, Peter. "Mark does not mention Peter's name," says Theophylact, "that he may not seem to praise his teacher, Peter, for his greater zeal for Christ."

Ver. 51. And a certain young man followed him having a linen cloth cast round about his naked body; and they laid hold on him. That is, he was clothed ( amictus, Vulg.) with a linen vest over his naked body. It is plain, from the word amictus, that this piece of linen was a kind of linen garment, fitting the body, but so that it might easily be put on and off the back. This is also clear from Pollux, who calls the linen cloth πεζιβόλαιον, i.e., a veil, a cloak, a covering.

You will ask who this young man was: 1st S. Epiphanius ( Hæres. 78) and S. Jerome, or whoever the author is on Ps. xxxviii., think that he was James the Lord's brother.

2nd Bede and S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, S. Gregory, and Baronius think it was S. John; for he was a youth, and the youngest of the Apostles. But that it was neither John nor James, nor any of the Apostles, is plain from this, that Mark has just before said, ver. 50, then all His disciples, meaning, Apostles, forsook Him and fled.

3rd Theophylact and Euthymius think that the young man was some one from the house of John Mark, in which Christ had eaten the Passover.

4th And more probably, Cajetan ( in Jentaculis ) and others conjecture that this young man was a member or servant of a house adjacent to the garden, who, being awoke by the noise made by those who were apprehending Christ as they passed by, rose up from his bed, and ran to see what was being done. That he was a favourer or disciple of Christ appears from what Mark says, he followed Him. Wherefore also the officers laid hold of him, i.e., they wished to hold him by seizing his garment. The Hebrew active verbs often signify commencement and effort.

Ver. 52 . But he, casting off the linen cloth, fled from them naked. "As Joseph," says the Scholiast, "left his garment in the hand of his immodest mistress, and fled from her naked."

Mark adds this incident in order to make it plain from this hasty flight of the young man how great was the trepidation about Christ, and how intense was the hatred and fury of the Jews against Christ, who even tried to seize a stranger who was following Him. Hence it is evident that far more would they have seized the Apostles, if they had not immediately fled away.

Ver. 68. And the cock crew. Hear S. Chrysostom on S. Matt. xxvi. 70, "Mark signifies that neither by the crow of the cock was he led to remember, nor did it keep him from denial." Chrysostom adds, "Mark only has written thus, most accurately detailing the gracious care of the Master for His disciple, and Peter's weakness. Wherefore we ought especially to admire him, because he not only did not hide his master's fault, but wrote the account of it in greater detail than the others, for this very reason that he was Peter's disciple."

Ver. 70. For thou art also a Galilæan. That is, by speaking in the idiom of the Galilæans thou showest thyself to be a Galilæan. The Arabic adds, And thy speech is similar to their speech.

Ver. 72. And he began to weep: Gr. ε̉πιβαλών έκλαιε, i.e., literally, adding he was weeping ; which you may translate, 1st, he began to weep ; 2nd, he added to weep, i.e., "he began to weep very violently," says Theophylact. The Arabic is, and he betook himself to tears, not in the court before the Jews, that he might not betray himself to them, but when he was alone, having gone out of it as appears from S. Mat 26:75. (Top)

Commentary -- Other

Contradiction: Mar 14:12

69. Was Jesus crucified on the daytime after the Passover meal (Mark 14:12-17) or the daytime before the Passover meal ( John 13:1, 30, 29; 18:28; 19:14)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Jesus was crucified on the daytime before the Passover meal. The reason why Mark seems to say it was after is one of culture and contextualising.

The evidence from the Gospels that Jesus died on the eve of the Passover, when the Passover meal would be eaten after sunset, is very solid. Before we delve (albeit briefly) into this issue, it is worth noting that Mark 14 records that Jesus does not eat the Passover with his disciples.

Luke 14:12 says it was "the Feast of Unleavened Bread", which is also called "Passover". As the name suggest states, part of the Passover meal was to eat bread without yeast. It is a commandment which Jewish people keep even today for the meal, for God makes it extremely clear, "eat bread without yeast And whoever eats bread with yeast in it must be cut off from the

community of Israel. Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you live, you must eat unleavened bread ". See also Exodus 12:1-20.

The Greek word for "unleavened bread" is 'azymos'. This is the word used by Mark in "the Feast of Unleavened Bread", chapter 14 verse 12. The Greek word for normal bread (with yeast) is 'artos'. All the Gospel writers, including Mark, agree that in this last meal with his disciples the bread they ate was artos, in other words a bread with yeast. "While they were eating, Jesus took bread [artos], gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying Take it; this is my body." Mark 14:22. It is highly probably therefore that this meal was not a Passover meal. The use of the different words in the same passage strongly suggests this. For it would be unthinkable to them to eat something that God had commanded them not to eat (bread with yeast - artos), and not to eat something that they were commanded to eat (unleavened

bread - azymos).

Therefore, as this is true, what does Mark mean in verses 12-17? Firstly, we read, "when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb". Exodus 20:1-8 says that this must happen on the 14th day of the Jewish month of Nisan. However, there was dispute as to when this day was, due to the debate on separate calendars which were used for calculating feast-days. It is possible that separate traditions were in vogue in Jesus life. So, indeed it may have been "customary" to sacrifice the lamb on that day for some, although many, probably most, recognized the Passover as being the next evening.

Secondly, the disciples ask Jesus "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?" They had no idea that Jesus was going to give his life for the sins of the world like the Passover lamb of Exodus 20 did to save the Israelites from God's wrath upon Egypt. Jesus had explained to them, but they did not grasp it for many reasons, including the hailing of Jesus by the people as Messiah in the Triumphal Entry, which was still 'ringing in their ears'. He does not state that he would eat it with them. He wanted to, but he knew he would not. There is no room for any dogmatic statement that the Passover must be eaten on the same day the room was hired or prepared. Indeed, Jewish people, because of Exodus 12, thoroughly prepared their houses for the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Thirdly, in some ways the Gospels couch the last supper in terms of fulfillment. i.e. Luke 22 records Jesus saying that he had longed to eat "this" Passover meal with them. So, does Luke say it was the Passover meal? It is doubtful, due to the same use of artos and azymos, amongst other reasons. Jesus did make this last supper a sort of Passover meal (but not the real one). He wanted to have this special fellowship with his disciples, his friends, being painfully aware of the agony he would go through, only a few hours later. He also wanted to show his disciples that the Passover spoke of him; that he was the sacrifice that would bring in the New Covenant God promised (see questions #64 and #34) just like the lambs that was killed 1500 years earlier to save the people if Israel from God's wrath. He illustrated through the meal that he is the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" as John the Baptist called Jesus (John 1:29). He wanted to eat it with them for he says, "I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the Kingdom of God" (Luke 22:16). His coming death was its fulfillment, "For Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed" (1 Corinthians 5:7).

If this understanding is correct (one of two feasible explanations I opted for due to my current research), then there is no contradiction. Jesus died before the Passover meal.

Contradiction: Mar 14:13

69. Was Jesus crucified on the daytime after the Passover meal (Mark 14:12-17) or the daytime before the Passover meal ( John 13:1, 30, 29; 18:28; 19:14)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Jesus was crucified on the daytime before the Passover meal. The reason why Mark seems to say it was after is one of culture and contextualising.

The evidence from the Gospels that Jesus died on the eve of the Passover, when the Passover meal would be eaten after sunset, is very solid. Before we delve (albeit briefly) into this issue, it is worth noting that Mark 14 records that Jesus does not eat the Passover with his disciples.

Luke 14:12 says it was "the Feast of Unleavened Bread", which is also called "Passover". As the name suggest states, part of the Passover meal was to eat bread without yeast. It is a commandment which Jewish people keep even today for the meal, for God makes it extremely clear, "eat bread without yeast And whoever eats bread with yeast in it must be cut off from the

community of Israel. Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you live, you must eat unleavened bread ". See also Exodus 12:1-20.

The Greek word for "unleavened bread" is 'azymos'. This is the word used by Mark in "the Feast of Unleavened Bread", chapter 14 verse 12. The Greek word for normal bread (with yeast) is 'artos'. All the Gospel writers, including Mark, agree that in this last meal with his disciples the bread they ate was artos, in other words a bread with yeast. "While they were eating, Jesus took bread [artos], gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying Take it; this is my body." Mark 14:22. It is highly probably therefore that this meal was not a Passover meal. The use of the different words in the same passage strongly suggests this. For it would be unthinkable to them to eat something that God had commanded them not to eat (bread with yeast - artos), and not to eat something that they were commanded to eat (unleavened

bread - azymos).

Therefore, as this is true, what does Mark mean in verses 12-17? Firstly, we read, "when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb". Exodus 20:1-8 says that this must happen on the 14th day of the Jewish month of Nisan. However, there was dispute as to when this day was, due to the debate on separate calendars which were used for calculating feast-days. It is possible that separate traditions were in vogue in Jesus life. So, indeed it may have been "customary" to sacrifice the lamb on that day for some, although many, probably most, recognized the Passover as being the next evening.

Secondly, the disciples ask Jesus "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?" They had no idea that Jesus was going to give his life for the sins of the world like the Passover lamb of Exodus 20 did to save the Israelites from God's wrath upon Egypt. Jesus had explained to them, but they did not grasp it for many reasons, including the hailing of Jesus by the people as Messiah in the Triumphal Entry, which was still 'ringing in their ears'. He does not state that he would eat it with them. He wanted to, but he knew he would not. There is no room for any dogmatic statement that the Passover must be eaten on the same day the room was hired or prepared. Indeed, Jewish people, because of Exodus 12, thoroughly prepared their houses for the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Thirdly, in some ways the Gospels couch the last supper in terms of fulfillment. i.e. Luke 22 records Jesus saying that he had longed to eat "this" Passover meal with them. So, does Luke say it was the Passover meal? It is doubtful, due to the same use of artos and azymos, amongst other reasons. Jesus did make this last supper a sort of Passover meal (but not the real one). He wanted to have this special fellowship with his disciples, his friends, being painfully aware of the agony he would go through, only a few hours later. He also wanted to show his disciples that the Passover spoke of him; that he was the sacrifice that would bring in the New Covenant God promised (see questions #64 and #34) just like the lambs that was killed 1500 years earlier to save the people if Israel from God's wrath. He illustrated through the meal that he is the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" as John the Baptist called Jesus (John 1:29). He wanted to eat it with them for he says, "I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the Kingdom of God" (Luke 22:16). His coming death was its fulfillment, "For Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed" (1 Corinthians 5:7).

If this understanding is correct (one of two feasible explanations I opted for due to my current research), then there is no contradiction. Jesus died before the Passover meal.

Contradiction: Mar 14:14

69. Was Jesus crucified on the daytime after the Passover meal (Mark 14:12-17) or the daytime before the Passover meal ( John 13:1, 30, 29; 18:28; 19:14)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Jesus was crucified on the daytime before the Passover meal. The reason why Mark seems to say it was after is one of culture and contextualising.

The evidence from the Gospels that Jesus died on the eve of the Passover, when the Passover meal would be eaten after sunset, is very solid. Before we delve (albeit briefly) into this issue, it is worth noting that Mark 14 records that Jesus does not eat the Passover with his disciples.

Luke 14:12 says it was "the Feast of Unleavened Bread", which is also called "Passover". As the name suggest states, part of the Passover meal was to eat bread without yeast. It is a commandment which Jewish people keep even today for the meal, for God makes it extremely clear, "eat bread without yeast And whoever eats bread with yeast in it must be cut off from the

community of Israel. Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you live, you must eat unleavened bread ". See also Exodus 12:1-20.

The Greek word for "unleavened bread" is 'azymos'. This is the word used by Mark in "the Feast of Unleavened Bread", chapter 14 verse 12. The Greek word for normal bread (with yeast) is 'artos'. All the Gospel writers, including Mark, agree that in this last meal with his disciples the bread they ate was artos, in other words a bread with yeast. "While they were eating, Jesus took bread [artos], gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying Take it; this is my body." Mark 14:22. It is highly probably therefore that this meal was not a Passover meal. The use of the different words in the same passage strongly suggests this. For it would be unthinkable to them to eat something that God had commanded them not to eat (bread with yeast - artos), and not to eat something that they were commanded to eat (unleavened

bread - azymos).

Therefore, as this is true, what does Mark mean in verses 12-17? Firstly, we read, "when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb". Exodus 20:1-8 says that this must happen on the 14th day of the Jewish month of Nisan. However, there was dispute as to when this day was, due to the debate on separate calendars which were used for calculating feast-days. It is possible that separate traditions were in vogue in Jesus life. So, indeed it may have been "customary" to sacrifice the lamb on that day for some, although many, probably most, recognized the Passover as being the next evening.

Secondly, the disciples ask Jesus "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?" They had no idea that Jesus was going to give his life for the sins of the world like the Passover lamb of Exodus 20 did to save the Israelites from God's wrath upon Egypt. Jesus had explained to them, but they did not grasp it for many reasons, including the hailing of Jesus by the people as Messiah in the Triumphal Entry, which was still 'ringing in their ears'. He does not state that he would eat it with them. He wanted to, but he knew he would not. There is no room for any dogmatic statement that the Passover must be eaten on the same day the room was hired or prepared. Indeed, Jewish people, because of Exodus 12, thoroughly prepared their houses for the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Thirdly, in some ways the Gospels couch the last supper in terms of fulfillment. i.e. Luke 22 records Jesus saying that he had longed to eat "this" Passover meal with them. So, does Luke say it was the Passover meal? It is doubtful, due to the same use of artos and azymos, amongst other reasons. Jesus did make this last supper a sort of Passover meal (but not the real one). He wanted to have this special fellowship with his disciples, his friends, being painfully aware of the agony he would go through, only a few hours later. He also wanted to show his disciples that the Passover spoke of him; that he was the sacrifice that would bring in the New Covenant God promised (see questions #64 and #34) just like the lambs that was killed 1500 years earlier to save the people if Israel from God's wrath. He illustrated through the meal that he is the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" as John the Baptist called Jesus (John 1:29). He wanted to eat it with them for he says, "I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the Kingdom of God" (Luke 22:16). His coming death was its fulfillment, "For Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed" (1 Corinthians 5:7).

If this understanding is correct (one of two feasible explanations I opted for due to my current research), then there is no contradiction. Jesus died before the Passover meal.

Contradiction: Mar 14:15

69. Was Jesus crucified on the daytime after the Passover meal (Mark 14:12-17) or the daytime before the Passover meal ( John 13:1, 30, 29; 18:28; 19:14)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Jesus was crucified on the daytime before the Passover meal. The reason why Mark seems to say it was after is one of culture and contextualising.

The evidence from the Gospels that Jesus died on the eve of the Passover, when the Passover meal would be eaten after sunset, is very solid. Before we delve (albeit briefly) into this issue, it is worth noting that Mark 14 records that Jesus does not eat the Passover with his disciples.

Luke 14:12 says it was "the Feast of Unleavened Bread", which is also called "Passover". As the name suggest states, part of the Passover meal was to eat bread without yeast. It is a commandment which Jewish people keep even today for the meal, for God makes it extremely clear, "eat bread without yeast And whoever eats bread with yeast in it must be cut off from the

community of Israel. Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you live, you must eat unleavened bread ". See also Exodus 12:1-20.

The Greek word for "unleavened bread" is 'azymos'. This is the word used by Mark in "the Feast of Unleavened Bread", chapter 14 verse 12. The Greek word for normal bread (with yeast) is 'artos'. All the Gospel writers, including Mark, agree that in this last meal with his disciples the bread they ate was artos, in other words a bread with yeast. "While they were eating, Jesus took bread [artos], gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying Take it; this is my body." Mark 14:22. It is highly probably therefore that this meal was not a Passover meal. The use of the different words in the same passage strongly suggests this. For it would be unthinkable to them to eat something that God had commanded them not to eat (bread with yeast - artos), and not to eat something that they were commanded to eat (unleavened

bread - azymos).

Therefore, as this is true, what does Mark mean in verses 12-17? Firstly, we read, "when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb". Exodus 20:1-8 says that this must happen on the 14th day of the Jewish month of Nisan. However, there was dispute as to when this day was, due to the debate on separate calendars which were used for calculating feast-days. It is possible that separate traditions were in vogue in Jesus life. So, indeed it may have been "customary" to sacrifice the lamb on that day for some, although many, probably most, recognized the Passover as being the next evening.

Secondly, the disciples ask Jesus "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?" They had no idea that Jesus was going to give his life for the sins of the world like the Passover lamb of Exodus 20 did to save the Israelites from God's wrath upon Egypt. Jesus had explained to them, but they did not grasp it for many reasons, including the hailing of Jesus by the people as Messiah in the Triumphal Entry, which was still 'ringing in their ears'. He does not state that he would eat it with them. He wanted to, but he knew he would not. There is no room for any dogmatic statement that the Passover must be eaten on the same day the room was hired or prepared. Indeed, Jewish people, because of Exodus 12, thoroughly prepared their houses for the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Thirdly, in some ways the Gospels couch the last supper in terms of fulfillment. i.e. Luke 22 records Jesus saying that he had longed to eat "this" Passover meal with them. So, does Luke say it was the Passover meal? It is doubtful, due to the same use of artos and azymos, amongst other reasons. Jesus did make this last supper a sort of Passover meal (but not the real one). He wanted to have this special fellowship with his disciples, his friends, being painfully aware of the agony he would go through, only a few hours later. He also wanted to show his disciples that the Passover spoke of him; that he was the sacrifice that would bring in the New Covenant God promised (see questions #64 and #34) just like the lambs that was killed 1500 years earlier to save the people if Israel from God's wrath. He illustrated through the meal that he is the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" as John the Baptist called Jesus (John 1:29). He wanted to eat it with them for he says, "I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the Kingdom of God" (Luke 22:16). His coming death was its fulfillment, "For Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed" (1 Corinthians 5:7).

If this understanding is correct (one of two feasible explanations I opted for due to my current research), then there is no contradiction. Jesus died before the Passover meal.

Contradiction: Mar 14:16

69. Was Jesus crucified on the daytime after the Passover meal (Mark 14:12-17) or the daytime before the Passover meal ( John 13:1, 30, 29; 18:28; 19:14)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Jesus was crucified on the daytime before the Passover meal. The reason why Mark seems to say it was after is one of culture and contextualising.

The evidence from the Gospels that Jesus died on the eve of the Passover, when the Passover meal would be eaten after sunset, is very solid. Before we delve (albeit briefly) into this issue, it is worth noting that Mark 14 records that Jesus does not eat the Passover with his disciples.

Luke 14:12 says it was "the Feast of Unleavened Bread", which is also called "Passover". As the name suggest states, part of the Passover meal was to eat bread without yeast. It is a commandment which Jewish people keep even today for the meal, for God makes it extremely clear, "eat bread without yeast And whoever eats bread with yeast in it must be cut off from the

community of Israel. Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you live, you must eat unleavened bread ". See also Exodus 12:1-20.

The Greek word for "unleavened bread" is 'azymos'. This is the word used by Mark in "the Feast of Unleavened Bread", chapter 14 verse 12. The Greek word for normal bread (with yeast) is 'artos'. All the Gospel writers, including Mark, agree that in this last meal with his disciples the bread they ate was artos, in other words a bread with yeast. "While they were eating, Jesus took bread [artos], gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying Take it; this is my body." Mark 14:22. It is highly probably therefore that this meal was not a Passover meal. The use of the different words in the same passage strongly suggests this. For it would be unthinkable to them to eat something that God had commanded them not to eat (bread with yeast - artos), and not to eat something that they were commanded to eat (unleavened

bread - azymos).

Therefore, as this is true, what does Mark mean in verses 12-17? Firstly, we read, "when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb". Exodus 20:1-8 says that this must happen on the 14th day of the Jewish month of Nisan. However, there was dispute as to when this day was, due to the debate on separate calendars which were used for calculating feast-days. It is possible that separate traditions were in vogue in Jesus life. So, indeed it may have been "customary" to sacrifice the lamb on that day for some, although many, probably most, recognized the Passover as being the next evening.

Secondly, the disciples ask Jesus "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?" They had no idea that Jesus was going to give his life for the sins of the world like the Passover lamb of Exodus 20 did to save the Israelites from God's wrath upon Egypt. Jesus had explained to them, but they did not grasp it for many reasons, including the hailing of Jesus by the people as Messiah in the Triumphal Entry, which was still 'ringing in their ears'. He does not state that he would eat it with them. He wanted to, but he knew he would not. There is no room for any dogmatic statement that the Passover must be eaten on the same day the room was hired or prepared. Indeed, Jewish people, because of Exodus 12, thoroughly prepared their houses for the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Thirdly, in some ways the Gospels couch the last supper in terms of fulfillment. i.e. Luke 22 records Jesus saying that he had longed to eat "this" Passover meal with them. So, does Luke say it was the Passover meal? It is doubtful, due to the same use of artos and azymos, amongst other reasons. Jesus did make this last supper a sort of Passover meal (but not the real one). He wanted to have this special fellowship with his disciples, his friends, being painfully aware of the agony he would go through, only a few hours later. He also wanted to show his disciples that the Passover spoke of him; that he was the sacrifice that would bring in the New Covenant God promised (see questions #64 and #34) just like the lambs that was killed 1500 years earlier to save the people if Israel from God's wrath. He illustrated through the meal that he is the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" as John the Baptist called Jesus (John 1:29). He wanted to eat it with them for he says, "I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the Kingdom of God" (Luke 22:16). His coming death was its fulfillment, "For Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed" (1 Corinthians 5:7).

If this understanding is correct (one of two feasible explanations I opted for due to my current research), then there is no contradiction. Jesus died before the Passover meal.

Contradiction: Mar 14:17

69. Was Jesus crucified on the daytime after the Passover meal (Mark 14:12-17) or the daytime before the Passover meal ( John 13:1, 30, 29; 18:28; 19:14)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Jesus was crucified on the daytime before the Passover meal. The reason why Mark seems to say it was after is one of culture and contextualising.

The evidence from the Gospels that Jesus died on the eve of the Passover, when the Passover meal would be eaten after sunset, is very solid. Before we delve (albeit briefly) into this issue, it is worth noting that Mark 14 records that Jesus does not eat the Passover with his disciples.

Luke 14:12 says it was "the Feast of Unleavened Bread", which is also called "Passover". As the name suggest states, part of the Passover meal was to eat bread without yeast. It is a commandment which Jewish people keep even today for the meal, for God makes it extremely clear, "eat bread without yeast And whoever eats bread with yeast in it must be cut off from the

community of Israel. Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you live, you must eat unleavened bread ". See also Exodus 12:1-20.

The Greek word for "unleavened bread" is 'azymos'. This is the word used by Mark in "the Feast of Unleavened Bread", chapter 14 verse 12. The Greek word for normal bread (with yeast) is 'artos'. All the Gospel writers, including Mark, agree that in this last meal with his disciples the bread they ate was artos, in other words a bread with yeast. "While they were eating, Jesus took bread [artos], gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying Take it; this is my body." Mark 14:22. It is highly probably therefore that this meal was not a Passover meal. The use of the different words in the same passage strongly suggests this. For it would be unthinkable to them to eat something that God had commanded them not to eat (bread with yeast - artos), and not to eat something that they were commanded to eat (unleavened

bread - azymos).

Therefore, as this is true, what does Mark mean in verses 12-17? Firstly, we read, "when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb". Exodus 20:1-8 says that this must happen on the 14th day of the Jewish month of Nisan. However, there was dispute as to when this day was, due to the debate on separate calendars which were used for calculating feast-days. It is possible that separate traditions were in vogue in Jesus life. So, indeed it may have been "customary" to sacrifice the lamb on that day for some, although many, probably most, recognized the Passover as being the next evening.

Secondly, the disciples ask Jesus "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?" They had no idea that Jesus was going to give his life for the sins of the world like the Passover lamb of Exodus 20 did to save the Israelites from God's wrath upon Egypt. Jesus had explained to them, but they did not grasp it for many reasons, including the hailing of Jesus by the people as Messiah in the Triumphal Entry, which was still 'ringing in their ears'. He does not state that he would eat it with them. He wanted to, but he knew he would not. There is no room for any dogmatic statement that the Passover must be eaten on the same day the room was hired or prepared. Indeed, Jewish people, because of Exodus 12, thoroughly prepared their houses for the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Thirdly, in some ways the Gospels couch the last supper in terms of fulfillment. i.e. Luke 22 records Jesus saying that he had longed to eat "this" Passover meal with them. So, does Luke say it was the Passover meal? It is doubtful, due to the same use of artos and azymos, amongst other reasons. Jesus did make this last supper a sort of Passover meal (but not the real one). He wanted to have this special fellowship with his disciples, his friends, being painfully aware of the agony he would go through, only a few hours later. He also wanted to show his disciples that the Passover spoke of him; that he was the sacrifice that would bring in the New Covenant God promised (see questions #64 and #34) just like the lambs that was killed 1500 years earlier to save the people if Israel from God's wrath. He illustrated through the meal that he is the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" as John the Baptist called Jesus (John 1:29). He wanted to eat it with them for he says, "I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the Kingdom of God" (Luke 22:16). His coming death was its fulfillment, "For Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed" (1 Corinthians 5:7).

If this understanding is correct (one of two feasible explanations I opted for due to my current research), then there is no contradiction. Jesus died before the Passover meal.

Critics Ask: Mar 14:12

MARK 14:12 ff—Did Jesus institute the Lord’s Supper on the day of the Passover or the day before?

PROBLEM: If the first three Gospels (synoptics) are correct, then Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper “on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they killed the Passover lamb” (cf. Matt. 26:17 ; Luke 22:1 ). But John places it “before the feast of the Passover” ( 13:1 ), the day before the crucifixion on which “they might eat the Passover” ( 18:28 ).

SOLUTION: There are two basic positions embraced by evangelical scholars on this point. Those who hold that Jesus ate the Passover lamb (and instituted the Lord’s Supper at the end of it) on the same day it was observed by the Jews, support their view as follows: (1) It was the day required by OT Law, and Jesus said He did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it ( Matt. 5:17-18 ). (2) It seems to be the meaning of Mark 14:12 which says it was “on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they killed the Passover lamb.” (3) When John 19:14 speaks of it being “the Preparation Day of the Passover” they take this to mean simply the preparation for the Sabbath which occurred in that paschal week.

Other scholars contend that Jesus ate the Passover lamb on the day before the Jews did because: (1) He had to eat it a day early (Thursday) in order that He might offer Himself the next day (Good Friday) as the Passover Lamb (cf. John 1:29 ) to the Jews, in fulfillment of OT type on the very day they were eating the Passover lamb ( 1 Cor. 5:7 ). (2) The plain reading of John 19:14 is that it was “the Preparation Day of the Passover” [not the Sabbath], or in other words, the day before the Passover was eaten by the Jews. (3) Likewise, John 18:28 affirms that the Jews did not want to be defiled on the day Jesus was crucified “that they might eat the Passover.”

Either view is possible without contradiction. However, the latter view seems to explain the texts more forthrightly. (See also comments on Matt. 12:40 .)   

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: Mark (Book Introduction)

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK

By Way of Introduction

One of the clearest results of modern critical study of the Gospels is the early date of Mark’s Gospel. Precisely how early is not definitely known, but there are leading scholars who hold that a.d. 50 is quite probable. My own views are given in detail in my Studies in Mark’s Gospel . Zahn still argues that the Gospel according to Matthew is earlier than that according to Mark, but the arguments are against him. The framework of Mark’s Gospel lies behind both Matthew and Luke and nearly all of it is used by one or the other. One may satisfy himself on this point by careful use of a Harmony of the Gospels in Greek or English. Whether Mark made use of Q ( Logia of Jesus ) or not is not yet shown, though it is possible. But Mark and Q constitute the two oldest known sources of our Matthew and Luke. We have much of Q preserved in the Non-Markan portions of both Matthew and Luke, though the document itself has disappeared. But Mark’s work has remained in spite of its exhaustive use by Matthew and Luke, all except the disputed close. For this preservation we are all grateful. Streeter ( The Four Gospels ) has emphasized the local use of texts in preserving portions of the New Testament. If Mark wrote in Rome, as is quite possible, his book was looked upon as the Roman Gospel and had a powerful environment in which to take root. It has distinctive merits of its own that helped to keep it in use. It is mainly narrative and the style is direct and simple with many vivid touches, like the historical present of an eyewitness. The early writers all agree that Mark was the interpreter for Simon Peter with whom he was at one time, according to Peter’s own statement, either in Babylon or Rome (1Pe_5:13).

This Gospel is the briefest of the four, but is fullest of striking details that apparently came from Peter’s discourses which Mark heard, such as green grass, flower beds (Mar_6:38), two thousand hogs (Mar_5:13), looking round about (Mar_3:5, Mar_3:34). Peter usually spoke in Aramaic and Mark has more Aramaic phrases than the others, like Boanerges (Mar_3:17), Talitha cumi (Mar_5:41), Korban (Mar_7:11), Ephphatha (Mar_7:34), Abba (Mar_14:36). The Greek is distinctly vernacular Koiné like one-eyed ( monophthalmon , Mar_9:47) as one would expect from both Peter and Mark. There are also more Latin phrases and idioms like centurio (Mar_15:39), quadrans (Mar_12:42), flagellare (Mar_15:15), speculator (Mar_6:27), census (Mar_12:14), sextarius (Mar_7:4), praetorium (Mar_15:6), than in the other Gospels, so much so that C. H. Turner raises the question whether Mark wrote first in Latin, or at any rate in Rome. There are some who hold that Mark wrote first in Aramaic, but the facts are sufficiently accounted for by the fact of Peter’s preaching and the activity in Rome. Some even think that he wrote the Gospel in Rome while with Peter who suggested and read the manuscript. B.W. Bacon holds that this Gospel has a distinct Pauline flavour and may have had several recensions. The Ur-Marcus theory does not have strong support now. Mark was once a co-worker with Barnabas and Paul, but deserted them at Perga. Paul held this against Mark and refused to take him on the second mission tour. Barnabas took Mark, his cousin, with him and then he appeared with Simon Peter with whom he did his greatest work. When Mark had made good with Barnabas and Peter, Paul rejoiced and commends him heartily to the Colossians (Col_4:10) In the end Paul will ask Timothy to pick up Mark and bring him along with him to Paul in Rome, for he has found him useful for ministry, this very young man who made such a mistake that Paul would have no more of him. This tribute to Mark by Paul throws credit upon both of them as is shown in my Making Good in the Ministry . The character of the Gospel of Mark is determined largely by the scope of Peter’s preaching as we see it in Act_10:36-42, covering the period in outline from John the Baptist to the Resurrection of Jesus. There is nothing about the birth of the Baptist or of Jesus. This peculiarity of Mark’s Gospel cannot be used against the narratives of the Virgin Birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, since Mark tells nothing whatever about his birth at all.

The closing passage in the Textus Receptus, Mar_16:9-20, is not found in the oldest Greek Manuscripts, Aleph and B, and is probably not genuine. A discussion of the evidence will appear at the proper place. Swete points out that Mark deals with two great themes, the Ministry in Galilee (Chs. 1 to 9) and the Last Week in Jerusalem (11 to 16) with a brief sketch of the period of withdrawal from Galilee (ch. 10). The first fourteen verses are introductory as Mar_16:9-20 is an appendix. The Gospel of Mark pictures Christ in action. There is a minimum of discourse and a maximum of deed. And yet the same essential pictures of Christ appear here as in the Logia, in Matthew, in Luke, in John, in Paul, in Peter, in Hebrews as is shown in my The Christ of the Logia . The cry of the critics to get back to the Synoptics and away from Paul and John has ceased since it is plain that the Jesus of Mark is the same as the Christ of Paul. There is a different shading in the pictures, but the same picture, Son of God and Son of Man, Lord of life and death, worker of miracles and Saviour from sin. This Gospel is the one for children to read first and is the one that we should use to lay the foundation for our picture of Christ. In my Harmony of the Gospels I have placed Mark first in the framework since Matthew, Luke, and John all follow in broad outline his plan with additions and supplemental material. Mark’s Gospel throbs with life and bristles with vivid details. We see with Peter’s eyes and catch almost the very look and gesture of Jesus as he moved among men in his work of healing men’s bodies and saving men’s souls.

JFB: Mark (Book Introduction)

THAT the Second Gospel was written by Mark is universally agreed, though by what Mark, not so. The great majority of critics take the writer to be "John whose surname was Mark," of whom we read in the Acts, and who was "sister's son to Barnabas" (Col 4:10). But no reason whatever is assigned for this opinion, for which the tradition, though ancient, is not uniform; and one cannot but wonder how it is so easily taken for granted by WETSTEIN, HUG, MEYER, EBRARD, LANGE, ELLICOTT, DAVIDSON, TREGELLES, &c. ALFORD goes the length of saying it "has been universally believed that he was the same person with the John Mark of the Gospels. But GROTIUS thought differently, and so did SCHLEIERMACHER, CAMPBELL, BURTON, and DA COSTA; and the grounds on which it is concluded that they were two different persons appear to us quite unanswerable. "Of John, surnamed Mark," says CAMPBELL, in his Preface to this Gospel, "one of the first things we learn is, that he attended Paul and Barnabas in their apostolical journeys, when these two travelled together (Act 12:25; Act 13:5). And when afterwards there arose a dispute between them concerning him, insomuch that they separated, Mark accompanied his uncle Barnabas, and Silas attended Paul. When Paul was reconciled to Mark, which was probably soon after, we find Paul again employing Mark's assistance, recommending him, and giving him a very honorable testimony (Col 4:10; 2Ti 4:11; Phm 1:24). But we hear not a syllable of his attending Peter as his minister, or assisting him in any capacity. And yet, as we shall presently see, no tradition is more ancient, more uniform, and better sustained by internal evidence, than that Mark, in his Gospel, was but "the interpreter of Peter," who, at the close of his first Epistle speaks of him as "Marcus my son" (1Pe 5:13), that is, without doubt, his son in the Gospel--converted to Christ through his instrumentality. And when we consider how little the Apostles Peter and Paul were together--how seldom they even met--how different were their tendencies, and how separate their spheres of labor, is there not, in the absence of all evidence of the fact, something approaching to violence in the supposition that the same Mark was the intimate associate of both? "In brief," adds CAMPBELL, "the accounts given of Paul's attendant, and those of Peter's interpreter, concur in nothing but the name, Mark or Marcus; too slight a circumstance to conclude the sameness of the person from, especially when we consider how common the name was at Rome, and how customary it was for the Jews in that age to assume some Roman name when they went thither."

Regarding the Evangelist Mark, then, as another person from Paul's companion in travel, all we know of his personal history is that he was a convert, as we have seen, of the Apostle Peter. But as to his Gospel, the tradition regarding Peter's hand in it is so ancient, so uniform, and so remarkably confirmed by internal evidence, that we must regard it as an established fact. "Mark," says PAPIAS (according to the testimony of EUSEBIUS, [Ecclesiastical History, 3.39]), "becoming the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, though not in order, whatever he remembered of what was either said or done by Christ; for he was neither a hearer of the Lord nor a follower of Him, but afterwards, as I said, [he was a follower] of Peter, who arranged the discourses for use, but not according to the order in which they were uttered by the Lord." To the same effect IRENÆUS [Against Heresies, 3,1]: "Matthew published a Gospel while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the Church at Rome; and after their departure (or decease), Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, he also gave forth to us in writing the things which were preached by Peter." And CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA is still more specific, in a passage preserved to us by EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 6.14]: "Peter having publicly preached the word at Rome, and spoken forth the Gospel by the Spirit, many of those present exhorted Mark, as having long been a follower of his, and remembering what he had said, to write what had been spoken; and that having prepared the Gospel, he delivered it to those who had asked him for it; which, when Peter came to the knowledge of, he neither decidedly forbade nor encouraged him." EUSEBIUS' own testimony, however, from other accounts, is rather different: that Peter's hearers were so penetrated by his preaching that they gave Mark, as being a follower of Peter, no rest till he consented to write his Gospel, as a memorial of his oral teaching; and "that the apostle, when he knew by the revelation of the Spirit what had been done, was delighted with the zeal of those men, and sanctioned the reading of the writing (that is, of this Gospel of Mark) in the churches" [Ecclesiastical History, 2.15]. And giving in another of his works a similar statement, he says that "Peter, from excess of humility, did not think himself qualified to write the Gospel; but Mark, his acquaintance and pupil, is said to have recorded his relations of the actings of Jesus. And Peter testifies these things of himself; for all things that are recorded by Mark are said to be memoirs of Peter's discourses." It is needless to go farther--to ORIGEN, who says Mark composed his Gospel "as Peter guided" or "directed him, who, in his Catholic Epistle, calls him his son," &c.; and to JEROME, who but echoes EUSEBIUS.

This, certainly, is a remarkable chain of testimony; which, confirmed as it is by such striking internal evidence, may be regarded as establishing the fact that the Second Gospel was drawn up mostly from materials furnished by Peter. In DA COSTA'S'S Four Witnesses the reader will find this internal evidence detailed at length, though all the examples are not equally convincing. But if the reader will refer to our remarks on Mar 16:7, and Joh 18:27, he will have convincing evidence of a Petrine hand in this Gospel.

It remains only to advert, in a word or two, to the readers for whom this Gospel was, in the first instance, designed, and the date of it. That it was not for Jews but Gentiles, is evident from the great number of explanations of Jewish usages, opinions, and places, which to a Jew would at that time have been superfluous, but were highly needful to a Gentile. We can here but refer to Mar 2:18; Mar 7:3-4; Mar 12:18; Mar 13:3; Mar 14:12; Mar 15:42, for examples of these. Regarding the date of this Gospel--about which nothing certain is known--if the tradition reported by IRENÆUS can be relied on that it was written at Rome, "after the departure of Peter and Paul," and if by that word "departure" we are to understand their death, we may date it somewhere between the years 64 and 68; but in all likelihood this is too late. It is probably nearer the truth to date it eight or ten years earlier.

JFB: Mark (Outline)

• THE PREACHING AND BAPTISM OF JOHN. ( = Mat 3:1-12; Luke 3:1-18). (Mar 1:1-8)
• HEALING OF A DEMONIAC IN THE SYNAGOGUE OF CAPERNAUM AND THEREAFTER OF SIMON'S MOTHER-IN-LAW AND MANY OTHERS--JESUS, NEXT DAY, IS FOUND IN A SOLITARY PLACE AT MORNING PRAYERS, AND IS ENTREATED TO RETURN, BUT DECLINES, AND GOES FORTH ON HIS FIRST MISSIONARY CIRCUIT. ( = Luk 4:31-44; Mat 8:14-17; Mat 4:23-25). (Mark 1:21-39)
• HEALING OF A PARALYTIC. ( = Mat 9:1-8; Luk 5:17-26). (Mar 2:1-12)
• PARABLE OF THE SOWER--REASON FOR TEACHING IN PARABLES--PARABLES OF THE SEED GROWING WE KNOW NOT HOW, AND OF THE MUSTARD SEED. ( = Mat. 13:1-23, 31, 32; Luk 8:4-18). (Mark 4:1-34)
• THE SOWER, THE SEED, AND THE SOIL. (Mar 4:3, Mar 4:14)
• JESUS CROSSING THE SEA OF GALILEE, MIRACULOUSLY STILLS A TEMPEST--HE CURES THE DEMONIAC OF GADARA. ( = Mat 8:23-34; Luke 8:22-39). (Mark 4:35-5:20)
• THE DAUGHTER OF JAIRUS RAISED TO LIFE--THE WOMAN WITH AN ISSUE OF BLOOD HEALED. ( = Mat 9:18-26; Luke 8:41-56). (Mark 5:21-43)
• HEROD THINKS JESUS A RESURRECTION OF THE MURDERED BAPTIST--ACCOUNT OF HIS DEATH. ( = Mat 14:1-12; Luk 9:7-9). (Mark 6:14-29)
• THE TWELVE ON THEIR RETURN, HAVING REPORTED THE SUCCESS OF THEIR MISSION, JESUS CROSSES THE SEA OF GALILEE WITH THEM, TEACHES THE PEOPLE, AND MIRACULOUSLY FEEDS THEM TO THE NUMBER OF FIVE THOUSAND--HE SENDS HIS DISCIPLES BY SHIP AGAIN TO THE WESTERN SIDE, WHILE HE HIMSELF RETURNS AFTERWARDS WALKING ON THE SEA--INCIDENTS ON LANDING. ( = Mat. 14:13-36; Luk 9:10-17; John 6:1-24). (Mark 6:30-56)
• THE SYROPHœNICIAN WOMAN AND HER DAUGHTER--A DEAF AND DUMB MAN HEALED. ( = Mat 15:21-31). (Mar 7:24-37)
• FOUR THOUSAND MIRACULOUSLY FED--A SIGN FROM HEAVEN SOUGHT AND REFUSED--THE LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES--A BLIND MAN AT BETHSAIDA RESTORED TO SIGHT. ( = Mat. 15:32-16:12). (Mark 8:1-26) In those days the multitude being very great, &c.
• HEALING OF A DEMONIAC BOY--SECOND EXPLICIT ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS APPROACHING DEATH AND RESURRECTION. ( = Mat 17:14-23; Luk 9:37-45). (Mark 9:14-32)
• STRIFE AMONG THE TWELVE WHO SHOULD BE GREATEST IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, WITH RELATIVE TEACHING--INCIDENTAL REBUKE OF JOHN FOR EXCLUSIVENESS. ( = Mat 18:1-9; Luk 9:46-50). (Mark 9:33-50)
• THIRD EXPLICIT AND STILL FULLER ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS APPROACHING SUFFERINGS, DEATH, AND RESURRECTION--THE AMBITIOUS REQUEST OF JAMES AND JOHN, AND THE REPLY. ( = Mat 20:17-28; Luk 18:31-34). (Mar 10:32-45)
• THE BARREN FIG TREE CURSED WITH LESSONS FROM IT--SECOND CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE, ON THE SECOND AND THIRD DAYS OF THE WEEK. ( = Mat 21:12-22; Luk 19:45-48). (Mark 11:11-26)
• ENTANGLING QUESTIONS ABOUT TRIBUTE THE RESURRECTION, AND THE GREAT COMMANDMENT, WITH THE REPLIES--CHRIST BAFFLES THE PHARISEES BY A QUESTION ABOUT DAVID, AND DENOUNCES THE SCRIBES. ( = Mat. 22:15-46; Luke 20:20-47). (Mark 12:13-40)
• CHRIST'S PROPHECY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM, AND WARNINGS SUGGESTED BY IT TO PREPARE FOR HIS SECOND COMING. ( = Mat. 24:1-51; Luke 21:5-36). (Mark 13:1-37)
• THE CONSPIRACY OF THE JEWISH AUTHORITIES TO PUT JESUS TO DEATH--THE SUPPER AND THE--ANOINTING AT BETHANY--JUDAS AGREES WITH THE CHIEF PRIESTS TO BETRAY HIS LORD. ( = Mat. 26:1-16; Luk 22:1-6; Joh 12:1-11). (Mar 14:1-11)
• JESUS ARRAIGNED BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM CONDEMNED TO DIE, AND SHAMEFULLY ENTREATED--THE FALL OF PETER. ( = Mat. 26:57-75; Luke 22:54-71; Joh 18:13-18, Joh 18:24-27). (Mark 14:53-72)
• ANGELIC ANNOUNCEMENT TO THE WOMEN ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, THAT CHRIST IS RISEN--HIS APPEARANCES AFTER HIS RESURRECTION--HIS ASCENSION--TRIUMPHANT PROCLAMATION OF HIS GOSPEL. ( = Mat 28:1-10, Mat 28:16-20; Luke 24:1-51; Joh 20:1-2, John 20:11-29). (Mark 16:1-20)

TSK: Mark 14 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Mar 14:1, A conspiracy against Christ; Mar 14:3, Precious ointment is poured on his head by a woman; Mar 14:10, Judas sells his Master for money; Mar 14:12, Christ himself foretells how he shall be betrayed by one of his disciples; Mar 14:22, after the passover prepared, and eaten, institutes his last supper; Mar 14:26, declares aforehand the flight of all his disciples, and Peter’s denial; Mar 14:43, Judas betrays him with a kiss; Mar 14:46, He is apprehended in the garden; Mar 14:53, falsely accused and impiously condemned of the Jews’ council; Mar 14:65, shamefully abused by them; Mar 14:66, and thrice denied of Peter.

Poole: Mark 14 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 14

MHCC: Mark (Book Introduction)

Mark was a sister's son to Barnabas, Col 4:10; and Act 12:12 shows that he was the son of Mary, a pious woman of Jerusalem, at whose house the apostles and first Christians assembled. From Peter's styling him his son, 1Pe 5:13, the evangelist is supposed to have been converted by that apostle. Thus Mark was closely united with the followers of our Lord, if not himself one of the number. Mark wrote at Rome; some suppose that Peter dictated to him, though the general testimony is, that the apostle having preached at Rome, Mark, who was the apostle's companion, and had a clear understanding of what Peter delivered, was desired to commit the particulars to writing. And we may remark, that the great humility of Peter is very plain where any thing is said about himself. Scarcely an action or a work of Christ is mentioned, at which this apostle was not present, and the minuteness shows that the facts were related by an eye-witness. This Gospel records more of the miracles than of the discourses of our Lord, and though in many things it relates the same things as the Gospel according to St. Matthew, we may reap advantages from reviewing the same events, placed by each of the evangelists in that point of view which most affected his own mind.

MHCC: Mark 14 (Chapter Introduction)

(Mar 14:1-11) Christ anointed at Bethany.

(Mar 14:12-21) The passover, Jesus declares that Judas would betray him.

(Mar 14:22-31) The Lord's supper instituted.

(Mar 14:32-42) Christ's agony in the garden.

(Mar 14:43-52) He is betrayed and taken.

(Mar 14:53-65) Christ before the high priest.

(Mar 14:66-72) Peter denies Christ.

Matthew Henry: Mark (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Gospel According to St. Mark

We have heard the evidence given in by the first witness to the doctrine and miracles of our Lord Jesus; and now here is another witness produced, who calls for our attention. The second living creature saith, Come, and see, Rev 6:3. Now let us enquire a little,

I. Concerning this witness. His name is Mark. Marcus was a Roman name, and a very common one, and yet we have no reason to think, but that he was by birth a Jew; but as Saul, when he went among the nations, took the Roman name of Paul, so he of Mark, his Jewish name perhaps being Mardocai; so Grotius. We read of John whose surname was Mark, sister's son to Barnabas, whom Paul was displeased with (Act 15:37, Act 15:38), but afterward had a great kindness for, and not only ordered the churches to receive him (Col 4:10), but sent for him to be his assistant, with this encomium, He is profitable to me for the ministry (2Ti 4:11); and he reckons him among his fellow-labourers, Phm 1:24. We read of Marcus whom Peter calls his son, he having been an instrument of his conversion (1Pe 5:13); whether that was the same with the other, and, if not, which of them was the penman of this gospel, is altogether uncertain. It is a tradition very current among the ancients, that St. Mark wrote this gospel under the direction of St. Peter, and that it was confirmed by his authority; so Hieron. Catal. Script. Eccles. Marcus discipulus et interpres Petri, juxta quod Petrum referentem audierat, legatus Roma à fratribus, breve scripsit evangelium - Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, being sent from Rome by the brethren, wrote a concise gospel; and Tertullian saith (Adv. Marcion. lib. 4, cap. 5), Marcus quod edidit, Petri affirmetur, cujus interpres Marcus - Mark, the interpreter of Peter, delivered in writing the things which had been preached by Peter. But as Dr. Whitby very well suggests, Why should we have recourse to the authority of Peter for the support of this gospel, or say with St. Jerome that Peter approved of it and recommended it by his authority to the church to be read, when, though it is true Mark was no apostle, yet we have all the reason in the world to think that both he and Luke were of the number of the seventy disciples, who companied with the apostles all along (Act 1:21), who had a commission like that of the apostles (Luk 10:19, compared with Mar 16:18), and who, it is highly probable, received the Holy Ghost when they did (Act 1:15; Act 2:1-4), so that it is no diminution at all to the validity or value of this gospel, that Mark was not one of the twelve, as Matthew and John were? St. Jerome saith that, after the writing of this gospel, he went into Egypt, and was the first that preached the gospel at Alexandria, where he founded a church, to which he was a great example of holy living. Constituit ecclesiam tantâ doctrinâ et vitae continentiâ ut omnes sectatores Christi ad exemplum sui cogeret - He so adorned, by his doctrine and his life, the church which he founded, that his example influenced all the followers of Christ.

II. Concerning this testimony. Mark's gospel, 1. Is but short, much shorter than Matthew's, not giving so full an account of Christ's sermons as that did, but insisting chiefly on his miracles. 2. It is very much a repetition of what we had in Matthew; many remarkable circumstances being added to the stories there related, but not many new matters. When many witnesses are called to prove the same fact, upon which a judgment is to be given, it is not thought tedious, but highly necessary, that they should each of them relate it in their own words, again and again, that by the agreement of the testimony the thing may be established; and therefore we must not think this book of scripture needless, for it is written not only to confirm our belief that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, but to put us in mind of things which we have read in the foregoing gospel, that we may give the more earnest heed to them, lest at any time we let them slip; and even pure minds have need to be thus stirred up by way of remembrance. It was fit that such great things as these should be spoken and written, once, yea twice, because man is so unapt to perceive them, and so apt to forget them. There is no ground for the tradition, that this gospel was written first in Latin, though it was written at Rome; it was written in Greek, as was St. Paul's epistle to the Romans, the Greek being the more universal language.

Matthew Henry: Mark 14 (Chapter Introduction)

In this chapter begins the account which this evangelist gives of the death and sufferings of our Lord Jesus, which we are all concerned to be acquainted, not only with the history of, but with the mystery of. Here is, I. The plot of the chief priests and scribes against Christ (Mar 14:1, Mar 14:2). II. The anointing of Christ's head at a supper in Bethany, two days before his death (Mar 14:3-9). III. The contract Judas made with the chief priests, to betray him (Mar 14:10, Mar 14:11). IV. Christ's eating the passover with his disciples, his instituting the Lord's supper, and his discourse with his disciples, at and after supper (v. 12-31). V. Christ's agony in the garden (Mar 14:32-42). VI. The betraying of him by Judas, and the apprehending of him by the chief priests' agents (Mar 14:43-52). VII. His arraignment before the high priest, his conviction, and the indignities done him at that bar (Mar 14:53-65). VIII. Peter's denying him (Mar 14:66-72). Most of which passages we had before, Mt. 26.

Barclay: Mark (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT MARK

The Synoptic Gospels

The first three gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, are always known as the synoptic gospels. The word synoptic comes from two Greek words which mean to see together; and these three are called the synoptic gospels because they can be set down in parallel columns and their common matter looked at together. It would be possible to argue that of them all Mark is the most important. It would indeed be possible to go further and to argue that it is the most important book in the world, because it is agreed by nearly everyone that it is the earliest of all the gospels and therefore the first life of Jesus that has come down to us. Mark may not have been the first man to write the life of Jesus. Doubtless there were earlier simple attempts to set down the story of Jesusife; but Markgospel is certainly the earliest life of Jesus that has survived.

The Pedigree Of The Gospels

When we consider how the gospels came to be written, we must try to think ourselves back to a time when there was no such thing as a printed book in all the world. The gospels were written long before printing had been invented, compiled when every book had to be carefully and laboriously written out by hand. It is clear that so long as that was the case only a few copies of any book could exist.

How do we know, or how can we deduce, that Mark was the first of all the gospels? When we read the synoptic gospels even in English we see that there are remarkable similarities between them. They contain the same incidents often told in the same words; and they contain accounts of the teaching of Jesus which are often almost identical. If we compare the story of the Feeding of the Five Thousand in the three gospels (Mar_6:30-44 ; Mat_14:12-21 ; Luk_9:10-17 ) we see that it is told in almost exactly the same words and in exactly the same way. A very clear instance of this is the story of the healing of the man who was sick of the palsy (Mar_2:1-12 ; Mat_9:1-8 ; Luk_5:17-26 ). The accounts are so similar that even a little parenthesis--"he said to the paralytic"--occurs in all three in exactly the same place. The correspondences are so close that we are forced to one of two conclusions. Either all three are taking their material from some common source, or two of the three are based on the third.

When we study the matter closely we find that Mark can be divided into 105 sections. Of these 93 occur in Matthew and 81 in Luke. Only four are not included either in Matthew or in Luke. Even more compelling is this. Mark has 661 verses; Matthew has 1,068 verses; Luke has 1,149 verses. Of Mark661 verses, Matthew reproduces no fewer than 606. Sometimes he alters the wording slightly but he even reproduces 51 per cent. of Markactual words. Of Mark661 verses Luke reproduces 320, and he actually uses 53 per cent. of Markactual words. Of the 55 verses of Mark which Matthew does not reproduce 31 are found in Luke. So the result is that there are only 24 verses in Mark which do not occur somewhere in Matthew and Luke. This makes it look very like as if Matthew and Luke were using Mark as the basis of their gospels.

What makes the matter still more certain is this. Both Matthew and Luke very largely follow Markorder of events. Sometimes Matthew alters Markorder and sometimes Luke does. But when there is a change in the order Matthew and Luke never agree together against Mark. Always one of them retains Markorder of events.

A close examination of the three gospels makes it clear that Matthew and Luke had Mark before them as they wrote; and they used his gospel as the basis into which they fitted the extra material which they wished to include.

It is thrilling to remember that when we read Markgospel we are reading the first life of Jesus, on which all succeeding lives have necessarily been based.

Mark, The Writer Of The Gospel

Who then was this Mark who wrote the gospel? The New Testament tells us a good deal about him. He was the son of a well-to-do lady of Jerusalem whose name was Mary, and whose house was a rallying-point and meeting place of the early church (Act_12:12 ). From the very beginning Mark was brought up in the very centre of the Christian fellowship.

Mark was also the nephew of Barnabas, and when Paul and Barnabas set out on their first missionary journey they took Mark with them to be their secretary and attendant (Act_12:25 ). This journey was a most unfortunate one for Mark. When they reached Perga, Paul proposed to strike inland up to the central plateau; and for some reason Mark left the expedition and went home (Act_13:13 ).

He may have gone home because he was scared to face the dangers of what was notoriously one of the most difficult and dangerous roads in the world, a road hard to travel and haunted by bandits. He may have gone home because it was increasingly clear that the leadership of the expedition was being assumed by Paul and Mark may have felt with disapproval that his uncle was being pushed into the background. He may have gone home because he did not approve of the work which Paul was doing. Chrysostom--perhaps with a flash of imaginative insight--says that Mark went home because he wanted his mother!

Paul and Barnabas completed their first missionary journey and then proposed to set out upon their second. Barnabas was anxious to take Mark with them again. But Paul refused to have anything to do with the man "who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia." (Act_15:37-40 .) So serious was the difference between them that Paul and Barnabas split company, and, so far as we know, never worked together again.

For some years Mark vanishes from history. Tradition has it that he went down to Egypt and founded the Church of Alexandria there. Whether or not that is true we do not know, but we do know that when Mark re-emerges it is in the most surprising way. We learn to our surprise that when Paul writes the letter to the Colossians from prison in Rome Mark is there with him (Col_4:10 ). In another prison letter, to Philemon, Paul numbers Mark among his fellow-labourers (Phm_1:24 ). And, when Paul is waiting for death and very near the end, he writes to Timothy, his right-hand man, and says, "Take Mark and bring him with you; for he is a most useful servant to me." (2Ti_4:11 .) It is a far cry from the time when Paul contemptuously dismissed Mark as a quitter. Whatever had happened Mark had redeemed himself. He was the one man Paul wanted at the end.

MarkSources Of Information

The value of any manstory will depend on the sources of his information. Where, then, did Mark get his information about the life and work of Jesus? We have seen that his home was from the beginning a Christian centre of Jerusalem. Many a time he must have heard people tell of their personal memories of Jesus. But it is most likely that he had a source of information without a superior.

Towards the end of the second century there was a man called Papias who liked to obtain and transmit such information as he could glean about the early days of the Church. He tells us that Markgospel is nothing other than a record of the preaching material of Peter, the greatest of the apostles. Certainly Mark stood so close to Peter, and so near to his heart, that Peter could call him "Mark, my son." (1Pe_5:13 .) Here is what Papias says:

"Mark, who was Peterinterpreter, wrote down accurately, though

not in order, all that he recollected of what Christ had said or

done. For he was not a hearer of the Lord or a follower of his. He

followed Peter, as I have said, at a later date, and Peter adapted

his instruction to practical needs. without any attempt to give

the Lordwords systematically. So that Mark was not wrong in

writing down some things in this way from memory, for his one

concern was neither to omit nor to falsify anything that he had

heard."

We may then take it that in his gospel we have what Mark remembered of the preaching material of Peter himself.

So, then, we have two great reasons why Mark is a book of supreme importance. First, it is the earliest of all the gospels; if it was written just shortly after Peter died its date will be about A.D. 65. Second, it embodies the record of what Peter preached and taught about Jesus; we may put it this way--Mark is the nearest approach we will ever possess to an eyewitness account of the life of Jesus.

The Lost Ending

There is a very interesting thing about Markgospel. In its original form it stops at Mar_16:8 . We know that for two reasons. First, the verses which follow (Mar_16:9-20 ) are not in any of the great early manuscripts; only later and inferior manuscripts contain them. Second, the style of the Greek is so different that they cannot have been written by the same person as wrote the rest of the gospel.

But the gospel cannot have been meant to stop at Mar_16:8 . What then happened? It may be that Mark died, perhaps even suffered martyrdom, before he could complete his gospel. More likely, it may be that at one time only one copy of the gospel remained, and that a copy in which the last part of the roll on which it was written had got torn off. There was a time when the church did not much use Mark, preferring Matthew and Luke. It may well be that Markgospel was so neglected that all copies except for a mutilated one were lost. If that is so we were within an ace of losing the gospel which in many ways is the most important of all.

The Characteristics Of MarkGospel

Let us look at the characteristics of Markgospel so that we may watch for them as we read and study it.

(i) It is the nearest thing we will ever get to a report of Jesusife. Markaim was to give a picture of Jesus as he was. Westcott called it "a transcript from life." A. B. Bruce said that it was written "from the viewpoint of loving, vivid recollection," and that its great characteristic was realism.

If ever we are to get anything approaching a biography of Jesus, it must be based on Mark, for it is his delight to tell the facts of Jesusife in the simplest and most dramatic way.

(ii) Mark never forgot the divine side of Jesus. He begins his gospel with the declaration of faith, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." He leaves us in no doubt what he believed Jesus to be. Again and again he speaks of the impact Jesus made on the mind and heart of those who heard him. The awe and astonishment which he evoked are always before Markmind. "They were astonished at his teaching." (Mar_1:22 .) "They were all amazed." (Mar_1:27 .) Such phrases occur again and again. Not only was this astonishment in the minds of the crowds who listened to Jesus; it was still more in the minds of the inner circle of the disciples. "And they were filled with awe, and said to one another, o then is this, that even wind and sea obey him? (Mar_4:41 .) "And they were utterly astounded." (Mar_6:51 .) "The disciples were amazed at his words." (Mar_10:24 , Mar_10:26 .)

To Mark, Jesus was not simply a man among men; he was God among men, ever moving them to a wondering amazement with his words and deeds.

(iii) At the same time, no gospel gives such a human picture of Jesus. Sometimes its picture is so human that the later writers alter it a little because they are almost afraid to say what Mark said. To Mark Jesus is simply "the carpenter." (Mar_6:3 .) Later Matthew alters that to "the carpenterson" (Mat_13:55 ), as if to call Jesus a village tradesman is too daring. When Mark is telling of the temptations of Jesus, he writes, "The Spirit drove him into the wilderness." (Mar_1:12 .) Matthew and Luke do not like this word drove used of Jesus, so they soften it down and say, "Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness." (Mat_4:1 ; Luk_4:1 .) No one tens us so much about the emotions of Jesus as Mark does. Jesus sighed deeply in his spirit (Mar_7:34 ; Mar_8:12 ). He was moved with compassion (Mar_6:34 ). He marvelled at their unbelief (Mar_6:6 ). He was moved with righteous anger (Mar_3:5 ; Mar_8:33 ; Mar_10:14 ). Only Mark tells us that when Jesus looked at the rich young ruler he loved him (Mar_10:21 ). Jesus could feel the pangs of hunger (Mar_11:12 ). He could be tired and want to rest (Mar_6:31 ).

It is in Markgospel, above all, that we get a picture of a Jesus of like passions with us. The sheer humanity of Jesus in Markpicture brings him very near to us.

(iv) One of the great characteristics of Mark is that over and over again he inserts the little vivid details into the narrative which are the hall-mark of an eyewitness. Both Matthew and Mark tell of Jesus taking the little child and setting him in the midst. Matthew (Mat_18:2 ) says, "And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them." Mark adds something which lights up the whole picture (Mar_9:36 ). "And he took a child and put him in the midst of them; and taking him in his arms, he said to them..." In the lovely picture of Jesus and the children, when Jesus rebuked the disciples for keeping the children from him, only Mark finishes, "and he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands upon them." (Mar_10:13-16 ; compare Mat_19:13-15 ; Luk_18:15-17 .) All the tenderness of Jesus is in these little vivid additions. When Mark is telling of the Feeding of the Five Thousand he alone tells how they sat down in hundreds and in fifties, looking like vegetable beds in a garden (Mar_6:40 ) and immediately the whole scene rises before us. When Jesus and his disciples were on the last journey to Jerusalem, only Mark tells us, "and Jesus went before them." (Mar_10:32 ; compare Mat_20:17 ; Luk_18:31 ); and in that one vivid little phrase all the loneliness of Jesus stands out. When Mark is telling the story of the stilling of the storm he has one little sentence that none of the other gospel-writers have. "And he was in the hinder part of the ship asleep on a pillow" (Mar_4:38 ). And that one touch makes the picture vivid before our eyes.

There can be little doubt that all these details are due to the fact that Peter was an eyewitness and was seeing these things again with the eye of memory.

(v) Markrealism and his simplicity come out in his Greek style.

(a) His style is not carefully wrought and polished. He tells the story as a child might tell it. He adds statement to statement connecting them simply with the word "and." In the third chapter of the gospel, in the Greek, there are 34 clauses or sentences one after another introduced by "and" after one principal verb. It is the way in which an eager child would tell the story.

(b) He is very fond of the words "and straightway," "and immediately." They occur in the gospel almost 30 times. It is sometimes said of a story that "it marches." But Markstory does not so much march; he rushes on in a kind of breathless attempt to make the story as vivid to others as it is to himself.

(c) He is very fond of the historic present. That is to say, in the Greek he talks of events in the present tense instead of in the past. "And when Jesus heard it, he says to them, ose who are strong do not need a doctor, but those who are ill (Mar_2:17 .) "And when they come near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and to Bethany, to the Mount of Olives, he sends two of his disciples, and says to them, into the village opposite you... (Mar_11:1-2 .) "And immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas, one of The Twelve, comes." (Mar_14:43 .)

Generally speaking we do not keep these historic presents in translation, because in English they do not sound well; but they show how vivid and real the thing was to Markmind, as if it was happening before his very eyes.

(d) He quite often gives us the very Aramaic words which Jesus used. To Jairus aughter, Jesus said, "Talitha (G5008) cumi (G2891)." (Mar_5:41 .) To the deaf man with the impediment in his speech he said, "Ephphatha (G2188)." (Mar_7:34 .) The dedicated gift is "Corban (G2878)." (Mar_7:11 .) In the Garden he says, "Abba (G5), Father." (Mar_14:36 .) On the Cross he cries, "Eloi (G1682) Eloi (G1682) lama (G2982) sabachthani (G4518)?" (Mar_15:34 .)

There were times when Peter could hear again the very sound of Jesusoice and could not help giving the thing to Mark in the very words that Jesus spoke.

The Essential Gospel

It would not be unfair to call Mark the essential gospel. We will do well to study with loving care the earliest gospel we possess, the gospel where we hear again the preaching of Peter himself.

FURTHER READING

P. Carrington, According to Mark (E)

R. A. Cole, The Gospel According to St Mark (TC; E)

C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to St. Mark (CGT; G)

F. C. Grant, The Earliest Gospel (E)

A. M. Hunter, St Mark (Tch; E)

Sherman E. Johnson, The Gospel According to St Mark (ACB; E)

R. H. Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St Mark (E)

A. Menzies, The Earliest Gospel (G)

D. E. Nineham, The Gospel of St Mark (PC; E)

A. E. J. Rawlinson, The Gospel According to St Mark (WC; E)

H. B. Swete, The Gospel According to St Mark (MmC; G)

V. Taylor, The Gospel According to St Mark (MmC; G)

C. H. Turner, St Mark (E)

Abbreviations

ACB: A. and C. Black New Testament Commentary

CGT: Cambridge Greek Text

MmC: Macmillan Commentary

PC: Pelican New Testament Commentary

TC: Tyndale Commentary

Tch: Torch Commentary

WC: Westminster Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: Mark 14 (Chapter Introduction)

The Last Act Begins (Mar_14:1-2)

Love's Extravagance (Mar_14:3-9)

The Traitor (Mar_14:10-11)

Preparing For The Feast (Mar_14:12-16)

Love's Last Appeal (Mar_14:17-21)

The Symbol Of Salvation (Mar_14:22-26)

The Failure Of Friends (Mar_14:27-31)

Thy Will Be Done (Mar_14:32-42)

The Arrest (Mar_14:43-50)

A Certain Young Man (Mar_14:51-52)

The Trial (Mar_14:53; Mar_14:55-65)

Courage And Cowardice (Mar_14:54; Mar_14:66-72)

Constable: Mark (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Writer

The writer did not identify himself as the writer anywhere in this Gospel. There are many statements of the early church fathers, however, that identify John Mark as the writer.

The earliest reference of this type is in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History (c. 326 A.D.).¹ Eusebius quoted Papius' Exegesis of the Lord's Oracles (c. 140 A.D.), a work now lost. Papius quoted "the Elder," probably the Apostle John, who said the following things about this Gospel. Mark wrote it though he was not a disciple of Jesus during Jesus' ministry nor an eyewitness of Jesus' ministry. He accompanied the Apostle Peter and listened to his preaching. He based his Gospel on the eyewitness account and spoken ministry of Peter. Mark did not write his Gospel in strict chronological sequence, but he recorded accurately what Peter remembered of Jesus' words and deeds. He considered himself an interpreter of Peter's content. By this John probably meant that Mark recorded the teaching of Peter for the church though not necessarily verbatim as Peter expressed himself.² Finally the Apostle John said that Mark's account is wholly reliable.

Another important source of the tradition that Mark wrote this Gospel is the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Mark (160-180 A.D.). It also stated that Mark received his information from Peter. Moreover it recorded that Mark wrote after Peter died and that he wrote this Gospel in Italy.

Irenaeus (c. 180-185 A.D.), another early church father, added that Mark wrote after Peter and Paul had died.³

Other early tradition documenting these facts comes from Justin Martyr (c. 150-160 A.D.), Clement of Alexandria (c. 195 A.D.), Tertullian (c. 200 A.D.), the Muratorian Canon (c. 200 A.D.), and Origen (c. 230 A.D.). Significantly this testimony dates from the end of the second century. Furthermore it comes from three different centers of early Christianity: Asia Minor (modern Turkey), Rome (in Italy), and Alexandria (in Egypt). Thus there is strong evidence that Mark wrote this Gospel.

The Mark in view is the John Mark mentioned frequently in the New Testament (Acts 12:12, 25; 13:5, 13; 15:36-39; Col. 4:10; Phile. 24; 2 Tim. 4:11; 1 Pet. 5:13). He was evidently a relative of Barnabas who accompanied Barnabas and Paul on their first missionary journey but left these apostles when they reached Perga. He became useful to Paul during Paul's second Roman imprisonment. He was also with Peter when Peter was in Rome, and Peter described him as his "son," probably his protégé.

It seems unlikely that the early church would have accepted this Gospel as authoritative, since its writer was a secondary figure, without having convincing proof that Mark wrote it. Perhaps Luke showed special interest in John Mark in Acts because he was the writer of this Gospel more than because he caused a breach between Paul and Barnabas.⁴

Date

The earliest Mark could have written, if the testimonies of the Anti-Marcionite Prologue and Irenaeus are correct, was after the death of Peter and Paul. The most probable dates of Peter's martyrdom in Rome are 64-67 A.D. Paul probably died as a martyr there in 67-68 A.D. Clement of Alexandria and Origen both placed the composition of this Gospel during Peter's lifetime. This may mean that Mark wrote shortly before Peter died. Perhaps Mark began his Gospel during Peter's last years in Rome and completed it after Peter's death.

The latest Mark could have written was probably 70 A.D. when Titus destroyed Jerusalem. Many scholars believe that since no Gospel writer referred to this event, which fulfilled prophecy, they all wrote before it.

To summarize, Mark probably wrote this Gospel sometime between 63 and 70 A.D.

Origin and Destination

Early tradition says Mark wrote in Italy⁵ and in Rome.⁶

This external testimony finds support in the internal evidence of the Gospel itself. Many indications in the text point to Mark's having written for Gentile readers originally, particularly Romans. He explained Jewish customs that would have been strange to Gentile readers (e.g., 7:2-4; 15:42). He translated Aramaic words that would have been unfamiliar to Gentiles (3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 15:22). Compared to Matthew and Luke he used many Latinisms and Latin loan words indicating Roman influence. He showed special interest in persecution and martyrdom that would have been of special interest to Roman readers when he wrote (e.g., 8:34-38; 13:9-13). Christians were suffering persecution in Rome and throughout the empire then. Finally the early circulation and widespread acceptance of this Gospel among Christians suggest that it originated from and went to a powerful and influential church.⁷

Characteristics

Notice first some linguistic characteristics. Mark used a relatively limited vocabulary when he wrote this Gospel. For example, he used only about 80 words that occur nowhere else in the Greek New Testament compared with Luke's Gospel that contains about 250 such words. Another unique feature is that Mark also liked to transliterate Latin words into Greek. However the Aramaic language also influenced Mark's Greek. He evidently translated into Greek many of Peter's stories that Peter spoke in Aramaic. The result was sometimes rather rough and ungrammatical Greek compared with Luke who had a much more polished style of writing. However, Mark used a forceful, fresh, and vigorous style of writing. This comes through in his frequent use of the historical present tense that expresses action as happening at once. It is also obvious in his frequent use of the Greek adverb euthys translated "immediately."⁸ The resulting effect is that as one reads Mark's Gospel one feels that he or she is reading a reporter's eyewitness account of the events.

"Though primarily engaged in an oral rather than a written ministry, D. L. Moody was in certain respects a modern equivalent to Mark as a communicator of the gospel. His command of English was seemingly less than perfect and there were moments when he may have wounded the grammatical sensibilities of some of the more literate members of his audiences, but this inability never significantly hindered him in communicating the gospel with great effectiveness. In a similar way, Mark's occasional literary lapses have been no handicap to his communication in this gospel in which he skillfully set forth the life and ministry of Jesus."⁹

Mark also recorded many intimate details that only an eyewitness would observe (e.g., 1:27, 41, 43; 2:12; 3:5; 7:34; 9:5-6, 10; 10:24, 32). He addressed his readers directly (e.g., 2:10; 7:19), through Jesus' words (e.g., 13:37), and with the use of rhetorical questions addressed to them (e.g., 4:41). This gives the reader the exciting feeling that he or she is interacting with the story personally. It also impresses the reader with the need for him or her to respond to what the story is presenting. Specifically Mark wanted his readers to believe that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God and to follow Him.

Mark stressed Jesus' acts and gave a prominent place to His miracles in this Gospel. He recorded fewer of Jesus' words and more of His works. Jesus comes through Mark's Gospel as a man of action. Mark emphasized Jesus' role as the Servant of the Lord.

"Mark's story of Jesus is one of swift action and high drama. Only twice, in chapters 4 and 13, does Jesus pause to deliver extended discourses."¹⁰

Candor also marks this Gospel. Mark did not glorify the disciples but recorded them doing unflattering things such as criticizing Jesus. He also described the hostility of Jesus' family members toward Him. He stressed the human reactions and emotions of Jesus.

This Gospel presents a high christology beginning with the introduction of Jesus as the Son of God (1:1). Mark revealed Jesus' preference for the title "Son of man," which He used to describe Himself frequently.

Purpose

These characteristics help us understand Mark's purpose for writing, which he did not state directly. Mark's purpose was not just to give his readers a biographical or historical account of Jesus' life. He had a more practical purpose. The biographical material he chose to include and omit suggests that he wanted to enable his Christian readers to endure suffering and persecution for their faith effectively. To do this he recorded much about Jesus' sufferings. About one third of this Gospel deals with the passion of Jesus. Moreover there are many other references to suffering throughout the book (e.g., 1:12-13; 3:21-22, 30-35; 8:34-38; 10:30, 33-34, 45; 13:8, 11-13). Clearly Mark implied that faithfulness and obedience as a disciple of Jesus will inevitably result in opposition, suffering, and perhaps death. This emphasis would have ministered to the original readers who were undergoing persecution for their faith. It is a perennial need in pastoral ministry.¹¹

Mark had a theological as well as a pastoral purpose in writing. It was to stress the true humanity of the Son of God. Whereas Matthew presented Jesus as the Messiah, Mark showed that He was the human servant of God who suffered as no other person has suffered. Mark stressed Jesus' obedience to His Father's will. This emphasis makes Jesus an example for all disciples to follow (10:45). One wonders if Mark presented Jesus as he did to balance a tendency that existed in the early church to think of Jesus as divine but not fully human.

Mark's position among the Gospels

It is common today for scholars to hold Markan priority. This is the view that Mark wrote his Gospel first and the other Gospel evangelists wrote after he did. This view has become popular since the nineteenth century. Before that most biblical scholars believed that Matthew wrote his Gospel first. Since then many scholars have concluded that Mark was one of the two primary sources that the other Synoptic Gospel writers used, the other being Q.¹² There is presently no definitive solution to this problem of which came first.

Scholars favoring Markan priority base their view on the fact that Mark contains about 90% of what is in Matthew and about 40% of what is in Luke. Matthew and Luke usually follow Mark's order of events, and they rarely agree against the content of Mark when they all deal with the same subject. Matthew and Luke also often repeat Mark's wording, and they sometime interpret and tone down some of Mark's statements. Normally Mark's accounts are fuller than Matthew and Luke's suggesting that they may have edited his work.

However sometimes Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in a particular account. Luke omitted a large section of Mark's material including all of what is in Mark 6:45-8:26. Moreover in view of the traditional dating of Mark late in the 60s, if Mark wrote first, Matthew and Luke must have written after the fall of Jerusalem. This seems unlikely since that event fulfilled prophecy, but neither writer cited the fulfillment as such.¹³

All things considered I favor Matthean priority. However this debate is not crucial to the interpretation of the text.

Message¹⁴

Matthew presents Jesus in the purple and gold of royalty. Mark portrays Him in the brown and green of a servant who has come to do His Father's will.

The message of the book is similar to Matthew's message. A concise statement of it appears in 1:14-15. This is the message that Jesus proclaimed throughout His earthly ministry.

Another verse that is key to understanding the message of this Gospel is 10:45. This verse provides the unique emphasis of the book, Jesus' role as a servant, and a general outline of its contents.

First, the Son of Man came. That is the secret of the Incarnation. The Son of Man was God incarnate in human nature. His identity is a major theme in this Gospel.

Second, the Son of Man did not come to be ministered to but to minister. That is the secret of service. This Gospel also has much to teach disciples about service to God and mankind.

Third, the Son of Man came to give His life a ransom for many. That is the secret of His sufferings. Mark's Gospel stresses the sufferings of the Suffering Servant of the Lord. Mark is the Gospel of the Servant of God.

Jesus was, of course, by nature the Son of God. He is and ever has been equal with the Father because He shares the same divine nature. However in the Incarnation, Jesus became the Servant of God.

The idea of a divine Servant of God was an Old Testament revelation. Isaiah had more to say about the Servant of the Lord than any other Old Testament prophet, though many other prophets spoke of Him too.

In the New Testament the Apostle Paul expounded the significance of Jesus becoming the Servant of God more than any other writer. His great Kenosis passage in Philippians 2 helps us grasp what it meant for the Son of God to become the Servant of God. In the Incarnation, Jesus limited Himself. He did not cease to be God, but He poured Himself into the nature and body of a man. This limited His divine powers. Moreover He submitted Himself to a mission that the Father prescribed for Him that constrained His divine freedom. Mark presents Jesus as a real man who was also God in the role of a servant.

Let us consider first the nature of Jesus' service. The first and the last verses of this Gospel help us understand the nature of Jesus' service. Notice 1:1.

The second person of the Trinity became a servant to create a gospel, to provide good news for human beings. This good news is that Jesus has provided salvation for mankind. To provide salvation the eternal Son became a servant. Whenever the Bible speaks of Jesus as a servant it is always talking about His providing salvation.

Mark began by citing Isaiah who predicted the Servant of God (1:3, from Isa. 40:3). The quotation from Malachi in verse 2 is only introductory. This is very significant because Mark, unlike Matthew, rarely quoted from the Old Testament. Isaiah pictured One who would come to accomplish God's purpose of providing a final salvation. His picture of the Servant became more distinct and detailed, like a portrait under construction, until in chapter 53 Isaiah depicted the Servant's awful sufferings. This chapter is the great background for the second Gospel, as Psalm 110 lies behind the first Gospel.

The picture of the Servant suffering on the Cross is the last in a series that Mark has given us. He also shows the Servant suffering in His struggle against the forces of Satan and His demons. Another picture is of the Servant suffering the opposition of Israel's religious leaders. Another one is of the Servant suffering the dullness and misunderstanding of even His own disciples. These are all major themes in Mark's Gospel that have in common the view of Jesus as the Suffering Servant.

Turning to the Apostle Paul's theological exposition of the Suffering Servant theme in Scripture we note that he picked up another of Mark's emphases. Mark did not just present Jesus as the Suffering Servant as an interesting theological revelation. He showed what that means for disciples of the Suffering Servant. We need to adopt the same attitude that Jesus had (Phil. 2:5). Disciples of the Suffering Servant should expect and prepare for the same experiences He encountered. We need to have the same graciousness, humility, and love that He did. The Son of God emptied Himself to become a servant of God and man. We must also sacrifice ourselves for the same purpose.

Isaiah revealed that the central meaning of the Servant's mission was to provide salvation through self-sacrifice (Isa. 53). Paul also revealed that the Son became a servant to provide salvation through self-sacrifice (Phil. 2). The only sense in which the Son of God became the Servant of the Lord is that He created a gospel by providing salvation from the slavery of sin.

When Jesus began His public ministry He announced, "The time is fulfilled" (1:15). The person Isaiah and the other prophets had predicted had drawn near. God had drawn near by becoming a man. He had drawn near in the form of a humble servant. He was heading for the Cross. He would conquer what had ruined man and nature. He would provide good news for humankind, and He would return one day to establish His righteous empire over all the earth in grace and glory.

"Jesus" was His human name. "Messiah" was the title that described His role, though most people misunderstood it. "Son of God" was the title that represented His deity. These three are primary in Mark's Gospel.

Second, we need to observe what Mark teaches about the characteristics of Jesus' service.

Note Jesus' sympathy with sinners. Mark recorded no word of severity coming from Jesus' lips for sinners. Jesus reserved His severity for hypocrites, those who pretend to be righteous but are really rotten. He was hard on them because they ruined the lives of other people.

Sympathy comes from suffering. We have sympathy for someone who is undergoing some painful experience that we have gone through. It is hard to sympathize with someone whose experience is foreign to us.

Sympathy comes from suffering and it manifests itself in sacrifice. It involves bearing one another's burdens. Jesus' sympathy for us sinners arose from His sharing our sufferings, and it became obvious when He sacrificed Himself for us. If there was ever anyone who bore the burdens of others, it was Jesus (10:45).

Third, note the result of Jesus' service. It is the gospel. Reference to the gospel opens and closes this book (1:1; 16:20). The gospel is the good news that Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3-4).

When Jesus arose from the dead, His disciples were fearful, and they refused to believe He was alive. Jesus' strongest words of criticism of them occur in 16:14. This is the climax of the theme of the disciples' unbelief that runs through this Gospel. Look what He said to them immediately after that (16:15). He sent them out to proclaim the good news of salvation accomplished to every creature. The resurrection of the Servant is the great proof of the acceptability of His service, and it demands service of His disciples.

The abiding appeal of this book is, "Repent and believe the gospel" (1:15). Repenting is preliminary. Believing is the essential call.

Jesus did not preach that people should believe into the gospel (Gr. eis) nor that they should believe close to the gospel (Gr. apo). He called them to rest in the gospel (Gr. en). The gospel is a sphere of rest. We can have confidence in the gospel, put our trust in it, and rest in it.

The unbelievers in Mark's Gospel refused to rest in the reality that Jesus was not just a human Messiah come to deliver Israel from Rome but the divine Son of God. The disciples had little rest because they still could not overcome the limited traditional misconceptions of Messiah's role in history even though they believed that Jesus was God's Son.

The application of this Gospel to the church as a whole is, "Believe the gospel." As the disciples believed but struggled to believe, so the church needs to have a continuing and growing confidence in the gospel of the Servant of God.

It is a message of pardon and of power. Peter had to learn that it was a message of pardon after his triple denial of Jesus. All the disciples had to learn it is a message of power after they refused to believe that God had raised Jesus back to life.

When the church loses its confidence in the gospel, its service becomes weak. If we doubt the power of the gospel, we have no message for people who are the servants of sin. The measure of our confidence in the gospel will be the measure of our effectiveness as God's servants.

How can we have greater confidence in the gospel? It is not by studying or trying or experiencing. It is by the illuminating work of God's Holy Spirit in our hearts. Jesus' disciples were blind until God opened their eyes first to Jesus' true identity and then to Jesus' central place in time and history. They huddled in unbelief following the resurrection until the Holy Spirit illuminated their understanding about the significance of the resurrection. Then they went everywhere proclaiming the gospel (16:20).

Mark calls individual disciples of Jesus to believe in this gospel, to rest in it for pardon from sin and for power for service. It tells the story of the perfect Servant of God whose perfected service is perfecting salvation. God's Son became a servant to get near people, to help them, to lift us. That is the good news people need to hear. That is what it means to preach the gospel.

Constable: Mark (Outline)

Outline

I. Introduction 1:1-13

A. The title of the book 1:1

B. Jesus' preparation for ministry 1:2-13

1. The ministry of John the Baptist 1:2-8

2. The baptism of Jesus 1:9-11

3. The temptation of Jesus 1:12-13

II. The Servant's early Galilean ministry 1:14-3:6

A. The beginning of Jesus' ministry 1:14-20

1. The message of the Servant 1:14-15

2. The first disciples of the Servant 1:16-20

B. Early demonstrations of the Servant's authority 1:21-34

1. Jesus' teaching and healing in the Capernaum synagogue 1:21-28

2. The healing of Peter's mother-in-law 1:29-31

3. Jesus' healing of many Galileans after sundown 1:32-34

C. Jesus' early ministry throughout Galilee 1:35-45

1. The first preaching tour of Galilee 1:35-39

2. The cleansing of a leprous Jew 1:40-45

D. Jesus' initial conflict with the religious leaders 2:1-3:6

1. The healing and forgiveness of a paralytic 2:1-12

2. The call of Levi and his feast 2:13-17

3. The religious leaders' question about fasting 2:18-22

4. The controversies about Sabbath observance 2:23-3:6

III. The Servant's later Galilean ministry 3:7-6:6a

A. The broadening of Jesus' ministry 3:7-19

1. Jesus' ministry to the multitudes 3:7-12

2. Jesus' selection of 12 disciples 3:13-19

B. The increasing rejection of Jesus and its result 3:20-4:34

1. The increasing rejection of Jesus 3:20-35

2. Jesus' teaching in parables 4:1-34

C. Jesus' demonstrations of power and the Nazarenes' rejection 4:35-6:6a

1. The demonstrations of Jesus' power 4:35-5:43

2. Jesus rejection by the Nazarenes 6:1-6a

IV. The Servant's self-revelation to the disciples 6:6b-8:30

A. The mission of the Twelve 6:6b-30

1. The sending of the Twelve 6:6b-13

2. The failure of Antipas to understand Jesus' identity 6:14-29

3. The return of the Twelve 6:30

B. The first cycle of self-revelation to the disciples 6:31-7:37

1. The feeding of the 5,000 6:31-44

2. Jesus' walking on the water and the return to Galilee 6:45-56

3. The controversy with the Pharisees and scribes over defilement 7:1-23

4. Jesus' teaching about bread and the exorcism of a Phoenician girl 7:24-30

5. The healing of a deaf man with a speech impediment 7:31-36

6. The preliminary confession of faith 7:37

C. The second cycle of self-revelation to the disciples 8:1-30

1. The feeding of the 4,000 8:1-9

2. The return to Galilee 8:10

3. Conflict with the Pharisees over signs 8:11-13

4. Jesus' teaching about the yeast of the Pharisees and Herod 8:14-21

5. The healing of a blind man near Bethsaida 8:22-26

6. Peter's confession of faith 8:27-30

V. The Servant's journey to Jerusalem 8:31-10:52

A. The first passion prediction and its lessons 8:31-9:29

1. The first major prophecy of Jesus' passion 8:31-33

2. The requirements of discipleship 8:34-9:1

3. The Transfiguration 9:2-8

4. The coming of Elijah 9:9-13

5. The exorcism of an epileptic boy 9:14-29

B. The second passion prediction and its lessons 9:30-10:31

1. The second major prophecy of Jesus' passion 9:30-32

2. The pitfalls of discipleship 9:33-50

3. Lessons concerning self-sacrifice 10:1-31

C. The third passion prediction and its lessons 10:32-52

1. The third major prophecy of Jesus' passion 10:32-34

2. Jesus' teaching about serving 10:35-45

3. The healing of a blind man near Jericho 10:46-52

VI. The Servant's ministry in Jerusalem chs. 11-13

A. Jesus' formal presentation to Israel 11:1-26

1. The Triumphal Entry 11:1-11

2. Jesus' judgment on unbelieving Israel 11:12-26

B. Jesus' teaching in the temple 11:27-12:44

1. The controversy over Jesus' authority 11:27-12:12

2. The controversy over Jesus' teaching 12:13-37

3. Jesus' condemnation of hypocrisy and commendation of reality 12:38-44

C. Jesus teaching on Mt. Olivet ch. 13

1. The setting 13:1-4

2. Warnings against deception 13:5-8

3. Warnings about personal danger during deceptions 13:9-13

4. The coming crisis 13:14-23

5. The second coming of the Son of 13:24-27

6. The time of Jesus' return 13:28-32

7. The concluding exhortation 13:33-37

VII. The Servant's passion ministry chs. 14-15

A. The Servant's anticipation of suffering 14:1-52

1. Jesus' sufferings because of betrayal 14:1-11

2. Jesus' sufferings because of desertion 14:12-52

B. The Servant's endurance of suffering 14:53-15:47

1. Jesus' Jewish trial 14:53-15:1

2. Jesus' Roman trial 15:2-20

3. Jesus' crucifixion, death, and burial 15:21-47

VIII. The Servant's resurrection ch. 16

A. The announcement of Jesus' resurrection 16:1-8

B. The appearances and ascension of Jesus 16:9-20

1. Three post-resurrection appearances 16:9-18

2. Jesus' ascension 16:19-20

Constable: Mark

Mark

Bibliography

Adams, J. McKee. Biblical Backgrounds. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1965.

Alexander, Joseph Addison. The Gospel According to Mark. 1881. Reprint ed. London: Banner of Truth, 1960.

Alexander, William M. Demonic Possession in the New Testament: Its Relations Historical, Medical, and Theological. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902.

Anderson, Hugh. The Gospel of Mark. New Century Bible series. Greenwood, S. C.: Attic Press, 1976.

Andrews, Samuel J. The Life of Our Lord Upon the Earth. 1862. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1954.

Bailey, Mark L., and Constable, Thomas L. The New Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing, 1999.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. A Commentary on Mark Thirteen. London: Macmillan, 1957.

Best, E. The Temptation and the Passion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Bishop, Eric F. F. Jesus of Palestine: The Local Background to the Gospel Documents. London: Lutterworth, 1955.

Blunt, A. W. F. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. The Clarendon Bible series. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929.

Boobyer, G. H. "Mark II, 10a and the Interpretation of the Healing of the Paralytic." Harvard Theological Review 47 (1954):115-20.

Bratcher, R. G., and Nida, E. A. Translator's Handbook on Mark. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961.

Brown, William E. "The New Testament Concept of the Believer's Inheritance." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1984.

Bruce, Alexander Balmain. "The Synoptic Gospels." In The Expositor's Greek Testament. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1910.

Burgon, John W. The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark. 1871. Reprint ed. N. c.: Sovereign Grace Book Club, 1959.

Calvin, John. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979.

Carl, Harold F. "Only the Father Knows: Historical and Evangelical Responses to Jesus' Eschatological Ignorance in Mark 13:32." A paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Nov. 16, 2000, Nashville, TN.

Carrington, P. According to Mark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960.

Chantry, Walter J. "Does the New Testament Teach the Fourth Commandment?" The Banner of Truth 325 (October 1990):18-23.

Clarke, W. N. "Commentary on the Gospel of Mark." In An American Commentary. 1881. Reprint ed. Phildelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, n. d.

Cole, R. A The Gospel According to Mark. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. 2nd ed. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989.

Cranfield, C. E. B. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959.

_____. "St. Mark 13." Scottish Journal of Theology 6 (April 1953):165-96; (July 1953):287-303; 7 (April 1954):284-303.

Davis, C. Truman. "The Crucifixion of Jesus. The Passion of Christ from a Medical Point of View," Arizona Medicine 22:3 (March 1965):185-87.

Decker, Rodney J. "The Use of euthys (immediately') in Mark." Journal of Ministry and Theology 1:1 (Spring 1997):90-121.

A Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1906 ed. S.v. "Numbers, Hours, Years, and Dates," by W. M. Ramsay, extra volume:473-84.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Donahue, J. R. "Tax Collectors and Sinners: An Attempt at Identification." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33 (1971):39-61.

Doriani, Daniel. "The Deity of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:3 (September 1994):333-50.

Earle, Ralph. The Gospel According to Mark. The Evangelical Commentary on the Bible series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1957.

The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus. Twin Brooks series. Popular ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Edersheim, Alfred. The Temple: Its Ministry and Services. London: Religious Tract Society, n. d.

Edwards, James R. "The Authority of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:2 (June 1994):217-33.

Ellenburg, B. Dale. "A Review of Selected Narrative-Critical Conventions in Mark's Use of Miracle Material." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:2 (June 1995):171-80.

English, E. Schuyler. "A Neglected Miracle." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):300-5.

Garlington, Don B. "Jesus, the Unique Son of God: Tested and Faithful." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:603 (July-September 1994):284-308.

Gould, Ezra P. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark. Internationa Critical Commentary series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896.

Grassi, Joseph A. "Abba, Father (Mark 14:36): Another Approach." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 50:3 (September 1982):449-58.

Grassmick, John D. "Mark." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 95-197. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Green, Michael P. "The Meaning of Cross-Bearing." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:558 (April-June 1983):117-33.

Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1-8:26. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1989.

Gundry, Robert H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993.

Heil, John Paul. "Mark 14, 1-52: Narrative Structure and Reader Response." Biblica 71:3 (1990):305-32.

Hellerman, Joseph H. "Challenging the Authority of Jesus: Mark 11:27-33 and Mediterranean Notions of Honor and Shame." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:2 (June 2000):213-28.

Hiebert, D. Edmond Mark: A Portrait of the Servant. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Hodges, Zane C. "The Blind Men at Jericho." Biblitheca Sacra 122:488 (October-December 1965):319-30.

_____. "The Women and the Empty Tomb." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:492 (October-December 1966):301-9.

Hoehner, Harold W. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.

Hort, A. F. The Gospel According to St. Mark. 1902. Reprint ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928.

Hunter, A. M. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. Torch Bible Commentary series. London: SCM, 1967.

Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A. R.; and Brown, David. A Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments. 2 vols. Hartford: S. S. Scranton, n. d.

Jeremias, Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. 2nd ed. New York: Scribners, 1966.

_____. New Testament Theology. New York: Scribners, 1971.

_____. The Parables of Jesus. Translated by S. H. Hooke. London: SCM, 1963.

Johnson, S. Lewis, Jr. "The Gift of Tongues and the Book of Acts." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:480 (October-December 1963):309-11.

Johnson, Sherman E. A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark. Black's New Testament Commentaries series. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1960.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kelly, William. An Exposition of the Gospel of Mark. Reprint ed. London: C. A. Hammond, 1934.

Kingsbury, J. D. Conflict in Mark: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.

Lane, William L. The Gospel According to Mark. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Mark's Gospel. Minneapolis: Wartburg Press, 1946.

Lowery, David K. "A Theology of Mark." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 65-86. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

MacArthur, John A., Jr. The Gospel According to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1988.

Maclaren, Alexander. "St. Mark." In Expositions of Holy Scripture. Vol. 8. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1944.

Maclear, G. F. "The Gospel According to St. Mark." In Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1890.

Martin, R. P. Mark: Evangelist and Theologian. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972.

Matera, Frank J. "The Prologue as the Interpretitive Key to Mark's Gospel." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34 (October 1988):3-20.

Merrill, Eugene H. "Deuteronomy, New Testament Faith, and the Christian Life." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 19-33. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London: United Bible Societies, 1971.

Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. "Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Gospels of Mark and Luke." In Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Translated, revised, and edited by William P. Dickson. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884.

The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morison, James. A Practical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark. 8th ed. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1896.

Moule, C. F. D. The Gospel According to Mark. The Cambridge Bible Commentary series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Moulton, James Hope, and Milligan, George. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1930.

Murray, John. Divorce. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1974.

Nineham, D. E. Saint Mark. Pelical Gospel Commentary series. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1963.

Overstreet, R. Larry. "Roman Law and the Trial of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-December 1978):323-32.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. The Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

Peterson, Robert A. "Does the Bible Teach Annihilationism?" Bibliotheca Sacra 156:621 (January-March 1999):13-27.

Plummer, Alfred. "The Gospel According to St. Mark" In The Cambridge Greek Testament. 1914. Reprint ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938.

Rawlinson, A. E. J. The Gospel According to St. Mark. Westminster Commentaries series. London: Methuen, 1949.

Rhoads, David M., and Michie, Donald M. Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982.

Riddle, Matthew B. "The Gospel According to Mark." In International Revision Commentary on the New Testament. New York: Scribner, 1881.

Rogers, Cleon L., Jr. "The Davidic Covenant in Acts-Revelation." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March):71-84.

Santos, Narry F. "Jesus' Paradoxical Teaching in Mark 8:35; 9:35; and 10:43-44." Bibliotheca Sacra 157:625 (January-March 2000):15-25.

_____. "The Paradox of Authority and Servanthood in the Gospel of Mark." Bibliotheca Sacra 154:616 (October-December 1997):452-60.

Schweizer, Eduard. The Good News According to Mark. London: SPCK, 1971.

Showers, Renald E. Maranatha Our Lord, Come: A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church. Bellmawr, Pa.: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1995.

Smith, Geoffrey. "A Closer Look at the Widow's Offering: Mark 12:41-44." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:1 (March 1997)27-36.

Smith, George Adam. The Historical Geography of the Holy Land. New York: Armstrong and Son, 1909.

Stauffer, Ethelbert Jesus and His Story. Translated by Richard and Clara Winston. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960.

Sugirtharajah, R. S. "The Syrophoenician Woman." The Expository Times 98:1 (October 1986):13-15.

Swete, Henry Barclay. The Gospel According to St. Mark. 1898. Reprint ed. London: Macmillan, 1905.

Taylor, Vincent. The Gospel According to St. Mark. 2nd ed. New York: St. Martins Press, 1966.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. S.v. "basilia," by K. L. Schmidt.

_____. S.v. "pais," by Albrecht Oepke.

Unger, Merrill F. Biblical Demonology: A Study of the Spiritual Forces Behind the Present World Unrest. Wheaton: Van Kampen Press, 1952.

_____. Demons in the World Today. Wheaton: Tyndale, 1971.

_____. "Divine Healing." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:511 (July-September 1971):234-44.

Van der Loos, H. The Miracles of Jesus. Supplements to Novum Testamentum series. Vol. VIIII. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965.

Warfield, Benjamin B. An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1899.

Wessel, Walter W. "Mark." In Matthew-Luke. Vol. 8 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.

Williams, George. The Student's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 5th ed. London: Oliphants, 1949.

Williams, Joel F. "Discipleship and Minor Characters in Mark's Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:611 (July-September 1996):332-43.

_____. "Literary Approaches to the End of Mark's Gospel." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:1 (March 1999):21-35.

Wrede, William. The Messianic Secret. 1901. Reprint ed. Cambridge: James Clarke, 1971.

Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. S.v. "Sadducees," by D. A. Hagner.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p41mar-3@

Haydock: Mark (Book Introduction)

THE

HOLY GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST,

ACCORDING TO ST. MARK.

INTRODUCTION.

St. Mark, who wrote this Gospel, is called by St. Augustine, the abridger of St. Matthew; by St. Jerome, the disciple and interpreter of St. Peter; and according to Origen and St. Jerome, he is the same Mark whom St. Peter calls his son. Stilting, the Bollandist, (in the life of St. John Mark, T. vii. Sep. 27, p. 387, who was son of the sister of St. Barnabas) endeavours to prove that this was the same person as our evangelist; and this is the sentiment of St. Jerome, and some others: but the general opinion is that John, surnamed Mark, mentioned in Acts xii. was a different person. He was the disciple of St. Paul, and companion of St. Barnabas, and was with St. Paul, at Antioch, when our evangelist was with St. Peter at Rome, or at Alexandria, as Eusebius, St. Jerome, Baronius, and others observe. Tirinus is of opinion that the evangelist was not one of the seventy-two disciples, because as St. Peter calls him his son, he was converted by St. Peter after the death of Christ. St. Epiphanius, however, assures us he was one of the seventy-two, and forsook Christ after hearing his discourse on the Eucharist, (John vi.) but was converted by St. Peter after Christ's resurrection, hær. 51, chap. v. p. 528. --- The learned are generally of opinion, that the original was written in Greek, and not in Latin; for, though it was written at the request of the Romans, the Greek language was commonly understood amongst them; and the style itself sufficiently shews this to have been the case: ---

----------Omnia Græce;

Cum sit turpe magis nostris nescire Latine.--- Juvenal, Satyr vi.

The old manuscript in Latin, kept at Venice, and supposed by some to be the original, is shewn by Montfaucon and other antiquaries, to have been written in the sixth century, and contains the oldest copy extant of St. Jerome's version. --- St. Peter revised the work of St. Mark, approved of it, and authorized it to be read in the religious assemblies of the faithful; hence some, as we learn from Tertullian, attributed this gospel to St. Peter himself. St. Mark relates the same facts as St. Matthew, and often in the same words: but he adds several particular circumstances, and changes the order of the narration, in which he agrees with St. Luke and St. John. He narrates two histories not mentioned by St. Matthew; the widow's two mites, and Christ's appearing to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus; also some miraculous cures; (Mark i. 40; vii. 32; viii. 22, 26) and omits many things noticed by St. Matthew ... But nothing proves clearly, as Dom. Ceillier and others suppose, that he made use of St. Matthew's gospel. In his narrative he is concise, and he writes with a more pleasing simplicity and elegance.

It is certain that St. Mark was sent by St. Peter into Egypt, and was by him appointed bishop of Alexandria, (which, after Rome, was accounted the second city of the world) as Eusebius, St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and others assure us. He remained here, governing that flourishing church with great prudence, zeal, and sanctity. He suffered martyrdom in the 14th year of the reign of Nero, in the year of Christ 68, and three years after the death of Sts. Peter and Paul, at Alexandria, on the 25th of April; having been seized the previous day, which was Sunday, at the altar, as he was offering to God the prayer of the oblation, or the mass.

====================

Gill: Mark (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO MARK

This is the title of the book, the subject of which is the Gospel; a joyful account of the ministry, miracles, actions, and sufferings of Christ: the writer of it was not one of the twelve apostles, but an evangelist; the same with John Mark, or John, whose surname was Mark: John was his Hebrew name, and Mark his Gentile name, Act 12:12, and was Barnabas's sister's son, Col 4:10, his mother's name was Mary, Act 12:12. The Apostle Peter calls him his son, 1Pe 5:13, if he is the same; and he is thought to have wrote his Gospel from him ^a, and by his order, and which was afterwards examined and approved by him ^b it is said to have been wrote originally in Latin, or in the Roman tongue: so say the Arabic and Persic versions at the beginning of it, and the Syriac version says the same at the end: but of this there is no evidence, any more, nor so much, as of Matthew's writing his Gospel in Hebrew. The old Latin copy of this, is a version from the Greek; it is most likely that it was originally written in Greek, as the rest of the New Testament.

College: Mark (Book Introduction)

FOREWORD

No story is more important than the story of Jesus. I am confident that my comments do not do it justice. Even granting the limitations of a historical commentary (see the Introduction) there is so much more to be said. Nevertheless, the completion of a commentary on the Gospel of Mark accomplishes a goal I have wanted to reach for many years. I pray that my comments will help readers to develop a deeper understanding of Mark's story of Jesus as a basis for reflecting on Jesus' significance for their own lives.

I thank College Press for the opportunity to write in this series. I thank my colleague at Harding Graduate School Richard Oster (whose commentary on 1 Corinthians has appeared in the same series) for reading my manuscript and making many valuable suggestions. Another friend and colleague John Mark Hicks also provided helpful comments on several sections.

Most of all I thank Nancy, Amy, and Stacey, whose love and support are the dearest things on earth to me. The blessing they have been to me is second only to the blessing God has given to us all in the story about which I have been privileged to comment.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

INTRODUCTION

ABOUT THIS COMMENTARY

The intended audience of this book is the general reader with a serious interest in Scripture. This is not a work for scholars seeking to explore and press forward the edges of contemporary scholarship on Mark. Rather, I seek to make some of the fruits of others' scholarly research available to the general reader. I have been especially influenced by the commentaries by William Lane and Robert Gundry, the incomplete commentary on 1:1-8:26 by Robert Guelich, and the magisterial work on the death of Jesus by Raymond Brown. I often refer the reader to their scholarly works for further information, and even where I do not the reader would be well advised to consider them for a scholar's depth of treatment. Another fine source for further treatment with respect to many topics that arise in Mark is the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels , edited by Joel Green and Scot McKnight.

The purpose of the commentary is to provide a historical interpretation of the Gospel of Mark; that is, an interpretation of what Mark meant to say to his ancient audience. I write with the conviction that modern readers can only determine God's message to us after and on the basis of a determination of Mark's message to his ancient contemporaries. Because I believe God worked through Mark and inspired his work, I believe it has great relevance to every reader in every age. But we can only determine what it means to us if we have first determined what it meant when Mark wrote it. It is this latter task that it the focus of most commentaries, including this one. I will occasionally make comments about what a given passage means today, but not consistently. I will consistently comment on what Mark meant to say to his ancient readers. I hope and pray that my readers will recognize the contemporary relevance of Mark's work even though it will not be my purpose to point it out or illustrate it. My purpose is to provide a base to build on for contemporary application.

The commentary deals with historical meaning or intention on two levels. The first of those is the meaning intended by Mark for his contemporaries. John 21:25 says, "Jesus did many other things as well. If everyone of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." John points out that every Gospel writer must be selective. That is true with respect to which stories or sayings are selected and with respect to the perspective from which they are told and the amount of detail which is provided. The commentary consistently asks why Mark might have made his particular choices (which I assume were made under divine guidance).

The second level of meaning is the level of the intent of the historical characters Mark wrote about, especially Jesus. What did Jesus intend to convey to his contemporaries by his words and actions? A major part of Mark's intended meaning is to convey his understanding of Jesus' intended meaning. Therefore, it is important to ask both "What did Mark want his contemporaries to understand from this action or saying?" and "What did Jesus want his contemporaries (two to three decades earlier) to understand from this action or saying?" Concerning the latter question, the commentary will focus primarily on what one could learn about Jesus' intentions from Mark's account alone. On a few occasions, another Gospel will be brought into the discussion - but primarily for the purpose of solving some ambiguity or otherwise illuminating Mark's account.

I have generally not commented on the scholarly disputes concerning the historicity of various events and sayings in Mark. Most of them arise from the presupposition that Jesus did not work miracles. In this commentary I presuppose that he did and I assume the basic historicity of Mark's account. I comment only on a few well known problems of historicity which do not stem from antisupernaturalistic presuppositions.

In general, I have sought to provide deeper treatment of any recurring subject at the point where it is first mentioned in the text. For example, the titles "Christ" and "Son of God" are discussed primarily when they first arise in 1:1, and "Son of Man" is discussed in connection with 2:10. This means that the first chapter of the commentary is particularly important. It also means that readers will often want to look at the first text that mentions a particular theme. For example, it is important to supplement the comments on the centurion's confession of Jesus as the Son of God at 15:39 with the comments on the Son of God title at 1:1.

I have commented on the NIV text. In some places where it seems deficient, I have provided an alternative translation, often from the NRSV. The commentary makes note of the most significant textual variants and my opinions concerning them, but does not provide a list of manuscripts, versions, or church fathers. Interested readers should use the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament .

AUTHORSHIP

The author of the Gospel of Mark is not indicated within the text itself. However, the traditional understanding of the author is supported by the title and by early Christian writers.

The titles of the Gospels are first found in ancient manuscripts dating from the late second or early third centuries. Some scholars readily dismiss them as late second century creations. It is true that they seem to be creations of early church tradition rather than of the authors themselves. This can be observed by noting their stereotypical form "The Gospel according to _________" and by the clearer evidence that other New Testament book titles were not original. For example, Paul would hardly have designated the letter we know as 1 Corinthians by that name. Not only did letters not need a name but in 1 Cor 5 he speaks about a former letter he had written them. The titles of Paul's letters and of the Gospels represent the perspectives of those who collected and circulated them.

But that does not mean they are not to be trusted. Martin Hengel has well argued that the titles of the Gospels go back to the earliest days of their collection and distribution. Papias, a bishop in Asia Minor in the early second century, apparently knew of them. So did his source, "the elder" - presumably a generation older than Papias. Hengel correctly argues that as soon as there was more than one Gospel to read at church, it would have become necessary to name them. The lack of competing titles suggests that these titles were uniformly applied from the earliest days.

The second most important piece of information concerning the authorship of Mark is a paragraph written by the above-named Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (near Colossae and Laodicea). The pertinent statements were preserved by Eusebius from Papias's work, Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord , which was probably written within the first three decades of the second century. According to Eusebius Papias wrote:

And the presbyter used to say this: "Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord's oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them."

Papias believed a) that the author was a Mark closely associated with Peter and b) that what he wrote was essentially the preaching of Peter. These traditional understandings were repeated favorably by subsequent church fathers. Justin Martyr (writing c. A.D. 155-60) spoke of Mark's Gospel as "Peter's memoirs." In the late second century Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria described Mark as writing Peter's preaching. In the early third century Origen and Tertullian affirm the same tradition. The early date of Papias and the widespread support of his statements suggest that they might be correct.

The connection between Peter and Mark is supported by Peter going to John Mark's mother's house in Acts 12:12 and by Peter's reference to "my son Mark" in 1 Pet 5:13. The idea that Mark's Gospel was based on Peter's preaching is probably trustworthy. It is probably also true that what Peter usually did was tell various individual stories about Jesus rather than a sustained account. Mark's Gospel, like the others, is not in strict chronological order, although it does generally follow chronological lines.

Acts 12:12 and 25 suggests that the Mark that Peter would later refer to as "my son" was the same as the John Mark who was a companion of Paul and Barnabas on the first missionary journey and a source of dispute between them over whether to take him on their return trip (Acts 15:36-40). Col 4:10; Phlm 24; and 2 Tim 4:11 indicate that Paul was eventually reconciled with John Mark (and that John Mark was Barnabas' cousin). According to Acts 12:12 John Mark was from Jerusalem, but Papias and other ancient writers say that he did not follow Jesus before Jesus' death.

I will assume the author was John Mark of Jerusalem and that his Gospel was to some extent based upon the preaching of Peter.

AUDIENCE AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION

In the late second century Clement of Alexandria commented on the circumstances of Mark's writing, including the audience he wrote for and the place where he wrote. According to Eusebius Clement believed that:

When Peter had publicly preached the word at Rome, and by the Spirit had proclaimed the Gospel, those present, who were many, exhorted Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been spoken, to make a record of what was said: and that he did this, and distributed the Gospel among those that asked him. And that when the matter came to Peter's knowledge he neither strongly forbade it nor urged it forward.

However, Clement is not a very trustworthy source and his contemporary Irenaeus contradicted him by saying that Mark wrote his Gospel after the death of Peter.

Clement could be correct about Rome as the location for Mark's audience and his place of composition. Two other factors provide mild support for Rome. In 1 Pet 5:13, where Peter mentions Mark and calls him "my son," he indicates that he and Mark were in "Babylon." Most scholars believe Peter is referring to Rome, thus placing himself and Mark in Rome. Furthermore, Gundry and others argue that the frequent Latinisms (Latin loan words or other Latin influence on Mark's Greek) point to Italy. The Latinisms argument is, however, problematic. Some are not persuaded because many of the Latin terms used in Mark are military, judicial, or economic in nature and would be present throughout the empire.

What can be affirmed with more confidence is that Mark's audience contained many Gentiles. This is made clear in 7:3-4 when Mark must explain ritual cleanliness customs which he says are the practice of "all the Jews." Mark must envision non-Jews who would not know these practices. This does not mean he did not envision some Jews reading his work, but only that he included comments clearly aimed at Gentiles.

It is probable that the readers Mark had in mind were already Christians. Beginning with the citation of Scripture in 1:2-3 he occasionally cites or alludes to Scriptures in a way that seems to assume knowledge of and appreciation for the Old Testament. Coupled with the indications of a Gentile audience, the assumed knowledge of the Old Testament suggests either Gentiles who had been attracted to the synagogue or who had become Christians. Occasionally, more distinctly Christian knowledge seems to be assumed. For example, Mark never explains what John meant by Jesus baptizing with the Holy Spirit (1:8). Christian readers would know. A particularly interesting case is 15:21, which identifies Simon of Cyrene as the father of Alexander and Rufus. Apparently, the readers of Mark knew the two sons. But they were not well-known public figures. The most likely hypothesis to explain Mark's assumption is that they were known within the Christian community or at least that element of it which he had in mind.

Mark may have written his Gospel in Rome and for Roman Christians. In any case, he probably envisioned a Christian audience with many Gentiles.

DATE

As noted above, the earliest comments reflecting the date of Mark are by the late second century writers Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, who disagree on whether Mark was written prior to or after Peter's death. Very little concrete data is available to supplement their conflicting reflections. The most significant data in my opinion is the widespread hypothesis that Luke was dependent upon Mark coupled with a relatively early date for Luke-Acts. If Luke-Acts was complete by c. A.D. 62 and if Luke used Mark's Gospel, then Mark completed his work by the early sixties.

MAJOR THEMES AND STRUCTURE

A number of scholars agree that two themes stand out in Mark and that they are developed in a two-part structure for the book.

1. CHRISTOLOGY

One of the pervasive concerns of Mark is to portray Jesus as the authoritative Son of God and as the ultimate model of sacrificial service to God and humanity.

From the opening verse, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (1:1), it is clear that Mark wants to paint a portrait of Jesus. Although it is an obvious oversimplification, it is useful to look at Mark's portrait by emphasizing a key word for the first half of the book, "authority," and a key word for the second half, "service." The pivotal center of Mark's Gospel is the confession by Peter in 8:27-30 and the crucial discussion that follows in 8:31-9:1. The turning point is the disciples' confession that Jesus is the Christ. The first half of the book leads to this confession; the second half builds on it and defines the role of the Son of Man as that of service unto death.

In 1:1-8:30, the focus is on the authority of Jesus as exhibited in his miracles and teaching and in the testimony of others. John the Baptist says, "After me will come one more powerful than I" (1:7). God declares, "You are my Son, whom I love" (1:11). Jesus summons fishermen, and they drop everything to follow him (1:16-20). When he teaches, the people "were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority" (1:22). When he casts out demons, they declare, "He even gives orders to evil spirits and they obey him" (1:27). The first eight chapters are permeated with features like these examples from the first chapter. Jesus' authority is repeatedly emphasized.

The question underlying most of these stories surfaces plainly in 4:41, "Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!" Who, indeed, is this one with such authority that his teaching transcends that of the teachers of the law, that he forgives sins, that he controls sickness, disease, demons, nature, and even death?

The resounding answer is already given to the reader in 1:1, but is finally clear to the disciples in 8:29. At this point a new stage is opened up: "He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things . . ." (8:31). The disciples do not readily grasp this new understanding either. Peter immediately objects (8:32). Throughout the remainder of the book, Jesus repeatedly works with the disciples to try to get them to see that the Son of Man "did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (10:45).

The fact that this authoritative figure who commanded nature, disease, demons, and death would submit to death in suffering service is a key theme permeating everything after 8:31. Even though the second half of the book continues to emphasize Jesus' authority, the focus turns more and more toward the cross. This focus is explicit in Jesus' own statements about his coming suffering (8:31; 9:12, 31; 10:32-34, 45; 14:18-21, 24-25, 27, 41). The shadow of his death lies over the second half of the book in other ways as well. One thinks, for example, of the fate of the son in the parable of the wicked tenants (12:6-8) or the anointing at Bethany (14:1-9) and of all the events from the Lord's Supper to the end of the crucifixion (14:12-15:47). In the second half of the book, Mark underscores the fact that the powerful, authoritative Son of God willingly submitted himself to the most shameful and inhumane of deaths because he had the heart of a servant.

2. DISCIPLESHIP

The theme of Christology carried out in the emphasis on Jesus' authority and then his suffering service is brought to bear on Mark's readers' lives through the emphasis on discipleship. To submit to Jesus' authority involves following in Jesus' footsteps in suffering service.

This point is first enunciated in 8:34-35 and then driven home by repetition, especially in 9:33-37 and 10:35-45. It is no accident that these sections of vital instruction on discipleship immediately follow the three repetitions of Jesus' predictions regarding his own death in Jerusalem. Disciples are to be like their master.

In each of these three instances, Jesus' prediction is followed by immediate indication that the disciples are out of step with their Lord. In 8:32, Peter even "rebukes" Jesus for what he said would happen. Having rebuked Peter, Jesus calls all the people together with his disciples and explains that what he plans to do bears not only on him but on what it means to be a follower: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (8:34).

In the second instance Mark writes that the disciples did not understand Jesus' prediction concerning himself (9:32), then immediately shows that they did not grasp its implications for themselves. They are interested in establishing which of them is the greatest (9:33-34), but Jesus tells them that followers of one who takes the role of a servant must be servants themselves (9:35).

The third instance is similar. Here, again immediately following a prediction concerning Jesus' death, James and John seek the chief places in the coming kingdom (10:35-37). Jesus' reply is explicit in the way it ties discipleship to Christology: "whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (10:43-45). These verses, 10:43-45, provide a convenient summary of the main point with respect to discipleship. This emphasis permeates the second half of the book.

3. FURTHER OBSERVATIONS ON MARK'S STRUCTURE

In addition to the major division of Mark at 8:30 / 8:31, a few further divisions may be discerned with varying levels of confidence.

Most scholars identify either 1:1-8, 1:1-13, or 1:1-15 as an introduction. I have chosen 1:1-15 for reasons that are described at the beginning of the comments on chapter 1. These verses set the stage for all that follows.

It is questionable whether there is a clearly discernible substructure for the rest of the first half of the book (1:16-8:30). I have chosen the popular three-part structure proposed by Leander Keck largely as a matter of convenience for the memory. Keck's outline is easily learned because each section begins with a new stage in the disciples' development: the call of the four fishermen (1:16-20), the appointment of the twelve apostles (3:13-19), and the mission of the twelve (6:6b-13).

The second half of the book is easily divisible according to stages in Jesus' ministry. In 8:31-10:52 he journeys to Jerusalem. Beginning at 11:1 Mark focuses over one third of his book on Jesus' last week, from the triumphal entry to the resurrection.

In addition to the overall structure of the book, there are smaller structural features discernible in various sections. Some of these are identified in the outline, such as the collection of five controversy stories in 2:1-3:6 or the parable section in 4:1-34. Others are discussed as they arise in the commentary, such as the "sandwich" phenomenon discussed first at 3:20-35.

PURPOSE

Mark does not provide a statement of purpose for his work. It is difficult to construct a hypothetical statement of purpose that is well focused and yet broad enough to include all of Mark's material. Any statement of Mark's purpose should take into account his intended audience, particularly the probability that he wrote primarily for those who had already become Christians.

Mark's overall purpose might be stated as follows: to tell the story of Jesus from his baptism to his death and resurrection in order to strengthen the faith and deepen the understanding of his readers. The weakness of this statement is that it is so broad as to include virtually anything Mark might have known about Jesus.

As stated above on pages 11-13, each Gospel writer had some particular emphases that guided his selection. In Mark's case there is one particular emphasis that dominates the overall structure of the book and presumably was the primary principle of selection for much of its contents: the emphasis on discipleship as self-sacrificing service. Mark presents Jesus as the model of service: "the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many" (10:45). As is demonstrated in the above section on the structure of the book, Mark organizes his book around Jesus' effort to explain this to his disciples and to bring them to the understanding that "whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all" (10:43-44). This focus may account for many of Mark's choices.

Lane (and others) would be more specific. In particular, he believes the purpose of Mark was to encourage Roman Christians to sacrificial service during the time of the Neronian persecution of A.D. 64. But I have argued above that Mark was probably written by A.D. 62 and that the tradition that his intended audience was in Rome is possibly true, but not a tradition to hold with confidence. It is questionable whether Mark wrote primarily for a persecution setting, Neronian or otherwise. There are only a few explicit references to persecution (4:17; 8:34-38; 10:29-30, 39; and 13:9-13). Certainly Mark's Gospel could have been used for encouragement by persecuted Christians, but it is preferable to state his primary focus in broader terms of sacrificial service.

SUMMARY OF INTRODUCTORY CONCLUSIONS

The Gospel of Mark was written by John Mark of Jerusalem, an associate of Paul and of Peter. It probably reflects Peter's preaching about Jesus. Mark composed it by the early sixties. The audience he had in mind were predominantly Gentile Christians, possibly in Rome. He wrote the story of Jesus in order to strengthen their faith and deepen their understanding, particularly with respect to their need to follow Jesus in the path of sacrificial service to God and humanity.

Mark focused on christology and discipleship and their interrelationship. In the first part of the Gospel (1:1-8:30) he focused on Jesus' authority and the need for disciples to believe in him. Then, beginning in 8:31, he focused on how Jesus submitted himself to death in sacrificial service and on the need for disciples to follow his example.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger. The Greek New Testament. Fourth Revised Edition. Stuttgart: Biblia-Druck, United Bible Societies, 1993.

Anderson, Hugh. The Gospel of Mark. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.

Batey, Richard, A. Jesus and the Forgotten City: New Light on Sepphoris and the Urban World of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.

Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature , 2nd ed. Rev. by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Beasley-Murray, G.R. Baptism in the New Testament. London: MacMillan, 1962.

. Jesus and the Kingdom of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

Best, Ernest. Mark: The Gospel As Story. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983.

Blackburn, Barry. Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions. WUNT 2.40. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1991.

Blomberg, Craig L. Interpreting the Parables. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990.

. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1987.

. Matthew. New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.

Bock, Darrell L. "Elijah and Elisha." DJG 203-206.

Bratcher, Robert G. and Eugene A. Nida. A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of Mark. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1961.

Brown, Raymond E. The Death of the Messiah. Anchor Bible Reference Library, 2 Volumes. New York: Doubleday, 1994.

Bruce, F.F. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988.

Cargounis, C.C. "The Kingdom of God/Heaven." DJG 417-430.

Carson, Donald A., Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Carson, Donald A. "Matthew." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Vol. 8. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

Cranfield, C.E.B. The Gospel according to Saint Mark. Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary. Cambridge, England: University Press, 1959.

Davids, Peter. Commentary on James. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Dodd, C.H. "The Kingdom of God Has Come." Expository Times 48 (1936-37): 138-142.

. The Parables of the Kingdom. London: Nisbet, 1935.

Farmer, William R. The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. SNTSMS 25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974.

Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. 2nd edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. "The Aramaic Qorban Inscription from Jebel Hallet et-Turi and Mark 7:11/Matt. 15:5." Journal of Biblical Literature 78 (1959): 60-65.

. The Gospel According to Luke I-IX. Anchor Bible Commentary, Vol. 28A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981.

France, Richard T. Jesus and the Old Testament. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1971.

. Matthew. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.

Geldenhuys, Norval G. Commentary of the Gospel of Luke. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Green, Joel B. and Scot McKnight, eds. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992.

Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1:1-8:26. Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 34A. Dallas: Word, 1989.

Gundry, Robert H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

. Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Hawthorne, Gerald F. "Amen." DJG 7-8.

Heard, Warren J. "Revolutionary Movements." DJG 688-698.

Helton, Stanley N. "Churches of Christ and Mark 16:9-20." Restoration Quarterly 36 (1994): 32- 52.

Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. London: SCM, 1977.

. Studies in the Gospel of Mark. Trans. John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.

Herzog, William R., II. "Temple Cleansing." DJG 817-821.

Hoehner, Harold.W. Herod Antipas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972.

. "Herodian Dynasty." DJG 317-326.

Hooker, Morna. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. Black's New Testament Commentaries. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991.

Hurtado, Larry W. Mark. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Central Message of the New Testament. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965.

Judge, E.A. "The Regional Kanon for Requisitioned Transport." In New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Ed. G.H.R. Horsley. North Ryde, Australia: Macquarie University, 1976.

Juel, Donald. Messianic Exegesis. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.

Keck, Leander E. "The Introduction to Mark's Gospel." New Testament Studies 12 (1965-66): 352-372.

Lane, William L. The Gospel according to Mark. New International New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Marcus, Joel. "The Jewish War and the Sitz im Leben of Mark." Journal of Biblical Literature 111 (1992): 443-446.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

. The Origins of New Testament Christology. Updated ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990.

McGarvey, J.W. "Biblical Criticism." Christian Standard 32 (1896): 1367.

. The New Testament Commentary. Vol. 1: Matthew and Mark. Delight, AR: Gospel Light, 1875.

McIver, Robert K. "One Hundred-Fold Yield - Miraculous or Mundane? Matthew 13.8, 23; Mark 4.8, 20; Luke 8.8." New Testament Studies 40 (1994): 606-608.

McRay, John. Archaeology and the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. 10th ed. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1993.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Second Edition. Stuttgart: Wurttemberg Bible Society, 1994.

Michaels, J. Ramsey. 1 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 49. Dallas: Word, 1988.

Roads, David and Donald Michie. Mark As Story. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.

Rousseau, John J. and Rami Arav, eds. Jesus and His World: An Archaeological and Cultural Dictionary. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.

Sanders, E.P. Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63BCE-66CE. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992.

Schmidt, Thomas E. "Taxes." DJG 804-807.

Twelftree, G.H. "Blasphemy." DJG 75-77.

. "Demon, Devil, Satan." DJG 163-172.

. "Sanhedrin." DJG 728-732.

. "Scribes." DJG 732-735.

Westerholm, Stephen. "Pharisees." DJG 609-614.

Wilkins, Michael J. "Sinner." DJG 757-760.

Williamson, Lamar, Jr. Mark. Interpretation Commentary. Atlanta: John Knox, 1983.

Willis, Wendell, ed. The Kingdom of God in 20th-Century Interpretation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987.

Wuellner, Wilhelm H. The Meaning of "Fishers of Men." The New Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

BAGD . . . A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2nd ed., eds. Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker

DJG . . . Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels

LXX . . . The Septuagint (An ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament)

NIV . . . The Holy Bible, New International Version

NRSV . . . The Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version

SNTSMS . . . Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas Monograph Series

UBS ⁴ . . . The Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 4th ed.

WUNT . . . Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum NT

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: Mark (Outline)

OUTLINE

I. INTRODUCTION - Mark 1:1-15

A. The Beginning of the Gospel - 1:1-8

B. John Baptizes Jesus - 1:9-11

C. Temptation in the Wilderness - 1:12-13

D. The Gospel Jesus Preached - 1:14-15

II. THE GALILEAN MINISTRY, SECTION ONE - 1:16-3:12

A. The Call of the First Disciples - 1:16-20

B. Jesus Demonstrates His Authority in Capernaum - 1:21-28

C. Healing Simon's Mother-in-Law - 1:29-31

D. Other Healings at Capernaum - 1:32-34

E. What Jesus Came to Do - 1:35-39

F. Healing A Leper - 1:40-45

G. Stories of Controversy between Jesus and the Religious Authorities - 2:1-3:6

1. Controversy over Forgiving Sins - 2:1-12

2. Controversy over Eating with Tax Collectors and Sinners - 2:13-17

3. Controversy over Fasting - 2:18-22

4. Controversy over Picking Grain on the Sabbath - 2:23-28

5. Controversy over Healing on the Sabbath - 3:1-6

H. Summary Statement about the Crowds and Healings - 3:7-12

III. THE GALILEAN MINISTRY, SECTION TWO - 3:13-6:6a

A. The Appointment of the Twelve Apostles - 3:13-19

B. Jesus Accused of Lunacy and Being Possessed - 3:20-35

C. Jesus Teaches in Parables - 4:1-34

1. The Parable of the Sower - 4:1-9

2. The Purpose of the Parables - 4:10-12

3. The Interpretation of the Sower - 4:13-20

4. The Parable of the Lamp - 4:21-23

5. The Parable of the Measure - 4:24-25

6. The Parable of the Growing Seed - 4:26-29

7. The Parable of the Mustard Seed - 4:30-32

8. Teaching in Parables - 4:33-34

D. Jesus' Authority over Nature, Demons, Disease and Death - 4:35-5:43

1. Authority over Nature - 4:35-41

2. Authority over Demons - 5:1-20

3. Authority over Disease and Death - 5:21-43

E. Rejection at Nazareth - 6:1-6a

IV. THE GALILEAN MINISTRY, SECTION THREE - 6:6b-8:30

A. The Mission of the Twelve - 6:6b-13

B. Herod Hears about Jesus - 6:14-16

C. Herod Has John Beheaded - 6:17-29

D. Feeding the Five Thousand - 6:30-44

E. Walking on the Water - 6:45-52

F. Healing at Gennesaret and Beyond - 6:53-56

G. The Controversy over Eating with Unwashed Hands - 7:1-23

H. The Syrophoenician Woman - 7:24-30

I. Healing a Deaf Man with a Speech Impediment - 7:31-37

J. Feeding the Four Thousand - 8:1-10

K. The Pharisees Demand a Sign - 8:11-13

L. The Yeast of the Pharisees and Herod - 8:14-21

M. The Blind Man at Bethsaida - 8:22-26

N. Peter's Confession at Caesarea Philippi - 8:27-30

V. THE JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM - 8:31-10:52

A. Jesus Predicts His Death and Resurrection - 8:31-33

B. The Costs of Discipleship - 8:34-9:1

C. The Transfiguration and the Subsequent Discussion - 9:2-13

D. Jesus Casts a Spirit from a Man's Son - 9:14-29

E. The Second Passion/Resurrection Prediction - 9:30-32

F. Teachings on Servanthood - 9:33-50

1. Who Is the Greatest? - 9:33-35

2. An Example Based on Welcoming Children - 9:36-37

3. Jesus Rebukes the Disciples' Pride - 9:38-41

4. Getting Rid of Pride and Getting Along with Each Other - 9:42-50

G. Jesus Questioned About Divorce - 10:1-12

H. Receiving the Kingdom Like a Child - 10:13-16

I. The Rich Man and Jesus' Teaching Concerning Wealth - 10:17-31

J. The Third Passion/Resurrection Prediction - 10:32-34

K. The Request of James and John - 10:35-45

L. Bartimaeus Receives His Sight - 10:46-52

VI. THE LAST WEEK: JERUSALEM, THE CROSS, AND THE RESURRECTION - 11:1-16:8[20]

A. The Triumphal Entry - 11:1-11

B. Cursing the Fig Tree and Cleansing the Temple - 11:12-19

C. A Lesson from the Withered Fig Tree - 11:20-25

D. Another Series of Controversies with the Religious Authorities - 11:27-12:44

1. The Question about Authority - 11:27-33

2. The Parable of the Tenants - 12:1-12

3. The Question about Paying Taxes - 12:13-17

4. The Question about the Resurrection - 12:18-27

5. The Question about the First Commandment - 12:28-34

6. Jesus' Question about David's Son - 12:35-37

7. Jesus Denounces the Teachers of the Law and Commends a Poor Widow - 12:38-44

E. Jesus Instructs the Disciples Concerning the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Coming - 13:1-37

1. The Setting of Jesus' Last Days Discourse - 13:1-4

2. General Description of the Birth Pains - 13:5-13

3. The Sharp Pain: The Destruction of Jerusalem - 13:14-19

4. Warnings Against False Messiahs during the Birth Pains - 13:20-23

5. The Second Coming - 13:24-27

6. The Significance of the Birth Pains for the Second Coming - 13:28-31

7. No One Knows the Day or Hour of the Second Coming - 13:32-37

F. Jesus Honored and Betrayed - 14:1-11

G. The Passover Meal - 14:12-31

1. Preparation for the Passover - 14:12-16

2. Jesus Predicts His Betrayal - 14:17-21

3. The Institution of the Lord's Supper - 14:22-25

H. Jesus Predicts the Flight of the Disciples and Peter's Denial - 14:26-31

I. Prayer in Gethsemane - 14:32-42

J. Betrayal, Arrest, and Flight - 14:43-52

K. Jesus and Peter Put on Trial - 14:53-72

1. Jesus' Trial Before the Sanhedrin - 14:53-65

2. Peter's Denials - 14:66-72

L. Jesus' Trial Before Pilate - 15:1-15

M. Pilate's Soldiers Mock Jesus - 15:16-20

N. The Crucifixion - 15:21-41

O. The Burial of Jesus - 15:42-47

P. The Resurrection - 16:1-8

Q. Post-Resurrection Appearances - 16:9-20

1. The Appearance to Mary Magdalene - 16:9-11

2. The Appearance to Two Disciples - 16:12-13

3. The Appearance to and Commission of the Eleven - 16:14-18

4. The Ascension and the Disciples' Mission - 16:19-20

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV