Text -- Mark 14:14-72 (NET)

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.”

The Lord’s Supper

14:22 While they were eating, he took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take it. This is my body.” 14:23 And after taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 14:24 He said to them, “This is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many. 14:25 I tell you the truth, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” 14:26 After singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

The Prediction of Peter’s Denial

14:27 Then Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away, for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’ 14:28 But after I am raised, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.” 14:29 Peter said to him, “Even if they all fall away, I will not!” 14:30 Jesus said to him, “I tell you the truth, today– this very night– before a rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.” 14:31 But Peter insisted emphatically, “Even if I must die with you, I will never deny you.” And all of them said the same thing.

Gethsemane

14:32 Then they went to a place called Gethsemane, and Jesus said to his disciples, “Sit here while I pray.” 14:33 He took Peter, James, and John with him, and became very troubled and distressed. 14:34 He said to them, “My soul is deeply grieved, even to the point of death. Remain here and stay alert.” 14:35 Going a little farther, he threw himself to the ground and prayed that if it were possible the hour would pass from him. 14:36 He said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Take this cup away from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.” 14:37 Then he came and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, “Simon, are you sleeping? Couldn’t you stay awake for one hour? 14:38 Stay awake and pray that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” 14:39 He went away again and prayed the same thing. 14:40 When he came again he found them sleeping; they could not keep their eyes open. And they did not know what to tell him. 14:41 He came a third time and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Enough of that! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 14:42 Get up, let us go. Look! My betrayer is approaching!”

Betrayal and Arrest

14:43 Right away, while Jesus was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, arrived. With him came a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent by the chief priests and experts in the law and elders. 14:44 (Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I kiss is the man. Arrest him and lead him away under guard.”) 14:45 When Judas arrived, he went up to Jesus immediately and said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him. 14:46 Then they took hold of him and arrested him. 14:47 One of the bystanders drew his sword and struck the high priest’s slave, cutting off his ear. 14:48 Jesus said to them, “Have you come with swords and clubs to arrest me like you would an outlaw? 14:49 Day after day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, yet you did not arrest me. But this has happened so that the scriptures would be fulfilled.” 14:50 Then all the disciples left him and fled. 14:51 A young man was following him, wearing only a linen cloth. They tried to arrest him, 14:52 but he ran off naked, leaving his linen cloth behind.

Condemned by the Sanhedrin

14:53 Then they led Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests and elders and experts in the law came together. 14:54 And Peter had followed him from a distance, up to the high priest’s courtyard. He was sitting with the guards and warming himself by the fire. 14:55 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 anything. 14:56 Many gave false testimony against him, but their testimony did not agree. agree. 14:57 Some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 14:58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands and in three days build another not made with hands.’” 14:59 Yet even on this point their testimony did not agree. agree. 14:60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer? What is this that they are testifying against you?” 14:61 But he was silent and did not answer. Again the high priest questioned him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” 14:62 “I am,” said Jesus, “and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 14:63 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “Why do we still need need witnesses? 14:64 You have heard the blasphemy! What is your verdict?” They all condemned him as deserving death. 14:65 Then some began to spit on him, and to blindfold him, and to strike him with their fists, saying, “Prophesy!” The guards also took him and beat him.

Peter’s Denials

14:66 Now while Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the high priest’s slave girls came by. 14:67 When she saw Peter warming himself, she looked directly at him and said, “You also were with that Nazarene, Jesus.” 14:68 But he denied it: “I don’t even understand what you’re talking about!” Then he went out to the gateway, and a rooster crowed. 14:69 When the slave girl saw him, she began again to say to the bystanders, “This man is one of them.” 14:70 But he denied it again. A short time later the bystanders again said to Peter, “You must be one of them, because you are also a Galilean.” 14:71 Then he began to curse, and he swore with an oath, “I do not know this man you are talking about!” 14:72 Immediately a rooster crowed a second time. Then Peter remembered what Jesus had said to him: “Before a rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.” And he broke down and wept.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

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.

Robertson: Mar 14:23

A cup ( potērion ).

Probably the ordinary wine of the country mixed with two-thirds water, though the word for wine (oinos ) is not used here in the Gospels, but "the fruit of the vine"(ek tou genēmatos tēs ampelou ). See notes on Mat 26:26-29 for discussion of important details. Mark and Matthew give substantially the same account of the institution of the Supper by Jesus, while Luk 22:17-20 agrees closely with 1Co 11:23-26 where Paul claims to have obtained his account by direct revelation from the Lord Jesus.

Robertson: Mar 14:26

Sung a hymn ( humnēsantes ).

See note on Mat 26:30 for discussion.

Robertson: Mar 14:29

Yet will not I ( all' ouk egō ).

Mark records here Peter’ s boast of loyalty even though all desert him. All the Gospels tell it. See discussion on Mat 26:33.

Robertson: Mar 14:30

Twice ( dis ).

This detail only in Mark. One crowing is always the signal for more. The Fayum papyrus agrees with Mark in having dis . The cock-crowing marks the third watch of the night (Mar 13:35).

Robertson: Mar 14:31

Exceeding vehemently ( ekperissōs ).

This strong compounded adverb only in Mark and probably preserves Peter’ s own statement of the remark. About the boast of Peter see Mat 26:35.

Robertson: Mar 14:32

Which was named ( hou to onoma ).

Literally, "whose name was."On Gethsemane see note on Mat 26:36.

Robertson: Mar 14:32

While I pray ( heōs proseuxōmai ).

Aorist subjunctive with heōs really with purpose involved, a common idiom. Matthew adds "go yonder"(apelthōn ekei ).

Robertson: Mar 14:33

Greatly amazed and sore troubled ( ekthambeisthai kai adēmonein ).

Mat 26:37 has "sorrowful and sore troubled."See note on Matt. about adēmonein . Mark alone uses exthambeisthai (here and in Mar 9:15). There is a papyrus example given by Moulton and Milligan’ s Vocabulary. The verb thambeō occurs in Mar 10:32 for the amazement of the disciples at the look of Jesus as he went toward Jerusalem. Now Jesus himself feels amazement as he directly faces the struggle in the Garden of Gethsemane. He wins the victory over himself in Gethsemane and then he can endure the loss, despising the shame. For the moment he is rather amazed and homesick for heaven. "Long as He had foreseen the Passion, when it came clearly into view its terror exceeded His anticipations"(Swete). "He learned from what he suffered,"(Heb 5:8) and this new experience enriched the human soul of Jesus.

Robertson: Mar 14:35

Fell on the ground ( epipten epi tēs gēs ).

Descriptive imperfect. See him falling. Matthew has the aorist epesen .

Robertson: Mar 14:35

Prayed ( prosēucheto ).

Imperfect, prayed repeatedly or inchoative, began to pray. Either makes good sense.

Robertson: Mar 14:35

The hour ( hē hōra ).

Jesus had long looked forward to this "hour"and had often mentioned it (Joh 7:30; Joh 8:20; Joh 12:23, Joh 12:27; Joh 13:1). See again in Mar 14:41. Now he dreads it, surely a human trait that all can understand.

Robertson: Mar 14:36

Abba, Father ( Abba ho patēr ).

Both Aramaic and Greek and the article with each. This is not a case of translation, but the use of both terms as is Gal 4:6, a probable memory of Paul’ s childhood prayers. About "the cup"see note on Mat 26:39. It is not possible to take the language of Jesus as fear that he might die before he came to the Cross. He was heard (Heb 5:7.) and helped to submit to the Father’ s will as he does instantly.

Robertson: Mar 14:36

Not what I will ( ou ti egō thelō ).

Matthew has "as"(hōs ). We see the humanity of Jesus in its fulness both in the Temptations and in Gethsemane, but without sin each time. And this was the severest of all the temptations, to draw back from the Cross. The victory over self brought surrender to the Father’ s will.

Robertson: Mar 14:37

Simon, sleepest thou? ( Simōn , katheudeis̱ ).

The old name, not the new name, Peter. Already his boasted loyalty was failing in the hour of crisis. Jesus fully knows the weakness of human flesh (see Mat 26:41).

Robertson: Mar 14:40

Very heavy ( katabarunomenoi ).

Perfective use of katȧ with the participle. Matthew has the simple verb. Mark’ s word is only here in the N.T. and is rare in Greek writers. Mark has the vivid present passive participle, while Matthew has the perfect passive bebarēmenoi .

Robertson: Mar 14:40

And they wist not what to answer him ( kai ouk ēideisan ti apokrithōsin autōi ).

Deliberative subjunctive retained in the indirect question. Alone in Mark and reminds one of the like embarrassment of these same three disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration (Mar 9:6). On both occasions weakness of the flesh prevented their real sympathy with Jesus in his highest and deepest experiences. "Both their shame and their drowsiness would make them dumb"(Gould).

Robertson: Mar 14:41

It is enough ( apechei ).

Alone in Mark. This impersonal use is rare and has puzzled expositors no little. The papyri (Deissmann’ s Light from the Ancient East and Moulton and Milligan’ s Vocabulary ) furnish many examples of it as a receipt for payment in full. See also Mat 6:2.; Luk 6:24; Phi 4:18 for the notion of paying in full. It is used here by Jesus in an ironical sense, probably meaning that there was no need of further reproof of the disciples for their failure to watch with him. "This is no time for a lengthened exposure of the faults of friends; the enemy is at the gate"(Swete). See further Mat 26:45 for the approach of Judas.

Robertson: Mar 14:43

And the scribes ( kai tōn grammateōn ).

Mark adds this item while Joh 18:3 mentions "Pharisees."It was evidently a committee of the Sanhedrin for Judas had made his bargain with the Sanhedrin (Mar 14:1; Mat 26:3; Luk 22:2). See discussion of the betrayal and arrest on Mat 26:47-56 for details.

Robertson: Mar 14:44

Token ( sussēmon ).

A common word in the ancient Greek for a concerted signal according to agreement. It is here only in the New Testament. Mat 26:48 has sēmeion , sign. The signal was the kiss by Judas, a contemptible desecration of a friendly salutation.

Robertson: Mar 14:44

And lead him away safely ( kai apagete asphalōs ).

Only in Mark. Judas wished no slip to occur. Mark and Matthew do not tell of the falling back upon the ground when Jesus challenged the crowd with Judas. It is given by John alone (Joh 18:4-9).

Robertson: Mar 14:47

A certain one ( heis tis ).

Mark does not tell that it was Peter. Only Joh 18:10 does that after Peter’ s death. He really tried to kill the man, Malchus by name, as John again tells (Joh 18:10). Mark does not give the rebuke to Peter by Jesus in Mat 26:52.

Robertson: Mar 14:48

Against a robber ( epi lēistēn ).

Highway robbers like Barabbas were common and were often regarded as heroes. Jesus will be crucified between two robbers in the very place that Barabbas would have occupied.

Robertson: Mar 14:51

A certain young man ( neaniskos tis ).

This incident alone in Mark. It is usually supposed that Mark himself, son of Mary (Act 12:12) in whose house they probably had observed the passover meal, had followed Jesus and the apostles to the Garden. It is a lifelike touch quite in keeping with such a situation. Here after the arrest he was following with Jesus (sunēkolouthei autōi , imperfect tense). Note the vivid dramatic present kratousin (they seize him).

Robertson: Mar 14:52

Linen cloth ( sindona ).

An old Greek word of unknown origin. It was fine linen cloth used often for wrapping the dead (Mat 27:59; Mar 15:46; Luk 23:53). In this instance it could have been a fine sheet or even a shirt.

Robertson: Mar 14:54

Peter had followed him afar off ( Ho Petros apo makrothen ēkolouthēsen autōi ).

Here Mark uses the constative aorist (ēkolouthēsen ) where Mat 26:58, and Luk 22:54 have the picturesque imperfect (ēkolouthei ), was following. Possibly Mark did not care to dwell on the picture of Peter furtively following at a distance, not bold enough to take an open stand with Christ as the Beloved Disciple did, and yet unable to remain away with the other disciples.

Robertson: Mar 14:54

Was sitting with ( ēn sunkathēmenos ).

Periphrastic imperfect middle, picturing Peter making himself at home with the officers (hupēretōn ), under rowers, literally, then servants of any kind. Joh 18:25 describes Peter as standing (hestōs ). Probably he did now one, now the other, in his restless weary mood.

Robertson: Mar 14:54

Warming himself in the light ( thermainomenos prōs to phōs ).

Direct middle. Fire has light as well as heat and it shone in Peter’ s face. He was not hidden as much as he supposed he was.

Robertson: Mar 14:56

Their witness agreed not together ( isai hai marturiai ouk ēsan ).

Literally, the testimonies were not equal. They did not correspond with each other on essential points.

Robertson: Mar 14:56

Many were bearing false witness ( epseudomarturoun , imperfect, repeated action)

against him. No two witnesses bore joint testimony to justify a capital sentence according to the law (Deu 19:15). Note imperfects in these verses (Mar 14:55-57) to indicate repeated failures.

Robertson: Mar 14:57

Bare false witness ( epseudomarturoun ).

In desperation some attempted once more (conative imperfect).

Robertson: Mar 14:58

Made with hands ( cheiropoiēton ).

In Mark alone. An old Greek word. The negative form acheiropoiēton here occurs elsewhere only in 2Co 5:1; Col 2:11. In Heb 9:11 the negative ou is used with the positive form. It is possible that a real logion of Jesus underlies the perversion of it here. Mark and Matthew do not quote the witnesses precisely alike. Perhaps they quoted Jesus differently and therein is shown part of the disagreement, for Mark adds Mar 14:59 (not in Matthew). "And not even so did their witness agree together,"repeating the point of Mar 14:57. Swete observes that Jesus, as a matter of fact, did do what he is quoted as saying in Mark: "He said what the event has proved to be true; His death destroyed the old order, and His resurrection created the new."But these witnesses did not mean that by what they said. The only saying of Jesus at all like this preserved to us is that in Joh 2:19, when he referred not to the temple in Jerusalem, but to the temple of his body, though no one understood it at the time.

Robertson: Mar 14:60

Stood up in the midst ( anastas eis meson ).

Second aorist active participle. For greater solemnity he arose to make up by bluster the lack of evidence. The high priest stepped out into the midst as if to attack Jesus by vehement questions. See notes on Mat 26:59-68 for details here.

Robertson: Mar 14:61

And answered nothing ( kai ouk apekrinato ouden ).

Mark adds the negative statement to the positive "kept silent"(esiōpā ), imperfect, also in Matthew. Mark does not give the solemn oath in Matthew under which Jesus had to answer. See note on Matthew.

Robertson: Mar 14:62

I am ( ego eimi ).

Matthew has it, "Thou hast said,"which is the equivalent of the affirmative. But Mark’ s statement is definite beyond controversy. See notes on Mat 26:64-68 for the claims of Jesus and the conduct of Caiaphas.

Robertson: Mar 14:64

They all ( hoi de pantes ).

This would mean that Joseph of Arimathea was not present since he did not consent to the death of Jesus (Luk 23:51). Nicodemus was apparently absent also, probably not invited because of previous sympathy with Jesus (Joh 7:50). But all who were present voted for the death of Jesus.

Robertson: Mar 14:65

Cover his face ( perikaluptein autou to prosōpon ).

Put a veil around his face. Not in Matthew, but in Luk 22:64 where Revised Version translates perikalupsantes by "blind-folded."All three Gospels give the jeering demand of the Sanhedrin: "Prophesy"(prophēteuson ), meaning, as Matthew and Luke add, thereby telling who struck him while he was blindfolded. Mark adds "the officers"(same as in Mar 14:54) of the Sanhedrin, Roman lictors or sergeants-at-arms who had arrested Jesus in Gethsemane and who still held Jesus (hoi sunechontes auton , Luk 22:63). Mat 26:67 alludes to their treatment of Jesus without clearly indicating who they were.

Robertson: Mar 14:65

With blows of their hands ( rapismasin ).

The verb rapizō in Mat 26:67 originally meant to smite with a rod. In late writers it comes to mean to slap the face with the palm of the hands. The same thing is true of the substantive rapisma used here. A papyrus of the sixth century a.d. uses it in the sense of a scar on the face as the result of a blow. It is in the instrumental case here. "They caught him with blows,"Swete suggests for the unusual elabon in this sense. "With rods"is, of course, possible as the lictors carried rods. At any rate it was a gross indignity.

Robertson: Mar 14:66

Beneath in the court ( katō en tēi aulēi ).

This implies that Jesus was upstairs when the Sanhedrin met. Mat 26:69 has it without in the court (exō en tēi aulēi ). Both are true. The open court was outside of the rooms and also below.

Robertson: Mar 14:67

Warming himself ( thermainomenon ).

Mark mentions this fact about Peter twice (Mar 14:54, Mar 14:67) as does John (Joh 18:18, Joh 18:25). He was twice beside the fire. It is quite difficult to relate clearly the three denials as told in the Four Gospels. Each time several may have joined in, both maids and men.

Robertson: Mar 14:67

The Nazarene ( tou Nazarēnou ).

In Mat 26:69 it is "the Galilean."A number were probably speaking, one saying one thing, another another.

Robertson: Mar 14:68

I neither know nor understand ( oute oida oute epistamai ).

This denial is fuller in Mark, briefest in John.

Robertson: Mar 14:68

What thou sayest ( su ti legeis ).

Can be understood as a direct question. Note position of thou (su ), proleptical.

Robertson: Mar 14:68

Into the porch ( eis to proaulion ).

Only here in the New Testament. Plato uses it of a prelude on a flute. It occurs also in the plural for preparations the day before the wedding. Here it means the vestibule to the court. Mat 26:71 has pulōna , a common word for gate or front porch.

Robertson: Mar 14:68

And the cock crew ( kai alektōr ephōnēsen ).

Omitted by Aleph B L Sinaitic Syriac. It is genuine in Mar 14:72 where "the second time"(ek deuterou ) occurs also. It is possible that because of Mar 14:72 it crept into Mar 14:68. Mark alone alludes to the cock crowing twice, originally (Mar 14:30), and twice in Mar 14:72, besides Mar 14:68 which is hardly genuine.

Robertson: Mar 14:69

To them that stood by ( tois parestōsin ).

This talk about Peter was overheard by him. "This fellow (houtos ) is one of them."So in Mar 14:70 the talk is directly to Peter as in Mat 26:73, but in Luk 22:59 it is about him. Soon the bystanders (hoi parestōtes ) will join in the accusation to Peter (Mar 14:70; Mat 26:73), with the specially pungent question in Joh 18:26 which was the climax. See notes on Mat 26:69-75 for discussion of similar details.

Robertson: Mar 14:71

Curse ( anathematizein ).

Our word anathema (ana , thema , an offering, then something devoted or a curse). Finally the two meanings were distinguished by anathēma for offering and anathema for curse. Deissmann has found examples at Megara of anathema in the sense of curse. Hence the distinction observed in the N.T. was already in the Koiné. Mat 26:74 has katathematizein , which is a hapax legomenon in the N.T., though common in the lxx. This word has the notion of calling down curses on one’ s self if the thing is not true.

Robertson: Mar 14:72

Called to mind ( anemnēsthē ).

First aorist passive indicative. Mat 26:75 has the uncompounded verb emnēsthē while Luk 22:61 has another compound hupemnēsthē , was reminded.

Robertson: Mar 14:72

When he thought thereon ( epibalōn ).

Second aorist active participle of epiballō . It is used absolutely here, though there is a reference to to rhēma above, the word of Jesus, and the idiom involves ton noun so that the meaning is to put the mind upon something. In Luk 15:12 there is another absolute use with a different sense. Moulton ( Prolegomena , p. 131) quotes a Ptolemaic papyrus Tb P 50 where epibalōn probably means "set to,"put his mind on.

Robertson: Mar 14:72

Wept ( eklaien ).

Inchoative imperfect, began to weep. Mat 26:75 has the ingressive aorist eklausen , burst into tears.

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.

Vincent: Mar 14:23

The cup.

The wine was the ordinary one of the country, only red. It was mixed with water, generally in the proportion of one part to two of water.

Vincent: Mar 14:24

Covenant

See on Mat 26:28.

Vincent: Mar 14:24

Is shed ( τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον )

Lit., is being shed. This present participle is significant. To the Lord's mind the sacrifice is already being offered.

Vincent: Mar 14:25

New

See on Mat 26:29.

Vincent: Mar 14:26

Sung an hymn

See on Mat 26:30.

Vincent: Mar 14:28

Go before

See on Mat 26:32.

Vincent: Mar 14:30

Cock crow

See on Mat 26:34. Mark alone adds twice.

Vincent: Mar 14:30

Deny ( ἀπαρνήσῃ )

The compound verb signifies utterly deny.

Vincent: Mar 14:31

I will not deny ( οὐ μή σε ἀπαρνήσαμαι )

The double negative with the future forms the strongest possible assertion.

Vincent: Mar 14:32

Gethsemane

See on Mat 26:36.

Vincent: Mar 14:33

To be sore amazed ( ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι )

A word peculiar to Mark. Compare Mar 9:15; Mar 16:5, Mar 16:6.

Vincent: Mar 14:35

Prayed ( προσηύχετο )

Imperfect tense: began to pray.

Vincent: Mar 14:40

Heavy ( καταβαρυνόμενοι )

Lit., weighed down: very heavy.

Vincent: Mar 14:41

It is enough ( ἀπέχει )

Peculiar to Mark. In this impersonal sense the word occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Expositors are utterly at sea as to its meaning.

Vincent: Mar 14:43

One of the twelve

See on Mat 26:47; as also on multitude.

Vincent: Mar 14:44

Token ( σύσσημον )

A later Greek compound used only by Mark in this passage. Compare σημεῖον , Mat 26:48. The σύν , with, gives the force of a mutual token: a concerted signal.

Vincent: Mar 14:45

Kissed

See on Mat 26:49.

Vincent: Mar 14:47

The servant

See on Mat 26:51.

Vincent: Mar 14:47

Ear ( ὠτάριον )

A word found only here and at Joh 18:10. See on Mat 26:51.

Vincent: Mar 14:48

A thief

Rev., better, robber. See on Mat 26:55, and Mar 11:17.

Vincent: Mar 14:51

Linen cloth ( σινδόνα )

The probable derivation is from Ἰνδός , an Indian: India being the source from which came this fine fabric used for wrapping dead bodies, and in which Christ's body was enveloped. See Mat 27:59; Mar 15:46; Luk 23:53.

Vincent: Mar 14:54

Palace ( αὐλὴν )

Rather, court, as Rev., the quadrangle round which the chambers were built. See on Mat 26:3.

Vincent: Mar 14:54

Sat with ( ἦν συγκαθήμενος )

The verb with the participle denoting continuousness. What occurred after occurred while he was sitting . So Rev.

Vincent: Mar 14:54

Servants

Rev., officers . See on Mat 5:25.

Vincent: Mar 14:54

At the fire ( πρὸς τὸ φῶς )

Φῶς is never used of the fire itself, but of the light of the fire; and this is the point to which the evangelist directs attention: that the firelight, shining on Peter's face, called forth the challenge of the maid (Mar 14:66).

Vincent: Mar 14:56

Their witness agreed not

Peculiar to Mark. Lit., their testimonies were not equal. Hence the difficulty of fulfilling the requirement of the law, which demanded two witnesses. See Deu 17:6; and compare Mat 18:16; 1Ti 5:19; Heb 10:28.

Vincent: Mar 14:58

Made with hands

Mark adds this detail; also made without hands, and the following sentence.

Vincent: Mar 14:62

I am

See on Mat 26:64.

Vincent: Mar 14:64

Guilty of death

See on Mat 26:66.

Vincent: Mar 14:65

Buffet

See on Mat 26:67.

Vincent: Mar 14:65

Palms of their hands ( ῥαπίσμασιν )

An unclassical word, but used also by John (Joh 19:3). The word means blows.

Vincent: Mar 14:65

Did strike

Following the old reading, ἔβαλλον . The correct reading is ἔλαβον , received. So Rev. Received him into custody.

Vincent: Mar 14:66

Beneath

In relation to the chambers round the court above.

Vincent: Mar 14:68

Porch ( προαύλιον )

Only here in New Testament. The vestibule, extending from the outside gate to the court.

Vincent: Mar 14:71

Curse ( ἀναθεματίζειν )

Compare on Mat 26:74; where the word is καταθεματίζειν , to call down (κατὰ ) curses on himself if he were not telling the truth. The words are synonymous.

Vincent: Mar 14:72

When he thought thereon ( ἐπιβαλὼν )

From ἐπί , upon , and βάλλω , to throw. When he threw his thought upon it.

Wesley: Mar 14:15

The word properly means, spread with carpets.

Wesley: Mar 14:17

Mat 26:20; Luk 22:14.

Wesley: Mar 14:24

That is, this I appoint to be a perpetual sign and memorial of my blood, as shed for establishing the new covenant, that all who shall believe in me may receive all its gracious promises.

Wesley: Mar 14:25

That is, I shall drink no more before I die: the next wine I drink will not be earthly, but heavenly.

Wesley: Mar 14:26

Mat 26:30; Luk 22:39; Joh 18:1.

Wesley: Mar 14:27

The Jews in reckoning their days began with the evening, according to the Mosaic computation, which called the evening and the morning the first day, Gen 1:5. And so that which after sunset is here called this night is, Mar 14:30, called to - day. The expression there is peculiarly significant. Verily I say to thee, that thou thyself, confident as thou art, to - day, even within four and twenty hours; yea, this night, or ever the sun be risen, nay, before the cock crow twice, before three in the morning, wilt deny me thrice. Our Lord doubtless spoke so determinately, as knowing a cock would crow once before the usual time of cock crowing. By Mar 13:35, it appears, that the third watch of the night, ending at three in the morning, was commonly styled the cock crowing. Zec 13:7.

Wesley: Mar 14:32

Mat 26:36.

Wesley: Mar 14:33

The original word imports the most shocking amazement, mingled with grief: and that word in the next verse which we render sorrowful intimates, that he was surrounded with sorrow on every side, breaking in upon him with such violence, as was ready to separate his soul from his body.

Wesley: Mar 14:36

St. Mark seems to add the word Father, by way of explication.

Wesley: Mar 14:37

The zealous, the confident Peter.

Wesley: Mar 14:43

Mat 26:47; Luk 22:47; Joh 18:2.

Wesley: Mar 14:44

Probably our Lord, in great condescension, had used (according to the Jewish custom) to permit his disciples to do this, after they had been some time absent.

Wesley: Mar 14:47

Mat 26:51; Luk 22:49; Joh 18:10.

Wesley: Mar 14:51

It does not appear, that he was one of Christ's disciples. Probably hearing an unusual noise, he started up out of his bed, not far from the garden, and ran out with only the sheet about him, to see what was the matter.

Wesley: Mar 14:51

Who was only suspected to be Christ's disciple: but could not touch them who really were so.

Wesley: Mar 14:53

Mat 26:57; Luk 22:54; Joh 18:12.

Wesley: Mar 14:55

What an amazing proof of the overruling providence of God, considering both their authority, and the rewards they could offer, that no two consistent witnesses could be procured, to charge him with any gross crime. Mat 26:59.

Wesley: Mar 14:56

The Greek words literally rendered are, Were not equal: not equal to the charge of a capital crime: it is the same word in Mar 14:59.

Wesley: Mar 14:58

It is observable, that the words which they thus misrepresented, were spoken by Christ at least three years before, Joh 2:19. Their going back so far to find matter for the charge, was a glorious, though silent attestation of the unexceptionable manner wherein he had behaved, through the whole course of his public ministry.

Wesley: Mar 14:61

Mat 26:63; Luk 22:67.

Wesley: Mar 14:66

Mat 26:69; Luk 22:56; Joh 18:25.

Wesley: Mar 14:72

Which was a usual custom with mourners, and was fitly expressive both of grief and shame.

JFB: Mar 14:53

Or rather, "there gathered together unto him."

JFB: Mar 14:53

It was then a full and formal meeting of the Sanhedrim. Now, as the first three Evangelists place all Peter's denials of his Lord after this, we should naturally conclude that they took place while our Lord stood before the Sanhedrim. But besides that the natural impression is that the scene around the fire took place overnight, the second crowing of the cock, if we are to credit ancient writers, would occur about the beginning of the fourth watch, or between three and four in the morning. By that time, however, the Council had probably convened, being warned, perhaps, that they were to prepare for being called at any hour of the morning, should the Prisoner be successfully secured. If this be correct, it is fairly certain that only the last of Peter's three denials would take place while our Lord was under trial before the Sanhedrim. One thing more may require explanation. If our Lord had to be transferred from the residence of Annas to that of Caiaphas, one is apt to wonder that there is no mention of His being marched from the one to the other. But the building, in all likelihood, was one and the same; in which case He would merely have to be taken perhaps across the court, from one chamber to another.

JFB: Mar 14:54

Or "from afar, even to the interior of."

JFB: Mar 14:54

"An oriental house," says ROBINSON, "is usually built around a quadrangular interior court; into which there is a passage (sometimes arched) through the front part of the house, closed next the street by a heavy folding gate, with a smaller wicket for single persons, kept by a porter. The interior court, often paved or flagged, and open to the sky, is the hall, which our translators have rendered 'palace,' where the attendants made a fire; and the passage beneath the front of the house, from the street to this court, is the porch." The place where Jesus stood before the high priest may have been an open room, or place of audience on the ground floor, in the rear or on one side of the court; such rooms, open in front, being customary. It was close upon the court, for Jesus heard all that was going on around the fire, and turned and looked upon Peter (Luk 22:61).

JFB: Mar 14:54

The graphic details, here omitted, are supplied in the other Gospels. Joh 18:18 :

JFB: Mar 14:54

That is, in the hall, within the quadrangle, open to the sky.

JFB: Mar 14:54

Or charcoal (in a brazier probably).

JFB: Mar 14:54

John alone of all the Evangelists mentions the material, and the coldness of the night, as WEBSTER and WILKINSON remark. The elevated situation of Jerusalem, observes THOLUCK, renders it so cold about Easter as to make a watch fire at night indispensable.

JFB: Mar 14:54

"He went in," says Matthew (Mat 26:58), "and sat with the servants to see the end." These two minute statements throw an interesting light on each other. His wishing to "see the end," or issue of these proceedings, was what led him into the palace, for he evidently feared the worst. But once in, the serpent coil is drawn closer; it is a cold night, and why should not he take advantage of the fire as well as others? Besides, in the talk of the crowd about the all-engrossing topic he may pick up something which he would like to hear. Poor Peter! But now, let us leave him warming himself at the fire, and listening to the hum of talk about this strange case by which the subordinate officials, passing to and fro and crowding around the fire in this open court, would while away the time; and, following what appears the order of the Evangelical Narrative, let us turn to Peter's Lord.

JFB: Mar 14:54

His Dignified Reply--Is Treated with Indignity by One of the Officials--His Meek Rebuke (Joh 18:19-23).

We have seen that it is only the Fourth Evangelist who tells us that our Lord was sent to Annas first, overnight, until the Sanhedrim could be got together at earliest dawn. We have now, in the same Gospel, the deeply instructive scene that passed during this non-official interview.

Joh 18:19 :

JFB: Mar 14:54

Annas.

JFB: Mar 14:54

Probably to entrap Him into some statements which might be used against Him at the trial. From our Lord's answer it would seem that "His disciples" were understood to be some secret party.

Joh 18:20.

JFB: Mar 14:54

Compare Mar 7:4. He speaks of His public teaching as now a past thing--as now all over.

JFB: Mar 14:54

Courting publicity, though with sublime noiselessness.

JFB: Mar 14:54

Rather, "spake I nothing"; that is, nothing different from what He taught in public: all His private communications with the Twelve being but explanations and developments of His public teaching. (Compare Isa 45:19; Isa 48:16).

Joh 18:21 :

JFB: Mar 14:54

Rather, "what I said unto them."

JFB: Mar 14:54

From this mode of replying, it is evident that our Lord saw the attempt to draw Him into self-crimination, and resented it by falling back upon the right of every accused party to have some charge laid against Him by competent witnesses.

Joh 18:22 :

JFB: Mar 14:54

(see Isa 50:6). It would seem from Act 23:2 that this summary and undignified way of punishment what was deemed insolence in the accused had the sanction even of the high priests themselves.

Joh 18:23 :

JFB: Mar 14:54

Rather, "If I spoke evil," in reply to the high priest.

JFB: Mar 14:54

He does not say "if not evil," as if His reply had been merely unobjectionable; but "if well," which seems to challenge something altogether fitting in the remonstrance. He had addressed to the high priest. From our Lord's procedure here, by the way, it is evident enough that His own precept in the Sermon on the Mount--that when smitten on the one cheek we are to turn to the smiter the other also (Mat 5:39) --is not to be taken to the letter.

Annas Sends Jesus to Caiaphas (Joh 18:24).

Joh 18:24.

JFB: Mar 14:54

On the meaning of this verse there is much diversity of opinion; and according as we understand it will be the conclusion we come to, whether there was but one hearing of our Lord before Annas and Caiaphas together, or whether, according to the view we have given above, there were two hearings--a preliminary and informal one before Annas, and a formal and official one before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrim. If our translators have given the right sense of the verse, there was but one hearing before Caiaphas; and then Joh 18:24 is to be read as a parenthesis, merely supplementing what was said in Mar 14:13. This is the view of CALVIN, BEZA, GROTIUS, BENGEL, DE WETTE, MEYER, LUCKE, THOLUCK. But there are decided objections to this view. First: We cannot but think that the natural sense of the whole passage, embracing Mar 14:13-14, Mar 14:19-24, is that of a preliminary non-official hearing before "Annas first," the particulars of which are accordingly recorded; and then of a transference of our Lord from Annas to Caiaphas. Second: On the other view, it is not easy to see why the Evangelist should not have inserted Mar 14:24 immediately after Mar 14:13; or rather, how he could well have done otherwise, As it stands, it is not only quite out of its proper place, but comes in most perplexingly. Whereas, if we take it as a simple statement of fact, that after Annas had finished his interview with Jesus, as recorded in Mar 14:19-23, he transferred Him to Caiaphas to be formally tried, all is clear and natural. Third: The pluperfect sense "had sent" is in the translation only; the sense of the original word being simply "sent." And though there are cases where the aorist here used has the sense of an English pluperfect, this sense is not to be put upon it unless it be obvious and indisputable. Here that is so far from being the case, that the pluperfect "had sent" is rather an unwarrantable interpretation than a simple translation of the word: informing the reader that, according to the view of our translators, our Lord "had been" sent to Caiaphas before the interview just recorded by the Evangelist; whereas, if we translate the verse literally--"Annas sent Him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest"--we get just the information we expect, that Annas, having merely "precognosced" the prisoner, hoping to draw something out of Him, "sent Him to Caiaphas" to be formally tried before the proper tribunal. This is the view of CHRYSOSTOM and AUGUSTINE among the Fathers; and of the moderns, of OLSHAUSEN, SCHLEIERMACHER, NEANDER, EBRARD, WIESELER, LANGE, LUTHARDT. This brings us back to the text of our second Gospel, and in it to

JFB: Mar 14:54

(Mar 14:55-64).

But let the reader observe, that though this is introduced by the Evangelist before any of the denials of Peter are recorded, we have given reasons for concluding that probably the first two denials took place while our Lord was with Annas, and the last only during the trial before the Sanhedrim.

JFB: Mar 14:55

Matthew (Mat 26:59) says they "sought false witness." They knew they could find nothing valid; but having their Prisoner to bring before Pilate, they behooved to make a case.

JFB: Mar 14:55

None that would suit their purpose, or make a decent ground of charge before Pilate.

JFB: Mar 14:56

From their debasing themselves to "seek" them, we are led to infer that they were bribed to bear false witness; though there are never wanting sycophants enough, ready to sell themselves for naught, if they may but get a smile from those above them: see a similar scene in Act 6:11-14. How is one reminded here of that complaint, "False witnesses did rise up: they laid to my charge things that I knew not" (Psa 31:11)!

JFB: Mar 14:56

If even two of them had been agreed, it would have been greedily enough laid hold of, as all that the law insisted upon even in capital cases (Deu 17:6). But even in this they failed. One cannot but admire the providence which secured this result; since, on the one hand, it seems astonishing that those unscrupulous prosecutors and their ready tools should so bungle a business in which they felt their whole interests bound up; and, on the other hand, if they had succeeded in making even a plausible case, the effect on the progress of the Gospel might for a time have been injurious. But at the very time when His enemies were saying, "God hath forsaken Him; persecute and take Him; for there is none to deliver Him" (Psa 71:11). He whose Witness He was and whose work He was doing was keeping Him as the apple of His eye, and while He was making the wrath of man to praise Him, was restraining the remainder of that wrath (Psa 76:10).

JFB: Mar 14:57

Matthew (Mat 26:60) is more precise here: "At the last came two false witnesses." As no two had before agreed in anything, they felt it necessary to secure a duplicate testimony to something, but they were long of succeeding. And what was it, when at length it was brought forward?

JFB: Mar 14:57

As follows:

JFB: Mar 14:58

On this charge, observe, first, that eager as His enemies were to find criminal matter against our Lord, they had to go back to the outset of His ministry, His first visit to Jerusalem, more than three years before this. In all that He said and did after that, though ever increasing in boldness, they could find nothing. Next, that even then, they fix only on one speech, of two or three words, which they dared to adduce against Him. Further, they most manifestly pervert the speech of our Lord. We say not this because in Mark's form of it, it differs from the report of the words given by the Fourth Evangelist (Joh 2:18-22) --the only one of the Evangelists who reports it all, or mentions even any visit paid by our Lord to Jerusalem before His last--but because the one report bears truth, and the other falsehood, on its face. When our Lord said on that occasion, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," they might, for a moment, have understood Him to refer to the temple out of whose courts He had swept the buyers and sellers. But after they had expressed their astonishment at His words, in that sense of them, and reasoned upon the time it had taken to rear the temple as it then stood, since no answer to this appears to have been given by our Lord, it is hardly conceivable that they should continue in the persuasion that this was really His meaning. But finally, even if the more ignorant among them had done so, it is next to certain that the ecclesiastics, who were the prosecutors in this case, did not believe that this was His meaning. For in less than three days after this they went to Pilate, saying, "Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, after three days I will rise again" (Mat 27:63). Now what utterance of Christ known to His enemies, could this refer to, if not to this very saying about destroying and rearing up the temple? And if so, it puts it beyond a doubt that by this time, at least, they were perfectly aware that our Lord's words referred to His death by their hands and His resurrection by His own. But this is confirmed by Mar 14:59.

JFB: Mar 14:59

That is, not even as to so brief a speech, consisting of but a few words, was there such a concurrence in their mode of reporting it as to make out a decent case. In such a charge everything depended on the very terms alleged to have been used. For every one must see that a very slight turn, either way, given to such words, would make them either something like indictable matter, or else a ridiculous ground for a criminal charge--would either give them a colorable pretext for the charge of impiety which they were bent on making out, or else make the whole saying appear, on the worst view that could be taken of it, as merely some mystical or empty boast.

JFB: Mar 14:60

Clearly, they felt that their case had failed, and by this artful question the high priest hoped to get from His own mouth what they had in vain tried to obtain from their false and contradictory witnesses. But in this, too, they failed.

JFB: Mar 14:61

This must have nonplussed them. But they were not to be easily baulked of their object.

JFB: Mar 14:61

Arose (Mat 26:62), matters having now come to a crisis.

JFB: Mar 14:61

Why our Lord should have answered this question, when He was silent as to the former, we might not have quite seen, but for Matthew, who says (Mat 26:63) that the high priest put Him upon solemn oath, saying, "I adjure Thee by the living God, that Thou tell us whether Thou be the Christ, the Son of God." Such an adjuration was understood to render an answer legally necessary (Lev 5:1). (Also see on Joh 18:28.)

JFB: Mar 14:62

Or, as in Matthew (Mat 26:64), "Thou hast said [it]." In Luke, however (Luk 22:70), the answer, "Ye say that I am," should be rendered--as DE WETTE, MEYER, ELLICOTT, and the best critics agree that the preposition requires--"Ye say [it], for I am [so]." Some words, however, were spoken by our Lord before giving His answer to this solemn question. These are recorded by Luke alone (Luk 22:67-68): "Art Thou the Christ [they asked]? tell us. And He said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: and if I also ask [interrogate] "you, ye will not answer Me, nor let Me go." This seems to have been uttered before giving His direct answer, as a calm remonstrance and dignified protest against the prejudgment of His case and the unfairness of their mode of procedure. But now let us hear the rest of the answer, in which the conscious majesty of Jesus breaks forth from behind the dark cloud which overhung Him as He stood before the Council. (Also see on Joh 18:28.)

JFB: Mar 14:62

In that character.

JFB: Mar 14:62

In Matthew (Mat 26:64) a slightly different but interesting turn is given to it by one word: "Thou hast said [it]: nevertheless"--We prefer this sense of the word to "besides," which some recent critics decide for--"I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sit on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." The word rendered "hereafter" means, not "at some future time" (as to-day "hereafter commonly does), but what the English word originally signified, "after here," "after now," or "from this time." Accordingly, in Luk 22:69, the words used mean "from now." So that though the reference we have given it to the day of His glorious Second Appearing is too obvious to admit of doubt, He would, by using the expression, "From this time," convey the important thought which He had before expressed, immediately after the traitor left the supper table to do his dark work, "Now is the Son of man glorified" (Joh 13:31). At this moment, and by this speech, did He "witness the good confession" emphatically and properly, as the apostle says in 1Ti 6:13. Our translators render the words there, "Who before Pontius Pilate witnessed"; referring it to the admission of His being a King, in the presence of Cæsar's own chief representative. But it should be rendered, as LUTHER renders it, and as the best interpreters now understand it, "Who under Pontius Pilate witnessed," &c. In this view of it, the apostle is referring not to what our Lord confessed before Pilate--which, though noble, was not of such primary importance--but to that sublime confession which, under Pilate's administration, He witnessed before the only competent tribunal on such occasions, the Supreme Ecclesiastical Council of God's chosen nation, that He was THE MESSIAH, and THE SON OF THE BLESSED ONE; in the former word owning His Supreme Official, in the latter His Supreme Personal, Dignity.

JFB: Mar 14:63

On this expression of horror of blasphemy, see 2Ki 18:37.

and saith, What need we any further witnesses? (Also see on Joh 18:28.)

JFB: Mar 14:64

(See Joh 10:33). In Luke (Luk 22:71), "For we ourselves have heard of His own mouth"--an affectation of religious horror. (Also see on Joh 18:28.)

JFB: Mar 14:64

"Say what the verdict is to be."

JFB: Mar 14:64

Or of a capital crime, which blasphemy against God was according to the Jewish law (Lev 24:16). Yet not absolutely all; for Joseph of Arimathea, "a good man and a just," was one of that Council, and "he was not a consenting party to the counsel and deed of them," for that is the strict sense of the words of Luk 23:50-51. Probably he absented himself, and Nicodemus also, from this meeting of the Council, the temper of which they would know too well to expect their voice to be listened to; and in that case, the words of our Evangelist are to be taken strictly, that, without one dissentient voice, "all [present] condemned him to be guilty of death."

The Blessed One Is Now Shamefully Entreated (Mar 14:65).

Every word here must be carefully observed, and the several accounts put together, that we may lose none of the awful indignities about to be described.

JFB: Mar 14:65

Or, as in Mat 26:67, "to spit in [into] His face." Luke (Luk 22:63) says in addition, "And the men that held Jesus mocked him"--or cast their jeers at Him. (Also see on Joh 18:28.)

JFB: Mar 14:65

Or "to blindfold him" (as in Luk 22:64).

JFB: Mar 14:65

Luke's word, which is rendered "smote Him" (Luk 22:63), is a stronger one, conveying an idea for which we have an exact equivalent in English, but one too colloquial to be inserted here.

JFB: Mar 14:65

In Matthew (Mat 26:68) this is given more fully: "Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote Thee?" The sarcastic fling at Him as "the Christ," and the demand of Him in this character to name the unseen perpetrator of the blows inflicted on Him, was in them as infamous as to Him it must have been, and was intended to be, stinging.

JFB: Mar 14:65

Or "struck Him on the face" (Luk 22:64). Ah! Well did He say prophetically, in that Messianic prediction which we have often referred to, "I gave My back to the smiters, and My cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not My face from shame and spitting!" (Isa 50:6). "And many other things blasphemously spake they against Him" (Luk 22:65). This general statement is important, as showing that virulent and varied as were the recorded affronts put upon Him, they are but a small specimen of what He endured on that dark occasion.

Peter's FIRST DENIAL of His Lord (Mar 14:66-68).

JFB: Mar 14:66

This little word "beneath"--one of our Evangelist's graphic touches--is most important for the right understanding of what we may call the topography of the scene. We must take it in connection with Matthew's word (Mat 26:69): "Now Peter sat without in the palace"--or quadrangular court, in the center of which the fire would be burning; and crowding around and buzzing about it would be the menials and others who had been admitted within the court. At the upper end of this court, probably, would be the memorable chamber in which the trial was held--open to the court, likely, and not far from the fire (as we gather from Luk 22:61), but on a higher level; for (as our verse says) the court, with Peter in it, was "beneath" it. The ascent to the Council chamber was perhaps by a short flight of steps. If the reader will bear this explanation in mind, he will find the intensely interesting details which follow more intelligible.

JFB: Mar 14:66

"the damsel that kept the door" (Joh 18:17). The Jews seem to have employed women as porters of their doors (Act 12:13).

JFB: Mar 14:67

Luke (Luk 22:56) is here more graphic; "But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire"--literally, "by the light," which, shining full upon him, revealed him to the girl--"and earnestly looked upon him"--or, "fixed her gaze upon him." His demeanor and timidity, which must have attracted notice, as so generally happens, leading," says OLSHAUSEN, "to the recognition of him."

JFB: Mar 14:67

"with Jesus the Nazarene," or, "with Jesus of Galilee" (Mat 26:69). The sense of this is given in John's report of it (Joh 18:17), "Art not thou also one of this man's disciples?" that is, thou as well as "that other disciple," whom she knew to be one, but did not challenge, perceiving that he was a privileged person. In Luke (Luk 22:56) it is given as a remark made by the maid to one of the by-standers--this man was also with Him." If so expressed in Peter's hearing--drawing upon him the eyes of every one that heard it (as we know it did, Mat 26:70), and compelling him to answer to it--that would explain the different forms of the report naturally enough. But in such a case this is of no real importance.

JFB: Mar 14:68

"before all" (Mat 26:70).

JFB: Mar 14:68

In Luke (Luk 22:57), "I know Him not."

JFB: Mar 14:68

The vestibule leading to the street--no doubt finding the fire-place too hot for him; possibly also with the hope of escaping--but that was not to be, and perhaps he dreaded that, too. Doubtless by this time his mind would be getting into a sea of commotion, and would fluctuate every moment in its resolves.

JFB: Mar 14:68

(See on Luk 22:34). This, then, was the First Denial.

Peter's SECOND DENIAL of His Lord (Mar 14:69-70).

There is here a verbal difference among the Evangelists, which without some information which has been withheld, cannot be quite extricated.

JFB: Mar 14:69

Or, "a girl." It might be rendered "the girl"; but this would not necessarily mean the same one as before, but might, and probably does, mean just the female who had charge of the door or gate near which Peter now was. Accordingly, in Mat 26:71, she is expressly called "another [maid]." But in Luke (Luk 22:58) it is a male servant: "And after a little while [from the time of the first denial] another"--that is, as the word signifies, "another male" servant. But there is no real difficulty, as the challenge, probably, after being made by one was reiterated by another. Accordingly, in John (Joh 18:25), it is, "They said therefore unto him, &c.--"as if more than one challenged him at once.

JFB: Mar 14:69

Or, as in Mat 26:71 --"This [fellow] was also with Jesus the Nazarene."

JFB: Mar 14:70

In Luke (Luk 22:58), "Man, I am not." But worst of all in Matthew--"And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man" (Mat 26:72). This was the Second Denial, more vehement, alas! than the first.

Peter's THIRD DENIAL of His Lord (Mar 14:70-72).

JFB: Mar 14:70

"about the space of one hour after" (Luk 22:59).

JFB: Mar 14:70

"bewrayeth [or 'discovereth'] thee" (Mat 26:73). In Luke (Luk 22:59) it is, "Another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this [fellow] also was with him: for he is a Galilean." The Galilean dialect had a more Syrian cast than that of Judea. If Peter had held his peace, this peculiarity had not been observed; but hoping, probably, to put them off the scent by joining in the fireside talk, he was thus discovered. The Fourth Gospel is particularly interesting here: "One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman [or kinsman to him] whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with Him?" (Joh 18:26). No doubt his relationship to Malchus drew his attention to the man who had smitten him, and this enabled him to identify Peter. "Sad reprisals!" exclaims BENGEL. Poor Peter! Thou art caught in thine own toils; but like a wild bull in a net, thou wilt toss and rage, filling up the measure of thy terrible declension by one more denial of thy Lord, and that the foulest of all.

JFB: Mar 14:71

"anathematize," or wish himself accursed if what he was now to say was not true.

JFB: Mar 14:71

Or to take a solemn oath.

saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak.

JFB: Mar 14:72

The other three Evangelists, who mention but one crowing of the cock--and that not the first, but the second and last one of Mark--all say the cock crew "immediately," but Luke (Luk 22:60) says, "Immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew." Alas!--But now comes the wonderful sequel.

The Redeemer's Look upon Peter, and Peter's Bitter Tears (Mar 14:72; Luk 22:61-62).

It has been observed that while the beloved disciple is the only one of the four Evangelists who does not record the repentance of Peter, he is the only one of the four who records the affecting and most beautiful scene of his complete restoration (Joh 21:15-17).

Luk 22:61 :

JFB: Mar 14:72

How? it will be asked. We answer, From the chamber in which the trial was going on, in the direction of the court where Peter then stood--in the way already explained. See on Mar 14:66. Our Second Evangelist makes no mention of this look, but dwells on the warning of his Lord about the double crowing of the cock, which would announce his triple fall, as what rushed stingingly to his recollection and made him dissolve in tears.

JFB: Mar 14:72

To the same effect is the statement of the First Evangelist (Mat 26:75), save that like "the beloved physician," he notices the "bitterness" of the weeping (Luk 22:62). The most precious link, however, in the whole chain of circumstances in this scene is beyond doubt that "look" of deepest, tenderest import reported by Luke alone (Luk 22:61). Who can tell what lightning flashes of wounded love and piercing reproach shot from that "look" through the eye of Peter into his heart!

And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice.

Luk 22:62 :

JFB: Mar 14:72

How different from the sequel of Judas' act! Doubtless the hearts of the two men towards the Saviour were perfectly different from the first; and the treason of Judas was but the consummation of the wretched man's resistance of the blaze of light in the midst of which he had lived for three years, while Peter's denial was but a momentary obscuration of the heavenly light and love to his Master which ruled his life. But the immediate cause of the blessed revulsion which made Peter "weep bitterly" (Mat 26:75) was, beyond all doubt, this heart-piercing "look" which his Lord gave him. And remembering the Saviour's own words at the table, "Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat; but I prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not" (Luk 22:31-32), may we not say that this prayer fetched down all that there was in that look to pierce and break the heart of Peter, to keep it from despair, to work in it "repentance unto salvation not to be repented of," and at length, under other healing touches, to "restore his soul?" (See on Mar 16:7).

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).

Clarke: Mar 14:22

Eat - This is omitted by many MSS. and versions, but I think without reason. It is found in the parallel places, Mat 26:26; 1Co 11:24. See the subject of the Lord’ s Supper largely explained on Mat 26:26 (note), etc.

Clarke: Mar 14:30

That Thou - Συ is added by ABEGHKLMS - V, eighty-eight others, Syriac, Arabic, Persic, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Slavonic, Vulgate, Saxon, Theophylact, and Euthymsus. It adds much to the energy of the passage, every word of which is deeply emphatical. Verily, I say unto thee, that Thou, This Day, in This Very Night, before the cock shall crow Twice, Thou wilt deny Me.

Clarke: Mar 14:36

Abba, Father - This Syriac word, which intimates filial affection and respect, and parental tenderness, seems to have been used by our blessed Lord merely considered as man, to show his complete submission to his Father’ s will, and the tender affection which he was conscious his Father had for him, Abba , Syriac, is here joined to ὁ πατηρ, Greek, both signifying father; so St. Paul, Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6. The reason is, that from the time in which the Jews became conversant with the Greek language, by means of the Septuagint version and their commerce with the Roman and Greek provinces, they often intermingled Greek and Roman words with their own language. There is the fullest evidence of this fact in the earliest writings of the Jews; and they often add a word of the same meaning in Greek to their own term; such as מרי קירי, Mori , κυριε my Lord, Lord; פילי שער, pili , πυλη, shuar , gate, gate: and above, אבא, πατηρ, father, father: see several examples in Schoettgen. The words אבי and אבא appear to have been differently used among the Hebrews; the first Abbi , was a term of civil respect; the second, Abba, a term of filial affection. Hence, Abba, Abbi, as in the Syriac version in this place, may be considered as expressing, My Lord, my Father. And in this sense St. Paul is to be understood in the places referred to above. See Lightfoot.

Clarke: Mar 14:37

Saith unto Peter - See on Mat 26:40 (note).

Clarke: Mar 14:51

A certain young man - Probably raised from his sleep by the noise which the rabble made who came to apprehend Jesus, having wrapped the sheet or some of the bed-clothing about him, became thereby the more conspicuous: on his appearing, he was seized; but as they had no way of holding him, but only by the cloth which was wrapped round him, he disengaged himself from that, and so escaped out of their hands. This circumstance is not related by any other of the evangelists.

Clarke: Mar 14:52

And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked - It has often been intimated, by the inhabitants of India, that a European in strait clothes must be in great danger when his clothes take fire. From their loose clothing they can suddenly disengage themselves. When two Hindoos are engaged in a violent quarrel, and one seizes the clothing of the other, often the latter will leave his clothes in the hands of his opponent, and flee away naked. This seems to have been the case with the person mentioned above. See Ward’ s Customs.

Clarke: Mar 14:54

Peter followed - On Peter’ s denial, see Mat 26:57, etc

Clarke: Mar 14:54

At the fire - Προς το φως, literally, at the light, i.e. a fire that cast considerable light, in consequence of which, the maid servant was the better able to distinguish him: see Mar 14:67.

Clarke: Mar 14:61

Of the Blessed? - Θεου του ευλογητου, Or, of God the blessed one. Θεου, is added here by AK, ten others, Vulgate, and one of the Itala. It might be introduced into the text, put in Italics, if the authority of the MSS. and versions be not deemed sufficient. It appears necessary for the better understanding of the text. The adjective, however, conveys a good sense by itself, and is according to a frequent Hebrew form of speech.

Clarke: Mar 14:72

And when he thought thereon, he wept - Or, he fell a weeping. This Mr. Wakefield thinks comes nearest to the original, επιβαλων εκλαιε . Others think it means the wrapping of his head in the skirts of his garment, through shame and anguish. Others think that επιβαλων rather refers to the violence, or hurry, with which he left the place, being impelled thereto by the terrors and remorse of his guilty conscience. Our own translation is as good as any.

Calvin: Mar 14:24

Mar 14:24.This is my blood I have already remarked that, when we are told that the blood is to be shed — according to the narrative of Matthew — for the remission of sins, these words direct us to the sacrifice of the death of Christ, without the remembrance of which the Lord’s Supper is never observed in a proper manner. And, indeed, it is impossible for believing souls to be satisfied in any other way than by being assured that God is pacified towards them.

Which is shed for many By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race; for he contrasts many with one; as if he had said, that he will not be the Redeemer of one man only, but will die in order to deliver many from the condemnation of the curse. It must at the same time be observed, however, that by the words for you, as related by Luke — Christ directly addresses the disciples, and exhorts every believer to apply to his own advantage the shedding of blood Therefore, when we approach to the holy table, let us not only remember in general that the world has been redeemed by the blood of Christ, but let every one consider for himself that his own sins have been expiated. ¹⁹⁷

Of the new testament Luke and Paul (1Co 11:25) express it differently, the new testament in my blood, but the meaning is the same; for it is only by a spiritual drinking of blood that this covenant is ratified, so as to be firm and stable. Yet it may easily be inferred from it, how foolishly superstitious the Papists and others of the same stamp are in rigidly adhering to the words; for, with all their bluster, they cannot set aside this exposition of the Holy Spirit, that the cup is called blood, because it is the new testament in blood. But the same argument applies to the bread; from which it will follow that it is called the body; because it is the testament in the body They have no right now to contend that we ought to rely on the simple words of Christ, and shut our ears against expositions from without. It is Christ himself that speaks, and surely they will not deny that he is well qualified to interpret his own words. Now Christ openly declares that he called the bread his body, for no other reason than because he has made with us an everlasting covenant, that, the sacrifice having been once offered, we may now be spiritually fed.

There are two things here which deserve our attention; for from the word testament, or covenant, (διαθήκη,) we infer that a promise is included in the Holy Supper. This refutes the error of those who maintain that faith is not aided, nourished, supported, or increased by the sacraments; for there is always a mutual relation between the covenant of God and the faith of men. By the epithet New he intended to show that the ancient figures now cease, and give way to a firm and everlasting covenant. There is an indirect contrast, therefore, between this mystery and the shadows of the law; from which it is evident how much better our condition is than that of our fathers, since, in consequence of the sacrifice which was completed on the cross, we possess the truth in perfection.

Calvin: Mar 14:26

Mar 14:26.When they had sung a hymn Our three Evangelists leave out those divine discourses, ¹⁹⁸ which John relates to have been delivered by our Lord, both in the house and on the road. For, as we have elsewhere stated, their object was rather to embrace the history of our Lord’s actions than his doctrine. They glance only at the fact, that he went out of his own accord where Judas was to come; and their object is to inform us that he made such an arrangement of his time, as willingly to meet him who betrayed him.

Calvin: Mar 14:51

Mar 14:51.And a young man How some persons have come to dream that this was John ²²¹ I know not, nor is it of much importance to inquire. The chief point is, to ascertain for what purpose Mark has related this transaction. I think that his object was, to inform us that those wicked men — as usually happens in riotous assemblies stormed and raved without shame or modesty; which appeared from their seizing a young man who was unknown to them, and not suspected of any crime, so that he had difficulty in escaping out of their hands naked. For it is probable that the young man, who is mentioned, had some attachment to Christ, and, on hearing the tumult by night, without stopping to put on his clothes, and covered only with a linen garment, came either to discover their traps, or, at least, that he might not be wanting in a duty of friendship. ²²² We certainly perceive — as I just now said — that those wicked men raged with cruel violence, when they did not even spare a poor young man, who had left his bed, almost naked, and run, on hearing the noise.

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)."

Defender: Mar 14:24

When Jesus said, "This is my blood," speaking of the cup from which they drank, He obviously was speaking metaphorically, for all His blood was still flowing in His veins. He often used such metaphors, for example: "I am the door," He said (Joh 10:9), but He was not an actual door. The elements to be used in the Supper which He instituted that night were not saving instruments in themselves but rather instruments to remind us of His sacrificial death and to show it until He comes (1Co 11:26). In effect, He was saying: "This [represents] my body," and "this [represents] my blood.""

Defender: Mar 14:25

It is significant that Jesus called the drink "the fruit of the vine" (Mat 26:29; Luk 22:18) or "the cup" (1Co 11:25, 1Co 11:26, 1Co 11:27, 1Co 11:28) rather than "wine." Even though the simpler term "wine" could have been used in the context of that day to refer either to unfermented or fermented grape juice, He seems to have gone to special pains to make it clear that fermented wine could not properly represent His precious blood, no matter what may have developed by then as the Jewish custom at the Passover. Just as the Lord's Supper was to be observed with unleavened bread (leaven representing evil), so it should be observed with unfermented wine. The leavening process and the fermentation process are essentially the same, catalyzed by the same organisms and both representing decay and ultimate death. The Lord shed "innocent blood" when He died, and it was to be symbolized by pure, unleavened, bread and wine."

Defender: Mar 14:26

This is the only occasion mentioned in Scripture of either Jesus or His disciples singing. They probably sang one of the psalms, and it would be interesting to know which one, but the Lord has not revealed this to us - probably because we might then tend to place that particular psalm on some kind of pedestal above the others."

Defender: Mar 14:27

The prophecy to which Jesus referred is found in Zec 13:7."

Defender: Mar 14:42

This command seems incongruous with respect to the one He had just given: "Sleep on now, and take your rest." Probably the latter was actually expressed as a question. That is: "[Do you] sleep on now and take your rest?""

Defender: Mar 14:50

Just as He had predicted, and as they had vehemently denied (Mar 14:29-31), the disciples forsook him."

Defender: Mar 14:51

This "young man" almost certainly was John Mark himself (otherwise who would know about and write about such an incident). Mark probably had retired for the night in an adjacent room, and had overheard their very fascinating, and obviously significant, conversations there in the upper room of his mother's home. Then, when they left to go to the garden, continuing their conversation as they walked, he quickly decided to grab a linen cloth and follow them at a discreet distance, unseen but still able to hear and see what was happening. The soldiers then saw him and tried to detain him, but he, like the disciples, also fled."

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

TSK: Mar 14:22

as : Mat 26:26-29; Luk 22:19, Luk 22:20; 1Co 10:16, 1Co 10:17, 1Co 11:23-29

and blessed : Mar 6:41; Luk 24:30; Joh 6:23

take : Joh 6:48-58

this : That is, this represents my body; the substantive verb, whether expressed or understood, being often equivalent to signifies or represents. (Exo 12:11; Dan 7:24; Mat 13:38, Mat 13:39; Luk 8:9; Luk 15:26; Luk 18:36; Joh 7:36; Joh 10:6; Act 10:17; Rev 1:20; Rev 5:6, Rev 5:8; Rev 11:4; Rev 17:12, Rev 17:18; Rev 19:8.) Mar 14:24; Gen 41:26; Zec 5:7; Luk 22:20; 1Co 10:4; Gal 4:25

TSK: Mar 14:23

when : Mar 14:22; Luk 22:17; Rom 14:6; 1Co 10:16

and they : Mat 26:27

TSK: Mar 14:24

This : Exo 24:8; Zec 9:11; Joh 6:53; 1Co 10:16, 1Co 11:25; Heb 9:15-23, Heb 13:20,Heb 13:21

which : Mar 10:45; Rev 5:8-10, Rev 7:9-17

TSK: Mar 14:25

I will : Psa 104:15; Mat 26:29; Luk 22:16-18, Luk 22:29, Luk 22:30

new : Joe 3:18; Amo 9:13, Amo 9:14; Zec 9:17

TSK: Mar 14:26

sung : Psa 47:6, Psa 47:7; Act 16:25; 1Co 14:15; Eph 5:18-20; Col 3:16; Jam 5:13; Rev 5:9

hymn : or, psalm, This was probably Psa. 113-118, which the Jews term the great Hallel, or praise, and always sing at the paschal festivity. they went. Mat 26:30; Luk 22:39; Jdg 18:1-4

TSK: Mar 14:27

All : Mat 26:31; Luk 22:31, Luk 22:32; Joh 16:1, Joh 16:32; 2Ti 4:16

for : Zec 13:7

TSK: Mar 14:28

Mar 16:7; Mat 16:21, Mat 26:32, Mat 28:7, Mat 28:10,Mat 28:16; Joh 21:1; 1Co 15:4-6

TSK: Mar 14:29

Although : Mat 26:33-35; Luk 22:33, Luk 22:34; Joh 13:36-38, Joh 21:15

TSK: Mar 14:30

this day : Gen 1:5, Gen 1:8, Gen 1:13, Gen 1:19, Gen 1:23

before : Mar 14:66-72; Mat 26:69-75; Luk 22:54-62; Joh 18:17, Joh 18:25-27; 1Co 10:12

TSK: Mar 14:31

he spake : 2Ki 8:13; Job 40:4, Job 40:5; Psa 30:6; Pro 16:18, Pro 18:24, Pro 29:23; Jer 10:23; Jer 17:9

Likewise : Exo 19:8; Deu 5:27-29

TSK: Mar 14:32

they came : Mat 26:36-46; Luk 22:39; Joh 18:1-11

while : Mar 14:36, Mar 14:39; Psa 18:5, Psa 18:6, Psa 22:1, Psa 22:2, Psa 88:1-3, Psa 109:4

TSK: Mar 14:33

Peter : Mar 1:16-19, Mar 5:37, Mar 9:2

and began : Psa 38:11, Psa 69:1-3, Psa 88:14-16; Isa 53:10; Mat 26:37, Mat 26:38; Luk 22:44; Heb 5:7

TSK: Mar 14:34

My soul : Isa 53:3, Isa 53:4, Isa 53:12; Lam 1:12; Joh 12:27

and watch : Mar 14:37, Mar 14:38, Mar 13:35-37; Eph 6:18, Eph 6:19; 1Pe 4:7, 1Pe 5:8

TSK: Mar 14:35

and fell : Gen 17:3; Deu 9:18; 1Ch 21:15, 1Ch 21:16; 2Ch 7:3; Mat 26:39; Luk 17:15, Luk 17:16; Act 10:25, Act 10:26; Heb 5:7; Rev 4:10, Rev 5:14

TSK: Mar 14:36

Abba : Mat 6:9; Rom 8:15, Rom 8:16; Gal 4:6

all : Mar 10:27; Gen 18:14; Jer 32:27; 2Ti 2:13; Tit 1:2; Heb 5:7, Heb 6:18

take : Luk 22:41, Luk 22:42

nevertheless : Psa 40:8; Joh 4:34, Joh 5:30, Joh 6:38, Joh 6:39, Joh 12:27, Joh 18:11; Phi 2:8; Heb 5:7, Heb 5:8

TSK: Mar 14:37

and findeth : Mar 14:40,Mar 14:41; Luk 9:31, Luk 9:32, Luk 22:45, Luk 22:46

Simon : Mar 14:29-31; 2Sa 16:17; Jon 1:6; Mat 25:5, Mat 26:40; 1Th 5:6-8

couldest : Jer 12:5; Heb 12:3

TSK: Mar 14:38

Watch : Mar 14:34; Mat 24:42, Mat 25:13, Mat 26:41; Luk 21:36, Luk 22:40,Luk 22:46; 1Co 16:13; 1Pe 5:8; Rev 3:2, Rev 3:3, Rev 3:10

The spirit : Rom 7:18-25; Gal 5:17; Phi 2:12

TSK: Mar 14:39

he went : Mat 6:7, Mat 26:42-44; Luk 18:1; 2Co 12:8

TSK: Mar 14:40

neither : Mar 9:33, Mar 9:34; Gen 44:16; Rom 3:19

TSK: Mar 14:41

Sleep : Mar 7:9; Jdg 10:14; 1Ki 18:27, 1Ki 22:15; 2Ki 3:13; Ecc 11:9; Eze 20:39; Mat 26:45, Mat 26:46

the hour : Joh 7:30, Joh 8:20, Joh 12:23, Joh 12:27, Joh 13:1, Joh 17:1

the Son : Mar 14:10,Mar 14:18, Mar 9:31, Mar 10:33, Mar 10:34; Mat 26:2; Joh 13:2; Act 7:52

TSK: Mar 14:42

Mat 26:46; Joh 18:1, Joh 18:2

TSK: Mar 14:43

while : Mat 26:47; Luk 22:47, Luk 22:48; Joh 18:3-9; Act 1:16

and with : Psa 2:1, Psa 2:2, Psa 3:1, Psa 3:2, Psa 22:11-13

TSK: Mar 14:44

a token : Exo 12:13; Jos 2:12; Phi 1:28; 2Th 3:17

Whomsoever : 2Sa 20:9, 2Sa 20:10; Psa 55:20,Psa 55:21; Pro 27:6; Mat 26:48-50

and lead : 1Sa 23:22, 1Sa 23:23; Act 16:23

TSK: Mar 14:45

Master : Mar 12:14; Isa 1:3; Mal 1:6; Mat 23:8-10; Luk 6:46; Joh 13:13, Joh 13:14, Joh 20:16

TSK: Mar 14:46

Jdg 16:21; Lam 4:20; Joh 18:12; Act 2:23

TSK: Mar 14:47

Mat 26:51-54; Luk 22:49-51; Joh 18:10,Joh 18:11

TSK: Mar 14:48

Are : 1Sa 24:14, 1Sa 24:15, 1Sa 26:18; Mat 26:55; Luk 22:52, Luk 22:53

TSK: Mar 14:49

was : Mar 11:15-18, Mar 11:27, Mar 12:35; Mat 21:23-27; Luk 19:47, Luk 19:48, Luk 20:1, Luk 20:2, Luk 21:37, Luk 21:38; Joh 7:28-30,Joh 7:37, Joh 8:2, Joh 8:12, Joh 10:23, Joh 18:20

but : Psa. 22:1-31, 69:1-36; Isa 53:1-12; Dan 9:24-26; Mat 26:54, Mat 26:56; Luk 22:37; Luk 24:25-27, Luk 24:44, Luk 24:45

TSK: Mar 14:50

Mar 14:27; Job 19:13, Job 19:14; Psa 38:11, Psa 88:7, Psa 88:8, Psa 88:18; Isa 63:3; Joh 16:32, Joh 18:8; 2Ti 4:16

TSK: Mar 14:52

Mar 13:14-16; Gen 39:12; Job 2:4

TSK: Mar 14:53

they led : Isa 53:7; Mat 26:57-68; Luk 22:54-62; Joh 18:13, Joh 18:14, Joh 18:24

and with : Mar 15:1; Mat 26:3; Act 4:5, Act 4:6

TSK: Mar 14:54

Peter : Mar 14:29-31, Mar 14:38; 1Sa 13:7; Mat 26:58

even : Joh 18:15, Joh 18:16

and he : 1Ki 19:9, 1Ki 19:13; Luk 22:55, Luk 22:56; Joh 18:18, Joh 18:25

and warmed : Luk 22:44

TSK: Mar 14:55

sought : 1Ki 21:10,1Ki 21:13; Psa 27:12, Psa 35:11; Mat 26:59, Mat 26:60; Act 6:11-13, Act 24:1-13

and found : Dan 6:4; 1Pe 3:16-18

TSK: Mar 14:57

and bare : Mar 15:29; Jer 26:8, Jer 26:9, Jer 26:18; Mat 26:60,Mat 26:61, Mat 27:40; Joh 2:18-21; Act 6:13, Act 6:14

TSK: Mar 14:58

Dan 2:34, Dan 2:45; Act 7:48; 2Co 5:1; Heb 9:11, Heb 9:24

TSK: Mar 14:59

Mar 14:56

TSK: Mar 14:60

Mar 15:3-5; Mat 26:62, Mat 26:63; Joh 19:9, Joh 19:10

TSK: Mar 14:61

he held : Psa 39:1, Psa 39:2, Psa 39:9; Isa 53:7; Mat 27:12-14; Act 8:32; 1Pe 2:23

Art : Mar 15:2; Mat 11:3-5, Mat 16:16, Mat 26:63, Mat 26:64; Luk 22:67-70; Joh 10:24, Joh 18:37

the Son : Psa 2:7, Psa 119:12; Isa 9:6, Isa 9:7; Mat 3:17, Mat 8:29; Joh 1:34, Joh 1:49-51, Joh 5:18-25; Joh 10:30,Joh 10:31, Joh 10:36, Joh 19:7; 1Ti 1:11, 1Ti 6:15

TSK: Mar 14:62

I am : Mar 15:2; Mat 26:64, Mat 27:11; Luk 23:3

the Son : The passage of Daniel, to which our Lord refers, was always considered by the Jews as a description of the Messiah. Our Saviour, therefore, now in his lowest state of humiliation, asserted his claims as the Messiah, who shall appear in the clouds of heaven, as the judge of the world. Mar 13:26, Mar 16:19; Psa 110:1; Dan 7:13, Dan 7:14; Mat 24:30; Luk 22:69; Act 1:9-11; 2Th 1:7-10; Heb 1:3, Heb 8:1, Heb 8:10,Heb 8:12, Heb 8:13, Heb 12:2; Rev 1:7, Rev 20:11

TSK: Mar 14:63

his : Isa 36:22, Isa 37:1; Jer 36:23, Jer 36:24; Act 14:13, Act 14:14

TSK: Mar 14:64

Lev 24:16; 1Ki 21:9-13; Mat 26:65, Mat 26:66; Luk 22:71; Joh 5:18, Joh 8:58, Joh 8:59; Joh 10:31-33, Joh 19:7

TSK: Mar 14:65

Mar 15:19; Num 12:14; Job 30:10; Isa 50:6, Isa 52:14, Isa 53:3; Mic 5:1; Mat 26:67, Mat 26:68; Luk 22:63, Luk 22:64; Joh 18:22, Joh 19:3; Act 23:2; Heb 12:2

TSK: Mar 14:66

as : Mar 14:54; Mat 26:58, Mat 26:69, Mat 26:70; Luk 22:55-57

One : Joh 18:15-18

TSK: Mar 14:67

Jesus : Mar 10:47; Mat 2:23, Mat 21:11; Joh 1:45-49, Joh 19:19; Act 10:38

TSK: Mar 14:68

he denied : Mar 14:29-31; Joh 13:36-38; 2Ti 2:12, 2Ti 2:13

he went : Mat 26:71, Mat 26:72

and the : Mar 14:30

TSK: Mar 14:69

a maid : Η παιδισκη [Strong’ s G3814], ""the maid,""and not the one mentioned in Mar 14:66, but αλλη [Strong’ s G243], another, as Matthew states (Mat 26:71), she who was the janitrix, or door-keeper. Joh 18:17

and began : Mar 14:38; Luk 22:58; Joh 18:25; Gal 6:1

TSK: Mar 14:70

a little : Mat 26:73, Mat 26:74; Luk 22:59, Luk 22:60; Joh 18:26, Joh 18:27

for : Jdg 12:6; Act 2:7

and thy : Η λαλια [Strong’ s G2981], σου [Strong’ s G4675], ""Thy dialect,""or mode of speech. From various examples produced by Lightfoot, and Schoetgen, it appears that the Galileans used a very corrupt dialect and pronunciation; interchanging the gutturals, and other letters, and so blending or dividing words as to render them unintelligible, or convey a contrary sense. Thus when a Galilean would have asked, אמר למאן [Strong’ s H563], ""whose is this lamb,""he pronounced the first word so confusedly that it could not be known whether he meant חמר [Strong’ s H2543], ""an ass,"" חמר [Strong’ s H2562], ""wine,"" עמר [Strong’ s H6015], ""wool,""or עימר [Strong’ s H563], ""a lamb.""A certain woman intending to say to a judge, ""My lord, I had a picture which they stole; and it was so great, that if you had been placed in it, your feet would not have touched the ground,""so spoiled it by her pronunciation, that her words meant, ""Sir slave, I had a beam, and they stole thee away; and it was so great, that if they had hung thee on it, thy feet would not have touched the ground.""

TSK: Mar 14:71

2Ki 8:12-15, 2Ki 10:32; Jer 17:9; 1Co 10:12

TSK: Mar 14:72

the second : Mar 14:30,Mar 14:68; Mat 26:34, Mat 26:74

Peter : 2Sa 24:10; Psa 119:59, Psa 119:60; Jer 31:18-20; Eze 16:63, Eze 36:31; Luk 15:17-19, Luk 22:60

when he thought thereon, he wept : or, he wept abundantly, or he began to weep, Eze 7:16; Mat 26:75; Luk 22:62; 2Co 7:10

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.

Barnes: Mar 14:32-42

See the notes at Mat 26:36-46.

Mar 14:36

Ἀββα Abba This word denotes "father."It is a Syriac word, and is used by the Saviour as a word denoting filial affection and tenderness. Compare Rom 8:15.

Mar 14:40

Neither wist they ... - Neither "knew"they. They were so conscious of the impropriety of sleeping at that time, that they could not find any answer to give to the inquiry why they had done it.

Mar 14:41

It is enough - There has been much difficulty in determining the meaning of this phrase. Campbell translates it, "all is over"- that is, the time when you could have been of service to me is gone by. They might have aided him by watching for him when they were sleeping, but now the time was past, and he was already, as it were, in the hands of his enemies. It is not improbable, however, that after his agony some time elapsed before Judas came. He had required them to watch - that is, to keep awake during that season of agony. After that they might have been suffered to sleep, while Jesus watched alone. As he saw Judas approach he probably roused them, saying, It is sufficient - as much repose has been taken as is allowable - the enemy is near, and the Son of man is about to be betrayed.

Barnes: Mar 14:43-52

See the notes at Mat 26:47-57.

Mar 14:45

Master, Master - As if expressing great joy that he had found him again.

Mar 14:51

A certain young man - Who this was we have no means of determining, but it seems not improbable that he may have been the owner of the garden, and that he may have had an understanding with Jesus that he should visit it for retirement when he withdrew from the city. That he was not one of the apostles is clear. It is probable that be was roused from sleep by the noise made by the rabble, and came to render any aid in his power in quelling the disturbance. It is not known why this circumstance is recorded by Mark. It is omitted by all the other evangelists. It may have been recorded to show that the conspirators had instructions to take the "apostles"as well as Jesus, and supposing him to be one of them, they laid hold of him to take him before the high priest; or it "may"have been recorded in order to place his conduct in strong and honorable contrast with the timidity and fear of the disciples, who had all fled. Compare the notes at Mat 26:56.

A linen cloth cast about his naked body - He was roused from sleep, and probably threw around him, in his haste, what was most convenient. It was common to sleep in linen bed-clothes, and he seized a part of the clothes and hastily threw it round him.

The young men - The Roman soldiers. They were called "young men"because they were made up chiefly of youth. This was a Jewish mode of speaking. See Gen 14:24; 2Sa 2:14; Isa 13:18.

Laid hold on him - Supposing him to be one of the apostles.

Barnes: Mar 14:53-72

See this fully explained in the notes at Mat. 26:57-75.

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.

Poole: Mar 14:22-26

Ver. 22-26. See Poole on "Mat 26:26" , and following verses to Mat 26:30 , where the very small differences between our evangelist and Matthew and Luke are also considered.

Poole: Mar 14:27-31

Ver. 27-31. See Poole on "Mat 26:31" , and following verses to Mat 26:35 , on all the discourse.

Poole: Mar 14:32-42

Ver. 32-42. See Poole on "Mat 26:36" , and following verses to Mat 26:46 .

Poole: Mar 14:43-45

Ver. 43-45. See Poole on "Mat 26:47" , and following verses to Mat 26:49 .

Poole: Mar 14:46-50

Ver. 46-50. Having, to complete the history of the passion, especially as to what is said of it by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, in my notes on Matthew considered all passages relating to what Matthew saith, the things here mentioned being opened in our notes on Mat 26:50-56 , need not here again be enlarged upon.

See Poole on "Mat 26:50" , and following verses to Mat 26:56 .

Poole: Mar 14:51-52

Ver. 51,52. This part of the history is only recorded by Mark. What hath made some affirm that this was St. John I cannot tell. John was one of the eleven that were with Christ when Judas came, and though we find him asleep a little before, yet we read not that he was gone to bed, nor can conceive there was any at or near the place. The garment in which he was, in all probability, was a night garment. It is certain it was a loose garment, he could not else, when he was apprehended, have so soon quit himself of it; and being quit of that it seemeth he was quit of all, for the text saith he

fled from them naked nor doth the text give him the honour to call him a disciple of Christ at large. Probably it was some young man who, being in his bed, and hearing the noise of the multitude going by his lodging with swords and staves, got up, slipped on his night garment, and followed them, to see what the matter was; and they having apprehended Christ, he followed them. And possibly his unusual habit made them take the more notice of him, staying when the disciples were all fled. Nor can the reason be well given why Mark should record such a passage, unless it were to tell us what we must expect from the rage of persecutors, viz. that our own innocency should not defend us. This young man was not concerned in Christ, only came as a spectator, without any arms. But the sword of persecution useth not to distinguish perfectly. The basilisk (they say) will fly at the picture of a man.

Poole: Mar 14:53-65

Ver. 53-65. This history of our Saviour’ s examination before the high priest we had in Mat 26:57-68 :

See Poole on "Mat 26:57" , and following verses to Mat 26:68 . It should seem the high priests and council were very eager upon this thing. This council seems to have sat up all night, for early in the morning they carried him (condemned by them) to Pilate, and before twelve they brought him out of the city to be crucified. These wretched hypocrites had but the evening before been taking the passover. It was now the feast of unleavened bread. This was now the first fruit of their thanksgiving to God, for bringing them out of the land of Egypt; besides that their keeping a court of judgment in a capital case on a holy day, or in the night, were things against all rules of order. But the rage of persecutors can be neither bounded by the laws of God or men. If the servants of God still be thus treated, they are in this more like Christ, who hath told them, that the disciple is not above his master. But see further in the notes on Matthew twenty-six.

Poole: Mar 14:66-72

Ver. 66-72. All four evangelists give us an account of this history of Peter’ s denial of his Master. We have considered what they all say, to complete the history, in our notes on Mat 26:69-75 ; to which I see no reason to add any thing but the observation,

1. How contemptible means God often useth to take down our pride and self-confidences. Peter, a great apostle, is here humbled by the means of two maids.

2. How naturally one sin draws on another. Peter first tells a lie, then to lying addeth swearing and cursing.

3. How necessary it is for those that would keep from sin to keep out of sinners’ company. I am (saith David) a companion of them that fear thee, Psa 119:63 .

4. How profitable words from God are for the time to come, though at present we find not the use and advantage of them.

5. How different the sinnings of reprobates and saints are, as to the consequences and issues.

Judas sins, repents, and hangs himself; Peter goeth out and weepeth bitterly. Judas repented unto death; Peter repenteth unto life. See more with reference to this history in our notes on Mat 26:75 . Thus far we have heard Christ’ s trial before the ecclesiastical court of the Jews. Thus far what he said Mar 10:33 is made good. He is delivered to the chief priests, and the scribes, and they have (as we have heard) condemned him to death. But he also said there, — and they shall deliver him to the Gentiles: and they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him. We must see those words verified in the ensuing part of the history, in the next chapter.

Lightfoot: Mar 14:26

And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.   

[And when they had sung an hymn.] I. "What difference is there between the first Passover and the second?" [that is, the Passover of the first month and of the second, Numbers_9]. "In the first, every one is bound under that law, 'Leaven shall not be seen nor found among you.' In the second, 'Leaven and unleavened bread may be with a man in his house.' In the first, he is bound to a hymn when he eats the Passover. In the second, he is not bound to a hymn when he eats it. In both, he is bound to a hymn while he makes or kills. Both are to be eaten roast, and with unleavened bread, and bitter herbs, and both drive away the sabbath." The Gemarists ask, "Whence this is, that they are bound to a hymn; while they eat the Passover? R. Jochanan in the name of R. Simeon Ben Josedek saith, The Scripture saith, 'You shall have a song, as in the night when a feast is kept,' Isa 30:29. The night which is set apart for a feast is bound to a hymn; the night which is not set apart for a feast is not bound to a hymn." The Gloss writes thus; "As ye are wont to sing in the night when a feast is kept: but there is no night wherein they are obliged to a song, besides the night when the Passover is eaten."  

II. That hymn is called by the Rabbins the Hallel; and was from the beginning of Psalms_113, to the end of Psalms_118, which they cut in two parts; and a part of it they repeated in the very middle of the banquet, and they reserved a part to the end.  

How far the former portion extended, is disputed between the schools of Shammai and Hillel. That of Shammai saith, Unto the end of Psalms_113. That of Hillel saith, Unto the end of Psalms_114. But these things must not stop us. The hymn which Christ now sang with his disciples after meat was the latter part. In which, as the Masters of the Traditions observe, these five things are mentioned: "The going out of Egypt. The cutting in two of the Red Sea. The delivery of the law. The resurrection of the dead: and the sorrows of the Messias. The going out of Egypt, as it is written, 'When Israel went out of Egypt.' The cutting in two of the Red Sea, as it is written, 'The sea saw it, and fled.' The delivery of the law, as it is written, 'The mountains leaped like rams.' The resurrection of the dead, as it is written, 'I will walk before the Lord in the land of the living.' And the sorrows of the Messias, as it is written, 'Not unto us, Lord, not unto us.'"  

[They went out into the mount of Olives.] They were bound by traditional canons to lodge within Jerusalem. "On the first Passover, every one is bound to lodge also on the second Passover he is bound to lodge." The Gloss thus: "He that keeps the Passover is bound to lodge in Jerusalem the first night." But it is disputed, whether it be the same night wherein the lamb is eaten; or the night first following the feast day. See the place: and let not the lion of the tribe of Judah be restrained in those cobwebs { [ Pesach. folio 95.2.]

Lightfoot: Mar 14:36

And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.   

[Abba, Father.] As it is necessary to distinguish between the Hebrew and Chaldee idiom in the words Abi; and Abba; so you may; I had almost said, you must; distinguish of their sense. For the word Abi; signifies indeed a natural father, but withal a civil father also, an elder, a master, a doctor, a magistrate: but the word Abba; denotes only a natural father, with which we comprehend also an adopting father: yea, it denotes, My father.  

Let no man say to his neighbour, 'My father' is nobler than thy father. "R. Chaija asked Rabh the son of his brother, when he came into the land of Israel, Doth my father live? And he answereth, And doth your mother live? " As if he should have said, You know your mother is dead, so you may know your father is dead. "Solomon said, Observe ye what my father saith?" So in the Targum infinite times.  

And we may observe in the Holy Scriptures, wheresoever mention is made of a natural father, the Targumists use the word Abba; but when of a civil father, they use another word: --   

I. Of a natural father.  

Gen 22:7; " And he said, 'Abi,' my father." The Targum reads, " And said, 'Abba,' my father." Gen 27:34; "Bless me, even me also 'Abi,' O my father." The Targum reads, Bless me also, 'Abba,' my father. Gen 48:18; Not so, 'Abi,' my father. Targum, Not so, 'Abba,' my father. Jdg 11:36; 'Abi,' my father, if thou hast opened thy mouth. Targum, 'Abba,' my father, if thou hast opened thy mouth. Isa 8:4; The Targum reads, before the child shall know to cry 'Abba,' my father, and my mother. See also the Targum upon Jos 2:13; and Jdg 14:16; and elsewhere very frequently.  

II. Of a civil father.  

Gen 4:20;21: He was 'Abi,' the father of such as dwell in tents. "He was 'Abi,' the father of such as handle the harp," etc. The Targum reads, He was 'Rabba,' the prince or the master of them. 1Sa 10:12; But who is 'Abihem,' their father? Targum, Who is their 'Rab,' master or prince? 2Ki 2:12; 'Abi, Abi,' my father, my father. The Targum, Rabbi, Rabbi. 2Ki 5:13; And they said, 'Abi,' my father. The Targum, And they said, 'Mari,' my Lord. 2Ki 6:21; 'Abi,' my father, shall I smite them? Targum, 'Rabbi,' shall I kill; etc.  

Hence appears the reason of those words of the apostle, Rom 8:15; Ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. And Gal 4:6; "Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying Abba, Father." It was one thing to call God Abi, Father; that is, Lord, King, Teacher, Governor; etc.; and another to call him Abba, My Father. The doctrine of adoption, in the proper sense, was altogether unknown to the Jewish schools (though they boasted that the people of Israel alone were adopted by God above all other nations); and yet they called God Father; and our Father; that is, our God, Lord, and King, etc. But "since ye are sons (saith the apostle), ye cry, Abba, O my Father;" in the proper and truly paternal sense.  

Thus Christ in this place, however under an unspeakable agony, and compassed about on all sides with anguishments, and with a very cloudy and darksome providence; yet he acknowledges, invokes, and finds God his Father; in a most sweet sense.  

We cry, 'Abba,' Father. Did the saints, invoking God, and calling him Abba; add also Father? Did Christ also use the same addition of the Greek word Father; and did he repeat the word { Abba or Abi? Father seems rather here to be added by Mark, and there also by St. Paul, for explication of the word ' Abba': and this is so much the more probable also, because it is expressed Father; and not O Father; in the vocative.

Lightfoot: Mar 14:51

And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:   

[Having a linen cloth cast about his naked body.] It is well rendered by the Vulgar clothed in sindon or fine linen; for to that the words have respect: not that he had some linen loosely and by chance cast about him, but that the garment wherewith he always went clothed, was of sindon; that is, of linen. Let us hearken a little to the Talmudists.  

"The Rabbins deliver: Sindon [linen] with fringes; what of them? The school of Shammai absolves, the school of Hillel binds, and the wise men determine according to the school of Hillel. R. Eliezer Ben R. Zadok saith, Whosoever wears hyacinth [purple] in Jerusalem, is among those who make men admire." By hyacinthinum [purple] they understand those fringes that were to put them in mind of the law, Numbers_15. And by sindon, linen; is understood a cloak; or that garment, which, as it serves for clothing the body, so it is doubly serviceable to religion. For, 1. To this garment were the fringes fastened, concerning which mention is made, Num 15:38. 2. With this garment they commonly covered their heads when they prayed. Hence that in the Gemarists in the place quoted: " talith; or the cloak whereby the boy covereth his head, and a great part of himself; if any one of elder years goes forth clothed with it in a more immodest manner, he is bound to wear fringes." And elsewhere, "The priests who veil themselves when they go up into the pulpit, with a cloak which is not their own;" etc.  

But now it was customary to wear this cloak, in the summer especially, and in Jerusalem for the most part, made of sindon or of linen. And the question between the schools of Shammai and Hillel arose hence, that when the fringes were woolen, and the cloak linen, how would the suspicion of wearing things of different sorts be avoided? R. Zeira loosed his sindon. The Gloss is: "He loosed his fringes from his sindon [that is, from his talith; which was of 'sindon,' linen], because it was of linen;" etc. "The angel found Rabh Ketina clothed in sindon; and said to him, O Ketina, Ketina, sindon in the summer, and a short cloak in the winter."  

You see that word which is spoke by the evangelist, about his naked body; carries an emphasis: for it was most usual to be clothed with sindon for an outer garment. What therefore must we say of this young man? I suppose in the first place, that he was not a disciple of Jesus; but that he now followed, as some curious looker on, to see what this multitude would at last produce. And to such a suspicion they certainly do consent, who think him to have been roused from his bed, and hastily followed the rout with nothing but his shirt on, without any other clothes. I suppose, secondly, St. Mark in the phrase having a sindon cast about him; spake according to the known and vulgar dialect of the nation, clothed with a sindon. For none shall ever persuade me that he would use an idiom, any thing uncouth or strange to the nation; and that when he used the very same phrase in Greek with that Jewish one, he intended not to propound the very same sense. But now you clearly see, they themselves being our teachers, what is the meaning of being clothed with a sindon; with them, namely, to have a talith or cloak made of linen; that garment to which the fringes hung. I suppose, in the last place, that this young man, out of religion, or superstition rather, more than ordinary, had put on his sindon; and nothing but that upon his naked body; neglecting his inner garment (commonly called chaluk ), and indeed neglecting his body. For there were some amongst the Jews that did so macerate their bodies, and afflict them with hunger and cold, even above the severe rule of other sects.  

Josephus in his own Life writes thus: "I was sixteen years old, and I resolved to make trial of the institution of the three sects among us, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes; for I judged I should be able very well to choose the best of them, if I thoroughly learned them all. Afflicting, therefore, and much tormenting myself, I tried them all. But judging with myself that it was not enough to have tried these sects; and hearing of one Banus, that lived in the wilderness, that he used a garment made of leaves; or the bark of trees; and no food but what grew of its own accord, and often by day and by night washing himself in cold water, I became a follower of him, and for three years abode with him."  

And in that place in the Talmudists, which we but now produced, at that very story of Rabh Ketina, wearing a sindon in the winter for his talith; we have these words; "The religious in elder times, when they had wove three wings [of the talith], they joined the purple;" whereof the fringes were made: "but otherwise, they are religious who impose upon themselves things heavier than ordinary." And immediately follows the story of the angel and Ketina, who did so. There were some who heaped up upon themselves burdens and yokes of religion above the common rule, and that this is to be understood by such as laid upon themselves heavier things than ordinary; both the practice of some Jews persuade, and the word itself speaks it, being used by the Gemarists in the same sense elsewhere.  

Such, we suppose, was this young man (as Josephus was, when a young man, of whom before), who, when others armed themselves against the cold with a double garment, namely, an inner garment; and a talith or cloak; clothed himself with a single garment, and that of sindon or linen; and under the show of some more austere religion, neglecting the ordinary custom and care of himself.  

The thing, taken in the sense which we propound, speaks the furious madness of this most wicked rout so much the more, inasmuch as they spared not a man, and him a young man; bearing most evident marks of a more severe religion.

Lightfoot: Mar 14:56

For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.   

[Their witness agreed not together.] The traditional canons, in these things, divide testimonies into three parts: --   

I. There was a vain testimony; which being heard, there is no more inquiry made from that witness, there is no more use made of him, but he is set aside, as speaking nothing to the business.  

II. There was a standing testimony; for let me so turn it here, which, although it proved not the matter without doubt, yet it was not rejected by the judges, but admitted to examination by citation; that is, others being admitted to try to disprove it if they could.  

III. There was the testimony of the words of them that agreed or fitted together (this also was a standing evidence ), when the words of two witnesses agreed, and were to the same purpose: an even evidence. Of these, see the tract Sanhedrin; where also discourse is had concerning exact search and examination of the witnesses by inquisition; and scrutiny; and citation; by which curious disquisition if they had examined the witnesses that babbled and barked against Christ, Oh! The unspeakable and infinite innocence of the most blessed Jesus, which envy and madness itself, never so much sworn together against his life, could not have fastened any crime upon!  

It is said, Mar 14:55; they sought for witness against Jesus. This is neither equal, O fathers of the Sanhedrim! nor agreeable to your rule: In judgments about the life of any man, they begin first to transact about quitting the party who is tried; and they begin not with those things which make for his condemnation. Whether the Sanhedrim now followed that canon in their scrutiny about Christ's case, let them look to it: by their whole process it sufficiently appears, whither their disquisition tended. And let it be granted, that they pretended some colour of justice and mercy, and permitted that any one who would, might come forth, and testify something in his behalf; where was any such now to be found? when all his disciples turned their backs upon him, and the Fathers of the Traditions had provided, that whosoever should confess him to be Christ should be struck with the thunder of their excommunication, Joh 9:22.

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.

Haydock: Mar 14:22

This which I now give, and which you now receive; for the bread is not the figure of Christ, but is changed into the true body of Christ; and he himself says, The bread, which I will give you, is my flesh. (St. John vi.) But the flesh of Christ is not seen, on account of our infirmity; for if we were allowed to see with our eyes the flesh and blood of Jesus, we should not date to approach the blessed sacrament. Our Lord therefore condescending to our weakness, preserves the outward species of bread and wine, but changes the bread and wine into the reality of flesh and blood. (Theophylactus) ---

St. John Chrysostom, in his thirtieth sermon on the treason of Judas, says: "Christ is also now present to adorn our table, (altar) the same that was present to adorn that table. For it is not man that causes the elements to become the body and blood of Christ, but the very Christ, the same that was crucified for us: Greek: oude gar anthropos estin o[?] koion ta prokeimena ginesthai soma kai aima christou all autos o staurotheis uper emon christos. The priest stand his vicegerent, and pronounces the words, but the power and grace is of God. He says, this is my body, and the word changes the elements: and as the sentence 'increase and multiply, and fill the earth, was spoken once, but still imparts fecundity to human nature throughout all time: so these words (of consecration) once spoken, constitute an absolute, perfect sacrifice upon every altar of the Church from that day to this, yea even to the time when Christ shall come again at the last day." Greek: Schema pleron esteken o iereus, ta remata phtheggomenos ekeina e de dunamis, kai e charis tou theou esti. touto mou esti to soma, phesi touto to rema metarruthmizei ta prokeimena. Kai kathaper e phone ekeine e legousa "auxanesthe, kai plethunesthe, kai plerosate ten gen," errethe men apax, dia pantos de tou[?] chronou ginetai ergo endunamousa ten phusin ten emeteran pros paidopoiian. outo kai e phone aute apax lechtheisa, kath ekasten trapesan en tais ekklesiais, ex ekeinou mechri semeron, kai mechri tes autou parousias, ten thusian apertismenen epgasetai. (St. John Chrysostom, Serm. xxx, on the treachery of Judas.)

These words are so plain, that it is difficult to imagine others more explicit. Their force and import will however appear in a still stronger light, if we consider the formal promise Christ had made to his apostles, as related by St. John, that he would give them his flesh to eat, that same flesh he was to deliver up for the life of the world. He on that occasion confirmed with remarkable emphasis of expression the reality of this manducation, assuring them that his flesh was meat indeed, and his blood drink indeed; and when some of the disciples were shocked at such a proposal, he still insisted that unless they eat his flesh, they should have no life in them. The possibility of it he evinced from his divine power, to be exemplified in his miraculous ascension; the necessity of it he established, by permitting those to abandon him who refused to believe it; and the belief of it he enforced on the minds of his disciples, from the consideration that he, their teacher, was the Son of God, and the author of their eternal salvation. The apostles were deeply impressed with these thoughts, previously to the institution of the holy Eucharist; consequently when they beheld Jesus Christ, just before his death, taking bread into his sacred hands; when after blessing it with solemnity, they heard him say, Take, eat; this is my body, which shall be given for you; they must necessarily have concluded, that it was truly his body, which he now gave them to eat, according to his former promise. And though their reason or senses might have started difficulties, yet all these were obviated by their belief of his being God, and consequently able to effect whatever he pleased, and to make good whatever he said. ---

Moreover, if we consult tradition, we shall find that the Greek, as well as the Latin Church, has uniformly declared in favour of the literal sense of Christ's words, as may be seen at large in all Catholic controvertists. The learned author of the Perpetuite de la Foi, and his continuator, Renaudot, in the two additional quarto volumes, have invincibly demonstrated, that the belief of all the Oriental Christians perfectly coincides with that of the Catholic Church, respecting the real presence. Dr. Philip Nicolai, though a Protestant, candidly acknowledges, in his first book of the Kingdom of Christ, p. 22, "that not only the churches of the Greek, but also the Russians, the Georgians, the Armenians, the Judæans, and the Ethiopians, as many of them as believe in Christ, hold the true and real presence of the body and blood of our Lord." This general agreement amongst the many Churches of the Christian world, affords the strongest evidence against Secker and others, who pretend that the doctrine of the real presence is a mere innovation; which was not started till 700 years after Christ's death. For, how will their supposition accord with the belief of the Nestorians and Euthychians, who were separated from the Church of Rome long before that period, and who were found to agree exactly with Catholics concerning this important tenent? ---

See this point clearly given in Rutter's Evangelical Harmony.

This is my Blood.

Haydock: Mar 14:24

Which shall be shed. With words so explicit, with the unanimous agreement of the Eastern and Western Churches, how can any Dissenters bring themselves to believe that there is nothing more designed, or given, than a memorial of Christ's passion and death? Catholics, who believe in the real presence, do certainly renew in themselves the remembrance of our Saviour's death and passion, with more lively sentiments of devotion than they who believe it to be mere bread and wine. The outward forms of bread and wine, which remain in the Eucharist, are chiefly designed to signify or represent to us three things; viz. 1. The passion of Christ, of which they are the remembrance; 2. the body and blood of Christ, really, though sacramentally present, of which they are the veil; and 3. everlasting life, of which they are the pledge. ---

N. B. In speaking of the real presence in the Eucharist, Catholics hold that Christ is corporally and substantially present, but not carnally; i.e. not in that gross, natural, and sensible manner, in which or separated brethren so frequently misrepresent our doctrine.

Haydock: Mar 14:25

This vine represents the Synagogue, according to Isaias. The vine, or vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel. Of this vine Christ drank for some time; and though many of the branches were become useless, there were yet many that still brought forth fruit. But Christ now going to his passion, declares that it would be no longer acceptable to him, since the figures were not to pass into reality. (Ven. Bede)

Haydock: Mar 14:26

Jesus Christ is seized upon Mount Olivet, whence he ascended into heaven; that we might know that the place on earth where we watch and pray, where we suffer chains without resistance, is the place whence we are to ascend into heaven. (St. Jerome)

Haydock: Mar 14:27

Christ permitted his disciples to fall, that they might learn not to trust in themselves. To strengthen his prediction, he adduces the testimony of Zacharias the prophet, (xiii. 7.) I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep shall be dispersed. (Theophylactus) ... This text is expressed in other words, being there spoken in the person of the prophet: Strike the pastor, and the sheep shall be dispersed. (Ven. Bede) ---

By these words, the prophet prays for the passion of the Lord. The Almighty Father answers his prayer: I will strike the shepherd. The Son is sent by the Father, and is stricken by becoming incarnate and suffering death. (St. Jerome)

Haydock: Mar 14:37

You who were ready to die for me, cannot watch with me! We are here taught a great duty of a Christian life, and that is, to beg of God, that he would give us strength to observe and follow the motions and inspirations of his Holy Spirit, and never to resist the calls of heaven.

Haydock: Mar 14:45

Our Lord received the kiss of the traitor, that he might not appear to avoid being delivered up; and at the same time he fulfilled that of the Psalmist, with those who hated peace, I was peaceful. (Psalm cxix. 7.)

Haydock: Mar 14:46

Here is Joseph betrayed and sold by his brethren, and pierced in his soul with a sword. (St. Jerome)

Haydock: Mar 14:47

This was Peter, as we learn from St. John xviii. 10. He is here actuated with his usual ardent zeal, calling to mind the example of Phinees, who by executing justice on the wicked, merited the reward of justice, and a continual priesthood. (Ven. Bede) ---

St. Mark conceals his master's name, lest he should seem to be publishing the ardour of his zeal for Christ. (Theophylactus)

Haydock: Mar 14:51

This probably was the owner, or the son of the owner of the garden, who hearing the tumult came to see what was the cause. It must have been a young man from the Greek word neaniskos. (Tirinus)

Haydock: Mar 14:55

Though the law prescribed there should be only one high priest, yet at this time there were many, being appointed yearly by the Roman governor; and those are here called chief priests who had once been invested with the dignity of high priest, but were at that time out of office. (Theophylactus)

Haydock: Mar 14:56

Their evidence did not agree. Others translate, their testimonies were not sufficient; that is, so as to amount to a crime that made him guilty of death. The Greek, as well as the Latin text, may be taken in either sense. The high priest, vexed at this, stood up, and asked him questions, hoping to make him appear guilty by his own confession. (Witham) ---

This latter sense is given to the same expression, ver. 59. infra.

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

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Convenientia testimonia non erant. Greek: isai ai marturiai ouk esan. The word Greek: isai may either signify that they did not agree together, or that they were not sufficient to get him condemned, which latter is the opinion of Erasmus, who translates, non erant idonea.

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

Haydock: Mar 14:57

Thus has iniquity lied to itself, (Psalm xxvi.) as formerly in the case of the wife of Putiphar against Joseph, (Genesis xxix.) and the elders against Susanna. (Daniel) (St. Jerome)

Haydock: Mar 14:61

Our Redeemer was silent, because he knew they would not attend to his words; therefore does he say in St. Luke, If I shall tell you, you will not believe me. (Theophylactus)

Haydock: Mar 14:63

Caiphas, in order to excite their hatred against what was said, rent his garments, and thus deprived himself of the priestly dignity, by transgressing the precept; which, speaking of the high priest says: He shall not uncover his head, and his garments he shall not rend. (Leviticus xxi. 10.) (St. Leo the Great) ---

By the high priest rending his garments he shews, that the Jewish priesthood, on account of their crimes, was now dissolved; whereas the tunic of Christ, by which the one true Catholic Church is prefigured, was seamless, and not to be divided. (Ven. Bede)

Haydock: Mar 14:71

In this one apostle, Peter, the first and chief in the order of apostles, in whom the Church was figured, both sorts were to be signified, viz. the strong and the weak, because the Church is not without both. (St. Augustine, Serm. xiii. de verb. Do.) ---

Again, our Saviour would shew by the example of the chief apostle, that no man ought to presume of himself, when even St. Peter was not secure and immoveable. (St. Augustine, tract. lxvi. in Evan. Joan. and St. Leo, serm. ix. de Pass. Do.)

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.

Gill: Mar 14:22

And as they did eat,.... The paschal lamb, and the unleavened bread, just at the conclusion of that feast:

Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; beginning and instituting a new feast, to be kept in aftertimes, in commemoration of his sufferings and death, now near at hand;

and gave to them, the disciples,

and said, take, eat: the word eat is not in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic versions, and is wanting in some copies:

this is body; a figure and representation of it; See Gill on Mat 26:26.

Gill: Mar 14:23

And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks,.... Over it, and for it, by blessing it, and appropriating it to the present use and service:

he gave it to them; his disciples,

and they all drank of it; Judas, as well as the rest, as he bid them do; See Gill on Mat 26:27.

Gill: Mar 14:24

And he said unto them,.... Not after they had drank of it, but before, and as he gave it to them:

this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many; in Matthew it is added, "for the remission of sins"; See Gill on Mat 26:28.

Gill: Mar 14:25

Verily I say unto you,.... This seems, to have been said after the eating of the passover, according to Luk 22:18, but was, in reality, not till after the Lord's supper was ended, and the last cup was drank, which was wont to be drank at the passover:

I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine; that is, wine,

until that day that I drink it new; in a figurative and mystical sense; by which are meant the joys of heaven:

in the kingdom of God; Father, Son, and Spirit, upon the general resurrection of the dead, when the kingdom of the Mediator will be delivered up, and there will be no distinction of government; but God, Father, Son, and Spirit, will be all in all, and shall reign in the saints, and they with them, to all eternity; See Gill on Mat 26:29.

Gill: Mar 14:26

And when they had sung an hymn,.... The Hallell, used at the passover:

they went out into the Mount of Olives; Christ, and eleven of his disciples; for Judas now separated from them, and went to the chief priests to acquaint them how things were, where Jesus was going, and where they might apprehend him; See Gill on Mat 26:30.

Gill: Mar 14:27

And Jesus saith unto them,.... As they were going to the Mount of Olives. The Persic version reads, in this place; meaning the Mount of Olives, having got thither:

all ye shall be offended because of me this night; See Gill on Mat 26:31;

for it is written in Zec 13:7,

I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: Christ is meant by the shepherd, and the apostles by the sheep. The Syriac version reads, "his sheep".

Gill: Mar 14:28

But after that I am risen,.... From the dead, which, for their comfort, he assures them of; though they would be offended and discouraged at the seizing, and condemning, and crucifixion of him:

I will go before you into Galilee; the place of their nativity, and where he had often conversed with them; See Gill on Mat 26:32.

Gill: Mar 14:29

But Peter said unto him,.... Being greatly moved at what Christ had said, that all of them would be offended with him that night, and run away from him, and be scattered from him, and one another:

although all shall be offended, yet will not I; though all the rest of the disciples, the other ten, should do as Judas had done, should fall off from Christ, and either betray him, or deny him, or, at least, turn their backs on him, yet he would do neither; See Gill on Mat 26:33.

Gill: Mar 14:30

And Jesus saith unto him, verily I say unto thee,.... As confident as thou art of standing by me, and abiding with me;

that this day, which was then begun; for the Jews reckoned their days from evening, as in Gen 1:5;

even in this night; this night to be observed, this night of the passover, before it is past:

before the cock crow twice; for there was a first and second cock crowing, the one at midnight, and the other near break of day, and which last is properly the cock crowing: the word "twice" is left out in the Ethiopic version:

thou shalt deny me thrice; as he did; See Gill on Mat 26:34.

Gill: Mar 14:31

But he spake the more vehemently,.... With a louder voice; with more spirit and eagerness; in a more peremptory and self-confident way.

If I should die with thee, I will not deny thee in any wise. The Syriac version adds, "O my Lord", my dear Lord, I will never deny thee upon any consideration whatever; and the Persic version, O Lord:

likewise also said they all; as he said, so said "all the disciples", as the Syriac version reads it; See Gill on Mat 26:35.

Gill: Mar 14:32

And they came to a place which is named Gethsemane,.... At the foot of the Mount of Olives, where the olives, which grew in great plenty on the mount, were pressed: and where our Lord began to be bruised, for our sins:

and be saith to his disciples: to eight of them:

sit ye here while I shall pray; at some distance from hence; See Gill on Mat 26:36.

Gill: Mar 14:33

And he taketh with him Peter, and James, and John,.... Who were witnesses of his transfiguration on the mount, and now of his sorrows in the garden:

and began to be sore amazed; to be in great consternation and astonishment, at the sight of all the sins of his people coming upon him; at the black storm of wrath, that was gathering thick over him; at the sword of justice which was brandished against him; and at the curses of the righteous law, which, like so many thunderbolts of vengeance, were directed at him: no wonder it should be added,

and to be very heavy: both with sin and sorrow; See Gill on Mat 26:37.

Gill: Mar 14:34

And saith unto them,.... The above three disciples;

my soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: he was surrounded with sorrow, and it pressed him so hard, and close, on every side, that he was just ready to die with it:

tarry ye here, and watch: in Matthew it is added, "with me": See Gill on Mat 26:38.

Gill: Mar 14:35

And he went forward a little,.... About a stone's cast, Luk 22:41,

and fell on the ground, and prayed; he fell on his face to the ground, which was a praying posture. One of the Jewish canons concerning it, is this ^a:

"worshipping, how is it done? after a man has lifted up his head; he bows it five times, he sits upon the ground, and "falls upon his face", ארצה, "to the ground", and supplicates with whatsoever supplication he pleases: worshipping, or bowing, is the stretching out of hands and feet, until a man is found cast upon his face to the ground.''

See Gill on Mat 26:39. The supplication Christ made in this posture was,

that, it were possible, the hour might pass from him; the time fixed and agreed upon for his sufferings and death; that is, that it might pass without his enduring them, if there was any possibility of excusing him, and of his people's being saved without them; See Gill on Mat 26:39.

Gill: Mar 14:36

And he said, Abba, Father,.... In the original text, the former of these is a Syriac word, and the latter a Greek one, explanative of the former, as in Rom 8:15 and Gal 4:6 or the repetition is made, to express the vehemency of his affection, and his strong confidence in God, as his Father, amidst his distress, as the Syriac version renders it, אבא אבי, "Abba, my Father": or "my Father, my Father"; and so the Ethiopic version:

all things are possible unto thee; so Philo the Jew ^b, taking notice of Isaac's question about the burnt offering, and Abraham's answer to it, represents the latter as adding, in confirmation of it,

"all things are possible to God, and which are both difficult and impossible to be done by men;''

suggesting, that God could easily provide a lamb for a sacrifice; and Christ here intimates, that every thing consistent with his perfections, counsels, and covenant, were possible to be done by him; and how far what he prays for, was agreeable to these, he submits to him, and to his sovereign will:

take away this cup from me; nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou wilt: See Gill on Mat 26:39.

Gill: Mar 14:37

And he cometh and findeth them sleeping,.... His three disciples, Peter, James, and John:

and saith unto Peter; particularly, he having so lately asserted, with so much confidence, his love to Christ, and close attachment to him:

Simon, sleepest thou? Christ calls him by the name he first went by, and not by that which he had given him, Cephas, or Peter; he not now having that firmness and constancy, though he boasted of it, which answers to that name:

couldst thou not watch one hour? The Arabic and Persic versions add, with me; and so does the Complutensian edition; See Gill on Mat 26:40.

Gill: Mar 14:38

Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation,.... Of denying Christ, and falling off from him, which would quickly offer to them, when they should see him apprehended, bound, and led away.

The spirit truly is ready. The Persic version renders it, "my mind"; as if the Spirit or soul of Christ was meant; whereas it is either to be understood of the evil spirit, Satan, who was disposed to attack them, and especially Peter, whom he desired to have, and sift as wheat; or else the spirit of the disciples, their renewed spirit, which was ready and disposed watching and praying, and willing to abide by Christ:

but the flesh is weak; they were but flesh and blood, and so not a match of themselves for so powerful an adversary as Satan, and therefore had need to watch and pray; or "their body", as the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions render it, was weak, and subject to drowsiness and sleep; and especially they were weak and feeble, and very unequal of themselves for spiritual exercises, as they had flesh, or a corrupt nature in them; See Gill on Mat 26:41.

Gill: Mar 14:39

And again he went away,.... To the same place, or at much such a distance from them, as before:

and prayed and spake the same words; or word, that is, the same matter; for λογος, here, answers to דבר, which signifies a thing, or matter, as well as word: Christ prayed to the same effect, for matter and substance the same as before, though not in the same express words, as is clear from Mat 26:39.

Gill: Mar 14:40

And when he returned, he found them asleep again,.... Notwithstanding the expostulation he had used with them, the exhortation he had given them, and the danger he had suggested to them:

for their eyes were heavy: with sleep and sorrow:

neither wist they what to answer him; partly through confusion and shame, not knowing how to excuse themselves; and partly, through their being stupefied with sleep and grief.

Gill: Mar 14:41

And he cometh the third time,.... After he had prayed a third time, to the same purport as before:

and saith unto them, sleep on now, and take your rest; which words are spoken ironically:

it is enough; or "the end is come"; as the Syriac and Arabic versions render it, of watching and praying:

the hour is come, behold the son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners; both Jews and Gentiles, by one of his own disciples; See Gill on Mat 26:45.

Gill: Mar 14:42

Rise up let us go,.... To meet the enemy and the danger; for there is no escaping;

lo, he that betrayeth me is at hand; Judas, that he had hinted at supper should betray him, was now about doing it; and was just now coming upon him, in order to deliver him into the hands of the Jews, and the Roman band of soldiers; See Gill on Mat 26:46.

Gill: Mar 14:43

And immediately, while he yet spake,.... The above words:

cometh Judas one of the twelve: apostles of Christ, and which was an aggravation of his wickedness; the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic, versions add, "Iscariot"; and so it is read in one of Beza's copies. The Ethiopic version reads, "one of the ten", very wrongly:

and with him a great multitude; a band of men and officers, with many of the chief priests and captains of the temple, and elders of the people, that mixed themselves with the crowd, to see how things would issue:

with swords and staves; which they intended to make use of, should any resistance be made in apprehending him, or any attempt to rescue him:

from the chief priests, and the Scribes, and the elders; from the Jewish sanhedrim, which consisted of these; See Gill on Mat 26:47.

Gill: Mar 14:44

And he that betrayed him had given them a token,.... A common sign, in which they agreed; and so this same Greek word is used by the Jews ^c:

"said R. Phinehas in the name of R. Reuben, did you ever see one man go out of the north, and another from the south, and meet each other, except they made, סימנא, "a common sign", between them.''

Such an one the traitor gave his company;

saying, whomsoever I shall kiss, the same is he; Jesus of Nazareth; who was to be delivered to them:

take him, and lead him away safely; with care and caution, lest he should get out of their hands, and make his escape, as he had sometimes done: the word "safely", is omitted in the Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic versions. The Vulgate Latin renders it "cautiously", and so does the Syriac version, which joins it to the words, "take him"; See Gill on Mat 26:48.

Gill: Mar 14:45

And as soon as he was come,.... To the place where Jesus was:

he goeth straightway to him; alone; as if he had nothing to do with the company behind, and as if he was his friend, and concerned for his safety:

and saith, Master, Master; expressing great affection for him, and respect to him, by repeating this word. The Ethiopic version has it but once, and so two exemplars of Beza's; and the Vulgate Latin reads, "hail, Master", as in Mat 26:49.

and kissed him; See Gill on Mat 26:49.

Gill: Mar 14:46

And they laid hands on him, and took him. After Christ had said to Judas, "friend, wherefore art thou come?" as in Matthew; and also, "Judas, betrayest thou the son of man with a kiss?" as in Luk 22:48; See Gill on Mat 26:50.

Gill: Mar 14:47

And one of them that stood by,.... One of the disciples that stood by Jesus, as Judas was betraying him, and the soldiers were laying hold on him, Peter by name:

drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear; his right ear; the servant's name was Malchus; See Gill on Mat 26:51.

Gill: Mar 14:48

And Jesus answered and said unto them,.... To the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, that came with the band and officers, as appears from Luk 22:52. The Persic version reads, "to the multitude":

are ye come out as against a thief, with swords and with staves, to take me? See Gill on Mat 26:55.

Gill: Mar 14:49

I was daily with you in the temple,.... That is, for several days past; ever since he made his public entry into Jerusalem:

teaching; the people, in a public manner:

and ye took me not; did not attempt to lay hands on him, seize him, and carry him away; which he signifies might have been easily done; See Gill on Mat 26:55.

But the Scriptures must be fulfilled: which spoke of the betraying him by Judas; and of their taking him in this private and secret manner; and of the flight of the disciples from him next mentioned; See Gill on Mat 26:56.

Gill: Mar 14:50

And they all forsook him and fled. That is, his disciples, as the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic versions read; and who seem to have transcribed it from Matthew, and lest it should be thought, that the multitude whom Christ addressed, were intended.

Gill: Mar 14:51

And there followed him a certain young man,.... Some think this was John, the beloved disciple, and the youngest of the disciples; others, that it was James, the brother of our Lord; but he does not seem to be any of the disciples of Christ, since he is manifestly distinguished from them, who all forsook him and fled: some have thought, that he was a young man of the house, where Christ and his disciples ate their passover; who had followed him to the garden, and still followed him, to see what would be the issue of things: but it seems most likely, that he was one that lived in an house in Gethsemane, or in or near the garden; who being awaked out of sleep with the noise of a band of soldiers, and others with them, leaped out of bed, and ran out in his shirt, and followed after them, to know what was the matter:

having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; which was either his shirt in which he lay, or one of the sheets, which he took and wrapped himself in, not staying to put on his clothes: though the word "Sindon", is used both by the Targumists ^d and Talmudists ^e for a linen garment; and sometimes even for the outer garment, to which the fringes were fastened ^f; and he might take up this in haste, and slip it on, without putting on any inner garment: the word "body", is not in the text, and the phrase επι γυμνου, may be rendered, "upon his nakedness"; and answers to ערות, in Gen 9:23 and Lev 20:11, and the meaning be, he had only a piece of linen wrapped about his middle, to cover his nakedness; and in this garb ran out, to see what was doing:

and the young men laid hold on him. The Roman soldiers, who were commonly so called: so David's soldiers are called "young men", that were with him, 1Sa 21:4; these attempted to lay hold on this young man, taking him to be a disciple of Christ, or one at least affected to him, and did take hold of his linen cloth. The Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions, leave out the words, "the young men". The design of Mark in relating this incident, is to show the rage and fury of these men; who were for sparing none that appeared to be or were thought to be the followers of Christ; so that the preservation of the disciples was entirely owing to the wonderful power of Christ.

Gill: Mar 14:52

And he left the linen cloth,.... "In their hands", so the Persic version renders it; just as Joseph left his garment in the hands of his mistress, Gen 39:12;

and fled from them naked; to the house from whence he came. The Syriac, Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic versions, leave out the words "from them".

Gill: Mar 14:53

And they led Jesus away to the high priest,.... Caiaphas, as is added in the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions. This was done, after they had took Jesus and bound, him, and after they had had him to Annas, who sent him bound to Caiaphas; see Joh 18:12;

and with him, the high priest Caiaphas,

were assembled all the chief priests, and the elders, and the Scribes; even the whole sanhedrim, who met at Caiaphas's house, and were waiting there for Jesus; whom Judas with his band of soldiers and others, were gone to secure, and brng before them; See Gill on Mat 26:57.

Gill: Mar 14:54

And Peter followed him afar off,.... And did another disciple, perhaps John; Joh 18:15, who having somewhat recovered themselves from their fright, turned back, and followed Jesus, and the company that led him away; keeping at some distance, that they might not be observed, and exposed to danger; and proceeded till they came to Jerusalem, and to the place where the sanhedrim were convened; and the other disciple went in along with Jesus; and Peter afterwards, by his means, got in:

even into the palace of the high priest; being let in by her that kept the door, at the motion of the other disciple

and he sat with the servants; as if he was one of them, and had no concern with Jesus:

and warmed himself at the fire; or "light", as the Greek word signifies, and answers to the Hebrew word אור, by which both: light and fire are expressed; of which, take an instance or two, in the room of many ^g:

"a murderer that strikes, his neighbour with a stone, or with iron, and plunges him into water, or into האור, "fire", so that he cannot get out, and dies, is guilty.''

Again ^h, a

"book which האור, "fire", takes hold upon on one side, he puts, water on the other; and if it is quenched, it is quenched; if the "fire" takes hold on both sides, he opens it, and reads in it; and if it is quenched, it is quenched: a cloak which "fire" takes hold upon on one side, he puts water on the other side; and if it is quenched, it is quenched; if the "fire" takes hold on it on both sides, he takes, it and wraps himself in it, and if it is quenched, it is quenched.''

So we read ⁱ of אור של גיהנם, "the fire of hell"; and Ur of the Chaldees has its name from the fire, that was worshipped there, as a symbol of the sun: and fire was the אור, or "light", created on the first day, Gen 1:3; See Gill on Mat 26:58.

Gill: Mar 14:55

And the chief priests, and all the council,.... Especially the former, who were of all most busy and active in this matter:

sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; on which they were determined, right or wrong; in this they went contrary to one of their own canons, which runs thus ^k:

"in pecuniary causes, they begin either for absolution, or condemnation; but in capital causes, they begin for absolution, and do not begin for condemnation.''

That is, they begun with such evidences as tended to acquit a man, and not with such as served to condemn him; whereas this court was only seeking for such evidence to begin with, that they might condemn Jesus to death:

and found none; that would answer their purpose; See Gill on Mat 26:59.

Gill: Mar 14:56

For many bare false witness against him,.... The word "false", is not expressed in the Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions: which only signify, that they bore witness against him, accused him of, and laid many things to his charge:

but their witness agreed not together; which showed it to be false, and so not to be admitted; for witnesses were to be as one in their testimony, or not to be received: the, rules concerning them with the Jews, are these ^l;

"the tradition is, for ever let not their testimony be joined together, unless they both see, כאחד, "as one": says R. Joshua ben Korcha, even one after another; and their testimony is not ratified in the council, until they both witness "as one".''

Though this is not much the sense of the passage here; it was not the falsehood of their testimony, which this council was unconcerned about, or the contradiction that was in it, which does not appear; but their testimonies were not, ισαι, "equal", or answerable to the wishes of the council; they were not sufficient to prove a capital crime upon him, in order to, put him to death, which was what they wanted: they only respected some light and trivial matters, and did not amount to a charge of blasphemy, or sedition.

Gill: Mar 14:57

And there arose certain,.... Two false witnesses, as in Mat 26:60, who stood up in court; for witnesses were obliged to stand, whilst they gave in their testimony:

"says R. Bo, in the name of R. Hona, witnesses ought לעמוד, "to stand", whilst they bear witness; as it is said, Deu 19:17. "Both the men shall stand" ^m, &c.''

And bare false witness against him, saying; as follows.

Gill: Mar 14:58

We heard him say,.... In a discourse of his, recorded in Joh 2:19,

I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands; which was a very false testimony; for Christ did not say be would destroy any temple at all, only put the Jews on doing it; much less did he point at, or design the temple of Jerusalem, but his own body; nor did he use the distinction of a temple, made with and without hands; nor did he affirm that he would build another; only said, he would raise up in three days, that which they should destroy. By this testimony these witnesses would suggest, that Christ had a design upon their temple to demolish it, and that he must be a sorcerer, or a magician, to pretend to build a temple without hands in three days time; See Gill on Mat 26:61.

Gill: Mar 14:59

But, neither so did their witness agree together. Their witness did agree together, for they both witnessed the same thing; but not so as to found upon it the charge of a capital crime against him; their witness was not so, ιση, "equal", was not answerable to their desires, nor sufficient to convict him of a capital crime, for which they could condemn him to death, as before observed on Mar 14:56.

Gill: Mar 14:60

And the high priest stood up in the midst,.... Of the sanhedrim, of which he was now president: he sat at the head of them, and Ab Beth Din, or the father of the council, at his right hand; and the rest of the council sat before him, in a semicircular form, as the half of a round corn floor, so that the president, and the father of the council, could see them ⁿ; for they were all before him, he being situated in the middle, right against them; so that when he stood up, he might be said to stand in the midst of them:

and asked Jesus, saying, answerest thou nothing? For he had made no reply to the several witnesses, that came against him:

what is it which these witness against thee? Is it true, or false? See Gill on Mat 26:62.

Gill: Mar 14:61

But he held his peace, and answered nothing,.... Knowing it would be to no purpose, and signifying hereby, that the things alleged against him were unworthy of an answer:

again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? The Vulgate Latin adds, "God": in Matthew it is "God" only, Mat 26:63. This is one of the names and epithets of God, with the Jews; nothing is more common in their writings, than this abbreviature, הקבה, which is, הקדוש ברוך הוא, "the holy blessed he"; who is blessed in himself, and the fountain of all blessedness to his creatures, and who is blessed and praised by angels and saints; See Gill on Mat 26:63.

Gill: Mar 14:62

And Jesus said, I am,.... That is, the Son of God; in proof of which he adds,

and ye shall see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power; that is, of God, who is all power, the Lord God Almighty:

and coming in the clouds of heaven; either at the destruction of Jerusalem, or at the last day, referring to the prophecy in Dan 7:13; See Gill on Mat 26:64.

Gill: Mar 14:63

Then the high priest rent his clothes,.... As was usual upon hearing blasphemy; which he now supposed the case, or at least would have it so thought:

and saith, what need we any further witnesses? or trouble ourselves to see for any more, or to hear and take the depositions of any others; See Gill on Mat 26:65.

Gill: Mar 14:64

Ye have heard the blasphemy,.... The "manifest" blasphemy, as the Arabic version renders it; and "out of his own mouth", as the Syriac version adds, agreeably to Luk 22:71,

what think ye? what sentence is to, be passed upon him?

And they all condemned him to be guilty of death; excepting Joseph of Arimathea, Luk 23:51; See Gill on Mat 26:66.

Gill: Mar 14:65

And some began to spit on him,.... The men that held him, Luk 22:6, fulfilling the prophecy in Isa 50:6;

and to cover his face; with a veil, or linen cloth, to blindfold: him, as a person unworthy to behold the light: or rather, in order to make sport with him:

and to buffet him; with their double fists;

and to say unto him, prophesy. The Arabic version adds, "unto us, O Christ, who it is that hath buffeted thee now?" that gave thee the last blow? and to the same purpose the Ethiopic. The Persic version adds, "and deliver thyself";

and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands. The Syriac version renders it, "on his cheeks": they gave him slaps on the face. These were the officers of the high priest, that used him in this indecent manner. This clause is omitted in the Ethiopic version.

Gill: Mar 14:66

And as Peter was beneath in the palace,.... Not at the lower and further end of the room, but in the lower part of it; that part in which Jesus and the sanhedrim were, being upon an advanced ground, with steps ascending to it:

there cometh one of the maids of the high priest; the same that kept the door, and let him in. The Ethiopic version renders it, "a daughter of the high priest".

Gill: Mar 14:67

And when she saw Peter warming himself,.... At the life which was in the midst of the hall:

she looked upon him; very earnestly, knowing him to be the same, she had let in at the motion of one, that was known in the high priest's family; and suspecting him, by being a stranger, and by his looks:

and said, and thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth; that is, one of his disciples; See Gill on Mat 26:69.

Gill: Mar 14:68

But he denied,.... That he was with Jesus, or a disciple of his:

saying, I know not; Jesus of Nazareth: neither understand I what thou sayest; about him, and of being with him: the last phrase, "neither understand I", is omitted in the Syriac and Persic versions:

and he went out into the porch; adjoining to the palace, to consider what to do, being surprised and confounded at such a challenge:

and the cock crew; the first time, being about midnight; and yet he took no notice of it, nor remembered what Christ had but a few hours before said to him: or if he did, he might hope he should not meet with another attack, or he should have more courage and strength than to deny a second time.

Gill: Mar 14:69

And a maid saw him again,.... Either the same maid, so the Syriac and Persic versions read, "that maid": that selfsame maid, as before, or another, as in Mat 26:71, and so the Arabic version reads it here; but the Ethiopic as before "a daughter"; that is, of the high priest:

and began to say to them that stood by; the fire, along with Peter, warming themselves:

this is one of them; this man is one of the disciples and followers of Jesus of Nazareth; he is of that sect, he certainly belongs to them, and is come here only as a spy.

Gill: Mar 14:70

And he denied it again,.... That he was one of the disciples of Jesus:

and a little after; about an hour after, Luk 22:59;

they that stood by, said again to Peter, surely thou art one of them; one confidently affirmed that he was with Jesus, and another challenged him with seeing him in the garden with him, Luk 22:59, and in general they were of opinion, that he must be one of that sect, giving this as a reason,

for thou art a Galilean: as they supposed Jesus to be; and knowing that in Galilee he had chiefly preached, and wrought his miracles, and had there a large number of followers:

and thy speech agreeth thereto; he used words and phrases peculiar to the Galileans, and pronounced as they did: See Gill on Mat 26:73. This clause is omitted in the Vulgate Latin, and is wanting in Beza's most ancient copy; but is in the other copies, and in all the eastern versions.

Gill: Mar 14:71

But he began to curse and to swear,.... To wish the most dreadful things upon himself, and to swear by the living God;

saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak: See Gill on Mat 26:74.

Gill: Mar 14:72

And the second time the cock crew,.... Immediately, as soon as he had so said and swore, as the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions read, and as it is read in one of Beza's copies; which was about three of the clock in the morning, and is what is properly called the cock crowing:

and Peter called to mind; upon hearing the cock crow a second time,

the word that Jesus said unto him, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice: as he now had done twice, to the maid or maids, and a third time to the servants that stood by the fire along with him:

and when he thought thereon; on the words of Christ, and on his sin in denying him, and on the aggravated circumstances of it. The Arabic version renders it, "he turned himself to weep"; he turned away from the company, he threw himself out of it, and got out of doors as fast as he could, and broke out into a violent fit of weeping. The Syriac, Persic, and Vulgate Latin versions, render it, "he began to weep"; this phrase is omitted in the Ethiopic version: some choose to render it, "he looked upon him", that is, on Christ: as Christ looked upon him; which produced true evangelical repentance in him, so Peter looked upon his dear Lord with concern, whom he so had shamefully denied; he looked upon him and mourned, he looked upon him with an eye of faith, and sorrowed for his sin after a godly sort: but the true sense of the word is, "he covered himself"; he cast his garment over his head, he veiled himself as mourners did, who covered their heads, and their faces, and even their lips. So Maimonides ^o;

"from whence, says he, is uncovering the head, forbidden a mourner? For, lo! it is said to Eze 24:17, "cover not thy lips" at all, for the rest of mourners are obliged to the covering of the head; the linen cloth, or veil, with which he covers his head, he covers with a part of it, a little over his mouth; as it is said, Lev 13:45, "He shall put a covering upon his upper lip": and Onkelos paraphrases it, כאבלא יתעטף, "as a mourner he shall cover himself".''

And so it is said of Haman ^p,

"that he went to his house, and mourned for his daughter, ומתעטף על רישיה כאבלא, "and put a covering on his head as a mourner": for his daughter, and for his reproach.''

And this, it seems, was the custom of the Ishmaelites: hence that saying ^q,

"all veiling (in mourning) which is not as the veiling of the Ishmaelites (who cover all the face), is no veiling?''

And thus Peter, through shame, and as a token of sorrow and mourning for his sin, threw his garment over him:

and he wept; as Matthew says, "bitterly": being fully convinced of his sin, and heartily sorry lot it; See Gill on Mat 26:75.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

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.

NET Notes: Mar 14:24

¹ tn Grk “this is my blood of the covenant that is poured out for many.” In order to avoid confusion about which is poured out, the translation supplies “blood” twice so that the following phrase clearly modifies “blood,” not “covenant.”

² tc Most mss (A Ë^1,13 Ï lat sy) have καινῆς (kainh", “new”) before διαθήκης (diaqhkh", “covenant”), a reading that is almost surely influenced by the parallel passage in Luke 22:20. Further, the construction τὸ τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης (to th" kainh" diaqhkh"), in which the resumptive article τό (referring back to τὸ αἷμα [to |aima, “the blood”]) is immediately followed by the genitive article, is nowhere else used in Mark except for constructions involving a genitive of relationship (cf. Mark 2:14; 3:17, 18; 16:1). Thus, on both transcriptional and intrinsic grounds, this reading looks to be a later addition (which may have derived from τὸ τῆς διαθήκης of D* W 2427). The most reliable mss, along with several others (א B C D^c L Θ Ψ 565), lack καινῆς. This reading is strongly preferred.

sn Jesus’ death established the forgiveness promised in the new covenant of Jer 31:31. Jesus is reinterpreting the symbolism of the Passover meal, indicating the presence of a new era.

NET Notes: Mar 14:25

¹ tn Grk “Truly (ἀμήν, amhn), I say to you.”

² tn Grk “the produce” (“the produce of the vine” is a figurative expression for wine).

NET Notes: Mar 14:26

¹ sn After singing a hymn. The Hallel Psalms (Pss 113-118) were sung during the meal. Psalms 113 and 114 were sung just before the second cup and 115-118 were sung at the end of the meal, after the fourth, or hallel cup.

NET Notes: Mar 14:27

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

² sn A quotation from Zech 13:7.

NET Notes: Mar 14:30

¹ tn Grk “Truly (ἀμήν, amhn), I say to you.”

NET Notes: Mar 14:31

¹ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Peter) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

² tn Grk “said emphatically.”

NET Notes: Mar 14:32

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

² tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

NET Notes: Mar 14:33

¹ tn Grk “and James,” but καί (kai) has not been translated since English normally uses a coordinating conjunction only between the last two elements in a series of three or more.

NET Notes: Mar 14:36

¹ tn The word means “Father” in Aramaic.

² sn This cup alludes to the wrath of God that Jesus would experience (in the form of suffering and death) for us. See Ps 11:6; 75:8-9; Isa 51:17, 19, 22 for this figure.

NET Notes: Mar 14:37

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

NET Notes: Mar 14:40

¹ tn Grk “because their eyes were weighed down,” an idiom for becoming extremely or excessively sleepy (L&N 23.69).

NET Notes: Mar 14:41

¹ tn Or “Sleep on, and get your rest.” This sentence can be taken either as a question or a sarcastic command.

² tc Codex D (with some support with minor variation from W Θ Ë¹³ 565 2542 pc it) reads, “Enough of that! It is the end and the hour has come.” Evidently, this addition highlights Jesus’ assertion that what he had predicted about his own death was now coming true (cf. Luke 22:37). Even though the addition highlights the accuracy of Jesus’ prediction, it should not be regarded as part of the text of Mark, since it receives little support from the rest of the witnesses and because D especially is prone to expand the wording of a text.

NET Notes: Mar 14:42

¹ tn Grk “the one who betrays me.”

NET Notes: Mar 14:43

¹ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

² tn Or “approached.” This is a different verb than the one translated “arrived” in Matt 26:47 and below in v. 45, although in this context the meanings probably overlap.

³ tn Or “from the chief priests, scribes.” See the note on the phrase “experts in the law” in 1:22.

NET Notes: Mar 14:44

¹ tn Grk “the one who betrays him.”

² sn This remark is parenthetical within the narrative and has thus been placed in parentheses.

NET Notes: Mar 14:45

¹ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Judas) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

² tn Grk “him”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

³ sn Judas’ act of betrayal when he kissed Jesus is especially sinister when it is realized that it was common in the culture of the times for a disciple to kiss his master when greeting him.

NET Notes: Mar 14:46

¹ tn Grk “put their hands on him.”

NET Notes: Mar 14:47

¹ tn See the note on the word “slave” in 10:44.

NET Notes: Mar 14:48

¹ tn Or “a revolutionary.” This term can refer to one who stirs up rebellion: BDAG 594 s.v. λῃστής 2 has “revolutionary, insurrectionist,” citing evidence from Josephus (J. W. 2.13.2-3 [2.253-254]). However, this usage generally postdates Jesus’ time. It does refer to a figure of violence. Luke uses the same term for the highwaymen who attack the traveler in the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:30).

NET Notes: Mar 14:49

¹ tn Grk “and”; καί (kai) is elastic enough to be used contrastively on occasion, as here.

² tn Grk “But so that”; the verb “has happened” is implied.

NET Notes: Mar 14:50

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

² tn Grk “they”; the referent (Jesus’ disciples) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

NET Notes: Mar 14:52

¹ sn The statement he ran off naked is probably a reference to Mark himself, traditionally assumed to be the author of this Gospel. Why he was wearing only an outer garment and not the customary tunic as well is not mentioned. W. L. Lane, Mark (NICNT), 527-28, says that Mark probably mentioned this episode so as to make it clear that “all fled, leaving Jesus alone in the custody of the police.”

NET Notes: Mar 14:53

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

² tn Or “and scribes.” See the note on the phrase “experts in the law” in 1:22.

NET Notes: Mar 14:54

¹ tn Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

² sn The guards would have been the guards of the chief priests who had accompanied Judas to arrest Jesus.

NET Notes: Mar 14:57

¹ tn Grk “Some standing up gave false testimony against him, saying.”

NET Notes: Mar 14:60

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

² tn Grk “in the middle.”

NET Notes: Mar 14:61

¹ tn Grk “questioned him and said to him.”

² tn Or “the Messiah”; both “Christ” (Greek) and “Messiah” (Hebrew and Aramaic) mean “one who has been anointed.”

sn See the note on Christ in 8:29.

NET Notes: Mar 14:62

¹ sn An allusion to Ps 110:1. This is a claim that Jesus shares authority with God in heaven. Those present may have thought they were his judges, but, in fact, the reverse was true.

² sn The expression the right hand of the Power is a circumlocution for referring to God. Such indirect references to God were common in 1st century Judaism out of reverence for the divine name.

³ sn An allusion to Dan 7:13.

NET Notes: Mar 14:64

¹ tn Grk “What do you think?”

NET Notes: Mar 14:65

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

² tn For the translation of ῥάπισμα (rJapisma), see L&N 19.4.

NET Notes: Mar 14:66

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

² tn The Greek term here is παιδίσκη (paidiskh), referring to a slave girl or slave woman.

NET Notes: Mar 14:68

¹ tn Grk “he denied it, saying.” The participle λέγων (legwn) is redundant in English and has not been translated.

² tn Grk “I do not know or understand what you are saying.” In the translation this is taken as a hendiadys (a figure of speech where two terms express a single meaning, usually for emphatic reasons).

³ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.

⁴ tc Several important witnesses (א B L W Ψ* 579 892 2427 pc) lack the words “and a rooster crowed.” The fact that such good and early Alexandrian witnesses lack these words makes this textual problem difficult to decide, especially because the words receive support from other witnesses, some of which are fairly decent (A C D Θ Ψ^c 067 Ë^1,13 33 [1424] Ï lat). The omission could have been intentional on the part of some Alexandrian scribes who wished to bring this text in line with the other Gospel accounts that only mention a rooster crowing once (Matt 26:74; Luke 22:60; John 18:27). The insertion could be an attempt to make the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy in 14:30 more explicit. Internally, the words “and a rooster crowed” fit Mark’s Gospel here, not only in view of 14:30, “before a rooster crows twice,” but also in view of the mention of “a second time” in 14:71 (a reading which is much more textually secure). Nevertheless, a decision is difficult.

tn A real rooster crowing is probably in view here (rather than the Roman trumpet call known as gallicinium), in part due to the fact that Mark mentions the rooster crowing twice. See the discussion at Matt 26:74.

NET Notes: Mar 14:70

¹ tn Grk “Truly you are.”

NET Notes: Mar 14:72

¹ tn This occurrence of the word ἀλέκτωρ (alektwr, “rooster”) is anarthrous and consequently may not point back explicitly to the rooster which had crowed previously in v. 68. The reason for the anarthrous construction is most likely to indicate generically that some rooster crowed. Further, the translation of ἀλέκτωρ as an indefinite noun retains the subtlety of the Greek in only hinting at the Lord’s prediction v. 30. See also NAB, TEV, NASB.

² tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.

³ tn Grk “he wept deeply.”

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.

Geneva Bible: Mar 14:27

^{( 8 )} And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.

^{( 8 )} Christ foretells how he will be forsaken by his own, but yet that he will never forsake them.

Geneva Bible: Mar 14:29

^{( 9 )} But Peter said unto him, Although all shall be offended, yet [will] not I.

^{( 9 )} Here is set forth in an excellent person a most sorrowful example of man's rashness and weakness.

Geneva Bible: Mar 14:31

But he spake the ^{( g )} more vehemently, If I should die with thee, I will not deny thee in any wise. Likewise also said they all.

^{( g )} The doubling of words here sets out more plainly Peter's vehement affirmation.

Geneva Bible: Mar 14:32

^{( 10 )} And they came to a place which was named Gethsemane: and he saith to his disciples, Sit ye here, while I shall pray.

^{( 10 )} Christ suffering for us the most horrible terrors of the curse of God, in that flesh which he took upon him for our sakes, receives the cup from his Father's hands, which he being just, drinks right away for the unjust.

Geneva Bible: Mar 14:36

And he said, ^{( h )} Abba, Father, all things [are] possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

^{( h )} This doubling of the word was used in those days when their languages were mixed together: for the word "Abba" is a Syrian word.

Geneva Bible: Mar 14:37

^{( 11 )} And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? couldest not thou watch one hour?

^{( 11 )} A horrible example of the sluggishness of men, even among the disciples whom Christ had chosen.

Geneva Bible: Mar 14:43

^{( 12 )} And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.

^{( 12 )} As men willingly robbed God their creator of his praise in forsaking and betraying him: so Christ, willingly going about to make satisfaction for this ruin, is forsaken by his own, and betrayed by one of his familiar acquaintances as a thief, so that the punishment might be in agreement with the sin, and that we who are ourselves traitors, forsakers and those committing sacrilege, might be delivered out of the devil's snare.

Geneva Bible: Mar 14:44

And he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; take him, and lead [him] away ^{( i )} safely.

^{( i )} So diligently that he cannot escape out of your hand.

Geneva Bible: Mar 14:47

And ^{( k )} one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear.

^{( k )} That is, Peter.

Geneva Bible: Mar 14:50

And they ^{( l )} all forsook him, and fled.

^{( l )} All his disciples.

Geneva Bible: Mar 14:51

^{( 13 )} And there followed him a certain young man, having a ^{( m )} linen cloth cast about [his] naked [body]; and the young men laid hold on him:

^{( 13 )} Under a pretence of godliness, all things are lawful to those who do violence against Christ.

^{( m )} Which he cast about him, and ran forth after he heard the commotion in the night: by this we may understand with how great licentiousness these villains violently set upon him.

Geneva Bible: Mar 14:53

And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were ^{( n )} assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.

^{( n )} The highest council was assembled because Christ was accused as a blasphemer and a false prophet: for as to the other crime of treason, it was forged against him by the priest in order to force Pilate to condemn him.

Geneva Bible: Mar 14:55

^{( 14 )} And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none.

^{( 14 )} Christ, who was so innocent that he could not be oppressed, not even by false witnesses, is at length condemned for impiety before the high priest for confessing God to be his father. This is so that we, who denied God and were indeed wicked, might be acquitted before God.

Geneva Bible: Mar 14:61

But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the ^{( o )} Blessed?

^{( o )} Of God, who is most worthy of all praise?

Geneva Bible: Mar 14:65

^{( 15 )} And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.

^{( 15 )} Christ, suffering all types of reproach for our sakes, gets everlasting glory for those that believe in him.

Geneva Bible: Mar 14:66

^{( 16 )} And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:

^{( 16 )} A grievous example of the frailness of man together with a most comfortable example of the mercy of God, who gives the spirit of repentance and faith to his elect.

Geneva Bible: Mar 14:69

And ^{( q )} a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is [one] of them.

^{( q )} If we carefully compare the evangelists together we will perceive that Peter was known by many through the maiden's report: furthermore, when the second denial is spoken of in Luke, there is a man servant mentioned and not a maid.

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?'

Maclaren: Mar 14:32-42

Strong Crying And Tears'

And they came to a place which was named Gethsemane: and He saith to His disciples. Sit ye here, while I shall pray. 33. And He taketh with Him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy; 34. And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch. 35. And He went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from Him. 36. And He said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto Thee; take away this cup from Me: nevertheless not what I will, but what Thou wilt. 37. And He cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? couldest not thou watch one hour? 38. Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak. 39. And again He went away, and prayed, and spake the same words. 40. And when He returned, He found them asleep again, (for their eyes were heavy,) neither wist they what to answer Him. 41. And He cometh the third time, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest it is enough, the hour is come; behold, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42. Rise up, let us go; lo, he that betrayeth Me is at hand.' --Mark 14:32-42.

THE three who, saw Christ's agony in Gethsemane were so little affected that they slept. We have to beware of being so little affected that we speculate and seek to analyse rather than to bow adoringly before that mysterious and heart-subduing sight. Let us remember that the place is holy ground.' It was meant that we should look on the Christ, who prayed with strong crying and tears,' else the three sleepers would not have accompanied Him so far; but it was meant that our gaze should be reverent and from a distance, else they would have gone with Him into the shadow of the olives.

Gethsemane' means an oil-press.' It was an enclosed piece of ground, according to Matthew and Mark; a garden, according to John. Jesus, by some means, had access to it, and had oft-times resorted thither with His disciples.' To this familiar spot, with its many happy associations, Jesus led the disciples, who would simply expect to pass the night there, as many Passover visitors were accustomed to bivouac in the open air.

The triumphant tone of spirit which animated His assuring words to His disciples, I have overcome the world,' changed as they passed through the moonlight down to the valley, and when they reached the garden deep gloom lay upon Him. His agitation is pathetically and most naturally indicated by the conflict of feeling as to companionship. He leaves the other disciples at the entrance, for He would fain be alone in His prayer. Then, a moment after, He bids the three, who had been on the Mount of Transfiguration and with Him at many other special times, accompany Him into the recesses of the garden. But again need of solitude overcomes longing for companionship, and He bids them stay where they were, while He plunges still further into the shadow. How human it is! How well all of us, who have been down into the depths of sorrow, know the drawing of these two opposite longings!

Scripture seldom undertakes to tell Christ's emotions. Still seldomer does He speak of them. But at this tremendous hour the veil is lifted by one corner, and He Himself is fain to relieve His bursting heart by pathetic self-revelation, which is in fact an appeal to the three for sympathy, as well as an evidence of His sharing the common need of lightening the burdened spirit by speech. Mark's description of Christ's feelings lays stress first on their beginning, and then on their nature as being astonishment and anguish. A wave of emotion swept over Him, and was in marked contrast with His previous demeanour.

The three had never seen their calm Master so moved. We feel that such agitation is profoundly unlike the serenity of the rest of His life, and especially remarkable if contrasted with the tone of John's account of His discourse in the upper room; and, if we are wise, we shall gaze on that picture drawn for us by Mark with reverent gratitude, and feel that we look at something more sacred than human trembling at the thought of death.

Our Lord's own infinitely touching words heighten the impression of the Evangelist's My soul is exceeding sorrowful,' or, as the word literally means, ringed round with sorrow.' A dark orb of distress encompassed Him, and there was nowhere a break in the gloom which shut Him in. And this is He who, but an hour before, had bequeathed His joy' to His servants, and had bidden them be of good cheer,' since He had conquered the world.'

Dare we ask what were the elements of that all-enveloping horror of great darkness? Reverently we may. That astonishment and distress no doubt were partly due to the recoil of flesh from death. But if that was their sole cause, Jesus has been surpassed in heroism, not only by many a martyr who drew his strength from Him, but by many a rude soldier and by many a criminal. No! The waters of the baptism with which He was baptized had other sources than that, though it poured a tributary stream into them.

We shall not understand Gethsemane at all, nor will it touch our hearts and wills as it is meant to do, unless, as we look, we say in adoring wonder, The Lord hath made to meet on Him the iniquity of us all.' It was the weight of the world's sin which He took on Him by willing identification of Himself with men, that pressed Him to the ground. Nothing else than the atoning character of Christ's sufferings explains so far as it can be explained, the agony which we are permitted to behold afar off.

How nearly that agony was fatal is taught us by His own word' unto death.' A little more, and He would have died. Can we retain reverence .for Jesus as a perfect and pattern man, in view of His paroxysm of anguish in Gethsemane, if we refuse to accept that explanation? Truly was the place named The Olive-press,' for in it His whole being was as if in the press, and another turn of the screw would have crushed Him.

Darkness ringed Him round, but there was a rift in it right overhead. Prayer was His refuge, as it must be ours. The soul that can cry, Abba, Father!' does not walk in unbroken night. His example teaches us what our own sorrows should also teach us--to betake ourselves to prayer when the spirit is desolate. In that wonderful prayer we reverently note three things: there is unbroken consciousness of the Father's love; there is the instinctive recoil of flesh and the sensitive nature from the suffering imposed; and there is the absolute submission of the will, which silences the remonstrance of flesh. Whatever the weight laid on Jesus by His bearing of the sins of the world, it did not take from Him the sense of sonship. But, on the other hand, that sense did not take from Him the consciousness that the world's sin lay upon Him. In like manner His cry on the Cross mysteriously blended the sense of communion with God and of abandonment by God. Into these depths we see but a little way, and adoration is better than speculation.

Jesus shrank from this cup,' in which so many bitter ingredients besides death were mingled, such as treachery, desertion, mocking, rejection, exposure to the contradiction of sinners.' There was no failure of purpose in that recoil, for the cry for exemption was immediately followed by complete submission to the Father's will. No perturbation in the lower nature ever caused His fixed resolve to waver. The needle always pointed to the pole, however the ship might pitch and roll. A prayer in which remove this from me' is followed by that yielding nevertheless' is always heard. Christ's was heard, for calmness came back, and His flesh was stilled and made ready for the sacrifice.

So He could rejoin the three, in whose sympathy and watchfulness He had trusted--and they all were asleep! Surely that was one ingredient of bitterness in His cup. We wonder at their insensibility; and how they must have wondered at it too, when after years taught them what they had lost, and how faithless they had been! Think of men who could have seen and heard that scene, which has drawn the worshipping regard of the world ever since, missing it all because they fell asleep! They had kept awake long enough to see Him fall on the ground and to hear His prayer, but, worn out by a long day of emotion and sorrow, they slept.

Jesus was probably rapt in prayer for a considerable time, perhaps for a literal hour.' He was specially touched by Peter's failure, so sadly contrasted with his confident professions in the upper room; but no word of blame escaped Him. Rather He warned them of swift-coming temptation, which they could only overcome by watchfulness and prayer. It was indeed near, for the soldiers would burst in, before many minutes had passed, polluting the moonlight with their torches and disturbing the quiet night with their shouts. What gracious allowance for their weakness and loving recognition of the disciples' imperfect good lie in His words, which are at once an excuse for their fault and an enforcement of His command to watch and pray! The flesh is weak,' and hinders the willing spirit from doing what it wills. It was an apology for the slumber of the three; it is a merciful statement of the condition under which all discipleship has to be carried on. He knoweth our frame.' Therefore we all need to watch and pray, since only by such means can weak flesh be strengthened and strong flesh weakened, or the spirit preserved in willingness.

The words were not spoken in reference to Himself, but in a measure were true of Him. His second withdrawal for prayer seems to witness that the victory won by the first supplication was not permanent. Again the anguish swept over His spirit in another foaming breaker, and again He sought solitude, and again He found tranquillity--and again returned to find the disciples asleep. They knew not what to answer Him' in extenuation of their renewed dereliction.

Yet a third time the struggle was renewed. And after that, He had no need to return to the seclusion, where He had fought, and now had conclusively conquered by prayer and submission. We too may, by the same means, win partial victories over self, which may be interrupted by uprisings of flesh; but let us persevere. Twice Jesus' calm was broken by recrudescence of horror and shrinking; the third time it came back, to abide through all the trying scenes of the passion, but for that one cry on the Cross, Why hast Thou forsaken Me?' So it may be with us.

The last words to the three have given commentators much trouble. Sleep on now, and take your rest,' is not so much irony as spoken with a kind of permissive force, and in tones in which merciful reproach was blended with calm resignation.' So far as He was concerned, there was no reason for their waking. But they had lost an opportunity, never to return, of helping Him in His hour of deepest agony. He needed them no more. And do not we in like manner often lose the brightest opportunities of service by untimely slumber of soul, and is not the irrevocable past' saying to many of us, Sleep on now, since you can no more do what you have let slip from your drowsy hands'?

It is enough' is obscure, but probably refers to the disciples' sleep, and prepares for the transition to the next words, which summon them to arise, not to help Him by watching, but to meet the traitor. They had slept long enough, He sadly says. That which will effectually end their sleepiness is at hand. How completely our Lord had regained His calm superiority to the horror which had shaken Him is witnessed by that majestic Let us be going.' He will go out to meet the traitor, and, after one flash of power, which smote the soldiers to the ground, will yield Himself to the hands of sinners.

The Man who lay prone in anguish beneath the olive-trees comes forth in serene tranquillity, and gives Himself up to the death for us all. His agony was endured for us, and needs for its explanation the fact that it was so. His victory through prayer was for us, that we too might conquer by the same weapons. His voluntary surrender was for us, that by His stripes we might be healed.' Surely we shall not sleep, as did these others, but, moved by His sorrows and animated by His victory, watch and pray that we may share in the virtue of His sufferings and imitate the example of His submission.

Maclaren: Mar 14:37

The Sleeping Apostle

Simon, sleepest thou? '--Mark 14:37.

IT is a very old Christian tradition that this Gospel is in some sense the Apostle Peter's. There are not many features in the Gospel" itself which can be relied on as confirming this idea. Perhaps one such may be found in this plaintive remonstrance, which is only preserved for us here. Matthew's Gospel, indeed, tells us that the rebuke was addressed to Peter, but blunts the sharp point of it as directed to him, by throwing it into the plural, as if spoken to all the three slumberers: What, could ye not watch with Me one hour?' To Matthew, the special direction of the words was unimportant, but Peter could never forget how the Master had come out from the shadow of the olives to him lying there in the moonlight, and stood before him worn with His solitary agony, and in a voice yet tremulous from His awful conflict, had said to him, so lately loud in his professions of fidelity, Sleepest thou?'

It was bat an hour or two since he had been saying, and meaning, I will lay down my life for Thy sake,' and this was what all that fervour had come to. No wonder if there is almost a tone of surprise discernible in our Lord's word, as if He who marvelled at the unbelief' of those who were not His followers, marvelled still more at the imperfect sympathy of those who were, and marvelled most of all at such a sudden ebb of such a flood of devotion. Surprise and sorrow, the pain of a loving heart thrown back upon itself, the sharp pang of feeling how much less one is loved than one loves, the pleading with His forgetful servant, rebuke without anger, all breathe through the question, so pathetic in its simplicity, so powerful to bow in contrition by reason of its very gentleness and self-restraint.

The record of this Evangelist proves how deep it sank into the impulsive, loving heart of the apostle, and yet the denials in the high priest's palace, which followed so soon, show how much less power it had on him on the day when it was spoken, than it gained as he looked back on it through the long vista of years that had passed, when he told the story to Mark.

The first lesson to be gathered from these words is drawn from the name by which our Lord here addresses the apostle: Simon, sleepest thou?'

Now the usage of Mark's Gospel in reference to this apostle's name is remarkably uniform and precise. Both his names occur in Mark's catalogue of the Apostles: Simon he surnamed Peter.' He is never called by both again, but before that point he is always Simon, and after it he is always Peter, except in this verse. The other Evangelists show similar purpose, for the most part, in their interchange of the names. Luke, for instance, always calls him Simon up to the same point as Mark, except once where he uses the form Simon Peter,' and thereafter always Peter, except in Christ's solemn warning, Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired to have you,' and in the report of the tidings that met the disciples on their return from Emmaus, The Lord hath appeared to Simon.' So Matthew calls him Simon in the story of the first miraculous draught of fishes, and in the catalogue of Apostles, and afterwards uniformly Peter, except in Christ's answer to the apostle's great confession, where He names him Simon Bar Jona,' in order, as would appear, to bring into more solemn relief the significance of the immediately following words, Thou art Peter.' In John's Gospel, again, we find the two forms Simon Peter' and the simple Peter' used throughout with almost equal frequency, while Simon' is only employed at the very beginning, and in the heart-piercing triple question at the end, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me?'

The conclusion seems a fair one from these details that, on the whole, the name Simon brings into prominence the natural unrenewed humanity, and the name Peter suggests the Apostolic office, the bold confessor, the impulsive, warm-hearted lover and follower of the Lord. And it is worth noticing that, with one exception, the instances in which he is called by his former name, after his designation to the apostolate, occur in words addressed to him by our Lord.

He had given the name, and surely His withdrawal of it was meant to be significant, and must have struck with boding, rebuking emphasis on the ear and conscience of the apostle. Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired to have you': Remember thy human weakness, and in the sore conflict that is before thee, trust not to thine own power.' Simon, sleepest thou?' Can I call thee Peter now, when thou hast not cared for My sorrow enough to wake while I wrestled? Is this thy fervid love?' Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me?' Thou wast Peter because thou didst confess Me; thou hast fallen back to thine old level by denying Me. It is not enough that in secret I should have restored thee to My love. Here before thy brethren, thou must win back thy forfeited name and place by a confession as open as the denial, and thrice repeated like it. Once thou hast answered, but still thou art " Simon." Twice thou hast answered, but not yet can I call thee "Peter." Thrice thou hast answered, by each reply effacing a former denial, and now I ask no more. Take back thine office; henceforth thou shalt be called "Cephas" as before.'

And so it was. In the Acts of the Apostles, and in Paul's letters, Peter' or Cephas' entirely obliterates Simon.' Only for ease in finding him, the messengers of Cornelius are to ask for him in Joppa by the name by which he would be known outside the Church, and his old companion James begins his speech to the council at Jerusalem by referring with approbation to what Simeon' had said, as if he liked to use the old name, that brought back memories of the far-off days in Galilee, before they had known the Master.

Very touching, too, is it to notice how the apostle himself, while using the name by which he was best known in the Church, in the introduction to his first Epistle, calls himself' Simon Peter' in his second, as if to the end he felt that the old nature clung to him, and was not yet, so long as he was in this tabernacle,' wholly subdued under the dominion of the better self, which his Master had breathed into him.

So we see that a bit of biography and an illustration of a large truth are wrapped up for us in so small a matter as the apparently fortuitous use of one or other of these names. I do not suppose that in every instance where either of them occur, we can explain their occurrence by a reference to such thoughts. But still there is an unmistakable propriety in several instances in the employment of one rather than the other, and we may fairly suggest the lesson as put here in a picturesque form, which Paul gives us in definite words, The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh.' The better and the worse nature contend in all Christian souls, or, as our Lord says with such merciful leniency in this very context, The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.' However real and deep the change which passes over us when Christ is formed in us,' it is only by degrees that the transformation spreads through our being. The renewing process follows upon the bestowment of the new life, and works from its deep inward centre outwards and upwards to the circumference and surface of our being, on condition of our own constant diligence and conflict.

True, If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature ; but also, and precisely because he is, therefore the daily and hourly exhortation is, Put on the new man.' The leaven is buried in the dough, and must be well kneaded up with it if the whole is to be leavened. Peter is still Simon, and sometimes seems to be so completely Simon that he has ceased to be Peter. He continues Simon Peter to his own consciousness to the very end, however his brethren call him. The struggle between the two elements in his nature makes the undying interest Of his story, and brings him nearer to us than any of the other disciples are. We, too, have to wage the conflict between the old nature and the new; for us, too, the worse part seems too often to be the stronger, if not the only part. The Master has often to speak to us, as if His merciful all-seeing eye could discern in us nothing of our better selves which are in truth Himself, and has to question our love. We, too, have often to feel how little those who think best of us know what we are. But let us take heart and remember that from every fall it is possible to rise by penitence and secret converse with Him, and that if only we remember to the end our lingering weakness, and giving all diligence,' cleave to Him, an entrance shall be ministered unto us abundantly into His everlasting kingdom.'

We may briefly notice, too, some other lessons from this slumbering apostle.

Let us learn, for instance, to distrust our own resolutions. An hour or two at the most had passed since the eager protestation, Though all should deny Thee, yet will not I. I will lay down my life for Thy sake.' It had been most honestly said, at the dictate of a very loving heart, which in its enthusiasm was over estimating its own power of resistance, and taking no due account of obstacles. The very utterance of the rash vow made him weaker, for some of his force was expended in making it. The uncalculating, impulsive nature of the man makes him a favourite with all readers, and we sympathise with him, as a true brother, when we hear him blurting out his big words, followed so soon by such a contradiction in deeds. He is the same man all through his story, always ready to push himself into dangers, always full of rash confidence, which passes at once into abject fear when the dangers which he had not thought about appear.

His sleep in the garden, following close on his bold words in the upper chamber, is just like his eager wish to come to Christ on the water, followed by his terror. He desires to be singled out from the others; he desires to be beside his Master, and then as soon as he feels a dash of spray on his cheek, and the heaving of that uneasy floor beneath him, all his confidence collapses and he shrieks to Christ to save him. It is just like his thrusting himself into the high priest's palace--no safe place, and bad company for him by the coal fire--and then his courage oozing out at his fingers' ends as soon as a maidservant's sharp tongue questioned him. It is just like his hearty welcome of the heathen converts at Antioch, and his ready breaking through Jewish restrictions, and then his shrinking back into his old shell again, as soon as certain came down from Jerusalem.'

And in it all, he is one of ourselves. We have to learn to distrust all our own resolutions, and to be chary of our vows. Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.' So, aware of our own weakness, and the flutterings of our own hearts, let us not mortgage the future, nor lightly say I will'--but rather let us turn our vows into prayers,

Nor confidently say,I never will deny Thee, Lord!'But, Grant I never may.

Let us note, too, the slight value of even genuine emotion. The very exhaustion following on the strained emotions which these disciples had been experiencing had sent them to sleep. Luke, in his physician-like way, tells us this, when he says that they slept for sorrow.' We all know how some great emotion which we might have expected would have held our eyes waking, lulls to slumber. Men sleep soundly on the night before their execution. A widow leaves her husband's deathbed as soon as he has passed away, and sleeps a dreamless sleep for hours. The strong current of emotion sweeps through us, and leaves us dry. Sheer exhaustion and collapse follow its intenser forms. And even in its milder, nothing takes so much out of a man as emotion. Reaction always follows, and people are in some degree unfitted for sober work by it. Peter, for example, was all the less ready for keeping awake, and for bold confession, because of the vehement emotions which had agitated him in the upper chamber. We have, therefore, to be chary, in our religious life, of feeding the flames of mere feeling. An unemotional Christianity is a very poor thing, and most probably a spurious and unreal thing. But a merely emotional Christianity is closely related to practical unholiness, and leads by a very short straight road to windy wordy insincerity and conscious hypocrisy. Emotion which is firmly based upon an intelligent grasp of God's truth, and which is at once translated into action, is good. But unless these two conditions be rigidly observed, it darkens the understanding and enfeebles the soul.

Lastly, notice how much easier it is to purpose and to do great things than small ones.

I have little doubt that if the Roman soldiers had called on Peter to have made good his boast, and to give up his life to rescue his Master, he would have been ready to do it. We know that he was ready to fight for Him, and in fact did draw a sword and offer resistance. He could die for Him, but he could not keep awake for Him. The great thing he could have done, the little thing he could not do.

Brethren, it is far easier once in a way, by a dead lift, to screw ourselves up to some great crisis which seems worthy of a supreme effort of enthusiasm and sacrifice, than it is to keep on persistently doing the small monotonies of daily duty. Many a soldier will bravely rush to the assault in a storming-party, who would tremble in the trenches. Many a martyr has gone unblenching to the stake for Christ, who had found it far harder to serve Him in common duties. It is easier to die for Him than to watch with Him. So let us listen to His gentle voice, as He speaks to us, not as of old in the pauses of His agony, and His locks wet with the dews of the night, but bending from His throne, and crowned with many crowns: Sleepest thou? Watch and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.'

Maclaren: Mar 14:43-54

The Captive Christ And The Circle Round Him

And immediately, while He yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. 44. And he that betrayed Him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is He; take Him, and lead Him away safely. 45. And as soon as he was come, he goeth straightway to Him. and saith, Master, Master; and kissed Him. 46. And they laid their hands on Him, and took Him. 47. And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear. 48. And Jesus answered and said unto them. Are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take Me? 49. I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took Me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled. 50. And they all forsook Him, and fled. 51. And there followed Him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young man laid hold on Him: 52. And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked. 53. And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the eiders and the scribes. 54. And Peter followed Him afar off, even into the palace of the high priest: and he sat with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire.'--Mark 14:43-54.

A COMPARISON of the three first Gospels in this section shows a degree of similarity, often verbal, which is best accounted for by supposing that a common (oral?) Gospel,' which had become traditionally fixed by frequent and long repetition, underlies them all. Mark's account is briefest, and grasps with sure instinct the essential points; but, even in his brevity, he pauses to tell of the young man who so nearly shared the Lord's apprehension. The canvas is narrow and crowded; but we may see unity in the picture, if we regard as the central fact the sacrilegious seizure of Jesus, and the other incidents and persons as grouped round it and Him, and reflecting various moods of men's feelings towards Him.

I. The Avowed And Hypocritical Enemies Of Incarnate Love.

Again we have Mark's favourite' straightway,' so frequent in the beginning of the Gospel, and occurring twice here, vividly painting both the sudden inburst of the crowd which interrupted Christ's words and broke the holy silence of the garden, and Judas's swift kiss. He is named--the only name but our Lord's in the section; and the depth of his sin is emphasised by adding one of the twelve.' He is not named in the next verse, but gibbeted for immortal infamy by the designation, he that betrayed Him.' There is no dilating on his crime, nor any bespattering him with epithets. The passionless narrative tells of the criminal and his crime with unsparing, unmoved tones, which have caught some echo beforehand of the Judge's voice. To name the sinner, and to state without cloak or periphrasis what his deed really was, is condemnation enough. Which of us could stand it?

Judas was foremost of the crowd. What did he feel as he passed swiftly into the shadow of the olives, and caught the first sight of Jesus? That the black depths of his spirit were agitated is plain from two things--the quick kiss, and the nauseous repetition of it. Mark says,' Straightway… he kissed Him much.' Probably the swiftness and vehemence, so graphically expressed by these two touches, were due, not only to fear lest Christ should escape, and to. hypocrisy overacting its part, but to a struggle with conscience and ancient affection, and a fierce determination to do the thing and have it over. Judas is not the only man who has tried to drown conscience by hurrying into and reiterating the sin from which conscience tries to keep him. The very extravagances of evil betray the divided and stormy spirit of the doer. In the darkness and confusion, the kiss was a surer token than a word or a pointing finger would have been; and simple convenience appears to have led to its selection. But what a long course of hypocrisy must have preceded, and how complete the alienation of heart must have become, before such a choice was possible! That traitor's kiss has become a symbol for all treachery cloaked in the garb of affection. Its lessons and warnings are obvious, but this other may be added--that such audacity and nauseousness of hypocrisy is not reached at a leap, but presupposes long underground tunnels of insincere discipleship, through which a man has burrowed, unseen by others, and perhaps unsuspected by himself. Much hypocrisy of the unconscious sort precedes the deliberate and conscious.

How much less criminal and disgusting was the rude crowd at Judas's heels! Most of them were mere passive tools. The Evangelist points beyond them to the greater criminals by his careful enumeration of all classes of the Jewish authorities, thus laying the responsibility directly on their shoulders, and indirectly on the nation whom they represented. The semi-tumultuous character of the crowd is shown by calling them a multitude,' and by the medley of weapons which they carried. Half-ignorant hatred, which had had ample opportunities of becoming knowledge and love, offended formalism, blind obedience to ecclesiastical superiors, the dislike of goodness--these impelled the rabble who burst into the garden of Gethsemane.

Maclaren: Mar 14:46

II. Incarnate Love, Bound And Patient.

We may bring together Mark 14:46, 48, 49, the first of which tells in simplest, briefest words the sacrilegious violence done to Jesus, while the others record His calm remonstrance. They laid hands on Him.' That was the first stage in outrage--the quick stretching of many hands to secure the unresisting prisoner. They took Him,' or, as perhaps we might better render, They held Him fast,' as would have been done with any prisoner. Surely, the quietest way of telling that stupendous fact is the best! It is easy to exclaim, and, after the fashion of some popular writers of lives of Christ, to paint fancy pictures. It is better to be sparing of words, like Mark, and silently to meditate on the patient long-suffering of the love which submitted to these indignities, and on the blindness which had no welcome but this for God manifest in the flesh.' Both are in full operation to-day, and the germs of the latter are in us all.

Mark confines himself to that one of Christ's sayings which sets in the clearest light His innocence and meek submissiveness. With all its calmness and patience, it is majestic and authoritative, and sounds as if spoken from a height far above the hubbub. Its question is not only an assertion of His innocence, and therefore of his captor's guilt, but also declares the impotence of force as against Him--Swords and staves to take Me!' All that parade of arms was out of place, for He was no evil-doer; needless, for He did not resist; and powerless, unless He chose to let them prevail. He speaks as the stainless, incarnate Son of God. He speaks also as Captain of' the noble army of martyrs,' and His question may be extended to include the truth that force is in its place when used against crime, but ludicrously and tragically out of place when employed against any teacher, and especially against Christianity. Christ, in His persecuted confessors, puts the same question to the persecutors which Christ in the flesh put to His captors.

The second clause of Christ's remonstrance appeals to their knowledge of Him and His words, and to their attitude towards Him. For several days He had daily been publicly teaching in the Temple. They had laid no hands on Him. Nay, some of them. no doubt, had helped to wave the palm-branches and swell the hosannas. He does not put the contrast of then and now in its strongest form, but spares them, even while He says enough to bring an unseen blush to some cheeks. He would have them ask, Why this change in us, since He is the same? Did He deserve to be hailed as King a few short hours ago? How, then, before the palm-branches are withered, can He deserve rude hands?' Men change in their feelings to the unchanging Christ; and they who have most closely marked the rise and fall of the tide in their own hearts will be the last to wonder at Christ's captors, and will most appreciate the gentleness of His rebuke and remonstrance.

The third clause rises beyond all notice of the human agents, and soars to the divine purpose which wrought itself out through them. That divine purpose does not make them guiltless, but it makes Jesus submissive. He bows utterly, and with no reluctance, to the Father's will, which could be wrought out through unconscious instruments, and had been declared of old by half-understanding prophets, but needed the obedience of the Son to be clear-seeing, cheerful, and complete. We, too, should train ourselves to see the hand that moves the pieces, and to make God's will our will, as becomes sons. Then Christ's calm will be ours, and, ceasing from self, and conscious of God everywhere, and yielding our wills, which are the self of ourselves, to Him, we shall enter into rest.

III. Rash Love Defending Its Lord With Wrong Weapons (Mark 14:47).

Peter may have felt that he must do something to vindicate his recent boasting, and, with his usual headlong haste, stops neither to ask what good his sword is likely to do, nor to pick his man and take deliberate aim at him. If swords were to be used, they should do something more effectual than hacking off a poor servant's ear. There was love in the foolish deed, and a certain heroism in braving the chance of a return thrust or capture, which should go to Peter's credit. If he alone struck a blow for his Master, it was because the others were more cowardly, not more enlightened. Peter has had rather hard measure about this matter, and is condemned by some of us who would not venture a tenth part of what he ventured for his Lord then. No doubt, this was blind and blundering love, with an alloy of rashness and wish for prominence; but that is better than unloving enlightenment and caution, which is chiefly solicitous about keeping its own ears on. It is also worse than love which sees and reflects the image of the meek Sufferer whom it loves. Christ and His cause are to be defended by other weapons. Christian heroism endures and does not smite. Not only swords, but bitter words which wound worse than they, are forbidden to Christ's soldier. We are ever being tempted to fight Christ's battles with the world's weapons; and many a defender of the faith' in later days, perhaps even in this very enlightened day, has repeated Peter's fault with less excuse than he, and with very little of either his courage or his love.

IV. Cowardly Love Forsaking Its Lord (Mark 14:50).

They all forsook Him, and fled.' And who will venture to say that he would not have done so too? The tree that can stand such a blast must have deep roots. The Christ whom they forsook was, to them, but a fragment of the Christ whom we know; and the fear which scattered them was far better founded and more powerful than anything which the easy-going Christians of to-day have to resist. Their flight may teach us to place little reliance on our emotions, however genuine and deep, and to look for the security for our continual adherence to Christ, not to our fluctuating feelings, but to His steadfast love. We keep close to Him, not because our poor fingers grasp His hand--for that grasp is always feeble, and often relaxed--but because His strong and gentle hand holds us with a grasp which nothing can loosen. Whoso trusts in his own love to Christ builds on sand, but whoso trusts in Christ's love to him builds on rock.

V. Adventurous Curiosity Put To Flight (Mark 14:51-52).

Probably this young man was Mark. Only he tells the incident, which has no bearing on the course of events, and was of no importance but to the person concerned. He has put himself unnamed in a corner of his picture, as monkish painters used to do, content to associate himself even thus with his Lord. His hastily cast-on covering seems to show that he had been roused from sleep. Mingled love and curiosity and youthful adventurousness made him bold to follow when Apostles had fled. No effort appears to have been made to stop their flight; but he is laid hold of, and, terrified at his own rashness, wriggles himself out of his captors' hands. The whole incident singularly recalls Mark's behaviour on Paul's first missionary journey. There are the same adventurousness, the same inconsiderate entrance on perilous paths, the same ignominious and hasty retreat at the first whistle of the bullets. A man who pushes himself needlessly into difficulties and dangers without estimating their force is pretty sure to take to his heels as soon as he feels them, and to cut as undignified a figure as this naked fugitive.

VI. Love Frightened, But Following (Mark 14:54).

Fear had driven Peter but a little way. Love soon drew him and John back. Sudden and often opposite impulses moved his conduct and ruffled the surface of his character, but, deep down, the core was loyal love. He followed, but afar off: though afar off,' he did follow. If his distance betrayed his terror, his following witnessed his bravery. He is not a coward who is afraid, but he who lets his fear hinder him from duty or drive him to flight. What is all Christian living but following Christ afar off? And do the best of us do more, though we have less apology for our distance than Peter had? Leaving us an example, that ye should follow His steps,' said he, long after, perhaps remembering both that morning and the other by the lake when he was bidden to leave other servants' tasks to the Master's disposal, and, for his own part, to follow Him.

His love pushed him into a dangerous place. He was in bad company among the inferior sort of servants huddled around the fire that cold morning, at the lower end of the hall; and as its light flickered on his face, he was sure to be recognised. But we have not now to do with his denial. Rather he is the type of a true disciple, coercing his human weakness and cowardice to yield to the attraction which draws him to his Lord, and restful in the humblest place where he can catch a glimpse of His face, and so be, as he long after alleged it as his chief title to authority to have been,' a witness of the sufferings of Christ.'

Maclaren: Mar 14:55-65

The Condemnation Which Condemns The Judges

And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put Him to death; and found none. 56. For many bare false witness against Him, but their witness agreed not together. 57. And there arose certain, and bare false witness against Him, saying, 58. We heard Him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. 59. But neither so did their witness agree together. 60. And the high priest stood up in their midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest Thou nothing what is it which these witness against Thee! 61. But He held His peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, and said unto Him, Art Thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62. And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of Man, sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 63. Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? 64. Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned Him to be guilty of death. 65. And some began to spit on Him, and to cover His face, and to buffet Him, and to say unto Him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike Him with the palms of their hands.'--Mark 14:55-65.

MARK brings out three stages in our Lord's trial by the Jewish authorities--their vain attempts to find evidence against Him, which were met by His silence; His own majestic witness to Himself, which was met by a unanimous shriek of condemnation; and the rude mockery of the underlings. The other Evangelists, especially John, supply many illuminative details; but the essentials are here. It is only in criticising the Gospels that a summary and a fuller narrative are dealt with as contradictory. These three stages naturally divide this paragraph.

I. The Judges With Evil Thoughts, The False Witnesses, And The Silent Christ (Mark 14:55-61).

The criminal is condemned before He is tried. The judges have made up their minds before they sit, and the Sanhedrim is not a court of justice, but a slaughter-house, where murder is to be done under sanction of law. Mark, like Matthew, notes the unanimity of the council,' to which Joseph of Arimathea--the one swallow which does not make a summer--appears to have been the only exception; and he probably was absent, or, if present, was silent. He did not consent'; but we are not told that he opposed. That ill-omened unanimity measures the nation's sin. Flagrant injustice and corruption in high places is possible only when society as a whole is corrupt or indifferent to corruption. This prejudging of a case from hatred of the accused as a destroyer of sacred tradition, and this hunting for evidence to bolster up a foregone conclusion, are preeminently the vices of ecclesiastical tribunals and not of Jewish Sanhedrim or Papal Inquisition only. Where judges look for witnesses for the prosecution, plenty will be found, ready to curry favour by lies. The eagerness to find witnesses against Jesus is witness for Him, as showing that nothing in His life or teaching was sufficient to warrant their murderous purpose. His judges condemn themselves in seeking grounds to condemn Him, for they thereby show that their real motive was personal spite, or, as Caiaphas suggested, political expediency.

The single specimen of the worthless evidence given may be either a piece of misunderstanding or of malicious twisting of innocent words; nor can we decide whether the witnesses contradicted one another or each himself. The former is the more probable, as the fundamental principle of the Jewish law of evidence (two or three witnesses') would, in that case, rule out the testimony. The saying which they garble meant the very opposite of what they made it mean. It represented Jesus as the restorer of that which Israel should destroy. It referred to His body which is the true Temple; but the symbolic temple made with hands' is so inseparably connected with the real, that the fate of the one determines that of the other. Strangely significant, therefore, is it, that the rulers heard again, though distorted, at that moment when they were on their trial, the far-reaching sentence, which might have taught them that in slaying Jesus they were throwing down the Temple and all which centred in it, and that by His resurrection, His own act, He would build up again a new polity, which yet was but the old transfigured, even the Church, which is His body.' His work destroys nothing but the works of the devil.' He is the restorer of the divine ordinances and gifts which men destroy, and His death and resurrection bring back in nobler form all the good things lost by sin, the desolations of many generations.' The history of all subsequent attacks on Christ is mirrored here. The foregone conclusion, the evidence sought as an after-thought to give a colourable pretext, the material found by twisting His teaching, the blindness which accuses Him of destroying what He restores, and fancies itself as preserving what it is destroying, have all reappeared over and over again.

Our Lord's silence is not only that of meekness,' as a sheep before her shearers is dumb.' It is the silence of innocence, and, if we may use the word concerning Him, of scorn. He will not defend Himself to such judges, nor stoop to repel evidence which they knew to be worthless. But there is also something very solemn and judicial in His locked lips. They had ever been ready to open in words of loving wisdom; but now they are fast closed, and this is the penalty for despising, that He ceases to speak. Deaf ears make a dumb Christ. What will happen when Jesus and His judges change places, as they will one day do? When He says to each, Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these, thy sins, witness against thee?' each will be silent with the consciousness of guilt and of just condemnation by His all-knowing justice.

II. Christ's Majestic Witness To Himself Received With A Shriek Of Condemnation.

What a supreme moment that was when the head of the hierarchy put this question and received the unambiguous answer! The veriest impostor asserting Messiahship had a right to have his claims examined; but a howl of hypocritical horror is all which Christ's evoke. The high priest knew well enough what Christ's answer would be. Why, then, did he not begin by questioning Jesus, and do without the witnesses? Probably because the council wished to find some pretext for His condemnation without bringing up the real reason; for it looked ugly to condemn a man for claiming to be Messias, and to do it without examining His credentials. The failure, however, of the false witnesses compelled the council to show their hands,' and to hear and reject our Lord solemnly and, so to speak, officially, laying His assertion of dignity and office before them, as the tribunal charged with the duty of examining His proofs. The question is so definite as to imply a pretty full and accurate knowledge of our Lord's teaching about Himself. It embraces two points--office and nature; for the Christ' and the Son of the Blessed' are not equivalents. The latter title points to our Lord's declarations that He was the S(m of God, and is an instance of the later Jewish superstition which avoided using the divine name. Loving faith delights in the name of the Lord. Dead formalism changes reverence into dread, and will not speak it.

Sham reverence, feigned ignorance, affected wish for information, the false show of judicial impartiality, and other lies and vices not a few, are condensed in the question; and the fact that the judge had to ask it and hear the answer, is an instance of a divine purpose working through evil men, and compelling reluctant lips to speak words the meaning and bearing of which they little know. Jesus could not leave such a challenge unanswered. Silence then would have been abandonment of His claims. It was fitting that the representatives of the nation should, at that decisive moment, hear Him declare Himself Messiah. It was not fitting that He should be condemned on any other ground. In that answer, and its reception by the council, the nation's rejection of Jesus is, as it were, focused and compressed. This was the end of centuries of training by miracle, prophet and psalmist--the saddest instance in man's long, sad history of his awful power to frustrate God's patient educating!

Our Lord's majestic, I am,' in one word answers both parts of the question, and then passes on, with strange calm and dignity, to point onwards to the time when the criminal will be the judge, and the judges will stand at His bar. The Son of Man,' His ordinary designation of Himself, implies His true manhood, and His representative character, as perfect man, or, to use modern language, the realised ideal' of humanity. In the present connection, its employment in the same sentence as His assertion that He is the Son of God goes deep into the mystery of His twofold nature, and declares that His manhood had a supernatural origin and wielded divine prerogatives. Accordingly there follows the explicit prediction of His assumption of the highest of these after His death. The Cross was as plain to Him as ever; but beyond it gleamed the crown and the throne. He anticipates sitting on the right hand of power,' which implies repose, enthronement, judicature, investiture with omnipotence, and administration of the universe. He anticipates coming in the clouds of heaven,' which distinctly claims to be the future Judge of the world. His hearers could scarcely fail to discern the reference to Daniel's prophecy.

Was ever the irony of history more pungently exemplified than in an Annas and Caiaphas holding up hands of horror at the blasphemies' of Jesus? They rightly took His words to mean more than the claim of Messiahship as popularly understood. To say that He was the Christ was not blasphemy,' but a claim demanding examination; but to say that He, the Son of Man, was Son of God and supreme Judge was so, according to their canons. How unconsciously the exclamation, What need we further witnesses?' betrays the purpose for which the witnesses had been sought, as being simply His condemnation I They were needed' to compass His death, which the council now gleefully feels to be secured. So with precipitate unanimity they vote. And this was Israel's welcome to their King, and the outcome of all their history! And it was the destruction of the national life. That howl of condemnation pronounced sentence on themselves and on the whole order of which they were the heads. The prisoner's eyes alone saw then what we and all men may see now--the handwriting on the wall of the high priest's palace: Weighed in the balance, and found wanting.'

III. The Savage Mockers And The Patient Christ (Mark 14:65).

There is an evident antithesis between the all' of Mark 14:64 and the some' of Mark 14:65, which shows that the inflictors of the indignities were certain members of the council, whose fury carried them beyond all bounds of decency. The subsequent mention of the servants' confirms this, especially when we adopt the more accurate rendering of the Revised Version, received Him with blows.' Mark's account, then, is this: that, as soon as the unanimous howl of condemnation had been uttered, some of the' judges' fell upon Jesus with spitting and clumsy ridicule and downright violence, and that afterwards He was handed over to the underlings, who were not slow to copy the example set them at the upper end of the hall.

It was not an ignorant mob who thus answered His claims, but the leaders and teachers--the creme de la creme of the nation. A wild beast lurks below the Pharisee's long robes and phylacteries; and the more that men have changed a living belief in religion for a formal profession, the more fiercely antagonistic are they to every attempt to realise its precepts and hopes. The religious' men who mock Jesus in the name of traditional religion are by no means an extinct species. It is of little use to shudder at the blind cruelty of dead scribes and priests. Let us rather remember that the seeds of their sins are in us all, and take care to check their growth. What a volcano of hellish passion bursts out here! Spitting expresses disgust; blinding and asking for the names of the smiters is a clumsy attempt at wit and ridicule; buffeting is the last unrestrained form of hate and malice. The world has always paid its teachers and benefactors in such coin; but all other examples pale before this saddest, transcendent instance. Love is repaid by hate; a whole nation is blind to supreme and unspotted goodness; teachers steeped in law and prophets' cannot see Him of and for whom law and prophets witnessed and were, when He stands before them. The sin of sins is the failure to recognise Jesus for what He is. His person and claims are the touchstone which tries every beholder of what sort He is.

How wonderful the silent patience of Jesus! He withholds not His face' from shame and spitting.' He gives' His back to the smiters.' Meek endurance and passive submission are not all which we have to behold there. This is more than an uncomplaining martyr. This is the sacrifice for the world's sin; and His bearing of all that men can inflict is more than heroism. It is redeeming love. His sad, loving eyes, wide open below their bandage, saw and pitied each rude smiter, even as He sees us all. They were and are eyes of infinite tenderness, ready to beam forgiveness; but they were and are the eyes of the Judge, who sees and repays His foes, as those who smite Him will one day find out.

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.

MHCC: Mar 14:22-31

The Lord's supper is food for the soul, therefore a very little of that which is for the body, as much as will serve for a sign, is enough. It was instituted by the example and the practice of our Master, to remain in force till his second coming. It was instituted with blessing and giving of thanks, to be a memorial of Christ's death. Frequent mention is made of his precious blood, as the price of our redemption. How comfortable is this to poor repenting sinners, that the blood of Christ is shed for many! If for many, why not for me? It was a sign of the conveyance of the benefits purchased for us by his death. Apply the doctrine of Christ crucified to yourselves; let it be meat and drink to your souls, strengthening and refreshing your spiritual life. It was to be an earnest and foretaste of the happiness of heaven, and thereby to put us out of taste for the pleasures and delights of sense. Every one that has tasted spiritual delights, straightway desires eternal ones. Though the great Shepherd passed through his sufferings without one false step, yet his followers often have been scattered by the small measure of sufferings allotted to them. How very apt we are to think well of ourselves, and to trust our own hearts! It was ill done of Peter thus to answer his Master, and not with fear and trembling. Lord, give me grace to keep me from denying thee.

MHCC: Mar 14:32-42

Christ's sufferings began with the sorest of all, those in his soul. He began to be sorely amazed; words not used in St. Matthew, but very full of meaning. The terrors of God set themselves in array against him, and he allowed him to contemplate them. Never was sorrow like unto his at this time. Now he was made a curse for us; the curses of the law were laid upon him as our Surety. He now tasted death, in all the bitterness of it. This was that fear of which the apostle speaks, the natural fear of pain and death, at which human nature startles. Can we ever entertain favourable, or even slight thoughts of sin, when we see the painful sufferings which sin, though but reckoned to him, brought on the Lord Jesus? Shall that sit light upon our souls, which sat so heavy upon his? Was Christ in such agony for our sins, and shall we never be in agony about them? How should we look upon Him whom we have pierced, and mourn! It becomes us to be exceedingly sorrowful for sin, because He was so, and never to mock at it. Christ, as Man, pleaded, that, if it were possible, his sufferings might pass from him. As Mediator, he submitted to the will of God, saying, Nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou wilt; I bid it welcome. See how the sinful weakness of Christ's disciples returns, and overpowers them. What heavy clogs these bodies of ours are to our souls! But when we see trouble at the door, we should get ready for it. Alas, even believers often look at the Redeemer's sufferings in a drowsy manner, and instead of being ready to die with Christ, they are not even prepared to watch with him one hour.

MHCC: Mar 14:43-52

Because Christ appeared not as a temporal prince, but preached repentance, reformation, and a holy life, and directed men's thoughts, and affections, and aims to another world, therefore the Jewish rulers sought to destroy him. Peter wounded one of the band. It is easier to fight for Christ than to die for him. But there is a great difference between faulty disciples and hypocrites. The latter rashly and without thought call Christ Master, and express great affection for him, yet betray him to his enemies. Thus they hasten their own destruction.

MHCC: Mar 14:53-65

We have here Christ's condemnation before the great council of the Jews. Peter followed; but the high priest's fire-side was no proper place, nor his servants proper company, for Peter: it was an entrance into temptation. Great diligence was used to procure false witnesses against Jesus, yet their testimony was not equal to the charge of a capital crime, by the utmost stretch of their law. He was asked, Art thou the Son of the Blessed? that is, the Son of God. For the proof of his being the Son of God, he refers to his second coming. In these outrages we have proofs of man's enmity to God, and of God's free and unspeakable love to man.

MHCC: Mar 14:66-72

Peter's denying Christ began by keeping at a distance from him. Those that are shy of godliness, are far in the way to deny Christ. Those who think it dangerous to be in company with Christ's disciples, because thence they may be drawn in to suffer for him, will find it much more dangerous to be in company with his enemies, because there they may be drawn in to sin against him. When Christ was admired and flocked after, Peter readily owned him; but will own no relation to him now he is deserted and despised. Yet observe, Peter's repentance was very speedy. Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall; and let him that has fallen think of these things, and of his own offences, and return to the Lord with weeping and supplication, seeking forgiveness, and to be raised up by the Holy Spirit.

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.

Matthew Henry: Mar 14:32-42

Christ is here entering upon his sufferings, and begins with those which were the sorest of all his sufferings, those in his soul. Here we have him in his agony; this melancholy story we had in Matthew; this agony in soul was the wormwood and the gall in the affliction and misery; and thereby it appeared that no sorrow was forced upon him, but that it was what he freely admitted.

I. He retired for prayer; Sit ye here (saith he to his disciples), while I go a little further, and pray. He had lately prayed with them (Jn. 17); and now he appoints them to withdraw while he goes to his Father upon an errand peculiar to himself. Note, Our praying with our families will not excuse our neglect of secret worship. When Jacob entered into his agony, he first sent over all that he had, and was left alone, and then there wrestled a man with him (Gen 32:23, Gen 32:24), though he had been at prayer before (Mar 14:9), it is likely, with his family.

II. Even into that retirement he took with him Peter, and James, and John (Mar 14:33), three competent witnesses of this part of his humiliation; and though great spirits care not how few know any thing of their agonies, he was not ashamed that they should see. These three had boasted most of their ability and willingness to suffer with him; Peter here, in this chapter, and James and John (Mar 10:39); and therefore Christ takes them to stand by, and see what a struggle he had with the bloody baptism and the bitter cup, to convince them that they knew not what they said. It is fit that they who are most confident, should be first tried, that they may be made sensible of their folly and weakness.

III. There he was in a tremendous agitation (Mar 14:33); He began to be sore amazed - ekthambeisthai , a word not used in Matthew, but very significant; it bespeaks something like that horror of great darkness, which fell upon Abraham (Gen 15:12), or, rather, something much worse, and more frightful. The terrors of God set themselves in array against him, and he allowed himself the actual and intense contemplation of them. Never was sorrow like unto his at that time; never any had such experience as he had from eternity of divine favours, and therefore never any had, or could have, such a sense as he had of divine favours. Yet there was not the least disorder or irregularity in this commotion of his spirits; his affections rose not tumultuously, but under direction, and as they were called up, for he had no corrupt nature to mix with them, as we have. If water have a sediment at the bottom, though it may be clear while it stands still, yet, when shaken, it grows muddy; so it is with our affections: but pure water in a clean glass, though ever so much stirred, continues clear; and so it was with Christ. Dr. Lightfoot thinks it very probable that the devil did now appear to our Saviour in a visible shape, in his own shape and proper colour, to terrify and affright him, and to drive him from his hope in God (which he aimed at in persecuting Job, a type of Christ, to make him curse God, and die ), and to deter him from the further prosecution of his undertaking; whatever hindered him from that, he looked upon as coming from Satan, Mat 16:23. When the devil had tempted him in the wilderness, it is said, He departed from him for a season (Luk 4:13), intending another grapple with him, and in another way; finding that he could not by his flatteries allure him into sin, he would try by his terrors to affright him into it, and so make void his design.

IV. He made a sad complaint of this agitation. He said, My soul is exceeding sorrowful. 1. He was made sin for us, and therefore was thus sorrowful; he fully knew the malignity of the sins he was to suffer for; and having the highest degree of love to God, who was offended by them, and of love to man, who was damaged and endangered by them, now that those were set in order before him, no marvel that his soul was exceeding sorrowful. Now was he made to serve with our sins, and was thus wearied with our iniquities. 2. He was made a curse for us; the curses of the law were transferred to him as our surety and representative, not as originally bound with us, but a bail to the action. And when his soul was thus exceeding sorrowful, he did, as it were, yield to them, and lie down under the load, until by his death he had satisfied for sin, and so for ever abolished the curse. He now tasted death (as he is said to do, Heb 2:9), which is not an extenuating expression, as if he did but taste it; no, he drank up even the dregs of the cup; but it is rather aggravating; it did not go down by wholesale, but he tasted all the bitterness of it. This was that fear which the apostle speaks of (Heb 5:7), a natural fear of pain and death, which it is natural to human nature to startle at.

Now the consideration of Christ's sufferings in his soul, and his sorrows for us, should be of use to us,

(1.) To embitter our sins. Can we ever entertain a favourable or so much as a slight thought of sin, when we see what impression sin (though but imputed) made upon the Lord Jesus? Shall that sit light upon our souls, which sat so heavy upon his? Was Christ in such an agony for our sins, and shall we never be in an agony about them? How should we look upon him whom we have pressed, whom we have pierced, and mourn, and be in bitterness! It becomes us to be exceeding sorrowful for sin, because Christ was so, and never to make a mock at it. If Christ thus suffered for sin, let us arm ourselves with the same mind.

(2.) To sweeten our sorrows; if our souls be at any time exceeding sorrowful, through the afflictions of this present time, let us remember that our Master was so before us, and the disciple is not greater than his Lord. Why should we affect to drive away sorrow, when Christ for our sakes courted it, and submitted to it, and thereby not only took out the sting of it, and made it tolerable, but put virtue into it, and made it profitable (for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better ), nay, and put sweetness into it, and made it comfortable. Blessed Paul was sorrowful, and yet always rejoicing. If we be exceeding sorrowful, it is but unto death; that will be the period of all our sorrows, if Christ be ours; when the eyes are closed, all tears are wiped away from them.

V. He ordered his disciples to keep with him, not because he needed their help, but because he would have them to look upon him and receive instruction; he said to them, Tarry ye here and watch. He had said to the other disciples nothing but, Sit ye here (Mar 14:32); but these three he bids to tarry and watch, as expecting more from them than from the rest.

VI. He addressed himself to God by prayer (Mar 14:35); He fell on the ground, and prayed. It was but a little before this, that in prayer he lifted up his eyes (Joh 17:1); but here, being in an agony, he fell upon his face, accommodating himself to his present humiliation, and teaching us thus to abase ourselves before God; it becomes us to be low, when we come into the presence of the Most High. 1. As Man, he deprecated his sufferings, that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him (Mar 14:35); "This short, but sharp affliction, that which I am now this hour to enter upon, let man's salvation be, if possible, accomplished without it."We have his very words (Mar 14:36), Abba, Father. The Syriac word is here retained, which Christ used, and which signifies Father, to intimate what an emphasis our Lord Jesus, in his sorrows, laid upon it, and would have us to lay. It is with an eye to this, that St. Paul retains this word, putting it into the mouths of all that have the Spirit of adoption; they are taught to cry, Abba, Father, Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6. Father, all things are possible to thee. Note, Even that which we cannot expect to be done for us, we ought yet to believe that God is able to do: and when we submit to his will, and refer ourselves to his wisdom and mercy, it must be with a believing acknowledgment of his power, that all things are possible to him. 2. As Mediator, he acquiesced in the will of God concerning them; " Nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou wilt. I know the matter is settled, and cannot be altered, I must suffer and die, and I bid it welcome."

VII. He roused his disciples, who were dropped asleep while he was at prayer, Mar 14:37, Mar 14:38. He comes to look after them, since they did not look after him; and he finds them asleep, so little affected were they with his sorrows, his complaints, and prayers. This carelessness of theirs was a presage of their further offence in deserting him; and it was an aggravation of it, that he had so lately commended them for continuing with him in his temptations, though they had not been without their faults. Was he so willing to make the best of them, and were they so indifferent in approving themselves to him? They had lately promised not to be offended in him; what! and yet mind him so little? He particularly upbraided Peter with his drowsiness; Simon, sleepest thou? Kai su teknon ; - " What thou, my son? Thou that didst so positively promise thou wouldest not deny me, dost thou slight me thus? From thee I expected better things. Couldest thou not watch one hour? "He did not require him to watch all night with him, only for one hour. It aggravates our faintness and short continuance in Christ's service, that he doth not over-task us, nor weary us with it, Isa 43:23. He puts upon us no other burthen than to hold fast till he comes (Rev 2:24, Rev 2:25); and behold, he comes quickly, Rev 3:11.

As those whom Christ loves he rebukes when they do amiss, so those whom he rebukes he counsels and comforts. 1. It was a very wise and faithful word of advice which Christ here gave to his disciples; Watch and pray, lest ye enter into temptation, v. 38. It was bad to sleep when Christ was in his agony, but they were entering into further temptation, and if they did not stir up themselves, and fetch in grace and strength from God by prayer, they would do worse; and so they did, when they all forsook him, and fled. 2. It was a very kind and tender excuse that Christ made for them; " The spirit truly is willing; I know it is, it is ready, it is forward; you would willingly keep awake, but you cannot."This may be taken as a reason for that exhortation, " Watch and pray; because, though the spirit is willing, I grant it is (you have sincerely resolved never to be offended in me ), yet the flesh is weak, and if you do not watch and pray, and use the means of perseverance, you may be overcome, notwithstanding."The consideration of the weakness and infirmity of our flesh should engage and quicken us to prayer and watchfulness, when we are entering into temptation.

VIII. He repeated his address to his Father (Mar 14:39); He went again, and prayed, saying, ton auton logon - the same word, or matter, or business; he spoke to the same purport, and again the third time. This teaches us, that men ought to pray, and not to faint, Luk 18:1. Though the answers to our prayers do not come quickly, yet we must renew our requests, and continue instant in prayer; for the vision is for an appointed time, and at the end it shall speak, and not lie, Hab 2:3. Paul, when he was buffeted by a messenger of Satan, besought the Lord thrice, as Christ did here, before he obtained an answer of peace, 2Co 12:7, 2Co 12:8. A little before this, when Christ, in the trouble of his soul, prayed, Father, glorify thy name, he had an immediate answer by a voice from heaven, I have both glorified it, and I will glorify it yet again; but now he must come a second and third time, for the visits of God's grace, in answer to prayer, come sooner or later, according to the pleasure of his will, that we may be kept depending.

IX. He repeated his visits to his disciples. Thus he gave a specimen of his continued care for his church on earth, even when it is half asleep, and not duly concerned for itself, while he ever lives making intercession with his Father in heaven. See how, as became a Mediator, he passes and repasses between both. He came the second time to his disciples, and found them asleep again, Mar 14:40. See how the infirmities of Christ's disciples return upon them, notwithstanding their resolutions, and overpower them, notwithstanding their resistance; and what clogs those bodies of ours are to our souls, which should make us long for that blessed state in which they shall be no more our encumbrance. This second time he spoke to them as before, but they wist not what to answer him; they were ashamed of their drowsiness, and had nothing to say in excuse for it. Or, They were so overpowered with it, that, like men between sleeping and waking, they knew not where they were, or what they said. But, the third time, they were bid to sleep if they would (Mar 14:41); " Sleep on now, and take your rest. I have now no more occasion for your watching, you may sleep, if you will, for me." It is enough; we had not that word in Matthew. "You have had warning enough to keep awake, and would not take it; and now you shall see what little reason you have to be secure." Apekei , I discharge you from any further attendance; so some understand it; "Now the hour is come, in which I knew you would all forsake me, even take your course;"as he said to Judas, What thou doest, do quickly. The Son of man is now betrayed into the hands of sinners, the chief priests and elders; those worst of sinners, because they made a profession of sanctity. "Come, rise up, do not lie dozing there. Let us go and meet the enemy, for lo, he that betrayeth me is at hand, and I must not now think of making an escape."When we see trouble at the door, we are concerned to stir up ourselves to get ready for it.

Matthew Henry: Mar 14:43-52

We have here the seizing of our Lord Jesus by the officers of the chief priests. This was what his enemies had long aimed at, they had often sent to take him; but he had escaped out of their hands, because his hour was not come, nor could they now have taken him, had he not freely surrendered himself. He began first to suffer in his soul, but afterward suffered in his body, that he might satisfy for sin, which begins in the heart, but afterwards makes the members of the body instruments of unrighteousness.

I. Here is a band of rude miscreants employed to take our Lord Jesus and make him a prisoner; a great multitude with swords and staves. There is no wickedness so black, no villany so horrid, but there may be found among the children of men fit tools to be made use of, that will not scruple to be employed; so miserably depraved and vitiated is mankind. At the head of this rabble is Judas, one of the twelve, one of those that had been many years intimately conversant with our Lord Jesus, had prophesied in his name, and in his name cast out devils, and yet betrayed him. It is no new thing for a very fair and plausible profession to end in a shameful and fatal apostasy. How art thou fallen, O Lucifer!

II. Men of no less figure than the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, sent them, and set them on work, who pretended to expect the Messiah, and to be ready to welcome him; and yet, when he is come, and has given undeniable proofs that it is he that should come, because he doth not make court to them, nor countenance and support their pomp and grandeur, because he appears not as a temporal prince, but sets up a spiritual kingdom, and preaches repentance, reformation, and a holy life, and directs men's thoughts, and affections, and aims, to another world, they set themselves against him, and, without giving the credentials he produces an impartial examination, resolve to run him down.

III. Judas betrayed him with a kiss; abusing the freedom Christ used to allow his disciples of kissing his cheek at their return when they had been any time absent. He called him, Master, Master, and kissed him; he said, Rabbi, Rabbi, as if he had been now more respectful to him than ever. It is enough to put one for ever out of conceit with being called of men Rabbi, Rabbi (Mat 23:7), since it was with this compliment that Christ was betrayed. He bid them take him, and lead him away safely. Some think that he spoke this ironically, knowing that they could not secure him unless he pleased, that this Samson could break their bonds asunder as threads of tow, and make is escape, and then he should get the money, and Christ the honour, and no harm done; and I should think so too, but that Satan was entered into him, so that the worst and most malicious intention of this action is not too black to be supposed. Nay, he had often heard his Master say, that, being betrayed, he should be crucified, and had no reason to think otherwise.

IV. They arrested him, and made him their prisoner (Mar 14:46); They laid their hands on him, rude and violent hands, and took him into custody; triumphing, it is likely, that they had done that which has been often before attempted in vain.

V. Peter laid about him in defence of his Master, and wounded one of the assailants, being for the present mindful of his promise, to venture his life with his Master. He was one of them that stood by, of them that were with him (so the word signifies), of those three disciples that were with him in the garden; he drew a sword, and aimed, it is likely, to cut off the head, but missed his blow, and only cut off the ear, of a servant of the high priest, Mar 14:47. It is easier to fight for Christ, than to die for him; but Christ's good soldiers overcome, not by taking other people's lives, but by laying down their own, Rev 12:11.

VI. Christ argues with them that had seized him, and shows them the absurdity of their proceedings against him. 1. That they came out against him, as against a thief, whereas he was innocent of any crime; he taught daily in the temple, and if he had any wicked design, there it would some time or other have been discovered; nay, these officers of the chief priests, being retainers to the temple, may be supposed to have heard his sermons there (I was with you in the temple); and had he not taught them excellent doctrine, even his enemies themselves being judges? Were not all the words of his mouth in righteousness? Was there any thing froward or perverse in them? Pro 8:8. By his fruits he was known to be a good tree; why then did they come out against him as a thief? 2. That they came to take him thus privately, whereas he was neither ashamed nor afraid to appear publicly in the temple. He was none of those evil-doers that hate the light, neither come to the light, Joh 3:20. If their masters had any thing to say to him, they might meet him any day in the temple, where he was ready to answer all challenges, all charges; and there they might do as they pleased with him, for the priests had the custody of the temple, and the command of the guards about it: but to come upon him thus at midnight, and in the place of his retirement, was base and cowardly. This was to do as David's enemy, that sat in the lurking places of the villages, to murder the innocent, Psa 10:8. But this was not all. 3. They came with swords and staves, as if he had been in arms against the government, and must have the posse comitatus raised to reduce him. There was no occasion for those weapons; but they made this ado, (1.) To secure themselves from the rage of some; they came armed, because they feared the people; but thus were they in great fear, where no fear was, Psa 53:5. (2.) To expose him to the rage of others. By coming with swords and staves to take him, they represented him to the people (who are apt to take impressions this way) as a dangerous turbulent man, and so endeavored to incense them against him, and make them cry out, Crucify him, crucify him, having no other way to gain their point.

VII. He reconciled himself to all this injurious, ignominious treatment, by referring himself to the Old Testament predictions of the Messiah. I am hardly used, but I submit, for the scriptures must be fulfilled, Mar 14:49. 1. See here what a regard Christ had to the scriptures; he would bear any thing rather than that the least jot or tittle of the word of God should fall to the ground; and as he had an eye to them in his sufferings, so he has in his glory; for what is Christ doing in the government of the world, but fulfilling the scriptures? 2. See what use we are to make of the Old Testament; we must search for Christ, the true treasure hid in that field: as the history of the New Testament expounds the prophecies of Old, so the prophecies of the Old Testament illustrate the history of the New.

VIII. All Christ's disciples, hereupon, deserted him (Mar 14:50); They all forsook him, and fled. They were very confident that they should adhere to him; but even good men know not what they will do, till they are tried. If it was such a comfort to him as he had lately intimated, that they had hitherto continued with him in his lesser trials (Luk 22:28), we may well imagine what a grief it was to him, that they deserted him now in the greatest, when they might have done him some service - when he was abused, to protect him, and when accused, to witness for him. Let not those that suffer for Christ, think it strange, if they be thus deserted, and if all the herd shun the wounded deer; they are not better than their Master, nor can expect to be better used either by their enemies or by their friends. When St. Paul was in peril, none stood by him, but all men forsook him, 2Ti 4:16.

IX. The noise disturbed the neighbourhood, and some of the neighbours were brought into danger by the riot, Mar 14:51, Mar 14:52. This passage of story we have not in any other of the evangelists. Here is an account of a certain young man, who, as it should seem, was no disciple of Christ, nor, as some have imagined, a servant of the house wherein Christ had eaten the passover, who followed him to see what would become of him (as the sons of the prophets, when they understood that Elijah was to be taken up, went to view afar off, 2Ki 2:7), but some young man that lived near the garden, perhaps in the house to which the garden belonged. Now observe concerning him,

1. How he was frightened out of his bed, to be a spectator of Christ's sufferings. Such a multitude, so armed, and coming with so much fury, and in the dead of night, and in a quiet village, could not but produce a great stir; this alarmed our young man, who perhaps thought they was some tumult or rising in the city, some uproar among the people, and had the curiosity to go, and see what the matter was, and was in such haste to inform himself, that he could not stay to dress himself, but threw a sheet about him, as if he would appear like a walking ghost, in grave clothes, to frighten those who had frightened him, and ran among the thickest of them with this question, What is to do here? Being told, he had a mind to see the issue, having, no doubt, heard much of the fame of this Jesus; and therefore, when all his disciples had quitted him, he continued to follow him, desirous to hear what he would say, and see what he would do. Some think that his having no other garment than this linen cloth upon his naked body, intimates that he was one of those Jews who made a great profession of piety that their neighbours, in token of which, among other instances of austerity and mortification of the body, they used no clothes but one linen garment, which, though contrived to be modest enough, was thin and cold. But I rather think that this was not his constant wear.

2. See how he was frightened into his bed again, when he was in danger of being made a sharer in Christ's sufferings. His own disciples had run away from him; but this young man, having no concern for him, thought he might securely attend him, especially being so far from being armed, that he was not so much as clothed; but the young men, the Roman soldiers, who were called to assist, laid hold of him, for all was fish that came to their net. Perhaps they were now vexed at themselves, that they had suffered the disciples to run away, and they being got out of their reach they resolved to seize the first they could lay their hands on; though this young man was perhaps one of the strictest sect of the Jewish church, yet the Roman soldiers made no conscience of abusing him upon this occasion. Finding himself in danger, he left the linen cloth by which they had caught hold of him, and fled away naked. This passage is recorded to show what a barbarous crew this was, that was sent to seize Christ, and what a narrow escape the disciples had of falling into their hands, out of which nothing could have kept them but their Master's care of them; If ye seek me, let these go their way, Joh 18:8. It also intimates that there is no hold of those who are led by curiosity only, and not by faith and conscience, to follow Christ.

Matthew Henry: Mar 14:53-65

We have here Christ's arraignment, trial, conviction, and condemnation, in the ecclesiastical court, before the great sanhedrim, of which the high priest was president, or judge of the court; the same Caiaphas that had lately adjudged it expedient he should be put to death, guilty or not guilty (Joh 11:50), and who therefore might justly be excepted against as partial.

I. Christ is hurried away to his house, his palace it is called, such state did he live in. And there, though, in the dead of the night, all the chief priests, and elders, and scribes, that were in the secret, were assembled, ready to receive the prey; so sure were they of it.

II. Peter followed at a distance, such a degree of cowardice was his late courage dwindled into, Mar 14:54. But when he came to the high priest's palace, he sneakingly went, and sat with the servants, that he might not be suspected to belong to Christ. The high priest's fire side was no proper place, nor his servants proper company, for Peter, but it was his entrance into a temptation.

III. Great diligence was used to procure, for love or money, false witnesses against Christ. They had seized him as a malefactor, and now they had him they had no indictment to prefer against him, no crime to lay to his charge, but they sought for witnesses against him; pumped some with ensnaring questions, offered bribes to others, if they would accuse him, and endeavored to frighten others, if they would not, Mar 14:55, Mar 14:56. The chief priests and elders were by the law entrusted with the prosecuting and punishing of false witnesses (Deu 19:16, Deu 19:17); yet those were now ringleaders in a crime that tends to overthrow of all justice. It is time to cry, Help, Lord, when the physicians of a land are its troublers, and those that should be the conservators of peace and equity, are the corrupters of both.

IV. He was at length charged with words spoken some years ago, which, as they were represented, seemed to threaten the temple, which they had made no better than an idol of (Mar 14:57, Mar 14:58); but the witnesses to this matter did not agree (Mar 14:59), for one swore that he said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days (so it is in Matthew); the other swore that he said, I will destroy this temple, that is made with hands, and within three days, I will build not it, but another made without hands; now these two differ much from each other; oude isē ēn hē marturia - their testimony was not sufficient, nor equal to the charge of a capital crime; so Dr. Hammond: they did not accuse him of that upon which a sentence of death might be founded, no not by the utmost stretch of their law.

V. He was urged to be his own accuser (Mar 14:60); The high priest stood up in a heat, and said, Answerest thou nothing? This he said under pretence of justice and fair dealing, but really with a design to ensnare him, that they might accuse him, Luk 11:53, Luk 11:54; Luk 20:20. We may well imagine with what an air of haughtiness and disdain this proud high priest brought our Lord Jesus to this question; "Come you, the prisoner at the bar, you hear what is sworn against you; what have you now to say for yourself?"Pleased to think that he seemed silent, who had so often silenced those that picked quarrels with him. Still Christ answered nothing, that he might set us an example, 1. Of patience under calumnies and false accusations; when we are reviled, let us not revile again, 1Pe 2:23. And, 2. Of prudence, when a man shall be made an offender for a word (Isa 29:21), and our de fence made our of fence; it is an evil time indeed when the prudent shall keep silence (lest they make bad worse), and commit their cause to him that judgeth righteously. But,

VI. When he was asked whether he was the Christ, he confessed, and denied not, that he was, Mar 14:61, Mar 14:62. He asked, Art thou the Son of the Blessed? that is the Son of God? for, as Dr. Hammond observes, the Jews, when they named God, generally added, blessed for ever; and thence the Blessed is the title of God, a peculiar title, and applied to Christ, Rom 9:5. And for the proof of his being the Son of God, he binds them over to his second coming; " Ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power; that Son of man that now appears so mean and despicable, whom ye see and trample upon (Isa 53:2, Isa 53:3), you shall shortly see and tremble before. "Now, one would think that such a word as this which our Lord Jesus seems to have spoken with a grandeur and majesty not agreeable to his present appearance (for through the thickest cloud of his humiliation some rays of glory were still darted forth), should have startled the court, and at least, in the opinion of some of them, should have amounted to a demurrer, or arrest of judgment, and that they should have stayed process till they had considered further of it; when Paul at the bar reasoned of the judgment to come, the judge trembled, and adjourned the trial, Act 24:25. But these chief priests were so miserably blinded with malice and rage, that, like the horse rushing into the battle, they mocked at fear, and were not affrighted, neither believed they that it was the sound of the trumpet, Job 39:22, Job 39:24. And see Job 15:25, Job 15:26.

VII. The high priest, upon this confession of his, convicted him as a blasphemer (Mar 14:63); He rent his clothes - chitōnas autou . Some think the word signifies his pontifical vestments, which, for the greater state, he had put on, though in the night, upon this occasion. As before, in his enmity to Christ, he said he knew not what (Joh 11:51, Joh 11:52), so now he did he knew not what. If Saul's rending Samuel's mantle was made to signify the rending of the kingdom from him (1Sa 15:27, 1Sa 15:28), much more did Caiaphas's rending his own clothes signify the rending of the priesthood from him, as the rending of the veil, at Christ's death, signified the throwing of all open. Christ's clothes, even when he was crucified, were kept entire, and not rent: for when the Levitical priesthood was rent in pieces and done away, This Man, because he continues ever, has an unchangeable priesthood.

VIII. They agreed that he was a blasphemer, and, as such, was guilty of a capital crime, Mar 14:64. The question seemed to be put fairly, What think ye? But it was really prejudged, for the high priest had said, Ye have heard the blasphemy; he gave judgment first, who, as president of the court, ought to have voted last. So they all condemned him to be guilty of death; what friends he had in the great sanhedrim, did not appear, it is probable that they had not notice.

IX. They set themselves to abuse him, and, as the Philistines with Samson, to make sport with him, Mar 14:65. It should seem that some of the priests themselves that had condemned him, so far forgot the dignity, as well as duty, of their place, and the gravity which became them, that they helped their servants in playing the fool with a condemned prisoner. This they made their diversion, while they waited for the morning, to complete their villany. That night of observations (as the passover-night was called) they made a merry night of. If they did not think it below them to abuse Christ, shall we think any thing below us, by which we may do him honour?

Matthew Henry: Mar 14:66-72

We have here the story of Peter's denying Christ.

1. It began in keeping at a distance from him. Peter had followed afar off (Mar 14:54), and now was beneath in the palace, at the lower end of the hall. Those that are shy of Christ, are in a fair way to deny him, that are shy of attending on holy ordinances, shy of the communion of the faithful, and loth to be seen on the side of despised godliness.

2. It was occasioned by his associating with the high priest's servants, and sitting among them. They that think it dangerous to be in company with Christ's disciples, because thence they may be drawn in to suffer for him, will find it much more dangerous to be in company with his enemies, because there they may be drawn in to sin against him.

3. The temptation was, his being charged as a disciple of Christ; Thou also wert with Jesus of Nazareth, Mar 14:67. This is one of them (Mar 14:69), for thou art a Galilean, one may know that by thy speaking broad, Mar 14:70. It doth not appear that he was challenged upon it, or in danger of being prosecuted as a criminal for it, but only bantered upon it, and in danger of being ridiculed as a fool for it. While the chief priests were abusing the Master, the servants were abusing the disciples. Sometimes the cause of Christ seems to fall so much on the losing side, that every body has a stone to throw at it, and even the abjects gather themselves together against it. When Job was on the dunghill, he was had in derision of those that were the children of base men, Job 30:8. Yet, all things considered, the temptation could not be called formidable; it was only a maid that casually cast her eye upon him, and, for aught that appears, without design of giving him any trouble, said, Thou art one of them, to which he needed not to have made any reply, or might have said, "And if I be, I hope that is no treason."

4. The sin was very great; he denied Christ before men, at a time when he ought to have confessed and owned him, and to have appeared in court a witness for him. Christ had often given notice to his disciples of his own sufferings; yet, when they came, they were to Peter as great a surprise and terror as if he had never heard of them before. He had often told them that they must suffer for him, must take up their cross, and follow him; and yet Peter is so terribly afraid of suffering, upon the very first alarm of it, that he will lie and swear, and do any thing, to avoid it. When Christ was admired and flocked after, he could readily own him; but now that he is deserted, and despised, and run down, he is ashamed of him, and will own no relation to him.

5. His repentance was very speedy. He repeated his denial thrice, and the third was worst of all, for then he cursed and swore, to confirm his denial; and that the third blow, which, one would think, should have stunned him, and knocked him down, startled him, and roused him up. Then the cock crew the second time, which put him in mind of his Master's words, the warning he had given him, with that particular circumstance of the cock crowing twice; by recollecting that, he was made sensible of his sin and the aggravations of it; and when he thought thereon, he wept. Some observe that this evangelist, who wrote, as some have thought, by St. Peter's direction, speaks as fully of Peter's sin as any of them, but more briefly of his sorrow, which Peter, in modesty, would not have to be magnified, and because he thought he could never sorrow enough for great a sin. His repentance here is thus expressed, epibalōn eklaie , where something must be supplied. He added to weep, so some; making it a Hebraism; he wept, and the more he thought of it, the more he wept; he continued weeping; he flung out, and wept; burst out into tears; threw himself down, and wept; he covered his face, and wept, so some; cast his garment about his head, that he might not be seen to weep; he cast his eyes upon his Master, who turned, and looked upon him; so Dr. Hammond supplies it, and it is a probable conjecture. Or, as we understand it, fixing his mind upon it, he wept. It is not a transient thought of that which is humbling, that will suffice, but we must dwell upon it. Or, what if this word should mean his laying a load upon himself, throwing a confusion into his own face? he did as the publican that smote his breast, in sorrow for sin; and this amounts to his weeping bitterly.

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.

Barclay: Mar 14:22-26

We must first set out the various steps of the Passover Feast, so that in our mind's eye we can follow what Jesus and his disciples were doing. The steps came in this order.

(i) The cup of the Kiddush. Kiddush means sanctification or separation. This was the act which, as it were, separated this meal from all other common meals. The head of the family took the cup and prayed over it, and then all drank of it.

(ii) The first hand washing. This was carried out only by the person who was to celebrate the feast. Three times he had to wash his hands in the prescribed way which we have already described when studying Mk 7 .

(iii) A piece of parsley or lettuce was then taken and dipped in the bowl of salt water and eaten. This was an appetizer to the meal, but the parsley stood for the hyssop with which the lintel had been smeared with blood, and the salt stood for the tears of Egypt and for the waters of the Red Sea through which Israel had been brought in safety.

(iv) The breaking of bread. Two blessings were used at the breaking of bread. "Blessed be thou, O Lord, our God, King of the Universe, who bringest forth from the earth." Or, "Blessed art thou, our Father in heaven, who givest us to-day the bread necessary for us." On the table lay three circles of unleavened bread. The middle one was taken and broken. At this point only a little was eaten. It was to remind the Jews of the bread of affliction that they ate in Egypt and it was broken to remind them that slaves had never a whole loaf, but only broken crusts to eat. As it was broken, the head of the family said, "This is the bread of affliction which our forefathers ate in the land of Egypt. Whosoever is hungry let him come and eat. Whosoever is in need let him come and keep the Passover with us." (In the modern celebration in strange lands, here is added the famous prayer, "This year we keep it here, next year in the land of Israel. This year as slaves, next year as free.")

(v) Next came the relating of the story of deliverance. The youngest person present had to ask what made this day different from all other days and why all this was being done. And the head of the house had thereupon to tell the whole story of the history of Israel down to the great deliverance which the Passover commemorated. The Passover could never become a ritual. It was always a commemoration of the power and the mercy of God.

(vi) Ps 113-114 were sung. Ps 113-118 are known as the Hallel (01984), which means the praise of God. All these psalms are praising psalms. They were part of the very earliest material which a Jewish boy had to commit to memory.

(vii) The second cup was drunk. It was called the cup of Haggadah (compare 05046), which means the cup of explaining or proclaiming.

(viii) All those present now washed their hands in preparation for the meal.

(ix) A grace was said. "Blessed art thou, O Lord, our God, who bringest forth fruit from the earth. Blessed art thou, O God, who has sanctified us with thy commandment and enjoined us to eat unleavened cakes." Thereafter small pieces of the unleavened bread were distributed.

(x) Some of the bitter herbs were placed between two pieces of unleavened bread, dipped in the Charosheth and eaten. This was called the sop. It was the reminder of slavery and of the bricks that once they had been compelled to make.

(xi) Then followed the meal proper. The whole lamb must be eaten. Anything left over must be destroyed and not used for any common meal.

(xii) The hands were cleansed again.

(xiii) The remainder of the unleavened bread was eaten.

(xiv) There was a prayer of thanksgiving, containing a petition for the coming of Elijah to herald the Messiah. Then the third cup was drunk, called the cup of thanksgiving. The blessing over the cup was, "Blessed art thou, O Lord, our God, King of the Universe, who hast created the fruit of the vine."

(xv) The second part of The Hallel (01984)--Ps 115- 118 --was sung.

(xvi) The fourth cup was drunk, and Ps 136 , known as the great Hallel (01984), was sung.

(xvii) Two short prayers were said:

"All thy works shall praise thee, O Lord, our God. And thy saints,

the righteous, who do thy good pleasure, and all thy people, the

house of Israel, with joyous song, let them praise and bless and

magnify and glorify and exalt and reverence and sanctify and

scribe the Kingdom to thy name, O God, our King. For it is good

to praise thee, and pleasure to sing praises to thy name, for from

everlasting unto everlasting thou art God."

"The breath of all that lives shall praise thy name, O Lord, our

God. And the spirit of all flesh shall continually glorify and

exalt thy memorial, O God, our King. For from everlasting unto

everlasting thou art God, and beside thee we have no king,

redeemer or saviour."

Thus ended the Passover Feast. If the feast that Jesus and his disciples sat at was the Passover it must have been items (xiii) and (xiv) that Jesus made his own, and (xvi) must have been the hymn they sang before they went out to the Mount of Olives.

Now let us see what Jesus was doing, and what he was seeking to impress upon his men. More than once we have seen that the prophets of Israel resorted to symbolic, dramatic actions when they felt that words were not enough. That is what Ahijah did when he rent the robe into twelve pieces and gave ten to Jeroboam in token that ten of the tribes would make him king (1Ki 11:29-32). That is what Jeremiah did when he made bonds and yokes and wore them in token of the coming servitude (Jer 27 ). That is what the prophet Hananiah did when he broke the yokes that Jeremiah wore (Jer 28:10-11). That is the kind of thing that Ezekiel was continually doing (Eze 4:1-8, Eze 5:1-4). It was as if words were easily forgotten, but a dramatic action would print itself on the memory.

That is what Jesus did, and he allied this dramatic action with the ancient feast of his people so that it would be the more imprinted on the minds of his men. He said, "Look! Just as this bread is broken my body is broken for you! Just as this cup of red wine is poured out my blood is shed for you."

What did he mean when he said that the cup stood for a new covenant? The word covenant is a common word in the Jewish religion. The basis of that religion was that God had entered into a covenant with Israel. The word means something like an arrangement, a bargain, a relationship. The acceptance of the old covenant is set out in Exo 24:3-8; and from that passage we see that the covenant was entirely dependent on Israel keeping the law. If the law was broken, the covenant was broken and the relationship between God and the nation shattered. It was a relationship entirely dependent on law and on obedience to law. God was judge. And since no man can keep the law the people were ever in default. But Jesus says, "I am introducing and ratifying a new covenant, a new kind of relationship between God and man. And it is not dependent on law, it is dependent on the blood that I will shed." That is to say, it is dependent solely on love. The new covenant was a relationship between man and God not dependent on law but on love. In other words Jesus says, "I am doing what I am doing to show you how much God loves you." Men are no longer simply under the law of God. Because of what Jesus did, they are forever within the love of God. That is the essence of what the sacrament says to us.

We note one thing more. In the last sentence we see again the two things we have so often seen. Jesus was sure of two things. He knew he was to die, and he knew his Kingdom would come. He was certain of the Cross, but just as certain of the glory. And the reason was that he was just as certain of the love of God as he was of the sin of man; and he knew that in the end that love would conquer that sin.

Barclay: Mar 14:27-31

It is a tremendous thing about Jesus that there was nothing for which he was not prepared. The opposition, the misunderstanding, the enmity of the orthodox religious people, the betrayal by one of his own inner circle, the pain and the agony of the Cross--he was prepared for them all. But perhaps what hurt him most was the failure of his friends. It is when a man is up against it that he needs his friends most, and that was exactly when Jesus' friends left him all alone and let him down. There was nothing in the whole gamut of physical pain and mental torture that Jesus did not pass through.

Sir Hugh Walpole wrote a great novel called Fortitude. It is the story of one called Peter, whose creed was, "It isn't life that matters, but the courage you bring to it." Life did everything that it possibly could to him. At the end, on his own mountain top, he heard a voice, "Blessed be pain and torment and every torture of the body. Blessed be all loss and the failure of friends and the sacrifice of love. Blessed be all failure and the ruin of every earthly hope. Blessed be all sorrow and torment, hardships, and endurances that demand courage. Blessed be these things--for of these things cometh the making of a man." Peter fell to praying, "Make of me a man...to be afraid of nothing, to be ready for everything. Love, friendship, success...to take it if it comes, to care nothing if these things are not for me. Make me brave. Make me brave."

Jesus had supremely, more than anyone who ever lived, this quality of fortitude, this ability to remain erect no matter with what blows life assaulted him, this serenity when there was nothing but heartbreak behind and torture in front. Inevitably every now and then we find ourselves catching our breath at his sheer heroism.

When Jesus foretold this tragic failure of loyalty, Peter could not believe that it would happen. In the days of the Stewart troubles they captured the Cock of the North, the Marquis of Huntly. They pointed at the block and the axe and told him that unless he abandoned his loyalty he would be executed then and there. His answer was, "You can take my head from my shoulders but you will never take my heart from my king." That is what Peter said that night.

There is a lesson in the word that Jesus used for "fall away." The Greek verb is skandalizein (4624), from skandalon (4625) or skandalethron which meant the bait in a trap, the stick on to which the animal was lured and which snapped the trap when the animal stepped on it. So the word skandalizein (4624) came to mean to entrap, or to trip up by some trick or guile. Peter was too sure. He had forgotten the traps that life can lay for the best of men. He had forgotten that the best of men can step on a slippery place and fall. He had forgotten his own human weakness and the strength of the devil's temptations. But there is one thing to be remembered about Peter--his heart was in the right place. Better a Peter with a flaming heart of love, even if that love did for a moment fail most shamefully, than a Judas with a cold heart of hate. Let that man condemn Peter who never broke a promise, who never was disloyal in thought or action to a pledge. Peter loved Jesus, and even if his love failed, it rose again.

Barclay: Mar 14:32-42

This is a passage we almost fear to read, for it seems to intrude into the private agony of Jesus.

To have stayed in the upper room would have been dangerous. With the authorities on the watch for him, and with Judas bent on treachery, the upper room might have been raided at any time. But Jesus had another place to which to go. The fact that Judas knew to look for him in Gethsemane shows that Jesus was in the habit of going there. In Jerusalem itself there were no gardens. The city was too crowded, and there was a strange law that the city's sacred soil might not be polluted with manure for the gardens. But some of the rich people possessed private gardens out on the Mount of Olives where they took their rest. Jesus must have had some wealthy friend who gave him the privilege of using his garden at night.

When Jesus went to Gethsemane there were two things he sorely desired. He wanted human fellowship and he wanted God's fellowship. "It is not good that the man should be alone," God said in the beginning. (Gen 2:18.) In time of trouble we want someone with us. We do not necessarily want him to do anything. We do not necessarily even want to talk to him or have him talk to us. We only want him there. Jesus was like that. It was strange that men who so short a time before had been protesting that they would die for him, could not stay awake for him one single hour. But none can blame them, for the excitement and the tension had drained their strength and their resistance.

Certain things are clear about Jesus in this passage.

(i) He did not want to die. He was thirty-three and no one wants to die with life just opening on to the best of the years. He had done so little and there was a world waiting to be saved. He knew what crucifixion was like and he shuddered away from it. He had to compel himself to go on--just as we have so often to do.

(ii) He did not fully understand why this had to be. He only knew beyond a doubt that this was the will of God and that he must go on. Jesus, too, had to make the great venture of faith, he had to accept--as we so often have to do--what he could not understand.

(iii) He submitted to the will of God. Abba (5) is the Aramaic for my father. It is that one word which made all the difference. Jesus was not submitting to a God who made a cynical sport of men. Hardy finishes his novel Tess, after telling of her tragic life, with the terrible sentence, "The President of the Immortals had finished his sport with Tess." But Jesus was not submitting to a God who was an iron fate.

"But helpless pieces of the game he plays,

Upon this chequer board of nights and days,

Hither and thither moves and checks and slays--

And one by one back in the closet lays."

God was not like that. Even in this terrible hour, when he was making this terrible demand, God was father. When Richard Cameron, the covenanter, was killed, his head and hands were cut off by one Murray and taken to Edinburgh. "His father being in prison for the same cause, the enemy carried them to him, to add grief unto his former sorrow, and inquired if he knew them. Taking his son's head and hands, which were very fair (being a man of a fair complexion like himself) he kissed them and said, 'I know them--I know them. They are my son's--my own dear son's. It is the Lord. Good is the will of the Lord, who cannot wrong me nor mine, but hath made goodness and mercy to follow us all our days.' " If we can call God father everything becomes bearable. Time and again we will not understand, but always we will be certain that "The Father's hand will never cause his child a needless tear." That is what Jesus knew. That is why he could go on--and it can be so with us.

We must note how the passage ends. The traitor and his gang had arrived. What was Jesus' reaction? Not to run away, although even yet, in the night, it would have been easy to escape. His reaction was to face them. To the end he would neither turn aside nor turn back.

Barclay: Mar 14:43-50

Here is sheer drama and, even in Mark's economy of words, the characters stand out before us.

(i) There is Judas, the traitor. He was aware that the people knew Jesus well enough by sight. But he felt that in the dim light of the garden, with the darkness of the trees lit in pools of light by the flare of the torches, they needed a definite indication of who they were to arrest. And so he chose that most terrible of signs--a kiss. It was customary to greet a Rabbi with a kiss. It was a sign of respect and affection for a well-loved teacher. But there is a dreadful thing here. When Judas says, "Whom I shall kiss, that is he," he uses the word philein (5368) which is the ordinary word. But when it is said that he came forward and kissed Jesus the word is kataphilein (2705). The kata- (2596) is intensive and kataphilein (2705) means to kiss as a lover kisses his beloved. The sign of the betrayal was not a mere formal kiss of respectful greeting. It was a lover's kiss. That is the grimmest and most awful thing in all the gospel story.

(ii) There is the arresting mob. They came from the chief priests, the scribes and the elders. These were the three sections of the Sanhedrin and Mark means that they came from the Sanhedrin. Even under Roman jurisdiction the Sanhedrin had certain police rights and duties in Jerusalem and had its own police force. No doubt an assorted rabble had attached itself to them on the way. Somehow Mark manages to convey the wrought-up excitement of those who came to make the arrest. Maybe they had come prepared for bloodshed with nerves taut and tense. It is they who emanate terror--not Jesus.

(iii) There is the man of the forlorn hope who drew his sword and struck one blow. John (Joh 18:10) tells us that it was Peter. It sounds like Peter, and Mark very likely omitted the name because it was not yet safe to write it down. In the scuffle no one saw who struck the blow; it was better that no one should know. But when John wrote forty years later it was then quite safe to write it down. It may be wrong to draw a sword and hack at a man, but somehow we are glad that there was one man there who, at least on the impulse of the moment, was prepared to strike a blow for Jesus.

(iv) There are the disciples. Their nerve cracked. They could not face it. They were afraid that they too would share the fate of Jesus; and so they fled.

(v) There is Jesus himself. The strange thing is that in ill this disordered scene Jesus was the one oasis of serenity. As we read the story it reads as if he, not the Sanhedrin police, was directing affairs. For him the struggle in the garden was over, and now there was the peace of the man who knows that he is following the will of God.

Barclay: Mar 14:51-52

These are two strange and fascinating verses. At first sight they seem completely irrelevant. They seem to add nothing to the narrative and yet there must be some reason for them being there.

We saw in the introduction that Matthew and Luke used Mark as the basis of their work and that they include in their gospels practically everything that is in Mark. But they do not include these two verses. That would seem to show that this incident was interesting to Mark and not really interesting to anyone else. Why then was this incident so interesting to Mark that he felt he must include it? The most probable answer is that the young man was Mark himself, and that this is his way of saying, "I was there," without mentioning his own name at all.

When we read Acts we find that the meeting place and head-quarters of the Jerusalem church was apparently in the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark (Act 12:12). If that be so, it is at least probable that the upper room in which the Last Supper was eaten was in that same house. There could be no more natural place than that to be the centre of the church. If we can assume that there are two possibilities.

(i) It may be that Mark was actually present at the Last Supper. He was young, just a boy, and maybe no one really noticed him. But he was fascinated with Jesus and when the company went out into the dark, he slipped out after them when he ought to have been in bed, with only the linen sheet over his naked body. It may be that all the time Mark was there in the shadows listening and watching. That would explain where the Gethsemane narrative came from. If the disciples were all asleep how did anyone know about the struggle of soul that Jesus had there? It may be that the one witness was Mark as he stood silent in the shadows, watching with a boy's reverence the greatest hero he had ever known.

(ii) From John's narrative we know that Judas left the company before the meal was fully ended (Joh 13:30). It may be that it was to the upper room that Judas meant to lead the Temple police so that they might secretly arrest Jesus. But when Judas came back with the police, Jesus and his disciples were gone. Naturally there was recrimination and argument. The uproar wakened Mark. He heard Judas propose that they should try the garden of Gethsemane. Quickly Mark wrapped his bed-sheet about him and sped through the night to the garden to warn Jesus. But he arrived too late, and in the scuffle that followed was very nearly arrested himself.

Whatever may be true, we may take it as fairly certain that Mark put in these two verses because they were about himself He could never forget that night. He was too humble to put his own name in but in this way he wrote his signature, and said, to him who could read between the lines, "I, too, when I was a boy, was there."

Barclay: Mar 14:53

See Comments for Mark 14:55-65

Barclay: Mar 14:54

See Comments for Mark 14:66-72

Barclay: Mar 14:55-65

Things were moving quickly to their inevitable end.

At this time the powers of the Sanhedrin were limited because the Romans were the rulers of the country. The Sanhedrin had full power over religious matters. It seems also to have had a certain amount of police court power. But it had no power to inflict the death penalty. If what Mark describes was a meeting of the Sanhedrin it must be compared to a Grand Jury. Its function was not to condemn, but to prepare a charge on which the criminal could be tried before the Roman governor.

There is no doubt that in the trial of Jesus the Sanhedrin broke all its own laws. The regulations for the procedure of the Sanhedrin are in one of the tractates of the Mishnah. Naturally enough some of these regulations are rather ideals than actual practices but, even allowing for that, the whole procedure of this night was a series of flagrant injustices.

The Sanhedrin was the supreme court of the Jews and was composed of seventy-one members. Within its membership there were Sadducees--the priestly classes were all Sadducees--Pharisees and Scribes, who were experts in the law, and respected men who were elders. It appears that any vacancies in the court were filled by co-option. The High Priest presided over the court. The court sat in a semi-circle in such a way that any member could see any other member. Facing it sat the students of the Rabbis. They were allowed to speak on behalf of the person on trial but not against him. The official meeting place of the Sanhedrin was the Hall of Hewn Stone which was within the Temple precincts, and the decisions of the Sanhedrin were not valid unless reached at a meeting held in that place. The court could not meet at night, nor could it meet at any of the great feasts. When evidence was taken, witnesses were examined separately and their evidence to be valid must agree in every detail. Each individual member of the Sanhedrin must give his verdict separately, beginning from the youngest and going on to the eldest. If the verdict was a verdict of death, a night must elapse before it was carried out, so that the court might have a chance to change its mind and its decision towards mercy.

It can be seen that on point after point the Sanhedrin broke its own rules. It was not meeting in its own building. It was meeting at night. There is no word of individually given verdicts. A night was not allowed to elapse before the penalty of death was inflicted. In their eagerness to eliminate Jesus, the Jewish authorities did not hesitate to break their own laws.

At first the court could not get even false witnesses to agree. The false witnesses accused Jesus of having said that he would destroy the Temple. It may well be that someone had overheard him speaking as he did in Mar 13:2, and had maliciously twisted the saying into a threat to destroy the Temple. There is an old legend which tells how the Sanhedrin could get plenty of the kind of evidence they did not want, for man after man came forward saying, "I was a leper and he cleansed me. I was blind and he made me able to see. I was deaf and he made me able to hear. I was lame and he made me able to walk. I was paralysed and he gave me back my strength."

At last the High Priest took the matter into his own hands. When he did, he asked the very kind of question that the law completely forbade. He asked a leading question. It was forbidden to ask questions by answering which the person on trial might incriminate himself. No man could be asked to condemn himself, but that was the very question the High Priest asked. Bluntly he asked Jesus if he was the Messiah. Clearly Jesus felt that it was time that the whole wretched business was ended. Without hesitation he answered that he was. Here was a charge of blasphemy, insult against God. The Sanhedrin had what it wanted, a charge which merited the death penalty, and they were savagely content.

Once again we see the two great characteristics of Jesus emerge.

(i) We see his courage. He knew that to make that answer was to die, and yet unhesitatingly he made it. Had he denied the charges they would have been powerless to touch him.

(ii) We see his confidence. Even with the Cross now a certainty, he still continued to speak with complete confidence of his ultimate triumph.

Surely it is the most terrible of tragedies to see him who came to offer men love denied even bare justice, and humiliated by the crude and cruel horse-play of the Sanhedrin servants and guards.

Barclay: Mar 14:55-65

Sometimes we tell this story in such a way as to do Peter far less than justice. The thing we so often fail to recognize is that up to the very last Peter's career this night had been one of fantastically reckless courage. He had begun by drawing his sword in the garden with the reckless courage of a man prepared to take on a whole mob by himself. In that scuffle he had wounded the servant of the High Priest. Common prudence would have urged that Peter should lie very low. The last place anyone would have dreamed that he would go to would be the courtyard of the High Priest's house--yet that is precisely where he did go. That in itself was sheer audacity. It may be that the others had fled, but Peter was keeping his word. Even if the others had gone he would stick to Jesus.

Then the queer mixture of human nature emerged. he was sitting by the fire, for the night was cold. No doubt he was huddled in his cloak. Maybe someone poked the fire or flung a fresh log upon it, and it flared up with a fitful flame and Peter was recognized. Straightway he denied all connection with Jesus. But--and here is the forgotten point--any prudent man would then have left that courtyard as fast as his legs could carry him--but not Peter. The same thing happened again. Again Peter denied Jesus and again he would not go. It happened once more. Again Peter denied Jesus, Peter did not curse Jesus' name. What he did was to swear he did not know Jesus and to call down curses on himself if he was not telling the truth. Still it seems he did not mean to move. But something else happened.

Very probably it was this. The Roman night was divided into four watches from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. At the end of the third watch, at three o'clock in the morning, the guard was changed. When the guard was changed there was a bugle call which was called the gallicinium, which is the Latin for the cockcrow. Most likely what happened was that as Peter spoke his third denial, the clear note of the bugle call rang out over the silent city and smote on Peter's ear. He remembered and his heart broke.

Make no mistake--Peter fell to a temptation which would have come only to a man of fantastic courage. It ill becomes prudent and safety-seeking men to criticize Peter for falling to a temptation which would never, in the same circumstances, have come to them at all. Every man has his breaking-point. Peter reached his here, but nine hundred and ninety-nine men out of every thousand would have reached theirs long before. We would do well to be amazed at Peter's courage rather than to be shocked at his fall.

But there is another thing. There is only one source from which this story could have come--and that is Peter himself. We saw in the introduction that Mark's gospel is the preaching material of Peter. That is to say, over and over again Peter must have told the story of his own denial. "That is what I did," he must have said, "and this amazing Jesus never stopped loving me."

There was an evangelist called Brownlow North. He was a man of God, but in his youth he had lived a wild life. One Sunday he was to preach in Aberdeen. Before he entered the pulpit a letter was handed to him. The writer recounted a shameful incident in Brownlow North's life before he became a Christian and stated that if he dared to preach he would rise in the church and publicly proclaim what once he had done. Brownlow North took the letter into the pulpit with him. He read it to the congregation. He told them that it was perfectly true. Then he told them how through Christ he had been forgiven, how he had been enabled to overcome himself and put the past behind him, how through Christ he was a new creature. He used his own shame as a magnet to draw men to Christ. That is what Peter did. He told men, "I hurt him and I let him down like that, and still he loved and forgave me--and he can do the same for you."

When we read this passage with understanding, the story of Peter's cowardice becomes an epic of courage and the story of his shame becomes a tale of glory.

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.

Constable: Mar 14:22-26

The institution of the Lord' Supper 14:22-26 (cf. Matt. 26:26-30; Luke 22:17-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-26)

Matthew and Mark's accounts of this event are similar, but Paul's is more like Luke's.

14:22 The bread Jesus ate would have been the unleavened bread that the Jews used in the Passover meal. The blessing Jesus pronounced was a prayer of thanksgiving to God for the bread, not a consecration of the bread itself.³³⁸ Jesus' distribution of the bread to the disciples was more significant than His breaking of it. By passing it to them He symbolically shared Himself with them. When Jesus said, "This is my body," He meant the bread represented His body (cf. Luke 12:1; John 10:7). The disciples could hardly have eaten the literal flesh of Jesus since He was standing among them. Moreover the Jews abhorred eating human flesh and did not drink even animal blood much less human blood (cf. Lev. 3:17; 7:26-27; 17:10-14).³³⁹

14:23-24 The common cup likewise symbolized Jesus' sharing Himself with the disciples and their unity as disciples.³⁴⁰ Jesus' viewed His blood as the ratifying agent of the New Covenant (cf. Jer. 31:31-34) as animal blood had made the Old (Mosaic) Covenant valid (Exod. 24:8). The Greek word translated "covenant" is diatheke, a word that describes an agreement made by one person for others. A different word, syntheke, describes an agreement that two parties made in which both had obligations to each other. The diluted wine in the cup was also a reminder of the covenant's existence.³⁴¹ Jesus' blood poured out is an obvious allusion to His death. "For" translates the Greek preposition hyper meaning "in behalf of" or "instead of," a clear reference to vicarious atonement (cf. Matt. 26:28). "Many" means all (cf. 10:45; Isa. 53:11-12).

"By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race."³⁴²

14:25 The phrase "the fruit of the vine" may have been a liturgical formula describing wine used at a feast.³⁴³ In any case Jesus was saying He would not drink wine again until He did so in the kingdom. Jesus was anticipating the messianic banquet at the beginning of His kingdom (cf. Isa. 25:6). This was a welcome promise in view of Jesus' announcement of His coming death.

"Jesus seldom spoke of His death without also speaking of His resurrection (8:31; 9:31; 10:34)."³⁴⁴

"New" or "anew" means in a qualitatively different way (Gr. kainon). Now Jesus and the disciples anticipated suffering and death, but then they would anticipate joy and glory.

14:26 The hymn was probably the second part of the Hallel (lit. praise, Ps. 115-118) that the Jews sang antiphonally at the end of the Passover. The other evangelists recorded more that Jesus said and did in the upper room (e.g., John 13-16). By the time they left, it was probably quite late at night.

Constable: Mar 14:27-52

Jesus' agony in the garden 14:27-52

Jesus experienced suffering as He said farewell to His disciples in Jerusalem (vv. 12-26), but His suffering increased as He anticipated the Cross on the Mount of Olives (vv. 27-52).

Constable: Mar 14:27-31

The prediction of Peter's denial 14:27-31 (cf. Matt. 26:31-35; Luke 22:31-34; John 13:36-38)

Evidently Jesus made this prediction in the upper room before the institution of the Lord's Supper. Mark probably inserted it here in his narrative because of its logical connection with Jesus' arrest in Gethsemane.

14:27-28 We should understand the meaning of "fall away" (Gr. skandalisthesesthe, cf. 4:17; 6:3; 9:42-47) in the light of the prophecy that Jesus said predicted it (Zech. 13:7). Zechariah did not mean that the sheep would abandon the shepherd permanently much less that they would cease to be what they were. He pictured the flock fleeing from the shepherd because someone attacked him. That is precisely what the disciples did when the authorities arrested and executed Jesus. Later those sheep rallied around the Shepherd. Jesus announced His leading them as a shepherd to Galilee later (v. 28). Again He spoke of His resurrection immediately after announcing His death (vv. 24-25).

Jesus attributed the Shepherd's striking to God. He changed the Zechariah passage slightly. Clearly Jesus viewed Himself as God's Suffering Servant (Isa. 53:4-6). This point would have helped the disciples accept Jesus' fate.

14:29-30 Peter refused to allow the possibility that he would forsake Jesus even though the other disciples might (cf. John 21:15). Jesus informed Peter that his defection would really be worse than that of the other disciples. He introduced His warning with the customary solemn affirmation and explained that the denial was not only certain but imminent. Furthermore Peter would repeat it three times in spite of the rooster's double warning. Mark alone referred to the second crowing probably because of Peter's recollection of the event. The word Jesus used for "deny" or "disown" (Gr. aparnese) is a strong one meaning "deny utterly."

14:31 Jesus' reply should have caused Peter to realize his weakness and seek help. Instead he dug in his heels and virtually told Jesus that he would die to prove Him wrong. He kept affirming excessively (Gr. ekperissos, used only here in the New Testament) that he would definitely not deny Jesus. Peter did not know how weak he was, a problem most disciples of Jesus share with him. He would have to learn the hard way, through failure. Peter led the other disciples in denying that they would deny Jesus.³⁴⁵

This pericope is a strong warning for all disciples. When facing persecution for one's allegiance to Jesus, one should not trust in the strength of his or her own commitment. He or she should trust in God who can supply the grace needed to remain faithful (cf. 9:14-29).

Constable: Mar 14:32-42

Jesus' sufferings in Gethsemane 14:32-42 (cf. Matt. 26:36-46; Luke 22:40-46)

This incident contrasts Jesus' humility and dependence on the Father with Peter's self-confidence (vv. 27-31). It is a remarkable revelation of the humanity of Jesus.

"So far from sailing serenely through his trials like some superior being unconcerned with this world, he is almost dead with distress."³⁴⁶

This is Mark's third mention of Jesus' praying (cf. 1:35; 6:46). In each instance Jesus affirmed His commitment to the Father's will that Satan was constantly testing.

14:32-34 Jesus apparently took His inner circle of disciples with Him to teach them about suffering and to receive help from their intercession for Him (cf. Matt. 26:38). The other disciples were to pray as well (Luke 22:40). This was apparently a favorite place that Jesus and the disciples had visited previously (cf. Luke 22:39; John 18:2).

The words "distressed" (Gr. ekthambeisthai) and "troubled" (Gr. ademonein) together "describe an extremely acute emotion, a compound of bewilderment, fear, uncertainty and anxiety, nowhere else portrayed in such vivid terms as here."³⁴⁷ The prospect of bearing God's wrath for the world's sins and experiencing separation from His Father grieved Jesus deeply (Gr. perilypos, cf. 6:26). This was much more than any mere martyr has ever had to endure.

14:35-36 The Jews did not address God with "Abba" (lit. Daddy) because they considered such intimacy disrespectful. Jesus used the word because He as the Son of God was on intimate terms with the Father (cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Jesus evidently prayed for the better part of an hour (v. 37) though Mark only recorded the essence of His request (cf. Heb. 5:7). Jesus' submission to His Father here recalls Genesis 22:7 where Isaac addressed his father Abraham in a very similar situation quite near this place.³⁴⁸

Jesus expressed faith in God with whom all things consistent with His nature are possible (cf. 9:23). The unclear issue to the God-man, who voluntarily limited His knowledge in the Incarnation, was not God's ability but God's will.

"It is this complete dependence on God for his own salvation which is the source of Jesus' courage to renounce himself, be least, and lose his life."³⁴⁹

Jesus referred to the Cross as the "hour" and the "cup." The first expression includes everything involved in the Cross (cf. John 7:30; 8:20; et al.). The "cup" figuratively particularized God's judgment in the Cross (cf. 10:38-39). Jesus' human will was distinct from the Father's will but never opposed to it.

14:37 Perhaps Jesus spoke specifically to Peter in verse 37 because Peter had boasted that he would never deny Jesus (vv. 29, 31). Jesus' use of the name "Simon," Peter's original name, may imply his natural weakness. Peter was not living up to the meaning of his new name; he was not behaving as a rock.

14:38 Jesus then addressed all three disciples. He commanded them to be watchful (Gr. gregoreite, cf. 13:34, 35, 37) and to pray (Gr. proseuchesthe, the general word for prayer). These activities are necessary to overcome temptation. This use of "flesh" is probably literal (i.e., the body) rather than metaphorical (i.e., the sinful human nature) since it contrasts with the human spirit (i.e., man's volitional powers).

"In the passion account, the disciples are ironic figures: Because of their incomprehension, they badly misconstrue the true nature of things. Thinking themselves to be astute, courageous, and loyal, they are in reality imperceptive, cowardly, and faithless. Entering upon the passion, the disciples yet follow Jesus in commitment to him. As events unfold, however, they will renounce their commitment through word or deed and apostatize."³⁵⁰

14:39-40 Jesus returned from the disciples who gave Him no support to the Father who sustained Him. The disciples probably did not have anything to say to Jesus because they felt ashamed. They had boasted great spiritual strength, but they were demonstrating great spiritual weakness. There seems to be an inverse relationship between how self-confident we feel and how much we pray.

14:41-42 Mark alone recorded that Jesus made three separate forays into the depths of the garden to pray.

"The Temptation of the Garden divides itself, like that of the Wilderness, into three acts, following close one on another."³⁵¹

Jesus' perseverance in prayer demonstrated the extent of His dependence on the Father. Jesus' question convicted the disciples again. He probably intended His words as an ironic command rather than as a question or simply to express surprise (cf. Matt. 26:45).

Less clear is the meaning of, "It is enough."³⁵² He could have meant that Judas had received the betrayal money from the chief priests since the Greek word apechei can mean "he has received it." Another possibility is that He meant that He now understood that the Cross was inevitable. Perhaps Jesus meant the disciples had had enough sleep and it was time to wake up. Fourth, He may have meant that He had finished His praying. I prefer the third and fourth views because they are the simplest explanations and because they make good sense.

The hour that had come was the time of Jesus' arrest and death (cf. v. 35). The sinners in view were Satan's agents who would slay Jesus. Jesus' short sentences reflect the tension and urgency of the moment.³⁵³

Mark described Jesus' movements in a somewhat chiastic form. Jesus came to the garden with His disciples, left most of them evidently at the entrance, took three of them farther, and proceeded even farther into its depths alone. Then He withdrew. At the center Jesus communed with His Father. The center of the garden and the center of the pericope correspond to the center of His spiritual conflict. This description helps the reader identify Jesus' praying as at the very heart of His preparation for the Cross. It accounts for the remarkable poise with which Jesus handled Himself throughout the turmoil that followed.

"Perhaps the most commonly recognized pattern of narration in Mark is the threefold repetition of similar actions and events. . . . Some series are obvious because they occur in direct sequence: at Gethsemane, Jesus returns from prayer three times to find the disciples sleeping; Peter denies Jesus three times; Pilate asks the crowd three leading questions, each of which is rejected; and the narrator recounts events of the crucifixion at three, three-hour intervals (nine o'clock, noon, and three o'clock."³⁵⁴

Here, "This threefold pattern of narration underscores the definitive failure of the disciples."³⁵⁵

Constable: Mar 14:43-52

Jesus' betrayal, arrest, and abandonment 14:43-52 (cf. Matt. 26:47-56; Luke 22:47-53; John 18:2-12)

14:43 All the synoptic writers apparently repeated that Judas was one of the Twelve, even though the reader already knows this, to stress the tragedy of Jesus' betrayal.³⁵⁶ Judas guided the mob (Acts 1:16) that had come with authority from the Sanhedrin. Part of the crowd consisted of Jewish temple police (Luke 22:52) and Roman soldiers (John 18:12). The police carried clubs and the soldiers short swords.

14:44-46 The disciples of rabbis customarily greeted their teachers with a kiss on the hand.³⁵⁷ This prearranged signal allowed Judas to identify Jesus to the soldiers without arousing the suspicion and opposition of the other disciples.

14:47 Perhaps shame led Mark to conceal the fact that it was Peter who cut Malchus' ear evidently in a misguided attempt to cut off his head (cf. John 18:10). Peter's lack of prayer resulted in a lack of poise that contrasts sharply with Jesus' behavior. He had not only boasted too much (vv. 29, 31) and prayed too little (vv. 37, 40, 41), but he also acted too violently.

14:48-50 Jesus' reply pointed out that He was not a dangerous criminal. The Sanhedrin's action was totally unjustified and indefensible. Nevertheless it fulfilled prophecy. The Scriptures Jesus referred to included Isaiah 53:3, 7-9, 12 and Zechariah 13:7 (cf. v. 27). Verse 50 documents the failure of the disciples, including Peter, and their abandonment of Jesus to preserve their own safety. The writer's interest was the disciples' action more than that of the mob.

14:51-52 Only Mark recorded this strange event. He described the young man (Gr. neaniskos, between 24 and 40 years old) as one who was following Jesus. This description could mean he was one of the Twelve or simply someone who was sympathetic with Jesus. He was wearing a rather costly linen outer garment (Gr. sindon) without an undergarment (Gr. chiton). It may have been his sleeping garment. Perhaps he had been in bed in Jerusalem when he heard the mob leaving the city talking about arresting Jesus and decided to go along. When one of the soldiers seized him, he was so intent on abandoning Jesus that he was willing to run through the crowd naked rather than staying with Jesus. This man's action further illustrates how eager Jesus' followers were to save their own skins at the cost of Jesus' safety and companionship. His naked condition highlights his fear and embarrassment.

Since this incident makes no unique contribution to the story of Jesus' arrest, most of the commentators have concluded that the young man was Mark. However there is no solid evidence for this.

Constable: Mar 14:53--16:1

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

Jesus' sufferings until now had been anticipatory. Now He began to experience pain resulting from His trials and crucifixion. As the faithful Servant of the Lord who came to do His Father's will, His sufferings continued to increase.

Jesus underwent two trials, a religious one before the Jewish leaders and a civil one before the Roman authorities. This was necessary because under Roman sovereignty the Sanhedrin did not have the authority to crucify. The Sanhedrin wanted Jesus to suffer crucifixion (John 18:31). Each trial had three parts.

Jesus' Religious Trial
Before Annas	John 18:12-14, 19-24
Before Caiaphas	Matt. 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 22:54, 63-65
Before the Sanhedrin	Matt. 27:1; Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66-71
Jesus' Civil Trial
Before Pilate	Matt. 27:2, 11-14; Mark 15:1-5; Luke 23:1-5; John 18:28-38
Before Herod Antipas	Luke 23:6-12
Before Pilate	Matt. 27:15-26; Mark 15:6-15; Luke 23:13-25; John 18:39-19:16

Constable: Mar 14:53--15:2

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

Mark omitted reference to Jesus' preliminary hearing before Annas (John 18:12-14, 19-24).

Constable: Mar 14:53-65

The hearing before Caiaphas 14:53-65 (cf. Matt. 26:57-68; Luke 22:54, 63-65; John 18:24)

14:53 The high priest in view here was Caiaphas. Interestingly Mark never mentioned him by name. He was the high priest that the Romans had appointed in 18 A.D., and he served in this capacity until 36 A.D.

This was an unofficial meeting of the Sanhedrin since Jewish law required that official meetings take place during the daytime. It transpired before dawn on Friday, the fifteenth of Nisan, a feast day. Normally the Sanhedrin did not conduct hearings of this type on a feast day. The Jewish leaders probably met at this unorthodox hour because the Romans conducted their civil trials shortly after sunrise. The Sanhedrin wanted to deliver Jesus over to Pilate for a hasty trial before public sentiment built in favor of Jesus. Normally the Sanhedrin did not pass sentence on an accused capital offender until the day following his trial. They made an exception in Jesus' case. Usually the Sanhedrin met in a hall on the west side of the temple enclosure.³⁵⁸ However now they met in Caiaphas' house or palace (Luke 22:54). "All" the Sanhedrin may mean every one of its 71 members or, probably, all that were necessary for a quorum, at least 23.³⁵⁹

14:54 This notation helps the reader understand that Peter was in the high priest's residence throughout Jesus' trial there. It prepares us for the account of Peter's denial (vv. 66-72) that happened while the Sanhedrin was examining Jesus. It also helps us appreciate the fact that Peter's desertion of Jesus was only temporary. The synoptic evangelists did not mention that another disciple accompanied Peter into the courtyard (John 18:15). The officers would have been the temple police since the Roman soldiers would not have guarded the high priest's palace.

14:55-56 Even though this hearing, or grand jury investigation, took place at night, the Sanhedrin found witnesses against Jesus. It seems that they had been planning their case for the prosecution carefully. However the witnesses, who testified separately in Jewish trials, contradicted each other. Consequently their testimony was useless (cf. Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15).

"It is harder to agree on a consistent lie than to tell the simple truth."³⁶⁰

14:57-59 These verses provide a specific example of what Mark just described generally. Evidently the witnesses misunderstood Jesus' statements about the destruction of the temple (Gr. naos, temple building) of His body (John 2:19) and the future destruction of the Jerusalem temple (13:2). Anyone who destroyed a temple in the ancient world was subject to capital punishment.³⁶¹ This was evidently one of the most serious charges against Jesus (cf. v. 61; 15:29).

14:60-61 Apparently Caiaphas decided to question Jesus hoping to get Him to incriminate Himself since he could not get two witnesses to agree against Jesus. Jesus did not need to respond to the high priest's first question. No one had offered any real proof against Him.

"His [Jesus'] resolute silence loudly declared to the Sanhedrin His disdain for their lying efforts to establish a charge against Him."³⁶²

Then Caiaphas, trying a new strategy, asked if Jesus was the Messiah. "The Blessed One" is a synonym for God that the Jews used instead of the holy name of God.³⁶³ The popular Jewish concept of Messiah was that he would be a human descendant of David. Caiaphas was not asking if Jesus claimed to be God, only a human Messiah.

"In the formulation the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One,' the second clause stands in apposition to the first and has essentially the same meaning. In Jewish sources contemporary with the NT, son of God' is understood solely in a messianic sense. Jewish hopes were situated in a messianic figure who was a man."³⁶⁴

14:62 Previously Jesus had veiled His messiahship because publicly claiming to be the Messiah would have precipitated a premature crisis (cf. 1:43-44; 8:29-30; 9:9; 11:28-33; 12:12). Now He openly admitted His messiahship because the time for crisis had arrived. Matthew may have given us Jesus' exact words (Matt. 26:64) and Mark their substance. Jesus clarified that He was not just a human Messiah but the divine Son of Man. The passages He claimed to fulfill predicted His enthronement in heaven following His resurrection (Ps. 110:1) and His return to earth with God's authority to establish a worldwide kingdom (Dan. 7:13-14; cf. 8:38; 13:24, 26; Rev. 1:7). As such He was claiming to be the Judge of those who sat to judge Him. Jesus knew that this confession would seal His conviction.

14:63-64 Rending one's garments expressed indignation or grief (cf. Gen. 37:29; Judg. 14:19; 2 Kings 18:37). It had become the high priest's traditional response to blasphemy (cf. Acts 14:14).³⁶⁵ However it was illegal for the high priest to rend his garments (Lev. 21:10). The hypocrisy of the religious leaders is clear throughout their trial of Jesus. The Jews regarded blasphemy as any serious affront to God, not just speech that reviled Him (cf. 2:7: 3:28-29; John 5:18; 10:33). The Mosaic Law prescribed death by stoning for blasphemers (Lev. 24:14), but this was not bad enough for Jesus. Jesus had foreseen this and had predicted death at the hands of the Gentiles as well as the Jews (10:33).

14:65 Having judged Jesus guilty, some of the Sanhedrin members vented their anger by attacking Him bodily. The temple guards present joined them in beating Jesus. Spitting and hitting were traditional Jewish ways of expressing repudiation (cf. Num. 12:14; Deut. 25:9; Job 30:10; Isa. 50:6). Even today spitting in someone's face is one of the grossest forms of personal insult. Evidently they blindfolded Jesus and challenged Him to identify His assailants because of a belief that Messiah did not need to see but could judge by smell (Isa. 11:2-4).³⁶⁶ The Old Testament predicted this type of abuse for Messiah (Isa. 53:5, 7-8, 10). Peter recorded that through all this suffering Jesus did not protest or retaliate (1 Pet. 2:21-23; cf. Isa. 53:7).

Constable: Mar 14:66-72

Peter's denial of Jesus 14:66-72 (cf. Matt. 26:69-75; Luke 22:55-62; John 18:16-18, 25-27)

This event happened below in the courtyard while the hearing just described continued on the floor above. These verses resume what Mark introduced in verse 54. The events were contemporaneous with Jesus' examination by the Sanhedrin (vv. 55-65).

14:66-68 Peter's presence was a testimony to His love for Jesus. Unfortunately his love could not stand the test of fear.³⁶⁷ The girl's description of Jesus ("that Nazarene, Jesus") made it clear that Peter was among enemies. She had probably seen Peter with Jesus in the temple or the city during that week. Peter denied being one of Jesus' disciples "using the form common in rabbinical law for a formal, legal denial."³⁶⁸ Peter then left the warmth and light of the fire in the center of the courtyard and sought refuge in the shadows of the archway that led into the street.

Some later manuscripts add "and a cock crowed" at the end of verse 68. Probably scribes added these words in view of Jesus' prediction in verse 30 and the fulfillment in verse 72.

14:69-70a Evidently "the maid" was a different person from the servant girl (v. 66; cf. Matt. 26:71). Instead of accusing Peter to his face this girl whispered her charge to bystanders. Peter heard her. Again Peter denied being one of Jesus' disciples. This time he kept on denying it, as the Greek imperfect tense indicates.

14:70b-71 The third challenge came from the bystanders, several people instead of just one, about an hour later (Luke 22:59). This time Peter went further. He denied that he even knew Jesus (cf. 8:29). He even called down God's judgment on himself if he was lying. Cursing means he put himself under a curse. Swearing means he affirmed the truthfulness of his words with oaths.

14:72 Mark alone noted that this was the second time the cock crowed (cf. v. 68). Peter had evidently received an earlier warning but had disregarded it. Now he remembered Jesus' prediction and broke down (Gr. epibalon, cf. Luke 22:61). He remembered too little and too late.

Peter now drops out of the picture until after Jesus' resurrection. He had finally learned his own weakness and consequently seems to have felt unable to face the pressure of public identification with Jesus.

The parallels between Peter's behavior and Jesus' are all too evident. Both men faced a three-fold temptation. One defeated the tempter, and the other fell before him. While Jesus served God faithfully as His Servant on the upper floor, Peter failed to serve God faithfully on the lower floor. The reason for the difference goes back to Gethsemane. Disciples must learn from Peter's failure as well as from Jesus' success.

"The importance and relevance of Peter's denial for the church to which Mark writes is obvious. To a church under severe pressure of persecution it provided a warning. If denial of Jesus Christ was possible for an apostle, and one of the leaders of the apostles at that, then they must be constantly on guard lest they too deny Jesus. The story also provided assurance that if anyone did fail Jesus under the duress of persecution, there was always a way open for repentance, forgiveness, and restoration (cf. 16:7)."³⁶⁹

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]

McGarvey: Mar 14:22-25

CXX.
THE LORD'S SUPPER INSTITUTED.
(Jerusalem. Evening before the crucifixion.)
^aMATT. XXVI. 26-29; ^bMARK XIV. 22-25; ^cLUKE XXII. 19, 20; ^fI. COR. XI. 23-26.

   ^a26 And as they were eating, fthe Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread;  24 and when he had given thanks, {bblessed,} fhe brake it, aand he [657] gave to the disciples, and said, ^bTake ye: ^aTake, eat; this is my body. fwhich is cgiven ffor you: this do in remembrance of me. [As only unleavened bread was eaten during the paschal supper, that kind of bread must have been used by our Lord, and it is fitting that it should still be used by us in keeping the Lord's Supper, not only for propriety's sake, but because that bread which is emblematic of purity is most suitable to represent the body of the sinless Christ. The Catholics and some few others take our Lord's words literally when he says, "This is my body." On this they found the doctrine of transubstantiation, i. e., that the bread and the wine become literal body and blood when blessed by the priest. There are many weighty arguments against such a doctrine, but the main one for it is found in the words of our Lord. But Jesus could not have meant them literally, for his body was untouched and his blood unshed on this occasion when he spoke them. Moreover, in the Jer 31:31-34. It was the practice of Eastern [658] peoples to use blood in making any pact or covenant (Exo 24:6-8). Christ represents himself as the victim from whence the blood was to be taken to ratify or seal the new covenant, and he makes the cup the symbol of that blood. A full discussion of the old and new covenants will be found in the Book of Hebrews. We may, however, sum them up by saying that the old covenant promised the land of Canaan and Christ in the flesh to the Israelites, while the new covenant promises heaven and Christ in glory to the Christian], bwhich is poured out for many. [It is explicitly stated elsewhere that Christ died for all (Heb 2:9, 2Co 5:14, 2Co 5:15), and the word "many" is used, not to contradict, but to emphasize the fact. When the persons included are contemplated individually, the term many is employed on account of the vast number of them; for no man can number the individuals for whom Christ died. But when they are contemplated under the feebler conception of the whole, the term all is employed.] aunto remission of sins. ceven that which is poured out for you. [The prime object of Christ's death is here declared. It was to accomplish the forgiveness of sins. All other purposes which it served are subordinate to this, and all other blessings which it secures are consequent upon this -- Joh 1:29, Eph 5:2, Heb 7:27, 1Jo 2:2, 1Jo 4:10, Isa 53:10, Rom 8:2, 1Co 15:3.] fthis do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. [The word "remembrance" comes as a refrain after both the loaf and the cup. The central purpose of the supper is to bring the sacrifice of Christ and all its blessed results vividly to mind.]  26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come. [This verse is a comment of Paul's upon the nature of the supper. In keeping the Lord's Supper we proclaim to our own souls and to the world our trust in the death of Christ, and our hope that he will return and fulfill the expectations begotten in us by it.]  ^a29 But  ^b25 Verily I say unto you, I shall no more drink {ashall not drink henceforth} bof the {athis} fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in bthe kingdom of [659] God. amy Father's kingdom. band they all drank of it. [In speaking of this future drinking of the fruit of the vine Jesus does not mean literal wine, for he does not drink literal wine with his disciples in the kingdom as it now is, nor will he do so in the eternal kingdom. The term "drink," therefore, is used figuratively for that communion which Jesus has with his disciples while they are drinking the wine of the Lord's Supper. The term new is most naturally understood as modifying wine, but as the wine of the supper is not necessarily new wine, we think it rather indicates the new method of drinking wine just described.]

[FFG 657-660]

McGarvey: Mar 14:26-42

CXXIII.
GOING TO GETHSEMANE, AND AGONY THEREIN.
(A garden between the brook Kidron and the Mount of Olives. Late Thursday night.)
^aMATT. XXVI. 30, 36-46; ^bMARK XIV. 26, 32-42; ^cLUKE XXII. 39-46; ^dJOHN XVIII. 1.

   ^d1 When Jesus had spoken these words [the words contained in Joh 1-17:26],  ^a30 And when they had sung a hymn [the shadow of the cross did not quench the spirit of praise in Christ], they went out  ^c39 And he came out, and dhe went forth with his disciples cas his custom was, dover the brook Kidron, ainto {bunto} the mount of Olives. dwhere was a garden, into which he entered, himself and his disciples. {cand the disciples also followed him.}  ^a36 Then cometh Jesus with them  ^b32 And they come unto a place which was named {acalled} Gethsemane [The name Gethsemane means a place of oil-presses, and hence it accords well with the name of the mountain at whose base it was situated. But the place was now a garden. It was about half a mile from the city, and from what Luke says here and elsewhere (Luk 21:37), it seems that Jesus often resorted to it while in Jerusalem at the festivals. Compare also Joh 18:2],  ^c40 And when he was at the place, he said {asaith} unto his disciples, Sit ye here, while I pray. ^cPray that ye enter not into temptation. [As the hour of trial and temptation came upon Jesus he fortified himself against it by prayer. And he bade his disciples do likewise, for his arrest would involve them also in temptations which he [685] foresaw that they would not be able to withstand.]  ^a37 And he took {btaketh} with him Peter aand the two sons of Zebedee, ^bJames and John, and began to be greatly amazed, asorrowful and sore troubled. [While seeking heavenly aid in this hour of extremity, our Lord also manifested his desire for human sympathy. All the eleven apostles were with him in the garden, and the three most capable of sympathizing with him were stationed nearer to him than the rest.]  ^c41 And he was parted from them about a stone's cast [one hundred fifty to two hundred feet];  ^b34 And  ^a38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: babide ye here, and watch. awith me. [The sequel shows that the phrase "even unto death" was no figure of rhetoric. The nervous prostration of Jesus was such as to endanger his life, and the watching of the apostles may have been doubly needful. Not only did he require their sympathy, but he may also have looked to them to render him assistance in the case of a physical collapse.]  39 And he went forward a little, cand he kneeled down band fell on the face, aand fell on his face, and prayed, bthat, if it were possible, the hour might pass away from him. [This posture was expressive of the most intense supplication.]  36 And he said, {asaying,} ^bAbba, ^aMy Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me: ball things are possible unto thee; cif thou be willing, remove this cup from me: bhowbeit anevertheless, not as {bwhat} I will, abut as {bwhat} thou wilt. cnot my will, but thine, be done. [Much of mystery is found in all life, so it is small wonder if the dual nature of Jesus presents insoluble problems. It perplexes many to find that the divine in Jesus did not sustain him better during his trial in the garden. But we must remember that it was appointed unto Jesus to die, and that the divine in him was not to interfere with this appointment, or the approaches to it. For want, therefore, of a better expression, we may say that from the time Jesus entered the garden until he expired on the cross, the human in him was in the [686] ascendant; and "being found in fashion as a man," he endured these trials is if wholly human. His prayer, therefore, is the cry of his humanity for deliverance. The words "if it is possible" with which it opens breathe the same spirit of submissive obedience which is found in the closing words. Reminding the Father of the limitless range of his power, he petitions him to change his counsel as to the crucifixion of the Son, if his gracious purposes can be in any other way carried out. Jesus uses the words "cup" and "hour" interchangeably. They are both words of broad compass, intended to include all that he would undergo from that time until his resurrection. They embrace all his mental, moral, physical, and spiritual suffering which we can discover, together with an infinite volume of a propitiatory and vicarious nature which lies beyond the reach of our understanding. The submission of Jesus was no new fruitage of his character; the prayer of the garden had been the inner purpose of his entire life -- Joh 5:30, Joh 6:38.]  43 And there appeared unto him an angel from heaven, strengthening him.  44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became as it were great drops of blood falling down upon the ground. [Commentators give instances of bloody sweat under abnormal pathological conditions.]  45 And when he rose up from his prayer, he came {acometh} unto the disciples, and findeth {cfound} them sleeping for sorrow,  46 and said unto them, Why sleep ye? rise and pray, that ye enter not into temptation. [The admonition which had at first been addressed to all the eleven is now spoken to the chosen three] aand saith unto Peter, ^bSimon, sleepest thou? couldest thou not watch one hour? ^aWhat, could ye not watch with me one hour?  41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. [Peter, having boasted of his loyalty, has his weakness pointed out and is further warned to be on his guard, since the weakness of his nature will not stand the coming strain. The slumber of the disciples was not through indifference; but was [687] caused by the prostration of grief. When we remember the excitement which they had endured that night, the tender words spoken by Jesus, the sadness of which was intensified by the atmosphere of mystery which pervaded them, the beautiful and touching prayer, and lastly this agony in the garden, it is not to be wondered at that the apostles, spurred by no sense of danger, should succumb to the long-borne tension and fall asleep. Had they comprehended how much the Lord needed their wakeful sympathy as he came again and again seeking for it, they would probably have kept awake.]  ^b39 And again aa second time he went away, and prayed, bsaying the same words. asaying, My Father, if this cannot pass away, except I drink it, thy will be done. [Jesus here speaks of draining the cup. The "cup" was a common Hebrew figure used to denote one's divinely appointed lot or fortune -- Psa 23:5, Psa 75:8, Isa 51:17, Isa 51:22, Eze 23:31-33.]  43 And he came again and found them sleeping, for their eyes were bvery heavy; and they knew not what to answer him. [They were ashamed of the stupor which had come upon them and knew not what apology to make for it.]  ^a44 And he left them again, and went away, and prayed a third time, saying again the same words.  ^b41 And  ^a45 Then cometh he to the disciples, bthe third time, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and that your rest: it is enough; abehold, the hour is at hand, {bthe hour is come;} aand bbehold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.  42 Arise, let us be going: behold, he that betrayeth me is at hand. [Our Lord's words are paradoxical. In our judgment the saying is best understood by regarding the first part of it as spoken from the Lord's viewpoint, while the latter part is spoken from the disciple's viewpoint. It is as if he said, "So far as I am concerned, you may sleep on and take your rest, for the time to be of comfort or assistance to me has wholly passed. But so far as you yourselves are concerned, you must arise and be going, because Judas with his band of temple police is upon us."] [688]

[FFG 685-693]

McGarvey: Mar 14:43-52

CCXXIV.
JESUS BETRAYED, ARRESTED, AND FORSAKEN.
(Gethsemane. Friday, several hours before dawn.)
^aMATT. XXVI. 47-56; ^bMARK XIV. 43-52; ^cLUKE XXII. 47-53; ^dJOHN XVIII. 2-11.

    ^d2 Now Judas also, who betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples. [See 2Ki 6:8-12). Jesus asked, "Whom seek ye?" (1) To openly and manfully declare his identity; (2) to make the Jewish rulers fully conscious that they were arresting him, an innocent man; (3) to confine the arrest to himself and thus deliver his disciples. The older commentators regard the falling to the ground as a miracle, but modern scholars look upon it as a result of sudden fear. Jesus merely manifested his dignity and majesty, and the prostration followed as a natural result.]  ^a48 Now he that betrayed him gave {bhad given} them a token, aa sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he: take him. band lead him away safely. cand he drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.  48 But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?  ^b45 And when he was come, astraightway he came to Jesus, and said {bsaith,} ^aHail, Rabbi; and kissed him.  50 And Jesus said unto him, Friend, do that for which thou art come. [Some place this event before the preceding paragraph. It comports better with the fitness of things to place it here. Jesus made Judas feel his utter nothingness, and his worthlessness even as a betrayer. Before Judas can in any way identify Jesus, the Lord had twice declared himself to be the party whom they sought. When he approaches to carry out his contract, the Lord's question exposes him before all as a betrayer, and not a disciple as he wished to appear to be (for kissing was the common mode of salutation between men, especially between teacher and pupils), and when Judas brazenly persists in completing the sign, Jesus bids him do it, not as a friend, but as a traitor. Little did the betrayer think that the kiss of Judas would become a proverb in every nation.] Then they came [690] and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. [The sight of Judas touching him no doubt reassured them, and they laid hands on Jesus.]  ^c49 And when they that were about him saw what would follow, they said, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?  ^b47 But {^a51 And} behold,  ^d10 Simon Peter ba certain one of them that stood by athat were with Jesus dtherefore having a sword astretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and smote {dstruck} athe servant of the high priest, and struck {dcut} off his right ear. [We have seen that the apostles were but scantily armed, there being only two swords in their possession. See Joh 18:16). He knew Malchus by name, and he also knew his kindred -- Joh 18:26.]  ^c51 But Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye them thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him. [Some think that Jesus spoke these words, "Suffer ye thus far," to those who held him, asking them to loose him sufficiently to enable him to touch the ear of Malchus. But the revision committee by inserting "them" make Jesus address his disciples, commanding them not to interfere with those who were arresting him, making it a general statement of the idea which the Lord addressed specifically to Peter in the next sentence.]  ^a52 Then  ^d11 Jesus therefore said {asaith} dunto Peter, ^aPut up again thy {dthe} sword into the sheath: aits place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. dthe cup which the Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? [By the healing of Malchus' ear and the words spoken to Peter, Jesus shows that the sword is not to be used either to defend the truth or to advance his kingdom. Had he not thus spoken and acted, Pilate might have doubted his words when he [691] testified that his kingdom was not of this world (Joh 18:36). While we know better than to rely upon the aid of the sword for the advance of truth, we are often tempted to put undue trust in other "carnal weapons" which are equally futile. Wealth and eloquence and elaborate church buildings have but little saving grace in them. It is the truth which wins. By using the word "cup" John gives us an echo of the agony in Gethsemane, which suggests that he expects his readers to be conversant with the other Gospels. The other Evangelists, having shown that Jesus was fully resolved to drink the cup, do not regard it as necessary to repeat these words.]  ^a53 Or thinkest thou that I cannot beseech my Father, and he shall even now send me more than twelve legions of angels?  54 How then should the scriptures be fulfilled that thus it must be? [Jesus still addresses Peter. Had it accorded with the divine purpose that Jesus should resist this arrest, angels and not men would have been his proper and infinitely more effective rescuers. But, on the contrary, it was God's purpose that he should be arrested, as the Scripture had foretold.]  55 In that hour ^bJesus answered and said unto them athe multitudes, cthe chief priests, and captains of the temple, and elders, that were come against him, Are ye come out, as against a robber, with swords and staves? ato seize me?  ^c53 When ^aI sat {bwas} daily with you in the temple teaching, cye stretched not forth your hands against me: band ye took me not: cbut this is your hour, and the power of darkness.  ^a56 But all this is come to pass, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. [The party which came to arrest Jesus was large. The word "band" used by John to describe part of it is speira, which is the Greek name for the cohort, a division of the Roman army which in the time of Augustus contained 555 men. Ten cohorts, or a legion, were usually quartered in the castle Antonia, at the northwest corner of the temple enclosure. That the whole cohort was present is not likely (Mat 27:27), but there was a large enough body to represent it. The [692] Evangelists therefore properly style it a great multitude. Moreover, it was a motley crowd. Its strength and diversity suggest the fear that Jesus might miraculously defend himself. Each part of the crowd found courage in the strength possessed by the other part, the priests relying upon the solidity of the soldiers, the soldiers superstitiously trusting to some spiritual power residing in the priests, etc. Now, because of these fears, the preparation was as great as if some band of robbers was to be taken. The questions of Jesus, therefore, show two facts: 1. By their extensive preparation the rulers bore an unintentional testimony to his divine power. 2. By their failure to arrest him openly in the temple, they bore witness to his innocence. With his divinity and his innocence, therefore, Jesus challenges them, referring to their own conduct for testimony thereto. In conclusion, he cites them to the Scriptures which they were fulfilling. Our Lord's dual reference to the Old Testament at this sacred time should cause us to handle them with awe and reverence.]  ^b50 And ^aThen all of the disciples left him, and fled.  ^b51 And a certain young man followed with him, having a linen cloth cast about him, over his naked body: and they lay hold on him;  52 but he left the linen cloth, and fled naked. [All the predictions of Jesus had failed to prepare the apostles for the terrors of his arrest. Despite all his warnings, each apostle sought his own safety. The young man who fled naked is usually presumed to be Mark himself, and it is thought that he thus speaks impersonally after the manner of Matthew and John. The manner of his description shows that he was not an apostle. As Mark's mother resided in Jerusalem (Act 12:12, Act 12:25), Canon Cook advances the theory that the Lord's Supper was eaten in the upper room of her house, and that when the disciples retired with Jesus from thence to Gethsemane, Mark slipped from his bed, threw his sindon about him, and followed after them. The sindon, or linen vestment, was very costly, not being worn even by the middle classes: no apostle would be thus attired.] [693]

[FFG 689-692]

McGarvey: Mar 14:53-65

CXXVI.
SECOND STAGE OF JEWISH TRIAL. JESUS CONDEMNED
BY CAIAPHAS AND THE SANHEDRIN.
(Palace of Caiaphas. Friday.)
^aMATT. XXVI. 57, 59-68; ^bMARK XIV. 53, 55-65; ^cLUKE XXII. 54, 63-65; ^dJOHN XVIII. 24.

    ^d24 Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest. [Foiled in his attempted examination of Jesus, Annas sends him to trial.] band there come together with him all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.  ^a57 And they that had taken Jesus led him away to the house of Caiaphas the high priest, cand brought him into the high priest's house. awhere the scribes and the elders were gathered together. [It is very likely that Annas had apartments in the same palace with Caiaphas, and that from these apartments Jesus was led into some hall large enough to hold the Sanhedrin, which was now convened. But this was not its formal session as a court; it was more in the nature of a caucus, or committee of the whole.]  ^b55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought afalse witness against Jesus, bto {athat they might} put him to death;  60 and they found it not, though many false witnesses came.  ^b56 For many bare false witness against him, and their witness agreed not together. ^aBut afterward came  ^b57 And there stood up certain, atwo, band bare false witness against him,  ^a61 and said, {bsaying,} ^aThis man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.  ^b58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.  59 And not even so did their witness agree together. [What Jesus [696] had really said will be found at Joh 2:19-22. Though his words were misunderstood at that time, being applied, not to his body, but to Herod's temple, yet it is not unlikely that the Jewish rulers, hearing our Lord's prediction that he would rise from the dead after three days (Mat 27:62, Mat 27:63), came to understand the import of his words. If so, the record itself shows the willingness of the Sanhedrin to receive false witnesses against Christ, for its judges received testimony which they knew to be utterly immaterial if rightly construed. The accounts of the two Evangelists, moreover, show how the witnesses failed to agree. A man could only be condemned on the testimony of two witnesses as to some fact or facts constituting a ground for condemnation -- Deu 17:6, Deu 19:15.]  ^a62 And the high priest stood up, bin the midst, and asked Jesus, aand said unto him, {bsaying,} Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?  ^a63 But Jesus held his peace. band answered nothing. [While the testimony then before the court might be used to show that Jesus was recklessly boastful, it was insufficient to justify a sentence of blasphemy. A threat to destroy the temple might be thus construed (Jer 26:9-11, Act 6:13, Act 6:14); but a promise to rebuild the temple, if destroyed, was altogether different. The high priest, knowing this, sought to extort from Jesus some additional evidence. With great cunning and effrontery he assumes that the testimony is all that could be possibly desired, and demands of Jesus what he has to say in answer to it. But our Lord did not suffer himself to seem so easily deceived. He gave no explanation, since the future would explain his meaning, and speak the real truth to all who had ears to hear it.] ^aAnd ^bAgain the high priest asked him, and saith {asaid} unto him, ^bArt thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? ^aI adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God. [Seeing that Jesus was not to be lured into an answer, and well knowing his perfect frankness, Caiaphas resolved, in his desperation, to question Jesus plainly and [697] bluntly. His question is twofold: 1. Art thou Christ? 2. Art thou the Son of God? The latter of these would constitute blasphemy, and the former, by showing a boastful spirit, would tend to confirm the charge. Perhaps, too, Caiaphas anticipated the future, and foresaw how useful this claim to be the Messiah would prove when a hearing was had before Pilate (Luk 23:2). Originally the Messiah was recognized as the Son of God (Psa 2:7), but if the Jews had ever generally entertained such an idea, they had lost it before Jesus' day, The Messiah might of course be called the Son of God in that secondary sense in which Adam was thus called (Joh 1:49, Luk 3:38). But Jesus had used the term in an entirely different sense, and his usage had been extremely offensive to the Jews (Joh 5:17, Joh 5:18, Joh 10:30-39, Mat 22:41-46). Caiaphas evidently wished Jesus to answer this question in that new sense which the Lord had given to the words. Caiaphas had no legal right to ask either of these questions. No man can be compelled to testify against himself, but he knew the claims of Jesus, and realized that if Jesus repudiated them he would be shamed forever, and if he asserted them he could be charged with blasphemy. Taking advantage, therefore, of the situation, Caiaphas put the question with the usual formula of an oath, thus adding moral power to it, for, under ordinary circumstances, one was held guilty if he refused to answer when thus adjured (Lev 5:1). When their own witnesses failed, these rulers called the "faithful witness" -- 1Ti 6:13, Rev 1:5.]  ^b62 And Jesus said, {asaith} unto him, Thou hast said: ^bI am: and anevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on {bwith} the clouds of heaven. [Jesus freely confessed the truth which his church is called upon to confess. "Right hand of Power" was commonly understood to mean the right hand of God. By the words "nevertheless" and "henceforth" Jesus brings the present state of humiliation into contrast with his future state of glory. Hard as it might be for them to believe it, the day would come when he should [698] sit in judgment and they should stand on trial before him.]  63 And  ^a65 Then the high priest rent his garments, {bclothes,} and saith, {asaying,} He hath spoken blasphemy: what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard the blasphemy:  66 what think ye? [Though Jesus had given the very answer which the high priest was longing to hear, yet he hypocritically pretends to be shocked at it, and rends his clothes and feigns horror. Evidently he feared the effect of the clear, calm answer of Jesus and sought to counteract its influence on his colleagues.] They answered and said, He is worthy of death. ^bAnd they all condemned him to be worthy of death. [This was not the final, formal sentence, but the mere determination of the council at the preliminary hearing.]  ^c63 And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and beat him.  ^b65 And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face,  ^a67 Then did they spit in his face and buffet him:  ^c64 And they blindfolded him, aand some smote him with the palms of their hands,  68 saying, {band [began] to say unto him,} ^aProphesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee? band the officers received him with blows of their hands.  ^c65 And many other things spake they against him, reviling him. [To spit in the face has been an insult in all ages and in all lands. See Num 12:14, Deu 25:9, Job 30:10. Jesus, having stood out for examination, is now given back to the officers to be led away into the council chamber. These officers received Jesus with many indignities. They seek to make his high claims contemptible, and to make it appear that instead of being divine he is hardly worthy to be regarded as human.] [699]

[FFG 696-699]

McGarvey: Mar 14:54-72

CXXVII.
PETER THRICE DENIES THE LORD.
(Court of the high priest's residence. Friday before and about dawn.)
^aMATT. XXVI. 58, 69-75; ^bMARK XIV. 54, 66-72; ^cLUKE XXII. 54-62;
^dJOHN XVIII. 15-18, 25-27.

   ^a58 But {^d15 And} Simon Peter followed Jesus [leaving Jesus in the palace of the high priest, we now turn back to the garden of Gethsemane at the time when Jesus left it under arrest, that we may follow the course of Simon Peter in his threefold denial of the Master], and so did another disciple. [This other disciple was evidently the apostle John, who thus speaks of himself impersonally.] Now that disciple was known unto the high priest, and entered in with Jesus into the court of the high priest [John's acquaintanceship appears to have been with the household as well as with the high priest personally, for we find that it is used as a permit at the doorway. It is likely that the high priest knew John rather in a business way -- Act 4:13];  ^b54 And Peter had followed him afar off, aunto the court of the high priest,  ^d16 but Peter was standing at the door without. So the other disciple, who was known unto the high priest, went out and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter. beven within, into the court of the high priest [For courts of houses see Act 12:13. John would have shown a truer kindness to Peter had he let him stay out];  ^d17 The maid therefore that kept the door saith unto Peter, Art thou also one of this man's disciples? He saith, I am not. aand [Peter] entered in [The doorkeeper evidently recognized John as a disciple, and was therefore suspicious of Peter. The cowardly "I am not" of Peter is a sad contrast to the strong "I am he" of Jesus], [700]  ^d18 Now the servants and the officers were standing there, having made a fire of coals; for it was cold; and they were warming themselves: and Peter also was with them [they were gathered around a little smokeless charcoal fire],  ^c55 And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the court, and had sat down together, Peter asat with the officers, cin the midst of them. ato see the end. [Though his faith in Christ was shaken, he still loved him enough to see what would become of him.] band he was sitting with the officers, and warming himself in the light of the fire.  ^c56 And  ^a69 Now bas ^dSimon Peter awas sitting {dstanding} awithout bbeneath in the court, there cometh {acame} unto him, ca certain bone of the maids of the high priest;  67 and seeing Peter cas he sat in the light of the fire, bwarming himself, she looked {cand looking} stedfastly upon him, said, {bsaith, asaying,} Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilaean. bthe Nazarene, even Jesus. ^cThis man also was with him.  ^a70 But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. ^bI neither know, nor understand what thou sayest: ^cWoman, I know him not. ^dThey said therefore unto him, Art thou also one of his disciples? He denied, and said, I am not. band he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.  ^a71 And when he was gone out into the porch, cafter a little while another saw him, and said, Thou also art one of them. But Peter said, Man, I am not.  ^b69 And aanother bthe maid saw him, and began again to say {asaith} unto them that were there, bthat stood by, This is one of them. ^aThis man also was with Jesus of Nazareth.  ^b70 But {^a72 And} again he denied bit. awith an oath, I know not the man. [Peter's second denial was of a quadruple nature. He denied to four different parties, but in such quick succession that the event is regarded as one.]  73 And after a little cafter the space of about one hour another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a [701] truth this man also was with him; for he is a Galilaean.  60 But Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. ^bAgain they that stood by acame and said to Peter, Of a truth thou also art one of them; bfor thou art a Galilaean. afor thy speech maketh thee known. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.  ^d26 One of the servants of the high priest, being a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?  ^b70 But  ^d27 Peter therefore denied again:  ^a74 Then began he to curse and to swear, I know not the {bthis} aman. bof whom ye speak.  72 And straightway cimmediately, while he yet spake, bthe second time the cock crew. [Exasperated by the repeated accusations, Peter loses his temper and begins to emphasize his denial by profanity. Desire to make good his denial is now supreme in his thoughts and the Lord whom he denies is all but forgotten.]  ^c61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered ^bAnd Peter called to mind the word, cof the Lord, awhich Jesus had said, bhow that he said unto him, ^aBefore the cock crow, btwice, cthis thou shalt deny me thrice.  62 And he went out, ^bAnd when he thought thereon, he wept. cbitterly. [When Peter remembered the loving tenderness of Jesus manifested when he foretold Peter's crime it formed a background against which the sin appeared in all its hideous enormity.]

[FFG 700-702]

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 14:14

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.

Contradiction: Mar 14:30

48. Did Peter deny Christ three times before the cock crowed (John 13:38), or three times before the cock crowed twice (Mark 14:30, 72)?

(Category: discovery of earlier manuscripts)

This accusation is that Jesus says to Peter "the cock will not crow till you have denied me three times" (John 13:38) and also "Before the cock crows twice you will deny me three times" (Mark 14:30). However, as the King James translation has it the cock crowed prior to Peter's third denial in Mark, while the prediction in John failed. This problem is one of manuscript evidence.

Matthew 26:33-35, 74-75 "before the cock crows you will disown me three times"

Luke 22:31-34, 60-62 "before the cock crows today, you will deny three times that you know me"

John 13:38 "before the cock crows, you will disown me three times"

Mark is therefore the odd one out. This is probably due to the second crow being a later addition to the original Gospel for some unknown reason. Some early manuscripts of Mark do not have the words "a second time" and "twice" in 14:72, nor the word "twice" in 14:30, or the cock crowing a first time in verse 14:68 as in the King James translation. Therefore an erroneous addition is spotted by the clarity of having 4 accounts of the event and many early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark.

However, another explanation is plausible if the first crow verse (68 in the King James) was not in the original but the others ("twice" in 30 and 72) were, as in the New International translation. For as a cock can (and often does) crow more than once in a row, there would be no contradiction (the first and second crows being together, with Peter remembering Jesus' prediction on the second crow), for since we may be very sure that if a rooster crows twice, he has at least crowed once. Mark therefore just included more information in his account than the other gospel writers.

Although I am not an expert on the manuscripts used for the King James translation and do not know a great deal about why later, more accurate translators had enough manuscript evidence to omit verse 68 but not the others, I think that the first reason is more likely.

Contradiction: Mar 14:32

71. Did Jesus move away three times (Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42) or once (Luke 22:39-46) from his disciples to pray?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

Shabbir asks how many times Jesus left the disciples to pray alone at the Garden of Gethsemane on the night of his arrest. Matthew 26:36-46 and Mark 14:32-42, show three but Luke 22:39-46 only speaks of one. However once again there is no contradiction once you realize that the three passages are complementary.

Note that the Luke passage nowhere states that Jesus did not leave the disciples three times to go and pray. Because he does not mention all three times does not imply that Jesus did not do so. Obviously Luke did not consider that fact to be relevant to his account. We must remember that Luke's Gospel is thought of as the third Gospel to have been put to paper chronologically, therefore it would make sense for him not to regurgitate information found in the other two gospels.

Contradiction: Mar 14:33

71. Did Jesus move away three times (Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42) or once (Luke 22:39-46) from his disciples to pray?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

Shabbir asks how many times Jesus left the disciples to pray alone at the Garden of Gethsemane on the night of his arrest. Matthew 26:36-46 and Mark 14:32-42, show three but Luke 22:39-46 only speaks of one. However once again there is no contradiction once you realize that the three passages are complementary.

Note that the Luke passage nowhere states that Jesus did not leave the disciples three times to go and pray. Because he does not mention all three times does not imply that Jesus did not do so. Obviously Luke did not consider that fact to be relevant to his account. We must remember that Luke's Gospel is thought of as the third Gospel to have been put to paper chronologically, therefore it would make sense for him not to regurgitate information found in the other two gospels.

Contradiction: Mar 14:34

71. Did Jesus move away three times (Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42) or once (Luke 22:39-46) from his disciples to pray?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

Shabbir asks how many times Jesus left the disciples to pray alone at the Garden of Gethsemane on the night of his arrest. Matthew 26:36-46 and Mark 14:32-42, show three but Luke 22:39-46 only speaks of one. However once again there is no contradiction once you realize that the three passages are complementary.

Note that the Luke passage nowhere states that Jesus did not leave the disciples three times to go and pray. Because he does not mention all three times does not imply that Jesus did not do so. Obviously Luke did not consider that fact to be relevant to his account. We must remember that Luke's Gospel is thought of as the third Gospel to have been put to paper chronologically, therefore it would make sense for him not to regurgitate information found in the other two gospels.

Contradiction: Mar 14:35

71. Did Jesus move away three times (Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42) or once (Luke 22:39-46) from his disciples to pray?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

Shabbir asks how many times Jesus left the disciples to pray alone at the Garden of Gethsemane on the night of his arrest. Matthew 26:36-46 and Mark 14:32-42, show three but Luke 22:39-46 only speaks of one. However once again there is no contradiction once you realize that the three passages are complementary.

Note that the Luke passage nowhere states that Jesus did not leave the disciples three times to go and pray. Because he does not mention all three times does not imply that Jesus did not do so. Obviously Luke did not consider that fact to be relevant to his account. We must remember that Luke's Gospel is thought of as the third Gospel to have been put to paper chronologically, therefore it would make sense for him not to regurgitate information found in the other two gospels.

Contradiction: Mar 14:36

70. Did Jesus both pray (Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42) or not pray (John 12:27) to the Father to prevent the crucifixion?

(Category: misread the text)

This apparent contradiction asks: 'Did Jesus pray to the Father to prevent the crucifixion?' Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36 and Luke 22:42 are supposed to imply that he does. John 12:27, however, seems to say that he doesn't.

This is a rather weak attempt at a contradiction and again wholly relies upon the ignorance of the reader for it's strength. Matthew 26:39, Mark 14:36, and Luke 22:42 are parallel passages which take place in the Garden of Gethsemane just before the arrest of Jesus. In all of these passages Jesus never asks for the Crucifixion to be prevented but does express his fears of the difficulties, pain and suffering that he is going to encounter over the next few hours, in the form of his trials, beatings, whippings, loneliness and alienation from people and God on the Cross, the ordeal of crucifixion itself and the upcoming triumph over Satan. He does, however, more importantly ask for God's will to be carried out over the next few hours knowing that this is the means by which he will die and rise again, and by doing so atone for all the sins of the world.

John 12:27 is from a totally different situation, one which takes place before the circumstances described above. It is said while Jesus is speaking to a crowd of people during the Passover Festival at the Temple in Jerusalem (in fact even before the gathering of the Twelve with Jesus at the Upper Room). On this occasion Jesus again says something very similar to the other passages above;

"Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father save me from this hour'? No it was for this very reason that I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!"

Again we are reminded that he is feeling troubled. He knows events are fast unfolding around him. Yet, this statement is said in reply to some Greeks who have just asked something of Jesus through his disciples. Were they there to offer him a way out of his upcoming troubles? Perhaps, but Jesus does not go to meet them and indeed replies to their request to meet him in this way. Is it really conceivable that this man wants to prevent the crucifixion from taking place! I think not!

71. Did Jesus move away three times (Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42) or once (Luke 22:39-46) from his disciples to pray?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

Shabbir asks how many times Jesus left the disciples to pray alone at the Garden of Gethsemane on the night of his arrest. Matthew 26:36-46 and Mark 14:32-42, show three but Luke 22:39-46 only speaks of one. However once again there is no contradiction once you realize that the three passages are complementary.

Note that the Luke passage nowhere states that Jesus did not leave the disciples three times to go and pray. Because he does not mention all three times does not imply that Jesus did not do so. Obviously Luke did not consider that fact to be relevant to his account. We must remember that Luke's Gospel is thought of as the third Gospel to have been put to paper chronologically, therefore it would make sense for him not to regurgitate information found in the other two gospels.

Contradiction: Mar 14:37

71. Did Jesus move away three times (Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42) or once (Luke 22:39-46) from his disciples to pray?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

Shabbir asks how many times Jesus left the disciples to pray alone at the Garden of Gethsemane on the night of his arrest. Matthew 26:36-46 and Mark 14:32-42, show three but Luke 22:39-46 only speaks of one. However once again there is no contradiction once you realize that the three passages are complementary.

Note that the Luke passage nowhere states that Jesus did not leave the disciples three times to go and pray. Because he does not mention all three times does not imply that Jesus did not do so. Obviously Luke did not consider that fact to be relevant to his account. We must remember that Luke's Gospel is thought of as the third Gospel to have been put to paper chronologically, therefore it would make sense for him not to regurgitate information found in the other two gospels.

Contradiction: Mar 14:38

71. Did Jesus move away three times (Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42) or once (Luke 22:39-46) from his disciples to pray?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

Shabbir asks how many times Jesus left the disciples to pray alone at the Garden of Gethsemane on the night of his arrest. Matthew 26:36-46 and Mark 14:32-42, show three but Luke 22:39-46 only speaks of one. However once again there is no contradiction once you realize that the three passages are complementary.

Note that the Luke passage nowhere states that Jesus did not leave the disciples three times to go and pray. Because he does not mention all three times does not imply that Jesus did not do so. Obviously Luke did not consider that fact to be relevant to his account. We must remember that Luke's Gospel is thought of as the third Gospel to have been put to paper chronologically, therefore it would make sense for him not to regurgitate information found in the other two gospels.

Contradiction: Mar 14:39

71. Did Jesus move away three times (Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42) or once (Luke 22:39-46) from his disciples to pray?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

Shabbir asks how many times Jesus left the disciples to pray alone at the Garden of Gethsemane on the night of his arrest. Matthew 26:36-46 and Mark 14:32-42, show three but Luke 22:39-46 only speaks of one. However once again there is no contradiction once you realize that the three passages are complementary.

Note that the Luke passage nowhere states that Jesus did not leave the disciples three times to go and pray. Because he does not mention all three times does not imply that Jesus did not do so. Obviously Luke did not consider that fact to be relevant to his account. We must remember that Luke's Gospel is thought of as the third Gospel to have been put to paper chronologically, therefore it would make sense for him not to regurgitate information found in the other two gospels.

72. When Jesus went away to pray, were the words in his two prayers the same (Mark 14:39) or different (Matthew 26:42)?

(Category: imposes his own agenda)

This apparent contradiction comparing Matthew 26:36-46 with Mark 14:32-42, and in particular verses 42 and 39 respectively, is not a contradiction at all. Shabbir asks the question: 'What were the words of the second prayer?' at the Garden of Gethsemane. It relies heavily once again upon the reader of Shabbir's book being ignorant of the texts mentioned, and his wording of the supposed contradiction as contrived and misleading.

Shabbir maintains that in the passage in Mark, "that the words were the same as the first prayer (Mark 14:39)." Let's see what Mark does say of the second prayer in 14:39;

"Once more he went away and prayed the same thing."

Nowhere in this verse does Mark say that Jesus prayed the same words as the previous prayer, but what he does imply by the words used in the sentence is that the gist of the prayer is the same as before, as the passage in Matthew shows. When we compare the first two prayers in Matthew (vss. 39 and 42) we see that they are essentially the same prayer, though not exactly the same wording. Then in verse 44 Matthew says that Christ prayed yet again "saying the same thing!" Yet according to Shabbir's thinking the two prayers were different; so how could Jesus then be saying the same thing the third time?

It seems that Shabbir is simply imposing a Muslim formula of prayer on the passages above which he simply cannot do. You would expect this to be the case if this was a rigidly formulated prayer that had to be repeated daily, as we find in Islam. But these prayers were prayers of the heart that were spoken by Jesus because of the enormity of the situation before him. Ultimately that situation was secondary to the gravity, power, and loving bond that Jesus had with the Father.

Contradiction: Mar 14:40

71. Did Jesus move away three times (Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42) or once (Luke 22:39-46) from his disciples to pray?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

Shabbir asks how many times Jesus left the disciples to pray alone at the Garden of Gethsemane on the night of his arrest. Matthew 26:36-46 and Mark 14:32-42, show three but Luke 22:39-46 only speaks of one. However once again there is no contradiction once you realize that the three passages are complementary.

Note that the Luke passage nowhere states that Jesus did not leave the disciples three times to go and pray. Because he does not mention all three times does not imply that Jesus did not do so. Obviously Luke did not consider that fact to be relevant to his account. We must remember that Luke's Gospel is thought of as the third Gospel to have been put to paper chronologically, therefore it would make sense for him not to regurgitate information found in the other two gospels.

Contradiction: Mar 14:41

71. Did Jesus move away three times (Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42) or once (Luke 22:39-46) from his disciples to pray?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

Shabbir asks how many times Jesus left the disciples to pray alone at the Garden of Gethsemane on the night of his arrest. Matthew 26:36-46 and Mark 14:32-42, show three but Luke 22:39-46 only speaks of one. However once again there is no contradiction once you realize that the three passages are complementary.

Note that the Luke passage nowhere states that Jesus did not leave the disciples three times to go and pray. Because he does not mention all three times does not imply that Jesus did not do so. Obviously Luke did not consider that fact to be relevant to his account. We must remember that Luke's Gospel is thought of as the third Gospel to have been put to paper chronologically, therefore it would make sense for him not to regurgitate information found in the other two gospels.

Contradiction: Mar 14:42

71. Did Jesus move away three times (Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42) or once (Luke 22:39-46) from his disciples to pray?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

Shabbir asks how many times Jesus left the disciples to pray alone at the Garden of Gethsemane on the night of his arrest. Matthew 26:36-46 and Mark 14:32-42, show three but Luke 22:39-46 only speaks of one. However once again there is no contradiction once you realize that the three passages are complementary.

Note that the Luke passage nowhere states that Jesus did not leave the disciples three times to go and pray. Because he does not mention all three times does not imply that Jesus did not do so. Obviously Luke did not consider that fact to be relevant to his account. We must remember that Luke's Gospel is thought of as the third Gospel to have been put to paper chronologically, therefore it would make sense for him not to regurgitate information found in the other two gospels.

Contradiction: Mar 14:72

48. Did Peter deny Christ three times before the cock crowed (John 13:38), or three times before the cock crowed twice (Mark 14:30, 72)?

(Category: discovery of earlier manuscripts)

This accusation is that Jesus says to Peter "the cock will not crow till you have denied me three times" (John 13:38) and also "Before the cock crows twice you will deny me three times" (Mark 14:30). However, as the King James translation has it the cock crowed prior to Peter's third denial in Mark, while the prediction in John failed. This problem is one of manuscript evidence.

Matthew 26:33-35, 74-75 "before the cock crows you will disown me three times"

Luke 22:31-34, 60-62 "before the cock crows today, you will deny three times that you know me"

John 13:38 "before the cock crows, you will disown me three times"

Mark is therefore the odd one out. This is probably due to the second crow being a later addition to the original Gospel for some unknown reason. Some early manuscripts of Mark do not have the words "a second time" and "twice" in 14:72, nor the word "twice" in 14:30, or the cock crowing a first time in verse 14:68 as in the King James translation. Therefore an erroneous addition is spotted by the clarity of having 4 accounts of the event and many early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark.

However, another explanation is plausible if the first crow verse (68 in the King James) was not in the original but the others ("twice" in 30 and 72) were, as in the New International translation. For as a cock can (and often does) crow more than once in a row, there would be no contradiction (the first and second crows being together, with Peter remembering Jesus' prediction on the second crow), for since we may be very sure that if a rooster crows twice, he has at least crowed once. Mark therefore just included more information in his account than the other gospel writers.

Although I am not an expert on the manuscripts used for the King James translation and do not know a great deal about why later, more accurate translators had enough manuscript evidence to omit verse 68 but not the others, I think that the first reason is more likely.

Critics Ask: Mar 14:30

MATTHEW 26:34 (cf. Mark 14:30 )—When Peter denied Christ, did the rooster crow once or twice?

PROBLEM: Matthew and John ( 13:38 ) say before the rooster crows once, Peter will have denied the Lord three times. But Mark affirms that before the rooster crows twice Peter will deny Christ three times. Which account is right?

SOLUTION: There is no contradiction between the two accounts because, given the correctness of the text, Matthew and John do not expressly state how many times the rooster will crow. They simply say Peter will deny Christ three times “before the rooster crows,” but they do not say how many times it will crow. Mark may simply be more specific, affirming exactly how many times the rooster would crow.

{ It is also possible that different accounts are due to an early copyist error in Mark, that resulted in the insertion of “two” in early manuscripts (at Mark 14:30 and 72 ). This would explain why some important manuscripts of Mark mention only one crowing, just like Matthew and John, and why “two” appears at different places in some manuscripts.   

MARK 14:30 —When Peter denied Christ, how many times did the rooster crow, once or twice?

(See comments on Matthew 26:34 .)

Evidence: Mar 14:24

The wine wasn’t His literal blood, which was still in His body. He was referring to it as being symbolic of His blood.

Evidence: Mar 14:38

" The reason why many fail in battle is because they wait until the hour of battle. The reason why others succeed is because they have gained their victory on their knees long before the battle came...Anticipate your battles; fight them on your knees before temptation comes, and you will always have victory." R. A. Torrey

Evidence: Mar 14:54

If you are saved, the work is only half done until you are employed to bring others to Christ. CHARLES SPURGEON

Evidence: Mar 14:65

Messianic prophecy fulfilled : " I gave my back to those who struck me, and my cheeks to those who plucked out the beard; I did not hide my face from shame and spitting" ( Isa 50:6 ).

See Mar 15:24 footnote.

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