Text -- Mark 14:53-72 (NET)

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 14:54

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 14:54

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 14:53

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 14:54

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.

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 14:53-72

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

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 14:56

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 14:55

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 14:53

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 14:53

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 14:53

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 14:43-54

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 14:55-65

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 14:53-65

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 14:53-65

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 14:53

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 14:53--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 14:53-65

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 14:72

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.

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