Mark 14

CHAPTER XIV

The second half of Mark’s Gospel begins at 8:27. This half is divided into two sections: one which records the announcements and the approach to the Passion and the Resurrection (8:27–13:37); the other which records the actual history of the Passion and the Resurrection (chapter 14 to the end). We shall, of course, divide between the Passion and the Resurrection even if the subparts thus made are of very unequal length, the former embracing two long chapters (14 and 15), the latter only the last and shortest chapter (16). The record of the Passion can be divided into two portions: the suffering under the Sanhedrin (chapter 14); the suffering and the death under Pilate (chapter 15).

Mark 14:1

1 Now after two days was the Passover and Festival of Unleavened Bread. And the high priests and the scribes were seeking how, having arrested him with craft, they might kill him, for they were saying, Not during the festival lest perhaps there be a tumult of the people.

Both Mark and Luke have only a general interest in reporting the time and the action of the Sanhedrin. Matthew connects the resolution of the Sanhedrin not to arrest and to kill Jesus during the festival with the prediction of Jesus that in two days he would be handed over to be crucified. It is still Tuesday, and after two days would be Thursday, the day on which Jesus was betrayed. There should be no question that τὸπάσχα here refers, not to the entire week of celebration, but to the actual Passover Feast, the eating of the Passover lamb on the evening of the 14th of Nisan (Thursday). Mark adds the other name for this feast, τὰἄζυμα, an idiomatic neuter plural which denominates the feast from the absence of leaven in the Jewish houses during this week. Exod. 12:1–20.

It was on Tuesday, most likely in the evening, after the events recorded in 12:27–40 that the Sanhedrin met in order to plot the death of Jesus. This body is most frequently named according to two of its three classes of members, of whom there were seventy-one in all, either, as is done here, “the high priests and the scribes” or “the high priests and the elders”; see the remarks on 8:31 and on the scribes in 7:3; 7:1. Matthew says that the meeting took place in the αὐλή of Caiaphas, the high priest, not in the usual meeting place but in the private hall of Caiaphas, this was done because the deliberations were to be kept secret. Mark uses descriptive imperfects to indicate what the Sanhedrin did. The resolution to kill Jesus had been passed. It is now renewed (Matthew’s aorist) and advances to a discussion of the ways and means for its execution.

The thing is to be done ἐνδόλῳ, “in connection with craft,” not in an open and straightforward way. Although Mark does not report the treacherous offer of Judas until v. 10, it is possible that he had already started negotiations. The fact that a body like this Sanhedrin, judicial and sacred at the same time, was capable of the action here reported casts a flood of light on the moral and spiritual condition of the nation and of these its leaders.

Mark 14:2

2 With the descriptive ἔλεγον Mark continues to paint the scene by indicating how one after another went on to say: “Not during (ἐν) the festival!” They add the reason: “lest perhaps there be a tumult of the people.” During the week of the celebration and even days before it Jerusalem was filled with pilgrims from far and near. They had acclaimed Jesus on Sunday and had shown great admiration for him all along. The Sanhedrin feared the consequences should it even arrest Jesus, to say nothing of killing him. When Matthew and Mark write “a tumult of the people,” we should think of what this means among Orientals who fly easily into the most violent rage, especially when they are congregated in great mobs, Μήποτε may be followed by either the subjunctive or the future indicative as is done here. The sense is the same, and ἔσται does not here express greater certainty than the subjunctive, R. 988.

Mark 14:3

3 And he being in Bethany, in the house of Simon, the leper, he reclining at table, there came a woman having an alabaster vial of perfume of genuine nard, very costly; and having broken the alabaster vial, poured it down on his head.

Both Matthew and Mark condense the first part of this story considerably. We are thankful to John 12:1, etc., for adding so much to these brief records. Neither Matthew’s nor Mark’s genitive absolute provides the date for the anointing. Mark says only, “he being in Bethany.” All efforts to specify a date by a reference to this expression are unsatisfactory, the more so when a combination is made with the “two days” mentioned in v. 1. John gives us the exact date. Jesus had arrived in Bethany after leaving Jericho “six days before the Passover,” on the 8th of Nisan, the Friday before Palm Sunday.

It was too late to make him a supper then, for the Sabbath began with dusk. Jesus rested at Bethany during the Sabbath, and when the Sabbath was over at dusk, the feast in honor of Jesus was held; see the complete details in the author’s commentary on John. Mark refers to the supper only with his second genitive absolute, “he reclining at table.”

We know nothing further in regard to “Simon, the leper”; but it is fair to conclude that he offered his house because it was probably more roomy than that of Martha and Mary, that he was himself present, and that he was called “the leper” because of the disease from which Jesus had healed him. Fancy has played with these persons by making Martha the wife of Simon and romancing with regard to the other persons in similar ways.

Neither Matthew nor Mark takes time to describe the occasion, namely a grand supper in honor of Jesus, Lazarus being present among the guests (some 15 in all), and Martha and Mary helping with the work. The omission of Mary’s name can hardly be due to brevity of writing, especially when we consider v. 9. Peter, whose narration Mark repeats, with his own eyes saw Mary do her great deed, and Mark must have withheld her name because, when he wrote, she was still alive and to publish her name might entail evil consequences for her from Jewish haters of Jesus.

The container of the perfume is called τὸἀλάβαστρον, “a thing of alabaster,” i.e., a vessel or vial made of this semitransparent stone which was so arranged and sealed up that the neck of the vial had to be broken to get at the contents, and all of the contents (a pound, John 12:3) had to be used at the same time. Μύρον is a general term for this volatile “perfume.” The translation “ointment” gives a wrong impression, and “oil” does likewise. This μύρον left no oily stain but evaporated rapidly with the loveliest odor like our costly perfumes; John states that the whole house was filled with the delightful odor. The genitive is that of the content, R. 499, and is further defined by νάρδου, “nard,” the plant which furnishes the essence for the perfume; the finest nard is grown in India.

This nard is called πιστική, an adjective that has been much discussed, the meaning of which is not settled. It is derived from πιστός (πίστις) and means “genuine,” “pure,” over against adulterated preparations which contain inferior substances, M.-M. as well as Zahn. Hence it does not mean “liquid” or “drinkable,” for it has no connection with πίνειν, “to drink.” The word “spikenard” used in our versions comes from spica nardus, the Indian nard which is named after its wheatlike tips or spikes; yet πιστική does not mean spicatus, “spiked.” The spikenard that is listed by botanists is a variety of the valerian family, whose roots furnish a fragrant essence.

All the evangelists remark about the value of the perfume. Matthew says βαρύτιμον, “exceeding precious”; Mark πολυτελής, and John πολύτιμος, “very costly or precious.” Judas mentions the actual value. The question is asked as to how Mary came to have so precious a perfume at hand on this occasion. The assumption that it remained over from her former voluptuous life vilifies Mary by the spurious identification of her with the harlot mentioned in Luke 7:37. The suggestion that the perfume remained over from the burial of Lazarus is untenable because of its great value. In lieu of a positive answer we prefer to think that Mary provided this precious essence long in advance for an occasion of this kind by freely spending her money for the honor of Jesus.

Mark alone states that Mary broke the alabaster vessel. This was done by snapping off the slender neck, which also involved that the vessel could not be sealed again, and that all of its contents had to be used at one time. Κατέχεεν is the common Attic aorist (R. 342) and with the genitive means “she poured down upon his head” (R. 607), the genitive being due to κατά in the verb (R. 512). Matthew and Mark record only the anointing of the head; John supplements this by saying that the feet were anointed. The precious fluid was so abundant that Mary even wiped the feet with her hair. See the fuller explanation in the commentary on John.

Mark 14:4

4 But there were some expressing indignation toward themselves, To what purpose has this waste of the perfume been made? For it was possible that this perfume be sold for over three hundred denarii and be given to the poor. And they began scolding her.

John aids us in making the scene clear. Judas, who carried the funds for Jesus and the disciples and stole from them, started this indignation and carried some of the other disciples with him, these not taking time to think for themselves. Judas uncorks the vial of his poison, and the vile odor begins to spread. In the basest of moves a man often has supporters and abettors, especially if he is able to hide his evil intent behind a plausible plea. We regard ἀγανακτοῦντες as modifying τινές, and its construction with πρὸςἑαυτούς makes the participle mean that these persons expressed their indignation toward themselves even as this expression now follows in so many words.

Judas might have found various objections to Mary’s act and its acceptance by Jesus: it ill became a man of simple manners; anointing the feet as well as the head was a piece of extravagance and effeminacy that was offensive to Jewish custom; such luxury did not comport with the life of a prophet; had not Jesus himself said that they that wear soft clothing are in king’s houses, and they might use costly perfumes but not a man who was practically without a home?

It is characteristic that Judas views the matter from the financial side; he sees only the ἀπώλεια, the terrible waste or loss, all this valuable perfume being gone. Judas at the same time takes credit for speaking out as he does—right here in public—right before Jesus himself in whose honor this feast had been made—he speaks up at once and not long afterward. What a brave, high-principled man he was! No wonder “some” were blind enough to follow his lead. The phrase εἰςτί denotes purpose, R. 739. In the perfect γέγονεν the waste which Mary made when she poured out the perfume is viewed as continuing.

Mark 14:5

5 The imperfect ἠδύνατο is difficult for the English and the German mind. In verbs of propriety, obligation, possibility (this being the case here), or necessity the Greek does not start from the idea of what is existing in the present but from the past and states what the real possibility, etc., then was, and by comparing that with the present facts the reader notes that the possibility, etc., is not met, R. 886. At one time the possibility of selling this perfume was in existence (ἠδύνατο, imperfect), now it no longer exists. The two aorist infinitives πραθῆναι and δοθῆναι, by suggestion, and by that only, refer to past acts, the aorists otherwise present single complete acts, R. 886. Judas has also figured out the minimum price that might have been secured for this perfume: at least 300 denarii with a δηνάριον being valued at 16c, making over $48. The price is stated in the genitive, and this case is not due to ἐπάνω.

“And be given to the poor” hides the thieving motive of Judas behind the suggestion of generous charity for the poor. Think of it, Judas speaks up for the poor! But note that he condemns not only Mary but Jesus himself. Judas implies that Jesus is robbing the poor; that he is lavishing upon himself what rightfully belongs to charity; that for his own glorification he allows a waste that is utterly wrong; that his example is harmful to others—and that Judas is the man who knows what is right, proper, charitable and is not afraid to come out with it! This is the traitorous touch in the action of Judas. Such of the other disciples as supported him most likely wanted to criticize only Mary and thought how good helping the poor would be. Mark alone preserved καὶἐνεβριμῶντοαὐτῇ, “and they began scolding her.” The verb is very strong and really means, “they began snorting at her”; “murmured” in our versions is far too weak.

Mark 14:6

6 But Jesus said, Let her be! Why are you distressing her? An excellent work did she work on me. For always the poor you have with you, and whenever you desire you are able to treat them well, but me you have not always.

Those who were on the couch nearest to Judas engaged in the shameful action described above, and Jesus promptly perceived it and interfered. It is remarkable that he completely ignores the covert attacks made upon himself as being one who was allowing such waste in his own honor. He shelters only Mary: “Let her be!” the peremptory aorist imperative, literally, “Why are you furnishing burdens for her?” The implication in the question is that these critics can in no respect justify their action. As proof Jesus renders his own verdict on Mary’s deed: “An excellent work did she work on me!” It was καλόν in every respect. Jesus understood that it took a mighty resolution on Mary’s part to do a deed like this, which, as mere anointing, might meet the sharpest objection, but which, as an anointing of Jesus’ body for his burial, would be utterly beyond the minds of these men and would invite the more intense criticism. With καλὸνἔργον Jesus accepts her whole work, and any attack on it must reckon with him and not with her alone.

Mary herself is silent and offers no defense. We learn from her that it is not always necessary to defend ourselves—our good actions speak for themselves, and the only thing essential is that Jesus approves them.

Mark 14:7

7 Jesus next scotches the plea regarding the poor. He does it by placing the two facts side by side: the disciples always have the poor with them (“in company with yourselves”), but Jesus they have not always in this way, i.e., as he is now visibly and tangibly in their company. The latter is really an understatement, especially when it is considered in connection with Mary’s act and its purpose. The disciples would have Jesus with them for only a few more days. Yes, “not always” have they him! As regards the poor Jesus adds that the disciples—thieving, traitorous Judas included—can do them good at any time they may desire; there will be endless opportunities.

He has no parallel clause regarding himself. But the implication is that the disciples will have very few further opportunities for doing anything especial for him. Yet Jesus is not thinking of this fact but of Mary’s deed. This very evening was the only possible time to show Jesus the honor she had in mind.

Mark 14:8

8 Jesus now declares just what Mary intended to do and actually did. What she could she did. She undertook in advance to anoint my body for the burial. Amen, I say to you, wherever the gospel shall be preached in the whole world, also what this one did shall be uttered for a memorial of her.

Mark alone reports ὃἔσχεν, ἐποίησε, and ἔχω is used in the sense of having ability, B.-P. 520; Stellhorn, Wœrterbuch. But the aorist does not refer to general ability, which would be expressed by the imperfect εἶχε, but to what she was able to do at the time of her opportunity; we supply ποιῆσαι: “what she could do.” Jesus is not applying to Mary the general proposition of doing what one can do. So we should also not apply this word of Jesus by urging everyone to do what he can in the work of the church. The aorists go far beyond that: when the one opportunity came to Mary, she not only was ready, saw and embraced it, but went to the limit of her ability in meeting that opportunity, in fact, would have done more if it had been possible.

And Jesus now states directly and in so many plain words just why Mary lavished all this perfume upon him. He says that she anointed “my body,” for Mary had in mind the entire sacred body when she anointed its head and its feet with such profusion. Jesus says: “She undertook in advance to anoint my body for the burial.” The words mean exactly what they say. “The burial” with its article speaks of it as being close at hand, and the burial, of course, involves the corresponding death. In προέλαβεμυρίσαι the main verb is used adverbially (R. 551), and the chief thought is expressed by the infinitive: “she hath anointed aforehand” (R. V.). But did Mary actually and consciously anoint Jesus for his burial?

Some speak only of a general providence and say that her act was not done consciously. Some let Jesus “lend” this significance to Mary’s act. In plain words, Jesus is like a lawyer who makes his client’s intention seem to be what that client did not intend. Some speak of a foreboding, an indistinct premonition, on which Mary acted by a sort of feminine instinct. Only a few let the three accounts speak for themselves: “she undertook in advance to anoint my body for the burial (entombment)”; Matthew, “she did it for my entombment”; John, “she kept it for the day of my entombment.”

Jesus had again and again announced his death by violence, by crucifixion at the hands of the Gentiles. What if the disciples failed to grasp just what Jesus meant? Why should not one heart at least realize that Jesus meant exactly what he said? The character of this woman is such that it ought not to surprise us so much that, where dull-witted men failed, she saw that Jesus was now going straight to his death—by crucifixion as he had said. Thus her mind leaped to the conclusion that, when the tragedy now broke, it would be utterly impossible to reach Jesus and to anoint his dead body for its burial. That is why she acted now and unhesitatingly embraced the opportunity which she had hoped would come and for which she was prepared. We may add that only with the understanding that Mary knew that she was now anointing the body of Jesus for its burial is the tremendous praise accorded her act by Jesus himself justified.

Mark 14:9

9 Jesus attaches his seal of verity (“amen”) and of authority (“I say to you”), see 3:28, to this praise. This praise refers to the world-wide spread of the gospel proclamation (13:10; Matt. 24:14) and by means of the prophetic future passive λαληθήσεται most positively assures us that “also what this one did shall be uttered,” i.e., “in the whole world,” and this utterance, this telling of what she did this night at Bethany, shall be “for a memorial of her,” ever keeping her memory alive; αὐτῆς is the objective genitive. The prophecy of Jesus has been fulfilled literally. The sweet odor of her perfume has literally filled the world.

Mark 14:10

10 And Judas Iscariot, the one of the Twelve, went to the high priests in order that he might deliver him to them. And they, when they heard it, were glad and gave orders to give silver to him. And he began to seek how he might in a timely way deliver him.

After the anointing by Mary, Mark relates the traitor act of Judas because the two form a glaring contrast. The simple καί used by Mark does not bring out the relation and connection of these two events, it does nothing more than to place them side by side. Matthew (26:14) connects the two with “then”: “then,” after the rebuke in connection with the anointing, when his attack on Mary and on Jesus revealed how traitorous his heart was, “then” he went ahead with his damnable deed.

The betrayal was the plan of Judas himself. Although no one can say precisely when Judas went to the high priests with his offer, everything points to as early a moment as possible after the supper in Bethany on Saturday evening. It is possible that he went that very night after the company dispersed. To no less important persons does he go than to “the high priests” themselves, to Caiaphas and his relatives in the Sanhedrin. The purpose (ἵνα) is to hand Jesus over (παραδῷ) to these his bloodthirsty enemies. Mark’s account is brief; Matthew states the proposition of Judas outright: “What are you willing to give (pay), and I myself will deliver him to you?” This cold-blooded, mercenary proposal does not burn the traitor’s lips.

The naming of the traitor whenever he is introduced as such (Matt. 26:14; Luke 22:3; John 6:71) is always tragic: “the one of the Twelve,” εἷς is to be construed as a pronoun, hence the article which makes it attributive, R. 675; one of this sacred number, one who had been raised so high by Jesus, one who was destined for one of the twelve apostolic thrones in heaven (Matt. 19:28)—and now one who not only lost all this grace and glory but reversed it to the absolute opposite: a tool of Satan (Luke 22:3), sold for thirty pieces of silver to the whole world’s execration, the one traitor in the whole world beyond whom none can go. His full name is also added: “Judas Iskariot,” IshKerioth, “man of Kerioth,” a town in Judea (Josh. 15:25). He is thus distinguished from the other Judas among the Twelve as well as from all the others of the Twelve, he alone hailing from Judea while the rest came from Galilee. But the place of his origin has nothing to do with his crime.

Mark 14:11

11 We construe the participle as modifying οἱ: “they, when they heard.” These leaders of the Sanhedrin were overjoyed by the proposal of Judas. At a time when they feared that the whole nation was being carried away by Jesus one of his most intimate followers is ready to sell him for a price. This was an opportunity that was almost too good to believe, one that no man would have dared to predict. They had desired to arrest Jesus “with craft,” and the actual “craft” is here offered to them. Mark’s account is even briefer than Matthew’s. The question Judas asked was simply: “What will you pay me?” If the price is right, he is ready to earn it in his own person by handing Jesus over to them. We find no trace of a haggling about the price; the bargain is struck promptly.

Mark’s account is very terse: “they gave orders to pay him silver,” and the aorists mean that the orders were executed right there, the silver was weighed out to Judas right on the spot (see the comments on Matthew). Matthew alone mentions the sum, thirty pieces of silver (compare Zech. 11:12, 13), 30 shekels, 60 drachmas or denarii, about $10. Judas took no chances, he had to have the money paid down. The priests also ran no risks because they had the power to arrest this man at any time.

Judas left with the blood money heavy in his bag. He also carried the money of Jesus and the Twelve, which must at this time have been more in amount than usual. After Jesus was delivered to the high priests, Judas most likely reckoned on retaining also this sum for himself. The amount received by Judas has been called too small, being only the price paid in penalty for accidentally killing a slave (Exod. 21:32), and hence the amount has been questioned. But we should not let the enormity of the crime as we now see it disturb our minds in regard to the facts as they are recorded. Besides, amounts of money are always relative in men’s minds; in the case of some men a small sum takes on great proportions.

Because our criminals are out for large sums is not reason to question the amount Judas took. But think of these high priests and of what this criminality meant in regard to their moral character! Yet how often the higher and holier a man seemed, the baser was his real moral character. Too many authorities have paid Judas money as these high priests did.

Judas now sought to carry out his part of the bargain. The imperfect ἐζήτει is inchoative: “he began to seek.” Matthew has the noun εὐκαιρία, “fitting season,” opportunity, while Mark writes the adverb εὐκαίρως, “in a fitting or opportune way.” The treachery was to be carried out treacherously. In these verses the texts vary between παραδῷ and παραδοῖ (R. 309), but both forms are subjunctives.

Mark 14:12

12 And on the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrifice the Passover, his disciples say to him, Where wilt thou that we, having gone, prepare in order that thou eat the Passover? And he commissions two of his disciples and says to them: Go into the city, and there will meet you a man bearing an earthen vessel of water. Follow him, and wherever he enters say to the houselord, The Teacher says, Where is my guestroom, where I may eat the Passover in company with my disciples? And he will show you a large upper room, spread with couches ready; and there make ready for us.

After the interlude, v. 3–11, Mark takes us from Tuesday evening to Thursday. Not a word is said by any of the evangelists regarding the events that took place on Wednesday. In 13:1 Jesus left the Temple for good. We are certain that he did not return to it the next day (Wednesday). We can only surmise where he spent this day; he probably spent it in Bethany. Matthew’s account is briefer than that of either Mark or Luke, yet it has intimate details in the message of Jesus which the other two writers have not preserved.

Little time need be spent on τὸπάσχα and on ἡπρώτητῶνἀζύμων. The former originally designated the celebration of the afternoon and the evening of the 14th of Nisan (the eating of the paschal lamb) and naturally came to be used by both Jewish and Greek writers also for the entire week of the celebration that followed. Thus “to sacrifice the Passover” and “to eat the Passover” refer to the sacrificing and the eating of the Passover lamb. Τὰἄζυμα, a neuter plural like the names of other festivals, “the Festival of the Things Unleavened,” soon came to include also the day on which the paschal lamb was slain, the 14th of Nisan; there were thus altogether eight days of yeastless baking and eating of bread. “The first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread” is thus beyond question the 14th of Nisan, which this year came on a Thursday. We state only the summary findings; the question has been settled so often that the arguments for the 13th of Nisan should no longer be advanced. The imperfect ἔθυον refers to the custom of sacrificing the paschal lamb on this “first” day, which is most certainly designated as the 14th of Nisan. The ὅτε clause is also helpful for Gentile Christian readers.

Like Matthew, Mark states that the disciples generally were concerned about the place where Jesus intended to celebrate the Passover that night. They have no suggestion of their own and depend wholly on him. They assume that the task of making ready belongs to them, it would not be the work of Jesus; hence we have ἑτοιμάσωμεν, the subjunctive after θέλεις, an aorist for actually making ready like φάγῃς for actually eating. They speak only of Jesus and his eating because he is their Master, and they would naturally eat with him even also as a number that was sufficient to consume an entire lamb was required at the feast. Ἀπελθόντες implies that this paschal feast will not be held in Bethany but in Jerusalem.

Mark 14:13

13 Jesus issues specific directions at once. The disciples did not, of course, think that twelve men would be required for this task. Mark tells us that Jesus delegated two, and Luke names Peter and John even as Jewish sources tell us that no more than two were allowed in the Temple on the afternoon when the lamb was killed. Therefore “go into the city” is quite clear. In all three synoptic accounts Jesus withholds the name of the man in whose house he intends to celebrate the Passover, and this, of course, means that Peter and John alone will know who the man is and where in the city his house is located, and that they will know this only after they have found the man’s house as directed by Jesus. Peter and John most likely did not return to Bethany, where Jesus and the ten remained, until toward evening when Jesus proceeded to the place which he alone besides Peter and John knew. Peter and John may also not have returned at all but may have met Jesus and the others at the house in the evening.

We know of only one answer to the question as to why Jesus kept the man’s name and the location of his house secret: the traitor was not to know, not even to be able to find out. He was kept hopelessly guessing as to where the place might be. Jesus would celebrate this Passover in perfect security, right in the city itself, and that at night, whereas ever since his entry on Sunday he had left the city every night. All this does not at all give reason to believe that the Passover was celebrated in the house of Mary, the mother of Mark, and that this house was the general rendezvous of Jesus when he was in Jerusalem, the ἄνθρωπος being Mary’s husband and Mark’s father (v. 51, 52 are taken to refer to Mark). Zahn has a wonderful Kombinationsgabe, but in this instance he goes too far. If Jesus frequented only this one house in the city, Judas could have known the place. Jesus must have had many devoted friends in Jerusalem, so many that even Judas could not guess which house Jesus intended to use.

We note the same foreknowledge that was evident in 11:2, 3. A certain man will meet (R. 873) Peter and John, whom they will at once recognize because of his carrying an earthen jar of water (genitive of contents, R. 499). They are to say nothing to him on meeting him but are only to follow him (the aorist means to his destination). One cannot agree with the view that Jesus had talked matters over with this man and had engaged the room required in advance; that Jesus privately told Peter and John the man’s name; that the Twelve knew who was meant without having to be told; and that the evangelists (but it was Jesus!) withheld his name as they did that of Mary in v. 3–9 lest Jewish fanatics single out the man for persecution at the time the Gospels were written.

Mark 14:14

14 The man who was thus met would be only a servant in the house even as he comes carrying water. It is not this servant but the “houselord” himself whom Peter and John are to address (εἴπατε, see B.-D. 81). The message which Jesus sends him makes clear, not only that he is one of Jesus’ disciples, but also that he is quite advanced in the faith. He will at once know who ὁδιδάσκαλος, “the Teacher,” is when Peter and John speak to him. Matthew adds the detail that Jesus informed the man: “My special time is near,” i.e., the time of the Passion; and this, too, the man understood at once, which says a good deal. Also that Jesus will celebrate the Passover with him, and Mark adds the inquiry about the κατάλυμα or guestroom where this can be done.

The possessive “my guestroom” is to be understood in the sense of the room for me. On ὅπου with the subjunctive see R. 1045 and his other references; it is most likely an indirect question with the deliberative subjunctive although the clause may also be volitive.

Mark 14:15

15 Jesus foretells exactly what the houselord will do in answer to this request: he will show them an exceedingly choice room, a large ἀνώγεον (the same as ἀνάγαιον and ὑπερῷον), built on top of the house and thus removed from all intrusion through the rooms and the inner court on the ground floor. These upper rooms were used for retirement and quiet. In this case the room was large and thus ample for the purpose of Jesus. The perfect participle ἐστρωμένον (see the verb in 11:8) means literally, “having been strewn,” but not in the sense of gepflastert (Luther) but as having couches for dining arranged in it, ἕτοιμον (adverb), “ready,” all in order for a dining company. “There,” Jesus says, “make ready for us.” The fact that the room has been prepared has nothing to do with any previous arrangements that Jesus had made. The room was, as it seems, regularly used for dining a number of people, hence the dining couches and the tables were in readiness.

Mark 14:16

16 And the disciples went out and came to the city and found even as he said to them; and they made ready the Passover. Peter and John attended to the lamb and its roasting, provided the bread and other necessaries, and had everything ready for the celebration in the evening.

Mark 14:17

17 And when evening came, he comes with the Twelve. And while they are reclining and eating Jesus said, Amen, I say to you, that one of you shall deliver me up, one eating with me.

It is Thursday evening. But this is the beginning of the Jewish Friday, for the Jews began a new day with the appearance of the first star in the sky. The genitive absolute with the aorist γενομένης means that evening had fully come. Jesus arrives quietly with the Twelve and proceeds at once to the upper room. He, of course, attracted no one’s attention in the crowded city where all were intent on celebrating the Passover with their friends.

Mark 14:18

18 Mark places us directly into the beautiful and secluded upper room with the Passover meal in full progress, Jesus and the Twelve participating in it. The second participle “while eating” refers to a special part of the Passover. This solemn meal followed a fixed order: 1) the first cup with its blessing; 2) the bitter herbs to recall the bitter life in Egypt; 3) the unleavened bread, the chasoret, the roasted lamb, and the chagiga (other sacrificial meat); 4) the housefather dips the bitter herbs into the chasoret with a benediction, then eats, and the others follow; 5) the second cup is mixed (wine with water), a son asks, and the father explains the feast; 6) the first part of the hallel is sung, Ps. 113, 114, and the second cup is drunk with a prayer of praise; 7) the father washes his hands, takes two cakes of bread, breaks one and lays it on the unbroken one, blesses the bread out of the earth, wraps a broken piece of bread with herbs, dips it into the chasoret, eats it and a piece of the chagiga and a piece of the lamb; 8) all join in eating, and it is to this point of the feast that Matthew and Mark refer with “while engaged in eating.” At no previous point could the exposure of Judas have been made without spoiling the ceremony. 9) The conclusion was reached when the father ate the last morsel of the lamb, after which no one ate. Then came the third cup; 10) the second part of the hallel, Ps. 115–118; the fourth cup, sometimes a fifth; then the final part of the hallel, Ps. 120–137. This is the rabbinical description.

Neither Matthew nor Mark records the emotions of Jesus, but see John 13:21. The entire proceeding of Jesus is marvelous. He does not expose Judas but reveals the act of Judas and then states its effect upon Judas himself; and this is done so as to bring the most powerful pressure to bear upon Judas to repudiate his act even now and in repentance to fall at the feet of Jesus and receive pardon. In fact, Jesus proceeds in this way with Judas until the last meeting in Gethsemane. Under the pressure of this treatment Judas proceeds boldly to expose himself. So all that Jesus does at first is to assert with all solemnity and power: “Amen, I say to you (see 3:28), that one of you shall deliver me up, one eating with me!” The statement must have exploded among the disciples like a bombshell.

It merely asserted a fact, but with the indefinite “one of you” (ἐκ, partitive) it put every man present under the shadow of guilt. And this was the intention of Jesus. The addition “one engaged in eating with me” (present, durative, characterizing participle), placed emphatically at the end, is much more than an apposition to εἷςἐξὑμῶν which repeats that Jesus is referring to one present at the table. This is an allusion to the traitor Ahitophel, the Old Testament type of the traitor Judas, who was marked by this feature that he was the trusted table companion of his master.

Mark 14:19

19 They began to be grieved and to say to him one by one, Surely it is not I?

The announcement of Jesus was intended to shock the guilty soul of Judas out of its guilt; and Jesus used the effect produced upon the eleven guiltless disciples by his words as an added force to reach the will of Judas. Judas had to tell himself that Jesus must know all about his traitorous act. Judas had to feel that when all the others asked: “Is it I?” they were sure that Jesus knew which one it was. Judas heard all the innocent ask with dismay: “Is it I?” and it must have struck his heart, black with guilt, that he could not ask this in honesty and innocence. “They began to be grieved” is the first reaction, and prompted by it is the next, the question each asks about himself. The grammars seem to be too hard on εἷςκαθʼ εἷς. We doubt whether this is the indeclinable use of εἷς (as R. 282 thinks), and whether the first εἷς is an accusative and the second a nominative (as R. 460 thinks). While κατά is an adverb (R. 450), “one by one” belongs together, the whole is a nominative and an explanatory apposition of the plural subject “they” in the verb ἤρξαντο.

They asked in quick succession: Μήτιἐγώεἰμι; Matthew adds Κύριε. The interrogative word μήτι implies that the questioner thinks that only a negative answer can be possible, which we are, however, able to reproduce only in a cumbersome way: “Surely it is not I?” A degree of uncertainty is mixed with each man’s assurance. Each man knows of nothing like an act so terrible in himself; but each man knows that what Jesus says must be fact; and each man knows how weak he is and how, ignorantly or in some other way, he might do something to hurt Jesus. We may also note from Matthew that while the eleven say “Lord,” Judas finally says, “Surely it is not I, rabbi?”

Mark 14:20

20 But he said to them: One of the Twelve, he dipping with me into the bowl! Because the Son of man goes away even as it has been written concerning him; but woe to that man through whom the Son of man is being delivered up! It were excellent for him if that man had not been born.

Jesus does not answer the anxious and excited questions. Judas had not joined the chorus (Matthew). He had certainly been struck. He was thinking fast—what did Jesus really know? Was he working only on suspicion? What was Jesus after? So Jesus not only continues, he heightens the tension by answering with a significant description of the traitor.

Mark writes only the two nominatives: “One of the Twelve, he dipping with me into the bowl.” The two go together and mean the same thing: one of those most intimately connected with me. But by meaning this they mean still more. We should not regard dipping into the bowl as a mark of identification, as if at that moment Judas and Jesus were both dipping pieces of bread into the bowl, for both Matthew’s aorist ὁἐμβάψας and Mark’s present tense ὁἐμβαπτόμενος are timeless tenses. Nor is Mark (and Matthew) reproducing John 13:23–26; these verses in John follow what Mark says, for John supplements by telling how he and Peter were first shown that the traitor was Judas.

The point in so emphasizing the fact that the traitor was one of the Twelve, who thus ate from the same bowl as Jesus, is the resemblance of Judas to Ahitophel, the man who ate at David’s table and then turned traitor to David. He is the prototype of Judas; Judas is the second Ahitophel. It ought to be noted that this type is all that we have in the Old Testament concerning Judas—we lack even a single prophecy. 2 Sam. 16:15–17, 23; Ps. 41:9 (John 13:18); Ps. 55:12–14.

Jesus says “into the bowl” (Mark εἰς, Matthew ἐν, both are to be understood in the same sense, R. 525), and μετʼ ἐμοῦ, “in company with me.” We put too little into these expressions when we fail to note that this was the Passover of Jesus (v. 12, “where wilt thou … in order that thou eat the Passover), that the Twelve were here at his invitation, not he at theirs, that this was Jesus’ bowl, and to be allowed to dip into it with Jesus supreme honor indeed. Thus Jesus brings out the thought as to how despicable, how utterly low-down the act of Judas is. All this, which was spoken before the whole company, had to strike the conscience of Judas with double force. He who could resist impacts such as this was beyond hope.

Mark 14:21

21 But let no man think that Jesus is at the mercy of some vile wretch; no, “the Son of man (i.e., the incarnate Son of God, God’s great Messiah, who is man and yet more than man, see 2:10) goes away even as it has been written concerning him.” His course, even to this tragic end, was recorded in Scripture and is on record there (this being the force of the perfect γέγραπται). It is all divinely planned and will surely be carried out as Jesus now declares. He is not appealing for anything like sympathy for himself, the sympathy and the commiseration should go to the traitor. Jesus is indicating to the Twelve, including Judas, why he does not interfere and make this dastardly betrayal impossible. Jesus is in absolute harmony with what “has been written”; in order to have all that perfectly fulfilled he became “the Son of man.”

The connective ὅτι, “because,” does not introduce an explanation as some think (which would be done by γάρ) but a reason. The traitor is another Ahitophel who is dipping into the bowl with Jesus because Jesus goes away as it is written. The connection cannot be: because, though Jesus goes away, and woe is on the traitor, it would be good if he had never been born. The three clauses are coordinate, the first two are subordinate. Nor does the final conditional sentence (καλόνκτλ.) state anything that could be considered a cause. Note how μέν and δέ balance the two clauses.

Since his own course is fixed in Scripture, Jesus turns to the awful condition and fate of the traitor. He cries “woe to that man” and designates him as one who is distant from himself (“that man”). This is not a woe of indignation like the woes in Matt. 23:13, etc., but a woe of deepest grief and pain. Yet this woe, like all others and like its opposite “blessed,” is the verdict upon the traitor. All that causes wretchedness and agony in time and in eternity for the traitor is in this “woe.” When Jesus says “is being betrayed,” the present tense lets Judas know that Jesus knows just how far Judas has already gone. Διά speaks of Judas only as being an instrument; there is another (Satan) who works “through” the traitor.

Though it is without a connecting γάρ, an explanation, we may even say, the reason follows why Jesus pronounces his woe upon the traitor: “Excellent were it for him if that man had not been born,” i.e., if he had had no life at all rather than a life that has such a deed and such an end. It thus makes no difference whether we regard οὐκἐγεννήθη as “not to have been conceived,” or as “not to have been born” after being conceived. The sense remains: nonexistence is preferable to this betrayal.

R. 886 regards καλὸνἦναὐτῷ (Matt. 26:24) as another Greek idiom in which the past is not met by the present (like ἠδύνατο in v. 5). But do we not have a mixed condition of unreality, the protasis expressing past unreality: “if he had not been born,” and the apodosis present unreality: “it would be excellent”? The fact that the negative οὐ (instead of μή) appears in such a protasis is quite exceptional, and neither R. 1161 nor B.-D. 428, 2 have anything more to remark. The fact that ἄν should be missing in the apodosis is of no moment (R. 1014), yet its absence harmonizes with the decisive force of οὐ. Insert John 13:23–26 at this point and continue with Matt. 26:25. Mark records the story of the exposure only up to this point.

Mark 14:22

22 And while they were eating, having taken bread, after having blessed it, he broke it and gave it to them and said, Take it! This is my body. And having taken a cup, after having blessed it, he gave it to them, and they all drank out of it. And he said to them, This is my blood of the testament, that being poured out for many.

Note the genitive absolute ἐσθιόντωναὐτῶν which is repeated from v. 18. Both genitives refer to the eighth part of the Passover ceremonial which is described in detail in v. 18. We see that this must be the case, for the ninth part took but a moment, it merely stopped further eating; and the tenth part was the singing and the drinking of the last cup. We shall be safe in assuming that the institution of the Lord’s Supper came at the close of the somewhat extended period of freely eating the Passover food. No one was to be stinted. So about the time the housefather would have gone on to number nine, the eating of the last morsel of the lamb, which thus stopped all further eating, Jesus proceeded to something that was entirely new.

This new act is also an eating and a drinking, but only of bread and wine; it also has its thanksgivings, but these refer directly to Christ’s sacrificial body and blood and their saving effect. From the first words onward this was plain to the disciples.

Jesus first took bread, the participle λαβών indicating that this was only a preliminary act. Note that this participle is an aorist, and that throughout the account all participles and main verbs that describe the acts of Jesus are aorists, all historical, stating so many facts. The entire account is so simple and lucid in its wording that even a grammar the size of Robertson’s finds only one point to note, the presence and the meaning of ὑπέρ. The R. V. is somewhat inaccurate when in its margin it translates ἄρτος with “loaf.” No “loaves” in our sense of the word could be baked of unleavened dough. This ἄρτος was a thin sheet of unleavened bread, pieces of which were broken off for eating.

The author saw these thin sheets of bread baked on a hot plate in Syria. The woman stacked these up and gave us one that was still hot, which we broke and ate in the ancient way—how else could we have eaten it properly?

The second act is also preliminary, hence again only a participle is used, εὐλογήσας, “after having blessed it.” No “and” connects the two participles as it does in Matthew, yet the sequence is the same, first taking, then blessing. Luke and Paul use εὐχαριστήσας, “having given thanks.” The two participles are to be understood in the same sense, for both Matthew and Mark use the second when they come to speak of the cup.

None of the four accounts of the Supper has preserved the words of blessing and thanksgiving that were spoken by Jesus over the bread and the wine. We shall not judge amiss when we say that these words referred to the bread (and then to the wine) that was in Jesus’ hands and to the heavenly gift that the respective element was to convey. Thus this blessing enlightened the disciples and prepared them for the proper reception of the bread and what it conveyed (of the wine likewise); for they were to receive both intelligently and not wonder what Jesus was trying to convey to them. All we can say about these words is that, once spoken by Jesus, they remain efficacious for all time wherever the Sacrament is celebrated. Because of their very nature they could not be efficaciously repeated, and that seems to be the reason the power that guided the holy writers had them omit these words of blessing from their records.

The acts of breaking and of giving go together and are to be understood in the sense of distributing. The bread and the wine were not merely set out on the table for each disciple to help himself, Jesus himself gave them. No symbolism is to be attached to the breaking, for “a bone of him shall not be broken,” John 19:36. The bread was broken merely in order to be eaten. “Bread is an inanimate thing: how can breaking it be like the putting of a human being to death? Breaking bread is the very symbol of quietness and peace, who would dream of it as an appropriate symbol of the most cruel and ignominious death? Bread is the representative food, and used in metaphor is the symbol of spiritual and supernatural food.

The breaking of bread is the means of giving it as food and as a symbol, the symbol of giving and taking a higher food. No one would dream of the breaking of bread as the symbol of killing a human body; and if so extraordinary a symbolic use of it were made, it would require the most explicit statement on the part of the person so using it, that such was his intent; and when he had made it, the world would be amazed at so lame a figure.” Krauth, Conservative Reformation, 723. One who has seen this bread will understand why it was never cut but always broken for eating. In regard to the wine we have no counterpart to the breaking of the bread, which shows that the breaking was only incidental for the purpose of distribution.

No man can say just how Jesus “gave to them.” Nor is the point vital; just so each received. When we now adopt a mode of distribution we cannot say that any mode will do, for various modes that are used at present indicate wrong views of the very nature of the Sacrament. Our mode must in every way harmonize with the essentials of the Sacrament and also with the spirit of its original institution. As Jesus gave he said: Λάβετε, an aorist imperative to indicate the one brief action. Matthew adds φάγετε, “eat,” which to Mark is implied in λάβετε.

And the disciples now hear what Jesus really gives them: Τοῦτόἐστιτὸσῶμάμου, “this is my body.” Luke adds to the word body “being given for you” in sacrifice, on the cross; and Paul adds to the word body “which is for you,” i.e., in sacrifice. We should note that τοῦτο is neuter and hence cannot, grammatically or in thought, refer to ἄρτος, which is masculine. The English “this” and “bread” obscure this distinction in gender, yet no student can deny or ignore it. “This” means “this bread which I have now consecrated by blessing and thanksgiving”; or more tersely, “this that I now give to you,” hoc quod vos sumere jubeo. “It is no longer mere bread of the oven but bread of flesh, or bread of body, that is bread which is sacramentally one with Christ’s body.” Luther.

Much has been written on ἐστί, which is merely the copula that connects the subject and the predicate. Jesus spoke in Aramaic and used no copula in that language, for he needed none; but this does not remove or in the least alter the inspired ἐστί in the Greek records. It cannot mean “represents” as Zwingli contended.

“My body” means exactly what the words say: “in truth and reality my body.” The modifiers added by Luke and by Paul substantiate this most strongly. Luke’s ὑπὲρὑμῶνδιδόμενον must refer to the real body, for no symbol of the body, no bread, was this day being given for our redemption upon the cross. It is the rationalizing question as to how the Lord could give his disciples his true and real body by means of bread that has caused the trouble about these so exceedingly simple words.

Some assume a transsubstantiation of the bread into body so that Jesus does not give bread at all but only his body. Others deny that he gives his body; they say that this is impossible, he gives only bread as the symbol of his body. We refuse to answer the question as to the how because the Lord has withheld the answer. We could probably not understand the real answer because the giving of Christ’s body in the Sacrament is a divine act of omnipotence and grace and is beyond all mortal comprehension.

The Lord declares the fact: “This is my body,” and we take him at his word; we would not dare to reply: “No, this is not thy body.” He alone knows the mystery of this giving; we do not. Any rationalizing objection that this involves a gross, carnal, Capernaitic eating of the raw flesh is untenable; the first disciples, who had the body of Christ’s humiliation before their very eyes when Christ’s bodily hand gave them, in a supernatural way, the gift of his sacrificial body never dreamed of such an eating. “My body” does not mean “a piece of my body”; the body is never divided.

Matthew and Mark are quite brief in their reports of the institution. Both omit what Luke and Paul add, that the Sacrament is again and again to be repeated by the disciples. But it would certainly be wrong to play the other accounts against Matthew and Mark on this point or to assume that these two evangelists intended to cancel this command of Christ’s. The four records are four historical testimonies, and any point in any record that is not found in the rest is only so much valuable addition. In the case of Matthew and Mark the permanency lies in the very nature of the Sacrament, for not the Twelve alone but all disciples were to be partakers of Christ’s body and blood for the assurance of their salvation.

Mark 14:23

23 Matthew and Mark tell about the consecration of the cup exactly as they tell about the consecration of the bread whereas Luke and Paul abbreviate by writing “likewise.” We prefer the reading ποτήριον, without the article, which a number of good texts have, also Luke and Paul. Whether different cups were used for the four or five times of drinking during the Passover, or whether only one cup was used, which was refilled as needed, is not certain and quite immaterial. The point is that Jesus instituted the Sacrament with the use of one cup, that he bade all the disciples drink out of this one cup (Matthew), and that “they all did drink out of it” (Mark). Any change in what Jesus did, which has back of it the idea that he would not do the same today for sanitary or similar reasons, casts a reflection upon Jesus which is too grave to be allowed when he is giving us his sacrificial blood to drink. “Cup” may mean the empty vessel, the filled vessel, or only the contents of the vessel as the context decides. “Having taken the cup” means the vessel with its contents; “having given thanks” refers only to the contents of the vessel. “He gave it to them” means the vessel with its contents; but they drank ἐξαὐτοῦ means the contents of the vessel. Τοῦτο, however, refers to the consecrated contents alone.

The cup contained wine mingled with water, on which all are agreed save those who for special reasons seek to get rid of wine at all costs. When Matthew (26:29) reports Jesus as saying “this fruit of the vine,” i.e., that which the Passover cup contained, he himself shuts out any and all other products of the vine save actual wine and blocks all modern efforts to bring in unfermented grape juice, raisin tea, or diluted grape syrup. The expression “fruit of the vine” is taken from the Hebrew pheri hagiphen, a choice liturgical formula for wine. The matter is of utmost importance and lies beyond our power to alter. To alter another’s testament is to invalidate that document. Hence the use of any other liquid than actual wine made from grapes—this alone was “wine” in Christ’s day, this alone was used in the Passover—renders the Sacrament invalid so that it ceases to be the Sacrament. Christ’s testament stands only as he made it, not as men today may alter it.

According to Matthew, Jesus commands “all” the eleven disciples to drink of the cup; and Mark states that “all” of them did drink of it. To find this “all” in connection with the cup alone indicates that it is necessary that all who ate must also drink in order properly to receive the Sacrament. The contents of the cup is thus to be drunk so that all will receive a portion and none be left without a portion. These two πάντες in Matthew and in Mark plainly contradict the Roman Catholic practice of giving only the bread and withholding the cup from the laity. The Roman exegesis is cunning. Jesus did not attach “all” to the bread because it was understood that all Christians were to receive the bread. But he had to attach “all” to the cup since he referred to all those present, the apostles and then their successors in the priestly office: “all the clergy only.” In other words, “all” means “not all,” “only some”—the opposite of what Jesus said and of what Mark reports.

Mark 14:24

24 In the word spoken by Jesus we have τοῦτο exactly as in connection with the bread: “this”—the consecrated wine; “this”—that I bid you drink. So also ἐστί is the copula and no more. And τὸαἷμάμου exactly matches τὸσῶμάμου; and all that shows the reality of the latter likewise shows the reality of the former. “Body” and “blood” are each given separately, for in the sacrifice the blood flows out and is separated from the body.

Jesus first adds the genitive τῆςδιαθήκης and then the phrase with the neuter article, τὸὑπὲρπολλῶνἐκχυνόμενον (on this article which is repeated from τὸαἷμα, see R. 776). Observe also the force of the article in the predicates τὸσῶμάμου and τὸαἷμάμου, R. 768. This means that the subject and the predicate are identical and interchangeable, and the addition with a second article is like an apposition and a climax. These grammatical points are valuable for showing exactly what Jesus says.

Monographs have been written on the term διαθήκη, “testament,” in connection with the Hebrew berith, “covenant.” We see how the translators of our versions waver, the A. V. using “testament” in our passage, the R. V. “covenant” with “testament” in the margin. On the subject compare C.-K. 1062. We offer the gist of the matter. The Old Testament dealt with the promises God made to his chosen people.

God placed himself in “covenant” relation to them. The heart of this relation, like the promises and the gifts of God to Israel, is wholly one-sided. It is always God’s covenant, not Israel’s; and it is never a mutual agreement. This covenant, indeed, obligates Israel, and Israel assumes these obligations, but the covenant emanates entirely from God. The LXX translates berith, “covenant,” with διαθήκη, “testament,” since this term has the strongest one-sided connotation. A will and testament emanates only from the testator.

Christ, however, brought the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises. The result of this was that God’s people now have the inheritance and are God’s heirs, joint heirs of Christ, Rom. 8:17. It is thus that in the New Testament berith becomes διαθήκη, “will and testament” by which God bequeathes to us the blessings that Christ has brought.

Both the old berith or covenant and the new testament of Christ’s fulfillment were connected with blood. The former could be sealed with the blood of animal sacrifice: “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words,” Exod. 24:4–8. This blood typified and promised the blood of Christ, God’s own Son, to seal “the new testament” by which we inherit all that this blood has purchased and won for us. The old covenant could be written in animal blood because it consisted of promise; the new testament could be written only in the blood of the Son of God because it conveys the complete fulfillment of the promise, the actual purchase of our redemption.

The word “blood” is not a reference merely to “death” because a specific death, namely a sacrificial death, is involved. No other type of death could establish the “testament.” Hence Christ adds the crowning modification with τό, “that (blood) in the act of being poured out for the many.” Jesus means that this pouring out of his sacrificial blood has already begun. And he has, indeed, now truly entered upon his sacrifice. So “body” and “blood” appear separately in the Sacrament, the two, nevertheless, always appear together. There is no sacrificial body without sacrificial blood, and vice versa. The Scriptures never speak of the glorified body or the glorified blood of the Sacrament.

The miracle in the Sacrament is not that Christ makes us partakers of his glorified body and blood but of the body and the blood that constituted his sacrifice on the cross in his humiliation. The Sacrament draws on Calvary, not on heaven and glory.

Matthew has πωρὶπολλῶν, “concerning or in regard to many,” with the idea that the pouring out of the blood was for their benefit, i.e., “unto remission of sins.” Mark is terse and compresses all this into the phrase ὑπὲρπολλῶν, “for or in behalf of many.” While ὑπέρ really means “over,” in a large number of cases the resultant idea is that of substitution, “instead of.” These acts could not be “for,” “in behalf of,” “for the benefit of,” unless they were “instead of.” The story of the papyri is overwhelming on this point, and once it is understood, no modernistic objection will stand. See R. 630, etc., and his The Minister and his Greek New Testament, the entire chapter on ὑπέρ. “Many” must here mean all men, for all of whom the blood was being shed, not merely the believers in whom this blood would prove efficacious. The word “many” is used to bring out distinctly that not only the eleven who were now receiving the Supper are referred to but an endless number.

Mark 14:25

25 Amen, I say to you, that I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine until in that day when I shall be drinking it new in the kingdom of God. And when they had sung the hymn they went out to the Mount of Olives.

The Sacrament is completed. It was also made the conclusion of the Passover save for the singing of the hymn, v. 26. Luke tells us that already at the beginning of the Passover Jesus spoke as he now does at the end. The importance of the statement is indicated by the formula with which it begins: “amen,” the seal of truth, and “I say to you,” the seal of authority, see 3:28. With verity and authority Jesus declares that he will die that very day (Friday), for he will not eat another Passover meal, yea, will not drink another cup of wine. But to this sad announcement he adds another that is most glorious, that the day is coming when he will be drinking wine, wonderful and new, in the kingdom.

The aorist πίω is the volitive subjunctive, punctiliar because the negation is final; οὐμή, the strong negative with the subjunctives and future indicatives, is doubled by οὐκέτι. But πίω is the present subjunctive after ὅταν, durative, for “in that day” the drinking will be repeated. There will not be another cup for Jesus such as he had drunk at this Passover but only the sour wine to moisten his parched lips on the cross just before he died. The only cup left for him was the cup of suffering.

Various efforts are made to eliminate wine from the account. Because the word οἶνος does not appear, the presence of wine is at least gravely questioned, which means practically denied. The fact that Mark uses “fruit of the vine,” pheri hagiphen, the lovely liturgical term for wine, Matthew even specifying “this fruit of the vine,” the one regularly used in the Passover and thus used by the Lord also for his Supper, seems to make no impression on those who would eliminate the wine, for they assert that grape juice fits this expression better than wine although such a thing as grape juice was in April an impossibility in the Holy Land in Christ’s time. It could be had only when grapes were freshly pressed out, before the juice started to ferment in an hour or two.

Not only does Jesus die today, but as a result of his dying all the Jewish Passovers have served their purpose and are really at an end. That is why Jesus instituted the Sacrament of the new testament; this is to be used by his disciples until “that day” when Jesus will drink the fruit of the vine “new” in the heavenly, glorious kingdom of his Father. On this heavenly feast compare Matt. 8:11; Luke 22:30; Rev. 19:9. Πίνω, “shall be drinking,” for that feast shall never end; also καινόν, “new” as compared with what is old, not νέον, “new” as never having existed before.

All descriptions of heaven are necessarily figurative, so also is this drinking the wine at the heavenly feast. Yet from Luke 22:16 we gather that the heavenly feast will be a heavenly fulfillment of the Passover plus the Lord’s Supper. All that is promised in the latter as also in the former regarding our union and communion with Christ will then be brought to its eternal climax. “In the kingdom of God” has been used to find chiliasm in this statement of Jesus’, and this affords opportunity to revive the old chiliastic dream of Papias concerning “the fruit of the vine” in heaven which grows endlessly in enormous clusters on the most astounding vine that ever existed.

Mark 14:26

26 The hymn that was sung was the second part of the hallel, Ps. 115–118, possibly also the final part, Ps. 120–137; see v. 18. Then they went out to the Mount of Olives, namely to the Garden of Gethsemane.

Mark 14:27

27 And Jesus says to them: All you shall be trapped, for it has been written, I will smite the shepherd, and scattered wide shall be the sheep. But after I have been raised up I will go before you into Galilee.

Jesus makes this disclosure on the way out to Gethsemane. We see that all that he needs to know concerning his Passion is most clearly known to him. All of the eleven, not one excepted, σκανδαλισθήσεσθε, shall be caught as in a trap. The idea underlying this verb is that of a crooked stick to which the bait is affixed and by which the trap is sprung. So this night the trap will catch all the disciples. They will be trapped by what will happen to Jesus; it will upset them completely.

On retaining the native meaning of this verb see M.-M. 576; also 6:34. The translation “ye shall be offended” is both incorrect and misleading. The disciples took no offense because of Jesus, of anything that he was or did this night. They took no offense at all. They were simply caught (trapped) and overwhelmed by what happened to Jesus, namely his sudden arrest and trial.

Ὅτι states the reason by pointing to what “has been written,” Zech. 13:7: because of what God will do this night. Jesus uses only two statements from the prophecy and himself translates these from the Hebrew. Whatever other fulfillment Zechariah’s prophecy may have, Jesus uses this prophecy with reference to his own death and with reference to its effect upon his disciples. “I will smite the shepherd,” etc., means that Yahweh will give Jesus into death. The disciples cannot be spared this ordeal. “And scattered wide will be the sheep” states exactly what being caught in a trap means: the disciples will be so upset in every way that they will leave Jesus and, like shepherdless sheep, be scattered in all directions; note the force of διά in the verb.

Mark 14:28

28 But though this sad and terrible thing is about to happen, it means much that Jesus himself informs the disciples of it in advance. For this advance warning contemplates bringing these scattered sheep together again. This is exactly what Jesus promises with the strong adversative ἀλλά which places the promise over against the calamity. The accusative with the infinitive, ἐγερθῆναίμε, is made a substantive by means of the neuter τό and is then the object of μετά. Jesus will be raised from the dead by Yahweh who gave him over into death. Jesus had repeatedly announced his resurrection to his disciples and stated definitely that it would occur on the third day after his death.

But Jesus now adds in consolation and blessed assurance that after he has been raised from the dead and glorified he will precede the disciples into Galilee. In other words, in Galilee where he had gathered most of that flock he will appear to them as the great Shepherd that leads his flock. The fact that this means a signal and exceptional meeting we see from the constant references to this gathering in Galilee, 16:7; Matt. 28:10, 16. The only direct mention we have of it is in 1 Cor. 15:6, to which we add Matt. 28:16, etc.

Mark 14:29

29 But Peter said to him, If also all shall be trapped, nevertheless not I! And Jesus says to him, Amen, I say to thee, that thou today, this night, before a cock crows twice, wilt deny me thrice. But he went on talking exceedingly, If I must die with thee in no way will I deny thee! And in like manner also all began to say.

Jesus warned Peter twice, first in the upper room, John 13:36, etc., and Luke 22:23, etc.; secondly on the way out to Gethsemane, Matthew and Mark. See the author’s commentary on John 13:36 on the entire question. Peter was not checked by the warning he received in the upper room. On the contrary, he is more sure of himself than ever. He openly contradicts Jesus—not all will be trapped, Peter will be the exception. Peter openly compares himself with the other disciples to his own great advantage; note the emphatic ἐγώ: “nevertheless at least not I!” He will now get his second warning, but he will disregard this just as he did the first. Εἰκαί, “if also,” is not the same as καίεἰ, “even if” or “and if.” The former treats the protasis “as a matter of indifference.

If there is a conflict, it makes no real difficulty. There is sometimes a tone of contempt in εἰκαί. The matter is belittled,” R. 1026. So it here counts for nothing as far as Peter is concerned that all are to be trapped, he is dead sure of himself as being the exception.

Mark 14:30

30 Peter is warned once more in the most impressive way with “amen,” etc., (see 3:28). Jesus no longer combines him with the others but singles him out and tells him outright about the outrageous acts that he alone will perform to his fearful disgrace. Peter will give his own grand words the lie by doing the exact opposite of what he said. He will even deny Jesus, utterly disown him, and that on no less than three separate occasions, today, yea, this very night. Peter will do this, not by implication, but with the same loud voice which he is now using and in public before even more witnesses than hear him now. The verb ἀπαρνέομαι means “to say no” and thus “to deny” and to disown.

The aorist subjunctive is volitive: “wilt (not shalt) deny me.” This word of Jesus’ is sometimes misunderstood because of the translation “shalt deny me.” Moulton says: “It could not therefore be Peter’s fault if Jesus commanded him,” R. 873. Even the predictive idea is too weak, for Peter made his denials deliberately.

The crowing of the cock is not some casual crowing of some individual cock. Two crowings were distinguished as marks of time, one near midnight, the other just before dawn. They helped to divide the night into the midnight or silent period, the period before the dawn, and the period after the dawn. Pliny calls the fourth watch (from 3 to 6) secundum gallicanum. In the present warning Jesus refers to both crowings: “before a cock crows twice,” i.e., before the day dawns. Luke and John refer only to the crowing before dawn.

The phrase is, however, not a mere expression of time but refers to the actual crowing of the cocks that night. And the word of Jesus is spoken with a special purpose in mind. It does more than merely to foretell how soon Peter will fall, it already prepares the help to raise Peter from his fall. Peter will actually hear the crowing when it begins. That will bring Jesus’ words to his mind. This together with a look from Jesus’ eyes (Luke 22:61) will cause the penitent tears to flow. The effort to discredit the evangelists by advancing the claim that no chickens were kept in a city like Jerusalem, and that thus no cocks crowed within range of Peter’s ears, has long ago been met by ample evidence to the contrary.

Mark 14:31

31 Already in the upper room Peter had declared his readiness to die with Jesus. He can, of course, now do no less. He now uses the condition of expectancy, which pictures the situation vividly so as to involve Jesus’ death and Peter’s dying with him (σύν in the verb has the associative idea R. 529). Peter again flatly contradicts Jesus: “thou wilt deny me thrice”—“in no way will I deny thee”; the future is volitive, and οὐμή is its strongest form of negation: “in no way.” Carried away by Peter’s mighty assertions and promises, the other ten spoke in the same way. Note the imperfect tenses ἐλάλει, “he went on talking exceedingly,” and ἔλεγον, “they went on to speak in the same way.” Peter’s words are given, hence we have λαλεῖν, the statement that he uttered them; the words of the ten are not given, hence we have λέγειν, which includes both the utterance and the substance of the thought. Jesus remains silent, for his object has already been attained: he has paved the way for Peter’s repentance.

Mark 14:32

32 And they come to a place of which the name is Gethsemane. And he says to his disciples, Sit down here until I pray. And he takes along Peter and James and John with himself and began to be greatly upset and worried. And he says to them, Exceeding sad is my soul unto death. Remain here and be watching!

There are various opinions about “Gethsemane.” This Hebrew word most likely means “oil press.” Some call it a Meierei, a regular farm, and speak about buildings on the place. They base this on the word χωρίον and on the strange young man mentioned in v. 51—rather slender evidence. The hints found in the Gospels give us no further information than that it was a considerable grove of olive trees, a secluded place, that had nothing further on it than what was needed to take care of olives, probably a building for tools (locked at night) and an olive press. Jesus used the place because it was so quiet and secluded. The place that is now shown to tourists as Gethsemane lies, in the writer’s opinion when he visited the place, too near the road and too close to the bottom of Olivet. Titus cut down all the trees, and though olive trees become very old, the present trees shown to tourists are of far later growth besides being on the wrong site.

A stone wall most likely encircled Gethsemane—the whole country is full of stone. A short distance inside the entrance Jesus tells his disciples to sit down while he goes on a bit farther to pray. The force of ἕως is “until,” R. 976; and the aorist προσεύξωμαι means “to make a definite prayer and to finish it,” not merely “to engage in prayer.”

Mark 14:33

33 Jesus does a strange thing: he takes three of the disciples along with him as he goes farther into the grove of olives, the same three that had been selected in a similar way on other occasions (5:37; Matt. 17:1). Peter, James, and John are to be the witnesses of his agony. As he walks with them beyond earshot of the others, his strong agitation becomes visible to them even before he speaks. Mark uses two strong verbs: “he began to be completely upset and worried.” The ἤρξατο indicates that this condition set in, and the two infinitives picture its duration. The first ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι is very strong, “to be completely upset by distress”; Matthew’s account is milder: “to be grieved, distressed with sorrow.” Both evangelists have ἀδημονεῖν, “to be away from one’s δῆμος or home,” metaphorically, mir ist unheimlich, “to be filled with uneasiness and dread.” In this pitiful condition the three disciples see Jesus as they walk on with him. His power seems to be entirely gone; he is crushed and beaten down with only one resource left: prayer to his Father.

Mark 14:34

34 The distress is so great that it breaks forth in words from Jesus’ lips. The predicate περίλυπος, “exceeding sad,” is put forward for the sake of emphasis, περί intensifies the adjective. Jesus says how sad he is: “until death,” up to the point of death itself, and we shall soon see that this phrase conveyed the actuality; Jesus was now on the very edge of death. It is his ψυχή which animates his body that is in such deep distress just as distress also takes hold of our “soul.” But we should not think that the rapid approach of physical suffering and death brought on this agony in Jesus’ soul.

Jesus orders the three disciples to stay where they are. The constative aorist imperative μείνατε goes well with the durative present imperative γρηγορεῖτε, R. 856. Their nearness and their watching are to be a slight comfort to Jesus in his distress of soul. Alas, even this little comfort was denied him, for the three slept. But the battle that Jesus fights in this hour he must of necessity fight alone. He alone must now will “to lay down his life” (John 10:17, 18), “to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28), to be made sin and a curse for us (2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13).

The imagination faints before the images thus rising up before it. Who can conceive all this abominable sin, all this damnable curse! The holy Son of God is to plunge into it all now—the great and awful moment is almost present in the approach of Judas. Shall Jesus go on, or, as his pure and holy nature recoils front the unspeakable ordeal—is there yet a way out?

Mark 14:35

35 And having gone forward a little, he began to fall upon the earth and began praying that, if it is possible, the hour pass away from him; and he went on to say, Abba, Father, all things possible to thee. Remove this cup from me! Yet not what I myself will, but what thou! And he comes and finds them sleeping and says to Peter, Simon, art thou sleeping? Thou didst not have strength to watch for one hour? Be watching and be praying lest you enter into temptation. The spirit eager, but the flesh weak.

The agony of Jesus is revealed in his attitude. Luke says that he went about a stone’s throw from the disciples and kneeled down, Mark says that he even fell down, and Matthew that he fell on his countenance, lying on the ground like a worm (Ps. 22:6). From a kneeling position he must have sunk down prone upon the ground. Never had the disciples seen him thus. The two imperfects ἔπιπτεν and προσηύχετο present a realistic description, one that most likely came directly from Peter, R. 883. The ἵνα clause is like an infinitive (R. 993) and states the substance of what Jesus was praying; a part of the actual words spoken follow.

The prayer of Jesus is conditional from the start: “if it is possible.” When he was using this condition Jesus reckoned with the impossibility. The condition is one of reality and assumes that, if such a possibility existed, the Father would use it. Back of the brief condition there lies the thought: “if it is possible to redeem the world without passing through this hour of suffering and death,” then let this hour pass by. “The hour” is often mentioned in the Gospels in statements that the enemies of Jesus cannot harm him because his hour has not yet come. It is the hour set by God for the Passion and the resurrection of his Son, the hour in which God would remove all hindrances and let the hatred of the foes of Jesus have its full sway. This hour was now fully come—a few moments, and it would be here. “To pass away from him” means that this hour of suffering, etc., pass out of his life, i.e., that no such hour occur for him.

Mark 14:36

36 On the imperfect ἔλεγε see 4:11; it bids us dwell on the words that are thus introduced. It is hard to understand how R. 29 can say that Jesus may have used both Ἀββᾶὁπατήρ as Paul does in Rom. 8:15 and, we add, in Gal. 4:6. Jesus spoke Aramaic and said only “Abba.” But it is groundless to attribute to Mark the putting into Jesus’ mouth a word he did not use. In the earliest days the Greek-speaking Christians combined the Aramaic “Abba” with its Greek translation, and “Abba Father” was used quite freely in prayers to God. That is how Paul came to use it in his two letters, and how Mark came to translate the address in his Gospel. He simply conveys to his readers the equivalent which they knew for the Aramaic that Jesus used. In an apposition to a vocative the nominative form was retained and thus also the article, R. 461.

In πάνταδυνατάσοι, “all things possible to thee,” the previous conditional clause is broadened and is used as the reason for Jesus’ request. Yet this reason should not be read abstractly, as if evil were also possible to God. The range of possibilities open to God is limited—to state it in a human way—by his nature and his attributes. Πάντα is vast, indeed, but it includes only all that God’s love, holiness, and righteousness see as possible. We are always inclined to a rationalism that draws silly and ridiculous conclusions and must be ordered out of court for this very reason.

It is thus that the prayer is justified: “Remove this cup from me!” We see that it is offered only with the proviso that such removal may be one of the possibilities open to God. The word “this cup” is, of course, figurative for its contents, but it at the same time implies that these contents are suffering and death, bitter, burning, unspeakably terrible. But Jesus adds the strong ἀλλά; however it may be regarding the possibilities involved, one thing remains for Jesus: “not what I myself will, but what thou” (wilt). All, from the beginning to the end in the life and the acts of Jesus, was the execution of the Father’s will, i.e., the will of his love (ἀγάπη) and righteousness concerning the world. All that that will appointed for Jesus, no matter what its severity, Jesus will do. The sentence is incomplete; it names only the object (τί is used for the relative, R. 737) and lets us supply the verb: “let that be done.”

Jesus submits completely to his Father; even a supposition to the contrary is wholly foreign to his soul. The true humanity of Jesus becomes evident in this prayer; it had to because all his obedience to his Father’s will, all his Passion, were by way of his human nature. Heb. 5:7 makes this still stronger by telling us that these words of prayer were uttered with “strong crying (κραυγῆςἰσχυρᾶς) and tears” and were thus also audible to the three disciples. It is the human will of Jesus that speaks.

The agony suffered in Gethsemane will always bear an element of mystery for us because of the mystery involved in the union of Christ’s two natures. For one thing, we have no conception of what sin, curse, wrath, death meant for the holy human nature of Jesus. Being sinless, he should not die; and yet, being sinless and holy, he willed to die for our sin. The death of Jesus was far different from that of the courageous martyrs; they died because Jesus’ death had removed their sin and guilt, the sting of their death was gone because of Christ’s death, but Jesus died under the sin and curse, the sting of death penetrated him with all its damnable power. The world’s sin had, indeed, been assumed by Jesus during his whole life, but here in Gethsemane the final moment of that assumption had come: with the coming of Judas and his band Jesus now actually entered upon the death that would expiate the world’s sin.

Mark 14:37

37 Intense were the prayer and the agony though the words recorded are few. Jesus returns to the three disciples whom he had bidden to keep awake with him. Any comfort that he might derive from an intelligent word or two from them is denied him. Even to this extent he had to tread the wine press alone. Their nearness is no support whatever, for they were nodding in sleep. The psychology is true: sorrow often has this dulling effect.

Jesus addresses Peter alone, but his words apply to all three disciples. Mark calls him “Peter,” but Jesus says “Simon”—he was now not showing himself as a rock. Jesus is right in singling out Simon—this mighty man who would stand true when all the rest failed, who would give up life itself for Jesus and die with him! “Art thou sleeping?” is full of pained reproach. What, sleeping in this his Lord’s critical hour! “Thou didst not have strength to watch for one hour?” Note the aorist οὐκἴσχυσας—he did not have so much strength when a little while ago he boasted of strength enough to die. The aorist γρηγορῆσαι means “to finish watching,” and “one hour” names the extent of time (accusative) during which Jesus wanted the three disciples to watch with him this night.

Mark 14:38

38 Jesus rouses them out of sleep with his call: “Be watching and be praying!” Their great need is to be awake and to be able to use their senses and to call on God to keep and to protect them in the trial that is now to come upon them. But the call proved in vain. Since the ἵναμή clause depends on both imperatives it cannot be subfinal and state the substance of their prayers but must be final and state the purpose of their watching and praying: “lest you enter into temptation,” the aorist εἰσέλθητε connoting a damaging actual entrance. Πειρασμός means a trial or test and thus “temptation.” With μέν and δέ the two members of the next sentence are neatly balanced, but the English is helpless in trying to reproduce this balance. “The spirit eager, but the flesh weak” reveals the situation exactly. All true disciples are no longer simple but decidedly complex personalities. Regeneration has produced “the spirit” in them, the new divine life; we may call it faith. This spirit is open to God and to Christ and thus full of readiness to respond to their promises and directions. Every Christian constantly has this experience in his life.

On the other hand, he still has in himself ἡσάρξ, “the flesh,” which, when it is thus placed in opposition to τὸπνεῦμα, “the spirit,” means not the body or σῶμα or any part of the substance of which the body is composed but the old, sinful nature that is still found in our being after conversion. The terms are ethical, not physical. This flesh opposes the spirit (Gal. 5:17), in fact, would like to oust the spirit and regain complete control of the personality. When Jesus says that the flesh is ἀσθενής, “weak,” “sick,” he speaks of it from the standpoint of the spirit by thinking of how both spirit and flesh act in temptation. The spirit is eager enough to endure and to overcome the temptation, but the flesh in us is weak, utterly helpless in temptation, a drag and a terrible handicap to the spirit in us. By calling on the disciples to watch and to pray Jesus seeks to rouse their spirit into full activity.

By sleeping and by giving way to sleep-producing sorrow of heart they are yielding to the flesh. So the word of Jesus warns them about this flesh; and the test of their trial is almost at hand.

The idea that Jesus refers this statement about spirit and flesh also to himself in his agony is unwarranted. No duality such as spirit and flesh ever existed in Jesus; no trace of sin ever appeared in him. His agony was not due to sinful flesh as were the sleeping and the lack of prayer in the disciples. It was the pure and holy human nature that shrank wholly, however without sin, from the ordeal, not of death as death, but of death as a curse for the world’s sin. It is a misconception to put Jesus on the level of Peter and his companions.

Mark 14:39

39 And having gone away again, he went on praying, saying the same thing. And having come again, he found them sleeping, for their eyes were weighed down, and they knew not what they should answer him.

Jesus turns from the sleeping disciples to his Father who alone is his support in this hour. But this going back and forth pictures the pitiful condition of Jesus. One runs to and fro like that when his distress is too great to be controlled. It was useless to go to the disciples, and Jesus knew it, and yet in his distress unto death he does it. We have the ingressive aorist προσηύξατο, “he began to pray,” or the mere descriptive “he was praying,” and εἰπών indicates action that is simultaneous with that of the verb but as an aorist participle refers to the one prayer that has already been made. But τὸναὐτὸνλόγον does not mean “the same words,” and Matthew, who records the words, shows a difference as far as the words are concerned. The λόγος refers to the sense or thought: “saying the same thing.” This suffices for Mark; he omits the wording.

Mark 14:40

40 The Lord’s words were in vain when he came again to the disciples on his first return. On his second return the disciples were more weighed down with sleep than ever. They could not hold their eyes open while Jesus spoke to them. In fact, they were unable to answer Jesus intelligently; ᾔδεισαν, second past perfect, is always used as an imperfect and here describes the condition, and the indirect question with τί is deliberative—when it came to what they should answer Jesus about their condition they had no excuse to make. Jesus is thus again left alone in his agony without the least support from these his three closest friends. It has been denied that this sleeping and insensibility are possible under the circumstances portrayed. But this is good psychology, for one of the pronounced effects of great depression and strain is an inner dullness of mind and the physical reaction of sleep when the soul yields to its burden and no longer rallies against it as Jesus tried to rally his disciples to watching and praying.

Mark 14:41

41 And he comes the third time and says to them: Go on sleeping for the rest and take your ease! It is enough. The hour has come. Lo, the Son of man is being betrayed into the hands of the sinners. Be rising, let us be going! He that betrays me has come near.

Mark’s account is brief and implies only that Jesus prayed a third time. It seems strange that some commentators avoid the question as to how Luke 22:43, 44 is to be combined with Matthew’s and Mark’s accounts. In connection with which of the three prayers did Jesus sweat blood and have an angel strengthen his body that was already so near to dissolution? We are satisfied with John Bugenhagen’s Passion History which places the supreme agony and the angel’s strengthening last. Then the agony ceased, and Jesus speaks to his disciples in a different tone.

He now tells these sleepers to go on sleeping and resting. In τὸλοιπόν we have simply an adverb (R. 487) which, like others when the adjectival idea encroaches, keeps the article (R. 294). Because this is an adverb, the words cannot be an exclamation: “You are still (τὸλοιπόν does not mean still) sleeping!” or a question: “Are you still sleeping?” Both imperatives are permissive (R. 948) and, of course, durative: “Go ahead and sleep for the rest of the time and take your ease!”

For sentimental reasons interpreters deny that there is a touch of irony in these words. We are told that the solemnity of the occasion forbids irony, and even the grammarian R. 948 votes that way. But the deepest sorrow of heart, when it is combined with full mental clearness, is not averse to irony. The situation is such that all readers feel the irony almost automatically, and then, thinking of the solemnity, the interpreters start to remove it in some way. But this attempt misconceives both Jesus and the true nature and purpose of irony. O these dreadful sleepers! They slept throughout their Lord’s agony! Now that agony is past. Very well, let them now go ahead and sleep and rest for the few moments that are still left.

The idea is not that Jesus lets them sleep on without disturbance. The fact that he does the contrary helps to prove the claim that his command to sleep and rest are meant ironically. Jesus makes two mighty announcements that ought to drive all trace of sleep from any disciple’s eyes. The perfective force of the compound ἀπέχει has been shown from the papyri. We translate: sufficit, “it is enough,” i.e., your sleeping; you will now wake up without any question. Ἀπέχει thus introduces the announcement: “the hour has come,” in which we have to use the perfect tense whereas the Greek is satisfied with the simple aorist to indicate an event that has occurred, R. 842, etc. “The hour” is the same as that mentioned in v. 35, that appointed by the Father for the suffering and the death of Jesus; compare Luke 22:53, “your hour and the power of darkness.”

We read so many times that the hour has not yet come for the enemies to lay hands on Jesus, but now the word rings out: “The hour came!” it is actually here. What hour is referred to is placed beyond question by the exclamation “lo” and the statement it ushers in: “the Son of man is being delivered (or betrayed, handed over) into the hands of the sinners!” On this Messianic title see 2:10: he who is man and yet more than man. The present tense παραδίδοται indicates what is now transpiring, and the agent back of the passive is Judas. Matthew omits the articles: “into sinners’ hands” and stresses the quality of the nouns: into a power of men who are opposed to God. Mark uses articles with both words and points to the specific hands (power) of these specific sinners who are set against God. So this is what is happening—the traitor’s host is already visible through the trees.

Mark 14:42

42 We see no reason for placing an interval between the call to sleep on and the announcement of the hour. So we also decline to set an interval between this announcement and the call to go to meet the traitor. We need time only for the men to come out of their sleep and to utter some surprised words to the strong, courageous, victorious Jesus now standing before them. These are masterful, bold commands: “Be rising (present, imperative), let us be going!” (present hortative subjunctive); they are like our, “Up, let us be off!”

When R. 430 says that this combination of verbs is paratactic in origin and hypotactic in logical sequence and thus lends life and movement (R. 428) he means that verbs such as this were from the start used side by side, and yet the first verb is only subordinate to the second: ἄγωμεν, “let us be going,” carries the main thought. These two imperatives and the following “lo” reveal the excitement of the tragic moment. Even these heavy-lidded sleepers could now begin to see by the approaching lights and the noise that something fearful was about to happen. The perfect tense ἤγγικε, “has come near,” has the usual connotation and is now here, namely ὁπαραδιδούςμε, “he that is engaged in betraying me,” the substantivized present participle characterizing Judas by his present action.

Mark 14:43

43 And immediately, he still speaking, there appears Judas, one of the Twelve, and in company with him a multitude with swords and clubs from the high priests and the scribes and the elders.

The eleven must have stared wide-eyed at the crowd before the entrance of Gethsemane. The only hint that Matthew and Mark give as to its composition is the mention of the weapons, μάχαιραι, “short swords,” the regular weapons of the Roman legionaries, and ξύλα, “clubs,” the regular weapons of the ὑπηρέται, “underlings” or Temple police. John adds the fact that they carried also torches and lanterns and reports the details regarding the heavy detachment sent out with Judas.

The Levitical police were under their στρατηγός or “general,” the Roman cohort, not the entire 600 stationed at Antonia but about 200 were under their chiliarch or chief commander. The Sanhedrin had sent this entire force. Their own men had failed them on a previous occasion (John 7:45, etc.), and so they now took no chances. Because of the obvious danger (Jerusalem was full of festival pilgrims) the Sanhedrists had no trouble in persuading the chiliarch to accompany the expedition and to take with him a force of legionaries that was sufficient to cope with any eventualities that might arise when they were bringing Jesus to the city as a prisoner. Yet nowhere do we meet the slightest intimation that Pilate knew of the chiliarch’s action or had ordered it; all intimations are to the contrary. See the author’s commentary on John 18:1, etc.

All four evangelists make Judas the leader of this multitude, and the synoptists call him “one of the Twelve” in this connection. The fact that this detail intends to recall v. 10 and 20 is obvious. But objection is raised to this third repetition; yet we find no canon in literature or in ethics which forbids a writer to express his horror more than once by use of the same expression. If “one of the Twelve” is tragic in v. 10 and v. 20 it has a right to be even more so in v. 43, for the traitor’s act is now actually being carried out. Mark has the full designation for the Sanhedrin and uses all three terms: “the high priests and the scribes and the elders,” see 8:31; two terms were usually considered enough, and a certain importance is intended when all three are written out.

Mark 14:44

44 Now he betraying him had given them a signal, saying, Whomever I shall kiss, he it is. Arrest him and lead him away safely. And after having come, immediately on having come to him, he says, Rabbi, and kissed him thoroughly. And they threw their hands upon him and arrested him.

About 200 Roman soldiers and certainly at least as many Temple police together with a nondescript rabble that ran along to see the excitement block the entrance to Gethsemane. Jesus meets this crowd, his disciples are ranged behind him. He is perfect master of the situation, and all that occurs does so only with his consent. Things seem to be playing into Judas’ hands, but this only seems so.

The traitor had given (δεδώκει, past perfect without augment) the leaders a signal (M.-M. 617) by which they could know without fail whom to seize and hold under arrest. “Whomever I shall kiss (φιλεῖν is used in this intensive sense, the aorist subjunctive to indicate the one act), he it is.” Judas is the author of this “signal.” A devilish refinement distinguishes it. The symbol of most intimate affection and love, the kiss, is made the signal for marking the traitor’s victim for the army of his captors. When Judas adds: “Arrest him and lead him away safely,” i.e., so that he will not escape or be rescued, we should remember that Judas wants to earn his money. He has been paid and must now deliver Jesus, not merely to these troops, but to the Sanhedrin itself.

Mark 14:45

45 We have ἐλθών to indicate the arrival at the entrance in front of the multitude and προσελθών to indicate Judas’ stepping out from the multitude and up to Jesus to give the sign agreed upon. Mark reports only the address “rabbi” from the lips of Judas; Matthew has preserved: ΢Χαῖρε, ῥαββί, “Greetings, rabbi!” Judas acts as though he is overjoyed at finding Jesus here. Although he heads this hostile multitude he pretends that he is a dear disciple. Although Mark does not draw attention to the fact, Judas says only “rabbi” just as he did in Matt. 26:25 where as in v. 23 all the others had said Κύριε, “Lord.” Jesus had ceased to be anything but an ordinary rabbi to Judas.

Without waiting for a response from Jesus, Judas κατεφίλησεναὐτόν, threw his arms around him and kissed him not once as the simplex of the verb denotes (v. 44) but showered him with kisses, the addition of κατά intensifying the verb; er kuesste ihn ab. Why R. 606 thinks that the preposition lost its force in this case he does not state. He cannot base his opinion on the way in which the verb is used, and the linguistic authorities do not support him. C.-K., too, has abkuessen. This intensive act was evidently engaged in so that the captors would be sure to see it, it was prolonged so as not to leave them in doubt as to the identity of their victim. This, Judas intended to say, see, this is the man you want!

This hypocrisy at the same time tries to convey to Jesus the idea that Judas’ heart, which is so glad to see Jesus, is breaking because of what is now to happen to him. Another motive for all this kissing is suggested, namely to close the mouth of Jesus as long as possible and thus to disarm him at this critical moment. He is not to display his strange power before this mob and thus to prevent his arrest.

Mark omits the reply of Jesus which is stated in Matt. 26:50. He does not hurl the traitor from him or use his omnipotent power to blast him then and there. Jesus submits to this traitorous kissing—it is his Father’s and his own will to accept all the indignities, shame, suffering, agony that men will heap upon him even unto death. In the traitor’s address “rabbi” there lies a hint as to how his mind must have worked when he thought that he was really deceiving Jesus up to this moment. Such things are possible in the case of evil minds, for their very hypocrisy and falseness make them reason fallaciously, especially when it comes to judging the character and the actions of the holy Jesus.

Before a move is made to arrest Jesus what John 18:4–9 records takes place: Jesus himself delivers himself into the hands of his captors. The betrayal and the signal of Judas were worth nothing; Jesus points himself out, prevents any molestation of the eleven, and actually gives himself up. His Passion was wholly voluntary.

Mark 14:46

46 It is thus that the chiliarch and possibly also the strategos of the Temple police order men forward to take Jesus prisoner. John says they bound him; yet they never touched a more willing prisoner.

Mark 14:47

47 Now there comes Peter’s rashness that, but for Jesus’ immediate intervention, might have caused a calamity indeed. But a certain one of those standing by, having drawn the sword, struck the slave of the high priest and slashed off his ear.

Luke 22:38 tells us that two μάχαιραι, Roman short swords, were in the hands of the disciples, and we are not surprised to learn that Peter had one of them. When the move is made to take Jesus prisoner, out flashes Peter’s sword. Luke 22:49 tells us that about at the same moment the other disciples asked whether they should smite with the sword—like Peter. He delivers his blow at the first man before him, the slave of the high priest, intending to split his head open; but the man evidently dodged, and the sword sheared off his right ear, being stopped by the heavy armor on the shoulder.

We must reckon with the excitement of the moment. Then we should not overlook what Mark omits, the tumbling over of the entire armed force at one word of Jesus, which must have made the disciples and Peter feel that, though they were armed with only two swords, they might rout this entire opposing host. Had Peter not protested his readiness to lay down his life for Jesus; and had not the others, stimulated by Peter, done the same? So Peter is now redeeming his word. Jesus is to see that he meant it. But Peter and the disciples act as though Jesus were not laying down his life by his own deliberate act and at the same time commanding his captors to let his disciples go free.

Was this not a command also to them to go their way and to let Jesus submit to arrest? Peter acts as though Jesus meant none of the things he said. His love does not listen and obey, it assumes to dictate and to rule.

It is rather remarkable that none of the synoptists mentions the name of Peter or that of Malchus in connection with this incident; it is John who mentions both, and by naming Malchus he shows how well he was acquainted with the high priest’s family. The usual explanation is that the synoptists withheld the names just as they withheld Mary’s name in v. 3, etc., in consideration of the Sanhedrin’s power, which was still great when the synoptists wrote, and of Jewish hatred in general, which might still try to injure them. But Peter was a public character because he was an apostle, and he died in the year 64, certainly before Luke wrote. And who would persecute Malchus, the high priest’s slave? We do not read that he was converted.

This man, “the slave of the high priest,” as the article indicates, is in a class by himself. He is not one of the ὑπηρέται or police force, he belongs to Caiaphas himself. He must have been a trusted and important member of the high priest’s household who had been sent with this expedition as the high priest’s personal representative to see and to report everything to his master. That explains why he is out in front under Peter’s sword. The aorist ἀφεῖλε is from ἀφαιρέω and means “to take off from,” and ὠτίον has lost its diminutive force. Mark says nothing about how Jesus undid Peter’s act and healed the ear of Malchus.

Mark 14:48

48 And Jesus answered and said unto them, As upon a robber did you come out to seize me? Day by day I was with you in the Temple teaching, and you did not arrest me; but in order that the Scriptures may be fulfilled. And having left him, all fled.

All the synoptists record the protest of Jesus against his arrest and against the manner in which it was made. Matthew says that he spoke “in that hour,” i.e., right there at the time and not later on. Luke adds that high priests, commanders of the Temple, and elders were present. We may assume that the high priests and the elders followed the host because they were exceedingly anxious to find out whether the effort to arrest Jesus would succeed. We should bear in mind that these were present when Mark writes that Jesus “answered” them. Ἀποκριθείς is often used in a wide sense, not merely regarding an answer to a question, but regarding a response to a situation that requires some statement. The words of the captive, whose hands are bound with a rope, who is apparently utterly helpless, are calm and measured without a trace of excitement; but they are keen and cutting for these leaders who now gloat over their capture.

Jesus asks them just what they have done—as against a robber, from whom the most violent resistance had to be expected, they went out with a great expedition, armed “with short swords and clubs” as if expecting a regular battle—and all this, Jesus asks, “to seize me”? The whole thing is actually ridiculous.

Mark 14:49

49 Why, “from day to day” (κατά is distributive) I was face to face (πρός) with you, engaged in public teaching (durative present participle διδάσκων), and you never made a move to arrest me. And now all this violent demonstration, this host of legionaries and of Temple police! Jesus, the harmless Teacher, is not responsible for this arrest and for such an arrest; he has given no cause whatever for this procedure. They, the vicious haters, the treacherous plotters, the fear-filled leaders have perpetrated this action. If there were any real cause for arresting Jesus, why had they failed to act with dignity when they had the easiest opportunity day after day? Jesus had not hidden from the authorities—he had no cause to hide.

He had none now, nor had he hidden; on the contrary, he had handed himself over to them the moment they said they wanted him. A man whom they permitted to sit and teach publicly and frequently in the Temple they now come to arrest with a large group. This protest of Jesus’ is, of course, useless; and yet no proper protest is useless although men may disregard it, for it registers the truth, and the truth stands forever.

Nor are these men to think that with their superior cunning in hiring a traitor and with their crush of arms they have really captured Jesus. Not a bit of it. They could and would have captured nothing. “But in order that the Scriptures may be fulfilled” is a case of ellipsis, breviloquence, as R. 1203 calls it, or brachylogy. After “but” supply “this came to pass” (see Matthew); and the aorist πληρωθῶσιν expresses the actuality of the completed act. These are the real forces at work in what is taking place this night: God is carrying out his prophetic plans, therefore Jesus is voluntarily putting himself into his captors’ hands. That and that alone is the reason this group is scoring such a great victory against a single humble and defenseless man! But let these victors think of the part they are playing in God’s plan as recorded in the Scriptures.

Mark 14:50

50 Verse 27 is now fulfilled. As Jesus was led away, the eleven disciples fled, even Peter, the hero. Although ἀφέντες is a participle and thus intends to state the minor action, which is subordinate to ἔφυγον, it nevertheless conveys the sadder touch. They all had to leave him, think of it, leave him in order to flee! And so entirely alone he was led away to his death.

Mark 14:51

51 And a certain young man started to follow him, having cast around him a linen cloth on his naked body. And they start to arrest him, but he, having abandoned the linen cloth, fled naked.

Mark alone has recorded this little incident. On this fact the argument is based for determining who this unnamed νεανίσκος (about 20 years old) is. This little episode is inserted here as having something of personal interest to the writer. Why would he be so interested as to record this little incident? We are told that this was due to the fact that this unnamed young man was Mark himself. And once this conclusion is reached, many further embellishments follow until an interesting “news story” is built up. Zahn, for instance, says that in an obscure corner the painter Mark works in his own signature—yet this is no obscure corner but a rather prominent place!

Jesus is thought to have celebrated the Passover in the house of Mark’s parents. Mark is thought to have been present at this Passover and at the Lord’s Supper. After Jesus and the disciples went to Gethsemane, Mark retired. Soon Judas and his army came to the house, looking for Jesus who had already left. Mark grew suspicious, threw a sindon, a linen sheet, around his naked body (ἐπὶγυμνοῦ, sc. σώματος since γυμνοῦ without the article cannot be the substantivized adjective), and followed the crowd out to Gethsemane.

This story is an attempt to supply the name that the evangelist wanted omitted. With the exception of the young man and his linen sheet the story contains no established fact. As we have already pointed out in the account of the Lord’s Supper, we object to the presence of Mark or of anyone else besides the Twelve and Jesus at the Passover and the Lord’s Supper. If Mark had been present and had heard all that Jesus said he would certainly not have gone to bed. If Judas and his army had then routed him out of bed, he would certainly have thrown his outer robe around him and not merely a sheet in order to follow all those men.

The improbabilities begin with the assumption that Mark’s parents had a house in Jerusalem at this time, and that, if they had, Jesus selected it for the celebration on this night. The tendency to guess has produced other results: this was Saul or James the just or the apostle John. The sheet has led some to think of a young man who was roused out of sleep in the house in the garden or in a house close by.

The strange thing is that an effort should be made to arrest him (κρατοῦσιν, present, start to do so, the following aorist reporting the outcome). The persons who proceeded to do this were the soldiers or the Temple police. They had let the eleven go without attempting anything. Various people must have tagged on behind the armed forces as they left the city and as they were going back. Why, then, should this young man be selected for capture? Having a sheet around him did not mark him as being a disciple of Jesus. So little is it necessary for Mark himself to have been this young man in order to know about this incident that all he needed was Peter’s account since Peter and John did not flee far but kept quite close to the mob and thus witnessed this affair with the young man.

No one knows who this young man was. Mark withheld his name, and we shall have to be content. This incident is not meaningless, for it shows the temper of these captors of Jesus. Note the point of contrast: in v. 50 the eleven flee unmolested since Jesus had given orders that they be let go; but in v. 51, with apparently no provocation whatever, the attempt is made to arrest this young man who began to follow Jesus. All we can safely surmise is that the young man betrayed his interest in Jesus by this following and thus showed himself as a disciple and thereby provoked the effort to effect his arrest. This places the fact that at the command of Jesus the eleven were allowed to flee into the greatest contrast.

Mark 14:52

52 Catching at him when he started to run, the men got hold only of the loose sheet around him. This let go, and he escaped (the aorist ἔφυγε is often used in this sense). The sheet is thus mentioned, not to explain about his being roused out of bed, but about his being able to escape. I am afraid that γυμνός, like ἐπὶγυμνοῦ, means “naked,” quite naked, and not “clad only with a χιτών or tunic”; for the effort to prove that a person so clothed is called “naked” has not been successful. We should not be influenced by our ideas of propriety in these matters since at that time other ideas prevailed in the Orient. Even in the case of this young man v. 27 was fulfilled.

Mark 14:53

53 And they led Jesus away to the high priest. And there come together with him all the high priests and the elders and the scribes.

Mark, like Matthew, omits the preliminary judicial examination before Annas, John 18:19, and takes us at once to the Sanhedrin and the main trial. Mark says “to the high priest,” Matthew names him, “Caiaphas.” When the news came that they were really bringing Jesus in as a prisoner, Caiaphas knew that no delay was advisable or even safe. Messengers flew through the dark streets to summon at least a legal quorum for a session of the Sanhedrin. This body was ready for action after Annas had detained Jesus for a while. According to Mark the Sanhedrists file in together with Jesus when the trial is to begin. The session must have been held in the same hall that is mentioned in v. 1; the episode of Peter’s denial shows that the Sanhedrin could not have met in the open inner court of the palace but must have met in a hall in the building proper.

Mark again (v. 43) mentions all three groups that composed the Sanhedrin. The order in which the groups are listed varies, compare 8:31; 14:43; and our passage, and see 8:31 for the explanation of the groups. The legal restrictions which forbade trials at night were summarily set aside in the case of Jesus. Modern Jews exert all possible effort to discredit the evidence of the evangelists on this vital point and declare outright that this trial never took place. But the evidence of the four Gospels, Acts, etc., forms a bulwark that it is impossible for modern Jewish bold assertion to overthrow. The leaders who deliberately plotted to murder Jesus were not the men to balk at a technicality of legal procedure when they finally held their victim in their grasp.

Mark 14:54

54 And Peter followed him from afar until inside in the court of the high priest, and he was sitting together with the underlings and warming himself near the light.

This is a parenthetical statement which is inserted here in preparation for v. 66, etc. All the disciples fled when Jesus was made a prisoner in Gethsemane. But two, Peter and John, recovered sufficiently to follow Jesus from a distance and kept themselves out of sight. Love drew them, fear held them at a distance. Mark uses the aorist ἠκολούθησεν which states the fact and follows this with the periphrastic imperfect ἧνσυγκαθήμενοςκαὶθερμαινόμενος which describes Peter as he sat among the men and warmed himself. How Peter, who was following Jesus from afar, could finally get “till inside in the courtyard of the high priest” is not explained by Mark who is content with the simple fact.

It was John, who was known to the high priest’s family and thus had no trouble getting in, who spoke to the woman doorkeeper and thus helped Peter to get in. The entrance was through a passageway which had a doorkeeper at the street end of it. After Jesus had been led in, the Roman soldiers marched off to their barracks, and a sufficient number of the Temple police went into the court to be at the call of their superiors.

These are called ὑπηρέτσι, originally under-rowers in a galley and then in general any menials who are under a superior, here “underlings” in the sense of the Temple police who were composed of Levites; “servants” in the A. V. is colorless, and “officers” in the R. V. is incorrect since it denotes too high a position. Peter hypocritically pretended to be one of these common fellows as he sat among them and warmed himself (direct middle, R. 807) at or near (R. 625 on πρὸς) the light, i.e., that made by the charcoal fire (John 18:18). Matthew tells us that Peter was waiting to see what the outcome with regard to Jesus would be—just as if Jesus had not told him most exactly what this would be. We always invent good reasons for doing what we ought not to do.

The entire proceeding of Peter was wrong when he entered and then acted a part; and when in John 18:16 John relates his part in enabling Peter to come in he does it as confessing his own wrong in the matter. John speaks about Peter’s standing by the fire, Mark of his sitting; both are, no doubt, true, he stood when he could not sit. The imperfects (ἦν with the two participles) intimate that something definite is presently to follow.

Mark 14:55

55 Mark proceeds with the essentials of the night trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin. Now the high priests and the whole Sanhedrin were seeking witness against Jesus for putting him to death; and they were not finding it. For many were witnessing falsely against him, and their witnessings were not the same.

“The high priests” are the leaders of the supreme Jewish court: Caiaphas, its president, Annas, his father-in-law, and others of the relationship; and τὸσυνέδριον (from ἕδρα, “seat”) is the body as such. The body proper is not only present at this night trial, it is present in full force with very few absentees; note “all” in v. 53 and “the whole Sanhedrin” in the present statement. It is rather unwarranted for Edersheim and others to assert that this was not an assembly of the Sanhedrin as such but of only a few of its violent members. All the evangelists record the opposite. The imperfect ἐζήτουν states that they kept seeking false witness, and the following imperfects through to v. 59 continue this description of vain effort. All these imperfects hold the reader in suspense as to what the outcome will be, which then starts with the aorist ἐπηρώτησε in v. 60 and goes on with εἶπε in v. 62. The tenses are carefully chosen and add much to the sense.

When the Sanhedrin was in judicial session it sat on a raised platform in a semicircle with the prisoner under guard facing the judges from the floor. Like Matthew, Mark strikes the center of the whole illegal action of this court when he pictures those at its head as “seeking false witness against Jesus for putting him to death” (εἰςτό with the aorist infinitive denotes purpose and the aorist actual death). The enormity of the action against Jesus appears when we recall that, first of all, the Jewish law required an indictment and then only on the strength of that indictment the arrest. The trial then began with that indictment and with the testimony on which the indictment had been issued. But here there was a prisoner against whom no indictment had been found, and no witnesses had been heard in order to arrive at an indictment. He had been arrested in an illegal and a most highhanded way, and as he faces his judges for trial, no crime has been charged against him. And so, unindicted, illegally arrested, he stands at this illegal hour before this illegally convened court.

The situation is legally frightful. Any number of the judges should have risen up and protested against such outrageous proceedings. It casts a black moral pall on all Judaism that such a session of the Sanhedrin should have been possible. This is why Jews today make the utmost effort to manipulate the sources so as to remove this stigma. But the Sanhedrin had already drawn far more than a mere legal indictment; without witnesses, indictment, or anything else it had decreed its victim’s death (v. 1). Those who could decree that death would certainly not be squeamish about the means (“craft” in v. 1).

Yet it is an old observation that the most villainous judges still cling to a show of legal formalities. So the Sanhedrin here acts as if it is conducting a real trial, and it brings in witnesses as if an indictment had been duly lodged, and proceeds as if an actual crime were to be established by proof that is sufficient for a verdict of no less than death. But the whole farce goes to pieces: “they were not finding it,” this perjured witness, no matter how they sought it.

Mark 14:56

56 They, no doubt, thought that it would be easy to pile up testimony against Jesus. And, in fact, we are shown “many witnessing falsely against Jesus.” Man after man is brought in, but the witnessings of no two, to say nothing of three, were ἴσαι, “the same,” “equal,” in proper accord, so as to support something fatal against Jesus. He lived and taught openly, thousands saw and heard him even this very week, and now nothing criminal can be proved against him even by perjured witnesses. Many of the ὑπηρέται probably volunteered testimony to curry favor with these leaders or on promise of good pay—remember the money given to Judas. But it was all in vain. Not so was Jesus to be rushed to his death. The imperfects leave the situation in the air.

Mark 14:57

57 And some, having stood up, went on testifying falsely against him, saying, We ourselves did hear him saying, I myself will destroy this Sanctuary built with hands, and after three days I will build another without hands. And not even so was their witness the same.

Matthew tells us that these were two witnesses. Mark keeps the imperfect tenses when telling of them and still leaves everything in suspense. We may well imagine collusion between the two since they go back so far in what they say they heard. They, of course, testified singly, one stepping into the hall after the other.

Mark 14:58

58 Mark’s version of their testimony is a little fuller than Matthew’s by preserving especially the verbal adjectives “made with hands” and “not made with hands,” the former being added by a second article and thus made emphatic (R. 776) as a special point in the testimony. The two claim to quote what Jesus said about three years ago when he first cleansed the Temple, John 2:19. Note the two decidedly emphatic pronouns ἡμεῖς and ἐγώ, which we try to reproduce by “we ourselves” and “I myself.”

A glance shows that Jesus never said what these witnesses allege; they garble his words badly with malicious intent. He never said, “I will destroy this Sanctuary.” He spoke of the Jews’ destroying their own Sanctuary; see the author’s commentary on John 2:19. He never spoke the two verbal adjectives. But, of course, the falseness would not have saved Jesus—who was willing to testify to the truth of what he said? Note that ναός is the central building in the Temple area which contains the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place; the ἱερόν (usually translated “Temple”) is the entire Temple complex with its courts as well as its structures. The phrase with διά denotes an interval, here of time: “through three days,” although διά does not mean “after,” R. 581.

Mark 14:59

59 What saved Jesus was the fact that “even so,” with these two witnesses testifying as indicated, their witness was not ἴση, “the same,” “equal” the one to the other. The version of the one witness disagreed with the version of the other. Just how they disagreed is not recorded; but when two testify that they personally heard the accused say a certain thing they dare not differ in any vital point in what they claim to have heard. Even with collusion it was a mighty difficult thing to have two witnesses testify so that at least legally their testimony against Jesus would stand.

Mark 14:60

60 And the high priest, having stood up in the midst, inquired of Jesus, saying, Dost thou not answer a thing? What are these witnessing against thee? But he continued silent and did not answer a thing.

Here was the great Sanhedrin which finally had Jesus in its power, and all its efforts to fasten something criminal upon him proved abortive. The situation as it is painted by the imperfects from v. 55 onward had actually grown desperate. Although the Sanhedrin had resolved that Jesus must die and die quickly, it seemed as if for lack of indictment and proper testimony the case would have to be adjourned.

It is Caiaphas who leaps up and saves the situation. And we therefore have the aorist ἐπηρώτησε, “he inquired.” Gravely sitting cross-legged on their platform, the Sanhedrists watched the futile proceedings. From his place as chairman Caiaphas now springs up “in the midst” and, thus confronting Jesus, puts on his actor’s stunt. He is so outraged and indignant at what the two witnesses have just testified about the Sanctuary that he cannot wait for the finding on the competency of this testimony. He acts as if it were a closed matter; he would sweep all the rest off their feet to make the same assumption. Regular legal procedure has led to nothing. Caiaphas will try something else.

He turns on Jesus, and his display of passion is such that the grammarians ask whether the τί clause is a direct and thus separate question or indirect and a part of the first question (R. 738). Such incriminating testimony, and not a word of reply from thee? Note the measured use of οὐ and οὐδέν in the first question: Οὐκἀποκρίνῃοὐδέν; and again in v. 61: καὶοὐκἀπεκρίνατοοὐδέν (R. 1158); the use of οὐ may also indicate indignation in the question (R. 917), at least in both cases οὐδέν is decidedly emphatic: “not a thing!” The object of Caiaphas is transparent: he would rush Jesus into some explanation that may be twisted into corroboration of the perverted testimony of the last two witnesses. He thus snatched the right to pass on the legitimacy of that testimony from the Sanhedrin. His dramatics turn all eyes on Jesus.

Mark 14:61

61 Calmly, undisturbed in any way, Jesus looks on Caiaphas with clear eyes. The silence grows more and more intense. Jesus stands, looks at the hypocrite, and utters never a word. Ἐσιώπα, “he continued silent,” is a dramatic, descriptive imperfect. And it gradually dawns on the Sanhedrin that this significant silence is the actual answer of Jesus to the hollow questions of the excited high priest—an answer that is more full of meaning and more crushing than any words could have been. That answer went home. The evangelists always use as few words as possible; but Mark repeats by adding: “and he did not answer a thing,” and thus emphasizes and brings to his readers’ attention the full weight of this silence.

Even Caiaphas does not take it as a silent admission of guilt on Jesus’ part. He would lose out completely before the Sanhedrists if he did.

What did this silence actually say? Opinions differ as men are able to visualize the scene. These points are certain. The Sanhedrin had not as yet admitted the false and conflicting testimony as being competent. Until that was the case any reply on the part of Jesus would be disorderly just as were the interference and the show of acting on Caiaphas’ part. To testimony of this kind, however Caiaphas might play it up, the only competent reply on the part of Jesus was—absolute silence.

Innocence and dignity could make no other reply. This was then a loud silence that actually spoke volumes. As it grew and grew in the ears of all those present it fairly shouted that the whole proceeding plus this last act of Caiaphas’ were absolutely illegal—and no more upsetting conviction could be borne in upon this travesty of a just court. We need add no more.

That this was, indeed, the significance of Jesus’ silence is shown by the sudden abandonment of the testimony of the last two witnesses and by the new turn to which Caiaphas resorts. Again the high priest went on to inquire of him and says to him, Thou, art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? “Again” means that Caiaphas made a new start. The aorist ἐπηρώτησε used in v. 60 brought the preceding line of imperfects to an issue and an end. With that aorist there went the second used in v. 61, ἀπεκρίνατο. Now the imperfect ἐπηρώτα introduces the new effort which is promptly brought to an end by the aorist εἶπε occurring in v. 62.

Caiaphas, feeling the full force of Jesus’ silence, aims to counteract the effect of that silence. He acts with instant promptness. The one and real matter on account of which the Sanhedrists wanted Jesus out of the way was not some individual act of his or some one word that caused offense but his great claim that he was the promised Messiah, the Son of God, “of the Blessed,” i.e., the Blessed in the supreme sense, κατʼ ἐξοχήν, a standard Hebrew designation for God. The odd feature is that Mark, who is writing for Gentile Christians, should preserve this Hebrew term and not Matthew, who is writing for Hebrew Christians; but Mark loves to preserve Hebrew expressions, cf., 5:41 and 7:11.

Caiaphas sees how flimsy all the testimony of the many witnesses was, how futile also the last two efforts at testimony; there was no hope in that direction. So he boldly and in the most dramatic way presents the main and real issue full and square. We cannot agree with those who think that Caiaphas still has in mind the testimony of the last two witnesses and is making the deduction that, if Jesus claims he will replace the Sanctuary, he must claim to be “the Christ,” yea, to be “the Son of the Blessed” with omnipotent power. By no such round-about deduction does Caiaphas come to this question. Unscrupulous type of man that he is, he leaps directly and by no devious route at the main issue. We see him doing the very same thing in John 11:49, 50.

The testimony of the two witnesses, even if it is accepted by the Sanhedrin, which was not yet the case, could hardly lead to what Caiaphas really wanted. So he makes his bold new stroke.

Mark omits the adjuration by which Caiaphas as the head of the Sanhedrin put Jesus under oath before this high court; he is content with the question that Jesus is to answer under oath. Σύ is emphatic, which we try to reproduce by doubling: “Thou, art thou,” etc. Back of this term which is used by Caiaphas: ὁυἱὸςτοῦεὐλοφητοῦ, there lies the whole history of Jesus. There is the Baptist’s word: “This is the Son of God,” John 1:34; Nathanael’s word: “Thou art the Son of God,” John 1:49; the Jewish realization that Jesus said, “God is his Father, making himself equal with God,” John 5:18; “I and my Father are one,” and the effort to stone Jesus “because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God,” John 10:30, 33. Throughout his teaching Jesus had spoken of his Father and his Sender in the most unmistakable way, cf., John 5:19–47; 8:16–19, 53, 58.

The supreme objection to Jesus on the part of all the Jewish leaders was his claim to be “the Son of God.” With this went his claim that he was “the Christ,” the promised Messiah. Jesus avoided this title because of its political and nationalistic implications in the minds of the Jews, but this never implied that he repudiated the title, John 4:25, 26. In the mind of Jesus the two were a unit: he, the Son of God, was the Messiah. No less a person could be the Messiah. All his miracles (John 10:37–39) and his speaking as no man ever spoke (John 7:46) attested his Sonship and Messiahship.

The claim that

Caiaphas did not understand “the Son of the Blessed” metaphysically in the sense of deity is refuted by the story of the Gospels in which this is the very point on which the issue with the Jewish leaders turns (John 5:18; 10:30, 33; and other passages in plenty). If Jesus were to claim sonship in some other sense, this would in no way be objectionable or criminal to Jewish minds. Modernism claims that “the Son of God” meant nothing more than “Messiah” to the Jewish mind, i.e., that “the Son of God” was nothing but a current “Jewish category of thought” for “the Messiah,” a form of expression, and thus never, meant anything like deity—this matter of deity being only a later Christian notion that was not derived from Jesus at all. By means of this “thought formula” the modernists would eliminate the deity of Jesus from the sacred pages. But the simple Gospel facts answer this modernistic claim. Caiaphas himself calls it open blasphemy when Jesus declares himself to be “the Christ, the Son of the Blessed.” If the Son of the Blessed were only a thought formula for the Christ, blasphemy would be shut out; Caiaphas could have called Jesus only a fanatic or a lying pretender.

But where in the Gospels do the modernists find that the Jews currently called the Messiah the Son of God; or where did those who came to Jesus for help denominate him the Son of God? Absolutely nowhere. They call him “the son of David” as in 10:48 and in Matt. 21:9 when the enthusiasm was at its highest; compare Matt. 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30, 31. Only the demons use the expression “the Son of God,” Mark 3:11; 5:7; and other instances. The modernistic claim that the Jews used “the Son of God” as a current expression for “the Messiah” is a dogmatical assertion without one particle of evidence to support it.

Mark 14:62

62 But Jesus said, I am! And you shall see the Son of man sitting at the right of the power and coming with the clouds of the heaven.

Jesus breaks his silence. By his silence he branded as false the lies of suborned witnesses. But now, when the demand is made that he tell the truth, namely the great truth concerning his office (“Christ”) and his person (“the Son of the Blessed”), silence would be a wrong answer, and therefore Jesus speaks. Matthew gives his answer as: Σὺεἶπας, “thou didst say”; Mark as Ἐγώεἰμι. Jesus either said both: “Thy declaration is true, I am indeed the Christ,” etc.; or Mark states the sense of Matthew’s word, namely that Jesus accepted the high priest’s oath and affirmed the question asked. The assertion is often made that Jesus never called himself “the Son of God”—as if, being that, he would have to affirm it constantly in so many words. But at this supreme time of his life, on demand of the highest judicial and religious authority of the Jews, Jesus swears that he is no less.

But it is not enough to stop with this sworn affirmation. Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin will, of course, reject that. They will consider it the most criminal blasphemy, but they themselves shall with their own eyes see that what Jesus swears concerning himself is true. Some jump to the conclusion that Jesus here speaks of his Parousia and says that at the end of the world these Sanhedrists, too, shall see him enthroned in power and glory. But this view is obviated by ἀπʼ ἄρτι, “from now on,” which Matt. 26:64 has preserved. From now on, namely from the death of Jesus on, which the Sanhedrin is bound to effect and which will usher Jesus into glory, these Sanhedrists, too, shall see his glorification; ὄψεσθε is futuristic and prophetic.

In the miracles that occurred at the time of his death they shall begin to see, in his resurrection likewise, and thus onward in every manifestation of his power, including especially also the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish nation. But ὄψεσθε refers to neither physical nor spiritual seeing but to experimental perception. It is like the seeing that is mentioned in John 1:51 but without the faith that is there indicated.

Jesus calls himself “the Son of man” (see 2:10) because his glorious enthronement refers to his human nature, this as being joined to the divine. It is his great self-chosen Messianic title which always points to both of his natures: he who is man and yet more than man. “The right of the power” names the power instead of the all-powerful God himself; yet the genitive is not possessive: the right hand that belongs to the power; but appositional: the right hand that is the power. With ἐκ the Greek looks to God “from” whom the right hand extends; and he uses the idiomatic plural for “the right (hand)” as if this right were composed of parts.

To sit at the right hand of power is to exercise the power of this hand; and this invariably refers to the human nature of Jesus. This is the nature that was glorified at the resurrection and ascended visibly into heaven. That nature appeared before the Sanhedrin in deepest humiliation, and this body could not conceive that all this lowliness would in a little while give way to divine glory. Without indicating this, Jesus uses Ps. 110, the very psalm with which he had silenced the Pharisees on Tuesday, 12:35, etc. Some displays of divine power the humble Jesus had made during his ministry (the last, John 18:4–6; Luke 22:51); but these would be nothing compared with the everlasting operation of his power by his human nature in glory.

“And coming with the clouds of the heaven” together with “the Son of man” are a reference to Dan. 7:13, whence also this title is derived by Jesus. “The clouds” do not refer only to the majesty and greatness of Jesus. As they do in the original passage in Daniel and then also in Matt. 24:30 and Rev. 1:7, the clouds symbolize the divine judgment. The Sanhedrists shall soon have their obdurate shell pierced, they shall see Jesus ruling in divine power and majesty and thus coming to judgment in divine glory. Event after event shall drive this conviction home to their wicked hearts, no matter how strongly they resist.

This helps to answer the question which is often asked as to why Jesus added this word regarding his rule and judgment. He is not threatening these human judges of his by his divine judgment (1 Pet. 2:23). On the other hand, this is not a declaration of grace and forgiveness. Jesus adds this statement in order to impress upon his judges the consciousness as to just whom they are about to condemn unto death. He is defining for them who “the Christ, the Son of the Blessed,” is: he whom they themselves will come to see in his divine power, rule, and majesty. At this supreme moment and before this supreme court of his nation Jesus must under oath make a full and complete and not merely an abbreviated statement of the full realities concerning his office and his person.

We note incidentally that in giving an answer to the Sanhedrin (as well as in taking an oath) Jesus submits to this human governmental authority although he was no less a person than the Son of God. He submits as a man. He does this even though this governmental agency is abusing its authority and its power in the most flagrant way. No word or act of Jesus’ can be cited in support of rebellion against unjust and tyrannical government; his example is entirely to the contrary.

63, 64) But the high priest, having rent his tunics, says: What further need have we of witnesses? You heard the blasphemy. What appears to you? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

Caiaphas finally has exactly what he wants, and he makes the most of it. His dramatics are hypocritical and histrionic and are intended to sweep the whole Sanhedrin along past all the legal requirements of trials to the one goal, on which he knows all are set, the condemning of Jesus unto death. Some think that Caiaphas was sincere or at least partly sincere in being shocked at what he supposed was actually blasphemy. But a Sadducee who deliberately plotted the judicial murder of Jesus was past any shocks in regard to God or regarding how men spoke of God. So instead of submitting the sworn statement of Jesus to the court for its judicial decision, as the law required, Caiaphas himself makes that decision. In great excitement he shouts as one who can hardly believe his ears, “He blasphemed!” (Matthew), and then, suiting the action to the word, he in the Jewish fashion rent his χιτῶνας or tunics, Matthew says the ἱμάτια, outer robes, in symbolism of outraged feeling. The inner or the outer garments and sometimes both, as seems to have been the case here, were gripped at the neck by both hands and were with a jerk torn in a rent about the width of a man’s hand down over the chest and exposing it so that all could see that something terrible had happened.

The assertion that the high priest dared not rend his garments is due to a superficial reading of the Scriptures; Lev. 10:6 and 21:10 forbid this only in connection with the dead; and in 1 Macc. 11:71 we read of a high priest’s rending his clothes. This custom was followed by Greeks, Romans, and barbarians as well as by Jews. The latter were expected to rend their garments on hearing blasphemy, all except the witnesses. We should not suppose that the high priest wore his official robes and rent these; the Romans kept these robes locked up and passed them out only at the time of the three great festivals, and the high priest wore these robes only on those three occasions. Painters have disregarded this in depicting the Passion scenes. As far as Caiaphas is concerned, the blasphemy is beyond question, and it is of such an awful kind that it suits his purpose exactly, for the penalty of death was attached to this crime, Lev. 24:16, and death was what Caiaphas wanted for Jesus, summary death.

With one sweep he brushes aside the long proceedings in trying to secure false testimony: “What further need have we of witnesses? You heard the blasphemy!” an aorist whereas the English would have the perfect to indicate something that has just happened, R. 842, etc. Matthew has the accusative, Mark the genitive of the thing heard; the latter can be used where the sense is referred to though this is not stressed, R. 506 (bottom), etc. With his quick turn Caiaphas gets rid of all the ineffectual testimony and inadvertently exposes the hollowness of his previous demand that Jesus make reply to these witnesses. As far as Caiaphas was concerned, Jesus had condemned himself; the whole case is settled here and now.

So he demands a verdict from the Sanhedrin on the instant: Τίὑμῖνφαίνεται; not, as it is in Matthew: “What do you think?” but, Was liegt fuer euch zu tage? we may say: “What is evident to you?” which is in substance, of course, the same as Matthew’s version. We see incidentally that both translate the Aramaic used by Caiaphas independently. According to Jewish legal procedure in capital cases the verdict could be passed only at a second session of the court that was convened on another day and never on the same day. Then the verdict had to be taken in a fixed, formal way: two scribes recorded the votes which had to be written out, the one scribe tabulating the votes for acquittal, the other those reading guilty.

All these legal safeguards, which had been established in the interest of justice, were summarily overthrown. Yet not a single voice was raised in question, to say nothing of protest. The hatred of Jesus, which focused in the passionate demand of Caiaphas, carries away every judge present. “They all” without a single exception by a viva voce vote then and there condemned “him to be guilty of death.” No reflection, no careful consideration is needed—all that had, of course, been attended to when the plot for the judicial murder of Jesus had been definitely laid. Mark has recorded the verdict in indirect discourse (accusative with the infinitive), Matthew in direct discourse.

Mark 14:65

65 What follows is an outrage that is so beastly and brutal as to be almost incredible. And some began to spit on him and to cover his countenance and to hit him with fists and to say, Prophesy! And the underlings received him with blows in the face.

The Sanhedrists, the supreme judges of the nation in whom all the dignity and the honor of the nation should be vested, show their real inner nature; they are rowdies of the worst sort. The proud Sadducees, the aristocrats of the Sanhedrin and the nation, display what they really are: low-down rabble of the coarsest type. After they have shouted their illegal verdict and have definitely repudiated any reverence for God and his laws they lose even common human decency. They leap to their feet and crowd around the lone bound prisoner. We now get to see what is in the hearts of these men who pretend to try Jesus.

Mark writes that “some” mocked Jesus, i.e., not all. But it would be a mistake to think that some were better than others. No one present objected, hence all gave consent. All did not abuse Jesus because they were too many (when all were present, the court numbered 71; some, it seems, were absent this night) to get at Jesus. Mark writes ἤρξαντο, “they began,” and then follows this with four durative infinitives. What began thus continued on and on. “To spit on him” means into his face (Matthew), and this is the climax of personal insult. By this they show what they think of “the Son of the Blessed” who is about to sit at the right hand of power and to come with the clouds of the heaven. They cannot act vile enough toward him.

And now comes the most cowardly brutality: somebody conceived the brilliant idea of mocking the prophetic claims of Jesus. They threw a cloth over his head so that he could not see, and then fist-blow after fist-blow rained on his holy face until these brutes tired of their Satanic fun. And all the while they yelled: “Prophesy!” and Matthew adds: “Who it is that struck thee?” but not as some interpret Matthew: “Prophesy what shall happen to this and that man that struck thee.” The whole exhibition is that of savages. Ribald laughter, no doubt, accompanied this supposed joke on this Christ and on the idea of his being a prophet.

The Sanhedrists finally tired of their abuse of Jesus, and the high priest turned him over to the ὑπηρέται, “the underlings” or police Temple guard, in whose keeping Jesus was to remain until he was again required by the authorities. These fellows received Jesus “with fisticuffs” (ῥαπίσμασιν always has this sense in the New Testament and does not mean blows with rods, R. V. margin). They followed the noble example of their superiors. The condition of Jesus after this ordeal is easier to imagine than to describe. Isa. 50:6 was literally fulfilled and also Jesus’ own prophecy about being spit upon, 10:34 and Luke 18:32.

Mark 14:66

66 Mark now completes the story of Peter. And Peter being down in the courtyard, there comes one of the maids of the high priest, and after seeing Peter warming himself, having looked on him, says, Thou, too, wast in company with the Nazarene, Jesus! But he denied, saying, Neither do I know nor understand what thou art saying!

Peter was sitting in the courtyard as unobtrusively and as naturally as possible, warming himself at the charcoal fire along with the ὑπηρέται or Temple police. He imagined that no one would pay any attention to him. But he was sadly mistaken. From John’s Gospel we learn that it was the very maid who had let Peter in that exposed him. The synoptists indicate that she left her post at the entry, left it in charge of another maid, and came over to Peter and fixed her eyes upon him and then declared who he really was. Mark loves descriptive participles (R. 118) and here combines two: “after seeing, etc., having looked on him.” This must have occurred some time after she admitted Peter at John’s request.

Mark 14:67

67 What made her do this? Was she afraid that she had admitted the wrong man, and did she take this means of making herself safe? If that was the case, what about John whom she knew much better? The καί (thou “too”) in the question shows that this maid arrived at the conclusion that Peter must be a disciple of Jesus (μετά, “in company with,” means as much) from the way in which John intervened to have her admit Peter. Yet she made no outcry about John. Was she merely teasing Peter, trying to make him uncomfortable when she noted that he was attempting to hide his identity?

Her words do not sound like banter. She most likely wanted to make herself important. She wanted these men to know that she knew something that they did not know. They were all talking about Jesus and what had just taken place and yet did not know that right in their own midst there sat one of Jesus’ own disciples. All, no doubt, cocked their ears at her words and looked searchingly at Peter. Matthew writes “Jesus of Galilee,” and Mark has its equivalent “the Nazarene, Jesus”; he was so frequently named after the town in which he had lived so long.

Mark 14:68

68 The suddenness of this exposure, its publicity before the crowd about the fire, the feeling that he was in danger, upset Peter completely and filled him with panic. He saw no way out except to lie his way out: “he denied” (in front of them all, Matthew). The devil loves to pounce upon the foolhardy and to sweep the boasters off their feet. The words of the denial may have been more extended than any of the four evangelists indicates. “I do neither know nor understand what thou art saying!” is certainly the correct construction, and not first an assertion: “I neither know nor understand!” and then a question: “thou, what sayest thou?” (see the R. V. margin). None of the other evangelists has a question. The last thing Peter would have done was to ask this maid a question, one that would lead her to explain more fully what she meant.

It took only a menial maid to fell the chief of the Twelve. Gone were all his high and heroic protestations to Jesus; gone all the spurious courage from his heart and from the hand that had drawn the sword in Gethsemane. Here stands the arrant coward, unable to confess his heavenly Lord, cringing in lying denial. Some think that Peter was frightened without real cause, that he misjudged the situation and could have confessed without danger. But whether with or without adequate cause, fright operates nevertheless. Surely, he would have been arrested forthwith, taken before Annas, and held at least for a time; and if his slashing off Malchus’ ear should have been reported, serious punishment might have been the result.

And he went out into the forecourt, and the cock crew.

The story of the second denial begins at this point, not, as the division into verses might lead us to think, with v. 69. Peter waited long enough to have attention safely withdrawn from him and then quietly made for the προαύλιον, “forecourt” R. 620; “vestibule” M.-M.; πυλών, “entryway,” Matthew. This was the long covered passage which led out from the courtyard through the front side of the building to the street. Peter was in flight; it was his intention to get away unobserved. But this very move precipitates a second and severer denial. And right at this point “the cock crew.” That marks the time of night (see v. 30 on this point), it was approximately three o’clock.

Mark thus records the fulfillment of the prophecy made in v. 30, “before the cock crow twice”—this was the first crowing. It is always brief and more faint than the loud, continued crowing just before dawn. In his excitement Peter never heard it at all.

Mark 14:69

69 And the maid, having seen him, began again to say to those standing by, This fellow is one of them! And he denied again.

This must have been the same maid that made the first exposure. Luke writes ἕτερος, masculine, “another man” saw him. But there is no contradiction when one keeps the situation in mind. Peter had been exposed, and the matter was talked about. More than one maid would be on duty in the entry, especially on a night like this. Peter encounters two maids and a man, all three of whom are certain that he is a disciple of Jesus.

Matthew indicates the second maid by ἄλλη. There were also others in the entryway. Peter, who is now challenged by three persons, finds himself in a more desperate situation than he was before. These three do not address Peter at all. They make no move to open the portal toward the street. They simply regard Peter and say to each other: “This fellow (derogatory οἷτος) is of them,” ἐκ is used in the partitive sense.

It seems that very little was said, but it was significant enough, and it frightened Peter more than ever.

Mark 14:70

70 And he again proceeded to deny.

Mark is very brief, Matthew mentions that Peter made oath to his denial. Yet Mark writes the imperfect ἠρνεῖτο: “proceeded to deny,” which describes that he denied at some length. And this was the Peter who had made the great confession recorded in 8:24 (Matt. 16:16) and John 6:68, 69!

And after a little those standing by were saying to Peter, Of a truth, thou art one of them, for thou art a Galilean! But he began to curse and to swear, I do not know this man whom you are mentioning. And immediately for the second time a cock crew.

Peter promptly gave up trying to get out through the passageway. Twice he had been positively recognized and challenged. We can imagine the uneasiness and the fear with which he returned to the courtyard and tried to efface himself in the crowd. Luke makes the interval “about an hour.” And the most decisive effort is now made to identify Peter as a disciple of Jesus. Mark and Matthew mention only the fact that those standing by, who had evidently again been discussing Peter, came up and confronted him. Luke designates one man as the spokesman, and John adds that he was a relative of Malchus, whose ear Peter had cut off. Here was danger indeed.

With great positiveness the charge is made: “Of a truth,” in spite of all thy previous denials, “thou art of them,” ἐκ is again partitive. So Peter had not succeeded in allaying suspicion regarding himself, he had only strengthened it. In fact, his accusers have observed him closely and have detected by his peculiar brogue (λαλία, Matthew) that he is a Galilean. They bring this forward as evidence (λάρ), for all of the disciples of Jesus hailed from Galilee with the exception of Judas, the traitor, who came from Judea. John adds the detail that the relative of Malchus was able to add more to this personal point and circumstantial evidence: he is almost sure that he saw Peter in Gethsemane.

Mark 14:71

71 Again, as he did in v. 65, Mark writes ἤρξατο: he began and kept the thing up. He went on to anathematize and to swear, i.e., to call down all manner of evil on himself if he, indeed, knew this man, and he did this with high and holy oaths to God to have him witness that he, indeed, did not know this man. We see from Peter’s frantic action that he is ready to resort to almost anything to save himself from discovery. Peter was no longer a man of even ordinary manhood, he was a grovelling coward who was too pitiful to look upon. As far as he is concerned, Jesus is only “this man whom you are mentioning” (ὃνλέγετε). It is almost unbelievable.

Somehow Peter was even now not arrested on suspicion and held for judicial investigation. Was this due to the fact that no officer was at hand to give the order, all of them being on duty inside the hall where Jesus was being tried? But “immediately” after his curses and oaths “for the second time a cock crew,” starting the crowing before the dense morning dawn began to lighten (see v. 30).

Mark 14:72

72 Nobody paid the slightest attention to this crowing—save one man. And Peter remembered the utterances, how Jesus said to him, Before a cock crows twice, thrice shalt thou deny me. And having fallen to it, he began to weep.

Jesus had spoken that word about the cock’s crowing because he foresaw Peter’s situation at this moment and intended that Peter should now recall that word to his great benefit. That cock’s crowing thus released the tension of fear, recalled Jesus’ love and warning, and thus opened the door to genuine repentance. Luke adds that at this moment Jesus turned and looked at Peter, and that this helped to bring about his repentance. Both the cock’s crowing and the Savior’s look moved Peter to the same end. All was timed by divine providence so as to effect this gracious result.

It is debated as to how Jesus could look upon Peter at this moment. The best answer is that he was being led by the Temple police from the hall of trial through the courtyard to a place of safekeeping until he should again be wanted. With his face contused and black and blue from the blows he had received, with spittle still defiling his countenance, Jesus looked upon poor Peter. No wonder that look went home. In the New Testament, R. 509, ἀναμιμνήσκω is always followed by the accusative.

It seems that Peter had no difficulty whatever in getting out of the courtyard. Some jump to the conclusion that he would have had no difficulty at any time. But the maid kept the door locked, and Peter did not risk it to make a demand for exit. It was the transfer of Jesus that changed the situation. The crowd of the ὑπηρέται, Temple police, that had been kept waiting in the courtyard until this time were ordered out, and so Peter, too, could leave without difficulty; in fact, if he had tried to stay he would have been ordered out. What became of John?

All the synoptists report the repentance of Peter with exceeding brevity, and all of them mention his weeping. Matthew and Luke do so with the aorist ἔκλαυσε, which states the fact that he wept audibly, but Mark does so with the imperfect and thus descriptive ἔκλαιε, which describes Peter as shedding tears. To this verb Matthew and Luke add the adverb πικρῶς, “bitterly,” which refers to the bitter contrition which caused the sobbing.

Mark adds the aorist participle ἐπιβαλών, on the meaning of which the linguists are divided ever since ancient days. Some supply τὸννοῦν or the like: “having thrown his mind thereon,” R. V.: “when he thought thereon.” But this would require the present participle for he must have thought thereon during his weeping. R. 861 calls the aorist participle coincident with the imperfect verb, but it is so only with the first point of its linear action. But we need no such refinement, Robertson is wrestling with the difficulty and says nothing about the meaning of ἐπιβαλών. Against this interpretation is also the statement that Peter “remembered the utterance,” which already contains the thought that he put his mind on this word of Jesus.

Codex D reads ἀρξάμενος; but if this were the sense of ἐπιβαλών, Mark would have written ἐπέβαλεκλαίειν. We cannot translate “he began to weep,” or “he fell to weeping,” or, embellishing still more, “he joined in the cock’s crowing by his weeping.”

The cue for the meaning of this participle which is used by Mark lies in the adverb “bitterly,” which is used by Matthew and Luke, for Mark wants to say just about what they say, C.-K. 189. The verb means to rush or plunge ahead, and it needs no addition when it is used in this sense. Peter having fallen to it with vehemence, went on weeping, or, as R. 885 prefers, began to weep, inchoative imperfect. Contrition includes the realization that we have sinned and the consequent genuine sorrow for our sin.

The story of Peter has two important sides: Jesus prophesies, and the fulfillment, which is strenuously denied at first, follows to the very letter; secondly, the foremost of the apostles falls most terribly and is yet restored after true repentance. For all time this calls sinners to the pardon that Jesus bought for them.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.

B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.