Mark 14
TFGMark 14:1-11
(Mount of Olives, Bethany, and Jerusalem. Tuesday after sunset, which Jews regarded as the beginning of Wednesday.) M 1-5, 14-16; M 1, 2, 10, 11; L 1-6. [We may regard Jesus as having entered the temple Tuesday morning, and as having taught there until the evening. He then retired to the slopes of Olivet and delivered the discourse which occupies Sections , The discourse finished, it is likely that he arose about or a little after sunset (which the Jews reckoned as Wednesday) and proceeded on his way to Bethany, where he remained until late Thursday afternoon. On his way to Bethany he spoke the words of this section. The two days mentioned are Wednesday and Thursday. The passover was eaten Thursday night after sunset, which the Jews reckoned as Friday. For a full discussion of the time when the Passover was eaten, see Andrews’ “Life of Christ,” pp. 423-460. [641] [This council may have begun on the evening of Tuesday and continued until the beginning of Wednesday, Jewish time.
It seems to have been a formal rather than an informal conference. The court where they met was the open space enclosed by the palace of the high priest.
Caiaphas had been appointed high priest in A. D. 26 by the Procurator Valerius Gratus and was deposed A. D. 38. Ishmael, Eleazar, and Simon held the office between the deposition of Annas and the appointment of Caiaphas (Jos. Ant. xviii. 2. 2). See also .] [They knew that there were many at the feast from Galilee, and other sections of the country where Jesus ministered; and, judging by the demonstration made at the triumphal entry, they felt that there were plenty to take arms in Jesus’ behalf. The sense of their council, therefore, seemed to be that if Jesus could be taken by subtlety– arrested privately–he might be taken during the feast. But if he had to be arrested publicly, then it was better to postpone his apprehension until after the feast.
The treachery of Judas caused them to adopt the former course. At this place Matthew and Mark insert the account of the supper given to Jesus in the house of Simon the leper. They do this because the treacherous determination of Judas was formed at it and dates from it. The rebuke of the Lord then administered, or the desire to reimburse himself for the price of the ointment, which Mary expended, and which he felt that he ought to have had, or some other reasons, evidently induced him at that time to decide upon our Lord’s betrayal. Since then he had been seeking opportunity to betray the Master.] [See , .] [642] [It is probable that the proposal to sell his Master was made by Judas to individual members of the Sanhedrin, and that this proposal was one of the moving causes leading to the assembling of the council. The language implies that Judas appeared before the council and bargained openly with it.] [There had been coined shekels since the time of Simeon, or 143 B.
C., before that the money was weighed. It is likely that the term “weighed” survived the practice and became a synonym or equivalent for “paid.” The amount paid him was about fifteen dollars of our money.
It was indeed a low price for so base a deed, but from the language used it may be fairly implied that it was but the earnest money of a larger sum. But Judas evidently hardened himself, and shut out all thought as to anything save the Viewed thus, his task was neither difficult nor dangerous.] [He soon found his opportunity. He bargained on Tuesday night and fulfilled his contract on Thursday night. Or, as the Jews reckoned time, he agreed in the beginning of Wednesday and fulfilled his covenant on the beginning of Friday.] [643]
[FFG 641-643]
Mark 14:3-9
(From Friday afternoon till Saturday Night, March 31 and April 1, A. D. 30.) J 55-57; 1-11; M 6-13; M 3-9. [These Jews went up before the Passover that they might have time to purify themselves from ceremonial uncleanness before the feast. They were expected to purify before any important event , and did so before the passover , for those who were ceremonially unclean were excluded from it– .] [The decree of the Sanhedrin ordering the arrest of Jesus led the people to question as to whether he would dare to approach the city. But this mention of it and the stir and question which it created have a dark significance. It shows that the Jews generally were forewarned of the evil purpose of the Sanhedrin, and the dangers which surrounded Jesus. They were not taken unawares when their rulers told them to raise the cry “Crucify him!” And they raised it after they had due notice and time [568] for deliberation.] [The word “therefore” refers to the decree and consequent dangers just mentioned. Because his “hour” had come, Jesus went to face these dangers.
We are told that he came to the house of Lazarus and that he kept near Lazarus because these facts emphasized the great miracle which roused the hatred of the Jews, and caused them more earnestly to seek the death of Christ. Jesus appears to have arrived in Bethany Friday afternoon, March 31, A.
D. 30. It is likely that he spent the Sabbath day at that place, and that the supper mentioned below was given him after sunset on Saturday, which, according to Jewish reckoning, would be the beginning of Sunday. This supper is mentioned later by Matthew and Mark, but without any note of time to show that it belongs specifically where they put it. But John does give us a note of time. The shows that it was the night before the triumphal entry, and therefore we follow the chronology of John.] [Who Simon the leper was is not known. It is not unlikely that he was one whom Jesus had healed, and that he united with the household of Lazarus in a joint effort to show gratitude unto the Lord for his goodness to this group of his friends.] [there] [a a Greek weight containing nearly twelve ounces avoirdupois] [Nard was a liquid perfume distilled from some odorous plant or plants and mingled with oil.
It was sealed in flasks or alabaster boxes and imported from the far East] [569] [The cruse seems to have been a long-necked flask sealed with wax so tightly as to necessitate it being broken to extract the nard. These flasks were tasteful and costly objects such as women delight to possess.
Many of them were so delicate that Pliny compares them to closed rosebuds, and the same writer, speaking of nard, reckons it as an instance of excessive luxury to anoint the feet or ankles with it] [Thus the liberality of Mary contributed to the pleasure of all the guests. The odor of a good deed is generally diffusive.] [It seems very likely that this murmuring was started by Judas Iscariot, for the murmurers fall in with his notions that the price of the ointment should be deposited in the poor fund. It is a singular thing that Jesus permitted a thief to occupy the office of treasurer. It is probable that Judas was honest when he was called to serve, but that same management and spirit of economy which made him fit for the place ruined him when he got it. Thus our strong points are often our weakest. The price of the pound of nard would be about fifty-one dollars of our money, but the purchasing power of money was then nearly ten times as great as it is now.
The price here named agrees almost exactly with the figures at which Pliny rates the most costly nard.] [570] [The expression “Suffer,” etc., used by John, is taken by some as implying that all the ointment was not poured out, and that some of the apostles were endeavoring to persuade Mary to keep and sell what was left, and that Jesus ordered it kept to finish the embalming of his body which Mary had already begun. But there is nothing in the language to require such an interpretation.
Jesus meant, “Let her use it rightly,” using the word “keep” as in the expression, “keep the feast;” observe the ceremony. The words of Jesus about the ointment taken as a whole may be construed thus: “The sorrows of my coming passion oppress me , and Mary, conscious of that sorrow, wishes to cheer me with the evidence of love and gratitude. She sympathizes with me as I approach the shadow of death, and anoints me beforehand for the burial. You do not begrudge what is given to the dead. You do not censure as extravagant what is spent for the embalming of a dear one. You yourselves would be ready enough to anoint me in this same manner after I am dead.
So do not censure her because in the fullness of her sympathy she has anticipated the coming catastrophe and has anointed me beforehand.”] [ ] [There would be plenty of opportunities in which to do good to the poor, but the time for conferring a personal benefit upon Christ in the flesh was now limited to seven days. Thereafter gifts could only be given to Christ by bestowing them upon the poor.] [Jesus here makes [571] prominent the different estimates which God and man place upon the same acts.
That which the disciples had censured as a waste and that which they had regarded as worthy of rebuke was in his sight an action fit to be kept in everlasting remembrance as a model for the conduct of future generations throughout the whole earth, and he accordingly decreed that it be so kept in mind.] [in Simon’s house] [withdrew from the party headed by the Jewish rulers] [The presence of the resurrected man and the Christ who had resurrected him both at one table greatly excited the curiosity of the multitudes who had come up to Jerusalem to attend the passover. When word of this supper spread among the people it was natural that they should slip out to Bethany to see the sight, and it was equally natural that seeing it they should believe in Jesus. This deflection of the common people gave a keener venom to the hatred of the rulers.] [FFG 568-572]
Mark 14:12-18
(Bethany to Jerusalem. Thursday afternoon and, after sunset, beginning of Friday.) M 17-20; M 12-17; L 7-18, 24-30. [See ), and a room for the feast must be secured.] [It was customary for the residents of Jerusalem to open their houses for guests during this feast, and therefore Jesus might have presumed on the hospitality of almost anyone; but the probability is that the man to whom he sent this message was an acquaintance and a friend. It is not improbable that Jesus let Peter and John thus find the place that Judas might not know its whereabouts in time to bring the officers of the Sanhedrin so as to interrupt the feasts which meant so much to him and to his church.] [The law required that the paschal lamb should be slain “between the evenings.” The Jews reckoned the two evenings as from three o’clock to sunset, and from sunset to nine o’clock, which was the end of the first watch. But [645] Josephus tells us that the lambs were killed from the ninth to the eleventh hours, or between the hours of three and five. It would take some time to dress the lamb and to roast it, so that it must have been about sundown or shortly afterward when Jesus and his disciples sat down to the feast.] [Jesus had desired to keep with his disciples this last type which stood so close to the thing typified. It was a feast commemorating a great deliverance from death through the sacrifice of a lamb, and the real sacrifice and deliverance of which it was typical were about to be fulfilled in the unfolding of the kingdom of God.] [Luke brings out the parallelism between the passover and the Lord’s supper. Each consisted in eating followed by drinking, and the closeness of the parallel is emphasized by the use of almost the same words with regard to the cup.
The passover was typical of the Lord’s suffering the event, and the Lord’s supper is typical of the same thing the event.] [In sending to secure the room in which [646] the paschal supper was being eaten, Jesus had said, “My time is at hand.” Such expressions were falsely construed by the apostles. They thought that Jesus was about to set up his kingdom, and began at once to contend for the chief places. Jesus rebukes this false ambition in much the same manner as he had previously. See , ). For the rest of the passage compare the remarks on , ), and indicate that the apostles, being about to participate in the Lord’s condemnation and suffering, should in the end share his exaltation and its attendant joys.] [FFG 644-647]
Mark 14:18-31
(Jerusalem. Evening before the crucifixion.) M 21-25, 31-35; M 18-21, 27-31; L 21-23, 31-38; J 21-38. [651] [The foreknowledge of Judas’ crime did not relieve the Lord from the sting of it. By the use of the word “betray” Jesus revealed to Judas that he had perfect knowledge of the peculiar crime which he was about to commit. To induce repentance the enormity of the crime is pointed out in two ways: 1. It was the act of one, an act in which no other could be found willing to have a part. 2. It was the act of one whose hand rested on the table, who was admitted to the closest intercourse and fellowship.] [in startled amazement] [that the Lord should be betrayed was sorrow enough, but that one of the twelve should do the deed was an added grief] [The form of the question in the Greek indicates that it expects “No” for an answer, so that it may be rendered, “Surely it is not I?”] [According to Oriental custom, knives and forks were not used. One dish served to hold the sop for several people, that they might dip their bread into it.
In so large a company, two or three bowls would be used for convenience’ sake. The words of Jesus, therefore, limited the circle of accused ones from twelve to four or five, and also further emphasized the tender and close intimacy between the traitor and the Master.] [Jesus was following with unfaltering step the path of suffering marked out by the prophets. [652] But this fact in no way exculpated the authors of his death.
The prophecies referred to are many. As examples, see , . The woe pronounced upon Judas was no vindictive or vengeful wish; it is the solemn announcement of the divine judgment. The words of Jesus stop the mouths of the apologists for Judas. When the judge thus speaks in condemnation, who shall presume to argue in extenuation?] [John thus speaks of himself. His couch was in front of that of the Lord, so that when he laid his head back it rested upon Jesus’ bosom. See ). Alford says, “I feel, with Meyer, that there is something awful in this termination–‘it was night.’”] [The departure of Judas was the first step in the progress of the Lord’s Passion, and in this moment of its beginning Jesus exults in the prospect of its end.
Having just condemned the false pride and glory of men by washing his disciples’ feet, Jesus rejoices that the true glory of God is about to be immediately manifested in himself–the glory of humility, charity, service, and self-sacrifice, which was realized to the utmost in the person of Jesus.] [see ). It is found nowhere else in the Gospels. In the light of his near separation Jesus looked upon his apostles as about to be made orphan children. As to this new commandment, love had been commanded before , but the Christian love here commanded is different from that which the Jew was bade to feel for the Jew, just as the affection of a loving family differs from the mere broad and kindly spirit of neighborliness. A love which had Christ’s heart as the standard would of necessity be new, and would distinguish those who possessed it from all men.] [ ] [The scattering would take place after the return of the apostles to Galilee, and there after his resurrection, Jesus would gather them together as their shepherd.] [Peter, grieved at the prospect of separation, can see no reason why he should not follow, since he is willing to pass even through the portal of the grave that he may do so. Though perhaps prevented by no moral inability, he was prevented by the plan of life which God had designed for him.
It was not in accordance with the divine will that he should die at this time.] [The language here suggests a repetition, in some degree, of Satan’s conduct in the case of Job. See Jesus, having insight into what was going on in the spirit world, made supplication that Peter [655] might be enabled to endure the trial] [The language sadly intimates that Satan’s test would leave him in need of repentance.
As the one who perhaps exercised the strongest influence over the other ten apostles, Peter is exhorted to use his own bitter experience for their benefit and strengthening.] [Thus Peter repudiates the idea that he could not stand the test.] [Mark speaks of two cock-crowings and shows that the denial of Peter occurred between them . But Matthew, Luke, and John speak of but cock-crowing and place the denial before it. The discrepancy is not an important one. Luke and John look upon the night in its entirety and speak of the cock-crowing at three in the morning, the signal of the dawning day. Mark looks at the night in its details, and shows that the denials of Peter began at midnight, the time of the first cock-crowing, and were finished before the last, or about three in the morning. Peter appears to have been thunderstruck at this prediction, which showed the nature, the details, and the nearness of his sin.
He lapsed into silence, and we hear no more from him during the discourses which followed. But he did not yield without one final protest, as the sequel shows.] [According to Matthew’s account these accusations of our Lord and protestations of Peter were taken up again after [656] Jesus left the upper room and was on his way to Gethsemane.
The reader may therefore conceive of them as occurring again in the opening lines of ] [In this passage our Lord draws a contrast between the favor with which his messengers had been received on their mission and the trials and persecutions which awaited them in their course. If they had prepared then to be received with joy, they were to prepare now to be opposed with bitterness; for the utter rejection of the Master would be followed by the violent persecution of the servants. The apostles took the words of Jesus literally, and showed two swords, and the Lord, for their future enlightenment, said, “It is enough,” thus intimating that he did not mean a literal arming with carnal weapons, for had he done so, two swords would not have sufficed for twelve men.] [FFG 651-655]
Mark 14:22-25
(Jerusalem. Evening before the crucifixion.) M 26-29; M 22-25; L 19, 20; I. C 23-26. [657] [As only unleavened bread was eaten during the paschal supper, that kind of bread must have been used by our Lord, and it is fitting that it should still be used by us in keeping the Lord’s Supper, not only for propriety’s sake, but because that bread which is emblematic of purity is most suitable to represent the body of the sinless Christ. The Catholics and some few others take our Lord’s words literally when he says, “This is my body.” On this they found the doctrine of transubstantiation, that the bread and the wine become literal body and blood when blessed by the priest. There are many weighty arguments such a doctrine, but the main one it is found in the words of our Lord. But Jesus could not have meant them literally, for his body was untouched and his blood unshed on this occasion when he spoke them. Moreover, in the . It was the practice of Eastern [658] peoples to use blood in making any pact or covenant .
Christ represents himself as the victim from whence the blood was to be taken to ratify or seal the new covenant, and he makes the cup the symbol of that blood. A full discussion of the old and new covenants will be found in the Book of Hebrews.
We may, however, sum them up by saying that the old covenant promised the land of Canaan and Christ in the flesh to the Israelites, while the new covenant promises heaven and Christ in glory to the Christian] [It is explicitly stated elsewhere that Christ died for , and the word “many” is used, not to contradict, but to emphasize the fact. When the persons included are contemplated individually, the term is employed on account of the vast number of them; for no man can number the individuals for whom Christ died. But when they are contemplated under the feebler conception of the whole, the term is employed.] [The prime object of Christ’s death is here declared. It was to accomplish the forgiveness of sins. All other purposes which it served are subordinate to this, and all other blessings which it secures are consequent upon this– , , , , , , , .] [The word “remembrance” comes as a refrain after both the loaf and the cup. The central purpose of the supper is to bring the sacrifice of Christ and all its blessed results vividly to mind.] [This verse is a comment of Paul’s upon the nature of the supper.
In keeping the Lord’s Supper we proclaim to our own souls and to the world our trust in the death of Christ, and our hope that he will return and fulfill the expectations begotten in us by it.] [659] [In speaking of this future drinking of the fruit of the vine Jesus does not mean literal wine, for he does not drink literal wine with his disciples in the kingdom as it now is, nor will he do so in the eternal kingdom. The term “drink,” therefore, is used figuratively for that communion which Jesus has with his disciples while they are drinking the wine of the Lord’s Supper.
The term is most naturally understood as modifying but as the wine of the supper is not necessarily wine, we think it rather indicates the of drinking wine just described.] [FFG 657-660]
Mark 14:26-42
(A garden between the brook Kidron and the Mount of Olives. Late Thursday night.) M 30, 36-46; M 26, 32-42; L 39-46; J 1. [the words contained in ] [the shadow of the cross did not quench the spirit of praise in Christ] [The name Gethsemane means and hence it accords well with the name of the mountain at whose base it was situated. But the place was now a garden. It was about half a mile from the city, and from what Luke says here and elsewhere , it seems that Jesus often resorted to it while in Jerusalem at the festivals. Compare also ] [As the hour of trial and temptation came upon Jesus he fortified himself against it by prayer. And he bade his disciples do likewise, for his arrest would involve them also in temptations which he [685] foresaw that they would not be able to withstand.] [While seeking heavenly aid in this hour of extremity, our Lord also manifested his desire for human sympathy. All the eleven apostles were with him in the garden, and the three most capable of sympathizing with him were stationed nearer to him than the rest.] [one hundred fifty to two hundred feet] [The sequel shows that the phrase “even unto death” was no figure of rhetoric.
The nervous prostration of Jesus was such as to endanger his life, and the watching of the apostles may have been doubly needful. Not only did he require their sympathy, but he may also have looked to them to render him assistance in the case of a physical collapse.] [This posture was expressive of the most intense supplication.] [Much of mystery is found in all life, so it is small wonder if the dual nature of Jesus presents insoluble problems.
It perplexes many to find that the divine in Jesus did not sustain him better during his trial in the garden. But we must remember that it was appointed unto Jesus to die, and that the divine in him was not to interfere with this appointment, or the approaches to it. For want, therefore, of a better expression, we may say that from the time Jesus entered the garden until he expired on the cross, the human in him was in the [686] ascendant; and “being found in fashion as a man,” he endured these trials is if wholly human. His prayer, therefore, is the cry of his humanity for deliverance. The words “if it is possible” with which it opens breathe the same spirit of submissive obedience which is found in the closing words. Reminding the Father of the limitless range of his power, he petitions him to change his counsel as to the crucifixion of the Son, if his gracious purposes can be in any other way carried out.
Jesus uses the words “cup” and “hour” interchangeably. They are both words of broad compass, intended to include all that he would undergo from that time until his resurrection.
They embrace all his mental, moral, physical, and spiritual suffering which we can discover, together with an infinite volume of a propitiatory and vicarious nature which lies beyond the reach of our understanding. The submission of Jesus was no new fruitage of his character; the prayer of the garden had been the inner purpose of his entire life– , .] [Commentators give instances of bloody sweat under abnormal pathological conditions.] [The admonition which had at first been addressed to all the eleven is now spoken to the chosen three] [Peter, having boasted of his loyalty, has his weakness pointed out and is further warned to be on his guard, since the weakness of his nature will not stand the coming strain. The slumber of the disciples was not through indifference; but was [687] caused by the prostration of grief. When we remember the excitement which they had endured that night, the tender words spoken by Jesus, the sadness of which was intensified by the atmosphere of mystery which pervaded them, the beautiful and touching prayer, and lastly this agony in the garden, it is not to be wondered at that the apostles, spurred by no sense of danger, should succumb to the long-borne tension and fall asleep. Had they comprehended how much the Lord needed their sympathy as he came again and again seeking for it, they would probably have kept awake.] [Jesus here speaks of draining the cup. The “cup” was a common Hebrew figure used to denote one’s divinely appointed lot or fortune– , , , , .] [They were ashamed of the stupor which had come upon them and knew not what apology to make for it.] [Our Lord’s words are paradoxical.
In our judgment the saying is best understood by regarding the first part of it as spoken from the Lord’s viewpoint, while the latter part is spoken from the disciple’s viewpoint. It is as if he said, “So far as I am concerned, you may sleep on and take your rest, for the time to be of comfort or assistance to me has wholly passed.
But so far as you yourselves are concerned, you must arise and be going, because Judas with his band of temple police is upon us.”] [688] [FFG 685-693]
Mark 14:43-52
(Gethsemane. Friday, several hours before dawn.) M 47-56; M 43-52; L 47-53; J 2-11. [See ). Jesus asked, “Whom seek ye?” (1) To openly and manfully declare his identity; (2) to make the Jewish rulers fully conscious that they were arresting him, an innocent man; (3) to confine the arrest to himself and thus deliver his disciples. The older commentators regard the falling to the ground as a miracle, but modern scholars look upon it as a result of sudden fear. Jesus merely manifested his dignity and majesty, and the prostration followed as a natural result.] [Some place this event before the preceding paragraph. It comports better with the fitness of things to place it here. Jesus made Judas feel his utter nothingness, and his worthlessness even as a betrayer.
Before Judas can in any way identify Jesus, the Lord had twice declared himself to be the party whom they sought. When he approaches to carry out his contract, the Lord’s question exposes him before all as a betrayer, and not a disciple as he wished to appear to be (for kissing was the common mode of salutation between men, especially between teacher and pupils), and when Judas brazenly persists in completing the sign, Jesus bids him do it, not as a friend, but as a traitor.
Little did the betrayer think that the kiss of Judas would become a proverb in every nation.] [690] [The sight of Judas touching him no doubt reassured them, and they laid hands on Jesus.] [We have seen that the apostles were but scantily armed, there being only two swords in their possession. See ). He knew Malchus by name, and he also knew his kindred– .] [Some think that Jesus spoke these words, “Suffer ye thus far,” to those who held him, asking them to loose him sufficiently to enable him to touch the ear of Malchus. But the revision committee by inserting “them” make Jesus address his disciples, commanding them not to interfere with those who were arresting him, making it a general statement of the idea which the Lord addressed specifically to Peter in the next sentence.] [By the healing of Malchus’ ear and the words spoken to Peter, Jesus shows that the sword is not to be used either to defend the truth or to advance his kingdom. Had he not thus spoken and acted, Pilate might have doubted his words when he [691] testified that his kingdom was not of this world . While we know better than to rely upon the aid of the sword for the advance of truth, we are often tempted to put undue trust in other “carnal weapons” which are equally futile.
Wealth and eloquence and elaborate church buildings have but little saving grace in them. It is the truth which wins.
By using the word “cup” John gives us an echo of the agony in Gethsemane, which suggests that he expects his readers to be conversant with the other Gospels. The other Evangelists, having shown that Jesus was fully resolved to drink the cup, do not regard it as necessary to repeat these words.] [Jesus still addresses Peter. Had it accorded with the divine purpose that Jesus should resist this arrest, angels and not men would have been his proper and infinitely more effective rescuers. But, on the contrary, it was God’s purpose that he should be arrested, as the Scripture had foretold.] [The party which came to arrest Jesus was large. The word “band” used by John to describe part of it is which is the Greek name for the cohort, a division of the Roman army which in the time of Augustus contained 555 men. Ten cohorts, or a legion, were usually quartered in the castle Antonia, at the northwest corner of the temple enclosure.
That the whole cohort was present is not likely , but there was a large enough body to represent it. The [692] Evangelists therefore properly style it a great multitude.
Moreover, it was a motley crowd. Its strength and diversity suggest the fear that Jesus might miraculously defend himself. Each part of the crowd found courage in the strength possessed by the other part, the priests relying upon the solidity of the soldiers, the soldiers superstitiously trusting to some spiritual power residing in the priests, etc. Now, because of these fears, the preparation was as great as if some band of robbers was to be taken. The questions of Jesus, therefore, show two facts: 1. By their extensive preparation the rulers bore an unintentional testimony to his divine power. 2.
By their failure to arrest him openly in the temple, they bore witness to his innocence. With his divinity and his innocence, therefore, Jesus challenges them, referring to their own conduct for testimony thereto.
In conclusion, he cites them to the Scriptures which they were fulfilling. Our Lord’s dual reference to the Old Testament at this sacred time should cause us to handle them with awe and reverence.] [All the predictions of Jesus had failed to prepare the apostles for the terrors of his arrest. Despite all his warnings, each apostle sought his own safety. The young man who fled naked is usually presumed to be Mark himself, and it is thought that he thus speaks impersonally after the manner of Matthew and John. The manner of his description shows that he was not an apostle. As Mark’s mother resided in Jerusalem , Canon Cook advances the theory that the Lord’s Supper was eaten in the upper room of her house, and that when the disciples retired with Jesus from thence to Gethsemane, Mark slipped from his bed, threw his sindon about him, and followed after them. The sindon, or linen vestment, was very costly, not being worn even by the middle classes: no apostle would be thus attired.] [693] [FFG 689-692]
Mark 14:53-65
(Palace of Caiaphas. Friday.) M 57, 59-68; M 53, 55-65; L 54, 63-65; J 24. [Foiled in his attempted examination of Jesus, Annas sends him to trial.] [It is very likely that Annas had apartments in the same palace with Caiaphas, and that from these apartments Jesus was led into some hall large enough to hold the Sanhedrin, which was now convened. But this was not its formal session as a court; it was more in the nature of a caucus, or committee of the whole.] [What Jesus [696] had really said will be found at . Though his words were misunderstood at that time, being applied, not to his body, but to Herod’s temple, yet it is not unlikely that the Jewish rulers, hearing our Lord’s prediction that he would rise from the dead after three days , came to understand the import of his words. If so, the record itself shows the willingness of the Sanhedrin to receive false witnesses against Christ, for its judges received testimony which they knew to be utterly immaterial if rightly construed. The accounts of the two Evangelists, moreover, show how the witnesses failed to agree. A man could only be condemned on the testimony of two witnesses as to some fact or facts constituting a ground for condemnation– , .] [While the testimony then before the court might be used to show that Jesus was recklessly boastful, it was insufficient to justify a sentence of blasphemy.
A threat to destroy the temple might be thus construed ; but a promise to rebuild the temple, if destroyed, was altogether different. The high priest, knowing this, sought to extort from Jesus some additional evidence.
With great cunning and effrontery he assumes that the testimony is all that could be possibly desired, and demands of Jesus what he has to say in answer to it. But our Lord did not suffer himself to seem so easily deceived. He gave no explanation, since the future would explain his meaning, and speak the real truth to all who had ears to hear it.] [Seeing that Jesus was not to be lured into an answer, and well knowing his perfect frankness, Caiaphas resolved, in his desperation, to question Jesus plainly and [697] bluntly. His question is twofold: 1. Art thou Christ? 2. Art thou the Son of God?
The latter of these would constitute blasphemy, and the former, by showing a boastful spirit, would tend to confirm the charge. Perhaps, too, Caiaphas anticipated the future, and foresaw how useful this claim to be the Messiah would prove when a hearing was had before Pilate .
Originally the Messiah was recognized as the Son of God , but if the Jews had ever generally entertained such an idea, they had lost it before Jesus’ day, The Messiah might of course be called the Son of God in that secondary sense in which Adam was thus called . But Jesus had used the term in an entirely different sense, and his usage had been extremely offensive to the Jews . Caiaphas evidently wished Jesus to answer this question in that new sense which the Lord had given to the words. Caiaphas had no legal right to ask either of these questions. No man can be compelled to testify against himself, but he knew the claims of Jesus, and realized that if Jesus repudiated them he would be shamed forever, and if he asserted them he could be charged with blasphemy. Taking advantage, therefore, of the situation, Caiaphas put the question with the usual formula of an oath, thus adding moral power to it, for, under ordinary circumstances, one was held guilty if he refused to answer when thus adjured .
When their own witnesses failed, these rulers called the “faithful witness”– , .] [Jesus freely confessed the truth which his church is called upon to confess. “Right hand of Power” was commonly understood to mean the right hand of God. By the words “nevertheless” and “henceforth” Jesus brings the present state of humiliation into contrast with his future state of glory.
Hard as it might be for them to believe it, the day would come when he should [698] sit in judgment and they should stand on trial before him.] [Though Jesus had given the very answer which the high priest was longing to hear, yet he hypocritically pretends to be shocked at it, and rends his clothes and feigns horror. Evidently he feared the effect of the clear, calm answer of Jesus and sought to counteract its influence on his colleagues.] [This was not the final, formal sentence, but the mere determination of the council at the preliminary hearing.] [To spit in the face has been an insult in all ages and in all lands. See , , . Jesus, having stood out for examination, is now given back to the officers to be led away into the council chamber. These officers received Jesus with many indignities. They seek to make his high claims contemptible, and to make it appear that instead of being divine he is hardly worthy to be regarded as human.] [699] [FFG 696-699]
Mark 14:54-72
(Court of the high priest’s residence. Friday before and about dawn.) M 58, 69-75; M 54, 66-72; L 54-62; J 15-18, 25-27. [leaving Jesus in the palace of the high priest, we now turn back to the garden of Gethsemane at the time when Jesus left it under arrest, that we may follow the course of Simon Peter in his threefold denial of the Master] [This other disciple was evidently the apostle John, who thus speaks of himself impersonally.] [John’s acquaintanceship appears to have been with the household as well as with the high priest personally, for we find that it is used as a permit at the doorway. It is likely that the high priest knew John rather in a business way– ] [For courts of houses see . John would have shown a truer kindness to Peter had he let him stay out] [Peter] [The doorkeeper evidently recognized John as a disciple, and was therefore suspicious of Peter. The cowardly “I am not” of Peter is a sad contrast to the strong “I am he” of Jesus] [700] [they were gathered around a little smokeless charcoal fire] [Though his faith in Christ was shaken, he still loved him enough to see what would become of him.] [Peter’s second denial was of a quadruple nature. He denied to four different parties, but in such quick succession that the event is regarded as one.] [701] [Exasperated by the repeated accusations, Peter loses his temper and begins to emphasize his denial by profanity. Desire to make good his denial is now supreme in his thoughts and the Lord whom he denies is all but forgotten.] [When Peter remembered the loving tenderness of Jesus manifested when he foretold Peter’s crime it formed a background against which the sin appeared in all its hideous enormity.] [FFG 700-702]