CHAPTER XIV

Outline of Chapter 14

Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him To Do

14:1, 2     God’s Counsel versus Man’s Collusion

14:3–9     The Anointing at Bethany

14:10, 11     The Agreement between Judas and the Chief Priests

14:12–21     The Passover

14:22–26     The Institution of the Lord’s Supper

14:27–31     Peter’s Denial Foretold

14:32–42     Gethsamane

14:43–50     The Betrayal and the Seizure of Jesus

14:51, 52     The Young Man Who Escaped

14:53–65     The Trial before the Sanhedrin

14:66–72     Peter’s Threefold Denial

14:1, 2 God’s Counsel versus Man’s Collusion

Cf. Matt. 26:1–5; Luke 22:1, 2; John 11:45–53

14 1 Now the feast of the Passover and the Unleavened Bread was two days off, and the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to take Jesus into custody by some trick, and kill him; 2 for they were saying, “Not during the feast, lest there be an uproar among the people.”

For the reader who may have experienced some difficulty in remembering which chapters in Matthew and in Luke parallel those in Mark it will be a relief to discover that for the last three chapters of each of these Gospels the answer is simple. Where there are corresponding sections, the events recorded in Mark 14 are paralleled in Matt. 26 and in Luke 22; for those found in Mark 15 see Matt. 27 and Luke 23; and for those narrated in Mark 16 study Matt. 28 and Luke 24. For these three chapters, in each case of correspondence Mark’s figure plus 12 is Matthew’s figure, and Mark’s figure plus 8 is Luke’s figure. Cf. N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 12–16, 28–30.

In the middle of Mark 14 and parallels is Gethsemane; the heart and center of Mark 15 and parallels is Calvary (or Golgotha); and the main theme of Mark 16 and parallels is “He is risen.” The result is as follows:

	Mark	Matthew	Luke
Gethsemane	14	26	22
Calvary	15	27	23
“He is risen”	16	28	24

Even when we compare the contents of these chapters as a whole we discover remarkable similarity amid pleasing variety. This is true first of all with respect to Mark 14 and 15 and parallels. Note chart on page 550.

As to the closing chapter of each of the Synoptics, the story about the women at the empty tomb is found in Mark 16:1–8; Matt. 28:1–10; and Luke 24:1–12. Cf. John 20:1–10. Also, according to the sixth verse of each Synoptic account these women, who had come to anoint the body of Jesus, are reported to have heard the startling news, “He is risen.”

Parallels of Mark 14, 15

Mark	Matthew	Luke	John, etc.
14:1, 2	26:1–5	22:1, 2	John 11:45–53	God’s Counsel versus Man’s Collusion
14:3–9	26:6–13		John 12:1–8	The Anointing at Bethany
14:10, 11	26:14–16	22:3–6		The Agreement between Judas and the Chief Priests
14:12–21	26:17–25	22:7–14, 21–23	John 13:21–30	The Passover
14:22–26	26:26–30	22:15–20	I Cor. 11:23–25	The Institution of the Lord’s Supper
		22:24–30		The Dispute about Greatness
14:27–31	26:31–35	22:31–34	John 13:36–38	Peter’s Denial Foretold
		22:35–38		“Did you lack anything?”
14:32–42	26:36–46	22:39–46		Gethsemane
14:43–50	26:47–56	22:47–53	John 18:3–12	The Betrayal and the Seizure of Jesus
14:51, 52				The Young Man Who Escaped
14:53–65	26:57–68	22:54, 55, 63–71	John 18:13, 14, 19–24	The Trial before the Sanhedrin
14:66–72	26:69–75	22:56–72	John 18:15–28, 25–27	Peter’s Threefold Denial
15:1	27:1, 2	23:1, 2	John 18:28	The Sanhedrin’s Decision to Put Jesus to Death
	27:3–10		Acts 1:18, 19	Judas’ Death by Suicide
15:2–5	27:11–14	23:3–5	John 18:33–38	Jesus Questioned by Pilate
15:6–15	27:15–26	23:13–25	John 18:39–19:16	Jesus Sentenced to Die
15:16–20	27:27–31		John 19:2, 3	The Mockery
15:21–32	27:32–44	23:26–43	John 19:19–27	Calvary: The Crucifixion of Jesus
15:33–41	27:45–56	23:44–49	John 19:28–30	Calvary: The Death of Jesus
15:42–47	27:57–61	23:50–56	John 19:38–42	The Burial of Jesus
	27:62–66			The Guard Stationed

From that point on the accounts diverge. Mark’s “disputed section” (16:9–20) summarizes events reported elsewhere in greater detail and also contains some unparalleled material. It requires separate discussion at the proper place.

Matthew 28 continues his unparalleled story about The Guard (now Frightened and finally Bribed). See verses 2–4, 11–15. He ends with the climactic and only partially paralleled description of The Great Claim; The Great Commission; and The Great Comfort (verses 16–20). Cf. Mark 16:14–18; Luke 24:36–49; John 20:19–23; Acts 1:9–11.

The report of The Appearance of the Risen Savior to Cleopas and his Companion, a narrative peculiar to Luke (except for Mark 16:12, 13), covers 23 verses of that evangelist’s final chapter (24:13–35). With the story of Christ’s Appearance to the Disciples in Jerusalem (verses 36–49; cf. Mark 16:14; John 20:19 ff.) and that of his Ascension (verses 50–53; cf. Mark 16:19; Acts 1:9–12) “the beloved physician” closes the first of his two New Testament books.

When the Marcan captions for all three chapters are reviewed a few times, they are easily commited to memory. Once Mark’s sequence has been mastered, the corresponding parallels in Matthew and Luke—when there are such parallels—are also quickly located. The formula “Mark’s figure plus 12 = Matthew’s figure,” or “plus 8 = Luke’s figure” holds throughout the three final chapters.

A blank space in any column indicates that a particular section does not occur in the Synoptic Gospel mentioned by name above that column.

Take, as an example, Mark 14:51, 52. Here both Matthew’s column and Luke’s have a blank space, indicating that the story about The Young Man Who Escaped is found only in Mark.

A look at the columns indicates that as far as the Gospels are concerned it is Matthew alone who reports Judas’ Death by Suicide. As already mentioned, it is also the converted publican alone who tells the fascinating story of The Guard.

The Anointing at Bethany is in the Synoptics reported only by Mark and Matthew. There is, however, a parallel in John 12:1–8. The Mark-Matthew parallel holds also for The Mockery, again with what by many is considered a corresponding passage in John. There are no non-Marcan sections common to Matthew and Luke.⁶⁶⁹

The last three chapters of the Gospel according to Luke contain many unparalleled (or nearly unparalleled) sections: The Dispute about Greatness, “Did you lack anything?,” Jesus before Herod, the Appearance of the Risen Savior to Cleopas and his Companion (except for Mark 16:12–13), and The Ascension (but see Mark 16:19; Acts 1:9–12). Even the section on Christ’s Appearance to the Disciples in Jerusalem (Luke 24:36–49) is to a large extent unparalleled.

The fourth column contains several references to John’s Gospel. However, the only Johannine sections indicated are those which, to some extent, parallel material that is found in the final three chapters of the Synoptics. As for the beloved disciple’s own full report read John 13–21 (even better chapters 11–21). Since in the fourth Gospel chapters 14–17 cover the Upper Room Discourses and the Highpriestly Prayer, topics absent from the Synoptics, none of the indicated parallel references in the fourth column are to these chapters, but all are to John 11, 12, 13, 19, and 20. The narrative found in John 21 is unparalleled.

The Outline of John’s Gospel is very simple. There are two main divisions: a. Christ’s Public Ministry (chapters 1–12) and b. His Private Ministry (chapters 13–21). For the rest, see N.T.C. on John, Vol. I, p. 66, and Vol. II, pp. 134, 218, 260, 374, 446.

All this does not mean that once we are acquainted with the sequence in which the sections occur in these final chapters of each Gospel, we will then be able immediately to locate any and every important passage. There is wide variety even within the individual sections. Constant reading of Scripture is necessary. Constant review not only of the section headings but also of the detailed contents of each section will be a great help. If this is done, one will, for example, soon get to know that The Seven Words of the Cross are distributed as follows:

First Word, Luke 23:34⁶⁷⁰

Second Word, Luke 23:43

Third Word, John 19:26, 27

Fourth Word, Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34

Fifth Word, John 19:28

Sixth Word, John 19:30

Seventh Word, Luke 23:46

Returning, then, to Mark 14:1, 2 and its parallels, we notice the following variations in reporting:

a. In a manner characteristic of him (see N.T.C. on Matt. 19:1) Matthew reports that the incident about to be narrated occurred “when Jesus had finished all these words.”

b. The time indication which in Mark and Luke proceeds from the evangelist himself, is by Matthew ascribed to Jesus: “He said to his disciples, You know that after two days the Passover is held; then the Son of man is handed over to be crucified.”

c. Mark speaks of “the feast of the Passover and the Unleavened Bread,” Matthew of “the Passover,” Luke of “the feast of Unleavened Bread … which is called the Passover.”

d. Matthew, he alone, represents Jesus as declaring that at this Passover “the Son of man is handed over to be crucified.” Though that evangelist alone reports this, it is the background for all three accounts.

e. Though all three state that at this time—two days before Passover—Jesus’ enemies were plotting his death, but were afraid of the people, Mark and Matthew add that the reason for this fear was that an arrest during the feast might cause the people to riot.

f. These same two Gospel writers, but not Luke, describe the plotters as planning to arrest Jesus “by some trick,” and “not at the Festival.”

g. It is Matthew alone who mentions the fact that for the purpose of planning how to bring about the death of Jesus the plotters held a special meeting in the palace of Caiaphas the highpriest.

h. According to Matthew the plotters were “the chief priests and the elders of the people”; according to Mark and Luke they were “the chief priests and the scribes.” This shows that the entire Sanhedrin—chief priests, elders, and scribes—was represented; probably also, that the chief priests took the lead.

It is in the light of all this that Mark 14:1, 2 must be interpreted.

1. Now the feast of the Passover and the Unleavened Bread was two days off, and the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to take Jesus into custody by some trick, and kill him.…

Note the following:

a. A reasonable assumption is that Jesus was crucified in the year a.d. 30, when the fourteenth day of Nisan fell on Thursday, and the fifteenth on Friday. In Israel the first appearance of the new moon marked the beginning of the new month. It was marked by the blowing of trumpets, sacrifices, celebrations, suspension of ordinary business, and wherever necessary by signal fires (Num. 10:10; 28:11–14; Ps. 81:3–5; Amos 8:5, 6). The important days of the month—for example, the tenth of the month Nisan, when the Passover lamb was selected, the killing of the lamb on the fourteenth, etc.—were figured from this first day, or day of the new moon, as a base. See the detailed regulations in Exod. 12:1–14; cf. Esther 3:7.

There is no good reason to believe that Jesus and his disciples ate the lamb and celebrated Passover either earlier or later than on the appointed day. The fourteenth of Nisan was the day when the lamb “had to be sacrificed” (Luke 22:7). It is also clear that immediately after the eating of the lamb and the institution of what has come to be known as “the Lord’s Supper” Jesus and his disciples (with the exception of Judas, who had left earlier and for his own destination, John 13:30) went to Gethsemane (Mark 14:32; John 18:1). Here, during what we would call the night from Thursday to Friday Jesus was taken into custody. Early Friday morning the Sanhedrin “took counsel against Jesus to put him to death” (Matt. 27:1). He was led to Pilate that same morning and crucified that same day (Mark 15:1, 25). It is clear, therefore, that Jesus was crucified on Friday, the day before the sabbath (Mark 15:42, 43; Luke 23:46, 54; John 19:14, 30, 42). It was early in the morning of the day “after the sabbath”—hence on Sunday, the first day of the week—that some women went to the tomb and heard the startling news, “He is risen” (Matt. 28:1, 6; Mark 16:2, 6; Luke 24:1, 6; John 20:1).

It should be clear, therefore, that the theory according to which Jesus was crucified on Thursday is opposed by the evidence of the Gospels.⁶⁷¹

The day on which the lamb was killed was followed by the seven day feast of the Unleavened Bread.⁶⁷² celebrated from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of Nisan. So close was the connection between the Passover meal proper and the immediately following Festival of the Unleavened Bread that the term “Passover” is sometimes used to cover both (see Luke 22:1).

Since the feast of the Passover etc. was “two days off,” it must have been Tuesday when Christ’s enemies held their meeting for the purpose of plotting how to bring about the arrest and death of Jesus.

b. The plotters were “the chief priests and the scribes”; according to Matthew, also “the elders of the people.” For a description of the three groups see on 11:27, 28. But is not this shocking? A dirty plot devised by Israel’s leaders? By priests, scribes, and elders? Yes, indeed!

The church, too, has had many leaders. Some were good. They remind one of Joshua the highpriest, worthy bearer of a double crown, a type of Christ (Zech. 6:9–13). They were “scribes trained for the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 13:52), “elders who ruled well” (I Tim. 5:17).

But there were—and are—also others, genuine plotters, “prophets who make my people err” (Mic. 3:5), corrupt elders perpetrating evil “in the dark” (Ezek. 8:5–13). “When corruption invades a church, the process generally starts at the top.” “No politics is as rotten as church politics.”

c. These enemies were seeking how to take Jesus into custody “by some trick,”⁶⁷³ that is, as the context indicates, “by surprise” and “away from the crowds.”

d. “ … and kill him.” The plan to kill Jesus was not new. It was of long standing (Mark 3:6; 12:7; John 5:18; 7:1, 19, 25; 8:37, 40; 11:53). We may well believe, however, that due to events of recent days the leaders were now more determined than ever to destroy Jesus. Their envy had been increased by the raising of Lazarus from the dead, causing many people to believe in Jesus (John 11:45–53), by the triumphal entry’s effects upon the crowds (Mark 11:1–11), by the cleansing of the temple (11:15–18, 27, 28), by parables which the leaders knew were aimed against them (12:12), and by the woes pronounced against the scribes and Pharisees (12:38–40; cf. Matt. 23). Moreover, the expression “how … to kill him” stresses the fact that what bothered these leaders was especially this, that though they very passionately desired to destroy Jesus they did not know how to do this without creating more trouble for themselves. This becomes even more clear from verse 2. for they were saying, Not during the feast, lest there be⁶⁷⁴ an uproar among the people.

The plotters realized that Jesus had many friends and adherents, especially among the thousands of Galileans attending the festivities. In case of any action against their Leader these followers might cause trouble. Significant in this connection is John 12:17–19. Bitterly Christ’s enemies had complained, “Look, the world has gone after him!” The chief priests, scribes, and elders were not at all desirous of having to cope with an enthusiastic, hostile, determined, rioting Passover crowd. Were the hosanna shouts (Mark 11:9, 10) still ringing in the ears of the plotters?

They are going to wait patiently until the people have returned to their homes. Then, when all is safe, they will kill Jesus! They will do it at their convenience.… So they thought. But it did not turn out that way.

The true significance of the present passage is not understood unless it is read in connection with its parallel, Matt. 26:1–5. Cf. Rev. 12:1–5, 10. It is only on the background of God’s decree that its meaning becomes clear. “Not at the Festival,” said the plotters. “At the Festival,” said the Almighty. That was the divine decree, for which see also Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; Eph. 1:11. That decree always triumphs. Illustrations:

a. Did it seem as if with the fall of man Satan had won the victory? Note the mother of all promises (Gen. 3:15).

b. “I will smite David even to the wall,” said Saul (I Sam. 18:11). But God’s decree concerning David, with whom the Messianic promises were bound up, was different (I Sam. 16:12, 13; 25:29; II Sam. 7:16).

c. The combined forces of wickedness were arrayed against Judah. Their purpose was to blot out the house of David and to establish their own king. There follows the triumphant Isa. 7:14!

d. At Haman’s request an order was issued for the destruction of all the Jews, It was one of those “unchangeable” (?) decrees. It was sealed with the king’s ring. But the Lord’s promise, according to which Messiah was to be born from the Jews, had been sealed with the oath of “the King of kings.” The result? Read the book of Esther.

e. Herod decides to kill the newborn “king of the Jews.” So he orders all the boy babies of Bethlehem and surroundings, two years and under, to be ruthlessly slain. But the holy child was already safely on his way to Egypt. Read Matt. 2.

f. At last, however, it seemed as if Satan had actually triumphed. Was not Jesus hanging on a cross? … But the very cross meant Satan’s doom! I Cor. 1:22–25; Col. 2:13–15; Rev. 12:10, 11.

“Jehovah brings the counsel of the nations to nought;

He frustrates the plans of the peoples.

The counsel of Jehovah stands forever.

The thoughts of his heart to all generations”

(Ps. 33:10, 11; cf. 2:1–4).

That is the foundation upon which God’s children build their hope for eternity, to the glory of God Triune!

14:3–9 The Anointing at Bethany

Cf. Matt. 26:6–13; John 12:1–8⁶⁷⁷

3 And while he was in Bethany, reclining at table in the home of Simon the leper, there came to him a woman with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the alabaster jar and poured out (the perfume) over his head. 4 But some were indignantly saying to each other, “Why this waste of perfume? 5 For this perfume could have been sold for more than a year’s wages,⁶⁷⁵ and (the money) given to the poor.” And they were grumbling at her. 6 But Jesus said, “Leave her alone. Why are you bothering her? (It is) a beautiful thing she has done to me. 7 For the poor you always have with you, and whenever you wish, you can do good to them; but me you have not always. 8 She has done what she could. She has anointed my body in advance for burial.⁶⁷⁶ 9 I solemnly assure you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, also what she has done shall be told in memory of her.”

Of the three sources that contain this story, that in John (12:1–8) is by far the most detailed, with 142 words in the original. Mark (14:3–9) comes next, with 124 words. The shortest is Matthew (26:6–13) with only 109. The difference consists to a large extent in the material which Mark and/or John add(s) to Matthew’s summary, though the style also varies, as could be expected.

Items in Mark and/or John but not in Matthew: a. the woman broke the jar; b. the perfume could have been sold for more than a year’s wages; c. the disciples were grumbling at the woman; d. the woman who anointed Jesus was Mary (obviously the sister of Martha and of Lazarus; see 11:1; cf. Luke 10:42); e. she anointed Jesus’ feet, which she afterward wiped with her hair; f. the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment; and g. it was Judas who, for selfish reasons, took the lead in finding fault with Mary.

The description of the perfume varies. The same variety of phraseology is evident in connection with the stated reason why the woman did what she did.

There are no conflicts. A moment’s study reveals that even items which on the surface may seem to clash—e.g., according to John the woman anointed Jesus’ feet, but according to Matthew and Mark she poured the perfume over his head—actually dovetail beautifully, as will be shown.

3. And while he was in Bethany, reclining at table in the home of Simon the leper, there came to him a woman with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the alabaster jar and poured out (the perfume) over his head.

Here at verse 3 Mark begins to tell a new story. To do so he must go back a few days, from the Tuesday of verses 1, 2 to the preceding Saturday evening, when a supper was given at Bethany in honor of Jesus. Why does Mark go back? Could it be because human nature at its best, because of what God in his marvelous grace did for it, stands out all the more radiantly when it is contrasted with human nature at its worst? Could that be the reason why verses 3–9, describing Mary’s beautiful deed, is here inserted between a. verses 1, 2; and b. 10, 11? Respectively these two surrounding sections picture the perversity a. of the chief priests, scribes, etc., and b. of Judas, the man who becomes their partner in crime. However that may be, what we have in this narrative of Mary versus Jesus’ enemies is a manifestation of troth over against treachery, of wholehearted devotion versus hideous degradation.

The refreshing incident took place “while he [Jesus] was in Bethany.”⁶⁷⁸ Present at the supper were at least fifteen men: Jesus, The Twelve, Lazarus (John 12:2), and a certain Simon, mentioned here in verse 3 and in Matt. 26:6. The idea readily suggests itself that the supper (or “dinner” if one prefers) was prompted by love for the Lord, specifically by gratitude for the raising of Lazarus and for the healing of Simon, the man who had been a leper, is still called “Simon the leper,” but had presumably been healed by Jesus. It was at the home of this Simon that the dinner was given. Martha, the sister of Mary and Lazarus, was serving (John 12:2).

Now while the guests, according to custom, were reclining at table “there came to him a woman.” That this woman was Mary of Bethany we learn from John 12:3. She has taken a position behind the reclining Jesus. In her hand she holds “an alabaster jar of very costly or expensive perfume,” that is, a jar or vase of white (or perhaps delicately tinted) fine-grained gypsum. The perfume had been extracted from pure⁶⁷⁹ nard, that is, from the dried root leaves of this particular Himalayan plant. That the jar contained a large quantity of this precious and very fragrant extract is also clear from John 12:3, not less than a Roman pound (twelve ounces)!

Suddenly she breaks the jar and pours its contents down or out over⁶⁸⁰ Jesus. According to Matthew and Mark she pours the perfume out upon or over his head (cf. Ps. 23:5); according to John she anoints his feet. There is no conflict, for Matthew and Mark clearly indicate that the perfume was poured over Christ’s body (Matt. 26:12; Mark 14:8). Evidently there was enough for the entire body: head, neck, shoulders, and feet. Simon’s house was filled with fragrance. Along with the perfume, Mary poured out her heart in gratitude and devotion!

The rest of the paragraph describes the reaction on the part of a. “some” (verses 4, 5) and b. Jesus (verses 6–9). 4, 5. But some were indignantly saying to each other, Why this waste of perfume? For this perfume could have been sold for more than a year’s wages, and (the money) given to the poor. And they were grumbling at her. The language is abrupt and vivid. It is not difficult to imagine that Peter had vividly pictured to his audience, including Mark, exactly what had occurred. The scene had impinged itself indelibly upon the apostle’s recollection, and it is probably in that same form that Mark here reproduces it, popular abbreviations and all. Mark’s “some” are Matthew’s “disciples.” It seems to have been Judas, the treasurer, who voiced the strongest objection. He quickly calculated the value of the perfume, assessing it at three hundred denarii (John 12:5), or even more (as here in Mark 14:5). Think of it: more than a year’s wages gone to waste, enough to feed no less than three hundred families for one whole day, and have something left! And now all was lost. What a shame!⁶⁸¹

Piously (?) Judas blurts out his opinion that the huge amount for which this perfume could—and as he saw it should—have been sold, would have been a bounteous gift for the poor.

Both Matthew and Mark make it clear that the other disciples chimed in. They were indignant,⁶⁸² and were grumbling⁶⁸³ at Mary. “The perfume could have been sold and given⁶⁸⁴ to the poor” was the sentiment of all.

Poor Mary! Almost wherever she looks, she meets angry glances, shocked disapproval. That the native language of love is lavishness these men do not seem to understand. Noble people, these men, especially Judas, the protector of the simple way of life, and the helper of the poor! But what he was really after is pointed out in John 12:6.

6, 7. But Jesus said, Leave her alone. Why are you bothering her? (It is) a beautiful thing she has done to me. For the poor you always have with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but me you have not always. Jesus rushes to Mary’s defense by saying, “Leave her alone,” or “Let her be.”⁶⁸⁵ He continues literally, “Why are you causing trouble for her?” He calls what she did “a beautiful thing.” And such it was indeed: unique in its thoughtfulness, regal in its lavishness, and marvelous in its timeliness.

Not as if the Master were unconcerned about the poor. Far from it, as the following passages indicate: Mark 10:21; 12:42, 43; and in the other Gospels see Matt. 5:7; 6:2–4; 12:7; 19:21; Luke 6:20, 36–38; 7:22; 14:13; John 13:29. On this subject, as well as on all others, his teaching was in line with the rest of special revelation (Exod. 23:10, 11; Lev. 19:10; Prov. 14:21b, 31; Isa. 58:7; and for the New Testament see II Cor. 8:1–9; Gal. 6:2, 9, 10; II Thess. 3:13; James 5:1–6). But there would be many other opportunities to tend to the needs of the poor. On the contrary, the opportunity to show love and honor to Jesus in the state of humiliation had almost vanished. Gethsemane, Gabbatha, and Golgotha were just around the corner. What Mary had done was therefore exactly right, beautiful even.

Continued: 8. She has done what she could.⁶⁸⁶ She has anointed my body in advance⁶⁸⁷ for burial. Similarly Matthew writes, “For when she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial.” On this difficult passage much has been written. As some see it, Jesus is saying that Mary, without realizing it herself, had anointed Jesus for his impending death and burial. Now it must be admitted that this interpretation makes sense: God’s purpose is often accomplished through the deeds of human beings, even though the latter are unaware of what is actually happening. Besides, Mary may not have known that her Master’s death was so close at hand. On the other hand, the fact should not be overlooked that Mary of Bethany was perhaps the best listener Jesus ever had. The woman who now anointed Jesus’ feet was the same one who had previously been sitting at his feet (Luke 10:39). If even the enemies of Jesus knew about the predictions Jesus had made concerning himself (Matt. 27:63), can we not assume that Mary knew fully as much? If so, is it not probable that the thought had occurred to her, “This may well be the last opportunity I shall ever get to bestow a kindness upon Jesus; and when, according to his own prediction, his enemies kill him, will his friends be accorded the privilege of anointing his body?” The view, accordingly, that Mary’s conscious purpose was to prepare Jesus for burial must not be ruled out. For more detail on this see N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 178–180.

Jesus concludes his defense of Mary by saying, 9. I solemnly assure you,⁶⁸⁸ wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, also what she has done shall be told in memory of her. As already indicated, it was now Saturday evening, the day before the triumphal entry. Then on Tuesday Jesus was going to make the astounding prediction, “And to all the nations the gospel must first be preached” (13:10; cf. Matt. 24:14). For “gospel” see N.T.C. on Philippians, pp. 82–85. This gospel must be preached.⁶⁸⁹ Preaching, in the religious sense, means heralding. Careful exposition is basic. But genuine preaching is lively, not dry; timely, not stale. It is the earnest proclamation of news initiated by God. It is not the abstract speculation of views excogitated by man. See N.T.C. on II Tim. 4:2.

But before Jesus makes the announcement about worldwide gospel preaching he now, that is, three days earlier, solemnly promises that wherever the joyful story travels, the deed of Mary will march hand in hand with it. The memory of Mary’s noble act must be kept alive. The Master will not allow it to be forgotten. Cf. Matt. 25:34–40.

In studying this section one is prone to commit the error of becoming so filled with admiration for Mary’s beautiful deed as to forget that what she did was only a reflection of the Master’s own kindness toward her. Consider not only his mercy in saving her but also the tenderness he revealed when in this particular moment he rushed to her defense. After all, he knew that the hour of his own incomparably bitter suffering was fast approaching. Nevertheless, so deeply did he love his own (cf. John 13:1) that, because of his appreciation for what she had done, he was wounded deeply by the unjustified criticism to which she was subjected. His heart went out to her.

Is not the real lesson this, therefore, that God, whose image is Christ (Heb. 1:3), takes infinitely keen delight in rewarding the faithfulness of those who honor him? Whenever we enumerate his many glorious attributes, should we not also pay due attention to the fact that he is indeed “the Rewarder of those who diligently seek him” (Heb. 11:6)?

Note how generously and with what intense delight he rewarded:

Abraham (Gen. 22:15–18)

Ruth (Ruth 1:16, 17; 2:12; 4:13–22)

Hannah (I Sam. 1:1–20)

Ebed-melech the Ethiopian (Jer. 39:15–18)

King Hezekiah (II Kings 19)

King Jehoshaphat (II Chron. 20:1–30)

Daniel and his friends (Dan. 1:1–6:28)

“The commended centurion” (Matt. 8:5–13)

The Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7:24–30)

Those who brought their little ones to Jesus (Mark 10:13–16)

His loyal disciples, in spite of their many faults (Mark 10:23–31)

The poor widow who gave “her whole living” (Mark 12:41–44)

The Samaritan leper (Luke 17:11–19)

Ever so many other names could be added, but this small list should suffice to indicate what is one of the main lessons—perhaps even the main lesson—taught here in Mark 10:13–16.

14:10, 11 The Agreement between Judas and the Chief Priests

Cf. Matt. 26:14–16; Luke 22:3–6

10 And Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went to the chief priests in order to hand him over to them. 11 They were delighted to hear this and promised to give him money. So he was looking for an opportunity to betray him.⁶⁹⁰

According to all three accounts Judas, “one of the twelve,” goes to the chief priests (and the officers of the temple police, Luke 22:4) to discuss how he might deliver Jesus to them. The delight experienced by the leaders because of the unexpected entrance and offer of Judas is reported by both Mark and Luke. A sum of money for the betrayal is agreed upon. Afterward the traitor watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to these men, and (as Luke adds) to do this in the absence of a crowd.

It is Matthew alone who has transmitted to posterity the traitor’s vulgarly mercenary question flung at the chief priests, etc., “What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?” It is also that same evangelist who makes clear that Judas leaves the conference, with the thirty pieces of silver on his person.

Mark reports, “They promised to give him money,” a promise that was fulfilled at that very meeting.

Luke’s account reveals the devil’s part in this sordid affair, “Then Satan entered Judas.” Cf. John 13:27.

10. And Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went to the chief priests in order to hand him over⁶⁹¹ to them.

What caused Judas to become Christ’s betrayer? To the reasons given above—see on 3:19—the following should be added, at least for consideration:

a. The rebuke which Jesus administered to the disciples, including Judas, Mary’s chief maligner (John 12:4, 5), may have contributed to the traitor’s decision. We say, “may have,” for certainty on this point is impossible.⁶⁹²

b. To his twelve privileged followers Jesus had promised dazzling rewards (Mark 10:29, 30), thrones even (Matt. 19:28). Judas must have listened with rapt attention to words such as these. But, strange to say, Jesus had also on several occasions predicted his imminent and violent death (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34). In fact, most recently he had even referred to his burial, as if it were a matter pertaining to the immediate future (14:8). Is it difficult to believe that a man such as Judas was deeply disturbed by this language, and that he drew the conclusion that to remain with Jesus meant to go down in defeat with him? He should have taken to heart the words of the Master spoken earlier, “For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s sake will save it” (8:35). But, as remarked previously, though various elements must have entered into the reason why Judas betrayed the Master, basic to everything else was this disciple’s utterly selfish heart as contrasted with Christ’s infinitely unselfish and outgoing heart. It was the traitor’s unwillingness to pray for renewal of life that ruined him. It was impenitence that destroyed him.

For his shockingly loathsome deed there was no excuse whatever. Judas was, after all, a specially privileged person. He was “one of the twelve,” as all four evangelists take the trouble to point out (Matt. 26:14; Mark 14:10; Luke 22:3; John 6:70, 71). For many months Judas had been living in Christ’s immediate presence, had been eating, drinking, and traveling with him. He had noticed the strength in the Master’s voice when he stilled the storm, cursed the barren fig tree, and rebuked those who devoured widows’ houses. But Judas had also become aware of the tenderness of that same voice when it pleaded with sinners, including Judas!, to come to him and rest. He had listened to the Savior’s marvelous discourses and to the decisive and authoritative answers he had given to the many questions that had been hurled at him, sometimes with the intention of ensnaring him. Judas had watched the Great Physician in the act of tenderly restoring the handicapped, or bending down mercifully over the sick and healing them … and then even adding (at times), “Your faith has made you well.” Yes, Judas had witnessed all this and much more. Cf. Matt. 13:17. And then he decided to deliver this unsurpassably powerful, wise, and compassionate Benefactor into the hands of cruel men … “for thirty pieces of silver.”

11. They were delighted to hear this and promised to give him money. Naturally the chief priests were glad when a disciple of Jesus suddenly turned up to be their helper. Did he perhaps arrive on Tuesday evening, just as the members of the Sanhedrin were leaving, and did they then quickly reassemble? We do not know. What we do know is that they regarded the arrival of Judas and his implied offer to be a godsend.

The parallel accounts leave the impression that the business was quickly transacted. A combination of Matt. 26:14; Mark 14:11; and Luke 22:5, 6a results in the following legitimate reconstruction of what now transpired:

Judas: “What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?”

The chief priests: “We promise to give you thirty pieces of silver as soon as you agree to deliver him into our hands.”

Judas: “I agree.”

The chief priests, after weighing out the money: “Here are the thirty silver pieces.” Judas takes them and departs.

This interpretation is in harmony with the psychology of the situation. The chief priests would not have allowed their golden opportunity to pass by unheeded. They knew very well that if Judas had the money “in his pocket” he would not have dared to back out before committing the deed.

As to the price paid, namely “thirty pieces of silver,” these pieces were tantamount in value to tetradrachmas or Hebrew shekels. Thirty of them figured at 64–72 cents each add up to (a sum) slightly more or less than $20, or not much over £ 8. But with money values constantly fluctuating, it is impossible to determine with any exactness what this would amount to in present currency. For a price of a slave, gored by an ox, the Savior was sold to his enemies. See Exod. 21:32. For such a pitiful sum Judas betrayed the Master.

With the money already in his possession, Judas now feels obliged to go into action. We are therefore not surprised to read: So he was looking for an opportunity to betray⁶⁹³ him. That opportunity would come his way very soon.

14:12–21 The Passover

Cf. Matt. 26:17–25; Luke 22:7–14; 21–23; John 13:21–30

12 Now on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, his [Jesus’] disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go and get the Passover Supper ready for you to eat?” 13 So he sent two of his disciples and told them, “Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him; 14 and wherever he enters, say to the owner of that house, ‘The Teacher asks, Where is my guest-room, in which I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 15 And he will show you a large upper room, furnished and ready. There make ready for us.” 16 So off the disciples went. They came into the city, found (everything) just as he had told them, and prepared the Passover.

17 And when it was evening he arrived with the twelve. 18 While they were reclining at table and eating, Jesus said, “I solemnly swear to you, one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me.” 19 They became distressed, and one by one said to him, “Surely not I?” 20 He told them, “(It is) one of the twelve, one who dips (his hand) into the bowl with me. 21 For the Son of man goes as it is written concerning him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed. It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”

According to all three synoptists Jesus, on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, gives instructions to disciples to reserve a room for the celebration of the Passover, and to make all the necessary preparations. They are sent to the home of a certain unnamed individual, where they make ready. During the meal Jesus suddenly shocks the little company by saying, “One of you will betray me, one who is eating with me.” He adds, “For the Son of man goes as it is written concerning him.…”

The main variations are as follows:

According to Mark the instructions were given to two of Christ’s disciples; according to Luke, to Peter and John. Matthew does not specify. In fact, Matt. 26:17–19 looks like a summary when compared to Mark 14:12–16. In his more detailed account “Peter’s interpreter” informs his readers that the two disciples were told to go into the city, where a man carrying a jar of water would meet them. They must follow him into whatever house he enters, and must say to the owner, “The Teacher asks, ‘Where is my guest-room… ?’ ” The owner will then show the two a larger upper room, furnished and ready. There they must make the necessary preparations.—All this was done, and in the evening Jesus sits down with The Twelve.

Up to this point there is very little difference between Mark’s and Luke’s account. In fact, Luke 22:7–14 is almost a verbatim repetition of Mark 14:12–17. However, in verse 17 Luke has “the apostles” where Matthew and Mark read “the twelve.” Also in the same verse Luke says “And when the hour came,” where Matthew and Mark have “(And) when it was evening.” We have already called attention to the fact that according to Luke the (first) day of Unleavened Bread was the one “on which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed.” See above, on 14:1. Where both Matthew and Mark have Jesus saying, “ … one who dips his hand into the bowl with me,” Luke (22:21) substitutes, “But look, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table.” And in verse 23 Luke describes the disciples as asking each other which of them was the traitor. It is surely easy to understand that these startled men would direct their searching questions to their own hearts, to each other, and to the Lord. Every idea of contradiction is therefore unrealistic. The three accounts, though interestingly varied, are in perfect harmony.

Thus also the fact that according to Mark the disciples one by one say, “Surely not I?” whereas Matthew reports the same question in the more complete form, “Surely not I, Lord?”—and with reference to Judas, “Surely not I, Rabbi?”—simply means that with respect to this item it is Mark who summarizes. What he says is true, but on this particular point Matthew, who was present, has given us a more complete report.

12. Now on the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, his [Jesus’] disciples asked him, Where do you want us to go and get the Passover Supper ready for you to eat?

Finally the morning of the fourteenth of Nisan arrived. When, as sometimes happens, the term “Festival of Unleavened Bread” is taken in its broadest sense, even the day on which occurred the eating of the Passover lamb is included. We are not told where Jesus and his disciples spent Wednesday, the day between the one to which reference was made in verse 1 (Tuesday), and the Passover, verses 12–21 (Thursday).⁶⁹⁴

Nothing is said about the purchase of a lamb. We may probably assume that this had been attended to a few days earlier. See Exod. 12:3. Further preparations had to be made however. During the afternoon the lamb must be killed in the forecourt of the temple (cf. Exod. 12:6). A room of sufficient size must be obtained, and everything in connection with this room and its furniture must be arranged. Besides, purchases must be made: of unleavened bread, bitter herbs, wine, etc. The lamb must be made ready for use, the sauce must be prepared. Since it was now probably Thursday morning, there could be no delay.

A few additional remarks are in order:

a. The words “when it was customary⁶⁹⁵ to sacrifice the Passover lamb” are probably added by Mark for the sake of his Gentile readers.

b. “ … us to go,” indicates that at this particular moment Jesus and his disciples were not in “the city” (see verse 13). They may have been in Bethany.

c. The disciples realize that it is their duty to prepare the Passover for the Master.⁶⁹⁶ It is his Passover. He was the Host. The disciples were privileged to eat “with him” (see verses 18, 20). They are his guests.

13, 14. So he sent two of his disciples and told them, Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him; and wherever he enters, say to the owner of that house, The Teacher asks, Where is my guest-room, in which I may eat the Passover with my disciples?

In his answer Jesus now gives instructions to two of his disciples; i.e., to Peter and John, as Luke 22:8 informs us. The directions given are in a sense very definite; in another sense very indefinite. They are definite enough so that the two men will experience no difficulty in finding the place where the supper is to be held. Yet, they are indefinite enough for the present to conceal the name of the owner and the location of his home. Is the indefiniteness due to the fact that not until evening must Judas know where the Passover will be kept, so that Jesus may indeed observe it with his disciples, and the plan of God regarding the subsequent events may be fully carried out?

However this may be, the two apostles are told that on entering the city (Jerusalem) they will be met by a man carrying⁶⁹⁷ a jug⁶⁹⁸ of water.⁶⁹⁹ This is remarkable, for ordinarily not a man but a woman or girl would be doing this. Hence the disciples will experience no difficulty in singling out this man.

Furthermore, Jesus instructs them to follow this man into whatever house he enters.⁷⁰⁰ It is clear that the man to be followed is not the owner, but perhaps a servant or a son. It is useless to speculate exactly who he was, though this has been done. This holds, too, with respect to the owner. All we really know is that he must have been a disciple of Jesus. Was the owner John Mark’s father, then still alive? I am neither willing to say with Zahn that he was, nor with others that he was not.

The two disciples must say to the owner, “The Teacher⁷⁰¹ asks, Where is my guest-room,⁷⁰² in which I may eat the Passover with my disciples?” As indicated in the preceding, this is going to be Christ’s own Passover. Even the guest-room is in a sense his own; that is, he asks that it be placed entirely at his disposal for the purpose of celebrating the feast, together with the disciples as his guests.

15. And he will show you a large upper room, furnished and ready. There make ready for us. It was the rule in Israel that if anyone at this time had space available it must be given free of charge to whatever family or group wished to make sacred use of it. Besides, the owner, being one of Christ’s followers, would for that very reason be happy to accommodate the Master and his disciples.

This, then, is the famous Upper Room⁷⁰³ in which Jesus celebrated his last Passover, instituted “the Lord’s Supper,” and delivered the beautiful and comforting discourses found in John 14–16. It was here also that he was going to offer the unforgettable prayer recorded in John 17.

The fact that this room was built on top of the house made it right for the present purpose. In such a room one could be relatively free from disturbance. It was a place for discussion, fellowship, meditation, and prayer. Also, it was ample: the thirteen were not crowded. And it was “furnished”⁷⁰⁴ and in every respect “ready” to be used for the purpose it was going to serve.

The question may be asked, “How did Jesus know that the two men would find everything as here indicated?” For remarks with respect to this problem see on 2:8; 5:32; 9:33, 34; 11:2, 13. The interaction between Jesus’ human and his divine nature is, in the final analysis, a mystery, too deep for us to comprehend.

16. So off the disciples went. They came into the city, found (everything) just as he had told them, and prepared the Passover. Peter and John found everything as predicted, and did everything as ordered. See above, on verse 12.

17, 18. And when it was evening⁷⁰⁵ he arrived with the twelve. While they were reclining at table and eating, Jesus said, I solemnly declare to you, one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me. Though it was still what we would call Thursday when Jesus arrived, by Jewish reckoning it was already Friday. In order to obtain as complete as possible a picture of what happened in the Upper Room, the Gospel according to John will have to be consulted in addition to the Synoptics. When this is done it becomes clear that the Master did not, immediately upon arriving, predict that one of his disciples would betray him. Matthew and Mark evidently begin their account when much has already happened.

According to John’s Gospel (13:1–20) Jesus has already washed the feet of his disciples, giving them a lesson in humility. Afterward he startles them by telling them that one of them is going to betray him (13:21–30). The pointing out of the betrayer occurred, according to our passage, “while they were reclining at table and eating,” that is, after the meal had been proceeding for some time. For the elements that pertained to the Passover meal, as far as possible chronologically arranged, see N.T.C. on the Gospel of John, Vol. I, p. 121. The reference is probably to item f. on that page. In the same commentary see also p. 242.

“One of you!” It came as a bolt from the blue. It was a stunning blow. What! Did the Master actually mean to say that one of their own number was going to hand him over to the authorities, for them to deal with as they pleased? Why, it was almost unbelievable.—Yet, the One who never told an untruth and whose very name was “the Truth” (John 8:46; 14:6) was saying this; so it must be true. Does not the Master even introduce his startling saying with “I solemnly declare to you”? See on Mark 3:28.

Christ’s shocking announcement evoked three responses, in the form of questions, as follows: a. a question of wholesome self-distrust, “Surely not I?” That was the reaction on the part of all the disciples with the exception of Judas Iscariot. In Mark’s Gospel the question in this form is found in 14:19; Christ’s answer in verses 20, 21. There was also b. a question of loathsome hypocrisy, “Surely, not I, Rabbi?” That, probably after considerable hesitation, was Judas’ reaction. For both his question and Christ’s answer see Matt. 26:25. Finally, there was c. a question of childlike confidence, “Lord, who is it?” That was the way in which John, prompted by Peter, expressed himself. The question in this form, the events relating to it, Christ’s response, and the disciples’ reaction to that response, are recorded only in John 13:23–30, which also in verse 30 mentions the traitor’s departure. Therefore for b. read N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 907, 908, and for c. read N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 245–250.

Here in Mark, therefore, we are dealing only with a.

As to this question of wholesome self-distrust, note verse 19. They became distressed,⁷⁰⁶ and one by one⁷⁰⁷ said to him, Surely not I?

Eleven hearts—those of The Twelve minus Judas Iscariot—are filled with misgiving. Each of these eleven men feels that he could not possibly be the one meant by the Lord—and yet one never can tell. And so, one by one, each of them, caught with a certain dread of himself, asks, “Surely not I?” As to its form in the original, the question expects a negative answer, the kind of answer each ardently hopes the Master will give. 20. He told them, (It is) one of the twelve, one who dips (his hand) into the bowl with me.

It is clear that Jesus did not immediately allay the fear of these men or cure their self-distrust. Nor did he at once satisfy their suddenly aroused curiosity. Were not all the twelve disciples dipping morsels of food into the bowl filled with a broth consisting of mashed fruit (probably dates, figs, and raisins), water, and vinegar? Judas surely was not the only man doing this. What the Lord is doing, therefore, is this: he is emphasizing the base character of the betrayer’s deed. He is saying, “Think of it, my betrayer is a man who is sharing his meal with me.” As has been indicated, Jesus was himself the Host. All the others were eating his food. That very fact, especially in the Near East, a region where accepting someone’s hospitality and then injuring him, was considered most reprehensible, should have tied the hands of all. It should have made it impossible for any of The Twelve to take any action against their Host. Think of Ps. 41:9.

The answer given by Jesus here in verse 20 served the following purposes:

a. It was a warning for Judas. Let Judas ponder what he is doing. “I know your designs, Judas,” the Master seems to be saying. The revelation of this detailed knowledge should have put Judas on guard even at this late hour to return those thirty pieces of silver! Yes, in God’s incomprehensible and all-comprehensive decree there is room even for solemn admonitions given to those who ultimately are lost. You ask, “How is that possible?” I answer: “I do not know, but the fact remains, nevertheless.” If one does not want to accept the idea of warnings even for reprobates, he misses something of the meaning of this account. The serious character of the implied admonition increases the guilt of Judas. Before one is ready to deny the possibility of earnest warnings even for the reprobate, he should study Gen. 4:6, 7; Prov. 29:1; Luke 13:6–9, 34, 35.

b. It rivets the attention upon the depth of Christ’s suffering. In a treacherous and humiliating manner he, the Lord of glory, is being handed over to his enemies. It is very important that we see this. Our reflection on the account of Christ’s Passion should not become lost in all kinds of details regarding Judas and Peter and Annas and Pilate. It is, after all, the story of his suffering. It centers in him, and we must never forget to ask how all these things affected him!

c. It showed, once again, that Jesus was in full control of the situation. He was not taken by surprise. He knew exactly what was happening and what was going to happen, the very details.

d. It furnished an opportunity to the disciples to examine themselves. This point is often passed by. It is, nevertheless, very important. By giving the answer that is recorded here in Mark 14:20 Jesus did not identify the betrayer, and exactly by not identifying him the Lord was actually doing all a favor. He knew that self-examination would be the very best exercise for men such as these (remember Luke 22:24!). Let each disciple be filled with grave misgivings, with wholesome self-distrust. These men need time for self-examination. 21. For the Son of man goes as it is written concerning him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed. It would have been better for that man if he had not been born. For “Son of man” see on 2:10, and on Matt. 8:20, pp. 403–407. Jesus, the One who via the path of humiliation attains to glorification, and in fact was glorious from the very beginning, goes, that is, lives on earth, suffers, dies, all this not as a victim of circumstances, but “as it is written concerning him,” hence as predicted by the prophets (Isa. 53, etc.) and established in God’s eternal decree. It was necessary for the Master to emphasize this truth once again, for it was so very difficult for the disciples to reconcile themselves with the idea of a Messiah who would die. Besides, when, on the day of tomorrow—by Jewish reckoning “today”—he dies on the cross, let the disciples reflect on this solemn statement, that they may know that this death does not mean the triumph of his enemies but rather the realization of God’s gracious, sovereign, and ever victorious plan.

However, nowhere in Scripture does predestination and prophecy cancel human responsibility. So also here: the cry of sorrow and anguish, “Woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed” fully maintains the guilt and establishes the doom of the traitor. Not to have been born would have been better for such a man. But he was born, and is in the process of committing the gruesome deed. Therefore the entire statement, “It would have been better for that man if he had not been born” is an expression of unreality—a situation that can be changed only if Judas, who remains fully responsible, still repents. We know that he did not repent. Hence he faces everlasting damnation (see Matt. 25:46). What makes his guilt all the heavier is the fact that he not only planned the treachery and took the next step—volunteering to deliver Jesus to the enemy—and the next—accepting the thirty pieces of silver—but even now, in spite of Christ’s impressive warnings, goes right ahead.

The rest of the story—Judas’ question, “Surely not I, Rabbi?” and John’s, “Lord, who is it?”—is not found in Mark; but see above, on verses 17, 18.

14:22–26 The Institution of the Lord’s Supper

Cf. Matt. 26:26–30; Luke 22:15–20; I Cor. 11:23–25

22 And while they were eating, he took bread, gave thanks and broke it. He then gave it to them and said, “Take (it); this is my body.” 23 Then he took a cup and gave thanks. He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 He told them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 I solemnly declare to you that from now on I will certainly not drink from this fruit of the vine until that day when I am drinking it new in the kingdom of God.” 26 And when they had sung a hymn they went out to the Mount of Olives.

First, a few remarks regarding Luke’s account. It presents problems both as to the Greek text and as to chronological sequence. A detailed discussion of these problems does not belong here but in a commentary on Luke. Accordingly, we limit ourselves to the following:

Luke is never primarily concerned with time sequence. The “order” (1:3) according to which he arranges his materials is often of a different nature, so that sayings or events apart in time but similar in thought are grouped together. Once this is understood, most of the difficulties disappear. The words of Jesus recorded in Luke 22:15, 16 (unparalleled) may have been spoken at the beginning of the Passover meal.

As to the Lord’s Supper, with Luke 22:17, 20 (the cup) compare Matt. 26:27, 28 and Mark 14:23, 24. With Luke 22:18 (“I will not drink until …”) compare Matt. 26:29 and Mark 14:25. And with Luke 22:19 (the bread) compare Matt. 26:26 and Mark 14:22.

The words that have given rise to much controversy, namely, “This is my body” occur in all three accounts. What must be done with bread and wine is also either distinctly stated or at least implied in all three. Peculiar to Luke but entirely in line with the contents of the communion passages in Matthew and Mark are such dominical words as “Take this, and divide it among yourselves” (verse 17) and “Do this in remembrance of me” (verse 19).

The passage in which Luke represents Jesus as saying, “But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table” (verse 21) does not mean that Judas partook of the Lord’s Supper. It means that before the institution of that sacrament—in other words, when Jesus reclined at table for the passover meal—the hand of Judas and that of the Master were indeed together on the table (cf. Mark 14:18, 20). There is, accordingly, no conflict between Luke 22:21 and John 13:30, “So having taken the morsel, he went out immediately and it was night.”

Matthew’s account and Mark’s are almost identical. Matthew has “All of you drink from it” where Mark has “And they all drank from it.” After “which is poured out for many” in both, Matthew adds “for the forgiveness of sins.” And for Mark’s “when I am drinking it new in the kingdom of God” Matthew substitutes “when I am drinking it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” Remarkable similarity, no essential difference.

22. And while they were eating, he took bread, gave thanks and broke it. At this point Passover passes over into the Lord’s Supper; for it was while, toward the close of the Passover meal, the men were all eating freely (see on verse 18) that Jesus instituted the new sacrament that was to replace the old. A few more hours and the old symbol, being bloody—for it required the slaying of the lamb—will have served its purpose forever, having reached its fulfilment in the blood shed on Calvary. It was time, therefore, that a new and unbloody symbol replace the old. Nevertheless, by historically linking Passover and Lord’s Supper so closely together Jesus also made clear that what was essential in the first was not lost in the second. Both point to him, the only and all-sufficient sacrifice for the sins of his people. Passover pointed forward to this; the Lord’s Supper points back to it.

Having taken from the table a thin slice or sheet of unleavened bread, Jesus “gave thanks” and then started to break up the slice. Though the original, in referring to the prayer, uses one word in verse 22 (literally “having blessed”; cf. Matt. 26:26), and another in verse 23 (“having given thanks”; cf. Matt. 26:27)—the first participial form occurring in connection with the bread, the second in connection with the cup—there is no essential difference. Both Luke (22:19) and Paul (I Cor. 11:24) read “having given thanks” where Matthew and Mark read “having blessed.” It is not incorrect therefore, in both Mark 14:22 and 23, to adopt the rendering, “Jesus … gave thanks.” For more on this see on 6:41. The words which the Lord used in this thanksgiving have not been revealed. To try to reconstruct them from Jewish formula prayers would serve no useful purpose. How do we even know that our Lord availed himself of these prayers?

The breaking of the bread, to which reference is made in all four accounts, must be considered as belonging to the very essence of the sacrament. This becomes clear in the light of that which immediately follows, namely, He then gave it to them and said, Take (it); this is my body. To interpret this to mean that Jesus was actually saying that these portions of bread which he handed to the disciples were identical with his physical body, or were at that moment being changed into his body, is to ignore a. the fact that in his body Jesus was standing there in front of his disciples, for all to see. He was holding in his hand the bread, and giving them the portions as he broke them off. Body and bread were clearly distinct and remained thus. Neither changed into the other, or took on the physical properties or characteristics of the other. Besides, such an interpretation also ignores b. the fact that during his earthly ministry the Master very frequently used symbolical language (Mark 8:15; John 2:19; 3:3; 4:14, 32; 6:51, 53–56; 11:11). It is striking that in all of the instances indicated by these references the symbolical or figurative character of our Lord’s language was disregarded by those who first heard it! In each case also, the context makes clear that those who interpreted Christ’s words literally were mistaken! Is it not high time that the implied lesson be taken to heart? Finally, there is c: when Jesus spoke of himself as being “the vine” (John 15:1, 5), is it not clear that he meant that what a natural vine is in relation to its branches, which find their unity, life, and fruit-bearing capacity in this plant, that, in a far more exalted sense, Christ is to his people? Is it not clear, therefore, that the vine represents or symbolizes Jesus, the genuine Vine? Thus also he calls himself—or is called—the door, the morning star, the cornerstone, the lamb, the fountain, the rock, etc. He also refers to himself as “the bread of life” (John 6:35, 48), “the bread that came down out of heaven” (John 6:58). So, why should he not be, and be represented and symbolized by, “the broken bread”? Accordingly, the meaning of “the broken bread” and the poured out wine is correctly indicated in a Communion Form which represents Christ as saying: “Whereas otherwise you should have suffered eternal death, I give my body in death on the tree of the cross and shed my blood for you, and nourish and refresh your hungry and thirsty souls with my crucified body and shed blood to everlasting life, as certainly as this bread is broken before your eyes and this cup is given to you, and you eat and drink with your mouth in remembrance of Me.”⁷⁰⁸

It was the desire of our Lord, therefore, that by means of the supper, here instituted, the church should remember his sacrifice and love him, should reflect on that sacrifice and embrace him by faith, and should look forward in living hope to his glorious return. Surely, the proper celebration of communion is a loving remembrance. It is, however, more than that. Jesus Christ is most certainly, and through his Spirit most actively, present at this genuine feast! Cf. Matt. 18:20. His followers “take” and “eat.” They appropriate Christ by means of living faith, and are strengthened in this faith.

Having said all this, it will not be necessary to expatiate to any great extent on verses 23, 24. Then he took a cup and gave thanks. He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He told them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

Note the following: