14:27–31 Peter’s Denial Foretold

a. Not much significance should be attached to the fact that Mark speaks of “a” cup, for in the parallel accounts Matthew’s text varies, while Luke and Paul both use the definite article; hence “the cup.” At the Passover it was customary to drink several cups of diluted wine. Since, as has been shown, the Lord’s Supper was linked with the last part of the Passover, it is clear that the cup here mentioned reflects the final drinking that occurred at this feast. Hence both Luke and Paul speak of “the cup after supper.” The emphasis, moreover, is never on the container. All the stress is on its contents, the wine (see on 14:25), as symbol of Christ’s blood.

b. By ordering “all” his true disciples to drink this wine (Matt. 26:27), which they all did (Mark 14:23)—Judas had already left (John 13:27, 30)—the unity of all believers in Christ is stressed. Moreover, the practice of having one person, a priest, drink “for all” is hereby condemned. See also Luke 22:17b.

c. In all four accounts a relation is established between Christ’s blood and his covenant. As reported by Matthew and Mark, Jesus said, “my blood of the covenant.” The expression goes back to Exod. 24:8. See also the significant passage Lev. 17:11. And note: “Apart from the shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb. 9:22; cf. Eph. 1:7); therefore also no covenant, no special relation of friendship between God and his people. Reconciliation with God always requires blood, an atoning sacrifice. And since man himself is unable to render such a sacrifice, a substitutionary offering, accepted by faith, is required (Isa. 53:6, 8, 10, 12; Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 3:16; 6:51; Rom. 4:19; 8:32; II Cor. 5:20, 21; Gal. 2:20; 3:13; I Peter 2:24). Thus the covenant comes into being. Scripture refers again and again to God’s covenant with his people. The Lord established it with Abraham (Gen. 17:7; Ps. 105:9); hence, also with all who share Abraham’s faith (Gal. 3:7, 29).⁷⁰⁹

d. Jesus says that his blood is poured out “for many,” not for all. Cf. Isa. 53:12; Matt. 1:21; 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 10:11, 14, 15, 27, 28; 17:9; Acts 20:28; Rom. 8:32–35; Eph. 5:25–27. Nevertheless, “for many,” not for just a few. Cf. John 1:29; 3:16; 4:42; 10:16; I John 4:14; Rev. 7:9, 10.

In both Matthew and Mark Jesus indicates that this is certainly the very last time that he is going to be with his disciples at this kind of supper. By means of this saying and its implications, he both predicts his imminent death and instructs them, and their followers throughout the ages, to continue until his return (cf. I Cor. 11:26) this manner of remembering him: 25. I solemnly declare to you that from now on I will certainly not drink⁷¹⁰ from this fruit of the vine until that day when I am drinking⁷¹⁰ it new in the kingdom of God. Note the solemn introduction, for which see on 3:28. Jesus knew that he was about to depart from his disciples. In fact, he was going to lay down his life the very next day; or, according to Jewish time reckoning, that very day (Friday).

By speaking of “the fruit of the vine” Jesus undoubtedly refers to wine. Note close relation between “vine” and “wine” in Isa. 24:7. See also Num. 6:4; Hab. 3:17. At this time of the year (April), and under conditions then prevailing in Judea, it is hard to think of anything but fermented grape juice, that is, wine, the kind of wine used at Passover; hence, diluted or paschal wine.

Note the expression “(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.” For “the kingdom of God” see on 1:15. It is the kingdom in its eschatological sense that is meant here, the glorious realm of the redeemed, to which their souls ascend at death (Ps. 73:24, 25; Acts 7:56, 59; II Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:21, 23; Heb. 12:23; Rev. 20:4, 5b, 6). At the close of the present age it will be transformed into the new heaven and earth (Rev. 21:1 ff.). There believers, body and soul then gloriously reunited, will feast forever in the company of their Lord, to praise him forevermore. Then both passover and eucharist will reach their fruition.

We see, therefore, that communion not only points back to what Jesus Christ has done for us but also forward to what he is still going to mean for us. “Drinking new wine in the kingdom of God” (or “in my Father’s kingdom,” Matt. 26:29) is a symbol of the glorious reunion and never-ending festivities awaiting the children of God, in fellowship with their Savior—note: “when I am drinking it new”—in the hereafter. Cf. Ps. 23:5; Isa. 25:6; Matt. 8:11; 22:1 ff.; Luke 14:15; Rev. 3:20; 19:9, 17. Then, too, it is he, the Victorious Lamb, who will be the Host; and his faithful ones the guests, feasting with him!

26. And when they had sung a hymn they went out to the Mount of Olives. “When they had hymned,” says the original. Since, as has been shown, the Lord’s Supper was the natural outgrowth of the Passover, it is probable that the hymns of praise that were lifted up to God were Pss. 115–118. These are songs of praise, thanksgiving, and trust, as anyone can see by reading them. They not only constituted a fitting conclusion to the blessings enjoyed but also a most appropriate preparation for the ordeal that was about to begin. For the entire subject of songs appropriate for the home as well as for public gatherings see N.T.C. on Eph. 5:19 and on Col. 3:16. When the meeting had been thus concluded, Jesus and his disciples, no longer twelve but eleven, went to the Mount of Olives. Specifically, they crossed the Kidron and entered the Gethsemane grove, located near the foot of that mountain. See 14:32; cf. John 18:1.

14:27–31 Peter’s Denial Foretold

Cf. Matt. 26:31–35; Luke 22:31–34; John 13:36–38

27 Then Jesus told them, “You will all fall away,⁷¹¹ for it is written,

‘I will strike down the shepherd,

And the sheep will be scattered.’

28 But after I have been raised, I will go ahead of you to Galilee.”

29 But Peter said to him, “Even though all may fall away, yet will not I.” 30 Jesus answered, “I solemnly declare to you that today—yes, this very night—before the rooster crows twice,⁷¹² you will deny me three times.” 31 Nevertheless, with great emphasis Peter continued to insist, “Even if I have to die with you, I will certainly not deny you.” Similarly spoke also all (the others).

As has already been indicated, if the account with respect to the prediction of Peter’s denial occurs in Mark 14, it can also be found in Matthew (14+12=) 26. In the present instance so very similar is Matthew’s report to that of Mark—a similarity happily reflected even in the division into verses which at a much later date was applied to it—, that in order to find a certain verse in Matthew all one has to do is add 4 to the number of the verse in Mark. Accordingly, Mark 14:27 parallels Matt. 26:31; Mark 14:28 parallels Matt. 26:32, etc.

As to Mark 14:27, to “You will all fall away” (or: “become untrue”), Matthew adds “this very night.” On the other hand, it is Mark who in his thirtieth verse (“today—yes, this very night—”) is more specific and emphatic than is Matthew in his thirty-fourth. In verse 31 Mark graphically introduces Simon’s boastful assertion as follows, “Nevertheless, with great emphasis Peter continued to insist …” Matthew’s parallel is simply, “Peter said to him.”

Luke 22:31, 32 reproduces Christ’s memorable words of revelation, encouragement, and admonition, addressed to Peter. In verse 33 Peter answers, “Lord, I am ready to go with you both to prison and to death.” Verse 34—“… you will deny three times that you know me”—is an interesting variation of its parallel in Matthew and Mark.

Finally, John 13:37, 38 has Peter asking, “Lord, why can’t I follow you right now? I will lay down my life for you.” Jesus replies, “You will lay down your life for me?” When allowance is made for word transposition and use of synonymns, the rest of the reply closely resembles its parallel in Matthew and Mark. Cf. John 13:38b with Matt. 26:34; Mark 14:30.

If we bear in mind that it was not the purpose of any of the Gospel writers to reproduce every word that was spoken, and that each in his own way and for his own purpose gave a fully inspired and true account of the events that occurred and of the words that were spoken, difficulties will begin to disappear. The various reports dovetail beautifully. At various points they supplement each other.

27. Then Jesus told them, “You will all fall away,⁷¹³ for it is written,

I will strike down the shepherd,

And the sheep will be scattered.

For Old Testament passages based on the well-known figure of the shepherd and his sheep see Ps. 23; 79:13; 80:1; 95:7; 119:176; Isa. 40:11; 53:6; Ezek. 34:5. Similar sayings again and again issued from the lips of Jesus (Matt. 15:24; 25:31–46; Mark 6:34; Luke 12:32; John 10:11–18, 25–29). A rather detailed account of this imagery can be found in N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 97–103, 116–118.

Here in Mark 14:27 and its parallels Jesus is predicting that the disciples will all become untrue to him. They will resemble sheep that are running away from their shepherd. This will happen when Jesus, the Good Shepherd, is captured and slain.

In the momentary lapse of the disciples—their failure to show loyalty that night—Jesus sees the fulfilment of Zech. 13:7. The application of that passage to Jesus and his disciples does not present any great difficulty. It is true that in the context of Zechariah’s prophecy the one who smites the shepherd is not mentioned. An order is simply issued, namely, to strike down the shepherd. On the other hand, the entire context refers repeatedly to Jehovah as being the Actor. It is he who will turn, bring, refine, try, hear, and say. Accordingly, Jesus was entirely justified in saying, “ … for it is written ‘I will strike down the shepherd.’ ” Similarly, it was Jehovah himself who, according to Isa. 53:6, laid upon the Mediator “all our iniquities.” It was he who “bruised him,” “put him to grief,” “made his soul an offering for sin.” Cf. Acts 8:32–35. It was God the Father who “spared not his own Son” (Rom. 8:32).

Now when a shepherd is struck down, the sheep scatter in every direction, for they have lost their rallying point. So also when Jesus is captured and subsequently crucified, his followers will panic and flee. That this prediction was indeed fulfilled in the case of Christ’s disciples is clear from passages such as the following:

“And they all left him and fled” (Mark 14:50).

“Then he [Peter] started to curse and to swear, ‘I don’t know this man you’re talking about’ ” (Mark 14:71).

“We had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel, but …” (Luke 24:21).

“Jesus answered them, ‘Do you now believe? Note well, there comes an hour—yes, it has arrived!—when you will be scattered, each to his own home, and you will leave me alone” (John 16:31, 32).

“But Thomas, one of the twelve, the one called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came … He said, ‘Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails … I definitely will not believe’ ” (John 20:24, 25).

The beauty in all this is not only that Jesus here reveals that he loves them all the same, but also that his very prediction would serve the purpose of bringing the scattered sheep together again, once they reflected on the fact that their Master had lovingly forewarned them.

Christ’s prediction has an optimistic climax: 28. But after I have been raised, I will go ahead⁷¹⁴ of you to Galilee. In clear and unfigurative language Jesus speaks about being raised from the dead, just as he had spoken previously (8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34). This is also another revelation of his love, for here Jesus assures them that he is going to meet them in the very region, Galilee, where their homes were, and where the Lord had originally called them to himself.

As to fulfilment, immediately after Christ’s resurrection a messenger from heaven reminded the disciples of this promise (16:7). It was indeed in Galilee that the risen Savior met with these men (Matt. 28:16), with seven of them (John 21:1–23), with more than five hundred of his followers (I Cor. 15:6).

29. But Peter said to him, Even though⁷¹⁵ all may fall away, yet will not I. Matthew substitutes, “I will never become untrue.” Peter here commits the sin of treating the words of Jesus (“You will all fall away”; or: “become untrue”) with disbelief. At the same time he assumes an attitude of superiority with respect to his fellow disciples. Finally, he clearly shows that he does not know himself. He has an inflated opinion of himself, is over-confident, conceited, as events are quickly going to prove.

30. Jesus answered, I solemnly declare to you that today—yes, this very night—before⁷¹⁶ the rooster crows twice, you will deny⁷¹⁷ me three times.

In comparison with verse 27 the present predication a. is introduced in a more solemn and impressive manner, “I solemnly declare”—see on 3:28—; b. is far more specific, being addressed to just one person, Peter; c. indicates even more precisely when it will be fulfilled, namely, “before the rooster crows twice,” that is, before dawn; and d. describes the nature of the disloyalty trap into which that disciple will fall, namely, “deny me three times.” Rooster-crowing served as a time indication. Mark 13:35 shows that it marked the third of the four watches; see on that passage; therefore, 12 midnight-3 A.M.; “crows twice” indicating the latter part of that period.

We see Jesus here as the great Prophet. Though Peter did not know his own heart, Jesus not only knew it but also revealed it. Note the detailed character of this knowledge: three times. We see Jesus also as the great Sufferer. How what he foresaw must have grieved him. Finally, we see him as the great Savior. The reference to the crowing of the rooster does double duty: a. It indicates the shallow character of Peter’s boast. Within just a few hours, yes, even before dawn, Peter will publicly disown his Master! Yet, b. this very rooster-crowing is also a means of bringing Peter back to repentance, for Christ’s reference to it becomes firmly embedded in his mind, so that at the appropriate moment this hidden memory will suddenly pull the rope that will ring the bell of Peter’s conscience. See Matt. 26:74; Mark 14:72; Luke 22:60; John 18:27.

The disciple who by the Lord had been singled out for this specific prediction persists, however, in his profession of unswerving loyalty: 31. Nevertheless, with great emphasis⁷¹⁸ Peter continued to insist, Even if I have to die with you, I will certainly not deny you. Instead of “with great emphasis continued to insist,” another good translation would be “was saying vehemently.” If need be, Peter is willing even to die with (so also Matt. 26:35; Luke 22:33) and for (John 13:37) Jesus. See also John 11:16. Similarly spoke also all (the others). They were swept off their feet by Peter’s mighty boasts. They must have felt that they could not very well promise less than Peter!

Jesus predicted that all would become untrue to him (14:27).

All protested that this would never happen (14:31).

A little later, this very night, they all left him and fled (14:50).

* * *

The present section has shown that we do not know ourselves. All these disciples were very sure that they would never become ensnared into the sin of being untrue to Jesus. Yet, that is exactly what happened. In connection, then, with

The Unknown Self

the following thoughts should be emphasized:

1. The sinner does not know his inner self. This is true with respect to the unregenerate—for example, Hazael (read II Kings 8:12, 13)—, but to a certain extent even with respect to those who have been reborn. Think of Peter and the other disciples, contrasting what they promised with what they actually did. Cf. Jer. 17:9.

2. God knows the sinner thoroughly. Read Jer. 17:10; Ps. 139:1–16; Heb. 4:13. Of course, this holds also for Jesus, according to his divine nature, as indicated in John 2:24, 25; 16:30; 21:17. Christ’s predictions recorded in Mark 14:27, 28, 30 were fulfilled in every respect (14:50, 62–72).

3. What, then, if anything, can man do about this situation?

a. Apart from God he can do nothing. But when by God’s sovereign grace he is converted, he can and should watch his conscious thoughts, words, and deeds; for, whatever he does consciously exerts a powerful influence upon his subliminal or inner self: “For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he” (Prov. 23:7 A.V.). Important, therefore, is obedience to such exhortations as are found in Ps. 34:13; 119:35; 141:3; John 15:4, 12, 27, to mention only a few.

b. It is also true, however, that man’s inner self reacts upon his outer self. And since man cannot very well directly fight those sins within himself that are hidden from his consciousness, he should ask God to do what he (man) himself cannot do. Hence, the prayer, “Clear thou me from hidden faults” (Ps. 19:12) is necessary. Very fitting is also the prayer expressed in Ps. 139:23, 24.

c. Doing this, he should not be afraid but should fully accept and derive comfort from the divine assurance, “Jehovah has laid on him [i.e., on the Messiah] the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:6). “Where sin increased, grace increased all the more” (Rom. 5:20).

The main lesson conveyed by the paragraph just studied (Mark 14:27–31 and its parallels) is that it “directs our heart to the love of God” (II Thess. 3:5). Was it not gracious of Jesus to say, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have made supplication for you, that your faith may not utterly fail. And when you have returned (to me) impart strength to your brothers”? And was it not gracious of him to tell the eleven, “But after I have been raised I will go ahead of you to Galilee”? Even before they were scattered he told them that they would be regathered! This is the “marvelous grace of our loving Lord,” the very “grace that will pardon and cleanse within.”⁷¹⁹

14:32–42 Gethsemane

Cf. Matt. 26:36–46; Luke 22:39–46

32 They went to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to his disciples, “Sit here while I pray.” 33 And he took with him Peter and James and John, and began to be filled with horror and anguish. 34 He said to them, “I am overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep awake,” 35 And going a little farther, he was throwing himself to the ground, and was praying⁷²⁰ that if it were possible this hour might pass him by. 36 He said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible with thee. Remove this cup from me; nevertheless, not what I will but what thou wilt.”

37 And he came and found them sleeping. “Simon,” he said to Peter, “Are you asleep? Were you not able to stay awake for a single hour? 38 Keep on the alert and keep on praying that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit is eager but the flesh is weak.”

39 Again he went and prayed, saying the same thing. 40 Again he came and found them asleep, for their eyes were weighed down with sleep, and they did not know what to answer him. 41 And he came the third time and said to them, “Sleep on now and take your rest. It is enough. The Son of man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 Get up! Let us be going. Look, my betrayer is near.”

It is with profound reverence that one approaches the Gethsemane narrative. Also with due appreciation of the unique character of the event here described. This uniqueness deserves emphasis, for again and again one will hear a person who has passed through a fiery trial refer to this experience as “my Gethsemane.” Better surely is the following:

“Joy is a partnership,

Grief weeps alone,

Many guests had Cana,

Gethsemane but One.”

—F. L. Knowles, Grief and Joy

What Jesus endured in Gethsemane was never experienced by anyone else.

But why Gethsemane at all? Why could not God have arranged it in such a way that at the very entrance of the garden Jesus would immediately have been arrested, etc.? Why all the agony, the wrestlings, the prayers, the bloody sweat?

Could not the answer be as follows: to establish for all time that the obedience (both active and passive) which Jesus rendered was not forced upon him against his will but was voluntary? He was actually laying down his life for the sheep (John 10:11, 14). That wholehearted sacrifice, in total obedience to the Father’s will, was the only kind of death capable of saving the sinner (Heb. 5:7–9).

What kind of death did Jesus die? Merely physical death? Spiritual death? Eternal death? There can be no question of the fact that Jesus experienced physical death, separation of body and soul (Mark 15:37). Did he also undergo spiritual death? If by this term is meant death in sin—“to live apart from God is death”—, the answer must be a very emphatic No. See John 8:46; Acts 3:14; II Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 7:26; I Peter 2:22; I John 3:5. But what about eternal death? If by ascribing eternal death to Jesus we mean that during his entire life on earth, and especially in Gethsemane and on the cross, Jesus suffered the full equivalent of that which his people would have suffered if no one had died in their stead, the answer is, “Yes, that is indeed the kind of death Jesus suffered.” To state it differently, hell, as it were, came to him in Gethsemane and on Golgotha, and he descended into it, experiencing to the full its terrors.

“He has borne for us the wrath of God under which we should have perished everlastingly, from the beginning of his incarnation to the end of his life on earth, and has fulfilled for us all obedience and righteousness of the divine law, especially when the weight of our sins and of the wrath of God pressed out of him the bloody sweat in the garden, where he was bound that we might be loosed from our sins; that afterward he suffered innumerable reproaches that we might never be confounded, and … humbled himself to the deepest reproach and anguish of hell, in body and soul, on the tree of the cross, when he cried out with a loud voice, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? that we might be accepted of God, and nevermore forsaken of him.…”⁷²¹

Those who object to this representation should ask themselves in all seriousness whether One who did not actually descend into the terrors of hell as our Substitute can be our Savior. If he did not suffer that punishment, does it not follow that this is in store for us?

* * *

Luke’s account, even with the retention of 22:43, 44, ⁷²² is much shorter than that of either Matthew or Mark. Luke does not mention the fact that in Gethsemane Jesus prayed more than once. However, this is no reason for positing a conflict between Luke and the others. Luke 22:42 states the very essence of Christ’s prayers at this time, as is clear from both Matthew and Mark. Luke’s additions—with reference to the angel and the thick drops of blood—harmonize very well with that which the other Gospels report with respect to the Sufferer’s agony. God be praised for having given us Luke’s account as well as those of Matthew and Mark!

As to Matthew and Mark, their reports are almost identical from start to finish. The main differences are as follows:

a. While both Matthew (26:39) and Mark (14:36), by means of direct discourse, report Christ’s first prayer in Gethsemane, Mark, before doing so, introduces this prayer by means of indirect discourse (verse 35b). In the introduction note the word hour; in the prayer itself “cup.”

b. It is true that the prayer reported in Matt. 26:39 and the one found in 26:42 are essentially the same, for in both Jesus prays that if possible the cup may pass him by, and submits himself completely to the Father’s will. It is that essential sameness in essence which Mark is declaring (14:39). But within this essential oneness there was, nevertheless, room for a degree of difference in emphasis. The words of the two prayers are not exactly identical. It is Matthew who brings out the distinction. See N.T.C. on Matt. 26:42, p. 919. There is no conflict.

c. In connection with Christ’s second return to the sleeping disciples Mark adds, “They did not know how to answer him” (14:40).

* * * *

In Gethsemane Jesus agonized

32. They went to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to his disciples, Sit here while⁷²³ I pray. Just where was Gethsemane? This “oil press” garden must have been somewhere in the general area across the Kedron (John 18:1) and on the slope of the Mt. of Olives (Luke 22:39). But exactly where, and how far up the slope? Is the present so-called Franciscan Garden the real spot where Jesus agonized and prayed? Or does the Russian Gethsemane, higher up the hill, have a better claim to authenticity? And what about the Armenian Gethsemane? One fact is often forgotten. Says Josephus (Jewish War VI.5), “Meanwhile the Romans, though sorely harassed in the gathering of timber, had completed their earthworks in twenty-one days, having, as previously stated [see V.522, 523], cleared (of trees) the entire district around the town to a distance of ninety furlongs [about eleven miles or eighteen kilometers].” In his very interesting book Spoorzoeker in Bijbelse Landen (Combing Biblical Lands, Amsterdam, 1973, pp. 121, 122) Dr. H. Mulder, who himself lived in this vicinity for a while, states, “It is impossible that in the days of Jesus and his disciples these very trees [the ones shown to visitors today] were yielding fruit to the then owner.… To be sure, the trees of today, attended by the monks, are very, very old [Dutch “stokoud”]. But even five hundred or seven hundred years is quite an age for a tree!”

Wherever it was, the point which Mark brings out is that near the entrance of this quiet place—an ideal spot for resting, sleeping, praying, and teaching—, a grove probably belonging to one of Christ’s followers, Jesus left eight of his disciples. He told them to remain there while he himself was praying.

33. And he took with him Peter and James and John.… Also at other occasions (5:37; 9:2) these same three men were selected by the Master to be with him. Why just these three? See on 5:37. That, in proceeding farther into the grove, Jesus would take some of his disciples with him is not strange. Being human himself, he stood in need not only of food, drink, clothing, shelter, and sleep, but also of human fellowship. Cf. Heb. 4:15. He needed these men. Even more, they needed him! … and began⁷²⁴ to be filled with horror and anguish. The words “ … filled with anguish”⁷²⁵ are used by both Matthew and Mark. In Matt. 26:37 the first verb is “(filled with) sorrow”; in Mark 14:33 “(filled with) horror.”⁷²⁶ All the waves and the billows of distress came pouring over his soul. Cf. Ps. 42:7b. Why this terror and dismay? Was it because he knew that even now Judas was approaching—or preparing to approach—in order to deliver him to his enemies? Was it because he was painfully aware that Peter would deny him, that the Sanhedrin would condemn him, Pilate sentence him, his enemies ridicule him, and the soldiers crucify him? No doubt all that was included. However, as the story develops we notice that it was especially this one thought, namely, that he, a most tender and sensitive soul, is more and more being driven into isolation. Many of the people have already left him (John 6:66). His disciples are going to forsake him (Mark 14:50). Worst of all, on the cross he will be crying out, “My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?” (15:34). Did he, perhaps, here in Gethsemane see this tidal wave of God’s wrath because of our sin coming?

34. He said to them, I am overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Literally the original reads, “Overwhelmed is my soul⁷²⁷ to the point of death.” By means of the forward position of the word “overwhelmed” Jesus shows where he wishes to place the emphasis. To be sure, he had been a curse-bearer throughout the days of his humiliation, but now he was becoming overwhelmed with the curse, was more than ever before becoming a curse for those who place their trust in him (Gal. 3:13). This consciousness would not again leave him until he was able to say, “It is finished” (John 19:30). He knew that he was giving his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45; cf. Matt. 20:28); that he, the sinless One, was “being made sin,” that is, the vicarious bearer of God’s wrath (II Cor. 5:21). It is not surprising that he said to his three closest disciples, Stay here and keep awake.⁷²⁸ Did they do so? See verses 37 and 39.

The anguish of death—not just physical death but eternal death in the place of his people, to atone for their sins—was coming upon Jesus, now more than ever before. That is why he speaks of “sorrow to the point of death.” And he bore it—all alone!

In Gethsemane Jesus agonized and prayed

35. And going a little farther, he was throwing himself to the ground, and was praying that if it were possible this hour might pass him by.

Consider the beautiful lines by William B. Tappan:

’Tis midnight; and on Olive’s brow

The star is dimmed that lately shone.

’Tis midnight; in the garden now

The suff’ring Savior prays alone.

The agony continues and even intensifies. But now the story of Christ’s agonizing shifts into that of his praying (already briefly introduced in verse 32). Jesus wishes to be all by himself during his prayer. Hence, he now leaves even the three behind. Yet not far behind, for he desires to retain the possibility of contact with them. According to Luke 22:41 he withdrew from—or beyond—them about a stone’s throw.

In a very picturesque manner⁷²⁹ Mark describes what happened: Jesus was throwing himself to the ground and was praying. “ … began to pray” is also possible.⁷³⁰ The substance of his prayer was that if it were possible this hour might pass him by.

Note “this hour.” It is not true that whenever Jesus uses this or a similar expression he always has reference to the same event. What is true is that “the hour” in the phraseology of Jesus means “the predestined moment, season, or time,” for something to happen. Thus, there was a proper time, a predestined moment, for Jesus to perform a certain sign (John 2:4), a predestined season for him to awaken those spiritually dead (John 5:25), a predestined time (still future) for him to raise all the physically dead (John 5:28). And so also there was a predestined “hour” for the Son of man to depart from this world (John 13:1) and, by means of his death and resurrection, to be glorified (John 12:23; 17:1). Jesus was a strong believer in the doctrine of divine predestination, never for a moment accepting it at the expense of the doctrine of human responsibility! See Luke 22:22.

He is in deep agony, probably, as was indicated previously, because he sees more sharply now than ever before the woes that await him. So he prays that this hour, this time of indescribably bitter pain and anguish, may pass him by.⁷³¹

The actual words of the prayer are now given: 36. He said, Abba, Father, all things are possible with thee. Remove this cup from me; nevertheless, not what I will but what thou wilt. Note the following:

a. It is not necessary to believe that Jesus, in addressing his Father, used two words: the Aramaic Abba and the Greek Patēr, both with the same meaning, namely, “Father.” He probably said “Abba,” a word which Mark, writing mainly for non-Jews, immediately translates into the language with which his readers are better acquainted, Greek.

b. “All things are possible with thee.” Jesus here very properly appeals to the fact that the Father, whom he is addressing, is able to do whatever he wants to do. It is, accordingly, in the spirit of complete confidence and submission that he makes his petition.

c. “Remove this cup from me.” This cup means “this terrible, impending experience,” climaxed by the cross and complete abandonment (Mark 15:34). For “cup” see further on 10:38.

d. “Nevertheless, not what I will but what thou wilt.” The completely sinless, in fact exemplary, nature of the supplication appears from the fact that the clause, “Remove this cup from me,” is immediately modified by “nevertheless, not what I will but⁷³² what thou wilt.” It is clear that Jesus is submitting himself entirely to the will of the Father.

That the soul of our Lord was indeed filled with excruciating anguish as he prayed this prayer is clear from Luke 22:43, 44, “There appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. And being in anguish, he prayed very fervently; and his sweat became like thick drops of blood, falling down upon the ground.”⁷³³ It was indeed “with strong crying and tears” (Heb. 5:7) that he was offering up his prayers and supplications.

After the first prayer Jesus returned to the three men who had been exhorted to keep awake: 37. And he came and found them sleeping. Simon, he said to Peter, Are you asleep? Were⁷³⁴ you not able to stay awake for a single hour? Sleeping at this hour, probably past midnight, was natural, especially after the exciting experiences in the Upper Room (the washing of the disciples’ feet, the revelation that one of The Twelve was going to betray his Master, the departure of Judas, the institution of the Lord’s Supper) and afterward (“All of you will become untrue to me,” Peter’s protest, etc.). Nevertheless, these men should have stayed awake. They could have, had they only prayed for strength to do so. Though Christ’s gentle reprimand concerned all three—note the plural—yet it was addressed particularly to Peter, no doubt because in the matter of pledging his loyalty and even boasting about it he had taken the lead.

This was the same Peter who on the way to Gethsemane and even while still in the Upper Room had made boasts such as these:

“Even though all may fall away, yet will not I” (Mark 14:29).

“Even if I have to die with you, I will certainly not deny you” (14:31).

“Lord, with you I am ready to go both to prison and to death” (Luke 22:33).

“Lord, I will lay down my life for you” (John 13:37).

And now, here he is … sound asleep, even though Jesus had urged him to pray so as to be able to remain awake!

Jesus continues, 38. Keep on the alert and keep on praying that you may not enter into temptation.⁷³⁵ The context clearly indicates that here a slightly different meaning must be assigned to the same Greek word that was used also in verses 34, 37. “Keep (or: stay) awake” becomes “Keep on the alert,” or “Remain watchful.” The reason for the change is the clause “that you may not enter into temptation.” A person may be wide awake physically and may still succumb to temptation, but if he remains awake spiritually, that is, if with heart and mind he remains “on the alert” or “watchful,” he will overcome temptation. See N.T.C. on Matt. 6:13. The temptation for the disciples was to become untrue to Jesus. We already know that they, definitely including Peter, did not remain alert, did not make earnest work of prayer, and therefore did, indeed, succumb to temptation. Jesus adds: The spirit is eager but the flesh is weak. If in this nightly hour Jesus experienced the weakness of his own human nature, hence the need of prayer, we may be sure that this was far more seriously true in the case of the disciples. In the present passage “spirit” indicates man’s invisible entity viewed in its relation to God. As such it is the recipient of God’s favor and the means whereby man worships God. See further on 8:12, including footnote 370. “Flesh,” as here meant, is the human nature considered from the aspect of its frailty and needs, both physical and psychical. See N.T.C. on Philippians, p. 77, footnote 55. Cf. Isa. 40:6; I Cor. 1:29; Gal. 2:16. This use of “flesh” must not be confused with that according to which “flesh” indicates the human nature regarded as the seat of sinful desire (Rom. 7:25; 8:4–9; etc.). To the disciples, borne down with sleep, it was a battle between their “spirit” which was eager to do what was right and thus to remain “on guard” against temptation, and their “flesh” which, because of its weakness, was prone to yield to Satan’s desires.

39. Again he went and prayed,⁷³⁶ saying the same thing. Though Jesus did not utter exactly the same words, he did say what amounted to substantially (though not precisely) the same thing.⁷³⁷ For the difference in wording and emphasis see N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 919.

40. Again he came and found them asleep, for their eyes were weighed down with sleep, and they did not know what to answer him.⁷³⁸ Their drowsiness had once again gained the victory over their desire to stay awake and remain on the alert. Their eyes were weighed down with sleep, for their hearts had not been filled with prayer. So all alone Jesus must fight the battle. No help of any kind does he receive from men, not even from these three!

Though the Master spoke to them, they did not know what to say in return. To a certain extent these three men were reliving a previous experience. Read the story of the Master’s Transfiguration. Note especially Mark 9:6 and Luke 9:32. But here in Gethsemane, in addition to being weighed down with sleep, were Peter, James, and John perhaps also somewhat oppressed with shame, sensing, however vaguely, that if they had obeyed the exhortation to keep on praying they would not have fallen asleep?

Again Jesus leaves the three and is in communion with his Father. Mark takes up the story when for the third time the Suffering Servant returns to his disciples:

In Gethsemane Jesus prayed and kept watch

With respect to the final two verses of this section there is great diversity of opinion among commentators. With very slight alteration I have adopted the rendering of verse 41 that is found in A.V. and A.R.V.:⁷³⁹

41. And he came the third time and said to them, Sleep on now and take your rest. No longer does Jesus reprove these men. No longer does he say to Simon, “Were you not able to stay awake for a single hour?” No longer does he even tell all three to keep on the alert and keep on praying. In reading the words of verse 41 we receive the definite impression that for Jesus the Gethsemane struggle is over. The victory has been won. In his heart there is perfect peace. He has been strengthened by an angel (Luke 22:43) and through his own prayers. To be sure, the three men had failed him. But never, no never will his love fail them.

So what verse 41 pictures to us is the Good Shepherd tenderly watching over his own, that is, over these very men who have sinfully neglected to watch with him! According to Mark, Jesus added It is enough.⁷⁴⁰ It may well be impossible to determine exactly what he had in mind when he said this. Could he have meant, “There have been enough attempts to keep you awake and watching”? “Enough reproof”? But these are guesses. We do not know. The Son of man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners.

The vigil was of short duration. After just a little while Jesus could see the approaching band. He now rouses the three men by saying: 42. Get up! Let us be going. Look, my betrayer is near.⁷⁴¹ Going where? Away as far as possible from the approaching band? Fleeing? No, the very opposite: going forward to meet those who have come to arrest Jesus; yes, to meet them, including Judas!

14:43–50 The Betrayal and Seizure of Jesus

Cf. Matt. 26:47–56; Luke 22:47–53; John 18:2–12

43 And immediately, while he [Jesus] was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, arrived, and with him a crowd (armed) with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. 44 Now he who was betraying him had given them a signal, saying, “The one I kiss is the man; grab him and lead him away under guard.”⁷⁴² 45 And when he came, he immediately stepped up to him, saying, “Rabbi,” and kissed him fervently.⁷⁴³ 46 They laid their hands on Jesus and arrested him. 47 And one of the bystanders drew his sword and struck the highpriest’s servant, cutting off his ear.

48 Jesus answered and said to them, “As against a robber⁷⁴⁴ did you come out, with swords and clubs to seize me? 49 Every day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me. But (this happened) in order that the scriptures might be fulfilled” 50 And they all left him and fled.

The story here told is found in all four Gospels. By far the longest reports are those in Matthew and in John, of approximately equal length. Covering about two-thirds as much space as either of these are the accounts, also nearly equal in size, found in Mark and in Luke.

Leaving out minor details, the main variations are as follows:

Though Matthew and Mark, as often, run closely parallel, Matthew contains one important item not found in Mark, namely, the expostulation which Jesus addressed to the man [Peter, according to John 18:10] who had struck the highpriest’s servant and had cut off his ear. This reprimand, found in Matt. 26:52–54, ends, as not unusual in Matthew, with a reference to fulfilment of prophecy.

As to Mark, except for the mention of “scribes” (14:43) and the words, “and lead him away under guard” (14:44), this evangelist reports nothing that cannot be found in Matthew. But is not the very brevity of Mark’s account—it is almost all action—an element that contributes to its sparkling vividness?

Luke’s account contains the following items not found elsewhere: a. “Judas, are you betraying the Son of man with a kiss?”; b. “Lord, shall we smite with a sword?”; c. “Jesus touched the man’s ear and healed him”; and d. “But this is your hour and the power of darkness.”

Peculiar (either entirely or to a large extent) to John are the following bits of information:

a. “Judas knew this place [Gethsemane], for Jesus often met there with his disciples”; b. “So Judas took the cohort and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, and went there with torches and lanterns and weapons.” c. the story showing how Jesus took the initiative, advanced up to the group and said, “For whom are you looking?” When the commander and others with him answered, “For Jesus, the Nazarene,” Jesus answered, “I am he.” “They lurched backward and fell to the ground.” Jesus repeated his question and received the same answer. Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. Therefore if you are looking for me, let these men go their way.” By inspiration John sees in this incident the fulfilment of words spoken earlier by Jesus. See N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, p. 380. d. John informs us that the name of the servant whose right ear Peter had struck off with the sword was Malchus, and that Jesus responded to Peter’s rash deed by saying, “Put your sword into the sheath. The cup the Father has given me, shall I not drink at?”

* * *

Though the story, as always, is definitely and basically that about Jesus, what was done to him and how he reacted, on the surface the actors in this very dramatic happening are brought to the forefront in the following order: Judas (verses 43–45), the band that came to arrest Jesus (verse 46), one of the bystanders (Peter, verse 47), Jesus (verses 48, 49), and the disciples (verse 50).

Judas

43. And immediately, while he [Jesus] was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, arrived, and with him a crowd (armed) with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.

“So, having taken the morsel, Judas went out immediately, and it was night.” So reads John 13:30. Where did he go? He must have hurried off to the chief priests, etc., the men who had hired him. Was he afraid that once his treachery became known the alarm would spread and from everywhere friends of Jesus—think especially of the many from Galilee, now in the city—would gather in his defense? “Act quickly,” he must have told the Jewish authorities, “preferably by night, when no crowds are around. Act tonight.” The authorities had been waiting for him. So busy were they with this plot to destroy Jesus that, as explained in N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 401–404 (on John 18:28), they had not yet partaken of the Passover meal. The probable whereabouts of Jesus had to be ascertained; a posse had to be organized; the temple police must be notified; permission must be obtained, whether from Pilate, which in view of Matt. 27:62–65 seems probable, or from the Roman “chiliarch,” so that a group of soldiers could accompany the temple police; all the members of the Sanhedrin must be alerted; Annas must not be left in the dark; lanterns, swords, and clubs must be collected; the need of secrecy must be emphasized to all those who are “in” on this; etc. etc.

Finally, then, all is in readiness. Now to find Jesus. Judas did not know for certain where the group might have gone after leaving the Upper Room, but since he knew that Gethsemane was the place often visited by the Master and his disciples (John 18:2), the traitor was able to make a good guess, one that proved to be correct. So, while Jesus was still talking to the three disciples, Judas was seen entering the grove. “Judas, one of the twelve,” says the text, to emphasize the terrible character of the crime this man was committing. See on verse 10 and note repetition of “one of the twelve” in verse 20. Since he was “one of the twelve,” it would be impossible to mention all the privileges that had been bestowed upon him during the many days, weeks, and months he had spent in Christ’s immediate company. Such confidence had the other eleven resposed in this same Judas that they had even made him their treasurer. And now he was proving himself totally unworthy of all these honors and advantages, of all this trust. A shameless, disgusting quisling he had become, a wretched turncoat, one who for the paltry sum of thirty pieces of silver was delivering over to the enemy the greatest Benefactor whose feet ever trod this earth, even the Mediator, both God and man, the Lord Jesus Christ.

No one knows exactly how the crowd that accompanied Judas was arranged, if it be even correct to speak about any order or arrangement. If any guess be permissible it would be as follows:

In front Judas. This, at least, seems rather well established. The crowd is said to be “with him.” Besides, he is the one who is going to “step up to Jesus” (verse 45), to point him out to the others. The highpriest’s personal servant, Malchus, must also have been near the front (14:47; Luke 18:10) and so were also probably the temple police, Levites (14:49; cf. John 18:3). The detachment of soldiers, together with their commander, cannot have been far behind (John 18:3, 12). John 18:3 mentions a “cohort,” probably obtained from the tower of Antonia, situated at the northwest corner of the temple area. Though a cohort at full strength consisted of six hundred men (the tenth of a legion), the Roman authorities would probably not have depleted their garrison to that extent. At any rate, the band must have been rather large.

But why Roman legionaries at all? Would not the temple police have sufficed? The answer is that the Sanhedrin had learned that these officers could not always be relied on. Who knows, they might even side with Jesus, as had happened once before. See John 7:32, 45. Hence, it was felt that a detachment of soldiers was also needed. And because the Roman authorities themselves were very desirous of preventing trouble in Jerusalem, especially during Passover, when there was always danger of Jewish rebellion, the requested legionaries were quickly obtained.

Perhaps somewhat farther toward the back were members of the San hedrin (Luke 22:52). Whether any others were present we cannot be certain. Even Matt. 26:55 does not necessarily imply this.

The force that had been commissioned to capture Jesus was well equipped. The men carried swords and clubs. As to the first, these were probably the short swords carried by the heavily armed Roman soldier. See N.T.C. on Ephesians, p. 279, including footnote 177. The clubs or cudgels, we may assume, were in the hands of the temple police. Absolute certainty in such matters is not possible. Words have histories, which in the present case means that the term used in the original for “swords” may at times have a more general meaning. It was not always used to distinguish these weapons from the broadswords. Also, we cannot be entirely certain that none but soldiers carried swords. Did not even Peter have a sword? See verse 47. All we really know is that those who came to arrest Jesus carried swords and clubs. Their distribution is not definitely indicated, though it is natural to think of soldiers equipped with swords. The Gospel of John also mentions “torches and lanterns.” Torches and lanterns—to search for the Light of the world. And it was full moon! Swords and cudgels—to subdue the Prince of Peace. For the Man of Sorrows the very sight of this band of ruffians, which considered him their quarry, meant indescribable suffering.—And to think that the men who were supposed to be leaders in Israel, highly religious and devout, chief priests and scribes and elders, together composing the Sanhedrin, had sent this force. Instead of welcoming Jesus as the long-expected Messiah, they were sending a posse to capture him, with the ultimate purpose of having him brought before the authorities that he might be sentenced to death! For more on chief priests, scribes, and elders, see above, on 14:1.

44, 45. Now he who was betraying him had given them a signal,⁷⁴⁵ saying, The one I kiss is the man; grab him and lead him away under guard. And when he came, he immediately stepped up to him, saying, Rabbi, and kissed him fervently. There are those who say that a kiss was the customary way of greeting a rabbi. However that may be, we may be sure that then as well as today—though more so in certain regions of the globe than in others—a kiss was the symbol of friendship and affection. As used by Judas, however, it was the prearranged signal for the arresting band to grab Jesus and, as Mark adds, to lead him away “safely” or “under guard” (cf. Acts 16:23). To be sure, Judas already has his money (Matt. 26:15), but he also knows that he will not be able to keep it until he has made sure that the one he is betraying is actually in the hands of the Sanhedrin.

So, having arrived in Gethsemane, in front of the posse that had been dispatched to arrest Jesus, Judas, on seeing Jesus, steps forward to a position directly in front of him. He then greets him by saying “Rabbi,” or, as Matthew has it, “Hello, Rabbi.” Does the fact that Judas addresses Jesus thus and not as “Lord,” indicate disrespect? We must be very careful here. It is true that at the Passover meal, when all the other disciples said, “Surely not I, Lord?” but Judas alone said, “Surely not I, Rabbi” (respectively Matt. 26:22 and 25), the contrast between the two modes of address is so obvious that it may well have been intentional. In the present case, however, there is no basis for any comparison. On the whole it remains true that “Rabbi,” in addressing Jesus, was very common, especially during the earlier and middle part of Jesus’ ministry (Mark 9:5; John 1:38, 49; 3:2; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2). Nathanael certainly did not show any lack of respect when he thus addressed Jesus; rather the opposite, as the context indicates (John 1:49). And even during the latter part of his ministry the term was not in disuse (John 11:8), and Jesus himself approved of it (Matt. 23:8). All we can safely say is that there is some evidence for the fact that, with the increase of reverence for Jesus, “Lord” was gradually substituted for “Rabbi.” See N.T.C. on John, Vol. I, p. 103, footnote 44. After Christ’s resurrection “Rabbi” disappears, and “Lord” is used with great regularity. In the present instance (Mark 14:45) it is probably best to concentrate rather on what Judas did instead of on what he said.

And what he did has caused all later generations to recoil with horror at the mere mention of his name. Embracing Jesus he kissed him—probably fervently or repeatedly.⁷⁴⁶

For the striking response of Jesus see Matt. 26:50 (“Friend, for this are you here?”), and see N.T.C. on that passage. And do not forget Luke 22:48 (“Judas, are you betraying the Son of man with a kiss?”). It is clear that even at this very late moment Jesus was earnestly warning Judas. For his everlasting perdition he had only himself to blame!

The band that came to arrest Jesus

46. They laid their hands on Jesus and arrested him. For the details see John 18:4–9 and N.T.C. on those verses. John 18:3, 12 shows that the arrest was made by a. the soldiers and their chiliarch (commander) and b. the temple guards. Gentiles and Jews combine against Jesus. Cf. Acts 4:27. John’s Gospel, moreover, makes it clear that before allowing himself to be bound Jesus demonstrated his power over his captors, proving that he voluntarily surrendered himself to them, in line with John 10:11b, 15b. In this capture it was the Captive who triumphed!

One of the bystanders

47. And one of the bystanders drew his sword and struck the highpriest’s servant, cutting off his ear.⁷⁴⁷ By this time the eight disciples have joined Jesus. See verse 50 and cf. Luke 22:49. One of those standing near goes into action. Although the incident is related in all four Gospels, only John (18:10) mentions the names of the two persons who (in addition to Jesus himself) figured most prominently in it. These two were Peter and Malchus, the highpriest’s servant. The reason why John alone mentions these two names may well have been that when he published his Gospel it was no longer possible to punish the assailant.

That assailant or “bystander” was Simon Peter. Emboldened perhaps by the marvelous triumph of Jesus over the men who had come to capture him—at first the would-be captors, at the word of Jesus, had lurched backward and fallen to the ground (John 18:6)—, and impelled by his own previous boasts (Matt. 26:33, 35; Mark 14:29, 31; Luke 22:33; John 13:37), Simon drew his short sword from its scabbard. Then he sprang at Malchus and, probably because the servant saw what was coming and quickly jumped aside, cut off his ear. Peter probably still believed that the Messiah must not die. Cf. Matt. 16:22.

Mark says nothing about Jesus’ reaction to Peter’s rash action. What did the Master say about it? See Matt. 26:52–54. What did he do about it? See Luke 22:51.

The attention is now focused entirely upon

Jesus

48, 49. Jesus answered and said to them, As against a robber [or: rebel] did you come out, with swords and clubs to seize me? Every day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me.

As has been pointed out earlier, the word “answered” does not always mean “replied verbally to a question”; it may also mean, as here, “reacted to a situation.” Right then and there Jesus, though bound, addressed the crowds. The venerable members of the Sanhedrin were also present (Luke 22:52). See above, on 14:43. Of course, they had no business being here during this sacred night, but were so anxious to see whether their sinister plot against the enemy would succeed that they were actually to be seen among this crowd, probably in the rear. See N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 403, 404. Jesus, then, pointed out to the crowds—to all those who had come to arrest him and all those who gloated over his capture—how cowardly and perfidiously they were behaving. They had come out against him with an army, equipped with swords and clubs, as if he were a highwayman or, as the text can also be rendered, an insurrectionist, rebel, or revolutionary. In reality he was and had been a quiet, peaceful Prophet, sitting day by day in the temple, teaching the people. His life had been an open book. Had he been guilty of any crimes, those in charge of law and order would have had every chance to seize him.

If anyone wishes to know what kind of person this Jesus had proved himself to be during the slightly more than three years of his public ministry, let him read such passages as Mark 1:39; 10:13–16; and see also Matt. 4:23–25; 11:25–30; 12:18–21; Luke 22:49–51; 24:19; John 6:15; 18:11, 36, 37; Acts 2:22. To say, as some have done, that Jesus was “harmless” is putting it too mildly. He was and is “the Savior of the world” (John 4:42; I John 4:14), the world’s greatest Benefactor. How absurd and hypocritical it was for the foe in the hour of darkness to pounce upon this Good Shepherd, from whom no one who heeded his message had anything to fear, and who even taught people to love their enemies! See Matt. 5:44.

By addressing the crowds in this manner Jesus was in reality doing them a favor. He was exposing their guilt. Is it not true that it takes confession of guilt to bring about salvation? Though it is a fact that by far the most of those who heard Jesus speak these words hardened themselves in sin, we have no right to conclude that the message, together with other messages that followed (for example, the seven words from the cross, Peter’s Pentecost address, etc.), was completely ineffective. See, for example, Acts 6:7. The impression left upon us by these words of our Lord is that they were spoken in a calm and earnest manner. To be sure, Jesus rebukes, but at the same time he is even now seeking the lost, that he may save them.

He adds: But (this happened) in order that the scriptures might be fulfilled. Had it not been for God’s eternal decree for man’s salvation, a decree reflected in the prophets (Isa. 53:7, 10, 12; Jer. 23:6; Dan. 9:26; Zech. 11:12; 13:1; etc.), these captors could have accomplished nothing at all! Cf. John 19:11.

The Disciples

50. And they all left him and fled. As was indicated previously, verse 27 is being fulfilled here. Notice: all, not only the eight but also the three; not only two of the three (James and John) but even Peter, in spite of his grandiloquent boasts and tremendous promises. It is but fair to add that a little later two (Peter and John) recovered themselves, turned around and started following at a safe distance (see verse 54; cf. John 18:15). It is, however, also only fair to add that for Peter this “following …” had disastrous results (verse 66 f.).

All these eleven disciples heaped shame upon themselves. Peter’s case was especially bad. Somewhat later Thomas, too, failed miserably (John 20:24 f.). Best of all is John. See John 18:15, 16. Not only does he enter the highpriest’s palace, where Jesus was tried, but we even see him—of all the eleven disciples him alone, as far as the record goes!—at the cross (John 19:25–27). Was he perhaps the one who had boasted least? There is a lesson here!

The main lesson, nevertheless, is not connected with Peter or Thomas or John. Our eyes should be riveted on the Lamb of God who was taking away the sin of the world. Forsaken by all, in order that all who believe in him would never be forsaken! Voluntarily Jesus entered into this state of desertion, abandonment. It was to become an increasing horror. The climax is reached in Mark 15:34.

14:51, 52 The Young Man Who Escaped

51 And a certain young man, with only a linen cloth thrown about his body, was following him; and they seized him. 52 He left the linen cloth behind, and escaped naked.

This incident is reported only by Mark. It covers only two verses. There is no need to reprint them in bold type.

Before summarizing what I, along with many others, believe to be the true meaning of this short report, let me briefly tell the reader what two advocates of “redaction criticism”⁷⁴⁸ have done with it. In order not to be guilty even in the slightest degree of misrepresenting their view we urge the readers to read the article itself. The two authors, who have spent much labor on it, deserve that much consideration.

Briefly, then, they affirm that what is here presented by whoever it was that wrote it makes no sense as an actual, historical incident. On a night in early spring no person in that climate would go outside wearing only one piece of clothing. Also, when these verses are taken literally, they would be the report of a trivial incident, one in which the Marcan author would not have been interested.

What then? According to the composers of the article, Mark 14:51, 52 must be interpreted symbolically. Also, it should be studied in connection with 16:5, which informs us that some women, having entered the tomb early Sunday morning, saw a young man dressed in a white robe. The two young men—the one of 14:51, 52 and the one of 16:5—are really one and the same person. His nakedness and flight in 14:51, 52 symbolizes dying with Christ. His reappearance (16:5) in a bright new garment indicates rising with Christ. In 14:51, 52 he is symbolically baptized; in 16:5 he emerges in his sparkling new baptismal robe.

Objections:

a. Why should it be unnatural for a young man, who is in a hurry, to rush outside even at this time of the year, with only a piece of linen cloth wrapped around himself? In similar circumstances, do not things of this character happen frequently?

b. If, as accepted by many, this dramatic near-capture befell the author himself, would it have been considered “trivial” by him?

c. Nowhere does Scripture establish any connection between the young man of 14:51, 52 and the young man of 16:5. Then what right have we to do so? Matthew (28:5) calls this “young man” an angel. Luke speaks of “two men in dazzling apparel” (24:4), “angels” (verse 23).

d. Neither in Mark 14 nor in 16:1–8 is anything said about baptism. What right, then, have we to inject a reference to baptism into these passages?

e. The account reads as if it were a report of an actual, literal, historical happening. The style is the same as in the immediately preceding context (verses 43–50, Jesus’ betrayal and seizure) and in the immediately following (verses 53–65, his trial before the Sanhedrin). If these two passages record what actually happened, why not verses 51, 52?

Having disposed of the “redaction criticism” theory, what do I believe to be the true explanation? First of all, in a footnote⁷⁴⁹ I briefly summarize the various views respectively advanced by several commentators. Anyone interested can read them.

Secondly, I here present my own view. Certainty with respect to the young man’s identity is impossible. Nevertheless, the probability that he was Mark, a position already stated in Introduction I, would seem to have the following evidence on its side:

a. Neither Matthew nor Luke has retained this item. It does not appear to have been of special interest to them. But to Mark, to him alone, it was of sufficient importance to be included in his Gospel. This is understandable if he himself was that young man.

b. The apostle John, too, refers to himself without mentioning his name (John 18:15, 16; 19:26, 27; 20:2–8; 21:7, 20, 23, 24).

c. By itself the item is rather insignificant, except if it refers to what the author, Mark, himself experienced that solemn night.

To the reconstructed story as found in Introduction I it is necessary to add that several modifications are possible and have actually been suggested by various authors; for example:

a. Granted that the young man was awakened by the departure of Jesus and the eleven from the house with the Upper Room, when did his near-capture occur? If there is a close temporal connection between verses 51, 52 and the immediately preceding verse (“And they all left him and fled”), then it occurred in connection with the flight of the eleven. They fled. He did not, and consequently was pursued and barely escaped. If there is no such temporal connection, the near-capture may have occurred earlier. We just do not know.

b. It is also possible that the young man was awakened from his sleep—assuming that he slept!—a little later. The situation may have been as follows: Judas and his band arrived at Mark’s house, thinking that Jesus was still there. The commotion caused by their disappointment awakens Mark. With the linen quickly wrapped around himself he, sensing what is happening, rushes out in order to warn the already departed Jesus. He arrives in Gethsemane just as the eleven are fleeing and Jesus is being led away. As he is following Jesus, the near-capture occurs.

c. We are not at all certain that the house with the Upper Room was the one mentioned in Acts 12:12. It may have been, but a possibility is not necessarily a fact. If it was not, then this, too, would affect the course of events at least to some extent. All further speculation would be useless.

What is certain, however, is that the escape of the young man, whom most commentators, not without reason, consider to have been John Mark, was dramatic. His would-be captors grabbed him and would have captured him had it not been for his amazing dexterity shown in disengaging himself, in a flash, from his linen cloth, shirt, sheet, or whatever it was.⁷⁵⁰

The contents of 14:51, 52 having now been treated as referring to an actual, historical incident, something that was in all probability experienced by the author of the book, namely, John Mark, is it possible, without doing violence to sober exegesis, to derive any lessons from this passage or from 14:43–52 as a whole?

The answer might well be that what stands out is:

a. The unshakable and majestic composure of Jesus (14:48, 49; Luke 22:48, 51; John 18:4, 5, 8) over against the fear and nervousness of those around him: captors lurch backward and fall to the ground (John 18:6); disciples flee (Mark 14:50).

b. His willingness to be isolated for the sake of his people. All left him and fled: the eleven, including even Peter; also the young man of Mark 14:51, 52. Alone he faces his enemies, alone he suffers, and alone he is going to lay down his life, in order that all those who accept him as their Savior and Lord may never be alone. Hallelujah, what a Savior!

14:53–65 The Trial before the Sanhedrin

Cf. Matt. 26:57–68; Luke 22:54, 55, 63–65; ⁷⁵⁴ John 18:24⁷⁵⁵

53 They led Jesus away to the highpriest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled. 54 And from a distance Peter followed right into the highpriest’s courtyard. There he was sitting with the officers and warming himself near the fire. 55 Now the chief priests and the entire Sanhedrin were seeking to obtain evidence against Jesus to put him to death, but were not finding any. 56 For, though many were bearing false testimony against him, their testimonies did not agree.⁷⁵¹

57 Then some stood up and were giving this false testimony against him: 58 “We heard him saying, ‘I will destroy this temple made by (human) hands, and in three days I will build another not made by (human) hands.’ ” 59 But not even so did their testimony agree.

60 Then the highpriest arose, came forward and asked Jesus, “You don’t answer? What is it that these men are testifying against you?” 61 But he remained silent and did not answer.⁷⁵² Again the highpriest was questioning him, saying, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62 Jesus said, “I am, and you will see

the Son of man

sitting at the right hand of the Power

and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

Then the highpriest tore his clothes and asked, “

What need do we still have of witnesses? 64 You have heard his blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as being worthy of death. 65 And some began to spit at him, to blindfold him, to strike him with their fists, and to say to him, “Prophesy!” and the officers received him with blows.⁷⁵³

A comparison of the Matthew-Mark parallels reveals the following:

Mark 14:53 mentions all three of the Sanhedrin’s component groups; Matthew 26:57 omits the chief priests.

While both Gospels mention the fact that Peter was sitting with the officers, Matthew (verse 58) adds “to see the outcome”; Mark (verse 54), “warming himself near the fire.”

The testimony of the false witnesses—Matthew “two,” Mark “some”—is more fully reproduced in Mark (verse 58) than in Matthew (verse 61). Moreover, Mark adds, “But not even so did their testimony agree.”

Matthew’s “ … whether you are the Christ, the Son of God” (verse 63) parallels Mark’s “ … Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” (verse 61). Moreover, it is Matthew alone who informs us that the highpriest was putting Jesus under oath,

Matthew (verse 67) omits Mark’s item (verse 65) that during the mockery Jesus was blindfolded.

Luke 22:54, 55 may be called an abbreviated reproduction of Mark 14:53, 54. With very little change Luke 22:63, 64 reproduces Mark 14:65. Note, however, Mark’s “spit at him,” where Luke has “mocked him.” In verse 65 Luke adds, “And they were saying many other insulting things to him.”

* * * *

To understand Mark 14:53–65 and that which follows in chapter 15 it is necessary to bear in mind that Jesus had to undergo two trials. The first has often been called the ecclesiastical trial; the second, the civil. The first contained three stages, and so did the second. The three stages of the so-called ecclesiastical trial were: a. the preliminary hearing before Annas (John 18:12–14, 19–23); b. the trial before the Sanhedrin, that is, before the highpriest, the chief priests, elders, and scribes (Mark 14:53); and c. the trial before the same body just after daybreak (Mark 15:1). The three stages in the trial before the civil authorities were: a. the trial before Pilate, b. that before Herod, and c. that before Pilate resumed. Just as it is true that the preliminary hearing before Annas is found only in John’s Gospel, so also Christ’s appearance before Herod is recorded only by Luke (23:6–12).

In our present paragraph (Mark 14:53–65), therefore, it is assumed that the preliminary hearing before Annas has been held.

53. They led Jesus away to the highpriest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled. As Matt. 26:3 informs us, the highpriest was Caiaphas. He occupied that office from a.d. 18–36, and was son-in-law of Annas (John 18:13). He was a rude and sly manipulator, and opportunist, who did not know the meaning of fairness or justice and who was bent on having his own way “by hook or by crook” (Matt. 26:3, 4; John 11:49). He did not shrink from shedding innocent blood. What he himself ardently craved for selfish purposes, he made to look as if it were the one thing needful for the welfare of the people. In order to bring about the condemnation of Jesus, who had aroused his envy (Matt. 27:18), he was willing to use devices which were the product of clever calculation and unprecedented boldness. He was a hypocrite, as will become evident (see below, on verse 63).

Note that we are distinctly told that “all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled.” Accordingly, this must have been an assembly of the Sanhedrin, not just a few members but a goodly number being present. For “chief priests, elders, and scribes” (or: “scribes and elders”) cf. 14:43 and see on 14:1. It is to the palace of (Annas, John 18:13, 15, 24, and of) Caiaphas (see N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, p. 391) that Jesus was led.

54. And from a distance Peter followed right into the highpriest’s courtyard. There he was sitting with the officers and warming himself⁷⁵⁶ near⁷⁵⁷ the fire. Though all the disciples had fled, two—Peter and “another disciple”—soon rallied and began to follow the band that was leading Jesus to the highpriest’s palace. In the case of Peter, “following Jesus” was probably prompted, in part, by the loud boasts he had uttered, as recorded in verses 29 and 31; in part also, by sheer curiosity, as Matt. 26:58 states, and perhaps we should add, in part by love for his Master. How this disciple secured admission to the palace is described in John 18:15, 16. Peter, then, having been allowed to enter the palace by its outer gate, walked through the archway that led to the unroofed courtyard, where he sat down with the palace servants and the temple guards (policemen), warming himself near the fire. By this time most of the soldiers, having delivered their prisoner, had probably returned to the fortress of Antonia. The record of Peter’s first denial, which here in verse 54 is merely introduced, is found in 66–68; Matt. 26:69, 70; Luke 22:54–57; and John 18:15–18. The story now returns to Christ’s trial before the Sanhedrin.

55, 56. Now the chief priests and the entire Sanhedrin were seeking to obtain evidence against Jesus to put him to death, but were not finding any. For, though many were bearing false testimony against him, their testimonies did not agree.⁷⁵⁸

It is clear as daylight that by means of these verses, and others like them, Scripture blames “the chief priests and the entire Sanhedrin” for the death of Jesus.

Not the masses but the leaders—chief priests, Pharisees, Caiaphas—are mentioned in John 11:53 as the ones who plotted Christ’s death. Jesus uttered his Seven Woes (Matt. 23) not against the mob but against “scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites.” When Pilate at Jesus’ trial before him said to the multitude, “I am bringing him out to you in order that you may know that I find no crime in him,” it was the chief priests and their officers who shouted “crucify (him), crucify (him)” (John 19:6; cf. verses 15, 16). The priest-ridden mob followed the example of the leaders, as Matt. 27:20–23 makes very clear. See also Matt. 27:25; Acts 3:13–15; 4:27; I Thess. 2:14, 15. It is as the passage now under study (Mark 14:55, 56) clearly attests, blame for the murder of Jesus rests especially on the religious leaders of that day. Nevertheless, by no means is it possible, on scriptural grounds, entirely to excuse those who followed the example of these leaders. Rather, all those who took part in the crime or were in agreement with it share the blame.

This firm belief, moreover, is not a manifestation of hostility toward Jews (anti-Semitism). The very opposite is the truth. It is because we love the Jews that we desire to become the means in God’s hand to bring them to Christ, and thus also into the fellowship of the church. We feel for these people. In fact, in a sense we stand where they stand, for we made common cause with them against Jesus. Not that we plotted his death, as did their ancestors. Yet it remains true that we, yes even we ourselves, killed Jesus, for our sins nailed him to the cross. But by that very crucified and risen Christ we were saved.⁷⁵⁹

Opposition against this view has arisen from many sides. Ecumenical assemblies have published “declarations” exculpating the Jews from responsibility for the death of Jesus. Some of these decrees have been good, some hardly in keeping with historical facts. Moreover, the Jews themselves, as could be expected, have gone even farther in striving to absolve themselves from blame. Thus, Haim Cohn, an internationally famous specialist in Jewish legal tradition, argues⁷⁶⁰ that Annas and Caiaphas, “did all that they possibly and humanly could to save Jesus, whom they dearly loved and cherished as one of their own.” And Hugh J. Schonfield states that the only way for the church once and for all to remove the stigma from the Jews is to renounce the absolute reliability of the sacred documents.⁷⁶¹

From an entirely different direction doubt has also been cast upon the contents of Mark 14:55, 56. In connection with “Now the chief priests and the entire Sanhedrin were seeking to obtain evidence against Jesus to put him to death.…” Taylor⁷⁶² remarks that apparently Mark thought of the meeting as a full session of the council, but that it is doubtful that it actually had this character, especially if it was a night session. He then defends the view that Luke (22:66–71) is not in agreement with Mark’s position and teaches that the trial took place on the following morning. Now it is indeed true that the night session of the Sanhedrin, introduced in Mark 14:53, 54, 55, especially in its confrontation between Jesus and the highpriest (verses 61–64a; cf. Matt. 26:63–65), resembles the early morning session as pictured in Luke 22:69–71. Shall we say, then, that Mark errs, ascribing to a night session that which actually happened “when day came” (Luke 22:66)? Not at all. There is a problem here, but the ascription of an error to Mark by no means solves that problem. After all, the two sessions are not the same. At night it was the highpriest who asked Jesus, “Are you the Christ?” (Mark 14:61). In the early morning session “they all said, ‘Are you the Son of God, then?’ ” (Luke 22:70; cf. verse 66). In their respective commentaries on Luke 22:66 f. many commentators—including A. Plummer, R.C.H. Lenski, and N. Geldenhuys—point out this difference, and explain why it was deemed necessary to hold a morning session. We may rest assured, therefore, that there are no real contradictions.

For the absolutely sinless One to be subjected to a trial conducted by sinful men was in itself a deep humiliation. To be tried by such men, under such circumstances made it infinitely worse. Greedy, serpent-like, vindictive Annas (see on John 18:13), rude, sly, hypocritical Caiaphas (see on John 11:49, 50), crafty superstitious, self-seeking Pilate (see on John 18:29); and immoral, ambitious, superficial Herod Antipas; these were his judges!

In reality, the entire trial was a farce. It was a mis-trial. There was no intention at all of giving Jesus a fair hearing in order that it might be discovered, in strict conformity with the laws of evidence, whether or not the charges against him were just or unfounded. In the annals of jurisprudence no travesty of justice ever took place that was more shocking than this one. Moreover, in order to reach this conclusion it is not at all necessary to make a close study of all the technical points with reference to Jewish law of that day. It has been emphasized by various authors that the trial of Jesus was illegal on several technical grounds, such as the following: a. No trial for life was allowed during the night. Yet, Jesus was tried and condemned during the hours of 1–3 A.M. Friday, and executed on the Feast, which was forbidden. According to Pharisaic law, no hearings in a case involving capital punishment could even be initiated on the eve of a major festival like Passover. No conviction was allowed at night. To execute a sentence on the day of one of the great feasts was contrary to the established regulations.⁷⁶³ b. The arrest of Jesus was effected as a result of a bribe, namely, the blood-money which Judas received. c. Jesus was asked to incriminate himself. d. In cases of capital punishment, Jewish law did not permit the sentence to be pronounced until the day after the accused had been convicted. Such and similar points of law have been mentioned again and again and used as arguments to prove the illegality of the entire procedure against Jesus of Nazareth.

Attempts have also been made to refute them, one by one, as if the Jewish authorities, also in their procedure against Jesus, acted strictly in accordance with legal regulations, and were uninfluenced by subjective considerations such as envy and malice. But all such attempts have failed miserably. With respect to law, order, and justice, as practiced by the Jewish leaders of the first century a.d., history supplies the answer. Did the Jews really proceed in a legal manner when they murdered Stephen? Read Acts 6:8–15; 7:54, 58, 59. Did they show a painstaking regard for justice when they killed James, the Lord’s brother? Study Josephus, Jewish Antiquities XX.200. Add to this the fifth century a.d. compilation of Jewish traditions about Jesus. It is called Toledoth Jeshu and it clearly charges the Jerusalem priesthood with responsibility for the conviction of Jesus. The truth is that the hair-splitting casuistry of rabbinic law had discovered all kinds of ways to circumvent its own regulations. All Caiaphas had to do was to say that the trial of Jesus at this time and under these conditions was in the interest of the people and of religion.⁷⁶⁴

To any fair-minded individual it must be evident at once that all these legal technicalities were but so many details. They do not touch the heart of the matter. The main point is nothing less than this: it had been decided long ago that Jesus must be put to death (see on Mark 14:1). And the motive behind this decision was envy (15:10). The Jewish leaders just could not “take” it that they were beginning to lose their hold upon the people and that Jesus of Nazareth had denounced and exposed them publicly. They were filled with rage because the new prophet had laid bare their hidden motives, and had called the temple court from which they derived much of their profit a den of thieves. On the surface, the dignified chief priests, elders, and scribes might try to put on an act by the seeming imperviousness of their demeanor; underneath they were vengefully nettled, convulsively agitated. They were thirsting for blood!

Hence, this is not a trial but a legal farce, a detestable plot, and the entire plot is their own. They devised it and they see to it that it is carried out. Their officers take part in the arrest of Jesus. They themselves were present! They seek the witnesses—false witnesses, of course—against Jesus, in order that they may put him to death (Matt. 26:59). They all condemn him as being deserving of death (Mark 14:64). “They (by means of their underlings) bind him and lead him away” (Mark 15:1). They deliver him to Pilate (John 18:28). Before Pilate they stir up the people to get Barabbas released in order that Jesus may be destroyed (Matt. 27:20). They intimidate Pilate, until at last the latter delivers Jesus up, to be crucified (John 19:12, 16). And even when he hangs upon the cross, they mock him, saying, “He saved others, himself he cannot save” (Mark 15:31).

Note well that according to our passage the people who were supposed to be neutral judges “were themselves seeking evidence against Jesus to put him to death.” Ostensibly they were gathered for the purpose of investigation; in reality they were bent on annihilation. In their search they were never successful. To be sure some so-called witnesses showed up, but their testimony was false. Moreover, as both verse 56 and verse 59 prove, their testimony did not agree.

57–59. Then some stood up and were giving this false testimony⁷⁶⁵ against him: We heard him saying, I will destroy this temple⁷⁶⁶ made by (human) hands, and in three days I will build another not made by (human) hands. But not even so did their testimony agree. The allusion is to the veiled saying of Jesus reported in John 2:19, “Break down this temple, and in three days I will build it up.” The Jews who had first heard Jesus say this had misinterpreted it, as if Jesus referred to nothing else than the physical structure he had just cleansed (John 2:20). “But he was speaking about the sanctuary of his body” (verse 21). For explanation see N.T.C. on John, Vol. I, p. 125.

Now what did these two false witnesses do? In addition to misinterpreting they also misquote. In fact, they made themselves guilty of the following falsehoods:

a. They said that they had heard Jesus say that he—he himself—would destroy the temple. Jesus never said that. Instead he had spoken about the Jews destroying their own temple.

b. They said that Jesus had contrasted “the temple made by (human) hands” with another “not made by (human) hands.” These modifiers cannot be found in the language used by Jesus.

c. Their implication was that Jesus was a defamer of the temple, which was the very opposite of the truth. See Mark 11:17; Luke 2:49.

It is not at all surprising that when these two witnesses presented their garbled account of a saying of Jesus there were details with respect to which even they were not in agreement. They were simply “all mixed up,” and this not innocently but with evil intent.

60. Then the highpriest arose, came forward and asked Jesus, You don’t answer? What is it that these men are testifying against you?⁷⁶⁷

The question inevitably occurs, “But if these leaders had already made up their minds with respect to the question, ‘What shall we do with Jesus?’ why did they at all search for witnesses?” Probably to be able to justify their action before others; for example, before Pilate and the general public; or to satisfy a legal requirement. Perhaps even to soothe their own consciences? The remark made by G. C. Morgan may well be true: “They must find witnesses; they must have some reason for the thing they do. This was the unconscious compliment which devilish falsehood paid to the ascendency of truth.”⁷⁶⁸

Of course, Jesus could have exposed the totally unwarranted character of the accusation, “I will destroy this temple.…” He could have shown that it was both a misinterpretation and a distortion of what he had said. But he knows very well that the purpose of this trial is not to vindicate the right, but rather to cause the wrong to triumph. So he remains silent. This irritates Caiaphas. That presiding officer has taken it upon himself to go way beyond presiding over a meeting. Instead, he is using this session of the Sanhedrin as a tool for the realization of his own pronounced intention (verse 55 and John 11:49–50) to destroy Jesus. So, visibly agitated, he rises from his seat and asks Jesus the question of verse 60. As if to say, “A serious charge is this. It certainly requires an answer!” 61. But he remained silent and did not answer. He is fulfilling the prophecy of Isa. 42:1–4; Matt. 12:18–21; and even more specifically, of Isa. 53:7 (“He opened not his mouth”). See also I Kings 19:11, 12; Isa. 57:15; Zech. 9:9; Matt. 5:7–9; 21:5; Luke 23:24. For similar behavior on the part of Jesus on this day—it is already Friday—see Mark 15:5; Luke 23:9b. But not only was he fulfilling prophecy; he was in so doing also suffering intensely because of this assault on himself—“the Truth”—by Satan, “the father of the lie” (John 8:44).

When it seemed as if the trial would turn out to be a failure, Caiaphas all of a sudden leaps to the rescue by as it were waiving all secondary considerations and asking the main question, the one which had been on the minds of the leaders for a long time. Mark reports this dramatic development in these words: Again the highpriest was questioning him, saying, Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? That was the clincher, the decisive question. Did this question suddenly suggest itself to his mind, or had he thought of it previously and kept it in reserve, to be used if necessary? According to Matt. 26:63, in order to emphasize the ominous gravity of the question and the impossibility of refusing an answer, the highpriest places Jesus “under oath,” the weightiest oath of all, namely, “by the living God.” He demands a clear and straightforward reply to the question, “Do you really claim to be the long-expected Messiah?” Now it cannot be said that up to this time Jesus had never revealed himself as such. In his conversation with the Samaritan woman had he not very definitely declared himself to be indeed the Messiah? See John 4:25, 26. Had he not defended those who addressed him as “the Son of David” (Matt. 21:15, 16)? Had he not, by implication, referred to himself as “the stone rejected by the builders but made the cornerstone” (Mark 12:10)? Had he not pointed to himself as “the Son of man” coming in clouds with great power and glory (13:26)?

All of this is true. But it could be argued that a declaration made in Samaria did not necessarily reach the Jews; that Matt. 21:15, 16 was not a direct claim but only a reflection on an exclamation made by others; that Mark 12:1–11 is parabolic, hence not direct; and that the term “Son of man” was not interpreted in the same way by everybody. It can even be added that there were definite reasons why during the earlier part of his ministry Jesus did not openly declare to the Jews, “I am the Messiah.” See on Matt. 8:4; 9:30; 16:20; 17:9; Mark 1:44, 45. They would certainly have misunderstood it. See John 6:15. But now that the events that were happening with reference to him were making it clear that his messiahship was that of the Suffering Servant, as he had himself declared again and again to his disciples (Mark 8:31; 9:12, 31; 10: 33, 34; John 3:14), the moment had also arrived to come forth with a very clear statement, made before the highest authorities of the Jewish nation. Accordingly, when Caiaphas asked what he must have considered a question that would drive his enemy into a corner, he was actually in the providence of God giving the Son of man the opportunity for which he was looking.

We are not surprised therefore that, without the least hesitancy, in answer to the highpriest’s question, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed⁷⁶⁹ (out of reverence, whether real or feigned, substituted for “the Son of God”),” 62. Jesus said, I am, and you will see

the Son of man

sitting at the right hand of the Power

and coming with the clouds of heaven.

That is the way in which Daniel had seen the coming Redeemer (Dan. 7:13, 14). It was thus that David sang of him (Ps. 110:1), and thus also that Jesus had himself described himself (see on Mark 8:38; 12:35–37; 13:26), be it previously only to his disciples. Jesus is looking down history’s lane. He sees the miracles of Calvary, the resurrection, the ascension, the coronation at the Father’s right hand (“the right hand of the Power,” that is, “of the Almighty”). Pentecost, the glorious return on the clouds of heaven, the judgment day, all rolled into one, manifesting his power and glory. On the final day of judgment he, even Jesus, will be the Judge, and these very men—Caiaphas and his partners—will have to answer for the crime they are now committing. Christ’s prophecy is also a warning!

The following items deserve special attention:

a. Jesus said, “I am,” meaning, “I am indeed the Christ, the Son of the Blessed.” This, in turn, sheds light on the meaning of the Matthean parallel “You said (it),” which can, therefore, mean no less than the majestic, affirmative declaration, “Yes, I am.” That the Gospel of Mark very definitely describes Jesus as being the Messiah, even the Son of God, in the most exalted sense of that term, has been shown in detail in N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 58–60.

b. As to “the Son of man,” the One who from (and by means of) suffering attains to glory, but was glorious from all eternity, see above on 2:10; also, for a more complete study, see N.T.C. on Matt. 8:20 (pp. 403–407 of that commentary).

c. The grammatical construction of “at the right hand” has been explained in connection with Mark 10:37, see footnote 499. For the idea of Christ’s session at the Father’s right hand, see also Acts 2:33; Heb. 2:9; Rev. 12:5; and N.T.C. on Eph. 1:20–23; and Phil. 2:9–11.

d. The phrase “coming with the clouds of heaven”—see also Dan. 7:13; Joel 2:2; Zeph. 1:15; Rev. 1:7; 14:14–16—reminds us of the fact that Scripture frequently associates “a cloud” or “clouds” with the idea of judgment, God’s coming in order to punish the wicked. This, however, is by no means always the case. In fact, sometimes it is God’s love, mercy, and grace that are emphasized (Exod. 34:5–7), though even then punitive justice is not left out of the description. On clouds see also Mark 13:26 and N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 667.

63, 64. Then the highpriest tore his clothes and asked, What need do we still have of witnesses? You have heard his blasphemy. What do you think?⁷⁷⁰

Here the hypocrisy of the highpriest becomes very clear. He acts as if he is overwhelmed with grief, as was Reuben when, on returning to the pit, he noticed that Joseph was no longer there (Gen. 37:29). See also Gen. 37:34; 44:13; Josh. 7:6; II Sam. 13:31; I Kings 21:27; II Kings 5:7, 8; 18:37; Esther 4:1; Acts 14:14, to mention only a few from among many instances of tearing one’s clothes in token of poignant grief or overwhelming sorrow. In reality Caiaphas must have been filled with fiendish glee.

When a highpriest tore his clothes, he had to do this in a certain, definitely prescribed way. The exact method to be followed has been preserved in the Talmud.⁷⁷¹

As he did this he asked his audience, “What need do we still have of witnesses?” In other words, “Why continue to search for witnesses when all of us are witnesses?” When he adds, “You have heard his blasphemy,” he is using the word blasphemy in its gravest sense: unjustly he has claimed for himself prerogatives that belong to God alone. Representing oneself as the fulfilment of Daniel’s prophecy, such a claim could be made only by God. Hence, either a. Jesus was indeed divine, “the Son of God” in the fullest sense of that term, or else b. he was guilty of blasphemy. And such blasphemy was punishable by death (Lev. 24:16). Caiaphas has chosen the second alternative.

He continues, “What do you think?” Mark, using indirect discourse, reproduces the reaction of the judges as follows, They all condemned him as being worthy of death. Matthew, using direct discourse, writes, “They answered, ‘Deserving of death is he.’ ” The verdict was unanimous. We assume that one member was absent (Luke 23:50, 51). There may have been others.

This unanimous verdict was not as yet a formal sentence. Declaring a person guilty and sentencing him are two different matters. In order to create at least a semblance of legality, a short period of time must elapse between these two actions. As was pointed out earlier, according to existing regulations that interval should have been a day. But as the Sanhedrists see it, such a prolonged delay would have been too dangerous. It could have given the friends of Jesus enough time to organize a revolt in his behalf. Now is the time to act. Early in the morning the Sanhedrin will have to be convened once more. See on 15:1. That will be for the purpose of sentencing. And even that action will not be final. It must still be approved by Pilate, the governor.

65. And some began to spit at him, to blindfold him, to strike him with their fists, and to say to him, Prophesy! and the officers received him with blows.⁷⁷²

The venerable(?) members of the Sanhedrin now show their real cruel, vengeful, sadistic character. Utterly mean are they, inhuman, base, contemptible! Even if we make allowance for the possibility that the cruelty to which Jesus was now subjected was the action of the “underlings,” and not directly of the priests, etc., it remains true that it was carried out with the wholehearted permission and co-operation of the members of the Sanhedrin. In fact, it is possible that the sequence “And some … and the officers” implies that a distinction is being drawn between what some—not all!—of the Sanhedrists did, and what the officers (temple guards, etc.) did. If that distinction should be correct,⁷⁷³ then these guards, who caught (or “received”) Jesus with blows, were simply following the example of their superiors, and “being emboldened” by them (Swete).

The cruelty reached its climax when with their fists these wicked men struck their blindfolded prisoner in the face, and then shouted, “Prophesy,” meaning, as Matthew and Luke explain, “Prophesy to us, Christ, who is it that hit you?”

What stands out in this story is the fortitude of Jesus, his majestic calmness and deep-seated, firmly anchored confidence, over against the haunting fear of his venomous adversaries. Note how “scared” these adversaries are, even though for the moment they seem to be victorious. Not only now but also shortly before these happenings, and again after Christ’s resurrection, they are never sure of themselves. They are always beset by harrowing fears: fear of the Romans (“The Romans may come,” John 11:47, 48), of the crowds (“the people may riot,” Mark 14:2), of the disciples (“the disciples may come by night,” Matt. 27:62–64), and of news (“this thing must not spread any further among the people,” Acts 4:17). And was not the blustery, bullying behavior of the highpriest this very night proof of feverish inner agitation, of morbid, undulating restlessness?

Over against all that stands Jesus’ majestic, calm, and eloquent declaration, “I am (indeed the Son of the Blessed), and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.” It is he who is the real Victor. It is he who is fully at rest. It is he who imparts rest to all who repose their trust in him. It is he who is still saying, “Come to me all who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is kindly, and my burden is light.”

14:66–72 Peter’s Threefold Denial

Cf. Matt. 26:69–75; Luke 22:56–62; John 18:15–18, 25–27

66 Now while Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the highpriest’s servant-girls came, 67 and seeing Peter warming himself, took a close look at him, and said, “You, too, were with Jesus the Nazarene.” 68 But he denied (it). “I don’t know or understand what you’re talking about,” he said, and he went out into the entryway. And a rooster crowed.⁷⁷⁴

69 When the servant-girl (there) saw him, she, in turn, told the bystanders, “This fellow is one of them.” 70 But again he proceeded to deny (it).

And again, a little later, those who were standing around were saying to Peter, “Certainly you are one of them, for you are a Galilean!” 71 Then he started to curse and to swear, “I don’t know this man you’re talking about.” 72 At once a rooster crowed the second time.⁷⁷⁵ And Peter recalled the word Jesus had spoken to him, “Before the rooster crows twice,⁷⁷⁶ you will deny me thrice.” And when he reflected on this he wept.

The story is found in all four Gospels. However, since John, without in any way being in conflict with the Synoptics, has his own arrangement, for his contribution we refer to N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 388–394, 399, 400.

As to the Synoptics, though the story is basically the same in all three and there are no contradictions, each Gospel presents the story in its own way. Omitting minor points, note the following interesting variations:

In connection with the first denial—Matt. 26:58, 69, 70; Mark 14:54, 66–68; Luke 22:54–57—at the outset Mark’s account, not surprisingly, is somewhat more vivid and detailed than are the others. The portress was “one of the highpriest’s servant-girls.” She “took a close look at Peter.” What this girl said to Peter, and how he replied, is substantially the same in all the accounts. (However, according to Matthew and Mark, Peter said, “I don’t know what …”; according to Luke, “I don’t know him.”) Luke adds that the girl saw Peter “as he sat in the light.”

With respect to the second denial—Matt. 26:71, 72; Mark 14:69, 70a; Luke 22:58—Mark has “He proceeded to deny it.” Matthew adds “with an oath.” According to Luke’s report at least one male bystander chimed in with what the portresses were saying to Peter, which amounted to “This fellow is one of them.”

As to the third denial and the conclusion of the story—Matt. 26:73–75; Mark 14:70b–72; Luke 22:59–62—Mark reports that those who are standing around were saying to Peter, “Certainly you are one of them, for you are (Luke: he is) a Galilean.” Here Matthew has, “ … for your accent gives you away.” All report what the crowing of the rooster did to Peter’s memory. Mark ends the story with, “And when he [Peter] reflected on this he wept” (exact translation is in dispute); Matthew and Luke, “He went outside and wept bitterly.” Luke shows that there was an interval of about an hour between the second and the third denials. He also informs us that in connection with the crowing of the rooster, “the Lord turned and looked at Peter.”

The First Denial

Let no one say that Peter was a man completely lacking in courage. On the contrary, a careful examination of the Gospels indicates that among all the disciples he was one of the most daring. Was it not Peter who said, “Lord, if it be thou, bid me to come to thee on the water” (Matt. 14:28)? Was it not he also who boldly declared, “Thou art the Christ” (Mark 8:29)? Was it not he who, all by himself taking on the entire mob that had come to Gethsemane to capture Jesus, had drawn his sword and had struck the highpriest’s servant, cutting off his right ear (Mark 14:47; cf. Luke 22:50; John 18:10)? And after Christ’s resurrection was it not Peter who had uttered the unforgettable words of Acts 2:36, “Let all the house of Israel therefore be assured of this, that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified”? Of Acts 4:10, “Let it be known to you all, even to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, does this man stand before you completely healed”? Of Acts 4:20, “We cannot but speak the things we saw and heard”? And of Acts 5:29, “We must obey God rather than men”?

Yes, Peter was definitely a man of great courage. But when he forgot for a moment that both for the possession and for the exercise of this gift he was dependent entirely upon God, even Peter failed. When he looked away from Jesus he was no longer “Peter the man of courage.” This, too, can be illustrated by examples from his life both before Christ’s resurrection (Matt. 14:30, 31; Mark 14:50) and afterward (Gal. 2:11–14a).

This same lesson is illustrated in the story of Peter’s three denials. He failed because he let go of Christ’s hand. He was restored because Jesus held him fast in his hand (Luke 22:31, 32). Peter’s life is a vivid illustration of Paul’s memorable passage, “For by grace you have been saved, through faith; and this not of yourselves, (it is) the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8).

The background of the first denial has already been indicated; see above on 14:54. The story is continued here in verses 66, 67. Now while Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the highpriest’s servant-girls came, and seeing Peter warming himself, took a close look at him and said, You too were with Jesus the Nazarene.⁷⁷⁷

Note: “below in the courtyard,” where Matthew has “outside in the courtyard.” These two ways of describing the courtyard cannot be understood apart from the knowledge of an Oriental palace or house of the well-to-do. Such a house looks into its own interior: that is, its rooms are built around an open courtyard. An arched passage leads from the heavy outside door or (better) gate into this inner court. In this passage there is a place (in some houses a little room) for the gate-keeper. Sometimes, as also in the present instance, the court was lower than the rooms which ranged around it. It is not entirely impossible that the room to which Jesus had been led was a kind of gallery, from which what happened in the court could be seen and heard. This theory has its objections, however. One might ask, “Would not the loud conversations of the men who stood in the open courtyard have been a cause of annoyance to the priests who conducted the trial?”

When John had been admitted by the gate-keeper, he secured admission for Peter also. John “spoke to the girl who kept the gate.”

It would seem that the very moment when Peter had entered the palace, the portress, viewing him from her nook in the vestibule, had her suspicions. The fact that she had admitted him at the request of John seemed to indicate that Peter too was a disciple of Jesus. The uneasiness that could be read on his face confirms her suspicions. So, about to be relieved by another gate-keeper, she walks toward Peter, who has already entered the open courtyard, and who in the light of the fire by which he is warming himself is clearly visible (Luke 22:56). She fixes her eyes on him. Then, stepping even closer, she says to him, “You too were with Jesus the Nazarene.” That the words she uses are reported somewhat differently in John’s Gospel presents no difficulty. It must not be taken for granted that either—or any—Gospel, all by itself, reports all the words spoken by this girl. Her accusing jabber may have included all the following lines: “You surely are not also one of this man’s disciples, are you?—Why, I’m sure you were also with Jesus the Nazarene.”

68. But he denied (it). I don’t know or understand what you’re talking about, he said, and he went out into the entryway. Peter evidently has been floored. The suddenness and boldness of the servant-girl’s incriminating remark catches him off guard. In spite of all his loud and repeated promises of unswerving loyalty to Jesus, promises made only a few hours earlier, he is now thoroughly frightened. One might say: he panics. Evidently he had failed to take to heart Christ’s admonition recorded in 14:38. So he tries to make the girl believe that he doesn’t know or understand what she is talking about, and in his frustration he makes for the entryway, hoping that for him it will be an exit.

The man who had been warming himself by the fire suddenly discovers that matters are becoming “too hot” for him. He is probably afraid that at any moment an underling—whether temple guard or palace servant—will grab him and make him a prisoner. The fear that someone might even recognize him as the person who slashed off the ear of the highpriest’s servant may have made things even worse for him. “I must escape,” he says to himself, “and that as quickly as possible.”

And a rooster crowed.—Did it really? The Greek text presents a problem. But the argument for the retention of these words is not as weak as some seem to think.⁷⁷⁸

However, is it not true that, according to Matthew’s report, Jesus had said, “This very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times” (26:34)? But if (here in Mark 14:68) the words “And a rooster crowed” are authentic, Peter has denied the Master only once, not three times, before that rooster crowed. Possible solutions:

a. Simply omit the words “And a rooster crowed” from the text of Mark 14:68. Many modern translations do this. When this is done without even informing the reader by means of a note that there is doubt about the right to exclude these words, is this fair?

b. Include the words in dispute but state that this first rooster-crowing had not registered, as is shown by the fact that there is no further reference to it in the text.

c. Recognize the fact that between 12 midnight and 3 A.M. there was nothing to stop a rooster from crowing—hence, Mark 14:68—, but that the reference in Christ’s prediction as well as in the fulfilment—hence, in Matt. 26:34, 74; Luke 22:34, 60; John 13:38; 18:27, and also in Mark 14:30, 72, is to the rooster-crowing that marked the end of the 12 (midnight) - 3 A.M. period. See on Mark 13:35.

This would mean that when Jesus predicted Peter’s three manifestations of unfaithfulness he meant, “I solemnly declare to you: this very night, before the rooster crows, that is, crows for the second time, you will deny me three times.”

If either b. or c. is adopted the problem may well have been solved. Perhaps b. and c. should be combined. As footnote 778 indicates, there is good reason, in agreement with A.V., Moffatt, Weymouth, Beck, Phillipps, and Berkeley Version, to allow the disputed words of Mark 14:72 to stand.

The Second Denial

69, 70a. When the servant-girl (there) saw him, she, in turn, told the bystanders, This fellow is one of them. But again he proceeded to deny (it). The second denial follows closely upon the first. In his frustration resulting from the first embarrassment Peter tried to get out of the building. However, the portresses are unwilling to let him out. So he gets no farther than the entranceway or vestibule which via the gate leads to the outside. Several people are standing around. It seems that the portress who is about to go off duty has already told the news about Peter to the girl who has come to relieve her. So this second girl (cf. Matt. 26:71 and Mark 14:69) now says to those standing around, “This fellow is one of them” (as Mark has it); “This fellow was with Jesus the Nazarene” (Matthew’s way of stating the same thing).

There are those who see a contradiction between Mark and Matthew at this point.⁷⁷⁹ As they see it, according to Mark’s representation there is only one portress: the girl of verses 66, 67 is also the one of verse 69. But according to Matt. 26:71 the girl who is mentioned in connection with Peter’s second denial is “another girl.” Now it should be frankly admitted that Mark 14:69 can indeed be read in such a way that there would be a conflict. It can be read to mean: “And the servant-girl (mentioned a moment ago) seeing him said again to the bystanders, ‘This fellow is one of them.’ ” This, however, does not make Mark’s account any more intelligible, for as he tells the story the girl has not yet been speaking to those standing around; so how could she speak to them again? But by thus rendering the passage are we not creating both a difficulty and a conflict where there need not be one? Is it really so certain that throughout the report Mark must have been thinking of only one portress? Is it not true that while Matthew, by saying “a servant-girl … another girl,” makes clear that the words of two girls are reported in this story, Mark may be doing the same thing by referring to girls in the plural: “one of the highpriests’s servant-girls came and … said …” (verses 66, 67), a (not the only possible) natural sequel being “another servant-girl said.…” Also, when Mark continues, “He [Peter] went out into the entryway … when the servant-girl saw him,” is not “When the servant-girl who was there saw him” a reasonable interpretation? And since it has already been shown that the word again creates a difficulty even for those who accept only one servant-girl, is not the proposed translation—which substitutes “in turn”⁷⁸⁰ for “again”—better all around? It is clear at any rate that here again a Gospel contradiction cannot be proved.

The fact that at least one male bystander now chimes in with what the two girls are saying does not make matters any easier for Peter. Again Peter proceeded to deny⁷⁸¹ that he knew Jesus. According to Matthew this time his denial was accompanied by an oath.

The Third Denial

and the Conclusion of the Story

70b, 71. And again, a little later, those who were standing around were saying to Peter, Certainly you are one of them, for you are a Galilean!

We have noticed that even during the second denial interest in Peter’s case was no longer confined to the portresses. And now the bystanders again express themselves. The reason for this was as follows: Having been refused exit, Peter returns to the open courtyard. An hour elapses (Luke 22:59). It would seem, therefore, that the first two denials took place during Christ’s appearance before Annas. Now the situation changes somewhat: Jesus has been brought before Caiaphas and the entire Sanhedrin. Christ’s first trial before this body is almost over.

During the interval of an hour the news about Peter has been spreading. Now the palace servants and the officers, the men who are standing around the fire with Peter, begin to tell him that he is one of Christ’s disciples, and that his very accent or brogue identifies him as a Galilean. Cf. Matt. 26:73. A comparison of the Gospel accounts shows that some people are talking to Peter; others, about him. Accusations are flying in from every side. This was enough to get anyone excited, especially excitable Simon! As if all this were not enough, a relative of Malchus blurts out, “Did I not see you in the garden with Jesus?” For this story see N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 399, 400. Then he started to curse and to swear, I don’t know this man you’re talking about. Angry and excited Peter now begins to call down curses on himself and to swear that he doesn’t even know Jesus. He must have said something like, “May God do this or that to me if it be true that I am or ever was a disciple of Jesus.” He stands there invoking on himself one curse after another. And the louder this Galilean talks, the more, without realizing it, he is saying to all those standing around, “I’m a liar.”

In his infinite and tender mercy the Lord, who in his sovereign providence controls all things, including even roosters, comes to the rescue: 72. At once a rooster crowed the second time. And Peter recalled the word Jesus had spoken to him, Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me thrice. And when he reflected on this he wept.⁷⁸²

Note the following:

a. Mark’s representation “At once a rooster crowed the second time,” and Matthew’s “At once a rooster crowed” are not in conflict. Neither is there any real contradiction between Mark’s “Before the rooster crows twice you will deny me thrice” and Matthew’s “This very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” See on verse 68.

b. How was it that Peter recalled the word spoken to him? From Luke 22:61 we gather that at the very moment when the rooster crowed, or at least very nearly at that moment, someone was looking straight into Peter’s eyes. It was Jesus, his face very likely still black and blue because of the blows it had received. It would seem that the Master, his trial ended, was being led across the court to his prison cell, from which within a few hours he would emerge once more to face the Sanhedrin.

When Peter heard the crowing of the rooster, and saw Jesus looking at him, with eyes full of pain, yet also of pardon, his memory of Christ’s warning prediction was suddenly awakened.—In this connection we must not forget that “the look of Jesus would have been wasted on Peter, if it had not been that Peter was looking at Jesus.”⁷⁸³

c. The original of the words, “And when he reflected on this he wept” has given rise to much discussion. See footnote.⁷⁸⁴ The A.V. rendering is probably still the best.

d. When we review the entire story it becomes clear that the following lessons are taught here (and there may be others):

First of all, how deceitful is man’s heart! See above, on 14:31: The Unknown Self.

Secondly, how Christ must have suffered! No doubt much more because of these denials by a highly favored disciple and friend than because of the blows and the mockery inflicted on him by his declared enemies. See Ps. 55:12–14.

Finally, how God’s grace and the Savior’s forgiving love are here revealed! See Isa. 1:18; 53:6; 55:5, 7.

Summary of Chapter 14

There is a close connection between chapters 13 and 14. According to 13:32 Jesus said, “But about that day or that hour no one knows.…” He knew that his times were in the Father’s hand. Cf. Ps. 31:15. But the venerable members of the Jewish supreme court seemed to have been of the opinion that they themselves were in control, and had the power to determine the day of Christ’s death. See 14:2.

There is also another obvious connection. Chapter 13 contains an admonition which Jesus repeats several times in one form or another, namely, “Stay on the alert” (“Be watchful”). See verses 23, 33, 35, 37. This word of warning is repeated in 14:38. But according to 14:37, 40, 41 this is exactly what Peter, James, and John failed to do.

As to the contents, chapter 14 is divided into 11 very unequal sections, as follows:

1. “Not during the feast,” said the plotters. “During the feast (Passover),” said the Almighty, echoed by Jesus. And so it happened (verses 1, 2).

2. In connection with Mary of Bethany’s generous, thoughtful, and timely deed of anointing Jesus, we are shocked by the disciples’ inexcusable criticism, “Why this waste of perfume?” What is especially striking is the emphatic manner in which Jesus rushes to Mary’s defense with the words, “Wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, also what she has done will be told in memory of her” (verses 3–9).

3. Mary receives the Master’s everlasting praise. Judas receives money from the Jewish leaders. Having received it he now looks for an opportunity to betray Jesus (verses 10, 11).

4. Mark now relates how Jesus sent two of his disciples a. to secure a room to celebrate Passover with his disciples, and b. to make the necessary preparations. The Master’s predictions with respect to the two disciples’ experiences in Jerusalem in search for a room are fulfilled in every respect.

It was Thursday evening, during the Passover meal, that Jesus declared, “One of you will betray me—one who is eating with me.” Since all the disciples were eating with Jesus, they, one by one, said to him, “Surely not I?” All the disciples were given an opportunity to examine themselves. Note the combination of divine sovereignty and human responsibility in Christ’s words, “The Son of man goes as it is written concerning him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed” (verses 12–21).

5. Toward the end of the Passover meal Jesus instituted “the Lord’s Supper.” It signifies that because of what Jesus did for his people in what is now the past they should give him their love; also, that because whenever the supper is truly celebrated he is present with those who partake of it, they should embrace him as the object of their faith; and finally that, in view of his promise with respect to the future—a promise made when he instituted the supper—, they should look forward with living, firmly anchored hope to everlasting communion with him in the mansions above (verses 22–26).

6. On the way to the Mount of Olives (as even before, in the Upper Room) Jesus predicted that all his disciples would become untrue to him, in fulfilment of Zech. 13:7. All protest and profess their unflinching loyalty; especially Peter. Jesus said to him, “I solemnly declare to you that today—yes, this very night—before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me thrice.” Paragraph 11 shows that this was exactly what also happened (verses 27–31).

7. In Gethsemane Jesus a. agonized; b. agonized and prayed; c. prayed and kept watch. Three times he prayed, the substance of his prayer being, “Father, remove this cup from me; nevertheless, not what I will but what thou wilt.” After his third prayer, on returning to his disciples and finding them still (or: again) sleeping, he stood there, tenderly keeping watch over them and saying, “Sleep on now and take your rest. It is enough.”

Shortly afterward he added, “Get up! Let us be going. Look, my betrayer is near” (verses 32–42).

8. By means of a kiss (or kisses) Judas identified and thus betrayed Jesus to a detachment of soldiers, temple-police, and Sanhedrists, all of them well equipped. Peter draws his sword and strikes the highpriest’s servant, cutting off his ear. Jesus exposes the folly and guilt of his captors. In fulfilment of his prediction all the disciples flee. What is especially significant is the fact that Jesus allows himself to be seized, bound, and led away. The “Victim” is obviously the “Victor.” In fulfilment of Isa. 53, he is surrendering his life as an offering in exchange for many (verses 43–50).

9. Though Jesus’ captors did not catch any of the disciples—and probably did not even try (John 18:8, 9)—, they did try to capture a certain “young man” who, with only a linen cloth thrown around his body, was following Jesus. As they seized this young man, he left the linen cloth behind and escaped naked. In the opinion of many Mark is narrating his own unforgettable experience (verses 51, 52).

10. Before the Sanhedrin Jesus, in answer to the highpriest’s question, declares himself to be the Messiah, the One who is about to be gloriously exalted (Ps. 110:1), and who one day, in fulfilment of Dan. 7:13, 14, will appear upon the clouds of heaven, clothed with dominion and majesty. The nervous highpriest, who had failed to elicit from witnesses damaging testimony on which they could agree, now tears his clothes and asks, “What need do we still have of witnesses? You have heard his blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemn him as being worthy of death. Mockery and cruelty follow (verses 53–65).

11. The background of Peter’s first denial is indicated in 14:54. The story is continued here. The first denial takes place in the courtyard of the highpriest’s palace, where Peter is warming himself in the presence of the palace servants and temple guards. A portress takes a close look at him and exclaims, “You too were with Jesus the Nazarene.” The next denial occurs, in all probability, as Peter is trying to escape to the outside. The portress who had come to relieve the first one tells the bystanders, “This fellow is one of them.” Since Peter apparently was not allowed to make his exit, he returns to the courtyard. Here, about an hour later (according to Luke) those standing around are saying to Peter, “Certainly you are one of them, for you are a Galilean.”

Whenever he is accused Peter denies any connection with Jesus. The third time “he started to curse and to swear, ‘I don’t know this man you’re talking about.’ ” It was then that the rooster crowed.

There had been rooster-crowing before, after the first denial. But the rooster-crowing immediately after the third denial was the significant one. When the rooster crowed this second time, Peter recalled the word Jesus had spoken to him, “Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me thrice.”

When he reflected on that which, in spite of all his earlier promises and boasts, he had done, and on what Jesus really meant to him and had done for him, he wept! (verses 66–72).

N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary

⁶⁶⁹ This is an embarrassment to the advocates of “Q.” See N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 21, 47, 48.

⁶⁷⁰ Absent from some ancient manuscripts.

⁶⁷¹ On this question see also N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 534. The “crucifixion on Thursday” theory was revived recently by Roger Rusk, in the March 29, 1974 issue of Christianity Today, pp. 720–722. It was refuted by Harold W. Hoehner in the April 26, 1974 issue, pp. 878, 881. As Hoehner points out, if Jesus had died on Thursday instead of on Friday, Pilate would have secured the sepulcher until the fourth day, not the third (Matt. 27:62–66). As to the computer which established the exact times of all the new and full moons from 1001 b.c. to a.d. 1651, and confirmed the fact that in the year a.d. 30 the fourteenth of Nisan occurred on Thursday, the fifteenth on Friday, though this information is interesting and helpful, yet as far as the date a.d. 30 is concerned it is not exactly new. See, for example, P. Schaff, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 135.

⁶⁷² Note the plural τὰ ἄζυμα, probably referring to the unleavened cakes of bread, and based on the Hebrew plural matzoth. Besides, it must be borne in mind that this was a feast lasting several days and including many festive activities. That fact, too, may account for the plural. See N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 792, 793.

⁶⁷³ ἐν δόλῳ probably, though not necessarily, a Hebraism. Matthew uses the simple, instrumental dative δόλῳ. The meaning is identical.

⁶⁷⁴ After the final particle μήποτε, either (as here) the future indicative (see also Matt. 7:6) or the more frequent subjunctive (as in Luke 14:12) can be used, with little if any difference in meaning. See Gram.N.T., p. 988.

⁶⁷⁷ This story must not be confused with that of “the sinful woman” of Luke 7. For the arguments in favor of rejecting this identification see N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 174, 175.

⁶⁷⁵ Literally: for more than three hundred denarii.

⁶⁷⁶ Or: for the—i.e., for my—burial.

⁶⁷⁸ Note the two gen. absolutes: “he being in Bethany” and “he reclining at table.”

⁶⁷⁹ The meaning of πιστικός, -ή-όν both in Mark 14:3 and in John 12:3 has been much debated. πιστικός = πιστός may well be the best interpretation. Either “pure” or “genuine” is favored by most commentators.

⁶⁸⁰ κατέχεε third per. s. aor. indic. of καταχέω, to pour down or out over. The gen. αὐτοῦ κ.τ.λ. is perhaps due to κατά w. gen. (down, down from, etc.), a preposition which with the acc. generally has an entirely different meaning (along, over, through, toward, etc.). See Gram.N.T., pp. 511, 512; and L.N.T. (A. and G.), pp. 406–409.

⁶⁸¹ For the value of a denarius see above on 6:37 and on 12:42. Shall we say that in the estimation of Judas there had been $50–$60 worth of perfume in that jar?

⁶⁸² ἀγνακτοῦντες, nom. pl. masc. pres. participle of ἀγανακτέω. See above on 10:14, footnote 459.

⁶⁸³ ἐνεβριμῶντο third per. pl. imperf. of ἐμβριμάομαι. See on 1:43.

⁶⁸⁴ πραθῆναι and δοθῆναι, aor. inf. passives (after ἠδύνατο), stating what these men held to be a simple fact, namely, that the perfume could and should have been sold, and the proceeds given to the poor. δηναρίων is best viewed as gen. of price after πραθῆναι.

⁶⁸⁵ ἄφετε sec. per. pl. aor. imper. active of ἀφίημι, as in 10:14; see on that passage, footnote 460).

⁶⁸⁶ ἔσχε, third per. s. aor. indic. of ἔχω; here ὃ ἔσχε is an abbreviation of ὃ ἔσχε ποιῆσαι; hence, the meaning is, “She has done what she was able to (or: what she could) do.”

⁶⁸⁷ ποέλαβε μυρίσαι; i.e., She undertook in advance to anoint, etc., amounting to “She anointed … beforehand.” The main verb προέλαβε is here used adverbially. Cf. its use in I Cor. 11:21.

⁶⁸⁸ See on 3:28.

⁶⁸⁹ κηρυχθῇ third per. s. aor. subjunct. passive of κηρύσσω.

⁶⁹⁰ Or: how he might conveniently hand him over [or: deliver him up].

⁶⁹¹ Literally, “that he might hand him over.”

⁶⁹² Even the adverb τότε (Matt. 26:14) does not make it certain, for that is a word with a very wide meaning. Temporal sequence—then, thereupon—does not necessarily imply cause-and-effect relationship. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is faulty reasoning.

⁶⁹³ παραδ οῖ is a third per. s. aor. subjunct. form of παραδίδωμι, literally, “(he was seeking) how he might conveniently hand him over.”

⁶⁹⁴ Luke 21:37 may give a hint, but this is not certain.

⁶⁹⁵ ἔθυον, the imperfect is used to indicate a custom.

⁶⁹⁶ ἑτοιμάσωμεν, aor. subjunct. after θέλεις; φάγῃς, aor. subjunct. expressing purpose, after ἵνα.

⁶⁹⁷ βαστάζων, pres. participle of βαστάζω. For the various meanings of this verb see N.T.C. on Galatians, p. 232, footnote 171.

⁶⁹⁸ κεράμιον, earthenware jar, pitcher, or jug. Cf. ceramics.

⁶⁹⁹ ὕδατος gen. of contents.

⁷⁰⁰ The indefinite ὅπου ἐάν (“wherever he may enter”) is naturally followed by the subjunctive (third per. s. aor.). The second ὅπου (ὁπου … φάγω) is followed by the (probably deliberative) aor. subjunct. first per. s. in a final relative clause embodying an indirect question. See Gram.N.T., p. 969.

⁷⁰¹ For the designation “Teacher” or “Master,” here used by Jesus with reference to himself, see above on 4:38b, including footnote 172; and see also on 10:17.

⁷⁰² κατάλυμα. Cf. καταλύω in the sense of to loosen, to unharness (the pack animals); hence, to rest, to take lodging for the night. Accordingly κατάλυμα is here a guest-room.

⁷⁰³ ἀνάγαιον = ἀνά and γαῖα (γή), anything above the ground; in the present context an upper room.

⁷⁰⁴ ἐστρωμένον, acc. s. neut. perf. pass. participle of στρώννυμι; see on 11:8, footnote 528.The room was, as it were, “bestrewn” (covered, furnished) with couches.

⁷⁰⁵ ὀψίας γενομένης, gen. absolute, a rather common expression in Matthew and in Mark (also occurring in Mark 1:32; 4:35; 6:47; and 15:42). See further on 1:32.

⁷⁰⁶ ἤρξαντο λυπεῖσθαι. The question is, “Does the original mean became (= began to be) distressed, or does ἤρξαντο have the weakened, pleonastic sense, so that the correct translation would be were distressed. See on 1:45 and on 6:7, footnote 233. The context, according to which these men received a sudden shock, would seem to argue in favor of became or began to be. Thus also A.V., R.S.V., A.R.V., N.A.S., Williams, and Dutch (both Staten en Nieuwe Vertaling).

⁷⁰⁷ εἷς κατὰ εἷ̔ς. There are many explanations of this idiom. Simplest would seem to be to regard the three words as a unit, and nominative in apposition with the subject “they” in ἤρξαντο.

⁷⁰⁸ Form for The Lord’s Supper, belonging to the Liturgy of the Christian Reformed Church. See Psalter Hymnal (Centennial Edition), Doctrinal Standards and Liturgy of the Christian Reformed Churh, Grand Rapids, 1959, p. 94 of the Liturgical Forms.

⁷⁰⁹ For more on this “covenant,” its one-sidedness or two-sidedness, the relation of “covenant” to “testament,” etc., see N.T.C. on Galatians, p. 134 (including footnote 98) and on Ephesians, pp. 129, 130; also the author’s book, The Covenant of Grace, Grand Rapids, 1932.

⁷¹⁰ First πίω 1st per. sing. aor. subjunctive of πίνω; then πίνω, 1st per. sing. present subjunctive (“when I am drinking,” or “shall be drinking”).

⁷¹¹ Or: become untrue (to me).

⁷¹² For omission of “twice” in some MSS. see footnote 778.

⁷¹³ σκανδαλισθήσεσθε, sec. per. pl. fut. indic. passive of σκανδαλίζω; see on 4:17, footnote 147. Various translations have been attempted. Some insist on the literal “be made to stumble,” or simply “stumble.” Others prefer “be offended,” “turn against (me),” “fall away (from me),” “become untrue (to me).” The context would seem to favor the last two. See also the fine article on σκάνδαλον, σκανδαλίζω, by G. Stählin, Th.D.N.T., Vol. VII, pp. 339–358, especially p. 349.

⁷¹⁴ In the present case the verb προάγω (here προάξω, first per. s. fut. indic.) cannot have the meaning “go in front of you and lead you”; cf. 10:32. It must mean “go ahead of you, so as to arrive earlier and meet you (in Galilee),” as is clear from 16:7.

⁷¹⁵ According to L.N.T. (A. and G.), p. 219, εἰ καί can have the meaning “even though.” In the present passage most English translations have “although,” “even though,” “even if,” or something similar. Robertson calls attention to the fact that the true text in the present passage is εἰ καί, not καὶ εἰ. He sees a distinction and takes εἰ καί to mean “and if,” the matter mentioned in the clause beginning with εἰ καί being belittled. If this distinction is valid, the translation might be, “whoever else may become untrue, I certainly will not,” or something similar. See N.E.B.’s rendering.

⁷¹⁶ As in John 4:49, πρίν—here πρὶν ἤ—is followed by the infinitive. See Burton, op. cit., par. 380.

⁷¹⁷ ἀπαρνήσῃ sec. per. s. fut. middle indic., or (volitive) aor. subjunct. (same form) of ἀπαρνέομαι. For this verb see also on 8:34, footnote 381.

⁷¹⁸ ἐκπερισσῶς, in the New Testament found only here, but compare related words in 7:37; I Thess. 3:10; 5:13 (see N.T.C. on I and II Thessalonians, p. 135, including footnote 103 in that book); also see Eph. 3:20.

A.V. Authorized Version (King James)

⁷¹⁹ The words between quotation marks are from the beautiful and deservedly popular hymn by Julia H. Johnston, Grace Greater Than Our Sin.

⁷²⁰ Or: began to pray.

⁷²¹ Quoted from Psalter Hymnal (Centennial Edition), Doctrinal Standards and Liturgy of the Christian Reformed Church, Grand Rapids, 1959, p. 93, Lord’s Supper Form.

⁷²²

For detailed discussion of the textual problem the reader should consult commentaries on Luke. Briefly, those who reject this passage about an angel who came and strengthened Jesus, and about the Master’s sweat becoming like thick drops of blood, present the following reasons for this rejection: a. this passage is missing from Codex Vaticanus and from other important manuscripts; b. it looks like a scribal embellishment of Luke’s text; c. it may be considered a Western interpolation; and d. it is out of harmony with the contents of the immediately preceding verse.

On the other hand, those who take the opposite view answer: a. the passage is present in Codex Sinaiticus and is supported by several other witnesses, some of them early; b. it is especially Luke who throughout his Gospel and book of Acts mentions angels again and again (see any good Concordance and note frequency of the word “angel” in Luke’s writings as compared with its frequency in the other Gospels); c. Luke also shows that Jesus himself was very conscious of the presence and work of angels; d. the question is legitimate whether the omission of verses 43, 44 from several important manuscripts, etc., may not be ascribed to a theological bias, namely, the mistaken belief that what is reported here, being supposedly out of harmony with the doctrine of Christ’s deity, was therefore a legitimate basis of appeal for the Arians; and d. the passage is entirely in line with Heb. 5:7, 8. In both cases the fact that, in a sense, Christ’s human nature, though entirely without sin, needed strengthening, is held before us. Besides, as to the reasoning of those who reject the passage, are not some of their arguments of a purely subjective character?—I believe the passage should be retained.

⁷²³ In this passage does ἕως mean “while” or “until”? Grammars do not agree. Contrast Burton, op. cit., par. 325 (“properly until”), and Gram.N.T., p. 976 (“while”). “While” would seem the most natural. If “until,” then the translation would have to be “until I have prayed,” for Jesus would hardly tell the disciples to sit at a certain place until he prays (or starts praying). Lenski, op. cit., p. 399, has “until” in his translation but “while” in his explanation. However, on the same page he imparts some very interesting information about Gethsemane. Among commentaries on Mark that are read or consulted Bible students should be sure to include that of Lenski.—Moreover, the ἕως rule (see footnote 286) is flexible.

⁷²⁴ For ἤτξατο, third per. s. aor. indic. middle of ἄρχω see on 1:45 and on 6:7, footnote 233. Though in 6:7; 13:5 and perhaps a few other passages there could be a pleonastic use of this verb, this is not at all probable here. Gethsemane was unique. The account leaves the definite impression (see especially verses 33, 34) that the suffering which Jesus now began to experience was more intense than anything he had borne previously.

⁷²⁵ Both ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι and ἀδημονεῖν are present infinitives after ἤρξατο. The verb ἀδημονέω is of uncertain derivation. The etymology “to be away from home” cannot be proved. See also N.T.C. on Philippians, pp. 140, 141.

⁷²⁶ Another good translation of ἤρξατο ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι is “began to be greatly amazed.” See on 9:15.

⁷²⁷ See above, on 8:12, footnote 370; also on 10:45. The “soul” is here the self (cf. I Tim. 2:6), with emphasis on the emotional.

⁷²⁸ Though both of these actions—remaining and keeping awake—are durative in character, it is only with respect to the second verb that the emphasis falls on this continuation. Hence μείνατε is aorist imper., the action being indicated as a simple fact, an order to be obeyed, but γρηγορεῖτε is present imper. For γρηγορέω also see on 13:34 and on 14:38.

⁷²⁹ Note the imperfects ἔπιπτε and προσηύχετο.

⁷³⁰ For prayer postures and their significance see N.T.C. on I and II Timothy and Titus, pp. 103, 104.

⁷³¹ παρέλθῃ third per. s. aor. subjunct. of παρέρχομαι as in 13:30.

⁷³² Note the strong adversatives. The sec. per. s. aor. imperat. of παραφέρω, namely, παρένεγκε is balanced by ἀλλά … ἀλλά.

⁷³³ For the textual question see above, footnote 722.

⁷³⁴ Note striking contrast here between the present and the aorist: “Are you asleep … were you not able (or: Did you not have the strength) …”

⁷³⁵ Note the sec. per. pl. pres. imperatives, durative in character: γρηγορεῖτε and προσεύχεσθε. ἵνα μή is negat. final: “lest” or “that … not.” ἔλθητε (another reading has εἰσέλθητε): sec. per. pl. aor. subjunct., an illustration of the non-literal use of ἔρχομαι followed by εἰς, (that you may not) enter, that is, seek or sinfully expose yourselves to (temptation). The aorist summarizes the entering action.

⁷³⁶ Lenski, op. cit., p. 404, calls προσηύξατο “the imperfect.” It happens to be an aorist. Verse 35 has the imperfect προσηύχετο.

⁷³⁷ λόγος acc.-ον probably here used in the sense of the Hebrew dābhār.

⁷³⁸ ἦσαν … καταβαρονόμενοι, periphrastic imperfect. ἤδεισαν, third per. pl. pluperf. with sense of imperfect. ἀποκριθῶσι, the deliberative subjunctive of the direct question is retained in the indirect question.

A.R.V. American Standard Revised Version

⁷³⁹ The original—here rendered, “Sleep on now and take your rest”—is Καθεύδετε τὸ λοιπὸν καὶ ἀναπαύεσθε (Matt. 26:45 and Mark 14:41). Reasons for rejecting other translations are given in N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 920, footnote 848.

⁷⁴⁰ ἀπέχει, third per. s. pres. indic. of ἀπέχω, here used impersonally; cf. use in 7:6: “is (far) from.” Also see Matt. 6:2, 5, 16, where the meaning seems to be to receive in full. See also N.T.C. on Phil. 4:18. In Acts 15:20, 29; I Thess. 4:3; 5:22; I Tim. 4:3; and I Peter 2:11 the sense is abstain from; and in Philem. 15: was parted from.

⁷⁴¹ In “Get up … Let us be going” we have the combination of a sec. per. pl. pres. imperat. and a first per. pl. pres. hortative subjunctive. “My betrayer,” literally: the one (who is) betraying me. Finally, ἤγγικε is third per. s. perf. indic. of ἐγγίζω, and has the usual meaning has come near, hence is near.

⁷⁴² Or: safely.

⁷⁴³ Or: again and again.

⁷⁴⁴ Or: insurrectionist, revolutionist, rebel.

⁷⁴⁵ σύσσημον, in the New Testament only here. For the occurrence of this word elsewhere see M.M., p. 617.

⁷⁴⁶ It is a well-known fact that the prefixes in such compounds as the one here used—κατεφίλησε—often lose their intensive force. Nevertheless, the use of the simple form of the verb in verse 44—φιλήσω first per. sing. aor. subjunctive of φιλέω—contrasted with the compound form in the next verse, probably points to the strengthened connotation in this second case.

⁷⁴⁷ σπασάμενος, nom. s. masc. aor. middle particple of σπάω. ἔπαισε, third per. s. aor. act. indic. of παίω. ἀφεῖλε, third per. s. aor. act. indic. of ἀφαιρέω. ὠτάριον and ὠτίον (Matt. 26:51) are diminutives of οὖς (outer) ear. Probably by this time these diminutives had lost most or all of their diminutive force. See above, Introduction IV, footnote 5; and also see on Mark 3:9, footnote 108.

⁷⁴⁸ R. Scroggs and K. I. Groff, “Baptism in Mark: Dying and Rising With Christ,” JBL 92 (Dec. 1973), pp. 531–548.—The basic idea, namely, that there is a connection between Mark 14:51, 52 and 16:5, has also been accepted by others. See S. E. Johnson, op. cit., p. 238.

⁷⁴⁹

First, there are those who either say, “The young man was not Mark,” or simply “We do not know who he was.”

a. Lenski rejects every effort to identify the young man of 14:51, 52, and believes that the incident simply shows the temper of the captors of Jesus (op. cit., pp. 410, 411).

b. With respect to the young man’s identity Bolkestein (op. cit., p. 334) also simply states, “We do not know.”

c. Swete (op. cit., p. 354), though remaining non-committal with respect to the identity of the young man, states that the theory that he resided in the house of the Upper Room and the view that he was the evangelist himself, are not incompatible.

d. Taylor (op. cit., pp. 561, 562) thinks that the young man was probably not Mark. If Mark, there would have been more details.

Secondly, there are those—the majority by far—who either lean toward the position that the young man was Mark, or rather positively so assert.

a. Van Leeuwen (op. cit., pp. 187, 188) opines that Mark is a guess that may well be correct.

b. Gould (op. cit., p. 276) thinks that the very failure of the author to mention the name of this young man, plus the mention of the incident at all, may well point to Mark.

c. Robertson (Word Pictures, Vol. I, p. 386) also leans toward the theory that the young man was Mark, in whose house the group had probably observed the Passover meal.

d. Among others who are of the same opinion, with certain reservations, are M.-J. Lagrange, Evangile selon Saint Marc, Paris, pp. 396, 397; and A. E. J, Rawlinson, St. Mark, London, 1925, pp. 215, 216.

e. Th. Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, English tr. Edinburgh, 1909, p. 494, leans strongly toward Mark. So does Barclay, op. cit., p. 365.

f. Cole, also leaning toward Mark, very aptly adds, “It seems unnecessary and unfair to spiritualize an incident like this; it is stated as a plain fact, and as such it must be accepted, whatever spiritual lessons we may then see fit to associate with the event” (op. cit., p. 224).

Thirdly, the following views with respect to the identity of the young man have not found much support: the apostle Paul (Ewald), the apostle John (Ambrose), James, the brother of Jesus (Epiphanius). This holds too with respect to the idea of F. C. Grant (op. cit., p. 886) that Mark 14:51, 52 was suggested by Amos 2:16.

⁷⁵⁰ σινδών. The word occurring here (in verse 51 and again in verse 52) is also found in Matt. 27:59 and its parallels: Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53, where it indicates the linen cloth in which the body of Jesus was wrapped. “Sindon,” though archaic, is still a good English word. It indicates a fine fabric, especially one of linen. Was the young man’s sindon a shirt, tunic, bed-sheet? We do not know. περιβεβλημένος, nom. masc. s. perf. passive participle of περιβάλλω. συνηκολούθει, third per. s. imperfect indic. of συνακολουθέω. Cf. acolyte. ἔφυγε, third per. s. aor. of φεύγω.

⁷⁵⁴ Strictly speaking, verses 66–71 of Luke 22 do not belong here, for they record what happened early in the morning. They constitute a parallel to Mark 14:53–65 and to Matt. 26:57–68 only in the sense that certain passages in this Luke portion closely resemble the Matthew and Mark references. This simply means that certain questions asked during the night were repeated during the early morning trial.

⁷⁵⁵ As to John 18, only verse 24, “Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the highpriest” belongs here. John 18:12–14, 19–23 do not belong here but describe Christ’s preliminary hearing before Annas, as is explained in N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 385–387.

⁷⁵¹ Literally: were not equal. So also in verse 59.

752

Or: and answered nothing.

⁷⁵³ Or: slaps in the face.

N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary

⁷⁵⁶ Note pleasing contrast between ἠκολούθησε, aorist, and ἦν συγκαθήμενος … καὶ θερμαινόμενος, periphrastic imperfects.

⁷⁵⁷ Note πρός in the sense of near, as in 11:1.

⁷⁵⁸ Mark’s account is very vivid. Note the imperfects: were seeking, were not finding (verse 55), were bearing false testimony (verse 56 and again in the next verse).

⁷⁵⁹ With little change the last two paragraphs—beginning with “Not the masses”—were taken from my booklet Israel in Prophecy, Grand Rapids, 1972, See pp. 13, 14.

⁷⁶⁰ In his book, The Trial and Death of Jesus, 1971.

⁷⁶¹ The Passover Plot, New York, 1965, pp. 140, 142.

⁷⁶² Op. cit., p. 565.

⁷⁶³ See Mishna, Sanhedrin IV.1.

⁷⁶⁴ See G. Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, New York, 1929, pp. 98–100. S. Rosenblatt, who in his article, “The Crucifixion of Jesus from the Standpoint of Pharisaic Law,” JBL 75 (Dec. 1956), pp. 315–321, denies the account of the trial of Jesus as presented in the Gospels, nevertheless admits (p. 319) that “although the details of the trial given in the New Testament were definitely contrary to Pharisaic law, a way of removing an undesirable enemy is usually found when the will is there.” That is exactly the point.

⁷⁶⁵ Same verb as in verse 56. The imperfect tense—ἐψευδομαρτύρουν—continues.

⁷⁶⁶ Or sanctuary, but the distinction between ἱερόν, the entire temple complex, and ναός, the Holy Place and Holy of holies, though valid at times, cannot always be pressed; particularly not in connection with John 2:20. See N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 944.

⁷⁶⁷ εἰς μέσον, into the midst; here (came) forward. See L.N.T. (A. and G.), p. 508; and see also on 3:3. ἀποκ ρίνῃ, (verse 60), sec. per. s. pres. indic. of ἀποκ ρίνομαι. ἀπεκρίνατο, (verse 61), third per. s. aor. indic. of the same verb. Note also the double occurrence—first in the question of verse 60; then in the statement of verse 61—of the double negative: οὐκ … οὐδέν. For the double negative in Mark see Introduction IV, footnote 5, under h. Nevertheless, it is probably incorrect to place great emphasis on this double negative. The parallel passage in Matthew has the simple negative (26:62), and even this only in the question. It is entirely possible, therefore, that Mark’s two double negatives represent his own popular style, his thoroughly legitimate manner of reporting. If that be true, “You don’t answer?” and “He did not answer” may well suffice. Cf. also the French Ne réponds-tu rien? and the South African Antwoord U niks nie?

⁷⁶⁸ Op. cit., p. 308.

⁷⁶⁹ For the designation εὐλογητός see also Luke 1:68; Rom. 1:25; 9:5; II Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; I Peter 1:3. It is always used to indicate Deity. In Rom. 9:5 (“Christ, who is God over all”) it ascribes godhead, in the most exalted sense, to Christ.

⁷⁷⁰ διαρρήξά, nom. s. masc. aor. participle of διαρρήγνυμι. τι ὑμῖν φαίνεται; What does it seem to you? = How does it strike you? What do you think (of it)?

⁷⁷¹ See S.BK., Vol. I, p. 1007 f.

⁷⁷² As in verses 19 and 33, so also here there is good reason to retain the translation began for ἤρξαντο, for a new stage has arrived in the afflictions suffered by Jesus: the verdict has been announced. But see also on 1:45 and 6:7, footnote 233. “Began,” in turn governs four pres. (durative) infinitives: to spit (at), to blindfold, to strike, and to say. Literally περικαλύπτειν means to put a veil around; hence, to cover, and (since the veil is put around the face) to blindfold.

⁷⁷³ The reason why it is best to express ourselves cautiously on this point is Luke 22:63 which, as many interpret it, ascribes the mocking, beating, blindfolding, etc., to “the men who were guarding Jesus,” the underlings, and not to the Sanhedrists themselves.

⁷⁷⁴ Grk.N.T. (A-B-M-W) ascribes dubious textual validity to these words. But see footnote 778.

⁷⁷⁵ Some MSS. omit “the second time.” But see footnote 778.

⁷⁷⁶ Some MSS. omit “twice.” But see footnote 778.

⁷⁷⁷ For “the Nazarene” see N.T.C. on 1:24; also on Matt. 2:23; 26:71; and on John 1:46.

⁷⁷⁸ It cannot be questioned that the manuscripts which omit the words in dispute are weighty. Therefore many modern translators and commentators reject “And a rooster crowed.” See, however, the discussion in V. Taylor, op. cit., p. 574. The fact that Mark’s report seems to require the inclusion of the words—note verses 30 and 72—should receive at least as much consideration as does their omission from verse 68 in important manuscripts. Why speak about a second rooster-crowing if there has been no first? Is it not possible that a scribe, thinking that the mention of rooster-crowing in Mark 14:68 was in conflict with the story as presented by Matthew, etc., started the process of omitting it? May not something similar account for the omission of “twice” from verses 30 and 72, and of “the second time” from verse 72? It is easier in these cases to explain omission from the true text than interpolation into it.

A.V. Authorized Version (King James)

⁷⁷⁹ So, for example, V. Taylor, op. cit., pp. 574, 575. In fact, the contradiction he sees reaches even farther than this, but this we can ignore, since portresses and male bystanders must not be confused.

⁷⁸⁰ This is a legitimate translation of πάλιν. See John 12:22 t.r.

⁷⁸¹ Note the imperfect ἠρνεῖτο, which is a vivid description of what was happening, and may indicate (though not necessarily) that the action continued for some time.

⁷⁸² For the textual problems in connection with this verse see above, on verse 68, footnote 778. Though it is true that Mark uses the imperfect ἔκλαιε, it is not necessary to translate “He continued to weep,” since the very idea of weeping already implies continuity.

⁷⁸³ G. Campbell Morgan, op. cit., p. 312.

⁷⁸⁴ Of the various renderings that have been proposed the most simple and perhaps the best would seem to be to interpret ἐπιβαλών (nom. sing. masc. aor. participle of ἐπιβάλλω) as meaning putting to, applying to, and then to supply τὸν νοῦν (or something similar), resulting in the sense applying the mind to, reflecting on, thinking on. Thus also A.V., A.R.V., Gould, Robertson, Erdman. Both Bruce and Swete, after mentioning several other possibilities, finally retain two, though not the same two. The one retained by both is thinking on. The rendering “He burst into tears,” or “broke down and wept,” preferred by some, rests on the idea that ἐπιβάλλω indicates violent action (as in Mark 4:37). See F. Hauck, Th.D.N.T., Vol. I, p. 529. Such violent action, however, is not always implied (see Mark 11:7; Luke 9:62). And when it is implied, the object (direct, indirect, or both) is mentioned. Mark 14:72 is different.

↑ Back to top