Bible Commentaries
Mark 14

Verses 1-72

XIV 1-XV 47 The Passion, Death and Burial of Christ. XIV 1-2 The Plot of the Sanhedrin; cf.Matthew 26:1-5; Luke 22:1 f.—The Pasch, i.e. the ceremony at which the paschal lamb was eaten, was celebrated on the evening of the 14th Nisan. ’The Azymes’, or the feast of unleavened bread, began on the 15th Nisan and lasted seven days. In practice, the whole period from the beginning of the paschal ceremony to the end of the Azymes was referred to either as the Pasch or the Azymes. According to an ancient tradition (cf. Catena in Marc.), this meeting of the Sanhedrin was held on the Wednesday before Christ’s death.

3-9 The Anointing at Bethany; Cf.Matthew 26:6-13;John 12:1-8—From Jn we know that this incident took place on the day before the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, six days before the Pasch. Mk and Mt place the account of the anointing between the plot of the Sanhedrin and the betrayal by Judas because of its relation to the burial of Christ, 8, whom the Sanhedrin had now decided to put to death. The incident also throws light on the conduct and motives of Judas.

4. ’Some were indignant’. From John 12:4 f. we know that Judas protested against the waste of precious ointment which might have been sold for the benefit of the poor.

6-9. Christ defended Mary from the charge of prodigality brought against her under the pretence or solicitude for the poor. Her action was a gesture of homage to him. In view of the nearness of his death, no one should find fault with the lavishness of the expenditure. Opportunities to assist the poor would never be lacking, but Christ would not be visibly esent among them much longer. In fact, though Mary may not have realized it, this anointing was an anticipation of the anointing of Christ’s body which, in accordance with Jewish custom, should have been performed before burial. It would seem that, because of the haste with which the burial of Christ was carried out (Luke 23:54; John 19:42), certain of the customary preparations for burial were not completed; cf. 15:46-16:1; Luke 23:56-; Luke 24:1.

9. The woman who anointed Jesus was Mary, sister of Martha and Lazarus, John 11:2; John 12:2 f. It is doubtful whether she should be identified either with Mary Magdalen or with the unnamed sinner who anointed Christ on another occasion, Luke 7:37 ff; cf. O’Rahilly, The Family at Bethany, 181-92.

10-11 The Betrayal by Judas; cf.Matthew 26:14-16; Luke 22:3-6—By offering to betray Jesus to the Sanhedrin, Judas solved for them the problem of ’how to seize him by stealth’, 1. There has been much speculation concerning the motives which prompted the betrayal. In John 12:6 love of money is indicated, and disillusionment of false Messianic hopes and disappointed ambition probably also played a part. Both Luke 22:3, and John 6:71f.; 13:2, 27, refer to the influence of Satan upon the conduct of Judas.

12-16 Preparation for the Pasch; cf.Matthew 26:17-19; Luke 22:7-13-12. For the paschal meal, in addition to the lamb which was to be slaughtered in the temple, it was necessary to provide unleavened bread, bitter herbs, wine, and a sauce called ?arôse?, made from fruits, nuts, spices and vinegar. Four cups of wine at least were prescribed. The third cup, taken after the eating of the lamb, was called the ’cup of blessing’. During the meal the Hallel Psalms (113-118) were recited, and the head of the family explained the significance of the ceremony, which commemorated the Exodus.

13-15. From Luke 22:8 we know that the disciples sent to prepare for the Pasch were Peter and John. Jesus had probably made an arrangement with the householder to whom they were directed. The directions or finding the place were a test of the disciples’ faith in Christ, and gave proof of his divine knowledge. He may have avoided mentioning the householder’s name or the exact place in order to keep it from Judas, lest he should reveal it to the Sanhedrin beforehand.

Anumber of texts in the Synoptics and Jn put it beyond doubt that Christ died on a Friday; Cf.Matthew 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:31. The Last Supper took place on the previous evening. That Christ intended to celebrate the Jewish paschal feast is clear from the accounts of the preparations; cf. 14:12-16; Matthew 26:17-19; Luke 22:7-13. The words ’With desire have I desired to eat this Pasch with you before I suffer’, Luke 22:15, confirm that Christ and the Apostles actually partook of the customary paschal meal. In the evangelists’ account of the Last Supper the traditional ritual of the Jewish Pasch is overshadowed by the institution of the Eucharist which is the Pasch of the New Covenant. The Mosaic Law, Exodus 12:6, prescribed that the paschal lamb was to be slain about sunset on the 14th Nisan and eaten that night. Taking this regulation in conjunction with the Synoptic account one would conclude that Christ died in the afternoon of the 15th Nisan. But from John 18:28 it is clear that the Jews had not eaten the Pasch on the day that Christ was put to death. That day was the day of preparation, i.e. the eve of the Pasch, John 19:31, 42. Moreover, the first day of the paschal feast, the 15th Nisan, was a day of sabbath rest on which it was not lawful to hold a trial. The Synoptics, Matthew 27:32; Mark 15:21, Mark 15:46; Luke 22:26; Luke 23:56, mention various other activities which also appear to be inconsistent with the supposition that the day of Christ’s death was the first of the paschal feast. Various solutions have been put forward to explain the difference in practice between Christ and the Jews on this occasion. Some, indeed, have denied that Christ celebrated a real paschal meal, while others have held that Christ and the Jews celebrated the Pasch on the same day. But the evidence already adduced indicates that neither view is tenable. Whether Christ anticipated the legal date of the Pasch by one day, or the Jews postponed it to the evening of the 15th Nisan remains uncertain. It is possible that there was a divergence in regard to the fixing of the date of the Pasch, which depended upon observation of the new moon fourteen days earlier; cf. Lagrange, Saint Marc, 354-63; Prat, Jesus Christ, 2, 507-20; cf. §

17-21 Announcement of the Betrayal; cf.Matthew 26:2025; Luke 22:21-23; John 13:21-30-17-18. The announcement of the betrayal was made during the paschal celebration which began after sunset. Among the Jews at this period the ancient practice of standing while partaking of the paschal meal, Exodus 12:11, had given way to the Greek and Roman custom of reclining on couches at table. 19-20. The expression ’one who dips with me in the dish’ has the same meaning as ’one who eats with me’, 18b, = one who partakes of a meal with me. These words did not reveal to the other Apostles that Judas was the traitor, as they could apply to anyone present at the meal. In accordance with oriental practice, each one helped himself from a common dish. 21. Christ, in fulfilment of the divine command, was going voluntarily to his death which had been foretold by the prophets. God foresaw from all eternity the part which Judas would play, but the crime of betraying Jesus, which Judas committed by his own free act, was none the less heinous.

22-25 The Institution of the Eucharist; cf.Matthew 26:26-29; Luke 22:19 f.—Mk’s account here is almost verbally identical with that of Mt, while Lk closely resembles 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 and includes the command of Christ, ’Do this in commemoration of Me’. 22. In the sentence, ’This is my Body’ the subject ’this’ (t??+?t?), i.e. the bread which Christ held in his hands, is identified with the predicate ’my Body’ (tò s?+?µá µ??). In Aramaic, the language in which Christ spoke, the copula ’is’ (e+???+?t?) is not expressed, but the sense is the same. The evangelists and St Paul express faithfully in Greek the meaning of Christ’s words. That these words are to be taken literally, signifying that the bread has been changed by divine power into Christ’s body, follows no less from the impossibility of giving any reasonable figurative interpretation to them than from the emphasis with which it is stated that this is Christ’s own body, not a mere figure of it, but the body that suffered for men: ’This is my body, [the body] which will be given for you’, Luke 22:19.

24. The same point is made even clearer in the consecration of the chalice: ’This is my blood, [the blood] of the covenant, [the blood] which will be shed for many’. The cup contains the blood of Christ, the same blood which is to be shed in the sacrifice which inaugurates the new covenant between God and men. The participle e+??????óµe??? is used proleptically with reference to the shedding of Christ’s blood on Calvary. ’of the new testament’. ’New’ may be here an interpolation from Mt. The Mosaic covenant was inaugurated by the shedding of blood, Exodus 24:4 ff.; Christ inaugurated the New Covenant, which replaces the OT economy, by the sacrificial shedding of his own Blood on Calvary — ’by a single offering he consummated for ever those that are being sanctified’, Hebrews 10:14. ’for many’. The word ’many’ does not imply that some are excluded from the benefit of Christ’s sacrifice; it simply marks a contrast between the multitude who are to be redeemed and the One who died for all; cf. 10:45.

25. In these words, which Luke places before the account of the institution of the Eucharist, Jesus reminds the Apostles that this is a farewell banquet, for his death is imminent. But he will triumph over death, and they will be with him again in the happiness of the eternal kingdom. Christ uses a metaphor familiar to the Rabbis, comparing the kingdom of God to a banquet. The wine at that banquet will be ’new’; it will belong to a new order of things. Some see in this passage an allusion to the Eucharist which would unite them with Christ even here on earth.

26-31 Prediction of the Scandal of the Apostles and Peter’s Denials; cf.Matthew 26:30-35; Luke 22:33 f.; John 13:36-38-26. The hymn sung on this occasion was the second part of the Hallel, Pss 115-118, which brought the paschal supper to a close.

27-28. The defection of the Apostles predicted by Christ was not an abandonment of faith in him; it was rather a temporary faltering in their loyalty, caused by discouragement at seeing him fall into the hands of this enemies. Together with the warning that they would be scandalized, Christ gave the Apostles the reassuring reminder of the triumph of his Resurrection. The scriptural quotation in 27b is from Zach 13:7—’Sword . . . strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be dispersed’.

29-31. Peter’s protestations of unshakeable loyalty were sincere, but relying excessively on his own strength and placing his own loyalty above that of the other Apostles, he failed to heed the warning words of Christ. The others also protested their loyalty. Mk alone mentions the second cock-crow; cf. 14:72.

32-42 The Agony in the Garden; cf.Matthew 26:36-46 Luke 22:39-46-32. Gethsemani is situated at the foot of the western slope of Mt Olivet. The name means ’oil-press’, an installation for extracting the oil from the olive. 33-36. The three Apostles who were with Christ at the Agony had earlier been witnesses of the Transfiguration and of the raising of the daughter of Jairus. 33b. ’He began to be dismayed and distressed’. a+?dðµ??e?+?? (’to be distressed’) suggests repugnance, disgust. The Passion and Crucifixion which were now imminent, were the immediate cause of the Agony of Christ. His hour had come; the Passion with all the accompanying humiliation presented itself so vividly to his mind that he was filled with anguish and dismay. He was also conscious of the unbelief of the Jews, the betrayal by Judas, the scandal of the Apostles, the ingratitude of men, the burden of sin which he had to expiate by his sacrifice. At the Incarnation he had assumed a real human nature: it is in accordance with that nature to shrink from suffering and death. Christ’s prayer that he might be spared ’this chalice’, the ordeal of the Passion, is at once a manifestation of the shrinking of his human nature from the sufferings which lay before him, and a measure of the anguish caused by the thought of them. The prayer, however, is conditional—’he prayed that if it were possible, the hour might pass from him’. His human will was incomplete accord with the will of the Father—’not what I will, but what thou wilt’. Despite the repugnance of his human nature to suffering, Christ, by a meritorious act of obedience, voluntarily submitted to the Passion which had been decreed by God for the salvation of men. ’Though Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered, and having been made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation to all those who obey him’, Hebrews 5:8 f. This narrative puts beyond question the fact that Christ had a true human nature, and a human will distinct from and yet completely obedient to the will of the Father; Vosté, De Passione et Morte jesu Christi (Romae 1937) 7-56.

37-42. Christ returned to seek comfort in the company of the Apostles whom he had asked to keep watch with him. This seeking for comfort in the presence of friends, and the restlessness shown in the repeated coming and going of Christ are characteristic of one who is deeply distressed. The Apostles, despite their protestations, had failed to keep awake. Mark, 37, notes that Christ’s gentle reproof was addressed especially to Simon Peter. This first failure to live up to their protestations of loyalty,

29-31, taught the Apostles the lesson that good intentions are not enough. Human nature is weak and liable to fail in time of trial. Constant vigilance and prayer for God’s help were necessary if they were to remain steadfast in their loyalty to Christ in the far greater trials which lay before them.

43-50 The Arrest of Jesus; cf.Matthew 26:47-56; Luke 22:47-53; John 18:2-11—From Jn we know that a detachment of Roman soldiers under the command of a tribune was present at Christ’s arrest. If resistance were encountered, they would have given all necessary support to the representatives of the Sanhedrin who came armed with swords and clubs to seize Jesus. Judas led them to Gethsemani because he knew that Jesus frequently resorted there with the disciples. John 18:2. In the darkness even those who had seen Christ previously might have failed to identify him among the Apostles. The sign which Judas arranged was the customary form of respectful greeting.

47. John 18:10 tells us that it was Peter who drew the sword in defence of Christ.

48-49. Jesus did not resist arrest or attempt to escape, but made a dignified protest against the methods employed against him by the Sanhedrin. If they had a charge against him because of his teaching or claims, they could have summoned him openly before their tribunal. There was no need to come with an armed band as if Christ were a malefactor from whom violent resistance was to be expected. Force, indeed, would have been useless if Christ chose to resist, cf.Matthew 26:51-54; John 18:4-6. All that was taking place, however, was in accordance with the prophecies of Scripture; cf.Isaiah 53:7, Isaiah 53:12.

51-52. Only Mk records this incident of the unnamed young man. He may have been roused from sleep by the crowd and followed them with a linen cloth (s??d?+´?) wrapped about him. The fact that he followed our Lord in these circumstances suggests that he was a disciple or, at least, sympathetic to Christ. It is unlikely that mere curiosity explains his actions. Many writers hold that this is a personal reminiscence of the author of the Gospel, and identify the young man with Mark himself. The insertion of this personal anecdote, which is not closely linked with either the preceding or the subsequent narrative, would be equivalent to the setting of Mark’s signature to the Gospel. The view is not certain, but it gives a reasonable explanation of an otherwise baffling narrative. It appears to be clear that we cannot identify the young man who figures in this incident with any of the Apostles—they had all fled, 50.

53-65 Jesus before the Sanhedrin: the Religious Process; cf.Matthew 26:57-68; Luke 22:54, Luke 22:63-71; John 18:13, John 18:19-24—Jn informs us that when Jesus was arrested he was brought first to Annas, who had held the office of high-priest from a.d. 6 till 15 when he was deposed by the Roman Governor, Valerius Gratus. The high-priest at the time of the Passion was Caiphas. He was son-in-law of Annas and held office from a.d. 18 till 36. The interrogation of Christ by the high-priest, John 18:12-23, was probably an informal examination intended to obtain some evidence which could be used against Jesus when he was brought to trial before the Sanhedrin or the Roman Governor. The Sanhedrin had extensive judicial power. It was competent to pass sentence of death on ceitain charges, but had not the right to execute the sentence; cf.John 18:31; Holzmeister, Hist. Aet. N. Test. ( Rome 1932) 82-5; id., Bi 19 ( 1938) 43-59, 151-74. The Romans reserved that power to their own representative in the subject territories. Consequently, when the Sanhederin had pronounced sentence of death on Christ on the charge of blasphemy they were obliged to seek ratification and execution of the sentence from Pilate, the Roman Governor, who had the right to review the case in order to satisfy himself that the verdict should be executed.

According to Mark 15:1 and Matthew 27:1 there were two meetings of the Sanhedrin, one during the night at which Christ was condemned, the other next morning before he was brought to Pilate. Lk makes no mention of the night session: his account of Christ’s condemnation is connected with the meeting of the Sanhedrin held in the morning, Luke 22:66-71. The precise relation of Lk’s account to the narrative of Mk and Mt is uncertain. Some authors deny that a formal trial of Christ by the Sanhedrin took place during the night. According to the Talmud it was unlawful to hold a trial by night. On this view the condemnation of Christ took place at the formal trial held in the morning, as described in Lk. The other two Synoptic writers have anticipated in their narrative, giving the story of the condemnation along with their account of certain preparatory investigations conducted by the high-priest and the maltreatment of Christ during the night: Others hold that the second session of the Sanhedrin was necessary in order to remedy the illegality of the trial by night, or because it was not permitted to pronounce a condemnatory sentence at the session in which an accused was found guilty. It is possible that the Sanhedrin, having condemned Christ at the night session on the charge of blasphemy, met again next morning in order to formulate charges which would ensure that Pilate would ratify their verdict and execute the death sentence. Like Gallio at Corinth, Acts 18:12-16, Pilate might have refused to take any action on a charge of a purely religious nature. It was decided, therefore, at the morning session to bring Jesus before Pilate as a political offender because of his Messianic claims; cf.Mark 15:2; Luke 23:2.

53-54. The usual meeting-place of the Sanhedrin was a hall situated at the western side of the temple area. On this occasion, however, possibly because the gates of the temple were shut at night or because of the desire for expedition and secrecy, the representatives of the three groups which formed the Sanhedrin met in the house of Caiphas. Peter, having overcome the panic which caused him to abandon Christ, now followed at a distance and was brought into the courtyard of the high-priest by another disciple, John 18:15.

55-61a. In the Law, Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6; Deuteronomy 19:15, it was laid down that a man could not be condemned to death except on the concordant evidence of two or three witnesses. The testimony of the first witnesses against Christ was conflicting. The two witnesses who testified that Christ had said he would destroy the temple misrepresented what he had actually said, John 2:19. His words were ’Destroy this temple’ not ’I will destroy this temple’ etc. Moreover, as explained in John 2:21, he was speaking of the temple of his own body. Here too the witnesses failed to agree in their testimony. It was not necessarily blasphemous to predict the destruction of the temple or even to say, ’I will destroy the temple’. But the charge brought against Christ would have created prejudice against him among the people. The Sanhedrin would no doubt have regarded it as sufficient ground for condemning Christ to death. Jeremias had been threatened with death for predicting the destruction of the temple, Jeremiah 26:6 ff. One of the charges brought against St Stephen was that he had said ’Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place’, Acts 6:14. When the witnesses failed to agree, Caiphas tried to elicit some statement or explanation from Christ in the hope that he would compromise himself in the hearing of the Sanhedrin. But Jesus remained silent: there was no case for him to answer.

61b-65. Caiphas, having seen the debacle of the false witnesses, feared that the plot of the Sanhedrin might fail completely. He sought, therefore, to obtain from Christ an avowal of his claims which would immediately be condemned as blasphemous by the Sanhedrin. They could then pass sentence of death without reference to any other witnesses. ’Art thou the Messias, the Son of the Blessed One?’, 61b. Jesus was not bound to answer this question, even in deference to the authority of the high-priest. But silence at this time might have been misinterpreted as a disavowal of his claims. Therefore he replied, ’I am. And you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven’. The expressions ’the Blessed One’ and ’the Power (of God)’ were used by the Jews as substitutes for the name of God. Christ’s answer, with its allusions to Psalms 109:1 and Daniel 7:13, is a clear affirmation both of his Messianic dignity and his divinity. He is not a merely human Messias, but One who will take his place at the right hand of God, sharing his power. He is Son of God in an altogether unique sense. The Sanhedrin understood that Christ was claiming divinity, making himself equal to God; cf.John 5:18. The highpriest rent his garments, this being the customary gesture to express horror at hearing a blasphemy. Merely to claim to be the Messias was not in itself blasphemy nor punishable by death. It was because Christ claimed to be Son of God in the strict sense, making himself God, John 10:33, that the Sanhedrin found him guilty of blasphemy and condemned him to death., 65. From Mk it appears that some members of the Sanhedrin began the maltreatment of Christ, spitting upon him and mocking his prophetic power and knowledge of hidden things by striking him when blindfolded and asking him to name the one who had struck him.

66-72 Peter’s Denials and Repentance; cf.Matthew 26:69-75; Luke 22:54-62; John 18:15-18, 25-27—The fact that all four evangelists record this incident, in no way seeking to mitigate Peter’s fault, is a remarkable tribute to their reliability. Peter was Head of the Church when the Synoptic Gospels were written, and had won the crown of martyrdom for his faith in Christ when John wrote his Gospel, yet there is no attempt to gloss over his lapse. It is also noteworthy, as an indication of Peter’s humility, that the denials are narrated so fully by Mark, whose Gospel is a record of Peter’s preaching. All four evangelists agree in recording that Peter denied Christ on three distinct occasions. There are differences in the details of their accounts, but these do not affect the substance of the narrative, nor can they be urged as instances of contradictions between the Gospels. We are not obliged to suppose that Peter uttered only a single denial each time he was challenged. It is altogether more reasonable to hold that, in his panic and confusion, he blurted out denials in different forms especially when challenged by several persons at once. There was room for more than one accurate, though incomplete, account of the denials. None of the evangelists purports to give an exhaustive account. Each one recorded the incidents in his own way, giving the sense of the challenges to Peter and of his denials rather than the actual words.

66-69. The first denial took place when Peter, who had joined the servants gathered round the fire in the courtyard, was challenged by the portress who had admitted him to the high-priest’s house at the request of another disciple. Mark alone mentions the crowing of the cock after the first denial. Peter moved from the fire towards the entrance porch where, after an interval, he once more encountered the portress, who was joined by others in charging Peter with being a disciple.

70-72. Some time later Peter was again with the group around the fire. The peculiarities of his speech betrayed the fact that he was a Galilean, and he was identified as a disciple by a relative of Malchus, whose ear he had cut off in Gethsemani. This time Peter sought to strengthen his denials with oaths and curses, calling down God’s punishment on himself if his statement was not true. The crowing of the cock reminded Peter of the warning words of Christ, who at that moment was being led away from the hall where he had appeared before the Sanhedrin—’and the Lord turning looked at Peter’, Luke 22:61. The Apostle realized the gravity of his fault and showed his repentance by his tears. 72b. ’He began to weep’ (e+´p?ßa??+^? e+?+´?a??e?). The exact sense of e+´p?ßa??+^? is uncertain, but it probably refers to a sudden overwhelming outburst. ’He burst into sobs and wept’, cf. MMV s.v.