Saturday, June 3rd, 2023
the Week of Proper 3 / Ordinary 8
the Week of Proper 3 / Ordinary 8
International Critical Commentary NT International Critical
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Driver, S.A., Plummer, A.A., Briggs, C.A. "Commentary on Mark 14". International Critical Commentary NT. https://studylight.org/
commentaries/ eng/ icc/ mark-14.html. 1896-1924.
Driver, S.A., Plummer, A.A., Briggs, C.A. "Commentary on Mark 14". International Critical Commentary NT. https://studylight.org/
- Henry's Complete
- Clarke Commentary
- Bridgeway Bible Commentary
- Coffman's Commentaries
- Carroll's Biblical Interpretation
- Barnes' Notes
- Bullinger's Companion Notes
- Bell's Commentary
- College Press
- Smith's Commentary
- Dummelow on the Bible
- Constable's Expository Notes
- Ellicott's Commentary
- Expositor's Dictionary
- Hole's Commentary
- Meyer's Commentary
- Gaebelein's Annotated
- Morgan's Exposition
- Gill's Exposition
- Everett's Study Notes
- Geneva Study Bible
- Haydock's Catholic Commentary
- Commentary Critical
- Commentary Critical Unabridged
- Gray's Concise Commentary
- Sutcliffe's Commentary
- Trapp's Commentary
- Kretzmann's Commentary
- Lange's Commentary
- Henry's Complete
- Henry's Concise
- Poole's Annotations
- Pett's Commentary
- Peake's Commentary
- Preacher's Homiletical
- Poor Man's Commentary
- Benson's Commentary
- The Biblical Illustrator
- Coke's Commentary
- The Expositor's Bible Commentary
- The Pulpit Commentaries
- Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
- Wesley's Notes
- Whedon's Commentary
- Henry's Complete
- AEK Concordant NT Commentary
- Abbott's NT
- Orchard's Catholic Commentary
- Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary
- Contending for the Faith
- Daily Study Bible
- Expositor's Greek Testament
- Family Bible NT
- Godbey's NT Commentary
- Alford's Greek Testament Commentary
- Meyer's Commentary
- Bible Study NT
- Bengel's Gnomon
- People's NT
- Robertson's Word Pictures
- Schaff's NT Commentary
- Vincent's Studies
- Burkitt's Expository Notes
- Daily Study Bible
- Brown's Commentary
- Golden Chain Commentary
- McGarvey'S Commentaries
- Ryle's Exposiory Thougths
- Fourfold Gospel
- Gospels Compared
- Box on Selected Books
- Lapide's Commentary
- Smith's Writings
- International Critical
- Ironside's Notes
- Jones on Mark
- Layman's Bible Commentary
- Luscombe's NT Commentary
- Restoration Commentary
- Derickson on Selected Books
- Utley Commentary
- Kelly Commentary
- Zerr's N.T. Commentary
CONSPIRACY AND ANOINTING
14:1-11. The Sanhedrim plan to arrest Jesus stealthily, and to put him to death. He is anointed by a woman at the house of Simon the leper. Judas conspires with the Sanhedrim to deliver him up to them.
Jesus spends the last two days in Bethany. During his absence, the authorities consult about the ways and means of putting him to death, and decide to postpone it till after the feast, when the people, whom they know to be friendly to Jesus, will have left Jerusalem. At some time during these two days, Jesus is entertained at the house of Simon the leper, and during the supper, a woman (John says, Mary, the sister of Lazarus) anoints him with a costly ointment, worth upwards of three hundred denaries (shillings nominally, really more nearly dollars). Some of those present (Mt. says, disciples) were indignant at this waste. But Jesus justifies her act as befitting the time when he is about to be taken away, and when the act therefore acquires the unconscious significance of an anointing for his burial. And he prophesies that the beauty of the act will keep it alive in the memories of men wherever the glad tidings is proclaimed. Apparently from this very feast, Judas goes to the authorities, and conspires to deliver him up to them, causing another change in their plans, so that the intended delay till the close of the feast is given up.
1. τὸ πάσχα καὶ τὰ ἄζυμα—Both of these words are used originally to denote the things entering into the feast of the Passover, the sacrifice of the paschal lamb and the eating of unleavened bread, and then they came to be used, one or the other, to denote the feast itself. The unusual thing here is the use of the two terms to denote with fulness the character of the feast by the mention of both its characteristic marks.
This is the first mention of the Passover in connection with these events. Probably, it is introduced to explain the conclusion of the authorities to postpone the execution of their plot till after the feast, as it was only two days to the beginning of it (v. 2). οἱ�
3. Σίμωνος τοῦ λεπροῦ—The circumstances differ too much to permit the identification of this anointing with that at the house of Simon the Pharisee in Luke 7:36-50. The points of likeness are simply the anointing and the name of the host. But in Lk.’s account the salient features are, that the woman was a sinner, that Simon was lacking in ordinary courtesy to his guest, and Jesus’ answer to the charge of permitting such attentions from a woman of this character. Here, the extravagance of the act is the thing complained of. On the other hand, there is every indication that the event is the same as that in J. 12:1-8. The only difference is, that the Synoptists (Mt. and Mk.) give the name of the host, which is omitted in J., and J., on the other hand, gives the name of Mary, and connects her with Lazarus and Martha. But in case of the identity of these accounts, there is a difference of four days in the time, J. putting it six days before the Passover, and the Synoptists two days. This Simon the leper is not mentioned elsewhere. Evidently, his leprosy had been healed, and so he may have been one of those healed by Jesus. γυνὴ—J. says that this was Mary, the sister of Lazarus.�Luke 7:38, Luke 7:46. It is not unlikely, though the two events are distinct, that the accounts have become a little mixed. συντρίψασα τὴν (τὸν)�
Omit καὶ before συντρίψασα, Tisch. (Treg. marg.) WH. RV. א BL Memph. τὸν before�
Matthew 26:8 says that it was the disciples who expressed this indignation. J. says it was Judas Iscariot, and attributes it to his peculating habits, which this interfered with. It is a part of J.’s evident attempt to belittle Judas. Obviously, the true account is given by Mt., who gives us the ugly form of the fact.
5. δηναρίων τριακοσίων—300 denaries, or shillings. Or, since the real value of the denarius at the time was a day’s wages, it would amount to more than as many dollars. This explains the indignation. The act was extravagant, certainly. Here and in v. 3, in the description of the ointment, J. betrays his dependence on the Synoptical source, by the same identity of language which shows the interdependence of the Synoptists. ἐνεβριμῶντο—were very angry.2 Both of the words used to express their feelings are very strong.
Insert τὸ μύρον, ointment, after τοῦτο, this, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. ABCKLU ΔΠ, one ms. Lat. Vet. Memph. Harcl. marg.
6. καλὸν ἔργον ἡργάσατο ἐν ἐμοί—it is a good work that she wrought on me. καλὸν ἔργον is emphatic, contrasted with their depreciation of what she had done. It is not estimated by our Lord according to a utilitarian standard, by which it would have little or no value. But he was at a crisis of his life when it was of the utmost value to him to know that he had won a place in a human heart. And for any one to be reckless or even extravagant, not calculating, in the expression of this was to him a good turn. It was the fragrance of a loving heart that was brought to him by the costly nard. Generally, Jesus would have men serve him in the persons of his poor. But such a vicarious transfer always involves reflection, and sometimes spontaneousness is worth more than reflection.
ἠργάσατο, instead of εἰργάσατο, Tisch. WH. א* B* D 69, 150. ἐν ἐμοί, instead of εἰς ἐμέ, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. and almost all sources.
7. πάντοτε γὰρ τοὺς πτωχοὺς … ἐμὲ δὲ οὐ πάντοτε—for the poor you have always … but me not always.3 This was the reason, not why the woman anointed him, but why such anointing was a good work, which he therefore encouraged. The whole transaction, as appears also from the προέλαβε μυρίσαι that follows, is given a special meaning and value in the mind of Jesus by the approach of his death. If it had not been for that, if they could have had him always with them, as they had the poor, this would not have touched so tender a spot, would not have been so good a work on him. οὐ πάντοτε is a case of language gaining force from extenuated expression.
8. ὃ ἔσχεν ἐποίησε—She did what she could.1 προέλαβε μυρίσαι—She anticipated the anointing.2 This is an unintended meaning which the act gains from its place so near our Lord’s death. Unconsciously, she has rendered to him, while still living, the honors of burial. ἐνταφιασμόν3—preparation for burial. J. says, “Suffer her to keep it for the day of my preparation for burial,”4 a decided lowering of the meaning.
Omit αὕτη, this (woman), Tisch. (Treg.) WH. RV. א BL 1, 13, 28, 69, 209, 346, two mss. Lat. Vet. Memph. Harcl. ἔσχεν, instead of εἶχεν, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. and most sources.
9. Ἀμὴν δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, Ὅπου ἐὰν κηρυχθῇ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον εἰς ὃλον τὸν κόσμον, καὶ ὅ ἐποίησεν αὕτη λαληθήσεται—And verily I say to you, Wherever the glad tidings is proclaimed in all the world, also what this woman did will be spoken. Not shall be spoken of, as if Jesus meant to procure this mention himself in some way; but will be spoken of, a thing that he foresees. He sees that the beauty of this act, unappreciated now by his disciples, is such that it will win its way to this universal mention. μνημόσυνον—a memorial.5 Holtzmann treats the use of εὐαγγέλιον in this verse as an instance of the meaning Gospel in the sense of an account of Jesus’ life. But the use of κηρυχθῇ is against this.
Insert δὲ after Ἀμὴν, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BDgr EGKLSVWb ΓΔΠ, one ms. Lat. Vet. ἐὰν, instead of ἂν, after ὅπου, Tisch. WH. א ABCLWb X ΓΔΠ. Omit τοῦτο, this, after εὐαγγέλιον, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BDL 13, 28, 69, mss. Lat. Vet.
10. Καὶ Ἰούδας Ἰσκαριώθ6 …�
11.�Exodus 21:32, Zec 11:12, cf. Matthew 27:9. εὐκαίρως—opportunely. Lk. states more exactly how he sought to deliver him up, viz. ἄτερ ὄχλου, in the absence of the multitude.
παραδοῖ is substituted for παραδῷ in this verse, on the same authority as in v. 10.
PREPARATION FOR THE PASSOVER
12-16. On the first day of the Passover feast, the disciples ask for instructions in regard to their preparations for the Passover meal. Jesus tells two of them to go to the city and to follow a man whom they will meet there carrying a jar of water. At the house which he enters, they will find the owner prepared to show them a large room ready for their purpose. And there they will prepare for the feast. They follow his directions, and find everything as he tells them.
12. τῇ πρώτῃ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν�
13. δύο τῶν�Luke 22:8 names Peter and John as the two. κεράμιον—Etymologically, this word denotes any earthenware vessel, but in use, it is restricted to a jar or pitcher. It is a question, whether this sign of a man bearing a jar of water on his head had been prearranged between Jesus and the οἰκοδεσπότης, or whether this is an instance of Jesus’ supernatural knowledge of events. The manner of narration seems to imply that the evangelist meant us to understand the latter. There can be little doubt that the rest of the matter had been arranged with the host.
14. οἰκοδεσπότῃ—master of the house.1 Ποῦ ἐστι τὸ κατάλυμά2 μου …; Where is my dining room …?
Insert μου after κατάλυμα, Tisch. Treg. (Treg. marg.) WH. RV. א BCDL Δ 1, 13, 28, 69, mss. Lat. Vet. Memph. Harcl. marg.
15. καὶ αὐτὸς ὑμῖν δείξει�Act_1
τῶν ἐσθιόντων, (one of you) who eat, instead of ὁ ἐσθίων, (one) who eats, WH. marg. B Egyptt.
19. Ἤρξαντο λυπεῖσθαι, καὶ λέγειν αὐτῷ εἷς κατὰ εἷς,2 Μήτι ἐγώ;3—And they began to grieve, and to say to him, one by one, Is it I?
Omit Οἱ δὲ at beginning of verse, Tisch. Treg. WH. אBL Memph. κατὰ, instead of καθʼ, before εἷς, Tisch. Treg. WH. א BL Δ. Omit καὶ ἄλλος, Μήτι ἐγώ; and another, Is it I? Tisch. Treg. (Treg. marg.) WH. RV. אBCLP Δ, two mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. Egyptt. Syrr.
20. Ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Εἷς τῶν δώδεκα, ὁ ἐμβαπτόμενος μετʼ ἐμοῦ εἰς τὸ τρυβλίον4—And he said to them, One of the twelve, who dips with me in the dish. This comes nearer to pointing out the betrayer than the preceding ὁ ἐσθίων μετʼ ἐμοῦ, as this would be shared in only by those in his immediate vicinity. It adds to the sitting at table with him, nearness to him at the table. Mk. and Lk. do not relate that the traitor was more closely indicated than this. Mt., on the other hand, says that Judas was told himself that he was the betrayer. And in Mt., the ὁ ἐμβάψας … οὗτος is evidently intended to point him out to the rest, by indicating the one who dipped his hand into the dish with Jesus at a particular time. This difference between the two accounts is evidently intentional. Mk. does not mean to indicate the traitor, but only to emphasize the treachery of the act. Mt. means to relate the discovery of the betrayer. The individual handling of common material is evident. τρυβλίον is the dish containing the sauce of figs, dates, almonds, spice and vinegar, which is called in the Mishna חֲרוֹסֶתְ, charoseth.
Omit�Isa_53. The primary reference of the passage is to the suffering servant of Yahweh, who is defined in the prophecy itself to be the righteous Israel. But, as in the case of many of these prophecies, the principle involved makes it applicable to the fate of our Lord. This principle, that it is the fate of righteousness to suffer in this evil world, makes Jesus predict also the persecution of his followers as well as of himself. The O.T. prophets, himself, and his followers are involved in a like fate. οὐαὶ δὲ—but woe. This is not a malediction, in the sense of a wish or prayer that this vengeance may follow the traitor, but a solemn announcement of the Divine judgment. It differs in this respect from the comminatory Psalms.
ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ�
22. Καὶ ἐσθιόντων αὐτῶν—And as they were eating. In the course of the meal, therefore. But none of the evangelists state the time more exactly. λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐλογήσας ἔκλασε—he took bread, and having blessed he broke it. The object of εὐλογήσας may be God, in which case, it means, having praised, its ordinary sense; or it may be the bread, in which case, it means, having invoked a blessing on; a Biblical use. The former meaning is suggested by the use of εὐχαριστήσας in Luke 22:19, and 1 Corinthians 11:24. As a matter of fact, the invocations at meals among the Jews intermingled thanksgiving and blessing. λάβετε, τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου. Lk. adds τὸ ὐπὲρ ὐμῶν διδόμενον, which is given for you, and 1 Cor. the same without διδόμενον. Both add τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν�Luke 12:1—the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy; J. 10:7—I am the door of the sheep; 14:6—I am the way, the truth, and the life; Galatians 4:24—these (two sons of Abraham) are two covenants; Hebrews 10:20—the veil, that is his flesh. But it is useless to multiply instances of so common and evident a usage. And yet, the one that evidently disproves the literal meaning, not merely establishing the possibility of the symbolic use here, but making the literal meaning impossible, is right at hand. For in the account of the consecration of the cup, Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25, it reads τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, This cup is the new covenant in my blood. No one would contend for the literalness of the language in this case, and yet it is perfectly evident that the copula is used in the same sense in both cases, giving the meaning of the bread in the one case, and of the cup in the other, but not saying that the bread is actually flesh, nor the cup a covenant. All this without taking into account our Lord’s manner of speech. We have some right to judge what any person says in a particular case by his habit of thought and speech. This warrants us in saying that the literal meaning is impossible to Jesus. It would pull down all that he had been at pains to set up throughout his ministry—a spiritual religion.
Omit ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Tisch. (Treg.) WH. RV. אaBD, mss. Lat. Vet. Memph. Omit φάγετε, eat, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א ABCDKLM* PU Π, 1, mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. Egyptt.
23. καὶ λαβὼν ποτήριον—And having taken a cup. εὐχαριστήσας—having given thanks. Like εὐλογήσας, v. 22, it denotes some form of thanksgiving for the good things of God.
Omit τὸ, the, before ποτήριον, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCDLWb X Δ 1, 11, 13, 28.
24. Τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης—this is my blood of the covenant. διαθήκη in classical Greek means a will, or testament. But in the N.T., the only examples of this use are in Hebrews 9:16, Hebrews 9:17, where by a play upon the double meaning of the word, the writer justifies his statement that a covenant (διαθήκη) is ratified by blood by showing that a testament (διαθήκη) comes into force only with the death of the testator. Everywhere else it has the purely Biblical and ecclesiastical meaning, a covenant. These words, the blood of the covenant, are borrowed from the institution of the Law, regarded as a covenant between God and the Jews (Exodus 24:8, Leviticus 17:11). Moses sprinkled the people with the blood of sacrifice, as a seal of the covenant between God and them in the giving of the Law. And now, the new covenant, see Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25, in which the law is written in the heart, Jeremiah 31:31-35, is established, and that is sealed with the blood of him who died to bring it about. It is through his blood that the law of God is written inwardly in the heart, and so it becomes the blood of the new covenant. τὸ ἐκχυνόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν—which is poured out for many. This fixes the sacrificial meaning of the flesh and blood. The pouring out of the blood signifies a violent death, and ὑπὲρ πολλοῶν denotes that this death was suffered in behalf of others. ὑπὲρ may be used to express the vicarious idea, instead of, but it does not necessitate it, as�
Jesus’ use of the language of sacrifice in connection with his death does not indicate that he means to give to that death the current idea of sacrifice, but that he means to illumine the idea of sacrifice by his own death. As if he had said, “Here is the true meaning of sacrifice.” The Gospels do not give us any command for the repetition of the supper, nor for its continuance as a church institution. That is implied in 1 Corinthians 11:25.
Omit τὸ before τῆς (καινῆς) διαθήκης, Tisch. WH. RV. א BCD2 ELVWb X 11, 157. Omit καινῆς, new, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BCDL, one ms. Lat. Vet. Memph.ed. Theb. ὑπὲρ, instead of περὶ, before πολλῶν, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BCDL Δ 13, 69, 124.
25. γενήματος τοῦ�
ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείης ὅταν etc.—until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God. Luke 22:15-18 makes Jesus say this in general of the Passover meal at the beginning, before the institution of the sacrament. καινόν is not the word for new wine, for which νέον is used, but καινόν denotes a new kind of wine. In the making of all things new, the�
JESUS PREDICTS THE SCATTERING OF THE DISCIPLES, AND THE DENIAL OF HIM BY PETER
26-31. After singing the Hallel, they go out to the Mount of Olives. On the way, Jesus warns the disciples that they will all fall away from him that night. He quotes a passage from Zechariah, showing that scattering of the sheep follows the smiting of the shepherd. After his resurrection, he will go before them into Galilee. Peter protests that he at least will not prove unfaithful, whereupon Jesus predicts that before the second crowing of the cock, he will deny him thrice. Peter again protests vehemently that he will sooner die with him, than deny him, and the rest of the disciples join him.
26. ὑμνήσαντες—The hymn sung by the Jews at the Passover supper was the Great Hallel, consisting of Ps. 113-118, 136. It was the second part of this, 115-118, according to the school of Shammai 114-118, which they sang at this time, after the Passover meal. τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαίων—the name of the hill covered with olives, lying east of Jerusalem, and about half a mile from the city.
27. Ὅτι πάντες σκανδαλίσεσθ·1 ὅτι γέγραπται, Πατάξω τὸν ποιμένα, καὶ τὰ πρόβατα διασκορπισθήσονται—All of you will fall away. For it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered. The quotation is from Zec_13. In the original, it reads, smite the shepherd. But since it is Jehovah who invokes the sword against the shepherd in the original, this πατάξω renders the sense of the passage. The whole passage in the original is involved in obscurity, but there is the same indication as in all the O.T. prophecies of the application to an immediate, and not a remote future; cf. v. 8. The application to this event in the life of Jesus is because the relation between shepherd and sheep leads to the same result in both cases. Probably the shepherd in Zech. is the king, and the sheep are the people.
Omit ἐν ἐμοὶ, because of me, after σκανδαλίσεσθε, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BC* DHLSVWb X ΓΔΠ2, two mss. Lat. Vet. Memph.edd. Omit ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ταύτῃ, this night, about the same. διασκορπισθήσονται, instead of-σεται, Tisch. Treg. WH. א ABCDFGKLN Δ.
28. ἐγερθῆναι—this is the common word for the resurrection, but it acquires here a special meaning from the preceding πατάξω, denoting his rising from the earth to which he has been smitten. προάξω—this word also gets its special sense here from the figure of the sheep and shepherd. He will go before them, as a shepherd leads his flock, i.e. he will resume toward them his office of shepherd, and go before them to the familiar scenes of his earthly ministry. See J. 10:4. The fact that there is no appearance to the disciples in Galilee in Mark 16:9-20, in connection with this prediction, is one of the conclusive proofs that that passage is from another hand.
29. Εἰ καὶ πάντες σκανδαλισθήσονται,�
36. Ἀββᾶ ὁ πατήρ. This combination of the Greek and Hebrew words would not of course appear in the speech of our Lord, who used only the Hebrew. Neither is the ὁ πατήρ explanatory of the Ἀββᾶ, as the Evangelists employ for this the formulas, ὅ ἐστι μεθερμηνευόμενον, or simply ὅ ἐστι, Matthew 1:23, Matthew 27:33, Mark 3:17, Mark 3:5:41, Mark 3:15:16, Mark 3:34. But this is a combination of the two, belonging to the later usage, and put here by the evangelist into the mouth of Jesus. πάντα δυνατά σοι—all things are possible to thee. Here the condition, if it is possible, is changed into the statement, all things are possible to thee, and so, as for the matter of possibility, the prayer is left unconditioned, remove this cup from me. But the condition is made now the will of God. This is Jesus’ wish and prayer, to have the cup removed. But, after all, he knows that not his will, but that of the Father, will be carried out, and with that he is content.
37. καὶ ἕρχεται—and he comes. Jesus is not concerned about himself alone in this critical hour, but about his disciples as well. And so he interrupts even this agony of prayer, in order to see after their watchfulness. This is the one attitude of mind necessary in them from this time on,—see his prophetic discourse, ch. 13,—and now, in the crisis of his fate and theirs, he is anxious to impress the lesson on them. He has just predicted that they will desert him, and that Simon will deny him this very night. But this prediction, like all prediction, is intended to avert whatever evil it foretells. If it could only become a warning to them, they would be aroused past all danger of sleeping, and might have watched past all danger of desertion and denial.
38. γρηγορεῖτε καὶ προσεῦχεσθε, ἵνα μὴ ἔλθητε εἰς πειρασμόν1—watch and pray, that you come not into temptation. In v. 34, he has enjoined watching on them in connection with his own awful sorrow. Now, without emphasizing the change, he enjoins it as necessary for themselves. And so now he adds prayer, and makes the object of both to be, that they enter not into temptation. The temptation is located not in external conditions, which constitute only a trial or test, but in the internal conditions, the evil desires of the heart, the weakness of the flesh. The outward attack on their steadfastness was right on them, and was not to be averted. They were to pray that this might not be an occasion of inward weakness, which would lead them into sin. Τὸ μὲν πνεῦμα πρόθυμον, ἡ δὲ σὰρξ�Act_3
46. Οἱ δὲ ἐπέβαλαν τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῷ—And they laid their hands on him.
ἐπέβαλαν, instead of -λον, Tisch. WH. א B. τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῷ, instead of ἐπʼ αὐτὸν τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῶν, Tisch. Treg. WH. אc BDL 1, 11, 13, 69, 118, 346, mss. Lat. Vet.
47. Εἶς δὲ. It is probable that the numeral is used here, as it is commonly, to call attention to the number, not like the indefinite τις. The probability of this is increased if τις is retained in the text. Only one of the disciples resorted to this extreme action, involving, as it did, a certain courage, and also blindness. There was in it also an element of tentativeness, an initiative, in which all the prejudices of the disciples pointed to success, but in which the words of the Master must have raised bewilderment and doubt. Luke 22:49 says that the disciples generally asked if they should strike with the sword, and that one of them, without waiting for an answer, sought to precipitate matters by taking the offensive. J. 18:10 gives the name, Simon Peter, and the incident is entirely characteristic. He also names the servant, Malchus. Luke 22:51 adds the interesting fact, that Jesus healed the man.
Omit τις, a certain, after εἶς, one, Treg. (WH.) א ALM, mss. Lat. Vet. Egyptt. Harcl. ὠτάριον, instead of ὠτίον, Tisch. Treg. WH. א BD 1, Harcl. marg.
48. λῃστὴν—a highwayman. The word for thief is κλέπτης. Force would be unnecessary in capturing a mere thief. Jesus mildly resents the idea of lawlessness, implied in sending out an armed force to capture him. He is no highwayman, prepared to resist the law that he has violated.
ἐξήλθατε, instead of ἐξήλθετε, Tisch. Treg. WH. א BD 1, Harcl. marg.
49. καθʼ ἡμέραν ἤμην πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ διδάσκων—I was daily with you in the temple teaching. This protests against the secrecy which they have used in his arrest. There is in it again, the idea that they have a dangerous character to deal with. He had not sought to hide himself, nor to cover up his teachings. He had mingled with them daily, and taught in the temple. He implies that there must be some secret reason, involving the weakness of their cause, not of his, for their proceeding against him with both force and secrecy.�Isaiah 53:6-9, Isaiah 53:12. Our Lord must have entered very deeply into the inner meaning and heart of the Scriptures, to find them presaging his fate; just as the Scriptures themselves nowhere vindicate their inspired quality as in that presentiment.
62. Now, the high priest gets an answer. The time has come for Jesus to make his confession before the highest tribunal of the nation. To be silent now would wear the look of abdicating his claim at the critical moment of his life. And he proceeds to add to it even more of august and solemn circumstance than the high priest had maliciously invested it with. κ. ὄψεσθε τ. υἱὸν—And you will see the Son of Man seated on the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven. He cites here again the language of Daniel 7:13, applying it to himself. It is as if he had said, you will see fulfilled in me the most august of the Messianic prophecies. καθήμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τῆς δυνάμεως—occupying, i.e. the throne of God’s vicegerent, the position next to the throne itself. This again is a legitimate part of the Messianic claim, according to Jewish expectation, but it shows, as the language of the High Priest had done, the blasphemy of a false claim. In the mouth of Jesus, it denotes the place that he was to occupy in heaven. Mt. adds,�
63. διαρῥήξας τ. χιτῶνας—having rent his garments. χιτῶνας is used here of garments in general, not restricted to inner garments. Mt. says ἱμάτια (26:65).
64. ἠκούσατε τ. βλασφημίας—you heard the blasphemy. The blasphemy did not consist in the terms in which he claimed the Messianic dignity, since he used simply the language of prophecy, but in what the high priest considered to be his false claim to so august a position. ἔνοχον θανάτου—liable to (the punishment of ) death. The high priest has named the crime of which they find him guilty under the Jewish law. This is the penalty of that crime of blasphemy.
65. Καὶ ἤρξαντό τινες ἐμπτύειν αὐτῷ—And some began to spit on him. Lk. says, those who held him.1 But he puts this in another place. According to him, the Sanhedrim did not assemble till the next morning, and this reviling was done by those who held Jesus in custody during the interval. Προφήτευσον—Prophesy. The subject of prophecy was to be, who smote him.1 οἱ ὑπηρέται—the attendants, the officers of the Sanhedrim.2 ῥαπίσμασιν αὐτὸν ἔλαβον—received him with blows. This marks the end of the present procedure before the Sanhedrim, when he would be turned over to the officials for custody. And this is the reception which they gave him.
ἔλαβον, instead of ἔβαλλον, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א ABCIKLNSV ΓΔΠ. DG 1, 13, 69, Memph. Harcl. ἐλάμβανον.
66-72. While the trial is going on, Peter is at the fire in the court of the palace. One of the maid-servants of the high priest sees him there, and charges him with being a follower of Jesus. Peter denies it, and pretends not even to understand what she says. But he sees that the situation is becoming dangerous, and goes out into the vestibule, leading from the court into the street, when a cock crowed. There the servant repeats her charge, and Peter his denial. Finally, after a short time, the bystanders detect the Galilean burr in Peter’s speech, and renew the charge. Then Peter begins to protest with oaths that he does not know whom they are talking about. It is the third denial, and the cock crowed a second time, which brought to his mind Jesus’ warning, and having thought on it, Peter wept.
67. Καὶ σὺ μετὰ τοῦ Ναξαζηνοῦ ἦσθα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ—You too were with the Nazarene, Jesus. καὶ adds σὺ to the rest of the disciples, who have kept away from the place of danger. You too, who take your place so boldly here. The position of Ναζαρηνοῦ, and its separation from τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, makes it emphatic. The Nazarene concentrates in itself their notion of the absurdity of his claim.
ἦσθα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, instead of Ἰησοῦ ἦσθα, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCL. Also א D Δ Latt. Syrr. insert τοῦ before Ἰησοῦ.
68. οὔτε οἶδα οὔτε ἐπίσταμαι—I neither know, nor understand what you say. Peter makes his denial as explicit as possible. It is a denial of all knowledge, or even understanding of what, the woman is saying. προαύλιον1—the vestibule, or covered way, leading from the street into the inner court. καὶ�
69. καὶ ἡ παιδίσκη—and the maid, the same who had made the former charge. Matthew 26:71 says ἄλλη, another maid. L 22:58 says ἕτερος, another man. J. 18:25 says ἔλεγον, they said.
τοῖς παρεστῶσιν, instead of τοῖς παρεστηκόσιν, Tisch. Treg. WH. א BCIKL ΔΠ*.
70. ἠρνεῖτο—denied. Mt. says μετὰ ὅρκου, with an oath. The answer of Peter varies also in the several accounts. μετὰ μικρὸν—L says διαστάσης ὡσεὶ ὥρας μιᾶς, about one hour having intervened. J. says that the person making this third charge was a kinsman of Malchus, whose ear Peter had cut off at the arrest, and that he asks if he did not see Peter with Jesus in the orchard. The Synoptists agree in their account of this charge, all of them inserting�
3 Deuteronomy 15:11.
1 On the use of ἔχω in the sense of possum, see Thay.-Grm. Lex.
2 Win. 54, 4.
3 A Biblical word.
4 J. 12:7.
13 Codex Regius.
209 An unnamed, valuable manuscript.
346 Codex Ambrosianus.
5 A rare word, found only once besides in the N.T. The occurrence of it therefore, here, in both Mt. and Mk., confirms again the interdependence of the Synoptics.
6 See on 3:19.
M Codex Campianus.
1 Exodus 12:6.
2 The impf. denotes a customary act.
3 Exodus 12:21, Deuteronomy 16:5.
4 On this use of the subj. without ἵνα after θέλειν, see Win. 41 a, 4 b; Burton, 171.
1 The common Greek usage separates this word into its parts, οἴκου δεσπότῃ.
2 κατάλυμα is etymologically, a place to relax; hence an inn, or a dining-room. The word belongs to Biblical Greek. See Thay.-Grm. Lex., καταλύω (c.)
3 This word is variously spelled—ἀνάγαιον,�
1 Cf. Psalms 41:9.
2 On this construction, common in later Greek, see Thay.-Grm. Lex. εἷς, 4 c; Win. 37, 3.
3 On the distinction between μή and μήτι, see on 4:21.
Syrr. Syriac Versions.
4 Both ἐμβαπτόμενος and τρυβλίον in this statement occur only in this account in the N.T., and their use by both Mt. and Mk. is thus another strong confirmation of the interdependence of the Synoptics.
1 See on 4:17.
N Codex Purpureus.
1 See Thay.-Grm. Lex. εἰ, III. 6, 7.
1 ἐκπερισσῶς occurs only here.
1 πειρασμόν is a Biblical word.
1 καταβαρυνόμενοι is found only here in the N.T., and is rare in Greek writers.
AV. Authorised Version.
1 Thay.-Grm. Lex.
2 The pres. used to denote a certain future event. In this case, it is actually beginning with the advent of his captors, v. 43.
1 A word belonging to Biblical Greek.
2 Win. 45, 3b
3 Thay.-Grm. Lex.
1 Matthew 26:57.
2 J. 18:15, 24.
3 On the pleonastic use of the prep., see Win. 65, 2.
4 Matthew 26:3, Matthew 26:58, Mark 15:16, Luke 11:21, J. 18:13.
1 See v. 1.
2 A word found only in the N.T.
33 Codex Regius.
1 Luke 22:63.
1 Matthew 26:68, Luke 22:64.
2 See on v. 54.
1 A rare word, found in the N.T. only here.
2 A purely Biblical and ecclesiastical word, found in the N.T. only here, and Acts 23:12, Acts 23:14, Acts 23:21.
3 See Thay.-Grm. Lex. ὡς, I. 6.
4 See Morison for best statement of different views.