Mark 14

Mr 14:1-11.

THE

CONSPIRACY OF THE

JEWISH

AUTHORITIES TO

PUT

JESUS TO

DEATH--THE

SUPPER AND THE

ANOINTING AT

BETHANY--JUDAS

AGREES WITH THE

CHIEF

PRIESTS TO

BETRAY

HIS

LORD.

Mt 26:1-16;

Lu 22:1-6;

Joh 12:1-11).

The events of this section appeared to have occurred on the fourth day

(Wednesday) of the Redeemer's Last Week.

Conspiracy of the Jewish Authorities to Put Jesus to Death

(Mr 14:1, 2).

1. After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened

bread--The meaning is, that two days after what is about to be

mentioned the passover would arrive; in other words, what follows

occurred two days before the feast.

and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him

(Mt 26:1-75)

we learn that our Lord announced this to the Twelve as follows, being

the first announcement to them of the precise time: "And it came to

pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings"

(Mt 26:1)

--referring to the contents of

Mt 24:1-25:46,

which He delivered to His disciples; His public ministry being now

closed: from His prophetical He is now passing into His

priestly office, although all along He Himself took our

infirmities and bare our sicknesses--"He said unto His disciples, Ye

know that after two days is [the feast of] the passover, and the Son of

man is betrayed to be crucified." The first and the last

steps of His final sufferings are brought together in this brief

announcement of all that was to take place. The passover was the

first and the chief of the three great annual festivals, commemorative

of the redemption of God's people from Egypt, through the sprinkling of

the blood of a lamb divinely appointed to be slain for that end; the

destroying angel, "when he saw the blood, passing over" the

Israelitish houses, on which that blood was seen, when he came to

destroy all the first-born in the land of Egypt

(Ex 12:12, 13)

--bright typical foreshadowing of the great Sacrifice, and the

Redemption effected thereby. Accordingly, "by the determinate counsel

and foreknowledge of God, who is wonderful in counsel and excellent in

working," it was so ordered that precisely at the passover season,

"Christ our Passover should be sacrificed for us." On the day following

the passover commenced "the feast of unleavened bread," so called

because for seven days only unleavened bread was to be eaten

(Ex 12:18-20).

See on

1Co 5:6-8.

We are further told by Matthew

(Mt 26:3)

that the consultation was held in the palace of Caiaphas the high

priest, between the chief priests, [the scribes], and the elders of the

people, how "they might take Jesus by subtlety and kill Him."

2. But they said, Not on the feast day--rather, not during the feast;

not until the seven days of unleavened bread should be over.

lest there be an uproar of the people--In consequence of the vast

influx of strangers, embracing all the male population of the land who

had reached a certain age, there were within the walls of Jerusalem at

this festival some two million people; and in their excited state, the

danger of tumult and bloodshed among "the people," who for the most part

took Jesus for a prophet, was extreme. See JOSEPHUS

[Antiquities, 20.5.3]. What plan, if any, these ecclesiastics fixed

upon for seizing our Lord, does not appear. But the proposal of Judas

being at once and eagerly gone into, it is probable they were till then

at some loss for a plan sufficiently quiet and yet effectual. So, just

at the feast time shall it be done; the unexpected offer of Judas

relieving them of their fears. Thus, as BENGEL remarks, did the divine

counsel take effect.

The Supper and the Anointing at Bethany Six Days before the

Passover

(Mr 14:3-9).

The time of this part of the narrative is four days before what has

just been related. Had it been part of the regular train of events which

our Evangelist designed to record, he would probably have inserted it in

its proper place, before the conspiracy of the Jewish authorities. But

having come to the treason of Judas, he seems to have gone back upon

this scene as what probably gave immediate occasion to the awful deed.

3. And being in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at

meat, there came a woman--It was "Mary," as we learn from

Joh 12:3.

having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard--pure nard, a

celebrated aromatic--(See

So 1:12).

very precious--"very costly"

(Joh 12:3).

and she brake the box, and poured it on his head--"and anointed," adds

John

(Joh 12:3),

"the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet with her hair: and the house was

filled with the odor of the ointment." The only use of this was to

refresh and exhilarate--a grateful compliment in the East, amid the

closeness of a heated atmosphere, with many guests at a feast. Such was

the form in which Mary's love to Christ, at so much cost to herself,

poured itself out.

4. And there were some that had indignation within themselves and

said--Matthew says

(Mt 26:8),

"But when His disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying," &c. The

spokesman, however, was none of the true-hearted Eleven--as we learn

from John

(Joh 12:4):

"Then saith one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which

should betray Him." Doubtless the thought stirred first in his breast,

and issued from his base lips; and some of the rest, ignorant of his

true character and feelings, and carried away by his plausible speech,

might for the moment feel some chagrin at the apparent waste.

Why was this waste of the ointment made?

5. For it might have been sold for more than three hundred

pence--between nine and ten pounds sterling.

and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against

her--"This he said," remarks John

(Joh 12:6),

and the remark is of exceeding importance, "not that he cared for the

poor but because he was a thief, and had the bag"--the scrip or

treasure chest--"and bare what was put therein"--not "bare it off" by

theft, as some understand it. It is true that he did this; but the

expression means simply that he had charge of it and its contents, or

was treasurer to Jesus and the Twelve. What a remarkable arrangement

was this, by which an avaricious and dishonest person was not only

taken into the number of the Twelve, but entrusted with the custody of

their little property! The purposes which this served are obvious

enough; but it is further noticeable, that the remotest hint was never

given to the Eleven of his true character, nor did the disciples most

favored with the intimacy of Jesus ever suspect him, till a few minutes

before he voluntarily separated himself from their company--for

ever!

6. And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought

a good work on me--It was good in itself, and so was acceptable to

Christ; it was eminently seasonable, and so more acceptable still; and

it was "what she could," and so most acceptable of all.

7. For ye have the poor with you always--referring to

De 15:11.

and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always--a gentle hint of His approaching departure, by One who knew the worth of

His own presence.

8. She hath done what she could--a noble testimony, embodying a

principle of immense importance.

she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying--or, as in

John

(Joh 12:7),

"Against the day of my burying hath she kept this." Not that she, dear

heart, thought of His burial, much less reserved any of her nard to

anoint her dead Lord. But as the time was so near at hand when that

office would have to be performed, and she was not to have that

privilege even after the spices were brought for the purpose

(Mr 16:1),

He lovingly regards it as done now. "In the act of love done to

Him," says OLSHAUSEN beautifully, "she has erected

to herself an eternal monument, as lasting as the Gospel, the eternal

Word of God. From generation to generation this remarkable prophecy of

the Lord has been fulfilled; and even we, in explaining this saying of

the Redeemer, of necessity contribute to its accomplishment." "Who but

Himself," asks STIER, "had the power to ensure to

any work of man, even if resounding in His own time through the whole

earth, an imperishable remembrance in the stream of history? Behold

once more here the majesty of His royal judicial supremacy in the

government of the world, in this, 'Verily I say unto you.'"

10. And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests,

to betray him unto them--that is, to make his proposals, and to bargain

with them, as appears from Matthew's fuller statement

(Mt 26:14, 15)

which says, he "went unto the chief priests, and said, What will ye

give me, and I will deliver Him unto you? And they covenanted with him

for thirty pieces of silver." The thirty pieces of silver were thirty

shekels, the fine paid for man- or maid-servant accidentally killed

(Ex 21:32),

and equal to between four and five pounds sterling--"a goodly

price that I was prized at of them!"

(Zec 11:13).

11. And when they heard it, they were glad, and promised to give him

money--Matthew alone records the precise sum, because a remarkable and

complicated prophecy, which he was afterwards to refer to, was fulfilled

And he sought how he might conveniently betray him--or, as more fully

given in Luke

(Lu 22:6),

"And he promised, and sought opportunity to betray Him unto them in the

absence of the multitude." That he should avoid an "uproar" or "riot"

among the people, which probably was made an essential condition by the

Jewish authorities, was thus assented to by the traitor; into whom,

says Luke

(Lu 22:3),

"Satan entered," to put him upon this hellish deed.

Mr 14:12-26.

PREPARATION FOR, AND

LAST

CELEBRATION OF, THE

PASSOVER--ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE

TRAITOR--INSTITUTION OF THE

SUPPER.

Mt 26:17-30;

Lu 22:7-23, 39;

Joh 13:21-30).

See on

Lu 22:7-23;

Lu 22:39;

and see on

Joh 13:10, 11;

Joh 13:18, 19;

Joh 13:21-30.

Mr 14:27-31.

THE

DESERTION OF

JESUS BY

HIS

DISCIPLES AND THE

FALL OF

PETER,

FORETOLD.

Mt 26:31-35;

Lu 22:31-38;

Joh 13:36-38).

See on

Lu 22:31-46.

Mr 14:32-42.

THE

AGONY IN THE

GARDEN.

Mt 26:36-46;

Lu 22:39-46).

See on

Lu 22:39-46.

Mr 14:43-52.

BETRAYAL AND

APPREHENSION OF

JESUS--FLIGHT OF

HIS

DISCIPLES.

Mt 26:47-56;

Lu 22:47-53;

Joh 18:1-12).

See on

Joh 18:1-12.

Mr 14:53-72.

JESUS

ARRAIGNED BEFORE THE

SANHEDRIM,

CONDEMNED TO

DIE, AND

SHAMEFULLY

ENTREATED--THE

FALL OF

PETER.

Mt 26:57-75;

Lu 22:54-71;

Joh 18:13-18, 24-27).

Had we only the first three Gospels, we should have concluded that our

Lord was led immediately to Caiaphas, and had before the Council. But as

the Sanhedrim could hardly have been brought together at the dead hour

of night--by which time our Lord was in the hands of the officers sent

to take Him--and as it was only "as soon as it was day" that the Council

met

(Lu 22:66),

we should have had some difficulty in knowing what was done with Him

during those intervening hours. In the Fourth Gospel, however, all this

is cleared up, and a very important addition to our information is made

(Joh 18:13, 14, 19-24).

Let us endeavor to trace the events in the true order of succession,

and in the detail supplied by a comparison of all the four streams of

text.

Jesus Is Brought Privately before Annas, the Father-in-Law of

Caiaphas

(Joh 18:13, 14).

Joh 18:13:

And they led Him away to Annas first; for he was father-in-law to

Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year--This

successful Annas, as ELLICOTT remarks, was appointed high priest by

Quirinus, A.D. 12, and after holding the office for several years, was

deposed by Valerius Gratius, Pilate's predecessor in the procuratorship

of Judea [JOSEPHUS, Antiquities, 18.2.1, &c.]. He appears,

however, to have possessed vast influence, having obtained the high

priesthood, not only for his son Eleazar, and his son-in-law Caiaphas,

but subsequently for four other sons, under the last of whom James, the

brother of our Lord, was put to death [Antiquities, 20.9.1]. It is

thus highly probable that, besides having the title of "high priest"

merely as one who had filled the office, he to a great degree retained

the powers he had formerly exercised, and came to be regarded

practically as a kind of rightful high priest.

Joh 18:14:

Now Caiaphas was he which gave counsel to the Jews, that it

was expedient that one man should die for the people.

See on

Joh 11:51.

What passed between Annas and our Lord during this interval the beloved

disciple reserves till he has related the beginning of Peter's fall. To

this, then, as recorded by our own Evangelist, let us meanwhile

listen.

Peter Obtains Access within the Quadrangle of the High Priest's

Residence, and Warms Himself at the Fire

(Mr 14:53, 54).

53. And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were

assembled--or rather, "there gathered together unto him."

all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes--it was then a

full and formal meeting of the Sanhedrim. Now, as the first three

Evangelists place all Peter's denials of his Lord after this, we should

naturally conclude that they took place

while our Lord stood before the Sanhedrim. But besides that the

natural impression is that the scene around the fire took place

overnight, the second crowing of the cock, if we are to credit

ancient writers, would occur about the beginning of the fourth watch, or

between three and four in the morning. By that time, however, the

Council had probably convened, being warned, perhaps, that they were to

prepare for being called at any hour of the morning, should the Prisoner

be successfully secured. If this be correct, it is fairly certain that

only the last of Peter's three denials would take place while our

Lord was under trial before the Sanhedrim. One thing more may require

explanation. If our Lord had to be transferred from the residence of

Annas to that of Caiaphas, one is apt to wonder that there is no mention

of His being marched from the one to the other. But the building, in all

likelihood, was one and the same; in which case He would merely have to

be taken perhaps across the court, from one chamber to another.

54. And Peter followed him afar off, even into--or "from afar, even

to the interior of."

the palace of the high priest--"An oriental house," says

ROBINSON,

"is usually built around a quadrangular interior court; into which there

is a passage (sometimes arched) through the front part of the house,

closed next the street by a heavy folding gate, with a smaller wicket

for single persons, kept by a porter. The interior court, often paved or

flagged, and open to the sky, is the hall, which our translators

have rendered 'palace,' where the attendants made a fire; and the

passage beneath the front of the house, from the street to this court,

is the porch. The place where Jesus stood before the high priest

may have been an open room, or place of audience on the ground floor, in

the rear or on one side of the court; such rooms, open in front, being

customary. It was close upon the court, for Jesus heard all that was

going on around the fire, and turned and looked upon Peter

(Lu 22:61)."

and he sat with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire--The

graphic details, here omitted, are supplied in the other Gospels.

Joh 18:18:

And the servants and officers stood there--that is, in the hall,

within the quadrangle, open to the sky.

who had made a fire of coals--or charcoal (in a brazier probably).

for it was cold--John alone of all the Evangelists mentions the

material, and the coldness of the night, as WEBSTER and

WILKINSON remark. The elevated situation of Jerusalem, observes

THOLUCK,

renders it so cold about Easter as to make a watch fire at night

indispensable.

And Peter stood with them and warmed himself--"He went

in," says Matthew

(Mt 26:58),

"and sat with the servants to see the end." These two minute

statements throw an interesting light on each other. His wishing to

"see the end," or issue of these proceedings, was what led him into the

palace, for he evidently feared the worst. But once in, the serpent

coil is drawn closer; it is a cold night, and why should not he take

advantage of the fire as well as others? Besides, in the talk of the

crowd about the all-engrossing topic he may pick up something which he

would like to hear. Poor Peter! But now, let us leave him warming

himself at the fire, and listening to the hum of talk about this

strange case by which the subordinate officials, passing to and fro and

crowding around the fire in this open court, would while away the time;

and, following what appears the order of the Evangelical Narrative, let

us turn to Peter's Lord.

Jesus Is Interrogated by Annas--His Dignified Reply--Is Treated with

Indignity by One of the Officials--His Meek Rebuke

(Joh 18:19-23).

We have seen that it is only the Fourth Evangelist who tells us that

our Lord was sent to Annas first, overnight, until the Sanhedrim could

be got together at earliest dawn. We have now, in the same Gospel, the

deeply instructive scene that passed during this non-official

interview.

Joh 18:19:

The high priest--Annas.

then asked Jesus of His disciples and of His doctrine--probably

to entrap Him into some statements which might be used against Him at

the trial. From our Lord's answer it would seem that "His disciples"

were understood to be some secret party.

Joh 18:20.

Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world--compare

Joh 7:4.

He speaks of His public teaching as now a past thing--as now all over.

I ever taught in the synagogue and in the temple, whither the Jews

always resort--courting publicity, though with sublime

noiselessness.

and in secret have I said nothing--rather, "spake I nothing";

that is, nothing different from what He taught in public: all His

private communications with the Twelve being but explanations and

developments of His public teaching. (Compare

Isa 45:19; 48:16).

Joh 18:21:

Why askest thou Me? ask them which heard Me what I have said to

them--rather, "what I said unto them."

behold, they know what I said--From this mode of replying, it

is evident that our Lord saw the attempt to draw Him into

self-crimination, and resented it by falling back upon the right of

every accused party to have some charge laid against Him by competent

witnesses.

Joh 18:22:

And when He had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by

struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest Thou the

high priest so?--(see

Isa 50:6).

It would seem from

Ac 23:2

that this summary and undignified way of punishment what was deemed

insolence in the accused had the sanction even of the high priests

themselves.

Joh 18:23:

Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil--rather, "If I spoke

evil," in reply to the high priest.

bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou Me?--He

does not say "if not evil," as if His reply had been merely

unobjectionable; but "if well," which seems to challenge something

altogether fitting in the remonstrance. He had addressed to the high

priest. From our Lord's procedure here, by the way, it is evident

enough that His own precept in the Sermon on the Mount--that when

smitten on the one cheek we are to turn to the smiter the other also

(Mt 5:39)

--is not to be taken to the letter.

Annas Sends Jesus to Caiaphas

(Joh 18:24).

Joh 18:24.

Now Annas had sent Him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest--On the

meaning of this verse there is much diversity of opinion; and according

as we understand it will be the conclusion we come to, whether there

was but one hearing of our Lord before Annas and Caiaphas together,

or whether, according to the view we have given above, there were

two hearings--a preliminary and informal one before Annas, and a

formal and official one before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrim. If our

translators have given the right sense of the verse, there was but one

hearing before Caiaphas; and then

Joh 18:24

is to be read as a parenthesis, merely supplementing what was

said in

Joh 18:13.

This is the view of CALVIN,

BEZA,

GROTIUS,

BENGEL,

DE

WETTE,

MEYER,

LUCKE,

THOLUCK.

But there are decided objections to this view. First: We cannot but

think that the natural sense of the whole passage, embracing

Joh 18:13, 14, 19-24,

is that of a preliminary non-official hearing before "Annas first," the

particulars of which are accordingly recorded; and then of a

transference of our Lord from Annas to Caiaphas. Second: On the other

view, it is not easy to see why the Evangelist should not have inserted

Joh 18:24

immediately after

Joh 18:13;

or rather, how he could well have done otherwise. As it stands, it is

not only quite out of its proper place, but comes in most perplexingly.

Whereas, if we take it as a simple statement of fact, that after Annas

had finished his interview with Jesus, as recorded in

Joh 18:19-23,

he transferred Him to Caiaphas to be formally tried, all is clear and

natural. Third: The pluperfect sense "had sent" is in the

translation only; the sense of the original word being simply "sent."

And though there are cases where the aorist here used has the sense of

an English pluperfect, this sense is not to be put upon it unless it be

obvious and indisputable. Here that is so far from being the case, that

the pluperfect "had sent" is rather an unwarrantable

interpretation than a simple translation of the word;

informing the reader that, according to the view of our

translators, our Lord "had been" sent to Caiaphas before the

interview just recorded by the Evangelist; whereas, if we translate the

verse literally--"Annas sent Him bound unto Caiaphas the high

priest"--we get just the information we expect, that Annas, having

merely "precognosced" the prisoner, hoping to draw something out

of Him, "sent Him to Caiaphas" to be formally tried before the proper

tribunal. This is the view of

CHRYSOSTOM and

AUGUSTINE among the Fathers; and of the moderns, of

OLSHAUSEN,

SCHLEIERMACHER,

NEANDER,

EBRARD,

WIESELER,

LANGE,

LUTHARDT.

This brings us back to the text of our second Gospel, and in it to

The Judicial Trial and Condemnation of the Lord Jesus by the

Sanhedrim

(Mr 14:55-64).

But let the reader observe, that though this is introduced by the

Evangelist before any of the denials of Peter are recorded, we have

given reasons for concluding that probably the first two denials took place while our Lord was with Annas, and the last only during the

trial before the Sanhedrim.

55. And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness

against Jesus to put him to death--Matthew

(Mt 26:59)

says they "sought false witness." They knew they could find

nothing valid; but having their Prisoner to bring before Pilate, they

behooved to make a case.

and found none--none that would suit their purpose, or make a decent

ground of charge before Pilate.

56. For many bare false witness against him--From their debasing

themselves to "seek" them, we are led to infer that they were

bribed to bear false witness; though there are never wanting

sycophants enough, ready to sell themselves for naught, if they may but

get a smile from those above them: see a similar scene in

Ac 6:11-14.

How is one reminded here of that complaint, "False witnesses did rise

up: they laid to my charge things that I knew not"

(Ps 31:11)!

but their witness agreed not together--If even two of them had

been agreed, it would have been greedily enough laid hold of, as all

that the law insisted upon even in capital cases

(De 17:6).

But even in this they failed. One cannot but admire the providence

which secured this result; since, on the one hand, it seems astonishing

that those unscrupulous prosecutors and their ready tools should so

bungle a business in which they felt their whole interests bound up;

and, on the other hand, if they had succeeded in making even a

plausible case, the effect on the progress of the Gospel might for a

time have been injurious. But at the very time when His enemies were

saying, "God hath forsaken Him; persecute and take Him; for there is

none to deliver Him"

(Ps 71:11),

He whose Witness He was and whose work He was doing was keeping Him as

the apple of His eye, and while He was making the wrath of man to

praise Him, was restraining the remainder of that wrath

(Ps 76:10).

57. And there arose certain, and bare false witness against

him--Matthew

(Mt 26:60)

is more precise here: "At the last came two false witnesses." As

no two had before agreed in anything, they felt it necessary to secure

a duplicate testimony to something, but they were long of succeeding.

And what was it, when at length it was brought forward?

saying--as follows:

58. We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with

hands, and within three days I will build another made without

hands--On this charge, observe, first, that eager as His enemies

were to find criminal matter against our Lord, they had to go back to

the outset of His ministry, His first visit to Jerusalem, more than

three years before this. In all that He said and did after that, though

ever increasing in boldness, they could find nothing. Next, that even

then, they fix only on one speech, of two or three words, which they

dared to adduce against Him. Further, they most manifestly pervert the

speech of our Lord. We say not this because in Mark's form of it, it

differs from the report of the words given by the Fourth Evangelist

(Joh 2:18-22)

--the only one of the Evangelists who reports it all, or mentions even

any visit paid by our Lord to Jerusalem before His last--but because

the one report bears truth, and the other falsehood, on its face. When

our Lord said on that occasion, "Destroy this temple, and in three days

I will raise it up," they might, for a moment, have understood

Him to refer to the temple out of whose courts He had swept the buyers

and sellers. But after they had expressed their astonishment at

His words, in that sense of them, and reasoned upon the time it had

taken to rear the temple as it then stood, since no answer to

this appears to have been given by our Lord, it is hardly conceivable

that they should continue in the persuasion that this was really His

meaning. But finally, even if the more ignorant among them had done so,

it is next to certain that the ecclesiastics, who were the

prosecutors in this case, did not believe that this was His

meaning. For in less than three days after this they went to

Pilate, saying, "Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was

yet alive, after three days I will rise again"

(Mt 27:63).

Now what utterance of Christ known to His enemies, could this

refer to, if not to this very saying about destroying and rearing up

the temple? And if so, it puts it beyond a doubt that by this time, at

least, they were perfectly aware that our Lord's words referred to

His death by their hands and His resurrection by His own. But

this is confirmed by

Mr 14:59.

59. But neither so did their witness agree together--that is, not

even as to so brief a speech, consisting of but a few words, was there

such a concurrence in their mode of reporting it as to make out a decent

case. In such a charge

everything depended on the very terms alleged to have been used. For every one must see that a very slight turn, either way, given to

such words, would make them either something like indictable matter, or else a ridiculous ground for a criminal charge--would either give

them a colorable pretext for the charge of impiety which they were bent

on making out, or else make the whole saying appear, on the worst view

that could be taken of it, as merely some mystical or empty boast.

60. Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against

thee?--Clearly, they felt that their case had failed, and by this

artful question the high priest hoped to get from His own mouth what

they had in vain tried to obtain from their false and contradictory

witnesses. But in this, too, they failed.

61. But he held his peace, and answered nothing--This must have

nonplussed them. But they were not to be easily baulked of their

object.

Again the high priest--arose

(Mt 26:62),

matters having now come to a crisis.

asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the

Blessed?--Why our Lord should have answered this question, when He was

silent as to the former, we might not have quite seen, but for Matthew,

who says

(Mt 26:63)

that the high priest put Him upon solemn oath, saying, "I adjure

Thee by the living God, that Thou tell us whether Thou be the Christ,

the Son of God." Such an adjuration was understood to render an answer

legally necessary

(Le 5:1).

(Also see on

Joh 18:28.)

62. And Jesus said, I am--or, as in Matthew

(Mt 26:64),

"Thou hast said [it]." In Luke, however

(Lu 22:70),

the answer, "Ye say that I am," should be rendered--as DE WETTE, MEYER, ELLICOTT, and the best

critics agree that the preposition requires--"Ye say [it], for I am

[so]." Some words, however, were spoken by our Lord before giving His

answer to this solemn question. These are recorded by Luke alone

(Lu 22:67, 68):

"Art Thou the Christ [they asked]? tell us. And He said unto them, If I

tell you, ye will not believe: and if I also ask [interrogate] "you, ye

will not answer Me, nor let Me go." This seems to have been uttered

before giving His direct answer, as a calm remonstrance and dignified

protest against the prejudgment of His case and the unfairness of their

mode of procedure. But now let us hear the rest of the answer, in which

the conscious majesty of Jesus breaks forth from behind the dark cloud

which overhung Him as He stood before the Council. (Also see on

Joh 18:28.)

and--in that character.

ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and

coming in the clouds of heaven--In Matthew

(Mt 26:64)

a slightly different but interesting turn is given to it by one word:

"Thou hast said [it]: nevertheless"--We prefer this sense of the word

to "besides," which some recent critics decide for--"I say unto you,

Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sit on the right hand of power,

and coming in the clouds of heaven." The word rendered "hereafter"

means, not "at some future time" (as to-day "hereafter" commonly does),

but what the English word originally signified, "after here," "after

now," or "from this time." Accordingly, in

Lu 22:69,

the words used mean "from now." So that though the reference we have

given it to the day of His glorious Second Appearing is too obvious to

admit of doubt, He would, by using the expression, "From this time,"

convey the important thought which He had before expressed, immediately

after the traitor left the supper table to do his dark work,

"Now is the Son of man glorified"

(Joh 13:31).

At this moment, and by this speech, did He "witness the good

confession" emphatically and properly, as the apostle says in

1Ti 6:13.

Our translators render the words there, "Who before Pontius

Pilate witnessed"; referring it to the admission of His being a

King, in the presence of Cæsar's own chief representative.

But it should be rendered, as LUTHER renders it,

and as the best interpreters now understand it, "Who under

Pontius Pilate witnessed," &c. In this view of it, the apostle is

referring not to what our Lord confessed before Pilate--which,

though noble, was not of such primary importance--but to that sublime

confession which, under Pilate's administration, He witnessed before

the only competent tribunal on such occasions, the Supreme

Ecclesiastical Council of God's chosen nation, that He was THE MESSIAH, and THE SON OF THE BLESSED ONE; in the former word

owning His Supreme Official, in the latter His Supreme

Personal, Dignity.

63. Then the high priest rent his clothes--On this expression of

horror of blasphemy, see

2Ki 18:37.

and saith, What need we any further witnesses? (Also see on

Joh 18:28.)

64. Ye have heard the blasphemy--(See

Joh 10:33).

In Luke

(Lu 22:71),

"For we ourselves have heard of His own mouth"--an affectation of

religious horror. (Also see on

Joh 18:28.)

what think ye?--"Say what the verdict is to be."

they all condemned him to be guilty of death--or of a capital

crime, which blasphemy against God was according to the Jewish

law

(Le 24:16).

Yet not absolutely all; for Joseph of Arimathea, "a good

man and a just," was one of that Council, and "he was not a

consenting party to the counsel and deed of them," for that is the

strict sense of the words of

Lu 23:50, 51.

Probably he absented himself, and Nicodemus also, from this

meeting of the Council, the temper of which they would know too well to

expect their voice to be listened to; and in that case, the words of

our Evangelist are to be taken strictly, that, without one dissentient

voice, "all [present] condemned him to be guilty of death."

The Blessed One Is Now Shamefully Entreated

(Mr 14:65).

Every word here must be carefully observed, and the several accounts put

together, that we may lose none of the awful indignities about to be

described.

65. And some began to spit on him--or, as in

Mt 26:67,

"to spit in [into] His face." Luke

(Lu 22:63)

says in addition, "And the men that held Jesus mocked him"--or cast

their jeers at Him. (Also see on

Joh 18:28.)

to cover his face--or "to blindfold him" (as in

Lu 22:64).

to buffet him--Luke's word, which is rendered "smote Him"

(Lu 22:63),

is a stronger one, conveying an idea for which we have an exact

equivalent in English, but one too colloquial to be inserted here.

began to say unto him, Prophesy--In Matthew

(Mt 26:68)

this is given more fully: "Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he

that smote Thee?" The sarcastic fling at Him as "the Christ,"

and the demand of Him in this character to name the unseen perpetrator

of the blows inflicted on Him, was in them as infamous as to Him it

must have been, and was intended to be, stinging.

and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands--or

"struck Him on the face"

(Lu 22:64).

Ah! Well did He say prophetically, in that Messianic prediction which

we have often referred to, "I gave My back to the smiters, and My

cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not My face from shame

and spitting!"

(Isa 50:6).

"And many other things blasphemously spake they against Him"

(Lu 22:65).

This general statement is important, as showing that virulent and

varied as were the recorded affronts put upon Him, they are but

a small specimen of what He endured on that dark occasion.

Peter's FIRST

DENIAL of His Lord

(Mr 14:66-68).

66. And as Peter was beneath in the palace--This little word

"beneath"--one of our Evangelist's graphic touches--is most

important for the right understanding of what we may call the topography

of the scene. We must take it in connection with Matthew's word

(Mt 26:69):

"Now Peter sat without in the palace"--or quadrangular court, in

the center of which the fire would be burning; and crowding around and

buzzing about it would be the menials and others who had been admitted

within the court. At the upper end of this court, probably, would be

the memorable chamber in which the trial was held--open to the

court, likely, and not far from the fire (as we gather from

Lu 22:61),

but on a higher level; for (as our verse says) the court, with

Peter in it, was "beneath" it. The ascent to the Council chamber was

perhaps by a short flight of steps. If the reader will bear this

explanation in mind, he will find the intensely interesting details

which follow more intelligible.

there cometh one of the maids of the high priest--"the damsel that

kept the door"

(Joh 18:17).

The Jews seem to have employed women as porters of their doors

(Ac 12:13).

67. And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him--Luke

(Lu 22:56)

is here more graphic; "But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the

fire"--literally, "by the light," which, shining full upon him,

revealed him to the girl--"and earnestly looked upon him"--or, "fixed

her gaze upon him." His demeanor and timidity, which must have

attracted notice, as so generally happens, "leading," says OLSHAUSEN, "to the recognition of him."

and said, And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth--"with Jesus the

Nazarene," or, "with Jesus of Galilee"

(Mt 26:69).

The sense of this is given in John's report of it

(Joh 18:17),

"Art not thou also one of this man's disciples?" that is, thou as well

as "that other disciple," whom she knew to be one, but did not

challenge, perceiving that he was a privileged person. In Luke

(Lu 22:56)

it is given as a remark made by the maid to one of the

hearing--drawing upon him the eyes of every one that heard it (as we

know it did,

Mt 26:70),

and compelling him to answer to it--that would explain the different

forms of the report naturally enough. But in such a case this is of no

real importance.

68. But he denied--"before all"

(Mt 26:70).

saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest--in Luke

(Lu 22:57),

"I know Him not."

And he went out into the porch--the vestibule leading to the

street--no doubt finding the fire-place too hot for him; possibly

also with the hope of escaping--but that was not to be, and perhaps he

dreaded that, too. Doubtless by this time his mind would be getting into

a sea of commotion, and would fluctuate every moment in its resolves.

AND THE COCK CREW--(See on

Lu 22:34).

This, then, was the First Denial.

Peter's SECOND

DENIAL of His Lord

(Mr 14:69, 70).

There is here a verbal difference among the Evangelists, which without

some information which has been withheld, cannot be quite extricated.

69. And a maid saw him again--or, "a girl." It might be rendered

"the girl"; but this would not necessarily mean the same one as before,

but might, and probably does, mean just the female who had charge of the

door or gate near which Peter now was. Accordingly, in

Mt 26:71,

she is expressly called "another [maid]." But in Luke

(Lu 22:58)

it is a male servant: "And after a little while [from the time

of the first denial] another"--that is, as the word signifies, "another

male" servant. But there is no real difficulty, as the challenge,

probably, after being made by one was reiterated by another.

Accordingly, in John

(Joh 18:25),

it is, "They said therefore unto him, &c.--as if more than one

challenged him at once.

and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them--or, as

in

Mt 26:71

--"This [fellow] was also with Jesus the Nazarene."

70. And he denied it again--In Luke

(Lu 22:58),

"Man, I am not." But worst of all in Matthew--"And again he denied with

an oath, I do not know the man"

(Mt 26:72).

This was the Second Denial, more vehement, alas! than the first.

Peter's THIRD

DENIAL of His Lord

(Mr 14:70-72).

70. And a little after--"about the space of one hour after"

(Lu 22:59).

they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them:

for thou art a Galilean, and thy speech agreeth thereto--"bewrayeth

[or 'discovereth'] thee"

(Mt 26:73).

In Luke

(Lu 22:59)

it is, "Another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this [fellow]

also was with him: for he is a Galilean." The Galilean dialect had a

more Syrian cast than that of Judea. If Peter had held his

peace, this peculiarity had not been observed; but hoping,

probably, to put them off the scent by joining in the fireside

talk, he was thus discovered. The Fourth Gospel is particularly

interesting here: "One of the servants of the high priest, being his

kinsman [or kinsman to him] whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I

see thee in the garden with Him?"

(Joh 18:26).

No doubt his relationship to Malchus drew his attention to the man who

had smitten him, and this enabled him to identify Peter. "Sad

reprisals!" exclaims BENGEL. Poor Peter! Thou art

caught in thine own toils; but like a wild bull in a net, thou wilt

toss and rage, filling up the measure of thy terrible declension by one

more denial of thy Lord, and that the foulest of all.

71. But he began to curse--"anathematize," or wish himself accursed

if what he was now to say was not true.

and to swear--or to take a solemn oath.

saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak.

72. And the second time the cock crew--The other three Evangelists,

who mention but one crowing of the cock--and that not the first, but the

second and last one of Mark--all say the cock crew "immediately," but

Luke

(Lu 22:60)

says, "Immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew." Alas!--But now

comes the wonderful sequel.

The Redeemer's Look upon Peter, and Peter's Bitter Tears

(Mr 14:72;

Lu 22:61, 62).

It has been observed that while the beloved disciple is the only one of

the four Evangelists who does not record the repentance of Peter, he is

the only one of the four who records the affecting and most beautiful

scene of his complete restoration

(Joh 21:15-17).

Lu 22:61:

And the Lord turned and looked upon Peter--How? it will

be asked. We answer, From the chamber in which the trial was going on,

in the direction of the court where Peter then stood--in the way

already explained. See on

Mr 14:66.

Our Second Evangelist makes no mention of this look, but dwells on the

warning of his Lord about the double crowing of the cock, which would

announce his triple fall, as what rushed stingingly to his recollection

and made him dissolve in tears.

And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before

the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought

thereon, he wept--To the same effect is the statement of the First

Evangelist

(Mt 26:75),

save that like "the beloved physician," he notices the "bitterness" of

the weeping

(Lu 22:62).

The most precious link, however, in the whole chain of circumstances in

this scene is beyond doubt that "look" of deepest, tenderest import

reported by Luke alone

(Lu 22:61).

Who can tell what lightning flashes of wounded love and piercing

reproach shot from that "look" through the eye of Peter into his

heart!

And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had said unto

him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice.

Lu 22:62:

And Peter went out and wept bitterly--How different from the

sequel of Judas' act! Doubtless the hearts of the two men towards the

Saviour were perfectly different from the first; and the treason of

Judas was but the consummation of the wretched man's resistance of the

blaze of light in the midst of which he had lived for three years,

while Peter's denial was but a momentary obscuration of the heavenly

light and love to his Master which ruled his life. But the immediate

cause of the blessed revulsion which made Peter "weep bitterly"

(Mt 26:75)

was, beyond all doubt, this heart-piercing "look" which his Lord gave

him. And remembering the Saviour's own words at the table, "Simon,

Simon, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat;

but I prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not"

(Lu 22:31, 32),

may we not say that this prayer fetched down all that there was in

that look to pierce and break the heart of Peter, to keep it from

despair, to work in it "repentance unto salvation not to be repented

of," and at length, under other healing touches, to "restore his soul?"

(See on

Mr 16:7).