xiv. 1–2. Schemes of the Ecclesiastical Authorities: cf. Matt. xxvi. 1–5; Luke xxii. 1–2.

14. after two days: that is, ‘the next day,’ or ‘on the second day,’ as in Hosea: ‘after two days’ is distinguished from ‘on the third day’ (vi. 2). This will make the day the thirteenth of Nisan, Wednesday of Passion Week.

the feast of the passover. The word ‘passover’ means sometimes the paschal lamb which was killed and eaten on the fourteenth of Nisan, the first month of the Jewish year, in memory of the day when the Israelites were bidden to prepare to quit Egypt (Exod. xii.; Num. ix.; Deut. xvi.); as in Mark xiv. 12; Luke xxii. 7; sometimes the paschal supper, as in Mark xiv. 12; Luke xxii. 8, 13; sometimes the paschal festival, the memorial feast lasting from the fourteenth to the twentieth of Nisan, as here and in Matt. xxvi. 2, Luke ii. 41, xxii. 1, John ii. 13, 23, vi. 4, &c.

and the unleavened bread. The term rendered ‘unleavened bread’ is used sometimes of the unfermented loaves which the Israelites ate for seven days in commemoration of their departure from Egypt (Exod. xxiii. 15; Lev. xxiii. 6), as in Matt. xxvi. 17; Mark xiv. 12; Luke xxii. 7; sometimes of the paschal festival itself, as here. The peculiarity of the present passage is that the festival is designated by the double title, specifying both the introductory meal and the seven days of unleavened bread. This commemorative festival was an eight days’ feast, beginning with the paschal meal and continuing through seven days of restriction to unfermented bread.

sought how they might take him with subtilty. Matthew says ‘the chief priests, and the elders of the people’ (xxvi. 3). The meeting, therefore, included all three orders in the Sanhedrin, and its object was to devise some crafty scheme by which they might get Jesus into their hands without awakening popular opposition. From Matthew (xxvi. 3) we learn that this consultation took place in the court of Caiaphas, the high priest. [Salmond, 1906]

Not during the feast. Their plan was to keep clear of the passover feast in any action they might take. They must either act at once, therefore, as the passover began next day, or delay till the seven days of the feast were over.

lest haply there shall be a tumult. This was the reason for their ‘subtilty’ and for their wish to keep clear of the feast. They knew that the mass of the people, mostly from Galilee, who were about him at present, were on his side, and they dreaded to raise their opposition. Once let the feast be over and these temporary sympathizers scattered to their homes, and the danger of a tumult would be  less. [Salmond, 1906]

xiv. 3-9. The Anointing at Bethany: cf. Matt. xxvi. 6-13; John xii. 2-8. The narratives in Matthew, Mark, and John appear clearly to refer to one and the same occasion. There is a difference indeed in the chronological connexion, John placing the supper six days before the Passover, and the Synoptists introducing their account of it along with circumstances belonging to a period several days later. Hence, some have concluded that there were two suppers, one given by Lazarus at the earlier date, and another by Simon at the later. But the difference in position can be otherwise explained. In Luke’s Gospel we have also a narrative of an anointing by the hands of a woman (Luke vii. 36-50), which has a general resemblance to this, and in which the host bears, therefore, the name of Simon. Many have taken the four narratives, there, to be simply four versions of one and the same incident. But the differences are considerable. The incident in Luke is introduced at a much earlier point in the narrative, and seems to belong to an earlier period in the ministry of Jesus. The person, too, who performs the lavish act of grateful love is very far from being presented in the same light in Luke’s account as in the others. In Luke she is described as ‘a woman which was in the city, a sinner’; in the first two Gospels she is designated simply as ‘a woman,’ and has no stigma attached to her; and in the Fourth Gospel she is ‘Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus.’ And there is no reason for identifying Mary of Bethany with the ‘woman which was in the city,’ or for attaching to the former the character of the latter.

3. while he was in Bethany. Matthew and Mark agree in introducing the report of this incident immediately after the meeting of the scheming ecclesiastical authorities. John brings in his account immediately before that of the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem. John’s order has been accepted by most as representing the actual historical relation. Nor do the first two Gospels give any very explicit indication of the time, confining themselves as they do to the general statement that the incident took place when Jesus was in Bethany. The introduction of the anointing in the heart of events belonging to Passion Week might naturally suggest that it also fell within that period. It is possible at the same time that the position given it in Matthew and Mark is due to other than chronological considerations—to the desire, it may be, to place alongside the story of the treachery of Judas the occurrence which brought out his grudging, covetous nature, and perhaps prompted the course he took.

Simon the leper. Simon was a common Jewish name. This Simon is distinguished from others by the title ‘the leper,’ he being probably a cured leper, perhaps one of those healed by Jesus. Nothing more is said of him. Some imagine him to have been the deceased husband of Martha, or the husband of Martha, or some other relative of the sisters. The identification is at best general as to later views, whether the Simon who is named was the host on this occasion, or even whether he was present or had any connexion with the event beyond that of being owner of the house.

sat at meat. That is, ‘reclined at meat.’ The historical books of the O.T. indicate that sitting was the usual Hebrew posture at meals (Gen. xxvii. 19; Judges xix. 6; 1 Sam. xx. 5, 24; 1 Kings xiii. 20). In course of time the practice of sitting gave place to that of reclining on couches. This latter custom had come in at least as early as the time of the eighth-century prophets, and had already been associated with luxurious habits. Amos delivers woes against those who ‘lie upon beds of ivory and stretch themselves upon their couches’ (vi. 4). In our Lord’s time it was the universal habit. The Greeks and Romans also in course of time gave up the sitting at meals of which we read in Homer (Il. x. 578, Od. i. 145) for the recumbent position, except in the case of women and children. The reclining posture was taken over perhaps from the Babylonians and Syrians, who appear to have adopted it in early times.

a woman. The Synoptists do not give her name. In John’s account Martha of Bethany serves, and Mary anoints the Master.

an alabaster cruse. Or, ‘a flask,’ as in the margin of the R.V. The ‘box’ of the A.V. is less correct. Literally it is ‘an alabaster,’ that name being given to vases used for the holding of unguents, because they were often made of that material. One Egyptian town, famous for its vases of alabaster, bore the name of Alabastron. The alabaster of the ancients was different from what is known as alabaster among us, not a sulphate of lime, but a stalagmitic carbonate of lime. It was supposed to preserve the aroma of the perfumes.

of spikenard: lit. ‘of pistic nard,’ a doubtful phrase, taken by some to mean ‘Pistic nard,’ with reference to the locality where it was obtained; by others, ‘bearded’ or ‘spiked’ nard, and so ‘spikenard’ as in the A.V. and the old English versions; by others, ‘liquid’ or ‘potable’ nard; but by most, genuine, pure nard, in contrast with the pseudo-nard and adulterated articles which is known to have been sold (Pliny, Nat. Hist. xii. 26). This ‘nard’ was the essential oil of an Indian plant, a species of Valerian, cultivated among the Arabs of the Indian Spike, and growing according to Sir William Jones, ‘in the most remote and hilly parts of India, such as Népal, Mongars, and Butan, near which Ptolemy fixes its native soil’ (Works, v. p. 44). In the O.T. it is mentioned only in the Song of Songs (i. 12, iv. 13, 14); in the N.T. only here and in John xii. 3.

very costly. It was perhaps the costliest of all the fragrant oils of the ancient world. Horace promises Vergil a whole cask of wine for a small onyx of card (Carmin. ix. xii. 16, 17). Herodotus tells us it was one of the gifts sent by Cambyses to the Ethiopians (iii. 20).

brake the cruse. Some think this means only that she broke the seal. But it seems rather to mean that she broke the narrow neck of the flask itself, so that the entire contents might be spent on the Master, and nothing reserved for any commoner use.

over his head. In John’s narrative Mary anoints the feet of Jesus. It may be that the perfume, poured in a lavish gush upon the head, streamed down upon the feet, or that head and feet were anointed in turn. The anointing of the head was a customary act of attention on the part of a host to his guest (cf. Ps. xxiii. 5; Luke vii. 46) or of goodwill to visitors, as in the case of the captives of Judah who were anointed before they were sent back (2 Chron. xxvii. 15). To anoint the feet was an unusual act, a token of deepest humility and veneration, reserved for the greatest, and said not to have been known even among the Roman emperors till Nero’s time. [Salmond, 1906]

there were some. Matthew says they were the disciples (xxvi. 8). John speaks of Judas as the murmurer (xii. 4).

had indignation among themselves. The feeling of the disciples is expressed by the same strong term as was used of the indignation of Jesus himself in the case of the interference of the disciples with those who brought the children to be touched (x. 14). The indignation of these some did not express itself in any formal or public manner. It was confined to grumblings that went from mouth to mouth among themselves.

this waste. To use the term used in this prodigal way was in their view simple destruction. The judgment of a calculating, utilitarian spirit, blind to the higher values of love. [Salmond, 1906]

three hundred pence. That is, the hundred denarii or shillings, or from £10 to £12 in nominal value, but much more, from three to six times more, in actual purchasing power. The money, from the side of its use, contained a pound, a Roman pound (xii. 3).

given to the poor. As we may infer from Mark vi. 37, the sum would have been sufficient to feed thousands. To think of the hungry poor in Jerusalem, and what the money might have done for them! So the grudging temper finds specious arguments by which to justify itself and give its meanness the colour of charity. [Salmond, 1906]

murmured against her. They did not venture to say anything of him and his allowance of the waste; but with her it was different. Their indignation, which at first had been but muttered, now broke out into open and vehement expression.

a good work. ‘Good’ in the sense of excellent, seemly. It was a deed of moral beauty, made so by the spirit of ungrudging love that prompted it. [Salmond, 1906]

For ye have the poor always with you. The Master himself becomes her apologist, and in vindicating her act he also adjusts duty to duty. Kindness to the poor is a primary duty in his kingdom, and one never to be neglected. Yet there may be duties to which it even must give place for a time. When a conflict of duties arises, it is to be settled by the simple principle that the one which can be done at any time shall have precedence over that which can be done at any time. The clause and whensoever ye will ye can do them good is peculiar to Mark.

me ye have not always. A simple but pathetic reminder of what he had told them once and again—the fact that he was to die. The beauty of the woman’s act, therefore, was seen also in its timeliness. Love has its own insight into the times and seasons for things, and makes its way by unerring instinct through all difficulties of completing duties and the fitnesses of things. [Salmond, 1906]

She hath done what she could. The measure of ability is the measure of merit; this woman had the praise of doing all that other means or opportunity made it possible for her to do. It is utmost love recognizing love’s utmost (Clarke). This sentence also is peculiar to Mark.

anointed my body. In the case of death it was customary among the Jews to wash the body and then, as was also done by the Egyptians, to apply spices and unguents. It was an external application, and so was distinguished from the Egyptian mode of embalming (cf. Mark xvi. 1; Luke xxiii. 56; John xii. 39; for we cannot imagine the ceremony to have been performed upon the body of Lazarus).

aforehand for the burying: lit. with a view to its preparationfor burial. So in Matthew it is—she did it to prepare me for burial (xxvi. 12). John gives it somewhat differently—suffer her to keep it against the day of my burying (xii. 7). It is not too much to suppose that the woman herself may have done what she did with a conscious anticipation of his death. Love’s insight is a prophetic insight, and to this woman’s love the words which Jesus spoke regarding his Passion may have had a meaning which they had not even to the Twelve. If her act had no such conscious purpose, Jesus interpreted it for her and put upon it a value beyond what she herself had thought of. His love makes more of his servant’s deeds than they themselves see in them. [Salmond, 1906]

Wheresoever the gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world. The world-wide extension of the Gospel had already been declared to be a thing as certain as is the Divine purpose (xiii. 10). As wide as the preaching of the Gospel, so wide should be the fame of this deed; and it is this preaching of the Gospel that secures the fulfillment of that prediction.

for a memorial of her. To make her remembered for ever among men. Cf. the memorials which were to make Cornelius remembered by God (Acts x. 4). No deed that has found a place in the Gospel narratives has such a commendation pronounced in it, or such a prophecy spoken of it. Matthew and Mark agree in recording this unexampled announcement. *It is not noticed by John in his parallel narrative, nor is any such prediction contained in the similar deed reported by Luke in the case of the woman which was in the city. [Salmond, 1906]

xv. 10. Compact between Judas and the Chief Priests: cf. Matt. xxvi. 14-16; Luke xxii. 3-6.

10. Judas Iscariot. In Mark’s Gospel Judas is mentioned only in the list of the apostles (iii. 19), and twice in this chapter (10, 43).

one of the twelve. A designation of tragic moment, attached to Judas, not only in the Synoptists, but, in somewhat different terms, in John (xii. 4; xiii. 2, 6, 17), marking him out as one of the most influential parties in matters of this kind, the chief priests rather than the scribes, and he went off privately to them. He may have found them still in Caiaphas’ court where they had been scheming (xiv. 1). From Luke we see that the captains, the heads of the temple police, were also consulted, being probably with the chief priests (xii. 4).

that he might deliver him. He went with the express purpose of betraying Jesus. What is the explanation of this deed of treachery? Some have attempted to soften Judas’s guilt by supposing that all he had in view was to hasten the action of Jesus in the establishment of his Messianic kingdom, by bringing on him the compulsion of a popular rising. But of this there is no hint in the narratives. Others think he was prompted by melancholy, induced by the disappointment of his carnal expectations, or by wounded ambition, or by shipwrecked faith, or by resentment caused by the rebuke given him and the detection of his true character at the supper in Bethany (John xii. 6-9). But the Gospels themselves point only to two causes—Satanic temptation (Luke xxii. 3; John xiii. 27), and avarice. He was selected to manage the money affairs of Jesus and the Twelve perhaps for his practical, business capacity. But he abused his trust (John xii. 6), and finally betrayed his Master, the fatal love of greed having been in him from the beginning, and having been allowed to feed on the opportunities offered it, until at last it made him blind to every other consideration. [Salmond, 1906]

11. they, when they heard it, were glad. They had reason to be so. They needed no longer either to scheme or to think of delay. The means of giving effect to their fell purpose were put into their hands sooner than they had dreamt of, before the Passover, with all its risks of a popular rising, began.

promised to give him money. The exact sum is recorded by Mark only; by Luke. Matthew, however, who also represents Judas as asking how much the authorities would give him, mentions that it was thirty pieces of silver, and that these were weighed out unto him (xxvi. 15). Coined money had in these times a valuation at least from 7 to 14 times that of a silver shekel of the Maccabees; but the ancient custom of weighing money seems to have been continued, especially in the case of sums paid to defray temple treasury, and these pieces would be the shekels of the temple treasury, as quoted on Matt. xxvi. 5. The whole sum would amount to less than £4. It is the same price of savior (Exod. xxii. 7). A small sum truly, if it was the whole and not simply so much paid down on the spot, to content any one, especially an avaricious man like Judas.

he sought how he might conveniently deliver him. Luke adds in the absence of the multitude, or without tumult (xxii. 6). The risk of a rising on the part of the people was what the chief priests were seeking to avoid. With the price of his treachery in his purse Judas went back to those he had left for the night and watched his chance. The chief priests needed no longer to be concerned. There was one more in their circle who had opportunities they had not, and it was for him now to devise the means and find the occasion. [Salmond, 1906]

xiv. 12-16. Preparations for the Passover Meal: cf. Matt. xxvi. 17-19; Luke xxii. 7-13.

12. on the first day of unleavened bread. Luke calls it simply the day of unleavened bread (xxii. 7). That is the fourteenth Nisan, beginning after sunset of the thirteenth. In post-Exilic times it was customary for the head of the family to search the house with a lighted candle on the evening of the thirteenth Nisan in quest of leaven. On the fourteenth the eating of unleavened bread was suspended, the abstention beginning before noon. That day was also called the Preparation (Matt. xxvii. 62; Mark xiv. 42; Luke xxiii. 54; John xix. 14, 31, 42).

when they sacrificed the passover. This further definition is given (with some slight variation) by all three Synoptists. On certain occasions the Paschal lamb was killed by the Levites (2 Chron. xxxv. 15, xxxvii. 6; Ezra vii. 20), but usually by the head of the family (Exod. xii. 6). It was done in the court of the priestly family with a prescribed ceremonial. The killing and the rites took place on the fourteenth Nisan (Exod. xii. 6; Lev. xxiii. 5; Num. ix. 3, &c.).

Where wilt thou that we go and make ready? The preparations that had to be made were considerable, embracing the providing of place, victim, unleavened cakes, wine, water, the bitter herbs — lettuce, endive, chicory, horehound. and the like — the sauce called Charoseth, the roasting of the lamb, the setting out of the table, &c. [Salmond, 1906]

two of his disciples. Luke tells us they were Peter and John (xxii. 8). They are sent into Jerusalem.

a man bearing a pitcher of water. Probably a servant of the house. To carry water was usually the woman’s work. But it was also the slave’s task (Deut. xxix. 11; Josh. ix. 21). It would be easier to recognize a man thus employed, sent no doubt to fetch water from Siloam for the sacred uses of the Passover. On his return he would cross the path of the two disciples who came in from the other side, and as they followed him he ‘would act as an unconscious guide through the net-work of narrow and unfamiliar streets to the appointed place’ (Swete). [Salmond, 1906]

The Master saith, Where is my guest-chamber? My guest-chamber, that is, the lodging destined for me. This was the simple message with which the two were charged, and they were to deliver it to ‘the goodman of the house’ himself. [Salmond, 1906]

he will himself shew you. The Master of the house was himself to make all things right for them. They were to be shewn a large upper room, a chamber suitable for the occasion and for the number that was to come, and all furnished and ready, that is, provided with the necessary table and carpets of cleanliness. The householder’s ready reception of the two messengers, and his showing them at once the place prepared, are the acts surely of a disciple. [Salmond, 1906]

and found as he had said. This was the second occasion during the Passion Week that the disciples had this experience. [Salmond, 1906]

xvi. 17-21. The Paschal Supper: cf. Matt. xxvi. 20-25; Luke xxii. 14, 21-23; John xiii. 21-31.

17. and when the hour was come. By the Hebrew reckoning the Paschal lamb was to be eaten at night (Exod. xii. 8). It was to be slain at even, between the two evenings, as the Hebrew puts it (Exod. xii. 6). The woman was not to kill it till after the evening sacrifice was offered.with the twelve. The two, therefore, seem to have returned by this time, and Judas also. All were once more in Jerusalem, Jesus having come again from the mount of Olives, probably as the sun was setting. It was the last day view which the Lord had of the Holy City till his Resurrection* (Edersheim, The Temple and its Services, p. 195). The lamb had to be wholly consumed (Exod. xii. 46). It was provided, therefore, that if any household was too little for a lamb it was to join with another (Exod. xii. 4). It came to be recognized that a Paschal gathering should not consist of less than ten guests (Josephus, Jewish War, vi. ii. 3). [Salmond, 1906]

as they sat: or rather, reclined. Originally the Paschal lamb was to be eaten standing (Exod. xii. 11). But the standing posture had long been given up for the recumbent position which was usual at other meals.One of you shall betray me. A new note, and one of darkest meaning, in his announcements. At least on one earlier occasion, indeed, a hint of evil within the apostolic circle itself had fallen from his lips. In the synagogue of Capernaum, on the occasion of the falling away of many disciples, he had put the ominous question to the Twelve—Did not I choose you the twelve, and one of you is a devil? (John vi. 70). At the supper, too, according to John, after he had washed the disciples’ feet, he spoke these significant words, ye are clean, but not all, and referred to the fulfilment of the Scripture, he that eateth my bread lifted up his heel against me (John xiii. 10, 18). But this most distinct imitation of the terrible fact that other hands than those of hostile Jewish and Roman officials were to be concerned with his delivery and death, is made at this point according to Matthew (xxvi. 21), as well as Mark. The words even he that eateth with me are given only by Mark. They refer, no doubt, to the Psalm (xix. 41) from which John records Jesus to have quoted a verse (xiii. 18). [Salmond, 1906]

began to be sorrowful. At these dark words the joy of the meal was turned at once into sadness and doubt.

to say unto him one by one, Is it I? or rather, surely it is not I? it is? On the instant each disciple was struck with the possibility of the words pointing to him—but with the contrary notion that he was not the person meant, none of them, in fact, having a suspicion of the traitor. None of them, strange to say, thinks of Judas, or says, is it I? But Judas himself, as we learn from Mark (xiv. 25), was not ashamed to ask as the others had done, Is it I? [Salmond, 1906]

he that dippeth with me in the dish. To dip into the same dish with another was a token of intimate friendship, as is seen in the invitation of Boaz to Ruth at meal-time (Ruth ii. 14). The dish in view here was probably the Charoseth, the popular sauce, made of vinegar, figs, dates, almonds, and spice, used at the Passover. Travellers tell us that the few remaining Samaritans, when they celebrate the Passover on the top of Gerizim, hand to the stranger a little olive-shaped morsel of unleavened bread enclosing a green fragment of wild endive or some other bitter herb, which may resemble, except that it is not dipped in the dish, the very “sop” which Judas received at the hands of Christ (Farrar’s Life of Christ, ii. p. 290). Comparing John’s account we see that when Jesus spoke of one of the Twelve as betraying him, the disciples cast perplexed looks one upon another; that John, at Peter’s suggestion, asked Jesus directly who was meant; that Jesus, who reclined probably between Peter and John, having the latter nearest his ear, replied that it was he to whom he was about to give the sop (John xiii. 22, 24–26). This then was the sign—the selection of Judas to receive one of the pieces of bread which it was customary for the Master of the feast at a certain point to dip into the Charoseth and give to the party. [Salmond, 1906]

The Son of man goeth. This simple, solemn word go is repeatedly used by John with reference to the death of Jesus (John viii. 14, 21, xiii. 3, 33, xiv. 4).

even as it is written. or, as Luke gives it, as it hath been determined. The departure of Jesus to his death was no more accidental in his career, nor simply the result of that collision with the world to which all prophets and righteous men are subject, but an event which meant the fulfillment of the purpose of God and His testimony in Scripture.

 good were it for that man. The deed of Judas was the work neither of chance nor of necessity. The counsel of God fulfilled itself even in his treachery. But that counsel neither superseded the free action and responsibility of Judas nor relieved him of his guilt. (Cf. Acts ii. 23.)good were it for that man if he had not been born. Words suggestive of a dread condemnation and an inexpressible doom. But words spoken of the traitor only, and of no other. [Salmond, 1906]

xiv. 22-25. The Institution of the Lord’s Supper: cf. Matt. xxvi. 26-29; Luke xvii. 17-20; see also 1 Cor. xi. 23-25.

22. And as they were eating, he took bread. At what point was this done? On this question opinion has been divided. It is most reasonable, however, to suppose that Jesus would not interfere with the usual ceremonial of the Passover feast, but would follow it out carefully in all its essential parts, and only then the special institution of the Supper. The order observed in the celebration of the Passover in our Lord’s time appears to have been this—first, thanks were offered and a cup of wine was drunk; bitter herbs were next placed on the table, dipped in a sour sauce or both known as the Charoseth, the lamb and the flesh of the Chagiga (i.e. the free-will festive offering which was brought on the first day of the feast) were presented; next the head of the family, after pronouncing a blessing, dipped a portion of the bitter herbs, about the size of an olive, in the Charoseth and ate it, the others eating after him; then the second cup of wine was mixed, and an explanation of the meaning of the Passover was given; the viands were then put again on the table, the first part of the Hallel, consisting of Psalms cxiii, cxiv, was sung, thanksgiving was again offered, and the second cup was drunk; next the head of the house washed his hands, took two pieces of bread, and breaking one laid the broken portion on the other piece, pronounced again a blessing, rolled part of the broken bread in bitter herbs, dipped it in the Charoseth, gave thanks anew and ate it—doing the same also with the part of the Chagiga and the lamb; the guests then partook, until the father ate the last portion of the lamb; the father then washed his hands, praise was offered, and the third cup was drunk; then followed the singing of the second part of the Hallel, consisting of Psalms cxv-cxvi, and the drinking of the fourth cup. Sometimes a fifth cup was drunk, and further Psalms (cxx-cxxvii) were sung.

In all probability the new feast, to be known as the Lord’s Supper and to have a distinctive significance with reference to his death, was instituted by Jesus at the last point in the usual Paschal celebration, when the last portion of the lamb was eaten and the third cup was drunk, and the ceremonial of the Passover was ended.

and when he had blessed, he brake it. The ‘bread’ which he took was one of the loaves put upon the table before the celebrant, but not one of the two which were taken as part of the ceremonial of the Paschal meal itself. Another piece was taken, another blessing was pronounced, and there was a separate act of fraction. There is nothing to indicate that the ‘ blessing’ was more than a pra3rer of thanksgiving and setting apart. In Luke and Paul the term is ‘ when he had given thanks ‘ (Luke xxii. 19; 1 Cor. xi. 24).

gave to them. Possibly by handing it round piece by piece, but more probably, as the Twelve were reclining, by simply presenting it as a whole and distributing it.

Take ye. The eat which is inserted after the take in the A.V. appears not to belong to the original text. It is found, however, in Matthew’s account. Both the take and the eat are omitted by Luke and Paul.

this is my body. By the this Jesus undoubtedly means the piece of bread which they were to take. As he was himself there in living, bodily form he could not mean that piece of bread was in any literal sense his body. What his words expressed was the fact that the bread which had been given them and which had been broken, was symbolically his body representing the giving of his life for them. In Luke the words are, This is my body which is given for you (xxii. 19). In Paul’s account also the definition for you is added—This is my body, which is broken for you (1 Cor. xi. 24). [Salmond, 1906]

And he took a cup. Which cup? Some say the third of the four cups taken during the Paschal meal, that cup being known as the cup of blessing; but more probably it was the cup that followed the final participation, the fourth cup, especially in view both of the declaration in verse 25 and of the statement made at once by Luke and by Paul that it was after supper (Luke xxii. 20; 1 Cor. xi. 25). [Salmond, 1906]

This is my blood. Wine and blood are often compared (Gen. xlix. 11). By this Jesus meant his blood, which he was giving to the Twelve, and this wine, he says, is his blood; that is, his spirit or representatives of it. So I am living (John x. 7), &c.

of the covenant. A better rendering, in view of the usage of the word, than the testament of the A.V. So also in Matthew. Paul gives the statement in this form—This is my blood of the new covenant in my blood (1 Cor. xi. 25). The words take the new covenant in my blood are those of the old covenant, which God made with Israel—*Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord  hath made with you concerning all these words (Exod. xxiv. 8). They mean that Jesus was instituting a new and better covenant than the Sinaitic, and that it was to be ratified by the blood of a better sacrifice. They give a sacrificial meaning, therefore, to the death which was in his view.

which is shed for many. That is, which is about to be shed. So also in Matthew. The point of the comparison is given even yet more distinctly by Luke—even that which is poured out for you (xxii. 20). The pouring out of the wine corresponds to the breaking of the bread, and has the same reference to the surrendered, sacrificed life of Jesus. The sacrificial meaning of his death and its expiatory relation to the forgiveness of sins are expressed yet more definitely by Matthew, who adds unto remission of sins (xxvi. 28). [Salmond, 1906]

I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God. Introduced as they are by the solemn formula, Verily I say unto you, these words must be taken to mean much. They express in the first place the fact that this was the last occasion on which Jesus should take part in the Passover celebration. Matthew’s more pointed form, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine (xxvi. 29), makes it still clearer that it was the wine of the Paschal meal Jesus had in view, that he had himself been a partaker with them, and that henceforth, from that present occasion, he should do so no more. But they speak in the second place of a future participation—a day when he should drink it new (new, not in the sense of recent or fresh, but in that of another and better kind). This cannot refer, as some have thought, to anything during the period of his risen life on earth, but, as the words in the kingdom of God implies, to the perfected condition of things, in the future world—to the condition of things in the future in which all things are to be made new (Rev. xxi. 5). He will take part in a Passover of a new order, in a fellowship of a new and higher order. See the promise in Luke xxii. 29, 30, and compare the parables of the great Supper and the Marriage Feast (Luke xvi. 16-24; Matt. xxii. 1-14).

Mark’s account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper is concise and clear. It contains the essential statement of the new institution, but is most imperfect in details as compared with Matthew. But it does not follow from this, as some have argued, that the new Supper is merely a regular ordinance and one to be perpetually observed in his Church, or that the Lord’s Supper as we know it is the creation of Paul. It is in the Pauline account indeed that we have the most express statement of the memorial meaning of the Supper, and of its destination to be observed till Christ come (1 Cor. xi. 24, 25, 26). But, according to a reading which in any case is of primitive origin and is accepted by the Revisers (this do in remembrance of me), the commemorative purpose is indicated by Luke (xxii. 19). The statement in 1 Corinthians and the practice of the Apostolic Church, shew how the Supper was understood by the apostles themselves. It is also difficult to understand why Jesus should have done what Matthew and Mark record him to have done in so solemn a manner, immediately after the celebration of the Paschal meal, in express connexion with that sacred commemorative ordinance, and in terms of a new covenant similar to the old covenant but with a higher meaning, if he had only in view the one occasion and did not intend to institute a regular and enduring rite.

Tradition has fixed upon two spots as the site of the upper room in which the Passover was eaten and the Lord’s Supper instituted, namely, (1) on the side of the mount of Olives, not far from the Church of the Virgin Mary; and (2) on the western hill, usually called Mount Zion. In the mosque occupying a position on the latter a room is to be seen which is described as a large, dreary room of stone, fifty or sixty feet long by some thirty in width. At the east end is a small niche in the wall, which the Christians use at certain seasons as an altar (Robinson, Bibl. Researches, i. 241). The upper room must have been within easy distance of the Garden of Gethsemane. [Salmond, 1906]

xiv. 26. Departure to the Mount of Olives: cf. Matt. xxvi. 30; Luke xxii. 39; John xviii. 1.

26. when they had sung a hymn. Some have supposed this to have been Ps. cxxxvi. But in all probability it was the second part of the Hallel, which was customary to sing at the meal. This consisted of Psalms cxv-cxvii. Some take it to have been the great Hallel, Psalms cxiii-cxviii.

they went out. It was provided by a regulation founded on Exod. xii. 22 that the night after the Paschal meal should be spent in the city. But that seems to have fallen into abeyance or more have been but partially observed.

to the mount of Olives. There would be nothing in this movement to create surprise. They were going in the direction of their usual retreat for the night. [Salmond, 1906]

xiv. 27-31. Announcement of Desertion by the Twelve and Denial by Peter: cf. Matt. xxvi. 31-35; Luke xxii. 31-34; John xiii. 36-38.

27. And Jesus saith unto them. Matthew says more definitely Then saith Jesus (xxvi. 31). The words that follow, therefore, are given by the first two Evangelists as spoken after the party had left the supper-room. Luke and John introduce them as if they had been spoken before. Some have thought that Jesus spoke these first of Peter’s fall, taking the occasions reported respectively by Matthew and Mark, by Luke, and by John to be distinct. Others supposed that there was but one prediction of that event, namely, that reported by Luke and John, Matthew and Mark being understood to give it in the order of ideas rather than in that of precise time. There is nothing unreasonable, however, in supposing that the announcement was made twice, first when the party were yet in the room, and again when they were on the way. This would be quite in harmony, indeed, both with the circumstances and with Peter’s character.

offended. Jesus had often spoken of offences or stumblings (Matt. xxiv. 10; Mark iv. 17, ix. 42; Luke vi. 23; John xvi. 1), and had delivered solemn counsels of the subject both to those hostile to him and to uncertain, vulnerable followers (Matt. xx. 12; Mark vi. 3; John vi. 67). These warnings are directed now to the Twelve themselves. With what feelings must they have heard them, all unconscious as they were of disloyalty!for it is written. The dark prediction is sealed by the testimony of Scripture. The passage that follows is taken, with some modification, from Zechariah (xiii. 7). In the shepherd against whom the sword was called to awake Jesus sees a representation of himself, the true Shepherd of the sheep, divinely appointed, but also devoted to death. [Salmond, 1906]

after I am raised up. Another explicit announcement of his resurrection, turning the darkness of the prediction of his death into the light of a new hope.

to before you into Galilee. The Twelve would naturally return to their own northern parts when all was over. The assurance that he would be there before them when he is meant to relieve them of the gloom into which the thought of his death casts them, and to make the promise of his resurrection more real to them (Matt. xxviii. 6; Mark xvi. 7). [Salmond, 1906]

But Peter said unto him. The eager, impulsive, warm hearted Apostle cannot bear the thought of such cowardly faithlessness. For himself, at any rate, he will have nothing of it, and the haste of his confident love he breaks out into hot, impetuous words of repudiation. The protestation is given substantially in the same form by Matthew. In Luke the terms are somewhat different, as the forswearing itself is more pointed and circumstantial (xxii. 31-34). The differences in John’s narrative, too, are considerable, and point (together with Luke’s account) to a different occasion (xiii. 36-38). [Salmond, 1906]

thou to-day, even this night, before the cock crow twice, shalt deny me thrice. Notice the significant thou corresponding to Peter’s I, rightly placed at the beginning by the R.V., though omitted by the A.V. In Matthew it is simply before the cock crow, or rather, before a cock crow, that is, before day begins to dawn. In Mark the declaration is made sharper and more pointed by the more precise statement of time (to-day, even this night) and the mention of the twice, the two successive notes that might make him pause. Cock-crowing is identified with the third of the four night watches. That watch, extending from midnight till about 3 a.m., is called the cock-crowing in this Gospel (xiii. 35). The first cock-crowing, less certain than the second, might be about midnight; the second towards 3 a.m., or at earliest daybreak. [Salmond, 1906]

But he spake exceeding vehemently. The words imply that he went on protesting, and with the greater heat. The Lord’s words disconcerted and mortified him, and made him assert himself the more.

And in like manner also said they all. This is stated also in Matthew, though not in Luke and John. It is what might have been expected. The rest could have little idea as Peter of a trial that would turn the devotion of which they were conscious at the time into timid, selfish flight. They would be as ready to deny the possibility as he was, and his passionate assertions would provoke them to speak as he did, if they had not already made their protest. [Salmond, 1906]

xvi. 32-42. The Agony in the Garden: cf. Matt. xxvi. 36-46. Luke xxii. 40-46; also John xviii. 1. The fullest accounts of this momentous scene are given by Matthew and Mark. John does not record the Agony. Luke gives a brief narrative, which says nothing of the choice of the three, and speaks only of one time of prayer. On the other hand, he alone, introduces the statements about the strengthening angel and the bloody sweat. The two verses, however, containing these statements (xxii. 43, 44), though they have a place in the text of the R.V. as well as in that of the A.V., are omitted by some of the most important of our ancient documents, and are of uncertain authority here.

32. And they come unto a place which was named Gethsemane. It is not stated when the party left the upper room or when they arrived at this place. But as the ceremonial of the Paschal meal began probably soon after 6 p.m., and lasted some hours, it might be about midnight before the Twelve were here. Luke speaks of the place as the mount of Olives (xxii. 39), and John speaks of it as a garden across the brook Kidron (xviii. 1). Matthew and Mark give the name Gethsemane, a word meaning oil-press, and indicate by the term they use for place that it was an enclosed piece of ground, as the margin of the R.V. explains. It seems, therefore, to have been an olive orchard; and even if it were a private enclosure or farm it could be entered without difficulty and without attracting notice. For during the Paschal season houses and gardens were open to the public. The traditional site is some fifty yards beyond the bridge across the Kidron. There a plot of ground presents itself, surrounded by a stone wall and having within it eight olive trees. These trees are so ancient that many have imagined them to be the very trees on which our Lord looked, although that is rendered the more doubtful by Josephus’s statement that during the siege of Jerusalem by Titus all the trees in the neighbourhood were cut down (Jewish War, vi. 1, 1). Be that as it may, these trees, standing there in the majesty of their age and the pathos of their decay, are worthy of being used if they stand on the site of the former garden—the sacred of their race on the face of the earth, their gnarled trunks and scanty foliage always regarded as the most affecting of the sacred memorials in all Jerusalem. Whether the modern Gethsemane really occupies the site of the ancient garden, however, is still a point of a few. In any case the former garden must be far from the latter.

Sit ye here, while I pray. Prayer, solemnly, was the supposed meeting of Jesus with the cross now in view, and with the anticipation, we may reverently believe, of the conflict which must follow. The Gethsemane prayer is preparatory to the conflict that he will face, for that he sought  this place which, while near the highway, yet gave opportunity of seclusion.

From John (xviii. 1) we gather that the Eleven went with Jesus into the enclosure. But eight of them were bidden stay at the entrance, and only the three who had been chosen before for the most privileged fellowship were taken further within. [Salmond, 1906]

began to be greatly amazed. The inward conflict was immediately upon him, and it was so severe that the Evangelists seem to exhaust the vocabulary of struggle and dread in order to express it. Greatly amazed, says Mark, using a word peculiar to himself in the N.T., and expressing here the pain of a great shock as elsewhere the excess of an awe that surprises or overpowers (Mark ix. 15, xvi. 5, 6).

and sore troubled. Another expressive word, occurring only here, in the parallel in Matthew (xxvi. 37), and once in Paul (Phil. ii. 26). It expresses, as it is well put by Swete, the distress which follows a great shock, the confused, restless, half-distracted state (Lightfoot) which may be worse than the sharp pain of a fully realized sorrow. Matthew gives sorrowful and sore troubled. [Salmond, 1906]

And he saith unto them. The three are with him, therefore, thus far, seeing all; and to them he utters the sorrow that distracts him within, his human soul craving to unburden itself to others.

My soul. Here the word soul, so often used as equivalent to life, has the more definite sense of the seat of the feelings and emotions, the centre of all pleasure and pain. So it is also in John xii. 27, but nowhere else so distinctly in the N.T.

exceeding sorrowful even unto death. So also in Matthew (cf. Ps. xlii. 5, 6, 7, liii. 5; 1. ‘Unto death,’ that is, a sorrow that kills, a sorrow that strains life to the point of extinction.

abide ye here, and watch. In the agonizing passages of men crave at once solitude and sympathy. Jesus must be alone; but he knows that he has the inner-meaning enough to be witnesses of his anguish, and he would have their sympathy also, their fellowship in watchful preparation for the impending trial. [Salmond, 1906]

And he went forward a little. Luke gives it more precisely as about a stone’s cast (xxii. 41).  There was a deep in this sorrow that even the three could not enter, a stress in this conflict which even they could not share. So Abraham separated himself from his young men, and went alone with Isaac yonder to worship in his dread trial (Gen. xxii. 5).

fell on the ground. On his face, says Matthew (xxvi. 39); Luke states simply that he kneeled down (xxii. 41), a natural attitude and a common one in earnest prayer (Acts vii. 60; ix. 40, xx. 36, xxvi. 5).

that, if it were possible, the hour might pass away from him. The strenuousness, the agony of his petition is in this cry, if it were possible. The hour, that is, the appointed hour, the time ordained for him in his Father’s counsel, and foreseen by himself. He prayed that, if this must come, it might come and go without its anticipated woe. This phrase the hour, his hour occurs repeatedly in the Fourth Gospel, in more than one application, but usually with reference to his death (John ii. 4, vii. 30, viii. 20, xii. 23, 27, xiii. 1, xvii. 1). [Salmond, 1906]

Abba, Father. Two words, Aramaic and Greek, having the same sense. But the second is not a mere explanation of the first given for the benefit of non-Jewish readers. Rather it is the double title the utterance of deep emotion. Strong feeling is apt to express itself in reduplicating terms; and in the case of those who had access to speech at times in an acquired tongue, it is the fond vernacular that springs first to the lips in moments of profound or agitated feeling. See how the new filial feeling towards God is expressed according to Paul (Rom. viii. 15; Gal. iv. 6). Perhaps the double term had become a familiar form in prayer among the Palestinian Jews. Only Mark introduces this Abba, Father, and the only other occurrences of this twofold name of God are those in the Pauline Epistles.

remove this cup from me. The figure of the cup was used before, but then, too, with reference to his sufferings. See on x. 38.

howbeit not what I will, but what thou wilt. The longing, natural to humanity, to escape pain and sorrow yields to that which is superior all other desires. So Jesus had a real humanity capable of a conflict with the Divine. It is the problem of theology to relate this distinct human will to his higher nature, so as neither to take from the integrity of his humanity nor to ascribe to him a double personality. [Salmond, 1906]

findeth them sleeping. After this first crisis of prayer he seeks again the fellowship of the three, but finds them asleep, his charge to watch all forgotten.

Simon, sleepest thou? He selects the one of the apostles who had been loudest in protestation, and from whom more was expected, and calls him not Peter, but Simon. There was reproach in the use of the old name instead of the new name of grace and office.

one hour. Even so brief a space as that—only the third part of one of the watches of the night. The foremost of the apostles had not the strength even for that! Luke explains the sleep of these as due to sorrow (xxii. 45); and that it is due to nature. Heavy sorrow soon brings exhaustion with it and deadened sensibility. [Salmond, 1906]

Watch and pray, that ye enter not. or, as in the margin of the R.V., Watch ye, and pray that ye enter not. According to the former rendering, they are charged (the three being now addressed, and not Simon only) both to be wakeful and to pray, that by these two things, wakefulness and prayer, they may be kept from giving themselves away to temptation. According to the latter they are to be wakeful, and to make deliverance from temptation the subject of their prayers. Watchfulness and prayer are meant to serve each other. So Peter speaks of the former (using for it another term) as having the latter as its end and object (1 Pet. iv. 7). From Luke it would appear that Jesus had already charged this duty of praying against temptation upon them when he came to the garden, and before he went apart into his deeper solitude (xxii. 40).

temptation. The great, inclusive term for all those things by which man is tried and proved, whether by God through pain and sorrow, or by Satan through his varied solicitations to sin, or by the evil that is in man himself.

the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. The Lord’s apology for human nature even when, in the best, it fails and disappoints. He knows how insufficient the instrument is through which the spirit has to work. To understand all that these two things, flesh and spirit, mean, we turn to the Epistles of Paul and everywhere the spirit is that which gives life and links with God; a significant term in the N.T., but with a meaning once deeper and higher in the N.T. The flesh, however, the flesh is the note of man’s limitations. In the O.T. the designation of his dependence, of his frailty, and mortality; in the N.T. the weakness of his nature; as it now is, but also more definitely of its sinfulness, its opposition to God, its disinclination to good. [Salmond, 1906]

they wist not what to answer him. The second time he finds them faster asleep than before, and less masters of themselves when aroused. They were in a helpless, speechless daze. It was a recurrence of their experience on the Mount of Transfiguration. There sudden fear, there sorrow, brought on them a drowsiness against which they could not struggle, and an incapacity of utterance. [Salmond, 1906]

Sleep on now, and take your rest. On the third occasion he says nothing more of watching, but bids them sleep and rest; for the time for watchfulness was gone, so far as concerned the present emergency. There is more than resigned permission of the slumber which had its excuse in the weariness of nature. There is sorrowful irony in the words. Jesus had already employed this weapon of gentle irony (Mark vii. 9). Nor is there anything incongruous in his use of it, even at this most solemn moment of conflict, prayer, and dread anticipation. Irony is not inconsistent even with the deepest anguish of soul, especially in cases where such anguish is also accompanied with such clearness of judgement as we find in the present instance; and consider what it was for Jesus to see such overpowering tendency to sleep on the part of his disciples, and to find everything so different from what he had needed and might have reasonably expected! (Meyer).

It is enough. Better simply, enough! A singular phrase, peculiar to Mark, and scarcely to be found anywhere else indeed in its present use. Its point is by no means clear. It may refer to the Lord’s ironical address: Enough of such expostulation; the time for that is past; the danger is at hand. Or it may refer, as most take it, to the slumber of the disciples: But enough of it; it is the time for action. So this phrase changes. He had once more, in the short, practical sentence which follows, the expression of sorrowful irony gives way again to that deep earnestness. In the short, rapid, broken sentences the full import of the crisis—enough! the hour is come; the Son of man is betrayed, arise, let us going — express his quick, agitated sense of the crisis.

 into the hands of sinners. The members of the Sanhedrin,those official Jews who had schemed for his life and would have him in their hands now, are specially intended. [Salmond, 1906]

Arise, let us be going. Certainly not with a view to flight, but to meet the decisive hour and face the betrayer. The three disciples were still prostrate on the ground, but awake. He has been standing by them, and now bids them rise and go with him. John states explicitly that Jesus went forth and met Judas and his band (xviii. 1).

The accounts which the Synoptic Gospels give of this profound and painful passage in our Lord’s experience have the unmistakable stamp of reality, and differ wholly from what myth or legend might have produced. They record an Agony, which did not consist in physical suffering, nor yet in mental pain of an ordinary kind. It cannot be explained as due simply to the defeat of his hopes, his disappointment with his friends, or anything of that kind. It is caused by the anticipation of his Passion; but it cannot be understood as the mere recoil of a sensitive spirit from the prospect of death. If that were all, then we should have to say that the Lord himself was inferior to many of his followers in courage, serenity, and endurance. Can those intense supplications, those swayings to and fro in perturbed and sorrowful feeling, be adequately understood unless we see in him of whom they are reported one who stood in a peculiar relation to God and to man, the sinless one realizing as no other could what death and sin are, and himself suffering for others? [Salmond, 1906]

straightway, while he yet spake, cometh Judas. The words, Arise, let us be going: behold, he that betrayeth me is at hand, were upon the lips of Jesus, when Judas burst in. He had acted promptly, and had made his way easily and quickly to the spot. He was familiar with the place, as John tells us (xviii. 2), and had no doubt been often in it with Jesus and his fellow apostles.

one of the twelve. The tragic note in the designation of the traitor, clinging to him as Judas, and given here again, as alluded in verse 10, by all the three Synoptics; cf. also John vi. 71.

with him a multitude with swords and staves. Judas ‘went before them,’ says Luke (xxii. 47), acting as guide to a crowd sent by the chief members of the Sanhedrin, armed against resistance with short swords and clubs or cudgels, such weapons as could be hastily collected. It was an irregular body of men, probably made up in the main of the Levitical guards, but supported by a detachment of Roman soldiers from the castle of Antonia. John mentions explicitly the band or cohort of soldiers (xviii. 3), whose services the Jewish authorities may have secured by making a representation to Pilate. These guards and Roman soldiers were accompanied also by servants of the high priest and others, as is implied in verses 47, 51, including, as it appears from Luke (xxii. 52), even members of the Sanhedrin. [Salmond, 1906]

had given them a token. This had been arranged before they started, therefore, and it was Judas’s own proposal. The concerted signal was the usual salute given to a Rabbi—a kiss.

take him, and lead him away safely. ‘Seize him’, or ‘arrest him’, and carry him off in custody. So eager was Judas that the capture should be effected immediately and securely. [Salmond, 1906]

straightway he came to him. Judas himself lost no time in carrying out his part of the base contract. So soon as he saw Jesus he addressed him by the usual name Rabbi, and gave him the customary salute, perhaps with more than usual fervour: the word used here, kissed him, more perhaps mean kissed him much (cf. the margin of the R.V.). Mark says nothing of any words directed to Judas. Matthew represents Jesus as saying to the traitor, Friend, do that for which thou art come (xxvii. 50). Luke gives the words, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? (xxii. 48). John omits the incident of the kiss, and reports Jesus as going forth to meet the crowd and putting to them the question, Whom seek ye? (xviii. 4). [Salmond, 1906]

But a certain one of them. John tells us it was Simon Peter (xxviii. 10).

drew his sword.  A short sword or knife. Luke tells us that the eleven had two swords with them (xxii. 38), and also that when they saw what was likely to happen they asked him whether they might not use the weapon to repel the assailants xxii. 49) Peter, in his impetuous character, drew his sword, and smote his impulse, and struck at once in his Master’s defense.

the servant of the high priest. All the Evangelists record this, but only John gives the name, Malchus—by no means an unusual name. John, being acquainted with the high priest, may have at once recognized the man, who probably was taking a foremost part in the seizure.

struck off his ear. The right ear, according to Luke and John. Neither the remonstrance of Jesus nor the healing of the ear is recorded by Mark. The former is given by the other three Evangelists, though in different terms (Matt. xxvi. 52; Luke xxii. 51; John xviii. 11). The latter is reported only by Luke (xxii. 51). [Salmond, 1906]

Are ye come out, as against a robber? A protest against a kind of action which was fitter for a brigand or highwayman than for a religious teacher such as he was; one, too, who had been speaking publicly day after day in the temple, whose character and doctrine were known to all, and who had given them abundant opportunity of apprehending him there, if they had had cause. [Salmond, 1906]

that the scriptures might be fulfilled. Referring probably to such passages as Isa. liii. [Salmond, 1906]

And they all left him, and fled. That is, all the eleven, the three and their comrades. Peter, however, soon followed him again, though afar off (Mark xiv. 54), and also John (xviii. 15). [Salmond, 1906]

a certain young man followed with him. Many vain conjectures have been hazarded as to who this young man was, e.g., supposing him to have been James the Just; others, Saul of Tarsus, attracted by curiosity; others, John; others, a youth from some rural part of the neighbourhood from the house in which the Passover meal had been eaten. The most probable conjecture is that he was the Evangelist himself. This would explain, it is thought, why the name is not given, and why an incident like this, which has a purely personal interest and stands in no essential relation to the arrest, is introduced in the Second Gospel, and into it alone. The narrative title leaves all uncertain.

 having a linen cloth about him. The word ‘cloth’ here means a wrap or shirt. It may have been a light summer square ‘hastily caught up’ (Swete), or rather a nightdress. The young man, therefore, may have been a disciple, but he was not one of the Twelve, nor one of those who had been in the supper-room or near the garden. He seems to have been raised out of sleep by the noise of the crowd as it passed, and to have rushed out to discover what the uproar meant. The Evangelist does not tell us exactly where this happened—whether the young man had made his way along with the multitude into Gethsemane, or had met Jesus in the street after the apprehension. [Salmond, 1906]

left the linen cloth, and fled naked. Recognizing the person in the hands of the band to be Jesus, to whose teaching he probably had listened with interest and to whom he had become in a certain measure devoted, he at once joined him and followed with him.* But his courage sank when his obtrusive sympathy he had into hands being laid upon himself, and he fled as precipitately as he had come. The A.V. designates the partisans who would have laid hold of him the young men, but without sufficient documentary authority. [Salmond, 1906]

xiv. 53-65. The Trial before the High Priest: cf. Matt. xxvi. 57-68; Luke xxii. 54, 63-71; see also John xviii. 12-14, 19-24.

53. And they led Jesus away to the high priest. John insists that they first bound him. The three Synoptists agree in stating that they led him straight from Gethsemane to the high priest, or to his house. Mark and Luke do not give at this point the name of the high priest. Matthew says to the house of Caiaphas the high priest (xxvi. 57); John says that they led him to Annas first, and gives a reason for this: the fact that Annas was father-in-law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that year (xviii. 13). The order of events, therefore, would seem to be this—after Jesus was taken first to Annas; then he was sent by Annas to Caiaphas; and when he was brought before the Sanhedrin, and tried and condemned. Annas was high priest, though only a former high priest, and Caiaphas, or Joseph Caiaphas, the office in the A.C. 18-36. It was the part, therefore, of Caiaphas actual holder of the office at the time, to conduct any official inquiry. If Jesus, then, was subjected to any examination by Annas, it must have been an informal and preliminary inquiry, and made by Annas on the ground of his experience and influence and special relation to the responsible official. It is possible that he was living at the time with his son-in-law, occupying with him the official residence, if there was such.there come together with him. It was still very early in the morning, but already the whole body of the chief priests and representatives of the other orders in the Sanhedrin had been flocking to the house, and now they came with him, that is, along with Jesus himself, at the very time he was being led in. [Salmond, 1906]

Peter had followed him afar off. Peter had been carried off with the rest in the sudden panic, but had soon turned back, and had followed at some distance.

into the court. He had even gone within, into the open court, from which the rooms of the residence were built. He owned his admission to the fact that he was with John, who was known unto the high priest (John xvii. 15).

was sitting with the officers. Probably with the Levitical guards, who had brought the prisoner in and were now seeking the welcome heat of the fire. For the nights are cold in Jerusalem, and especially so in the watch preceding sunrise.

in the light of the fire. Thus the more exposed to recognition. This touch is peculiar to Mark. While Peter, who had made his way within in his anxiety to see the end (Matt. xxvi. 58), sits there by the charcoal fire (John xviii. 18), which had been lit in the midst of the court (Luke xxii. 55), his Master stood before the Jewish authorities in one of the rooms above (cf. verse 56). [Salmond, 1906]

the chief priests and the whole council. It was, therefore, a full meeting of the great national council, presided over by Caiaphas. Mark, along with Matthew and Luke, omits particular details of the earlier, preparatory inquiry before Annas, which is recorded by John. There is nothing in the Synoptic narratives, however, to exclude the occurrence of such an inquiry. In like manner John omits all the particulars of this trial before the Sanhedrin, though he refers to it (xxii. 24).

sought witness. Comparing the several narratives, we may conclude that Jesus had first been questioned by Annas, in consistency with the nature of a private inquiry, about matters of a more general kind—’his disciples and his teaching’ (John xviii. 19); that when he was brought before Caiaphas, the effort was made to prove him guilty of a capital offence; that with that object witnesses had been got together, first one set and then another, who were prepared to give false testimony or to turn some of his earlier words against him; but that their evidence utterly broke down; and that then Caiaphas questioned him as to his Messianic claims, and condemned him on the ground of these. [Salmond, 1906]

their witness agreed not together. There were many witnesses, but no two of the first set gave the same evidence. According to the Mosaic Law it required the consistent testimony of two witnesses in order to establish a capital charge (Deut. xix. 15). [Salmond, 1906]

And there stood up certain. The court, however, had a second set of witnesses in reserve. They were two in number, as Matthew states (xxvi. 60), and now the court seemed likely to succeed in its object. But again they failed. [Salmond, 1906]

We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands. The charge was that he had made a statement in disparagement of the Temple, and as if he would overthrow it. They founded it on the words which he spoke at the beginning of his ministry regarding the temple of his body (John ii. 19). These words were misunderstood at the time. They were now misrepresented by these two witnesses, when they reported him to have said, ‘I am able to destroy’ (Matt. xxvi. 61), ‘I will destroy’ (Mark xiv. 58), instead of ‘Destroy …’ and ‘I will raise it up’ (John ii. 19), and to have contrasted the existing temple as one ‘made with hands’ with another which he himself was to build in three days and ‘without hands.’ This, therefore, again was false testimony; and in giving it the two witnesses did not even agree. The statement of the two is given in a briefer form by Matthew. It is omitted by Luke and John. It meant one of the heaviest accusations that could be brought by one Jew against another. Stephen was afterwards charged with speaking against the ‘holy place and the law, on the ground that he had been heard say that ‘this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered unto us’ (Acts vi. 13, 14). [Salmond, 1906]

the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus. Seeing the case as it had been carefully prepared breaking utterly down, and chagrined at the silence of Jesus, Caiaphas wished to get the accused himself to interpose, and ‘stood up in the midst’ (another of Mark’s graphic touches) in order to extract something from him which might be turned to use. [Salmond, 1906]

he held his peace. He had nothing to say to perjured witnesses who refuted themselves.

Again the high priest asked him. Caiaphas, in his disappointment and perplexity, makes a second attempt to draw Jesus into speech that might compromise him and help the futile case. Now he asks him directly whether he claimed to be the Messiah.
Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? According to Matthew, in putting this second question Caiaphas called upon Jesus to answer it as on oath—’I adjure thee by the living God’ (xxvi. 63). ‘The living God,’ that is, the God who can punish the false and perjured (Heb. x. 31). The terms of the question, ‘the Son of God’ (Matt.), ‘the Son of the Blessed’ (Mark), imply the Divine Sonship of the Messiah. The name given by Mark, ‘the Blessed,’ is used nowhere else in the N.T. in this absolute and undefined way. It heightens, if possible, the idea of the unapproachable majesty of God, and sharpens, therefore, the blasphemy involved in the claim made by any man to be in the relation of Son to God. [Salmond, 1906]

And Jesus said, I am. In Matthew, ‘Thou hast said’ (xxvi. 64). At last Caiaphas succeeds, and Jesus breaks his silence. For now it is not a question of false and discordant evidence, but a direct challenge to declare himself, and the moment has come when his Messiahship, long held in reserve, should be openly asserted.

and ye shall see the Son of man sitting. In Matthew the words take the more definite form—’Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man, that is, from that very time onwards (xxvi. 64). Not only is the Messiahship declared, but one of the highest of the prerogatives of the Messiah, that of judgement, is claimed. It is his affirmation of his future exaltation, his note of warning to his judges. His weakness was henceforth to be power; his dishonour was to be glory; and the arraigned one was to be the Judge. The words recall those of Daniel (vii. 13) and Psalm cx, which were interpreted in a Messianic sense. ‘By the reference to well-known prophecy respecting the Messiah, Jesus made his claim as bold and plain as words could make it. This was a representation of the Messiah as the Founder of a kingdom that should take the place of the ancient world-powers, and should continue for ever’ (Clarke). And they would themselves come to perceive this, for from the time of that death which they designed for him they would see evidences of his Messianic power. [Salmond, 1906]

rent his clothes. Rending one’s clothes was an ancient sign of passionate sorrow, as in the case of Jacob (Gen. xxxvii. 29). It also became the sign of horror or extreme vexation, as in the case of Eliakim, Shebna, and Joah (2 Kings xviii. 37). It was provided by the Levitical Law that the high priest should not let his hair go loose or rend his clothes (Lev. x. 6, xxi. 10). But this prohibition had regard only to ordinary mourning, not to official acts (cf. 1 Macc. xi. 71; Joseph. Jewish War, ii. xv. 4). ‘The pain of the high priest no doubt represented the genuine vexation of one who was deeply moved; but the judgement which he formed regarding Jesus was based on the assumption that he was not the Messiah, and indicates a predisposition to find him guilty of the capital charge’ (Meyer).

What further need have we of witnesses? Caiaphas sees his way clear now, all the trouble in securing presentable evidence gone, and the Prisoner incriminated by his own confession. [Salmond, 1906]

what think ye? There is no thought of inquiring into his Messianic claims, as there had been no thought of hearing exculpatory evidence earlier. Caiaphas calls for the vote of the court, and in the Sanhedrin the answer was simply ‘for life’ or ‘for death.’

they all condemned him to be worthy of death. Legally the Jewish court had no power to give effect to a sentence of death. That was reserved for the Roman authority. But the Jewish court could declare one liable to the death penalty, and have their decision confirmed. The members were at one in their judgement. We may infer that men like Joseph of Arimathæa, who ‘had not consented to their counsel and deed’ (Luke xxiii. 51), and Nicodemus, who at an earlier date had put to the Pharisees the question, ‘Doth our law judge a man, except it first hear from himself and know what he doeth?’ (John vii. 50, 51), were not present or took no part in the proceedings. The penalty for blasphemy, according to the Mosaic Law, was death, the Jewish mode of carrying it out being by stoning (Lev. xxiv. 16; 1 Kings xxi. 10; John x. 30; Acts vii. 58). [Salmond, 1906]

some began to spit on him. There would be a pause after the giving of the verdict of guilty of death, and the authorities would have to consider further procedure (cf. Matt. xxvii. 1). Some time would elapse before Jesus was removed and steps taken to get the sentence confirmed. During this interval Jesus would be exposed to those outrages which it was customary to inflict on a condemned prisoner in those days. The ‘some’ who indulged in these indignities must have been certain members of the Sanhedrin or the guards who held Jesus. Spitting was a Jewish way of shewing utmost contempt and abhorrence (cf. Num. xii. 14; Deut. xxv. 9). Seneca notices it as an exceptional thing that a man was found to spit in the face of Aristides the Just at Athens when he was brought to punishment. Luke introduces these indignities as if they had taken place before the meeting of the council (xxii. 63-65).

and to cover his face. The Romans were in the habit of covering the heads of condemned criminals. This is omitted by Matthew.

and to buffet him. That is, to strike him with the fist. The word is used twice by Paul (1 Cor. iv. 11; 2 Cor. xii. 7), and once by Peter (1 Pet. ii. 20). In ancient times Micaiah the prophet had been smitten on the cheek by Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah (1 Kings xxii. 24).

and to say unto him, Prophesy. Matthew makes the meaning of this clearer—’Prophesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee?’ (xxvi. 68).

and the officers: or ‘attendants,’ those, namely, of the Sanhedrin. They followed the evil example of the members of the council, but had their own way of expressing their passion.

received him with blows of their hands: or, as in the margin of the R.V., ‘with strokes of rods.’ The word means either strokes with sticks, or slaps in the face with the open hand. The fact that this form of abuse seems to be distinguished from the buffeting points to the former. Cf. Isa. i. 6. [Salmond, 1906]

xiv. 66–72. Peter’s Denials: cf. Matt. xxvi. 69–75; Luke xxii. 56–62; John xviii. 25–27.

66. And as Peter was beneath in the court. ‘An oriental house 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, kept by a porter’ (Robinson, Harmony, 225); The ‘court,’ or, as it is variously rendered in the A.V., the ‘palace’ or the ‘hall,’ is this interior area, open to the sky, and in the present case no doubt paved. Here the fire had been lit by the servants, and here Peter stood, while his Master was before the high priest in the regular council-chamber or in some other audience-room somewhat higher than the central area and looking into it. The palace of the high priest was on the north-east corner of mount Zion. So Peter was ‘beneath’ as Mark says, and ‘without’ as Matthew notices.

one of the maids. One of the slave-girls employed in the high priest’s household; the term used also of Rhoda (Acts xii. 13), and of the soothsaying girl at Philippi (Acts xvi. 16). [Salmond, 1906]

seeing Peter warming himself, she looked upon him. John speaks of the maid ‘that kept the door’ (xviii. 17). The portress, therefore, as it seems, had noticed Peter when she gave him admission at John’s request; her attention had been attracted to him again as he stood in the light of the fire. Looking observingly upon him, and recognizing him, she crossed from the gate to where he was standing, and charged him with being with Jesus. The words of the maid are given with considerable variation by the several Evangelists, but with the same sense. The form in Mark, ‘the Nazarene—Jesus,’ admirably reproduces the hasty, broken exclamation of the maid. [Salmond, 1906]

neither know, nor understand. Peter’s reply is given in various forms in the four reports, but again with substantially the same sense. The double negation in Mark reflects the precipitancy and absoluteness of the denial. Peter disowns all knowledge of the Nazarene, all consciousness even of what the charge meant. The margin of the R.V. brings this out still more forcibly: ‘I neither know, nor understand; thou, what sayest thou?’

into the porch. His uneasiness and embarrassment make him change his position from the brightness of the fire to the darkness of the vestibule or passage that led from the street-door to the court.

and the cock crew. This clause is omitted by some of the best and most ancient of our documentary authorities. [Salmond, 1906]

And the maid saw him. The four reports differ in the particulars of Peter’s denials, as regards the persons and the positions as well as the terms of the accusations and the replies. It is difficult, therefore, to construct an entirely consistent narrative, or to say with certainty at what point or even in what place the various denials occurred. The second charge or question is stated by Matthew to have been made by ‘another maid’; by Mark, by the same maid as is first introduced; while John’s version is, ‘they said therefore unto him’ (xviii. 25). If we follow Mark’s account, it will appear that the maid who ‘kept the door’ had returned to her post of duty in the porch, and repeated her charge there, directing the attention of the people who stood about to Peter. But in the several narratives it is plain that it is not deemed important to specify who addressed Peter; the important point is his denials. The matter may very naturally be thus arranged: the damsel who first accused him, silenced for the time, but not satisfied with his denial, speaks to another maidservant and points out Peter to her as one whom she knew or believed to be a disciple, and the other maid repeats it. Others, hearing the women, also join with them, perhaps dimly remembering his person, or now noting something peculiar in his manner. That, under the circumstances and in the excitement of the moment, such an accusation, once raised, should be echoed by many, is what we should expect. During the confusion of this questioning Peter returns again to the fire in the interior of the court where most were standing, and there repeats with an oath his denial’ (Andrews, The Life of our Lord, p. 520). [Salmond, 1906]

But he again denied it. Matthew tells us that this second denial was uttered ‘with an oath.’

And after a little while. So also Matthew. But Luke gives the interval more explicitly as ‘after the space of about one hour’ (xxii. 59).

they that stood by. So also in Matthew; Luke gives simply ‘another.’ John notices that at this point the accusation against Peter was made in the most definite terms by a slave related to Malchus, who could confirm all that had been said by others: ‘One of the servants of the high priest, being a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?’ (xviii. 26).

for thou art a Galilean. ‘Thy speech bewrayeth thee,’ says Matthew. The people of Northern Palestine had peculiarities of speech by which they were easily distinguished from those of Judæa. Their speech had a certain roughness or thickness, and they had difficulty in pronouncing the gutturals and the th sounds. [Salmond, 1906]

he began to curse, and to swear. To ‘curse,’ that is, to call down an anathema upon himself if his denials were not true (cf. Acts xxiii. 12). Caught at his weakest moment, when his moral courage was lowered and confused by surprise and the shock of a dire disappointment, and drawn by the force of circumstances too strong for him at the time from one false step to another, Peter plunges, desperate and reckless, into this last depth of falsehood and disloyalty. [Salmond, 1906]

straightway the second time the cock crew. ‘Immediately, while he yet spake,’ says Luke (xxii. 60). It was at the very moment of the utterance of his third denial, when the oaths and curses were yet upon his lips, that Peter heard the fateful cock-crow that again changed all for him.

called to mind. For the time he had forgotten what Jesus had said in forewarning him. Now it leaps back into his recollection, and breaks him down. Luke alone notices the fact that ‘the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter’ (xxii. 61).

when he thought thereon. The Greek word is of uncertain meaning. It has been variously rendered ‘he turned his eyes on Jesus’ (but it was Jesus who turned his eye on Peter); ‘he began’ i.e. to weep; ‘he continued weeping’; ‘he added weeping to weeping’; ‘he flung himself forth’; ‘he drew his mantle over his head.’ But the most probable rendering is that adopted both by the A.V. and by the R.V., ‘he thought thereon.’he wept. The word expresses loud continual weeping. The Master’s word of warning which had rushed back into Peter’s memory was thought over. As its pathetic circumstances and all that it meant rose upon his mind he was utterly broken, and ‘went out,’ as Luke tells us, to be alone with himself in tearful, passionate penitence. [Salmond, 1906]