VII. THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION NARRATIVE (14:1–16:8[9–20])
OVERVIEW
The conflict of Jesus with the religious leaders, which in Mark’s gospel begins as early as 2:1–3:6, reaches its climax in the passion narrative and is followed by the triumph of the resurrection announcement on Easter morning. Already in 3:6, the Pharisees and Herodians had begun to plot to take Jesus’ life. Now their plans come to fruition. Yet this development is no defeat for Jesus but rather the goal to which he has been heading (10:45). The importance of the passion and resurrection for the early church is evidenced by the relatively large amount of space the narrative takes in each of the gospels and especially in Mark. Out of Mark’s 661 verses, 128 are devoted to the passion and resurrection account, and a total of 242 are devoted to the last week (from the triumphal entry to the resurrection) of Jesus’ life. The church obviously had more than a passing historical interest in Jesus’ death and resurrection. These events formed the basis of the church’s witness and worship—the lifeblood of early Christianity. The witnessing church proclaimed a crucified and living Savior, and the worshiping church reflected on the meaning of these events for its inner life.
The passion narrative may be divided into two main sections: the events leading to Jesus’ arrest (14:1–52), and his trials, crucifixion, and burial (14:53–15:47). The first section contains the anointing of Jesus at Bethany (14:6–9) intercalated (sandwiched) into the account of the plot against Jesus and his betrayal by Judas (14:1–2, 10–11), the Last Supper (14:17–26), Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denial (14:27–31), the agony in Gethsemane (14:32–42), and the betrayal and arrest (14:43–52). The second section contains Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin (14:53–65), the denial by Peter (14:66–72), the trial before Pilate (15:1–15), the mocking of Jesus (15:16–20), the crucifixion (15:21–32), his death (15:33–41), and his burial (15:42–47). The women’s visit to the tomb and the announcement of the resurrection conclude the gospel (16:1–8).
The overarching theme is the purpose and plan of God. Although from a human perspective, events seem to be spinning out of control, yet God through his agent Jesus is accomplishing his salvation-bringing purpose. This theme, evident already in Jesus’ three passion and resurrection predictions (8:31; 9:31; 10:33–34; cf. 10:45), now plays itself out in the narrative. While wicked men secretly plot Jesus’ death (14:1–2, 10–11), Jesus announces that his body is being anointed for burial (vv.6–9). He knows ahead of time that he will be betrayed (vv.20–21), denied (v.30), struck down as the shepherd (v.27; Zec 13:7) and deserted (v.27). Though deeply dreading this fate, he willingly submits since this is the will of God (v.36).
This overarching theme of divine purpose develops through the (sub)themes of suffering and vindication. The suffering of Jesus is highlighted by: (1) his betrayal (by Judas), desertion (by all the disciples), and denial (by Peter); (2) the injustice and mockery of his trials before the Sanhedrin and Pilate; and finally, (3) the brutality and shame of crucifixion. Through it all Jesus remains faithful and thus confident of vindication by the Father. He tells the disciples, “After I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee” (14:28), and he confidently announces to the high priest at his trial, “You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven” (14:62). Though dying in agony and despair, at his death the temple curtain is torn from top to bottom, and the centurion cries out, “Surely this man was the Son of God!” (15:39). Ultimate vindication follows with the angelic announcement of the resurrection on the third day (16:6), “He has risen!” And on this note, Mark’s gospel—“the good news about Jesus Christ” (1:1)—comes to a close.
Additional comments on chs. 14–15. Whereas much of Mark’s gospel is made up of individual episodes (pericopes) only loosely tied to each other or to their narrative context, Mark’s passion narrative is made up of a series of closely linked episodes that, apparently from the start, functioned as a connected narrative. It is likely that since these events constitute the heart of the Christian gospel (cf. 1Co 15:1–4), they were the first part of the story of Jesus to be written down and circulated as a continuous whole. Lane, 485, notes, “It is commonly recognized that for chs. 14–15 Mark had access to a primitive source, whether oral or written, embodying authentic historical remembrance, which he took over virtually intact.” For extensive bibliography and summary of various source theories, see Evans, 347–53.
A. The Plot to Arrest Jesus (14:1–2)
1Now the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were only two days away, and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some sly way to arrest Jesus and kill him. 2“But not during the Feast,” they said, “or the people may riot.”
COMMENTARY
1–2 These verses serve to introduce the passion and resurrection narrative. Passover is the Jewish festival commemorating the occasion when the angel of the Lord “passed over” (Heb. pāsaḥ) the homes of the Hebrews on the night he killed all the firstborn sons of the Egyptians (cf. Ex 12:13, 23, 27). The lambs used in the feast were slain on the fourteenth of Nisan (March/April), and the meal was eaten that evening between sundown and midnight. According to Jewish reckoning, that day would be the fifteenth of Nisan, since the Jewish day began at sundown. The Feast of Unleavened Bread followed Passover and lasted seven days (15–21 Nisan; cf. Ex 12:15–20; 23:15; 34:18; Dt 16:1–8). Since the Last Supper was probably a Passover meal and took place on Thursday night, the incident reported here likely took place on Wednesday of Passion Week. This calculation keys off the temporal phrase meta duo hēmeras (“after two days”). If “after three days” means “on the third day” (8:31; 9:31; 10:34), then “after two days” would mean “on the second day,” i.e., “tomorrow.” The NIV’s “only two days away” (v.1) is ambiguous and must be understood in accordance with Jewish usage of the temporal phrase.
For a long time the religious authorities had been looking for a way to get rid of Jesus (3:6; 11:18; 12:12). Now they renewed and intensified their efforts. But it was necessary for them to proceed with the utmost caution. Passover was one of the three great pilgrim feasts that adult Jewish males were expected to attend (Tabernacles and Pentecost were the other two). So great throngs of people invaded the Holy City to celebrate. It is said that the population doubled (perhaps from twenty-five thousand to fifty thousand) during the week. The chief priests and teachers of the law (the two main bodies that made up the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high court) realized that it would be too risky to move against Jesus with such a highly excitable crowd present. The possibility of a riot was too great (v.2). It would be wiser to wait for a more opportune moment—perhaps after the pilgrims had left the city to go home. God’s purposes were otherwise, and this part of their plan miscarried. Perhaps the unexpected help from one of Jesus’ disciples (14:10–11) changed their minds, and they decided to go through with their scheme despite the presence of the Passover pilgrims.
2 Population estimates for the city of Jerusalem vary widely among scholars. Jeremias (Jerusalem, 84) suggests twenty thousand in the city and five to ten thousand outside the city. Others claim as many as one hundred twenty thousand, increasing to up to three hundred thousand during Passover (Garland, 513–14, citing W. Reinhardt). Ancient writers are of little help in this regard, since their numbers can be wildly exaggerated. Josephus, for example, claims that three million people came to Jerusalem during Passover (J.W. 2.14.3 §280; 6.9.3 §§423–27).
B. The Anointing at Bethany (14:3–9)
OVERVIEW
Mark places the account of the anointing at Bethany in one of his characteristic “intercalations,” or sandwichings, between the plot of the religious leaders to destroy Jesus in vv.1–2 and the opportunity to achieve that goal through the betrayal by Judas in vv.10–11 (on intercalation, see Introduction, pp. 689–90). The woman’s reverent act of devotion—interpreted by Jesus as a loving anointing for his burial—stands in stark contrast to the treachery of those trying to kill him.
Though regarding this incident Matthew follows Mark’s order, the chronological placement of the narrative is different in John’s gospel, where it appears before Passion Week begins (cf. Jn 12:1: “six days before the Passover”). The most likely explanation is that for Mark the theological significance is more important than the chronological. His placement contrasts the hatred of the religious leaders with the love and devotion of the woman. Although Luke 7:36–50 is similar to John 12:1–8 and Mark 14:3–9, the differences are significant; thus Luke likely records a different incident (see Notes).
3While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.
4Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, “Why this waste of perfume? 5It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages and the money given to the poor.” And they rebuked her harshly.
6“Leave her alone,” said Jesus. “Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. 8She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. 9I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.”
3 The episode takes place at Bethany in the home of Simon “the Leper.” The occasion for the dinner is not specified. Simon’s name probably indicates he was a leper who had been healed—indeed he may have been healed by Jesus. Was the dinner an expression of gratitude for the healing? Mark does not identify the woman who anointed Jesus, but John (12:3) identifies her as Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus (if these are indeed the same events). The “alabaster jar” (alabastros) that contained the perfume was a “vessel with a rather long neck which was broken off when the contents were used” (BDAG, 40). The “nard” (perfume) was made from the root of a plant found chiefly in India and was very expensive. The woman took the bottle and broke the neck so that she could pour the ointment profusely over Jesus’ head.
What was the significance of the anointing? Kings and priests were anointed in Israel, and some commentators have suggested that the woman’s actions carry messianic significance. While they may do so, anointing was also an act of hospitality or devotion for an honored guest, and this explanation better fits the occasion here. For to describe the woman’s action Mark does not use chriō (“anoint”), which would have echoed Jesus’ status as christos, the “Anointed One” (cf. 1:1; 8:29); rather, he uses “poured” (katacheō, v.3) and “anoint with ointment” (myrizō, v.8). The action is not a messianic installation but an act of love and devotion.
4–5 Instead of specifying those who reacted so indignantly at the “waste” of the costly perfume, Mark refers to them generally as “some [tines] of those present” (v.4). Matthew points the finger at the disciples (26:8), while John names Judas Iscariot (12:4–5). John notes that Judas’s comment was motivated not by love for the poor but by greed, since he was the treasurer of the Twelve and would pilfer from the money bag (12:6). No such motivation is mentioned in Mark, where the guests’ indignation arises instead from the extravagant waste. This makes Jesus’ reply in v.6 all the more striking and forces the reader to ponder how an act of devotion could be of greater spiritual value than a huge donation to the poor. The perfume had a value of more than three hundred denarii (one denarius was the average daily wage for a laborer—thus the NIV’s “more than a year’s wages”). Mark uses very strong language to describe the guests’ feelings toward the woman: they “were indignant” (aganakteō; cf. 10:14, 41) and “rebuked her harshly” (embrimaomai; cf. 1:43).
6–7 Jesus rushed to the woman’s defense. Instead of condemning her, the guests should have commended her. Her act was a beautiful expression of love and devotion to him, and she should not be berated. In addition, Jesus would not be with them very long (v.7). Before Jesus lay Gethsemane, his trials, crucifixion, and resurrection. Time for such expression of devotion and love while he was still here was running out. In contrast, opportunities for helping the poor would continue. In Jesus’ statement there is no evidence of a lack of concern for the poor. On the contrary, there is ample evidence elsewhere that their interests and needs lay close to his heart (cf. Mt 5:3; 6:2–4; 19:21; Lk 6:20, 36–38; 21:1–4; Jn 13:29). The point, rather, is that the presence of Jesus in the world and the monumental task he is about to accomplish are of much greater significance than a single act of charity. He is about to change the course of human history by offering himself as a ransom for sins.
8 In addition to being an expression of devotion, the woman’s act was interpreted by Jesus as an anointing of his body in preparation for burial. Was she aware of this aspect of what she was doing? Mark gives no indication that she did. He represents the anointing as a simple act of love and devotion, not one of prophecy or prescience. It is, rather, Jesus who connects the episode to his coming death and so once again predicts his passion.
9 This pronouncement is preceded by the solemn “I tell you the truth” (see comments at 3:28). As in the Olivet Discourse (13:10), Jesus predicts that the gospel will be proclaimed throughout the whole world. In an indirect way Jesus is here predicting his resurrection, because the preaching of the gospel presupposes the resurrection. The central message of the good news is Jesus’ defeat of sin and death through his resurrection. And anywhere in the world that this good news is preached, this woman’s act of love and devotion will be remembered. The incorporation of this story in Mark’s gospel confirms the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction.
NOTES
3 The incident in vv.3–9 should not be confused with that in Luke 7:36–50. The details, except the name Simon, are very different. “The Leper” may be added to Simon’s name to differentiate him from the Simon in Luke 7:36–50, since Simon was a very common name. Plummer, 312, correctly comments: “The difficulty of believing in two anointings is infinitesimal. . . . Whereas the difficulty of believing that Mary of Bethany had ever been ‘a sinner’ is enormous. There is no evidence of a previous evil life, and what we know of her renders a previous evil life almost incredible.”
4 According to Lane, 493, the mention of the poor is natural in this context because it was the custom for the Jews to give gifts to the poor on the evening of the Passover (m. Pesaḥ. 9:11–10:1; cf. Jn 13:29; see Gundry, 811). On the great importance of almsgiving in Judaism, see Jeremias, Jerusalem, 126–34.
C. The Betrayal by Judas (14:10–11)
10Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Jesus to them. 11They were delighted to hear this and promised to give him money. So he watched for an opportunity to hand him over.
COMMENTARY
10–11 As noted above, these verses are related to vv.1–2, with the anointing at Bethany (vv.3–9) sandwiched between the two. The chief priests and teachers of the law were looking for “some sly way to arrest Jesus” (v.1), and Judas “watched for an opportunity to hand him over” (v.11). Judas is identified specifically as “one of the Twelve” (v.10). He had all the advantages of being in the inner circle, yet he betrayed Jesus. Spiritual privilege in itself is not enough. True discipleship requires a response of faith and love.
Judas’s offer to betray Jesus was readily accepted by the chief priests and teachers of the law because Judas, being on the inside, could choose the most opportune time to hand Jesus over to them. In that way they could avoid what they feared the most—a popular riot. It was undoubtedly the offer of Judas—who took the initiative by approaching the religious leaders—that changed their minds about not arresting Jesus during the feast. It was a golden opportunity, and they were not about to lose it. Mark merely mentions that money was involved in the deal (v.11), but Matthew says that the agreed-on payment for the betrayal was thirty silver coins (26:15).
REFLECTIONS
What motivated Judas to betray Jesus? Many guesses have been made—jealousy, greed, disappointment with Jesus’ mission, to name a few. None of the evangelists answer the question. There can be little doubt, however, that Judas was the betrayer. It is not likely that the church would have invented a story in which one of Jesus’ closest followers turns against him.
D. The Last Supper (14:12–26)
OVERVIEW
Mark’s narrative of the Last Supper is comprised of three parts: (1) the preparation of the meal (vv.12–16), (2) the announcement of the betrayal (vv.17–21), and (3) the institution of the Lord’s Supper (vv.22–26). Jesus takes the traditional Jewish Passover celebration and transforms its significance for all time. What was formerly a celebration of Israel’s redemption from slavery in Egypt will become a remembrance and celebration of Jesus’ new-exodus deliverance of his people from the power of sin and Satan. Jesus’ own blood sacrifice—symbolized by the Passover cup of wine—will replace the blood of the lamb placed over the doorpost to protect the firstborn sons of Israel. The covenant sealed with blood, which God made through Moses and Mount Sinai (Ex 24:8), will become the new covenant predicted in Jeremiah 31 and inaugurated by Jesus’ death on the cross.
1. Preparation of the Meal (14:12–16)
12On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”
13So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, “Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him. 14Say to the owner of the house he enters, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 15He will show you a large upper room, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there.”
16The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.
COMMENTARY
12 Ordinarily “the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread” would mean 15 Nisan (Lev 23:6; Nu 28:17), the day following Passover. But the added description of the day—“when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb”—makes it clear that 14 Nisan is meant, because Passover lambs were killed on 14 Nisan. The entire eight-day celebration, including Passover, was sometimes referred to as the Feast of Unleavened Bread (cf. Josephus, Ant. 2.15.1 §317); and there is some evidence that 14 Nisan was loosely referred to as the “first day of Unleavened Bread” (cf. m. Pesaḥ. 1:1–3; Josephus, J.W. 5.3.1 §99).
The day of the week was Thursday. Jesus and his disciples were probably in Bethany. It is clear from v.13 that they were outside the city of Jerusalem. Since the Passover had to be eaten within the walls of the city (m. Pesaḥ. 7:9), the disciples asked Jesus where in Jerusalem they were to go to make preparation. There was no time to lose, for the Passover meal had to be eaten between sundown and midnight, the first hours of 15 Nisan.
13–16 Jesus gave explicit instructions to two of his disciples. Luke identifies the two as Peter and John (Lk 22:8). The “man carrying a jar of water” would easily be identified because customarily women, not men, carried water jars. The man was to lead them to the house where the owner had a guest room (v.14). Mark seems to indicate that Jesus had made previous arrangements with the owner of the house (“Where is my guest room . . . ?” v.14), but it is not altogether clear from Mark’s narrative whether this case was so, or whether Jesus identified the man with the water jar through divine foreknowledge. The upstairs room is described as “furnished and ready” (v.15), i.e., with what was necessary for the celebration: table, couches, cushions, etc. The disciples would have to get the food and prepare it. The meal would include unleavened bread, wine, bitter herbs, sauce, and the lamb. The two disciples went into the city as instructed by Jesus, found everything as he had said, and made the necessary preparations (v.16).
NOTES
12 The word πάσχα (pascha) here means “the Passover lamb” (so NIV). In 14:1 it designates the feast day and in 14:12b, 14, 16 the Passover meal. While Mark and the other Synoptics identify the Last Supper as a Passover meal (Mk 14:16 par.), some commentators have disputed this view and claimed that it was an earlier meal in Passover week (see McKnight, Jesus and His Death, 264–73). John seems to treat it as an ordinary meal before Passover (John 13:2; 18:28) in order to portray Jesus as the Lamb of God crucified on the eve of Passover, when the Passover lambs were sacrificed in Jerusalem (John 19:14, 31, 42). Various solutions have been suggested. Some scholars claim the Passover was celebrated on different days by different groups of Jews (Galileans vs. Judeans; Sadducees vs. Pharisees), or that the massive crowds in Jerusalem required staggered Passover celebrations throughout the week. Others claim that the Johannine phrase παρασκευὴ τοῦπάσχα, paraskeuē tou pascha (“preparation for Passover”), does not mean preparation day for the Passover meal but preparation day for the Sabbath of Passover week (i.e., Friday; see Mk 15:42 for this sense of παρασκευὴ, paraskeuē). Both John and the Synoptics would then have Jesus eating the Passover on Thursday evening and crucified on Friday, the eve of the Sabbath of Passover week. While none of these options are without some difficulties, each represents a plausible solution. For further details, see Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1987), 175–78; Brooks, 224–26.
2. Announcement of the Betrayal (14:17–21)
17When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. 18While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, “I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me.”
19They were saddened, and one by one they said to him, “Surely not I?”
20“It is one of the Twelve,” he replied, “one who dips bread into the bowl with me. 21The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”
COMMENTARY
17 Jesus and his disciples had probably spent the day in Bethany. In the evening they returned to the city. Mark says Jesus “arrived with the Twelve,” thus suggesting that the two disciples, after making preparations, returned to Bethany, a distance of only a couple of miles, and then accompanied Jesus when he went into the city in the evening. The other possibility is that “the Twelve” was a designation for the close followers of Jesus, whether all twelve were present or not. Since the Jewish day began at sundown, it was now Thursday night, 15 Nisan.
18 The Passover meal was originally eaten while standing: “This is how you are to eat it: with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. Eat it in haste; it is the LORD’s Passover” (Ex 12:11). But in Jesus’ time it had become customary to eat it in a reclining position. While Jews normally sat for meals, reclining was the posture for a more formal banquet or celebratory meal. Jesus uses the solemn formula “I tell you the truth” (cf. v.9 and comments at 3:28) to disclose the fact that one of them would betray him.
Jesus further identified the betrayer as “one who is eating with me.” Meals were rituals of social status in the Mediterranean world, and to share table fellowship with someone indicated friendship and social acceptance. To betray a friend after eating with him was, and still is, regarded as the worst kind of treachery in the Middle East. Jesus may have had in mind Psalm 41:9: “Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted his heel against me.”
19 The response of the disciples to Jesus’ startling disclosure was one of sadness and dismay. One by one they ask Jesus, “Surely not I?” (The Greek construction expects a negative answer [see Gundry, 836].) In Matthew’s gospel even Judas asks the question (Mt 26:25). It was an honest question coming from the rest of the disciples and was prompted by fear and lack of confidence in their own spiritual and moral strength. With Judas it was hypocritical and an attempt to cover his intent; for him not to have asked the question with the other disciples would have made him liable to suspicion.
20 Jesus says the betrayer is one of the Twelve, i.e., one who is eating with him at that moment. The “one who dips bread in the bowl” refers to dipping a piece of unleavened bread in the sauce (ḥarôset) that was part of the Passover meal. Jesus’ statement is not meant to specify the betrayer further (as though only one of the disciples would dip bread in the dish), but rather dramatically reinforces the point of v.18, namely, that the betrayer is one in closest relationship with Jesus. In John, Jesus specifically identifies Judas as the betrayer by dipping the bread in the dish and giving it to him (13:16–17). In Matthew, Jesus responds to Judas’s question, “Is it I, Master?” with the ambiguous yet affirmative “you have said it” (26:25).
21 Behind Judas’s action a divine purpose is being carried out. What happens to the Son of Man does not just happen. In this betrayal the Scriptures are being fulfilled (cf. 9:12). The reference to fulfillment could be a general statement that all Jesus is doing is in accordance with God’s plan. Or Jesus may be thinking of a specific scriptural passage. If the latter, the betraying friend of Psalm 41 (alluded to in v.18) may be in view, or perhaps in view is Isaiah 53:12 LXX, in which the servant “bore the sins of many and was delivered up [paradidōmi] because of their iniquities.” The woe pronounced on the betrayer emphasizes the personal responsibility of Judas. As Cranfield, 424, puts it, “The fact that God turns the wrath of man to his praise does not excuse the wrath of man.”
3. Institution of the Lord’s Supper (14:22–26)
OVERVIEW
The NT records four accounts of the Lord’s Supper (Mt 26:26–30; Mk 14:22–26; Lk 22:19–20; 1Co 11:23–25). Matthew’s account closely follows Mark’s, while those of Luke and Paul have certain agreements. All four include the taking of the bread, the thanksgiving or blessing, the breaking of the bread, the saying “This is my body,” and the taking of the cup. Only Paul (and Luke if the longer reading [22:19b–20] is adopted) identifies Jesus’ body as “[given] for you.” Paul alone records Jesus’ command to continue to celebrate the Supper: “Do this in remembrance of me.”
22While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.”
23Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it.
24“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. 25“I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.”
26When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
COMMENTARY
22 The bread Jesus took was presumably the unleavened bread of the Passover meal. He first gave thanks. Two different Greek verbs (eulogeō and euchariste) are translated “give thanks” in vv.22–23. Both are equivalent to the Hebrew verb bārak, to “bless” or “praise” God. At Passover the blessing for the bread that immediately preceded the meal itself went thus: “Praised be Thou, O LORD, Sovereign of the World, who causes bread to come forth from the earth.” After the blessing Jesus divided the bread and gave it to his disciples with the words, “This is my body.” Since this saying of Jesus was separated from the cup saying by the eating of the main part of the meal, it is best to understand it as separate from that saying. The significant action of Jesus was the distribution of the bread, not its breaking. The bread represented his body, i.e., his abiding presence, promised to the disciples on the eve of his crucifixion; and the words become a pledge of the real presence of Jesus wherever and whenever his followers celebrate the Supper. Sacrificial ideas, though crucially important in the cup saying, are not of primary importance here.
That Jesus did not mean that the bread became his body is clear. There is no indication that the bread was changed—it remained ordinary bread. Furthermore, Jesus often used symbolic language to speak of himself. He spoke of himself as the true vine, the way, the door, etc., by which he meant that certain aspects of his person or work were symbolized by these objects. In the same way the bread symbolized his body, i.e., his abiding presence, and the wine symbolized his blood about to be shed.
23–24 The cup Jesus referred to is probably the third cup of the Passover meal, which was drunk after the meal was eaten. Again Jesus gave thanks. The verb is eucharisteō, from which “Eucharist” is derived. The meaning of the cup, unlike that of the bread, is clearly placed in a sacrificial context. The phrase “my blood of the covenant” (v.24) echoes Exodus 24:8 LXX (“Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you”) and Zechariah 9:11 (“As for you, because of the blood of my covenant with you, I will free your prisoners from the waterless pit”). The word diathēkē (GK 1347) means “testament” or “will” in classical Greek, but here it translates the Hebrew berît (“covenant”). It indicates the relationship of lordship and obedience God establishes between himself and human beings, and the “blood of the covenant” is the sign of its existence and the means by which it is effected (Taylor, 546). Although the reading “new” found in some MSS before the word “covenant” may be an assimilation to 1 Corinthians 11:25, it expresses an important truth: Jesus’ death inaugurated a new era. Jeremiah had prophesied of just such a new day (31:31–33). The blood that establishes the covenant will be “poured out” (a clear reference to Jesus’ death). Brooks, 230, comments, “Just as the blood of a sacrificial animal sealed the covenant God made with Israel at Sinai, so the blood of Jesus sealed the new covenant God made with his new people, the church, at the cross.” Jesus’ blood will be poured out “for many.” The word “many” here does not mean “some but not all,” but rather “the one in place of the many.” The language echoes Isaiah 53:12, where the Servant (the one) “poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”
25 Jesus solemnly declared that this would be his last festal meal with his disciples till the dawn of the messianic kingdom. “The fruit of the vine” is a liturgical formula for wine used at the feast. The drinking of the cup at the Supper anticipates the perfected fellowship of the messianic age. In the OT and Judaism, God’s ultimate salvation is sometimes portrayed as a great feast—the “messianic banquet” (Isa 25:6–8; 65:13–14; 1 En. 72:14; cf. Lk 13:29; 22:29–30; Mt 8:11; see TDNT 4:1103). The vow of Jesus consecrated him for his sacrificial death, but it also held out the promise of victory and salvation. He will drink the festal cup anew, i.e., with a new redeemed community in the kingdom of God (cf. Lk 14:15; Rev 3:20–21; 19:6–9).
26 Assuming the meal to have been a Passover meal, it ended with the singing of the second part of the Hallel (Pss 115–118). It is significant that Jesus went to Gethsemane and its agony with such promises as follows:
The LORD is my strength and my song;
he has become my salvation.
Shouts of joy and victory
resound in the tents of the righteous:
“The LORD’s right hand has done mighty things!
The LORD’s right hand is lifted high;
the LORD’s right hand has done mighty things!”
I will not die but live,
and will proclaim what the LORD has done.
Psalm 118:14–17
NOTES
25 Jesus ate and presumably drank with his disciples following his resurrection (Lk 24:30, 41–43; Jn 21:9–13), so how can he say “I will not drink again . . .”? Some claim that the kingdom of God means the inauguration of the kingdom at Jesus’ resurrection, and so this prophecy was fulfilled during the postresurrection appearances. But Jesus seems to be speaking here of the consummation of the kingdom, not its inauguration. More likely, Jesus did not mean that he would not eat or drink at all, but rather that he would not celebrate this festal meal until its consummation in the kingdom.
E. The Prediction of Peter’s Denial (14:27–31)
27“You will all fall away,” Jesus told them, “for it is written:
“‘I will strike the shepherd,
and the sheep will be scattered.’
28But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.”
29Peter declared, “Even if all fall away, I will not.”
30“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “today—yes, tonight—before the rooster crows twice you yourself will disown me three times.”
31But Peter insisted emphatically, “Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you.” And all the others said the same.
COMMENTARY
27–28 The predictions recorded here were probably spoken by Jesus as he walked with his disciples from the upper room to the Mount of Olives. The verb skandalizō (GK 4997, NIV, “fall away”) is difficult (cf. 4:17; 9:42–47). Notice the many renderings: NLT, “desert”; CEV, “reject”; CSB, “run away”; NAB, “have your faith shaken”; NKJV, “be made to stumble.” Here it seems to be defined by the words from Zechariah that immediately follow. Thus it means not that the disciples will lose their faith in Jesus but rather that their courage will fail and they will forsake him. When the Shepherd (Jesus) is struck, the sheep (the disciples) will be scattered. The quotation is from Zechariah 13:7 and clearly indicates that the death of Jesus is the result of the action of God (“I will strike the shepherd”) and that it results in the scattering of the sheep. The prediction was fulfilled. The disciples were filled with fear to be identified with Jesus in his trial and death, and that fear caused them to forsake him. This forsaking was especially true of Peter, whose actions are often representative of the disciples’.
After the death of the Shepherd, however, there will be a glorious resurrection and a reunion of Shepherd and sheep in Galilee (v.28). Marxsen (Mark the Evanglist, 86–87) sees in this verse and in the statement in Mark 16:7 a reference to the parousia. But the obvious reference is to a postresurrection appearance. The phrase “I will go ahead of you” does not necessarily mean that he will arrive before them, but rather that he will continue to be their leader and guide, as a shepherd goes before the sheep to lead and protect them (cf. Jn 10:3–4). This statement is a promise of restoration.
29–31 Jesus’ prediction of failure on the part of the disciples was too much for Peter to accept. For the other disciples it may come true, but certainly not for him. Peter’s words contain more than a hint of pride; and Jesus’ reply emphasizes the absolute certainty of Peter’s denial (v.30). Not only does Jesus use the amēn (“I tell you the truth”) formula, but he also uses the emphatic “today—yes, tonight.” The denial is not only certain—it is imminent. It was also to be a repeated denial (three times), and that in spite of the twice-repeated warning by the crowing of the rooster. The reference to a second crowing is found only in Mark and may have come from Peter’s eyewitness testimony.
Cranfield, 429, correctly points out that the prediction is unlikely to be a vaticinium ex eventu (post-event “prophecy”): “The early Church would hardly have created a prediction which aggravated the baseness of Peter’s denial, even for the sake of showing that Jesus was not surprised.”
Jesus’ explicit description of Peter’s forthcoming denial was not convincing to him. He insisted on his willingness even to die with Jesus rather than deny him (v.31). But Peter did not know how weak he really was—nor did the rest of the disciples know their weakness, for they quickly chimed in with him to declare their allegiance (cf. vv.50, 71–72).
NOTES
27 On the significant role the prophecies of Zechariah 9–14 have for the Markan passion narrative, see Marcus, Way of the Lord, 157–59.
30 Some have suggested that the cock’s crowing refers to the bugle call that marked the third division of the Roman night, called gallicinium in Latin and ᾽αλεκτοροφωνία, alektorophōnia (“cockcrow”), in Greek (so C. H. Mayo, “St. Peter’s Token of the Cock Crow,” JTS 22 [1921]: 367–70; Lane, 512 n. 69). This view is possible, but Mark’s language suggests a literal rooster’s crowing (cf. 14:72). See D. Brady, “The Alarm to Peter in Mark’s Gospel,” JSNT 4 (1979): 44–46.
F. The Agony of Gethsemane (14:32–42)
OVERVIEW
Gethsemane reveals a remarkable portrait of Jesus’ true humanity. He is shown to be “anything but above temptation. So far from sailing serenely through his trials like some superior being unconcerned with this world, he is almost dead with distress” (Moule, 117). Yet he perseveres through it all in willing submission to God’s will. As so often in Mark, the spiritual dullness of the disciples stands in stark contrast to the faithfulness of Jesus and his attentiveness to the will of God. He alone represents the true model of discipleship, trusting God despite the fear and anguish of imminent suffering and death. The passage also gives us a glimpse into the unique relationship between the Father and the Son, as Jesus addresses God with the intimate Aramaic term ʾabba (“father”).
The account has a strong claim to authenticity. It is unlikely the early church would have created a story that portrayed Jesus as desiring to escape the task God had given him and that presented the leading disciples in such a negative light.
32They went to a place called Gethsemane, and Jesus said to his disciples, “Sit here while I pray.” 33He took Peter, James and John along with him, and he began to be deeply distressed and troubled. 34“My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death,” he said to them. “Stay here and keep watch.”
35Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. 36“Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”
37Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Simon,” he said to Peter, “are you asleep? Could you not keep watch for one hour? 38Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak.”
39Once more he went away and prayed the same thing. 40When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. They did not know what to say to him.
41Returning the third time, he said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Enough! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!”
COMMENTARY
32–34 The name “Gethsemane” is probably from the Hebrew gat šemānî (“press of oils”). It was a garden (Jn 18:1) located somewhere on the lower slopes of the Mount of Olives, where there were olive trees and olive presses. It was one of Jesus’ favorite spots in Jerusalem, no doubt often used by him and his disciples as a place to be alone (cf. Lk 22:39; Jn 18:2). Here he faced one of his most crucial tests.
Leaving the rest of the disciples behind, Jesus took with him the three men of the inner circle—Peter, James, and John (v.33; cf. 5:37; 9:2). He must have felt his need for their presence in this time of crisis. Or perhaps he brought them because they were the ones who had expressed such an emphatic willingness to suffer with him (10:38–39; 14:31). The two verbs translated “deeply distressed and troubled” together “describe an extremely acute emotion, a compound of bewilderment, fear, uncertainty and anxiety, nowhere else portrayed in such vivid terms as here” (Bratcher and Nida, 446). This deep agony Jesus shared with his disciples (v.34). The phrase “my soul is overwhelmed with sorrow” echoes the repeated refrain of the righteous sufferer of Psalms 42:5–6, 11; 43:5. As elsewhere in his passion, Jesus reaches for Israel’s psalms of lament to express the intensity of his suffering (cf. Ps 22:1 in 15:34).
Why did Jesus share his sorrow with the disciples? Probably because he wanted them to know something of the depths of suffering he was about to experience for the redemption of the world. Jesus’ command to them to “keep watch” meant either that they were to stay spiritually alert and so share in his agony or that they were to be on the lookout for those Jesus knew were on their way to arrest him. John 18:2 says that Judas knew the place where Jesus was accustomed to praying.
35–36 Having shared his feelings with the three disciples, Jesus withdrew to be alone with his Father. Jesus did not die serenely, as many Christian and Jewish martyrs have done. He was no mere martyr; he was the Lamb of God bearing the penalty of the sins for all humanity. The wrath of God was turned loose on him. Only this understanding can approach an adequate explanation for what happened in Gethsemane. Jesus “fell to the ground” (v.35), either because the burden and agony were so great that he could not stand up, or he did so in an act of reverent submission before God (or perhaps both). Twice before in Mark, Jesus has been identified as praying (1:35; 6:46), though only here do we hear his words. His prayer, uttered in a prone position, was addressed to “Abba, Father” (v.36). The word ʾabba is an intimate Aramaic word for “father”—a word the Jews did not normally use to address God because they thought it to be disrespectful. Jesus used it to express the intimacy of his relationship with his Father. By virtue of his unique relationship, he then invited his disciples to address God in the same way. The Greek patēr of the Lord’s Prayer almost certainly has behind it the Aramaic ʾabba. This new father-son relationship with God available to believers through Jesus’ death and resurrection made a profound impact on Jesus’ followers, as evidenced in Paul’s reproduction of the Aramaic term ʾabba even when writing to his Greek-speaking congregations (Ro 8:15; Gal 4:6).
Jesus believed that with God anything was possible; therefore, he prayed for the “cup” to be removed from him. This cup is the same one Jesus referred to in 10:38–39—the cup of the wrath of God. In the OT it is regularly used as a metaphor for punishment and judgment (cf. Pss 11:6; 60:3; 75:8; Isa 51:17, 21–23; Jer 25:15–29; 49:12; 51:57; La 4:21; Eze 23:31–34; Hab 2:16; Zec 12:2). Here it obviously refers to Jesus’ death. Jesus’ desire was for the removal of the cup. But he voluntarily submitted his will to that of his Father.
37–38 On returning to his disciples, Jesus found them sleeping. They were doubtless very tired. The hour was late, probably past midnight, and they had experienced some exciting events during the long day. Nevertheless it was a critical time, and they were expected to be awake. Jesus’ rebuke in v.37 is addressed to Peter, whereas in v.38 it is addressed to all three disciples. Peter is probably singled out because he was the one who had boasted of his fidelity to Jesus. He who had said he was willing to die with Jesus (v.31), if need be, could not watch for one hour.
The verbs “watch” (grēgoreite) and “pray” (proseuchesthe) are both imperatives and are addressed to all three disciples, not just to Peter. Conquering temptation (not yielding to it, not “entering into” it) can only come through these two actions. The word for temptation (peirasmos, GK 4280) can also mean “testing,” and there is an element of testing here. The disciples are being tested to see whether they will remain spiritually alert. The spirit (a reference to the human spirit) might be willing to do what is right, but the human body (sarx, GK 4922) is weak. Some commentators take sarx to mean our poor, unaided human nature (“flesh” in the Pauline sense). Here, however, it seems to mean the physical body and refers to the inability of the disciples to stay awake.
39–40 Again after having left his disciples to pray (v.39), Jesus returned to find them sleeping (v.40). Because of sheer fatigue, they were unable to stay awake. When confronted by Jesus, they “did not know what to say to him”—probably because they were so embarrassed and ashamed. Even Peter had nothing to say on this occasion (cf. 9:6).
41 A third time Jesus left them to pray (cf. Mt 26:44) and on returning again found the disciples asleep. The next words may be either ironic—“Go ahead and sleep. Have your rest” (NLT; cf. GWT, NJB)—or a question—“Are you still sleeping and resting?” (NIV, NRSV). The latter seems better in view of the situation.
The rendering of the next word (apechei, GK 600) is very difficult. The Greek word can carry a variety of meanings: “to receive in full,” “to suffice,” “to be distant,” “to abstain from” (BDAG, 102–3). The NIV renders it “Enough!” apparently meaning “enough of sleep”; i.e., it is time for the disciples to wake up (cf. NET, “Enough of that!”). Other possibilities include an ironic question following on the previous one—“Are you still sleeping and resting? Is it [the end] far off?” (Taylor, 557; Evans, 417)—or a financial sense common in the papyri—“paid in full.” In this case, the word could mean (1) “he has received it”; i.e., Judas has received the money for the betrayal; (2) “the account is closed,” metaphorically meaning “the end has come” (cf. GWT, “It’s all over”); or (3) “it is settled,” meaning Jesus is accepting that it is God’s will for him to go to the cross; i.e., the cup will not be taken from him. The first two possibilities would find support in Jesus’ previous statement (“Are you still sleeping?”), while the latter three in the next statement, “The hour has come,” i.e., the time of his betrayal and death. A decision is very difficult. The first is perhaps the simplest and least problematic.
Jesus’ statement “Look, the Son of Man is betrayed” recalls the passion predictions (8:31; 9:31; 10:33–34) and the Last Supper narrative (14:18). The “sinners” into whose hands the Son of Man is to be betrayed are not specifically identified, but they would include all those acting on Satan’s behalf to bring about Jesus’ death: Judas, the religious leaders, and the Roman authorities. God has delivered his servant over to “sinners,” who will do great evil to him, but through this apparent failure salvation will be achieved.
42 Apparently, the disciples were still lying on the ground; so when Jesus heard the approach of the arresting party, he told the disciples to get on their feet: “Rise! Let us go!” Swete, 349, writes, “The call to ‘go’ ends the scene in Gethsemane, but cannot be intended to suggest flight, for the Lord had always reserved Himself for this ‘hour,’ and had now finally embraced the Divine Will concerning it.” Jesus did not go to flee from Judas but to meet him.
Rawlinson, 211, explains the significance of the experience of the disciples in Gethsemane for the persecuted Christians to whom Mark is writing:
For the church of Mark’s day the example of Jesus in the garden, as contrasted with the behavior of the three disciples, must have had special value as setting forth the spirit in which the vocation of martyrdom should be approached. The Christian witness must not presume upon the fact that his spirit is willing: he must ever be mindful also of the weakness of the flesh. It is essential therefore that he should watch and pray, that when the hour of trial comes he may not break down. [emphasis Rawlinson’s]
NOTES
33 The Greek word ἐκθαμβέω (ekthambeō, GK 1701) is peculiar to Mark (1:27; 9:15; 16:5–6). It is a difficult word to translate. Swete has “terrified surprise”; Rawlinson, “shuddering awe”; Taylor, “amazement amounting to consternation.” The word 
(adēmoneō, GK 86) is translated in the NIV as “troubled.” Swete, 342, says it describes the “distress that follows a great shock”; the NEB has “My heart is ready to break with grief.”
36 The classic study of Jesus’ use of ʾabba is found in Joachim Jeremias’s The Prayers of Jesus (pp. 11–65). In a famous article James Barr (“Abba Isn’t ‘Daddy,’” JTS 39 [1988]: 28–47) argued that the term does not mean “Daddy” (as many preachers have claimed), since it was used by adult children as well as by disciples for their teacher. While it is true that both adults and disciples used the term, their use of it does not preclude what sounds to us like a more childlike meaning (cf. the modern addressing of fathers as “Daddy” by adult children in America’s South). Further, Jesus’ use of the term was certainly unique and revealed a level of intimacy with the Father that was unprecedented in Judaism before his time.
41 For the many interpretations of ἀπέχει (apechei), see Evans, 416–17; Cranfield, 435–36. That several Western MSS (D W Φ) and a few later ones include the Greek τὸ τέλος (to telos, “the end”) suggests some early copyists may have been reading the phrase as “Is the end far away?”
42 The word ἄγωμεν (agōmen) may be translated, “Let us advance to meet them.”
G. The Betrayal and Arrest (14:43–52)
OVERVIEW
The arrest of Jesus marks a key turning point in the narrative as Jesus is “delivered over to human hands” (9:31 [TNIV]; cf. 8:31; 10:33; 14:18). While up to this point Jesus has been instructing the disciples and guiding events forward, from now on others will determine his fate. Yet God is still in control. Though wicked people act against Jesus with betrayal and deceit, it is God who had delivered him over to them. His purpose and plan will be accomplished, as “the Scriptures must be fulfilled” (v.49).
43Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.
44Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.” 45Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him. 46The men seized Jesus and arrested him. 47Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
48“Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? 49Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.” 50Then everyone deserted him and fled.
51A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.
COMMENTARY
43 The note that Judas was “one of the Twelve” is redundant, since Mark has just mentioned so in v.10 (cf. vv.18, 20). While the repetition may indicate Mark’s use of a source (see Notes), from a narrative perspective it serves “to keep this tragic element of the situation before us” (Gould, 273). Jesus is betrayed by one of his own. Judas is accompanied by a “crowd” (ochlos) sent from the three constituent groups of the Sanhedrin: the chief priests, teachers of the law, and elders. John’s gospel notes that the group included a detachment of soldiers (speiran) under a commander (chiliarchos) and some officials from the chief priests (18:3, 12), while Luke refers to officers of the temple guard (22:52). This group is not just a mob; it is an official police contingent dispatched for action. They came armed with swords and clubs. Apparently, they thought they would meet resistance.
44–46 The prearranged “signal” (syssēmon), or means of identifying Jesus, was for Judas to kiss him. The need for a signal suggests that the members of the arresting party did not know Jesus, or perhaps since it was dark they wanted to be sure not to arrest the wrong person (v.46). Customarily, disciples greeted their rabbi with a kiss, so Judas’s act would not be suspected for what it really was. Judas’s instructions to the crowd were designed to assure the successful accomplishment of the arrest. They were to lead Jesus away “securely” (asphalōs; NIV, “under guard”)—with no chance of his escaping. Once Judas had become involved in this evil action, he did not want to make a fiasco of it.
47 Mark does not say who wielded the sword, but John relates that it was Peter and that the ear belonged to Malchus, a servant of the high priest (18:10). Apparently Peter aimed at his head, but Malchus sidestepped the blow, and Peter only caught his ear. Jesus’ rebuke of Peter (Mt 26:52) and the restoration of the ear (Lk 22:51) are not recorded by Mark. His use of the diminutive ōtarion for “ear” perhaps suggests that only the lobe was cut off, thus possibly explaining Luke’s statement that Jesus healed the ear instead of reconnecting it (Lk 22:51).
48–50 Jesus protested the manner of his arrest. The crowd sent from the Sanhedrin had come after him with swords and clubs, as though he were a dangerous criminal or an insurrectionist. The NIV’s phrase “Am I leading a rebellion?” (cf. NLT, “Am I some dangerous revolutionary?”) rendered literally is, “Have you come against me like a thief?” (cf. NRSV, NASB, ESV). The Roman authorities used the Greek lēstēs (“thief,” “robber,” “bandit”) to designate rebels or insurrectionists (common thugs or criminals in the Romans’ eyes). The “thieves” crucified with Jesus were probably insurrectionists like Barabbas (15:7, 27). Jesus points out that he had been teaching every day in the temple courts (v.49). The religious leaders could have arrested him there. Why, then, had they come at night? And why had they chosen to arrest him outside the city? The obvious answer is that they feared the people’s reaction to Jesus’ arrest. So they carefully chose both the time and the place.
The circumstances of Jesus’ arrest were a fulfillment of Scripture. Mark does not say what specific passage Jesus had in mind. It may have been Isaiah 53:12: “And [he] was numbered with the transgressors.” But in view of v.50—“Then everyone deserted him and fled”—he may have had in view Zechariah 13:7, which Jesus quoted in 14:27 and which is fulfilled here. The words of v.50 “drive home, as it were with hammer-blows, the failure of the disciples without exception . . . and the complete forsakenness of Jesus” (Cranfield, 438).
51–52 Only Mark records this mysterious episode. The “young man” is not identified, but some speculate that it was Mark himself. Why else would the author insert such an odd and trivial detail in so solemn a story? Was this Mark’s way of saying, “I was there”? The theory is sometimes embellished with the suggestion that the Last Supper took place in the home of John Mark’s mother, Mary of Jerusalem (Ac 12:12). Did Mark secretly follow the group from the upper room to Gethsemane, only to be surprised by the arrival of the arresting party? While intriguing, we have no solid evidence to confirm or refute this hypothesis. Against it is the claim by Papias (AD 130) that Mark “neither heard the Lord nor followed him” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15). This would apparently rule out such close contact with Jesus and his disciples. On the other hand, Papias may have been mistaken or may only be claiming that Mark was not one of Jesus’ close disciples. As a resident of Jerusalem rather than Galilee, Mark would have had limited opportunities to hear Jesus teach.
Ordinarily men wore an undergarment called a chitōn. This young man had only a sindōn, an outer garment, so that when it was seized he fled naked (v.51). A sindōn was usually made of wool. This one, however, was linen, an expensive material worn only by the rich. Some see here another possible link to Mary of Jerusalem, who was presumably quite wealthy since she owned a house in Jerusalem large enough for meetings of a house church (Ac 12:12).
Perhaps the main point of the story—and the reason Mark included it—was to show that the forsakenness of Jesus was total. Even this youth forsook him.
NOTES
43 Some scholars think that the description of Judas as “one of the Twelve” (as though it were the first mention of him in the narrative) indicates that at this point Mark is inserting into his account the primitive passion narrative that contained no prior mention of Judas.
It is debated whether John’s “detachment of soldiers” under a “commander” (Jn 18:3, 12) were Roman soldiers or temple police. France, 593, thinks the latter, since the temple police had well-organized military regiments (cf. Ac 4:1; 5:24–26) and since there was no reason for the Romans to be involved yet. Others posit the former, since the Greek term normally refers to a Roman cohort. Although normally stationed at Caesarea, such a Roman force would have been garrisoned in Jerusalem during the festival for crowd control and to put down any potential rebellion.
45 The verb καταφιλέω (kataphileō), a compounded form of φιλέω (phileō, “to kiss”), usually means “to kiss fervently” and here probably indicates a prolonged kiss (not just a peck on the cheek) to ensure the identification of Jesus.
H. Jesus before the Sanhedrin (14:53–65)
OVERVIEW
All four gospels affirm that the trial of Jesus took place in two stages: a religious trial followed by a civil one. Harmonizing their accounts, we find three episodes in each stage. The religious trial included (1) the preliminary hearing before Annas (reported only in Jn 18:12–14, 19–23), (2) the trial before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin (Mk 14:53–65 par.), and (3) the trial before the same group just after daybreak (Mk 15:1 par.). The three episodes of the civil trial were (4) the trial before Pilate, (5) the trial before Herod Antipas (recorded only in Lk 23:6–12), and (6) the trial before Pilate continued and concluded. Mark does not report the hearing before Annas or Pilate’s transfer of Jesus to Herod Antipas. The trial before Pilate is recorded as a continuous and unbroken narrative (Mk 15:2–15).
Mark’s account of the Jewish trial represents another of his intercalations, or narrative sandwiches. The account of the arrest and trial by the Sanhedrin is interrupted twice, first by the statement that Peter followed at a distance (14:54), and second by his threefold denial that he knew Jesus (14:66–72). The relationship between the two is one of contrast. While Jesus courageously confesses his identity and so experiences suffering and persecution, Peter cowardly denies his relationship with Jesus and so escapes suffering.
Some critics have questioned the historicity of Mark’s account of Jesus’ Jewish trial and claimed that it violates procedures set out in the Mishnaic tractate Sanhedrin. These guidelines make it illegal for the Sanhedrin to meet at night (m. Sanh. 4:1), on the eve of a Sabbath or festival day (4:1), or in the high priest’s home (11:2; there were only three official courtrooms in Jerusalem). A second hearing would also have been necessary for a death sentence (5:5), and a charge of blasphemy could be sustained only if Jesus had uttered the divine name (7:5). None of these arguments decisively disprove the historicity of Mark’s account. First, the Mishnah was not codified until the end of the second century, and its traditions do not necessarily go back to the time of Jesus. Second, even if some of these guidelines were in place in the first century, they represent an ideal situation that may have been violated in Jesus’ case. The very existence of these guidelines implies past abuses, and Jesus’ hearing may have constituted one of them. Third, the Mishnah represents predominantly Pharisaic traditions, but the Sadducees were dominant in the Sanhedrin of Jesus’ day. Fourth, the incident in Caiaphas’s house is not depicted by Mark as a formal trial but as a preliminary hearing meant to prepare charges against Jesus. The actual trial was held before Pilate, who could render a capital verdict. Finally, there is good evidence that blasphemy was sometimes used in Judaism in a broader sense than uttering the divine name, including actions such as idolatry, arrogant disrespect for God, and insulting his chosen leaders (Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation, 30–112).
53They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, elders and teachers of the law came together. 54Peter followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. There he sat with the guards and warmed himself at the fire.
55The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. 56Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree.
57Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58“We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.’” 59Yet even then their testimony did not agree.
60Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 61But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.
Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”
62“I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
63The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64“You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”
They all condemned him as worthy of death. 65Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, “Prophesy!” And the guards took him and beat him.
COMMENTARY
53 Mark reports that Jesus was taken by his captors to the high priest (identified by Matthew and John as Caiaphas, though Mark never names him), with the entire Sanhedrin present. Annas had been high priest from AD 7–14 but had been deposed by Pilate’s predecessor, Valerius Gratus. Annas’s son-in-law, Caiaphas, presently held the office, which he held from AD 18–37. Annas still exercised considerable influence, however; hence the initial visit to him recorded by John (Jn 18:12–14, 19–23), as well as Luke’s identification of him as “high priest” together with Caiaphas (Lk 3:2; cf. Jn 18:22; Ac 4:6). The meeting evidently took place in the palace of Caiaphas in an upstairs room (cf. v.66). Those present—“the chief priests, elders and teachers of the law” (v.53)—constituted the members of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high court (see comments at 8:31; cf. 11:27; 14:43). If all the members were present, there would have been seventy of them, though Mark’s use of “all” (v.53) and “the whole Sanhedrin” (v.55) does not necessarily mean that all seventy were present; Mark may mean, rather, that there were enough members present to constitute a quorum. Since the Sanhedrin usually met in one of the market halls, the use of Caiaphas’s house may have been to ensure secrecy.
54 This verse interrupts the flow of the narrative. It is inserted here to prepare for the full account of Peter’s denial (vv.66–72) and to indicate that the trial and the denial were concurrent. Plummer, 335, writes, “When the first panic was over, Peter’s affection reasserted itself.” He followed at a distance because he was afraid, but he did follow. Apparently, he could not bring himself to desert Jesus completely. Eventually he arrived at the high priest’s palace. John’s gospel informs us that there was “another disciple” (John?) with Peter; and, since this unnamed disciple knew the high priest, he spoke to the girl on duty at the gate, and Peter was let in (Jn 18:15–16). The palace was built around an open courtyard (aule) that one entered through an archway (cf. v.68). Spring nights are cool in Jerusalem (which sits at an elevation of about twenty-five hundred feet); so Peter sat with the guards and warmed himself before a charcoal fire (cf. Jn 18:18). From where he was sitting, he could see the upstairs room in which the Sanhedrin was meeting to decide Jesus’ fate.
55–56 In these verses Mark emphasizes just how rigged the trial of Jesus was. Though it was late at night (in fact, probably very early Friday morning), false witnesses were available (v.56). The verdict had already been decided (14:1). All that was necessary was to find appropriate charges (France, 604). But a problem developed—the witnesses could not agree with one another. According to the law (Nu 35:30; Dt 17:6; 19:15), two witnesses were necessary to establish guilt in cases that required the death penalty. These witnesses must give consistent evidence. The smallest inconsistency was sufficient to discredit them. (Strict guidelines for cross-examination are given in m. Sanh. 4:5–5:4.) As is inevitable when witnesses testify falsely, their testimonies lacked consistency. Many came to witness against Jesus (the Sanhedrin has made careful preparation for the trial [v.55]), but the contradictory nature of the evidence frustrated the court’s intent.
57–59 The lack of consistent evidence did not thwart Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin for long. Although the first round of testimony proved to be of no value, soon a definite charge was made. Jesus had said he would destroy this temple “made with human hands” and in three days rebuild another “not made with hands” (v.58 [TNIV]). There is no statement just like this in the Gospels. The allusion is probably to Jesus’ statement in John 2:19, made two years previously: “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” But on that occasion Jesus did not predict that he would destroy the temple, and the narrator clarifies that the reference was to his own body (Jn 2:21–22). Perhaps Jesus’ statement in Mark 13:2, in which he predicts the destruction of the temple, was combined with John 2:19 (misunderstood by his opponents to refer to the Jerusalem temple, Jn 2:20); and out of the two the charge was formulated. The charge, however, proved invalid because, again, the “false testimony” of the witnesses was inconsistent (vv.57, 59).
60–61 The situation had become extremely tense. There were plenty of witnesses, but they could not pass the test of Deuteronomy 17:6. Finally in exasperation the high priest stood up in the Sanhedrin (a dramatic gesture) to interrogate Jesus himself. Caiaphas apparently wanted Jesus to respond to the charges made against him in the hope of provoking an incriminating answer. But Jesus refused to give him that opportunity (v.61). Hiebert, 371, comments, “In majestic silence, Jesus refused to dignify the self-refuting testimony by any explanation of His own.” The attentive reader may here recognize a fulfillment of Isaiah 53:7: “As a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.”
The silence of Jesus to the first questions prompted the high priest to ask him another. The question “Are you the Christ, the son of the Blessed One?” indicates that by this time the religious authorities either knew or suspected that Jesus regarded himself as the Messiah. “Son of the Blessed” stands in apposition to the title “Christ” (or “Messiah”), and “the Blessed” functions as a reverential circumlocution to avoid the pronunciation of the name of God. “Son of God” is not to be understood here as an ascription of deity but as a royal title emphasizing the Messiah’s unique relationship with God. This use of the title arose from OT passages such as 2 Samuel 7:14; Psalm 2:7; and Psalm 89:26, where the coming king from David’s line is ascribed a father-son relationship with God. Evidence from Qumran suggests that the title was beginning to be used of the Messiah in first-century Judaism (4QFlor 1:10–14; 1QSa 2:11–12; 4QapocrDan ar; 4Q246 2:1; cf. Hengel, Son of God, 44–45; Marshall, Origins of New Testament Christology, 113). Although Jesus had been very cautious about identifying himself as the Messiah in Mark’s gospel, his actions in entering Jerusalem, clearing the temple, and challenging Israel’s leaders all carried strong messianic connotations. Furthermore, the cries of demons and people seeking healing confirm that messianic speculation swirled around him (1:24; 3:11; 5:7; 10:47–48). Jesus had also referred to himself as the “son” of the vineyard owner (= God) in a parable spoken within earshot of the religious leaders (12:1–12). In this context the question of the high priest becomes intelligible. For Mark’s readers, of course, the title “Son of God” would carry even greater significance, since they would recognize both its messianic and divine connotations (cf. 1:1, 11; 9:7; 15:39).
The question achieved the desired result. If the religious authorities could not fabricate an accusation by the testimony of others, Jesus’ own testimony about himself would do. Had Jesus refused to answer this question, the Sanhedrin would have had to devise some other plan.
62 Jesus’ reply is a straightforward “I am.” This answer stands in sharp contrast to his deliberate avoidance of calling himself the “Messiah” or having others proclaim his messiahship up to this point in his ministry. It clearly was not because he had no consciousness of being the Messiah. He avoided the messianic claim because of the false concepts of messiahship that were popular in his day and with which he did not want to be identified. Also, there always lurked the danger that an open claim to messiahship would bring about a premature crisis and abort his ministry. Now, however, the time of veiledness had passed. He was ready to state his messiahship unequivocally.
Jesus’ affirmation of his messiahship is followed by a Son-of-Man saying that brings together Daniel 7:13 and Psalm 110:1. The former speaks of the exalted figure of “one like a son of man” coming with the clouds of heaven and being presented before the Ancient of Days (see comments at 8:31). The latter speaks of the enthronement of the Davidic Messiah at the right hand of God. Jesus has quoted this text earlier to raise the conundrum of how the Messiah can be at the same time David’s son and David’s Lord (12:36). The two passages bring together the ideas of the glorious vindication and enthronement of the Son of Man, and his eschatological coming. Jesus is looking to the future, beyond the crucifixion to his resurrection and ascension, when he will take his place at the right hand of God—the place of authority—and to his parousia, when he will come in judgment. Now Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin are sitting in judgment of him. In that day Jesus will pass judgment on them. The author of Revelation points to that day: “Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him” (1:7). Jesus’ words are a solemn warning. France, 599, points out that with this episode we reach the christological climax of the gospel: “And in that climax we reach the heart of Mark’s paradoxical presentation of Jesus: at the narrative level he is overpowered and cannot save himself; at the theological level he reigns supreme.”
63–64 The tearing of one’s clothes was originally a sign of great grief (cf. Ge 37:29, 34; 2Ki 18:37; Jdt 14:19; Ep Jer 31; 2 Macc 4:38). In the case of the high priest (v.63), it became “a formal judicial act minutely regulated by the Talmud” (Taylor, 569). The action of the high priest showed that he had just heard a blasphemous statement (v.64; cf. m. Sanh. 7:5, where “the judges are to stand up on their feet and rend their garments” when they hear blasphemy). As noted above, although later Mishnaic guidelines defined blasphemy narrowly as pronouncing the divine Name itself (m. Sanh. 7:5; cf. Lev 24:10–23), Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation, 111, has shown that the term could be used much more widely of “a whole range of actions offensive to God” (cf. Mk 2:7; 3:28–29; Jn 5:18; 10:33). Jesus’ claim to be the exalted Son of Man and Messiah, who would stand in judgment over the high priest and the Sanhedrin, was interpreted by Caiaphas as blasphemous in this latter sense. All the members of the Sanhedrin concurred with Caiaphas’s judgment and condemned Jesus “as worthy of death.” It is perhaps significant that they do not formally condemn him to death but rather as deserving it, since the Sanhedrin did not at this time have the right of execution (Jn 18:31; see Brown, Death of the Messiah, 363–72). If they had, they would have ordered Jesus to be stoned, since Leviticus 24:14 prescribes stoning as the punishment for blasphemy. Instead, they will take Jesus before Pilate and there seek a capital verdict. Jesus’ prophecy of Mark 10:33 has come true.
65 The decision that Jesus deserved the death penalty was the signal for some members of the Sanhedrin to release their pent-up hostilities against him. Although Rawlinson’s suggestion, 223, that Mark’s grammar is careless (“we are to understand a change of subject at the beginning of the verse”) and absolves members of the Sanhedrin of this action, it is almost certainly wrong. “Some” at the beginning of v.65 is in contrast to “all” in v.64, and both refer to members of the Sanhedrin. This interpretation is supported by the mention of the guards as a second and distinct group of participants in the barbarous acts.
Spitting and hitting were traditional means of expressing rejection and repudiation (cf. Nu 12:14; Dt 25:9; Job 30:10; Isa 50:6). The additional words in Matthew 26:88 and Luke 22:64, “Who hit you?” shed light on the significance of the covering of the face, followed by blows, and the demand that Jesus prophesy. This attempt to make a mockery of Jesus’ messianic claims relates to a rabbinic interpretation of Isaiah 11:2–4 that asserts the Messiah’s ability to judge by smell without the need for sight (cf. Lane, 540; b. Sanh. 93b). Jesus refused to respond to their vicious jests. When the Sanhedrin had its fill of brutality and mockery, they turned Jesus over to the guards, who continued the beatings.
NOTES
53–65 For discussion and bibliography related to the historicity of Jesus’ trial, see Brown, Death of the Messiah, 357–63. For the charge of blasphemy, see the survey of literature in Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation, 5–29.
57–58 The charge of destroying and rebuilding the temple may itself carry messianic implications, since some Jewish traditions, based especially on 2 Samuel 7:13 and Zechariah 6:12, claimed that the Messiah would rebuild the Jerusalem temple (Tg. Zec. 6:12; cf. 4QFlor 1:6–7). In other traditions God himself rebuilds the temple (11QT 29:7–10). See discussion in D. Juel, Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS 31; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977), 172–96; Bock, 213 n. 69; Evans, 445–46.
62 The variant reading σὺ εἴπας ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι (sy eipas hoti egō eimi), “You say that I am,” has the support of the Caesarean text (Θ f13 pc Origen). Taylor considers this text the original because it is more in keeping with Jesus’ reluctance in Mark’s gospel to reveal his messiahship straightforwardly and because it would account for Matthew 26:64 and Luke 22:67–68. If this reading is correct, Jesus’ reply is affirmative, “but it registers a difference of interpretation ‘The word is yours, Yes, if you like’; as if to indicate that the Speaker has His own ideas about Messiahship” (Taylor, 568). Against this reading, however, is the MS evidence, which overwhelmingly supports the shorter reading. Further, at this point Jesus was ready to reveal clearly his identity as the Messiah.
Jesus’ use of ἡ δύναμις (hē dynamis, “the mighty one”), like the high priest’s ὁ εὐλογητός (ho eulogētos, “the blessed one”) in the previous verse, functions as a circumlocution to avoid the divine name.
A number of commentators consider Jesus’ Son-of-Man saying here to relate not to the parousia but to the destruction of Jerusalem. For a defense of this view, see France, 612–13; Morna D. Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark (London: SPCK, 1967), 167–71.
65 Bock, 111, points out that acts of blasphemy in rabbinic writings “seem to concentrate on idolatry, a show of arrogant disrespect toward God, or the insulting of his chosen leaders.”
I. Peter’s Denial of Jesus (14:66–72)
OVERVIEW
The reference to the abuse by the guards in v.65 forms a natural transition to the account of Peter’s denial, since Peter was last seen in the courtyard below warming himself with (other) guards involved in Jesus’ arrest (v.54). As noted in the Overview at 14:53–65, Peter’s denial stands in stark contrast to Jesus’ faithful confession. By intercalating Jesus’ faithfulness between Peter’s failures, Mark reveals contrasting models of discipleship.
66While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came by. 67When she saw Peter warming himself, she looked closely at him.
“You also were with that Nazarene, Jesus,” she said.
68But he denied it. “I don’t know or understand what you’re talking about,” he said, and went out into the entryway.
69When the servant girl saw him there, she said again to those standing around, “This fellow is one of them.” 70Again he denied it.
After a little while, those standing near said to Peter, “Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean.”
71He began to call down curses on himself, and he swore to them, “I don’t know this man you’re talking about.”
72Immediately the rooster crowed the second time. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken to him: “Before the rooster crows twice you will disown me three times.” And he broke down and wept.
COMMENTARY
66–68 When Jesus was being mocked, spit on, and beaten in the upstairs room of the high priest’s palace, Peter was waiting below in the courtyard to see what would happen (v.66). The fact that Peter was there at all indicates that he loved Jesus and was concerned about him, but his love did not withstand the test of fear. The servant girl (probably the “girl at the door” of Jn 18:17) recognized Peter as he stood warming himself in the light of the fire (v.67). Perhaps she had seen Peter with Jesus in the temple during the immediately preceding days or remembered that she had admitted him at the request of John, another one of Jesus’ disciples. Her contempt for Jesus is revealed in the order of the words she used to speak about him—“that Nazarene, Jesus.” Peter denied her charge with a redundant expression in Greek that provides emphasis: “I neither know nor understand what you are talking about” (v.68 NASB). Fearful of being identified and apprehended, Peter retreated into the archway that led into the street. He was anxious for his own safety. Yet he still could not bring himself to abandon Jesus completely. So he slunk into the darkness and safety of the archway.
69–72 Peter’s retreat to safety was short-lived. The servant girl saw him slip into the entryway and reiterated her contention—this time to “those standing around,” presumably the guards and others in the employ of the high priest (v.69). Her words, “This fellow is one of them,” seem to show that she recognized Peter as part of a group or movement whose leader was Jesus. Peter’s second denial (v.70) was unconvincing. So the next time it was not the servant girl but the others who accused him. Apparently, their suspicions were aroused by the girl and by Peter’s Galilean accent (cf. Mt 26:73, where Peter’s accent is specifically mentioned). Peter now reacted like a cornered animal. He called down curses on himself if he was lying and swore that he did not know “this man you’re talking about” (v.71). The first two times Peter had denied being associated with Jesus. The last time he denied Jesus himself.
The third denial was followed by the second crowing of the rooster (v.72). The first crow of the rooster did not awaken Peter’s conscience. But at this second crowing he remembered what Jesus had said and “broke down and wept.” Luke 22:61 dramatically relates that at that very moment the Lord “turned and looked straight at Peter,” thus adding to Peter’s sense of overwhelming shame and guilt.
NOTES
68 Lane, 542, compares Peter’s denial to a formal, legal formula of denial found in rabbinic law (cf. m. Šebu. 8:3: “[If the owner said,] ‘Where is my ox?’ and he answered, ‘I do not know of what thou speakest’”).
The NIV omits the reading καὶ ἀλέκτωρ ἐφώνησεν (kai alektōr ephōnēsen, “and the rooster crowed”) at the end of this verse. It is included in UBS’s fourth edition of the Greek NT but is put in brackets and given a “C” rating (significant doubt). Reasons for excluding it include: (1) it was likely added by copyists to show the literal fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy in v.30 (“before the rooster crows twice”); (2) copyists thought a second crowing in v.72 was inexplicable without a first; and (3) the external MS evidence slightly favors excluding it. Reasons for including it include: (1) copyists omitted it to assimilate to Matthew (26:69–75) and Luke (22:56–62), in which only one crowing is mentioned; (2) it was omitted by copyists to make Peter’s denial seem a little less shameful—if Peter heard the first crowing of the rooster, why didn’t he repent (see Metzger, 97)? The decision is a difficult one, but omission with a footnote (as in the NIV) seems the best policy.
71 The Greek ἀναθεματίζω (anathematizō, GK 354) is normally a transitive verb meaning to curse someone or something, and France, 622, argues the most likely meaning is that Peter is cursing Jesus. This meaning is possible, though the NIV’s sense of “curse himself” appears in Acts 23:12, 14, 21, where a group of zealots “curse themselves” (ἀνεθεμάτισαν ἑαυτούς, anathematisan heautous), or take an oath, not to eat or drink until they have killed Paul.
72 The last words of this verse, καὶ ἐπιβαλὼν ἔκλαιεν (kai epibalōn eklaien), are very difficult to translate. Some of the renderings are as follows: “he began to cry”; “he set to and wept”; “he burst into tears”; “he thought on it and wept”; “he covered his head and wept”; “he threw himself on the ground”; “he dashed out.” Plummer, 342, is probably correct when he says, “We must be content to share the ignorance of all the ages” as to its meaning.
REFLECTIONS
The importance and relevance of Peter’s denial for the Christians to whom Mark writes is obvious. To a church under severe pressure of persecution, the denial issued a warning. If denying Jesus Christ was possible for an apostle—and a leader of the apostles at that—then they must be constantly on guard, lest they, too, deny Jesus. The story also provided assurance that if anyone did fail Jesus under the duress of persecution, there was always a way open for repentance, forgiveness, and restoration. It is no accident that at the gospel’s conclusion the angel tells the women to report the resurrection to “[Jesus’] disciples and Peter” (16:7). Mark’s readers are surely aware that Peter was restored and went on to provide apostolic leadership.
J. The Trial before Pilate (15:1–15)
OVERVIEW
Since the Sanhedrin did not have the right to execute Jesus (see comments at 14:64), they resolve to take him before the governor Pilate to obtain a capital sentence. The official residence of the Roman governor of Judea was at Caesarea on the Mediterranean coast. During the major festivals, however, he would set up residence in Jerusalem to provide crowd control and keep a watchful eye on the tumultuous pilgrims. In Jerusalem Pilate probably occupied the palace of Herod, a lavish residence constructed by Herod the Great and located in the northwestern section of the city. It was likely here that the trial of Jesus before Pilate took place. The traditional site of Jesus’ trial shown to most visitors in Jerusalem—the ancient pavement of the Fortress of Antonia—is almost certainly erroneous. The Antonia, located adjacent to the temple area on the northwest, served primarily as a barracks for soldiers on duty in Jerusalem. It is highly doubtful that the Roman governors visiting Jerusalem preferred the spartan accommodations of the Antonia to the luxurious facilities of Herod’s palace. We know from Josephus (J.W. 2.14.8 §301) that Gessius Florus, one of the Roman procurators, resided in Herod’s palace and had his tribunal set up in the square in front of it. Mark uses the word “Praetorium” to indicate Herod’s palace in v.16.
Pontius Pilate served as prefect of Judea from AD 26–36. Some scholars have claimed that the gospel writers intentionally shift the blame for the crucifixion from the Romans to the Jewish leadership, thus painting an unrealistic portrait of Pilate as a vacillating leader coerced into crucifying Jesus against his will. Yet the portrait of Pilate in the Gospels is fully compatible with what we know of him from secular history. A pragmatic ruler, Pilate had a general disdain for the Jewish population but feared antagonizing them, lest they complain to his superiors in Rome (see Philo, Legat. 299–305; Josephus, Ant. 18.3.1 §§55–59). While he was not afraid ruthlessly to suppress revolt (as shown from Josephus’s several descriptions of such incidents; cf. Ant. 18.3.2 §§60–62), he also sought to placate the Jewish leadership when it was politically expedient to do so. Pilate’s fears were not unfounded, and he was eventually recalled to Rome in AD 36 after complaints were raised against him because of a ruthless military action he conducted against a group of Samaritans (Josephus, Ant. 18.4.1–2 §§85–89). Mark’s description of Pilate here fits this portrait well. He does not see Jesus as a significant threat and so attempts to release him by using a tradition of Passover clemency. Yet he soon realizes that there is a greater political risk in releasing Jesus than in crucifying him and so concedes to their request. From Pilate’s perspective, there was much to gain and little to lose in crucifying Jesus. It not only placated the Jewish leadership but also served as a grim warning to other would-be insurrectionists.
Mark’s account of Jesus’ Roman trial is the briefest of the four. John includes a lengthy dialogue between Jesus and Pilate in which Jesus speaks of his kingdom as “not of this world” (18:29–38); Luke alone inserts the account of Jesus’ appearance before Herod Antipas (23:6–12); and Matthew reports that Pilate’s wife warned him against having anything to do with “that righteous [or ‘innocent’] man” (27:19).
1Very early in the morning, the chief priests, with the elders, the teachers of the law and the whole Sanhedrin, reached a decision. They bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to Pilate.
2“Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate.
“Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied.
3The chief priests accused him of many things. 4So again Pilate asked him, “Aren’t you going to answer? See how many things they are accusing you of.”
5But Jesus still made no reply, and Pilate was amazed.
6Now it was the custom at the Feast to release a prisoner whom the people requested. 7A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising. 8The crowd came up and asked Pilate to do for them what he usually did.
9“Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate, 10knowing it was out of envy that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. 11But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead.
12“What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?” Pilate asked them.
13“Crucify him!” they shouted.
14“Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate.
But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”
15Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.
COMMENTARY
1 What seems to be spoken of here is not another gathering of the Sanhedrin but the final stages of the meeting that had begun late the night before. The phrase symboulion poiēsantes is difficult. The best translation seems to be not “held a council” (NAB) but rather “reached a decision” (NIV) or “made their plans” (TEV; cf. similar phrases in Mk 3:6; Mt 12:14; 22:15; 27:7; 28:12). Apparently, the resolution or decision made by the Sanhedrin in the final stages of its meeting was to accuse Jesus before the civil authority not of blasphemy but of high treason. The Roman government would not have considered blasphemy a punishable crime. It had to do with Jewish religion and so was of little or no concern to the Roman authorities. But high treason was a crime they could not overlook. Moule, 124, points out the overpowering irony of the situation: “Jesus, who is, indeed, king of the Jews in a deeply spiritual sense, has refused to lead a political uprising. Yet now, condemned for blasphemy by the Jews because of his spiritual claims, he is accused by them also before Pilate by being precisely what he had disappointed the crowds for failing to be—a political insurgent.”
Having made their decision, the members of the Sanhedrin led Jesus from the palace of the high priest, located in the southwestern part of the city, through the streets of Jerusalem to Herod’s palace. He was taken “early in the morning” because that is when Pilate held trials (cf. Seneca, On Anger 2.7). This schedule explains why the Sanhedrin held their session late at night and very early in the morning. Mark does not mention who Pilate is or why he was in Jerusalem at that time. Apparently, Mark presupposes this knowledge on the part of his readers.
2 Pilate’s first question to Jesus—“Are you the king of the Jews?”—shows obliquely that the charges against Jesus had already been made known to Pilate. Mark gives us only a summary of the trial. According to Luke (23:2), the Sanhedrin brought three charges before Pilate: (1) Jesus is “subverting our nation”; (2) he “opposes payment of taxes to Caesar”; and (3) he “claims to be Christ, a king” (Lk 23:2). The three together indicate an insurrectionist claim to royal authority and so are appropriately summed up in Pilate’s question, “Are you the king of the Jews?” It is difficult to tell whether Pilate is sarcastically mocking Jesus or genuinely asking whether Jesus is claiming royal authority. In either case, from this point on Jesus’ kingship will be a central concern of the passion narrative (vv.2, 9, 12, 18, 26, 32). There is heavy irony here. Although the title “king” is repeatedly used to mock and deride Jesus, the informed reader knows that Jesus is indeed the Messiah and King, who will enter his royal authority through suffering.
Jesus’ answer to Pilate is a qualified one: sy legeis (lit., “you say”). The NIV’s “Yes, it is as you say” is probably too positive and would be better rendered “You have said so” (TNIV; cf. NLT), or “those are your words” (CEV). Jesus seems to be saying, “Yes, I am the king of the Jews; but your concept of what that means and mine are poles apart.”
3–5 The chief priests now take the lead in the attack against Jesus. They accuse him of “many things,” which phrase recalls the additional charges mentioned by Luke (see comments at v.2). Jesus, however, refuses to answer or defend himself (vv.4–5). The reader would likely be reminded of the Servant of Yahweh, who was “oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth” (Isa 53:7). Pilate was “amazed” (thaumazō, GK 2513) at Jesus’ silence in the face of these accusations (v.5). Amazement at Jesus’ words and deeds is a common theme throughout Mark’s gospel (1:22, 27; 2:12; 5:20; 6:2; 7:37; 11:18; see T. Dwyer, Motif of Wonder). The implication here is that Pilate is in awe at Jesus’ composure and recognizes there is something unique or special about him. It is perhaps this recognition that prompted him to seek Jesus’ release.
6 The custom of releasing a prisoner at the Passover Feast is unknown outside the Gospels (cf. Mt 27:15; Jn 18:39). It was, however, a Roman custom and could well have been a custom in Palestine (cf. R. L. Merritt, “Jesus Barabbas and the Paschal Pardon,” JBL 104 [1985]: 57–68; J. Blinzler, The Trial of Jesus [Cork: Mercier, 1959], 205–8). An example of a Roman official’s releasing a prisoner on the demands of the people occurs in the Papyrus Florentinus 61.59ff. There the Roman governor of Egypt, G. Septimius Vegetus, says to Phibion, the accused: “Thou hast been worthy of scourging, but I will give thee to the people” (cited in Taylor, 580). The independent attestation of the custom in the Synoptics and in John also suggests its authenticity.
7 Mark identifies Barabbas as one of the insurrectionists in prison for committing murder in the uprising. Mark speaks of this revolt as though it were well-known, but we have no specific reference to it in our sources. This lack is not surprising, however, since our sources are fragmentary and since the first century was one of frequent insurrections and rebel movements against the Roman occupation. Luke 23:19 refers to this particular event as having happened “in the city” (i.e., Jerusalem). Barabbas was probably a member of one of the insurrectionist groups that engaged in violent resistance to the Romans. It is likely that the two “thieves” crucified with Jesus were members of the same group and had been captured together with Barabbas (see comments at 14:48–50 and 15:27).
The name “Barabbas” is an Aramaic patronymic (a name identifying a person’s father) and might mean “son of the teacher” (Rabban) or “son of Abba” (Brown, Death of the Messiah, 799–800). “Abba” means “father,” but was also a common personal name. According to a variant reading of Matthew 27:16–17, Barabbas’s full name was “Jesus Barabbas” (cf. TNIV). This reading was known to Origen but rejected for theological reasons. It is entirely plausible that the reading is original and that Jesus was Barabbas’s personal name (i.e., “Jesus, son of Abba”). Its omission is easily explained by the reluctance of copyists to give this criminal the revered name “Jesus.” But “Jesus” was actually a common name among Jews of that day. It is certainly easier to explain why copyists would remove the name than to explain why they would have introduced it.
8 The crowd seems to have come to Pilate’s tribunal for the primary purpose of asking for Barabbas’s release, since it was customary for a prisoner to be released at the Passover Feast. It was Pilate who deliberately faced them with the choice between Jesus and Barabbas.
9–10 This statement (v.9) implies that the crowd had asked for the release of Jesus. If Barabbas also had the name “Jesus” (see comments at v.7), it is possible that Pilate may have mistaken the crowd’s request for releasing Jesus Barabbas as a request for releasing Jesus of Nazareth. Pilate, of course, used the title “king of the Jews” contemptuously, as in v.2. He was too shrewd a politician to believe that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him out of loyalty to Caesar. He reasoned, and rightly so, that they envied Jesus’ popularity and influence with the people (v.10).
11 The original purpose of the crowd was to gain the release of the insurrectionist Barabbas. Pilate had attempted to deflect that purpose and substitute the release of Jesus instead. This was a serious threat to the purpose of the chief priests. They had already condemned Jesus to death in their council; now they were not about to allow Jesus to slip through their fingers through some clemency custom associated with the Passover Feast. No other alternative was open to them but to urge the crowd to force Pilate to carry out their request—the release of Jesus Barabbas, not Jesus of Nazareth. Mark does not tell us how the chief priests stirred up the crowd.
12–14 Pilate’s question is surprising. Apparently, he held out for Jesus other options than crucifixion. In Matthew’s account, Pilate had just previously received his wife’s warning not to have anything to do with “that innocent [or ‘righteous’] man” (27:19). Perhaps his question reflects this warning. If Barabbas was to be released, what would Pilate do with Jesus? Was Pilate suggesting the possibility of releasing Jesus too? Whatever was going through his mind, it is clear from v.14 that he was reluctant to carry out a capital sentence against this apparently innocent man. His attempt to change the mind of the crowd—if doing so was, in fact, his true intention—failed. There was no dissuading them. The chief priests had stirred them into a frenzy. “Crucify him!” they shouted (v.13). And when Pilate, in a final attempt to save Jesus, asked, “Why? What crime has he committed?” the crowd, now a mob, ignored his question (v.14). They had reached a stage beyond reasoning. So they only shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”
15 Pilate, always the ruthless pragmatist, saw that he could not change the mind of the mob. His previous handling of matters relating to the Jews’ religion had not endeared him to the people. To risk alienating them in this crisis would be too dangerous for him politically. Perhaps his wife’s message had made him think more deeply about Jesus than he might otherwise have done (cf. v.12). Yet he was a career Roman politician, and a great deal was at stake for him. An official complaint to Rome by the Jewish authorities might well result in his recall. So to protect his own interests and placate the priests and the people, he released the insurrectionist Barabbas and ordered Jesus flogged.
Flogging generally preceded crucifixion (cf. Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World, 25–29), but not always. It is possible Pilate was still hoping he could dissuade the crowd from their demand for Jesus’ crucifixion by administering a severe flogging. In John’s account, after the flogging Pilate tried again to persuade them against crucifixion (Jn 19:1–7). In any case, flogging was no light punishment. The Romans first stripped the victim and tied his hands to a post above his head. The whip (flagellum) was made of several pieces of leather with pieces of bone and lead embedded near the ends. Two men, one on each side of the victim, usually did the flogging. The Jews mercifully limited flogging to a maximum of forty stripes; the Romans had no such limitation. The following is a medical doctor’s description of the physical effects of flogging.
The heavy whip is brought down with full force again and again across Jesus’ shoulders, back, and legs. At first the heavy thongs cut through the skin only. Then, as the blows continue, they cut deeper into the subcutaneous tissues, producing first an oozing of blood from the capillaries and veins of the skin, and finally spurting arterial bleeding from vessels in the underlying muscles. . . . Finally the skin of the back is hanging in long ribbons and the entire area is an unrecognizable mass of torn, bleeding tissue.
C. Truman Davis, “The Crucifixion of Jesus,” Arizona Medicine 22/3 (March 1965): 185
It is not surprising that Roman floggings were often fatal.
After going through this terrible ordeal, Jesus was handed over by Pilate to be crucified. The use of the phrase “handed over” may be a deliberate attempt to identify Jesus with the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53:6, 12 (LXX), since the same term (paradidōmi) is used there of the Servant. This “handing over” has been a constant theme both of Jesus’ passion predictions (9:31; 10:34) and throughout the arrest and trial narrative as Jesus is “betrayed” and “handed over” from one human agent to the next (14:10–11, 18, 21, 41–42, 44; 15:1, 15). Ultimately, of course, it is God who “hands over” his Servant to serve as a ransom sacrifice for sins (see comments at 9:30–31).
NOTES
1 In 1961 at Caesarea on the Mediterranean coast, Italian archaeologists discovered a two-by-three foot footstone that has on it the following inscription in three-inch lettering:
- CAESARIENS TIBERIEVM
- PONTIVS PILATVS
- PRAEFECTVS IVDAEAE
- DEDIT
- [Pontius Pilatus, Prefect of Judea, has presented the Tiberieum to the Caesareans]
What the Tiberieum was is not clear (perhaps a building or monument). What is important is that this discovery constituted the first archaeological evidence for the existence of Pontius Pilate. It also confirms that his official title was “prefect” rather than the later term “procurator” used for the governors of Judea (cf. J. Vardaman, “A New Inscription which Mentions Pilate as ‘Prefect’,” JBL 81 [1962]: 70–71).
2 Had Jesus wanted to declare his kingship openly, he could have answered ναί (nai, “Yes!”), or, as in 14:62, ἐγὼ εἰμί (egō eimi, “I am”). R. P. Martin (Mark, 178) suggests the paraphrase “You do well to ask”—“a reply which deflects the thrust of Pilate’s interrogation and makes possible a continuation of the dialogue in the Trial scenario.”
3 The variant reading at the end of v.3 that is included in the KJV, αὐτὸς δὲ οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίνατο (autos de ouden apekrinato, “but he answered nothing”), is supported by predominantly Caesarean witnesses. Taylor thinks the reading may be original because the following verse (v.4) seems to require some such statement. The external evidence is, however, so weak that the UBS Greek text does not even list it as a variant.
6 In addition to the example of clemency cited in the commentary, there is in the Mishnah a rule that a paschal lamb may be slaughtered for one who has been promised release from prison (m. Pesaḥ. 8:6a).
7 Cranfield, 450, thinks “Jesus Barabbas” is likely original in Matthew 27:16–17 and, since Matthew is dependent on Mark, was originally present here in Mark as well. While this reading is possible, its complete absence from any MS of Mark renders unwise the introduction of it here.
K. The Mocking of Jesus (15:16–20)
OVERVIEW
In his third passion prediction, Jesus had said that the religious leaders would condemn him to death and hand him over to the Gentiles, who would “mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him” (10:33–34). This prophecy is vividly fulfilled here, as Pilate’s soldiers mock and abuse Jesus (cf. 14:65; 15:29–32). As throughout the trial and crucifixion narrative, the scene is heavily ironic. Jesus, the true Messiah and King of the Jews, is derisively mocked as a pretender to the throne (Brooks, 253). The informed reader knows that it is through suffering and death that Jesus will be exalted and glorified to the right hand of God. As in Jesus’ predictions in 10:33–34 and the abuse of 14:65, this passage recalls the prophecies of suffering related to Yahweh’s Servant in Isaiah 50:6 and 53:4–5.
16The soldiers led Jesus away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium) and called together the whole company of soldiers. 17They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. 18And they began to call out to him, “Hail, king of the Jews!” 19Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. 20And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him.
COMMENTARY
16 The scourging of Jesus likely took place in front of the palace of Herod and in the presence of all the people. Afterward Jesus was taken by the soldiers into the aulē, a term that commonly means “courtyard” but which the NIV translates as “palace” because of Mark’s explanatory clause—“that is, the Praetorium.” The term is used in 1 Maccabees 11:46 in this sense. Another possibility is that the courtyard (aulē), being the most public part of the Praetorium, “may well have been known by the Latin name of the whole” (Swete, 374). The NLT translates aulē as “the courtyard of the governor’s headquarters” (cf. CEV, TEV). “Praetorium” is a Latin loanword in Greek. Used originally of a general’s tent or the headquarters in a camp, here it designates the Roman governor’s official residence. (For the identification of the Praetorium with Herod’s palace, see comments at v.1.)
The soldiers who led Jesus into the courtyard and then mocked and abused him were a part of the auxiliary troops Pilate had brought up to Jerusalem from Caesarea. They were likely non-Jews recruited from Palestine and other parts of the empire. Mark says the whole company (speira) took part in their perverted humor. Since a speira (the tenth part of a legion) consisted of two hundred to six hundred men, the word is probably used loosely here by Mark to include only the soldiers immediately at hand.
17–18 The soldiers thought it was a great joke that this common Jewish teacher claimed to be a king. So they took a purple robe and threw it across his shredded and bleeding back. It was probably a scarlet military cloak (cf. Mt 27:28), “a cast-off and faded rag, but with color enough left in it to suggest the royal purple” (Swete, 375). To add to the royal mockery, a crown was fashioned from thorny branches and pressed onto Jesus’ scalp. Again there must have been copious bleeding, for the scalp is one of the most vascular areas of the body. The term “crown” is stephanos, which refers to a laurel wreath worn by victorious athletes or someone of high status. In this context it is clearly a royal symbol. The term “thorny” (akanthinos) is not specific and could refer to a variety of prickly plants grown in Palestine. “Hail, king of the Jews’” (v.18) is a parody of “Hail, Emperor Caesar!”
19 The mocking was followed by further physical violence. The blows that hit Jesus’ head from the staff would have driven the thorns more deeply into his scalp and caused even more profuse bleeding. Matthew 27:29 says that they first forced Jesus to hold the staff as a mock scepter. They also kept spitting (Gk. imperfect tense) on him, and the climax came when they mockingly fell on their knees and paid homage to him.
20 At last, tiring of their mockery, the soldiers tore the robe from Jesus’ back. The fabric had probably stuck to the clots of blood and serum in the wounds. Thus when it was callously ripped off him, it caused excruciating pain, just as when a bandage is carelessly removed. Jesus’ own clothes were now put back on him. The custom was for those condemned to death by crucifixion to be led naked to the place of execution and to be flogged on the way (Josephus, Ant. 19.4.5 §269). Jesus, however, had already been scourged and was too weak to have survived an additional brutal beating.
NOTES
17–18 Philo (Flacc. 6.36–40) relates a somewhat similar episode that occurred in Alexandria in about AD 38. King Herod Agrippa I was mocked by a pagan crowd, who dressed up a demented Jew named Carabbas as “king” and pretended to pay homage to him. They supplied him with robe made of a doormat, a crown of papyrus leaf, and a scepter of papyrus stalk. Philo criticizes the Egyptian governor Flaccus Avillius for not intervening against the mockery.
20 In John’s account Pilate, making one final appeal to the crowd after Jesus’ scourging (19:4–16), is even more reluctant to crucify Jesus. He brings Jesus, wearing the purple robe and the crown of thorns, before the crowd and says, “Here is the man!” (v.5). John says that Pilate wanted to set Jesus free (v.12), but the Jewish leaders warned that if he let Jesus go he was no friend of Caesar. So Pilate, who felt his political future at stake, acquiesced to their cries.
L. The Crucifixion (15:21–32)
OVERVIEW
Mark’s crucifixion narrative is marked especially by its simplicity and irony. Jesus is repeatedly mocked as king of the Jews. Since he claimed to save others, he should be able to come down from the cross and save himself. The irony is that Jesus is indeed the King of the Jews who has been saving others throughout his ministry. Yet it is by staying on the cross rather than coming down that he will accomplish the ultimate salvation—dying as a ransom payment for the sins of others (10:45).
21A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross. 22They brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means The Place of the Skull). 23Then they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it. 24And they crucified him. Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get.
25It was the third hour when they crucified him. 26The written notice of the charge against him read: THE KING OF THE JEWS. 27They crucified two robbers with him, one on his right and one on his left. 29Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, 30come down from the cross and save yourself!”
31In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! 32Let this Christ, this King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.
COMMENTARY
21 Those condemned to die by crucifixion were customarily required to carry the heavy wooden crosspiece (patibulum), on which they were to be nailed, to the place of execution. Jesus apparently started out carrying his cross (Jn 19:17), but it proved too much for him. The scourging and loss of blood had weakened him too much. So apparently at random they apprehended one Simon of Cyrene and forced him into service. Since Cyrene (in North Africa) had a large Jewish population, Simon was probably a Jew. He may have been a visitor coming to the city for the Passover celebration, or a resident—part of the Cyrenian community of Jews who lived there (Ac 6:9). If the latter, he was likely returning to the city from a journey or from work in the countryside. Mark probably mentions Simon’s two sons Alexander and Rufus because they were known to his church. If this Rufus is the same one referred to by Paul in Romans 16:13, the fact would provide additional evidence for the claim that Mark’s gospel was written in Rome.
22 Both Roman and Jewish executions were customarily performed outside the city. John says that the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, but it was outside the city wall (19:20; cf. Heb 13:12). In the first century AD, as closely as can now be determined, the northern wall of the city ran northward from Herod’s palace, turned sharply to the east past Golgotha, which was just west of it, and then continued to the Fortress of Antonia.
“Golgotha” is a slightly modified transliteration of the Aramaic word for “skull,” whereas the designation “Calvary” (commonly used in English) is derived from the Vulgate’s translation “Calvariae locus,” calva being the Latin word for “skull.” How this site came to be named “Golgotha” is unknown. The common conjecture is that the place looked like a skull. The traditional site of the crucifixion (and Jesus’ nearby burial) is located inside the famous Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which is within the present walls of the city (but outside the walls of Jerusalem in Jesus’ day). See Notes for further discussion.
23 Jesus was offered wine mixed with myrrh when he arrived at the place of execution. Mark does not identify who offered the drink to Jesus. Lane, 564, posits women of Jerusalem who provided a narcotic drink to condemned criminals in order to deaden the pain (cf. b. Sanh. 43a). W. Michaelis (TDNT 7:457–59) thinks Jesus, because he was weak and exhausted, was offered soldiers’ wine by the executioner. In any case the drink must have been meant to deaden the pain. Jesus, refusing it, chose rather to experience the terrible sufferings of the crucifixion with his senses intact.
24 With incredible restraint, Mark states simply, “And they crucified him.” Such brevity is remarkable when one considers that crucifixion was, as Cicero said, “the cruelest and most hideous punishment possible” (Verr. 5.64.165; cf. Hengel, Charismatic Leader and His Followers, 29–32). The Persians seem to have invented the practice, but it was Romans who perfected it and used it to maximum effect. Crucifixion served both as a means of execution and for “exposing” an executed body to shame and humiliation. The cruelty and public nature of the event also served as a weapon of terror, a stark warning to the populace about the dire consequences of challenging Roman authority.
The Romans practiced a variety of forms of crucifixion. The main stake, or palus, generally remained at the place of execution, while the victim would be forced to carry the patibulum there (see comments at v.21). The crossbeam was placed either on top of the palus (like a “T”) or in the more traditional cross shape (✝). The victim would be affixed to the cross with ropes or, as in the case of Jesus, with nails (Jn 20:25). Various positions were used to maximize torture and humiliation. Josephus (J.W. 5.11.1 §451) records the crucifixion of thousands of Jews by the Romans during the siege of Jerusalem: “So the soldiers, out of the rage and hatred they bore the prisoners, nailed those they caught, in different postures, to the crosses, by way of jest; and their number was so great that there was not enough room for the crosses, and not enough crosses for the bodies.”
Death by crucifixion could come very slowly, especially if the victim was tied instead of nailed to the cross. Nailing caused loss of blood and thus hastened death. The physical condition of the victim and the severity of the scourging also affected the length of survival. Death was caused by loss of blood, exposure, and exhaustion and/or suffocation (since the hanging weight of the victim, and the pain of having to push himself up with his nail- or rope-fastened feet in order to be able to expand his lungs and rib cage with breath, made it increasingly difficult for him to inhale sufficient air). If the victim was slow in dying, his legs could be broken by a club so that he could not push himself up to breathe. According to John’s gospel, Jesus had been so brutally beaten that when the soldiers came to him to see whether they would have to break his legs, he was dead already (19:31–33).
Jesus’ clothes had been removed when he was nailed to the cross. They were now in the hands of the soldiers, who proceeded to while away their time by casting lots for the clothes. The passage recalls Psalm 22:18: “They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.” Though this psalm of a righteous sufferer is not explicitly quoted until Jesus’ words from the cross in v.34, it echoes throughout the crucifixion narrative (see comments at vv.29, 34).
25 Mark says that Jesus was crucified at the third hour, i.e., 9:00 a.m.—the first of three specific time markers mentioned by the narrator: crucifixion in the third hour (9:00 a.m., v.25); the darkness in the sixth hour (noon, v.33); and the cry of Jesus and his death in the ninth hour (3:00 p.m., v.34). Jesus’ body is then taken down “as evening approached” (about 6:00 p.m.? v.42). Mark’s sequence, however, apparently conflicts with John’s account, which says that the trial before Pilate was not quite over by the sixth hour—i.e., noon—therefore implying that the crucifixion took place later still (Jn 19:14). A number of solutions to this difficult problem have been suggested.
(1) Some say John was using Roman time. Thus the sixth hour was 6:00 a.m., not noon; and the three-hour interval was taken up with the scourging, mocking, and preparations for the crucifixion. This explanation, however, seems a desperate attempt at harmonization, since there is no evidence for it.
(2) The discrepancy is a scribal error. The whole of v.25 may be a gloss (i.e., added by later copyists), since both Matthew and Luke do not include it, and they ordinarily follow Mark’s indications of time in the passion narrative. Another possibility is that an early copyist has confused a Greek Γ (gamma)—the letter that stands for the number 3—with a Ϝ (digamma)—the letter that stands for 6. This latter suggestion was made by the church historian Eusebius in the fourth century AD. The problem is that in the MSS we possess Mark uses the word “third” (tritē) instead of the gamma (Γ).
(3) The scribal error could be in John 19:14 rather than in Mark 15:25. In this case a scribe has introduced the prominent time reference, which appears in all three Synoptics (“the sixth hour”; Mk 15:33; Mt 27:45; Lk 23:44), into John’s account, but introduced it in the wrong place—at the end of the trial scene instead of at the time of darkness (France, 645).
(4) John has altered the chronology for theological reasons, namely, to place Jesus’ death as closely as possible to the time of the Passover sacrifices (Cranfield, 455–56; Gundry, 957; Evans, 503).
(5) Mark has altered the chronology for the structural reason of providing a well-ordered account.
Of these suggestions, either a scribal alteration—solution 2 or 3—or a Johannine theological emphasis (4) seems the most likely. But all remain speculative.
26 A wooden board (titulus) stating the specific charge against the condemned man was commonly tied around his neck or carried before him to the execution. Mark does not state where the titulus was placed, but Matthew says it was “above his head” (27:37), and John confirms that it was fastened to the cross (19:19). In Mark’s account the inscription reads “THE KING OF THE JEWS.” John relates that it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek (19:20). The precise wording varies among the four gospels, but all assert that Jesus was crucified on the charge of claiming to be the king of the Jews. For the Romans, that claim was high treason.
27 The two criminals crucified on either side of Jesus are called lēstas, a word normally meaning “robbers.” As noted earlier, however, here it likely means “insurrectionists” (see comments at 11:17 and 14:48–50). They had probably been a part of the same insurrection Barabbas was involved in (cf. 15:7) and had been sentenced at the same time as Jesus (cf. TDNT 4:262). They seemed to know that the charges against him were false (cf. Lk 23:41). His placement in the middle, between the two criminals, was probably to mock him as the insurrectionist par excellence—the “king of the Jews.” The wording “one on his right and one on his left” recalls the request of James and John for the chief seats when Jesus entered his “glory” (10:37; see Brooks, 259), thus reminding the reader that status in God’s kingdom comes not through power and domination but through service and sacrifice.
28 This verse (see NIV text note) does not appear in the most ancient MSS of the NT. Most textual critics consider it an interpolation from Luke 22:37 (quoting Isa 53:12), where it is authentic. Mark does not usually point out OT fulfillment.
29–30 It is evident from these verses that the crucifixion took place in a public area, perhaps beside a thoroughfare where people were coming and going. The Romans intentionally made crucifixions a public spectacle in order to “advertise” as widely as possible the consequences of revolt. As some people passed by, they took the opportunity to vent their hostility on Jesus (v.29). The phrase “shaking their heads”—a gesture of derision—echoes Psalm 22:7 (cf. La 2:15), once again identifying Jesus as the righteous sufferer of that psalm (see comments at v.24). They particularly remembered the charge made against him of destroying and rebuilding the temple (cf. 14:58). Surely if he could destroy and rebuild the temple, he could save himself now (v.30).
31–32 The chief priests and teachers of the law were also there to add their mockery to that of the passersby. This must have been especially difficult for Jesus to bear. As the spiritual leaders of the people, they should have championed Jesus’ cause; instead, they had condemned him and demanded his crucifixion. They “mocked him among themselves,” no doubt within the hearing of Jesus. Yet as they did so, they unconsciously bore witness to his miraculous powers: “He saved others”—a reference to his healing miracles. Their statement “he can’t save himself” is both false and true. In the sense they meant it—he lacks the power—it is false. But in a profound sense, if Jesus was to fulfill his messianic mission, he could not save himself. His death was necessary for humanity’s redemption.
The epithet “This Christ, this King of Israel” is full of derision (v.32). The phrase brings together the two phases of Jesus’ trial. The claim before the Sanhedrin to be Israel’s Messiah was brought before Pilate as a claim to royal authority—a king in opposition to Caesar. Pilate had placed over Jesus the title “THE KING OF THE JEWS,” a phrase more naturally used by a Gentile. The Jewish leaders use terminology more appropriate to their status, “King of Israel,” so mocking his claim to be the king of the people of God. And they tauntingly demanded a demonstration of his power—“come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Like the Pharisees in 8:11–12, they want to see a sign—proof of Jesus’ messianic authority.
Jesus also had to bear the insults of the criminals who were crucified on either side of him. Mark adds this note to show the utter degradation and humiliation of the cross. Even the lowliest of criminals view Jesus with derision.
NOTES
22 Archaeological excavations tend to support the historicity of the traditional site. For example, Kathleen Kenyon’s excavations in 1967 discovered a rock quarry on the southern side of the church, and just west of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre tombs have been discovered. That rock quarries were seldom found inside the walls of cities, simply because the crowded conditions made it impossible to work them, and that burials were not allowed within the city walls give supporting evidence to the tradition that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was the site of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial. Gordon’s Calvary (located on a skull-shaped knoll outside the present walls of the city between and north of the Damascus and Herod gates), and the nearby Garden Tomb, though major tourist attractions, have little historical support as the site of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial.
25 For various harmonizing solutions to the time of Jesus’ death, see J. V. Miller, “The Time of the Crucifixion,” JETS 26 (1983): 157–66.
32 The imagery here is similar to the taunts of oppressors against the righteous man of Wisdom of Solomon 2:17–18: “Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him. For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.” Compare Matthew 27:42–43, which has even stronger conceptual echoes to this passage.
M. The Death of Jesus (15:33–41)
33At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?”—which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
35When some of those standing near heard this, they said, “Listen, he’s calling Elijah.”
36One man ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down,” he said.
37With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.
38The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. 39And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry and saw how he died, he said, “Surely this man was the Son of God!”
40Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. 41In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there.
COMMENTARY
33 All three of the Synoptics report the darkness; none say what caused it. It could hardly have been an eclipse of the sun at the time of the Passover full moon. Perhaps the darkness was caused by dark clouds that obscured the sun, or by a black sirocco—a wind that comes in from the desert, not uncommon in Jerusalem in the month of April. Whatever its immediate cause, Mark and his readers clearly understood it to result from a supernatural act of God and probably interpreted it as a sign of judgment. In the OT, darkness is one of the ten plagues God sent against Egypt in the account of events leading to the exodus (Ex 10:21–23), and darkness is identified with the eschatological judgments of the day of the Lord (Isa 13:10; 34:4; Joel 2:10; 3:15; Am 5:18, 20; 8:9). Jesus alluded to this latter imagery in his Olivet Discourse (13:24–25). The darkness lasted for three hours (noon–3:00 p.m.) and fell “over the whole land,” i.e., Judea, not the whole earth.
34 In the four gospels Jesus makes seven statements from the cross (the “seven last words”). Yet Mark records only one of them: Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?—an Aramaic version of Psalm 22:1, meaning, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” It is significant that Mark, the evangelist who most stresses the suffering role of the Messiah, records only Jesus’ cry of forsakenness. The narrative of the crucifixion paints a dark and foreboding scene.
The saying is surely authentic, since it is unlikely that the church would have invented a saying in which Jesus expresses utter forsakenness by God. Some commentators have tried to soften its meaning by claiming that Jesus has in mind the entire context of Psalm 22, and so contemplates not only his suffering but also his vindication and restoration to fellowship with God (cf. Ps 22:22–31). This interpretation is unlikely. While it is true that Mark uses this and other allusions to Psalm 22 to portray Jesus as the righteous sufferer par excellence (cf. vv.24, 29), nothing in the context indicates that Jesus’ words express confidence or trust in God. Although Jesus does not abandon or reject God (whom he still refers to as “my God”), the cry is certainly one of true anguish and despair. While we should be cautious about reading a developed theology of atonement into the episode, the best explanation from Mark’s narrative perspective is that Jesus is experiencing God’s cup of judgment (14:36), suffering as a ransom payment for the sins of “the many” (10:45; 14:24). This view is not far from Paul’s affirmations that “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us” (2Co 5:21) and that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (Gal 3:13). God cannot look on sin and so turns his back on his own Son, thus allowing him to suffer its judgment alone. Taylor, 549, remarks: “The depths of the saying are too deep to be plumbed, but the least inadequate interpretations are those which find in it a sense of desolation in which Jesus felt the horror of sin so deeply that for a time the closeness of His communion with the Father was obscured.”
35 Some of the bystanders mistook the first words of Jesus’ cry “Eloi, Eloi” (“My God, my God”) to be a cry for Elijah, so they say, “Listen, he’s calling Elijah.” Whether this comment reflects a true misunderstanding or a mocking distortion of Jesus’ words is unclear. There was a common Jewish belief that Elijah would return before the eschatological day of God’s judgment (Mal 3:1; 4:5; Sir 48:9–10), a belief that has surfaced elsewhere in Mark’s gospel (6:15; 8:28; and esp. 9:11–13). Elijah was also regarded as a deliverer of those in trouble (cf. TDNT 2:930).
36 Mark does not identify the person who went to get the wine vinegar (or “sour wine,” oxos). This drink “relieved thirst more effectively than water and, being cheaper than regular wine, was a favorite beverage of the lower ranks of society and of those in moderate circumstances . . . especially of soldiers” (BDAG, 715). The sour wine was probably present for the soldiers, but the fact that this individual speaks of Elijah may indicate that he was one of the Jewish bystanders. In any case, a sponge was filled with the drink, placed around the tip of a stick (of hyssop, according to Jn 19:29), and held up to Jesus’ lips so that he could suck the liquid from it. The NIV translates aphete as “Now leave him alone.” But the equally valid rendering “Let me alone” seems more in keeping with the context. Apparently, some of the bystanders wanted to prevent the soldier from giving the wine vinegar to Jesus. The soldier insisted on doing it, however, and then added his own taunt: “Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down.” Gould’s paraphrase, 295, of the last part of this verse catches its meaning: “Let me give him this, and so prolong his life, and then we shall get an opportunity to see whether Elijah comes to help him or not.” The offer of wine echoes Psalm 69:21, where the tormenters of a righteous sufferer give him gall in his food and “vinegar for my thirst.”
37 After six hours of torture, Jesus cried out and died. Usually those who were crucified took a long time to die (cf. v.44, where Pilate expresses surprise on hearing that Jesus had already died). The “loud cry” of Jesus is unusual, for crucifixion sapped the strength of its victims, especially when they were near death. Mark does not specify Jesus’ words, and it is difficult to tell whether his cry continues the tone of despair in the previous cry (v.34) or whether it was a more positive one. If it was the same as that recorded by either Luke (“Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” 23:46) or John (“It is finished!” 19:30), then it would indicate either trust or triumph (France, 655). But Mark does not say. Our only clue is the positive reaction of the centurion in v.39 (see comments there), which would suggest something more profound than the last gasp of an anguished soul. Perhaps it was a shout of victory in anticipation of the triumph of the resurrection.
38 All the synoptic writers record this event. The curtain mentioned here could be either the one that separated the Holy Place from the inner courtyard or the curtain between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies (Ex 26:33–37; 27:16). Josephus (J.W. 5.5.4 §212) describes the former as a magnificent Babylonian curtain of blue, scarlet, and purple symbolically representing the universe. Mark’s assertion that the curtain was ripped in two “from top to bottom” confirms that it was a supernatural act of God. But Mark does not identify its spiritual significance. It may refer to (1) God’s judgment against the temple and its corrupt leadership (a common theme in Mark), (2) the cessation of the temple sacrifices, or (3) new access into God’s presence available through Jesus’ death. Hebrews 10:19–22 identifies Jesus’ body as the curtain that opens up “a new and living way” into the presence of God. One or more of these ideas may have been in Mark’s mind.
How this event became public knowledge is not known. If the inner curtain was torn, only the priests permitted entrance into the Holy Place would have seen it. Perhaps the event became part of Christian tradition through the report of priests who subsequently converted to Christianity (cf. Ac 6:7).
39 The Roman centurion in command of the detachment of soldiers at the cross had witnessed the scourging, mocking, spitting, crucifixion, wagging of heads, and darkness, and now he heard Jesus’ last cry and watched him die. The soldier was deeply impressed. He had never seen anything like this before! The statement “Surely this man was the Son of God!” is difficult to translate, since it seems unlikely that a pagan Roman centurion would have understood the full theological significance of the title “Son of God.” The Greek has no definite article ho (“the”) before huios (“son”), and it could possibly be rendered “a son of God” or “a son of a god.” The centurion in this case may have recognized something divine in the behavior of this crucified Jew. Yet whatever the centurion’s original intent, this ambiguity cannot characterize the way in which Mark and his readers understood the title. Jesus as the Son of God is a central theme in Mark’s Christology, a theme that reaches its climax here in the centurion’s words. If the phrase “the Son of God” in 1:1 is an original part of the gospel (see comments there), then the centurion’s confession here forms its twin, the matching “bookend” that completes the frame around the whole gospel. Even if the phrase in 1:1 is not original, the Father’s declaration in 1:11, “You are my Son,” has the same profound effect. The one whom the Father declared to be his Son at the beginning of the gospel is now confirmed to be the Son of God by a Gentile centurion. And this recognition comes not because Jesus is a conquering warrior king but because he has died as a “ransom” for sins (10:45). Whether or not the centurion realized the full import of his words, they were for Mark and his readers a profoundly true statement of the identity of the man on the cross. It is equally significant that the man who recognizes this truth is not one of the Jewish religious leaders (who rejected Jesus’ claim, 14:62–63), nor even one of the disciples (Peter’s having proclaimed Jesus to be the Messiah but being unable to comprehend his suffering role, 8:27–33), but a Gentile—those to whom the gospel message will soon go forth. If Mark is writing to the church in Rome, then this confession by a Gentile Roman soldier is even more significant.
40–41 Although Jesus’ male followers had deserted him, his women disciples did not, and some observed the crucifixion from afar. Surprisingly, here is the first mention in Mark of the “many” women who supported Jesus’ ministry. They will prove to be important witnesses to the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection. Out of the many who had come up to Jerusalem with Jesus from Galilee, Mark identifies three who were “watching from a distance”—Mary Magdalene; Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses; and Salome, the wife of Zebedee and mother of James and John.
Mary Magdalene (i.e., Mary of Magdala, a fishing village on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee) is mentioned only here in Mark. From Luke 8:2, however, we know that Jesus had cast seven demons out of her, and from John 20:11–18 we learn that she was the first to see the risen Lord. The second Mary is designated as the “mother of James the younger and of Joses.” Although little is known about her, her sons were apparently well-known in the early church. She is referred to as the “mother of Joses” in 15:47 and the “mother of James” in 16:1. In the NIV James is described as “the younger.” The Greek adjective mikros can also mean “the less,” i.e., “the smaller, less important,” or “less known.” It is difficult to decide which meaning applies here. This Mary may have been the wife of Clopas, mentioned in John 19:25. The third woman Mark mentions is Salome, Zebedee’s wife and the mother of James and John (cf. Mt 27:56).
These women had been with Jesus in Galilee (v.41) and had served him there. They had come up to Jerusalem, along with many other women, especially to be with him and to serve him.
NOTES
33 In addition to apocalyptic judgment, darkness is also associated with the death of great men in both Greco-Roman and Jewish traditions. It is reported with reference to the deaths of Alexander the Great, Caesar, Aeschylus, and others (see BDAG, 931; TDNT 7:439).
34 The seven last words are (in probable chronological order): (1) “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Lk 23:34); (2) to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,” and to the beloved disciple, “Here is your mother” (Jn 19:26–27); (3) to the thief, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise” (Lk 23:43); (4) “I am thirsty!” (Jn 19:28); (5) “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me!” (Mk 15:34; Mt 27:46); (6) “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” (Lk 23:46); and (7) “It is finished” (Jn 19:30).
Matthew records the same “My God, my God” saying as Mark but begins with the Hebrew Eli, Eli, and then finishes with the Aramaic lema sabachthani (TNIV). Either the Hebrew or Aramaic version could be original. Jesus may have recited the psalm in Hebrew and the Aramaic-speaking church rendered it into Aramaic. Or he may have originally spoken in Aramaic and Matthew introduced the familiar Hebrew Eli, Eli.
35 Some commentators claim that Jesus probably originally said Eli, Eli instead of Eloi, Eloi, since the former would more likely have been mistaken for a cry for Elijah. This is possible, but the anguished cry of a man near death is unlikely to have been enunciated clearly, and either cry could have been mistaken for Elijah.
39 Mark does not specifically say what impressed the man—only that it resulted from seeing “how he died.” Some MSS, however, add that he “heard his cry and saw how he died” (so NIV text; TNIV text note), thus indicating that it was, in part at least, what Jesus said in his last cry that made such a profound impact. The textual evidence, however, favors the shorter reading.
Although there is no definite article ὁ (ho, “the”) before ὑιός (huios, “son”) in the centurion’s confession, the NIV appropriately translates, “Surely this man was the Son of God” (emphasis mine), since a definite predicate noun that precedes the verb usually does not have the article (cf. Jn 1:1).
N. The Burial of Jesus (15:42–47)
OVERVIEW
The account of Jesus’ burial is an important part of the gospel’s story. The fact that Jesus was buried confirms that he was truly dead and sets the place and stage for the resurrection narrative. When Paul summarizes the essential gospel message in 1 Corinthians, he gives the burial a prominent place: “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day . . .” (1Co 15:3–4).
The Romans did not generally allow crucified victims to be buried. Part of the humiliation of crucifixion was to allow the body to decompose on the cross or to be left unburied for scavengers to eat. Yet the Romans were also aware of Jewish religious concerns, and OT law required the bodies of executed victims to be buried before nightfall so as not to desecrate the land (Dt 21:22–23; cf. Jn 19:31). Josephus (J.W. 4.5.2 §317) confirms that, contrary to Roman practice, the Jews tended to bury crucified victims. In this context, the release of the body of Jesus by Pilate is entirely plausible.
42It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, 43Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body. 44Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. 45When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph. 46So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. 47Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.
42–43 “Preparation Day” was the name given to the day before a festival or a Sabbath (v.42). Here it refers to the day before the Sabbath, as Mark explains for the benefit of his Gentile readers. Since the Jewish Sabbath began at sundown, and it was now late in the afternoon (probably around 4:00 or 5:00 p.m.), there was not much time to take Jesus’ body down from the cross. Apparently, temporal urgency spurred Joseph of Arimathea to action.
Joseph’s request for the body of Jesus (v.43) is described by Mark as a bold act, as indeed it was, because it would inevitably have identified Joseph with Jesus and his followers. For a man in Joseph’s position (“a prominent member of the Council,” i.e., the Sanhedrin), such an act could have serious consequences. But he was a pious man who “was himself waiting for the kingdom of God.” Though Mark does not give us any more information about Joseph, Matthew says he was a “disciple” (27:57), and John clarifies that he held this discipleship “secretly” and that Nicodemus assisted him in the burial (19:38–39). Luke describes him as “a good and upright man who had not consented to their [the Sanhedrin’s] decision and action” (23:50–51). Whether Joseph was absent during the Sanhedrin’s deliberations or had abstained from the vote is unknown.
Ordinarily, a relative or close friend would have requested the body, but apparently the mother of Jesus was too distraught; and Jesus’ disciples had fled. There is no evidence that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were in Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixion.
The burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea has a very strong claim to authenticity, since it is unlikely that the church would have invented a story in which a member of the council that so vehemently condemned Jesus now steps forward to give him an honorable burial.
44–45 Pilate was surprised to hear that Jesus had already died, since death usually came much more slowly to crucified victims than it had to Jesus. Only after he received confirmation of Jesus’ death from the centurion was Pilate willing to turn Jesus’ body over to Joseph (v.45). Had it not been for Joseph’s actions, Jesus’ body would likely have been buried in a common criminal’s grave. For Pilate to release the body of a condemned criminal—especially one condemned of high treason—to someone other than a relative was highly unusual. It suggests that Pilate did not take seriously the charge of high treason against Jesus and had only pronounced sentence against him because of political expediency. This action of Pilate is consistent with Mark’s account of Jesus’ trial before Pilate (vv.1–15).
46 Mark does not mention that anyone assisted Joseph in the actions described here. He must, however, have had help in removing the body from the cross, preparing it for burial, and carrying it to the place of burial. Matthew 27:57 describes Joseph as being rich (cf. Isa 53:9), so he doubtless had servants to help him. Moreover, John says that Nicodemus, who had previously come to Jesus at night, helped Joseph and supplied some of the spices used in the preparation of the body for burial (Jn 19:39). Although no specific mention is made of washing the blood-soaked body, this important Jewish rite must have been performed before the body was wrapped for burial in the linen cloths. After being properly prepared for burial (cf. Jn 19:40), the body was placed in “a tomb cut out of rock.” Such tombs were generally meant to be family tombs, with multiple shelves for bodies carved into the interior walls of the cave. This use and design explain Matthew’s statement that the tomb belonged to Joseph and that it was new—i.e., none of Joseph’s family had yet been placed in it (Mt 27:60; cf. Jn 19:41).
The tomb was located in a garden near the site of the crucifixion (Jn 19:41). Archaeological excavation has shown that the traditional site of Jesus’ burial (the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem) served as a cemetery during the first century AD (see comments at v.22). Tombs cut out of the rock were closed by rolling a stone against the entrance—either a flat stone disc that rolled side to side in a sloped channel, or simply a large rock that could be rolled in front of the opening. (For an interesting discussion of what kind of stone is meant, see Dalman, Sacred Sites and Ways, 374ff.)
47 The two Marys mentioned in 15:40 as being witnesses of the crucifixion were also present at Jesus’ burial. Mark mentions their presence in anticipation of 16:1 and particularly 16:5. The two women could identify the tomb on Sunday morning because they had been present at the burial.
NOTES
42–47 The bones of a crucified man named Jehohanan were discovered in 1968 at Givʾat ha Mivtar in the Kidron Valley northeast of the Old City of Jerusalem and have been dated between AD 7 and 70. For details, see J. Zias and J. H. Charlesworth, “Crucifixion: Archaeology, Jesus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. J. H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 273–89.
43 Arimathea, the birthplace of Samuel (1Sa 1:1), is probably to be identified with Ramathaim-Zophim, a village in the hill country of Ephraim about twenty miles north of Jerusalem.
44 At the end of v.44, some MSS have Pilate inquiring whether Jesus had “already” (ἤδη, ēdē) died (cf. NET, TEV, CEV, NKJV), while in others he asks whether Jesus has been dead “for a long time” (πάλαι, palai; cf. NIV, NASB). The MS evidence for the latter is slightly stronger.
45 The Greek word translated here as “body” (πτῶμα, ptōma) means “corpse,” thus confirming that Jesus is indeed dead (cf. ESV, CSB). Some later MSS use the more common word for “body,” σῶμα (sōma), which, of course, can also mean “corpse.” Since “body” represents more natural English in this context, it is uncertain whether versions such as NLT, NIV, TEV, NET, etc. are following the reading σῶμα (sōma) or whether they are simply translating πτῶμα, ptōma, as “body.”
46 Matthew alone narrates the sealing of the tomb and the posting of a guard at the instigation of the chief priests and Pharisees (27:62–66).
O. The Resurrection Announced (16:1–8)
OVERVIEW
The climax to Mark’s gospel is the resurrection. Without it, the life and death of Jesus, though noble and admirable, are nonetheless overwhelmingly tragic events. With it, Jesus is declared to be the Son of God with power (Ro 1:4), and the disciples are transformed from lethargic and defeated followers into the fiery witnesses of the book of Acts. The good news about Jesus Christ is that God, through the resurrection of Jesus, defeated sin, death, and hell. It was this message that lay at the heart of the apostolic preaching.
All four gospels tell the story of the resurrection and do so with the same dignity and restraint they use in telling the story of the crucifixion. As the crucifixion was a historical event—something that actually happened at a specific time and place—so the tomb in which Jesus had been placed on Friday afternoon was actually found to be empty on the following Sunday morning. To this fact all four evangelists bear witness. The explanation of the historical event, unavailable to people apart from divine revelation, is given by the young man (whose white robe identifies him as an angelic being): “He has risen!” This word of revelation, the truth of the resurrection of Jesus, is the focal point in all four gospel accounts. Any claim that the resurrection was a fabrication (of Mt 27:62–65) or a delusion is implicitly denied.
That all four gospels also agree that a group of women discovered the empty tomb is significant, for women were not generally treated as reliable witnesses in first-century Judaism (cf. m. Šebu. 4:1; Josephus, Ant. 4.8.15 §219; Philo, QG 4:15). The gospels’ agreement, therefore, is strong evidence for the historicity of this event. If the disciples had invented this story, they are unlikely to have made women the primary witnesses to the empty tomb.
1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. 2Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”
4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
6“Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”
8Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
COMMENTARY
1 When the Sabbath was over (at about 6:00 p.m. on Saturday), the three women mentioned at the crucifixion (15:40), two of whom were also present at Jesus’ burial (15:47), bought aromatic oils to anoint the body of Jesus. These oils were apparently additions to the spices and perfumes that were prepared before the Sabbath began (cf. Lk 23:56). The anointing was not for the purpose of preserving the body (as the Jews did not practice embalming) but was an act of love and devotion probably meant to reduce the stench of the decomposing body.
2 Since it would have been too dark to go to the tomb on Saturday night after the end of the Sabbath, the women waited until Sunday morning (the “first day of the week”). The expressions lian prōi (“very early”) and anateilantos tou hēliou (“just after sunrise”) present a problem, evidenced by the variation of readings that appear in the MS tradition. Ordinarily, “very early” would refer to the period before 6:00 a.m., when it would still be dark (cf. Jn 20:1); but used here with the expression “just after sunrise” it must mean the period of time immediately after the sun rose on Sunday morning.
3 As the women walked to the tomb, their chief concern was with the heavy stone they knew had been rolled in front of the opening of the tomb (cf. 15:46–47). Their concern was significant, for no matter what kind of stone it was, it would have been difficult to move. A circular stone disc, though relatively easy to put in place since usually it was set in a sloped track, once positioned was very difficult to remove. It would either have to be rolled back up the incline or lifted out of the groove and then removed. Any other kind of stone placed in front of the tomb’s entrance would be as difficult or even more difficult to remove.
4–5 Mark makes no attempt to explain how the stone was removed. He only notes that it was very large and that it “had been rolled away” (v.4). The passive here may be a divine passive, indicating that God did it. Matthew gives more details by describing a great earthquake and an angel’s descending from heaven to roll back the stone (28:2). Notice that the removal of the stone was not to allow the resurrection to take place—it had already occurred!—but to provide evidence that the tomb was now empty. Once inside the tomb, the women saw a young man (neaniskos) dressed in a white robe (v.5). His dress suggests he was an angel (cf. Ac 1:10; Rev 4:4), and though Mark does not explicitly identify him as such, Matthew 28:2 does. Cranfield’s note, 465–66, on angels is worth repeating:
It may be suggested that the purpose of the angel’s presence at the tomb was to be the link between the actual event of the Resurrection and the women. Human eyes were not permitted to see the event of the Resurrection itself. But the angels as the constant witnesses of God’s action saw it. So the angel’s word to the women, ‘He is risen,’ is, as it were, the mirror in which men were allowed to see the reflection of this eschatological event.
The reaction of the women to the angel was what one would expect: “They were dumbfounded” (NEB, REB; NIV, “alarmed”)—ekthambeō, a strong verb used only by Mark in the NT (9:15; 14:33).
6 The women’s fright was calmed by words of reassurance: “Don’t be alarmed.” The angel knew whom they were seeking. These were Galilean women, and the mention of Jesus “the Nazarene” struck a familiar note in their memories (cf. 1:9, 24; 14:67). The angel then spoke the revelatory word “He has risen!” and invited them to see the evidence of the empty tomb. An empty tomb, however, only invites the question, What happened to the body of Jesus? There needed to be a word from God to interpret the meaning of the empty tomb, and the angel was God’s gracious provision. The explanation is resurrection! Across the centuries many explanations have been proposed: the body of Jesus was stolen; the women came to the wrong tomb; Jesus did not actually die on the cross so he walked out of the tomb still alive; etc. Some of these proposals have enjoyed success with skeptics, yet none adequately reconcile the facts surrounding the event. The only reasonable explanation is still what the angel said to the women at the tomb on the first Easter morning: “He has risen!”
7 “Go, tell his disciples and Peter” reveals God’s gracious provision for Peter. He is singled out because he had denied Jesus (14:66–72) and now needed reassurance that he was not excluded from the company of the disciples. Jesus had forgiven and restored him. Jesus had predicted not only the scattering of the sheep (14:27) but also their regathering in Galilee (14:28). What was the purpose of the meeting in Galilee? Jesus had done a large part of his work there. Perhaps he wanted to meet not only with the disciples but also with the community of believers in Galilee to give them his last instructions before his ascension.
Galilee was a fitting place for the launching of a Gentile mission. The contention of some scholars (e.g., Lohmeyer, Marxsen) that the reference to Galilee in 14:28 and here is to the parousia (the second coming) and not to a postresurrection appearance of Jesus has little to support it and has been largely rejected.
8 The confrontation with the angel proved to be too much for the women. They fled “trembling and bewildered.” This reaction is understandable in the light of the empty tomb, the sudden angelic appearance, and the astonishing announcement. But Mark’s next (and final) statement is surprising and disturbing for many readers: “They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.” Here the gospel ends—at least in our earliest MSS. But did the women proclaim their message to the disciples (as in Matthew 28:8 and Luke 24:9)? Did the resurrected Lord appear to the women and to the other disciples? What about the restoration of Peter and the rest of Jesus’ disciples who had deserted him?
One of the most perplexing and difficult issues concerning Mark’s gospel is the abrupt and unusual nature of its ending. Two questions must be dealt with here. First, is the longer ending to Mark’s gospel (vv.9–20, preserved in some MSS) authentic, i.e., did Mark himself write it, or was it added by a later hand? Second, if the longer ending is not original, did Mark intend to end his gospel at v.8, or was his original ending lost?
The first question is actually the easier one to answer. There is overwhelming evidence—both internal and external—that vv.9–20 were not composed by Mark. Their style and vocabulary are non-Markan, and their content is clearly secondary. This evidence, together with a discussion of two other spurious endings, is detailed in the Appendix (pp. 986–88).
The more difficult question is whether Mark intended to end his gospel at this point, or whether the original ending was somehow lost.
(1) Some commentators argue that the abrupt ending is intentional and fits well Mark’s narrative purpose. Throughout the gospel, a sense of mystery and awe surrounds Jesus’ identity, as characters in the story repeatedly ask, “Who is this?” and respond with wonder and amazement at Jesus’ words and deeds. This same mystery surrounds the report of the resurrection. The women are not granted appearances by the resurrected Jesus but only the announcement that he is risen. The omission does not mean, of course, that the author doubts the resurrection. Jesus—always a reliable character in Mark’s narrative—has repeatedly predicted his death and resurrection (8:31; 9:9; 9:31; 10:34) and has assured the disciples that after his resurrection he will meet them in Galilee (14:28). He has also affirmed that the gospel message will be proclaimed to all nations (13:10; 14:9). Mark is surely aware that Jesus’ disciples saw him in Galilee, were restored in their leadership roles, and proclaimed the good news far and wide. So why does Mark not narrate resurrection appearances? According to this view, he intentionally leaves the readers in the same position as the women at the tomb—with the proclamation of the resurrection and a call to decision. Will Mark’s readers respond with faith and action, or with fear and unbelief? Will they, like Jesus, stay faithful to God in the face of suffering and trials, or will they flee and deny him like the disciples? The abrupt ending of the gospel calls the reader to decision.
(2) Although there are staunch supporters of the view that it was Mark’s intention to end his gospel at v.8, other commentators claim that the difficulties related to the present ending are too great. First, the early church clearly felt strongly that this ending was inadequate, as evidenced by the insertion of both the shorter and longer endings (see Appendix, pp. 986–88). Second, it is surprising that a book that purports to be the “good news about Jesus Christ” should end portraying women stricken with fear (even allowing for Mark’s emphasis on the awesomeness and mystery of Christ’s person). Third, Mark repeatedly stresses the fulfillment of Jesus’ predictions, so one would expect him to narrate the fulfillment of the predicted resurrection (8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34), as well as the fulfillment of his promise to appear to Peter and the other disciples in Galilee (14:28; 16:7). Fourth, it is highly unusual (though not impossible) to end a sentence with gar (“for”), as v.8 ends in the Greek text. Fifth and finally, the claim that Mark intended to end his gospel as an implicit call to decision has been deemed too subtle and (post)modern for an ancient author such as Mark and for an audience more accustomed to a straightforward narrative presentation.
Although a decision on this issue is very difficult, with excellent scholars on both sides, the scale would seem to tip in favor of the second option, namely, that Mark did not intend to end his gospel at 16:8.
So what happened to the original ending? While it is possible that Mark was unable to complete his work—perhaps because of persecution or martyrdom—it seems more likely that the ending was lost before it was reproduced by copyists. A single page of papyrus could have come loose from the binding of the original codex, perhaps while the document was in transport.
What did the original ending contain? Gundry, 1021, suggests that it may have looked something like Matthew 28:9–10, 16–20 and Luke 24:9b–12 and included the women’s report to the disciples, a resurrection appearance to the women, a visit to the tomb by Peter, an appearance to the eleven disciples in Galilee, and the Great Commission. This suggestion is plausible but remains speculative.
The uncertainties concerning the ending of this powerful and dramatic gospel can be disturbing to some Christians today. But this need not be so. It must be recognized that for Mark and his readers, the resurrection of Jesus was in no way in doubt; rather, it was an indisputable historical fact. Jesus himself—the hero of Mark’s story and an absolutely trustworthy character throughout the narrative—has four times referred explicitly to his own resurrection (8:31; 9:31; 10:33; 14:28). Now, at the end of the gospel, an angel from God—an equally trustworthy character in Mark’s drama—announces that this prediction has come true. Jesus is risen! (16:6); and his disciples will shortly see him in Galilee (16:7). From Mark’s historical perspective, writing in the latter half of the first century AD, these resurrection appearances to the disciples in Galilee were not rumors or speculation but indisputable facts of history. Mark’s faith, like the faith of his fellow believers, was based on the certain testimony of the apostles and many others who had seen Jesus alive (1Co 15:3–8). A missing page from a codex (if indeed it is missing) cannot silence the testimony of the multitude of eyewitnesses who went on to proclaim this message of hope and salvation throughout the whole world: “He is risen indeed!”
NOTES
2 In Codex D ἀνατέλλοντος (anatellontos, “while [the sun] was rising”) in place of ἀνατείλαντος (anateilantos, “after [the sun] rose”) solves the temporal problem but is obviously a copyist’s emendation.
8 Among commentators who believe Mark intended to end his gospel at 16:8 are E. Lohmeyer, R. H. Lightfoot, William L. Lane, Morna D. Hooker, David E. Garland, and Ernest Best. For a detailed defense of this view on literary grounds, see J. L. Magness, Sense and Absence: Structure and Suspension in the Ending of Mark’s Gospel (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986). Among those who think the ending was lost are C. E. B. Cranfield, Eduard Schweizer, Robert H. Gundry, R. T. France, Ben Witherington, and Craig Evans.