CHAPTER 14

VII. The Passion Narrative. Ch. 14:1–15:47

In the Gospel of Mark the passion narrative serves to sharpen the perspective from which all of the incidents in Jesus’ life and ministry are to be understood. The account of Jesus’ betrayal, arrest, condemnation and execution furnishes a climax to the Gospel and brings together motifs and themes developed throughout the account. The conflict with authority, introduced as a matter of record already in Chs. 2:1–3:5, culminated in the decision to seek Jesus’ death (Ch. 3:6), and this determination was only reinforced by the developments of the Jerusalem ministry (see on Chs. 11:18; 12:12). The capital offense of blasphemy, which provided the legal basis for Jesus’ condemnation by the Sanhedrin (Ch. 14:63f.), is entered as a charge as early as Ch. 2:7, while Judas is remembered as the one “who betrayed him” (Ch. 3:19) in the traditional list of the Twelve incorporated in Ch. 3:16–19. These notices are taken up and set in historical and theological perspective in the passion narrative.

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.1 He chose only to supplement it with parallel or complementary tradition and to orchestrate it for the development of certain themes.2 Most of the pericopes found in the account cannot be isolated from their framework without serious loss. They acquire their significance from the context in which they are located. Indications of time and place, which occur more frequently than in earlier chapters, are usually so securely woven into the fabric of the narrative that they cannot be regarded as editorial links inserted by the evangelist in order to unite originally independent units of tradition. A purely historical preoccupation on the part of the early Church does not seem sufficient to account for the length or the detail of the primitive account. It seems certain that it was in the context of worship that the first elaborations of the essential facts took place.3 The focus upon the night of the betrayal in the eucharist (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23) invited extended reflection upon the passion of Jesus, for the episodes which unfold from the prophecy of the betrayal (Ch. 14:18) to the crowing of the cock (Ch. 14:66–72) are unified by their situation in the night and seem to be centered upon liturgical remembrance. Moreover, the Epistle of the Apostles 15:26 (middle of the second century) speaks of a nocturnal vigil which lasts until dawn during which the passion of the Lord was remembered. It is necessary, however, to situate the development of the material in the total framework of early church life, its missionary outreach, its communal instruction, worship and liturgy, and its interaction with the rejection of its message by Judaism at large.

The primordial confession of faith in 1 Cor. 15:3–5, with its focus upon Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection, provided the core of the narrative, which appears to have developed in two successive stages. A brief account of the principal events from the arrest to the resurrection must have existed from the first. In time this was replaced by a longer narrative which recounted the events which led up to the arrest as well. The facts presented were accompanied by a theological interpretation and the terminology itself was impregnated with faith.4

The briefer narrative was a kerygmatic presentation of events in the light of prophecy. This development was necessitated by the critical juncture at which the primitive community found itself. Judaism was totally unprepared for a suffering and crucified Messiah. The reaction of Peter when Jesus first announced his passion expresses precisely the offense which the proclamation of the cross provoked (see on Ch. 8:31f). The cross was for the Romans and all provincials an object of infamy. Compelled to justify the course of events, the Christians projected them in the light of the resurrection and the word of prophecy.

The events of the passion narrative owe their interest and their meaning to the resurrection. The evangelists have not reported the history of a death with a cold and detached tone; they invite the auditor to believe in a victory beyond that death. It is this fact of triumph over the grave which accounts for the presence of glory permeating the most humiliating facts. The account of Jesus’ rejection and death was passed on by believers with a view to sharing their faith and to bringing faith to birth in others. What is fundamental is the fact of Easter, for the resurrection gave to history a new dimension and permitted the scandalous events which had taken place to be recalled without embarrassment.

Jesus himself had prepared his followers to find in the prophetic Scriptures the key to understanding his sufferings in fulfilment of the sovereign will of God (see on Chs. 8:31; 9:12, 9:31; 10:33f., 45). The passage that seems to have controlled the Christian interpretation of the events was the prophecy of the Servant of the Lord, and especially Isa. 53:4–12. Here was an account of obedient suffering, expressed by the sustaining of mockery, by silence before accusers, by forgiveness, by intercession for the many, by burial with the condemned, in short, a passion narrative which described the action of God which astounded the people but manifested his triumphant sovereignty.5 A second group of passages which informed the church’s understanding were the psalms of the suffering and victorious righteous one, and especially Psalms 22 and 69.6 From such sources as these the meaning of the central events of the Christian message were set forth in biblical perspective, thus throwing into bold relief the accomplishment of the will of God.

The longer account extended this approach to the preliminary events7 but also took account of Jesus’ prophetic word. He had not only spoken of his coming burial (Ch. 14:8) but had prophesied the betrayal of Judas (Ch. 14:18), the denial of Peter and the desertion of the disciples (Ch. 14:27–31). His word of interpretation of the bread and the cup at the meal especially served to place his death in the context of God’s redemptive provision for his people (Ch. 14:22–25).

Mark’s arrangement of the narrative falls naturally into two parts. After the introduction of the complementary themes of the plot and the betrayal (Ch. 14:1–11), the evangelist focuses upon the suffering which came to Jesus through betrayal and desertion of those close to him (Ch. 14:12–52). This section consists of a cycle of three progressively ordered accounts centering in the meal (preparation of the meal, the announcement of betrayal, the meal and the interpretation of its elements), augmented by a second cycle describing the progressive realization of abandonment (the prophecy of denial, prayer alone, the arrest and desertion). The second part, emphasizing Jesus’ endurance of suffering (Chs. 14:53–15:47), presents successively his judgment by the Jews who condemn him as Messiah (Ch. 14:53–65) and by Pilate who condemns him as King of the Jews (Ch. 15:1–20), followed by his crucifixion, death and burial (Ch. 15:21–47). Within this framework Mark expresses an intensely theological statement concerning Jesus’ dignity and achievement. For the first time in this Gospel Jesus, before the Sanhedrin, affirms that he is the Messiah (Ch. 14:62), and it is of utmost significance to the evangelist that he is condemned to death by his contemporaries as the Messiah. In a parallel affirmation Jesus acknowledges before Pilate that he is a king (Ch. 15:1f.), and Mark insists on the fact that it is as King of the Jews that Jesus is sentenced to be crucified. Finally, at the moment of Jesus’ death Mark alone among the evangelists brings together the torn veil of the Temple and the confession of the centurion that Jesus is truly Son of God (Ch. 15:38f.). Here Judaism and the Gentile world, each in its own way, acknowledges Jesus’ sovereign dignity. The Marcan passion narrative preserves the kerygmatic character of the primitive account celebrated in the worship and mission outreach of the early Church by exposing the profound redemptive efficacy of the death of the Son of God, who freely laid down his life on behalf of the many (see on Ch. 10:45). The reader finds himself confronted with this mystery and is invited to confess by faith that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God (Ch. 1:1).

1. The Plot to Seize Jesus. Ch. 14:1–2

1Now after two days was the feast of the Passover and the unleavened bread:8 and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him with subtlety,9 and kill him:

2for they said, Not during the feast,10 lest haply there should be a tumult of the people.

1–2 The passion narrative opens with a new note of time, consisting of an explicit reference to the Jewish festival calendar. It is important to observe that this reference has no necessary chronological link with the preceding sections in Mark, and it has been shown that Jesus had been in Jerusalem, apparently, for a period of weeks prior to the Passover (see above on Ch. 11:13, 15). It is proper to find here a new starting point in the narrative and the first of a series of temporal notes which give a degree of precision to the course of events which follow.

In this context “the Passover” designates the festival of redemption celebrated on the 14th of the month Nisan (April/May) and continuing into the early hours of the 15th (between sunset and midnight; cf. Exod. 12:6–20, 48; Num. 9:2–14; Deut. 16:1). This was followed immediately by the Feast of Unleavened Bread on the 15th–21st days of the month (Exod. 12:15–20; 23:15; 34:18; Deut. 16:1–8). In popular usage the two festivals were merged and treated for practical purposes as the seven-day “feast of the Passover.”11 The distinction between the two phases of the feast found in verse 1 is rarely attested in first-century Jewish sources but reflects OT practice (Lev. 23:3f.; Num. 28:16f.; 2 Chron. 35:1, 17; Ezra 6:19–22). Since the day on which the paschal lambs were sacrificed (the 14th of Nisan) was sometimes loosely designated “the first day of Unleavened Bread,”12 it is difficult to determine whether the two days should be reckoned from the 15th or the 14th of Nisan. It is probable that the combined phrase indicates the 15th of Nisan, and that the reference here is to some time on the 13th of that month.

The conspiracy of certain of the chief priests and scribes to arrest Jesus and have him quietly put to death expressed an intention that had been nurtured for a long time (Chs. 3:6; 11:18; 12:12). Only the recognition of the popular favor Jesus enjoyed and the fear of an uprising kept them from their purpose. A stratagem was imperative if they were to preserve public order and avoid repressive measures imposed by Rome. During the festival seasons the population of the city swelled from ca. 50,000 to 250,000 persons. Demonstrations and riots could always be expected, especially on the part of the excitable Galileans, among whom were many potential supporters of Jesus. The reference in verse 2, then, is to the noise and confusion of an excited crowd, when mob fever, intensified by the hope of redemption associated with the Passover, could seize the people and the situation become uncontrollable.

According to Matt. 26:57 the conspirators gathered at the house of Caiaphas, the high priest, while John 11:47–53 indicates that it was he who pronounced the decisive word. The convergence of these two independent traditions on this detail is sufficient to confirm that it was Caiaphas who was the chief instigator of the plot against Jesus.

2. The Anointing in Bethany. Ch. 14:3–9

3And while he was in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster cruse of ointment of pure13 nard very costly; and she brake the cruse, and poured it over his head.

4But there were some14 that had indignation among themselves, saying, To what purpose hath this waste of the ointment been made?

5For this ointment might have been sold for above three hundred shillings,15 and given to the poor. And they murmured against her.

6But Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.16

7For ye have the poor always with you, and whensoever ye will ye can do them good: but me ye have not always.

8She hath done what she could; she hath anointed my body beforehand for the burying.

9And verily I say unto you, Whensoever the gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.

The anointing at Bethany is located in a context of opposition, misunderstanding and impending suffering. The chief priests and scribes are plotting to kill Jesus (Ch. 14:1f.) and Judas is conspiring with them (Ch. 14:10f.). It is probable that in the primitive version of the passion narrative preserved at Rome the report of Judas’ faithlessness immediately followed the account of the plot to seize Jesus. The reference to the necessity for a stratagem in verse 1 clearly anticipates verses 10–11, while the plot and the betrayal are complementary in intention. By interpolating the account of the anointing in Bethany within this framework17 Mark achieved a dramatic contrast. The pure devotion of the anonymous woman throws into bold relief the hostility and treachery of the priests and their accomplice. It is further suggested that, at the time men were concerned with securing Jesus’ death, Jesus’ body was prepared for burial through an act which expressed faith and love.

3 The episode is situated in the village of Bethany on the Mount of Olives, nearly two miles from Jerusalem and the last station on the pilgrim road from Jericho to Jerusalem (see on Ch. 11:1). Throughout his stay in the city Jesus appears to have lodged at Bethany (Ch. 11:11f.). On this occasion he was entertained for a meal in the home of Simon the leper, who is introduced as someone who is well known (cf. Ch. 15:21). While he may have been familiar to some of Mark’s readers, the origin of his nickname remains obscure. It is certain that he did not have leprosy at this time. If this incident is identical with the anointing reported in John 12:1–8, the anonymous woman who anointed Jesus may be recognized as Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus.18

The costly perfume is identified as nard, the aromatic oil extracted from a root native to India.19 To retain the fragrance of nard, enough ointment for one application was sealed in small alabaster flasks. The long neck of the flask had to be broken to release the aroma.20 Early in the first century Pliny the Elder (Natural History XIII. iii. 19) remarked that “the best ointment is preserved in alabaster.” The value of the perfume, and its identification as nard, suggests that it was a family heirloom that was passed on from one generation to another, from mother to daughter. Anointing was a common custom at feasts (cf. Ps. 23:5; 141:5; Luke 7:46), but in this context it is clear that the woman’s action expressed pure devotion to Jesus and undoubtedly thanksgiving. In association with the banquet anointing suggested joy and festivity but Jesus found the significance of this act to be far more profound.

4–5 Those present who were indignant at this apparent display of extravagance were undoubtedly the disciples, for the words of Jesus in verses 6–9 are almost certainly addressed to them. The enormous value of the ointment prevented them from appreciating the lavishness of the woman’s gift and they censured her. It was natural for them to think in terms of provision for the poor, for it was customary on the evening of Passover to remember the poor with gifts (M. Pesachim IX. 11; X. 1; cf. John 13:29).21 It was also the practice to give as charity one part of the second tithe normally spent in Jerusalem during the feast.22 The insensitivity of those with Jesus at the banquet table is yet another factor in his isolation from others as the hour of trial approaches, and is an integral part of Jesus’ suffering.

6–8 Jesus’ defense of the woman sets her act in perspective. He recognized in the generosity of her gift a beautiful expression of love which possessed a deeper significance than she could have possibly understood. The woman’s gift was appropriate precisely because of the approaching hour of Jesus’ death. F. W. Danker has shown that the meaning of the anointing may be understood in terms of the background provided by Ps. 41, which speaks of the poor but righteous sufferer and his ultimate triumph over his enemies.23 Like the psalmist, Jesus is the poor but righteous sufferer who, though betrayed by his closest friend (cf. Ch. 14:18), is confident that God will raise him up and vindicate him. The woman, unlike the dinner guests, perceived that Jesus is the poor man par excellence and her deed may be construed as an act of loving kindness toward the poor. The quality for which Jesus commended her was her recognition that the needs of this poor sufferer, whom they do not always have, take precedence over the obligation to help the poor who will always be with them. This is emphasized in verse 7, where the contrast developed through an allusion to Deut. 15:11 is not between Jesus and the poor, but between “always” and “not always.” The opportunity to benefit the impoverished continues to offer itself but the situation in which a profound expression of love could be extended to Jesus was confined to a fleeting moment. Jesus declared that the woman’s act was a valid but proleptic anointing of his body for burial (verse 8). This pronouncement indicates that Jesus anticipated that he would suffer a criminal’s death, for only in that circumstance would there be no anointing of the body.24

9 In Ps. 41:2 the one who pays heed to the poor has the assurance of blessing from the Lord. Those disciples who had championed the poor by suggesting that the proceeds from the sale of the ointment could be given to them might appear to qualify for such a benediction. It is the woman, however, who receives Jesus’ praise for her response to the poor man above all others who is about to suffer for the people of God. By a solemn vow Jesus authoritatively dedicated the anointing to the remembrance of her deed before men.25 The assurance that the gospel will be preached in the world looks beyond the humiliation of burial, mentioned in verse 8, to the vindication of resurrection which creates the NT concept of “the gospel.” Jesus’ word clearly reckons with a period between his death and the parousia during which the evangelical tradition would be openly proclaimed. The celebration of the risen Lord would not erase the memory of this unnamed woman whose action anticipated Jesus’ death and expressed her profound love for the Master. The incorporation of the tradition of the anointing within the Gospel already marks a fulfilment of Jesus’ promise.

3. The Betrayal by Judas. Ch. 14:10–11

10And Judas Iscariot,26 he that was one of the Twelve, went away unto the chief priests, that he might deliver him unto them.

11And they, when they heard it, were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently deliver him unto them.

10–11 By introducing the action of Judas at this point Mark sharpens the contrast between the selfless devotion of the woman and the treachery with which the righteous sufferer is greeted by his friend (cf. Ps. 41:9). The brief notice of the willingness of one of the Twelve to betray Jesus is joined to the plot mentioned in verses 1–2 by vocabulary and theme. The chief priests and scribes were seeking to arrest Jesus by a stratagem, while Judas was seeking an opportunity to hand him over. The primary concern of the Sanhedrin was the avoidance of a riot. The betrayal consisted in the offer to inform the chief priests of an opportunity to arrest Jesus without a public disturbance (cf. Luke 22:6 “in the absence of the crowd”). The offer was welcomed because Judas could lead the Temple guard to Jesus and would prevent any mistake in identity.

That Jesus’ betrayer should be one of his own disciples remains enigmatic. No detail in the text permits more than conjecture concerning Judas’ motive. With remarkable restraint Mark contents himself with recording the bare facts that Judas collaborated with the Sanhedrin, that he received payment for his services, and that he sought an opportune moment for the arrest. Judas seems to have responded to an official notice that circulated in Jerusalem: “Now the chief priests had given orders that if anyone knew where he [i.e. Jesus] was, he should let them know, so that they might arrest him” (John 11:57). The need to employ an informer demonstrates how difficult it had become to locate Jesus and seize him in the period just before the Passover.27

4. The Preparation of the Meal. Ch. 14:12–16

12And on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed28 the passover,29 his disciples say unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and make ready that thou mayest eat the passover?

13And he sendeth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him;

14and wheresoever he shall enter in, say to the master of the house, The Teacher saith, Where is my guest-chamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?

15And he will himself show you a large upper room furnished30 and ready: and there make ready for us.

16And the disciples went forth and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.

12 A new temporal reference introduces a cycle of tradition centering in the meal commonly designated the Last Supper. The “first day of Unleavened Bread” would ordinarily denote the 15th of Nisan following the celebration of the Passover the previous evening. There is some evidence in the rabbinical literature, however, that the day on which the paschal lambs were sacrificed (the 14th of Nisan) was sometimes loosely designated “the first day of Unleavened Bread.” It is necessary, therefore, to interpret the temporal clause in verse 12 in terms of the precision given to it by reference to the slaughter of the passover lambs on the afternoon of Nisan 14.31

The chronological note in verse 12 clearly implies that the meal which Jesus celebrated with his disciples was the Passover and that the day of his arrest, condemnation and crucifixion was the 15th of Nisan. The Fourth Gospel, however, appears to situate Jesus’ death in the framework of the preparation for the Passover on the 14th of Nisan (John 18:28; 19:14, 31, 42), which would mean that the meal could not have been the Passover. The resolution of this difficulty is one of the most difficult issues in passion chronology.

There are a number of positive elements in the Marcan narrative which substantiate that the Last Supper was a Passover meal. The return to Jerusalem in the evening for the meal (Ch. 14:17) is significant, for the paschal meal had to be eaten within the city walls (M. Pesachim VII. 9). An ordinary meal was taken in the late afternoon, but a meal which begins in the evening and continues into the night reflects Passover practice (Exod. 12:8; Jubilees 49:12). The reference to reclining (Ch. 14:18) satisfies a requirement of the Passover feast in the first century when custom demanded that even the poorest man recline for the festive meal (M. Pesachim X. 1). While a normal meal began with the breaking of bread, on this occasion Jesus broke the bread during the meal and following the serving of a dish (Ch. 14:18–20, 22). The Passover meal was the one occasion when the serving of a dish preceded the breaking of bread. The use of wine was generally reserved for festive occasions and was characteristic of the Passover (M. Pesachim X. 1). Finally, the interpretation of the elements of the meal conforms to Passover custom where the haggadah (or interpretation) is an integral part of the meal.32 The cumulative evidence supports the claim made in verses 12, 14 and 16 that the disciples prepared a Passover meal and that the external forms of the Passover were observed at the meal itself.

There are indications that the Fourth Evangelist also regarded the meal which Jesus shared with his disciples as a Passover. The feast takes place within Jerusalem even though the city was thronged with pilgrims (John 12:12, 18, 20; 13:2; 18:1; cf. Mark 14:17). The supper is held in the evening and lasts into the night (John 13:30; cf. Mark 14:17). The meal was ceremonial in character and the participants reclined at table (John 13:12, 23, 25, 28; cf. Mark 14:18). Finally, the walk to Gethsemane followed by the betrayal conforms to the Marcan sequence of events (John 18:1ff.; Mark 14:26ff.). In this light it seems that the concern of the priests expressed in John 18:28, that they should not become defiled and so be prohibited from eating “the pesach,” has reference not to the paschal lamb (which would have been eaten the evening before) but to the chagigah, the paschal sacrifices (lambs, kids, bulls) which were offered throughout the festival week. These paschal sacrifices are designated by the term pesach in Deut. 16:2 and 2 Chron. 35:7. If this understanding informed the tradition John has transmitted, the apparent contradiction with the evidence of Mark is removed.33

13–16 The episode of the preparation of the paschal meal is parallel in structure with Ch. 11:1–7. The commissioning of two disciples for the performance of a task, the precise knowledge of what they would encounter, and the exact response to be given to the responsible party are features familiar from the earlier account. The two incidents are entirely independent but they have been described according to a common scheme.

While in verse 12 the disciples took the initiative to ask where they should prepare the meal, it is evident that Jesus had made careful advance arrangements. The reference to a man carrying a jar of water who was to be followed to a house suggests a prearranged signal, for ordinarily only women carried water in jars. It would be normal to find a man carrying a wineskin. A sufficient reason for resorting to a means of recognition which would require no exchange of words in the street may be found in the determined search for Jesus and the issuance of a warrant for his arrest implied in John 11:57. Jesus, therefore, commissioned two of the disciples to make the necessary preparations, having engaged an upstairs room where he could celebrate the Passover with his disciples undisturbed.34 It may be assumed that the owner of the house was a man of courage who had determined to shelter the “heretic” Galilean and his outlawed company of followers. He may have been the one who arranged for the lamb to be sacrificed and who secured the other requirements for the meal. The upstairs rooms would probably be furnished with carpets or couches for the guests to recline on as they ate the meal.

When the disciples entered the city they found that Jesus’ instructions were precise, and they prepared the meal. This would include the setting out of the unleavened bread and the wine, the preparation of the bitter herbs and sauce consisting of dried fruit, spices and wine, and presumably the roasting of the passover lamb.

5. The Announcement of the Betrayal. Ch. 14:17–21

17And when it was evening he cometh with the Twelve.

18And as they sat35 and were eating, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you shall betray me, even he that eateth with me.

19They began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I?36

20And he said unto them, It is one of the twelve, he that dippeth37 with me in the dish.38

21For the Son of Man goeth, even as it is written of him: but woe unto that man through whom the Son of Man is betrayed! good were it for that man39 if he had not been born.

17 Since the Jewish day was reckoned from sunset to sunset, the evening marked the beginning of the 15th of Nisan. The Passover meal, which in distinction from ordinary meals began only after sunset and could last until midnight, had to be eaten within the walls of Jerusalem. Jesus therefore returned to the city after sundown to share the paschal feast commemorating God’s deliverance of his people from bondage with the Twelve. The celebration of the Passover was always marked by excitement and the high hope that it would be fulfilled by God’s intervention once more. It was observed as “a night of watching unto the Lord” (Exod. 12:42) in the conviction that “in that night they were redeemed and in that night they will be redeemed in the future.”40 Jesus came to the city fully aware that he was to accomplish the Passover in his own person.

The meal was framed within a liturgy whose core was the Passover prayer of the family head and the recitation of the Hallel psalms (Ps. 113–118). When those participating had taken their places, the head of the house began the celebration by pronouncing a blessing, first of the festival and then of the wine (M. Pesachim X. 2).41 Then the paschal company drank the first cup of wine. After this the food was brought in, consisting of unleavened bread, bitter herbs, greens, stewed fruit and roast lamb (M. Pesachim X. 3). The son then asked why this night, with its special customs and food, was distinguished from all other nights (M. Pesachim X. 4). The family head responded by recalling the biblical account of the redemption from Egypt. This instruction led naturally into the praise of God for the salvation he had provided and the anticipation of future redemption: “So may the Lord, our God, and the God of our fathers, cause us to enjoy the feasts that come in peace, glad of heart at the upbuilding of your city and rejoicing in your service … and we shall thank you with a new song for our redemption” (M. Pesachim X. 4–6). The new song was the first part of the ancient Hallel (Ps. 113–115), after which a second cup of wine was drunk. Then the head of the house took bread and pronounced over it the blessing of “the Lord our God, Sovereign of the world, who has caused bread to come forth out of the earth” (M. Berachoth VI. 1). He then broke the bread in pieces and handed it to those who were at the table, who ate it with the bitter herbs and stewed fruit. Only then did the meal really begin with the eating of the roasted lamb, and this was not to extend beyond midnight (M. Pesachim X. 9). When the meal had been completed, the head of the family blessed the third cup with a prayer of thanksgiving. There followed the singing of the second part of the Hallel (Ps. 116–118) and the drinking of the fourth cup, which concluded the Passover (M. Pesachim X. 7).42

In the verses which follow Mark concentrates all of his attention upon two incidents which marked the meal: the moment of the dipping of the bread and the bitter herbs in the bowl of stewed fruit when Jesus spoke of his betrayal (verses 18–21), and the interpretation of the bread and the third cup of wine following the meal itself (verses 22–25).

18–20 The festivity of the meal was shattered when Jesus, with a solemn “Amen,” announced that one of those sharing the intimacy of the table-fellowship would betray him. The explanatory words “one who is eating with me” set the pronouncement in the context of Ps. 41:9, where the poor but righteous sufferer laments that his intimate friend whom he trusted and who ate his bread had “lifted his heel” against him.43 The repeated reference to the inner circle (“one of you,” verse 18 and “one of the Twelve,” verse 20) and the question “is it I?” expressed by each in turn (verse 19) serve only to intensify the importance of the explanatory clause “one who is eating with me.” This is especially apparent in the climactic character of verse 20, which is parallel in form to the pronouncement in verse 18:

Verse 18	Verse 20
One of you will betray me, one who is eating with me.	One of the Twelve, one who is dipping with me in the same bowl.

The explicit reference to the dipping of the bread in the bowl of stewed fruit in verse 20 serves to reinforce the allusion to Ps. 41:9.44 In the timing of Jesus’ pronouncement the incongruity of Judas’ intention with the intimacy of the paschal fellowship would be apparent to all who were present.45 Jesus’ generosity in sharing this sacred meal with his intimate friends thus stands in contrast to the hypocrisy of the traitor sketched in verses 10–11 and serves to recall the mistreatment of the poor sufferer in Ps. 41.

21 One of the major themes of Ps. 41 is the assurance of ultimate triumph over his enemies’ intentions that is given to the righteous sufferer (Ps. 41:10–12). The woe pronounced upon Judas is in line with this expectation, and expresses profound sorrow and pity. In contrast to the blessing of the woman who wins a lasting memorial in accordance with the promise of Ps. 41:2 (Ch. 14:9), Judas is assured of a contrary recompense (cf. Ps. 41:10).46 There is no vindictiveness in the pronouncement, for the recognition that the approaching death of the Son of Man is in harmony with Scripture serves to set the result of Judas’ treachery within the context of God’s design.47 The heinousness of Judas’ action, however, is not excused. While the Son of Man goes to his death in accordance with the divine plan, on the other hand it were better for his betrayer had he never been born. The purpose of Jesus’ poignant warning is not primarily to affirm the fate of Judas but to underscore his own assurance of vindication. Nevertheless, the betrayer is morally responsible for his action and for the horrible character of its consequences, both for Jesus and for himself.

It is remarkable that Judas is not mentioned by name in the account. He is not introduced as one who asked “is it I?” nor is he identified as the betrayer by Jesus (cf. Matt. 26:25), and there is no reference to the fact that he left the room before the interpretation of the significance of the meal (cf. John 13:26–30). In Mark the stress falls rather upon the violation of the paschal fellowship by the presence of a traitor who must bear the onus of responsibility for his act, and upon Jesus’ knowledge that he will be betrayed by one of the Twelve and that his death is certain. This latter emphasis is set in the perspective of God’s redemptive action by the words of institution and the solemn oath which follow in verses 22–25.

6. The Institution of the Lord’s Supper. Ch. 14:22–26

22And as they were eating, he took bread,48 and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take ye: this is my body.49

23And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it.

24And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant,50 which is poured out for many.

25Verily I say unto you, I shall no more drink of the fruit of the vine,51 until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

26And when they had sung a hymn, they went out unto the mount of Olives.

22 The interpretation of detailed elements in the meal was a fixed part of the Passover liturgy conducted by the head of the household. This occurred after the meal had been served but before it was eaten. When Jesus lifted the platter of unleavened bread he may be presumed to have spoken the Aramaic formula prescribed in the liturgy: “This is the bread of affliction which our fathers ate in the land of Egypt. Let everyone who hungers come and eat; let everyone who is needy come and eat the Passover meal.”52 Each of the other elements was also introduced in the context of Israel’s experience in bondage. The bitter herbs served to recall the bitterness of slavery, the stewed fruit, which possessed the consistency and color of clay, evoked the making of bricks as slaves, while the paschal lamb provided a reminder of God’s gracious “passing over” of Israel in the plague of death that came to Egypt. While the wording of Jesus’ paschal devotions has not been preserved, it is evident that the disciples were prepared for understanding the significance of the words of institution preserved in verses 22–24 by the manner in which Jesus interpreted the components of the meal.

The blessing of God for the gift of bread immediately preceded the meal itself. The head of the family sat up from his reclining position, took a cake of unleavened bread, and recited the blessing over it in the name of all: “Praised be Thou, O Lord, Sovereign of the world, who causes bread to come forth from the earth” (M. Berachoth VI. 1). Those present identified themselves with the blessing by saying “Amen.” The family-head then broke for each person present a piece and gave it to him, the bread passing from hand to hand until it reached all the guests. The distribution normally took place in silence, for the explanation of the elements belonged to the Passover devotions, not to the grace before the meal. Contrary to paschal custom, Jesus broke the silence by interpreting the significance of the bread in terms of his own person.

In the course of the Passover, Jesus’ word and action with the bread was independent from the word spoken over the cup. The two sayings were originally separated from each other by the sharing of the main body of the meal, and they must be expounded separately. In the figurative saying about the bread, Jesus was not referring to his physical body as such, but to himself. He said: “I am myself this (bread)” or “my person is this (bread),”53 providing a pledge of his personal presence with them that was to be recalled whenever they broke bread together. The essential action which accompanied this word was not the breaking of the bread, but its distribution.54 As certainly as the disciples eat the bread which Jesus hands to them, so certainly will he be present with them when they gather for table-fellowship. Jesus’ first gift to the disciples was the pledge of his abiding presence with them in spite of his betrayal and death. The first word thus anticipates the resurrection and the real presence of the Lord at the celebration of the eucharist.

23–24 Following the main meal (cf. 1 Cor. 11:25), the head of the household rose again from his reclining position and exhorted those present to “Speak praises to our God, to whom belongs what we have eaten,” to which those present replied, “Praised be our God for the food we have eaten.” With his right hand he then took the third cup of red wine mixed with water, and with his eyes on the cup pronounced the prayer of thanksgiving on behalf of all, with the concluding words: “May the All-merciful One make us worthy of the days of the Messiah and of the life of the world to come. He brings the salvation of his king. He shows covenant-faithfulness to his Anointed, to David and to his seed forever. He makes peace in his heavenly places. May he secure peace for us and for all Israel. And say you, Amen.”55 After the company had affirmed their participation in the blessing with their “Amen,” Jesus passed the common cup from which all were to drink, and spoke the second word of institution.

Jesus’ saying relates the cup with the red wine to the renewal of the covenant between God and his people. While the word concerning the bread simply promises that Jesus will be with his followers, the primary reference here is to Jesus’ blood shed in the context of covenant sacrifice.56 The allusion to his violent death in the redness of the wine and the reference to the shedding of blood are unmistakable. Yet the cup, whose wine represents Jesus’ blood, provides assurance to the disciples that they share in the new divine order which is inaugurated through his death. The cup is thus the pledge that when the people of God meet in table-fellowship, their Master, who goes to his death, is present with the fulness of salvation achieved by this death on behalf of “the many.”

The reference to the covenant established in Jesus’ blood contains an allusion to Exod. 24:6–8, where the old covenant at Sinai was ratified by the sprinkling of sacrificial blood, and serves to set the whole of Jesus’ messianic action in the light of covenant renewal. It also evokes Jer. 31:31–33 where God promises to establish a new covenant with his people in the last days. That promise is now sealed through Jesus’ action and the death it anticipates. The saying over the cup directs attention to Jesus as the one who fulfills the divine will to enter into covenant fellowship with his people on a new and enduring basis. The latter part of the saying explains the vicarious character of Jesus’ death in terms of Isa. 53:12 and calls to mind the similar formulation of Ch. 10:45.57 The “many” are the redeemed community who have experienced the remission of their sins in and through Jesus’ sacrifice and so are enabled to participate in the salvation provided under the new covenant. Jesus’ second gift to his disciples, then, is the assurance that he will be with them as their Savior who establishes the new order through his death. He freely yields his life in order that God’s will to save his people may be effected. By his prophetic action in interpreting these familiar parts of the ancient paschal liturgy Jesus instituted something new in which the bread and wine of table-fellowship become the pledge of his saving presence throughout the period of time prior to the parousia and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in its fulness.

25 Jesus’ words of promise were confirmed with a solemn oath that he would not share the festal cup until the meal was resumed and completed in the consummation. The sober reference “no more” indicates that this is Jesus’ final meal and lends to the situation the character of a farewell. The purpose of his vow of abstinence was to declare that his decision to submit to the will of God in vicarious suffering was irrevocable.58 Forswearing feasting and wine, Jesus dedicated himself with a resolute will to accept the bitter cup of wrath offered to him by the Father. Yet there is here a clear anticipation of the messianic banquet when the Passover fellowship with his followers will be renewed in the Kingdom of God.59 Then Jesus will drink the wine “new,” where in this context newness is the mark of the redeemed world and the time of ultimate redemption. The reference to “that day” envisions the parousia and the triumph of the Son of Man (see above on Ch. 13:24–27, 32; cf. 1 Cor. 11:26). Thus in the context of reflecting upon his violent death on behalf of the many, and just prior to the impending events of the passion, Jesus clearly affirmed his vindication and the establishment of an uninterrupted fellowship between the redeemed community and its Redeemer through the experience of messianic salvation.

The cup from which Jesus abstained was the fourth, which ordinarily concluded the Passover fellowship.60 The significance of this can be appreciated from the fact that the four cups of wine were interpreted in terms of the four-fold promise of redemption set forth in Exod. 6:6–7: “I will bring you out … I will rid you of their bondage … I will redeem you … I will take you for my people and I will be your God” (TJ Pesachim X. 37b). Jesus had used the third cup, associated with the promise of redemption, to refer to his atoning death on behalf of the elect community. The cup which he refused was the cup of consummation, associated with the promise that God will take his people to be with him. This is the cup which Jesus will drink with his own in the messianic banquet which inaugurates the saving age to come. The cup of redemption (verse 24), strengthened by the vow of abstinence (verse 25), constitutes the solemn pledge that the fourth cup will be extended and the unfinished meal completed in the consummation, when Messiah eats with redeemed sinners in the Kingdom of God (cf. Lk. 14:15; Rev. 3:20f.; 19:6–9).

26 Among devout Jews it was common to remain together at the table for several hours after the conclusion of the meal, deep in conversation about God’s past and future acts of redemption (Tos. Kethubim V. 5). The table-fellowship was concluded by the recitation of the second half of the Hallel Psalms. It was customary to sing the Hallel antiphonally, one member of the table company chanting the text, and the others responding to each half verse with the shout of praise, “Hallelujah.” Jesus took the words of these psalms as his own prayer of thanksgiving and praise. He pledged to keep his vows in the presence of all the people (Ps. 116:12–19); he called upon the Gentiles to join in the praise of God (Ps. 117); and he concluded with a song of jubilation reflecting his steadfast confidence in his ultimate triumph: “I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the Lord” (Ps. 118:17). In the assurance that the rejected stone had been made the keystone by God’s action Jesus found a prophecy of his own death and exaltation (see above on Ch. 8:31; 12:10f.). When Jesus arose to go to Gethsemane, Ps. 118 was upon his lips. It provided an appropriate description of how God would guide his Messiah through distress and suffering to glory.

Late in the night Jesus and the disciples left the city, perhaps in discrete groups so as not to be conspicuous. They crossed the Kidron valley and began the ascent to the Mount of Olives where the affirmations of the Passover would be tested for their integrity.

7. The Prophecy of Failure and Denial. Ch. 14:27–31

27And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended:61 for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered abroad.

28Howbeit, after I am raised up, I will go before62 you into Galilee.63

29But Peter said unto him, Although all shall be offended, yet will not I.

30And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that thou to-day, even this night, before the cock crow twice,64 shalt deny me thrice.

31But he spake exceeding vehemently, If I must die with thee, I will not deny thee. And in like manner also said they all.

27–28 The fact that the flow of the narrative would be uninterrupted if a reader jumped from verse 26 to verse 32 suggests that Mark is responsible for the insertion of verses 27–31 at this point. This paragraph indicates that Jesus was thoroughly aware of the course of events which would unfold in the hours ahead and that he would be reunited with his disciples after his resurrection. Within the Marcan outline these verses serve to anticipate important sections of the subsequent account, but especially the flight of the disciples at the time of Jesus’ arrest (Ch. 14:43–50) and the denial of Peter (Ch. 14:66–72). Whether the tradition is to be situated in the upper room or on the way to Gethsemane is difficult to determine since there is no evidence in Mark that its position was dictated by sequential considerations (cf. Lk. 22:31–34; Jn. 13:36–38, where the prediction of the denial falls within the meal-sequence).

The prophecy that all the disciples will fall away is supported by the quotation of Zech. 13:7. In the context (Zech. 13:7–9) God commands that the shepherd (“the man who stands next to me”) be struck down that the sheep may be scattered as an integral part of a refining process which will result in the creation of a new people of God. This action is associated with the opening of a fountain for the cleansing of sin on behalf of “the house of David and Jerusalem” (Zech. 13:1). The passage to which Jesus referred thus speaks of a necessity which leads to redemption.65 Even as sheep are scattered in panic when their shepherd falls, so the death of Jesus will cause the disciples to desert him and will mark the loss of the center point for their own communal fellowship. The emphasis in verse 27, however, falls on the offense which Jesus will cause the disciples, for this is the element in the prediction that is seized upon by Peter in his bold affirmation of absolute loyalty (verses 29, 31). “To be offended” at Jesus is the opposite to believing and delighting in him. It implies the desire to be dissociated from him because too close an association with Jesus invites the treatment he receives.66 Jesus’ word emphasizes once again that every time he speaks of his passion, he provokes a crisis for the disciples (see above on Ch. 8:31f.; 9:31f.; 10:32).

The prophecy that the disciples will desert Jesus and be scattered is counter-balanced by the promise of reunion in Galilee following the resurrection. In the context of the announcement of failure and denial on the part of the Twelve, Galilee is designated as the place of restoration to Jesus and renewal.67 There the scattered sheep will be gathered together and reunited with their Shepherd. The importance of this announcement is emphasized by its repetition through an angel after Jesus’ resurrection (Ch. 16:7). Verse 28 thus points to the resurrection as the point of renewal for a subsequent history. The fact that this promise was given immediately before the events of the passion tended to veil its significance from the disciples. The darkness caused in their thoughts by Jesus’ approaching death (cf. verse 31 “if I must die with you …”) deprived them of the light of the triumph which was to follow. In this respect verses 27–28 correspond to Ch. 8:31 where Jesus announced he would be killed—and raised up. But Peter fastened only upon the first element in the prophecy (Ch. 8:32), even as he does here.

29–31 The explosive protest of Peter indicates that he found Jesus’ comment in verse 27 offensive and that he failed to hear the counteraction proclaimed immediately. In a bold assertion of exception, he separated himself from the others and affirmed his absolute commitment to Jesus. His statement offers a remarkable contrast to the outburst of Ch. 8:32. There Peter denies suffering as Jesus’ lot, while here he accepts it not only for Jesus but also for himself (verse 31). The profession of loyalty made by Peter and his companions, however, only serves to heighten the completeness of their failure in the impending hour of crisis.

In a most emphatic manner68 Jesus solemnly announced that in spite of all good will and the most somber warnings Peter will find him to be a stumbling block and an offense. Before the early morning hours when the second crowing of the cock announces the approaching dawn,69 Peter will have denied him three times. The reference to a threefold denial indicates the thoroughness with which he will refuse to acknowledge Jesus and the inescapability of the charge that he was offended because of his master (cf. verse 27a).70 With vehemence Peter expressed his abhorrence at such a thought and swore he was prepared to accept Jesus’ fate as his own. The others present identified themselves with this oath of allegiance. Jesus spoke of scattering and denial; they spoke of a shared destiny. Ironically, a few hours later the disciples had fled (Ch. 14:50) and Peter summoned the same vehemence to support his oath that he did not know the Nazarene (Ch. 14:71). The fulfilment of Jesus’ prediction concerning his faithlessness is precisely recorded in Ch. 14:72.

8. Gethsemane. Ch. 14:32–42

32And they came unto a place which was named Gethsemane:71 and he saith unto his disciples, Sit ye here, while I pray.

33And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly amazed, and sore troubled.

34And he saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death: abide ye here, and watch.

35And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass away from him.

36And he said, Abba,72 Father, all things are possible unto thee; remove this cup from me: howbeit not what I will, but what thou wilt.

37And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? couldest thou not watch one hour?

38Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

39And again he went away, and prayed, saying the same words.73

40And again he came, and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they knew not what to answer him.

41And he cometh the third time, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest:74 it is enough;75 the hour is come; behold, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

42Arise, let us be going: behold, he that betrayeth me is at hand.

That Jesus, shortly before his arrest, prayed to God to be delivered from the suffering which faced him is well established in the tradition, appearing in at least three different early forms (Ch. 14:32–42 and par.; Jn. 17:1–18:1; Heb. 5:7).76 In the ancient world it was customary to pray aloud almost universally. It may be assumed, therefore, that Jesus’ prayer as recorded represents accurately the substance of what he prayed. The Gethsemane tradition was inserted, evidently, where it now stands because it formed an indispensable part of the memories which clustered around the Passion. By locating the episode between the prophecy of the desertion (Ch. 14:27–31) and its fulfilment (Ch. 14:43–50), Mark emphasized that Jesus had to face his hour of crisis utterly alone. What is at the heart of the scene is that mystery in suffering which can be penetrated only by those who walk with Jesus in the way of the cross. For Mark’s readers, who needed strength for their own hour of trial, the narrative provided an encouragement which they could accept with dignity and gratitude.

This account provides the third instance in the Gospel of Jesus in prayer (see above on Chs. 1:35; 6:46). The similarity of the setting (solitude, night, an awareness of the demonic) and the placement of the three passages at the beginning, at a decisive point in the middle, and at the end of the Gospel, implies that Mark saw in these incidents fundamental events for the understanding of Jesus and his mission.

32 The olive orchard called Gethsemane was part of an estate at the foot of the Mount of Olives. The road up from the Kidron valley would offer a natural boundary on the south, while the dimensions of the estate were most likely marked out by a stone wall. The name is Hebrew, meaning an oil press, and that seems to indicate that the plot of land contained an olive press. This would certainly not have been the only olive orchard with a press on the mountain, but some detail of past association must have distinguished it, so that it had given its name to the estate.77 This place was familiar to Jesus and the disciples (cf. Lk. 22:39; Jn. 18:2), and in the instruction to wait while he prayed the eleven would have sensed nothing unusual.

33–34 As on other occasions, Jesus separated Peter, James and John from the larger fellowship and took them with him (cf. Chs. 5:37; 9:2). A sufficient reason for his action here may be found in the peculiar responsibility assumed by each of these three to share Jesus’ destiny. In the case of Peter, his boisterous avowal in Ch. 14:29, 31 was a matter of immediate past record. Earlier the sons of Zebedee had affirmed their ability to drink Jesus’ cup (Ch. 10:38–40), and this confidence is called to mind by the reference to the cup in verse 36. The failure to understand what it means to share Jesus’ destiny and to be identified with his sufferings, rather than privileged status, appears to be the occasion for the isolation of the three from the others. Their glib self-confidence exposes them to grave peril of failure in the struggle they confront, and for that reason they are commanded to be vigilant. This warning is echoed in verse 37 and repeated in verse 38 where it is sharpened by the allusion to the moment of trial when a man desires to be untrue to God. The crisis-character of the hour demands vigilance (see above on Ch. 13:33–37).

The urgency of Jesus’ instruction was underscored by his experience of shuddering horror. The suffering which overwhelmed him is forcefully stated: he was “appalled and profoundly troubled,”78 and spoke of a depth of sorrow which threatened life itself.79 The unusually strong language indicates that Mark understood Gethsemane to be the critical moment in Jesus’ life when the full meaning of his submission to the Father confronted him with its immediacy. In the wilderness he had determined to bear the burden of the judgment of God upon the people (see on Ch. 1:8–13). He had spoken repeatedly and in detail to the disciples about his passion. When he set his face toward Jerusalem he did so with a resolve that “amazed” his disciples and made them afraid (Ch. 10:32). The reference to his baptism and his cup (Ch. 10:38) implies an awareness of the cost of submission to the will of God, and doubtless Jesus had seen other men crucified. His demeanor throughout the approach to the moment of arrest and trial was one of resolute calm. The dreadful sorrow and anxiety, then, out of which the prayer for the passing of the cup springs, is not an expression of fear before a dark destiny, nor a shrinking from the prospect of physical suffering and death. It is rather the horror of the one who lives wholly for the Father at the prospect of the alienation from God which is entailed in the judgment upon sin which Jesus assumes.80 The horror thus anticipates the cry of dereliction in Ch. 15:34. Jesus came to be with the Father for an interlude before his betrayal, but found hell rather than heaven opened before him, and he staggered. The vivid terminology of verses 33–34 prepares for verse 36, where the reference to the cup recalls the description of God’s outpoured wrath in the OT as “the cup of staggering” (e.g. Ps. 60:3; Isa. 51:17, 22).

35–36 Separating himself a few yards from the three disciples Jesus prostrated himself and prayed aloud that “the hour” or “this cup” might pass from him. The two expressions are synonymous: both are metaphors for the passion in its deeper redemptive significance. This is evident from the parallel structure of verses 35b and 36a, where the substance of Jesus’ prayer is expressed first indirectly and then directly.81 The reference to “the hour” in verse 35 appears to have been dictated by Jesus’ pronouncement that “the hour has come” in verse 41, referring to the moment of his betrayal and arrest with its foreseeable consequences of his execution as a condemned criminal (see above on Ch. 14:18, 21, 24, 27). The meaning of that course of events is informed by the reference to “this cup,” which in the light of Ch. 10:38 can only designate the chalice of death and of God’s wrath that Jesus takes from the Father’s hand in fulfilment of his mission.82 The thought that the cup could be removed may have come from Isa. 51:17–23 where God, in a proclamation of salvation, summons Jerusalem to arouse from its drunken stupor and to recognize that “the cup of staggering” has been taken away. Yet Scripture also speaks of those who “did not deserve to drink the cup [but] must drink it” (Jer. 49:12). The tension between these alternate expressions of grace and judgment, respectively, seems to be reflected in Jesus’ prayer with its confession of God’s ability (“all things are possible to you”; cf. Ch. 10:27) and the firm resolve to submit to God’s sovereign will. The metaphor of the cup indicates that Jesus saw himself confronted, not by a cruel destiny, but by the judgment of God.

The preservation of Abba (“my Father”) indicates that Jesus prayed to God in the everyday language of the family. When Jesus addressed God this way he did something new, for in the literature of early Palestinian Judaism there is no evidence of Abba being used as a personal address to God.83 To the Jewish mind the use of this familiar household term would have been considered disrespectful in prayer, and therefore inconceivable. Yet Jesus did not hesitate to speak to God “as a child to its father, simply, inwardly, confidently; Jesus’ use of abba in addressing God reveals the heart of his relationship with God.”84 In verse 36 Abba is an expression of obedient surrender and unconditional faith in the Father.

It is commonly assumed that Jesus went to Gethsemane seeking the sympathy and support of his most intimate disciples and that he returned to them after his periods of prayer to seek some relief from his agonizing isolation. This opinion is almost certainly false. The record of the Gospels is clear that the greater the stress of the approaching passion, the more selfish and confused those around him became. The disciples had continually failed to understand the necessity of the passion (cf. Chs. 8:17–21, 32f.; 9:32; 10:32, 35ff.) and were capable of sustaining only the most ordinary kind of affection for Jesus. The Lord had clearly foreseen that at the critical moment they would abandon him (Ch. 14:27–31). True friendship as we experience it—the sharing of inmost thoughts, the exchange of feelings, hopes, sorrows, joys—was a reality that Jesus seems not to have enjoyed, with any continuity, with the Twelve. This was possible with the Father alone, and it is to him, not to the disciples in their frailty, that Jesus turned in this hour of testing.

The complete surrender of the Son in patient obedience to the Father, expressed in Abba, is affirmed in the words which qualify the prayer: “if it is possible” (verse 35) and “not what I will, but rather what you will” (verse 36). Jesus’ desire was conditioned upon the will of God, and he resolutely refused to set his will in opposition to the will of the Father. Fully conscious that his mission entailed submission to the horror of the holy wrath of God against human sin and rebellion, the will of Jesus clasped the transcendentally lofty and sacred will of God.85

37–38 When Jesus interrupted his praying to return to the disciples he found them “sleeping.” It is possible that the description implies a stunned stupor, which permitted them to hear, but not to register, the words of Jesus’ prayer until afterwards (cf. Lk. 9:32). From this point forward there is a shift of emphasis in the narrative from the prayer of Jesus to the failure of the three disciples to maintain their vigil.

Jesus came to the disciples primarily because he was concerned for them. This is evident from the reproach directed to Peter because he had failed to watch as well as in the admonition to the three to watch lest they experience the most severe testing (verse 38). The opinion that Jesus came seeking the comfort and companionship of the three men is challenged by the structure of the account. Jesus did not ask the main body of the disciples to pray, but to remain while he prayed. He did not instruct the three to watch and pray for him, but for themselves. That the disciples failed to share in Jesus’ sufferings was thoroughly predictable (Ch. 14:27). The remarkable element in the scene is that in the midst of an unparalleled agony Jesus twice more came to look after his three vulnerable disciples and to warn them of their danger of failure in the struggle which was about to overwhelm them.

The searching question concerning sleep and the failure to watch is addressed to Peter first because he had affirmed his absolute allegiance to Jesus in a strong statement of exception (Ch. 14:29). The pointed reference to his inability to be vigilant for “one hour” (which perhaps should be taken literally) prepares for the account of his faithlessness in Ch. 14:66–72, while the detail that he was asleep on three occasions when Jesus came to him anticipates his threefold denial.86 The charge to watch and pray in verse 38, however, is expressed in the plural and is addressed to the three disciples, who stand equally under the obligation to stay awake. The command to watch means to be spiritually awake so as to face the severe sifting of loyalties which was to come in the arrest and death of Jesus. The distinctive component in “temptation,” in contrast to other terms for suffering, is that it sets forth the possibility of stumbling and falling into sin. It is an invitation to be untrue to God.87 The expression is informed by the account of Jesus’ trial in the wilderness, where he enters the sphere of Satanic power (see on Ch. 1:12f.). Verse 38 displays an understanding of temptation as the time and realm in which Satan reigns, and recognizes that what takes place on the level of human encounter has cosmic repercussions in the struggle between God and the demonic.88 Jesus knows that the disciples will be offended by the course of events and will deny him by their response to the situation. They may be characterized as “flesh” in its weakness, a description of sinful man left to his own inadequate resources who becomes overwhelmed by a situation, his best intentions betrayed by his inability to resist the pressures of the demonic. The “willing spirit” which stands in opposition to the weak flesh is not a better part of man but God’s Spirit who strives against human weakness. The expression is borrowed from Ps. 51:12, where it stands in parallel with God’s holy Spirit who qualifies a man to speak with boldness before sinners.89 Spiritual wakefulness and prayer in full dependence upon divine help provide the only adequate preparation for crisis (cf. Ch. 13:11). Jesus prepared for his own intense trial through vigilance and prayer, and thus gave to the disciples and to the Church the model for the proper resistance of eschatological temptation.90

39–40 Jesus himself observed the prayer vigil commanded in verse 38. He left the disciples and made “the same request” to his Father. The accent in Mark’s account, however, falls not on his prayer but on his return to his sleeping followers and the sifting this involved for them. Their eyes were “weighed down”; and as at the transfiguration (Ch. 9:6), “they did not know what to say to him.”91 The evangelist does not even mention the third period of prayer, loosely attaching “the third time” in verse 41 to Jesus’ return. This shift of focus to the sleeping disciples who failed to watch recognizes that there was a scandal in the Gethsemane experience which could not be suppressed. It concerned not Jesus, but his immediate disciples who slept when they should have been watching and praying.92 There is no reason to believe that such an offense was artificially created in the Church; a burden of shame rested upon the three who had come to be regarded as closest to the Lord. Mark faithfully preserved the tradition that only the three were told to watch and that only the three slept. His intention in doing so, however, was to strengthen Christians under persecution in Rome and elsewhere by providing a sober warning that the admonition to watch and pray applies ultimately to all believers, who stand equally exposed to the failure which marked the three disciples (cf. Ch. 13:37).

41–42 The opening words of verse 41 are to be taken as an ironical demand or a reproachful question.93 They underscore the utter inability of the disciples to understand the significance of the moment and stress Jesus’ isolation in trial. The enigmatic “It is settled” is to be interpreted by the two statements which immediately follow. In verse 35 Jesus had prayed that if it were possible “the hour” might pass from him. He now says “the hour has come,” and the possibility contemplated in his prayer has proven invalid. The approach of Judas with a company of men indicates that the matter about which Jesus prayed has been settled: he is going to be handed over to sinners. The two statements “the hour has come” and “the Son of Man is handed over to sinners” are synonymous, the second simply clarifying the tenor of the first declaration. They indicate that the moment is imminent when the power of sin and death will overwhelm Jesus and destroy him. This is Satan’s “hour,” because “the sinners” are his agents. Jesus has been delivered by God (cf. Ch. 14:21; Rom. 8:32) into the realm of Satanic power from which there is no protection. That the transcendent Son of Man, whose triumph is so emphatically affirmed in Ch. 13:26, should fall into the hands of sinners is conceivable only in terms of the sovereign will of God and the submission of the Son. This concurrence of will is expressed in the command, “Get up. Let us advance to meet them,” which accompanies the reference to the approach of the betrayer. As in Ch. 14:18–21 where Jesus first announced his betrayal, there is an alternation between the indirect speech of verse 41, with its reference to the Son of Man (cf. verse 21), and the direct use of the first person in verse 42 (cf. verse 18). While Jesus did not hesitate to speak openly of his betrayal, the reference to the betrayal and death of the Son of Man served to direct attention to the utter seriousness of the offense. Jesus’ apparent defenselessness and humiliation in Gethsemane veiled his true dignity. Only after the resurrection did the significance of the transaction concluded there become clear. Just as rebellion in a garden brought Death’s reign over man (Gen. 3:1–19), submission in Gethsemane reversed that pattern of rebellion and sets in motion a sequence of events which defeated Death itself (cf. Heb. 5:7–10).

9. The Betrayal and Arrest of Jesus. Ch. 14:43–52

43And straightway, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.

44Now he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he; take him, and lead him away safely.

45And when he was come, straightway he came to him, and saith, Rabbi; and kissed him.

46And they laid hands on him, and took him.

47But a certain one of them that stood by drew his sword, and smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his ear.

48And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a robber,94 with swords and staves to seize me?

49I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but this is done that the scriptures might be fulfilled.

50And they left him and fled.95

51And a certain young man followed with him, having a linen cloth cast about him, over his naked body: and they laid hold on him;

52but he left the linen cloth, and fled naked.96

43 Guided by Judas, who possessed knowledge both of the place and the wanted person, the arresting party arrived in Gethsemane to take Jesus into custody. The identification of Judas as “one of the twelve,” as if this were not common knowledge, suggests that at this point Mark began incorporating the primitive passion narrative, which in rapid sequence recalled Jesus’ arrest, the investigation of the Sanhedrin, the trial before Pilate, his crucifixion and death.97 Because this was an independent unit of tradition, no prior reference to Judas was assumed. The warrant for Jesus’ arrest had been issued by the Sanhedrin, which is indicated by the comprehensive designation “the chief priests, the scribes and the elders” (see on Chs. 8:31; 14:1f.). That the Jewish authorities alone were responsible for the measures taken against Jesus is corroborated by the detail that he was taken directly to the house of the high priest.98 In addition to the Temple police, who were Levites, the Sanhedrin had at its disposal auxiliary police or servants of the court who were assigned the task of maintaining public order beyond the Temple precincts. They were authorized to make arrests, lead accused persons to the court, guard prisoners and carry out sentences imposed by the court. The arresting party in Gethsemane must have consisted of armed court attendants of this kind.99 The sword, the wooden staff and the lance are listed as Jewish weapons in M. Shabbath VI. 4, while the clubs used by the servants of the high priest are specifically mentioned in an abusive ballad found in the Talmud (TB Pesachim 57a Baraitha; Tos. Menachoth XIII. 21). The effectiveness of clubs for the quelling of a riot was demonstrated during Pilate’s term of office (Josephus, Antiquities XVIII. iii. 2; War II. ix. 4). While the text speaks of “a multitude,” it is important not to overestimate the numerical strength of the force. A large squad was neither necessary nor practical, since it was imperative that an uproar be avoided.

44–45 Judas’ betrayal consisted in making known to the Jewish hierarchs the time and place where Jesus could most conveniently be taken into custody without a commotion.100 The fact that a signal for the arrest had been prearranged confirms that the arresting party were not acquainted with Jesus. The appointed sign was a kiss, the token of homage with which disciples customarily greeted their rabbi.101 Ironically, both the title “Rabbi” (“my master”) and the kiss declared Judas’ respect for Jesus, while his act exposed his master to gross contempt. There is little interest in Judas in the account apart from the essential fact that Jesus was handed over to the Sanhedrin through his agency. He is not mentioned in Mark’s Gospel after this point.

46 Since Jesus was unarmed and offered no resistance, he was quickly apprehended. The grounds upon which the legality of the arrest was justified are difficult to ascertain. Charges of blasphemy (Ch. 2:7), violation of the Sabbath (Chs. 2:24; 3:2–6), or the practice of magic and sorcery (Ch. 3:22) were at various times urged against Jesus, but no one of these impeachments is specified in the account. In spite of that, the legality of Jesus’ arrest cannot be questioned. The body of men who seized him were authorized to do so by the Sanhedrin, the highest Jewish court in the land. If a written warrant for the arrest was required by law (cf. Acts 9:2), it may be assumed that one had been prepared and was in the possession of the leader of the task force. In the Roman provinces, the enforcement of the civil code, and to a large degree criminal law, among the non-citizen classes was normally relegated to the local authorities.102 A provincial suspected of a crime could be arrested by the Sanhedrin in virtue of the autonomous police powers which this body possessed even under the procurators. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the normal rules of Jewish criminal law were suspended or infringed by the action in Gethsemane.103

47 Mark records a single feeble attempt at resistance by an unnamed disciple who struck off the ear of the servant of the high priest with his sword. According to Jn. 18:10, the assailant was Peter, whose action seems to have been impulsive, and the servant he wounded bore the name Malchus. Since this latter name was in common use among the Nabateans and in Syria,104 this man may have been a Nabatean Arab or a Syrian who attended Caiaphas as his personal servant. He seems not to have been present in Gethsemane in any official capacity, but doubtless had been charged to bring the high priest a report of the course of the action as soon as possible. In the scuffle Peter managed to get away. He was not pursued because the incident must have seemed of trifling importance once the leader of the whole movement was in their hands.

48–50 Jesus indignantly protested the unusual show of force which had been mustered against him, as if he were an armed robber. He keenly felt the shame and humiliation of being treated as a common criminal. Paradoxically, he had been available for arrest for at least two weeks prior to the Passover (see on Ch. 11:15–16) since he had been teaching publicly in the Temple each day. The contrast between the surprise armed attack by night and Jesus’ daily appearance in the Temple indicates that the precautions taken by the auxiliary police were unwarranted and unnecessary, while the affirmation “I was daily with you in the Temple” demonstrates that Jesus’ captors were Jewish. The comment that this was done that Scripture might be fulfilled immediately calls to mind Isa. 53:12, “he was numbered with the transgressors,” but in the light of verse 50, where it is reported that all the disciples fled, it is appropriate to recall Ch. 14:27 where Jesus cited Zech 13:7. The desertion of the eleven marks the fulfilment of that prophecy and of Jesus’ word that all of his followers would abandon him that night. No attempt appears to have been made to apprehend the fugitives. The sole concern of the arresting party was Jesus himself.

51–52 These two verses, which are unique to Mark’s record, appear to be an appendix to the statement in verse 50 that “all fled.” They serve to emphasize the fleeing of the disciples by focusing upon a young man who was present and who also fled. In the search for a clue to the identity of this individual, the linguistic parallel with Gen. 39:12 LXX has been observed (Potiphar’s wife “caught him by his garment … but he left his garment in her hands, and fled …”),105 but it is the similarity in situation rather than intended allusion that accounts for the merely formal parallelism. Of greater importance is the fact that in the LXX, the Jewish Apocrypha and Josephus, the term used by Mark designates young men who are exceptionally strong and valiant, or faithful and wise.106 This observation invites attention to Amos 2:16, where the prophet describes a day of judgment so terrible that “he who is stout of heart among the mighty shall flee away naked in that day.” That text seems to offer a more substantial commentary upon this incident. The arrest of Jesus invites the crushing judgment announced by Amos, and not even the valiant shall be able to withstand that day. Yet Christians in Rome and elsewhere who received this tradition would almost certainly understand the reference in terms of an observer who had fled naked into the night when the police sought to seize him. Ordinarily the outer garment was made of wool. The fine linen garment left behind in the hands of a guard indicate that the youth was from a wealthy family, while the absence of an undergarment suggests that he had dressed hastily in order to accompany Jesus. Several Fathers of the Church conjectured that the young man was Mark himself, who is known to have been a resident in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12) and in whose house, it was held by tradition, Jesus celebrated the paschal meal.107 If this is correct, Mark was an eyewitness to the transactions in Gethsemane. His primary purpose for including this vignette, however, appears to have been to emphasize the fact that all fled, leaving Jesus alone in the custody of the police. No one remained with Jesus, not even a valiant young man who intended to follow him.

10. The Proceedings of the Sanhedrin. Ch. 14:53–65

53And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and there come together with him all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.

54And Peter had followed him afar off, even within, into the court of the high priest; and he was sitting with the officers, and warming himself in the light of the fire.

55Now the chief priests and the whole council sought witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found it not.

56For many bare false witness against him, and their witness agreed not together.

57And there stood up certain, and bare false witness against him, saying,

58We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.108

59And not even so did their witness agree together.

60And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?

61But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

62And Jesus said, I am:109 and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.

63And the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What further need have we of witnesses?

64Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be worthy of death.

65And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face,110 and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the officers received him with blows of their hands.

Serious objections, based on rabbinic legal prescriptions, have been urged against the credibility of Mark’s account of the proceedings before the Sanhedrin.111 These may be considered within the framework of the commentary, but two deserve particular mention. It has been argued that the condemnation of Jesus by the Sanhedrin on the night of the Passover is historically improbable because of the prohibition of capital trials on feast days (cf. M. Yom Tob V. 2; Tos. Yom Tob IV. 4; Philo, Migration of Abraham § 91). Pentateuchal law (Deut. 13:12; 17:13; 21:21), however, required that in the case of particularly serious offenses, the execution should serve as a deterrent so that “all Israel should hear it and fear” (Deut. 17:13). In early Tannaitic exegesis this was taken to mean that the offender should be punished on one of the pilgrimage feasts (Tos. Sanhedrin XI. 7). To carry out this provision in the case of Jesus it was necessary that he should be tried and condemned immediately after his arrest.112 The objection that if Jesus was sentenced to death by the Sanhedrin for blasphemy he would have been stoned, when in fact he was crucified by the Roman procurator, is based upon the assumption that the Sanhedrin possessed the competence to execute a capital sentence. The evidence, however, is overwhelming that the power of the sword was the most jealously guarded prerogative in Roman provincial administration, even in a center like Alexandria where there was no question of the disloyalty of the people to Rome.113 In Judea, where a spirit of revolt constantly simmered just beneath the surface, there can have been no concession on this sensitive point. De jure the competence of the Sanhedrin remained intact, but de facto the governor alone possessed the capital power. Jesus was sentenced by the Sanhedrin on the charge of blasphemy, but it was necessary to prepare a political charge ad hoc in order to secure the execution of the death sentence by the provincial praefect. The essential historicity of the Marcan account should be accepted.114

53 Jesus was led back into the town from Gethsemane to the residence of Caiaphas115 where the Sanhedrin was assembled as a body in one of the upstairs rooms (cf. verse 66, “as Peter was below in the courtyard”). There is no evidence in the rabbinic literature or Josephus that the court used the palace of the high priest for its chambers, and it is now impossible to determine why this place was chosen in preference to the usual seat in one of the market halls.116 The haste with which the Sanhedrin was assembled is consonant with the deliberations reported in Ch. 14:1f., 10f. and the necessity of reaching a binding verdict before daybreak. Moreover, it was normal to try persons immediately after arrest since Jewish criminal law made no provision for detention on remand.

The three categories of persons mentioned in verse 53 are precisely those which, according to Josephus, constituted the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem, the supreme Jewish court of law.117 The council was composed of seventy members and the ruling high priest who presided over its deliberations (M. Sanhedrin I. 6; cf. Josephus, Antiquities IV. v. 4.; War II. xx. 5; Tos. Sukka IV. 6). While Mark says that “all” of the Sanhedrin has assembled, his statement need not be taken quite literally (cf. Ch. 1:5); some few individuals may have been absent. His intention is to indicate clearly that the court met in plenary session. According to the Mishnah the presence of 23 members constituted a quorum.118

The high priest at this time was Joseph, surnamed Caiaphas (Josephus, Antiquities XVIII. ii. 2; iv. 3).119 His ability as a diplomat and an administrator is suggested by his tenure of office over a period of nineteen years (A.D. 18–37) in an era when the average term of office was only four years.120 He is associated in the record with the “chief priests,” who included former holders of the high priestly office (presumably Annas, Ishmael ben Phiabi, Eleazar and Simon ben Kamithos), the commander of the Temple Guard, the steward of the Temple, and the three Temple treasurers.121 The “elders” represented the most influential lay families in Jerusalem, and seem to have been primarily wealthy landowners.122 The chief priests and the elders constituted the old ruling class in Jerusalem, with Sadducean leanings, who still held the balance of power in the Sanhedrin. The third group, the representatives of the scribes, consisted primarily of lawyers drawn from the middle classes who tended to be Pharisaic in their convictions.123 If the Mishnah accurately preserves the arrangement of the court in the first century, the members sat in a semi-circle on elevated seats so that they all could see each other (M. Sanhedrin IV. 3a). To their right and left stood two court clerks who recorded the minutes of the transactions, while a seat for the accused and for the witnesses was placed in the center (M. Sanhedrin IV. 3b, 4).

54 At first sight, verse 54 appears to be abruptly introduced and disruptive to the account of the proceedings before the Sanhedrin. It would seem more appropriate in connection with verses 66–72. The reference to Peter, however, is dictated by Mark’s concern to present two incidents which happened at the same time. Because the council session and the denial were concurrent events, he is not content to present them simply one after the other, but employs a literary device which is characteristic of his style. He records the hearing before the Sanhedrin prior to the account of Peter’s denial, but by introducing the second incident at the beginning of the first he indicates that the episodes occurred simultaneously. In verse 66 the words “and while Peter was below in the courtyard” establish the link with the situation already described at this point. Following the narrative of the denial, Mark then resumes his account of the action of the Sanhedrin, specifying once more those taking part (Ch. 15:1). By the technique of anticipation and flashback the impression of consecutive occurrence is overcome.124

When Peter came to the courtyard to find out what those assembled in the palace intended to do with their prisoner, he found the servants of the high priest crowding around a charcoal fire because of the chilly night air. Ordinarily these men would have gone to their homes by this hour, but the extraordinary meeting of the court accounted for their presence in the courtyard until daybreak.

55–56 The proceedings against Jesus began with the taking of evidence, which is essential to any proper hearing. In capital cases condemnation required the unanimous evidence of at least two witnesses (M. Sanhedrin IV. 1), a provision firmly rooted in pentateuchal law (Deut. 17:6; 19:15; Num. 35:30; Josephus, Antiquities IV. viii. 15). Since in Jewish judicial procedure the witnesses functioned as the prosecution, they gave their evidence individually and verbally in the presence of the judges and the accused. If their respective depositions differed one from the other even in trivial details, they were inadmissible as evidence.125 The ready availability of witnesses for the prosecution suggests that they had been alerted that the arrest of Jesus could be expected momentarily and that they were to appear on call. A number were called and heard, but all that is recorded is that they failed to agree with each other and so invalidated their testimony. This detail indicates that the Sanhedrin adhered strictly to the legal standards for the hearing of witnesses. The one reproach to which the court was open, according to Mark’s record, was that they assembled together, not with the intention of reaching a just verdict, but with a firm resolve to convict Jesus of a capital crime (Ch. 14:1, 55). This violation of the purpose and spirit of the law outweighed the regard, or disregard, of external legal forms.126

57–59 After the first group of witnesses had been dismissed, a substantial charge was levelled that Jesus had declared that he would destroy the Temple and in three days build another in its place. While this accusation is labelled “false,” the term may refer to some detail of the charge or to some circumstance which rendered the witness incompetent.127 In point of fact, Jesus had once said, within sight of the Jerusalem Temple, “if this temple be destroyed, in three days I will raise it up” (Jn. 2:19).128 After Jesus’ resurrection these cryptic words were understood by the disciples to refer to the temple of his body (Jn. 2:21f.), but quite naturally those who were present heard a dire threat against the sanctuary. Moreover, if the text of verse 58 and of Jn. 2:19 preserves a verbatim report of what was said, Jesus’ accusers gave to his words a form which emphasized the threat still more: “I will destroy this temple.” The accusation was utterly serious, for throughout the Graeco-Roman world the destruction or desecration of places of worship was regarded as a capital offense.129 When the prophet Jeremiah had simply announced the catastrophe that would overtake the Temple in Jerusalem he was seized and brought before the royal court as a criminal who deserved to die (Jer. 26:1–19; Josephus, Antiquities X. vi. 2). The mere threat of violence against the Temple might well seem to the Sanhedrin a crime meriting the death penalty (cf. Tos. Sanhedrin XIII. 5; TB Rosh-Ha-Shanah 17a; TJ Berachoth IX. 13b). If the verdict announced in verse 64 had been secured on the basis of this evidence, it would have represented gross injustice. Jesus certainly had no intention of destroying the sanctuary. He expected its destruction as the judgment of God upon an appalling sacrilege (Ch. 13:1 f., 14). But the testimony concerning the Temple definitely did not provide the basis for the final verdict. Mark states emphatically that in this instance also the witnesses differed in their evidence and were disqualified. While the accusation concerning the Temple did not influence the outcome of the trial decisively, it serves to clarify the taunt of Ch. 15:29,130 and it may have provided the clue that Jesus regarded himself as the Messiah (see below on verse 61).

60–61 Because the hearing of witnesses did not secure the desired result, Caiaphas, as the presiding justice, determined to interrogate Jesus himself. He arose and stepped into the middle of the assembly where the accused was seated. Jesus was required by law to answer the accusations brought against him, and his failure to do so frustrated the council. By his steadfast silence he deprived the court of exploiting, for its purposes, the evidence that had been given against him. This brought the proceedings to a deadlock, and prompted the high priest to seek a decision by direct means. Although disqualified as admissible evidence, the utterance about destroying the Temple and rebuilding another in its place was messianic in tone, because Judaism anticipated a renewal of the glory of the Temple when the Messiah should come.131 Perhaps for that reason Caiaphas asked Jesus pointedly if he claimed to be the Messiah. In the formulation “the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One,”132 the second clause stands in apposition to the first and has essentially the same meaning. In Jewish sources contemporary with the NT, “son of God” is understood solely in a messianic sense.133 Jewish hopes were situated in a messianic figure who was a man.134 The question of the high priest cannot have referred to Jesus’ deity, but was limited to a single issue: do you claim to be the Messiah?

In the Marcan account this question appears to provide the climax to the proceedings. The impression is inescapable that the success or failure of the conspiracy on the part of the Sanhedrin to secure Jesus’ death depended upon the response which follows. If Jesus answered affirmatively, they had won their case; if he replied negatively, they must discover some new stratagem. This means that if Mark has described the course of the investigation correctly in its essentials, the council was prepared to regard the open and unequivocal claim of Jesus to be the Messiah a capital crime.135 Judaism expected the Messiah to provide proof of his identity. A Messiah imprisoned, abandoned by his followers, and delivered helpless into the hands of his foes represented an impossible conception. Anyone who, in such circumstances, proclaimed himself to be the Messiah could not fail to be a blasphemer who dared to make a mockery of the promises given by God to his people.136 Moreover, there is some rabbinic evidence that God alone had the right to announce and enthrone the Messiah, so that one who claimed the messianic dignity before God had crowned him could be regarded as having infringed the majesty of God.137 For these reasons, Caiaphas’ question is decisive, and demands a forthright “Yes” or “No.”

62 It is evident from Mark’s Gospel that Jesus had carefully avoided calling himself the Messiah (see on Ch. 8:29). This reserve was inherent in the tension between veiledness and open manifestation which is characteristic of the public ministry. It was not his desire to arouse the nationalistic and political hopes which clustered around the figure of the Messiah in popular thinking. Nevertheless, he knew himself to be God’s anointed servant, and in spite of the paradoxical circumstances in which he found himself he refused to ignore the question or deny his identity. To the question whether he claimed to be the promised Messiah he replied clearly, “I am.” That his reply was an affirmative reply, and not a pronouncing of the theophanic formula “I am he” is evident from the structure of verses 61–62. The question “Are you … ?” demands and receives the response “I am,” which is then strengthened by the prophecy which follows.

The utterance of verse 62b brings together Ps. 110:1 and Dan. 7:13 (cf. Isa. 52:8), in a formulation describing the enthronement and parousia of the Son of Man,138 while the context leaves no doubt that Son of Man is a self-designation. “Power” was a recognized circumlocution for God,139 while “to sit at the right hand of” someone was a familiar idiom meaning to occupy the place of highest honor (see above on Ch. 10:37). Jesus thus spoke without reserve of his exaltation and coming as the eschatological Judge (see on Chs. 8:38; 13:26). This prophecy counters the objection which the affirmation that he is the Messiah immediately provoked, that his claim lacks all proof. The day will come, he affirms, when those who now judge him will see him with unmistakable clarity enthroned at God’s side, invested with power and majesty, and assigned the task of the eschatological Judge. He will then be unveiled in a convincing manner as the Anointed of God.140 The high priest and the Sanhedrin, as representatives of the people, had the responsibility to recognize the Messiah. Accordingly, they who have rejected him must see their decision overturned when the truth concerning Jesus’ person and work is clearly revealed at the parousia, and he is disclosed in the position of supreme authority. There is evidence that contemporary Judaism also conceived of the Messiah as sitting at God’s right hand and coming in the clouds of heaven.141 The Sanhedrin would understand Jesus’ words as an unqualified claim to messianic dignity. The prophecy and the clear response “I am” are mutually supportive.

63–64 The pentateuchal law concerning blasphemy (Lev. 24:15–16) was very elastic in the first century. It covered the sins of “defaming” God and “piercing” his name. The Hebrew root of the essential verb in Lev. 24:15 means to undervalue someone and to say so. Applied to God it meant to dishonor him by diminishing his majesty or depriving him of rights to which he is entitled (cf. Ch. 2:7).142 Only in the post-Christian period, through the deliberations at Jamnia and elsewhere, did “blasphemy” acquire the technical significance defined in the Mishnah: “The blasphemer is only guilty if he pronounces the name of God distinctly” (M. Sanhedrin VII. 5a). The Tannaim of a later generation supposed that the strictest possible interpretation of Lev. 24:10–17 was mandatory in order to safeguard the possible loss of an Israelite life by stoning. The exegetical procedure adopted was to read the several verses as if they controlled each other and mutually narrowed the application of the law. God’s covenant name must be distinctly uttered and must be openly dishonored according to a recognized curse-formula. It may be accepted as certain that this narrow definition of blasphemy had no validity in the proceedings described in Ch. 14:53ff.143 The action of the high priest in tearing his garments, together with the explicit declaration “You have heard his blasphemy,” indicate that Jesus’ open avowal of his messiahship was regarded by Caiaphas and the court as an infringement of God’s majesty and a diminishing of his honor. Under the circumstances in which Jesus asserted his claim God appeared to be mocked and was denied his right to enthrone the Messiah and declare his dignity.144

By tearing his garments, Caiaphas expressed symbolically the fact that he regarded Jesus’ declaration as blasphemous. It is not necessary to infer that he tore the sacred and magnificent robes worn by the high priest when officiating at one of the appointed feasts. There is nothing either in the circumstances of the night session or in the Marcan text which suggests that he was wearing his official robes. The significant element was the gesture of sorrow and indignation (cf. II Kings 18:37; 19:1, 4; Judith 14:19; M. Sanhedrin VII. 5, 6), which was as eloquent of his convictions as his call for a verdict when he specified the offense of blasphemy. The law of Moses prescribed death by stoning for blasphemy (Lev. 24:16). In the absence of any stated objection, a unanimous verdict was attained and Jesus was sentenced to death.

The statement that the Sanhedrin passed a formal death sentence has frequently been disputed on linguistic and historical grounds. It is argued that the council expressed a judicial opinion (i.e. they regarded him as deserving death) or that a writ of indictment was drawn up,145 but that there can be no thought in the passage of an actual death sentence. Mark, however, unequivocally reports a death sentence, using accepted legal terminology when he says that “all condemned him as liable to death.” As curious as this wording may sound, it means that a formal judgment took place and that a death sentence was handed down.146 That Mark has a real death sentence in mind is confirmed by Ch. 10:33 where Jesus prophesies that the chief priests and scribes will “condemn” him to death, using the same terminology found in verse 64. In the absence of a court of appeal in Jewish criminal law, the sentence was valid. A capital sentence, however, could not be executed by the Jewish court under Roman provincial rule. Only the procurator possessed the power of life and death in terms of his imperial authority.147 The session of the court thus ended with the formal decision to hand Jesus over to the Roman procurator with a carefully formulated charge which would secure the execution demanded by the court (see Ch. 15:1).

65 Once Jesus was condemned, it was necessary for the council to show that it could not condone his (apparently) abhorrent behavior. This was accomplished through the spitting and the administering of blows, which were conventional gestures of rejection and repudiation (cf. Job 30:10; Num. 12:14; Deut. 25:9; Isa. 50:6; M. Berachoth IX. 5b; TJ soṭah II. 16d [37]). The detail that Jesus was blindfolded and cuffed, with the demand to “prophesy,” i.e. to say who it was that struck him, accurately preserves an old interpretation of Isa. 11:2–4, according to which the Messiah could judge by smell without the need of sight.148 What is described in the text is a traditional test of messianic status, to which Jesus declined to submit. Since the indignities heaped upon Jesus were consistent with the court’s understanding of his unqualified claim to be the Messiah, there is nothing improbable in the conduct reported by Mark. Verse 65 is thus integrally related to the larger account, the degrading treatment corresponding to the basis of the condemnation.149

11. Peter’s Denial of Jesus. Ch. 14:66–72

66And as Peter was beneath in the court, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest;

67And seeing Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and saith, Thou also wast with the Nazarene, even Jesus.

68But he denied, saying, I neither know, nor understand what thou sayest: and he went out into the porch, and the cock crew.150

69And the maid saw him, and began again to say to them that stood by, This is one of them.

70But he again denied151 it. And after a little while again they that stood by said to Peter, Of a truth thou art one of them; for thou art a Galilean.

71But he began to curse, and to swear, I know not this man of whom ye speak.

72And straightway the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word, how that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.152

66–68 The strand of narrative suspended in verse 54 is taken up at this point. The use of the literary technique of flashback indicates that the trial and interrogation of Jesus coincided, and is to be contrasted with the ordeal and interrogation of Peter (see on Ch. 14:54). The irony inherent in the situation is evident when the force of juxtaposing verse 65 and verses 66–72 is appreciated. At the precise time when the court attendants were heaping scorn and derision upon Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah, the prophecy that Peter would deliberately deny him was being fulfilled. The most plausible source for this tradition is Peter himself, who must have authorized, if he did not actually construct, the version of the events.

According to Jn. 18:16, the servant girl who first recognized Peter was the portress. While it seems improbable that she had accompanied the auxiliary police to Gethsemane, from some prior occasion she was certain that she had seen Peter with Jesus. Her scornful observation, “You also were with this Nazarene, this Jesus,” was calculated to embarrass and unsettle the one addressed. The reference to Jesus appears to be contemptuous, and it is possible that the expression “with this Nazarene” is intended to identify Peter as a disciple (see on Ch. 3:14).153 He is one who had been “with Jesus,” and who was known in terms of this relationship. But Peter denied the charge, using the form common in rabbinical law for a formal, legal denial (e.g. M. Shebuoth VIII. 3: “ ‘Where is my ox?’ He said to him, ‘I do not know what you are saying’ ”).154 Peter’s refusal to acknowledge his relationship to Jesus constitutes the fact of denial, behind which stands the solemn pronouncement of Ch. 14:30. Denial implies a previous relationship of obedience and fidelity. It can occur only when there has just been acknowledgment and commitment (cf. Chs. 8:29; 14:29, 31). Peter’s unfaithfulness to the person of Jesus expressed anxiety for his own safety and the determination to seek approval from the bystanders rather than from the Lord. In an attempt to escape further notice he moved out to the forecourt. The crowing of the cock was so regular and common an occurrence it seemed to possess no significance for him.

69–72 Shifting his position from one part of the courtyard to another did not relieve Peter from attack. The portress not only singled him out for recognition but involved the others who were present in the situation. Her remark that Peter was “one of them” shows an awareness that Jesus had given leadership to a significant movement and had attracted a stable following of men who were nearly always with him. But Peter again failed to acknowledge his discipleship, presumably in the form employed in verse 68. His denials earned him only a brief respite, for the bystanders sensed his discomfort and refused to leave him alone. The Galileans are often mentioned in the Talmud because of their dialect (e.g. TB ‘Erubin 53b; Megillah 24b). They were unable to distinguish between the several guttural sounds that are so important an element in Semitic languages. Peter’s speech showed him to be a Galilean and his presence among the Judeans in the courtyard invited the deduction that he was a follower of the heretic Galilean, Jesus of Nazareth.

The confident challenge, “Certainly you are one of them, for you are a Galilean,” provoked Peter to maintain vehemently and formally that he had no knowledge of the Nazarene. The statement that he began to invoke a curse is intentionally left without an object in the Greek text to denote both that he cursed himself if he is lying and those present if they insist on asserting that he is a disciple.155 Peter’s avoidance of the name of Jesus (“this man of whom you speak”) is deliberate and exposes the Lord to the contempt envisioned in Ch. 8:38 (“ashamed of me and of my words”).

Peter’s emphatic denial was punctuated by the crowing of the cock a second time. It was the peculiar habit of the cock crowing, with comparative regularity, at three times during the period between midnight and 3:00 A.M. that accounts for the designation of the third watch of the night as “cock-crow” (cf. Ch. 13:35b). An early rabbinic tradition speaks of people setting out upon a night journey, departing at the first cock-crow, or the second, or the third (TB Yoma 21a, Baraitha). Observation over a period of twelve years in Jerusalem has confirmed that the cock crows at three distinct times, first about a half hour after midnight, a second time about an hour later, and a third time an hour after the second. Each crowing lasts from 3–5 minutes, after which all is quiet again.156 Thus between the first crowing, noted in verse 69, and the second only an hour had passed, but Peter had been provoked to deny solemnly and emphatically his relationship to Jesus three times. He remembered Jesus’ prophecy of his faithlessness and the circumstances in which it had been uttered (Ch. 14:27–31),157 and was overwhelmed with grief. It was like awakening from an evil dream that had begun with the failure to stay awake in Gethsemane (cf. Ch. 14:37). Peter fled in shame from those who had witnessed his ignominious denial and wept tears of remorse.

The tradition of Peter’s denial was undoubtedly included in the Gospel to provide a sober example to the Christian community in Rome. The fact that it is intimately tied to the account of Jesus before the Sanhedrin emphasizes the integrity of Jesus and his confession and the faithlessness of his disciple who refused to acknowledge his Lord. Preparation for this pointed contrast was provided in the account of the sleeping disciples in Gethsemane who failed in the disciplines of vigilance and prayer, in the reference to the futile attempt to defend Jesus with the sword, and to the distant and hesitant “following” of Peter. This was of primary significance to Mark’s readers, whose faith was severely tested by the measures adopted in imperial Rome to stamp out an unwanted sect. The fact of Peter’s denial constituted a solemn warning that a bold affirmation of fidelity did not guarantee faithfulness. It constituted a plea to hold fast to one’s confession of Jesus. But it also provided a word of encouragement that one who failed his Lord through denial could be restored, for the episode recounted in Ch. 14:66–72 remains incomplete without the promise to Peter in Ch. 16:7 that he will experience forgiveness and restoration in Galilee.