From: Over 50 Interpreters Explain the Gospel of
Mark Return to
Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2013
All reproduction of
text in paper, electronic, or computer
form both permitted and encouraged so long as
authorial
and compiler credit is given and the text is
not altered.
CHAPTER 14B:
WEB: They came
to a place which was named
Young’s: And they come to a spot, the name of which is Gethsemane,
and he saith to his disciples, 'Sit ye here till I
may pray;'
Conte (RC): And they
went to a country estate, by the name of Gethsemani.
And he said to his disciples, "Sit here, while I pray."
which was named
It was a garden (John
18:1) or olive orchard on the slope of Olivet.
Thither our Lord was wont to resort (John 18:2). [8]
and He saith to His disciples, Sit ye here. They would from an outer watch to warn
of the danger which they must have felt was impending. [11]
while I shall pray. Notice
again the prayerful habit of Jesus. In
no other crisis of His life does Jesus appear more one of us,
and at the same time more truly our Master.
[44]
[He added], according to
Luke, the counsel, "Pray that ye enter not into temptation," thus
leaving them to pray while He also went to prayer. [23]
WEB: He took
with him Peter, James, and John, and began to be greatly troubled and
distressed.
Young’s: and he taketh Peter, and James, and John with him, and began to be
amazed, and to be very heavy,
Conte (RC): And he took
Peter, and James, and John with him. And he began to be afraid and wearied.
Peter. The Master's knowledge of the certainty of
Peter's fall did not lead Him to change the choice and leave Peter behind. Yet, besides, who was there among the twelve
on whom He could more rely? [23]
and began to
be sore amazed, and to be very heavy [troubled
and deeply distressed, NKJV]. Jesus had for months
contemplated the certainty of a violent death, but now that it was imminent and
to result from a friend's treachery and the nation's rejection of Him, its
awfulness appalled Him. [44]
WEB: He said
to them, "My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death. Stay here, and
watch."
Young’s: and he saith to them, 'Exceeding sorrowful is my soul -- to death;
remain here, and watch.'
Conte (RC): And he said
to them: "My soul is sorrowful, even unto death. Remain here and be
vigilant."
exceedingly sorrowful. A Greek compound meaning
grieved on every side; shut in by distress.
Herod is said to have been "exceeding sorry" at the request
for the Baptist's head (Mark
unto [even to, NKJV] death. So
that death itself can add but little to the agonies now suffered; or so that
the least addition must exceed any human power of endurance and result in
death. Compare the similar expression of
the prophet Jonah (4:9). [3]
tarry ye here. i.e., in the spot to which
He had conducted them, apart from the remainder of the company. He feels the need of more complete seclusion
even from His three companions, as essential to His liberty in prayer. [3]
and watch. His
command was not merely to keep awake out of sympathy with Him, but to be on
their guard against coming dangers. [11]
How touching an
appeal! He had chosen them, taught them,
guard them, prayed for them; He had just spoken to them (John 14-16) in the
tone of an infinite calmness concerning the coming trouble; but when had He
leaned on them thus, and cast Himself on their thoughtfulness and
fidelity? It was a new form for the
relation of Master and disciple, and so to be trusted ought to have made them
watchful. [23]
Weymouth: Going forward
a short distance He threw Himself upon His face and prayed repeatedly that, if
it was possible, He might be spared that time of agony;
WEB: He went
forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible,
the hour might pass away from him.
Young’s: And having gone forward a little, he fell upon the earth,
and was praying, that, if it be possible the hour may pass from him,
Conte (RC): And when he
had proceeded on a little ways, he fell prostrate on the ground. And he prayed
that, if it were possible, the hour might pass away from him.
and fell on the ground. Luke, "kneeled;"
Matthew, "fell on His face." [23]
and prayed that, if it were possible. i.e., "compatible with God's perfections and designs." [45]
the hour might pass from Him. Here the hour is put by metonymy for the suffering which was to fill up
the hour. This is a general statement of
what He prayed for, introductory to the more specific statement of the petition
which He offered. [38]
WEB: He said,
"Abba, Father, all things are possible to you. Please remove this cup from
me. However, not what I desire, but what you desire."
Young’s: and he
said, 'Abba, Father; all things are possible to Thee; make this cup pass from
me; but, not what I will, but what Thou.'
Conte (RC): And he said:
"Abba, Father, all things are possible to you. Take this chalice from me.
But let it be, not as I will, but as you will."
all things are possible unto Thee. In
a general sense all things are possible with God, and in this sense the terms
are here employed. (Compare the
expression “if it be possible,” in verse 35).
The thought is not inconsistent with the words quoted by Matthew, “If it
be possible, let this cup pass from Me” nor with that
quoted by Luke, “if Thou be willing, remove this cup from Me." It was physically possible, but morally
impossible, and therefore God was not willing to let the cup pass. [38]
take away this cup from Me. The
“cup," both in Holy Scripture and
in profane writers, is taken to signify that lot or portion, whether, whether
good or evil, which is appointed for us by God.
[39]
nevertheless
not what I will, but what Thou wilt.
Hence it appears that there was not, as the Monothelites
taught, one will, partly human and partly Divine in Christ; but there were two
distinct wills, one human and the other Divine, both residing in the one
Christ; and it was by the subjecting of His human will to the Divine that He
wrought out our redemption. [39]
WEB: He came
and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, "Simon, are you sleeping?
Couldn't you watch one hour?
Young’s: And he cometh, and findeth them
sleeping, and saith to Peter, 'Simon, thou dost
sleep! thou wast not able to
watch one hour!
Conte (RC): And he went
and found them sleeping. And he said to Peter: "Simon, are you sleeping?
Were you not able to be vigilant for one hour?
and saith unto Peter, Simon,
sleepest thou? Compare the boast of Peter
only a few hours before. Also notice
Jesus' need of human companionship. [44]
Note again the singular
number used by Mark, and the plural used by Matthew (26:40), even when Matthew
represents the remark as being addressed to a single person of the
company. [38]
Couldest not thou watch one hour? Perhaps we may infer that He had been about
an hour absent from them, though the conclusion must not be too confidently
drawn. [23]
WEB: Watch and
pray, that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but
the flesh is weak."
Young’s: Watch ye and pray, that ye may not enter into temptation; the
spirit indeed is forward, but the flesh weak.'
Conte (RC): Watch and
pray, so that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing,
but the flesh is weak."
The spirit truly is ready, but the
flesh is weak. It is a candid recognition of the good
as well and the evil in His friends. [23]
The spirit and the flesh
are contrary to each other (Galatians
the flesh is weak. i.e., weak for the purposes
of the spirit. [23]
WEB: Again he
went away, and prayed, saying the same words.
Young’s: And again
having gone away, he prayed, the same word saying;
Conte (RC):
and spake the same words. Not
in mere idle repetition, as we sometimes do, but having one all-absorbing
desire, which could but express itself again and again in the same words. [35]
The repetition of the
same words shows His fixed determination to submit to the will of His heavenly
Father. [39]
Not necessarily the same
form, but the same substance (ton auton logon). Yet in Matthew, where the prayer is quoted,
there is a visible progress from the first.
The one is, "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away
from Me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt;" the other is,
"O My Father, if this cannot pass away except I drink it, thy will be
done." In the latter there appears
a deeper conviction that the cup cannot pass away and a more unconditional
acceptance of it. Observe that in the
repetition of prayer there was no formalism, but only intensity of desire. [23]
WEB: Again he
returned, and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy, and they
didn't know what to answer him.
Young’s: and having
returned, he found them again sleeping, for their eyes were heavy, and they had
not known what they might answer him
Conte (RC): And going
away again, he prayed, saying the same words.
neither wist [know, NKJV] they what to
answer Him. The disciples were so ashamed at being
caught asleep a second time that they knew not what to say in answer to His
reproof. [38]
WEB: He came
the third time, and said to them, "Sleep on now, and take your rest. It is
enough. The hour has come. Behold, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of
sinners.
Young’s: And he cometh the third time, and saith
to them, 'Sleep on henceforth, and rest -- it is over; the hour did come; lo,
the Son of Man is delivered up to the hands of the sinful;
Conte (RC): And he
arrived for the third time, and he said to them: "Sleep now, and take
rest. It is enough. The hour has arrived. Behold, the Son of man will be
betrayed into the hands of sinners.
(1) That commonly accepted, which translates the
original as an imperative. Jesus had
mastered Himself and the hour of trial had passed. "It is enough:" Jesus no longer needed the support He
had asked of them a few moments previously.
They might sleep, while He, confident of Himself and of His Father's
love, awaited the traitor.
(2) That which makes the original a declaration
of surprise: "So then you are
sleeping and are taking your rest!"
While Jesus had been struggling in agony, they had refused to give Him
the support even of wakefulness. On the
whole, this second interpretation best accords with the context and the usage
of the somewhat unusual Greek expression.
[44]
Alternate
interpretation: Some have thought
that our Lord here uses the language of irony.
But it is far more consistent with His usual considerate words to
suppose that, sympathizing with the infirmity of His disciples, He simply
advised them, now that His bitter agony was over, to take some rest during the
brief interval that remained. [39]
The hour is come, behold, the Son of Man is betrayed into
the hands of sinners. Not as indicating special guilt, but the
contrast--"the Son of Man, in the hands of sinners." He was abandoned for the time to the power of
His enemies. [45]
WEB: Arise,
let us be going. Behold, he who betrays me is at hand."
Young’s: rise, we
may go, lo, he who is delivering me up hath come nigh.'
Conte (RC): Rise up, let
us go. Behold, he who will betray me is near."
Verse 42 implies that
now, as at other times (cf. John
Lo, he that betrayeth Me is at hand. Even during the brief time of this utterance
he had been coming nearer, and there was not time for the little company to do
more than turn their faces toward the sad future. [23]
Weymouth: Immediately,
while He was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, came and with him a
crowd of men armed with swords and cudgels, sent by the High Priests and
Scribes and Elders.
WEB: Immediately,
while he was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, came--and with him a
multitude with swords and clubs, from the chief priests, the scribes, and the
elders.
Young’s: And immediately -- while he is yet speaking -- cometh near
Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude, with swords and
sticks, from the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders;
Conte (RC): And while he
was still speaking, Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, arrived, and with him
was a large crowd with swords and clubs, sent from the leaders of the priests,
and the scribes, and the elders.
and with him a great multitude. The
crowd was heterogeneous: there was a
detachment of Romans soldiers (John 18:3, 12), another from the Jewish temple
watch (Luke
with swords and staves [clubs, NKJV]. The former in the hands of the soldiers, the latter among the mixed
crowd. They had lanterns and
torches (John 18:3), though the moon was at the full.
Such a company, military
and miscellaneous, armed and lighted, quietly as it might wish to
approach, was so considerable in size and appointments that it is not strange
that Jesus saw or heard it on the way. [23]
from the chief priests and the scribes and the
elders. Describing the official
body, the Sanhedrin. [23]
WEB: Now he
who betrayed him had given them a sign, saying, "Whoever I will kiss, that
is he. Seize him, and lead him away safely."
Young’s: and he who
is delivering him up had given a token to them, saying, 'Whomsoever I shall
kiss, he it is, lay hold on him, and lead him away safely,'
Conte (RC): Now his
betrayer had given them a sign, saying: "He whom I shall kiss, it is he.
Take hold of him, and lead him away cautiously."
Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is
He. As a kiss was the common salutation, it was
supposed that it would attract no notice, from any not in the secret. [45]
Alternate
interpretation: Was it necessary
that such a sign should be used? Could
they not find Him? It seems a gratuitous
insult and a superfluous degradation of Himself on the part of Judas. [23]
take Him. A stronger word in Greek,
meaning master, overpower, seize, secure Him. [3]
and lead Him away safely. [This] may intimate Judas'
suspicion that Jesus might miraculously escape, as on former occasions (Luke
Or: Either in such a way as to prevent any
attempt at rescue, or "confidently," without being afraid of Him. The former is more probable. [11]
WEB: When he had
come, immediately he came to him, and said, "Rabbi! Rabbi!" and
kissed him.
Young’s: and having
come, immediately, having gone near him, he saith,
'Rabbi, Rabbi,' and kissed him.
Conte (RC): And when he
had arrived, immediately drawing near to him, he said: "Hail,
Master!" And he kissed him.
Bengel
remarks that Judas is never said to have called Jesus "Lord." Twice he is said to have called Him
"Rabbi," here and in Matthew 26:25; and some have inferred that this
cooler and more distant form of address was customary with him--an inference
precarious, but possible. [23]
And kissed Him. The union of the title with the kiss made up
an utterance of consummate hypocrisy. [23]
In depth:
The chronology of the arrest [39]. The order of events in the betrayal appears
to have been this:
First,
the kiss of the traitor Judas, by which he indicated to those who were with him
which was Jesus.
Then follows that
remarkable incident mentioned only by
Perhaps this incident
fired the courage of St. Peter, and so, as they approached to take our Lord, he
drew his sword and struck off the ear of Malchus. Then our Lord healed him.
And then He turned to
the multitude and said, “Are ye come out as against a robber, with swords and
staves, to seize Me?"
WEB: They laid
their hands on him, and seized him.
Young’s: And they laid on him their hands, and kept hold on him;
Conte (RC): But they
laid hands on him and held him.
WEB: But a
certain one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the servant of the
high priest, and cut off his ear.
Young’s: and a
certain one of those standing by, having drawn the sword, struck the servant of
the chief priest, and took off his ear.
Conte (RC): Then a
certain one of those standing near, drawing a sword, struck a servant of the
high priest and cut off his ear.
The conjecture that
Mark, writing his gospel early, omitted Peter's name here, lest the injured man
should retaliate if the apostle was made known, rests on a slender basis, for
Peter was recognized by a relative of Malchus in the
court (John 18:26). [8]
drew his sword. There were two swords in the
company (Luke
and struck the servant. Or, rather, the slave. [23]
Named "Malchus" (John
of the high priest. i.e., of Caiphas. [23]
and cut off his ear. Both
mark and John use a diminutive--little ear. Luke alone (
WEB: Jesus
answered them, "Have you come out, as against a robber, with swords and
clubs to seize me?
Young’s: And Jesus
answering said to them, 'As against a robber ye came out, with swords and
sticks, to take me!
Conte (RC): And in
response, Jesus said to them: "Have you set out to apprehend me, just as
if to a robber, with swords and clubs?
and said to them, Have you come out.
Those to whom he now spoke were some chief priests and elders and
officers of the temple guard (Luke
as against a robber. Whose
apprehension, as a man of violence, might call for a strong force. [45]
with swords
and clubs to take Me? “You act like I’m a known and feared violent
man!” A sense of
proportion had escaped the authorities in their desperation to arrest and
remove Him at all costs. [rw]
WEB: I was
daily with you in the temple teaching, and you didn't arrest me. But this is so
that the Scriptures might be fulfilled."
Young’s: daily I
was with you in the temple teaching, and ye did not lay hold on me -- but that
the Writings may be fulfilled.'
Conte (RC): Daily, I was
with you in the temple teaching, and you did not take hold of me. But in this
way, the scriptures are fulfilled."
teaching. Engaged in My public work, and seen and
known by all. [45]
and you did not seize Me. This contrast, of allowing the
most favorable opportunities of arresting a peaceable unprotected man, with the
parade and ado with which they now come forth to arrest Him in the night,
presents in strong light the folly and absurdity of their course. [45]
But the Scriptures must be fulfilled. These
words imply Jesus' conception as to the true nature of His mission. [44]
This ought to have
reminded the scribes of the Messianic predictions of the prophets and how they
were unconsciously fulfilling them. [8]
WEB: They all
left him, and fled.
Young’s: And having
left him they all fled;
Conte (RC): Then his
disciples, leaving him behind, all fled away.
and fled. As Jesus had predicted
(verse 27), but as they had refused to admit or believe (verse 31). [45]5
Jesus was determined not to use violence; He was determined to permit
Himself to be arrested. Recognizing
this, did they flee out of a sense of personal safety or simply because He had
left them no options with which to act and they had to spontaneously make up
their minds: stay and risk arrest
themselves or flee and escape it? Any
who mock their steadfastness should ask whether they could have done any
better! [rw]
WEB: A certain
young man followed him, having a linen cloth thrown around himself, over his
naked body. The young men grabbed him,
Young’s: and a
certain young man was following him, having put a linen cloth about his naked
body, and the young men lay hold on him,
Conte (RC): Now a
certain young man followed him, having nothing but a fine linen cloth over
himself. And they took hold of him.
followed Him. Literally, in the best Greek] text,
"followed with Him"--i.e., he was a companion with Him in the garden;
he was present there and was no stranger.
Yet he had not been with Jesus and the others at the Supper, for then he
would have been clothed. [23]
having a linen cloth. An article of dress which was used at night, and also in summer, as
a substitute for the ordinary mantle, or outside garment. [24]
thrown around his naked body. It need not imply that he was absolutely
naked. It may mean like the Latin nudus, "with only the under robe
on." Compare 1 Samuel 19:24; John
21:7. [8]
and the young men laid hold of him. The
incident may have been recorded to show that the conspirators had instructions
to take the apostles as well as Jesus; and supposing him to be one of them,
they laid hold of him to take him before the high priest. [42]
Schanz
suggests a desire to exhibit in a concrete situation the danger of the
situation and the ferocity of the enemies of Jesus. [17]
WEB: but he
left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.
Young’s: and he,
having left the linen cloth, did flee from them naked.
Conte (RC): But he,
rejecting the fine linen cloth, escaped from them naked.
and fled from
them naked. The word may
here express, as it does in other places (see Isaiah
Weymouth: So they led Jesus away to the High Priest, and with him there
assembled all the High Priests, Elders, and Scribes.
WEB: They led
Jesus away to the high priest. All the chief priests, the elders, and the
scribes came together with him.
Young’s: And they led away Jesus unto the chief priest, and come
together to him do all the chief priests, and the elders, and the scribes;
Conte (RC): And they led
Jesus to the high priest. And all the priests and the scribes and the elders
came together.
to the high priest. i.e., to his residence.
The Mosaic law allowed but one High Priest, who
held office till death; but the Romans had produced confusion in the office, by
various removals and appointments, regardless of this law. Consequently Annas
and Caiaphas are both mentioned as High Priests at
this time, the former probably having the hereditary right, but the latter
holding the office by Roman appointment.
John says Jesus was first sent to Annas,
then to Caiaphas (John
and with him
were assembled all the chief priests,
the elders, and the scribes.
i.e., the entire Sanhedrin. [35]
WEB: Peter had
followed him from a distance, until he came into the court of the high priest.
He was sitting with the officers, and warming himself in the light of the fire.
Young’s: and Peter
afar off did follow him, to the inside of the hall of the chief priest, and he
was sitting with the officers, and warming himself near the fire.
Conte (RC): But Peter
followed him from a distance, even into the court of the high priest. And he
sat with the servants at the fire and warmed himself.
right into the courtyard of the high priest. We learn from John
And he sat with the servants. Not
"slaves" (being a different word from that used in verse 47), but
attendants or underofficers (John 18:3). [45]
And warmed himself at the fire. The
weather was cold, for it was early spring-time; and it was now after
WEB: Now the chief
priests and the whole council sought witnesses against Jesus to put him to
death, and found none.
Young’s: And the chief priests and all the sanhedrim
were seeking against Jesus testimony -- to put him to death, and they were not
finding,
Conte (RC): Yet truly,
the leaders of the priests and the entire council sought testimony against
Jesus, so that they might deliver him to death, and they found none.
to put Him to death. Their supreme object was to put Him to death but they wished to
accomplish their object in a manner consistent with their own honour, so as not to appear to have put Him to death
without reason. [39]
and found none. i.e.,
none that would suit their purpose of make a decent ground of charge before
Pilate. [43]
It would not, probably,
have been difficult to have secured witnesses against Him, on a charge which
would condemn Him according to Jewish [tradition and] law. His claim to forgive sins (as in Mark 2:7),
or breaking the Sabbath (3, 5, 6), would have sufficed for that. [However] the Jewish court could not execute
a death penalty under Roman law. Hence,
they wished to find and to prove a charge which would condemn Him according to Roman
law, in order to have ground of appeal to Roman authority, which must approve
of any death sentence before it could be executed. [8]
Weymouth: for though
many gave false testimony against Him, their statements did not tally.
WEB: For many
gave false testimony against him, and their testimony
didn't agree with each other.
Young’s: for many
were bearing false testimony against him, and their
testimonies were not alike.
Conte (RC): For many
spoke false testimony against him, but their testimony did not agree.
but their witness [testimonies, NKJV] agreed not together.
There evidence was not valid because it did not agree, as was expressly
demanded by the Mosaic law (Deuteronomy 17:6). In Jewish courts concurrent testimonies were
necessary to framing an indictment. If
two witnesses brought the same evidence against a man, he was regarded as being
under indictment. If, however, this
evidence did not exactly coincide in every detail, no indictment could be
found, and the prisoner was discharged.
In fact, Jewish criminal procedure was carefully intended to make
conviction is a capital offense difficult.
The enemies of Jesus, therefore, were in desperate straits. They must procure evidence sufficient to lead
to indictment on a charge that would stand in the Roman court and they must
procure evidence sufficient to condemn him in the Sanhedrin. [44]
Alternate
interpretation: The Greek literally
reads "and equal their testimonies were not." The same phrase occurs in verse 59. Some interpret it to mean that the witnesses
contradicted each other; others that it was insufficient, which is more
probable, i.e. there were independent witnesses to a multitude of facts, but
not two concurrent witnesses to one fact.
[8]
The discrepancies provide evidence of just how rushed and hurried
this prosecution was. Until they had Him
firmly and irrevocably in their hands, sharing word enough of their actions to
pre-arrange the necessary consistent—but lying or distorted--testimony ran the
danger that the secret would leak out and the arrest not occur at all. Hence not enough time had been available to
adequately arrange the “evidence.”
Alternatively:
They were so 100% convinced that Jesus was a heretic, it never entered
their minds that gaining the necessary evidence for judicial purposes would
ever be a problem. He “had” to be
guilty, so the confirmatory evidence would unquestionably appear. Except it didn’t. [rw]
WEB: Some
stood up, and gave false testimony against him, saying,
Young’s: And certain having risen up, were bearing false testimony
against him, saying --
Conte (RC): And certain
ones, rising up, bore false witness against him, saying:
and bare false witness against Him, saying. In
oriental courts today [late 19th century] it is said to be possible
to hire witnesses to testify to any charge, at least in so far as to warrant an
indictment. Possibly it was this sort of
witness now employed. [44]
WEB: "We
heard him say, 'I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in
three days I will build another made without hands.'"
Young’s: 'We heard
him saying -- I will throw down this sanctuary made with hands, and by three
days, another made without hands I will build;'
Conte (RC): "For we
heard him say, 'I will destroy this temple, made with hands, and within three
days I will build another, not made with hands.' "
I will destroy this temple that is
made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. Our
Lord's zeal in cleansing the temple (Matthew
“The differences between
the recorded words of our Lord and the reports of the witnesses are
striking: ‘I am able to destroy’
(Matthew 26:61); ‘I will destroy’ (Mark
WEB: Even so,
their testimony did not agree.
Young’s: and
neither so was their testimony alike.
Conte (RC): And their
testimony did not agree.
In the “Gospel of Nicodemus”and the so-called “Acts of Pilate” it is asserted
that several witnesses voluntarily testified in favor of Jesus. Among them were Nicodemus, Bartimeus of
14:60 Translations
Weymouth: At last the High Priest stood up, and advancing into the
midst of them all, asked Jesus, "Have you no answer to make? What is the
meaning of all this that these witnesses allege against you?"
WEB: The high
priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, "Have you no answer? What
is it which these testify against you?"
Young’s: And the chief priest, having risen up in the midst,
questioned Jesus, saying, 'Thou dost not answer anything! what
do these testify against thee?'
Conte (RC): And the high
priest, rising up in their midst, questioned Jesus, saying, "Do you have
nothing to say in answer to the things that are brought against you by these
ones?"
14:60 And the high priest stood up in the midst and
asked Jesus. The
impressive silence which our Lord preserved, while false witnesses were being
sought against Him (Matthew 26:62), was galling to the pride of Caiaphas. [Hence]
this attempt to make Jesus [in]criminate Himself; a
procedure contrary to all our ideas of justice, though not uncommon to ancient
courts. [8]
saying, Answer Thou nothing? In
this situation, the high priest, instead of releasing Him, resorts to further
illegal methods: he attempts to compel
the prisoner to testify against himself--something as much forbidden by law in
Jewish as in American procedure. [44]
What is it which these witness
against Thee? How do You
explain it? Give Your
account of it. His purpose was to extort
a confession. [45]
14:61 Translations
WEB: But he
stayed quiet, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, "Are
you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"
Young’s: and he was
keeping silent, and did not answer anything. Again the chief priest was
questioning him, and saith to him, 'Art thou the
Christ -- the Son of the Blessed?'
Conte (RC): But he was
silent and gave no answer. Again, the high priest questioned him, and he said
to him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed God?"
14:61 But He held his peace [kept
silent, NKJV] and answered nothing. As legally He had the right to
do, no legal charge having been framed against Him. [35]
Silence was the best
reply, for it permitted the false witnesses to contradict themselves, and
nothing drew the attention away from these contradictions. And any explanations Jesus could make would
only give the rulers something which they might be able to pervert. [51]
Again the high priest asked Him, and said unto Him, Art Thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? Matthew
26:63 gives the solemn formula with which the high priest introduced the
question. Jesus could not be silent
longer, though legally not obliged to answer.
[44]
Christ had frequently
declared Himself to be such. Caiaphas, therefore, now asks the question, not because he
needed the information, but that he might condemn Him. [39]
the Blessed. A common title for God among the Jews, used absolutely, as a title,
here only in the New Testament. [23]
14:62 Translations
WEB: Jesus
said, "I am. You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of
Power, and coming with the clouds of the sky."
Young’s: and Jesus
said, 'I am; and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the
power, and coming with the clouds, of the heaven.'
Conte (RC): Then Jesus
said to him: "I am. And you shall see the Son of man sitting at the right
hand of the power of God and arriving with the clouds of heaven."
14:62 And Jesus said, I am. To this question our Lord returns a plain
and candid answer, out of reverence for the Divine Name which, as St. Matthew
and St. Luke tell us, had been invoked by the high priest, and also out of
respect for the office of the high priest, by whom He had been put upon His
oath. St. Chrysostom
says that our Lord answered thus that He might leave without excuse all those
who listened to Him, who would not hereafter be able to plead in the day of
judgment that, when our Lord was solemnly asked in the Council whether He was
the Son of God, He had either refused to answer or had answered evasively. [39]
and ye shall
see the Son of
sitting on the right hand of the Power
and coming in the clouds of heaven.
This, like Mark
14:63 Translations
WEB: The high
priest tore his clothes, and said, "What further need have we of
witnesses?
Young’s: And the chief priest, having rent his garments, saith, 'What need have we yet of witnesses?
Conte (RC): Then the
high priest, rending his garments, said: "Why do we still require
witnesses?
14:63 Then the high priest rent [tore, NKJV] his clothes. i.e., his uppergarment, not the high-priestly robe, which was worn
only in the temple. Rending the
clothes was a sign of mourning or of indignation (Acts
Or: The high priest rent, not his priestly robes
(as some interpret), for these were only worn when officiating in the
temple. Indeed, it was not lawful for
him to rend his clothes (Leviticus 10:6;
and saith, What need we any further witnesses. The
obvious follow up questions—if this were going to be anything else than a
“hanging jury”—are obvious and at the head of the list: And what evidence do you have to back this
“absurd” claim up? Of course that
would open the door to invoking such things as His miracles and the last
thing these folks wanted to deal with was a defense. Cutting His words off now gave them the
execution excuse they needed; risking undermining it (as their own witnesses
had so abundantly done) was the last thing that was going to be
permitted. [rw]
14:64 Translations
WEB: You have
heard the blasphemy! What do you think?" They all condemned him to be
worthy of death.
Young’s: Ye heard
the evil speaking, what appeareth to you?' and they
all condemned him to be worthy of death,
Conte (RC): You have heard
the blasphemy. How does it seem to you?" And they all condemned him, as
guilty unto death.
14:64 Ye have heard the blasphemy. For one not really the Messiah to claim to be
such was blasphemy in the sense of falsely claiming to be the representative of
God. But that Jesus' claim to be the
Messiah, the Son of God, was false, was precisely that
which had not been proved, and which had to be proved to establish a
charge of blasphemy. This essential
question the Sanhedrin does not even pretend to investigate. [35]
What think ye? A call for the votes of
those who had heard. [23]
The high priest did not
illegally assume that all agreed with him, as some hold; he called for a
formal judgment from the council and "they all condemned him." [8]
And they all. There were, therefore, none there but those
who were known to be opposed to our Lord.
[39]
We know of only one
possible exception (see
condemned Him to be guilty [deserving,
NKJV] of death. Aside from
the fact that the charge on which they condemned Him lacked the essential
element of proof, the trial was illegal, since Jewish law forbade (1) the trial
of criminals at night, (2) the passing of judgment of death without allowing at
least one night to elapse after the trial, (3) the trial of criminal cases on
the day before a Sabbath or a feast. [35]
The Sanhedrin was
forbidden to investigate any capital crime during the night, and according to
the Roman law a sentence pronounced before dawn was not valid. This test vote, however, they considered as
settling the question; hence the ill-treatment which followed (verse 65). They were scrupulous in holding another
meeting in daylight and there passing the final sentence (chapter 15:1; Luke
22:7). Yet even this was illegal for a
sentence of death could not be pronounced on the day of investigation. All the examinations took place within one
Jewish day, beginning in the evening. [11]
14:65 Translations
Weymouth: Thereupon
some began to spit on Him, and to blindfold Him, while striking Him with their
fists and crying, "Prove that you are a prophet." The officers too
struck Him with open hands as they took Him in charge.
WEB: Some
began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to beat him with fists, and to
tell him, "Prophesy!" The officers struck him with the palms of their
hands.
Young’s: and
certain began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to
say to him, 'Prophesy;' and the officers were striking him with their palms.
Conte (RC): And some
began to spit on him, and to cover his face and to strike him with fists, and
to say to him, "Prophesy." And the servants struck him with the palms
their hands.
14:65 And
some. Probably not these senators who had
condemned Him, but the officers and soldiers who held Him (Luke 22:63). Yet
the council at least connived at it, if they did not join in it; and they were
not above such conduct (Acts
began to spit on Him. Spitting
was regarded by the Jews as an expression of the greatest contempt (Numbers
and to cover [blindfold, NKJV] His face, and to buffet [beat,
NKJV] Him, and to say unto Him, Prophesy! Enlarged and explained in
Luke: "When they had blindfolded
him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy"
(and tell) "who is he that smote thee?" This is trifling with Him as a complaint to
prophet powers: "Can He tell,
blindfolded, which of the wretches dancing round Him it was that struck
Him? A fine Messiah if He
cannot!" In Matthew, "Prophesy
unto us, thou Christ." [23]
And the servants [officers, NKJV]
struck Him with the palms of their hands. This was violent and intense rejection,
fulfilling in its intensity and violence all the prophecies of rejection and
all the descriptions of righteous sufferers (see Isaiah 50:6; 53:3, 7). [23]
14:66 Translations
WEB: As Peter
was in the courtyard below, one of the maids of the high priest came,
Young’s: And Peter being in the hall beneath, there doth come one of
the maids of the chief priest,
Conte (RC): And while
Peter was in the court below, one of the maidservants of the high priest
arrived.
14:66 And as
Peter was beneath in the palace [courtyard, NKJV]. Matthew
says, “without in the palace."
It was both--the open court in which Peter sat being outside of
the building proper though surrounded by it, and being below the level
of the room in which the trial of Jesus was conducted. [38]
there cometh one of the maids [servant girls, NKJV] of the
high priest. That a maid should be on duty at that
unseasonable an hour was itself a sign that something extraordinary was going
on. [17]
In depth:
Did the denials all occur in the same building-complex [23]? John expressly places this within the time of
the preliminary examination before Annas. The first thought would be that this would
require a change of place between the first and the second; but the simple and
probable conjecture that Annas and Caiphas occupied one house removes that apparent
difficulty. It was probably merely from
one part of the high priest's palace to another that Jesus was sent for the
second examination; so that Jesus remained near Him throughout the trial.
14:67 Translations
WEB: and seeing
Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said,
"You were also with the Nazarene, Jesus!"
Young’s: and having
seen Peter warming himself, having looked on him, she said, 'And thou wast with Jesus of
Conte (RC): And when she
had seen Peter warming himself, she stared at him, and she said: "You also
were with Jesus of
14:67 And when
she saw Peter. Or
"fixed her eyes on him," looked carefully; partial recognition,
followed by a gaze that fully identified the man. [23]
warming himself. At the time of the Passover, which began with
the first full moon after the vernal equinox, it was seldom cold enough for
fire. It was the exposure of Peter and
the guards to the night air, in which they were standing, without a roof over
them, that made them feel the need of fire.
It was a fire of charcoal (John
she looked upon him, and said, And
thou also wast with Jesus of
14:68 Translations
WEB: But he
denied it, saying, "I neither know, nor understand what you are
saying." He went out on the porch, and the rooster crowed.
Young’s: and he
denied, saying, 'I have not known him, neither do I understand what thou sayest;' and he went forth without to the porch, and a cock
crew.
Conte (RC): But he
denied it, saying, "I neither know nor understand what you saying."
And he went outside, in front of the court; and a rooster crowed.
14:68 But he denied. Matthew, "in the presence of all." So far as we can judge, the motive must have
been chiefly a sudden shame. It can
scarcely have been definite and intelligible fear; it was rather a shrinking, a
weakening of moral courage. [23]
saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. Thrown off his guard perhaps by the
searching glances of the bystanders, Peter replied at first evasively. [8]
Alternate
interpretation: It amounts to
this: "So little do I know who this
Jesus is, that I know not what you say or what you ask concerning Him. I know not who or what He is or anything
about Him." [39]
And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew. Not
what we mean by a porch or verandah, but the outer one of the two or more
courts of the house, or the corridor which led from the street to the
court. [35]
14:69 Translations
Weymouth: Again the
maidservant saw him, and again began to say to the people standing by, "He
is one of them."
WEB: The maid
saw him, and began again to tell those who stood by, "This is one of
them."
Young’s: And the maid having seen him again, began to say to those
standing near -- 'This is of them;'
Conte (RC): Then again,
when a maidservant had seen him, she began to say to the bystanders, "For
this is one of them."
14:69 And a
maid saw him again. The one spoken of before. [45]
and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them. There
is a suggestion of a more general conversation. [She] asked the question and others took it
up. [23]
One of her fellow-maidens (Matthew 26:71)
took up her information, and either then, or probably
after [she] had retired from the vestibule, continued what the former
"began," and told others as they came near. Nothing having been said thus far to Peter
himself, he made no reply; but after he had again gone to the fire and was
warming himself, "another (man) saw him," and addressed Peter
himself, "Thou art also of them (Luke
14:70 Translations
WEB: But he
again denied it. After a little while again those who stood by said to Peter,
"You truly are one of them, for you are a Galilean, and your speech shows
it."
Young’s: and he was
again denying. And after a little again, those standing near said to Peter,
'Truly thou art of them, for thou also art a Galilean, and thy speech is
alike;'
Conte (RC): But he
denied it again. And after a little while, again those standing near said to
Peter: "In truth, you are one of them. For you, too, are
a Galilean."
14:70 And he denied it again. "This
shows the great terror of Peter,” says St. Chrysostom, "Who, intimidated by the question of a
poor servant-girl, denied his Lord;
and who yet afterwards, when he had received the Holy Spirit, could say,
"We ought to obey God rather than man.' " [39]
So far from condemning
him, one may well look to himself lest he also, despite the best of intentions,
be swept off his feet by some unexpected challenge to his loyalty. [44]
And a little later. "About the space of an
hour after" (Luke
they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of
them: for thou art a Galilean, and thy
speech agreeth thereto [shows it, NKJV]. The Galileans had some slight
peculiarities of speech which Judeans would notice. See Matthew 26:73, "for thy speech betrayeth thee."
[35]
It is said that the Galilaean speech differed from that of
14:71 Translations
WEB: But he
began to curse, and to swear, "I don't know this man of whom you
speak!"
Young’s: and he
began to anathematize, and to swear -- 'I have not known this man of whom ye
speak;'
Conte (RC): Then he
began to curse and to swear, saying, "For I do not know this man, about
whom you are speaking."
14:71 But he began to curse and to
swear. The cursing, however, was not reckless and
pointless profanity, as the use of the word in modern speech would
suggest. Rather does the word suggest
some such form as that of 2 Kings 6:31:
"God do so, and more also, to me, if the head of Elisha the son of Shaphat shall
stand on him this day." The
swearing, or oath, would call God to witness, and the cursing would invoke evil
from God upon himself if what he said was false. [23]
saying, I know not this Man of whom ye speak. It
appears to have involved a momentary lapse into sinful habits long since
forsaken, as the supposition, that Peter had been once addicted to profaneness,
is not only natural and credible, but serves to explain his gratuitous resort
to such means of corroboration in the case before us. [45]
14:72 Translations
WEB: The
rooster crowed the second time. Peter remembered the word, how that Jesus said
to him, "Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three
times." When he thought about that, he wept.
Young’s: and a
second time a cock crew, and Peter remembered the saying that Jesus said to him
-- 'Before a cock crow twice, thou mayest
deny me thrice;' and having thought thereon -- he was weeping.
Conte (RC): And
immediately the rooster crowed again. And Peter remembered the word that Jesus
had said to him, "Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three
times." And he began to weep.
14:72 And the second time the cock crew [rooster crowed,
NKJV]. i.e., it was second cock-crowing,
about
And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt
deny me thrice. [Specifically encouraged] by a look from Jesus (Luke 22:61). [45]
And when he thought thereon.
There are various renderings and interpretations of this phrase, some of
them strained and fanciful. Two, worthy
of notice are: (1) literally “casting on” it, i.e., his mind, is
the rendering of the Authorized Version and the [English] Revised Version, and
this usage accords with that of Plutarch, Galen and others; (2)
“casting him eyes” on (Him), as Jesus looked at Peter. This, if tenable, would give a happy
antithesis between Luke and Mark, but the first is the better reading. [8]
he wept. The word implies a long and continued
weeping. [39]
In depth:
The differences between the gospel accounts concerning the denial of
Jesus by Peter [45]. All the four accounts specify three denials, which
fulfills Christ's prophecy. They seem
however not to agree as to the persons who prefer the several charges leading
to the denials. Now let the scene as
presented in these histories be kept in mind.
Whilst the trial is
going on in an apartment of the house, officers, soldiers, and servants, are
gathered about the fire in the open court, or moving to and fro, all talking
over the great topic of interest. When
one of this promiscuous assemblage made a charge, that
Peter was a disciple of Jesus, others would certainly join in, giving their
opinions, or stating facts.
Some would assert it
positively; others would engage in an argument with the apostle to prove it
before the company; and his denial would assume different forms in response to
the different persons making the charge.
There were three of these scenes during the night, in each of which
several actors were prominent.
Suppose witnesses, all
of them truthful and competent, were each to undertake to relate one of these
occurrences, one would speak of the charge against Peter as given by the person
who first suggested it, another as it was overheard by some who reiterated it
positively, and another as preferred by the man who led the dispute to prove
it. No competent judge or juryman would
find any conflict in these several statements; and yet such are the
discrepancies in Scripture history so ostentatiously paraded by the enemies of
the Bible.