Mark · Chapter 14

V. 1. Matthew 26:1; Luke 22:1.

Verse 1. Unleavened breed] After they began to eat unleavened bread: see Clarke on “Matthew 26:2”.

Verses 1-9. After two days was the feast of the passover — For an explanation of these verses, see the notes on Matthew 26:1-13. Of ointment of spike-nard, very precious — “Either the word pistikh,” says Dr. Whitby, “answers to the Syriac, pisthaca, and then it may be rendered, nardus spicata, ointment made of the spikes of nard; or, if it be of a Greek original, I think Theophylact well renders it pistikh h adolov kai meta pistewv kataskeuasqeisa, that is, nard unadulterated and prepared with fidelity; the great price it bore tempting many to adulterate it, as Dioscorides and Pliny tell us.” Nard is a plant which was highly valued by the ancients, both as an article of luxury and medicine. The ointment made of it was used at baths and feasts as a favourite perfume. From a passage in Horace, it appears that this ointment was so valuable among the Romans, that as much as could be contained in a small box of precious stone was considered as a sort of equivalent for a large vessel of wine, and a proper quota for a guest to contribute at an entertainment, according to the ancient custom. Hor., lib. 4. ode 12. This author mentions the Assyrian, and Dioscorides the Syrian nard; but, it appears, the best is produced in the East Indies. “The root of this plant is very small and slender. It puts forth a long and small stalk, and has several ears or spikes, even with the ground, which has given it the name of spikenard; the taste is bitter, acrid, and aromatic, and the smell agreeable.” — Calmet. She brake the box and poured it on his head — As this spikenard was a liquid, and there appears to be no reason for breaking the box in order to get out the liquor, Knatchbull, Hammond, and some others maintain, that suntriyasa, the word here used, ought not to be translated she brake, but only that she shook the box, namely, so as to break the coagulated parts of the rich balsam, and bring it to such a degree of liquidity, that it might be fit to be poured out; and thus Dr. Waterland translates it. Dr. Doddridge and others, however, think the original word does not so naturally express this, and therefore imagine that the woman broke off the top of the vessel in which the balsam was contained. Dr. Campbell renders it, She broke open the box, observing, “I have chosen these words as sufficiently denoting that it required an uncommon effort to bring out the contents, which is all that the word here necessarily implies; and it is a circumstance that ought not to be altogether overlooked, being an additional evidence of the woman’s zeal for doing honour to her Lord. That the term ought not to be rendered shook, is to me evident. I know no example of it in this meaning in any author, sacred or profane. Verbs denoting to shake, frequently occur in Scripture. But the word is never suntribw, but tinassw, seiw, saleuw.” Mr. Harmer understands it of the breaking the cement with which the vessel was closely stopped, a circumstance which, he thinks, appears natural, and an explanation which is justified by the phraseology of Propertius, a writer of the same age. There were some that had indignation — At this which the woman had done, being incited thereto by Judas; and said — Probably to the woman, Why was this waste of the ointment made — Of this rich and costly balsam? And they murmured against her — Spake privately among themselves against the woman, for what she had done. But Jesus, knowing every thing they spake or thought, said, Why trouble ye her — Without cause? She hath wrought a good work on me — Hath given a great proof of her firm faith, and fervent love to me; and therefore, instead of meriting your censure, deserves your commendation. She hath done what she could — To testify her affection for me. She is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying — Matthew, prov to entafiasai me, corpus meum ad funus componere, to prepare my body for its burial. This vindication of the woman suggests the reason why Jesus permitted so expensive a compliment to be paid to him. Being desirous to impress his disciples with the thought of his death, he embraced every opportunity of inculcating it, whether by word or deed.

Verse 1, 2. After two days was the passover, when the chief priests and the scribes sought to form their plan, how they might surprise the Saviour and put him to death. Their scheme to do it after the passover was sacrificed, and the people returned to the country, was very prudent, in order to prevent an insurrection. But how then would the scriptures have been fulfilled, in regard of the sprinkling of the Lamb’s blood for our redemption from sin, and the tyranny of Satan.

Verses 1-9. After two days was the feast of the passover — For an explanation of these verses, see the notes on Matthew 26:1-13. Of ointment of spike-nard, very precious — “Either the word pistikh,” says Dr. Whitby, “answers to the Syriac, pisthaca, and then it may be rendered, nardus spicata, ointment made of the spikes of nard; or, if it be of a Greek original, I think Theophylact well renders it pistikh h adolov kai meta pistewv kataskeuasqeisa, that is, nard unadulterated and prepared with fidelity; the great price it bore tempting many to adulterate it, as Dioscorides and Pliny tell us.” Nard is a plant which was highly valued by the ancients, both as an article of luxury and medicine. The ointment made of it was used at baths and feasts as a favourite perfume. From a passage in Horace, it appears that this ointment was so valuable among the Romans, that as much as could be contained in a small box of precious stone was considered as a sort of equivalent for a large vessel of wine, and a proper quota for a guest to contribute at an entertainment, according to the ancient custom. Hor., lib. 4. ode 12. This author mentions the Assyrian, and Dioscorides the Syrian nard; but, it appears, the best is produced in the East Indies. “The root of this plant is very small and slender. It puts forth a long and small stalk, and has several ears or spikes, even with the ground, which has given it the name of spikenard; the taste is bitter, acrid, and aromatic, and the smell agreeable.” — Calmet. She brake the box and poured it on his head — As this spikenard was a liquid, and there appears to be no reason for breaking the box in order to get out the liquor, Knatchbull, Hammond, and some others maintain, that suntriyasa, the word here used, ought not to be translated she brake, but only that she shook the box, namely, so as to break the coagulated parts of the rich balsam, and bring it to such a degree of liquidity, that it might be fit to be poured out; and thus Dr. Waterland translates it. Dr. Doddridge and others, however, think the original word does not so naturally express this, and therefore imagine that the woman broke off the top of the vessel in which the balsam was contained. Dr. Campbell renders it, She broke open the box, observing, “I have chosen these words as sufficiently denoting that it required an uncommon effort to bring out the contents, which is all that the word here necessarily implies; and it is a circumstance that ought not to be altogether overlooked, being an additional evidence of the woman’s zeal for doing honour to her Lord. That the term ought not to be rendered shook, is to me evident. I know no example of it in this meaning in any author, sacred or profane. Verbs denoting to shake, frequently occur in Scripture. But the word is never suntribw, but tinassw, seiw, saleuw.” Mr. Harmer understands it of the breaking the cement with which the vessel was closely stopped, a circumstance which, he thinks, appears natural, and an explanation which is justified by the phraseology of Propertius, a writer of the same age. There were some that had indignation — At this which the woman had done, being incited thereto by Judas; and said — Probably to the woman, Why was this waste of the ointment made — Of this rich and costly balsam? And they murmured against her — Spake privately among themselves against the woman, for what she had done. But Jesus, knowing every thing they spake or thought, said, Why trouble ye her — Without cause? She hath wrought a good work on me — Hath given a great proof of her firm faith, and fervent love to me; and therefore, instead of meriting your censure, deserves your commendation. She hath done what she could — To testify her affection for me. She is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying — Matthew, prov to entafiasai me, corpus meum ad funus componere, to prepare my body for its burial. This vindication of the woman suggests the reason why Jesus permitted so expensive a compliment to be paid to him. Being desirous to impress his disciples with the thought of his death, he embraced every opportunity of inculcating it, whether by word or deed.

Verse 1, 2. After two days was the passover, when the chief priests and the scribes sought to form their plan, how they might surprise the Saviour and put him to death. Their scheme to do it after the passover was sacrificed, and the people returned to the country, was very prudent, in order to prevent an insurrection. But how then would the scriptures have been fulfilled, in regard of the sprinkling of the Lamb’s blood for our redemption from sin, and the tyranny of Satan.

V. 3. Matthew 26:6.

Verse 3. Alabaster box] Among critics and learned men there are various conjectures concerning the alabaster mentioned by the evangelists: some think it means a glass phial; others, that it signifies a small vessel without a handle, from a negative and labh, a handle; and others imagine that it merely signifies a perfume or essence bottle. There are several species of the soft calcareous stone called alabaster, which are enumerated and described in different chemical works.

Spikenard] Or nard. An Indian plant, whose root is very small and slender. It puts forth a long and small stalk, and has several ears or spikes even with the ground, which has given it the name of spikenard: the taste is bitter, acrid, and aromatic, and the smell agreeable. CALMET. Very precious] Or rather, unadulterated: this I think is the proper meaning of pistikhv. Theophylact gives this interpretation of the passage: “Unadulterated hard, and prepared with fidelity.” Some think that pistikh is a contraction of the Latin spicatæ, and that it signifies the spicated nard, or what we commonly call the spikenard. But Dr. Lightfoot gives a different interpretation. pistikh he supposes to come from the Syriac aqtsyp pistike, which signifies the acorn: he would therefore have it to signify an aromatic confection of nard, maste, or myrobalane. See his Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations; and see Scheuchzer’s Physica Sacra.

She brake the box] Rather, she broke the seal. This is the best translation I can give of the place; and I give it for these reasons: 1. That it is not likely that a box exceedingly precious in itself should be broken to get out its contents. 2. That the broken pieces would be very inconvenient if not injurious to the head of our Lord, and to the hands of the woman. 3. That it would not be easy effectually to separate the oil from the broken pieces. And, 4. That it was a custom in the eastern countries to seal the bottles with wax that held the perfumes; so that to come at their contents no more was necessary than to break the seal, which this woman appears to have done; and when the seal was thus broken, she had no more to do than to pour out the liquid ointment, which she could not have done had she broken the bottle. The bottles which contain the [Hindu] gul i attyr, or attyr of roses, which come from the east, are sealed in this manner. See a number of proofs relative to this point in HARMER’S Observations, vol. iv.

469. Pouring sweet-scented oil on the head is common in Bengal. At the close of the festival of the goddess Doorga, the Hindoos worship the unmarried daughters of Brahmins: and, among other ceremonies, pour sweet-scented oil on their heads. WARD’S Customs.

Verses 1-9. After two days was the feast of the passover — For an explanation of these verses, see the notes on Matthew 26:1-13. Of ointment of spike-nard, very precious — “Either the word pistikh,” says Dr. Whitby, “answers to the Syriac, pisthaca, and then it may be rendered, nardus spicata, ointment made of the spikes of nard; or, if it be of a Greek original, I think Theophylact well renders it pistikh h adolov kai meta pistewv kataskeuasqeisa, that is, nard unadulterated and prepared with fidelity; the great price it bore tempting many to adulterate it, as Dioscorides and Pliny tell us.” Nard is a plant which was highly valued by the ancients, both as an article of luxury and medicine. The ointment made of it was used at baths and feasts as a favourite perfume. From a passage in Horace, it appears that this ointment was so valuable among the Romans, that as much as could be contained in a small box of precious stone was considered as a sort of equivalent for a large vessel of wine, and a proper quota for a guest to contribute at an entertainment, according to the ancient custom. Hor., lib. 4. ode 12. This author mentions the Assyrian, and Dioscorides the Syrian nard; but, it appears, the best is produced in the East Indies. “The root of this plant is very small and slender. It puts forth a long and small stalk, and has several ears or spikes, even with the ground, which has given it the name of spikenard; the taste is bitter, acrid, and aromatic, and the smell agreeable.” — Calmet. She brake the box and poured it on his head — As this spikenard was a liquid, and there appears to be no reason for breaking the box in order to get out the liquor, Knatchbull, Hammond, and some others maintain, that suntriyasa, the word here used, ought not to be translated she brake, but only that she shook the box, namely, so as to break the coagulated parts of the rich balsam, and bring it to such a degree of liquidity, that it might be fit to be poured out; and thus Dr. Waterland translates it. Dr. Doddridge and others, however, think the original word does not so naturally express this, and therefore imagine that the woman broke off the top of the vessel in which the balsam was contained. Dr. Campbell renders it, She broke open the box, observing, “I have chosen these words as sufficiently denoting that it required an uncommon effort to bring out the contents, which is all that the word here necessarily implies; and it is a circumstance that ought not to be altogether overlooked, being an additional evidence of the woman’s zeal for doing honour to her Lord. That the term ought not to be rendered shook, is to me evident. I know no example of it in this meaning in any author, sacred or profane. Verbs denoting to shake, frequently occur in Scripture. But the word is never suntribw, but tinassw, seiw, saleuw.” Mr. Harmer understands it of the breaking the cement with which the vessel was closely stopped, a circumstance which, he thinks, appears natural, and an explanation which is justified by the phraseology of Propertius, a writer of the same age. There were some that had indignation — At this which the woman had done, being incited thereto by Judas; and said — Probably to the woman, Why was this waste of the ointment made — Of this rich and costly balsam? And they murmured against her — Spake privately among themselves against the woman, for what she had done. But Jesus, knowing every thing they spake or thought, said, Why trouble ye her — Without cause? She hath wrought a good work on me — Hath given a great proof of her firm faith, and fervent love to me; and therefore, instead of meriting your censure, deserves your commendation. She hath done what she could — To testify her affection for me. She is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying — Matthew, prov to entafiasai me, corpus meum ad funus componere, to prepare my body for its burial. This vindication of the woman suggests the reason why Jesus permitted so expensive a compliment to be paid to him. Being desirous to impress his disciples with the thought of his death, he embraced every opportunity of inculcating it, whether by word or deed.

Ver. 3. There came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard, very precious, and she poured it upon his head. Oils and ointments were much used among the jews for the removal of diseases. The name is in Hebrew and Greek, pistaca, and nardou, nard; of which exquisite perfumes were compounded for feasts and private uses. But the rabbins had a canon against scholars making use of perfumes. Judas therefore, and others, were emboldened to exclaim against such profusion. The nard of the Hebrews is thus described by Dr. Blaney. Nardicus Indica is of the order gramina, and is of a different species. In India it grows as common grass in large tufts near to each other, and from three to four feet high. So strong is its aroma, which principally resides in the husky roots, that when trodden upon, or otherwise bruised, the air is filled with the fragrance. Yet no Indian perfume can equal that charity, which is to God a sweet smelling savour.

3. Spikenard — Nard, according to Dr. Royle, is the botanic Nardostachys Jatamansi, an odorous plant derived from the mountains of India near the sources of the Ganges. The nard perfume was a compound of all the most valued perfumes of antiquity, among which were the malabatharum, costus amomum, myrrha, and balsam. Very precious — The three hundred pence was about forty-five dollars; thrice the price for which Judas sold his Lord.

CHAPTER 14. Verse 3. An alabaster box of ointment of spikenard. — The plant from which this oil was made is called narda spicata, and the oil, unguentum nardi spicatæ. It was often adulterated, which caused stress to be laid upon any allusion to it when pure: pura distillans tempora nardo. Here St. Mark uses the term pistikhv, genuine, unadulterated, and therefore adds polutelouv, of great value. This was done in honour of our Lord’s character, and expressed the highest sense of its dignity. On this transaction see the notes on Matthew 26:6-13.

V. 4. Some had indignation-Being incited thereto by Judas: and said-Probably to the women.

Verses 1-9. After two days was the feast of the passover — For an explanation of these verses, see the notes on Matthew 26:1-13. Of ointment of spike-nard, very precious — “Either the word pistikh,” says Dr. Whitby, “answers to the Syriac, pisthaca, and then it may be rendered, nardus spicata, ointment made of the spikes of nard; or, if it be of a Greek original, I think Theophylact well renders it pistikh h adolov kai meta pistewv kataskeuasqeisa, that is, nard unadulterated and prepared with fidelity; the great price it bore tempting many to adulterate it, as Dioscorides and Pliny tell us.” Nard is a plant which was highly valued by the ancients, both as an article of luxury and medicine. The ointment made of it was used at baths and feasts as a favourite perfume. From a passage in Horace, it appears that this ointment was so valuable among the Romans, that as much as could be contained in a small box of precious stone was considered as a sort of equivalent for a large vessel of wine, and a proper quota for a guest to contribute at an entertainment, according to the ancient custom. Hor., lib. 4. ode 12. This author mentions the Assyrian, and Dioscorides the Syrian nard; but, it appears, the best is produced in the East Indies. “The root of this plant is very small and slender. It puts forth a long and small stalk, and has several ears or spikes, even with the ground, which has given it the name of spikenard; the taste is bitter, acrid, and aromatic, and the smell agreeable.” — Calmet. She brake the box and poured it on his head — As this spikenard was a liquid, and there appears to be no reason for breaking the box in order to get out the liquor, Knatchbull, Hammond, and some others maintain, that suntriyasa, the word here used, ought not to be translated she brake, but only that she shook the box, namely, so as to break the coagulated parts of the rich balsam, and bring it to such a degree of liquidity, that it might be fit to be poured out; and thus Dr. Waterland translates it. Dr. Doddridge and others, however, think the original word does not so naturally express this, and therefore imagine that the woman broke off the top of the vessel in which the balsam was contained. Dr. Campbell renders it, She broke open the box, observing, “I have chosen these words as sufficiently denoting that it required an uncommon effort to bring out the contents, which is all that the word here necessarily implies; and it is a circumstance that ought not to be altogether overlooked, being an additional evidence of the woman’s zeal for doing honour to her Lord. That the term ought not to be rendered shook, is to me evident. I know no example of it in this meaning in any author, sacred or profane. Verbs denoting to shake, frequently occur in Scripture. But the word is never suntribw, but tinassw, seiw, saleuw.” Mr. Harmer understands it of the breaking the cement with which the vessel was closely stopped, a circumstance which, he thinks, appears natural, and an explanation which is justified by the phraseology of Propertius, a writer of the same age. There were some that had indignation — At this which the woman had done, being incited thereto by Judas; and said — Probably to the woman, Why was this waste of the ointment made — Of this rich and costly balsam? And they murmured against her — Spake privately among themselves against the woman, for what she had done. But Jesus, knowing every thing they spake or thought, said, Why trouble ye her — Without cause? She hath wrought a good work on me — Hath given a great proof of her firm faith, and fervent love to me; and therefore, instead of meriting your censure, deserves your commendation. She hath done what she could — To testify her affection for me. She is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying — Matthew, prov to entafiasai me, corpus meum ad funus componere, to prepare my body for its burial. This vindication of the woman suggests the reason why Jesus permitted so expensive a compliment to be paid to him. Being desirous to impress his disciples with the thought of his death, he embraced every opportunity of inculcating it, whether by word or deed.

Verse 5. It might have been sold] to muron, This ointment, is added by ABCDKL, thirty-five others, Æthiopic, Armenian, Gothic, all the Itala except one. Griesbach has received it into the text. The sum mentioned here would amount to nearly 10£ sterling.

Verses 1-9. After two days was the feast of the passover — For an explanation of these verses, see the notes on Matthew 26:1-13. Of ointment of spike-nard, very precious — “Either the word pistikh,” says Dr. Whitby, “answers to the Syriac, pisthaca, and then it may be rendered, nardus spicata, ointment made of the spikes of nard; or, if it be of a Greek original, I think Theophylact well renders it pistikh h adolov kai meta pistewv kataskeuasqeisa, that is, nard unadulterated and prepared with fidelity; the great price it bore tempting many to adulterate it, as Dioscorides and Pliny tell us.” Nard is a plant which was highly valued by the ancients, both as an article of luxury and medicine. The ointment made of it was used at baths and feasts as a favourite perfume. From a passage in Horace, it appears that this ointment was so valuable among the Romans, that as much as could be contained in a small box of precious stone was considered as a sort of equivalent for a large vessel of wine, and a proper quota for a guest to contribute at an entertainment, according to the ancient custom. Hor., lib. 4. ode 12. This author mentions the Assyrian, and Dioscorides the Syrian nard; but, it appears, the best is produced in the East Indies. “The root of this plant is very small and slender. It puts forth a long and small stalk, and has several ears or spikes, even with the ground, which has given it the name of spikenard; the taste is bitter, acrid, and aromatic, and the smell agreeable.” — Calmet. She brake the box and poured it on his head — As this spikenard was a liquid, and there appears to be no reason for breaking the box in order to get out the liquor, Knatchbull, Hammond, and some others maintain, that suntriyasa, the word here used, ought not to be translated she brake, but only that she shook the box, namely, so as to break the coagulated parts of the rich balsam, and bring it to such a degree of liquidity, that it might be fit to be poured out; and thus Dr. Waterland translates it. Dr. Doddridge and others, however, think the original word does not so naturally express this, and therefore imagine that the woman broke off the top of the vessel in which the balsam was contained. Dr. Campbell renders it, She broke open the box, observing, “I have chosen these words as sufficiently denoting that it required an uncommon effort to bring out the contents, which is all that the word here necessarily implies; and it is a circumstance that ought not to be altogether overlooked, being an additional evidence of the woman’s zeal for doing honour to her Lord. That the term ought not to be rendered shook, is to me evident. I know no example of it in this meaning in any author, sacred or profane. Verbs denoting to shake, frequently occur in Scripture. But the word is never suntribw, but tinassw, seiw, saleuw.” Mr. Harmer understands it of the breaking the cement with which the vessel was closely stopped, a circumstance which, he thinks, appears natural, and an explanation which is justified by the phraseology of Propertius, a writer of the same age. There were some that had indignation — At this which the woman had done, being incited thereto by Judas; and said — Probably to the woman, Why was this waste of the ointment made — Of this rich and costly balsam? And they murmured against her — Spake privately among themselves against the woman, for what she had done. But Jesus, knowing every thing they spake or thought, said, Why trouble ye her — Without cause? She hath wrought a good work on me — Hath given a great proof of her firm faith, and fervent love to me; and therefore, instead of meriting your censure, deserves your commendation. She hath done what she could — To testify her affection for me. She is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying — Matthew, prov to entafiasai me, corpus meum ad funus componere, to prepare my body for its burial. This vindication of the woman suggests the reason why Jesus permitted so expensive a compliment to be paid to him. Being desirous to impress his disciples with the thought of his death, he embraced every opportunity of inculcating it, whether by word or deed.

Ver. 5. It might have been sold for more than three hundred pense. The learned Bude, of Paris, has spent much time on the Hebrew and Syrian weights, measures, and coins; and he coincides with the general opinion, that the silver denarion was in value about sevenpense halfpenny. In that case, the oriental jar which Mary unsealed, would be worth more than nine pounds sterling: proofs of the wealth and opulence of Lazarus’s house.

Verses 1-9. After two days was the feast of the passover — For an explanation of these verses, see the notes on Matthew 26:1-13. Of ointment of spike-nard, very precious — “Either the word pistikh,” says Dr. Whitby, “answers to the Syriac, pisthaca, and then it may be rendered, nardus spicata, ointment made of the spikes of nard; or, if it be of a Greek original, I think Theophylact well renders it pistikh h adolov kai meta pistewv kataskeuasqeisa, that is, nard unadulterated and prepared with fidelity; the great price it bore tempting many to adulterate it, as Dioscorides and Pliny tell us.” Nard is a plant which was highly valued by the ancients, both as an article of luxury and medicine. The ointment made of it was used at baths and feasts as a favourite perfume. From a passage in Horace, it appears that this ointment was so valuable among the Romans, that as much as could be contained in a small box of precious stone was considered as a sort of equivalent for a large vessel of wine, and a proper quota for a guest to contribute at an entertainment, according to the ancient custom. Hor., lib. 4. ode 12. This author mentions the Assyrian, and Dioscorides the Syrian nard; but, it appears, the best is produced in the East Indies. “The root of this plant is very small and slender. It puts forth a long and small stalk, and has several ears or spikes, even with the ground, which has given it the name of spikenard; the taste is bitter, acrid, and aromatic, and the smell agreeable.” — Calmet. She brake the box and poured it on his head — As this spikenard was a liquid, and there appears to be no reason for breaking the box in order to get out the liquor, Knatchbull, Hammond, and some others maintain, that suntriyasa, the word here used, ought not to be translated she brake, but only that she shook the box, namely, so as to break the coagulated parts of the rich balsam, and bring it to such a degree of liquidity, that it might be fit to be poured out; and thus Dr. Waterland translates it. Dr. Doddridge and others, however, think the original word does not so naturally express this, and therefore imagine that the woman broke off the top of the vessel in which the balsam was contained. Dr. Campbell renders it, She broke open the box, observing, “I have chosen these words as sufficiently denoting that it required an uncommon effort to bring out the contents, which is all that the word here necessarily implies; and it is a circumstance that ought not to be altogether overlooked, being an additional evidence of the woman’s zeal for doing honour to her Lord. That the term ought not to be rendered shook, is to me evident. I know no example of it in this meaning in any author, sacred or profane. Verbs denoting to shake, frequently occur in Scripture. But the word is never suntribw, but tinassw, seiw, saleuw.” Mr. Harmer understands it of the breaking the cement with which the vessel was closely stopped, a circumstance which, he thinks, appears natural, and an explanation which is justified by the phraseology of Propertius, a writer of the same age. There were some that had indignation — At this which the woman had done, being incited thereto by Judas; and said — Probably to the woman, Why was this waste of the ointment made — Of this rich and costly balsam? And they murmured against her — Spake privately among themselves against the woman, for what she had done. But Jesus, knowing every thing they spake or thought, said, Why trouble ye her — Without cause? She hath wrought a good work on me — Hath given a great proof of her firm faith, and fervent love to me; and therefore, instead of meriting your censure, deserves your commendation. She hath done what she could — To testify her affection for me. She is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying — Matthew, prov to entafiasai me, corpus meum ad funus componere, to prepare my body for its burial. This vindication of the woman suggests the reason why Jesus permitted so expensive a compliment to be paid to him. Being desirous to impress his disciples with the thought of his death, he embraced every opportunity of inculcating it, whether by word or deed.

Ver. 6-8. Let her alone — she is come afore-hand to anoint my body to the burying. An elegant turn to repress the murmuring. She was prompted with a religious feeling by the Holy Spirit to do what she did not perfectly understand; and the great Prophet improved that feeling into a luminous prediction, that he was come up to the passover to be the very paschal lamb, sacrificed for our redemption. This act gave Mary a high rank among the prophetesses of the church, and a lasting record among the more holy of women.

Verses 1-9. After two days was the feast of the passover — For an explanation of these verses, see the notes on Matthew 26:1-13. Of ointment of spike-nard, very precious — “Either the word pistikh,” says Dr. Whitby, “answers to the Syriac, pisthaca, and then it may be rendered, nardus spicata, ointment made of the spikes of nard; or, if it be of a Greek original, I think Theophylact well renders it pistikh h adolov kai meta pistewv kataskeuasqeisa, that is, nard unadulterated and prepared with fidelity; the great price it bore tempting many to adulterate it, as Dioscorides and Pliny tell us.” Nard is a plant which was highly valued by the ancients, both as an article of luxury and medicine. The ointment made of it was used at baths and feasts as a favourite perfume. From a passage in Horace, it appears that this ointment was so valuable among the Romans, that as much as could be contained in a small box of precious stone was considered as a sort of equivalent for a large vessel of wine, and a proper quota for a guest to contribute at an entertainment, according to the ancient custom. Hor., lib. 4. ode 12. This author mentions the Assyrian, and Dioscorides the Syrian nard; but, it appears, the best is produced in the East Indies. “The root of this plant is very small and slender. It puts forth a long and small stalk, and has several ears or spikes, even with the ground, which has given it the name of spikenard; the taste is bitter, acrid, and aromatic, and the smell agreeable.” — Calmet. She brake the box and poured it on his head — As this spikenard was a liquid, and there appears to be no reason for breaking the box in order to get out the liquor, Knatchbull, Hammond, and some others maintain, that suntriyasa, the word here used, ought not to be translated she brake, but only that she shook the box, namely, so as to break the coagulated parts of the rich balsam, and bring it to such a degree of liquidity, that it might be fit to be poured out; and thus Dr. Waterland translates it. Dr. Doddridge and others, however, think the original word does not so naturally express this, and therefore imagine that the woman broke off the top of the vessel in which the balsam was contained. Dr. Campbell renders it, She broke open the box, observing, “I have chosen these words as sufficiently denoting that it required an uncommon effort to bring out the contents, which is all that the word here necessarily implies; and it is a circumstance that ought not to be altogether overlooked, being an additional evidence of the woman’s zeal for doing honour to her Lord. That the term ought not to be rendered shook, is to me evident. I know no example of it in this meaning in any author, sacred or profane. Verbs denoting to shake, frequently occur in Scripture. But the word is never suntribw, but tinassw, seiw, saleuw.” Mr. Harmer understands it of the breaking the cement with which the vessel was closely stopped, a circumstance which, he thinks, appears natural, and an explanation which is justified by the phraseology of Propertius, a writer of the same age. There were some that had indignation — At this which the woman had done, being incited thereto by Judas; and said — Probably to the woman, Why was this waste of the ointment made — Of this rich and costly balsam? And they murmured against her — Spake privately among themselves against the woman, for what she had done. But Jesus, knowing every thing they spake or thought, said, Why trouble ye her — Without cause? She hath wrought a good work on me — Hath given a great proof of her firm faith, and fervent love to me; and therefore, instead of meriting your censure, deserves your commendation. She hath done what she could — To testify her affection for me. She is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying — Matthew, prov to entafiasai me, corpus meum ad funus componere, to prepare my body for its burial. This vindication of the woman suggests the reason why Jesus permitted so expensive a compliment to be paid to him. Being desirous to impress his disciples with the thought of his death, he embraced every opportunity of inculcating it, whether by word or deed.

Ver. 6-8. Let her alone — she is come afore-hand to anoint my body to the burying. An elegant turn to repress the murmuring. She was prompted with a religious feeling by the Holy Spirit to do what she did not perfectly understand; and the great Prophet improved that feeling into a luminous prediction, that he was come up to the passover to be the very paschal lamb, sacrificed for our redemption. This act gave Mary a high rank among the prophetesses of the church, and a lasting record among the more holy of women.

Verse 8. To anoint my body to the burying.] eiv ton entafiasmon, against, or in reference to, its embalmment, thus pointing out my death and the embalmment of my body, for the bodies of persons of distinction were wrapped up in aromatics to preserve them from putrefaction. See Clarke on “Matthew 26:12”.

Verses 1-9. After two days was the feast of the passover — For an explanation of these verses, see the notes on Matthew 26:1-13. Of ointment of spike-nard, very precious — “Either the word pistikh,” says Dr. Whitby, “answers to the Syriac, pisthaca, and then it may be rendered, nardus spicata, ointment made of the spikes of nard; or, if it be of a Greek original, I think Theophylact well renders it pistikh h adolov kai meta pistewv kataskeuasqeisa, that is, nard unadulterated and prepared with fidelity; the great price it bore tempting many to adulterate it, as Dioscorides and Pliny tell us.” Nard is a plant which was highly valued by the ancients, both as an article of luxury and medicine. The ointment made of it was used at baths and feasts as a favourite perfume. From a passage in Horace, it appears that this ointment was so valuable among the Romans, that as much as could be contained in a small box of precious stone was considered as a sort of equivalent for a large vessel of wine, and a proper quota for a guest to contribute at an entertainment, according to the ancient custom. Hor., lib. 4. ode 12. This author mentions the Assyrian, and Dioscorides the Syrian nard; but, it appears, the best is produced in the East Indies. “The root of this plant is very small and slender. It puts forth a long and small stalk, and has several ears or spikes, even with the ground, which has given it the name of spikenard; the taste is bitter, acrid, and aromatic, and the smell agreeable.” — Calmet. She brake the box and poured it on his head — As this spikenard was a liquid, and there appears to be no reason for breaking the box in order to get out the liquor, Knatchbull, Hammond, and some others maintain, that suntriyasa, the word here used, ought not to be translated she brake, but only that she shook the box, namely, so as to break the coagulated parts of the rich balsam, and bring it to such a degree of liquidity, that it might be fit to be poured out; and thus Dr. Waterland translates it. Dr. Doddridge and others, however, think the original word does not so naturally express this, and therefore imagine that the woman broke off the top of the vessel in which the balsam was contained. Dr. Campbell renders it, She broke open the box, observing, “I have chosen these words as sufficiently denoting that it required an uncommon effort to bring out the contents, which is all that the word here necessarily implies; and it is a circumstance that ought not to be altogether overlooked, being an additional evidence of the woman’s zeal for doing honour to her Lord. That the term ought not to be rendered shook, is to me evident. I know no example of it in this meaning in any author, sacred or profane. Verbs denoting to shake, frequently occur in Scripture. But the word is never suntribw, but tinassw, seiw, saleuw.” Mr. Harmer understands it of the breaking the cement with which the vessel was closely stopped, a circumstance which, he thinks, appears natural, and an explanation which is justified by the phraseology of Propertius, a writer of the same age. There were some that had indignation — At this which the woman had done, being incited thereto by Judas; and said — Probably to the woman, Why was this waste of the ointment made — Of this rich and costly balsam? And they murmured against her — Spake privately among themselves against the woman, for what she had done. But Jesus, knowing every thing they spake or thought, said, Why trouble ye her — Without cause? She hath wrought a good work on me — Hath given a great proof of her firm faith, and fervent love to me; and therefore, instead of meriting your censure, deserves your commendation. She hath done what she could — To testify her affection for me. She is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying — Matthew, prov to entafiasai me, corpus meum ad funus componere, to prepare my body for its burial. This vindication of the woman suggests the reason why Jesus permitted so expensive a compliment to be paid to him. Being desirous to impress his disciples with the thought of his death, he embraced every opportunity of inculcating it, whether by word or deed.

Ver. 6-8. Let her alone — she is come afore-hand to anoint my body to the burying. An elegant turn to repress the murmuring. She was prompted with a religious feeling by the Holy Spirit to do what she did not perfectly understand; and the great Prophet improved that feeling into a luminous prediction, that he was come up to the passover to be the very paschal lamb, sacrificed for our redemption. This act gave Mary a high rank among the prophetesses of the church, and a lasting record among the more holy of women.

Verse 9. For a memorial of her.] See Clarke on “Matthew 26:13”.

Verses 1-9. After two days was the feast of the passover — For an explanation of these verses, see the notes on Matthew 26:1-13. Of ointment of spike-nard, very precious — “Either the word pistikh,” says Dr. Whitby, “answers to the Syriac, pisthaca, and then it may be rendered, nardus spicata, ointment made of the spikes of nard; or, if it be of a Greek original, I think Theophylact well renders it pistikh h adolov kai meta pistewv kataskeuasqeisa, that is, nard unadulterated and prepared with fidelity; the great price it bore tempting many to adulterate it, as Dioscorides and Pliny tell us.” Nard is a plant which was highly valued by the ancients, both as an article of luxury and medicine. The ointment made of it was used at baths and feasts as a favourite perfume. From a passage in Horace, it appears that this ointment was so valuable among the Romans, that as much as could be contained in a small box of precious stone was considered as a sort of equivalent for a large vessel of wine, and a proper quota for a guest to contribute at an entertainment, according to the ancient custom. Hor., lib. 4. ode 12. This author mentions the Assyrian, and Dioscorides the Syrian nard; but, it appears, the best is produced in the East Indies. “The root of this plant is very small and slender. It puts forth a long and small stalk, and has several ears or spikes, even with the ground, which has given it the name of spikenard; the taste is bitter, acrid, and aromatic, and the smell agreeable.” — Calmet. She brake the box and poured it on his head — As this spikenard was a liquid, and there appears to be no reason for breaking the box in order to get out the liquor, Knatchbull, Hammond, and some others maintain, that suntriyasa, the word here used, ought not to be translated she brake, but only that she shook the box, namely, so as to break the coagulated parts of the rich balsam, and bring it to such a degree of liquidity, that it might be fit to be poured out; and thus Dr. Waterland translates it. Dr. Doddridge and others, however, think the original word does not so naturally express this, and therefore imagine that the woman broke off the top of the vessel in which the balsam was contained. Dr. Campbell renders it, She broke open the box, observing, “I have chosen these words as sufficiently denoting that it required an uncommon effort to bring out the contents, which is all that the word here necessarily implies; and it is a circumstance that ought not to be altogether overlooked, being an additional evidence of the woman’s zeal for doing honour to her Lord. That the term ought not to be rendered shook, is to me evident. I know no example of it in this meaning in any author, sacred or profane. Verbs denoting to shake, frequently occur in Scripture. But the word is never suntribw, but tinassw, seiw, saleuw.” Mr. Harmer understands it of the breaking the cement with which the vessel was closely stopped, a circumstance which, he thinks, appears natural, and an explanation which is justified by the phraseology of Propertius, a writer of the same age. There were some that had indignation — At this which the woman had done, being incited thereto by Judas; and said — Probably to the woman, Why was this waste of the ointment made — Of this rich and costly balsam? And they murmured against her — Spake privately among themselves against the woman, for what she had done. But Jesus, knowing every thing they spake or thought, said, Why trouble ye her — Without cause? She hath wrought a good work on me — Hath given a great proof of her firm faith, and fervent love to me; and therefore, instead of meriting your censure, deserves your commendation. She hath done what she could — To testify her affection for me. She is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying — Matthew, prov to entafiasai me, corpus meum ad funus componere, to prepare my body for its burial. This vindication of the woman suggests the reason why Jesus permitted so expensive a compliment to be paid to him. Being desirous to impress his disciples with the thought of his death, he embraced every opportunity of inculcating it, whether by word or deed.

V. 10. Judas went to the chief priests-Immediately after this reproof, having anger now added to his covetousness. Matthew 26:14; Luke 22:3.

Verses 10-16. Judas went unto the chief priests, &c. — Immediately after this reproof, having anger now added to his covetousness. See these verses explained in the notes on Matthew 26:14-19. There shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water — It was highly seasonable for our Lord to give them this additional proof, both of his knowing all things, and of his influence over the minds of men; follow him — If our Lord meant that the man would be coming out of the city as the disciples were going in, his order implied, that they were to turn back with him, the house whither he was carrying the water being somewhere in the suburbs; but if he meant that the man would meet them at the crossing of a street, or the turning of a corner, they were to go with him perhaps farther into the city. The expression used by Luke, sunanthsei umin, seems to favour this supposition. Say ye to the good man of the house — To the master of the family; The Master saith, Where is the guest-chamber, &c. — Commentators on this passage tell us, from the Talmudists, that in Jerusalem, at the passover, the houses were not to be let, but were of common right for any one to eat the passover in them. He will show you a large upper room furnished — Greek, estromenon, stratum, spread, namely, with a carpet; and prepared — Having beds or couches placed to recline on. “The English word,” says Dr. Campbell, “which comes nearest the import of the Greek, is carpeted. But when this term is used, as here, of a dining-room, it is not meant only of the floor, but of the couches, on which the guests reclined at meals. On these they were wont, for the sake both of neatness and of conveniency, to spread a coverlet or carpet. As this was commonly the last thing they did in dressing the room, it may not improperly be employed to denote the whole.” There make ready for us — There provide the unleavened bread, the lamb, and the bitter herbs, and make all things ready against the time of our coming. Christ does not order one or both of these disciples to return and inform him and the others where they had made this preparation, and to direct them to the house. This was unnecessary; for the same prophetic gift which enabled Jesus to predict these circumstances, would easily guide him to the house; and it is a beautiful modesty in the sacred historian not to notice it. His disciples went forth — After our Lord had given these particular instructions, the two disciples whom he sent went out from thence, came into the city, and found all the circumstances as Jesus had predicted. It is justly observed by Mr. Scott here, that “nothing could be less the object of natural sagacity and foresight than the events here mentioned. Had the two disciples come to the place specified rather sooner or later than they did, the man bearing the pitcher of water would either not have arrived, or would have been gone. But our Lord knew that the owner of a certain commodious house in Jerusalem favoured him; he foresaw that at a precise time of the day he would send his servant for a pitcher of water; that the disciples would meet him just when they entered the city; that by following him they would find out the person whom he intended; and that by mentioning him as the master, or the teacher, the owner of the house would readily consent to accommodate them in an upper chamber. When the disciples found all these circumstances so exactly accord to the prediction, they could not but be deeply impressed with a conviction of their Lord’s knowledge of every event, and of his influence over every heart.”

Verse 11. They were glad] The joy that arises from the opportunity of murdering an innocent person must be completely infernal.

Verses 10-16. Judas went unto the chief priests, &c. — Immediately after this reproof, having anger now added to his covetousness. See these verses explained in the notes on Matthew 26:14-19. There shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water — It was highly seasonable for our Lord to give them this additional proof, both of his knowing all things, and of his influence over the minds of men; follow him — If our Lord meant that the man would be coming out of the city as the disciples were going in, his order implied, that they were to turn back with him, the house whither he was carrying the water being somewhere in the suburbs; but if he meant that the man would meet them at the crossing of a street, or the turning of a corner, they were to go with him perhaps farther into the city. The expression used by Luke, sunanthsei umin, seems to favour this supposition. Say ye to the good man of the house — To the master of the family; The Master saith, Where is the guest-chamber, &c. — Commentators on this passage tell us, from the Talmudists, that in Jerusalem, at the passover, the houses were not to be let, but were of common right for any one to eat the passover in them. He will show you a large upper room furnished — Greek, estromenon, stratum, spread, namely, with a carpet; and prepared — Having beds or couches placed to recline on. “The English word,” says Dr. Campbell, “which comes nearest the import of the Greek, is carpeted. But when this term is used, as here, of a dining-room, it is not meant only of the floor, but of the couches, on which the guests reclined at meals. On these they were wont, for the sake both of neatness and of conveniency, to spread a coverlet or carpet. As this was commonly the last thing they did in dressing the room, it may not improperly be employed to denote the whole.” There make ready for us — There provide the unleavened bread, the lamb, and the bitter herbs, and make all things ready against the time of our coming. Christ does not order one or both of these disciples to return and inform him and the others where they had made this preparation, and to direct them to the house. This was unnecessary; for the same prophetic gift which enabled Jesus to predict these circumstances, would easily guide him to the house; and it is a beautiful modesty in the sacred historian not to notice it. His disciples went forth — After our Lord had given these particular instructions, the two disciples whom he sent went out from thence, came into the city, and found all the circumstances as Jesus had predicted. It is justly observed by Mr. Scott here, that “nothing could be less the object of natural sagacity and foresight than the events here mentioned. Had the two disciples come to the place specified rather sooner or later than they did, the man bearing the pitcher of water would either not have arrived, or would have been gone. But our Lord knew that the owner of a certain commodious house in Jerusalem favoured him; he foresaw that at a precise time of the day he would send his servant for a pitcher of water; that the disciples would meet him just when they entered the city; that by following him they would find out the person whom he intended; and that by mentioning him as the master, or the teacher, the owner of the house would readily consent to accommodate them in an upper chamber. When the disciples found all these circumstances so exactly accord to the prediction, they could not but be deeply impressed with a conviction of their Lord’s knowledge of every event, and of his influence over every heart.”

V. 12. Matthew 26:17; Luke 22:7.

Verses 10-16. Judas went unto the chief priests, &c. — Immediately after this reproof, having anger now added to his covetousness. See these verses explained in the notes on Matthew 26:14-19. There shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water — It was highly seasonable for our Lord to give them this additional proof, both of his knowing all things, and of his influence over the minds of men; follow him — If our Lord meant that the man would be coming out of the city as the disciples were going in, his order implied, that they were to turn back with him, the house whither he was carrying the water being somewhere in the suburbs; but if he meant that the man would meet them at the crossing of a street, or the turning of a corner, they were to go with him perhaps farther into the city. The expression used by Luke, sunanthsei umin, seems to favour this supposition. Say ye to the good man of the house — To the master of the family; The Master saith, Where is the guest-chamber, &c. — Commentators on this passage tell us, from the Talmudists, that in Jerusalem, at the passover, the houses were not to be let, but were of common right for any one to eat the passover in them. He will show you a large upper room furnished — Greek, estromenon, stratum, spread, namely, with a carpet; and prepared — Having beds or couches placed to recline on. “The English word,” says Dr. Campbell, “which comes nearest the import of the Greek, is carpeted. But when this term is used, as here, of a dining-room, it is not meant only of the floor, but of the couches, on which the guests reclined at meals. On these they were wont, for the sake both of neatness and of conveniency, to spread a coverlet or carpet. As this was commonly the last thing they did in dressing the room, it may not improperly be employed to denote the whole.” There make ready for us — There provide the unleavened bread, the lamb, and the bitter herbs, and make all things ready against the time of our coming. Christ does not order one or both of these disciples to return and inform him and the others where they had made this preparation, and to direct them to the house. This was unnecessary; for the same prophetic gift which enabled Jesus to predict these circumstances, would easily guide him to the house; and it is a beautiful modesty in the sacred historian not to notice it. His disciples went forth — After our Lord had given these particular instructions, the two disciples whom he sent went out from thence, came into the city, and found all the circumstances as Jesus had predicted. It is justly observed by Mr. Scott here, that “nothing could be less the object of natural sagacity and foresight than the events here mentioned. Had the two disciples come to the place specified rather sooner or later than they did, the man bearing the pitcher of water would either not have arrived, or would have been gone. But our Lord knew that the owner of a certain commodious house in Jerusalem favoured him; he foresaw that at a precise time of the day he would send his servant for a pitcher of water; that the disciples would meet him just when they entered the city; that by following him they would find out the person whom he intended; and that by mentioning him as the master, or the teacher, the owner of the house would readily consent to accommodate them in an upper chamber. When the disciples found all these circumstances so exactly accord to the prediction, they could not but be deeply impressed with a conviction of their Lord’s knowledge of every event, and of his influence over every heart.”

Ver. 12. The first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover. The day when they searched the house with candles, and cleared it of all leaven. Before the jews ate of this joyful sacrifice, they were purified for seven days; and all persons disappointed of eating it by any uncleanness, or otherwise, were allowed to eat it on the fourteenth day of the second month. In this they are models to christians who are negligent of sacraments.

Verse 12. When they killed the passover. — See the notes on Matthew 26:17, &c.

V. 13. Go into the city, and there shall meet you a man-It was highly seasonable for our Lord to give them this additional proof both of his knowing all things, and of his influence over the minds of men.

Verse 13. Bearing a pitcher of water] How correct is the foreknowledge of Jesus Christ! Even the minutest circumstances are comprehended by it! An honest employment, howsoever mean, is worthy the attention of God; and even a man bearing a pitcher of water is marked in all his steps, and is an object of the merciful regards of the Most High. This man was employed in carrying home the water which was to be used for baking the unleavened bread on the following day; for on that day it was not lawful to carry any: hence they were obliged to fetch it on the preceding evening.

Verses 10-16. Judas went unto the chief priests, &c. — Immediately after this reproof, having anger now added to his covetousness. See these verses explained in the notes on Matthew 26:14-19. There shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water — It was highly seasonable for our Lord to give them this additional proof, both of his knowing all things, and of his influence over the minds of men; follow him — If our Lord meant that the man would be coming out of the city as the disciples were going in, his order implied, that they were to turn back with him, the house whither he was carrying the water being somewhere in the suburbs; but if he meant that the man would meet them at the crossing of a street, or the turning of a corner, they were to go with him perhaps farther into the city. The expression used by Luke, sunanthsei umin, seems to favour this supposition. Say ye to the good man of the house — To the master of the family; The Master saith, Where is the guest-chamber, &c. — Commentators on this passage tell us, from the Talmudists, that in Jerusalem, at the passover, the houses were not to be let, but were of common right for any one to eat the passover in them. He will show you a large upper room furnished — Greek, estromenon, stratum, spread, namely, with a carpet; and prepared — Having beds or couches placed to recline on. “The English word,” says Dr. Campbell, “which comes nearest the import of the Greek, is carpeted. But when this term is used, as here, of a dining-room, it is not meant only of the floor, but of the couches, on which the guests reclined at meals. On these they were wont, for the sake both of neatness and of conveniency, to spread a coverlet or carpet. As this was commonly the last thing they did in dressing the room, it may not improperly be employed to denote the whole.” There make ready for us — There provide the unleavened bread, the lamb, and the bitter herbs, and make all things ready against the time of our coming. Christ does not order one or both of these disciples to return and inform him and the others where they had made this preparation, and to direct them to the house. This was unnecessary; for the same prophetic gift which enabled Jesus to predict these circumstances, would easily guide him to the house; and it is a beautiful modesty in the sacred historian not to notice it. His disciples went forth — After our Lord had given these particular instructions, the two disciples whom he sent went out from thence, came into the city, and found all the circumstances as Jesus had predicted. It is justly observed by Mr. Scott here, that “nothing could be less the object of natural sagacity and foresight than the events here mentioned. Had the two disciples come to the place specified rather sooner or later than they did, the man bearing the pitcher of water would either not have arrived, or would have been gone. But our Lord knew that the owner of a certain commodious house in Jerusalem favoured him; he foresaw that at a precise time of the day he would send his servant for a pitcher of water; that the disciples would meet him just when they entered the city; that by following him they would find out the person whom he intended; and that by mentioning him as the master, or the teacher, the owner of the house would readily consent to accommodate them in an upper chamber. When the disciples found all these circumstances so exactly accord to the prediction, they could not but be deeply impressed with a conviction of their Lord’s knowledge of every event, and of his influence over every heart.”

Ver. 13. There shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water. Thus providence sped their way, as Abraham’s steward when seeking a wife for his master’s son. Favourable openings, whether near or remote, encourage men in the path of duty. See on Matthew 26:11.

13. Meet you a man — As the apostles enter the city from the east the water carrier with his filled pitcher is returning home from the west. Hence Dr. Barclay well argues that the tradition which places the coenaculum or last supper on the western part of Zion is incorrect. The two apostles having passed through the temple grounds, and crossed the great bridge, would not proceed far before they would meet him bringing his jar of fresh water from Gibon or Etham.

§ 121. — PREPARATION FOR THE PASSOVER, 12-16. (See notes on Matthew 26:17-19.)

§ 122, 124. — SUPPER AND INDICATION OF BETRAYAL, 17-21. (See notes on Matthew 26:20-25.)

§ 126, 128. — INSTITUTION OF THE LORD’S SUPPER 22-25. (See notes on Matthew 26:26-29.)

§ 131. — SUFFERINGS IN GETHSEMANE, 26, 32-42. (See notes on Matthew 26:36-46.)

Verse 13. A man with a pitcher of water, &c. — In St. Matthew it is, “Go into the city to such a man,” meaning, no doubt, not any person described by name and residence, but such a one as should be indicated by some sign, This sign was, meeting a man bearing a vessel of water, no doubt a servant of the host upon whose house our Lord had fixed; for this servant they were commanded to follow, so that they were to fix upon the house into which he should turn; and say to the owner of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guest chamber, &c. — This mode of address shows that the man knew Christ, and was himself probably either a disciple or a friend. The katalumata, guest chambers, were prepared by the Jews resident in Jerusalem, for those who came up to celebrate the passover, without any remuneration except the skins of the lambs sacrificed.

Verse 14. Say ye to the good man of the house] eipate tw oikodespoth-Say ye to the master of the house. The good man and the good woman mean, among us, the master and mistress of the house. A Hindoo woman never calls her husband by his name; but simply, the man of the house.

Where is the guest chamber?] Respectable householders, says Mr. Ward, have a room which they call the strangers’ room, (utit’ hu-shala,) which is especially set apart for the use of guests. This appears to have been the custom in Judea also.

Verses 10-16. Judas went unto the chief priests, &c. — Immediately after this reproof, having anger now added to his covetousness. See these verses explained in the notes on Matthew 26:14-19. There shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water — It was highly seasonable for our Lord to give them this additional proof, both of his knowing all things, and of his influence over the minds of men; follow him — If our Lord meant that the man would be coming out of the city as the disciples were going in, his order implied, that they were to turn back with him, the house whither he was carrying the water being somewhere in the suburbs; but if he meant that the man would meet them at the crossing of a street, or the turning of a corner, they were to go with him perhaps farther into the city. The expression used by Luke, sunanthsei umin, seems to favour this supposition. Say ye to the good man of the house — To the master of the family; The Master saith, Where is the guest-chamber, &c. — Commentators on this passage tell us, from the Talmudists, that in Jerusalem, at the passover, the houses were not to be let, but were of common right for any one to eat the passover in them. He will show you a large upper room furnished — Greek, estromenon, stratum, spread, namely, with a carpet; and prepared — Having beds or couches placed to recline on. “The English word,” says Dr. Campbell, “which comes nearest the import of the Greek, is carpeted. But when this term is used, as here, of a dining-room, it is not meant only of the floor, but of the couches, on which the guests reclined at meals. On these they were wont, for the sake both of neatness and of conveniency, to spread a coverlet or carpet. As this was commonly the last thing they did in dressing the room, it may not improperly be employed to denote the whole.” There make ready for us — There provide the unleavened bread, the lamb, and the bitter herbs, and make all things ready against the time of our coming. Christ does not order one or both of these disciples to return and inform him and the others where they had made this preparation, and to direct them to the house. This was unnecessary; for the same prophetic gift which enabled Jesus to predict these circumstances, would easily guide him to the house; and it is a beautiful modesty in the sacred historian not to notice it. His disciples went forth — After our Lord had given these particular instructions, the two disciples whom he sent went out from thence, came into the city, and found all the circumstances as Jesus had predicted. It is justly observed by Mr. Scott here, that “nothing could be less the object of natural sagacity and foresight than the events here mentioned. Had the two disciples come to the place specified rather sooner or later than they did, the man bearing the pitcher of water would either not have arrived, or would have been gone. But our Lord knew that the owner of a certain commodious house in Jerusalem favoured him; he foresaw that at a precise time of the day he would send his servant for a pitcher of water; that the disciples would meet him just when they entered the city; that by following him they would find out the person whom he intended; and that by mentioning him as the master, or the teacher, the owner of the house would readily consent to accommodate them in an upper chamber. When the disciples found all these circumstances so exactly accord to the prediction, they could not but be deeply impressed with a conviction of their Lord’s knowledge of every event, and of his influence over every heart.”

V. 15. Furnished-The word properly means, spread with carpets.

Verse 15. Furnished] Spread with carpets-estrwmenon-so this word is often used. See WAKEFIELD. But it may also signify the couches on which the guests reclined when eating. It does not appear that the Jews ate the passover now, as their fathers did formerly, standing, with their shoes on, and their staves in their hands.

Verses 10-16. Judas went unto the chief priests, &c. — Immediately after this reproof, having anger now added to his covetousness. See these verses explained in the notes on Matthew 26:14-19. There shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water — It was highly seasonable for our Lord to give them this additional proof, both of his knowing all things, and of his influence over the minds of men; follow him — If our Lord meant that the man would be coming out of the city as the disciples were going in, his order implied, that they were to turn back with him, the house whither he was carrying the water being somewhere in the suburbs; but if he meant that the man would meet them at the crossing of a street, or the turning of a corner, they were to go with him perhaps farther into the city. The expression used by Luke, sunanthsei umin, seems to favour this supposition. Say ye to the good man of the house — To the master of the family; The Master saith, Where is the guest-chamber, &c. — Commentators on this passage tell us, from the Talmudists, that in Jerusalem, at the passover, the houses were not to be let, but were of common right for any one to eat the passover in them. He will show you a large upper room furnished — Greek, estromenon, stratum, spread, namely, with a carpet; and prepared — Having beds or couches placed to recline on. “The English word,” says Dr. Campbell, “which comes nearest the import of the Greek, is carpeted. But when this term is used, as here, of a dining-room, it is not meant only of the floor, but of the couches, on which the guests reclined at meals. On these they were wont, for the sake both of neatness and of conveniency, to spread a coverlet or carpet. As this was commonly the last thing they did in dressing the room, it may not improperly be employed to denote the whole.” There make ready for us — There provide the unleavened bread, the lamb, and the bitter herbs, and make all things ready against the time of our coming. Christ does not order one or both of these disciples to return and inform him and the others where they had made this preparation, and to direct them to the house. This was unnecessary; for the same prophetic gift which enabled Jesus to predict these circumstances, would easily guide him to the house; and it is a beautiful modesty in the sacred historian not to notice it. His disciples went forth — After our Lord had given these particular instructions, the two disciples whom he sent went out from thence, came into the city, and found all the circumstances as Jesus had predicted. It is justly observed by Mr. Scott here, that “nothing could be less the object of natural sagacity and foresight than the events here mentioned. Had the two disciples come to the place specified rather sooner or later than they did, the man bearing the pitcher of water would either not have arrived, or would have been gone. But our Lord knew that the owner of a certain commodious house in Jerusalem favoured him; he foresaw that at a precise time of the day he would send his servant for a pitcher of water; that the disciples would meet him just when they entered the city; that by following him they would find out the person whom he intended; and that by mentioning him as the master, or the teacher, the owner of the house would readily consent to accommodate them in an upper chamber. When the disciples found all these circumstances so exactly accord to the prediction, they could not but be deeply impressed with a conviction of their Lord’s knowledge of every event, and of his influence over every heart.”

Verse 15. A large upper room furnished. — Estrwmenon, that is, having the couches round the table, spread with their proper cushions and coverings for the guests to recline upon, after their manner of eating at table.

Verses 10-16. Judas went unto the chief priests, &c. — Immediately after this reproof, having anger now added to his covetousness. See these verses explained in the notes on Matthew 26:14-19. There shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water — It was highly seasonable for our Lord to give them this additional proof, both of his knowing all things, and of his influence over the minds of men; follow him — If our Lord meant that the man would be coming out of the city as the disciples were going in, his order implied, that they were to turn back with him, the house whither he was carrying the water being somewhere in the suburbs; but if he meant that the man would meet them at the crossing of a street, or the turning of a corner, they were to go with him perhaps farther into the city. The expression used by Luke, sunanthsei umin, seems to favour this supposition. Say ye to the good man of the house — To the master of the family; The Master saith, Where is the guest-chamber, &c. — Commentators on this passage tell us, from the Talmudists, that in Jerusalem, at the passover, the houses were not to be let, but were of common right for any one to eat the passover in them. He will show you a large upper room furnished — Greek, estromenon, stratum, spread, namely, with a carpet; and prepared — Having beds or couches placed to recline on. “The English word,” says Dr. Campbell, “which comes nearest the import of the Greek, is carpeted. But when this term is used, as here, of a dining-room, it is not meant only of the floor, but of the couches, on which the guests reclined at meals. On these they were wont, for the sake both of neatness and of conveniency, to spread a coverlet or carpet. As this was commonly the last thing they did in dressing the room, it may not improperly be employed to denote the whole.” There make ready for us — There provide the unleavened bread, the lamb, and the bitter herbs, and make all things ready against the time of our coming. Christ does not order one or both of these disciples to return and inform him and the others where they had made this preparation, and to direct them to the house. This was unnecessary; for the same prophetic gift which enabled Jesus to predict these circumstances, would easily guide him to the house; and it is a beautiful modesty in the sacred historian not to notice it. His disciples went forth — After our Lord had given these particular instructions, the two disciples whom he sent went out from thence, came into the city, and found all the circumstances as Jesus had predicted. It is justly observed by Mr. Scott here, that “nothing could be less the object of natural sagacity and foresight than the events here mentioned. Had the two disciples come to the place specified rather sooner or later than they did, the man bearing the pitcher of water would either not have arrived, or would have been gone. But our Lord knew that the owner of a certain commodious house in Jerusalem favoured him; he foresaw that at a precise time of the day he would send his servant for a pitcher of water; that the disciples would meet him just when they entered the city; that by following him they would find out the person whom he intended; and that by mentioning him as the master, or the teacher, the owner of the house would readily consent to accommodate them in an upper chamber. When the disciples found all these circumstances so exactly accord to the prediction, they could not but be deeply impressed with a conviction of their Lord’s knowledge of every event, and of his influence over every heart.”

V. 17. Matthew 26:20; Luke 22:14.

Verses 17-25. In the evening he cometh with the twelve — See notes on Matthew 26:20-29. This is my blood of the new testament — Or, covenant; that is, this I appoint to be a perpetual sign and memorial of my blood, as shed for establishing the new covenant, that all who shall believe in me, may receive all its gracious promises. I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, &c. — That is, I shall drink no more before I die: the next wine I drink will not be earthly, but heavenly.

Verses 17-25. In the evening he cometh with the twelve — See notes on Matthew 26:20-29. This is my blood of the new testament — Or, covenant; that is, this I appoint to be a perpetual sign and memorial of my blood, as shed for establishing the new covenant, that all who shall believe in me, may receive all its gracious promises. I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, &c. — That is, I shall drink no more before I die: the next wine I drink will not be earthly, but heavenly.

Verse 18. One of you which eateth with me, &c. — See the notes on Matthew 26:21, &c.

Verse 19. And another said, Is it I?] This clause is wanting in BCLP, seventeen others, Syriac, Persic, Arabic, Coptic, Æthiopic, Vulgate, and four of the Itala. Griesbach leaves it doubtful: others leave it out.

Verses 17-25. In the evening he cometh with the twelve — See notes on Matthew 26:20-29. This is my blood of the new testament — Or, covenant; that is, this I appoint to be a perpetual sign and memorial of my blood, as shed for establishing the new covenant, that all who shall believe in me, may receive all its gracious promises. I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, &c. — That is, I shall drink no more before I die: the next wine I drink will not be earthly, but heavenly.

Verse 20. That dippeth with me in the dish.] In the east, persons never eat together from one dish, except when a strong attachment subsists between two or more persons of the same caste; in such a case one invites another to come and sit by him and eat from the same dish. This custom seems to have existed among the Jews; and the sacred historian mentions this notice of our Lord’s, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish, to mark more strongly the perfidy of the character of Judas.

Verses 17-25. In the evening he cometh with the twelve — See notes on Matthew 26:20-29. This is my blood of the new testament — Or, covenant; that is, this I appoint to be a perpetual sign and memorial of my blood, as shed for establishing the new covenant, that all who shall believe in me, may receive all its gracious promises. I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, &c. — That is, I shall drink no more before I die: the next wine I drink will not be earthly, but heavenly.

Verse 21. Goeth] That is, to die. See Clarke on “Matthew 26:24”.

Verses 17-25. In the evening he cometh with the twelve — See notes on Matthew 26:20-29. This is my blood of the new testament — Or, covenant; that is, this I appoint to be a perpetual sign and memorial of my blood, as shed for establishing the new covenant, that all who shall believe in me, may receive all its gracious promises. I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, &c. — That is, I shall drink no more before I die: the next wine I drink will not be earthly, but heavenly.

Ver. 21. Good were it for that man if he had never been born. Sad case! On looking round for a vestige of hope, or an avenue of escape for Judas, we can see no opening, no way, no path of retreat. Yet it does not belong to man to pronounce the final sentence on man. We ought however to be warned, by every prey of the roaring lion, against any habitual sin. Covetousness was Judas’s sin, a vice which takes deep root in the heart, as thorns in the earth. A man who cherishes the serpent of any besetting sin in his bosom, against all remonstrances, and even against chastisements, may be damned for it at last.

Verse 22. Eat] This is omitted by many MSS. and versions, but I think without reason. It is found in the parallel places, Matthew 26:26; 1 Corinthians 11:24. See the subject of the Lord’s Supper largely explained on Matthew 26:26, &c.

Verses 17-25. In the evening he cometh with the twelve — See notes on Matthew 26:20-29. This is my blood of the new testament — Or, covenant; that is, this I appoint to be a perpetual sign and memorial of my blood, as shed for establishing the new covenant, that all who shall believe in me, may receive all its gracious promises. I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, &c. — That is, I shall drink no more before I die: the next wine I drink will not be earthly, but heavenly.

Verses 17-25. In the evening he cometh with the twelve — See notes on Matthew 26:20-29. This is my blood of the new testament — Or, covenant; that is, this I appoint to be a perpetual sign and memorial of my blood, as shed for establishing the new covenant, that all who shall believe in me, may receive all its gracious promises. I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, &c. — That is, I shall drink no more before I die: the next wine I drink will not be earthly, but heavenly.

V. 24. This is my blood of the New Testament-That is, this I appoint to be a perpetual sign and memorial of my blood, as shed for establishing the new covenant, that all who shall believe in me may receive all its gracious promises.

Verses 17-25. In the evening he cometh with the twelve — See notes on Matthew 26:20-29. This is my blood of the new testament — Or, covenant; that is, this I appoint to be a perpetual sign and memorial of my blood, as shed for establishing the new covenant, that all who shall believe in me, may receive all its gracious promises. I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, &c. — That is, I shall drink no more before I die: the next wine I drink will not be earthly, but heavenly.

Ver. 24. This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many — for the remission of sins, as Matthew adds. Then the death of Christ was a sacrifice for sin, as we have stated. Leviticus 16:14. The one altar and the one sin-offering of a lamb, daily repeated, bare the sins of many. The language of an apostle corresponds: As by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Romans 5:19.

V. 25. I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, till I drink it new in the kingdom of God-That is, I shall drink no more before I die: the next wine I drink will not be earthly, but heavenly.

Verses 17-25. In the evening he cometh with the twelve — See notes on Matthew 26:20-29. This is my blood of the new testament — Or, covenant; that is, this I appoint to be a perpetual sign and memorial of my blood, as shed for establishing the new covenant, that all who shall believe in me, may receive all its gracious promises. I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, &c. — That is, I shall drink no more before I die: the next wine I drink will not be earthly, but heavenly.

Ver. 25. I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God. Matthew reads, the kingdom of my Father: Matthew 26:29. Both the evangelists place these words after the Saviour had tasted the joyful cup, and consecrated bread and wine to be the symbols of his body and blood. Therefore the words designate the near approach of his death; and what is glorious, that there is in heaven a more liberal feast than the best of saints are allowed to taste on earth.

V. 26. Matthew 26:30; Luke 22:39; John 18:1.

Verses 26-31. And they went out into the mount of Olives — At the conclusion of the supper; Jesus and his disciples sung a proper psalm, or song of praise, together, as was customary at the close of the passover, and then he set out for the mount of Olives, choosing to retire thither, that he might prevent a riot in Jerusalem, and bring no trouble upon the master of the house where he celebrated the passover. Jesus said, All ye shall be offended this night — See the notes on Matthew 26:30-35. The Jews, in reckoning their days, began with the evening, according to the Mosaic computation, which denominated the evening and the morning the first day, Genesis 1:5. And so, that which after sunset is here called this night, is, verse 30, called this day, or, to-day, as shmeron should rather be translated. The expression there is peculiarly significant: Verily I say unto thee, that thou — Thyself, confident as thou art; to-day — Even within four and twenty hours; yea, this night — Before the sun be risen; nay, before the cock crow twice — Before three in the morning; wilt deny me thrice. Our Lord, doubtless, spake so determinately as knowing a cock would crow once before the usual time of cock-crowing. By Mark 13:35, it appears, that the third watch of the night, ending at three in the morning, was commonly styled the cock-crowing. Dr. Owen, in his Observations on the Four Gospels, p. 56, observes, that as the Jews, in the enumeration of the times of the night, took notice only of one cock- crowing, which comprehended the third watch, so Matthew, to give them a clear information that Peter would deny his Master before three in the morning, needed only to say, that he would do it before the cock crew; but the Romans, (for whom, and the other Gentiles, Mark wrote his gospel,) reckoning by a double crowing of the cock, the first of which was about midnight, and the second at three, stood in need of a more particular designation; and therefore Mark, to denote the same hour to them, was obliged to say, before the cock crew twice. Juvenal uses exactly the same phrase to specify the same hour. Sat. 1. verse 107.

Ver. 26. When they had sung a hymn. The eucharistal ode, mostly selected from the great Hallel of the Hebrews, that is, from Psalm 113. to 126., though in celebrating the exodus of Egypt, Psalm 114. was much sung at the passover. God has given the church those sublime and beautiful hymns, that the children of Zion may sing in their pilgrimage, and forget their sorrows.

They went out. Jesus retired to mount Olivet, and entered the garden of Gethsemane.

V. 27. This night-The Jews in reckoning their days began with the evening, according to the Mosaic computation, which called the evening and the morning the first day, Genesis 1:5. And so that which after sunset is here called this night is, Mark 14:30, called to-day. The expression there is peculiarly significant.

Verily I say to thee, that thou thyself, confident as thou art, to-day, even within four and twenty hours; yea, this night, or ever the sun be risen, nay, before the cock crow twice, before three in the morning, wilt deny me thrice. Our Lord doubtless spoke so determinately, as knowing a cock would crow once before the usual time of cock crowing. By Mark 13:35, it appears, that the third watch of the night, ending at three in the morning, was commonly styled the cock crowing. Zechariah 13:7.

Verses 26-31. And they went out into the mount of Olives — At the conclusion of the supper; Jesus and his disciples sung a proper psalm, or song of praise, together, as was customary at the close of the passover, and then he set out for the mount of Olives, choosing to retire thither, that he might prevent a riot in Jerusalem, and bring no trouble upon the master of the house where he celebrated the passover. Jesus said, All ye shall be offended this night — See the notes on Matthew 26:30-35. The Jews, in reckoning their days, began with the evening, according to the Mosaic computation, which denominated the evening and the morning the first day, Genesis 1:5. And so, that which after sunset is here called this night, is, verse 30, called this day, or, to-day, as shmeron should rather be translated. The expression there is peculiarly significant: Verily I say unto thee, that thou — Thyself, confident as thou art; to-day — Even within four and twenty hours; yea, this night — Before the sun be risen; nay, before the cock crow twice — Before three in the morning; wilt deny me thrice. Our Lord, doubtless, spake so determinately as knowing a cock would crow once before the usual time of cock-crowing. By Mark 13:35, it appears, that the third watch of the night, ending at three in the morning, was commonly styled the cock-crowing. Dr. Owen, in his Observations on the Four Gospels, p. 56, observes, that as the Jews, in the enumeration of the times of the night, took notice only of one cock- crowing, which comprehended the third watch, so Matthew, to give them a clear information that Peter would deny his Master before three in the morning, needed only to say, that he would do it before the cock crew; but the Romans, (for whom, and the other Gentiles, Mark wrote his gospel,) reckoning by a double crowing of the cock, the first of which was about midnight, and the second at three, stood in need of a more particular designation; and therefore Mark, to denote the same hour to them, was obliged to say, before the cock crew twice. Juvenal uses exactly the same phrase to specify the same hour. Sat. 1. verse 107.

Verse 27. I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered — See notes on Matthew 26:31.

Verses 26-31. And they went out into the mount of Olives — At the conclusion of the supper; Jesus and his disciples sung a proper psalm, or song of praise, together, as was customary at the close of the passover, and then he set out for the mount of Olives, choosing to retire thither, that he might prevent a riot in Jerusalem, and bring no trouble upon the master of the house where he celebrated the passover. Jesus said, All ye shall be offended this night — See the notes on Matthew 26:30-35. The Jews, in reckoning their days, began with the evening, according to the Mosaic computation, which denominated the evening and the morning the first day, Genesis 1:5. And so, that which after sunset is here called this night, is, verse 30, called this day, or, to-day, as shmeron should rather be translated. The expression there is peculiarly significant: Verily I say unto thee, that thou — Thyself, confident as thou art; to-day — Even within four and twenty hours; yea, this night — Before the sun be risen; nay, before the cock crow twice — Before three in the morning; wilt deny me thrice. Our Lord, doubtless, spake so determinately as knowing a cock would crow once before the usual time of cock-crowing. By Mark 13:35, it appears, that the third watch of the night, ending at three in the morning, was commonly styled the cock-crowing. Dr. Owen, in his Observations on the Four Gospels, p. 56, observes, that as the Jews, in the enumeration of the times of the night, took notice only of one cock- crowing, which comprehended the third watch, so Matthew, to give them a clear information that Peter would deny his Master before three in the morning, needed only to say, that he would do it before the cock crew; but the Romans, (for whom, and the other Gentiles, Mark wrote his gospel,) reckoning by a double crowing of the cock, the first of which was about midnight, and the second at three, stood in need of a more particular designation; and therefore Mark, to denote the same hour to them, was obliged to say, before the cock crew twice. Juvenal uses exactly the same phrase to specify the same hour. Sat. 1. verse 107.

Verses 26-31. And they went out into the mount of Olives — At the conclusion of the supper; Jesus and his disciples sung a proper psalm, or song of praise, together, as was customary at the close of the passover, and then he set out for the mount of Olives, choosing to retire thither, that he might prevent a riot in Jerusalem, and bring no trouble upon the master of the house where he celebrated the passover. Jesus said, All ye shall be offended this night — See the notes on Matthew 26:30-35. The Jews, in reckoning their days, began with the evening, according to the Mosaic computation, which denominated the evening and the morning the first day, Genesis 1:5. And so, that which after sunset is here called this night, is, verse 30, called this day, or, to-day, as shmeron should rather be translated. The expression there is peculiarly significant: Verily I say unto thee, that thou — Thyself, confident as thou art; to-day — Even within four and twenty hours; yea, this night — Before the sun be risen; nay, before the cock crow twice — Before three in the morning; wilt deny me thrice. Our Lord, doubtless, spake so determinately as knowing a cock would crow once before the usual time of cock-crowing. By Mark 13:35, it appears, that the third watch of the night, ending at three in the morning, was commonly styled the cock-crowing. Dr. Owen, in his Observations on the Four Gospels, p. 56, observes, that as the Jews, in the enumeration of the times of the night, took notice only of one cock- crowing, which comprehended the third watch, so Matthew, to give them a clear information that Peter would deny his Master before three in the morning, needed only to say, that he would do it before the cock crew; but the Romans, (for whom, and the other Gentiles, Mark wrote his gospel,) reckoning by a double crowing of the cock, the first of which was about midnight, and the second at three, stood in need of a more particular designation; and therefore Mark, to denote the same hour to them, was obliged to say, before the cock crew twice. Juvenal uses exactly the same phrase to specify the same hour. Sat. 1. verse 107.

Verse 30. That THOU] su is added by ABEGHKLMS-V, eighty-eight others, Syriac, Arabic, Persic, Coptic, Æthiopic, Armenian, Slavonic, Vulgate, Saxon, Theophylact, and Euthymsus. It adds much to the energy of the passage, every word of which is deeply emphatical. Verily, I say unto thee, that THOU, THIS DAY, in THIS VERY NIGHT, before the cock shall crow TWICE, THOU wilt deny ME.

Verses 26-31. And they went out into the mount of Olives — At the conclusion of the supper; Jesus and his disciples sung a proper psalm, or song of praise, together, as was customary at the close of the passover, and then he set out for the mount of Olives, choosing to retire thither, that he might prevent a riot in Jerusalem, and bring no trouble upon the master of the house where he celebrated the passover. Jesus said, All ye shall be offended this night — See the notes on Matthew 26:30-35. The Jews, in reckoning their days, began with the evening, according to the Mosaic computation, which denominated the evening and the morning the first day, Genesis 1:5. And so, that which after sunset is here called this night, is, verse 30, called this day, or, to-day, as shmeron should rather be translated. The expression there is peculiarly significant: Verily I say unto thee, that thou — Thyself, confident as thou art; to-day — Even within four and twenty hours; yea, this night — Before the sun be risen; nay, before the cock crow twice — Before three in the morning; wilt deny me thrice. Our Lord, doubtless, spake so determinately as knowing a cock would crow once before the usual time of cock-crowing. By Mark 13:35, it appears, that the third watch of the night, ending at three in the morning, was commonly styled the cock-crowing. Dr. Owen, in his Observations on the Four Gospels, p. 56, observes, that as the Jews, in the enumeration of the times of the night, took notice only of one cock- crowing, which comprehended the third watch, so Matthew, to give them a clear information that Peter would deny his Master before three in the morning, needed only to say, that he would do it before the cock crew; but the Romans, (for whom, and the other Gentiles, Mark wrote his gospel,) reckoning by a double crowing of the cock, the first of which was about midnight, and the second at three, stood in need of a more particular designation; and therefore Mark, to denote the same hour to them, was obliged to say, before the cock crew twice. Juvenal uses exactly the same phrase to specify the same hour. Sat. 1. verse 107.

Verse 30. This day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. — With the Jews the day commenced at six in the evening; the day therefore had then begun; and extended through the natural night, and the day following to the same hour in the evening.

Verses 26-31. And they went out into the mount of Olives — At the conclusion of the supper; Jesus and his disciples sung a proper psalm, or song of praise, together, as was customary at the close of the passover, and then he set out for the mount of Olives, choosing to retire thither, that he might prevent a riot in Jerusalem, and bring no trouble upon the master of the house where he celebrated the passover. Jesus said, All ye shall be offended this night — See the notes on Matthew 26:30-35. The Jews, in reckoning their days, began with the evening, according to the Mosaic computation, which denominated the evening and the morning the first day, Genesis 1:5. And so, that which after sunset is here called this night, is, verse 30, called this day, or, to-day, as shmeron should rather be translated. The expression there is peculiarly significant: Verily I say unto thee, that thou — Thyself, confident as thou art; to-day — Even within four and twenty hours; yea, this night — Before the sun be risen; nay, before the cock crow twice — Before three in the morning; wilt deny me thrice. Our Lord, doubtless, spake so determinately as knowing a cock would crow once before the usual time of cock-crowing. By Mark 13:35, it appears, that the third watch of the night, ending at three in the morning, was commonly styled the cock-crowing. Dr. Owen, in his Observations on the Four Gospels, p. 56, observes, that as the Jews, in the enumeration of the times of the night, took notice only of one cock- crowing, which comprehended the third watch, so Matthew, to give them a clear information that Peter would deny his Master before three in the morning, needed only to say, that he would do it before the cock crew; but the Romans, (for whom, and the other Gentiles, Mark wrote his gospel,) reckoning by a double crowing of the cock, the first of which was about midnight, and the second at three, stood in need of a more particular designation; and therefore Mark, to denote the same hour to them, was obliged to say, before the cock crew twice. Juvenal uses exactly the same phrase to specify the same hour. Sat. 1. verse 107.

V. 32. Matthew 26:36.

Verses 32-38. They came to Gethsemane — For an explanation of these verses see the notes on Matthew 26:36-39. And began to be sore amazed — Greek, ekqambeisqai, to be in a consternation. The word implies the most shocking mixture of terror and amazement: the next word, adhmonein, which we render, to be very heavy, signifies to be quite depressed, and almost overwhelmed with the load: and the word perilupov, in the next verse, which we translate exceeding sorrowful, implies, that he was surrounded with sorrow on every side, breaking in upon him with such violence, that, humanly speaking, there was no way to escape. Dr. Doddridge paraphrases the passage thus: “He began to be in very great amazement and anguish of mind, on account of some painful and dreadful sensations, which were then impressed on his soul by the immediate hand of God. Then, turning to his three disciples, he says, My soul is surrounded on all sides with an extremity of anguish and sorrow, which tortures me even almost to death; and I know that the infirmity of human nature must quickly sink under it without some extraordinary relief from God. While, therefore, I apply to him, do you continue here and watch.” Dr. Whitby supposes, that these agonies of our Lord did not arise from the immediate hand of God upon him, but from a deep apprehension of the malignity of sin, and the misery brought on the world by it. But, considering how much the mind of Christ was wounded and broken with what he now endured, so as to give some greater external signs of distress than in any other circumstance of his sufferings, there is reason to conclude, there was something extraordinary in the degree of the impression; which in all probability was from the Father’s immediate agency, laying on him the chastisement of our peace, or making his soul an offering for our sins. See Isaiah 53:5, 10. He went forward a little — Luke says, about a stone’s cast, and fell on the ground — Matthew, fell on his face, and prayed that the hour might pass from him — That dreadful season of sorrow, with which he was then almost overwhelmed, and which did pass from him soon after. And he said, Abba, Father — That is, Father, Father: or, perhaps, the word Father is added by Mark, by way of interpreting the Syriac word, Abba. All things are possible unto thee — All things proper to be done. Take away this cup from me — This cup of bitter distress. Nothing is more common than to express a portion of comfort or distress by a cup, alluding to the custom of the father of a family, or master of a feast, sending to his children or guests a cup of such liquor as he designed for them. Nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou wilt — As if he had said, If thou seest it necessary to continue it, or to add yet more grievous ingredients to it, I am here ready to receive it in submission to thy will; for though nature cannot but shrink back from these sufferings, it is my determinate purpose to bear whatsoever thine infinite wisdom shall see fit to appoint. And he cometh, &c. — Rising up from the ground, on which he had lain prostrate: he returns to the three disciples; and findeth them sleeping — Notwithstanding the deep distress he was in, and the solemn injunction he had given them to watch; and saith unto Peter — The zealous, the confident Peter! Simon, sleepest thou? — Dost thou sleep at such a time as this, and after thou hast just declared thy resolution to die with me? dost thou so soon forget thy promise to stand by me, as not so much as to keep awake and watch one hour? Hast thou strength to die with me, who canst not watch so little awhile with me? Watch ye and pray — Ye also, who were so ready to join with Peter in the same profession; lest ye enter into temptation — Lest ye fall by the grievous trial which is now at hand, and of which I have repeatedly warned you. Observe, reader, watching and praying are means absolutely necessary to be used, if we wish to stand in the hour of trial. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak — I know your mind and will are well inclined to obey me, but your experience may convince you, that your nature is very weak, and your resolutions, however sincere and strong, easily borne down and broken. Every one is apt to flatter himself, when he is out of danger, that he can easily withstand temptations; but without prayer and particular watchfulness the passions are wont to prevail over reason, and the flesh to counteract the motions of the Spirit. It is justly observed by Archbishop Tillotson, (Sermons, vol. 2. p. 435,) that “so gentle a rebuke, and so kind an apology as we here read, were the more remarkable, as our Lord’s mind was now discomposed with sorrow, so that he must have had the deeper and tenderer sense of the unkindness of his friends. And, alas! how apt are we, in general, to think affliction an excuse for peevishness, and how unlike are we to Christ in that thought, and how unkind to ourselves, as well as our friends, to whom, in such circumstances, with our best temper, we must be more troublesome than we could wish.”

Verse 32. Gethsemane. — See notes on Matthew 26:36-46.

V. 33. Sore amazed-The original word imports the most shocking amazement, mingled with grief: and that word in the next verse which we render sorrowful intimates, that he was surrounded with sorrow on every side, breaking in upon him with such violence, as was ready to separate his soul from his body.

Verses 32-38. They came to Gethsemane — For an explanation of these verses see the notes on Matthew 26:36-39. And began to be sore amazed — Greek, ekqambeisqai, to be in a consternation. The word implies the most shocking mixture of terror and amazement: the next word, adhmonein, which we render, to be very heavy, signifies to be quite depressed, and almost overwhelmed with the load: and the word perilupov, in the next verse, which we translate exceeding sorrowful, implies, that he was surrounded with sorrow on every side, breaking in upon him with such violence, that, humanly speaking, there was no way to escape. Dr. Doddridge paraphrases the passage thus: “He began to be in very great amazement and anguish of mind, on account of some painful and dreadful sensations, which were then impressed on his soul by the immediate hand of God. Then, turning to his three disciples, he says, My soul is surrounded on all sides with an extremity of anguish and sorrow, which tortures me even almost to death; and I know that the infirmity of human nature must quickly sink under it without some extraordinary relief from God. While, therefore, I apply to him, do you continue here and watch.” Dr. Whitby supposes, that these agonies of our Lord did not arise from the immediate hand of God upon him, but from a deep apprehension of the malignity of sin, and the misery brought on the world by it. But, considering how much the mind of Christ was wounded and broken with what he now endured, so as to give some greater external signs of distress than in any other circumstance of his sufferings, there is reason to conclude, there was something extraordinary in the degree of the impression; which in all probability was from the Father’s immediate agency, laying on him the chastisement of our peace, or making his soul an offering for our sins. See Isaiah 53:5, 10. He went forward a little — Luke says, about a stone’s cast, and fell on the ground — Matthew, fell on his face, and prayed that the hour might pass from him — That dreadful season of sorrow, with which he was then almost overwhelmed, and which did pass from him soon after. And he said, Abba, Father — That is, Father, Father: or, perhaps, the word Father is added by Mark, by way of interpreting the Syriac word, Abba. All things are possible unto thee — All things proper to be done. Take away this cup from me — This cup of bitter distress. Nothing is more common than to express a portion of comfort or distress by a cup, alluding to the custom of the father of a family, or master of a feast, sending to his children or guests a cup of such liquor as he designed for them. Nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou wilt — As if he had said, If thou seest it necessary to continue it, or to add yet more grievous ingredients to it, I am here ready to receive it in submission to thy will; for though nature cannot but shrink back from these sufferings, it is my determinate purpose to bear whatsoever thine infinite wisdom shall see fit to appoint. And he cometh, &c. — Rising up from the ground, on which he had lain prostrate: he returns to the three disciples; and findeth them sleeping — Notwithstanding the deep distress he was in, and the solemn injunction he had given them to watch; and saith unto Peter — The zealous, the confident Peter! Simon, sleepest thou? — Dost thou sleep at such a time as this, and after thou hast just declared thy resolution to die with me? dost thou so soon forget thy promise to stand by me, as not so much as to keep awake and watch one hour? Hast thou strength to die with me, who canst not watch so little awhile with me? Watch ye and pray — Ye also, who were so ready to join with Peter in the same profession; lest ye enter into temptation — Lest ye fall by the grievous trial which is now at hand, and of which I have repeatedly warned you. Observe, reader, watching and praying are means absolutely necessary to be used, if we wish to stand in the hour of trial. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak — I know your mind and will are well inclined to obey me, but your experience may convince you, that your nature is very weak, and your resolutions, however sincere and strong, easily borne down and broken. Every one is apt to flatter himself, when he is out of danger, that he can easily withstand temptations; but without prayer and particular watchfulness the passions are wont to prevail over reason, and the flesh to counteract the motions of the Spirit. It is justly observed by Archbishop Tillotson, (Sermons, vol. 2. p. 435,) that “so gentle a rebuke, and so kind an apology as we here read, were the more remarkable, as our Lord’s mind was now discomposed with sorrow, so that he must have had the deeper and tenderer sense of the unkindness of his friends. And, alas! how apt are we, in general, to think affliction an excuse for peevishness, and how unlike are we to Christ in that thought, and how unkind to ourselves, as well as our friends, to whom, in such circumstances, with our best temper, we must be more troublesome than we could wish.”

33. Sore amazed — An expression, as it were, of horror at some strange revelation of depths of evil unexpected and hitherto unconceived to his soul. Was his amazement awakened by awful views of the terribleness of sin and the depths of the hell which are its consequences?

Verses 32-38. They came to Gethsemane — For an explanation of these verses see the notes on Matthew 26:36-39. And began to be sore amazed — Greek, ekqambeisqai, to be in a consternation. The word implies the most shocking mixture of terror and amazement: the next word, adhmonein, which we render, to be very heavy, signifies to be quite depressed, and almost overwhelmed with the load: and the word perilupov, in the next verse, which we translate exceeding sorrowful, implies, that he was surrounded with sorrow on every side, breaking in upon him with such violence, that, humanly speaking, there was no way to escape. Dr. Doddridge paraphrases the passage thus: “He began to be in very great amazement and anguish of mind, on account of some painful and dreadful sensations, which were then impressed on his soul by the immediate hand of God. Then, turning to his three disciples, he says, My soul is surrounded on all sides with an extremity of anguish and sorrow, which tortures me even almost to death; and I know that the infirmity of human nature must quickly sink under it without some extraordinary relief from God. While, therefore, I apply to him, do you continue here and watch.” Dr. Whitby supposes, that these agonies of our Lord did not arise from the immediate hand of God upon him, but from a deep apprehension of the malignity of sin, and the misery brought on the world by it. But, considering how much the mind of Christ was wounded and broken with what he now endured, so as to give some greater external signs of distress than in any other circumstance of his sufferings, there is reason to conclude, there was something extraordinary in the degree of the impression; which in all probability was from the Father’s immediate agency, laying on him the chastisement of our peace, or making his soul an offering for our sins. See Isaiah 53:5, 10. He went forward a little — Luke says, about a stone’s cast, and fell on the ground — Matthew, fell on his face, and prayed that the hour might pass from him — That dreadful season of sorrow, with which he was then almost overwhelmed, and which did pass from him soon after. And he said, Abba, Father — That is, Father, Father: or, perhaps, the word Father is added by Mark, by way of interpreting the Syriac word, Abba. All things are possible unto thee — All things proper to be done. Take away this cup from me — This cup of bitter distress. Nothing is more common than to express a portion of comfort or distress by a cup, alluding to the custom of the father of a family, or master of a feast, sending to his children or guests a cup of such liquor as he designed for them. Nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou wilt — As if he had said, If thou seest it necessary to continue it, or to add yet more grievous ingredients to it, I am here ready to receive it in submission to thy will; for though nature cannot but shrink back from these sufferings, it is my determinate purpose to bear whatsoever thine infinite wisdom shall see fit to appoint. And he cometh, &c. — Rising up from the ground, on which he had lain prostrate: he returns to the three disciples; and findeth them sleeping — Notwithstanding the deep distress he was in, and the solemn injunction he had given them to watch; and saith unto Peter — The zealous, the confident Peter! Simon, sleepest thou? — Dost thou sleep at such a time as this, and after thou hast just declared thy resolution to die with me? dost thou so soon forget thy promise to stand by me, as not so much as to keep awake and watch one hour? Hast thou strength to die with me, who canst not watch so little awhile with me? Watch ye and pray — Ye also, who were so ready to join with Peter in the same profession; lest ye enter into temptation — Lest ye fall by the grievous trial which is now at hand, and of which I have repeatedly warned you. Observe, reader, watching and praying are means absolutely necessary to be used, if we wish to stand in the hour of trial. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak — I know your mind and will are well inclined to obey me, but your experience may convince you, that your nature is very weak, and your resolutions, however sincere and strong, easily borne down and broken. Every one is apt to flatter himself, when he is out of danger, that he can easily withstand temptations; but without prayer and particular watchfulness the passions are wont to prevail over reason, and the flesh to counteract the motions of the Spirit. It is justly observed by Archbishop Tillotson, (Sermons, vol. 2. p. 435,) that “so gentle a rebuke, and so kind an apology as we here read, were the more remarkable, as our Lord’s mind was now discomposed with sorrow, so that he must have had the deeper and tenderer sense of the unkindness of his friends. And, alas! how apt are we, in general, to think affliction an excuse for peevishness, and how unlike are we to Christ in that thought, and how unkind to ourselves, as well as our friends, to whom, in such circumstances, with our best temper, we must be more troublesome than we could wish.”

Ver. 34. My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death. Our Saviour here discovered all the feelings of humanity — of humanity exposed to all the powers of darkness, and the rage of men. He wondered that there was none to uphold, no second in the great fight: so his own arm brought salvation. Here then is love, divine love, which bowed to all the pleasure of the Father, and drank the bitter cup. When he prayed for man, guilty man, not one iota could be abated of the price of his redemption. Life must be sacrificed for life. The serpent must bruise his heel by the most painful sting of death. Here the tragic grandeur of our incarnate God shines out. He sustained the conflict, till the indignation against a guilty world was over- past. He covered us with his arm; he bore the tempest, and became a hidingplace from the storm. Men, like the disciples, were asleep, and knew not what the Redeemer had done for them, in this most dark and most tempestuous night.

Verses 32-38. They came to Gethsemane — For an explanation of these verses see the notes on Matthew 26:36-39. And began to be sore amazed — Greek, ekqambeisqai, to be in a consternation. The word implies the most shocking mixture of terror and amazement: the next word, adhmonein, which we render, to be very heavy, signifies to be quite depressed, and almost overwhelmed with the load: and the word perilupov, in the next verse, which we translate exceeding sorrowful, implies, that he was surrounded with sorrow on every side, breaking in upon him with such violence, that, humanly speaking, there was no way to escape. Dr. Doddridge paraphrases the passage thus: “He began to be in very great amazement and anguish of mind, on account of some painful and dreadful sensations, which were then impressed on his soul by the immediate hand of God. Then, turning to his three disciples, he says, My soul is surrounded on all sides with an extremity of anguish and sorrow, which tortures me even almost to death; and I know that the infirmity of human nature must quickly sink under it without some extraordinary relief from God. While, therefore, I apply to him, do you continue here and watch.” Dr. Whitby supposes, that these agonies of our Lord did not arise from the immediate hand of God upon him, but from a deep apprehension of the malignity of sin, and the misery brought on the world by it. But, considering how much the mind of Christ was wounded and broken with what he now endured, so as to give some greater external signs of distress than in any other circumstance of his sufferings, there is reason to conclude, there was something extraordinary in the degree of the impression; which in all probability was from the Father’s immediate agency, laying on him the chastisement of our peace, or making his soul an offering for our sins. See Isaiah 53:5, 10. He went forward a little — Luke says, about a stone’s cast, and fell on the ground — Matthew, fell on his face, and prayed that the hour might pass from him — That dreadful season of sorrow, with which he was then almost overwhelmed, and which did pass from him soon after. And he said, Abba, Father — That is, Father, Father: or, perhaps, the word Father is added by Mark, by way of interpreting the Syriac word, Abba. All things are possible unto thee — All things proper to be done. Take away this cup from me — This cup of bitter distress. Nothing is more common than to express a portion of comfort or distress by a cup, alluding to the custom of the father of a family, or master of a feast, sending to his children or guests a cup of such liquor as he designed for them. Nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou wilt — As if he had said, If thou seest it necessary to continue it, or to add yet more grievous ingredients to it, I am here ready to receive it in submission to thy will; for though nature cannot but shrink back from these sufferings, it is my determinate purpose to bear whatsoever thine infinite wisdom shall see fit to appoint. And he cometh, &c. — Rising up from the ground, on which he had lain prostrate: he returns to the three disciples; and findeth them sleeping — Notwithstanding the deep distress he was in, and the solemn injunction he had given them to watch; and saith unto Peter — The zealous, the confident Peter! Simon, sleepest thou? — Dost thou sleep at such a time as this, and after thou hast just declared thy resolution to die with me? dost thou so soon forget thy promise to stand by me, as not so much as to keep awake and watch one hour? Hast thou strength to die with me, who canst not watch so little awhile with me? Watch ye and pray — Ye also, who were so ready to join with Peter in the same profession; lest ye enter into temptation — Lest ye fall by the grievous trial which is now at hand, and of which I have repeatedly warned you. Observe, reader, watching and praying are means absolutely necessary to be used, if we wish to stand in the hour of trial. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak — I know your mind and will are well inclined to obey me, but your experience may convince you, that your nature is very weak, and your resolutions, however sincere and strong, easily borne down and broken. Every one is apt to flatter himself, when he is out of danger, that he can easily withstand temptations; but without prayer and particular watchfulness the passions are wont to prevail over reason, and the flesh to counteract the motions of the Spirit. It is justly observed by Archbishop Tillotson, (Sermons, vol. 2. p. 435,) that “so gentle a rebuke, and so kind an apology as we here read, were the more remarkable, as our Lord’s mind was now discomposed with sorrow, so that he must have had the deeper and tenderer sense of the unkindness of his friends. And, alas! how apt are we, in general, to think affliction an excuse for peevishness, and how unlike are we to Christ in that thought, and how unkind to ourselves, as well as our friends, to whom, in such circumstances, with our best temper, we must be more troublesome than we could wish.”

V. 36. Abba, Father-St. Mark seems to add the word Father, by way of explication.

Verse 36. Abba, Father] This Syriac word, which intimates filial affection and respect, and parental tenderness, seems to have been used by our blessed Lord merely considered as man, to show his complete submission to his Father’s will, and the tender affection which he was conscious his Father had for him, [Syriac] Abba, Syriac, is here joined to o pathr, Greek, both signifying father; so St. Paul, Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6. The reason is, that from the time in which the Jews became conversant with the Greek language, by means of the Septuagint version and their commerce with the Roman and Greek provinces, they often intermingled Greek and Roman words with their own language. There is the fullest evidence of this fact in the earliest writings of the Jews; and they often add a word of the same meaning in Greek to their own term; such as yryq yrm, Mori, kurie my Lord, Lord; שער ylyp, pili, pulh, shuar, gate, gate: and above, aba, pathr, father, father: see several examples in Schoettgen. The words yba and aba appear to have been differently used among the Hebrews; the first Abbi, was a term of civil respect; the second, Abba, a term of filial affection. Hence, Abba, Abbi, as in the Syriac version in this place, may be considered as expressing, My Lord, my Father. And in this sense St. Paul is to be understood in the places referred to above. See Lightfoot.

Verses 32-38. They came to Gethsemane — For an explanation of these verses see the notes on Matthew 26:36-39. And began to be sore amazed — Greek, ekqambeisqai, to be in a consternation. The word implies the most shocking mixture of terror and amazement: the next word, adhmonein, which we render, to be very heavy, signifies to be quite depressed, and almost overwhelmed with the load: and the word perilupov, in the next verse, which we translate exceeding sorrowful, implies, that he was surrounded with sorrow on every side, breaking in upon him with such violence, that, humanly speaking, there was no way to escape. Dr. Doddridge paraphrases the passage thus: “He began to be in very great amazement and anguish of mind, on account of some painful and dreadful sensations, which were then impressed on his soul by the immediate hand of God. Then, turning to his three disciples, he says, My soul is surrounded on all sides with an extremity of anguish and sorrow, which tortures me even almost to death; and I know that the infirmity of human nature must quickly sink under it without some extraordinary relief from God. While, therefore, I apply to him, do you continue here and watch.” Dr. Whitby supposes, that these agonies of our Lord did not arise from the immediate hand of God upon him, but from a deep apprehension of the malignity of sin, and the misery brought on the world by it. But, considering how much the mind of Christ was wounded and broken with what he now endured, so as to give some greater external signs of distress than in any other circumstance of his sufferings, there is reason to conclude, there was something extraordinary in the degree of the impression; which in all probability was from the Father’s immediate agency, laying on him the chastisement of our peace, or making his soul an offering for our sins. See Isaiah 53:5, 10. He went forward a little — Luke says, about a stone’s cast, and fell on the ground — Matthew, fell on his face, and prayed that the hour might pass from him — That dreadful season of sorrow, with which he was then almost overwhelmed, and which did pass from him soon after. And he said, Abba, Father — That is, Father, Father: or, perhaps, the word Father is added by Mark, by way of interpreting the Syriac word, Abba. All things are possible unto thee — All things proper to be done. Take away this cup from me — This cup of bitter distress. Nothing is more common than to express a portion of comfort or distress by a cup, alluding to the custom of the father of a family, or master of a feast, sending to his children or guests a cup of such liquor as he designed for them. Nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou wilt — As if he had said, If thou seest it necessary to continue it, or to add yet more grievous ingredients to it, I am here ready to receive it in submission to thy will; for though nature cannot but shrink back from these sufferings, it is my determinate purpose to bear whatsoever thine infinite wisdom shall see fit to appoint. And he cometh, &c. — Rising up from the ground, on which he had lain prostrate: he returns to the three disciples; and findeth them sleeping — Notwithstanding the deep distress he was in, and the solemn injunction he had given them to watch; and saith unto Peter — The zealous, the confident Peter! Simon, sleepest thou? — Dost thou sleep at such a time as this, and after thou hast just declared thy resolution to die with me? dost thou so soon forget thy promise to stand by me, as not so much as to keep awake and watch one hour? Hast thou strength to die with me, who canst not watch so little awhile with me? Watch ye and pray — Ye also, who were so ready to join with Peter in the same profession; lest ye enter into temptation — Lest ye fall by the grievous trial which is now at hand, and of which I have repeatedly warned you. Observe, reader, watching and praying are means absolutely necessary to be used, if we wish to stand in the hour of trial. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak — I know your mind and will are well inclined to obey me, but your experience may convince you, that your nature is very weak, and your resolutions, however sincere and strong, easily borne down and broken. Every one is apt to flatter himself, when he is out of danger, that he can easily withstand temptations; but without prayer and particular watchfulness the passions are wont to prevail over reason, and the flesh to counteract the motions of the Spirit. It is justly observed by Archbishop Tillotson, (Sermons, vol. 2. p. 435,) that “so gentle a rebuke, and so kind an apology as we here read, were the more remarkable, as our Lord’s mind was now discomposed with sorrow, so that he must have had the deeper and tenderer sense of the unkindness of his friends. And, alas! how apt are we, in general, to think affliction an excuse for peevishness, and how unlike are we to Christ in that thought, and how unkind to ourselves, as well as our friends, to whom, in such circumstances, with our best temper, we must be more troublesome than we could wish.”

36. Abba, Father — The word Abba signifies father in the Syriac, which was the dialect that our Saviour spoke. In that section of country where both Hebrew and Greek were spoken by the people, it was sometimes customary to give both the Hebrew and the Greek words, one to explain the other. Similar was the custom of bestowing upon the same individual both a Hebrew and Greek name.

§ 132. — APPREHENSION OF JESUS, 43-52.

(See notes on Matthew 26:47-57.)

Verse 36. Abba, Father. — In Matthew it is simply Father. The word used by our Lord would be Abba, and St. Mark retains this and adds o pathr, as the explanation; hence, the, latter is in the nominative, not in the vocative.

V. 37. Saith to Peter-The zealous, the confident Peter.

Verse 37. Saith unto Peter] See Clarke on “Matthew 26:40”.

Verses 32-38. They came to Gethsemane — For an explanation of these verses see the notes on Matthew 26:36-39. And began to be sore amazed — Greek, ekqambeisqai, to be in a consternation. The word implies the most shocking mixture of terror and amazement: the next word, adhmonein, which we render, to be very heavy, signifies to be quite depressed, and almost overwhelmed with the load: and the word perilupov, in the next verse, which we translate exceeding sorrowful, implies, that he was surrounded with sorrow on every side, breaking in upon him with such violence, that, humanly speaking, there was no way to escape. Dr. Doddridge paraphrases the passage thus: “He began to be in very great amazement and anguish of mind, on account of some painful and dreadful sensations, which were then impressed on his soul by the immediate hand of God. Then, turning to his three disciples, he says, My soul is surrounded on all sides with an extremity of anguish and sorrow, which tortures me even almost to death; and I know that the infirmity of human nature must quickly sink under it without some extraordinary relief from God. While, therefore, I apply to him, do you continue here and watch.” Dr. Whitby supposes, that these agonies of our Lord did not arise from the immediate hand of God upon him, but from a deep apprehension of the malignity of sin, and the misery brought on the world by it. But, considering how much the mind of Christ was wounded and broken with what he now endured, so as to give some greater external signs of distress than in any other circumstance of his sufferings, there is reason to conclude, there was something extraordinary in the degree of the impression; which in all probability was from the Father’s immediate agency, laying on him the chastisement of our peace, or making his soul an offering for our sins. See Isaiah 53:5, 10. He went forward a little — Luke says, about a stone’s cast, and fell on the ground — Matthew, fell on his face, and prayed that the hour might pass from him — That dreadful season of sorrow, with which he was then almost overwhelmed, and which did pass from him soon after. And he said, Abba, Father — That is, Father, Father: or, perhaps, the word Father is added by Mark, by way of interpreting the Syriac word, Abba. All things are possible unto thee — All things proper to be done. Take away this cup from me — This cup of bitter distress. Nothing is more common than to express a portion of comfort or distress by a cup, alluding to the custom of the father of a family, or master of a feast, sending to his children or guests a cup of such liquor as he designed for them. Nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou wilt — As if he had said, If thou seest it necessary to continue it, or to add yet more grievous ingredients to it, I am here ready to receive it in submission to thy will; for though nature cannot but shrink back from these sufferings, it is my determinate purpose to bear whatsoever thine infinite wisdom shall see fit to appoint. And he cometh, &c. — Rising up from the ground, on which he had lain prostrate: he returns to the three disciples; and findeth them sleeping — Notwithstanding the deep distress he was in, and the solemn injunction he had given them to watch; and saith unto Peter — The zealous, the confident Peter! Simon, sleepest thou? — Dost thou sleep at such a time as this, and after thou hast just declared thy resolution to die with me? dost thou so soon forget thy promise to stand by me, as not so much as to keep awake and watch one hour? Hast thou strength to die with me, who canst not watch so little awhile with me? Watch ye and pray — Ye also, who were so ready to join with Peter in the same profession; lest ye enter into temptation — Lest ye fall by the grievous trial which is now at hand, and of which I have repeatedly warned you. Observe, reader, watching and praying are means absolutely necessary to be used, if we wish to stand in the hour of trial. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak — I know your mind and will are well inclined to obey me, but your experience may convince you, that your nature is very weak, and your resolutions, however sincere and strong, easily borne down and broken. Every one is apt to flatter himself, when he is out of danger, that he can easily withstand temptations; but without prayer and particular watchfulness the passions are wont to prevail over reason, and the flesh to counteract the motions of the Spirit. It is justly observed by Archbishop Tillotson, (Sermons, vol. 2. p. 435,) that “so gentle a rebuke, and so kind an apology as we here read, were the more remarkable, as our Lord’s mind was now discomposed with sorrow, so that he must have had the deeper and tenderer sense of the unkindness of his friends. And, alas! how apt are we, in general, to think affliction an excuse for peevishness, and how unlike are we to Christ in that thought, and how unkind to ourselves, as well as our friends, to whom, in such circumstances, with our best temper, we must be more troublesome than we could wish.”

Verses 32-38. They came to Gethsemane — For an explanation of these verses see the notes on Matthew 26:36-39. And began to be sore amazed — Greek, ekqambeisqai, to be in a consternation. The word implies the most shocking mixture of terror and amazement: the next word, adhmonein, which we render, to be very heavy, signifies to be quite depressed, and almost overwhelmed with the load: and the word perilupov, in the next verse, which we translate exceeding sorrowful, implies, that he was surrounded with sorrow on every side, breaking in upon him with such violence, that, humanly speaking, there was no way to escape. Dr. Doddridge paraphrases the passage thus: “He began to be in very great amazement and anguish of mind, on account of some painful and dreadful sensations, which were then impressed on his soul by the immediate hand of God. Then, turning to his three disciples, he says, My soul is surrounded on all sides with an extremity of anguish and sorrow, which tortures me even almost to death; and I know that the infirmity of human nature must quickly sink under it without some extraordinary relief from God. While, therefore, I apply to him, do you continue here and watch.” Dr. Whitby supposes, that these agonies of our Lord did not arise from the immediate hand of God upon him, but from a deep apprehension of the malignity of sin, and the misery brought on the world by it. But, considering how much the mind of Christ was wounded and broken with what he now endured, so as to give some greater external signs of distress than in any other circumstance of his sufferings, there is reason to conclude, there was something extraordinary in the degree of the impression; which in all probability was from the Father’s immediate agency, laying on him the chastisement of our peace, or making his soul an offering for our sins. See Isaiah 53:5, 10. He went forward a little — Luke says, about a stone’s cast, and fell on the ground — Matthew, fell on his face, and prayed that the hour might pass from him — That dreadful season of sorrow, with which he was then almost overwhelmed, and which did pass from him soon after. And he said, Abba, Father — That is, Father, Father: or, perhaps, the word Father is added by Mark, by way of interpreting the Syriac word, Abba. All things are possible unto thee — All things proper to be done. Take away this cup from me — This cup of bitter distress. Nothing is more common than to express a portion of comfort or distress by a cup, alluding to the custom of the father of a family, or master of a feast, sending to his children or guests a cup of such liquor as he designed for them. Nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou wilt — As if he had said, If thou seest it necessary to continue it, or to add yet more grievous ingredients to it, I am here ready to receive it in submission to thy will; for though nature cannot but shrink back from these sufferings, it is my determinate purpose to bear whatsoever thine infinite wisdom shall see fit to appoint. And he cometh, &c. — Rising up from the ground, on which he had lain prostrate: he returns to the three disciples; and findeth them sleeping — Notwithstanding the deep distress he was in, and the solemn injunction he had given them to watch; and saith unto Peter — The zealous, the confident Peter! Simon, sleepest thou? — Dost thou sleep at such a time as this, and after thou hast just declared thy resolution to die with me? dost thou so soon forget thy promise to stand by me, as not so much as to keep awake and watch one hour? Hast thou strength to die with me, who canst not watch so little awhile with me? Watch ye and pray — Ye also, who were so ready to join with Peter in the same profession; lest ye enter into temptation — Lest ye fall by the grievous trial which is now at hand, and of which I have repeatedly warned you. Observe, reader, watching and praying are means absolutely necessary to be used, if we wish to stand in the hour of trial. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak — I know your mind and will are well inclined to obey me, but your experience may convince you, that your nature is very weak, and your resolutions, however sincere and strong, easily borne down and broken. Every one is apt to flatter himself, when he is out of danger, that he can easily withstand temptations; but without prayer and particular watchfulness the passions are wont to prevail over reason, and the flesh to counteract the motions of the Spirit. It is justly observed by Archbishop Tillotson, (Sermons, vol. 2. p. 435,) that “so gentle a rebuke, and so kind an apology as we here read, were the more remarkable, as our Lord’s mind was now discomposed with sorrow, so that he must have had the deeper and tenderer sense of the unkindness of his friends. And, alas! how apt are we, in general, to think affliction an excuse for peevishness, and how unlike are we to Christ in that thought, and how unkind to ourselves, as well as our friends, to whom, in such circumstances, with our best temper, we must be more troublesome than we could wish.”

Verses 39-42. And he went away and spake the same words — It is plain, by comparing verses 35-36, with Matthew 26:42, that the words were not entirely the same; and it is certain that logov, here rendered word, often signifies matter. So that no more appears to be intended than that he prayed to the same purpose as before. Sleep on now, &c. — Dr. Waterland and some others read this interrogatively, Do ye sleep on still and take your rest? The passage, however, may be read with propriety agreeably to our own version; (see the note on Matthew 26:42-45;) as much as to say, My previous conflict is now over, and you may sleep on, because I have no further occasion for your watching. It is enough, or rather, as Campbell renders apecei, All is over, or, it is done. the time is expired. The intention of the phrase was manifestly to signify, that the time wherein they might have been of use to him, was now lost; and that he was, in a manner, already in the hands of his enemies. Rise up, let us go — See notes on Matthew 26:46-49.

Verses 39-42. And he went away and spake the same words — It is plain, by comparing verses 35-36, with Matthew 26:42, that the words were not entirely the same; and it is certain that logov, here rendered word, often signifies matter. So that no more appears to be intended than that he prayed to the same purpose as before. Sleep on now, &c. — Dr. Waterland and some others read this interrogatively, Do ye sleep on still and take your rest? The passage, however, may be read with propriety agreeably to our own version; (see the note on Matthew 26:42-45;) as much as to say, My previous conflict is now over, and you may sleep on, because I have no further occasion for your watching. It is enough, or rather, as Campbell renders apecei, All is over, or, it is done. the time is expired. The intention of the phrase was manifestly to signify, that the time wherein they might have been of use to him, was now lost; and that he was, in a manner, already in the hands of his enemies. Rise up, let us go — See notes on Matthew 26:46-49.

Verses 39-42. And he went away and spake the same words — It is plain, by comparing verses 35-36, with Matthew 26:42, that the words were not entirely the same; and it is certain that logov, here rendered word, often signifies matter. So that no more appears to be intended than that he prayed to the same purpose as before. Sleep on now, &c. — Dr. Waterland and some others read this interrogatively, Do ye sleep on still and take your rest? The passage, however, may be read with propriety agreeably to our own version; (see the note on Matthew 26:42-45;) as much as to say, My previous conflict is now over, and you may sleep on, because I have no further occasion for your watching. It is enough, or rather, as Campbell renders apecei, All is over, or, it is done. the time is expired. The intention of the phrase was manifestly to signify, that the time wherein they might have been of use to him, was now lost; and that he was, in a manner, already in the hands of his enemies. Rise up, let us go — See notes on Matthew 26:46-49.

Verses 39-42. And he went away and spake the same words — It is plain, by comparing verses 35-36, with Matthew 26:42, that the words were not entirely the same; and it is certain that logov, here rendered word, often signifies matter. So that no more appears to be intended than that he prayed to the same purpose as before. Sleep on now, &c. — Dr. Waterland and some others read this interrogatively, Do ye sleep on still and take your rest? The passage, however, may be read with propriety agreeably to our own version; (see the note on Matthew 26:42-45;) as much as to say, My previous conflict is now over, and you may sleep on, because I have no further occasion for your watching. It is enough, or rather, as Campbell renders apecei, All is over, or, it is done. the time is expired. The intention of the phrase was manifestly to signify, that the time wherein they might have been of use to him, was now lost; and that he was, in a manner, already in the hands of his enemies. Rise up, let us go — See notes on Matthew 26:46-49.

V. 43. Matthew 26:47; Luke 22:47; John 18:2.

Verses 43-45. Immediately, while he yet spake — And gave his disciples the alarm just mentioned; Judas came, and with him a great multitude — Persons of different stations and offices in life, sent with authority from the chief priests, with swords and staves — Or clubs, as it seems xulwn ought here to be rendered. “A staff, in Greek, rabdov, is intended principally to assist us in walking; a club, xulon, is a weapon both offensive and defensive. To show that these words are, in the gospels, never used promiscuously, let it be observed, that, in our Lord’s commands to his apostles, in relation to the discharge of their office, when what concerned their own accommodation in travelling is spoken of, the word pabdov is used by all the three evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, who take particular notice of that transaction. But, in the account given by the same evangelists of the armed multitude sent by the high-priests and elders to apprehend our Lord, they never employ the term pabdov, but always, xulon.” — Campbell.

Verse 43. Cometh Judas, one of the twelve. — See the note on Matthew 26:47, &c.

V. 44. Whomsoever I shall kiss-Probably our Lord, in great condescension, had used (according to the Jewish custom) to permit his disciples to do this, after they had been some time absent.

Verses 43-45. Immediately, while he yet spake — And gave his disciples the alarm just mentioned; Judas came, and with him a great multitude — Persons of different stations and offices in life, sent with authority from the chief priests, with swords and staves — Or clubs, as it seems xulwn ought here to be rendered. “A staff, in Greek, rabdov, is intended principally to assist us in walking; a club, xulon, is a weapon both offensive and defensive. To show that these words are, in the gospels, never used promiscuously, let it be observed, that, in our Lord’s commands to his apostles, in relation to the discharge of their office, when what concerned their own accommodation in travelling is spoken of, the word pabdov is used by all the three evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, who take particular notice of that transaction. But, in the account given by the same evangelists of the armed multitude sent by the high-priests and elders to apprehend our Lord, they never employ the term pabdov, but always, xulon.” — Campbell.

Verses 43-45. Immediately, while he yet spake — And gave his disciples the alarm just mentioned; Judas came, and with him a great multitude — Persons of different stations and offices in life, sent with authority from the chief priests, with swords and staves — Or clubs, as it seems xulwn ought here to be rendered. “A staff, in Greek, rabdov, is intended principally to assist us in walking; a club, xulon, is a weapon both offensive and defensive. To show that these words are, in the gospels, never used promiscuously, let it be observed, that, in our Lord’s commands to his apostles, in relation to the discharge of their office, when what concerned their own accommodation in travelling is spoken of, the word pabdov is used by all the three evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, who take particular notice of that transaction. But, in the account given by the same evangelists of the armed multitude sent by the high-priests and elders to apprehend our Lord, they never employ the term pabdov, but always, xulon.” — Campbell.

Verses 46-49. They laid their hands on him, and took him — After they had first gone backward, and fallen to the ground, upon Jesus’s saying, I am he, as is recorded John 18:5, 6. This paragraph is explained in the notes on Matthew 26:51-56.

V. 47. Matthew 26:51; Luke 22:49; John 18:10.

Verses 46-49. They laid their hands on him, and took him — After they had first gone backward, and fallen to the ground, upon Jesus’s saying, I am he, as is recorded John 18:5, 6. This paragraph is explained in the notes on Matthew 26:51-56.

Verses 46-49. They laid their hands on him, and took him — After they had first gone backward, and fallen to the ground, upon Jesus’s saying, I am he, as is recorded John 18:5, 6. This paragraph is explained in the notes on Matthew 26:51-56.

Verses 46-49. They laid their hands on him, and took him — After they had first gone backward, and fallen to the ground, upon Jesus’s saying, I am he, as is recorded John 18:5, 6. This paragraph is explained in the notes on Matthew 26:51-56.

V. 51. A young man-It does not appear, that he was one of Christ's disciples. Probably hearing an unusual noise, he started up out of his bed, not far from the garden, and ran out with only the sheet about him, to see what was the matter.

And the young men laid hold on him-Who was only suspected to be Christ's disciple: but could not touch them who really were so.

Verse 51. A certain young man] Probably raised from his sleep by the noise which the rabble made who came to apprehend Jesus, having wrapped the sheet or some of the bed-clothing about him, became thereby the more conspicuous: on his appearing, he was seized; but as they had no way of holding him, but only by the cloth which was wrapped round him, he disengaged himself from that, and so escaped out of their hands. This circumstance is not related by any other of the evangelists.

Verses 51, 52. There followed him a certain young man — The ancients, or at least many of them, supposed, that the young man here mentioned by Mark was one of the apostles; though Grotius wonders how they could entertain such an idea, and apprehends it was some youth who lodged in a country-house, near the garden, who ran out in a hurry to see what was the matter, in his night vestment, or in his shirt, as we should express it. Dr. Macknight thinks it might be “the proprietor of the garden, who, being awakened with the noise, came out in the linen cloth in which he had been lying, cast around his naked body, and, having a respect for Jesus, followed him, forgetting the dress he was in.” And the young men — Oi aneanisko, a common denomination for soldiers, among the Greeks. “Though this incident, recorded by Mark, may not appear of great moment, it is, in my opinion,” says Dr. Campbell, “one of those circumstances we call picturesque, which, though in a manner unconnected with the story, enlivens the narrative. It must have been late in the night when (as has been very probably conjectured) some young man, whose house lay near the garden, being roused out of sleep by the noise of the soldiers and armed retinue passing by, got up, stimulated by curiosity, wrapped himself (as Casaubon supposes) in the cloth in which he had been sleeping, and ran after them. This is such an incident as is very likely to have happened, but most unlikely to have been invented.” Laid hold on him — Who was only suspected to be Christ’s disciple; but were not permitted to touch them who really were so!

Ver. 51. There followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body. Not one of the apostles, but some youth who seems to have left his bed to see what there was to do. This circumstance is collateral evidence of the truth of the gospel history. Fenelon, speaking of the golden age, says, their clothes are easily made, for in this happy climate they wear only a piece of light cloth, which every one throws over his shoulder, and wraps round his body for the sake of modesty, giving it what form they please. — Telem, livre 8.

51. Followed him a certain young man — The incident of this young man occurs very briefly, and is narrated apparently for no purpose whatever. The only solution, certainly the best, is the supposition that it was no other than Mark himself. Mark was at this time a young man, living probably in Jerusalem with his mother; was more or less a follower of Jesus, and very likely to be present, from his interest in our Lord, during these awful transactions. That he should not name himself is very naturally explained, on the same principle of personal delicacy as induced the evangelist John to allude to himself in the third person. As John naturally styles himself the disciple whom Jesus loved, so Mark could as naturally style himself a certain young man. Very likely the Christians of that day knew who the certain young man was. There followed him — From this clause it is plain, that the supposition of some commentators, that this was an indifferent young man, accidentally awakened by the tumult, is untenable. He is a follower; and he does not follow them, that is, the crowd, but him. Jesus is the object of his interest. It must, therefore, have been some friend of Jesus, pressing after him to ascertain what was to be his fate. A linen cloth — A wrapper thrown over his undressed body. Doubtless this was the aba, an outer cloth thrown over the dress, and used even in sleep to enwrap the body. See on Matthew 5:40. The young men — The young men who formed a part of the company who apprehended Jesus. This use of the word to signify soldiers is common, both in Greek and Latin.

Verse 51. There followed him a certain young man, &c. — Who this young man might be has given rise to many conjectures. Some have thought St. John, others St. James; some an accidental spectator, roused out of sleep by the tumult; others a Roman soldier not on duty. Against his being an apostle or one of the disciples it is urged that in the preceding verse it is said, And they all forsook him and fled. Still if he stood in no relation to Christ and his disciples, no reason seems to appear why the incident should be mentioned, or why there was an attempt made to arrest him. The probability is, that he was one of the apostles, one who, upon recovering from his first alarm, took heart and followed Christ. Both Peter and John did this, but no others; and as John was younger than Peter, he was most probably the person. The sindon, or linen cloth, was either a night robe, or the regular outer garment; probably the former, as it is particularly noticed. Laying hold of him slows the eagerness of the officers to apprehend the disciple as well as the Master; and his hasty flight leaving his linen robe in their hands, the fear created by their furious temper. The reason for noticing the incident is therefore apparent.

Verse 52. And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.] It has often been intimated, by the inhabitants of India, that a European in strait clothes must be in great danger when his clothes take fire. From their loose clothing they can suddenly disengage themselves. When two Hindoos are engaged in a violent quarrel, and one seizes the clothing of the other, often the latter will leave his clothes in the hands of his opponent, and flee away naked. This seems to have been the case with the person mentioned above. See WARD’S Customs.

Verses 51, 52. There followed him a certain young man — The ancients, or at least many of them, supposed, that the young man here mentioned by Mark was one of the apostles; though Grotius wonders how they could entertain such an idea, and apprehends it was some youth who lodged in a country-house, near the garden, who ran out in a hurry to see what was the matter, in his night vestment, or in his shirt, as we should express it. Dr. Macknight thinks it might be “the proprietor of the garden, who, being awakened with the noise, came out in the linen cloth in which he had been lying, cast around his naked body, and, having a respect for Jesus, followed him, forgetting the dress he was in.” And the young men — Oi aneanisko, a common denomination for soldiers, among the Greeks. “Though this incident, recorded by Mark, may not appear of great moment, it is, in my opinion,” says Dr. Campbell, “one of those circumstances we call picturesque, which, though in a manner unconnected with the story, enlivens the narrative. It must have been late in the night when (as has been very probably conjectured) some young man, whose house lay near the garden, being roused out of sleep by the noise of the soldiers and armed retinue passing by, got up, stimulated by curiosity, wrapped himself (as Casaubon supposes) in the cloth in which he had been sleeping, and ran after them. This is such an incident as is very likely to have happened, but most unlikely to have been invented.” Laid hold on him — Who was only suspected to be Christ’s disciple; but were not permitted to touch them who really were so!

52. Left the linen cloth — As they grasp the cloth to apprehend him, he let go the cloth and escaped. Naked — It may be that the aba was his only article of dress. Dr. Thomson (vol. i, p. 500) speaks of the very poor who sleep in their aba, or outer garment, and have no other “raiment for their skin.” But the word rendered here naked often signifies undressed, that is, clad in the under-garments alone. At any rate, it is clear, not only from his following Jesus, but also from their attempt to apprehend him, that he was not only a friend, but a known friend of the Saviour. It is, therefore, almost a demonstration that Mark here narrates how nearly he himself came to being apprehended with Jesus.

§ 133. — JESUS BEFORE ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS, 53-72.

(See notes on Matthew 26:57-75.)

Verse 52. And fled from them naked. — To be naked does not always, in Scripture, signify to be without all clothing; but only without the upper robe.

V. 53. Matthew 26:57; Luke 22:54; John 18:12.

Verses 53, 54. And they led Jesus away to the high-priest — To Annas first, who had been high-priest, and afterward to his son-in-law, Caiaphas, who then sustained the office. And with him were assembled all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes — Or the chief persons of the sanhedrim, with their proper officers, convened by Caiaphas on this important occasion. And Peter followed him afar off — Though he had at first forsaken Christ, and shifted for himself, as the rest of his companions did, yet afterward he and John bethought themselves, and determined to return, that they might see what would become of him: even unto the palace of the high-priest — See on Matthew 26:57. It appears, from the circumstance of Peter and John’s being ready to go into Caiaphas’s house with the band which conducted Jesus, that they had quickly recovered themselves after their flight.

Ver. 53. They led Jesus away to the highpriest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests, and the elders, and the scribes. This was probably counted the council of twenty three, equivalent to decide in cases of life and death. These wolves must have assembled in the night to suck the blood of the Lamb of God. Three months before, on the resurrection of Lazarus from the dead, they had entered into a fixed purpose to put the Saviour to death, as stated in John 11:53. From that time, having become reprobate to the uttermost, they had a limited commission granted them to do their pleasure against the Lord, and against his anointed. This was their hour.

Verse 53. And they led Jesus away to the high priest. — See the notes on Matthew 26:57-75.

Verse 54. Peter followed] On Peter’s denial, see Matthew 26:57, &c. At the fire.] prov to fwv, literally, at the light, i.e. a fire that cast considerable light, in consequence of which, the maid servant was the better able to distinguish him: see Mark 14:67.

Verses 53, 54. And they led Jesus away to the high-priest — To Annas first, who had been high-priest, and afterward to his son-in-law, Caiaphas, who then sustained the office. And with him were assembled all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes — Or the chief persons of the sanhedrim, with their proper officers, convened by Caiaphas on this important occasion. And Peter followed him afar off — Though he had at first forsaken Christ, and shifted for himself, as the rest of his companions did, yet afterward he and John bethought themselves, and determined to return, that they might see what would become of him: even unto the palace of the high-priest — See on Matthew 26:57. It appears, from the circumstance of Peter and John’s being ready to go into Caiaphas’s house with the band which conducted Jesus, that they had quickly recovered themselves after their flight.

Ver. 54. Peter followed him afar off. Peter’s fall and restoration are stated in John 21.

V. 55. All the council sought for witness and found none-What an amazing proof of the overruling providence of God, considering both their authority, and the rewards they could offer, that no two consistent witnesses could be procured, to charge him with any gross crime. Matthew 26:59.

Verses 55-59. And all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death — Which they were determined to do. They had seized him as a malefactor; and now they had him, they had no indictment to prefer against him, no crime to lay to his charge: but they sought for witnesses against him. They artfully sifted some by sly interrogatories, offered bribes to others to prevail on them to accuse him, and endeavoured by threats to compel other, to do it. The chief priests and elders were, by the law, intrusted with the prosecuting and punishing of false witnesses, Deuteronomy 19:16, yet they were now ringleaders in a crime that tended to the overthrow of all justice. Deplorable is the condition of a country, when those that should be the conservators of peace and equity are the corrupters of both! And found none — What an amazing proof of the overruling providence of God, considering both their authority, and the rewards they could offer, that no two consistent witnesses could be procured to charge him with any gross crime! Their witness, their evidences, agreed not together — So also the Vulgate, Convenientia testimonia non erant. But the Greek words, isai ouk hsan, which, literally rendered, are, were not equal, are understood by many to signify, Not equal to the charge of a capital crime. So Dr. Hammond; they did not accuse him of that upon which a sentence of death might be founded; no, not by the utmost stretch of their law. Dr. Campbell, who considers the phrase in the same light, renders it, Their testimonies were insufficient; observing, “On a doubtful point, where the words appear susceptible of either interpretation, we ought to be determined by the circumstances of the case. Now there is nothing in the whole narrative that insinuates the smallest discrepancy among the witnesses. On the contrary, in the gospels the testimony specified is mentioned as given by all the witnesses. The differences in Matthew and Mark, one saying, I will rebuild, another, I can rebuild; one adding, made with hands, another omitting it; not only are of no moment in themselves, but are manifestly differences in the reports of the evangelists, not in the testimony of the witnesses; nor are they greater than those which occur in most other facts related from memory. What therefore perplexed the pontiffs and the scribes was, that, admitting all that was attested, it did not amount to what could be accounted a capital crime. This made the high-priest think of extorting from our Lord’s mouth a confession which might supply the defect of evidence. This expedient succeeded to their wish; Jesus, though not outwitted by their subtlety, was no way disposed to decline suffering, and therefore readily supplied them with the pretext they wanted.” The same expression is used in the 59th verse. See the note on Matthew 26:59-61. There arose certain, and bare false witness — There is no wickedness so black, no villany so horrid, but there may be found among mankind fit tools to be used in it: so miserably depraved and vitiated is human nature! Saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple, &c. — It is observable, that the words which they thus misrepresented were spoken by Christ at least three years before, (John 2:19.) Their going back so far to find matter for the charge was a glorious, though silent attestation, of the unexceptionable manner wherein he had behaved, through the whole course of his public ministry.

Ver. 55. The chief priests and all the council sought for witness [false witnesses, as in Matthew] against Jesus, to put him to death. Enemies and opposers of the ancient prophets were never wanting, and the same spirit is ever propagated in the human heart. On the death of Christ, as in ver. 53, they were predetermined; now they sought for witness of blasphemy, that under the colour of a fair trial, and the garb of zeal for the law of the Lord, they might disguise the murder as a meritorious deed. These are the depths of Satan.

V. 56. Their evidences were not sufficient-The Greek words literally rendered are, Were not equal: not equal to the charge of a capital crime: it is the same word in the 59th verse. Mark 14:59

Verses 55-59. And all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death — Which they were determined to do. They had seized him as a malefactor; and now they had him, they had no indictment to prefer against him, no crime to lay to his charge: but they sought for witnesses against him. They artfully sifted some by sly interrogatories, offered bribes to others to prevail on them to accuse him, and endeavoured by threats to compel other, to do it. The chief priests and elders were, by the law, intrusted with the prosecuting and punishing of false witnesses, Deuteronomy 19:16, yet they were now ringleaders in a crime that tended to the overthrow of all justice. Deplorable is the condition of a country, when those that should be the conservators of peace and equity are the corrupters of both! And found none — What an amazing proof of the overruling providence of God, considering both their authority, and the rewards they could offer, that no two consistent witnesses could be procured to charge him with any gross crime! Their witness, their evidences, agreed not together — So also the Vulgate, Convenientia testimonia non erant. But the Greek words, isai ouk hsan, which, literally rendered, are, were not equal, are understood by many to signify, Not equal to the charge of a capital crime. So Dr. Hammond; they did not accuse him of that upon which a sentence of death might be founded; no, not by the utmost stretch of their law. Dr. Campbell, who considers the phrase in the same light, renders it, Their testimonies were insufficient; observing, “On a doubtful point, where the words appear susceptible of either interpretation, we ought to be determined by the circumstances of the case. Now there is nothing in the whole narrative that insinuates the smallest discrepancy among the witnesses. On the contrary, in the gospels the testimony specified is mentioned as given by all the witnesses. The differences in Matthew and Mark, one saying, I will rebuild, another, I can rebuild; one adding, made with hands, another omitting it; not only are of no moment in themselves, but are manifestly differences in the reports of the evangelists, not in the testimony of the witnesses; nor are they greater than those which occur in most other facts related from memory. What therefore perplexed the pontiffs and the scribes was, that, admitting all that was attested, it did not amount to what could be accounted a capital crime. This made the high-priest think of extorting from our Lord’s mouth a confession which might supply the defect of evidence. This expedient succeeded to their wish; Jesus, though not outwitted by their subtlety, was no way disposed to decline suffering, and therefore readily supplied them with the pretext they wanted.” The same expression is used in the 59th verse. See the note on Matthew 26:59-61. There arose certain, and bare false witness — There is no wickedness so black, no villany so horrid, but there may be found among mankind fit tools to be used in it: so miserably depraved and vitiated is human nature! Saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple, &c. — It is observable, that the words which they thus misrepresented were spoken by Christ at least three years before, (John 2:19.) Their going back so far to find matter for the charge was a glorious, though silent attestation, of the unexceptionable manner wherein he had behaved, through the whole course of his public ministry.

56. Agreed not together — The original Greek is by many understood to mean that the witness or testimony was not adequate, that is, sufficient to make out a criminal case. As the variations between the testimonies do not seem to be essential, this is probably the true meaning.

Verses 55-59. And all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death — Which they were determined to do. They had seized him as a malefactor; and now they had him, they had no indictment to prefer against him, no crime to lay to his charge: but they sought for witnesses against him. They artfully sifted some by sly interrogatories, offered bribes to others to prevail on them to accuse him, and endeavoured by threats to compel other, to do it. The chief priests and elders were, by the law, intrusted with the prosecuting and punishing of false witnesses, Deuteronomy 19:16, yet they were now ringleaders in a crime that tended to the overthrow of all justice. Deplorable is the condition of a country, when those that should be the conservators of peace and equity are the corrupters of both! And found none — What an amazing proof of the overruling providence of God, considering both their authority, and the rewards they could offer, that no two consistent witnesses could be procured to charge him with any gross crime! Their witness, their evidences, agreed not together — So also the Vulgate, Convenientia testimonia non erant. But the Greek words, isai ouk hsan, which, literally rendered, are, were not equal, are understood by many to signify, Not equal to the charge of a capital crime. So Dr. Hammond; they did not accuse him of that upon which a sentence of death might be founded; no, not by the utmost stretch of their law. Dr. Campbell, who considers the phrase in the same light, renders it, Their testimonies were insufficient; observing, “On a doubtful point, where the words appear susceptible of either interpretation, we ought to be determined by the circumstances of the case. Now there is nothing in the whole narrative that insinuates the smallest discrepancy among the witnesses. On the contrary, in the gospels the testimony specified is mentioned as given by all the witnesses. The differences in Matthew and Mark, one saying, I will rebuild, another, I can rebuild; one adding, made with hands, another omitting it; not only are of no moment in themselves, but are manifestly differences in the reports of the evangelists, not in the testimony of the witnesses; nor are they greater than those which occur in most other facts related from memory. What therefore perplexed the pontiffs and the scribes was, that, admitting all that was attested, it did not amount to what could be accounted a capital crime. This made the high-priest think of extorting from our Lord’s mouth a confession which might supply the defect of evidence. This expedient succeeded to their wish; Jesus, though not outwitted by their subtlety, was no way disposed to decline suffering, and therefore readily supplied them with the pretext they wanted.” The same expression is used in the 59th verse. See the note on Matthew 26:59-61. There arose certain, and bare false witness — There is no wickedness so black, no villany so horrid, but there may be found among mankind fit tools to be used in it: so miserably depraved and vitiated is human nature! Saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple, &c. — It is observable, that the words which they thus misrepresented were spoken by Christ at least three years before, (John 2:19.) Their going back so far to find matter for the charge was a glorious, though silent attestation, of the unexceptionable manner wherein he had behaved, through the whole course of his public ministry.

V. 58. We heard him say-It is observable, that the words which they thus misrepresented, were spoken by Christ at least three years before, John 2:19. Their going back so far to find matter for the charge, was a glorious, though silent attestation of the unexceptionable manner wherein he had behaved, through the whole course of his public ministry.

Verses 55-59. And all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death — Which they were determined to do. They had seized him as a malefactor; and now they had him, they had no indictment to prefer against him, no crime to lay to his charge: but they sought for witnesses against him. They artfully sifted some by sly interrogatories, offered bribes to others to prevail on them to accuse him, and endeavoured by threats to compel other, to do it. The chief priests and elders were, by the law, intrusted with the prosecuting and punishing of false witnesses, Deuteronomy 19:16, yet they were now ringleaders in a crime that tended to the overthrow of all justice. Deplorable is the condition of a country, when those that should be the conservators of peace and equity are the corrupters of both! And found none — What an amazing proof of the overruling providence of God, considering both their authority, and the rewards they could offer, that no two consistent witnesses could be procured to charge him with any gross crime! Their witness, their evidences, agreed not together — So also the Vulgate, Convenientia testimonia non erant. But the Greek words, isai ouk hsan, which, literally rendered, are, were not equal, are understood by many to signify, Not equal to the charge of a capital crime. So Dr. Hammond; they did not accuse him of that upon which a sentence of death might be founded; no, not by the utmost stretch of their law. Dr. Campbell, who considers the phrase in the same light, renders it, Their testimonies were insufficient; observing, “On a doubtful point, where the words appear susceptible of either interpretation, we ought to be determined by the circumstances of the case. Now there is nothing in the whole narrative that insinuates the smallest discrepancy among the witnesses. On the contrary, in the gospels the testimony specified is mentioned as given by all the witnesses. The differences in Matthew and Mark, one saying, I will rebuild, another, I can rebuild; one adding, made with hands, another omitting it; not only are of no moment in themselves, but are manifestly differences in the reports of the evangelists, not in the testimony of the witnesses; nor are they greater than those which occur in most other facts related from memory. What therefore perplexed the pontiffs and the scribes was, that, admitting all that was attested, it did not amount to what could be accounted a capital crime. This made the high-priest think of extorting from our Lord’s mouth a confession which might supply the defect of evidence. This expedient succeeded to their wish; Jesus, though not outwitted by their subtlety, was no way disposed to decline suffering, and therefore readily supplied them with the pretext they wanted.” The same expression is used in the 59th verse. See the note on Matthew 26:59-61. There arose certain, and bare false witness — There is no wickedness so black, no villany so horrid, but there may be found among mankind fit tools to be used in it: so miserably depraved and vitiated is human nature! Saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple, &c. — It is observable, that the words which they thus misrepresented were spoken by Christ at least three years before, (John 2:19.) Their going back so far to find matter for the charge was a glorious, though silent attestation, of the unexceptionable manner wherein he had behaved, through the whole course of his public ministry.

Ver. 58, 59. We heard him say, I will destroy this temple made with hands — but neither so did their witness agree together. The Vulgate reads, convenientia testimonia non erant. The Mons version reads, mais ce témoignage-la même n’etait pas encore suffisant. “But this evidence was not indeed sufficient” to affect the life of the Saviour. To these allegations the Lord made no reply: they merited silent contempt.

Verses 55-59. And all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death — Which they were determined to do. They had seized him as a malefactor; and now they had him, they had no indictment to prefer against him, no crime to lay to his charge: but they sought for witnesses against him. They artfully sifted some by sly interrogatories, offered bribes to others to prevail on them to accuse him, and endeavoured by threats to compel other, to do it. The chief priests and elders were, by the law, intrusted with the prosecuting and punishing of false witnesses, Deuteronomy 19:16, yet they were now ringleaders in a crime that tended to the overthrow of all justice. Deplorable is the condition of a country, when those that should be the conservators of peace and equity are the corrupters of both! And found none — What an amazing proof of the overruling providence of God, considering both their authority, and the rewards they could offer, that no two consistent witnesses could be procured to charge him with any gross crime! Their witness, their evidences, agreed not together — So also the Vulgate, Convenientia testimonia non erant. But the Greek words, isai ouk hsan, which, literally rendered, are, were not equal, are understood by many to signify, Not equal to the charge of a capital crime. So Dr. Hammond; they did not accuse him of that upon which a sentence of death might be founded; no, not by the utmost stretch of their law. Dr. Campbell, who considers the phrase in the same light, renders it, Their testimonies were insufficient; observing, “On a doubtful point, where the words appear susceptible of either interpretation, we ought to be determined by the circumstances of the case. Now there is nothing in the whole narrative that insinuates the smallest discrepancy among the witnesses. On the contrary, in the gospels the testimony specified is mentioned as given by all the witnesses. The differences in Matthew and Mark, one saying, I will rebuild, another, I can rebuild; one adding, made with hands, another omitting it; not only are of no moment in themselves, but are manifestly differences in the reports of the evangelists, not in the testimony of the witnesses; nor are they greater than those which occur in most other facts related from memory. What therefore perplexed the pontiffs and the scribes was, that, admitting all that was attested, it did not amount to what could be accounted a capital crime. This made the high-priest think of extorting from our Lord’s mouth a confession which might supply the defect of evidence. This expedient succeeded to their wish; Jesus, though not outwitted by their subtlety, was no way disposed to decline suffering, and therefore readily supplied them with the pretext they wanted.” The same expression is used in the 59th verse. See the note on Matthew 26:59-61. There arose certain, and bare false witness — There is no wickedness so black, no villany so horrid, but there may be found among mankind fit tools to be used in it: so miserably depraved and vitiated is human nature! Saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple, &c. — It is observable, that the words which they thus misrepresented were spoken by Christ at least three years before, (John 2:19.) Their going back so far to find matter for the charge was a glorious, though silent attestation, of the unexceptionable manner wherein he had behaved, through the whole course of his public ministry.

Ver. 58, 59. We heard him say, I will destroy this temple made with hands — but neither so did their witness agree together. The Vulgate reads, convenientia testimonia non erant. The Mons version reads, mais ce témoignage-la même n’etait pas encore suffisant. “But this evidence was not indeed sufficient” to affect the life of the Saviour. To these allegations the Lord made no reply: they merited silent contempt.

Verses 60-62. The high-priest stood up in the midst, &c. — See notes on Matthew 26:62-64, where this paragraph is largely explained. Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed — Here one of the peculiar attributes of the Deity is used to express the divine nature. Supreme happiness is properly considered as belonging to God: and as all comfort flows from him, suitable ascriptions of praise and glory are his due. But this form of speech was conformable to the ancient custom of the Jews, who, when the priest in the sanctuary rehearsed the name of God, used to answer, Blessed be his name for ever. The title of the Blessed One, signified as much as the Holy One; and both, or either of them, the God of Israel. Hence such expressions are frequent in the rabbis. See also Romans 1:25; 2 Corinthians 11:31. “This is a very sublime and emphatical method of expressing the happiness of God. It conveys such an idea of the divine blessedness, that, comparatively speaking, there is none happy but he.” — Macknight.

V. 61. Matthew 26:63; Luke 22:67.

Verse 61. Of the Blessed?] qeou tou euloghtou, Or, of God the blessed one. qeou, is added here by AK, ten others, Vulgate, and one of the Itala. It might be introduced into the text, put in Italics, if the authority of the MSS. and versions be not deemed sufficient. It appears necessary for the better understanding of the text. The adjective, however, conveys a good sense by itself, and is according to a frequent Hebrew form of speech.

Verses 60-62. The high-priest stood up in the midst, &c. — See notes on Matthew 26:62-64, where this paragraph is largely explained. Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed — Here one of the peculiar attributes of the Deity is used to express the divine nature. Supreme happiness is properly considered as belonging to God: and as all comfort flows from him, suitable ascriptions of praise and glory are his due. But this form of speech was conformable to the ancient custom of the Jews, who, when the priest in the sanctuary rehearsed the name of God, used to answer, Blessed be his name for ever. The title of the Blessed One, signified as much as the Holy One; and both, or either of them, the God of Israel. Hence such expressions are frequent in the rabbis. See also Romans 1:25; 2 Corinthians 11:31. “This is a very sublime and emphatical method of expressing the happiness of God. It conveys such an idea of the divine blessedness, that, comparatively speaking, there is none happy but he.” — Macknight.

Ver. 61, 62. Again the highpriest asked him — Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven, as the holy prophets have said from the beginning of the world. Jude 1:14,

15. Psalms 50:3Psalm 50:3. 110:1. Isaiah 50:6. Daniel 7:9, 10. Zechariah 14:3-11. What a glorious confession, what a model for confessors and martyrs. What a rock and pillar of repose for the church. St. Paul gives Timothy charge in the sight of God, and of Jesus Christ, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession, that he was the Messiah, the king of the jews, to keep the commandment without spot, and unrebukable until his appearing. 1 Timothy 6:13, 14.

61. The Christ — See note on Matthew 1:1.

Verses 60-62. The high-priest stood up in the midst, &c. — See notes on Matthew 26:62-64, where this paragraph is largely explained. Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed — Here one of the peculiar attributes of the Deity is used to express the divine nature. Supreme happiness is properly considered as belonging to God: and as all comfort flows from him, suitable ascriptions of praise and glory are his due. But this form of speech was conformable to the ancient custom of the Jews, who, when the priest in the sanctuary rehearsed the name of God, used to answer, Blessed be his name for ever. The title of the Blessed One, signified as much as the Holy One; and both, or either of them, the God of Israel. Hence such expressions are frequent in the rabbis. See also Romans 1:25; 2 Corinthians 11:31. “This is a very sublime and emphatical method of expressing the happiness of God. It conveys such an idea of the divine blessedness, that, comparatively speaking, there is none happy but he.” — Macknight.

Ver. 61, 62. Again the highpriest asked him — Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven, as the holy prophets have said from the beginning of the world. Jude 1:14,

15. Psalms 50:3Psalm 50:3. 110:1. Isaiah 50:6. Daniel 7:9, 10. Zechariah 14:3-11. What a glorious confession, what a model for confessors and martyrs. What a rock and pillar of repose for the church. St. Paul gives Timothy charge in the sight of God, and of Jesus Christ, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession, that he was the Messiah, the king of the jews, to keep the commandment without spot, and unrebukable until his appearing. 1 Timothy 6:13, 14.

62. And Jesus said, I am — Seldom in the course of his ministry did our Lord announce himself as the Messiah. But here, in the great and trying moment, when questioned by the Jewish nation, in the person of their high priest, solemnly, Are you the MESSIAH? to the Jewish nation he returns the solemn reply, I am.

Verses 63-65. Then the high-priest rent his clothes — Rending of clothes was an expression sometimes of deep grief, sometimes of holy zeal. The precepts, Leviticus 10:8; 21:10; forbidding the high-priest to rend his clothes, relate only to the pontifical garments and to private mourning: that is, mourning on account of the calamities befalling himself or friends. Griefs of this kind the chief minister of religion was not to make public by any outward sign whatever. But it was neither unlawful nor unusual for him to rend his ordinary garments on account of public calamities, or instances of gross wickedness, as a testimony of his grief for the one and abhorrence of the other. See 1 Mac. 11:71. That the high-priest was clothed in his ordinary apparel on this occasion, appears from Exodus 29:29, 30, where the pontifical garments are ordered to descend from father to son; and therefore were to be worn only at their consecration, and when they ministered. And saith, What need we any further witnesses — Namely, of his being guilty of blasphemy. Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? — What punishment do you judge him to have deserved? They all condemned him, to be guilty of death — Namely, all present; for it is probable Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, and some more, who were his disciples, or favourably disposed toward him, were not present: or if they were, they doubtless remonstrated against the iniquity of this sentence. And some began to spit on him — See note on Matthew 26:67, 68.

Verses 63-65. Then the high-priest rent his clothes — Rending of clothes was an expression sometimes of deep grief, sometimes of holy zeal. The precepts, Leviticus 10:8; 21:10; forbidding the high-priest to rend his clothes, relate only to the pontifical garments and to private mourning: that is, mourning on account of the calamities befalling himself or friends. Griefs of this kind the chief minister of religion was not to make public by any outward sign whatever. But it was neither unlawful nor unusual for him to rend his ordinary garments on account of public calamities, or instances of gross wickedness, as a testimony of his grief for the one and abhorrence of the other. See 1 Mac. 11:71. That the high-priest was clothed in his ordinary apparel on this occasion, appears from Exodus 29:29, 30, where the pontifical garments are ordered to descend from father to son; and therefore were to be worn only at their consecration, and when they ministered. And saith, What need we any further witnesses — Namely, of his being guilty of blasphemy. Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? — What punishment do you judge him to have deserved? They all condemned him, to be guilty of death — Namely, all present; for it is probable Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, and some more, who were his disciples, or favourably disposed toward him, were not present: or if they were, they doubtless remonstrated against the iniquity of this sentence. And some began to spit on him — See note on Matthew 26:67, 68.

64. Guilty of death — The phrase guilty of, is here used in the old English sense, deserving of death.

Verses 63-65. Then the high-priest rent his clothes — Rending of clothes was an expression sometimes of deep grief, sometimes of holy zeal. The precepts, Leviticus 10:8; 21:10; forbidding the high-priest to rend his clothes, relate only to the pontifical garments and to private mourning: that is, mourning on account of the calamities befalling himself or friends. Griefs of this kind the chief minister of religion was not to make public by any outward sign whatever. But it was neither unlawful nor unusual for him to rend his ordinary garments on account of public calamities, or instances of gross wickedness, as a testimony of his grief for the one and abhorrence of the other. See 1 Mac. 11:71. That the high-priest was clothed in his ordinary apparel on this occasion, appears from Exodus 29:29, 30, where the pontifical garments are ordered to descend from father to son; and therefore were to be worn only at their consecration, and when they ministered. And saith, What need we any further witnesses — Namely, of his being guilty of blasphemy. Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? — What punishment do you judge him to have deserved? They all condemned him, to be guilty of death — Namely, all present; for it is probable Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, and some more, who were his disciples, or favourably disposed toward him, were not present: or if they were, they doubtless remonstrated against the iniquity of this sentence. And some began to spit on him — See note on Matthew 26:67, 68.

65. Say unto him, Prophesy — Mr. Blount, in his work designed to prove the truth of the Gospels by their undesigned coincidences, remarks, that Matthew mentions this challenge to prophesy, and adds, that it was a challenge to prophesy, Who smote thee? How it required the power of prophecy in Jesus to tell who smote him, Matthew does not explain, nor, had we his Gospel alone, should we be able to tell. But Mark in this verse supplies the fact that they covered his face, then smote him, and then, in ridicule of his title as prophet, bade him prophesy which was his smiter. On the other hand, we may add that Mark omits to tell what was the prophecy demanded, so it is by a double tally that the two evangelists supplement each other.

PETER’S DENIAL OF CHRIST, 66-72.

V. 66. Matthew 26:69; Luke 22:56; John 18:25.

Verses 66-72. And as Peter was beneath in the palace — This whole paragraph respecting Peter’s three-fold denial of Christ is explained at large in the notes on Matthew 26:69-75. When he thought thereon he wept — In the original it is, kai epibalwn eklaie, which words are interpreted very differently by different commentators. Dr. Whitby thinks our translation of the words may be maintained; “for though Casaubon,” says he, “gave no instance of this signification of the word, Constantine proves, out of Philoponus, Dionysius, and Basil, that it signifies katanoein, to consider of, and ponder, or fix the mind upon a thing. So Eustathius; ‘the word epiballw, respects either the action, and then it signifies exactly to take it in hand, or the mind, and then it signifies to consider of it, as we are able;’ or as Phavorinus interprets it, epibalwv noein, aptly and wisely to consider of it.” Dr. Campbell, also, after a critical examination of the text, and of the different interpretations which learned men have given of it, says, “I think, with Wetstein, that the sense exhibited by the English translation is the most probable.” Dr. Macknight, however, gives it as his opinion, that the original expression should be rendered, and throwing his garment (that is, the veil which the Jewish men used to wear) over his head, he wept; “For the expression,” says he, “is elliptical, and must be supplied thus, Epibalwn imation th kefalh autou, as is evident from Leviticus 19:19, LXX. Besides, it was the custom of persons in confusion to cover their heads, Jeremiah 14:3, 4.” Thus also Elsner, Salmasius, Bos, and Waterland understand the words. It may not be improper to mention one more interpretation of the passage, adopted by Raphelius and some other learned critics, which is, throwing himself out of the company, namely, in a passionate manner, (which it is very probable he did,) he wept. This exposition, it must be acknowledged, makes Mark’s words agree in sense with those of the other evangelists, who say, He went forth and wept; and “plain it is,” says Dr. Whitby, “that in the book of Maccabees the word often signifies, irruens, or se projiciens, rushing, or, casting one’s self out.”

Verses 66-72. And as Peter was beneath in the palace — This whole paragraph respecting Peter’s three-fold denial of Christ is explained at large in the notes on Matthew 26:69-75. When he thought thereon he wept — In the original it is, kai epibalwn eklaie, which words are interpreted very differently by different commentators. Dr. Whitby thinks our translation of the words may be maintained; “for though Casaubon,” says he, “gave no instance of this signification of the word, Constantine proves, out of Philoponus, Dionysius, and Basil, that it signifies katanoein, to consider of, and ponder, or fix the mind upon a thing. So Eustathius; ‘the word epiballw, respects either the action, and then it signifies exactly to take it in hand, or the mind, and then it signifies to consider of it, as we are able;’ or as Phavorinus interprets it, epibalwv noein, aptly and wisely to consider of it.” Dr. Campbell, also, after a critical examination of the text, and of the different interpretations which learned men have given of it, says, “I think, with Wetstein, that the sense exhibited by the English translation is the most probable.” Dr. Macknight, however, gives it as his opinion, that the original expression should be rendered, and throwing his garment (that is, the veil which the Jewish men used to wear) over his head, he wept; “For the expression,” says he, “is elliptical, and must be supplied thus, Epibalwn imation th kefalh autou, as is evident from Leviticus 19:19, LXX. Besides, it was the custom of persons in confusion to cover their heads, Jeremiah 14:3, 4.” Thus also Elsner, Salmasius, Bos, and Waterland understand the words. It may not be improper to mention one more interpretation of the passage, adopted by Raphelius and some other learned critics, which is, throwing himself out of the company, namely, in a passionate manner, (which it is very probable he did,) he wept. This exposition, it must be acknowledged, makes Mark’s words agree in sense with those of the other evangelists, who say, He went forth and wept; and “plain it is,” says Dr. Whitby, “that in the book of Maccabees the word often signifies, irruens, or se projiciens, rushing, or, casting one’s self out.”

Verses 66-72. And as Peter was beneath in the palace — This whole paragraph respecting Peter’s three-fold denial of Christ is explained at large in the notes on Matthew 26:69-75. When he thought thereon he wept — In the original it is, kai epibalwn eklaie, which words are interpreted very differently by different commentators. Dr. Whitby thinks our translation of the words may be maintained; “for though Casaubon,” says he, “gave no instance of this signification of the word, Constantine proves, out of Philoponus, Dionysius, and Basil, that it signifies katanoein, to consider of, and ponder, or fix the mind upon a thing. So Eustathius; ‘the word epiballw, respects either the action, and then it signifies exactly to take it in hand, or the mind, and then it signifies to consider of it, as we are able;’ or as Phavorinus interprets it, epibalwv noein, aptly and wisely to consider of it.” Dr. Campbell, also, after a critical examination of the text, and of the different interpretations which learned men have given of it, says, “I think, with Wetstein, that the sense exhibited by the English translation is the most probable.” Dr. Macknight, however, gives it as his opinion, that the original expression should be rendered, and throwing his garment (that is, the veil which the Jewish men used to wear) over his head, he wept; “For the expression,” says he, “is elliptical, and must be supplied thus, Epibalwn imation th kefalh autou, as is evident from Leviticus 19:19, LXX. Besides, it was the custom of persons in confusion to cover their heads, Jeremiah 14:3, 4.” Thus also Elsner, Salmasius, Bos, and Waterland understand the words. It may not be improper to mention one more interpretation of the passage, adopted by Raphelius and some other learned critics, which is, throwing himself out of the company, namely, in a passionate manner, (which it is very probable he did,) he wept. This exposition, it must be acknowledged, makes Mark’s words agree in sense with those of the other evangelists, who say, He went forth and wept; and “plain it is,” says Dr. Whitby, “that in the book of Maccabees the word often signifies, irruens, or se projiciens, rushing, or, casting one’s self out.”

Verses 66-72. And as Peter was beneath in the palace — This whole paragraph respecting Peter’s three-fold denial of Christ is explained at large in the notes on Matthew 26:69-75. When he thought thereon he wept — In the original it is, kai epibalwn eklaie, which words are interpreted very differently by different commentators. Dr. Whitby thinks our translation of the words may be maintained; “for though Casaubon,” says he, “gave no instance of this signification of the word, Constantine proves, out of Philoponus, Dionysius, and Basil, that it signifies katanoein, to consider of, and ponder, or fix the mind upon a thing. So Eustathius; ‘the word epiballw, respects either the action, and then it signifies exactly to take it in hand, or the mind, and then it signifies to consider of it, as we are able;’ or as Phavorinus interprets it, epibalwv noein, aptly and wisely to consider of it.” Dr. Campbell, also, after a critical examination of the text, and of the different interpretations which learned men have given of it, says, “I think, with Wetstein, that the sense exhibited by the English translation is the most probable.” Dr. Macknight, however, gives it as his opinion, that the original expression should be rendered, and throwing his garment (that is, the veil which the Jewish men used to wear) over his head, he wept; “For the expression,” says he, “is elliptical, and must be supplied thus, Epibalwn imation th kefalh autou, as is evident from Leviticus 19:19, LXX. Besides, it was the custom of persons in confusion to cover their heads, Jeremiah 14:3, 4.” Thus also Elsner, Salmasius, Bos, and Waterland understand the words. It may not be improper to mention one more interpretation of the passage, adopted by Raphelius and some other learned critics, which is, throwing himself out of the company, namely, in a passionate manner, (which it is very probable he did,) he wept. This exposition, it must be acknowledged, makes Mark’s words agree in sense with those of the other evangelists, who say, He went forth and wept; and “plain it is,” says Dr. Whitby, “that in the book of Maccabees the word often signifies, irruens, or se projiciens, rushing, or, casting one’s self out.”

Verses 66-72. And as Peter was beneath in the palace — This whole paragraph respecting Peter’s three-fold denial of Christ is explained at large in the notes on Matthew 26:69-75. When he thought thereon he wept — In the original it is, kai epibalwn eklaie, which words are interpreted very differently by different commentators. Dr. Whitby thinks our translation of the words may be maintained; “for though Casaubon,” says he, “gave no instance of this signification of the word, Constantine proves, out of Philoponus, Dionysius, and Basil, that it signifies katanoein, to consider of, and ponder, or fix the mind upon a thing. So Eustathius; ‘the word epiballw, respects either the action, and then it signifies exactly to take it in hand, or the mind, and then it signifies to consider of it, as we are able;’ or as Phavorinus interprets it, epibalwv noein, aptly and wisely to consider of it.” Dr. Campbell, also, after a critical examination of the text, and of the different interpretations which learned men have given of it, says, “I think, with Wetstein, that the sense exhibited by the English translation is the most probable.” Dr. Macknight, however, gives it as his opinion, that the original expression should be rendered, and throwing his garment (that is, the veil which the Jewish men used to wear) over his head, he wept; “For the expression,” says he, “is elliptical, and must be supplied thus, Epibalwn imation th kefalh autou, as is evident from Leviticus 19:19, LXX. Besides, it was the custom of persons in confusion to cover their heads, Jeremiah 14:3, 4.” Thus also Elsner, Salmasius, Bos, and Waterland understand the words. It may not be improper to mention one more interpretation of the passage, adopted by Raphelius and some other learned critics, which is, throwing himself out of the company, namely, in a passionate manner, (which it is very probable he did,) he wept. This exposition, it must be acknowledged, makes Mark’s words agree in sense with those of the other evangelists, who say, He went forth and wept; and “plain it is,” says Dr. Whitby, “that in the book of Maccabees the word often signifies, irruens, or se projiciens, rushing, or, casting one’s self out.”

70. A Galilean, and thy speech agreeth thereto — The broad Galilean brogue was the jest of the more refined speakers of Jerusalem. As many of the Hebrew words resemble each other, with but a slight difference, a Galilean would frequently by his provincial mispronunciation produce an unintended meaning. Many anecdotes are in the Rabbins of these double meanings, as amusing as occur in English of the wrong use or disuse of the initial H.

Verses 66-72. And as Peter was beneath in the palace — This whole paragraph respecting Peter’s three-fold denial of Christ is explained at large in the notes on Matthew 26:69-75. When he thought thereon he wept — In the original it is, kai epibalwn eklaie, which words are interpreted very differently by different commentators. Dr. Whitby thinks our translation of the words may be maintained; “for though Casaubon,” says he, “gave no instance of this signification of the word, Constantine proves, out of Philoponus, Dionysius, and Basil, that it signifies katanoein, to consider of, and ponder, or fix the mind upon a thing. So Eustathius; ‘the word epiballw, respects either the action, and then it signifies exactly to take it in hand, or the mind, and then it signifies to consider of it, as we are able;’ or as Phavorinus interprets it, epibalwv noein, aptly and wisely to consider of it.” Dr. Campbell, also, after a critical examination of the text, and of the different interpretations which learned men have given of it, says, “I think, with Wetstein, that the sense exhibited by the English translation is the most probable.” Dr. Macknight, however, gives it as his opinion, that the original expression should be rendered, and throwing his garment (that is, the veil which the Jewish men used to wear) over his head, he wept; “For the expression,” says he, “is elliptical, and must be supplied thus, Epibalwn imation th kefalh autou, as is evident from Leviticus 19:19, LXX. Besides, it was the custom of persons in confusion to cover their heads, Jeremiah 14:3, 4.” Thus also Elsner, Salmasius, Bos, and Waterland understand the words. It may not be improper to mention one more interpretation of the passage, adopted by Raphelius and some other learned critics, which is, throwing himself out of the company, namely, in a passionate manner, (which it is very probable he did,) he wept. This exposition, it must be acknowledged, makes Mark’s words agree in sense with those of the other evangelists, who say, He went forth and wept; and “plain it is,” says Dr. Whitby, “that in the book of Maccabees the word often signifies, irruens, or se projiciens, rushing, or, casting one’s self out.”

V. 72. And he covered his head-Which was a usual custom with mourners, and was fitly expressive both of grief and shame.

Verse 72. And when he thought thereon, he wept.] Or, he fell a weeping. This Mr. Wakefield thinks comes nearest to the original, epibalwn eklaie. Others think it means the wrapping of his head in the skirts of his garment, through shame and anguish. Others think that epibalwn rather refers to the violence, or hurry, with which he left the place, being impelled thereto by the terrors and remorse of his guilty conscience. Our own translation is as good as any.

ST. MARK

Verses 66-72. And as Peter was beneath in the palace — This whole paragraph respecting Peter’s three-fold denial of Christ is explained at large in the notes on Matthew 26:69-75. When he thought thereon he wept — In the original it is, kai epibalwn eklaie, which words are interpreted very differently by different commentators. Dr. Whitby thinks our translation of the words may be maintained; “for though Casaubon,” says he, “gave no instance of this signification of the word, Constantine proves, out of Philoponus, Dionysius, and Basil, that it signifies katanoein, to consider of, and ponder, or fix the mind upon a thing. So Eustathius; ‘the word epiballw, respects either the action, and then it signifies exactly to take it in hand, or the mind, and then it signifies to consider of it, as we are able;’ or as Phavorinus interprets it, epibalwv noein, aptly and wisely to consider of it.” Dr. Campbell, also, after a critical examination of the text, and of the different interpretations which learned men have given of it, says, “I think, with Wetstein, that the sense exhibited by the English translation is the most probable.” Dr. Macknight, however, gives it as his opinion, that the original expression should be rendered, and throwing his garment (that is, the veil which the Jewish men used to wear) over his head, he wept; “For the expression,” says he, “is elliptical, and must be supplied thus, Epibalwn imation th kefalh autou, as is evident from Leviticus 19:19, LXX. Besides, it was the custom of persons in confusion to cover their heads, Jeremiah 14:3, 4.” Thus also Elsner, Salmasius, Bos, and Waterland understand the words. It may not be improper to mention one more interpretation of the passage, adopted by Raphelius and some other learned critics, which is, throwing himself out of the company, namely, in a passionate manner, (which it is very probable he did,) he wept. This exposition, it must be acknowledged, makes Mark’s words agree in sense with those of the other evangelists, who say, He went forth and wept; and “plain it is,” says Dr. Whitby, “that in the book of Maccabees the word often signifies, irruens, or se projiciens, rushing, or, casting one’s self out.”

Verse 72. And when he thought thereon, he wept. — Some take epiballw here in the sense of throwing the robe over the head or face, which was often done by deeply affected mourners; so that it would be, covering himself with his robe, he wept. Others render, he wept abundantly, or, he began to weep, or, and rushing out, he wept. Wetstein and Campbell support our translation, when he thought thereon; and Kypke adduces examples from Greek authors in support of this interpretation.