Marcos 14
Kenneth Wuest · Citado em PreceptAustin
Marcos 14
Wuest - The intensive pronoun (he himself) is used. He himself will show you. That is, the master of the house will not let this detail to a slave, but will himself personally conduct Peter and John to the room. It was a large room, of sufficient size to accommodate twelve men and the Son of God. It was a room above the ground level, so that our Lord could observe His last Passover with His disciples in private. It was furnished.
Marcos 14
Wuest says betray is "our “sell him down the river.” This is just as Jesus had predicted (Mk 9:31+ = "“The Son of Man is to be delivered [paradidomi] into the hands of men...", Mk 10:33+ "the Son of Man will be delivered [paradidomi] to the chief priests and the scribes..."). Notice that Judas takes the initiative to betray Jesus. Yes it was Judas choice (MAN'S RESPONSIBILITY), but the master mind behind this evil deed was the Evil One himself (DEMONIC ACTIVITY). John 13:2+ says "During supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray Him." Not only did the Evil One send a "flaming arrow" (Eph 6:16+), John 13:27+ records that later "After the morsel, Satan then entered into him." So Judas was actually "possessed" by Satan and that is when he apparently went off to the religious leaders.Satan operated through Judas, the unregenerate, unbelieving, greedy man. Satan fully possessed Judas. But don't miss this crucial point -- to be sure Judas was influenced by and possessed by the Devil and yet Judas clearly made a choice of his free will to betray Jesus, and for that reason he would be held fully and forever responsible for his personal choice. As Edwards says "Judas is thus not a victim of circumstances or a pawn dominated by greater forces. He is a sovereign moral agent who freely chooses evil in “handing Jesus over” (Edwards adds that here we see) "the two essential truths of Jesus’ passion: the freely chosen evil of humanity, and the overarching providence of God. Divine grace uses even human evil for its saving purposes." (The Gospel according to Mark) If we compare John's version (John 12:1-8+) of Jesus' anointing with the parallel accounts in Matthew 26:6-13 and Mark 14:1-9+, these latter two accounts would strongly support the premise that it was after the "wasting of the perfume" episode that Judas "went off to the chief priests in order to betray Him to them," (Mk 14:10-11+, cf Mt 26:14-16). THOUGHT- One other point to make is that while Satan had not yet entered into Judas (Jn 13:27+) to "inspire" him to betray Jesus for money, it is almost certain that Judas' greed here in John 12 opened a crack in the door of his heart for Satan to enter in! Sin is deceitful and none of us can be sure exactly how far or where an initial unconfessed sin will take us (cf Pr 28:13+, Nu 32:23b+). The following little ditty is all too true, so if you are reading this note and think "Never me," then you need to read and heed Paul's command in 1Co 10:12+ "Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed (present imperative see our need to depend on the Holy Spirit to obey - blepo - continually keep your eyes wide open!!!) that he does not fall." (See also Deceitfulness of Sin, Are You Entangled? and Backsliding) Sin will take you further than you ever wanted to stray! Cost you more than you ever dreamed you would pay! Keep you longer than you ever thought you would stay! Judas (2455)(Ioudas) is translated as the tribe Judah (11), the betrayer Judas and other men with this name (32), and the half brother of Jesus, Jude(1). Note that Ioudas is also translated as "good guys" also Judah(11) and Jude(1). The first is the tribe Jesus was from and the second is Jesus' half brother! Judas 42v - Judah(11), Judas(32), Jude(1). Matt. 1:2; Matt. 1:3; Matt. 2:6; Matt. 10:4; Matt. 13:55; Matt. 26:14; Matt. 26:25; Matt. 26:47; Matt. 27:3; Mk. 3:19; Mk. 6:3; Mk. 14:10; Mk. 14:43; Lk. 1:39; Lk. 3:30; Lk. 3:33; Lk. 6:16; Lk. 22:3; Lk. 22:47; Lk. 22:48; Jn. 6:71; Jn. 12:4; Jn. 13:2; Jn. 13:26; Jn. 13:29; Jn. 14:22; Jn. 18:2; Jn. 18:3; Jn. 18:5; Acts 1:13; Acts 1:16; Acts 1:25; Acts 5:37; Acts 9:11; Acts 15:22; Acts 15:27; Acts 15:32; Heb. 7:14; Heb. 8:8; Jude 1:1; Rev. 5:5; Rev. 7:5 Iscariot (2469)(iskariotes) The meaning of this word is uncertain but usually taken to refer to a place, the village of Kerioth (Josh 15:25) in southern Judea. There are 11 uses of Iscariot in the NT and most uses are associated with a description of the fact that he was a betrayer of Jesus. Even in this verse, Satan entering him indicates he will soon carry out his devilish deed. Stein on Iscariot - The latter designation probably means man (Is[h]) from [the town of] Karioth (cariot). This would make Judas a Judean and the only non-Galilean of the group.(NAC)
Marcos 14
Wuest - The ointment is described by Mark in three words, nardos (nardos) referring to a perfume which came from India, well known to the Greeks and Romans, and procured from the hills on the banks of the Ganges River, pistikos , speaking of the fact that it was genuine, not imitation or adulterated, and polutelēs, telling us that it was very costly. The woman broke the neck of the flask so that she could quickly pour the contents. NET NOTE - A jar made of alabaster stone was normally used for very precious substances like perfumes. It normally had a long neck which was sealed and had to be broken off so the contents could be used. Muron was usually made of myrrh (from which the English word is derived) but here it is used in the sense of ointment or perfumed oil (L&N 6.205). The adjective πιστικῆς (pistikēs) is difficult with regard to its exact meaning; some have taken it to derive from πίστις (pistis) and relate to the purity of the oil of nard. More probably it is something like a brand name, “pistic nard,” the exact significance of which has not been discovered. Nard or spikenard is a fragrant oil from the root and spike of the nard plant of northern India. This aromatic oil, if made of something like nard, would have been extremely expensive, costing up to a year’s pay for an average laborer. Hiebert - “An alabaster cruse (vial) of ointment of pure nard very costly” (ASV)—the cruse was a long-necked flask with no handles used for preserving precious perfumes or fragrant oils. Although such flasks might be made of other materials, perfumes were found to be best preserved in vessels made of alabaster, a finely textured, translucent stone. The flask contained “a pound of ointment,” twelve ounces of highly aromatic perfume which evaporated rapidly and left a very pleasant odor (John 12:3+). The ointment is described as “of pure nard very costly.” Nard identifies the ointment as derived from nard plants, native to India, and the source of the finest ointments. The meaning of the adjective rendered pure is uncertain, but the most probable meaning is “unadulterated.” The nard was “trustworthy,” or “pure,” as opposed to nard adulterated with inferior substances. Such ointment naturally was very costly. Mary’s possession of such costly perfume indicates that the Bethany household must have been comparatively wealthy. (The Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary) Paul Apple asks "How many of you have spent a year’s salary on expensive perfume for your wife? She would think you were nuts." Daniel Akin - This was done in full display of a room full of people. It was done against cultural convention as a woman normally would not approach a man in this setting except to serve him food. Mary cared not one wit for any of this. Jesus was her Lord and Master. She deeply loved Him and would have done anything for Him. And, she did not care who heard or saw. Her devotion to Him trumped all others. She wanted everyone to know the inestimable value she placed on Jesus. So she went public! No one could deny or doubt where her loyalty lay. Can the same be said for you and me?! And she broke (suntribo) the vial - Only Mark mentions she broke the vial, making it no longer usable. In other words, she now had to use the entire contents. As Hiebert says her action "expresses the wholeheartedness of her devotion, for she had destined its entire contents for Jesus." (The Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary) Mary anointed Jesus' head and feet, for He is beautiful from head to toe! John 12:3+ says "Mary then took a pound of very costly perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume." Note that each of the 3 times we see Mary in the Gospels, she is at the feet of Jesus (Luke 10:39, John 11:32, 12:3). Luke 10:39+ She had a sister called Mary, who was seated at the Lord’s feet, listening to His word. John 11:32+; Therefore, when Mary came where Jesus was, she saw Him, and fell at His feet, saying to Him, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died.” Anointing Jesus' Feet And poured it over (katacheo) His head - "poured, literally, “poured down,” pictures the stream of liquid flowing from the vessel. Mark and Matthew mentioned His head, while John noted that Mary poured the ointment on His feet and that the precious liquid was so abundant that she wiped His feet with her hair. His recumbent position made the anointing of both head and feet readily possible. Pouring some oil on the head was common treatment of a festive guest (Ps. 23:5; Luke 7:46), but anointing the feet was unusual, an act of special esteem. Scroggie comments, “The story of Mary’s graceful act is one of the most beautiful on record; it is a story of loving devotion revealing the acceptable motive, natural modes, and true measure of Christian service.” (The Gospel of Mark) Warren
Marcos 14
Wuest - They were glad. The verb is chairo not agalliao. The first word is more expressive of the inward feeling of joy, the second, of its audible or visible expression. Swete remarks that the proposal of Judas was received by the chief priests with more delight than they cared to show. The burden of finding a way to do away with Jesus so that the Passover crowds would not see, now was definitely on the shoulders of Judas. His position in the inner circle of disciples, gave him an advantage which the chief priests did not have. They were glad (5463)(chairo) expresses the delight of the devious leaders whose dangerous dilemma was decoded by this defector! This was almost too good to believe and so they were filed with joy, as BDAG says "in a state of happiness and well-being" (O, the deceitfulness of sin to make one feel "happy" even while the noose is being placed around the neck!) Beloved, when you can find joy in your sin, your soul is very sick, especially when that sin is to kill the Son of God! THOUGHT - The things that make you glad reveal your heart. If hearing that you just won the Reader’s Digest Sweepstakes makes you leap for joy, but hearing that the Gospel has just penetrated a previously unreached people group makes you say, “Ho hum,” your heart is not right before God. The things that make God rejoice should make us rejoice. The things that make God grieve, namely sin, should make us grieve. (Steven Cole) And promised to give him money - They gave Judas 30 pieces of silver, "Blood money" in exchange for the incalculably priceless blood of the Lamb of God, the Redeemer of the world!
Marcos 14
Wuest quips "Peter was not intending a surgical operation on the man’s ear, but purposed to split his skull." William
Marcos 14
Wuest - Paul identifies the cup with that which followed the meal. “The Talmud prescribed four cups at the Paschal feast. The third was known as the cup of blessing, and it has been usual to regard this as the Cup of the Eucharist” (Swete). He gave it to them, and they all drank from it - One cup was passed around the table. "That they all drank from it demonstrates that Jesus intended all believers to participate in both elements of the Lord’s Supper (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16, 21; 11:28)." (MacArthur) Given thanks (2168) (eucharisteo) is a word that at its very core (eu = good + charis = grace) means to acknowledge how good grace is! This Greek word gives us our English Eucharist. Note that the Lord’s Supper and baptism are the only two "sacraments" that Jesus instituted for the Church (some denominations have added others but they are not prescribed in the Bible) and is also known as “Communion," "Holy Communion,” or “The Eucharist”
Marcos 14
Wuest - Our Lord does not protest against the arrest, but against its manner. He was not a robber, but a religious teacher. There is a bit of irony here for "Highway robbers like Barabbas (lestes used of him in Jn 18:40) were common and were often regarded as heroes. Jesus will be crucified between two robbers (lestes) in the very place that Barabbas would have occupied." (Robertson) Paul Apple paraphrases this "Were your expectations that I am some type of political revolutionary that has galvanized powerful forces and armed them with powerful weapons to try to wage war against the Roman government?" NET Note on robber (lestes) - Or “a revolutionary.” This term can refer to one who stirs up rebellion: BDAG 594 s.v. λῃστής 2 has “revolutionary, insurrectionist,” citing evidence from Josephus (J. W. 2.13.2–3 [2.253–254]). However, this usage generally postdates Jesus’ time. It does refer to a figure of violence. Luke uses the same term for the highwaymen who attack the traveler in the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:30). Clubs (3586)(xulon/xylon from xuo = to scrape) is literally wood and refers to anything made of wood, including a tree or other wooden article or substance. In Acts 5:30, 10:39, 13:29, 1Pe 2:24 and Gal 3:13 xulon refers to the old rugged Cross. The NT idea of xulon/xylon as a cross is related to Deuteronomy 21 which emphasizes the shame that befalls the one who is exposed and punished in such a way. BDAG says xylon is (1) "wood as a plant substance in unmanufactured form", then an (2) "object made of word" (pole = Nu 21:8, club = Mt 26:47, 55, Mk 14:43, 48, Lk 22:52, stocks (Job 33:11, Ac 16:24), a wooden structure used for crucifixion (cf OT passages referring to hanging or impalement of a criminal’s corpse on a post = Ge 40:19, Dt 21:22, 23, Josh 10:26) and finally (3) a "tree" (Ge 1:29, 2:9, 3:1ff, Is 14:8, Eccl 2:5, Lk 23:31, tree of life = Re 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19) (BORROW A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament, and other early Christian literature BDAG) TDNT use of xulon for the Cross. A distinctive use of xylon in the NT is for the cross. The basis is Dt. 21:22, which stresses the shame of being exposed on a tree. Acts 5:30; 10:39, etc. make the point that crucifixion is the greatest possible insult to Jesus, but that God has displayed his majesty by raising him from the dead. Paul in Gal. 3:13 shows that Christ has redeemed us from the curse by being made a curse for us according to Dt. 21:22. A curse lies on those who break the law, but Christ, who has not broken the law, voluntarily and vicariously becomes accursed, as his death on the accursed wood makes plain. He thus releases us from the curse and from the death that it entails. 1 Pet. 2:24 is to the same effect when it says that Christ bore our sins in his own body on the “tree” (with a plain reference to Isaiah 53:4, 12). The vicarious element is prominent here. Human sins are laid on Christ, crucified in him, and thus set aside. Christ does not lay sins on a scapegoat, but takes them to himself and cancels them on the cross, so that sinners, dead to sin, may live to righteousness. (BORROW Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament : abridged in one volume) XULON - 20X/18V - clubs(5), cross(4), stocks(1), tree(7), wood(3). Mt 26:47; Mt 26:55; Mk 14:43; Mk 14:48; Lk 22:52; Lk 23:31; Acts 5:30; Acts 10:39; Acts 13:29; Acts 16:24; 1Co 3:12; Gal. 3:13; 1Pe 2:24; Rev 2:7; Rev 18:12; Rev 22:2; Rev 22:14; Rev 22:19 Robber (3027)(lestes from lizoma = to plunder, seize) means one who steals openly and by violence in contrast to kleptes which denotes one who steals by stealth. A robber, highwayman, bandit (Mt 27:38; Mk 11:17; 15:27; Lk 10:30, 36; J 10:1, 8; 2 Cor 11:26). A revolutionary, insurrectionist, one who favors the use of force (Jn 18:40). Figuratively lestes speaks of unscrupulous, greedy, or overambitious leaders (Jn 10.8) Zodhiates - Judas was a thief (kleptes [John 12:6]) doing no violence to anyone. He stole secretly. Barabbas was a robber (lēstés [Jn 18:40 {cf. Mk 15:7}]). Palestine was infested by robbers to whom its walks and caves afforded a great deal of cover and shelter (cf. Jdg. 9:25; Hos. 6:9; 7:1), hence, the expression "den of robbers" (Jer. 7:11; Mt. 21:13). The temple became a haunt of robbers. The dealers in the temple market were notorious for their extortion, but it gave them fancied security in their evildoing. It is probable that some of these robbers were really zealots in rebellion against the authority of Rome, so that there was an element of misplaced patriotism and even religion in their proceedings. Josephus identified robbers with zealots. (BORROW The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament ) LESTES - 15V - Matt. 21:13; Matt. 26:55; Matt. 27:38; Matt. 27:44; Mk. 11:17; Mk. 14:48; Mk. 15:27; Lk. 10:30; Lk. 10:36; Lk. 19:46; Lk. 22:52; Jn. 10:1; Jn. 10:8; Jn. 18:40; 2 Co. 11:26 Mark 14:49 "Every day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize Me; but this has taken place to fulfill the Scriptures." was: Mk 11:15-18,27 12:35 Mt 21:23-27 Lu 19:47,48 20:1,2 21:37,38 Joh 7:28-30,37 8:2,12 10:23 18:20 but: Ps 22:1-31 pS 69:1-36 Isa 53:1-12 Da 9:24-26 Mt 26:54,56 Lu 22:37 Lu 24:25-27,44,45 Mark 14 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Related Passages: Matthew 26:55+ At that time Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me as you would against a robber? Every day I used to sit in the temple teaching and you did not seize Me. Luke 22:53+ “While I was with you daily in the temple, you did not lay hands on Me; but this hour and the power of darkness are yours.” JESUS CHARACTER WAS WELL KNOWN Every day I was with you in the temple (hieros - temple complex) teaching (didasko) - Every day refers to Jesus' teaching in the Temple three consecutive days that week. With you (pros humas) is more literally before you, depicting face to face encounters every day of that week. Jesus' point is that He had not been hiding from them (like a robber would) and they had ample opportunity to observe His character. Yet now they treat Him as a common criminal. And you did not seize (krateo) Me - Of course they WOULD have if they COULD have but they were afraid of the people and so afraid for their own lives! Sadly they feared MEN and not GOD!
Marcos 14
Wuest says the human spirit as that part of man which gives him God-consciousness. He goes on to make an interesting (a bit difficult to understand) distinction that the spirit is "the higher life-principle in man by which the human reason, viewed on its moral side—the organ of moral thinking and knowing is informed… With the physical body, man has world-consciousness, with the soul he has self-consciousness, and with the spirit he has God-consciousness. With the spirit, man has to do with the things of God. He worships God by means of his human spirit, that is, (when regenerated) when that spirit is energized by the Holy Spirit. He serves God in the same way. The present body is so constituted that it is the efficient organ of the soul. The future physical body will be so adjusted that it will be the efficient organ of the spirit.In this present life most of our time and activity has to do with the things of time and space, making a living, with the creative arts, with recreation, with the material world. The human spirit, however, should be the determining factor as to the character of the soul life. Yet it is in active use but a small part of the time, when we worship God, study the Bible, pray, serve God in some distinctive service in which we are giving out the Word of God to those who do not know Him. But in the future life, conditions will be changed. Then the soul-life as we know it now, will be a thing of the past. We will be occupied entirely with God and His worship and service. Our bodies will then be adjusted to the new life. They will be changed so that they will be efficient instruments of the human spirit. Just what the nature of this change will be, the Bible does not say. Willing (4289)(prothumos from pró = before + thumós = passion) denotes a willingness, a predisposition, a readiness, or an inclination. It means to be eager (and prompt) to be of service. Prothumos is a strong word. It means something like "ready, willing and able." It also can include the idea of passionate.Have you ever said "I'm never going to do ______ again!" And then before the day is out you've committed that sin not once but several times. Our being willing or in a sense attempting to "will a victory" over temptation won't happen. Why? Because of where we are placing our confidence! If it's the flesh than we will get a "fleshly" defense and Jesus says it is a weak defense against temptation. Peter was willing. His flesh was weak. We know the results. We are all like Peter until we learn to depend on the Holy Spirit Who Paul teaches actually gives us the desire, the will and the "want to" to fight off temptation successfully (Php 2:13+, Php 2:13NLT). Willpower… Won't Empower To Overpower! English dictionaries define "willpower" as "energetic determination" or "the ability to control oneself and determine one’s actions". In short, Jesus in essence declares "will power" won't empower the flesh so that it can overpower temptation! It might work for a while, but eventually the temptation will overwhelm the human will, because in and of itself, without the enablement of the Spirit, it is weak and will fail to keep one from falling into temptation. THE FLESH IS WEAK But the flesh is weak - Here is the striking and critical contrast we must never lose sight of! How weak is flesh? Not even strong enough to stay awake for one hour with the Lord of the Universe Who is in agony! And if it can't even fight off this "temptation" to fall asleep, how is it going to fight off the greater spiritual tests? Warren Wiersbe makes an important distinction regarding the ability of the flesh noting that "The flesh is weak when it comes to doing spiritual things (Mt 26:41), but it is very strong when it comes to practicing religious rules and regulations. Somehow, adhering to the religious routine inflates the ego and makes a person content in his self-righteousness. (Bible Exposition Commentary) Flesh (4561)(sarx) is used 147 times in the NT and a simple definition is difficult because sarx has many nuances (e.g., some Greek lexicons list up to 11 definitions for sarx!). The diligent disciple must carefully observe the context of each use of sarx in order to accurately discern which nuance is intended. The range of meaning extends from the physical flesh (both human and animal), to the human body, to the entire person, and even to all humankind! To keep this relatively simple there are 2 basic definitions of sarx, the first being the physical body ("flesh and blood"). The other main meaning of sarx is flesh in its moral, ethical sense. Flesh in this sense denotes fallen human nature apart from divine influence and even opposed to God and godliness. Flesh manifests "self" (remove the "h" and read "flesh" backwards > "self"! Note the middle letter of "sin" = the "big I" -- sIn!). The expression of the "anti-God energized" flesh is through the instrument of the physical body ("flesh and blood"), which is itself morally neutral but is the instrument of either righteousness or unrighteousness (cf Ro 6:12-note). In sum, flesh refers to man’s unredeemed humanness, acting apart from God and the Spirit of Christ, and in total subjection to the power of sin. Weak (sick, helpless) (772)(asthenes from a = without + sthénos = strength, bodily vigor) (Related verb = astheneo-note concentration of asthenes/astheneo in the epistles to the Corinthians - almost 50% of NT uses) is literally without strength or bodily vigor. Asthenes describes one's state of limited capacity to do or be something and is used literally of physical weakness (most of these uses in the Gospels) and figuratively of weakness in the spiritual arena (weak flesh, weak conscience, weak religious system or commandment [Gal 4:9, He 7:18-note], etc) and thus powerlessness to produce results. In other words, when used in the moral sense as in Mark 14:38, asthenes denotes the disciples' (and our) inability and/or feebleness with regard to handling of temptations. Simply put, we cannot do it in our own inherent, intrinsic, natural "strength".
Marcos 14
Wuest - At the time of the Transfiguration, these three had experienced the same over-powering drowsiness, and the same inability to give expression to their thoughts. In the case of the Transfiguration experience, their drowsiness and stupidity was the result of fear, and here, the result of grief (ED: AND PHYSICAL FATIGUE). and they did not know what to answer Him - They may have felt embarrassed because they were guilty and knew it and so did not even make an attempt to give Jesus an excuse for what was inexcusable in this crucial hour. Gilbrant suggests that "Even though they had been up all night, the events should have made them wide awake." (Ibid) Barton - The three of them had reacted the same way at Jesus’ transfiguration. During Jesus’ time of prayer beforehand, they also had fallen asleep (Luke 9:32+) and had been unable to express themselves appropriately to Jesus (Mark 9:6+). At that time they had been filled with fear; here in the garden, they were filled with grief. Robertson on did not know what to answer Him - Found only in Mark and reminds one of the like embarrassment of these same three disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration (Mark 9:6+). On both occasions weakness of the flesh prevented their real sympathy with Jesus in his highest and deepest experiences. “Both their shame and their drowsiness would make them dumb” (Gould). LAC has an interesting application - NO PRAYER, NO SHARE Perhaps disgusted, at least disappointed, Jesus left the slumbering disciples who could not stay awake. This pictures what happens when Christians and their churches fail to pray. Where no one prays, Jesus, as it were, walks away. The church without prayer functions as little more than a vacant structure. The person without prayer is going it alone, in a stupor, in a slumber, not really alive. To have a share of the Savior’s life and power, we must do what links our hearts to his: pray. Mark 14:41 And He came the third time, and said to them, "Are you still sleeping and resting? It is enough; the hour has come; behold, the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners. Sleeping: Mk 7:9 Jdg 10:14 1Ki 18:27 22:15 2Ki 3:13 Ec 11:9 Eze 20:39 Mt 26:45,46 the hour: Joh 7:30 8:20 12:23,27 13:1 17:1 the Son: Mk 14:10,18 9:31 10:33,34 Mt 26:2 Joh 13:2 Ac 7:52 Mark 14 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Related Passages: Matthew 26:44 And He left them again, and went away and prayed a third time, saying the same thing once more. 45 Then He *came to the disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Behold, the hour is at hand and the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners. IT WAS FINALLY "THE HOUR" And He came the third time - Only Matthew 26:44 tells us "And He left them again, and went away and prayed a third time, saying the same thing once more." So after He had prayed the third and final time, His soul was fortified by the fellowship with the Father and the Spirit, and He returns to move on to the next "Act" of this great drama of redemption. Maclear writes, “The Temptation of the Garden divides itself, like that of the Wilderness, into three acts, following close one on another.” (The Gospel According to St. Mark, Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges)
Marcos 14
Wuest adds "In asking this question, Matthew records that the high priest put Jesus under a solemn oath. This he did to force Jesus to incriminate Himself, a thing unlawful in Jewish jurisprudence. But to refuse to answer this question, would be tantamount to a denial of His deity." Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One? - You is emphatic and Hiebert suggests in this context it sounds a contemptuous tone. Christ of course is Christos (from chrio = to anoint to an office) so what Caiaphas is asking Jesus "Are you the Messiah?"Some versions translate Christ here as "Messiah" (NLT, CSB, NRSV, NAB). NET Note has "Or "the Messiah"; both "Christ" (Greek) and "Messiah" (Hebrew and Aramaic) mean "one who has been anointed."" James Edwards notes the irony of the question, “The effect is to put a full christological confession into the mouth of the high priest!..his arch-prosecutor confesses his name! How ironic that in the Gospel of Mark the two most complete christological confessions from humans occur in the mouth of those responsible for Jesus’ death: the high priest in Mk 14:61 and the centurion at the cross in Mk 15:39” (The Gospel according to Mark) Son of the Blessed One (this Name for God used only here) is another way to say "the Son of God," which is affirmed by Matthew's parallel "are the Christ, the Son of God.” (Mt 26:63) Grassmick - The title “Blessed One,” found in this sense only here in the New Testament, is a Jewish substitute for “God” (cf. Mishnah Berachoth 7. 3). These two titles of Jesus both refer to His claim to be the Messiah. (See Bible Knowledge Commentary) MacArthur on Caiaphas' question -- This was the first legitimate question posed to Jesus throughout the entire trial. It was a straightforward inquiry that called for a truthful response. The Lord understood, of course, that Caiaphas was hoping to trap Him in a statement the council would regard as blasphemous. The high priest knew that Jesus had repeatedly claimed to be the Messiah (cf. Luke 4:18–21; John 4:25–26; 5:17–18; 8:58) and to be the Son of God, making Himself equal with God (John 5:18; 8:16–19; 10:29–39). He hoped to coax Jesus to repeat that claim before the Sanhedrin. The Lord Jesus knew exactly what was happening. But rather than sidestepping the issue or remaining silent, He responded with a bold and unambiguous declaration of both His messiahship and deity. (Mark Commentary) Daniel Akin - Numerous times in Mark’s gospel Jesus asked those who followed Him and those He healed to be silent concerning His identity. The time for the “Messianic Secret” has now come to an end. Called, under divine oath, to bear witness to His true identity, He does not flinch nor does He waver. He directly and openly affirms, “I am” (Gr. ego eimi). However, He does not stop there. He identifies the Messiah with Daniel 7:13-14’s apocalyptic Son of Man and declares, “You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power [God], and coming with the clouds of heaven” (v. 62). Jesus weds Daniel 7:13-14 with Psalm 110:1 in identifying Himself as the Messiah and God’s Son (see Mark 12:35-37). The One you now judge will come and judge you in the end. Today I stand before you, but there is coming a day when you will stand before me! A great reversal is coming! In the OT (eg, Lev 8:12) only the High Priest was anointed - how ironic that here the high priest asked Jesus if He were the "Anointed One", the Messiah. STRATEGY FOR STRESS Jesus’ first response to the use of intimidation and fear used by the religious leaders was to remain silent. They wanted Jesus to make a self-incriminating statement; Jesus maintained his composure. Peter later wrote, “When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate…. Instead, he entrusted himself to [God] who judges justly” (1 Peter 2:23 NIV). Jesus is an example for us. We may find ourselves confronted by people hostile to Christ in the classroom, in the workplace, on the athletic field, or in the neighborhood, and we must have a way to deal with their attacks. Our goal should be to face attacks as Jesus did—with patience, calmness, and confidence that God is in complete control. (LAC) Dave Roper - The Sound of Silence Ultimate peace is silent through the density of life. 137—C. S. Lewis Silence, I’ve come to believe, is the answer to many of life’s contradictions, so I’m learning to say less these days. Silence was often our Lord’s way. In the face of severe provocation He “remained silent and gave no answer.”138 Jesus could have answered His critics, but “like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so He did not open His mouth.”139 There is awesome power in silence, especially in those overwhelmingly bad situations in which we are subject to harsh words from those we love. There, however, silence is most difficult, for loved ones have the greatest power to wound us. Yet there silence is most essential, for we owe our own loved ones the greatest measure of forbearance. Silence forestalls angry reactions and bitter words that we may later regret and others may not forget. Silence gives us time to slow our thoughts and reorder them, perhaps to remind ourselves that the one who wounded us is weary, or worried, or otherwise out of sorts. Silence gives us time to forgive. Silence is also a means by which we may help others see themselves. As their voices reverberate in the quietness we offer, they may hear their unkind words and regret them. When we step aside and wait in stillness, we give God an opportunity to work through us. When we take up our own cause, we may frustrate His ultimate intention to use us to bring spiritual healing and health to others. Silence can be the gentle answer that turns away anger.140 Defensive reactions make things worse: they stir up anger. Restraint and silence relieve tension and restore peace. As James assures us, “Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.”141 Others begin to grow toward goodness through our example. Finally, calm, unruffled silence is an eloquent and gracious reflection of God’s unconditional love. Clement, a first-century Christian, wrote, “Let [those who belong to Christ] demonstrate by silence the gentleness of their tongue; [and thus] let them show His love.”142 137 Lewis always depicts the atmosphere of the natural world as thick and dense. In such an environment it is difficult to think clearly and act appropriately. 138 Mark 14:61. Here Mark uses a word for silence that suggests both silence and peaceful calm. 139 Isaiah 53:7 NASB 140 Proverbs 15:1 141 James 3:18 142 1 Clement 21:7 To Speak Or Not To Speak [Jesus] kept silent and answered nothing. —Mark 14:61 Today's Scripture: Mark 14:53-65 Sometimes silence is the best response to a false charge. At other times we must speak up. When false witnesses accused Jesus as He stood before the Sanhedrin, He “kept silent” (Mark 14:53-61). Defending Himself would have been useless. Furthermore, He was fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah 53:7. But earlier in His ministry, Jesus rebuked the Pharisees, challenging them to prove that He sinned (John 8:13-59). A pastor resigned from his church because a few members made untrue statements about him. He thought it unchristian to defend himself, and in some instances it is. But in this case, the troublemakers needed to be confronted and their false charges refuted. He should have urged them to repent or face church discipline. Saying nothing may allow wrongdoers to go unchallenged in their evil ways. But if God’s Spirit leads us to remain silent, or if we want merely to try to salvage our wounded pride, then we should hold our tongue. Lord, give us wisdom to discern When what is false must be revealed Or if we need Your grace and strength To close our lips and keep them sealed. —D. De Haan Silence can be valuable; don’t break it unless you can improve on it. Hard Sayings - F F Bruce, et al Mark 14:61–62 You Will See the Son of Man After his arrest in Gethsemane, Jesus was brought before a court of inquiry, presided over by the high priest. At first, according to Mark’s narrative, an attempt was made to convict him of having spoken against the Jerusalem temple. Not only was violation of the sanctity of the temple, whether in deed or in word, a capital offense; it was the one type of offense for which the Roman government allowed the supreme Jewish court to pass and execute sentence at its own discretion. Two or three years later, when Stephen was successfully prosecuted before the supreme court on a similar charge, there was no need to refer the case to Pilate before execution could be carried out. On the present occasion, however, Jesus could not be convicted on this charge because the two witnesses for the prosecution gave conflicting evidence. Then the high priest, apparently on his own initiative, asked Jesus to tell the court if he was the Messiah, the Son of God (using “the Blessed” as a substitute for the divine name). The Messiah was entitled to be described as the Son of God, if he was the person addressed by God in Psalm 2:7 with the words “You are my son,” or the person who in Psalm 89:26 cries to God, “Thou art my Father” (RSV). Jesus was not in the way of spontaneously referring to himself as the Messiah. But to the high priest’s question he answered, “I am.” How Matthew and Luke understood this reply may be seen from their renderings of it: “You have said so” (Mt 26:64 RSV) or “You say that I am” (Lk 22:70 RSV). That is to say, if Jesus must give an answer to the high priest’s question, the answer cannot be other than yes, but the choice of words is the high priest’s, not his own. The words that followed, however, were his own choice. It is as though he said, “If ‘Christ’ (that is, ‘Messiah’ or ‘Anointed One’) is the term you insist on using, then I have no option but to say yes, but if I were to choose my own terms, I should say that you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Almighty and coming with the clouds of heaven.” (Here “power” on Jesus’ lips, meaning much the same as we mean when we say “the Almighty” is, like “the Blessed” on the high priest’s lips, a substitute for the divine name.) What, then, does this saying mean, and why was it declared blasphemous by the high priest? It means, in brief, that while the Son of Man, Jesus himself, stood now before his judges friendless and humiliated, they would one day see him vindicated by God. He says this in symbolic language, but the source of this symbolic language is biblical. Mention has been made already of the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven (see comment on Mk 13:30); this language is drawn from Daniel 7:13–14, where “one like a son of man” is seen in a vision coming “with the clouds of heaven” to be presented before God (“the Ancient of Days”) and to receive eternal world dominion from him. The “one like a son of man” is a human figure, displacing the succession of beastlike figures who had been exercising world dominion previously. The one whose claims received such scant courtesy from his judges would yet be acknowledged as sovereign Lord in the hearts of men and women throughout the world. His claims would, moreover, be acknowledged by God: the Son of Man would be seen seated “at the right hand of the Almighty.” This wording is taken from Psalm 110:1, which records a divine oracle addressed certainly to the ruler of David’s line: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” The present prisoner at the bar would be seen to be, by divine appointment, Lord of the universe—and that not in the distant future, but forthwith. “From now on,” in Luke’s version, “the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God” (Lk 22:69). (Luke omits the language about the clouds of heaven.) “In the future,” in Matthew’s version, “you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Mt 26:64). The right hand of God was the place of supreme exaltation; the clouds were the vehicle of the divine glory. The Servant of the Lord in the Old Testament, once despised and rejected by men, was hailed by God as “raised and lifted up and highly exalted” (Is 52:13); this role is filled in the New Testament by Jesus, obedient to the point of death, even death by crucifixion, being “highly exalted” by God and endowed with “the name which is above every name,” in order to be confessed by every tongue as Lord (Phil 2:6–11 RSV). It is the same reversal of roles that is announced in Jesus’ reply to the high priest. Why was his reply judged to be blasphemous? Not because he agreed that he was the Messiah; that might be politically dangerous and could be interpreted as seditious by the Roman administration (as indeed it was), but it did not encroach on the prerogatives of God; neither did the claim to be Son of God in that sense. But the language which he went on to use by his own choice did appear to be an invasion of the glory that belongs to God alone. It was there that blasphemy was believed to lie. The historical sequel may be allowed to rule on the question whether it was blasphemy or an expression of faith in God which was justified in the event. Mark 14:62 And Jesus said, "I am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN." I am: Mk 15:2 Mt 26:64 27:11 Lu 23:3 the Son: Mk 13:26 16:19 Ps 110:1 Da 7:13,14 Mt 24:30 Lu 22:69 Ac 1:9-11 2Th 1:7-10 Heb 1:3 8:1,10,12,13 12:2 Rev 1:7 20:11 Mark 14 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Excellent Diagram/Map of Jesus' Arrest, Trial and Crucifixion Related Passages: Matthew 26:64 Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.” JESUS CONFESSES HE IS THE THE CHRIST WHO WILL COME AGAIN Geddert notes that "According to my count, Jesus directly answers only two of the many questions posed to him in Mark’s Gospel [Questioning Jesus]. In 12:28–31, Jesus is asked about the greatest commandment, and he answers by giving the greatest two. Here he is asked whether he claims to be the Christ and the Son of God (= Messiah and Son of the Blessed One). He confirms that he is, and then also refers to himself as Son of Man and as I Am." And Jesus said, I am - I am is "ego eimi" the very words Jesus had used numerous times to stake His claim as God, for "ego eimi" was used in the Septuagint of Exodus 3:14+. For example in John 8:58 used "I am" (ego eimi) declaring "“Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” The Jews responded in John 8:59 by picking "up stones to throw at Him." Why? Because they knew He had just declared Himself to be God!
Marcos 14
Wuest adds on I am "The pronoun is used for emphasis. It is, “As for myself, in contradistinction to all others, I am.” Grassmick - This is the first time in Mark’s Gospel that He openly declared He is the Messiah (See Bible Knowledge Commentary) Barton - The pronoun emphasized that Jesus himself, distinct from all others, was indeed “the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One.” This is the first time, recorded in this Gospel, that Jesus openly declared himself to be the Messiah. The two words, “I am,” both answered the high priest’s question and alluded to Jesus divinity (“I AM” being God’s self-designation, see Exodus 3:14). (LAC) Jesus responds to Caiaphas as He often did to queries, by using Scripture, specifically quoting from Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13-14, both of which were considered Messianic passages by the Jews... Psalm 110:1+ A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.” Daniel 7:13-14+ “I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. 14 “And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed. And you shall see - Imagine their reaction to these words which Jesus directed personally at the 71 members of the Sanhedrin! This was a prophecy. It was a prophecy that they would see Him in exaltation and in judgment. One thinks of Revelation 1:7+ which says BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen. THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER - Jesus predicts the Son of Man's (His) future exaltation. Jesus equates Himself with Son of Man which was a well-known designation for the Messiah. Notice where He is sitting? At the right hand of Power, which is significant because "Power" was a figurative way to describe God (cf "right hand of God" in Acts 2:33+ and Acts 7:55+). NET Note - The expression the right hand of the Power is a circumlocution for referring to God. Such indirect references to God were common in 1st century Judaism out of reverence for the divine name. And COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN - This recalls Jesus' prophetic promise in Mark 13:26+. This passage speaks of the Son of Man, the Messiah, coming in judgment, in the present context coming in judgment of those who were wickedly sitting in judgment of Him! He was saying that He was Messiah and Judge (cf Jn 5:22). The implication also is that even thought they would put Him to death, He would yet live again. Even as the Jews had picked up stones to throw at Jesus in John 8:59, Jesus knew His declaration of divinity would seal His fate before the Sanhedrin. Swete says concerning our Lord’s answer; “But the words of Jesus are also a solemn warning that His position and that of His judges would one day be reversed, and a final but ineffectual summons to repentance and faith.” Wuest adds "our Lord’s words uttered at His trial before the Sanhedrin, were a final but ineffectual summons to repentance and faith, in that the Jewish leaders, instead of repenting of their rejection of Jesus as Messiah, and accepting Him as such, caused Him to be crucified." ASSURANCE! Mark did not mean that Christ would return in glory during the lifetime of these religious leaders. Jesus’ words assured these self-righteous religious leaders that judgment would come and they would be accountable to God. Their foolish and spiteful actions would be revealed as sinful. But these words also give confident assurance to all true disciples that the King is coming and will bring justice. No matter how terrible our suffering or how cruel the injustice brought against us, let us remember that God is the “Mighty One.” Nothing anyone can do to us will lessen his power. (LAC) Mark 14:63 Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, "What further need do we have of witnesses? his: Isa 36:22 37:1 Jer 36:23,24 Ac 14:13,14 Mark 14 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Related Passages: Matthew 26:65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy; A HYPOCRITICAL RESPONSE OF RIPPING HIS ROBE! Caiaphas was a hypocrite for this was the exact answer he sought from Jesus and reacted with self-righteous, melodramatic horror! He would have much rather been jumping with evil glee, but had to contain himself! He was doing what a high priest was supposed to do when he heard blasphemy. Sadly he did not grasp that Jesus' words were not blasphemy but the absolute truth!
Marcos 14
Wuest adds "This tearing of garments was an old sign of mourning or sorrow first mentioned in Genesis 37:29. The law forbad the high priest from rending his garments in the case of private troubles (Lev. 10:6, 21:10), but when acting as a judge, he was required by custom to express in this way his horror of any blasphemy uttered in his presence." Tearing (1284)(diarresso or diarrégnumi) from diá =denoting separation + rhéssō/rhégnumi = to tear, break, rend) means literally to tear through, rend asunder, such as tearing clothing (Mt. 26:65; Mk 14:83, Acts 14:14, in the Lxx = Rueben in Ge 37:29, Jacob in Ge 37:34 when told of Joseph's supposed death; Joshua at the defeat at Ai - Joshua 7:6, and many other OT examples), tearing a net (Luke 5:6); breaking chains (Luke 8:29; Lxx = Ps. 2:3).The Jews in expressing grief or indignation used to tear their garments from their chest to the waist (Ge 37:29, 33, 34; 44:13; Nu 14:6; Josh. 7:6; 2 Sa 3:31). The high priest said, "What further need do we have of witnesses? - In a distorted sense this expresses relief for now the gates of hell were flung wide open to carry out their evil plans. No more witnesses were needed, for Jesus had now "witnessed" against Himself! "His rhetorical question indicated that the case was closed and the verdict set. The members of the Sanhedrin finally had what they needed to support before the people the sentence they had predetermined to pass." (MacArthur) Wuest - In the words, “What need we any further witnesses?” “the relief of the embarrassed judge is manifest. If trustworthy evidence was not forthcoming, the necessity for it had now been superseded; the Prisoner had incriminated Himself” (Swete). Barton - Of all people, the high priest and members of the Sanhedrin should have recognized the Messiah because they knew the Scriptures thoroughly. Their job was to point people to God, but they were more concerned about preserving their reputations and holding on to their authority. They valued human security more than eternal security. CULTURE SHOCK Given the mind-set of the religious leaders, Jesus’ claims were blasphemous. How could this man have the authority of God? Popular culture and modern thought still view Christ’s claims as blasphemous, and if we express our faith, people will view us as bigoted and intolerant. They will be outraged by our claims to know the truth. Our belief that God controls our life violates their desire to have a human-centered life. Our view of moral law offends their belief that all values are relative to each person and situation. Our conviction about controlling our desires radically disagrees with their pleasure- and experience-oriented outlook. Be ready for the world to be morally outraged at your single-minded belief in Christ and his truth. (LAC) Mark 14:64 "You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?" And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death. Lev 24:16 1Ki 21:9-13 Mt 26:65,66 Lu 22:71 Joh 5:18 8:58,59 Joh 10:31-33 jN 19:7 Mark 14 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Excellent Diagram/Map of Jesus' Arrest, Trial and Crucifixion Related Passages: Matthew 26:65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy; 66 what do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death!” SENTENCE PASSED ON JESUS' SENTENCE "I AM" You have heard the blasphemy (blasphemia) - "I Am" (Mk 14:62) was all these hypocrites needed to hear! Caiaphas immediately refuses to accept Jesus' claim to be the Messiah and to be Deity. "Caiaphas regarded the words as blasphemy because Jesus claimed the position and power of deity." (Robertson) Luke 22:66 says it was not Jesus but these religious bigots who were blaspheming.
Marcos 14
Wuest - Swete remarks; “On this occasion the conclusion was foregone; no one proposed to test the claim of Jesus before condemning it as blasphemous; all condemned Him to be worthy of death.” Joseph of Arimathaea was not present, since he did not consent to the death of Jesus (Luke 23:51). Nicodemus was apparently absent, probably not having been invited because of previous sympathy with Jesus. All the rest voted for His death. Given that all condemned Jesus as deserving death one has to ask what about Joseph of Arimathea who was a member of the Sanhedrin. Luke helps us answer that question And a man named Joseph (Joseph of Arimathaea), who was a member of the Council, a good and righteous man 51 (he had not consented to their plan and action), a man from Arimathea, a city of the Jews, who was waiting for the kingdom of God; (Luke 23:50–51+) Comment - Apparently Joseph was not present. "Nicodemus was apparently absent also, probably not invited because of previous sympathy with Jesus (John 7:50). But all who were present voted for the death of Jesus." (Robertson ) Fruchtenbaum adds that "The religious leaders engage in activities that were punishable by steep fines in Jewish law. The offenses included hitting, which is punishable by 4 denarii (four days wages). Then palm slaps, punishable by a 200 denarii fine (200 days wages). Then spitting in His face, punishable by a 400 denarii fine (400 days wages)."
Marcos 14
Wuest adds the fact "That she was about and on duty at that hour, is indicative of the fact that there was something unusual astir." Servant-girls (3814)(paidiske diminutive of pais = a girl, youth) refers to a young girl or maiden. In NT refers to a slave girl or female slave. This very word is used 6 times (see uses below) in the Septuagint translation of Genesis 16 to refer to Hagar.) Paidiske - 14x in 12v - bondwoman(5), servant-girl(4), servant-girls(1), slave-girl(2), slaves*(1), women(1). Matt. 26:69; Mk. 14:66; Mk. 14:69; Lk. 12:45; Lk. 22:56; Jn. 18:17; Acts 12:13; Acts 16:16; Gal. 4:22; Gal. 4:23; Gal. 4:30; Gal. 4:31 PLAYING WITH FIRE Scripture does not tell us what Peter’s motives were for entering the high priest’s courtyard. Perhaps he thought he could still rescue Jesus. But we learn from his encounter that he foolishly put himself into temptation. He had already deserted and fled, so he knew his own weakness and vulnerability. But he tried to hide his identity, and this would lead him to deny his master. When we struggle with failure or guilt or find ourselves surrounded by those hostile to Christ, we must recognize our vulnerability and resist the temptation to compromise our faith, values, or morals. (LAC) See James Stalker The Trial and Death of Jesus Christ-A Devotional History of Our Lord's Passion 1. THE ARREST Matt. 26:47–56; Mark 14:43–50; Luke 22:47–53; John 18:1–11. 2. THE ECCLESIASTICAL TRIAL Matt. 26:57–68; Mark 14:51–65; Luke 22:54–71; John 18:12–14, 19–24. 3. THE GREAT DENIAL Matt. 26:69–75; Mark 14:66–72; Luke 22:54–62; John 18:15–18, 25–7. Mark 14:67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him and said, "You also were with Jesus the Nazarene." Jesus: Mk 10:47 Mt 2:23 21:11 Joh 1:45-49 19:19 Ac 10:38 Mark 14 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Related Passages: Matthew 26:69 Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard, and a servant-girl came to him and said, “You too were with Jesus the Galilean.” Luke 22:55+ After they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter was sitting among them. 56 And a servant-girl, seeing him as he sat in the firelight and looking intently at him, said, “This man was with Him too.” John 18:17 Then the slave-girl who kept the door said to Peter, “You are not also one of this man’s disciples, are you?” He *said, “I am not.” FIRST ACCUSATION AGAINST PETER And seeing Peter warming himself - Peter's face was illuminated by the light of the fire. Notice that here it says seeing Peter, but then it adds she looked at him, this later signifying an attentive gaze giving special attention to Peter's facial features. She looked at him - If looks could kill, this one could have! Looked (emblepo) is the same verb used in Lk 22:61 when Jesus' eyes met Peter's in the courtyard of Caiaphas just after Peter had denied Him the third time! In ancient Greek use emblepo often signified "a look of interest, love or concern." All three nuances are surely true of the look of Jesus. Both of these looks were intense, the servant-girl's being potentially a "look that could kill" (recall Peter had lopped off the ear of Caiaphas' servant!) and the other being a "look of love" from the One Who embodies love. Hiebert on the double usage (of verbs for sight - "seeing" and "looked") is not superfluous. One glance at him established that Peter was a stranger; but upon giving him a penetrating look (cf. 10:21), she recalled having previously seen him in the company of Jesus. Looked (1689) (emblepo from en = in or on + blépo = to look) means to look in the face, fix the eyes upon and so to stare at. It includes the idea of to contemplate or consider. The 10 uses are primarily in the Gospels - Matt. 6:26; Matt. 19:26; Mk. 10:21; Mk. 10:27; Mk. 14:67; Lk. 20:17; Lk. 22:61; Jn. 1:36; Jn. 1:42; Acts 22:11 Brooks observes that in the three denials there was, “A certain amount of escalation is in the charges and denials.” And said, "You also were with Jesus the Nazarene." - You is emphatic. You're the one! Can't you see the blood rush to Peter's face? Fear of men is beginning to accelerate. To refer to Jesus as a Nazarene was a reference to His hometown, which communicated a general contempt for the poor reputation of Nazareth. John 18:17 has her asking a question "You are not also one of this man’s disciples, are you?” Matthew 26:69 has “You too were with Jesus the Galilean” instead of "the Nazarene." In Luke 22:56+ she says “This man was with Him too.” The servant-girl was "spot on" and had just given Peter his first challenge to admit he had been with Jesus. Jesus the Nazarene - 9x in 9v - Mk. 10:47; Mk. 14:67; Mk. 16:6; Lk. 24:19; Jn. 18:5; Jn. 18:7; Jn. 19:19; Acts 2:22; Acts 22:8 Nazarene (3480)(Nazoraios from Nazara = Nazareth) describes an inhabitant of Nazareth and as in this passage is used to describe Jesus. In the plural nazoraios is used once to describe Christians (in a derogatory sense) (Acts 24:5+) This was in the inscription on the Cross (Jn 19:19). Zodhiates adds that "In Mt 2:23, we find the expression "He shall be called a Nazarene," i.e., according to the meaning of the Hebrew word netser (05342), "he shall be called a shoot" or branch. This is in allusion to such passages as Isa 11:1+; Isa 53:2+ and Zech 3:8; 6:12, but here also it implies reproach from the contempt in which Nazareth was held." (Ibid) Related Resources: Why is Jesus often referred to as Jesus of Nazareth? | GotQuestions.org What prophecy is Matthew 2:23 referring to regarding Jesus being a Nazarene? | GotQuestions.org Mark 14:68 But he denied it, saying, "I neither know nor understand what you are talking about." And he went out onto the porch, and a rooster crowed. NET Mark 14:68 But he denied it: "I don't even understand what you're talking about!" Then he went out to the gateway, and a rooster crowed. NLT Mark 14:68 But Peter denied it. "I don't know what you're talking about," he said, and he went out into the entryway. Just then, a rooster crowed. ESV Mark 14:68 But he denied it, saying, "I neither know nor understand what you mean." And he went out into the gateway and the rooster crowed. NIV Mark 14:68 But he denied it. "I don't know or understand what you're talking about," he said, and went out into the entryway. GNT Mark 14:68 ὁ δὲ ἠρνήσατο λέγων, Οὔτε οἶδα οὔτε ἐπίσταμαι σὺ τί λέγεις. καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἔξω εἰς τὸ προαύλιον [καὶ ἀλέκτωρ ἐφώνησεν]. KJV Mark 14:68 But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew. YLT Mark 14:68 and he denied, saying, 'I have not known him, neither do I understand what thou sayest;' and he went forth without to the porch, and a cock crew. ASV Mark 14:68 But he denied, saying, I neither know, nor understand what thou sayest: and he went out into the porch; and the cock crew. CSB Mark 14:68 But he denied it: "I don't know or understand what you're talking about!" Then he went out to the entryway, and a rooster crowed. NKJ Mark 14:68 But he denied it, saying, "I neither know nor understand what you are saying." And he went out on the porch, and a rooster crowed. NRS Mark 14:68 But he denied it, saying, "I do not know or understand what you are talking about." And he went out into the forecourt. Then the cock crowed. he denied: Mk 14:29-31 Joh 13:36-38 2Ti 2:12,13 he went: Mt 26:71,72 and a: Mk 14:30 Mark 14 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries The Great Denial - James Stalker (THE TRIAL AND DEATH OF JESUS CHRIST A Devotional History of our Lord’s Passion) Related Passages: Matthew 26:70 But he denied it before them all, saying, “I do not know what you are talking about.” 71 When he had gone out to the gateway, another servant-girl saw him and said to those who were there, “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.” Luke 22:57+ But he denied it, saying, “Woman, I do not know Him.” John 18:17 Then the slave-girl who kept the door said to Peter, “You are not also one of this man’s disciples, are you?” He said, “I am not.” PETER'S FIRST DENIAL But - Term of contrast - He was challenged to tell the truth, but he lied. he denied it - Matthew 26:70 adds that Peter "denied it before them all." The word to deny is the exact opposite of to confess. Scripture teaches we are to confess Christ (Ro 10:9-10+) and to deny self (Lk 9:23+ also uses arneomai), but here Peter does essentially just the opposite, denying Christ in order to preserve self!
Marcos 14
Wuest - Peter’s meaning is, “I am neither conscious of the fact, nor is the statement intelligible to me.” Edwards: Mark’s two Greek verbs for “know” are only an apparent redundancy. The first (oida) tends to denote theoretical knowledge, and the second (epistamai) practical knowledge; Peter’s denial is thus a total denial – in theory and practice! (The Gospel according to Mark) NET Note - "I do not know or understand what you are saying." In the translation this is taken as a hendiadys (a figure of speech where two terms express a single meaning, usually for emphatic reasons). Hiebert - the redundancy reflects Peter’s agitation. His two verbs make his denial as emphatic as possible. He denied all knowledge, and even understanding, of what the maid was saying. It was an indirect denial of Christ through a claim of ignorance and personal inability to understand the charge. (The Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary) Grassmick - "His denial was a common Jewish legal expression, literally, "I neither know nor understand what you (emphatic) are saying." (See The Bible Knowledge Commentary) Lane adds: “Peter denied the charge, using the form common in rabbinical law for a formal, legal denial.” (NICNT-Mark) And he went out onto the porch - The night was still cold but the pressure was heating up and the fire illuminated his face. Fear feels safer in the shadows. So Peter steps away from the fire to avoid further scrutiny, but he is too late for he has been identified.The porch was a covered archway opening onto the street. and a rooster crowed - "Strike one." Two strikes and Peter would be "out" because he was not playing baseball! NET Note - A real rooster crowing is probably in view here (rather than the Roman trumpet call known as gallicinium), in part due to the fact that Mark mentions the rooster crowing twice. See the discussion at Matt 26:74. Technical Note on a rooster crowed - Several important witnesses (a B L W Y* 579 892 2427 pc) lack the words "and a rooster crowed." The fact that such good and early Alexandrian witnesses lack these words makes this textual problem difficult to decide, especially because the words receive support from other witnesses, some of which are fairly decent (A C D Q Y(c )067 ¦(1, 13 )33 [1424] Û lat). The omission could have been intentional on the part of some Alexandrian scribes who wished to bring this text in line with the other Gospel accounts that only mention a rooster crowing once ( Matt 26:74; Luke 22:60; John 18:27). The insertion could be an attempt to make the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy in 14:30 more explicit. Internally, the words "and a rooster crowed" fit Mark's Gospel here, not only in view of 14:30, "before a rooster crows twice," but also in view of the mention of "a second time" in 14:71 (a reading which is much more textually secure). Nevertheless, a decision is difficult. (NET Note) Grassmick on rooster crowed - Nearly all major ancient Greek manuscripts and early versions include the words “and the rooster crowed” (NIV marg.; KJV) at the end of verse 68. This evidence plus the strongly attested words “the second time” in verse 72 favor inclusion of these words. Since only one rooster-crowing is mentioned in the parallel passages (cf. Matt. 26:74; Luke 22:60; John 18:27) these words were probably omitted from Mark very early by some scribes to conform to the parallels. But Mark was simply more specific than the other Gospels, probably because of Peter’s vivid recollection. Apparently this first rooster-crowing held no significance for Peter since it happened every morning (cf. Mark 13:35b; 14:72). (See The Bible Knowledge Commentary) Hiebert's note on a rooster crowed - The words are omitted by many of the ancient manuscripts, and their authenticity is uncertain. They are omitted in the critical texts of Westcott and Hort as well as Nestle. The text of the United Bible Societies puts them in brackets as questionable. Many commentators accept the omission. But Taylor points out that “the authorities for omission are mainly Alexandrian with partial Western support, and seems to reflect desire to cancel the Markan allusions to two cockcrowings in favour of the one mentioned in Matthew, Luke, and John. It is possible also that the correctors asked themselves how it was that, if Peter heard a cock crowing, he did not at once repent” (The Gospel According to St. Mark, p. 574). C.E.B. Cranfield suggests that the words were omitted “perhaps in order to make the denial seem a little less shameful” (The Gospel According to Saint Mark, Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary, p. 447). (The Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary) Answers to Tough Questions - Doesn’t Mark disagree with the other three Gospels about Peter’s denial of Jesus? A problem that has perplexed many careful students of the Bible concerns the accounts of the denial of Christ by Simon Peter. Jesus said to Peter, “Truly I say to you that this very night, before a cock crows, you shall deny Me three times” (Matthew 26:34, NASB). Matthew records the fulfillment of this prediction, “And immediately the cock crew. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly” (Matthew 26:74, 75, KJV). The problem comes when we read Mark’s version, “and Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice” (Mark 14:30, KJV). The fulfillment reads, concerning Peter, “He went out into the porch” (Mark 14:68, KJV), and later, in verse 72, “the second time the cock crew.” Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said to him, “Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.” Was it before the cock crowed once or twice that Peter denied Jesus? Luke and John give the same basic account as Matthew, making Mark’s statement seemingly at variance with the other three. This problem is not as unresolvable as it may seem. It is quite reasonable that Jesus made both statements. He told Peter that he would deny Him before the crowing of the cock, and his denial would occur before it had crowed twice. What we have, therefore, is Mark recording the story in more detail. This would seem natural since Mark wrote his Gospel under the influence of Simon Peter, and it would be natural for him to further detail this story, seeing that he is one of the main characters. Thus we have all four evangelists recording that Jesus predicted Peter’s denial of Jesus, with Mark adding further details. A possible reconstruction would be the following: Jesus reveals to Peter that before the cock crows, Peter will deny Him three times. Peter, as was his way, probably objected loudly to this idea that he would deny his Lord. Jesus then in turn repeats His earlier prediction, along with a further note that before the cock crows twice Peter will deny Him three times. (This harmony fits well with Mark’s account in his Gospel.) Furthermore, the clause, “Before a cock crows, you shall deny Me three times” (Matthew 26:34, NASB), is not contradicted by Mark relating that after Peter had denied Jesus the first time, the cock crowed. The cock crow was the sign that morning was soon to appear, and the phrase, “the time of the cock crow,” is another term for dawn. When Jesus is referring to the cock crowing twice, he is predicting a crowing of the cock in the middle of the night long before daybreak. “Observation over a period of 12 years in Jerusalem has confirmed that the cock crows at three distinct times, first about a half hour after midnight, a second time about an hour later, and a third time an hour after the second” (William Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, p. 543). When all the facts are considered, the problem of Peter’s denial is not at all a blatant contradiction, but can be harmonized. (Josh McDowell) When Skeptics Ask - Norman Geisler - Parallel accounts in the Gospels Many critics have blasted the Gospels because of variations in their records of the same events. Some even insist that it is impossible to harmonize all of the accounts into a cohesive whole. The existence of such harmonies as A.T. Robertson’s should suffice to quiet these complaints, but some still persist. A common objection is found in Peter’s denials. All accounts agree that Christ told Peter he would deny Him three times, but there appear to be more than three denials recorded. Also, Mark 14:30 says that the cock will crow twice and proceeds to mention two crows (vv. 68, 72), but there is only one crow spoken of in the other Gospels. There are, however, possible solutions which account for all the evidence without contradiction. First, as to the number of cock crows, there is no real problem if we understand that Mark simply included a detail that the others omitted. Since Peter himself was probably the source of Mark’s information (they are related in 1 Peter 5:13), there is no reason to doubt his word. It is reasonable to think that Peter might have noticed a cock crowing after the first denial and that he would include such details that the other disciples ignored because it had more personal relevance to him. The number of denials can be harmonized as follows: First Denial Second Denial Third Denial Matt. 26:69–70; Mark 14:66–68; Luke 22:55–57; John 18:17–18 Matt. 26:71–72; Mark 14:69–70a; Luke 22:58; John 18:25 Matt. 26:73–74; Mark 14:70b–72; Luke 22:59–60; John 18:26–27 Peter is warming himself by a fire in the court and a servant of the high priest brings the accusation, knowing that he entered with John. John’s description of the scene follows his account of the denial. A cock crows, noted by Mark. Peter has moved to a different fire on the porch when a second servant brings the same accusation. A relative of Malchus first recognizes Peter, then others note that his accent is Galilean. A second cock crows, noted by all. Second, it is possible that there is a copyist’s mistake in Mark 14:68, 72. The statement “and a cock crowed” may have been inadvertently written into verse 68 when it was originally only in verse 72. The word “second” would have been inserted later by someone seeking to clarify it. One of the very best Greek manuscripts supports this and a few other copies agree. As long as it is possible to reconcile alleged contradictions in one of these ways, there is no real contradiction. Since there are possible solutions, the Bible should be given the benefit of the doubt. QUESTION - What was the reason behind Peter's denial of Jesus? | GotQuestions ANSWER - The story of Peter’s threefold denial of Christ is found in all four Gospel accounts: Matthew 26:69–74, Mark 14:66–72, Luke 22:55–62, and John 18:15–18, 25–27. But why would the chief of the disciples deny even knowing Him? There were two main reasons why Peter denied Jesus: weakness and fear. Peter’s denial was based partially on weakness, the weakness born of human frailty. After the Last Supper, Jesus took His disciples to the Garden of Gethsemane to await His arrest. He told them to stay awake and pray while He went off to pray alone. When He returned to them, He found them sleeping. He warned Peter to stay awake and pray because, although his spirit might be willing, his flesh was weak. But he fell asleep again, and, by the time the soldiers had come to arrest Jesus, it was too late to pray for the strength to endure the ordeal to come. No doubt his failure to appropriate the only means to shore up his own weakness—prayer—occurred to him as he was weeping bitterly after his denials. But Peter learned his lesson about being watchful, and he exhorts us in 1 Peter 5:8, “Be on the alert, because your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.” Peter’s weakness had caused him to be “devoured” momentarily as he denied his Lord because he hadn’t been prepared through prayer and he underestimated his own weakness. A second reason for Peter’s failure was fear. To his credit, although all the others had fled (Mark 14:50), Peter still followed Jesus after His arrest, but he kept his distance so as not to be identified with Him (Mark 14:54). There’s no question that fear gripped him. From the courtyard, he watched Jesus being falsely accused, beaten, and insulted (Mark 14:57–66). Peter was afraid Jesus would die, and he was fearful for his own life as well. The world hated Jesus, and Peter found that he was not prepared to face the ridicule and persecution that Jesus was suffering. Earlier, Jesus had warned His disciples as well as us today, “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first” (John 15:18; cf. Matthew 24:9). Peter quickly found he wasn’t nearly as bold and courageous as he had proclaimed, and in fear he denied the One who had loved him. We might well wonder why Jesus allowed Peter to fail so miserably and deny his Lord three times that night. Jesus revealed to Peter that Satan had asked for permission to sift Peter like wheat (Luke 22:31). Jesus could have easily protected Peter and not allowed Satan to sift him, but Jesus had a higher goal. He was equipping Peter to strengthen his brothers (Luke 22:32). Not only did Peter strengthen the other disciples, but he became the pillar of the early church in Jerusalem, exhorting and training others to follow the Lord Jesus (Acts 2). And he continues to this day to strengthen us through his epistles, 1 and 2 Peter. As with all our failures, God used Peter’s many failures, including his three denials of Christ, to turn him from Simon, a common man with a common name, into Peter, the Rock. QUESTION - What is the significance of the rooster crowing in regards to Peter denying Jesus three times? ANSWER - Matthew 26:34, Luke 22:34, and John 13:38 all record Jesus telling Peter, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” Mark words it differently, which has led to some confusion. Mark 14:30 says, “And Jesus said to him, ‘Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times’” (emphasis added). Then, when the first servant girl questioned Peter about his relationship to Jesus, “he denied it, saying, ‘I neither know nor understand what you mean.’ And he went out into the gateway and the rooster crowed” (Mark 14:68). Later, after Peter’s third denial, “immediately the rooster crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, ‘Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.’ And he broke down and wept” (Mark 14:72). Did the rooster crow once or twice, and what is the significance of that crowing? Since we know that all Scripture is God-breathed and therefore accurate (2 Timothy 3:16), we can rest assured that there are always explanations for seeming inconsistencies. In biblical days, roosters were common within the towns and cities. The first crowing often occurred around midnight. The second crowing could be expected before daybreak. Jesus’ prediction about Peter’s denials meant that Peter would have opportunities all night long to repeat the validating claim he made when he told Jesus, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). However, despite three opportunities, the overconfident Peter denied His Lord every time. When daylight came, Jesus’ mock trial was over, and Peter lost his opportunities to defend Jesus as he had claimed he would do (Mark 14:29). Jesus did not say that Peter would deny Him before any rooster’s crow. So the report of a first crowing does not negate the validity of Jesus’ words. In those days, when someone made the comment “before the rooster crows,” it would have been commonly understood to mean the crowing at daybreak. But morning was not the only time roosters crowed. As anyone who has lived on a farm can attest, roosters crow whenever they feel like it. A rooster can crow when he senses danger, when another rooster threatens his flock, or simply because he got his days and nights mixed up. So it is perfectly understandable that Jesus would have been precise in prophesying to Peter that a rooster would actually crow twice during the time Peter was denying Him. The first crowing would not have been noticed by Peter at that moment, since people were used to hearing roosters at random times. It is similar to how people living near train tracks get used to hearing the noise of trains and stop noticing the sound. But when the morning rooster crowed, Peter was struck with the accuracy of Jesus’ words, and he went out and wept bitterly. It is also noteworthy that Mark was a close associate of Peter’s (1 Peter 5:13) and would have obtained many details for his Gospel from Peter himself. After the fact, Peter would have considered the first crowing more significant than he did at the time. Jesus’ prophetic words must have played over and over in his head as he then recalled the first crowing and then the second. It seems likely that, in his retelling of that night to Mark, Peter would have made mention of both crowings. Mark does not in any way contradict the other accounts, which only mention the second crowing. The second crowing was the most important one, since it marked the end of Peter’s testing. Because of the prominence of the story of Peter and the rooster, recorded in all four Gospels, the rooster, or cock, has at times been used as a Christian symbol. Some churches even place a rooster atop their steeples. Used as a symbol, the rooster represents the weakness of man and the grace of Christ in forgiving sinners. Peter three times denied his Lord and Savior, but he was forgiven, restored, and sent out to live for the glory of God (John 21:15–19). The rooster reminds us that Christ extends hope to sinners everywhere. The rooster, used as a Christian symbol, can also represent watchfulness. Before His arrest, Jesus prayed in the garden and asked His disciples to do the same. But He found them sleeping, and He said to Peter, “Are you asleep? Couldn’t you keep watch for one hour? Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation” (Mark 14:37–38). Later that night, Peter did indeed fall into temptation, and the rooster’s crow served as his spiritual wake-up call. The rooster can still be a reminder today that we must watch and pray and live as children of light: “You are all children of the light and children of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness” (1 Thessalonians 5:5). The rooster could also be seen as proclaiming the start of a new day. In Christ, all things become new (2 Corinthians 5:17). A new day of forgiveness and grace has dawned, and believers, saved by grace, proclaim the good news to a world in need of light. Jesus is never impressed with our fleshly bravado such as Peter expressed in Matthew 26:35. Jesus knows our hearts better than we do (Matthew 9:4; Luke 9:47). But, even though He knows the ways we will fail Him, our Lord does not stop loving us or using us to further His message. Those rooster crowings must have haunted Peter for many years and may have helped him stay humble, watchful, and committed to his calling. Our past failures can be battle scars in our lives as well, propelling us toward greater devotion and stricter loyalty to Jesus when we recall how much we have been forgiven (see Luke 7:47). Mark 14:69 The servant-girl saw him, and began once more to say to the bystanders, "This is one of them!" servant-girl Joh 18:17 servant-girl Mk 14:38 Lu 22:58 Joh 18:25 Ga 6:1 Mark 14 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Related Passages: Matthew 26:71 When he had gone out to the gateway, another servant-girl saw him and *said to those who were there, “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.” Luke 22:58+ A little later, another saw him and said, “You are one of them too!” But Peter said, “Man, I am not!” John 18:17 Then the slave-girl who kept the door *said to Peter, “You are not also one of this man’s disciples, are you?” He *said, “I am not.” SECOND ACCUSATION AGAINST PETER The servant-girl saw him - The same one described above. "Since Matthew mentions “another maid” (Mt 26:71) and Luke mentions “another [man]” (Luke 22:58), it is clear that several joined in challenging Peter this time." (Hiebert) And began once more to say to the bystanders, "This is one of them!" - Now she changes her tact. Peter had denied it and now like a prosecuting attorney she appeals to the jury of bystanders.One of them of course would be one of the disciples of Jesus. Another maid added "“This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.” (Mt 26:71) James Edwards well says, “a change in place is no substitute for a change of heart. Like a guilty conscience, the servant girl accuses Peter a second time” (The Gospel according to Mark) Mark 14:70 But again he denied it. And after a little while the bystanders were again saying to Peter, "Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean too." a little: Mt 26:73,74 Lu 22:59,60 Joh 18:26,27 for: Jdg 12:6 Ac 2:7 Mark 14 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Related Passages: Matthew 26:72+ And again he denied it with an oath, “I do not know the man.” 73 (THIRD ACCUSATION) A little later the bystanders came up and said to Peter, “Surely you too are one of them; for even the way you talk gives you away.” Luke 22:59+ (THIRD ACCUSATION) After about an hour had passed, another man began to insist, saying, “Certainly this man also was with Him, for he is a Galilean too.” John 18:26+ (THIRD ACCUSATION) One of the slaves of the high priest, being a relative of the one whose ear Peter cut off, *said, “Did I not see you in the garden with Him?” SECOND DENIAL THIRD ACCUSATION Akin writes "Peter is now on the spot, in the hot seat, in front of others. Here is his chance to “man up”, regain his courage, and take a stand for Jesus for whom he had expressed undying loyalty." But - Term of contrast. The servant girl had spoken truth, but a second time Peter would speak a lie. Again - expression of time - This signals a shameful repetition of his previous denial. Hiebert adds that "This time it was a denial of Jesus by claiming he was not one of His followers. He thus separated himself from Jesus as well as His disciples." He denied (arneomai) it - Denied is in the imperfect tense which pictures him denying the accusation over and over. As Akin says "It was an extensive and repeated denial, not a one time slip of the tongue." There is another way to interpret the imperfect here considering that apparently another maid and another man had accosted and accused Peter. Hiebert writes "denied is imperfect, suggesting repeated expressions of denial to the different ones challenging him." And after a little while - How long is After a while? Luke 22:59+ says "After about an hour had passed." The basis of the bystander's accusation is that they recognized Peter was from Galilee, presumably by his accent. the bystanders were again saying to Peter, "Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean too." - Note the adverb they chose is "Surely," which Hiebert says "insists that in spite of his denials, Peter actually is “of them,” the circle of Jesus’ disciples. The idea is "truly despite your denials. His denials have not assuaged but strengthened their suspicion of his true identity. The bystanders join the servant girl in bringing accusation against Peter, basing their accusation on their premise that he is Galilean, which they would have discerned from his accent. Matthew 26:73 affirms this interpretation noting that "the bystanders came up and said to Peter, “Surely you too are one of them; for even the way you talk gives you away.” Paul Apple - If we don’t know you by your face, at least we recognize you by your accent Grassmick - Galileans spoke an Aramaic dialect with noticeable differences in pronunciation. So they concluded he was a follower of that heretic Galilean, Jesus. (See The Bible Knowledge Commentary) Daniel Akin - Peter failed the Lord 3 times as He prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mk 14:37-42). Now he fails Him 3 times in the courtyard of the high priest. Initially he failed him by sleeping when he should have been praying. Now he fails Him by denying Him when he should have confessed Him. The rock named Peter crumbles and is pulverized under the pressure. Surely (230)(alethos) is an adverb meaning adv. truly, really, actually With adjectival function = real Jn 1:47; 8:31. BDAG says "corresponding to what is really so." Friberg - adverb; (1) as qualifying a verb of telling truly, in truth (Lk 9.27 ); (2) as attributing genuine existence to a thing, state, or quality as opposed to what is imagined really, truly, actually (Jn 1.47) 18x in 18v - Matt. 14:33; Matt. 26:73; Matt. 27:54; Mk. 14:70; Mk. 15:39; Lk. 9:27; Lk. 12:44; Lk. 21:3; Jn. 1:47; Jn. 4:42; Jn. 6:14; Jn. 7:26; Jn. 7:40; Jn. 8:31; Jn. 17:8; Acts 12:11; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Jn. 2:5 Alethos in the Septuagint - Gen. 18:13; Gen. 20:12; Exod. 33:16; Deut. 17:4; Jos. 7:20; Ruth 3:12; 1 Sam. 22:7; 1 Ki. 8:27; 1 Ki. 18:39; 2 Chr. 6:18; Ps. 58:1; Jer. 28:6; Jer. 51:13; Dan. 3:14; Dan. 3:24; Mark 14:71 But he began to curse and swear, "I do not know this man you are talking about!" 2Ki 8:12-15 10:32 Jer 17:9 1Co 10:12 Mark 14 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Related Passages: Matthew 26:74+ Then he began to curse and swear, “I do not know the Man!” And immediately a rooster crowed. Luke 22:60+ But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about.” Immediately, while he was still speaking, a rooster crowed. John 18:27+ Peter then denied it again, and immediately a rooster crowed. PETER'S THIRD DENIAL But he began to curse (anathematizo) and swear (omnuo), "I do not know this Man you are talking about!" - Peter is not using foul language per se as we might think today when we hear that someone is cursing and swearing! Peter has become frantic with the repeated accusations that he is associated with Jesus and so he resorts to a stronger "defense" even being willing to call down a curse upon himself if he is lying (which he was!)! Both curse and swear are present tense which depicts Peter as continually cursing and swearing. Note how Peter's denial has "escalated" for now he claims he does not even know Jesus who he refers to as this Man. It is a direct denial of Jesus Himself! Wuest - The word “curse” is anathematizo, “to declare anathema or cursed.” The Jews had a practice of laying themselves under a curse (Acts 23:12+). Paul in Galatians 1:8, 9+, calls the divine curse (same word) down upon those who preached a different gospel than the true one. Peter, thus declares himself subject to the divine curse if he is not telling the truth when he disclaims all acquaintance with Jesus. Paul Apple on Peter swearing - Calling on something higher and greater than himself to bolster his claims – Remember what Christ had taught about oaths Daniel Akin - This was all Peter could take! He anathematizes himself with a divine curse. “If I am lying may God strike me dead” is a modern idiom that captures well Peter’s sentiment. “I swear to God, and may I die if I am lying, I do not know this man of whom you speak” (v.70). Peter will not even mention Jesus’ name so as to distance himself even further from this now convicted capital criminal from Galilee Salmond puts it, “Peter plunges, desperate and reckless, into this last depth of falsehood and disloyalty.” Curse (bound under an oath) (332)(anathematizo from anathēma = a curse, cf use in Gal 1:8,9+) means to bind with an oath or under a curse, as if calling on God to punish if what is solemnly spoken is not true or is not accomplished. Swear (take no oath (swear)(3660) (omnuo) derives from a basic meaning to grasp a sacred object. The verb omnuo thus means to swear, confirm or affirm the truth of a statement by calling on a divine being (heaven, altar, temple, throne of God) to execute sanctions against a person if the statement in question is not true. To put one's self under oath. To threaten with an oath as in Heb 3:11,18, 4:3. To swear means “to take an oath” for confirmation, as is done in court. The verb is used of God in Acts 2:30 to confirm that He will fulfill His promise. Mark 14:72 Immediately a rooster crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had made the remark to him, "Before a rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times." And he began to weep. Second: Mk 14:30,68 Mt 26:34,74 Peter: 2Sa 24:10 Ps 119:59,60 Jer 31:18-20 Eze 16:63 36:31 Lu 15:17-19 22:60 began to weep, Eze 7:16 Mt 26:75 Lu 22:62 2Co 7:10 Mark 14 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Related Passages: Matthew 26:74-75+ Then he began to curse and swear, “I do not know the man!” And immediately a rooster crowed. 75 And Peter remembered the word which Jesus had said, “Before a rooster crows (Mk 14:30 "before a rooster crows twice"), you will deny Me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly. Luke 22:60+ But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about.” Immediately, while he was still speaking, a rooster crowed. 61 The Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had told him, “Before a rooster crows today, you will deny Me three times.” 62 And he went out and wept bitterly. John 18:27+ Peter then denied it again, and immediately a rooster crowed. THE ROOSTER CROWS A SECOND TIME Immediately a rooster crowed a second time - Immediately Jesus' prophecy was fulfilled to the letter. Luke 22:50 adds that "while he was still speaking." Rooster's crowing on the farm when I was a boy usually meant it was time to "Wake up!" Peter has just received his "Wake up" call from God via a rooster (cf Balaam's donkey speaking). (See above for Gleason Archer's discussion How can the various accounts of Peter’s denial of Christ be reconciled?) Something else occurred at this time and is described in Luke 22:60-61+ "But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about.” Immediately, while he was still speaking, a rooster crowed. 61 The Lord turned and looked (emblepo) at Peter (THEIR EYES MET!) And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had told him, “Before a rooster crows today, you will deny Me three times.” Comment - As noted above in ancient Greek emblepo often signified "a look of interest, love or concern." All three nuances are surely true of the look of Jesus. Sinclair Ferguson says “That look was to be his salvation, for he saw in those eyes not condemnation but compassion. That was the turning point in his life… Now, in this most painful and memorable of ways, Peter saw himself as he really was, repented, and was remade into the great apostle” (Let’s Study Mark,). Hiebert - The remembrance of the Lord’s warning and His sad look of love broke the tension of Peter’s fear and awakened his conscience, opening the door to true repentance. (The Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary) William Barclay favors a bugle call not a cock crow - The Roman night was divided into four watches from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. At the end of the third watch, at three o'clock in the morning, the guard was changed. When the guard was changed there was a bugle call which was called the gallicinium, which is the Latin for the cockcrow. Most likely what happened was that as Peter spoke his third denial, the clear note of the bugle call rang out over the silent city and smote on Peter's ear. He remembered and his heart broke. And Peter remembered how Jesus had made the remark to him, "Before a rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times." - "Thinking of this, he began weeping" or "Rushing out, he began weeping." He remembered but sadly it was too late, for it was after he had sinned. In Mk 14:68 Peter he went out onto the porch, and a rooster crowed and one would have thought this was a divine providential "wake up call" warning Peter that two more denials were coming. Yes, prophecy had to be fulfilled, but yes Peter was responsible for his actions, specifically his denials. “It was not the crowing of the cock that convicted Peter; it was the remembering of Christ’s words.” -- Warren Wiersbe So once again Jesus prophecy proved perfect, but so would His prophetic promise "but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers." (Lk 22:32+).