Mark 14
Plots of the Chief Priests, Scribes, and Elders ( Mark 14:1-2)
We learn that the chief priests and scribes decided not to move immediately against Jesus but to wait until after the Passover when fewer people were present. Interestingly, their intentions contradicted what Jesus predicted (Mark 10:33-34). At this moment, they saw Jesus as too popular to bring down and decided to wait until after the Passover feast.
The Passover feast is technically only one day long, but the week starting the day after the Passover was also a special feast called the Feast of Unleavened Bread. It commemorated the exodus from Egypt when the people ate unleavened bread because there was no time for their bread to rise (Exodus 23:15; Leviticus 23:4-8). The first and last days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread were special Sabbaths or holy convocations, whether those days fell on a Sabbath day or not. Thus, there are two special Sabbaths in a row: the Passover day and the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. On these two days, no work could be done. This is a crucial point that is generally overlooked when trying to place the day of the week Christ died.
Dinner at Martha, Mary, and Lazarus’ House (Mark 14:3-9)
Mark mentions this account just before Judas’ betrayal, two days before the Passover (Mark 14:1). Yet Mark's account is not always chronologically presented. Mark states that it occurred while Jesus was in Bethany (Mark 14:3), but the wording doesn’t absolutely require that the meal took place that day. John’s wording states the supper was six days before the Passover and that the next day was the triumphal entry (John 12:12). Therefore, we conclude that Mark is putting significant events next to each other, while John follows a more chronological order of events.
The meal took place in Simon the Leper’s house. We are uncertain who Simon is. It would appear that he was a man who had been healed of leprosy since it would not be proper for Jews to eat with an unclean man.
A woman (identified as Mary in John 12:3) took a pound of spikenard sealed in an alabaster jar and broke the seal on the jar. The wording allows for breaking the seal or breaking the jar itself. In those days, perfume jars sometimes came with long, narrow spouts that could be opened by pulling out the seal or snapping off the spout. She then poured some on Jesus’ head.
Some, Judas Iscariot chiefly (John 12:4), objected to this apparent waste of good perfume. It could have been sold for 300 denarii, about ten months' wages for a common laborer. That money could have been given to the poor. John points out, however, that Judas wasn’t concerned about the poor. He was the one who carried the money box, and he was known to have helped himself to the funds at times (John 12:6).
Jesus stops the disciples' complaints to Mary. She was doing him a favor by preparing him for his burial. He wouldn’t be with them long, but if they were concerned about the poor, there would always be poor people. It is proper to help the poor (Proverbs 29:7; Galatians 2:10), but what Mary did for him would be remembered as a part of the Gospel account wherever it was taught.
Judas’ Betrayal (Mark 14:10-11)
It appears that on the evening that the chief priests and scribes were meeting, Judas decided to betray Jesus to the leaders. He met with them and was offered money to betray Jesus to them when an opportunity arose.
Mark’s account mentions the incident in connection with Simon the Leper’s dinner. While the incident occurred several days earlier, it is mentioned here because it tells us about Judas’ motivation to betray Jesus. Judas had wanted the money from the perfume Mary used to anoint Jesus, but he lost out on this opportunity. Yet another chance to make money became apparent to him. It is possible that he thought he could make easy money by betraying Jesus, and since Jesus always managed to slip away, he could offer Jesus to the leaders, and Jesus would still survive, but meanwhile, Judas would have more money in his pocket.
Preparation for the Passover Meal (Mark 14:12-16)
The First Day of Unleavened Bread is when the Passover lamb was to be slain in preparation for the Passover meal. The details for keeping the Passover are given in Deuteronomy 16:1-12. The fourteenth day of the first month (Nisan) was the Passover (Numbers 28:16). It was celebrated at sundown, which would be the beginning of the day in Jewish reckoning. The day before, the thirteenth day of Nisan, was when the lamb was slain. On this day, all leavening agents had to be removed from the homes in preparation for the Sabbath. Thus, most Jewish homes removed it during the twelfth day of Nisan, so it would be out of the house by sundown, which was the start of the thirteenth day of Nisan. This is how the thirteenth day became known as the First Day of Unleavened Bread, even though it wasn’t officially a feast day.
"The feast of unleavened bread began properly on the fifteenth of Nisan and lasted seven days, but this was the fourteenth Nisan, the day on which the paschal lamb was slain. However, it was common to blend the slaying of the Passover, the Passover feast, and the feast of the unleavened bread, and to look upon all three as one great festival, and to use the names Passover and unleavened bread interchangeably to describe the entire eight days. This appears from the writings of Josephus, who sometimes reckons the feast as beginning on the fifteenth (The Antiquities of the Jews, 3.10.5) and again as beginning on the fourteenth (The Wars of the Jews, 5.3.1). He also sometimes reckons the feast as lasting seven days (The Antiquities of the Jews, 3.10.5), and again he reckons it as lasting eight days (The Antiquities of the Jews, 3.15.1). The Rabbinists say that all the leaven was carefully removed from the houses on the evening before the fourteenth Nisan. To the present day, leaven is removed from the houses of the Jews on the night between the thirteenth and fourteenth. Hence, the day could be very fittingly called "the first day of unleavened bread." [The Fourfold Gospels, by R. L. Whiteside]
According to Luke's account, Jesus told Peter and John to prepare the Passover meal (Luke 22:8). Mark only mentions that it was two disciples. They asked him where he wanted the meal prepared, and like before, they were given odd instructions. When they entered Jerusalem, they would be met by a man carrying a pitcher of water. They are to follow the man into the house he enters and tell the owner of the house that the Teacher would like to know where the guest room he needs for the Passover meal he would eat with his disciples. Jesus stated that the owner would show them a large, furnished upper room, and it is in that room they are to prepare the meal. As before, it happened just as Jesus stated. The man they approached was likely a follower of Jesus since he did not need an explanation about who needed the room.
The odd way of locating the room did prevent Judas from telling the authorities where to find Jesus before he had an opportunity to eat and instruct his followers one last time.
The Passover Meal (Mark 14:17)
Nothing much is said about the actual Passover meal that was eaten. It wasn’t that important other than commentary on the setting in which the Lord’s Supper was instituted. The meal was actually eaten on the Preparation Day instead of the Passover Day itself. Present were Jesus and his twelve apostles.
Betrayer Is Revealed (Mark 14:18-21)
During the Passover meal, Jesus announces that one present would betray him. The announcement upsets the disciples, and they each ask if Jesus is referring to him. Notice that the disciples were not accusing each other. Each was concerned that he might betray his Lord without intention. In the Greek text, the form of their question expected a “no” for an answer; thus, each asked, “Surely it is not I?” Jesus, however, stated that it was the person who shared the food bowl with him. This fulfills the prophecy in Psalms 41:9. The bowl is probably a sauce made from raisins, vinegar, and bitter herbs that the Jews commonly used during the Passover meal. Bowls of the sauce were set on the table, and people dipped pieces of bread into it before eating, much the way we dip corn chips into salsa.
Jesus further stated that he would go just as it had been prophesied, but the one who betrayed him would still be held guilty even though it was ordained to happen in this fashion. Thus, Jesus states that even though God willed for it to happen in this manner, those participating – including his betrayer – were still acting of their own free will and would be held accountable for their actions. Jesus states that it would have been better for that person to have not been born than to face what he must face.
The Lord’s Supper (Mark 14:22-25)
At some point during the Passover meal, Jesus took bread, blessed it, broke it, and then gave it to the disciples. He told them that it represented his body, which was given to them. They were to eat the bread in remembrance of him. He then took the cup, blessed it, and told them to drink of the fruit of the vine. He said this represented his shed blood, establishing the new covenant for them.
Because this was the Passover, no leavening (yeast) was allowed in Jewish homes (Exodus 12:15; 13:7). Thus, we understand that the Lord’s Supper comprises unleavened bread and unfermented grape juice. The lack of leavening represents an absence of sin (I Corinthians 5:7-8), which is a fitting representation of Christ (II Corinthians 5:21; I Peter 2:22; I John 3:5).
By calling it a covenant, Jesus indicated that the covenant brought by Moses was about to be replaced (Hebrews 8:13). Another word for a covenant is a testament. Like our “last will and testaments,” testaments are written out in advance and come into force when there is a death (Hebrews 9:15-17). And like the covenant made through Moses, there is a requirement that blood be used to dedicate the covenant (Hebrews 9:18-22).
All the disciples were required to partake of the two elements. Since Jesus associated the meal with the new covenant, we understand it is a covenant meal. In ancient times, covenants were established between two parties, often to make peace between them (Ephesians 2:14-18). After the covenant is established, the parties sit down to share a meal to show they are in fellowship (I Corinthians 10:16-17; I Corinthians 11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34). The covenant between Jacob and Laban illustrates this (Genesis 31:46, 54). The elders of Israel ate a fellowship meal in the presence of God after the Law of Moses was given (Exodus 24:9-11). The meal established by the Lord is in the same vein. That is why Jesus said earlier that one cannot have life unless he eats of his flesh and drinks of his blood (John 6:53-57). Jesus is not talking about his literal flesh and blood but alluding to the fellowship meal whose elements represent his body and blood. He cannot be saved unless he is willing to demonstrate his fellowship with Christ by sitting down to the covenant meal with him.
The purpose of the meal is to remember Jesus' death (I Corinthians 11:24-25). Its purpose is to be a memorial so we never forget why we are Christians. It also states our hope for the future because we partake until he comes again (I Corinthians 11:26). We learn from Acts 20:7 that this means it was something the early disciples did weekly on the first day of the week. From Acts 2:42, we learn that they keep this and other parts of worship steadfastly.
Though this occurred during the Passover meal, it is clear that this memorial was separate from the meal – it was something different. Eating unleavened bread and drinking the fruit of the vine as a memorial of Jesus’ death is not found in any regulation of the Passover meal. The Passover was eaten only once a year, but the disciples partook of the Lord’s Supper weekly (Acts 20:7). In every discussion of the Lord’s Supper after its institution, there is no mention of any part of the Passover meal. But all this makes sense as the two meals memorialize two different incidences.
The disciples will fall away for a while (Mark 14:26-31)
After singing a hymn, Jesus and the disciples left for the Mount of Olives. While walking there, Jesus tells the disciples that they would all abandon him in fulfillment of a prophecy found in Zachariah 13:7. Peter declares that he would not stumble even if everyone else is forced to. But Jesus tells him he will have denied knowing Jesus three times before the next dawn (before the roster crows twice). Peter again denies that he would do any such thing. Even if he had to die with Jesus, he would remain faithful. The other disciples joined him in their own protests that they would never deny the Lord.
Prayer for Relief (Mark 14:32-42)
As Jesus and his disciples approached Gethsemane, Jesus asked most of the disciples to wait while he proceeded further into the garden with Peter, James, and John. The name Gethsemane means “oil press.” Located on the Mount of Olives, this area was probably once used to grow and process olives.
Once alone with his closest disciples, Jesus revealed his anguish. The wording is that he is sorrowful to the point of nearly being overwhelmed with grief. It crushed him nearly to death (Psalm 116:3). He asked the three to watch over him while he prayed and told them to pray so they would not be tempted. Going a bit further, he fell to the ground and prayed that this tribulation might be taken away, but knowing it could not, he submitted himself to God’s will. Jesus knew that God could accomplish anything, including removing the need for his death. His reference to this “cup” alludes to the cup of God’s wrath (Psalms 75:8; Isaiah 51:17).
Though the prayer recorded is short, when Jesus returned to the disciples, he scolded them, Peter in particular, for being unable to watch for one hour. Jesus told them to watch and pray that they weren’t led into temptation. He understands they want to be obedient, but their bodies are not as strong as their will. Peter was probably the focus of this rebuke because of his earlier claim that he would never forsake the Lord (Mark 14:29). The warning is that if he could not resist the temptation to sleep now, how would he stand in the time of actual trial?
Jesus returns to pray. When he returned, he found the disciples asleep again, for they could not keep their eyes open. Again, he awakens them, and they have no excuse to offer for their laxness.
For a third time, Jesus returns to pray. On his third return, he awakens them again with a warning. While they were sleeping, the enemy had not. The time for betrayal had come, and it was time to meet the betrayer.
Jesus Arrested (Mark 14:43-52)
Even as he warned them, Judas came up to them, leading a mob sent by the chief priests, scribes, and elders. They were carrying swords and clubs. Judas had told them that whomever he kissed would be the one they should grab. Remember, this is in the dark of the night, well after midnight, likely close to 3 am, so Jesus would not be easily recognized even with the torches and lanterns they were carrying.
Judas knew where to find Jesus at this hour because Jesus was in the habit of spending the night in the garden of Gethsemane (Luke 21:37; 22:39). Approaching Jesus, Judas called out, “Hail Rabbi!” and kissed him. Those in the crowd reach out to grab Jesus.
Peter took the sword that he had and managed to cut off the ear of the High Priest’s slave.
Jesus turned to the mob and asked why they came with weapons to arrest him as if he were a brigand or robber. He taught in the temple daily, and they didn’t bother arresting him then. There was no need for these dramatics. But the Scriptures had predicted this. In saying this, Jesus indicates that they did not have as much control of the situation as they thought.
Seeing their Lord arrested, all the disciples fled for safety. A young man, probably awakened from sleep by the mob, had thrown a linen sheet around him and attempted to follow, but those in the crowd grabbed him. To escape, he had to leave the sheet behind and flee naked from the crowd. Since only Mark mentions this detail and knowing that Mark’s mother lived in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12, 25), many suppose that the young man was John Mark, but he doesn’t name himself as is typical in the Gospels. However, this is speculation on everyone’s account. The purpose of mentioning it is to emphasize why the disciples fled. The mob wasn’t just after Jesus. They were trying to bring anyone associated with him along as well.
Peter and John Follow (Mark 14:53-54)
Jesus was brought to the High Priest’s house, where the chief priests, elders, and scribes were gathered.
Peter followed at a distance, thus avoiding arrest. Peter entered the courtyard, near a fire and away from those trying Jesus.
False witnesses (Mark 14:55-60)
The Sanhedrin council convened to consider the case of Jesus. They sought anyone who could bring a charge against Jesus but could not produce proper witnesses. The Law required that two or more witnesses give consistent testimony before a fact could be admitted as evidence in court (Deuteronomy 19:15; 17:6). But they could not find two people to give the same evidence.
Finally, they found two people who said that Jesus would destroy and rebuild the temple in three days. It was almost what Jesus said, but Jesus wasn’t speaking of the physical temple, but of his body (John 2:19-22). Even in this, the testimony of the witnesses didn’t fully agree. Matthew gives us one testimony (Matthew 26:61), and Mark records the other (Mark 14:58). We can see for ourselves how different the statements are from each other. It is not surprising since the statement was made over three years prior. They could not even get a brief statement right.
The high priest challenged Jesus to defend himself against this charge, but Jesus said nothing (Isaiah 53:7). There was no need. The charge was obviously false and would not be held against him. Jesus’ very silence condemned the proceedings.
Seeking self-incrimination (Mark 14:61-64)
Knowing he had nothing to charge Jesus with, the High Priest commanded Jesus to speak under oath and answer whether he was the Christ, the Son of God. The High Priest's action violates a common principle of law which forbids a court to press a defendant to incriminate himself. Realize that Jesus had not been accused of any crime. The High Priest was attempting to force Jesus to commit what he thought would be a crime in his own courtroom. High Priest's action was, at best, unethical. What is more strange is that the Jews were expecting the Messiah to be the Son of God (Psalms 2:7; John 1:49). Thus, the High Priest was making admittance of being the Messiah a crime.
By putting the demand in an oath, the High Priest sought to trap Jesus because it was a crime to hear an oath and not give witness in response (Leviticus 5:1). Jesus could not remain silent without breaking the law.
Jesus pointed out that they would not believe him if he said it himself. If he questioned their reasoning, they would not change their minds. Jesus then turned the statement around and told Caiaphas that he spoke the truth. Thus, the defendant gave judgment on the words of the judge. In evidence of the truth, Jesus stated that they would see him sitting at the right hand of God’s throne, coming on the clouds, in judgment against them. It would not matter what he said. They would see the truth for themselves. His statement matches what the Old Testament declared would be true about the Messiah (Psalms 110:1).
Jesus’ statement enrages the High Priest. He tears his clothes and charges Jesus with blasphemy. Again, we see a violation of law; the High Priest was not allowed to rip his clothes (Leviticus 21:10). Since all the judges heard Jesus’ statement, they had no need for additional witnesses, which is an admission that they had no other evidence. Turning to the other judges, he asks for their opinion, and they respond that Jesus is deserving of death. Thus, again, we see judges who have already decided on the outcome before deliberating on the case. They held him guilty of Leviticus 24:16. There was no questioning whether Jesus had the right to make his claim. They assume that he had no right to claim divinity.
Abuse while awaiting judgment (Mark 14:65)
While the court decided on the formal sentence, Jesus was again abused by the guards. They spat in his face. Spitting was an act of extreme contempt (Numbers 12:14; Deuteronomy 25:9). They blindfolded him again, slapped him, and challenged him to prophesy as to who hit him (Isaiah 50:6).
Peter’s Denials (Mark 14:66-72)
A servant girl identified Peter as someone seen with Jesus. By saying “also,” it appears she knew John to be a follower of Jesus. But Peter, probably wanting to remain anonymous, lied and denied knowing Jesus. He then left the courtyard to go to the porch area. He probably went there because there would be fewer people, less light, and an easier path to escape if necessary.
Mark also mentions that a rooster crowed at this time, though some of the older manuscripts leave this out. It should have served as a warning to Peter, but he ignored it.
The servant girl sees him again and tells the people standing around that he is one of Jesus' disciples. Again, Peter denies the accusation.
Some bystanders accused him of being with Jesus and pointed out that he was clearly a Galailean, and all knew that Jesus was from Galilee. Peter began to curse and swear, probably to prove he wasn't one of the nice men who followed Jesus. He flatly denied even knowing the man. While he spoke, the rooster crowed the second time to announce the dawn.
Peter suddenly remembered all his claims of never forsaking Jesus and Jesus’ prophecy that he would deny him three times before dawn. Ashamed, Peter fled in tears.
