Mark 14

     Cf.Mt.26 and notes; Luke 22; John 18.

     14:1.  Since these two feasts are observed together (Lev.23:5-8), the terms “Passover”, and “Unleavened Bread”, are used interchangeably in the gospels for the whole eight day celebration (e.g., v.12; Luke 22:1).  John always uses the term “Passover” for the whole feast, even after the Passover meal proper has been eaten (John 18:28).

     14:3-9.  I believe this is the same event which John times four days earlier than Matthew and Mark appear to do (cf. Mark 14:1 and John 12:1 f.).  Perhaps Matthew and Mark insert it here as a flashback to introduce and help explain Judas’ behavior (10-11).  Or, perhaps John makes a four day fast forward to it at John 12:2.  Either way, the event had a bad effect on Judas.  Luke 7:36-50 records a very similar incident, also at the house of a man named Simon (a Pharisee), but it appears to be much earlier (perhaps to protect Lazarus and his family, cf. Jn.12:9-10).

     14:12-16.  The two disciples in v.13 are Peter and John (Luke 22:8).   A man carrying a water pitcher would have been unusual.  That was women’s work.  Apparently this was a prearranged signal to lead them to a safehouse.  This is believed by many to be the home of Mark himself (cf. Acts 12:12).

     14:21.  See Ps.41:9; 55:12 f.  The betrayal was determined, yet carried out by a responsible man acting in his freedom.  There’s your free will (cf. Luke 22:22).  The man of sin chooses sin.

     14:24.  Limited Atonement.  The blood of the covenant saves the many for whom it was poured out, and them only (cf. 21).

     14:26.  Probably one of Ps. 113-118, called “The Hallel” (praise).  These were sung at the three great pilgrimage feasts.

     14:27-31.  Peter does the very thing he hates (cf. Ro.7:15 ff.).  He acts under moral necessity; free, but determined by a fallen nature when grace is withheld for a time.

     “Could God’s prediction turn out to be wrong?  When Jesus told Peter that he would deny him, is it even theoretically possible that Peter might not have denied him?”  Roger Olson, Christianity Today, p.31, Jan.9, 1995.  (Interestingly, Olson is an Arminian.  He was writing against the so-called “Open Theism” which carries Arminianism out to its logical conclusion, so that God’s sovereignty is always contingent on man’s choices).

     Total Inability.  If Peter had been able to do otherwise than he did, then the bitter cup of wrath could have been removed from Jesus (36).  We could save ourselves.

     But there was a big difference between Peter’s denials and Judas’ betrayal.  With Peter, the spirit was willing, but the flesh was weak (38; Ro.7:18).  Even the spirit within Judas was treachery.

     14:39-52.  V. 39 raises a question.  Since the disciples slept, who overheard and witnessed to what Jesus prayed?  Probably the answer is in v. 51, “a certain young man”.  If it is true that the upper room where the supper was eaten was in Mark’s house, then that curious young man must have been Mark himself, who had followed them to the garden in his bed sheet.

       Such veiled references to the self are common in the N.T.  It is believed that Mark was later closely associated with Peter, and much of his gospel was derived from Peter’s preaching.  John 18:10 reveals that the “certain one” who cut off the ear of the high priest’s slave (47) was Peter, but Peter evidently obscured himself in his telling of the story.  John is noted for merely calling himself the unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved”.  Paul transparently hid himself, calling himself “a man in Christ”.  (2 Cor.12:1-5).

     14:53-61a cf. the lie in v.58 to what Jesus really said in John 2:19, where he spoke in a metaphor of the temple of his body.  He never said that he would destroy any temple, but that they would.  The charge against Steven (Acts 6:14) repeats the same lie.

     14:61b-65.  The second questioning by the high priest (61b) probably took place across the courtyard before a larger group (see notes at Mt.26:57-75; and Luke 22; John 18).

     14:62.  See notes Mt.26:64.

     14:66-72.  According to Luke 22:66, Peter’s denials happened as Jesus was being moved after an initial hearing (i.e. between Mark 14:61a and 61b).  John 18 agrees with this.  Therefore, it appears Mark drops back at v.66 to pick up Peter’s story.  The unique feature of Mark’s telling is that the cock crowed twice (72).  At the end of v.68, the margin says, “Later mss. add and a cock crowed“.  I would rather assume that the cock crowed twice in rapid succession at v.72.  At least its crowing didn’t make an impression on Peter until then.  I guess the cock was a kind of witness against poor Peter.  It takes two witnesses to convict, and Peter was certainly convicted.