¹Verses 1-11 of chapter 14 constitute one of the clearest examples of what I have called the Marcan "triptych" (see the panel on Mk 2:1-12). Here two framing elements belong to a single narrative (as Luke clearly understood: Mk 14:1-2 = Lk 22:1-2; Mk 14:19-11 = Lk 22:3-6; Luke separates the story of the woman anointing Jesus from the two parts of the story of the conspiracy of Jewish leaders with Judas): the linkage of 14:1-2 with 14:10-11 is underscored (a) by the involvement of the chief priests in both narratives, and (b) by the recurrence of the verb "look for" (ζητεῖν) in both segments: 14:1 (ἐζήτουν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς) and 14:11 (ἐζήτε) Between these two segments revealing the final plot to arrest and execute Jesus is sandwiched the narrative of a nameless but ever-to-be-remembered woman who simultaneously (a) anoints Jesus as Messiah (Hebrew Mashiach and Greek χριστός both mean "anointed one"), Israel's anointed king, and (b) performs, perhaps unawares, but in keeping with destiny, the function of preparing the body of Jesus for burial. Thus highlighted by the triptych are the identity of Jesus as Israel's King and the paradoxical truth that Jesus' kingship is to be discerned only in his death as one who has been betrayed and delivered up for execution by one of his own disciples and by leaders of his own people.
² The woman is not identified or is she said to have uttered any words; one ought not to conjecture regarding who in the entourage of Jesus this might have been: the evangelist clearly intends for her to be anonymous and at the same time celebrated as one who has played her own symbolic role in the gospel narrative which will resonate among believers.
³ Clearly there is no rebuke regarding alms here; rather, the narrator's intent seems to be to highlight the degree of ignorance and unconcern among the disciples regarding the imminent threat to Jesus, despite the repeated admonitions during the journey to Jerusalem regarding the doom awaiting Jesus there. Nor is it suggested that the woman actually intended to prepare Jesus' body in advance for burial; rather, she is playing out a role in the passion drama that has been assigned her in this very dramatic scene, wherein Jesus himself speaks as a sort of tragic chorus interpreting the scene unfolding before the reader/listener's eyes/ears.
⁴ Judas too has a role to play; in Mark's narrative there is no explanation of his motivation, although some readers might readily assume that he has been indignant at Jesus' failure to behave in accordance with his own expectations. If it should be supposed that Judas really was indignant at the extravagant waste of costly oil in the preceding scene, yet the evangelist has indicated that Judas cannot have been the only one; indeed, although Jesus in Mark's gospel takes four of the disciples into an inner circle, yet failure to perform as committed followers of Jesus is repeatedly indicated in all of them. Judas' motives are simply not disclosed.
⁵ The Passover lambs at this period were slaughtered at the Temple in the late afternoon and carried home by families to the place where they were to share the Seder as a household.
⁶ The question is curiously phrased, as if Jesus alone were to eat the Passover (ἵνα φάγῃς τὸ πάσχα); Matthew's version (Mt 26:17) is only slightly different and is presumably modeled upon Mark's account, but Luke (Lk 22:7-8 offers a more "natural" dialogue: Jesus dispatches Peter and John to go off and "ready the Passover for us to eat" (πορευθέντες ἑτοιμάσατε τὸ πασχα ἵνα φάγωμεν). One can raise--but cannot answer--the question whether Jesus at the Passover table is as much alone and separated from his followers as he certainly is in the Garden of Gethsemane thereafter?
⁷ One might conceive of Jesus' foreknowledge concerning the nameless man with the water-pitcher who will lead the two disciples to the dining room simply as a mark of his omniscience or deeper awareness. That may well be so, but it may also be observed that this episode is like that of the woman with the jar of oil of nard in the preceding episode and like the episode at the beginning of chapter 11 when two disciples are dispatched to fetch the ass upon which Jesus is to ride as he enters Jerusalem: there is a drama of destiny being played out here, one that involves numerous "bit parts" to be carried out by nameless and faceless actors. Indeed, throughout the Passion sequence of Mk 14-15 the reader/listener can hardly fail to note that Jesus alone throughout this entire sequence is fully cognizant of what is happening and what it means, while so many others merely play out their parts and "read their scripts" rather mechanically, without any notion that they are contributing to an eventful climax of some sort.
⁸This element of Mark's narrative of the "last supper" is commonly understood as Jesus' comment on Judas specifically and his warning about Judas' fate. But the fact is that Judas never appears in Mark's gospel after he leads the leaders of the Sanhedrin to Gethsemane to arrest Jesus; Mark either does not know or chooses not to relate the doom of Judas after his betrayal of Jesus. This implies that the present incident in Mark's narrative is not intended as a foretelling of Mark's doom; for this reason and because Jesus' assertion about the betrayer does not reveal any specific name, I think that the evangelist intends to show that every one of Jesus' disciples is put on notice about the seriousness of his commitment; I think too that this may have been originally an element of the ritual celebration of the "Lord's Supper," an admonition by the celebrant to all participants that there is or may be a traitor in their midst and that each should examine his or her conscience while participating. Viewed in this manner, Jesus' statement is not a specific comment about Judas but an admonition to all to give heed to the dimensions of the commitment they have undertaken.
⁹As has been noted in the discussion earlier of the two episodes of feeding of multitudes (Mk 6, 8) the language describing Jesus' movements with the bread is closely parallel here and in those episodes: Jesus picks up the loaf, blesses it, gives thanks, then distributes it to his disciples. I have argued previously that the parallel is deliberate and that Mark intends his readers to understand those episodes as representative of celebrations in memory of this event of Passion week which is institutional for the ritual practice.
¹⁰It should be noted that Jesus' words concerning the loaf broken and distributed do not speak of his body given as an atoning sacrifice; rather, I believe, this saying ought to be understood in terms of the Pauline account in 1 Cor 10:16 (τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ σώματοσ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστιν;) the followers of Jesus participate in his body and share in his mission.
¹¹Just as the bread words point to participation of those who share the meal with Jesus in himself and his mission, so also the words on the cup point to participation, not to the sacrifice of atonement,be it noted, but rather to the blood-sacrifice establishing the parallel covenant of God with Israel in Exodus 24:8 (the same phrase, τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης). The death of Jesus is certainly involved here, but it is not so much an atonement as it is a covenant-establishing ritual. All drink from the cup just as all eat the bread; all commit themselves to covenant-existence shared with Jesus.
¹²In view of Jesus' repeated indications of his expectation that the coming of the Son of Man is to fall within the lifetimes of some of those who hear him, this solemn declaration should be understood to affirm Mark's understanding that Jesus expected the consummation of his hope in the imminent future.
¹³The reference is to the text of Zechariah 13:7: "'Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who is my associate,' says the Lord of hosts. 'Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered.'" (NRSV) It has been suggested that Jesus was not citing this passage from Zecharaiah so much to indicate that the imminent event would fulfill that prophesy so much as to note proverbially that this is what happens when the shepherd of a flock is struck down: the sheep will scatter. At any rate, Jesus here points to the forthcoming arrest and the fact that his disciples will all run away.
¹⁴It is not altogether clear how the evangelist intended this prophetic statement to be understood (although it was doubtless clear enough to his earliest readers). The easiest interpretation is that Jesus refers to a post-resurrection meeting with his disciples in Galilee such as is described in Matthew 28:16-20 and in John 21. On the other hand, it may be that "Galilee" bears a symbolic meaning in relationship to eschatological fulfillment. What is beyond doubt is that this assertion, that Jesus will go ahead of his disciples to Galilee, is fundamental to the evangelist's proclamation to his audience/readers, for it is repeated by the young man who meets the women at the tomb in 16:7; although they don't report it, the reader/hearer must take note of the assertion. For further discussion of this matter, see the notes on chapter 16.
¹⁵Repetition for a second and third times is a recurrent motif in Mark's gospel, especially with regard to the theme of the failure of the disciples to understand and to obey what they are told about the destiny of Jesus and about their own obligations to act accordingly. There were three predictions of Jesus's destiny (8:31, 9:31, 10:33-34) followed by instances demonstrating failure of the disciples to understand the implications of those predictions (see note 1 on 8:27-10:52); in the scene in Gethsemane immediately following, the inner circle of disciples is told three times to be vigilant but is found sleeping each of the three times that Jesus returns to them after praying. So too there will be, for all his protests, three occasions on which Peter will be asked to affirm his association with Jesus, and he will deny the association each time. Nevertheless, if Peter's failure seems exemplary, he is not so much highlighted as unique but highlighted rather as paradigmatic; the text explicitly says that "the others made the same affirmation," but they were in fact far off immediately following upon the arrest of Jesus.
¹⁶As indicated earlier in note 22 to Mk 1:22 (πειραζόμενος) this is the climactic "ordeal" or "test" wherein the strength of Jesus' commitment to accept and carry out God's will is put on trial and demonstrated. The "human" cost of accepting his Kingship and drinking the symbolic "cup" already identified in 10:38-39 and in 14:23-24 as acceptance of death, the doom of John the Baptist, of Jesus himself, and later of the disciples.
¹⁷The Greek (περίλυπός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή μου ἕως τοῦ θανάτου) literally means "my soul is overwhelmed with grief to the point of death." The humanity of Jesus is here made fully manifest: no more than any other human being of sound mind does Jesus wish to die; here he is compelled to make a deliberate choice of what is most important to him.
¹⁸"Be vigilant" (γρηγορεῖτε), these disciples have been commanded: cf. note 16 to Mk 13:33; as Jesus himself undergoes the test of his own commitment, so also do these disciples undergo a test of theirs insofar as Jesus' commandment to them is one they cannot or will not obey. Thus the episode displays at the same time how Jesus successfully withstands the challenge of obedience and the disciples fail their test.
¹⁹"the critical moment," usually translated as "the hour" (Greek: ἡ ὥρα): the word recurs in verse 41 below in the same sense of the time of opportunity for fulfillment of destiny, the moment of decision after which there is no turning back. It is "now or never" as Judas approaches with the Temple police to arrest Jesus and trigger the sequence that will bring on the crucifixion of Jesus.
²⁰ "This cup" (τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο): Of course Jesus is holding no cup at this moment; the cup is symbolic in Mark's gospel for the destiny that Jesus accepts as his own; cf. note 46 on Mk 10:38 where the cup that Jesus drinks is accepted as one that James and John will also drink, as they will also undergo the baptism that Jesus must undergo. Both the cup and the baptism represent the acceptance of one's death as the ultimate commitment.
²¹ "The will to act is forceful, but human nature cannot make it happen" (Greek: τὸ μὲν πνεῦμα πρόθυμον, ἡ δὲ σάρξ ἀσθενής); Jesus acknowledges the human weakness of his disciples, even of his inner circle; he knows they will fail him, but nevertheless he claims them and bids them to follow him.
²²"... yet a third time ..." There are here three instances of failure by the inner circle; Peter will deny Jesus three times; cf. note 15 above.
²³Cf. above, Mk 14:1-2, 10-11.
²⁴Cf. above, Mk 9:12 "And how is it that scripture say about the Son of Man: 'he is destined to suffer much and be humiliated?", so also 14:21.
²⁵Cf. above, Mk 14:27; it has happened exactly as Jesus foretold them all so recently,but also in accordance with earlier indications: cf. Mk 4:16-17: the seeds sown on rocky ground: " when they hear the message they accept it happily, 17 but they have no roots of their own-they respond to circumstances, and so, when hard times or persecution arises because of the message, right away they find all manner of difficulties."
²⁶It may well be that this νεάνισκος is the same as that of the resurrection narrative (Mk 16:5, see note 4 on that verse). The word (Greek σίνδων) here translated as "linen cloth" appears only one other time in Mark's gospel: in Mk 15:46 Joseph of Arimathaea buys a σίνδων to serve as a shroud for the body of Jesus, then wraps the body in it before laying it in a rock-hewn tomb. There has never been a fully satisfactory explanation of this feature of Mark's account of Jesus' arrest; one may only speculate regarding the identity of this otherwise unidentified "follower" of Jesus. Perhaps, as is supposed with regard to the "Beloved Disciple"of John's gospel, this nameless young man should be understood as the evangelist himself, the storyteller who alone vouches for the resurrection of Jesus and the validity of the entire narrative. Another hypothesis: we should envision the young man as Jesus himself; he has been caught and held fast by those who have come to arrest him, he is put on trial and he is executed by authority of the procurator Pilate. Nevertheless in the end he escaped from the human hands that sought to hold him fast in capture, in death, and in the tomb: he leaves behind him in the tomb only a burial shroud.
²⁷Mk 14:53-72 form a Marcan Triptych (see the separate panel, "Marcan Triptych"): the narrative account of Peter's following Jesus into the courtyard of the High Priest (14:53-4) then emphatically denying on three successive occasions that Peter was himself a follower of Jesus (14:66-72) encloses as a frame the account of Jesus' hearing before the Sanhedrin. There is something here very much like the account of the events in the garden of Gethsemane where Jesus and his inner circle of followers are put to the test simultaneously, Jesus withstanding the ordeal while his followers fail miserably; in the present episode Jesus affirms his identity before the Sanhedrin while at the same time in the enclosing narrative we are told that Peter refuses to acknowledge his own role as Jesus' foremost follower.
²⁸The reader/listener is informed of the simultaneous sequences now beginning: the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin, the endeavor of Peter in the courtyard outside to be close to Jesus while nevertheless concealing his identity. That he "warms himself by the fire" is a nice narrative touch, underscoring with imagery the inner state of Peter, whose heart has grown cold and numb in this ultimate time of crisis.
²⁹Perhaps deriving from the same oral tradition is the statement attributed to Jesus in John's gospel (Jn 2:19): "Destroy this temple and I'll raise it up in three days." (λύσατε τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον καὶ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἐγερῶ αὐτόν). But in John's account, the saying is figurative regarding the execution and resurrection of Jesus, whereas in the mouths of Mark's "false witnesses" the remark is enigmatic and of no use to those who are eager to remove Jesus from the scene.
³⁰It is hard to understand Jesus' response to the High Priest's question other than as a direct affirmation by Jesus of his identity. But Jesus not only accepts the Davidic dynastic titles "Messiah" and "Son of God" but he adds, in the third person, a solemn declaration that the Son of Man (Jesus himself) will hereafter be observed directly by them descending on the clouds with God-given authority to act as God's sovereign on earth.
³¹What Jesus has declared is a "blasphemy" only if it is not true; the response of the High Priest and the unanimous approval of that response by all members of the Sanhedrin makes clear that for them Jesus' assertion cannot possibly be true and therefore is a frivolous claim to authority. Therefore he must be executed.
³²Obviously such behavior is consistent with scornful rejection of what is viewed as an absurd, ridiculous claim by Jesus to god-given authority.
³³If we have seen the human side of Jesus in the narrative of the Garden of Gethsemane, here we see Peter in his magnificent weakness and then--in a masterful narrative closing touch--his profound remorse and acknowledgement of his own weakness.