Ver. 1.—Now after two days was the feast of the passover and the unleavened bread; literally, the passover and the unleavened (ré mdoxa Kal rd &Cvua). It was one and the same festival. The killing of the Paschal lamb took place on the first of the seven days during which the festival lasted, and during the whole of which they used un- leavened bread. Josephus describes it as “the festival of the unleavened, called Phaska by the Jews.” The chief priests and the scribes. St. Matthew (xxvi. 3) says, ““ The chief priests and the elders of the people.” The two classes in the Sanhedrim who actually combined to put our Lord to death were these here mentioned by St. Mark. They sought how they might take him with subtlety (ev 5éAw), and kill him. It is, literally, they were seeking (é(hrovy). The verb with its tense implies continuous and eager desire. They used subtlety, because they fearcd lest he should escape out of their hands. Moreover they feared the people, lest they should fight for him, and not suffer him to be taken.
Ver. 2.—For they said (2Acyor yep)— literally, for they were saying—Not during the feast, lest haply there shall be a tumult of the people. The same cause induced them to avoid the time of the feast. The feast brought a great multitude of Jews to Yerusalem, amongst whom would be many who had received bodily or spiritual benefits from Christ, and who therefore, at least,
worshipped him as a Prophet; and the rulers of the people feared lest these should rise in his defence. Their first intention, therefore, was not to destroy him until after the close of the Paschal feast; but they were overruled by the course of events, all ordered by God’s never-failing providence. The sudden betrayal of our Lord by Judas led them to change their minds. For when they found that he was actually in their hands, they resolved to crucify him forth- with. And thus the Divine purpose was fulfilled that Christ should suffer at that particular time, and go the type be satisfied. For the lamb slain at the Passover was a type of the very Paschal Lamb to be sacri- ficed at that particular time, in the pre- determined purpose of God ; and to be lifted up upon the cross for the redemption of the world. St. Matthew (xxvi. 3) tells us that they were gathered together “ unto the court of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas.” It was necessary to state his name, because the high priests were now frequently changed by the Roman power.
Ver. 3.—And while he was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at Meat, there came & woman having an ala- baster oruse (4AdSacrpov)—literally, an ala- baster; as we say, “a glass,” of a vessel made of glass—of ointment of spikenard very costly (utpov vdpSou miotiKns mwoAv= TeAovs); and she brake the cruse, and poured it over his head. This anointing of our Lord appears to have taken place on the
| Saturday before Palm Sunday (see John
330
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SI. MARK. (ou. xiv. 1—72.
i
xii. 1), The anointing mentioned by St. Luke (vii. 36) evidently has reference to gome previous occasion. The narrative here and in St. Matthew and St. John would lead us to the conclusion that this was a feast given by Simon—perhaps in grateful acknowledgment of the miracle which had been wrought upon Lazarus. He is called “Simon the leper,” probably because he had been a leper, and had been healed by Christ, although he still retained the name of “leper,” to distinguish him from others named Simon, or Simeon, 8 common name amongst the Jews. There came a woman. This woman, we learn from 8t. John (xii. 2, 3), was Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus. The vessel, or cruse, which she had with her was made of alabaster, a kind of soft, smooth marble, which could easily be scooped out so as to form a receptacle for ointment, which, according to Pliny (‘ Nat. Hist.,’ xiii. 3), was best preserved in vessels made of alabaster. The vessel would pro- bably be formed with a long narrow neck, which could easily be broken, or crushed (the word in the original is cuyrplyaca) 80 as to allow of a free escape for the unguent. The ointment was made of spikenard (vdpSov mois). The Vulgate has nardi spicati. If this is the true interpretation of the word moricis, it would mean that this oint- ment was made from a bearded plant men- tioned by Pliny (‘ Nat. Hist.,’ xii. 12), who says that the ointment made from this plant was most precious. The plant was called by Galen “ nardi spica.” Hence morixiv would mean “‘ genuine” ointment—ointment made from the flowers of the choicest kind of plant. Pliny (‘ Nat. Hist.,’ xii. 26) says that there was an inferior article in ciroula- tion, which he calls “ pseudo-nard.” The Syriac Peshito Version uses an expression which means the principal, or best kind cf ointment. The anointing of the head would be the more usual mark of honour. It would xeem most probable that Mary first wiped the feet of Jesus, wetting them with her tears, and then wiping off the dust, and then anointing them; and that she then proceeded to break the neck of the cruse, and to pour its whole contents on his head.
Ver. 4.—But there were some that had indignation—the word in the original is ayavaktovvres, ached with veration—among themsalves, St. Mark says, “there were some ;” e#veiding any more particular men- tion of them. &t. Matthew (xxvi. 8) says that the disciples generally had indigna- tion, The murmuring seems to have been general. At length it found a definite ex- pression in Judas Iscariot (see John xii. 4),
Ver. 5.—For this ointment might have been sold for above three hundred pence, and given to the poor. Three hundred pence
would amount to about £10 12s. 6d. of Eng- lish money. It appears from St. John (xiii. 29) that the wants of the poor were carefully attended to by our Lord and his disciples. And they murmured against her (éveSpiuavto airy); another very expressive verb in the original, they growled at her; rebuked her vehemently.
Ver. 6.—It appears from St. John (xii. 7) that our Lord here addressed himself pointedly to Judas in the words, Let her alone;...she hath wrought a good work on me, a werk worthy of all praise and honour. “What,” says Cornelius % Lapide, “what more noble, than to anoint the feet of him who is both God and man? Who would not count himself happy, if it were permitted to him to touch the feet of Jesus and to kiss them?”