Ver. 51.—And a certain young man fol- lowed with him, having a linen cloth cast about him, over his naked body: and they lay hold on him, St. Mark is the only evangeliat who mentions this incident; and there seems good reason for supposing that he here de- scribes what happened to himself. Such is the mode in which St. John refers to himeelf in his Gospel, and where there can be no doubt that he is speaking of himself. If the conclusion in an earlier part of this com- mentary be correct, that it was at the house to which John Mark belonged that our Lord celebrated the Passover, and from whenee he went out to the Mount of Olives; what more probable than that Mark had been with him on that occasion, and had perhaps a presentiment that something was about te happen tohim? What more likely than that the crowd who took Jesus may have passed by this house, and that Mark may have been roused from his bed (it was now a late hour) by thetumult. Having a linen cloth (owdédva) cast about his naked body. The stndon was a fine linen cloth, indicating that he belonged to a family in good circumstances. It is an unusual word. In every other place 6 the New Testament where it is used it refers to the garment or shrowd used to cover the
OH, XIV. 1—72.]
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK.
bedies of the dead. Theo sindon is supposed to take its name from Sidon, where the particular kind of linen was manufactured ef which the garment was made. It was a kind of light oleak frequently worn in hot weather.
Ver. 52.—But he left the linen cloth, and fled naked. This somewhat ignominious flight is characteristic of what we know of St. Mark. It shows how great was the panic im reference to Christ, and how great was the hatred of the Jews against him, that they endeavoured to seize a young man who was merely following with him. It shows also how readily our Lord’s enemies would have seized his own disciples if they had not taken refuge in flight.
Wer. 53,—And they led Jesus away to tho high priest. This high priest was Caiaphas. But we learn from St. John (xviii. 13) that our Lord was first brought before Annas, the father-in-law of Caiphas. Annas and his five sons held the high priesthood in succes- sion, Caiaphas, his son-in-law, stepping in between the first and the second son, and holding the office for twelve years. It is supposed that it was in the house of Annas that the price of the betrayal was paid to Judas, Annas, though not then high priest, must have had considerable influence in the counsels of the Sanhedrim; and this will
robably explain the fact of our Lord having first taken to him.
Ver. 54.—And Peter had followed him afar eff, even within, into the court(cis Ty» avAhy) of the high priest. This court was the place where the guards and servants of the high
est were assembled. Our Lord was within,
a large room, being arraigned before the council. St. John informs us (xviii. 15) that he himeelf, being known to the high priest, had gone in with Jesus inte the court of the high priest ; and that he had been the means of bringing im Peter, who had been standing outside at the door leading into the court. We now see Peter among the servants, crouching over the fire. The weather was cold, for it was early spring- time ; and it was now after midnight. Peter wes warming himself in the light of the fire (xpbs 7d pas), and ao his feasures were clearly geen in the glow of the brightly burning charcoal.
Ver. 55.—-Now the chief priests and the whole council sought witness against Jesus to put him to death, and found it not. Their supreme object was to put him to death; but they wished te accomplish their object in @ manner consistent with their own honour, so as not to appear to have put him to death without reason. So they sought for false witnesses against him, that they might deliver the Author of life and the Saviour of the world to death. Vor in real truth,
although they knew it not, and were the instruments in his hands, he had determined by the death of Christ to bestow on us both present ond eternal life.
Ver. 56.—For many bare false witness
i him, and their witness agreed not together. Whatever things these witnesses brought forward were either false, or self- contradictory, or beside the purpose.
Vers. 57, 58.—And there stood up certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands, St. Matthew (xxvi. 60) says that they were two. What our Lord had really said was this—we read it im St. John (ii. 19)—* De- stroy this temple; and in three days I will raise it up.” These words the false wit- nesses perverted ; for they assigned to Jesus the work of destruction which he left to the Jews. He did not say, “ I will destroy ;” but “Do ye destroy, and I will rebuild.” Nor did he say, “ I will build another; ” but “I will raise it up,” that is, from the dead; for St. John tells us that “he spake of the temple of his body,” in which, as in a temple, there dwelt the fulness of the Godhead. He might have said plainly, “I will rise from the dead;” but he chose to speak as in a parable. According to their witness, how- ever, our Lord’s words would appear as little more than an empty boast, certainly not as anything on account of which such a charge a they desired could be brought against
im.
Vers. 60, 61.—And tho high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? ... But he held his peace, and answered nothing. The high priest would naturally be seated at the top of the semicircle, with the members of the Sanhedrim on either side of him, and the Accused in front of him. Now he rises from his seat, and comes forward inte the midst (eis 7d wéoov), and demands an answer. But Jesus answered nothing. It would have been a long and tedious business to answer such a charge, which involved a garbled and inaccurate statement of what he had said. It would have answered no good purpose to reply to an accusation so vague and inae- ourate. Our Lord knew that, whatever his answer was, it would be twisted so as to make against him. Silence was therefore the most dignified treatment of such ean accusation. Besides, he knew that his hour was come, The high priest now asks him plainly, Art thou the Christ, the son of the Blessed? Here he touches the point of the whole matter. Christ had frequently declared himself to be such. Caiaphas, therefore, now asks the question, not because he needed the in- formation, but that he might condema him.
16
238