Ver. 62.—To this question our Lord re- turns a plain and candid answer, out of reverence for the Divine Name which, as St. Matthew and St. Luke tell us, had been invoked by the high priest, and also out of respect for the office of the high priest, by whom he had been put upon his oath. S¢. Chrysostom says that our Lord answered thus that he might leave without excuse all those who listened to him, who would not hereafter be able to plead in the day of judgment that, when our Lord was solemnly asked in the council whether he was the Son of God, he had either refused to answer, or had answered evasively. This answer of our Lord is full of majesty and sublimity. He is arraigned as a criminal, standing in the midst of the chief priests and scribes, his bitter enemies ; and it is as though he said, “ You, O Caiaphas, and you the chief priests and elders of the Jews, are now unjustly condemning me as a false prophet and a false Christ; but the day is at hand when I, who am now a prisoner at your judgment seat, shall sit on the throne of elt Bc the Judge of you and of all mankind. You are now about to condemn me to the death of the cross; but I shall then sit in judgment upon you, and condemn you for this terrible guilt of slaying me, who am the true God and the Judge of the world.”
Ver. 63.—And the high priest rent his clothes (d:apphtas Trovs x:twvas); literally, hés tunics ; St. Matthew (xxvi. 65) has 7d iuaria, literally, his garments. None but people of rauk wore two tunics. The Greek verb here rendered “ rent” implies violent dra- matic action. The Jewish tunic was open under the chin, and large enough to receive the head, so that it could easily be placed over the shoulders, by inserting the head. When the wearer wished to give this sign of indignation or grief, he would seize the garment at this opening with both hands, and violently tear it asunder down to the waist. But it was unlawful for the high priest to do this in a private grief (Lev. x. 6). Some of the Fathers think that by this action Caiaphas involuntarily typified the rending of the priesthood from himself and from the Jewish nation.
Ver. 64.—They all condemned him to be worthy of death (évoyov Gavdrov). There were, therefore, none there but those who were known to be opposed to our Lord. It will be remembered that all these proceed- ings were illegal.
Ver. 65.—And some began to spit on him. St. Matthew (xxvi. 67) says, “Then did they spit in his face.” That Divine face, to be reverenced and adored by every creature,
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. [ou. xtv, 1—74
was exposed to this vile contumely; and he bore it patiently. “I hid not my face from shame and spitting” (Isa. 1.61). And the officers received him with blows of their hands (of trnpérat paxlouacw abtoy EdaBov).
Ver. 66.—And as Peter was beneath in the court. The room in which the Sanhedrim were assembled was an upper chamber.
Ver. 67.—And seeing (jSo0ca) Peter warm- ing himself, she looked upon him (éufAdvaca av7é). She looked upon him, in the light of the fire, so as to see his features distinctly. This was one of the menial servants who attended to the outer door of the court, and perhaps had been the one to let in Peter; so that she could say with some confidence, Thou wast also with the Nazarene, even
ests.
Ver. 68.—But he denied, saying, I neither know, nor understand what thou sayest. “This shows the great terror of Peter,” sa St. Chrysostom, “ who, intimidated by the
uestion of a poor servant-girl, denied his rd; and who yet afterwards, when he had
received the Holy Spirit, could say, ‘We ought to obey God rather than man’” J neither know, nor understand what thew sayest. Every word here is emphatic. It amounts to this: “So little do I know who this Jesus is, that I know not what you say or what you ask concerning him. I know not who or what he is or anything about him. A question has been raised as to the number of times that Peter denied our Lord. The narratives are best explained by the con- sideration that all the denials took place in the house of Caiaphas. Furthermore, the accounts of the evangelists may be reconciled thus: Firat, Peter denied the Lord in the court of the high priest, when he was first asked by the maidservant, as he sat over the fire (Matt. xxiv. 69); secondly, he denied him with an oath; thirdly, when urged still more, he denied him with many oaths and execrations. The cock crew the first time after the first denial, when we read (Matt. xxvi. 71) that he went out into the porch (xpoatawov). This crowing would be about one or two in the morning. The second crowing would not be until five or six. This shows us the length of time that the pro- ceedings lasted. It was doubtless as Jesus passed through the court that he gave Peter that look of unutterable pain and grief which moved him at once to repentance.
Ver. 72.—And when he thought thereon, he wept (kal éwlBaddv, ExAme, not fuAavse). The word implies a long and continued weeping.
This concludes the prelimi trial, the whole proceedings of which were illegal.
\
cH, xiv. 1—72.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S'J. MARK. / #9
HOMILETICS.
Vers. 1, 2.—The plot. The apprehension and death of Jesus were brought about by 8 combination between his foes and a professed friend. The avowed enemies employed the necessary force, and secured the authority of the Roman governor for his cruci- fixion ; and the disciple suggested the occasion, the place and time of the capture, and delivered his Master into the hands of the malignant persecutors. The events of the first three days of this Passion week had been such as to enrage the Pharisees and scribes beyond all bounds. The only way in which it seemed possible for them to retain their threatened influence, necessarily diminished and discredited by their repeated public confutation, seemed to be this—to strike an immediate and decisive blow at the Prophet whom they were unable to withstand upon the ground of argument and reason.
L THE ENEMIES WHO PLOTTED aGaInsT CHRIST. These seem to have included all classes among the higher orders of society in Jerusalem, who, whatever their distine- tions, rivalries, and enmities, concurred in hatred of the Holy One and the Just. The chief priests, who were largely Sadducees, the scribes, and the Pharisees, who were the most honoured leaders of the people in religion, all joined in plotting against him who attacked their various errors with equal impartiality, and whose success with the people was undermining the power of them all.