Til. Tux conrticr. The physical effects of this are given by St. Luke. His prayer was 8 “wrestling,” not so much with his Father as with himself. But the struggle gradually subsides to submission and rest. This shows itself in his detachment from his own emotions and attention to the condition of his disciples, and soon in his move- ment towards the approaching band of the betrayer. There is a complete “grammar” of emotion gone through, however, ere that spiritual result is attained. Uncertainty, dread, the weakness of human nature, are overcome by the resolute contemplation of the Divine will. His own will is deliberately and solemnly submitted to his Father's, and the ars calmly and profoundly acquiesced in as best and most blessed for all it eoncerns.—.
Vers. 48—50.—The betrayal. It involved in its very conception a rude, profane intrusion upon our Lord’s devotions. At the head of the band was Judas, and with him the Roman soldiers with their swords, and the servants of the chief priests with staves (cudgels, thick sticks). Having met the temptations of the soul in the solitude of prayer, the Lord is now the better able to meet the external trials of which the garden is also the scene.
I. TH PRETENDED FRIENDS OF CHRIST ARE HIS WORST ENEMIES. Only a disciple can betray as Judas did) The kiss and salutation of respect, “ Rabbi!” have become classical.
IL. Nor THE SKILL OB FORCE OF HIS CAPTORS, BUT HIS OWN MEEKNESS AND MERCIFUL PURPOSE, RENDERED THEIR SCHEME EFFEOTUAL. ‘There was nv surprise, for the Victim of the treachery was fully aware of it, and, indeed, warned his disciples of the approach of the band (ver. 42). Asa stratagem, the midnight expedition was therefore a failure. And there is something unspeakably ludicrous in the portentous weapons which were thought necessary, and the large number of men. This is the sting of many a carefully hatched villainy, viz. that eventually it loses even the merit of originality or cleverness. The wisdom of this world is in any case no match for the wisdom of God.
JIL. Toe mvresxsts oF CHRISTIANITY ABE NOT SERVED BY FOROE OB VIOLENCE. It was Peter whose impulsiveness had betrayed him into the thoughtless act. Hidden probably by the darkness, he was not detected, save by the eye of the Master. Had it even been expedient to oppose force with force in the general conflict of Christ with the world-power, on that occasion the odds were tremendous (cf. Matt. xxvi. 52).
IV. Tue Son OF MAN HAD TO MEET THE ONSET OF EVIL ALONE. His prediction was fulfilled (ver. 27).—M.
Vers, 43—50.—The betrayal. I. A TBANSCENDENT oRDME. Because of: 1. The character of Jesus. 2. The betrayer’s relations to him. Ingratitude. Callous selfish- ness. Breach of trust. 8. Circumstances of the act. Intrusion upon holy retirement, Simulation of highest regard and purest sentiment. The spiritual interests of humanity trifled with.
IL A suPREME FOLLY AND FAILURE. Overdone, Foreseen. Ending in contempt and misery.—M.
Vers. 63-—65.—Jesus at the bar of Judaism. J. THE CHARACTER OF THE EVIDENCE aGarsst nim. 1, Not in support of any clear and definite indictment. 2. Encouraged by @ desire on the part of the judges to incriminate. ‘‘They sought witness.” The death of the Prisoner a foregone conclusion. 3. The accusations unreliable and con-
icting. we (ee REPLY To HIS AcocusERS. Silence: (1) Because of their character, and (2) his own. The impressive dignity of this attitude. He would not justify himself before an earthly tribunal, é ;
Il. His answeR TO THE HIGH PRIEST'S QUESTION. He declared himself the Messiah and the Judge of all the earth. This was done out of respect to the representative character of the high priest, and in order to assure and inform faithful Jews.
WARK—IL g
268 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. [ou. xiv. 1—72.
ae a eT Fa Ca RE AAT EE
TV. How THis was constRvuED. As blasphemy: either (1) on the ground of imagi- nary, or feloniously represented, resemblance of the words, “ I am,” to Jehovah’s Name; or (2) because the claim was a priort assumed to be false.
V. He WAS REJECTED AND DISHONOURED BY THOSE HE O/ME TO SAVE, OUT OF SHEER WANTONNESS AND UNBELIEF.—M.
Vers. 54, 66—72.—Peter denying Christ. The seening discrepancies of the accounts by the evangelists of Peter’s threefold denial are explained on the ground of their independency of one another, and their making prominent various portions of a lengthened and complex series of actions. ‘Three denials are mentioned by all the evangelists, and three occasions are distinguished ; but on some of these there was more than one speaker, and probably more than one answer.” This circumstance was—
J, AN EVIDENCE OF THE POWER OF EVIL IN Goop MEN. This is the great lesson of the sins of the saints. There ought to be continual watchfulness, and living and walking in the Spirit. 1. It ts not well to expose one’s self to temptation unless from the highest motives. Curiosity seems to have been the ruling principle in Peter’s mind. He was following the highest good, but not as perceiving it to be so, or truly desiring it—a perilous state of things. There are many unworthy followings of Christ, which have the “greater condemnation.” Duty and self-sacrifice will, on the other hand, carry men safely through the most terrible trials. 2. Low views of Christ's character and office tend to unworthy conduct, The whole spiritual state of Peter was such as to expose him to the perpetration of the worst actions, and this arose from prevalence of false conceptions of Christ’s person and work. His attitude and occupation imme- diately beforehand (“afar off;” “warming himself”) have been regarded br many as symbolical of his spiritual position with regard to his Master. Scepticism and mental confusion on religious subjects, if not corrected or neutralized by close fellowship with Christ, or loyalty to the highest truth one knows, have sad moral results. Peter was still clinging against hope to his idea of a worldly Messiah. 38. Hvil words and actions, if once indulged tn, are the more easily repeated and aggravated. He proceeds from an equivocation—“TI neither know nor understand what thou sayest”—to a stronger and more direct negative, and then to oaths and profanities.