Vers. 66—72.— Extremes meet tn character. I. SELF-CONFIDENCE AND WEAKNESS. What is a man without self-reliance? Yet it seems to fail, and offers no security in temptation. In a true self-reliance is contained dependence and trust. Confidence in our thought is right, if we recognize that our true views are revealed to us; that it is not we who think, but God who thinks in us. Separated from our root in God, whether in thought or will, we become mere individuals. Once isolate the picture of yourself and your powers and activities from the Divine whole to which it belongs, meh it will soon be found that you are in a false position.
Il. ImperuosITy AND DELIBERATION. We admire the generous eagerness of Peter, but it topples over into precipitous haste. And the hasty falsehood is followed by the deliberate persistence in it. Brazening it out one moment, the next he breaks into a flood of remorseful tears. ‘ Who can understand his errors?” Easy to criticize Peter, not easy to act better. Let us humbly own that he represents us all, in greater or less degree. Our life oscillates between extremes. God can make profitable to us the experience of our sins and errors, The chemistry of his love can bring our tragic scenes to a happy ending.—J.
Vers. 1—11, 18—2Z1, 43—50. Parallel passages: Matt. xxvi. 1—16, 21—25, 47—56; Luke xxii. 3—6, 21—23, 47—53; John xviii. 9-~2.3; xiii. 21—35.—The
278 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. (on. xrv.i—72,
betrayal by Judas. 1. Iwrropvotion to Jupas. The individuality of Judas comes
rominently before us in this chapter. We make his acquaintance in the house of Biron the leper in Bethany. e are introduced to him in connection with the slabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; for though not mentioned here by name, we know from the other evangelists that he was among those who felt indignant at the supposed waste of the ointment, and who expressed that indignation oy murmuring against the worthy woman who had poured it on the Saviour’s head. 4ither Judas had muttered dissatisfaction, and others of the disciples, in their simplicity, concurred, or Judas was spokesman of others who, accustomed to scant ways and means, were surprised at what naturally enough appeared to such men extravagant expenditure. “ When his disciples saw it, they had indignation,” according to St. Matthew’s narrative; “There were some that had indignation within themselves,” is the record of St. Mark; “Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?” is the explicit account furnished by St. John. There was only the one single point of contact between Judas and those of the other disciples who agreed with him about the matter of waste. Their motive differed from his; their thoughts were not his thoughts. The large-hearted liberality of this loving woman was, however, rightly comprehended by the Master himself, and justly commended by him. Our curiosity is not gratified by any particulars of information about Simon. Whether he was a brother of Lazarus, or a brother-in-law, being Mary’s husband, or some other relative, or only a friend, we neither know nor need to know. The meaning of the epithet ruricfs is also little more than a matter of conjecture. Some of the Greek and Latin interpreters understand it to mean genuine or pure, and connect it with mordés, faithful; others hold the meaning to be potable or liquid, from lve; while Augustine derives it from the name of the place whence it came, that is, Pistic nard. The Vulgate and Latin versions render it spicatc; and similar, too, is our English spikenard, as the name of a fragrant oil extracted from the spike-shaped blossoms of the Indian nardus, or nard-grass, The costliness of this unguent was well known among the ancients; hence Horace promised Virgil a nine-gallon cask of wine for small onyx box of this nard; while the evangelist informs us that the value of Mary’s alabaster box of ointment was upwards of three hundred pence, that is, of Roman coinage, each denarius being equivalent to sevenpence halfpenny or eightpence half- penny of English currency. The amount would thus be about ten guineas.
Il. Mary’s tipeRnaLitry. This liberality of Mary had its origin in deep devotedness to our Lord, but her devotedness was the outcome of enlightened faith. She had a correct understanding of his character and claims. A believer in his Divine commission and in his kingly authority, she did not stumble as many at the prospect of his death, She knew he was to die, and hence she anticipated that sad event by the exceedingly expensive preparation in question. The custom of employing perfumes on such an occasion has an illustration in the record of King Asa in the sixteenth chapter of the Second Book of Chronicles, where we read, “ They laid him in the bed which was filled with sweet odours and divers kinds of spices prepared by the apothecaries’ art.’ The disciples of Christ surpassed the generality of their nation in the knowledge of, and belief in, his person as Messiah; but though they had full faith in his Messiahship, they still clung to the notion of a temporal kingdom, with all its high honours and earthly dis- tinctions. From this arose the difficulty which they had in reconciling themselves to his death, or rather the stumbling-block which his death placed in the way of their faith, as the two disciples to whom Jesus joined himself on the way to Emmaus, efter speaking of his death and crucifixion, added, “ But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel.” Mary’s faith excelled theirs as much as theirs excelled that of the Jews in general. Her faith did not fail in prospect of Messiah being cut off, her love was not chilled by the coming coldness of his death, nor did her hope go out like a taper in the darkness of his sepulchre. She believed that as Messiah Jesus would die and revive and rise and reign. She believed, and her faith worked by love, She believed, and therefore she poured the precious ointment ungrudgingly on her Saviour’s person. ee
TU. THe BESETTING SIN OF THE TRATTOR. Judas is usually held up as a monster of iniquity, and his sin regarded as something diabolical. While we would not
oH. XIv. 1—72.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. 277