§ d 28–31 The Parable of the Fig-Tree: the Time of the Destruction of Jerusalem; cf. Mt 24:32–35; Lk 21:29–33—28–29. When the leaves appear on the fig-tree men know that summer is near. Similarly, when the disciples see these things coming to pass they will know that it (‘the kingdom of God’, Lk 21:31) is at hand. The phrase ‘these things’ corresponds to the question of the disciples ‘when shall these things be’, 4, and probably refers to the abomination of desolation and the destruction of Jerusalem rather than to the happenings foretold in 5–8. When the disciples see these things coming to pass they will realize that they herald the establishment of the kingdom. Feuillet (art. cit., 83) emphasizes that the purpose of the parable is to bring home to the disciples that the destruction of the city and temple is not an unqualified disaster, inasmuch as to the eyes of faith it spells the coming of the Messianic age. 30. ‘This generation’ has been interpreted in a variety of senses: the Jewish nation, the human race, the community of the faithful (the Church), the generation of Jews contemporary with Christ. If Christ is speaking here of the end of the world (ταῦτα πάντα γένηται), the meaning would appear to be that the human race, or the Jewish nation, or the Church would still exist at the Second Coming. It is difficult to see the precise force of such a statement or how it fits the immediate context. Probably ‘all these things’ alludes to the destruction of Jerusalem. Christ meant that it would come to pass before the contemporary generation of Jews had passed away; cf. 8:12, 38. ‘Generation’ frequently has a pejorative sense (cf. ZL7385G. s.v7386. γενεά), and it may be that it has that nuance in the present context. The destruction of Jerusalem is regarded as the punishment of the evil generation that rejected Christ; cf. Mt 23:35 f. Not more than forty years elapsed from the time Christ spoke until the fall of Jerusalem in 70 a.d. 31. An emphatic declaration of the permanency and truth of all Christ’s teachings.
§ e 32–37 The Time of Judgement: the Need for Constant Vigilance; cf. Mt 24:36–51; Lk 21:34–36—32. Christ has announced the sign which will precede the fall of Jerusalem and foretold that that catastrophe would take place during the lifetime of his contemporaries. Now he declares that no one except the Father ‘knows about that day or that hour’. The Arian heretics appealed to this text as proof that Christ did not know the time of the day of Judgement and, therefore, could not be God; cf. Maldonatus, Comment, on Mt 24:36. Many modern writers (cf. Feuillet, art. cit., 87) explain the passage in the sense that Christ revealed the general period (this generation) in which the temple would be destroyed but gives no information as to the precise time (the day or the hour). But the opposition here is not simply between a general indication of the period, 30, and a precise date, 32. There appears to be a contrast between two distinct situations. In one case, there will be warning signs and the general period is revealed: in the other, there are no signs and no information is given about the time. Hence the admonition, ‘Take heed, watch. For you know not when the time is’, 33. It is unlikely, therefore, that Christ had the same event in view both in 30 and 32. The day and hour of which he spoke was most probably the Day of Judgement; cf. Lk 10:12; 2 Thess 1:10; 2 Tim 1:12, 18; 4:8. § f The statement that the Son, i.e. Christ, does not know the time of the Second Coming is to be interpreted in the sense that it was no part of his Messianic mission to reveal this information to men. Christ, as a divine Person, knows all the secrets of the Godhead, but it was not the will of the Father that he should make known to men the time of the Last Judgement. 33–37. Because the time of Christ’s coming in judgement is not revealed, constant readiness is necessary. This admonition, which is enforced by a parable, was not intended for the Apostles alone—‘what I say to you, I say to all: watch’, 37.
§ 739a 14:1–15:47 The Passion, Death and Burial of Christ. 14:1–2 The Plot of the Sanhedrin; cf. Mt 26:1–5; Lk 22:1 f.—The Pasch, i.e. the ceremony at which the paschal lamb was eaten, was celebrated on the evening of the 14th Nisan. ‘The Azymes’, or the feast of unleavened bread, began on the 15th Nisan and lasted seven days. In practice, the whole period from the beginning of the paschal ceremony to the end of the Azymes was referred to either as the Pasch or the Azymes. According to an ancient tradition (cf. Catena in Marc.), this meeting of the Sanhedrin was held on the Wednesday before Christ’s death.
§ b 3–9 The Anointing at Bethany; cf. Mt 26:6–13; Jn 12:1–8—From Jn we know that this incident took place on the day before the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, six days before the Pasch. Mk and Mt place the account of the anointing between the plot of the Sanhedrin and the betrayal by Judas because of its relation to the burial of Christ, 8, whom the Sanhedrin had now decided to put to death. The incident also throws light on the conduct and motives of Judas. 4. ‘Some were indignant’. From Jn 12:4 f. we know that Judas protested against the waste of precious ointment which might have been sold for the benefit of the poor. 6–9. Christ defended Mary from the charge of prodigality brought against her under the pretence of solicitude for the poor. Her action was a gesture of homage to him. In view of the nearness of his death, no one should find fault with the lavishness of the expenditure. Opportunities to assist the poor would never be lacking, but Christ would not be visibly present among them much longer. In fact, though Mary may not have realized it, this anointing was an anticipation of the anointing of Christ’s body which, in accordance with Jewish custom, should have been performed before burial. It would seem that, because of the haste with which the burial of Christ was carried out (Lk 23:54; Jn 19:42), certain of the customary preparations for burial were not completed; cf. 15:46–16:1; Lk 23:56–24:1. 9. The woman who anointed Jesus was Mary, sister of Martha and Lazarus, Jn 11:2; 12:2 f. It is doubtful whether she should be identified either with Mary Magdalen or with the unnamed sinner who anointed Christ on another occasion, Lk 7:37 ff; cf. O’Rahilly, The Family at Bethany, 181–92.
§ c 10–11 The Betrayal by Judas; cf. Mt 26:14–16; Lk 22:3–6—By offering to betray Jesus to the Sanhedrin, Judas solved for them the problem of ‘how to seize him by stealth’, 1. There has been much speculation concerning the motives which prompted the betrayal. In Jn 12:6 love of money is indicated, and disillusionment of false Messianic hopes and disappointed ambition probably also played a part. Both Lk 22:3, and Jn 6:71 f.; 13:2, 27, refer to the influence of Satan upon the conduct of Judas.
§ d 12–16 Preparation for the Pasch; cf. Mt 26:17–19; Lk 22:7–13—12. For the paschal meal, in addition to the lamb which was to be slaughtered in the temple, it was necessary to provide unleavened bread, bitter herbs, wine, and a sauce called ḥarôseṯ, made from fruits, nuts, spices and vinegar. Four cups of wine at least were prescribed. The third cup, taken after the eating of the lamb, was called the ‘cup of blessing’. During the meal the Hallel Psalms (113–118) were recited, and the head of the family explained the significance of the ceremony, which commemorated the Exodus. 13–15. From Lk 22:8 we know that the disciples sent to prepare for the Pasch were Peter and John. Jesus had probably made an arrangement with the householder to whom they were directed. The directions for finding the place were a test of the disciples’ faith in Christ, and gave proof of his divine knowledge. He may have avoided mentioning the householder’s name or the exact place in order to keep it from Judas, lest he should reveal it to the Sanhedrin beforehand.
§ e A number of texts in the Synoptics and Jn put it beyond doubt that Christ died on a Friday; cf. Mt 27:62; Mk 15:42; Lk 23:54; Jn 19:31. The Last Supper took place on the previous evening. That Christ intended to celebrate the Jewish paschal feast is clear from the accounts of the preparations; cf. 14:12–16; Mt 26:17–19; Lk 22:7–13. The words ‘With desire have I desired to eat this Pasch with you before I suffer’, Lk 22:15, confirm that Christ and the Apostles actually partook of the customary paschal meal. In the evangelists’ account of the Last Supper the traditional ritual of the Jewish Pasch is overshadowed by the institution of the Eucharist which is the Pasch of the New Covenant. The Mosaic Law, Ex 12:6, prescribed that the paschal lamb was to be slain about sunset on the 14th Nisan and eaten that night. Taking this regulation in conjunction with the Synoptic account one would conclude that Christ died in the afternoon of the 15th Nisan. But from Jn 18:28 it is clear that the Jews had not eaten the Pasch on the day that Christ was put to death. That day was the day of preparation, i.e. the eve of the Pasch, Jn 19:31, 42. Moreover, the first day of the paschal feast, the 15th Nisan, was a day of sabbath rest on which it was not lawful to hold a trial. The Synoptics, Mt 27:32; Mk 15:21, 46; Lk 22:26; 23:56, mention various other activities which also appear to be inconsistent with the supposition that the day of Christ’s death was the first of the paschal feast. Various solutions have been put forward to explain the difference in practice between Christ and the Jews on this occasion. Some, indeed, have denied that Christ celebrated a real paschal meal, while others have held that Christ and the Jews celebrated the Pasch on the same day. But the evidence already adduced indicates that neither view is tenable. Whether Christ anticipated the legal date of the Pasch by one day, or the Jews postponed it to the evening of the 15th Nisan remains uncertain. It is possible that there was a divergence in regard to the fixing of the date of the Pasch, which depended upon observation of the new moon fourteen days earlier; cf. Lagrange, Saint Marc, 354–63; Prat, Jésus Christ, 2, 507–20; cf. § 768a–c.
§ f 17–21 Announcement of the Betrayal; cf. Mt 26:20–25; Lk 22:21–23; Jn 13:21–30—17–18. The announcement of the betrayal was made during the paschal celebration which began after sunset. Among the Jews at this period the ancient practice of standing while partaking of the paschal meal, Ex 12:11, had given way to the Greek and Roman custom of reclining on couches at table. 19–20. The expression ‘one who dips with me in the dish’ has the same meaning as ‘one who eats with me’, 18b,=one who partakes of a meal with me. These words did not reveal to the other Apostles that Judas was the traitor, as they could apply to anyone present at the meal. In accordance with oriental practice, each one helped himself from a common dish. 21. Christ, in fulfilment of the divine command, was going voluntarily to his death which had been foretold by the prophets. God foresaw from all eternity the part which Judas would play, but the crime of betraying Jesus, which Judas committed by his own free act, was none the less heinous.
§ g 22–25 The Institution of the Eucharist; cf. Mt 26:26–29; Lk 22:19 f.—Mk’s account here is almost verbally identical with that of Mt, while Lk closely resembles 1 Cor 11:23–25 and includes the command of Christ, ‘Do this in commemoration of Me’. 22. In the sentence, ‘This is my Body’ the subject ‘this’ (τοῦτο), i.e. the bread which Christ held in his hands, is identified with the predicate ‘my Body’ (τὸ σῶμά μου). In Aramaic, the language in which Christ spoke, the copula ‘is’ (ἐστιν) is not expressed, but the sense is the same. The evangelists and St Paul express faithfully in Greek the meaning of Christ’s words. That these words are to be taken literally, signifying that the bread has been changed by divine power into Christ’s body, follows no less from the impossibility of giving any reasonable figurative interpretation to them than from the emphasis with which it is stated that this is Christ’s own body, not a mere figure of it, but the body that suffered for men: ‘This is my body, [the body] which will be given for you’, Lk 22:19. § h 24. The same point is made even clearer in the consecration of the chalice: ‘This is my blood, [the blood] of the covenant, [the blood] which will be shed for many’. The cup contains the blood of Christ, the same blood which is to be shed in the sacrifice which inaugurates the new covenant between God and men. The participle ἐκχυννόμενον is used proleptically with reference to the shedding of Christ’s blood on Calvary. ‘of the new testament’. ‘New’ may be here an interpolation from Mt. The Mosaic covenant was inaugurated by the shedding of blood, Ex 24:4 ff.; Christ inaugurated the New Covenant, which replaces the OT economy, by the sacrificial shedding of his own Blood on Calvary—‘by a single offering he consummated for ever those that are being sanctified’, Heb 10:14. ‘for many’. The word ‘many’ does not imply that some are excluded from the benefit of Christ’s sacrifice; it simply marks a contrast between the multitude who are to be redeemed and the One who died for all; cf. 10:45. 25. In these words, which Luke places before the account of the institution of the Eucharist, Jesus reminds the Apostles that this is a farewell banquet, for his death is imminent. But he will triumph over death, and they will be with him again in the happiness of the eternal kingdom. Christ uses a metaphor familiar to the Rabbis, comparing the kingdom of God to a banquet. The wine at that banquet will be ‘new’; it will belong to a new order of things. Some see in this passage an allusion to the Eucharist which would unite them with Christ even here on earth.
§ i 26–31 Prediction of the Scandal of the Apostles and Peter’s Denials; cf. Mt 26:30–35; Lk 22:33 f.; Jn 13:36–38—26. The hymn sung on this occasion was the second part of the Hallel, Pss 115–118, which brought the paschal supper to a close. 27–28. The defection of the Apostles predicted by Christ was not an abandonment of faith in him; it was rather a temporary faltering in their loyalty, caused by discouragement at seeing him fall into the hands of this enemies. Together with the warning that they would be scandalized, Christ gave the Apostles the reassuring reminder of the triumph of his Resurrection. The scriptural quotation in 27b is from Zach 13:7—‘Sword … strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be dispersed’. 29–31. Peter’s protestations of unshakeable loyalty were sincere, but relying excessively on his own strength and placing his own loyalty above that of the other Apostles, he failed to heed the warning words of Christ. The others also protested their loyalty. Mk alone mentions the second cock-crow; cf. 14:72.
§ 740a 32–42 The Agony in the Garden; cf. Mt 26:36–46; Lk 22:39–46—32. Gethsemani is situated at the foot of the western slope of Mt Olivet. The name means ‘oil-press’, an installation for extracting the oil from the olive. 33–36. The three Apostles who were with Christ at the Agony had earlier been witnesses of the Transfiguration and of the raising of the daughter of Jairus. 33b. ‘He began to be dismayed and distressed’. ἀδημονεῖν (‘to be distressed’) suggests repugnance, disgust. The Passion and Crucifixion which were now imminent, were the immediate cause of the Agony of Christ. His hour had come; the Passion with all the accompanying humiliations presented itself so vividly to his mind that he was filled with anguish and dismay. He was also conscious of the unbelief of the Jews, the betrayal by Judas, the scandal of the Apostles, the ingratitude of men, the burden of sin which he had to expiate by his sacrifice. At the Incarnation he had assumed a real human nature: it is in accordance with that nature to shrink from suffering and death. Christ’s prayer that he might be spared ‘this chalice’, the ordeal of the Passion, is at once a manifestation of the shrinking of his human nature from the sufferings which lay before him, and a measure of the anguish caused by the thought of them. The prayer, however, is conditional—‘he prayed that if it were possible, the hour might pass from him’. His human will was in complete accord with the will of the Father—‘not what I will, but what thou wilt’. Despite the repugnance of his human nature to suffering, Christ, by a meritorious act of obedience, voluntarily submitted to the Passion which had been decreed by God for the salvation of men. ‘Though Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered, and having been made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation to all those who obey him’, Heb 5:8 f. This narrative puts beyond question the fact that Christ had a true human nature, and a human will distinct from and yet completely obedient to the will of the Father; § b Vosté, De Passione et Morte Jesu Christi (Romae 1937) 7–56. 37–42. Christ returned to seek comfort in the company of the Apostles whom he had asked to keep watch with him. This seeking for comfort in the presence of friends, and the restlessness shown in the repeated coming and going of Christ are characteristic of one who is deeply distressed. The Apostles, despite their protestations, had failed to keep awake. Mark, 37, notes that Christ’s gentle reproof was addressed especially to Simon Peter. This first failure to live up to their protestations of loyalty, 29–31, taught the Apostles the lesson that good intentions are not enough. Human nature is weak and liable to fail in time of trial. Constant vigilance and prayer for God’s help were necessary if they were to remain steadfast in their loyalty to Christ in the far greater trials which lay before them.
§ c 43–50 The Arrest of Jesus; cf. Mt 26:47–56; Lk 22:47–53; Jn 18:2–11—From Jn we know that a detachment of Roman soldiers under the command of a tribune was present at Christ’s arrest. If resistance were encountered, they would have given all necessary support to the representatives of the Sanhedrin who came armed with swords and clubs to seize Jesus. Judas led them to Gethsemani because he knew that Jesus frequently resorted there with the disciples, Jn 18:2. In the darkness even those who had seen Christ previously might have failed to identify him among the Apostles. The sign which Judas arranged was the customary form of respectful greeting. 47. Jn 18:10 tells us that it was Peter who drew the sword in defence of Christ. 48–49. Jesus did not resist arrest or attempt to escape, but made a dignified protest against the methods employed against him by the Sanhedrin. If they had a charge against him because of his teaching or claims, they could have summoned him openly before their tribunal. There was no need to come with an armed band as if Christ were a malefactor from whom violent resistance was to be expected. Force, indeed, would have been useless if Christ chose to resist, cf. Mt 26:51–54; Jn 18:4–6. All that was taking place, however, was in accordance with the prophecies of Scripture; cf. Is 53:7, 12.
§ d 51–52. Only Mk records this incident of the unnamed young man. He may have been roused from sleep by the crowd and followed them with a linen cloth (σινδών) wrapped about him. The fact that he followed our Lord in these circumstances suggests that he was a disciple or, at least, sympathetic to Christ. It is unlikely that mere curiosity explains his actions. Many writers hold that this is a personal reminiscence of the author of the Gospel, and identify the young man with Mark himself. The insertion of this personal anecdote, which is not closely linked with either the preceding or the subsequent narrative, would be equivalent to the setting of Mark’s signature to the Gospel. The view is not certain, but it gives a reasonable explanation of an otherwise baffling narrative. It appears to be clear that we cannot identify the young man who figures in this incident with any of the Apostles—they had all fled, 50.
§ e 53–65 Jesus before the Sanhedrin: the Religious Process; cf. Mt 26:57–68; Lk 22:54, 63–71; Jn 18:13, 19–24—Jn informs us that when Jesus was arrested he was brought first to Annas, who had held the office of high-priest from a.d. 6 till 15 when he was deposed by the Roman Governor, Valerius Gratus. The high-priest at the time of the Passion was Caiphas. He was son-in-law of Annas and held office from a.d. 18 till 36. The interrogation of Christ by the high-priest, Jn 18:19–23, was probably an informal examination intended to obtain some evidence which could be used against Jesus when he was brought to trial before the Sanhedrin or the Roman Governor. The Sanhedrin had extensive judicial power. It was competent to pass sentence of death on certain charges, but had not the right to execute the sentence; cf. Jn 18:31; Holzmeister, Hist. Aet. N. Test. (Rome 1932) 82–5; id., B7387i 19 (1938) 43–59, 151–74. The Romans reserved that power to their own representative in the subject territories. Consequently, when the Sanhedrin had pronounced sentence of death on Christ on the charge of blasphemy they were obliged to seek ratification and execution of the sentence from Pilate, the Roman Governor, who had the right to review the case in order to satisfy himself that the verdict should be executed.
§ f According to Mk 15:1 and Mt 27:1 there were two meetings of the Sanhedrin, one during the night at which Christ was condemned, the other next morning before he was brought to Pilate. Lk makes no mention of the night session: his account of Christ’s condemnation is connected with the meeting of the Sanhedrin held in the morning, Lk 22:66–71. The precise relation of Lk’s account to the narrative of Mk and Mt is uncertain. Some authors deny that a formal trial of Christ by the Sanhedrin took place during the night. According to the Talmud it was unlawful to hold a trial by night. On this view the condemnation of Christ took place at the formal trial held in the morning, as described in Lk. The other two Synoptic writers have anticipated in their narrative, giving the story of the condemnation along with their account of certain preparatory investigations conducted by the high-priest and the maltreatment of Christ during the night. Others hold that the second session of the Sanhedrin was necessary in order to remedy the illegality of the trial by night, or because it was not permitted to pronounce a condemnatory sentence at the session in which an accused was found guilty. It is possible that the Sanhedrin, having condemned Christ at the night session on the charge of blasphemy, met again next morning in order to formulate charges which would ensure that Pilate would ratify their verdict and execute the death sentence. Like Gallio at Corinth, Ac 18:12–16, Pilate might have refused to take any action on a charge of a purely religious nature. It was decided, therefore, at the morning session to bring Jesus before Pilate as a political offender because of his Messianic claims; cf. Mk 15:2; Lk 23:2. § g 53–54. The usual meeting-place of the Sanhedrin was a hall situated at the western side of the temple area. On this occasion, however, possibly because the gates of the temple were shut at night or because of the desire for expedition and secrecy, the representatives of the three groups which formed the Sanhedrin met in the house of Caiphas. Peter, having overcome the panic which caused him to abandon Christ, now followed at a distance and was brought into the courtyard of the high-priest by another disciple, Jn 18:15. 55–61a. In the Law, Num 35:30: Deut 17:6; 19:15, it was laid down that a man could not be condemned to death except on the concordant evidence of two or three witnesses. The testimony of the first witnesses against Christ was conflicting. The two witnesses who testified that Christ had said he would destroy the temple misrepresented what he had actually said, Jn 2:19. His words were ‘Destroy this temple’ not ‘I will destroy this temple’ etc. Moreover, as explained in Jn 2:21, he was speaking of the temple of his own body. Here too the witnesses failed to agree in their testimony. It was not necessarily blasphemous to predict the destruction of the temple or even to say, ‘I will destroy the temple’. But the charge brought against Christ would have created prejudice against him among the people. The Sanhedrin would no doubt have regarded it as sufficient ground for condemning Christ to death. Jeremias had been threatened with death for predicting the destruction of the temple, Jer 26:6 ff. One of the charges brought against St Stephen was that he had said ‘Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place’, Ac 6:14. When the witnesses failed to agree, Caiphas tried to elicit some statement or explanation from Christ in the hope that he would compromise himself in the hearing of the Sanhedrin. But Jesus remained silent: there was no case for him to answer. § h 61b–65. Caiphas, having seen the debacle of the false witnesses, feared that the plot of the Sanhedrin might fail completely. He sought, therefore, to obtain from Christ an avowal of his claims which would immediately be condemned as blasphemous by the Sanhedrin. They could then pass sentence of death without reference to any other witnesses. ‘Art thou the Messias, the Son of the Blessed One?’, 61b. Jesus was not bound to answer this question, even in deference to the authority of the high-priest. But silence at this time might have been misinterpreted as a disavowal of his claims. Therefore he replied, ‘I am. And you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven’. The expressions ‘the Blessed One’ and ‘the Power (of God)’ were used by the Jews as substitutes for the name of God. Christ’s answer, with its allusions to Ps 109:1 and Dan 7:13, is a clear affirmation both of his Messianic dignity and his divinity. He is not a merely human Messias, but One who will take his place at the right hand of God, sharing his power. He is Son of God in an altogether unique sense. The Sanhedrin understood that Christ was claiming divinity, making himself equal to God; cf. Jn 5:18. The high-priest rent his garments, this being the customary gesture to express horror at hearing a blasphemy. Merely to claim to be the Messias was not in itself blasphemy nor punishable by death. It was because Christ claimed to be Son of God in the strict sense, making himself God, Jn 10:33, that the Sanhedrin found him guilty of blasphemy and condemned him to death. 65. From Mk it appears that some members of the Sanhedrin began the maltreatment of Christ, spitting upon him and mocking his prophetic power and knowledge of hidden things by striking him when blindfolded and asking him to name the one who had struck him.
§ i 66–72 Peter’s Denials and Repentance; cf. Mt 26:69–75; Lk 22:54–62; Jn 18:15–18, 25–27—The fact that all four evangelists record this incident, in no way seeking to mitigate Peter’s fault, is a remarkable tribute to their reliability. Peter was Head of the Church when the Synoptic Gospels were written, and had won the crown of martyrdom for his faith in Christ when John wrote his Gospel, yet there is no attempt to gloss over his lapse. It is also noteworthy, as an indication of Peter’s humility, that the denials are narrated so fully by Mark, whose Gospel is a record of Peter’s preaching. All four evangelists agree in recording that Peter denied Christ on three distinct occasions. There are differences in the details of their accounts, but these do not affect the substance of the narrative, nor can they be urged as instances of contradictions between the Gospels. We are not obliged to suppose that Peter uttered only a single denial each time he was challenged. It is altogether more reasonable to hold that, in his panic and confusion, he blurted out denials in different forms especially when challenged by several persons at once. There was room for more than one accurate, though incomplete, account of the denials. None of the evangelists purports to give an exhaustive account. Each one recorded the incidents in his own way, giving the sense of the challenges to Peter and of his denials rather than the actual words.
§ j 66–69. The first denial took place when Peter, who had joined the servants gathered round the fire in the courtyard, was challenged by the portress who had admitted him to the high-priest’s house at the request of another disciple. Mark alone mentions the crowing of the cock after the first denial. Peter moved from the fire towards the entrance porch where, after an interval, he once more encountered the portress, who was joined by others in charging Peter with being a disciple. 70–72. Some time later Peter was again with the group around the fire. The peculiarities of his speech betrayed the fact that he was a Galilean, and he was identified as a disciple by a relative of Malchus, whose ear he had cut off in Gethsemani. This time Peter sought to strengthen his denials with oaths and curses, calling down God’s punishment on himself if his statement was not true. The crowing of the cock reminded Peter of the warning words of Christ, who at that moment was being led away from the hall where he had appeared before the Sanhedrin—‘and the Lord turning looked at Peter’, Lk 22:61. The Apostle realized the gravity of his fault and showed his repentance by his tears. 72b. ‘He began to weep’ (ἐπιβαλὼν ἔκλαιεν). The exact sense of ἐπιβαλών is uncertain, but it probably refers to a sudden overwhelming outburst. ‘He burst into sobs and wept’, cf. MM7388V s.v7389.
§ 741a 15:1–15a Jesus before Pilate: the Civil Process; cf. Mt 27:11–26; Lk 23:1–25; Jn 18:28–19:16—1–5. Mk is extremely concise at this point and needs to be clarified by reference to the other evangelists. 1. Probably the chief purpose of the morning session of the Sanhedrin was to decide what charges should be brought against Christ at the tribunal of the Roman Governor; cf. § 740f. Knowing that they could not count upon unquestioning acceptance by Pilate of their own verdict on a purely religious charge, the Sanhedrin kept the charge of blasphemy in the background and brought Christ before Pilate as a political offender—‘we have found this man perverting our nation and forbidding to pay tribute to Caesar and asserting that he is the Messias, a king’, Lk 23:2. As the representative of Rome, Pilate was obliged to take notice of these accusations. 2. The Messianic claim of Jesus had been represented to Pilate as a claim to political kingship of the Jews, and, consequently, sedition against the Emperor. 2b ‘Thou sayest it’ (σὺ λέγεις). According to some authors this is a non-committal answer=‘It is you who say it’. More probably it is to be understood as an affirmative=‘It is as you say’. A fuller account of the questioning of Christ by Pilate, given in Jn 18:33–38, shows that Christ explained that his kingship was not an earthly one in opposition to the authority of Rome. Pilate was satisfied that the charge of sedition was unfounded. § b 3–5. Having reached the decision that Jesus was not guilty of sedition, Pilate should have brought the trial to an end and set him free. But when he announced that he could find no crime in him, Lk 23:4; Jn 18:38, the chief priests persisted, ‘he is stirring up the people, teaching throughout all Judaea, beginning from Galilee even to this place’, Lk 23:5. Pilate, knowing that the anxiety of the Sanhedrin for the interests of Rome was a pretence, questioned Jesus again, probably hoping to discover the real motive of the animosity of the Jews. But Christ remained silent: he had already made his position clear to Pilate. § c 6–11. The sending of Christ to Herod Antipas, Lk 23:6–12, was the first of Pilate’s attempts to find a way out of his difficulty. He knew that Jesus was innocent and was anxious to set him free, yet he was afraid to offend the Jews, lest they should denounce him to the Emperor for negligence in dealing with a political agitator. It was by playing on this fear that the Jews finally succeeded in securing the condemnation of Christ, Jn 19:12 f. Having failed to transfer responsibility for the case to Antipas, Pilate now had recourse to another expedient. The custom of releasing at the paschal feast a prisoner selected by the people appeared to provide a way of escape from his embarrassing position. If the people selected Christ, the Sanhedrin would have no pretext for denouncing Pilate. It was natural to expect that the crowds who had acclaimed Christ a few days previously would now exercise their privilege in his favour. But the chief priests stirred up the people to ask for Barabbas then in prison ‘with the rioters who had committed murder in the riot’. We cannot tell by what means the crowd were incited to ask for Barabbas in preference to Christ. It is difficult to understand how that choice could have been made by people who had acclaimed Christ at the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Probably it was the rabble of the city along with the servants of the Sanhedrin who asked for Barabbas. Some are of opinion that Barabbas was not simply a brigand or common criminal, but a prominent figure in a revolutionary group striving to overthrow Roman power in Palestine. By presenting him in the guise of a national hero the chief priests would have been able to influence the people to ask for his release. The Gospels are the only source which inform us that the Roman authority in Palestine recognized the custom of liberating a prisoner at the Pasch. Similar customs are known to have existed elsewhere in the Greek and Roman world. A remarkable parallel to the Gospel story is found in an Egyptian papyrus from 7390c a.d. 85 which quotes the statement of the Governor of Egypt to a man on trial before him—‘You deserved flagellation … but I pardon you as a favour to the people’ (Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, 229–30). 12–15a. The unexpected turn of events disconcerted Pilate. Forgetting that he alone was the competent judge in the case, he asked what they wished to have done to Jesus. When they called for his crucifixion, Pilate again declared that Jesus had committed no crime which merited the death penalty. But the clamour continued and Pilate finally gave way to the demand under the threat of delation to the Emperor, Jn 19:12 f.
§ d 15b–20a The Scourging and Crowning with Thorns; cf. Mt 27:26–31; Lk 23:16, 22; Jn 19:1–3—Scourging was a normal preliminary to the execution of the death sentence. It was also inflicted sometimes in order to extort a confession, or as a distinct form of punishment for offences which did not merit the death penalty. One form of scourge had leather thongs weighted with fragments of bone; another consisted of light chains with balls of lead at the end. Roman law did not impose any limit to the number of blows which might be inflicted. In Palestine, where there were no lictors, the scourging was done by soldiers. From Lk and Jn we know that Pilate had not yet sentenced Christ to death when he ordered the scourging. He intended to set Christ free after the scourging, believing that this compromise would appease Christ’s enemies. § e 16. ‘And the soldiers led him into the courtyard, that is, the praetorium, and called together the whole cohort’. The name ‘praetorium’ was originally given to the tent of the commander-in-chief (praetor). In later use it applies to any place where the Emperor or his military representatives exercised the functions of their office. It is disputed whether the praetorium where Christ was mocked and condemned to death was in the palace of Herod or in the fortress Antonia adjoining the temple. The palace of Herod was the usual residence of the Procurators when they visited Jerusalem. It is probable, however, that at the Pasch and other great feasts Pilate moved into the fortress Antonia where he could more easily keep the crowds under observation and take prompt action to quell disturbances. Recent archaeological findings appear to favour this view; cf. Vincent, R7391B 42 (1933) 85–113.
§ f 17–20a. The pitiable condition to which Christ was reduced by the scourging aroused no sympathy in the soldiers. In a mock coronation and parody of homage they ridiculed his claim to be king. The purple garment, probably a soldier’s scarlet cloak, represented the royal purple; the crown of thorns and the reed placed in Christ’s hand, Mt 27:29, represented the crown and sceptre. It was probably on their own initiative that the soldiers indulged in this brutal mockery of Christ. After the scourging and mockery Pilate brought forth Jesus wearing the crown of thorns and the purple garment, Jn 19:4 f. He thought that the sight of his wretched state would satisfy the Jews’ desire for punishment. But they still cried out for his crucifixion. Pilate, intimidated, passed the death sentence.
§ 742a 20b–41 The Crucifixion and Death of Jesus; cf. Mt 27:31–56; Lk 23:26–49; Jn 19:16–37—The evangelists do not give a detailed account of the crucifixion, because their readers were familiar with this form of punishment. It was well known in the Roman empire, particularly as the penalty for slaves condemned for serious crimes, though freedmen or provincials found guilty of sedition and, sometimes, even Roman citizens were put to death in this way. The more common type of cross consisted of two lengths of timber, an upright and a crossbeam. These were not fixed together in the familiar form of cross until crucifixion took place. In Rome, the condemned person, stripped of his garments, carried the crossbeam to the place of execution, being subjected to indignities and ill-treatment on the way. A placard announcing his crime was carried before him or hung from his neck. At the place of execution, it seems that the hands of the condemned person were fastened to the crossbeam, usually with nails, and then he was lifted on to the upright beam which was already in position. A projecting block on the upright served as a ‘saddle’ to support the body; the crossbeam was secured to the upright at the top or in a socket lower down, and the feet were nailed or tied with cords. Death was sometimes hastened by breaking the legs or by other means; cf. Holzmeister V7392D 14 (1934) 149–55, 216–20, 241–9, 257–63. Christ was crucified by four Roman soldiers, Jn 19:23, under the command of a centurion, Mk 15:39. We know from Jn 20:20, 25, 27 and Lk 24:39 f. that his hands and feet were fastened with nails. On some points it is uncertain how far the manner of Christ’s crucifixion may have differed from the usual Roman practice. It is widely held that Christ carried the whole Cross, not merely the crossbeam. Mk 15:20 ‘they put his clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him’ indicates that Christ was still clothed in his own garments on the way to Calvary. Most of the ancient writers believed that Christ was completely naked on the Cross. But it is not improbable that, in Palestine, the Romans respected Jewish feeling and custom in this matter and allowed some kind of covering.
§ b 20b–32 The Crucifixion—Christ was led forth from the praetorium carrying his cross, but when the soldiers saw that he was too weak to carry it to the place of execution they exercised their right to requisition services and compelled Simon of Cyrene to carry it for him. The mention of Simon’s sons shows that they were known to the Christians of Rome for whom Mark wrote his Gospel. Rufus was probably the man to whom St Paul sent greetings in Rom 16:13; cf. 725c. ‘Golgotha’ is the Gk transcription of the Aramaic word ‘gûlgûltā’=‘skull’; Latin, ‘Calvaria’. The name probably alludes to the shape of the slight eminence on which the crucifixion took place. 23. It was a Jewish custom to give wine mixed with myrrh to condemned persons in order to deaden their senses (Strack-Billerbeck 1, 1037). Christ refused to alleviate his sufferings in this way. 24. In accordance with accepted practice, the garments of the crucified became the spoil of the soldiers who executed the sentence. 25. ‘Now it was the third hour when they crucified him’. This appears to contradict Jn 19:14, which informs us that it was about the sixth hour when Pilate condemned Christ. Some hold that the discrepancy is due to a copyist’s error. Probably, however, Mk is following a division of the day into four periods of three hours each, cf. 15:1 (morning); 15:25 (the third hour); 15:33 (the sixth hour); 15:34 (the ninth hour). ‘The third hour’ covers the whole period from about nine until midday. Christ was condemned before midday, and the soldiers took him straightway to the place of crucifixion. § c 26. The inscription placed on the Cross was the official placard proclaiming the charge on which Jesus had been condemned. 27. The crucifixion of the robbers on either side of Christ seems to have been intended to throw contempt on his claims by associating him with common criminals. This added humiliation was a literal fulfilment of the prophecy of Is 53:12 ‘he was counted with the evil-doers’. 28 is missing in some MSS and it is doubtful whether it is authentic. 29–30. Calvary was outside the walls but close to the city, Jn 19:20. The passers-by who railed at Jesus had probably been turned against him by garbled reports, put out by the Sanhedrin, of what he had said about the temple and what had transpired at the trial. 31–32. The chief priests and Scribes ridiculed Christ’s kingship and taunted him with the miracles he had performed. By paying this involuntary tribute to his supernatural power they condemned themselves. ‘He rose from the dead and you did not believe: even if he were to descend from the cross, you would not believe’, Jerome, P7393L 26, 211. 32b. Lk 23:39–43 informs us that one of the robbers rebuked his fellow for reviling Christ. It is possible that both robbers at first joined in insulting him, but that one of them later repented of his conduct. More probably the plural ‘robbers’ in Mk and Mt 27:44 is indefinite. The evangelists simply mention another quarter from which insults were offered to Jesus without intending to specify the exact number of those who took part.
§ d 33–41 The Death of Jesus—33. The evangelist evidently regarded the darkness, which began at midday and lasted until Christ’s death three hours later, as a portent caused by special divine intervention. It was a sign of the judgement of God on those responsible for the crucifixion of Christ. The Jews should have recalled passages in the writings of the prophets, e.g. Am 8:9, where the imagery of the darkening of the sun is used to describe the intervention of God in judgement upon men. It is not possible to determine the exact nature or the immediate cause of the phenomenon. The darkness was not the result of an ordinary eclipse of the sun. This was impossible at the Pasch, as the moon was then at the full. Some hold that God miraculously withheld the sun’s rays; others think that God prevented the rays of the sun from reaching the earth by interposing dense layers of cloud. Lagrange (Saint Marc, 432) suggests a miraculous intensification of the gloom brought about in Jerusalem at the beginning of April by the clouds of sand and dust blown by the sirocco. 33b. ‘Over the whole land’. It is not necessary to hold that the darkness extended to the whole earth. Many writers think that the reference is only to Judaea. Probably the evangelist meant simply that the whole horizon was darkened—he was not thinking of the exact geographical extension. § e 34 gives the Aramaic translation of the opening words of Ps 21 (22). This Psalm is the prayer of the just man who, though surrounded by enemies and in deep distress, looks confidently to God for deliverance. The words ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ are a cry of distress wrung from the just man by the taunts and sufferings which God allows his enemies to inflict on him. There is no note of despair in that cry: confidence in God remains unshaken; cf. Ps 21:10, 25. Christian tradition recognizes the Messianic sense of the Psalm, which finds complete fulfilment only in Christ: ‘it contains the whole Passion of Christ’ (Tertullian, Adv. Marcion. 3, 19). Christ, the Just One par excellence, made the cry of the Psalmist his own on the Cross with far more perfect sentiments of submission and confidence in God. The desolation felt in the human soul of Christ is given expression in the Psalmist’s words. But there is no question of despair or of abandonment of the humanity by the divinity. Christ was abandoned by God only in the sense that God did not spare him the sufferings of the Passion and Crucifixion, but allowed his enemies to work their will on him. § f 35–36. The bystanders who said ‘he calleth Elias’ had confused the word ‘Eloi’=‘my God’ with the name ‘Elias’. This may have been a genuine mistake, though the Scribes who were present could scarcely have failed to recognize the words of the Psalm. It was a common belief, Mk 9:8–12, that the prophet Elias would return to anoint the Messias and make him known to the world. The idea that Jesus, as he hung on the Cross, was calling to Elias for assistance, gave a fresh opportunity for sarcastic gibes. One of the soldiers, hearing Jesus say ‘I thirst’, Jn 19:28, soaked a sponge in the mixture of water and vinegar called posca which was the soldiers’ ordinary drink, and raised it to Jesus’ lips. The soldier was moved by compassion, but apparently because of hostility among the bystanders to this kind deed, he sought to excuse his action by joining in the mockery—this relief to the crucified would give Elias time to come to his assistance! 37. The words which Jesus uttered in a loud voice were probably ‘Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit’, Lk 23:46. Many patristic writers and modern exegetes regard this loud cry uttered at the point of death as indicative both of the divinity of Christ and of the fact that he died of his own free will. It is not clear, however, that in the circumstances the loud cry just before death necessarily implies more than human power in Christ. The words spoken show that he retained full consciousness and complete self-control to the end. Christ’s death was voluntary: he had the power to lay down his life and the power to take it up again, Jn 10:17 f., but he freely accepted and fully carried out the divine plan for our redemption, knowing that this involved his own death on the Cross. His last words are a renewed expression of his voluntary acceptance of the sacrifice of his life for the redemption of men. § g 38. It is uncertain whether the veil which was rent in two was the outer veil which hung at the entrance to the sanctuary, or the inner veil which separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. The exact significance of this event is also doubtful. According to some, the rending of the inner veil was a manifestation of God’s power which signified that by the death of Christ the way into the heavenly sanctuary was thrown open and the Mosaic economy with its ritual was abrogated; cf. Heb 6:20; 9:9 f.; 10:19 f. Others, holding that it was the outer veil which was rent, interpret the event as a sign that by Christ’s death the mysteries which concerned the Church were revealed, the inner veil remaining as a symbol of the truths to be revealed in the heavenly kingdom. 39. The centurion was impressed by the bearing of Christ during the Passion, by the rapidity of his death and by the loud cry which he had uttered before dying, and also by the darkness and the earthquake, Mt 27:54. He had heard of Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God, and in the manner and circumstances of his death saw proof that the claim was well-founded. It is doubtful whether the centurion understood the full significance of the title, ‘Son of God’; cf. Lk 23:47, ‘Indeed this was a just man’. His confession at least attests the honest conviction that Jesus was innocent and that he was no ordinary human being. 40–41. We know from Jn 19:25 that our Lady was near the Cross. Of the other women who saw the Crucifixion Mark names only the three who came to the tomb to anoint Christ’s body on the morning of the Resurrection.
§ h 42–47 The Burial of Jesus; cf. Mt 27:57–61; Lk 23:50–56; Jn 19:38–42—It was the Roman custom to leave the bodies of those who were crucified to decay on the cross or to be devoured by wild animals and vultures, unless friends obtained permission to remove a body for burial. Jewish law, however, prescribed that the body of one hanged should be buried the same day, Deut 21:23, and this regulation was applied also to those who were crucified; cf. Jos., B.J. 6, 5, 2. 42. The crucifixion of Christ took place on Friday (cf. § 738e). ‘Parasceve’: παρασκευή=‘preparation’, i.e. the day of preparation for the Sabbath. The obligation of sabbath-rest began at sunset, and as the Sabbath on this occasion coincided with the first day of the Pasch, it was all the more imperative, in the eyes of the Sanhedrin, that the bodies of the crucified should be buried before sunset, as the Law prescribed. Consequently, they asked Pilate to hasten death by breaking the legs of the victims so that the bodies could be taken away, Jn 19:31–37. If our Lord’s friends had not intervened his body would probably have been cast into a common grave with the bodies of the two robbers. Joseph of Arimathea, though a member of the Sanhedrin, had not consented to their decision and deeds; he was a good and just man, and, secretly, a disciple of Jesus, Lk 23:50 f.; Jn 19:38. Availing himself of his standing as a member of the supreme council of the Jews to have access to the Roman Governor, he secured permission to take away the body for burial. 44. Pilate was surprised that Jesus had died so quickly. Persons condemned to death by crucifixion usually lingered on the cross for a much longer period, sometimes even for days. Jesus, however, had endured exceptional sufferings and torments from the time of the Agony in Gethsemani. § i 46. In removing the body of Christ from the Cross and preparing it for burial, Joseph had the assistance of Nicodemus, Jn 19:39. Christ’s burial-place was a tomb newly hewn out of the rock in which no body had previously been laid. It belonged to Joseph and was close to Calvary, Jn 19:42. The Gospels, Mk 15:46; Lk 24:12; Jn 20:5, 12, bear out the presumption that it resembled other Jewish tombs of the period, some of which can still be seen near Jerusalem. An outer chamber or vestibule hollowed out in the rock is connected by a low doorway with the inner or burial-chamber which contains recesses for the bodies. At the entrance to the tomb a large circular stone standing on its edge could be rolled into position to close the tomb or rolled aside into a groove cut in the rock. The customary Jewish ritual of preparation of a body for burial included washing and anointing and wrapping of the body in grave-clothes. The Gospels give the impression that the preparations for the burial of Christ were carried out hurriedly. The sabbath rest began at sunset, and there was no time to spare. The very brevity of Mk’s narrative suggests haste.
§ 743a 16:1–18 The Resurrection and Apparitions of Christ; cf. Mt 28; Lk 24; Jn 20–21—1–8. The Women at the Tomb. When the Sabbath ended at sunset on Saturday the women bought unguents with which to anoint Christ’s body. Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of James and Joseph had watched the placing of Christ’s body in the tomb. They must, therefore, have known that a mixture of myrrh and aloes brought by Nicodemus had been used in the burial, Jn 19:39 f. But apparently they felt that, because of the haste on that occasion, the burial rites had been performed only in a summary, even provisional fashion. They proposed to complete the rites by anointing the body. 2b. ‘the sun being now risen’; cf. Jn 20:1 ‘when it was yet dark’. This discrepancy is eliminated in some MSS of Mk which read ‘as the sun was rising’. According to some authors, who hold that the women purchased the unguents on their way to the tomb on Sunday morning, Jn refers to the time when they set out, Mk to the time when they reached the tomb. Probably both evangelists should be understood as referring to the brief period after sunrise before darkness disappears completely. § b 3–8. The stone at the entry to the tomb had been rolled back by an angel, Mt 28:2. It was quite natural that the women should wonder how they would have it removed, as it was very large. A man would probably have needed some kind of lever to roll it back. Mary Magdalen may have reached the tomb ahead of the others. Apparently she did not delay when she saw that the stone was rolled back, but immediately went to Peter and John, Jn 20:2 ff. The other women, possibly believing that the stone had been rolled back by some of the disciples, entered the tomb. A young man, i.e. an angel, seated on the ledge at the right side of the tomb told them that the crucified Jesus of Nazareth whom they sought had arisen from the dead, and instructed them to inform ‘the disciples and especially Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee’. The special mention of Peter, recorded only by Mk, was a sign that he had been forgiven and retained his position as head of the Apostles. The women were so filled with fear that they delayed in delivering the angel’s message; cf. Mt 28:8; Lk 24:9.
§ c 9–18 Apparitions of Christ—At this point there is a break in the continuity of Mk. The abrupt final phrase in 8 ‘for they were afraid’ leaves the story of the women unfinished. In 9 Mary Magdalen is introduced and identified, Lk 8:2, as if this were the first time she has figured in the narrative. The statement that Christ had arisen, 9, is not linked with the angel’s words. The whole final section of the Gospel, 9–20, appears to follow a different plan from that of 1–8. Instead of the typically Marcan narrative, with picturesque detail and other graphic touches, we have a rapid, detached summary of events between the Resurrection and the Ascension. A number of the words and expressions which occur in the passage are not found elsewhere in Mk. In view of this internal evidence, it has been questioned whether this is the original ending of the Gospel and whether it comes from the pen of St Mark; cf. § 726a, b.
§ d 9–11. The appearance of Christ to Mary Magdalen is described more fully in Jn 20:11–18. ‘appeared first to Mary Magdalen’. This statement does not exclude the possibility of an earlier apparition to our Lady. The evangelists were concerned with those apparitions which had a certain public, official character. The appearances to the Apostles were the foundation of the Church’s teaching, and those to Mary Magdalen and to the other women were a reward for their fidelity and a preparation for the manifestation of Christ to the Apostles and disciples; cf. Lagrange, Saint Marc, 449. 12–13. The apparition to the two disciples is described at length in Lk 24:13–35. ‘he was manifested in another form’. It seems that Christ’s outward appearance had undergone some change which made it difficult to recognize him; cf. Jn 20:14; 21:4. 14. The narrative has emphasized the unwillingness of the Apostles to believe the reports of the Resurrection. Their unbelief is overcome only by the appearance of Christ in their midst; cf. Lk 24:25–43; Jn 20:19–28. Christ reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart. The rebuke is more severe than any other administered to them by Christ; cf. Mk 4:40; 8:17. In view of his repeated prophecies of the Passion and Resurrection, they should have been more ready to accept the word of those who had seen the risen Christ. § e 15. The command given to the Eleven is similar to that which was addressed to them by Christ at the mountain in Galilee where he had directed them to meet him, Mt 28:16–20. The narrative here, 15, does not mark clearly the change to a scene different from that described in 14. This does not imply, however, that the author meant to convey that these instructions were given to the Apostles on the occasion when Christ first appeared to them. The account is simply a summary which does not purport to give precise indications of time or place. The Apostles are commanded to preach the Gospel of salvation to all men throughout the world. The Gospel and the salvation which it brings are for all without exception. 16. Those who hear the message of the Gospel must accept it with faith and be incorporated with Christ by baptism, if they are to share in the supernatural salvation which he has merited by his death. Refusal to believe the Gospel means rejection of the proffered salvation and involves eternal condemnation. § f 17–18. When sending the Apostles on a temporary mission in Palestine, 3:14 f.; 6:7, 13, Christ gave them power to cast out demons in order to strengthen the appeal of their preaching. Now he promises to believers miraculous signs to guarantee the truth and divine origin of the doctrine which they had accepted; cf. Heb 2:4. The promise is made to the community of the faithful rather than to each individual believer. In the early days of the Church, possibly because of a greater need for extraordinary signs in order to move a sceptical and hostile world to which the Gospel and Church were still new, some of these manifestations of miraculous power were more frequent than in later times. But Christ’s promise is not limited to a particular period. In every age miracles have given proof that Christ abides with the Church. ‘cast out devils’; cf. Ac 8:6 f.; 16:16 ff. Irenaeus (cf. Eus., HE7394 5, 7, 4–6) and other early writers speak of numerous instances of casting out demons. ‘speak with new tongues’; cf. Ac 2:3 ff.; 10:46; 19:6; 1 Cor 14. ‘take up serpents’; cf. Ac 28:3 ff.; Lk 10:19. ‘shall lay their hands upon the sick’; cf. Ac 28:8.
§ g 19 The Ascension; cf. Lk 24:50–53; Ac 1:9–11—‘after he had spoken to them’: this does not mean that the Ascension took place immediately after Christ had given the Apostles the command to preach the Gospel throughout the world. In this brief summary the author does little more than allude to the different events without marking the changes of time and place. ‘has taken his seat at the right hand of God’; cf. 14:62. In this metaphorical expression the author proclaims his faith in the divinity of Christ ‘who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, revealed to angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed in the world, taken up in glory’, 1 Tim 3:16. The glorified Christ sits at the right hand of God, equal to the Father in dignity and power.
§ h 20 Conclusion—The Apostles had evidently preached the Gospel in many districts outside Palestine when these words were written. Christ was no longer visibly present on earth, but he assisted the Apostles and set the divine seal on their preaching by the miracles which followed it, Heb 2:3 f. thus fulfilling the promise, ‘Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world’, Mt 28:20.