OT-POET.filter - rwp Mark:14:3:

rwp@John:12:2 @{Songs:they made him a supper there} (\epoisan oun auti deipnon ekei\). Here again \oun\ is not inferential, but merely transitional. This supper is given by Mark (Mark:14:3-9|) and Matthew (Matthew:26:6-13|) just two days (Mark:14:1|) before the passover, that is on our Tuesday evening (beginning of Jewish Wednesday), while John mentions (12:2-9|) it immediately after the arrival of Jesus in Bethany (12:1|). One must decide which date to follow. Mark and Matthew and Luke follow it with the visit of Judas to the Sanhedrin with an offer to betray Jesus as if exasperated by the rebuke by Jesus at the feast. Bernard considers that John "is here more probably accurate." It all turns on John's purpose in putting it here. This is the last mention of Jesus in Bethany and he may have mentioned it proleptically for that reason as seems to me quite reasonable. Westcott notes that in chapter 12 John closes his record of the public ministry of the Lord relative to the disciples at this feast (1-11|), to the multitude in the triumphal entry (12-19|), to the world outside in the visit of the Greeks (20-36a|), and with two summary judgements (36b-50|). There is no further reason to refer to the feast in the house of another Simon when a sinful woman anointed Jesus (Luke:7:36-50|). It is no credit to Luke or to John with Mark and Matthew to have them all making a jumble like that. There were two anointings by two absolutely different women for wholly different purposes. See the discussion on Luke for further details. {And Martha served} (\kai h Martha dikonei\). Imperfect active of \diakone\, picturing Martha true to the account of her in strkjv@Luke:10:40| (\polln diakonian\, \diakonein\ as here). But this fact does not show that Martha was the wife of this Simon at all. They were friends and neighbours and Martha was following her bent. It is Mark (Mark:14:3|) and Matthew (Matthew:26:6|) who mention the name of the host. It is not Simon the Pharisee (Luke:7:36|), but Simon the leper (Mark:14:3; strkjv@Matthew:26:6|) in whose house they meet. The name is common enough. The Simon in Luke was sharply critical of Jesus; this one is full of gratitude for what Jesus has done for him. {That sat at meat} (\tn anakeimenn\). "That lay back," reclined as they did, articular participle (ablative case after \ek\) of the common verb \anakeimai\. Perhaps Simon gave the feast partly in honour of Lazarus as well as of Jesus since all were now talking of both (John:12:9|). It was a gracious occasion. The guests were Jesus, the twelve apostles, and Martha, Mary, and Lazarus.

rwp@John:12:3 @{A pound} (\litran\). Latin _libra_, late _Koin_ (Polybius, Plutarch) word with weight of 12 ounces, in N.T. only here and strkjv@19:39|. Mark (Mark:14:3|) and Matthew (Matthew:26:7|) have alabaster cruse. {Of ointment of spikenard} (\murou nardou pistiks\). "Of oil of nard." See already strkjv@11:2| for \murou\ (also strkjv@Matthew:26:7|). Nard is the head or spike of an East Indian plant, very fragrant. Occurs also in strkjv@Mark:14:3|. \Pistiks\ here and in strkjv@Mark:14:3| probably means genuine (\pistikos\, from \pistos\, reliable). Only two instances in the N.T. {Very precious} (\polutimou\). Old compound adjective (\polus\, much, \tim\), in N.T. only here, strkjv@Matthew:13:46; strkjv@1Peter:1:7|. Mark has \polutelous\ (very costly). Matthew (Matthew:26:7|) has here \barutimou\ of weighty value (only N.T. instance). {Anointed} (\leipsen\). First aorist active indicative of \aleiph\, old word (Mark:16:1|). {The feet} (\tous podas\). Mark (Mark:14:3|) and Matthew (Matthew:26:7|) have "his head." Why not both, though neither Gospel mentions both? The Latin MS. _fuldensis_ and the Syriac Sinatic do give both head and feet here. {Wiped} (\exemaxen\). First aorist active indicative of \ekmass\, old verb to wipe off already in strkjv@11:2; strkjv@Luke:7:38,44|. {With her hair} (\tais thrixin auts\). Instrumental plural. It is this item that is relied on largely by those who identify Mary of Bethany with the sinful woman in Luke 7 and with Mary Magdalene. It is no doubt true that it was usually considered immodest for a woman to wear her hair loose. But it is not impossible that Mary of Bethany in her carefully planned love-offering for Jesus on this occasion was only glad to throw such a punctilio to the winds. Such an act on this occasion does not brand her a woman of loose character. {Was filled with the odour of the ointment} (\eplrth ek ts osms tou murou\). Effective first aorist passive of \plro\ and a natural result.

rwp@John:12:7 @{Suffer her to keep it against the day of my burying} (\Aphes autn, hina eis tn hmeran tou entaphiasmou mou trsi auto\). This reading (\hina trsi\, purpose clause with \hina\ and first aorist active subjunctive of \tre\) rather than that of the Textus Receptus (just \tetreken\, perfect active indicative) is correct. It is supported by Aleph B D L W Theta. The \hina\ can be rendered as above after \aphes\ according to _Koin_ idiom or more probably: "Let her alone: it was that," etc. (supplying "it was"). Either makes good sense. The word \entaphiasmos\ is a later and rare substantive from the late verb \entaphiaz\, to prepare for burial (Matthew:26:12; strkjv@John:19:40|), and means preparation for burial. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Mark:14:8|. "Preparation for my burial" is the idea here and in Mark. The idea of Jesus is that Mary had saved this money to use in preparing his body for burial. She is giving him the flowers before the funeral. We can hardly take it that Mary did not use all of the ointment for Mark (Mark:14:3|) says that she broke it and yet he adds (Mark:14:8|) what John has here. It is a paradox, but Jesus is fond of paradoxes. Mary has kept this precious gift by giving it now beforehand as a preparation for my burial. We really keep what we give to Christ. This is Mary's glory that she had some glimmering comprehension of Christ's death which none of the disciples possessed.

rwp@John:12:27 @{My soul} (\h psuch mou\). The soul (\psuch\) here is synonymous with spirit (\pneuma\) in strkjv@13:21|. {Is troubled} (\tetaraktai\). Perfect passive indicative of \tarass\, used also in strkjv@11:33; strkjv@13:21| of Jesus. While John proves the deity of Jesus in his Gospel, he assumes throughout his real humanity as here (cf. strkjv@4:6|). The language is an echo of that in strkjv@Psalms:6:4; strkjv@42:7|. John does not give the agony in Gethsemane which the Synoptics have (Mark:14:35f.; strkjv@Matthew:26:39; strkjv@Luke:22:42|), but it is quite beside the mark to suggest, as Bernard does, that the account here is John's version of the Gethsemane experience. Why do some critics feel called upon to level down to a dead plane every variety of experience in Christ's life? {And what shall I say?} (\kai ti eip;\). Deliberative subjunctive which expresses vividly "a genuine, if momentary indecision" (Bernard). The request of the Greeks called up graphically to Jesus the nearness of the Cross. {Father, save me from this hour} (\pater, sson me ek ts hras tauts\). Jesus began his prayers with "Father" (11:41|). Dods thinks that this should be a question also. Westcott draws a distinction between \ek\ (out of) and \apo\ (from) to show that Jesus does not pray to draw back from the hour, but only to come safely out of it all and so interprets \ek\ in strkjv@Hebrews:5:7|, but that distinction will not stand, for in strkjv@John:1:44| \ek\ and \apo\ are used in the same sense and in the Synoptics (Mark:14:35f.; strkjv@Matthew:26:39; strkjv@Luke:52:42|) we have \apo\. If it holds here, we lose the point there. Here as in Gethsemane the soul of Jesus instinctively and naturally shrinks from the Cross, but he instantly surrenders to the will of God in both experiences. {But for this cause came I unto this hour} (\alla dia touto lthon eis tn hran tautn\). It was only a moment of human weakness as in Gethsemane that quickly passed. Thus understood the language has its natural meaning.

rwp@Luke:7:37 @{A woman which was in the city, a sinner} (\gun htis en ti polei hamartlos\). Probably in Capernaum. The use of \htis\ means "Who was of such a character as to be" (cf. strkjv@8:3|) and so more than merely the relative \h\, who, that is, "who was a sinner in the city," a woman of the town, in other words, and known to be such. \Hamartlos\, from \hamartan\, to sin, means devoted to sin and uses the same form for feminine and masculine. It is false and unjust to Mary Magdalene, introduced as a new character in strkjv@Luke:8:2|, to identify this woman with her. Luke would have no motive in concealing her name here and the life of a courtesan would be incompatible with the sevenfold possession of demons. Still worse is it to identify this courtesan not only with Mary Magdalene, but also with Mary of Bethany simply because it is a Simon who gives there a feast to Jesus when Mary of Bethany does a beautiful deed somewhat like this one here (Mark:14:3-9; strkjv@Matthew:26:6-13; strkjv@John:12:2-8|). Certainly Luke knew full well the real character of Mary of Bethany (10:38-42|) so beautifully pictured by him. But a falsehood, once started, seems to have more lives than the cat's proverbial nine. The very name Magdalene has come to mean a repentant courtesan. But we can at least refuse to countenance such a slander on Mary Magdalene and on Mary of Bethany. This sinful woman had undoubtedly repented and changed her life and wished to show her gratitude to Jesus who had rescued her. Her bad reputation as a harlot clung to her and made her an unwelcome visitor in the Pharisee's house. {When she knew} (\epignousa\). Second aorist active participle from \epiginsk\, to know fully, to recognize. She came in by a curious custom of the time that allowed strangers to enter a house uninvited at a feast, especially beggars seeking a gift. This woman was an intruder whereas Mary of Bethany was an invited guest. "Many came in and took their places on the side seats, uninvited and yet unchallenged. They spoke to those at table on business or the news of the day, and our host spoke freely to them" (Trench in his _Parables_, describing a dinner at a Consul's house at Damietta). {He was sitting at meat} (\katakeitai\). Literally, he is reclining (present tense retained in indirect discourse in Greek). {An alabaster cruse of ointment} (\alabastron murou\). See on ¯Matthew:26:7| for discussion of \alabastron\ and \murou\.

rwp@Luke:22:34 @{Until thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me} (\hes tris me aparnsi eidenai\). "Thrice" is in all four Gospels here for they all give this warning to Peter (Mark:14:30; strkjv@Matthew:26:34; strkjv@Luke:22:34; strkjv@John:18:38|). Peter will even deny knowing Jesus (\eidenai\).

rwp@Luke:22:41 @{About a stone's throw} (\hsei lithou boln\). Accusative of extent of space. Luke does not tell of leaving eight disciples by the entrance to Gethsemane nor about taking Peter, James, and John further in with him. {Kneeled down} (\theis ta gonata\). Second aorist active participle from \tithmi\. strkjv@Mark:14:35| says "fell on the ground" and strkjv@Matthew:26:39| "fell on his face." All could be true at different moments. {Prayed} (\prosucheto\). Imperfect middle, was praying, kept on praying.

rwp@Luke:22:46 @{Why sleep ye?} (\Ti katheudete;\). This reproach Luke gives, but not the almost bitter details in strkjv@Mark:14:37-42; strkjv@Matthew:26:40-46|).

rwp@Info_Mark @ This Gospel is the briefest of the four, but is fullest of striking details that apparently came from Peter's discourses which Mark heard, such as green grass, flower beds (Mark:6:38|), two thousand hogs (Mark:5:13|), looking round about (Mark:3:5,34|). Peter usually spoke in Aramaic and Mark has more Aramaic phrases than the others, like _Boanerges_ (Mark:3:17|), _Talitha cumi_ (Mark:5:41|), _Korban_ (Mark:7:11|), _Ephphatha_ (Mark:7:34|), _Abba_ (Mark:14:36|). The Greek is distinctly vernacular _Koin_ like one-eyed (\monophthalmon\, strkjv@Mark:9:47|) as one would expect from both Peter and Mark. There are also more Latin phrases and idioms like _centurio_ (Mark:15:39|), _quadrans_ (Mark:12:42|), _flagellare_ (Mark:15:15|), _speculator_ (Mark:6:27|), _census_ (Mark:12:14|), _sextarius_ (Mark:7:4|), _praetorium_ (Mark:15:6|), than in the other Gospels, so much so that C. H. Turner raises the question whether Mark wrote first in Latin, or at any rate in Rome. There are some who hold that Mark wrote first in Aramaic, but the facts are sufficiently accounted for by the fact of Peter's preaching and the activity in Rome. Some even think that he wrote the Gospel in Rome while with Peter who suggested and read the manuscript. B.W. Bacon holds that this Gospel has a distinct Pauline flavour and may have had several recensions. The Ur-Marcus theory does not have strong support now. Mark was once a co-worker with Barnabas and Paul, but deserted them at Perga. Paul held this against Mark and refused to take him on the second mission tour. Barnabas took Mark, his cousin, with him and then he appeared with Simon Peter with whom he did his greatest work. When Mark had made good with Barnabas and Peter, Paul rejoiced and commends him heartily to the Colossians (Colossians:4:10|) In the end Paul will ask Timothy to pick up Mark and bring him along with him to Paul in Rome, for he has found him useful for ministry, this very young man who made such a mistake that Paul would have no more of him. This tribute to Mark by Paul throws credit upon both of them as is shown in my _Making Good in the Ministry_. The character of the Gospel of Mark is determined largely by the scope of Peter's preaching as we see it in strkjv@Acts:10:36-42|, covering the period in outline from John the Baptist to the Resurrection of Jesus. There is nothing about the birth of the Baptist or of Jesus. This peculiarity of Mark's Gospel cannot be used against the narratives of the Virgin Birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, since Mark tells nothing whatever about his birth at all.

rwp@Matthew:23:9 @{Call no man your father} (\patera m kaleste hmn\). Jesus meant the full sense of this noble word for our heavenly Father. "Abba was not commonly a mode of address to a living person, but a title of honour for Rabbis and great men of the past" (McNeile). In Gethsemane Jesus said: "Abba, Father" (Mark:14:36|). Certainly the ascription of "Father" to pope and priest seems out of harmony with what Jesus here says. He should not be understood to be condemning the title to one's real earthly father. Jesus often leaves the exceptions to be supplied.