Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 14:65
And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.
65. And some began ] It was now about three o’clock in the morning, and till further steps could be taken our Lord was left in charge of soldiers of the guard and the servants and apparitors of the high-priest.
to spit on him ] In those rough ages a prisoner under sentence of death was ever delivered over to the mockery of his guards. It was so now with the Holy One of God. Spitting was regarded by the Jews as an expression of the greatest contempt (Num 12:14; Deu 25:9). Seneca records that it was inflicted at Athens on Aristides the Just, but it was only with the utmost difficulty any one could be found willing to do it. But those who were excommunicated were specially liable to this expression of contempt (Isa 50:6).
did strike him with the palms of their hands ] “The hands they bound had healed the sick, and raised the dead; the lips they smote had calmed the winds and waves. One word and His smiters might have been laid low in death. But as He had begun and continued, He would end as self-restrained in the use of His awful powers on His own behalf as if He had been the most helpless of men Divine patience and infinite love knew no wearying.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
65. And some began to spit onhimor, as in Mt 26:67,”to spit in [into] His face.” Luke (Lu22:63) says in addition, “And the men that held Jesus mockedhim”or cast their jeers at Him. (Also see on Joh18:28.)
to cover his faceor”to blindfold him” (as in Lu22:64).
to buffet himLuke’sword, which is rendered “smote Him” (Lu22:63), is a stronger one, conveying an idea for which we have anexact equivalent in English, but one too colloquial to be insertedhere.
began to say unto him,ProphesyIn Matthew (Mt26:68) this is given more fully: “Prophesy unto us, thouChrist, Who is he that smote Thee?” The sarcastic fling at Himas “the Christ,” and the demand of Him in thischaracter to name the unseen perpetrator of the blows inflicted onHim, was in them as infamous as to Him it must have been, and wasintended to be, stinging.
and the servants did strikehim with the palms of their handsor “struck Him on theface” (Lu 22:64). Ah!Well did He say prophetically, in that Messianic prediction which wehave often referred to, “I gave My back to the smiters, and Mycheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not My face fromshame and spitting!” (Isa50:6). “And many other things blasphemously spake theyagainst Him” (Lu 22:65).This general statement is important, as showing that virulent andvaried as were the recorded affronts put upon Him, they arebut a small specimen of what He endured on that dark occasion.
Peter’s FIRSTDENIAL of His Lord(Mr 14:66-68).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And some began to spit on him,…. The men that held him,
Lu 22:6, fulfilling the prophecy in Isa 50:6;
and to cover his face; with a veil, or linen cloth, to blindfold: him, as a person unworthy to behold the light: or rather, in order to make sport with him:
and to buffet him; with their double fists;
and to say unto him, prophesy. The Arabic version adds, “unto us, O Christ, who it is that hath buffeted thee now?” that gave thee the last blow? and to the same purpose the Ethiopic. The Persic version adds, “and deliver thyself”;
and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands. The Syriac version renders it, “on his cheeks”: they gave him slaps on the face. These were the officers of the high priest, that used him in this indecent manner. This clause is omitted in the Ethiopic version.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Cover his face ( ). Put a veil around his face. Not in Matthew, but in Lu 22:64 where Revised Version translates by “blind-folded.” All three Gospels give the jeering demand of the Sanhedrin: “Prophesy” (), meaning, as Matthew and Luke add, thereby telling who struck him while he was blindfolded. Mark adds “the officers” (same as in verse 54) of the Sanhedrin, Roman lictors or sergeants-at-arms who had arrested Jesus in Gethsemane and who still held Jesus ( , Lu 22:63). Mt 26:67 alludes to their treatment of Jesus without clearly indicating who they were.
With blows of their hands (). The verb in Mt 26:67 originally meant to smite with a rod. In late writers it comes to mean to slap the face with the palm of the hands. The same thing is true of the substantive used here. A papyrus of the sixth century A.D. uses it in the sense of a scar on the face as the result of a blow. It is in the instrumental case here. “They caught him with blows,” Swete suggests for the unusual in this sense. “With rods” is, of course, possible as the lictors carried rods. At any rate it was a gross indignity.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Buffet. See on Mt 26:67. Palms of their hands [] . An unclassical word, but used also by John (xix. 3). The word means blows.
Did strike. Following the old reading, eballon. The Correct reading is elabon, received. So Rev. Received him into custody.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And some began to spit on Him,” (kai erksanto tines emptuein auto) “And some (in that clandestine, nighttime courtroom) began again to spit at and upon Him,” in the midst of the council of the Sanhedrin, and in the presence of Caiphas the High Priest, Mar 14:53-54.
2) “And to cover His face,” (kai perikaluptein autou to prosopon) “And some began to cover His face,” to cover His sight as prophetically described (Isa 50:6), and declared as here fulfilled, Mat 26:67. To cover the face was a death symbol, Ezr 7:8.
3) “And to buffet Him,” (kai kolaphizein auton) “And to buffet, harass, or maltreat Him,” as further described Isa 52:14; Mat 26:67; Luk 22:63-64.
4) “And to say unto Him, Prophesy:- (kai legein auto propheteuson) “And to say to Him repeatedly, Prophecy,” Mat 26:68. Tell us, with your face covered, tell us, call their names, etc., Luk 22:64.
5) “And the servants did strike Him,” (kai hoi huperetai auton labon) “And the attendants took Him,” the Roman officers or temple captains who had arrested Him, Mat 26:67; Mic 5:1.
6) “With the palm of their hands.” (hrapismsin) “With slaps, with the palms of their hands,” demanding that He tell them who smote Him, from the blind side, or from behind, Mat 26:68, even as they also spat on Him, and smote Him on the head in Pilate’s Hall, Mat 27:30. The hands they bound had healed the sick, the lips they smote had calmed the winds, and waves, Joh 20:30-31.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(65) And to cover his face.It was this (recorded by St. Mark and St. Luke, but not by St. Matthew) which gave point to the taunt Prophesy. They blindfolded the Prophet, and then called on Him to use His power of supernatural vision.
The servants did strike him.Better, as before, the officers. The two forms of outrage, with the clenched fist and with the open palm, are specified by both St. Matthew and St. Mark.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
65. Say unto him, Prophesy Mr. Blount, in his work designed to prove the truth of the Gospels by their undesigned coincidences, remarks, that Matthew mentions this challenge to prophesy, and adds, that it was a challenge to prophesy, Who smote thee? How it required the power of prophecy in Jesus to tell who smote him, Matthew does not explain, nor, had we his Gospel alone, should we be able to tell. But Mark in this verse supplies the fact that they covered his face, then smote him, and then, in ridicule of his title as prophet, bade him prophesy which was his smiter. On the other hand, we may add that Mark omits to tell what was the prophecy demanded, so it is by a double tally that the two evangelists supplement each other.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say to him, “Prophesy.” And the officers received him with blows of their hands.’
The translation ‘some’ is general without being too specific, but it may serve to confirm the presence of others than the Sanhedrin members who, it may be thought, would not have stooped to this. Luk 22:63 said it was ‘the men who held Jesus’. However, spitting could be an official way of demonstrating disapproval (compare Deu 25:9; Isa 50:6; Num 12:14; Job 30:10), as could contemptuous blows. So there is a good likelihood that it was in fact their final visible official demonstration of the verdict, which was then carried on by their men. The spitting and buffeting was reminiscent of Isa 50:6 see also Isa 53:7. He was now seen as guilty, and His guilt was being publicly demonstrated.
The covering of the face was so that He could not see who hit Him. Then they jeeringly suggested that as a prophet He should be able to tell. (Their view was probably that the Messiah would have been able to do so on the basis of Isa 11:3 which was seen as indicating Messiah’s supernatural ability ). The officers responsible for holding Him also mistreated Him. From now on He was anyone’s plaything.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
65 And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.
Ver. 65. Prophesy ] Est hic sarcasmus amarulentissimus. (Piscator.) This is a most bitter taunt.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
65. ] when the sentence was pronounced. The appear to be members of the Sanhedrim: the servants follow. . ] Matt. and Luke explain this: ‘Prophesy, who smote thee? ’
The reading is harsh in sense, but the coincidence of in [47] [48] alli [49] . seems to stamp it with genuineness. The meaning must be ‘ took Him in hand with,’ ‘treated Him with .’ Meyer understands it, took Him into custody, with , for the further carrying out of the sentence against Him. But the unemphatic position of the verb seems to preclude this.
[47] The CODEX CANTABRIGIENSIS, or BEZ, so called because it was presented by Beza in 1581 to the University Library at Cambridge; where it is now exposed to view in a glass case. He procured it in 1562, from the monastery of St. Irenus at Lyons. It is on parchment, and contains the Gospels and Acts, with a Latin version. Its lacun, which are many, will be perceived by the inner marginal letters in this edition. It once contained the Catholic Epistles: 3Jn 1:11-14 in Latin is all that now remains. It was edited with very accurate imitative types, at the expense of the University of Cambridge, by Dr. Kipling, in 1793. A new edition carefully revised and more generally accessible was published by Mr. Scrivener in 1864, and has been collated for this Edition. In the introduction some ten or twelve correctors are distinguished, whose readings are found in the notes at the end of the volume. The text of the Codex Bez is a very peculiar one, deviating more from the received readings and from the principal manuscript authorities than any other. It appears to have been written in France, and by a Latin transcriber ignorant of Greek, from many curious mistakes which occur in the text, and version attached. It is closely and singularly allied to the ancient Latin versions, so much so that some critics have supposed it to have been altered from the Latin: and certainly many of the phnomena of the MS. seem to bear out the idea. Where D differs in unimportant points from the other Greek MSS., the difference appears to be traceable to the influence of Latin forms and constructions. It has been observed, that in such cases it frequently agrees with the Latin codex e (see the list further on). Its peculiarities are so great, that in many passages, while the sense remains for the most part unaltered, hardly three words together are the same as in the commonly received text. And that these variations often arise from capricious alteration, is evident from the way in which the Gospels, in parallel passages, have been more than commonly interpolated from one another in this MS. The concurrence with the ancient Latin versions seems to point to a very early state of the text; and it is impossible to set aside the value of D as an index to its history; but in critical weight it ranks the lowest of the leading MSS. Its age has been very variously given: the general opinion now is that it was written in the latter end of the fifth or the sixth century .
[48] The Codex Harleianus, 5684, in the British Museum, brought by Andrew Seidel from the East. Contains the Gospels with many lacun. Collated by J. C. Wolf, to whom it once belonged, and recently by Tischendorf and Tregelles (known as Seidelii I., or Wolfii A). Ascribed to the ninth or tenth century .
[49] alli= some cursive mss.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mar 14:65 . : presumably Sanhedrists. : Mt. says nothing of this, but he as well as Mk. represents them as asking Jesus to prophesy. Mt.’s version implies that Jesus was struck from behind, Mk.’s in front. : following the example of their masters. , received Him with slaps of the open hand: a phrase recalling the Latin, accipere aliquem verberibus .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
buffet = cuff. See note on Mat 26:67.
did strike = kept striking.
with the palms of their hands. Greek. rapisma with smart blows. Occurs only here and in Joh 18:22; Joh 19:3.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
65.] -when the sentence was pronounced. The appear to be members of the Sanhedrim: the servants follow. .] Matt. and Luke explain this: Prophesy, who smote thee?
The reading is harsh in sense, but the coincidence of in [47] [48] alli[49]. seems to stamp it with genuineness. The meaning must be took Him in hand with, treated Him with. Meyer understands it, took Him into custody, with , for the further carrying out of the sentence against Him. But the unemphatic position of the verb seems to preclude this.
[47] The CODEX CANTABRIGIENSIS, or BEZ,-so called because it was presented by Beza in 1581 to the University Library at Cambridge; where it is now exposed to view in a glass case. He procured it in 1562, from the monastery of St. Irenus at Lyons. It is on parchment, and contains the Gospels and Acts, with a Latin version. Its lacun, which are many, will be perceived by the inner marginal letters in this edition. It once contained the Catholic Epistles: 3Jn 1:11-14 in Latin is all that now remains. It was edited with very accurate imitative types, at the expense of the University of Cambridge, by Dr. Kipling, in 1793. A new edition carefully revised and more generally accessible was published by Mr. Scrivener in 1864, and has been collated for this Edition. In the introduction some ten or twelve correctors are distinguished, whose readings are found in the notes at the end of the volume. The text of the Codex Bez is a very peculiar one, deviating more from the received readings and from the principal manuscript authorities than any other. It appears to have been written in France, and by a Latin transcriber ignorant of Greek, from many curious mistakes which occur in the text, and version attached. It is closely and singularly allied to the ancient Latin versions, so much so that some critics have supposed it to have been altered from the Latin: and certainly many of the phnomena of the MS. seem to bear out the idea. Where D differs in unimportant points from the other Greek MSS., the difference appears to be traceable to the influence of Latin forms and constructions. It has been observed, that in such cases it frequently agrees with the Latin codex e (see the list further on). Its peculiarities are so great, that in many passages, while the sense remains for the most part unaltered, hardly three words together are the same as in the commonly received text. And that these variations often arise from capricious alteration, is evident from the way in which the Gospels, in parallel passages, have been more than commonly interpolated from one another in this MS. The concurrence with the ancient Latin versions seems to point to a very early state of the text; and it is impossible to set aside the value of D as an index to its history;-but in critical weight it ranks the lowest of the leading MSS. Its age has been very variously given: the general opinion now is that it was written in the latter end of the fifth or the sixth century.
[48] The Codex Harleianus, 5684, in the British Museum, brought by Andrew Seidel from the East. Contains the Gospels with many lacun. Collated by J. C. Wolf, to whom it once belonged, and recently by Tischendorf and Tregelles (known as Seidelii I., or Wolfii A). Ascribed to the ninth or tenth century.
[49] alli= some cursive mss.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mar 14:65. , began) A new step in their dealings with Him.-, the servants) who used to have in their hands , rods,[5]
[5] So marg. of Engl. Ver. translates Mat 26:67, , they smote Him with rods, instead of with the palms of their hands.-ED. and TRANSL.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
spit
See, Isa 50:6 See note, Isa 52:14, (See Scofield “Isa 52:14”) cf. Rev 20:11
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Mar 15:19, Num 12:14, Job 30:10, Isa 50:6, Isa 52:14, Isa 53:3, Mic 5:1, Mat 26:67, Mat 26:68, Luk 22:63, Luk 22:64, Joh 18:22, Joh 19:3, Act 23:2, Heb 12:2
Reciprocal: 1Ki 22:24 – smote Micaiah 2Ch 18:23 – Zedekiah Psa 35:15 – the abjects Isa 3:5 – base Mat 20:18 – they Mat 20:19 – to mock Mar 10:34 – mock Luk 18:32 – mocked 1Pe 2:20 – buffeted
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
5
The Jews could pass a sentence of death but could not execute it. But they gratified their wicked feeling against Jesus by gross personal mistreatment. The things they said and did to him would not be permitted today in any responsible court, regardless of what sentence might have been pronounced.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mar 14:65. Some. Others than the officers, spoken of below. The context (Mar 14:64) points to members of the Sanhedrin as engaged in this cruelty.
The officers. Probably those who had been by the fire (Mar 14:54).
Received him with blows of their hands. The correct reading is thus translated, describing the conduct of the officers when they received Jesus again as their prisoner.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
14:65 {15} And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.
(15) Christ, suffering all types of reproach for our sakes, gets everlasting glory for those that believe in him.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Having judged Jesus guilty, some of the Sanhedrin members vented their anger by attacking Him bodily. The temple guards present joined them in beating Jesus. Spitting and hitting were traditional Jewish ways of expressing repudiation (cf. Num 12:14; Deu 25:9; Job 30:10; Isa 50:6). Even today spitting in someone’s face is one of the grossest forms of personal insult. Evidently they blindfolded Jesus and challenged Him to identify His assailants because of a belief that Messiah did not need to see but could judge by smell (Isa 11:2-4). [Note: Lane, p. 540.] The Old Testament predicted this type of abuse for Messiah (Isa 53:5; Isa 53:7-8; Isa 53:10). [Note: See Laurna L. Berg, "The Illegalities of Jesus’ Religious and Civil Trials," Bibliotheca Sacra 161:643 (July-September 2004):330-42.] Peter recorded that through all this suffering Jesus did not protest or retaliate (1Pe 2:21-23; cf. Isa 53:7).