20<\/strong>. he answered and said unto them<\/em> ] “ Answered<\/em> ” is omitted in the best MSS. The intimation was made privately to St John, to whom St Peter had made a sign that he should ask who could be so base (Joh 13:23-26<\/span>).<\/p>\n one of the twelve<\/em> ] One of His own “familiar friends” (Psa 41:9<\/span>).<\/p>\n that dippeth with me<\/em> ] “He who is just about to dip with Me a piece of the unleavened cakes into the charoseth<\/em> ” a sauce consisting of a mixture of vinegar, figs, dates, almonds, and spice, provided at the Passover “and to whom I shall give some of it presently” (Joh 13:26<\/span>). To this day at the summit of Gerizim the Samaritans on the occasion of the Passover hand to the stranger a little olive-shaped morsel of unleavened bread enclosing a green fragment of wild endive or some other bitter herb, which may resemble, except that it is not dipped in the dish, the very ‘sop’ which Judas received at the hands of Christ.” Farrar, Life<\/em>, ii. p. 290.<\/p>\n Verse 20. That dippeth with me in the dish.<\/B><\/I>] In the east, persons never eat together from one dish, except when a strong attachment subsists between two<\/I> or more<\/I> persons of the same<\/I> caste; in such a case one invites another to come and sit by him and eat from the same dish. This custom seems to have existed among the Jews; and the sacred historian mentions this notice of our Lord’s, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the<\/I> dish<\/I>, to mark more strongly the perfidy<\/I> of the character of Judas.<\/P><\/p>\n And he answered and said unto them<\/strong>,…. In order to relieve their minds, and point out the particular person:<\/p>\n it is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish<\/strong>; just at that very instant; [See comments on Mt 26:23]<\/span>.<\/p>\n One of the twelve <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). It is as bad as that. The sign that Jesus gave,<\/P> the one dipping in the dish with me <\/B> ( ‘ <\/SPAN><\/span>), escaped the notice of all. Jesus gave the sop to Judas who understood perfectly that Jesus knew his purpose. See on Mt 26:21-24<\/span> for further details. <\/P> <\/p>\n Dish [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. See on Mt 26:23<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “And He answered and said<\/strong> unto them,” <\/strong>(ho de eipen autois) “Then He responded to them all,” addressing them as a group. He responded to the honest, earnest, and grieved disciples.<\/p>\n 2) “It is one of the twelve,”<\/strong> (eis ton dodeka) “It is one of the twelve,” one of the trusted twelve apostles, indicating that other disciples were also present at the passover with the twelve.<\/p>\n 3) “That dippeth with me in the<\/strong> dish.” <\/strong>(ho embaptomenos met’ emou eis to [en] trublion) “it is the one who dips with me with his own hand in the (one) dish,” the passover dish, Psa 55:12-14<\/span>; Mat 26:23<\/span>. As yet He did not specify “which one” of them. The sop consisted of a mixture of vinegar, figs, dates, almonds, and spices provided at the passover. Joh 13:25-26<\/span> indicates that Jesus told John that it would be the one taking the sop from Him.<\/p>\n ‘And he said to them, “It is one of the twelve, he who dips with me in the dish. For the Son of Man goes even as it is written of him, but woe to that man through whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It would be good for him if that man had not been born.” ’<\/p>\n This time Jesus’ warning to Judas was stark and plain. He wanted him to know that He knew exactly what was happening, and that what he was doing would destroy his whole future. Better not to have been born than what he was going to do with its consequences.<\/p>\n ‘It is one of the twelve.’ One of these sat around. What an ominous warning. The disciples probably now realised that this was getting serious. ‘He who dips with me in the dish.’ Again a reminder to Judas that he was breaking the inviolable laws of hospitality. One among them was feigning friendship and they did not know who it was.<\/p>\n ‘The Son of Man goes –.’ To His death. See Mar 8:31<\/span>; Mar 9:31<\/span>; Mar 10:33-34<\/span>; Joh 6:52-58<\/span>; Joh 8:14<\/span>; Joh 8:21-29<\/span>; Joh 13:3<\/span>; Joh 13:33<\/span>; Joh 13:36-38<\/span>; Joh 14:3-4<\/span>; Joh 14:19<\/span>; Joh 14:28<\/span>.<\/p>\n ‘Woe to that man through whom the Son of Man is betrayed.’ Compare Mar 13:17<\/span>; Mat 18:7<\/span>; Luk 17:1-2<\/span>. Not a pronounced judgment but an expression of sadness, although it contains within it the fact that God will judge.<\/p>\n ‘Even as it is written of Him.’ (E.g. Isaiah 53<\/span>, and the descriptions in Daniel 7<\/span> of the sufferings from which the ‘son of man’ would emerge. They too would be given into the hand of the wild beast – Dan 7:25<\/span>. Also Psa 41:9<\/span>). What was to happen was in the plan and purpose of God. But that did not excuse the traitor. He was free to act or not to act as he chose. It was only when he had finally closed his mind that he lost the ability to choose.<\/p>\n ‘He who dips with me in the dish.’ The dish was probably the Charoseth, a compound of dates, raisins and vinegar in which the bread and bitter herbs were dipped. Mark gives no idea of who the traitor was. In the other Gospels Jesus managed to get home to Judas quietly that He was not in any doubt as to who the traitor was (Mat 26:25<\/span>; Joh 13:26-27<\/span>).<\/p>\n 20 And he answered and said unto them, It is<\/em> one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 20. See Trapp on “<\/em> Mat 26:23 “<\/em> <\/p>\n 20.<\/strong> ] This description of the traitor here again does not seem to designate one<\/em> especially, nor to describe an action at that moment proceeding, but, as before, pathetically to describe the near relation of the betrayer to the Betrayed. Now however the relation pointed out is still closer than before it is that of one dipping in the same dish one of those nearest and most trusted.<\/p>\n Mar 14:20<\/span> . To the anxious questioning of the disciples Mk. makes Jesus reply: one of the Twelve<\/em> ; he who dippeth with me in the dish<\/em> . A repetition of the original declaration with variations: the Twelve<\/em> for you<\/em> , and dipping in the dish for eating<\/em> ; the former bringing out the gravity of the fact, the Twelve chosen to be Apostles of the faith, one of them the traitor of its Author; the latter narrowing the circle within which the traitor is to be found. Twelve ate with Jesus, only three or four would dip with Him. , middle, dipping with his own hand: “haec vis medii verbi,” Bengel.<\/p>\n Mark<\/p>\n THE NEW PASSOVER<\/p>\n Mar 14:12 – Mar 14:26 <\/strong> .<\/p>\n This passage falls into three sections-the secret preparation for the Passover Mar 14:12 – Mar 14:17, the sad announcement of the betrayer Mar 14:18 – Mar 14:21, and the institution of the Lord’s Supper Mar 14:22 – Mar 14:26. It may be interesting to notice that in the two former of these Mark’s account approximates to Luke’s, while in the third he is nearer Matthew’s. A comparison of the three accounts, noting the slight, but often significant, variations, should be made. Nothing in the Gospels is trivial. ‘The dust of that land is gold.’<\/p>\n I. The secret preparation for the Passover. <\/p>\n <\/strong> The three Evangelists all give the disciples’ question, but only Luke tells us that it was in answer to our Lord’s command to Peter and John to go and prepare the Passover. They very naturally said ‘Where?’ as they were all strangers in Jerusalem. Matthew may not have known of our Lord’s initiative; but if Mark were, as he is, with apparent correctness, said to have been, Peter’s mouthpiece in his Gospel, the reticence as to the prominence of that Apostle is natural, and explains the omission of all but the bare fact of the despatch of the two. The curiously roundabout way in which they are directed to the ‘upper room’ is only explicable on the supposition that it was intended to keep them in the dark till the last moment, so that no hint might leak from them to Judas. Whether the token of the man with the waterpot was a preconcerted signal or an instance of our Lord’s supernatural knowledge and sovereign sway, his employment as a silent and probably unconscious guide testifies to Christ’s wish for that last hour to be undisturbed. A man carrying a water-pot, which was woman’s special task, would be a conspicuous figure even in the festival crowds. The message to the householder implies that he recognised ‘the Master’ as his Master, and was ready to give up at His requisition even the chamber which he had prepared for his own family celebration of the feast.<\/p>\n Thus instructed, the two trusted Apostles left Bethany, early in the day, without a clue of their destination reaching Judas’s hungry watchfulness. Evidently they did not return, and in the evening Jesus led the others straight to the place. Mark says that He came ‘with the twelve’; but he does not mean thereby to specify the number, but to define the class, of His attendants.<\/p>\n Each figure in this preparatory scene yields important lessons. Our Lord’s earnest desire to secure that still hour before pushing out into the storm speaks pathetically of His felt need of companionship and strengthening, as well as of His self-forgetting purpose to help His handful of bewildered followers and His human longing to live in faithful memories. His careful arrangements bring vividly into sight the limitations of His manhood, in that He, ‘by whom all things consist,’ had to contrive and plan in order to baffle for a moment His pursuers. And, side by side with the lowliness, as ever, is the majesty; for while He stoops to arrange, He sees with superhuman certitude what will happen, moves unconscious feet with secret and sovereign sway, and in royal tones claims possession of His servant’s possessions.<\/p>\n The two messengers, sent out with instructions which would only guide them half-way to their destination, and obliged, if they were to move at all, to trust absolutely to His knowledge, present specimens of the obedience still required. He sends us out still on a road full of sharp turnings round which we cannot see. We get light enough for the first stage; and when it is traversed, the second will be plainer.<\/p>\n The man with the water-pot reminds us how little we may be aware of the Hand which guides us, or of our uses in His plans. ‘I girded thee, though thou hast not known Me,’-how little the poor water-bearer knew who were following, or dreamed that he and his load would be remembered for ever! The householder responded at once, and gladly, to the authoritative message, which does not ask a favour, but demands a right. Probably he had intended to celebrate the Passover with his own family, in the large chamber on the roof, with the cool evening air about it, and the moonlight sleeping around. But he gladly gives it up. Are we as ready to surrender our cherished possessions for His use?<\/p>\n II. The sad announcement of the traitor Mar 14:18 – Mar 14:21. <\/p>\n <\/strong> As the Revised Version indicates more clearly than the Authorised, the purport of the announcement was not merely that the betrayer was an Apostle, but that he was to be known by his dipping his hand into the common dish at the same moment as our Lord. The prophetic psalm would have been abundantly fulfilled though Judas’s fingers had never touched Christ’s; but the minute accomplishment should teach us that Jewish prophecy was the voice of divine foreknowledge, and embraced small details as well as large tendencies. Many hands dipped with Christ’s, and so the sign was not unmistakably indicative, and hence was privately supplemented, as John tells us, by the giving of ‘the sop.’ The uncertainty as to the indication given by the token is reflected by the reiterated questions of the Apostles, which, in the Greek, are cast in a form that anticipates a negative answer: ‘Surely not I?’ Mark omits the audacious hypocrisy of Judas’s question in the same form, and Christ’s curt, sad answer which Matthew gives. His brief and vivid sketch is meant to fix attention on the unanimous shuddering horror of these faithful hearts at the thought that they could be thus guilty-a horror which was not the child of presumptuous self-confidence, but of hearty, honest love. They thought it impossible, as they felt the throbbing of their own hearts-and yet-and yet-might it not be? As they probed their hearts deeper, they became dimly aware of dark gulfs of possible unfaithfulness half visible there, and so betook themselves to their Master, and strengthened their loyalty by the question, which breathed at once detestation of the treason and humble distrust of themselves. It is well to feel and speak the strong recoil from sin of a heart loyal to Jesus. It is better to recognise the sleeping snakes, the possibilities of evil in ourselves, and to take to Christ our ignorance and self-distrust. It is wiser to cry ‘Is it I?’ than to boast, ‘Although all shall be offended, yet will not I.’ ‘Hold Thou me up, and I shall be safe.’<\/p>\n Our Lord answers the questions by a still more emphatic repetition of the distinctive mark, and then, in Mar 14:21 , speaks deep words of mingled pathos, dignity, and submission. The voluntariness of His death, and its uniqueness as His own act of return to His eternal home, are contained in that majestic ‘goeth,’ which asserts the impotence of the betrayer and his employers, without the Lord’s own consent. On the other hand, the necessity to which He willingly bowed is set forth in that ‘as it is written of Him.’ And what sadness and lofty consciousness of His own sacred personality and judicial authority are blended in the awful sentence on the traitor! What was He that treachery to Him should be a crime so transcendent? What right had He thus calmly to pronounce condemnation? Did He see into the future? Is it the voice of a Divine Judge, or of a man judging in his own cause, which speaks this passionless sentence? Surely none of His sayings are more fully charged with His claims to pre-existence, divinity, and judicial authority, than this which He spoke at the very moment when the traitor’s plot was on the verge of success.<\/p>\n III. The institution of the Lord’s Supper Mar 14:22 – Mar 14:26. <\/p>\n <\/strong> Mark’s account is the briefest of the three, and his version of Christ’s words the most compressed. It omits the affecting ‘Do this for remembering Me,’ which is pre-supposed by the very act of instituting the ordinance, since it is nothing if not memorial; and it makes prominent two things-the significance of the elements, and the command to partake of them. To these must be added Christ’s attitude in ‘blessing’ the bread and cup, and His distribution of them among the disciples. The Passover was to Israel the commemoration of their redemption from captivity and their birth as a nation. Jesus puts aside this divinely appointed and venerable festival to set in its stead the remembrance of Himself. That night, ‘to be much remembered of the children of Israel,’ is to be forgotten, and come no more into the number of the months; and its empty place is to be filled by the memory of the hours then passing. Surely His act was either arrogance or the calm consciousness of the unique significance and power of His death. Think of any mere teacher or prophet doing the like! The world would meet the preposterous claim implied with deserved and inextinguishable laughter. Why does it not do so with Christ’s act? Christ’s view of His death is written unmistakably on the Lord’s Supper. It is not merely that He wishes it rather than His life, His miracles, or words, to be kept in thankful remembrance, but that He desires one aspect of it to be held high and clear above all others. He is the true ‘Passover Lamb,’ whose shed and sprinkled blood establishes new bonds of amity and new relations, with tender and wonderful reciprocal obligations, between God and the ‘many’ who truly partake of that sacrifice. The key-words of Judaism-’sacrifice,’ ‘covenant,’ ‘sprinkling with blood’-are taken over into Christianity, and the ideas they represent are set in its centre, to be cherished as its life. The Lord’s Supper is the conclusive answer to the allegation that Christ did not teach the sacrificial character and atoning power of His death. What, then, did He teach when He said, ‘This is My blood of the covenant, which is shed for many’? The Passover was a family festival, and that characteristic passes over to the Lord’s Supper. Christ is not only the food on which we feed, but the Head of the family and distributor of the banquet. He is the feast and the Governor of the feast, and all who sit at that table are ‘brethren.’ One life is in them all, and they are one as partakers of One.<\/p>\n The Lord’s Supper is a visible symbol of the Christian life, which should not only be all lived in remembrance of Him, but consists in partaking by faith of His life, and incorporating it in ours, until we come to the measure of perfect men, which, in one aspect, we reach when we can say, ‘I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.’<\/p>\n There is a prophetic element, as well as a commemorative and symbolic, in the Lord’s Supper, which is prominent in Christ’s closing words. He does not partake of the symbols which He gives; but there comes a time, in that perfected form of the kingdom, when perfect love shall make all the citizens perfectly conformed to the perfect will of God. Then, whatsoever associations of joy, of invigoration, of festal fellowship, clustered round the wine-cup here, shall be heightened, purified, and perpetuated in the calm raptures of the heavenly feast, in which He will be Partaker, as well as Giver and Food. ‘Thou shalt make them drink of the river of Thy pleasures.’ The King’s lips will touch the golden cup filled with un-foaming wine, ere He commends it to His guests. And from that feast they will ‘go no more out,’ neither shall the triumphant music of its great ‘hymn’ be followed by any Olivet or Gethsemane, or any denial, or any Calvary; but there shall be ‘no more sorrow, nor sin, nor death’; for ‘the former things are passed away,’ and He has made ‘all things new.’<\/p>\n in = into. Greek. eis. App-101. As in Mar 14:60. Not the same word as in verses: Mar 14:3, Mar 14:25, Mar 14:30, Mar 3:49, Mar 3:62. <\/p>\n 20.] This description of the traitor here again does not seem to designate one especially, nor to describe an action at that moment proceeding, but, as before, pathetically to describe the near relation of the betrayer to the Betrayed. Now however the relation pointed out is still closer than before-it is that of one dipping in the same dish-one of those nearest and most trusted.<\/p>\n Mar 14:20. , that teas dipping [but Eng. Vers., that dippeth in]) With his own hand; this is the force of the middle voice. The participle is in the imperfect tense, as is used in Joh 9:25, and in 2 John v. 7.<\/p>\n It is: Mar 14:43, Mat 26:47, Luk 22:47, Joh 6:71 <\/p>\n dippeth: Mat 26:23, Joh 13:26 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: 2Ch 18:22 – and the Lord Dan 11:26 – that feed Mat 26:22 – General Joh 13:18 – but<\/p>\n 0<\/p>\n The dish means the vessel containing the flesh of the lamb used in the Passover. It was customary to dip a piece of bread in the broth and then eat it. Jesus did this at the same time with Judas so as to answer the question they all had asked.<\/p>\n 14:20 And he answered and said unto them, [It is] one of the twelve, that {f} dippeth with me in the dish.<\/p>\n (f) That regularly eats with me.<\/p>\n And he answered and said unto them, [It is] one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish. 20. he answered and said unto them ] “ Answered ” is omitted in the best MSS. The intimation was made privately to St John, to whom St Peter had made a sign that he … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 14:20”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-24760","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24760","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24760"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24760\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24760"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24760"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24760"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"