Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 14:17 - 14:25
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mar_14:17-25. See on Mat_26:20-29. Comp. Luk_22:14-23.
μετὰ τῶν δώδεκα ] Those two are to be conceived as having returned after the preparation.
Mar_14:18 f. ὁ ἐσθίων μετʼ ἐμοῦ ] not said for the purpose of making known the fact, but the expression of deeply painful emotion.
εἷς καθεῖς ] man by man. See on this expression of late Greek, wherein the preposition is adverbial, Wetstein in loc.; Winer, p. 223 [E. T. 312]; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 27 [E. T. 30].
καὶ ἄλλος ] an inaccuracy of expression, as though there had been previously said not εἷς καθεῖς , but merely εἷς . Mark in particular might be led into this inaccuracy by his graphic manner.
Mar_14:20. ὁ ἐμβαπτ .] not at this moment, and so not a definite designation of the traitor (as Bleek will have it), for after Mar_14:19 it is certain that the eating was not immediately proceeded with (comp. on Mat_26:23); but neither is it generally: “qui mecum vesci consuevit,” Beza; but, like ὁ ἐσθίων μετʼ ἐμοῦ , Mar_14:18, referring generally to this meal, and withal more precisely indicating the traitor to this extent, that he was one of those who reclined nearest to Jesus, and who ate with Him out of the same dish. According to Lange, indeed, the hand of Judas made a “movement playing the hypocrite,” and met the hand of the Lord, while the latter was still in the dish, in order with apparent ingenuousness to receive the morsel. A harmonistic play of fancy, whereof nothing appears in the text.
Mar_14:24. εἶπεν ] namely, while they drank, not before the drinking. A deviation from Matthew and Luke, but not inappropriate, as Jesus gives the explanation not afterwards (in opposition to de Wette), but at the time of the drinking[164] ( ἐστί ). A very immaterial difference, to be explained not from Mark’s mere love for alteration (de Wette), but from a diversity of the tradition, in respect to which, however, the greater simplicity and independence on the form of the ecclesiastical observance, which mark the narrative in Mark, tell in favour of its originality (in opposition to Baur).
ΤῸ ΑἿΜΆ ΜΟΥ Τῆς ΔΙΑΘΉΚΗς ] my covenant-blood, as Mat_26:28. The definition, “the new covenant,” came in later; as also “for the forgiveness of sins” is a more precise specification from a further stage of development.[165] Comp. on Mat_26:28. And the direction, “Do this in remembrance of me,” is first added in Paul (twice over) and in Luke. See on 1Co_11:24.
[164] Comp. also Rückert, Abendm. p. 72.
[165] But observe how the idea of reconciliation is already in the case of Mark implied in the simple ὑπὲρ πολλῶν . Even Baur (neut. Theol. p. 102) acknowledges this, but thinks that these very words contain a later modification of the narrative.