50 And they all forsook him, and fled.

51 And there followed him a certain young man, having a

the original, But that the Scriptures might be fulfilled—. We must mentally add this takes place. It was Divinely permitted to take place, because the same Mind which foresaw what it was that Judas and the high priest, and their coconspirators, would voluntarily do, resolved to permit it, inasmuch as their act, however wicked and infatuated, would not frustrate the final end contemplated in the mission of our Lord, His sacrificial death as the Lamb of God bearing the sin of the world.'

VER. 50. And forsaking Him, they all fled. The disciples namely. The evangelist's own mind had turned from our Lord's enemies to His friends. But, not being practised in the wisdom of words,' he omits to mark the transition of reference. The disciples forsook or left their Lord, being, as their Master had predicted, stumbled or staggered in their faith. See ver. 27. They had never taken up the idea that it would be consistent with the ends contemplated in the mission of the Messiah, that He should be ignominiously arrested.

VER. 51, 52, contain another connected incident, standing by itself in the evangelist's narrative.

VER. 51. And a certain young man. Very literally, and one certain young man. But the present indefinite article' a' or 'an' is just the original numeral ane or one. There have been many speculations and conjectures regarding this young man. Who was he? It is impossible to say with absolute certainty. Epiphanius (Adv. Hæres., lxxviii. 13) assumes that it was James the Just, the brother of our Lord, who was reported, in early times, to have confined himself ascetically to a single cloth' or garment. A whimsical reason for an unlikely conjecture. Others, inclusive in modern times of Ingraham (Prince of the House of David, Letter 29), have supposed that it was the apostle John; also a most unlikely conjecture, resting on no basis of probability whatever. Theophylact supposes it probable that the person referred to was a youth belonging to the house where our Lord ate the passover: also a baseless conjecture. Cardinal Cajetan thinks that he may have been the son of the Gethsemane gardener. Grotius and Petter content themselves with the more generic conjecture that he would probably be a youth who lived in some contiguous villa. If conjecture at all be allowed, we should, along with Bisping and Klostermann, give the preference to the opinion of those who imagine that the evangelist refers, veilingly, to himself. The incident is in itself so exceedingly trifling, as compared with other incidents omitted from the narrative, that it seems difficult to account for its introduction unless on the principle that the narrator had a deep personal interest in its occurrence, and delighted, though in an unobtrusive and modest manner, to link himself on, in what may have been to him the turning point of his spiritual history, to the great event that was transpiring. We would agree, with Bisping, that it is most likely that the incident occurred, not in Gethsemane or on the way to Jerusalem, but in the streets of the city. The evangelist has been setting down, one by one, a number of events only loosely connected; and this is one of them.

linen cloth cast about his naked body, and the young men laid hold on him: 52 and he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.

53 And they led Jesus away to the high priest and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the

In

Followed Him. The verb is in the imperfect tense, was following Him. the manuscripts NBCL however it is compound (σvvnкoλoúðei), was following with the rest who were there. Note that it was not the crowd which he followed: it was Jesus. His interest was in Jesus. Possibly as the crowd were passing along the streets, they would be excited, perhaps uproarious. The young man had been in bed; but, hearing the noise, he had started up, and rushed out undressed. He found it was Jesus, the Great Teacher, to whom we may suppose he had been listening with rapture in the temple,-it was Jesus who was being led off under arrest. He followed on for a little, and then perhaps began impulsively to interfere with the conductors, or to remonstrate. It is note. worthy that Mark and his mother lived at Jerusalem (Acts xii. 12). Having a linen cloth cast about (his) naked (body). He had, on starting up, wrapped himself hurriedly in a loose robe or coverlet of fine linen, under which most probably he had been lying. The linen referred to was that peculiar texture, brought originally (not from Sidon, as Chifflet supposes (De Linteis, p. 23), but) from Sind or India, which was used for inwrapping the bodies of the dead. See Matt. xxvii. 59; Mark xv. 46; Luke xxiii. 53.

And the young men laid hold on him. Or, more literally, lay hold on him, or seize him. He was regarded as in sympathy with their Prisoner. He was therefore obnoxious to the virulent partisans in the crowd. Instead of and the young men lay hold on him, the reading in the manuscripts NB C D LA, and in the Vulgate, Syriac Peshito, and Coptic versions, is simply and they lay hold on him. Griesbach suspected the genuineness of the Received reading. Mill had previously condemned it. (Prol., § 409.) And it is omitted from the text by Lachmann, Fritzsche, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and by the Revisers of 1881, No doubt correctly.

VER. 52. But he left. In their hands.

The linen cloth, and fled from them naked. It would be a memorable event to the young man himself.

VER. 53. See, for parallels, Matt. xxvi. 57; Luke xxii. 54; John xviii. 13, 14. And they led off Jesus to the high priest. Viz. Caiaphas. Indeed the name is added in several of the ancient manuscripts and versions. Intrusively however. The detour to the house of Annas is merged out of view. See John xviii. 13. And with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes The prominent members of the sanhedrim. The expression with him, or as Fritzsche interprets to him, was suspected by Mill (§ 409), and is omitted by Tischendorf on the authority of NDL A and 69, as also of the Italic, Vulgate, and Ethiopic versions, etc. The phrase is more likely however to have been wilfully dropped than to have been wilfully added. It should no doubt be rendered as in our Authorized version. See Luke xxiii. 55; Acts ix. 39, x. 23, 45,

scribes. 54 And Peter followed him afar off, even into the palace of the high priest: and he sat with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire.

55 And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none. 56 For many bare false witness against him, but their witness

xi. 12, xv. 38; and also John xi. 33. And the reference is not, as Meyer sup poses, to our Lord, but to the high priest.

VER. 54. Comp. Matt. xxvi. 58; Luke xxii. 54, 55; John xviii. 15-18. And Peter followed Him afar off. Or, as Mace, Campbell, Norton give it, at a distance; or, according to the Greek idiom, from a distance.

Even into. The original phrase is repetitious, until within into (Ews low eis). The palace of the high priest. Or rather the court (viz. of the high priest's palace), the interior hall or quadrangle, around which the chambers of the residence were constructed.

And he was sitting along with the servants.

The reader's mind is thrown anticipatively forward to something special that occurred while he was sitting. There would be quite a crowd of servants and hangers on, and, in particular, the sweepings of the band which had gone to Gethsemane. Peter would expect to get jostled into the heart of the crowd unobserved.

And warming himself at the fire. Literally, toward the fire; more literally still, toward the light. The preposition brings into view that he turned himself toward the fire, in order to get warmed. The word light, again, brings into view

the blazing of the fire, by which his countenance would be illuminated and thus by and by identified. The word is everywhere else translated light.

VER. 55-64 constitute a paragraph corresponding to Matt. xxvi. 59-66. The narratives in Luke and John are much more fragmentary.

VER. 55. But the chief priests and the whole council. Or, the whole sanhedrim. It was an informal meeting of the sanhedrim, and the members present seemed to be animated with the same deeply prejudiced spirit that was dominating the high priest.

Sought-for. The verb is in the imperfect, were engaged in seeking-for. Testimony against Jesus. It was right in them to require testimony. But it was iniquitous for them to go hunting for it against the Prisoner. Such prejudication and partisanship were a virtual abdication of their function as judges.

To put Him to death. This laid the copestone on their iniquity. They not only prejudged the case, they were eager to inflict the highest penalty possible. Their eagerness resolved itself into the spirit of murder.

And found none. Literally, and did not find; more literally still, and were not finding it. This was what went on in the court for a time.

VER. 56. For many bare false witness against Him. Literally, were bearing false witness. There was a succession of cases.

But. Strictly and (kal). The clause introduced forms part of the succession of things.

agreed not together. 57 And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, 58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. 59 But neither so did their witness agree together. 60 And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?

Their witness agreed not together. Literally, the testimonies were not equal. They did not tally, or match, the one with the other. Hence there was a difficulty in getting the sentence desired, for two accordant witnesses, at the least, were indispensable. See Deut. xvii. 6.

VER. 57. And some arose and bore false witness against Him, saying. This case was worthy of specification. They bore false witness. They persisted in it for a time. The verb is in the imperfect.

He made a But He never

VER. 58. We heard Him saying, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. Of course the Saviour never made any such statement. See John ii. 19. mystic reference indeed to His own death and resurrection. intimated that He would destroy any temple whatsoever. Neither did He distinguish, at that time, between a temple made with human hands, and another made without such hands. The expression within three days should rather be in three days, for the phrase does not intimate that the period required would be less than three days. It is literally, through three days. Our Saviour, in passing through three days, would accomplish the work of which He spoke.

VER. 59. But neither so. Literally, and not even so, that is, and not even to that extent, nor even to the extent of the allegation, as given summarily in the preceding verse.

Was their testimony equal. The witnesses had so much in common that they were sure that the Lord had said something or other about the destruction of the temple,' and something or other about raising it again in three days.' But they differed in the details of their testimony, which was consequently so vitiated that a conviction could not be obtained. It would appear that either the witnesses were, as Meyer supposes, examined separately, or else that they got positive in contradicting one another.

VER. 60. And the high priest rose up in the midst. More literally, into the midst. He would seem to have stepped forward nearer the Prisoner.

And interrogated Jesus, saying, Answerest Thou nothing? What do these testify against Thee? Instead of this double interrogation, Luther gives it thus: Answerest Thou nothing to that which these testify against Thee? So the Vulgate before him, and Baumgarten-Crusius, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Bleek. But the two interrogatories are more in harmony, at once with the nature of the phraseology, and with the exasperated spirit of the interrogator. He had been baffled, and was chagrined. Laying aside everything like judicial impartiality and calmness, he chides our Lord for His dignified silence amid the Babel of

61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 63 Then

accusation, Answerest Thou nothing? He would have liked that our Lord had lost command of His reticence, and had returned railing for railing. When he added, What do these testify against Thee? the meaning is, Though the testi monies of these witnesses do not quite agree in details, yet there was evidently something extraordinary said by Thee on the occasion referred to. What was it? It was a most improper question. The construction of a double interrogation has been accepted, not only by our Authorized translators, but likewise by Erasmus, Tyndale, Castellio, Beza, Bengel, Meyer.

VER. 61. But He was silent, and answered nothing. He could not descend, even for a moment, from the pinnacle of true dignity on which He stood. It was no part of His duty, as a defendant, to unravel the contradictions of His unprincipled accusers.

Again the high priest interrogated Him, and says to Him, Art Thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? This was a legitimate question to put. It was quite right to call upon our Lord to declare who and what He was. It is right that every man in society should be prepared to tell who and what he is. No man can have a legitimate claim to the privileges of society who cannot give account of himself. The expressions employed by the high priest were taken from the second Psalm, which was then considered to be Messianic, and which can never be rationally interpreted on any other hypothesis. See ver. 2, 7. The Blessed: An indefinite appellative way of referring to God, who is emphatically the Blessed One. The word is not here, as in 1 Tim. i. 11 and vi. 15, equivalent to happy (μakápios). It represents the Lord as the appropriate object of eulogy or praise (εὐλογητός).

VER. 62. And Jesus said, I am. It was the fitting time and place to declare, in terms the most unequivocal and unmistakable, that He was the Divine Messiah.

And ye shall see (sooner or later) the Son of Man. While our Lord was in the very act of avowing that He was the Son of God He delights to think and speak of Himself as the Son of man. He realized His identification with the human family.

Sitting at the right hand of power. Very literally, of the power, i.e. of the supreme power. He represents Himself as seated at the right hand of the absolute and irresistible Sovereign of the universe. As Son of man indeed He was essentially subordinate to the Father, so as to have His appropriate place in a secondary position. But as Son of God He was fit to sit on the throne with His Father. Compare the first verse of that remarkable Messianic psalm, the 110th.

And coming in the clouds of heaven. Literally, with the clouds of the heaven, that is, encompassed with them. Coming: namely, to judge the world, and thus to judge the judges who were now judging Him. When Jesus shall thus