1. This is an interesting element of the Hebrew because in Hebrew, the word davar (רבד) means, both, "a word" or even sometimes "thing." In relation to this, the Greek word used here is also the word "word (or logos, λόγος)." Therefore, this particular text is using the Hebrew mindset by translating it, saying, ". . . finished saying all these things (a correct translation of the Hebrew meaning of the word "word")" rather than ". . . finished saying all these words."
This is just a slight, and perhaps somewhat of a nit-picky example, but it does bring up an interesting question: Could this somewhat awkward choice of words – ". . . saying all these wordsnbsp;. . ." – be evidence of a Greek translation of a Hebrew original? (Also see endnote 1:19.)
2. That day being Tuesday, the next day Wednesday, and then the next day Thursday. Thursday was the day of Passover.
3. Of which, the first day – which is a Friday, in this case – is a sabbath, because the first day of the feast of unleavened bread was a sabbath in addition to the regular weekly sabbath. And the unleavened bread feast sabbath could fall on any day of the week, depending on the year it was in. On the year of Jesus' crucifixion, this sabbath was on Friday.
4. From Leviticus 23:5-7, we understand that as part of the celebration of the feast of Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread, there is a Sabbath. (The day of Passover is the day the lambs were slaughtered, and then the next day is the first day of the feast of unleavened bread.)
Again, the day right after Passover is a Sabbath. It is a Sabbath regardless of what day of the week it is on in relation to the regular weekly Sabbath that comes every Saturday. So no matter what day of the week the Passover’s Sabbath was on, it was still a Sabbath.
Given this, then, it is more than a possibility that the Passover’s Sabbath was on Friday, while the regular weekly’s Sabbath was still on that Saturday. This seems to be what is communicated in Matthew 28:1, when it says that "after the Sabbaths (this word in the Greek being in the plural form)" the women came to the tomb.
There is also, however, an argument that says that whenever the Passover feast’s Sabbath was on the day before the regular weekly Sabbath, in order to keep the works of the feast, namely, the waving of the first-fruits from happening on the regular weekly Sabbath, they would move the whole feast so that it was lined up with the Passover’s Sabbath. And that they would do this so that both the Sabbaths (the Passover Sabbath and the regular weekly Sabbath) would fall on the same day.
That IS what they do these days, however, I do not think it was something they did back then. I base this on the verse in Matthew 12:5, which says, "Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath, and are innocent?"
Besides that, why would they break the whole feast (Exodus 12:18 and Numbers 9:4-5), just to preserve one smaller portion of the feast?
5. Mark, interestingly enough, places Mary anointing Jesus with oil right before Jesus is handed over by the kiss of Judas to be crucified – specifically two days before it (Mark 14:1-2) – while John makes it clear that this event had happened, in actuality, six days before the crucifixion (John 12:1).
This confused me. I thought, "Mark, you had everything right, why did you now go and mess this one up?" Then I read somewhere that he in fact did not mess it up, but that he had deliberately misplaced it to show the significance of its involvement of Judas’ decision to betray Jesus.
When I looked into it myself, I found that this is in fact the case. And now I invite you to do the same.
6. Sir Robert Anderson, the author of "The Coming Prince," describes, with indisputable logic, the 70 weeks of Daniel (Daniel 9:24-26a), and how they, without question, began on March 14th 445 BC. And that they continued down all the way to the time ". . . the Messiah will be cut off . . . (69 of the 70 weeks)" on Sunday April 9th 32 AD. And in him doing this, equating the 69 weeks to the very day Jesus entered Jerusalem on a colt.
This explanation goes even so far as pinpointing that the 14th of Nisan, the day of Passover (Leviticus 23:5-6 and Esther 3:7), was on a Thursday of that year. However, I believe Sir Robert Anderson, without Scriptural justification, pushes the Passover to having been celebrated on Friday, the 15th of Nisan, the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread instead. (He does this by sighting the Mishnah, a Jewish commentary.)
On the basis of several elements of the Chronology, as it is given in the Gospels, I believe his conclusion of the Passover being celebrated on Friday, the 15th of Nisan, rather than on Thursday, the 14th of Nisan, is clearly refuted. The first element being discussed in endnote 1:14 and the second being with sequence as it is given in verses 8:78, 84, 100, 107; 9:9 and 11:3 of this book concerning, specifically, the words "the next day."
Also see endnotes 2:1 and 11:25; as well as the chart titled "The Final Week" in this book.
7. The Feast of Unleavened Bread and Passover both, together, are sometimes called the Passover, since they are so interconnected. The Passover day being the day the lamb was slaughtered (Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7), which began on our Wednesday evening the year of Jesus' crucifixion and lasted through to Thursday evening. Following that, Friday was the Passover sabbath, and Saturday was the regular weekly sabbath.
9. The Bible makes a very curious statement in Jude 9. It says, "the devil disputed over the body of Moses (author’s paraphrase)." Well the obvious question is, why? Why would he have any concern for the body of Moses?
Well, since scripture does not tell us, we can only speculate. But one reason could be because Satan wanted the body so that he could possess it. If he could have had Moses’ body, he would then have had the Israelites eating out of his hands, so to speak, and would then have the power to make God’s promise to Abraham null and void Genesis 12:1-3 (Satan’s attempt to make God a liar.)
This does, anyway, seem to be his motive because when we study the passages concerning the Israelites, during, and even at the end of the exodus, we see the people continuously doing things that seemed to jeopardize God’s desire not to destroy them (Exodus 32:10). (The example at the end of the exodus with the whole Balak and Balaam incidence (Numbers 22-25), where Balaam taught Balak (Revelation 2:14) to have the Israelites bring upon themselves the curses God said they would receive (Deuteronomy 28:15), being just one of them.) Satan’s ultimate goal is to destroy God’s people (1 Peter 5:8).
Something important to know about Satan is, as we are told in Isaiah 14:12-14, he wants to set himself above God. And one thing that can be well-documented is that one thing anyone does to set himself above someone else is to discredit the person that they are trying to usurp.
Satan’s last and final attempt at this will be when he possesses the body of the Antichrist and then tries to get the whole world to worship him (Revelation 13:2-4). Maybe that is what he was attempting with the body of Moses. (Scripture does not specifically say that Satan will possess the beast, but it can be inferred because the beast has a counterfeit resurrection and he is then given power by the dragon (Satan), which is what Revelation 13:2-4 describes.)
10. These "officers" are not officers among the line of the priests. For those are called "Chief Priests." But these "officers" were more like security officers that the Romans had allowed the Jews to have to keep law and order – well they were suppose to – while the Romans still had overall control.
11. The Greek word used here is the word translated into the phrase "hand Him over to you," and it is the word paradidomi (παραδίδωμι). It is the same word that the Gospels use everywhere else to say that Judas betrayed Jesus. It comes from two Greek words: the very popular word para, meaning "along side of (the word we get our word paragraph)" and didomi, meaning, "to give."
12. The Original just says, "Him."
13. Or, "all the people around," as it is worded in the Greek.
14. The original text just says "these," referring to the Greeks that had wanted to speak to Jesus. But it is amplified in this publication into saying, "And ‘the Greeks’ came to Philip."
15. The original text simply says, "this voice did not come for Me." However, it is translated in this publication into ". . . did not come so that I [Jesus] could hear it."
16. The original text simply says, ". . . draw all to myself."
This being the case, we now need to determine whether He means all flesh (meaning everybody), all the ones He has chosen (believers), or all nations of men (any person who will believe in Him, no matter what nationality they are from).
I would lean more towards all the ones He has chosen. But, on the other hand, it could also mean all, as in everyone. But more with the understanding that everyone would be drawn for different reasons – one being drawn to Him in a negative response, and another being draw to Him in a positive sense – either in joy over what He has done, rejoicing that He has forgiven their sins, or in contempt for what He has done because it testifies of their sin (John 7:7).
18. The fact that they knew that the "Son of Man" was to "remain forever" surely indicates that the "Son of Man" was in fact a title commonly known to refer to the coming Messiah. It is not a statement Jesus made to indicate that He was born as a man, from a woman – though He was.
19. Consider Jesus’ statement in Luke 7:23, "blessed is he who keeps from stumbling over Me." Or as it could also be put, "blessed is he who does not stumble because of Me."
20. The two words that are translated here as "have seen" are from the one Greek word idosin (ἴδωσιν), and it is in the aorist, active, subjunctive case. In the Hebrew, in Isaiah 6:10, the compound word is the two words "lest" and "see" – "see" being a qal imperfect verb, translated as "lest they see."
21. The Greek word used for the word that is translated, here, as "heal" is a very interesting word to use because it is a word that means, "to leave alone." What makes this interesting is that, if it is translated literally, it has this verse saying that God hardened their hearts because they would not be converted.
This also seems to be the sense in Romans 1:28 when it says, "And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind."
And as well, how, concerning Pharaoh, the scripture for the first few times says that Pharaoh had hardened his own heart (Exodus 7:13, 22; 8:15, 19, 32, and 9:12), and only after that it begins to say that God had then hardened his heart (Exodus 10:1, 20, 27, and 11:10).
This idea is also incorporated in the Hebrew word used in the verse being quoted here, namely Isaiah 6:10. And it is the word, rapha (רפא) (Strongs numbers, 7495 and 7503), meaning "to leave alone" as well as "to mend."
Also, in the Greek translation of this word, it is in the future, middle, indicative case.
22. Romans 10:16 is an interesting verse because it says Isaiah preached the gospel. The Good News was not only a "New Testament" thing. The New Covenant was that God would write His law on their hearts and their minds so that they will do them (Jeremiah 31:31, 33 and Ezekiel 11:19-20). Not that it was going to be a Covenant totally foreign to the First Covenant. (Hebrews 4:2 also informs us that the "Old Testament" Israelites had heard the Gospel.)
23. The implied phrase, ". . . now, back with them" is added here because of the verse in John 12:36b, which reads, "Jesus said these things, then He went away and hid from them."
25. Due to the high quantity of people that would come to the feast every year, the Priests would begin to kill the Passover lamb early. Passover would officially begin at the nightfall before the actually daytime of Passover (Leviticus 23:5). (That was the Jewish way of reckoning a day. It had been done this way because of how God had defined a day when He created the world, as it says, "there was evening and there was morning, the first day.") It was on Passover, only the evening before the actual day – according to our reckoning.
This is important to know when it comes down to determining the actual day of Jesus’ crucifixion, which we will do later in this book.
A quote from Sir Robert Anderson’s book "The Coming Prince" can explain it further: "The testimony of the first three Gospels is united, that the Last Supper was eaten at the Jewish Passover. The attempt to prove that it was an anticipatory celebration, without the paschal sacrifice, though made with the best of motives, is utterly futile. 'Now on the first day of unleavened bread' (St. Matthew declares), 'the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Where will thou that we make ready for Thee to eat the Passover?"' It was the proposal not of the Lord, but of the disciples, who, with the knowledge of the day and of the rites pertaining to it, turned to the Master for instructions. [Jesus did not initiate the dinner, which would then give at least some credibility to the assertion that it was an ‘anticipatory celebration.’] With yet greater definiteness St. Mark narrates that this took place on the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover. And the language of St. Luke is, if possible, more unequivocal still: 'Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the Passover must be killed.'"
26. In this incident, Matthew says that His disciples had come to Him and asked Him where He wanted them to prepare the Passover. Mark says the same thing, except he adds that after they had asked Jesus this question, "He [then] sent two of His disciples . . ."and so on. But Luke says that Jesus told Peter and John to "Go and prepare the Passover," with which they then asked, "Where do You want us to prepare it . . . ?"
27. In John 13:1, upon a hasty reading, it sounds like it is saying that the actions being described immediately following this are actually happening before the Passover took place. However, when all facts are taken together, it cannot be saying this. (All these facts being discussed throughout the endnotes concerning the final days of His ministry.)
What it is saying is that even before the Passover had taken place, "Jesus knew that His hour had come."
28. The words "the Accuser" is a translation rather than a transliteration of the Greek word "devil." It comes from the Greek word diabolos (διάβολος), which is made up of two words dia (διά), which means "through," and ballo (βάλλω), which means, "to throw (and gives us our word "ball.")"
It literally means "through throwing." It is a figure of speech to refer to throwing accusations. We could also look at it as being translated as "throwing dirt" at someone in a figurative way, meaning throwing trash on his reputation or character.
29. Or, "He who eats bread with Me."
30. In those days, to recline at the table was to lean back on your left elbow with your feet behind you, while you eat with your right hand. Understanding this, the person "leaning on Jesus' bosom" was the person leaning back in front of him, and this would thus put that person (John in this case) into the "chest area."
It is translated this way here to help us understand the narration clearly. Since "bosom" can be a little obscure in meaning to most of us.
31. Matthew says, "kingdom of My Father," while Mark and Luke say, "kingdom of God." These are mutually interchangeable terms. "Kingdom of Heaven" was used by some in those days to in some way avoid possibly saying God’s name in vain.
32. The Lord’s supper was one of the hardest accounts to splice together (the resurrection being one of the others).
First off, Luke informs us that Jesus passed around the cup twice (Luke 22:17 and 20), and second, none of the gospels even give a clue as to what point in the whole event Judas actually did leave. We do know that he was there for the feet washing and we also know that he received a piece of the bread Jesus had dipped (probably into hummus), but none of them tell us at what point of the event it was that he had actually left.
Some things that may be an indication would be how anyone who has ever attended the "Lord’s Supper" – at most any gathering of believers for this event – they would be familiar with the practice that the pastor first makes a statement about those who "partake of the table." They tell them that if they are not believers, then they are not welcome to take of the Lord’s supper. But that it is an invitation only to those who are. (I believe this is practiced because of the verse in Exodus 12:43 where it says, "And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "This is the ordinance of the Passover: no foreigner is to eat of it.") Therefore, it is my personal belief that Judas was not there for at least the second cup, which Jesus passed around "after the supper," saying, "this is the new covenant in my blood . . ."
When it came to adding John’s account, he gave basically no similarities with the other three Gospels. That is because John focuses mainly on the teaching Jesus did during the supper, barely giving even a hint of narration. And the narration he does give, are of different circumstances than the other three. For instance, John tells about Jesus sending Judas out and then immediately gives Jesus monologue without even mentioning the bread Jesus broke and the wine being passed. The other Gospels give these details also, but then tell us nothing about the monologue John records.
Giving these facts, it is possible to chronologically place the details of the four Gospels in the way they are in this publication with absolutely no compromise to the details or any meaning of the individual texts.
33. In the Greek, there are two words used for the word "new," kainos (καινος) and neos (νέος). The one used here is kainos and means "fresh" or "new in kind." On the other hand, neos means "new in time" and indicates something that has never existed before.
The word kainos is comparable to the Hebrew word chadaSHA (חדשה)," meaning "new in kind" also – but comes from the Hebrew word chadash (חדש), a word used to describe the new moon. This Hebrew word has the meaning of something being renewed because the moon was refresh every month (what we call a "new moon"). Not that it is new all together, but that it is renewed each month. (Also see Hebrews 8:13).
To understand the distinction between the first (old) and latter (new) covenants, it needs to be understood that the first covenant was pointing to the second (Hebrew 10:1 and 8:7). And then to say that the first was in some ways evil or wrong in what it was meant to accomplish (Romans 8:3) would, in consequence, draw some doubt on the second. Another way to put it is if the pointers (first covenant) were wrong, than the second (which is what they were pointing to) are also wrong – and neither of them are.
The law was never meant to take away sin (Hebrews 10:1b), it was always meant to identify sin in us so that we could come to God who justifies those who believe in Him who does the work for us. (This is true for us and it was true for those under the first covenant.)
This is partially what the law is pointing to, and to say that it was ever meant to point to something to the contrary would be accusing God of some form of injustice. That is, if He gave us the law for us to achieve some kind of justification in His sight (Romans 3:20), then He was misleading us. But He is not! The law is partially meant to lead us into knowing that we need Him to justify us apart from the law. Then it is also meant to show us how to identify what is good and what is evil (Romans 7:7).
34. When Scripture talks about forgiveness of sin, it incorporates the reality of a person being released from their sin. In fact, the whole idea about a person feeling remorse because of their sin, implies that they want, not only release from the condemnation of sin but also the reality of it in their lives. That is true repentance!
35. See chapter 5:172 of this book (Luke 9:46).
36. The original text plainly says "Satan." "The enemy" is a translation of the Greek’s transliteration of the Hebrew word for Satan (satan), meaning "enemy" or "adversary."
37. Jesus did not pray for Satan not to be able to "sift him as wheat." The sense of the text is that Satan was granted this request. What Jesus had prayed for – and was answered – was that Peter’s faith would "not fail," or as the Greek says, ". . . be put to an end."
38. Or, either, "that is enough" or "that is plenty."
39. This was one of the most interesting insights gained from the blending of the Gospels. It it interesting because for a long time I had been confused by the whole event concerning Jesus telling his disciples to get swords (Luke 22:36), and then slightly rebuking them for getting them (Luke 22:38).
What is interesting is the point at which these two accounts fell together – and naturally, I might add. For in John’s gospel there is no mention of anything concerning Jesus telling them to get the swords, and in Luke’s there is no mention of what John said – how Jesus told them, "Let not your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me." Saying this because He was going to leave them, vs. 2-3 (be crucified), and because He knew what was on their minds, and what Peter was going to do with the sword (John 18:10) once he had it.
In fact, this is even the context here because Jesus is telling Peter how he is going to deny Him three times because he does not understand that they are not supposed to fight to keep Jesus from being arrested, since He was suppose to be crucified.
Now I need to add here that Peter had every intention of doing what he said, and this is why he had cut Malchus’ ear off. Peter would have fought to the death, like he said (Matthew 26:33 and John 13:37), to keep Jesus from being crucified. The problem was he didn’t understand what Jesus meant by one laying down his life; and that He was supposed to die by crucifixion.
The question remains, then: Why did Jesus tell them to get the swords since they were not to use them to fight the Romans? Well I am not too sure about the answer to that question, but what we do know is that it certainly wasn’t for the reasons the disciples had thought. It could have been because it is a domestic tool of survival, or maybe it was simply a test Jesus needed to present to them. Either way they are not careless words that Jesus spoke.
40. In John 1:14 it says that Jesus "dwelt among us" and it uses the Greek word eskenosen (ἐσκήνωσεν), meaning "tablernacled."
John makes this statement as an implied reference back to the passages that tell us about the Shekinah glory of Yahweh dwelling in the Tabernacle of the Israelites wandering in the desert, and God’s house from the days of Solomon up to the days of Ezekiel’s (see Ezekiel 10:4, 18). (Shekinah comes from the Hebrew word שכן (shakan), meaning "to dwell" – a word used in not only Exodus 25:8 but in many other verses as well. If you have an Englishman’s Concordance, see Strong’s number 7931.
Gloriously enough, this is also what is being communicated in Hebrews 1:3, when the author writes, speaking of Jesus, "He is the radiance of His [God’s] glory." Hallelujah! (Also refer to endnotes 1:6 and 6:23).
42. This English word "helper" is a translation of the Greek word parakletos (παράκλητος); again para meaning "along side of," and kletos, meaning, "to call." This seemed to be needed to draw out the deeper meaning of the word by translating it into, "One called to be with you as a helper," rather than just using the implication of the word, which is to help.
43. Here is another insight to be gained from compiling the gospels. Because when the story is followed along as it happened, we see that Jesus went around in the beginning of His ministry doing signs, drawing a lot of people. Then, after what seems to be a deliberate strategy, Jesus, having rounded up the sheep, then gives the "Sermon on the Mount" – speaking to them plainly.
After that, He then goes around some more, illustrating what He had just taught – illustrating this by eating grain on the Sabbath and things like that (John 7:20-24), correcting their warped understanding of the law. (Not that obedience to the law is bad, but what was bad was that they had a priority of obeying commandments and traditions at the cost of the real purpose of the law. The purpose it had from the beginning (Leviticus 10:8-11, 2 John 5-6), which is to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might (Deuteronomy 6:5)," and to ". . . love your neighbor as yourself (Leviticus 19:18)." For it is said, "this is the whole of the law (Matthew 22:40, author’s paraphrase)" – Jesus rebuking them because their obedience was only in appearance, and only on the outside (Matthew 23:28).)
After this, then, the plot begins to turn. Because from there the Gospels tell us that at around this time, Jesus was in Peter’s house and his mother and brother had come to Him saying, "He is out of his mind." To which He, shortly after that, on that same day, responds by getting up and going out along the sea to teach the people in parables. His family’s reaction (which was also the reaction of a lot of the religious leaders) causing Him to respond to them in parables.
This, I believe, is what Judas (not Iscariot) had on his mind when he said, "what has happened now that You will make Yourself known to us and not to the world (John 14:22)."
44. These italicized words seem to be what is implied when Jesus said, "he has nothing in Me; but that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave Me commandment, even so I do. (John 14:30b-31, NASB)."
45. It is said that there is no doubt whatsoever that the Jews in Jesus’ day sang Psalms 113 through 118 on Passover, based partly on the fact that they do it even to this day.
But what makes this interesting is verse 24 of chapter 118, where it says, "This is the day which the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it." And that is interesting because not only does it mean that it is not referring to each and every day, or even every Sunday (or the Sabbath, which is on Saturday); but that it is referring to that specific day Jesus was crucified for our sins.
What makes it even more amazing is that Jesus rejoiced in that day. At least that is what we are told in Hebrews 12:2 when it says, "who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God (author’s emphasis)."
46. In John 14:31 we are told that Jesus said to the disciples while they were at the supper "Arise, let us go from here." Then John immediately continues with some more of Jesus’ instruction to His disciples. Then in 18:1, after reading these things, John then informs us that – as it literally says in the Greek, "Jesus said these things as He went [(a word that is in the aorist, present active tense, indicating that it was something they had done in the past but was also something they were actively doing in the description John is passing down to us.)] with His disciples over the gushing stream of the Kidron valley . . . where there is a garden . . . He and His disciples were entering (author’s emphasis)."
Knowing this, that is why the words "As they went, He said, . . ."were added here.
He could have said these things as they were preparing to leave the room they were in, as they were walking through the Kidron valley, or as they were entering into the garden itself, or any combination of these, the third scenario being the most likely.
47. Rather than, ". . . what I have told you," the Greek says, ". . . word I have told you." Also see endnotes 11:1 and 1:19. This, again, showing us a Hebrew mind-set being used in the Greek language. (Also see endnote 1:19)
48. For the phrase translated here as ". . . verifying that you really are My disciples" is actually worded in the Greek, ". . . come into being to Me disciples."
51. Most translations say "convict" but the word that means, "to convince" is used here instead. This word is used because a lot of people associate the word "convict" with the assignment of punishment or condemnation; while the Holy Spirit’s work is for the purpose of convincing us of our need for forgiveness and reconciliation to God (reconciliation producing the cessation of sin (Romans 6:1-22)). All this comes from the fact that He has already taken the sentence we deserve. As we are also told, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit (Romans 8:1)."
52. The word "going" that is used here is in the present, active, indicative case. I am not sure what this means except that it could be a reference to His continual access to the throne of His Father. Something of which we have not been granted until after being reconciled to God through Jesus’ sacrifice and forgiveness (Ephesians 2:18). While He had it all along.
53. Or, ". . . will tell you plainly."
54. This is the one thing He cherished most at this point and found some comfort in. However, when He paid the immense penalty for our sin on the cross, He cried out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?"
However, it must also be pointed out that this is probably an expression of how He felt at the time humanly speaking, rather than a statement of what was actually happening in the spiritual realm. It would be the same as Him expressing hunger or thirst (John 19:28).
55. This is a Hebrew idiom: "He lifted up His eyes."
56. The Greek word that is translated here as "protect," and which is commonly translated in other translations as "keep," is the word tereo (τηρέω).
Consequently, this word, meaning "to guard" or "keep," is the exact word used in Revelation 3:10 when Jesus told His people in the church of Philadelphia that He would "keep them from the hour of trail that is going to come over the whole earth." Not that He would take them out of it, but that He would keep (another word for protect) them from harm in it. This is also the very same thing that is expressed in John 17:15 when Jesus prayed, not that the Father would take His disciples out of the world but that He would keep them from the evil one.
57. The term "set them apart" is the definition of the word "sanctification," which is the Greek word used in this instance.
60. The gushing spring mentioned here, is the Gihon spring and it is found on the east side of Jerusalem, in the valley called the Kidron. This is the valley that runs along the whole eastern side of the Temple Mount, from up alongside the Garden of Gethsemane and down to the southern tip of the City of David – Jerusalem.
61. Gethsemane is a Hebrew word meaning "oil press," coming from the two Hebrew words gath (press) and shemen (oil). This garden called Gethsemane was, as its name implies, on the Mount of Olives. The Mount of Olives east of the Temple mount over the Kidron valley.
62. Matthew says Jesus "fell upon His face," Mark says Jesus "fell to the ground," and Luke says He "placed Himself on His knees."
63. The Greek uses the word Abba here, and it is a Hebrew word that had been adopted from the Aramaic language. It is a word related to the Hebrew word Av (as in Avraham), meaning "exalted father." It is literally the same as saying, "Daddy." It is a word that only a father’s child would call him. Everyone else would call him a father. On the other hand, if his son called him father (av) rather than Abba, this would be equal to an insult in the Hebrew culture. See Romans 8:15.
64. The first time it says they were sleeping because their eyes were heavy (Matthew 26:43).
66. This could also be translated as "lead Him away securely." It is not certain whether Judas was afraid of Him doing something miraculous to get free (which I admit seems ridiculous) or whether it is because He cared for Him and did not want Him to get hurt. This does seem to be Judas’ heart, when we consider his remorse in handing Him – a man of "innocent blood" – over (Matthew 27:3-4).
His care for Jesus may also be seen in Judas betrayal with a kiss (Luke 22:48). That is unless he betrayed Jesus with a kiss to keep the other disciples from thinking that he had been involved, in some way, in the activity of this mob’s activity. (It could be argued that it was Satan in Judas that was giving Jesus a kiss (11:4 of this publication), but Jesus says, "Judas! . . . Are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?")
67. The Jews have so much reverence for the word that represents God’s name Yhvh, meaning "I am" or "I will become what I am," that they will not pronounce it. It seems that this is why they backed up and fell to the ground in this instance. It appears that Jesus had said this name, which they practiced as forbidden to say, based on the commandment not to take YHWH God’s name in vain (Exodus 20:7). Therefore, this is probably the reason they backed up and fell onto their faces when Jesus said this. (Also see endnote 11:40.)
68. The words, as the NASB puts it, "they drew back" is in the active (not passive) voice. Therefore, it is something they actively did and not something that overcame them, such as falling backwards. The Greek does not say they "fell backwards." Therefore, this is why it is translated here as "they backed up and fell to the ground."
70. The words "Do not respond in this way" are included here because it flows with the context better without changing the meaning intended by the thought. The Greek literally only reads "permit until this." But the words Jesus says directly before this, "put your dagger away" gives the words "permit until this" the implied meaning "do not respond in this way."
71. The original text just says, "his" ear. It is changed to the name Malchus because, as we are informed by John 18:10 that that is what "his" name was.
72. This word encourage comes from the compound Greek word parakaleo, which comes from the two words para, meaning "along side of;" and kaleo, meaning, "to call." These two words come together to mean "to call along side of." It also has the meaning of "to encourage." Also see endnotes numbers 8:26 and 11:41 of this book.
73. Or, "this is your hour and authority of darkness."
74. It is not really sure if this man was a guard of the olive garden or not, but it is put out there as a suggestion. There appears to be no other reason why he would have nothing on but a robe.
It is, however, a neat picture of how our righteousness is only on the outside, and how if we run from Jesus, we are naked in shame – being without a covering for our sin. Likewise, if we run from His crucifixion, we have no covering at all.
There is also the belief that this was in fact John Mark, the same John Mark who wrote the gospel of Mark. It is believed to be him because of the fact that his gospel is the only one who has the account of this incident. It is seen as a kind of signature Mark tagged onto his Gospel.
