The Fallible Study Bible

The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible

Mark14:1–2

The Plot to Kill Jesus

Public-domain source — quoted & attributed AI synthesis — generated, verify

Mark 14:1–2 — The Plot to Kill Jesus. Each verse below carries the full apparatus: the Berean Standard Bible, the vocalized original (tap any word), and a parsed breakdown of every term transcribed from the interlinear. Synthesized commentary, canonical threads, and the reading of Christ gather at the end, over the whole unit.

1

Now the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were two days away, and the chief priests and scribes were looking for a covert way to arrest Jesus and kill Him.

Berean Standard Bible · CC0

Greek — tap a word ↓

de to pascha kai ta azyma Ēn dyo hēmeras meta kai hoi archiereis kai hoi grammateis ezētoun en dolō pōs kratēsantes auton apokteinōsin

Word by word23 · parsed
δὲdeNowG1161
√ δέ — but, and, etcConjunction
δέ: but, and A soft connective, not an adversative here; it hinges the plot onto the discourse just ended.
τὸtotheG3588
√ ὁ — the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom)ArticleNominative Neuter Singular
πάσχαpaschaPassoverG3957
√ πάσχα — the Passover (the meal, the day, the festival or the special sacrifices connected with it)NounNominative Neuter Singular
πάσχα: the Passover Strong's spreads the word over the whole complex: “the Passover (the meal, the day, the festival or the special sacrifices connected with it).” Gill supplies the content: it “was kept in commemoration of God's passing over the houses of the Israelites, when he destroyed the firstborn of Egypt,” and “was kept by eating the passover lamb.” Mark's first word of the Passion narrative is therefore a word about a slain lamb and a spared people, and he sets it two days before the arrest, which fixes the whole conspiracy inside a liturgical clock the conspirators did not set.
καὶkaiandG2532
√ καί — and, also, even, so then, too, etcConjunction
τὰtatheG3588
√ ὁ — the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom)ArticleNominative Neuter Plural
ἄζυμαazyma[Feast of] Unleavened BreadG106
√ ἄζυμος — unleavened, iAdjectiveNominative Neuter Plural
ἄζυμα: unleavened An adjective (G106) in the neuter plural used as a name, “the unleavened things,” which is why BSB has to supply “[Feast of].” Cambridge dates it: “The Passover took place on the 14th of Nisan, and the ‘Feast of unleavened bread’ commenced on the 15th and lasted for seven days, deriving its name from the Mazzoth, or unleavened cakes,” citing Exodus 12:34, Exodus 12:39 and Deuteronomy 16:3. Ellicott adds that naming the feast twice is Mark's and Luke's habit, “an explanation intended for Gentile readers.”
ἮνĒnwereG1510
√ εἰμί — I exist (used only when emphatic)VerbImperfect Indicative Active3rd Person Singular
εἰμί: to be (imperfect singular) One verb for two names. The singular is the grammatical form of Pulpit's claim that “It was one and the same festival.”
δύοdyotwoG1417
√ δύο — "two"AdjectiveAccusative Feminine Plural
ἡμέραςhēmerasdaysG2250
√ ἡμέρα — day, iNounAccusative Feminine Plural
ἡμέρα: day The accusative of extent measures the interval. JFB reads it forward: “two days after what is about to be mentioned the passover would arrive.” Two days is not atmosphere, it is the countdown that makes every act in this chapter dated.
μετὰmetaawayG3326
√ μετά — properly, denoting accompanimentPreposition
καὶkaiandG2532
√ καί — and, also, even, so then, too, etcConjunction
οἱhoitheG3588
√ ὁ — the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom)ArticleNominative Masculine Plural
ἀρχιερεῖςarchiereischief priestsG749
√ ἀρχιερεύς — the high-priest (literally, of the Jews, typically, Christ)NounNominative Masculine Plural
ἀρχιερεύς: high priest Strong's own entry is unusually loaded: “the high-priest (literally, of the Jews, typically, Christ).” The plural here names the serving and deposed holders of the office plus the priestly aristocracy; Cambridge locates them “in the court of the palace of Caiaphas.” The office charged with presenting the Passover sacrifice is here convened to procure a death, and Ellicott notes that Mark and Luke both omit Caiaphas by name.
καὶkaiandG2532
√ καί — and, also, even, so then, too, etcConjunction
οἱhoiG3588
√ ὁ — the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom)ArticleNominative Masculine Plural
γραμματεῖςgrammateisscribesG1122
√ γραμματεύς — scribe, town-clerkNounNominative Masculine Plural
γραμματεύς: scribe The legal experts. Pulpit: “The two classes in the Sanhedrim who actually combined to put our Lord to death were those here mentioned by St. Mark,” where Matthew names the chief priests and the elders.
ἐζήτουνezētounwere looking forG2212
√ ζητέω — to seek (literally or figuratively)VerbImperfect Indicative Active3rd Person Plural
ζητέω: to seek The imperfect makes the search a condition rather than an event, and it is the same verb that will govern Judas at v. 11. Pulpit: “the verb with its tense implies continuous and eager desire.” Cambridge supplies the motive: their influence “was lost unless they were willing to take extreme measures.”
ἐνenvvvG1722
√ ἐν — "in," at, (up-)on, by, etcPreposition
δόλῳdolō[a] covertG1388
√ δόλος — compare G1185 (δελεάζω))NounDative Masculine Singular
δόλος: guile, bait Rare in the Greek Testament (11 verses). The lexicon ties it to G1185 δελεάζω, to entice with bait, so the word carries the picture of a trap baited for prey. Cambridge: “It was formally resolved therefore to take Him by craft, and for this purpose to wait and take advantage of the course of events.” The guile is forced on them by the crowd: Pulpit says “They used subtlety, because they feared lest he should escape out of their hands.”
πῶςpōswayG4459
√ πῶς — an interrogative particle of mannerAdverb
κρατήσαντεςkratēsantesto arrestG2902
√ κρατέω — to use strength, iVerbAorist Participle ActiveNominative Masculine Plural
κρατέω: to seize, to use strength Aorist participle of attendant circumstance. The word is plain physical apprehension, and the same root recurs through the arrest in the garden and the trial. Grammatically it is the means; the purpose clause that follows is the end.
αὐτὸνauton[Jesus]G846
√ αὐτός — the reflexive pronoun self, used (alone or in the comparative G1438 (ἑαυτοῦ)) of the third person , and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other personsPersonal / Possessive PronounAccusative Masculine 3rd Person Singular
ἀποκτείνωσινapokteinōsin[and] kill [Him]G615
√ ἀποκτείνω — to kill outrightVerbAorist Subjunctive Active3rd Person Plural
ἀποκτείνω: to kill outright Aorist subjunctive in a deliberative purpose construction governed by πῶς: the question they debate is not whether but how. Mark states the verdict before any trial has been held, which means every legal proceeding in the chapters ahead is, on Mark's own account, a procedure in search of a sentence already reached.
2

“But not during the feast,” they said, “or there may be a riot among the people.”

Berean Standard Bible · CC0

Greek — tap a word ↓

Mē en tē heortē gar elegon mē pote estai thorybos tou laou

Word by word12 · parsed
Μὴ[But] notG3361
√ μή — (adverb) not, (conjunction) lestAdverb
μή: not, lest The clause has no verb at all; the negative alone carries the decision.
ἐνenduringG1722
√ ἐν — "in," at, (up-)on, by, etcPreposition
τῇtheG3588
√ ὁ — the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom)ArticleDative Feminine Singular
ἑορτῇheortēfeastG1859
√ ἑορτή — a festivalNounDative Feminine Singular
ἑορτή: a festival Not the day but the whole seven-day block. JFB: “rather, not during the feast; not until the seven days of unleavened bread should be over.” The irony Mark leaves unstated is that this single clause is the one plan in the chapter that fails.
γάρgarG1063
√ γάρ — properly, assigning a reason (used in argument, explanation or intensificationConjunction
γάρ: for (assigning a reason) Explanatory; it makes v. 2 the ground of the guile in v. 1.
ἔλεγονelegonthey saidG2036
√ ἔπω — to speak or say (by word or writing)VerbImperfect Indicative Active3rd Person Plural
λέγω / ἔπω: to say Imperfect, “they were saying”: the deliberation is ongoing and repeated, matched to the imperfect ἐζήτουν of v. 1. Mark gives us a council mid-argument, not a finished decree.
μή‿orG3361
√ μή — (adverb) not, (conjunction) lestAdverb
μή: lest With ποτε it forms “lest at any time,” the idiom of anxious precaution.
ποτεpote. . .G4219
√ πότε — interrogative adverb, at what timeConjunction
πότε: at what time Enclitic here rather than interrogative; it generalises the fear across the whole festival.
ἔσταιestaithere may beG1510
√ εἰμί — I exist (used only when emphatic)VerbFuture Indicative Middle3rd Person Singular
εἰμί: to be (future) The future indicative under a fear clause is the strong form: the tumult is treated as a fact waiting to happen. Their calendar is set by what they expect the crowd to do.
θόρυβοςthorybosa riotG2351
√ θόρυβος — a disturbanceNounNominative Masculine Singular
θόρυβος: a disturbance Rare, 7 verses in the Greek Testament (Verifier). Mark has already used it for the wailing crowd at Jairus' house (Mark 5:38), and the same word names what Pilate sees rising as he washes his hands (Matthew 27:24). JFB estimates “some two million people” inside the walls at the festival and calls the danger “extreme,” citing Josephus. The rulers' one precaution is against this noun, and it is precisely this noun that the trial produces anyway.
τοῦtouamong theG3588
√ ὁ — the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom)ArticleGenitive Masculine Singular
ὁ: the Article with the genitive; it makes the crowd definite, the people as a body.
λαοῦlaoupeopleG2992
√ λαός — a people (in generalNounGenitive Masculine Singular
λαός: a people The covenant word, the assembly of Israel, not the generic ὄχλος of the streets. Gill: they feared “lest they should rise in his favour, and rescue him out of their hands.” ⚙ The measure of the council in this verse is that the only power it reckons with is the λαός; the God whose feast it is does not enter the calculation.

The verse-by-verse work is done. What follows gathers the whole unit. All three layers below are machine-generated (⚙). Weigh them; they have no authority.

Grand Commentary — the unit, read whole

synthesis · verify

AI synthesis — woven from the public-domain voices above and the original text; generated and fallible.

i. The clock they did not set — 14:1

Mark opens the Passion with a date, not an action: τὸ πάσχα καὶ τὰ ἄζυμα stands two days off, and a single imperfect verb Ἦν holds both names together. Pulpit reads the grammar as the plain sense: “It was one and the same festival.” Cambridge keeps the distinction the calendar keeps, Passover on 14 Nisan and the seven unleavened days from the 15th, “deriving its name from the Mazzoth, or unleavened cakes,” and notes that “From their close connection they are generally treated as one.” Ellicott observes that the doubled name is characteristic of Mark and Luke, “an explanation intended for Gentile readers,” and connects that same Gentile horizon with their shared omission of Caiaphas. Gill fills the name with its content: the feast commemorates “God's passing over the houses of the Israelites, when he destroyed the firstborn of Egypt,” and “was kept by eating the passover lamb.” ⚙ Before any human plan is reported, the reader has been handed a slain lamb, a spared household, and a countdown.

ii. By guile: the grammar of the conspiracy — 14:1

Three verb forms carry the plot. ἐζήτουν is imperfect, and Pulpit will not let it pass as a single meeting: “The verb with its tense implies continuous and eager desire.” κρατήσαντες is an aorist participle, the seizing; ἀποκτείνωσιν is the subjunctive that the whole sentence exists to reach. The interrogative πῶς is decisive: the council is not asking whether, only how. The manner is ἐν δόλῳ, a noun Strong's glosses by way of G1185 δελεάζω, to bait a trap. Barnes: “By craft - By subtlety (Matthew); that is, by some secret plan that would secure possession of him without exciting the opposition of the people.” Cambridge says the guile was a formal resolution, adopted so as “to wait and take advantage of the course of events and of any favourable opportunity,” and explains the pressure behind it: their influence “was lost unless they were willing to take extreme measures,” while the Triumphal Entry had shown them His hold on the crowds, “especially the bold and hardy mountaineers of Galilee.” Pulpit adds the fear underneath the craft, that “he should escape out of their hands.” ⚙ Guile is what power resorts to when it has lost the argument in public.

iii. Not during the feast: a resolution overruled — 14:2

The council's one recorded decision is a negative with no verb: Μὴ ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ. JFB renders it “not until the seven days of unleavened bread should be over,” and supplies the arithmetic of the fear, “some two million people” within the walls, “and in their excited state, the danger of tumult and bloodshed among ‘the people,’ who for the most part took Jesus for a prophet, was extreme.” Gill gives the same fear from the inside: they would not seize Him then “lest they should rise in his favour, and rescue him out of their hands.” Then Mark's narrative overturns the minute. JFB, citing Bengel, marks the reversal: “So, just at the feast time shall it be done; the unexpected offer of Judas relieving them of their fears. Thus, as Bengel remarks, did the divine counsel take effect.” Pulpit states the same conclusion from providence: “Their first intention, therefore, was not to destroy him until after the close of the Paschal feast; but they were overruled by the course of events, all ordered by God's never-failing providence.” Geneva had already put it as doctrine at v. 1: “By the will of God, against the counsel of men, it came to pass that Christ should be put to death upon the solemn day of the passover, that in all respects the truth of his sacrifice might agree to the symbol of the passover.” ⚙ Four independent commentators, Reformed and Anglican alike, converge on one reading: the only clause in this unit that fails is the one the conspirators wrote.

Read under Sola Scriptura — this tool’s own fallible reading (⚙)

⚙ Fallible, offered to be tested. Two sentences of Mark contain two calendars. The first is God's, announced in a single word, πάσχα, the feast of a lamb killed so that a people might be passed over. The second is the council's, drafted in a room and reduced to four words with no verb in them: not in the feast. Everything in Mark 14 turns on which calendar holds. The rulers are not portrayed as irrational: their fear of a θόρυβος is sober politics, and Cambridge is right that a tumult would have brought Pilate down on them. But the fear is entirely horizontal. The genitive λαοῦ names the only power in their calculus, and it is a power they mean to manage, not obey; the God whose festival they are about to administer never appears in the deliberation at all. That is the sin the text exposes before it exposes Judas. ⚙ And the outcome should be read with care, because it cuts two ways. Their plan is defeated, yet its defeat does not vindicate them by accident: Judas walks in, and the arrest lands inside the very week they had ruled out, so that the death falls at the hour of the lamb. Providence here does not sanctify the guile; it overrules it. The men are wholly responsible for a decision Mark records as reached before any trial (πῶς, how, not whether), and God is wholly sovereign over its timing. Where JFB quotes Bengel and Pulpit appeals to “God's never-failing providence,” this tool would add only the caution that the doctrine is a reading of the outcome, not a statement Mark makes; Mark simply reports the resolution and then, four verses later, reports it collapsing.

The one clause in this passage that fails is the clause the conspirators wrote. (⚙ synthesis, not a verse of Scripture.)

Canonical Threads — out to the whole of Scripture

cross-refs · verify

AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.

The synoptic minute: Matthew's record of the same council verbal / quotation: confirmed

Matthew 26:4-5 records the identical resolution in largely identical vocabulary: the seizing (κρατέω), the killing (ἀποκτείνω), the guile (δόλος), the refusal of the feast (ἑορτή) and the feared tumult (θόρυβος) of the λαός. Ellicott, Barnes, Benson and Gill all read Mark here through Matthew; Barnes simply refers the reader there, and Pulpit notes where the two differ, since Matthew names “the chief priests and the elders of the people” where Mark names the scribes. Matthew adds, as Cambridge and JFB both report, that the council met in the palace of Caiaphas.

Matthew 26:4 · Matthew 26:5

basis: Verifier: shared Greek lexemes with Matthew 26:4, G1388 δόλος (rare, in 11 vv), G2902 κρατέω (in 46 vv), G615 ἀποκτείνω (in 70 vv); with Matthew 26:5, G2351 θόρυβος (rare, in 7 vv), G1859 ἑορτή (in 23 vv), G2992 λαός (in 138 vv). Two rare lexemes plus a shared clause structure inside a synoptic parallel: verbal dependence between Gospels, not a quotation of one by the other.

θόρυβος: the tumult they planned around, and got anyway verbal / quotation: confirmed

The noun the council fears is rare, seven verses in all. Mark has used it once already, of the uproar of mourners at Jairus' house (Mark 5:38), where Jesus walks into the noise and raises a child. At Matthew 27:24 it returns as the thing Pilate sees rising while he washes his hands, and in Acts it names the riots that surround Paul (Acts 21:34, Acts 24:18). ⚙ Read across the cluster, the irony is structural rather than verbal: the whole plan of Mark 14:2 exists to prevent a θόρυβος, and the crucifixion happens in the middle of one.

Mark 5:38 · Matthew 27:24 · Acts 21:34 · Acts 24:18

basis: Verifier: shared Greek lexeme G2351 θόρυβος (rare, in 7 vv) links all four references to Mark 14:2. The lexical link is confirmed; the ironic reading built on it is ⚙ synthesis, and no reference quotes another.

The Passover calendar across the synoptics verbal / quotation: confirmed

Luke 22:1 names the same two-fold feast in the same two words and, like Mark, glosses one by the other; Mark 14:12 and Matthew 26:17 then date the meal by the day “when they killed the Passover lamb.” Cambridge fixes the sequence: Passover on 14 Nisan, unleavened bread from the 15th for seven days, “and Josephus, on one occasion, even describes it as ‘a feast for eight days.’” The same pair of words carries the calendar into Acts 12:3 and Acts 20:6, where the church's own movements are still dated by it.

Luke 22:1 · Luke 22:7 · Mark 14:12 · Matthew 26:17 · Acts 12:3 · Acts 20:6

basis: Verifier: shared Greek lexemes G3957 πάσχα (in 27 vv) and G106 ἄζυμος (rare, in 9 vv), with G2250 ἡμέρα (in 368 vv) in the dating formulas. A shared rare lexeme pair used as a fixed calendrical idiom; no reference quotes another.

The lamb of the feast: Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy behind the date typological

Everything the word πάσχα carries comes from the legislation of the feast: the lamb taken and killed and its blood on the doorposts (Exodus 12:1-20), its fixed place in the festal calendar (Leviticus 23:5-8), and the command that it be kept at the place the LORD chooses, with the bread of affliction (Deuteronomy 16:1-8). Gill states the substance without the citation: the feast commemorates “God's passing over the houses of the Israelites, when he destroyed the firstborn of Egypt,” and JFB, citing Exodus 12:12-13 and Exodus 12:18-20, calls the whole institution a “bright typical foreshadowing of the great Sacrifice, and the Redemption effected thereby.” ⚙ Mark says none of this. He only sets the date, and lets the legislation do the rest.

Exodus 12:1-20 · Leviticus 23:5-8 · Deuteronomy 16:1-8

basis: Cross-Testament (Greek to Hebrew), so no shared Strong's number is possible and no verbal tier is available. The link is figural and it is the clearest case in the unit: the feast at which a lamb is killed frames the killing Mark reports. Attested ancient and widely-held, stated explicitly by JFB and Geneva on this verse; the typological weight is theirs, not this tool's invention.

The rulers take counsel together structural / thematic: confirmed

Psalm 2:1-2 sets the pattern the scene reproduces: the nations rage, and the rulers take counsel together against the LORD and against His anointed. Mark's sentence has the same three elements, a formal deliberation, an assembly of office-holders, and a single man as its object. ⚙ The Psalm is not quoted here and Mark makes no claim of fulfilment at this point; the resemblance is one of shape. Geneva's comment reaches the same theology from the other side, that this came to pass “By the will of God, against the counsel of men.”

Psalm 2:1-2

basis: Cross-Testament (Greek to Hebrew): no shared Strong's lexeme is possible, so no verbal tier. The recorded basis is a shared pattern (rulers in council against the anointed), not a quotation; Mark makes no citation formula here. The Verifier returned no candidate for this pair, so the link is ⚙ editorial, offered as thematic only.

The whispering of those who plot a life structural / thematic: confirmed

The Psalter has a settled vocabulary for exactly this: the whispering of many and the scheming to take a life (Psalm 31:13), the secret counsel of evildoers who sharpen their tongues and lay snares (Psalm 64:2-6), and the prophet who learns he was a lamb led to the slaughter while they devised devices against him (Jeremiah 11:19). ⚙ Mark's ἐν δόλῳ belongs to that world of language, and Jeremiah 11:19 is the nearest in figure, since it joins the plotting to the image of the unknowing lamb. The link is a motif, not a citation, and Mark gives no signal that he intends any of these texts.

Psalm 31:13 · Psalm 64:2-6 · Jeremiah 11:19

basis: Cross-Testament (Greek to Hebrew): shared Strong's numbers are impossible, so the pairing cannot be tiered verbal. Basis is a shared motif of covert plotting against a life; no Verifier candidate exists for these pairs, so this is ⚙ editorial and deliberately under-claimed. Jeremiah 11:19 could be read typologically, but since Mark neither quotes nor alludes explicitly, it is kept at thematic.

Christ our Passover: Paul reading the same two words typological

Paul takes the identical pair of terms, the Passover and the unleavened, and turns them into the church's self-description: Christ our Passover has been sacrificed, therefore keep the feast (1 Corinthians 5:7-8). JFB makes the same move on this verse, that “by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” it was ordered that “precisely at the passover season, ‘Christ our Passover should be sacrificed for us,’” and refers the reader to 1 Corinthians 5:6-8. ⚙ Mark is not quoting Paul nor Paul Mark; what they share is the vocabulary of the feast, which Paul reads figurally and Mark reports as a date.

1 Corinthians 5:7 · 1 Corinthians 5:8

basis: Verifier: shared Greek lexemes G3957 πάσχα (in 27 vv) and G106 ἄζυμος (rare, in 9 vv), so a real verbal overlap exists. The tier is nevertheless kept at typological because the claim being made is figural (Christ as the Passover victim), not a quotation of one text by the other. Attested ancient and widely-held; JFB cites the Pauline text here himself.

δόλος on the other side of the ledger verbal / quotation: confirmed

The word chosen for the council's method is the word the apostolic paraenesis forbids: let him keep his lips from speaking guile, if he would love life and see good days (1 Peter 3:10, itself citing the Psalter). ⚙ The contrast is exact at the level of the lexeme and worth stating plainly: the men holding the highest office in Israel adopt as policy the one thing the Scriptures tell the righteous to put away.

1 Peter 3:10

basis: Verifier: shared Greek lexeme G1388 δόλος (rare, in 11 vv), with G2250 ἡμέρα (in 368 vv). Both references are New Testament Greek, so the verbal link is real; it is a shared lexeme, not a quotation of Mark by Peter, and 1 Peter's own quotation is of the Psalter, not of this passage. The moral contrast drawn is ⚙ synthesis.

Christ in the Unittypology · verify

AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.

Killed at the feast of the lamb ancient/widely-held

The date Mark gives is the whole christological claim of the unit, and he makes it without a word of comment. Gill sets out what the feast was: the memorial of the night God passed over the houses marked with blood, “kept by eating the passover lamb.” JFB draws the line explicitly, calling the Exodus institution a “bright typical foreshadowing of the great Sacrifice, and the Redemption effected thereby,” and concluding that “by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God … it was so ordered that precisely at the passover season, ‘Christ our Passover should be sacrificed for us.’” Geneva says the same in the language of sign and thing signified: it came to pass “that in all respects the truth of his sacrifice might agree to the symbol of the passover.” Pulpit closes the argument from the other end, that the plan to avoid the feast collapsed so that “the type be satisfied. For the lamb slain at the Passover was a type of the very Paschal Lamb to be sacrificed at that particular time, in the predetermined purpose of God.” ⚙ Four independent witnesses, and the text supplies only the calendar.

Exodus 12:1-20 · 1 Corinthians 5:7

Their counsel and the determinate counsel ancient/widely-held

Mark sets two decisions side by side without evaluating either. The council resolves Μὴ ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ; the resolution fails. JFB, following Bengel, marks the moment: “So, just at the feast time shall it be done; the unexpected offer of Judas relieving them of their fears. Thus, as Bengel remarks, did the divine counsel take effect.” Pulpit says it as providence: “they were overruled by the course of events, all ordered by God's never-failing providence.” Geneva says it as decree: “By the will of God, against the counsel of men.” The apostolic formula JFB borrows is Acts 2:23, which holds both halves at once, a man delivered up by the determinate counsel of God and taken by lawless hands. ⚙ This unit is that verse in narrative form: the guile is fully theirs, the hour is not.

Acts 2:23 · Psalm 2:1-2

The high priests and the High Priest novel

Strong's entry for ἀρχιερεύς carries its own double sense: “the high-priest (literally, of the Jews, typically, Christ).” In this verse the word is plural and it is the subject of a plot; the men whose office is to present the Passover sacrifice convene to procure a death. JFB notes, on this same verse, that with the discourses now finished “from His prophetical He is now passing into His priestly office.” ⚙ The reading offered here is that Mark's plural ἀρχιερεῖς and the singular priesthood of Christ meet in this sentence: the office in its official hands is arranging a killing, while the one being arranged for is entering the priesthood the office was always a shadow of. That the Passion transfers the priesthood to Christ is ancient and widely-held (JFB states the transition here); the specific reading of Mark's plural noun as the hinge of that irony is this tool's own, and should be tested.

Mark 14:1

Apparatus & Provenance

The biblical text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain (CC0). Hebrew/Greek text, transliteration, morphology and Strong’s are transcribed from the Berean interlinear (CC0) + Strong’s lexicons (PD); the literal renderings, divergence notes, word notes and all synthesis are this tool’s own work (⚙) — fallible; verify them.

Named voices, quoted verbatim from public-domain works:

  • Albert Barnes, Notes on the Bible (1834)
  • Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, (1880s)
  • Charles Ellicott, Commentary for English Readers (1878)
  • Geneva Study Bible, Marginal Notes (1599)
  • Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory (1871)
  • John Gill, Exposition of the Entire Bible (1746–63)
  • The Pulpit Commentary, Spence & Exell, eds. (1880s)

⚙ Honesty notes for this unit. (1) Sources: several commentators deliberately give Mark 14:1-2 only a passing note because they treat Matthew as the fuller account. Barnes writes “See this passage explained in the notes at Matthew 26:1-16,” Benson refers the reader to Matthew 26:1-13 and then spends his entry on the anointing at Bethany (Mark 14:3-9), which is outside this unit, and Poole's note on 14:2 is nothing but “See Poole on Mark 14:1.” Poole is therefore not quoted here. Matthew Henry's entry covers 14:1-11 as a block and speaks mostly of the ointment and of Judas, so his remarks are not specific to these two verses either. (2) The brief's [JFB] entry for 14:1 has a chapter outline appended to it that reads as Poole's section headings rather than JFB's own exposition; no quotation has been drawn from that portion. (3) Uncertain in the text itself: the gloss column of the interlinear leaves γάρ (14:2) and one ἐν (14:1) unglossed, and Pulpit's transcription of ἐζήτουν appears in the source as “ἐλήτουν,” an obvious typographical slip in the printed commentary; the parse in the interlinear (Imperfect Indicative Active, 3rd Person Plural of G2212) is what has been followed. (4) The μήποτε clause with a future indicative ἔσται is the reading of the Berean text used here; readers of other critical editions may find a subjunctive, and nothing in this synthesis depends on which is original beyond the nuance noted in the divergence. (5) Chronology: JFB dates this council to the Wednesday of Passion week and then states that the anointing which follows in Mark's narrative happened four days earlier, that is, Mark's order here is topical rather than strictly sequential. That is JFB's harmonisation, not Mark's claim, and this unit does not depend on it. (6) Cross-Testament threads (Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, the Psalms, Jeremiah) cannot carry shared Strong's numbers and are tiered typological or thematic accordingly; the Psalm 2, Psalm 31, Psalm 64 and Jeremiah 11 pairings returned no Verifier candidate at all and are marked as this tool's own editorial links, deliberately under-claimed. (7) The christ section's third entry is marked novel on purpose: the priestly irony of the plural ἀρχιερεῖς is a reading, not a datum.

= human, public-domain source, quoted and named. = machine synthesis, to be verified. Flagged cross-references are left visible on purpose — the verifier working in the open. “Search the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)