The chapter can be divided into seven portions as follows:

1-2 The priests consult to put Him to death

3-9 The house in Bethany

10-11 Judas agrees to betray Him

12-31 The upper room

32-52 Gethsemane

53-65 The palace of Caiphas

66-72 Peter's denials

The same seven divisions can be found in Matthew 26. In many ways, Mark is an abbreviated version of Matthew. Both are written more or less in chronological order. Mark is briefer because it is a record of deeds rather than lengthy discourses.

It is strange that Luke makes no reference to the house in Bethany in chapter 22 strange because Luke alone tells us about the Lord's first visit to the home in chapter 10. Nor we do we read in Luke of the Lord's appearance before Caiaphas in the palace.

1 After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death.
2 But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar of the people.

At first sight, there may appear to be difference between Mark and John regarding the time of this visit. In chapter 12, John begins:

Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany,

Both writers are correct of course. Verses 1 and 2 refer to one incident in Jerusalem from verse 3 to verse 9 we have the record of an earlier event that took place in Bethany. In Matthew 26, it is the Lord who is speaking, and He tells His disciples that at the Passover, He would be betrayed to be crucified. The Lord gives two vital bits of information

1. That He would be betrayed
2. That He would be crucified

Obviously however His words were lost on the disciples.

But what do we learn from the opening verses of Mark? It was a time of year when every Jew should have been sweeping his house to ensure there was no leaven present. Leaven speaks of sin, so for seven days, during the feast of unleavened bread, no leaven was to be found. But what were the chief priests and scribes doing at this time. They were plotting evil how they might kill the Lord Jesus. There was only one thing they had qualms about they didn't want it to be on the feast day, on the Passover. They knew that the city would be crowded with pilgrims, many of whom would have heard of Jesus of Nazareth indeed some may have believed on Him. That is why in John's gospel, we read of the undue haste in trying and convicting the Lord Jesus, and in having Him crucified. They are up all night bringing the Lord before one trial after another, and it is still early when they arrive at the house of Pilate.

Now in verse 3, we learn of what took place in Bethany. The most striking thing about Mark's account and that also of Matthew are the different details between that of John. Hence Matthew and Mark speak of:

Simon the leper
An unnamed woman
His head anointed

This has led some to come to the conclusion that two different incidents are being described. But there are possible answers to these difficulties. Simon the leper could well have been the husband of Martha. Luke 10 tells us that Martha received Him into her house. If Martha was the wife of Simon, she would have the right to give the invitation. needless to say, Simon would by now be a healed leper but was perhaps still known as Simon the leper.

There is also nothing contradictory in the fact that Mary is not named here. And what about the anointing of His head here, compared to His feet in John 12? It is possible that she anointed both His head and His feet. To anoint His feet gave Him more respect than the anointing of His head. In the house of Simon the Pharisee, the Lord says to Simon, My head with oil didst not anoint, but this woman hath anointed My feet (Luke chapter 8). So, with all these differences, are we talking about the same event? We have to look at the points that do match. Bethany is mentioned in Matthew, Mark, and John. Mark and John both describe the ointment as spikenard

Mark - an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious
John - a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly

The value of the ointment is said to be 300 pence in three of the gospels.

In Mark 14, the Lord pours the greatest praise on the woman for her deed.

1. she hath wrought a good work on me.
2. She hath done what she could:
3. she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.
4. Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.

I have no doubt that it was Judas who first raised the objection, but soon the objections are taken up by the other apostles. Men generally have no time for worshipping the Lord. Believers also can be reticent in their praise.

10 And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them.
11 And when they heard it, they were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray him.

It is John who tells us that Judas was a thief. He was the treasurer of this little band and no doubt had been helping himself to whatever he could. In Bethany, he watched as 300 pence of ointment was poured out on the Lord. 300 pence represented a year's wages for a labouring man. The greed in the heart of Judas is stirred up by this lost opportunity. It is then that Satan puts it into his heart to betray the Lord.

There is never any suggestion that Judas hated the Lord. In Matthew chapter 27, we read that Judas repented himself when he saw that He was condemned. He had seen the Lord escape death before on the cliff top in Nazareth, on the sea of Galilee in the midst of a storm, and in Jerusalem when men picked up stones to stone Him. He never thought for one minute that they would be able to take Him prisoner. He would play his part, take the money, and walk away.

Little did he know it but Judas was not only carrying out the will of Satan, he was fulfilling the scriptures which had been written about himself. The prophet Zechariah had written centuries before about how much the betrayer of the Lord would receive thirty pieces of silver. The prophet even goes on to describe how that money would be scattered upon the temple floor, gathered up, then given to the potter to purchase his field.

Up until this moment, the chief priests had a problem how to take the Lord in the absence of the people. It must have seemed like an answer to prayer when the door opened and in walked one of His disciples. Judas promised them to seek a convenient time the idea is to find a suitable time when he might betray Him.

Can we learn any lessons from the defection of Judas? It surely warns us just how far profession can go. Even a disciple, having kept company with the Lord and His disciples for over three years could betray him for a handful of silver.