Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Mark

[Drew Michael]

Growing up with a good Christian upbringing I've heard the story of the gospels many times. Recently going through Mark and came to the time of Jesus arrest in Mark 14. At the end of Jesus arrest in verse 50 it says "and all his disciples forsook him and fled." In the other 3 gospels that is the end of that scene and they pick up with Peter following from afar and this leads to Peters triple denile. But in Mark it follows in verse 51 and 52. Mark 14:51-52 NIV
[51] A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, [52] he fled naked, leaving his garment behind. Peaking my interest I seek more info from the other gospels and sure enough, Mark was the only one to mention this.
In other gospels it mentions how Perter travels with "another disciple". Some footnotes mentions the other disciple as "he whom I love" which points to John. Even if it was John why doesn't it mention this naked man by name and why is Mark the only Gospel to give the account of this young man in this scenario.

[jimwalton]

Great question, and glad to answer. One of the distinctive markers of Mark's Gospel is the complete failure of the disciples. As you read through the entire Gospel, I think there's only once where the disciples do or say anything right, and that would be Peter's confession at the climax of the book in 8.29. Other than that, every single time the disciples appear, they are blowing it. The Gospel even ends (16.8) with the failure of his followers.

Mark's Gospel is also filled with irony (many many scenes and stories), and this one is no different. The term used for "young man" is νεανίσκος, designating young men who are exceptionally strong and courageous, or faithful and wise. This guy was zero for 4.

This detail adds to Mark's thesis of the total failure of Jesus' followers. This unnamed young man is so desperate to escape he's willing to leave his garment behind to save his own skin: "Every man for himself! Run away, run away!!" It emphasizes the complete failure of Jesus' friends to support him when the moment came.

The man was a follower of Jesus (15.51). To "follow" was what the disciples had been called by Jesus to do, and what they had been doing. they had left all to follow. Here's more irony. When it really counted to be a follower, the man distinctly "un-followed". Instead of following, he fled. Instead of following his call, he followed his fear. They had left all to follow Jesus; now the man is willing to leave all to flee Jesus. It's a fantastic literary technique, captured in a few short verses.

You should know that we don't know who the guy is. The text doesn't say, and there are no other clues. Traditionally it is thought to be Mark himself, a resident of Jerusalem (where his mother, Mary, seems to have been well integrated into the Christian community (Acts 1212, 25). He was also a good friend of Peter's (1 Peter 5.13), and Mark may have been a follower of Jesus, though not one of the 12. People think he may have included this because (1) he was there, (2) and it was him, and (3) he was embarrassed to name himself.

Other theories are that it was the Apostle John (Jn. 18.15-16, as you said), James (according to some traditions of the Church Fathers. James was Jesus' brother, and an unbeliever at the time), a type of "Joseph" character (Gn. 39.12), or Lazarus of Bethany. There's no way we can know. The possibilities are intriguing.

Mark's point is not the identity of the man, but his actions confirming Mark's thesis: everybody but everybody deserted Jesus. Some scholars see symbolism in the event. Abraham Kuruvilla writes, "The only other instance of σινδόνα (linen garment) in this Gospel refers to the linen burial shroud of Jesus (Mk. 15.46). It is to be remembered that Jesus was stripped twice during his humiliation: once when he was disrobed to dress him in purple and again when the purple was removed (15.17, 20).
Symbolically, in utterly discreditable circumstances, the disciple is stripped of his linen cloth, and symbolically the linen cloth becomes Jesus’ burial cloth following an equally degrading assassination."

The shameful nudity of the man mirrors the shameful nudity of Jesus the following day. His unfaithfulness contrasts Jesus' faithfulness.

Another interesting (but unprovable) possibility. Jesus restored Peter after Peter's shameful denial (John 21). Is it possible that Jesus restored Mark after Mark's "shameful denial" by calling him to write a Gospel? Verrrrry interesting, but all speculation.