Mark 14:43-52 | Session 58 | Mark Rightly Divided
👉 Click below for a PDF version
https://humble-sidecar-837.notion.site/Mark-14-43-52-Session-58-Mark-Rightly-Divided-152b35a87d6380689e31cf8b894de425?pvs=4
----------
Mark 14:43-49 | The Betrayal and Arrest
Mark 14:43-45 | The Betrayal
Verse 43 -
Having just announced that the betrayer was at hand, Jesus sees them appear with Judas, who is noted as being "one of the twelve"—fulfilling the prophecy of Mark 14:20. The leadership of the nation arrives with Judas: the chief priests, scribes, and elders. Showing their perceived risk in arresting Jesus, they bring "a great multitude with swords and staves."
A stave, as used here, refers to a staff, rod, or club, often used as a weapon or tool. Derived from the Old English word "stæf", meaning "staff," "rod," or "stick."
Verse 44 -
Judas had given the sign of a kiss as the testimony that "this is the one." This seems puzzling, since the leadership had been face-to-face with Jesus many times and would surely recognize Him. I believe this signal was less about identification and more about Judas indicating the optimal moment to proceed with the arrest.
This kiss, laden with duplicity, illustrates the depth of Judas' deceit. Proverbs 27:6 captures this dynamic perfectly: Judas, an enemy masquerading as a friend, used a symbol of intimacy to betray the very one he outwardly professed to follow. His kiss stands in stark opposition to the wounds of a faithful friend, who would speak truth or take action for the benefit of the other, even when it hurts.
The Greek root word (a negation of sphallo, meaning "to fail") suggests that "lead him away safely" should be understood as "lead him away without fail," not as instructions for Jesus's protection. This interpretation reinforces that Judas acted with complete determination. Both ancient Greek and archaic English used "safely" to mean "assuredly" or "confidently."
Verse 45 -
Immediately, Judas approaches Jesus, saying "Master, master" with all the subtlety of a serpent. He kissed him. The Greek word for kiss here is κατεφίλησεν (katephilēsen), a brotherly expression of love. This intimate gesture heightens the severity of the betrayal. As recorded in Matthew, Jesus' response was "Friend, wherefore art thou come?"
Critical texts remove the second "Master" (Rabbi), claiming it was a scribal embellishment. However, the double repetition of a name or title is a Hebrew literary device that conveys deep emotional intimacy. This pattern appears throughout Scripture, as seen in these examples:
Genesis 22:11 - "And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham"
Genesis 46:2 - "And God spake unto Israel in the visions of the night, and said, Jacob, Jacob"
Exodus 3:4 - "God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses"
1 Samuel 3:10 - "The LORD came, and stood, and called as at other times, Samuel, Samuel"
Mark 14:46-49 | The Arrest
Verse 46 -
Mark's gospel is the shortest of the four and often provides only basic information. John 18:5-9 records more of the conversation. In what seems almost an understatement, the arrest of Jesus has been accomplished.
Note also, that none of those with Jesus at the time seemed to have any indication that Judas had come to betray him. And it is not until “And they laid their hands on him, and took him.” that they reacted at all. Supporting previous arguments that they did not know who would betray Jesus.
Verse 47 -
Like verse 46, Mark's Gospel is understated, providing only basic facts. Only the fourth Gospel identifies "the one who stood by" as Peter. The earlier Gospel writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke) may have omitted Peter's name to protect him from prosecution, while John, writing later, could safely name him. Mark's account also omits that Jesus healed the servant's ear.
Verses 48-49 -
Jesus, looking the chief priests in the eye, asks them directly why they arrived with an armed garrison when they could have seized Him at any time while He taught in the Temple. Though subtle, this question serves as a clear testimony to Jesus' scorn for the self-serving, political, and manipulative nature of the Jewish leadership. Those who insist that our Savior was always "gentle Jesus, meek and mild" should carefully consider this verse. No matter how these words are interpreted, they can only be seen as scathing.
Jesus states that these events fulfill prophetic scripture (v. 49). Though He doesn't specify which scriptures, several Old Testament passages had foreshadowed this moment:
The betrayal by a friend: "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me" (Psalm 41:9)
Being delivered to transgressors: "He was taken from prison and from judgment... he was cut off out of the land of the living" (Isaiah 53:8)
Mark 14:50-52 | The Fleeing Followers
Verse 50 -
In the commentary on Mark 14:27, I noted that the disciples' fleeing was temporary, since some (John) and nearly all (except Judas and Thomas) were present on Sunday night of the resurrection. Furthermore, Peter was in the courtyard of the High Priest, so he did not flee far. Additionally, John 18:15 tells us that "another disciple" even went in with Jesus to the palace of the high priest, that unnamed disciple having some connection to the high priest. Nonetheless, Mark 14:27 has been fulfilled in verse 50, and Jesus is left to face the situation alone.
Verses 51-52 -
These two short verses in the Gospel of Mark are intriguing, to say the least. Why are they there? Is there some doctrinal significance? And, of course, the question on everyone’s mind: who was that naked man?
Spiritual Significance
Commentaries run the gamut of craziness attempting to put some spiritual significance to this event. Unfortunatly, in doing so, they quickly fall into the trap of spiritualizing and mysticism. One of my cardinal rules of Biblical interpretation is this: do not make a doctrine out of an historical account. This simple rule has saved me, and will save you, from many doctrinal errors.
All Scripture is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16), but not all scripture passages have a doctrinal lesson. In this case, I believe, we have an historical lesson: a young man was there who nearly got arrested with Jesus.
Nearly Arrested?
I think that the historical significance of the story rests in the fact that the guards who were arresting Jesus also “laid hold on him.” That is, this young man in a linen cloth was almost arrested along with Jesus.
Why? What crime had he committed? Why did they want this man in custody?
It is seriously doubtful that, on a busy holiday night, a band of soldiers sent from the high priest would have interest in arresting a young man simply for being there, scantily clad or not. The text clearly shows us that they were after Jesus alone. Judas would give positive identification of Jesus, who would be arrested under the darkness of night, and the chief priests would have their man. Nobody else was under investigation, it appears.
After all, even Peter, James, and John, if not all of the 11, were with Jesus when He was arrested. And Peter, “having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear” (Jn. 18:10, KJV. Why would the guards not arrest Peter, who was both a ringleader and had committed a violent crime? It is clear that the band of soldiers, sent from the high priest, was only interested in arresting Jesus.
Well, Jesus, and the man in the linen cloth.
Which forces us to say, who was that naked man?
The “standard evangelical answer” is that the man is John Mark, author of the Gospel, and that this is simply his signature to say, “I was there.” This answer has been given so many times that it is almost recited without question. It fails in one key point, however: why would they want to arrest John Mark when they didn’t want to arrest any of the other eleven?
Another Option
As we consider the options, they are few. We are looking for a young man who would have been so much a part of Jesus’ ministry that he wasn’t just a random passerby, caught at the wrong time and wrong place. This young man needs to be of some apparent wealth (neither then nor now would a linen cloth be inexpensive). Our suspect would also need to have had a reason to (presumably) get out of bed and go looking for Jesus. And, most importantly, we need a young man whom the authorities would want arrested.
Let’s consider a very prominent figure in the ministry of Jesus: Lazarus.
While we do not know his age, we could easily presume him to be a young man. He and Jesus (a young man Himself) were best of friends (John 11:36](https://ref.ly/John%2011.36;kjv1900?t=biblia)). Every appearance is that Lazarus was a man of wealth, for it was his sister Mary who took “a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus” ([Jn. 12:3, KJV. Furthermore, it seems that Jesus was staying at the home of Lazarus during the final week leading up to the arrest, so Lazarus could have easily become concerned that Jesus had not yet arrived, left his home in his linen cloth, and headed to the nearby Garden of Gethsemane.
But would the chief priests have wanted to arrest Lazarus?
At the raising of Lazarus, the chief priests became verbally concerned about the work of Jesus. “Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles” (Jn. 11:47). In fact, it was the raising of Lazarus that caused Caiaphas to say, “it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not” (Jn. 11:50).
Furthermore, we are told in John 12:, in the context leading up to the arrest of Jesus —
> Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus’ sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead. But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus. –John 12:9-11, KJV [emphasis mine].
It seems to me that Lazarus is the only person of interest.
He is likely young.
He would have been expecting Jesus and have gone looking for Him when He didn’t arrive.
He was of the financial means to have a linen cloth.
He was the only person of whom the Scripture tells us that was under consideration by the chief priests for arrest.
But if this is the case, why wouldn’t Mark have just mentioned his name? My best guess is that his name was omitted for his own safety. At the time of the writing of Mark (some say as early as 50 AD), Lazarus would have likely still been alive. To protect his identity and the fact of his almost arrest, Mark omitted the name.
Will We Ever Know?
We cannot ever know for sure. One thing is for sure, however. We should question the assumptions on standard evangelical answers, and always try to build a solid case based on solid assumptions, always recognizing where the weak points of the argument are found. As for me, I think Lazarus was that naked man in the garden.
