NEW INSIGHTS INTO MARK 14:30-72

New Insights into Mark 14:30-72

I will call the thoughts below “new” insights even though some of them may be old to you. However, even at my own advanced age and supposed familiarity with most of the Bible, I was powerfully reminded today from a sermon on the Garden of Gethsemane that there are still so many more gems hidden in the text that remain yet to be discovered. Below are a few insights that I had picked up on earlier as well as new ones that I become acquainted with this Sunday.

1. The pastor pointed out that there was a possible connection between the events in Mark 14:32-52 and those in Genesis 3. In that earlier passage, mankind was removed from intimate contact with God due to Adam and Eve's failure to heed His command. Similarly, after the failure of the disciples to stay awake in the garden, they are scattered by fleeing from Jesus (verses 50-51). So restoration of that union needed to wait until the perfect man, Jesus Christ, came to provide for us what we could not do for ourselves. Some specific details connecting both stories include the fact that both events happened in gardens; it is here that both the original pair and Jesus are subjected to the greatest tests of their lives; and both involve people who become naked (Mark 14:52) or realize that they are naked (Genesis 3:7).

2. There are two anonymous personages in Mark 14: the follower who cuts off Malchus' ear and the young follower who fled, leaving his cloak behind. Supposition as to their identity leads most scholars to feel that Peter was the first person. There is no definite proof of that fact, but it certainly would fit his reputation as one who charged ahead without really considering the consequences or the correctness of his actions. And the strange story of the man who fled naked best fits Mark himself.

Neither person's identity is spelled out, perhaps in the case of Mark because of his shame over his conduct, and in the case of the knife-wielding apostle to protect him from possible reprisals from the Jewish authorities. We should additionally point out the two types of failure demonstrated by these examples. We can either fail Christ by refusing to stand with him (as did the fleeing young man) or by going ahead of Christ in actions against His express will (by maiming Malchus). These represent in a way the respective sins of omission and commission.

3. This chapter has been cited before as another example of Mark's tendency to sometimes arrange his narrative in a “sandwich” manner in which a certain initial narrative A is continued later as A' but only after an intervening incident B which has some thematic parallel or contrast to A-A'. If this analysis is correct, then Mark 14 actually contains a sort of double-decker sandwich, as pictured below:

        A. Peter swears he will never deny his Lord (Mark 14:14-31)

                B. Gethsemane and the arrest (Mark 14:32-53)

        A'. Peter follows at a distance and stays with the guards (Mark 14:54)

                B. Jesus' trial (Mark 14:55-65)

        A''. Peter denies Christ three times (Mark 14:66-72)

We thus see that two trials are placed side-by-side, that of Peter which he fails (the “A” sections) and that of Jesus which he passes (the “B” sections). The difference between the two is more specifically pointed out by the specific contrast between Jesus' admission in verse 62 (“I am”) and Peter's repeated denials that he isn't His follower.

4. Another ironic touch is provided in the fact that Jesus is mocked as being a false prophet in verse 65 whereas His two prophecies in verses 27 and 29-30 come true in verses 50-52 and 66-72, respectively.

5. Finally, there is a very subtle point that can only be seen by comparing this chapter with the parallel account in Luke's Gospel. It is so subtle that it may exist only in my imagination. But I will save it for the next post.