The Naked Young Man (Mark 14:51-52)

As I shuttle back and forth from Promenade station, those twenty minutes have become some of the most serene moments of my life. It's always with a little regret that time passes so quickly as I step out of the train and into the mild zombie mood that I've slowly familiarized myself with. Nonetheless, every time I read a passage from the Bible, I inevitably learn something new, which never ceases to amaze me.


Anyway, under Vicar's orders to the entire congregation, I have begun reading the Gospel of Mark. I'm no stranger to the gospels, but it's strange how after finishing the minor prophets, I've begun to see this book very differently. Mark, I realized, paid great attention to the emotions of Jesus. The sighs, the anger, the love, all written in such detail not seen in the other gospels.

However, one particular verse intrigued me. Read this for yourself:

Jesus Arrested (Mark 14:43-52)

⁴³Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.

Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: "The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard." Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Rabbi!" and kissed him. The men seized Jesus and arrested him. Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

"Am I leading a rebellion," said Jesus, "that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled." Then everyone deserted him and fled.

A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.

Now who was this naked man? Why was he only wearing a linen garment? Why was he following Jesus? And why did Mark find it worthy enough to note it down in this gospel aimed at encouraging the Christians?

Out of pure curiosity, I began to search for the answers online. Apparently orthodox theologians are divided between two possibilities. One group believes that the young man was Mark himself, and that this was his autobiographical signature that most of the readers at that point of time would have understood without him having to explain it in detail. Another group believes that it was to fulfill some prophecies in the Old Testament about wicked people running away naked after realizing that all is lost.

Some of the more unorthodox ones begin to quote from the secret Gospel of Mark, claiming the man to be Lazarus, and even connecting the dots to project the image of a homosexual Jesus. A lot of problems with that one, not even counting the fact that the secret Gospel of Mark is in itself incredulous in a hundred ways.

But after thinking hard for some time, a question crossed my mind. Could it be that the theologians were aiming for the wrong things all along?

The first group of theologians were seeking to identify the naked young man, but could it be possible that Mark did not mean for the man to be identified?

The second group of theologians were trying ways and means to fit the embarrassing episode into a prophecy, but could it be possible that God never inspired Mark to write it based on Old Testament prophecy?


So, I've decided to use what Vicar calls "sanctified imagination" to address this issue to come out with a more believable answer.

Firstly, as I re-read the passage, I noticed three things about that man.

1. He was young.
2. He was wearing nothing but a linen cloth.
3. He ran away naked.

Point 1:
I believe that Mark had purposely mentioned that it was a young man on the basis that youths, in general, have less to lose in life. Given that youths do not feel tied down to family responsibilities e.g. family to feed, children to take care off; and that they are also generally more rebellious in attitude, whether for the former-mentioned reason or simply based on hormones. It would then be much easier to explain the fleeing of the older disciples and followers who had families to feed and other dependents such as elderly parents. A younger man would have less to worry about, and would probably be more inclined to stand and fight.

Point 2:
Nights in that area of the Middle-East are especially cold in that season, and theologians already agree that it was extremely strange for a man to wear only a single layer of cloth to venture out at night. Did you not find it strange too that none of the disciples offered their coat to the young man? Two possibilities are present, firstly, that the young man was an outcast for one very strong reason or another e.g. bad attitude, suspected spy by the Pharisees, or secondly, that he was just a strong-headed fellow with a gung-ho attitude and a penchant for ablution. Regardless, in any case, given that lack of unity with the dominant group of disciples or foolhardy courage, readers would expect that he would be more likely to stand up for Jesus during the latter's arrest.

Point 3:
It was extremely taboo in the Jewish culture to run around naked. The most recent guy to do that (as recorded in the Bible) was apparently demon-possessed and thrown out of town. Even King Nebuchadnezzar was given no chance and booted out of his own kingdom. Most readers from that era would have thought that the man would have returned just to beg for his coat back, just so that there would be no embarrassment to himself. But apparently, there wasn't even any courage to do so.


My final conclusion, I believe, is that Mark wrote that down to make an emphasis on the fact that even the boldest person with nothing to lose was too afraid to even stay. From the fact that none of the other gospels included this embarrassing episode, it is safe to say that Mark was trying show how terrified the people there were, and to show that even the bravest soul had abandoned the Son of God in this horrible moment. Given that the Gospel of Mark was the first Gospel among the four to be written, this supports the need for such a description, and that if theologians are right that Matthew and Luke had taken their reference from Mark, they might have found such an episode worthy of deletion given that most of their readers would not require so blatant a point that they should have gotten from the Gospel of Mark itself.

The takeaway for contemporary living is simply this: None of us should be too quick to say that we will do anything for Christ, much less something as silly as dying for Him. Peter, who ate with Jesus and listened firsthand to His Words, went so far as to declare that he would go to the very end for Him.

Of course, there were (and still are) people who died for the name of Jesus. I'm not saying that it's not possible; on the contrary, we should live everyday of our lives for Him. But understand that without the Holy Spirit, any such declaration would be foolhardy and a likely overestimation on our part. In time to come, some of us reading this post would have to endure death for His name, but till that glorious moment, we must try not to boast about it. Even those with nothing to lose, like that young man clad in nothing but a linen cloth, might flee for their lives when it is time for the rubber to hit the road.


Hopefully this provides a different perspective as compared to the contemporary theological debate, which I find somehow... flawed.




Dogmatic theological statements are neither logical propositions nor poetic utterances. They are shaggy dog stories; they have a point, but he who tries to hard to get it will miss it. -W.H. Auden