Mark alone of the four Gospels tells of a young man who fled naked when Jesus was arrested in Gethsemane. Mark 14:51 states,
A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.
Why does Mark tell his audience about this event?
The Rev. William E. Flippin Jr. - Naked Young Man and the Easter Angel in the Gospel of Mark - Mark 14:51-52
"And a young man followed [Jesus], with nothing but a linen cloth about his body. And they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked."
Jesus had no help at the cross from his followers. Only he could bring about our salvation, and so he had to work alone. This view of disciples abandoning Jesus at his loneliest hour is affirmed in all the Gospels. However, I believe, in looking closely at some Greek words, that Mark's intention as a Gospel writer, showing that this man dressed in a white robe had a secret message -- a prevalent theme in Mark of the rebirth of humanity that was naked in sin.
Mark describes the young man in question as a neaniskos, meaning he was in the prime of his life, perhaps 15 to 25 years old. The verb that is used, sunékolouthei, means "was following as a disciple" or "was accompanying." Since no one evinces any surprise at the young man's presence, he was probably a disciple.
(Fascinatingly, the word neaniskos, which is rare in the Christian Testament, crops up a second time in Mark, to describe the young man in the long white robe who tells the women disciples that Jesus has been raised and they will see him again in Galilee.)
In verses 14:51-52, Mark tells us that "A young man was present who was wearing nothing but a sindon. The posse caught hold of him, but he left the sindon and ran away naked."
Here's the big discovery I stumbled over by accident: A sindon was a linen cloth used for clothing or burial. The word is used exactly four times in the Christian Testament: in the three synoptic gospels to describe the cloth in which Jesus' dead body was wrapped for burial... and here. This to me is the connection of the naked young man and the burial of Jesus and the proclamation of the Easter Angel. In Mark's Gospel, he explicitly says that the person that proclaimed to the confused women present at the tomb was a young man, not an angel wearing a white robe. For him to be wearing a sindon, which is very specifically used for burial clothing, has some deliberate correlations by the Gospel writer Mark in identifying the significant transformation of the death and rebirth of humanity as found in the Resurrection. The motif of the clothing reinforces the impression that the two episodes form a coherent whole. Mark often mentions clothing with strong symbolic overtones so that it has special significance for him. Consequently the clothes of John the Baptist in Mark 1:6 identify him as a prophet, and, therefore, as an important figure at the beginning of the gospel. The clothing of Jesus in the episode on the transfiguration in Mark 9:3 becomes dazzling white, 'whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them.' The nature of the clothing underlines the mysterious significance of the event. In Mark 14:30" 33, the High Priest tore his clothes after Jesus' pronouncement about the Son of Man at the right hand and coming with the clouds.
These references to exceptional clothing are found at crucial points at the beginning and at the turning point of the narrative where important revelations are given. In the episode on John the Baptist in Mark 1:7 there is a reference to the coming one and in the transfiguration narrative in Mark 9:7 the voice from the cloud reveals Jesus as the divine Son to whom his followers should listen. The action of the High Priest also takes place at a seminal moment in the trial of Jesus. In all of these cases, the significance of Jesus is highlighted through the narrative detail of clothing.
The clothing of the young man in Mark 14:51-52 and in 16:5 should be understood against this background. The young man in Gethsemane, according to Mark, is dressed in a linen cloth. How important this was to the author is clear from the fact that he repeats the reference in the following description of how the young man, having fled naked, left behind. This focus on the clothes is not merely a report of an event, but is also an indication of the significance of the event. In a Jewish context nakedness would be regarded as a shameful state. Mark is implying that the young man, eager to follow Jesus after others fail him, also falls into shame. His leaving behind his clothes is stressed also by the ensuing and explicit reference to his nakedness.
Exegetes who identify the two young men use this motif of clothing to point to the complete reversal of his condition. If the previous dress (in the garden) was the linen cloth, this one in the tomb, however, is white. Though he is dressed in both cases, the difference in dress expresses the development within the narrative. The portrayal is therefore characterized by closure: the shameful condition of the young man as he flees the scene of Jesus arrest in the nude is replaced by his restoration. What would otherwise be an incomplete narrative if the coherence between two episodes is not understood becomes a coherent picture because of the motif of clothing.
One may even take the comparison further by analyzing the type of dress mentioned by Mark. It is often noted that Mark spoke of a linen cloth in which Jesus was buried (Mk 15:46). The linen cloth is mentioned twice in Mark 14:51-52 and in 15:46. In Mark 15:46 Mark again repeats the motif of the linen cloth, emphasizing to his readers in what cloth Jesus was buried. In this way Mark's description of clothing reflects the dress of Jesus before his resurrection. Taken together, Mark associates linen clothing with shameful betrayal and with death. The young man in the empty tomb is said to wear a white dress to indicate that he is not simply resuming his earlier lifestyle.
The young man in the tomb also has a special place in the narrative in another sense. He is, namely, the first to give witness to Jesus' resurrection. He is well informed about the whereabouts of Jesus and reveals the coming appearance of Jesus to his disciples. He relates what has happened to Jesus, points out the empty tomb and sends a message to the disciples that Jesus has gone to Galilee. He is, moreover, an important figure as a messenger who explains the significance of the empty tomb to the women. Witnessing to Jesus is of seminal importance to Mark. The young man in the tomb gives witness to Jesus in the sense of Mark 1:2. Mark ends his gospel in the same way he began it in Mark 1:2, where he refers to Isaiah's description of the messenger who will prepare the way of the Lord. His appearance, though described rather cursorily, has, explains, apocalyptic features, which befits his important role. He is a herald of the end-time "of the final moment of triumph.
The effect of Mark's location of the young man's character is to create an inclusio. The last one who has been with and who then abandons Jesus is also the first one to announce his resurrection.
The explanation I have always heard for this is that this young man was mark himself and it is "mark's signature"- a way of saying "I was there". This is connected with the assumption that Mark's house was possibly the place where the disciples ate passover. This builds off of the fact that Mark's mother and house seem to be a prominent place in the New Testament community (Acts 12:12).
This view coincides with Zondervan's NIV commentary thoughts on this verse:
Only Mark records this mysterious episode. The “young man” is not identified, but many argue that he is Mark. Why else would he insert such a trivial detail in so solemn a story? Was this Mark’s way of saying, “I was there too”? Ordinarily men wore an undergarment, but this young man had only an outer garment, made of linen, an expensive material worn only by the rich. He fled naked. The forsakenness of Jesus was total; even this youth forsook him.
This is the explanation I have always heard, though I admit I am a little bit skeptical, at the best this can only be an interesting idea and speculation. Whether you think this is Mark or some other significant figure all of this is besides the point. The primary point of recording this detail is that this man was in a rush to get out, even if that meant leaving his clothes behind. The rush was because of fear for the roman guard, this explains the disciples forsaking Jesus. They did not want to stick around and also be thrown in jail, they got out when they could.
So in summary: it is possible that this is Mark but it is not definite. Simply I think this verse points out the dangerous and tense atmosphere during the arrest of Jesus. People were fleeing for their lives.
I love Ann's answer. Here's another thought, from Halden Doerge
The Formerly Rich Young Man by Halden Doerge
In a previous post about the story of the rich young man (Mark 10:17-21) I suggested that there’s no reason to think that the man did not indeed go away intending to do as Jesus commanded, by selling all his possessions and following him. In the comments someone suggested that there is a tradition that suggests Barnabas may be the rich young man in question here. I did some digging and couldn’t find much of anything on that point, but I did find another possibility that actually has support from the text of Mark itself.
Could it not be that the young man in question is simply Mark himself? I think we may catch a hint of this conclusion in Mark 14:51-52 where the narrative tells us that “A certain young man was following [Jesus], wearing nothing but a linen cloth.” This unidentified young man is generally thought — at least in all the commentaries I’ve come across — to be Mark.
Now, it could be that Mark just wanted to throw in some superfluous information by describing the nature of the young man’s (lack of) clothing, but given the intentionality that characterizes the narrative patterns of Mark I’m inclined to doubt it. Why tell us that the young man was dressed only in a sheet that he had wrapped around himself? Why make a point of the fact that he was following Jesus? Could it be that the complete lack of possessions, even clothing, his young age, and his description as actively following Jesus are meant to point us back to the story of the rich young man? Seems like a pretty valid connection to me. I don’t think there’s anyone else mentioned in the gospel of Mark who might qualify for this. Let us follow this line of thought. . .
Symbolically, this event is the culmination of the story of the rich young man. Unlike the others who desert Jesus and flee immediately (vs. 50), he continues to follow, to the point of being seized, at which point he makes his escape by leaving the very last of his possessions behind. His journey of discipleship is complete, he has been utterly dispossessed by following Jesus, right down to his clothing. And finally he has been driven into exile by the powers that set themselves against the mission of Christ.
The rich young man has been dispossessed of everything in following the Messiah, and is left scattered, naked in the dark. The only thing that can make this come out right is a hope beyond hope, a veritable new creation. Discipleship brings the young man to a null point, a point that can only be rendered meaningful by a radical disruption of the status quo. Only resurrection can make dispossessive discipleship of this sort anything more than a pathetic joke.
[Halden Doerge is an editor with Wipf & Stock Publishers. Apparently Douglas Wilson has also referred to this possibility, so it’s nothing new. It certainly supports James Jordan’s claim that the disciples were not uneducated but people of means.]
The textual evidence (information) is mixed with relation to the character of the "young" man who is Matthew's "someone", Mark's "runner/kneeler" and Luke's "ruler". They are all young.
I think there is more a case of Mark identifying with the young man rather than being him. In Matthew the man could easily, from the description (and lack of empathy) Matthew gives, be a tax collector. In Luke's the man is described much like the crowd he and Theophilus (his reader) would have chummed with as rich men both.
Mark seems to be seeing a reflection of himself much as Matthew and Luke see reflections of themselves or their crowd in the man who questions Jesus. That said, it is hard to justify Mark's (Jesus looked at him and loved him) comment unless this was something personally felt or deeply discussed.
Maybe, maybe, maybe...but not nearly anything more than maybe!
No external research. Just thinking about this idea for a Sunday message!
My understanding is that the young man is the angel Gabriel who is identified in the Talmud as the young man of several places in the scriptures. Please see this answer on a related question for detail.
This is an interesting question. I think that some of the answers are quite thought-provoking and plausible. This particular event is only found in the Gospel of Mark. That could provide a clue about this event.
There are several references to the Gospel of Mark in early church writings. In a couple of those, this Gospel is described not as the Gospel of MARK but the Gospel of Peter as told to Mark. In fact, this is described in such a manner in one early church letter that is seems to be something that was generally understood (and not conjecture).
If accurate, it would appear that Mark was merely the scribe of this Gospel as it was told to him by Peter. His relationship with Mark is mentioned in the closing of his first epistle (I Peter 5:12-14) describing him as his "son" (often used to describe a convert or, possibly, a disciple). In that epistle's closing, Peter describes Silas as the one who "helped" him write (verse 12).
In his second epistle (very near the end of his life), Peter mentions making every effort so that the recipients of that letter will be able to "remember these things." This possibly hints that he is having his Gospel account written.
There is a school of thought that this young man is, indeed, Mark. If this Gospel of Mark is indeed Peter's account, it is interesting that a scribe might add something to it. So, there is a suggestion that some small portions of the Gospel of Mark -- including this small passage and much of the final chapter -- was inserted by Mark himself. It would indicate that Mark was an eyewitness too. And, of course, he is related to Barnabas.
There have been other candidates. These include the "rich young ruler" (who could be someone we know -- including this naked person fleeing), Silas or even Ignatius of Antioch (who was also rumored to have been a child that Jesus took upon his lap when he said that we must become like this little child). I'm less inclined to believe the Ignatius suggestion.
Still, it does seem like this portion was injected for a reason. It's almost if it would be understood that the reader might be aware of the identity of this young man. This would be Mark's version of John referring to himself as "the disciple that Jesus loved."
As for proof: We don't have any that would identify this young man. We do read that "everyone" had fled (Mark 14:50). This could refer to the apostles. However, Jesus had more than just the Twelve who followed him. In fact, this man must have been present (or at least nearby) at the arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane. Peter followed at a distance (verse 54) while this young man appears between everyone fleeing (verse 50) and Peter following (verse 54). It's likely that this was a disciple (but, more importantly, not necessarily an apostle).
There is an important clue in this -- but it's not found in the Gospel of Mark but in the Gospel of John. In John 19:15-16, John mentions both Peter and "another disciple" who was following Jesus after his arrest. This is the only other account apart from Mark about two followers. In both accounts, the person goes unnamed. The only thing that we are told was that this "disciple" was "known to the high priest" (verse 15).
Many scholars and theologians believe that this unnamed "disciple" in John 19 was John. He was possibly the youngest of Jesus's apostles. However, he referred to himself as a disciple elsewhere in his Gospel (i.e., the "disciple Jesus loved"). So, this raises the possibility that the unnamed "disciple" who was "known to the high priest" may have been the same one who followed Jesus but fled naked in Mark's Gospel account.
Of course, we don't know with any certainty that it was either Mark or John. In fact, it could possibly be some completely unknown person. The important part of this is the story -- that the man fled for his life after losing his robe.
While Peter, by means of Mark, deliberately chose not to identify the young man who wore only a sindona, a linen cloth, and who was able to escape naked after being seized, we can make some educated guesses. Three questions come to mind:
It should be noted that the dead were customarily wrapped in a sindón. It is rumored that a sindón was used as a “nightshirt,” but I can’t find any pre-Christian support for this assertion. Also note that believers traditionally wore sindón during baptism, perhaps symbolizing grave clothes.
Let me try to answer the questions in reverse order.
Judges 14:13 in Hebrew uses the word, סְדִינִ֔ים (sedinim), which is translated “linen garments” (plural form). Note that making linen is a labor-intensive process and that in context, the 30 linen garments were likely worn as an inner garment.
Proverbs 31:24 in Hebrew uses the word סָדִ֣ין (sadin), which is translated as “linen garment” (singular form).
When the large crowd of the Jews learned that Jesus was there, they came, not only on account of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. So the chief priests made plans to put Lazarus to death as well, because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus.
The authorities wanted to arrest and kill Lazarus for his effective testimony as well as Jesus.
We can’t be absolutely certain, but this is why I think it’s reasonable to believe that Lazarus was the young man described in Mark 14:51.
There is another way of explaining this. Jesus had a successor, James the Just, who is hidden under about a dozen overwriting characters, including Judas and naked young man. It is the mystic appearance of the successor, James, that is shown here. He flees (UP) when they try to "seize" him ('lay hands on' as in spiritually connecting) because he feels unworthy. ("I am not worthy to loosen the shoe latchet" is same idea.) He was clad in Nazirite linen, and could also have been symbolizing the succession motif with the "sindon" reference. "Paradidomai" is Greek for "to deliver" as well as the pejorative "to betray", and was used knowingly by gospel authors to construct a ruse to hide James in an inversion of the Mastership succession event (known in India as "the Gaddhi").
The entire 'Betrayal' scenario this is embedded in is a cover for James' coming as Master. This was the entire reason for the writing and collating of the NT. The details are extensive, in all four gospels, and fascinating. I wrote a book on it, which I give away, and can be seen in excerpt at judaswasjames dot com.
