Mark 14 - My Thoughts

Chapter 14, to me, is a reminder of some of the earlier chapters of Mark’s Gospel. The story in this chapter moves frantically and appears to be a series of vignettes more than a structured narrative. Having said that, it may well be a good depiction of this last relatively normal day in Jesus’ life. A lot apparently happens in this period of just a few hours, and it almost feels as if, to try to capture everything, Mark is almost writing in bullet form.

 

Chapter 14 opens by making it clear that Jesus’ opponents have given up on the idea of trying to trap him in some sort of word contest. They can’t trap him. Remember that the purpose of trapping him was always to eliminate him as a threat by showing him up in front of the crowds. The problem had been that whenever they had tried to spring such a trap, they had only ended up embarrassing themselves instead. Jesus with every humiliation he inflicts upon his opponents is gathering more and more of a following and becoming more and more of a threat to the established order. So his opponents decide on a radical change of course. Embarrassing Jesus is no longer their goal. Now they have decided that Jesus has to be removed – and the only way to do that is by killing him. So it’s in verse 1 that the final plot begins to be hatched. But Jesus’ opponents have learned that trying to do anything in front of the crowds never works out for them. So now, the plot will be to do something secretly and quietly, before the Passover festival that’s almost upon them. There are likely two reasons they want to get this done before Passover: first, because with the growing influx of pilgrims for the festival there would simply be too many people to allow this to be done privately, and also having Jesus executed while the Passover was being celebrated might have been seen (even by Jesus’ opponents) as dishonouring the most sacred festival of the Jewish year. That combined with Jesus’ popularity among the people raised the possibility (as his opponents always feared) of the people rising up if action were taken against Jesus. And, of course, if they waited until after the Passover, there was every possibility that Jesus would simply leave Jerusalem with his disciples and once again be beyond his opponents’ grasp. So a plot is quickly hatched and put into practice.

 

While that plot is being worked out, Mark switches the story to Bethany and the home of a man named Simon the leper. We don’t know who Simon is. It’s an interesting note because Bethany was also the home of Jesus’ friend Lazarus (and Lazarus’ sisters Mary and Martha) so one might have expected him to stay with them. It’s possible that Simon may have been a leper who was healed by Jesus, but we simply don’t know. While there, Jesus was anointed with nard. Nard was what we would call today an essential oil that comes from the Himalayas in what’s now Nepal, China and India. It was commonly used in the region for religious ceremonies and it was very expensive because it had to be imported from such a long distance away. There are some similarities here to a story in which Jesus is anointed by a supposedly “sinful woman” in Luke 7 while at the home of a Pharisee, but they don’t appear to be the same stories. Some raise objections to the gift, but Jesus accepts the anointing with his famous words “you always have the poor with you … but you will not always have me.” That seems in one sense to be strangely inconsistent with Jesus’ usual concern for the poor – for example, his instruction to the rich man in Chapter 10 to give away all his possessions to the poor. The difference in this case might be that the woman was performing what was in essence a religious ritual (as Jesus noted, she was preparing his body before its burial.) As a woman, her role in the coming drama was going to be a limited one, and so Jesus’ commendation that “she has done what she could” is perhaps a recognition of that. He doesn’t say that the disciples shouldn’t be concerned about the poor; only that in that moment, with Jesus facing his death, the woman did what she could for him. The story does seem to establish that for a follower of Jesus serving Jesus as best as we can in a particular moment should be our priority. Sometimes (perhaps most of the time) that will mean serving others; sometimes it might mean devotional acts for Jesus’ sake. Perhaps the basic message here is not to be judgemental toward how others choose to serve. The story does lead naturally into the next short account.

 

In all of two verses, Mark tells us that Judas went off to the chief priests to betray Jesus – but Mark never explicitly says what motivated him at that moment. Many scholars have argued that Judas was likely a member of a group known as the Zealots, who believed in a violent uprising against Rome and that while he had originally seen Jesus as the sort of charismatic figure who could lead such an uprising, he had become disillusioned with what he saw as Jesus’ more pacifist leanings and even at times some of Jesus’ teachings that could have been seen as promoting collaboration. Coming right after the story of the anointing, though, could be Mark’s way of suggesting that Judas was among those outraged by the perceived wastefulness of the use of nard and that this was the trigger for him to actively turn against Jesus. Other Gospels flesh this out a little bit so that by the time of John’s Gospel, Judas’ anger about this incident is specifically recorded and is tied in with John’s description of Judas as both the holder of the disciples’ purse and a thief who used to help himself to the money, the idea being that had the nard been sold the money would have gone into the purse and Judas could have helped himself to it. But that’s a later explanation of Judas’ actions. Mark seems to imply only that Jesus accepting the anointing with nard was the last straw for Judas. Mark doesn’t really make clear the content of the negotiations between Judas and the chief priests. Had it been ongoing or was this their first contact? We don’t know. Did Judas ask them for money or did the chief priests make the offer? We don’t know. Clearly, though, Judas became a part of the plot at this point.

 

Jesus then sends two of his disciples into the city to make preparations for them to eat the Passover meal. There are obviously a lot of similarities between this story and the story of the disciples who were sent to make preparations for Jesus’ entry into the city. Two disciples were sent, and somewhat cryptic instructions were given – this time the disciples were told what to say to the owner of a particular house; before it was to the owner of a particular donkey colt. The similarities are clear. The timeline is a little bit confused at this point. You have to remember that Passover is a weeklong celebration and not just a single day. Remembering that in Judaism, a new day begins with sunset, as I read Mark, he seems to be suggesting that the disciples are being sent into the city during the daytime before sunset, so this isn’t actually the “First Day of Unleavened Bread” – it’s a few hours before the “First Day of Unleavened Bread” would begin. John’s Gospel throws confusion into the timeline and seems to suggest that Jesus arrived in Jerusalem several days before Passover and he makes no reference to the disciples celebrating a Passover meal with Jesus. I think it’s important not to get too hung up on the calendar details. What’s clearly important is that all of the Gospels hold that the events that are about to take place take place within the general context of the Passover. It is important, though, to establish the timeline for the slaughtering of the Passover lamb. The Passover lamb is slaughtered in the afternoon of the day before Passover begins. So in Mark’s Gospel the next series of events take place after the slaughter of the Passover lamb; in John’s Gospel the roughly equivalent events take place before the slaughter of the Passover lamb. For John, this seems to put Jesus into the place of the Passover lamb being slaughtered; not so for Mark. The timeline is very confusing if we try to reconcile every detail in the different Gospels. But it seems reasonable to say that Passover began on a Thursday, so the lamb was slaughtered on Thursday afternoon, with Jesus’ Passover meal (what we call the Last Supper) being held on Thursday night after sundown, with his arrest, trial and crucifixion happening throughout the Thursday night into the Friday afternoon. All of the Gospels agree that the crucifixion was on the Day of Preparation (which isn’t a reference to preparing for Passover, but to preparing for Sabbath, which begins Friday night.)

 

In any event, the disciples are able to find the house for Jesus and his disciples to eat their Passover meal. Jesus makes clear that one of those he is sharing the meal with would betray him, and offers a stark warning: “woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that one not to have been born.” Judas is a complex figure in the Gospel story. The truth is that his role is vital – it seems to have been Jesus’ destiny to die on a Roman cross and Judas is the one who pushes that forward. In fact there were debates in the early centuries of the church as to whether Judas should be canonized, or made a saint, because of the essential role he played in the story of Jesus. On the other hand Jesus here seems to condemn him, although one could interpret Jesus’ words as merely a reference to the fact that Judas would eventually come to be seen as the epitome of a betrayer or traitor; his name (at least in English) becoming synonymous with “traitor” and his memory becoming despised. So Jesus perhaps isn’t passing any divine judgement on Judas, but may be referring to the inevitable human judgement that will be passed on him. Jesus seems to have knowledge of what Judas is planning and doesn’t try to stop him. The story of the meal then offers a very bare bones description ofn what we celebrate as the Last Supper. Interestingly, in Mark’s version, Jesus doesn’t speak of this in what we would call a “sacramental” way – a sacrament in Christian (or at least Protestant) terms being a ritualistic act commanded by Jesus. Mark does not include the command to “do this in remembrance of me.” Neither does Matthew. That command is found in Luke and in Paul’s description of Holy Communion in 1 Corinthians. John doesn’t even include an account of this “Last” supper, although he does include an account of a meal apparently eaten several days before that was similar, but not a Passover meal. If we consider the audiences of those five authors, it’s interesting that the more “Jewish” accounts (Mark and Matthew) don’t seem to anticipate this becoming a ritual, while the accounts written more for a Gentile audience (Luke,+-and Paul) do. The most significant words for Mark seem to be when the wine is served and Jesus says “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.” Since this is in the context of Passover, the “covenant” is presumably God’s covenant with Israel to protect them from the plagues that were sent to Egypt, using a lamb’s blood, and it may be noteworthy that it is for “many” and not for “all” – which might tie in to the understanding of “the elect” from the previous chapter. Jesus blood is for the protection of those already chosen by God to be protected.

 

We’re reasonably familiar, I think, with the story of Peter’s denial. Jesus predicts it and Peter, being Peter, denies that it could ever happen, and Mark will later conclude this section of the story with the confirmation that Peter did, in fact, deny Jesus just as Jesus predicted he would.

 

Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane is perhaps the story in the Gospel that most points out the contrast between Jesus’ human and divine natures. As divine, Jesus wants to fulfil God’s plan; as human, Jesus does not want to suffer. Are there more poignant and heartfelt words in the Gospels than these: “I am deeply grieved, even to death; remain here, and keep awake.” And going a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. He said, “Abba,  Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me; yet, not what I want, but what you want.” “Abba” is a diminutive word for “Father.” Some translate it as “dad” or even “daddy.” This is Jesus at his most vulnerable – ironically, his weakest and his strongest at the same time. And his despair is just heightened by the fact that even the disciples whom he most trusted and took with him to Gethsemane couldn’t even stay awake. I hear sadness in Jesus’ words: “Could you not keep awake one hour.” Jesus’ seems more distressed by this betrayal than by that of Judas, which now takes centre stage.

 

The mob shows up, guided by Judas, who identifies Jesus to them. That Judas identifies Jesus by kissing him on the cheek seems almost cruel. Mark does not describe any Roman soldiers as part of this mob. This seems to be almost a vigilante crew under the control of Jesus’ opponents. The “them” who fled in v.50 is certainly a reference to the disciples. Mark doesn’t identify the “certain young man” who wore nothing but a linen cloth, but the phrase “a certain young man” seems to imply that the man should be known to the readers. Some have suggested that this could be an anonymous reference by Mark to himself, much as John anonymously refers to himself in his Gospel as the “disciple whom Jesus loved.”

 

The Chapter ends with Jesus before the Jewish Council. (The Romans are still not involved.) As I imagine the Council looking at Jesus I see them smirking, with contented looks on their faces – almost a sort of “we finally got you” type of feeling. Yet, still, they have problems. They can’t find witnesses to agree with each other on anything they accuse Jesus of having done. They’re probably trying to find evidence that would convict Jesus before the Roman authorities, since they want Jesus killed and only the Romans can carry out the death penalty. But the Romans – ruthless though they were – also had a society based on laws, and witnesses were necessary. I imagine the frustration of the Council growing and growing until one finally shouts out in frustration “Are you the Messiah or not?” And, finally, for the first time, Jesus says “I am.” Why does he do so at this point? Perhaps the best and simplest explanation I’ve ever heard is that before the Council Jesus was face to face with the high priest – who was a figure of authority. Even Jesus couldn’t refuse to answer a question put by the high priest. With this confession by Jesus, the plot can proceed. Even the Romans knew what the people expected of the Messiah – that he would lead a rebellion against Roman rule. So the Council will send Jesus to the Roman Governor – Pontius Pilate.