Mark 14:1 – 16:8 Suffering, Death. Resurrection of the Son of Man

The Passion has been a long time coming but it has been with us since the beginning of the story. The stories of Jesus and the Baptist have been linked together since John was handed over (1:14). When we hear that John has been killed (6:14-29), we also hear that the innocent victim is taken by his disciples and buried in a tomb. Jesus is now about to be handed over, killed and laid in a tomb.

We have heard the passion predictions (8:31, 9:31, 10:32-34), we have understood the call to disciples to take up their cross and follow him. We know that the Christian community will also have its passion when faithful witness will be asked of it in front of councils and governors (13:9-13) as it was asked of its Jesus (14:53-65).

As readers, we have been told about the death threats and plots against Jesus (3:6, 11:18, 12:12) and know his fate is sealed.

The passion narrative (14:1 – 15:47) is the longest narrative in the story. If we stepped outside the story and laid Mark’s Passion Narrative along side those of the other Gospels we would note a sequence of incidents that is largely common to the Synoptic Gospels but examination of the details would show significant differences that indicate that each Evangelist has ended up telling his own story. Part of that uniqueness is seen in stories that appear in just one Gospel; Mark has his story of the young man who runs away naked. We would also understand a little of why those who have gone before us have suggested that the passion narrative pre-existed Mark’s Gospel and why some have said that Mark’s Gospel is “a passion narrative with an extended introduction”.

Mk 14:1-11 Devotion and Betrayal

The feast of Passover (Pesah, commemorating the anointing of the lintels with the blood of the lamb, slain and eaten in haste, to mark out the houses of the Israelites in Egypt and put them under the protection of the Lord) is now combined with the period of the eating of Unleavened Bread (also commemorating the escape from Egypt) and celebrated on the evening of the 15th of the month Nissan.

This day is two days away when our passion narrative begins. Since Jesus is executed on the day before the Sabbath (15:42), i.e. Friday, the meal at Bethany is located on the Wednesday evening, the evening of 14th Nissan, and the Passover meal will be on the Thursday evening, the evening of 15th Nissan. This same chronology is followed by Matthew and Luke. The Fourth Gospel has Jesus, the “Lamb of God”, put to death at the same time as the Passover lambs are being slaughtered, just prior to the end of 14th Nissan.

The “chief priests and the scribes” are the instigators of the plot to have Jesus put to death: the Pharisees have dropped from the picture. At the time of Jesus, Israel was a theocracy and a temple state, and Jerusalem was run by a large number of priests of various orders (Donahue, 384). Caiaphas was High Priest 18-36CE. The scribes and the chief priests “constituted the governing aristocracy in Jerusalem”.

The plotting of the chief priests and the scribes (vv.1-2) and the betrayal by Judas Iscariot (vv.10-11) forms a “Markan sandwich” around the anointing scene (vv.3-9). The anointing by the woman is set off by the “seeking (to do harm)”and the decision to “handover” Jesus. The plotters act in secret; the woman’s action will be proclaimed around the world.

The story of the anointing moves around in the gospels and the woman’s motivation and identity changes: Luke. 7:38-50 has her as an unidentified sinner woman and John 12:1-8 call her Mary the sister of Lazarus. Her action carries a major theme of anointing for burial (v.8) and a minor theme of the oiled Davidic King whose “head thou doest with oil anoint” (Ps. 23:5, 1 Sam. 16:12-13)

The time of the Passover was also a time for remembering the poor by almsgiving.. The extravagant action of the woman draws a cynical rebuke. The amount of 300 denarii is figured at about one and half year’s income for a peasant family of six. In a limited good society, to give this to Jesus means that others go without. Jesus’ response seems to run counter to this. The obligation to apply the “poor law” (Deut. 15:1-11) so that “there will be no one in need among you” is not diminished by her action. That obligation is there now and will be there next year; there is no limit of opportunities to do good to the poor. Jesus is not going to be around and the woman has sensed this opportune moment to anoint Jesus. Jesus’ response is not a shrug in the face of the inevitability of poverty. [The money promised to Judas could likewise have been given to the poor, but does that get a mention?]

The woman’s action honors Jesus: it is a beautiful and gracious thing done to the poor man Jesus. The preaching of the Gospel about Jesus throughout the world will forever be associated with her extravagant action; Creation shudders! The anonymous woman “has made it into the record books”. (Why is it that we lavish so much attention upon Judas and fail to memorialize this woman? )

The woman is obviously a person of substance and we know nothing about what she has given to the poor. She is anonymous and she is in good company. She provides for Jesus throughout his ministry, she stands at the cross, she goes to the tomb and here she anticipates his death and anoints his body. She is everywoman. She is the good disciple

Mk 14:12 – 25 The Last Meal Together

Preparation: The “first day of the unleavened bread, when the Passover lamb is sacrificed” is confused. The lambs are sacrificed at the end of Nissan 14. Mark wants to say that the meal was a Passover meal although his description of the meal leaves that open – he does not exploit Passover symbolism. Prior to the destruction of the temple, were all/some of the Jerusalem Passover lambs slaughtered in the temple? “Go into the city” leads to what have been seen as either covert (SGF Brandon Trial of Jesus, anachronistically suggesting Zealot activity) or prophetic (Donahue, alluding to 1 Sam 10:1-13) instructions. We see Jesus is in control of things. A man carrying a water pot would stand out from the crowd! The “guest room” is the same word as “inn” in Lk. 2:7. (Will there be mushrooms on the menu?) We note the “disciples” involved in the preparation (vv. 12, 16) and “the twelve” who gather with Jesus for the meal (v. 17f). We have seen the larger group of “disciples” following Jesus (8:27) and we have seen Jesus taking “the twelve” aside for special instruction (find the reference, win a prize) and we have seen the twelve as a subset of the disciples (4:10f). Who was present at the meal, or putting it differently, how big was the room?

Betrayal: The narrator has informed us about Judas as far back as at the appointment of the twelve (3:19) and as recently as the previous evening (14:10-11). Reflection on Ps. 41:9 and 55:12-14 would suggest some detail for a theme of betrayal but would they create such a character if there was no memory of a betrayal? If the character did not exist, would we have to invent him? The betrayal of an innocent one by a close friend makes for a great story. Judas is an enigmatic, flat character with nothing in our story to suggest why he acted against Jesus: the Fourth Gospel has certainly made up for this and novelists have not been reticent to round out the character (as recently as October 2006 – CK Stead, My Name was Judas)

Actions: Senior notes that the scene interprets Jesus’ death rather than presenting the foundation of the Christian Eucharist. The meal looks back to the two previous feeding stories (6:34-44; 8:1-10) with identical actions of taking and breaking. The important section of the “misunderstanding of the bread”(6:52; 8:17-21) linked Jesus’ mission to both the Jewish and Gentile territories. The breaking of the bread and the drinking of the cup on the eve of his death links the meals with his death (cf. 10:38-39). The meal looks forward to the future meal of the kingdom (Is 25: 6-10a). This meal is the third in a series of grand, extravagant, anticipatory messianic meals. It will provide a matrix of interpretation for the series of daily and weekly smaller meals that characterized Jesus ministry and which will continue through his resurrection (the meal at Emmaus is the most notable Lk. 24:-35). St Paul will take this further and say that every meal shared by Christians is a Eucharist and so must not contradict this pivotal mean (“Whenever you break bread, do it in remembrance of me” 1 Cor. 11:17-34)

Mark 14:26 – 31 The Prediction of Peter’s Denial

The placing of the prediction here allows us to anticipate its fulfillment (14:53-54, 66-72) and have confidence in Jesus as a guide to the future when he speaks of the scattering (14:27) and the resurrection appearance in Galilee (14:28). We note the progression: God will scatter the sheep, all will desert Jesus, and you will renounce me

Mark 14:32 – 42 Jesus in Gethsemane

Narrative Setting of the Mount of Olives: The narrator has given us a number of clues for interpreting the next two sections: (i) They were on the Mount of Olives as they were for the eschatological discourse (13:3); (ii) Peter and James and John are taken apart with him as they were for that discourse and for the Transfiguration (9:2); (iii) During that previous time on the Mount of Olives, at the end of chapter 13, Mark’s Jesus gave us a parable, of the man who went on a journey having set his servants up to do their tasks under the watchfulness of the gatekeeper, to help us understand the time of the absence of Jesus (MK 13: 32-37); (iv) A fourth point we need to pick up from the first Mount of Olives scene is the warning that a time of persecution awaits the community and faithful witness is expected of them

I want to suggest that the call to stay awake, to be alert, relates primarily to the current time of Mark’s community, the time of the absence of Jesus. Peter is the gatekeeper who is particularly called on to keep awake: Jesus returns from being alone (alone except for the narrator and us) and finds him asleep. That does not keep Jesus from reminding Peter (and us) that a time of temptation/trial awaits him. He comes back the second time and the finds them all in that “just woken up from sleep” mode – they didn’t know what to say to him, just like they didn’t know what to say on the Mount of Transfiguration. It’s the community of Mark that’s intended to note the sleeping and the failing of the first disciples. The shepherd has been struck and these Markan sheep are called to stay awake, to give faithful witness when they are hauled before governors and councils.

The Markan community is watching in the person of the young man in white, the neaniskos. His more expected duty will be to appear at the tomb and underscore Jesus intention to go before them to Galilee (14:28, 16:5-6). Here we can see the newly baptized who once again become naked and disappear, not into the water of baptism but into the darkness of the night. They are here warned that they too will desert Jesus, they will be scattered by their unbelief.

Mk 14:43 – 52 The Arrest of Jesus

The words of the scene are used to describe the betrayal of the Just One by his friend’s kiss. The actual arrest rates only nine words (14:46) but this “handing over” that was there in the passion predictions is the moment where it all changes and Jesus becomes an object to be exhibited. In time, the mysterious incident of the high priest’s servant will be fleshed out: he will get a name, Peter will get the blame and Jesus will heal him. Why is it included at all in Mark? (Mark does not have one of the high priest’s staff strike Jesus for his insolence cf. Jn 18:22) Am I a bandit? The contrast between Jesus and the lestes is noted and underscores Jesus’ openness over against the stealth of those who arrest him. (Much will be made of the contrast between the lestes and the good shepherd in the Fourth Gospel.)

Mark 15:1 – 20 Jesus before Pilate

A major division is marked as “authorities” confer and hand Jesus over to “the authority”. The features of the third passion prediction (10:32f) give sequence and structure to the passion.

There are a series of reversals going on:

1. The messianic-religious language of the chief priest (“Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed?”) now becomes the messianic-political language of Pilate (“Are you the King of the Jews?”)
2. The chief priests now become the accusers; what their accusations are we don’t know but do know they felt the challenge of Jesus’ clearing out of the temple.
3. Pilate is now the one who coxes Jesus for an answer and who attests Jesus’ innocence (“Have you no answer? See how many charges they bring against you” and “Why, what evil has he done?”)
4. Pilate is pictured as making the true confession "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus’ response to Pilate is identical to his response to Judas’ “Is it I?” “You say so” is not a negative response. The comment “Pilate wondered” (here and in 15:44 when he wonders if Jesus is already dead) implies religious wonder in the presence of the holy.
5. A condemned man Barabbas is swapped for an accused man. We have no independent historical confirmation that such a practice existed. There is a tradition that Barabbas’ first name was also Jesus (In the 4G, the choice is between Jesus Barabbas and Jesus the Christ, the two claimants to be the Good Shepherd of the Sheep). Barabbas was an insurrectionist as were those crucified with Jesus. This would indicate the pigeon hole that the historical Pilate would have placed Jesus in.
6. Pilate is portrayed as moving at the whim of the crowd; despite his better judgment, he “wishes to satisfy the crowd,” although it is his decision and his act to hand Jesus over to those who will do the crucifying. This reversal from the Pilate of history, who marches to no one else’s drum, is a part of Mark’s story; responsibility is moved away from Pilate towards some of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem. It is only a partial move and it has a political motive in the post-70CE world of Mark. The Christians are not a threat to Rome. Behind Mark’s story we know that Jesus died a Roman death under the authority of the Roman Procurator, Pontius Pilate, with some degree of collusion by some Jerusalem Jews.
7. The guard detail that captured him in the garden is now swapped for a whole Roman cohort of 600 soldiers. Such an exaggerated number of soldiers underscores the irony of the perception of power; Jesus is a force to be reckoned with. The major irony lies in their mocking of Jesus as King. They dress him up in the purple robe and the crown of thorns, they correctly salute him as king and they mock him. The irony is that they don’t know just how true they are and that Jesus is redefining what it is to be king in the new scheme of things; the new king is mocked and crucified. We are seeing what we read in the third passion prediction: “… they will mock him, and spit upon him, and flog him, and kill him …” He is stripped of the kingly apparel before they lead him away to crucify him.

Mark 15:21 – 39 Jesus is crucified and dies

As the hours of the watch tick by, elements of Mark’s story provide meaning for the killing of Mark’s Jesus. If we were being thorough, we could note from where he sources these details, how they relate to his ongoing story, how later Gospels add to or adapt them and what Mark does not say.

Simon of Cyrene carries Jesus cross beam. The normal practice was for the condemned person to carry the cross beam from which they would be hung. If this action by Simon actually happened, and the Romans were accustomed to pressing passing people into service, then the implication could be that Jesus was weak from the scourging or that he was not physically strong enough to carry the load. What leaps out of Mark’s story is that Simon is the ideal disciple at this point, carry the cross and ministering to Jesus.

They brought Jesus to Golgotha. There is no implication that this was a hill, just that it was outside the city gate. The temptation to let “There was a green hill far away…” interpret the passion should be strongly resisted. The “passers by who derided him” gives the impression that it was on the side of a road. (Josephus speaks of an occasion where 600 were crucified on the side of the road.) In reality, when the Romans got into the swing of it, they would crucify people wherever they could find a space, including on doors or on the sides of buildings.

They divided his clothes among them. Is the implication that he was naked? Walter Wink has noted, with reference to the saying “If anyone wants to sue you and takes your coat, give them your cloak as well” (Matt. 5:40), that the humiliation does not rest on the naked person but on the one who causes the nakedness and on those who look on it. (The Fourth Gospel’s “seamless cloak” that was too valuable to divide by ripping into pieces is easily recognized as John’s metaphor.)

They crucified him between two bandits. The king is enthroned on his cross with the places of honour, on the right hand and the left, given to the two “freedom fighters” rather than to the two foolish disciples who asked: “grant us to sit on your right hand and on your left”. The stark contrast between Jesus and the freedom fighters, once again calls on the reader to affirm their choice.

The derision and mocking owes its origin to Psalm 22:7 “All who see me mock at me, they makes mouths at me, they shake their heads; ‘Commit your way to the Lord; let him deliver — let him rescue the one in whom he delights”. This Psalm is a major source of Christian reflection and Good Friday detail. Our attention is directed to the righteous suffering one rather than to a notion of prophecy fulfilled by historical detail.

Save yourself, come down from the cross. This taunt voices the ultimate Markan temptation, apostasy, sin against the Holy Spirit (call it what you may). Turn away from your destiny; maybe you got it all wrong!

When it was noon, darkness came over the whole land. “On that day, says the Lord God, I will make the sun go down at noon, and darken the earth in broad daylight” Amos 8:9. It is also imagery associated with the coming of the Son of Man as well as an allusion to the darkness brought by the plague of locusts inflicted on the Egyptians through Moses (Ex. 10:15)

Jesus cried out with a loud voice: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me”. Quoting the first verse of Psalm 22 implies that the whole Psalm is being put before us. This is a Psalm of victory (“All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord … Future generations will proclaim his deliverance to a people yet unborn, saying that he has done it.”). This is not a cry of despair but rather the hopeful cry of the righteous sufferer who trusts, despite the apparent absence of God.

And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. We met the verb skidso, to rip at the beginning of the Gospel when Jesus was baptized. The heavens were ripped and the spirit descended upon Jesus: now a curtain of the temple is ripped to allow access to what lies behind. The curtain has to have a symbolic rather than an historic reference or we would have heard about it elsewhere. It is on a par with the claim to destroy the temple made with hands. There were two Temple curtains. If Mark is alluding to the outer curtain then the metaphor is negative. If it were to the inner curtain that marked off the Holy of Holies (the sanctum sanctorum) then it would be a positive symbolic reference to God’s presence no longer being confined to the inner Temple. Mark does not indicate a preference for one or other curtain.

The centurion watches him die and then says of the dead man: “Truly this man was God’s Son”. This representative of Rome is made to say that the Imperial Roman Theology has got it wrong: Jesus is God’s Son, the saviour of the world, the peace-bringer – not Caesar. The death of the Son of Man rather than the domination by Rome is the key to everything. This is the Christological high point of the story; the ‘messianic secret’ is laid bare. The wraps are off for all to see, the secret is out for all to hear. “You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:42-45) The choice is plain.

What is not here in Mark’s story is the later notion of Jesus dying for our sins to satisfy the demands of a wrathful divine bookkeeper God. The many metaphors that are used around Jesus death should inform later theology, not the other way around. But that’s another story.

Mark 15:40 - 16:8 Jesus is buried and the story goes on in Galilee

The King is dead; long live the King! The body is not left on the cross, which is unusual. In order to maximize the humiliation of the crucifixion, the victims were hung close enough to the ground that wild dogs could feed off their corpses. Bodies would be left there to rot and be scavenged and become unrecognizable. Jesus’ body was taken down and laid in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea.

Why is a Jewish leader being nice to him? Mark’s story doesn’t allow us to generalize and say that all Jewish religious leaders were opposed to Jesus. We haven’t met Joseph before but we have met Jairus the synagogue leader whose wife and daughter were restored to him, and we have met the scribe who was very close to the kingdom of God. Joseph is “a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God”. Mark doesn’t treat Joseph as a disciple of Jesus. He is acting in pious recognition of the injunction that the corpse of an executed person is not to be left hanging there all night but is to be buried. (Deut, 21:21f)

As readers, we have known that Jesus has breathed his last – the narrator told us in 15:37 and we heard the centurion confirm it. The issue of Jesus being dead is put before us three more times: Pilate wonders if it has happened, the centurion confirms (again) that it has happened, Pilate now acts on it and releases the body to Joseph. From Pilate’s point of view, it is a pretty risk-free option since Jesus followers don’t get the body. The representatives of the Roman State have testified that Jesus died and now a respected member of Jewish society does the right thing and buries Jesus before he is savaged by dogs or abandoned in a common pit.

Time is a wasting; dusk is near; the Sabbath is about to start when work is ruled out (but acts of loving kindness are, arguably, permitted). Things move quickly: Joseph buys, and takes down, and wraps, and places. The women disciples (who used to provide for him when he was in Galilee cf. Lk. 8:1-3) note where the body is laid (so that they might return to the right place after the Sabbath finishes), so that they might still provide for him by preparing his body for burial. So, as the Sabbath starts, Jesus is entombed in a burial cave but not yet washed or anointed. All is now at rest on the Sabbath. The minimum has been done, the rest can wait.

And now the Sabbath is over, time for things to happen. What happens?

The witnesses to the burial site return, hence we can be assured that they have come back to the right burial cave. They note that the stone has been rolled away from the door.

A young man in a white robe (a neaniskos, another one) is sitting on the right hand side; he is not explicitly called an angel/messenger but that is his function.

They receive an announcement: he is not here; the crucified one has been raised.

They receive a message to take to Peter: Jesus has gone on ahead of them to Galilee, as he promised (14:28). When they return to the point from whence they began they will see it as for the first time, “… they’ll find out that their journey wasn’t useless; it isn’t hopeless — and it isn’t over! They’ll find that Jesus has come to Galilee ahead of them.” (Malbon, 99)

The women flee in terror and say nothing to anyone for they are afraid. The story ends but it doesn’t finish. Does this mean that it is now up to us? We are certainly driven back to the beginning of the story to read it against with fresh insight. We must make closure of the story.

We see various attempts to fix the text up, on the assumption that it couldn’t have ended like that, with the words “for they were afraid”, this must be a mistake and we should make amends. Our judgment is that there was no mistake, the ending is intentional and clever and the two other endings are later, post-Markan, attempts to tidy things up. The “shorter ending” has the women pass on the message and gives us a happy ending. [Read it] The “longer ending” adds verse 9-20 that appear in the King James translation, verses that add familiar stuff from Matthew and Luke and also the infamous “snake handling” verse. (“What is that?” you ask. Where have you been hiding out all your life? Have you never lived in Tennessee? “They will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them…”). You can read this ending for yourself and then put it back where it belongs, as an interesting, historical footnote.

Mark’s ending at verse 8 makes good sense. He finishes with “for they were afraid.” It is very abrupt and forces us to do the work of seeking closure.