This is based on an article I read recently called The Naked Runaway and the Enrobed Reporter of Mark 14 and 16, in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (vol 54 no 3 pp 527-545) by Abraham Kuruvilla, an Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries at Dallas Theological Seminary. What I like about it is Mark 14:51-52 is an obscure passage which I have often scratched my head over, but this article takes the text for what it says, steps back from the speculation and finds meaning and purpose for the story based on literary and exegetical considerations in the text. I find his answer to be a reasonable and satisfactory explanation of the text as it stands. Even though he finds a theological purpose for Mark’s inclusion of this event in his account, this in no way implies that the events described did not happen. The theological explanation, if accurate, leads to a couple of applications which I believe have bearing on our lives today.
And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body. And they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked. (Mark 14:51-52) This passage in Mark has caused a lot of speculation. On the one hand, some scholars point to its abruptness and how it seems to not fit into the flow of the passage and say that the “compiler” of what we now know as the Gospel of Mark slapped this story into a place where it didn’t fit, indicating not only a compiler but that the event did not happen but was a later myth about the events in the garden. Of course, this speculation depends on a “given” that the writer of the Gospel had no idea what it means to write something or that he was so committed to his agenda he did not care. He had no plan, no purpose and just haphazardly (and uncritically) threw stuff together. This given is patently false. Even in the first century AD (likewise if one accepts a 2nd or 3rd century date for the writing of Mark), authors wrote for a reason. The Gospel of Mark shows both a pattern and a purpose for writing and the quick dismissal of this event as purposeless is an injustice which one would not perpetrate on other writers or writings.
On the other hand, many speculate on who this young man is. Most commonly, people say this must be Mark himself making a cameo appearance. Having previously only heard people suggesting Mark, I was surprised to learn that others have suggested Jesus (the stripping prefiguring his trial and execution); John (because of John 18:15,16 and some early (4th and 5th century) writers); James, the brother of Jesus (because Eusebius writes that James wore a linen garment all his life, purportedly the one he abandoned in Mark 14); “Joseph” (Either an unnamed “Joseph-like” character or Joseph of Arimathea, because of this story’s similarity to historical Joseph’s losing his garment to Potiphar’s wife in Genesis 39); Lazarus (because the High Priests wished to kill him as well as Jesus John 12:10,11); or some unnamed Baptismal Initiate (based on an 18th century document which some claim to have been a copy of a letter written by Clement of Alexandria (cc. 150-217)).
In Mark’s Gospel, the only Gospel which has this story, the man is identified as “a young man” (νεανίσκος) (That’s Greek. You’re welcome). Though it’s tempting to try to figure out who this is, young man is what Mark calls him and it seems to me if who he is were important to the story then Mark would have named him.
This young man is also said to be a follower of Jesus. In the Gospel of Mark, “follow” was what it was the disciples were called to do (2:14; 8:34; 10:21) and follow was what the disciples had been doing (1:18; 2:14,15; 6:1; 10:28,52). So, by saying the young man followed Jesus, Mark was saying this young man was a disciple of Jesus.
Yet, Mark had already said that the disciples had fled, And they all left him and fled (Mark 14:50). What does this section add to the picture? It seems in one sense, it is a reverse discipleship. Those who had abandoned all to follow Jesus (1:16-20; 2:14; 10:28-31) are now abandoning all – including their clothing – to flee from Jesus. Interestingly, there is an earlier incident in Mark (10:50,52) in which a man name Bartimaeus abandons his cloak to follow Jesus, whereas here, the follower abandons his garment to flee. So the incident accentuates the failure of the disciples. Also, the incident mentions twice that the young man was naked indicating the shamefulness of their abandonment of Jesus.
There seems to be another reason in the broad story of the Gospel of Mark for the inclusion of the story, indicated by how Mark uses his words. As I said, in this story it is twice mentioned that the man was naked. As the story of Jesus’ passion continues, Jesus is stripped twice by his captors (at his mocking 15:16,17 and on the cross, 15:24). Our incident also mentions twice that the young man wore a “linen cloth” (σινδόνα) the only other time this word is used by Mark is at the burial of Jesus who was wrapped in linen (15:46 also twice). So, this would indicate a ‘clothing exchange” in the theology of Mark; that the cloth abandoned in shame was taken up by Jesus at his death. And there is more.
In the Gospel of Mark, there is one other time that the word translated “young man” is used, And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe (Mark 16:5, italics added). This repetition (the word is used 2x in Matthew; 1x in Luke; never in John; and 5x in Acts) in the Gospel should cause us to consider if the author is trying to connect the events. This is not to say that the two young men are the same person. We know that the one was a human follower of Jesus, while the other is called an Angel in the other Gospel accounts. But the fact that Mark chooses the same word indicates that he is broadening the picture, given that he was an author who was trying to say something.
This man is also wearing (also the only two times Mark uses this word “wear”) a garment, a white robe. Remarkably, the only other time in Mark where “white” garment is mentioned is at the Transfiguration of Jesus, and his clothes became radiant, intensely white, as no one on earth could bleach them. (Mark 9:3). So, it appears that another “clothing exchange” has occurred. At Jesus’ resurrection, the white robes of glory now clothe the young man.
To put it another way: in Mark, two literary exchanges of clothing take place:
1A: A young man wore linen which he shed in shame
1B: Jesus is wrapped in linen at his shameful death
2A: Jesus wore white robes of glory at the transfiguration
2B: A young man wears white clothing at the resurrection.
This literary device of the author presents a picture of the exchange which occurred at the cross. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21) It is also a picture of restoration of the abandoning disciples. Notice that of the Gospel accounts, Mark alone places the young man specifically “at the right” (16:5), a clear reference to the placing of the Messiah David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.’ (Mark 12:36 quoting Psalm 110:1) and so the identification of Christ and his followers. Also remember that Mark alone has the pointed, But go, tell his disciples and Peter (Mark 16:7 italics added) As Kuruvilla says, “There is hope for all who will follow Jesus … albeit stumbling and failing, clumsy and hesitant. Because of what Christ did, the shame is exchanged for glory.” (p 544)
This story, then, teaches something about Mark’s theology of the Passion of Jesus. As I said there seems to be a couple of important applications for today. The first is more theological in that there are those who would deny one or both of the imputations which occurred at the Cross. Historically, Christianity has taught that our sin was imputed to Christ and Christ’s righteousness is imputed to those who will believe. Some have denied that this was the case, and it seems these days their voices are getting louder. This story within the broader picture of Mark’s Gospel teaches both imputations. Our shame to Jesus, his glory to us.
The second application affirms the life of pure, unearned grace which is being a follower of Jesus. There is a reason this young man is unnamed and it’s not so that we can speculate about who he might be. As Kuruvilla says, “Who is the naked runaway? He is Every Disciple, shamefully feeble and fallible. And the enrobed reporter? That one, too, is Every Disciple, gloriously restored by the grace of God, through Jesus Christ!”
Xulonjam's Blog 
I think it was Mark himself, saying, “this was me – I saw all this happen.”
Mark wasn’t a contemporary of Jesus though… he was a disciple of Peter. I highly doubt it.
She was a member at the very beginning when of the church. She lived and maintained a home in Jerusalem. Mark would have been a young man at the time of the arrest. Most likely she was a disciple before Pentecost. Mark seems to have inserted a cameo as John does in his own gospel. He prefers to use this stylized approach rather than change the flow of narrative – as with John. It and adds color and poignancy to the writing. The significance of this passage is that this may clearly state that we area reading an eyewitness account.
If it was that, he picked a weird way of saying “I was there”. Especially compare John, “He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe.” (John 19:35) In any case, a cameo by Mark is the most popular of the explanations.
It seems to me it was a cameo. Please see my reply to Howe Foo.
We could find all sorts of parallels, but here is just a couple of things to think about. First, we honestly do not have absolute proof that the Gospels (evangelion) were written before the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD. We have estimations but not indisputable proof. Second, according to Josephus in his evangelion of the military campaigns of the Flavians, he describes how Titus Flavius went out without his armor (and therefore to a soldier metaphorically “naked”) in the garden of Gethsemane, was nearly caught and had to flee.
Thanks for the comment, RA. So, you are suggesting that the naked guy was a soldier who had come to arrest Jesus?
My post has more to do with the literary composition of Mark, which is unaffected by when it was written. To be sure, I accept the event described as historical (and an earlier date for composition) and so the guy in linen was a real guy in linen who wriggled out of someone’s grasp and ran away naked. It is hard to believe a soldier would be seized by his fellow arresting agents and would have to flee. The young man was a “follower” which is a common phrase in Mark for a disciple of Jesus, which a soldier could be.
Scriptures were written for a particular theological (and socio-political) agenda, not for historical accuracy. The ancient literary genre is sometimes known as “typology” which is used to establish prophetic elements in theology by attempting to make historical events (and sometimes fabricated events) fit into the agenda. We do not have indisputable proof that the Gospels were written before the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD (the earliest scholarly estimated date for “Mark” is approximately 65 AD, but this is not “set in stone”). We have more proof that suggests the Gospels were being written during and after the siege of Jerusalem. We have no independent, consistent, reliable sources that attest to the existence (or non-existence) of Jesus during his lifetime; his events are introduced after his supposed death. Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls describe militarized Messianic movements instead of pacified Christian movements. The timeline of when a composition was written is important, especially if the composition has been used to advocate historical accuracy.
I am not suggesting that the young man was real, or that he was a Roman soldier. Comparing the accounts of the Antiquities and Jewish Wars by Josephus, and particularly the evangelion of the Flavian military campaigns, there are striking parallels of the events in the life of Titus (and the Arch of Titus) and the Gospels (evangelion) of Jesus. This has been discovered by many scholars, but I have no evidence to suggest that the majority of scholars have noticed these parallels.
It is challenging and controversial, and I will confess that there is a possibility of intentional pattern seeking. However, the more I’ve looked into the Flavians and Josephus, the more parallels I’ve noticed to be in sequential order: location, persons involved, and the concepts.
I hope I did not put too many words into your mouth. Rereading your post, it seems you are suggesting a late(ish) date for the writing of Mark which incorporated a contemporary story into the biography of Jesus. Maybe somewhat like a modern writer using a known cultural referent as a shorthand.
It is quite alright. I should have been more clear with my position or suggestion. I went into further detail in the other post (which took me a while to type because I was interrupted, and I should have “refreshed” the page…)
After reading you description and interpretation of the events and researching this, I have a question. In the other instances where the term “young man” is used it is an angle. If the disciples had already fled, in the verse before, why is it not possible that the individual fleeing the scene was an angle. In many instances in the bible angles make appearances. Based on all the information we have, it would be a safe assumption to make, that knowing what was soon going to happen, even the angels following Jesus fled in fear. Mark may have witnessed this explainable individual fleeing from a distance. Thoughts?
That is an interesting idea, especially since the “young man” at the resurrection was an angel. The analysis I give is based on literary considerations, what are the terms used and where else are they used. To have this be a figure of even the angels abandoning Jesus is interesting. In Luke 22:43, Jesus has an angel ministering to him during his prayer in the garden. Then the angel left when the mob came. Interesting.
In a recent discussion on this passage, someone quoted Amos 2:16, “Bravehearted warriors will run away naked in that day. The LORD is speaking!”. This may be out of context but strikes me as intriguing, evoking OT “Day of the Lord’s Wrath” imagery into the passion narrative. Is there any other passage that applies “The Day of the Lord” to Jesus’ passion and death?
Pingback: Day 294: Mark 14-16; The End of the Book of Mark | Overisel Reformed Church
It’s a midrash picture of young believer not standing firm in his faith and turning back casting off his garment of salvation.
Thanks for the interaction. I did talk about the picture to a degree but this disciple did not “cast off” his Salvation, he was so scared he would run away shamefully naked. All the disciples abandoned Jesus in the garden yet Jesus could say he was guarding them all (John 17:12). The garden really was not a “firm in faith” moment but the fulfillment of Scriptures. None of the disciples were supposed to join Jesus in a grand martyrdom moment.
The young man might have been Spirit leaving jesus so that He could get full force of crucification pain.
This seems unlikely to me. In the ancient heresy called Gnosticism, there was a teaching that the “god part” of Jesus left before the crucifixion. A Gnostic writing called the Gospel of Peter has Jesus crying from the Cross “My power, My power, why hast thou forsaken me?” an obvious rewriting of Jesus’ quote of Psalm 22:1.
The Spirit was not a buffer for Jesus from the realities of living in the world. He was able to feel the full force of the crucifixion.
Hi, I just wanted to say thank you for writing out this explanation. Mark 14:51-52 makes a lot more sense to me now.
The reply I made earlier appears to have been removed?
Perhaps. There were three replies which I removed They were long and complicated, more so than I wanted replies to be.
I really enjoyed your post. I will have to read a couple more of your articles/posts. Here are a few of my thoughts:
There is a lot of reason to believe the young man in 14 and 16 are one in the same.
1) Mark’s literary style has him sandwiching events like vs. 51 between two main ideas.( ei: Mark
In this case the arrest and the resurrection. The last one to flee ( indicating the turmoil and difficulty of following Christ without the Holy Spirit) and then the first one to testify of the resurrected Christ. This story illustrates the radical transformation which is brought about by the death and resurrection of Jesus. It shows how radically he was changed from a disciple who abandoned Jesus, falling into a state of betrayal and shame to someone who gives witness to the resurrection.
2) Mark also uses the same Greek word/expression for “young man” only twice and in both cases to identify these two men. ( Mark does describe angels at other times without using the term “young man”
3) There is also the coalition between the manner Mark describes clothing .All 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. Check out Mark 1:6 9:3 and 14:30
Also, now the young man’s clothing outside the tomb is not at all as the angels’ described in Luke 24.
4) Another similarity, in both passages the young man is anonymous.
May the Lord’s favor always go before you
Pingback: Jesus’ Sex Life on the ‘Down Low’ | Nosmerca
Hi, I loved your post. So can we ponder the idea that this “young man” was an angel that was used by God to let Jesus know that righteousnes once he was clothed on had left him and the wrath of the Father had started. Adam realized he was naked when he first sinned and righteousness was removed-Gen 3:7-8-
Another verse about linen Revelation 19:8
Could it be possible?
I’m not a theologian but I look forward to the day when standing in front of Jesus he will reveal all these things to us.
Until that day comes, Blessings to you.
Hi I to have been pondering this one also, and my conclusions are similar to the last reply. I believe there is good reason this story is so vague and the specific name is not relevant because it is meant to be symbolic as much of the bible is to past and future in spiritual relevance. The garden setting was like Eden the young man had a covering as after Adam sinned and as he fled away naked the sin removed. As Paul writes about in Romans 5:19 “For as by one mans disobedience the many were made sinners, so by one mans obedience the many will be made righteous.” Obedience was the true battle in both garden settings. Thus the passion of Christ!!!!
it is very useful doctrine,not only for me but for all. Thank you very much.
It is this convoluted, almost Kabbalistic interpretation that led me away from modern Judaism into the simplicity of Christianity. Unbelievers who read this would say we are grasping at straws and would be correct. To break from this Catch-22 of biblical interpretation one needs to simply observe the book by that name. Either the writer remembered there was a naked young man, he may have remembered there was a naked young man or he did not remember there was a naked young man (see The Chaplain in the above novel). Now put yourself in the gospel writer’s shoes (sandals).
1. If he did not remember (jamais vu) and substitutes parable for narrative then we are led to the conclusion that the entire narrative is subject to the same condition – weakening the anchoring of faith – we may as well be gnostics. Parable is parable and narrative is narrative. The Bible is NOT a Kabalistic puzzle.
2. If he or the contributor only may have remembered the incident (presque vu), it would be one of little significance. Something peripheral to the history would be idle gossip, meandering for no good reason. The gospel authors had better things to do. For instance, if the naked young man was a sympathizing Centurian or disciple of John and simply remembered in passing, it only may have been remembered at the writing of the gospel many years hence. The focused nature of the actual writing would preclude things that only may have been remembered.
3. Finally if the writer or contributor definitely remembered the incident (deja vu) it would have to be significant at the time it was witnessed. The strongest impression would have been if it was Mark himself. While his mother was clearly a disciple and may have fled with the others, a young man with a curious nature straggling behind seems quite natural. We know from the book of Acts that Mark had some difficulty with authority in his younger years. The fact that he does not mention his own name only supports a cameo appearance. If there was another significant reason for this to have been remembered, the writer simply would have said so.
Kabbalistic is far from what was done in this piece. It is more a literary analysis, which in no way questions that the things recorded were historical. Those people who have accused me of “grasping at straws” have all been Christians who feel somewhat committed to him being Mark pulling a Hitchcock. Unbelievers have linked here mainly because they like the way I summarized many options.
Point is, no one’s faith rises or falls on these two verses. Speculating on who this man is is speculation whomever you choose to say it is. It is not “insider information” which the spiritual get to know, as it is commonly presented. Your summary (as common and popular as it is) contains plenty of speculation and arguments from silence and can hardly be called “simplicity”. If it were important or significant, his name would have been given.
Good response. If it were a cameo the name would not have been given.
Maybe it is what it seems to be. Christ was found with a nearly naked youth in the bushes with nothing but a cloth wrapped around him. We have to remember Christ was the eldest of the group while Mark was the youngest. At the time of the arrest Christ was 33 and Mark was only 14. The whole of the disciples were all 30 and younger. Christ as the Rabbi was an older man. He was also known for traveling and sleeping with 12 men, a woman of ill repute and a donkey. Seriously folks he really had a kinky side. The youth was lover that Mark as the youngest was jealous of. We all shudder at the thought but you must note Christ never spoke against male to male love. He was a gentle man who preferred the company of men. It would all the more reason for Christ’s arrest under the Jewish laws. While the Romans were not all too concerned with a man’s sexual preferences the Jews were. Maybe Mark was just jealous and had to point out the activities of Christ?
What it “seems to be” is a chaotic arrest where people are driven by fear to escape even by shedding the clothes grabbed onto by the arresting soldiers. This explanation is what it “seems to be” through a huge “wink, wink, nudge, nudge” lens. The equation “naked young man=gay sex” is not air tight.
Pingback: Significance of the Naked man who touches Hesus in Mark 14:51-52. | aprestonsite
Pingback: Significance of the Naked man who touches Jesus in Mark 14:51-52. | aprestonsite
Can we say the young man was Adam ?
I would not say that. The description is of a contemporary disciple. What kind of parallels with Adam do you see?
There is also a possible parallel meaning within this incident to the following:
Exodus 28:42
And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:
I guess this reveals that without a pure and clean covering, mankind is sinful in nakedness before Yahwey and, thus, our need for the pure covering of Salvation through the Blood of The Lamb, who was being led away to slaughter at the time of Mark’s observation.
First one must pray to understand scripture: Jas 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
At the moment Jesus was being led away, he was the lamb of God. Mar 14:51 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:
One must take the scripture to the Greek to understand that this certain young man that ‘followed’ Jesus, was Jesus. From G1 (as a particle of union) and κέλευθος keleuthos (a road); properly to be in the same way with, that is, to accompany (specifically as a disciple): – follow, reach.
Jesus Christ came to this earth to die on that cross for our sins. It was at that moment that Jesus was sin. “He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace [prosperity, welfare] was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5)
“He has made Him to be sin for us…that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.”
(2 Cor 5:21)
2Co 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
Now, Jesus Christ was fixing to die on that cross. Amen, or, oh me? Jesus Christ, was both man, and God. 1Ti 6:14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
1Ti 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
Mat 17:22 And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men:
Mat 17:23 And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. And they were exceeding sorry.
Jesus Christ our Lord, and Savior stated clearly that the clock was ticking at that time. Luk 22:52 Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves?
Luk 22:53 When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.
Now, I have set the stage. Please study, pray, and I will provide additional insight into the Lamb Of God.
This represents “inspiration” (the Logos or spiritu sanctus) leaving Jesus. Note this very moment of the arrest of Jesus marks a line that splits in two the story. Before: Jesus acts as a and is recognized and respected as such. His words and acts are made of gold: He is inspired by God. After he is arrested, only the man is left there, to pay as an innocent lamb for the words his mouth uttered (inspired by God: “your words, not mine”, “your will, not mine”). He no longer appears powerful or respected: he is completely human, complete pain, and all the mean people mock of his humanity. That’s the deepest and painful point of the story: the spirit is gone and the man is left alone as a sacrificial lamb, the God that inspired him has deserted him, as he painfully laments on the cross. See more in Rudolf Steiner comments on Mark Gospel.
I would disagree with this. First, It does not match the description in the text, clearly identifying the young man as a disciple. Second, the idea that the “God part” of Jesus left him is not in any text of the scripture. It posits a rupture in the incarnation which is not biblical. In the Gnostic Gospel of Peter, Jesus cries on the cross “My power, my power why hast thou forsaken me!”, clearly changing the Scriptural quote, “My God, My God …” (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34; Psalm 22:1), to indicate this loss of the “God part”. The whole of Jesus’ life, including the Cross was the Incarnation. Son of God and Son of Man.
The young man was Melchizadek. Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
Now, notice that in these passages it is ‘crystal clear’ that Jesus, and Melchisedec are the same. Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Melchizadek ‘brought foorth bread and wine’. Jesus Christ explained very clearly that he was Melchizedek. Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
Joh 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
It is impossible to read Hebrews Chapter 7, and state that Melchisedec, and Jesus Christ, are not one, and the same.
There is more to follow on this. Read Hebrews Chapter 7.
First, are you saying that Jesus (Malchizadek) ran away from Jesus in such a hurry that he shed his clothes to do it? That would set up a rift in the Incarnation and the Being and Work of Jesus which is (I would say) impossible to show from Scriptures. You evoked most of the Scriptures regarding Malchizadek but none showing connection between him and this young man.
Second, Hebrews 7 describes likenesses between Jesus and Malchizadek, not identification, showing that Jesus fulfills the prophecy that the Messiah would be a priest of the Order of Malchizadek.
Third, it looks like you are planning on setting up a Bible Study here. I would prefer that your contributions here be interactions with my writings and if you have your own detailed Study, please publish it on your own blog or venue and post a link here. Previously, a gentleman posted a “comment” which was a rather lengthy study. I ended up deleting it, believing that this is my blog and would prefer comments to be limited to interactions with the writings here or quick summary of opinion, providing links to your own venue should you want to elaborate the details of your study.
Very respectfully, I assumed I was following the thread on your blog? I am truly sorry if the response was not.
You are speaking on the same Scripture. My concern is a long and detailed comment which is really your own study. It would be better, I’m saying, to publish that on your own blog and post a link to it here,
The naked man who ran away was wearing a ‘burial shroud’ (Sindon) as per the greek text – not any linen garment or cloak. He was probably there to receive “Diksha” – to become a monk. There are many tantric rituals which involve wearing a burial shroud or leopard skin. One ritual is called ‘Ganachakra Puja’ which involves the five aspects of Pancha (5) “Ma” kaara:
(1) Mudhra – Parched Grain/bread
(2) Madhyam – Liquor/wine
(3) Mamsa – Meat
(4) Matsya – Fish
(5) Maithuna – (the mystery of) sexual union.
I wonder if….
I’m still confused but believe it is there in scripture for us to dig deeper in searching the trueth of the meaning so we can learn from the scenario.
I thought it meant giving up all we believe tobe important to our selfish ways and strip them away till we are completely naked from our sins and come to Christ cleansed.
That seems kind of imposed on the scene. So is my post to a degree, but I was looking at literary connections within Mark’s Gospel. In the context, they guy was running scared away from Jesus. So it’s hard to turn that around and say he’s symbolically running to Jesus as our example.
Thankyou for explaining this mystery verse of Mark 14
Grateful