-12 Min Read
Introduction
We are all familiar with the night that Jesus was betrayed and arrested. All four of the Gospel accounts record this story (Matt. 26:47-56; Mark 14:43-52; Luke 22:47-53; John 18:1-11). Jesus first went to the Garden of Gethsemane with Peter, James, and John and asked them to keep watch while He prayed. However, in Mark’s account, there appears to be another person there; “a young man was following [Jesus], wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body” (Mark 14:51). Many are confused as to this mention in Mark’s account. There is much controversy and debate over this unnamed figure and so we must ask; Who is this nameless young man and what is his significance?
At Night,
The Crazies Come Out
And Jesus answered and said to them, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me, as you would against a robber? 49 Every day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize Me; but this has taken place in order that the Scriptures would be fulfilled.” 50 And they all left Him and fled. 51 And a young man was following Him, wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they seized him. 52 But he pulled free of the linen sheet and escaped naked.
– Mark 14:48-52 (LSB)
The Church has always struggled with how to rightly handle Mark’s mention of this young half-naked man, but now there is a major controversy that has recently been stirred up over this text. Ammon Hillman, a self-professed apostate with a Ph.D from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in classics specializing in Ancient Greek and Roman pharmacy, appeared on the Danny Jones Podcast back in May of this year promoting his wild theories and fringe ideas of Christianity. On YouTube alone, the interview with Ammon Hillman has received 1.4 million views.
*I do not recommend you watch or listen to the Danny Jones Podcast interview, it is blasphemous and vulgar. The first thing Hillman says after being introduced to the listers is; “Hail Satan!” Hillman was fired from his teaching position at St. Mary’s University of Minnesota after the Catholic church investigated him for demon possession and for ‘summoning demons and opening portals’. Hillman is obsessed with drugs and appears to be only concerned with discussing things through that lens. It is also clear that Hillman’s mission is to upset Christians in this interview, to which he succeeds greatly.
In this 3.5-hour interview, Hillman says all kinds of outlandish things, one of which is that this person with Jesus in the Garden in Mark’s account is a young prepubescent boy who was Jesus’ sex slave [1]. Hillman claims that Jesus was in anguish that night from using heavy drugs in the Garden and that He asked the disciples to keep watch so He could do immoral things to the young boy. He also asserts that this is why Jesus was arrested, because of what He was caught doing to the young boy.
Hillman proceeds to show his studio audience the Greek behind the English translation while stating how the English translators are “ignorant” and “untrained” people. The rendering He proposes is “a young boy, enslaved to Jesus, was wearing a medical bandage wrapped around his p****…” Hillman offers no meaningful exegesis or serious translation of the text but simply finds in the text what he wants to find there. Hillman made a game of abusing the Greek Lexicons throughout the podcast. Though Hillman may appear to be new and original in this theory, he surprisingly is not.
Morton Smith, an American professor of ancient history at Columbia University in the 20th century, proposed that the reason for the presence of the young man in Mark’s Gospel was that he was to be baptized by Jesus – this is why the man was wearing nothing but a linen garment. But then Smith adds that because of Jesus and Paul’s view of baptism being a symbolic act of spiritual union, this man came to Jesus to be “set free from the laws ordained for and in the lower world … freedom from the law may have resulted in completion of the spiritual union by physical union” [2].
In other words, Smith is proposing that when Jesus baptized someone, (which Jesus never did baptize anyone), He would also have sex with them. Smith’s comments were not received well by other scholars in his field. Most of them were outraged by the things he proposed in his writings and this seemed to please Smith [3]. Ammon Hillman appears to be taking Smith’s wild and fringe views even further and likewise enjoys upsetting everyone in the process.
Hillman’s outlandish appearance on this podcast has made waves across the internet and has many people, (I would argue mainly unbelievers), talking about Christianity, but not in a good or helpful way. Christian leaders and pastors are now obligated to engage with the nonsense Hillman is promoting, as they were with Smith back in the late 70’s, because of its reach and how it could upset the faith of some. We must get this text right and have responses ready for those we may encounter who have bought into Hillman’s garbage.
A Nameless Coward
And a young man was following Him, wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they seized him. 52 But he pulled free of the linen sheet and escaped naked.
– Mark 14:51-52 (LSB)
Many have debated as to who the young man may be. Some say that it is Joseph of Arimathea because of the mention of “linen” and he would wrap Jesus in linen (Matt. 27:59; Mark 15:46; John 19:38-40), while others say that it is the Apostle John or The Rich Young Ruler because of the mention of “young“. However, the most popular view is that this individual is Mark, the author of the gospel account. Many say this is Mark’s way of coping with the shame of abandoning the Lord Jesus, by including himself in the story but keeping himself nameless.
Those who subscribe to this theory try and make the case by proposing another theory. They say that Jesus and the twelve could have spent the Passover meal in Mark’s mother’s house and when they went to the Garden, Mark followed them there. They arrive at this second theory because Luke records that upon Peter’s angelic jailbreak, Peter visits Mark’s mother’s house where the church was gathered: “And when he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John who was also called Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying” (Acts 12:12).
However, there is no mention of an upper room, nor does Luke connect it to the house on the night of Jesus’ betrayal. None of the gospel authors mention that the upper room was in the house of Mary, mother of John Mark. Yet, many favor this theory such as Barclay, who likes the view so much that he adds;
“It may be that Mark was actually present at the Last Supper. He was young, just a boy, and maybe no one really noticed him. But he was fascinated with Jesus, and when the company went out into the dark, he slipped out after them when he ought to have been in bed, with only the linen sheet over his naked body. It may be that all the time Mark was there in the shadows listening and watching. That would explain where the Gethsemane narrative came from. If the disciples were alseep, how did anyone know about the struggle of soul that Jesus had there? It may be that the one witness was Mark as he stood silent in the shadows, watching with a boy’s reverence the greatest hero he had ever known.”
– William Barclay [5]
Many observe that Mark was also known as a coward who deserted Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:36-40) but to say that this unnamed individual is indeed Mark would be a total guess. Papias, an early church father who resided in modern-day Turkey (130 A.D.), wrote that Mark “neither heard the Lord nor followed him” [4]. This of course is not to be treated as absolute, for Papias could have been wrong or ill-informed about Mark and his previous interactions or knowledge of Jesus.
MacArthur may go too far in the opposite direction, in that he theorizes that the young man could be simply a “bystander… who may have been awakened by the ruckus caused by the soldiers and, after getting out of bed and donning a sheet, went out to investigate…” [6]. But verse 51 does say that the “young man was following” Jesus, we, therefore, cannot rule out that this man was indeed a “follower” of Christ.
I would assert that the hidden identity of the individual is on purpose. I believe that Mark knows who the individual is, otherwise how did he find out about this event? Mark’s gospel serves best to leave the young man’s name out of it. Having a coward running away in shame, who is nameless, is what is best for the story. I would submit that Mark is being very intentional for the sake of the reader and that this is not some throwaway moment in the greater story but plays an important role in it.
Running Scared
Even the most courageous of heart among the mighty men will flee naked in that day,” declares Yahweh.
– Amos 2:16 (LSB)
What if leaving the young man nameless is Mark’s way of allowing the audience to step foot in the shoes of another individual in the story? Peter, the bravest of them all, proved to not only be a coward and ran away with the rest of the disciples (Mark 14:50) but would go on to deny the Lord Jesus three times while cursing (Mark 14:66-72). In John 20:19-23 we read that the disciples were locked up in a house behind closed doors “for fear of the Jews” and yet Jesus appeared to them and said; “Peace be with you” and “Receive the Holy Spirit.” Thomas has his moment of doubt but is restored (John 20:24-29), and Peter also is restored on the beach (John 21:15-19). Every time we see an individual stand out amongst the group of disciples and fall, later in the story they have a moment of restoration.
But not for this naked young man who was in the Garden the night Jesus was betrayed. It seems safest to conclude that this young man is a “follower” of Jesus for two reasons;
1) Only those associated with Jesus were described as fleeing the scene in the Garden. There would be no need for someone who was an innocent bystander to flee from the armed mob, nor would it make any sense for someone who has their allegiance to either the Pharisees or the Roman government to run away. The safest answer is to admit that this young man was indeed a “follower” of Jesus, for Mark says that; “And they all left Him and fled. And a young man was following Him” (Mark 14:50-51).
2) Why would the guard seek to seize the young boy if he was not associated with Jesus? Some may point out their unsuccess in seizing Peter, the one who attempted to murder a Roman soldier, but this follows logic. It is much easier to capture an unarmed, younger person than it is an armed, full-grown adult. The young man in the Garden is an easy target, just as the pack circles the smallest and easier prey, so do the soldiers in the Garden (smallest = young man; easiest = the Lord Jesus). Though yes, Peter appears in the court during Jesus’ trial but works hard to conceal his true identity. We should not interpret that to mean that they had no interest in arresting Peter that night, but that Peter was simply more successful at escaping than this young man.
But is this young man a true follower? He appears to do the very thing Joseph did but for the wrong reason. Joseph thought it better to flee from Potiphar’s wife without his garment and naked than to give in to the temptation of her demands and be caught with her (Gen. 39:11-14), whereas this young man in the garden flees without his garment in nakedness because of the fear of being arrested with the Lord Jesus. Joseph thought it better to be shamed in his nakedness while being innocent than to be guilty of committing adultery. This young man, on the other hand, is shamed both by his nakedness and his cowardice.
The other disciples fled clothed, but this young man fled naked. The shame is greater for the young nameless man. The warning is great for those who would be tempted to become ashamed of the Lord Jesus; “For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory” (Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26).
Maybe Mark intends to have this unnamed figure speak to us as the reader, informing us that we would be no better than the disciples, but like this young man would run away scared. There is no mention of this individual’s restoration, like the other disciples. We may conclude that his youth is symbolic of one’s immaturity. Also, his fleeing in nakedness while the others left clothed is symbolic of God guarding His chosen from too much shame, pointing towards their restoration, whereas this young man is left to a more permanent shame, pointing to how Judas would be (Matt. 27:3-5).
For in the case of those once having been enlightened and having tasted of the heavenly gift and having become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and having tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and having fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. 7 For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; 8 but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is unfit and close to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.
– Hebrews 6:4-8 (LSB)
Conclusion
We should be aware that Hillman and others are distorting the Greek and making baseless claims about this text. We do not know who the young man is in Mark’s account and we should rest in the fact that we are not supposed to know. The mention of the young man is indeed for a reason, otherwise Mark would not have brought him up. This unnamed, cowardly, young, shamed, man serves a purpose. It may be best for us to consider that there were two types of disciples in the garden, the sincere and the insincere, those clothed and those naked, those who would be restored and those left nameless. May we prove to be genuine followers of Christ who find our names written in the Lamb’s Book of Life and not be left running away scared, naked, ashamed, and without a name.
Works Cited
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dY-roDpHWI&t=8212s (2:06:20)
[2] Morton Smith, Jesus The Magician, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1978)
[4] Eusebius, Church History, 3.39.15.
[5] William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark, The New Daily Study Bible, (Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky, 2001), 405
[6] John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Mark 9-16, (Moody Publishers, Chicago, IL, 2015), 317.