Category: Mark 14

Up, and let us be going. Look! My betrayer is close at hand.”

---

rise
rally

up now
head out

look
destiny

up and out
step lively now

betrayer
betrayed

meet in the open
recognized in the other

---

Sabin2₁₄₂ writes of this verse:

The phrase translated as “Get up!” is literally, “You are raised up!” It is again ironic. By means of it, Mark indicates the distance between what the disciples ought to be and what in fact they are.

This is actually an irony on top of irony as verse 41 ends with being betrayed by sinners, which is the same category that Jesus has reached out to all through Mark.

The first irony is about those outside the group (betrayers) and the second irony is focused on those within the group (sleepers).

Between the language of “handed over” (betrayed) and “Raised” (after betrayal) is the story of our life. With birth, we have been handed over to culture writ as large as language and as small as family. This is the water in which we live and move and have our being. It shapes our response to the occasions of life.

To be Raised is to have agency as a responsible partner with those now around us as well as those who have gone before and will arrive in days to come. We can shift beyond the limits that have been handed down to us and those limits that are yet ahead. In the space between this breath and a next, we are at liberty, raised.

In Thankdeka’s just-released book, Love Beyond Belief: Finding the Access Point to Spiritual Awareness, the neuroscience behind emotion and conscience is proposed as a source for a renewal of religion. It is here, in the emotions of the brain, that we find our mind transformed by our heart, as encouraged by Baptizer John, and alert, as asked for by Jesus. A starting point is an appreciation of the irony of how our best intentions go awry. This humor crack raises an option to practice watching; to practice awareness of what is actually before us, not our fantasies of how we desire things to be. Here, though the hour is late, we can face betrayal, ours and others, without denial.

A third time he came, and said to them, “Sleep on now, and rest yourselves. Enough! My time has come. Look, the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of wicked people.

---

if at first
you don’t succeed
rinse and repeat
as necessary
to become clean enough
to say it clear
enough
time’s up

of course
time’s been up
for quite some time
enough has been done
to finally move on
to doom’s midnight hour
a creaking door
to maybe a new garden

---

Bratcher₄₅₁ notes, “How this [verse] is to be taken is subject to wide differences of opinion.” This page doesn’t scratch the surface of difficulties.

Returning to the same situation a third time, whether a statement is made to or a question asked about the sleeping disciples, significant irony is present.

It is out of this recognition of the state of affairs that we come to a form of a word only used here in the Christian Testament—ἀπέχει (apechei, sufficient, settled) that is translated as “enough”. Mann₅₉₃ is accurate when he says, “The commentators provide us with a rich field of speculation with respect to this word….”

The tradition ties “enough” with sleep. However, the word itself has ties to a completed economic transaction and has been seen in relation to Judas having received his payment, solidifying a betrayal. E.K. Simpson’s paraphrase goes so far as to say, “It is settled! The deed of infamy is done! He pockets his reward.”

Apechei has also been recorded in some manuscripts with the word telos, which brings us back to Chapter 13 and the apocalyptic sense that things are now in place and can’t be changed—disaster all around.

The question of looking backward to sleep or forward to betrayal is one each Reader is going to have to wrestle with. Working against this is whatever traditional translation one is reading. In English, it doesn’t appear, on the surface, to be much of a question.

There is still the third-person use of “son of adam” that needs looking at and a deeper investigation into whatever moral and theological significance needs to be brought to bear on the determination of “sinners” (including sleeping disciples?).

and coming back again he found them asleep, for their eyes were heavy; and they did not know what to say to him.

---

dull stupor
persists
beyond open eyes
not yet focusable

any attempted response
stutters and babbles
with words unavailable
twisted every which way

even a simple standing
weaves and wobbles
before pausing
to widen eyes

we excel
at awakening
more tired
than before dozing

---

And, again, we are called to remember additional times when responses to Jesus were muddled.

After an initial enthusiasm to follow Jesus, there are times when the disciples and crowds appear reluctant to engage a larger picture and stop with confusion. This begins with the first healing when everyone in the synagogue (including the disciples) wondered, “What’s this?”

Confusion in a surprising moment is one thing; it is another in moments of teaching. The disciples were famous for sleeping through the telling of parables and needing private tutoring regarding what they had apparently slept through.

After rescue from a storm at sea, the disciples looked at one another and couldn’t figure out, “Who is this?”

In the healing of a daughter, after how many healings, Peter, John, and James were “shocked” and told to be quiet about what they experienced, lest they confuse others based on their own dismay.

Confusion turned to resistance when the disciples were asked to feed a crowd of people and later were unable to “understand” about the loaves. Their opposition deepened when asked to wrestle with the idea that a Messiah would suffer and die.

Most telling is the Transfiguration scene when Mark records Peter’s blabbering “because he didn’t know how to respond”.

The hero’s task becomes both more difficult at each block and more likely to succeed when they continue to hold steady.

There is a dawning clarity that we do not escape a needed exploration of our wilderness (in this case betrayal) by recruiting way-goers. Hope for their future transfiguration/rising can be held but their present weakness and vulnerability must be accepted as real. The only thing left is a next attempt to renegotiate with a beloved’s partner.

Again he went away, and prayed in the same words;

---

repetition
whether vain or not
puts blinders on
the clearest vision

hope and stupidity
are never far apart
both expect a result
beyond repetition’s ability

---

At what point does repetition of a request indicate an assumed weakness of the one being asked for a change of heart. Think here of any child trying to get something they want. They only need to be insistent and they will wear down their caregiver. Short-term persistence wins out over a longer-term vision. Such repetition is an admission that the partnership is on shaky ground.

Such repetition is not working with the disciples (“keep awake”) and it is not working with G*D. Aichele₁₅puts it this way, “the silence of Abba in Gethsemane is matched by the confusion or indifference of the disciples….”

A more positive reference for repetition is Gideon’s “Fleece” (Judges 6:36–40). When Gideon is trying to determine the validity of a word from G*D that he didn’t like and wanted changed, he tested G*D with requests for a physical sign to confirm the direction he saw things going.

Jesus receives neither a sign nor a word that his inner conflict of “spirit and flesh” changes anything. An affirmative sign would be welcome; no sign at all is troubling. We are basically reduced to, “A Beloved is a Beloved, and there are consequences that must be borne if there is any integrity in all that has come before.”

Myers₁₈₉sets this prayer in a slightly different context:

Though profoundly shaken, Jesus demonstrates true prayer, which takes us to the heart of Mark’s theological argument. All things are possible for God, but the first concern of prayer is not to remedy personal distress but rather to seek the One whose will is the healing of our broken history (14:26).

I remain skeptical of the modifiers of “true” and “first” that are used here. Both seem a bit too easy in the messy business of tikkun olam. Trying to partner a G*D and an Image of G*D speaks to brokenness in both as well as mutual assistance in rising. Leonard Bernstein’s third symphony prayer, Kaddish, speaks to this mutuality (be sure to listen to the recording that features Jennie Tourel).

Watch and pray,” he said to them all, “so that you may not fall into temptation. True, the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

---

alertness
never was
going to be sufficient

equally insufficient
is any other virtue
including prayer

eventually prayer
will justify anything
in Stockholm captivity

temptational resistance
requires presence
not technique

---

Mark often has quick cuts as he jumps from one scene to another. The little word “you” is a clue that we have just had one of those jumps without it being announced.

It is easy to have this verse be a continuation of what is being said to Peter. The difficulty comes in the “you” here being plural, rather than singular.

One of the choices is to have this second word be addressed to all present—Peter, James, and John.

Of more interest is the possibility that it also includes, or is even primarily directed, at the Reader. It is as if Jesus turned to face the Reader and says, “You’ve just seen what the inner core of disciples has done. I see in you the struggle between your interest in possibly partnering with me and the difficulties that will pose for you. I also see you are as up for this—as am I. See my own difficulty here and let’s keep alert and pray for each other.”

Of even more interest is seeing three parts to this verse. First, the difficulty Peter, James, and John have of keeping alert in the presence of their monkey minds jumping all about, wearing them out. Second, a word of encouragement to the Reader as well as the three disciples that adds a purpose for resoluteness in an instruction to keep awake. Third, the distinction between “spirit” and “flesh” (a false distinction and never a satisfactory binary) belongs with a beginning confession when Jesus returns to prayer.

The first part is narratively needed, as is a blockage in any fairy tale (and, no, that is not a disparagement). The second part is a direct address to Mark’s congregation and the current Reader. The third part is an incorrect marking of verses and has placed this spirit/flesh comment in conjunction with Peter, rather than with Jesus as prelude to his praying again.

Then he came and found the three apostles asleep. “Simon,” he said to Peter, “are you asleep? Couldn’t you watch for one hour?

---

heightened alert is wearing
each sound amplified
one suspicion welcoming another
until the only option
is crazy or sensory deprivation

in the end all sleep
unconscious even of dreams
no matter the danger
sleep will have its way

in the end all sleep
the most exciting partnership lost
to one’s own biorhythms

in the end all sleep
no command can counter this

in the end all sleep

---

The question about alertness contains a question about strength to do the task—ἴσχυσας (ischusas, strength/health/ability). Variants of this word have been used by Mark: 1) 2:17, when Jesus spoke of his presence not being for the healthy (including Peter and the other sleeping disciples?); 2) 5:4, as a descriptor of those whose strength was not able to control the Geresene; and 3) 9:18, noting the disciples not being up to the task of healing a convulsing boy.

Together, these four references put us in the unenviable position of being commanded to eternal wakefulness. Like Paul’s later admonishment to persist in prayer, wakefulness and prayer entail more than non-sleep or consciousness of praying. It is helpful to have a palin moment of our own and return to the comment in verse 13:33 and reflect again on the quote from Sabin.

We need to approach wakefulness in the same manner as a novice would meditate on a koan. What strength is available to us through independent agency and what is someone else’s action? Such reflection can assist the Reader in finding their part in a story of intersections caught between a valued past and an at least equally valued different future.

Reflection on the difference it makes to Jesus or Mark’s story for the disciples to keep their eyes open (other than loading the disciples then and now with guilt for not being “strong”) can keep us focused on the Wisdom issue of a larger frame.

In light of frames, Peter is here referred to by his pre-called name of Simon. That’s a serious calling out. It may be more reflective of Jesus’ state of being than Simon Peter’s.

“Abba, Father,” he said, “all things are possible to you; take away this cup from me; yet, not what I will, but what you will.”

---

when all else fails
we fall back on old tapes
attempting a recreation
to recapture our being
from itself

our partnership agreements
have become too one-sided
dancing and planning
have paled and trapped vision
into sufficiency

wiggle as we might
eventually there is trust
still at work
doing all the good we can
for its own sake

---

In the for-what-it-is-worth category, this verse was the most vexing for me to translate because of its lack of ongoing partnership.

With no response, Jesus is left with a decision about proceeding with the last point of partnered agreement on Transfiguration Mountain or making a decision for both.

It is helpful at this point to read Nikos Kazantzakis’ Last Temptation of Christ. Though the setting of Gethsemane is different from Golgatha, the dynamic is quite similar.

Aichele₁₅ sets a helpful context for this scene:

“Abba’s silence in Gethsemane accompanies a moment of non-transfiguration. Is Jesus no longer the son of the Father? Has he already been abandoned by God (15:34)?

My translation in a forthcoming volume, Slow-Reading the Gospel of Mark: A Translation, goes as follows (punctuate as you need for sense):

Jesus’ words were
To the Beloved
whose name I carry
to that beyond impossibility
remove this test
yet
not just as I desire
but as we
previously agreed.

Going on a little further, he threw himself on the ground, and began to pray that, if it were possible, he might be spared that hour.

---

in the end we all fall down
after all the rosy rings
have rolled away
the sadness of suffering
still needs to be dealt with

each Adam and every Eve
with their internal
Socrates and Buddha
Solomon and Confucius
prepares their suffering antidote

each Eve and every Adam
comes to terms with suffering
Sappho and Tārā
Deborah and Gargi
echo still

so bright and brave
we enter our first wilderness
our beast and angels in accord
too many wildernesses later
we pray to be spared one more

---

As Jesus travels further into this particular wilderness, attempting to make sense out of the senseless reality of suffering and death, the only one still present is the partnered Reader.

Does the Reader also prostrate themself to hear whatever Jesus would say aloud? If not, do they stand? Kneel?

When hearing the request for being spared whatever amount of predestination is carried with such a time of suffering, does the Reader already know where this is going? Do they place a hand on Jesus’ back as he had done on so many times of healing or withhold it? Do they only listen or attempt to speak?

Waetjen₁₉ speaks of Mark as an “omniscient narrator” relating events unavailable to the characters. If Mark is writing for the benefit of the Reader in such places as the Jordan River where a dove descended with baptismal belovedness and here at Gethsemane:

… the addressees of the Gospel, acquire a comprehension of Jesus’ person and work that the disciples inside the story do not have. The advantage that they gain, however, is hazardous, for it can be turned against them in their interaction with the story. What will be the outcome of their confrontation with their own quality of discipleship, mirrored as it is in the Gospel by Jesus’ followers, which they will be forced to evaluate from a new transcending point of view that begins to crystallize out of the fresh insights they receive from an omniscient storyteller?

“I am sad at heart,” he said, “sad even to death; wait here, and watch.”

---

caught in systems
too big to fail
with too much to lose
if healed of too much control
bedrock sadness grows too much

overwhelmed
then beloved
teaching healing
then betrayed
overwhelmed

you’re with me
stay over there
turn on high alert
I’ll be over there
everyone’s alone

what a day this has been
a year’s worth of hope
a decade’s investment
to change an era
and it has come to naught

---

The comments of Jesus are suggestive of what may have been going on inside the man with many possessions who was unable to rid himself of their pull on his life. The goal of eternity was insufficient to get him over the hump of actually selling his possessions and giving the proceeds to the poor.

It can be fruitful to imagine what has so captured Jesus that as he actually comes to selling his life, even as a ransom for many, he is troubled to his depths. The cost of continuing in belovedness does not reduce the longer one has been at it. It always costs an identity.

Presuming Jesus has an identity of his own, a nearing denouement has brought the value of identity to the surface. Whether in upper-case or lower-, is Jesus still b/Beloved? Still the t/Transfigured?

These repeated scenes with the disciples not only bring to mind the parable of a house-owner away on a journey and the need to watch but the Transfiguration. Sabin1₁₇₉ notes this latter connection:

The scene is constructed by Mark as the reverse of the scene of transfiguration. Jesus takes the same three disciples and changes again before their eyes, only in precisely opposite ways…. In both episodes the disciples do not know what to say (9:6 and 14:40), yet otherwise their responses are markedly different; When Jesus appears glorious, Peter understands his relationship to Moses and Elijah (9:5), and the disciples connect his transfigured state with Elijah and the End Time (9:11); when Jesus appears “sorrowful even to death” (14:34), the disciples close their eyes and fall asleep.

“Suffering/death” now has more impact than when first met.

He took with him Peter, James, and John; and began to show signs of great dismay and deep distress of mind.

---

in the midst
of a usual cast of characters
comfort levels
are expected to be high

having gone through
so many experiences
we’ve got each other’s back
best buddies

but even here
all the king’s horses
and all our friend’s prayers
can’t budge impending doom

lonelier than ever
despair leads us away
anxiety pushes us away
lonelier than ever

---

Even best buddies can’t keep us from “walking that lonesome valley by ourself”.

Taking Peter, James, and John along with him while leaving the rest of the disciples sitting behind, suggests there is a heightened expectation that their presence will make a difference, even though it didn’t during a moment of transfiguration. These three became confused and stuttered inappropriately about tents. Eventually, they were told to speak to no one about this. Presumably because they would only make a mess of the mystery to which they were witnesses.

In the presence of his most often named disciples, there was another beginning in addition to the beginning of good news. This is the beginning of suffering and death with the twin pair of dreads—despair and anxiety. These two are still active within individual Christians and congregations as well as the church at large when we stop to consider the state of both church and beyond-church. The difference the church has made, internally and externally, has, at best, a neutral effect and, at worst, an adverse effect.

Bratcher₄₄₆ talks about the words translated as the dismay of  despair and anxiety, distress and trouble:

ἐκθαμβέω (ekthambeō) the word denotes a distress which is the result of surprise, i.e. a dread caused by something unexpected.

ἀδημονέω (adēmoneō) the emphasis of this verb seems to be on the element of anguish caused by uncertainty and bewilderment as to what to do.

Both words leave us a bit confused as suffering and death have been constant companions. Now they are a surprise wilderness?