Category: Mark 14

Mark 14:32

Presently they came to a garden known as Gethsemane, and Jesus said to his disciples “Sit down here while I pray.”

having learned to pray
when usual processes fail
was a difficult lesson
it is still a stiff task
to hop out of routine
and actually pray

we’ve long ago known
mama Jesus is the best prayer
and goes off to practice
she’s still in charge
our number one routine
so we leave our praying to her

in a lovely garden
all we do is sit
as evening grows darker
waiting
to see how our routine
plays out this time

Mark does not reference Gethsemane as a garden. It is a place where oil is pressed from olives. The very name comes from gath-semane, meaning “oil press”. This is a place to work, not to laze around.

Jesus prepares to go to his work of prayer.

We have seen Jesus go off by himself to pray. We have seen him send the disciples to sea while he went off by himself to pray. We have heard a bit of Jesus at prayer with a sleeping daughter and blind man. But, in Mark, there is not much direction given about praying other than to do so when all else fails.

Here, Jesus is again the Prayer-in-Chief. The disciples are instructed to sit, not sit and pray. It is as if they are protective objects placed to provide a buffer between Jesus and a beginning of a long-talked-about suffering.

A question begs to be asked about why Jesus did not have the disciples participate in some form of prayer. This is in keeping with a friend’s response when in a similar position of leadership—they didn’t want particular people praying with or for them because it was all too predictable that their prayers would go in a different direction. Jesus may not have wanted Peter’s prayer of self-delusion to weaken his own need for prayer.

Implied in “sitting” is the recent repetition of “Keep awake”, but it is not explicitly stated. At question is whether the apocalyptic energy of an intense wakefulness is still operative with the disciples. It has been a busy time and they may have full tummies. These, added to pleasant enough night air, may contribute to failing this first test of whether or not they can live without denying Jesus and just sit.

Mark 14:31

But Peter vehemently protested, “Even if I must die with you, I will never disown you!” And they all said the same.

no no no
I’ll die before I die
and there’s nothin’
you can do
to stop me
from making
a complete fool
of your teaching

yes indeed
so say we all
we’re saying it loud
so very proud of our loud
its time to take a stand
we’ve got the training
to win outright victory

The intensified phrase,  “vehemently protested”, gives the flavor of the Greek. If you are going to protest too much, do so with gusto.

After Peter protests, we come to the little word “all” who are now emboldened to add their voice to Peter’s.

This is the third time in five verses that we have come upon the word “all”. In the immediate context, this is a reference to the Twelve, but the 60+ uses of this word in Mark are an indication of a much larger picture Mark is painting.

Myers189 points to this larger picture in his paragraph:

As we have come to expect, Jesus’ realism about his destiny is immediately refuted by Peter (14:29). But as surely as Peter sets himself apart as the exception, Jesus counters that he above all will characterize the desertion (14:30). The whole community echoes Peter’s vehement protestations of loyalty (14:31), showing that they are all complicit in self-delusion.

Self-delusion is a circle difficult to break into. Seen from its own vantage point, everything can be fitted into the constructed model. One of the clues is an excessive use of “should” and “ought”. What I see is what you should see. The way I am defining the situation is the way you ought to define it. This is a strong defense not easily toppled. It would be far easier to cause the Temple walls to fall than for my appreciation for my way to stumble. There are no banana peels in this world.

Self-delusion comes in both individual and communal expressions, as here. Peter’s denial of Jesus’ reality is a center around which others gather. A strong individual can keep a group satisfied with their eternal perspective, and a strong group can help an individual be satisfied with the shared vision. They both attribute lies to others.

“All” implicates each of us in some level of self-delusion.

Mark 14:30

“I tell you,” answered Jesus, “that you yourself today – yes, this very night – before the cock crows twice, will disown me three times.”

oh oh
you don’t have to like it
one potato two potato
three potato four
we all fall down
each time a rooster crows
we’ve moved on

ho ho ho
get used to it
whether Jack goes up or down
he’s going to break his crown
and all the king’s horses
won’t put it together again
get real listen to the rooster

Mark begins with “Amen!” an emphatic declaration and moves on to another emphatic that might better be phrased, “You yourself”. This is to say that while all the disciples will betray in one form or another, it is Peter who will make the formal denials of Jesus. Even Judas’ handing-over is a smaller betrayal than Peter’s denial that he has even a nodding acquaintance with Jesus.

We are reminded here of the return of the vacationing house-owner returning at an unknown time, perhaps cockcrow. This may be pre-dawn with real roosters or before the Roman bugle call—gallicinium (cock-crow)—the end of the third watch of the night—3:00 a.m.

A third emphasis is heard in the phrasing about three denials happening before two rooster crows. Were it three denials and three crows we would have a sense of pace and regularity. Here, in Mark’s hurried pace, Peter will squeeze in three denials before there are two crows.

The result is an understanding of the dire situation in which Jesus finds himself. Not unexpected, as he has been talking about being handed over for a while, but ever more real and imminent. Those not in his sandals are still able to evade having to come to terms with the overwhelming expectation that there is no exit from the course of events. And, if there were an out available, it would be inauthentic to take it for it would be a denial of good news, belovedness, and a steady basic hope beyond any evidence to the contrary.

It is helpful to attend to Carrington’s444 reference to F. C. Grant’s suggestion that “the words are a proverbial expression indicating not time, but readiness to betray….”

We will see Jesus’ readiness to betray his lot in just another few verses. This knowledge may enter into his assessment of Peter.

Mark 14:29

“Even if everyone else falls away,” said Peter, “I will not.”

oh yeah
even if put in a press
I won’t be squeezed

my integrity is unsurpassed
I yam what I yam
and that’s all what I yam

I’m number one
no mater what James and John
try to pull

that’s all there is to it
I’m a rock
and will sit here forever

It wasn’t all that long ago that Peter said to Jesus when the subject of suffering and death was raised, “No, you can’t!”

Now Peter is saying to Jesus that when it comes to steadfastness, “Yes, I can”.

Peter would do well in today’s computer age where everything is binary (a “1” or a “0”) or a partisan political-divide elicits, “Only my way, never yours.”

Carrington318, in a nice turn of phrase, says of Peter, “It is his métier, in this book to talk too much.” It is this talking too much that indicates we are out of partnership with G*D and Neighb*r. At least one implication is that we are not feeling safe and have to retreat to an extreme.

Peter is a rock to be stumbled over. Even if all the rest of the disciples (not just Judas) should betray, Peter-the-Rock, will not stumble because he is so well grounded, eternally grounded.

It is this very self-assurance that will bring Peter to his knees in regret and remorse. With his surety, Peter is unable to imagine being less than the hero. According to some traditions he has the “keys to the kingdom”. This form of infallibility will come to haunt the church as it is forever incorporating the eternal in a time-bound decision and unable to adjust as “time makes ancient truth [drumroll] uncouth [rimshot!]”.

Carrington319 continues:

We learn or infer from Luke, that [Peter] had sold his cloak to buy two swords, and he was not afraid to use one of them. Nor was he afraid to follow Jesus (with a sword?) into the hall of the high priest. He had courage. And yet he failed.

The word “bravado” comes to mind in its current usage where the wildness of “Bravo!” has simply become an arrogant expression of power that turns out to not be so tough as that which is projected. Peter’s bluster is wide but not deep.

Mark 14:28

Yet, after I have risen, I will go before you into Galilee.”

when metamorphed one more time
sneaky in the way I’ll show up
in your everyday goings-on
it will be old home week

from Galilee we have come
to Galilee we shall return
in Galilee through Galilee
we’ll go beyond Galilee

olive to oil
Galilee to Galilee
illusions drop away
grow suffer die

After showing kindness to those with little to no control over their condition, the powers that be (religious and secular) have plotted suffering and death for Jesus. His addition to the usual state of affairs is a “rising”.

Added to the actions of Temple and State, we have heard that the disciples will betray Jesus in proactive and reactive ways.

This verse is word of hope in the face of all-too-usual realities in everyday life. After merciful acts, suffering, betrayal, and death—Jesus will be raised [note that “raised” is different from “rise”] and precede the disciples to Galilee to call them again. Galilee is where calls are responded to, amazing healings occur two-by-two, and feedings and storm-stillings and teachings go on. This will also lead Mark’s narrative back to its beginning of good news.

It is this circularity that indicates to Sabin1214 that a key to understanding Mark is to view it as “a Wisdom riddle or mashal.”

Aichele54 finds his narrative approach to Mark grounded in this same second visit to Galilee that is never spoken of. Thus Aichele raises the importance of how we engage Mark as Readers. Readers become part of the story.

Waetjen244 notes that what is important in Mark is not predictions of rising but the experience of it:

Hearing the good news of the resurrection is not enough. They must experience the reality of the risen Jesus for themselves, and that will not happen in Jerusalem. There will be no post-Easter appearances in the canceled architectonic center of Judaism, because a new exodus has occurred.

The beginning of good news is always beginning. There is a dynamism in Creation that does not end in stasis, but presence.

Mark 14:27

“All of you will fall away; for scripture says – ‘I will strike down the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’

first call the olives together
thank them for growing well
acknowledge they can’t stay
the same branch stem fruit

they will bring new life
to those who eat them
those who press flesh to oil
their preparation has ended

faithfulness from last season
trusting flower and tree
now needs a different calculus
accounting for a press

we falter during transitions
deeply disappointed
the old does not hold
the new does not cohere

though nothing new
we are thrown for a loop
out of time out of joint
we practice trusting nothing

Mark again uses his εὐθύς (immediately) jump. This time the shift is not about geography but from songs of praise to a foreseeing of abandonment. This is quite a shift from the heights to the depths.

What the Common English Bible (CEB) sees as a “falter[ing] in your faithfulness” needs to be seen in light of other uses Mark has made of σκανδαλίζω  (skandalizō, take offense or loss of confidence). It describes his hometown’s rejection of him, what the disciples did to the children by keeping them at bay, and what one should do to an arm or an eye should it offend.

If seen in light of the quote about the shepherd from Zechariah 13:7, Bratcher442 notes it means:

not that the disciples will lose their faith in their Master, but that their courage will fail and they will abandon him.

Likewise, Mark’s πατάσσω (patassō, smite or kill) can bring to mind a rainbow story where G*D says flooding/smiting all won’t happen again and to a Passover that protects a first-born from being destroyed. This is not a mere “hitting” of a shepherd, but a killing of that shepherd and subsequent scattering of the flock in all directions.

The abandonment is an abandonment to death. That death has been denied by Peter already and in just another two verses he will deny his part in that death by being one who abandons.

Imagine the whiplash here—Jesus has triumphantly entered Jerusalem, rebutted religious authorities, upset the Temple and predicted its downfall, and sung songs of praise. Now, abandoning disciples!

Mark 14:26

They then sang a hymn, and went out up the Mount of Olives,

high and lifted up
in the city
about to be grounded
in an olive grove

all our power
and symbols
will be pressed
to their essence

and so we sing
and change and dance
toward release
of old and new

A song of praise stimulates our hope and hope energizes any song we sing into praise.

Even as Mark hurries the story along from a prepared room in Jerusalem to beyond its walls where oil is prepared, we can pause to wonder about hope and praise in moments of betrayal, suffering, and death.

Sabin2128 reflects further on the previous verse when Jesus raised a last glass of wine:

Although in one sense it suggests that he is moving toward death, in another sense it offers hope that there will be another time, a new time, in which God’s kingdom will at last prevail. And by showing that Jesus speaks of this time as one in which there will be “fruit of the vine” to drink, Mark also suggests that there will be a time when the fruit of God’s vineyard will be accessible again to God.

It seems clear that Judas was present for the sharing of bread and wine. What is not clear is when he was no longer present with the rest of the disciples and on his way to the Chief Priest to complete the betrayal he had begun. This will be the first of the options. Its strength is the very energy of singing songs praise-fully. In such a setting people would not be tracking where others were and gives the most time for the planning that went into handing Jesus over to the Chief Priests and on to Prefect Pontius Pilate and finally to a Centurion to administer death.

With the adjustments Jesus made to the Passover ritual, there is no need to be limited to singing the traditional Psalms 113–118. As the party left Jerusalem, paralleling the Hebrews leaving Egypt, there may have been someone who lifted Miriam’s song of victory after passing through the sea and the drowning of Pharaoh’s army. This takes us back to the praise going on as Jesus left the Mount of Olives and entered Jerusalem in what seems like a long time ago. In between these times, Jesus sat on the Mount of Olives to speak of the Temple’s fall, echoing Jericho’s fall as the people shouted their victory praise.

Mark 14:25

I tell you that I will never again drink of the juice of the grape, until that day when I will drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

I am pouring out
the old wine
it has run its course

the new wine
isn’t ready yet
an involuntary fast

a laying down of body
without a rising in sight
another kind of fast

in such in-between times
a new covenant
isn’t full-blown

what we know of the old
persists in hanging on
and will until finally gone

awaiting new fermentation
raises uncertainty
to new heights

Peter’s denial of Jesus when he speaks of suffering and death is a beginning place to affirm that Mark’s writing is difficult to deal with. The matter of having preconceived ideas about what a Messiah should look and act like is one that continues down to the current proliferation of independent congregations.

Mann581 speaks of verses 22–25—instituting words for a Last Meal ritual—by remarking that a bibliography of writings about these verses, “would be daunting to the general reader.” His conclusion is: “In general most works on the history of liturgy deal with the Last Supper and what may be gleaned from the New Testament, but many come from denominational presuppositions.”

Remembering a previous debate about Jesus’ disciples not fasting, we have here an announcement that a time of fasting (not drinking) is upon Jesus, and, thus, the disciples. At question is whether we should still be in such a refusal of all that “wine” means, for everyday news would seem to confirm that we are not yet in a new relationship with G*D’s presence, much less a new relationship with our Neighb*rs.

Myers185 notes: “Mark’s portrait of the Last Supper is also significant for what it omits. ‘Do this in remembrance of me’…. But Mark…cited them in the commendation of the woman who anointed Jesus. Instead of memorializing Jesus, Mark wants us to remember discipleship practice.”

It might be interesting to continue sharing bread with one another, to give strength for a journey continuing toward good news, and to see (not drink) of a cup to encourage us to keep on toward the end of toasting a new G*D and Neighb*r partnership.

Mark 14:24

“This is my covenant-blood,” he said, “which is poured out on behalf of many.

this wine
is my thin thin blood
too little for my news
spilled too soon

I raise a toast
to those not here
who will yet taste
joy released anyway

I tip this glass
from which we all
have sipped a bit
to nourish unsown seeds

This is a controversial verse. No matter how you approach it, the relationship between wine and blood is tricky to hold together beyond a too-simple analogy. A lot of blood atonement theory takes root here, but it is not the only way to extend the comparison.

Wright195 notes:

Since this meal was and is so central, we shouldn’t be surprised that its meaning, and the way it is enacted, has often been the subject of bitter disputes and divisions within the church. Sorrow hung over the Last Supper itself, and sorrow hangs over every re-enactment of it within a divided church.

The “blood of the covenant” goes back to the Israelite experience related in Exodus 24. This is a unilateral agreement initiated by and dependent only upon G*D, not G*D’s people. We see some of this in the way Mark chooses to use διαθήκη (diathēkē, last will and testament) rather than the expected Greek word then used as “covenant” or agreement—συνθήκη (sunthēkē, bilateral agreement). This is a choice to continue to a hierarchical process that runs differently than the partnership emphasis I have followed. For Mark this is a theological/systems/process choice, not simply a linguistic or translational matter between Hebrew and Greek.

When Jerome translated the Greek manuscripts he had available to him into Latin, he used the Latin word we know as Testament. This is held to in the King James Version and others up to the late 1880s when “covenant” became the preferred English translation.

This opens for us the possibility of looking further and making a different choice. With the unilateral disposition of goods, there is also, finally, an entering into the trust needed for a partnership. It says, “I’ve brought things this far along the way and now you will carry them on.” Surely, wills can try to constrain the use of what is passed on, but this has the sense that the sorrow, each coming suffering and death, must be met contextually, not proscriptively. At issue is whether Jesus’ “covenant” is a constraint or setting loose of a partner.

Mark 14:23

Then he took a cup, and, after saying the thanksgiving, gave it to them, and they all drank from it.

a cup of wine
courses through blood
refreshing cooling freeing

a cup of wine
courses through gatherings
blessing disinfecting freeing

a cup of wine
courses through time
fortifying unifying freeing

In the previous verse praise was given for broken bread. The word used is εὐλογέω (eulogeō, celebrate with praise). This is “eu” (good) “logos” (words), or an extension of where Mark began—with good news. Bread and the breaking of it to have a meal together is praiseworthy. “Leavened” bread is that which is primarily turned toward one’s benefit, not the other’s.

In this verse the word changes to εὐχαριστέω (eucharisteō, to give thanks). In addition to containing “eu” (good), we also have “charis” (grace), as in say grace at a meal. This is where Mark has come to as his story moves toward its end—a meal together, even though its participants will all be participating in coming betrayals. The response to good news is a graceful response. No matter what has happened or will happen, we give thanks—it is enough that we made it this far, dayenu.

These two words help define one another, just as does bread and wine, good news and grateful/graceful response, G*D and Neighb*r.

Sabin1193 continues the definitional process by connecting the meal at Leper Simon’s house with this anonymous upper room:

In a poetic way these linking words [“break” and “pour”] serve to anticipate the Passion Narrative to come. There is a graphic link between the woman’s breaking of the alabaster vase and Jesus’ breaking of the bread that stands for his body, between the woman’s action of “pouring out” the oil and Jesus reference to the wine as his blood “poured out for many”. The woman’s gestures also appear to take place at a Passover meal, for the incident is set on the eve of Passover, and Jesus is “reclining at table”. Jesus himself says the woman has anticipated his burial. Thus this breaking and pouring out in the house of Simon the leper is linked to the breaking and pouring out of the Passover meal—actions that, in turn, are linked to the narrative of Jesus’ death….

These meals reminded us that boundaries are inappropriately set by insiders against outsiders. Eu logos needs eu charis.