Mark 14:52

It appears probable that this young man was of that house, where they had eaten the Passover. But some say that this young man was James, the brother of our Lord, who was called Just; who after the ascension of Christ received from the Apostles the throne of the bishopric of Jerusalem.

Just as Joseph left his mantle behind him, and fled naked from the wanton woman; so also let him, who would escape the hands of the evil ones, quit in mind all that is of the world, and fly after Jesus.

And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked - It has often been intimated, by the inhabitants of India, that a European in strait clothes must be in great danger when his clothes take fire. From their loose clothing they can suddenly disengage themselves. When two Hindoos are engaged in a violent quarrel, and one seizes the clothing of the other, often the latter will leave his clothes in the hands of his opponent, and flee away naked. This seems to have been the case with the person mentioned above. See Ward’s Customs.

THIS little episode in the narrative of the Evangelist is very singular. One wonders why it is introduced, but a moment's reflection will, I think, suggest a plausible reason. It strikes me that this "certain young man" was none other than Mark, himself. He was probably asleep and, awakened by a great clamor, he asked what it was about. The information was speedily given, "The guards have come to arrest Jesus of Nazareth." Moved by sudden impulse, not thinking of what he was doing, he rises from his bed, rushes down, pursues the troopers, dashes into the midst of their ranks as though he, alone, would attempt the rescue when all the disciples had fled. The moment the young men lay hold upon him, his heroic spasm is over—his enthusiasm evaporates, he runs away, leaves behind the linen cloth that was loosely wrapped about his body—and makes his escape. There have been many, since then, who have acted as Mark did. And it seems to me that this digression from the main narrative is intended to point a moral. First, however, you will ask me, "Why do you suppose that this certain young man was Mark?" I grant you that it is merely a supposition, yet it is supported by the strongest chain of probabilities and will sufficiently account for the manner in which he has inserted it. Calvin, following Ambrose and Chrysostom, thinks it was John, albeit few modern critics attach much weight to that conjecture. I find that the more perplexing critics of the modern school ascribe this transaction to Mark for these reasons—it was usual, among the Evangelists, to relate transactions in which they themselves took part without mentioning their names. This commonly occurs in the case of John, for instance. He bashfully keeps back his name when there is anything to his credit and he does the same when it is to the reverse.