At Mk. 14:38 Mark presents Jesus commanding Peter, James and John to petition God to be kept from "entering into" a phenomenon denoted by the term PEIRASMOS (PROSEUXESQE, hINA MH ELQHTE EIS PEIRASMON).(1) What, in Mark's eyes, is the object of this petition? Since, according to most commentators, the PEIRASMOS referred to within Mk. 14:38 signifies a "probing and proving of PISTIS"(2) and the expression MH ELQHTE EIS means "do not encounter"(3) or "succumb to",(4) the standard answer is that for Mark the petition's object is, if not the exemption of those who are to utter the prayer from experiencing an impending test of their own faithfulness,(5) then their preservation from yielding to its pressures when it arrives.(6)
Now I do not dispute that in Mk. 14:38 PEIRASMOS bears the sense "probing and proving of PISTIS", or that, according to Mark, "a testing of faithfulness" is what Jesus urges Peter, James, and John to pray that they be kept from. But it seems to me that it is neither escape on the part of Peter, James and John from their experiencing a test of their own faithfulness nor protection from their yielding to it that Mark has in view as the petition's object. Quite the contrary, my contention is that what Mark presents Jesus as urging the disciples to ask for in praying MH ELQHTE EIS PEIRASMON is help to avoid their perpetrating a "testing of faithfulness", and more specifically a particular "testing of faithfulness" -- the one expressly forbidden to any who would be among the faithful of Israel, namely, the "testing of the faithfulness of God".
My first step in showing this must be, then, to demonstrate that PROSEUXESQE, hINA MH ELQNTHE EIS PEIRASMON means "pray to be kept from subjecting someone or something, let alone God, to a test of faithfulness", and not "pray to escape experiencing or succumbing to a PEIRASMOS aimed at you". Is there anything that indicates that this is indeed the case? The answer is yes: the import of the often overlooked consideration that in Biblical usage, when the construction MH + a form of ERXESQAI + EIS is used, as it is in Mk. 14:38, in a command the object of which is something other than a place, the resultant phrase does not mean "do not encounter or succumb to" but "do not commit or engage in" that something.(7) Consider, for instance, Ps. 142:2 (LXX) where, as K. Grayston notes, KAI MH EISELQHS EIS KRISIN META TOU DOULOU SOU means, "do not engage in judging your servant".(8) Similarly, in Jer. 16:5 (LXX) the divine command MH EISELQHS EIS QIASON AUTWN obviously means "do not engage in mourning". And in Josh. 23:6 Joshua's final exhortation to the Israelites MH EISELQHTE EIS TA EHNH TA KATALELEIMMENA TAUTA, KAI TA ONOMATA TWN QEWN AUTWN OUK ONOMASQHSETAI EN hUMIN means "do not engage in the idolatrous practices which typify the "nations".(9) Also relevant in this regard is the fact, evident from Dan 3:2--a royal command of Nebuchadnezzar to all his retainers and officers to "enter into" (ELQEIN EIS) the EGKAINISMOS, the dedication ceremony, of a golden image which he himself had "set up"--that the positive form of the construction, i.e., the construction absent MH, means "join in", for ELQEIN EIS TON EGKAINISMON THS EIKONOS THS XRUSHS, NNESTHSE NABOUXODONOSOR hO BASILEUS is a command to participate in this dedication ceremony. In the light of these observations, Jesus words PROSEUXESQE, hINA MH ELQHTE EIS PEIRASMON must surely mean not what they have usually been understood to mean, but "pray that you might be kept from subjecting someone or something to a test of faithfulness". Given their syntax and its import, they are a command to Peter, James, and John, to petition God for help against becoming agents rather than victims of such a test.
But what indicates that Mark intended the "testing" of God and his faithfulness to be what Jesus commands Peter, James, and John to pray against perpetrating? Here the answer arises when we take into account what it is according to Mark that prompts Jesus to command Peter, James, and John PROSEUXESQE, hINA MH ELQHTE EIS PEIRASMON. As Mk. 14:37 shows, Jesus' command is prompted by these disciples' refusal to be willing to "stay awake" and to "watch" as the hour finally arrives in which Jesus allows himself, in obedience to the divine will, to be "delivered up to suffer many things" and to die on the cross--a refusal which culminates in the disciples abandoning Jesus and his ways and rejecting as "of God" how he has called them to follow him (cf. Mk. 14:50). Now, as Mark indicates elsewhere,(10) being willing to "stay awake" and "watch" is, among other things, to refuse to succumb to any doubt that God will provide, especially when it seems otherwise.(11) And to "fall asleep" and to be unwilling to "watch" is equivalent to denying that God is faithful and that his ways are adequate to what he claims are his purposes.(12) And, as such texts as Ex. 17:1-7; Num. 14:22; Deut. 6-8; Pss. 78; 95 (LXX); Is. 7:12; Wis. 1:1-3; Asump.Mos. 9:4; Matt. 4:1-11//Lk. 4:1-13; 1 Cor. 10, Heb. 3:15-17, and, most notably, Mk. 8:27-31 illustrate, denying that God is faithful and that his ways are adequate to what he claims are his purposes is the very essence of testing the faitfulness of God.(13) Accordingly, what Mark presents as that which prompts Jesus to utter the command to Peter, James, and John that they should pray to be protected against becoming the agents of µ is the realization on Jesus' part that these disciples are on the verge of putting God to the test. This being the case, that is to say, since it is because Jesus, according to Mark, sees Peter James and John as on the verge of putting God to the test that he [Jesus] commands these disciples to pray to be protected against becoming agents of PEIRASMOS", then in Mark's eyes the "testing" which Peter, James, and John are commanded by Jesus to pray against engaging in can be nothing other than that of God and his faithfulness.
In the light of these considerations, it follows then that the object of the petition embodied in MH ELQHTE EIS PEIRASMON is help to avoid putting God and his faithfulness to the test.
Notably, this conclusion is underscored by the fact that divine aid to avoid putting God to the test is what Mark presents Jesus himself as praying for immediately before Jesus urges the command PROSEUXESQE, hINA MH ELQHTE EIS PEIRASMON upon Peter, James, and John. According to Mark, Jesus has been brought to the brink of denying that means God has set for him, the way of the cross, to achieve the purposes that God has destined him to achieve are the right ones to follow. As he begins his prayer Jesus is aware of two things. The first is that carrying on with his commission to suffer in accordance with God's decree on the exigencies of Messiahship entails the dissolution of the small band of followers whose response of loyalty and fellowship, however incomplete and varying, was in the end the only tangible result of his entire public ministry.(14) Accordingly, to submit to the passion is apparently to acquiesce in the complete failure of that ministry.(15) The second thing, as Mk. 14:41 shows (compare Mk. 9:31), is that in subordinating his will to that of God, he consents to being "delivered up (PARADIDOTAI) into the hands of sinners" and thereby placing himself, defenseless and powerless, at the mercy, whim, and disposal of the seemingly absolute and arbitrary power of the forces which are committed to doing all they can to set him and his mission at nought.(16) So to accept God's will also means risking the fate of John the Baptizer who, like Jesus, was divinely commissioned to `restore all things'(17) but, trusting in God, was also `delivered up' (cf. Mk. 1:14, PARADOQHNAI) only to suffer an ignominious end(18) and have his mission defeated by those who opposed him.(19) To all appearances, then, obedience produces nothing but a literal dead end.(20)
Accordingly, in Mark's view, the anguish and bewilderment, the hesitation and uncertainty to which Jesus is subject in Gethsemane arises out of a conflict between Jesus' desire to be faithful to his calling and to accomplish the Messianic task and the apparent irrationality of submitting in obedience to a divinely decreed plan of action when it seemed that to obey was to jeopardize God's worthwhile purposes.
1. Given that hINA sometimes has a telic force, the command of Mk. 14:38, PROSEUXESQE, hINA NH ELQHTE EIS PEIRASMON, is sometimes taken in such a way that hINA MH ELQHTE EIS PEIRASMON specifies only what Jesus intends to be the result of the act of praying that he urges upon the Peter, James, and John (cf. C.S. Mann, Mark [New York: Doubleday, ] 591). But as R.E. Brown (The Death of the Messiah, 2 Vols. [New York: Doubleday, 1994], Vol. 1, p. 197), following H.G. Meecham ("The imperatival use of hINA in the New Testament", JTS 43 [1942], 179-80) correctly notes, hINA in Mk. 14:38 is epexegetical and therefore signifies that the phrase MH ELQHTE EIS PEIRASMON is the content of what Jesus commands his disciples to pray. On this, see also R.H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 872.
2. There is, however, a division among commentators regarding whether or not the PEIRASMOS spoken of in our text is viewed as "eschatological" in nature; that is, whether, according to Mark, the "probing and proving of PISTIS" that Jesus there designates as something that is to be petitioned against is (a) the so-called "final testing", the great tribulation, that according to some apocalypticists' scenarios of the "end times" (cf. Dan. 12 [LXX]; Rev. 3:10) was expected to beset and afflict the people of God at the dawning of the end of the age or (b) one that can occur or be engaged in at any time in the life of those who are to pray MH ELQHTE EIS PEIRASMON. On this, see Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 1:159-162 (Brown himself favours the former view). On the use and meaning of PEIRASMOS in biblical and related literature, see H. Seesmann, "PEIRA, KTL.", TDNT 6 (1968) 23-36, and especially J.H. Korn, PEIRASMOS: Die Versuchung des Glaubigen in der greischischen Bible (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1937).
3. Cf. e.g., D.M. Stanley, Jesus in Gethsemane: The Early Church Reflects on the Suffering of Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 1980), 141.
4. Cf. Gundry, Mark, 873. V. Taylor, ; J. Carmignac, ""Fais que nous n'entrions pas dans la tentation'", RB 72 (1965) 218-226.
5. Cf. e.g., Stanley, Jesus in Gethsemane, 141; Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 1: ; D. Senior, The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (Wilmington, Del.: Michale Glazier, 1984) 78.
6. Cf. Carmignac, ""Fais que nous n'entrions pas dans la tentation'", 218-226; Gundry, Mark, 873; W.H. Kelber, "The Hour of the Son of Man and the Sparing of the Hour", in The Passion in Mark, ed. W.H. Kelber (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) 41-60, esp. 48.
For a contrary assessment which anticipated the contention that I will argue here, see C.B. Houk, "PEIRASMOS, the Lord's Prayer, and the Massah tradition [Ex 17:1-7]", SJT 19 (1966), 216-225.
7. Contra ""Fais que nous n'entrions pas dans la tentation'", 218-226; Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1:159.
8. K. Grayston, "The Decline of Temptation -- and The Lord's Prayer", SJT 46 (1963) 279-295, esp. 292
9. See also 1 Sam. 25:26 and 25:33 where MH ELQEIN EIS hAIMATA (AQWN) means "not committing murder".
10. Cf. especially Mk. 13:33-37. See also Matt. 24:42; 25:13; Mk. 13:34-37; Lk. 21:36; 1 Peter 5:8.
11. On this, see T.J. Geddert, Watchwords: Mark 13 in Markan Eschatology (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989). W.L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 520.
12. Lane, Mark, 520; K.G. Kuhn, "New Light on Temptation, Sin, and Flesh in the New Testament', in The Scrolls and the New Testament, ed. Krister Stendahl (New York: Charles Scribner & Sons, 1957) 94-113.
13. On this as the defining characteristic of "testing God", see Korn, PEIRASMOS, 32-43; Seesemann, "PEIRA, KTL.," 27-28; B. Gerhardsson, The Testing of God's Son (Matt. 4:1-11 and Par.) (Lund: Gleerup, 1966) 28.
14. The Gethsemane story is preceded in the Markan narrative by the account of a double prophecy of Jesus (1) that his own suffering and death would cause his disciples to loose all faith in him and (2) that, in fulfillment of Zech. 13:7, his passion would both scandalize and cause the break up of the little community of believers who at the end of his ministry alone had remained loyal to him (Mk 14:27-31). The fact that this passage interrupts the flow of the narrative begun at 14:17 and that v. 32, the beginning of the Gethsemane story, follows on naturally from v. 26, the end of the Last Supper narrative, indicates that Mark has inserted vv. 27-31 at this point in order to emphasize that Jesus was thoroughly aware of the course of the events that would unfold in the hours ahead. As Lane notes, "Within the Markan outline these verses serve to anticipate important sections of the subsequent narrative, but especially the flight of the disciples at the time of the arrest ... and the denial of Peter ..." (Mark, 510).
15. On this, see Stanley, Jesus in Gethsemane, pp. 138-39.
16. Cf. Mk. 9:11. On the identification of the "sinners" of Mk. 14:41 with the forces of evil, see Holleran, The Synoptic Gethsemane, 14, 66-67, 204; Lane, Mark, 522; M.E. Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark (London: SPCK, 1967), 162; H.E. Todt, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (London: SCM Press, 1965) 200. As the parallelism between Mk. 14:41 and 9:31 shows ("the hour is come; behold, the Son of Man is delivered up into the hands of sinners [µ] ...'/`... the Son of man will be delivered up into the hands of men []) ..."), the term "sinners" corresponds here with "men", a term which in Mark's Gospel signifies not only the opponents of Jesus, and those who seek his death, but those forces aligned with Satan which seek to frustrate the work of God and his saving purposes (cf. Mk. 8:31). On this, see B. van Iersel, "Jesus' Way of Obedience according to Mark's Gospel', Concilium 30 (1981), 25-33, esp. 29-31. On the parallelism between Mk. 14:41 and Mk. 9:31, see F. Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in Christology (London: Lutterworth, 1969) 48 n. 4.
17. That John was viewed by Mark as commissioned for this task is clear from Mk 9.12, where Jesus, identifying John with Elijah (cp. v. 13), alludes to John's commission in terms of the function that Mal. 3.23 (LXX) ascribes to the forerunner, i.e., APOKATASTHSEI, `... and he will restore ...' (see A. Oepke, `µ, ', TDNT I (1964), pp. 387-89). This view also informs Mark's use in Mk 1.2 of the citation of from Is. 40.3, Mal. 3.1, and Exod. 23.30 as an explanation of the advent of John and the purpose of his coming and Mark's allusions in Mk 1.6 to 2 Kngs 1.8 and Zech. 13.4. On this, see W. Wink, John the Baptist in The Gospel Tradition (Cambridge: CUP, 1968), pp. 1-17.