Commentary on the Gospel of Mark

Preface

The author, in this Commentary, has sought to present in a concise form an explanation of all the facts necessary to a clear understanding of the gospel narrative, and the plan adopted has been to make this volume complete in itself, independent of St. Matthew or St. Luke.

It will be observed that each heading of a section is accompanied by a reference to the parallel passages.

The writer has also taken into consideration, the wants of teachers and Bible Classes, and his aim has been to present the Scriptures " in the plain form in which they are to be taught by the head of a family." The questions at the foot of the page have been prepared with much care, and may be used by the student for self-examination, by the teacher as a guide in his labors, or by parents in the instruction of their children.

Special thanks are due to the Rev. Adolph Spaeth, D. D. Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis, in the Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, whose ripe scholarship and advice have ever been at the writer's command, and to whom the proofs have been submitted as they passed through the press.

These pages are now sent forth with the earnest prayer that they may give light and comfort in many a home, and assist the youth of our land in the closer study of that precious Word, which " is a lamp unto our feet, and a light unto our path."

E. F. W.

Collect for St Pork's Jotj.

O Almighty God, who hast instructed Thy holy Church with the heavenly doctrine of Thy Evangelist Saint Mark; Give us grace, that, being not like children carried about with every -wind of doctrine, we may be established in the truth of Thy holy Gospel % through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Chapter I

LIFE OP ST. MARK.

1. Name. The Jewish name of the writer of the second and briefest of the Gospels was John, which is the same as Johanan {the gift of God) ; but according to the Jewish custom of the time, the Latin surname of Mark was added. In Acts 12: 12, 25; 15: 37, both names occur, " John, whose surname was Mark;" in Acts 13: 5, 13, he is called "John;" but after this he is alwayB known as "Mark" (Acts 15: 39; Col. 4: 10; Philemon 24; 2 Tim. 4: 11; 1 Pet. 5 : 13).

2. Parentage. Of St. Mark's father we know absolutely nothing. His mother's name was Mary (Acts 12 : 12), and as her house served as a meeting place for the disciples, it may be inferred that she was one of the prominent members of the Apostolic Church in Jerusalem. The Evangelist was a cousin of Barnabas, the great friend of St. Paul (Col. 4: 10), and was therefore, on his mother's side, of the tribe of Levi (Acts 4: 36).

3. His Conversion. The mother of St. Mark seems to have been intimately acquainted with St. Peter (Acts 12: 12), and as St. Peter calls Mark his son (1 Pet 5: 13), in the same spiritual sense of the word in which Paul gives this name to Titus and Timothy (Tit 1:4.; 1 Tim. 1 : 2 ; 2 Tim. 1 : 2), we infer that St Mark owed

1. By what two names is the writer of the second Gktepel known? 2. What do we know of his parents ? 3. Give an account of Barnabas- — Acts 4: 86; 11: 22, 30 ; 12: 25. 4. What do we know of St. Mark's conversion t

INTRODUCTION.

his conversion to Christianity, to St. Peter. The conjecture that the Evangelist was one of the seventy disciples, and that he took offence at the " hard saying " of Christ in the synagogue of Capernaum (John 6: 60-66), but was afterwards brought back to the faith by St. Peter, is without any warrant. The time of his conversion, whether it occurred during our Lord's ministry on earth, or after the day of Pentecost, must remain forever a matter of uncer- ■ tainty.

4. References to Mark in the Gospels. The Evangelist is not directly mentioned in the Gospels. There are reasons, however, for identifying him with the "certain young man" of Mark 14: 51, who, observing what took place at Gethsemane, fled when surprised by the guard, leaving behind him the linen robe in which he was wrapped. The minuteness of the details given points to him.

5. References to Mark in the Acts of the Apostles.

(a) St. Mark appears for the first time, by name, in the evangelical history in Acts 12 : 12, where we read that St. Peter, after his miraculous escape from prison (a. d. 44), " came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark ; where many were gathered together and were praying"

(b) The visit of Barnabas and Saul to Jerusalem (a. d. 44), as bearers of the relief sent by the Church of Antioch " unto the brethren that dwelt in Judcea" (Acts 11 : 29, 30), was a turning point in the history of the young convert, for " Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministration, taking with them John whose surname was Mark" (Acts 12: 25).

(c) On their first missionary journey (a. d. 45), Mark accompanied Barnabas and Saul as their " minister " or "attendant" (Acts 13 : 5). With them he visited the isle of Cyprus, the native country of his kinsman Barnabas (Acts 4: 36). It was his duty to provide for their personal wants in traveling, to assist in baptisms, and to

5. Is there any reference to him in the Gospels ? (?. Under what circumstances does his name first occur ? 7. What event decided his future calling? 8. Give the date of St. Paul's missionary journeys. — a) a. d. (45-48) ; b) a. d. (51-54) ; c) a. i>. (54-57) 9. In what way was St. Mark identified with the first journey?

INTRODUCTION.

attend to all temporal matters, so that Paul and Barnabas might be able to devote themselves entirely to the preaching of the Gospel.

(d) But when they came to Perga in Pamphylia (a. d. 46 ?), Mark " departed from them and returned to Jerusalem " (Acts 13 : 13). The reason why St. Mark left them is not recorded, but it seems from the manner in which Paul speaks of this desertion (Acts 15 : 38), that Mark was to be blamed. Being a convert of St. Peter, (a) he may not have been prepared for the preaching of the gospel in a Gentile country, and simply wished to rejoin St. Peter and the other apostles, and share their labors at Jerusalem ; or, (/?) he may not have had the courage to face the unknown dangers of the Asiatic mountains, the journeyings, the perils of waters, the perils of robbers, the hunger and thirst, the fastings, the cold and nakedness of 2 Cor. 11 : 26, 27 ; or, (}) the novelty of his work having worn off, knowing that his mother was exposed to persecution, he may have longed to see her and to return to Jerusalem.

(e) Four years later, a. d. 51, when Paul and Barnabas were arranging for their second missionary journey, this desertion of Mark was the cause of a dispute and a separation between the two Apostles ; for " Barnabas was minded to take with them John also, who was called Mark. But Paul thought not good to take with them him who withdrew from them from Pamphylia, and went not ivith them to the work" (Acts 15: 37, 38). The result was that 11 Paul chose Silas, and went forth," going " through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches ; " and so " Barnabas took Mark with him, and sailed away unto Cyprus " ( Acts 15 : 39, 41). This is the last notice we have of St. Mark in the Acts of the Apostles.

6. References to Mark in the Epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter. Whatever was Mark's reason for leaving the two apostles at Perga, it did not lead to a final separation between him and St. Paul. After a. d. 51, we find but four short and scattered notices of the Evangelist, but these are deeply interesting.

(a) We find him by the side of the Apostle Paul in his first im-

10. Where and why did he forsake St. Paul? 11. What is the last notice of St. Mark in Acts? 12. How often is he referred to in the Epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter?

prisonment at Rome (a. d. 62-64), on the point of returning to Asia Minor, and contemplating a visit to the church at Colossas, acknowledged by Paul as one of his "fellow workers unto the kingdom of God, men that have been a comfort unto me" (Col. 4: 10, 11). St. Paul in this letter to the Colossians writes, "if lie come unto you, receive him " (Col. 4 : 10), for possibly they had heard about St. Mark's leaving the work when at Perga, and so needed to be re-assured about him.

(6) When St. Paul wrote his letter to Philemon, also one of the four Epistles of the first captivity — Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon, Philippians — St. Mark was still with him, not yet having started on his journey to Asia Minor (Philemon 24).

(c) We next hear of him as being with St. Peter at Babylon : u She that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you ; and so doth Mark my son " (1 Pet. 5 : 13). From this we infer that he rejoined his beloved father in the faith, the great friend of his mother, at Babylon, and assisted him in his labors among his own countrymen.

{d) The last reference to the Evangelist in the New Testament occurs in Paul's second letter to Timothy, written from Rome, during his second captivity, towards the close of his life (a. d. 68). " Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is useful to me for ministering" (2 Tim. 4: 11). There is something very affecting in this desire of the great apostle, now rapidly approaching the end of his earthly life, to see the Evangelist ; for it shows that St. Paul had forgotten the youthful error of St. Mark, in the remembrance of his more recent fidelity. At the time this letter was written, St. Mark was in Asia Minor, in the neighborhood of Ephesus, where

13. What testimony does St. Paul bear to his faithfulness in his letter to the Colossians? 14. What is the date of St. Paul's first imprisonment? 15. What letters did he write at this time? 16. Who were Paul's comforters in his first captivity? Philemon 23,24. 17. Where is Babylon? 18. With whom and among whom did St'. Mark labor? 19. What is the date of St. Paul's second captivity? 20. How do we know that St. Paul forgave and forgot St. Mark's error in forsaking him in his first missionary journey ?

Timothy was stationed. It is most probable that he did join the Apostle Paul at Rome, and comfort him in the dark days that preceded his martyrdom, and there, likewise, according to ancient tradition, he met again his spiritual father, St. Peter, and cheered his last days.

7. Ti'adition and Legend. The tradition of the Early Church affirms that St. Mark wrote his gospel at St. Peter's request, acting as his " interpreter," and that he was sent on a mission from Rome to Egypt, where he founded the church of Alexandria, and also the celebrated Catechetical School, which produced such a succession of learned teachers. He is said to have suffered a martyr's death, a few years after the martyrdom of St. Paul and St. Peter. According to later legends, his remains were conveyed to Venice A. d. 827, and the stately Cathedral in the Piazza of St. Mark in that city was dedicated to his memory. Ever since " the Lion," which mediaeval theology had selected as his emblem, became the standard of the Venetian Republic. But these later traditions and legends are vague and often inconsistent and rest on no sound authority.

Chapter II

THE GOSPEL OF ST. MARE.

1. The Author. It is universally agreed that the second Gospel was composed by Mark ; though there has been a difference of opinion as to the person meant. For there are some able commentators ( Grotius, Calov, Cave, Campbell, Burton, Credner, Da Costa, Brown, and others), who maintain that there are two persons in the New Testament by the name of Mark, (a) the John Mark of the Acts of the Apostles, the companion of St. Paul (Col. 4: 10 ; Philemon 24 ; 2 Timothy 4: 11), and (o) the Mark whom St. Peter calls "my son" (1 Pet. 5: 13); and these two are distinguished from

21. Give the legendary history of the later days of St. Mark.

1. Who is the author of the second Gospel? 2. Is the John Mark each other as the Pauline and the Petrine Mark. With the vast majority of critics, we identify the " John Mark " of the Acts and the Epistles of St. Paul, with the Mark of the Epistle of St. Peter. For in the pithy words of John Lightfoot " to suppose two Marks, one with Peter and another with Paul, is to breed confusion where none is needed. It can easily be seen how John Mark came into familiarity with Paul and Peter, and the other Mark we can not find in the New Testament unless of our own invention" {Harm, of N. T., vol. 1, p. 336).

2. The Relation of the Gospel of St. Mark to St. Peter.

(a) It is the unanimous testimony of the early Church that St. Mark wrote his Gospel at the instigation of St. Peter.

In the "Ecclesiastical History" of Eusebius (iii. 39), we have the testimony of Papias, who quotes the words of an ancient presbyter of Palestine called John, who by some is identified with the Apostle John:

" And this was the statement of the elder [presbyter] : Mark having become Peter's interpreter, wrote accurately all that he [Peter] remembered [or mentioned] of the words and deeds of Christ, though not in order. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him ; but afterwards as I said [attached himself to] Peter, who used to frame his instruction to meet the wants [of his hearers], but not as making a connected narrative of the Lord's discourses ; so Mark committed no error in writing down particulars as he remembered them, for he made one thing his object, to omit nothing of what he heard, and to make no erroneous statement in them."

The value of this testimony, coming to us from Apostolic times is of the greatest importance, for it distinctly asserts that the teaching of St. Peter was the basis of the second Gospel.

Justin Martyr (a. d. 90-168) quotes from the Gospel of St. Mark under the title of " the Memoirs of Peter."

of the Acts identical with the Mark of 1 Pet. 5:13? 3. Why does St. Peter call him " my son?" See Introd., Chap. 1. Sec. 3. 4. Under whose direction did St. Mark write his Gospel ? 5. "What was the testimony of Papias ? 6. What name does Justin Martyr give to St. Mark's Gospel?

Irenseus (a. d. 177-202) asserts that after the death of Peter and Paul, " Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter" (Euseb.

Origen (a. d. 185-254) says: "The second [Gospel] is according toMark, who composed it, as Peter guided him" (Euseb. H. E.

The testimony of later writers is equally definite, though probably it rests upon this more ancient tradition.

There has been some difference of opinion as to the signification of the word " interpreter," the office which Mark is said to have filled to St. Peter,— but from the testimony before us it is most likely that " he was the assistant of Peter, and either orally or in writing, communicated and developed what Peter taught" (Tholuck).

(b) There are also peculiarities in this Gospel which confirm the unanimous testimony of the early Church that Peter in some way' superintended its composition.

a. A large number of small details betrays the remembrance of an eye-witness. " Whilst there is hardly any part of its narrative that is not common to it and some other Gospel, in the manner of the narrative there is often a marked character. . . . The picture of the same events is far more vivid ; touches are introduced such as could only be noted by a vigilant eye-witness, and such as make us almost eye-witnesses of the Redeemer's doings" (Thomson).

The graphic descriptive touches thus added all point to an independent witness, and in the absence of other traditions it is natural to look to Peter.

/?. " The same conclusion follows from the Aramaic expressions which Mark inserts. The narrator reproduces the very words of the Lord, whose voice he seems to hear" (Godet).

y. "In Acts 10, we find a specimen of Peter's manner of teaching

7. What was the testimony of Irenasus? 8. Origen's? 9. What relation did St. Mark bear to St. Peter ? 10. What other reasons can be given to show that in the narrative of St. Mark, we have the Gospel according to St. Peter ?

while founding, or traveling in order to build up, the churches. This speech of the Apostle to Cornelius is a sketch of the history of Jesus, exactly such as it is developed into details in our second Gospel ; it is, indeed, as it has sometimes been called, the Gospel of Mark in a nutshell " ( Godet).

6. There are four instances where Peter is specially mentioned by Mark, while he is omitted by the other Evangelists.

" Thus we are told

(1) It was St. Peter who followed after our Lord in the morning after the miracles at Capernaum (Mark 1 : 36) ;

(2) It was he, Who drew attention to the rapid withering of the fig tree (Mark 11: 21);

(3) It was he, who with three others of the Apostles, asked our Lord as He sat on the Mount of Olives respecting the destruction of Jerusalem (Mark 13 : 3) ;

(4) It was to him specially amongst the Apostles, to whom the angel directed that the announcement of the Resurrection should be made (Mark 16 : 7) " (Maclear).

e. Some have also thought that the Apostle was unwilling to record what might specially tend to his own honor, and to this fact they attribute the omission of certain particulars referring to Peter, which are not mentioned in the narrative of St. Mark. According to this view, it was the modesty of the Apostle which "has caused the omission of

(1) His name as the prompter of the question respecting l meats not defiling a man' (compare Mark 7: 17 with Matt. 15 : 15) ;

(2) His walking on the sea (cf. Mark 6: 50, 51, with Matt. 14: 28-31);

(3) The miracle of the coin in the fish's mouth (cf. Mark 9 : 33 with Matt. 17 : 24-27) ;

(4) His designation as the Rock, on which the Church should be built (cf. Mark 8 : 29, 30, with Matt. 16 : 17-19) ;

(5) His being sent with another Apostle to make ready the Passover (cf. Mark 14: 13 with Luke 22 : 8) ;

(6) The fact that it was for Mm especially that our Lord prayed that his faith might not 'utterly faiV (Luke 22: 31, 32)" {Maclear),

(c) Taking therefore all things into consideration, we must accept the ancient tradition of the Church, that this inspired Gospel of St. Mark has some connection with St. Peter.

" The want of personal knowledge was made up by the liveliness of attention with which the Evangelist recorded ' without omission or misrepresentation,' the words of his master. The requirements of a Roman audience fixed the outlines of the narrative j and the keen memory of a devoted Apostle filled up the picture with details which might well remain in all their freshness on such a mind as his. For St. Peter himself was of a kindred nature with St. Mark. .... Thus it was that the master and the disciple were bound together by the closest sympathy. The spirit of the Apostle animates the work of the Evangelist " (Westcott's Introd. to the Study of the Gospels, p. 237, Amer. Ed.).

3. The Relation of the Gospel of St. Mark to St. Matthew and St. Luke.

{a) The relation which the three Synoptical Gospels (St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke), bear to one another, has given rise to the widest differences of opinion.

Four different views have been held by commentators :

{a) That in the Gospel of St. Mark we have the primitive Gospel from which the other two have been developed ;

(/?) That the Gospel of St. Mark holds a middle position between the other two, being derived from that of St. Matthew and in turn supplying materials for the Gospel of St. Luke ;

(y) That the narrative of St. Mark is a compilation or abridge* ment of the other two, and therefore was written last ;

(d) That all three Evangelists drew from a common source, which constitutes the foundation of our first three Gospels, and that this

11. Which are the three Synoptical Gospels ? 12. Why called Synoptical ? Because they can, to a large extent, be exhibited in a Synopsis of parallel columns. Synopsis, that is, all the parts under one view. 18. What four different views have been held with reference to the relation of the Gospel of St. Mark to the Synoptic Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke ?

source was the oral teaching of the Apostles, which on account of its sincerity and simplicity immediately received a fixed form.

(b) This last view commends itself as the true solution of this problem.

For (a) We cannot accept the first, because there is too large an amount of independent narrative in both the Gospel of St. Matthew and of St. Luke to warrant the inference that they derived their Gospels from St. Mark ;

(/?) We cannot receive the second, much less the third, because St. Mark did not condense the narrative of St. Matthew. The Gospel of St. Mark is indeed the shorter work, but he omits many of the discourses and parables, which are the leading features of the other two synoptists. Instead of St. Mark's narrative being an abridgement of St. Matthew or St. Luke, it is as a general rule, much fuller in details, as regards persons, numbers, words, times, and places, which proves that our Evangelist writes as an independent witness to the truth.

(}') We therefore adopt the fourth view as the only true explanation of the relation which the three Synoptical Gospels bear to one another; and there are reasons for supposing that of the three, Mark exhibits the oral tradition of the official life of our Lord in its earliest extant form.

4. The Persons for whom this Gospel was written. A careful examination of the Gospel of St. Mark confirms the traditional view, that it was written chiefly for Gentile Christians, and especially for the use of the Church in Rome.

The following reasons are generally given in support of this view:

(a) Words which would not be understood by Gentile readers, are explained; " Boanerges" (3: 17); " Talitha cumi" (5: 41); "Corban" (7: 11); " Bartimoeus" (10: 46); "Abba" (14: 36); " Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani" (15 : 34) ; "two mites which make

14. Which is the true view ? 15. What reasons can you give ? 16. For whom was this Gospel written ? 17. How do we know that it was for Gentile Christians ?

INTRODUCTION.

a farthing" (12: 42); Gehenna is " the unquenchable fire" (9:

(b) Jewish usages, and other matters with which none but Jews could be expected to be familiar, are explained. Thus we are told of the washing before meeds (7: 3, 4) 5 that the Mount of Olives is "over against the temple" (13: 3); that" they sacrificed the passover on the first day of unleavened bread" (14: 12) ; that the preparation was u the day before the Sabbath" (15: 42).

(c) Matters interesting chiefly to the Jews are omitted. Especially noteworthy is the fact that all reference to the Jewish law is omitted, and the Evangelist himself does not make any quotations from the Old Testament, with the exception of those in the opening verses from Mai. 3 : 1, Isa. 40 : 3 ; and in Mark 15 : 28 (if this verse be genuine) from Isa. 53 : 12.

(d) That St. Mark wrote with a special view to the Christians of Rome is not only based upon early tradition, but an argument has been drawn from the fact (a) that St. Mark uses several Latin forms, which do not occur in the other Gospels, and (/3) from the

conciseness of the Gospel narrative which was so suitable for " the vigorous intelligence of Roman hearers " (Westcott, Introd., p. 369).

These Latinisms occur in Mark 6: 27 (speculator — "a watchman," " a sentinel"); 7: 48 {xestes — sextarius, — a pot); 12: 42 (quadrantes — a farthing) ; 15 : 39, 44, 45 (centurion) ; and in a few other passages, where Mark however uses forms common with one or more of the other Evangelists.

5. Time when the Gospel was written. Nothing positive can be asserted as to the time when this Gospel was written. Ecclesiastical traditions are contradictory. In the New Testament there is nothing to decide the question. There are two events, however, which seem to limit the time of its composition between a. d. 63 and a. n. 70.

18. Who are Gentile Christians ? 19. How do you explain the omission of all reference to Jewish usages in St. Mark's Gospel? 20. The omission of all reference to the Mosaic law? 21. Where is Rome ? What do you know of its history? 22. Why does St. Mark use some Latin forms of words ? 23. At what time was the Gospel written ? 2

(a) It is not likely that the Gospel was written by St. Mark before Paul wrote his letter to the Colossians (a. d. 62), in which he is only spoken of as a relative of Barnabas (Col. 4: 10), as if this was his greatest distinction.

(6) We may also conclude that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem (a. d. 70), for it is not likely that Mark would have omitted to record so remarkable a fulfilment of our Lord's predictions.

6. Place where it was written. According to the testimony of Clement, Eusebius, Jerome and Epiphanius, the Gospel of St. Mark was written and published at Home. The large majority of modern writers agree in this view. Chrysostom asserts that it was published at Alexandria ; but his statement receives no confirmation from any Alexandrine writer.

7. Language. The Gosper was written in Greek ; of this there never has been any reasonable doubt.

8. Characteristics of the Gospel of St. Mark.

{a) The assaults which of late years have been made upon the historic truth of the Bible, and especially of the four Gospels, have been the means of bringing out their separate characteristics. There is but one Gospel ; but the separate records have a representative value.

(b) That each Gospel has its distinctive worth can be seen from personal investigation, and it is the conviction of those who have applied themselves to the careful examination of the Gospels, from the age of Augustine down to the latest discussion of the subject, that each of the great aspects of human life, outward and inward, in the individual and in society, are represented in the forms in which the inspired records of our Saviour's life are handed down to us.

(c) These characteristics were already apprehended by the. early Church ; but it was left, for the present age, by the aid of the mate-

24. Where ? 25. In what language ? 26. What is the meaning of the word Gospel? Good news. 27. How many Gospels do we possess ? There is but one Gospel ; but we have four separate records of the same Gospel.

rials and sound criticism which the scholar has inherited, to present in more definite form those characteristics and distinctions which display the clear individuality of each one of the four inspired records of the Life of Christ.

(d) The characteristics of the four Gospels, as evincing the clear individuality of each one of the inspired records, may be presented in the following excellent summary :

" In regard of

I. " The External features and characteristics, we are perhaps warranted in saying that

(a) " The point of view of the first Gospel is mainly Israelitic ; of the second, Gentile ; of the third, universal ; of the fourth, Christian ;

(/3) " The general aspect and, so to speak, physiognomy of the first, mainly, is Oriental; of the second, Roman; of the third, Greek ; of the fourth, spiritual ;

(y) " The style of the first is stately and rhythmical ; of the second, terse and precise; of the third, calm and copious; of the fourth, artless and colloquial ;