Mark Commentary

In his opening verse, Mark provides readers with the main key to understanding his Gospel: Although we can learn much about the disciples and other characters from reading Mark, it is most important to understand what he is teaching about Jesus: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).

Setting

It is generally agreed that Mark was the first of the four canonical Gospels to be written. Before the writing of Mark, there were no Gospels as such. The gospel traditions were circulated or “delivered” orally under the supervision of the eyewitnesses and ministers of the word of God (Luke 1:2). As these eyewitnesses began to die, it became important to record the gospel traditions in writing. According to church tradition, after the martyrdom of Peter in the mid-60s AD, the church in Rome asked John Mark to put into writing the accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings that Peter had delivered to them orally. As a result, Mark became the first to compose what we call a “Gospel,” a written account of Jesus’ life and teachings, from the oral materials about Jesus.

Summary

The overall structure of Mark is geographical. The first nine chapters narrate events of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee and its environs. In 10:1-52, Jesus and the disciples travel from Galilee to Jerusalem, and the last chapters of the book (11:1–16:20) take place in and around Jerusalem. (Matthew and Luke, in their use of Mark, followed this geographical outline, but John organized his Gospel in a different way.)

Within the geographical outline, Mark has arranged much of his material topically. Thus we have collections of miracle stories (1:21-45; 4:35–5:43), controversy stories (2:1–3:6; 12:13-37), parables (4:1-34), and teachings about the end (13:5-37). Some of the materials include indicators of chronological sequence: Jesus’ ministry began with his baptism (1:2-11; see Acts 1:22; 10:37) and temptation (Mark 1:12-13); his suffering, death, and resurrection occurred at the end (11:1–16:8). A few individual accounts are tied together chronologically, such as Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi (8:27-33) and Jesus’ transfiguration (9:1-13; see also 1:29, 35).

The major turning point in Jesus’ ministry is highlighted in 8:27-33, very near the center of the book. At Caesarea Philippi, the disciples confess for the first time their belief that Jesus is the Messiah (8:29). Upon this acknowledgment, Jesus “began to tell them” of his forthcoming death and resurrection (8:31; cp. Matt 16:21). Jesus’ death and resurrection are the dominant theme of 8:31–16:8.

Author

The earliest known reference to the authorship of Mark comes from Papias at the beginning of the second century. The early church historian Eusebius quotes Papias as having said, “Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed him, but later on . . . followed Peter” (Eusebius, Church History 3.39.16).

The early church was unanimous in attributing this Gospel to John Mark. It is unlikely that Papias and others would have attributed this Gospel to a non-apostle with a tarnished reputation (see Acts 13:13; 15:36-41) unless Mark were in fact the author.

The author of this Gospel was bilingual, as the Aramaic phrases in its Greek text suggest (e.g., Mark 5:41; 7:34; 15:34). He was also Jewish, in that he knew and explained various Jewish customs to his Gentile readers (e.g., 7:3-4; 14:12). John Mark was indeed a Jew who was raised in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12). He thus knew Aramaic (the native language of the people of Judea) and was familiar with Jewish customs.

Some have objected that this Gospel does not clearly indicate a connection between Mark and Peter and that it looks more polished as a literary composition than one might expect from a direct record of Peter’s eyewitness testimony. But if this Gospel was written near or after Peter’s death (see “Date” below), Peter had been telling these stories for over thirty years. Through continual retelling, his gospel account would have been become well polished. There are also references to Peter in this Gospel that might be due to Mark’s personal connection with him (e.g., Mark 1:16-20; 8:32-33; 9:5-6; 14:28-31, 66-72). It fits the evidence well to consider this Gospel as having indeed been written by John Mark, Barnabas’s cousin, based on Peter’s gospel accounts.

Date

John Mark probably wrote down Peter’s teaching about Jesus around the time of Peter’s death. Peter died in Rome around AD 64 in the persecution that Nero waged against Christians. Mark probably wrote this Gospel in the late 60s, and a couple of considerations support this hypothesis. (1) The emphasis on faithfulness in time of persecution (4:17; 8:34-38; 10:30; 13:9-13) suggests a time during or shortly after Nero’s persecution in the mid-60s. And (2) The discourse of Jesus recorded in chapter 13 suggests that the destruction of Jerusalem was rapidly drawing near—the Jewish revolt (AD 66–73) had probably already begun.

Audience

The Gospel of Mark was written for the church in Rome, according to tradition. It is clear that the original readers were Greek-speaking and that they were Gentiles, because the author explains Jewish customs (e.g., 7:3-4; 14:12) and distinguishes his readers from “the Jews” (7:3).

The original readers were Christians. They were familiar with the gospel traditions, for the author does not explain various Old Testament references (2:25-26) or such things as who John the Baptist was (1:2-8), who Isaiah the prophet was (1:2), or who the Pharisees and teachers of religious law were (7:1).

It is also apparent that the readers were Romans, as indicated by the “Latinisms” in Mark. In 6:27, he uses a Latin word meaning “soldier”; in 12:42, he uses a Roman coin (the quadran) to explain the meaning of “two lepta” (Greek coins); and in 15:39, 44-45, he uses the Latin word “centurion” rather than the Greek word with the same meaning that Matthew and Luke use.

Literary Features

Mark’s own editorial work can be seen most clearly in his introductory statements (e.g., 1:21-22; 2:1; 4:1; 7:1), in his explanatory comments (e.g., 1:16; 2:15; 5:8, 28, 42; 6:14, 17, 20, 52; 7:3-4), and in his summaries (e.g., 1:14-15, 34, 39; 3:7-12; 6:53-56).

Mark repeats various terms and expressions to show progress, such as “suddenly,” “at once,” and “immediately” (e.g., 1:23; 3:6; 6:45). He uses the Greek present tense in the narrative, rather than a simple past tense, to give a sense of immediacy (e.g., 1:12, 21, 38, 40, 44; 2:3; 3:13). Mark also often sandwiches one story within another (e.g., 3:22-30 into 3:20-21, 31-35; 5:25-34 into 5:21-24, 35-43; 11:15-19 into 11:12-14, 20-26); in the last example, this sandwiching indicates that the middle part (11:15-19, the cleansing of the Temple) is to be understood in light of the story surrounding it (11:12-14, 20-26, the cursing of the fig tree)—the cleansing of the Temple was a symbolic act of judgment (cp. 13:3-37). Thus, Mark’s editorial work relates different events and shows meaningful connections.

Meaning and Message

The Person of Christ. Mark’s major theological emphasis is the identity of Jesus of Nazareth. This emphasis is stated in the opening verse of the Gospel: Mark wanted his readers to know that Jesus of Nazareth is “the Messiah, the Son of God.” The title “Son of God” occurs frequently in Mark, and there are diverse witnesses to Jesus’ status as God’s son: the demons (1:34; 3:11; 5:7; cp. 1:24); God himself (1:11; 9:7); Mark, the author (1:1); a Roman centurion (15:39); and Jesus himself (12:6; 13:32; 14:61-62). Other titles for Jesus occur in Mark’s Gospel, including Jesus’ own favorite, “Son of Man” (e.g., 2:10). But in Mark’s Gospel all of these titles, as well as his actions (e.g., 1:22; 4:41), point to his identity as the Christ (or Messiah), the Son of God.

During his life, the Son of God needed to protect himself and his followers from the prevailing misconceptions in the minds of the people about what the term “Christ” (or “Messiah”) meant (see “The Secret of the Messiah” below). Jesus’ ultimate mission as the Son of God is explained through his death, in which he gave his life as a ransom for many. The call to Christian discipleship is a call to follow the Messiah, the Son of God, especially in his servanthood and sacrifice. Jesus’ ministry as Son of God during his life on earth also points forward to his return as the Son of God, ruling God’s Kingdom.

The Death of Jesus. The Gospel of Mark puts a lot of emphasis on the account of Jesus’ passion—his suffering, death, and resurrection. Throughout the Gospel we find numerous references to the death of Jesus (2:19-20; 3:6; 8:31; 9:9, 12, 31; 10:33-34, 45; 12:1-11; 14:1-11, 21, 24-25, 36, 14:64–15:47). Mark emphasizes that Jesus’ death was part of God’s plan. His death was a divine necessity (8:31), for God had willed it (10:45; 14:36). The Old Testament also teaches of the Messiah’s death (see 9:12; 14:21, 27, 49). Jesus came to give his life as a ransom for many (10:45) and to pour out his blood sacrificially in order to establish a new covenant (14:24).

Christian Discipleship. Mark emphasizes the importance of following Jesus by denying oneself and taking up one’s cross (see 8:34). Christian discipleship does not permit a half-hearted response but requires leaving everything to follow Jesus (1:18, 20; 10:21, 29). Christian discipleship might even bring persecution and martyrdom (13:9-13a), but Christians are promised that endurance in faith means salvation (13:13) and eternal life (10:30).

The “Secret of the Messiah.” Throughout Mark’s Gospel, Jesus tells others not to broadcast his true identity. This is likely because of the tendency for people to misunderstand who he is and what he has come to do. Yet the secret is not and cannot be kept (7:36). Jesus creates such wonder and amazement that he simply cannot remain hidden. But while the characters in the story struggle to grasp Jesus’ identity correctly, Mark’s readers have the privilege of understanding the full picture of Jesus’ identity in light of his death and resurrection.

The Coming of God’s Kingdom. The arrival of God’s Kingdom is central to Jesus’ message. People need to repent and believe the gospel because the Kingdom of God has arrived (1:14-15). Old Testament promises are being fulfilled. Life in the Kingdom is different from what it was during the time awaiting the Kingdom.

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Gospel According to St. Mark

We have heard the evidence given in by the first witness to the doctrine and miracles of our Lord Jesus; and now here is another witness produced, who calls for our attention. The second living creature saith, Come, and see, Rev 6:3. Now let us enquire a little,

I. Concerning this witness. His name is Mark. Marcus was a Roman name, and a very common one, and yet we have no reason to think, but that he was by birth a Jew; but as Saul, when he went among the nations, took the Roman name of Paul, so he of Mark, his Jewish name perhaps being Mardocai; so Grotius. We read of John whose surname was Mark, sister's son to Barnabas, whom Paul was displeased with (Act 15:37, Act 15:38), but afterward had a great kindness for, and not only ordered the churches to receive him (Col 4:10), but sent for him to be his assistant, with this encomium, He is profitable to me for the ministry (Ti2 4:11); and he reckons him among his fellow-labourers, Plm 1:24. We read of Marcus whom Peter calls his son, he having been an instrument of his conversion (Pe1 5:13); whether that was the same with the other, and, if not, which of them was the penman of this gospel, is altogether uncertain. It is a tradition very current among the ancients, that St. Mark wrote this gospel under the direction of St. Peter, and that it was confirmed by his authority; so Hieron. Catal. Script. Eccles. Marcus discipulus et interpres Petri, juxta quod Petrum referentem audierat, legatus Roma fratribus, breve scripsit evangelium - Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, being sent from Rome by the brethren, wrote a concise gospel; and Tertullian saith (Adv. Marcion. lib. 4, cap. 5), Marcus quod edidit, Petri affirmetur, cujus interpres Marcus - Mark, the interpreter of Peter, delivered in writing the things which had been preached by Peter. But as Dr. Whitby very well suggests, Why should we have recourse to the authority of Peter for the support of this gospel, or say with St. Jerome that Peter approved of it and recommended it by his authority to the church to be read, when, though it is true Mark was no apostle, yet we have all the reason in the world to think that both he and Luke were of the number of the seventy disciples, who companied with the apostles all along (Act 1:21), who had a commission like that of the apostles (Luk 10:19, compared with Mar 16:18), and who, it is highly probable, received the Holy Ghost when they did (Act 1:15; Act 2:1-4), so that it is no diminution at all to the validity or value of this gospel, that Mark was not one of the twelve, as Matthew and John were? St. Jerome saith that, after the writing of this gospel, he went into Egypt, and was the first that preached the gospel at Alexandria, where he founded a church, to which he was a great example of holy living. Constituit ecclesiam tant doctrin et vitae continenti ut omnes sectatores Christi ad exemplum sui cogeret - He so adorned, by his doctrine and his life, the church which he founded, that his example influenced all the followers of Christ.

II. Concerning this testimony. Mark's gospel, 1. Is but short, much shorter than Matthew's, not giving so full an account of Christ's sermons as that did, but insisting chiefly on his miracles. 2. It is very much a repetition of what we had in Matthew; many remarkable circumstances being added to the stories there related, but not many new matters. When many witnesses are called to prove the same fact, upon which a judgment is to be given, it is not thought tedious, but highly necessary, that they should each of them relate it in their own words, again and again, that by the agreement of the testimony the thing may be established; and therefore we must not think this book of scripture needless, for it is written not only to confirm our belief that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, but to put us in mind of things which we have read in the foregoing gospel, that we may give the more earnest heed to them, lest at any time we let them slip; and even pure minds have need to be thus stirred up by way of remembrance. It was fit that such great things as these should be spoken and written, once, yea twice, because man is so unapt to perceive them, and so apt to forget them. There is no ground for the tradition, that this gospel was written first in Latin, though it was written at Rome; it was written in Greek, as was St. Paul's epistle to the Romans, the Greek being the more universal language.

THAT the Second Gospel was written by Mark is universally agreed, though by what Mark, not so. The great majority of critics take the writer to be "John whose surname was Mark," of whom we read in the Acts, and who was "sister's son to Barnabas" (Col 4:10). But no reason whatever is assigned for this opinion, for which the tradition, though ancient, is not uniform; and one cannot but wonder how it is so easily taken for granted by WETSTEIN, HUG, MEYER, EBRARD, LANGE, ELLICOTT, DAVIDSON, TREGELLES, &c. ALFORD goes the length of saying it "has been universally believed that he was the same person with the John Mark of the Gospels. But GROTIUS thought differently, and so did SCHLEIERMACHER, CAMPBELL, BURTON, and DA COSTA; and the grounds on which it is concluded that they were two different persons appear to us quite unanswerable. "Of John, surnamed Mark," says CAMPBELL, in his Preface to this Gospel, "one of the first things we learn is, that he attended Paul and Barnabas in their apostolical journeys, when these two travelled together (Act 12:25; Act 13:5). And when afterwards there arose a dispute between them concerning him, insomuch that they separated, Mark accompanied his uncle Barnabas, and Silas attended Paul. When Paul was reconciled to Mark, which was probably soon after, we find Paul again employing Mark's assistance, recommending him, and giving him a very honorable testimony (Col 4:10; Ti2 4:11; Plm 1:24). But we hear not a syllable of his attending Peter as his minister, or assisting him in any capacity. And yet, as we shall presently see, no tradition is more ancient, more uniform, and better sustained by internal evidence, than that Mark, in his Gospel, was but "the interpreter of Peter," who, at the close of his first Epistle speaks of him as "Marcus my son" (Pe1 5:13), that is, without doubt, his son in the Gospel—converted to Christ through his instrumentality. And when we consider how little the Apostles Peter and Paul were together—how seldom they even met—how different were their tendencies, and how separate their spheres of labor, is there not, in the absence of all evidence of the fact, something approaching to violence in the supposition that the same Mark was the intimate associate of both? "In brief," adds CAMPBELL, "the accounts given of Paul's attendant, and those of Peter's interpreter, concur in nothing but the name, Mark or Marcus; too slight a circumstance to conclude the sameness of the person from, especially when we consider how common the name was at Rome, and how customary it was for the Jews in that age to assume some Roman name when they went thither."

Regarding the Evangelist Mark, then, as another person from Paul's companion in travel, all we know of his personal history is that he was a convert, as we have seen, of the Apostle Peter. But as to his Gospel, the tradition regarding Peter's hand in it is so ancient, so uniform, and so remarkably confirmed by internal evidence, that we must regard it as an established fact. "Mark," says PAPIAS (according to the testimony of EUSEBIUS, [Ecclesiastical History, 3.39]), "becoming the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, though not in order, whatever he remembered of what was either said or done by Christ; for he was neither a hearer of the Lord nor a follower of Him, but afterwards, as I said, [he was a follower] of Peter, who arranged the discourses for use, but not according to the order in which they were uttered by the Lord." To the same effect IRENÆUS [Against Heresies, 3,1]: "Matthew published a Gospel while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the Church at Rome; and after their departure (or decease), Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, he also gave forth to us in writing the things which were preached by Peter." And CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA is still more specific, in a passage preserved to us by EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 6.14]: "Peter having publicly preached the word at Rome, and spoken forth the Gospel by the Spirit, many of those present exhorted Mark, as having long been a follower of his, and remembering what he had said, to write what had been spoken; and that having prepared the Gospel, he delivered it to those who had asked him for it; which, when Peter came to the knowledge of, he neither decidedly forbade nor encouraged him." EUSEBIUS' own testimony, however, from other accounts, is rather different: that Peter's hearers were so penetrated by his preaching that they gave Mark, as being a follower of Peter, no rest till he consented to write his Gospel, as a memorial of his oral teaching; and "that the apostle, when he knew by the revelation of the Spirit what had been done, was delighted with the zeal of those men, and sanctioned the reading of the writing (that is, of this Gospel of Mark) in the churches" [Ecclesiastical History, 2.15]. And giving in another of his works a similar statement, he says that "Peter, from excess of humility, did not think himself qualified to write the Gospel; but Mark, his acquaintance and pupil, is said to have recorded his relations of the actings of Jesus. And Peter testifies these things of himself; for all things that are recorded by Mark are said to be memoirs of Peter's discourses." It is needless to go farther—to ORIGEN, who says Mark composed his Gospel "as Peter guided" or "directed him, who, in his Catholic Epistle, calls him his son," &c.; and to JEROME, who but echoes EUSEBIUS.

This, certainly, is a remarkable chain of testimony; which, confirmed as it is by such striking internal evidence, may be regarded as establishing the fact that the Second Gospel was drawn up mostly from materials furnished by Peter. In DA COSTA'S'S Four Witnesses the reader will find this internal evidence detailed at length, though all the examples are not equally convincing. But if the reader will refer to our remarks on Mar 16:7, and Joh 18:27, he will have convincing evidence of a Petrine hand in this Gospel.

It remains only to advert, in a word or two, to the readers for whom this Gospel was, in the first instance, designed, and the date of it. That it was not for Jews but Gentiles, is evident from the great number of explanations of Jewish usages, opinions, and places, which to a Jew would at that time have been superfluous, but were highly needful to a Gentile. We can here but refer to Mar 2:18; Mar 7:3-4; Mar 12:18; Mar 13:3; Mar 14:12; Mar 15:42, for examples of these. Regarding the date of this Gospel—about which nothing certain is known—if the tradition reported by IRENÆUS can be relied on that it was written at Rome, "after the departure of Peter and Paul," and if by that word "departure" we are to understand their death, we may date it somewhere between the years 64 and 68; but in all likelihood this is too late. It is probably nearer the truth to date it eight or ten years earlier.

Next: Mark Chapter 1