Gospel
of Mark Introduction
Title:
Mark,
for whom this gospel is named, was a close companion of the Apostle
Peter and a recurring character in the book of Acts, where he is
known as John who was also called Mark (Acts 12:12, 25; 15:37, 39).
It was to John Mark’s mother’s home in Jerusalem that Peter went
when released from prison (Acts 12:12).
John
Mark was a cousin of Barnabas (Col. 4:10), who accompanied Paul and
Barnabas on Paul’s first missionary journey (Acts 12:25; 13:5). But
he deserted on the way in Perga and returned to Jerusalem (Acts.
13:13). When Barnabas wanted Paul to take John Mark on the second
missionary journey, Paul refused. The friction which resulted between
Paul and Barnabas led to their separation (Acts 15:38-40).
But
John Mark’s earlier vacillation evidently gave way to great
strength and maturity, and in time he proved himself even to the
Apostle Paul. When Paul wrote the Colossians, he instructed them that
if John Mark came, they were to welcome him (Col. 4:10). Paul even
listed Mark as a fellow worker (Philemon 24). Later, Paul told
Timothy to Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to
me for service (2Tim. 4:11).
John
Mark’s restoration to useful ministry may have been, in part, due
to the ministry of Peter. Peter’s close relationship with Mark is
evident from his description of him as my son, Mark (1Pet. 5:13).
Peter, of course, was no stranger to failure himself, and his
influence on the younger man was no doubt instrumental in helping him
out of the instability of his youth and into the strength and
maturity he would need for the work to which God had called him.
Author
– Date: Ancient
testimony names John Mark as the writer. Few have challenged this
tradition; none has done so persuasively. The gospel itself may
contain a cryptic allusion to its author (14:51-52), but no name is
given. In Scripture Mark sometimes goes by the name John alone (Acts
13:5, 13; 15:37), sometimes by Mark alone (Col. 4:10; 2Tim. 41; Phil.
24; 1 Pet. 5:13), and twice by both names (Acts 12:12). He was the
son of Mary, a woman of some means in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12).
Unlike
the epistles, the gospels do not name their authors. The early church
fathers, however, unanimously affirm that Mark wrote this second
gospel. Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, writing about A.D. 140, noted:
And
the presbyter the Apostle John, said this: Mark having become the
interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered.
It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or
deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him.
But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his
instruction to the necessities (of his hearers), but with no
intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings.
Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he
remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit
anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the
statements (From the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord (6).
Justin
Martyr, writing about A.D. 150, referred to the Gospel of Mark as the
memoirs of Peter, and suggested that Mark committed his gospel to
writing while in Italy. This agrees with the uniform voice of early
tradition, which regarded this gospel as having been written in Rome,
for the benefit of Roman Christians. Irenaeus, writing about A.D.
185, called Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter, and recorded
that the second gospel consisted of what Peter preached about Christ.
The testimony of the church fathers differs as to whether this gospel
was written before or after Peter’s death (ca. A.D. 67-78).
Paul
regarded him as one of the few who were faithful to his ministry to
the end (2Tim. 4:11). All of this suggests that Mark was a seasoned
veteran of the Christian walk. He was well versed in apostolic
teaching; he had extensive missionary experience under wise guides.
Most importantly, he learned firsthand that God gives penitent
believers opportunity to recover from past failure. Mark not only
heard redemption and new life proclaimed, he experienced it in his
own life.
Evangelical
scholars have suggested dates for the writing of Mark’s gospel
ranging from A.D. 50 to 70. A date before the destruction of
Jerusalem and the temple in A.D.70 is required by the comment of
Jesus in 13:2. Luke’s gospel was clearly written before Acts (Acts
1:1-3). The date of the writing of Acts can probably be fixed at
about A.D. 63, because that is shortly after the narrative ends (See
introduction to Acts: Author and Date. It is there likely, though not
certain, that Mark was written at an early date, probably sometime in
the 50s.
Many
scholars date Mark in the 60’s A.D. Some date it later, since (Mark
13:2), predicts the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), and they deny that
Jesus could have foretold the future. But predictive prophecy is
quite within the ability of the Jesus of the New Testament. Mark has
in fact been dated by some as early as the 40’s. The exact date is
not crucial to a grasp of Mark’s message. In any case the book
bears the stamp of an early and authentic written witness to Jesus’
ministry.
Background
– Setting: Whereas
Matthew was written to a Jewish audience, Mark seems to have targeted
Roman believers, particularly Gentiles. When employing Aramaic terms,
Mark translated them for his readers (3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 10:46;
14:36; 15:22, 34). On the other hand, in some places he used Latin
expressions instead of their Greek equivalents (5;9; 6:27; 12;15, 42;
15:16, 39). He also reckoned time according to the Roman system
(6:48; 13:35), and carefully explained Jewish customs (7:3-4; 14:12;
15:42). Mark omitted Jewish elements, such as the genealogies found
in Matthew and Luke. This gospel also makes fewer references to the
Old Testament and includes less material that would be of particular
interest to Jewish readers, such as that which is critical of the
Pharisee and Sadducees (Sadducees are mentioned only once, in 12:18).
When mentioning Simon of Cyrene (15:21), Mark identifies him as the
father of Rufus, a prominent member of the church at Rome (Rom.
16:13). All of this supports the traditional view that Mark was
written for a Gentile audience initially at Rome.
The
friction which resulted between Paul and Barnabas led to their
separation (Acts 15:38-40). But John Mark’s earlier vacillation
evidently gave way to greater strength and maturity, and in time he
proved himself even to the Apostle Paul. When Paul wrote Colossians,
he instructed them that if John Mark came, they were to welcome him
(Col. 4:10).
Paul
even listed Mark as a fellow worker (Phil. 24). Later, Paul told
Timothy to “Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful
to me for service” (2Tim. 4:11).
There
is good evidence that this gospel reflects Peter’s contribution.
Mark and Peter certainly had close ties (1Pet. 5:13); perhaps Peter
led him to Christ. The gospel was composed by one who had
considerable skill in literary, historical, and theological
presentation and this points to Mark’s own God-given insight. Yet
comparison of the Gospel of Mark with Peter’s sermons in Acts and
with other data, suggest we are listening to a version of a story
told in part by the venerable apostle Peter himself.
Historical
– Theological Themes: Mark
presents Jesus as the suffering Servant of the Lord (10:45). His
focus is on the deeds of Jesus more than His teaching, particularly
emphasizing service and sacrifice. Mark omits the lengthy discourses
found in the other gospels, often relating only brief excerpts to
give the gist of Jesus’ teaching. Mark also omits any account of
Jesus’ ancestry and birth, beginning where Jesus’ public ministry
began, with His baptism by John in the wilderness.
Mark
demonstrated the humanity of Christ more clearly than any of the
other evangelists, emphasizing Christ’s human emotions (1:41; 3:5;
6:34; 8:12; 9:36), His human limitations (4:38; 11:12; 13:32), and
other small details that highlight the human side of the Son of God
(e.g. 7:33-34; 8:12; 9:36; 10:13-16).
Distinctive
Outlook: Well
over a third of the book (chapters 11-16), deals with a tiny fraction
of Jesus’ earthly lifetime: the last week. Chapter 10 gives an
account of Jesus’ ministry as He moved slowly southward from
Galilee to Jerusalem. These leaves (1:14-9:50), to cover His extensive
work in Galilee, while the opening verses (1:1-13), vouch for the
credentials of the Christ: His prophetic connections, His intimate
kinship with God the Father and God the Spirit, and His bearing of
the worst temptations that Satan could throw at Him.
(1)
There seems no reason to reject the ancient tradition that Mark wrote
primarily for a largely Gentile audience resident in Rome. This might
account for many Latin terms found in the Gospel of Mark. This would
also explain the lack of a genealogy of Christ and less direct
dependence on the Old Testament than we find in Matthew and Luke. On
the other hand, non-Jewish converts to Christ were still quite aware
of their Old Testament roots. We may conclude that Mark is
Christocentric and action-oriented (immediately, or a synonym of this
word, occurs over 40 times). Mark strives for conciseness and
brevity. The other gospels serve to fill out the Marcan framework.
However, Mark does contain many unique details.
(2)
Mark seeks to involve the reader in the gospel’s witness to Jesus
Christ. He does this through an uncomplicated and vivid literary
style. He also writes in such a way that the discerning reader feels
addressed or questioned, often by Jesus Himself. Mark does not aim
merely to convey information. He seeks rather to furnish grounds for
our decision to follow and keep following the main character of the
gospel: Jesus Christ.
The
Gospel of Mark does not admit of easy topical analysis. Many
suggestions have been made. This outline seeks to relate Jesus’
actions and teaching to His geographical location.
