OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
S T. M A R K.
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,
Revelation 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
(Acts 15:37,38),
but afterward had a great kindness for, and not only ordered the
churches to receive him
(Colossians 4:10),
but sent for him to be his assistant, with this encomium, He is
profitable to me for the ministry
(2 Timothy 4:11);
and he reckons him among his fellow-labourers,
Philemon 1:24.
We read of Marcus whom Peter calls his son, he having been an
instrument of his conversion
(1 Peter 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
à 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
(Acts 1:21),
who had a commission like that of the apostles
compared with Mark xvi. 18),
and who, it is highly probable, received the Holy Ghost when they did
(Acts 1:15,2:1-4),
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 tantâ doctrinâ et vitæ
continentiâ 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.
Matthew Henry "Verse by Verse Commentary for 'Mark' Matthew Henry Bible Commentary".
.