THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK

THE Gospel we study this morning is the Gospel of Mark. John, whose surname was Mark, is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles; and he is said to be the son of Mary, who had a house in Jerusalem which was a sort of rallying-point for the disciples in the early days of the church. It is just possible that this very house may have contained the "upper chamber " in which Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper. However that may be, it is certain that John Mark was a Jew. His first name would indicate this. Possibly he was a native of Jerusalem; and yet, being a native of Jerusalem, he would seem to have had some Latin connections; the name Mark, or Marcus, might possibly indicate that; and some other allusions in his Gospel seem to indicate the same thing. It would seem as if the name Mark came to be used more frequently by him than the other Jewish name, just in proportion as his activity transcended the bounds of Palestine, and he devoted himself to preaching to the Gentiles.

It is possible that this passing from the name John to the name Mark, which we perceive in the Acts and in the Epistles, was significant of an inward change in the man himself, or in the purpose of his life; just as Levi, when he entered the service of Christ, became Matthew; just as Saul, when he entered the service of Christ, became Paul.

Peter, in his first Epistle, speaks of Marcus, his son. Now, this may intimate that, during Peter's visits to the house of Mary, Marcus' mother, the young and active lad became inspired by Peter's words, and was converted to Christ. It would seem as if Mark were a convert of Peter; and you remember that, near the close of Mark's Gospel, there is a peculiar incident narrated in regard to a certain young man who, when Jesus was apprehended and the apostles forsook him and fled, still followed after Christ, was laid hold of by the armed men who were taking Jesus away to the judgment-hall, and in his fright and haste fled away naked, leaving his garments in their hands. No name is attached to this incident; but it is perhaps something more than a mere conjecture that this young man may have been Mark himself, and that this incident, in which he seems to be throwing in his lot with the disciples of Christ, was an early indication of his conversion to the Saviour and his purpose to devote himself to his Lord.

It seems that Barnabas was a cousin of Mark. If you will read the chapter in the Acts of the Apostles which tells of Peter's rescue from prison and of his coming back to that house, knocking, and being at first taken for Peter's spirit or Peter's angel, you will find that the chapter is preceded by the account of the visit of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, as messengers of the church at Antioch, and is followed by the departure of Paul and Barnabas, taking with them John Mark. Now, it is just possible that, at that very meeting of the church, where they were praying for Peter and for his release, Paul and Barnabas were them

selves present; and it is just possible that, as the result of that great incident, Mark may have been especially impressed with the obligation of devoting himself permanently and exclusively to the work of the ministry. At any rate, we find that he went with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch; that, when they started out on their first missionary journey, he went with them to Perga; and that it was only when Paul undertook a larger circuit and concluded to go into Pamphylia, in Asia Minor, that Mark seems to have been seized with some change of purpose. It would almost seem as if the impetuous and restless spirit of Peter had found its like in Mark, and that we have in this case some proof or indication of vacillation on Mark's part. He departed from Paul, and went back to Antioch; and the result was that Paul gained, for a time at least, an unfavorable impression with regard to Mark's stability, and censured him. However, we find it was the cause of quite a severe contention between Paul and Barnabas. Barnabas took Mark with him, and held to him; but afterward we find that Paul seems to have received Mark again into his fellowship. We find Mark serving with Paul at Rome as his cherished helper; we find Mark with Peter at the very east of the Roman Empire, in Babylon; and afterward we find him with Timothy at Ephesus, where, in one of his last letters, Paul urged Mark to come to him again at Rome; so that Mark seems to have recovered whatever ground he had lost both with Peter and Paul. The only thing which can be added to these incidents in the life of Mark is the tradition that he founded the church at Alexandria, that he became bishop of that

church, and that he suffered martyrdom there. It is evident that Mark was a great traveler. He went from one end of the Roman Empire to another. He was the familiar companion both of Peter and Paul, with something of the restless and active mind that belonged to the first, preaching both to the Jews and to the Gentiles.

Papias, one of the very earliest of the apostolic Fathers, tells us that Mark was the interpreter of Peter. Now precisely what these words "interpreter of Peter" mean has been a question among church historians. It may mean that Mark was the translator of Peter's oral address; that he was interpreter in that narrow sense; that, while Peter uttered his words either in Aramaic or Greek, Mark interpreted them into the Latin. Or it may mean (and the most are inclined to take the words in this sense) that Mark was the writer in Greek of what Peter spoke in Aramaic, that Mark put down on paper the things which Peter orally preached. The idea, I suppose, is not that Peter dictated, and that Mark took down from his dictation his oral gospel; nor do I think it probable that Peter himself wrote a sort of diary and that Mark expanded it. It would rather seem as if Peter had suggested to Mark the putting down in Greek, as a matter of permanent record, things which were the subject of his preaching, and which Mark probably had heard him detail over and over again, in their somewhat stereotyped form, until at last they had impressed themselves deeply upon his memory.

As Eusebius, under the authority of Clement of Alexandria, tells us, Peter had the Gospel which Mark

wrote out in Greek submitted to him for his approval and sanction; and, therefore, the Gospel as we have it now is practically the Gospel of Peter. There are some indications in the Gospel itself that it is, indirectly at least, the work of Peter, or that it has the sanction of Peter, and practically represents the gospel as Peter preached it. For example, we have all inciIdents in which Peter was expressly praised omitted; and we have other incidents, in which Peter was blamed, retained. The praise which Christ gave to Peter, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church," is significantly omitted; but the words, "Get thee behind me, Satan," which were spoken to Peter by Christ in the way of reproof, are retained; and we have two cock-crowings in Mark, adding to the guilt of Peter in his denial, while in Matthew we have only one. All these are evidences that Peter had something to do with its authorship.

Many things are narrated to us by Mark in the third person singular, which seem to be reports of what Peter had told to Mark in the first person. As, for example, we have such a sentence as this, "Peter and those with him followed after "; the singular number used in the verb. The best explanation is that Peter narrated this incident to Mark in the first person singular, and that Mark simply put down what he had heard from Peter in the third person; but it is impossible to enlarge upon this. It is only one of many indications that Mark had heard from Peter a narration of his personal experience; that he had become minutely acquainted with Peter's oral gospel; and that he had put down what he had heard from Peter in a more