Who was Mark?

The NT portrait of Mark is that of an Aramaic-speaking Palestinian Jewish Christian, proficient in the Greek language.¹ He was related to and likely a cousin² of Joseph Barnabas (Col. 4:10), a Levite-Jewish Christian from the island of Cyprus who appears to have been a man of some means (Acts 4:36-37).

Mark’s Early Years

Mark is first introduced in the biblical record in Acts 12:12. His Jewish name was John, the Greek form Iōánnēs of the Hebrew Yohanan, meaning “Yahweh has favored,” a fairly common name among the Jews.³ He was also called Mark, the Greek form Márkos of the Latin Marcus, derived from the name “Mars” – the Roman god of war and guardian of agriculture. Having more than one name was not uncommon during this period, making it easier to function in the Jewish, Roman, and Hellenistic worlds. Only one person in the biblical record is called Mark, even though it was a very popular name among the Romans.⁴

His mother Mary (probably a widow) owned a house in Jerusalem large enough to host a sizeable gathering of people (Acts 12:12-13), suggestive of a reasonably affluent family.⁵ It is plausible that this was the same house that provided the furnished “large upper room” for Jesus and the apostles during and after their final Passover meal (Mark 14:14-16; Luke 22:10-13).⁶ The apostles continued to reside in “the upper room” (Acts 1:13) in “the house” (Acts 2:2), presumably the site of previous reference.⁷ When Peter is later imprisoned and then released, he went straight to the house of Mark’s mother (Acts 12:11-17). Peter and John first located this house by following a man carrying a pitcher of water (Mark 14:13-16; Luke 22:10). Since women rather than men typically carried water jars,⁸ if Mark had no sisters and his mother was busy preparing the Passover meal, he could have been the one doing this chore.⁹

The report of the young man in a linen cloth fleeing naked from Gethsemane occurs only in Mark’s Gospel (14:51-52) and adds nothing of substance to the storyline. If the young man was Mark himself, he could be providing his own eyewitness account of a curious young man in his bed clothes late at night following Jesus and the eleven from the house where they were residing. The term sindōn (“fine linen”) is also indicative of an upper level of prosperity (cf. 15:46).

Mark’s Initial Attempts at Missionary Work

From Jerusalem around the year 44,¹⁰ John Mark accompanied Barnabas and Saul to Syrian Antioch (Acts 12:25), then on to the mission field of Barnabas’ homeland of Cyprus as their hupērétēs, “attendant” or “helper.” When the mission team arrived on the southern coast of Asia Minor, for some unexplained reason John (Mark) returned home to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). Paul did not accept the premature departure as justified and later refused to allow John Mark to join the second missionary campaign, resulting in the dissolution of the original mission team (Acts 15:36-38). Instead Mark accompanied Barnabas back to Cyprus early in the year 50 (v. 39),¹¹ potentially having relatives there and likely to do follow-up work and further evangelism.

Mark’s Later Ministries

About twelve years later Mark was in Rome, where Paul was confined to house arrest. In two of Paul’s letters written during this time, Mark sends greetings and is counted among the apostle’s “coworkers” (Col. 4:10-11; Philem. 24). Obviously the earlier dispute was resolved, not only between Paul and Mark but Barnabas as well (1 Cor. 9:6). In Paul’s last letter before his death, he specifically requested the presence of just two of his colleagues. One was Timothy, who was like his own son,¹² and the other was Mark, as Paul explains, “for he is useful to me for ministry” (2 Tim. 4:11).

Having, then, been summoned to Rome by Paul, Mark was in Rome when Peter’s first epistle was drafted, and Peter regarded Mark as “my son” (1 Pet. 5:13).¹³ Descriptive of their close relationship in the Lord, this may also indicate that Mark was among Peter’s early converts in Jerusalem.¹⁴

Mark’s Writing Ministry

Papias of Hierapolis (contemporary of the apostle John) reported that Mark was “Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord…. [he] followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord’s oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in writing down single points as he remembered them” (as quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.39.15). Later Jerome affirmed that Peter’s interpreter was Mark, “whose gospel was composed with Peter narrating and him writing” (Ad Hedibiam 120). Mark’s authorship of the Second Gospel is attested very early and consistently in the history of the post-apostolic church.¹⁵

Additional Information from Tradition

Recurrent tradition also places Mark in Egypt, particularly in Alexandria.¹⁶ In view of his documented itineracy, an Egyptian mission is not improbable, even if chronologically displaced. The so-called Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Mark claims that Mark was nicknamed kolobodáktulos (“stumpy fingers”),¹⁷ “because he had fingers that were too small for the height of the rest of his body …”¹⁸

The late 4th- or 5th-century apocryphal Acts of Mark alleges that Mark was dragged through the streets of Alexandria and died as a martyr. But this and other late traditions cannot be verified. Jerome (De Vir. Ill. 8) claimed that Mark died at Alexandria in the 8th year of Nero’s reign, ca. 62. This appears to be, however, a misdirected inference from Eusebius’ claim (anachronisms notwithstanding) that Mark simply resigned from the work in Alexandria that very year (Eccl. Hist. 2.24.21). According to the biblical record, around the years 64-65 Mark was assumed to be alive when Paul penned the words of 2 Timothy 4:11 and certainly not dead when Peter wrote 1 Peter 5:13. The date and circumstances of Mark’s death are unknown.

Lessons from Mark

1. Wealth does not have to be a hindrance to faithfulness and can be used to generously support the Lord’s work.

2. Hospitality not only benefits guests. It has a positive impact on the hosts and their families.

3. Mentoring young people in the Lord’s service develops future leaders.

4. Quitting does not make one a quitter if one keeps trying.

5. Don’t give up on those who fail. Be willing to forgive and to allow second chances.

6. Missionary work is not limited to foreign lands. Neither is it limited to our home environment. It is a both-and responsibility.

7. Let us use our God-given talents to serve Him and further His kingdom.

Thank you Mark for your life and service and for helping us know more about “the gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God” (Mark 1:1).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See Acts 12:12; 13:13; Col. 4:10-11. The author of the Second Gospel was at ease in the Greek language and possibly knew some Latin, but his “primary language seems to have been Aramaic, as indicated by the thought patterns in his Gospel” (W. Dicharry, Human Authors of the NT 51; cf. C. R. Holladay, A Critical Introduction to the NT 107-108). More Aramaic expressions occur in Mark’s Gospel than anywhere else in the Greek NT.

     2 The noun anepsiós could also mean “nephew” (LSV, YLT); “sister’s son” (KJV). 

     3 In the OT, 2 Kings 25:23; 1 Chron. 3:15, 24; 6:9-10; Ezra 8:12; Neh. 12:22-23; Jer. 40:8, 13, 15-16; 41:11, 13-16; 42:1, 8; 43:2, 4, 5; during the Intertestamental Period, Johanan the brother of Judas Maccabeus and his nephew John Hyrcanus; in the NT, John the baptizer (Mark 1:4), John the apostle (Mark 1:19), the father of Simon and Andrew (John 1:42; 21:15, variant), an associate of the high priest (Acts 4:6).

     4 Most notably Markus Tullius Cicero, Marcus Junius Brutus, Marcus Antonius (or Mark Antony), Marcus Ulpius Traianus, Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, Marcus Aurelius, Marcus Licinius Crassus, Marcus Porcius Cato.

     5 Another potential indicator of affluence is the mention of Rhoda, the young lady who answered the door of the outer gateway at Mary’s house (Acts 12:13). She is referred to as paídiskē, a term used elsewhere by Luke for a maidservant or female slave (Luke 12:45; 22:56; Acts 16:16).  

     6 Even though oikodespótēs (“head of a household”) is a masculine noun (Mark 14:14; Luke 22:11) and in the ancient Mediterranean world the head of a household was typically male, households without a male head were of necessity managed by women (e.g. Acts 12:12; 16:14-15; cf. Rom. 16:1-2; 1 Cor. 1:11) and by default the oldest son was regarded as head. See K. L. Moore, “Sociocultural Context of the NT (Part 5): Households,”Moore Perspective (24 July 2019), <Web>.

     7 See K. L. Moore, “The Pentecost-Day Miracle,” Moore Perspective (23 Jan. 2019), <Web>.

     8 Gen. 24:11, 15-16; Ex. 2:16; 1 Sam. 9:11; John 4:7.

     ⁹ See W. Dicharry, Human Authors of the NT 56 n. 33; M. C. Tenney, NT Survey (Rev.) 162-63. Papias, however, claimed that Mark was not an eyewitness or personal disciple of the earthly Jesus (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.39), also reiterated by later writers.

     ¹⁰ The 12th chapter of Acts concludes with the death of Herod Agrippa I (v. 23), which we know from secular history occurred in early March 44 (Josephus, Ant. 19.8.2).

     ¹¹ Ironically, following the dispute over John Mark that ended Barnabas’ and Paul’s partnership and led to Paul joining forces with Silas (a.k.a. Silvanus) (Acts 15:36-40), years later Peter, who had also run afoul of Paul with Barnabas implicated as well (Gal. 2:11-14), was working in partnership with both Mark and Silvanus (1 Pet. 5:12-13). 

     ¹² 1 Cor. 4:17; Phil. 2:22; 1 Tim. 1:1, 18; 2 Tim. 1:2; 2:1. Timothy is mentioned by name in the openings of more of Paul’s letters than any of the other coworkers, and on the receiving end of two.

     ¹³ “Babylon” is understood here to be a metaphoric allusion to Rome (cf. Rev. 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21); see also Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 2.15.2.

     ¹⁴ Cp. 1 Cor. 4:15-17; 1 Thess. 2:11; Tit. 1:4. On the conceivable pre-Pentecost connection, see “Mark’s Early Years” above (cf. also Acts 1:14-15).

     ¹⁵ Comparable early testimonies include Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho 106.3), the so-called Anti-Marcionite Prologue of Mark, Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1-2), Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4.5), Clement of Alexandria (Hypotyposeis; cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 2.15.2; 6.14.5-7), Origen (cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.25.5), and Eusebius himself (Eccl. Hist. 2.15.1-2). 

     ¹⁶ Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 2.16.1; 2.24.1; Epiphanius, Panarion 6.10; John Chrysostom, Homily 1.7; plus ancient Coptic tradition.

     ¹⁷ Also the 3rd-century Hippolytus, Philosophumena 7.30. 

     ¹⁸ In the 4th–5th century Latin Monarchian prologues, as a Levitical priest Mark is said to have amputated his thumb after his conversion to Christ so he would be rendered unfit for the Jewish priesthood.

Related Posts:

Image credit: Matthias Stom’s The Evangelists Saint Mark and Saint Luke (1635), <http://shamelesspopery.com/who-was-st-mark-the-story-of-a-soul/>.

Questions About Biblical Miracles (Part 1): Does Mark 16:17-18 indicate that miraculous gifts are for all baptized believers?

The first consideration is the historical context of this statement. Even if these miraculous abilities were promised to everyone who believes, they were imparted through the apostles’ hands (Acts 8:18) and were limited to the first-century church (1 Cor. 13:8-13). Moreover, no Christian possessed all the spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12:4-11, 28-30) except maybe the specially-chosen apostles (cf. Matt. 10:1; 2 Cor. 12:12). But when the entire context of this passage is considered, it doesn’t necessarily say what many have assumed. 

Notice in Mark 16:10-20 the frequent use of plural pronouns (“those,” “they,” “them,” “their”) in reference to the apostles. They did not believe and Jesus rebuked their unbelief. In giving the Great Commission (vv. 15-16) Jesus changed to the singular pronoun “he” to refer to the recipient of the gospel, but then changed back to the plural in referring to the unbelieving apostles. Christ promised the apostles that if they believed, miraculous signs would follow them (cf. Matt. 17:20). The last two verses of Mark 16 show that this promise was fulfilled in them: “And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through accompanying signs. Amen” (emp. added; cf. Acts 1:1-8; 2:4-8, 43; 3:1-8; 5:12; 16:16-18; 28:3-9; et al.).

-- Kevin L. Moore

*Originally appearing in The Exhorter (April-June 1998).

Related Posts: Duration of Miraculous Gifts: 1 For 13:8-10, Ending of Mark (Part 1), Questions Part 2: Heb. 13:8, Questions Part 3: Jn 14:12, Questions Part 4: Matt. 4:7

Related articles: 

Image credit: Adapted from https://dianarodes.wordpress.com/tag/mark-1615-18/

The Uniqueness of Mark’s Gospel

Matthew, Mark, and Luke are collectively known as the Synoptic Gospels because of the high degree of similarities among them. The ongoing scholarly debate is whether the authors wrote independently, collaborated, or used common sources. The subtle and not-so-subtle differences argue for independence, representing separate and corroborating testimonies.¹ 

Absent from both Matthew and Luke are the following sections of Mark: 1:1; 2:27; 3:20-22a; 4:26-29; 7:2-4, 32-37; 8:22-26; 9:29, 48-49; 13:33-37; 14:51-52. Fifty-five verses of Mark are not found in Matthew, and there is the striking omission in Luke of the material in Mark 6:45–8:26 and 9:41–10:12. Literary-dependency theorists and Markan Priority advocates in particular are hard pressed to give a reasonable explanation of these phenomena.² 

Details in Mark that do not appear in the parallel accounts of Matthew and Luke include the following:

Mark 1:13b, Jesus in the wilderness “with the wild beasts.” 

Mark 1:20b, Zebedee’s “hired servants.”

Mark 1:35, Jesus’ praying “a long while before daylight.” 

Mark 2:26b, “Abiathar the high priest.”  

Mark 2:27, “the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.”

Mark 3:17b, the nickname Jesus gave to Zebedee’s sons.

Mark 3:20-22a, too busy to eat, Christ’s own people trying to seize him, Jerusalem scribes.

Mark 4:3a, “Listen!”

Mark 4:36b, “other little boats.”

Mark 4:38a, “in the stern, asleep on a pillow.”

Mark 5:13b, the number of pigs.

Mark 5:26, “suffered from many physicians … grew worse.”   

Mark 5:41b, what Jesus said to the girl in Aramaic.

Mark 6:3a, “the carpenter, the Son of Mary.” 

Mark 6:8b, 9a, “except a staff … but to wear sandals.” 

Mark 6:39b, “on the green grass.” 

Mark 6:40b, “in hundreds.”

Mark 6:48b, “and would have passed them by.”

Mark 7:30, she came home, found the demon gone and her daughter lying on the bed.

Mark 8:3, “to their own houses … have come from afar.”

Mark 8:27, conversation on "the road" near Caesarea Philippi.

Mark 8:35b, “and the gospel’s.”

Mark 9:3b, “like snow, such as no launderer on earth can whiten them.”

Mark 9:41b, “because you belong to Christ.”

Mark 10:11b-12, “against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries …”

Mark 10:30b, “with persecutions.” 

Mark 10:45b, “and to give his life a ransom for many.” 

Mark 10:46b, “Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus.”

Mark 11:10a, “Blessed is the kingdom of our father David.”

Mark 11:17b, “for all nations.”

Mark 12:29b, “Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.” 

Mark 12:32-34, the entire section. 

Mark 14:30b, 68-72, a rooster crowing “twice.”

Mark 14:36a, “Abba.” 

Mark 15:21b, “the father of Alexander and Rufus.” 

Mark 15:47a, “and Mary Magdalene and Mary [mother] of Joseph.”

Mark 16:18, “they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly …”

Biblical studies are enhanced when attention is given to these unique features in view of authorship, readership, accompanying background and circumstances, inferred applicability and purpose, as well as the fruits of comparative analysis. 

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See K. L. Moore, “The Synoptic Problem and Markan Priority,” Part 1 <Link>, and Part 2 <Link>.

     ² I. H. Marshall, a Markan Priority advocate, admits that attempted explanations for the agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark “do not seem adequate and sometimes give the impression of being desperate attempts to iron out the difficulties at any cost,” while the MP hypothesis “must be judged insufficient to account for all the evidence” (Luke: Historian and Theologian 58, cf. 59-63).

Related Posts: Mark's Audience, Authorship of Gospels, Ending of Mark Part 1 (and links to Parts 2-4), Biblical Inspiration in Perspective 

Image credit: http://hoodmemorial.org/2018/02/05/matthew-and-mark/

Leaving All to Follow Jesus

After Jesus’ warning of the potential dangers of earthly riches, Simon Peter exclaims: “See, we have left all and followed you” (Mark 10:28).¹ What did Peter mean by this lofty statement, what all did it entail, and what implications does it have for followers of Christ today?

Background

When the Lord first called Simon Peter and his brother and companions, “they forsook all and followed Him” (Luke 5:11). Yet soon afterwards Jesus “entered the house of Simon and Andrew,” where Simon’s ailing mother-in-law was healed (Mark 1:29-31). Whatever was involved in leaving “all” to follow Christ, Simon Peter still kept his house (cf. John 20:10), his mother-in-law, and apparently his bride. In fact, years later the apostle Paul appeals to Peter’s marital status as indicative of his own “right to take along a believing wife” (1 Corinthians 9:5). As a disciple of Jesus, therefore, Peter kept his marriage and family intact. 

When Peter first became Christ’s follower he also owned a fishing boat, which the Lord had used as a teaching platform (Luke 5:3). Later Jesus instructed his disciples to keep a small boat handy in case he needed it (Mark 3:9), and on another occasion he once again boarded a boat to teach (Mark 4:1-2). As the Gospel narrative continues, there are recurring references to “the boat,” suggesting a particular vessel that was readily available for the Lord’s use. The disciples took Jesus along in the boat (Mark 4:36) as they encountered a storm that required his miraculous intervention. Jesus sent his disciples ahead in the boat (Mark 6:45) and joined them by walking on the sea. Throughout his ministry he crossed the Sea of Galilee multiple times in the boat (Mark 5:2, 18, 21; 6:32; 8:10, 14).² And after the Lord’s death and resurrection, when Simon Peter decided to go fishing, he and others “got into the boat ...” (John 21:3).³

Context 

When Peter reportedly “left all” to follow Jesus Christ, he did not abandon his wife, his family obligations, his house, or presumably his boat (used often in the Lord’s service). Therefore to fully appreciate the implications of Peter’s statement in Mark 10:28, the surrounding context must be considered.

In Mark 10:17-22 Jesus had encountered a wealthy young ruler whose earthly riches were of greater value to him than heavenly treasure.⁴ The Lord’s instruction to sell the material possessions and give the proceeds to the poor was not a universal pronouncement. Knowing this particular individual’s heart and misplaced priorities, Jesus simply identifies what he needed to do to remove the spiritual impediments in his life (cf. 9:43-48). No one can serve two masters (Matthew 6:24) and have one foot in the Lord’s kingdom while keeping the other stubbornly planted in the world.

As Christ goes on to explain the extreme difficulty of the rich entering God’s kingdom, the disciples are “astonished” (Mark 10:23-26a). Such a concept, so different from the rabbinic teaching that wealth is allegedly an indicator of divine favor, causes them to wonder, “Who then can be saved?” (v. 26b). The bottom line is, no one can be saved by human effort, achievement, or prosperity. The good news is, as Jesus affirms, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible” (v. 27).

Here is where Peter responds: “See, we have left all and followed You” (Mark 10:28). Nevertheless, as noted above, he had not given up his wife, his house, or his boat, not to mention his sandals, clothing, staff, sword, et al. (cf. Mark 6:8-9; John 18:10; Acts 12:8). Leaving all and following Jesus clearly does not call for physically impoverishing oneself. The fundamental requisite, then, is an inner detachment from earthly ties. This includes one’s house, siblings, parents, spouse, children, and lands (Mark 10:29; cf. Matthew 19:29; Luke 18:29). In other words, absolute loyalty and commitment to the Lord Jesus ought to surpass one’s connection to all earthly possessions and even the closest of human relationships. 

Application

If I own a house, it shall be considered the Lord’s possession to be used for his purpose.⁵ If I have a vehicle, it will be readily available for God’s work.⁶ If I have parents, they will be respected and cared for.⁷ If I am married, I will love and honor my spouse and promote heaven as our mutual destination.⁸ If I have children, they will be trained in Christ’s service.⁹ If I have a job, I will work with diligence and integrity as to the Lord.¹⁰ If I have financial means, I will be generous in accordance with the divine will.¹¹ Consequently, with this kind of priority list, the resulting blessings are manifold – both “now in this time ... and in the age to come” (Mark 10:30).

From a worldly perspective this may not make a lot of sense and is completely foreign to how sinful men operate. But seeing that “the world is passing away ...” (1 John 2:17), we must put our complete trust in the Lord when he says: “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it” (Matthew 10:37-39). What is more important to you than following Jesus and thereby leading your loved ones into eternity?

– Kevin L. Moore
 

Endnotes:

        ¹ See also Matthew 19:27; Luke 18:28. All scripture quotations are from the NKJV (1985). 

      ² While the NKJV does not append the definite article ("the") to "boat" in Mark 5:21, the article does appear in the Greek text.

      ³ See also Matthew 8:23; 9:1; 13:1-2; 14:13, 22; 15:39; Luke 8:22, 37; John 6:17, 24; 21:6. Note that the "little boat" of John 21:8 is comparable to the "small boat" of Mark 3:9.

      ⁴ While all three synoptic accounts inform us of the man’s great wealth (Matthew 19:22; Mark 10:22; Luke 18:23), it is Matthew alone who reveals that he was "young" (19:20, 22) and only Luke who says that he was a "ruler" (18:18).

      ⁵ Matthew 9:28; 13:1, 36; 17:24-25; Mark 2:1-2; 9:33; 14:14-15; Romans 12:13; 16:5, 23; etc. 

      ⁶ Luke 10:34; Mark 4:36; 11:2-3; Acts 8:28-31; 13:4; etc.

      ⁷ Matthew 15:3-6; Colossians 3:20; 1 Timothy 5:4-8, 16; etc.

      ⁸ 1 Corinthians 7:3-4; Ephesians 5:22-33; Colossians 3:18-19; 1 Peter 3:1-7; etc.

      ⁹ Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Proverbs 22:6; Ephesians 6:4; Colossians 3:21; etc.

      ¹⁰ Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22-25; 2 Thessalonians 3:7-13; etc.

      ¹¹ Luke 6:38; Romans 12:8; 15:24-26; 1 Corinthians 16:1-3; 2 Corinthians 9:6-7; etc.

Related Posts: Cross-Bearing, And With Many Other Words

Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage: Contextual Insights

       If the Lord’s teaching on divorce and remarriage is removed from its original context, the likelihood of it being misconstrued is greatly enhanced. The scope of the present study is limited to the parallel accounts of Matthew 19:1-10 and Mark 10:1-12.¹ Although these passages share much in common, there are obvious differences that must be accounted for as well. Some of the variations may be due to the fact that the initial discourse was in Aramaic, whereas Matthew and Mark have provided independent Greek translations, affecting both arrangement and linguistic expression. The separate reports, while easily harmonized, have also been communicated from different perspectives. Matthew, for example, focuses on Jesus having healed the multitudes (19:2), whereas Mark’s emphasis is on Jesus having taught them (10:1). The particular audience and distinct purposes of each writer are also important factors.

The Geographical and Political Setting:

     Identifying the precise location is complicated by the inclusion of the phrase "across the Jordan" in conjunction with the "borders" or "territory" of Judea (Matthew 19:1; Mark 10:1). Jesus was either at the far eastern boundary of Judea near the district of Perea, or more likely he was beyond Judea’s border in Perea. Either way the location is significant, seeing that Perea was the region governed by Herod Antipas at the time.² A couple of years earlier John the baptizer had confronted the tetrarch about his unlawful marriage to Herodias, resulting in John’s execution (Matthew 14:3-12; cf. Luke 3:19-20; 9:9). Jesus was well aware of these events (Matthew 14:12), and it was no secret that his attitude toward the malicious ruler was less than sympathetic (Mark 8:15; Luke 13:31-32).³

The Lord’s Immediate Audience:    
     While a sizeable crowd (presumably Jews) may have been listening in the background, the immediate conversation was between Jesus and members of the Pharisee sect (Matthew 19:2-3; Mark 10:1-2). The question of whether or not divorce is "lawful" almost certainly pertains to Jewish marriages under the Law of Moses. The particular concern of "a man" divorcing "his wife" is relevant to the fact that among the Jews only the husband could initiate the divorce (cf. Deuteronomy 24:1-3).
     The participle peirazontes ("testing") reveals a sinister motive behind the query (Matthew 19:3; Mark 10:2). Remembering the geographical setting of this encounter, what better way to "test" Jesus than by publicly asking him a controversial question about divorce in the vicinity of a Roman-appointed Jewish tetrarch who himself was divorced and remarried to a divorced woman?⁴ In view of what had happened to the last person who dared to challenge the legitimacy of this contestable union (Mark 6:17-29), Jesus is being lured into an incredibly volatile situation.⁵
     The antagonists focus their attention on Deuteronomy 24:1-4, a passage that assumes the prevalence of divorce at the time of writing (cf. 22:19, 29; Leviticus 21:7, 13, 14). Jesus informs them that the provision of divorce was not a divine injunction but a concession due to sklērokardia (Matthew 19:8; Mark 10:5), "obstinacy" or "hardness of heart." While the certificate of divorce served to protect women from unscrupulous husbands and the precarious charge of adultery, it went far beyond God’s intended purpose.
     Jesus appeals to the writings of Moses too, going all the way back to "the beginning"  (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6). He quotes Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 to establish God’s original design of one man and one woman united in marriage as a lifelong, inseparable bond.  
     Although Matthew 19:9 seems to be a continuation of the address to the Pharisees, the corresponding passage in Mark 10:10-11 explicitly states that Jesus had retreated to a house where he responds to the queries of his disciples. The wording of Matthew 19:9 is not definitive as to whom Jesus is specifically speaking, whether the Pharisees of vv. 7-8 or the disciples of v. 10. It could be that the additional information in Mark 10:11 clarifies that the teaching in both passages is directed to the disciples. On the other hand, it is also possible that Matthew records what was spoken to the Pharisees and Mark records what was said to the disciples, in which case the differences are more readily explicable. Either way, the teaching in both passages is unchanged and still needs to be harmonized.
The Reading Audiences of Matthew and Mark:
     The Lord’s directives were prompted by hostile questions within the circle of Judaism, and Matthew’s Gospel was written with a Jewish audience in mind (see Matthew's Audience). In contrast, Mark’s account was recorded for a Roman audience (see Mark's Audience), which helps explain why Mark incorporates into his record certain parts of the Lord’s discourse that are omitted in Matthew, and vice versa.
     The opening question about divorce has the added phrase "for any reason" in Matthew’s version (19:3), which is not included in Mark. These words would make perfect sense to a Jewish readership familiar with the current rabbinical debate over the meaning in Deuteronomy 24:1 of the expressions "no favor" and "some indecency." The school of Shammai insisted that sexual impurity was the necessary prerequisite for divorce, while the school of Hillel maintained that any trivial offense was sufficient grounds. Jewish opinion was heavily divided.
     Jesus affirms that while it is sinful for a man to divorce his wife, it is not adultery; the sin of adultery is added to the sin of divorce if the man goes on to remarry someone else (Matthew 19:9; Mark 10:11). The words "except for sexual immorality" in Matthew’s account (19:9; cf. 5:32) are absent from Mark. The exceptive phrase would have had greater significance to Matthew’s audience, seeing that in Judaism infidelity warranted the death penalty (cf. Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22) and had become a cruel weapon of ruthless men in their mistreatment of women (cf. John 8:3-5). Among the Romans this was already understood as sufficient grounds for divorce.
     Mark’s inclusion of the phrase "against her" (10:11b) is intriguing. Both the Jews and the Romans understood adultery as sexual intercourse with a married woman. Accordingly, when a woman committed adultery it was against her own husband, and when a man committed adultery it was against the woman’s husband. Jesus, however, informs his Jewish listeners, and Mark in turn informs his Roman readers, that from the divine perspective adultery is also committed against the innocent wife.
     Matthew omits the following words that Mark has recorded in 10:12, "and if she, having divorced her husband, marries another, she is committing adultery." Within the context of Judaism, since only the husband could initiate a divorce and not the wife, the applicability of this statement would have been lost among Matthew’s readers. On the other hand, under Roman law the marriage could be terminated by either party, so Mark’s inclusion of the statement is most relevant. But why would the Lord have uttered these words in the first place, seeing that he was conversing with Jewish people about Jewish marriage?
     There are two important factors to remember here. First, in view of the geographical setting where the conversation took place, this could be a subtle allusion to Herodias, who had divorced her first husband under Roman law in order to marry Herod Antipas (Mark 6:17-19). Second, we need to appreciate that Jesus is speaking to his disciples (Mark 10:10) who are soon to be commissioned to take his message to all nations (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15). If, as some have alleged, the Lord’s teaching on divorce and remarriage is merely "covenant legislation," i.e. restricted to those who are already in a covenant relationship with God, the affirmation in Mark 10:12 is conspicuously out of place and contextually meaningless.
Conclusion:    
     Lest anyone gets the impression that either Matthew’s audience or Mark’s audience lacked pertinent information, keep in mind that each Gospel was supplementary to the instruction these believers were already receiving through inspired teachers. Since modern-day students of the Bible have access to all the Lord’s teachings on this subject, ignorance is no excuse.
     Jesus did not shy away from controversial issues. He neither sought the approval of his contemporaries, nor did he conform to popular opinion. He afforded equal treatment to men and women alike, and he elevated marriage to its highest dignity. His views on divorce and remarriage challenged the status quo without compromise, and he refused to accept any infringement of God’s marriage law, even if sanctioned by civil and religious authorities.
–Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:
      ¹ Suffice it to say that the earlier discourses in Matthew 5:31-32 and Luke 16:18 are both in opposition to the lax attitudes of the Jewish scribes and Pharisees toward the divine will (Matthew 5:20; Luke 16:14-15; cf. Matthew 15:1-3). All scripture quotations in English are the author’s own translation.
      ² Following the death of his father Herod the Great, Antipas became tetrarch of the combined territories of Galilee and Perea, reigning from 4 BC to AD 39. His curiosity about Jesus did little to avert his antagonism toward the Lord (Luke 13:31; 23:6-12).
      ³ The reading in Mark 8:15 in most Greek manuscripts is "Herod," but the alternate reading "Herodians" occurs in some, alluding to the political supporters of Herod Antipas.
      ⁴ Antipas had divorced his wife Phasaelis, the daughter of the Nabatean king Aretas IV, in order to marry Herodias, who had previously been married to his half-brother Philip I (see Josephus, Ant. 18.5.1, 4).
      ⁵ It is of interest that the political supporters of Herod Antipas were the Herodians, who had formed an alliance with the Pharisees in their mutual plot to destroy Jesus (Mark 3:6). On another occasion the Herodians and the Pharisees attempted to entangle Jesus in his words by asking whether it was "lawful" to pay taxes to Caesar (Matthew 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17; cf. Luke 20:20-26). The anticipated response had the potential of inciting the wrath of the hostile Zealots, on one hand, or the fury of the Romans, on the other. So when Jesus is cunningly asked whether it is "lawful" for a man to divorce his wife, surely the intent was to bring him into conflict with the Law of Moses and the Jewish populace, on one hand, or with Herod Antipas and Herodias, on the other.

Related Posts: Preventing Divorce, Divorce & Remarriage Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, A Closer Look at Pharisaism

Image Credit: http://www.mensdivorcelaw.com/areas-of-practice/divorce/

Mark's Audience

      While John Mark (son of Mary of Jerusalem and cousin of Barnabas) was an ethnic Jew,¹ his Gospel appears to have been written for a non-Jewish audience. Aramaic expressions are translated (3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 14:36; 15:22, 34) and Jewish customs explained (7:3-4; 14:12; 15:42). More specifically, Mark had close connections with Rome (cf. Colossians 4:10; Philemon 24). Having been summoned to Rome by Paul (2 Timothy 4:11), he was with Peter (presumably in Rome) when 1 Peter was written (5:13). Irenaeus affirms that Paul and Peter were in Rome at the same time (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1),  corresponding to Paul’s second Roman imprisonment in conjunction with the great fire of Rome in July 64 and Nero’s subsequent persecution of Christians.

     Peter sends greetings from "she who is in Babylon, chosen together with you ..." (1 Peter 5:13). Although some have suggested that "she" is a reference to an actual woman (perhaps Peter's wife), most interpreters understand this to be a metaphoric allusion to the collective members of the church (cf. KJV). It is only natural to interpret "Babylon" symbolically as applicable to Rome.² In late Judaism "Rome began to take on the name and many of the characteristics of Babylon as a world-power hostile to God . . ." (BAGD 129), and the book of Revelation indicates that first-century Christians understood "Babylon" as a symbolic reference to Rome (cf. 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21). If Nero’s persecution was looming or in its early stages at the time of writing, Peter’s reluctance to expressly identify the Christian community in Rome is understandable.
     According to Papias of Hierapolis (ca. 60-140), Mark was "Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord. . . . [he] followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord’s oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in writing down single points as he remembered them" (as quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.39.15-16; cf. 6.25.5, trans. K. Lake, LCL).³ It is of further interest that the Gospel of Mark follows a pattern very similar to Peter’s sermon recorded in Acts 10:36-41 (see esp. W. L. Lance, The Gospel According to Mark 10-11; also D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo, An Introduction to the NT 193).
     Both Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3.1.2) and Clement of Alexandria (Hypotyposeis; cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.14.5-7) report that Mark’s Gospel was compiled in Rome. In fact, the Gospel has a definite Roman flavoring. It contains a number of Latinisms: e.g. modus (4:21), legion (5:9), speculator (6:27), census (12:14), denarius (12:15), lepta (12:42), quadrans (12:42), flagellare (15:15), praetorium (15:16), and centurion (15:39, 44-45). Mark uses Roman rather than Hebrew time (6:48; 13:35). And seeing that Mark’s readers were acquainted with Simon’s sons Alexander and Rufus (15:21), it is not without significance that there was a Christian named Rufus among the believers at Rome (Romans 16:13).
     Mark portrays Jesus as the suffering servant of God (8:31-32; 9:31; 10:33-34), and his unique focus on suffering (cf. 10:30)⁴ may be the result of Nero’s persecutions in Rome approximating the time of writing. The message and unique features of Mark’s Gospel make more sense when read from a first-century Roman perspective.
–Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes: 
    ¹ Colossians 4:10-11; Acts 12:12, 25; 13:5, 13; 15:37. The author of Mark’s Gospel was familiar with the geography of Palestine (5:1; 6:53; 8:10; 11:1; 13:3), knew Aramaic (5:41; 7:11, 34; 14:36), and understood Jewish customs (1:21; 7:2-4). Although one of the arguments against Markan authorship is an alleged ignorance of Palestinian geography and Jewish customs, these criticisms are exaggerated and do not stand up to close scrutiny (see D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo, An Introduction to the NT 175).
     ² There is no evidence that the church was existing in the literal Babylon of Mesopotamia in the mid-first-century AD or that Peter or Mark or Silvanus was associated with the region. Few, if any, would consider Egypt’s Babylon as a possibility either.
     ³ Note that Mark’s Gospel is arranged more geographically than chronologically. On Mark’s association with Peter in the biblical record, see Acts 12:11-12; 13:13; 2 Timothy 4:11; and 1 Peter 5:13. Comparable early testimonies include Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho 106.3); the Anti-Marcionite Prologue (ca. 160-180), Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4.5), and Jerome (Ad Hedibiam 120).
    ⁴ Mark does not include teachings of Jesus on discipleship until after the Lord's description of his own suffering (8:31-33). 

Related Posts: Uniqueness of Mark's Gospel, Matthew's Audience,  Luke's Audience, John's Audience

Image credit: http://www.esgetology.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Old_Bibles-1.jpg

The Ending of Mark (Part 4 of 4): Internal Issues

     In the case against the final twelve verses of Mark 16, internal issues frequently cited include the following. (1) The vocabulary and style of vv. 9-20 appear to be non-Markan; seventeen words occur in these verses that are not found elsewhere in the Gospel, three of which appear more than once. (2) The connection between v. 8 and v. 9 seems awkward. (3) The subject of v. 8 is the women, but in v. 9 Jesus is the presumed subject. (4) Mary Magdalene is identified in v. 9, even though she is mentioned in 15:47 and 16:1, while the other women of 16:1-8 are forgotten.

     In order for these charges to appear credible, a number of variables have to be overlooked that would otherwise significantly weaken the objections, particularly those centered on a hypothetical Markan vocabulary and style (see Biblical Authorship Part 3). If Mark based his Gospel on the oral testimony of the apostle Peter (as early tradition claims),¹ and if Peter was incarcerated and/or killed before the Gospel was finished (a conjecture supported by biblical information and early tradition),² Mark could have written the ending by himself, and the final section would therefore be entirely Markan, while the preceding material would represent a Petrine-Markan blend. 
     Since the conclusion of the Gospel deals with unique subject matter that is not previously discussed, would it not therefore call for distinctive terminology? Three words in this section occur in the New Testament only in the post-resurrection accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke-Acts, and John. Of the seventeen words in this paragraph that do not appear elsewhere in Mark in duplicate form, eight do occur in varied forms and are thus part of the so-called "Markan vocabulary" after all, not to mention the rest of the terminology that comprises nearly 90% of the text! Applying the same scrutiny to the twelve verses preceding this section (15:44–16:8), we find that sixteen of these words and phrases do not occur elsewhere in the Gospel either. Moreover, by subjecting the last twelve verses of Luke’s Gospel to the same test, we discover no less than nine words that do not occur elsewhere in Luke, four of which are found nowhere else in the Greek New Testament (see J. W. McGarvey, NT Commentary: Matthew and Mark 380).
     The connection between v. 8 and v. 9 seems awkward only if it is viewed as an attempted continuance of the previous empty tomb section. But if v. 9 is the beginning of a new paragraph (relating to the appearances of the resurrected Christ), the break is normal in Mark’s rapid-fire Gospel (cf. 1:3-4, 8-9, 13-14, 34-35, 39-40; 2:17-18, 22-23; 3:12-13, 19-20, 30-31; 3:35–4:1; 4:9-10, 20-21, 25-26, 29-30; 6:13-14, 29-30; 6:56–7:1; 7:13-14; 7:37–8:1; et al.). Note that v. 8 and v. 9 are separated by the conjuntion de, "which is elsewhere a sign of a definite break in the Gospel" (D. E. Nineham, Saint Mark 197 n.; cf. R. H. Lightfoot, History and Interpretation 62 n.).
     Although v. 9 begins with the masculine participle anastas ("rising") and the nearest antecedent is the women of v. 8, an unbiased reader can easily distinguish between an unrelated spatial antecedent and the more obvious conceptual antecedent of vv. 6-7. Compare Mark 7:30, where the subject is two females (the Syro-Phoenician woman and her daughter), immediately followed by v. 31 where "he" (Jesus) is the subject (cf. 2:12-13; 6:44-45; 14:2-3).
     Mary Magdalene is named in v. 9 because she is the subject of the beginning of a new paragraph, particularly in view of her being the first to whom Jesus appeared. Bruce Metzger’s objection that the use of anastas de ("now rising") and the position of prōton ("first") "are ill-suited in a continuation of verses 1-8" (Textual Commentary [2nd ed.] 105) unnecessarily assumes continuance rather than an apparent break and the start of a new section. Note that Mary Magdalene is also mentioned back in 15:40, but no scholarly eyebrows are raised by the repetition of her name in 15:47 and immediately again in 16:1!
     Allen Black comments: "it is important not to overrate the significance of the problem. There is no doctrine or practice discussed in vv. 9-20 that is not taught elsewhere in the New Testament" (Mark 293). While this statement is generally true, the reference in v. 18 to drinking "anything deadly" is without parallel in the New Testament. Nevertheless, Papias of Hierapolis reported that he had learned from the daughters of the apostle Philip concerning Justus Barsabas (cf. Acts 1:23-24), "though he drank a deadly poison, experienced nothing injurious through the grace of the Lord" (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.39.9).
     Everyone agrees that the last twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel bear strong affinities to the other biblical accounts of the resurrection (i.e. the information is authentic) and serve as a fitting epilogue (cf. Matthew 28:18-20; Luke 8:2; 24:13-51; John 20:1-23; Acts 1:9; 2:43; 4:33; 5:12; 6:8; 8:6; 14:3, 9-10; 16:16-18; 28:3-9; Hebrews 2:3-4). The case against the traditional ending does not appear to be as compelling as most critical scholars would have us believe. In fact, the tenacity of this passage in avoiding complete omission from nearly all current standard Greek texts and translations, despite overwhelming opposition, bears testimony to its apparent veracity.³
–Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:
     ¹Papias of Hierapolis reports that Mark was "Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord" (as quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.39.15). According to Jerome, Peter’s interpreter was Mark, "whose gospel was composed with Peter narrating and him writing" (Ad Hedibiam 120). "Mark reads like a shorthand account of a story by an impromptu speaker--with all the repititions, redundancies and digressions which are characteristic of living speech" (B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels 162-64).
     ²Mark was summoned to Rome by Paul (2 Timothy 4:11) and was with Peter in Rome (1 Peter 5:13) not long before Peter’s martyrdom (2 Peter 1:13-15) at the hands of Nero (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 2.25.1-8). The proposed scenario above is bolstered by the fact that Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3.1.2) and Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.14.5-7) agree that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome but disagree as to whether this was before or after Peter’s death.
     ³For a more detailed assessment of the documentary evidence, consult the works of James Snapp, Jr., including Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20. 

Related Posts: Ending of Mark Part 1, Ending of Mark Part 2, Ending of Mark Part 3, Text of NT Part 1, Text of NT Part 2, Uniqueness of Mark's Gospel

The Ending of Mark (Part 3 of 4): External Testimonies

     It is commonly asserted that in the fourth and early-fifth centuries, Eusebius and Jerome indicated that Mark 16:9-20 was absent from "nearly all" Greek copies of Mark available to them. Bruce Metzger’s observation that "Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses" (Textual Commentary [2nd ed.] 103) proves nothing either way, and it is quite misleading to twist this argument from silence into an affirmative statement like: "The ending at 16:8 is attested by Clement, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome" (S. E. Dowd, Reading Mark 169), or "Mark’s Gospel (as written by Mark) ends with 16:8. This is attested to by . . . Clement, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome . . ." (P. W. Comfort, Quest for the Original Text 137-38).    

     Eusebius is believed to have been among the first to question the veracity of these verses. In his Quaestiones ad Stephanum et Marinum, he offers (in the third person) a twofold solution to an apparent discrepancy between Matthew 28:1 and Mark 16:9. His first response can be summarized as follows: someone might disregard Mark 16:9 because it is not in all the copies of Mark; the accurate ones end at v. 8, "almost in all the copies," and the words that follow "are extant in some but not in all." Eusebius’ second solution retains Mark 16:9 as genuine, briefly stated as follows: someone else, who dares not set aside these verses, can easily harmonize the two passages by simple punctuation.
     Eusebius was obviously aware of the long ending of Mark, knew of Greek manuscripts that contained the passage, and was not entirely dismissive of it as a number of critical commentators have led their readers to believe. It is important to note that nearly all of the manuscripts available to Eusebius were of the Alexandrian text-type (akin to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), and he apparently lacked access to earlier manuscripts used by the likes of Irenaeus and Tertullian that proliferated elsewhere (see below).
     Jerome’s alleged "objection" to these verses (Epistle [Ad Hedibiam] 120.3) is merely a Latin translation of what Eusebius had written in Greek decades earlier, yet Jerome included Mark 16:9-20 in his Latin Vulgate! The Greek New Testament was translated into Latin as early as the late second century and was later revised by Jerome, using the best Latin texts and compared with old Greek manuscripts that were available. Jerome even employed Mark 16:14 in his Dialogus contra Pelagianos 2.15. Therefore, citing Jerome as evidence against the long ending of Mark would appear disingenuous.
     Irenaeus of Lyons (late second century) regarded Mark 16:9-20 as part of the original (Adv. Haereses 3.10.6), about two centuries before Eusebius, Jerome, and the production of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts. Tertullian of Carthage (early third century) quotes from the long ending of Mark (16:19) in his Adv. Praxeam 2.1, over a century before Eusebius, Jerome, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus. Further, a number of ancient versions (e.g. the Peshitta Syriac, the Old Italic, the Sahidic, the Coptic) include vv. 9-20, and these predate Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, as well as Eusebius and Jerome. Apparently the Greek texts from which these early versions were translated contained the passage in question.
–Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Ending of Mark Part 1, Ending of Mark Part 2, Ending of Mark Part 4, Text of NT Part 1, Text of NT Part 2