who observed them from without. See ch. 7. 1-5. In the expression, 'For the Pharisees and all the Jews' (ver. 3), this critic finds evidence that Mark spoke to Gentiles as himself a Gentile, and speaking of another nation.

Mark is spoken of as the son of Peter, and the connection seems to import that it was as a spiritual son, or convert to Christianity, that he was so called. 1 Pet. 5. 13. If he be the same as John Mark, it is not unlikely that after Paul had quitted the scene, Mark should have united himself to Peter, with whom he had been on friendly terms at an early period of his life.

He was associated with Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey as an assistant. Acts 12. 25; 13. 5. At Pamphylia, Mark left them and returned to Jerusalem, whence they had set out. Acts 13. 13. For this reason Paul refused to take him on his second journey, Acts 15. 37; but Barnabas took him and sailed to Cyprus; Mark being thus the occasion of a breach between Paul and Barnabas. He was, however, subsequently sent for by Paul, as though reconciled, and was with him during his first captivity at Rome. Col. 4. 10. Phil. 27. The passage in Colossians intimates that he was about to go a journey for Paul to Colosse. It was after all this that Mark is found with Peter. 1 Pet. 5. 13.

Ancient testimony agrees that he sustained some special relation to Peter in writing this Gospel narrative. As Mark was not an apostle, we may understand this as indicating the apostolic testimony, which he specially followed, but which, as we have seen, could be no bar to the plenary inspiration of the narrative, as this could not at all supersede the necessity of inspiration. Though neither Mark nor Luke were apostles, their Gospel narratives have always been received in the Church as of equal authority with the other two. They were written and circulated under the eye of the apostles, at least of Paul and Peter and John, and with their express approbation; whereas they would doubtless have exposed them, if they had had no good claim to inspiration. Mark is spoken of by very early writers as being the interpreter' of Peter,that is, probably, his secretary, or reporter, as having committed to writing what the apostle preached and taught of the Gospel history, and as embodying it in another language-the Greek-while Peter preached probably in the SyroChaldaic, or language of the country. He was with that apostle in Babylon when his first epistle was written. 1 Pet. 5. 13.

6

The theory of the recent Dutch commentator, Da Costa of Amsterdam, is worthy of consideration. He finds in Mark's writing, the Western and Roman element, in distinction from the Israelitic, Eastern element in Matthew. He finds also, in some of the terms which he uses, and in his general style, the evidence of his military vocation. He conjectures that Mark is the devout soldier' sent by Cornelius to Peter to beg the Gospel for the Gentiles, Acts 10. 7-that he then became a convert, and so was most appropriately called the son of Peter, in the faith, as Timothy was the son of Paul-and that thus the author of the first Gospel that was addressed to the Gentiles, was himself one of the first among the Gentiles to receive the Holy Ghost.'

'But,' says Calvin, 'on this subject, we need not give ourselves much trouble, provided only we believe that he is a properly qualified and divinelypointed witness, who committed nothing to writing but as the Holy Spirit directed him and guided his pen.' Vol. i. p. 38.

THE TIME AND PLACE.

From the accounts of Irenæus and Clement, we infer that this Gospel narrative was written after the apostles had left Judea, and towards the close of their ministry. The most probable date is A. D. 64; about the same as the Gospel by Matthew. There is strong testimony that it was written at Rome. There is no proof that Peter was present at the time; the language of John the Presbyter implies that it was in Peter's absence, for he is said to have written it as he remembered.' This important witness, who was an immediate disciple

of our Lord on earth, says of Mark that 'he erred in nothing.' Romanists have asserted that this Gospel was written in Latin; but they were refuted by the learned Simon, one of their own church. They afterwards announced that the Latin original was still preserved in the library of St Mark's at Venice! But this was found to be a fable.

Early tradition makes Mark to have finished his labours at Alexandria. The Romish cathedral of St Mark's at Venice claims to have his bones. The Romish legend is, that his remains were smuggled through the custom-house at Alexandria, for the cathedral, by being covered carefully with pork! And over the right door of the cathedral we saw a representation of this ridiculous story carved in stone!

THE OBJECT, METHOD, ETC.

This Evangelist, who writes more as a biographer than as a historian, passes at once to the ministry of John the Baptist, omitting all account of the birth and childhood of our Lord, as comprised in the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke, and covered by Part I. of the Harmony. While Matthew sets forth Jesus as the Christ, the promised Messiah, Mark's object is to make Him known as the God Man. See ch. 1. 1. Hence he dwells chiefly on the events of His official life; while he exhibits Him everywhere also in His human characteristics. His aim is brevity. His statements are concise. His descriptions are vivid. He has followed generally the chronological order of the events, so that his narrative makes a skeleton of the received Harmony, with one or two slight exceptions.

He has usually given the miracles and parables of our Lord, and the prominent events of the history; while he has omitted the Sermon on the Mount and the Mission of the Seventy-the latter being given by John only.

While Matthew speaks of our Lord as 'the Son of David,' Mark introduces Him as 'the Son of God.' Ch. 1. 1. Yet throughout he gives us lively pictures of His humanity. That Mark wrote for Gentile converts, is to be inferred from the facts, that he omits the genealogies of our Lord, interprets the Hebrew terms, explains the Jewish customs, omits citations from the Old Testament, except in reporting our Lord's discourses commonly; and in these respects differs remarkably from Matthew, who wrote for Jewish believers. It is to be remembered that Rome was then the great metropolis of the world—the common centre of all civilised nations.

He refers to persons living in Rome, and known to the Roman Christians, as the sons of Simon the Cyrenean. See ch. 15. 21. This shows a consciousness of the truth of his narrative. See Rom. 16. 13. His agreement with Matthew is remarkable. Excepting only in some thirty verses, he has narrated nothing not given by Matthew. This has led some to suppose that he must have copied from that Evangelist. But the verbal variations are such as to forbid this, and to show the abundant marks of an independent narrative.

We have more Gospel narratives than one, because one view of the life and sayings of our blessed Lord would not be sufficient. Such a life as this, such a sacred history, revealing our salvation, was worthy to be given us from these four different points of view. Hence the first Evangelist preaches Jesus Christ as Prophet and King; the second preaches Him as the God Man; the third preaches Him as Sovereign, Priest, and King; and the fourth preaches Him as the only-begotten and equal Son of God, who was God. Here too we have the words of Christ given to us by the Holy Spirit. And as the Word of God is a living word, so it developes itself here. In Matthew, the oral preaching passes into a first written recital. In Mark, it becomes a description. In Luke, it takes the shape of a formal, historical narrative. In John, it becomes a Science -a God-glorifying Theology. See Da Costa's Four Witnesses, pp. 3–8.

There is also, throughout, ample proof that the Holy Spirit has given us these records of our Saviour's life with a kind regard to the futurecessities of the Church. While this Gospel narrative contains so little that is not found substantially in Matthew and Luke, it is so far from being a barren duplicate of them, that it has, throughout, the freshness of its living source. And the believing student finds it as precious to him as any of the others-serving an end and filling a void which could not without spiritual detriment be left uncared for.' See Alford's Prolegomena, pp. 34, 36.

'A. D.' at the top of the page, indicates the year of our Lord's age, not the year of the Christian era, which dates four years earlier.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK.

CHAPTER I.

2 As it is written in the proHE beginning of the gospel of phets, 2 Behold, I send my mes

God;

1 He. 1. 1, 2. CHAPTER I.

prepare thy way before thee.

2 Mal. 3. 1.

Gospel, or message of glad tidings, that The object of this Evangelist is, to Mark announces so pointedly and earset forth the Gospel of our Lord in His nestly, as though he had said, 'Behold! official Life and Ministry. Accordingly, I declare to you the glorious Gospel, he begins with such a notice of John which is not mine, nor from me, but the Baptist as shall introduce the nar- the Gospel of Jesus Christ as its Author rative of our Saviour's Baptism. and Subject: and He is the Son, not of Sections 1 to 13 of the Gospel history are David only, nor of Joseph chiefly, but of Events connected with the birth and of God!' 6 God now speaks unto us childhood of our Lord;' extending over by His Son, Heb. 1. 1. The Son witabout thirteen and a half years, and nesses of Himself. See ver. 14. This forming Part 1. of the Harmony. See name 'Gospel,' or evangel (Greek), is the Synopsis of the Harmony,' prefixed term applied by Mark to the history

to the Notes on Matthew.'

PART II.

Announcement and Introduction of our Lord's Public Ministry.

Time, about one year. §14. THE MINISTRY OF JOHN THE BAPTIST.-The Desert. Jordan.

Matt. 3. 1-12.

Mark. Luke. 1. 1-8. 3. 1-18.

John.

which contains the glad tidings of salvation by a Redeemer.- -Jesus Christ the Son of God. Acts 17. 22. This is the full title of our Lord, and not without design. The Evangelist is about to give His biography, so far as His official life and ministry are concerned. It is the Gospel of this glorious personage, not of himself nor of John. 'He was not that light, but was sent to bear witness of that light.' He would set forth this adorable Saviour as 'the 1. The beginning. The brevity and Son of God,' and also as perfect Man. fulness of this sentence would give it Jesus' is the official title for Saviour.' the appearance of a title to the Gospel Matt. 1. 21. Christ' is the Greek title narrative. Yet in its connection with for Anointed,' as the term Messiah, in ver. 2, it may be understood as an- the Hebrew. And 'the Son of God' is nouncing the Gospel of Christ, and as the title, not only of his divinity, but declaring that its introduction was ac- of his divine Sonship-the Second cording to the Old Testament Scrip- Person in the glorious Trinity. This ture, by the heralding of John the is to be distinguished from the title Baptist. This would then agree with used by Matthew, Son of David,' and the passage in Luke 16. 16: The law also from the title, 'Son of man,' as and the prophets were until John: exhibiting His perfect humanity. since that time the kingdom of God is preached.'- -The Gospel. It is the

2. As it is written. This declares John to have come according to the