The Pulpit Commentaries Mark (Vol. 1) (Joseph S. Exell)

《The Pulpit Commentaries–Mark (Vol. 1)》(Joseph S. Exell)

Contents and the Editors

One of the largest and best-selling homiletical commentary sets of its kind. Directed by editors Joseph Exell and Henry Donald Maurice Spence-Jones, The Pulpit Commentary drew from over 100 authors over a 30 year span to assemble this conservative and trustworthy homiletical commentary set. A favorite of pastors for nearly 100 years, The Pulpit Commentary offers you ideas and insight on "How to Preach It" throughout the entire Bible.

This in-depth commentary brings together three key elements for better preaching:

• Exposition-with thorough verse-by-verse commentary of every verse in the Bible.
• Homiletics-with the "framework" or the "big picture" of the text.
• Homilies-with four to six sermons sample sermons from various authors.

In addition, this set also adds detailed information on biblical customs as well as historical and geographical information, and translations of key Hebrew and Greek words to help you add spice to your sermon.

All in all, The Pulpit Commentary has over 22,000 pages and 95,000 entries from a total of 23 volumes. The go-to commentary for any preacher or teacher of God's Word.
About the Editors

Rev. Joseph S. Exell, M.A., served as the Editor of Clerical World, The Homiletical Quarterly and the Monthly Interpreter. Exell was also the editor for several large commentary sets like The Men of the Bible, The Pulpit Commentary, Preacher's Homiletic Library and The Biblical Illustrator.

Henry Donald Maurice Spence-Jones was born in London on January 14, 1836. He was educated at Corpus Christi, Cambridge where he received his B.A. in 1864. He was ordered deacon in 1865 and ordained as a priest is the following year. He was professor of English literature and lecturer in Hebrew at St. David's College, Lampeter, Wales from 1865-1870. He was rector of St. Mary-de-Crypt with All Saints and St. Owen, Gloucester from 1870-1877 and principal of Gloucester Theological College 1875-1877. He became vicar and rural dean of St. Pancras, London 1877-1886, and honorary canon since 1875. He was select preacher at Cambridge in 1883,1887,1901, and 1905, and at Oxford in 1892 and 1903. In 1906 he was elected professor of ancient history in the Royal Academy. In theology he is a moderate evangelical. He also edited The Pulpit Commentary (48 vols., London, 1880-97) in collaboration with Rev. J. S. Exell, to which he himself contributed the section on Luke, 2 vols., 1889, and edited and translated the Didache 1885. He passed away in 1917 after authoring numerous individual titles.

00 Introduction

Introduction.

THE four living creatures mentioned in Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1:10), and which reappear in a modified form in the Apocalypse of St. John (John 4:7), are interpreted by very many Christian writers to signify the fourfold Gospel, the four faces representing the four evangelists. The face of a man is supposed to denote St. Matthew, who describes the actions of our Lord more especially as to his human nature. The face of an eagle is understood to indicate St. John, who soars at once into the highest heavens, and commences his Gospel with that magnificent declaration, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Then the face of an ox symbolizes St. Luke, who commences his narrative with the priesthood of Zacharias. While, lastly, the face of a lion represents St. Mark, because he opens his Gospel with the trumpet voice, like the roaring of a lion, the loud call of the Baptist to repentance. These four carried the chariot of the gospel throughout the world, and subdued the nations to the obedience of Christ, the mighty Conqueror.

Other interesting interpretations have been suggested for these symbols; amongst them "the whole animate creation," the number four being understood to symbolize the material world, as the number three represents the Divine Being. But the former interpretation is largely supported by early Christian antiquity, and has been made familiar to us through the ages past in the representations of ancient art, both sculpture and painting.

If early testimony is to have its due weight, St. Mark wrote his Gospel in Greek, and at Rome, and apparently for Gentiles, certainly not exclusively, or in the first instance, for Jews. There are explanations given here and there in his Gospel which would be superfluous if it were written only for Jews. Jordan, when he first mentions it, is called "the river Jordan." It is true that many good authorities read "the river Jordan" in St. Matthew (Matthew 3:6); but this may have been introduced to make his Gospel more clear to those who were unacquainted with the geography of Palestine. "John's disciples and the Pharisees used to fast" ( ἦσαν νηστευì^οντες); literally, "were fasting." This would have been unnecessary information for Jews. "The time of figs was not yet." Every inhabitant of Palestine would have known this. St. Mark alone preserves those words of our Lord," The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath," (Mark 2:27) — a great principle, belonging to all nations alike. He alone quotes the words (Mark 11:17), "of all nations," literally ( πᾶσι τοῖς ἐì^θνεσιν), "for all the nations," in connection with our Lord's cleansing of the temple.

Early writers speak of St. Mark as the "interpreter" of St. Peter; by which expression it seems to be meant that he put down in writing, what he had heard orally from St. Peter, the things relating to the life of our Lord. It seems also plain that he must have had access to St. Matthew's Gospel. But he was not a mere copyist. He was an independent witness. He often supplies a sentence, detailing some little incident which he could only have received from an eye-witness, and which forms an additional link to the narrative, explaining something which had been left obscure, and filling up the picture. If we imagine St. Mark with St. Matthew's Gospel at hand, and with copious memoranda of the observations and graphic descriptions of St. Peter, together with his own peculiar gifts as a writer, and the unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit, we seem to see at once the sources of St. Mark's Gospel.

St. Mark's Gospel is the shortest of all the four Gospels; and yet there is a unity about it which, as has been well said, "quite excludes the notion that it is either a mere compendium of some richer, or an expansion of some briefer, Gospel" ('Speaker's Commentary'). The writer avails himself of all the information that he can procure; at the same time, he is an independent witness, giving, as all the sacred writers are permitted to do, the colouring of his own mind, his own "setting," so to speak, to those great truths and facts which the Holy Ghost moved him to communicate. His frequent use of the present for the aorist; his constant repetition of the word εὐθεì^ως, "straightway"; his employment of diminutives, and his introduction of little details, imparting freshness and light to the whole narrative; — all these and many other circumstances give to St. Mark's Gospel a character of its own, distinct from, and yet in harmony with, the rest. It is a compendium of our blessed Lord's life upon earth; but it is a compendium with a peculiar richness and originality which differences it off from the other Gospels, making us feel that if we were called upon to part with any one of the four, we certainly could not spare that of St. Mark.

Another thought which is impressed upon us by the study of this Gospel is the shortness of the time within which the amazing mystery of our redemption was actually wrought out, and the marvellous activity of the earthly life of the Son of God. St. Mark's narrative, giving for the most part the salient facts and events, without the discourses and parables which enrich the other Gospels, presents us with a comprehensive conspectus, which is of special use in its relation to the other Gospels, in which we are led rather to dwell upon the details, and to linger over the Divine words, instructive as they are, until we almost lose sight of the grand outline of the history. St. Mark, by the structure of his narrative, helps us mere readily to grasp the whole of the sublime and impressive record.

Take, for example, St. Mark's account of our Lord's ministry in Galilee. How it revolves around the familiar Lake of Gennesaret! A series of striking miracles at Capernaum and in that neighborhood, commencing with the casting out of the "unclean spirit," excites the attention of the whole Jewish population, and exalts the fame of Jesus even amongst the heathen beyond the Jewish borders, so that they flock to him from every quarter. But the miracles were only intended to challenge attention to the words of Jesus; and therefore we find him continually preaching to the dense masses on the seashore, until they thronged him so that he was obliged to direct a boat to be always in attendance upon him, into which he might retreat, and which he might use as his pulpit when the pressure of the crowd became inconveniently great. Then there is the frequent crossing over the lake to and fro, from west to east, and back from east to west — the sea itself ministering to him, gathering into a storm at his bidding, and at his bidding becoming still. Then there are the miracles and the preaching on this side and on that, amongst a Jewish population here and a Gentile population there. And then there is the jealousy of the chief priests and scribes, sent purposely from Jerusalem to watch him, and to find grounds for accusation against him, while the mass of the people recognize him as the great Prophet that should come into the world. A few short chapters suffice to exhibit all this to us, and to present us with a striking and vivid illustration of the fulfillment of the prophecy quoted by St. Matthew (Matt. 4:15, 16): "The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthali, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; the people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up."

The connection of St. Peter with this Gospel has already been noticed; and, assuming the correctness of the supposition that St. Mark, in writing his Gospel, was to a great extent the "interpreter" of St. Peter, it is interesting to observe how the internal evidence supplied by this Gospel tends to confirm this view. Instead of being put prominently forward, as in the other Gospels, in this the Apostle Peter falls as much as possible into the background. When his name first occurs, it appears as Simon. It is not until the third chapter that he is spoken of as Peter, and then only in the simplest terms: "Simon he surnamed Peter" (Mark 3:16). In the eighth chapter, while our Lord's severe rebuke of him is recorded, there is no mention of the noble confession which he had made just before. In the fourteenth chapter, while we are informed that our Lord sent two of his disciples to prepare the Passover, the names of the two are not given, although we know from another evangelist that they were Peter and John. In the same chapter, when they were in the Garden of Gethsemane, we read that our Lord singles out Peter as one who was heavy with sleep, and applies his remonstrance specially to him, addressing him as Simon, and saying, "Simon, sleepest thou?" The particulars of this apostle's denial of Christ are, as we might expect, given also with great minuteness. The only other notice that we find of him is that message sent to him by the angel after our Lord's resurrection, "Go tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee" — a message which, while it would recall to him his sin, would also assure him of his forgiveness. Now, all this manifestly confirms the ancient traditions that St. Peter influenced the compilation of this Gospel. He had said (2 Peter 1:15), "Moreover I will endeavor that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance" — a sentence which shows his great anxiety that there should be a trustworthy record preserved for all future ages from the lips and pens of those who were eye-witnesses of Christ's majesty. Thus all that we read leads us to the conclusion that we have in St. Mark a faithful exponent of what St. Peter heard and saw and communicated to him; so that if we wanted another title for this Gospel, we might call it "The Gospel according to St. Peter."

1. THE LIFE OF ST. MARK THE EVANGELIST.

The name of Mark is by some supposed to be derived from the Latin "marcus," a hammer; not "marcellus," a little hammer, but "marcus," a strong hammer, able to crush the flinty rock, and thus indicative of the spiritual power wielded by the evangelist, and enabling him to break the stony hearts of the Gentiles, and to rouse them to penitence and faith and a holy life. The prae-nomen Marcus was in frequent use amongst the Romans, and often given to those who were the firstborn. Cicero was called Marcus Tullius Cicero, because he was the firstborn of his family. So St. Mark was in a spiritual sense the firstborn and well-beloved of St. Peter. "The Church that is at Babylon [literally, ἡ ἐν βαβυλῶνι, 'she that is in Babylon'], elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son" (1 Peter 5:13). St. Mark drew his spirit and his ardor from St. Peter. St. Peter, as his father in Christ Jesus, impressed his wisdom and holiness upon him.

Who, then, was St. Mark? He appears to have been a Hebrew by nation and of the tribe of Levi. Bede says that he was a priest after the order of Aaron. There is very good reason to believe (although Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, and others, think differently) that he is the same person who is mentioned in the Acts (Acts 12:12, 25) as "John whose surname is Mark." John was his original Jewish name; and Mark, his Roman prefix, was added afterwards, and gradually superseded the other name. We can trace the process of the change very clearly in the Acts and in the Epistles. We find John and John Mark in the earlier part of the Acts; hut in Acts 15:39 John disappears altogether, and in the Epistles he is always called Mark. His surname appears to have gradually taken the place of his other name, just as Paul takes the place of Saul. Then further we find him associated with St. Peter; which furnishes another evidence of his identity, as also does the fact that he was sister's son, or cousin ( ἀνεψιοÌ^ς) to Barnabas, who was himself on terms of close fellowship with St. Peter. Moreover, the general consensus of the early Church identifies John Mark with the writer of this Gospel, which Eusebius informs us was written under the eye of St. Peter. The substitution of a Roman name for his family Jewish name was probably intentional, and designed to indicate his entrance upon a new life, and to prepare him for intercourse with Gentiles, especially Romans.

Assuming, then, that "John whose surname was Mark" was the writer of this Gospel, we have the following particulars respecting him: — He was the son of a certain Mary who dwelt in Jerusalem. She appears to have been well known, and to have been in a good position. Her house was open to the friends and disciples of our Lord. It is possible that hers may have been the house where our Lord "kept the Passover" with his disciples on the night of his betrayal; perhaps the house where the disciples were gathered together on the evening of the Resurrection; perhaps the house where they received the miraculous gifts on the day of Pentecost. It was certainly the house to which Peter betook himself when he was delivered out of prison; certainly the first great center of Christian worship in Jerusalem after our Lord's ascension, and the site of the first Christian church in that city. It is probable that it was to the sacred intercourse of that home that John Mark owed his conversion, which may very probably have been delayed in consequence of his having been by birth of the family of the Jewish priesthood. It is more than probable that St. Mark, in Mark 14:51, 52, may have been relating what happened to himself. All the details fit in with this supposition. The action corresponds with what we know of his character, which appears to have been warm-hearted and earnest, but timid and impulsive. Moreover, the linen cloth, or sindon, cast about his body, answers to his position and circumstances. It would not have been worn by a person in very humble life. Indeed, nothing but the name is wanting to complete the evidence of the identity of "John whose surname was Mark" with Mark the writer of this Gospel. It will be remembered that St. John in his Gospel evidently speaks of himself more than once without mentioning his name, calling himself" another disciple." St. Mark, if the hypothesis be correct, speaks of himself as "a young man," probably because he was not yet a disciple.