263

BY THE REV, T. R. STEVENSON,

The Gospel according to Mark is not appreciated as it should be. Even good Matthew Henry, who, though never learned, is always devout, seems to offer something very like an apology for it. He says, " It is written to put us in mind of things which we have had in the foregoing Gospel, that we may give the more earnest heed to them, lest we should let them slip.” This, as we shall presently see, is a mistake : the scope and the intention of the second evangelist are much wider. But the error is a common one; hence Mark is often overlooked both by pulpit and by press. Perhaps another reason of the neglect is the brevity of this biographer of our Lord : his work consists of sixteen chapters only. Two facts, however, ought to be borne in mind : first, that brief things may yet be beautiful and beneficial. Quality must be considered as well as quantity. “God is love," " Jesus wept,” “ Pray without ceasing”--these are short but invaluable scriptures. Secondly, Mark's gospel is not really as brief as it seems. Take from Matthew his reports of Christ's parables and sermons, and what do you find ? Why, you are surprised to perceive that his actual life of the Saviour is briefer than the one now under consideration.

We shall hope, in the course of the following remarks, to bring out the meaning and force of Mark's gospel, and we doubt not that, at the close, you will be disposed to say with Paul, “ Take Mark, for ho is profitable to me." Among other features, his book has these-it is pictorial, apostolical, and original.

It is PICTORIAL. Mark is a fine word-painter. He abounds in graphic description and vivid portraiture. We might well call his production - The life of Christ, with numerous illustrations." Look at the opening of his gospel. In the first chapter we have many instances of a whole picture being given in a single expression. In the seventh verse he represents John the Baptist as saying, “ Whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose." Thus he sketches a man bending in lowly humility to perform a menial service for another and greater. In the tenth verse he says that at our Lord's baptism " the heavens were rent” or torn asunder (so the original reads). In the eleventh verse he tells us that Christ was “ driven into the wilderness," suggesting a similar natural shrinking from suffering to that which was afterwards exhibited in the cry, “ If it be possible, let this cup pass from me.” In the twelfth verse he notices that, during His temptation, Jesus was with the wild beasts. What a picture that affords of the locality—lonely and dangerous ! David served God among his father's sheep in a pleasant pasture-land, but the son of David had a far harder lot; He was “ with the wild beasts.” And, to tarry no longer here, in the thirty-third verse he states that such was

the power and popularity of the Master that “all the city was gathered together at the door."

“ There is much material for the artist in all the accounts of the life of Christ,” says the Rev. Rawson Lumby; “but whenever a painter takes in hand a subject which is described by St. Mark, there is less call made upon his imagination for details than if he depended only on St. Matthew or St. Luke. The graphic mind of the evangelist has already accomplished a portion of the artist's task and embodied it in his description. Look, for instance, at Raffaelle's cartoon of the transfiguration ; I see how much the painter is indebted to St. Mark alone. All the synoptists have recorded this event, but St. Mark's narrative may be recognised in it at once, by its features of characteristic description."

Time would fail us to do full justice to Mark's graphic power. We can but rapidly point out samples, selected from our Lord's miracles. Notice, for instance, the incident which occurred just after Christ came down from the Mount of Transfiguration. “And all the people, when they beheld Him, were greatly amazed, and running to Him, saluted Him." With such & striking description, who can fail to realise the extraordinary scene? But, observe, impressive though the facts thus stated are, they are inferior to another fact which they sug. gest. The people were “ greatly amazed” when they saw Christ. Why? They had often seen Him before, He was no stranger to them ; wherefore, then, this astonishment? To our thinking it was because there still lingered on Him some traces of the recent transfiguration. The glory had not quite departed from His face, and it may be that heavenly light and lustre yet bung about His raiment. No wonder, therefore, that the multitude should be surprised, and hasten nearer to gaze at the unexpected sight. Well also might they “salute” One whose aspect was so unusual and grand.

This occurrence was succeeded by the healing of the youth possessed of a devil. How minutely Mark tells the story! In common with the other evangelists, he informs us that the spirit, “whensoever he taketh bim, teareth him; and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away; and ofttimes it bath cast him into the fire, and into the water.". But he adds that at the very time at which the poor sufferer was brought to Christ, " when he saw Him, straightway the spirit tare him; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming." Think, too, of Mark's version of the miracle of the loaves and fishes. There are a couple of skilful touches in the scene depicted which neither Matthew nor Luke gives. Here is one : " He commanded them to make all sit down by companies upon the green grasg.” It was spring-time: the fierce heat of an oriental summer had not scorched and withered the pasturage. The grass was fresh and tender, and, remarks Archbishop Trench, “at that early spring season, a delightful resting place.” The other peculiarity is this : They sat down in ranks, by hundreds and by fifties.” The word "ranks' is equivalent to "garden plots."

The orderly arrangement of the people in their many-coloured garments reminded the evangelist of neat and brilliant flower-beds. Surely, nobody will withhold his admiration from such a poetic allusion as that. Again : recall the storm on the Sea of Galilee. Mark states that Christ was in the ship, but he tells us in what part of it He was, " in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow." He shows, also, that the apostles, sailors though they were, had some excuse for their alarm, “ipasmuch as the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now filling ;” the craft was actually in a sinking condition. Similar characteristics may be noticed in reference to the man who was sick of the palsy. Whenever we think of him, we think of four friends carrying the sufferer, and of their breaking up the roof of the house in order that he might be brought to the Divine Healer. Do we always remember that we are indebted to Mark for these details ? Moreover, but for him we should not have known that " whithersoever He entered, into villages, or cities, or country, they laid the sick in the streets, and besought Him that they might touch if it were but the border of His garment : and as many as touched were made whole.” Not to linger longer on this part of our subject, we merely add that a perusal of the first five verses of the fifth chapter of the second gospel will not fail to remind a reader of Dante of that poet's appalling descriptions.

MARK'S GOSPEL IS APOSTOLICAL. That is, it was written under the guidance of an apostle. Peter had a hand in it, at least. As Luke's life of Christ was influenced by Paul, so Mark's was affected by Cephas. This has been held by the Church from time immemorial, and it is an atterly reasonable belief. Mark and Peter were friends : of that we are certain, for the New Testament tells us as much. "Marcus, my son,” is the mode in which Peter refers to him. Is this only a term of endearment ? or does it signify that the apostle was his spiritual father ? Whichever view you adopt, you are landed at the same conclusion, namely, intimacy and affection. We know that Mark lived with Peter - in Babylon.” The consequence of all this was a Petrine element, if we may so phrase it, in the Second gospel. Some maintain, and with no small display of plausibility, that Mark was merely editor or even scribe, and Peter the real author. However that may be, it is easy to see the influence of the

latter.

For example. The fact already noticed about Mark's style of writing may be a case in point. Who will say how far the graphic mode of this Gospel is due to Peter ? He certainly was pictorial, none more so. His Epistles are prolific in vivid description. Glance at some specimens. Thus: when he speaks of the devil, he compares him to a lion. But that does not content him: he goes on to portray the lion : he is a roaming lion, “goeth about;" he is "a roaring lion :” he is a ravenous lion, "seeking whom he may dovour.” When he adverts to future reward, he designates it a “crown," and not only so, but " a crown of glory," and more, " a crown of glory

that fadeth not away." When he refers to Divine power, it is "the mighty hand of God.” He calls money “ filthy lucre," and names the Church “ the flock of God.” Does he bid his fellow-Christians stimulate themselves by a remembrance of the Saviour's sacrifice ? This is how he does it : “ Forasmuch as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same mind.” Does he enjoin lowliness? Here is his admonition : "Be clothed with humility." Does he warn believers against the perversion of freedom ? It is in the following language :-" Use not your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness." The original Greek of Peter is often even more striking in its dramatic power. Thus, “a busybody in other men's matters" means a man peeping and spying. “No prophecy is of private interpretation" signifies untying : there are hard knots in predictions, knots so hard that the very prophets themselves could not always unfasten them. “ Putting to shame foolish men” is, literally, mazzling them. Even when Peter quotes from the Old Testament, he makes, to use a scientific formula, a “natural selection," and chooses passages which are figurative :-" The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away;" “ The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.” In the light of texts like these we may most naturally conclude that the apostle influenced the evangelist. To borrow a happy allusion from the Rev. Henry Burton, “ It is Peter's voice we may expect to hear, as Rboda-like, we listen by the gate of our second gospel.”

We can find, in Mark's book, traces of Peter's occupation. Matthew and Luke refer, on various occasions, to "ships" and " a ship,” using general terms; but Mark and John speak of " little ships" and "& little ship,” employing more specific terms. How are we to account for this distinction ? Very easily; Matthew and Luke were landsmen, and did not know much of nautical affairs, whereas John and Peter were seamen : they, therefore, instinctively say what kind of vessel it was.

Still more obviously is the disposition of Peter reflected in Mark's gospel. We all know his temperament. He was impulsive and hasty: quick to see and to speak, to feel and to act. “Straightway " was the motto of his life. And, consider, this very word is used as many as forty times in Mark's narrative. It is not employed as often by all the other evangelists put together. Whenever you meet with these expressions, “ forthwith," "anon," "immediately," " straightway," you must recollect that they are but varied translations of the same term in the original, and they mean exactly the same thing. Surely this is an indication of the impetuous apostle's influence on Mark. Nor is that all. After his fall and his repentance Simon was a most humble man. None could be less egotistic and boastful : his spirit was that of a little child. This lowliness is very apparent in Mark's gospel. For instance, several things which appear to redound to the honour and glory of Peter are omitted in it. There is no mention of the remarkable words : “ Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona," nor of the fact that Peter " walked on the water to go to Jesus." Although he was the first apostle to whom our Lord appeared after the resurrection, it is not recorded in this part of Scripture. On the other hand, various incidents which were discreditable to Peter are stated by Mark. He tells us what the other evangelists do not, namely, that, when Simon sought to dissuade his Master from going up to Jerusalem, He "rebuked " him. Moreover, we have in Mark's parration “ the fullest account of Peter's denial of Christ, with the addition, not to be found in any other of the evangelists, of the circumstance, which so aggravated his sin in the matter, that the cock crew twice before he was awakened to repentance; while at the same time there is no reference to the bitterness of his tears, as if the thought of its being something like an affectation of humility to mention that had prevented it."

THE GOSPEL OF MARK IS ORIGINAL. It differs, in certain respects, from the writings of the other evangelists. This is perceptible in the view which it gives of Christ. Matthew brings before us Christ as the King : He is of a royal house : He is the Son of David. But Mark brings before us Christ as the Servant, the Servant of the Lord, doing the Lord's work. We seem, as we ponder the narrative, to hear & Divine voice saying, “Behold My servant, whom I uphold.” The regal genealogy is not mentioned by Mark; there is no mention of the infant Jesus as “born King of the Jews : ” all allusion to the princely gifts of the Magi is omitted. Yet further, as it has been shown by a painstaking critic, “ the ordinary term of address in the other gospels is • Lord,' sometimes Master: 'ye call me Master and Lord ; and ye say well, for so I am. But in this gospel, although He is often addressed as Master, that is, as so rendered in our version for in the original it is never the word which properly stands for Master : it is only Rabbi or Teacher-He is never once addressed as Lord. Matthew makes the leper say, “Lord, if Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean. Mark omits the Lord’ in his account. Matthew makes the disciples say at the supper-table, ‘ Lord, is it I?' Mark again very strikingly omits the 'Lord ; ' his account is, .They began to say unto them one by one, Is it I ? and another said, Is it I ?'”

The ancient symbol of Mark's gospel is the ox, the oriental emblem of patient, plodding, productive labour. It has a yoke upon its neck, and it goes with head bent downward to earth, dragging the plough through the farm land, or treading out the corn in the thrashing floor. The evangelist's history precisely accords with this symbol; it is a story of earnest, unbroken toil. One writer calls it “the gospel of action," another “the practical gospel,” while Dr. Maclaren, in his own incisive style, says it is a picture of " swift, strenuous work ” on the part of Christ.

Notice, in support of this, what frequent reference Mark makes to the hand, and the hand, as we are all aware, is another symbol of action. "He came and took her by the hand ; " " He took the blind man by.