14. — John Mark.
1895 28 There was some controversy lately over a document purporting to be the "Gospel according to St. Peter." I do not know of any tangible evidence whatever of its authenticity. The real Gospel of Peter is that which stands in our bibles entitled "Mark": at least that view was generally accepted in the primitive church on the authority of such men as John the Presbyter (recorded by Papias), Irenaeus and others, who regarded the Gospel by Mark as having been dictated and accredited by Peter the apostle, which fact gave it its (external) claim to be regarded as inspired scripture. Apart from the historical evidences of this is the fact that where anything discreditable to Peter is referred to, as in the case of his denial* of Christ, the particulars of his failures are given by Mark, with much detail and no excuse: but anything creditable to Peter is passed over, as for instance, in John it is said that Peter drew his sword in Gethsemane, in defence of his master and smote with it one of the attacking party. This (though perhaps little to the credit of Peter's discretion and spiritual perception) was certainly an evidence of courage and devotion in such a time of general dismay. Therefore in Mark where the event is recorded, Peter's name is not given; he simply says, "one of them that stood by"… I confess these "evidences" might be of little weight in regard to the generality of writers in an advertising age; but the apostles and primitive Christians were characterised by this kind of humility as to their own deeds no less than of gracious appreciation of the deeds of others. We have already noticed some instances of this, and such may be found throughout the New Testament.
{* Mark 14:71, etc.}
Evidence which would be much too weak to establish a theory is often strong enough to support a conviction. Did not Democritus when he saw Protagoras binding up faggots (and "thrusting the small twigs inwards") instantly judge him to be a scholar and philosopher? Could not the great Cuvier build up the whole form of an old-world animal from the mere sight of one of its teeth? Not to say but that the little Cuviers can build up a new-world cosmogony on even less evidence than that.
Here is another conviction of which there is even less proof, yet after holding it for many years, I find that others have also held it. It is that the young man who followed the Lord at a distance, on the night of His betrayal, was John Mark himself, The soldiers, seeing him, snatched at his linen cloth. the only garment he had on him. "He left the linen cloth and fled from them naked." Only Mark records this, and I say that some think it was Mark himself who thus fled. But however that may be, I always think there is no other subordinate incident which gives such a graphic suggestion of the dismay and horror which fell upon the disciples of Christ on that terrible night.
The name Mark (Marcus) was merely a common Roman praenomen, like Caius or Publius; his Jewish name was John, and he was the nephew of Barnabas, and the son of that Mary at whose house the prayer-meetings were held (Acts 12.) — a house of such gracious christian hospitality that it was thither Peter first turned his steps when escaped from prison. This seemed to promise well. "La prédestination de l'enfant," says Lamartine, "c'est la maison on il est né." Not quite so, perhaps, but still we read, "Hezekiah … his mother's name was Abi, the daughter of Zachariah. And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord"; "Amaziah the son of Joash … his mother's name was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem, and he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord." Of a truth John Mark started from a good home. He was converted through Peter (1 Peter 5:13.) who seemed to enjoy a special welcome in the house. I wonder who that damsel Rhoda was who could not open the gate for gladness when she heard Peter's voice without, possibly Mark's sister: and at the very outset of his christian course, Barnabas and Paul took him with them on their missionary travels. He was Barnabas's relation and his cousin,* the bishop, thought himself justified in bestowing his patronage on such a promising young "curate." Thus early did nepotism enter the church: simony had already knocked at the door by the hand of Simon Magus, but had not yet been admitted.
{* Barnabas evidently takes the lead here, his name is put before the others. Compare also R.V. of Col. 4:10.}
This piece of patronage was not eminently successful. The "living" was poor; the income extremely precarious; probably they received more blows than shekels at any time. The two older men were more seasoned, and did not much mind; but the youth was discouraged. He anticipated the advice of the old French diplomat who broke his own injunction against the use of "superlatives" that he might enforce this axiom, "Surtout, pas trop de zèle." John Mark had as yet only that light idea of the responsibility of christian service which unfortunately is so common: he thought he could take up and put down God's work as he liked, and he left the two leaders to go on with the work by themselves whilst he went off home again. (Acts 15:39.)
Then we lose sight of him for six or seven years, which for all we know may have been so much lost time: and after that he becomes the passive cause of an exceedingly unfortunate dispute. Paul and Barnabas — Paul is now taking the lead — arrange a further mission and Barnabas "determines" to take his nephew again with them, whilst Paul "thought not good" to take one who had already deserted his post. This gave rise to "so sharp" "a contention" that the two veterans separate; and Paul goes on with his purposed work, whilst Barnabas takes Mark and goes to Cyprus (his home); and again years elapse before we hear anything further of him.
Here again, Mark was seriously to blame, for if he had said that he would not go under any circumstances when he saw the chief apostle objected to taking him, and saw that the matter caused strife, Barnabas could not have prolonged the dispute. However much we may be consoled by the thought that good was brought out of the evil, the quarrel between the two leaders remains an immense calamity.
Most of us would perhaps have thought it best to leave Mark alone after that; and it comes as quite a surprise that we subsequently find him doing important work in the assemblies, favourably mentioned in some scattered texts, and finally charged with the high honour of writing one of the four Gospels. Not only does Peter (who was his god-father, if I may use that term) take him in hand with that affectionate care which we should expect from one of his nature, but Paul, who had such a disparaging judgment of him in former times, is able to recognise and acknowledge the value of Mark's subsequent services. He mentions him as being one of his five fellow-workers, who were "a comfort to him" (Col. 4:11.) in Rome about A.D. 64, and two years subsequently, in his last letter to Timothy, he tells him to "Take Mark, and bring him with thee, for he is profitable to me for the ministry."
This is truly a most delightful verse: the strong-souled, magnanimous apostle accepting and requesting the services of this one whom he had formerly condemned, and going out of his way to acknowledge and praise him, lest anything which he had then said, and said justly, should attach a stigma to one who had now become a devoted and honourable fellow-servant. And on the other hand we see that Mark is so far from remembering Paul's hard words with any resentment, that he counts it a favour to minister to him and with him. And above all we see that ours is not a hard Master. He doth not cast off for ever. If we, like Mark, have failed and failed grievously in the past, there may yet be opportunity in the present and future for us, like him, to hope, to dare, to accomplish great services, and to "Let the dead past bury its dead."