Mark
Mark
(, from the frequent Latin surname Marcus, as the word is Anglicized only in Col 4:10; Phm 1:24; 1Pe 5:13), the evangelist, is probably the same as John whose surname was Mark (Act 12:12; Act 12:25). Grotius indeed maintains the contrary, on the ground that the earliest historical writers nowhere call the evangelist by the name of John, and that they always describe him as the companion of Peter and not of Paul. But John was the Jewish name, and Mark, a name of frequent use among the Romans, was adopted afterwards, and gradually superseded the other. The places in the N.T. enable us to trace the process. The John Mark of Act 12:12; Act 12:25, and the John of Act 13:5; Act 13:13, becomes Mark only in Act 15:39; Col 4:10; 2Ti 4:11; Phm 1:24. The change of John to Mark is analogous to that of Saul to Paul; and we cannot doubt that the disuse of the Jewish name in favor of the other is intentional, and has reference to the putting away of his former life, and entrance upon a new ministry. No inconsistency arises from the accounts of his ministering to two apostles. The desertion of Paul (Act 13:13) may have been prompted partly by a wish to rejoin Peter and the apostles engaged in preaching in Palestine (Benson; see Kuinol’s note), and partly from a disinclination to a perilous and doubtful journey. There is nothing strange in the character of a warm impulsive young man, drawn almost equally towards the two great teachers of the faith, Paul and Peter. Had mere cowardice been the cause of his withdrawal, Barnabas would not so soon after have chosen him for another journey, nor would he have accepted the choice.
John Mark was the son of a certain Mary, who dwelt at Jerusalem, and was therefore probably born in that city (Act 12:12). He was of Jewish parentage (Col 4:10). He was the cousin () of Barnabas (Col 4:10). It was to Mary’s house, as to a familiar haunt, that Peter came after his deliverance from prison (Act 12:12), and there found many gathered together praying; and probably John Mark was converted by Peter from meeting him in his mother’s house, for he speaks of Marcus my son (1Pe 5:13). This term has been taken as implying the natural relation by Bengel, Neander, Credner, Hottinger, Tholuck, Stanley (Serm. on the Apost. Age, p. 95), but this is contrary to the view of the earlier writers (Origen, ap. Eusebius, H. E., 6:25; Eusebius, H. E. 2:15; Jerome, De Vir. h. c. 8). The theory that he was one of the seventy disciples is without any warrant. Another theory, that an event of the night of our Lord’s betrayal (A.D. 29), related by Mark alone, is one that befell himself (Olshausen, Lange), must not be so promptly dismissed. There followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him: and he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked (Mar 14:51-52).
The detail of facts is remarkably minute; the name only is wanting. The most probable view is that Mark suppressed his own name, while telling a story which he had the best means of knowing. Awakened out of sleep, or just preparing for it, ill some house in the valley of Kedron, he comes out to see the seizure of the betrayed Teacher, known to him and in some degree beloved already. He is so deeply interested in his fate that he follows him even in his thin linen robe. His demeanor is such that some of the crowd are about to arrest him; then, fear overcoming shame (Bengel), he leaves his garment in their hands and flees. We call only say that if the name of Mark is supplied, the narrative receives its most probable explanation. John (Joh 1:40; Joh 19:26) introduces himself in this unobtrusive way, and perhaps Luke the same (Luk 24:18). Mary the mother of Mark seems to have been a person of some means and influence, and her house a rallying point for Christians in those dangerous days (Act 12:12). A.D. 44. Her son, already an inquirer, would soon become more. Anxious to work for Christ, he went with Paul and Barnabas as their minister () on their first journey; but at Perga, as we have seen above, turned back (Act 12:25; Act 13:13). On the second journey Paul would not accept him again as a companion, but Barnabas his kinsman was more indulgent; and thus he became the cause of the memorable sharp contention between them (Act 15:36-40). Whatever was the cause of Mark’s vacillation. it did not separate him forever from Paul, for we find him by the side of that apostle in his first imprisonment at Rome (Col 4:10; Phm 1:24). A.D. 56. In the former place a possible journey of Mark to Asia is spoken of. Somewhat later he is with Peter at Babylon (1Pe 5:13). Some consider Babylon to be a name here given to Rome in a mystical sense surely without reason, since the date of a letter is not the place to look for a figure of speech. Of the causes of this visit to Babylon there is no evidence. It may be conjectured that he made the journey to Asia Minor (Col 4:10), and thence went on to join Peter at Babylon. On his return to Asia he seems to have been with Timothy at Ephesus when Paul wrote to him during his second imprisonment, and Paul was anxious for his return to Rome (2Ti 4:11). A.D. 64.
When we desert Scripture we find the facts doubtful, and even inconsistent. If Papias be trusted (quoted in Eusebius, II.E. 3:39), Mark never was a disciple of our Lord, which he probably infers from 1Pe 5:13. Epiphanius, on the other hand, willing to do honor to the evangelist, adopts the tradition that he was one of the seventy-two disciples who turned back from our Lord at the hard saying in John 6 (Cont. Haer. 51:6, p. 457, Dindorf’s recent edition). The same had been said of Luke. Nothing can be decided on this point. The relation of Mark to Peter is of great importance for our view of his Gospel. Ancient writers with one consent make the evangelist the interpreter () of the apostle Peter (Papias in Eusebius, H. E. 3:39; Irenaeus, Haer. 3:1; 3:10, 6; Tertullian, c. Marc. 4:5; Jerome, ad Ifedib. vol. ix, etc.). Some explain this word to mean that the office of Mark was to translate into the Greek tongue the Aramaic discourses of the apostle (Eichhorn, Bertholdt, etc.); while others adopt the more probable view that Mark wrote a Gospel which conformed more exactly than the others to Peters preaching, and thus interpreted it to the Church at large (Valesius, Alford, Lange, Fritzsche, Meyer, etc.). The passage from Eusebius favors the latter view; it is a quotation from Papias. This also [John] the elder said: Mark, being the interpreter of Peter, wrote down exactly whatever things he remembered, but yet not in the order in which Christ either spoke or did them; for he was neither a hearer nor a follower of the Lord’s, but he was afterwards, as I [Papias] said, a follower of Peter. The words in italics refer to the word interpreter above, and the passage describes a disciple writing down what his master preached, and not an interpreter orally translating his words. SEE MARK, GOSPEL OF.
The report that Mark was the companion of Peter at Rome is no doubt of great antiquity. Clement of Alexandria is quoted by Eusebius as giving it for a tradition which he had received of the elders from the first ( , Eusebius, H. E. 6:14; Clem. Alex. Hyp. p. 6). But the force of this is invalidated by the suspicion that it rests on a misunderstanding of 1Pe 5:13, Babylon being wrongly taken for a typical name of Rome (Eusebits, H. E. 2:15; Jerome, De Vir. ill. c. 8). Sent on a mission to Egypt by Peter (Epiphanius, Haer. 2:6, p. 457, Dindorf; Eusebius, H. E. 2:16), Mark there founded the Church of Alexandria (Jerome, De Vir. ill. c. 8), and preached in various places (Nicephorus, H. E. 2:43), then returned to Alexandria, of which Church he was bishop, and suffered a martyr’s death (Nicephorus, ibid. and Jerome, De Vir. ill. c. 8) in the eighth year of Nero. According to the legend, his remains were obtained from Alexandria by the Venetians through a pious stratagem, and conveyed to their city, A.D. 827. Venice was thenceforward solemnly placed under his protection, and the lion, which mediaeval theology had selected from the apocalyptic beasts as his emblem, became the standard of the republic. The place of the deposition of his body having been lost, a miracle was subsequently wrought for its discovery, A.D. 1094, which figures in many famous works of art. Where his remains now lie is, according to the Roman Catholic Eustacius, acknowledged to be an undivulged secret; or, perhaps, in less cautious language, to be utterly unknown.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Mark
the evangelist; “John whose surname was Mark” (Acts 12:12, 25). Mark (Marcus, Col. 4:10, etc.) was his Roman name, which gradually came to supersede his Jewish name John. He is called John in Acts 13:5, 13, and Mark in 15:39, 2 Tim. 4:11, etc.
He was the son of Mary, a woman apparently of some means and influence, and was probably born in Jerusalem, where his mother resided (Acts 12:12). Of his father we know nothing. He was cousin of Barnabas (Col. 4:10). It was in his mother’s house that Peter found “many gathered together praying” when he was released from prison; and it is probable that it was here that he was converted by Peter, who calls him his “son” (1 Pet. 5:13). It is probable that the “young man” spoken of in Mark 14:51, 52 was Mark himself. He is first mentioned in Acts 12:25. He went with Paul and Barnabas on their first journey (about A.D. 47) as their “minister,” but from some cause turned back when they reached Perga in Pamphylia (Acts 12:25; 13:13). Three years afterwards a “sharp contention” arose between Paul and Barnabas (15:36-40), because Paul would not take Mark with him. He, however, was evidently at length reconciled to the apostle, for he was with him in his first imprisonment at Rome (Col. 4:10; Philemon 1:24). At a later period he was with Peter in Babylon (1 Pet. 5:13), then, and for some centuries afterwards, one of the chief seats of Jewish learning; and he was with Timothy in Ephesus when Paul wrote him during his second imprisonment (2 Tim. 4:11). He then disappears from view.
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
MARK
It was not unusual for Jews in the Roman Empire to have both Jewish and Roman names. In the case of John Mark, his two names reflect respectively this Jewish and Roman background.
In Jerusalem
Mark was a Jew brought up in Jerusalem. His parents were reasonably wealthy, as they owned a large house and had servants (Act 12:12-13). (Also, at least one of Marks close relatives was wealthy enough to own land; Act 4:36-37; Col 4:10.) Marks house must have been a regular meeting place for the apostles and other Christians in Jerusalem, as Peter, on escaping from prison, knew that he would find the Christians there (Act 12:12). If this was the house usually used by the apostles as a meeting place, it was the house of the upper room where Jesus had earlier gathered with his disciples (Luk 22:11-13; Act 1:13; cf. also Joh 20:19; Joh 20:26).
There is a further point in favour of the suggestion that Marks house was the house of the upper room. This is the reference Mark himself makes to a certain young man who had followed Jesus and the disciples from the house to the Garden of Gethsemane, clothed only in his nightwear (Mar 14:51-52). It was a common practice for an author to include a brief personal detail or story but not to mention his own name directly (cf. Joh 13:23; 2Co 12:2).
With Paul and Barnabas
Whether the house of the upper room was Marks home or not, Mark certainly would have known Peter and the other leading Christians who often visited his home (Act 12:12-14). When Paul and Barnabas visited Jerusalem with an offering from the church at Antioch, they met Mark. They were so impressed with him that they took him back to Antioch, and later took him with them on what has become known as Pauls first missionary journey (Act 12:25; Act 13:5).
After only a short time, Mark left Paul and Barnabas and returned to Jerusalem (Act 13:13). To Paul this showed that Mark was not reliable, and he refused to allow Mark to go with him and Barnabas on their next missionary journey. Paul and Barnabas quarrelled over the matter and parted. Paul went ahead with his planned journey, but with a new partner, while Mark went with Barnabas to Cyprus (Act 15:36-41).
In Rome and Asia Minor
The Bible has no record of Marks activities over the next ten years or so. But there is evidence in other early records that he spent some time with Peter, helping Peter to evangelize the provinces of northern Asia Minor where God had not allowed Paul to preach (1Pe 1:1; cf. Act 16:6-8).
Peter and Mark then visited Rome and taught the Christians there. When Peter left Rome, the Roman Christians asked Mark (who had stayed behind) to preserve the story of Jesus as they had heard it from Peter. In due course Mark produced the book known as Marks Gospel, a book that strongly carries the flavour of Peter (see MARK, GOSPEL OF).
Mark was still in Rome when Paul arrived as a prisoner the first time (Philem 23-24). Mark had matured over the years, and Paul readily acknowledged this. He bore no grudges, and recommended Mark to the Colossian church as one who could be of help to it (Col 4:10).
On leaving Rome, Mark most likely went to Colossae as planned. He was probably still there when Paul later wrote to Timothy (who was in Ephesus, not far away), asking him to get Mark and bring him to Rome. Paul was back in prison after a brief time of freedom and travel, and he wanted to see Timothy and Mark before he was executed (2Ti 4:11).
Whether the two reached Rome before Pauls execution is uncertain, but Mark was certainly in Rome at the time of Peters visit soon after. Over their years of working together, Mark and Peter had become so close that Peter called Mark his son. Mark may even have been converted through Peter, back in the days when Peter frequented Marks house in Jerusalem. Now, as Peter neared the end of his life, he linked Marks name with his own in writing a letter to the churches of Asia Minor that together they had helped to establish (1Pe 1:1; 1Pe 5:13).
Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary
Mark
MARK
1. Name and identity.One, two, and even three Marks have been discovered in the NT. But the identity of the John Mark of Acts with the Mark of St. Pauls Epistles is clearly proved by Col 4:10, where he is called the cousin of Barnabas, and his identity with the Mark of 1 Peter is clearly proved by Act 12:12. These two passages show that in all the nine places where the name occurs (Act 12:12; Act 12:25; Act 13:5; Act 13:13; Act 15:36 ff., Col 4:10, 2Ti 4:11, Phm 1:24, 1Pe 5:13) the same person is referred to. The curious notion has widely prevailed that the young man of Mar 14:51-52 was the Evangelist himself, but there is no evidence whatever in its support. Indeed, the words of Papias, he neither heard the Lord, nor accompanied Him, would seem to exclude this and other similar suggestions. In accordance with a well-known custom (cf. Jesus Justus, Col 4:11), Mark had both a Hebrew and a Latin name, and the Roman prnomen Marcus is of frequent occurrence. From Act 12:11 ff. we gather that Mark occupied a position of some prominence socially in the Church at Jerusalem. His mothers house was evidently a well-known rendezvous for believers. When St. Peter is released from prison, he turns naturally to this place, and on his arrival finds a company of Christians at worship. Several slight indications in the description suggest the house of a person of means (the porch, the slave-girl, the large upper room). The only other information we possess as to Marks family history is his connexion with Barnabas, who seems to have been a man of standing in the Christian community.
2. Relations with Paul and Barnabas.When Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch from Jerusalem, whither they had gone with the offering for the poor, they took Mark with them as assistant, perhaps owing to his kinship with Barnabas (Act 12:25). A little later, he again accompanies them on their first missionary journey as their attendant (Act 13:5). This word () emphasizes his secondary position and function. Probably his work was of the nature of business management. He had to look after such matters as lodging, routes, conveyance, and the like. At Perga, Mark withdrew from the mission, for what reason is not stated. That Paul deeply resented his conduct is shown by the refusal to employ his services on a later occasion. It has been assumed that he shirked the dangers of the enterprise, or that he tired of the work. But Ramsay (Ch. in Rom. [Note: Roman.] Emp. p. 61 f.) has taken a more favourable view of his conduct. He holds that there was a change of plan at this point, that the journey into the interior was not in the original arrangement, and that Mark might consider this a good ground for refusing to go on. He had not the same necessity laid upon him as those who had been solemnly designated by the Spirit for this service. He was an extra hand, taken on for casual labour. Barnabas, at any rate, judged Marks conduct more leniently than Paul, and later on Paul himself modified his attitude. At the outset of the second missionary journey, however, his objection to Marks co-operation was so strong that it led to a separation between himself and Barnabas (Act 15:36 ff.). The latter took Mark with him on a mission to Cyprus, and we hear no more of him in the Book of Acts. When Mark next appears (Col. and Philem.), it is as the fellow-labourer of Paul, who had by this time become completely reconciled to him, and had found him a comfort (, Col 4:11) in his imprisonment. Paul speaks in Col 4:10 of a projected visit of Mark to the Colossian Church, and urges his friends there to receive him kindly, if he comes to them. If is probable, therefore, that Marks previous desertion had created an unfavourable impression over a wide area. Harnack thinks the visit was paid, and that, when St. Paul wrote to Timothy to bring Mark with him (2Ti 4:11), Timothy was to pick him up at Colossae on his way from Ephesus. Paul had evidently missed the attentions which Mark had been able to give.
3. Relations with Peter.St. Peter refers to Mark in his First Epistle (1Pe 5:13) as my son. This may imply only a peculiarly close intimacy, but more probably it means that Mark had been converted through Peters influence. Peter was evidently a frequent visitor at Marks home (Acts 12), and the friendship had begun there which afterwards became so deep and fruitful. St. Peters reference in his letter shows also that at this date Mark was with him at Babylon, which most writers now consider to mean Rome. From the familiar words of Papias (see Mark [Gospel acc. to], Mar 2:1) we learn that Mark had become the interpreter of Peter, and that Mark accompanied or attended him. Swete thinks he acted as Peters dragoman, and translated the Apostles words for his audiences. Peter, it is supposed, would not be fluent in Greek. It is not easy to fit in this ministry to Peter in Rome with the ministry to Paul. Swete thinks it occurred after Pauls death; but it is at least doubtful whether Peter survived Paul. Harnack and Lightfoot may be quoted to the contrary. It is by no means impossible, of course, that Mark may have attended Peter in Rome, and transferred his services to Paul. It would be much simpler, however, to suppose that the ministry was exercised much earlier, and in the real, not the spiritual, Babylon. In any case, Marks association with Peter was a fruitful one, as it resulted in the composition of the Second Gospel. In this matter Mark seems to have been little more than an amanuensis. According to Papias, the Gospel is really Peters, and Mark was simply his interpreter on this as on other occasions.
4. Character and position in the Apostolic history.Mark was thus associated with three notable men in turn, and always in the same subordinate capacity. Jlicher calls him Apostelschler. Swete thinks this humble position decidedly implied in the terms used of him in Acts and the Epistles. The of Act 12:25 suggests an assistant of inferior rank. The of Act 13:5 indicates personal and not spiritual service. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveller, p. 71) holds that Marks subordinate character is displayed by the haphazard reference to him in Act 13:5. The same conclusion may be drawn from St. Pauls language in 2Ti 4:11 (he is useful to me ). His services to the Apostle in prison probably concerned his comfort and convenience. If, again, Mark was Peters dragoman, he exercised very much the same ministry for Paul also. We gather, then, from these references, that Mark was a person with a large capacity for being useful in practical matters, but without any special spiritual gifts, and probably without any very great force of character. This opinion may be regarded as receiving confirmation from his conduct at Perga, on the most charitable view of that incident. He does not appear to have been fitted for heroic enterprise, or for a separate responsibility, or for spiritual functions. It is only fair to say, however, that a more favourable opinion has been expressed by writers like Westcott (Introd. to Study of Gospels) and Jlicher (in PRE [Note: RE Real-Encyklopdie fur protest. Theologic und Kirche.] 3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] ). Jlicher points out that St. Paul ultimately came round to the lenient judgment of Barnabas, that Mark never lost his missionary zeal, and also that he remained unaffected by the prevalent party spirit, serving both St. Paul and St. Peter with equal loyalty.
5. Traditions.Tradition has been busy with Marks name. The most widely spread is that which assigns to him a mission in Egypt, and the evangelization of Alexandria. This mission is regarded as occupying the gap between the history in Acts and the later ministry to the Apostles. It was also widely believed that he died at Alexandria, receiving (according to some versions) the crown of martyrdom. These traditions cannot be traced back further than a hundred years after the supposed events. One curious fact is preserved in some of the Western traditions. Mark is said to have been , which means either mutilated or stunted in one or more of his fingers. Explanations of this deformity have been offered which possess no probability. But the reminiscence itself may quite possibly preserve a genuine fact; and it is not impossible that this defect may have had some influence in determining the possibilities of Marks career.
Literature.The best accounts of Mark are given by Swete (Gospel acc. to St. Mark, 1898) and Lindsay (St. Mark in T. & T. Clarks Handbook series) in their introductions. The following may also be consulted: Harnack, art. Mark in EBr [Note: Br Encyclopaedia Britannica.] (esp. for its good account of the traditions concerning the Evangelist); Jlicher, art. Marcus in PRE [Note: RE Real-Encyklopdie fur protest. Theologic und Kirche.] 3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] ; Morison and Salmond in introd. to their Comm. on this Gospel.
Frederick J. Rae.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Mark
The evangelist. Probably the name is from the Greek, and means shining. There was another Mark, Act 12:12.
Fuente: The Poor Mans Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures
Mark
mark: In the King James Version this word is used 22 times as a noun and 26 times as a predicate. In the former case it is represented by 5 Hebrew and 3 Greek words; in the latter by 11 Hebrew and 2 Greek words. As a noun it is purely a physical term, gaining almost a technical significance from the mark put upon Cain (Gen 4:15 the King James Version); the stigmata of Christ in Paul’s body (Gal 6:17); the mark of the beast (Rev 16:2).
As a verb it is almost exclusively a mental process: e.g. to be attentive, understand: , bn (Job 18:2 the King James Version), rightly rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) consider; , shth, Mark ye well her bulwarks (Psa 48:13), i.e. turn the mind to, notice, regard; , shamar, i.e. observe, keep in view; so Psa 37:37, Mark the perfect man; compare Job 22:15 the King James Version. This becomes a unique expression in 1Sa 1:12, where Eli, noticing the movement of Hannah’s lips in prayer, is said to have marked her mouth. Jesus marked how invited guests chose out (, epecho, i.e. observed) the chief seats (Luk 14:7); so , skopeo (Rom 16:17; Phi 3:17), Mark them, i.e. look at, signifying keen mental attention, i.e. scrutinize, observe carefully. The only exceptions to this mental signification of the verb are two verses in the Old Testament: Isa 44:13, He marketh it out with a pencil (red ochre, the King James Version line), and with the compasses, where the verb is , ta’ar, to delineate, mark out; Jer 2:22, Thine iniquity is marked (, katham, cut (i.e. engraved)) before me, signifying the deep and ineradicable nature of sin. It may also be rendered written, as in indelible hieroglyphics.
As a noun the term mark may signify, according to its various Hebrew and Greek originals, a sign, a target an object of assault, a brand or stigma cut or burnt in the flesh, a goal or end in view, a stamp or imprinted or engraved sign.
(1) , ‘oth, a sign: Gen 4:15 the King James Version, The Lord set a mark upon Cain (the American Standard Revised Version appointed a sign). It is impossible to tell the nature of this sign. Delitzsch thinks that the rabbins were mistaken in regarding it as a mark upon Cain’s body. He considers it rather a certain sign which protected him from vengeance, the continuance of his life being necessary for the preservation of the race. It was thus, as the Hebrew indicates, the token of a covenant which God made with Cain that his life would be spared.
(2) , mattara’, an aim, hence, a mark to shoot at. Jonathan arranged to shoot arrows as at a mark, for a sign to David (1Sa 20:20); Job felt himself to be a target for the Divine arrows, i.e. for the Divinely decreed sufferings which wounded him and which he was called to endure (Job 16:12); so Jeremiah, He hath set me as a mark for the arrow (Lam 3:12); closely akin to this is , miphga, an object of attack (Job 7:20), where Job in bitterness of soul feels that God has become his enemy, and says, ‘Why hast thou made me the mark of hostile attack?’; set me as a mark for thee. See TARGET.
(3) , taw, mark (Eze 9:4, Eze 9:6). In Ezekiel’s vision of the destruction of the wicked, the mark to be set upon the forehead of the righteous, at Yahweh’s command, was, as in the case of the blood sprinkled on the door-posts of the Israelites (Exo 12:22, Exo 12:23), for their protection. As the servants of God (Rev 7:2, Rev 7:3) – the elect – were kept from harm by being sealed with the seal of the living God in their foreheads, so the man clothed in linen, with a writer’s inkhorn by his side, was told to mark upon their foreheads those whom God would save from judgment by His sheltering grace. Taw also appears (Job 31:35) for the attesting mark made to a document (the Revised Version (British and American) signature, margin mark).
The equivalent Hebrew letter taw () in the Phoenician alphabet and on the coins of the Maccabees had the form of a cross (T). In oriental synods it was used as a signature by bishops who could not write. The cross, as a sign of ownership, was burnt upon the necks or thighs of horses and camels. It may have been the mark set upon the forehead of the righteous in Ezekiel’s vision.
(4) , kaaka, a stigma cut or burnt. The Israelites were forbidden (Lev 19:28) to follow the custom of other oriental and heathen nations in cutting, disfiguring or branding their bodies.
The specific prohibition not to print any marks upon themselves evidently has reference to the custom of tattooing common among savage tribes, and in vogue among both men and women of the lower orders in Arabia, Egypt, and many other lands. It was intended to cultivate reverence for and a sense of the sacredness of the human body, as God’s creation, known in the Christian era as the temple of the Holy Spirit. See also CUTTINGS IN THE FLESH.
(5) , skopos, something seen or observed in the distance, hence, a goal. The Christian life seemed to Paul, in the intensity of his spiritual ardor, like the stadium or race-course of the Greeks, with runners stretching every nerve to reach the goal and win the prize. I press on toward the goal (the King James Version mark) unto the prize (Phi 3:14). The mark or goal is the ideal of life revealed in Christ, the prize, the attainment and possession of that life.
In The Wisdom of Solomon 5:21 they fly to the mark is from , eustochoi, with true aim (so the Revised Version (British and American)).
(6) , stgma, a mark pricked or branded upon the body. Slaves and soldiers, in ancient times, were stamped or branded with the name of their master. Paul considered and called himself the bondslave of Jesus Christ. The traces of his sufferings, scourging, stonings, persecution, wounds, were visible in permanent scars on his body (compare 2Co 11:23-27). These he termed the stigmata of Jesus, marks branded in his very flesh as proofs of his devotion to his Master (Gal 6:17).
This passage gives no ground for the Romanist superstition that the very scars of Christ’s crucifixion were reproduced in Paul’s hands and feet and side. It is also alien to the lofty self-consciousness of these words to find in them, as some expositors do, a contrast in Paul’s thought to the scar of circumcision.
(7) , charagma, a stamp or imprinted mark. The mark of the beast (peculiar to Revelation) was the badge of the followers of Antichrist, stamped on the forehead or right hand (Rev 13:16; compare Eze 9:4, Eze 9:6). It was symbolic of character and was thus not a literal or physical mark, but the impress of paganism on the moral and spiritual life. It was the sign or token of apostasy. As a spiritual state or condition it subjected men to the wrath of God and to eternal torment (Rev 14:9-11); to noisome disease (Rev 16:2); to the lake of fire (Rev 19:20). Those who received not the mark, having faithfully endured persecution and martyrdom, were given part in the first resurrection and lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years (Rev 20:4). The beast symbolizes the anti-Christian empires, particularly Rome under Nero, who sought to devour and destroy the early Christians.
(8) , molops, bruise, Sirach 23:10 (the Revised Version (British and American) bruise); 28:17.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Mark
According to ecclesiastical testimonies, the evangelist Mark is the same person who in the Acts is called by the Jewish name John, whose Roman surname was Marcus (Act 12:12; Act 12:25). This person is sometimes called simply John (Act 13:5; Act 13:13); and sometimes Mark (Act 15:39).
Mary, Mark’s mother, had a house at Jerusalem, in which the Apostles had used to assemble (Act 12:12). In the Epistle to the Colossians (Col 4:10-11) Mark is mentioned among the assistants of Paul, and as being one of the converts from Judaism. From this passage we learn also that Mark was a cousin of Barnabas, which circumstance confirms the opinion that he was of Jewish descent. It was probably Barnabas who first introduced him to Paul. He accompanied Paul and Barnabas on their travels as an assistant (Act 12:25; Act 13:5). When they had arrived in Pamphylia, Mark left them and returned to Jerusalem, from which city they had set out (Act 13:13). On this account Paul refused to take Mark with him on his second apostolic journey, ‘and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus’ (Act 15:37-39). It seems, however, that Mark, at a later period, became reconciled to Paul, since, according to Col 4:10, and Phm 1:24, he was with the Apostle during his first captivity at Rome; and, according to 2Ti 4:11, he was also with him during his second captivity. The passage in Colossians proves also that he was about to undertake for Paul a journey to Colosse.
There is a unanimous ecclesiastical tradition that Mark was the companion and ‘interpreter’ of Peter, probably so called because he was the assistant of Peter, and either orally or in writing communicated and developed what Peter taught. This tradition is the more credible, as the New Testament does not contain any passage that could have led to its invention. The testimony in favor of the connection between Mark and Peter is so old and respectable, that it cannot be called in question. It first occurs at the commencement of the second century, and proceeds from the presbyter John; it afterwards appears in Irenaeus; in Tertullian; in Clemens Alexandrinus, Jerome, and others.
Eusebius represents (Hist. Eccles. ii. 15) from the later life of Mark, that he was with Peter at Rome. Epiphanius and others inform us that he introduced the Gospel into Egypt, founded the church at Alexandria, and that he died in the eighth year of Nero’s reign.
Gospel of Mark
The same ancient authors, who call Mark a disciple and secretary of Peter, state also that he wrote his Gospel according to the discourses of that Apostle. The most ancient statement of this fact is that of the presbyter John and of Papias, which we thus translate from Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii. 39):Mark having become secretary to Peter, whatever he put into style he wrote with accuracy, but did not observe the chronological order of the discourses and actions of Christ, because he was neither a hearer nor a follower of the Lord; but at a later period, as I have said, wrote for Peter to meet the requisites of instruction, but by no means with the view to furnish a connected digest of the discourses of our Lord. Consequently Mark was not in fault when he wrote down circumstances as he recollected them; for he had only the intention to omit nothing of what he had heard, and not to misrepresent anything.
It has been noticed in the article Luke that, according to Irenaeus, the Gospels of Mark and Luke were written later than that of Matthew; and according to a tradition preserved by Clemens Alexandrinus, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke preceded that of Mark. The chronological order of the Gospels is, according to Origen, the same in which they follow each other in the codices. Irenaeus states that Mark wrote after the death of Peter and Paul; but, according to Clemens Alexandrinus and Eusebius, he wrote at Rome while Peter was yet living. These various data leave us in uncertainty.
In the article Gospel we have stated our opinion concerning the relative position in which the evangelists stand to each other. We do not see any reason to contradict the unanimous tradition of antiquity concerning the dependence of Mark upon Peter. We deem it possible, and even probable, that Luke read Mark, and that he also alludes to him by reckoning him among the many who had written gospel history before him. This supposition, however, is by no means necessary or certain; and it is still possible that Mark wrote after Luke. Some of the ancient testimonies which we have quoted, namely, those of Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Jerome, and others, state that Mark’s Gospel was written at Rome. Whether this was the case or not, it is certain that it was written for Gentile Christians. This appears from the explanation of Jewish customs (Mar 7:2; Mar 7:11; Mar 12:18; Mar 13:3; Mar 14:12; Mar 15:6; Mar 15:42). The same view is confirmed by the scarcity of quotations from the Old Testament, perhaps also by the absence of the genealogy of Christ, and by the omission of the Sermon on the Mount, which explains the relation of Christ to the Old Testament dispensation, and which was, therefore, of the greatest importance to Matthew.
The characteristic peculiarity of Mark as an author is particularly manifest in two points: 1. He reports rather the works than the discourses of our Savior; 2. He gives details more minutely and graphically than Matthew and Luke; for instance, he describes the cures effected by Jesus more exactly (Mar 4:31; Mar 4:41; Mar 6:5; Mar 6:13; Mar 7:33; Mar 8:23). He is also more particular in stating definite numbers (Mar 5:13; Mar 5:42; Mar 6:7; Mar 6:14; Mar 6:30), and furnishes more exact dates and times (Mar 1:32; Mar 1:35; Mar 2:1; Mar 2:26; Mar 4:26; Mar 4:35; Mar 6:2; Mar 11:11; Mar 11:19-20, etc.). It may be that these characteristics of Mark originated from his connection with Peter.
Most of the materials of Mark’s narrative occur also in Matthew and Luke. He has, however, sections exclusively belonging to himself, viz. Mar 3:21; Mar 3:31, sq.; 6:17, sq.; 11:11; 12:28, sq.
We mention the conclusion of Mark’s Gospel separately, since its genuineness may be called in question.
Among the Codices Majusculi the Codex B omits Mar 16:9-20 altogether, and several of the Codices Minusculi mark this section with asterisks as doubtful. Several ancient Fathers and authors of Scholia state that it was wanting in some manuscripts. We cannot, however, suppose that it was arbitrarily added by a copyist, since at present all codices, except B, and all ancient versions contain it, and the Fathers in general quote it. We may also say that Mark could not have concluded his Gospel with Mar 16:8, unless he had been accidentally prevented from finishing it. Hence Michaelis and Hug have inferred that the addition was made by the evangelist at a later period, in a similar manner as John made an addition in John 21. Perhaps also an intimate friend, or an amanuensis, supplied the defect. If either of these two hypotheses is well founded, it may be understood why several codices were formerly without this conclusion, and why, nevertheless, it was found in most of them.
Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature
Mark
A nephew of Barnabas
Col 4:10
A disciple of Jesus
Act 12:12; Act 12:25; Act 13:5; Act 13:13
Paul and Barnabas contend concerning
Act 15:36-39
A convert of Peter
1Pe 5:13
Fellow-worker with Paul at Rome
Col 4:10-11; 2Ti 4:11; Phm 1:24
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
Mark
Mark (mrk). John whose surname was Mark, Act 12:12, was the son of Mary, a woman of piety who lived at Jerusalem. The disciples occasionally assembled at her house for prayer, and she was sister to Barnabas. Col 4:10. He is also called Marcus. Peter styles Mark his son, 1Pe 5:13; meaning his spiritual sonthat he was converted by that apostle. Mark left Jerusalem for Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, Act 12:25, and accompanied them on their first missionary journey. He left them at Perga and returned to Jerusalem. This afterward led to a serious dispute between Paul and Barnabas. Act 13:5; Act 13:13; Act 15:39. They therefore separated, Mark sailing with his uncle Barnabas to Cyprus. Act 15:36-39. At a later period he was again with Paul during his first imprisonment at Rome, Col 4:10, and he regained Paul’s confidence. 2Ti 4:11. We find him also with Peter, 1Pe 5:13, with whom he is said to have travelled, and to have been his amanuensis. Nothing further of him is recorded in the Scripture; but we may identify him with the author of the second Gospel, and may readily believe ecclesiastical history which tells us that he was bishop of the church in Alexandria. Whether he died a natural death or by martyrdom is uncertain.
Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible
Mark
Mark, the Gospel of. The universal consent of the ancient church ascribed the second gospel to John Mark. It has also been said that he wrote under the superintendence of Peter. The arrangement of this gospel appears to be: 1. A short introduction noticing the mission of John Baptist. 1:1-8. 2. The public ministry of Christ, his discourses and actions in Galilee, prefaced by an account of his baptism. 1:9-9:50. 3. Our Lord’s last journeyings toward Jerusalem, with the narrative of his passion, death, resurrection, and ascension. 10 to 16:20. It exhibits Christ as the spiritual conqueror and wonder-worker, the lion of the tribe of Judah, filling the people with amazement and fear. Mark introduces several Latin terms; he even substitutes Roman money for Greek, 12:42, which Luke does not, and notices that Simon of Cyrene was the father of Alexander and Rufus, 15:21, who probably were Christians in Rome. Rom 16:13. It is, therefore, most likely that the Gospel was written in that city.
Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible
Mark
Mark. One of the evangelists, and probable author of the Gospel bearing his name. (Marcus was his Latin surname. His Jewish name was John, which is the same as Johanan, (the grace of God). We can almost trace the steps whereby the former became his prevalent name in the Church. “John, whose surname was Mark” in Act 12:12; Act 12:25; Act 15:37 becomes “John” alone in Act 13:5; Act 13:13, “Mark” in Act 15:39, and thenceforward, there is no change. Col 4:10; Phm 1:24; 2Ti 4:11.
The evangelist was the son of a certain Mary, a Jewish matron of some position who dwelt in Jerusalem, Act 12:12, and was probably born of a Hellenistic family in that city. Of his father, we know nothing; but we do know that the future evangelist was cousin of Barnabas of Cyprus, the great friend of St. Paul. His mother would seem to have been intimately acquainted with St. Peter, and it was to her house, as to a familiar home, that the apostle repaired, A.D. 44, after his deliverance from prison Act 12:12. This fact accounts for St. Mark’s intimate acquaintance with that apostle, to whom also he probably owed his conversion, for St. Peter calls him his son. 1Pe 5:13.
We hear of him for the first time in Act 15:25, where we find him accompanying Paul and Barnabas on their return from Jerusalem to Antioch, A.D. 45. He next comes before us on the occasion of the earliest missionary journey of the same apostles, A.D. 48, when he joined them as their “minister.” Act 13:8.
With them, he visited Cyprus; but at Perga in Pamphylia, Act 13:13, when they were about to enter upon the more arduous part of their mission, he left them, and, for some unexplained reason, returned to Jerusalem to his mother and his home. Notwithstanding this, we find him at Paul’s side during that apostle’s first imprisonment at Rome, A.D. 61-63, and he Is acknowledged by him as one of his few fellow laborers who had been a “comfort” to him during the weary hours of his imprisonment. Col 4:10-11; Phm 1:24.
We next have traces of him in 1Pe 5:13. “The church that is in Babylon…saluteth you, and so doth Marcus my son.” From this, we infer that he joined his spiritual father, the great friend of his mother, at Babylon, then and for some hundred years afterward, one of the chief seats of Jewish culture.
From Babylon, he would seem to have returned to Asia Minor; for during his second imprisonment, A.D. 68, St. Paul, writing to Timothy charges him to bring Mark with him to me, on the ground that he was “profitable to him tor the ministry.” 2Ti 4:11. From this point, we gain no further information from the New Testament respecting the evangelist. It is most probable, however, that he did join the apostle at Rome whither also St. Peter would seem to have proceeded, and suffered martyrdom with St. Paul.
After the death of these two great pillars of the Church; ecclesiastical tradition affirms that St. Mark visited Egypt, founded the church of Alexandria, and died by martyrdom. — Condensed from Cambridge Bible for Schools. — Editor).
Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary
Mark
was the nephew of Barnabas, being his sister’s son; and he is supposed to have been converted to the Gospel by St. Peter, who calls him his son, 1Pe 5:13; but no circumstances of his conversion are recorded. The first historical fact mentioned of him in the New Testament is, that he went, in the year 44, from Jerusalem to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas. Not long after, he set out from Antioch with those Apostles upon a journey, which they undertook by the direction of the Holy Spirit, for the purpose of preaching the Gospel in different countries: but he soon left them, probably without sufficient reason, in Perga in Pamphylia, and went to Jerusalem, Acts 13. Afterward, when Paul and Barnabas had determined to visit the several churches which they had established, Barnabas proposed that they should take Mark with them; to which Paul objected, because Mark had left them in their former journey. This produced a sharp contention between Paul and Barnabas, which ended in their separation. Mark accompanied his uncle Barnabas to Cyprus, but it is not mentioned whither they went when they left that island. We may conclude that St. Paul was afterward reconciled to St. Mark, from the manner in which he mentions him in his epistles written subsequently to this dispute; and particularly from the direction which he gives to Timothy: Take Mark, and bring him with thee; for he is profitable to me for the ministry, 2Ti 4:11. No farther circumstances are recorded of St. Mark in the New Testament; but it is believed, upon the authority of ancient writers, that soon after his journey with Barnabas he met Peter in Asia, and that he continued with him for some time; perhaps till Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome. Epiphanius, Eusebius, and Jerom, all assert that Mark preached the Gospel in Egypt; and the two latter call him bishop of Alexandria.
Dr. Lardner thinks that St. Mark’s Gospel is alluded to by Clement of Rome; but the earliest ecclesiastical writer upon record who expressly mentions it is Papias. It is mentioned, also, by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerom, Augustine, Chrysostom, and many others. The works of these fathers contain numerous quotations from this Gospel; and, as their testimony is not contradicted by any ancient writer, we may safely conclude that the Gospel of St. Mark is genuine. The authority of this Gospel is not affected by the question concerning the identity of Mark the evangelist, and Mark the nephew of Barnabas; since all agree that the writer of this Gospel was the familiar companion of St. Peter, and that he was qualified for the work which he undertook, by having heard, for many years, the public discourses and private conversation of that Apostle.
Some writers have asserted that St. Peter revised and approved this Gospel, and others have not scrupled to call it the Gospel according to St. Peter; by which title they did not mean to question St. Mark’s right to be considered as the author of this Gospel, but merely to give it the sanction of St. Peter’s name. The following passage in Eusebius appears to contain so probable an account of the occasion of writing this Gospel, and comes supported by such high authority, that we think it right to transcribe it: The lustre of piety so enlightened the minds of Peter’s hearers at Rome, that they were not contented with the bare hearing and unwritten instruction of his divine preaching, but they earnestly requested St. Mark, whose Gospel we have, being an attendant upon St. Peter, to leave with them a written account of the instructions which had been delivered to them by word of mouth; nor did they desist till they had prevailed upon him; and thus they were the cause of the writing of that Gospel, which is called according to St. Mark; and they say, that the Apostle being informed of what was done, by the revelation of the Holy Ghost, was pleased with the zeal of the men, and authorized the writing to be introduced into the churches. Clement gives this account in the sixth book of his Institutions; and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, bears testimony to it. Jerom also says, that St. Mark wrote a short Gospel from what he had heard from St. Peter, at the request of the brethren at Rome, which, when St. Peter knew, he approved, and published it in the church, commanding the reading of it by his own authority.
Different persons have assigned different dates to this Gospel; but there being almost a unanimous concurrence of opinion, that it was written while St. Mark was with St. Peter at Rome, and not finding any ancient authority for supposing that St. Peter was in that city till A.D. 64, we are inclined to place the publication of this Gospel about A.D. 65. St. Mark having written this Gospel for the use of the Christians at Rome, which was at that time the great metropolis and common centre of all civilized nations, we accordingly find it free from all peculiarities, and equally accommodated to every description of persons. Quotations from the ancient prophets, and allusions to Jewish customs, are, as much as possible, avoided; and such explanations are added as might be necessary for Gentile readers at Rome; thus, when Jordan is first mentioned in this Gospel, the word river is prefixed, Mar 1:5; the oriental word corban is said to mean a gift, Mar 7:11; the preparation is said to be the day before the Sabbath, Mar 15:42; and defiled hands are said to mean unwashed hands, Mar 7:2; and the superstition of the Jews upon that subject is stated more at large than it would have been by a person writing at Jerusalem.
Some learned men, from a collation of St. Matthew’s and St. Mark’s Gospels, have pointed out the use of the same words and expressions in so many instances that it has been supposed St. Mark wrote with St. Matthew’s Gospel before him; but the similarity is not strong enough to warrant such a conclusion; and seems no greater than might have arisen from other causes. St. Peter would naturally recite in his preaching the same events and discourses which St. Matthew recorded in his Gospel; and the same circumstances might be mentioned in the same manner by men who sought not after excellency of speech, but whose minds retained the remembrance of facts or conversations which strongly impressed them, even without taking into consideration the idea of supernatural guidance. We may farther observe that the idea of St. Mark’s writing from St. Matthew’s Gospel does not correspond with the account given by Eusebius and Jerom as stated above.
Fuente: Biblical and Theological Dictionary
Mark
Gen 4:15 (c) Cain received this sign from GOD which was to tell the world that this man was a sinner, a murderer. Since that time sin has left its mark upon the human body. The face tells the story of the drunkard. The eyes tell the story of jealousy and hatred. The body is influenced by the sins which are committed.
Eze 9:4 (c) By this GOD indicates that He marks His own people with those blessed attributes of GOD which distinguish them from all others as the people of GOD. (See Rev 3:12).
Rev 13:16-17 (a) Since GOD marks His children with a distinctive brand of some kind, so the Devil, imitating GOD, puts a mark on all of his children. No one knows what the mark is, and all conjectures are in vain. This brand by the devil is put on the forehead where everyone can see it, or in the hand where it can be hidden. This sign distinguishes the devil’s children from GOD’s children, and will probably be branded upon all the unsaved during the tribulation days.