Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary

on the Whole Bible

Back to Biblesnet.com Home Page

---

[Table of Contents] [Previous] [Next]

Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible (1721)

---

Mark

Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4

Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8

Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Chapter 12

Chapter 13 Chapter 14 Chapter 15 Chapter 16

---

AN

EXPOSITION,

W I T H   P R A C T I C A L   O B S E R V A T I O N S,

OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

S T.   M A R K.

---

     

WE have heard the evidence given in by the first

witness to the doctrine and miracles of our Lord Jesus; and now here is

another witness produced, who calls for our attention. The second

living creature saith, Come, and see,
Rev. vi. 3.

Now let us enquire a little,

     

I. Concerning this witness. His name is Mark. Marcus was

a Roman name, and a very common one, and yet we have no reason to

think, but that he was by birth a Jew; but as Saul, when he went among

the nations, took the Roman name of Paul, so he of Mark,

his Jewish name perhaps being Mardocai; so Grotius. We read of

John whose surname was Mark, sister’s son to Barnabas, whom Paul

was displeased with

(Acts xv. 37, 38),

but afterward had a great kindness for, and not only ordered the

churches to receive him

(Col. iv. 10),

but sent for him to be his assistant, with this encomium, He is

profitable to me for the ministry

(2 Tim. iv. 11);

and he reckons him among his fellow-labourers,

Philemon 24.

We read of Marcus whom Peter calls his son, he having been an

instrument of his conversion

(1 Pet. v. 13);

whether that was the same with the other, and, if not, which of them

was the penman of this gospel, is altogether uncertain. It is a

tradition very current among the ancients, that St. Mark wrote this

gospel under the direction of St. Peter, and that it was confirmed by

his authority; so Hieron. Catal. Script. Eccles. Marcus discipulus

et interpres Petri, juxta quod Petrum referentem audierat, legatus Roma

à fratribus, breve scripsit evangelium–Mark, the disciple and

interpreter of Peter, being sent from Rome by the brethren, wrote a

concise gospel; and Tertullian saith (Adv. Marcion. lib. 4, cap.

5), Marcus quod edidit, Petri affirmetur, cujus interpres

Marcus–Mark, the interpreter of Peter, delivered in writing the things

which had been preached by Peter. But as Dr. Whitby very well

suggests, Why should we have recourse to the authority of Peter for the

support of this gospel, or say with St. Jerome that Peter approved of

it and recommended it by his authority to the church to be read, when,

though it is true Mark was no apostle, yet we have all the reason in

the world to think that both he and Luke were of the number of the

seventy disciples, who companied with the apostles all along

(Acts i. 21),

who had a commission like that of the apostles

(Luke x. 19,

compared with Mark xvi. 18),

and who, it is highly probable, received the Holy Ghost when they did

(Acts i. 15; ii. 1-4),

so that it is no diminution at all to the validity or value of this

gospel, that Mark was not one of the twelve, as Matthew and John were?

St. Jerome saith that, after the writing of this gospel, he went into

Egypt, and was the first that preached the gospel at Alexandria, where

he founded a church, to which he was a great example of holy living.

Constituit ecclesiam tantâ doctrinâ et vitæ

continentiâ ut omnes sectatores Christi ad exemplum sui

cogeret–He so adorned, by his doctrine and his life, the church which

he founded, that his example influenced all the followers of

Christ.

     

II. Concerning this testimony. Mark’s gospel,

1. Is but short, much shorter than Matthew’s, not giving so full an

account of Christ’s sermons as that did, but insisting chiefly on his

miracles.

2. It is very much a repetition of what we had in Matthew; many

remarkable circumstances being added to the stories there related, but

not many new matters. When many witnesses are called to prove the same

fact, upon which a judgment is to be given, it is not thought

tedious, but highly necessary, that they should each of

them relate it in their own words, again and again, that by the

agreement of the testimony the thing may be established; and therefore

we must not think this book of scripture needless, for it is written

not only to confirm our belief that Jesus is the Christ the Son of

God, but to put us in mind of things which we have read in the

foregoing gospel, that we may give the more earnest heed to

them, lest at any time we let them slip; and even pure minds

have need to be thus stirred up by way of remembrance. It was

fit that such great things as these should be spoken and written, once,

yea twice, because man is so unapt to perceive them, and

so apt to forget them. There is no ground for the

tradition, that this gospel was written first in Latin, though it was

written at Rome; it was written in Greek, as was St. Paul’s epistle to

the Romans, the Greek being the more universal language.

---

[Table of Contents] [Previous] [Next]

Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible (1721)

---

Back to Bibles Net . Com – Online Christian Library Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary – Free Download Contact Us

---