A Private Commentary on the Bible: Mark's Gospel

By James D. Quiggle

A thoroughly exegetical and explanatory commentary explaining the meaning and significance of Mark’s Gospel. The book assumes and defends Peter the Apostle as the true author. The exposition is based on the author’s literal translation of the Greek text, with notes to identify and explain variations from standard works such as the NKJV, NIV, and HCSB. Textual views are discussed where appropriate. The book has a high view of Scripture as God’s inerrant Word, and uses grammatical-historical principles to interpret the text. The book treats Mark’s Gospel as an independent portrait of Christ, but also coordinates with the other Gospels to provide a clear picture of Mark’s view of the life and times of Jesus the Christ. The book takes a dispensational view of Christ’s first advent salvific mission and eschatological prophecies. The author writes for any Christian who wants to continue their study of the Bible, for Bible study leaders and teachers, Bible college students, and local church Pastors.

• Language: English
• Publisher: James D. Quiggle
• Release date: Aug 4, 2019
• ISBN: 9780463418710

James D. Quiggle

James D. Quiggle was born in 1952 at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. He grew up in Kansas and the Texas Panhandle. In the early 1970s he joined the United States Air Force. At his first permanent assignment in Indian Springs, Nevada in a small Baptist church, the pastor introduced him to Jesus and soon after he was saved. Over the next ten years those he met in churches from the East Coast to the West Coast, mature Christian men, poured themselves into mentoring him. In the 1970s he was gifted with the Scofield Bible Course from Moody Bible Institute. As he completed his studies his spiritual gift of teaching became even more apparent. He earned a bachelor’s degree from Bethany Bible College during the 1980s while still in the Air Force. Between 2006–2008, after his career in the Air Force and with his children grown up, he decided to continue his education. He enrolled in Bethany Divinity College and Seminary and earned a Master of Arts in Religion and a Master of Theological Studies.As an extension of his spiritual gift of teaching, he was prompted by the Holy Spirit to begin writing books. James Quiggle is now a Christian author with over fifty commentaries on Bible books and doctrines. He is an editor for the Evangelical Dispensational Quarterly Journal published by Scofield Biblical Institute and Theological Seminary.He continues to write and has a vibrant teaching ministry through social media.

Book preview

Preface

The Private Commentary on the Old and New Testaments is my interpretation of the Bible, neither more nor less. I am responsible for the use made of all quoted and cited material.

The scope of the Private Commentary series is to bring the reader to a practical understanding of Scripture. I explain and discuss each verse, idea, theme, and biblical truth as discovered in turn during the course of the exposition. My target audience is the Bible college/seminary student, Bible study/small group leader, Sunday School teacher, and local church Pastor. My point of view is a conservative theology. Other opinions concerning the Scripture are presented and discussed as I believe will profit the target audience. Bible students who desire to understand and apply the scriptures are invited to study the book with me and come to their own conclusions.

This material is copyrighted to prevent misuse or abuse. Those persons using this material in their teaching/preaching ministry may copy and distribute individual pages (e.g., an excursus, a table/list, or an appendix) for distribution to one’s students or auditors. The entire book may not be copied and/or distributed, nor large portions of the book, such as a chapter or extended comments on Scripture passages. The cost of this work has been kept as low as possible so every interested teacher, preacher, and student may afford a personal copy.

This digital edition of A Private Commentary on the Bible: Mark’s Gospel contains the same material as the print version.

Abbreviations

AD Anno Domini (In the year of the Lord [since Christ was born])

ANF Ante-Nicene Fathers

Ant. Antiquities of the Jews

BC Bello Christo (Before Christ [was born])

ca. about (an approximate date) (Latin: circa)

CE Current Era (year since Christ was born).

cf. compare (Latin: confer)

e.g. for example (Latin: exempli gratia)

etc. and so forth, and so on (Latin: et cetera)

GWT Great White Throne judgment (Revelation 20:11–15)

HCSB Holman Christian Standard Bible

Ibid in the same place (referring to the source cited in the previous entry) (Latin: ibidem)

i.e. that is (Latin: id est)

ISBE International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

JDQT TRANSLATION by James D. Quiggle

KJV King James Version

NASB95 New American Standard Bible 1995 edition.

NEB New English Bible

NICNT New International Commentary New Testament

NIV New International Version

NKJV New King James Version

NPNF Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers

LXX Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament completed ca. 130 BC)

n. note (referring to a footnote or endnote in the work cited)

m. Mishnah (followed by tractate name, e.g., m. Baba Metzia)

Song Song of Solomon

s. v. under the word (Latin: sub verbo)

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

TNTC Tyndale New Testament Commentary

TWOT Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament

v. verse

vv. verses

WSDNT Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament

Introduction

Any commentary on the four gospels must answer the question, Why are they so alike but also so different? A simple illustration will explain my answer to that question.

Let us suppose four friends visit the Grand Canyon in Arizona, USA. Each person has been given a camera and notepad (or a phone and I-Pad) on which to record his experiences. Let us suppose they almost always travel as a group, thus visiting the same places at the same time. Occasionally one will go somewhere by himself, or perhaps just stay in the tent for the day. Each takes pictures of similar vistas, but each has his own perspective. Each writes of his own particular experience.

Upon returning home, each prepares a book with narrative and pictures of his experience. Upon comparison, some narratives and pictures are the same, some similar, some different, some missing. Although they almost always went together to the same place and saw the same scenes, each person has his own experiences, perspective, photographs, and style of writing.

When we compare the four gospels, the above scenario becomes more complicated. John was with Jesus from the beginning, as was Peter and Andrew. There is evidence these three and John’s brother James returned home now and then to take care of their families and fishing business, Mark 1:16–20. John, Peter, and Andrew were called to Jesus twice, John 1:37, 40–42; Mark 1:17, 20. Not all twelve were present during the raising of Lazarus: Thomas, not Peter, is the spokesman for the group, John 11:16. Matthew joined the group between Passover AD 30 and the end of summer that same year, Matthew 9:9. Luke conducted interviews of the eyewitnesses to Jesus’ ministry (Luke 1:1–4).

The narratives of Christ’s ministry in each of the four gospels is based on the personal experiences of many eyewitnesses. Matthew learned from Peter, Andrew, John, James, et al, what happened before he began to travel with Jesus. Those absent during the Lazarus incident learned from those present. Luke learned from many people, comparing this account with that account. Each was guided by the Holy Spirit to record what they saw and heard, making their own choices and writing in their own style. That is inspiration. God so prepared and superintended the writers of Scripture that in speaking and writing their own words, they wrote God’s words. God intended each to write a narrative of Jesus words and works from his own particular perspective and experiences. When the gospel accounts are put together, they give us a complete picture of Jesus Christ’s Person, words, and works—not everything Jesus did but sufficient for understanding.

Mark’s Origin

David Allan Black argues, with much success, that Matthew's Gospel was the first to be published, AD 42, writing a gospel to evangelize the Jews, which Paul also used. Then, ca. AD 58-62, Paul had Luke write a gospel to respond to the issues he had encountered evangelizing Gentiles [Black, Why, 73–74]. The order, then, is Matthew, AD 42, Luke AD 62, Mark, a first and very limited publication to a few friends ca. AD 63, with final publication AD 66/67. John’s Gospel was written ca. AD 95.

The consistent witness of the early church fathers, given below (section Patristic Evidence), is that Mark recorded Peter preaching in Rome and later published what Peter had preached.

Mark was not the author of the Gospel but simply the agent of its publication, because all of this material came from Peter’s own memories of what Jesus had said and done and because what Mark did was to retrieve faithfully, as Peter’s amanuensis, what the latter had spoken on certain special occasions [Black, Why, 60–61].

Black has proposed Matthew’s gospel was written and published prior to the persecution by Herod Agrippa I in AD 42 (Acts 12). This was the gospel Paul used on his missionary journeys. As he preached to the Gentiles, Paul recognized the need for an account of Jesus that met the needs of the Gentile community, just as Matthew had met the heeds of the Hebrew community, During his imprisonment in Caesarea (AD 60–62) Paul chose Luke to write a gospel for the Gentiles. When Luke was finished, Paul did not immediately publish Luke’s Gospel. Neither Luke nor Paul had been eyewitnesses of Jesus, but Luke’s work was an historical investigation into the life of Jesus using eyewitness accounts. Because Paul was by then on his way to Rome, he deferred publication until he could have a commendation for Luke’s Gospel from an eyewitness, the apostle Peter. Peter’s reaction was to give a series of lectures comparing Luke’s Gospel with Matthew’s Gospel. These lectures were recorded by professional stenographers. Black cites a thesis showing "Greek [language] professional shorthand writers for viva vice [oral] verbatim recording were in regular employment in Rome at that time" [Black, Perspectives, 117, n. 17]. After the lectures were completed, Mark published them from the stenographic records at the insistence of those who had heard the lectures.

Mark’s Gospel, then, if Black is correct (which I believe he is) consists wholly of Peter’s lectures, with the exception of 16:9-20. This accounts for the content and style of Mark’s Gospel. It is an unedited transcript of a live speech. That is why it lacks the form of a bios (Greek for biography) as understood at that time. Mark’s Gospel is basically a series of personal anecdotes told in a graphic and colloquial style without literary grace and put together in a zigzag fashion [as Peter commented first from Matthew, then from Luke] without introduction or conclusion [Black, Why, 44].

In his lectures Peter demonstrated the harmony between Matthew’s account and Luke’s account, through his personal recollections of the events each recorded, with a few personal memories from himself added in. (See Black, Why, 61–66 for a summary of those parallels.) This limited purpose explains, e.g., the lack of genealogy, the abrupt beginning, and the selection of stories.

The Long and Short Endings

Black’s proposal also explains why many Bible students believe Mark’s Gospel should end at 16:8, and why it does not. Black proposes Peter did not lecture on the resurrection and afterwards because Matthew and Luke had covered that material. So, when first published, Mark’s Gospel ended where Peter’s lectures had ended. Later, after Peter had died, Mark issued a second edition with the material found in Mark 16:9–20, to round off the final discourse. These verses form a summary catalogue of references to the resurrection stories of Matthew and Luke [Black, Why, 16].

One of the evidences for the long ending (16:9–20) is also one of the evidences used to support the short ending (ending at 16:8). Several scholars have pointed out the high number of words and phrases used nowhere else in Mark’s Gospel except here in 16:9–20 (see Black, Perspectives, 29, essay by Daniel B. Wallace). The conclusion some have drawn from this evidence is Mark did not write 16:9–20. But a conclusion is only as good as the premise from which it is argued. The premise is that Mark wrote 1:1–16:8. This premise chooses to ignore as unimportant the patristic evidence (see next section) that the gospel we call Mark’s Gospel is really Peter’s Gospel, originating as explained above. The fact that in 16:9–20 there are a high number of words and phrases used nowhere else in Mark’s Gospel indicates Mark himself added 16:9–20 to Peter’s Gospel.

There is, of course, an argument made against the long ending from manuscript evidence. My observation, not only for Mark, but for other New Testament writings as well, is that textual critics put more emphasis on age than any other criteria. Although there are more Greek manuscripts with the long ending than without, present in the vast number of witnesses [Metzger, Textual, 103], (witnesses = manuscripts), textual critics dismiss this evidence, because these manuscripts are not the oldest.

Many of the oldest manuscripts do not have the long ending. The argument is, if not in the oldest, then not genuine. But what the manuscript-based argument against the long ending does not say (because unimportant to the textual critics), is that the oldest manuscripts, Aleph and B, which are both Egyptian in origin, are from the fourth century—the only manuscripts from the fourth century. These manuscripts show significant agreement, which argues each came from the same parent manuscript. If the longer ending was missing in the parent manuscript—which is also a copy—as seems likely, then the evidence from the oldest manuscripts is of less importance than is claimed, when compared to the vast number of younger manuscripts. If the distant autograph from which Aleph and B descended was one of those Mark originally published, before Peter’s death, before adding the longer ending, then the absence of the longer ending in the oldest manuscripts is understandable.

Scribes

One might also argue 16:9–20 is missing from some manuscripts because the snake and poison sign gifts were embarrassing to the church, and thus not copied. If so, that would not be the only time a copyist deleted what he believed to be an embarrassing group of verses, e.g., the pericope in John 8:1–11 (see my commentary John 1–12 for a defense of the pericope). Nor is it impossible some copyist deleted Mark 16:9–20 because he thought it contradicted the post-resurrection accounts in Matthew and Luke. Textual (manuscript) evidence is not always the golden rule it is made out to be. Many factors must be weighed. As with most evidence, it is not the manuscripts themselves, but the way textual critics use the manuscripts to justify a conclusion.

Patristic Evidence

Patristic evidence is viewed by some as unreliable, or at best of less importance (read unimportant) than the oldest manuscript evidence. But the patristic evidence is certain and important to the origin of Mark’s, i.e., Peter’s, Gospel. The testimony from the church fathers is undeniable. What we call Mark’s Gospel originated from Peter.

The Witness of Papias (AD 70–155)

The oldest witness is Papias, in Fragment VI of what remains of his Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord.

And the Presbyter [John] said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements [Roberts, ANF, 1:153, 155–156 (Fragments, 1, 6)].

The phrase, the interpreter of Peter probably means no more than Mark reproduced Peter’s teaching as he had heard and remembered. We cannot dismiss Black’s proposal Mark had Peter’s spoken presentation professionally transcribed.

The Witness of Irenaeus (AD 120–202)

Irenaeus gives this testimony,

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect [hebraidi tē idia autón dialektō = Hebrews in their own style], while Peter and Paul were preaching [the gospel] at Rome and laying the foundations [of the church]. After their departure [death], Mark, the disciple and interpreter [hermeneutēs = recorder] of Peter did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded [set forth] in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. [Roberts, ANF, 1:414 (Against Heresies, 3.1.1); Black, Why, 23].

The Witness of Clement of Alexandria (AD 150–215)

Eusebius records the testimony of Clement of Alexandria concerning the Gospel of Mark.

When Peter had proclaimed the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel under the influence of the spirit; as there was a great number present, they requested Mark, who had followed him from afar, and remembered well what he had said, to reduce these things to writing, and that after composing the gospel he gave it to those who requested it of him. Which, when Peter understood, he directly neither hindered nor encouraged it. [Roberts, ANF, 1:234 (Against Heresies, 6.14)].

Clement of Alexandria said this about Mark in comments on 1 Peter 5:13.

Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter was publicly preaching the gospel at Rome in the presence of some of Caesar’s knights and uttering many testimonies about Christ, on their asking him to let them have a record of the things that had been said, wrote the Gospel that is called the Gospel of Mark from the things Peter said, just as Luke is recognized as the pen that wrote the Acts of the Apostles and as the translator of the Letter of Paul to the Hebrews. [Black, Why, 24 (Clement, Adumbrationes in epistolas canonicas on 1 Peter 5:13)].

The agreement between these chronologically separated testimonies shows us no other origin story arose in the second century to oppose that given by Papias. Beginning in the second century this gospel has been identified as According to Mark.

The Witness of Origen (184–253)

Origen said of the four gospels, the first is written according to Matthew . . . the second is according to Mark, who composed it as Peter explained to him . . . and the third according to Luke, the gospel commended by Paul, which was written for the converts from the Gentiles, and last of all the gospel according to John [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.25].

The Witness of John the Presbyter

Eusebius’ (AD 236–339) also gives the testimony of John the Presbyter (almost certainly the apostle John) as given through Papias.

And also said this, Mark being the interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he recorded he wrote with great accuracy but not however, in the order in which it was spoken or done by our Lord, for he neither heard not followed our Lord, but as before said, he was in company with Peter, who gave such instruction as was necessary, but not to give a history of our Lord’s discourses: wherefore Mark has not erred in anything, by writing some things as he has recorded them; for he was carefully attentive to one thing, not to pass by anything he heard, or to state anything falsely in these accounts. [Eusebius, History, 127 (3.39).]

Although the testimonies of Irenaeus, Clement, and Eusebius may all have originated from Papias’ Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, Papias himself is clear the story of the origin of Mark’s Gospel came from the traditions of the presbyter John. There have been many learned discussions about the identity of presbyter John. The most likely conclusions are John the elder (presbyter) was the apostle John or a direct disciple of the apostle.

Irenaeus (who preserved the Fragments of Papias) wrote, "Papias himself, in the introduction to his books, makes it manifest that he himself was not a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles; but he tells us that he received the truths of our religion from those who were acquainted with them [the apostles] [Roberts, ANF, 1:153 (Fragments 1)]. Papias himself stated he had heard these things from Ariston and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord [Roberts, ANF, 1:153 (Fragments 1)]. The passage could mean both Ariston and presbyter John had known Jesus in the flesh, or it could mean they were disciples of the apostles and thereby disciples of the Lord.

Date

The dating of Mark’s Gospel by most Bible scholars is ca. AD 50–55. But this dating is based on the position that gospel originated with Mark, not Peter. I agree with Black that Mark first published Peter’s Gospel in AD 63, and then after Peter’s death added 16:9–20. Tradition assigns Peter’s death to Roman Emperor Nero (who also died AD 68). The AD 63 first publication date supports Clement’s testimony that Peter knew of Mark’s work, i.e., Peter was living when Mark published his Gospel.

Traditions assigns Mark’s death to AD 68 in Alexandria, Egypt. This tradition does not inhibit Black’s proposal of the longer ending added after Peter’s death.

Some believe Luke made use of Mark’s Gospel when he wrote his gospel, ca. AD 58–62, so in this view Mark’s Gospel must have been written prior to AD 58 [Carson et al., Introduction, 97–98]. However, this view is based on ignoring the patristic evidence and the possibility of two publications by Mark, separated in time and place, one in Ad 63, the other after Peter’s death. The accounts complement, as one would expect. (See Quiggle, The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus the Christ.)

The references to Peter at 1 Corinthians 1:12; 3:22 (cf. 9:5) may indicate he was at Corinth before AD 55, which was when Paul was at Corinth. Eusebius says Peter was in Rome during the reign of Claudius, AD 41–54 [Eusebius, History, 2.14]. However, during his reign, Claudius commanded all Jews leave Rome. There is no reason to believe Peter did not obey the command, and no reason not to believe Peter returned to Rome.

Acts 18:2 says Claudius commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome, and this decree was in AD 49 [F. F. Bruce, Christianity Under Claudius, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 44 (March 1962): 309-326]. But, it is plain that, before many years had passed, both Christian and non-Christian Jews were back in Rome in full force, together with many Christians of Gentile stock. When Paul writes to the Roman Christians at the beginning of A.D. 57, he obviously writes to a flourishing community which includes many Gentiles, although it is not forgotten that its base was Jewish, (cf. Romans 1:8, 11:13, 18). [F.F. Bruce, Christianity Under Claudius, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 44 (March 1962): 309-326.]

Peter’s first letter, written about AD 62–64, seems to place Mark with Peter, 1 Peter 5:13. Assuming that Babylon is a cryptic reference to Rome, then Mark and Peter returned to Rome in the early sixties. This places Peter in Rome when Paul was in Rome, AD 61–66, agreeing with Black’s proposal.

Mark’s Purpose

If Black’s proposal is correct (see section, Marks Origin, above), then the purpose of what we know as the Gospel According to Mark was to give apostolic approval to the Gospel According to Luke, through a series of lectures by Peter comparing Matthew with Luke through Peter’s eyewitness memories of the events.

Setting aside Black’s recent (AD 2000) proposal, commentators and Bible scholars struggle with Mark’s purpose in writing. Mark’s Gospel is assumed to have been directed at a mostly Gentile audience, which fits with the gospel’s origin, Peter’s preaching in Rome. But why Mark wrote seems a mystery to those commentators and scholars.

The solution is simple. Let us take the historical record (first section) at its word. If, as Clement of Alexandria stated, that after Peter had proclaimed the word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel under the influence of the spirit and those who had heard Peter requested Mark reduce these things to writing, then Mark’s purpose was to give to those in Rome a complete and accurate record of Peter’s preaching about Jesus Christ.

Those long-ago Jews and Gentiles in Rome who requested Mark give them Peter’s witness in writing, understood the apostles would die, and if their preaching was not committed to writing, then the eyewitness testimony concerning Jesus would be lost. Mark’s purpose was to create the record of what he heard from Peter. The Holy Spirit’s purpose in guiding Mark to write was to leave a record of Peter’s preaching about Jesus for generations to come.

All of that, however, does not prevent the Bible student from recognizing the Holy Spirit had other purposes in mind.

The Gospel According to Mark might appropriately be called, The Gospel of the Servant of God. From Andrew Jukes’ Differences of the Four Gospels may be gleaned eight characteristics of Jesus the servant of God in Mark’s Gospel [Jukes, Differences, 61–86].

Pursues service because he possesses sonship.

Prepares in secret for public works, 1:13

Prays in secret for power in real ministry, 1:35

Practices his ministry with much compassion, 1:41; 5:36; 9:22; 10:21

Puts himself last in ministering to others, 3:20; 4:36

Protects his fellow workers, 1:31

Places himself out of sight as he ministers, 7:33, 36; 8:23, 26

Purposes to accept the cross also with the reward, 10:21, 30

These are the characteristics which Jesus’ servants must possess and practice. As in the other gospels, Jesus fulfills his offices as Revealer of God (prophet) and Redeemer of sinners (savior).

Conclusion

I accept Mark’s Gospel as (humanly speaking) originating from the apostle Peter through his amanuensis Mark. The Gospel of Mark is Peter’s eyewitness account of Jesus’ words and works, as recounted in a series of lectures in Rome comparing Luke’s Gospel with Matthew’s Gospel.

Text

Mark’s, which is to say, Peter’s, language and grammar is not literary Greek but the everyday spoken language of the people to whom he writes [Guthrie, Introduction, 80]. If, as seems likely, Mark reproduced Peter’s exact words. We have an example of Peter’s non-literary Greek in his second letter. (The Greek in the first letter is better, because it was corrected by Silvanus, 1 Peter 5:12, under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit, of course).

Peter was a man of few words, a total of 1,270 different Greek words to be exact (excluding proper names) [Edwards, Mark, 10]. And he narrates fewer stories than the other gospels; but his stories are fuller than the same stories in the other gospels.

Critical textual issues in Mark’s Gospel (e.g., 1:1, Son of God; the longer ending, 16:9–20) will be addressed, as may be necessary, in the exposition.

Structure

Detailed information about structure of Mark may be gleaned from the two appendices immediately prior to the Sources section. Appendix One lists the events of Mark in order of occurrence. Appendix Two is similar to a traditional harmony of the gospels, coordinating the events in Mark with Matthew, Luke, and John.

Various outlines of Mark’s Gospel have been proposed. Lenski has the briefest [Lenski, Mark, 18].

1:1–1:13, Introduction

1:14–8:26, Jesus proves himself to be the Christ, God’s Son, by his mighty teaching and deeds

8:27–16:20, Jesus proves himself to be the Christ, God’s Son, by teaching and enduring the Passion which is followed by the resurrection.

Carson, Moo, and Morris proposed the following [Carson et al., Introduction, 89–91]:

1:1–13, Preliminaries to the Ministry

1:14–15, First Transitional Summary

1:16–3:6, First Part of the Galilean Ministry

3:7–12, Second Transitional Summary

3:13–5:43, Second Part of the Galilean Ministry

6:1–6, Third Transitional Summary

6:7–8:26, The Concluding Phase of the Galilean Ministry

8:27–10:52, The Way of Glory and Suffering

11:1–13:37, Final Ministry In Jerusalem

14:1–72, Arrest and Trial

15:1–47, The Passion Narrative

16:1–8, The Empty Tomb Narrative

(16:9–20, Not Recognized by these Authors as Genuine)

The New Open Bible (NKJV) (Only the headings are given)

1:1–2:12, The Presentation of the Servant

2:13–8:26, The Opposition to the Servant

8:27–10:52, The Instruction by the Servant

11:1–15:47, The Rejection of the Servant

16:1–20, The Resurrection of the Servant

David Black, responding the church fathers’ testimony that Mark’s Gospel is a transcript of Peter’s sermons, gives what he believers must have been five discourses by Peter that were transcribed to become Mark’s Gospel.

Discourse One. Beginning of Ministry: Mark 1:2–3:19. (Compare Matthew 3:1–5:1; Luke 3:1–6:19.)

Discourse Two. Early Galilean Ministry: Mark 3:20–6:13. (Compare Matthew 5:2–13:58; Luke 6:20–9:6.)

Discourse Three. Later Galilean Ministry: Mark 6:14–10:1. (Compare Matthew 14:1–18:35; Luke 9:7–50.)

Discourse Four. Post-Galilean Ministry: Mark 10:2–13:37. (Compare Matthew 19:1–25:46; Luke 9:51–21:38.)

Discourse Five. Passion Narrative: Mark 14:1–16:8. (Compare Matthew 26:1–28:20; Luke 22:1–24:53.)

This is the gospel Black believes Mark first published. After Peter’s death, Mark then decided to publish an edition of the text that included the necessary sequel to the passion and death of Jesus [Black, Why, 14–15], Mark 16:9–20. These verses form a summary of the resurrection stories of Matthew and Luke and were most likely added by Mark himself to round off the final discourse [Black, Why, 14–15].

Looking at Appendix One, and borrowing a little from Carson, Moo, and Morris, I propose the following outline.

1:1 Introduction to the Good News

1:2–1:13, Preparation for the Good News Ministry

1:14–15, Introduction to the First Galilean Ministry

1:16–2:22, First Galilean Ministry

Interlude: No activity reported (by any gospel) from August AD 30 to Passover AD 31

2:23–5:43, Second Galilean Ministry

3:13–5:43, Narrative of Specific Ministry Events

6:1–6, Outcome of Second Galilean Ministry

6:7–8:26, Ministering with the Twelve in Galilee

8:27–10:52, From Caesarea to Jericho

11:1–13:37, Preaching in Jerusalem

14:1–52, Final Days of Ministry

14:53–15:20, Trials and Condemnation

15:21–47, Crucifixion, Death, Burial

16:1–20, Resurrection, Final Instructions.

I will refer to this outline at the beginning of each of its sections in the exposition.

TRANSLATION Issues

One of the characteristics of Peter’s Gospel is the heavy use of pronouns. Usually context establishes the correct noun for the pronoun. At other times it is difficult to know who is who. For example, at Jesus’ baptism by John, 1:10, And immediately coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens split open, and the Spirit as a dove coming down upon him. Both Jesus and John were in the water and therefore came up out of the water. So which of the two men saw the heavens split open and which of the two men saw the Spirit as a dove coming down upon him? The most likely answer is, And immediately coming up out of the water, John saw the heavens split open, and the Spirit as a dove coming down upon Jesus.

Here is another example, the healing of the withered hand, 3:2, And they watched him, whether on the Sabbath he would heal him, in order they might accuse him. There is no obvious noun referent for they, although synagogue in v. 1 seems likely. And who is the first he? The chapter begins with and he entered. The sentence should most likely be understood as, And the leaders of the synagogue watched Jesus, whether on the Sabbath Jesus would heal the man having a withered hand, in order they [the leaders of the synagogue] might accuse Jesus.

Here is yet another example, Mark 6:12, And having gone out, they announced that they should repent. The subjects are understood, not stated. The identity of who has gone out comes from 6:7, he called the twelve and began to send them out. The identity of the first they is logically the ones who had gone out. There is no antecedent noun for the second they. The verb, repent, is the third person singular, which gives they. One must assume the verb repent refers to the second they who heard the announcement repent from the first they, the twelve.

Some modern translations supply a noun in place of the pronoun in the text. For example, in the preceding example, the HCSB, NIV, and ESV change they to people. My intent in translating is always to translate vocabulary, grammar, and syntax as close to the Greek text as the rules of English allow. Where Mark’s text uses pronouns, so does my translation. Should I believe the noun the pronoun is referring to is not obvious from the context, I will address that issue in the exposition.

Exegesis (Interpretation)

My theological perspective may be adequately described as Calvinist Dispensational Baptist. This perspective affects the interpretation. Like most Calvinists, Dispensationalists, and Baptists my hermeneutical (interpretive) methodology is the historical-grammatical hermeneutic (HGH), otherwise known as literal interpretation.

The HGH or literal hermeneutic understands the words and language used by the human authors of the Bible in the normal and plain sense of words and language as used in everyday conversation and writing.

Understanding words in their plain and normal sense means all words in all languages have a semantic content and range that reflects the historical-cultural background of the original writer and reader.

Understanding words in their plain and normal sense means that languages also communicate meaning through well-defined rules of vocabulary, grammar, and syntax.

Understanding words in their plain and normal sense means recognizing all language includes idioms, slang, figures of speech, and symbols specific to that language and the historical-cultural circumstances of original writer and reader, and that these must be interpreted for the modern reader in terms of his or her language.

Understanding idioms, slang, figures of speech, and symbols in the plain and normal sense of language means an idiom, slang, figure of speech, or symbol is based on something literal and is intended by the writer or speaker to communicate something literal.

Understanding the biblical use of words, figures of speech, idioms, slang, and symbols means recognizing the biblical authors sometimes used and invested these parts of language with specific theological or spiritual meanings, and that the Holy Spirit maintained the consistency of those meanings among the several human authors.

If an interpretation invests an author’s words, figures of speech, idioms, slang, or symbols with a meaning other than the plain and normal meaning of their use in the language in which he is communicating, then it is not a literal interpretation, but is an allegorical interpretation: an abstract distortion of the meaning of the text dependent on the interpreter’s imagination, not the biblical writer’s truth-intention.

The HGH looks for authorial intent: what did the human author mean when he wrote, and the corollary, what did his original audience understand when they read what he had written? In 1976, E. D. Hirsch, an English professor at the University of Virginia, wrote, in Validity in Interpretation, about why one must seek the literal interpretation of any written communication [Kaiser and Silva, Hermeneutics, 30–31]:

Verbal meaning is whatever someone (usually the author) has willed to convey by a particular sequence of words and which can be shared by linguistic signs.

The author’s truth-intention provides the only genuinely discriminating norm for ascertaining valid or true interpretations from invalid and false ones.

The first objective of hermeneutics is to make clear the text’s verbal meaning, not its significance.

Meaning is that which is represented by the text and what an author meant to say by the linguistic signs represented.

Significance, by contrast, names a relationship between that meaning and a person, concept, situation, or any other possible number of things.

The meaning of a text cannot change, but significance can and does change. If meaning were not determinate, then there would be no fixed norm by which to judge whether a passage was being interpreted correctly.

Authorial intent is the core of the literal method. Modern theorists of interpretation have posited the reader decides intent, which means what was written means something different—even radically different and opposite—to another reader. Under that method the norm for interpretation is each reader’s imagination. The literal method looks for the original’s author’s intent to establish meaning.

The literal method comes to its conclusions by analyzing the scriptures. The literal method understands the biblical text in the plain and normal sense of words and their meanings. This book interprets Scripture from the plain and normal sense of the words of the text by using the following seven methods of analysis (The first five are from Virkler, Hermeneutics, 76. The last two are from me). The interpreter synthesizes these methods to arrive at an understanding of the texts.

1. Historical-Cultural analysis: considers the historical-cultural milieu in which the author wrote. This analysis discovers the facts of the historical-cultural background of the passage by reconstructing or comprehending the historical and cultural features of the specific passage. This requires an understanding of:

a. The situation of the writer, especially anything that helps explain why he or she wrote the passage.

b. The situation of the people involved in the text and/or the recipients of the book that can help explain why the writer penned this material to them.

c. The relationship between the writer and audience or the people involved in the text.

d. The cultural or historical features mentioned in the text.

2. Contextual analysis: considers the relationship of a given passage to the whole body of an author’s writing.

3. Lexical-Syntactical analysis: develops an understanding of the definitions of words (lexicology) and their relationships to one another (syntax).

4. Theological analysis: studies the level of theological understanding at the time the revelation was given in order to ascertain the meaning of the text for its original readers. It takes into account related scriptures, whether given before or after the passage being studied.

5. Literary (Genre) analysis: identifies the literary form or method used in a given passage: historical narrative, letters, doctrinal exposition, poetry, wisdom, prophetic.

6. Comparison with other interpreters: compares the tentative interpretation derived from historical-cultural, contextual, lexical-syntactical, and theological analysis with the work of other interpreters.

7. Doctrinal analysis: the harmonization of doctrine in a specific passage with the full teaching of Scripture on that doctrine. The goal of a proper biblical interpretation is to apply the principles and perform the analysis in order to discover what the human author meant as he wrote the scriptures, and what his original readers understood when they read the scriptures.

Thus the plain and normal method, aka the literal method of interpretation is really the historical-cultural, contextual, lexical-syntactical, theological, literary, comparison, doctrinal method of interpretation. That unwieldly phrase is why it is called by the shorter designation of literal interpretation or grammatical-historical interpretation.

A consistent application of the principles and analytical methods of the literal method of interpretation will reveal the plain sense of the words—the meaning and significance the human authors intended as the Holy Spirit wrote the bible through them.

My interpretation of Mark’s Gospel will utilize the HGH, i.e., the literal method of interpretation, to determine Peter’s intended meaning—his truth-intention, as it is called by some.

Eschatology in Mark’s Gospel

Unlike most Calvinists (and some Baptists) I apply the HGH to all scriptures and doctrines. In relation to Mark’s eschatology, I do not hold to Amillennial, Postmillennial, or historic premillennialism. I am a Dispensational Premillennialist. I believe the scriptures teach the return of Christ at the end of the Tribulation to rule over the earth and its peoples for 1,000 years.

I also do not hold to a partial, mid-, or post-tribulation rapture, but believe the scriptures teach a pretribulation rapture.

I do not believe scripture teaches the New Testament church has superseded, replaced, or is a continuation of national ethnic Israel, but that the New Testament church is a people group with its own yet-future destiny in the plan of God, just as national ethnic Israel has its own yet-future destiny in the plan of God. Those yet-future destinies overlap at certain points, but the New Testament church and national ethnic Israel are separate people groups in the plan of God. For further discussion of these and other eschatological issues see my book, Dispensational Eschatology, An Explanation and Defense of the Doctrine.

Mark One

My intent is to explain the Gospel According to Mark as an independent eyewitness account of the life and works of Jesus the Christ as told by Peter the apostle. That does not mean I will ignore the other gospels. As I did in my commentaries on Matthew and John, I will show where Mark (Mark’s Gospel) intersects with the other gospels.

In general, reference to the name of a gospel refers to the book, not the person. Reference to Mark means Mark’s Gospel, to Matthew means Matthew’s Gospel, etc. From time to time I will remind the reader the gospel known as According to Mark is really the Gospel According to Peter.

In appendix two I have created a harmony of Mark with Matthew, Luke, and John. In the body of the exposition I have used this harmony to show where Matthew, Luke, and John intersect with Mark. These are identified as Mark in Context. An asterisk * indicates an event Mark has in common with one or more of the other gospels.

The Outline is given at the beginning of each of its sections in the exposition.

OUTLINE: Introduction to the Good News, 1:1

1:1, Introduction

Mark in Context, 1:1

*Introduction, Matthew 1:1—2:23; Luke 1:1—2:52; John 1:1–18

TRANSLATION Mark 1:1

¹ Beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ God’s Son.

TRANSLATION NOTES

The Greek word I have translated good news is euaggélion (aka: euangélion), literally good news . . . In the NT spoken only of the glad tidings of Christ and His salvation, the gospel [Zodhiates, WSDNT, s. v. 2098]. This word is not found in Luke or John, and only four times in Matthew (4:23; 9:35; 24:14; 26:13). My intent in translation is to read the word as Mark’s first readers would have understood the word. In Mark euaggélion occurs at 1:1, 14, 15; 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9; 16:15.

The word arché means beginning [Zodhiates, WSDNT, s. v. 746], either as the efficient cause (e.g., Colossians 1:18) or passively as the beginning of something. Here the use is passive. The text lacks the definite article with arché (supplied in most translations). Thus, not the beginning, but simply beginning. All the words in v. 1, except archḗ, are nouns in the genitive. Archḗ is a nominative noun, not a verb as it is in English, meaning a location or origin, whether temporal or physical. The text literally reads, Beginning of the of good news of Jesus of Christ of son of God. There is no verb in the text, simply six nouns and one article, toû identifying euaggélion as the specific good news.

The words huiós theós, son God, are missing from a few early manuscripts but are in the majority of other early and significant manuscripts [Metzger, Textual, 62; Carson et al., Introduction, 102]. I believe the phrase agrees with Mark’s view of the person Jesus Christ and that the words are in the autograph. Both huiós and theós are nouns in the grammatical form genitive masculine singular. Literally, of son of God. They may be translated God’s Son or by the more familiar Son of God.

EXPOSITION

Unlike the other gospels which bear the name of the writer, Mark is not the writer of the gospel bearing his name. Mark was the publisher of Peter’s account of the Person and works of Jesus the Christ. Mark’s name became attached to Peter’s account because he was the publisher, and Peter neither helped nor hindered its publication (see Introduction). The reader should continually keep in mind that Peter is the true author of this gospel, through 16:8.

The earliest testimony from the church fathers indicates the title for this gospel has always been, Kata Markon, The Gospel According to Mark. For example, Irenaeus (AD 130–220) refers to the Gospel by Mark [Roberts, ANF, 1:428; Against Heresies, 3.11.7]. Origen (d. AD 254) stated, the second [Gospel] is according to Mark [Brooks, Mark, 18].

The opening words are arché toû euaggélion, Beginning of the good news. The Beginning, 1:1, might be an introduction to the entire gospel, an opening statement, or an announcement that his narrative will be a history of the ministry of Jesus Christ God’s Son. This is Lenski’s view, because arché, beginning, lacks a definite article [Lenski, Mark, 21].

Luke’s opening statement is more detailed, validating his entire work as a history by summarizing his historical sources. Matthew’s opening statement, 1:1, relates to the first section of his gospel, a history of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham, to prove at the outset that his subject has significance for his readers. John has a similar intent, giving a divine genealogy, God was the Word, and a purpose, the light shines in the darkness.

The Beginning has been discussed endlessly in the commentaries. Certain rightly note the meaning of beginning depends to some extent on the modifying Jesus Christ God’s Son. Three options have been proposed: the beginning of the gospel concerning Jesus Christ (objective genitive); the beginning of the gospel proclaimed by Jesus Christ (subjective genitive); both the gospel concerning Christ and the gospel proclaimed by Christ." Grammatically it cannot be both.

I believe the solution is simple. This gospel’s Beginning is intended to identify the way the ministry of Jesus Christ concerning the good news began, 1:1, followed by an introductory statement, 1:2–1:13, identifying the first events of that ministry. The word arché is used in the passive sense of a beginning or commencement of something, in this case, the good news that begins with those events which occurred before Jesus began to preach his good news. Those events were the Baptist’s ministry, Jesus baptized, and Jesus tempted by Satan.

The good news, toû euaggélion, concerns Jesus Christ himself. The gospel is the good news about the Person and work of Jesus Christ as the Revealer of God (Prophet) and Redeemer (Savior) of sinners. The beginning is the first thirteen verses: the messenger of the Christ, the baptism of the Christ, the temptation of the Christ.

There is no genealogy, nativity, or childhood because this gospel begins with Christ’s ministry of the good news. A servant has no genealogy, his history is unimportant to his service. All these points . . . would be out of place in the description of his service, and therefore here have no place [Jukes, Differences, 64].

"The service here is such as can only be rendered by one who rejoices that He is indeed a Son of God; by one who fully understands that not by service are we made sons, but by sonship may we become servants. When, therefore, St Mark tells us this this is ‘the Gospel of the Son,’ we are prepared for service springing from the assurance of sonship—evangelical service as opposed to legal. It is this Gospel, this ministry or service, which St Mark is about to draw; and omitting what does not bear on this, he comes straight to the details of this ministry" [Jukes, Differences, 64, emphasis original].

¹ . . . the good news of Jesus Christ

The introductory statement, Beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ God’s Son, previews that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, God’s Son. Although it is popular to view Jesus Christ as eternal, there was no Christ until the incarnation. Psalm 2:7 (ESV), I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you.’ The Hebrew messiah and Greek Christ are a title for a position, the anointed, decreed by God to be fulfilled in the incarnation of God the Son in Jesus of Nazareth. In the incarnation God the Son became God’s Christ, God’s son. Until the public ministry of Christ was completed in his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, no one viewed Jesus of Nazareth as the God-man.

Excursus: Understanding Christ in AD 30–33

It is critical we understand how Jesus’ audience—the people he interacted with during his earthly ministry—understood the term Christ. I will use Mark 14:61–62 as an example. The high priest asked Jesus,

Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am.

If Jesus had stopped there, no charge of blasphemy could have been brought against him. The Christ is defined in Psalm 2. There the Hebrew māshîah is properly translated anointed. The Jews knew what anointed indicated. Kings were anointed, priests were anointed, prophets were anointed. The word means chosen or appointed to a task or office and was usually used of kings.

Psalm 2 defines just what this anointed person would do: he would conquer the rulers of the earth, 2:9. He would rule as YHWH’s representative, 2:10–12. The Psalm defines who this anointed would be: king, 2:6; God’s son, 2:7.

Understanding 2:7, You are my son; today I have become your Father, the way the Jews in AD 30–33 understood it, which is the historical context of the four gospels, requires something from the interpreter. The interpreter must set aside everything the New Testament says about the incarnation of God the Son in Jesus of Nazareth and interpret what the Jews of AD 30–33 understood about their messiah (Greek: Christ).

Psalm 2:7 states the Anointed would be God’s son. Identifying a believer as God’s son was not unknown to the Jews. The Jews believed they were sons of God. David’s heir, who would come out of David’s body, 2 Samuel 7:12, was a son of God. In the light of New Testament revelation we think Christ is God incarnate, but prior to the New Testament revelation the Jews thought of a human descendant of David, 1 Chronicles 22:7–11; 28:6.

The same historical understanding must be applied to other verses. For example, Matthew 2:15, that might be fulfilled that spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, ‘Out of Egypt I have called my son,’ is a reference to Hosea 11:1. Matthew, written ca. AD 42, means it literally: Jesus the Christ is God’s Son. But years earlier, during Jesus’ AD 30–33 public ministry, no one associated Jesus of Nazareth with Hosea 11:1. In the context of Ezekiel 21:10, God’s son is Israel, 21:11–12. Thus, Hosea 11:1, When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son, when written ca. 720 BC, referred to the Israelites, not Christ. No one knew Hosea 11:1 referred to Christ until Matthew published his gospel.

The angel Gabriel told Mary, Luke 1:32–33, that her son,

will be called son of Most High, and Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob to the ages, and his kingdom there will not be an end.

This is a direct reference to the 2 Samuel 7:12 prophecy. Mary had no reason to understand her son would be God the Son incarnate. Neither did Joseph, Matthew 1:18–25. The angel identified Joseph as a son of David, referring to the 2 Samuel prophecy. He quoted Isaiah 7:14, which prophecies a birth—confirmed as a virgin birth in Luke 1:35; Matthew 1:20—but not an incarnation. The announcement to the shepherds, Luke 2:8–14, gives no hint of an incarnation, but only the fulfillment of 2 Samuel 7:12; Micah 4:8, 5:2.

So when Jesus answered the high priest, Mark 14:61–62, Are you the Christ, the son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am, no one present understood the title, Christ, nor the phrase, son of the Blessed, as indicating Jesus was God the Son incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth. When Jesus said I am they understood he was claiming to be the anointed one of Psalm 2:2, a human being chosen by God to be their king and deliver them from the Gentiles. And because of that understanding, they rejected Isaiah 53 as referring to their anointed-king, because the person in Isaiah suffered and died. They crucified the Lord of glory because they did not understand God’s redemptive purpose.

God’s son, then, is not stating Jesus’ essential deity relationship with the Father, but was stating Jesus was the Messiah, the Christ [so also Plummer, Mark, 51].

And so should we interpret every verse in the four gospels that seems to imply the Jews understood Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate. Some individual Jews may have understood. Perhaps Mary of Bethany, for she was not at the cross or the empty tomb. But not the apostles, for they cowered in the upper room, their hope that Jesus was the anointed one crushed by his death. Nor did the rulers of this world understand, 1 Corinthians 2:8.

What the Jews understood, what they expected from their messiah, was that this particular anointed person would conquer the rulers of the earth, 2:9; rule as YHWH’s representative, 2:10–12; be king, 2:6; and be God’s son, 2:7. They believed their māshîah would be God’s son in the same sense all Jews were God’s sons. What would make this particular son special in their theology was that he would be anointed to the task of rescuing the Jews from the Gentles.

. . . God’s son

Continuing with the story of Jesus and the high priest, Mark 14:62, Jesus’ answer to the high priest went beyond being the Christ. He stated, And you will see the son of man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven. To sit at God’s right hand was to claim to be equal with God—to be God. This they rejected and crucified the Lord of glory.

John 1:14 makes clear Jesus was the only begotten with the Father in a manner none other was or could be. All believers, male or female, are sons of God, but Jesus was and is uniquely God’s Son. The Jews in AD 30–33 who were interacting with Jesus would have acknowledged him as a son of God because he was obviously a devout Jew who kept the Law. But they would not—because they could not—acknowledge him as the only begotten Son of God, for that would make him equal with God.

That a human being could be a son of the gods was a familiar concept. The Roman Centurion expressed that belief, Mark 15:39, saying, Truly this man was a son of god. The pagans believed in demigods. A demigod was either born of sexual intercourse between one of their male gods and a human woman, or was a human being whom the gods, or men, rewarded for his good deeds by elevation