2. Relations with Paul and Barnabas. — When Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch from Jeru- salem, whither they had gone Mith the ottering for the poor, they took Mark with them as assistant, perhaps owing to his kinship with Barnabas (Ac 12-^). A little later, he again accompanies them on their first missionary journey as their ' atten- dant' (13''). This word (vwripiT-qs) 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 ('C%. in Rom. Emp. p. 61 f.) has taken a niQre favourable view of his conduct. He holds that there was a change of plan at this point, that the journey into the in- terior was not in the original arrangement, and that Mark might consider this a good ground for refu.sing to go on. He had not the same necessity laid upon him as tiiose who had been solemnly designated by the Spirit for this service. He was an ' extra hand,' taken on for casual labour. Bar- nabas, at any rate, judged Mark's 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 Mark's co-opei'ation was so strong that it led to a separation between himself and Barnabas (Ac 153(iff.)_ 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 (irap-qyopia. Col 4^^) in his imprisonment. Paul speaks in Col 4^" 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 jjrobable, tlierefore, that Mark's pre\-ious desertion had created an un- favourable impression over <a wide area. Harnack thinks the visit was paid, and that, when St. Paul wrote to Timotiiy to bring Mark with him (2 Ti 4'^), Timotiiy was to pick him up at Colossre on his way from Ephesus. Paul had evidently missed
120
MARK
MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDI^n'G TO
the attentions Avhich Mark had been able to give.
3. Relations with Peter. — St. Peter refers to Mark in his First Epistle (1 P 5^^) as 'my son.' This may imply only a peculiarly close intimacy, but more probably it means that Mark had been converted through Peter's influence. Peter Avas evidently a frequent visitor at Mark's home ■(Ac 12), and the friendship had begun there -which afterwards became so deep and fruitful. St. Peter's reference in his letter sliows also that at this date Mark was with him at ' Babylon,' which most writers now consider to mean Rome. From tlie familiar words of. Papias (see Mark [Go.spel acc. to], ii. 1) we learn that Mark had become the ' interpreter ' of Peter, and that Mark ' accom- panied ' or ' attended ' liira. Swete thinks he acted as Peter's dragoman, and translated the Apostles words for his audiences. Peter, it is supposed, would not be fluent in Greek. It is not easy to tit in tliis ministry to Peter in Home with tlie ministry to Paul. Swete thinks it occurred after Paul's 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 im- possible, 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, Mark's association with Peter was a fruitful one, ^^ it resulted in the composition of the SeconcrGospel. In this matter Mark seems to have been little more than an amanuensis. Accord- ing to Papias, the Gospel is really Peter's, and Mark was simply his ' interpreter ' on this as on other occasions.
4. Character and position in the Apostolic history. — Mark was tlms associated with three notable men in turn, and always in the same sub- ordinate cajmcity. Jiilicher calls him ' Apostel- schiiler.' Swete thinks this humble position de- cidedly implied in the terms used of him in Acts and the Epistles. The ffwirapoKa^ovTes of Ac 12^ suggests an assistant ' of inferior rank.' The vwTjpeTris of 13^ indicates personal and not spiritual service. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveller, p. 71) holds that Clark's subordinate character is dis- plaj-ed by the ' haphazard reference ' to him in Ac 13'. The same conclusion may be drawn from St. Paul's language in 2 Ti 4^^ (' he is useful to me et's diaKoviav '). His services to the Apostle in prison probably concerned his comfort and convenience. If, again, Mark was Peter's dragoman, he exer- cised 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 recei\ing confirmation from his con- duct at Perga, on the most charitable \new of that incident. He does not appear to have been fitted for heroic enterprise, or for a separate re- sponsibility, or for spiritual functions. It is only fair to say, however, that a more favourable opinion has been exj^ressed by writers like West- cott (Introcl. to Study of Gospels) and Jiilicher (in PRE^). Jiilicher 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 unatt'ected by the prevalent party spirit, serving both St. Paul and St. Peter with equal loyalty.