88 also does the faot that he was sister's eon, or cousin ( d.vuf;io,;) to Barnabas, who was himself on terms of close fellowship with St. Peter. Moreover, the general consensus of the early Church identifies John Mark with the writer of this Goepel, which Eueebiue informs us was written under the, eye of St. Peter. The substitution of a Roman name for hie family Jewish name was probably intentional, and designed to indicate his entrance upon a new life, and to prepare him for intercourse with Gentiles, especially Romans. Assuming, then, that "John whose surname was Mark" was the writer of this Gospel, we have the following particulars respecting him :-He was the son of a certain Mary who dwelt in Jerusalem. She appears to have been well known, and to have been in a good position. Her house was open to the friends and disciples of our Lord. It is possible that hers may have been the house where our Lord "kept the Passover" with his disciples on the night of his betrayal; perhaps the house where the disciples were gathered together on the evening of the Resurrection ; perhaps the house where they received the miraculous gifts on the day of Pentecost. It was certainly the house to wl!ich Peter betook himself when he was delivered out of prison; certainly the first great centre of Christian worship in Jerusalem after our Lord's ascension, and the site of the first Christian church in that city. It is probable that it was to the sacred intercourse of that home that John Mark owed bis conversion, which may very probably have been delayed in consequence of his having been by birth of the family of the Jewish priesthood. It is more than probable that St. Mark, in eh. xiv. 51, 52, may have been relating what happened to himself. All the details fit in with this supposition. The action corresponds with what we know of his character, which appears to have been warm-hearted and earnest, but timid and impulsive. Moreover, the linen oloth, or Bindon, cast about his body, answers to bis position and circumstances. It would not have been wom by a person in very humble life. Indeed, nothing but the name is wanting to complete the evidence of the identity of" John whose surname was Mark" with Mark the writer of this Gospel. It will be remembered that St. John in his Gospel evidently speaks of himself more than once without mentioning his name, calling himself" another disciple." St. Mark, if the eypothesis be correct, speaks of himself aa " a young man," probably because he was not yet a disciple. We may assume, then, that the events of that terrible night and of the following day, followed by the great event of the Resurrection, so wrought upon the mind of John Mark, that they brought him to a full acceptance of Christ and his salvation. Hence we are not surprised to find that he cvas chosen at an early period in the history of the Acts of the Apostles (Acts xiii. 5) to accomptny Paul and Barnabas as their minister, 01· attendant (~plrr1,;), on their first missionary journey. But we next read of him that when they reached Perga, in Pamphylia (Acts xiii. 13), John Mark left them and returned to Jerusalem. The sacred narrative does not INTRODUCTION TO
give the reason for this defection. Pamphylia was a wild, rough district; and St. Paul and his companions may have encountered some dange1s before reaching Perga, if Strabo's account of the Pamphylians ia to be relied upon. Then John M:ark may have felt a longing for his mother's home at Jiu-n-1.eJn; and some good opportunity for leaving them may have offere~. itself t-0 him at Parga, which was not far from the sea. At all events, it is consistent with what we know of his character that he should have suddenly determined to leave the apostles. However, if any un- worthy motive influenced him, he soon recovered himself; for not long after, we read of his having been aga.in associated, not indeed with Paul, but with Ba.ma.bas, his cousin, in missionary labour. Indeed, Mark was the cause of a temporary estrangement between Paul and Ba.mabas, although, in the providence of him who is ever bringing good out of evil, this estrangement led to a still wider diffusion of the gospel. The next notice that we have of Mark is in St. Paul's Epistle to the Colos- sians, written by him from Rome during his first imprisonment. At the close of that letter St. Panl writes (Col. iv. 10), "There saluteth you, . . . :Marcns, sister's son to Barna.bas, touching whom ye received command- ments: if he come unto you, receive him." It is probable that these Christians at Colosse had heard of the temporary separation of Paul and Barnabas, and of its cause ; and if so, there is something very pathetic in this allll8ion to Mark in this Epistle. It is as though the apostle said, "You may have heard of the separation between Barnaba.a and myself on account of Mark. You will therefore now rejoice to know that Mark is with me, and a comfort to me, and that he sends you Christian greetings by my hand. I have already given you directions concerning him: if he come unto you, receive him." (See Wordsworth, in Zoe.) Nor is this all. Later on, in his Second Epistle to Timothy, written during his second imprisonment at Rome, St. Paul (iv. 11) desires his own son in the faith, Timothy, to come to him; and he adds, "Take Mark, and bring him with thee; for he is profitable to me for the ministry; " literally, "he is useful to me for ministering" U<n, -yrf.p µ.o, EVXP'J<nor; £tr; 8r.axovlav). It would seem as though these words had refer- ence rather to Mark's useful qualities as an attendant ( {J1r1Jpfr-TJr;), though possibly the higher service may be included. This is the latest notice that we have of Mark in the New Testament. But St. Peter, writing from Babylon, perhaps about five or six years before St. Paul' sent this message to Timothy, alludes to Mark as having been with him there at that time, and calls him, "Marcus my Mn," as has already been noticed. It will be seen, then, from hence that Mark had close and intimate relations with both St. Peter and St. Paul; and that he was with the ono apostle at Babylon, and with the other at Rome. I am quite unable to accept the view that St. Peter, when mentioning Babylon, is referring mystically to Rome. This is not the place in which to look for figurative language. Nor is there anvthing remarkable in St. Peter, the apostle of THE GOSPEL ACOORDING TO ST. MAUK. vii