OF the family and birth of this eminent apostolic associate, it is
recorded in the New Testament, that his mother was named Mary, and had
a house in Jerusalem, which was a regular place of religious assembly,
for the Christians in that city; for Peter on his deliverance from
prison, went directly thither, as though sure of finding there some
of the brethren; and he actually did find a number of them assembled
for prayer. Of the other connections of Mark, the interesting fact is
recorded, that Mary, his mother, was the sister of Barnabas; and he was
therefore by the maternal line, at least, of Levite descent. From the
mode in which Mary is mentioned, it would seem that her husband was
dead at that time; but nothing else can be inferred about the father of
Mark. The first event in which he is distinctly mentioned as concerned,
is the return of Paul and Barnabas from Jerusalem to Antioch, after
Peter’s escape. These two apostles, on this occasion, are said to have
“taken with them, John whose surname was Mark;” and he is afterwards
mentioned under either of these names, or both together. The former was
his original appellation; but being exceedingly common among the Jews,
and being, moreover, borne by one of the apostles, it required another
distinctive word to be joined with it. It is remarkable that a Roman,
heathen appellation, was chosen for this purpose;――_Marcus_, which is
the true form in the original, being a name of purely Latin origin,
and one of the commonest praenomens among the Romans. It might have
been the name of some person connected with the Roman government in
Jerusalem, who had distinguished himself as a friend or patron of the
family: but the conjecture is hardly worth offering.
After returning with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, he was next called
to accompany them as an assistant in their apostolic voyage through
Cyprus and Asia Minor; but on their coming to Perga, in Pamphylia,
he suddenly left them and returned to Jerusalem;――a change of purpose
which was considered, by Paul at least, as resulting from a want of
resolution, steadiness, or courage, and was the occasion of a very
serious difficulty; for Mark having returned to Antioch afterwards, was
taken by Barnabas, as a proper associate on the proposed mission over
the former fields of labor; but Paul utterly rejected him, because he
had already, on the same route, once deserted them, when they needed
his services, and he therefore refused to go in his company again. This
difference was the occasion of that unhappy contention, the incidents
of which have already been particularly detailed in the Life of Paul.
Mark however, being resolutely supported by his uncle, accompanied him
to Cyprus; but of his next movement, as little is known as in respect
to Barnabas. The next occasion on which his name is mentioned, is by
Paul, in his epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, as being then
with him in Rome; from which it appears, the great apostle had now
for a long time been reconciled to him, and esteemed him as a valuable
associate in the ministry. He is not mentioned in the epistle to the
Philippians, which therefore makes it probable that he had then gone to
the east. In the second epistle to Timothy, Paul requests that Mark may
be sent to him, because he is profitable to him for the ministry; which
is a most abundant testimony to his merits, and to the re-establishment
of Paul’s confidence in his zeal, resolution, and ability. Whether
he was actually sent to Rome as requested, does not appear;――but he
is afterwards distinctly mentioned by Peter, in that epistle which he
wrote from Babylon, as being then with him. The title of “son,” which
Peter gives him, seems to imply a very near and familiar intimacy
between them; and is probably connected with the circumstance of his
being made the subject of the chief apostle’s particular religious
instructions in his youth, in consequence of the frequent meetings
of the brethren at the house of his mother, Mary. This passage is
sufficient evidence that after Mark had finally left Rome, he journeyed
eastward and joined Peter, his venerable first instructor, who, as has
already been abundantly shown in his Life, was at this time in Babylon,
whence, in the year 65, he wrote his first epistle.
“It is thought by Benson that Mark departed because his
presence was required by the apostles for converting the Jews of
Palestine. But why then should Paul have expressed indignation
at his departure? The same objection will apply to the
conjecture of others, that he departed on account of ill-health.
The most probable opinion is that of Grotius, Wetstein, Bengel,
Heumann, and others, that Mark was, _at that time_, somewhat
averse to labors and dangers; this, indeed, is clear from the
words, καὶ μὴ συνελθόντα αὐτοῖς εἰς τό ἔργον. Thus ἀφίστημι
is used of _defection_ in Luke viii. 13. 1 Timothy iv. 1. It
should seem that Mark had now repented of his inconstancy; (and,
as Bengel thinks, new ardor had been infused into him by the
decree of the Synod at Jerusalem, and the free admission of
the Gentiles;) and hence his kind-hearted and obliging relation
Barnabas wished to take him as a companion of their present
journey. But Paul, who had ‘no respect of persons,’ Galatians
ii. 11, and thought that disposition rather than relationship
should be consulted, distrusted the constancy of Mark, and
was therefore unwilling to take him. This severity of Paul,
however, rendered much service both to Mark and to the cause of
Christianity. For Mark profited by the well-meant admonition,
and was, for the future, more zealous and courageous; and the
gospel, being preached in different places at the same time, was
the more widely propagated. Nor were the bands of amity between
Paul and Barnabas permanently separated by this disagreement.
See 1 Corinthians ix. 6. Nay, Paul afterwards received Mark
into his friendship. See Colossians iv. 10. 2 Timothy iv. 11.
Philemon 23.” Kuinoel. (Bloomfield’s Annotations, Vol. IV. p.
504, 505.)