mh_parser/vol_split/41 - Mark/0 - Introduction.xml

91 lines
6.2 KiB
XML
Raw Normal View History

2023-12-18 02:11:28 +00:00
<div2 id="Mark.i" n="i" next="Mark.ii" prev="Mark" progress="36.73%" title="Introduction">
<h2 id="Mark.i-p0.1">Mark</h2>
<hr/>
<pb id="Mark.i-Page_449" n="449"/>
<div class="Center" id="Mark.i-p0.3">
<p id="Mark.i-p1"><b>AN</b></p>
<h3 id="Mark.i-p1.1">EXPOSITION,</h3>
<h4 id="Mark.i-p1.2">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,</h4>
<h5 id="Mark.i-p1.3">OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO</h5>
<h2 id="Mark.i-p1.4">S T.   M A R K.</h2>
<hr style="width:2in"/>
</div>
<p class="indent" id="Mark.i-p2"><span class="smallcaps" id="Mark.i-p2.1">We</span> 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 <i>living
creature</i> saith, <i>Come, and see,</i> <scripRef id="Mark.i-p2.2" osisRef="Bible:Rev.6.3" parsed="|Rev|6|3|0|0" passage="Re 6:3">Rev. vi. 3</scripRef>. Now let us enquire a little,</p>
<p class="indent" id="Mark.i-p3">I. Concerning <i>this witness.</i> His name
is <i>Mark. Marcus</i> 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
<i>Paul,</i> so he of <i>Mark,</i> his Jewish name perhaps being
<i>Mardocai;</i> so Grotius. We read of John whose surname was
<i>Mark,</i> sister's son to Barnabas, whom Paul was displeased
with (<scripRef id="Mark.i-p3.1" osisRef="Bible:Acts.15.37-Acts.15.38" parsed="|Acts|15|37|15|38" passage="Ac 15:37,38">Acts xv. 37, 38</scripRef>),
but afterward had a great kindness for, and not only ordered the
churches to receive him (<scripRef id="Mark.i-p3.2" osisRef="Bible:Col.4.10" parsed="|Col|4|10|0|0" passage="Col 4:10">Col. iv.
10</scripRef>), but sent for him to be his assistant, with this
encomium, <i>He is profitable to me for the ministry</i> (<scripRef id="Mark.i-p3.3" osisRef="Bible:2Tim.4.11" parsed="|2Tim|4|11|0|0" passage="2Ti 4:11">2 Tim. iv. 11</scripRef>); and he reckons him
among his fellow-labourers, <scripRef id="Mark.i-p3.4" osisRef="Bible:Phlm.1.24" parsed="|Phlm|1|24|0|0" passage="Philem 1:24">Philemon 24</scripRef>. We read of Marcus whom Peter
calls his <i>son,</i> he having been an instrument of his
conversion (<scripRef id="Mark.i-p3.5" osisRef="Bible:1Pet.5.13" parsed="|1Pet|5|13|0|0" passage="1Pe 5:13">1 Pet. v. 13</scripRef>);
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.
<i>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;</i> and
Tertullian saith (Adv. Marcion. lib. 4, cap. 5), <i>Marcus quod
edidit, Petri affirmetur, cujus interpres Marcus—Mark, the
interpreter of Peter, delivered in writing the things which had
been preached by Peter.</i> 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 <i>companied with the apostles
all along</i> (<scripRef id="Mark.i-p3.6" osisRef="Bible:Acts.1.21" parsed="|Acts|1|21|0|0" passage="Ac 1:21">Acts i. 21</scripRef>),
who had a commission like that of the apostles (<scripRef id="Mark.i-p3.7" osisRef="Bible:Luke.10.19 Bible:Mark.16.18" parsed="|Luke|10|19|0|0;|Mark|16|18|0|0" passage="Lu 10:19,Mk 16:18">Luke x. 19, compared with Mark xvi.
18</scripRef>), and who, it is highly probable, received the Holy
Ghost when they did (<scripRef id="Mark.i-p3.8" osisRef="Bible:Acts.1.15 Bible:Acts.2.1-Acts.2.4" parsed="|Acts|1|15|0|0;|Acts|2|1|2|4" passage="Ac 1:15,2:1-4">Acts i. 15;
ii. 1-4</scripRef>), 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. <i>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.</i></p>
<p class="indent" id="Mark.i-p4">II. Concerning <i>this testimony.</i>
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 <i>tedious,</i> but
highly <i>necessary,</i> 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 <i>Jesus is the Christ the Son of
God,</i> but to put us in mind of things which we have read in the
foregoing gospel, that we may <i>give the more earnest heed to
them,</i> lest at any time we let them slip; and even <i>pure
minds</i> have need to be <i>thus stirred up by way of
remembrance.</i> It was fit that such great things as these should
be spoken and written, once, yea twice, because man is so
<i>unapt</i> to <i>perceive</i> them, and so <i>apt</i> to
<i>forget</i> 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.</p>
</div2>