Mark begins with the most important thing in the book: the book is about Jesus, who is the Son of God (1:1). And right away he shows that prophecy of scripture is being fulfilled. He jumps right into Jesus's ministry as opposed to Matthew or Luke who give a lot of background first.
The biggest thing that I saw in Mark is that everything seemed to center around Jesus suffering, death, and resurrection. Three times He tells His disciples that these things have to happen (8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34), and every time they just don't understand (8:32; 9:32; 10:35-37). And after each time of them not getting it, Jesus talks to either them or the large crowds about having to follow after His humility and suffering (8:34-38; 9:33-37; 10:35-45).
Obviously there are other things in here but those are the things that stuck out to me after reading both Mark and Matthew. I have a few questions for people who have studied these things. First, what is up with the signs of the end of the age (Matthew 24 and Mark 13)? Have these things happened yet? A lot of it seems to not line up in the way that I am looking at it. I just really don't get it. (Yes Jr I am asking you if you know anything about it.) Next is the ending in Mark. I have no idea how trusting I should be of the last twelve verses in brackets in Mark. How much of a question is there regarding that ending? Just a few questions that I was unsure about and I'm sure will come up later on.
Next is Luke. This is the format the rest of the gospel accounts will probably take now, me contrasting what I saw and just noting new things. The themes of fulfilling OT scripture, God using the weak to confound the strong, and God being the one who allows us to come to Him were all still in Mark. I just was looking for different things. I am guessing that I will find a few in Luke since it is so long. And I know that there will be a lot in John because it is so different.
Soli Deo gloria
1 comment:
Mitchell: I love this Gospel!
I think Mark was probably written in the mid to late 50s (if not earlier). The latest it could have been written is 60-61 or so. The reason for this (among others) is that Matthew and Luke probably used Mark. As you know Luke and Acts were written by Luke who was with Paul on his journeys. Assuming that Acts ends at the time of Luke's writing it, this would put Luke-Acts finished at 62AD (when Paul is in prison in Rome). Therefore, Mark is at the latest pre-62. I favor mid to late 50s, also considering the evidence that Mark was in Rome when Peter was preaching the Gospel there (then Mark wrote the Gospel in Rome as well). Some would say the Gospel According to Mark outlines like Peter's sermon in Acts 10:34-43. Anyway, bank on mid to late 50s.
This Gospel is so rich with good stuff. As for chapter 13. There are four major interpretations (and I’ll include lead proponents):
1) That Jesus conditionally prophesied that the destruction of Jerusalem would be followed by the second coming, both occurring within a generation of his prophecy (but the conditions were not met). This model is promoted by Robert Gundry.
2) That all of v.5-31 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem (or before) and the discussion of the second coming does not begin until v.32. This model is promoted by R.T. France.
3) That v.5-23 refer to the destruction of Jerusalem (or before), v.24-27 refer to the second coming, v.28-31 refer to the destruction of Jerusalem (or before), and v.32-37 refer to the second coming. This makes an A-B-A-B pattern to the chapter. This model is promoted by William Lane.
4) That v.5-23 refer to the general characteristics of all of the last days (from Jesus’ resurrection to his second coming); that within this section v.14-19 refer specifically to the destruction of Jerusalem; that v.24-27 refer to the second coming, v.28-31 refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and to some occurrences of all the characteristic features of the last days (described in v.5-13 and 20-23), and v.32-37 refer to the second coming. This model is promoted by D.A. Carson.
I lean toward the third interpretation. The biggest hangup for me are v.24-27, particularly v.26-27 which is so obviously referring to the second coming. For me it means that any interpretation that includes v.24-27 as referring to Jerusalem is incorrect (thus eliminating option 1 and 2). Carson’s could work, but I tend to agree with the third one (William Lane’s A-B-A-B pattern).
As for the end, the last few verses probably were added at a later date. The Gospel is complete enough at 16:8.
There is much more (particularly how Mark frames certain sections of the Gospel) but I’ll stop here and hope this helps with your concerns addressed in this post.
Keep studying brother! May our eyes and ears continue to be opened.
Grace to you –
Jr
Post a Comment