In comparing the contents of Mark with those of Matt. and Luke, we are
struck by the absence of many of our Lord's discourses. Yet we find an
eschatological discourse about the second coming in xiii., though much
shorter than those in Matt. xxiv. and xxv. The genuineness of Mark
xiii. has been assailed, and it has been described as an apocalyptic
"fly-sheet," which was somehow inserted in the Gospel. There is no
reason for believing this theory to be true. The chapter was in Mark
when it was incorporated into Matthew, and its teaching agrees with
that attributed to our Lord in the collections of Logia. We have also
the beginning of the charge given to the apostles (vi. 7-11; cf. Matt.
x.). There are a few echoes of the Sermon on the Mount, and only a
specimen of the final denunciation of the Pharisees, which occupies a
whole chapter in Matt. (Mark xii. 38-40, cf. Matt. xxiii.). We find a
few statements made by our Lord which are peculiar to this Gospel:
_e.g._--"the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath"
(ii. 27), "foolishness" coming from the heart (vii. 22); "every
sacrifice shall be salted with salt" (ix. 49); "Father, all things are
possible unto Thee," in the touching filial appeal during the agony
(xiv. 36). Here alone have we the tiny parable about the growth of the
blade of corn (iv. 26), and that of the porter commanded to watch until
the master's return (xiii. 34). There are two miracles peculiar to
Mark, the cure of the deaf-mute (vii. 32) and of the blind man at
Bethsaida (viii. 22). Among the miracles recorded in Mark, the cures
of demoniacs are prominent. This is in peculiar contrast with John,
where we find no cure of demoniacs recorded.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account