Of the New Testament authors Mark was probably the youngest at the time he wrote his Gospel. His given name was John and his Latin surname was Mark, with the latter name being more prominent in Scripture. Nothing is known about his father, but his mother was Mary, a resident of Jerusalem and a sister to Barnabas (Acts 12:12; Col. 4:10). His family must have had some wealth, for Mary owned a house large enough to accommodate many Christians gathered together for prayer (Acts 12:12), and Barnabas, a Levite of Cyprus, owned sizeable acreage (Acts 4:37).

Although Mark is not mentioned by name in the Gospels, there is plausible speculation that he knew the apostles and Jesus during the latter’s earthly ministry. Some have suggested that it was his house that had the upper room where Jesus met with His disciples the night before His crucifixion (14:12–16) and where the disciples waited for the descent of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:12–2:2). Because only Mark’s Gospel contains the account of a young man who followed Jesus after His arrest in Gethsemane and who later fled naked when apprehended by the arresting crowd (14:51–52), many identify that young man as an anonymous reference to Mark himself.

He is first mentioned in the Bible at the time of James’ martyrdom and Peter’s imprisonment (Acts 12:12–17). The house of his mother probably was a popular meeting place for the early Christians since Peter went there directly after his release by the angel. Through this contact Mark must have been fairly familiar with the personal teaching of the apostles themselves. He may have been a direct convert of Peter because the apostle later identified him as his son (1 Peter 5:13), a son in the faith (cf. Paul and Timothy) and not a natural son.

His active ministry began when he accompanied Paul and Barnabas from Jerusalem to Antioch and later from Antioch to Cyprus during Paul’s first missionary journey (Acts 12:25; 13:3–13). However, when the team moved into Pamphylia (central Turkey today), he "departing from them returned to Jerusalem" (Acts 13:13). Several reasons have been given for Mark’s defection. Since the Holy Spirit only separated Paul and Barnabas for this evangelistic task (Acts 13:2), some believe that Mark did not feel "called." His lack of personal conviction may have caused emotional distress. Others detect a growing dislike for Paul especially since the leadership influence of his uncle Barnabas was declining. The most plausible view is that the Gentile emphasis in the Pauline outreach bothered Mark’s Jewish feelings and prejudice. When Paul and Barnabas planned their second missionary journey (Acts 15:36–41), Barnabas wanted to take Mark again, but Paul disagreed. Luke records that "the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; and Paul chose Silas …" (15:39–40a). For about the next ten years, the Bible is silent on the activities of Mark. During this time, Mark must have matured in the faith and the differences between him and Paul must have been resolved because he is later associated with Paul during the latter’s first Roman imprisonment (Col. 4:10; Philem. v. 24). In fact, Paul identified him as a fellow-laborer. Either before or shortly after this experience in Rome with Paul, Mark was working with Peter in Babylon (1 Peter 5:13). When Paul was imprisoned in Rome a second time awaiting his martyrdom, he asked Timothy: "Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry" (2 Tim. 4:11). Mark had overcome his early failures to become an effective servant of God. Whether Timothy and Mark ever arrived in Rome before Paul’s death is difficult to say. Tradition states that Mark went to Egypt and established the churches in Alexandria. It sets his death as a Christian martyr during the reign of Nero.

Although not an apostle, Mark, the companion of two leading apostles, has been recognized by early church tradition as the author of the second Gospel. Irenaeus said that "after the death of Peter and Paul, Mark delivered to us in writing things preached by Peter." Others, including Papias, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and Eusebius, agree that Mark wrote the book and that Peter was somewhat involved in its composition. Many have retitled this book "Peter’s Gospel" because of this early tradition. Since the Jerusalem church met at Mark’s house and since Mark did work with Peter in Babylon, Peter no doubt was one of the sources of Mark’s material. This could explain the rather obvious personal reference to Peter in the angel’s words to the women: "But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter …" (16:7). Some have also seen in Peter’s sermon before Cornelius (Acts 10:34–43) the skeleton outline for the entire Book of Mark. The Markan authorship seems rather sure. There would be no good reason why early church writers would ascribe the book to Mark, a non-apostle, if he did not write it. In fact, the title Kata Markon ("According to Mark") is found in some of the earliest Greek manuscripts.

Internal evidence, though slight, confirms this conclusion. The account of the flight of the young man (14:51–52), found only in Mark, takes on special significance if that youth was really Mark. The detailed description of the upper room (14:12–16) is noteworthy if that room was in the house owned by Mark’s mother. Unless there is stronger opposition, it is safe to conclude that John Mark was the author of this book.

There is much disagreement among scholars over the date of its writing. Since the date of composition is involved in the synoptic problem, those who argue for the priority of Mark would date it as early as a.d. 45. Others, who see Matthew as the first Gospel, would date it near the martyrdom of Peter and before the destruction of Jerusalem, approximately a.d. 67–68. We admit that we do not possess enough data for a precise dating. Early church traditions ascribed it to periods both before and after Peter’s death. There is no good reason to project the book into the latter third of the first century.

There is a hint within the book suggesting a composition date in the middle third of the first century. On the way to Gologtha, the soldiers compelled "Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross" (15:21). If this is the same Rufus as the one saluted by Paul during his third journey (Rom. 16:13), then the intended readers of Mark’s Gospel must have known the two sons of Simon. Otherwise, why would Mark have included the mention of the two sons when they have no historical significance in the life of Christ?

This verse also argues for a Roman destination or origin. Either Mark was writing to believers in Rome where Rufus lived or else he was writing from Rome to readers who knew the family of Alexander and Rufus.

The opening verse presents the first obvious purpose: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (1:1). In his biographical study of the life and ministry of Christ, Mark outlines a double thrust: "For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many" (10:45). His ministry of teaching and healing occupies the first part of the book (chs. 1–10), whereas the events surrounding His crucifixion are found in the lengthy second half (chs. 11–16). The comparison of content in the two sections will reveal that Mark clearly emphasized the redemptive nature of Christ’s death and resurrection.

He also intended to convince the Roman mind and reader of the deity and mission of Jesus Christ. The reader must have been unfamiliar with Palestinian geography and customs. Mark points out that the Jordan was a river (1:5), that the Pharisees used to fast (2:18), and that the Mount of Olives overlooked the temple area (13:3). He translated several Aramaic expressions for the benefit of his readers (3:17; 5:41; 7:34; 14:36; 15:34). Latinisms are inserted throughout the book: modius for "bushel" (4:21); census for "tribute" (12:14); centurio for "centurion" (15:39, 44–45); and others. Since there were good Greek equivalents for these words, the readers must have had a Roman orientation. He even occasionally used a Latin term to explain a Greek word (12:42; 15:16).

The purposes were both evangelism and edification. The book was designed to convince the new reader of Christ’s deity and sacrificial death and to educate the converts about the significance of Christ’s person and ministry.

This is a book of action. Since the Roman mind was interested in power, Mark deliberately omitted the birth and childhood accounts and moved quickly into the miraculous ministry of Christ. The Roman mind would be far more impressed with what Jesus did than with His genealogical record or teaching. Mark could then argue from Christ’s miracles to His deity and then to the greatest miracle and display of power that the world has ever seen—His death and resurrection.

The Greek adverb euthus (translated in several ways: "straightway," "immediately," "forthwith," and "anon") is used forty-two times in the book, more than all of the rest of the New Testament put together. Christ is seen as a man of activity, as a man who gets things done.

Since over 90 percent of the content of Mark is found elsewhere in Matthew and Luke, there are very few unique passages in this book. However, these accounts are not found in the other Gospels: the parable of the seed growing secretly (4:26–29), the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida (8:22–26), and the flight of the young man (14:43–52).

There is a textual controversy over the ending of the book. Although this problem is best fitted to the science of textual criticism, survey students should have a working knowledge of the issue. These are the questions: Did the original text or manuscript end at 16:8? If so, did Mark end his writing here or has the original ending been lost? If not, what is the true ending of Mark? Is the well-known ending (16:9–20) genuine or an interpolation? If it is an interpolation, is the content of that section true, false, or a mixture? The extant Greek manuscripts contain at least three different endings: the abrupt ending (concluding at 16:8), a short ending, adding one verse, and the long ending (16:9–20).

Generally, debate centers around the abrupt and the long endings. The long ending has the support of long years of acceptance by the Church and of much manuscript evidence, although critics date these manuscripts late. Textual critics point out that the acknowledged best manuscripts (recently found) do not contain the long ending. They argue that if the long ending were original, it would be difficult to explain its omission in the oldest manuscripts. They also argue that if the abrupt ending were original, it would be easy to explain the addition of material to polish the ending. In observing the content of the long ending, it must be pointed out that the Greek word for "week" in verse 9 is not the same as in verse 2. The description of Mary Magdalene (16:9) does not seem natural here after her earlier introduction into the narrative (16:1). If the long ending were genuine, one would expect to find something more about Peter, especially since he was singled out (16:7). Many evangelicals note that some of the details of the Great Commission are not found elsewhere and seem to be inconsistent with Scriptural teaching (16:15–18).

There does not appear to be a solution in sight. Most would admit that if the long ending is genuine, it is more like an epilogue than a conclusion to a continuing narrative. Since the science of textual criticism favors the abrupt ending, it would seem best not to base doctrine or practice upon these verses (16:9–20). The passage may be genuine, but until it can be conclusively proven, doctrinal support should be found elsewhere.

(The outline is built around the concept of Christ as the Servant of Jehovah: Isa. 52:13; Zech. 3:8.)

(Since most of the content of Mark is found in Matthew, this survey will necessarily be briefer. Check with the parallel accounts in Matthew for further details.)

Mark introduced the servant ministry of Christ with the preparatory preaching of John the Baptist. The genealogy and birth of Christ are omitted because his Roman readers would not be interested in those accounts of a servant. John contrasted his water baptism with the future Spirit baptism of Christ. The baptism of Jesus revealed His eternal Sonship and the power of the Holy Spirit resting upon His life. His temptation was a Spirit-directed appointment, successful in spite of adverse circumstances: no food, the attack of Satan, and the presence of wild beasts (cf. Matt. 1–4).

Christ’s active ministry began after the imprisonment of John by Herod. As a servant interested in the work of God, He recruited workers in ordinary occupations for spiritual responsibilities. The disciples left their casting and mending of nets to become fishers of men’s souls. Casting out demons substantiated His authority over the evil supernatural world and illustrated the authority of His oral Biblical exposition in the synagogues. Healing was done both privately and publicly, both individually and corporately. Jesus’ own prayer life is a real mark of His humanity, an indication of His complete dependence upon the Father. The cleansing of the leper was designed as a specific sign to the priests of His authority over spiritual and physical defilement. The healing of the palsy demonstrated His intrinsic prerogative to forgive sin. Since this right belonged only to God, Jesus was claiming deity for Himself. His call of Levi revealed His compassion for sinners and His condemnation of hypocritical righteousness. The parables of the cloth and wineskins show that the new concepts of Christ’s teaching could never be placed within the established system of Phariseeism.

He came into open conflict with the Pharisees when He defended His disciples’ actions of grain plucking on the Sabbath and when He healed the man with the withered hand also on the Sabbath. This resulted in a joint conspiracy of the Pharisees and Herodians to murder Him. The twelve apostles were appointed for four reasons: to be with Him, to preach, to heal, and to cast out demons. Although His friends thought that He was insane and the religious leaders claimed that He was satanically controlled, Jesus continued to relate Himself to people on a spiritual basis.

The parable of the sower revealed to the disciples the determination of Satan to prevent the Word of God from gaining entrance into the hearts of men and to show the hardness of those same hearts. The parable of the candle manifested the responsibility of believers to transmit the truth of God. The parable of unconscious growth proved that the fulfillment of God’s program may be slow and imperceptible to the senses of man, but its climax is inevitable. The mustard seed assured the disciples that great things could come out of small beginnings.

The calming of the storm demonstrated Christ’s eternal care over His own followers and His power over nature as its creator and governor. In spite of His word (4:35) and physical presence, they were afraid that they would sink; this manifested their lack of faith in Him. The casting of demons out of the maniac of Gadara showed how powerful the control of Satan is in the life of many. The reactions to the miracle showed the contrast between the selfish materialism of men and the compassionate concern of Christ. His power over disease and death can be seen in the healing of the woman with the issue of blood and the restoration of Jairus’ daughter to natural life (cf. Matt. 9:18–26).

In spite of all the miraculous evidence put forth in the previous section (1:14–5:43), there was a growing opposition mounting up against the claims of Christ. His hometown of Narazeth simply treated Him as a mere human being. This passage (6:3) also reveals that several children were born to Joseph and Mary after the birth of Jesus. When Christ sent out the Twelve on a preaching mission, He anticipated for them the same type of opposition that He had been receiving. The murder of John by Herod out of personal and political expediency was a foregleam of Christ’s trial and death under similar circumstances. The next two miracles (feeding the five thousand and walking on the water) revealed His compassionate concern for the needs of both the masses and His own. The tradition of the elders caused the Pharisees to repudiate the Lord and to criticize His disciples. In their hypocrisy they had replaced the commandments of God with human prejudices. They failed to see that genuine spiritual defilement originates within the heart. Christ healed the daughter of the Syrophenician woman in response to her intense faith even though His basic earthly ministry as the Messiah was to Israel ("children" refers to the Jews, whereas "the dogs" refers to the Gentiles). Both that miracle and the healing of the deaf and dumb man anticipated a future ministry to the Gentiles as a result of Jewish rejection. The opposition of the leaders did not keep Jesus from exercising compassion to the multitude (feeding of the four thousand). Because of the adamant antagonism of the religious establishment, Jesus reiterated that no more miracles would be performed as public signs to the nation as a whole. The healing of the blind man confirmed His concern for the needy individual in the midst of universal hostility. This is the only miracle of healing that required two stages for completion: the first was the impartation of vision and the second was the correction of that eyesight (cf. Matt. 14–15).

After the opposition to His messianic claims had been firmly established, Jesus began a special instruction period for His disciples. His first challenge to them was about His true identity. Did they share the popular opinion of the multitudes that He was only a prophet or did they believe that He was more than that? In behalf of the others, Peter acknowledged Jesus to be the Christ. This correct evaluation was not to be preached since the nation had basically rejected His messianic claims. Christ then began to teach them about the necessity of His death and resurrection. The protest of Peter to this disclosure reflected the Satanic plot to keep Jesus from the cross. This provided Christ with an opportunity to teach His disciples about the essence of the Christian life and discipleship. Peter wanted Christ to save His life, but in losing His life in the will of God, Christ was able to save others. The death of selfish ambitions and the acceptance of the divine plan bring fulfillment and meaning to the life of any person.

The disciples wanted to see the kingdom, not the cross. The Transfiguration gave them a preview of the glory of Christ that will be manifested at His second coming. It also confirmed their earlier statement that Jesus was indeed the Christ, the Son of God. The glory of the mountain experience must be contrasted with the frustration in the valley. Here the disciples were unable to cast out a demon. After Jesus delivered the son, He taught His own about the importance of faith, prayer, and fasting. The ambitious, proud disciples were also in need of humility and sacrificial service to others. Their criticism of other preachers stemmed from their sense of superiority because they had been chosen to be Christ’s select group of apostles. They needed to know about the severity of hell in order to preach out of a sense of urgency. Christ refused to arbitrate a Pharisaical debate over divorce; rather, He proclaimed the true essence of the marital union as God intended it. Whereas the disciples protested the presence of little children, Jesus exhorted the former to have a childlike simplicity of faith. Their awe of wealth was exposed through Christ’s blunt treatment of the rich young ruler. Wealth can be used as a blessing to God and to man; but too often men become the pawns of riches. The third announcement of His coming death and resurrection again showed that riches and glory were not Christ’s goals and should not be those of the disciples either. However, the desire of James and John to have the best thrones in the kingdom revealed their basic ignorance of Christ’s spiritual teaching at this time. Christ wanted them to minister and to give just as He was about to do (cf. Matt. 16–20).

The Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem marked Jesus’ official and final presentation of Himself to Israel as her rightful king. Although the event produced some rejoicing, the city did not fall on its knees before its God and King. The cursing of the fig tree illustrated the divine judgment that would fall upon Israel for her spiritual barrenness. The cleansing of the temple produced criticism and intensified the conspiracy to kill Christ. Christ was then challenged about the source of His authority. He claimed that His authority came from the same one who commissioned John the Baptist. Since the religious establishment repudiated the ministry of John, it was obvious that they would do the same to Him. In the parable of the vineyard, Christ pointed out that the religious leaders were like the husbandmen who had abused their stewardship responsibilities and who had killed the son, the rightful heir. This they planned to do to Him. These leaders then tried "to catch him in his words" (12:13). Christ avoided the charge of treason by showing the distinction between God and government. Conflict only comes when the state moves out of its divinely ordained sphere. He then devastated the liberalism of the Sadducees by a logical defense of the resurrection through the exposition of Scripture. Next, He reduced the commandments to the common denominator of love toward God and man. By showing that the Messiah had to be both human and divine, He substantiated His claims to deity. Finally, He pointed out that the widow’s two mites were worth more in God’s sight than all of the gifts of the wealthy because she gave sacrificially out of love and devotion (cf. Matt. 21–23).

Mark’s analysis of the Olivet Discourse is much shorter than Matthew’s. He includes the prediction that the Zerubbabel-Herod temple would be destroyed, the mention of signs that would precede His second advent, the terrible persecution that would befall those in the tribulation, and the heavenly signs that would announce Christ’s descent. Jesus warned that men should watch and be sensitive to the times in which they live. Since the exact time of His coming is unknown, men should be ready for His return at all times (cf. Matt. 24–25).

By this time the conspiracy to put Christ to death was certain; only the time and place of seizure needed to be decided. The leaders wanted to do it secretly to avoid a public uproar. The anointing of Jesus with costly perfume was regarded by many as a financial waste, but Jesus called the act "a good work on me" (14:6). Mary apparently understood the significance of Jesus’ announcements about His death because He said "she is come beforehand to anoint my body to the burying" (14:8). The record of her action has become a perpetual "memorial of her" (14:9). Judas Iscariot, now thoroughly disenchanted with Jesus, betrayed Jesus by setting up the time and place of His arrest.

The night before His crucifixion, Jesus ate the Passover feast with His disciples in a room that had already been "furnished and prepared" (14:15) by its owner, perhaps by the mother or father of John Mark. Here Christ could fellowship with His own and teach them privately; both Judas and the religious leaders would have been unaware of these prior arrangements. At the feast Jesus informed the group that a traitor was in its midst; however, none of them knew that it was Judas. After Judas left to finalize the details of Jesus’ arrest, Jesus instituted the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, a memorial of His death. The entire group voiced their allegiance to Christ in spite of His announcement of their cowardice and Peter’s denial. From the upper room they walked to the Garden of Gethsemane where Jesus agonized over the problem of bearing human sin and guilt. His concern must be seen against the indifference of the tired disciples. After His third season of prayer, Jesus, identified with a kiss by Judas, was seized. In his fearful zeal Peter cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest and then fled along with the rest of the disciples. Christ criticized the soldiers for making the arrest at night instead of during the day in the temple. A young man, possibly Mark, tried to follow Jesus from the garden but fled when he was discovered.

At the evening trial before Caiaphas and the religious leaders, Jesus could only be charged with blasphemy because of His claim of equality with God. They found Him guilty of death and sarcastically mocked Him. It was during the events of this particular trial that Peter denied the Lord three times as Christ had predicted. In the morning the Sanhedrin agreed on their earlier decision and took Jesus to Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea. Pilate, recognizing the political innocence of Jesus, tried to free Jesus by giving the multitudes the choice of either Jesus or Barabbas. To his amazement, they asked for the release of Barabbas and the crucifixion of Jesus. Obliging the will of the multitude, Pilate delivered Jesus to the soldiers who mocked Him and led Him to Golgotha for His crucifixion. Hanging on the cross, Jesus endured more mockery from the multitude, the religious leaders, and the two thieves. The severity of His physical and spiritual sufferings caused an early death. After proper investigation over the certainty of Christ’s death, the body of Jesus was entrusted to Joseph of Arimathaea for burial (cf. Matt. 26–27).

Mark devoted very little material to the postresurrection ministry of Christ. The announcement of His triumph over death was given to the women by an angel. They were charged to inform others about His resurrection. In the controversial long ending (16:9–20), His appearances to Mary Magdalene, to the two Emmaus travelers, and to the eleven disciples are described briefly. If the passage is genuine, then the unusual signs were to accompany the direct converts of the apostles. In this way, the preaching ministry of the apostles was divinely authenticated (cf. Matt. 28).