MARK (Marcus) was a common Roman prlenomen. His Jewish name was John. 1 He was converted through Peter (1 Peter 5:13; cf. Acts 12:12). 2 At the very outset of his Christian course Barnabas (his relation) and Paul took him with them on their missionary travels (Acts 12:25; 13:5). John Mark had that light idea of the responsibility of Christian service which is so common: he thought he could take up and put down God’s work as he liked, and he left the two leaders to go on with the work by themselves, whilst he went off home again (Acts 13:13; 15:36; cf. 4:36). Then we lose sight of him for six or seven years, which, for all we know, may have been so much lost time; and after that he becomes the passive cause of an exceedingly unfortunate dispute. Paul and Barnabas arrange a further mission, and Barnabas “determines” to take his relation again with them, while Paul “thought not good” to take one who had already deserted his post. This gave rise to so sharp a contention that the two veterans separated.... Most of us, perhaps, would have thought it best to leave Mark alone after that; and it comes as quite a surprise that we find him finally charged with the high honor of writing one of the four Gospels. Not only does Peter take him in hand with that affectionate care which we should expect from one of his nature, but Paul, who had such a disparaging judgment of him in former times, is able to recognize and acknowledge the value of Mark’s subsequent service. He mentions him as being one of his five fellow-workers who were “a comfort” to him (Col. 4:11; cf. Philem. 1:24) in Rome about A.D. 64; and two years subsequently he tells Timothy to “take Mark and bring him with thee, for he is profitable to me for the ministry” (2 Tim. 4: 11).
This evangelist, as Luke — mentioned together in 2 Tim. 4:11 — was doubtless a prophet. It is the prophetic character of gift which especially is in exercise for writing Scripture (Rom. 16:26). This explains the true source of the authority in such holy writings. To attribute it to Peter2 for the one and to Paul for the other betrays the worthless character of early tradition, such as it appears in the speculations of Eusebius of Caesarea.