Mark 14:47-50
One of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear. And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take me? I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled. And they all forsook him and fled.
J. C. RYLE (1816-1900): The event here mentioned by Mark is recorded by all four Gospel writers, but John alone gives the name of Peter as the striker, and of Malchus as the person struck. The reason commonly assigned for this is probably correct. John’s Gospel was written long after the other three, when Peter and Malchus were both dead, and their names could, therefore, be safely mentioned. Peter’s impetuous temperament comes out in the action before us. Impulsive, earnest, zealous, and inconsiderate of consequences, he acted hastily, and his zeal soon cooled down and was changed into fear.
JOHANNES BRENZ (1499-1570): One hour he draws his sword against a whole multitude of armed men. Another hour he is frightened out of his Christian profession, and driven into lying by one woman.
J. C. RYLE: We cannot doubt that Peter meant to kill Malchus with this blow, which was probably aimed at his head. His own agitation, and the special interposition of God, alone prevented him taking away the life of another, and endangering his own life and that of his fellow-disciples. What might have happened if Malchus had been killed, no one can tell. It was clearly an impulsive act, done without reflection. Zeal not according to knowledge often drives a man into foolish actions, and makes work for repentance.
WOLFGANG MUSCULUS (1497-1563): How entirely Peter seems to have forgotten all his Master’s frequent predictions that he would be delivered to the Gentiles and be condemned to death, and acts as if he could prevent what was coming.
THE EDITOR: It reminds me of an early incident, when Peter tried to turn Christ from dying on the cross, and he “began to rebuke” Jesus for speaking about it; then Jesus, in turn, rebuked him, Mark 8:31-33.
ALEXANDER MacLAREN (1826-1910): Peter’s rash “rebuke,” like most of his appearances in the Gospel, is strangely compounded of warm-hearted, impulsive love and presumptuous self-confidence.
C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892): I think that Mark must have found a very congenial friend in Peter.
THE EDITOR: Mark and Peter were a lot alike in that hasty, impetuous temperament, weren’t they? I think that was one of the strongest bonds between them. As an older man, when Peter looked at Mark, surely he must have seen a lot of himself in that young man. That same impetuous character was seen in Mark on the night they arrested Jesus; and again years later, in A.D. 45, when Mark left Barnabas and Saul in Perga, and returned to Jerusalem, Acts 13:13. Luke records that little incident without explanation, but his brief mention of it suggests it was both abrupt and unexpected.
C. H. SPURGEON: As long as they were on the island of Cyprus, Mark stuck to them. No, while they traveled along the coast of Asia Minor, they had Mark to be their minister—but the moment they went up into the inland countries, among the robbers and the mountain streams—as soon as ever the road began to be a little too rough, Mark left them! His missionary zeal had oozed out.
ADAM CLARKE (1760-1832): It does not appear that Mark was under any obligation to accompany them any longer or farther than he pleased. He seems to have been little else than their servant, and certainly was not divinely appointed to this work as they were; consequently, he might leave them innocently, though not kindly, if they could not readily supply his place.
THE EDITOR: Whatever the particular reason was for Mark’s sudden departure, it certainly wasn’t to his credit; that’s clear from Paul’s later disapproval of it, Acts 15:38.
C. H. MACKINTOSH (1820-1896): Home influences, as well as religious privileges, would, no doubt, attract the heart of Mark, and induce him to abandon the arduous path of missionary labour. We read of “the house of Mary, the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying,” Acts 12:12. Need we wonder that Mark vastly preferred a prayer meeting in his mother’s house at Jerusalem, to the hardships of a mission in Pamphylia or Pisidia? There was a vast difference between a comfortable home, regular habits, a mother’s love and care—the peaceful charms of well-ordered domestic life, and all the roughness, severity, and hardship of a precarious missionary tour. Furthermore, there was a striking contrast, indeed, between an assembly of loving and united Christian friends gathered for prayer in the city of Jerusalem, and a synagogue of bigoted Jews at Antioch, or a fickle mob at Lystra of Lycaonia.
ADAM CLARKE: Probably he went to visit his pious mother Mary at Jerusalem, and to see Peter, to whom he is supposed to have been much attached.
C. H. MACKINTOSH: It is also well worthy of notice, that the Holy Ghost should have selected Mark as His instrument to write that Gospel.
ALEXANDER MacLAREN (1826-1910): It is a very old Christian tradition that Mark’s Gospel is in some sense the Apostle Peter’s.
H. A. IRONSIDE (1876-1951): According to some very early writers Mark accompanied Peter in later years and wrote his Gospel in collaboration with the venerable apostle, under the Holy Spirit’s guidance.
WILLIAM KELLY (1821-1906): At least, that view was generally accepted in the primitive church on the authority of such men as John the Presbyter, Irenaeus and others, who regarded the Gospel by Mark as having been dictated and accredited by Peter the apostle.
JEROME (340-420): Peter recommended it by his authority to the church.
MATTHEW HENRY (1662-1714): Why should we have recourse to the authority of Peter for the support of this gospel?
ROBERT HAWKER (1753-1827): One thing is certain; the Holy Ghost gave the record.
THE EDITOR: In A.D. 60, when Peter wrote his first epistle in A.D. 60 from Babylon, we know Mark was with him, 1 Peter 5:13. But apparently, Mark wrote his gospel nearly ten years later, after Peter had died.
C. H. SPURGEON: Notice that Mark gives the most explicit account of Peter’s fall.
THE EDITOR: You mean Peter’s denial of Christ?
C. H. SPURGEON: He enters very fully into it, Mark 14:54-72. I believe he received it from Peter viva voce, and that Peter bade him write it down. And I think the modest spirit of Mark seemed to say, “Friend Peter, while the Holy Spirit moves me to tell of your fault and let it stand on record, He also constrains me to write my own as a sort of preface to it, for I, too, in my mad, hare-brained folly—away I fled, timid, fainthearted and afraid I should be too roughly handled.”
THE EDITOR: That would make Mark’s mention of Peter following “afar off,” even more significant; as it is recorded directly after Mark’s own escape from the Garden, but just before the account of Peter’s denial. Maybe Peter did know about Mark’s flight—if so, he had kept Mark’s secret, and Mark knew it. Perhaps that was another strong bond between them. Also, during the six years between Mark’s return to Jerusalem, and the dispute between Barnabas and Paul, apparently some spiritual growth took place in Mark. Peter, as well as Barnabas, were likely responsible for that spiritual growth.
Next week, let’s take a close look at that dispute between Barnabas and Paul about Mark.
