[Page 23]
CHAPTER TWO
St. Matthew and St. Mark
Now let us examine more closely the Gospels of Matthew and Mark and note the matter peculiar to each. While recalling the doubt as to whether Matthew did write the Gospel named after him, we can remember that the unbroken tradition of his authorship makes it fairly certain that in some way the Gospel was closely connected with him.
Firstly, we will consider a little of the historical background of each of the Gospels, then go on to spend a little more time assessing their contents. Jesus found at Capurnaum a Tax gather who, in Mark’s Gospel, is called “Levi, son of Alphaeus.” He could have been in the employment of either the Roman government or Herod Antipas. If he Was employed by the Roman government, he was probably a very half-hearted and unsatisfactory Jew employee. However, Jesus called him to become a follower and he accepted. It is recorded that he put on quite a feast as a farewell party to his friends and Jesus joined the party. For some reason or other, he changed his name to Matthew, meaning “the gift of God”. And he is not mentioned again except in lists of the Twelve. ’
Tradition says that after Pentecost he laboured in Palestine, preaching expecially to Jews and writing for them in Hebrew and Aramaic. It has also been hinted that he made missionary journeys into Ethiopia and as far as India.
Christians who have become Bahá’ís can feel a lot of sympathy for Matthew and his work in that, as aJew, he worked among his own Jewish people, trying to make them understand that their long-awaited Messiah had in fact arrived in the person of Jesus. A “return” thoroughly out of keeping with what they expected. Similarly, Christian Bahá’ís working among Christians and endeavouring to help their own people to understand, and accept the fact, that Jesus has returned in Spirit in the person of Bahá’u’lláh.
To come back to a study of the Gospel of St Matthew, it is difficult to fix the date when it was written. Some writers have advocated as early as 45 —50 A.D., giving in support of their argument that Paul must have known of the Sermon on The Mount when he wrote
23
[Page 24]
Romans 12. And that the Epistle of James is full of references to the
Sermon. However, it is also argued by others that Paul may, almost
certainly would have known of the teachings of the Sermon on The
Mount, and that james would have worked from another document;
even as Matthew itself was almost certainly written from information
in Mark. That being so, Matthew could not have been written so early.
If we are right in assuming Matthew used Mark as a source of information, then it could not have been written before 60 A.D., because it refers to the great eatastrophy threateningjerusalem. Had jerusalem already fallen, it would surely have said so; hence we can assume that it was written just before 70 A.D. , perhaps 68 or 69 A.D.
Next, let us consider in more detail the poeple to whom the Gospel was written. It is without doubt the story of Jesus for Jewish readers. The genealogy of Jesus is traced back to Abraham and not to Adam. There are continual references to Old Testament prophecy, and emphasis is laid on Jesus’ claim that he came to fulfil the old Mosaic Law, not to destroy it.
The New English Bible records Jesus as saying in Matthew 5, The Sermon on The Mount: “Do not suppose that I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets, I did not come to abolish but to complete.”
And great care is taken in the arrangement of the Gospel, so as ‘to show the development of the Kingdom of God. This would be of special interest to the Jews as they had always professed God to be their real King, looking upon their human Kings as no more nor less than God’s representatives on earth. All through Matthew one finds the Writer is not merely recording historically, but is pleading, appealing for the people to have faith in jesus, even as Bahá’ís today plead with people to have faith in Bahá’u’lláh, as the promised Return of the Spirit of Truth.
An appeal for faith in the new Manifestation could be much more efficacious than historical and dogmatic argument. Matthew strove to set forth the story of Jesus so as to overcome jewish prejudice, and to make it easier for Jews to believe in Jesus as the Messiah who fulfilled Old Testament prophecy. That is a very important point when setting forth claims for Bahá’u’lláh. It is necessary to show that Bahá’u’lláh is the Returned One, coming in fulfilment of New Testament prophecy and as the Successor to Jesus, as delineated in earlier Old Testament prophecies.
There are many special features about Matthew’s Gospel. This is one of them: that he is very interested in Old Testament Prophecy;
24
[Page 25]
secondly, that he is fond of massing together the teachings of Jesus
without any reference to time, or very scant reference to it; and he
liked to arrange his material artificially, for instance; seven was the
perfect number amongst the Jews and we find the genealogy recorded
in Matthew 1:1-16, arranged in three fourteenths, and a Cluster of
seven parables in 13th Chapter.
As regards the matter recorded in Matthew, we find much that is not related elsewhere. In the narrative of the birth of Jesus, we have the visit of the three wise men; the massacre at Bethlehem and the flight into Egypt. Matthew also relates ten parables: The Tares, The Hidden Treasure, The Pearl of Great Price, The Draw Net, The Unmerciful Servant, The Labourer in The Vineyard, The Two Sons, The Marriage Feast, The Ten Virgins and The Talents. He also gives the accounts of two miracles: The Cure of Two Blind Men, and the Coin in The Fish’s Mouth. (Matt. 17: 24:27, where Jesus tells Peter to go and catch a fish and get the coin from its mouth and use the coin to pay their tax.) This miracle has a special significance: If the coin was found, it is a miracle of knowledge on Christ’s part. However, Matthew does not say specifically that it was found. It could therefore be that Matthew does not mean it to be taken as a miracle but as Jesus’ _ playful way of saying that the coin they needed could easily be obtained by catching a fish or two and selling them.
A bit of work never hurt anyone!
Possibly that part of Matthew’s Gospel which has had most impact on the world is his account of the Sermon on The Mount. Probably no words ever written have had so great an influence upon Mankind. But even in the recording of such an event, we find great differences between Matthew’s account and Luke’s. Matthew says the Sermon was preached on a mountain, Luke says on a level place. However, it is generally conceded that the place was a level stretch between the two peaks of Kurn Hattin near Capernaum.
As to the Sermon itself, Luke’s is much shorter: he gives us four Beatitudes and four Woes; whereas, Matthew had eight Beatitudes and no Woes. A good deal of the Sermon, even the Lord’s Prayer, is said by Luke to have been spoken at a different place. It is possible, of course, that Luke is reporting a different Sermon, or that Matthew may have gathered together sayings of Jesus on various occassions and related them in the form of one Sermon. We should not forget that the facts of Jesus’ life are well stated in Mark’s Gospel. Therefore, Matthew may have felt the need existed for a concise statement of Jesus’
25
[Page 26]
teachings. Whatever the truth may be, whether a single sermon or
a compilation from several sermons, the subject matter in Matthew
is arranged with almost perfect symmetry.
To sum up Matthew: his main subject is the Kingdom of Heaven and it’s citizens. This he handles under seven headings as follows:
(a) The character of the Christian.
(b) The position of the Christian in the world: he will be persecuted, but his life must be like salt which adds to the flavour of life.
(c) The Christian Ideal compared with the Old Testament standard: it does not destroy the old but perfects it, much as we understand today regarding the new Manifestation—Bahá’u’lláh does not take away from jesus, He is the fulfilment of all that Jesus promised.
(d) The Christian’s Temptations and Dangers: religious display; love of money for money’s sake; anxious care and distrust of God’s promises; harsh in our judgment of others; squandering our spiritual treasures.
(e) The Christian’s Resources in Prayer. (f) The Christian’s Duty Towards Others.
(g) The Importance, of being A Christian: only a few are willing to make the necessary sacrifice; some are hypocrites, and others hear, but do nothing.
So much for Matthew.
Now let us consider Mark. His name was John Mark and he was the son of a certain Mary who appears to have been a member of the Church of Jerusalem, because it was to her home that Peter went on his release from prison.
It has been thought that Mark wasthe young man who fled from the garden at the time of Jesus’ arrest. However that may be, it is almost certain that Barnabas was a close relative of his, reference seeming to indicate that he was either an uncle or cousin. It was Barnabas and Saul, later called Paul, who brought Mark from Jerusalem to Antioch, and later Mark accompanied them on their first missionary journeys. For some unknown reason, Paul refused to allow Mark to accompany him on his second journey; it could have been because, while on the first missionary journey, Mark left the party
26
[Page 27]
at Perga and returned to Jerusalem. Whatever the trouble between
them, Mark and Barnabas went off to Cyprus while Paul was away
on his second journey, and Mark appears to have done some good
work, undertaking a mission to Egypt and establishing a church at
Alexandria.
Sometimes I think we are a little unrealistic in our ideas about the early days of the spreading of Christianity. We imagine the Apostles to be devout men unaffected by human temptations to which we seem prone. That was not so; they had their clashes of opinion; their envy of one another; their hero-worship and their personal frictions. What we should be most conscious of is that Christianity spread in spite of these dzflerences. That, of course, is no excuse for us in these days. It does help us though to understand that God chooses His workmen and His workwomen from whence He will, and who are we to censure His choice! Every time we'speak derogatively of a fellow-worker’s efforts for God we are, in effect, expressing our disapproval of God’s choice of servants. Heaven help us for our audacity! No wonder the Bible utters the warning: “Judge not that ye be not judged.”
Paul and Mark settled their differences, and we know that Mark was in Rome during Paul’s first imprisonment. Later, when Paul was again arrested for teaching the New Faith and flung into prison for a second time, he asked Timothy to bring Mark to Rome again. Mark was also intimately associated with Peter, and was with him shortly before his martyrdom. In fact, so closely were Peter and Mark associated that Mark’s Gospel is largely a written account of Peter’s teaching, written under the influence of Peter.
Peter was a truly humble disciple and some incidents that might tend to glorify him are left out of Mark’s record; for example, Peter’s walking on the sea; and the'great promise made to him by Jesusthat on such faith as his Christ would build His Church. These are not related by Mark. On the other hand, some facts rather humiliating to Peter are more fully recorded by Mark than elsewhere, as instanced on the occasion when Peter had, in answer to Jesus’s question, stated emphatically that Jesus was the Christ. Jesus followed up that admission by explaining that He would have to suffer many things at the hands of men and Peter, you remember, rebuked Christ for saying such a thing. Jesus turned round and in no uncertain words rebuked Peter in front of the other disciples, saying “Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that be of men,” (Mk.8:33)
27
[Page 28]
And, also, we find Mark giving prominence to Peter’s childish
suggestion at the Transfiguration, when he wanted immediately to
build three temples to celebrate the occasion. He reminds us, too, that
the cock crowed twice at the time of Peter’s denial and that Peter
continued to deny his Master even after the cock crowed the ‘first time.
Again, Peter is sometimes named when the other Gospels spare him,
as when he drew attention to the withering fig tree; and how he slept
in the Garden of Gethsemane, a thing especially painful to Jesus. (Mk.
11:21, 14:37)
I sometimes wonder how many of us today feel the same kind of deep love for the One whom we regard as God’s Messenger! Why is it we do not stir up within ourselves such a consciousness of the urgency of His mission to Mankind, that we throw ourselves and all we have, wholeheartedly behind Him? That is something we’d do well to ponder.
Getting back-to the Gospels: 1 don’t think we need bother unduly about the date of this Gospel, suffice it to say that if, as seems reasonably certain, both Matthew and Luke made use of Mark’s account, then it must be the earliest of the three. And assuming it was written under Peter’s influence at Rome, then it can hardly be dated earlier than 63 A.D. On the other hand, as Matthew and Luke were probably written before the fall ofjerusalem in 70 A.D., Mark must have been written between 63—70 A.D.
Where we found Matthew writing for the Jews, Mark wrote for the Gentile Christians. We get indications of this by the way Mark explains for their benefit some Jewish customs: the Ceremonial washing (7:3-4), and the Preparation (15:42), being the washing of their hands and cooking utensils before eating; and the preparation for the Sabbath. He also explains Aramaic words, such as where he records: “Boanerges, that is Sons of Thunder”; “Talitha cumi, which is being interpreted, “Damsel, I say unto thee Arise.” And again; “Ephphatha, that is, be opened.”
Other explanations seem to indicate that he was writing to the Christians in Rome who would be more familiar with Greek. A number of Latin words are spelt in Greek letters, such as: “Speculator”, “Denarius”, and “Quadrans.” He explains Greek terms in the Roman equivalent. For example: Mark tells them that ‘two mites’ were equal to Roman ‘Quadrans’ or ‘Farthings’. And he explains that the Court in Jerusalem corresponded to the ‘Praetorium’ in Rome. There are other quite special features of style in Mark’s writing which make it today, in some ways, the most reliable of the Gospels, especially as
~28
[Page 29]
it was nearly lost to us in the early days, as being superflous where
Matthew and Mark were personally known. It is brief, but very
compact; yet, often includes details not found elsewhere, particularly
exact names of people. We have the playful name of ‘Boanerges’
(already referred to) which he gave to the two sons of Zebedee, James
and John. He records the name of the blind beggar as Bartimaeus
in Chapter 10:46, and gives us the names of Simon of Cyrene,
Alexander and Rufus.
And, too, Mark is particularly vivid and life-like: the narrative is full of movement and various changes and incidents follow one another in rapid succession and he makes frequent use of such words as ‘Straightway’, ‘immediately’, and so on. It is in this Gospel that we find many references to the feelings and emotions of Jesus: His anger, His surprise, His embracing of the children, His look of love. All the way through, the narrative is fresh and picturesque.
You would find it very interesting to compare the stories of the demoniac boy, as given by St. Matthew, St. Luke and St. Mark. (Matt. 17:14-21; Luke 9:37-43). It is most noticeable how life-like is the detailed account given by Mark.
Then, also, we note in Mark little touches of colour, or background. An example is Mark: 39-40, “the green grass,” and the words, “in ranks”, which means literally like flower beds. That refers to the occasion of the feeding of the multitude, they sat on the green grass “in ranks of fifty and a hundred”, like flower beds amidst a green sward.
There is a certain subject matter peculiar to Mark. The Gospel concerns itself only with the ministry of Jesus, so we miss the stories of the birth and early life of Jesus which we find in Matthew’s and Luke?s writings. Matter recorded in Mark and not elsewhere consists of two miracles (the deaf and dumb man, 7:31-37) and (the blind man at Bethsaida,‘8:22-26) and one parable, (the seed growing secretly, 4:26-29).
There is another interesting point to make about this Gospel. It is generally accepted by the world’s leading Biblical scholars, that the last twelve verses of the record were not written by Mark. The oldest manuscripts break off at verse 8, but it seems inconceivable that the Gospel would end with the words: “For they were afraid.”
The verses, 9-20, are very unlike the rest of the Gospel in style and phrasing. One Armenian manuscript states that'the passage was written by “Ariston The Presbyter”, presumably because Mark’s last verses were missing, and because Ariston was known to have been
29
[Page 30]
a personal friend of Jesus.
The more we study the Gospels, the more impressed we become with their note of reality; and the more familiar they become to us, the more we understand and appreciate the life and ministry of the man Jesus. He becomes a vibrant personality of flesh and blood; a person who had to contend with human beings with all their follies and foibles.
And the more real He becomes to us in this way, the more clearly do ‘we perceive Divinity shining through His human exterior. He is bathed in a brilliant light which high-lights Man, showing the perfection to which Man can attain when he links himself in perfect oneness with his Spiritual Creator. And the more familiar we become with Jesus’ life in this way, the more humanly realistic does He become to us. With our own inward sight we see jesus, The Man, as distinct from the Jesus of orthodox theology.
Becoming aware of this reality, our minds then attain a willingness to investigate this other Man, this Bahá’u’lláh of whom it is claimed He is the Return of that same Reality, and again in human form. Conversely, the more closely we study the life and teachings of Bahá’u’lláh, the more vividly appears before our astounded gaze the Crucified Lord, shining forth in the person of this despised and persecuted Persian. Our ears hear again: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!”
But all too often, I think, we are somewhat timid about stressing the humanity of a Manifestation of God, fearing it might detract from the mystical, the Spirit of God which undoubtedly inhabits the temporal body of each manifestation. I find such a fear groundless, groundless on two counts—at least!
Firstly, no opposition nor opinion by our fallible reasoning concerning the Spirit, God, is going to weaken the power of God; secondly, if the temporal person of the Manifestation was not aware Of the working of the Spirit within Him, how could He assure us that the same Spirit will work through us? Recall the assurance of Jesus: that by faith we can do what He did; and even do greater things. Recall Bahá’u’lláh’s words: “. . . Turn thy sight unto thyself, that thou mayest find ME standing within thee, mighty, powerful and self-subsisting.”*
The only honest objection I can find to two such claims is that they bring us face-to-face with ourselves; with a challenge as to whether our
- Arabic “Hidden Words”, No.13
3O
[Page 31]
faith will match our professed belief. It strips away our most cherished excuse:
That we cannot be expected to match the power of a Christ, an
Anointed One. Raising such an excuse highlights the weakness of our
faith, as surely as did Peter’s sinking into the waves shows his weakness
of faith once he took his eyes offjesus in the boat, beckoning him to
venture forth.
The real challenge of acknowledging the manhood of a Manifestation, is the challenge to one’s faith to act according to one’s professed belief. And the challenge is never new; it is reiterated and stressed by each succeeding Manifestation. Failure to accept the Challenge confirms one’s doubting of the Manifestation’s words, stripping one of any veneer of righteousness, and showing us to be the doubters we are. But if we once glimpse that vision, life becomes an exciting adventure in positive living. We become permeated with the Original Essence, of which I have spoken. We see man perfected in the One God, and all Manifestations of God as perfect reflections of the Will of that One God.
“Be assured in thyself that verily, he who turns away from this Beauty hath also turned away from the Messengers of the Past and showeth pride towards God from all eternity to all eternity.”4
