Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJames Nisbet Commentary - 2 Timothy 4:11 - 4:11
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
‘Only Luke is with me.’
2Ti_4:11
I. Surely he bids us each one remember the power of human sympathy.—Do not we know of some lonely ones in this sad, sad world whom our presence would cheer, whom we might help along in their spiritual life, whom we could make happy in the short time that remains to them here? Let us seek out those lonely ones, and we, too, shall know the blessedness of being able to cheer with our sympathy and companionship those who are so situated that they have to say, ‘only —— is with me.’
II. St. Luke has laid us all under a debt of gratitude for his beautiful record of our Lord’s life.
III. His gifts as a doctor were consecrated to the Lord’s service, and do not we know in our own experience how great a work can be done by the modern doctor who recognises that he is a steward of the Great Physician of the soul? The medical man can be, if he will, a very real missionary of the Gospel, and he can always do much to make easy the visits of the parish clergyman to the sick-room. It is a blessed thing to know that doctors and clergy are to-day acting together to a far greater extent than they have ever done before, and such unity of action cannot but conduce to the eternal comfort and happiness of the patient.
Illustrations
(1) ‘As an Evangelist St. Luke’s superior education is proved by the philological excellence of his writings (viz. the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, which are but two volumes of one work). His preface, in pure Greek, implies previous careful study of documentary and other evidence. He speaks of other attempts to write a Life of Christ, which were unsatisfactory. Though it is the same Gospel, it is narrated with peculiar independence, containing additional matter, more accuracy in preserving the chronological order of events, and complying with the requirements of history. He tested tradition with documentary records (e.g. 2Ti_1:5; 2Ti_2:2; 2Ti_3:1); by comparing the oral testimony of living witnesses (2Ti_1:2-3); and only when he had “perfect understanding of all things from the very first” ventured to compile a “Life of Christ” as a perfect man, restoring human nature and offering Himself a sacrifice for all mankind. To him we are indebted for the history of the birth and childhood of Jesus and the Baptist, for those liturgical hymns, and the scene in the synagogue at Nazareth (4.), which were probably communicated by the Virgin Mary.’
(2) ‘The Bishop of London, speaking at a public meeting, pointed out that there was an extraordinary longing on the part of sick persons for visits. As an instance of this he related the case of the wife of a clergyman who, at the prospect of a severe operation, lost all hope and faith and courage, and the great doctors of London were absolutely paralysed, because they dared not operate while the patient was in this state of utter collapse. By God’s help he, in the course of half an hour, was able to bring about such a change, that two days afterwards the patient walked from her room to the operating-table without a tremor, to the utter astonishment of her physicians. “What is it,” they asked, “that the Bishop of London has done to you?” “Something that it is beyond your power to do,” was the reply. The secret of that was that he, by Christ’s immediate healing power, had been able to bring about a reinvigoration of her central being, and by that means had restored her faith and hope and courage; she became herself again, a Christian woman who could look death in the face. In many a case it would be found that, by invigorating faith, hope, and courage in the sick, a great effect was produced upon the bodily system of the patient.’
‘Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.’
2Ti_4:11
I. For whom his Gospel was written.—If you read St. Matthew’s Gospel you will see that it is intended for Jewish readers—men who knew the Old Testament, and to whom the evidence of prophecy appealed. St. Mark’s Gospel never appeals to the Old Testament, never quotes prophecy except once—in the second verse of the Gospel—where we have one short reference.
II. The author of the Gospel.—Then comes the next question. What indication does the book give as to the writer? Remember, St. Mark was, in all probability, not a personal disciple of our Lord, not an eye-witness. Yet no one can read the Gospel carefully without seeing that, as to the greater part of it, it must be the narrative of an eye-witness. It is tolerably certain, from internal evidence, that St. Mark received his knowledge of the ministry of our Lord from St. Peter, St. James, or St. John, those nearest to our Lord. There is reason to suppose that it was not St. James and not St. John. All the best authorities favour St. Peter as the authority from whom St. Mark drew his facts.
III. Characteristics of the Gospel.
(a) It is much more a narrative of events and acts than of discourses. There are no long discourses. Notably the Sermon on the Mount is omitted. But when we come to our Lord’s acts and miracles the case is very different. St. Mark contains in his short narrative nearly all the miracles that are narrated by the other two. If you take out of St. Matthew and St. Luke what St. Mark records, you will have very few of the miracles left. Leaving aside the Gospel of St. John, St. Mark is our main authority for the miraculous events in our Lord’s life.
(b) St. Mark’s Gospel is wonderfully wealthy in detail. If you compare the feeding of the five thousand, as narrated by St. Mark, with the narrative of the other evangelists, you will find a far greater wealth of detail of external action and scene. Or, again, take the healing of the lunatic child—the details of our Lord’s look and gesture. In fact, we may sum up the whole by saying that St. Mark contains the simple direct narrative of an eyewitness who was strongly impressed by the person of Christ. In other words, there is the impress of historical truth.
Illustration
‘It is upon the Gospel of St. Mark that we depend for so large an amount of our knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, much larger than we should imagine. In studying the life of our Lord, very many have been inclined to put aside the Gospel of St. Mark, because it is shorter, and because it only tells them, as they think, what St. Matthew tells at greater length, and St. Luke in a more interesting manner. But that is a mistake. His Gospel is full of interest, full of meaning, and, to adapt the words of our text, is “profitable” for the ministry.’
ST. MARK’S CAREER AND CHARACTER
I. On his own level St. Mark was faithful.—There is no doubt of this. We learn it from the repeated testimony of that leader who at first had seemed to reject him with so much sternness. Years pass away and St. Paul is a prisoner in Rome. Twice was St. Paul a prisoner there, and each time there comes a voice from Rome in which St. Paul remembers the nephew of Barnabas, and speaks of him not merely kindly, but with words of praise and commendation. It is pleasant to think it was so, and to dwell upon the human friendships and kindnesses of those old heroes of the first Gospel warfares. If Barnabas had thrown his protection over St. Mark when St. Paul would none of him, St. Paul could not forget that St. Barnabas had done the same by him when at Jerusalem, after his own conversion, the Christians were hard to convince that he was not Saul the persecutor still (Act_9:26-27).
II. Not all who are companions of Apostolic men and Christian heroes are of Apostolic mould or Apostolic temper.—There are those who need the gentler handling of a Barnabas, who want almost a lifetime to bring them up to that standard of service at which other characters can begin. They are not to be rejected. They are to be dealt with tenderly, not pushed beyond their powers, not laden with a burden too great for them to bear. Neither with them is ultimate fidelity to be too suddenly rewarded by entrusting them with too large a measure of Christian responsibility. They take a long time to grow. Yet they may, in their own secondary line, become illustrious too, and then be advanced to higher trust at last. St. Mark became Evangelist as well as Deacon, and at last, after long discipline, became the Bishop of the mighty and the learned Church of Alexandria itself.
III. Let us notice the bearing of this history on characters like that of St. Barnabas. Under God it would seem that the ultimate career of St. Mark was due to the kindly action of Barnabas, who would not give him up. The tender, kindly, genial figure of St. Barnabas is one of the most humanly winning characters in the New Testament history. There is a human lovableness about it which to some seems almost to detract from its spirituality and apostolicity. God has work for all, and let us remember that if a man may count those whom he has helped to save from falling among the jewels of his heavenly crown, then one of the four Evangelists is most probably to be reckoned among the jewels of the crown of Barnabas.
Illustration
‘It is curious to notice that it is the same Mark still. As the first mention of St. Mark joining St. Paul and St. Barnabas for the Cyprus mission tells that “they had John to be their minister”—i.e. for Deacon—so here it is still St. Mark as Deacon that is asked for. When our version says “the ministry” it obscures the sense. It should be “is advantageous to me with a view to ministry,” i.e. Deaconship. It is the old word of Act_13:5; so that as this verse shows us St. Mark’s full and complete satisfactoriness in his capacity, signed and sealed before he died by the Apostle who once rejected his ministration, so too it marks also that after all these years it was not to any higher grade of service that St. Mark had risen. As he had been minister or Deacon to St. Paul and St. Barnabas all those years before, so when St. Paul now sends for him as being advantageous, it is but in the old capacity of minister or Deacon still.’