The Gospel of Mark seems to be a book of the Bible that a lot of pastors and Bible teachers are going through. Darrin Patrick and Matt Carter are leading their churches through it. My brother's church went through it last year. When John MacArthur completed preaching through the New Testament by finishing in Mark. Of course, Tim Keller decided to write a book from the gospel of Mark. Now R.C. Sproul has released a new commentary on the gospel of Mark from his St. Andrew's Expositional Commentary series.
Sproul starts off the commentary that Mark is "both overlooked and underappreicated." He also said that this gospel is not the first place where pastors and theologians go to for evidence to argue about the life of Jesus. He makes a good point because Mark is the shortest of the four gospels.
Each chapter is a collection of sermons that Sproul has taught through the gospel of Mark which does not make this a very thorough commentary, but Sproul remains faithful to the scriptures through out the book. When it comes to the issue of Mark 16:9-20, Sproul takes time to briefly write about the controversy on why these verses are in their, which can be a difficult subject to address when some Christians think they were originally divinely inspired.
Sproul does a wonderful job communicating the beauty of the gospel of Mark and this will make a fine addition to any Bible teachers bookshelf.
To comply with Federal Trade Commission guidelines, I will receive a free copy of the book as compensation for my review. Thanks Ligonier for allowing me to review this book.
Chris,
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly does Sproul say about Mark 16:9-20?
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
Just talked about the theories in behind why someone would add the verses to the end of Mark.
ReplyDeleteOk; that's no doubt generally what he says, but what *exactly* does he say about Mark 16:9-20, especially regarding manuscript-evidence and patristic-evidence? Can you provide a brief quote?
ReplyDeleteYours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
"the long ending of Mark was not in the original manuscript but was added to this gospel later in time by someone other than Mark...The translators believe that even though the authenticity of this section is disputed, it provides a suitable conclusion to the gospel of Mark."
ReplyDeleteDoes he go into any specifics about the manuscript-evidence or patristic evidence at all?
ReplyDeleteYours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.