Why doesn't Matthew replace Mark?

Upvote:5

On the contrary, Matthew was written earlier and the contents of Mark can all be found within Matthew, except (I am told but I cannot confirm) fifty five verses.

It would seem likely to me that Mark read Matthew and realised that there was another book embedded within it.

Matthew concentrates on the kingdom of the heavens ; Mark focuses (see the first few verses) on the Messenger of the Covenant (see Malachi).

There are no discrepancies whatsoever. Like all of scripture, people suppose 'contradictions' but once they study the issue fully, these supposed differences just disappear.

We are given four accounts and these cover four different aspects of Jesus of Nazareth and what is revealed (by prophecy, by narrative, by testimony, by sign, by miracle, by opposition and by event) as to Whom He truly is.

They are meticulously precise ; they do not conflict ; they do not disagree ; the rather they are complementary and form, together, a full disclosure of the Person who was born of the virgin Mary in Bethlehem, who went about doing good, who suffered at the hands of the Jews and Pontius Pilate and who rose from dead on the third day and is ascended into the heavens, in glorified humanity, from whence He came.


I recommend John Metcalfe's book 'Mark' which was lectured at Westminster Hall and then put into print. It is the best exposition of Mark that I have read.

More post

Search Posts

Related post