As soon as Peter understood that he was not having a vision but was actually delivered from Herod’s sword (Acts 12:11), he went to the home of Mary, the mother of John Mark (Acts 12:12)! Something we should notice, and it can be disconcerting, is that the Gospel writers, including Luke’s work in Acts, simply mention a name, often without any other detail that would help us identify the person named. Who is Mary, the mother of Mark, and why would she be so important that her home is Peter’s first choice to visit, before he flees Jerusalem? This particular Mary has Peter’s trust to tell James, the Lord’s brother, and anyone else that needed to know Peter’s whereabouts (Acts 12:13-17)?
The Gospel writers offer a of number interesting prospects for this one who is called Mary, the mother of Mark, i.e. unless she is someone no one knows up to this point in time. Yet, Luke seems to expect his Messianic readers to know who this Mary really is. Theophilus, if he is the high priest and son of Annas, would know only that she is John Mark’s mother, because, as far as we know, Luke’s is the only Gospel narrative Theophilus has in his possession.
First, we have Mary, the mother of Jesus (Luke 2:16), she didn’t have a son named Mark (Matthew 13:55), so she can be eliminated right away. Secondly, we have Mary, called Magdalene, who was one of Jesus’ financial supporters (Luke 8:2-3), but nothing is listed concerning her that would lead us to believe she is this Mary. Thirdly, we have Mary, the mother of James (Luke 24:10) who also has a son named Joseph (Mark 15:40), and she helped prepare the spices with which she and other women intended to anoint the body of Jesus; but if Mark is her son, why is she identified elsewhere as the mother of James the Less (one of the Apostles)? Certainly he would be more renown and a better identifier of the Mary than Mark would be, if Mark were the son of this Mary. Next, we have Mary, the wife of Clopas who stood with Mary Magdalene and Jesus’ mother and her sister at the foot of the cross (John 19:25). Finally we have Mary, the sister of Martha (Luke 10:38-39), but nothing is said of her in the Gospels that would lead us to believe she is the mother of Mark. Matthew tells us of one he calls the other Mary and lists her with Mary Magdalene (Matthew 27:61; 28:1), but she probably is one of the Marys listed above. Matthew seems to believe his readers would know exactly who she was.
The other Mary couldn’t be Magdalene, because that Mary is always listed with her. Comparing the Gospel accounts will show who was at the foot of the cross. Luke is the only Gospel writer who uses ambiguous terms in describing those present, saying only that women were present (Luke 23:49, 55).
| Matthew 27:55-56 | Mary Magdalene | Mary, mother of James & Joseph | Mother of the Zebedee children | |
| Mark 15:40 | Mary Magdalene | Mary, mother of James the Less & Joseph | Salome | |
| John 19:25 | Mary Magdalene | Mary wife of Clopas | Jesus’ mother’s sister | Jesus’ mother |
According to the above, Mary the mother of James and wife of Clopas could possibly be the other Mary who is mentioned in this manner only by Matthew. However, Mary the sister of Martha is not specifically mentioned in the Gospels as someone present at the foot of the cross, which is quite odd, given her importance in John’s Gospel. So, Mary, Martha’s sister may be a match for Matthew’s other Mary as well.
On the other hand, Matthew’s reference to the **other** Mary may indicate that there is only one other Mary besides Mary Magdalene (remember, Mary the mother of Jesus is not a consideration at all). If, therefore, there is only one other Mary besides Mary Magdalene, then, not only must Mary the mother of James the Less and Joseph (also the wife of Clopas) be the other Mary of Matthew (Matthew 27:61; 28:1), but Mary Magdalene must also be Mary, Martha’s sister. So, if there are only two Marys in the Gospel narratives (besides the Mother of Jesus), which of these Marys (Mary Magdalene or Mary the Mother of James) is most probably the mother of Mark?
The one Mary is mother to James the Less, but nothing is said of him in Acts. However, Joseph, her other son (Matthew 55-56; Mark 15:4) could be the same Joseph the Apostles surnamed Barnabas (cf. Acts 4:36)! This would mean that Mary, called Magdalene and sister to Martha (who lived at Bethany) was John Mark’s mother, because Joseph, called Barnabas by the Apostles, was Mark’s uncle (Colossians 4:10). This also means that the other Mary was Mary Magdalene’s mother. Both seemed to have lived in Jerusalem, and most likely, their home was used as the upper room where Jesus and the Apostles prepared the Passover. This is why Peter immediately went to their home. It was undoubtedly also used as a meeting place where believers worshiped. Peter expected to find believers there. He may have expected to find James, the Lord’s brother there, but instead gave Mary instructions for him when he hadn’t.
Why is all this important? It seems to me that the people mentioned in the Gospels must have had a place in the 1st century Church, and many of them would have been leaders and should have been mentioned in Acts or Paul’s epistles. If this is logically true, then there must be a reason for Luke’s ambiguity in referring to them. Could this be because he didn’t wish to reveal their identity to Theophilus, his addressee and member of the powerful priestly clan of Annas?
Smoodock's Blog 
13 responses to “Mary, the Mother of Mark”
Oh, and one other thought I’ve had, that’s kind of relevant to this post, and to your thoughts about Luke withholding information from his accounts to protect the Church: What do you think of the fact that Mary, the mother of the Lord, is hardly mentioned explicitly at all in the New Testament apart from the Nativity story and Jesus’s childhood in the Synoptic Gospels, and the significant place John gives her (the Wedding at Cana, her presence at the Crucifixion, etc.)? Even if you discount the Catholic emphasis on her, it’s very strange that someone whom the Church at the very least loved and provided for should barely be mentioned. The Gospel of John is possibly the only one of the Gospels written after Mary’s death; do you suppose the other New Testament writers were trying to protect her (either her privacy or her honor or her safety)?
Families are wonderful, especially close relationships, but Jesus cautioned that these close relationships would at times be our enemies as far as following him is concerned. No one is really comfortable with change, at least no one with whom I am familiar, and change creates deep concerns for the relationships. A wonderful mother could turn out to be an over meddling mother-in-law etc. (and I don’t mean to over emphasize the negativity of women, men can be just as bad in this regard). Our relationship with the Lord is no different, things crop up that offend those we love and who love us, but we mustn’t let it interfere with our walk with the Lord. I don’t understand the position the Catholic Church has concerning Communion, and I could be easily offended, because I often attend weddings and funerals in the Catholic Church. I take part in every part of the service but Communion, and it does hurt, but I understand that the position, though wrong in my opinion, must be respected. One of my cousins is a priest (in my youth I wanted to become a priest too). He is the youngest grandchild and I am the eldest. I refer to our being the alpha and omega of our family. Anyway, I asked him why I was not permitted to take Communion with those I loved. I probably don’t remember everything he said, but the reply was logical, according to that system of belief. It has something to do with the Protestant stand that Communion is not the actual Body and Blood of Jesus but is representative of that, and since the whole worship service in Catholicism looks forward to partaking of Communion and then back in thanksgiving of that event, we who don’t believe, as Catholics do, are not really in true fellowship and should not partake (cp. 1Corinthians 11:27). However, my position is that I should be the judge of whether or not I partake in a worthy manner (cp. 1Corinthians 11:28). Nevertheless, I bow to the will of the church in whose assembly I worship.
Concerning Theophilus, I wrote a post concerning his identity. If you would like to read it you can click on the ‘Book of Acts’ tab on the top of this page and you’ll find it. I was introduced to this idea through either Richard Anderson’s blog found HERE, or Lee Dahn’s blog found HERE. Both men hold the same viewpoint about him, but I don’t remember which one I read first. :-)
Concerning Mary, the mother of Jesus, I haven’t studied how important she may or may not have been in the early Church. Certainly, she was a believer and is present among the Apostles in Acts 1. She isn’t painted in a very good light in Mark 3:21, 30-32. There Jesus’ friend thought he had gone off the deep end (at least temporarily) and apparently his family agreed, but Jesus pointed to his spiritual family–the Apostles. Mary is quite an enigma and don’t quite understand what she is all about. I do know that, if we take away the position in which she is held by Catholicism, she really is not all that important in the Scriptures, beyond a person like Mary Magdalene or one of the Apostles like Andrew or the sons of Zebedee. All are mentioned and are important to a degree, but not to the degree Christ is, and this is close to how Mary is viewed in Catholicism. Was her privacy protected? Was it for her own safety that she is not heard of? …perhaps either one is true, but I don’t know nor do I have an opinion, because I haven’t looked into her position in the Scriptures. That said, the marriage feast at Cana may be a bit cryptic. Consider, for example, that John writes of the Word “in the beginning” and speaks of him as Light and the Creator. One has to think of Genesis 1 immediately. Then John talks of ‘the next day’ and ‘again the next day’ and ‘the day following’ to close out the chapter. Then he begins the 2nd chapter with ‘on the third day’ thus completing a week corresponding the the creation week. John 2 and Genesis 2 speak of a marriage. Adam was put to sleep and the Lord drew out of him what would be his wife, Eve. John uses the water changed to wine to point to Jesus’ passion, wherein he was put to sleep (death) and out of him in the resurrection was taken his bride–the Church. The words mother and woman in John 2 could be considered the Jewish race as it is in Revelation 12. There is more to be gleaned here than meets the eye. I intend to write about this later, but I need to study it much more than I have. In any event, I see Luke honoring the person of Mary much more than John. Her Magnificat is absolutely marvelous.
Lord bless you.
These are interesting thoughts — I’ll have to delve into study, too. I’ve been concentrating on the Old Testament lately — I never had the discipline for consistent and deep study before. Luke does honor Mary a great deal, now that I think about it, and he does mention that she was present in the Upper Room at Pentecost.
You’ve given a pretty good account of the reasoning behind our closed communion. I made a post about it once. It never bothered me. I attended Mass daily for over a year before I was allowed to partake. Just being there in the presence of the Eucharist, taking part in a spiritual communion if not the full, physical one, It made me treasure it, long for it — and when I finally did receive it, it was worth every bit of the wait.
Lord bless you.
I like your post on your site, Joseph, but I don’t agree with the stand made by Catholicism in closed communion, but you already know that. I was in the process of leaving a comment there but had to delete it, because I wasn’t finished, and I was already late going to church services. I make the coffee for our Sunday school every week, so I need to go extra early. Anyway, on the way to doing that I thought about my comment and that it might appear too negative for folks stopping by and reading what you have written. Knowing your desire for unity in the Body of Christ, I thought it might be better to say what I have to say here. I don’t want to appear too negative toward Catholicism. I am not–most of my family are Catholic.
You know I believe it is basically ‘my’ responsibility to judge whether or not I am partaking worthily. I would ask only one question. Do you believe that the body of a Christian is a Temple of God’s Spirit? I know you do, I was Roman Catholic myself, as I’ve already confessed. But I wonder, if my body is God’s Temple in which he dwells, how he is more present in Communion–in the bread and the wine–than he is in me–or in you. After all, it seems the implication of the closed Communion is that the Host is actual body of Christ, and the wine is the actual blood of Christ, and ‘therefore’ unbelievers cannot partake. If God already actually dwells in me, how should his ‘actually’ or ‘not really’ dwelling in the bread and wine make a difference? I do believe it is a memorial–we are told that in God’s word, so I am not making light of the event. I believe Communion points to Jesus death–what he has done to bring us near to God. He tells us to do this–partake–in memory of him! To be left out of any Christian church worship service, not just Roman Catholic, is like all others embracing one another except you, or me as the case may be. In that kind of environment, it means little what the other Christians say about you (that you are indeed on of them in Christ); it is the act of not permitting participation in the most intimate memorial of what God has done for all that speaks louder than what one says. I don’t mean for this to embarrass you or Catholicism. We are just talking man to man, and nothing more should be taken from these remarks. I am sure that something like this is what the first Jewish Christians struggled with when gentiles were first becoming believers. Can we eat at the same table or not?
Anyway, that’s how I see it. I realize that your post came straight from your own heart-wrenching experience concerning your relationship with your parents. It is reality things like this that I most appreciate in your blogging ministry. You are honest and struggle with life’s questions while still doing all in your power to walk with Christ. That should bless anyone who reads what you have to say.
Lord bless you continually.
Just one thing.. if the other Mary is mentioned as being mother of James (Jacobos) the less and Joseph (Arimathea), why is not Mary of Magdala not listed there as a sister?
I think I answered my own question on Salome, so never mind about that.