While studying Acts 12:6-19, I had an idea that piqued my interest. Quite simply, I asked whether the Apostle Peter was the father of the gospel writer John Mark? I asked my x professor at the time whether this idea had been proposed before, and whether it might be worth pursuing but was rebuffed with “… it is difficult to make an argument from silence.” I agreed with this statement, so I dropped the idea. Well…
Fast forward several years, and I still hadn’t shaken this idea. I was studying Peter’s first epistle, and as I came to his benediction, imagine my surprise to see the aging Apostle reference Mark; and identify him as his son.
The church in Babylon, also chosen, sends you greetings, as does Mark, my son.–1 Peter 5.13
Now this changes things; it inverts the question. Rather than me trying to establish a family relationship using circumstantial evidence, the question became “why don’t we believe Peter is being literal?” I think that my first desire is be to interpret scripture literally unless we’re given reason to apply a different interpretative lens. So armed with this new evidence, I set out to see why this literal interpretation is not already the dominant view.
My research into the traditional interpretation of this passage revealed to me that Peters’ use of ‘my son’ has been understood as a “disciple or follower.” This was something commonly done in the rabbinic tradition. While that may be true, I would think it would be the type of language used by a formally trained rabbi; say Saul of Tarsus, who studied under Gamaliel, of the famous School of Hillel; but probably not a term used by a former fisherman from the shores of Galilee.
The conclusion of 1 Peter refers to “my son Mark” (1 Pet 5:13). In line with rabbinic tradition, this may simply imply that Mark was Peter’s disciple, not his actual son (b. Sanhedrin 19b; see also Clement, Stromata 1.12–13). Although there is no clear evidence of a link, it at least seems likely that the John Mark of Acts was acquainted with Peter (Acts 12:12–17).[1]
We know they must have been acquainted, but I think they must have been much closer than that. The inclusion of the Gospel of Mark in the Biblical Canon hinges upon John Mark getting his apostolic authority from Peter. Which is to say – we agree that Peter shared his knowledge, experiences, and stories with John Mark, who wrote the Gospel based on Peter’s recounting. Much more than acquaintances.
Moreover, Mark is mentioned throughout the New Testament, although perhaps not without blemish, as seen in Colossians 4.10, he was present with Paul and within the community. We can conclude that Mark was a significant part of the first-century church as would make sense for the son of an Apostle but is completely incongruent with one who neither heard nor followed Jesus.
10 Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, greets you, as does Mark, Barnabas’s cousin (concerning whom you have received instructions: if he comes to you, welcome him),[2]Colossians 4.10
Mark’s authorship of the Gospel is solid, going back to Papias, who specifically attributes Peter as the source of Mark’s writing. Again, bolstering the argument that they were more than acquaintances.
The earliest assertion of Mark’s authorship comes from Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, at the start of the second century (ca. ad 110–150). Although Papias’ five-volume Interpretation of the Lord’s Sayings is lost, a description of its content is preserved by Eusebius, the fourth-century historian and bishop of Caesarea (ca. ad 260–340). According to Eusebius, Papias identified Mark as the author of a body of literature containing the words and deeds of Jesus (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.15). In addition, Papias reported that Mark received his information from Peter’s teaching—a detail that makes John Mark’s authorship plausible, in light of Acts 12:12–17.[3]
After a fair amount of research, I’ve struggled to find a definitive justification for not reading Peter’s words as literal.
We do have a test we can apply to the two interpretations to see whether a winner emerges. I’d like to see whether establishing a familial relationship between Peter and John Mark (a) harmonizes with scripture; whether it (b) neither adds nor subtracts anything from scripture, ie; an argument from silence; or whether it (c) creates conflict in scripture, which would make it demonstrably untrue; and would then necessitate a spiritual interpretation of Peters benediction.
Let’s see what injecting this relationship does first by picking up the action in Acts 12
6 On the night before Herod was to bring him out for execution, Peter, bound with two chains, was sleeping between two soldiers, while the sentries in front of the door guarded the prison. 7 Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared, and a light shone in the cell. Striking Peter on the side, he woke him up and said, “Quick, get up!” Then the chains fell off his wrists. 8 “Get dressed,” the angel told him, “and put on your sandals.” And he did so. “Wrap your cloak around you,” he told him, “and follow me.” So he went out and followed, and he did not know that what took place through the angel was real, but thought he was seeing a vision. 10 After they passed the first and second guard posts, they came to the iron gate that leads into the city, which opened to them by itself. They went outside and passed one street, and immediately the angel left him.[4]
Peter, stuck in jail, finds himself escorted out of the gates of the prison by an angel. The angel leaves him a block outside the prison, and what does Peter immediately do? He goes to the house of Mary, mother of John Mark (the gospel writer). This would now become Peters house. If John Mark is the son of Mary, Mary is Peter’s wife. Would we have any other reason to believe that this would have been Peter’s house? Well, Acts places him in the same house during Pentecost…
Howard Marshall in his study of Acts recognizes that there is a school of thought that places the upper room in this same house. I wonder whether this is where the disciples gathered at Pentecost?[5]
It may mean nothing, or it could be that Peter is named first in this list of Apostles and close followers of Jesus because it was his house. Then it makes sense to either name him first, or last. But either way – every time this house is mentioned in scripture, so is Peter.
12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called the Mount of Olives, which is near Jerusalem—a Sabbath day’s journey away. 13 When they arrived, they went to the room upstairs where they were staying: Peter, John, James, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James.[6]
If this is Peter’s house, this all makes sense, but if not, we’re left to wonder why none of the close followers of Jesus had a place to meet and instead, had to use Mary’s house? But it is a familiar enough place that it is called Peters “home” in Luke 24.
12 Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. When he stooped to look in, he saw only the linen cloths. So he went home, amazed at what had happened. [7]
If you’ll concede this is likely a first-century Apostle writing for a first-century audience (as I don’t believe they expected a two-millennium pause between the first and second comings of our Lord), I think saying he went to the “house of Mary” was a literary device – giving credit to Mary, as it was her household, everybody already might have already known that Mary was Peters wife. I’m envisioning a sort of fourth wall of writing, to let the reader feel like they’re in on a secret. Dr. Carol Meyers describes that Hebrew women during this time were known to run the household, so this may lend some small measure of support for this fourth wall idea. Additionally, the original writings would have been read to the church gathering by an elder who could read, so this personal casual style of writing would have probably played nicely in a first-century ecclesia.
…the senior woman in the typical extended-family household functioned as a household manager. In today’s terms, she was the household’s “COO” (chief operating officer).[8]
Dr. Carol Meyers
Finally on this branch, would it have been socially acceptable in first-century Judah, for a group of men, say a group of Apostles and their Messiah, to come and stay at a widow’s house? Unless she is running a bed and breakfast, which is possible. While women were a significant part of the New Testament church, that church was just beginning in Acts. The Upper Room is thought to be where the disciples were staying when Pentecost occurs – this means we got a dozen or more men, gathered at this same house.
12 When he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, where many had assembled and were praying. 13 He knocked at the door in the gateway, and a servant named Rhoda came to answer. 14 She recognized Peter’s voice, and because of her joy, she did not open the gate but ran in and announced that Peter was standing at the gateway. 15 “You’re crazy!” they told her. But she kept insisting that it was true. Then they said, “It’s his angel!” 16 Peter, however, kept on knocking, and when they opened the door and saw him, they were astounded. 17 Motioning to them with his hand to be silent, he explained to them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. “Report these things to James and the brothers,” he said. Then he departed and went to a different place. Acts 12:12-17[8]
First, in the dominant view, where Peter is not related to John Mark or Mary, we find a couple logic holes that we must fill in during the standard reading of this passage. The first of which is this: we are not told how a prisoner in a Roman prison came to know where “the church” has gathered praying. I wouldn’t imagine Peter was getting many visits from family. He was chained between two guards. We must assume that he just knows this is where the church will be gathered, presumably by the Holy Spirit, which is plausible. But it is more likely he just went home.
The second logical hole regards Rhoda, this is where I first put together this relationship. She made me curious as to why would the servant girl recognize Peter’s voice. Servants would probably not have even been acquaintances of the guests of the house, so how she would “recognize his voice?” An unsolved mystery. Unless she works for him, then she would likely know his voice in the dark. Behind a gate. And why would she have been joyful? Again, she was a servant of the household, it doesn’t seem likely that she was grieving his jailing along with Mary and the many who had gathered. Did she have a special relationship with the family? In his first epistle, Peter gives specific instruction on how to behave as a servant, whether receiving kind or cruel treatment, so we’re not really left with the impression that servants are considered part of the family, and notably, no corresponding note by Peter to the master of the house to be gentle, or even ‘just’ with the servant. This scripture doesn’t give us any reason to believe that Rhoda might have had a special relationship with Mary, or with the guests of Mary.
Household slaves, submit with all fear to your masters, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.[8]
Now armed with our new paradigm, of a family, let’s see how all these puzzle pieces might fit together.
First, I am a husband of 21 years. Here is something I know. If I find myself jailed, (and I can assure you, it doesn’t really matter why), should an angel break me out of prison unexpectedly the day before I’m supposed to be executed; my first stop is to see my wife. I’d change my clothes, kiss my wife and children, and take off. Time to blow town until things cool off.
Well, what does scripture tell us that Peter does? He goes to the house of Mary, tells everybody he’s okay, and leaves town. We’re not told that he grabs clothes, but I am unconvinced that Roman prisoners would be appropriately attired for the road. Peter went home.
Finally, there is another problem that needs dealt with; tradition tell us John Mark neither heard nor followed Jesus. I think this tradition is a big part of why we interpret 1 Peter spiritually, so lets look at it. Papias of Hierapolis argues against a close relationship between Jesus and the family, however, since he notes specifically that Mark “had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed him”[9] However, tradition and most major scholars do agree that John Mark is referencing himself in Mark 14:51-52.
51 Now a certain young man, having a linen cloth wrapped around his naked body, was following Him. They caught hold of him, 52 but he left the linen cloth behind and ran away naked.[10]
My response to the argument of Papias is Mark’s age. He may have been less than 12 on that fateful evening in the garden, not yet a man. And while he was present, he was there with his parent, or parents. Not with Jesus. I think he was just too young to follow Jesus himself. If you remember the story of Jesus telling the disciples not to withhold the children, we’re left with two pieces of information, there were kids there, and Jesus followers treated them like, well… children.
Some people were bringing little children to Him so He might touch them, but His disciples rebuked them. 14 When Jesus saw it, He was indignant and said to them, “Let the little children come to Me. Don’t stop them, for the kingdom of God f belongs to such as these.[11]
While tradition tells us that John Mark was around Jesus the man. I find it curious that some young man would be in the garden of Gethsemane on the night of Jesus betrayal without a pretty good reason, but scripture does place him at the event.
This is a rather significant and intimate evening for a ‘certain young man’ to just be hanging around in the garden with the Apostles and Jesus Christ, isn’t it? We aren’t told what time it is, but the Apostles were unable to stay awake, so we’re left to believe it is late at night. I find it curious that a young man, who neither heard nor followed Jesus Christ would have been in the Garden during this, one of the most significant events in the Bible. But here’s one of my favorite memories of being a kid; getting to go places with Dad and hang out; we’d routinely stay out well past when an eleven year should be in bed. Is it possible that the young Mark was present that night because he was getting on his mothers’ nerves? Or maybe Peter was just giving Mary a break from a young boy who might have been a handful to deal with, I know my dad would do that for my mom.
Once we begin to look at Peter literally, these New Testament stories begin to come to life. Our contextual understanding goes up, not down, and more questions are answered than raised with this interpretation. I contend that Peter had a wife named Mary and a son called John Mark.
So why does this matter, you may be asking yourself? How does this help the cause of Christ? In this humble servants opinion, this just adds weight to the truth of the gospel. These aren’t made up stories that we choose to believe, but rather, they’re windows into events that real people observed. These people were not unlike you and I, living a daily life. I contend that we know Peter was a fisherman, the Bible doesn’t say he was a poor fisherman. He might have owned all the boats, who knows? That is kind of the point, with this newfound information, I think Biblical scholars may be able learn more about the historical Jesus Christ – the one who came, lived among us, died, rose again, and is seated on the right hand of the Father. That is the goal. Here’s why I think Pastors might care. If I’m right – this is a relationship that has remained hidden for nearly two millennia, and yet, with this family revealed, all these different puzzle pieces fit together nicely. And there may be some out there who are intrigued by this idea, investigate, and come to know Jesus as Savior. Wouldn’t that be cool? Essentially, I see this as another modern discovery that adds to the truth and historicity of the Bible.
[1] David Seal, “John Mark,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).
[2] The Holy Bible: Holman Christian Standard Version. (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2009), Col 4:10.
[3] David Seal, “John Mark,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).
[4] The Holy Bible: Holman Christian Standard Version. (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2009), Ac 12:6–10.
[5] I. Howard Marshall, Acts: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 5, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980), 222.
[6] I. The Holy Bible: Holman Christian Standard Version. (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2009), Acts 1:12–13
[7] The Holy Bible: Holman Christian Standard Version. (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2009), Lk 24:12.
[8] The Holy Bible: Holman Christian Standard Version. (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2009), 1 Pe 2:18.
[9] Clayton N. Jefford, “Mark, John (Person),” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary(New York: Doubleday, 1992), 557.
[10] The Holy Bible: Holman Christian Standard Version. (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2009), Mk 14:51–52.
[11] The Holy Bible: Holman Christian Standard Version. (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2009), Mk 10:13–14.
Dr. Carol Meyers: https://hebraicthought.org/were-ancient-israelite-women-subservient/