It is most important to try and understand what the evangelists are trying to tell us in their Gospels and the messages in their work.

To understand, better, the meanings of the Gospels, it helps to try and understand the circumstances giving rise to these precious writings and why they were written.


Saint Mark's Gospel is almost certainly the first of the Gospels (although there are some people who will dispute this). It almost certainly originates in the period immediately after the lifetime of Jesus, when (up to that period) there were no written accounts of any sort. All the stories and tradition about Jesus were, up to this point, preserved entirely by word of mouth, a method which would not work today because the training and skills have been lost. The tradition of preserving large amounts of information, passed on aurally, in the time of the early Christians, was very accurate indeed.

Saint Mark's Gospel is the shortest of all the four Gospels, but is very tightly packed with enormous quantities of information, in a way which is very economic with words. This gives it an interesting structure which is composed of very defined short stories, "Sound-Bites" if you like. Each of the stories is brief and to the point, lacking much of the detail which was added by Matthew and Luke using additional aural information from other sauces. We are only told what the writer considers essential. There is no mention of the birth of Christ or, indeed, any of His life, until just before his ministry. If all the events in Saint Mark's Gospel happened one after the other, they would only have taken a few weeks which seems to suggest that large quantities of detail, considered unnecessary by the writer, has not been included.

This seems to be a Gospel with certain specific purposes:

Firstly, to help us understand the circumstances under which the Gospel was written, we should try to understand who Mark was. This also helps, to a much lesser degree, understand what the writer is trying to communicate, and why. The more you understand the situation and motivation of the writer, the more you understand their work.

There are various ideas as to who Mark was, the most popular being that he was the young man who ran away, naked, in the Garden of Gethsemanie (Ch:14 v:5). The reasoning behind this is fairly shaky. The idea is that the event, in itself, not mentioned anywhere else (in any form) was fairly unimportant to other people, including Luke and Matthew, who, understanding it or not, chose to ignore it. The event, however, must have been important to Mark, ashamed of running away, like the others mentioned in the previous verse, at a time when the going was getting very tough. The fact that this fairly inconsequential event was recorded in a Gospel that is so lacking in inconsequentialities and is not mentioned in any of the other Gospels does tend to support the idea that he was possibly writing about himself. If Mark was not that young man, he may have known him (for the event to be important enough to be included). Anyway, it is almost certain that Mark was one of Jesus' followers, not one of the apostles, but possibly a friend or even a young relation of a member of the group that followed Jesus toward the end of his ministry on Earth - a disciple in the wider sense of the word.

His information for the Gospel seems to come from someone who, if not at the events written about, received it from someone who was. Many theologians believe that Mark may have been strongly influenced by Peter the Apostle, who may have been the sauce of most of his information.

Knowing who Mark probably was, gives a foothold in the steps to understanding the Gospel itself.

The next steps are to understand why he wrote his Gospel, and what were his circumstances.

Mark probably preached and taught in Rome and his Gospel was written sometime in the latter half of the first century A.D. (possibly about 70A.D. but ideas are very divided on this). Because it was written so soon after the death of Christ, much would not have been recorded as it would have been deemed to be known. It is possible, and, indeed the style of writing suggests, that Mark's Gospel was written in note form, maybe for personal use when preaching and then drawn up in a more readable form as the writer got older (probably after Peter's death) for easier use by other preachers. It is possible that the origin of Mark's Gospel is as a set of guides and notes for preaching or even teaching potential preachers.

Early Christians, believing they were living in a short period of time between the death of Jesus and the end of the world, were working with a sense of urgency so it would have been regarded as of the utmost importance to spread "The Gospel" as quickly as possible.

When writing his Gospel, Mark was not primarily concerned with proving that Jesus was the Messiah because among the people he was writing for, this was taken for granted, although reference is made to Jesus' Messiahship, most famously in Ch:8 vv:27-30 . The concept of the Messiah was, however, one of a victorious figure, which to outsiders does not match up with the fact that Jesus' ministry on Earth ended with complete disgrace and death as a criminal.

Mark seems to deal with this two ways.

Firstly in a historical way; he shows (especially in Chapters: 2 and 12) the true nature of the relationship between Jesus and the Jewish authorities (who are ultimately responsible for Jesus' death) showing Jesus as innocent of any charge except later of claiming to be the Messiah.

Secondly in a theological way; he shows that it can often be God's way to bring glorious results from poor and un-promising beginnings (see Chapter 4). Mark proves that, as prophesied in the Old Testament and by Jesus himself (Ch:8 v:31), Jesus' suffering was part of God's plan and only the preparation for his present glory and almost instant return to power.

This also shows in Marks inclusion in many of the parables as well as in the teaching in Chapter 13 that Jesus' suffering was the realisation of Old Testament prophesies.

Obviously, to spread the Good News of the life and teachings of Christ, at that time in history, was a very dangerous thing to be doing. There was much persecution of Christians and Mark's Gospel was written with that in mind. Various communities each had their own concerns and problems. Mark was writing and preaching in a community which almost certainly suffered much persecution. Some members of the community would need reassurance and help in their troubles and one of Mark's aims would be to help in his writing and preaching. This was done by emphasizing three things:
1, That Jesus himself had suffered exactly as his followers were now being called upon to do.
2, That Jesus had clearly warned his disciples that following him would involve sharing in his suffering.
3, That he had promised great and sure rewards to those who endured such suffering without loss of faith. (e.g. 8,34-38 and 10,28-30).
With persecution and perhaps some cases of death, for the sake of Christianity, in the community he was writing for, Mark had to show the suffering of Christ and how Christians must suffer also. It was Mark's aim to show that nothing was outside the providence of God and the predictions of Jesus. He "had to suffer" as they would suffer. Mark's Gospel has been described as "the martyr Gospel", meaning the Gospel written for the strengthening and encouraging of Christians facing martyrdom. There are places where our writer suggests that forgiveness is promoted by suffering (Ch:10 v:45 and Ch14 v:24). Mark must definitely be writing for a community in difficulty and is trying to encourage people to walk the way of the cross.
One of the most memorable characteristics of Mark's Gospel, is the end. You remember it as one would the taste after a meal, but the taste we seem to be left with is a little sour.
There is an uneasy end to Mark's Gospel, almost - dare I say it - depressing. As an ending to a Gospel Chapter 16, and particularly the last verse, seem somewhat inappropriate. A Gospel was to proclaim the "Good News" of what God had accomplished in Christ Chapter 1 verses one and two refer to "the Good News of Jesus Christ, the Son of God as it is written in the prophet Isaiah". In fact the last two chapters of Mark's Gospel are very sombre and although the fact of the resurrection is made clear, it is done so in a very brief, almost mumbled, way which does not leave the reader with a final impression of joyous victory and disaster turned into victory. That it should end with verse eight "SO THEY WENT OUT AND FLED FROM THE TOMB, FOR TERROR AND AMAZEMENT HAD SEIZED THEM; AND THEY SAID NOTHING TO THEM, FOR THEY WERE AFRAID."
Being written at a time of great persecution, as mentioned earlier, some think that the suddenness of the end of Mark's Gospel suggests he was stopped from writing further. Here is where the debate about the ending of the Gospel gets into a knot. It is possible that the writer intended to write more, but was prevented from doing so because he had been arrested. Other ideas are that he may have been very old by this time and illness caught up with him or even that more was written, but as the old joke goes "The last page is missing". The final words of verse eight, which are awkward enough in English, are even more difficult in Greek. The sentence ends with an extremely week word (the enclitic gar) which is not normally used as the last word of a sentence, let alone a book. Recent investigations have suggested, however, that in such Greek as Mark's, the word was sometimes used at the end of a sentence, or even paragraph, but at no other time does it appear as the last word of a whole book. It does seem a little odd that if stopped, for any reason, from writing more, Mark managed to finish at such a place in his Gospel.
So the answer to "Why does Mark's Gospel seem to end so abruptly?" is that no satisfactory solution to this question can be found, but as the stories of the "Risen Christ" were so well known, I don't think Mark even intended to write about them, concentrating on the life and teachings of Christ in relationship with their lives and suffering.
Mark's Gospel is not the Gospel for converting people to Christianity, that's for John. Mark's Gospel is not the Gospel for telling of the life of Jesus, that's for Luke and Matthew.
Mark's Gospel is for Christians, yesterday and today, living in a world of persecution and problems - A GOSPEL FOR YESTERDAY AND TODAY.