Text -- Mark 10:1-24 (NET)

Divorce

10:1 Then Jesus left that place and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan River. Again crowds gathered to him, and again, as was his custom, he taught them. 10:2 Then some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 10:3 He answered answered them, “What did Moses command you?” 10:4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.” 10:5 But Jesus said to them, “He wrote this commandment for you because of your hard hearts. 10:6 But from the beginning of creation he made them male and female. 10:7 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother, 10:8 and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 10:9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 10:10 In the house once again, the disciples asked him about this. 10:11 So he told them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. 10:12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Jesus and Little Children

10:13 Now people were bringing little children to him for him to touch, but the disciples scolded those who brought them. 10:14 But when Jesus saw this, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the little children come to me and do not try to stop them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 10:15 I tell you the truth, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will never enter it.” 10:16 After he took the children in his arms, he placed his hands on them and blessed them.

The Rich Man

10:17 Now as Jesus was starting out on his way, someone ran up to him, fell on his knees, and said, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 10:18 Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. 10:19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.’” 10:20 The man said to him, “Teacher, I have wholeheartedly obeyed all these laws since my youth.” 10:21 As Jesus looked at him, he felt love for him and said, “You lack one thing. Go, sell whatever you have and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 10:22 But at this statement, the man looked sad and went away sorrowful, for he was very rich. 10:23 Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” 10:24 The disciples were astonished at these words. But again Jesus said to them, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Mar 10:1

Into the border of Judea and beyond Jordan ( eis ta horia tēs Ioudaias kai peran tou Iordanou ).

See note on Mat 19:1 for discussion of this curious expression. Matthew adds "from Galilee"and Luk 17:11 says that Jesus "was passing through the midst of Samaria and Galilee"after leaving Ephraim (Joh 11:54). A great deal has intervened between the events at the close of Mark 9 and those in the beginning of Mark 10. For these events See Matthew 18; John 7-11; Luke 9:57-18:14 (one-third of Luke’ s Gospel comes in here). It was a little over six months to the end at the close of Mark 9. It is just a few weeks now in Mark 10. Jesus has begun his last journey to Jerusalem going north through Samaria, Galilee, across the Jordan into Perea, and back into Judea near Jericho to go up with the passover pilgrims from Galilee.

Robertson: Mar 10:1

Multitudes ( ochloi ).

Caravans and caravans journeying to Jerusalem. Many of them are followers of Jesus from Galilee or at least kindly disposed towards him. They go together (sunporeuontai ) with Jesus. Note dramatic historical present.

Robertson: Mar 10:1

As he was wont ( hōs eiōthei ).

Second past perfect used like an imperfect from eiōtha , second perfect active. Jesus was teaching (edidasken , imperfect, no longer present tense) this moving caravan.

Robertson: Mar 10:2

Tempting him ( peirazontes ).

As soon as Jesus appears in Galilee the Pharisees attack him again (cf. Mar 7:5; Mar 8:11). Gould thinks that this is a test, not a temptation. The word means either (see Mat 4:1), but their motive was evil. They had once involved the Baptist with Herod Antipas and Herodias on this subject. They may have some such hopes about Jesus, or their purpose may have been to see if Jesus will be stricter than Moses taught. They knew that he had already spoken in Galilee on the subject (Mat 5:31.).

Robertson: Mar 10:3

What did Moses command you? ( Timothyhumin eneteilato Mōusēs̱ ).

Jesus at once brought up the issue concerning the teaching of Moses (Deu 24:1). But Jesus goes back beyond this concession here allowed by Moses to the ideal state commanded in Gen 1:27.

Robertson: Mar 10:4

To write a bill of divorcement and to put her away ( biblion apostasiou grapsai kai apolusai ).

The word for "bill"(biblion ) is a diminutive and means "little book,"like the Latin libellus , from which comes our word libel (Vincent). Wycliff has it here "a libel of forsaking."This same point the Pharisees raise in Mat 19:7, showing probably that they held to the liberal view of Hillel, easy divorce for almost any cause. That was the popular view as now. See note on Mat 19:8 for this and for discussion of "for your hardness of heart"(sklērokardia ). Jesus expounds the purpose of marriage (Gen 2:24) and takes the stricter view of divorce, that of the school of Shammai. See notes on Mat 19:3-11 for discussion. Mar 10:10 notes that the disciples asked Jesus about this problem "in the house"after they had gone away from the crowd.

Robertson: Mar 10:11

@@Mark does not give the exception stated in Mat 19:9 "except for fornication"which see for discussion, though the point is really involved in what Mark does record. Mere formal divorce does not annul actual marriage consummated by the physical union. Breaking that bond does annul it.

Robertson: Mar 10:12

If she herself shall put away her husband and marry another ( ean autē apolusasa ton andra autēs gamēsēi ).

Condition of the third class (undetermined, but with prospect of determination). Greek and Roman law allowed the divorce of the husband by the wife though not provided for in Jewish law. But the thing was sometimes done as in the case of Herodias and her husband before she married Herod Antipas. So also Salome, Herod’ s sister, divorced her husband. Both Bruce and Gould think that Mark added this item to the words of Jesus for the benefit of the Gentile environment of this Roman Gospel. But surely Jesus knew that the thing was done in the Roman world and hence prohibited marrying such a "grass widow."

Robertson: Mar 10:13

They brought ( prosepheron ).

Imperfect active tense, implying repetition. So also Luk 18:15, though Mat 19:13 has the constative aorist passive (prosēnechthēsan ). "This incident follows with singular fitness after the Lord’ s assertion of the sanctity of married life"(Swete). These children (paidia , Mark and Matthew; brephē in Luke) were of various ages. They were brought to Jesus for his blessing and prayers (Matthew). The mothers had reverence for Jesus and wanted him to touch (hapsētai ) them. There was, of course, no question of baptism or salvation involved, but a most natural thing to do.

Robertson: Mar 10:14

He was moved with indignation ( ēganaktēsen ).

In Mark alone. The word is ingressive aorist, became indignant, and is a strong word of deep emotion (from agan and achthomai , to feel pain). Already in Mat 21:15; Mat 26:8. Old and common word.

Robertson: Mar 10:14

Suffer the little children to come unto me ( aphete ta paidia erchesthai pros me ).

Mark has the infinitive erchesthai (come) not in Matthew, but in Luke. Surely it ought to be a joy to parents to bring their children to Jesus, certainly to allow them to come, but to hinder their coming is a crime. There are parents who will have to give answer to God for keeping their children away from Jesus.

Robertson: Mar 10:15

As a little child ( hōs paidion ).

How does a little child receive the kingdom of God? The little child learns to obey its parents simply and uncomplainingly. There are some new psychologists who argue against teaching obedience to children. The results have not been inspiring. Jesus here presents the little child with trusting and simple and loving obedience as the model for adults in coming into the kingdom. Jesus does not here say that children are in the kingdom of God because they are children.

Robertson: Mar 10:16

He took them in his arms ( enagkalisamenos ).

A distinct rebuke to the protest of the over-particular disciples. This word already in Mar 9:36. In Luk 2:28 we have the full idiom, to receive into the arms (eis tās agkalas dechesthai ). So with tender fondling Jesus repeatedly blessed (kateulogei , imperfect), laying his hands upon each of them (titheis , present participle). It was a great moment for each mother and child.

Robertson: Mar 10:17

Ran ( prosdramōn ).

Jesus had left the house (Mar 10:10) and was proceeding with the caravan on the way (eis hodon ) when this ruler eagerly ran and kneeled (gonupetēsas ) and was asking (epērōtā , imperfect) Jesus about his problem. Both these details alone in Mark.

Robertson: Mar 10:18

Why callest thou me good? ( Timothyme legeis agathoṉ ).

So Luk 18:19. Mat 19:17 has it: "Why asketh thou concerning that which is good? "The young ruler was probably sincere and not using mere fulsome compliment, but Jesus challenges him to define his attitude towards him as was proper. Did he mean "good"(agathos ) in the absolute sense as applied to God? The language is not a disclaiming of deity on the part of Jesus.

Robertson: Mar 10:18

That I may inherit ( hina klēronomēsō ).

Mat 19:16 has (schō ), that I may "get."

Robertson: Mar 10:20

All these ( tauta panta ).

Literally, these all (of them).

Robertson: Mar 10:21

Looking upon him loved him ( emblepsas autōi ēgapēsen ).

Mark alone mentions this glance of affection, ingressive aorist participle and verb. Jesus fell in love with this charming youth.

Robertson: Mar 10:21

One thing thou lackest ( Hen se husterei ).

Luk 18:22 has it: "One thing thou lackest yet"(Eti hen soi leipei ). Possibly two translations of the same Aramaic phrase. Mat 19:20 represents the youth as asking "What lack I yet?"(Timothyeti husterō̱ ). The answer of Jesus meets that inquiry after more than mere outward obedience to laws and regulations. The verb husterō is from the adjective husteros (behind) and means to be too late, to come short, to fail of, to lack. It is used either with the accusative, as here, or with the ablative as in 2Co 11:5, or the dative as in Textus Receptus here, soi .

Robertson: Mar 10:22

But his countenance fell ( ho de stugnasas ).

In the lxx and Polybius once and in Mat 16:3 (passage bracketed by Westcott and Hort). The verb is from stugnos , sombre, gloomy, like a lowering cloud. See note on Mat 19:22 for discussion of "sorrowful"(lupoumenos ).

Robertson: Mar 10:23

Looked round about ( periblepsamenos ).

Another picture of the looks of Jesus and in Mark alone as in Mar 3:5, Mar 3:34. "To see what impression the incident had made on the Twelve"(Bruce). "When the man was gone the Lord’ s eye swept round the circle of the Twelve, as he drew for them the lesson of the incident"(Swete).

Robertson: Mar 10:23

How hardly ( Pōs duskolōs ).

So Luk 18:24. Mat 19:23 has it: "With difficulty (duskolōs ) shall a rich man."See note on Matthew for this word.

Robertson: Mar 10:24

Were amazed ( ethambounto ).

Imperfect passive. A look of blank astonishment was on their faces at this statement of Jesus. They in common with other Jews regarded wealth as a token of God’ s special favour.

Robertson: Mar 10:24

Children ( tekna ).

Here alone to the Twelve and this tender note is due to their growing perplexity.

Robertson: Mar 10:24

For them that trust in riches ( tous pepoithotas epi tois chrēmasin ).

These words do not occur in Aleph B Delta Memphitic and one Old Latin manuscript. Westcott and Hort omit them from their text as an evident addition to explain the difficult words of Jesus.

Vincent: Mar 10:2

Tempting

See on Mat 6:13.

Vincent: Mar 10:4

Bill ( βιβλίον )

See on Mat 19:7. Diminutive. Lit., a little book; Lat., libellus , from which comes our word libel, a written accusation. Accordingly Wyc. has a libel of forsaking, and Tynd. a testimonial of her divorcement.

Vincent: Mar 10:7

Shall cleave

See on Mat 19:5. Tynd., bide by .

Vincent: Mar 10:8

Shall be one flesh ( ἔσονται εἰς σάρκα μίαν )

Lit., " shall be unto one flesh." The preposition expresses more graphically than the A. V. the becoming of one from two. So Rev., shall become .

Vincent: Mar 10:9

What

Regarding the two as one.

Vincent: Mar 10:13

They brought ( προσέφερον )

Imperfect tense; they were bringing , as he went on his way. Similarly, were rebuking , as they were successively brought.

Vincent: Mar 10:16

Took them in his arms

See on Mar 9:36.

Vincent: Mar 10:16

Put his hands upon them and blessed them

The best texts read κατευλόγει τιθεὶς τὰς χεῖρας ἐπ ' αὐτά , blessed them, laying his hands upon them; including the laying on of hands in the blessing. The compound rendered blessed occurs only here in the New Testament. It is stronger than the simple form, and expresses the earnestness of Christ's interest. Alford renders fervently blessed.

Vincent: Mar 10:17

Running and kneeled

Two details peculiar to Mark.

Vincent: Mar 10:18

Why callest thou, etc

Compare Mat 19:17. The renderings of the A. V. and Rev. here are correct. There is no change of reading as in Matthew, where the text was altered to conform it to Mark and Luke.

Vincent: Mar 10:22

He was sad ( στυγνάσας )

Applied to the sky in Mat 16:3; lowering . The word paints forcibly the gloom which clouded his face.

Wesley: Mar 10:1

From Galilee. Mat 19:1.

Wesley: Mar 10:2

Mat 5:31; Mat 19:7; Luk 16:18.

Wesley: Mar 10:4

Deu 24:1.

Wesley: Mar 10:6

Therefore Moses in the first of Genesis gives us an account of things from the beginning of the creation. Does it not clearly follow, that there was no creation previous to that which Moses describes? God made them male and female - Therefore Adam did not at first contain both sexes in himself: but God made Adam, when first created, male only; and Eve female only. And this man and woman he joined together, in a state of innocence, as husband and wife.

Wesley: Mar 10:7

Gen 2:24.

Wesley: Mar 10:11-12

All polygamy is here totally condemned.

Wesley: Mar 10:13

Mat 19:13.

Wesley: Mar 10:14

At their blaming those who were not blame worthy: and endeavouring to hinder the children from receiving a blessing.

Wesley: Mar 10:14

The members of the kingdom which I am come to set up in the world are such as these, as well as grown persons, of a child - like temper.

Wesley: Mar 10:15

As totally disclaiming all worthiness and fitness, as if he were but a week old.

Wesley: Mar 10:17

Mat 19:16; Luk 18:18.

Wesley: Mar 10:20

He stands reproved now, and drops the epithet good.

Wesley: Mar 10:21

And looking into his heart, loved him - Doubtless for the dawnings of good which he saw in him: and said to him - Out of tender love, One thing thou lackest - The love of God, without which all religion is a dead carcass. In order to this, throw away what is to thee the grand hinderance of it. Give up thy great idol, riches. Go, sell whatsoever thou hast.

Wesley: Mar 10:24

See how he softens the harsh truth, by the manner of delivering it! And yet without retracting or abating one tittle: How hard is it for them that trust in riches - Either for defence, or happiness, or deliverance from the thousand dangers that life is continually exposed to. That these cannot enter into God's glorious kingdom, is clear and undeniable: but it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a man to have riches, and not trust in them. Therefore, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom.

Clarke: Mar 10:1

He arose - Κακειθεν αναϚας may be translated, he departed thence. The verb ανιϚημι has this sense in some of the purest Greek writers. See Kypke. Many transactions took place between those mentioned in the preceding chapter, and these that follow, which are omitted by Matthew and Mark; but they are related both by Luke and John. See Lightfoot, and Bishop Newcome.

Clarke: Mar 10:2

Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? - See this question about divorce largely explained on Mat 19:3-12 (note).

Clarke: Mar 10:12

And if a woman shall put away her husband - From this it appears that in some cases, the wife assumed the very same right of divorcing her husband that the husband had of divorcing his wife; and yet this is not recorded any where in the Jewish laws, as far as I can find, that the women had such a right. Indeed, were the law which gives the permission all on one side, it would be unjust and oppressive; but where it is equally balanced, the right being the same on each side, it must serve as a mutual check, and prevent those evils it is intended to cure. Among the Jews there are several instances of the women having taken other men, even during the life of their own husbands. Nor do we find any law by which they were punished. Divorce never should be permitted but on this ground - "The parties are miserable together, and they are both perfectly willing to be separated."Then, if every thing else be proper, let them go different ways, that they may not ruin both themselves and their hapless offspring.

Clarke: Mar 10:13

And they brought young children - See on Mat 19:13-15 (note).

Clarke: Mar 10:16

And he took them up in his arms - One of the Itala reads in sinu suo - "in his bosom."Jesus Christ loves little children; and they are objects of his most peculiar care. Who can account for their continual preservation and support, while exposed to so many dangers, but on the ground of a peculiar and extraordinary providence

Clarke: Mar 10:16

And blessed them - Then, though little children, they were capable of receiving Christ’ s blessing. If Christ embraced them, why should not his Church embrace them? Why not dedicate them to God by baptism? - whether that be performed by sprinkling, washing, or immersion; for we need not dispute about the mode: on this point let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind. I confess it appears to me grossly heathenish and barbarous, to see parents who profess to believe in that Christ who loves children, and among them those whose creed does not prevent them from using infant baptism, depriving their children of an ordinance by which no soul can prove that they cannot be profited, and, through an unaccountable bigotry or carelessness, withholding from them the privilege of even a nominal dedication to God; and yet these very persons are ready enough to fly for a minister to baptize their child when they suppose it to be at the point of death! It would be no crime to pray that such persons should never have the privilege of hearing, My father! or, My mother! from the lips of their own child. See on Mat 3:6 (note), and on Mar 16:16 (note).

Clarke: Mar 10:17

There came one running - See the case of this rich young man largely explained on Mat 19:16 (note), etc.

Clarke: Mar 10:21

Then Jesus, beholding him - Looking earnestly, εμβλεψας, or affectionately upon him, loved him, because of his youth, his earnestness, and his sincerity

Clarke: Mar 10:21

One thing thou lackest - What was that? A heart disengaged from the world, and a complete renunciation of it and its concerns, that he might become a proper and successful laborer in the Lord’ s vineyard. See Mat 19:21. To say that it was something else he lacked, when Christ explains here his own meaning, is to be wise above what is written.

Clarke: Mar 10:22

And he was sad at that saying - This young man had perhaps been a saint, and an eminent apostle, had he been poor! From this, and a multitude of other cases, we may learn that it is oftentimes a misfortune to be rich: but who is aware of this? - and who believes it?

Calvin: Mar 10:21

Mar 10:21.One thing thou wantest Christ therefore does not mean that the young man wanted one Thing beyond the keeping of the law, but in the very keeping of the law. For though the law nowhere obliges us to sell all, yet as it represses all sinful desires, and teaches us to bear the cross, as it bids us be prepared for hunger and poverty, the young man is very far from keeping it fully, so long as he is attached to his riches, and burns with covetousness. And he says that one thing is wanting, because he does not need to preach to him about fornication and murder, but to point out a particular disease, as if he were laying his finger on the sore.

It ought also to be observed, that he does not only enjoin him to sell, but likewise to give to the poor; for to part with riches would not be in itself a virtue, but rather a vain ambition. Profane historians applaud Crates, a Theban, because he threw into the sea his money and all that he reckoned valuable; for he did not think that he could save himself unless his wealth were lost; as if it would not have been better to bestow on others what he imagined to be more than he needed. Certainly, as charity is the bond of perfection, (Col 3:14,) he who deprives others, along with himself, of the use of money, deserves no praise; and therefore Christ applauds not simply the sellin g but liberality in assisting the poor

The mortification of the flesh is still more strongly urged by Christ, when he says, Follow me. For he enjoins him not only to become his disciple, but to submit his shoulders to bear the cross, as Mark expressly states. And it was necessary that such an excitement should be applied; for, having been accustomed to the ease, and leisure and conveniences, of home, he had never experienced, in the smallest degree, what it was to crucify the old man, and to subdue the desires of the flesh. But it is excessively ridiculous in the monks, under the pretense of this passage, to claim for themselves state of perfection. First, it is easy to infer, that Christ does not command all without exception to sell all that they have; for the husbandman, who had been accustomed to live by his labor, and to support his children, would do wrong in selling his possession, if he were not constrained to it by any necessity. To keep what God has put in our power, provided that, by maintaining ourselves and our family in sober and frugal manner, we bestow some portion on the poor, is a greater virtue than to squander all. But what sort of thing is that famous selling, on which the monks plume themselves? A good part of them, finding no provision at home, plunge themselves into monasteries as well-stocked hog-styes. All take such good care of themselves, that they feed in idleness on the bread of others. A rare exchange truly, when those who are ordered to give to the poor what they justly possess are not satisfied with their own, but seize on the property of others.

Jesus beholding him, loved him The inference which the Papists draw from this, that works morally good — that is, works which are not performed by the impulse of the Spirit, but go before regeneration — have the merit of congruity, is an excessively childish contrivance. For if merit be alleged to be the consequence of the love of God, we must then say that frogs and fleas have merit, because all the creatures of God, without exception, are the objects of his love. To distinguish the degrees of love is, therefore, a matter of importance. ⁶²⁷ As to the present passage, it may be enough to state briefly, that God embraces in fatherly love none but his children, whom he has regenerated with the Spirit of adoption, and that it is in consequence of this love that they are accepted at his tribunal. In this sense, to be loved by God, and to be justified in his sight, are synonymous terms. ⁶²⁸

But God is sometimes said to love those whom he does not approve or justify; for, since the preservation of the human race is agreeable to Him — which consists in justice, uprightness, moderation, prudence, fidelity, and temperance — he is said to love the political virtues; not that they are meritorious of salvation or of grace, but that they have reference to an end of which he approves. In this sense, under various points of view, God loved Aristides and Fabricius, and also hated them; for, in so far as he had bestowed on them outward righteousness, and that for the general advantage, he loved his own work in them; but as their heart was impure, the outward semblance of righteousness was of no avail for obtaining righteousness. For we know that by faith alone hearts are purified, and that the Spirit of uprightness is given to the members of Christ alone. Thus the question is answered, How was it possible that Christ should love a man who was proud and a hypocrite, while nothing is more hateful to God than these two vices? For it is not inconsistent, that the good seed, which God has implanted in some natures, shall be loved by Him, and yet that He should reject their persons and works on account of corruption.

Defender: Mar 10:6

See notes on the important parallel passage in Mat 19:4-7. Mark's account adds the additional information that the Genesis record from which he is quoting referred to "the beginning of the creation." That is, God made Adam and Eve (Gen 1:26, Gen 1:27), right at the very beginning - not some 4.5 billion years after the beginning, as modern evolutionists and theistic uniformitarians would have us believe. There is no room whatever in Scripture for the geological ages, and Christians who compromise on this issue for the sake of academic acceptance are undermining God's Word (Mar 13:19)."

TSK: Mar 10:1

am 4033, ad 29

he arose : Mat 19:1-12

by : Joh 10:40, Joh 11:7

he taught : Ecc 12:9; Jer 32:33; Joh 18:20

TSK: Mar 10:2

the Pharisees : Mar 8:15; Mat 9:34, Mat 15:12, Mat 23:13; Luk 5:30, Luk 6:7, Luk 7:30, Luk 11:39, Luk 11:53, Luk 11:54, Luk 16:14; Joh 7:32, Joh 7:48, Joh 11:47, Joh 11:57

Is it : Mal 2:16; Mat 5:31, Mat 5:32, Mat 19:3; 1Co 7:10,1Co 7:11

tempting : Mar 8:11; Mat 16:1, Mat 22:35; Joh 8:6; 1Co 10:9

TSK: Mar 10:3

What : Isa 8:20; Luk 10:25; Joh 5:39; Gal 4:21

TSK: Mar 10:4

Deu 24:1-4; Isa 50:1; Jer 3:1; Mat 1:19, Mat 5:31, Mat 5:32, Mat 19:7

TSK: Mar 10:5

For : Deu 9:6, Deu 31:27; Neh 9:16, Neh 9:17, Neh 9:26; Mat 19:8; Act 7:51; Heb 3:7-10

TSK: Mar 10:6

the beginning : Gen 1:1; 2Pe 3:4

God : Gen 1:27, Gen 2:20-23, Gen 5:2; Mal 2:14-16

TSK: Mar 10:7

Gen 2:24; Mat 19:5, Mat 19:6; Eph 5:31

TSK: Mar 10:8

one flesh : 1Co 6:16; Eph 5:28

TSK: Mar 10:9

Rom 7:1-3; 1Ch 7:10-13

TSK: Mar 10:10

Mar 4:10, Mar 9:28, Mar 9:33

TSK: Mar 10:11

Whosoever : Mat 5:31, Mat 5:32, Mat 19:9; Luk 16:18; Rom 7:3; 1Co 7:4, 1Co 7:10,1Co 7:11; Heb 13:4

TSK: Mar 10:13

they : Mat 19:13-15; Luk 18:15, Luk 18:16

disciples : Mar 10:48, Mar 9:38; Exo 10:9-11; Deu 31:12, Deu 31:13; Joe 2:16

TSK: Mar 10:14

he was : Mar 3:5, Mar 8:33; Luk 9:54-56; Eph 4:26

Suffer : Gen 17:7, Gen 17:10-14; Num 14:31; Deu 4:37, Deu 29:11, Deu 29:12; 1Sa 1:11, 1Sa 1:22, 1Sa 1:27, 1Sa 1:28; Psa 78:4, Psa 115:14, Psa 115:15; Isa 65:23; Jer 32:39, Jer 32:40; Luk 18:15, Luk 18:16; Act 2:39; Act 3:25; Rom 11:16, Rom 11:28; 1Co 7:14; 2Ti 1:5, 2Ti 3:15

for : Psa 131:1, Psa 131:2; Mat 18:4, Mat 18:10, Mat 19:14; 1Co 14:20; 1Pe 2:2; Rev 14:5

TSK: Mar 10:15

Mat 18:3; Luk 18:17; Joh 3:3-6

TSK: Mar 10:16

Gen 48:14-16; Deu 28:3; Isa 40:11; Luk 2:28-34, Luk 24:50,Luk 24:51; Joh 21:15-17

TSK: Mar 10:17

when : Mat 19:16-30; Luk 18:18-30

running : Mar 9:25; Mat 28:8; Joh 20:2-4

kneeled : Mar 1:40; Dan 6:10; Mat 17:14

Good : Mar 12:14; Joh 3:2

what : Joh 6:28; Act 2:37, Act 9:6, Act 16:30; Rom 10:2-4

eternal : Joh 5:39, Joh 6:27, Joh 6:40; Rom 2:7, Rom 6:23; 1Jo 2:25

TSK: Mar 10:18

Why : Mat 19:17; Luk 18:19; Joh 5:41-44; Rom 3:12

that is : 1Sa 2:2; Psa 36:7, Psa 36:8, Psa 86:5, Psa 119:68; Jam 1:17; 1Jo 4:8, 1Jo 4:16

TSK: Mar 10:19

knowest : Mar 12:28-34; Isa 8:20; Mat 5:17-20, Mat 19:17-19; Luk 10:26-28, Luk 18:20; Rom 3:20; Gal 4:21

commit : Exo 20:12-17; Deu 5:16-24; Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14; Jam 2:11

Defraud : 1Co 6:7-9; 1Th 4:6

TSK: Mar 10:20

Isa 58:2; Eze 5:14, Eze 33:31, Eze 33:32; Mal 3:8; Mat 19:20; Luk 10:29, Luk 18:11, Luk 18:12; Rom 7:9; Phi 3:6; 2Ti 3:5

TSK: Mar 10:21

loved : Gen 34:19; Isa 63:8-10; Luk 19:41; 2Co 12:15

One thing : Luk 10:42, Luk 18:22; Jam 2:10; Rev 2:4, Rev 2:14, Rev 2:20

sell : Pro 23:23; Mat 13:44-46, Mat 19:21; Luk 12:33; Act 2:45, Act 4:34-37

treasure : Mat 6:19-21; Luk 16:9; 1Ti 6:17-19; Heb 10:34; 1Pe 1:4, 1Pe 1:5

take : Mar 8:34; Mat 16:24; Luk 9:23; Joh 12:26, Joh 16:33; Rom 8:17, Rom 8:18; 2Ti 3:12

TSK: Mar 10:22

sad : Mar 6:20,Mar 6:26; Mat 19:22, Mat 27:3, Mat 27:24-26; Luk 18:23; 2Co 7:10; 2Ti 4:10

for : Gen 13:5-11; Deu 6:10-12, Deu 8:11-14; Job 21:7-15; Eze 33:31; Mat 13:22; Luk 12:15; Eph 5:5; 1Ti 6:9, 1Ti 6:10; 1Jo 2:15, 1Jo 2:16

TSK: Mar 10:23

looked : Mar 3:5, Mar 5:32

How : Mat 19:23-26; Luk 18:24; 1Co 1:26; Jam 2:5, Jam 4:4

enter : Mar 10:15; Mat 18:3; Joh 3:5; 2Pe 1:11

TSK: Mar 10:24

astonished : Mat 19:25; Luk 18:26, Luk 18:27; Joh 6:60

Children : Joh 13:33, Joh 21:5; Gal 4:19; 1Jo 2:1, 1Jo 4:4, 1Jo 5:21

trust : Job 31:24, Job 31:25; Psa 17:14, Psa 49:6, Psa 49:7, Psa 52:7, Psa 62:10; Pro 11:28, Pro 18:11, Pro 23:5; Jer 9:23; Eze 28:4, Eze 28:5; Hab 2:9; Zep 1:18; Luk 12:16-21, Luk 16:14; 1Ti 6:17; Jam 5:1-3; Rev 3:17

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Mar 10:1-12

See this question about divorce explained in the notes at Mat 19:1-12.

Mar 10:12

And if a woman shall put away her husband - It would seem, from this, that a woman, among the Jews, had the power of separating herself from her husband, yet this right is not given her by the law of Moses. There is not, however, any positive evidence that females often claimed or exercised this right. Cases had occurred, indeed, in which it had been done. The wife of Herod had rejected her former husband and married Herod. And though instances of this kind "might"have been attempted to be defended by the example of Pagans, yet our Saviour was desirous of showing them that it did not free them from the charge of adultery. The apostles were going forth to teach Pagan nations, and it was proper for Christ to teach them how to act in such cases, and to show them that they were cases of real adultery.

Barnes: Mar 10:13-16

See the notes at Mat 19:13-15.

Mar 10:13

Should touch them - That is, should lay his hands on them, and pray for them, and bless them. Compare Mat 19:13. It was common to lay the hands on the head of a person for whom a blessing was asked. See the case of Jacob, Gen 48:14.

Mar 10:14

Saw it - Saw the conduct of his disciples.

Was much displeased - Because, first, it was a pleasure to Him to receive and bless little children; and, secondly, they were doing what they were not commanded to do - interfering in a case where it was evidently improper.

Mar 10:15

Whosoever shall not receive - Whosoever shall not manifest the spirit of a little child.

The kingdom, of God - The gospel. The new dispensation by the Messiah, "or the reign of God through a Mediator."See the notes at Mat 3:2.

As a little child - With the temper and spirit of a child - teachable, mild, humble, and free from prejudice and obstinacy.

Shall not enter therein - Shall not be a Christian; shall not be a "real"member of the family of Christ on earth. though he may be a "professor,"and shall never enter heaven.

Mar 10:16

Took them up in his arms - These were small children.

Blessed them - Prayed for them, sought a blessing on them, or gave them the assurance of his favor as the Messiah. How happy would it be if all parents thus felt it to be their privilege to present their children to Christ! The question with a parent should be, not whether he ought to present them by prayer, but whether he "may"do it. And so, too, the question respecting infant baptism is not so much whether a parent ought to devote his children to God in this ordinance, as whether he may do it. It is an inestimable privilege to do it; it is not a matter of mere stern and iron-handed duty; and a parent with right feelings will come to God with his children "in every way,"and seek his blessing on them in the beginning of their journey of life. Our children are given to us but for a little time. They are in a world of danger, sin, and woe. They are exposed to temptation on every hand,

If God be not their friend, they "have"no friend that can aid them in the day of adversity, or keep them from the snares of the destroyer. If he is their friend they have nothing to fear. The "proper expression, then, of parental feeling,"is to come and offer them early to God. A parent should ask only the "privilege"of doing it. He should seek God’ s favor as the best inheritance of his children; and if a parent may devote his offspring to God - if he may daily seek his blessing on them by prayer - it is all that he should ask. With proper feelings he will rush to the throne of grace, and daily seek the protection and guidance of God for his children amid the temptations and snares of an ungodly world, and implore Him to be their guide when the parent shall be laid in the silent grave. So children who have been devoted to God - who have been the daily objects of a father’ s prayers and a mother’ s - tears who have been again and again presented to Jesus in infancy and childhood - are under the most sacred obligations to live to God. They should never forget that a parent sought the favor of God as the chief blessing; and having been offered to "Jesus"by prayer and baptism in their first days on earth, they should make it their great aim to be prepared to meet "him"when he shall come in the clouds of heaven.

Barnes: Mar 10:17-31

See this passage illustrated in the notes at Mat 19:16-30.

Mar 10:17

Gone forth - From the place where he had been teaching.

Into the way - Into the road or path on his journey.

Running - Thus showing the intensity with which he desired to know the way of life. Zeal to know the way to be saved is proper, nor is it possible that it should be too intense if well directed. Nothing else is so important, and nothing demands, therefore, so much effort and haste.

Mar 10:19

Defraud not - Do not take away your neighbor’ s property by fraud or dishonesty. To "cheat"or "defraud,"supposes a covetous desire of a neighbor’ s property, and is usually attended with "falsehood"or "false witness"against a neighbor in obtaining it. It is thus a violation of the ninth and tenth commandments; and our Saviour very properly, therefore, "condensed the two,"and expressed their substance in this - not to defraud. It is, besides, expressly forbidden in Lev 19:13; "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor."

Mar 10:21

Jesus beholding him, loved him - What occurred afterward showed that the young man did not love the Saviour, or was not a true disciple; so that this expression denotes simply natural affection, or means that Jesus was pleased with his amiableness, his morality, and his "external"regard for the law of God. At the same time, this was entirely consistent with deep sorrow that he would not give his heart to God, and with deep abhorrence of such a love of the world as to blind the mind to the beauty of true religion, and to lead to the rejection of the Messiah and the destruction of the soul.

One thing thou lackest - When the young man came to Jesus he asked him, "What lack I yet?"Mat 19:20. This "question"Mark has omitted, but he has retained the "answer."The answer means, there is "one thing"yet wanting. Though all that you have said should be "true,"yet, to make the system complete, or to show that you "really"are disposed to keep the commands of God, go and sell your property. See whether you love "God"more than you do your "wealth."By doing that you will show that your love of God is supreme; that your obedience is not merely "external"and "formal,"but "sincere"and "real;"the thing now "lacking"will be made up.

Mar 10:24

Children - An expression of affection, perhaps also implying a reproof that their slowness of understanding was like that of children. When they should have seen at once the truth of what he said, they were slow to learn it. It became necessary, therefore, to "repeat"what he had said.

How hard - With how much difficulty.

Mar 10:26

Out of measure - Very much, or exceedingly. The Greek means no more than this.

Mar 10:30

An hundred-fold - One hundred times as much.

In this time - In this life. In the time that he forsakes all.

Houses ... - This cannot be taken literally, as promising a hundred times as many "mothers, sisters,"etc. It means, evidently, that the loss shall be a hundred times "compensated"or made up; or that, in the possession of religion, we have a hundred times the "value"of all we forsake. This consists in the pardon of sin, in the favor of God, in peace of conscience, in support in trials and in death, and in raising up "friends"in the place of those who are left - "spiritual brethren, and sisters, and mothers,"etc. And this corresponds to the experience of all who ever became Christians. At the same time. it is true that godliness is profitable "for all things,"having the promise of the life that is, as well as of that which is to come. See the notes at 1Ti 4:8. "The favor of God"is the security for every blessing. Obedience to his law secures industry, temperance, chastity, economy, prudence, health, and the confidence of the world - all indispensable to success in life, and all connected. commonly, with success. Though the wicked "sometimes"prosper, yet the "surest"way of prosperity is to fear God and keep his commandments. Thus will all "needed"blessings descend on us "here,"and "eternal"blessings hereafter.

With persecutions - Persecutions, or the contempt of the world, and bodily sufferings on account of their religion, they "must"meet. Jesus did not conceal this; but he consoled them. He assured them that "amid"these, or perhaps it should be rendered "after"these, they should find friends and comfort. It is well to bear trial if "God"be our Friend. With the promises of the Bible in our hand, we may hail persecutions, and thank God that, amid so many sorrows, he has furnished such abundant consolations.

Poole: Mar 10:1

Mar 10:1 Christ teacheth in Judea,

Mar 10:2-12 answereth the Pharisees’ question concerning divorce,

Mar 10:13-16 blesseth the children that were brought unto him,

Mar 10:17-22 instructs a rich man how to attain eternal life,

Mar 10:23-27 showeth how hard it is for the rich to enter into the

kingdom of God,

Mar 10:28-31 promises rewards to all who have forsaken aught for

his gospel’ s sake,

Mar 10:32-34 foretells of his own death and resurrection,

Mar 10:35-45 puts by the ambitious suit of the sons of Zebedee,

and checks the indignation of the other disciples thereat,

Mar 10:46-52 giveth sight to blind Bartimaeus.

We have nothing in this whole chapter but what we found before in Mat 19:1-20:34 . When Christ had the discourses mentioned in the former chapter, he was in Galilee; now he departeth from Galilee, passes through Samaria, and comes into the province of Judea, which being the chiefest, and that in which Jerusalem was, he was there more than before troubled with the scribes and Pharisees; who were now watching him in all his words and actions, that they might have somewhat whereof to accuse him.

Poole: Mar 10:2

Matthew adds, for every cause, that is, for any cause, unless for adultery, for so the Pharisees had interpreted the law permitting divorce, Deu 24:1 , taking advantage of those words, that she find no favour in his eyes, and interpreting the term uncleanness following, of any deformity, or other cause of dislike.

Poole: Mar 10:3-9

Ver. 3-9. The order of the discourse as recorded by Mark something differeth from that in Matthew, but the evangelists were not so accurate in that, but took care only to set down the substance of the discourse, as appears from the relation of several other parts of the history. In the notes on Mat 19:3-6 the reader will find whatsoever stands in need of explication opened.

See Poole on "Mat 19:3" , and following verses to Mat 19:6 .

Poole: Mar 10:10-12

Ver. 10-12. Mat 5:32 19:9 , interprets this passage of Mark, by adding those words, except it be for fornication. None but Mark alone hath what is in Mar 10:12 , which concerneth the woman; which hath made some doubt whether the woman, in case of the husband’ s adultery, may sue a divorce from him, but the most judicious interpreters say there is an equal right on both sides. I am sure the reason is equal on both sides. The adultery of the husband dissolves the tie and covenant of marriage, as well as the adultery of the wife. It is yet a more groundless and unreasonable opinion of some from the words of this and the parallel texts, that persons divorced may not marry again; as if God’ s end in the law of divorce in case of adultery were merely to separate the wife from the husband’ s bed. Whether the person that hath given the cause for the divorce may marry again, may be more disputed, not only because such persons are dead persons in the law of God, but because such a liberty granted would open a flood gate to iniquity of that kind, while persons weary of their correlates should by this means gratify their lusts, and also obtain their desires. But I shall not determine it. Certain it is our Saviour here speaketh only of divorces for trivial causes, which the law of God doth not warrant; and in such cases the person marrying again must necessarily commit adultery, because the band of the former union holds. As to the question, whether divorces be lawful in no cases but that of adultery;

See Poole on "Mat 5:31" , See Poole on "Mat 5:32" . See Poole on "Mat 19:3" , and following verses to Mat 19:11 .

Poole: Mar 10:13-16

Ver. 13-16. This is reported both by Matthew and Luke, only they both omit what we here have, Mar 10:15 . By the kingdom of God, is doubtless to be understood the word of God, or rather the grace of Christ in the gospel: he that doth not receive it with humility and modesty, without disputing, without malice, like a little child, shall never come into heaven.

Poole: Mar 10:17

Luke saith he was a ruler. His question signified, that he believed such a thing as a happy eternal existence of good souls, and that he desired it, and that he was willing to do something in order to the obtaining a share and portion in it.

Poole: Mar 10:18

That is, originally good, and supremely good, or perfectly good. Herein our Saviour doth not deny himself to be God, but checked him who did not believe him such, yet called him God.

Poole: Mar 10:19-20

Ver. 19,20. That is, in that latitude to which the doctors of the Jewish church at that time expounded them.

Poole: Mar 10:21-22

Ver. 21,22. See Poole on "Mat 19:21" , See Poole on "Mat 19:22" . Christ had a humane compassion towards so civil a person, but showeth him, that love was the fulfilling of the law, and that love is seen in a resolution to yield a universal obedience to the will of God. Our Saviour imposes a special precept upon him, conjoined with two general precepts concerning all the disciples of Christ, to which his not yielding obedience showed that he was mistaken in his notion, that he had from his youth kept the commandments, though it might be true according to that law interpretation of them given by the Pharisees.

Poole: Mar 10:23-27

Ver. 23-27. See Poole on "Mat 10:23" , and following verses to Mat 10:26 , where the same history occurred, and all the additions to it here are opened.

Lightfoot: Mar 10:1

And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.   

[Cometh into the coasts of Judea by the further side of Jordan.] Here is need of a discerning eye to distinguish of the true time and method of this story, and of Christ's journey. If you make use of such an eye, you will find half a year, or thereabouts, to come between the uttering of the words immediately before-going, and this travel of our Saviour; however it seems to be intimated by our evangelist, and likewise by Matthew, that when he had finished those words, forthwith he entered upon his journey: when, in truth, he went before to Jerusalem, through the midst of Samaria, to the feast of Tabernacles, Luk 9:51; etc. John_7. And again, from Galilee, after he had returned thither, through the cities and towns to Jerusalem, Luk 13:22; to the feast of Dedication, Joh 10:22; and again, "beyond Jordan" indeed, Joh 10:40; but first taking his way into Galilee, and thence beyond Jordan, according to that story which is before us. The studious reader, and that in good earnest employeth his labour upon this business, has not need of further proof; his own eyes will witness this sufficiently. Thus, the wisdom and Spirit of God directed the pens of these holy writers, that some omitted some things to be supplied by others; and others supplied those things which they had omitted: and so a full and complete history was not composed but of all joined and compared together.  

I wish the reverend Beza had sufficiently considered this, who rendereth not beyond; but by Jordan, and corrects the Vulgar interpreter and Erasmus, who render it ' beyond Jordan,' properly and most truly: "As if, by Perea (saith he), or the country beyond Jordan, Christ, passing over Jordan or the lake of Tiberias, came into Judea out of Galilee; which is not true." But take heed you do not mistake, reverend old man. For he went over Jordan from Capernaum, as it is very probable, by the bridge built over Jordan between Chammath, near to Tiberias, at the Gadarene country: he betook himself to Bethabara, and stayed some time there, Joh 10:40; thence he went along Perea to the bank over against Jericho. While he tarrieth there, a messenger, sent from Mary, comes to him concerning the death of Lazarus, John 11; and thence, after two days, he passeth Jordan in Judea.

Lightfoot: Mar 10:17

And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?   

[Kneeled to him.] So Mar 1:40, Beseeching him, and kneeling to him. This is variously rendered, He fell at his feet, bowing the knee, beseeching upon his knee, falling down at his knees. Which renderings are not improper, but I suspect something more is included. For, 1. It was customary for those that so adored to take hold of the knees or the legs, 2Ki 4:27; Mat 28:9. 2. To kiss the knees or the feet. See what we have said at Mat 28:9.  

When R. Akiba had been twelve years absent from his wife, and at last came back, his wife went out to meet him: "and when she came to him, falling upon her face, she kissed his knees." And a little after, when he was entered into the city, his father-in-law not knowing who he was, but suspecting him to be some great Rabbin, went to him, and falling upon his face kissed his knees. Speaking of Job, " Satan came, and he kissed his knees; but in all this Job sinned not with his lips," etc. When a certain Rabbin had discoursed of divers things, Bar Chama rose up and kissed his knees.

Lightfoot: Mar 10:21

Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.   

[Loved him.] That is, he manifested by some outward gesture that this man pleased him, both in his question and in his answer: when he both seriously inquired concerning attaining eternal life; and seriously professed that he had addicted himself to God's commandments with all care and circumspection.  

Let us compare the customs of the Masters among the Jews: Eliezer Ben Erech obtained leave from Rabban Jochanan Ben Zaccai to discourse of some things before him. He discoursed of Ezekiel's chariot ( Ezekiel_1), or, of mystical divinity. "When he had made an end, Rabban Jochanan arose up, and kissed his head." "R. Abba Bar Cahna heard R. Levi disputing profoundly. When he had made an end, R. Abba rose up and kissed his head." There is a story of a certain Nazarite young man that exceedingly pleased Simeon the Just with a certain answer that he gave. Whereupon, said Simeon, "I bowed towards him with my head, and said, O son, let such as you be multiplied in Israel." The story is found elsewhere, where for I bowed towards him with my head; it is I embraced him and kissed his head. "Miriam, before the birth of Moses, had prophesied, My mother shall bring forth a son who shall deliver Israel. When he was born the whole house was filled with light. His father stood forth, and kissed her upon the head; and said, Thy prophecy is fulfilled. And when they cast him into the river, he struck her upon the head."  

What if our Saviour used this very gesture towards this young man? And that the more conveniently, when he was now upon his knees before him. Some gesture, at least, he used, whereby it appeared, both to the young man and to the standers-by, that the young man did not a little please him, both by his question and by his answer. So I have loved; Psa 116:1; in the LXX, I have loved; one may render well, it pleaseth me well. So Josephus of David's soldiers, (1Sa 30:22): "Those four hundred who went to the battle would not impart the spoils to the two hundred who were faint and weary; and said, That they should 'love' [that is, be well pleased] that they had received their wives safe again."  

In some parity of sense, John is called the disciple, whom Jesus loved; not that Jesus loved him more than the rest with his eternal, infinite, saving love, but he favoured him more with some outward kindness and more intimate friendship and familiarity. And why? Because John had promised that he would take care of Christ's mother after his death. For those words of our Saviour upon the cross to John, 'Behold thy mother!' and to his mother, 'Behold thy son!' and that from thence John took her home, do carry a fair probability with them, that that was not the first time that John heard of such a matter, but that long before he had so promised.  

I have loved thee; Isa 60:10; is the rendering of I have had pity upon thee; which may here also agree very well, "Jesus had pity upon him."

Haydock: Mar 10:4

Moses permitted the injured husband to send away his wife, declaring that he had repudiated her. See Deuteronomy xxiv. 1.

Haydock: Mar 10:5

Because of the hardness of their hearts, and to prevent the excesses they would otherwise have committed with regard to their wives. (Bible de Vence)

Haydock: Mar 10:6

But from the beginning of the world it was not thus; for then God only formed one man and one woman, that they might be exclusively and invariably attached to each other.

Haydock: Mar 10:7

Hence it is written, (Genesis ii. 24, and Matthew xix. 5.) A man shall leave father and mother, and adhere to his wife.

Haydock: Mar 10:14

Unless we are possessed of the innocence and purity of little children, we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. By the kingdom of heaven, we may here understand the truths of the gospel; for as a child never contradicts its teachers, nor opposes to them vain reasonings and empty words, but faithfully and readily receives their instructions, and with fear obeys them; so must we implicitly obey, and without any, the least, opposition, receive the word of the Lord. (Ven. Bede)

Haydock: Mar 10:18

None is good. Of himself, entirely and essentially, but God alone: men may be good also, but only by a participation of God's goodness. (Challoner)

Haydock: Mar 10:20

We must recollect, that to the faithful observers of the Mosaic law, not only present goods were given, but the happiness of a future life promised. Hence our Lord with reason inquired, whether he had kept the commandments. The innocent life of this young man is deserving of our imitation. (Ven. Bede)

Haydock: Mar 10:21

Loved him. We need understand no more by this, than that Christ gave him some marks of his tenderness for him, and for all men by his kind instructions, and invitations to a good and perfect life. (Witham) ---

It is worthy of inquiry, how that could happen which the evangelist here mentions, how Jesus could love this young man; when, as it is here related, he did not follow the admonitions given him by Jesus Christ. The reason is, Christ loved him for his past behaviour, and his strict observance of the old law. (St. John Chrysostom in St. Thomas, Catena Aurea )

Gill: Mar 10:1

And he arose from thence,.... From Galilee, and particularly from Capernaum:

and cometh into the coasts of Judea; into those places, which bordered on that part of the land of Israel, called Judea, as distinct from Galilee:

by, or rather "to"

the further side of Jordan; which he crossed at the bridge of Chammath: the particular place he came to was Bethabara; see Joh 10:40, where John formerly preached, and baptized:

and the people resorted unto him again; great multitudes followed him out of Galilee, and more doubtless flocked to him from the adjacent parts, when they heard of his coming again to them.

And, as he was wont, he taught them again: it had been his custom before, and so it was wherever he went, to preach the word of God, and teach men what was profitable to them, and useful for the good of their immortal souls; and so he did now, and here: and not only so, but healed many of them of their bodily disorders, as Matthew relates, Mat 19:2.

Gill: Mar 10:2

And the: Pharisees came unto him,.... As they every where did; not to be instructed by him, but to ensnare him;

and asked him, is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? that is, as Matthew adds, "for every cause"; see Gill on Mat 19:3, for, a divorce might be lawfully made for a cause, or reason, namely, adultery, but not for any, or every cause; which is the sense of this question of the Pharisees; and, which they put, not for information, but

tempting him; trying to entangle him by opposing the authority of Moses, should he deny the lawfulness of divorces, or by objecting his former doctrine, Mat 5:32, and so expose him as an inconsistent preacher, should he allow them to be lawful for every reason. This clause is placed in the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions before the question.

Gill: Mar 10:3

And he answered and said unto them,.... Very prudently and wisely,

what did Moses command you? according to Matthew, he put another question to them; see Mat 19:4; no doubt but both were put, and this after they had urged the authority and law of Moses: and therefore be very pertinently asks them, what Moses had said about divorces, what law he had left; and puts them upon producing and repeating it, that the sense of it might be examined, and it be considered, upon what account it was given.

Gill: Mar 10:4

And they said,.... By way of reply,

Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away, Moses did not command them to divorce their wives, only suffered them to do so: and gave orders that if they could not bear that they should live with them, but would divorce them, that they should give them a bill, which should certify, they were so divorced, and then send them out of their houses, free to marry other men; this law, or permission, is in Deu 24:1, of the form of a bill of divorcement, See Gill on Mat 5:31.

Gill: Mar 10:5

And Jesus answered and said unto them,.... With respect to this command, or sufferance of Moses, which they urged:

for the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept; it was, not because it was right in its own nature, or according to the original will of God; but, because the Jews were such cruel, and hard hearted men, that if this had not been permitted, some of them, that had wives not so agreeable to them, would have used them in a very inhuman manner, if not murdered them; and therefore to prevent further, and greater mischief, Moses indulged them with such a precept; See Gill on Mat 19:8.

Gill: Mar 10:6

But from the beginning of the creation,.... Of the world, or of man: מתחלת ברייתו של עולם, "from the beginning of the creation of the world", is a way of speaking often used by the Jews ^r: the phrase "of the creation" is left out in the Syriac and Persic versions; and so it was in Beza's most ancient copy, and it is only read, "from the beginning", as in Mat_19:4,8; see Gill on Mat 19:4, See Gill on Mat 19:8.

God made them male and female; the first that were created, Adam and Eve, the first parents of mankind, the first couple that came together were one male and one female; so that there could be no polygamy or divorce: Adam could not have more wives than one: nor could he put away Eve, and marry another; no provision was made for any such usages and practices; See Gill on Mat 19:4. In the Complutensian edition, it is added, "and said", the following words.

Gill: Mar 10:7

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother,.... The Persic version adds, "and brethren and sisters", though without any foundation in the original text, in Gen 2:24, from whence this passage is cited; or in any copy of the evangelist:

and cleave to his wife; See Gill on Mat 19:5.

Gill: Mar 10:8

And the twain shall be one flesh,.... This is the remaining part of the citation out of Gen 2:24; See Gill on Mat 19:5;

so then they are no more twain; but one flesh; as Adam and Eve were both by creation and marriage: and so two persons, a man and woman, being lawfully married together, become one flesh, or "one body", as the Arabic and Persic versions render the phrase; and therefore the wife is to be loved by the husband as his own body, and from whom there should be no separation, until death, but in case of adultery; See Gill on Mat 19:6.

Gill: Mar 10:9

What therefore God hath joined together,.... See Gill on Mat 19:6.

Gill: Mar 10:10

And in the house,.... To which Christ retired, after he had put the Pharisees to silence, and dismissed the multitude:

his disciples asked him again of the same matter; concerning the affair of divorces, be bad been discoursing with the Pharisees about; some things being said, they had not been used to, and which they did not thoroughly understand; and therefore chose privately to converse with him on this subject, for their further information.

Gill: Mar 10:11

And he saith unto them,.... The same things as in Mat_5:32, 19:9; See Gill on Mat 5:32, See Gill on Mat 19:9,

whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another; when there is no uncleanness in the case; when his former wile has not injured him by violating the marriage bed:

committeth adultery against her; to the injury of his lawful wife; or "upon her", or "with her", with the person he marries. The Syriac and Persic versions leave out the phrase, "against her".

Gill: Mar 10:12

And if a woman shall put away her husband,.... Not that there was the same law, or the same sufferance by the law of Moses, for a woman to put away her husband, as for the husband to put away the wife; nor was it practised among the Jews, unless it came to be in use about this time, in their declining state, having taken it from the Gentiles; of whom they say ^s, that

"they divorce one another: says R. Jochanan, אשתו מגרשתו, "his wife divorces him", and gives him the dowry.''

So Salome, the sister of Herod the Great, sent a bill of divorce to her husband Costobarus; and in this she was followed by Herodias, the daughter of Aristobulus, as Josephus ^t relates; and which his own wife also did. And by such examples the practice might prevail among the Jews: and we have a story told ^u us of a holy man, and a holy yeoman, who were married, and had no children, וגרשו זה את זה, "and they divorced one another"; and the one went and married a wicked woman, and she made him wicked; and the other went and married a wicked man, and she made him righteous but I do not find that this practice was approved, or established by any rule, or canon. They allow ^w indeed a woman to write her husband's divorce of her, with proper witnesses; and they also oblige one, that was espoused in her minority, and refuses her husband, when adult, to write a bill of refusal; the form of that, and the rules about it, take as follow ^x:

"they do not allow one to marry a minor; he that marries a minor that is fatherless, and she is not pleased with her husband, lo! she may refuse, and go away, and she has no need of a divorce from him, because the espousals of a minor are not perfect espousals, as we have explained: and so a minor, whom her father marries, and she becomes a widow, or is divorced whilst she is a minor, lo! she is as one fatherless, in, her father's life time; and if she marries whilst she is a minor, she may refuse--how does she refuse? she says before two witnesses, I do not like such an one my husband; or I do not like the espousals with which my father, or my brother, espoused me; and such like words.--The two, before whom the minor refuses, write for her; on such a day, such an one, the daughter of such an one, refused, before us, such an one her husband; and they seal, and give it to her: and this is the body, or substance of a bill of refusal--in such a week, on such a day of the month, in such a year, such an one, the daughter of such an one, refused before us, and said, that my mother, or my brother, forced me, and married me, or espoused me, and I, a minor, to such an one, the son of such an one; and now I reveal my mind before you, that I do not like him, and I will not abide with him: and we have searched such an one; and this is manifest to us, that she is yet a minor, and we have written, and sealed, and have given this to her, for her justification, and a clear proof;''

"Such an one, the son of such an one, witness. Such an one, the son of such an one, witness.''

And such a writing was called, גט מיאון, "a bill of refusal", and sometimes שטרי מיאונין, "letters of refusal" ^y, but a bill of divorcement given by a married woman to her husband, I have not met with. Justin Martyr speaks ^z of a Christian woman that, ρεπουδιον, δουσα, "gave a bill of divorce" to her husband: such things, therefore, have been done, and might be done in Christ's time, to which he refers; and concerning which he says, that if a woman do so,

and be married to another, she committeth adultery; with the man she marries, and against, and to the injury of her former husband, unjustly left by her.

Gill: Mar 10:13

And they brought young children to him,.... The parents, or friends, or nurses of the children in those parts, having heard of the fame of Jesus; and having entertained an high opinion of him, as a great prophet, and a holy, good man, brought their children in their arms, or hands,

that he should touch them; as he did when he healed diseased persons, as these might be, though not expressed:

and his disciples rebuked those that brought them; See Gill on Mat 19:13.

Gill: Mar 10:14

But when Jesus saw it,.... Observed that his disciples reproved those that brought their children to, him,

he was much displeased; with his disciples, who took too much upon them; for they ought first, to have known their master's will; whether it was his pleasure to grant the favour desired for these children, and not to have forbid them of themselves:

and said unto them; the disciples, as the Persic version reads:

suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God; or "of them who" are, איך הלין, "as these", as the Syriac version, renders the words; or, as the Arabic, who "are like to these"; and the Persic, who are "like to these little children"; in innocence and humility; See Gill on Mat 19:14.

Gill: Mar 10:15

Verily I say, unto you,.... A form of speech used when our Lord was about to asseverate a thing, and assert something of moment and importance, and which he would have attended to.

Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God; the Gospel, and the mysteries of it:

as a little child; laying aside all pride and prejudice, attending thereunto with humility and meekness:

he shall not enter therein; he shall attain to no true spiritual knowledge of the Gospel; nor should he be admitted into a Gospel church state, and to the ordinances of it.

Gill: Mar 10:16

And he took them up in his arms,.... "Upon his arms", the Syriac version says; "he put them into his bosom", according to the Ethiopic; and the Persic renders it, "he took them into his bosom": all which expresses great tenderness towards them, and affection for them:

put his hands upon them, and blessed them. The Ethiopic version transposes these clauses, and puts blessing first, contrary to the natural order of the words, and things; for he first put his hands on the children, according to the custom of the Jews, and then prayed over them, and wished all happiness and prosperity to them; See Gill on Mat 19:15.

Gill: Mar 10:17

And when he was gone forth into the way,.... For when he had blessed the children he departed from the coasts of Judea, on the further side of Jordan, and steered his course towards Jerusalem, Mar 10:32, and as he was on the road thitherwards,

there came one running; a young man, a ruler among the Jews, and very rich, a person of great dignity, and large substance; he hearing that Christ was going from those parts, ran in great haste to him, to have some conversation with him, before he was entirely gone;

and kneeled to him; as a token of great respect and civility: some versions, as the Persic and Ethiopic, render it, "and worshipped him"; which must be understood not in a religious, but in a civil way: the words might be literally rendered, "and kneeled him"; and Dr. Lightfoot suspects, that more is meant than bending his knees to Christ; that he also might take hold of the knees of Christ, and kiss them, as was usual with the Jewish Rabbins, and which he illustrates by several instances:

and asked him, good master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? This man, though a young man, and also a rich man, was thoughtful of the world to come, and the life of it: he believed there was an eternal life after this state of things, and so was no Sadducee; but he had wrong notions about the way and manner of attaining it: he thought it was to be had by the works of the law, which shows him to be a Pharisee; whereas eternal life is the gift of God, through the Messiah, the person he now applied to, and who had the words of eternal life; and to a more proper person he could not have put the question, he being himself the way, the truth, and the life, or the true way to eternal life: and had he attended to his own words, which suggest, that eternal life is an inheritance, he might have learned, that it is not to be acquired by the industry and works of men; but, that it is the bequest of our heavenly Father to his children, and comes by will, by promise, and as a free gift; so that it is not of the law; nor are they that are of the law heirs of it, Rom 4:14; See Gill on Mat 19:16.

Gill: Mar 10:18

And Jesus said unto him,.... The same as in Mat_. 19:17, See Gill on Mat 19:17.

Why callest thou me good? This is said, not as denying that he was good, or as being angry with him for calling him so, but in order to lead this young man to a true knowledge of him, and his goodness, and even of his proper deity:

there is none good, but one, that is, God; some render it, "but one God", as the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Arabic versions; and so the words are a proof of the unity of the divine being, and agree with Deu 6:4, but are not to be understood to the exclusion of the Son and Spirit, who, with the Father, are the one God: nor do these words at all militate against the deity of Christ, or prove that he is not God, as the Jew objects ^a; seeing this is not to be understood of the person of the Father, in opposition to the Son and Spirit, who are equally good: nor does Christ, in these words, deny himself to be God, but rather tacitly suggests it; since he is good in the same sense in which God is good: in Matthew it is added, "but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments", Mat 19:17, this Christ said not as his sense, that the way to eternal life lies in keeping the commandments of the law; but he speaks in the language of the Pharisees, and of this man; and his view is, to bring him to a sense of the impossibility of obtaining eternal life by these things, as the sequel shows: wherefore the above Jew ^b has no reason to confront the followers of Jesus with this passage, as if it was a concession of his, that it is impossible any should be saved without keeping the commands of the law of Moses.

Gill: Mar 10:19

Thou knowest the commandments,.... Which God gave to Moses on Mount Sinai; these the Jews taught their children; so that this young man might reasonably be thought to know what, and how many they were, though he was ignorant of the extent and spirituality of them;

do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, defraud not, honour thy father and mother. In which may be observed, that the strict order in which the commandments stood is not kept; the seventh commandment, "thou shalt not commit adultery", is set before the sixth, "thou shalt not kill"; though the Arabic version places them in their order; and the fifth command, "honour thy father and thy mother", is placed last of all: but a Jew has no reason to object to this, when it is a rule with them, that אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה ^c, there is no first nor last in the law; that is, order is not strictly attended to; but sometimes, that which is first is mentioned last, and the last first. There is one precept, "defraud not", wrong no man of his property, either by force or fraud, which none of the other evangelists have. Dr. Hammond, and others, think, that it is an explanation of the tenth command, "thou shalt not covet"; signifying, that a man should be so satisfied with his own condition, as not to desire another's goods, or, by any means, seek to lessen them to enlarge his own. A certain Jew ^d objects against our Lord Jesus, that he did not mention the other precepts in Exo 20:3, by which he seems to mean the precepts of the first table, which respect the unity of God, and his worship, which are of greater moment; to which may be replied, that our Lord does suggest the unity of the Divine Being, and his essential, infinite, and independent goodness, which are the ground and foundation of his fear and worship in the preceding verse; and besides, as Bishop Kidder observes ^e, nothing is more common than to put some precepts for the whole; see Mic 6:8; yea, that Jesus may be justified from the Old Testament in this method, as from Psa 15:1, where a question, very like this of the young man, is put; and yet in answer to it we find nothing mentioned but obedience to the second table: to which reply of the learned prelate, may be added, that Christ instances in the commandments of the second table, as being more known, and better understood by this young man; "thou knowest the commandments"; that is, the following ones he mentions: and besides the argument runs strong from the lesser to the greater, which is implied, that if the commands of the second table, which respect the neighbour, are necessary to be observed, then much more those which concern God himself; and if men fail short in keeping the lesser commands, it can hardly be thought they should be perfect in the observance of greater ones; and so consequently, and which is our Lord's drift, eternal life is never to be obtained by the works of the law.

Gill: Mar 10:20

And he answered and, said unto him,.... With a great deal of pertness,

master, all these have I observed from my youth; See Gill on Mat 19:20. In a certain copy, Beza says, it is added, as there, "what lack I yet?" and so in one of Stephens's copies.

Gill: Mar 10:21

Then Jesus, beholding him, loved him,.... Not as God, with that special love, with which he loves his people, who were given him by the Father, are redeemed by his blood, whom he calls by his grace, justifies by his righteousness, forgives their iniquities, and, at last, glorifies: but as man, he had an human affection for him; so far as there was any appearance of moral good in him, it was agreeable to him, who loves righteousness, and hates iniquity; and though the young man betrayed much vanity, pride, and conceit, he did not use him roughly, but kindly, and tenderly; he beheld him, he looked wistly upon him, when he said the above words; which look intimated, that he could not believe he had perfectly, and completely kept all the commandments; however, he did not choose to reproach him with a lie, and charge him with pride and arrogance, but gave him good words, and spoke friendly to him; and, as far as he could, commended him for his diligence in observing the commands: in this sense the word is observed to be used by the Septuagint interpreters, as when it is said of Ahab, 2Ch 18:2, that he "persuaded him" (Jehoshaphat), they render it, ηγαπα, "he loved him to go up to Ramoth Gilead": he gave him good words, he spake friendly to him, and by fair speeches prevailed upon him: and so when it said of the Israelites, Psa 78:36; "they did flatter him", (God,) they render it, ηγαπησαν, "they loved him with their mouth"; spoke very well to him, and of him, praised him, and his works, and in this way expressed affection to him, though it was only with their mouths. Moreover, Christ might not only speak kindly to this young man, but he might make use of some external gesture: which showed an human affection to him, and respect for him. Dr, Lightfoot conjectures it might be by kissing his head, which might be conveniently done, as he was now on his knees; and since this was frequently used by the Jewish doctors, as an expression of respect, of which he gives various instances; and more might be added, especially out of the book of Zohar, where we often read of one Rabbi kissing the head or another, or of his pupil. But the sense of this phrase, which pleases me best of all, is what may be collected from the use of it among the "seventy" interpreters, who often render the Hebrew רחם, which signifies to "have compassion", or "show pity", by the word here used: so Pro 28:13, "whoso confesseth and forsaketh, shall have mercy", they interpret αγαπηθησεται, "shall be loved" and Hos 2:23, "I will have mercy on her that had not obtained mercy", they render αγαπησω, "l will love her that was not beloved"; once more, Zec 10:6. "I will bring them again to place them, for I have mercy upon them", they translate οτι ηγαπησα αυτους, "because I have loved them"; see also Isa 60:10 and then, according to this use of the word, the sense is, that Jesus looked upon him when he expressed himself in such a pert manner, and had a compassionate concern for him; he pitied him for his ignorance of the law, in its spirituality and large extent; for his pride and vanity, his conceit of, and glorying in himself: wherefore, in order to mortify him, and abate these swelling thoughts of himself;

he said unto him, one thing thou lackest; before which last clause the Ethiopic version puts this, "if thou wilt be perfect", out of Mat 19:21, see the note there: and the Coptic version, and two of Stephens's copies read it before the following,

go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow me. This young man's reigning sin seems to have been an overweening affection for the things of this world; his riches were his idol, on which his heart was set, and in which he trusted: wherefore he was so far from keeping all the commandments, that he had not kept the first; "thou shalt have no other gods before me": there was more than one thing wanting in him, but Christ takes notice of this as the first; and there was no need to mention any other; this touched him sensibly, and fully tried, and sufficiently exposed the vanity of his boasted perfection. That clause, "take up the cross", is omitted in the Vulgate Latin version, as it is not mentioned by Matthew. The Ethiopic version reads it, "the cross of thy death", and places it before, "come and follow me"; as do also the Syriac and Persic versions; but the Arabic reads it last of all; See Gill on Mat 19:21.

Gill: Mar 10:22

And, he was sad at that saying,.... That he lacked one thing, and especially that he should be bid to sell all that he had, and give it away; and what might add to his sadness is, that he must take up the cross of reproach, affliction, persecution, and death; his countenance fell upon this,

and went away grieved: finding that he must part with two things his heart was set upon, his idol of self-righteousness, and his mammon of unrighteousness; the bladder of his pride was pricked, and his vanity and self-conceit were exposed; and he was called upon to part with his substance; all which were sadly mortifying, and exceedingly disagreeable to him:

for he had great possessions; See Gill on Mat 19:22.

Gill: Mar 10:23

And Jesus looked round about,.... To see what effect the discourse he had with the young man, and the consequence of it, had upon his disciples; as also to raise their attention to what he was about, to say:

and saith unto his disciples, how hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! the Gospel dispensation, by embracing the doctrines, and submitting to the ordinances of it; See Gill on Mat 19:23.

Gill: Mar 10:24

And the disciples were astonished at his words,.... For they expected, in a little while, that the kingdom of the Messiah would be set up in great worldly pomp and grandeur; and that all the rich men of the nation would come into it, become his subjects, and join to support the glory and splendour of it:

but Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, children: it was common with the Jews to call the disciples, or scholars of the wise men, "children"; hence that saying of theirs ^f, התלמידים קרוים בנים, "the disciples are called children", which they prove from 2Ki 2:3 Isa 8:18.

How hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! This he said partly to confirm what he had before said, at which his disciples were astonished; and partly to explain it, as that he was to be understood of such that trusted in their riches, set their hearts upon them, and placed their hope and happiness in them: and the great difficulty, or rather impossibility of such, at least continuing so, entering into the kingdom of God, is still more strongly expressed in the following words.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Mar 10:1

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.

² tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

³ tc Alexandrian and other witnesses (א B C* L Ψ 0274 892 2427 pc co) read καὶ πέραν (kai peran, “and beyond”), while Western and Caesarean witnesses (C² D W Δ Θ Ë^1,13 28 565 579 1241 al) read πέραν (simply “beyond”). It is difficult to decide between the Alexandrian and Western readings here, but since the parallel in Matt 19:1 omits καί the weight is slightly in favor of including it here; scribes may have omitted the word here to harmonize this passage to the Matthean passage. Because of the perceived geographical difficulties found in the earlier readings (omission of the word “and” would make it seem as though Judea is beyond the Jordan), the majority of the witnesses (A Ï) read διὰ τοῦ πέραν (dia tou peran, “through the other side”), perhaps trying to indicate the direction of Jesus’ travel.

⁴ tn “River” is not in the Greek text but is supplied for clarity. The region referred to here is sometimes known as Transjordan (i.e., “across the Jordan”).

NET Notes: Mar 10:2

¹ tc The Western text (D it) and a few others have only καί (kai) here, rather than καὶ προσελθόντες Φαρισαῖοι (kai proselqonte" Farisaioi, here translated as “then some Pharisees came”). The longer reading, a specific identification of the subject, may have been prompted by the parallel in Matt 19:3. The fact that the mss vary in how they express this subject lends credence to this judgment: οἱ δὲ Φαρισαῖοι προσελθόντες (Joi de Farisaioi proselqonte", “now the Pharisees came”) in W Θ 565 2542 pc; καὶ προσελθόντες οἱ Φαρισαῖοι (kai proselqonte" Joi Farisaioi, “then the Pharisees came”) in א C N (˹: καὶ προσελθόντες ἐπηρώτησαν αὐτὸν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι) 579 1241 1424 pm; and καὶ προσελθόντες Φαρισαῖοι in A B K L Γ Δ Ψ Ë¹³ 28 700 892 2427 pm. Further, the use of an indefinite plural (a general “they”) is a Markan feature, occurring over twenty times. Thus, internally the evidence looks rather strong for the shorter reading, in spite of the minimal external support for it. However, if scribes assimilated this text to Matt 19:3, a more exact parallel might have been expected: Matthew has καὶ προσῆλθον αὐτῷ Φαρισαῖοι (kai proshlqon aujtw Farisaioi, “then Pharisees came to him”). Although the verb form needs to be different according to syntactical requirements of the respective sentences, the word order variety, as well as the presence or absence of the article and the alternation between δέ and καί as the introductory conjunction, all suggest that the variety of readings might not be due to scribal adjustments toward Matthew. At the same time, the article with Φαρισαῖοι is found in both Gospels in many of the same witnesses (א Ï in Matt; א pm in Mark), and the anarthrous Φαρισαῖοι is likewise parallel in many mss (B L ˹³ 700 892). Another consideration is the possibility that very early in the transmissional history, scribes naturally inserted the most obvious subject (the Pharisees would be the obvious candidates as the ones to test Jesus). This may account for the reading with δέ, since Mark nowhere else uses this conjunction to introduce the Pharisees into the narrative. As solid as the internal arguments against the longer reading seem to be, the greatest weakness is the witnesses that support it. The Western mss are prone to alter the text by adding, deleting, substituting, or rearranging large amounts of material. There are times when the rationale for this seems inexplicable. In light of the much stronger evidence for “the Pharisees came,” even though it occurs in various permutations, it is probably wisest to retain the words. This judgment, however, is hardly certain.

sn See the note on Pharisees in 2:16.

² tn In Greek this phrase occurs at the end of the sentence. It has been brought forward to conform to English style.

³ tn The personal pronoun “his” is not in the Greek text, but is certainly implied and has been supplied in the English translation to clarify the sense of the statement (cf. “his wife” in 10:7).

⁴ tn The particle εἰ (ei) is often used to introduce both indirect and direct questions. Thus, another possible translation is to take this as an indirect question: “They asked him if it were lawful for a man to divorce his wife.” See BDF §440.3.

sn The question of the Pharisees was anything but sincere; they were asking it to test him. Jesus was now in the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas (i.e., Judea and beyond the Jordan) and it is likely that the Pharisees were hoping he might answer the question of divorce in a way similar to John the Baptist and so suffer the same fate as John, i.e., death at the hands of Herod (cf. 6:17-19). Jesus answered the question not on the basis of rabbinic custom and the debate over Deut 24:1, but rather from the account of creation and God’s original design.

NET Notes: Mar 10:3

¹ tn Grk “But answering, he said to them.”

NET Notes: Mar 10:4

¹ tn Grk “to divorce.” The pronoun has been supplied in the translation for clarity.

sn An allusion to Deut 24:1. The Pharisees were all in agreement that the OT permitted a man to write a certificate of dismissal and divorce his wife (not vice-versa) and that remarriage was therefore sanctioned. But the two rabbinic schools of Shammai and Hillel differed on the grounds for divorce. Shammai was much stricter than Hillel and permitted divorce only in the case of sexual immorality. Hillel permitted divorce for almost any reason (cf. the Mishnah, m. Gittin 9.10).

NET Notes: Mar 10:5

¹ tn Grk “heart” (a collective singular).

NET Notes: Mar 10:6

¹ tc Most mss have ὁ θεός (Jo qeo", “God”) as the explicit subject of ἐποίησεν (epoihsen, “he made”; A D W Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 Ï lat sy), while the most important witnesses, along with a few others, lack ὁ θεός (א B C L Δ 579 2427 co). On the one hand, it is possible that the shorter reading is an assimilation to the wording of the LXX of Gen 1:27b where ὁ θεός is lacking. However, since it is mentioned at the beginning of the verse (Gen 1:27a) with ἐποίησεν scribes may have been motivated to add it in Mark to make the subject clear. Further, confusion could easily arise in this dominical saying, because Moses was the previously mentioned subject (v. 5) and inattentive readers might regard him as the subject of ἐποίησεν in v. 6. Thus, both on internal and external grounds, the most probable wording of the original text here lacked ὁ θεός.

² sn A quotation from Gen 1:27; 5:2.

NET Notes: Mar 10:7

¹ tc ‡ The earliest witnesses, as well as a few other important mss (א B Ψ 892* 2427 sy^s), lack the rest of the quotation from Gen 2:24, “and will be united with his wife.” Most mss ([A C] D [L N] W [Δ] Θ Ë^[1],13 [579] Ï lat co) have the clause. It could be argued that the shorter reading was an accidental omission, due to this clause and v. 8 both beginning with καί (kai, “and”). But if that were the case, one might expect to see corrections in א or B. This can be overstated, of course; both mss combine in their errors on several other occasions. However, the nature of the omission here (both its length and the fact that it is from the OT) argues that א and B reflect the original wording. Further, the form of the longer reading is identical with the LXX of Gen 2:24, but different from the quotation in Matt 19:5 (προσκολληθήσεται vs. κολληθήσεται [proskollhqhsetai vs. kollhqhsetai], πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα vs. τῇ γυναικί [pro" thn gunaika vs. th gunaiki]). The significance of this is that Matthew’s quotations of the OT are often, if not usually, directly from the Hebrew – except when he is following Mark’s quotation of the OT. Matthew in fact only departs from Mark’s verbatim quotation of the LXX in 15:4 and 19:19, both texts quoting from Exod 20:12/Deut 5:6 (and in both places the only difference from Mark/LXX is the dropping of σου [sou, “your”]). This might suggest that the longer reading here was not part of what the first evangelist had in his copy of Mark. Further, the reading without this line is harder, for the wife is not explicitly mentioned in v. 7; the casual reader could read “the two” of v. 8 as referring to father and mother rather than husband and wife. (And Mark is known for having harder, shorter readings that scribes tried to soften by explanatory expansion: In this chapter alone, cf. the textual problems in v. 6 [the insertion of ὁ θεός]; in v. 13 [the replacement of αὐτοῖς with τοῖς προσφέρουσιν or τοῖς φέρουσιν]; in v. 24 [insertion of ἐστιν τοὺς πεποιθότας ἐπὶ χρήμασιν, πλούσιον, or τὰ χρήματα ἔχοντες; and perhaps in v. 2 [possible insertion of προσελθόντες Φαρισαῖοι or similar permutations].) Although a decision is difficult, the preferred reading lacks “and will be united with his wife.” NA²⁷ has the longer reading in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity.

NET Notes: Mar 10:8

¹ sn A quotation from Gen 2:24. The “two” refers to husband and wife, not father and mother mentioned in the previous verse. See the tc note on “mother” in v. 7 for discussion.

NET Notes: Mar 10:11

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “So” to indicate that Jesus’ statement is in response to the disciples’ question (v. 10).

NET Notes: Mar 10:12

¹ sn It was not uncommon in Jesus’ day for a Jewish man to divorce his wife, but it was extremely rare for a wife to initiate such an action against her husband, since among many things it would have probably left her destitute and without financial support. Mark’s inclusion of the statement And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery (v. 12) reflects more the problem of the predominantly Gentile church in Rome to which he was writing. As such it may be an interpretive and parenthetical comment by the author rather than part of the saying by Jesus, which would stop at the end of v. 11. As such it should then be placed in parentheses. Further NT passages that deal with the issue of divorce and remarriage are Matt 5:31-32; 19:1-12; Luke 16:18; 1 Cor 7.

NET Notes: Mar 10:13

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “now” to indicate the transition to a new topic.

² tn Grk “so that he would touch them.” Here the touch is connected with (or conveys) a blessing (cf. v. 16; also BDAG 126 s.v. ἅπτω 2.c).

³ tc “Those who brought them” (ἐπετιμῶν τοῖς προσφέρουσιν, epetimwn toi" prosferousin) is the reading of most mss (A D W [Θ Ë^1,13] Ï lat sy), but it is probably a motivated reading. Since the subject is not explicit in the earliest and best witnesses as well as several others (א B C L Δ Ψ 579 892 2427), scribes would be prone to add “those who brought them” here to clarify that the children were not the ones being scolded. It could be argued that the masculine pronoun αὐτοῖς (autois, “them”) only rarely was used with the neuter antecedent παιδία (paidia, “children”), and thus the longer reading was not motivated by scribal clarification. However, such rare usage is found in Mark (cf. 5:41; 9:24-26); further, scribes routinely added clarifications when such were not necessary. Thus, both on external and internal grounds, the shorter reading is strongly preferred. Similar motivations are behind the translation here, namely, “those who brought them” has been supplied to ensure that the parents who brought the children are in view, not the children themselves.

tn Grk “the disciples scolded them.”

NET Notes: Mar 10:14

¹ sn The kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Children are a picture of those whose simple trust illustrates what faith is all about. The remark illustrates how everyone is important to God, even those whom others regard as insignificant.

NET Notes: Mar 10:15

¹ tn Grk “Truly (ἀμήν, amhn), I say to you.”

² sn On receive see John 1:12.

³ sn The point of the comparison receive the kingdom of God like a child has more to do with a child’s trusting spirit and willingness to be dependent and receive from others than any inherent humility the child might possess.

⁴ tn The negation in Greek (οὐ μή, ou mh) is very strong here.

NET Notes: Mar 10:17

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “now” to indicate the transition to a new topic.

² tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

sn Mark 10:17-31. The following unit, Mark 10:17-31, can be divided up into three related sections: (1) the rich man’s question (vv. 17-22); (2) Jesus’ teaching on riches and the kingdom of God (vv. 23-27); and (3) Peter’s statement and Jesus’ answer (vv. 28-31). They are all tied together around the larger theme of the relationship of wealth to the kingdom Jesus had been preaching. The point is that it is impossible to attain to the kingdom by means of riches. The passage as a whole is found in the section 8:27-10:52 in which Mark has been focusing on Jesus’ suffering and true discipleship. In vv. 28-31 Jesus does not deny great rewards to those who follow him, both in the present age and in the age to come, but it must be thoroughly understood that suffering will be integral to the mission of the disciples and the church, for in the very next section (10:32-34) Jesus reaffirmed the truth about his coming rejection, suffering, death, and resurrection.

³ sn The rich man wanted to know what he must do to inherit eternal life, but Jesus had just finished teaching that eternal life was not earned but simply received (10:15).

NET Notes: Mar 10:18

¹ sn Jesus’ response, Why do you call me good?, was designed to cause the young man to stop and think for a moment about who Jesus really was. The following statement No one is good except God alone seems to point the man in the direction of Jesus’ essential nature and the demands which logically follow on the man for having said it.

NET Notes: Mar 10:19

¹ sn A quotation from Exod 20:12-16; Deut 5:16-20, except for do not defraud, which is an allusion to Deut 24:14.

NET Notes: Mar 10:20

¹ tn Grk “He”; the referent (the man who asked the question in v. 17) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

² tn Grk “kept.” The implication of this verb is that the man has obeyed the commandments without fail throughout his life, so the adverb “wholeheartedly” has been added to the translation to bring out this nuance.

³ tn Grk “these things.” The referent of the pronoun (the laws mentioned by Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

sn While the rich man was probably being sincere when he insisted I have wholeheartedly obeyed all these laws, he had confined his righteousness to external obedience. The rich man’s response to Jesus’ command to give away all he had revealed that internally he loved money more than God.

⁴ sn Since my youth. Judaism regarded the age of thirteen as the age when a man would have become responsible to live by God’s commands.

NET Notes: Mar 10:21

¹ tn The words “the money” are not in the Greek text, but are implied. Direct objects were often omitted in Greek when clear from the context.

² sn The call for sacrifice comes with a promise of eternal reward: You will have treasure in heaven. Jesus’ call is a test to see how responsive the man is to God’s direction through him. Will he walk the path God’s agent calls him to walk? For a rich person who got it right, see Zacchaeus in Luke 19:1-10.

NET Notes: Mar 10:22

¹ tn Grk “he”; the referent (the man who asked the question in v. 17) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

² tn Grk “he had many possessions.” This term (κτῆμα, kthma) is often used for land as a possession.

NET Notes: Mar 10:23

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.

NET Notes: Mar 10:24

¹ tn Grk “But answering, Jesus again said to them.” The participle ἀποκριθείς (apokriqeis) is redundant and has not been translated.

² tc Most mss (A C D Θ Ë^1,13 28 565 2427 Ï lat sy) have here “for those who trust in riches” (τοὺς πεποιθότας ἐπὶ [τοῖς] χρήμασιν, tou" pepoiqota" epi [toi"] crhmasin); W has πλούσιον (plousion) later in the verse, producing the same general modification on the dominical saying (“how hard it is for the rich to enter…”). But such qualifications on the Lord’s otherwise harsh and absolute statements are natural scribal expansions, intended to soften the dictum. Further, the earliest and best witnesses, along with a few others (א B Δ Ψ sa), lack any such qualifications. That W lacks the longer expansion and only has πλούσιον suggests that its archetype agreed with א B here; its voice should be heard with theirs. Thus, both on external and internal grounds, the shorter reading is preferred.

Geneva Bible: Mar 10:1

And he ^{( a )} arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.

^{( a )} That is to say, departed and went from there: for in the Hebrew language sitting and dwelling are the same thing, and so are rising and going forth.

Geneva Bible: Mar 10:5

^{( 1 )} And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this ^{( b )} precept.

^{( 1 )} God never allowed those divorces which the law tolerated.

^{( b )} See (Mat 19:3-12). For Moses gave them no commandment to put away their wives, but rather made a good stipulation for the wives to protect them from the stubborn hardness of their husbands.

Geneva Bible: Mar 10:11

And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery ^{( c )} against her.

^{( c )} Whom he puts away, for he is an adulterer by keeping company with another.

Geneva Bible: Mar 10:13

^{( 2 )} And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and [his] disciples rebuked those that brought [them].

^{( 2 )} God in his goodness is concerned not only for the parents, but the children as well: and therefore he blesses them. (Ed.)

Geneva Bible: Mar 10:15

Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God ^{( 3 )} as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

^{( 3 )} In our malice we must become as children if we will enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Geneva Bible: Mar 10:17

^{( 4 )} And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

^{( 4 )} Two things are to be greatly avoided by those who earnestly seek eternal life: the first is an opinion of their merits or deservings, which is not only understood, but condemned by the due consideration of the law: and the second is the love of riches, which turns aside many from that race in which they ran with a good courage.

Geneva Bible: Mar 10:19

Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, ^{( d )} Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

^{( d )} Neither by force nor deceit, nor any other means at all.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Mar 10:1-52

1 Christ disputes with the Pharisees touching divorcement:

13 blesses the children that are brought unto him;

17 resolves a rich man how he may inherit life everlasting;

23 tells his disciples of the danger of riches;

28 promises rewards to them that forsake any thing for the gospel;

32 foretells his death and resurrection;

35 bids the two ambitious suitors to think rather of suffering with him;

46 and restores to Bartimaeus his sight.

Maclaren: Mar 10:13-15

Children And Childlike Men

And they brought young children to Him, that He should touch them: and His disciples rebuked those that brought them. 14. But when Jesus saw it, He was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 15. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.'--Mark 10:13-15.

IT was natural that the parents should have wanted Christ's blessing, so that they might tell their children in later days that His hand had been laid on their heads, and that He had prayed for them. And Christ did not think of it as a mere superstition. The disciples were not so akin to the children as He was, and they were a great deal more tender of His dignity than He. They thought of this as an interruption disturbing their high intercourse with Christ. These children are always in the way, this is tiresome,' etc.

I. Christ Blessing Children.

It is a beautiful picture: the great Messiah with a child in His arms. We could not think of Moses or of Paul in such an attitude. Without it, we should have wanted one of the sweetest, gentlest, most human traits in His character; and how world-wide in its effect that act has been! How many a mother has bent over her child with deeper love; how many a parent has felt the sacredness of the trust more vividly; how ninny a mother has been drawn nearer to Christ; and how many a little child has had childlike love to Him awakened by it; how much of practical benevolence and of noble sacrifice for children's welfare, how many great institutions, have really sprung from this one dead!

And, if we turn from its effects to its meaning, it reveals Christ's love for children:--in its human side, as part of His character as man; in its deeper aspect as a revelation of the divine nature. It corrects dogmatic errors by making plain that, prior to all ceremonies or to repentance and faith, little children are loved and blessed by Him. Unconscious infants as these were folded in His arms and love. It puts away all gloomy and horrible thoughts which men have had about the standing of little children.

This is an act of Christ to infants expressive of His love to them, His care over them, their share in His salvation. Baptism is an act of man's, a symbol of his repentance and dying to sin and rising to a new life in Christ, a profession of his faith, an act of obedience to his Lord. It teaches nothing as to the relation of infants to the love of Jesus or to salvation. It does not follow that because that love is most sure and precious, baptism must needs be a sign of it. The question, what does baptism mean, must be determined by examination of texts which speak about baptism; not by a side-light from a text which speaks about something else. There is no more reason for making baptism proclaim that Jesus Christ loves children than for making it proclaim that two and two make four.

II. The Child's Nearness To Christ.

Of such is the kingdom.' Except ye be converted and become like little children,' etc. Now this does not refer to innocence; for, as a matter of fact, children are not innocent, as all schoolmasters and nurses know, whatever sentimental poets may say. Innocence is not a qualification for admission to the kingdom. And yet it is true that heaven lies about us in our infancy,' and that we are further off from it than when we were children. Nor does it mean that children are naturally the subjects of the kingdom, but only that the characteristics of the child are those which the man must have, in order to enter the kingdom; that their natural disposition is such as Christ requires to be directed to Him; or, in other words, that childhood has a special adaptation to Christianity. For instance, take dependence, trust, simplicity, unconsciousness, and docility.

These are the very characteristics of childhood, and these are the very emotions of mind and heart which Christianity requires. Add the child's strong faculty of imagination and its implicit belief; making the form of Christianity as the story of a life so easy to them. And we may add too: the absence of intellectual pride; the absence of the habit of dallying with moral truth. Everybody is to the child either a good' man or a bad.' They have an intense realisation of the unseen; an absence of developed vices and hard worldliness; a faculty of living in the present, free from anxious care and worldly hearts. But while thus they have special adaptation for receiving, they too need to come to Christ. These characteristics do not make Christians. They are to be directed to Christ. Suffer them to come unto Me,' the youngest child needs to, can, ought to, come to Christ. And how beautiful their piety is, Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings Thou hast perfected praise.' Their fresh, unworn trebles struck on Christ's ear. Children ought to grow up in Christian households, innocent from much transgression.' We ought to expect them to grow up Christian.

III. The Child And The Church.

The child is a pattern to us men. We are to learn of them as well as teach them; what they are naturally, we are to strive to become, not childish but childlike. Even as a weaned child' (see Psalm 131.). The child spirit is glorified in manhood. It is possible for us to retain it, and lose none of the manhood. In malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.' The spirit of the kingdom is that of immortal youth. The children are committed to our care.

The end of all .training and care is that they should by voluntary act draw near to film. This should be the aim in Sunday schools, for instance, and in families, and in all that we do for the poor around us.

See that we do not hinder their coming. This is a wide principle, viz., not to do anything which may interfere with those who are weaker and lower than we are finding their way to Jesus. The Church, and we as individual Christians, too often hinder this coming.'

Do not hinder by the presentation of the Gospel in a repellent form, either hardly dogmatic or sour.

Do not hinder by the requirement of such piety as is unnatural to a child.

Do not hinder by inconsistencies. This is a warning for Christian parents in particular.

Do not hinder by neglect. .Despise not one of these little ones.'

Maclaren: Mar 10:17-27

Almost A Disciple

And when He was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to Him, and asked Him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18. And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou Me good! there is none good but one, that is, God. 19. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. 20. And he answered and said unto Him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. 21. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell what, soever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow Me. 22. And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions. 23. And Jesus looked round about and saith unto His disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 24. And the disciples were astonished at His words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! 25. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 26. And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved? 27. And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.' --Mark 10:17-27.

THERE were courage, earnestness, and humility in this young ruler's impulsive casting of himself at Christ's feet in the way, with such a question. He was not afraid to recognise a teacher in Him whom his class scorned and hated; he was deeply sincere in his wish to possess eternal life, and in his belief that he was ready to do whatever was necessary for that end; he bowed himself as truly as he bent his knees before Jesus, and the noble enthusiasm of youth breathed in his desires, his words, and his gesture.

But his question betrayed the defect which poisoned the much that was right and lovable in him. He had but a shallow notion of what was good,' as is indicated by his careless ascription of goodness to one of whom he knew so little as he did of Jesus, and by his conception that it was a matter of deeds. He is too sure of himself; for he thinks that he is ready and able to do all good deeds, if only they are pointed out to him.

How little he understood the resistance of' the mind of the flesh' to discerned duty! Probably he had had no very strong inclinations to contend against, in living the respectable life that had been his. It is only when we row against the stream that we find out how fast it runs. He was wrong about the connection of good deeds and eternal life, for he thought of them as done by himself, and so of buying it by his own efforts. Fatal errors could not have been condensed in briefer compass, or presented in conjunction with more that is admirable, than in his eager question, asked so modestly and yet so presumptuously.

Our Lord answers with a coldness which startles; but it was meant to rouse, like a dash of icy water flung in the face. Why callest thou Me good?' is more than a waving aside of a compliment, or a lesson in accuracy of speech. It rebukes the young man's shallow conception of goodness, as shown by the facility with which he bestowed the epithet, None is good save one, even God,' cuts up by the roots his notion of the possibility of self-achieved goodness, since it traces all human goodness to its source in God. If He is the only good, then we cannot perform good acts by our own power, but must receive power from Him. How, then, can any man inherit eternal life' by good deeds, which he is only able to do because God has poured some of His own goodness into him? Jesus shatters the young man's whole theory, as expressed in his question, at one stroke.

But while His reply bears directly on the errors in the question, it has a wider significance. Either Jesus is here repudiating the notion of His own sinlessness, and acknowledging, in contradiction to every other disclosure of His self-consciousness, that He too was not through and through good, or else He is claiming to be filled with God, the source of all goodness, in a wholly unique manner. It is a tremendous alternative, but one which has to be faced. While one is thankful if men even imperfectly apprehend the character and nature of Jesus, one cannot but feel that the question may fairly be put to the many who extol the beauty of His life, and deny His divinity, Why callest thou Me good?' Either He is God manifest in the flesh,' or He is not' good.'

The remainder of Christ's answer tends to deepen the dawning conviction of the impossibility of meriting eternal life by acts of goodness, apart from dependence on God. He refers to the second half of the Decalogue only, not as if the first were less important, but because the breaches of the second are more easily brought to consciousness. In thus answering, Jesus takes the standpoint of the law, but for the purpose of bringing to the very opposite conviction from that which the young ruler expresses in reply. He declares that he has kept them all from his youth. Jesus would have had him confess that in them was a code too high to be fully obeyed. By the law is the knowledge of sin,' but it had not done its work in this young man. His shallow notion of goodness besets and blinds him still. He is evidently thinking about external deeds, and is an utter stranger to the depths of his own heart. It was an answer betraying great shallowness in his conception of duty and in his self-knowledge.

It is one which is often repeated still. How many of us are there who, if ever we cast a careless glance over our lives, are quite satisfied with their external respectability! As long as the chambers that look to the street are fairly clean, many think that all is right.

But what is there rotting and festering down in the cellars? Do we ever go down there with the candle of the Lord' in our hands? If we do, the ruler's boast, All these have I kept,' will falter into All these have I broken.'

But let us be thankful for the love that shone in Christ's eyes as He looked on him. We may blame; He loved. Jesus saw the fault, but He saw the longing to be better. The dim sense of insufficiency which had driven this questioner to Him was clear to that all-knowing and all-loving heart. Do not let us harshly judge the mistakes of those who would fain be taught, nor regard the professions of innocence, which come from defective perception, as if they were the proud utterances of a Pharisee.

But Christ's love is firm, and can be severe. It never pares down His requirements to make discipleship easier. Rather it attracts by heightening them, and insisting most strenuously on the most difficult surrender. That is the explanation of the stringent demand next made by Him. He touched the poisonous swelling as with a sharp lancet when He called for surrender of wealth. We may be sure that it was this man's money which stood between him and eternal life. If something else had been his chief temptation, that something would have been signalised as needful to be given up. There is no general principle of conduct laid down here, but a specific injunction determined by the individual's character. All diseases are not treated with the same medicines. The command is but Christ's application of His broad requirement, If thine eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out.' The principle involved is, surrender what hinders entire following of Jesus. When that sacrifice is made, we shall be in contact with the fountain of goodness, and have eternal life, not as payment, but as a gift.

His countenance fell,' or, according to Mark's picturesque word, became lowering,' like a summer sky when thunder-clouds gather. The hope went out of his heart, and the light faded from his eager face. The "prick of the sharp spear had burst the bubble of his superficial earnestness. He bad probably never had anything like so repugnant a duty forced upon him, and he cannot bring himself to yield. Like so many of us, he says, I desire eternal life,' but when it comes to giving up the dearest thing he recoils. Anything else, Lord, thou shalt have, and welcome, but not that.' And Christ says, That, and nothing else, I must have, if thou art to have Me.' So this man went away sorrowful: His earnestness evaporated; he kept his possessions, and he lost Christ. A prudent bargain! But we may hope that, since he went away sorrowful,' he felt the ache of something lacking, that the old longings came back, and that he screwed up his resolution to make the great surrender,' and counted his wealth but dung, that he might win Christ.'

What a world of sad and disappointed love there would be in that look of Jesus to the disciples, as the young ruler went away with bowed head! How graciously He anticipates their probable censure, and turns their thoughts rather on themselves, by the acknowledgment that the failure was intelligible, since the condition was hard! How pityingly His thoughts go after the retreating figure! How universal the application of His words! Riches may become a hindrance to entering the kingdom. They do so when they take the first place in the affections and in the estimates of good. That danger besets those who have them and those who have them not. Many a poor man is as much caught in the toils of the love of money as the rich are. Jesus modifies the form of His saying when He repeats it in the shape of How hardly shall they that trust in riches,' etc. It is difficult to have, and not to trust in them. Rich men's disadvantages as to living a self-sacrificing Christian life are great. To Christ's eyes, their position was one to be dreaded rather than to be envied.

So opposed to current ideas was such a thought, that the disciples, accustomed to think that wealth meant happiness, were amazed. If the same doctrine were proclaimed in any great commercial centre to-day, it would excite no less astonishment. At least, many Christians and others live as if the opposite were true. Wealth possessed, and not trusted in, but used aright, may become a help towards eternal life; but wealth as commonly regarded and employed by its possessors, and as looked longingly after by others, is a real, and in many cases an insuperable, obstacle to entering the strait gate. As soon drive a camel, humps and load and all, through a needle's eye,' as get a man who trusts in the uncertainty of riches squeezed through that portal. No communities need this lesson more than our great cities.

No wonder that the disciples thought that, if the road was so difficult for rich men, it must be hard indeed. Christ goes even farther. He declares that it is not only hard, but impossible,' for a man by his own power to tread it. That was exactly what the young man had thought that he could do, if only he were directed.

So our Lord's closing words in this context apply, not only to the immediately preceding question by the disciples, but may be taken as the great truth conveyed by the whole incident. Man's efforts can never put him in possession of eternal life. He must have God's power flowing into him if he is to be such as can enter the kingdom. It is the germ of the subsequent teaching of Paul; The gift of God is eternal life.' What we cannot do, Christ has done for us, and does in us. We must yield ourselves to Him, and surrender ourselves, and abandon what stands between us and Him, and then eternal life will enter into us here, and we shall enter into its perfect possession hereafter.

MHCC: Mar 10:1-12

Wherever Jesus was, the people flocked after him in crowds, and he taught them. Preaching was Christ's constant practice. He here shows that the reason why Moses' law allowed divorce, was such that they ought not to use the permission; it was only for the hardness of their hearts. God himself joined man and wife together; he has fitted them to be comforts and helps for each other. The bond which God has tied, is not to be lightly untied. Let those who are for putting away their wives consider what would become of themselves, if God should deal with them in like manner.

MHCC: Mar 10:13-16

Some parents or nurses brought little children to Christ, that he should touch them, in token of his blessing them. It does not appear that they needed bodily cures, nor were they capable of being taught: but those who had the care of them believed that Christ's blessing would do their souls good; therefore they brought them to him. Jesus ordered that they should be brought to him, and that nothing should be said or done to hinder it. Children should be directed to the Saviour as soon as they are able to understand his words. Also, we must receive the kingdom of God as little children; we must stand affected to Christ and his grace, as little children to their parents, nurses, and teachers.

MHCC: Mar 10:17-22

This young ruler showed great earnestness. He asked what he should do now, that he might be happy for ever. Most ask for good to be had in this world; any good, Psa 4:6; he asks for good to be done in this world, in order to enjoy the greatest good in the other world. Christ encouraged this address by assisting his faith, and by directing his practice. But here is a sorrowful parting between Jesus and this young man. He asks Christ what he shall do more than he has done, to obtain eternal life; and Christ puts it to him, whether he has indeed that firm belief of, and that high value for eternal life which he seems to have. Is he willing to bear a present cross, in expectation of future crown? The young man was sorry he could not be a follower of Christ upon easier terms; that he could not lay hold on eternal life, and keep hold of his worldly possessions too. He went away grieved. See Mat 6:24, Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

MHCC: Mar 10:23-31

Christ took this occasion to speak to his disciples about the difficulty of the salvation of those who have abundance of this world. Those who thus eagerly seek the wealth of the world, will never rightly prize Christ and his grace. Also, as to the greatness of the salvation of those who have but little of this world, and leave it for Christ. The greatest trial of a good man's constancy is, when love to Jesus calls him to give up love to friends and relatives. Even when gainers by Christ, let them still expect to suffer for him, till they reach heaven. Let us learn contentment in a low state, and to watch against the love of riches in a high one. Let us pray to be enabled to part with all, if required, in Christ's service, and to use all we are allowed to keep in his service.

Matthew Henry: Mar 10:1-12

Our Lord Jesus was an itinerant Preacher, did not continue long in a place, for the whole land of Canaan was his parish, or diocese, and therefore he would visit every part of it, and give instructions to those in the remotest corners of it. Here we have him in the coasts of Judea, by the further side of Jordan eastward, as we found him, not long since, in the utmost borders westward, near Tyre and Sidon. Thus was his circuit like that of the sun, from whose light and heat nothing is hid. Now here we have him,

I. Resorted to by the people, Mar 10:1. Wherever he was, they flocked after him in crowds; they came to him again, as they had done when he had formerly been in these parts, and, as he was wont, he taught them again. Note, Preaching was Christ's constant practice; it was what he was used to, and, wherever he came, he did as he was wont. In Matthew it is said, He healed them; here it is said, He taught them: his cures were to confirm his doctrine, and to recommend it, and his doctrine was to explain his cures, and illustrate them. He taught them again. Note, Even those whom Christ hath taught, have need to be taught again. Such is the fulness of the Christian doctrine, that there is still more to be learned; and such our forgetfulness, that we need to be reminded of what we do know.

II. We have him disputed with by the Pharisees, who envied the progress of his spiritual arms, and did all they could to obstruct and oppose it; to divert him, to perplex him, and to prejudice the people against him.

Here is, 1. A question they started concerning divorce (Mar 10:2); Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? This was a good question, if it had been well put, and with a humble desire to know the mind of God in this matter; but they proposed it, tempting him, seeking an occasion against him, and an opportunity to expose him, which side soever he should take of the question. Ministers must stand upon their guard, lest, under pretence of being advised with, they be ensnared.

2. Christ's reply to them with a question (Mar 10:3); What did Moses command you? This he asked them, to testify his respect to the law of Moses, and to show that he came not to destroy it; and to engage them to a universal impartial respect for Moses's writings and to compare one part of them with another.

3. The fair account they gave of what they found in the law of Moses, expressly concerning divorce, Mar 10:4. Christ asked, What did Moses command you? They own that Moses only suffered, or permitted, a man to write his wife a bill of divorce, and to put her away, Deu 24:1. "If you will do it, you must do it in writing, delivered into her own hand, and so put her away, and never return to her again."

4. The answer that Christ gave to their question, in which he abides by the doctrine he had formerly laid down in this case (Mat 5:32), That whosoever puts away his wife, except for fornication, causeth her to commit adultery. And to clear this he here shows,

(1.) That the reason why Moses, in his law, permitted divorce, was such, as that they ought not to make use of that permission; for it was only for the hardness of their hearts (Mar 10:5), lest, if they were not permitted to divorce their wives, they should murder them; so that none must put away their wives but such as are willing to own that their hearts were so hard as to need this permission.

(2.) That the account which Moses, in this history, gives of the institution of marriage, affords such a reason against divorce, as amounts to a prohibition of it. So that if the question be, What did Moses command? (Mar 10:3), it must be answered, "Though by a temporary proviso he allowed divorce to the Jews, yet by an eternal reason he forbade it to all the children of Adam and Eve, and that is it which we must abide by."

Moses tells us, [1.] That God made man male and female, one male, and one female; so that Adam could not put away his wife and take another, for there was no other to take, which was an intimation to all his sons, that they must not. [2.] When this male and this female were, by the ordinance of God, joined together in holy marriage, the law was, That a man must leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife (Mar 10:7); which intimates not only the nearness of the relation, but the perpetuity of it; he shall so cleave to his wife as not to be separated from her. [3.] The result of the relation is, That, though they are two, yet they are one, they are one flesh, Mar 10:8. The union between them is the most intimate that can be, and, as Dr. Hammond expresses it, a sacred thing that must not be violated. [4.] God himself was joined them together; he has not only, as Creator, fitted them to be comforts and helps meet for each other, but he has, in wisdom and goodness, appointed them who are thus joined together, to live together in love till death parts them. Marriage is not an invention of men, but a divine institution, and therefore is to be religiously observed, and the more, because it is a figure of the mystical inseparable union between Christ and his church.

Now from all this he infers, that men ought not to put their wives asunder from them, whom God has put so near them. The bond which God himself has tied, is not to be lightly untied. They who are divorcing their wives for every offence, would do well to consider what would become of them, if God should in like manner deal with them. See Isa 50:1; Jer 3:1.

5. Christ's discourse with his disciples, in private, about this matter, Mar 10:10-12. It was an advantage to them, that they had opportunity of personal converse with Christ, not only about gospel mysteries, but about moral duties, for further satisfaction. No more is here related of this private conference, that the law Christ laid down in this case - That it is adultery for a man to put away his wife, and marry another; it is adultery against the wife he puts away, it is a wrong to her, a breach of his contract with her, Mar 10:11. He adds, If a woman shall put away her husband, that is, elope from him, leave him by consent, and be married to another, she commits adultery (Mar 10:12), and it will be no excuse at all for her to say that it was with the consent of her husband. Wisdom and grace, holiness and love, reigning in the heart, will make those commands easy which to the carnal mind may be as a heavy yoke.

Matthew Henry: Mar 10:13-16

It is looked upon as the indication of a kind and tender disposition to take notice of little children, and this was remarkable in our Lord Jesus, which is an encouragement not only to little children to apply themselves to Christ when they are very young, but to grown people, who are conscious to themselves of weakness and childishness, and of being, through manifold infirmities, helpless and useless, like little children. Here we have,

I. Little children brought to Christ, Mar 10:13. Their parents, or whoever they were that had the nursing of them, brought them to him, that he should touch them, in token of his commanding and conferring a blessing on them. It doth not appear that they needed any bodily cure, nor were they capable of being taught: but it seems, 1. That they had the care of them were mostly concerned about their souls, their better part, which ought to be the principal care of all parents for their children; for that is the principal part, and it is well with them, it if be well with their souls. 2. They believed that Christ's blessing would do their souls good; and therefore to him they brought them, that he might touch them, knowing that he could reach their hearts, when nothing their parents could say to them, or do for them, would reach them. We may present our children to Christ, now that he is in heaven, for from thence he can reach them with his blessing, and therein we may act faith upon the fulness and extent of his grace, the kind intimations he hath always given of favour to the seed of the faithful, the tenour of the covenant with Abraham, and the promise to us and to our children, especially that great promise of pouring his Spirit upon our seed, and his blessing upon our offspring, Isa 44:3.

II. The dis couragement which the disciples gave to the bringing of children to Christ; They rebuked them that brought them; as if they had been sure that they knew their Master's mind in this matter, whereas he had lately cautioned them not to despise the little ones.

III. The en couragement Christ gave to it. 1. He took it very ill that his disciples should keep them off; When he saw it, he was much displeased, Mar 10:14. "What do you mean? Will you hinder me from doing good, from doing good to the rising generation, to the lambs of the flock?"Christ is very angry with his own disciples, if they discountenance any in coming to him themselves, or in bringing their children to him. 2. He ordered that they should be brought to him, and nothing said or done to hinder them; suffer little children, as soon as they are capable, to come to me, to offer up their supplications to me, and to receive instructions from me. Little children are welcome betimes to the throne of grace with their Hosannas. 3. He owned them as members of his church, as they had been of the Jewish church. He came to set up the kingdom of God among men, and took this occasion to declare that that kingdom admitted little children to be the subjects of it, and gave them a title to the privileges of subjects. Nay, the kingdom of God is to be kept up by such: they must be taken in when they are little children, that they may be secured for hereafter, to bear up the name of Christ. 4. That there must be something of the temper and disposition of little children found in all that Christ will own and bless. We must receive the kingdom of God as little children (Mar 10:15); that is, we must stand affected to Christ and his grace as little children do to their parents, nurses, and teachers. We must be inquisitive, as children, must learn as children (that is the learning age), and in learning must believe, Oportet discentem credere - A learner must believe. The mind of a child is white paper ( tabula rose - a mere blank ), you may write upon it what you will; such must our minds be to the pen of the blessed Spirit. Children are under government; so must we be. Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? We must receive the kingdom of God as the child Samuel did, Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth. Little children depend upon their parents' wisdom and care, are carried in their arms, go where they send them, and take what they provide for them; and thus must we receive the kingdom of God, with a humble resignation of ourselves to Jesus Christ, and an easy dependence upon him, both for strength and righteousness, for tuition, provision, and a portion. 5. He received the children, and gave them what was desired (Mar 10:16); He took them up in his arms, in token of his affectionate concern for them; put his hands upon them, as was desired, and blessed them. She how he out-did the desires of these parents; they begged he would touch them, but he did more. (1.) He took them in his arms. Now the scripture was fulfilled (Isa 40:11), He shall gather the lambs in his arms, and carry them in his bosom. Time was, when Christ himself was taken up in old Simeon's arms, Luk 2:28. And now he took up these children, not complaining of the burthen (as Moses did, when he was bid to carry Israel, that peevish child, in his bosom, as a nursing father bears the sucking child, Num 11:12), but pleased with it. If we in a right manner bring our children to Christ, he will take them up, not only in the arms of his power and providence, but in the arms of his pity and grace (as Eze 16:8); underneath them are the everlasting arms. (2.) He put his hands upon them, denoting the bestowing of his Spirit upon them (for that is the hand of the Lord), and his setting them apart for himself. (3.) He blessed them with the spiritual blessings he came to give. Our children are happy, if they have but the Mediator's blessing for their portion. It is true, we do not read that he baptized these children, baptism was not fully settled as the door of admission into the church until after Christ's resurrection; but he asserted their visible church-membership, and by another sign bestowed those blessings upon them, which are now appointed to be conveyed and conferred by baptism, the seal of the promise, which is to us and to our children.

Matthew Henry: Mar 10:17-31

I. Here is a hopeful meeting between Christ and a young man; such he is said to be (Mat 19:20, Mat 19:22), and a ruler (Luk 18:18), a person of quality. Some circumstances here are, which we had not in Matthew, which makes his address to Christ very promising.

1. He came running to Christ, which was an indication of his humility; he laid aside the gravity and grandeur of a ruler, when he came to Christ: thus too he manifested his earnestness and importunity; he ran as one in haste, and longing to be in conversation with Christ. He had now an opportunity of consulting this great Prophet, in the things that belonged to his peace, and he would not let slip the opportunity.

2. He came to him when he was in the way, in the midst of company: he did not insist upon a private conference with him by night, as Nicodemus did, though like him he was a ruler, but when he shall find him without, will embrace that opportunity of advising with him, and not be ashamed, Son 8:1.

3. He kneeled to him, in token of the great value and veneration he had for him, as a teacher come from God, and his earnest desire to be taught by him. He bowed the knee to the Lord Jesus, as one that would not only do obeisance to him now, but would yield obedience to him always; he bowed the knee, as one that meant to bow the soul to him.

4. His address to him was serious and weighty; Good Master, what shall I do, that I may inherit eternal life? Eternal life was an article of his creed, though then denied by the Sadducees, a prevailing party: he asks, What shall he do now that he may be happy for ever. Most men enquire for good to be had in this world (Psa 4:6), any good; he asks for good to be done in this world, in order to the enjoyment of the greatest good in the other world; not, Who will make us to see good? But, "Who will make us to do good? "He enquires for happiness in the way of duty; the summum bonum - chief good which Solomon was in quest of, was that good for the sons of men which they do should do, Ecc 2:3. Now this was, (1.) A very serious question in itself; it was about eternal things, and his own concern in those things. Note, Then there begins to be some hope of people, when they begin to enquire solicitously, what they shall do to get to heaven. (2.) It was proposed to a right person, one that was every way fit to answer it, being himself the Way, the Truth, and the Life, the true way to life, to eternal life; who came from heaven on purpose, first to lay open for us, and then to lay open to us; first to make, and then to make known, the way to heaven. Note, Those who would know what they shall do to be saved, must apply themselves to Christ, and enquire of him; it is peculiar to the Christian religion, both to show eternal life, and to show the way to it. (3.) It was proposed with a good design - to be instructed. We find this same question put by a lawyer, not kneeling, but standing up (Luk 10:25), with a bad design, to pick quarrels with him; he tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do? It is not so much the good words as the good intention of them that Christ looks at.

5. Christ encouraged this address, (1.) By assisting his faith, Mar 10:18. He called him good Master; Christ would have him mean thereby, that he looked upon him to be God, since there is none good but one, that is God, who is one, and his name one, Zec 14:9. Our English word God doubtless hath affinity with good; as the Hebrews name God by his power, Elohim , the strong God; so we by his goodness, the good God. (2.) By directing his practice (Mar 10:19); Keep the commandments; and thou knowest what they are. He mentions the six commandments of the second table, which prescribe our duty to our neighbour; he inverts the order, putting the seventh commandment before the sixth, to intimate that adultery is a sin no less heinous than murder itself. The fifth commandment is here put last, as that which should especially be remembered and observed, to keep us to all the rest. Instead of the tenth commandment, Thou shalt not covet, our Saviour here puts, Defraud not. Mē aposterēsēs - that is, saith Dr. Hammond, "Thou shalt not rest contented with thy own, and not seek to increase it by the diminution of other men's."It is a rule of justice not to advance or enrich ourselves by doing wrong or injury to any other.

6. The young man bid fair for heaven, having been free from any open gross violations of the divine commands. Thus far he was able to same in some measure (Mar 10:20), Master, all these have I observed from my youth. He thought he had, and his neighbours thought so too. Note, Ignorance of the extent and spiritual nature of the divine law, makes people think themselves in a better condition than they really are. Paul was alive without the law. But when he saw that to be spiritual, he saw himself to be carnal, Rom 7:9, Rom 7:14. However, he that could say he was free from scandalous sin, went further than many in the way to eternal life. But though we know nothing by ourselves, yet are we not thereby justified. 1Co 4:4.

7. Christ had a kindness for him; Jesus, beholding him, loved him, Mar 10:21. He was pleased to find that he had lived inoffensively, and pleased to see that he was inquisitive how to live better than so. Christ particularly loves to see young people, and rich people, asking the way to heaven, with their faces thitherward.

II. Here is a sorrowful parting between Christ and this young man.

1. Christ gave him a command of trial, by which it would appear whether he did in sincerity aim at eternal life, and press towards it: he seemed to have his heart much upon it, and if so, he is what he should be; but has he indeed his heart upon it? Bring him to the touchstone. (1.) Can he find in his heart to part with his riches for the service of Christ? He hath a good estate, and now, shortly, at the first founding of the Christian church, the necessity of the case will require that those who have lands, sell them, and lay the money at the apostles' feet; and how will he dispense with that? Act 4:34, Act 4:35. After awhile, tribulation and persecution will arise, because of the word; and he must be forced to sell his estate, or have it taken from him, and how will he like that? Let him know the worst now; if he will not come up to these terms, let him quit his pretensions; as good as the first as at last. " Sell whatsoever thou hast over and above what is necessary for thy support;"probably, he had no family to provide for; let him therefore be a father to the poor, and make them his heirs. Every man, according to his ability, must relieve the poor, and be content, when there is occasion, to straiten himself to do it. Worldly wealth is given us, not only as maintenance to bear our charges through this world, according to our place in it, but as talent, to be used and employed for the glory of our great Master in the world, who hath so ordered it, that the poor we should have always with us as his receivers. (2.) Can he find it in his heart to go through the hardest costliest services he may be called to as a disciple of Christ, and depend upon him for a recompence in heaven? He asks Christ what he should do more than he has done to obtain eternal life, and Christ puts it to him, whether he has indeed that firm belief of, and that high value for, eternal life that he seems to have. Doth he really believe there is a true treasure in heaven sufficient to make up all he can leave, or lose, or lay out, for Christ? Is he willing to deal with Christ upon trust? Can he give him credit for all he is worth; and be willing to bear a present cross, in expectation of a future crown?

2. Upon this he flew off (Mar 10:22); He was sad at that saying; was sorry that he could not be a follower of Christ upon any easier terms than leaving all to follow him; that he could not lay hold on eternal life, and keep hold of his temporal possessions too. But since he could not come up to the terms of discipleship, he was so fair as not to pretend to it; He went away grieved. Here appeared the truth of that (Mat 6:24), Ye cannot serve God and mammon; while he held to mammon he did in effect despise Christ, as all those do who prefer the world before him. He bids for what he has a mind for in the market, yet goes away grieved, and leaves it, because he cannot have it at his own price. Two words to a bargain. Motions are not marriages. That which ruined this young man was, he had great possessions; thus the prosperity of fools destroys them, and those who spend their days in wealth are tempted to say to God, Depart from us; or to their hearts, Depart from God.

III. Here is Christ's discourse with his disciples. We are tempted to wish that Christ had mollified that saying which frightened this young gentleman from following him, and by an explanation taken off the harshness of it: but he knew all men's hearts; he would not court him to be his follower, because he was a rich man and a ruler; but, if he will go, let him go. Christ will keep no man against his will; and therefore we do not find that Christ called him back, but took this occasion to instruct his disciples in two things.

1. The difficulty of the salvation of those who have an abundance of this world; because there are few who have a deal to leave, that can be persuaded to leave it for Christ, or to lay it out in doing good.

(1.) Christ asserts this here; He looked about upon his disciples, because he would have them all take notice of what he said, that by it they might have their judgments rightly informed, and their mistakes rectified, concerning worldly wealth, which they were apt to over-rate; How hardly shall they who have riches enter into the kingdom of God! Mar 10:23. They have many temptations to grapple with, and many difficulties to get over, which lie not in the way of poor people. But he explains himself, Mar 10:24, where he calls the disciples children, because as such they should be taught by him, and portioned by him with better things than this young man left Christ to cleave to; and whereas he had said, How hardly will those who have riches get to heaven; here he tells them, that the danger arose not so much from their having riches as from their trusting to them, and placing their confidence in them, expecting protection, provision, and a portion from them; saying that to their gold, which they should say only to their God, Thou art my hope, Job 31:24. They have such a value as this for the wealth of the world, will never be brought to put a right value upon Christ and his grace. They that have ever so much riches, but do not trust in them, that see the vanity of them, and their utter insufficiency to make a soul happy, have got over the difficulty, and can easily part with them for Christ: but they have ever so little, if they set their hearts upon that little, and place their happiness in it, it will keep them from Christ. He enforces this assertion with, Mar 10:25, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man, that trusts in riches, or inclines to do so, to enter into the kingdom of God. The disproportion here seems so great (though the more it is so the more it answers the intention), that some have laboured to bring the camel and the eye of the needle a little nearer together. [1.] Some imagine there might be some wicket-gate, or door, to Jerusalem, commonly known by the name of the needle's eye, for its straitness, through which a camel could not be got, unless he were unloaded, and made to kneel, as those camel, Gen 24:11. So a rich man cannot get to heaven unless he is willing to part with the burthen of his worldly wealth, and stoop to the duties of a humble religion, and so enter at the strait gate. [2.] Others suggest that the word we translate a camel, sometimes signifies a cable-rope, which, though not to be got through a needle's eye, yet is of great affinity to it. A rich man, compared with the poor, is as a cable to a single thread, stronger, but not so pliable, and it will not go through the needle's eye, unless it be untwisted. So the rich man must be loosed and disentangled from his riches, and then there is some hope of him, that thread by thread he may be got through the eye of the needle, otherwise he is good for nothing but to cast anchor in the earth.

(2.) This truth was very surprising to the disciples; They were astonished at his words, Mar 10:24. They were astonished out of measure, and said among themselves, Who then can be saved? They knew what were generally the sentiments of the Jewish teachers, who affirmed that the Spirit of God chooses to reside in rich men; nay, they knew what abundance of promises there were, in the Old Testament, of temporal good things; they knew likewise that all either are rich, or fain would be so, and that they who are rich, have so much the larger opportunities of doing good, and therefore were amazed to hear that it should be so hard for rich people to go to heaven.

(3.) Christ reconciled them to it, by referring it to the almighty power of God, to help even rich people over the difficulties that lie in the way of their salvation (Mar 10:27); He looked upon them, to engage their attention, and said, " With men it is impossible; rich people cannot by their own skill or resolution get over these difficulties, but the grace of God can do it, for with him all things are possible. "If the righteous scarcely are saved, much more may we say so of the rich; and therefore when any get to heaven, they must give all the glory to God, who worketh in them both to will and to do.

2. The greatness of the salvation of those that have but a little of this world, and leave it for Christ. This he speaks of, upon occasion of Peter's mentioning what he and the rest of the disciples had left to follow him; Behold, (saith he), we have left all to follow thee, Mar 10:28. "You have done well, "saith Christ, "and it will prove in the end that you have done well for yourselves; you shall be abundantly recompensed, and not only you shall be reimbursed, who have left but a little, but those that have ever so much, though it were so much as this young man had, that could not persuade himself to quit it for Christ; yet they shall have much more than an equivalent for it."(1.) The loss is supposed to be very great; he specifies, [1.] Worldly wealth; houses are here put first, and lands last: if a man quit his house, which should be for his habitation, and his land, which should be for his maintenance, and so make himself a beggar and an outcast. This has been the choice of suffering saints; farewell houses and lands, though ever so convenient and desirable, through the inheritance of fathers, for the house which is from heaven, and the inheritance of the saints in light, where are many mansions. [2.] Dear relations. Father and mother, wife and children, brethren and sisters. In these, as much as in any temporal blessing, the comfort of life is bound up; without these the world would be a wilderness; yet, when we must either forsake these or Christ, we must remember that we stand in nearer relation to Christ than we do to any creature; and therefore to keep in with him, we must be content to break with all the world, and to say to father and mother, as Levi did, I have not known you. The greatest trial of a good man's constancy is, when his love to Christ comes to stand in competition with a love that is lawful, nay, that is his duty. It is easy to such a one to forsake a lust for Christ, for he hath that within him, that rises against it; but to forsake a father, a brother, a wife, for Christ, that is, to forsake those whom he knows he must love, is hard. And yet he must do so, rather than deny or disown Christ. Thus great is the loss supposed to be; but it is for Christ's sake, that he may be honoured, and the gospel's, that it may be promoted and propagated. It is not the suffering, but the cause, that makes the martyr. And therefore, (2.) The advantage will be great. [1.] They shall receive a hundred-fold in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters; not in specie, but that which is equivalent. He shall have abundance of comfort while he lives, sufficient to make up for all his losses; his relation to Christ, his communion with the saints, and his title to eternal life, shall be to him brethren, and sisters, and houses, and all. God's providence gave Job double to what he had had, but suffering Christians shall have a hundred-fold in the comforts of the Spirit sweetening their creature comforts. But observe, It is added here in Mark, with persecutions. Even when they are gainers by Christ, let them still expect to be sufferers for him; and not be out of the reach of persecution, till they come to heaven. Nay, The persecutions seem to come in here among the receivings in this present time; for unto you it is given, not only to believe in Christ, but also to suffer for his name; yet this is not all, [2.] They shall have eternal life in the world to come. If they receive a hundred-fold in this world, one would think they should not be encouraged to expect any more. Yet, as if that were a small matter, they shall have life eternal into the bargain; which is more than ten thousand-fold, ten thousand times told, for all their losses. But because they talked so much, and really more than became them, of leaving all for Christ, he tells them, though they were first called, that there should be disciples called after them, that should be preferred before them; as St. Paul, who was one born out of due time, and yet laboured more abundantly than all the rest of the apostles, 1Co 15:10. Then the first were last, and the last first.

Barclay: Mar 10:1-12

Jesus was pursuing his way south. He had left Galilee and had come into Judaea. He had not yet entered Jerusalem, but step by step and stage by stage he was approaching the final scene.

Certain Pharisees came with a question about divorce, by which they hoped to test him. There may have been more than one motive behind their question. Divorce was a burning question, a crux of rabbinic discussion, and it may well be that they honestly wished for Jesus' opinion on it. They may have wished to test his orthodoxy. It may well be that Jesus had already had something to say on this matter. Mat 5:31-32, shows us Jesus speaking about marriage and re-marriage, and it may be that these Pharisees had the hope that he might contradict himself and entangle himself in his own words. It may be that they knew what he would answer and wished to involve him in enmity with Herod who had in fact divorced his wife and married another. It may well be that they wished to hear Jesus contradict the law of Moses, as indeed he did, and thereby to formulate a charge of heresy against him. One thing is certain--the question they asked Jesus was no academic one of interest only to the rabbinic schools. It was a question which dealt with one of the acutest issues of the time.

In theory nothing could be higher than the Jewish ideal of marriage. Chastity was held to be the greatest of all the virtues. "We find that God is long-suffering to every sin except the sin of unchastity." "Unchastity causes the glory of God to depart." "Every Jew must surrender his life rather than commit idolatry, murder or adultery." "The very altar sheds tears when a man divorces the wife of his youth." The ideal was there but practice fell very far short.

The basic fact that vitiated the whole situation was that in Jewish law a woman was regarded as a thing. She had no legal rights whatever but was at the complete disposal of the male head of the family. The result was that a man could divorce his wife on almost any grounds, while there were very few on which a woman could seek divorce. At best she could only ask her husband to divorce her. "A woman may be divorced with or without her will, but a man only with his will." The only grounds on which a woman could claim a divorce were if her husband became a leper, if he engaged in a disgusting trade such as that of a tanner, if he ravished a virgin, or if he falsely accused her of prenuptial sin.

The law of Jewish divorce goes back to Deu 24:1. That passage was the foundation of the whole matter. It runs thus: "When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favour in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house."

At first the bill of divorcement was very simple. It read like this: "Let this be from me thy writ of divorce and letter of dismissal and deed of liberation, that thou mayest marry whatsoever man thou wilt." In later days the bill became more elaborate: "On the ........ day, of the ........ week, of the ........ month, year ........ of the world, according to the calculation in use in the town of ......... situated by the river ........ I, A.B., son of C.D., and by whatsoever name I am called here, present this day ......... native of the town of ........ I acting of my free-will, and without any coercion, do repudiate, send back, and put away thee E.F., daughter of G.H., and by whatsoever name thou art called, and until this present time my wife. I send thee away now E.F., daughter of G.H., so that thou art free and thou canst at thy pleasure marry whom thou wilt and no one will hinder thee. This is thy letter of divorce, act of repudiation, certificate of separation, according to the law of Moses and of Israel." In New Testament times this document took a skilled Rabbi to draw it up. It was afterwards proved by a court of three rabbis, and then lodged with the Sanhedrin. But the process of divorce remained on the whole exceedingly easy, and at the entire discretion of the man.

But the real crux of the problem was the interpretation of the law as it is in Deu 24:1. There it is laid down that a man can divorce his wife if he finds in her some indecency. How was that phrase to be interpreted? There were in this matter two schools of thought.

There was the school of Shammai. They interpreted the matter with utter strictness. A matter of indecency was adultery and adultery alone. Let a woman be as bad as Jezebel, unless she was guilty of adultery there could be no divorce.

The other school was the school of Hillel. They interpreted that crucial phrase as widely as possible. They said that it could mean if the wife spoiled a dish of food, if she spun in the streets, if she talked to a strange man, if she spoke disrespectfully of her husband's relations in his hearing, if she was a brawling woman, (who was defined as a woman whose voice could be heard in the next house). Rabbi Akiba even went the length of saying that it meant if a man found a woman who was fairer in his eyes than his wife was.

Human nature being as it is, it was the laxer view which prevailed. The result was that divorce for the most trivial reasons, or for no reason at all, was tragically common. To such a pass had things come that, in the time of Jesus, women hesitated to marry at all because marriage was so insecure. When Jesus spoke as he did he was speaking on a subject which was a burning issue, and he was striking a blow for women by seeking to restore marriage to the position it ought to have.

Certain things are to be noted. Jesus quoted the Mosaic regulation, and then he said that Moses laid that down only "to meet the hardness of your hearts." That may mean one of two things. It may mean that Moses laid it down because it was the best that could be expected from people such as those for whom he was legislating. Or, it may mean that Moses laid it down in order to try to control a situation which even then was degenerating, that in fact it was not so much a permission to divorce as it was in the beginning an attempt to control divorce, to reduce it to some kind of law, and to make it more difficult.

In any event Jesus made it quite clear that he regarded Deu 24:1, as being laid down for a definite situation and being in no sense permanently binding. The authorities which he quoted went much further back. For his authorities he went right back to the Creation story and quoted Gen 1:27and Gen 2:24. It was his view that in the very nature of things marriage was a permanency which indissolubly united two people in such a way that the bond could never be broken by any human laws and regulations. It was his belief that in the very constitution of the universe marriage is meant to be an absolute permanency and unity, and no Mosaic regulation dealing with a temporary situation could alter that.

The difficulty is that in the parallel account in Matthew there is a difference. In Mark, Jesus' prohibition of divorce and remarriage is absolute. In Mat 19:3-9, he is shown as absolutely forbidding remarriage, but as permitting divorce on one ground--adultery. Almost certainly the Matthew version is correct, and it is indeed implied in Mark. It was Jewish law that adultery did in fact compulsorily dissolve any marriage. And the truth is that infidelity does in fact dissolve the bond of marriage. Once adultery has been committed the unity is in any case destroyed and divorce merely attests the fact.

The real essence of the passage is that Jesus insisted that the loose sexual morality of his day must be mended. Those who sought marriage only for pleasure must be reminded that marriage is also for responsibility. Those who regarded marriage simply as a means of gratifying their physical passions must be reminded that it was also a spiritual unity. Jesus was building a rampart round the home.

Barclay: Mar 10:13-16

It was natural that Jewish mothers should wish their children to be blessed by a great and distinguished Rabbi. Especially they brought their children to such a person on their first birthday. It was in this way that they brought the children to Jesus on this day.

We will fully understand the almost poignant beauty of this passage only if we remember when it happened. Jesus was on the way to the Cross--and he knew it. Its cruel shadow can never have been far from his mind. It was at such a time that he had time for the children. Even with such a tension in his mind as that he had time to take them in his arms and he had the heart to smile into their faces and maybe to play with them awhile.

The disciples were not boorish and ungracious men. They simply wanted to protect Jesus. They did not quite know what was going on, but they knew quite clearly that tragedy lay ahead and they could see the tension under which Jesus laboured. They did not want him to be bothered. They could not conceive that he could want the children about him at such a time as that. But Jesus said, "Let the children come to me."

Incidentally, this tells us a great deal about Jesus. It tells us that he was the kind of person who cared for children and for whom children cared. He could not have been a stern and gloomy and joyless person. There must have been a kindly sunshine on him. He must have smiled easily and laughed joyously. Somewhere George Macdonald says that he does not believe in a man's Christianity if the children are never to be found playing around his door. This little, precious incident throws a flood of light on the human kind of person Jesus was.

"Of such," said Jesus "is the Kingdom of God." What is it about the child that Jesus liked and valued so much?

(i) There is the child's humility. There is the child who is an exhibitionist, but such a child is rare and almost always the product of misguided adult treatment. Ordinarily the child is embarrassed by prominence and publicity. He has not yet learned to think in terms of place and pride and prestige. He has not yet learned to discover the importance of himself.

(ii) There is the child's obedience. True, a child is often disobedient, but, paradox though it may seem, his natural instinct is to obey. He has not yet learned the pride and the false independence which separate a man from his fellow-men and from God.

(iii) There is the child's trust. That is seen in two things.

(a) It is seen in the child's acceptance of authority. There is a time when he thinks his father knows everything and that his father is always right. To our shame, he soon grows out of that. But instinctively the child realizes his own ignorance and his own helplessness and trusts the one who, as he thinks, knows.

(b) It is seen in the child's confidence in other people. He does not expect any person to be bad. He will make friends with a perfect stranger. A great man once said that the greatest compliment ever paid him was when a little boy came up to him, a complete stranger, and asked him to tie his shoelace. The child has not yet learned to suspect the world. He still believes the best about others. Sometimes that very trust leads him into danger for there are those who are totally unworthy of it and who abuse it, but that trust is a lovely thing.

(iv) The child has a short memory. He has not yet learned to bear grudges and nourish bitterness. Even when he is unjustly treated--and who among us is not sometimes unjust to his children?--he forgets, and forgets so completely that he does not even need to forgive.

Indeed, of such is the Kingdom of God.

Barclay: Mar 10:17-22

Here is one of the most vivid stories in the gospels.

(i) We must note how the man came and how Jesus met him. He came running. He flung himself at Jesus' feet. There is something amazing in the sight of this rich, young aristocrat falling at the feet of the penniless prophet from Nazareth, who was on the way to being an outlaw. "Good teacher!" he began. And straight away Jesus answered back, "No flattery! Don't call me good! Keep that word for God!" It looks almost as if Jesus was trying to freeze him and to pour cold water on that young enthusiasm.

There is a lesson here. It is clear that this man came to Jesus in a moment of overflowing emotion. It is also clear that Jesus exercised a personal fascination over him. Jesus did two things that every evangelist and every preacher and every teacher ought to remember and to copy.

First, he said in effect, "Stop and think! You are all wrought up and palpitating with emotion! I don't want you swept to me by a moment of emotion. Think calmly what you are doing." Jesus was not freezing the man. He was telling him even at the very outset to count the cost.

Second, he said in effect, "You cannot become a Christian by a sentimental passion for me. you must look at God." Preaching and teaching always mean the conveying of truth through personality, and thereby lies the greatest danger of the greatest teachers. The danger is that the pupil, the scholar, the young person may form a personal attachment to the teacher or the preacher and think that it is an attachment to God. The teacher and preacher must never point to himself. He must always point to God. There is in all true teaching a certain self-obliteration. True, we cannot keep personality and warm personal loyalty out of it altogether, and we would not if we could. But the matter must not stop there. The teacher and the preacher are in the last analysis only finger-posts to God.

(ii) Never did any story so lay down the essential Christian truth that respectability is not enough. Jesus quoted the commandments which were the basis of the decent life. Without hesitation the man said he had kept them all. Note one thing--with one exception they were all negative commandments, and that one exception operated only in the family circle. In effect the man was saying, "I never in my life did anyone any harm." That was perfectly true. But the real question is, "What good have you done?" And the question to this man was even more pointed, "With all your possessions, with your wealth, with all that you could give away, what positive good have you done to others? How much have you gone out of your way to help and comfort and strengthen others as you might have done?" Respectability, on the whole, consists in not doing things; Christianity consists in doing things. That was precisely where this man--like so many of us--fell down.

(iii) So Jesus confronted him with a challenge. In effect he said, "Get out of this moral respectability. Stop looking at goodness as consisting in not doing things. Take yourself and all that you have, and spend everything on others. Then you will find true happiness in time and in eternity." The man could not do it. He had great possessions, which it had never entered his head to give away and when it was suggested to him he could not. True, he had never stolen, and he had never defrauded anyone--but neither had he ever been, nor could he compel himself to be, positively and sacrificially generous.

It may be respectable never to take away from anyone. It is Christian to give to someone. In reality Jesus was confronting this man with a basic and essential question--"How much do you want real Christianity? Do you want it enough to give your possessions away?" And the man had to answer in effect, "I want it--but I don't want it as much as all that."

Robert Louis Stevenson in The Master of Ballantrae draws a picture of the master leaving the ancestral home of Durrisdeer for the last time. Even he is sad. He is talking to the faithful family steward. "Ah! M'Kellar," he said, "Do you think I have never a regret." "I do not think," said M'Kellar, "that you could be so bad a man unless you had all the machinery for being a good one." "Not all," said the master, "not all. It is there you are in error. The malady of not wanting."

It was the malady of not wanting enough which meant tragedy for the man who came running to Jesus. It is the malady from which most of us suffer. We all want goodness, but so few of us want it enough to pay the price.

Jesus, looking at him, loved him. There were many things in that look of Jesus.

(a) There was the appeal of love. Jesus was not angry with him. He loved him too much for that. It was not the look of anger but the appeal of love.

(b) There was the challenge to chivalry. It was a look which sought to pull the man out of his comfortable, respectable, settled life into the adventure of being a real Christian.

© It was the look of grief. And that grief was the sorest grief of all--the grief of seeing a man deliberately choose not to be what he might have been and had it in him to be.

Jesus looks at us with the appeal of love and with the challenge to the knightliness of the Christian way. God grant that he may never have to look at us with sorrow for a loved one who refuser to be what he might have been and could have been.

Barclay: Mar 10:23-27

The ruler who had refused the challenge of Jesus had walked sorrowfully away, and, no doubt the eyes of Jesus and the company of the apostles followed him until his figure receded into the distance. Then Jesus turned and looked round his own men. "How very difficult it is," he said, "for a man who has money to enter into the Kingdom of God." The word used for money is chremata (5536), which is defined by Aristotle as, "All those things of which the value is measured by coinage."

We may perhaps wonder why this saying so astonished the disciples. Twice their amazement is stressed. The reason for their amazement was that Jesus was turning accepted Jewish standards completely upside down. Popular Jewish morality was simple. It believed that prosperity was the sign of a good man. If a man was rich, God must have honoured and blessed him. Wealth was proof of excellence of character and of favour with God. The Psalmist sums it up, "I have been young and now am old, yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken or his children begging bread." (Psa 37:25.)

No wonder the disciples were surprised! They would have argued that the more prosperous a man was the more certain he was of entry into the Kingdom. So Jesus repeated his saying in a slightly different way to make clearer what he meant. "How difficult it is," he said, "for those who have put their trust in riches to enter the Kingdom."

No one ever saw the dangers of prosperity and of material things more clearly than Jesus did. What are these dangers?

(i) Material possessions tend to fix a man's heart to this world. He has so large a stake in it, he has so great an interest in it, that it is difficult for him to think beyond it, and it is specially difficult for him to contemplate leaving it. Dr. Johnson was once shown round a famous castle and its lovely grounds. After he had seen it all, he turned to his friends and said, "These are the things that make it difficult to die." The danger of possessions is that they fix a man's thoughts and interests to this world.

(ii) If a man's main interest is in material possessions it tends to make him think of everything in terms of price. A hill shepherd's wife wrote a most interesting letter to a newspaper. Her children had been brought up in the loneliness of the hills. They were simple and unsophisticated. Then her husband got a position in a town and the children were introduced to the town. They changed very considerably--and they changed for the worse. The last paragraph of her letter read--"Which is preferable for a child's upbringing--a lack of worldliness, but with better manners and sincere and simple thoughts, or worldliness and its present-day habit of knowing the price of everything and the true value of nothing?"

If a man's main interest is in material things, he will think in terms, of price and not in terms of value. He will think in terms of what money can get. And he may well forget that there are values in this world far beyond money, that there are things which have no price, and that there are precious things that money cannot buy. It is fatal when a man begins to think that everything worth having has a money price.

(iii) Jesus would have said that the possession of material things is two things.

(a) It is an acid test of a man. For a hundred men who can stand adversity only one can stand prosperity. Prosperity can so very easily make a man arrogant, proud, self-satisfied, worldly. It takes a really big and good man to bear it worthily.

(b) It is a responsibility. A man will always be judged by two standards how he got his possessions and how he uses them. The more he has, the greater the responsibility that rests upon him. Will he use what he has selfishly or generously? Will he use it as if he had undisputed possession of it, or remembering that he holds it in stewardship from God.

The reaction of the disciples was that, if what Jesus was saying was true, to be saved at all was well-nigh impossible. Then Jesus stated the whole doctrine of salvation in a nutshell. "If," he said, "salvation depended on a man's own efforts it would be impossible for anyone. But salvation is the gift of God and all things are possible to him." The man who trusts in himself and in his possessions can never be saved. The man who trusts in the saving power and the redeeming love of God can enter freely into salvation. This is the thought that Jesus stated. This is the thought that Paul wrote in letter after letter. And this is the thought which is still for us the very foundation of the Christian faith.

Constable: Mar 8:31--11:1

V. The Servant's journey to Jerusalem 8:31--10:52

Having comprehended Jesus' true identity the disciples next turned south with Jesus and headed from Caesarea Philippi toward Jerusalem. This section of the Gospel traces that journey and stresses Jesus' preparation of His disciples for His coming death and resurrection.

"It is no coincidence that the narrator frames the journey to Jerusalem with two healing stories about blindness [8:22-26; 10:46-52], for the journey surely seems dominated by Jesus' urgent efforts to deal with the disciples' blindness to the things of God."²⁰⁵

Mark structured his narrative around three predictions of His passion that Jesus gave the disciples. Each unit begins with a prediction followed by the disciples' reaction. Then follow lessons that Jesus taught them about discipleship. Until now, Mark reported Jesus speaking in veiled terms (cf. 2:20; 4:33-34). From now on He spoke more clearly to both the disciples and the multitudes.

"This openness is theologically significant within the larger context of Jesus' messianic self-revelation in the Gospel of Mark. It points beyond Jesus' hiddenness, which reaches its climax on the cross, to his revealed glory. In the cross and resurrection of Jesus the secret of the Kingdom is thoroughly veiled as well as gloriously revealed. Mark exposes this tension, which is inherent in the gospel, through the reaction of the disciples to Jesus' sober teaching throughout Chs. 8:31-10:52."²⁰⁶

Constable: Mar 9:30--10:32

B. The second passion prediction and its lessons 9:30-10:31

For a second time, Jesus told His disciples of His coming death and resurrection (cf. 8:31). Again they failed to understand what He meant (cf. 8:32-33). Jesus responded by teaching them additional lessons on discipleship (cf. 8:34-9:29).

Constable: Mar 10:1-31

3. Lessons concerning self-sacrifice 10:1-31

Jesus gave this series of lessons south of Galilee in Perea and Judea, not in Galilee. Another contrast is the audience. He gave the preceding instruction to the disciples in a house, but He gave this teaching to the multitudes and the disciples in the open air.

Constable: Mar 10:1

The transition from Galilee to Judea 10:1 (cf. Matt. 19:1-2)

Though Mark did not record it, Jesus gave His disciples much additional instruction as they travelled from Capernaum in Galilee toward Jerusalem (cf. Matt. 8:19-22; 18:15-35; Luke 9:51-18:14; John 7:2-11:54). Evidently Jesus departed from Capernaum and journeyed through Samaria to Jerusalem. Then He proceeded east across the Jordan River into Perea, which lay east and north of the Dead Sea. From there He returned to Jerusalem again. Leaving Jerusalem Jesus visited the tribal territory of Ephraim, travelled farther north into Samaria, headed east into Perea, and returned to Jerusalem a third time. The following ministry took place during this last loop in Perea and Judea.²³⁸

Constable: Mar 10:2-12

Jesus' instruction about marriage 10:2-12 (cf. Matt. 19:3-12)

10:2 This teaching grew out of the Pharisees' attempt to trap Jesus. The incident occurred in Perea, Herod Antipas' territory. Perhaps the Pharisees wanted to get Jesus to explain His view of divorce because they suspected it was the same as John the Baptist's. John had lost his head literally because of his views on marriage. Probably Jesus' critics hoped that He would also antagonize the Roman ruler with His views. The form of their question implied they thought that Jesus was against divorce for any reason.

The Pharisees all believed that the Old Testament permitted Jewish men to divorce their wives and to remarry (Deut. 24:1-4). They disagreed among themselves on the grounds for divorce. Followers of Rabbi Shammai believed Moses meant the only ground was fornication, sexual sin. Rabbi Hillel's disciples held that anything a wife did that displeased her husband constituted legitimate grounds for divorce.

10:3 Jesus responded in rabbinic fashion with another question. He asked the Pharisees what Moses, the authority whom they all professed to recognize, taught. Jesus sent them to God's Word rather than debating traditional interpretations that the Pharisees treated as authoritative.

10:4-5 The Pharisees viewed Moses' permission as God's desire, but Jesus viewed it as a divine concession.

"A distinction has to be made between that which sets forth the absolute will of God, and those provisions which take account of men's actual sinfulness and are designed to limit and control its consequences. Whereas the Ten Commandments (in this connection Exod. xx. 14) and such passages as the verses quoted in vv. 6-8 represent God's absolute command, Deut. xxiv. 1 is a divine provision to deal with situations brought about by men's sklerokardia [hardness of heart] and to protect from its worst effects those who would suffer as a result of it. (Much that is contained in the O.T. falls within the category of such provisions.)"²³⁹

10:6-8 Jesus contrasted the Pharisee's view of marriage with God's view of it. God instituted marriage. It involves the union of a male and a female that results in a uniquely close relationship, a "one flesh" relationship. "One flesh" is a Semitic expression that means "one."²⁴⁰ This relationship is closer than even the parent child relationship. Furthermore it continues throughout the rest of the husband and wife's lives.

"The import of all this is that marriage from its very nature and from the divine institution by which it is constituted is ideally indissoluble. It is not a contract of temporary convenience and not a union that may be dissolved at will."²⁴¹

10:9 Jesus drew a conclusion from what the Scriptures that He just quoted revealed. It is therefore wrong for man to break a bond that God has fashioned. Thus Jesus did not side with either school of rabbinic interpretation. He affirmed God's ideal in marriage, namely no divorce.

10:10-12 The disciples wanted clarification of Jesus' view, so they asked Him for it in private. Mark recorded His straightforward reply. Neither husband nor wife should divorce their partner and remarry someone else. To do so constitutes adultery.

Verse 12 is unique in Mark. Under Roman law a wife could divorce her husband, but under Jewish law she could not.²⁴² There were exceptions, however, as in the case of Herodias who had divorced Philip to marry Antipas (6:17-18). Herod the Great's sister also divorced her husband.²⁴³ Jesus viewed all divorce followed by remarriage as constituting adultery no matter who initiated it. Divorce is wrong, but divorce followed by remarriage is worse.

Mark's omission of the exception clause that Matthew included was also due to his audience (cf. Matt. 5:32; 19:9). He did not want to draw attention to the exceptional case because to do so would weaken the main point, namely that people should not divorce. Divorce was very common in the Greco-Roman world. Matthew included Jesus' permission to divorce for fornication because the subject of how to deal with divorce cases involving marital unfaithfulness was of particular interest to the Jews.

Constable: Mar 10:13-16

Jesus' instruction about childlikeness 10:13-16 (cf. Matt. 19:13-15; Luke 18:15-17)

The simple trust in Jesus that the children in this pericope demonstrated contrasts with the hostility of the Pharisees in the previous paragraph.

10:13-14 Mark's account of this incident is very similar to Matthew's. However, Mark alone noted that Jesus became indignant when He learned that the disciples were discouraging those who were bringing the children (Gr. paidia) to Him. This is another indication of the evangelist's interest in Jesus' humanity (cf. 1:25, 41, 43; 3:5; 7:34; 8:12; 9:19).

10:15 This verse occurs in Mark and Luke (Luke 18:17), but Matthew recorded Jesus' similar statement on another occasion (Matt. 18:3). It expands Jesus' words in verse 14. Jesus' point was that people must receive things associated with the kingdom of God as children receive things, namely with trust and dependence on Himself. Personal ability and effort do not determine one's reception of God's best gifts, but a proper orientation to Jesus does.

10:16 Mark also wrote that Jesus took the children in His arms and blessed them fervently (Gr. kateulogei).²⁴⁴ This Greek word appears only here in the New Testament. The disciples viewed the children as individuals unworthy of Jesus' attention, but Jesus saw them as important in their own right and possessing important qualities that adults need to cultivate.

"This was the overflowing of Jesus' divine love for children. It was this experience that the disciples in their insensitivity were preventing the children from having and Jesus from giving! No wonder Jesus was indignant."²⁴⁵

Constable: Mar 10:17-31

Jesus' instruction about wealth 10:17-31

A question from a man in the crowd initiated this subject. Then Jesus proceeded to instruct His disciples following up the incident. The position of this section in Mark's Gospel is significant. It occurs after Jesus' teaching about the importance of receiving the kingdom with trust and humility (vv. 13-16), and it precedes Jesus' third prediction of His passion (vv. 32-34). The young man thought he could obtain the kingdom with works and self-assertion, not as a little child. Jesus' following call to commitment prepared for His passion announcement.

Constable: Mar 10:17-22

The encounter with the rich young ruler 10:17-22 (cf. Matt. 19:16-22; Luke 18:18-23)

10:17 Mark tied this incident into what immediately preceded more closely than the other evangelists did. He wanted his readers to see this young man as expressing exactly the opposite of what Jesus had just taught His disciples. The man was a rich (v. 22) young (Matt. 19:20) ruler (Luke 18:18). His approach to Jesus was unusually earnest and respectful, but he viewed eternal life as something one must earn.

Matthew wrote that he asked what he should do to get or obtain (Gr. scho) eternal life, but Mark and Luke said that he used the term "inherit" (Gr. kleponomeo). The man clearly did not believe that he had eternal life and wanted to learn what he needed to do to get it. Probably Matthew recorded the exact word he used (the ipisissima verba) and Mark and Luke interpreted what he meant (the ipisissima vox). It was important for Matthew to tell his original Jewish readers that the young man was talking about getting something that he did not possess. Mark and Luke wrote for Gentiles for whom "inheriting" clarified what was in the rich young ruler's mind. He was talking about getting something that he as a Jew thought that he had a right to obtain because of his ethnic relationship to Abraham.

"In the rich young ruler's mind entering heaven, inheriting eternal life, and having eternal life were all the same thing, and all meant go to heaven when I die.' Jesus neither affirms or denies this equation here.²⁴⁶ He understands that the young man wants to know how to enter life, or enter the kingdom."²⁴⁷

10:18 The man had a superficial understanding of goodness. Jesus' response confronted the man with the implications of trying to do some good work to earn eternal life and calling Jesus "good." Was he ready to respond to Jesus' instructions as to God's Word?

10:19 The Old Testament taught that if a person kept the Mosaic Law he would live (Deut. 30:15-16). This was theoretically possible but practically impossible. Jesus reminded the man of what the law required by citing five commands in the second table of the Decalogue. The commands Jesus mentioned are easily verifiable in conduct. Mark alone recorded the prohibition against defrauding, evidently a particular expression of stealing appropriate to the wealthy.²⁴⁸

10:20 The man's superficial understanding of God's standards became apparent in his claim that he had kept all those commandments from his youth up. He regarded obedience simply as external conformity without internal purity (cf. Phil. 3:6). This was the natural implication and consequence of the Pharisees' teaching. At age 12, a Jewish boy became a "son of the covenant" (Heb. bar miswah, from which comes Bar Mitzvah). From then on he was responsible to live by God's commands. It is probably from this time that the man meant he had observed the law.

10:21 Only Mark recorded that Jesus loved the rich young ruler when he replied as he did. Evidently the man had sincerely tried to earn eternal life by obeying the law. His superficial understanding of what God required was more his teachers' fault than his own.

Jesus put His finger on what kept this man from having eternal life. He expressed it in the terms that the man had been using, namely doing something. He was trusting in his wealth probably as an evidence that his good works made him acceptable to God. The Old Testament taught that God normally blessed the righteous with physical prosperity. He needed to abandon that essentially self-confident faith, and he needed to trust in Jesus. He had also made wealth his god rather than God. His reluctance to part with it revealed his idolatry. By selling all he had, giving it to the poor, and following Jesus he would confess his repudiation of confidence in self and affirm his trust in Jesus. Then he would have treasure in heaven, something that would last forever.

10:22 Abandoning his physical security and trusting in Jesus was too great a risk to take. The rich young ruler's wealth brought him sorrow instead of joy. This is the only time in the Gospels when someone called to follow Jesus did not do so.

Constable: Mar 10:23-31

Jesus' teaching concerning riches 10:23-31 (cf. Matt. 19:23-30; Luke 18:24-30)

Jesus used the incident just past to teach His disciples about riches. Matthew's account is the fullest.

10:23 The case of this unbeliever had important significance for Jesus' believing disciples. Rather than being a preview of divine eternal blessing, wealth could be a barrier to obtaining it. Jesus did not envy the rich, as most of His contemporaries did. He pitied them.²⁴⁹ Wealth does not exclude a person from the kingdom, but it gives him a handicap.

10:24 This verse is unique to Mark. The disciples' amazement arose from the popular belief that riches were a result of God's blessing for righteousness. They thought riches were an advantage, not a disadvantage in one's relationship with God. Here only in the Gospels Jesus addressed the disciples as "children" (Gr. tekna). Their amazement revealed their spiritual immaturity.

The longer textual reading at the end of verse 24 gives the sense of Jesus' statement, but it was probably not a part of the Gospel originally. The shorter statement is perfectly true as it stands and accounts partially for the disciples' second amazement (v. 26). Jesus' statement in verse 25 also helps us understand their surprise.

10:25-26 One writer paraphrased Jesus' proverb as follows.

"It is easier to thread a needle with a great big camel than to get into the kingdom of God when you are bursting with riches."²⁵⁰

The camel was the largest beast of burden in Palestine. The needle Jesus referred to was a common sewing needle (Gr. hraphis). The disciples reacted with amazement because they thought that wealth indicated righteousness (cf. Job, Abraham, Solomon).

10:27 Jesus' point was that salvation is totally God's work (cf. Eph. 2:8-9). God can make anyone realize his or her complete dependence on Him.

10:28 Peter, speaking for the other disciples, was still thinking in physical rather than spiritual terms. He turned the conversation back to the subject of giving up all to follow Jesus (v. 22). The rich young ruler had refused to forsake all and follow Jesus, but the disciples had done just that. "We" is emphatic in the Greek text. Mark did not record the rest of Peter's statement: "What then will there be for us?" (Matt. 19:27). Mark did not need to. The implication is clear enough from Peter's statement without his question.

10:29-30 Jesus graciously did not rebuke Peter's selfishness but rewarded his self-sacrifice with a promise. Disciples who follow Jesus wholeheartedly can anticipate three things. First, God will give them more in kind spiritually of what they have sacrificed physically. Second, they will receive persecution as Jesus' disciples. Only Mark mentioned this, undoubtedly for his original persecuted readers' benefit. Commitment to discipleship means persecution as well as rewards. Third, faithful disciples will enjoy their eternal life to an extent that unfaithful disciples will not (cf. John 10:10; 17:3).²⁵¹

"God takes nothing away from a man without restoring it to him in a new and glorious form."²⁵²

The present age refers to the inter-advent era and the age to come the messianic kingdom.

10:31 The first in rank and position in this age, such as the rich young ruler, will be last in the next. Conversely the last in this age, such as the Twelve, would be first in the next. These words summarized Jesus' teaching on discipleship on that occasion and in this section of Mark's Gospel (vv. 1-31). This was a saying that Jesus used at other times as well during His ministry (cf. Matt. 20:16: Luke 13:30). Here these words also warned Peter against looking for immediate physical rewards for his self-sacrifices (cf. Matt. 20:1-16).

All three of the lessons in discipleship that Mark recorded in this section of his Gospel dealt with self-sacrifice (10:1-31). The lessons that Jesus taught following His first passion prediction dealt mainly with future glory (8:31-9:29). Those He taught following His second passion prediction concerned present suffering primarily (9:30-10:31).

College: Mar 10:1-52

MARK 10

G. JESUS QUESTIONED ABOUT DIVORCE (10:1-12)

¹ Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

² Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, " Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"

³" What did Moses command you?" he replied.

⁴ They said, " Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."

⁵" It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. ⁶" But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' ^{a 7} 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, ^{b 8} and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. ⁹ Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." ^c

¹⁰ When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. ¹¹ He answered, " Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. ¹² And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

^a 6 Gen. 1:27 ^b 7 Some early manuscripts do not have and be united to his wife . ^c 8 Gen. 2:24

The Pharisees enter the picture again as Jesus' opponents. Mark writes that they were testing Jesus. They were not seriously seeking his counsel on marriage and divorce. But their question did provide an opportunity for Jesus to make some comments on the subject, however limited they may be due to the particular circumstances of this polemical occasion.

1. On his way to Jerusalem Jesus entered the region of Judea and the land beyond the Jordan (Perea, on the east side of the Jordan river). There he was again surrounded by crowds and, as usual, he taught them.

2. In the Greco-Roman legal system it was easy to divorce a spouse. A man who wanted to divorce his wife need only give her a certificate of divorce. He did not need her consent or the consent of a judge. Women could also divorce their husbands on the same basis. The Pharisees were concerned about what was lawful from the standpoint of Jewish religious law. From that standpoint, a woman divorcing her husband was generally unacceptable and there was significant debate about the conditions under which a man might legitimately divorce his wife.

We know of two presumably well-known backgrounds to the Pharisees' question. One is the story of Herod Antipas and Herodias in which Antipas and Herodias each divorced their spouses and married each other. (See the comments on Mark 6:17-29 for information on this situation.) The Pharisees may have wanted Jesus to say something that would anger Antipas and Herodias, who had already killed John for his criticism of their marriage.

The other possible background is the dispute between the great rabbis Shammai and Hillel concerning the grounds on which a man might divorce his spouse. This dispute is reported in the Mishnah: " The School of Shammai say: A man may not divorce his wife unless he has found unchastity in her, for it is written, Because he hath found in her indecency in anything . And the School of Hillel say: [He may divorce her] even if she spoiled a dish for him, for it is written, Because he hath found in her indecency in anything." The Mishnah was compiled about A.D. 200 and there is room for doubt about how accurately the opinions of Shammai and Hillel are represented. However, its account of their differences on the question of divorce is widely accepted. The Pharisees may have sought to test Jesus in the arena of a " hot issue" among contemporary Jewish authorities. Whichever view Jesus took would have the potential of offending some of his followers.

3-4. Jesus began by asking his opponents a question. Every informed student of the divorce question knew that the most important text was Deut 24:1-4, which was the fountainhead of the positions of both Shammai and Hillel. Deut 24:1-4 did not directly address the question of the circumstances under which a divorce was allowable. Instead, Moses' direct command in these verses was that a husband could not remarry a divorced wife who had subsequently married another. However, in the process of describing the regulated situation, Moses spoke of a man whose wife " becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house." This statement was taken to mean that a divorce required a certificate of divorce. It also became the prime text for debates over the grounds for divorce. In their reply to Jesus the Pharisees do not get into the grounds debate.

5-9. Jesus apparently accepted his opponents' interpretation of Deut 24 but saw the regulations of Deut 24 as a necessary expedient provided because of the hardness of the human heart. Citing first Gen 1:27 (v. 6) and then Gen 2:24 (v. 7), he argued that God's intent from the beginning was that marriage would be a lifetime commitment. People should not separate what God has joined together. When divorce occurs at least one marriage partner has failed to do the will of God.

10-12. Jesus reinforced his strict view of divorce in response to the disciples' inquiry. A man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. The main thrust of Jesus' statement is quite clear. God is opposed to divorcing one's spouse and marrying another.

But there are three aspects of this text that raise questions. First, how does Mark's unqualified statement relate to the " except for unchastity" clause in the parallel in Matt 19:9 and the similar text in Matt 5:32? Some argue that Matthew contradicts Mark. Others interpret Matthew's exception clause in a way that does not permit divorce and remarriage and therefore is not contrary to Mark's statement about divorce and remarriage. But the best solution is the suggestion that Mark's form of the statement is meant to be a general principle and not meant to deny the possibility of exceptions. Mark may have assumed his audience would understand that divorce and remarriage are permissible if one's spouse commits adultery.

Second, how does " whoever divorces his wife and marries another" relate to " commits adultery against her" ? If " commits adultery against her" is understood quite literally, then the man must in some sense still be married to the first wife. In this common understanding " whoever divorces his wife and marries another" is not taken in its full literal sense, because it says that the man divorced his first wife and married a second. The literal adultery interpretation might be paraphrased as follows: " whoever divorces his wife and marries another (does this in the eyes of man; in God's eyes he is still married to the first woman and therefore) commits adultery against her." Some interpreters have advocated a different interpretation which takes " whoever divorces his wife and marries another" quite literally. If the first part of the statement is taken literally, the man is no longer actually married to the first wife and so the second part (" commits adultery against her" ) must be somewhat metaphorical. This view might be paraphrased as follows: " whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery (in the sense that what he has done is in God's eyes tantamount to adultery)."

Third, v. 12 has been of concern to some interpreters because of the widespread opinion that among the Jews women were not allowed to divorce their husbands. It is therefore concluded by some that Mark has created this altered version of v. 11 in the light of his non-Jewish audience outside of Palestine. However, there is some debate about whether women were allowed to divorce their husbands in Palestine during the days of Jesus. More importantly, there was at least the famous case of Herodias divorcing Philip for Herod Antipas, a case notorious enough in its own right to account for Jesus having spoken of a woman divorcing her husband.

H. RECEIVING THE KINGDOM LIKE A CHILD (10:13-16)

¹³ People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. ¹⁴ When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, " Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. ¹⁵ I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." ¹⁶ And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.

This incident continues the emphasis on servanthood in contrast to pride and selfishness. Once again the disciples reveal that they have not learned the lesson Jesus has been teaching since 8:31.

13. According to Matt 19:13 those who brought the little children wanted Jesus to lay his hands on them and pray. The context of the disciples' behavior and Jesus' emphasis in Mark 8-10 suggests that the disciples rebuked the parents because they viewed Jesus as too important and busy to take his time with the children.

14-15. Jesus reacted with indignation to the disciples' newest demonstration that they were missing the point. Not only does he spend time with the children, but he uses them as an example to the disciples. Mark does not specify which aspect(s) of a child's attitude is the highlighted component for receiving the kingdom of God. One might speculate concerning a child's innocence, ability to trust, etc. In the light of the overall context of Mark 8-10, perhaps the best suggestion is a child's knowledge that " he is helpless and small, without claim or merit." To receive the kingdom of God the disciples needed to give up their pride and recognize their humble position before God and others.

16. Jesus hugged the children and, laying his hands upon them, called down God's favor upon them.

I. THE RICH MAN AND JESUS' TEACHING CONCERNING WEALTH (10:17-31)

¹⁷ As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. " Good teacher," he asked, " what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

¹⁸" Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. " No one is good - except God alone. ¹⁹ You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'"

²⁰" Teacher," he declared, " all these I have kept since I was a boy."

²¹ Jesus looked at him and loved him. " One thing you lack," he said. " Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

²² At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

²³ Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, " How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"

²⁴ The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, " Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! ²⁵ It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

²⁶ The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, " Who then can be saved?"

²⁷ Jesus looked at them and said, " With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."

²⁸ Peter said to him, " We have left everything to follow you!"

²⁹" I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, " no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel ³⁰ will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields - and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life. ³¹ But many who are first will be last, and the last first."

^a 19 Exodus 20:12-16; Deut. 5:16-20 ^b 24 Some manuscripts is for those who trust in riches

The story of the rich man (identified in Matt 19:20 as young and in Luke 18:30 as a ruler) fits well with the theme of sacrificial servanthood. This rich man well illustrates the selfish attachment of men and women to wealth and the impediment it can be to self-denying service. In the same context, Peter illustrates that though the disciples have given up riches, they have still not learned the lesson of servanthood.

17-20. The rich man sought to honor Jesus by kneeling before him and addressing him as " Good Teacher." Jesus' objection to being called " good" is surprising to many. However, as Lane suggests, " In calling in question the man's use of 'good,' Jesus' intention is not to pose the question of his own sinlessness or oneness with the Father, but to set in correct perspective the honor of God." This man undoubtedly viewed himself as " good" and needed to see that " his only hope is an utter reliance upon God, who alone can bestow eternal life."

The question, " What must I do to inherit eternal life?" further suggests the trust that this man had in Jesus. In reply to the man's question, he recalls in summary fashion several of the ten commandments. The rich man had kept the ten commandments from childhood.

21. It is easy to think of the rich man as simply a pawn in Jesus' teaching game, as if he gave this man the challenge to give his wealth away in order to use his failure as an object lesson. But Mark says that Jesus " loved him." Jesus saw great potential in the man's trust in him, desire for salvation, and righteous lifestyle. He wanted the man to be one of his chosen followers.

22. The rich man's response reveals his sincerity. The first verb Mark uses to describe his reaction can be translated in two ways. The NIV translation, " the man's face fell" is an attempt to express one meaning of the word stugnavsa" ( stygnasas ), which is that his appearance indicated he was gloomy or sad. The NRSV " he was shocked" expresses the alternative. In either case the next phrase says that he went away grieving, because he had great wealth. His wealth was the one thing he would not give up to inherit eternal life.

23-25. Jesus used this opportunity to teach his disciples about wealth. It is hard for anyone to enter the kingdom of God. It is especially hard for a rich man. In fact Jesus uses a hyperbolic illustration which characterizes a rich man's possibilities for entering the kingdom of God as nonexistent. There is no ancient evidence for the oft-cited opinion that the eye of the needle was a gate into the walls of Jerusalem that a camel could enter only with great difficulty. Jesus had in mind the eye of a literal needle.

26. The shock expressed by the disciples in vv. 24 and 26 may reveal an underlying theology that supposes that rich men like the one they had just seen are rich because they are blessed by God for their righteousness. Their reaction, " Who then can be saved?" seems to imply that the rich would be especially likely to be saved. If they are not saved, then who can be?

27. Fortunately, impossibilities are possible for God. Rich men can be saved and so can the rest of humanity.

28. Peter's statement sought credit for doing what Jesus told the rich man to do. The twelve had left everything they had behind and followed Jesus. Peter's language reflects the responses of Peter and Andrew in 1:18 as " they left their nets and followed him" and of James and John in 1:20 as " they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed him." The four fishermen had heeded the call and paid a high price.

29-30. Jesus began his reply to Peter with a commendation of his sacrifice. With his customary " I tell you the truth" he emphasized the truth and significance of his promise. Those who sacrifice houses or family or fields for the sake of Jesus or the gospel will receive one hundred times what they have sacrificed in the present life and in the age to come they will receive eternal life. In a later text Jesus tells the disciples that Christians will suffer great family trials as " brother will betray brother to death and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. All men will hate you because of me . . ." (13:12-13). This statement fills out both the sense in which many may have to leave family members and the ominous reference to " and with them, persecutions" in the promise of reward. Of course, Jesus' promise does not involve literal multiplications of new family members or houses or fields. The sense in which one gains new family members may be illuminated by Mark 3:34, " Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother." For the multiple returns on houses and fields one might consult Acts 2:44-45: " All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."

31. This paradoxical saying is apparently a rebuke of the down side of Peter's statement. Peter has expressed the " me-first" attitude that keeps coming through in the disciples' behavior (see 8:33-34, 38; 10:13, 35-37, 41) despite Jesus' repeated efforts to dispel it. Jesus warns Peter that those who place themselves first will be last and vice versa. This statement is more fully illuminated in Matt 19:27-20:16. There Peter's attitude is more clearly displayed by the addition of his statement, " What then will there be for us?" (Matt 19:27). The paradox of the first and last is followed by the parable of the Workers in the Vineyard and, in 20:16, a repetition of the paradox.

J. THE THIRD PASSION/RESURRECTION PREDICTION (10:32-34)

³² They were on their way up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid. Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him. ³³" We are going up to Jerusalem," he said, " and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, ³⁴ who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise."

This is the third and last of the passion/resurrection predictions that are the centerpieces of chapters 8-10. With the following section it repeats the pattern found in 8:31-9:1 and 9:30-35.

32. The disciples are astonished and the other followers are amazed because it is clear that Jesus is leading them to Jerusalem, the center of Jewish piety and of the Jewish authorities that oppose Jesus. Again, Jesus does not make his statements about the coming events in Jerusalem in public, but takes the twelve aside. Mark's three passion/ resurrection predictions are presumably exemplary of many efforts on Jesus' part to get the disciples to understand both his destiny and theirs.

33-34. This is by far the most detailed of the predictions. Perhaps Jesus increased the detail as they drew closer to Jerusalem. Compared to the previous statements, this statement adds that the chief priests and scribes will condemn him to death and hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, and flog him before killing him. This provides a rather detailed overview from Jesus' betrayal to his death. He once again concludes with his resurrection after three days.

K. THE REQUEST OF JAMES AND JOHN (10:35-45)

³⁵ Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. " Teacher," they said, " we want you to do for us whatever we ask."

³⁶" What do you want me to do for you?" he asked.

³⁷ They replied, " Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory."

³⁸" You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said. " Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?"

³⁹" We can," they answered.

Jesus said to them, " You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, ⁴⁰ but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared."

⁴¹ When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. ⁴² Jesus called them together and said, " You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. ⁴³ Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, ⁴⁴ and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. ⁴⁵ For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Peter has gained the reputation of being the impetuous, outspoken apostle. In Mark he does speak more often than the others and on more than one occasion he blunders (8:32; 9:5; 14:29). However, it is often not noticed that John also blunders in 9:38 and here in 10:35-37. This occasion is the most explicit demonstration of how the disciples' misunderstanding of Jesus' messiahship led them astray in understanding their own roles. It is also Jesus' most explicit teaching on the implications of his role for theirs. It is fitting that it comes on the brink of the final week of Jesus' life.

35-37. Like children, James and John asked Jesus to acquiesce to an unspecified request. Jesus, of course, did not say " yes" without hearing the request. The request is cast in the language of ancient royal customs. The king sat in his glory on the throne and those nearest in authority to him sat first on his right and second on his left. The request reveals what appears to be a earthly Davidic messianism in which Jesus is envisioned as establishing an earthly kingdom with the apostles as his chief assistants.

38-40. Jesus' counter question uses two metaphors for his coming suffering and death: drinking a cup of wine and being baptized. The use of drinking a cup as a metaphor for Jesus' death is also found in the Gethsemane account (14:36: " remove this cup from me" ). A similar use of the imagery of baptism is found in Luke 12:50: " I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed!" As Jesus realized, the two brothers did not understand the question. Nevertheless, he said that they would indeed experience a cup and a baptism like his; that is, they would endure great suffering. James was one of the earliest martyrs (Acts 12:1-2). According to tradition John lived into the decade of the nineties, but he too suffered, including an exile on the island of Patmos.

Jesus does not deny that he will sit on a throne or that there will be dignitaries on his right and left, but he says the choice is not his to make. He does not affirm the this-worldly implications of the brothers' request. Elsewhere, in Matt 19:28 and Luke 22:28-30, Jesus says that the twelve will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

41. The anger of the ten other apostles reveals their own desires to have the chief positions.

42-45. Jesus exemplifies the difference between his standards and those of the world with pagan rulers who lord it over or exercise authority over their subjects. This is not the way of Christ. His way is expressed in paradoxical parallels: " whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant" and " whoever wants to be first must be slave of all." See the parallels in 9:35 and 10:31. In connection with v. 45, these verses encapsulate the repeated theme of Mark 8-10. The " for" or " therefore" at the beginning of v. 45 indicates that the life-giving service of the Son of Man is the model and rationale for the servanthood of the disciples. If anyone deserves to be served, he did. Yet, even he did not come to be served, but to serve.

The last clause of v. 45, " to give his life as a ransom for many," probably alludes to Isa 53, especially v. 10. A ransom (luvtron, lytron ) was a purchase price paid to free a slave, prisoner, or forfeited piece of land or other possession. It is here used metaphorically for the vicarious suffering of Jesus which paid the price for the sins of others. This is one of only two statements in Mark that speak of the atoning value of Jesus' death. The other is in the inauguration of the Lord's Supper at 14:24: " This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many." Mark certainly agrees with the early Christian teaching of the atoning value of Jesus' death. But he has emphasized instead the exemplary moral value of Jesus' death as a model for sacrificial service to God and others. That is the main emphasis of vv. 43-45.

L. BARTIMAEUS RECEIVES HIS SIGHT (10:46-52)

⁴⁶ Then they came to Jericho. As Jesus and his disciples, together with a large crowd, were leaving the city, a blind man, Bartimaeus (that is, the Son of Timaeus), was sitting by the roadside begging. ⁴⁷ When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout, " Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"

⁴⁸ Many rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, " Son of David, have mercy on me!"

⁴⁹ Jesus stopped and said, " Call him."

So they called to the blind man, " Cheer up! On your feet! He's calling you." ⁵⁰ Throwing his cloak aside, he jumped to his feet and came to Jesus.

⁵¹" What do you want me to do for you?" Jesus asked him.

The blind man said, " Rabbi, I want to see."

⁵²" Go," said Jesus, " your faith has healed you." Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road.

The story of Bartimaeus concludes the journey to Jerusalem, leading the reader to the brink of the " triumphal entry" down the Mount of Olives. Because of the symbolism of the two-stage healing of the blind man in 8:22-26, some look for a similar symbolism in this story. They argue that the blind man miracles are symbolic bookends for the special section between them in which Jesus repeatedly teaches about his coming death as a model of sacrificial service. The placement of the Bartimaeus story favors this view. However, this second healing of a blind man does not have the same sort of unique twist that needs explanation. Moreover, if a similar symbolism concerning the disciples' understanding were sought, the Bartimaeus story would seem to suggest that the disciples now understood the message that would lead them from partial to complete sight (concerning Jesus' death and their own mission of service). Subsequent events will prove that they did not.

46. Jericho is an oasis located about six miles north of the Dead Sea. It is the lowest city in the world. Bartimaeus is Aramaic for " son of Timaeus." He was a blind man presumably forced by his blindness into a life of begging.

47-48. Due to his blindness Bartimaeus could not see Jesus and because of the large crowd he was not close to him to hear him or address him. When he heard who the crowd was following, he did what he could: he shouted out in hopes that Jesus would hear him and help him. The crowd tried to silence him because they were annoyed or thought Jesus might be annoyed by the cries of a street beggar. But Bartimaeus was determined to shout out above the crowd.

His cry is unique to this point in Mark in identifying Jesus as " Son of David." It leads well into the next story, the triumphal entry, in which Jesus is acclaimed with words about the " coming of the kingdom of our father David" (11:10). Despite the absence to this point in Mark of public teaching by Jesus or speculation by any other than the disciples to the effect that Jesus was the promised Davidic messiah, it is probable that Bartimaeus's cry and the shouting during the triumphal entry signal the presence of messianic expectations at this point. Messianic speculation presumably grew as Jesus approached Jerusalem, the city where David and his descendants ruled.

49-51. Again Jesus is more gracious than those around him (cf. 10:13-14). He is willing to take time with children and beggars. The brief exchange between Jesus and Bartimaeus establishes that it was not money that the beggar wanted from Jesus. Calling him " Rabbi" (see 9:5), he asked for sight.

52. Once again, Mark emphasizes the importance of faith. By noting that Bartimaeus followed Jesus along the road Mark leads the reader into the next story, the triumphal entry. Most of the individuals Jesus healed remain anonymous in the Gospels. Perhaps Bartimaeus followed Jesus in discipleship and thus became known by name in the early church.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

McGarvey: Mar 10:1-12

XCVIII.
JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM. CONCERNING DIVORCE.
^aMATT. XIX. 1-12; ^bMARK X. 1-12.

   ^a1 And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these words [the words contained in Mat 18:15-35., which are the last teachings in Galilee recorded by any of the Evangelists, Mat 28:16, Mat 28:17, Joh 21:1],  ^b1 And he arose from thence, and cometh {acame} binto the borders of Judæa and beyond the Jordan [The land beyond the Jordan was called Peræa. See Mat 5:32), they hoped to make it appear that he despised the authority of Moses. But if he ratified the law of Moses, then they would show that he was contradicting his former teaching, and hence too inconsistent to be worthy of credit. For the Lord's teaching concerning divorce see Act 13:2, 1Co 9:4, 1Co 9:5), they are permitted to abstain from marriage; and when seasons of persecution seriously interfere with the regular order and course of life among Christians, they may find it expedient to live as eunuchs (1Co 7:25-34). But in no case must celibacy be practiced unless it can be done so without the sin of incontinency (1Co 7:1-9). The Bible nowhere countenances any celibate vow, for it teaches that celibacy is to be continued only so long as it is expedient. Much less does it give countenance to the doctrine that a church can pass laws enforcing celibacy on the whole class of clergy, without any regard for their natural constitution, their spiritual powers, or their faithful continuance. -- P. Y. P. [542]

[FFG 537-542]

McGarvey: Mar 10:13-16

XCIX.
BLESSING CHILDREN. CONCERNING CHILDLIKENESS.
(In Peræa.)
^aMATT. XIX. 13-15; ^bMARK X. 13-16; ^cLUKE XVIII. 15-17.

   ^a13 Then were there brought  ^b13 And they were bringing aunto him little children, {calso their babes,} that he should touch them: athat he should lay his hands on them, and pray [According to Buxtorf, children were often brought to the presidents of the synagogue in order that they might pray over them. The prayers of a good man in our behalf have always been regarded as a blessing; no wonder, then, that the mothers of these children desired the prayers of Jesus in behalf of their little ones. It was customary to put the hand upon the person prayed for, probably following the patriarchal precedent (Gen 48:14, Gen 48:15). Compare Act 6:6]: cbut {aand} cwhen the disciples saw it, they [541] rebuked them.  ^b14 But when Jesus saw it, he was moved with indignation, and ccalled them unto him, saying, {bsaid} unto them, ^cSuffer the little children to come unto me; forbid them not: afor to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven. {bof God.} [The disciples wished to protect Jesus from what appeared to them to be an unseemly intrusion and annoyance, and possibly, as the context suggests, they thought it was beneath the dignity of the Messiah to turn aside from the affairs of the kingdom of heaven (Mat 19:12) to pay attention to children. But Jesus was indignant at their officious interference, and directed that the children be brought to him, declaring at the same time that the kingdom of heaven be composed, not of little children, but of such as are childlike in their nature.]  ^c17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein. [See p. 431.]  ^b16 And he took them up in his arms,  ^a15 And he laid {blaying} ahis hands on {bupon} athem, band blessed them, aand departed thence. [They were [542] brought that he might lay his hands on them and bless them, and that is what he did for them. The command therefore that they be suffered to come to him should not be perverted into a precept directing that they be brought for other purposes. Those who have construed this as commanding or even permitting either infant baptism or an infant church membership, have abused the text. They are indebted for these ideas, not to the Bible, but to their creeds. The incident told in this section is a fitting sequel to the discourse on divorce. The little children, the offspring of happy wedlock, and a source of constant joy and pleasure to faithful husbands and wives, serve by their presence to correct false impressions as to supposed inconvenience of an indissoluble marriage bond. The sight of them in the arms of Jesus could not fail to leave a good impression with reference to the married life.]

[FFG 541-543]

McGarvey: Mar 10:17-31

C.
THE RICH RULER. PERIL OF RICHES. REWARD OF SACRIFICE.
PARABLE OF THE LABORERS IN THE VINEYARD.
(In Peræa.)
^aMATT. XIX. 16-XX. 16; ^bMARK X. 17-31; ^cLUKE XVIII. 18-30.

   ^b17 And when he was going forth into the way, abehold, bthere ran {acame} bone ca certain ruler bto him, and kneeled to him, and asked aand said, {csaying,} ^bGood Teacher, awhat good thing shall I do, that I may have {bmay inherit cto inherit} eternal life? [The action of this young man in running and kneeling shows that he was deeply anxious to receive an answer to his question, and also that he had great reverence for Jesus. He seemed to think, however, that heaven could be gained by performing some one meritorious act. He made the mistake of thinking that eternal life is a reward for doing rather than for being, a mistake from which the Roman Catholic Church [543] developed the doctrine of "works of supererogation."]  19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good save one, even God: ^aWhy askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good [To the address of the young man, viz.: "Good Master," Jesus replies, "Why callest," etc., and to his question, "What good thing," etc. Jesus replies, "Why askest," etc. The ruler using the inconsiderate, conventional language of the thoughtless, had taken an unwarrantable freedom with the word "good." Jesus shows that if his language had been used sincerely it would have committed him to a declaration of great faith, for he had addressed Jesus by a title which belongs only to God, and he had asked Jesus the question concerning that of which God alone was fitted to speak. As the ruler had not used this language sincerely Jesus challenged his words. The challenge showed the ruler that he had unwittingly confessed the divinity of Jesus, and thus startled him into a consideration of the marvelous fact which his own mouth had stated. This is done because the young man would need to believe in the divinity of Jesus to endure the test to which he was about to be subjected -- 1Jo 5:5.] but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments. [By referring the ruler to the commandments, Jesus not only answered the question as to obtaining life, but he emphasized the confession of his divinity contained in the question, "Why askest," etc. God, who knows what is good, had revealed that good in the commandments which he had given. Yet the ruler had asked Jesus to be wise above God's revelation, and to propound a law or rule of goodness in addition to that already given, and of such a nature as to more fully insure the attainment of life by obeying it. The ruler's question reveals that common weakness in man which prompts him to look to his fellow-men for religious and moral instruction; forgetting that only God can propound the absolute standards of goodness. We should note, too, that the young man, being under the law given through Moses, was bidden to attain life by keeping the law. After the death of Christ a new law [544] was given. Had the man waited until that time, he would have been directed to this new law, and obedience to it would have been required. Compare Act 2:37, Act 2:38, 2Th 1:8, et al.]  18 He saith unto him, Which? And Jesus said,  ^c20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do {^aThou shalt} cnot commit adultery, Do {^aThou shalt} cnot kill, Do {^aThou shalt} cnot steal, Do {^aThou shalt} cnot bear false witness, ^bDo not defraud,  ^a19 Honor thy father and thy mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. [The ruler still sought for some prominent commandment, but was referred to the last six of the Decalogue, these being at that time more frequently violated than the first four. For the last commandment, "Thou shalt not covet," Jesus substitutes its equivalent, "Do not defraud," and "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," the last being a summary of all the six -- Rom 13:9.]  ^b20 And he  ^a20 The young man saith {bsaid} unto him, Teacher, ^cAll these things have I observed from my youth up. awhat lack I yet? [He had kept these commandments as far as he knew his heart and as far as he understood their import.]  ^b21 And Jesus cwhen he heard it, blooking upon him [gazing earnestly and searchingly at him] loved him ["agapan." See Jam 2:10], go, sell that which thou hast, csell all bwhatsoever thou hast, cand distribute {bgive} cunto {ato} the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. [The command to sell all is not a general one, but a special precept needed in this case, 1. To dispel the ruler's self-deception. On the negative side his character was good, but on the positive it was deficient. He had done his neighbor no harm, but he had also done him very little good. 2. To show impartiality. The invitation of Jesus shows that the ruler desired to be in some manner a disciple, and hence he is subjected to the same [545] test which the other disciples had accepted, and of which Peter soon after speaks. Paul also was rich in self-righteousness like this man, but cheerfully sacrificed all, that he might follow Christ (Phi 3:6-9). Moreover, the reference to treasure in heaven and the invitation to follow Christ tested the ruler's obedience to the first four commandments of the Decalogue as condensed in the great summary or first commandment. (Mat 22:37, Mat 22:38.) Though the ruler perhaps did not fully realize it, those who heard the conversation must afterwards have been impressed with the great truth that the ruler was called upon to make his choice whether he would love Christ or the world, whether he would serve God or mammon. The whole scene forms an illustration of the doctrine expressed by Paul, that by the law can no flesh be justified (Rom 3:20), for perfection is required of those who approach God along that pathway; those, therefore, who have done all, still need Christ to lead them.]  ^a22 But when the young man heard that saying, {cthese things} bhis countenance fell at the saying, che became exceeding sorrowful; band he went away sorrowful: cfor he was very rich. bhe was one that had great possessions. [He was not offended at the extravagance of Jesus' demands, for he was not one of the most hardened of the rich. He belonged to that class which hold Christ and their wealth in nearly an even balance. The narrative shows us how uncompromisingly Jesus held to principle. Though the ruler was sorry to turn away, and though Jesus loved him, yet the Lord did not modify his demand by a hair's-breadth to gain an influential disciple.]  ^c24 And Jesus seeing him blooked round about, and saith {asaid} unto his disciples, ^bHow hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! ^aVerily I say unto you, It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. [1Ti 6:9, 1Ti 6:10, 1Ti 6:17-19. It should be remembered that Judas heard these words only a few days before he sold his Lord.]  ^b24 And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in [546] riches to enter into the kingdom of God! [The possession and use of riches is permitted to the Christian, but their possession becomes a sin when the one who owns them comes to trust in them or in any way suffers them to interfere with his duties toward or relations to God.]  ^a24 And again I say unto you,  ^c25 For it is easier for a camel to enter in {bto go} through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. [The needle's eye here is that of the literal needle, and the expression was a proverbial one to indicate that which was absolutely impossible. Lord George Nugent (1845-6) introduced the explanation that Jesus referred to the two gates of a city, the large one for beast of burden, and the small one for foot-passengers. This smaller one is now called "The Needle's Eye," but there is no evidence whatever that it was so called in our Saviour's time. In fact, as Canon Farrar observes, we have every reason to believe that this smaller gate received its name in late years because of the efforts of those who were endeavoring to soften this saying of Jesus.]  ^a25 And when the disciples heard it, they were astonished exceedingly,  ^c26 And they that heard it said, {bsaying} unto him, ^aWho then {^bThen who} can be saved?  ^a26 And Jesus blooking upon them saith, {^c27 But he said,} ^bWith men this is impossible, but not with God: for all things are possible with God. ^cThe things which are impossible with men aree possible with God. [The Jews were accustomed to look upon the possession of riches as an evidence of divine favor, and the heads of the apostles were filled with visions of the riches and honors which they would enjoy when Jesus set up his kingdom. No wonder, then, that they were amazed to find that it was impossible for a rich man to enter that kingdom, and that, moreover and worse than all, riches appeared to exclude from salvation itself: that even this virtuous rich man, this paragon of excellence, could not have eternal life because he clung to his riches. But they were comforted by the assurance of Jesus that though the salvation of some men might present more difficulties than the salvation of others [547] -- might, as it were, require a miracle where others only required simple means, yet the gracious, mighty God might still be trusted to overcome the obstacles. It is impossible for any man to save himself, so that in every case of salvation God is called upon to assist man in accomplishing the impossible. God can so work upon the rich man's heart as to make him a dispenser of blessings.]  ^a27 Then answered Peter  ^c28 And bbegan to say unto him, {aand said unto him,} ^bLo, we have left all, {cour own,} band have followed thee. awhat then shall we have? [The negative conduct of the rich man reminded the disciples of their own positive conduct when confronted with a similar crisis (Luk 5:11), and the "all" which they had left was by no means contemptible, though perhaps none of them could have been said to have held great possessions. The mention of treasure in heaven, therefore, set Peter to wondering what manner of return would be made to them to compensate them for their sacrifice.]  28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. [By the term "regeneration," Jesus in this case means the period in which the process of regenerating men would be in progress; i. e., the period of the mediatorial reign. After his ascension Jesus sat upon his throne (Act 2:33-35, Heb 1:13, Mat 25:31, 1Co 15:24-28). And on the day of Pentecost next following, he began this process of regeneration. Having enthroned himself, Jesus enthroned the apostles also, not as kings but as judges, having jurisdiction over all questions of faith and practice in the earthly kingdom. During their personal ministry, they judged in person; and since then they judge through their writings. True, we have written communications from only a part of them, but judgments pronounced by one of a bench of judges with the known approval of all, are the judgments of the entire bench. Moreover, the passage must be construed metaphorically, for the apostles are [548] judges in the church of Christ -- the true Israel -- and not over the literal twelve tribes of Jacob. And again, the twelve who then heard Jesus speak were not all enthroned, Judas having fallen from his position before the day of enthronement, and Matthias and Paul were afterwards added to the group. Jesus here causes the number of the judges to correspond to the number of the tribes, to indicate that there will be a sufficiency of judgment commensurate to the need.]  29 And every one {^bThere is no man that} ahath left houses, {bhouse,} cor wife, or brethren, bor sisters, or mother, or father, cor parents, bor children, or lands, for my sake, {amy name's sake,} band for the gospel's sake, cfor the kingdom of God's sake,  30 who shall not receive manifold more in this time, and in the world to come eternal life.  ^b30 but he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come ashall inherit eternal life. [The rewards of Christian self-denial are here divided into two parts -- the temporal and the eternal. The earthly joys -- the rewards "in this time" -- shall outweigh the sacrifices made for the kingdom. The return, of course, will not be in kind, houses for house, and fathers for father, etc., but spiritual relationships and blessings which compensate abundantly for whatever has been resigned (Mat 12:49, 1Ti 4:8). But these joys shall be mingled with the bitterness of persecution, for no pleasure is perfected in this world, but only in the inheritance which lies beyond -- 1Pe 1:4.]  30 But many shall be last that are first; and first that are last.  ^b31 But many that are first shall be last; and the last first. [The promise of large recompense which Jesus had just given was apt to tempt some to labor not for love, but for the rewards which might be reaped thereby. Jesus corrects this spirit by the statement, and the parable that follows which illustrates it, and which ends with the same sentiment. See Lev 19:13, Deu 24:15], the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward [his overseer], Call the laborers, and pay them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first. [Thus following the order indicated by Mar 7:22, 1Sa 18:9, Pro 23:6-8, Pro 28:22, Deu 15:9). The lord had done no wrong to those who had labored longest, for he had paid them what they had bargained for and earned. If he chose to be generous with those whose misfortune had prevented them from being hired earlier in the day, no one had any just cause to murmur.]  16 So the last shall be first, and the first last [The meaning of this parable has often been misunderstood by those who fail to note the maxim with which Jesus begins and ends it. This maxim acts as a safeguard in the interpretation of it; the parable also in turn guards against misunderstanding the maxim. The maxim can not be applied to Judas; for, though he then stood high in honor and afterwards fell into disgrace, yet he stands outside the pale of the maxim as interpreted by the parable, for in the parable both the first and the last were received and rewarded by their master, while Judas was rejected of Christ and received no reward. The term "last," therefore, must be applied to those who were included among the accepted laborers, and not those who were excluded from that class. In the parable, the denarius or shilling stands for the gift of [551] eternal life. The vineyard represents the Lord's field of work in the world. The evening is the close of the Christian dispensation, and the coming of Christ to judgment. The parable as it unfolds and develops suggests that in no case was the reward earned by the inherent merits and toil of the laborers, but was rather bestowed because of a desire on the part of the householder to that effect, just as eternal life is bestowed, not by merit, but by covenant grace (Rom 2:6, Rom 2:7, Rom 4:3-5, Rom 5:16-21). The main object of the parable is to show that longer labor does not necessarily, as the apostles and others might think, establish a claim to higher reward. Degrees of difference there no doubt will be, but they form no account in the general covenant of grace in which the one great gift is offered to us all. As the gift can be no less than eternal life, there must of necessity be a difference in the ratio of service which is rendered for it, since it will be bestowed on the octogenarian and the child, upon Paul who made good the confession of his faith through years of toil, and the dying thief who passed to his reward while his voice of confession was, as it were, still ringing in the ears of those who heard it (1Co 15:8-11, 2Ti 4:6-9). The murmuring and envy of those who had labored longest is merely part of the parabolic drapery, introduced to bring out the answer of the householder, and to make plain the point to be illustrated. There will be no envy among those who inherit eternal life. By thus speaking of the envy, however, and showing how ineffectual it was, Jesus warns us to be prepared not to cherish it. The parable is not intended to teach that the characters of men will be exactly similar in the world to come. Paul will not be Peter, nor will Martin Luther be identical with Hugh Latimer and John Knox. God may award eternal life to the character which we are forming, but we should be careful what kind of character we bring to receive the gift. The lesson is that works are valued qualitatively and not quantitatively. Nor may the parable be rightly used to encourage hope in death-bed repentance. It certainly does teach that, however little the labor which a man does in the Lord's vineyard, he will receive the final reward if only he [552] be really in the vineyard; that is, if he be really a child of God. But whether a man who repents on his death-bed actually becomes a child of God is a different question, and is not touched by the parable. Certainly the eleventh-hour laborer who had stood idle all day only because no man had hired him, and who came into the vineyard as soon as he was called, can not represent the man who has been called by the gospel every hour of his life, but has rejected every call until his sun has sunk so low that he knows he can do but little work when he comes. In order to represent this class of sinners, the eleventh-hour men should have been invited early in the morning, and should have replied, "No, it is too early; we will not go now." Then they should have been invited at the third, the sixth, and the ninth hours, and should have made some equally frivolous excuse each time, then, finally, at the eleventh hour, they should have said, "Well, as you pay a man just the same for an hour's work as for a day's work, and as we are very anxious to get your money, we believe we will now go." Had they acted thus, it is not likely that they would have found the vineyard gates open to them at all. Yet such is the sharp practice which some men attempt in dealing with God.]

[FFG 543-553]

Lapide: Mar 10:1-52

CHAPTER 10

2 Christ disputeth with the Pharisees touching divorcement : 13 blesseth the children that are brought unto him : 17 resolveth a rich man how he may inherit life everlasting : 23 telleth his disciples of the danger of riches : 28 promiseth rewards to them that forsake anything for the gospel : 32 foretelleth his death and resurrection : 35 biddeth the two ambitious suitors to think rather of suffering with him : 46 and restoreth to Bartimæus his sight.

Ver. 21. And Jesus regarding him, with a benignant and pleasant countenance, loved him, showed him marks of His love, taking his hand and smiling upon him, embracing and kissing him.

One thing is wanting unto thee, namely, for the perfection of a holy and evangelical life.

Follow Me. The Greek adds, Taking up thy cross. The Syriac has, Take thy cross, and come after Me.

Ver. 24. Little children (Vulg.); the Syriac, My sons. By His bland address He softens the hardness of the matter. He is like one who loves his children most dearly; and as such He would tell them the truth in sincerity, and persuade them to renounce riches as a bar to salvation.

That trust in riches. For rich men trust in their riches rather than in God, according to the saying in Proverbs (Pro 10:15), "The substance of a rich man is the city of his strength" (Vulg.). With difficulty, therefore, are they saved, because salvation cometh only from God. Wherefore those who wish to be saved must put their trust in God, and must ask and wait for salvation from Him, as the poor do. For inasmuch as they have no riches in which to trust, they are obliged to place all their hopes in God, according to the words (Psa 14:6), "Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the Lord is his hope." Therefore if rich men wish to be saved, let them turn their hope, their heart, their love from riches, and fix them upon God.

Ver. 30. Who shall not receive an hundred times as much, now in this time ; houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions : and in the world to come life everlasting. I have explained this hundredfold in S. Mat 19:29. Mark here adds, with persecutions. The Arabic has, in tribulations. "Let him who has relinquished his possessions and friends for the love of Christ, and is set in the midst of persecutions, and is encompassed by them on every side, be faithful. For there will not be wanting a hundred, that is, very many, who will succour and cherish him, as brothers, fathers, and mothers." So Jerome, Bede, &c.

This is added because in persecutions the believer especially needs the help and assistance of others. Also, because this is a rare and marvellous thing, that in persecution, when a man is wont to be left destitute of help and friends, and when all, through fear of danger, withdraw themselves from him, those who follow Christ experience the exact contrary, and find a hundred, i.e., very many to succour them.

Again, with persecutions may be taken thus—that persecutions and tribulations undergone for Christ's sake reward which shall be given, together with the hundredfold, to those who follow Christ. For to suffer for Christ is a great gift of God, as the Apostle teaches (Phi 2:19).

Ver. 32. They were in the way, from Jericho, . . . and Jesus went before them, as with alacrity, affording himself as a guide in the way to the frightened Apostles, who shrank from Jerusalem, because they knew that Jesus was there sought for by the princes to be put to death. Yea, a decree had been made to that effect by their great council, the Sanhedrin (Joh 11:52). Whence it follows—

They were astonished, and following, were afraid. Gr. ε̉θαμβου̃ντο, i.e., they were astonished with great fear and dread. The imminent peril of death, says Bede, was the cause of their fear. They were amazed that Christ with so prompt and resolute a mind should bring Himself and His disciples into such open peril of death. They were afraid lest they might suffer and be put to death with Christ.

Ver. 38. Or be baptised with the baptism wherewith I am baptized. Christ calls His Passion a baptism, because He was to be evidently immersed and drowned in it, according to what David says of himself, but much more of Christ (Psa 69:12), "Save me, 0 God; for the waters are come in unto my soul. I sink in deep mire, where there is no standing: I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me."

Ver. 42. Ye know that they who seem to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them. Gr. κατακυριεύουσιν αυ̉τω̃ν, i.e, dominate over them, or against them. For who seem, the Gr. is οί δοκου̃ντες, i.e., who please themselves, and rejoice in ruling. For none rule more imperiously and harshly than those who are delighted with ruling and commanding. Whence the Arabic translates, they who think themselves princes of the people are their lords, i.e., they exercise, as it were, a tyrannical domination over them.

Ver. 46. Bartimæus, the son of Timæus. This blind man, then, was called by a proper name, Bartimæus, i.e., the son of Timæus, as Bartholomew is the same as son of Ptolemy. The same was called also by the same name as his father Timæus. Timæus was the name of that Pythagorean philosopher who wrote the life of Pythagoras.

Moreover, Bartimæus is interpreted by Pagnini in three ways ( in Nom. Hebraicis ). The first is from S. Jerome, to the effect that Bartimæus means the blind son, or the son of blindness. He says that it is a Syriac name, but corrupted from Barsemia, or Barsamæus. Bar is son, semaia, blindness.

The second opinion is, that it means the son of honour ; as if compounded of the Syriac bar, a son, and the Gr. τιμή, honour.

The third is, that it means the son of the admirer, or admirable corn, or admirable purity. For this was what the blind man received from Christ. For being illuminated in body, he was far more illuminated in his soul. For bar means meal, or wheat, or purity, as well as son. Tamah is to admire.

And followed Him in the way. Moraliter : Says the Gloss, Let us consider the way in which He goeth, and follow Him by humility and labours. The way is that of which He saith, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." This is "the narrow way," which leads to the heights of Jerusalem and Bethany, to the Mount of Olives, which is the mount of light and consolation; yea, which leads to Zion and the heavenly Jerusalem. The blind man therefore sees and follows, for he who rightly understands the life of Christ ought to follow and imitate it by his works. (Top)

Commentary -- Other

Critics Ask: Mar 10:17

MATTHEW 19:16-30 (cf. Mark 10:17-31 ; Luke 18:18-30 )—If Jesus was God, why did He seem to rebuke the rich young ruler for calling Him good?

PROBLEM: The rich young ruler called Jesus “Good Teacher,” and Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” Yet on other occasions Jesus not only claimed to be God ( Mark 2:8-10 ; John 8:58 ; 10:30 ), but He accepted the claim of others that He was God ( John 20:28-29 ). Why did Jesus appear to deny that He was God to the young ruler?

SOLUTION: Jesus did not deny He was God to the young ruler. He simply asked him to examine the implications of what he was saying. In effect, Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?”

The young man did not realize the implications of what he was saying. Thus Jesus was forcing him to a very uncomfortable dilemma. Either Jesus was good and God, or else He was bad and man. A good God or a bad man, but not merely a good man. Those are the real alternatives with regard to Christ. For no good man would claim to be God when he was not. The liberal Christ, who was only a good moral teacher but not God, is a figment of human imagination.   

MARK 10:17-31 —Did Jesus deny He was God to the rich young ruler?

(See comments on Matt. 19:16-30 .)   

Critics Ask: Mar 10:18

MATTHEW 19:16-30 (cf. Mark 10:17-31 ; Luke 18:18-30 )—If Jesus was God, why did He seem to rebuke the rich young ruler for calling Him good?

PROBLEM: The rich young ruler called Jesus “Good Teacher,” and Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” Yet on other occasions Jesus not only claimed to be God ( Mark 2:8-10 ; John 8:58 ; 10:30 ), but He accepted the claim of others that He was God ( John 20:28-29 ). Why did Jesus appear to deny that He was God to the young ruler?

SOLUTION: Jesus did not deny He was God to the young ruler. He simply asked him to examine the implications of what he was saying. In effect, Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?”

The young man did not realize the implications of what he was saying. Thus Jesus was forcing him to a very uncomfortable dilemma. Either Jesus was good and God, or else He was bad and man. A good God or a bad man, but not merely a good man. Those are the real alternatives with regard to Christ. For no good man would claim to be God when he was not. The liberal Christ, who was only a good moral teacher but not God, is a figment of human imagination.   

MARK 10:17-31 —Did Jesus deny He was God to the rich young ruler?

(See comments on Matt. 19:16-30 .)   

Critics Ask: Mar 10:19

MATTHEW 19:16-30 (cf. Mark 10:17-31 ; Luke 18:18-30 )—If Jesus was God, why did He seem to rebuke the rich young ruler for calling Him good?

PROBLEM: The rich young ruler called Jesus “Good Teacher,” and Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” Yet on other occasions Jesus not only claimed to be God ( Mark 2:8-10 ; John 8:58 ; 10:30 ), but He accepted the claim of others that He was God ( John 20:28-29 ). Why did Jesus appear to deny that He was God to the young ruler?

SOLUTION: Jesus did not deny He was God to the young ruler. He simply asked him to examine the implications of what he was saying. In effect, Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?”

The young man did not realize the implications of what he was saying. Thus Jesus was forcing him to a very uncomfortable dilemma. Either Jesus was good and God, or else He was bad and man. A good God or a bad man, but not merely a good man. Those are the real alternatives with regard to Christ. For no good man would claim to be God when he was not. The liberal Christ, who was only a good moral teacher but not God, is a figment of human imagination.   

MARK 10:17-31 —Did Jesus deny He was God to the rich young ruler?

(See comments on Matt. 19:16-30 .)   

Critics Ask: Mar 10:20

MATTHEW 19:16-30 (cf. Mark 10:17-31 ; Luke 18:18-30 )—If Jesus was God, why did He seem to rebuke the rich young ruler for calling Him good?

PROBLEM: The rich young ruler called Jesus “Good Teacher,” and Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” Yet on other occasions Jesus not only claimed to be God ( Mark 2:8-10 ; John 8:58 ; 10:30 ), but He accepted the claim of others that He was God ( John 20:28-29 ). Why did Jesus appear to deny that He was God to the young ruler?

SOLUTION: Jesus did not deny He was God to the young ruler. He simply asked him to examine the implications of what he was saying. In effect, Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?”

The young man did not realize the implications of what he was saying. Thus Jesus was forcing him to a very uncomfortable dilemma. Either Jesus was good and God, or else He was bad and man. A good God or a bad man, but not merely a good man. Those are the real alternatives with regard to Christ. For no good man would claim to be God when he was not. The liberal Christ, who was only a good moral teacher but not God, is a figment of human imagination.   

MARK 10:17-31 —Did Jesus deny He was God to the rich young ruler?

(See comments on Matt. 19:16-30 .)   

Critics Ask: Mar 10:21

MATTHEW 19:16-30 (cf. Mark 10:17-31 ; Luke 18:18-30 )—If Jesus was God, why did He seem to rebuke the rich young ruler for calling Him good?

PROBLEM: The rich young ruler called Jesus “Good Teacher,” and Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” Yet on other occasions Jesus not only claimed to be God ( Mark 2:8-10 ; John 8:58 ; 10:30 ), but He accepted the claim of others that He was God ( John 20:28-29 ). Why did Jesus appear to deny that He was God to the young ruler?

SOLUTION: Jesus did not deny He was God to the young ruler. He simply asked him to examine the implications of what he was saying. In effect, Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?”

The young man did not realize the implications of what he was saying. Thus Jesus was forcing him to a very uncomfortable dilemma. Either Jesus was good and God, or else He was bad and man. A good God or a bad man, but not merely a good man. Those are the real alternatives with regard to Christ. For no good man would claim to be God when he was not. The liberal Christ, who was only a good moral teacher but not God, is a figment of human imagination.   

MARK 10:17-31 —Did Jesus deny He was God to the rich young ruler?

(See comments on Matt. 19:16-30 .)   

Critics Ask: Mar 10:22

MATTHEW 19:16-30 (cf. Mark 10:17-31 ; Luke 18:18-30 )—If Jesus was God, why did He seem to rebuke the rich young ruler for calling Him good?

PROBLEM: The rich young ruler called Jesus “Good Teacher,” and Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” Yet on other occasions Jesus not only claimed to be God ( Mark 2:8-10 ; John 8:58 ; 10:30 ), but He accepted the claim of others that He was God ( John 20:28-29 ). Why did Jesus appear to deny that He was God to the young ruler?

SOLUTION: Jesus did not deny He was God to the young ruler. He simply asked him to examine the implications of what he was saying. In effect, Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?”

The young man did not realize the implications of what he was saying. Thus Jesus was forcing him to a very uncomfortable dilemma. Either Jesus was good and God, or else He was bad and man. A good God or a bad man, but not merely a good man. Those are the real alternatives with regard to Christ. For no good man would claim to be God when he was not. The liberal Christ, who was only a good moral teacher but not God, is a figment of human imagination.   

MARK 10:17-31 —Did Jesus deny He was God to the rich young ruler?

(See comments on Matt. 19:16-30 .)   

Critics Ask: Mar 10:23

MATTHEW 19:16-30 (cf. Mark 10:17-31 ; Luke 18:18-30 )—If Jesus was God, why did He seem to rebuke the rich young ruler for calling Him good?

PROBLEM: The rich young ruler called Jesus “Good Teacher,” and Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” Yet on other occasions Jesus not only claimed to be God ( Mark 2:8-10 ; John 8:58 ; 10:30 ), but He accepted the claim of others that He was God ( John 20:28-29 ). Why did Jesus appear to deny that He was God to the young ruler?

SOLUTION: Jesus did not deny He was God to the young ruler. He simply asked him to examine the implications of what he was saying. In effect, Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?”

The young man did not realize the implications of what he was saying. Thus Jesus was forcing him to a very uncomfortable dilemma. Either Jesus was good and God, or else He was bad and man. A good God or a bad man, but not merely a good man. Those are the real alternatives with regard to Christ. For no good man would claim to be God when he was not. The liberal Christ, who was only a good moral teacher but not God, is a figment of human imagination.   

MARK 10:17-31 —Did Jesus deny He was God to the rich young ruler?

(See comments on Matt. 19:16-30 .)   

Critics Ask: Mar 10:24

MATTHEW 19:16-30 (cf. Mark 10:17-31 ; Luke 18:18-30 )—If Jesus was God, why did He seem to rebuke the rich young ruler for calling Him good?

PROBLEM: The rich young ruler called Jesus “Good Teacher,” and Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” Yet on other occasions Jesus not only claimed to be God ( Mark 2:8-10 ; John 8:58 ; 10:30 ), but He accepted the claim of others that He was God ( John 20:28-29 ). Why did Jesus appear to deny that He was God to the young ruler?

SOLUTION: Jesus did not deny He was God to the young ruler. He simply asked him to examine the implications of what he was saying. In effect, Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?”

The young man did not realize the implications of what he was saying. Thus Jesus was forcing him to a very uncomfortable dilemma. Either Jesus was good and God, or else He was bad and man. A good God or a bad man, but not merely a good man. Those are the real alternatives with regard to Christ. For no good man would claim to be God when he was not. The liberal Christ, who was only a good moral teacher but not God, is a figment of human imagination.   

MARK 10:17-31 —Did Jesus deny He was God to the rich young ruler?

(See comments on Matt. 19:16-30 .)   

Evidence: Mar 10:6

God made them male and female . If every creature " evolved" with no Creator, there are numerous problems. Take for instance the first bird. Was it male or female? Let’s say it was a male. How did it produce offspring without a mate? If a female evolved, why did it evolve with differing reproductive organs? Did it evolve by chance, or did it evolve because it knew that it was needed by the male of the species? How did it know what needed to be evolved if its brain hadn’t yet evolved? Did the bird breathe? Did it breathe before it evolved lungs? How did it do this? Why did it evolve lungs if it was happily surviving without them? Did the bird have a mouth? How did it eat before it had evolved a mouth? Where did the mouth send the food before a stomach evolved? How did the bird have energy if it didn’t eat (because it didn’t yet have a mouth)? How did the bird see what there was to eat before its eyes evolved? Evolution is intellectual suicide. It is an embarrassment. (See Rom 1:21-22 )

" Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research " Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission

By quoting from both chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis, Jesus shows that these chapters are not contradictory, as some claim. Chapter 2 merely gives the details of chapter 1. A sports commentator is not in error when (after a game) he gives in-depth analysis and fails to repeat every detail in chronological order. He is merely reviewing the completed game by mentioning the highlights.

Evidence: Mar 10:7

See note "By quoting" on Mar 10:6 .

Evidence: Mar 10:8

See note "By quoting" on Mar 10:6 .

Evidence: Mar 10:9

See note "By quoting" on Mar 10:6 .

Evidence: Mar 10:17

USING THE LAW IN EVANGELISM

This man came running and fell to his knees before Jesus. His earnest and humble heart would seem to make him a prime candidate as a potential convert. Yet, instead of giving him the message of God’s grace, Jesus used the Law to expose the man’s hidden sin. This man was a transgressor of the First of the Ten Commandments. His money was his god, and one cannot serve God and mammon. Verse 21 reveals that it was love that motivated the Savior to speak in this way to this rich young man. Love will be concerned with the desire for a genuine conversion, rather than a sense of accomplishment in leading someone in a sinner’s prayer whose heart isn’t right with God. (See also Mat 19:17-22 )

Evidence: Mar 10:18

QUESTIONS & OBJECTIONS

" I’m as good as any Christian!"

A Christian, by himself, isn’t good. Jesus said that only God is good. The only " goodness," or righteousness, that the believer has comes from Christ ( 2Co 5:21 ; Phi 3:9 ). The Bible tells us that, without Christ, man is corrupt and filthy; " there is none that does good, no, not one" ( Psa 14:3 ). See also Rom 3:9 footnote.

Evidence: Mar 10:21

" Christianity has always insisted that the cross we bear precedes the crown we wear." Martin Luther King, Jr.

" No pain, no palm; no thorns, no throne; no gall, no glory; no cross, no crown..." William Penn

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: Mark (Book Introduction)

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK

By Way of Introduction

One of the clearest results of modern critical study of the Gospels is the early date of Mark’s Gospel. Precisely how early is not definitely known, but there are leading scholars who hold that a.d. 50 is quite probable. My own views are given in detail in my Studies in Mark’s Gospel . Zahn still argues that the Gospel according to Matthew is earlier than that according to Mark, but the arguments are against him. The framework of Mark’s Gospel lies behind both Matthew and Luke and nearly all of it is used by one or the other. One may satisfy himself on this point by careful use of a Harmony of the Gospels in Greek or English. Whether Mark made use of Q ( Logia of Jesus ) or not is not yet shown, though it is possible. But Mark and Q constitute the two oldest known sources of our Matthew and Luke. We have much of Q preserved in the Non-Markan portions of both Matthew and Luke, though the document itself has disappeared. But Mark’s work has remained in spite of its exhaustive use by Matthew and Luke, all except the disputed close. For this preservation we are all grateful. Streeter ( The Four Gospels ) has emphasized the local use of texts in preserving portions of the New Testament. If Mark wrote in Rome, as is quite possible, his book was looked upon as the Roman Gospel and had a powerful environment in which to take root. It has distinctive merits of its own that helped to keep it in use. It is mainly narrative and the style is direct and simple with many vivid touches, like the historical present of an eyewitness. The early writers all agree that Mark was the interpreter for Simon Peter with whom he was at one time, according to Peter’s own statement, either in Babylon or Rome (1Pe_5:13).

This Gospel is the briefest of the four, but is fullest of striking details that apparently came from Peter’s discourses which Mark heard, such as green grass, flower beds (Mar_6:38), two thousand hogs (Mar_5:13), looking round about (Mar_3:5, Mar_3:34). Peter usually spoke in Aramaic and Mark has more Aramaic phrases than the others, like Boanerges (Mar_3:17), Talitha cumi (Mar_5:41), Korban (Mar_7:11), Ephphatha (Mar_7:34), Abba (Mar_14:36). The Greek is distinctly vernacular Koiné like one-eyed ( monophthalmon , Mar_9:47) as one would expect from both Peter and Mark. There are also more Latin phrases and idioms like centurio (Mar_15:39), quadrans (Mar_12:42), flagellare (Mar_15:15), speculator (Mar_6:27), census (Mar_12:14), sextarius (Mar_7:4), praetorium (Mar_15:6), than in the other Gospels, so much so that C. H. Turner raises the question whether Mark wrote first in Latin, or at any rate in Rome. There are some who hold that Mark wrote first in Aramaic, but the facts are sufficiently accounted for by the fact of Peter’s preaching and the activity in Rome. Some even think that he wrote the Gospel in Rome while with Peter who suggested and read the manuscript. B.W. Bacon holds that this Gospel has a distinct Pauline flavour and may have had several recensions. The Ur-Marcus theory does not have strong support now. Mark was once a co-worker with Barnabas and Paul, but deserted them at Perga. Paul held this against Mark and refused to take him on the second mission tour. Barnabas took Mark, his cousin, with him and then he appeared with Simon Peter with whom he did his greatest work. When Mark had made good with Barnabas and Peter, Paul rejoiced and commends him heartily to the Colossians (Col_4:10) In the end Paul will ask Timothy to pick up Mark and bring him along with him to Paul in Rome, for he has found him useful for ministry, this very young man who made such a mistake that Paul would have no more of him. This tribute to Mark by Paul throws credit upon both of them as is shown in my Making Good in the Ministry . The character of the Gospel of Mark is determined largely by the scope of Peter’s preaching as we see it in Act_10:36-42, covering the period in outline from John the Baptist to the Resurrection of Jesus. There is nothing about the birth of the Baptist or of Jesus. This peculiarity of Mark’s Gospel cannot be used against the narratives of the Virgin Birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, since Mark tells nothing whatever about his birth at all.

The closing passage in the Textus Receptus, Mar_16:9-20, is not found in the oldest Greek Manuscripts, Aleph and B, and is probably not genuine. A discussion of the evidence will appear at the proper place. Swete points out that Mark deals with two great themes, the Ministry in Galilee (Chs. 1 to 9) and the Last Week in Jerusalem (11 to 16) with a brief sketch of the period of withdrawal from Galilee (ch. 10). The first fourteen verses are introductory as Mar_16:9-20 is an appendix. The Gospel of Mark pictures Christ in action. There is a minimum of discourse and a maximum of deed. And yet the same essential pictures of Christ appear here as in the Logia, in Matthew, in Luke, in John, in Paul, in Peter, in Hebrews as is shown in my The Christ of the Logia . The cry of the critics to get back to the Synoptics and away from Paul and John has ceased since it is plain that the Jesus of Mark is the same as the Christ of Paul. There is a different shading in the pictures, but the same picture, Son of God and Son of Man, Lord of life and death, worker of miracles and Saviour from sin. This Gospel is the one for children to read first and is the one that we should use to lay the foundation for our picture of Christ. In my Harmony of the Gospels I have placed Mark first in the framework since Matthew, Luke, and John all follow in broad outline his plan with additions and supplemental material. Mark’s Gospel throbs with life and bristles with vivid details. We see with Peter’s eyes and catch almost the very look and gesture of Jesus as he moved among men in his work of healing men’s bodies and saving men’s souls.

JFB: Mark (Book Introduction)

THAT the Second Gospel was written by Mark is universally agreed, though by what Mark, not so. The great majority of critics take the writer to be "John whose surname was Mark," of whom we read in the Acts, and who was "sister's son to Barnabas" (Col 4:10). But no reason whatever is assigned for this opinion, for which the tradition, though ancient, is not uniform; and one cannot but wonder how it is so easily taken for granted by WETSTEIN, HUG, MEYER, EBRARD, LANGE, ELLICOTT, DAVIDSON, TREGELLES, &c. ALFORD goes the length of saying it "has been universally believed that he was the same person with the John Mark of the Gospels. But GROTIUS thought differently, and so did SCHLEIERMACHER, CAMPBELL, BURTON, and DA COSTA; and the grounds on which it is concluded that they were two different persons appear to us quite unanswerable. "Of John, surnamed Mark," says CAMPBELL, in his Preface to this Gospel, "one of the first things we learn is, that he attended Paul and Barnabas in their apostolical journeys, when these two travelled together (Act 12:25; Act 13:5). And when afterwards there arose a dispute between them concerning him, insomuch that they separated, Mark accompanied his uncle Barnabas, and Silas attended Paul. When Paul was reconciled to Mark, which was probably soon after, we find Paul again employing Mark's assistance, recommending him, and giving him a very honorable testimony (Col 4:10; 2Ti 4:11; Phm 1:24). But we hear not a syllable of his attending Peter as his minister, or assisting him in any capacity. And yet, as we shall presently see, no tradition is more ancient, more uniform, and better sustained by internal evidence, than that Mark, in his Gospel, was but "the interpreter of Peter," who, at the close of his first Epistle speaks of him as "Marcus my son" (1Pe 5:13), that is, without doubt, his son in the Gospel--converted to Christ through his instrumentality. And when we consider how little the Apostles Peter and Paul were together--how seldom they even met--how different were their tendencies, and how separate their spheres of labor, is there not, in the absence of all evidence of the fact, something approaching to violence in the supposition that the same Mark was the intimate associate of both? "In brief," adds CAMPBELL, "the accounts given of Paul's attendant, and those of Peter's interpreter, concur in nothing but the name, Mark or Marcus; too slight a circumstance to conclude the sameness of the person from, especially when we consider how common the name was at Rome, and how customary it was for the Jews in that age to assume some Roman name when they went thither."

Regarding the Evangelist Mark, then, as another person from Paul's companion in travel, all we know of his personal history is that he was a convert, as we have seen, of the Apostle Peter. But as to his Gospel, the tradition regarding Peter's hand in it is so ancient, so uniform, and so remarkably confirmed by internal evidence, that we must regard it as an established fact. "Mark," says PAPIAS (according to the testimony of EUSEBIUS, [Ecclesiastical History, 3.39]), "becoming the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, though not in order, whatever he remembered of what was either said or done by Christ; for he was neither a hearer of the Lord nor a follower of Him, but afterwards, as I said, [he was a follower] of Peter, who arranged the discourses for use, but not according to the order in which they were uttered by the Lord." To the same effect IRENÆUS [Against Heresies, 3,1]: "Matthew published a Gospel while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the Church at Rome; and after their departure (or decease), Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, he also gave forth to us in writing the things which were preached by Peter." And CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA is still more specific, in a passage preserved to us by EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 6.14]: "Peter having publicly preached the word at Rome, and spoken forth the Gospel by the Spirit, many of those present exhorted Mark, as having long been a follower of his, and remembering what he had said, to write what had been spoken; and that having prepared the Gospel, he delivered it to those who had asked him for it; which, when Peter came to the knowledge of, he neither decidedly forbade nor encouraged him." EUSEBIUS' own testimony, however, from other accounts, is rather different: that Peter's hearers were so penetrated by his preaching that they gave Mark, as being a follower of Peter, no rest till he consented to write his Gospel, as a memorial of his oral teaching; and "that the apostle, when he knew by the revelation of the Spirit what had been done, was delighted with the zeal of those men, and sanctioned the reading of the writing (that is, of this Gospel of Mark) in the churches" [Ecclesiastical History, 2.15]. And giving in another of his works a similar statement, he says that "Peter, from excess of humility, did not think himself qualified to write the Gospel; but Mark, his acquaintance and pupil, is said to have recorded his relations of the actings of Jesus. And Peter testifies these things of himself; for all things that are recorded by Mark are said to be memoirs of Peter's discourses." It is needless to go farther--to ORIGEN, who says Mark composed his Gospel "as Peter guided" or "directed him, who, in his Catholic Epistle, calls him his son," &c.; and to JEROME, who but echoes EUSEBIUS.

This, certainly, is a remarkable chain of testimony; which, confirmed as it is by such striking internal evidence, may be regarded as establishing the fact that the Second Gospel was drawn up mostly from materials furnished by Peter. In DA COSTA'S'S Four Witnesses the reader will find this internal evidence detailed at length, though all the examples are not equally convincing. But if the reader will refer to our remarks on Mar 16:7, and Joh 18:27, he will have convincing evidence of a Petrine hand in this Gospel.

It remains only to advert, in a word or two, to the readers for whom this Gospel was, in the first instance, designed, and the date of it. That it was not for Jews but Gentiles, is evident from the great number of explanations of Jewish usages, opinions, and places, which to a Jew would at that time have been superfluous, but were highly needful to a Gentile. We can here but refer to Mar 2:18; Mar 7:3-4; Mar 12:18; Mar 13:3; Mar 14:12; Mar 15:42, for examples of these. Regarding the date of this Gospel--about which nothing certain is known--if the tradition reported by IRENÆUS can be relied on that it was written at Rome, "after the departure of Peter and Paul," and if by that word "departure" we are to understand their death, we may date it somewhere between the years 64 and 68; but in all likelihood this is too late. It is probably nearer the truth to date it eight or ten years earlier.

JFB: Mark (Outline)

• THE PREACHING AND BAPTISM OF JOHN. ( = Mat 3:1-12; Luke 3:1-18). (Mar 1:1-8)
• HEALING OF A DEMONIAC IN THE SYNAGOGUE OF CAPERNAUM AND THEREAFTER OF SIMON'S MOTHER-IN-LAW AND MANY OTHERS--JESUS, NEXT DAY, IS FOUND IN A SOLITARY PLACE AT MORNING PRAYERS, AND IS ENTREATED TO RETURN, BUT DECLINES, AND GOES FORTH ON HIS FIRST MISSIONARY CIRCUIT. ( = Luk 4:31-44; Mat 8:14-17; Mat 4:23-25). (Mark 1:21-39)
• HEALING OF A PARALYTIC. ( = Mat 9:1-8; Luk 5:17-26). (Mar 2:1-12)
• PARABLE OF THE SOWER--REASON FOR TEACHING IN PARABLES--PARABLES OF THE SEED GROWING WE KNOW NOT HOW, AND OF THE MUSTARD SEED. ( = Mat. 13:1-23, 31, 32; Luk 8:4-18). (Mark 4:1-34)
• THE SOWER, THE SEED, AND THE SOIL. (Mar 4:3, Mar 4:14)
• JESUS CROSSING THE SEA OF GALILEE, MIRACULOUSLY STILLS A TEMPEST--HE CURES THE DEMONIAC OF GADARA. ( = Mat 8:23-34; Luke 8:22-39). (Mark 4:35-5:20)
• THE DAUGHTER OF JAIRUS RAISED TO LIFE--THE WOMAN WITH AN ISSUE OF BLOOD HEALED. ( = Mat 9:18-26; Luke 8:41-56). (Mark 5:21-43)
• HEROD THINKS JESUS A RESURRECTION OF THE MURDERED BAPTIST--ACCOUNT OF HIS DEATH. ( = Mat 14:1-12; Luk 9:7-9). (Mark 6:14-29)
• THE TWELVE ON THEIR RETURN, HAVING REPORTED THE SUCCESS OF THEIR MISSION, JESUS CROSSES THE SEA OF GALILEE WITH THEM, TEACHES THE PEOPLE, AND MIRACULOUSLY FEEDS THEM TO THE NUMBER OF FIVE THOUSAND--HE SENDS HIS DISCIPLES BY SHIP AGAIN TO THE WESTERN SIDE, WHILE HE HIMSELF RETURNS AFTERWARDS WALKING ON THE SEA--INCIDENTS ON LANDING. ( = Mat. 14:13-36; Luk 9:10-17; John 6:1-24). (Mark 6:30-56)
• THE SYROPHœNICIAN WOMAN AND HER DAUGHTER--A DEAF AND DUMB MAN HEALED. ( = Mat 15:21-31). (Mar 7:24-37)
• FOUR THOUSAND MIRACULOUSLY FED--A SIGN FROM HEAVEN SOUGHT AND REFUSED--THE LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES--A BLIND MAN AT BETHSAIDA RESTORED TO SIGHT. ( = Mat. 15:32-16:12). (Mark 8:1-26) In those days the multitude being very great, &c.
• HEALING OF A DEMONIAC BOY--SECOND EXPLICIT ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS APPROACHING DEATH AND RESURRECTION. ( = Mat 17:14-23; Luk 9:37-45). (Mark 9:14-32)
• STRIFE AMONG THE TWELVE WHO SHOULD BE GREATEST IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, WITH RELATIVE TEACHING--INCIDENTAL REBUKE OF JOHN FOR EXCLUSIVENESS. ( = Mat 18:1-9; Luk 9:46-50). (Mark 9:33-50)
• THIRD EXPLICIT AND STILL FULLER ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS APPROACHING SUFFERINGS, DEATH, AND RESURRECTION--THE AMBITIOUS REQUEST OF JAMES AND JOHN, AND THE REPLY. ( = Mat 20:17-28; Luk 18:31-34). (Mar 10:32-45)
• THE BARREN FIG TREE CURSED WITH LESSONS FROM IT--SECOND CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE, ON THE SECOND AND THIRD DAYS OF THE WEEK. ( = Mat 21:12-22; Luk 19:45-48). (Mark 11:11-26)
• ENTANGLING QUESTIONS ABOUT TRIBUTE THE RESURRECTION, AND THE GREAT COMMANDMENT, WITH THE REPLIES--CHRIST BAFFLES THE PHARISEES BY A QUESTION ABOUT DAVID, AND DENOUNCES THE SCRIBES. ( = Mat. 22:15-46; Luke 20:20-47). (Mark 12:13-40)
• CHRIST'S PROPHECY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM, AND WARNINGS SUGGESTED BY IT TO PREPARE FOR HIS SECOND COMING. ( = Mat. 24:1-51; Luke 21:5-36). (Mark 13:1-37)
• THE CONSPIRACY OF THE JEWISH AUTHORITIES TO PUT JESUS TO DEATH--THE SUPPER AND THE--ANOINTING AT BETHANY--JUDAS AGREES WITH THE CHIEF PRIESTS TO BETRAY HIS LORD. ( = Mat. 26:1-16; Luk 22:1-6; Joh 12:1-11). (Mar 14:1-11)
• JESUS ARRAIGNED BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM CONDEMNED TO DIE, AND SHAMEFULLY ENTREATED--THE FALL OF PETER. ( = Mat. 26:57-75; Luke 22:54-71; Joh 18:13-18, Joh 18:24-27). (Mark 14:53-72)
• ANGELIC ANNOUNCEMENT TO THE WOMEN ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, THAT CHRIST IS RISEN--HIS APPEARANCES AFTER HIS RESURRECTION--HIS ASCENSION--TRIUMPHANT PROCLAMATION OF HIS GOSPEL. ( = Mat 28:1-10, Mat 28:16-20; Luke 24:1-51; Joh 20:1-2, John 20:11-29). (Mark 16:1-20)

TSK: Mark 10 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Mar 10:1, Christ disputes with the Pharisees touching divorcement: Mar 10:13. blesses the children that are brought unto him; Mar 10:17, resolves a rich man how he may inherit life everlasting; Mar 10:23, tells his disciples of the danger of riches; Mar 10:28, promises rewards to them that forsake anything for the gospel; Mar 10:32, foretells his death and resurrection; Mar 10:35, bids the two ambitious suitors to think rather of suffering with him; Mar 10:46, and restores to Bartimaeus his sight.

Poole: Mark 10 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 10

MHCC: Mark (Book Introduction)

Mark was a sister's son to Barnabas, Col 4:10; and Act 12:12 shows that he was the son of Mary, a pious woman of Jerusalem, at whose house the apostles and first Christians assembled. From Peter's styling him his son, 1Pe 5:13, the evangelist is supposed to have been converted by that apostle. Thus Mark was closely united with the followers of our Lord, if not himself one of the number. Mark wrote at Rome; some suppose that Peter dictated to him, though the general testimony is, that the apostle having preached at Rome, Mark, who was the apostle's companion, and had a clear understanding of what Peter delivered, was desired to commit the particulars to writing. And we may remark, that the great humility of Peter is very plain where any thing is said about himself. Scarcely an action or a work of Christ is mentioned, at which this apostle was not present, and the minuteness shows that the facts were related by an eye-witness. This Gospel records more of the miracles than of the discourses of our Lord, and though in many things it relates the same things as the Gospel according to St. Matthew, we may reap advantages from reviewing the same events, placed by each of the evangelists in that point of view which most affected his own mind.

MHCC: Mark 10 (Chapter Introduction)

(Mar 10:1-12) The Pharisees' question concerning divorce.

(Mar 10:13-16) Christ's love to little children.

(Mar 10:17-22) Christ's discourse with the rich young man.

(Mar 10:23-31) The hinderance of riches.

(Mar 10:32-45) Christ foretells his sufferings.

(Mar 10:46-52) Bartimaeus healed.

Matthew Henry: Mark (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Gospel According to St. Mark

We have heard the evidence given in by the first witness to the doctrine and miracles of our Lord Jesus; and now here is another witness produced, who calls for our attention. The second living creature saith, Come, and see, Rev 6:3. Now let us enquire a little,

I. Concerning this witness. His name is Mark. Marcus was a Roman name, and a very common one, and yet we have no reason to think, but that he was by birth a Jew; but as Saul, when he went among the nations, took the Roman name of Paul, so he of Mark, his Jewish name perhaps being Mardocai; so Grotius. We read of John whose surname was Mark, sister's son to Barnabas, whom Paul was displeased with (Act 15:37, Act 15:38), but afterward had a great kindness for, and not only ordered the churches to receive him (Col 4:10), but sent for him to be his assistant, with this encomium, He is profitable to me for the ministry (2Ti 4:11); and he reckons him among his fellow-labourers, Phm 1:24. We read of Marcus whom Peter calls his son, he having been an instrument of his conversion (1Pe 5:13); whether that was the same with the other, and, if not, which of them was the penman of this gospel, is altogether uncertain. It is a tradition very current among the ancients, that St. Mark wrote this gospel under the direction of St. Peter, and that it was confirmed by his authority; so Hieron. Catal. Script. Eccles. Marcus discipulus et interpres Petri, juxta quod Petrum referentem audierat, legatus Roma à fratribus, breve scripsit evangelium - Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, being sent from Rome by the brethren, wrote a concise gospel; and Tertullian saith (Adv. Marcion. lib. 4, cap. 5), Marcus quod edidit, Petri affirmetur, cujus interpres Marcus - Mark, the interpreter of Peter, delivered in writing the things which had been preached by Peter. But as Dr. Whitby very well suggests, Why should we have recourse to the authority of Peter for the support of this gospel, or say with St. Jerome that Peter approved of it and recommended it by his authority to the church to be read, when, though it is true Mark was no apostle, yet we have all the reason in the world to think that both he and Luke were of the number of the seventy disciples, who companied with the apostles all along (Act 1:21), who had a commission like that of the apostles (Luk 10:19, compared with Mar 16:18), and who, it is highly probable, received the Holy Ghost when they did (Act 1:15; Act 2:1-4), so that it is no diminution at all to the validity or value of this gospel, that Mark was not one of the twelve, as Matthew and John were? St. Jerome saith that, after the writing of this gospel, he went into Egypt, and was the first that preached the gospel at Alexandria, where he founded a church, to which he was a great example of holy living. Constituit ecclesiam tantâ doctrinâ et vitae continentiâ ut omnes sectatores Christi ad exemplum sui cogeret - He so adorned, by his doctrine and his life, the church which he founded, that his example influenced all the followers of Christ.

II. Concerning this testimony. Mark's gospel, 1. Is but short, much shorter than Matthew's, not giving so full an account of Christ's sermons as that did, but insisting chiefly on his miracles. 2. It is very much a repetition of what we had in Matthew; many remarkable circumstances being added to the stories there related, but not many new matters. When many witnesses are called to prove the same fact, upon which a judgment is to be given, it is not thought tedious, but highly necessary, that they should each of them relate it in their own words, again and again, that by the agreement of the testimony the thing may be established; and therefore we must not think this book of scripture needless, for it is written not only to confirm our belief that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, but to put us in mind of things which we have read in the foregoing gospel, that we may give the more earnest heed to them, lest at any time we let them slip; and even pure minds have need to be thus stirred up by way of remembrance. It was fit that such great things as these should be spoken and written, once, yea twice, because man is so unapt to perceive them, and so apt to forget them. There is no ground for the tradition, that this gospel was written first in Latin, though it was written at Rome; it was written in Greek, as was St. Paul's epistle to the Romans, the Greek being the more universal language.

Matthew Henry: Mark 10 (Chapter Introduction)

In this chapter, we have, I. Christ's dispute with the Pharisees concerning divorce (Mar 10:1-12). II. The kind entertainment he gave to the little children that were brought to him to be blessed (Mar 10:13-16). III. His trial of the rich man that enquired what he must do to get to heaven (Mar 10:17-22). IV. His discourse with his disciples, upon that occasion, concerning the peril of riches (Mar 10:23-27), and the advantage of being impoverished for his sake (Mar 10:28-31). V. The repeated notice he gave his disciples of his sufferings and death approaching (Mar 10:32-34). VI. The counsel he gave to James and John, to think of suffering with him, rather than of reigning with him (v. 15-45). VII. The cure of Bartimeus, a poor blind man (Mar 10:46-52). All which passages of story we had the substance of before, Mt. 19 and 20.

Barclay: Mark (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT MARK

The Synoptic Gospels

The first three gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, are always known as the synoptic gospels. The word synoptic comes from two Greek words which mean to see together; and these three are called the synoptic gospels because they can be set down in parallel columns and their common matter looked at together. It would be possible to argue that of them all Mark is the most important. It would indeed be possible to go further and to argue that it is the most important book in the world, because it is agreed by nearly everyone that it is the earliest of all the gospels and therefore the first life of Jesus that has come down to us. Mark may not have been the first man to write the life of Jesus. Doubtless there were earlier simple attempts to set down the story of Jesusife; but Markgospel is certainly the earliest life of Jesus that has survived.

The Pedigree Of The Gospels

When we consider how the gospels came to be written, we must try to think ourselves back to a time when there was no such thing as a printed book in all the world. The gospels were written long before printing had been invented, compiled when every book had to be carefully and laboriously written out by hand. It is clear that so long as that was the case only a few copies of any book could exist.

How do we know, or how can we deduce, that Mark was the first of all the gospels? When we read the synoptic gospels even in English we see that there are remarkable similarities between them. They contain the same incidents often told in the same words; and they contain accounts of the teaching of Jesus which are often almost identical. If we compare the story of the Feeding of the Five Thousand in the three gospels (Mar_6:30-44 ; Mat_14:12-21 ; Luk_9:10-17 ) we see that it is told in almost exactly the same words and in exactly the same way. A very clear instance of this is the story of the healing of the man who was sick of the palsy (Mar_2:1-12 ; Mat_9:1-8 ; Luk_5:17-26 ). The accounts are so similar that even a little parenthesis--"he said to the paralytic"--occurs in all three in exactly the same place. The correspondences are so close that we are forced to one of two conclusions. Either all three are taking their material from some common source, or two of the three are based on the third.

When we study the matter closely we find that Mark can be divided into 105 sections. Of these 93 occur in Matthew and 81 in Luke. Only four are not included either in Matthew or in Luke. Even more compelling is this. Mark has 661 verses; Matthew has 1,068 verses; Luke has 1,149 verses. Of Mark661 verses, Matthew reproduces no fewer than 606. Sometimes he alters the wording slightly but he even reproduces 51 per cent. of Markactual words. Of Mark661 verses Luke reproduces 320, and he actually uses 53 per cent. of Markactual words. Of the 55 verses of Mark which Matthew does not reproduce 31 are found in Luke. So the result is that there are only 24 verses in Mark which do not occur somewhere in Matthew and Luke. This makes it look very like as if Matthew and Luke were using Mark as the basis of their gospels.

What makes the matter still more certain is this. Both Matthew and Luke very largely follow Markorder of events. Sometimes Matthew alters Markorder and sometimes Luke does. But when there is a change in the order Matthew and Luke never agree together against Mark. Always one of them retains Markorder of events.

A close examination of the three gospels makes it clear that Matthew and Luke had Mark before them as they wrote; and they used his gospel as the basis into which they fitted the extra material which they wished to include.

It is thrilling to remember that when we read Markgospel we are reading the first life of Jesus, on which all succeeding lives have necessarily been based.

Mark, The Writer Of The Gospel

Who then was this Mark who wrote the gospel? The New Testament tells us a good deal about him. He was the son of a well-to-do lady of Jerusalem whose name was Mary, and whose house was a rallying-point and meeting place of the early church (Act_12:12 ). From the very beginning Mark was brought up in the very centre of the Christian fellowship.

Mark was also the nephew of Barnabas, and when Paul and Barnabas set out on their first missionary journey they took Mark with them to be their secretary and attendant (Act_12:25 ). This journey was a most unfortunate one for Mark. When they reached Perga, Paul proposed to strike inland up to the central plateau; and for some reason Mark left the expedition and went home (Act_13:13 ).

He may have gone home because he was scared to face the dangers of what was notoriously one of the most difficult and dangerous roads in the world, a road hard to travel and haunted by bandits. He may have gone home because it was increasingly clear that the leadership of the expedition was being assumed by Paul and Mark may have felt with disapproval that his uncle was being pushed into the background. He may have gone home because he did not approve of the work which Paul was doing. Chrysostom--perhaps with a flash of imaginative insight--says that Mark went home because he wanted his mother!

Paul and Barnabas completed their first missionary journey and then proposed to set out upon their second. Barnabas was anxious to take Mark with them again. But Paul refused to have anything to do with the man "who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia." (Act_15:37-40 .) So serious was the difference between them that Paul and Barnabas split company, and, so far as we know, never worked together again.

For some years Mark vanishes from history. Tradition has it that he went down to Egypt and founded the Church of Alexandria there. Whether or not that is true we do not know, but we do know that when Mark re-emerges it is in the most surprising way. We learn to our surprise that when Paul writes the letter to the Colossians from prison in Rome Mark is there with him (Col_4:10 ). In another prison letter, to Philemon, Paul numbers Mark among his fellow-labourers (Phm_1:24 ). And, when Paul is waiting for death and very near the end, he writes to Timothy, his right-hand man, and says, "Take Mark and bring him with you; for he is a most useful servant to me." (2Ti_4:11 .) It is a far cry from the time when Paul contemptuously dismissed Mark as a quitter. Whatever had happened Mark had redeemed himself. He was the one man Paul wanted at the end.

MarkSources Of Information

The value of any manstory will depend on the sources of his information. Where, then, did Mark get his information about the life and work of Jesus? We have seen that his home was from the beginning a Christian centre of Jerusalem. Many a time he must have heard people tell of their personal memories of Jesus. But it is most likely that he had a source of information without a superior.

Towards the end of the second century there was a man called Papias who liked to obtain and transmit such information as he could glean about the early days of the Church. He tells us that Markgospel is nothing other than a record of the preaching material of Peter, the greatest of the apostles. Certainly Mark stood so close to Peter, and so near to his heart, that Peter could call him "Mark, my son." (1Pe_5:13 .) Here is what Papias says:

"Mark, who was Peterinterpreter, wrote down accurately, though

not in order, all that he recollected of what Christ had said or

done. For he was not a hearer of the Lord or a follower of his. He

followed Peter, as I have said, at a later date, and Peter adapted

his instruction to practical needs. without any attempt to give

the Lordwords systematically. So that Mark was not wrong in

writing down some things in this way from memory, for his one

concern was neither to omit nor to falsify anything that he had

heard."

We may then take it that in his gospel we have what Mark remembered of the preaching material of Peter himself.

So, then, we have two great reasons why Mark is a book of supreme importance. First, it is the earliest of all the gospels; if it was written just shortly after Peter died its date will be about A.D. 65. Second, it embodies the record of what Peter preached and taught about Jesus; we may put it this way--Mark is the nearest approach we will ever possess to an eyewitness account of the life of Jesus.

The Lost Ending

There is a very interesting thing about Markgospel. In its original form it stops at Mar_16:8 . We know that for two reasons. First, the verses which follow (Mar_16:9-20 ) are not in any of the great early manuscripts; only later and inferior manuscripts contain them. Second, the style of the Greek is so different that they cannot have been written by the same person as wrote the rest of the gospel.

But the gospel cannot have been meant to stop at Mar_16:8 . What then happened? It may be that Mark died, perhaps even suffered martyrdom, before he could complete his gospel. More likely, it may be that at one time only one copy of the gospel remained, and that a copy in which the last part of the roll on which it was written had got torn off. There was a time when the church did not much use Mark, preferring Matthew and Luke. It may well be that Markgospel was so neglected that all copies except for a mutilated one were lost. If that is so we were within an ace of losing the gospel which in many ways is the most important of all.

The Characteristics Of MarkGospel

Let us look at the characteristics of Markgospel so that we may watch for them as we read and study it.

(i) It is the nearest thing we will ever get to a report of Jesusife. Markaim was to give a picture of Jesus as he was. Westcott called it "a transcript from life." A. B. Bruce said that it was written "from the viewpoint of loving, vivid recollection," and that its great characteristic was realism.

If ever we are to get anything approaching a biography of Jesus, it must be based on Mark, for it is his delight to tell the facts of Jesusife in the simplest and most dramatic way.

(ii) Mark never forgot the divine side of Jesus. He begins his gospel with the declaration of faith, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." He leaves us in no doubt what he believed Jesus to be. Again and again he speaks of the impact Jesus made on the mind and heart of those who heard him. The awe and astonishment which he evoked are always before Markmind. "They were astonished at his teaching." (Mar_1:22 .) "They were all amazed." (Mar_1:27 .) Such phrases occur again and again. Not only was this astonishment in the minds of the crowds who listened to Jesus; it was still more in the minds of the inner circle of the disciples. "And they were filled with awe, and said to one another, o then is this, that even wind and sea obey him? (Mar_4:41 .) "And they were utterly astounded." (Mar_6:51 .) "The disciples were amazed at his words." (Mar_10:24 , Mar_10:26 .)

To Mark, Jesus was not simply a man among men; he was God among men, ever moving them to a wondering amazement with his words and deeds.

(iii) At the same time, no gospel gives such a human picture of Jesus. Sometimes its picture is so human that the later writers alter it a little because they are almost afraid to say what Mark said. To Mark Jesus is simply "the carpenter." (Mar_6:3 .) Later Matthew alters that to "the carpenterson" (Mat_13:55 ), as if to call Jesus a village tradesman is too daring. When Mark is telling of the temptations of Jesus, he writes, "The Spirit drove him into the wilderness." (Mar_1:12 .) Matthew and Luke do not like this word drove used of Jesus, so they soften it down and say, "Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness." (Mat_4:1 ; Luk_4:1 .) No one tens us so much about the emotions of Jesus as Mark does. Jesus sighed deeply in his spirit (Mar_7:34 ; Mar_8:12 ). He was moved with compassion (Mar_6:34 ). He marvelled at their unbelief (Mar_6:6 ). He was moved with righteous anger (Mar_3:5 ; Mar_8:33 ; Mar_10:14 ). Only Mark tells us that when Jesus looked at the rich young ruler he loved him (Mar_10:21 ). Jesus could feel the pangs of hunger (Mar_11:12 ). He could be tired and want to rest (Mar_6:31 ).

It is in Markgospel, above all, that we get a picture of a Jesus of like passions with us. The sheer humanity of Jesus in Markpicture brings him very near to us.

(iv) One of the great characteristics of Mark is that over and over again he inserts the little vivid details into the narrative which are the hall-mark of an eyewitness. Both Matthew and Mark tell of Jesus taking the little child and setting him in the midst. Matthew (Mat_18:2 ) says, "And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them." Mark adds something which lights up the whole picture (Mar_9:36 ). "And he took a child and put him in the midst of them; and taking him in his arms, he said to them..." In the lovely picture of Jesus and the children, when Jesus rebuked the disciples for keeping the children from him, only Mark finishes, "and he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands upon them." (Mar_10:13-16 ; compare Mat_19:13-15 ; Luk_18:15-17 .) All the tenderness of Jesus is in these little vivid additions. When Mark is telling of the Feeding of the Five Thousand he alone tells how they sat down in hundreds and in fifties, looking like vegetable beds in a garden (Mar_6:40 ) and immediately the whole scene rises before us. When Jesus and his disciples were on the last journey to Jerusalem, only Mark tells us, "and Jesus went before them." (Mar_10:32 ; compare Mat_20:17 ; Luk_18:31 ); and in that one vivid little phrase all the loneliness of Jesus stands out. When Mark is telling the story of the stilling of the storm he has one little sentence that none of the other gospel-writers have. "And he was in the hinder part of the ship asleep on a pillow" (Mar_4:38 ). And that one touch makes the picture vivid before our eyes.

There can be little doubt that all these details are due to the fact that Peter was an eyewitness and was seeing these things again with the eye of memory.

(v) Markrealism and his simplicity come out in his Greek style.

(a) His style is not carefully wrought and polished. He tells the story as a child might tell it. He adds statement to statement connecting them simply with the word "and." In the third chapter of the gospel, in the Greek, there are 34 clauses or sentences one after another introduced by "and" after one principal verb. It is the way in which an eager child would tell the story.

(b) He is very fond of the words "and straightway," "and immediately." They occur in the gospel almost 30 times. It is sometimes said of a story that "it marches." But Markstory does not so much march; he rushes on in a kind of breathless attempt to make the story as vivid to others as it is to himself.

(c) He is very fond of the historic present. That is to say, in the Greek he talks of events in the present tense instead of in the past. "And when Jesus heard it, he says to them, ose who are strong do not need a doctor, but those who are ill (Mar_2:17 .) "And when they come near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and to Bethany, to the Mount of Olives, he sends two of his disciples, and says to them, into the village opposite you... (Mar_11:1-2 .) "And immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas, one of The Twelve, comes." (Mar_14:43 .)

Generally speaking we do not keep these historic presents in translation, because in English they do not sound well; but they show how vivid and real the thing was to Markmind, as if it was happening before his very eyes.

(d) He quite often gives us the very Aramaic words which Jesus used. To Jairus aughter, Jesus said, "Talitha (G5008) cumi (G2891)." (Mar_5:41 .) To the deaf man with the impediment in his speech he said, "Ephphatha (G2188)." (Mar_7:34 .) The dedicated gift is "Corban (G2878)." (Mar_7:11 .) In the Garden he says, "Abba (G5), Father." (Mar_14:36 .) On the Cross he cries, "Eloi (G1682) Eloi (G1682) lama (G2982) sabachthani (G4518)?" (Mar_15:34 .)

There were times when Peter could hear again the very sound of Jesusoice and could not help giving the thing to Mark in the very words that Jesus spoke.

The Essential Gospel

It would not be unfair to call Mark the essential gospel. We will do well to study with loving care the earliest gospel we possess, the gospel where we hear again the preaching of Peter himself.

FURTHER READING

P. Carrington, According to Mark (E)

R. A. Cole, The Gospel According to St Mark (TC; E)

C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to St. Mark (CGT; G)

F. C. Grant, The Earliest Gospel (E)

A. M. Hunter, St Mark (Tch; E)

Sherman E. Johnson, The Gospel According to St Mark (ACB; E)

R. H. Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St Mark (E)

A. Menzies, The Earliest Gospel (G)

D. E. Nineham, The Gospel of St Mark (PC; E)

A. E. J. Rawlinson, The Gospel According to St Mark (WC; E)

H. B. Swete, The Gospel According to St Mark (MmC; G)

V. Taylor, The Gospel According to St Mark (MmC; G)

C. H. Turner, St Mark (E)

Abbreviations

ACB: A. and C. Black New Testament Commentary

CGT: Cambridge Greek Text

MmC: Macmillan Commentary

PC: Pelican New Testament Commentary

TC: Tyndale Commentary

Tch: Torch Commentary

WC: Westminster Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: Mark 10 (Chapter Introduction)

For Better Or For Worse (Mar_10:1-12)

Of Such Is The Kingdom Of Heaven (Mar_10:13-16)

How Much Do You Want Goodness? (Mar_10:17-22)

The Peril Of Riches (Mar_10:23-27)

Christ Is No Man's Debtor (Mar_10:28-31)

The Approaching End (Mar_10:32-34)

The Request Of Ambition (Mar_10:35-40)

The Price Of Man's Salvation (Mar_10:41-45)

A Miracle By The Wayside (Mar_10:46-52)

Constable: Mark (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Writer

The writer did not identify himself as the writer anywhere in this Gospel. There are many statements of the early church fathers, however, that identify John Mark as the writer.

The earliest reference of this type is in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History (c. 326 A.D.).¹ Eusebius quoted Papius' Exegesis of the Lord's Oracles (c. 140 A.D.), a work now lost. Papius quoted "the Elder," probably the Apostle John, who said the following things about this Gospel. Mark wrote it though he was not a disciple of Jesus during Jesus' ministry nor an eyewitness of Jesus' ministry. He accompanied the Apostle Peter and listened to his preaching. He based his Gospel on the eyewitness account and spoken ministry of Peter. Mark did not write his Gospel in strict chronological sequence, but he recorded accurately what Peter remembered of Jesus' words and deeds. He considered himself an interpreter of Peter's content. By this John probably meant that Mark recorded the teaching of Peter for the church though not necessarily verbatim as Peter expressed himself.² Finally the Apostle John said that Mark's account is wholly reliable.

Another important source of the tradition that Mark wrote this Gospel is the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Mark (160-180 A.D.). It also stated that Mark received his information from Peter. Moreover it recorded that Mark wrote after Peter died and that he wrote this Gospel in Italy.

Irenaeus (c. 180-185 A.D.), another early church father, added that Mark wrote after Peter and Paul had died.³

Other early tradition documenting these facts comes from Justin Martyr (c. 150-160 A.D.), Clement of Alexandria (c. 195 A.D.), Tertullian (c. 200 A.D.), the Muratorian Canon (c. 200 A.D.), and Origen (c. 230 A.D.). Significantly this testimony dates from the end of the second century. Furthermore it comes from three different centers of early Christianity: Asia Minor (modern Turkey), Rome (in Italy), and Alexandria (in Egypt). Thus there is strong evidence that Mark wrote this Gospel.

The Mark in view is the John Mark mentioned frequently in the New Testament (Acts 12:12, 25; 13:5, 13; 15:36-39; Col. 4:10; Phile. 24; 2 Tim. 4:11; 1 Pet. 5:13). He was evidently a relative of Barnabas who accompanied Barnabas and Paul on their first missionary journey but left these apostles when they reached Perga. He became useful to Paul during Paul's second Roman imprisonment. He was also with Peter when Peter was in Rome, and Peter described him as his "son," probably his protégé.

It seems unlikely that the early church would have accepted this Gospel as authoritative, since its writer was a secondary figure, without having convincing proof that Mark wrote it. Perhaps Luke showed special interest in John Mark in Acts because he was the writer of this Gospel more than because he caused a breach between Paul and Barnabas.⁴

Date

The earliest Mark could have written, if the testimonies of the Anti-Marcionite Prologue and Irenaeus are correct, was after the death of Peter and Paul. The most probable dates of Peter's martyrdom in Rome are 64-67 A.D. Paul probably died as a martyr there in 67-68 A.D. Clement of Alexandria and Origen both placed the composition of this Gospel during Peter's lifetime. This may mean that Mark wrote shortly before Peter died. Perhaps Mark began his Gospel during Peter's last years in Rome and completed it after Peter's death.

The latest Mark could have written was probably 70 A.D. when Titus destroyed Jerusalem. Many scholars believe that since no Gospel writer referred to this event, which fulfilled prophecy, they all wrote before it.

To summarize, Mark probably wrote this Gospel sometime between 63 and 70 A.D.

Origin and Destination

Early tradition says Mark wrote in Italy⁵ and in Rome.⁶

This external testimony finds support in the internal evidence of the Gospel itself. Many indications in the text point to Mark's having written for Gentile readers originally, particularly Romans. He explained Jewish customs that would have been strange to Gentile readers (e.g., 7:2-4; 15:42). He translated Aramaic words that would have been unfamiliar to Gentiles (3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 15:22). Compared to Matthew and Luke he used many Latinisms and Latin loan words indicating Roman influence. He showed special interest in persecution and martyrdom that would have been of special interest to Roman readers when he wrote (e.g., 8:34-38; 13:9-13). Christians were suffering persecution in Rome and throughout the empire then. Finally the early circulation and widespread acceptance of this Gospel among Christians suggest that it originated from and went to a powerful and influential church.⁷

Characteristics

Notice first some linguistic characteristics. Mark used a relatively limited vocabulary when he wrote this Gospel. For example, he used only about 80 words that occur nowhere else in the Greek New Testament compared with Luke's Gospel that contains about 250 such words. Another unique feature is that Mark also liked to transliterate Latin words into Greek. However the Aramaic language also influenced Mark's Greek. He evidently translated into Greek many of Peter's stories that Peter spoke in Aramaic. The result was sometimes rather rough and ungrammatical Greek compared with Luke who had a much more polished style of writing. However, Mark used a forceful, fresh, and vigorous style of writing. This comes through in his frequent use of the historical present tense that expresses action as happening at once. It is also obvious in his frequent use of the Greek adverb euthys translated "immediately."⁸ The resulting effect is that as one reads Mark's Gospel one feels that he or she is reading a reporter's eyewitness account of the events.

"Though primarily engaged in an oral rather than a written ministry, D. L. Moody was in certain respects a modern equivalent to Mark as a communicator of the gospel. His command of English was seemingly less than perfect and there were moments when he may have wounded the grammatical sensibilities of some of the more literate members of his audiences, but this inability never significantly hindered him in communicating the gospel with great effectiveness. In a similar way, Mark's occasional literary lapses have been no handicap to his communication in this gospel in which he skillfully set forth the life and ministry of Jesus."⁹

Mark also recorded many intimate details that only an eyewitness would observe (e.g., 1:27, 41, 43; 2:12; 3:5; 7:34; 9:5-6, 10; 10:24, 32). He addressed his readers directly (e.g., 2:10; 7:19), through Jesus' words (e.g., 13:37), and with the use of rhetorical questions addressed to them (e.g., 4:41). This gives the reader the exciting feeling that he or she is interacting with the story personally. It also impresses the reader with the need for him or her to respond to what the story is presenting. Specifically Mark wanted his readers to believe that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God and to follow Him.

Mark stressed Jesus' acts and gave a prominent place to His miracles in this Gospel. He recorded fewer of Jesus' words and more of His works. Jesus comes through Mark's Gospel as a man of action. Mark emphasized Jesus' role as the Servant of the Lord.

"Mark's story of Jesus is one of swift action and high drama. Only twice, in chapters 4 and 13, does Jesus pause to deliver extended discourses."¹⁰

Candor also marks this Gospel. Mark did not glorify the disciples but recorded them doing unflattering things such as criticizing Jesus. He also described the hostility of Jesus' family members toward Him. He stressed the human reactions and emotions of Jesus.

This Gospel presents a high christology beginning with the introduction of Jesus as the Son of God (1:1). Mark revealed Jesus' preference for the title "Son of man," which He used to describe Himself frequently.

Purpose

These characteristics help us understand Mark's purpose for writing, which he did not state directly. Mark's purpose was not just to give his readers a biographical or historical account of Jesus' life. He had a more practical purpose. The biographical material he chose to include and omit suggests that he wanted to enable his Christian readers to endure suffering and persecution for their faith effectively. To do this he recorded much about Jesus' sufferings. About one third of this Gospel deals with the passion of Jesus. Moreover there are many other references to suffering throughout the book (e.g., 1:12-13; 3:21-22, 30-35; 8:34-38; 10:30, 33-34, 45; 13:8, 11-13). Clearly Mark implied that faithfulness and obedience as a disciple of Jesus will inevitably result in opposition, suffering, and perhaps death. This emphasis would have ministered to the original readers who were undergoing persecution for their faith. It is a perennial need in pastoral ministry.¹¹

Mark had a theological as well as a pastoral purpose in writing. It was to stress the true humanity of the Son of God. Whereas Matthew presented Jesus as the Messiah, Mark showed that He was the human servant of God who suffered as no other person has suffered. Mark stressed Jesus' obedience to His Father's will. This emphasis makes Jesus an example for all disciples to follow (10:45). One wonders if Mark presented Jesus as he did to balance a tendency that existed in the early church to think of Jesus as divine but not fully human.

Mark's position among the Gospels

It is common today for scholars to hold Markan priority. This is the view that Mark wrote his Gospel first and the other Gospel evangelists wrote after he did. This view has become popular since the nineteenth century. Before that most biblical scholars believed that Matthew wrote his Gospel first. Since then many scholars have concluded that Mark was one of the two primary sources that the other Synoptic Gospel writers used, the other being Q.¹² There is presently no definitive solution to this problem of which came first.

Scholars favoring Markan priority base their view on the fact that Mark contains about 90% of what is in Matthew and about 40% of what is in Luke. Matthew and Luke usually follow Mark's order of events, and they rarely agree against the content of Mark when they all deal with the same subject. Matthew and Luke also often repeat Mark's wording, and they sometime interpret and tone down some of Mark's statements. Normally Mark's accounts are fuller than Matthew and Luke's suggesting that they may have edited his work.

However sometimes Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in a particular account. Luke omitted a large section of Mark's material including all of what is in Mark 6:45-8:26. Moreover in view of the traditional dating of Mark late in the 60s, if Mark wrote first, Matthew and Luke must have written after the fall of Jerusalem. This seems unlikely since that event fulfilled prophecy, but neither writer cited the fulfillment as such.¹³

All things considered I favor Matthean priority. However this debate is not crucial to the interpretation of the text.

Message¹⁴

Matthew presents Jesus in the purple and gold of royalty. Mark portrays Him in the brown and green of a servant who has come to do His Father's will.

The message of the book is similar to Matthew's message. A concise statement of it appears in 1:14-15. This is the message that Jesus proclaimed throughout His earthly ministry.

Another verse that is key to understanding the message of this Gospel is 10:45. This verse provides the unique emphasis of the book, Jesus' role as a servant, and a general outline of its contents.

First, the Son of Man came. That is the secret of the Incarnation. The Son of Man was God incarnate in human nature. His identity is a major theme in this Gospel.

Second, the Son of Man did not come to be ministered to but to minister. That is the secret of service. This Gospel also has much to teach disciples about service to God and mankind.

Third, the Son of Man came to give His life a ransom for many. That is the secret of His sufferings. Mark's Gospel stresses the sufferings of the Suffering Servant of the Lord. Mark is the Gospel of the Servant of God.

Jesus was, of course, by nature the Son of God. He is and ever has been equal with the Father because He shares the same divine nature. However in the Incarnation, Jesus became the Servant of God.

The idea of a divine Servant of God was an Old Testament revelation. Isaiah had more to say about the Servant of the Lord than any other Old Testament prophet, though many other prophets spoke of Him too.

In the New Testament the Apostle Paul expounded the significance of Jesus becoming the Servant of God more than any other writer. His great Kenosis passage in Philippians 2 helps us grasp what it meant for the Son of God to become the Servant of God. In the Incarnation, Jesus limited Himself. He did not cease to be God, but He poured Himself into the nature and body of a man. This limited His divine powers. Moreover He submitted Himself to a mission that the Father prescribed for Him that constrained His divine freedom. Mark presents Jesus as a real man who was also God in the role of a servant.

Let us consider first the nature of Jesus' service. The first and the last verses of this Gospel help us understand the nature of Jesus' service. Notice 1:1.

The second person of the Trinity became a servant to create a gospel, to provide good news for human beings. This good news is that Jesus has provided salvation for mankind. To provide salvation the eternal Son became a servant. Whenever the Bible speaks of Jesus as a servant it is always talking about His providing salvation.

Mark began by citing Isaiah who predicted the Servant of God (1:3, from Isa. 40:3). The quotation from Malachi in verse 2 is only introductory. This is very significant because Mark, unlike Matthew, rarely quoted from the Old Testament. Isaiah pictured One who would come to accomplish God's purpose of providing a final salvation. His picture of the Servant became more distinct and detailed, like a portrait under construction, until in chapter 53 Isaiah depicted the Servant's awful sufferings. This chapter is the great background for the second Gospel, as Psalm 110 lies behind the first Gospel.

The picture of the Servant suffering on the Cross is the last in a series that Mark has given us. He also shows the Servant suffering in His struggle against the forces of Satan and His demons. Another picture is of the Servant suffering the opposition of Israel's religious leaders. Another one is of the Servant suffering the dullness and misunderstanding of even His own disciples. These are all major themes in Mark's Gospel that have in common the view of Jesus as the Suffering Servant.

Turning to the Apostle Paul's theological exposition of the Suffering Servant theme in Scripture we note that he picked up another of Mark's emphases. Mark did not just present Jesus as the Suffering Servant as an interesting theological revelation. He showed what that means for disciples of the Suffering Servant. We need to adopt the same attitude that Jesus had (Phil. 2:5). Disciples of the Suffering Servant should expect and prepare for the same experiences He encountered. We need to have the same graciousness, humility, and love that He did. The Son of God emptied Himself to become a servant of God and man. We must also sacrifice ourselves for the same purpose.

Isaiah revealed that the central meaning of the Servant's mission was to provide salvation through self-sacrifice (Isa. 53). Paul also revealed that the Son became a servant to provide salvation through self-sacrifice (Phil. 2). The only sense in which the Son of God became the Servant of the Lord is that He created a gospel by providing salvation from the slavery of sin.

When Jesus began His public ministry He announced, "The time is fulfilled" (1:15). The person Isaiah and the other prophets had predicted had drawn near. God had drawn near by becoming a man. He had drawn near in the form of a humble servant. He was heading for the Cross. He would conquer what had ruined man and nature. He would provide good news for humankind, and He would return one day to establish His righteous empire over all the earth in grace and glory.

"Jesus" was His human name. "Messiah" was the title that described His role, though most people misunderstood it. "Son of God" was the title that represented His deity. These three are primary in Mark's Gospel.

Second, we need to observe what Mark teaches about the characteristics of Jesus' service.

Note Jesus' sympathy with sinners. Mark recorded no word of severity coming from Jesus' lips for sinners. Jesus reserved His severity for hypocrites, those who pretend to be righteous but are really rotten. He was hard on them because they ruined the lives of other people.

Sympathy comes from suffering. We have sympathy for someone who is undergoing some painful experience that we have gone through. It is hard to sympathize with someone whose experience is foreign to us.

Sympathy comes from suffering and it manifests itself in sacrifice. It involves bearing one another's burdens. Jesus' sympathy for us sinners arose from His sharing our sufferings, and it became obvious when He sacrificed Himself for us. If there was ever anyone who bore the burdens of others, it was Jesus (10:45).

Third, note the result of Jesus' service. It is the gospel. Reference to the gospel opens and closes this book (1:1; 16:20). The gospel is the good news that Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3-4).

When Jesus arose from the dead, His disciples were fearful, and they refused to believe He was alive. Jesus' strongest words of criticism of them occur in 16:14. This is the climax of the theme of the disciples' unbelief that runs through this Gospel. Look what He said to them immediately after that (16:15). He sent them out to proclaim the good news of salvation accomplished to every creature. The resurrection of the Servant is the great proof of the acceptability of His service, and it demands service of His disciples.

The abiding appeal of this book is, "Repent and believe the gospel" (1:15). Repenting is preliminary. Believing is the essential call.

Jesus did not preach that people should believe into the gospel (Gr. eis) nor that they should believe close to the gospel (Gr. apo). He called them to rest in the gospel (Gr. en). The gospel is a sphere of rest. We can have confidence in the gospel, put our trust in it, and rest in it.

The unbelievers in Mark's Gospel refused to rest in the reality that Jesus was not just a human Messiah come to deliver Israel from Rome but the divine Son of God. The disciples had little rest because they still could not overcome the limited traditional misconceptions of Messiah's role in history even though they believed that Jesus was God's Son.

The application of this Gospel to the church as a whole is, "Believe the gospel." As the disciples believed but struggled to believe, so the church needs to have a continuing and growing confidence in the gospel of the Servant of God.

It is a message of pardon and of power. Peter had to learn that it was a message of pardon after his triple denial of Jesus. All the disciples had to learn it is a message of power after they refused to believe that God had raised Jesus back to life.

When the church loses its confidence in the gospel, its service becomes weak. If we doubt the power of the gospel, we have no message for people who are the servants of sin. The measure of our confidence in the gospel will be the measure of our effectiveness as God's servants.

How can we have greater confidence in the gospel? It is not by studying or trying or experiencing. It is by the illuminating work of God's Holy Spirit in our hearts. Jesus' disciples were blind until God opened their eyes first to Jesus' true identity and then to Jesus' central place in time and history. They huddled in unbelief following the resurrection until the Holy Spirit illuminated their understanding about the significance of the resurrection. Then they went everywhere proclaiming the gospel (16:20).

Mark calls individual disciples of Jesus to believe in this gospel, to rest in it for pardon from sin and for power for service. It tells the story of the perfect Servant of God whose perfected service is perfecting salvation. God's Son became a servant to get near people, to help them, to lift us. That is the good news people need to hear. That is what it means to preach the gospel.

Constable: Mark (Outline)

Outline

I. Introduction 1:1-13

A. The title of the book 1:1

B. Jesus' preparation for ministry 1:2-13

1. The ministry of John the Baptist 1:2-8

2. The baptism of Jesus 1:9-11

3. The temptation of Jesus 1:12-13

II. The Servant's early Galilean ministry 1:14-3:6

A. The beginning of Jesus' ministry 1:14-20

1. The message of the Servant 1:14-15

2. The first disciples of the Servant 1:16-20

B. Early demonstrations of the Servant's authority 1:21-34

1. Jesus' teaching and healing in the Capernaum synagogue 1:21-28

2. The healing of Peter's mother-in-law 1:29-31

3. Jesus' healing of many Galileans after sundown 1:32-34

C. Jesus' early ministry throughout Galilee 1:35-45

1. The first preaching tour of Galilee 1:35-39

2. The cleansing of a leprous Jew 1:40-45

D. Jesus' initial conflict with the religious leaders 2:1-3:6

1. The healing and forgiveness of a paralytic 2:1-12

2. The call of Levi and his feast 2:13-17

3. The religious leaders' question about fasting 2:18-22

4. The controversies about Sabbath observance 2:23-3:6

III. The Servant's later Galilean ministry 3:7-6:6a

A. The broadening of Jesus' ministry 3:7-19

1. Jesus' ministry to the multitudes 3:7-12

2. Jesus' selection of 12 disciples 3:13-19

B. The increasing rejection of Jesus and its result 3:20-4:34

1. The increasing rejection of Jesus 3:20-35

2. Jesus' teaching in parables 4:1-34

C. Jesus' demonstrations of power and the Nazarenes' rejection 4:35-6:6a

1. The demonstrations of Jesus' power 4:35-5:43

2. Jesus rejection by the Nazarenes 6:1-6a

IV. The Servant's self-revelation to the disciples 6:6b-8:30

A. The mission of the Twelve 6:6b-30

1. The sending of the Twelve 6:6b-13

2. The failure of Antipas to understand Jesus' identity 6:14-29

3. The return of the Twelve 6:30

B. The first cycle of self-revelation to the disciples 6:31-7:37

1. The feeding of the 5,000 6:31-44

2. Jesus' walking on the water and the return to Galilee 6:45-56

3. The controversy with the Pharisees and scribes over defilement 7:1-23

4. Jesus' teaching about bread and the exorcism of a Phoenician girl 7:24-30

5. The healing of a deaf man with a speech impediment 7:31-36

6. The preliminary confession of faith 7:37

C. The second cycle of self-revelation to the disciples 8:1-30

1. The feeding of the 4,000 8:1-9

2. The return to Galilee 8:10

3. Conflict with the Pharisees over signs 8:11-13

4. Jesus' teaching about the yeast of the Pharisees and Herod 8:14-21

5. The healing of a blind man near Bethsaida 8:22-26

6. Peter's confession of faith 8:27-30

V. The Servant's journey to Jerusalem 8:31-10:52

A. The first passion prediction and its lessons 8:31-9:29

1. The first major prophecy of Jesus' passion 8:31-33

2. The requirements of discipleship 8:34-9:1

3. The Transfiguration 9:2-8

4. The coming of Elijah 9:9-13

5. The exorcism of an epileptic boy 9:14-29

B. The second passion prediction and its lessons 9:30-10:31

1. The second major prophecy of Jesus' passion 9:30-32

2. The pitfalls of discipleship 9:33-50

3. Lessons concerning self-sacrifice 10:1-31

C. The third passion prediction and its lessons 10:32-52

1. The third major prophecy of Jesus' passion 10:32-34

2. Jesus' teaching about serving 10:35-45

3. The healing of a blind man near Jericho 10:46-52

VI. The Servant's ministry in Jerusalem chs. 11-13

A. Jesus' formal presentation to Israel 11:1-26

1. The Triumphal Entry 11:1-11

2. Jesus' judgment on unbelieving Israel 11:12-26

B. Jesus' teaching in the temple 11:27-12:44

1. The controversy over Jesus' authority 11:27-12:12

2. The controversy over Jesus' teaching 12:13-37

3. Jesus' condemnation of hypocrisy and commendation of reality 12:38-44

C. Jesus teaching on Mt. Olivet ch. 13

1. The setting 13:1-4

2. Warnings against deception 13:5-8

3. Warnings about personal danger during deceptions 13:9-13

4. The coming crisis 13:14-23

5. The second coming of the Son of 13:24-27

6. The time of Jesus' return 13:28-32

7. The concluding exhortation 13:33-37

VII. The Servant's passion ministry chs. 14-15

A. The Servant's anticipation of suffering 14:1-52

1. Jesus' sufferings because of betrayal 14:1-11

2. Jesus' sufferings because of desertion 14:12-52

B. The Servant's endurance of suffering 14:53-15:47

1. Jesus' Jewish trial 14:53-15:1

2. Jesus' Roman trial 15:2-20

3. Jesus' crucifixion, death, and burial 15:21-47

VIII. The Servant's resurrection ch. 16

A. The announcement of Jesus' resurrection 16:1-8

B. The appearances and ascension of Jesus 16:9-20

1. Three post-resurrection appearances 16:9-18

2. Jesus' ascension 16:19-20

Constable: Mark

Mark

Bibliography

Adams, J. McKee. Biblical Backgrounds. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1965.

Alexander, Joseph Addison. The Gospel According to Mark. 1881. Reprint ed. London: Banner of Truth, 1960.

Alexander, William M. Demonic Possession in the New Testament: Its Relations Historical, Medical, and Theological. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902.

Anderson, Hugh. The Gospel of Mark. New Century Bible series. Greenwood, S. C.: Attic Press, 1976.

Andrews, Samuel J. The Life of Our Lord Upon the Earth. 1862. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1954.

Bailey, Mark L., and Constable, Thomas L. The New Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing, 1999.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. A Commentary on Mark Thirteen. London: Macmillan, 1957.

Best, E. The Temptation and the Passion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Bishop, Eric F. F. Jesus of Palestine: The Local Background to the Gospel Documents. London: Lutterworth, 1955.

Blunt, A. W. F. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. The Clarendon Bible series. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929.

Boobyer, G. H. "Mark II, 10a and the Interpretation of the Healing of the Paralytic." Harvard Theological Review 47 (1954):115-20.

Bratcher, R. G., and Nida, E. A. Translator's Handbook on Mark. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961.

Brown, William E. "The New Testament Concept of the Believer's Inheritance." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1984.

Bruce, Alexander Balmain. "The Synoptic Gospels." In The Expositor's Greek Testament. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1910.

Burgon, John W. The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark. 1871. Reprint ed. N. c.: Sovereign Grace Book Club, 1959.

Calvin, John. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979.

Carl, Harold F. "Only the Father Knows: Historical and Evangelical Responses to Jesus' Eschatological Ignorance in Mark 13:32." A paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Nov. 16, 2000, Nashville, TN.

Carrington, P. According to Mark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960.

Chantry, Walter J. "Does the New Testament Teach the Fourth Commandment?" The Banner of Truth 325 (October 1990):18-23.

Clarke, W. N. "Commentary on the Gospel of Mark." In An American Commentary. 1881. Reprint ed. Phildelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, n. d.

Cole, R. A The Gospel According to Mark. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. 2nd ed. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989.

Cranfield, C. E. B. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959.

_____. "St. Mark 13." Scottish Journal of Theology 6 (April 1953):165-96; (July 1953):287-303; 7 (April 1954):284-303.

Davis, C. Truman. "The Crucifixion of Jesus. The Passion of Christ from a Medical Point of View," Arizona Medicine 22:3 (March 1965):185-87.

Decker, Rodney J. "The Use of euthys (immediately') in Mark." Journal of Ministry and Theology 1:1 (Spring 1997):90-121.

A Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1906 ed. S.v. "Numbers, Hours, Years, and Dates," by W. M. Ramsay, extra volume:473-84.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Donahue, J. R. "Tax Collectors and Sinners: An Attempt at Identification." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33 (1971):39-61.

Doriani, Daniel. "The Deity of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:3 (September 1994):333-50.

Earle, Ralph. The Gospel According to Mark. The Evangelical Commentary on the Bible series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1957.

The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus. Twin Brooks series. Popular ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Edersheim, Alfred. The Temple: Its Ministry and Services. London: Religious Tract Society, n. d.

Edwards, James R. "The Authority of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:2 (June 1994):217-33.

Ellenburg, B. Dale. "A Review of Selected Narrative-Critical Conventions in Mark's Use of Miracle Material." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:2 (June 1995):171-80.

English, E. Schuyler. "A Neglected Miracle." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):300-5.

Garlington, Don B. "Jesus, the Unique Son of God: Tested and Faithful." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:603 (July-September 1994):284-308.

Gould, Ezra P. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark. Internationa Critical Commentary series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896.

Grassi, Joseph A. "Abba, Father (Mark 14:36): Another Approach." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 50:3 (September 1982):449-58.

Grassmick, John D. "Mark." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 95-197. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Green, Michael P. "The Meaning of Cross-Bearing." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:558 (April-June 1983):117-33.

Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1-8:26. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1989.

Gundry, Robert H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993.

Heil, John Paul. "Mark 14, 1-52: Narrative Structure and Reader Response." Biblica 71:3 (1990):305-32.

Hellerman, Joseph H. "Challenging the Authority of Jesus: Mark 11:27-33 and Mediterranean Notions of Honor and Shame." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:2 (June 2000):213-28.

Hiebert, D. Edmond Mark: A Portrait of the Servant. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Hodges, Zane C. "The Blind Men at Jericho." Biblitheca Sacra 122:488 (October-December 1965):319-30.

_____. "The Women and the Empty Tomb." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:492 (October-December 1966):301-9.

Hoehner, Harold W. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.

Hort, A. F. The Gospel According to St. Mark. 1902. Reprint ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928.

Hunter, A. M. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. Torch Bible Commentary series. London: SCM, 1967.

Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A. R.; and Brown, David. A Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments. 2 vols. Hartford: S. S. Scranton, n. d.

Jeremias, Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. 2nd ed. New York: Scribners, 1966.

_____. New Testament Theology. New York: Scribners, 1971.

_____. The Parables of Jesus. Translated by S. H. Hooke. London: SCM, 1963.

Johnson, S. Lewis, Jr. "The Gift of Tongues and the Book of Acts." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:480 (October-December 1963):309-11.

Johnson, Sherman E. A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark. Black's New Testament Commentaries series. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1960.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kelly, William. An Exposition of the Gospel of Mark. Reprint ed. London: C. A. Hammond, 1934.

Kingsbury, J. D. Conflict in Mark: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.

Lane, William L. The Gospel According to Mark. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Mark's Gospel. Minneapolis: Wartburg Press, 1946.

Lowery, David K. "A Theology of Mark." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 65-86. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

MacArthur, John A., Jr. The Gospel According to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1988.

Maclaren, Alexander. "St. Mark." In Expositions of Holy Scripture. Vol. 8. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1944.

Maclear, G. F. "The Gospel According to St. Mark." In Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1890.

Martin, R. P. Mark: Evangelist and Theologian. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972.

Matera, Frank J. "The Prologue as the Interpretitive Key to Mark's Gospel." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34 (October 1988):3-20.

Merrill, Eugene H. "Deuteronomy, New Testament Faith, and the Christian Life." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 19-33. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London: United Bible Societies, 1971.

Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. "Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Gospels of Mark and Luke." In Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Translated, revised, and edited by William P. Dickson. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884.

The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morison, James. A Practical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark. 8th ed. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1896.

Moule, C. F. D. The Gospel According to Mark. The Cambridge Bible Commentary series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Moulton, James Hope, and Milligan, George. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1930.

Murray, John. Divorce. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1974.

Nineham, D. E. Saint Mark. Pelical Gospel Commentary series. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1963.

Overstreet, R. Larry. "Roman Law and the Trial of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-December 1978):323-32.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. The Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

Peterson, Robert A. "Does the Bible Teach Annihilationism?" Bibliotheca Sacra 156:621 (January-March 1999):13-27.

Plummer, Alfred. "The Gospel According to St. Mark" In The Cambridge Greek Testament. 1914. Reprint ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938.

Rawlinson, A. E. J. The Gospel According to St. Mark. Westminster Commentaries series. London: Methuen, 1949.

Rhoads, David M., and Michie, Donald M. Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982.

Riddle, Matthew B. "The Gospel According to Mark." In International Revision Commentary on the New Testament. New York: Scribner, 1881.

Rogers, Cleon L., Jr. "The Davidic Covenant in Acts-Revelation." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March):71-84.

Santos, Narry F. "Jesus' Paradoxical Teaching in Mark 8:35; 9:35; and 10:43-44." Bibliotheca Sacra 157:625 (January-March 2000):15-25.

_____. "The Paradox of Authority and Servanthood in the Gospel of Mark." Bibliotheca Sacra 154:616 (October-December 1997):452-60.

Schweizer, Eduard. The Good News According to Mark. London: SPCK, 1971.

Showers, Renald E. Maranatha Our Lord, Come: A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church. Bellmawr, Pa.: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1995.

Smith, Geoffrey. "A Closer Look at the Widow's Offering: Mark 12:41-44." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:1 (March 1997)27-36.

Smith, George Adam. The Historical Geography of the Holy Land. New York: Armstrong and Son, 1909.

Stauffer, Ethelbert Jesus and His Story. Translated by Richard and Clara Winston. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960.

Sugirtharajah, R. S. "The Syrophoenician Woman." The Expository Times 98:1 (October 1986):13-15.

Swete, Henry Barclay. The Gospel According to St. Mark. 1898. Reprint ed. London: Macmillan, 1905.

Taylor, Vincent. The Gospel According to St. Mark. 2nd ed. New York: St. Martins Press, 1966.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. S.v. "basilia," by K. L. Schmidt.

_____. S.v. "pais," by Albrecht Oepke.

Unger, Merrill F. Biblical Demonology: A Study of the Spiritual Forces Behind the Present World Unrest. Wheaton: Van Kampen Press, 1952.

_____. Demons in the World Today. Wheaton: Tyndale, 1971.

_____. "Divine Healing." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:511 (July-September 1971):234-44.

Van der Loos, H. The Miracles of Jesus. Supplements to Novum Testamentum series. Vol. VIIII. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965.

Warfield, Benjamin B. An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1899.

Wessel, Walter W. "Mark." In Matthew-Luke. Vol. 8 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.

Williams, George. The Student's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 5th ed. London: Oliphants, 1949.

Williams, Joel F. "Discipleship and Minor Characters in Mark's Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:611 (July-September 1996):332-43.

_____. "Literary Approaches to the End of Mark's Gospel." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:1 (March 1999):21-35.

Wrede, William. The Messianic Secret. 1901. Reprint ed. Cambridge: James Clarke, 1971.

Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. S.v. "Sadducees," by D. A. Hagner.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p41mar-3@

Haydock: Mark (Book Introduction)

THE

HOLY GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST,

ACCORDING TO ST. MARK.

INTRODUCTION.

St. Mark, who wrote this Gospel, is called by St. Augustine, the abridger of St. Matthew; by St. Jerome, the disciple and interpreter of St. Peter; and according to Origen and St. Jerome, he is the same Mark whom St. Peter calls his son. Stilting, the Bollandist, (in the life of St. John Mark, T. vii. Sep. 27, p. 387, who was son of the sister of St. Barnabas) endeavours to prove that this was the same person as our evangelist; and this is the sentiment of St. Jerome, and some others: but the general opinion is that John, surnamed Mark, mentioned in Acts xii. was a different person. He was the disciple of St. Paul, and companion of St. Barnabas, and was with St. Paul, at Antioch, when our evangelist was with St. Peter at Rome, or at Alexandria, as Eusebius, St. Jerome, Baronius, and others observe. Tirinus is of opinion that the evangelist was not one of the seventy-two disciples, because as St. Peter calls him his son, he was converted by St. Peter after the death of Christ. St. Epiphanius, however, assures us he was one of the seventy-two, and forsook Christ after hearing his discourse on the Eucharist, (John vi.) but was converted by St. Peter after Christ's resurrection, hær. 51, chap. v. p. 528. --- The learned are generally of opinion, that the original was written in Greek, and not in Latin; for, though it was written at the request of the Romans, the Greek language was commonly understood amongst them; and the style itself sufficiently shews this to have been the case: ---

----------Omnia Græce;

Cum sit turpe magis nostris nescire Latine.--- Juvenal, Satyr vi.

The old manuscript in Latin, kept at Venice, and supposed by some to be the original, is shewn by Montfaucon and other antiquaries, to have been written in the sixth century, and contains the oldest copy extant of St. Jerome's version. --- St. Peter revised the work of St. Mark, approved of it, and authorized it to be read in the religious assemblies of the faithful; hence some, as we learn from Tertullian, attributed this gospel to St. Peter himself. St. Mark relates the same facts as St. Matthew, and often in the same words: but he adds several particular circumstances, and changes the order of the narration, in which he agrees with St. Luke and St. John. He narrates two histories not mentioned by St. Matthew; the widow's two mites, and Christ's appearing to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus; also some miraculous cures; (Mark i. 40; vii. 32; viii. 22, 26) and omits many things noticed by St. Matthew ... But nothing proves clearly, as Dom. Ceillier and others suppose, that he made use of St. Matthew's gospel. In his narrative he is concise, and he writes with a more pleasing simplicity and elegance.

It is certain that St. Mark was sent by St. Peter into Egypt, and was by him appointed bishop of Alexandria, (which, after Rome, was accounted the second city of the world) as Eusebius, St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and others assure us. He remained here, governing that flourishing church with great prudence, zeal, and sanctity. He suffered martyrdom in the 14th year of the reign of Nero, in the year of Christ 68, and three years after the death of Sts. Peter and Paul, at Alexandria, on the 25th of April; having been seized the previous day, which was Sunday, at the altar, as he was offering to God the prayer of the oblation, or the mass.

====================

Gill: Mark (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO MARK

This is the title of the book, the subject of which is the Gospel; a joyful account of the ministry, miracles, actions, and sufferings of Christ: the writer of it was not one of the twelve apostles, but an evangelist; the same with John Mark, or John, whose surname was Mark: John was his Hebrew name, and Mark his Gentile name, Act 12:12, and was Barnabas's sister's son, Col 4:10, his mother's name was Mary, Act 12:12. The Apostle Peter calls him his son, 1Pe 5:13, if he is the same; and he is thought to have wrote his Gospel from him ^a, and by his order, and which was afterwards examined and approved by him ^b it is said to have been wrote originally in Latin, or in the Roman tongue: so say the Arabic and Persic versions at the beginning of it, and the Syriac version says the same at the end: but of this there is no evidence, any more, nor so much, as of Matthew's writing his Gospel in Hebrew. The old Latin copy of this, is a version from the Greek; it is most likely that it was originally written in Greek, as the rest of the New Testament.

College: Mark (Book Introduction)

FOREWORD

No story is more important than the story of Jesus. I am confident that my comments do not do it justice. Even granting the limitations of a historical commentary (see the Introduction) there is so much more to be said. Nevertheless, the completion of a commentary on the Gospel of Mark accomplishes a goal I have wanted to reach for many years. I pray that my comments will help readers to develop a deeper understanding of Mark's story of Jesus as a basis for reflecting on Jesus' significance for their own lives.

I thank College Press for the opportunity to write in this series. I thank my colleague at Harding Graduate School Richard Oster (whose commentary on 1 Corinthians has appeared in the same series) for reading my manuscript and making many valuable suggestions. Another friend and colleague John Mark Hicks also provided helpful comments on several sections.

Most of all I thank Nancy, Amy, and Stacey, whose love and support are the dearest things on earth to me. The blessing they have been to me is second only to the blessing God has given to us all in the story about which I have been privileged to comment.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

INTRODUCTION

ABOUT THIS COMMENTARY

The intended audience of this book is the general reader with a serious interest in Scripture. This is not a work for scholars seeking to explore and press forward the edges of contemporary scholarship on Mark. Rather, I seek to make some of the fruits of others' scholarly research available to the general reader. I have been especially influenced by the commentaries by William Lane and Robert Gundry, the incomplete commentary on 1:1-8:26 by Robert Guelich, and the magisterial work on the death of Jesus by Raymond Brown. I often refer the reader to their scholarly works for further information, and even where I do not the reader would be well advised to consider them for a scholar's depth of treatment. Another fine source for further treatment with respect to many topics that arise in Mark is the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels , edited by Joel Green and Scot McKnight.

The purpose of the commentary is to provide a historical interpretation of the Gospel of Mark; that is, an interpretation of what Mark meant to say to his ancient audience. I write with the conviction that modern readers can only determine God's message to us after and on the basis of a determination of Mark's message to his ancient contemporaries. Because I believe God worked through Mark and inspired his work, I believe it has great relevance to every reader in every age. But we can only determine what it means to us if we have first determined what it meant when Mark wrote it. It is this latter task that it the focus of most commentaries, including this one. I will occasionally make comments about what a given passage means today, but not consistently. I will consistently comment on what Mark meant to say to his ancient readers. I hope and pray that my readers will recognize the contemporary relevance of Mark's work even though it will not be my purpose to point it out or illustrate it. My purpose is to provide a base to build on for contemporary application.

The commentary deals with historical meaning or intention on two levels. The first of those is the meaning intended by Mark for his contemporaries. John 21:25 says, "Jesus did many other things as well. If everyone of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." John points out that every Gospel writer must be selective. That is true with respect to which stories or sayings are selected and with respect to the perspective from which they are told and the amount of detail which is provided. The commentary consistently asks why Mark might have made his particular choices (which I assume were made under divine guidance).

The second level of meaning is the level of the intent of the historical characters Mark wrote about, especially Jesus. What did Jesus intend to convey to his contemporaries by his words and actions? A major part of Mark's intended meaning is to convey his understanding of Jesus' intended meaning. Therefore, it is important to ask both "What did Mark want his contemporaries to understand from this action or saying?" and "What did Jesus want his contemporaries (two to three decades earlier) to understand from this action or saying?" Concerning the latter question, the commentary will focus primarily on what one could learn about Jesus' intentions from Mark's account alone. On a few occasions, another Gospel will be brought into the discussion - but primarily for the purpose of solving some ambiguity or otherwise illuminating Mark's account.

I have generally not commented on the scholarly disputes concerning the historicity of various events and sayings in Mark. Most of them arise from the presupposition that Jesus did not work miracles. In this commentary I presuppose that he did and I assume the basic historicity of Mark's account. I comment only on a few well known problems of historicity which do not stem from antisupernaturalistic presuppositions.

In general, I have sought to provide deeper treatment of any recurring subject at the point where it is first mentioned in the text. For example, the titles "Christ" and "Son of God" are discussed primarily when they first arise in 1:1, and "Son of Man" is discussed in connection with 2:10. This means that the first chapter of the commentary is particularly important. It also means that readers will often want to look at the first text that mentions a particular theme. For example, it is important to supplement the comments on the centurion's confession of Jesus as the Son of God at 15:39 with the comments on the Son of God title at 1:1.

I have commented on the NIV text. In some places where it seems deficient, I have provided an alternative translation, often from the NRSV. The commentary makes note of the most significant textual variants and my opinions concerning them, but does not provide a list of manuscripts, versions, or church fathers. Interested readers should use the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament .

AUTHORSHIP

The author of the Gospel of Mark is not indicated within the text itself. However, the traditional understanding of the author is supported by the title and by early Christian writers.

The titles of the Gospels are first found in ancient manuscripts dating from the late second or early third centuries. Some scholars readily dismiss them as late second century creations. It is true that they seem to be creations of early church tradition rather than of the authors themselves. This can be observed by noting their stereotypical form "The Gospel according to _________" and by the clearer evidence that other New Testament book titles were not original. For example, Paul would hardly have designated the letter we know as 1 Corinthians by that name. Not only did letters not need a name but in 1 Cor 5 he speaks about a former letter he had written them. The titles of Paul's letters and of the Gospels represent the perspectives of those who collected and circulated them.

But that does not mean they are not to be trusted. Martin Hengel has well argued that the titles of the Gospels go back to the earliest days of their collection and distribution. Papias, a bishop in Asia Minor in the early second century, apparently knew of them. So did his source, "the elder" - presumably a generation older than Papias. Hengel correctly argues that as soon as there was more than one Gospel to read at church, it would have become necessary to name them. The lack of competing titles suggests that these titles were uniformly applied from the earliest days.

The second most important piece of information concerning the authorship of Mark is a paragraph written by the above-named Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (near Colossae and Laodicea). The pertinent statements were preserved by Eusebius from Papias's work, Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord , which was probably written within the first three decades of the second century. According to Eusebius Papias wrote:

And the presbyter used to say this: "Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord's oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them."

Papias believed a) that the author was a Mark closely associated with Peter and b) that what he wrote was essentially the preaching of Peter. These traditional understandings were repeated favorably by subsequent church fathers. Justin Martyr (writing c. A.D. 155-60) spoke of Mark's Gospel as "Peter's memoirs." In the late second century Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria described Mark as writing Peter's preaching. In the early third century Origen and Tertullian affirm the same tradition. The early date of Papias and the widespread support of his statements suggest that they might be correct.

The connection between Peter and Mark is supported by Peter going to John Mark's mother's house in Acts 12:12 and by Peter's reference to "my son Mark" in 1 Pet 5:13. The idea that Mark's Gospel was based on Peter's preaching is probably trustworthy. It is probably also true that what Peter usually did was tell various individual stories about Jesus rather than a sustained account. Mark's Gospel, like the others, is not in strict chronological order, although it does generally follow chronological lines.

Acts 12:12 and 25 suggests that the Mark that Peter would later refer to as "my son" was the same as the John Mark who was a companion of Paul and Barnabas on the first missionary journey and a source of dispute between them over whether to take him on their return trip (Acts 15:36-40). Col 4:10; Phlm 24; and 2 Tim 4:11 indicate that Paul was eventually reconciled with John Mark (and that John Mark was Barnabas' cousin). According to Acts 12:12 John Mark was from Jerusalem, but Papias and other ancient writers say that he did not follow Jesus before Jesus' death.

I will assume the author was John Mark of Jerusalem and that his Gospel was to some extent based upon the preaching of Peter.

AUDIENCE AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION

In the late second century Clement of Alexandria commented on the circumstances of Mark's writing, including the audience he wrote for and the place where he wrote. According to Eusebius Clement believed that:

When Peter had publicly preached the word at Rome, and by the Spirit had proclaimed the Gospel, those present, who were many, exhorted Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been spoken, to make a record of what was said: and that he did this, and distributed the Gospel among those that asked him. And that when the matter came to Peter's knowledge he neither strongly forbade it nor urged it forward.

However, Clement is not a very trustworthy source and his contemporary Irenaeus contradicted him by saying that Mark wrote his Gospel after the death of Peter.

Clement could be correct about Rome as the location for Mark's audience and his place of composition. Two other factors provide mild support for Rome. In 1 Pet 5:13, where Peter mentions Mark and calls him "my son," he indicates that he and Mark were in "Babylon." Most scholars believe Peter is referring to Rome, thus placing himself and Mark in Rome. Furthermore, Gundry and others argue that the frequent Latinisms (Latin loan words or other Latin influence on Mark's Greek) point to Italy. The Latinisms argument is, however, problematic. Some are not persuaded because many of the Latin terms used in Mark are military, judicial, or economic in nature and would be present throughout the empire.

What can be affirmed with more confidence is that Mark's audience contained many Gentiles. This is made clear in 7:3-4 when Mark must explain ritual cleanliness customs which he says are the practice of "all the Jews." Mark must envision non-Jews who would not know these practices. This does not mean he did not envision some Jews reading his work, but only that he included comments clearly aimed at Gentiles.

It is probable that the readers Mark had in mind were already Christians. Beginning with the citation of Scripture in 1:2-3 he occasionally cites or alludes to Scriptures in a way that seems to assume knowledge of and appreciation for the Old Testament. Coupled with the indications of a Gentile audience, the assumed knowledge of the Old Testament suggests either Gentiles who had been attracted to the synagogue or who had become Christians. Occasionally, more distinctly Christian knowledge seems to be assumed. For example, Mark never explains what John meant by Jesus baptizing with the Holy Spirit (1:8). Christian readers would know. A particularly interesting case is 15:21, which identifies Simon of Cyrene as the father of Alexander and Rufus. Apparently, the readers of Mark knew the two sons. But they were not well-known public figures. The most likely hypothesis to explain Mark's assumption is that they were known within the Christian community or at least that element of it which he had in mind.

Mark may have written his Gospel in Rome and for Roman Christians. In any case, he probably envisioned a Christian audience with many Gentiles.

DATE

As noted above, the earliest comments reflecting the date of Mark are by the late second century writers Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, who disagree on whether Mark was written prior to or after Peter's death. Very little concrete data is available to supplement their conflicting reflections. The most significant data in my opinion is the widespread hypothesis that Luke was dependent upon Mark coupled with a relatively early date for Luke-Acts. If Luke-Acts was complete by c. A.D. 62 and if Luke used Mark's Gospel, then Mark completed his work by the early sixties.

MAJOR THEMES AND STRUCTURE

A number of scholars agree that two themes stand out in Mark and that they are developed in a two-part structure for the book.

1. CHRISTOLOGY

One of the pervasive concerns of Mark is to portray Jesus as the authoritative Son of God and as the ultimate model of sacrificial service to God and humanity.

From the opening verse, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (1:1), it is clear that Mark wants to paint a portrait of Jesus. Although it is an obvious oversimplification, it is useful to look at Mark's portrait by emphasizing a key word for the first half of the book, "authority," and a key word for the second half, "service." The pivotal center of Mark's Gospel is the confession by Peter in 8:27-30 and the crucial discussion that follows in 8:31-9:1. The turning point is the disciples' confession that Jesus is the Christ. The first half of the book leads to this confession; the second half builds on it and defines the role of the Son of Man as that of service unto death.

In 1:1-8:30, the focus is on the authority of Jesus as exhibited in his miracles and teaching and in the testimony of others. John the Baptist says, "After me will come one more powerful than I" (1:7). God declares, "You are my Son, whom I love" (1:11). Jesus summons fishermen, and they drop everything to follow him (1:16-20). When he teaches, the people "were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority" (1:22). When he casts out demons, they declare, "He even gives orders to evil spirits and they obey him" (1:27). The first eight chapters are permeated with features like these examples from the first chapter. Jesus' authority is repeatedly emphasized.

The question underlying most of these stories surfaces plainly in 4:41, "Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!" Who, indeed, is this one with such authority that his teaching transcends that of the teachers of the law, that he forgives sins, that he controls sickness, disease, demons, nature, and even death?

The resounding answer is already given to the reader in 1:1, but is finally clear to the disciples in 8:29. At this point a new stage is opened up: "He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things . . ." (8:31). The disciples do not readily grasp this new understanding either. Peter immediately objects (8:32). Throughout the remainder of the book, Jesus repeatedly works with the disciples to try to get them to see that the Son of Man "did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (10:45).

The fact that this authoritative figure who commanded nature, disease, demons, and death would submit to death in suffering service is a key theme permeating everything after 8:31. Even though the second half of the book continues to emphasize Jesus' authority, the focus turns more and more toward the cross. This focus is explicit in Jesus' own statements about his coming suffering (8:31; 9:12, 31; 10:32-34, 45; 14:18-21, 24-25, 27, 41). The shadow of his death lies over the second half of the book in other ways as well. One thinks, for example, of the fate of the son in the parable of the wicked tenants (12:6-8) or the anointing at Bethany (14:1-9) and of all the events from the Lord's Supper to the end of the crucifixion (14:12-15:47). In the second half of the book, Mark underscores the fact that the powerful, authoritative Son of God willingly submitted himself to the most shameful and inhumane of deaths because he had the heart of a servant.

2. DISCIPLESHIP

The theme of Christology carried out in the emphasis on Jesus' authority and then his suffering service is brought to bear on Mark's readers' lives through the emphasis on discipleship. To submit to Jesus' authority involves following in Jesus' footsteps in suffering service.

This point is first enunciated in 8:34-35 and then driven home by repetition, especially in 9:33-37 and 10:35-45. It is no accident that these sections of vital instruction on discipleship immediately follow the three repetitions of Jesus' predictions regarding his own death in Jerusalem. Disciples are to be like their master.

In each of these three instances, Jesus' prediction is followed by immediate indication that the disciples are out of step with their Lord. In 8:32, Peter even "rebukes" Jesus for what he said would happen. Having rebuked Peter, Jesus calls all the people together with his disciples and explains that what he plans to do bears not only on him but on what it means to be a follower: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (8:34).

In the second instance Mark writes that the disciples did not understand Jesus' prediction concerning himself (9:32), then immediately shows that they did not grasp its implications for themselves. They are interested in establishing which of them is the greatest (9:33-34), but Jesus tells them that followers of one who takes the role of a servant must be servants themselves (9:35).

The third instance is similar. Here, again immediately following a prediction concerning Jesus' death, James and John seek the chief places in the coming kingdom (10:35-37). Jesus' reply is explicit in the way it ties discipleship to Christology: "whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (10:43-45). These verses, 10:43-45, provide a convenient summary of the main point with respect to discipleship. This emphasis permeates the second half of the book.

3. FURTHER OBSERVATIONS ON MARK'S STRUCTURE

In addition to the major division of Mark at 8:30 / 8:31, a few further divisions may be discerned with varying levels of confidence.

Most scholars identify either 1:1-8, 1:1-13, or 1:1-15 as an introduction. I have chosen 1:1-15 for reasons that are described at the beginning of the comments on chapter 1. These verses set the stage for all that follows.

It is questionable whether there is a clearly discernible substructure for the rest of the first half of the book (1:16-8:30). I have chosen the popular three-part structure proposed by Leander Keck largely as a matter of convenience for the memory. Keck's outline is easily learned because each section begins with a new stage in the disciples' development: the call of the four fishermen (1:16-20), the appointment of the twelve apostles (3:13-19), and the mission of the twelve (6:6b-13).

The second half of the book is easily divisible according to stages in Jesus' ministry. In 8:31-10:52 he journeys to Jerusalem. Beginning at 11:1 Mark focuses over one third of his book on Jesus' last week, from the triumphal entry to the resurrection.

In addition to the overall structure of the book, there are smaller structural features discernible in various sections. Some of these are identified in the outline, such as the collection of five controversy stories in 2:1-3:6 or the parable section in 4:1-34. Others are discussed as they arise in the commentary, such as the "sandwich" phenomenon discussed first at 3:20-35.

PURPOSE

Mark does not provide a statement of purpose for his work. It is difficult to construct a hypothetical statement of purpose that is well focused and yet broad enough to include all of Mark's material. Any statement of Mark's purpose should take into account his intended audience, particularly the probability that he wrote primarily for those who had already become Christians.

Mark's overall purpose might be stated as follows: to tell the story of Jesus from his baptism to his death and resurrection in order to strengthen the faith and deepen the understanding of his readers. The weakness of this statement is that it is so broad as to include virtually anything Mark might have known about Jesus.

As stated above on pages 11-13, each Gospel writer had some particular emphases that guided his selection. In Mark's case there is one particular emphasis that dominates the overall structure of the book and presumably was the primary principle of selection for much of its contents: the emphasis on discipleship as self-sacrificing service. Mark presents Jesus as the model of service: "the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many" (10:45). As is demonstrated in the above section on the structure of the book, Mark organizes his book around Jesus' effort to explain this to his disciples and to bring them to the understanding that "whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all" (10:43-44). This focus may account for many of Mark's choices.

Lane (and others) would be more specific. In particular, he believes the purpose of Mark was to encourage Roman Christians to sacrificial service during the time of the Neronian persecution of A.D. 64. But I have argued above that Mark was probably written by A.D. 62 and that the tradition that his intended audience was in Rome is possibly true, but not a tradition to hold with confidence. It is questionable whether Mark wrote primarily for a persecution setting, Neronian or otherwise. There are only a few explicit references to persecution (4:17; 8:34-38; 10:29-30, 39; and 13:9-13). Certainly Mark's Gospel could have been used for encouragement by persecuted Christians, but it is preferable to state his primary focus in broader terms of sacrificial service.

SUMMARY OF INTRODUCTORY CONCLUSIONS

The Gospel of Mark was written by John Mark of Jerusalem, an associate of Paul and of Peter. It probably reflects Peter's preaching about Jesus. Mark composed it by the early sixties. The audience he had in mind were predominantly Gentile Christians, possibly in Rome. He wrote the story of Jesus in order to strengthen their faith and deepen their understanding, particularly with respect to their need to follow Jesus in the path of sacrificial service to God and humanity.

Mark focused on christology and discipleship and their interrelationship. In the first part of the Gospel (1:1-8:30) he focused on Jesus' authority and the need for disciples to believe in him. Then, beginning in 8:31, he focused on how Jesus submitted himself to death in sacrificial service and on the need for disciples to follow his example.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger. The Greek New Testament. Fourth Revised Edition. Stuttgart: Biblia-Druck, United Bible Societies, 1993.

Anderson, Hugh. The Gospel of Mark. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.

Batey, Richard, A. Jesus and the Forgotten City: New Light on Sepphoris and the Urban World of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.

Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature , 2nd ed. Rev. by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Beasley-Murray, G.R. Baptism in the New Testament. London: MacMillan, 1962.

. Jesus and the Kingdom of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

Best, Ernest. Mark: The Gospel As Story. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983.

Blackburn, Barry. Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions. WUNT 2.40. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1991.

Blomberg, Craig L. Interpreting the Parables. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990.

. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1987.

. Matthew. New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.

Bock, Darrell L. "Elijah and Elisha." DJG 203-206.

Bratcher, Robert G. and Eugene A. Nida. A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of Mark. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1961.

Brown, Raymond E. The Death of the Messiah. Anchor Bible Reference Library, 2 Volumes. New York: Doubleday, 1994.

Bruce, F.F. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988.

Cargounis, C.C. "The Kingdom of God/Heaven." DJG 417-430.

Carson, Donald A., Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Carson, Donald A. "Matthew." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Vol. 8. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

Cranfield, C.E.B. The Gospel according to Saint Mark. Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary. Cambridge, England: University Press, 1959.

Davids, Peter. Commentary on James. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Dodd, C.H. "The Kingdom of God Has Come." Expository Times 48 (1936-37): 138-142.

. The Parables of the Kingdom. London: Nisbet, 1935.

Farmer, William R. The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. SNTSMS 25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974.

Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. 2nd edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. "The Aramaic Qorban Inscription from Jebel Hallet et-Turi and Mark 7:11/Matt. 15:5." Journal of Biblical Literature 78 (1959): 60-65.

. The Gospel According to Luke I-IX. Anchor Bible Commentary, Vol. 28A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981.

France, Richard T. Jesus and the Old Testament. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1971.

. Matthew. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.

Geldenhuys, Norval G. Commentary of the Gospel of Luke. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Green, Joel B. and Scot McKnight, eds. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992.

Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1:1-8:26. Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 34A. Dallas: Word, 1989.

Gundry, Robert H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

. Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Hawthorne, Gerald F. "Amen." DJG 7-8.

Heard, Warren J. "Revolutionary Movements." DJG 688-698.

Helton, Stanley N. "Churches of Christ and Mark 16:9-20." Restoration Quarterly 36 (1994): 32- 52.

Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. London: SCM, 1977.

. Studies in the Gospel of Mark. Trans. John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.

Herzog, William R., II. "Temple Cleansing." DJG 817-821.

Hoehner, Harold.W. Herod Antipas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972.

. "Herodian Dynasty." DJG 317-326.

Hooker, Morna. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. Black's New Testament Commentaries. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991.

Hurtado, Larry W. Mark. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Central Message of the New Testament. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965.

Judge, E.A. "The Regional Kanon for Requisitioned Transport." In New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Ed. G.H.R. Horsley. North Ryde, Australia: Macquarie University, 1976.

Juel, Donald. Messianic Exegesis. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.

Keck, Leander E. "The Introduction to Mark's Gospel." New Testament Studies 12 (1965-66): 352-372.

Lane, William L. The Gospel according to Mark. New International New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Marcus, Joel. "The Jewish War and the Sitz im Leben of Mark." Journal of Biblical Literature 111 (1992): 443-446.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

. The Origins of New Testament Christology. Updated ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990.

McGarvey, J.W. "Biblical Criticism." Christian Standard 32 (1896): 1367.

. The New Testament Commentary. Vol. 1: Matthew and Mark. Delight, AR: Gospel Light, 1875.

McIver, Robert K. "One Hundred-Fold Yield - Miraculous or Mundane? Matthew 13.8, 23; Mark 4.8, 20; Luke 8.8." New Testament Studies 40 (1994): 606-608.

McRay, John. Archaeology and the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. 10th ed. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1993.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Second Edition. Stuttgart: Wurttemberg Bible Society, 1994.

Michaels, J. Ramsey. 1 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 49. Dallas: Word, 1988.

Roads, David and Donald Michie. Mark As Story. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.

Rousseau, John J. and Rami Arav, eds. Jesus and His World: An Archaeological and Cultural Dictionary. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.

Sanders, E.P. Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63BCE-66CE. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992.

Schmidt, Thomas E. "Taxes." DJG 804-807.

Twelftree, G.H. "Blasphemy." DJG 75-77.

. "Demon, Devil, Satan." DJG 163-172.

. "Sanhedrin." DJG 728-732.

. "Scribes." DJG 732-735.

Westerholm, Stephen. "Pharisees." DJG 609-614.

Wilkins, Michael J. "Sinner." DJG 757-760.

Williamson, Lamar, Jr. Mark. Interpretation Commentary. Atlanta: John Knox, 1983.

Willis, Wendell, ed. The Kingdom of God in 20th-Century Interpretation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987.

Wuellner, Wilhelm H. The Meaning of "Fishers of Men." The New Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

BAGD . . . A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2nd ed., eds. Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker

DJG . . . Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels

LXX . . . The Septuagint (An ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament)

NIV . . . The Holy Bible, New International Version

NRSV . . . The Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version

SNTSMS . . . Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas Monograph Series

UBS ⁴ . . . The Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 4th ed.

WUNT . . . Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum NT

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: Mark (Outline)

OUTLINE

I. INTRODUCTION - Mark 1:1-15

A. The Beginning of the Gospel - 1:1-8

B. John Baptizes Jesus - 1:9-11

C. Temptation in the Wilderness - 1:12-13

D. The Gospel Jesus Preached - 1:14-15

II. THE GALILEAN MINISTRY, SECTION ONE - 1:16-3:12

A. The Call of the First Disciples - 1:16-20

B. Jesus Demonstrates His Authority in Capernaum - 1:21-28

C. Healing Simon's Mother-in-Law - 1:29-31

D. Other Healings at Capernaum - 1:32-34

E. What Jesus Came to Do - 1:35-39

F. Healing A Leper - 1:40-45

G. Stories of Controversy between Jesus and the Religious Authorities - 2:1-3:6

1. Controversy over Forgiving Sins - 2:1-12

2. Controversy over Eating with Tax Collectors and Sinners - 2:13-17

3. Controversy over Fasting - 2:18-22

4. Controversy over Picking Grain on the Sabbath - 2:23-28

5. Controversy over Healing on the Sabbath - 3:1-6

H. Summary Statement about the Crowds and Healings - 3:7-12

III. THE GALILEAN MINISTRY, SECTION TWO - 3:13-6:6a

A. The Appointment of the Twelve Apostles - 3:13-19

B. Jesus Accused of Lunacy and Being Possessed - 3:20-35

C. Jesus Teaches in Parables - 4:1-34

1. The Parable of the Sower - 4:1-9

2. The Purpose of the Parables - 4:10-12

3. The Interpretation of the Sower - 4:13-20

4. The Parable of the Lamp - 4:21-23

5. The Parable of the Measure - 4:24-25

6. The Parable of the Growing Seed - 4:26-29

7. The Parable of the Mustard Seed - 4:30-32

8. Teaching in Parables - 4:33-34

D. Jesus' Authority over Nature, Demons, Disease and Death - 4:35-5:43

1. Authority over Nature - 4:35-41

2. Authority over Demons - 5:1-20

3. Authority over Disease and Death - 5:21-43

E. Rejection at Nazareth - 6:1-6a

IV. THE GALILEAN MINISTRY, SECTION THREE - 6:6b-8:30

A. The Mission of the Twelve - 6:6b-13

B. Herod Hears about Jesus - 6:14-16

C. Herod Has John Beheaded - 6:17-29

D. Feeding the Five Thousand - 6:30-44

E. Walking on the Water - 6:45-52

F. Healing at Gennesaret and Beyond - 6:53-56

G. The Controversy over Eating with Unwashed Hands - 7:1-23

H. The Syrophoenician Woman - 7:24-30

I. Healing a Deaf Man with a Speech Impediment - 7:31-37

J. Feeding the Four Thousand - 8:1-10

K. The Pharisees Demand a Sign - 8:11-13

L. The Yeast of the Pharisees and Herod - 8:14-21

M. The Blind Man at Bethsaida - 8:22-26

N. Peter's Confession at Caesarea Philippi - 8:27-30

V. THE JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM - 8:31-10:52

A. Jesus Predicts His Death and Resurrection - 8:31-33

B. The Costs of Discipleship - 8:34-9:1

C. The Transfiguration and the Subsequent Discussion - 9:2-13

D. Jesus Casts a Spirit from a Man's Son - 9:14-29

E. The Second Passion/Resurrection Prediction - 9:30-32

F. Teachings on Servanthood - 9:33-50

1. Who Is the Greatest? - 9:33-35

2. An Example Based on Welcoming Children - 9:36-37

3. Jesus Rebukes the Disciples' Pride - 9:38-41

4. Getting Rid of Pride and Getting Along with Each Other - 9:42-50

G. Jesus Questioned About Divorce - 10:1-12

H. Receiving the Kingdom Like a Child - 10:13-16

I. The Rich Man and Jesus' Teaching Concerning Wealth - 10:17-31

J. The Third Passion/Resurrection Prediction - 10:32-34

K. The Request of James and John - 10:35-45

L. Bartimaeus Receives His Sight - 10:46-52

VI. THE LAST WEEK: JERUSALEM, THE CROSS, AND THE RESURRECTION - 11:1-16:8[20]

A. The Triumphal Entry - 11:1-11

B. Cursing the Fig Tree and Cleansing the Temple - 11:12-19

C. A Lesson from the Withered Fig Tree - 11:20-25

D. Another Series of Controversies with the Religious Authorities - 11:27-12:44

1. The Question about Authority - 11:27-33

2. The Parable of the Tenants - 12:1-12

3. The Question about Paying Taxes - 12:13-17

4. The Question about the Resurrection - 12:18-27

5. The Question about the First Commandment - 12:28-34

6. Jesus' Question about David's Son - 12:35-37

7. Jesus Denounces the Teachers of the Law and Commends a Poor Widow - 12:38-44

E. Jesus Instructs the Disciples Concerning the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Coming - 13:1-37

1. The Setting of Jesus' Last Days Discourse - 13:1-4

2. General Description of the Birth Pains - 13:5-13

3. The Sharp Pain: The Destruction of Jerusalem - 13:14-19

4. Warnings Against False Messiahs during the Birth Pains - 13:20-23

5. The Second Coming - 13:24-27

6. The Significance of the Birth Pains for the Second Coming - 13:28-31

7. No One Knows the Day or Hour of the Second Coming - 13:32-37

F. Jesus Honored and Betrayed - 14:1-11

G. The Passover Meal - 14:12-31

1. Preparation for the Passover - 14:12-16

2. Jesus Predicts His Betrayal - 14:17-21

3. The Institution of the Lord's Supper - 14:22-25

H. Jesus Predicts the Flight of the Disciples and Peter's Denial - 14:26-31

I. Prayer in Gethsemane - 14:32-42

J. Betrayal, Arrest, and Flight - 14:43-52

K. Jesus and Peter Put on Trial - 14:53-72

1. Jesus' Trial Before the Sanhedrin - 14:53-65

2. Peter's Denials - 14:66-72

L. Jesus' Trial Before Pilate - 15:1-15

M. Pilate's Soldiers Mock Jesus - 15:16-20

N. The Crucifixion - 15:21-41

O. The Burial of Jesus - 15:42-47

P. The Resurrection - 16:1-8

Q. Post-Resurrection Appearances - 16:9-20

1. The Appearance to Mary Magdalene - 16:9-11

2. The Appearance to Two Disciples - 16:12-13

3. The Appearance to and Commission of the Eleven - 16:14-18

4. The Ascension and the Disciples' Mission - 16:19-20

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV