CHAPTER X

Outline of Chapter 10

Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him To Do

10:1–12 Teaching about Divorce

10:13–16 Jesus and the Children

10:17–31 The Peril of Riches and the Reward of Sacrifice

10:32–34 The Third Prediction of the Passion and the Resurrection

10:35–45 The Request of the Sons of Zebedee

10:46–52 The Healing of Blind Bartimacus at Jericho

10:1–12 Teaching about Divorce

Cf. Matt. 5:31, 32; 19:1–12

10 1 He departed from that place and came into the region of Judea [and]⁴⁴⁵ beyond the Jordan. Again crowds were flocking toward him, and again, as his custom was, he began to teach them.

2 Then some Pharisees came up to him, and tempted him by asking,⁴⁴⁶ “Is it lawful for a man to divorce (his) wife?” 3 He answered, “What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “Moses allowed (a man) to write a certificate of divorce and send (her) away.” 5 But Jesus replied, “It was because of your hardness of heart that Moses wrote you this commandment, 6 but from the beginning of creation he [God] made them male and female. 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife,⁴⁴⁷ 8 and the two shall be one flesh.’ It follows that they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

10 And in the house the disciples were again asking him about this. 11 He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman is committing adultery⁴⁴⁸ against her; 12 and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”

Mark 10 is a lengthy chapter. Only chapters 6 and 14 surpass it in length. Its material that is paralleled in Matthew is there distributed over two chapters: 19 and 20. Moreover, with two Matthean exceptions, namely, 19:10–12 (about eunuchs) and 20:1–16 (The Laborers in the Vineyard), Mark 10 and Matt. 19, 20 not only contain substantially the same material but even present this material in the same sequence. Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of Mark 10 are paralleled in Matt. 19; paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 in Matt. 20.

As to Luke, because of the rule 10+8=18—see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 13, 15—we expect to find Mark 10’s parallel in Luke 18; and we do actually discover that more than half of Mark 10 is paralleled there. Luke lacks the paragraph on divorce and the one on the request of the sons of Zebedee. As if to make up for this, Luke 18 begins with two beautiful little parables, peculiar to that Gospel. One is about The Widow and the Judge, the other about the Pharisee and the Publican. For minor differences between Mark’s material and its parallels see the treatment of the separate paragraphs.

The Retirement Ministry has ended. Mark 10 contains that evangelist’s account of the Perean Ministry. It will be recalled that The Great Galilean Ministry and The Retirement and Perean Ministries together make up that large division of the Synoptics to which we have given the name “The Work Which Thou Gavest Him To Do, Its Progress or Continuation.” See the Outline, pp. v, 26.

In all probability, however, the Perean Ministry did not immediately follow that of The Retirement. Intervening was the Later Judean Ministry, lasting from the final October to December of Christ’s life on earth. See John 7:2; 10:22. Consequently the Perean Ministry probably fell within the period December of the year 29 to April of the year 30.

Mark is rather vague with respect to the time when the event indicated in 10:1–12 took place. He writes: 1. He departed from that place.… The place from which Jesus (and The Twelve) departed is clearly indicated. It must have been Galilee (9:30); better still, Capernaum (9:33).

As to the time? The text does not say that from Capernaum Jesus immediately started his ministry in Perea. All we can safely affirm is a. that rather soon after the events recorded in chapter 9 Jesus entered the region east of Jordan; and b. that the events selected for narration by Mark lead from there, by way of Jericho, to Jerusalem; and from Jerusalem’s temple, via the various stations of The Passion Week (Mt. of Olives, Bethany, large upper room, Gethsemane, house of the highpriest, Judgment Hall, Pilate’s Praetorium, Golgotha), to the tomb, from which the Lord arose gloriously. See 10:1, 32, 33, 46; 11:1, 11, 12, 27; 13:1, 3; 14:3, 15, 32, 53; 15:1, 2, 16, 22, 46; 16:1 ff. For any mention of a return to Galilee after the resurrection we must turn to the Gospel according to Matthew (28:16).

Continued: and came into the region of Judea [and] beyond the Jordan. Another possible translation is: “and came to the boundaries of Judea, beyond the Jordan.” Whether, with some, one thinks of Judea as extending politically somewhat beyond (that is, to the east of) the Jordan; or, with others, one interprets the evangelist as meaning that Jesus went to the Perean or trans-Jordanic region, “bounded by Judea,” in either case we find the Lord, together with his disciples (verse 10), traveling south through Perea—hence Perean Ministry—, east of the Jordan, which he subsequently recrosses, arriving in Jericho (10:46).

Mark continues: Again crowds were flocking toward him, and again, as his custom was, he began to teach them. It deserves attention that in its general chracter this Perean Ministry (chapter 10)⁴⁴⁹ in certain respects resembles The Great Galilean Ministry more closely than it resembles The Retirement Ministry. No longer does Jesus generally withdraw himself from the multitudes. In fact, as is evident from the present passage (10:1) and also from 10:46; cf. Matt. 19:2, 13; 20:29, 31; Luke 18:15, 36, 43, great multitudes assemble to hear him. He heals their sick, just as he had done previously in and around Galilee. Always he is ready to heal, and his love overleaps every boundary.

However, here in Mark 10:1 it is not, as in Matt. 19:2, the healing that is mentioned but the teaching. We see, therefore, that during this ministry, as often, healing and teaching go hand in hand. Whenever a crowd gathered around Jesus it was his custom⁴⁵⁰ to teach them. It must not be overlooked, however, that though the present passage refers to teaching the multitudes, nevertheless even the intensive teaching and training of The Twelve, which was a characteristic of The Retirement Ministry, continues during The Perean Ministry. See verses 10–12, 14, 15, 23–27, 29–31, 32–34, 38–45.

2. Then some Pharisees came up to him, and tempted him by asking, Is it lawful for a man to divorce (his) wife? We have met the Pharisees before and have become acquainted with their hostility toward Jesus (2:16, 24; 3:6, 22; 7:1–5; 8:11). Their present intention is to catch him in their trap, to put him on the spot, and thus to discredit him in the eyes of the public, so that the crowds would turn away from him. They were convinced that their question, answered either way, would create a serious difficulty for Jesus. To understand this, the following facts should be taken into consideration:

Among the Jews there was a difference of opinion as to what Moses had taught with respect to the problem of divorce. He had written, “When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found ‘erwath dābhār in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce …” (Deut. 24:1). But what is meant by ‘erwath dābhār? Does it mean “a scandalous thing”? Other guesses are “some indecency,” “something improper,” “improper behavior,” “something offensive,” “a shameful thing” (LXX), etc. According to Shammai and his followers the reference was to unchastity or adultery.

According to Hillel and his disciples the meaning was far broader. They emphasized the words, “If then she finds no favor in his eyes,” and accordingly would allow divorce for the flimsiest reasons, so that the husband could reject his wife if she accidentally served him food that had been slightly burned, or if at home she talked so loud that the neighbors could hear her. If Jesus endorsed the more strict interpretation, favored by Shammai, he would be displeasing the followers of Hillel. Moreover, there seem to have been very many—perhaps even these Pharisees (cf. Matt. 19:7)—who agreed with Hillel’s “liberal” opinion. Even the disciples may have shared this view; see Matt. 19:10. Besides, if the Lord sided with Shammai the Pharisees might have accused him, though not justly, of being inconsistent when he nevertheless consorted with sinners and ate with them.

On the other hand, if Jesus endorsed the lax—“anything will do as ground for divorce”—interpretation, what would the disciples of Shammai think of him? Would not the more serious and conscientious people charge him with tolerating moral looseness? And what would the female part of the population think of him?

Jesus shows that the underlying emphasis of the question is wrong. Why all this talk about the possibility of divorce, as if to say, “If this marriage does not work out I can always divorce my wife”? Why not go back beyond Deut. 24 to God’s marriage ordinance recorded in such passages as Gen. 1:27 and 2:24?

3, 4. He answered, What did Moses command you? They said, Moses allowed (a man) to write a certificate of divorce and send (her) away. At first glance there might seem to be a conflict between Matthew and Mark. The true situation, however, is as follows: in both Gospels it is the Pharisees who raise the question about divorce (cf. Matt. 19:3 with Mark 10:2). In Mark Jesus replies by asking them a question, namely, “What did Moses command you?” They answer, “Moses allowed.…” Jesus then concludes the conversation by answering, “It was because of your hardness of heart that Moses wrote you this commandment, but from the beginning of creation he [God] made them male and female.… What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Matthew abbreviates. He omits Christ’s question, “What did Moses command you?” This omission is not at all serious, because the position of the Pharisees, “Moses allowed (a man) to write a certificate of divorce …” is recognized in both accounts (cf. Matt. 19:7 with Mark 10:4), though it is only Mark who makes clear that it was in answer to Christ’s question that this position was first put into words. There was nothing to prevent these Pharisees from restating that position in the form of a question, “Why then did Moses command …?” (Matt. 19:7). Also, while Matthew, as he does frequently, tells the story in one breath, as a connected whole, Mark shows that the dictum, “Whoever divorces his wife, …” (verse 11) was pronounced by Jesus while he was in a house and in answer to a question by his disciples (verses 10, 11). Matthew (19:9) also includes this authoritative pronouncement in his report, but as spoken to the Pharisees. However, Jesus may have spoken these words twice; first to the Pharisees; later to the disciples. For “commanded” see on Mark 13:34.

The Pharisees answered Jesus’ question by saying, “Moses allowed (a man) to write a certificate of divorce and send (her) away.” This Mosaic regulation (Deut. 24:1 ff.) was by many—probably including several of these Pharisees—interpreted as meaning. “If you wish to divorce your wife for any reason whatever, go right ahead, but be sure to hand her a divorce certificate.” The real meaning of the passage, however, is this, “Husband, you better think twice before you reject your wife. Remember that once you have put her away and she has become the wife of another you cannot afterward take her back; not even if that other husband should also have rejected her or should have died.” Moses had mentioned the “bill of divorce” only in passing, but the scribes and Pharisees placed all the emphasis on it. While they were always stressing the Mosaic concession, Jesus constantly emphasized the principle, namely, that husband and wife are and must remain one.

This becomes clear from what follows in verses 5–8. But Jesus replied, It was because of your hardness of heart that Moses wrote you this commandment, but from the beginning he [God] made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh. Moses had done everything in his power to discourage divorce. It was only because of⁴⁵¹ the hardness or stubbornness of heart,⁴⁵² the coarseness and harshness of the people, that Moses had made a concession. It was a merciful concession made for the sake of the wife, for without this regulation a harsh man might be inclined to dismiss his wife even without giving her any written evidence that she was now no longer married.

Now in this concession of Deut. 24 the Pharisees are far more interested than in the creation and marriage institution of Gen. 1:27 (cf. 5:2); 2:24. Jesus points back to the original ordinance, that is, to the way things had been “from the beginning of creation.” It was then that God, even though he created Adam before Eve, at once created him as a male; hence, with a view to intimate union with Eve, who was created later on from the very body of Adam, and as a female. Each, accordingly, was made for the other, with the definite purpose of joining together one man to one woman. Those who are eager for divorce ignore this fact. Moreover, God ordains that for this very reason—that is, because the union between the two was intended to be so intimate and they were designed for each other (see both Gen. 1:27 and 2:23)—a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall do this with a view to a more intimate and more lasting attachment, namely, “and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh”; yes, “no longer two but one flesh,” says Jesus.

It is clear that Jesus viewed Gen. 2:24 (in combination with Gen. 1:27) as a divine ordinance, and not as a mere description of what generally takes place on earth. And since one is not doing injustice to the Hebrew original of Gen. 2:24 by bringing out this divine institution idea in the translation—hence “a man shall leave … and shall cleave,” not merely “a man leaves and cleaves”—what good reason can there be for not expressing it? On this passage (Gen. 2:24), therefore, the translation adopted by A.V. and A.R.V. is to be preferred to some of the more modern versions.

That Jesus did indeed so regard marriage, namely, as an indissoluble union, changing what used to be “two” into what has now become “one”—note: It follows that they are no longer two but one flesh—, a union until death parts the two, a definitely divine institution that must not be tampered with, is clear from the following: a. Otherwise his argument would lose its force; b. the audience hardly needed to be told that it is customary for men to get married; and c. this is in line with the words immediately following, namely, 9. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.

This does not mean that a man is committing a sin by not getting married. Rather, it means that those who decide to marry must view marriage as a divine institution, a state in which they must so conduct themselves that true union—sexual, to be sure; note “shall cleave to his wife,” but also intellectual, moral, and spiritual—is not only established but more and more firmly cemented.

It was God who made this union possible (Gen. 1:27); God also who issued the command, “Be fruitful …” (Gen. 1:28). It was he, again, who said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a help fit for him” (Gen. 2:18). It was also God who brought Eve to Adam, to be the latter’s wife (Gen. 2:22). Indeed, from every angle, it was God who established marriage as a divine institution (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5, 6). Marriage is therefore indeed “an honorable estate.” Therefore, let not man separate what God has joined together!⁴⁵³

The indissolubility of marriage is stated by Jesus in a very forceful manner. The word “Therefore” or “For this reason” shows that he is summarizing the divine revelation concerning the marriage bond. Note “joined together.”⁴⁵⁴ According to Christ’s teaching, then, husband and wife form a team. They work, plan, pray, play, pull, etc. together. For a man to separate that which God has yoked or joined together means arrogantly to defy an act of God!

In a world where one divorce follows another in rapid succession, so that it is difficult at times to count the number of times a person has been divorced, the teaching of Jesus deserves to be repeated and emphasized.

10–12. And in the house the disciples were again asking him about this. He said to them, Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman is committing adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.⁴⁵⁵

Between verses 2–9, on the one hand, and 10–12, on the other, there are these differences: a. In the former passage Jesus is addressing Pharisees, in the latter his disciples; b. in the former he is outside, in the latter inside a house; and c. in the former he is discussing divorce, in the latter divorce followed by marriage to someone else.

Matt. 19:10 may indicate that Christ’s disciples were inclined to favor the lax marriage-and-divorce position of Hillel. So, again the Master is questioned about this matter, this time not by the Pharisees but by his own disciples. As shown previously, he gives them essentially the same answer as he had given the Pharisees (cf. Matt. 19:9 with Mark 10:11). This time, however, he omits the exception found in Matt. 5:32; 19:9. See N.T.C. on these passages. The exception does not change the basic fact, taught in both Gospels, that in the eyes of God, hence ideally considered, marriage is indissoluble.

What Jesus is saying here in verse 11 is that a husband who rudely divorces his wife, thereby separating what God has joined, is committing a grievous sin, and that he aggravates this sin by marrying someone else. Such a husband is sinning against God not only but also against his wife: he is involving himself in adultery against her; or, “is exposing her to adultery,” as the same thought is recorded in Matt. 5:32.

At this point Mark adds something that is not found in Matthew. Mark points out that in the house Jesus applied the same rule also to the wife who without regard to the divine ordinance divorces her husband.

Why this difference between Matthew and Mark? Answer: Matthew was writing primarily for Jews, among whom rejection of a husband by a wife was so rare that the law had not made any provision for this possibility. Nevertheless, among the Jews, or those who stood in close relation to them, such dismissals of husbands by their wives were not entirely unknown. For example, with reference to Salome, the wicked sister of Herod the Great (see N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 165), Josephus writes: “Sometime later Salome had occasion to quarrel with [her husband] Costobarus, and soon sent him a document dissolving their marriage, which action was not in accordance with Jewish law. For it is (only) the husband who is permitted by us to do this” (Jewish Antiquities XV.259).

Salome, in turn, had a grandniece named Herodias. See N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 189, the chart. It has already been pointed out (Mark 6:17, 18) that she had rejected her husband Herod Philip and had married Herod Antipas. Herodias was partly Jewish.

But what was exceptional among Jews was very common among Greeks and Romans (cf. I Cor. 7:10, 13) … and is common today also. The principle which Jesus here enunciates is that such violations of the sacred institution of marriage, whether committed by the husband or by the wife, is adultery, an abomination in the eyes of the One who issued the creation and marriage ordinance (Gen. 1:27; 2:24; 5:2).

Thus, by means of a few simple words, Jesus discourages divorce, refutes the rabbinical misinterpretation of the law, reaffirms the law’s true meaning, censures the guilty party, defends the innocent, and throughout it all upholds the sacredness and inviolability of the marriage bond as ordained by God.

A few additional remarks are in order:

a. In verses 11, 12 the rights of the husband and the wife are equally balanced. Before God they are the same in worth. Is the husband “an heir to the grace of life”? The wife is “a fellow-heir” (I Peter 3:7). She is not her husband’s property. She is his partner. To be sure, the husband remains “the head of the wife” (Eph. 5:22, 23), but before the Lord both are equally precious. A wife who has by sovereign grace accepted Jesus as her Lord and Savior does not feel any need to join the so-called Women’s Liberation Movement. The Bible offers her something far better.

b. On the one hand Jesus regards the break-up of a marriage to be a most serious matter, an abomination. Yet, on the other hand that same uncompromising Lord is also the merciful Savior, who comforts the heart of the penitent sinner by saying, “Go, and from now on sin no more” (John 8:10, 11).⁴⁵⁶

c. Is there any thought connection between the end of Mark 9—“And be at peace with each other”—and the opening paragraph (verses 1–12) of Mark 10? Probably not. Nevertheless, is not Christian marriage the divine institution in which peace and love, harmony and devotion, are most marvelously displayed … as every supremely happy Christian couple can testify?

10:13–16 Jesus and the Children

Cf. Matt. 19:13–15; Luke 18:15–17

13 And they were bringing little children to him, for him to touch. But the disciples rebuked (those who brought) them. 14 Now when Jesus saw this he became indignant, and said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and stop hindering them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 15 I solemnly declare to you, whoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall never enter it.” 16 And having taken them in his arms he tenderly blessed them one by one, laying his bands upon them.

So closely do the three accounts resemble each other that literary relationship is probable. Yet, so distinct is each, in comparison with the other two, that it is once again apparent that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, each evangelist selected his material as he saw fit.

As to Mark 10:13, where Mark and Luke have “touch” (“for him to touch”), Matthew provides a fuller explanation by expanding this into “lay his hands (on them) and pray.” Mark’s statement (verse 14) that when Jesus saw his disciples’ rude behavior he “became indignant” is not paralleled in Matthew and Luke. Neither is Luke’s remark, “But Jesus called them [the infants with those who brought them] to him” duplicated in Matthew and Mark. Our Lord’s gracious invitation, “Let the little children come to me, …” is reproduced almost identically in all three Gospels. Mark 10:15 = Luke 18:17, not found in Matthew, but cf. Mat. 18:3. At this point Luke’s report of this incident ends. Matt. 19:15 adds, “And he laid his hands on them and went away from there.” Mark alone has retained the unforgettably beautiful touch, “And having taken them in his arms he tenderly blessed them one by one, laying his hands upon them” (verse 16). Whatever one may think about the possibility of a connection between the last clause of 9:50 and the opening paragraph of chapter 10, the appropriateness of the sequence marriage (10:1–12), children (verses 13–16), and property (verses 17–31) is readily apparent.

13. And they were bringing little children to him, for him to touch. Note complete absence of time or place indications. On the basis of 10:1, 32, a reasonable assumption is that the incident here reported took place in a house in Perea while Jesus and The Twelve were traveling south toward Jerusalem. Was it perhaps the house mentioned in 10:10, and did the two incidents (verses 1–12; 13–16) happen in close succession?

Luke 18:15 makes clear that the “little children” that were brought⁴⁵⁷ to Jesus were actually infants.

These little ones were brought to Jesus, presumably by their parents or other close relatives, “that he might touch them,” or “for him to touch,” meaning, as has been indicated, for him to place his hands on them while asking the Father to bless them.

There was nothing magical about Christ’s touch. It was mainly by means of his further action, his word of prayer, that these infants were blessed. All the same, the touch must have been a very tender one. It was far more than a mere touch, as verse 16 clearly indicates. It may therefore be considered part of the blessing the children received. See also on 1:41.

But the disciples rebuked⁴⁵⁸ (those who brought) them. They rebuked not the children, of course, but their parents and in general all who brought them. Were these disciples standing at the doorway of a house (cf. 10:10) and were they with angry gestures shooing away those who approached with children in their arms? The reaction of these disciples was rather characteristic of them: they did not want to be bothered; also, they did not want their Master to be bothered by such unimportant (?) creatures as infants! See above, on 6:37a.

14. Now when Jesus saw this he became indignant.… Jesus took note of this reaction on the part of The Twelve, and did not like it at all. In fact, he “became indignant.”⁴⁵⁹ Cf. 3:5, where a synonym is used. See also what is said about Christ’s sighing (8:12) and cf. 14:33 f. Of course, this indignation of our Lord was a concomitant of his love. He was angry with his disciples because he loved so deeply and tenderly the little ones and the ones who brought them.

Continued: and said to them, Let the little children come to me, and stop hindering them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. “Let⁴⁶⁰ the little children come to me.” The reason Jesus gives for ordering the disciples to allow the little children to come to him and to stop hindering them is “for to such—that is, to them and to all those who in humble trustfulness are like them—belongs the kingdom of God.” For the meaning of “the kingdom of God” see on 1:15. In the present case the verse means that in principle all the blessings of salvation belong even now to these little ones, a fact that was to be realized progressively here on earth and perfectly in the hereafter.

15. I solemnly declare to you, whoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall never enter it. For the introductory formula see on 3:28. Receiving the kingdom of God as a little child means to accept it with genuine trustful simplicity, with unassuming humility.

The gold pieces were piled up on the outside windowsill. “Take One,” said the sign. All day long people passed by thinking, “This fellow can’t fool me.” Evening fell, and the owner was about to remove the pile. But just before he did, a child came by, read the sign, and calmly, without the least hesitancy, took one!

There has been some dispute about the exact meaning of the words as they occur in the original. Grammatically, the saying could be read to mean, “Whoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as one receives a little child shall never enter it.” But the very context and also such near-parallels as Matt. 11:25; 18:3 (cf. John 3:3, 5) clearly show that Jesus is talking about the simple, humble, unquestioning, trustful manner in which a child accepts what is offered to him.

Another attractive interpretation that is probably also wrong is this, “Whoever does not receive the present kingdom as a gift shall never enter the future kingdom.” This division of the kingdom idea into two phases, within a short sentence, is rather unnatural. Far more simple is the meaning: the only possible way to enter the kingdom is by accepting it readily and trustfully, as a child accepts it.

The kingdom is the rule of God in heart and life, together with all the blessings that result from this rule. The parallelism of Mark 9:45; 9:47—see on those passages—has made clear that “entering the kingdom” means “entering life,” that is, everlasting life. And a comparison between Matt. 19:24 and 19:25 shows that “entering the kingdom of God” amounts to “being saved.” According to John 17:3 “This is everlasting life, that they should know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou didst send.” Such knowledge of or fellowship with God implies having freedom of access to his throne of grace (Rom. 5:2; Heb. 4:16), experiencing the love of God that is poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:5), being transformed into the image of Christ (II Cor. 3:18), being illumined by the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ (II Cor. 4:6), possessing the peace of God that passes all understanding (Phil. 4:7) and the joy unspeakable and full of glory (I Peter 1:8). At Christ’s return a transformed body and a new heaven and earth for both body and soul are added (Rom. 8:23; Eph. 1:14; Phil. 3:21; II Peter 3:13; Rev. 21:1 f.).

16. And having taken them in his arms he tenderly blessed them one by one, laying his hands upon them. By means of a careful use of tenses⁴⁶¹ Mark draws a delightful picture, as will become clear.

Not only has Jesus rebuked the disciples for their attempt to prevent the little ones from being brought to him, but he has also actually called to himself these infants together with those who wanted to bring them to him Luke 18:16). And now each mother or father, etc., carries his little child into the very presence of Jesus; that is, each does this in turn. The Master takes the first child in his arm and places the hand of his other arm upon its head. Then he tenderly—or fervently—blesses it, by means of uttering a brief but earnest prayer to the Father, that his blessing may be bestowed on it (probably implied in Matt. 19:13). While he does this, his heart, filled with love and compassion, goes out to this little one. Finished, he returns the child to the one who had brought it. He then treats the next little one in the same manner, and the next, until all have been blessed. It must have been a most impressive, comforting, and memorable scene.

The fact that the Lord regarded these little children that were brought to him as being already “in” the kingdom, as being even now members of his church, must not escape our attention. He definitely did not view them as “little heathen,” who were living outside of the realm of salvation until by an act of their own they would “join the church.” He regarded them as “holy seed” (see I Cor. 7:14). How wonderful that in later years believing parents would be able to say to such a child, now arrived at the age of understanding, “Think of it, when you, my child, were just a suckling, Jesus took you in his arms and blessed you. Then already you were the object of God’s tender love. And he has been with you ever since. What, then, is your response?”

On the basis of such a passage as Mark 10:13, 14—to which should be added Gen. 17:7, 12; Ps. 103:17; 105:6–10; Isa. 59:21; Acts 2:38, 39; 16:15, 33; I Cor. 1:16; Col. 2:11, 12—the belief that since the little children of believers belong to God’s church and to his covenant, baptism, the sign and seal of such belonging, should not be withheld from them, must be regarded as well-founded. In later years, through parental, etc. instruction applied to the heart by the Holy Spirit, the divine blessing received earlier becomes a mighty incentive to wholehearted personal surrender to Christ.

What Jesus Did for the Family

1. He honored the marriage bond, declaring its indissolubility as a divine institution (Mark 10:5–9).

2. To husband and wife he accorded equal standing before God (Mark 10:11, 12).

3. He assumed that parents would be kind to their children, and would provide them with whatever was best for them (Matt. 7:9–11).

4. Over against Pharisees and scribes he re-emphasized the divine rule that children should honor their parents (Mark 7:6–13).

5. He reinforced this rule by his own example, being obedient to his parents, and even on the cross tenderly providing for his mother (Luke 2:51; John 19:26, 27).

6. He loved the little ones, took them into his arms, and tenderly blessed them (Mark 10:13–16).

7. When children shouted Hosannas in his honor, he defended them over against the chief priests and the scribes (Matt. 21:15, 16).

8. He insisted, however, that the ties that pertain to earthly family life are superseded by those that knit together the members of the spiritual family (Mark 3:31–35; cf. Matt. 7:11; 10:37; and see N.T.C. on Eph. 3:14, 15). Consequently, he regarded the earthly family as a training school for the heavenly.

10:17–31 The Peril of Riches and the Reward of Sacrifice

Cf. Matt. 19:16–30; Luke 18:18–30

17 And as he [Jesus] started out on the road a man ran up to him, fell on his knees before him, and was asking him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit everlasting life?” 18 Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except One—God. 19 You know the commandments: You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not defraud, honor your father and your mother.” 20 “Teacher,” he said to him, “All these things have I observed ever since I was a child.” 21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said to him, “Go, sell whatever you have and give (the proceeds) to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22 But he, crestfallen because of these words, went away sorrowful,⁴⁶² for he possessed much property.

23 Looking around, Jesus said to his disciples, “How hard it will be for those who possess wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” 24 The disciples were startled at these words. But Jesus continued and said to them, “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 Shocked even more they said to each other, “Then who can be saved?” 27 Fastening his eyes on them Jesus said, “With men (this is) impossible but not with God, for with God all things are possible.”

28 Peter began to say⁴⁶³ to him, “Look, we have given up everything, and followed thee.” 29 Jesus replied, “I solemnly declare to you, there is no one who has given up house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for my sake and for the gospel’s sake, 30 who shall not receive a hundredfold; now in this time: houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and fields, along with persecutions; and in the age to come everlasting life. 31 But many that are first shall be last, and (many) last first.”

With reference to Mark’s account of this event, as compared with Matthew’s, a controversy has been raging for many years. It is therefore important that even before entering into the exegesis of the individual passages certain statistics be disclosed.

A comparative study at once reveals that Mark’s account is by far the longest and most detailed of the three. According to Grk.N.T. (A-B-M-W) Mark uses 270 words, Matthew 234 (when unparalleled Matt. 19:28 is subtracted from the total), and Luke 201. It is immediately apparent, therefore, that both Matthew and Luke may be considered abbreviated reports. This process of abbreviation concerns not just one item—for example, Matt. 19:16, 17a; cf. Mark 10:17b, 18—but the entire report, from beginning to end. As to the passage just mentioned, see below, on Mark 10:17, 18.

Continuing with Matt. 19, we notice that in verses 18, 19 the former publican omits “you shall not defraud” (Mark 10:19), but adds the summary of the second table of the decalog, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” In verse 20 Matthew again abbreviates, leaving out Mark’s “ever since I was a child,” but adding, “(The young man said) … what do I still lack?” Or, more accurately, according to Matt. 19:20 this “lack” is first of all a matter about which the young man makes enquiry. Christ’s command follows in verse 21. According to Mark 10:21 it is simply a matter in connection with which Jesus issues a command.

Verses 21, 22, and 23 in both Gospels (Matt. 19; Mark 10) are almost the same in substance, though each evangelist employs his own phraseology. In verse 21, however, Matthew represents Jesus as having prefaced the command to the young man with the words, “If you wish to be perfect.” Cf. Matt. 5:48. Mark, on the other hand, makes the verse begin with the unforgettable words, “Jesus looked at him and loved him.” This is followed by, “One thing you lack … Go, sell.…” The young man’s sorrowful departure is described in verse 22, the meaning being identical in both Gospels. Mark’s language, however, as often, is more descriptive and striking: the young man departs crestfallen. Similarly, in verse 23, which according to both of these Gospels records the saying of Jesus that it will be hard for “a rich man” (thus Matthew), or for “those who possess wealth” (thus Mark), to enter the kingdom of “heaven” (Matthew), or of “God” (Mark), it is again Mark who most vividly portrays the scene by writing, “Looking around, Jesus said.…”

The saying “How hard” or “it will be hard …” is by Matthew reported once (19:23), but by Mark twice, though with variation (10:23, 24). Similarly, the startled reaction of the disciples is by Matthew reported once (19:25), by Mark twice (10:24, 26). Christ’s saying, “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” (verse 24 in Matthew) is almost identical with the one found in Mark (verse 25). The disciples’ exclamation “Then who can be saved?” is found both in Matthew (verse 25) and Mark (verse 26). According to Mark (verse 27) Jesus replies, “With men (this is) impossible but not with God, for with God all things are possible,” a reply found also in Matthew, but again in abbreviated form (verse 26).

Finally, though it is true that Matthew, in verse 27, adds, “What then shall we have?” (only four words in Greek), a question not found in Mark, nevertheless when Matthew’s 29th verse is compared with its parallel, verses 29 and 30 in Mark, it will become apparent that after “shall receive a hundredfold,” Matthew has “and in the age to come everlasting life,” while Mark has no less than 26 words (in the original): “now in this present age: houses and brothers.…” Compare also verse 29 of both Gospels (Matt. 19:29; Mark 10:29): Mark’s “for my sake and for the gospel’s sake” is in Matthew shortened to “for my name’s sake.”

When we now turn to Luke’s account (18:18–30), what strikes us immediately is that no less than three-fourths of that evangelist’s words are those that occur also in Mark’s report. The theory according to which Luke, in composing his book, actually had Mark’s Gospel in front of him, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit adapted it to his own use, seems altogether probable.

As to the differences between Mark’s account and Luke’s, in the main they are as follows: When Mark 10:17 is compared with Luke 18:18, it becomes clear that “the beloved physician” omitted the graphic description by means of which Mark introduced the rich young man. Yet, it is to Luke that we owe the information that this rich man was “a ruler.” In verse 20 Luke mentions the command “You shall not commit adultery” before “You shall not kill.” He omits Mark’s “You shall not defraud.” In verse 22 Luke omits Mark’s interesting statement, “Jesus looked at him and loved him.” In verse 23 Luke pictures the disappointed ruler as being “very sad” but does not repeat Mark’s graphic touch, “His countenance fell.” Luke has nothing that corresponds to Mark’s (10:23) “Looking around he [Jesus] said.…” The remark of Jesus, “How hard it is …” is mentioned only once by Luke, not twice (with variations) as in Mark 10:23, 24. Mark mentions the disciples’ startled reaction twice (10:24, 26), Matthew once (19:25), Luke (see 18:24–26) not at all. The latter uses a different word (in the original) for “needle” (see the original of verse 25 in both Mark and Luke). Verse 27 in both Mark and Luke illustrates the manner in which Luke abbreviates: Mark has, “Fastening his eyes on them Jesus said, ‘With men (this is) impossible but not with God, for with God all things are possible.’ ” Luke writes, “What is impossible with men is possible with God.” In verse 29 of both Gospels Luke reduces Mark’s list of seven items to five, omitting any reference to sisters and to fields, and also leaving out “with persecutions.” Also, Luke does not repeat the list of promised goods, as Mark virtually does in 10:30. And instead of Mark’s longer expression “for my sake and for the gospel’s sake” Luke writes the shorter “for the kingdom of God’s sake.” Finally, in verse 30 Luke substitutes “many times as much” for Mark’s “a hundred times as much” or “hundredfold.”

It has become clear, therefore, that both in Matthew and in Luke the event described in Mark 10:17–31 appears in greatly reduced form. Luke’s account is the shortest of all three, but even Matthew omits much of that which is found in Mark.

Here, however, we should be careful. The remark is often made that these Matthean and Lucan omissions were made because Mark’s additional material was considered “superfluous,” “merely repetitious,” and therefore altogether “unnecessary.” In so judging, are we not in danger of belittling Mark and along with this, in rejecting divine inspiration? Read Mark’s account again, including, for example, the supposedly “repetitious” passage 10:23–27. Does this passage not immediately strike the unbiased reader as being a very true and natural report of what actually happened? Why should it be difficult to believe that Jesus, having first said, “How hard it will be for those who possess wealth to enter the kingdom of God!,” and having taken note of the startled expression in the eyes of The Twelve, then continued by saying, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!”? Similarly, it certainly is not at all unnatural for the disciples to have been “startled” when the Master pointed out how difficult it was for the rich to enter the kingdom, and a little later to have been “shocked even more” when Jesus added, “It is easier for a camel.…” Similarly, it should not at all be hard to believe that the statement regarding things given up (Mark 10:29) was repeated and gloriously expanded (note: “and in the age to come everlasting life”) in the next verse.

What Mark writes must therefore be considered vivid, beautiful, historical, fully inspired. The fact that Matthew and Luke did not deem it necessary to repeat all this material was not because they considered it superfluous or unworthy, but because in their respective Gospels they wanted to save space for other material; for example, Matthew, for Christ’s discourses; Luke, for many unforgettable parables. They therefore reproduced only the main outline of the story. The Holy Spirit guided all three.

17. And as he [Jesus] started out on the road a man ran up to him, fell on his knees before him, and was asking him, Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit everlasting life?

It may well have been from the very house mentioned in 10:10 that Jesus and The Twelve (see verse 23) now proceed on their way. Mark’s Gospel leaves the impression that the event recorded in verses 17–31 took place immediately, or almost immediately, after the bestowal of a blessing upon the little children. If so, then the sequence marriage, children, and material possessions, a very natural chain, becomes even more unforgettable.

As the little group was leaving, someone⁴⁶⁴ ran—or rushed—up to Jesus. Less dramatically Matthew says came up to him. The stranger who did this is by Matthew called a young man (19:20), by Luke a ruler (18:18), and is by all three described as a very rich person, one who owned much property (Matt. 19:22; Mark 10:22; Luke 18:23). Therefore the composite title “rich young ruler” is generally applied to him. He was probably one of the officials in charge of the local synagogue.

Mark’s description of this ruler’s action is the most vivid of the three accounts. As he tells it, not only did this young man run up to Jesus, he also dropped to his knees in front of him, just as the leper had done (1:40). As he did this he “was asking”⁴⁶⁵ him a question. In view of this ruler’s highly emotional state, shown by his running and dropping to his knees, he may well have been gasping out the question that was disturbing his heart and mind. He addresses Jesus as “Good Teacher,” by Matthew abbreviated to “Teacher.” Since his manner of addressing Jesus is intimately linked with the latter’s reply (verse 18), I shall for the moment reserve any further comments on it. The young man continues, “ … what shall I do that I may inherit everlasting life—or, according to the order of the words in the original, life everlasting—?”

The present passage and verse 30 (cf. Matt. 19:16, 29; Luke 18:18, 30, but see also, in a different context, Luke 10:25) are the only ones in which Mark makes use of the full term “life everlasting.” It is the very term which the apostle John uses again and again (John 3:15, 16, 36, etc.). However, the simple term “life” occurs in Mark 9:43, 45, probably in about the same sense as “life everlasting.” Hence, for the meaning of this term in the teaching of Jesus see above on these (Mark 9) passages.

It would be erroneous, however, to assume that the term “life everlasting,” as used by the rich young ruler, had the same fulness of meaning as it has in Christ’s teaching. Exactly what the anxious enquirer meant by it we do not know. In order to discover what it may have meant to him it should be borne in mind that he had undoubtedly been instructed by the Pharisaic scribes. The best informed among them knew that the concept “life everlasting” had its origin in what we now call the Old Testament. Dan. 12:2 mentions it in connection with the resurrection of God’s faithful children: “And many that shall sleep in the dust of the earth shall awaken, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” And, to give but one example from apocryphal literature, II Macc. 7:9 states, “The King of the world shall raise us up … unto an everlasting renewal of life.” It may be taken for granted, therefore, that by those who were well acquainted with Jewish religious literature the term “life everlasting” was associated with the resurrection. The rich young ruler’s question can therefore perhaps be paraphrased as follows, “What must I do in order to become a partaker of salvation at the close of the age?” Coupled with this was undoubtedly the yearning to gain assurance in the here and now that he was indeed headed in the right direction toward that ultimate destiny. For the moment at least he seemed to be willing to do most anything that was necessary to reach this goal. He wanted peace of mind for the present and never-ending blessedness for the future.⁴⁶⁶

It is time now to return to the manner in which this rich young ruler opens the conversation. It has been mentioned that he addresses Jesus as “Good Teacher.” The designation “Teacher” or “Master” (cf. 4:38; 5:35; 9:17, 38; 10:20, 35; 12:14, 19, 32; 13:1; 14:14) was entirely proper. See above, on 4:38b, including footnote 172. Jesus was—and is—indeed The Teacher (Matt. 26:55; Mark 14:49; Luke 11:1; John 3:2; 7:35; Acts 1:1). To a certain extent this fact was even acknowledged by his opponents (Matt. 22:16). He was indeed The Prophet sent from God. See also N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 82, 83.

According to Mark’s report, however, the enthusiastic enquirer attaches an adjective to the noun: he addresses Jesus as “Good Teacher.” Of course, this too was true, but evidently not in the sense meant by the young man. At least, as will now be shown, Jesus is not at all satisfied with the manner in which the man addressed him.

18. Jesus said to him, Why do you call me good? No one is good except One—God. Does Jesus by means of this statement disclaim goodness and deity? Does he mean, “You should not have called me good, for God alone is good. I am not God; therefore I am not good”? Many have so interpreted Christ’s answer. They have concluded—with variations in minor details—that Jesus is here drawing “a tacit contrast between the absolute goodness of God and his own goodness as subject to growth and trial in the circumstances of the incarnation.”⁴⁶⁷ It will be recalled that the opening statement of Matthew’s report is different. The converted publican writes as follows: “And look, a man came up to him and asked, ‘Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may possess everlasting life?’ He answered him, ‘Why are you asking me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good, and if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments’ ” (19:16, 17).

In the opinion of many⁴⁶⁸ this means that for doctrinal reasons Matthew toned down Mark’s statement.

By no means is there agreement on this point, however. My own view agrees with that of those who say:

“Jesus says in effect, you are not conceiving of goodness in an adequate way when you so lightly address me as Good Teacher. If you wish to contemplate goodness, you should think of God who alone is good and of the keeping of his commandments.”

“Jesus’ concern is not to glorify himself but God: it is not to give any instruction concerning his own person whatever, but to indicate the published will of God as the sole and perfect prescription for the pleasing of God.”

“Christ wants the questioner to realize: Do not lightly—that is, without knowing to whom you are speaking—ascribe to me that which pertains alone to God.”

“Jesus intimates that the thoughtless use of the word ‘good’ in addressing one whom he regards as a human teacher, is an index of his [the ruler’s] superficial view of goodness.”⁴⁶⁹

Jesus knew that the rich young ruler, in addressing him as “Good Teacher,” was being very superficial. If this young man had really believed with all his heart that Jesus was good in the highest sense of the term, he would have obeyed the command the Lord was about to give him (see verses 21, 22). That same shallowness is evident also from the praise he bestows on himself (verse 20). The Master knew very well that if this enquirer was going to be saved, he must be confronted with the absolute standard of goodness, namely, the perfect law enacted by The Perfect One, God. That explains Christ’s answer.

Reasons why I accept this view and not the other:

a. Matthew’s omission of Christ’s reflection on the ruler’s manner of addressing him is in line with the fact that this Gospel writer, as has been shown, is constantly abbreviating. Matthew knew that this particular point, though important, was not of the highest importance. So he omits it.

b. If it were true that Matthew was trying to correct Mark, and this for doctrinal reasons, how is it to be explained that Luke, who was probably the last of the three to write a Gospel, retained Mark’s passage? He omitted even more than Matthew, but he took care that in substance his 18:19 was identical with Mark 10:18.

c. If it were true that Mark had a lower estimate of Jesus’ goodness and of his deity than did Matthew, this would be evident also elsewhere in Mark’s Gospel. But everywhere in that Gospel not only the spotless morality but also the divinity (in the highest sense) of Jesus is taught. See above, under Introduction III; also on 1:1; and N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 57–60. In fact, even in the present account Mark’s Christology is very high indeed: Jesus is the One to whom men must render unquestioning obedience, and for whose sake they must be willing to give up everything (verses 21, 29).

In answer to the ruler’s question, “ … what shall I do that I may inherit everlasting life?” Jesus now continues as follows: 19. You know the commandments: You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not defraud, honor your father and your mother.⁴⁷⁰ Just why it was that in all three accounts “Honor your father and your mother” is made the last of the regular Decalog commandments we do not know. Was there a special reason why in this particular case Jesus placed this commandment at the very close (except for the summary in Matthew)? Neither do we know why Jesus mentioned only the commandments of the second table. To the many guesses I wish to add one more: It was not necessary for Jesus to include the commandments relating to man’s duty with respect to God; for, failure to observe the second table implies failure to observe the first: “He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen” (I John 4:20).

According to Mark, in his recitation of these commandments Jesus also included “You shall not defraud.” Reasonable is the suggestion that this directive, not taken from the decalog but probably derived from such passages as Lev. 19:13; Deut. 24:14, 15; cf. James 5:4, represents the commandment “You shall not covet.”⁴⁷¹ When a person covets the goods belonging to another, does he not in heart and mind defraud the neighbor of that which belongs to him? This interpretation, though reasonable, is not entirely certain, however. The indicated passages (Lev. 19:13, etc.) refer to the evil of withholding from the laborer that which is due to him; that is, they refer to the sin of not paying (or underpaying) him. Considered in this light, “You shall not defraud” might be viewed as a modification of “You shall not steal.”⁴⁷² However, in that case the reason why this command follows “You shall not bear false witness” instead of “You shall not steal” is not clear.

Still another suggestion is that “You shall not defraud” is Mark’s method of reproducing Christ’s summary of the entire second table of the law. Cf. “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 19:19).⁴⁷³ Thus interpreted, the meaning would be, “Do not withhold from your neighbor the love you owe him.”

Interpreted in any of these various ways, the basic idea remains that the rich young ruler is reminded that both in heart and by deed he must give the neighbor whatever is due to him. In view of the fact that the enquirer was a very rich man, one who probably employed many people, and was besides, as will become clear, a person who clung tenaciously to all his possessions, the appropriateness of this command becomes clear.

The order has wide application in every age. Not only should we refrain from stealing another person’s possessions; we must also see to it that we do not withhold from the neighbor whatever should be his; whether that be his reputation, wages, knowledge of the gospel, assurance that he is being loved, help in time of need, etc., a big order indeed!

It is understandable that in answering the young man’s question Jesus starts out by referring him to the law of God, for “through the law comes the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20; cf. Gal. 3:24). However, not only does the law make us conscious of our sinful state, it also is a rule or norm of life—or “of gratitude”—for believers, constantly reminding them of their duties and serving as their guide while they gratefully tread salvation’s path.⁴⁷⁴

However, the law does not make us conscious of our sins if we fail to discern its real meaning, its depth, as set forth by Jesus in Matt. 5:21–48. That the young man’s attitude toward the law was of a superficial nature is clear from his reaction: 20. Teacher, he said to him, all these things have I observed ever since I was a child. Here superficial smugness is struggling with deep discontent, the latter made very clear by Matthew’s addition, “what do I still lack?” This young man tries to make himself believe that all is well; yet on the inside he is pathetically perturbed. Has he really loved his neighbor as himself, and not defrauded the neighbor by keeping from him that which was rightfully his? Why then this lack of peace of mind and heart that made him rush up to Jesus with a question borne of anxiety? He seems to be saying, “What additional good deed must I be doing over and above all those very many that I have already done, and this from my youth?”

The rich young ruler’s attitude toward the law reminds one of those who today are saying, “Inasmuch as I am now a saved person I have nothing whatever to do with the law.” Now it is indeed true that a genuinely regenerated and converted individual is free from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13), and in that sense is able to sing,

“Free from the law, O happy condition,

Jesus hath bled and there is remission.…”

P. P. Bliss

Nevertheless, day by day is it not the duty even of the man who has already been saved by grace to go back to the law, so that over and over again it may remind him of his sinfulness and drive him back to Christ for added strength and assurance? Is not that the Lesson of Rom. 7:7–25? Should not his daily confession be:

“Wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver

me from this body of death? But thanks be

to God through Jesus Christ our Lord”?

And can the rule “Love God above all, and your neighbor as yourself” ever become outdated? An inspiring song indeed, this “Free from the law.…” But it should be sung in conjunction with “O how love I thy law. It is my meditation all the day” (Ps. 19:7, 14, according to the versification of James McGranahan). If anyone thinks that Mark 12:30, 31; Luke 10:27; Rom. 13:8–10 are no longer applicable to believers, is he not just as superficial as was the rich young ruler? The latter thought that he had already observed the entire law and that he now needed to do something that went beyond it.

Continued: 21a. Jesus looked at him and loved him. Just what can this mean in the present connection? There are two ideas which require a word of comment:

a. Because Mark used a particular Greek verb and not another, the love here indicated is of the highest kind, “far beyond mere affection.”⁴⁷⁵ But see footnote.

b. The meaning is: Jesus fell in love with this young man.⁴⁷⁶ The Lord here and now began to love him. This possibility cannot be denied, but we must be careful. Otherwise a strange situation results, as if immediately after this man revealed his very superficial attitude toward God’s holy law, Jesus fell in love with him!

Is not the following explanation to be preferred? As the Savior allowed his gaze to rest on the rich young ruler, he loved him; that is, a. he admired him for not having fallen into gross outward sins and for having gone to the best possible source to obtain a solution to his problem; and b. he deeply, sorrowfully, ruefully pitied him, and decided to recommend to him a course of action which, if followed through, would solve his problem, and would give him the rest of soul he needed.

After saying, “Teacher, all these things I have observed ever since I was a child,” the young man had added, “what do I still lack?” (Matt. 19:20). Jesus is now about to answer that question. However, while linking his answer to the young man’s phraseology, the Master is not at all agreeing with that enquirer’s philosophy of life. To the young man, supplying this lack was a matter of addition. He wanted to know which meritorious deed he had to add to all the other fine deeds he had already performed. But to Jesus, taking care of this lack was a matter of substitution. Cf. Gal. 2:19–21; Phil. 3:7 f. It is in that sense that Mark now writes: 21b. One thing you lack,⁴⁷⁷ he said to him. Go, sell⁴⁷⁸ whatever you have and give (the proceeds) to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven⁴⁷⁹ …

The question may be asked, “But by thus instructing the young man was not Jesus endorsing the ‘salvation by good works’ doctrine?” Should he not rather have told him, “Trust in me”? The answer is that “Trust completely in me” was exactly what the Lord was telling him, for certainly without complete confidence in and self-surrender to the One who was issuing the order, the rich young ruler could not be expected to sell all he had and give the proceeds to the poor. This was the test. If he sustains it he will have “treasure in heaven.” The reference is to all those blessings that are heavenly in character, are in full measure reserved for God’s child in heaven, and of which we experience a foretaste even now. For more about this concept see N.T.C. on Matt. 6:19, 20. It is important to note that Jesus added, and come, follow me. Such “following,” to be accompanied by and to prepare for active witness-bearing, would imply that the young man must learn to “deny himself and take up his cross,” and would therefore no longer be able to devote himself to the service of Mammon.

The young man’s response was tragic. It showed that Christ’s command had been the arrow that wounded his Achilles’ heel, his most vulnerable spot, love of earthly possessions: 22. But he, crestfallen because of these words, went away sorrowful, for he possessed much property. Because of Christ’s command and the young man’s ingrained materialism, his countenance fell. It resembled a lowering cloud (cf. Matt. 16:3). As enthusiastic as he had been at first, so sad and sullen⁴⁸⁰ he was now, so that he departed sorrowful and aggrieved, probably thinking, “This requirement is not fair. None of the other rabbis would have demanded this much of me.”

The demand which Jesus had made on this bewildered man was suited to his particular circumstances and state of mind. The Lord does not ask every rich person—for example Abraham (Gen. 13:2), or Joseph of Arimathea (Matt. 27:57)—to do exactly this same thing. There are those opulent individuals who, speaking by and large, are living for themselves. What they contribute to the cause of others is wholly out of proportion to what they keep for themselves. There are other wealthy persons, however, who are willing to go all out in helping others, including even the ungenerous (Gen. 13:7–11; 14:14); and who, motivated by gratitude, are constantly building altars and bringing offerings to God (Gen. 12:8; 13:18; 15:10–12; 22:13). The young man “had much property.” He had it; it had him, holding him tightly in its grasp. It is clear that this young man needed exactly the treatment Jesus gave him.

Did the rich young ruler persist forever in his deplorable refusal? The answer has not been revealed. Some reason as follows: Scripture tells us that Jesus loved him (Mark 10:21). God loves the elect, no one else. Conclusion: this young man must have become converted.

But this amounts to superimposing an erroneous theological idea upon the text. If those who cling to it would be satisfied with the proposition that God loves in a peculiar way all those who place their trust in him (Ps. 103:13; I John 3:1), their teaching would be on firm ground. But when they go beyond this and deny that there is a love of God which extends beyond the sum-total of the elect, we must part company with them. See Ps. 145:9, 17; Matt. 5:45; Luke 6:35, 36. And since this is true, there is no basis whatever for believing that the rich young ruler must have become a believer before he died. Instead of speculating about what may or may not have happened, the lesson of Luke 13:23, 24 should be taken to heart. It is in that vein that Mark’s account now continues:

23. Looking around, Jesus said to his disciples, How hard it will be for those who possess wealth to enter the kingdom of God.

Jesus looked around. This is a vivid touch, such as we would expect from Mark, Peter’s interpreter.⁴⁸¹ Picture the scene: the rich young ruler has left, so that Jesus and The Twelve are alone once more. So, in connection with what has just happened the Master wishes to impress deeply upon the minds of his disciples: a. the significance of the young man’s sorrowful departure, and particularly b. the difficulty of entering the kingdom of God. As is clear from a comparison of verses 17, 23, and 26, entering that kingdom means obtaining a share in life everlasting. It means becoming saved, probably with emphasis on future salvation: becoming a partaker of ultimate bliss in the restored universe, and enjoying a foretaste of this even here and now. See also on 9:45, 47; 10:15. With what difficulty⁴⁸² those who possess an abundance of earthly wealth and continue to cling⁴⁸³ to it will enter that kingdom. Difficult indeed (verses 23, 24); impossible even (verses 25, 27).

24. The disciples were startled at these words. Viewed from the aspect of erroneous ideas regarding prosperity (wealth, health) that were current in those days, the fact that these men were amazed and perplexed is not surprising. Had not Israel received the promise that if it would hearken diligently to the voice of the Lord it would receive an abundance of material (as well as spiritual) blessings? See Deut. 28:1–14. Did not riches and honor come from God (I Chron. 29:12)? However, many people drew the wrong conclusion that individual prosperity was a sign of God’s favor and of virtue, and individual adversity a sign of God’s disfavor and of perversity. The friends of Job were of that opinion: “The wicked man will not be rich” (Job 15:29). “Whoever perished being innocent?” (4:7). See also Job 4:8; 5:2; 8:6, 7; 11:6; 15:20. That Christ’s contemporaries had imbibed some of this philosophy is clear from Luke 13:1–5; that it had even infected the thinking of The Twelve appears from John 9:1–3. If these people had made a more thorough study of the Old Testament they would have known better. See Ps. 73:12, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24. In line with this is Christ’s teaching recorded elsewhere; for example, his parable of The Rich Fool (Luke 12:16–21) and that of The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31).

It is in the light of the disciples’ erroneous philosophy that we can understand why they were amazed to hear Jesus declare that it would be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

But Jesus continued and said to them, Children, how hard it is⁴⁸⁴ to enter the kingdom of God. Note this tender introduction “Children.” The Master’s eyes were filled with tender affection. The Twelve were very dear to him; yet he knows how weak, how prone to error, they are. Cf. Ps. 103:13, 14; Mark 2:5; Luke 15:31; 16:25; John 13:33; Gal. 4:19, I John 2:1, 12, etc.

When Jesus continues, “How hard it is …” he is sharpening the edge of his previous saying. He is now telling the disciples that what holds for the rich is true with respect to all, namely, that it is very hard to enter the kingdom of God.

If they had listened carefully they would have realized that what Jesus was now saying did not differ essentially from what he said before, namely, in The Sermon on the Mount: “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide (is) the gate and broad the way that leads to destruction, and many are those that enter by it. For narrow (is) the gate and constricted the way that leads to life, and few are those who find it” (Matt. 7:13, 14).

Is it difficult to enter the kingdom of heaven? Yes, so difficult that for a rich man it will in a sense (see on verse 27) even be impossible; for Jesus continues: 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. It is, of course, entirely impossible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.⁴⁸⁵ Yet, even this, says Jesus, impossible as it is, would be easier than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. To explain what Jesus means it is useless and unwarranted to try to change “camel” into “cable”—see Matt. 23:24, where a real camel must have been meant—or to define the “needle’s eye” as the narrow gate in a city wall, a gate, so the reasoning goes, through which a camel can pass only on its knees and after its burden has been removed. Such “explanations” (?), aside from being objectionable from a linguistic point of view, strive to make possible what Jesus specifically declared to be impossible. The Lord clearly means that for a rich man in his own power to try to work or worm his way into the kingdom of God is impossible. So powerful is the hold which wealth has on the heart of the natural man! He is held fast by its bewitching charm, and is thereby prevented from obtaining the attitude of heart and mind necessary for entrance into God’s kingdom. See Matt. 6:24; cf. I Tim. 6:10. It should be noted that Jesus purposely speaks in absolute terms. A moment ago we used the phrase “in his own power.” Though in view of verse 27 this qualification does not need to be retracted, yet it should be pointed out that here in verse 25 Jesus does not thus qualify his assertion. He speaks in absolute terms in order all the more to impress upon the minds of the disciples that salvation, from start to finish, is not a human “achievement.” The fact that “man’s extremity is God’s opportunity” is reserved for later (see verse 27).

26. Shocked⁴⁸⁶ even more they said to each other, Then who can be saved? The disciples’ amazement, already present after Christ’s declaration of verse 23, increases to the point where these men are sorely perplexed, “knocked out of their senses.” The astonishment probably lasted for a little while. The Twelve drew the conclusion that if what Jesus had said was true, then no one could be saved. To reach that conclusion they probably reasoned: a. what Jesus said about rich men (verse 23) he had said about all men (verse 24); and b. though not all men are rich, even the poor yearn to become rich.

Christ’s beautiful and reassuring answer is found in verse 27. Fastening his eyes on⁴⁸⁷ them Jesus said, With men (this is) impossible but not with God, for with God all things are possible.

In this dramatic moment the eyes of Jesus, as he fixed them on his disciples, must have been filled with deep earnestness and tender love. When he now tells them, “With men this is impossible,” he means exactly that. At every point, beginning, middle, end, man is completely dependent on God for salvation. Of himself man can do nothing. If he is to be saved at all he must be born again or “from above” (John 3:3, 5). Even when by faith—God-given faith! (Eph. 2:8)—he reaches out to God, yet in order to do this he must be enabled and supported every day, hour, minute, and second by God’s omnipotent grace. For the religion of the rich young ruler (see verses 17, 20), which was the religion current among the Jews of that day and age, there is no room here. Whatever detracts from the sovereignty of God in the salvation of men stands condemned.

Glory be to God, however: there is a way out. What is impossible with men is possible with God, with whom all things are possible. It is he who, through Christ, is able to save to the uttermost (Heb. 7:25). His grace extends even to the determined and relentless persecutor Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9:1; 26:9–11; I Cor. 15:8–10; Gal. 1:15, 16; I Tim. 1:15). Just how, through the Mediator, this salvation is brought about, Jesus has already begun to reveal (Mark 8:31; 9:31). He will continue to do so with increasing clarity (see 10:32–34; especially 10:45; 14:22–24).

Peter is still thinking about the words which the Master had addressed to the rich young ruler (see verse 21). Jesus had asked him to sell all he had and give the proceeds to the poor, promising that if he did this he would have treasure in heaven.

So the story continues: 28. Peter began to say to him, Look, we have given up everything, and followed thee. According to Matt. 19:27 Peter added, “What then shall we have?” Had the Twelve not done exactly what Jesus had asked the young man to do? Had they not “left everything” and followed Jesus? The answer, then, would seem to be obvious, namely, that The Twelve would have treasure in heaven. Nevertheless, Peter seems not to have been entirely certain about this, for the Master had also declared that with men it is impossible to be saved, and that it is God, he alone, who imparts salvation (verses 23–25, 27).

Peter and the other disciples receive a very comforting answer. It is in the nature of a reassurance (verses 29, 30), followed by a warning (verse 31):

29, 30. Jesus replied, I solemnly declare to you, there is no one who has given up house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for my sake and for the gospel’s sake, who shall not receive a hundredfold; now in this time: houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and fields, along with persecutions; and in the age to come everlasting life.⁴⁸⁸

It is clear that this promise is for all true followers of the Lord (cf. Matt. 19:29). It is not (like Matt. 19:28) a promise for The Twelve alone. It is for all who have chosen Christ above all else, even above their dearest relatives and most cherished possessions. They have made a sacrifice, says Jesus, “for my sake and for the gospel’s sake,” meaning: they were motivated by love for me and for my message of salvation.

These loyal followers of the Lord are promised “a hundredfold,” that is, they will be reimbursed “many times over” (Luke 18:30). For “hundredfold” see also Gen. 26:12 and Matt. 13:8. Even in the present day (cf. Luke 18:30), that is, before the great day of judgment, and for each believer before his death, these loyal followers receive the blessings indicated in such passages as Prov. 15:16; 16:8; Matt. 7:7; John 17:3; Rom. 8:26–39; Phil. 4:7; I Tim. 6:6; Heb. 6:19, 20; 10:34; I Peter 1:8. In spite of the persecutions which they will have to endure, they will even be able to enjoy their material possessions (houses … fields) far more than the ungodly enjoy theirs. Reason? See Isa. 26:3; contrast 48:22. For the sake of Christ and his gospel has it become necessary to forsake close relatives? New “relatives” will now be theirs (Matt. 12:46–50; Mark 3:31–35; John 19:27; Rom. 16:13; I Cor. 4:15; Gal. 4:19; I Tim. 1:2; 5:2; II Tim. 2:1; Philem. 10; I Peter 5:13), relatives that belong to “the household of the faith” (Gal. 6:10), “the Father’s Family” (Eph. 2:19; 3:15).

In the age to come believers are going to receive life everlasting. See on verse 17 and on 9:43, 45. In principle they have it here and now, but in a far more abundant and ever increasing measure they will have it in the hereafter. It should be borne in mind that the concept “life everlasting” is both quantitative and qualitative, with emphasis on the latter. It is the holiness, knowledge, fellowship, peace, joy, etc. pertaining to the life of all those who are in Christ, and as such a life that will last on and on and on forever and ever.

31. But many that are first shall be last, and (many) last first.

When Peter said, “Look, we have left everything and followed thee; what then shall we have?” (Mark 10:28; cf. Matt. 19:27), was his question the product of holy curiosity, or, in whatever slight degree, of a mercantile spirit? The division of opinion among commentators in their attempt to answer this question is most interesting. Some, in their zeal to defend Peter against every charge, go so far as to say that those who distrust Peter’s motives are judging others by their own ethical standards. Others go to the opposite extreme and regard Christ’s saying here in Mark 10:31, and also the parable in Matt. 20:1–16, to be inexplicable unless Peter’s worldly motivation be taken into account. May not the best procedure be the following: A man is innocent unless his guilt can be established beyond any reasonable doubt? Accordingly, we have no right to charge Peter with anything wrong. On the other hand, it is also true that his question, though purely motivated, may have occasioned the warning that is found in the verse we are about to consider. Jesus may well have meant something on this order: “Peter, your question, ‘What then shall we have?’ is right and proper. Nevertheless, since it is so easy to fall into the error of expecting a reward based on supposed merit, I must warn you, so that you may not be caught unawares.” Besides, is it not possible that the undoubtedly mercantile attitude of the rich young ruler (verse 17) may have caused Jesus to issue a needed warning?

As to the saying itself, we are reminded of the words of Jehovah addressed to Samuel, “Jehovah does not see as man sees; man looks on the outward appearance, but Jehovah looks on the heart” (I Sam. 16:7). The “first” are those who because of their wealth, education, position, prestige, talents, etc., are highly regarded by men in general, sometimes even by God’s children. But since God sees and knows the heart many of these very people are by him assigned to a position behind the others; in fact, some may ever be altogether excluded from the halls of glory. Cf. Matt. 7:21–23.

There does not seem to be any good reason for saying that Jesus meant that all of those who “shall be last” are going to be lost or outside the kingdom. Fact is: not only are there degrees of suffering in hell (Luke 12:47, 48), there are also degrees of glory in the restored universe (I Cor. 15:41, 42). There will be surprises however. Not only will many of those who are now regarded as the very pillars of the church be last, but also many who never made the headlines—think of the poor widow who contributed “two mites” (Mark 12:42), and Mary of Bethany whose act of loving lavishness was roundly criticized by the disciples (Matt. 26:8)—shall be first on the day of judgment (Mark 12:43, 44; cf. Matt. 26:10–13). The disciples, who were constantly quarreling about rank (Mark 9:33 f.; Matt. 18:1 f.; 20:20; Luke 22:24) better take note!

10:32–34 The Third Prediction of the Passion and the Resurrection

Cf. Matt. 20:17–19; Luke 18:31–34

32 They were on the road going up to Jerusalem. Jesus was taking the lead; the disciples were amazed, and those who followed were afraid. Again he took the twelve aside and began to tell⁴⁸⁹ them what was going to happen to him: 33 “Listen, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes. They shall condemn him to death and hand him over to the Gentiles, 34 who shall mock him and spit upon him and scourge him and kill him; and three days later he shall rise again.”

32. They were on the road going up to Jerusalem. Jesus was taking the lead; the disciples were amazed, and those who followed were afraid.

Though the time and place indication is indefinite, Passover seems to be drawing near. Was it perhaps sometime in March?

Here again Mark’s description is more graphic and detailed than either Matthew’s or Luke’s. He is describing the trip from Perea via Jericho to Jerusalem. “Going up to Jerusalem” (John 2:13; 5:1; 11:55; Acts 11:2; 25:1, 9; Gal. 2:1) must be understood as having reference not only to physical ascent, Jerusalem being situated on higher ground, so that from whatever side one approaches it, that approach is always an ascent; it is far more than that. It must be interpreted as a matter not just pertaining to the feet (Ps. 122:2), but also—in fact especially—to the heart (Ps. 84:5). In Jerusalem was God’s temple! When in connection with the great feasts pilgrims wended their way to Jerusalem, they were going there to worship, which included the bringing of an offering. Jesus, too, is now “going up to Jerusalem,” to bring himself as an offering for “the sin of the world.” See Isa. 53:10; John 1:29.

He, as the Good Shepherd, is taking the lead. He is heading the procession (John 10:4). He walks with resolute steps. Stedfastly he sets his face to go to Jerusalem (cf. Luke 9:51). There, in Jerusalem, he is … shall we say “going to die”? Yes, but even better: he is going to lay down his life (John 10:11, 15).

Matters are becoming very serious now. The atmosphere is tense. The Twelve are amazed. Amazed about what? Undoubtedly about the unwavering advance of their Leader. There must have been something about the bearing of Jesus—the look in his eyes, the manner of his walk—that explains this amazement. Those who belonged to the wider circle of his followers (see Luke 6:13; 10:1) are afraid. In view of John 9:22; 11:8, 57 their consternation and alarm is understandable. Going to Jerusalem in the company of Jesus is risky!⁴⁹⁰

Continued: Again he took the twelve aside and began to tell them what was going to happen to him.⁴⁹¹ Since the Lord knows that it would not be wise to make the announcement of his suffering and death to all the followers (8:30), he takes The Twelve aside, so that in private (cf. Matt. 20:17) he may give them detailed information regarding his approaching agony. Note “again,” for this was not the only time that Jesus made a temporary separation between groups of followers, or even within a group. See Mark 3:13 (cf. Luke 6:13); 4:35, 36; 5:37, 40; 6:31, 45; 7:17, 33; 9:2; 14:32, 33; and see also 9:30. Specifically, “again,” for the two previous lessons about the cross had also been given privately, to The Twelve.

What Jesus told The Twelve was: 33, 34. Listen,⁴⁹² we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes. They shall condemn him to death and hand him over to the Gentiles, who shall mock him and spit upon him and scourge him and kill him; and three days later he shall rise again.

It will be recalled that somewhere in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi, immediately after Peter’s confession, “Thou art the Christ,” Jesus had made his first prediction with respect to his coming passion and resurrection. That prediction (Mark 8:31) emphasized the necessity of these events. A little later, after Christ’s transfiguration and the healing of the epileptic boy, and while Jesus was traveling through Galilee, he had made his second prediction, stressing the certainty of his approaching death and resurrection (9:31), and adding a new element, namely, that he, the Son of man, was about to be betrayed into the hands of men.

The present passage (10:33, 34) contains the third prediction. It is by far the most detailed. Of its seven distinguishable items the first prediction mentioned only Nos. 2, 6, 7; the second only Nos. 1, 6, 7. The seven items, as Mark has recorded them, together with a reference to their fulfilment, are as follows:

Mark
10:33	1. The Son of man shall be handed over or betrayed into the hands of the chief priests and the scribes. Fulfilment Mark 14:53.
10:33	2. They shall condemn him to death. Fulfilment 14:55–64.
10:33	3. And shall hand him over to the Gentiles. Fulfilment 15:1.
10:34	4. They shall mock him and spit upon him. Fulfilment 15:16–20. Cf. 14:65; 15:29–32.
10:34	5. And shall scourge him. Fulfilment 15:15.
10:34	6. And kill (“crucify,” Matt. 20:19) him. Fulfilment 15:24, 37.
10:34	7. Three days later he shall rise again. Fulfilment 16:1 ff.

A few remarks about each of these:

For “the Son of man” see on 2:10 and on Matt. 8:20. The expression “the chief priests and scribes” replaces the fuller designation of the first prediction: “the elders and the chief priests and the scribes.” In both cases the reference is to the Sanhedrin, the Supreme Court of the Jews. Here, in the third prediction, the elders are omitted, perhaps because they were the least important of the three, or perhaps in order to stress the fact that Jesus was going to be handed over⁴⁹³ to the spiritual leaders of the people: the chief priests and the scribes. They surely should have known better!

The prediction that the members of this Supreme Court would condemn Jesus to death indicates that there was going to be a trial, and that at this trial the death penalty would be pronounced upon Jesus.

Since the Romans did not allow the Jews to carry out the death sentence, the Jewish authorities were in turn going to hand Jesus over⁴⁹⁴ to the Gentiles, that is, in the present case to Pilate and those who carried out his commands.

Jesus also predicted that these Gentiles would mock him and spit upon him. In the fulfilment passages these two—being mocked and being spit upon—are mentioned together, and not in immediate connection with the scourging. Cf. 15:16–20 with 15:15. And cf. Matt. 27:27–31 with 27:26. For the mockery by Herod see Luke 23:11.

The scourging of which Jesus speaks was a prelude to the crucifixion. See Mark 15:15; cf. Matt. 27:26. Items 5 and 6 can therefore also be combined, yielding 6 instead of 7 items.

This prediction, as well as the previous ones (Mark 8:31; 9:31), ends on a note of triumph: he shall rise again.⁴⁹⁵

The question now arises, “How must we conceive of this very detailed passion announcement?” Was it really a prediction? Or was it rather, at least to a certain extent, a vaticinium ex eventu, that is, “a prophecy arising out of—and therefore made after—the event” to which it refers? That it was the latter is the opinion of many.⁴⁹⁶ In one way or another, the suggestion is offered that although Jesus in a very general way did indeed predict his suffering, death, and resurrection, he did not predict it in this detailed form.

The question arises, “Why not?” He who knew beforehand exactly where a certain fish would be swimming at a definite moment of time and what it would have in its mouth (Matt. 17:27), how often a strange woman whom he had never met before had been married (John 4:17, 18), where a colt would be and what its owners would say to those who tried to untie it (Mark 11:1–7), and what kind of pitcher-bearer two disciples would meet as they entered the city of Jerusalem (Mark 14:12–16); he who was able to forecast the very manner of Jerusalem’s fall (Matt. 21:40–43; 22:7; 23:37, 38; 24:1, 2, 15; Mark 13:1, 2; Luke 19:41–44), and the victorious march of the gospel along the path of the centuries (Matt. 24:14), would he not have been able to predict the details of his own imminent passion, not even after two messengers from heaven had discussed these matters with him (Luke 9:31)? I take it that what is here presented as prediction was exactly that. “A prophecy that grows out of an event” is no prophecy at all!

It would be inexcusable to close the treatment of this precious passage (10:32–34) without showing what it implies with respect to the majesty of Christ’s love. The prediction, as has been shown, is far more detailed than the previous ones. The gradual revelation of the approaching events had a pedagogical purpose, as has been indicated. See on 8:31, 32a. But the possibility must also be granted that even in the human consciousness of our Lord the “feel” of the approaching horror was little by little becoming more real. There was nothing static about the mind of Jesus. See Luke 2:52; Heb. 5:8. Even this third prediction, though indeed very comprehensive and detailed, does not necessarily prove that in the mind of Jesus the image of impending distress was already as vivid as it would be in Gethsemane.

Nevertheless, even now the horror must have been very real and very terrifying. See Luke 12:50. The man of sorrows sees it coming toward him. He already senses something of the perfidy, the hypocrisy, the calumny, the mockery, the pain, and the shame which like an avalanche threatens to overwhelm him. Yet, he does not retreat or even stand still. With unflinching determination he walks right into it, for he knows that this is necessary in order that his people may be saved. “Having loved his own … he loved them to the uttermost” (John 13:1).

10:35–45 The Request of the Sons of Zebedee

Cf. Matt. 20:20–28

35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, approached him, saying, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask.” 36 He said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” 37 They told him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right and one at your left in your glory.” 38 But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking for yourselves. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39 They answered, “We are able.” Then Jesus told them, “The cup which I drink you shall drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you shall be baptized; 40 but to sit at my right and at my left is not for me to grant, but is for those for whom it has been prepared.”

41 Now when the ten heard (what had happened) they were angry at James and John. 42 So Jesus called them (all) to him and said to them, “You know that the so-called⁴⁹⁷ rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men keep them under their despotic power. 43 Not like that is it among you; rather, whoever wishes to become great among you let him be your servant, 44 and whoever wishes to be first among you let him be the humble attendant of all. 45 For even the Son of man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as ransom in the place of many.”

By and large this story is not found in Luke, only in Matthew and Mark. See, however, Luke 22:25, 26; cf. Mark 10:42–44. In both Matthew and Mark what is presented to us is the report of a request for the two positions of highest prominence in Christ’s “kingdom” (thus Matthew) or “glory” (thus Mark). The main difference between the two accounts is that in Matthew the request is made by “the mother of the sons of Zebedee,” in Mark by “James and John, the sons of Zebedee.” This “main difference” is not a contradiction, for even Matthew reports that the mother came “with her sons,” and that Jesus, in answering the request, spoke to more than one person. Clearly, the request of the mother was also that of the sons. For the rest, the differences between the two accounts are very minor. There are no conflicts or disagreements.

The question “[Are you able] to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” (Mark 10:38, and note the echo in verse 39) is not found in Matthew, but the synonymous phrase “to drink the cup …” occurs in both Gospels. To Mark’s “but [this distinction] is for those for whom it has been prepared” Matthew adds “by my Father” (cf. Mark 10:40 with Matt. 20:23). In 10:41 Mark again (as in 10:35) refers to the two brothers by name. Nowhere in his account (20:20–28) does Matthew mention their names. He simply says “the sons of Zebedee” (20:20), “the two brothers” (verse 24). This, too, creates no difficulty, for twice previously in his Gospel this evangelist has written “James the son of Zebedee and John his brother” (4:21; 10:2; and cf. 17:1). In 10:42 Mark has “so-called rulers”; Matthew (20:25) omits “so-called.”

All in all, the resemblance between the two accounts not only in the thoughts conveyed but even in the very wording is most striking. Is not literary relationship the most reasonable way to account for this?

There is a remarkable similarity between a. the second passion announcement and its sequel, and b. the third announcement and its sequel. In both cases Christ’s prediction of his approaching voluntary humiliation in the interest of sinners is followed immediately by a report of his disciples’ yearning for exaltation. Note:

second announcement and sequel:

“The Son of man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men, and they shall kill him …” (9:31).—“Who [of us] is the greatest?” (9:34).

third announcement and sequel:

“The Son of man shall be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes …” (10:33).—“Grant us to sit, one at your right and one at your left in your glory” (10:37).

And the sequel to the first announcement, though different, was not any better (8:31, 32). The conclusion seems warranted that, at the time when they were made, the meaning of none of these predictions struck home. The disciples had confessed Jesus to be the Christ (8:29, 30), and he had acknowledged the correctness of this confession (Matt. 16:17). But he had also repeatedly told The Twelve that he was going to be put to death. The combination of these two ideas—The Messiah … put to death—made no sense to them. And at the moment the added prediction “Three days later he shall rise again” did not make matters any easier for them.

In connection with the third prediction Luke 18:34 states, “The disciples did not understand any of these things.” They did not understand them until much later, and, worse even, as the present account again proves, they failed to take to heart the lesson their Master was teaching them; the very lesson which in later years Paul, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was going to express in words that for our present purpose can be summarized as follows: “Do nothing from selfish ambition or from vain conceit, but in humility let each person consider the other to be better than himself, each looking not only to his own interests but also the interests of others, so that your attitude may be the same as that of Christ Jesus, who … humbled himself and became obedient even to the extent of death; yes, death by a cross.” For the full text see Phil. 2:3–8.

The failure of these men—of two of them (verses 35–37); of the other ten (verse 41)—to apply this lesson to their own hearts and lives will now be shown.

35. Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, approached him, saying, Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask.

There is nothing precise about the time or the place. The word “then” does not always mean “at that very moment” or “immediately afterward.” It can also signify “about that time.” It should be borne in mind, however, that the third passion prediction has just been recorded. The present story concludes with another very pointed reference to the cross (verse 45). It would seem therefore that the request of the sons of Zebedee was made soon after this third prediction and very shortly previous to the week of the passion. And as to the place, from a comparison of verse 33 and 46 we may conclude with a fair amount of probability that the present incident occurred on the way to Jerusalem via Jericho, but before Jericho had been reached.

What is remarkable with respect to The Twelve is that in spite of their failure to make sense out of their Master’s predictions, they did not desert him but—with the exception of Judas a little later—remained loyal to him. Not only that, but they even believed that somehow the establishment of the kingdom about which Jesus had spoken again and again (Mark 1:15; 4:11, 26, 30; 9:47; 10:14, 15; and see especially 9:1), and in which they had even been promised prominent places (Matt. 19:28) was very close at hand; in fact, would now immediately appear (Luke 19:11).

In view of this, two of Christ’s disciples, namely James and John, the sons of Zebedee (cf. Mark 1:19, 20) decided that now was the favorable moment to see to it that they would get their share of the honor. They wanted to strike while the iron was hot. They therefore approached Jesus with the amazing request, “Teacher (see on 4:38b; 10:17), we want you to do for us whatever we ask.”

It was like asking their Master to hand over a blank check, for them to fill in. It reminds one of little children who will at times, with a naughty gleam in their eyes, approach mother with a similar request. This demand is generally made when the little ones are not too sure that they have a right to receive what they are about to ask. The foolish promise of Herod, “Ask for anything you wish, and I’ll give it to you” (6:22) probably occurs to the mind. There is, to be sure, a similarity. But there is also a contrast. That king was putting himself on the spot, but these disciples were trying to commit Jesus beforehand, that is, before even telling him what they wanted, an unethical procedure, to say the least.⁴⁹⁸

36. He said to them, what do you want me to do for you? Jesus refuses to commit himself. Making blind promises is wrong. Think again of Herod’s promise to Salome! So the Master demands that James and John be specific.

37. They told him, Grant us to sit, one at your right and one at your left in your glory. These men pictured Jesus as sitting upon his royal throne, surrounded by his servants, and among all these high officials, they—even James and John—occupying the places of the highest honor, namely, at his right and at his left.⁴⁹⁹ Was not this the way of kings and their attendants, and also of other dignitaries and those who waited on them? See Exod. 17:12; II Sam. 16:6; I Kings 22:19 (II Chron. 18:18); Neh. 8:4.

Their request was evidence of faith. They believed that according to his promise Jesus would be seated on the throne of his glory, and that each of The Twelve would also be seated on thrones. They were convinced of this in spite of the fact that at this moment there was little to show that events were moving in that direction. That much can be said in their favor.

On the other hand, it is clear that sinful ambition was playing a role here. They desired that the two most honorable places should be assigned not to Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, or even to Peter and Andrew, but to themselves, James and John, to nobody else!

What may have kindled this ambition?

a. Their mother wanted this. She was behind it all, as Matt. 20:20, 21 clearly shows. But there may have been other considerations, though we cannot be certain that any of them played a role:

b. Jesus had included them in the innermost circle of disciples, the trio Peter, James, and John (Mark 5:37; 9:2; cf. 14:33).

c. At the outset these men had belonged to a materially more privileged class than some of the other disciples. Did not their father have hired servants? See 1:20.

d. They may have been relatives of Jesus, cousins perhaps. Their mother Salome (not to be confused with the Salome mentioned above, in the explanation of verse 36) seems to have been a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Cf. Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25.

Nevertheless, what they were doing in making this request was definitely wrong. They were guilty of giving vent to their sinful, selfish, earthly ambitions. They were being anything but Christlike in seeking the highest positions (below Christ’s own) for themselves.

38. But Jesus said to them, You do not know what you are asking for yourselves. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink.…

Jesus here reminds them of something they were forgetting, namely, that a request for glory is a request for suffering; in other words, that it is the way of the cross, that alone, that leads home. So he asks them whether they are able to drink the cup that he is about to drink. In the idiom of the Old Testament and of those conversant with its literature “drinking a cup,” i.e., its contents, means fully undergoing this or that experience, whether favorable (Ps. 16:5, 23:5; 116:13; Jer. 16:7) or unfavorable (Ps. 11:6; 75:8; Isa. 51:17, 22; Jer. 25:15; Lam. 4:21; Ezek. 23:32; Hab. 2:16). Jesus, too, spoke of his cup of bitter suffering (Matt. 26:39, 42; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42). And for the New Testament see also Rev. 14:10; 16:19; 17:4; 18:6. Are these disciples, then, willing to become partakers of his suffering, that is, of the suffering for his name and his cause (Matt. 10:16, 17, 38; 16:24; II Cor. 1:5; 4:10; Gal. 6:17; Phil. 3:10; Col. 1:24; I Peter 4:13; Rev. 12:4, 13, 17)?

Mark records the synonymous expression which Jesus also used at that time: or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized? If there is any real difference in the meaning of the two halves of Christ’s question, it might well be that drinking the cup points rather to Christ’s active; being baptized, to his passive obedience. Jesus rendered both. One might even say that the two are inseparable: each views Christ’s obedience from its own aspect: he chose to die, and he submitted to the blows that descended upon him. The word “to be baptized” is probably used here in the figurative sense of “to be overwhelmed,” (here) by agony. Cf. Luke 12:50. Jesus must be plunged into the flood of horrible distress.⁵⁰⁰ Note a somewhat similar use of the verb in Isa. 21:4 (LXX) and in Josephus, Jewish War IV.137. See also Ps. 42:7: “All thy waves and thy billows have gone over me”; and Ps. 124:4: “Then would the waters have overwhelmed us; the torrent would have passed over our soul.”

It should be borne in mind, of course, that there is and remains a basic difference between Christ’s own suffering and that of his followers: the first is vicarious (Mark 10:45; cf. Matt. 20:28); the second never can be (Ps. 49:7). But there is, nevertheless, also a close relationship: the Christian suffers “for Christ’s sake,” that is, because of loyalty to his anointed Lord and Savior. It is for that reason that Paul was able to write, “The afflictions of Christ overflow toward us” (II Cor. 1:5); and Peter, “But rejoice that you participate in Christ’s suffering” (I Peter 4:13). See also Matt. 10:25; Mark 13:13; John 15:18–21; Acts 9:4, 5; II Cor. 4:10; Gal. 6:17; Phil. 3:10; Col. 1:24; and Rev. 12:13. It is in that sense, then, that Jesus is asking James and John, “Are you able to drink the cup that I drink and to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”⁵⁰¹

39a. They answered, we are able. On the favorable side we can at least credit them with a considerable measure of loyalty toward their Master. Nevertheless, the future would prove that they were at this moment too self-confident. See 14:27, 50. Their answer was not nearly as commendable as the statement of Paul (Phil. 4:13).

Christ’s reaction to their somewhat extravagant assertion, as also his final answer to their request, are recorded in verses 39b, 40. Then Jesus told them, The cup which I drink you is shall drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you shall be baptized; but to sit at my right and at my left is not for me to grant, but is for those for whom it has been prepared. Indirectly, both the martyrdom of James (Acts 12:2) and the banishment of John to the island of Patmos (Rev. 1:9) are here foretold. These two future events were part of the suffering for Christ’s sake that would be experienced by these disciples. With respect to James and John see also above, on 3:17; and see N.T.C. on John, Vol. I, pp. 28–31. As to the request itself, Jesus points out that the degrees and positions of eminence in his glorious kingdom have already been determined, that is, they were decreed in God’s eternal counsel (cf. Matt. 20:23: “prepared by my Father”). They cannot now be altered by the Mediator. See Matt. 24:36; 25:34; Luke 12:32; Acts 1:7; Eph. 1:4, 11.⁵⁰²

41. Now when the ten heard (what had happened) they were⁵⁰³ angry at James and John. The report of the occurrence filled the remaining disciples with indignation. They probably felt that James and John, by asking for these positions of pre-eminence, had been plotting against them. It seems that they, too, had not yet taken to heart the lesson of 9:35–37. They probably wanted these highest posts for themselves. This indicates that the spiritual attitude of the ten was not any better than that of the two. How easy it is to condemn in others what we excuse in ourselves. It takes a Nathan to make this clear to us (II Sam. 12:1 ff.). Cf. Rom. 2:1.

It should not escape our attention that even though the attitude of all those twelve men must have caused the Lord much sorrow of heart, since it showed that even now, in spite of all his messages, they had not yet put into practice this part of his teaching, he reacts very gently. Is he not the tender Shepherd who loves his sheep? So, first he calls The Twelve to himself. Then calmly and earnestly he reproves and admonishes them: 42. So Jesus called them (all) to him and said to them, You know that the so-called rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men keep them under their despotic power. That, says Jesus as it were, is the way of worldly people. They spend all their energies to get to the top; and, once having reached that peak, they cause all others to feel the weight of their authority.

According to Mark, Jesus described these monarchs as “so-called rulers.” Another possible translation would be “recognized rulers.” But in harmony with Gal. 2:2, 6, 9, the rendering “so-called” or “those who are reputed to be” or “are supposed to be” is probably correct. It is very well possible, therefore, that the Master’s words are here tinged with irony.⁵⁰⁴ If only those who are clothed with high authority would rule wisely, all would be well. But no, once they have arrived at the top, they think only of themselves. So they cause their subjects to quail under the crushing weight of their power. They “lord it over”—actually “lord it down on”—their subjects. But while they do this, they want those under their authority to believe that they have nothing but the interests of the subjects at heart.

The “touch of irony” interpretation is also supported by the—in a sense—parallel passage Luke 22:25, “Those who exercise authority over them are styled ‘Benefactors.’ ”

The words of Jesus were true when he spoke them. They have been true ever since and are relevant to every age. Abundant evidence of this can be found on coins and monuments and in history books; witness, for example, the following titles ascribed to earthly tyrants and eagerly adopted by them: Savior, Benefactor, Protector, Leader, Liberator.

Jesus continues: 43, 44. Not like that is it among you; rather, whoever wishes to become great among you let him be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you let him be⁵⁰⁵ the humble attendant of all.

Essentially this is the teaching of 9:35–57. Cf. 8:34, 35. See also Matt. 10:39; 16:24, 25; 18:1 ff.; Luke 9:23, 24. The form given to it is new and refreshing. It is an unforgettable paradox. Jesus is saying that in the kingdom over which he reigns greatness is obtained by pursuing a course of action which is the exact opposite of that which is followed in the unbelieving world. Greatness consists in self-giving, in the outpouring of the self in service to others, for the glory of God. To be great means to love. See John 13:34; I Cor. 13; Col. 3:14; I John 3:14; 4:8; I Peter 4:8.

It is the inverted pyramid, the believer being at the bottom—being the servant, the humble attendant⁵⁰⁶ “of all” (peculiar to Mark)—that symbolizes the position of the Christian as, with simple trust in God and love for all men, he continues on his way to the mansions of glory. In doing this is he not following in the footsteps of his Lord and Savior? See Luke 22:27; John 13:34, 35.

In fact, that is the very thought which Jesus stresses, as he continues: 45. For even the Son of man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom in the place of many. Cf. Matt. 20:28. This has always rightly been regarded as one of the most precious of Christ’s sayings. Note “For even the Son of man,” clearly indicating that Christ’s humiliation in the place of, and for the benefit of, his people, must be both their example and their motivation. He is “the Son of man,” the fulfilment of the prophecy of Dan. 7:14. For a detailed study of the concept “Son of man” see on 2:10; and on Matt. 8:20. In himself and from all eternity he is the all-glorious One. Yet he humbles himself. He becomes incarnate, and this not with the purpose of being served but of serving. See also on 2:17. Study II Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:5–8; and see N.T.C. on I Tim. 1:15.

The service which it was the Son of man’s purpose to render is described in the words: “to give his life as a ransom in the place of many.” “In the place of” or “in exchange for” must be considered the right translation here.⁵⁰⁷ The passage is a clear proof of Christ’s substitutionary atonement. A ransom was originally the price paid for the release of a slave. Jesus, then, is saying that he came into this world to give his life—that is, himself (see I Tim. 2:6)—in exchange for many. The conception of Christ’s death on the cross as the price that was paid, a price far more precious than silver or gold, is found also in I Peter 1:18, 19. With this compare Exod. 30:12; Lev. 1:4; 16:15, 16, 20–22; Num. 3:40–51; Ps. 49:7, 8; I Cor. 6:20; 7:23; Gal. 3:13; 4:5; I Tim. 2:5, 6; II Peter 2:1; Rev. 5:6, 12; 13:8; 14:3, 4.

The phrase “a ransom for many” is in all probability an echo of Isa. 53:11, as the entire surrounding phraseology would seem to indicate. Now in Isa. 53 the idea of substitution predominates: see verses 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12. See also Matt. 26:28. It is, of course, perfectly true that this ransom “in the place of” and “in exchange for” many immediately implies that benefit accrues to the many. The two ideas “in the place of” and “for the benefit of” blend into one. How can we even for a moment entertain the idea that a ransom “in the place of” many would not be for their benefit? Besides, the very context states in so many words that by means of this ransom the Son of man serves the many. He rescues them from the greatest possible bane, namely, the curse of God upon sin; and he bestows upon them the greatest possible boon, namely, the blessings of God for soul and body throughout all eternity. See Isa. 53:10; Rom. 4:25; II Cor. 5:20, 21; Titus 2:14; I Peter 1:18, 19.

This “in the place of many” is very important. Not in the place of all but of many. Who these many are is clear from such passages as Isa. 53:8; Matt. 1:21; John 10:11, 15; 17:9; Eph. 5:25; Acts 20:28; Rom. 8:32–35. However also: not in the place of a few but of many, without any distinction as to race, nationality, class, age, sex, etc. (Rom. 10:12, 13; I Cor. 7:19; Gal. 3:9, 29; Eph. 2:14, 18; Col. 3:11). The glad tidings of salvation through the ransom paid by Christ for all who believe in him (Mark 10:45; John 3:16; II Cor. 5:20, 21) must be proclaimed to all. It must be made clear to all that God derives no pleasure from the death of the wicked but rejoices when the wicked turn from their wicked ways and truly live (Lam. 3:33; Ezek. 18:23, 32; 33:11; Hos. 11:8).

A point that must be stressed is that the very wording of our passage (Mark 10:45), namely, “to give his life as a ransom,” indicates that Christ’s death for his own must be considered a voluntary self-sacrifice. It was not forced upon the Mediator. He laid down his life of his own accord. See, again, John 10:11, 15. That fact gives to this death its atoning value.

Finally, the ransom price was paid not (as Origen maintained) to Satan, but to the Father (Rom. 3:23–25), who also himself, together with the Son and the Holy Spirit, had made arrangements for the salvation of his people (John 3:16; II Cor. 5:20, 21).

The context must not be overlooked. Here in Mark 10:45 Jesus is teaching that his own willingness to humble himself to the point of giving his life as a ransom for many must be reflected in The Twelve and in all his followers. In his own small degree and manner every follower of Christ must, by God’s grace, show Christ’s love to others.

10:46–52 The Healing of Blind Bartimaeus at Jericho

Cf. Matt. 20:29–34; Luke 18:35–43

46 They came to Jericho. And as he [Jesus] with his disciples and a large crowd was going out of Jericho, a blind man, Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, was sitting by the roadside begging.⁵⁰⁸ 47 Now when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth he began to cry out, saying, “Jesus, son of David, take pity on me.” 48 Many people were warning him to be quiet, but he cried out all the more, “Son of David, take pity on me.” 49 Jesus stopped and said, “Call him.” So they called the blind man and said to him, “Take courage! Get up! He’s calling you.” 50 Throwing aside his robe he jumped to his feet and came to Jesus. 51 In response Jesus said to him, “What do you want me to do for you?” The blind man told him, “Rabboni, I want to regain my sight.” 52 “Go,” Jesus said to him, “your faith has made you well.” Immediately he regained his sight and began to follow him on the road.

The Jericho of Jesus’ day and its present-day ruins lie somewhat to the south of Old Testament Jericho. The city which Mark mentions here in 10:46 was located about fifteen miles northeast of Jerusalem. Since Jerusalem was about 3,300 feet higher in altitude than Jericho, this fact sheds light on Luke 10:30: “a certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho.” Herod the Great—and later also Archelaus, his son—had strengthened and beautified this city, giving it a theater, amphitheater, villas, and baths. Even before the reign of Herod I it was already “a little paradise,” with its palm trees, rose gardens, etc. Its winter climate was delightful, making it a winter residence fit for a king. Had not Mark Antony given it to Cleopatra, the Egyptian queen, as a token of his affection?

However, it was not with the beauty and splendor of Jericho that Jesus was chiefly concerned, as he travels now, with his little company, from Perea southwestward, across the Jordan; and thus via Jericho to Jerusalem—and the cross. Though an indescribably heavy burden is resting upon his own heart (Matt. 20:17–19; cf. Luke 12:50), he has not lost his sympathy with the needs of others.

Before entering upon the exegesis of verses 46–52 it is, however, necessary to say a word about the little paragraph as a whole. It has proved to be a feast for a. on the one hand, harmonizers; and b., on the other, detractors. The trouble is that Matthew speaks of two blind men, while Mark and Luke make mention of one, whom Mark calls Bartimaeus. Also, according to Matthew and Mark the miracle occurred as Jesus and his disciples were leaving Jericho; but according to Luke, as he drew near to Jericho.

As to the first difficulty, is it possible that Mark, who was Peter’s interpreter, had heard only the story of Bartimaeus? Of course, this is not really a solution; it simply pushes the problem back a little, from Mark (and Luke, who presumably had read Mark) to Peter. On the other hand, the problem is not at all serious. There is no real contradiction, for neither Mark nor Luke tells us that Jesus restored sight to the eyes of only one blind man. For the rest, it must be admitted that we do not have the answer: we do not know why Mark wrote—and Peter, let us suppose, had spoken—about Bartimaeus and not also about the other blind man.

As to the second problem, among the solutions that have been offered are the following: a. There were two Jerichos: Jesus therefore could have performed the miracle while he was leaving the one and entering the other; b. One blind man was healed as Jesus entered Jericho, another as he left; c. Jesus entered the city, had passed through it, and was now leaving it. While he was going out of the city he saw Zacchaeus up in the tree, and told that little publican to come down. So, with Zacchaeus he re-entered the city to lodge at the tax-collector’s home for the night. According to the proposed solution it was during this re-entry of the city that the miracle took place. Hence, Matthew and Mark can say that it was performed while he was leaving the city; Luke, as he drew near to it.

All three solutions are open to objections, however. As to solution a: in an account which presents so much resemblance—compare, for example, Mark’s account with that of Luke—it would be very strange, indeed, if the name “Jericho” meant two different things. As to b, this does not solve anything, for Mark and Luke are clearly speaking about the same blind man, “Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus.” Nevertheless, according to Mark this man had his eyesight restored “as Jesus was leaving Jericho”; according to Luke, as he “drew near to Jericho.” And as to c, it does not explain why, as this view presupposes, the word “entered” would have the meaning “re-entered from the other side.”—Other solutions are not any better: for example, that the blind man was sitting by the roadside begging, as Jesus entered the city from the east; that he then kept on following Jesus all the way through the city until finally, while Jesus was leaving the city, he cured him. The best answer is, There is, indeed a solution, for this “Scripture,” too, is inspired. However, we do not have that solution!

There are other differences between the three Gospel accounts, but most of them are minor. None implies any contradiction or conflict between the accounts.

The most important difference is that here, as well as so often elsewhere, Mark is again the most detailed and vivid. It is he alone who tells us that the name of the blind man was Bartimaeus. He also informs us that Bartimaeus was a beggar (verse 46; cf. Luke 18:35). He goes into great detail in verses 49, 50: Jesus first addresses himself to the crowd, a detail that is completely omitted in Matthew’s story, and is only implied in Luke’s. Mark, however, dwells on it, describing exactly what Jesus said to the people, what they in turn said to Bartimaeus, and in what an excited manner he came to Jesus.

Luke, too, makes his contribution. He records that when the blind man heard a crowd passing by, he inquired what this meant. Unforgettable and often quoted in sermons was the reply, “Jesus of Nazareth is passing by” (18:36, 37). For “of Nazareth” see on Mark 6:1.

Though all three evangelists report the cure and the decision on the part of the cured to follow Jesus, each makes his own distinct contribution. Matthew adds that it was “in pity” (or: “moved with compassion”) that the Healer “touched the eyes” and effected the cure. Mark reports that Jesus said, “Go, your faith has made you well.” And Luke devotes two entire verses to the conclusion, repeating some of what the others have recorded and adding certain details: Jesus said to the blind man, “Receive your sight”; the cured man “glorified God”; and “all the people, when they saw it, gave praise to God.” (18:42, 43).

We turn now to the story as Mark tells it. This means that we are not going to speak about the two blind men but only about Bartimaeus. The theme, accordingly, is The Healing of Blind Bartimaeus at Jericho. The division of the material covered by this theme is similar to what it would be for Matthew’s account except for the change from the plural to the singular: 1. his wretched condition (verses 46, 47); 2. his added difficulty (verse 48a); 3. his commendable persistence (verse 48b); and 4. the marvelous blessing which Jesus bestowed on him (verses 49–52).

1. His Wretched Condition

46, 47. They came to Jericho. And as he [Jesus] with his disciples and a large crowd was going out of Jericho, a blind man, Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, was sitting by the roadside begging. Now when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth he began to cry out, saying, Jesus, son of David, take pity on me.

Jesus and The Twelve have recrossed the Jordan, from east to west, having followed one of the usual routes to Jerusalem. As Passover was approaching we are not surprised that a large⁵⁰⁹ crowd, probably from Galilee and from Perea, was following Jesus. There may also have been some people who had their home in Jericho and were returning to that city.

The procession, then, consists of Jesus, The Twelve, and a large crowd.⁵¹⁰ The group reaches the city. Next, Jesus, The Twelve, and at least those other followers who were bound for Jerusalem, pass through it, so that presently they are “going out” of it. It is at this point of time and place that a blind man enters the picture. He is sitting by the roadside, begging. In that part of the world, as in many other regions even today, there was nothing unfamiliar about this sight. The name of the man was Bartimaeus, which, as Mark explains, means that he was the son of Timaeus.

Although Bartimaeus cannot see Jesus, he can hear the bustle of the crowd. Upon inquiry he learns that Jesus of Nazareth was passing by. He must have heard about Jesus before, for upon receiving the news, he immediately cries out, “Jesus, son of David, take pity on me.” As far as is known, in pre-Christian literature the designation “Son of David” as a title for the Messiah occurs only in the pseudepigraphical Psalms of Solomon 17:21.⁵¹¹ Though there are those who deny that Bartimaeus is using the term in the Messianic sense, the probability is that he did so intend it, for on the basis of Mark 11:9, 10; 12:35–37 (see on those verses) it is clear that during Christ’s ministry on earth “Son of David” and “Messiah” had become synonyms. Otherwise how can one satisfactorily explain the indignation of the chief priests and the scribes when the children were honoring Jesus with the title “Son of David” (Matt. 21:15, 16)? Now the fact that Bartimaeus addressed Jesus as “Son of David” does not mean that he fully appreciated the spiritual character of Jesus’ messiahship. It does, however, indicate that he was among the few who were able to give a better answer to the question, “Who do the people say that the Son of man is?” than was given by the people in general (Mark 8:28).

Bartimaeus, then, is imploring Jesus to take pity on—that is, to show mercy to—him.⁵¹² His situation was indeed deplorable. Not only was he blind but he was also a beggar, two circumstances that often went hand in hand. For his sustenance he had to depend on the generosity of the people.

2. His Added Difficulty

48a. Many people were warning⁵¹³ him to be quiet.… Just why the crowd did this we do not know. Possible answers: a. The people were in a hurry to get to Jerusalem and did not want Jesus to be stopped by this blind beggar; b. they deemed this yelling to be out of harmony with the dignity of the person addressed; c. they were not ready to hear Jesus publicly proclaimed as “the Son of David”; and d. they knew that their religious leaders would not appreciate this.

3. His Commendable Persistence

48b. but he cried out all the more,⁵¹⁴ Son of David, take pity on me. That was to his credit. He realized that if help was going to come from any source, it would have to come from the Son of David.

4. The Marvelous Blessing Which Jesus Bestowed on Him

49. Jesus stopped and said, Call him. So they called the blind man and said to him, Take courage! Get up! He’s calling you. Jesus reveals himself throughout the Gospels as being not only very powerful but also very merciful. See above, on 1:41. So he stands still and orders the people to call the man away from the roadside where he was sitting. Eagerly they deliver the message to the beggar. They tell him, “Take courage.” It was the command, so full of cheer and hope, which while he was on earth Jesus was heard to issue again and again. Moreover, he is “the same yesterday and today and forever,” as shown by the fact that after his ascension to heaven the Lord was still uttering this same bracing exhortation. For the details and list of passages see above, on 6:50b. The people around him also tell the man to rise to his feet, adding, by way of further encouragement, “He’s calling you.”

Not many weeks earlier that same word, “He’s calling you” had been spoken to Mary. The one who addressed her was Martha, her sister. There is certainly a similarity in the two accounts. Both of these people whom Jesus was calling were in deep trouble: Bartimaeus, because he was poor and blind; Mary—Martha too, of course—because she had lost a dear brother. Even today, in such circumstances of life, yes and always, Jesus is calling us to his side, for he is a wonderful Savior. He calls in order to comfort, to cheer, and, as in this case, to heal, to restore.

50. Not everyone is ready to respond to the call. But this man was. Here was the opportunity of a lifetime. His heart leaps with joy: Throwing aside his robe he jumped to his feet and came to Jesus. As we read this story today we can almost hear lively Peter tell it, with all the fiery and picturesque eloquence at his command. He must have told it in such a way that Mark was unable to forget it. We see Bartimaeus as, without a moment’s hesitancy, he jumps to his feet, throws aside his loose, foot-catching outer robe, lest it retard his speed, and rushes off to Jesus. 51. In response⁵¹⁵ Jesus said to him, What do you want me to do⁵¹⁶ for you? Very tenderly Jesus asks this question. Is it alms this beggar wants? Let him concentrate for a moment on that which he wants most of all, so that the satisfaction of his desire will be appreciated all the more. To be sure, Jesus already knew what Bartimaeus wanted, but he wants him to ask for it. So also it is true in general that even though the heavenly Father is well acquainted with the needs of his children, he nevertheless tells them to “open their mouth wide” (Ps. 81:10), so he may fill it. What Jesus wants is not only to cure this man but to enter into personal fellowship with him, so that, as a result, his “faith” (verse 52) may be more than merely “miraculous” (the conviction that Jesus is able to perform miracles), and so that Bartimaeus may “glorify God,” as was actually going to happen (Luke 18:43).

The blind man told him, Rabboni, I want to regain my sight. Literally, “Rabboni, that I may recover my sight.” ‘I want to” is clearly understood, since Jesus had asked, “What do you want me to do for you?” Mark’s “Rabboni” must not be downgraded. It probably is to be interpreted as a title which, in such cases, is equivalent to Matthew’s and Luke’s “Lord” (Matt. 20:33; Luke 18:41).

52. Go, Jesus said to him, your faith has made you well.⁵¹⁷ Thus also in Luke 18:42. In view of the fact that faith is itself God’s gift (see N.T.C. on Eph. 2:8), it is nothing less than astounding that Jesus in several instances praises the recipient of the gift for exercising it! This proves the generous character of his love. Undoubtedly Eph. 2:8 refers to what is often called “saving faith.” However, even in the present case it may well be doubted that the faith of which Jesus speaks is merely miraculous. In view of what this man is about to do (see the last clause of this verse; cf. Luke 18:43), it would appear that when Jesus made him well by promptly restoring to him his vision, he blessed him not only physically but also spiritually. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures I, p. 356, may therefore indeed be correct when he states that the expression “made thee whole” may well have the meaning here: saved thee. And is not more than physical restoration implied also in the other cases where the identical expression is used in the Gospels—the woman who suffered hemorrhages (Matt. 9:22; Mark 5:34; Luke 8:48); the great sinner (Luke 7:50); and the one cured leper who praised God and returned to thank Jesus (Luke 17:19)?

Conclusion: Immediately he regained his sight.… One moment total blindness … the next unimpaired vision. How tremendously astounding! Continued: and began to follow⁵¹⁸ him on the road. The man now wishes to be in the immediate company of Jesus. He did more than this: he glorified God. The people followed his example (Again Luke 18:43).

What a beautiful illustration of the way of salvation: “Call upon me in the day of trouble; and I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me” (Ps. 50:15; cf. I Cor. 10:31).

Summary of Chapter 10

In Mark’s Gospel Christ’s Perean Ministry begins here and continues to the end of the chapter. It immediately precedes The Week of the Passion, followed by The Resurrection.

Chapter 10 may be conveniently divided into two main parts: verses 1–31 and verses 32–52. The first part is paralleled in Matt. 19, the second in Matt. 20:17–34. Each main part has three paragraphs, so that, in all, Mark 10 has six paragraphs.

In the first paragraph (verses 1–12) Mark reports that while Jesus was teaching, some Pharisees came up to him, and with sinister intent asked him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” In his answer Jesus reminds his opponents of the divine creation-marriage institution (Gen. 1:27; 2:24), and concludes by saying, “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” When, away from the crowd and in a house, the disciples again ask Jesus about this subject, he, as Mark tells the story, ascribes equal standing and responsibility to husband and wife by saying, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman is committing adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.” By means of this teaching Jesus honored the marriage bond and declared its indissolubility as a divine institution.

Next (verses 13–16) Mark reports the attempt of the disciples to keep little children from being brought to Jesus. He rebukes the obstructionists and extends a hearty welcome to the little ones, taking them in his arms and tenderly blessing them. He adds, “I solemnly declare to you, whoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall never enter it.”

In verses 17–31 Mark tells the story of the rich young ruler who humbly approached Jesus with the question, “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit everlasting life?” Jesus answers, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except One—God.” The Master speaks thus because the young man used the word “good” thoughtlessly. Jesus then refers him to God’s perfect law, for “through the law comes the knowledge of sin.” By saying, “All these things have I observed ever since I was a child” the enquirer once more reveals how shallow he is. Jesus, looking at him, loves him, not because of his lack of spiritual depth but probably because he had not fallen into gross outward sins and had gone to the best possible source to obtain an answer to his question. With affection and sympathy the Master treats this young person, and recommends to him a course of action which, if pursued, will give him the peace of mind for which he longs: Jesus says to him, “Go, sell whatever you have and give (the proceeds) to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Crestfallen the wretched man walks away.

Jesus says to The Twelve, “How hard it will be for those who possess wealth to enter the kingdom of God.… Children how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God. 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.” The disciples, in utter astonishment, say to each other, “Then who can be saved?” Jesus answers, “With men (this is) impossible but not with God, for with God all things are possible.”

In response to Peter’s observation, “Look, we have given up everything, and followed thee,” the Master promises blessings for the present and for “the age to come.” However, he also issues a warning, in order that no one may think that reward is based upon human merit. The warning is, “But many that are first shall be last, and (many) last first.”

The fourth paragraph covers verses 32–34. Here begins the second part of the chapter. There is a link between paragraphs 3 and 4. According to verse 24 (see also verse 26) of the third paragraph the disciples were

amazed

startled

as a result of what Jesus had

said

about the difficulty of entering the kingdom of God. No less were they now

amazed

(same word in the original, fourth paragraph, verse 32) as a result of what Jesus

did

. They noticed that with unflinching determination he, taking the lead, was walking toward Jerusalem … in order to lay down his life as a vicarious sacrifice. Cf. 10:45. The

unwavering advance of their Leader filled the hearts and minds of his followers with fear. That he knew what was coming is clear from his words, “Listen, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be handed over to the chief priests and scribes.” Thus he introduces his third passion-and-resurrection prediction. For the seven items that belong to this third prediction—which is far more detailed than the first and the second—and for their fulfilment, see on verses 33, 34.

In contents the opening of the fifth paragraph, which comprises verses 35–45, contrasts sharply with the preceding one. The Master’s voluntary humiliation is replaced by his disciples’ yearning for exaltation. James and John earnestly believe that their Master is going to be gloriously enthroned. So far, so good. But their reaction, expressed in their own words as addressed to Jesus, is, “Grant us to sit, one at your right and one at your left, in your glory.” Jesus points out to them that a. the “greatness” for which they yearn requires sacrifice; b. the places at the right and left have already been fixed; and c. only by forgetting all about rank and by dedicating one’s life to God in humble altruistic service, after Christ’s own example, is true greatness attained. See especially 10:45.

How privileged were these disciples who were permitted day in, day out to listen to Christ’s words, to witness the signs he performed, and to observe his behavior … and yet how blind they could be! But after the Master’s resurrection those eyes were destined to open. He who is “the Light of the world” was able to cure blindness, spiritual as well as physical. An example of restoration of sight to a blind man is found in verses 46–52.

This final paragraph reports that Jesus and The Twelve arrived at last in Jericho. He was surrounded by a large crowd. When he was leaving that ancient city, a blind beggar, named Bartimaeus, having been informed that Jesus of Nazareth (see on 6:1) was passing by, began to cry out, “Jesus, son of David, take pity on me.” When the people told him to be quiet, he cried all the more, “Son of David, take pity on me.” Jesus does exactly that. He calls the blind man, lovingly asks him, “What do you want me to do for you?” and heals him, so that Bartimaeus, filled with gratitude, becomes Jesus’ follower.

At this point, as well as throughout, the arrangement of Mark’s Gospel is striking, for the devout people in Israel knew that, in connection with the coming of the Messiah, Isaiah’s prophecy would be fulfilled, “Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened …” (35:5). This account is a most fitting preface to “the Son of David’s Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem” (11:1–11) and to the immediately following events; see especially 12:35–37. Mark’s purpose is to indicate that “the Son of David” is not merely David’s offspring; he is David’s Lord. He is in fact “the Son of God.” Everyone, therefore, should follow him, as did Bartimaeus, who followed him “in the way,” the very way which for the Master led to Calvary. But the cross leads to the crown. It leads home.⁵¹⁹

The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do

⁴⁴⁵ Whether “and” belongs to the text is not at all certain.

⁴⁴⁶ Or: and in an attempt to put him on the spot asked him .…

⁴⁴⁷ Though “and shall cleave to his wife” is omitted in some manuscripts, it may well be authentic, as it certainly is in Matt. 19:5.

⁴⁴⁸ Or: involving himself [in verse 12: herself] in adultery.…

N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary

⁴⁴⁹ If one wishes to be precise 10:46–52 would have to be excluded from this ministry, since Jericho was west of Jordan. However, for practical reasons this exclusion is not necessary.

⁴⁵⁰ εἰώθει third per. sing. pluperf. of εἴωθα; from obsolete ἔθω. Cf. ethos, ethics. The pluperfect has the sense of the imperfect. See Gram.N.T., p. 904.

⁴⁵¹ πρός in the sense of “having regard to,” “because of.” Cf. somewhat similar meaning (“with respect to”) in Acts 24:16; Rom. 10:21a; Heb. 1:7 f.

⁴⁵² Note σκληροκαρδία, both here and in Matt. 19:8. This combines σκληρός, hard, and καρδία, heart. As to σκληρός (cf. arteriosclerosis), see also Matt. 25:24, a hard—i.e. harsh, stern, unrelenting—man; John 6:60, a hard (to accept) message; Acts 26:14, “It is hard for you to kick against the goads”; James 3:4, driven by hard—i.e., strong—winds; and Jude 15, hard—i.e., harsh—words.

A.V. Authorized Version (King James)

A.R.V. American Standard Revised Version

⁴⁵³ See also W. A. Maier, For Better Not for Worse, St. Louis, 1935, pp. 80, 81; and N.T.C. on Eph. 5:22–23.

⁴⁵⁴ συνέζευξε third per. sing. aor. indic. of συζεύγνυμι; literally, to yoke together. A ζεῦγος (cf. ζυγός) is a yoke (of oxen, horses, etc.); or a pair (of turtle doves, Luke 2:24).

⁴⁵⁵

With respect to grammar and vocabulary note the following: First of all, as to verse 10, in the New Testament as elsewhere the preposition εἰς has several other meanings in addition to into and toward. It occurs at times where ἐν is expected. In such cases, as here, it simply means in. But see also N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 1000, 1001.

In verse 11 ἀπολύσῃ is third per. sing. aor. subjunctive active of ἀπολύω, which in this case means send away, divorce. Note both here and in verse 12 γαμήσῃ, same construction as ἀπολύσῃ; also in both verses μοιχᾶται, third per. sing. pres. middle indic. of μοιχάω, involves himself (verse 11), herself (verse 12) in—or makes himself, herself guilty of, hence commits—adultery. The New Testament uses only the middle-passive forms, but also has μοιχεύω.

Wherever a distinction between μοιχεία and πορνεία is possible, the former has reference to adultery, that is, basically, the sinner’s sexual intercourse with someone other than his or her marriage partner. The term πορνεία is much broader in meaning and refers basically to all sexual immorality. Thus voluntary sexual immorality exclusively involving unmarried persons would be πορνεία, not μοιχεία. However, the exact connotation of each of these words depends in any particular case on the context. There are several derived meanings. Thus μοιχεία may indicate unchastity in thought, look, or gesture; note the verb ἐμοίχευσε in Matt. 5:28. As to πορνεία, πορνεύω, see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 716, 717, footnote 684. On the meaning of μοιχάω = μοιχεύω (Matt. 5:32), see N.T.C. on Matt. 5:32; also L.N.T. (Th.), p. 417; Liddell and Scott, A Greek English Lexicon, London, etc., Vol. II, p. 1141; and F. Hauck, Th.D.N.T., Vol. IV, pp. 729–735, especially top of page 730. For a somewhat different view see L.N.T. (A. and G.), p. 528.

In verse 12 note ἀπολύσασα, nom. sing. fem. aor. act. participle of ἀπολύω. Verse 12 is a third class (future more vivid) conditional sentence.

⁴⁵⁶ With respect to the authenticity of John 7:53–8:11 see N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 33–35.

⁴⁵⁷ Mark’s impersonal “they—or people—were bringing little children” sounds more Semitic (cf. Dan. 4:25, 32) than Matthew’s “little children were brought to him,” but the meaning is the same.

⁴⁵⁸ ἐπετίμησαν, third per. pl. aor. indic. active of ἐπιτιμάω. Basically the word means to award a τιμή (penalty) ἐπί (upon). In the sense of rebuked this word also occurs in 1:25; 4:39; 8:32, 33; 9:25. The meaning warned must be ascribed to this verb in 3:12; 8:30; 10:48.

⁴⁵⁹ ἠγανάκτησε, third per. sing. aor. indic. of ἀγανακτέω. See also 10:41; 14:4; cf. Matt. 20:24; 21:15; 26:8; Luke 13:14. The verb is derived from ἄγαν, much (cf. the motto urging moderation in all things: μηδὲν ἄγαν, “nothing too much”), and ἄχομαι, to grieve (cf. anguish).

⁴⁶⁰ Ἄφετε, sec. per. pl. aor. imper. active of ἀφίημι. There is a slight difference between the wording of Mark 10:14; Luke 18:16, on the one hand, and Matt. 19:14, on the other. Matt. 19:14 literally reads, “Leave the children alone and stop hindering them.…” The difference is not essential.

⁴⁶¹ ἐναγκαλισάμενος, aor, participle; see on 9:36, footnote 426. κατευλόγει is an intensive expansion of the verb εὐλογέω. Mark uses the imperfect tense, and because of the context this imperfect is probably iterative; τιθείς, pres. active participle of τίθημι.

⁴⁶² Or: 22 But at these words his countenance fell, and he went away sorrowful.

⁴⁶³ Or: said.

Grk.N.T. (A-B-M-W) The Greek New Testament, edited by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren

⁴⁶⁴ Indefinite εἷς.

⁴⁶⁵ While Matthew and Luke use the aorist (respectively εἶπε and ἐπηρώτησε), Mark is still picturing what was happening: he uses the imperfect ἐπηρώτα.

⁴⁶⁶ Since Matt. 19:16 has “… that I may possess,” it is clear that the synonym inherit here in Mark 10:17 does not have the fulness of meaning that it has at times. In the present instance, as also in several other places, it simply means have, come into possession of, become a partaker of.

⁴⁶⁷ Vincent Taylor, op. cit., p. 427. Taylor’s commentary contains much that is excellent. On the present point, too, we owe it to this author to read his own argument, so that full justice may be done to his view. This holds too for the other interpreters with whose somewhat similar views I also disagree.

⁴⁶⁸ See B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels, London, 1930, p. 151 f.; J. C. Hawkins, op. cit., pp. 117–125; H. R. Mackintosh, The Doctrine of the Person of Christ, New York, 1931, p. 37.

⁴⁶⁹ The four quotations are respectively those of N. B. Stonehouse, Origins of the Synoptic Gospels, p. 139; B. B. Warfield, Christology and Criticism, New York, Oxford, 1929, p. 139; J. A. C. Van Leeuwen, op. cit., p. 125; and C. R. Erdman, op. cit., p. 144. See also H. B. Swete, op. cit., p. 223; and W. Manson, Jesus the Messiah, Philadelphia, 1946, p. 135: “Christology is not really here in question.”

⁴⁷⁰ Note the five instances of μή followed by the aorist subjunctive, which is regular for these negative commandments, as is also the durative present imperative for the positive commandment “Honor—that is, keep on honoring—your father and your mother.”

⁴⁷¹ Cf. Lenski, op. cit., p. 274.

⁴⁷² Cf. Vincent Taylor, op. cit., p. 428.

⁴⁷³ Cf. H. B. Swete, op. cit., p. 224; A. B. Bruce, op. cit., p. 410.

⁴⁷⁴ See L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 614, 615. That author enumerates the threefold use of the law, as follows: a. usus politicus or civilis, b. usus elenchticus or pedagogicus, and c. usus didacticus or normativus (also called tertius usus legis). We are concerned here with b. and c.

⁴⁷⁵ Cf. Lenski, op. cit., p. 275. He very sharply distinguishes between ἀγαπᾶν and φιλεῖν, and states that ἀγαπᾶν is “far beyond” φιλεῖν. On the contrary, a careful study and tabulation of all the instances in the Gospels where either ἀγαπάω or φιλέω is used (see N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 497–501) indicates that in the New Testament the verb ἀγαπάω is gradually pushing out the verb φιλέω, and that, while in certain contexts—for example, where both verbs are used with evident purpose to draw a distinction—the two must still be distinguished, in many areas there is overlapping, so that one can say that in such cases the two verbs are used interchangeably.

⁴⁷⁶ Thus A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. I, p. 351; and Gram.N.T., p. 834 There is, of course, no difference of opinion with reference to the fact that ἐμβλέψας (having looked at, having fastened his eyes on, as in verse 27) is the aor. participle of ἐμβλέπω; and that ἠγάπησε is the third per. sing. aor. indic. active of ἀγαπάω. The question is only whether ἠγάπησε is ingressive. It may be, but can also be viewed as a normal (“historical,” “constative”) aorist.

⁴⁷⁷

Here ἕν is the subject (cf. Dutch version: Eén ding ontbreekt u); the verb ὑστερεῖ is the third per. sing. pres. indic. of ὑστερέω, and is transitive; σε is the direct object of the verb. English either changes the direct into the indirect object, resulting in the wordier, “One thing is lacking to you,” or interchanges subject and object, yielding, “You lack one thing” (with proper emphasis: “One thing you lack”). In the sense of to fall short of, ὑστερέω takes the genitive, “For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23).

II Cor. 11:5, “I do not think I am in the least inferior,” reminds us of the fact that the Greek verb is derived from ὕστερος, inferior, lower, latter, behind. Cf. uterus, hysterical, hysteron proteron.

⁴⁷⁸ πώλησον sec. per. sing. imperat. active of πωλέω, to sell (11:15; Luke 12:33, 18:22; 22:36; John 2:14, 16; etc.). Cf. monopoly.

⁴⁷⁹ Cf. θησαυρός in heaven (Matt. 6:20; Luke 12:33); tr. on earth (Matt. 6:19); tr. hidden in the field (Matt. 13:44); “where your treasure is” (Matt. 6:21); tr. in earthen vessels (II Cor. 4:7); tr. of wisdom and knowledge (Col. 2:3); treasure chest (Matt. 2:11) storehouse or storeroom (Matt. 13:52). Cf. thesaurus.

⁴⁸⁰ Note στυγνάσας, aor. participle of στυγνάζω, to have a gloomy appearance. Cf. Styx, stygian.

⁴⁸¹ See on 3:5, footnote 105.

⁴⁸² δυσκόλως adv., with difficulty. Cf. adj. δύσκολος,-ον, where δυς has a meaning opposite to εὖ; and κόλον (cf. colon, colic) means food. Original meaning: hard to please with food; then, in general, hard to please, difficult.

⁴⁸³ Note present participle ἔχοντες, probably durative.

⁴⁸⁴ Here some manuscripts add “for those who trust in riches.” See Lenski’s defense of these words; op. cit., p. 278. He presents a strong argument for their authenticity. He may be right; yet, all in all, I believe the arguments in favor of leaving out these words is stronger. Not only does the textual evidence favor their omission, but also it is not nearly as easy to believe that, if these words were in the autograph, they would have been dropped, than to believe that an erring scribe added them, with an appeal, perhaps, to Prov. 11:28.

⁴⁸⁵

With τρυμαλία ῥαφίδος cf. τρῆμα ῥαφίδος (Matt. 19:24); and τρῆμα βελόνης (Luke 18:25). τρυμαλία, meaning hole, eye, is related to τρύω, to wear away; τρῆμα, to τιτράω, to bore.

With ῥαφίς, needle cf. ῥάπτω, to sew, to stitch, a “rhapsodist” being basically one who stitches songs together. βελόνη, needle, is related to βέλος, a sharply pointed dart or missile that is thrown; cf. βάλλω, to throw. “Dr.” Luke’s “needle” was the surgical kind.

⁴⁸⁶ ἐξεπλήσσοντο, third per. pl. imperf. passive of ἐκπλήσσω. See on 1:22. Cf. also 6:2; 7:37; 11:18. The word is found also in Matthew, Luke, and Acts.

⁴⁸⁷ For ἐκβλέψας see above, on verse 21a., footnote 475.

⁴⁸⁸

Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, see on 3:28. ἀφῆκεν, third per. sing. aor. indic. active of ἀφίημι, leave, forsake, give up.

ἐαν̀ μὴ λάβῃ, except he shall take.

μετὰ διωγμῶν, along with—or: accompanied by—persecutions.

ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τούτῳ … ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τῷ ἐρχομένῳ, in this time (or: season) … in the age to come.

⁴⁸⁹ Or: and told.

⁴⁹⁰ The two periphrastic imperfects, followed by two regular imperfects ἐθαμβοῦντο and ἐφοβοῦντο, indicate that Mark is as it were picturing, item by item, just what was happening. He wants us to linger a while and consider the seriousness of the situation, the determined manner in which Jesus is walking toward the place of his execution.

⁴⁹¹ συμβαίνειν, pres. infinitive of συμβαίνω (to step together), to happen. Hence, the meaning of the entire expression is: “the things that were about to happen to him.”

⁴⁹² For Ἰδού see on 2:24, footnote 91; and N.T.C. on Matt. 1:20, p. 131, footnote 133.

⁴⁹³ παραδοθήσεται, third per. sing. fut. pass. indic. of παραδίδωμι, to hand over, deliver up, betray.

⁴⁹⁴ παραδώσουσι, third per. pl. fut. act. indic. of the same verb as in the preceding footnote.

⁴⁹⁵ ἀναστήσεται, third per. sing. middle indic. of ἀνίστημι, with active meaning.

⁴⁹⁶ See E. P. Gould, op. cit., p. 198; F. C. Grant, op. cit., pp. 809, 810; M. H. Bolkestein, op. cit., p. 237; Vincent Taylor, op. cit., pp. 437, 438.

⁴⁹⁷ Or: recognized.

⁴⁹⁸ For the sake of vividness Mark, as often, uses the dramatic present. Here, after a verb of wishing, non-final ἵνα introduces the object clause: literally, that whatever we ask you, you do for us. αἰτήσωμεν first per. pl. aor. act. subjunctive of αἰτέω; ποιήσῃς second per. sing. aor. act. subjunctive of ποιέω.

⁴⁹⁹

Right and left are plurals in the original; hence, literally, “from the right parts of your body and from the left parts.” With δεξιός (here δεξιῶν) cf. ambidextrous. With ἀριστερόͅ (here ἀριστερῶν) cf. sinister. Etymological connection? Probably not. A euphemistic synonym for ἐξ ἀριστερῶν is ἐξ εὐωνύμων (Mark 10:40; 15:27; cf. Matt. 20:21, 23; 25:33, 41; 27:38). We say “euphemistic,” for actually bad things were thought of as coming from the left. For the Jew, facing east, the left was the north, where evil often originated (Jer. 1:14; 4:6: think of invasions). For the Greek, facing north, the left was the west, regarded by him as similarly unfavorable.

This note is appended only to explain the origin of these Greek words. It is perhaps unnecessary to add that divine revelation does not ascribe any validity to superstitious notions, omens, etc. All things are under God’s control, and even that which is—or appears to be—bad, is by him overruled for good (Ps. 33:11; Prov. 16:4; 19:21; Isa. 14:24–27; 46:10; Dan. 4:24; Rom. 8:28; Eph. 1:11.)

⁵⁰⁰ This, however, does not mean that the verb βαπτίζω, as used in Scripture, always has the meaning to immerse. In such passages as Mark 7:4; Luke 11:38; I Cor. 10:1, 2 (cf. Exod. 14:16, 22, 29); Heb. 9:10 (cf. verses 13, 19, 21) it cannot very well have that meaning. See above, on Mark 7:4.

⁵⁰¹ For remarks on the Greek see the next footnote.

⁵⁰² In verse 38 πιεῖν is the aor. act. infin., and in verse 39 πίεσθε is the sec. per. pl. fut. act. indic. of πίνω. In verse 38 βαπτισθῆναι is the aor. pass. infin., and in verse 39 βαπτισθήσεσθε is the sec. per. pl. fut. pass. indic. of βαπτίζω. With the passive forms, βάπτισμα is the cognate accusative. In verse 40 note the art. aor. infin. καθίσαι of καθίζω; ἡτοίμασται, third per. sing. perf. indic. pass. of ἑτοιμάζω; and ἐμόν, the neuter possessive adj. used predicatively as a nominative noun after ἔστι, and followed by δοῦναι, aor. inf. of δίδωμι. For ἐκ δεξιῶν—ἐξ εύωνύμων see on verse 37, footnote 499.

⁵⁰³ Literally, “they began to be” or “they became.” But in this case ἤρξαντο may well be a redundant auxiliary. For this pleonastic use of ἄρχω see on 1:45 and on 6:7.

⁵⁰⁴ The original has οἱ δοκοῦντες ἄρχειν. I agree, therefore, with the view of Vincent Taylor, op. cit., p. 443, on this point. This presence of a touch of irony is also recognized by the following translations: R.S.V., Moffatt, Williams, Phillips. Good on this passage is also E. Trueblood, op. cit., pp. 87, 88, 127.

⁵⁰⁵ In both verses (43 and 44) ἔσται has imperative force: “he shall be,” “must be”; hence, “let him be.” See Gram.N.T., p. 943.

⁵⁰⁶ It is clear that in verses 43, 44 the two words διάκονος and δοῦλος are synonyms. The temptation is, with many others, to translate them “servant” and “slave.” However, in the course of history the ideas of lack of freedom, unwilling service, cruel treatment, etc., have become so closely attached to “slave” that, together with other translators, I too find it impossible to accept this translation as truly representing what Jesus had in mind in the present context. Far better, it would seem to the present author, is therefore the rendering (for the pair): “minister … servant.” My only reason for suggesting still another English equivalent is that today the term “minister” is very often understood in the technical sense of clergyman. For διάκονος see also N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. I, p. 119; and N.T.C. on I and II Timothy and Titus, footnote 67 on p. 135; and for δοῦλος, N.T.C. on Philippians, p. 44.

⁵⁰⁷ See the author’s doctoral dissertation, The Meaning of the Preposition ἀντί in the New Testament, Princeton Seminary, 1948.

⁵⁰⁸ Another reading, with considerable support, has, “Bartimaeus … a blind beggar, was sitting by the roadside.” The difference in meaning is minimal.

⁵⁰⁹ ἱκανός, -οῦ. Mark uses this word three times, each time in a different sense. Here in 10:46 it has about the same meaning as πολύς; hence, large. In 1:7 (see above, on that passage) the sense is able, fit. In combination with ποιεῖν it acquires the meaning to satisfy in 15:15.

⁵¹⁰ Note the gen. absolute: a present participle with its triple subject.

⁵¹¹ S.BK. I, p. 525.

⁵¹² ἐλέησον, sec. per. sing. aor. imper. active of ἐλέω. Cf. alms, eleemosynary.

⁵¹³ ἐπετίμων, imperfect tense. See also on 3:12, footnote 111; and on 4:39, footnote 174.

⁵¹⁴ πολλῷ μᾶλλον, see on 9:26, footnote 411.

⁵¹⁵ Note ἀποκριθείς, the aor. participle of ἀποκρίνομαι. Jesus is not directly answering a question, but is responding to an action or situation. The Greek word frequently has this meaning. Hence, in addition to answered, replied, it can also be rendered responded, spoke up (a good alternative here in 10:50), continued.

⁵¹⁶ Note the aor. subjunctive ποιήσω, without a preceding ἵνα as in verse 35. This practice of asyndeton (leaving out a word when that word is clearly implied) is frequent not only in Greek (Gram.N.T., p. 430) but in language generally.

⁵¹⁷ σέσωκε, third per. sing. perf. act. indic. of σώζω.

⁵¹⁸ ἠκολούθει, imperfect, probably ingressive. So also in Luke 18:43.

⁵¹⁹ In this connection see V. K. Robbins, “The Healing of Blind Bartimaeus (10:46–52) in the Marcan Theology,” JBL (June 1973), pp. 224–243. What remains of this article after subtracting highly speculative redaction theories is very valuable.

↑ Back to top