Mark 10

CHAPTER X

By naming the locality, “the borders of Judea and beyond the Jordan,” Mark indicates the third minor part in the subsection 8:27–10:32; see the details in the introductory remarks to 8:27.

Mark 10:1

1 And having arisen, he comes from thence to the boundaries of Judea and beyond the Jordan. And there come together again multitudes unto him. And, as was his custom, he was again teaching them.

Compare Matt. 19:1. Ἀναστάς is merely circumstantial; it indicates a rising up to go on a journey. Jesus remained in Capernaum (9:33) less than a day; he never returned to this his own city. Matthew states that he departed “from Galilee” where he had labored for so long a period, and this departure, too, was final. “He comes to the boundaries of Judea” names the territory he reached. “And beyond the Jordan” adds the detail that Jesus was still on the east side of the river and thus had not yet actually crossed into Judea; he was still in Perea. We may thus assume that he was now opposite Jericho, near the ford of the river where travellers crossed over. This was a rich and fertile territory which Josephus describes in fervent language.

No wonder that crowds “again” flock together (σύν in the verb) unto him, which recalls the days before Jesus withdrew to distant and generally lonely places. Matthew tells us that he healed the sick, but Mark adds that “he was again engaged in teaching them” (the tense is the durative imperfect) as his custom was. Εἰώθει (ἔθω) is a pluperfect which has the force of an imperfect: “as he was accustomed.” R. 904.

Mark 10:2

2 And Pharisees, having come to him, were inquiring of him whether it is lawful for a husband to release a wife, tempting him.

These Pharisees who approach him in Perea are of the same type and temper as those he encountered in Galilee and in Jerusalem, they are entirely hostile to Jesus and bent on ruining him. So their object is not to obtain an answer to this question but to tempt him to make a pronouncement that shall discredit him.

In order to understand the question they asked we should know that already before the time of Jesus the schools of Shammai and of Hillel differed on the interpretation of Deut. 24:1. The former said: “The man is not to release his wife except he have found something indecent in her.” He simply reverses the two nouns ’erwath dabar and their grammatical relation and thus himself needs interpretation. The LXX translates: ὅτιεὕρηκενἐναὐτῇἄσχημονπράγμα. Hillel allowed as a charge that in cooking the wife had burned her husband’s food; and Rabbi Akiba, using from Deut. 24:1 the words, “that she find no favor in his eyes,” allowed her to be released whenever the husband found a better-looking woman. Shammai was stricter, Hillel utterly lax.

The Pharisees are laying Hillel’s teaching before Jesus. This is clearer in Matthew’s account which reports the question as: “Is it lawful to release one’s wife for every charge,” for any and every reason the man may allege? Since it is easier to be lax than to be strict, to go downhill than to go up, Hillel was followed by the Jews; and Josephus, Antiquities 4, 8, 23, writes: “He that desires to be divorced from his wife for any cause whatsoever—and many such causes happen among men—let him in writing give assurance that he will never use her again as his wife any more, for by these means she may be at liberty to marry another husband although before this bill of divorce be given she is not to be permitted to do so.”

So the question is whether Jesus agrees with Hillel’s exposition of Deut. 24:1. “Tempting him” means that they tried to make him compromise himself in some way. If, for instance, he should agree with Hillel and the common Jewish practice, the Pharisees would side with Shammai and would reproach Jesus with moral laxity. If he sided with Shammai who contended that only actual shameful conduct could be a cause for divorce Jesus would be reproached for his own friendly treatment of sinners. Either choice would also involve Jesus in the Jewish party dispute. If, however, as the Pharisees most likely expected, Jesus should reject both Hillel and Shammai and declare himself against all divorce, they could charge him with even contradicting the law as stated in Deut. 24:1. The Pharisees were sure that they had a question which Jesus could not answer without great hurt to himself.

The question is put in indirect form, hence εἰ creates no difficulty, R. 916; B.-D. 440, 3. The absence of the articles with ἀνδρί and γυναῖκα helps to bring out the qualitative force of these nouns, R. 794.

Mark 10:3

3 But he answering said to them, What did Moses command to you? But they said, Moses permitted to write a divorce-certificate and to release her.

In Matthew the question about Moses is placed after the exposition regarding the creation of man as male and female; Mark seems to have the true order. In Matthew the Pharisees raise the question about Moses, in Mark it is Jesus who does so. Mark follows the formal fact, Matthew intends to bring out the detail that this was a question that was always raised by the Pharisees. So in Mark’s account Jesus wants them to speak out on what they have to say about Moses. It was that one passage from Moses (Deut. 24:1) which they imagined decided the entire question.

Mark 10:4

4 So, very readily the Pharisees reply that Moses permitted (ἐπέτρεψε, turned over to the Jews) to give a divorce-certificate and with that to release the wife. In Matthew’s account the Pharisees say that Moses commanded this procedure. He commanded by permitting and permitted by thus commanding. The great mistake of the Pharisees was that they imagined that the dissolution of marriage for some cause or other was originally contemplated in the will of God concerning marriage. Hence they thought that for this reason Moses wrote that permission in Deut. 24:1 and commanded only that a written certificate be given the wife.

These Pharisees could and should have seen their shallow error. It was easy enough to see why Moses gave this permission. Even this permission of Moses dealt only with the legal procedure in the release of a wife—a divorce-certificate had to be given her. It makes no difference whether βιβλίον is added to ἀποστάσιον or not, it is omitted in Matt. 5:31. Ἀπολύειν is the regular term for the act of dismissing a wife so that her marriage is disrupted. No legal proceedings were necessary but only the husband’s order for her to leave, he handed her a paper to that effect. The permission granted by Moses the Jews made a command and their regular rule of practice by interpreting it after Hillel’s fashion.

Mark 10:5

5 But Jesus said to them, For your hardness of heart Moses wrote this bidding for you. But from creation’s beginning, Male and female he made them. On this account a man shall leave completely his father and mother and shall be glued to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh; wherefore they are no longer two but one flesh. What, therefore, God yoked together, let man not divide apart.

Jesus corrects the false view of the Pharisees regarding Moses and Deut. 24:1. The bidding (ἐντολή) which Moses gave the Jews was in reality only a permission. Jesus says that Moses wrote this for you because (πρός in this sense, R. 626) of your heart-hardness. Something intervened since in creating man as he did God created marriage, namely sin, which wrought havoc also with the marriage relation. It produced a condition of heart that is impervious to the will and the Word of God so that men who had such hard hearts at times wanted to get rid of their wives and disrupt their marriage tie. The regulation of Moses was nothing more than a concession to this evil condition and was never to go beyond this.

It therefore also consisted of nothing more than a legal form for dissolving marriage. It thus also only bore testimony to the hardness of so many hearts, and no man in his right sense could conclude that by this Mosaic regulation God had altered his original intention concerning the permanency of marriage. Any man who wanted to know God’s will concerning marriage would not dare to examine only Deut. 24:1; he would have to go back to Gen. 1:27 and 2:24 just as Jesus now does.

Mark 10:6

6 He would have to examine how it was “from creation’s beginning.” According to Matthew, Jesus asked the Pharisees whether they had never read the words: “Male and female he made them.” The object of ἐποίησε is understood, and the two neuter adjectives ἄρσεν and θῆλυ are predicative to this object: “them as male and as female,” the neuter being used for the abstract idea of male and female. The fact should not be overlooked that, although Eve was created after Adam, he had already been created male. Thus by his creation, even before Eve was created, God had instituted marriage. It was a blind way to read the Scriptures when the Pharisees wrangled about Deut. 24:1 and never saw Gen. 1:27. All they knew was to ask: “Is it lawful?” which made marriage and its dissolution a matter of legislation. They expected to draw Jesus into their dispute.

He brushes their cunning temptation aside by pointing out from the Scriptures that marriage is bound up with the very creation of man. It is not a product of any progress or development that came later in the history of man.

Mark 10:7

7 On top of this the Scriptures state most clearly what marriage really is. Because God created them male and female, “on this account” a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall be glued to his wife. The verb προσκολλᾶν is not too strong, for the marital union is far more intimate and close than is the filial relation to parents.

Mark 10:8

8 Jesus is really quoting, citing Gen. 2:24, which is reproduced in the LXX translation, which accords with the Hebrew save that in the statement: “and the two shall be one flesh,” οἱδύο, “the two,” is inserted in order to bring out the sense of the original, an insertion that is retained in all the New Testament quotations of this passage. It is true that Moses spoke Gen. 2:24, but he voiced God’s thought on what marriage really is in such a way that his words are treated as if they were God’s own. To be glued together so closely as to be one flesh refers to the sexual relation in marriage as producing a union that involves all the other sides of this life.

To impress this point still more by showing what God made of marriage at the very creation Jesus adds his own words: “wherefore they are no longer two but one flesh.” Father and son, mother and son are and ever remain two; but husband and wife are one flesh, they are made so by their physical sexual union in the marriage relation and as a result are bound together permanently in one. The Pharisees, who allowed a husband to discharge a wife at will for any trumped-up cause, were in conflict with the divine view of marriage. They considered husband and wife two like master and servant so that the husband could remove his wife at any time. The wife was not accorded a similar right among the Jews.

Mark 10:9

9 The vital point is the permanency of marriage according to God’s will. Jesus himself therefore brings this out in the strongest kind of way: “What, therefore, God did yoke together, let no man divide apart!” Οὖν introduces this as being the true deduction from all that God has said concerning marriage. When persons are involved, a neuter like ὅ makes the reference abstract and general and thus stronger: “anything” joined together by God. The figure in “yoked together” is not only appropriate for man and wife but even beautiful. The aorist is generally regarded as being timeless, yet it here evidently marks time that is antecedent to the main verb and is in place for this reason and not because it is timeless. God has once yoked together, thereafter let no man pull apart!

In connections such as this the English prefers the perfect “has yoked together.” The plain implication is that any man who divides what God has thus by his own creation united into one flies in the face of God and his will—a serious opposition, indeed. How indissoluble marriage is according to God’s own creation is thus made clear. Did these Pharisees never read these divine words in Scripture and think on what they obviously declare?

Mark 10:10

10 And in the house the disciples again inquired of him concerning this. And he says to them. Whoever shall release his wife and marry another is made adulterous in regard to her; and if she, having released her husband, shall marry another she is made adulterous.

If we had Mark’s account alone we might conclude that Jesus spoke this word only to the disciples after Jesus and they had gone into the house. But from Matthew’s account we see that this word about the sin that was committed by releasing a wife was addressed also to the Pharisees. After the disciples were alone with Jesus in the house, Jesus repeated this word, and, as Matthew shows, added still further instruction. Εἰςτὴνοἰκίαν is a sample of the static use of this preposition, on which consult R. 591 at length.

Mark 10:11

11 In Matt. 5:32 Jesus deals with the sin that the man commits against his wife and against any man who may later marry that wife. See the commentary on this passage in Matthew where μοιχευθῆναι and μοιχᾶται are shown to be passives, not actives as is regularly assumed. In Matt. 19:9 and here in Mark, Jesus brings out the sin which the man (woman) commits against himself (herself). The wrong against the wife is still hinted at in the phrase “in regard to her,” but Jesus does not here concern himself with that. “Whoever shall release his wife” (the aorist to indicate the accomplished release) refers to the Jewish practice of ordering a wife to leave by giving her a divorce-certificate. The exception “save for fornication” which is mentioned in Matt. 5:32 and in 19:9 is not brought in here. When a rule or a principle is stated, any exception may or may not be noted; in the latter case the rule would still be a rule. Moreover, the exception that the woman commits fornication already disrupts the marriage with her husband, and by sending her away the aggrieved husband would himself disrupt nothing but only accept the disruption his wife has made.

Here and in Matt. 19:9 Jesus adds “and shall marry another.” We cannot agree that because of this addition Jesus says nothing about a man who releases his wife and then does not marry another. The man’s sin is beyond question his disruption of the marriage, which is effected by forcing his wife to leave. The man’s marrying another is only the aggravating circumstance. It is added here and in Matt. 19:9 on this account, and the Jews rid themselves of their wives for the very purpose of marrying another.

In Matt. 5:32 μοιχευθῆναι and μοιχᾶται are passives, but the subjects of the verbs are the persons injured by the husband, namely, his wife and the man whom she may later marry. In 5:32 Jesus treats the man’s sin from the angle of the injury done to others. In Matt. 19:9 and here in Mark μοιχᾶται is certainly also passive, but here the agent involved in the passive, yea, the very subject of the verb, is the wicked husband, which means that Jesus is here dealing with this man’s action as it affects himself: “he is made adulterous,” made so by his own deed. But it is quite certain that this verb is not active as our versions and others translate it: “he commits adultery.” We could admit that it is a middle (which is not the case, however, in Matt. 5:32): “he becomes adulterous” or “makes himself so” by his own deed; in that case the sense would not be altered, and the effect of this man’s act upon others would be left out of consideration. Zahn alone notes the passive in Matt. 5:32, but even in his case the old interpretations are so strong that he drops into these in his own comment. The gain in recognizing and in holding to these passives is less in Matt. 19:9 and in Mark than in Matt. 5:32; but any gain in exegesis is precious, and in the case of the latter passage it is great indeed.

Mark 10:12

12 Mark writes for non-Jewish Christian readers and therefore adds the word about the wife’s dismissing her husband. What is said regarding the man is equally true about the woman. The omission of the phrase ἐπʼ αὐτόν, “in regard to him,” is natural and needs no explanation; the phrase is understood, for the cases are equal. Some say that Jesus never spoke this word that is recorded by Mark. This is regarded as a statement which Mark added of his own accord, a conclusion of his own that a wife’s act would be equal to the husband’s act; Mark merely put it into Jesus’ mouth; Mark of his own accord brings in what is needed for Gentile and Roman Christians among whom wives could rid themselves of their husbands. But these suppositions are untenable.

In Matt. 19:9 we have what Jesus said to the Pharisees, in Mark what he said in private to his disciples. They would have to deal with Roman and Gentile believers, and Jesus instructed them accordingly.

Still more must be said. While it was not usual for Jewish women to get rid of their husbands, cases of this kind occurred. Josephus, Antiquities 15, 7, 10, reports that Salome, sister of Herod the Great, even sent her husband Costobarus a bill of divorcement although Josephus remarks that the sending of this bill was not according to Jewish laws. We know that Herodias left her husband Philip. To say that these were “prominent abnormalities” does not dispose of them. Because the people involved were prominent, history reported their cases.

It is rather difficult to believe that wives were completely bound to their husbands, and that, while husbands constantly got rid of their wives, the hardness of heart never extended to Jewish women to do the same with their husbands. It has been established that they, too, could obtain divorce. The case is simply this, Jewish law recognized a certain easy procedure for the husband but provided nothing that was equal for the wife. She would either have to desert her husband or apply to the difficult local courts for release. This formal difference is immaterial to Jesus. In his estimation the sin consisted in the disruption of the marriage, no matter by what means this was effected.

In all his utterances Jesus treats only the immorality that is involved in the disruption of marriage, whether this immorality emanates from the husband or from the wife; and not the legal actions of any court of law. Even when he refers to Deut. 24:1 and what was considered legal among the Jews (among whom, however, the husband required no court action but only the wife if she wanted to be freed) Jesus treats only the moral side, namely, the hardness of the heart and the consequent defection from God’s creative intention. Confusion results when this is overlooked, and when we speak of “divorce,” meaning a court action, and then apply the utterances of Jesus to that. The sin of destroying a marriage is in the heart and in the action of the husband or the wife (possibly of both); this is what destroys the marriage. Running to the court for a legal edict is only a subsequent result and not the main point. A disrupted marriage is a disrupted marriage and thus a vicious sin against the will, Word, and command of God, whether some court action follows, as it does in our day, or is not needed at all, as was the case in Jesus’ day.

In all his utterances on this subject Jesus blames only the one who disrupts the marriage and not the one whose marriage is disrupted. The mistranslations of Matt. 5:32 should not confuse us on this point, nor the exegesis that operates with these mistranslations. 1 Cor. 7:15 is exactly the same as Matt. 5:32; 19:9, and the passages in Mark. The innocent party in a disrupted marriage is “not bound” as Paul states, nor does Jesus declare that party bound.

The deduction cannot be drawn from the words of Jesus that a disrupted marriage is still a binding marriage in the sight of God. In all the passages the condemnation rests on the disruption of the marriage, no matter what the cause may have been. The point should not be shifted to the cause of the disruption, whether it is grave or light. Whatever the cause, a disrupted marriage is a disrupted marriage, and to disrupt a marriage for a trivial cause makes the sin so much the worse. Nowhere does Jesus forbid the innocent party of a disrupted marriage to marry again. As regards the guilty one who causes the disruption, the way of repentance is surely open also for such a sinner as it is open for any other who has caused an irreparable wrong to another.

Mark 10:13

13 And they kept bringing little children to him in order that he should touch them; but the disciples went on to rebuke them.

First marriage, then children, a sequence that is eminently fitting. The Pharisees are absent, have been since v. 10. This scene is often placed out-of-doors, but v. 10 leads us to think that it occurred in a house, which also explains how the disciples could rebuke those who were bringing the children. They did this outside and not in the presence of Jesus, and thus, as v. 14 states, he finally saw it. Note the two imperfects προσέφερον and ἐπετίμων which describe the scene and show how the people “kept bringing,” and the disciples “kept rebuking”; both tenses also lead us to expect an aorist to tell us what the outcome was. It seems as if these persons started to bring their children of their own accord.

Somebody conceived the thought, and others followed in a little procession. The masculine αὐτοῖς would be used though most of the persons were mothers, sisters, or nurses. Most of them were probably parents, fathers and mothers. The disciples proceeded to interfere and probably succeeded until Jesus, looking out, saw what they were doing and stopped them. All three evangelists use the strong verb ἐπιτιμᾶν, “to rebuke,” “to threaten.”

The scene loses much of its value when it is supposed that superstition motivated these parents, and that they thought that the touch of Jesus’ hands had magical power. We may be sure that if this had been the case, Jesus would have rebuked these people and would not have touched a single child. Verbs of touching are followed by the genitive. Matthew describes this touching as the laying on of hands, a symbolical act that denotes blessing, and combines it with praying, invoking heavenly, spiritual blessings upon the children.

Matthew and Mark write παιδία, “little children,” for which Luke 18:15 has τὰβρέφη, their “babes” or sucklings, the word that is used in 1 Pet. 2:2 and even as a designation for an unborn babe in Luke 1:44. Being so tiny, it was, of course, impossible for them to understand what Jesus was doing for them. The only intimation we have regarding the reason the disciples stopped these babes from being brought to Jesus is found in the word of Jesus, which shows that the disciples did not yet realize the relation of babes to the kingdom. There may also have been other reasons such as that the disciples did not want Jesus to be troubled by having all these babes brought to him, that they considered his time too valuable to be wasted on infants, and that they desired his time for themselves and for further discussions.

Mark 10:14

14 But having seen it, Jesus was indignant and said to them: Let the little children be coming to me! Stop hindering them! For of such is the kingdom of God. Amen, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child in no way shall enter into it. And having taken them up in his arms, he went on fervently blessing them, having placed his hands upon them.

It is Mark alone who notes the emotion, the indignation of Jesus. When his disciples make other mistakes, Jesus, of course, feels it but is not indignant toward them. But when they ignorantly wrong poor, helpless little children, the indignation of Jesus resents their action. This indignation is one of the plain indications of what Jesus thinks of our little ones. Jesus appears as the great Advocate of babes who opens his mouth for the dumb, out of whose mouth, by his grace, he perfects praise. It has been well said that without these words of Jesus and his attitude toward infants the Christian Church would have been far different from what it is.

With shamed faces the disciples stood before their Master. We read the tone of his indignation into the two imperatives ἄφετε‚ μὴκωλύετε. The second present imperative is negative and thus means to stop what one has already begun (R. 851, etc.). The first is well rendered “suffer the little children,” etc., lasset sie gewaehren. The peremptory aorist positive command is intensified by the negative. After ἄφετε Mark has the accusative with the infinitive: let “them be coming to me,” present tense, always coming.

Matthew has the effective aorist ἐλθεῖν which means actually getting to Jesus. The implication is that children, and this includes babes (βρέφη), are ready to come to Jesus and need only that men let them do so. And this coming has the same purpose as the coming of any adult to Jesus, namely, to receive from him the Messianic salvation. Their affinity for Jesus lies in their need of him, which is due to their inborn sin.

Pank writes: “As the flower in the garden stretches toward the light of the sun, so there is in the child a mysterious inclination toward the eternal light. Have you never noticed this mysterious thing, that when you tell the smallest child about God, it never asks with strangeness and wonder: ‘What or who is God? I have never seen him!’—but listens with shining face to the words as if they were soft, loving sounds from the land of home? or when you teach a child to fold its little hands in prayer, that it does this as if it were a matter of course, as if there were opening for it that world of which it has been dreaming with longing and anticipation? or tell them, these little ones, the stories of the Savior, show them the pictures with scenes and personages of the Bible—how their pure eyes shine, how the little hearts beat!”

The coming of these little ones is not accomplished without means, for v. 13 states that they were being brought. To hinder from coming is to prevent the bringing. These were Jewish children who were already in the old covenant of grace; yet Jesus lays no stress on this fact but speaks of children in general even as the church has applied his word to all children. If Jewish children, who were already in the covenant and kingdom, needed to be brought to Jesus in order to be blessed by him as the Messiah, how much more should all other children, to whom no grace has as yet been applied, be brought to him! Jesus once for all bans every obstacle which our blind reasoning about babes may raise against their coming to him.

This double command would be enough, but Jesus goes much farther, he adds his reason (γάρ) for this command: “For of such is the kingdom of God.” He does not say τούτων, “of these,” the ones now being brought to him or in the wider sense all little children; but τῶντοιούτων, “of such,” which says far more, namely, the great class to which children as such belong. Bengel says that if the kingdom is “of such,” then the children must be counted in with a special right. They are the model examples of the whole class. If we want to know the character of the class we must study the children. It is their receptivity to which Jesus refers. In them sin has not yet developed so as to produce conscious resistance to the power of divine grace, which necessitates the convicting power of the law.

On the kingdom of God see 1:15; it is where God (Christ), the King, is with his rule and his work of grace. To be of this kingdom is to have God’s grace operative in us.

If Jesus had meant that all children, merely by the fact of their being children, are already under this operation, are already saved, then it would be superfluous for children to come to him; they would already be his. But Jesus does not mean this. What is born of the flesh is flesh, John 3:6 (Gen. 5:3; Ps. 51:5). It is in vain to deny original and inborn sin, the total depravity of our race, and to call babes “innocent and pure” in the sense of “sinless.” Every babe that dies contradicts this claim. It is another groundless assumption that at birth (or already when conceived) all children are made partakers of Christ’s atonement without any means whatever; the Scriptures contain no word to this effect.

Because their elders have been misled by such thoughts, the little ones have been left outside of the kingdom until their receptiveness for grace passed away, and their salvation became jeopardized. Baptism in particular was denied them, and this sacrament itself was regarded as a mere symbol that gives and conveys nothing but only pictures something. Baptism was called an act of obedience (so much law) that is possible only for an adult and no longer an act of the Triune God which adopts babes as his children, deeds to them a place in heaven, gives them the new birth in the Spirit. Who will count the crimes that were thus perpetrated against helpless babes, even in the very name of Christ, by denying them the one divine means by which they can be brought and can come to their glorified Lord?

Mark 10:15

15 Although this verse recalls Matt. 18:3, we see that it is used in a different way. With the seal of verity (amen) and of authority (I say to you), see 4:28, Jesus shows his disciples how “of such is the kingdom of God,” for no one shall enter that kingdom unless he receives it as a little child. The statement is astonishing in every way. We should think as, alas, so many did and do think that a babe must receive the kingdom as an adult does, but absolutely the reverse is true. The child is the model and not the man. It is the unassuming humility and unquestioning trustfulness of the child that make it the pattern for all adults.

This humility and trustfulness, when they are directed to Christ, become the very essence of saving faith. To receive the kingdom and to enter into it are not diverse actions when we remember what the kingdom is, namely, the working of his power and his grace wherever he is present. This we receive, i.e., as a gift, God bestows his grace on us; and thus we enter the circle, the domain, where God works with his grace. By receiving the kingdom we enter into it, and by entering into it we receive it. In John 3:3, 5 seeing the kingdom is described as entering it. But the decisive point lies in the emphatic phrase “as a little child.”

Mark 10:16

16 Matthew adds only that Jesus went on placing his hands on the children, Luke adds nothing, but Mark describes fully. Jesus took them up in his arms. It was not enough for him just to place his hands on them while others carried these babes. He took them in his own arms as his own children—what a highly significant action! Then he put hands upon them, which symbolized the bestowal of his blessing. We should not think that the hands were the medium of the bestowal; this action is never sacramental but always only symbolical.

The blessing did not flow through the hands but came through the words of Jesus. Mark uses the plural because it is the common phrase “to lay on the hands,” although in many instances, just as here, only one hand was used. Jesus held a babe in one arm and placed his other hand upon its head. Thus, in a way, both hands were employed. The two participles are aorists because these actions preceded the spoken words of blessing. For the latter Mark uses the imperfect tense and a verb compounded with κατά: “he went on fervently blessing them.”

What words Jesus used in his benedictions, and whether they were the same for each babe, Mark does not say. These were Jewish children who were in the Old Testament covenant, yet they needed the added blessings of the Savior who had come to establish the new covenant. The children received what the words of Jesus stated, for his words are never a mere wish. To be in the covenant does not yet mean to possess all that is in that covenant. We daily receive more and more. Mark closes his account with the imperfect tense; the curtain falls while Jesus is busy with his blessings. No child was left unblessed.

Mark 10:17

17 And while he is going out on the road, one, having run forward and having kneeled to him, was inquiring of him, Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit life eternal?

Jesus is in the act of taking the road to the next village when this unnamed man comes to him with his Question. Jesus first speaks of marriage, then of children, now of earthly possessions—all in a beautiful sequence. Whatever else may have happened between these events is left out in order to secure this order of events. Luke tells us that this man was a ruler, meaning a ruler of a synagogue, one of the officials who managed the affairs of the local synagogue. He was still a young man, for Matthew calls him a νεανίσκος, a man between 24 and 40. His actions in running out in the road to meet Jesus and kneeling down before him in the dust betoken his eagerness and the fervor of his desire.

Though he is a ruler and prominent in his community he humbles himself before Jesus. This action of the man and the address “good Teacher” bespeak great reverence for Jesus and the assurance on his part that Jesus will be able to give him the vital information that he desires.

The man does not ask how he may obtain life eternal as if he were at a loss as to the way and the means. On the contrary, he thinks he knows quite well how, namely, by his doing something, some one good thing (Matthew), “good” in the sense of heilbringend (C.-K. 5). He is not thinking of something that is merely morally good, for he knows that obedience to the divine commandments is morally good, yet despite all this obedience of his he still lacks life eternal and knows that he lacks it. He asks the question what he shall do because he thinks that Jesus has managed to discover this thing and has by it acquired life eternal for himself. This man would like to do the same thing. His conception of Jesus is thus much like that of the modernists: Jesus is a man who has discovered the good thing and by it found eternal life.

His essential Son-ship as also his atonement are brushed aside. The only question is: “Lord, how didst thou do it? Tell us that we may do likewise.”

In the question: “What shall I do?” there lies, of course, the assumption that the questioner has the necessary ability and may easily reach the goal that Jesus has reached. All he needs is to know the thing that is to be done. This idea is Pelagianism in its worst form. In ποιήσω, “shall I do,” lies the readiness to do what may be required. He is not thinking of a divine command, for he does not ask what he “must do,” δεῖποιεῖν or ποιῆσαι. The best thing about the wrong and twisted question is that the man wants “life eternal.”

It is John who uses ζωή thirty-four times in his writings, and the word always means the life principle itself which makes us spiritually alive. No science has fathomed what natural life really is, and the essence of spiritual life is still more mysterious. But both natural and spiritual life are known by their functions and acts. The reception of the ζωή is regeneration, of which Jesus spoke to Nicodemus at length. This life is αἰώνιος, “eternal,” going on through the eons unaffected by temporal death which only transfers this life into the heavenly world. It may be lost, and it ceases in us when we wickedly and wilfully cut ourselves off from its divine source, Christ, the Life.

Just what conception the man had of this life which he so much desired we are able to guess only from the way in which he imagined that it could be acquired; he supposed that by himself doing something “good” (ἀγαθόν) it would be given him. An issue is sometimes made of κληρονομεῖν as if doing and inheriting were a contradiction in the man’s question. But Matthew interprets “inherit” by writing “have life eternal.” The verb is often used in the sense of to obtain or to have a portion in something. It is used specifically when sonship and heirship are stressed. But even then, inheriting need not exclude all idea of merit as many a last will and testament shows when a larger portion is bequeathed to a more faithful child, or when a friend, a benefactor, a person who has rendered some valuable service are remembered. Jesus, too, says nothing and intimates nothing about a contradiction in the question.

The picture thus drawn of the young ruler is really pathetic: so eager to do the good thing, so desirous of life eternal (when so many young men are carried away by the world), so strongly attracted to Jesus—and yet so far from the right road to eternal life!

Mark 10:18

18 But Jesus said to him, Why dost thou call me good? No one is good except one, God. The precepts thou knowest: Do not kill; Do not commit adultery; Do not steal; Do not bear false witness; Do not defraud; Honor thy father and mother.

Rationalism and Unitarianism point to this question of Jesus as proof absolute that Jesus is not God. By his saying that no one is good except one person only, namely God, they think the matter is clinched: Jesus is not God. But this reads the words of Jesus and reasons regarding them too superficially. When the young ruler called Jesus “good” and asked what “good thing” he should do to gain life, the heart of the question lay in the sense in which he meant ἀγαθός, “good.” Note that in this connection the positive “good” is used in an absolute sense and is thus stronger than the superlative would be (R. 661).

The question of Jesus: “Why callest thou me good?” wants to bring home to the ruler the point about “good.” Jesus makes no pronouncement whatever about himself but tells this ruler to pause and to think what “good” really means. It will not do to use it lightly with reference to Jesus. To show what Jesus means he points out that goodness in the true sense can be predicated only of God. So far is this from denying the Godhead of Jesus that it actually asserts it. “Good,” Jesus intends to say, “if you mean that in the common sense, it is too cheap to apply to me! It is quite another thing to use good in its real meaning as it applies only to God!” The man is thus led to look at Jesus in a new way, to consider that Jesus may, indeed, be God, essentially one with God as his Son.

The English translation of ἀγαθός as “good” obscures this deeper meaning too much. Modernists translate ἀγαθός “kind,” which “good” means only in certain connections in the English but never in the Greek and absolutely never in a pointed connection such as the present instance. Ἀγαθός means “good” in the sense of “beneficial.” In this its true meaning it may signify what is morally beneficial. Did this man, by asking for the good thing (Matthew) he should do, mean something in the way of moral benefit? If so, then God’s own moral law had answered him long ago.

But ἀγαθός means beneficial also in the sense of heilbringend (C.-K. 5, where our passage is fully discussed), benefiting by bestowing salvation. The ruler had asked for something that would bring him life eternal, salvation; hence the question was pertinent: Did he think of this meaning when he called on the “good” Teacher to tell him what the “good thing” was that he should do? It is to impress this meaning upon his mind that Jesus tells him that God alone is good. There was no need for a reminder to a Jew that God is morally excellent, “The Good” being its very embodiment (Matthew). But this Jew needed to be reminded that God alone is heilbringend, good as the very source of salvation, beyond which there is no other. Was he coming to Jesus to find out what the good thing in this sense was, and did he mean that Jesus could bestow this good upon him? In an exceedingly simple way the ruler is led to look upon Jesus in the true light, as the one who bestows salvation, i.e., as himself God.

Mark 10:19

19 After jolting the ruler’s mind in regard to the real meaning of “good” in connection with salvation and thus God, Jesus proceeds to answer his question. Mark and Luke abbreviate but agree with Matthew. “Thou knowest the precepts” means what Matthew says, that if he wills to enter into the life he must guard these divine ἐντολαί or precepts. Jesus follows the proper course with this man; he starts with the law in order to lead him to the gospel. The process is very simple: first, the man is to understand that he cannot obtain the life by the law; secondly, that all the law can do for him is to show him his sin. After this is clear, the only hope will be in the gospel.

As to the commandments which Jesus cites, all the negative ones have μή with the strong aorist subjunctive, the regular form for negative commands in the aorist; the final positive command has τίμα, the durative present imperative “be honoring,” i.e., always. By using only the second table of the law Jesus takes this young ruler where he is surest of himself; for these are the commandments that most men imagine they can obey with little effort—but see Matt. 5:21, etc. Jesus shows that in quoting the commandments he is not bound by their wording or by their order in the Decalog. So also the evangelists use freedom in listing them. Matthew has the sum of the entire second table at the end, Mark and Luke have the Fourth Commandment on honoring parents at the end. Mark alone has the Ninth and the Tenth Commandments combined in, “Do not defraud!” The object of Jesus seems to be simply the piling up of the commandments into a tremendous burden, the showing how exceedingly much the law requires before it grants the life as a reward.

Mark 10:20

20 But he said to him, Teacher, all these I did watch from my youth on.

He says this to Jesus without blinking an eye. And he is perfectly sincere in what he says. This divine law has no terrors for him—he has kept it all. This is a sample of Pharisaic training which nullifies the very effect that God intends that the law should produce, namely, contrite knowledge of sin and the terrores conscientiae. This young ruler is altogether self-righteous in the face of the law. He was perhaps disappointed to hear Jesus recite nothing but the old commandments which he had watched from his youth. Was this all “the good thing” this “good Teacher” could hold up to him? The verbs φυλάσσειν and τηρεῖν are synonyms like bewachen and bewahren, to watch over and keep safe, and to guard and keep inviolate.

He had lived an exemplary life outwardly, he had shunned grave transgressions, aided and protected, no doubt, by both his training and his environment. Many would today be only too well satisfied with themselves if they were like him, and others would praise and perhaps envy him if they saw him in modern form. Picture him: an exemplary young man in early manhood, fine and clean morally as the phrase now goes, the son of wealthy parents but not spoiled by wealth, with a strong religious bent, an esteemed member of the church, in fact, one of its pillars, a ruler of the local synagogue who was more important than a member of the church council in our present congregations is. Where are the parents that would not be proud of such a son? Where the church that would not give him a prominent place? Where the young lady that would not be attracted by his position and his personal excellence?

Yet all this is worthless in the eyes of Jesus. In fact, the man himself is not satisfied. He is sure that the trouble is not with the old commandments, for he feels he has kept these even from the conscious days of his youth. According to Matthew he asks what he yet lacks. There was somehow a lack which he could not explain. In Mark and in Luke this question is implied.

What can it be? The man thinks that Jesus must now be able to tell him and thus point out the good thing that he still needs.

Mark 10:21

21 But Jesus, having looked on him, loved him and said to him, One thing makes thee come behind. Go, whatever thou hast sell and give to poor people and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, be following me.

It is Mark alone who again records the emotion of Jesus, that, looking at the man, Jesus loved him (R. 834 regards this as the ingressive aorist: began to love him)—this young ruler, dissatisfied with his Pharisaic self-righteousness, groping in the dark and unable to get beyond it and now appealing to Jesus. Mark uses the higher word for “love,” namely ἀγαπᾶν, the love that comprehends all that is involved and has the high, intelligent purpose to help the man in his deplorable condition; the idea is far beyond φιλεῖν, the mere love of affection, “to like.” All that Jesus now tells this man is an expression of this high love for him. In every word we see the complete comprehension of his case and the perfect purpose to help him.

The grammars have no explanation for the accusative σε in ἕνσεὑστερεῖ; they make this accusative equal to the dative σοι, which it, however, cannot be. This explanation regards ὑστερεῖ as impersonal and intransitive: “in one thing (in respect to one thing, accusative of specification) there is a lack for thee.” A more satisfactory solution is to regard the verb as transitive: “one thing makes thee come behind,” with “one thing” as the subject and the accusative σε as the object. Jesus agrees with the man that he still lacks or comes behind in one thing and in love tells him what this is.

We should consider all that Jesus here says as “one thing” and not split it up into two or more. And this one thing is not to be ranged alongside of others and added to them as making the measure full; it is totally different from all others, beside which none of them count. Jesus tells this man that he really needs the one essential and vital thing. He has thus far attained only an outward obedience to the law and has not even discovered that this is utterly useless for salvation; he still thinks that all he needs is to add something to this outward obedience. The thing he lacks begins with this discovery, with the realization that all his work-righteousness is in vain, that what he needs is a complete inward change.

This change Jesus describes to him in detail. The present imperative ὕπαγε is used without a connective together with other imperatives: ὕπαγε‚ πώλησονκαὶδός, “go on, sell and give.” By telling this man to go sell his possessions and to give them to poor people (πτωχοῖς, no article) Jesus is laying his finger on the chief sin in this man’s heart, the love of his earthly possessions. Jesus is demanding no mere outward act which would be as valueless as the other acts of this man have been. The outward act is to be merely the evidence of the inner change. This change is to be, first of all, the true sorrow of contrition. Heretofore he has clung to his earthly wealth with his heart.

What a sin against God’s law! By selling and giving away everything this inward sin is to be swept out by true contrition, μετάνοια. It is a pity that so many fail to see what Jesus really demands. It is impossible to assume that Jesus is showing a way of salvation to this man that is different from the way that is designated for other sinners.

Abandoning what was hitherto his heart’s treasure is only the negative side; the positive side is that “he shall have treasure in heaven” with his whole heart fixed on that. The future “shall have” means from the moment onward when his heart is separated from the earthly treasure. Jesus does not mean that by selling and giving away his earthly wealth the man would receive this treasure in heaven as a reward. This treasure is the unmerited grace and pardon of God. The other side of the one thing the man yet lacked, the one that always goes together with contrition, is the true and saving faith in Christ. That is why Jesus adds the gospel call to come and follow him to the selling and giving away. This would be the evidence of true faith in him. Δεῦρο, the adverb “hither,” is sometimes almost a verb and is used with or without an imperative, here with ἀκολούθει, the present imperative, to express continuous following.

When he demands true repentance and faith Jesus does not always ask us to give up our earthly possessions. This passage cannot be used as proof for the abolition of personal ownership of wealth. Zacchaeus was not required to give all his possessions to the poor; Joseph of Arimathaea was a disciple and rich; Ananias was free to do with his own what he would, only that he practiced no hypocrisy nor tried to deceive the Holy Spirit; St. James warns the rich only against trusting in riches instead of trusting in God. Luther is, therefore, right when he draws attention to the domestic state and its requirements of certain possessions such as house, home, food, clothing, etc., for wife and children. The case of this young ruler is a special one and comes under 9:43–48.

We are also by no means certain that this man was to assume voluntary poverty in order to follow Jesus and to take part in the work of the gospel. This is usually assumed, but we have no intimation as to just how Jesus intended to use this new follower. Others besides the Twelve were in his following for their own persons only and certainly did not divest themselves of all their possessions. Peter had his house in Capernaum, John, too, had a home to which to take Jesus’ mother, and the women disciples mentioned in Luke 8:2, 3, who followed Jesus, had means from which to supply Jesus and the Twelve.

Catholicism considers voluntary poverty (in its monastic orders) a work that merits salvation; it calls this command to give all to the poor a consilium evangelicum beyond the Decalog, and the observance of such counsel an opus supererogativum. In Matthew’s account τέλειος does not mean morally perfect but “complete,” as having reached the τέλος or goal, which here signifies attaining the one thing, the essential, which the ruler still lacked. The rationalistic view is that the one thing which the ruler lacked was moral power, the energy of the moral will. Others think of the ability to sacrifice all for the sake of reaching the highest moral good, or the ability really to fulfill the Second Table, the law of loving one’s neighbor as oneself, by which eternal life would be gained. These legalistic views are not tenable.

Mark 10:22

22 But he, having become gloomy at the word, went away, being aggrieved; for he had great possessions.

The effect produced on the young man shows that Jesus had struck home, had bared the man’s most vulnerable spot, the love of his great wealth. First such enthusiasm; now such aggrieved going away! Mark again adds the touch that the man’s face “became gloomy” at the word, στυγνάζειν, which is translated “to grow lowering” in Matt. 16:3; the participle λυπούμενος is present passive with Jesus as the agent; he acted as if Jesus was aggrieving him. He, indeed, left Jesus, but the words of Jesus did not leave him. The fact that he was not changed on the instant need cause no surprise. The change would cause a struggle, and this might be severe and prolonged.

The synoptists omit mention of the final outcome, for their interest lies, not in this one case, but in the words of Jesus which go far beyond this one case. We cannot translate ἦνἔχων “he was one having,” for the participle is not substantivized, and the whole form is merely a periphrastic imperfect, R. 888, that stresses duration. He had all along been in possession of much property.

Mark 10:23

23 And having looked around, Jesus says to his disciples, How with difficulty shall those having riches enter into the kingdom of God!

The young ruler has gone, Jesus is left with his disciples. Looking around on them means that Jesus wanted to impress them deeply with what he was now saying. These words are not to be separated from the preceding narrative. Both treat of the way to salvation, the entrance into the kingdom of God, and both deal with one great obstacle to salvation, the love of riches. What appears in the narrative is more fully elucidated by the words addressed to the disciples. God alone is able to save the rich man.

Matthew preserved the formula “amen, I say to you,” Mark and Luke write an exclamatory sentence. The emphasis is on the adverb δυσκόλως; only “with difficulty” will a rich man ever enter into the kingdom (see 1:15), i.e., receive the gifts and blessings that are bestowed by the rule of God’s grace in Christ Jesus. Τὰχρήματα means riches.

Mark 10:24

24 But the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus, again answering, says unto them, Children, how difficult is it that those having trusted in riches enter into the kingdom of God!

Ἀποκριθείς expresses action that is simultaneous with that of λέγει (R. 861). Jesus makes reply to the amazement of his disciples. He does so by repeating his former statement with one significant change. Instead of “those having the riches” he says “those having trusted on riches,” the perfect participle with its present connotation: “having trusted and thus still trusting in riches.” This substitution brings out the meaning of Jesus. He ushers it in by the address τέκνα, “children,” which reflects the love and tenderness in his heart for the disciples. To Jesus they are indeed “children” who still have so much to learn and require such careful instruction.

Important texts, however, omit τοὺςπεποιθόταςἐπὶχρήμασιν and make the sentence broad and general: “how difficult it is to enter into the kingdom of God,” and some commentators accept this reading and regard the omitted words as a gloss that was later inserted. But this would be a rather remarkable gloss that gives such point to the previous statement in v. 23 that it sounds exactly like Jesus speaking and even uses his way of illuminating an expression. Where did a mere man ever achieve so pertinent and so perfect a gloss?

Nor is the argument against this alleged insertion any stronger than the charge that it is a gloss. We are told that the insertion was made in order to soften and tone down the astonishing statement made in v. 23. But the reverse is true. Trusting in riches does not tone down having riches, it clarifies and adds greater point to having riches. For one may have riches as is shown in the examples above and yet not trust in them. Jesus declares that he is speaking of those who put their trust in riches.

To say merely that it is difficult for any man to enter the kingdom would be an almost fatal toning down of the dictum uttered in v. 23. If those who have riches are only in the same position as others as regards entering the kingdom, why single them out as is done in v. 23? The entire context argues against this commonplace that any man has difficulty in entering the kingdom. For we have just seen a very rich man decline to enter because of his riches, and in v. 25 the point is again centered in a rich man’s entering the kingdom. We have here an instance in which the reading is decided by the sense, and any doubt raised by text critics must be disallowed. It is only too true that trust in riches is hard to destroy, hard to change into its opposite, trust in God’s saving grace.

Mark 10:25

25 How hard it is Jesus illustrates by a remarkable comparison. Easier it is that a camel go through a needle’s hole than that a rich man go into the kingdom of God. This means that it is impossible for a rich man, one who trusts in riches, to go into the kingdom. His false trust in riches will most certainly keep out the true trust in God’s grace. The aorists διελθεῖν and εἰσελθεῖν indicate actually going through and going into. Τρυμαλία is a hole that is worn through (τρύω, to wear away); Matthew’s τρύπημα is a hole that is bored through (τρυπάω, to bore). The Talmud uses the elephant in the same illustration to express human impossibility; elephants were not known in Palestine. The Koran has the illustration that Jesus used.

Not until the fifth century did some change κάμηλος, “camel,” into κάμιλος, the heavy “rope” or cable that is attached to the anchor of a ship (R. 192). This alteration was not a gain, for no cable can be threaded through a needle’s eye. In the fifteenth century the opposite was tried, the needle’s eye was enlarged by being referred to a small portal that was used by foot passengers when entering a walled city, through which a camel might pass after its load had been removed. This changed the impossible into the possible and was attractive because it suggested that, as the camel had to leave its load and crawl on its knees, so the rich man had to shed his riches, i.e., his love for them, and humble himself on his knees and crawl into the kingdom. But as in Matt. 23:24 Jesus had in mind an actual gnat and an actual camel, so here camel and needle’s eye are actual. The impossibility thus illustrated is without a single exception. Abraham, David, Zacchaeus, Joseph of Arimathaea are not exceptions in any sense, for Jesus himself now explains how the impossible becomes possible.

Mark 10:26

26 But they were beyond measure shocked, saying to him, And who is able to be saved? Having looked at them, Jesus says, With men impossible but not with God, for all things are possible with God.

Even Matthew records the shocked condition of the disciples as does Mark. The imperfect ἐξεπλήσσοντο pictures their condition, and the verb, which is often strengthened by the adverb, is very strong: “they continued utterly dumbfounded.” Note that πρὸςαὐτόν is unusual in Mark after λέγω, but thus is the more likely to be the correct reading, and note πρὸςἑαυτούς, “to themselves.” Καί at the head of a statement connects with a previously expressed idea. Here it is the impossibility of a rich man entering the kingdom and adds: “And who can be saved?” R. 1182. The sense is: “And then nobody can be saved!” i.e., what Jesus says cannot be true.

The emotion of the disciples is not concerned with the few who are rich and thus seem to be utterly shut out but with themselves as being included in all men generally, for τίς cannot be restricted. And all men have a secret longing for riches of some kind. The question is thus an implied confession of sin on the part of the disciples. This is excellent. It is well that they do not try to shield themselves by referring to what Jesus once said about the poor, Matt. 5:3.

But another thing is not so excellent, namely the confession that the disciples believed that a man can and should do something toward being saved. They really say: “If the illustration of the camel is true regarding a rich man’s entering the kingdom, then the rich man can do nothing toward being saved, nor can we who are all afflicted, like the rich, with the desire for riches.” In the verb σώζειν there lies both the idea of rescue from mortal danger and of a condition of safety that is produced by the rescue. The passive σωθῆναι leaves God as the agent, but δύναται betrays the synergistic suggestion in the disciples’ minds.

Mark 10:27

27 That Jesus, too, speaks with feeling is shown by his earnestly looking at his disciples. He has elicited from them the very thought that he wished to correct once for all. The illustration of the camel is absolutely true: “With men (this thing of being saved) impossible!” There is no need to supply a copula: “it is” impossible; the words are like an exclamation. So the last door of hope on that side is shut and sealed forever. Here perishes all Pelagianism, moralism, synergism; man himself can do absolutely nothing toward his salvation by any natural powers of his own. The Concordia Triglotta 785, etc., and 881, etc., is most certainly right.

But the more all hope in ourselves dies, whether we are rich or poor, the more our hope in God and in his grace rises like the morning sun with healing in his wings: impossible—“but not with God!” Why not? “For all things are possible with God,” and greater assurance no man can ask. He can save even the rich, difficult though it is to eradicate their trust in riches and put in its place the trust in God’s grace. Who will measure the ability of this grace? Who will describe the miracles it is able to work?

We might be inclined to think of God’s omnipotence as it is revealed in the physical creation and then go on to apply our abstract mode of reasoning, that it is by almighty power that God saved the rich and us. But Jesus is speaking of the kingdom of God, which is not physical, of this world, and of the great work of saving men, including the rich, which is a spiritual work entirely and not a work of omnipotence. This is not a matter of the First Article of the Creed but of the Second and the Third. “Christ is able to save them to the uttermost,” Heb. 7:25.

Mark 10:28

28 From one extreme the disciples fly to the other. They first fear that on the basis of what Jesus said none of them can be saved; now, after their fears have been allayed in that direction, they want assurances that, in addition to being saved, they will be rewarded according to the sacrifices which they have made. Peter began to say to him, Lo, we on our part did leave everything and have followed thee. “Began to say” fixes our attention on what follows in Jesus’ reply.

It occurs to Peter that he and the Twelve had done exactly what Jesus required of the rich young ruler and so thinks he ought to remind Jesus of this fact. Peter thinks that this their act was no small thing, hence he begins with the exclamation “lo.” The emphasis is on ἡμεῖς which contrasts the Twelve with the ruler who went away aggrieved. Peter, too, does not forget to add to the credit of himself and the Twelve that they have followed Jesus even as Jesus had just bidden the ruler to follow him. Leaving everything was a single act, hence the aorist ἀφήκαμεν (R. 309); but following Jesus began in the past and still continues, hence the perfect tense ἠκολουθήκαμεν. Mark omits the question: “What then shall be ours?” (Matthew) as being already voiced in the tone which Peter used.

But this word of Peter’s has a suspicious ring with its emphasis on what “we on our part” did and have done. It does not intend to add “and we have found more than satisfaction in thee”; for that first strong “we” would not harmonize with such an addition. To voice such an acknowledgment Peter should have begun: “Thou thyself hast drawn us to forsake everything and to follow thee.” What Peter’s ear had caught was the word to the ruler: “And thou shalt have treasure in heaven.” Yet he had not caught Jesus’ meaning that this would be a treasure of pure grace and not a merited reward, one that had been earned by the ruler by giving away his possessions and then following Jesus. Peter takes the word to refer to a profitable trade to which the ruler was invited. In Peter the old spirit of work-righteousness, of human claims and merit, crops out again. The more we do, the more we earn, and the more God owes us.

Mark 10:29

29 Jesus said, Amen, I say to you, there is no one who did leave house, or brothers, or sisters, or mother, or father, or children, or fields, for the sake of me and for the sake of the gospel, except he shall take a hundred fold, now in this time homes, and brothers, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and fields in company with persecutions, and in the eon, the coming one, life eternal. Nevertheless, many first shall be last, and last first.

Mark abbreviates the answer of Jesus by omitting the special promise given to the Twelve and contenting himself with the general promise given to all followers of Jesus. The generosity and the magnanimity of Jesus are so great that he would and could accept nothing from us without rewarding it beyond all computation (Matt. 25:21, 23; Luke 19:17, 19). The vast disproportion between our work and God’s reward of it already displays his boundless grace, to say nothing of the gift of salvation which is made before we have even begun to do any work. Not one shall miss his due reward.

Jesus seals his promise with the seal of verity and authority, “amen, I say to you,” see 3:28; that promise shall never fail. On the indicative with ὅς see R. 726. R. 427 thinks that the polysyndeton found in the repetition of ἤ lends a kind of solemnity to the list, but B.-D. 460, 3 finds in it the impression of greatness and fulness. Jesus does not use “and” because no one man will leave all that is named in this long list; it will always be only this or that item. Matthew and Luke include “wife,” hence its omission in Mark is immaterial just as the abbreviation of the list in Luke has no special import. No exception is possible in the whole list.

When interpreting what it means “to leave” what is mentioned in this list compare Matt. 10:37; we are not to love them more than we love Jesus; also Luke 14:26, we are “to hate” them. This forsaking may mean the outward act of giving up and separating ourselves from the persons and the properties involved, but the inward separation is often enough. Mark has the double phrase “for the sake of me and for the sake of the gospel”; Matthew, “for the sake of my name” (revelation); Luke, “for the sake of the kingdom of God.” The sense of all is the same, which illustrates the work of divine inspiration which does not necessarily lie in the sameness of the verbal expressions but in the exactness of all verbal expressions to convey just what the Spirit wants conveyed. Yet the two phrases in Mark are not quite identical; “for the sake of me” refers to the person’s own faith and salvation whereas “for the sake of the gospel” refers to its promulgation in order to convey faith and salvation to others.

Mark 10:30

30“There is no one who did leave … except he shall take” (ἐὰνμὴλάβῃ) means, of course, that there shall be no exception. Note the tenses: there is no one who did leave except he shall take; there is no one now or at any time who, after making the sacrifice, shall not receive his abounding reward. “A hundred fold,” the neuter plural, is like the same ratio in Matthew 13:8 and raises the replacement to the highest degree. Some have thought “a hundred fold” to be hyperbolical, and in order to avoid the hyperbole they transfer the entire reward into the world beyond by resorting to allegory. But this is barred by Mark’s decisive phrases: νῦνἐντῷκαιρῷτούτῳ, “now in this season (time),” and ἐντῷαἰῶνιτῷἐρχομένῳ, “in the eon, the one coming.” The reward is certain already during our earthly lives and will, of course, be fully paid out in the life to come.

Καιρός is a space of time that is fit and proper for something distinctive, “a season” for it. It is rather striking for Jesus to speak of earthly time as only “this season.” The contrast with αἰών is striking, for an eon is a vast era or age that is marked by what fills it. “The eon coming,” i.e., now approaching closer and closer, is the heavenly eon that shall begin at the end of the world after this kairos has run its brief course. The two do not overlap. The glory of heaven that is to be ours is fully received only at the end when the body will be raised and will be united with the soul.

Scoffers have made sport of this promise of Jesus by singling out this or that item such as that for one wife a man would get a hundred here on earth already and then again in heaven. This wooden, mechanical way of reading the words of Jesus is unwarranted. Wife would, of course, be fastened upon by these scoffers, but why not mothers, children, or any other item in the list? Jesus refers to the new spiritual relationships and what they involve already in this life, compare 3:31–35; Rom. 16:13 (John 19:27); 1 Tim. 1:2; 5:2; 2 Tim. 2:1; Philemon 10; 1 Pet. 5:3, and other passages; on other possessions compare Ps. 37:16; Prov. 15:16; 16:8; 1 Tim. 6:6.

The new riches consist in the divine blessings which substitute in us thankfulness for worldly anxiety and delight in imperishable treasures. Mark alone has the significant addition μετὰδιωγμῶν, “in company with persecutions.” These persecutions are really the butter on the bread, for by them we are more strongly assured that we are God’s children than by the other blessings that he sends us. Persecutions alone are able to lift us into the company of the prophets to share their high rewards (Matt. 5:10–12).

On “life eternal” see v. 17. Mark says, “shall take life eternal” whereas Matthew writes, “shall inherit.” He who inherits, of course, takes the inheritance. Though Mark has but the one verb, the distinction in the objects remains—“life eternal” is in a class by itself. This alone already shows that eternal life is not a reward for forsaking relations, property, or for enduring other afflictions for Christ’s sake. In fact, before we are able to perform a single good work, namely, already when faith is first kindled in the heart, eternal life is made ours, and that altogether out of pure grace for Christ’s sake alone. The analogy of all Scripture is solid on this vital point.

While both Mark and Luke refer to taking eternal life in the eon to come, at the end of the world, this changes nothing in regard to the way in which eternal life first becomes ours. The entrance into the heavenly life is mentioned here in order to impress upon the disciples what an infinite blessing awaits those who here are called upon to forsake this or that temporality. What is any loss compared with this gain?

Mark 10:31

31 Jesus closes with a striking warning. The fact that even the Twelve needed it the case of Judas shows, thief that he was, traitor that he became. Δέ in Mark, who so loves καί, is practically always adversative. It is so here: “Nevertheless, many first shall be last, and last first.” In the face of Matt. 19:23–30 and of Luke 13:24–30, where the same warning is expressed, “last” cannot mean only “last in the kingdom.” “Last” means outside of the kingdom. Jesus is not saying that many who for a time were in the front ranks in the kingdom shall eventually find themselves in the rear ranks, and vice versa. What he says is that many who were at first in the kingdom will finally be out of it whereas many who were at first out of it shall at last be in it. The wording “first—last” and “last—first” is so general that it covers also those cases where men think themselves “first” or in the kingdom and then, when it is too late, find that they are “last,” not in it at all.

Mark 10:32

32 The second half of Mark’s Gospel is divided at 14:1. The first of the two divisions (8:27 to 13:37) is again divided at 10:32, where Jesus is on his way to Jerusalem. In what precedes we have had the three minor parts that were marked by localities: Cæsarea Philippi (8:27), Capernaum (9:32), and the boundaries of Judea and beyond Jordan (10:1). These marks according to localities are continued in the next three minor parts of the section 10:32–13:37. We have Jesus on the way to Jerusalem (10:32), near to Jerusalem at Bethphage and Bethany (11:1), and leaving the Temple for good (13:1). Mark thus himself reveals the structure of his Gospel. Note that Matthew divides in the same way.

Moreover, they were on the road going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was leading them forward. And they were amazed; moreover, those following were afraid. And having again taken the Twelve, he began to state to them the impending things to happen to him.

Jesus now definitely turns his face toward Jerusalem, and Mark describes him as leading his disciples forward, as insisting on going in spite of their great reluctance. The disciples had a clear conception of the dangers involved in going to the evil city. “They were on the road,” we think should be construed together, and the participle “going up to Jerusalem” should be regarded as modifying “they” in ἦσαν, although R. 888 regards all these forms, even when the participle is removed from the copula, as periphrastic imperfects. The Jews always went up to Jerusalem, no matter from what place they started. Here, of course, the Jordan valley lay far below the height on which the city stood. To the Jews, Jerusalem was elevated spiritually as the site of God’s Temple. In ἦνπροάγων we have a plain periphrastic imperfect which stresses the fact that Jesus led them forward constantly.

Mark describes the emotions of the Twelve that were caused by this action of Jesus: “they were amazed,” the imperfect describes their continuous state. They were dumbfounded because of this action of Jesus. Of all the other disciples that followed Jesus, Mark says, “they were afraid,” afraid of what would happen to Jesus when he came to Jerusalem. We do not regard οἱδέ as meaning “some” and as then being modified by ἀκολουθοῦντες: “but some as they followed”; οἱ substantivizes the participle: “those following.” Jesus had a number of devoted followers besides the Twelve who went along with him wherever they could.

The picture we have here is that of many Jews travelling in bands along the usual route to Jerusalem as the time of the Passover approached. Many went early for the purpose of purification, others on other accounts. Among them was Jesus with his following. He had attended only one Passover in Jerusalem during his ministry, that which occurred shortly after his first miracle; the other two Passovers Jesus had not attended. It was during this slow journey and before Jericho was reached (v. 46) that Jesus took the Twelve aside to tell them τὰμέλλοντααὐτῷσυμβαίνειν (an accusative with the infinitive), “the impending things to happen to him,” the present infinitive to indicate an act of the near future (R. 869).

Mark 10:33

33 Lo, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be delivered to the high priests and the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death and shall deliver him to the Gentiles, and they shall mock him and shall spit on him and shall scourge him and shall kill him; and after three days he shall rise again.

Instead of allaying the amazement of the Twelve, Jesus does everything to intensify it. What he has told them before in 8:31 and in 9:31 he now repeats with still greater detail, which warrants the exclamation “lo,” for it was certainly most astonishing. For these terrible things, Jesus says, “we are going into now.” The Twelve are going along with Jesus, and this means that they shall be there when all these things happen, they shall witness them. That they shall be immensely affected by it all goes without saying. As he had done in the previous announcements, Jesus calls himself “the Son of man” (see 2:10), man and yet far more than man, God’s incarnate Son. The verbs are throughout future tenses, “not merely prophetic” but expressing “certainty of expectation,” R. 870.

First of all, Jesus “shall be delivered to the high priests and the scribes,” i.e., to the Sanhedrin (see 8:31), yet this judicial body is now designated by the naming of two classes of its members instead of three. To name two, high priests and scribes, is usually enough. By the verb “he shall be delivered” Jesus foretells the betrayal of Judas; the agent in the passive verb is left unexpressed, Jesus will reveal him later. The next verb is a plural: “and they shall condemn him to death,” the high priests and the scribes. This is clearer than the rejection mentioned in 8:31. A trial shall be held by the high court, and this shall result in a death sentence upon Jesus, the dative θανάτῳ is one of means, R. 533.

This great legal body shall then “deliver him to the Gentiles.” The only Gentiles in Jerusalem to whom the Sanhedrin could deliver anybody are the Roman authorities, Pilate and those under his command. Moreover, the Sanhedrin had lost its power to inflict the death penalty and thus had to turn its condemned criminals over to Pilate for execution.

Mark 10:34

34 The subject now changes to the Gentiles: “they shall mock him and shall spit upon him” (Matthew includes the spitting upon in the mockery). These are some of the many things that Jesus said he would have to suffer (8:31). Luke has “shamefully entreated” between the mockery and the spitting upon. There now follows: “and shall scourge him,” this being as literal as everything else in the list. While scourging often preceded crucifixion it was more often a penalty by itself (Matt. 10:17; 2 Cor. 11:25; Heb. 11:36). In the case of Jesus it was not a part of the procedure for crucifying him but a separate act on the part of Pilate with the object of setting Jesus free.

Mark writes: “and shall kill him,” Matthew: “and to crucify.” While the latter is specific as to the mode of death, the former is almost the same; for the Roman execution of a Jew would be by crucifixion. Note how Mark keeps to one construction, always putting the verbs forward and piling them up with one καί after another. The very simplicity of this style is actually dramatic and highly effective.

But now at the end the verb is not first but last: “and after three days he shall rise again.” We have another καί, but this last statement is the very opposite of all the others. They take us down, down to the most frightful death; this by one tremendous stroke undoes it all and brings Jesus back to life in the resurrection of glory. Here we again have the exact time “after three days” as was the case in the two previous announcements in Mark, which see on this important point. Mark also has the middle voice which is always used in the active sense: “he shall rise again.” Both statements are, of course, true, that Jesus himself rose up, and that God raised him up, for the opera ad extra sunt indivisa aut communa. Like Matthew, Mark stops with the announcement and says nothing about how it was received by the Twelve; Luke adds no less than three verbs to tell us that it was entirely lost upon them.

These positive predictions, which are detailed and specific and were then fulfilled to the letter, are inconvenient for the modernists as they were also for all their ancestors (Matt. 28:12–25), and, in fact, they are intended to be just that. The methods employed to get rid of these predictions, especially also the last, are ineffectual. One may rewrite the Gospels, put in and leave out and change ad libitum, the result does not in the least affect the Gospels themselves.

Mark 10:35

35 And there come to him James and John, the sons of Zebedee, saying to him, Teacher, we wish that whatever we ask of thee, thou wilt do for us. But he said to them, What do you wish me to do for you? But they said to him, Grant us that we sit one on thy right and one on thy left in thy glory.

Matthew writes “then” at the head of his narrative, i.e., right after the announcement of his Passion. This narrative corroborates Luke 18:34. Mark tells only about James and John, but from Matthew we learn that their mother was the spokeswoman and prime mover in the project, her sons, of course, being one with her in the plan. They are called “the sons of Zebedee,” and Salome, “the mother of Zebedee’s sons,” thus honoring the father who, like the mother, was a believer but who seems to have been dead at this time; at least we hear nothing more about him in the Gospels. That Salome was a sister of the Virgin Mary is an interesting surmise, the evidence for which is by no means complete. James and John belonged to the inner circle of three apostles who were distinguished by Jesus himself (Mark 5:37; 9:2; also 15:33). It was perhaps for that reason that their mother conceived the idea of placing her two sons above all the rest.

So she and they together, finding an opportunity to speak to Jesus alone, make the attempt to secure this supreme honor. Although Salome does the actual speaking, Mark’s λέγοντες, as well as the following plurals are in place, for James and John spoke through their mother as much as if they had used their own voices. She makes obeisance in Oriental fashion as one does who is presenting a request before a great king. It is only a part of this attitude toward Jesus as being such a king that the request is at first indefinite: “Teacher, we wish that whatever we ask of thee, thou wilt do for us!” The idea that Jesus was to be bound in advance by promising the favor before he knew what it would be cannot be substantiated. So also the idea that Jesus might have hesitated or offered some objection if he had known the real nature of the request in advance. The situation is that Salome and her sons treat Jesus as a potentate who is able to grant any request and need not know what it might be.

Great kings and emperors had done things like that; we have an imitation by Herod in 6:22, etc. Note the construction θέλωἵνα‚ ἵνα states what is willed.

Mark 10:36

36 But Jesus declines to assume this royal role. Jesus asks what they wish that he should do for them; ποιῆσαι matches ποιήσῃς, both aorists refer to a single act that Jesus is to do. In the case of Salome and her sons we see how blind all the disciples were to Jesus’ Passion and resurrection. Even down to Acts 1:6 they think that Jesus will establish an outward, earthly kingdom as the Messiah. When this kingdom becomes reality, Salome wants her sons in the highest places. So Jesus makes her speak out.

He certainly avoids binding himself in advance. To promise something without a clear statement of what it is to be is morally wrong even when we are solemnly assured that the thing will not be wrong, neither against God nor against conscience. This would put our conscience into the keeping of another. If the promise is, indeed, one that we may rightly make, then every reason why it should not be stated openly in advance disappears. And this is still more the case if we are to seal the promise with an oath. The example of Jesus points the right course.

Mark 10:37

37 So the request is stated in full. Jesus insists on this also for the reason of the explanation that he must make in regard to this request. Mark’s δός and Matthew’s εἰπέ are much the same, for to say or declare (aorist, once for all) is the same as to give or grant. Perhaps Salome actually said εἰπέ. Like a great king, Jesus is to make this royal decree (i.e., grant). She assumes that in his coming kingdom Jesus can do whatever he may please. The disciples usually expected too little of Jesus and showed themselves as men of little faith. Here is a woman of such faith that she actually expects too much of Jesus.

Salome and her sons treat Jesus like some royal personage who is about to step out of the obscurity in which he has lived thus far and presently to ascend his glorious throne. In far-reaching foresight Salome wants to pre-empt for her two sons the very highest honors which shall then be forthcoming. Being first to see the near approach of the glorious future, first to honor Jesus by acknowledging it, and first to ask for positions in the kingdom that shall be, all three confidently expect that Jesus, like the king they make him, will grant this early and honorable request. Whereas Matthew speaks of “thy” kingdom, Mark has “in thy glory.”

Salome sees the great throne room with the king sitting in state and all the royal court assembled to do him honor and on his right hand and on his left the chief ministers of the king who are next to him in glory and reflect the light that is shed upon them from the throne. So Solomon honored his mother Bathsheba, 1 Kings 2:19; compare Ps. 45:9. So Micaiah saw the heavenly court, the Lord on his throne, the host of heaven at the right and the left, 1 Kings 22:19; 2 Chron. 18:18. In Neh. 8:4 Ezra stands in the pulpit, his assistants to the right and the left. Also Zech. 4:3, 11–14. Whereas in case of division and judgment the right signifies acceptance and honor and the left rejection and shame, in a royal court both sides are places of honor, the left being only slightly less glorious than the right.

The Greek ἐκ seems strange to the English ear, it is literally “from” thy right and “from” thy left; but the Greek conceives the two sides as extending “from” the person whereas the English looks “to” the two sides and thus sees what is “at” or “on” them. So also the plurals for “right” and “left” are idiomatic and conceive these places as being composed of parts. Which of the sons is to have the respective position is apparently left to Jesus. It is remarkable that Salome asks nothing for herself; her share will be that she is the mother of such sons. With all its fault Salome’s request contains something that is worth noting. Men all about us seek the world’s honor and high places, here are those who put Jesus and his glory above all else.

The wish of Salome, deeply purified, has been seconded by many a devout mother regarding her son by praying that he might serve Christ in some high work in his church. Note that ἵνα is subfinal and states what Jesus is to give; and καθίσωμεν is the effective aorist, James and John are to have these seats permanently.

Mark 10:38

38 But Jesus said to them, You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup which I myself am drinking, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am being baptized?

Luther says that Jesus treated the presumptuous pride of the Pharisees with severity but the ambition of these disciples with gentleness, for it springs from faith and needs only to be purified. Jesus addresses the two disciples, which explains why Mark leaves out the mother. They do not know what they are asking, are ignorant of what their request involves in the real kingdom that Jesus is establishing. “They sought the exaltation but did not see the step.” Augustine. The idea is not that, if they knew, they would not seek those high places, but that they would then not make a request which plainly reveals their mistaken idea of the kingdom and of how its high places are bestowed. Jesus uses the middle αἰτεῖσθε whereas the disciples (through their mother) used the active αἰτήσωμεν. On the difference see R. 805. In v. 35 the request is made as one asks something of God; but Jesus speaks of it in its true nature, as a sort of business transaction that they were trying to put through (B.-D. 316, 2).

So Jesus proceeds to enlighten them. He asks them whether they are able to drink (πιεῖν, aorist, to drink completely, to empty) the cup that he himself (emphatic ἐγώ) is drinking (πίνω, present tense, either the futuristic present “about to drink” or “is now already drinking”). By this cup Jesus refers to the bitter contents of suffering (John 18:11; Matt. 26:39, 42; Mark 14:36), and to drink means to accept and to endure the bitter suffering. Mark adds the second part of the question: “or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am being baptized?” We here have passives whereas in the first part we had active verbs. The actives bring out the thought that the suffering is willingly, voluntarily assumed and endured; the passives that it is laid upon the sufferer by God.

The figure of a baptism for the imposition of suffering has its point in the idea of bringing the suffering upon a person as water is brought upon him in a baptism. The fathers called this a baptism of blood. This passage is used in support of immersion as a mode for Christian baptism, the idea being that of immersion in suffering. But Jesus cannot mean: “Are you able to be immersed with the immersion with which I am being immersed?” In his baptism of blood drops of blood bedewed his brow and stained his body on the cross; the stripes, blows, etc., were laid on him; the pain and agony struck his heart. The thought of immersion is therefore rather forced into the words.

With his double question Jesus points out to James and to John that the way to greatness in his kingdom is not, as they think, by a mere decree and grant of Jesus but by way of the deepest humiliation (Luke 14:11), and this is due to the spiritual nature of his kingdom which makes it the reverse of earthly kingdoms in many ways. Do these two realize that? The passive βαπτισθῆναι retains the accusative (R. 482) of the inner content of the verb (R. 478), hence we have both τὸβάπτισμα and ὅ in the relative clause (R. 717).

Mark 10:39

39 But they said to him, We are able. But Jesus said to them, The cup which I myself am drinking you shall drink; and with the baptism with which I myself am being baptized you shall be baptized; but to sit on my right and on my left is not a thing of mine to give, but is for whom it is prepared.

It takes one’s breath to hear this ready answer: “We are able.” Besides the ignorance which it reveals we note the eagerness of these disciples to meet any requirement that Jesus may set for granting their request. They are willing to make any deal. So Jesus continues with great patience. These disciples did not realize what the cup and its drinking, the baptism and its bestowal meant. There was little use in trying to make them understand since they had no mind even to understand that Jesus’ own suffering and death were to be actual and not figurative. So Jesus merely repeats and only asserts that they shall, indeed, drink that cup and be baptized with that baptism.

The only point to be noted is that in v. 38 drinking the cup, etc., is set as a requirement for attaining the highest places in the kingdom. Yet we now learn that it would not assure those places for the simple reason that many will meet this requirement. In v. 38 the question is, “Will they fall short in this basic requirement?” If so, already this would lose them any possibility of attaining those places. But Jesus now says that that question is settled as far as these two disciples are concerned. With two prophetic future tenses he assures them that they will, indeed, drink that cup, etc.

As he did in v. 38, Jesus identifies the sufferings of all his disciples, which are endured for his sake and the gospel’s, (v. 28), with his own sufferings, including all his Passion. 1 Pet. 4:13: “Rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings”; 2 Cor. 4:10: “Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus”; John 15:20; Matt. 10:24, 25. The cup and the baptism thus denote only the suffering as such and omit all reference to a distinction that the suffering of Jesus was exceptional, being expiatory and atoning, while the sufferings of the disciples are only confessional. This suffering does not necessarily mean death and martyrdom for the disciples. It did for James (Acts 12:2) but not for John who was simply “our brother and companion in tribulation and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ,” Rev. 1:9, imprisoned (Acts 4:3, 21; 5:18), scourged (Acts 5:40), in mortal danger (Acts 5:33), in exile (Rev. 1:9). In the severity and the extent of suffering Paul exceeded all others (2 Cor. 11:23–33) and also died a martyr’s death.

Mark 10:40

40 The way to the great places in the kingdom lies only along the path of suffering. But many besides James and John will walk this path. Who, then, shall attain the very highest places remains a question. There are such places: τὸκαθίσαικτλ., “this thing of permanently (aorist) sitting at my right and left.” But the disciples must know that these wonderful places are not bestowed after the fashion of earthly monarchs, as grants to favorites by the mere will of the grantor. In fact, Jesus says: this “is not a thing of mine to give,” i.e., merely to grant. Ἐμόν is not construed with δοῦναι (contra R. 1076) but is the predicate of ἐστίν, the neuter possessive adjective is used as a nominative noun, “a thing of mine,” and is modified by the infinitive. The according of these glory seats is a far higher matter.

All that Jesus can tell us is that to sit thus is “for whom it is prepared,” Matthew adds “by my Father.” The perfect passive ἡτοίμασται is timeless. The relative οἷς contains its own antecedent, τούτοις (not τούτων, R. 721), for the dative as well as the genitive may be used with ἐστίν to denote possession. The eternal counsel of the Father, which fixed all things in regard to the kingdom, included also the disposition of the glory seats.

Jesus is in full accord with this counsel and disposition. He is now carrying out all the Father’s counsel of grace and thus says regarding these glory seats that they are not his own to allot by gift at this late date. Their very preparation the Father has attended to long ago, also their allotment to those who shall occupy them. Jesus does not intimate who these really are; it is possible that this knowledge was withheld from him during his state of humiliation. We cannot be certain either whether only two will occupy those seats; perhaps there will be more.

Was Salome disappointed; her sons, too? Even Mark is silent regarding this point although he loves to record emotions.

Mark 10:41

41 And having heard it, the ten began to be indignant concerning James and John. And Jesus, having called them forward, says to them. You know that those reputed to rule the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great exercise authority over them. But not thus is it among you; but whoever wants to be great among you, he shall be your ministrant; and whoever wants to be first among you shall be the slave of all. For even the Son of man did not come to be ministered unto but to minister and to give his life as a ransom in place of many.

Jesus turns the incident of Salome and her sons to good account for all the disciples. He repeats the instructions given in 9:35, etc. How the ten heard this is not indicated. Did James and John tell them on the supposition that the places would be theirs after all? Mark carefully states that the ten “began” to be indignant, Jesus nipped this feeling in the bud. The ten prove themselves no better than the two. Many feel wronged by the success of others, but similar success on their part appears quite without wrong to them.

Mark 10:42

42 Jesus promptly calls them to him; πρός in the participle means to face him. Then with all calmness he gives the explanation they all need. They are misconceiving his kingdom entirely and following a wrong principle in regard to greatness in this kingdom. They are degrading it to the level of pagan kingdoms. So Jesus points out the vast difference. He points to what we all know, that heathen rulers of all kinds come down on their subjects with their lordship and thus maintain their high positions; come down on them with authority and thus maintain their superiority.

In both verbs κατά intensifies: from their high position these rulers come “down” with power and authority on those beneath them, herrschen hoch her, ueben hoch her Gewalt, Lange. The two clauses are synonymous, the second restates the first in a varied form for the sake of greater emphasis. Matthew writes “those ruling,” Mark, “those reputed to rule,” i.e., rightly having this repute. The point is that only in this way, by coming down heavily on others, are they able to achieve the height of lordship and greatness in the world.

Jesus states only the facts that were well known in the whole pagan world; he is not passing judgment on these rulers but only holding them up in glaring contrast to the greatness to be found in his own kingdom, which is not of this world. At least Rom. 13:1 is clear regarding the institution of government; anarchy and rebellion are not countenanced in the Scriptures. Jesus purposely instances the Gentiles and their governors and rulers and not the theocracy of the Jews, which was of a different order; he confines his comparison to secular states. The Jews were under Gentile rulers at this time; in fact, Jesus himself was, and we know that he bade the Jews to give to Cæsar what was Cæsar’s. His present description of Gentile rulers does not intend to remove his disciples from such governmental authority.

Mark 10:43

43 Although he regards it as valid in its own secular sphere he confines it to that. For his own great kingdom he demands the very opposite: “but not thus is it among you.” Jesus states this as a fact, which is even stronger than making it a demand. What shall obtain among the disciples is stated in two clauses in order to parallel the two about the Gentiles. Whereas Jesus began with the rulers and lords, of which there are many, and advanced to the great, of which there are very few (the plurals to denote classes), he now begins chiastically with the one who wills to be great, starts with the topmost class of the Gentile rulers and then leaps to the very pinnacle, to the one who wills to be first (the singulars for individualization).

Moreover, to be great, to be first, is open to all: ὄςἐάν with the subjunctive, “whoever wills (shall will),” no matter who he may be, Jesus vividly thinks of such cases. And now the Gentile idea of greatness is inverted, turned upside down, the pyramid rests on the apex, the great man does not sit atop the lesser men, but the great man bears the lesser men on his back. “He shall be your διάκονος, your ready ministrant.” This word is nobler than δοῦλος which is used in v. 44. In John 2:5 we have only diakonoi; compare Trench, Synonyms 1, 55. A diakonos is one who is intent on the service he is rendering to others. Greatness in the kingdom is measured by the readiness and the amount of blessed ministrations rendered to Christ’s people. Whether they reward and exalt us for this service or not makes no difference.

Mark 10:44

44 The idea is carried to its climax. One may will with a holy will to be “first,” above even those who are “great” in the kingdom. The way to attain this height is to be “your slave,” δοῦλος, the humblest and lowest of all servants who actually slaves for others for Christ’s sake, and who despite all his slaving is ready to be left without reward or honor. Because this true spirit has often been absent in the church, the Gentile spirit has entered, and we have the Roman papacy with its clerical princes and lords and among Protestants other little popes who dictate instead of serving and slaving. Yet, strange and paradoxical as this principle of Jesus seems, it is literally true. The greatness is measured by the service and not by the power and authority arrogated and displayed.

Mark 10:45

45 A flood of light is cast upon what Jesus says by his own most illustrious example. Matthew adds this with ὥσπερ, Mark with the explanatory γάρ: “For even the Son of man,” etc. On this Messianic title see 2:10: he who was man and yet far more than man, God’s incarnate Son. Although he was infinitely great himself, omnipotent to lord it over all, he came (in his incarnation) on a mission that is the very opposite. He could have compelled all men to be his diakonoi, yea, his douloi, but he came “not to be ministered unto,” to say nothing of being slaved for, “on the contrary (ἀλλά) to minister (an effective aorist) and to do even more. In both verbs we have διάκονος (διακονία) and not δοῦλος; the latter would not fit the work of Jesus because it would not conserve the divine dignity of this great Minister, a dignity which remained during his service, and would thus also fail to fit the exalted character of the service he rendered. Some humble ministrations of his friends he did accept (Luke 8:2, 3; John 12:2, 3), but the purpose of his life was to give and not to receive or take.

We may regard καὶδοῦναι as epexegetical, as equal to “namely”: “to give his life as a ransom in place of many.” This act is voluntary, he gives of his own accord. The aorist expresses full actuality. We think of the death on Calvary, and rightly so; yet in the act of giving we must include all that lies between ἦλθε, “he came,” and δοῦναι, “to give.” The ψυχή means life (John 10:17, 18), that which animates the σῶμα or body and is separated from it by death. Only in this specific sense can ψυχή be equivalent to the reflexive pronoun “myself.” This “life” is the τιμή or “price” with which we are bought, 1 Cor. 6:20. The point lies in the object predicate “a ransom in place of many,” and we ought to construe “to give his life as a ransom instead of many.” The phrase ἀντὶπολλῶν depends on λύτρον, C.-K. 704. The idea is not that Jesus paid what the many should but could not pay, for we have no ἐγώ to mark a contrast between persons.

The λύτρον (or its plural λύτρα, LXX) is the price paid to effect the release (λύειν, the loosing) of one who is held in some kind of bondage. This meaning was extended to the payment for release from guilt and penalty. The ransom then becomes a payment in expiation. Jesus uses the singular because the ransom he lays down is his life; he could not have used the plural for the kind of a λύτρον he paid. Whether λύτρον is a money price or an act of expiation, an expiatory sacrifice, is decided by the context. Here the ransom is the life, i.e., the life of Jesus given into death; the ransom is effected by the sacrifice of that life, by the shedding of Jesus’ blood (14:24; Matt. 26:28; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:24, etc.). The death of Jesus thus effects the ἀπολύτρωσις, “the redemption” of many.

It is true, when men deal with each other they may haggle about the amount of the ransom and may end in some kind of a compromise. But it is unwarranted to transfer this to the ransom of Jesus, as though what he paid was merely accepted although it was really not the full price. The justice and the righteousness of God are never described as striking a bargain. The blood of the Lamb of God, of God’s own Son, exceeds all computation. The ransom he laid down in the sacrifice of himself was so completely an equivalent for the divine claims against the many that one must say that it exceeded these claims.

Christ’s ransom was paid for our sin and guilt. John 1:29. Our sin and guilt held us liable to the penalties that were due them at the hands of God; and save for the intervention of Christ’s bringing his sacrificial ransom (λύτρον), release (λύειν) for us was impossible (Matt. 5:26; 6:12; 9:2; 18:23–35). The ransom was offered to God, against whom we have sinned, and who alone has power to inflict the penalty (Matt. 10:28), and not, as Origen thought, to the devil; so also Jesus laid his spirit, not into Satan’s hands, but into God’s (Luke 23:46). “In whom we have redemption, τὴνἀπολύτρωσιν, redemption by the payment of a ransom, through his blood (sacrifice),” Eph. 1:7; Heb. 10:5–10. Luther has stated it perfectly: “purchased and won me from all sin, from death and from the power of the devil, not with silver or gold, but with his holy, precious blood, and with his innocent suffering and death.”

On the root idea of ἀντί, “face to face,” see R. 572, etc., who writes: “The idea of ‘in the place of, or ‘instead’ comes where two substantives placed opposite to each other are equivalent and so may be exchanged—thus the ransom is exchanged for the many.” Robertson brings examples and then adds: “In λύτρονἀντὶπολλῶν (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45) the parallel is more exact (than in the last example offered by Robertson). These important doctrinal passages teach the substitutionary conception of Christ’s death, not because ἀντί of itself means ‘instead,’ which is not true, but because the context renders any other resultant idea out of the question.”

The efforts to alter these assured findings are to a great extent not linguistic or exegetical but dogmatic—reasonings that Jesus could not have said or did not say what his words evidently do say. A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 332, scores “the modern dogmatic exegesis” for obscuring the ancient popular metaphors. He is striking at the present orthodox exegesis although his words really fit the modernists. Because the manumission of slaves, who were freed to some pagan god, is so prominent in the recently discovered papyri, Deissmann allows his own vision to become obscured by his finds. The orthodox exegetes are the very ones who conserve the metaphor. It is not a fact that Paul expanded and adapted Jesus’ λύτρον to the Greek world, nor that this “ransom” was only later on made to consist of Jesus’ blood.

Valid exegesis does not search pagan sources for the thought but goes back, first of all, to the Old Testament for its conception of this “ransom”; it then examines Christ’s own words (all of them) in regard to the term. It does not theorize about any modifications that may have been made by the apostles, for any theory along that line is unrewarding. After it has these solid results in hand exegesis will see what the papyri may have to offer, which, in reality, amounts to little, compare C.-K. 703. To speak of “a fine for sin” is unwarranted. To call “ransom” nothing but “rescue” and Christ’s sufferings only “something of priceless value” is to eliminate the very thing that is so distinctive of Christ’s λύτρον, the sacrifice and the substitution. To take out of the Old Testament only what seems to suit such views is to manipulate evidence after the fashion of modern lawyers. These methods, too, are specious exegesis which is apparently ignorant of the exegetical work done by the soundest scholarship and research.

The redeemed, bought by the ransom of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, are called “many” in comparison with the one Son of man. Since we have no indication in the text that Jesus has in mind especially those who accept his redemption in faith, it is hardly correct to have “many” refer only to these. Jesus paid the price for all men, 1 Tim. 2:6; compare Rom. 3:25; Eph. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19; 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; Gal. 3:13; Titus 2:14; Acts 20:28. He who gave his life a ransom for all men by that act also became our model in the highest sense: “and walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savor,” Eph. 5:2. They who follow his example will shed all worldly ambition, will partake somewhat of the greatness of the Son of man, will be that much nearer to him, and will share in his glory accordingly. “His life a ransom for many”—thus Jesus led his disciples to Jerusalem and to Calvary.

Mark 10:46

46 And they come to Jericho. And as he was going out from Jericho, and his disciples and a considerable multitude, the son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting alongside the road.

We have noted that the minor parts of the section beginning with 8:27 are marked by place names. Jericho cannot, however, be regarded as one of these because in v. 32 Jerusalem was already set as the goal. So Jericho is only incidental even also as only one event is recorded in connection with this place. Jesus had crossed the Jordan and was following the usual route to Jerusalem, which went through Jericho near the Jordan.

At first glance a decided discrepancy seems to exist between Mark (Matthew): “he was going out from Jericho,” and Luke: “in his drawing near to Jericho.” One interpreter says that these blind men were healed when Jesus left Jericho, the other when Jesus entered Jericho. Strange efforts are made to remove this contradiction even to postulating three different healings. Yet the matter is simple. Jesus passed through Jericho (Luke 19:1), and although it was late in the day, no one invited him to spend the night with them. On the other side of the town Zacchaeus awaits Jesus, who calls him down from the tree, who retraces his steps and goes back into Jericho and spends the night at the publican’s home. It was on this return that the blind men were healed.

Luke separates the two events because he wants to tell the story of Zacchaeus in one piece, without inserting into it the healing of the blind men. Mark and Matthew omit the story of Zacchaeus. Thus all three evangelists are correct. The apparent contradiction fades away the moment we have all the facts.

The genitive absolute ἐκπορευομένουαὐτοῦ receives two more subjects, and for the first time Mark uses ἱκανός instead of πολῦς. Mark alone preserves the beggar’s full name and explains “Bartimaeus” as “the son of Timaeus.” But it is Matthew who informs us that Bartimaeus had a blind companion. The mention of only the one by Mark and by Luke does not, of course, imply that he was the only one. One hypothesis is that Matthew’s Gospel is largely drawn from Mark’s (yet Matthew wrote first!), and those who hold this view then think that Matthew misread Mark. But Matthew was present in person on the road near Jericho and thus himself saw the two beggars.

It is not hard to see how Bartimaeus got his name into the record. He was evidently the leader, kept up the frantic shouting against all opposition, and thus obtained the healing. The beggars were sitting along the road; Mark’s imperfect ἐκάθητο is descriptive. With their guide they had followed the crowd out from Jericho but stopped before they got very far. Then when the crowd surged back toward the city, their golden opportunity came.

Mark 10:47

47 And having heard that it was Jesus, the Nazarene, he began to yell and to say, Son of David, Jesus, show me mercy! And many went on rebuking him to be silent; but he yelled much more, Son of David, show me mercy!

Luke tells us how the beggars found out about Jesus. The noise of the returning multitude led the beggars to inquire about the excitement, and they thus learned that Jesus was passing by. He is called by his ordinary personal name “Jesus,” to which is added the apposition “the Nazarene,” to distinguish this Jesus from others of the same name. “The Nazarene” is no derogatory addition although it is, of course, no designation of distinction or honor. The Greek retains the tense of the direct discourse: “that it is Jesus.” Bartimaeus at once starts to yell with all his might and appeals to Jesus for mercy. Note the tenses: the aorist “he began,” the imperfect “they went on to rebuke,” then the aorist “he said.” We see Bartimaeus starting to yell, which hints that something intervened; then we see the people rebuking him; finally we have the outcome: Jesus spoke.

And we now see why all three synoptists record this healing of the blind beggars at this point in Jesus’ career. It is not for the sake of the miracle, for Jesus had healed many blind persons. It is on account of this beggar’s yell which addresses Jesus as “the Son of David,” the standard title for the Messiah among the Jews. Note how each evangelist reports this title twice and thus draws our attention to it. In other words, now that Jesus is going into his death at Jerusalem he accepts the Messianic title openly before the multitude. Hitherto he had avoided it as much as possible because of the wrong political and worldly ideas which the Jews connected with the Messiah whom they expected.

Only in Samaria and to a lone woman Jesus declared himself to be the Messiah. In Matt. 9:27, where two blind men address Jesus as the Son of David, they are told to tell no man about their healing; and in Matt. 15:22, etc., Jesus is far away, and no danger attended the use of this title. But now the time has come for all Judaism to know that Jesus is David’s son, the true Messiah, about to die as such. Politics and nationalism present no dangers now. On the nominative form with the article: ὁυἱὸςΔαβὶδ, used as a vocative, see R. 461. The Aramaic vocative had the article, but it is also good Greek.

In v. 48 we have the ordinary vocative form υἱὲΔαβὶδ.

The beggars perceive their great opportunity. It may never come again. They are unable to see and thus to make their way to Jesus. So they raise their voices in the loudest cry, shout again and again with all their might in the hope that Jesus who is somewhere not far away may hear their appeal. In prayers the aorist expresses great fervor; but here the petition is also for one act of mercy from Jesus; hence we have the aorist imperative ἐλέησόνμε, “mercy me,” i.e., extend an act of mercy to me. What the act is to be the beggars leave unexpressed.

Mark 10:48

48 We really know only the fact that the crowd tried to silence the beggars and not the reason for this attempt. Hardly one of the various reasons which commentators suggest commends itself. Ἳνα is like the one used in v. 51, elliptical and imperative, R. 994. But this interference only causes the beggars to yell the more. Their one chance of healing shall not slip by. All three synoptists repeat their cry with the significant vocative “Son of David.”

Mark 10:49

49 And having stood still, Jesus said, Call him! And they call the blind man, saying to him, Cheer up! Rise up, he is calling thee! But he, having thrown away his robe after having leaped up, went to Jesus.

The frantic cry halted Jesus; with the crowd surrounding him he stood still. “Call him!” orders the people to bring the man to Jesus. It is impossible for him to go on while that distant cry reaches his ears. So the people call him, and Mark, who has preserved these features, tells us just how they called him. Θάρσει, “cheer up” or “be of good cheer,” the present imperative, bids the man be full of cheerful courage. “Rise up” means “get on your feet” to hurry to Jesus, and “he is calling thee” adds the motive. We see how the words are filled with the expectation of the great help that Jesus will render. Mark speaks only of Bartimaeus, which explains the singular.

Mark 10:50

50 Mark has recorded the graphic details as to how Bartimaeus responded; Peter must have told the story with vividness. First he jumped up; then he threw his long, loose outer robe aside lest it hinder him in hurrying; thus he came to Jesus. We regard ὃδέ as being modified by ἀποβαλών, and this participle as being modified by ἀναπηδήσας, but the action of the second participle is prior to that of the first. Thus he is now facing Jesus.

Mark 10:51

51 And Jesus answering him said, What dost thou wish that I shall do for thee? And the blind man said to him, Rabboni, that I receive sight! And Jesus said to him, Be going! Thy faith has saved thee! And immediately he received sight, and he started to follow him on the road.

The participle ἀποκριθείς is used in a wide sense, here, as often, for response to a situation. Because the man is blind Jesus asks what he wants Jesus to do for him. In v. 35 θέλω is followed by ἵνα, in v. 36 by the infinitive, and now we have θέλω with a subjunctive without ἵνα. The sense of all three is the same. The blind man addresses Jesus as “Rabboni” (compare John 20:16), Mark retains the original Aramaic. The term means more than “Teacher,” one of the Latin codices renders it magister et domine, two others use domine alone, which explains why Matthew and Luke have κύριε, “Lord.” “Rabboni” is far more choice than “Rabbi,” which is quite common and was used frequently by the disciples.

In the latter the possessive suffix “i” had lost its meaning; it simply signified “teacher” and no longer “my teacher.” In “Rabboni” this was less the case. Zahn makes “Rabbun” the equivalent of ’Adon and states that it was used extensively in Jewish literature for God in connections like “Lord of the world” or “worlds.” Thus on the lips of Bartimaeus “Rabboni” harmonizes well with the Messianic “Son of David.”

On the imperative ἵνα see R. 933 and 994; we might translate, “Let me receive sight.” The aorist is proper, for receiving sight is instantaneous. Jesus elicits this answer so that the man who cannot see may know what Jesus is now about to do.

Mark 10:52

52 The three synoptists exercise independence in parts of this story. The careful Mark, who loves detail, omits stating that Jesus was moved with compassion and that, thus moved, he placed his hands on the man’s eyes; Matthew has to tell us this. Luke, too, adds that Jesus said: “Receive sight!” Mark records only the word that follows this command: “Be going! Thy faith has saved thee!” With ὕπαγε Jesus merely dismisses the man. But in doing so he impresses upon the man the fact that his faith, trust, confidence in Jesus as David’s son was the subjective means of rescuing him from his blindness and of putting him into a state that was safe for his eyes (σώζειν includes both ideas). “Has saved,” the perfect tense, refers to both the act of saving in the past moment when sight returned and the happy condition that followed.

Jesus always worked to produce faith. But this faith sometimes came after the miracle, at other times it was already present before the miracle. In the present case this faith met Jesus and appealed to him, and Jesus rewarded it. Impressing upon the beggar what faith had thus brought him was like saying to him that faith would yet bring him much more if he would only in faith ask and seek more. The man’s sight was restored at once; all the evangelists add this great fact. They also add that the man (men) went on to follow Jesus, Mark and Luke using the imperfect (probably ingressive).

Mark writes “on the road,” i.e., together with all the disciples who regularly accompanied Jesus. Luke adds the detail that Bartimaeus (and his companion) continued to glorify God, and that all the people gave praise to God. Both were certainly right. All the deeds of Jesus were intended to glorify and praise his Father, for they were, indeed, the deeds for which the Father had sent him into the world as the Son of David.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.