Mark 10

Mark 10:1-16

XIX “From the beginning of the creation, male and female made He them. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh: so that they are no more two, but one flesh. . . . Suffer the little children to come unto me; forbid them not: for to such belongeth the Kingdom of God.”- Mark 10:6-8, and Mark 6:14. Mark 10:1-16. IN this paragraph we have two stories. The first is that of the coming to Jesus of certain Pharisees, who questioned Him on the subject of divorce; and of the answers He gave them. The second is that of the bringing of children to Him; and of the manner of His reception of them.

Both Matthew and Mark put these stories thus in close relation to each other as to the time of their taking place. This is interesting, in that the teaching of Jesus in the two events constitutes a revelation of the Christian ideal of the family.

Before attempting to consider that ideal as revealed in the paragraphs there are two things which we ought to do. First we should note, with some care, the hour in the life of our Lord in which these things happened. Secondly, we must disentangle the essential from the accidental, in these stories.

As to the first. Between that teaching of His disciples in the house in Capernaum, and the things recorded in these paragraphs, much had transpired in the ministry of Jesus, which Mark passes over in silence. Jesus had probably twice visited Jerusalem in the interval. He had sent out the seventy upon their mission. After they returned, He had Himself been in Persea, accompanied by His apostles. Here we see Him leaving Galilee for Judaea, for the last time prior to His crucifixion.

He was now definitely and finally on His way to the Cross. This was the beginning of the last journey. The bearing of this on our subject is that we see the Servant of God bent on redeeming work, but insisting on that ethic of life which is founded on the binding nature of the Divine thought and purpose for humanity, and revealing its true value to society. His face was set toward the Cross; His heart was filled with the passion for redeeming men; but not for a moment did He lower the standard of Divine requirements.

As to the second of these preliminary matters. We must disentangle the accidental from the essential. The whole question of divorce was accidental. The disciples’ mistake about the children was accidental. The essential things in these stories were; first our Lord’s teaching on the subject of marriage; and secondly, our Lord’s inclusive declaration of truth concerning all children. When I use the word “accidental,” I do not mean that these things are unimportant.

They were things occurring by the way. Incidental things, perhaps, would be a more accurate description. Here, as ever, our Lord brought to bear upon these things, accidental or incidental, the light of essential and eternal truth. The distinction is important, because when the accidental things are once set in the light of the essential, we see them in their true value and proportion.

To those then, which we have described as accidental, we will return in conclusion, giving ourselves first to the essential things.

Here then we find Christ’s revelation of the true ideal of the family, as He dealt first of all with the nature of marriage, and secondly with the inclusive truth about children.

His teaching concerning the nature of marriage is found in these words: “From the beginning of the creation, male and female made He them. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh: so that they are no more two, but one flesh.” This is essential truth, and in the light of it He immediately dealt with the accidental: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

The inclusive truth about the children is contained in the words: “Of such is the Kingdom of God.” That inclusive and essential truth being recognized, all the accidental things are dealt with by the preliminary words, “Suffer the little children to come unto Me; forbid them not.” So He corrected the accidental mistake of the disciples, in the light of essential truth concerning children.

First then, our Lord’s teaching here concerning the nature of marriage. The words were carefully chosen. Here, as so constantly in the teaching of our Lord, He said nothing new; but took these men of His day back to their own sacred Writings, and quoted from them. In these words then, we have a threefold revelation of the truth concerning marriage, according to the Biblical revelation, according to Christ’s teaching; and consequently, according to the Christian standard. He first declared the fundamental truth, “From the beginning of the creation, male and female made He them.” He then uttered the experimental truth concerning marriage, “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife.” Finally, He spoke words which we may speak of as constituting the functional truth concerning marriage, “The two shall become one flesh.”

In answer to the questions of the Pharisees, our Lord directed their thinking from their own view, or from their interpretation of the law of Moses, back to the original intention. There was arresting dignity and authority in the method of Jesus. Moses allowed a bill of divorcement to be written, said they. Said Jesus, This he did for the hardness of your heart; and immediately sweeping back, behind their interpretation, and even behind the word of Moses himself, and the whole Hebrew economy, He took them to original and fundamental things, Divine intentions, and purposes, “From the beginning of the creation.” Before that state of society in which they were then living; before that word of Moses which was born of the hardness of man’s heart; before that sterner word of Moses which was embodied within the Decalogue; before all the habits of the men of the past; He took them back to the very beginning of things: “From the beginning of the creation.”

We turn back with Him to the beginning, and to the story of the beginning with which these men were familiar, and from which story He quoted for their sakes.

“And God said; Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness: and let them have dominion… And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him: male and female created He them.”

Such is the declaration of the Hebrew Scriptures, from which Jesus made His selection and quotation.

Quite apart from this accidental subject of divorce, tragic as it was in the hour in which the question was put to Jesus, tragic as it is to-day, let us consider the subject of marriage. Mark with great care what Jesus did. He emphasized the teaching of the old economy on this one point. That teaching is that man is a unity, and not a unit; that man is dual, but not two; that the full ideal of humanity is the union of fatherhood and motherhood; that spiritually and in the last analysis, humanity is not represented in man, or in woman, but in their union. Man is in the Divine likeness and the Divine image partially; woman is in the Divine likeness and the Divine image partially. Not in man is a full and perfect representation of the Divine likeness and the Divine image; not in woman is a full and perfect representation of the Divine likeness and the Divine image.

In each there are elements of the Divine likeness and the Divine image; but in the mystic union is the full unveiling of the truth concerning God. God is not Father alone, He is Mother also. In the essential mystery of the Divine Being, there are not only all those quantities and qualities which we associate with man; there are those quantities and qualities which we associate with woman. Consequently, thinking in each case upon the very highest level, in the union of man and woman there is the expression of truth concerning God as there cannot be in the loneliness of the one, or the isolation of the other. When to-day questions are asked about divorce, men do not usually begin here; but this is where Christ began. If the question of divorce is to be discussed, said Jesus in effect, let us get back to the beginning of things, and see what God meant in the creation of humanity.

From the beginning of the creation He created them male and female.

In the complexity of modern circumstances this is not always possible of realization. The words of Jesus as recorded by Matthew in this very connection are significant. Do not let us forget, moreover, that Jesus said ere He uttered them: “Not all men can receive this saying, but they to whom it is given.” Knowing the difficulty, I quote the words of Jesus: “There are eunuchs which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.” In that verse Christ recognized the fact that in the complexity of human conditions into the midst of which He came, there might be celibacy through natural causes, or through force of circumstances; or there might be voluntary celibacy in the interest of the Kingdom of God, which is high and holy. Nevertheless in the original purpose of God, humanity is completed in man and in woman. When I hear of woman’s sphere, I am always inclined to remind those who speak of it, that she has no sphere! I will immediately add to that, neither has man a sphere! The sphere of Divine expression is the unity of man and woman, in which she is a hemisphere, and he a hemisphere. “Male and female created He them/’ That is the eternal purpose underlying the Divine thought and conception.

Our Lord then proceeded again to quote: “For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife.” “For this cause.” For what cause? We go back again to Genesis, from which Jesus was quoting: “And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife.” Let us also turn to the apostolic exposition, as it is found in the Ephesian letter: “Even so ought husbands also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his own wife loveth himself; for no man ever hateth his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it. … For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”

By this teaching of the context of the words which Jesus quoted, and by the teaching of the apostolic interpretation of our Lord’s meaning, we find that the cause is that of the fundamental unity. Involved, is the great spiritual declaration, that when God created man, He created male and female, and the two aspects of Deity are to be represented in the two. They make the unity of humanity. Because then the woman is the complement of the man; that part of him, apart from which he lacks, and is imperfect as an instrument; he shall, leave father and mother and cleave to his wife. The holy apostle in the paragraph in Ephesians says exactly the same thing; the cause is that of fundamental unity.

What then is the experience in itself? Mark the superlativeness of the ancient word endorsed by Jesus, and endorsed by apostolic interpretation. He shall leave the nearest and the dearest he has ever known, father and mother, for the nearer and the dearer than they. In other words, the experience upon which marriage is to be based according to this Divine ideal, is that of supreme reciprocal, affection. I have simply put into other words that master utterance of Joseph Cook of Boston, in which he declared that the only true foundation for marriage is that of a supreme affection between two. The basis of experience in marriage is the outgoing of love to love consummating a union which is indissoluble. Behind such outgoing of love to love, is the fundamental Divine conception and fact of creation, “Male and female created He them.”

Finally our Lord quoted the words, “The two shall become one flesh.” In that unity of the flesh there is the sacramental symbol of the spiritual unity which, if it be non-existent, marriage is a disaster, a sham, and the occasion of all misery.

Observe the sanctity of this ideal. The Roman and Greek Churches count marriage a sacrament. I wonder whether they are not right. The Roman Church calls it a sacrament; the Greek Church calls it a mystery. I pray you remember that Paul also called it “a mystery.” What is a sacrament? That may raise a great controversial question, and there is nothing further from my mind than a desire for controversy ; but if indeed a sacrament be an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, then I affirm that marriage is supreme among the sacraments.

Marriage is a condition of Divine expression and activity, therefore where its fundamental significances are forgotten, and its fundamental laws are disobeyed, it becomes the most tragic of all experiences. Any nation which forgets the Divine ordinance of marriage, and what it means, will become a ruin, in spite of all its strength in other things! It is for the Church of God to come back to Christ’s teaching on this subject, understand it, and stand by it, in face of obloquy if need be. By so doing she will act in the interest of the race.

While Jesus was talking thus to His disciples, people outside were bringing children to Him.

Without dealing with the story, which is so familiar, let us listen to the final words which Jesus uttered about these children: “Of such is the Kingdom of God.”

Carefully observe in the first place that this is an inclusive statement, the reference being to children as children, quite apart from privilege or disability. The statement of Christ in the case of a child is not made more true, if the child has been privileged. The statement of Christ in the case of a child is not made less true, if the child has suffered disability. That was a promiscuous gathering; those crowds that came after Jesus everywhere were made up of all sorts and conditions of people; and they brought their children. They were not carefully selected children, but those of the common folk. Of these children He said, “To such belongeth the Kingdom of God.”

Mark then the statement, “To such belongeth the Kingdom of God.” They were all included, and our Lord further emphasized that declaration by expository words: “Forbid them not”; and “Whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein.” Our Lord thus declared, not only that all the children are included in His Kingdom; but that, in order to be included, all older people must become children. John Ruskin once said that what man needs is not so much to graduate, as to backslide; not to go forward into new cleverness, but to backslide into the simplicity of childhood. Our Lord was thus declaring essential truth.

As I look in wonder and amazement, being influenced as were the apostles by the thought that children must not go to Him, because He was engaged on such important business that He could not be interrupted, I see that He gathered them to Himself, and said, These are in the Kingdom, and if you, apostles, disciples, desire to enter, you must join the children.

All this has many applications. I want to make one. These children, find them where we will, in the tenement house or in your own home, are all spiritual, they are of God in the deepest fact of their being. We have had fathers of our flesh who disciplined us. Shall we not much rather obey the Father of spirits? God is the Father of spirits. In an almost amazing and tremendous mystery, God has united Himself to humanity in the propagation of the race, so that wherever children are conceived and begotten, God cooperates arid creates eternal spirits.

When of these little children He said, “To such belongeth the Kingdom,” He did not mean that they were perfect, but that they were potential, and plastic; each one separate, no two alike. Out of the ancient Scriptures comes back to us the old word so often misunderstood: “Train up a child in his own way, and even when he is old he will not depart from it.” Not, Train up a child in the way it should go, but in the way God meant it should go; in its own way, according to its personal capacity and lonely dignity. There is no boy nor girl, in privileged home or in slumdom, but in that boy, that girl, are resident individual, lonely, magnificent capacities, which belong alone to that boy or girl. I sometimes think in these days when the passion for collectivism is so great,-a perfectly accurate passion,-we need to return to the emphasis of this individual note, lest we become merely a nation of numbers. Let us remember that if God gives a little child its essential spirit life, in that life there are potentialities that are peculiar to it.

Let us also remember, a little child is plastic, capable of realization.

“A child’s face is the window of its soul, That yet untrammelled by the world’s control, Like some still pool upon a summer’s day, Ruffles to every wind that blows that way. “And it is like a yet wide open door, That every year Life shuts a little more, It stands wide-thrown, and to and fro pass free Of its fresh thoughts the white-robed company.

“And it is like a harp that silent stands, Waiting the touch of any passing hands That chance to pluck the clear obedient strings, Giving the hidden melodies their wings.

“A little pool that ruffles to the winds, An open door where each one entry finds, A stringed harp to answer song or hymn, So is a child’s face to his every whim.” That is the Kingdom of God, the plastic possibility. Oh! the tragedy of it, if that child should live in a home where the winds .that sweep, are such as nip and blast and destroy, where the guests that enter through the door, are such as harm and defile; where the hand that sweeps is such as does not make music but destroys it. I pray you, look on the sanctity of this ideal, for where it is realized, home is heaven, and the nursery is God’s workshop.

We may now return to the accidental or incidental things. First as to the question of divorce. Where the ideal of marriage which our Lord revealed, is realized, divorce is unthinkable and unnamable. The question as it was asked, revealed the laxity of the age in which Jesus lived. He was asked to decide .between rival schools on this subject which then existed; the school of Shammai, the strict, and the school of Hillel, the liberal. The latter was the most popular at the moment.

Hillel had advocated divorce for trifling causes. When these men asked their question, there was in the background of their thinking, the dark and sinister figure of Herod. In answer Christ first appealed to Moses, and gave interpretation of his permission. Then He gave His inclusive answer, “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Presently, when they were alone, the disciples were so perplexed, that they asked Him further concerning the matter, and He gave them His answer, recorded in Mark, which answer must be interpreted by His manifesto. There is one, and only one reason for divorce. There, I affirm again, the Church of God must stand, for the glory of God, and in the interest of humanity.

As to the incidental things in the second story. What is more natural than that those who are of the Kingdom, should find their way to the King? Mark the mistake of the. disciples. We may think we should never make that mistake. I think that we are in danger of making it even yet. We still too often relegate work among children in our corporate thinking within the Church, to some secondary place. We still imagine that our Lord has business on hand too important, to give very much time and attention to children.

This is one of the very few occasions upon which our Gospel story tells us that Jesus was angry. “He was moved with indignation.” When next we recite these words that constitute the magna charta of childhood, “Suffer the children to come unto Me,” never let us forget that if they are tremulous with the tenderness of His love, they are vibrant with the thunder of His wrath against the men who hindered the children in their coming.

It is as though our Lord said, If you will only let these children alone, they will come; if they do not come, it will not be their fault, it will be yours! I maintain that this is true. If the children do not find their way to Christ, it is always our fault, either that we did not reveal Him at all; or that revealing Him, we libelled Him. Oh! let the children see Him, and they will be after Him. “Suffer them; forbid them not!”

Then He took them in His arms, and put His hands upon them, and blessed them. From the hour in which He did this; Christianity has become preeminently the religion of the child. There the Church must keep them; for the satisfying of His heart, and for her own wellbeing. Dr. Noah K. Davis of Virginia University some time ago said this remarkable thing, which I leave you to challenge, to agree with, or to correct. “Classical literature knows nothing of children. Christian literature is full of children.”

Oh! the glory of the Christian family where this ideal of marriage is realized and where this truth concerning children is accepted. May God multiply such families.

Mark 10:17-31

XX “Why callest thou Me good? None is good save one, God”- Mark 10:18. Mark 10:17-31.

THE selection of the text is intended as an indication of the purpose of the meditation. It is that of fastening attention upon the Lord Himself, rather than upon the young ruler. Of course we must see him also, and indeed, observe the whole movement of this story; but we shall do that in order to consider as carefully as possible these arresting and remarkable words of Jesus.

It is almost certain that this incident occurred immediately after those in which the Lord revealed the true ideal of marriage and uttered the word of inclusive truth concerning the children. As we saw in our last meditation, Matthew and Mark place these two incidents in close connection. Luke omits the story of the enquiry of the Pharisees, also the teaching of Jesus on the subject of marriage in that particular connection. Matthew, Mark, and Luke place this story of the young ruler in immediate connection with the reception of the children by our Lord. This connection is at least interesting and suggestive, as it may help us to understand what this young man heard Jesus say, and saw Him do, which made him come to Christ in the way he did.

His coming was due to a noble impulse, resulting from a true passion, and a deep sense of lack. Witness his quest, as expressed in his enquiry, “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” Witness also his manner. He, a young ruler, wealthy withal, did nevertheless in the presence of the Galilean peasant, kneel and address Him with profound respect; and by that very attitude and speech he showed the fineness of his natural spirit.

The words of our text constitute the first part of the answer of Jesus to the question: “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit age-abiding life?” This answer has caused very much trouble to expositors. The words have created serious difficulty in the minds of some who, believing in the Deity of our Lord, have understood them as constituting a repudiation of personal goodness on His part. On the other hand, there have been those who, at once accepting that interpretation and meaning of the words, have used them as evidence that our Lord laid no claim to Deity. In his weird article in the “Encyclopaedia Biblica,” dealing with the person of Jesus Christ, Schmiedel admitted the authenticity of five fragments of the four Gospels, because in those fragments Jesus seemed to renounce all which we now associate with His name. Among the five, this was one of the passages that Schmiedel allowed to remain as genuine. Let us at once admit that if Jesus did here mean to repudiate goodness, the deduction is inevitable, that He also repudiated Deity.

Let us then consider His statement, endeavouring to discover what our Lord really meant, when He spoke to the young ruler; and that, not merely for the purpose of intellectual illumination, but in order that we may consider in the second place, the bearing of the statement on this great quest for eternal life.

First, then, the statement itself. “Why callest thou Me good? None is good save one, God.” The plain meaning of the passage is that which we first attempt to gather. There are three records of the event in the Gospels. Matthew’s record of the first words of Jesus differs from those found in Mark and Luke. Jesus is recorded in Matthew’s account as having. said to the young man, “Why askest thou Me concerning that which is good? One there is that is good.” The words in Mark and Luke are identical.

These two statements are not alike, and they do not mean the same thing. The statement as found in Matthew: “Why askest thou Me concerning 1 that which is good? One there is Who is good”; is not the same as, “Why callest thou Me good? There is one that is good, even God.” The change in Matthew’s record in the Revised Version is unquestionably justified, and we need not now enter into the discussion as to the reason of the change. This fact, however, does not call in question the record of Mark or Luke; neither does it mean that Matthew is inaccurate. Here, as so often in the case of these Gospel narratives, the two are needed in order to understand all that Jesus said.

Matthew recorded one part of our Lord’s reply to the man, Mark and Luke another part of that same reply. As to the order of statement, I shall assume that He first said that which is found in the text, and then added that which is recorded in Matthew, granting that the reverse may be equally correct, and that it would make no material alteration to the deduction which I propose to make, whichever order were followed.

Hear then the answer of Jesus on this wise; first the words recorded in my text, and then the words recorded in Matthew. Said the young man: “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” Said Jesus, “Why callest thou Me good? None is good save one, even God. Why askest thou Me concerning that which is good? One there is Who is good.” It will immediately be seen that there is no contradiction, and indeed, Matthew’s addition makes the other question the more emphatic. First, “Why dost thou call Me good?” secondly, and therefore, “Why dost thou ask Me concerning goodness?” and. each of the questions ending with the affirmation that, “One only is good, that is, God.”

When we read this word of Jesus we are driven to one of two conclusions. In that word our Lord either repudiated goodness and Godhead; or else He claimed goodness and Godhead. Simply take the words of Jesus, and listen to them with the fearlessness of a child, and there can be no escape from this alternative. To the young man He said, “Why callest thou Me good? One is good, even God.” Did He mean that He was not God? Then He meant that He was not good. Did He mean that He was good? Then He meant that He was God. There is no escape from the alternative, and it is a question of vital importance, as to which He really meant.

I unhesitatingly accept the second interpretation; first of all calling to bear upon the enquiry, the witness of the rest of the record of the life and teaching of Jesus. If there is one thing more noticeable than another in the revelation of this Person in the four Gospels, it is His quiet, insistent, and unhesitating claim to sinlessness. From the beginning to the end, never did there pass His lips, so far as may be gathered from the recorded words, a single sentence in which He seemed to admit sin. He did most definitely and positively challenge those who were His critics, “Which of you convicteth Me of sin?” He did most continuously and insistently claim that in His own life He was not merely attempting to please God, but that He actually pleased God; as in such sentences as these, “I do always the things that are pleasing to Him,” “My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me.” “I can of Myself do nothing,” “As the Father gave Me commandment, even so I do,” “My teaching is not Mine, but His that sent Me.” Quietly, without apparent argument, and yet with persistent definiteness, He claimed sinlessness. To my mind it is unbelievable that upon one occasion He should make a contrary declaration. If the writings recording all the rest of the years, and all the witness of His life, attest His sinlessness, we are driven to the conclusion, that He was not repudiating goodness; but in the form of an enquiry, arresting the attention of a man, He fastened it upon the fact of His goodness.

We must carefully consider the witness of the context, as to what Jesus meant. Here are two lines for us to follow: first, the things that followed in His dealing with this man will help us to understand what He meant by the first thing He said to him; and secondly, the things that followed in His exposition of the incident to His puzzled disciples subsequently, will help us to understand what He meant by these words.

First then, the things that followed in His dealing with the man. Immediately after the words of Jesus, the measurement of certain standards of life was placed upon him. Jesus employed the second table of the Decalogue. There were two tables. On one, four commandments were engraved; and on the other six. Our Lord made no reference at all to the first four.

In abbreviated form He used the six, not in the order in which they are found in the Decalogue, but nevertheless including the whole. “Do not kill. Do not commit adultery. Do not steal. Do not bear false witness. Do not defraud,” thus adopting an inclusive statement of the last commandment, “Honour thy father and mother.” The standard of measurement which Jesus placed upon this man for the moment, was that of human inter-relationships, the laws which govern the life of man as to his relationships with his fellow-men.

The answer of the young man was immediate, “All these things have I observed from my youth.” This was no empty boast; but the plain statement of honest truth. He was modest and upright, when measured by that standard. Let us emphasize for a moment the standard which Jesus did not employ at first, the standard which measures a man’s relationship to God. Call back to mind these first four commandments in their spiritual intention. The first commands that to men there shall be one God, and that He shall be as God: “No other gods before Me,” which does not mean having precedence, but, Before My face, in sight, in view anywhere. It is the command for the realization by man, of God directly, immediately; that God shall be to him as God.

In the second command man is forbidden to help himself, in the worship of the true God, by creating anything which he supposes is in the likeness of the true God. The second command sweeps out from between the soul of man and God, all intermediaries of every kind. While the first command calls man into direct relationship with God; the second insists upon it that he shall not aid himself to direct communication, by putting anything between his own soul and God. The third command indicates that which will be the necessary outcome of obedience to the first two; the hallowing of the Name. The name of God is to be held as sacred. Finally and inclusively, the result of such hallowing of the name is revealed in the hallowing of time.

The fourth commandment is not one that deals with the Sabbath only; it deals with seven days out of seven days; the requirement, On six days thou shalt work, is as definite as the commandment, On the seventh day thou shalt rest. It is the hallowing of time in work and worship; work and worship alike being related to Him.

Our Lord did not at first apply that test to the young man. When he said to Him: “All these things have I observed from my youth, Jesus looking upon him, loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest; go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow Me.”

With all care, consider that word of Jesus. Jesus called that young man to an abandonment so complete, that obedience must be the equivalent of worship. We so often quote these tender and gracious words of Jesus, and what wonder that we do! Yet we are in danger of quoting them as though they were simple and gentle; whereas they are imperial, kingly, absolute, autocratic. If Jesus Christ were not a good man, and were not more than man, when He asked the young ruler to do that, He asked him to break the second commandment of the first four. If He be not a good man, and if He be not more than man, then when He asks any man to submit himself so completely to His authority, and to His will, He is asking 1 that man to break the law of God.

This is always true. It is true of all men. By the rights of my manhood, by the rights of my soul, by the rights of that spirit-life which is of God, I will submit my soul, my spirit, my will, to no man, if he be man alone. I will call no man master; I will call no man father in that spiritual sense; I will consent to submit my judgment to none. Yet Christ said to this young ruler, “Follow Me.” It was an imperial, autocratic demand that he should yield the whole of his manhood to Himself.

What then is this? Christ is seen putting Himself in the place of God to the soul of a man. There are devout souls to-day, who say that they cannot say to Christ, “My God,” but that they can say, He is in the place of God to my soul. I am prepared to begin there; only I would remind you that to put any one in the place of God to the soul, who is not God, is to put the soul in the direst peril possible. In that moment Jesus did put Himself in the place of God to the soul of that man. Sell all that thou hast, all that binds thee to the old masteries and sanctions of life, and come to Me, with the endowments of thy glorious manhood.

Jesus, beholding him, loved him, saw the splendour of his manhood, and said, Wouldst thou find that for which thou art asking, life? Follow the good, which is to follow God; and to do it, follow Me.

Let us next look at the exposition He gave of the incident to His disciples, and “we shall have further ratification of this interpretation.” Jesus looked round about,” and He said, “How hardly,” that is, “With what difficulty shall they that have riches enter into the Kingdom of God!” They were amazed. Then He said: “Children, how difficult is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the Kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.”

From these sentences let us simply take the thrice repeated phrase, “Enter into the Kingdom of God.” That was the subject under consideration. It is as though He had said to His disciples: What was that man’s difficulty? What did he refuse to do? He refused to enter into the Kingdom of God, when he refused to follow Me. Jesus had set before him, as the door into the Kingdom, Himself, the God of the Kingdom ; and when a man will not respond to the call of God, he refuses to enter into the Kingdom of God.

“Then who can be saved?” said they. Mark His response. With God all things are possible; with man it is impossible. I know the danger oftentimes of attempting to build a doctrine upon a preposition, but there is vast significance in this preposition. Jesus did not say, All things are possible to God, as though He had meant, God can do anything. He said, All things are possible with God, as though He meant that a man with God can do the impossible thing.

It is not that God is able to do impossible things, but that man is able to do impossible things with God. With men it is impossible. That young ruler, coming from men, judging life by their ideals, responding to their ordinary sanctions of life, went away sorrowful; he could not enter in. But, it is as though Christ had said: I stood before him, and if he had .but obeyed Me, followed Me, then with Me he would have entered into My Kingdom. With God, he would have been enabled to do the impossible thing, and enter into My Kingdom.

The light then broke anew upon Peter as he said, “Lo, we have left all, and have followed Thee”; and Christ said in effect: That is perfectly true; you have left all to follow Me; and having left all to follow Me, you have by that process entered into the Kingdom of God, wherein you have found far more wealth than you left behind when you entered in. There is here a suggestive line of teaching which is often challenged. Do men who give up wealth, and brothers and sisters, for Christ, receive a hundredfold in this time? Yes! How little we know of giving up for Christ, how very little! Yet the measure in which we have known anything of it is the measure in which we have known what it is to possess all things through Christ.

One house gone; but a hundred doors are open! One brother in the flesh lost; but a thousand brethren in the spirit, whose love is deeper and whose kinship is profounder, gained. If this is not the final line of application, I believe it is a true one. No man who really enters into the Kingdom, abandoning everything for Christ’s sake, but finds within the Kingdom things far more precious and wonderful, in the actualities of present experience, than those he has left.

What then, in the light of this whole story, is the bearing of the statement of Jesus on the quest for eternal life? There is a quest for eternal life far more widespread than we sometimes imagine. We remember the words of the preacher in the book of Ecclesiastes, “He hath set eternity in their heart.” What a significant declaration, and yet how true! “He hath set eternity in their heart/’ It is true of all the sons of men. The passion for eternal life is present in all human hearts. It may find a thousand means of expression, some of them entirely and absolutely unworthy; but it is there. May I describe it as the panting necessity of the human soul; the great underlying consciousness that the soul belongs not to the limited and the localized and the near and the dust, but to the vast and the eternal. “He hath set eternity in their heart.” When that passion rises to its noblest form of expression, it employs the very words of this young man, “What shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” Mark him well, a man of fine, natural temperament, a man of wealth and position, and yet conscious when he came to Christ of the very thing Jesus Christ expressed to him in another form and guise, that he lacked something.

Life, eternal life, is a quality rather than a quantity, is infinitely more than life without end. It takes in the whole sum of things, and knows within itself that it is master of them all; and the passion for that is everywhere present in the human heart.

But observe another thing. The quest for eternal life when it is followed upon the level of human life alone, and without relation to the larger things, is always hopeless and helpless. If I have quoted from the preacher, the declaration “He hath set eternity in their heart,” let me complete the quotation. It is a wail of despair: “He hath set eternity in their heart, yet so that man cannot find out the work that God hath done from the beginning even to the end.” There, in a sentence, is at once the passion and the paralysis of the human heart; eternity within the heart, creating a desire to know whence we are, and to interpret the strange mysteries of life; and yet, as the preacher, with his pessimistic soul said, God has put eternity in the heart, but so that men cannot find it, so that men cannot be at rest. Even in the noblest, that consciousness abides. This young man knew his lack.

Now take the teaching of Jesus in the whole story, and put it in relationship with that quest. What is eternal life? I leave the story that I may use the words of Jesus in another connection. “This is life eternal, that they should know Thee, the only true God.” How can they? “And Him Whom Thou didst send, even Jesus Christ.” Our Lord’s declaration is that eternal life consists in the proper relation of the soul to God; that a man lives the age-abiding life, when he lives in right relationship with God. In that self-same word, moreover, our Lord revealed the fact that the way of God’s approach to the man who is seeking eternal life is through His Son Whom He had sent. Come the Son wheresoever He may; He, the Only Son of the Father, confronts the human soul, standing before that soul in the place of God ; and God contracted, focussed, veiled for unveiling, hidden for revelation, is brought within the compass of the finite mind, that men through the revelation, may encompass that which is infinite. The philosophy becomes the grace of God, as we see Jesus confronting the young ruler, and Saying: “Follow Me”; and, sweep out everything that hinders that following!

The experience of the soul finding and following is the experience of life; so that in the midst of death, man begins to live; in the midst of dirges he begins to sing; and while all the mists and the darkness are round about him, he sees the light, and is able to say:

“I stand upon the mount of God, With sunlight in my soul; I hear the storms in vales beneath, I hear the thunders roll; “But I am calm with Thee, my God, Beneath these glorious skies; And to the height on which I stand Nor storms, nor clouds can rise.” That is eternal life; and it is found when the soul comes to God through Jesus Christ.

Mark 10:32-52

XXI “ For the Son of man also came not to be ministered Unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many.”-Mark 10:45. Mark 10:32-52. OF the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospel according to Mark this verse constitutes the central statement. Like a perfect gem it flashes with radiant glory and beauty, but unlike a gem, it does not reflect light. Its wondrous lustre is that of the truth it declares; its light is within itself. One of our poets has reminded us that

“Full many a gem of rarest ray serene The dark, unfathomed caves of ocean bear.” But the gems in these dark unfathomed caves bring no light there. This verse flashes from within, in the darkest abyss of human sin and need.

Nevertheless in our study of it we find that its internal light is interpreted by its setting. Its final setting is the whole of this Gospel. All the story of Jesus, the Servant of God,-from His introduction in the briefest words, to the last picture of Him passing back into the heavens, and from that exalted height working with His own; all the light is focussed in the text, and enables us to study its meaning. Its immediate setting is the whole of the paragraph, verses thirty-two to fifty-two.

After the solemn hour in which, dealing with the young ruler, Jesus definitely placed Himself in the place of God to the life of man, He resumed His journey to Jerusalem. Here Mark, with brevity and yet with remarkable clearness, gives a description of that journey as it was thus resumed. First Jesus went resolutely forward, alone; then following Him at some distance, were the twelve apostles, amazed; and then beyond them, came the crowds, afraid. The solemn atmosphere takes possession of the soul as the brief description is carefully read. We see the Lord, the Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, none being able to understand Him, none of the twelve in close companionship with Him, as He resolutely trod the via dolorosa which was to find its consummation in His passion. We see the twelve men, loyal-hearted, but stupefied, amazed at the more recent tones of His teaching, at the things He had now been saying and doing. Finally we see the crowds with that mystic sense, so often found in a crowd if there is anything strange, weird, supernatural in the atmosphere, afraid, filled with awe, and filled with reverence.

After a while He gathered the twelve about Him in secrecy from the crowd, telling them in greater detail even than before, the story of all that to which He was going. While they were in that atmosphere, James and John preferred their request, and with infinite grace and tenderness He replied, though all the rest of the twelve were angry with the two, for the request they had preferred. The Lord then rebuked the ten with great patience, making that rebuke the occasion of uttering these central words: “The Son of man also came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many.” Then they passed on to, and through, Jericho, and as they went, Bartimaeus was given his sight.

Let us consider the statement, first in itself; and secondly, in the light of these incidents.

First, the statement in itself. The music is so perfect, so final, that it carries its own message. Its notes are revolutionary and hope-begetting. It is revolutionary; the Son of man, Messiah, anointed to Kingship and to mastery, and to government, the One upon Whose shoulders the final government must rest; came not to be served, but to serve. Two millenniums have run their course, and the world has not yet understood that. Even the Church has hardly begun to apprehend the profound significance of the startling declaration.

Yet again, the note is hope-begetting. “To give His life a ransom for many.” Behind the great and gracious word, lurk the dark shadows of slaveries, oppressions, and tyrannies, all the things that blight and blast humanity. The Son of man came to give His life a ransom for the many. The finest possible exposition of the text is that of silent meditation. I propose emphasis only, rather than anything in the nature of detailed interpretation.

I lay emphasis first upon the Person speaking, and then upon the declaration made. “The Son of man.” That was our Lord’s favourite description of Himself. It is at least worthy of notice that in the Gospel records no one spoke of Him as the Son of man save upon one occasion; and that was when He had so often used it that His enemies said, “Who is this Son of Man?” Remember also its Messianic suggestiveness to the men who heard it. All its associations were Messianic to the religious men of His own age. When they heard Him speak of Himself, not as “a Son of man,” but “the Son of man,” they would immediately associate the title with their apocalyptic and prophetic writings, and know that by the assumption of the title He was at least suggesting His Messianic mission. The very fact that “Son of man” was the title of the Messiah, and that the Lord evidently loved it, and constantly used it, fastens attention upon the human note. Messiah! Yea, verily, but Son of man; Lord and Master of all the universe, but kin to all those who are to be ruled; and over whom He will reign; infinitely removed from man in His authority which is final and perfect, and from which there can be no appeal; but in all points tempted like as we are; a Man of sorrows acquainted with grief, knowing our hungers, our wearinesses, and, our tears; the Son of man!

Remember in the next place, when our Lord used that title here, that it was a declaration in close connection with that He had but recently said to the young ruler. To that man, He had suggested essential things concerning Himself, had put Himself in front of him as in the very place of God, commanding him to a following which included unequivocal and unrestrained surrender. Now, He referred to Himself by a title which suggested the method of manifestation of the essential truth. There is no contradiction. He had not ceased to speak as within the realm of His absolute authority as Son of God, but mark the statement: “The Son of man came”; and the employment of the verb in that connection suggested existence ere He came, and dignities and glories and mysteries which men could not understand, as all being centered in His person. He came; and He came for a purpose; and the purpose existed before the coming.

“Through the veil Of His flesh divine, Shines forth the light, That were else too bright, For the feebleness of a sinner’s sight.” So we listen to a voice that came out of the eternities, deep calling unto deep; the voice of “the Son of Man.”

Now with equal brevity and for emphasis only, let us hear the declaration, He “came not to be ministered unto.” I prefer a much simpler rendering, “not to be served.” He came as the Self-emptied One, as to ambition, and as to His own well-being. According to this declaration in the heart of Jesus,-reverently using the merely human name for the moment,-there was no ambition for Himself; there was no carefulness as to His own well-being. Not to be ministered unto, not to compel men to gather about Him, to serve Him, and lift Him, and honour Him; not to secure His own immunity from suffering or sorrow, or to make sure of His own joy and His own pleasure. But “to serve.” Self-emptied, He was God-centered; and that first as to ambition. When our Lord said that He came not to be ministered unto but to minister, He did not refer to the fact that He came to serve men, but that He came to serve God. He came not to be ministered unto, having no ambition of His own, no care for His own well-being; but He came with one ambition; ambition for the glory of God, and the good pleasure of God, and the accomplishment of the purposes of God.

So we have this wonderful unveiling of a Person in human history, self-less as to ambitions, with no care for His own personal well-being; and God-centered, having one supreme, burning, overmastering passion, conditioning all thought and speech and action, that God’s name should be glorified, that His Kingdom should come; not to be ministered unto, but to minister; not to be served, but to serve.

Had the great statement ended at that point, we should have stood in awe in the presence of this Self-emptying of Jesus, but we should have heard no Gospel. In the final words of the declaration we hear the Gospel, and the music of the evangel breaks upon the soul. This is not something additional; but the unveiling of the inner heart of that self-same Servant of God: “To give His life a ransom for many” is to seek the glory of God, in the well-being of man. God is revealed through Jesus, as One Whose glory is realized in man’s ransom, redemption, healing, restoration.

Let us attempt to look at this great statement again in the light of its setting. Here general impressions will help us better than detailed examination, especially in view of our familiarity with the stories contained in this whole paragraph. “The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many.” In the first part of the paragraph we see the pathway of His service, as He told His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer, and be killed, but rise again. Then as James and John came to Him with special request, and the ten were about Him, we see the comrades of His service, and mark His method with them. Finally, in that which at first blush seems to be separated from the great line of thought, but which is really closely connected with it, we have an incident of His service immediately following, as the cry of the blind beggar broke upon His ears.

With regard to the first paragraph revealing the pathway of service, note its definiteness, the particular care with which Jesus at this point attempted to arrest the thought of His disciples, and fasten that thought upon the actuality of the sufferings to which He was going, and the triumph which should result therefrom. Taking the paragraph as a whole, let us attempt to see what Christ said as to the pathway of His service. First, He declared that the pathway of His service was advance on His part to the place where all that was opposed to God, and so destructive of man, was for the moment centralized-Jerusalem. Those familiar with the history of the time, will remember the three great world-powers then existing; the power of a military despotism and government as centered in Rome; the power of decadent intellectualism and commercial prosperity as centered in Greece; and the power of a degenerate religion as centered in Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the very centre of these forces in certain senses, having to do with that which is fundamental to human life,-religion. This Son of man set His face toward Jerusalem, the place where all that was opposed to God was at the moment centralized, and consequently the place where everything that was destructive of humanity was centralized.

He had often been in the city before. How He loved it! He must go again; knowing that all the world forces were there, and waiting with the one definite and specific intention of silencing His voice, and destroying Him.

Notice in the second place, and here is the mystery-He went to that place to gather the whole onslaught of those evil forces upon Himself. He went deliberately, as God, to feel its opposition utterly and finally. He went deliberately, as Man, to bend to its destruction. The forces were those in opposition to the way and the will of God. The forces consequently were those that made for the destruction of humanity. As God, He went to gather them into His own personality; historically and visibly as Man, He went, that upon Him the destruction might fall.

Yet once more; the pathway of service was not merely that He advanced to the place where opposition was centralized, was not merely in order that He might gather its onslaught upon Himself; the pathway of His service was one which He trod in powers which were invulnerable, and which all opposition could not overcome. Consequently, He went not merely to the Cross, but to the crowning; not merely to death, but to resurrection; not merely to the clouds and darkness which were about the Throne, but to cooperation with the righteousness and judgment which are the foundation thereof. He could say to this little group of men that on the third day He would rise again. His pathway to the passion was one trodden in the strength of invulnerable powers; the power of perfect acceptance of the will of God, the power of complete cooperation with the activities of God; the power that was the more powerful, in that it depended upon none other power than itself.

So we see this Son of man moving toward the scene of the things that blight and spoil humanity, because they are against God. We see Him moving thereto, in order that He may gather all the onslaught into the experiences of His own soul; but we look into His eyes and there is a light that tells of victory. All moral forces were against Him. There was no escape; He must be beaten, He must be crushed, He must be killed! No! There are moral values sustaining His soul, and spiritual forces renewing Him. When they have killed the body they have nothing more that they can do ; and He will be the Leader of those moral values and spiritual forces out into new power and life. This was the pathway of the service of the Son of man.

Then look quite briefly at this old and familiar, and yet beautiful picture of the comrades of His service. It is significant that they are divided into two groups, the two, James and John; and the ten. Look .at the two, and listen to what they said that day. I separate myself immediately and resolutely from all expositors who discredit them. I do not believe that this was the cry of men hungry for personal ambition. “Teacher, we would that Thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall ask.” And Jesus said, “What would ye that I should do for you?” They said this, “Grant unto us that we may sit, one on Thy right hand, and one on Thy left hand, in Thy glory.” Before we criticize them, let us remember the atmosphere. “In Thy glory!” But He was going to be spit upon. He was going to be scourged, He was going to be mocked, He was going to be killed!

Yes, they knew it all; but they knew Him, and that He was coming into His glory, and they wanted to be associated with Him in the power of that glory. Oh! great men were these; not wholly intelligent, ignorant of the very things to which He was going, the processes through which He must pass; not knowing the bitterness of the cup, or the abysmal agony of the baptism; but believing that somehow He must come into His glory.

Then notice His grace. He admitted them to the fellowship of His sufferings. He told them, in effect, that positions of honour did not at all matter. He said He could not give these spiritual positions to any except to those for whom they were prepared; but because these men had seen His glory, even though they were ignorant, and could not understand; because faith had risen in that dark hour of foretelling to ask for association with Him, He said: Yes, you shall drink of My cup, you shall be baptized of My baptism!

We had better leave that story where the Gospel leaves it. If we cannot, then we join the ten, and the ten were angry with the two! The rebukes of Jesus were reserved for the ten; and even there, they were very gracious and beautiful. He called the ten and said to them, You do not understand this matter, you do not understand these men. “Ye know that they who are accounted to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them.” The request of these men is not for the kind of authority of service which expresses itself in sacrifice! Then He left the ten and the two; and the last word was this: The Son of man did not come to gain a kingly crown in the way men usually seek to do so. The Son of man did not come to raise His voice and clamour amid men, as to who is to be the principal power in the world.

The Son of man came to divest Himself of dignities, and strip Himself of royalties and bind upon Himself the yoke of slavery and service, that He might lift others, and so win the ultimate throne of empire by the love and loyalty of those whom He thus lifts. He said in effect, to the ten and the two, to the twelve, and to all their successors through the ages; if you would know anything of authority and power with Me, you must come this way with Me.

Then came the incident of the healing of Bartimaeus, the incident taking place in that very atmosphere and connection. First we hear the beggar crying out for help, and see him rebuked by the disciples. We will not be angry with them, but will try and understand them. Unless I misinterpret this story altogether, the disciples were saying within their own souls, We do not quite understand what Jesus is trying to teach us, but these are big things. His mind is occupied with supreme things. We cannot attend to that man. A blind beggar must not be allowed to interrupt Him now! But Jesus stood still, and said, Call him! Then He healed him!

The great is always operative in the little, and all the vastness of Christ in His outlook and intention as revealed supremely in His declaration of the text, is illustrated in the fact that on the way to Jerusalem He could stay to answer the cry of one blind beggar. I go further, and say this. To have refused would have been to deny His teaching about service. Nay! to have refused the cry of a man in his agony would have been to deny His Cross, for not lightly did He heal. “Himself took our infirmities, and bare our diseases”; and behind the strength that went Out as a healing power, there was ever the unfathomable mystery of His atonement.

The King is coming into His Kingdom! Oh, yes! the heathen are saying to us to-day, Where is your God? There never was a darker hour, judged by human standards, in the history of the world, than that hour when they nailed the Prince of life and glory to the Roman gibbet on Calvary. Have we the vision of James and John? Do we still rest in the confidence that the King is coming into His glory; that

“… After last, returns the First, Though a wide compass round be fetched; That what began best, can’t end worst”; that though, in the march of the movements of the ages, humanity must suffer long, and the innocent with the guilty; though we seem to see

Truth for ever on the scaffold, Wrong for ever on the throne, Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown, Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above His own?” It behooves men who are of the Christian faith to rise to the heights and to take large outlooks. The King is coming into His Kingdom!

“The darkness is deepest before the dawn; When the pain is sorest the child is born.” That is the Christian attitude.

Fellowship in the greatness of His Kingdom is conditional upon fellowship in His cup, in His baptism, in sacrifice. How little do we know of this experimentally, how little have we ever known! Where can we begin to have real fellowship with our King? The first blind beggar we meet is our opportunity. The first local, and apparently unimportant case of necessity that cries out, is our chance. If Jesus should have passed that blind beggar and refused to help him, because His thoughts were so great, He would have cut the nerve of His coming passion. He could not pass that man by, because He was mastered by the passion that took Him to the Cross. So God help us to go forth, seeing the coming of His glory, sharing the travail of His soul, and doing it with the next who asks our help.