Mark 10

Verse 1 This chapter records a few of the events of Jesus’ Perean ministry, recorded much more fully by Luke, but here comprising only this single chapter. It is nevertheless a kind of dividing line between the first nine chapters devoted to the public ministry of our Lord and the last six outlining the events of the Passion and subsequent resurrection. The following sections make up Mark 10 : Christ’s teaching on marriage and divorce (Mark 10:1-12), the Saviour’s blessing little children (Mark 10:13-15), the interview with the rich young ruler (Mark 10:16-22), the Lord’s teaching on riches (Mark 10:23-31), further prophecies of the Passion (Mark 10:32-34), the request of the sons of Zebedee (Mark 10:35-45), and the healing of blind Bartimaeus between the two Jericho’s (Mark 10:46-52). And he arose from thence, and cometh into the borders of Judaea and beyond the Jordan; and multitudes came together unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again. (Mark 10:1) This is a transitional statement setting off Mark 10 from events previously recorded. The Lord is here leaving Galilee for the last time and turning his face toward Jerusalem and the cross. The days of seeking privacy and seclusion have ended. Some scholars believe that “what is indicated here is not a journey from Galilee to Jerusalem, but rather a ministry in Judea and Perea."[1] The sacred authors have not provided sufficient details for the resolution of all such questions; but this should not be viewed in any manner as a fault on their part. ENDNOTE: [1] C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to Saint Mark (Cambridge: The University Press, 1966), p. 318.

Verse 2 And there came unto him Pharisees and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? trying him. AND DIVORCEMark’s account here is briefer than Matthew who gave the true form of the question as “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” (Matthew 19:3). We have no patience with scholars who insist that Mark’s account of the question is true and that Matthew has “glossed” him, or that Matthew “represents a later modification of the teachings of Jesus."[2] Such allegations are not merely inaccurate, but they are contrary to the plain indications in Mark that Jesus’ answer had regard to the very limitation of the question as it appears in Matthew. William Barclay pointed out that: The exception noted in Matthew is implied in Mark’s version. It was Jewish law that adultery did in fact compulsorily dissolve any marriage.[3]W. N. Clarke also pointed out that Mark’s account presupposes the statement of the question exactly as it is found in Matthew: In Mark, “except for fornication” is omitted; but it is sufficiently implied … Indeed, Mark 10:12 distinctly enforces the principle of equal responsibility (of the sexes) regarding the matter of fornication (the exception noted by Matthew).[4]Thus, here is another instance of falsely interpreting the gospels resulting from acceptance of the Markan theory of viewing that gospel as the “original” and most dependable gospel. This is not true at all; in fact, Mark, shorter than the others, is actually the most limited of them all. Trying him … This indicates the true reason for the Pharisees’ question. It was not for the procurement of information but only for the purpose of seeking some charge against Jesus. They might have had in mind opening up a conflict between Christ and Moses, instinctively recognizing that Christ’s teachings would be superior to those of Moses; or they might have had in mind the Lord’s entrapment with regard to the marital status of Herod, who had already beheaded John the Baptist for his comment on Herod’s incestuous marriage. [2] Ibid., p. 318. [3] William Barclay. The Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), p. 248. [4] W. N. Clarke, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: The Judson Press. 1881), Vol. II, p. 145.

Verse 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?Thus, as always, Christ sent his questioners back to the word of God. It was true that Christ had greater authority than Moses, but the authority of Moses was still the binding law upon the Pharisees.

Verse 4 And they said. Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.The duplicity and deceit of the Pharisees appear in this answer which quoted Moses inaccurately and without regard to the circumstance under which in some cases, he permitted divorce. The Mosaic regulation regarding divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1) was definitely not a blanket permission of divorce for any cause, but only in cases where the husband had found something “unseemly” in his wife. To be sure, the Pharisees, following the most liberal interpretation, allowed “divorce for the most trivial of reasons."[5] The great Jewish authorities held divergent views: Shammai was extremely strict, allowing divorce only for unchastity; but Hillel allowed it for many trivial reasons, including even the burning of bread in preparation of a meal.[6][5] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 24. [6] Henry E. Turlington, Broadman Bible Commentary (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1946), p. 346.

Verse 5 But Jesus said unto them, For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.In this, Jesus took account of the principle that earthly laws must sometimes take account of situations arising out of human perfidy and depravity. There seems to be here a differentiation on Jesus’ part between the true law of God and the legal regulations delivered by Moses and made necessary by the problems of governing Israel. As Cranfield noted: A distinction has to be made between that which sets forth the absolute will of God, and those provisions which take account of men’s actual sinfulness and are designed to limit and control its consequences.[7]Christ here was not critical of Moses, nor was he setting the commandment of God over against Moses. Furthermore, he was not brushing aside the Scriptures. Moses’ permission, under certain circumstances of divorce could not mean, nor did it ever mean, that God approved of divorce, except in the very limited context of its being, under some conditions, the lesser of two evils. The same is true of divorce in all generations. It must never be viewed as something God approved; because from the beginning it was not so. When our sinfulness traps us in a position in which all the choices still open to us are sinful, we are to choose that which is least evil, asking for God’s forgiveness and comforted by it, but not pretending that the evil is good.[8]Marriages indeed may fail for reasons of human sin; but there can never be any way to make the failures a good thing, nor change the ideal of marriage as God intended and purposed from the beginning of creation. Jesus stated at once the sacred ideal. [7] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 319. [8] Ibid., p. 320.

Verse 6 But 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.Thus, God’s ideal for humanity is “monogamy, which rules out both polygamy and divorce."[9] People have no problem at all in knowing what is the will of God; their problems stem from efforts to make what they do bear the light of it! There is an extreme view, however, which should be avoided, and that is making a violation in this sector to be the unpardonable sin. As Taylor said, “The seventh commandment has no uncommon sanctity; and the guilt of the transgression does not surpass the provisions of grace."[10]One flesh … “This is Semitic, or Biblical, idiom for `one,’ as in RSV; and thus not only rules out polygamy but divorce also."[11] God’s purpose, from the beginning, was clearly that of making the home a permanent institution; and, in keeping with that purpose, marriage is final and permanent. Without that finality, the security of the home is gone, the social fabric is torn, and the finest school on earth for the discipline and growth of character is on the way out.[12]By this appeal to Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 5:2, Christ bypassed Moses altogether, founding his teaching on this subject in the eternal and invariable purpose of the Almighty, and not upon the accommodative regulations which had been laid down out of considerations of man’s sin. Thus, our Lord triumphed over his enemies. He had not condoned divorce; and, at the same time, he had not contradicted Moses. For further comment regarding the questions raised by these verses, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 19. [9] A. Elwood Sanner, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), p. 354. [10] J. J. Taylor, The Gospel according to Mark (Nashville: Southern Baptist Convention, 1911), p. 132. [11] Frederick C. Grant, Interpreter’s Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1951), p. 796. [12] Halford E. Luccock, Interpreter’s Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1951), p. 796.

Verse 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.Like many of the magnificent pronouncements of Jesus, this one is true both in context and intrinsically. God hath joined a man and his wife in marriage; and men are not allowed the authority to dissolve it. Appropriately, these words are used in the marriage ceremony. Christ did not, by these words, prohibit states from making laws in this sector which are required by the sinful conduct of people, the same being implicit in the fact of his not condemning Moses for doing so. Of course, Christ was not dealing with the problem of governing earthly states, but with that of revealing tht true will of Almighty God to his human creation. Intrinsically, these words apply to anything and everything that God has joined together. Thus, faith and baptism are joined as preconditions of salvation (Mark 16:16): glorifying God is to be “in the church and in Christ Jesus” ( Ephesians 3:21), thus joining Jesus and his spiritual body the church.

Verse 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again of this matter, and he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her: And if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery.To divorce one’s wife and marry another is to break the seventh commandment; and the rule applies with equal force to putting away one’s husband and marrying another. This pronouncement of Jesus went far beyond anything the Jews taught. According to Rabbinic law, a husband could not be said to commit adultery against his wife. So Jesus goes beyond Rabbinic teaching by speaking of a husband’s committing adultery against his wife.[13]Mark’s record of Jesus’ application of the rule on adultery to both sexes is thought to have been prompted by Gentile readers to whom this gospel is supposed to have been directed. The view here is that Christ spoke all that is recorded of him, both here and in the other gospels; and the fact of one writer’s having recorded one thing and another’s having recorded different things (though not contradictory) is due to the difference of intention and purpose that each had. This means that the total of Jesus’ teaching must be determined by the composite record of all the gospels. Such a view is in line with what Jesus himself said regarding the belief of “all that the prophets have spoken” (Luke 24:25). ENDNOTE: [13] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 321.

Verse 13 And they were bringing unto him little children, that he should touch them: and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was moved with indignation, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me: forbid them not: for to such belongeth the kingdom of God.JESUS BLESSES THE LITTLE Evidently, the disciples thought that Jesus would not have the time to bless little children, and their efforts would appear to have been due to misguided efforts to protect Jesus from such an encroachment upon his time and strength. How wrong they were! Moved with indignation … Some translate this, “was sore displeased with them.” They had totally misunderstood the Master’s mind. As Clarke noted, the words here are the same as in Matthew 21:15, “where the chief priests were sore displeased' at the children in the temple who were crying, Hosanna to the Son of David.’"[14]Suffer the little children to come unto me … Christ loved little children, and the scene here is one of beauty, love, and concern. To such belongeth the kingdom of God … They are wrong who read this as if it said that the kingdom belongs to little children. Again from Clarke: He does not say that children are in his kingdom. Membership (in that kingdom) as Christ was preaching it, and as we must preach it, implies intelligence and personal faith. Here is no allusion to baptism; and here was his golden opportunity if he had ever wished baptism to be associated with infants. This is a place where we are justified in drawing a negative conclusion from the silence of the Scriptures.[15]Regarding the qualities Jesus might have had in mind by his statement that those who are “like” children possess the kingdom, there are three schools of thought. Some, like Barclay, thought Jesus had in mind such subjective qualities as humility, obedience, trust, and shortness of memory (not holding grudges, etc.).[16] Erdman rejected such subjective qualities as those cited by Barclay but accepted their trustfulness (a subjective quality), and the objective facts of their helplessness and dependence, as qualities in those receiving the kingdom.[17] Still others, like Turlington, see only the objective qualities as applicable. Thus: “The kingdom does not belong to the mighty, the strong, the influential; it belongs to the weak, the insignificant, and the unimportant.[18]While not denying that the objective qualities of little children are included, this student cannot exclude the subjective qualities as also having a place in Jesus’ thoughts. It was clearly the subjective qualities of “spoiled children” that he made the basis of a comparison in Matthew 11:16-17; and that forbids ruling out the subjective qualities here. [14] W. N. Clarke, op. cit.. p. 146. [15] Ibid. [16] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 250. [17] Charles R. Erdman, The Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966), p. 153. [18] Henry E. Turlington, op. cit., p. 348.

Verse 15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein. And he took them in his arms, and blessed them, and laid his hands upon them.As a little child … How does one receive the kingdom of God as a little child? Clearly, the reference is to well-behaved, normal, loving children; and the qualities in view are: trustfulness, humility, obedience, spontaneity, forgetfulness of injury, slight, or hurt, and a total lack of prejudice. Teachableness is perhaps another. And he took them in his arms, and blessed them … One is amazed to find an argument for infant baptism in such a place as this. Adam Clarke wrote: If Christ embraced them, why should not his church embrace them? Why not dedicate them to God by baptism? - whether that be performed by sprinkling washing, or immersion? (He even went on to add:) It is grossly heathenish to deprive little children of such an ordinance.[19]See the refutation of Adam Clarke by W. N. Clarke under Mark 10:12, above. The great prophecy of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-35 absolutely denies the concept that would include infant children in the kingdom of God, since it is declared there (by necessary inference) that one must know the Lord before he can be in the kingdom of God. The violation of God’s will in this regard through the inclusion of unregenerated infants in the kingdom has been the historical gateway through which every possible type of unbeliever has found his way into what is called the church; and this, perhaps more than anything else, has made of the historical church a kingdom, not of God, but of the evil one. If the so-called baptism of an infant can make him a member of the kingdom of God, then such a person is saved without being taught, without repentance, without confession, without the new birth, and without anything under the sun except a few drops of water. That is truly “water salvation,” and it should be rejected as foreign to everything in the New Testament. And, as for the allegation that sprinkling and pouring are permissible “forms” of Christian baptism, such is denied by every text bearing on this question in the whole New Testament. See my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 6; also my Commentary on Romans, Romans 6. And he took them in his arms and blessed them … This verse is peculiar to Mark; but it is no basis for the fulsome comments which refer to this as “a matchless touch,” proving of course that Mark is the “original gospel”![20] This is not a “matchless touch” at all, as there are many examples of some vivid gesture, look, action, or saying of Jesus being given by Matthew and omitted by Mark. One should therefore be careful to avoid the implied conclusion based upon this type of exegesis. [19] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Whole Bible (London: T. Mason and Company, 1829), Vol. V, p. 322. [20] Richard Erdman, op. cit., p. 154.

Verse 17 And as he was going forth into the way, there ran one to him, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?THE WITH THE RICH YOUNG RULERThis is a picture of youth at its glorious best. The subject before the Lord was presented as a rich man by all three synoptics; but Matthew (Matthew 19:22) added the detail concerning his youth, and Luke supplied the information that he was a ruler (Luke 18:18). These “matchless touches” were not supplied by the so-called “original” gospel; and they are another of the hundreds of examples proving the composite nature of the gospels. The rich young ruler was a lovable and beautiful character; willing to brave the scorn of the ruling class to which he belonged, he cast himself at the feet of Jesus; and, in sacred writ, there is hardly a more thrilling picture than the opening scene here. How pathetic it is that nothing was to come of it (presumably)! Good Teacher … McMillan thought that “the young man’s words consist only of conventional flattery”;[21] but Cranfield was of the opinion that: There is little justification for regarding this as a “somewhat obsequious piece of conventional flattery … from the unreality of which our Lord recoiled.” … His use of the epithet is surely sincere.[22]What shall I do that I may inherit eternal life …? For the answer Jesus gave to this question, see under Mark 10:19 below. The question itself is the most important that ever engaged human attention, and the presence of such a query in the heart of the young man indicated true concern in his life for things of eternal value. [21] Earle McMillan, The Gospel according to Mark (Austin, Texas: R. B. Sweet Publishing Company, 1973), p. 125. [22] C. E. B. Cranfield, op cit., p. 326.

Verse 18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good save one, even God.Erdman is certainly correct in his comment on this: “It is a mistake to suppose that Jesus denies his own sinlessness, or disclaims divinity."[23] “The perfect goodness of God was a universal doctrine of Judaism”;[24] and it is evident that the Lord was here building the young man’s thoughts toward the recognition of Jesus as God. It is the equivalent of our Lord’s saying, “Look, don’t you know that if I am good, as you say, then I am therefore God?” Of course, the Arian heresy was partially founded upon an interpretation of these words which alleged that Jesus here uttered a disclaimer of absolute oneness with God; but, as Turlington said: Mark nowhere else hints of any limitation or lack of goodness in Jesus; and it is unnecessary so to understand this passage.[25]If Jesus did have any limitation of himself in mind here, it would have been the limitation inherent in the incarnation, and was not in any way a diminution of his claim of deity. Cranfield (as quoted by Sanner) took note of this as follows: In an absolute sense, goodness belongs to God the Father alone. By contrast, the goodness of Jesus was in some sense subject to growth and testing in the circumstances of the incarnation wherein he learned obedience by the things which he suffered (Hebrews 5:8).[26]Even David Lipscomb supported such an explanation, writing: The explanation of it, I think, is that Jesus had the nature of man … So long as he felt the emotions to sin in his members, he did not call himself good, nor did the Holy Spirit call him perfect (Hebrews 5:8).[27]Despite the views of such respected and learned men, however, it is the conviction here that Jesus was trying to guide the young man into a more exalted appreciation of God incarnated in the person of Jesus. [23] Charles E. Erdman, op. cit., p. 155. [24] Halford E. Luccock, op. cit., p. 801. [25] Henry E. Turlington, op. cit., p. 349. [26] A. Elwood Sanner, op. cit., p. 357. [27] C. E. W. Dorris, Commentary on Mark (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1938), p. 233.

Verse 19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor thy father and mother.In these words, wherein Jesus quoted from the second table of the Decalogue, our Lord answered the young man’s question with regard to what he might do that he might inherit eternal life. Matthew supplied the connecting link, “If thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments” (Matthew 19:17). When the young man inquired as to “which,” Jesus quoted the Decalogue. In view of this, there is utterly no way to separate keeping the commandments from the requirements God has made of them that would inherit eternal life. How absolutely opposed to the word of God is such an opinion as that of Sanner, who said, “This is a rejection of the idea that goodness is by achievement. There is nothing one can do to inherit eternal life."[28] Humanity faces the mystery of redemption in this; for it is altogether true that men do not have it in themselves to keep God’s commandments perfectly, However, JESUS KEPT THEM !

Men are saved, therefore, by believing and being baptized INTO CHRIST. Thus, they are identified with Christ and AS CHRIST. (See Galatians 2:20). No man can be saved as John Doe; if ever saved at all, he must be saved “in Christ” and “as Christ.” That Jesus was actually attempting to lead this young man into a higher understanding of the truth is implicit in the fact of his quoting only from the second half of the Decalogue, omitting the first section’s requirement of loving God with the whole heart, mind, soul and strength. That part of the Decalogue the young man had not fully kept. Thus, the Lord here stressed the portion of it in which the life of the young man was most nearly acceptable to God. ENDNOTE: [28] A. Elwood Sanner, op. cit., p. 357.

Verse 20 And he said unto him, Teacher, all these things have I observed from my youth.Mark omitted the key words, “What lack I yet?” (Matthew 19:20). Still, it is perfectly evident that the young man’s keeping of God’s commandments had nevertheless left a void in his heart. Many a person in his circumstances would have said, “I need nothing”; but it is to the great credit of this man that he recognized his soul’s need, despite all of his own sincere efforts to do God’s will. It is ever beyond the power of men to achieve eternal life through their own keeping of sacred law, and yet eternal life is dependent upon the perfect keeping of the sacred law. Christ achieved eternal life for all men (potentially) by his perfect keeping of all of God’s commandments, and by setting up a plan by which men become a part of his true spiritual body, thus enabling them to be saved “as Christ.” Yet this does not deny that salvation results from (Christ’s) keeping all the commandments.

Verse 21 And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go, sell whatever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.The one thing lacking in the young man was his renunciation of all trust in worldly things and following Christ. Go sell … and give to the poor … This may not be viewed as an invariable requirement of all who would be saved; why then did Jesus lay down such a requirement here? It has been suggested that the Lord saw the cancer of greed that was eating out his heart and prescribed the drastic surgery of getting rid of his wealth. A more likely explanation is that the Lord was calling him to be an apostle, all of the apostles having been required to leave all that they had and follow Jesus. The words “Come, and follow me,” are exactly the same words used in the call of an apostle (Matthew 9:9); and, as Peter would shortly point out (Mark 10:28), the leaving of all earthly possessions was a requirement the apostles had met. And come follow me … Salvation, or eternal life, may be inherited only by those who follow Christ; and, in this requirement of total submission to Jesus’ will and of following his commandments, one finds the invariable and universal condition of inheriting eternal life. Thou shalt have treasure in heaven … The Lord did not mean that such an act on the part of the young man would in any sense “earn” eternal life. It was not in merely giving away his property that he could have eternal life, for that blessing could come only of following Jesus. If Jesus had permitted this rich young man to become a part of his company of followers without meeting the test which the apostles had all met, it would have had a disastrous consequence in their sacred fellowship; but Jesus was incapable of showing partiality merely because of the wealth of his questioner.

Verse 22 But his countenance fell at the saying, and he went away sorrowful: for he was one that had great possessions.In the last analysis, he only thought he wanted eternal life. The allurement of this world’s emoluments was, in his eyes, a benefit too great to forego. Having a choice between eternal life in the world to come and the good life here and now, he chose the latter. This is not hard to understand, because it is a choice being made by millions of people every day. He went away sorrowful … This was the price required by his choice; and it is a price that all must pay who renounce eternal happiness in favor of temporal comforts. Sadness must ever be the lot of any man who deliberately turns away from the world’s only Saviour. One may see a hundred fallen countenances on any street corner in a few minutes. For comment on Matthew’s fuller account, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 19:16-17. Turlington observed that “Only here in the gospels is a command of Jesus to follow him clearly rejected."[29]ENDNOTE: [29] Henry E. Turlington, op. cit., p. 350.

Verse 23 And Jesus looked round about him, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!JESUS’ RICHESWhat Jesus said here was prompted by the departure of the rich young ruler a moment earlier. It was a fact then, and a fact now, and a fact in every age that the possession of riches militates against the acceptance of Jesus Christ and his saving message. This does not deny the possibility of rich men being saved, but it underlines the difficulty of their making the decisions prerequisite to redemption.

Verse 24 And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God.In this elaboration of what he meant, Jesus distinguished between them that “have riches” and them that “trust in riches,” the latter being the great deterrent to entering God’s kingdom. The same distinction was honored by the New Testament writers, Paul, for example, making “the love of money” and not merely “money,” to be the “root of all kinds of evil” (1 Timothy 6:10). As Dorris stated it: A man may have great wealth and love God more than the wealth, and be a Christian; just as a poor man may have a little and love the little more than God, and never be a Christian.[30]Nevertheless, the temptation to trust in riches is augmented and intensified for the person who possesses them. ENDNOTE: [30] C. E. W. Dorris, op. cit., p. 239.

Verse 25 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.Of course, it is impossible for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, and the Lord’s words are therefore hyperbole, used for the sake of emphasizing the difficulty. As Turlington put it, “The `impossible’ figure is given, not to be taken literally, but to emphasize how hard it is."[31] In view of the Lord’s plain statement in Mark 10:27, all efforts to understand such a thing as possible must fail. ENDNOTE: [31] Henry E. Turlington, op. cit., p. 350.

Verse 26 And they were astonished exceedingly, saying unto him, Then who can be saved?The amazement of the apostles was not so much in the principle as generally stated, but in the application of it to so lovable and personable a rich man as the one who had just departed. Taken literally, the Saviour’s words would mean that no rich man can be saved, but he quickly moved to counteract such a literal application of his words.

Verse 27 Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for all things are possible with God.Only God has the power to cause a rich man to leave off trusting in his wealth and turn to God for salvation; and such heavenly power has often been evidenced. In the Old Testament, Abraham, Job, and David were men of immeasurable riches, as were also Isaac and Jacob; but of such Jesus himself said that they shall be in the eternal kingdom ( Luke 13:28). In the Christian era, there have been many rich men who were saved; and in John’s Revelation, the final view of the Eternal City took account of the “kings of the earth” bringing their glory into it (Revelation 21:24). Only God’s power can do such things, but that power is sufficient unto all things. As Taylor expressed it, “God can put the camel through, but it takes divine power to do it; and the process is hard on the camel!"[32]ENDNOTE: [32] J. J. Taylor, op. cit., p. 136.

Verse 28 Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.Only from Matthew 19:27 may Peter’s intention here be read. He added: “What shall we have?” Whatever the reason for Peter’s question, it was legitimate in every way; and the Lord promptly answered it in the most thorough and convincing manner.

Verse 29 Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or mother, or father, or children, or lands, for my sake, and for the gospel’s sake, but he shall receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.This tremendous threefold promise of: (1) possessions and (2) family being multiplied a hundredfold in this present life, and (3) of eternal life in the world to come is one of the grandest in the word of God. No man ever tried this promise without finding it true; and yet, as Taylor said: “Such an utterance cannot be tested by human observation, because the motives that impel any man to give up temporal comforts cannot be known."[33]The rich young ruler would have been far better off if he had followed the Lord, giving up all of his wealth. If he lived so long as 70 A.D., everything that he owned was wiped out in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish state. Whereas the Christians survived that debacle without the loss of a single life, the non-Christian portion of Israel was utterly destroyed, some 1,100,000 of the population being put to the sword.[34] Thus, when the rich young ruler turned away from Jesus, he turned his back upon his highest secular interests as well as the promise of eternal life. The Lord knew what was best for him; but it is also true that the Lord knows what is best for every man! Houses … and lands, with persecutions … That the material and temporal benefit of Christ’s disciples is enhanced through their following of the Master is here categorically stated. The very qualities of truth, integrity, honesty, dependability, diligence, thrift, humility, self-denial, etc., which virtues are an essence of Christianity, are inevitably rewarded. Every corporation on earth is trying to find employees who will manifest such qualities. Persecutions however, are also to be expected. And in the world to come eternal life … One may only be astounded at such a work as The Interpreter’s Bible omitting this clause from both the exegesis and the exposition. This is the most important line in Jesus’ entire reply, carrying the promise of eternal life in the world to come and a necessary inference of the Lord’s deity. Who but Almighty God come in the flesh could make a promise like this? The conviction of Christ’s church for nearly two millennia has found here in these eternal words of Jesus the most confident expectations of life after death and of an eternity of happiness with the Lord in the hereafter. [33] Ibid. [34] J.R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Whole Bible (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1937), p. 704.

Verse 31 But many that are first shall be last; and the last first.This was addressed particularly, in this context, to Peter’s question of “what shall we have?” What every man is to receive does not derive from his being first in the service of Jesus, but depends upon how faithfully he continues in the Lord’s service. Judas was one of the first; and, among the apostles, Paul was the last; but in the events recorded in the New Testament, it turned out that Judas was last and Paul first. Matthew’s account placed the parable of the laborers in the vineyard next after the events here; and, in that parable, this principle was elaborated (Matthew 20:1-16).

Verse 32 And they were going on the way, going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus was going before them: and they were amazed; and they that followed were afraid.THE OF JESUS’ DEATH AND There seems to be something very significant in the narrative at this point. Jesus’ determination to go on to Jerusalem in the face of certain death and the reluctance and fear of those who followed are dramatically presented here by Mark. Turlington said, “They were frightened by the course of events, and by Jesus’ determined path."[35]And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them the things that were to happen to him, saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief 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 upon him, and shall scourge him, and shall kill him; and after three days he shall rise again.See complete discussion of this under Mark 8:31 and Mark 9:32. This is a very full announcement of the Passion and subsequent resurrection; but there was no mention of his coming in glory, as in Mark 8:38. The fullness of Jesus’ teaching is found in a composite of all that the gospels relate. ENDNOTE: [35] Henry E. Turlington, op. cit., p. 351.

Verse 35 And there came near unto him James and John, the sons of Zebedee, saying unto him, Teacher, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall ask of thee.THE REQUEST OF THE SONS OF ZEBEDEEMatthew, as frequently, gave a fuller account, relating the part that the mother of James and John had in this incident. This was not to “spare the Twelve” as the Markan theorists allege; for Matthew did not spare the Twelve at all, even relating the indignation of the group against “the brethren,” not against their mother (Matthew 20:24). Of course, this request was childish in that they supposed Jesus would agree to their request even before they had stated it. The request itself, stated immediately afterward, had all kinds of things wrong with it: (1) It showed a lack of faith in what Jesus had just said regarding his being raised “after three days.” (2) It was founded in human vanity and conceit. (3) It represented an effort on their part to gain ascendancy over the other apostles. (4) It showed a fundamental misconception of what God’s kingdom would be. (5) It was a selfish maneuver prompted by the Lord’s repeated announcement of his forthcoming death and resurrection in which they appeared as desiring the chief places in the presumed absence of the Lord. (6) It was a request founded in ignorance (Mark 10:38).

Verse 36 And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you? And they said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and one on thy left hand in thy glory.This was equivalent, in the eyes of James and John, to a request to be the chief administrators in the forthcoming kingdom of God, as if one would be the Secretary of State and the other the Secretary of the Treasury! Mark here represented the brothers as uttering the request themselves, which of course they did, through their mother. Mark’s briefer account included the essentials.

Verse 38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink the cup that I drink? or to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?The “cup” and the “baptism” mentioned here are both references to the sufferings and tribulations through which our Lord was passing and which would culminate on the cross itself. “The cup' is one Jesus is already drinking, and the baptism’ is one which is being experienced …. The `cup’ will not be drained until he is taken from the cross."[36] As Dorris said: This baptism began with his personal ministry and was completed at the cross. He was completely overwhelmed with suffering. Note that he used not the past nor the future tense, but the present.[37][36] Ibid., p. 352. [37] C. E. W. Dorris, op. cit., p. 245.

Verse 39 And they said unto him, We are able. And Jesus said unto them, The cup that I drink ye shall drink; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized.James was to be the first martyr (Acts 12), and if the tradition that John was finally martyred is allowed, it would appear that a kind of mystical granting of their request was allowed, James being the first of the apostles to be martyred and John the last. It is more likely that Jesus merely meant that they, along with all of the apostles, would drink the “cup” of human scorn and hatred and be baptized with the “baptism” of persecution and opposition from them that hated the truth. We are able … is a rather naive reply on their part. There was so much that they did not at that time know concerning the kingdom of God. Their confidence here reminds one of Peter’s boast that he was ready to go to prison and death for the Lord.

Verse 40 But to sit on my right hand or on my left hand is not mine to give; but it is for them for whom it hath been prepared.The Arian allegations founded on this verse should be rejected. We disagree with McMillan who interpreted this as saying that “they were asking him about something over which he had no control."[38] A glance at any rendition of the literal Greek shows that the limitation was not in Jesus, for it is implied that such honors, when given, would still be given by Jesus. The Greek has these words: “But to sit at my right hand, or at the left, is not mine to give except for whom it is prepared."[39] The addition of “it is for them” by the translators is incorrect. The clear meaning is that Jesus could not give such honors except to them for whom they were prepared. This writer once asked a wealthy man who was more than two hundred times a millionaire for a certain gift and he replied that “It is not mine to give,” meaning not that he did not have the power to make the gift, but that my particular request was not in line with his purpose. This is exactly the meaning of Jesus’ “not mine to give” in this verse. [38] Earle McMillan, op. cit., p. 130. [39] The Emphatic Diaglott (Brooklyn, New York: Watch Tower Society), p. 166.

Verse 41 And when the ten heard it, they began to be moved with indignation concerning James and John.This unfriendly feeling of ten apostles toward James and John showed that the same virus which had infected the sons of Zebedee was also present in the others. Their indignation was clearly due to their fears that James and John might seize something which they also wanted. The Lord at once instructed them all concerning the true values to be received and honored in his kingdom.

Verse 42 And Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they who are accounted to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it is not so among you: but whosoever would become great among you, shall be your minister, and whosoever would be first among you, shall be servant of all.This amazing passage has the style of a Hebrew parallelism in which the same thought is repeated in different words; but it definitely goes beyond a mere parallelism. “Those who are accounted to rule over the Gentiles” contrasts with “their great ones” who “exercise authority over them.” Those who are accounted to rule are merely presuming to do so, whereas the great ones actually exercise authority. The same appears in the second parallel where “great” is a much weaker word than “first” or “chief.” From this, it is plain that the passage allows the deduction that Christ here condemned the pyramided structure of authority prevalent in all earthly governments. In this manner of interpreting the passage, “great ones” in the first parallel exercise authority over those “accounted to rule.” This would make those presuming to rule to be the antecedent of “them” instead of “Gentiles.” But it is not so among you … The government of Christ’s church was not to be patterned after earthly government and organizations with their pyramided echelons of authorities in rising tiers of dignity culminating in some “head”! An utterly different conception was to prevail; but, historically, churches have slipped into conformity with the old and forbidden ways of the world. Whosoever would be first among you, shall be servant of all … Only Jesus Christ was “chief” or “first” among the apostles, being designated by the Holy Spirit as “the Apostle and High Priest of our confession” (Hebrews 3:1); and, although the rule of greatness being determined by service applied to every apostle and to all Christians of all ages, this must be understood primarily as a reference of Jesus to himself, as the next verse emphatically proves.

Verse 45 For the Son of man also came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.Coming, as it does, at the climax of a series of statements leading up to it and actually demanding it, this verse is secure against all efforts to make a gloss out of it, malignant skepticism having assailed it repeatedly, its authenticity having “been denied on various grounds."[40] See Cranfield for a thorough and most convincing refutation of skeptical fulminations against this text. We need not concern ourselves with denials regarding this verse, since they are not founded upon logical premises nor supported by any true scholarship, being in lack but the natural reflexes of the unbeliever’s inherent bias against truth. And what a truth is here! This is truly one of the most magnificent declarations in holy Scripture. Its teachings include the following: (1) This verse gives the ground of the principle uttered in Mark 10:43, “Whosoever would become great among you, shall be your minister.” Secular notions of rank and privilege are forbidden in God’s new Israel on the grounds that such rankings are out of harmony with the Saviour’s own mission to humanity. (2) “And to give his life …” The words thus translated were understood by the Jews as applicable to martyrs, and they indicate the voluntary nature of Christ’s atoning death. People did not take his life, except in a limited sense, for Jesus gave his life as a ransom for men (John 10:17-18). (3) “A ransom …” The Greek word thus rendered denoted the ransom of a prisoner of war, or of a slave. The Old Testament use of the word in the Septuagint (LXX) meant the money a man paid to redeem his life which was forfeit because his ox had killed someone (Exodus 21:30), the price paid for the redemption of the firstborn (Numbers 18:15), or the money by which the next of kin ransomed an enslaved relative (Leviticus 25:51)[41] Thus, the vicarious nature of our Lord’s death is eloquently proclaimed by the use of “ransom” by the Saviour in this verse. “For many …” This is the same word Paul used in Romans 5:15, and it refers not to any restricted number but to all the millions of every generation who will receive salvation through Jesus Christ. Cranfield said the word carries the meaning of “all."42 In this verse, as McMillan noted, “Jesus established himself as the greatest, not because he was the mastermind of some organization, but because he, in his self-sacrifice, gave the greatest gift."43 Cranfield, Sanner, and many others have seen in this verse from the words of Jesus the presentation of himself as the suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, Jesus’ words having a clear connection with Isaiah 53:10-11. Sanner said, “This great passage shows clearly that Jesus knew himself called to fuse in his own destiny the two roles of the Son of man (Daniel 7) and the Servant of the Lord (Isaiah 53)."[44][40] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 343. [41] Ibid., p. 342. [42] Ibid., p. 343. [43] Earle McMillan, op. cit., p. 129. [44] A. Elwood Sanner, op. cit., p. 362.

Verse 46 And they come to Jericho: and as he went out from Jericho, with his disciples and a great multitude, the son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus, a blind beggar was sitting by the wayside.THE HEALING OF And as he went out from Jericho … Luke has it, “And as they came nigh unto Jericho” (Luke 18:35); and of course this is the type of pseudocon seized upon so gleefully by skeptics. All thoughts of any contradiction in these passages disappear, however, in the fact of there being two Jericho’s, the old city destroyed by Joshua, but continuing to exist as a village, and the new city built near the site of the old. Any beggar would naturally have chosen a location between the two places in order to take advantage of more traffic. William Taylor mentioned both Jerichos as follows: “Joshua razed the old Jericho … a town grew up near the ancient site (which was) fortified in the days of Ahab by Hiel."[45] Likewise, J. J. Taylor noted that “There were two adjacent places of that name, the miracle being wrought at a point between the two, so that passing out of one was entering the other."[46]Regarding the additional alleged difficulty arising from the fact of Matthew’s mentioning two blind men as being healed by Jesus, whereas Mark and Luke mentioned only one, Trench has this: That rule, which in all reconciliations of parallel histories must be applied, is that the silence of one narrator is no contradiction of the affirmation of another; thus the second and third evangelists making mention of ONE blind man do not contradict St. Matthew who mentions TWO.[47]Of course, the fact pointed out by Trench is elementary, but it needs repetition to silence skeptics who scream “contradiction” upon the slightest pretext. [45] William Taylor, op. cit., p. 400. [46] J. J. Taylor, op. cit., p. 140. [47] Richard Trench, Notes of the Miracles (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1943), p. 467.

Verse 47 And when he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene, he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me.Luke gave the detail of the blind man’s inquiry which prompted the reply to it recorded here. Thou Son of David … This was a common title of the expected Messiah in use throughout Israel in the times of Christ; and there is no way to deny the implications of it as used by Bartimaeus. Significantly, the Pharisees were blind to the fact of Jesus being truly the Son of David, but the blind not only knew it but shouted it to high heaven. This is a clear case of the blind seeing and the seeing being blind as mentioned in John 9:39 f.

Verse 48 And many rebuked him, that he should hold his peace: but he cried out the more a great deal, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me.And many rebuked him … This indicates that those who rebuked the blind man were not the Lord’s apostles, for they were not “many.” The supposition that the great crowd rebuked the blind man for fear that his cries would annoy Jesus or impede his progress appears unreasonable, because great crowds are not thoughtful on behalf of anyone. The rebuke so ardently administered here, in all probability, was instigated and principally spoken by people who strongly objected to the shouted testimony to Jesus’ Messiahship, implicit in the repeated cries, “Thou Son of David.” This points squarely at the Pharisees who were a definite component of every crowd that gathered around Jesus. Thus, there is an element of humor in this situation wherein a blind man was shouting himself hoarse with cries hailing Jesus as the Son of David, and the Pharisees were trying to hush him!

Verse 49 And Jesus stood still, and said, Call ye him. And they call the blind man, saying unto him, Be of good cheer: rise, he calleth thee.Such faith as the blind man already had Jesus rewarded by demanding that he be brought into his presence. Even on the way to Calvary Jesus had time to minister to human need.

Verse 50 And he, casting away his garment, sprang up, and came to Jesus.The desperation of destructive critics challenging the historicity of this gospel is nowhere more evident than in the allegations of some to the effect that the blind man’s casting his garment away shows that he was a Greek, making the narrative a misfit. Such pettifoggery, however, is exposed in the fact that Mark himself described a young man in Jerusalem (most probably himself) as “having a linen cloth cast about him” ( Mark 14:51).

Verse 51 And Jesus answered him, and said, What wilt thou that I should do unto thee? And the blind man said unto him, Rabboni, that I may receive my sight.Jesus did not ask the blind man for the purpose of procuring information but to bring out his faith. Christ generally healed only those who expressed a desire to be healed and who made application to him for benefit. Rabboni … Dorris noted that “there were three titles used by the Jews for their teachers: Rab,' meaning MASTER as the lowest degree of honor; Rabbi,’ meaning “my master,” a higher dignity; and `Rabboni,’ meaning “my great master,” the most honorable of all."[48]ENDNOTE: [48] C. E. W. Dorris, op. cit., p. 253.

Verse 52 And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole. And straightway he received his sight, and followed him in the way.Thy faith hath made thee whole … may also be translated, “Thy faith hath saved thee” (see the English Revised Version (1885) margin). From this, Turlington concluded that “the story is not only historical but a parable."[49]Cranfield concluded that Bartimaeus became a disciple of Jesus and supposed that fact to underlie the fact of his name being remembered. This would also explain why Mark mentioned only one of the two blind men actually healed, as indicated in Matthew; Mark gave an account of the one who became a disciple. The use of this narrative as an example of how men are saved from sin is seen in: (1) the condition is a figure of sin; (2) the blind man believed in Jesus as the Messiah; (3) he cried out to the Lord for mercy; (4) he persisted in spite of the rebukes of many; (5) he answered Jesus’ call; (6) he cast aside all hindrances (the garment); (7) he pleaded for mercy; (8) he was saved; (8) he followed Jesus. This is the last healing reported in Mark; and this tenth chapter which is viewed as a condensed narrative of the entire Judean and Perean ministry of the Son of God is thus concluded. Significantly, no other part of God’s word any more effectively portrays Jesus as God among men, the Dayspring from on high, than does this. The great passage in Mark 10:45, especially, is one of tremendous import; and we conclude this chapter by another reference to that declaration of Jesus as the “ransom for many,” words which, according to Bruce, “echo the portrayal of the Servant who makes himself an offering for sin, thus making many righteous (Isaiah 53:10 f)."[50][49] Henry E. Turlington, op. cit., p. 354. [50] F. F. Bruce, The Message of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972), p. 21.

J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Mark Chapter TenEvents in Perea, Mark 10:1-52 Question about Divorce, Mark 10:1-12. (Matthew 19:1-12) Mark 10:1. into the coasts of Judea.—(See note on Matthew 19:1.) It should be observed that, according to the corrected reading of this verse, Mark is more specific in his statement about the localities than Matthew; for while the latter says, “into the coasts of Judea beyond the Jordan,” Mark says, “into the coasts of Judea and beyond the Jordan,” thus making a distinction between the two localities, instead of calling the region beyond the Jordan “the coasts of Judea."Mark 10:2. to put away his wife.—Matthew adds, “for every cause;” and this is the meaning of the question as reported by Mark, seeing that if it is “lawful to put away a wife,” this privilege unqualified makes the husband the judge of the cause. Mark 10:3. What did Moses command.—The order of the questions and answers in this conversation seems at first glance to be inconsistently reported by our two evangelists. Matthew represents the Pharisees as making the reference to what Moses had commanded, and as making it in the form of an objection to what Jesus had said; while Mark represents Jesus as making it in the form of a question for the Pharisees to answer. If, according to our rule in such cases, we suppose both accounts to be true but elliptical, the entire conversation arranges itself must naturally in the following order: As reported by both evangelists, the Pharisees began the conversation by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” Jesus answered, as reported by Mark (3), “What did Moses command you?” They replied, as also reported by Mark (4), “Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement and put her away.” He then responded, as reported in substance by both, “Have ye not read that He who made them at the beginning, made them a male and a female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” At this point the Pharisees make their appeal to Moses, as reported by Matthew (7), saying, “Why then did Moses command to give a writing of divorcement and put her away?” Jesus answered, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.” This last remark is quoted out of its original connection by Mark (5), because he condenses the entire conversation. Mark 10:10. And in the house.—Jesus and the disciples have now left the Pharisees with whom he had been conversing and gone into “the house,” where the disciples ask him again of the same matter. The question and answer which follow were not heard by the Pharisees, and the same is true of the parallel in Matthew 19:10-12. Mark 10:12. she committeth adultery.—In this verse Mark makes an addition to the report as given by Matthew, showing by express statement what is only implied in Matthew’s report, that a woman who puts away her husband and marries another is equally guilty of adultery with the man who puts away his wife and marries another. For other remarks on this conversation, see the notes on the parallel in Matthew. Blessing Little Children, Mark 10:13-16. (Matthew 19:13-15; Luke 18:15-17) Mark 10:13-14. they brought young children.—On these verses, see the notes, Matthew 19:13-14. Mark 10:15. as a little child.—Strictly construed this clause means, “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child receives it.” To receive the kingdom of God is a different act from entering into it. The distinction is made in this very sentence: “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom as a little child, he shall not enter therein.” Receiving it precedes entering into it, and means no more than accepting its teaching. This a little child does with an implicit faith from the moment that its understanding is sufficiently developed. Mark 10:16. up in his arms.—Not content with merely laying his hands on them, he took them up in his arms to do so, and blessed them. The tenderness which he manifested toward the little children should cause parents to more highly appreciate them, and to labor more assiduously to bring them up in the doctrine and discipline of the Lord. The Rich Moralist, Mark 10:17-22. (Matthew 19:16-22; Luke 18:18-23) Mark 10:17. running, and kneeled.—Mark is more graphic in his description of this incident, than either Matthew or Luke. He strikingly depicts the eagerness and humility of the man, by bringing out the facts that he came running to Jesus, and that on reaching his presence he kneeled down before him. The deep earnestness thus exhibited must not be lost sight of in our estimate of the young man’s condition and his subsequent fate. Mark 10:18. why callest thou me good?—The term good which the man applied to Jesus, saying, “Good Master,” and the simultaneous act of kneeling to him, were both suggestive of the Divine Being. Jesus catches the word for the purpose of directing attention to its real force when applied understandingly to himself. “Why do you call me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” If you mean what you say you should acknowledge me to be divine; for you call me good, and there is none good but God. The remark was, indeed, a two-edged sword, for it cut away, on the one hand, all subsequent objections which the man might make to the divinity of Jesus, and, on the other, it cut away all just ground for the man’s conceit concerning his own goodness. Jesus did not dwell on the thought; he merely dropped it in the man’s ear as a seed which should grow in after-time; for though the man paused not to consider it at the moment, it was so singular a part of a conversation which was destined to be a memorable event in his personal history, that in after years he could not fail to think on it solemnly. While Mark reports the answer just considered, Matthew reports Jesus as answering, according to the corrected text, “Why do you ask me about the good?” And “the good” referred to in the question is “the good thing” which he supposed he was to do in order to inherit eternal life. (See Matthew 19:17.) No doubt Jesus propounded both questions, putting the one quoted by Matthew first. The man, in his question, had used the term good twice—“Good Master,” “good thing.” Jesus, in reply, asks him first, “Why do you ask me about the good,” as though there were any one thing so good that by doing it a man should inherit eternal life; and secondly, “Why do you call me good?” Matthew, although he does not quote the second question of Jesus, shows that he was not ignorant of it, by adding the remark, “The Good Being is one,” which is equivalent to Mark’s words, “There is none good but one, that is, God.” (See the corrected readings of Mat 19:17.) Mark 10:19-20.— On this part of the reply, which is reported with some omissions by Mark, see the notes on Matthew 19:17-20. Mark 10:21. Jesus beholding him, loved him.—There is emphasis on the word “beholding.” He looked at him intently, searching into the truthfulness of his declaration, and seeing in the young man’s heart and life that which awakened a personal attachment for him: for the statement that “he loved him,” expresses a personal attachment, and not that general love which Jesus bears to all men. How interesting the character which thus excited the affections of Jesus, and how sad the reflection that this character was still without a well grounded hope of salvation! Yet many similar cases are constantly occurring, and our own experiences are often like this of Jesus: we are constrained to love most tenderly persons whose waywardness gives us constant pain, and from whom we must anticipate an eternal separation. On the question propounded by the young ruler, and his sad departure, see the notes on Matthew 19:20 Matthew 19:22. The Danger of Riches, Mark 10:23-27. (Matthew 19:23-26; Luke 18:24-27) Mark 10:24. them that trust in riches.—The three expressions, “they that have riches” (Mark 10:23), “them that trust in riches” (Mark 10:24), and “a rich man” (Mark 10:25), are used in consecutive sentences to designate the same character, and are therefore equivalent, though by no means synonymous expressions. They show that the kind of rich man contemplated is one who trusts in riches; that is, one who depends for happiness on his riches rather than on obedience to the will of God. The danger of riches, and the difficulty of saving rich men arise from their proneness to thus trust in riches. But those already rich are not the only persons exposed to this danger: those who are eager in the pursuit of wealth are equally exposed; for it is said by the apostle Paul, “They who will be rich, fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.” (1 Timothy 6:9.) Mark 10:25-27. It is easier.—See notes on Matthew 19:24-26. Reward of Self-denial, Mark 10:28-31. (Matthew 19:27-30; Luke 18:28-30) Mark 10:28. Then Peter began.—On the cause of Peter’s remark and inquiry, see the note on Matthew 19:27. Mark 10:30. and lands, with persecutions.—Mark omits much of the reply to Peter’s inquiry (see the parallel in Matthew), but here he introduces an interesting item omitted by Matthew. It is the promise that the “houses, brethren,” etc., are to be received “now in this time,” and that they are to be received “with persecutions.” The promised return is realized usually in the enjoyments of the Christian life, which are an equivalent for an hundredfold of all that is lost in serving Christ. It is often the case, however, that a person who loses one friend for Christ actually gains a hundred, and that he who loses his home actually gains a hundred in the welcome which he finds to the homes of his brethren. The qualifying expression, “with persecutions,” was intended to guard against a too literal construction by showing that these were not inconsistent with the real meaning of the promise. Mark 10:31. first shall be last.—On this verse, and on what is omitted from the paragraph by Mark, see the notes on the parallel in Matthew. Mark 10:32. amazed… afraid.—They were amazed that he would go to Jerusalem, and they were afraid in regard to their own safety as they followed him. Mark leaves us without information as to the cause of these feelings; but John’s narrative incidentally supplements Mark’s, and supplies the needed information. Since leaving Galilee Jesus had already been to Jerusalem on a visit not recorded by Mark (John 7:1-10 John 10:22), and had encountered such opposition there that he had been constrained to retire beyond the Jordan. From this retirement he had been recalled by the sickness and death of Lazarus, and as he started in obedience to this call, the disciples had exclaimed, “Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again?” Thomas said, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.” (John 11:1-8 John 11:16.) After raising Lazarus he had been driven away again by the machinations of the Jews, and had retired to a city called Ephraim, in a country near the wilderness. (John 11:46-54.) He was now once more returning to Jerusalem, and it is not surprising that the disciples were amazed at his apparent recklessness, and that they followed him with fear.The fact that Mark makes the statement about their surprise and fear, without furnishing the facts which account for it, shows the artless simplicity with which his narrative was constructed; and the fact that the causes of their alarm, when once discovered, are ample to account for it, shows that his simplicity is that of a truthful historian telling an unvarnished story. The frequent occurrence of such coincidences should also teach us that many other obscure portions of the gospel narratives would be rendered perfectly intelligible, if we were only acquainted with details which have been omitted from the record for the sake of brevity. Mark 10:33-34. Son of man shall be delivered.—This third prediction of his final sufferings is much more circumstantial than either of the preceding. (Comp. Mark 8:31 Mark 9:31.) He now gives in epitome, and in chronological order, the entire history of the mournful event (Comp note, Matthew 20:18-19.) Ambition of James and John, Mark 10:35-45. (Matthew 20:20-28) Mark 10:35. sons of Zebedee come to him.—Matthew states that “the mother of Zebedee’s children came to him with her sons,” and preferred the request about to be named; while Mark, saying nothing of the mother, simply states that the two sons came. The omission does not detract from the truthfulness of the narrative; for although the request was preferred through the lips of the mother, it was really the request of the sons. So Matthew himself represents it; for he quotes Jesus as replying, not to the mother, but to the sons, saying, “Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink,” etc. (Matthew 20:22.) The difference, then, arises from an unimportant omission in Mark’s account. Mark 10:38-39. baptized with the baptism.—There can be no doubt that Jesus here refers to his last sufferings, of which he had just given a brief prophetic description. (Mark 10:32-34.) They are called a baptism, because, while enduring them, his soul was sunk in sorrow as the body when buried in baptism. It is impossible to think of baptism in the light of this metaphor as any thing else than immersion. Neither sprinkling nor pouring could have suggested the comparison which the metaphor implies. Sprinkling, indeed, if used metaphorically for suffering, could represent only a slight degree of it. For remarks on the other points of interest in this conversation, see the notes on the parallel in Matthew. The Healing of Blind Bartimeus, Mark 10:46-52. (Matthew 20:29-34; Luke 18:35 to Luke 19:1) Mark 10:46. blind Bartimaeus.—This blind beggar is introduced as a well-known character. Mark does not introduce him as a certain blind man, whose name was Bartimaeus, the usual manner of introducing a stranger, but simply as “blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus.” He had probably become well known by his zeal and activity in the cause of Christ subsequent to the recovery of his eyesight. His notoriety accounts for the fact that Mark describes his restoration to sight without saying anything of the other who sat with him and was healed at the same time. (See the note on Mark 11:2, and the parallel in Matthew.) Mark 10:52. thy faith hath made thee whole.—Although Bartimaeus was sitting by the wayside begging as Jesus “went out of Jericho with his disciples” (Mark 10:46), and was there healed, we learn from Luke, that he also “sat by the wayside begging” as Jesus “came nigh unto Jericho.” (Luke 18:35.) This shows that between the time at which Jesus came nigh to the city, and the time at which he went out of it, the blind man had changed his position. This change of position is accounted for by other statements in Luke. It is said (Luke 18:36), that, “hearing the multitude pass by, he asked what it meant.” Now he could not know that a multitude were approaching him, unless they were making a great deal of noise; but that they were not, is evident from the fact that when he began to cry out they told him to hold his peace. It was a quiet and sober throng, following Jesus, and stretched along the highway to a great distance. The blind man could only know that a multitude were passing by when a large number had already passed, and others were continually passing. It was then that he asked what it meant, and was told that it was occasioned by the presence of Jesus (Luke 18:36-37): but when he began to cry out for mercy, it was “they who went before” that told him to hold his peace, and as they had already passed by, he must have changed his position and got in front of the multitude before he commenced his outcry. (Luke 18:39.) That he did change his position, then, is clear from Luke’s narrative; and from Mark and Matthew we learn the point to which he moved: from a position near the gate at which Jesus entered the city, he moved around to that at which he passed out (if, indeed, he actually passed out through a different gate), and there resumed his begging until the multitude drew near again. We can now see how his faith made him whole. Having believed, not by having seen the miracles, but by having heard of them through others, that Jesus could give eyesight to the blind, and having concluded that he was the Christ the Son of David, when he learns that Jesus had passed by him into Jericho, on his way to Jerusalem, he springs to his feet, and either by his own knowledge of the locality, or by the help of a friend, he makes his way to where he will intercept Jesus as he passes out of the city. Most likely he passed around the wall, instead of trying to press through the narrow and crowded streets. When he hears the head of that great column of men approaching him, he cries out, “Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me;” and when those who were going before rebuke him and tell him to hold his peace, the more they rebuke him “the more a great deal” he cries out, until Jesus comes opposite, stops, and calls him to him. His faith saved him by causing him to employ the means necessary to arrest the attention of Jesus and to secure the coveted blessing. In the same way does the faith of the sinner save him. Faith alone, or faith without action, could not have made the blind man whole, nor can it bring the sinner out of darkness into light followed Jesus.— As Jesus healed the man, he said to him, “Go thy way;” and this gave him liberty to go in any way that he might choose; but he chose to “follow Jesus in the way,” “glorifying God.” (Luke 18:43.) Such a beginning was doubtless followed by a lifetime of devotion to Jesus, and though we meet not his name again in the sacred record, the familiar manner in which Mark introduces his name (see note on Mark 10:46, above) is more than a hint of his high distinction among the disciples at a later period. Argument of Section 1In this section Jesus is exhibited as a teacher, a prophet, and a worker of miracles. His instruction on the subject of divorce (Mark 10:1-12), displays a knowledge of the primary intention of God concerning the relation of the sexes, and an insight into the design of the Mosaic statute on the subject, which not only rose high above the Jewish learning of his own age, but laid claim to a knowledge of the unrevealed counsel of God. None but the Son of God, or one specially commissioned to speak the mind of God, could blamelessly speak as he speaks on this subject He sets aside, for the future, the statute of Moses, stating the reason which governed the mind of God in giving it, and restores as the law of his kingdom the original law of wedded life prescribed in the garden of Eden. His teaching, in the same section, on the spiritual relations of infants; on the duties and dangers connected with riches; on the rewards of self-sacrifice for his sake; and on the true exercise of ambition, are alike suited to his character as the Son of God, and to the highest happiness of mankind. It is inconceivable that they can be the teachings of an ignorant or a wicked pretender. While his superhuman wisdom is thus displayed in his teaching, his ability to look with divine foreknowledge into all the details of future events is demonstrated by his minute description of the sufferings which awaited him. The account of blind Bartimeus, while it proves again his power to heal, reflects additional credibility on the account of his previous miracles. This man, being blind, could have known of the previous miracles only by hearsay; he could not have seen them for himself. That he did, then, believe in the power of Jesus to heal, shows the abundance and sufficiency of the testimony which was brought to his ears; and the very existence of this testimony in regard to a matter about which men could not be mistaken, is proof that real miracles had been wrought.

Questions by E.M. Zerr For Mark 101. To what region did Jesus go? 2. What did he do for the people? 3. Tell what the Pharisees asked him. 4. What was the purpose of their question ? 5. To what did he direct a question ? 6. Did they answer it correctly? 7. State Jesus5 explanation of this law. 8. How was it from the beginning? 9. For this cause what should a man do? 10. This results in what union? 11. Who is able to put this asunder? 12. Tell who repeated the same question. 13. What makes one guilty of adultery? 14. Who were brought to Jesus ? 15. Tell what the disciples did. 16. What did Jesus tell them to suffer ? 17. Are the children in the kingdom? 18. What do they have to do with it? 19. Tell what he did for the children. 20. Repeat the question a certain one asked him. 21. By what title did he address him? 22. How did Jesus reason on this title? 23. Give his answer to the question. 24. State reply the man made to this. 25. And the further reply of Jesus. 26. What grieved this man? 27. On what subject did Jesus now speak ? 28. Why were the disciples astonished? 29. State the explanation Jesus then made. 30. To what did he refer for illustration? 31. What kind of place is often called needle’s eye 32. Can man get camels through that place? 33. Was this case of Jesus possible with men? 34. What sacrifice did Peter profess ? 35. Tell the reward Jesus promised. 36. What were to go with the reward? 37. Where were these things to be received? 38. What was to come in the end? 39. For what sake must these sacrifices be made ? 40. What reversal did Jesus predict? 41. To what place did they next go? 42. What astonished the disciples? 43. Of what did Jesus tell the twelve? 44. Tell what was to occur the third day. 45. What brothers came with a special request? 46. Where did they wish to be placed? 47. On what error was this request based? 48. For what did they claim to be able? 49. To what did that refer? 50. To whom would their request be given ? 51. Who were displeased at this time? 52. State the cause. 53. What was the practice of Gentile rulers? 54. Tell the contrast Jesus required. 55. To what example did he refer? 56. What ransom was to be given? 57. Through what city did they go ? 58. Who was sitting by the way? 59. For what did he cry to Jesus? 60. What did he call Jesus? 61. Was he correct? 62. How did the matter end? 63. What had made the man whole? 64. How had he manifested it ? 65. What length of time was required ?

Mark 10:1

1 Arose from, thence refers to Capernaum where Jesus had been teaching, and started on the journey toward Jerusalem. By the farther side is the same as saying by way of that region; the route traveled was along the eastern side of the Jordan. As usual, the crowds gathered about Jesus and he taught them.

Mark 10:2

2 In Matthew’s account of this conversation (chapter 19:3) the Pharisees add the words “for every cause.” Mark says they asked the question for the purpose of tempting Jesus. They hoped he would say something that would disagree with the law a .d thus give them an occasion for accusing him.

Mark 10:3

3 Instead of answering di rect, Jesus asked them to repeat the law of Moses on the subject of the question they professed to have in mind.

Mark 10:4

4 They stated the law correctly as far as they went, and that law may be seen in Deuteronomy 24:1.

Mark 10:5

5 Jesus did not deny their citation but explained the reason for the law; the people were not in the favorable attitude for the strictness of enforcement, and as an emergency some tolerance was extended to them.

Mark 10:6

6 Jesus also informed them that it was not always that way, and his teaching soon indicated that a return to the original ruling would be required after the kingdom of heaven was set up. The original order was that God made them male and female; singular on both sides, not male and females.

Mark 10:7

7 For this cause means for the cause soon to be stated, a man should leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. The word cleave means that he should join his body with hers in the fleshly relationship.

Mark 10:8

8 The result of that cleaving was to be that the two bodies would become one in the flesh. Not only would they be one flesh at the time of the union, but it was to be permanent, for it says they would be no more twain, but one flesh.

Mark 10:9

9 It says that God joined these two, and that was because the ordinance was authorized of God. The fleshly union made them one and the unfaithfulness of either would be the way that the union could be put asunder.

Mark 10:10

0 The disciples wished to have further information.

Mark 10:11

1 The wish was granted by the statement of this verse. The simple fact of divorcing a wife does not constitute adultery, but the remarriage to another (except when the wife has been unfaithful, Matthew 19:9) does.

Mark 10:12

2 The same rule applies to a wife that does to a husband.

Mark 10:13

3 It is natural for people to want their children admired and even to be fondled. These children were brought to Jesus for that purpose, and it is not any surprise that such a desire would exist, especially in view of the importance of this great “friend of man.” The disciples evidently thought that Jesus had more important things to do than to notice children.

Mark 10:14

4 Jesus overheard the objections of his disciples and concluded it was an appropriate time to give them a lesson touching the principles of his kingdom soon to be set up. Of such should be noted, for it is very significant. Little children were not to become members of the kingdom, for they do not need it. The point is that the spirit of those who are acceptable members of the kingdom of heaven must become like that of a little child.

Mark 10:15

5 Receive the kingdom of God as a little child means they must become as the child in spirit, otherwise they will not be welcomed into the kingdom.

Mark 10:16

6 Jesus then gave an example of his own teaching by taking the children in his arms and bestowing upon them a caressing touch. Blessed them means he pronounced his good wishes upon them.

Mark 10:17

7 The teaching of Jesus had given the impression that something special would be required in order to have eternal life. No doubt this man (who Matthew says was young, chapter 19:20) sincerely desired eternal life, but he had no idea what he would be required to do in obtaining it.

Mark 10:18

8 None good but one is explained at Matthew 19:17.

Mark 10:19

9 These six commandments of the Decalogue are the ones that pertain to man’s dealing with man. Jesus knew that in this man’s case the extra law he would give would also be in that class.

Mark 10:20

0 The man claimed to have kept all of these and Jesus did not deny it.

Mark 10:21

1 A p.art of Thayer’s definition of the original for love is “to regard the welfare of.” Knowing the situation with the young man, Jesus considered that his spiritual welfare was at stake. He decided to show him what would be necessary to assure him of that welfare, which was to dispose of his riches.

Mark 10:22

2. The man’s attachment to his riches was the occasion of this grief.

Mark 10:23

3 How hardly shall they . . . enter the kingdom, of God. The reader should see the comments covering this whole event at Matthew 19:20-27.

Mark 10:24

4 The words trust in riches gives the key to this subject, which is expressed also by Paul in 1 Timothy 6:17, and is virtually the same as “the love of money” in the same chapter and verse 10.

Mark 10:25

5 This needle is explained in the comments cited in verse 23.

Mark 10:26

6 The disciples were taking a purely physical view of the subject.

Mark 10:27

7 With God all things are possible as far as power is concerned.

Mark 10:28

8 Have left all meant they had literally left their homes in order to travel with Jesus in his journeys through the country.

Mark 10:29

9 Many things had to be left behind if they went with Jesus in this kind of a journey, for they would have been encumbrances to the work.

Mark 10:30

0 Now in this time refers to the life on earth with these apostles, but after their bodily association with Jesus had been fulfilled. They were to have their homes and families for their personal use again (such as Peter rejoining his wife, 1 Corinthians 9:5), but would be required to endure persecutions for the sake of their religion. World to come means the age after the judgment in which the righteous will enjoy eternal life.

Mark 10:31

1 This important language is commented upon at Matthew 19:30.

Mark 10:32

2 Jesus had told his disciples that he was to be mistreated (chapter 8:31), and they seemed to think he should not voluntarily go to Jerusalem. When they saw that he was even foremost in the journey they were amazed. Although they followed along after him they were under a feeling of terror.

Mark 10:33

3 Instead of trying to lessen their fears by painting the picture in some favorable colors, Jesus repeated what he had said to them before. Deliver him to the Gentiles was to be because the Jews could not execute the death sentence.

Mark 10:34

4 Jesus usually included the resurrection in r is predictions of his death.

Mark 10:35

5 This request was for the sake of James and John, but Matthew 20:20-21 states that their mother made the plea to Jesus.

Mark 10:36

6 The Lord knows what we need or want before we ask him, but he desires that we ask him (Matthew 6:8).

Mark 10:37

7 This request was based on their idea of an earthly kingdom.

Mark 10:38

8 The disciples did not realize what was involved in their request. They thought only of the glory that was supposed to come upon those in positions of authority in the kingdoms of the world. The cup and baptism that Jesus mentioned were figurative, referring to the trials that were in store for those who were associated with Christ in the kingdom of heaven.

Mark 10:39

9 Without realizing what it meant, the disciples indicated they were ready to accept the cup and baptism. Even in a spiritual kingdom, such a cup and baptism as Jesus meant were to be expected, hence he told them they would have that experience.

Mark 10:40

0 Is not mine to give is explained at Matthew 20:23.

Mark 10:41

1 The other apostles were displeased with James and John. It evidently was because of their desire to be seated above the others in places of authority.

Mark 10:42

2 Jesus found it necessary so many times to explain the fundamental difference as to true greatness between his kingdom and those of the world. In them the strongest are the ones who exercise the rule of authority and domination.

Mark 10:43-44

4 It was to be the opposite of that in the kingdom of heaven. In it the truly greatest citizens will be the ones who render the most service to others.

Mark 10:45

5 The principle of service as a sign of true greatness was practiced by the Son of man notwithstanding he was to be the king. He devoted his life on earth to service unto others, then crowned that service by giving his life for the benefit of the whole world that all might be saved who would serve him.

Mark 10:46

6 Jesus came to Jericho after crossing the Jordan on the way to Jerusalem. As he and his disciples with a great number of other people were leaving that city, they passed a blind beggar sitting by the wayside.

Mark 10:47

7 This man had been asking for the necessities of life only, for he did not expect any of the people to be able to do anything for his blindness. But the fame of Jesus had reached his ears, and learning that he was passing by it prompted him to ask for more important favor.

Mark 10:48

8 The crowd thought the blind man was interrupting the work of Jesus, but he was made more persistent by the attempt to quiet him.

Mark 10:49-50

0 Whoever was given the command to call the blind man gave him a kindly greeting. Upon information that Jesus, had heard his plea he arose and went to him. He cast away his outer garment that he might move more easily.

Mark 10:51

1 Jesus knew the nature of the man’s affliction, but wished him to express his request as an indication of his faith. (See comments at verse 36).

Mark 10:52

2 For the sake of his faith the Lord granted the unfortunate man his sight. Notice that. it was immediately as all truly miraculous cures were done.