Bible Commentaries
Mark 10

Verses 1-52

X I-XIII 37 Journey towards Jerusalem and Last Ministry in Jerusalem. X 1 Ministry in Judaea and Peraea; cf. Mt chh 19-20; Luke 9:51-; Luke 18:34—’And departing thence he came into the region of Judaea and beyond the Jordan’. This mention of a journey into Judaea and Peraea is probably to be understood as a general reference to a period of missionary activity which took place in the interval between the end of the Galilean ministry and Christ’s arrival in Jerusalem for the Pasch at which he was put to death. The visits to Jerusalem for the feasts of Tabernacles, In 7:14, and Dedication, John 10:22, may belong to this period. For some time Christ had concentrated on the instruction of the disciples, but now he resumes the teaching of the multitudes as formerly.

2-12 The Question of Divorce; cf.Matthew 19:3-12; Matthew 5:31 f.; Luke 16:18—Mk’s account differs from Mt in two main points; he omits the words ’for every cause’, Matthew 19:3b, from the Pharisees’ question, 2, and also the clause ’except it be for fornication’, Matthew 19:9, from Christ’s reply, 11. The reason for the omission is presumably that these phrases referred to matters which were primarily of interest to Jews and would scarcely be intelligible to Gentile readers.

2. The Mosaic Law, Deuteronomy 24:1-4, permitted a man to divorce his wife ’if she did not find favour in his eyes because he found in her a shameful thing’. If a man decided to repudiate his wife, the Law commanded him to give her a ’bill of divorce’. The marriage was then regarded as dissolved, and both parties were free to contract new marriages. But though all Jews agreed that divorce was allowed, they differed in their interpretation of the ’shameful thing’ (Heb. ervat da?ar) which justified a man in repudiating his wife. According to Shammai, adultery was the only legal cause. Hillel and his school allowed divorce for far less serious reasons. The Pharisees, probably having some knowledge of Christ’s views, hoped to force him into open contradiction of the Mosaic Law.

3-5. Jesus knew their evil intention and asked what Moses had commanded. Actually Moses had merely permitted divorce, but had commanded that the woman who was repudiated should be given a bill of divorce which would regularize her position. This legislation did not grant the Hebrews the right to repudiate as a privilege. It simply tolerated an abuse which was due to their evil dispositions. Divorce did not correspond to the primitive institution of marriage.

6-9. God’s will in regard to marriage and divorce is shown in the primitive institution of marriage as recorded in Genesis 1:27;

2:24. Man and woman united in marriage are linked by bonds as real and permanent as those which unite members of the same family. Divorce, therefore, is contrary to God’s law.

10-12. Here, in answer to the disciples, who were naturally surprised by teaching contrary to that which all Jews accepted, Jesus reaffirms that neither partner is set free through divorce to marry again. Husband and wife are on an equal footing in this respect. According to Jewish law it was only the husband who had the right to initiate divorce proceedings. In Roman law, at the time of Christ, the wife had the same right as the husband; cf. J. Bon sirven , Le Divorce dans le Nouveau Testament (Tournai 1948) ; U. Holzmeister, Bi 26 ( 1945) 133-46.

13-16 Jesus blesses the Children; cf.Matthew 19:13-15; Luke 18:15-17—Mk alone mentions that Jesus was indignant with the disciples. They probably thought that by keeping away the children and their mothers they would save him from an intrusion which would interfere with the more important work of teaching.

14-15. The simple confidence and docility natural to the child must be possessed, as the result of deliberate choice, by all those who seek to enjoy the blessings of the kingdom of God.

16. As in 9:35, Mark is the only evangelist who mentions that Jesus embraced the children.

17-22 The Rich Young Man; cf.Matthew 19:16-22; Luke 18:18-23-17-18. It would seem that this man was impressed by. the preceding incident and now wants to know what conditions he must fulfil in order to have a share in the kingdom. The expression ’receive life everlasting’ (cf. 9:42, 44, 46; 10:30) corresponds to ’enter the kingdom’, 15, and probably refers to membership of the kingdom on earth as well as to enjoyment of the eternal reward of the just. ’Why callest thou me good’ No one is good but God alone’. These words are not a disavowal of a claim to divinity. According to many commentators, Christ intended by them to give a hint of his divine nature. It was not the custom of the time to add the epithet ’good’ to the title ’Master’ (Rabbi, Teacher). God alone is the absolute good. If Jesus deserves the title ’Good Master’, it is because he is more than a merely human teacher. Others hold that Jesus did not intend by these words to suggest anything about his own divinity. He answered in accordance with the state of mind of this enquirer who had come to him as to an outstanding human teacher. The flattering title by which he was addressed gave Jesus an opportunity of turning the man’s thoughts to God, the supreme good and source of all goodness, to whom all honour is due; cf. Catena in Marc.

21. ’Jesus fixed his gaze upon him and loved him’. This detail is found only in Mk and again points to an eye-witness as the source of the evangelist’s information. The man was good and sincere, but it was still possible for him to aim higher by carrying out a counsel of perfection. Renunciation of worldly goods would oe compensated by treasure in heaven.

22. ’He shows him that the reward is great, and great indeed is the recompense for following him’ (Catena in Marc.). ’His face fell at the saying and he departed in grief’. His attachment to his possessions was such that he was not prepared to make the sacrifice proposed by Christ.

23-27 The Danger of Riches; cf.Matthew 19:23-26; Luke 18:24-27—These verses forcibly point the moral of the preceding incident.

23-24. ’With what difficulty shall they who have riches’ etc. The repetition of this pronouncement, which amazed the disciples, leaves no room for doubt about the meaning and the tance of Christ’s statement. Riches are not evil in themselves, but man has only a stewardship of this world’s goods. Undue attachment to wealth is a form of idolatry and inconsistent with true service of God. ’You cannot serve God and mammon’, Matthew 6:24.

25. The paradoxical expression ’a camel passing through the eye of a needle’ may have been a proverbial phrase signifying an impossibility. The Talmud has a similar expression—’an elephant passing through the eye of a needle’.

26-27. The disciples understood that Christ was speaking literally of an impossibility. But what is humanly impossible does not exceed the power of God. With the aid or grace, and by attaching himself to God as the supreme good, the rich man can be saved.

28-31 The Reward of those who leave all to follow Christ; cf.Matthew 19:27-30; Luke 18:28-30-28. Peter’s question follows naturally from the incident of the rich man and the subsequent statements of Christ. It seems to invite approval of the action of the disciples in abandoning everything to follow Christ. 29-30. A twofold reward is promised to those who have abandoned earthly interests and family ties ’for the sake of Christ and the Gospel’: first, ’a hundred-fold now in this time . . . with persecutions’ ; second, ’ in the world to come life everlasting. The clause ’ with persecutions ’ shows that the hundred-Nd recompense in this life is not to be understood in terms of earthly happiness. According to St Jerome ( PL 26, 139), the meaning of the hundred-fold reward is that whoever abandons fleshly things for Christ’s sake will receive a spiritual recompense I whose value by comparison with earthly thin’s is as a hundred to a small number. A more satisfactory explanation would appear to be that Christ had in mind the spiritual kinship and the bond of charity which unites all those who make the sacrifices demanded from every true disciple; cf. 8:34-38. The true follower of Christ acquires a new kindred far more numerous than those whom he may have abandoned for the sake of Christ and the Gospel. In this new relationship, dominated by charity, all are ’brothers’, Matthew 23:8, and ’children of God’, John 1:12; Acts 2:44; Acts 4:32. The recompense granted in this life does not, however, exclude suffering and persecution at the hands of men. Christ foretold that his followers would suffer for his name’s sake, that they would be hated because they belong to him; cf.Matthew 5:11; Matthew 10:24; Luke 6:22; John 13:16; John 15:19.31. Some take this as a warning to the Apostles, who are now in the first places because they have left all things to follow Christ, lest through presumption they should fall to the lowest places hereafter. More probably, however, the ’first’ are those who, judged by the world’s standards, hold the highest places in this life, the rich, Pharisees, members of the Sanhedrin. Hereafter, these will be in the lowest places, while the Apostles, who are of no account in the world’s estimation, will take the highest places.

32-34 Third Prediction of the Passion; cf.Matthew 20:17-19; Luke 18:31-34-32b. ’And Jesus was walking before them, and they were dismayed, and those who followed were afraid’. Here we have a vivid picture of Christ going forward resolutely to face the sufferings which awaited him in Jerusalem. Mark is the only evangelist who mentions the dismay of the disciples and the fear of those who were accompanying Christ.

33-34. This prediction of the Passion is more detailed than the earlier ones, 8:31; 9:30. The statement that the Son of Man would be handed over to the Gentiles and put to death implies that he would die by crucifixion. But the assurance of final triumph is contained in the words ’after three days he shall rise again’. These predictions of the Passion, though disconcerting for the disciples, put the doctrine of the suffering Messias clearly before them. Later, the fulfilment of these prophecies in Christ’s Passion and Resurrection confirmed their faith.

35-40 The Request of James and John; cf.,Matthew 20:20-23-35-37. The request of the disciples was made through their mother, according to Mt. Their petition was for the highest places in the kingdom next to Christ. Despite his teaching about the Passion and the sacrifices which would be demanded from his followers, 8:34-38, they did not appreciate fully the place of sufferings in the Messianic kingdom. 38. The metaphorical expression, ’drink the cup’ could signify either joy or affliction. In this context it obviously refers to the endurance of suffering. ’Baptism’: lit. ’immersion’. This metaphor conveys the idea of being overwhelmed by sorrows.

39-40. James and John will be associated with the sufferings of Christ, but it is not part of his mission as Messias to assign places in the kingdom. These are assigned in accordance with the eternal decree of the Father. As Messias, the capacity in which he had been approached by the two brothers, Jesus carries out the decrees of the Father—he does not alter them.

40b. ’To you’: these words are not authentic, and should be omitted.

41-45 The Obligation of Service by those in Authority; cf.Matthew 20:24-28; Luke 22:24-27-41. The other Apostles were annoyed by the pretensions of James and John. Jesus took the opportunity of teaching the Twelve the lesson of humble service of those whom they would rule.

42-44. ’You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones domineer over them’. The Apostles will have authority in the Church, but in the exercise of that authority they are not to imitate rulers and high officials who rule tyrannically and arbitrarily in their own interest. Rather they should make the service of those entrusted to them the ideal of their office. In that way they will imitate ’ the Son of Man who came not to be ministered unto, but to minister’. 45b. ’to give his life a ransom for many’. In these words Christ states the purpose and redemptive value of his death. The use of ??+´t??? in profane Gk and in LXX confirms the translation ’ransom’, e.g. the price paid for the redemption of a slave. The death of Christ, therefore, is like the price paid to redeem from slavery. The slavery in question is slavery to sin. Christ’s sufferings and death are an expiation of the sins of men. ’for many’: a+??tì p????+?? ’instead of many’. The preposition a+??tì conveys the idea of substitution; Jesus pays the price of redemption for ’many’ who are unable to pay it themselves. ’Many’ is here used as a contrast to the One, the Son of Man, who suffers for the multitude. No one is excluded from the benefit of his redemptive sacrifice; cf. 14:24. There is a clear connexion between these words of Christ and the teaching of Isaias concerning the sufferings of the Servant of Yahweh, Isaiah 52:13-; Isaiah 53:12.

46-52 Cure of the Blind Man Bartimeus; cf.Matthew 20:29-34; Luke 18:35-43—Mk again excels in its vivid presentation of the incident. 46. ’And as he went out of Jericho’. Mk and Mt agree in saying that this miracle was performed as Jesus was leaving Jericho, while Lk states that it took place when he was drawing near Jericho. The explanation of the discrepancy is that Mk and Mt are referring to the ancient city conquered by Josue, through which Jesus had just passed, while Lk is speaking of the new Jericho built by Herod, in which Christ was about to be received by Zacchaeus. The miracle was performed on the way between these two places; cf. Ketter, Bi 15 ( 1934) 411-18. Bartimeus means ’son of Timeus’. Mk records the name probably because the man was known in the Christian community.

47. ’Son of David’ was the most widely used title of the Messias; cf. 12:35-37; John 7:42. It was a title which recalled the promises made to David, 2 Kg 7:8-16.

51. ’Rabboni’ = My Rabbi (Master) ; cf.John 20:16.

52. ’Thy faith has sated thee’: this statement refers primarily to the restoration of the man’s sight, but he was probably also granted the light of salvation, for ’he accompanied him [Jesus] on the way’.