Consider helping today!
MARK CHAPTER 10
Mark 10:1 Christ teacheth in Judea,
Mark 10:2-12 answereth the Pharisees’ question concerning divorce,
Mark 10:13-16 blesseth the children that were brought unto him,
Mark 10:17-22 instructs a rich man how to attain eternal life,
Mark 10:23-27 showeth how hard it is for the rich to enter into the kingdom of God,
Mark 10:28-31 promises rewards to all who have forsaken aught for his gospel’s sake,
Mark 10:32-34 foretells of his own death and resurrection,
Mark 10:35-45 puts by the ambitious suit of the sons of Zebedee, and checks the indignation of the other disciples thereat,
Mark 10:46-52 giveth sight to blind Bartimaeus.
We have nothing in this whole chapter but what we found before in Matthew 19:1-34. When Christ had the discourses mentioned in the former chapter, he was in Galilee; now he departeth from Galilee, passes through Samaria, and comes into the province of Judea, which being the chiefest, and that in which Jerusalem was, he was there more than before troubled with the scribes and Pharisees; who were now watching him in all his words and actions, that they might have somewhat whereof to accuse him.
Matthew adds, for every cause, that is, for any cause, unless for adultery, for so the Pharisees had interpreted the law permitting divorce, Deuteronomy 24:1, taking advantage of those words, that she find no favour in his eyes, and interpreting the term uncleanness following, of any deformity, or other cause of dislike.
The order of the discourse as recorded by Mark something differeth from that in Matthew, but the evangelists were not so accurate in that, but took care only to set down the substance of the discourse, as appears from the relation of several other parts of the history. In the notes on Matthew 19:3-6 the reader will find whatsoever stands in need of explication opened.
See Poole on "Matthew 19:3", and following verses to Matthew 19:6.
Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9, interprets this passage of Mark, by adding those words, except it be for fornication. None but Mark alone hath what is in Mark 10:12, which concerneth the woman; which hath made some doubt whether the woman, in case of the husband’s adultery, may sue a divorce from him, but the most judicious interpreters say there is an equal right on both sides. I am sure the reason is equal on both sides. The adultery of the husband dissolves the tie and covenant of marriage, as well as the adultery of the wife. It is yet a more groundless and unreasonable opinion of some from the words of this and the parallel texts, that persons divorced may not marry again; as if God’s end in the law of divorce in case of adultery were merely to separate the wife from the husband’s bed. Whether the person that hath given the cause for the divorce may marry again, may be more disputed, not only because such persons are dead persons in the law of God, but because such a liberty granted would open a flood gate to iniquity of that kind, while persons weary of their correlates should by this means gratify their lusts, and also obtain their desires. But I shall not determine it. Certain it is our Saviour here speaketh only of divorces for trivial causes, which the law of God doth not warrant; and in such cases the person marrying again must necessarily commit adultery, because the band of the former union holds. As to the question, whether divorces be lawful in no cases but that of adultery;
See Poole on "Matthew 5:31-32". See Poole on "Matthew 19:3", and following verses to Matthew 19:11.
This is reported both by Matthew and Luke, only they both omit what we here have, Mark 10:15. By the kingdom of God, is doubtless to be understood the word of God, or rather the grace of Christ in the gospel: he that doth not receive it with humility and modesty, without disputing, without malice, like a little child, shall never come into heaven.
Luke saith he was a ruler. His question signified, that he believed such a thing as a happy eternal existence of good souls, and that he desired it, and that he was willing to do something in order to the obtaining a share and portion in it.
That is, originally good, and supremely good, or perfectly good. Herein our Saviour doth not deny himself to be God, but checked him who did not believe him such, yet called him God.
That is, in that latitude to which the doctors of the Jewish church at that time expounded them.
See Poole on "Matthew 19:21-22". Christ had a humane compassion towards so civil a person, but showeth him, that love was the fulfilling of the law, and that love is seen in a resolution to yield a universal obedience to the will of God. Our Saviour imposes a special precept upon him, conjoined with two general precepts concerning all the disciples of Christ, to which his not yielding obedience showed that he was mistaken in his notion, that he had from his youth kept the commandments, though it might be true according to that law interpretation of them given by the Pharisees.
See Poole on "Matthew 10:23", and following verses to Matthew 10:26, where the same history occurred, and all the additions to it here are opened.
See Poole on "Matthew 19:27", and following verses to Matthew 19:30. Our Saviour having blessed the poor, especially such as had stripped themselves of all for his sake and the gospel’s, Peter raised up hopes to himself, who had no riches to trust in or have his heart cleave unto, and had stripped himself of all that little he had to follow Christ. Christ assures him that neither he, nor any other that had done so, should by it lose any thing; for though in this life they should have persecutions, yet they should be amply rewarded in value, if not in kind, in this world, and with infinite happiness in the next.
See Poole on "Matthew 20:17", and following verses to Matthew 20:19. This is at least the third time that our Saviour instructs his disciples as to his passion, toward which he was now going, and that with such a readiness, that, to the amazement of his disciples, he led the way, and outwent them. It is observable that Christ here describeth his sufferings more particularly than before. He tells them here that he should be first
delivered to the chief priests and the scribes, and they should condemn him. Then they should
deliver him to the Gentiles, ( such were the Romans and Pontius Pilate), and they should
mock him, scourge him, spit on him, put him to death, but he should rise again the third day. Luke adds, Luke 18:34, They understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken. How hardly do we believe what seems contrary to our interests! But we are to hear for the time to come. This premonition was afterwards of use to them, they remembered the words of Jesus when the things were come to pass. Preachers’ words are not lost, though at present they be not believed or hearkened to.
See Poole on "Matthew 20:20", and following verses to Matthew 20:24, where we have the same history with little or no variation, only Matthew tells us that James and John did that by their mother which Mark reports as done by them in person; but there is nothing more ordinary even in our common discourse than to speak of that as done by ourselves, which is done by another on our behalf, at our command or solicitation. Both the evangelists agree in all the other parts of their relation, and in the following discourse also very much.
See Poole on "Matthew 20:25", and following verses to Matthew 20:28, where we had the same almost verbatim. Those that think it worth the while to inquire what critical men say about that phrase, οι δοκουντες αρχειν, which we translate they which are accounted to rule, may find it in Pool’s Synopsis Criticorum. When all is said, doubtless the οι αρχοντες in Matthew, and οι δοκουντες αρχειν,, and Luke’s οι βασιλεις, signify the same persons. And our translators might as justifiably have translated those words, the rulers, as
they which are accounted to rule, which is a translation the active participle will hardly bear.
This history is a mere narrative of a matter of fact, in the relation of which no difficulties occur which stand in need of explication. Matthew, Mark, and Luke relate it with but two considerable differences. Matthew mentions two blind men, the other two evangelists but one. It is probable the one was the more remarkable, and his father a person of some note, therefore he is mentioned also; the other probably some obscurer person. Luke reports it done, as he was come nigh unto Jericho; Matthew and Mark, as he went out of Jericho: but though Luke saith that he sat begging by the way as they came nigh to Jericho, yet he doth not say the miracle of his cure was wrought then. It is most probable that he followed Christ into Jericho, crying after him, and also when he went out of Jericho, and that it was as he went out of Jericho (as Matthew and Mark say) that our Saviour took notice of him, called him, and wrought the cure upon him.
See Poole on "Matthew 20:29", and following verses to Matthew 20:34.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Poole, Matthew, "Commentary on Mark 10". Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible. https://studylight.org/
the Fourth Week after Epiphany