Mark 10 - In Depth Bible Commentaries

JESUS' TEACHING CONCERNING HUSBANDS AND WIVESMark 10:1-12 (and Deuteronomy 24:1-4) 157610.1 Êá êåèåí íáóôò ñ÷åôáé åò ô ñéá ôò Éïõäáßáò [êá] ðÝñáí ôï ÉïñäÜíïõ,êá óõìðïñåýïíôáé ðÜëéí ÷ëïé ðñò áôüí, êá ò åþèåé ðÜëéí äßäáóêåí áôïýò. 10.2 êáðñïóåëèüíôåò Öáñéóáïé ðçñþôùí áôí å îåóôéí íäñ ãõíáêá ðïëóáé, ðåéñÜæïíôåòáôüí. 10.3 ä ðïêñéèåò åðåí áôïò, Ôß ìí íåôåßëáôï Ìùûóò 10.4 ï ä åðáí,ÅðÝôñåøåí Ìùûóò âéâëßïí ðïóôáóßïõ ãñÜøáé êá ðïëóáé.10.1 And from there, rising up, he comes into the regions of the Judea [and] beyondthe Jordan, and again crowds come together to him; and as he had been accustomed, againhe was teaching them. 10.2 And Separatists, approaching, were asking him if it is lawful for aman to send away a wife--testing him. 10.3 So then he, answering, said to them, "What didMoses command you people?" 10.4 So then they said, "Moses permitted 'to write acertificate of putting away, and to send (a wife) away.'"10.5 ä Éçóïò åðåí áôïò, Ðñò ôí óêëçñïêáñäßáí ìí ãñáøåí ìí ôííôïëí ôáýôçí. 10.6 ð ä ñ÷ò êôßóåùò ñóåí êá èëõ ðïßçóåí áôïýò 10.7 íåêåíôïýôïõ êáôáëåßøåé íèñùðïò ôí ðáôÝñá áôï êá ôí ìçôÝñá [êá ðñïóêïëëçèÞóåôáé ðñòôí ãõíáêá áôï], 10.8 êá óïíôáé ï äýï åò óÜñêá ìßáí óôå ïêÝôé åóí äýï ëë ìßáóÜñî. 10.9 ïí èåò óõíÝæåõîåí íèñùðïò ì ÷ùñéæÝôù.10.5 But then the Jesus said to them, "Because of the hardness of heart of yours, hewrote for you the commandment, this one. 10.6 But then, from creation's beginning, 'Hemade them male and female'; 10.7 'because of this a person will leave the father of his andthe mother, [and will be closely joined to the wife of his], 10.8 and the two will become into oneflesh.' So that no longer are they two, but rather, one flesh. 10.9 What therefore the Godpaired together, let no person separate!"10.10 Êá åò ôí ïêßáí ðÜëéí ï ìáèçôá ðåñ ôïýôïõ ðçñþôùí áôüí. 10.11 êáëÝãåé áôïò, Ïò í ðïëýó ôí ãõíáêá áôï êá ãáìÞó ëëçí ìïé÷ôáé ð áôÞí10.12 êá í áô ðïëýóáóá ôí íäñá áôò ãáìÞó ëëïí ìïé÷ôáé.10.10 And in the house, again the disciples were asking him concerning this. 10.11And he says to them, "Whoever will send away the wife of his, and will marry another woman,is sexually immoral with her; 10.12 and if she, sending away the husband of hers will marryanother, she is sexually immoral."Text with Footnotes 15821576See endnote for a commentary on Deuteronomy 24:1-4.1582Strange things happen to the relationship between husbands and wives as theycontinue on in their married life. Someone has written concerning a husband's reactions tohis wife's colds during seven years of marriage:First year: "Sugar dumpling, I'm really worried about my baby girl. You've got a bad(continued...)880

1582(...continued)sniffle and there's no telling about these things with all the strep going around. I'm puttingyou in the hospital this afternoon for a general checkup and a good rest. I know the food'slousy, but I'll be bringing your meals in from Rozzini's. I've already got it all arranged withthe floor superintendent."Second year: "Listen, darling, I don't like the sound of that cough and I've calledDoc Miller to rush over here. Now you go to bed like a good girl, just for Poppa."Third year: "Maybe you'd better lie down honey. Nothing like a little rest when youfeel lousy. I'll bring you something. Have we got any canned soup?"Fourth year: "Now look, dear, be sensible. After you've fed the kids and got thedishes done and the floor finished, you'd better lie down."Fifth year: "Why don't you take a couple of aspirin?"Sixth year: "I wish you'd just gargle or something instead of sitting around barkinglike a dog all evening!"Seventh year: "For Pete's sake, stop sneezing! Are you trying to give mepneumonia?"Marriage is full of laughs--but it is also serious. It is the source of some of thegreatest happiness in human life, but also the source of grief and great unhappiness. It issurrounded by myth and fantasy--but oftentimes ends up in disillusionment and sorrow.In our modern world, marriage is in many ways, "on the rocks." Divorce continuallybrings seemingly happy marriages to an end, and rarely do we find genuinely happymarriages. However, such relationships can be found, and a good marriage is one of thegreatest gifts of God.The first two chapters of the Bible picture marriage as the design of God for hishuman creatures, and sing the praises of married love. But the Bible also revealsnumerous examples of broken marriages, and of unhappy mates. Jesus includedmarriage--the relationship of husbands and wives--among his most pointed and importantteachings. We are going to look at Mark's account of that teaching in this study--but first ofall, see if you can give an answer to the following questions:1. We know that divorce is an increasingly difficult problem facing our modernsociety. But is divorce only a modern problem? Was it not also a problem in the time ofJesus?2. John the Immerser had condemned Herod Antipas for having taken his brother'swife, and had eventually been put to death for that teaching (see Mark 6:14-29). Now the881(continued...)

1582(...continued)Jewish leaders came to Jesus, "testing him" over his teaching concerning marriage anddivorce. Why do you think they did this?3. What was the passage in the Jewish Bible which they quoted? What does thatpassage say, and what does it mean? See our endnote. Does the Jewish Bible permitdivorce? Does it command divorce?4. Can you describe the differences between Rabbi Hillel, Rabbi Shammai, andRabbi Akiba, over the meaning of Deuteronomy 24:1? Which one of these Rabbis do youthink Jesus agreed with?5. What is the basic intention underlying the law of Deuteronomy 24:1-4?6. Jesus said that Moses gave the commandment in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 becauseof (or, “towards”) their hardness of heart. He taught that the true will of God for marriagewas to be found in two other passages. What are those passages?7. What is the basic teaching of Genesis 1:26-28? Do you think that teaching isout-dated in our modern world? What does this passage teach concerning who is to bethe "boss" in marriage?8. What is the basic teaching of Genesis 2:19-25? What is meant by "one flesh"?What is meant by "leaving father and mother," and what does this mean concerning theformation of a new home, and the permanency of marriage?9. Jesus adds to the teaching of Genesis 1:26-28 and 2:19-25 his own statementthat "What therefore God has joined together, let no person separate!" What does thismean for divorce laws, and the Christian's attitude towards divorce? Should we concludefrom this that there can absolutely be no divorce on the part of Christians?10. The Jewish view of divorce only contemplated the husband's sending away hiswife. But Jesus speaks about the wife's sending away her husband. Is that somethingnew in the teaching of Jesus? Does Jesus hold the woman to be as responsible forupholding the divine will in marriage as is the husband? And does he view the woman ashaving the same right as the man to “send away” a mate?11. If Jesus taught this, how is it that he constantly reached out to, and forgavepeople with broken marriages? How can the church today take Jesus' teaching concerninghusbands and wives seriously, without becoming legalistic and condemning of divorcedpeople? Is this another example of Jesus’ combining infinite grace with infinite demand?France comments that “This, the only teaching about divorce in Mark, is given adeliberately public setting (verse 1) and consists primarily of a halakhic [concerned withtraditions] debate comparable to that in 7:1-15, leading up to a blunt and undevelopedpronouncement by Jesus which undercuts current scribal orthodoxy...” (P. 387)882(continued...)

1583 1584 1585 158610.1 And from there, rising up, he comes into the regions of Judea [and]1587 1588 1589 1590beyond the Jordan, and again crowds come together to him; and as he had been1582(...continued)“The result of this comparative study of Scripture [placing Deuteronomy 24:1-4alongside Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24] is that Jesus can denounce the scribalapproach as superficial and call for a more radical obedience to the essential purpose ofGod than their regulations envisaged...Jesus’ aim is to uncover what is fundamental toliving as God requires, to move from mere regulations to ethical principles...“If we find this an uncompromising demand, so did Jesus’ disciples then, in the lightof their society’s expectations...What society takes for granted, Jesus challenges...[Thishighlights] the radical and subversive demands of the kingdom of God, and thuscontributes to the discomfort and reorientation of the disciples.” (Pp. 387, 88, 89)1583Mark means, "from Capernaum." Compare Mark 9:33 with its footnote 1498. Swetecomments that "...The Lord is finally quitting Galilee...and Capernaum...His face ishenceforth turned towards Jerusalem..." (P. 214)1584For this use of the aorist active participle íáóôò, anastas, "rising up," compareMark 1:35; 2:14; 7:24; 10:1 (here); 14:57, 60, and 16:[[9]]. This same verb is used forJesus' rising up from among the dead.1585Once again Mark uses the present tense, ñ÷åôáé, erchetai, “he comes,” making itsreaders into a sort of "present observers" of the action of the narrative.1586The reason for "and" being placed within brackets is that there are variant readingsin the Greek manuscripts at this point (see the next footnote for the textual evidence).Some manuscripts read "and beyond"; others read "through the beyond"; while others readonly "beyond." These textual variants make it very difficult to be certain as to Mark'smeaning.Does Mark mean that Jesus went southward through Samaria and Northern Judea,then crossed to the eastern area on the other side of the Jordan? Or, does Mark meanthat Jesus crossed over the Jordan in the north, then went southward through Transjordan,on his way to Judea?Whatever our conclusion may be concerning these textual variants, we can agreewith Lane that at this point "Mark's account of the Galilean ministry is terminated...Fromthis point forward the narrative moves swiftly and relentlessly toward its inevitable climax inJerusalem." (P. 352)1587The phrase kai. pe,ran, kai peran, “and beyond,” is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus,(continued...)883

1587(...continued)the first writer of Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, Psi, Uncial Manuscript 0274, Minuscules 892,2427, a few other Greek manuscripts and the Coptic tradition.It is changed to read only the second word pe,ran, peran, “beyond,” in agreementwith the reading found in Matthew 19:1, by a corrector of Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, W,Delta, Theta, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 28, 565, 579, 1241, 1424, 2542,some other Greek manuscripts, the entire Latin tradition, the Sinaitic Syriac and thePeshitta Syriac.It is changed to read dia. tou/ pe,ran, dia tou peran, “through the beyond,” byAlexandrinus, the “Majority Text” and the Harclean Syriac. This is a slightly moresignificant variant, changing the meaning of Mark with regards to the location of Jesus’later ministry–see the preceding footnote.1588Swete notes that "These words cover the whole interval between the end of theGalilean Ministry and the final visit to Jerusalem. The time was spent partly in Judaea,partly beyond the Jordan." (P. 214)What Mark may mean (if we follow this reading of the Greek manuscripts) is thatJesus entered into a period of teaching ministry that brought him back and forth across theJordan River, in the area of Judea on the western side of the Jordan, and into differentareas on the eastern side of the Jordan.However we may decide to read the Greek text, this makes a very indefinitedescription, one that allows for a large period of time and for numerous journeys on thepart of Jesus. But see the two preceding footnotes for the possibility of a different readingof the Greek text, which would mean that his ministry could have been limited to the areason the eastern side of the Jordan.Lane states, "From Capernaum (9:33) Jesus came into southern Palestine. Theorder in which the provinces are listed (Judea and Perea) suggests that he went southacross the mountains of Samaria into Judea, following the ordinary route for pilgrims ontheir way to the Holy City...At some point he crossed over the Jordan into Perea, whichwas part of the territory of Herod Antipas. The itinerary marks a return to the Jordan regionwhere John the Baptist had conducted his ministry and had suffered imprisonment andmartyrdom." (Pp. 352-53)France comments that “As in 7:31, Mark’s description of the itinerary is not clear, butin his narrative context the two terms [Judea and beyond the Jordan] serve to indicateprogress towards Jerusalem, and bring Jesus into what is unfamiliar and potentially hostileterritory.” (P. 389)1589This is the only place in Mark where the plural "crowds" is used; elsewhere Mark(continued...)884

1591 1592 1593 1594accustomed, again he was teaching them. 10.2 And Separatists, approaching,1589(...continued)uses the singular "crowd" (some 37 times). Perhaps Mark wants to emphasize that theperiod of Jesus' avoidance of crowds, and intimate communication with his disciples, wasover, and that now Jesus returned to his normal "habit" of teaching the larger groups ofpeople. See the next footnote.1590Compare footnote 1580; here again the present tense is used by Mark,sumporeu,ontai, sumporeuontai, “they come together...”1591The phrase w`j eivw,qei, hos eiothei means "as he had been accustomed" (it is thepluperfect active). On numerous occasions prior to this, Mark has mentioned how Jesustaught the crowds--see 2:2, 13; 4:1; 6:34; 7:14; 8:34; 10:1 (here); and then later, 11:18 and12:37. Jesus, quite differently from the ordinary Rabbi, welcomed the large crowds ofpeople--who would have been considered "unclean" by the Rabbis.1592The use of the imperfect tense evdi,dasken, edidasken, “he was teaching,”emphasizes the continual nature of Jesus' teaching of the crowds of people; the use of theword "again" shows that this was a "return" to his normal practice.1593This is the only place in Mark where this noun "Separatists" (“Pharisees”) occurswithout the definite article. It denotes a party of Jewish religious leaders who consideredthemselves and their party as "the Separated Ones" in distinction from the ordinary,common people of Israel. See footnote 1028 on Mark 7:1. They were the organizeddisciples of the Religious Experts (or, "Scribes"). They sought to take the teachings andtraditions of the Religious Experts, and embody them in practical everyday life in Israel.There are textual variants in the Greek manuscripts at this point--the majority readas we have translated here; others add the definite article before "Separatists"; still othersslightly change the order of the words. See the next footnote for the textual evidence.1594The phrase Kai. proselqo,ntej Farisai/oi, Kai proselthontes Pharisaioi, “andcoming, Separatists,” is read by Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, K, L, Gamma, Delta, Psi, Family13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 28, 700, 892, 2427, many other Greek manuscripts and theBohairic Coptic.It is changed to read oi` de. Parisai/oi proselqo,ntej, hoi de Pharisaioiproselthontes, “Then the Separatists coming,” by W, Theta, Minuscules 565, 2542, a fewother Greek manuscripts and a few manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic (a supplementaryreading).The phrase is changed to read simply Kai, Kai, “and,” by Bezae, a majority of theOld Latin witnesses, the Sinaitic Syriac and some manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic,(continued...)885

1595 1596 1597 1598were asking him if it is lawful for a man to send away a wife--testing him. 10.3 So1594(...continued)completely leaving out any mention of the Separatists.The phrase is changed to read kai. proselqo,ntej oi` Farisai/oi, kai proselthonteshoi Pharisaioi, literally “and coming, the Separatists,” by Sinaiticus, Ephraemi Rescriptus,N, Family 1 of Minuscules (see), Minuscules 579, 1241, 1424 and a large number of otherGreek manuscripts.The first and third variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, but simplysay the same thing in a slightly different way. The second variant slightly changes themeaning of Mark, by failing to say who it was that came to Jesus. Surprisingly, these“Western” texts, instead of adding to the original as they normally do, here subtract from it.France holds that this omission, which makes it the shorter reading, is most probablyoriginal (p. 387). But even so, it would be the common assumption of readers that it waspeople from this “school” of the Jews that were involved in such questioning.1595The imperfect tense of the verb evphrw,twn, eperoton, “they were asking,” implies thatthis was a question which was raised time and again by the Separatists. See footnote1587.1596Their question is whether or not such an action is consistent with Jewish law--meaning the Torah of the Jewish Bible, and the oral tradition of the religious experts,which was considered equally authoritative with the written Torah, and which later becameembodied in the Mishnah. First century Jews in Israel debated what the legally correct"causes" for sending away a wife were; but they did not question whether or not the wholematter of sending away a wife was consistent with the divine Torah of Israel. Jesus'questioners obviously recognize that Jesus was calling this whole matter of divorce intoquestion.1597The infinitive verb avpolu/sai, apolusai means, according to BAGD:1. to grant acquittal, set free, release, pardon;2. to release from a painful condition, free;3. to permit or cause someone to leave a particular location let go, send away, dismiss;4. to grant a request and so be rid of a person, satisfy;5. to dissolve a marriage relationship, to divorce;6. in the middle, to make a departure from a locality, go away.”It is in terms of this fifth meaning that the word came to be used commonly for the"sending away" of a wife by her husband. Most Greek dictionaries give the definition"divorce" at this point, but this is not evident from the usage of the word. All that is strictlyimplied is that the wife is "sent away," "dismissed." Whether or not a legal "divorce" hasaccompanied such a "sending away" or "dismissal" is not stated or implied by this word.(continued...)886

1599then he, answering, said to them, "What did Moses command you people?" 10.4 So then1597(...continued)Can the question mean, "Does the husband have absolute authority over the wife,being able to send her away, or call her back to himself, at his whim or desire, with the wifehaving no rights in such matters?"Whenever the verb avpolu/sai, apolusai is translated as a technical legal termsignifying "to divorce," the implication is easily taken in our modern understanding that alegal process has been gone through; but it is much more likely that this question has to dowith an arbitrary, spur of the moment matter, in which an angry husband simply tells hiswife to "get out!", and then later, when his anger has subsided, tells her that she mayreturn.The infinitive is found in the Greek Bible at Tobit 3:13 (be released from the earth);Matthew 1:19 (Joseph plans to divorce Mary quietly); 15:32 (sending away a crowdhungry); 19:3, 7, 8 (parallel to Mark 10); Mark 10:2 (here), 4; Luke 23:20 (Pilate desires torelease Jesus); John 19:10, 12 (similar to Luke 23:20) and Acts 28:18 (the Romansdesired to release Paul because he was not guilty).1598The active participle peira,zontej, peirazontes is ambiguous. The verb peira,zein,peirazein is commonly used in two different senses: (1) "to test"; and (2) "to tempt," "tosolicit to evil." It is probably used here with this first meaning: the Separatists were"putting Jesus to the test" concerning a controversial aspect of his teaching. But it is alsoprobable that the Separatists were desiring to "ensnare" Jesus by their question, thus, in asense, "tempting" him, doing everything they could to make him take a wrong step thatwould get him into serious trouble with the Jewish authorities.Swete speculates that "They may have heard a rumor as to his view of the matterand wished to verify it, but it is unlikely that they hoped to draw him in a moment offorgetfulness into a denial of his earlier teaching...Rather they expected a negative reply,and were prepared to turn it to their own purposes. It might be used to excite the anger ofAntipas, who had put away his first wife and married again...More probably their intentionwas simply to place him in apparent opposition to Moses, who had permitted divorce." (P.215)Taylor holds that "The question whether it is right for a man to put away his wife ishostile and suggests that it was known or felt that on this issue the teaching of Jesus wasdistinctive." (P. 415)Lane agrees with Swete on this latter point, stating that "The question of thelawfulness of divorce and remarriage had been the immediate occasion for John theBaptist's denunciation of the conduct of Herod Antipas and Herodias (6:17-18) and had ledto his violent death. In Perea Jesus was within the Tetrarch's jurisdiction. The intentionbehind the question, apparently, was to compromise Jesus in Herod's eyes, perhaps inthe expectation that the Tetrarch would seize him even as he had John." (P. 354)887

1600they said, "Moses permitted 'to write a certificate of putting away, and to send (a wife)away.'" 16011599Jesus appeals to the very "fountain-head" of authority in Jewish religion andtradition--to Moses and the Torah. His question means, "What is the basic teaching ofyour Bible with regards to this matter of the relationship between a man and his wife?What does the Bible, and its greatest authority, Moses, teach you?" As Taylor points out,"Jesus accepted the Law of Moses, though He claimed the right to interpret it." (P. 417)1600 rdThe 3 person singular aorist indicative active verb evpe,treyen, epetrepsen can mean(1) "he allowed," "he permitted"; or (2) "he ordered," "he instructed." The noun evpi,tropoj,epitropos means “one put in charge or control; (1) over things steward, manager, foreman(Luke 8.3); (2) over persons, governor; over children, guardian (Galatians 4.2).” Perhaps themeaning intended here is that "Moses permitted us, after having written a legal documentcertifying our intention, to send a wife away, but he did not thereby command us to do so."France comments that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 “does not specifically ‘command,’ oreven ‘permit’ divorce but rather regulates (in verse 4) the situation which results after adivorce has taken place and been duly certified: verses 1-3 consist only of conditionalclauses setting up the scenario for which verse 4 provides a legal ruling (that the husbandwho divorced his wife may not remarry her).” (P. 391) We agree whole-heartedly withthis–see our endnote of page 709.The phrase evpe,treyen Mwu?sh/j, epetrepsen Mouses, literally, “he permitted, Moses(did)...” is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, L, Delta, Psi,Minuscules 579 (see), 892, 1241, 2427 and a few other Greek manuscripts.It is changed to read Mwu?sh/j evpe,treyen, “Mouses epetrepsen, Moses permitted...”by Alexandrinus, W, Family 13 of Minuscules, the “Majority Text,” the Old LatinManuscripts aur, f, l and the Latin Vulgate.It is changed to read only evpe,treyen, epetrepsen, “he permitted,” by Theta,Minuscules 565, 2542, a few other Greek manuscripts and a few manuscripts of theSahidic Coptic (supplementary reading).It is changed to read Mwush/j evnetei,lato, Mouses eneteilato, “Moses commanded,”by Family 1 of Minuscules, and the Old Latin Manuscripts k (see) and q (see).None of these variant readings changes the meaning of Mark, except for the lastvariant which changes from “he permitted” to “he commanded,” making the statement alittle more legalistic in nature.1601The reason for the quotation marks around the words "to write a certificate of puttingaway and send away" is that these words have been taken from Deuteronomy 24:3. Inthat passage, however, they are not part of a "commandment" given to the Jews. Rather,(continued...)888

1602 160310.5 But then the Jesus said to them, "Because of the hardness of heart of1604yours, he wrote for you the commandment, this one. 10.6 But then, from creation's1601(...continued)they describe a possibility that might happen in Jewish marital relations, which would giverise to the commandment given in verse 4 of that chapter. Moses, instead of commandingthat this should happen, only permitted it to happen, and gives a law to govern thosesituations in which such a thing might happen. See our endnote, which gives acommentary on Deuteronomy 24:1-4.Lane, comments that "Jesus cut across the casuistry of the Jewish legal traditionwith a direct appeal to the Law...The Mosaic provision was made for the contingency ofdivorce, but did not in itself determine whether that contingency was right or wrong. Itsprimary function was to provide a degree of protection for the woman who had beenrepudiated by her husband." (P. 354)1602The opening phrase of this verse, o` de, ho de, literally “But then the (Jesus)...” isread by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, Delta, Theta, Psi, Minuscules579, the first writer of 892 (see), 2427, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Old LatinManuscript c (see) and the Coptic tradition.It is changed to read kai. avpokriqei/j o`, kai apokritheis ho, “and having answeredthe (Jesus)...” by Alexandrinus, Bezae, W, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscule1424 (see), the “Majority Text,” the Latin Vulgate (see), some of the Old Latin witnesses(see), the Sinaitic Syriac (see) and the Peshitta Syriac (see).The variant reading does not change the meaning of Mark, but demonstrates thefreedom of copyists and translators to slightly change the original wording of the text foranother wording, which says the same thing in a slightly different way.1603The preposition pro,j, pros, means literally “towards,” or “directed at.” Here it is usedto point out the reason that lay behind Moses’ teaching–it was the “hardness of heart” ofthe people who were practicing divorce!1604Jesus is exactly right in this evaluation. The teaching of the Torah concerning therelationship of a husband and wife is to be found elsewhere in the "Five Books of Moses"--not in this passage just quoted, Deuteronomy 24:1-4. This passage is dealing withsituations that are contrary to the will of YHWH for the home and for marriage. "Sendingaway" and "divorce" are a fact of life, and the biblical legislation is willing and able to facesuch undesirable circumstances. But the biblical provisions made for unhealthy, brokenrelationships are not by any means to be looked upon as an expression of YHWH God'swill for the home, and for the normal husband / wife relationship. Rather, as Jesus states,this kind of legislation is given "because of the hardness of human hearts.”889(continued...)

1605 1606 1607beginning, 'He made them male and female'; 10.7 'because of this a person will1604(...continued)Lane comments, "The Mosaic provision in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was in reality awitness to the gross evil which arose from, or even consisted in, a disregard of the creationordinance of marriage as set forth in Genesis 1:27; 2:24. The situation that provided theoccasion for the permission of divorce was one of moral perversity which consisted in adeliberate determination not to abide by the will of God." (P. 355)Strangely, some commentators have held that such "hardness of heart" wassomething that characterized humanity prior to the coming of Jesus, but is no longer afactor to be dealt with among Christians whose heart have been “re-born.” However, weinsist that the reality of human existence, both in pre-Christian times and in Christian times,is that such hardness of heart has never really gone "out of style,” and even in the heart ofthe Christian Churches, there are times when “renewed” human hearts become hardened,and separation and divorce become a reality that must be dealt with--and for whichprovision must be made. It is a cop-out on reality to pretend that such conditions no longerexist, or no longer have to be dealt with through compassionate legislation.1605Jesus says, in effect, "Don't look to this legislation in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 for anunderstanding of God's will for the relationship between husband and wife. Rather, goback to Genesis 1-2, where there are two passages in which the relationship of marriedpartners is given explicit treatment,” and where the will of God for marriage “in thebeginning” is stated clearly. By quoting a key phrase from each of these passages, Jesuspoints directly to them as the genuine biblical basis for an understanding of the divine willfor marital relationships. The passages are Genesis 1:26-28, and 2:19-25. Both of thesepassages are powerful theological statements concerning the divine will for monogamousmarriage, for the unity of male and female in the permanent formation of the home. Seefootnotes 1602 and 1605.France comments that “Jesus’ question was about what ‘Moses’ commanded, andthey have tried to answer him, naturally enough, from the legal materials of the books ofMoses. But the Pentateuch contains more than the law codes themselves, and Jesus willnow go on to show how ‘Moses’...offers a very different perspective, which fits the categoryof ‘command’ better than the traditional legal text they have quoted.” (P. 391)1606The accusative plural masculine pronoun auvtou,j, autous, “them,” is read bySinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, Delta, Minuscules 579, 2427, a few otherGreek manuscripts, the Old Latin Manuscript c and the Coptic tradition.It is changed to read o` qeo,j, ho theos, “the God,” by Bezae, W, a few other Greekmanuscripts and a majority of the Old Latin witnesses, thus changing from the object of theverb (“them”) to the subject of the verb (“the God”).It is changed to read auvtou.j o` qeo,j, autous ho theos, “them the God,” byAlexandrinus, Theta, Psi, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, the “Majority Text,” the Latin(continued...)890

1606(...continued)Vulgate, a few of the Old Latin witnesses and the Syriac tradition, thereby combining thetwo other readings.These variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, but simply provide asubject for the verb, making explicit what is already implicit in the text. France calls thereading “the God” a “scribal clarification.” (P. 387)1607In this theologically important, seminal text (Genesis 1:26-28), the distinctionbetween the sexes, and their being united together in a divinely blessed and fruitfulrelationship, is attributed to the divine will in creation--it is not something created by humanbeings, or an after-thought. The relationship between male and female is God-given, Godintended,from the very beginning of human existence. This passage reads as follows:1:26 ~Y" ÷h; tg:“d>bi •WDr>yIw> Wnte_Wmd>Ki WnmeÞl.c;B. ~d" ²a' hf,î[]n: ) ~yhiêl{a/ rm,aYOæw:`#rBi Wdúr>W h'vu_b.kiw>1:28 And God blessed them, and God said to them,“Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill theearth, and bring it under control; and rule over the sea’s fish, and over the heavens’ birds, andover every living animal that creeps upon the earth.”891(continued...)

1608 1609leave the father of his and the mother, [and will be closely joined to the wife of his], 10.81607(...continued)Verse 27 of Genesis one constitutes the very first "poem" to be found in thecanonical Jewish Bible, with its three parallel lines. In a unique way, it emphasizes thegreatness and uniqueness of humanity--of all peoples upon earth. "The man," or'humanity," created in God's image, includes both sexes--male and female. Humanity byits created nature includes the characteristics of both sexes--or, as Genesis puts it, bothmale and female are equally included in "the humanity." This means that woman, thefemale, has been created "in the image of God" just as much as has man, the male; thatwoman is just as much the reflection of the divine likeness as is her male counterpart. Theman and the woman are called to one common task: to rule over the created earth, askings and queens, exercising wise and diligent oversight, taking responsibility for the earththey have been given by God. They are called to be God's means of "new creation," ofgiving birth to the future generations of human beings who will share in their great Godgiventask. All of this means that for the Bible, the uniting of male and female as equalpartners in the divine task of responsible ruling over the earth is of primary importance inthe divine plan for the earth.Claus Westermann comments on this verse that "There can be no question of an'essence of man' apart from existence as two sexes. Humanity exists in community, asone beside the other, and there can only be anything like humanity and human relationswhere the human species exists in twos...A human being must be seen as one whosedestiny is to live in community; people have been created to live with each other. This iswhat human existence means... Every theoretical and institutional separation of man andwoman, every deliberate detachment of male from female, can endanger the veryexistence of humanity as determined by creation." (Genesis 1-11, p. 160)And, we must add to Westermann's comment, that "existence in community" isexistence in the relationship of husband and wife, as the God-given mates, created bydivineintention, with a great purpose and task to be fulfilled. There is no hint of any"homosexual" marriage here!1608The accusative singular feminine noun mhte,ra, metera, “mother,” has the masculinesingular genitive pronoun auvtou/, autou, “his,” following it, as read by Sinaiticus, Bezae(see), Minuscules 579, 1241, a few other Greek manuscripts, a majority of the Old Latinwitnesses and by some manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate.The additional word does not change the meaning of Mark at all, but demonstratesthe freedom felt by these copyists and translators to make such “enhancements” to theoriginal text being copied / translated.1609The phrase kai. proskollhqh,setai pro.j th.n gunai/ka auvtou/, kai proskollethesetaipros ten gunaika autou, “and shall be joined to the wife of his,” is read by Bezae, W,892(continued...)

1610 1611and the two will become into one flesh.' So that no longer are they two, but one flesh.1609(...continued)Theta, Family 13 of Minuscules, the “Majority Text,” the Latin Vulgate, a few of the OldLatin witnesses, the Peshitta Syriac, the Harclean Syriac and the Coptic tradition.Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, N, Delta, Family 1 of Minuscules,Minuscule 579 and some other Greek manucripts have this reading, but change from theaccusative th.n genai/ka, ten gunaika, “the wife,” to the dative th| gunaiki,, te gunaiki, “to thewife.”We think it unlikely that later copyists would have omitted the phrase if it had beenfound in the original, but it is very likely that they would add the phrase that is found in theJewish Bible. Whether read or not does not change the meaning of Mark concerningmarriage. The phrase has been placed in brackets due to uncertainty as to whether or notit was in the original. It is most probable that the words have been added in later Greekmanuscripts, because of their presence in the Jewish Bible.France comments that this clause “seems so central to the argument that it is hardto imagine the quotation from Genesis 2:24 being made without it. But by the same tokenit is hard to explain its deliberate omission if it were once in the text. It is thereforeprobably safer to assume that the clause dropped out accidentally (as the first of two linesbeginning with kai, kai, ‘and.’” (P. 387)1610These words are quoted from Genesis 2:25, which is part of a larger passage,Genesis 2:19-25.2.19 @A[-lK' taew> hd,F'h; tY:x;-lK' hm'd'a]h' !mi ~yhil{a/ hw"hy> rc,YIw:~d'a'h' Al-ar'q.yI rv,a] lkow> Al-ar'q.YI-hm; tAar>li ~d'a'h'-la, abeY"w: ~yIm;V'h;`Amv. aWh hY"x; vp,nn

1610(...continued)him.2.21 wyt'[ol.C;mi tx;a; xQ;YIw: !v'yYIw: ~d'a'h'-l[; hm'Der>T; ~yhil{a/ hw"hy> lPeY:w:`hN"T,x.T; rf'B' rGOs.YIw:2.21 And YHWH God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the human being, and he slept. Andhe took one of his ribs, and closed (with) flesh behind it.2.22 -la, h'a,biy>w: hV'ail. ~d'a'h'-!mi xq;l'-rv,a] [l'Ceh;-ta, ~yhil{a/ hw"hy> !b,YIw:`~d'a'h'2.22 And YHWH God built the rib which he took from the human being, into a woman, and hebrought her to the human being.2.23 hV'ai areQ'yI tazOl. yrIf'B.mi rf'b'W ym;c'[]me ~c,[, ~[;P;h; tazO ~d'a'h' rm,aYOw:`taZO-hx'q\lu vyaime yKi2.23 And the human being said, “This now, bone from my bones, and flesh from my flesh; tothis it will be called ‘woman” because from a man’ was taken this one.”2.24 `dx'a,rf'b'l. Wyh'w> ATv.aiB. qb;d'w> AMai-ta,w> wybia'-ta, vyai-bz"[]y:!Ke-l[;2.24 For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother, and he will hold closely to hiswoman; and they will become one flesh.2.25 `Wvv'Bot.yI al{w> ATv.aiw> ~d'a'h' ~yMiWr[] ~h,ynEv. Wyh.YIw:2.25 And the two of them were naked, the human being and his woman–and they were notashamed.This is the second passage that Jesus calls us to consider carefully (along withGenesis 1:26-28), as the proper biblical basis for understanding marriage--notDeuteronomy 24:1-4, which was only intended for extraordinary situations of brokenness,caused by "hardness of heart." If our heart is open to the will of God, Jesus tells us, let uslisten carefully to these two passages--meditate deeply upon their meaning and intention.It is in these texts that we will learn the divine intention in the creation of marriage “from thebeginning.”894(continued...)

1610(...continued)This second passage appears to be directed against the common sexual practice inthe ancient world of "bestiality"--in which human beings would have sexual intercourse withanimals, believing that this would somehow impart animal-like qualities (such as superiorstrength, or speed in running) to human beings, or give them magical power with the gods."No!" says this text. The animals are not proper mates for human beings. Human beingsare to rule over the animals--they have the right to "name" them, exercising in this and inmany other ways, control over them. But no animal "corresponds" to the human being insuch a way as to fulfill the divine intention in creation.But since according to the biblical story it is not good for the human being to bealone (Genesis 2:18)--YHWH God, in his unique creative power, creates a "mate, or ahelper, corresponding to him." This was, according to the biblical story, one of the last andgreatest of the divine actions in creation. The female is so closely and intimately related tothe male that this creative act can only be described (symbolically, of course!) in terms of adivine surgical operation, in which the woman is formed from the male's rib--from that areaof his body closest to his heart. The human being is so enthralled at the sight of thewoman that he exclaims, "This now! Bone from my bones, and flesh from my flesh! Tothis one a name will be called--'Woman'--for this one, she has been taken from 'man'!"(This is the second “poem” in the Bible.)Would it be possible in this kind of simple, highly symbolic story, to express the"unity," the "oneness" of male and female, of husband and wife, in a more powerful way?According to this biblical view, the wife is the "closest of kin" to her husband--they have acommon origin, and they belong to each other, just as the flesh and the bones belong tothe body--and cannot function without it. As intimate as flesh and bone--so intimate is therelationship intended by YHWH God in creation between husband and wife.The part of this passage quoted by Jesus is verse 24, and in fact it forms a“normative observation” that interrupts the biblical story. It is, according to this biblicalstory, one of the first "laws," or "commandments," given to all humanity, governing therelationships of human beings--and it underlines the divine importance of the relationshipof husband and wife, and of the home. The sentence forms a practical theologicalconclusion that the author of Genesis feels should be drawn from the ancient story of thefirst husband and wife. It is the conclusion that there is a God-given, God-intendedintimate and permanent relationship between man and woman, between male and female.Of course, according to the biblical story, there was no "father and mother" for the firsthuman being to leave. But the story is intended to be the story of "every man," and "everywoman."This "normative observation" says that the relationship of husband and wife is totake precedence over all prior relationships. A new entity comes into being when male andfemale are joined together by God. It is a relationship in which the intimacy of humansexuality can be embraced without shame--and in which the home, with its divine blessingsand responsibilities can be enjoyed and fulfilled. Meditate on that, urges Jesus. Marriageis not just some "social contract," invented by human beings to satisfy human needs. No, itis far more than that--it is a divine creation, intended for humanity, to be the source of(continued...)895

1610(...continued)blessing and fruitfulness throughout human history. Don't spend all your time thinkingabout "reasons or procedures for divorce," but exercise your intellects in determining whatit means that God joins male and female as "corresponding to each other," as being "eachother's flesh and bone," and as leaving prior relationships, to "become one flesh.” Thinkabout that. That's where the divine intention will be found.Westermann comments that "From beginning to end it is a question of the creationof humankind which is only complete when the man is given a companion whocorresponds to him in the woman. The creation of woman completes the creation ofhumankind...The purpose of the narrative is to lead to a new understanding of the creationof humanity. God's creature is humankind only in community, only when human beingsinteract with each other." We add that God's creature is humankind only in terms of theunity of male and female in the formation of new homes, sharing together to enable thecoming generations.It is obvious that the biblical story, when interpreted as the story of "every-person,"the "story of humanity," leads to a conclusion concerning the divine will for monogamousmarriage. Such a "normative observation" sets forth the divine intention for the relationshipof the sexes, of male and female. It is a relationship of exclusiveness--leaving all priorrelationships; and it is a relationship of the closest possible intimacy--becoming "one flesh"in marriage. There are certainly sexual connotations in the words "one flesh," but there ismuch more involved--it is the genuine unity, the oneness of two people who form a newentity, the home. Let that be the basis for your understanding of marriage, urges Jesus--not the exceptional cases of brokenness, as described in Deuteronomy 24:1-4.France comments that “The threefold pattern of Genesis 2:24...leaving parents,union with wife, and man and woman becoming [one flesh], provides the essential basis formarriage, and its relevance to divorce is that the imagery of a single ‘flesh’ could hardly bemore clearly designed to express that which is permanent and indivisible. It lifts marriagefrom being a mere contract of mutual convenience to an ‘ontological’ status. It is notmerely that ‘one flesh’ should not be separated; it cannot. Jesus’ comment that [they areno longer two] underlines this concept: they are no longer two independent beings whomay choose to go their own way, but a single indivisible unit...”There is room for debate over just when and now this union takes place, whether itis primarily a matter of sexual intimacy (as in 1 Corinthians 6:16, again quoting Genesis2:24), or of a ceremony performed in private or in public. Such considerations do not,however, affect the simple logic of Jesus’ quotation, or in any way modify the principle oflifelong union between man and woman in the way God intended it to be.” (P. 392)How true this teaching is to the Bible of the Jews. Is it true that many Jews (eventheir greatest leaders) practiced polygamy, and entered into divorces? Yes. But in sodoing, they were certainly not fulfilling the divine will for marriage and the home. Neverforget that, urges Jesus our Lord.896

1612 161310.9 What therefore the God paired together, let no person separate!"1611These words, "So that no longer are they two, but one flesh," constitute a conclusiondrawn by Jesus from the text just quoted from Genesis 2:24.1612France states that “The antithesis between o` qeo,j, ho theos, ‘the God’ andav,nqrwpoj, anthropos, ‘person,’ highlights the basis of Jesus’ rejection of divorce...” (P.392)1613France comments that “God’s act is expressed in a fait accompli by means of thesimple aorist sune,zeuxen, sunezeuksen, ‘he yoked together’; once the sequence set forth inGenesis 2:24 has been undertaken, the ‘one flesh’ is a fact, not a matter of provisionalityor choice. Given the recognition of Genesis 2:24 as the authoritative basis for marriage,the argument is simple and complete, and Jesus sees no need to qualify theuncompromising conclusion: marriage is for life.” (P. 392)Jesus affirms that when a man leaves his father and mother, and unites with hiswife, something wondrously new has been "joined together by God"--there is a new familyformed, that must be considered as a divine creation, and that must be protected againsthuman attempts to separate or dissolve. This is a view of God's continuing creation andaction in human history, in which God is seen as "joining" males and females in marriage,thereby "creating" the new homes that come into existence as a result.It has nothing to do with the religious backgrounds or beliefs of those so "joined"--forthe first man and woman were neither Jewish nor Christian nor Muslim--they were simplyGod's creation, "humanity," "male and female." And their uniting to form the home was hisdivine intention for them.This teaching of Jesus, rooted firmly and validly in the Jewish Bible, enables thevery highest possible view of the validity of monogamous marriage, and of the home, asGod's on-going creation. Jesus' teaching, with respect to the question asked by the JewishSeparatists, emphatically rejects their centering of their concern on the legal minutiae ofseparation and divorce. Instead, Jesus insists that attention must be centered on thedivinely intended permanency and exclusiveness of the relationship between wives andhusbands, and the fact that whenever separation takes place, it is contrary to the intentionof Almighty God.Swete sums up the teaching of Jesus in this passage as follows: "[There is]...adivine purpose already revealed in the creation of mutually complementary sexes and inthe blessing pronounced upon their union...and these constitute a divine sanction thatrenders lawful wedlock indissoluble at the discretion of the individual..." (P. 217)Luccock comments concerning marriage that "When it drops to the level of a moneyback-if-not-satisfiedpurchase, or a thirty-day trial offer of a bargain, as it has with so many,it ceases to be marriage at its true potential. With no sense of its august and solemnfinality, with no facing and accepting of that closing of doors, 'till death do us part,' the man(continued...)897

1614 161510.10 And in the house, again the disciples were asking him concerning this.10.11 And he says to them, "Whoever will send away the wife of his, and will marry another1616 1617woman, is sexually immoral against her; 10.12 and if she, sending away the husband of1613(...continued)and woman will not bring to it the attitudes and dedications necessary. Without thatelement of finality the security of the home is gone, the social fabric is torn, and the finestschool on earth for the discipline and growth of Christian character is on the way out." (P.797) How true that is! How much every generation needs to hear again this teaching ofJesus concerning the sanctity and permanency of marriage!1614For references in Mark to Jesus' being "at home," or "in a house," see 1:29; 2:1, 15;3:20; 7:17, 24; 9:28, 33; 10:10 (here); and 14:3. Mark probably means that this teachingwas not made in public, before all the crowds, but was given privately to the disciples ofJesus.1615France comments that “In such a culture Jesus’ absolute prohibition of divorce musthave been stunning, for his disciples as much as for his interlocutors. Hence their requestfor an explanation, but the explanation which follows does not at all weaken the simpleforce of his pronouncement, but rather spells out its implications even moreuncompromisingly.” (P. 388)1616The phrase in Greek, moica/tai evpV auvth,n, moichatai ep’ auten, literally “is sexuallyimmoral (or ‘commits adultery’) upon (or ‘against’) her,” means that, having sent his firstwife away, without divorcing her--just "removing her from the premises," and then marryinganother woman to take her place, means that the man (or husband) has violated hisrelationship to his (first) wife by “sexual immorality,” or “adultery.” Taylor agrees with this,stating that the phrase "...against her," "...Refers to the first wife and therefore goesbeyond Jewish Law, in which a man can commit adultery against another married man butnot against his own wife." (P. 419)Lane comments, "The new element in this teaching, which was totally unrecognizedin the rabbinic courts, was the concept of a husband committing adultery against his formerwife. According to rabbinic law a man could commit adultery against another married manby seducing his wife (Deuteronomy 22:13-29) and a wife could commit adultery against herhusband by infidelity, but a husband could not be said to commit adultery against his wife...This sharp intensifying of the concept of adultery had the effect of elevating the status ofthe wife to the same dignity as her husband and placed the husband under an obligation offidelity." (P. 357)1617The feminine singular pronoun auvth, aute, “she,” is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus,Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, Delta, Psi, Minuscules 579, 892, 2427, a few other Greekmanuscripts and the Coptic tradition.(continued...)898

1618 1619hers will marry another, she is sexually immoral.”1617(...continued)It is changed to the noun gunh, gune, “a woman,” by Alexandrinus, Bezae, Theta(with a different word-order), Family 13 of Minuscules, the “Majority Text,” the entire Latintradition, the Peshitta Syriac and the Harclean Syriac.The variant reading does not change the meaning of Mark, but is simply a slightlydifferent way of saying the same thing.1618The phrase avpolu,sasa to.n a;ndra auvth/j gamh,sh| a;llon, apolusasa ton andraautes gamese allon, “releasing (or ‘sending away’) the husband of hers, may marryanother,” is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus (see), L, Delta (see), Psi(see), Minuscules 892, 2427, a few other Greek manuscripts and the Coptic tradition.It is changed to read avpolu,sh| to.n av ,ndra auvth/j kai. gamh,sh| av ,llw, apoluse tonandra autes kai gamese allo, “should send away the husband of hers, and should marryanother,” by Alexandrinus, the “Majority Text,” the Old Latin Manuscripts f, l, the LatinVulgage, the Peshitta Syriac and the Harclean Syriac.It is changed to read evxe,lqh| avpo. tou/ avndro.j kai. av,llon gamh,sh| ekselthe apo touandros kai allon gamese, literally, “may go out from the husband and another may marry,”by Bezae, Theta (see), Family 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 28 (see), 565, 700 (see) anda majority of the Old Latin witnesses.Neither of these two variants changes the meaning of Mark; both say the same thingin slightly different ways, except that the original text is very emphatic concerning the roleof the woman in “sending away” or “releasing” her husband, while the last variant onlymentions “going out from him.”Jewish legal tradition did not consider the possibility of what Jesus envisions here--that a woman could exercise the same role as a man in "sending away" a mate, andmarrying another. Here, according to Mark, Jesus treated women as "equals" with men inthis matter of separation and remarriage.The first century Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, states in his Jewish Antiquities(XV, 259), "Some time afterwards Salome had occasion to quarrel with Costobarus [herhusband] and soon sent him a document dissolving their marriage, which was not inaccordance with Jewish law. For it is (only) the man who is permitted by us to do this, andnot even a divorced woman may marry again on her own initiative unless her formerhusband consents. Salome, however, did not choose to follow her country's law but actedon her own authority and repudiated her marriage, telling her brother Herod that she hadseparated from her husband out of loyalty to Herod himself."1619 The entire passage from the fourth word in verse 11 to the end of verse 12, o]j a'navpolu,sh| th.n gunai/ka auvtou/ kai. gamh,sh| a;llhn moica/tai evpV auvth,n\ kai. eva.n auvth.(continued...)899

1619(...continued)avpolu,sasa to.n a;ndra auvth/j gamh,sh| a;llon moica/taiÅ hos an apoluse ten gunaika autoukai gamese allen moichatai ep’ auten; kai ean aute apolusasa ton andra autes gameseallon moichatai, “Whoever then may release the wife of his and may marry another issexually immoral against her; and if she having released the husband of hers may marryanother she is sexually immoral,” is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus,L, Delta, Psi, Minuscules 579, 892, 2427, a few other Greek manuscripts, and the Coptictradition.It is changed to read eva.n avpolu,sh| gunh. to.n av,ndra auvth/j kai. gamh,sh| av,llonmoica/tai kai. eva.n avnh.r avpolu,sh| th.n gunai/ka moica/tai, ean apoluse gune ton andraautes kai gamese allon moicatai kai ean aner apoluse ten gunaika moicatai, “if a womanshould send away the husband of hers, and should marry another, she is sexually immoral;and if a man should send away the wife, he is sexually immoral,” by W, Minuscules 1(see), 2542 (see), a few other Greek manuscripts (see) and the Sinaitic Syriac (see).This much shorter reading in fact says the same thing, only in fewer words. It doesnot change Mark’s teaching concerning marriage and divorce. The variant reading makesthe role of the woman in divorcing and remarrying even stronger than in the original text.The ambiguity of the statement in verse 11 is not found in this statement, due to theabsence of the phrase "against her" [here it would be "against him"] that is found in theGreek in the earlier statement. If Jesus envisions the woman as playing a similar, or equalrole to the man in this matter of separation and remarriage, he also holds that the womanis equally responsible before the divine teaching as the man.It has been a temptation for the disciples of Jesus to turn these sayings of Jesus intoa new form of "canon law," sayings which must be taken very literally and exactly, asdefining the Christian position with regards to marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Undersuch legalistic treatment, these sayings have been used to condemn people with brokenmarriages, and to put people involved in second marriages on a life-long guilt trip. ButJesus was not giving canon law to his disciples. He was responding to a question raisedby his opponents, in order to try and get him into trouble--whether with the Jewish religiousexperts and their legalistic traditions, or with Herod Antipas, who was involved in a verysordid relationship with his brother Philipp's former wife. The Jewish religious experts hadfocused their attention on the passage found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which spoke of stepsto be taken in the event of a broken marriage relationship, a resulting divorce, and thetreatment that should be given to the divorced woman. That passage was originallyintended as a protection to such divorced women--in an effort to avoid their being treatedarbitrarily by their former husbands. But the Jewish authorities looked upon this passageas the central passage dealing with husband and wife relationships, and concentrated alltheir attention upon the legal minutiae accompanying divorce, and upon the "rights" of thehusband--with little concern for their wives.Jesus, very differently, looked upon this passage in Deuteronomy 24 as only havingbeen given because of the hardness of heart of the Jews, and points instead to the two(continued...)900

1619(...continued)great theological statements concerning male / female relationships that are found in thefirst two chapters of the Jewish Bible. These passages, Jesus insisted, show that thedivine intention concerning the relationship of men and women is that they should cometogether, to form the home, a new entity that God himself is involved in as the "great joiner"of men and women in marriage. That relationship as husband and wife, says Jesus, is apermanent relationship, which should be treasured and protected--and which should not bebroken through arbitrary "sending away.” Whenever husbands treat their wives as littlemore than chattel property, to be sent away, disposed of, at their whim, they are violatingthe teaching of God concerning marriage covenants. This, says Jesus, is contrary to thewill of God. We must agree with Luccock in his statement that "Jesus transferred thewhole discussion from the realm of ‘is it lawful?’ into the higher realm of the purposes ofGod, and the moral and spiritual realities of the marriage relationship." (P. 795)Yes, Jesus, according to the text of Mark, went far beyond this. He affirmed thatwomen have an equal right with men in this matter of marriage and its dissolution. Francecomments on this that “Mark’s second statement is perhaps the most surprising, as itpresupposes the possibility of the wife initiating a divorce, which was not envisaged inJewish law, though it was in Roman.” (P. 393) Wives are not looked upon in this passageas "legally inferior" to their husbands, but are looked upon as fully equal before theteaching of God. We agree with Luccock when he states, "The passage provides animpressive picture of the towering greatness of Jesus as a champion of women. Helooked on them not as chattels but as people." (P. 795)Neither are women looked upon by Jesus as somehow "morally inferior" to males,as if their actions are of any less consequence before the teaching of God than the actionsof their husbands. No, they are looked upon in these sayings of Jesus as fully accountablefor their actions in the sight of God. According to Jesus, both men and women as well aredivinely obligated to work at the preservation and enrichment of marriage, doing everythingin their power to avoid separation and divorce. This is where we should center ourattention--not on the legal minutiae of the provisions for broken marriages. This is themandate of Jesus to his disciples, in his constant concern for the strength and permanencyof the home.But, Jesus confidently affirms, whether it be male or female, husband or wife thatinitiates the process of dissolution of a marriage–divorce–both become guilty of sexualimmorality, violating the commandment “you shall not commit adultery!”France points out that “The basis for declaring divorce-and-remarriage to beadultery is that the original one-flesh union was inseparable, and that the purported divorcehas not changed that. It is as much adultery as if the husband had had intercourse withanother woman during the marriage...The divorce and remarriage is an offence not onlyagainst God’s purpose for marriage but against the wife who is thereby wronged. In theJewish world a man could be said to commit adultery against the husband of the womanconcerned, or a woman against her own husband, but the idea of adultery against the wifeis a remarkable development towards equality of the sexes.901(continued...)

1619(...continued)“The balancing statement about the wife who divorces her husband may reflect anorigin for Mark’s gospel, or at least for this tradition, in Rome, where the law recognized awife’s right to divorce. In the Jewish world this was not permitted...[But] for Mark’s Jesusthere is no difference at this point between men and women: if either initiates a divorce andthen remarries, the result is the same, adultery...“The practical application of this teaching in a society in which both adultery anddivorce are common and legally permissible cannot be straightforward. But Mark’s Jesusoffers no direct guidance on the problem, simply a clear, unequivocal, and utterlyuncompromising principle that marriage is permanent and divorce (together with theresultant remarriage) is wrong. Whatever the other considerations which pastoral concernmay bring to bear, some of them no doubt based on values drawn from Jesus’ teaching onother subjects, no approach can claim his support which does not take as its guidingprinciple the understanding of marriage set forth in verses 9 and 11-12.” (Pp. 393-94)No, Jesus never relented, or weakened in this affirmation. Yet, while he held up thisinfinite and demanding standard for marriage, he at the same time reached out to men andwomen with broken marriages and lives, offering them healing and forgiveness. He wasindeed a friend to the prostitutes, to the adulterers, to those from broken homes, who felthis love for them, and received his forgiveness and new life. It is an amazing teaching:“You are sexually immoral, you are guilty of adultery–but God loves you, and grants youfull forgiveness, with a new beginning.” Is it not the role of the church to faithfully upholdjust this same infinite standard for marriage and the home, while at the same time holdingforth that amazing grace and forgiveness that enables the most fallen sinner to begin lifeanew?902

Endnote: Deuteronomy 24:1-4, reads as follows:24.1 yKi wyn"©y[eB. !xEå-ac'm.ti al{ô-~ai hy"ùh'w> Hl'_['b.W hV'Þai vyai² xQ:ïyI-yKi(`At*yBemi Hx'ÞL.viw> Hd"êy"B. !t:ån"w> ‘ttuyrIK. rp,seÛ Hl'ø bt;k'’w> rb'êD" tw:år>[, ‘Hb' ac'm'Û-162024.1 If a man takes a woman and marries her; and it happens, if she does not1620The Hebrew phrase xQ: ïyI-yKi, ki-yiqqach, “if he will take,” uses the verb xql,laqach, "to take," which is commonly used for "taking in marriage" in the Jewish Bible.See such passages as Genesis 4:19; 6:2; 11:29; 12:19; 20:2-3; 21:21; 24:4, 7, 38, 40, 48;Jeremiah 29:6, and many other places.In Deuteronomy 21:10-14, there is legislation concerning the marrying of a womanwho has been taken captive in war:21:10 `Ay*b.vi t'ybiîv'w> ^d Anùt'n>W ^yb,_y>ao-l[; hm'Þx'l.Mil; aceîte-yKi(21:10 When (or ‘If’) you go out to the war against your enemies, and YHWH your God willgive him into your hand, and you will take his captives into captivity;21:11 `hV'(ail. ^ßl. T'îx.q;l'w> Hb'ê T'äq.v;x'w> ra;To+-tp;y> tv,aeÞ hy" ëb.ViB; ‘t'yair"w>21:11 and you will see among the captives a woman beautiful of form, and you will beattached to her, and you will take (her) to yourself for a wife;21:12 `h'yn< )r>P'ci-ta, ht'Þf.['w> Hv'êaro-ta, ‘hx'L.gIw> ^t

find gracious favor in his eyes, because he found in her nakedness of a thing; and hewrites for her a writing of cutting off, and he places (it) in her hand, and he sends her fromhis house;24.2 `rxE)a;-vyail. ht'îy>h'w> hk'Þl.h'w> At=yBemi ha'Þc.y"w.24.2 and she goes out from his house, and she goes, and she becomes (wife) to anotherman;24.3 Hx'ÞL.viw> Hd"êy"B. !t:ån"w> ‘ttuyrIK. rp,seÛ Hl'ø bt;k'’w> è!Arx]a;h' vyaiäh' éHa'nEf.W`hV'(ail. Alß Hx'îq'l.-rv,a] !Arêx]a;h' vyaiäh' ‘tWmy" ykiÛ Aaå At+yBemi24.3 and he hates her, that last man; and he writes for her a writing of cutting off, and heplaces (it) in her hand; and he sends her from his house; or if he dies, that last man whotook her to himself for a wife;1620(...continued)21:14 @s,K'_B; hN"r

24.4 hV'ªail. Alå tAyõh.li HT'øx.q;l. bWv’l' Hx'L.viû-rv< )a] !AvåarIh' Hl' ä[.B; lk; äWy-al{#r hw"+hy> ynEåp.li awhiÞ hb' î[eAt-yKi( ha'M'êJ;hu rv[,, (erwath dabhar (translated "nakedness of a thing") isdifficult to define exactly. The noun hwr[, (erwah means "nakedness," and is used mostly asa euphemism for sexual intercourse. Here, the phrase probably means "indecency," or"improper behavior (sexually)."The exact meaning of the phrase had become a matter for debate among Jewishteachers in the first century. In the Jewish Mishnah, Gittin 9:10, it is reported that"The School of Shammai say: A man may not divorce his wife unless he has foundunchastity in her, for it is written, ‘Because he hath found in her indecency in anything.’“And the School of Hillel say: ‘[He may divorce her] even if she spoiled a dish for him,for it is written, Because he hath found in her indecency in anything.’“Rabbi Akiba says: Even if he found another fairer than she, for it is written, ‘And it shallbe if she find no favor in his eyes...’"Compare Sirach 25:26, “If she [i.e., your wife] does not go as you direct, separate herfrom yourself.” Also, Josephus, The Life 426-28a, “At this period I divorced my wife, beingdispleased at her behavior. She had borne me three children, of whom two died...Afterwards Imarried a woman of Jewish extraction who had settled in Crete...By her I had two sons...Suchis my domestic history.”Josephus, in Antiquities 253 discusses the matter of divorce in the light of the Torah,and states that “He who desires to be divorced from the wife who is living with him forwhatsoever cause–and with mortals many such may arise –must certify in writing that he will905

have no further intercourse with her; for thus will the woman obtain the right to consort withanother, which thing ere then must not be permitted. But if she be maltreated by the otheralso or if upon his death her former husband wishes to marry her, she shall not be allowed toreturn to him.”This same phrase, rb' êD" tw: år>[,, (erwath dabar, is found in Deuteronomy 23:9-14,(verses 10-15 in Hebrew) where it occurs as a description of something unclean that will defilean Israelite military encampment:23:9 `[r"( rb"ïD" lKoßmi T'êr>m;v.nI“w> ^yb,_y>ao-l[; hnl"+-hrEQ.mi rAhàj' hy #Wxê ^åT.b.viB. ‘hy"h'w> ^n< +zEa]-l[; ^ßl. hy< ïh.Ti dte²y"w>`^t23:13 And there shall be a spade for you, among your equipment; and it shall be (for) whenyou sit down outside; and you shall dig with it; and you shall sit down, and (then) you shallcover up your excrement.23:14 ^yn ‘^l.yCi (h;l. ^n[, ‘^b. ha,Ûr>yI-al{)w> vAd+q' ^yn< ßx]m; hy" ïh'w>23:14 For YHWH your God is walking about in the middle of your camp to deliver you and to906

give up your enemies before you. And your camp shall be set apart; and he will not see anyrb' êD" tw: år>[,, (erwath dabhar, ‘matter of nakedness' among you, and turn away from behindyou.It is obvious from this passage that the "matter of nakedness" or "indecency" has to dowith physical uncleanliness, with unsanitary conditions, that simply are unsuitable for peopleseeking to put forward their best appearance, and be the kind of people in whose midstYHWH God can be present (taken in a very literal, crude way, of YHWH walking in theircamp). In the light of this last passage (Deuteronomy 23:9-14), it seems apparent that the"matter of nakedness" has to do with physical uncleanliness, with personal habits and traits ofconduct that are so "unclean" that nausea and disgust are felt by the husband, leading him to"put his wife away."Even so, holds this Deuteronomic legislation, the woman must still have her rightsprotected!S. R. Driver notes that "The grounds mentioned in the Mishnah as justifying divorceare, violation of the law of Moses, or of Jewish customs, the former being said to consist in awoman's causing her husband to eat food, on which tithe has not been paid; in causing him tooffend against the law of Leviticus 18:19 [that is, having sexual intercourse during hermenstrual period], in not setting apart the first of the dough (Numbers 15:20-21), and in failingto perform any vow which she has made; and the latter in appearing in public with dishevelledhair, spinning (and exposing her arms) in the streets, and conversing indiscriminately withmen, to which others added, speaking disrespectfully of her husband's parents in hispresence, or brawling in his house (Kethuboth 7:6)...“The Karaite Jews limited the grounds of divorce more exclusively to offenses againstmodesty or good taste, a change of religion, serious bodily defects, and repulsive complaints.“ ...That the phrase rb'êD" tw:år>[, (erwath dabar denotes something short of actualunchastity, may be inferred from the fact that for this a different penalty is enacted, that is,death (22:22); in 23:14, also, the same expression is used, not of what is immoral, but only ofwhat is unbecoming. It is most natural to understand it of immodest or indecent behavior."(Deuteronomy, pp. 270-71)In Deuteronomy 24:1, the words translated "and he will write," can also be translated"and he shall write..." Jewish students commonly took this as an imperative, commanding thewriting of a divorce for the woman. However, it may well be that this is a matter of case-law,in which each of the verbs are used simply to describe what is happening in the situation--andthat the only imperative verb should be found in verse 4, "he will not be able..." Peter C.Craigie, in his commentary The Book of Deuteronomy, states that "In precise terms, there isonly one piece of legislation in this passage, that contained in verse 4a...The verses do notinstitute divorce, but treat it as a practice already known, which may be either a matter ofcustom or of other legislation no longer known." (Pp. 304-305) Both S. R. Driver and A. D. H.Mayes agree with this.907

We think that these three scholars, Craigie, Driver and Mayes, are correct in thisobservation, and the understanding that here YHWH "commands" divorce, is mistaken.Rather, as the Jewish Bible consistently holds, YHWH intends the permanence ofmonogamous marriage, and "hates" the Jewish practice of "putting away" wives--see Malachi2:16.But still, "putting away" and "divorce" are realities of human existence, and thislegislation recognizes it as a reality that must be dealt with.What is obvious is that the legislation is intended to protect the weaker person in themarital relationship, seeking to assure that a husband cannot arbitrarily dismiss and recall awife. If a husband finds sufficient reason to "send" his wife away, he must make thearrangement permanent, giving her the freedom to be remarried. She is not to simply be "putaway," without possibility of a new relationship, awaiting the whim of her husband's desire.She is to be treated as a human being with the need for intimate family relationship, and withthe right to form a new relationship once that former relationship has been broken.The Hebrew phrase ‘ttuyrIK. rp,seÛ, sepher kerithuth, translated above inDeuteronomy 24:1 as "a writing of cutting off," means "book," "document," or "writing" of"cutting off." This is the technical Hebrew phrase used to describe a legal "divorce document."It is used in Isaiah 50:1 and Jeremiah 3:8 in this same sense, except that in these twopassages it is YHWH himself who gives his "wife" Israel (Judah) a "document of cutting off."Such a document served as the legal "divorce decree," and any "putting away"unaccompanied by this document was not a "legal divorce."Craigie comments, "If the man decided to divorce the woman, he was to write out a billof divorce and formally serve it on the woman. She was then sent away from the man'shouse, but possession of the bill of divorce gave her a certain protection under law from anyfurther action by the man." (P. 305) Such further action might include the charge of adultery ifshe entered into a relationship with another man; but the "writing of cutting off" precluded sucha charge.Later Jewish law, as reflected in the Mishnah tractate Gittin, demanded that the divorcedocument had to be signed by witnesses before it was considered to be a legal document."The essential formula in the bill of divorce is, 'Look, you are free to marry any man'. RabbiJudah says: 'Let this be from me your writing of divorce and letter of dismissal and deed ofliberation, that you may marry whatsoever man you desire.’ The essential formula in a writingof emancipation is, 'Look, you are a freed woman: look, you belong to yourself'." (Gittin 9:3,adapting Herbert Danby's translation)The words at the end of Deuteronomy 24:1, "...And he places (it)..." can also betranslated, "...And he shall place (it)," reading the Hebrew verb as an imperative. In theJewish Mishnah, Gittin, this matter of formally "placing in the hand" plays a major role. Drivernotes, "The deed [writing of divorce] must, so to say, be formally served upon the wife. Theconditions which a deed of divorce (called in post-Biblical Hebrew a tg, gheth), in order to bevalid, must satisfy, and the formalities to be observed for its due delivery to the woman, asdefined by the later Jews, are stated at length in the treatise of the Mishnah called Gittin." (P.908

271)It is somewhat typical of the legalistic nature of later Judaism that in the tractate Gittinvery little thought is given to the purpose of the legislation as a whole, with almost no concernexpressed for the safety and rights of the divorced woman. Rather, almost all of the tractate'sconcern is centered on the exact legal procedures for writing, validating, and delivering thedocument. It seems obvious that the true "fulfillment" of this legislation in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is to be found in the kind of loving, tender treatment of marriage, divorce, and remarriage tobe found in the teaching of Jesus, rather than in the legalistic approach of Rabbinic Judaism.The Hebrew verb at the close of Deuteronomy 24:1, translated "and he will send" isHx'ÞL.viw>, weshillechah, means "and he will send her (away)." It is obvious from thislegislation that "sending her away" is not identical with "divorcing her." It plays an importantrole in the divorce procedure, but is only a part of that procedure, not its entirety.It is upon the basis of this obvious fact that Walter L. Callison, in an article entitled"Divorce, the Law, and Jesus," has insisted that an important distinction must be madebetween "sending away" and actual "divorce." Callison holds that there was the commonpractice in first century Israel of husbands "sending away" wives without actually and fullydivorcing them--thus leaving them in a sort of "limbo," without the right to form anothermarriage (apart from being charged with the breaking of the covenant of marriage), andmaking of them a sort of "nobody." Callison insists that Jesus spoke very harshly of thispractice of "sending away," but never condemned divorce in and of itself. He may be correctin this conclusion, but it is a very difficult matter to ascertain, since "sending away" is part ofthe divorce process, and is apparently oftentimes used as a synonym for "divorce."We think that both the Jewish Bible and the teaching of Jesus uniformly insist onmonogamous marriage when giving legislation concerning marriage, and constantly urgefaithfulness to the exclusive and permanent nature of marriage as the divine intention.But then, at the same time, both emphasize the grace and mercy of God instead ofdwelling on legalistic technicalities, and both offer instance after instance of completeforgiveness for past mistakes, with the offer of new beginnings and new relationships for thepenitent--even if those relationships are technically in violation of the divine intention forabsolutely faithful monogamous marriage. It is notorious that so many of the great Jewishleaders of Israel did not live by this legislation, taking numerous wives (e.g., David andSolomon), or living in openly promiscuous life-styles (e.g., Samson).Deuteronomy 24:2 reads literally, in Hebrew, "...And she becomes wife to anotherman.” It is obvious from this that the purpose of the certificate of divorce was to enable thewoman to be married to another man. She was not to continue as the unloved, unwanted wifeof a man who no longer wanted her, but was to be given her freedom from the marriage vows,from the covenant that prior to the "writing of cutting off" bound her to her husband. Callisonholds that there is much more divine grace shown here (in Deuteronomy 24:1-4) to thedivorced person than is shown in many modern-day churches. He asks the question, if graceand truth came by Jesus, where is the grace for those who have suffered marital tragedy? Itis a good question for all of us to ask.909

What is foreseen in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is that the woman's second marriage may notwork--that "hatred" may replace any love that has been felt between married partners--andthat a second divorce may become necessary. This legislation recognizes that possibility, anddoes not deny its validity. Only, the legislation prohibits her from now returning to her formerhusband. The purpose of such a law is to keep the husband from being able to arbitrarilysend his wife away, and then bring her back again at his personal whim. Rather,reconciliation must be struggled for before such a divorce takes place; and husbands mustknow that once they have taken such drastic action, they cannot reverse their decision.There is no question that the words of Deuteronomy 24:4, "...will not be able," are animperative statement, a "commandment" (the only real imperative or commandment in thelegislation) The intent of the commandment is that men will not be able to carelessly andarbitrarily "divorce" and "send away" their wives. Sending away and divorce must be takenvery seriously; and once done, cannot be overturned or retracted. Such a law is given toprotect women from the arbitrary actions of cruel husbands, and is evidence of the care takenin Jewish legislation to provide for the weaker party in human relationships. That’s the point ofthis legislation, in spite of the fact that when YHWH divorced Israel and sent her away intocaptivity (symbolically, she had become sexually immoral, the lover of other men–see Ezekiel16), still His love for Israel caused Him to let her return, to enter into a new covenant ofmarriage with Him.Driver states that "The law is thus not, properly speaking, a law of divorce: the right ofdivorce is assumed, as established by custom (compare Deuteronomy 22:19, 29, two cases inwhich the right is forfeited); but definite legal formalities are prescribed, and restrictions areimposed, tending to prevent its being taken lightly or rashly exercised." (Deuteronomy, p.269)When Deuteronomy 24:4 goes on to call the woman "unclean," it means that the"purity" of the woman has been defiled, as far as her first husband is concerned. She is nolonger the man's wife, and he has no right to act as if she is. If he does, he will have become"unclean." But that does not mean that the woman is "unclean" in general--since thelegislation permits her to go and be married to some other Israelite man. A. D. H. Mayes, inThe New Century Bible Commentary, Deuteronomy, states that "The woman is defiled by herremarriage only in relation to her first husband." (P. 323)The Hebrew noun hb'î[eAt, tho(ebhah in Deuteronomy 24:4 means "somethingdetestable," "a hated thing." It is obvious that as far as this particular legislation is concerned,divorce itself is not considered "detestable" or "hated." Rather, it is the attempt of a husbandto send away his wife, divorcing her, and then attempting to take her back, that is describedas "something detestable." We may add that what is detestable is this matter of treating awife as if she were nothing more than a piece of property, to be sent away one day, returnedthe next. It is this arbitrary, inconsistent treatment of a wife that is forbidden by the law.This legislation insists that all human relationships are subject to the judgment ofYHWH--he is present in all of these matters, including especially and particularly therelationship of husband and wife. It is of deepest concern to YHWH that the home, the family,and marriage, be guarded and protected. To violate that relationship, or to endanger it bycareless, inconsistent, treacherous acts, is a "detestable thing" with YHWH!910

YHWH is giving the land to Israel, and it is YHWH's intention that the land shall be filledwith "peace" and "rest," with all its inhabitants dwelling securely, unthreatened by enemies,and enjoying the prosperity of good crops and productive animals. This is the divine "goal" or"mark" which YHWH has set for his people and their land. It was the Canaanite failure inregards to the sanctity of marriage and the home, and the sanctity of the life of children, thatthey were (after 400 years) driven out of their homeland. Israel too will be “vomited out” fromthe land, if the same condition of brokenness occurs in their midst. If the home goes wrong, ifthe marital relationship becomes broken, that will cause the land to "miss the mark," to fail toachieve the divine intention, thereby threatening the continuance of its inhabitants within it.There can be no doubt that this kind of teaching concerning the importance of marriageand the home has been richly fulfilled in the teaching of Jesus. What does this kind ofteaching have to say to modern America--especially in the great cities of America, wheredivorce rates have soared throughout the twentieth century--concerning what our brokenrelationships are doing to America and its future? It is a very serious question, and we mustgive an answer! Will the brokenness of the American home lead to America’s loss of itshomeland?911

PRAYERO God, great Father of the entire human family, we come to You today on behalf of all ourfamilies and homes.We pray for those whose families are gone from them now, and who live alone–whose onlycompanion is a radio voice, or a favorite television actor, or a beloved pet, and who constantlyexperience loneliness. We pray for each of them, Father. Make Your presence known to them;fill their hearts with sweet memories of the past. Help us as a church to reach out to them, toinclude them in our families, to make true friends with them, so that they need never feel lonelyagain.We pray for those who are seeking a mate, or contemplating marriage. Oh God, give themwisdom. Draw them deeper into Your love, and into the knowledge of Your way, so that havingfirst found satisfaction in You, they may be ready to give and receive human love in honest, caringrelationships that can last for a life-time–not in fleeting, meaningless relationships. Strengthenthem against the temptation to make quick decisions without time spent with You and Yourguidance, so that their marriage can be blessed and fulfilling.We ask You to bless all of us who are married, that we may build the kind of homes andgenuine relationships that You want us to have. Fill our hearts with compassion, with humor, withkindness, with gentleness, with patience and forgiveness. Strengthen our wills so that we willchoose to remain faithful to our mates in both mind and body–with openness of communication,with commitment to keep on loving even in the midst of disagreement, or sickness, or difficulttimes. If one has a complaint against the other, help each to bear with the other in forgivenessand understanding until both can find a resolution, and get past their difficult time. When therehas been heartache and sorrow in the marriage relationship, create within us, O God, healing andrenewed trust, and the will to never give up.We especially pray today for families suffering from unemployment. We ask You, O God,to bless our economy, that good job-openings may be created by skilled leaders of business.Grant that each person looking for work may find a suitable job to challenge their skills and enablethem to support their families.We pray for the children in our families. Protect our little ones from all danger and harm inthis often threatening world. Give our children such a powerful sense of Your love for them thatthey will have the self-confidence and strength to stand against all invitations to evil. We pray forall those who are parents–that they will be true and steady guides for those entrusted to theircare. Help parents to give their children both solid roots and wings.Bless this church, O Father, that we may be a strong and nourishing spiritual family for allwho enter here. We pray in Jesus’ name. Amen.912

JESUS AND THE CHILDRENMark 10:13-1610.13 Kai. prose,feron auvtw/ | paidi,a i[na auvtw/n a[yhtai\ oi` de. maqhtai. evpeti,mhsanauvtoi/jÅ 10.14 ivdw.n de. o` VIhsou/j hvgana,kthsen kai. ei=pen auvtoi/j\ a;fete ta. paidi,a e;rcesqaipro,j me( mh. kwlu,ete auvta,( tw/n ga.r toiou,twn evsti.n h` basilei,a tou/ qeou/Å 10.15 avmh.nle,gw u`mi/n( o]j a'n mh. de,xhtai th.n basilei,an tou/ qeou/ w`j paidi,on( ouv mh. eivse,lqh| eivjauvth,nÅ 10.16 kai. evnagkalisa,menoj auvta. kateulo,gei tiqei.j ta.j cei/raj evpV auvta,Å10.13 And they were bringing little children to him, so that he might touch them. But thenthe disciples rebuked them. 10.14 So then the Jesus, seeing, was indignant, and said to them,"Permit the little children to come to me! Don't prevent them! For the Kingdom of the God is ofsuch as these. 10.15 Truly I say to you, whoever will not receive the Kingdom of the God like alittle child, will surely not enter into it!" 10.16 And embracing them (in his arms), he was blessing(them), laying the hands upon them.Text with Footnotes: 16211621Children are fun to be with, especially when it comes to Sunday School and learningthe Bible's stories.One Sunday the children’s teacher concluded the class by summarizing, "In today'sstory about Esther, we learned how powerful are kings and queens, but there is a higherpower. What is it?" Johnny answered quickly, "Aces!"On another day, the teacher spent some time discussing the evils of drinkingalcoholic beverages, and as she finished, Johnny said, "I'm against liquor by the drink.""That's good," said the teacher. "But why are you against it?" "I'm against it because mymother's against it," was his reply. The teacher wanted to explore it further. "Why is yourmother against it?" "She's against it," Johnny said, "because she says they water thosedrinks down too much."France comments on this text that its purpose is “primarily to illustrate again thefailure of the disciples to see things as Jesus sees them... Here...the disciples...have theopportunity to ‘receive’ little children and reject it, but Jesus...receives and blesses them.”(P. 395)Before continuing with this study, please ask yourself the following questions, andsee if you can answer them:1. Why do you think people wanted to bring their children to Jesus? Why wouldn'tthey assume that he was too busy, and that he wouldn't have time for the little children?2. What good would the touch of Jesus be to a little child? Does that tell usanything about the mission of the church in our time and place?913(continued...)

1622 1623 162410.13 And they were bringing little children to him, so that he might touch1621(...continued)3. Why did the disciples of Jesus rebuke the people for bringing their little childrento Jesus? Why is that many churches do not want children in their worship services?4. Sometimes we are told that Jesus was always calm, and that he never becameangry. But is that what Mark says? In some six different places, Mark shows the deepemotions of Jesus, including his becoming angry. What did he get angry about? Do youthink we ought to get angry over these same things? If not, why not?5. What did Jesus mean when he said, "Permit the little children to come to me!Don't prevent them!" Are those "marching orders" for his disciples, in every church, inevery country of the world? What has the "Sunday School movement" had to do with this?What about summer camping programs? What about the holding of Vacation BibleSchools, or the formation of Youth Groups and Choirs for youth of all ages?6. What is the "Kingdom of God"? What did Jesus mean by saying "The Kingdomof God is of such little children"? Does this mean that the Kingdom of God is made up oflittle children?7. More important still, what did Jesus mean when he taught that "Whoever shallnot receive the Kingdom of God like a little child, shall surely not enter into it!"? Isbecoming like a little child just as important as being baptized, or taking communion? Is itmore important? If it is, what kind of legalistic requirements should the church make inorder to insure this happens? If the Kingdom of God is wholly in the future, why doesJesus speak about people “receiving the Kingdom of God”?8. What did Karl Marx, the founder of modern atheistic Communism have to sayconcerning Jesus' teaching about loving children? Do we have any "common ground" withatheists? What is it? Could it be that having children, and grandchildren, for whom wecare deeply, and whose future is being placed in jeopardy, gives all humanity "commonground"?1622Taylor, along with others, notes that "The story begins without any statement of timeor place and the circumstances are indicated in the barest possible manner." (P. 422)The imperfect verb prose,feron, prosepheron, “they were bringing,” indicates a number of(unidentified) people, coming to Jesus with their children, more than just once. Weassume that it means the parents of those children. Maclaren comments that "...Prior to allceremonies or to repentance and faith, little children are loved and blessed by Him." (P.71)Christian thinkers have oftentimes concluded that little children are "born in sin," thatthey are "hereditarily depraved," and that without the benefit of Christian sacraments, inthe event of their death, will be lost forever. Sometimes, when our children misbehave, wewonder if there isn't some truth in that teaching! But such a view of children, and theirrelationship to Jesus, simply cannot be imagined in the light of this passage. Jesus gladly(continued...)914

1622(...continued)accepts the little children, apart from any religious ritual (no baptism, no confirmationclasses). Jesus, instead of looking upon the little children as "depraved sinners," instructsus that the Kingdom of God is “of such”! We take that to mean that little children are not“outsiders” but “insiders.” They are its citizens, its representatives; they represent the idealnature towards which others ought to strive.1623The neuter accusative plural noun paidi,a, paidia means ordinarily "very youngchildren," "infants." It is sometimes used simply of "children," and is also sometimes usedfiguratively, of the "children" of God, or as a form of familiar address. BAGD gives thefollowing definitions for this noun:1. a child, normally below the age of puberty, child;a. very young child, infant, used of boys and girls;b. with reference to agec. with reference to relationship; the father is indicated by a genitive noun orpronoun2. one who is open to instruction, child, figurative extension of # 13. one who is treasured in the way a parent treasures a child, child, figurative extensionof # 1a. of the children of Godb. as a form of familiar address on the part of a respected person who feelshimself on terms of fatherly intimacy with those whom he addressesFrance notes that “The use of paidi,on, paidion, ‘little child’ (as in 9:36-37) probablysuggests quite young children...(although) it is used of a twelve-year-old in 5:39-42...Abetter indication of the age of these children may be found in the fact that Jesus could takethem in his arms (verse 16).” (Pp. 395-96)Swete notes that "Those who were brought to Jesus were doubtless of variousages, from the infant in arms to the elder children still under the mother's care." (P. 220)He also comments that "This incident follows with singular fitness after the Lord'sassertions of the sanctity of married life." (P. 219)1624 rdFor Mark's use of the verb a` ,ptw, hapto, “to touch,” here in the 3 person singularaorist subjunctive, a` ,yhtai, hapsetai, “he might touch," see 1:41; 3:10; 5:27, 28, 30, 31;6:56; 7:33; 8:22, and 10:13 (here).BAGD give the following different meanings for this verb:1. to cause illumination or burning to take place, light, kindle;2. to make close contact;a. generally, touch, take hold of, hold someone or something;b. cling to;915(continued...)

1624(...continued)c. frequently of touching as a means of conveying a blessing, especially to bringabout a healing.3. to partake of something, with cultic implications, have contact with, touch.4. to touch intimately, have sexual contact, of intercourse with a woman;5.to make contact with a view to causing harm, touch for the purpose of harming, injureWe think that here, definition 2.c. is appropriate, “touching as a means of conveyinga blessing.” As France notes, “There is no need to suppose any formal ceremony in therequested touch, and in the blessing by laying his hands on them in verse 16.” (P. 396)It is a common phenomenon that wherever a prominent figure appears, people wantto "touch" that person, and oftentimes to have such a person "touch" their children. Is thatall that is involved here? Why were these parents bringing their children to Jesus for histouch? Is it any different from what happens when a president comes to town, or theCatholic Pope--and crowds flock to get near such an eminent person, and if possible totouch him, or shake his hand, or have him touch their child?We think these parents wanted their children to be touched by Jesus, because theyknew that contrary to what other religious leaders might do, he would gladly receive them,and not be offended by their coming.They had heard of, and experienced, his attitude of openness and welcome to allpeople, an attitude that contrasted sharply with the attitude of many religious leaders, boththen and now. For some first century Jewish Rabbis, and indeed for some leaders of theworld's religions still today, including some Christian leaders, there is an obsession to"keep themselves pure," to only associate with people of good reputation and moral purity,lest they, as leaders of the religious community, should become "defiled" and be made"impure" by such associations.But Jesus' attitude was just the opposite of that. His was an attitude of tender love,openness, and welcome, to all people--especially to the despised and rejected people ofhis day, and as here, to the “smallest people,” to those without power or influence orreputation.It is of great interest for the study of Mark to keep in mind the people with whomJesus is described as having relationships. Think back over the preceding chapters ofMark.There were four common fishermen (not the best smelling of people!).There was a man with an "unclean spirit";and then there was Simon's mother-in-law, a sick, elderly woman.Mark pictured the "whole city" of Capernaum being ministered to by Jesus, including all thesick people, and the "demon-possessed." In at least eleven passages we haveseen Mark stressing how Jesus ministered to "the crowd." The Jewish leaderslooked down upon those common, everyday people, calling them the #r

1624(...continued)(ammey-ha)arets, the "rabble," the unlearned, unclean, common folks. But Jesusgladly welcomed them and ministered to them. He saw them as "sheep without ashepherd," and he gladly sought to shepherd them, teaching them, spending longdays with them.We have seen a "leper"--truly an "untouchable"--being cleansed by Jesus.Then there was a paralyzed man.We have met Louis, or "Levi," a hated tax-collector--another person considered in firstcentury society to be an "untouchable."Mark had one picture in which there were many tax-collectors and those who had missedthe mark with their lives–“sinners”--coming and eating at table fellowship with Jesus,who gladly welcomed and accepted them at his table.There was a man with a withered hand.When his twelve closest disciples were named, they were made up of the common,ordinary people, who had all sorts of problems and distorted views--Mark goes togreat lengths to make that very clear.There was a wild, crazy, “possessed” man, with an unclean spirit, who lived in the graveyard--notthe kind of person many of us would want to be around!There was a dying twelve-year-old girl;and there was a woman considered "unclean" by the Jews, who had hemorrhaged fortwelve years, whom Jesus healed and addressed as "daughter."There was a Greek, Syro-Phoenician (that is, "non-Jewish") woman, whose little daughter'slife was being tormented and destroyed by an unclean spirit–and Jesus healed her.There was a man who couldn't speak or hear, in the Ten-City area--that non-Jewishterritory to the east of Israel.There was a blind man at Bethsaida, who received his sight from Jesus.And there was a man's son who had an unclean spirit, evidently a severe epileptic, whowas completely healed by Jesus.And now, here are these little children being brought to him.Looking at that list, what should we make of it? It's such a widely assorted group ofpeople--little girls, foreigners, young men and boys, elderly women, sick people of all sorts,the very people most despised and feared by the religious leaders of his day, the onesthey looked down upon as unclean and unworthy of religious fellowship. Jesus ministeredto them all--with no discrimination, with no choosing of particular groups or classes, otherthan the fact that they were people who stood in need of his ministry! Jesus gladly crossedover all the barriers that "polite society" could raise to protect itself. He disregarded everywall of segregation and custom and tradition that the first-century world of orthodoxJudaism had erected between itself and the common, needy people of the day.Mark has told how Jesus spoke of the "New Family of God"--a "family" made up ofall who do the will of God--regardless of race or nationality, or social standing.Exclusiveness, and rejection of people as somehow "unworthy," was just theopposite of Jesus' attitude. People immediately sensed that Jesus was approachable, andthat he would welcome all those who came to him--even the most unwanted, even the917(continued...)

1625 1626them. Then the disciples rebuked them. 10.14 Then Jesus, having seen, was1624(...continued)most insignificant in the eyes of society. That's one reason they were bringing the littlechildren to Jesus.They also were bringing the little children to Jesus because they sensed, with a trueparent's instinct, that to get their children in touch with Jesus was to get them in touch withone who could truly bless their lives, and give them guidance and hope for the future.Here was one who would genuinely teach their children the truth--about God, aboutthemselves, about marriage and sex and genuine love, about pride, and money, about lifeand death--truth that would stand the test of time, and that would guide them throughouttheir youth, and their adult lives, even till the time of death and then beyond death. Theyshowed great wisdom in bringing their little children to Jesus.Parents may be able to give their children little else, but if they give their children theknowledge of Jesus, they will be giving them something far better than all the gold, or land,or trust-funds, that they can ever accumulate.I cannot help but think of my own grand-parents, and of my mother and father, whowere responsible for bringing me at an early age to the knowledge of, and faith in, thisgreat teacher and leader and savior--whose guidance has so enriched and blessed my life.Later in life, there was a time when I would stray from that early training; but it wouldn't belong before my return to reclaim that precious heritage of faith which my grandparents andparents had given me. And I pray, that whatever else I may be able to do for my children,and my grandchildren, or give to them, I will be able to share with them my relationshipwith Jesus--whom to know, is far more valuable than anything else upon this planet earth.Those parents in Judea and Transjordan had gotten an inkling of the truth aboutJesus, and that is why they were bringing their children to him. Is there any greater taskconfronting our churches today, or all of us who are grandparents and parents, than thisgreat opportunity and responsibility of bringing the children to Jesus?1625The phrase auvtw/n a[yhtai, auton hapsetai, literally “them he might touch,” ischanged to read a[yhtai auvtw/n, “he might touch them,” by Alexandrinus, Bezae, W,Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, the “Majority Text” and Origen of Alexandria (who died254 A.D.). The first order of words is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, EphraemiRescriptus, L, Delta, Theta, Psi, Minuscules 579, 892, 1241, 1424, 2427, Lectionary 844, afew other Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin Manuscript f, and Basil of Caesarea (who died379 A.D.). Either order of words means the same thing; but it is evident that the variantreading was made because it is the easier reading.1626The phrase evpeti,mhsan auvtoi/j, epetimesan autois, “they rebuked them,” is read bySinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, Delta, Psi, Minuscules 579, 892, 2427, afew other Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin Manuscripts c, k, some manuscripts of the(continued...)918

1626(...continued)Sahidic Coptic and the Bohairic Coptic. It is changed to read evpeti,mwn toi/jprosfe,rousin, epetimon tois prospherousin, “they were rebuking the ones bringing,” byAlexandrinus, Bezae, W, Theta (see), Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules (see), the “MajorityText,” the Latin Vulgate, a few of the Old Latin witnesses, the Syriac tradition and Basil ofCaesarea (who died 379 A.D.). The variant reading does not change the meaning ofMark, but says the same thing in a slightly different way, substituting the imperfect tensefor the aorist, and specifying the ones rebuked by the disciples of Jesus.We may well ask ourselves, "Why did the disciples of Jesus rebuke those parentsfor bringing their children to Jesus for his touch?" The disciples of Jesus had seen theopenness of Jesus to all people; they themselves had experienced his acceptance, hisforgiveness, and his welcome to so many different people of all ages and conditions. Whyshould they, of all people, rebuke those parents for bringing their children to Jesus? Canyou give a valid reason?France comments that “We cannot know whether any particular circumstancesprompted the disciples’ unwelcoming attitude, or whether they felt that in principle childrenshouldn’t be allowed to bother the teacher. They have already forgotten the lesson of9:37.” (P. 396)No, Mark doesn't tell its readers why they felt the necessity to rebuke those parents,but it is easy to imagine what the disciples of Jesus would have said in defense of theiraction because of the children:“Just look at them--they're too noisy! They're too boisterous! They're too young--notold enough yet to be able to understand his teaching! If we allow them to come, they'llcause many adults to get disgusted, and turn away from listening to his teaching!"Far too often the disciples of Jesus, down through the ages, have repeated thatsame negative attitude toward children. "Don't let the children come to public worship! Putthem somewhere else, where they can’t bother us! Let them wait until they are older!They're not mature enough! Don't let them take communion! Tell them to 'sit down andshut up!' Religion is for adults, not for children. Let them choose for themselves whenthey become adults! Until then, the less seen and heard of them, the better!"Have we not heard every bit of this in our own churches? That kind of thinking didn'tend with those first disciples of Jesus, did it? Beyond this, there was real concern for thewelfare of Jesus himself."He's much too busy for unimportant things such as this! His time must be spentmore wisely, in dealing with things that really matter. And, especially, he's got to spend histime with important people, with people who have money, with people of influence!"That too would have caused the early disciples of Jesus to rebuke those parents.And there is some truth behind that kind of reasoning, isn't there? Whenever a churchopens itself up to people--to all people, especially to little children, whose parents are(continued...)919

1627 1628 1629indignant, and said to them, "Permit the little children to come to me! Don't prevent1626(...continued)unconcerned, and who, as a result, are sadly lacking in discipline, that church will quicklylose much that it once counted precious and important. Instead of the quiet, dignified,stately worship services of the past, now the worship services will all too often bepunctuated with crying babies, and with the rustling of restless, unruly children. Now thechurch will have to gear itself to a different approach to teaching and preaching andworship. Noise and confusion will oftentimes replace the silence of our solemnassemblies.But the pews that once were empty will now be filled with precious cargo--with thevery children that Jesus wants brought to him.1627The verb hvgana,kthsen, eganaktesen means "he was aroused," "he was indignant,""he was angry." The view of Jesus as having always been non-emotional, always in totalcontrol, never angry or upset, simply does not do justice to such language as this. It is astrong Greek word, one that probably means "He was very much grieved." Jesus becamedeeply agitated at his disciples for their failure to understand that his love reaches out to allpeople, especially to the seemingly insignificant, little children!Swete notes, "That the nature of His kingdom should still be misunderstood and Hiswork hindered by the Twelve was just cause for indignant surprise." (P. 220) Francestates that “Among Mark’s variety of terms for Jesus’ emotions this is the only use of [thisverb], though ovrgh, orge, ‘anger’ has been mentioned in 3:5...and there is little differencein meaning. It covers both irritation at their failure to learn and repugnance at their attitudein itself.” (P. 396)On previous occasions, Mark has let us know that Jesus had deep feelings, indeedthat he could and did get angry, becoming exasperated when confronted with evil, or whenfaced with religious leaders who insisted on valuing religious orthodoxy and rituals aboveloving acts of healing and mercy. See Mark 1:41 (splagcnisqei.j, “being filled withcompassion for a leper), 43 (evmbrimhsa,menoj, “warning (that same leper) sternly); 3:5(peribleya,menoj auvtou.j metV ovrgh/j, “looking around at them with anger,” those who werecondemning him for healing a man’s shriveled hand on the Day of Rest); 7:34 (evste,naxen,“he sighed,” “he groaned” while healing a deaf and scarcely able to talk person); 8:12(avnastena,xaj tw/ | pneu,mati auvtou/, “He sighed (or groaned) deeply in his spirit” as theSeparatists asked for a sign, testing him); 9:19 (w= genea. a;pistoj( e[wj po,te pro.j u`ma/je;somaiÈ e[wj po,te avne,xomai u`mw/nÈ, “O faithless generation, how long will I be with you?How long will I put up with you?” with reference to his own disciples whose faith was soweak) and then later, see especially 14:33-34 (h;rxato evkqambei/sqai kai. avdhmonei/n kai.le,gei auvtoi/j\ peri,lupo,j evstin h` yuch, mou e[wj qana,tou, “He began to be deeplyperplexed and to to be troubled, and he says to them, ‘My innermost being is deeplygrieved, to the point of death’” as he begins to pray in the Garden of Gethsemane)920(continued...)

1630 1631 1632them! For the Kingdom of God is of such as these! (15) Truly I say to you people,1627(...continued)The reason for Jesus’ indignation was that here were his own disciples, implying thatinsignificant people--little people, with no credentials, with no standing in the community--were not welcome, that Jesus didn't have time for them. But nothing could have beenfurther from the mission and purpose of Jesus! Indeed, whenever the disciples of Jesusact in such a way as to cause other people--especially the "little ones"--to be hindered fromcoming to Jesus, rather than being pleasing to Jesus, they (or, we) incur his indignation.So, let Central Christian Church write over its entrances, and deeply upon ourhearts, the message that "All people--young or old--are welcome here!" Let our churchcarefully avoid any action or practice that would say to anyone that they are not welcome,that they are not wanted. Whether it be by attitude, or by dress, or by program, or byarchitecture--let us make it known widely and emphatically, that "whosoever will maycome!" Let us disciples take care lest, in seeking to become fashionable, we forsake ourMaster's mission on earth!1628Following the conjunction kai, kai, “and,” the aorist participle evpitimh,saj,epitimesas, “rebuking,” is interpolated into the text by W, Theta, Families 1 and 13 ofMinuscules, Minuscules 28, 565, 2542, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Sinaitic Syriacand the Harclean Syriac margin. The interpolation does not change the meaning of Mark,but only emphasizes Jesus’ rebuking of the disciples, as well as the freedom felt by latercopyists and translators to make such additions to the original text.1629Maclaren comments that although it is true that little children "...Have specialadaptation for receiving, they too need to come to Christ...The youngest child needs to,can, ought to, come to Christ. And how beautiful their piety is, 'Out of the mouths of babesand sucklings Thou hast perfected praise.' Their fresh, unworn trebles struck on Christ'sear. Children ought to grow up in Christian households, 'innocent from muchtransgression.' We ought to expect them to grow up Christian." (P. 72)1630What does this two-fold, emphatic command of Jesus mean for his disciples--a;fete...mh. kwlu,ete , aphete...me koluete, "Permit...Don't prevent!"? It means, at the very least,"Take away whatever it is that stands in the way of little children coming to me! Permitthem--don't hinder them! Do whatever needs to be done to make it possible for them tocome to me! And, at the same time, don't do anything that would delay their coming!"Yes, it certainly means "Get out of their way--let them come!"As Luccock notes, "...The hindering may be unconscious; it may come simply fromneglect to take some positive action. In our own homes we may hinder children fromcoming. We can do it by making Christ unattractive through our own example." (P. 799)In our attitudes towards little people who come our way, we may be guilty of setting upbarriers that will hinder them from coming–and Jesus doesn’t want that."Permit them...Don't hinder them!" Those are "marching orders" for the disciples of(continued...)921

1630(...continued)Jesus. Swete comments, "To exclude children from the Kingdom of God is to excludethose who of all human beings are naturally least unfitted to enter it, and whose attitude isthe type of the converted life." (P. 221) More than that–they have been welcomed byJesus into His Kingdom–and instead of excluding them, we need to become like them!Luccock comments that "The discovery of the child as a person, with 'certaininalienable rights,' has been a long, tragically slow process, and in many places hasscarcely begun...Parts of the Christian church have had their own 'Dark Ages,' duringwhich, so far from bringing children to the arms of Jesus, and recognizing that God's loveencompassed them, they regarded such at least as were unbaptized to be fit candidatesfor infant damnation...“Horace Bushnell should be held in everlasting remembrance for his ChristianNurture, which in a very real way put the child into God's family and recovered for thechurch the almost lost memory of this story of Jesus and his blessing of little children..."Cruel rebukes are still administered to those who plead and work for the children ofoppressed peoples, for the children of minority groups who are denied equal advantages ineducation with the children of majorities, for children still fed into the maw of industry...“What violent protest multitudes in the United States made against the proposal,after World War II, to bring to America some of the displaced orphans of Europe!...When aChristian organization regards its church school as a sort of bothersome stepchild,tolerated grudgingly and of necessity, rating far below the real importance of adultconcerns, it rebukes those who would bring young children to Jesus, and at the same timeshows itself fatally blind to its own greatest wealth and power." (P. 798-99)What does that imply for the future of Central Christian Church? Does it mean beingwilling to buy busses, and establishing weekly routes across the city and county, visiting inthe homes of non-church-goers on Saturdays, and then on Sunday mornings bringingthose busses loaded with little children whose parents have never, for one reason oranother, begun the Christian education of their children?If Jesus’ teaching here should be taken seriously, what kind of youth programs, andyouth activities would be involved in attempting to fulfill this two-fold commandment of ourLord? If we dared to take his words in deep seriousness, what kind of impact would it haveon our Sunday School program? How much money would it cost? If we took that doublecommandment seriously, how many of us who have never volunteered to teach achildren's class, or lead in a youth group, would have to volunteer and get involved? Howmany phone calls would we make to absent students and their families? How many visitsin their homes would it cause us to make? What kind of teacher-training programs would itcause us to become involved in for our congregation?For some ten years, one of the most exciting programs that I have ever beenengaged in was that of directing a summer camping program for underprivileged youth ofthe inner city. Hundreds of children came to our church camp on the Neuse River in(continued...)922

1630(...continued)eastern North Carolina, or to our Christmount camp near Black Mountain, in the SmokyMountains of Western North Carolina. Many of them later became church members.Those of us who served as counselors and leaders in those camps gladly confessed thatwe were the real gainers, finding that our own lives had been enriched and broadened bythe new friendships and learning that had taken place in that way. Can Central ChristianChurch do something like that for the youth of our Frisco and Collin County? What usecan we make of our facilities in order to reach and serve little children in the name ofJesus? If we take this teaching seriously, how soon will we take steps to call a “Minister ofChristian Nurture of Children” to work in our midst? I ask all of this as an open question,and as a challenge to all of us.1631Taylor comments that Jesus transformed those views of the Kingdom of God whichsee it exclusively as something far out in the future, at the "end of time" into something thatis "a gift of God and...an experience into which, if people have the receptiveness of a child,they may enter here and now." (P. 422) Do you agree with Taylor in this statement?Where do you think the Kingdom of God is located? When do you think we canenter into it? If we don't enter into it here and now, do you think we will have any real hopeof entering into it far off in the future? Does Mark mean that the Church of Jesus is theKingdom of God? If not, why not?Taylor also notes that "Of great interest and importance is the concurrence of thestatement that the Kingdom belongs to children with the command [‘Permit the littlechildren to come to me!’]. The implication is not far distant that in a true sense JesusHimself is the Kingdom; to use the word of Origen of Alexandria (who died 254 A.D.)...Heis auvtobasilei,a, autobasileia [‘the kingdom itself’]." (P. 423)We think Origen is right, and that, as this passage shows, to come to Jesus is theequivalent of receiving the Kingdom, and of entering into the Kingdom. Of course this istrue--for Jesus is the Anointed High Priest and King of God's Kingdom, and to follow theKing is to enter the Kingdom.Schweizer comments that "Jesus can speak in this way because he knows that inhimself the future Kingdom is already encountering [humanity] and taking possession of[them]...Jesus exercises an authority here which properly belongs to God alone. Hepromises fellowship with God; he promises to give the future Kingdom of God immediatelyto those who have nothing to show for themselves." (P. 207)The Kingdom of God isn't the exclusive possession of the high and the mighty; itdoesn't belong only to the folks in authority, to the people with money and influence. God'sKingdom is made up of lowly, insignificant, humble people--of little children, and of thosewho become like little children, coming to Jesus in their deep need, calling upon him for hishealing, teaching, forgiveness, and guidance.If we think we are so good, and so wise, that we can guide our own footsteps aright;(continued...)923

1631(...continued)if we think we are so powerful that we can depend on ourselves, and provide for our ownfutures; if we think we are so righteous that we don't need God's constant forgiveness, andgrace, and strengthening; then we have excluded ourselves from God's Kingdom. Wedon't need God's Kingdom--we can provide our own! At least, so we have deludedourselves!The Kingdom of God is made up of just such people as those little children whowere being brought to Jesus--who had no credentials, who had little influence, who simplyneeded to be brought to Jesus, and feel his touch. That's the kind of people who make upthe Kingdom of God!Anderson comments at this point, "Perhaps the surest clue to an understanding of10:14 lies in the truth that in the Gospels Jesus promises the kingdom to the underdogs,the poor, the dispossessed, the mourners, the outcasts, who have no standing whatever inthe eyes of Jewish religious officials. So here the kingdom is promised to those who quiteobjectively are obscure, trivial, unimportant, weak...who come empty-handed like a beggar...Jesus' statement in 10:14 comes therefore as a radical reversal of normal humanstandards of measurement." (P. 246)These words of Jesus ought to cause every one of us to do a lot of self-examination.Mark tells us that the Kingdom of God has drawn near in Jesus and his ministry. In theWord of God that Jesus both spoke and lived, the Kingdom of God was present like a tinyseed, being planted in human hearts; and one day that tiny seed would grow into aworldwide movement, bringing divine blessings to all the nations of the earth. Jesuspromised that some of those disciples who were with him there, on the road to the cross,would live to see that Kingdom, "having come with power." And indeed, they did!But the first thing that would disqualify anyone of them--or anyone of us--fromsharing in that Kingdom, is pride, or self-dependency--that false view of the self that wealthand power and success so often cause us to have. A true picture of the Kingdom of Godcan be seen in those little children who were being brought to Jesus, to receive his touch.That's the way the Kingdom of God is--that's what it's all about. If we can't fit into thatpicture, if we can't humble ourselves to come to him like little children, or if we can't sharein helping such people to come to him, if we have to stand in their way, then we simplycannot be among those who belong to and make up the Kingdom of God!1632As France points out, there are fourteen avmh,n, amen, ‘truly’ sayings in Mark (p. 397).Most students of Mark conclude that each of these fourteen sayings have to do withespecially important teachings of Jesus. “Several of them convey promises or warningsabout spiritual rewards and penalties (see 3:28; 9:1; 9:41; 10:29). Here, too, there is awarning against failing to enter the kingdom of God (compare 9:43, 45, 47)...While‘entering’ [into the kingdom of God] apparently refers to eternal destiny, ‘receiving’ it relatesmore to a person’s attitude and response towards God’s demands in this life. To ‘receivethe kingdom of God’ means to be God’s willing subject, gladly embracing the radical valueswhich Jesus has come to inculcate. It is such ‘reception’ now which is the key to ‘entry’(continued...)924

1633whoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God like a little child, shall surely not enter into it!"1632(...continued)hereafter.” (P. 397)1633Jesus teaches that the Kingdom of God is a spiritual reality which is "received," andwhich is also "entered into." That is, there is a passive "reception" of the Kingdom, andthere is also an active "entering into" that Kingdom. Strange Kingdom, isn't it? --AKingdom unlike any other kingdom the world has ever known! We can't "earn" it, and thereis no way we can ever "deserve" it. It is a Kingdom of the lowly and the humble, of thosewho have no claims to make on God, but who open up their hearts and lives to "receive"God's gifts, and to allow his rulership over their lives. That is the way, like little children, wemust receive the Kingdom of God! Jesus, the King of that Kingdom, comes to us, and toour world, and freely offers himself to us, as God's "gift." We don't have to do anything to"earn" that gift, and there is no way we could ever "deserve" him. We just "receive" him,and when we do so, we also "receive" the Kingdom of God. God accepts us, and forgivesus, and remakes us, freely. It is God's great gift to his people. Is this the way youunderstand the Kingdom of God?But there is also an active "entering into" the Kingdom of God--as we respondhumbly and with courage to the call of God in Jesus. The Kingdom of God places heavydemands upon us. We have to step out in confidence to follow Jesus in his teaching,wherever that teaching may lead us.Both that passive aspect, and that active aspect, are to be done "like a little child."Pride, and self-dependence are our worst enemies. We have to come to Jesus, and wehave to respond to Jesus in quiet humility, in gentleness, always acknowledging our owndeep need, our constant dependence upon our Father's provision. God has not called usto impress the world with our proud claims, or with our exalted opinions of ourselves. Hehas called us to receive his free gifts, and then to go out into our world as his humbleservants, claiming nothing for ourselves, but proclaiming the greatness of God and his lovefor all of us. He has given us the gift of the Kingdom, and now he wants us to go out intoour world and share that unbelievably great gift with others!Is it any wonder that legalistic interpreters of the New Testament, and of theChristian faith, have failed to incorporate this teaching into their legalistic codes? Forexample, have you ever read a church constitution or by-laws, detailing exactly howprospective members had to "become like little children,” setting forth specific rulesconcerning the necessity for becoming "child-like"? How could their fulfillment be judged?It is easy enough to ask, "Have you been immersed?" Or, “Can you repeat thecreed?” Or, “Have you performed the ritual?” But what about, "Have you become like alittle child?"Which do you think Jesus would consider the most important--being immersed inwater, or receiving little children into our arms, or becoming like little children? We knowthis--he taught that becoming like little children is essential for entering into, or receiving,(continued...)925

1634 1635 163610.16 And having embraced them, he was blessing, having laid the hands uponthem. 16371633(...continued)the Kingdom of God!1634Compare Mark 9:36-37, “And taking a little child, he stood it in their midst; and,embracing it, he said to them, ‘Whoever may receive one of such little children, in my name,receives me; and whoever may receive me, receives not me, but rather the One who sentme!’" These two passages, Mark 9:36-37 and 10:13-16 are closely related in content.Again we ask, "Why the repetition?" Is it because of slowness to learn, ourhardness of heart?1635This is the only place in the Greek New Testament where this specific verb forrd"bless," the 3 person singular, imperfect indicative active kateulo,gei, kateulogei, “he wasblessing,” occurs. It means literally to emphatically speak well of. The verb in theimperfect tense indicates that this was not a "one-time" blessing, but one that wasrepeated again and again by Jesus.1636The Greek reads ta.j cei/raj, tas cheiras, literally, "the" hands, although commonlyin English translations the definite article is exchanged for a possessive pronoun, “his.”Swete comments that "The custom of laying on hands with prayer upon children forthe purpose of benediction...finds its archetype in Genesis 48:14-15 [the story of the dyingJacob's laying his hands upon the heads of Ephraim and Manasseh, and Jacob’s utteringblessings upon them]...Such benedictions, it seems, were commonly obtained by parentsfor their children from the [head of the synagogue]...and here was one greater than anylocal synagogue-ruler." (P. 220)France comments that “There is no special ‘liturgical’ significance in the laying on ofhands: it is a natural sign of association, used often in healing (1:41; 5:23; 6:5; 7:32; 8:23,25), but also as a traditional symbol of blessing (Genesis 48:14-18).” (P. 398)1637The phrase kateulo,gei tiqei.j ta.j cei/raj evpV auvta, kateulogei titheis tas cheirasep’ auta, “he was blessing, laying the hands upon them,” is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus,Ephraemi Rescriptus, L (probably), Delta, Theta, Psi, Minuscules 579, 892, 1241, 1424(see), 2427 and a few other Greek manuscripts. It is changed to read evti,qei ta.j cei,rajevp v auvta. kai. euvlo,gei auvta, etithei tas cheiras ep’ auta kai eulogei auta, “he was placingthe hands upon them and he is blessing them,” by Bezae, W (see), a majority of the OldLatin witnesses and the Harclean Syriac margin (with markings to indicate that the readingwas not found in the exemplar being copied / translated). It is changed to read tiqei/j ta.jcei,raj ep v auvta. euvlo,gei auvta, titheis tas cheiras ep’ auta eulogei auta, placing thehands upon them he blesses them,” by Alexandrinus, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules,(continued...)926

1637(...continued)the “Majority Text,” the Old Latin Manuscripts aur, f, l and the Latin Vulgate. The variantreadings do not change the meaning of Mark, but only say the same thing in slightlydiffering ways–showing their sense of freedom to make such slight changes to the originaltext.Could there be any more beautiful way of describing the love of Jesus for the littlechildren, or his welcome to them as his disciples? How many millions of wonderful deedsof kindness, and acts of loving service to little children, have been inspired by Mark'spicture of Jesus and the little children! Here is the great King of God's Kingdom--gently,lovingly, taking the little children up into his arms, blessing them, giving them his healing,loving touch--and then commending them to us as examples of the kind of people weought to become.Taylor states that "The beauty of the story is universally recognized. To a degreewhich leaves an indelible impression in the mind of all readers, the story shows that 'hardlyanything is more characteristic of Jesus than His attitude to children' (Bartlett, 292)." (P.422)Karl Marx, the "father" of modern atheistic Communism, and the avowed enemy ofall religion, once told his daughter, "Despite everything, we can forgive Christianity much,for it has taught us to love children." (Karl Marx on Religion, p. xxvii.) Yes, indeed it has.Jesus teaches us that we must be open to, and willing to receive, the little children. Herejects all our proud attitudes, all our airs of superiority, that make us think of ourselves assomehow "better" or "of more importance" than little children. He rebukes our closedattitudes, and teaches us that we ourselves must learn from the little children--that only ifwe become like them, can we ourselves ever enter into God's Kingdom!But the wonderful thing about this passage is that it teaches us that the Kingdom ofGod is open to everyone of us--here and now--if we are only willing to come humbly--likelittle children--to "receive" that Kingdom, and to "enter into" it in humility. We are not askedto do the impossible, or to accomplish some awesome task. We are only asked to"receive," and to "enter into." That, we can, with divine help, do!927

PRAYERLord Jesus, we give thanks for the children–the little ones–whom You have given us,and in whom we experience the Kingdom of God is our midst. We thank You for every child,and for every parent who devotes their life to caring for children, sharing with them Your touchof love, Your welcoming arms. Our prayer today is for this Church, Central Christian Church,that we may become a congregation devoted to serving children and youth. Guide us into thiskind of ministry, we pray.We pray for the safety of all children who have to live with violent and abusive adults,whether in their own homes, or at school, or in society at large. We pray for children whoperish as victims of crime, especially for the more than 150 school-children in Russia, whoselives were taken by terrorists just this week. We pray for all the children who live inneighborhoods infested with gangs and drugs and fire-arms, and who are witnesses to, orvictims of, atrocious acts in time of war. Especially we pray for the children whose familieshave been decimated by the scourge of AIDS all across Africa. We thank You, O God, for allthe various workers and organizations that build orphanages, arrange for foster homes, andsponsor programs to help children recover hope and health.We pray today for children, especially in “Third World” countries, who are still todayover-worked and under-paid to satisfy the selfish demand for cheaper goods. We pray forchildren who suffer without adequate medical care, with insufficient food, impure water,inadequate clothing and insecure shelter. We pray for the safety and protection of all thefamilies enduring the violence of Hurricane Frances today.We praise and thank You for our families, with both mother and father present, andsingle parents as well, who are doing all in their power to raise their children in faith andgenuine goodness. Help this congregation, O Lord, to find ways to foster the health andstrength of families through the resources of faith in our Lord Jesus, who welcomed the littlechildren in His great arms of love and compassion. As we see children and youth coming toour church, give us the wisdom and the will to plan programs that will meet their needs, andbless their lives. In the name of our Lord Jesus, we pray. Amen.928

CAMELS THROUGH NEEDLES' EYESMark 10:17-3110.17 Kai. evkporeuome,nou auvtou/ eivj o`do.n prosdramw.n ei-j kai. gonupeth,saj auvto.nevphrw,ta auvto,n\ dida,skale avgaqe,( ti, poih,sw i[na zwh.n aivw,nion klhronomh,swÈ 10.18 o` de.VIhsou/j ei=pen auvtw/|\ ti, me le,geij avgaqo,nÈ ouvdei.j avgaqo.j eiv mh. ei-j o` qeo,jÅ 10.19 ta.jevntola.j oi=daj\ mh. foneu,sh|j( mh. moiceu,sh|j( mh. kle,yh|j( mh. yeudomarturh,sh|j( mh.avposterh,sh|j( ti,ma to.n pate,ra sou kai. th.n mhte,raÅ10.17 And as he is going out into a road, one having run up, and kneeling (before) him,was asking him, "Good teacher, what should I do so that I may inherit long-lasting life?" 10.18So then the Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me 'good'? No one (is) good, except one–theGod! 10.19 You know the commandments: 'You shall not murder!'; 'You shall not be sexuallyimmoral!'; 'You shall not steal!'; 'You shall not give false testimony!'; 'You shall not defraud!';'Honor the father of yours and the mother!'"10.20 o` de. e;fh auvtw/|\ dida,skale( tau/ta pa,nta evfulaxa,mhn evk neo,thto,j mouÅ 10.21 o`de. VIhsou/j evmble,yaj auvtw/| hvga,phsen auvto.n kai. ei=pen auvtw/ |\ e[n se u`sterei/\ u[page( o[sae;ceij pw,lhson kai. do.j Îtoi/jÐ ptwcoi/j( kai. e[xeij qhsauro.n evn ouvranw/|( kai. deu/roavkolou,qei moiÅ 10.22 o` de. stugna,saj evpi. tw/| lo,gw| avph/lqen lupou,menoj\ h=n ga.r e;cwnkth,mata polla,Å10.20 But then he said to him, "Teacher, all these things I observed since my youth!"10.21 So then the Jesus, looking at him closely, loved him; and he said to him, "One thing islacking (for) you: go, sell whatever things you have, and give to [the] poor people, and you willhave treasure in heaven! And come, follow me!" 10.22 But then he, shocked over the saying,went away sorrowing, for he was one having many possessions.10.23 Kai. peribleya,menoj o` VIhsou/j le,gei toi/j maqhtai/j auvtou/\ pw/j dusko,lwj oi`ta. crh,mata e;contej eivj th.n basilei,an tou/ qeou/ eivseleu,sontaiÅ 10.24 oi` de. maqhtai.evqambou/nto evpi. toi/j lo,goij auvtou/Å o` de. VIhsou/j pa,lin avpokriqei.j le,gei auvtoi/j\ te,kna( pw/jdu,skolo,n evstin eivj th.n basilei,an tou/ qeou/ eivselqei/n\ 10.25 euvkopw,tero,n evstin ka,mhlondia. Îth/jÐ trumalia/j Îth/jÐ ràfi,doj dielqei/n h' plou,sion eivj th.n basilei,an tou/ qeou/eivselqei/nÅ 10.26 oi` de. perissw/j evxeplh,ssonto le,gontej pro.j eàutou,j\ kai. ti,j du,nataiswqh/naiÈ 10.27 evmble,yaj auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j le,gei\ para. avnqrw,poij avdu,naton( avllV ouv para.qew/|\ pa,nta ga.r dunata. para. tw/| qew/|Å10.23 And looking around, the Jesus says to the disciples of his, "With how great difficultywill those having property enter into the Kingdom of the God!" 10.24 But then the disciples werebeing amazed over the words of his. So then the Jesus, again answering, says to them,"Children, how difficult it is to enter into the Kingdom of the God! 10.25 It is easier (for) a camelto go through [the] eye of [the] needle than (for) a rich person to enter into the Kingdom of theGod!" 10.26 So then they were being astounded greatly, saying to one another, "And who is ableto be saved?!" 10.27 The Jesus, looking at them closely, says, "For people (it is) impossible, butrather, not for God; for all things (are) possible for the God!"929

10.28 :Hrxato le,gein o` Pe,troj auvtw/ |\ ivdou. h`mei/j avfh,kamen pa,nta kai.hvkolouqh,kame,n soiÅ 10.29 e;fh o` VIhsou/j\ avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n( ouvdei,j evstin o]j avfh/ken oivki,anh' avdelfou.j h' avdelfa.j h' mhte,ra h' pate,ra h' te,kna h' avgrou.j e[neken evmou/ kai. e[neken tou/euvaggeli,ou( 10.30 eva.n mh. la,bh| e`katontaplasi,ona nu/n evn tw/ | kairw/ | tou,tw| oivki,aj kai.avdelfou.j kai. avdelfa.j kai. mhte,raj kai. te,kna kai. avgrou.j meta. diwgmw/n( kai. evn tw/| aivw/nitw/| evrcome,nw| zwh.n aivw,nionÅ 10.31 polloi. de. e;sontai prw/toi e;scatoi kai. Îoi`Ð e;scatoiprw/toiÅ10.28 The Peter began to say to him, "Look--we, we have left everything, and we havefollowed you!" 10.29 The Jesus said, "Truly I say to you people, 'There is no one who has lefthouse, or brothers, or sisters, or mother, or father, or children, or fields, because of me, andbecause of the Good News, 10.30 except he should receive a hundred times (in return) now, inthis, the present time--houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and fields--withpersecutions--and in the age, the coming one, long-lasting life! 10.31 But then many first oneswill be last ones, and [the] last ones first ones!"Text with Footnotes: 16381638Before continuing the study of these notes, see if you can answer to the followingquestions:1. What did the individual mean when he asked Jesus, "Good teacher, what shall Ido that I may inherit long-lasting life?" Do you agree with Halford Luccock that this was aproud question, that showed the mistaken view of religion which this person held?2. Was this individual the first to ask this question? Or, is this a universal question,which embodies the longing of human beings to escape the fear of death, and somehow tofind the "fountain of youth," the "plant of immortal life"?3. What did Jesus mean by rejecting this person's calling him "good"?4. When Jesus said that "No one is good, except one--God!", was that not a cleardenial that he himself was divine?5. What was Jesus' attitude towards the "Ten Commandments"? Did he hold thatthey were no longer valid, or imperative, since his new teaching and the Kingdom of Godhad come? On the other hand, did he treat them legalistically, and exactly?6. Why did Jesus demand so much from this person whom Mark says Jesus loved?If any of us desires to have treasure in heaven, do we have to sell whatever we have, andgive it to the poor? Can it be said truthfully that “The more Jesus loves, the more demandshe makes”?7. Why were the disciples of Jesus "amazed" when he said that it is very difficult forthose who have property to enter into the Kingdom of God? What did they assume aboutwealth?(continued...)930

1639 1640 164110.17 And as he is going out into a road, one having run up, and kneeling1642 1643 1644 1645(before) him, was asking him, "Good teacher, what should I do so that I may inherit1638(...continued)8. Do you think Jesus meant everything he said literally? How do you explain thismatter of "camels through needles' eyes? If Jesus didn't mean this literally, how did hemean it?9. Does Jesus teach that it is impossible for wealthy people to enter into theKingdom of God?France comments on 10:17-27 that the same issue of status in the kingdom of Godcontinues to be at issue. It “concerns a man who because of his wealth could expect to bein the front rank, and would surely have been seen as a most desirable recruit to thekingdom of God [an “apostle”?]. While verses 17-22 focus on the man himself, in verses23-27 we share the disciples’ amazement at the undiplomatic way in which Jesus hasresponded to his apparently sincere approach, and Jesus takes the opportunity todisorientate them still more by restricting further the criteria not merely for importance inthe kingdom of God, but for belonging to it at all...It is, again, all about the ‘upside down’values of God’s kingdom...In Jewish society it was generally taken for granted that wealthwas to be welcomed as a mark of God’s blessing; rabbis like Hillel and Akiba who rosefrom obscurity and poverty to wealth and influence are commended withoutembarrassment. But this quite natural valuation is turned on its head by Jesus.” (P. 399)1639Jesus is pictured in this story as being "on the way" to Jerusalem, leaving Galilee,making his way to the place where rejection, suffering, and death await him. CompareMark 10:1.1640The Greek text reads literally, "one." Schweizer holds that Mark purposely does notspecify who this individual was, and "consequently, every reader can identify with him." InMatthew he is described as a "young man," and in Luke as a "ruler." But in Mark, nothingis said of his age or position, and we hear nothing of his wealth until the very end of thestory.1641The phrase prosdramw.n ei-j, prosdramon heis, literally “running towards, one,” ischanged to read ivdou. tij plou,sioj prosdramw,n, idou tis plousios prosdramon, “look–acertain wealthy person running towards,” by Alexandrinus, K, W, Theta (see), Family 13 ofMinuscules, Minuscules 28, 565, 700, 2542, some other Greek manuscripts, the HarcleanSyriac margin (see), and some manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic (see). The variantreading does not change the meaning of Mark, but is of the nature of early commentary onthe original text, taking the statement concerning the individual’s wealth from the later partof the story, and adding in the common biblical word “look–...”1642France comments that “The combination of prosdramw.n kai. gonupeth,saj,(continued...)931

1646long-lasting life?" 10.18 So then the Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me 'good'? No one1642(...continued)prosdramon kai gonupetesas, ‘running towards and kneeling,’ suggests a degree ofseriousness, even of urgency, which is well borne out by his opening words.” (P. 401)1643The verb evphrw,ta, eperota, “he was asking,” is in the imperfect tense and impliesrepeated action.1644France comments that “His address to Jesus as [‘Teacher’] is not surprising...But theaddition of [‘good’] is remarkable...[It] suggests either flattery or an outsider with anunusually positive view of Jesus.” (P. 401)This easy attribution of “good” to other people is a common phenomenon. We liketo categorize people around us, as either “good” or “bad” people, and we usually mean thatthe “good” people are those like us, who hold to the same standards that we do, whilethose who differ from us, and hold to different standards, or no standards, are “bad”people. Jesus calls such categorization of people into question. See footnote 1641.1645Luccock states, "Mark carefully that word 'do' in the question of this young man. It isa pivot around which Jesus' teaching turns, both here and elsewhere. For this word 'do'represents one of the greatest and most persistent fallacies in religion and ethics, from thepower of which, with its crippling effects, Jesus sought to release [people]. The conceptionthat salvation, or life in its largest religious sense, is something that can be won by 'doing'any one thing, or a number of things, is completely false. The young man was on thewrong road, and that was part of what Jesus told him. He was looking for some simple,possibly new, prescription, some act to be done, or series of acts, which would be the endof all his search." (P. 801)But, we may ask Luccock, does Jesus not emphasize "doing" in his answer to thisman? Jesus does not reject his question as being misleading, or representing a fallacy.What do you think? Is Luccock’s question a reflection of his theological orientation, with itstypically “Protestant” rejection of “works” as integral to salvation? Would Luccock makethat same comment on the question asked by the Jews in Acts 2:37, or by the jailer in Acts16:30?We think that there is nothing wrong with this question–unless it implies, in a spirit ofself-sufficiency and pride, that the questioner is able to save himself apart from divinemercy and enabling (which may have been the case with this person).1646Maclaren comments that this man "...Was not afraid to recognize a teacher in Himwhom his class scorned and hated...The noble enthusiasm of youth breathed in hisdesires, his words, and his gesture. But his question betrayed the defect which poisonedthe much that was right and lovable in him. He had but a shallow notion of what was'good,' as is indicated by his careless ascription of goodness to one of whom he knew so(continued...)932

1646(...continued)little...He is too sure of himself; for he thinks that he is ready and able to do all good deeds,if only they are pointed out to him." (P.74) We think Maclaren’s comment is overstated,and that this is not a “poisonous defect.” But we do think this person is too quick to dividepeople into categories of “good” and “bad,” making sure that he is one of the “good”–seefootnote 1639.Swete holds that this matter of "inheriting" is constantly mentioned in the JewishBible, but not until as late as Daniel 12:2 does the possibility of inheriting "long-lasting, or‘eternal’ life" come under discussion. But compare Genesis 3:22, where the possibility of"long-lasting life" is mentioned, as well as being implied by the symbolism of the "tree oflife." See also in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha the following passages:"...But those who fear the Lord shall rise up to long-lasting life, and their life shall bein the Lord's light, and it shall never end." (Psalms of Solomon 3:12)[Enoch states that] “the lot of long-lasting life has been given to me." (1 Enoch 37:4;compare 40:9)"Blessed are you, righteous and elect ones, for glorious is your portion. Therighteous ones shall be in the light of the sun and the elect ones in the light of long-lastinglife which has no end, and the days of the life of the holy ones cannot be numbered."(58:2-3)[The second martyr brother states:] "You dismiss us from this present life, but theking of the universe will raise us up to a long-lasting renewal of life, because we have diedfor his laws." (2 Maccabees 7:9)[The martyr mother who chose piety better than life states passionately that herpiety] "...preserves [her] to long-lasting life according to God's word." (4 Maccabees 15:3)But we must remember that this "quest for immortality" is not at all a peculiarlyJewish quest. It is one that is as old as The Epic of Gilgamesh, as American as Ponce deLeon's search for the "Fountain of Youth," and as modern as scientific schemes to hardfreezeterminally ill patients in order to wait for a cure that will enable continued life. It istrue that the search may be ultimately fruitless; but it is also true that if there is such a thingto be found, are we not worse than fools to refuse to seek to find it?France comments that “The question seems sincere and indicates a serious spiritualquest, the search for [‘eternal life’]...The man therefore believes in life after death, but alsothat it cannot be taken for granted. He must do something in order to be entitled to it...“The man simply wants to know how he can be entitled to [‘eternal life’]. It issometimes suggested that [‘what shall I do’] is meant to betray a ‘Pelagian’ concept ofsalvation by works (compare footnote 1640, with our response to Luccock’s view), but thenarrative does not support this, as Jesus’ reply is also in terms of things to ‘do’ (verse 19),933(continued...)

1647 1648(is) good, except one–the God! 10.19 You know the commandments: 'You shall not1646(...continued)and the ’one thing lacking’ in verse 21 is equally framed in terms of ‘doing’ (selling andfollowing). Mark is untroubled by any controversy over faith and works.” (P. 401)1647Maclaren comments, "Our Lord answers with a coldness which startles; but it wasmeant to rouse, like a dash of icy water flung in the face...[His answer] rebukes the youngman's shallow conception of goodness." (P. 75; compare our footnote 1639)Swete in like manner comments, "The Lord begins by compelling the enquirer toconsider his own words. He had used [‘good’] lightly, in a manner which revealed thepoverty of his moral conceptions...The man is summoned to contemplate the absolute[‘goodness’] which is the attribute of God, and to measure himself by that supremestandard. Viewed in this light the words are seen not to touch the question of our Lord'shuman sinlessness or of His oneness with the Father; on the other hand they areconsistent with the humility which led Him as Man to refrain from asserting His equality withGod." (P. 223)As is obvious from Swete’s comment, this statement of Jesus has causedperplexity and called forth lengthy explanations on the part of interpreters of the NewTestament who insist that Jesus unambiguously claimed to be "God" [especially in theGospel of John]. The fact is that the statements found in the New Testament relative tothe nature of Jesus, are two-fold: some statements affirm that Jesus is "God," while otherstatements, such as this, affirm that he is human.These two views of Jesus are held side by side, without any sense of incongruity,and without attempts at explanation. Interpreters of the New Testament need to learn todeal openly and fairly with both sets of statements, without seeking to eliminate orminimize, or explain away any of them. An excellent example of such a fair treatment ofboth sets of statements is to be found in the work of M. Eugene Boring entitled TrulyHuman / Truly Divine.Taylor states that "The implications of the question are variously estimated...The useof the question along with the statement that God alone is good implies a contrast of somekind between Jesus and God." He mentions the following views:(1) Some commentators see an implicit acknowledgment of imperfection and sin.(2) A second view is that the question was intended to lead the man to a perception of Hisdivinity. (3) Some interpreters maintain that Christ's concern is not to glorify Himself butGod, not to give any instruction concerning His own person, but to point to the will of Godas the only prescription for pleasing Him. (4) Jesus repudiates the predicate “good” fromthe questioner's point of view, and seeks to correct the man's flattery. (5) Jesus used“good” in the sense of “gracious.” (6) While the main interest of Jesus is the man himselfand his facile appreciation of goodness, his question implies a tacit contrast between theabsolute goodness of God and His own goodness as subject to growth and trial in thecircumstances of the incarnation. The words are not a veiled confession of moral(continued...)934

1647(...continued)delinquency, but [an acknowledgment] of God's perfect goodness on the part of one wholearned obedience by the things which he suffered, being tempted in all points like as weare (Hebrews 4:15, 5:8).” (Taylor, p. 427)Anderson calls this statement of Jesus an "authentic word," because "A Church thathad reached a growing conviction and concern about the sinlessness of Jesus (John 8:46;2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 7:26; 1 Peter 2:22) could scarcely have been responsible fora statement that might have seemed to detract from Jesus' moral perfection...However, thefact that Jesus' words were preserved at all means that for the early Church, andpresumably for Mark himself, they were not thought to be incompatible with their notion ofJesus' sinlessness. They would have seen Jesus' rightful claims to sonship as residingprecisely in this that he pointed men from himself to the Father, claimed nothing for himselfbut everything for God, so that in his life as in his death men of faith could encounter Godin him." (Pp. 248-49)But, we may ask, is Anderson right in stating that "Jesus claimed nothing forhimself"? There are many pictures of Jesus in the Gospels where Jesus is depicted asaccepting worship, and where he makes very high claims concerning himself! CompareMark 14:61-62.France comments that “This tantalizing verse apparently raises an objection to theway the man has addressed Jesus, but the point is not followed up, and we are left toguess what the objection was. Perhaps Jesus suspects flattery in the fulsome address,and by stretching the meaning of [‘good’] to the point of perfection queries itsappropriateness to any man...If, on the other hand, Jesus does accept his sincerity, theresponse asks him to re-examine his idea of ‘goodness’...in the light of God’s absolutegoodness, beside which that of any human being is merely relative. That Jesus does soby seizing on the man’s address to him as [‘good’], and thus implicates himself in therelative goodness of humanity, is a problem only in the context of a formal dogmaticassertion of the sinlessness and divinity of Jesus. At the time of Jesus’ ministry this couldhardly have been an issue, and the fact that Mark and Luke record the exchange in thisform suggests that they, too, did not see it as a problem.” (P. 402)1648France comments that “Jesus assumes that this total stranger is familiar with thedecalogue [the Ten Commandments]...The [commandments] quoted represent the secondpart of the decalogue, those injunctions which govern behavior towards other people, andwhich therefore admit of relatively objective assessment. The only one that is missing is‘You shall not covet,’ which is concerned with thought rather than behavior, and so doesnot so easily form part of a moral checklist. In its place is mh. avposterh,sh|j, meapostereses, ‘You shall not defraud’...otherwise unknown in this connection (and missinghere from Matthew and Luke)...It is better seen simply as an attempt to draw out in morebehavioral terms the implications of the tenth commandment appropriating someone else’spossessions is likely to be a practical result of coveting...935(continued...)

1649 1650 1651murder!'; 'You shall not be sexually immoral!'; 'You shall not steal!'; 'You shall not1648(...continued)The commandments are given in the Hebrew order (which differs from that of theLXX [Septuagint, Greek translation].” (P. 402)Luccock comments that "The Ten Commandments were the basic requirements ofthe law, and in observing them the conditions adequate for salvation would be fulfilled.Jesus cites the second table of the Decalogue. He mentions those commandments whichhave a claim on all [people], those dealing with human relations generally, omittingeverything relating exclusively to Jewish nationalism or ritual..."It is extremely unfortunate that this first part of His answer has not been morecarefully studied and remembered by all Christians. For so the terrible excesses andperversions of Christian teaching by a lawless antinomianism [teaching that the disciples ofJesus do not have to follow the law of God] might have been avoided...Christian love toGod and [humanity] is not a substitute for the law. It is the fulfillment of the law. The moralcommandments of the Decalogue were included in all that Jesus taught. They were givena new inwardness and range, and carried into the realm of motivation (Matthew 5:21-28)...Too many people have regarded themselves as being beyond morality, when in truth theyhave hardly even reached the primary stages." (P. 802)Schweizer holds that in this kind of statement, Jesus stands in the line of the JewishSpokespersons, such as Micah, who states with clarity, "He has shown you, O humanbeing, what is good. And what does YHWH require of you? To act justly, and to lovemercy, and to walk humbly with your God!" (Micah 6:8) Anderson in like manner statesthat "Jesus appears here as one who by no means subverts the Law." (P. 249).Similar passages from the Jewish Bible which offer life to those obeying thecommandments are to be found in Deuteronomy 30:11-20, and Ezekiel 33:1-20.1649See Mark 7:20-23 for a discussion of the basic importance which Jesus places uponrespect for human life. Jesus strongly rejects the attitude of callous indifference to thewelfare of others that results in the violent act of taking the life of another person, or thecommitting of harsh, malicious acts against others. Jesus wants to make of his disciples apeople who respect and value human life, and who do all in their power to get rid of thedemonic forces of murder in human history.Of course, when Jesus goes beyond this commandment, seeking to deal with theattitudes that lead to the taking of human life, we quickly realize what a demanding, lifelongpursuit is involved in taking this commandment seriously. It is not something that canbe "done," once and for all; rather, it is a life-long program, with constantly wideninghorizons and demands that follow in its wake.1650The two commandments mh. foneu,sh|j( mh. moiceu,sh|j, me phoneuses, memoicheuses, “you should not murder, you should not be sexually immoral,” are read by a(continued...)936

1652 1653give false testimony!'; 'You shall not defraud!'; 'Honor the father of yours and the1650(...continued)corrector of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Delta, Psi, Uncial Manuscript2874, Minuscules 579, 892, 2427, Lectionaries 844, 2211, a few other Greek manuscripts,the Old Latin Manuscripts aur, c, the Sinaitic Syriac and the Coptic tradition. They aregiven in the reverse order, mh. moiceu,sh|j, mh. foneu,sh|j, me moicheuses, me phoneusesby Alexandrinus, W, Theta, Family 13 of Minuscules, the “Majority Text,” the Latin Vulgate,a few of the Old Latin witnesses, the Harclean Syriac and Clement of Alexandria (who diedbefore 215 A.D.).The first writer of Sinaiticus reads only mh. foneu,sh|j, me phoneuses; Family 1 ofMinuscules, a few other Greek manuscripts and the Peshitta Syriac (see) read only mh.moiceu,sh|j, me moicheuses.Bezae, Gamma (see), a few other Greek manuscripts (see) and the Old LatinManuscript k read mh. moiceu,sh|j, mh. porneu,sh|j, me moicheuses, me porneuses, usingthe two Greek synonyms for sexual immorality.It seems obvious from these variants that the “Ten Commandments” were nottreated by the copyists as a legalistic code, to be repeated in one exact order. Rather, thecopyists felt free to change the order of the commandments, or even to change thecommandments themselves, just as Jesus, according to the original text of Mark, also did,adding in a commandment not found in the original ten.Again, compare Mark 7:20-23, along with the appropriate footnotes on that passage.It becomes obvious from the teaching of Jesus that he wants to protect and securemarriage and the home, and to get rid of all actions and attitudes on the part of hisdisciples that would undermine the home, or betray its sexual integrity.This again, especially when viewed in terms of the inner attitudes that are involved,is not a commandment that can be "kept and done" once and for all, but is again aprogram for life, with all sorts of responsibilities and related duties involved in its keeping.1651Jesus teaches his disciples to respect the rights of all to have and keep personalproperty. He joins his voice with that of the entire Jewish Bible, and also incorrespondence to law-codes from all around the ancient world, in forbidding theft.Here again, this is not something that can be fulfilled in one simple act of obedience.Rather, it involves a commitment to a life-time of hard work and provision for one's ownneeds; along with all of the responsibilities and demands that are involved in creating asociety in which the rights to personal property on the part of all people are made a viablepossibility.1652Here Jesus refers to the necessity for honesty in public testimony, the only basisupon which justice in the public courts, and in society, can be achieved. His disciples are(continued...)937

mother!'" 16541652(...continued)not excused from telling the truth, or from giving full and true testimony whenever they areinvolved in the legal procedures of their judicial system. This again is not something thatcan be "done" once and for all, but requires a life-time of honesty and witnessing to thetruth. Compare Mark 7:22, where do,loj, dolos, "deception" is pictured by Jesus as one ofthe sources of moral impurity in human beings.1653The verb avposterh,sh|j, apostereses, the aorist subjunctive used as an imperative,means "you should not steal," "rob," or "defraud." Again Jesus emphasizes the necessityfor his disciples to respect the rights of all to the ownership of personal property, along withall that entails. This commandment is not found in the biblical lists of the "TenCommandments," and is likewise missing in some Greek manuscripts of Mark (see thenext two paragraphs). But it is found in a majority of the oldest and best manuscripts, andit is much more likely that a copyist would leave it out than that it would later be added tothe text.The verb is found in Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, a corrector of Vaticanus, EphraemiRescriptus, Bezae, Theta, Uncial Manuscript 0274, Minuscule 2427, the “Majority Text,”the Latin Vulgate, a few of the Old Latin witnesses, the Peshitta Syriac, the HarcleanSyriac and the Coptic tradition. It is not found in the parallel Gospels (Matthew 19:18 andLuke 18:20), the first writer of Vaticanus, K, W, Delta, Psi, Families 1 and 13 ofMinuscules, Minuscules 28, 579, 700, 2542, some other Greek manuscripts, the SinaiticSyriac or in Clement of Alexandria (who died before 215 A.D.).France comments that “Since mh. avposterh,sh|j, me apostereses, ‘you should notdefraud’ is an unexpected intrusion into the well-known clauses of the decalogue, itsomission in some significant witnesses is best explained as deliberate, either because itwas not recognized as one of the commandments...or by assimilation to Matthew andLuke, who also omit it.” (P. 398)One thing that is obvious from this phrase is that the Ten Commandments are notbeing quoted in a wooden, legalistic way--as if one wording, or one certain order, or onerationale for their giving, was eternally valid, without possibility for adaptation ordevelopment. As Schweizer notes, according to Mark, Jesus “quotes from memory themore practical ones from the second half of the Ten Commandments in a carefree mannerand in random order. This shows the absence of all legalistic pedantry." (P. 211) AndHugh Anderson states, "Jesus is no prisoner of the strict letter of the Law, though he doesrespect it as a clear and simple call to the God-like life for all [people]." (P. 249)Legalistic interpreters of the New Testament need to take much more careful noticeof such phenomena as this– which indicate both respect for the divine law, and freedom tore-state and re-word the divine commandments, omitting even such a commandment asthat of observance of the seventh-day of rest, and adding in a commandment not found inthe original text. This is not a matter of disrespect for the biblical teaching, but an exampleof taking it seriously, and making it applicable to the new situation.938

1655 165610.20 But then he said to him, "Teacher, all these things I observed since my youth!"1654At the close of verse 19 the personal possessive pronoun sou/, sou, i.e., “your(mother),” is interpolated into the text by the first writer of Sinaiticus, EphraemiRescriptus, N, W, Theta, Minuscules 28, 565, 2427, 2542, some other Greek manuscripts,a majority of the Old Latin witnesses, some manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, the SinaiticSyriac and the Peshitta Syriac. This addition to the text does not change its meaning, butonly makes explicit what is already implicit in the original of Mark.Earlier in Mark, we have seen the emphasis that Jesus places on respect for thehome, and for everything that it takes to make the home solid and secure. Jesus rejectseverything that would weaken the foundations of the home, especially any form of sexualmisconduct. See Mark 7:9-13, along with footnotes.Once again, it is obvious that this is not a commandment that can be "kept" onceand for all, but rather is the kind of ethical demand that sets forth a program for life, onethat entails all sorts of other considerations and demands in seeking to follow it, and thatcan never realistically be considered to have been “fulfilled.”It is obvious from this entire list of ethical commandments that Jesus means, "If youhonestly want to 'inherit long-lasting or eternal life,' then become serious about yourpersonal ethical and moral life, in relationship to the divine commandments." Is it not truethat unless we become deeply committed to living a life pleasing in the sight of God, wecannot understand the biblical message concerning grace and forgiveness?1655The aorist verb e;fh, ephe, “he said,” is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Delta, Psi,Uncial Manuscript 0274, Minuscules 579, 892, 2427, a few other Greek manuscripts andthe Coptic tradition. It is changed to read avpokriqei,j ei=pen, apokritheis eipen, “answeringhe said,” by Ephraemi Rescriptus (which reads the verb e;fh, ephe along with theparticiple), Alexandrinus, Bezae, W, Theta, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, the “MajorityText,” the entire Latin tradition and the Syriac tradition. This variant reading does notchange the meaning of Mark, but simply says the same thing in a slightly longer way.1656Lane holds that the phrase "since my youth" means since the time of his "BarMitzvah," i.e., from the time of his twelfth birthday. France states that “The man is claiminga clear conscience with regard to these commandments. There is no indication that theclaim was insincere. He was presumably unaware of the more far-reaching interpretationof some of these commandments by Jesus (Matthew 5:21-28)...The man was, and knewhimself to be, correct in his behavior on all these points. He is proving to be altogether amost attractive recruit for the kingdom of God.” (P. 403)Maclaren observed, in a typically Protestant-Christian way, that "'By the law is theknowledge of sin,' but it had not done its work in this young man. His shallow notion ofgoodness besets and blinds him still. He is evidently thinking about external deeds, and isan utter stranger to the depths of his own heart. It was an answer betraying greatshallowness in his conception of duty and in his self-knowledge." (P. 76)(continued...)939

1657 165810.21 So then the Jesus, looking at him closely, loved him; and he said to him, "One thing1659 1660 1661is lacking (for) you: go, sell whatever things you have, and give to [the] poor people,1656(...continued)But from a Jewish standpoint, he only reflects the conviction that human beingspossess the ability to fulfill the whole Torah from A to Z, something which Paul expressedin Philippians 3:6 in stating that he himself was blameless in terms of keeping the Torah.Schweizer holds that "The assertion of the inquirer that he has kept all thecommandments...is an indication of obedience and a day-by-day life with God--and theseare good qualities." (P. 212) Why then, we may ask, this eager question? Lane states that"...Behind a facade of security there was a heart which had lost much of its security." (P.366)1657France comments that the verb evmble,pw, emblepo, “denotes a searching look (see14:67); so far he has passed Jesus’ careful scrutiny, and Jesus is duly impressed. Thefinal demand is not meant to be a means of putting him off: Jesus wants him on board.”(P. 403)1658Maclaren comments, "...Let us be thankful for the love that shone in Christ's eyes asHe looked on him. We may blame; He loved." (P. 77) Luccock comments, "This man ofsincerity and faithfulness, giving evidence of a reaching out for more than he hadexperienced, was wonderful material for a disciple. The potential was high. So Jesusloved him with a creative love, with a vision of what he might be..." (P. 223)What do you think? If Jesus really loved this person, would he have placed such ahigh, impossible demand upon him? Was that an expression of love? Do parents whotruly love their children allow them to be satisfied with something less than their best?France comments that “The comment (by Mark only) that Jesus [‘loved him’]eliminates any suggestion that the man’s profession is insincere and that Jesus has beenengaged in unmasking hypocrisy.” (P. 403)1659France translates “Fails you,” or “lets you down.” (P. 403)Luccock comments on this statement concerning this young man's lack, "Jesus...inpointing the way to the Kingdom of God, goes far beyond the requirements of the law. It isas though he said: 'Observing the law will make you an upright, decent citizen of Israel.But if you would be my disciple, you lack something.' That is a vital distinction oftenoverlooked."It has been a source of immense weakness in the church that so many of itsmembers have been upright, decent citizens, but have never gone on to become disciples(continued...)940

1659(...continued)of Jesus, with His peculiar flavor of love and the self-giving that counts not its life dear toitself. The definitions of the word 'Christian' in Webster's dictionary make the point clear.One of the definitions is, ironically enough, 'a decent, civilized, or presentable person'...It isthe definition that all too many Christians accept--then try to live up to it! On that level, forthose who fail to see the heights beyond, or to attempt them, Jesus' words are relevant:'you lack one thing.'" (P. 802)1660The dative plural definite article toi/j, tois, “to the (poor people),” is read bySinaiticus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, Theta, Uncial Manuscript 0274, Family 1 ofMinuscules, Minuscules 28, 565, 892, 2427, Lectionaries 844, 2211 and some other Greekmanuscripts. The article is omitted by Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, W, Psi, Family 13 ofMinuscules, the “Majority Text” and by Clement of Alexandria (who died before 215 A.D.).Whether read or not makes no difference for the meaning of Mark, but reminds us of thecontinuing difference among Greek writers as to the definite article should be used beforenouns and names.1661France comments that “The ‘one thing’ is expressed in unequivocal terms: two aoristimperatives [‘sell!,’ ‘give!’] prescribe a single, complete disinvestment and donation...” (P.403)Maclaren comments, "...Christ's love is firm, can be severe. It never pares down Hisrequirements to make discipleship easier. Rather it attracts by heightening them, andinsisting most strenuously on the most difficult surrender...We may be sure that it was thisman's money which stood between him and eternal life. If something else had been hischief temptation, that something would have been signalized as needful to be given up.There is no general principle of conduct laid down here, but a specific injunctiondetermined by the individual's character. All diseases are not treated with the samemedicines. The command is but Christ's application of His broad requirement, 'If thine eyecauseth thee to stumble, pluck it out.' The principle involved is, surrender what hindersentire following of Jesus."Swete comments, in like fashion, that "The words are not a general counsel ofperfection, but a test of obedience and faith which the Lord saw to be necessary in thisparticular case. The demand of the Divine Lover of souls varies with the spiritual conditionof the individual." (P. 226) He tells the story of St. Anthony, the Egyptian hermit who,upon hearing this passage read in church, went out immediately, gave all his inheritanceand possessions to the poor, and began his life as a hermit. Swete holds that "The selfsacrificewhich the Lord imposed on this wealthy inquirer asserts in principle the duty of therich to minister to the poor; the particular form which their ministry must take varies with thesocial conditions of the age." (P. 226)Luccock aptly comments, "It would be easy, and sad, to imagine how many a skillfulecclesiastic would have 'handled' this 'prospect.' We can almost hear the unspoken wordsbehind the ingratiating smile: 'There is no use to alienate a man of his stature. He will be(continued...)941

1662 1663and you will have treasure in heaven! And come, follow me!" 10.22 But then he,1661(...continued)a great addition to our strength. We will put him right on the board of trustees. He willmake a good chairman of the finance committee." It is rather difficult to bring such a line ofreasoning into accord with Jesus' words. Christ 'lost his man,' but he did not lose hisgospel. And what shall it profit a church if it gain all the rich people in the world and lose itsown message?" (P. 804)Schweizer notes, that "Jesus prescribes no rules which might apply to everyone.For one person it is a fishing boat or a tax collector's desk which must be abandoned. Foranother person it is his parents, or it may be a prophet (John 1:35-37, 46) or somereligious preconception which must be forsaken. There is simply no other way whereby itis possible to be close to Jesus...The call to discipleship is always a matter of totalcommitment. It involves a divine call which gives while it makes demands." (P. 212)1662France comments that “The renunciation is presented not as something simply goodin itself, but as the means to a far better end. It is all a matter of perspective.” (P. 403)Of course, the "treasures in heaven" are in contrast to "earthly treasures." CompareMatthew 6:19-21; Luke 12:32-34; Revelation 3:17-18. Lane holds that "The assurance of'treasure in heaven' reflects an idiom that was current in Judaism [Tosephtah Peah IV. 18,where the King of Adiabene replies to the accusation that he has given away too much ofhis wealth, ‘I need to accumulate an imperishable treasure for the age to come’], whichallowed Jesus to enter into the thought world of his contemporaries." (P. 367)1663At the close of verse 21, the phrase (originating in Mark 8:34) a,vraj to.n stauro.n,aras ton stauron (+ sou/, sou, “of yours,” W, Family 1 of Minuscules and a few other Greekmanuscripts), “taking the execution-post (+ of yours),” is interpolated into the text byAlexandrinus; in a different word-order by W (see), Families 1 (see) and 13 (see) ofMinuscules, Minuscule 2542 (see); the “Majority Text,” the Old Latin Manuscripts a (see),q, the Syriac tradition, some manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic (see) and somemanuscripts of the Bohairic Coptic. The witnesses not reading this phrase includeSinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, Delta, Theta, Psi, Uncial Manuscript0274, Minuscules 565, 579, 892, 2427, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate, afew of the Old Latin witnesses, a few manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic, the Bohairic Copticand Clement of Alexandria (who died before 215 A.D.).We think this interpolation is of the nature of early, pious commentary on the originaltext, that does not change the meaning of Mark, but seeks to enhance it by adding materialtaken from elsewhere in the original of Mark. France states that “The addition...looks verymuch like a ‘moralizing’ expansion.” (P. 398)France comments that the imperative phrase, “Come, follow me!” “sets a new(continued...)942

1664 1665shocked over the saying went away sorrowing, for he was one having many1663(...continued)course for the future. Jesus is asking not only for renunciation of possessions but also fora total change in his life-style: he is to join the itinerant group of Jesus’ closest disciples,with their communal resources and dependence on the material support of others.” (P.403)Swete calls this "The final test of character, proposed to all candidates for eternallife..." (P. 227) But it seems much better to see this as Jesus' invitation to this person tocome and join the close circle of his disciples, to share with Peter and Andrew, Jacob andJohn, and the others, in their self-giving journey to the cross in Jerusalem. Lanecomments, "Jesus' demand is radical in character. He claims the man utterly andcompletely, and orders the removal of every other support which could interfere with anunconditional obedience. The terms defined by Jesus clarify what following signifies(compare 10:28), and indicate that Jesus himself is the one answer to the man's quest forlife." (P. 368)Luccock comments that Jesus' answer constitutes the "cue" for those who feel theyknow the Christian answer to a world's need. "Let them drop the note of apology and givethat answer with clarity and confidence as Jesus did. It will prove to be a translation intoterms of contemporary meaning of Christ's own words--lack, go, sell, give, come, follow.For those tremendous verbs are stairs ascending into life...There is a universal principle inHis words which is quite capable of universal application. Every disciple has need to getbeyond the careful caution of negative avoidance into the unmeasured giving of self inpositive devotion. Every disciple has need to get beyond the seeking of personal good,until his life overflows into the lives of others. Most of all, every disciple has need to belifted by a great loyalty to Christ into headlong absorption in his cause. We need to getout of the concerns of an ethical book-keeping into the deep joy of love. We need to beswept off our feet by a new affection." (P. 804)1664The aorist participle stugna,saj, stugnasas means "being shocked," but it also canmean "becoming gloomy, dark."France holds that it denotes anger in some passages in the Greek translation of theHebrew Bible, and in some others denotes being “appalled.” He thinks that it “perhapssuggests physical appearance which betrays emotion...His face clouded.” (P. 403) Swetecomments that "As he heard the sentence, his brow clouded over...the light-heartedoptimism of his mood broke down...The answer did not exasperate, but it gave him painwhich was visible on his countenance...His hopes were dashed; the one thing he yetwanted was beyond his reach; the price was too great to pay even foreternal life." (P. 227)For occurrences of this verb, see: Ezekiel 27:35; 28:19 and 32:10 (all threepassages very similar, translating the Hebrew verb ~mv, shamam, “be appalled”); also943(continued...)

possessions. 1666166710.23 And looking around, the Jesus says to the disciples of his, "With how great1668 1669difficulty will those having property enter into the Kingdom of the God!" 10.24 But then the1664(...continued)Matthew 16:3 (an overcast sky) and here, Mark 10:22. For the noun stugno,j, stugnos,see: Isaiah 57:17; Daniel 2:12 and Wisdom 17:5.1665Luccock asks what it was that this man lost, when he went away sorrowing. Hisanswer is that "He missed a great friendship. What else in all human history couldcompare to that prize, an elbow-to-elbow companionship with Jesus, hearing him, seeinghim, being loved by him? He missed a great development. Think what the men whoaccepted Jesus' invitation became!...This man might have grown out of provincialownership into universal sainthood. He missed a great adventure. When he saw the littlegroup of disciples disappear down the road, he did not know that they were walking directlyinto the center of the greatest romance in history. He might have been the author of agospel. His influence might have endured to the end of time but for a few acres and a fewbags of gold!" (P. 805)1666Maclaren comments, "Like so many of us, he says, 'I desire eternal life,' but when itcomes to giving up the dearest thing he recoils. 'Anything else, Lord, thou shalt have, andwelcome, but not that.' And Christ says, 'That, and nothing else, I must have, if thou art tohave Me.' So this man 'went away sorrowful.' His earnestness evaporated; he kept hispossessions, and he lost Christ." (P. 78) Lane comments, "This action demonstrated howeasy it was [we must add, and is!] to become so attached to wealth that even an earnestman forgets what is infinitely more important." (P. 369)1667France notes that “We might have expected an immediate protest from the disciplesover Jesus’ intransigent and unrealistic attitude which has led to the loss of this verydesirable recruit, but Jesus himself seizes the initiative and articulates their unspokenshock.” (P. 404)Schweizer comments, "Mark wants to stress that what follows applies to everydisciple, and wants to declare that at the present time Jesus is soliciting the assent of thereader also." (P. 213)1668 The phrase (found basically in the original text at verse 25), ta,cion ka,mhloj dia.trumali,doj ràfi,doj dieleu,setai hv . plou,sioj eivj th.n basilei,an tou/ qeou/, tachionkamelos dia trumalidos hraphidos dieleusetai e plousios eis ten basileian tou theou (+omission of verse 25), literally, “sooner a camel through a needle’s eye will go through thana wealthy person into the Kingdom of the God,” is interpolated into the text at this point byBezae and the Old Latin Manuscripts a, b, and ff2. This variant reading does not changethe meaning of Mark, but is a marked change in the text.(continued...)944

1670disciples were being amazed over the words of his. So then the Jesus, again answering says1668(...continued)Swete asks the interesting question, "What manner of kingdom was this which menmust become as children to enter (verse 15), and which men of substance could scarcelyenter at all?" (P. 228)Maclaren comments, "Riches may become a hindrance to entering the kingdom.They do so when they take the first place in the affections and in the estimates of good.That danger besets those who have them and those who have them not. Many a poor[person] is as much caught in the toils of the love of money as the rich are...[But, Maclarenadds,] rich men's disadvantages as to living a self-sacrificing Christian life are great. ToChrist's eyes, their position was one to be dreaded rather than to be envied." (P.79)In like manner, Luccock comments, "Abundance is an enemy to the 'abundant life.'The hazard of wealth lies in the fact that means have a subtle way of becoming ends.Having become a substitute for being, riches can imprison a [person] in a world of illusions.He develops a false sense of security. The essential attributes of the children of thekingdom become exceedingly difficult to attain or preserve. The sense of dependenceatrophies. Prestige destroys perspective and creates the illusion of being a very importantperson, a 'V.I.P.'...The center of gravity moves from personality to power, and personalityshrinks in the process."But Luccock goes on to note "What devious rationalizations are continually used todull the edge of this saying of Jesus on the spiritual dangers of wealth! What violent handsare laid on his words to keep them from coming into violent collision with the nationalreligion of profit making, and the pagan worship of riches! Until we get over ourastonishment, and begin to share his convictions that the lust to possess is a threat to thehuman soul, we shall be strangers both to this teaching and to his spirit." (P. 806)France simply comments, “Possessions, far from being the advantage which theworld assumes, are in themselves an obstacle to entering God’s kingdom.” (P. 404)1669France comments on verses 24-25 that “The disciples, already dismayed by theexperience of the rich man, are even more taken aback by Jesus’ generalization from it.His further comment only makes matters worse, first by repeating the same declaration,but then by adding to it an epigram [a concise, clever, and often paradoxical statement]which makes the entry of the rich into God’s kingdom not only difficult but impossible.” (P.404)1670The imperfect tense implies that it was no momentary amazement, that onlyhappened once, and then ended, but it was an amazement that lasted, that came againand again over this saying. Schweizer holds that this is an indication that the disciplesrecognize that they are being confronted by divine demands in this saying of Jesus--see p.213. "Whenever God becomes a reality, his greatness becomes so overpowering that itterrifies [human beings]."(continued...)945

1671 1672 1673to them, "Children, how difficult it is to enter into the Kingdom of the God! 10.25 It is1670(...continued)Lane comments that "In Judaism it was inconceivable that riches should be a barrierto the Kingdom, since a significant strand of Old Testament teaching regarded wealth andsubstance as marks of God's favor (for example, Job 1:10; 42:10; Psalm 128:1-4; Isaiah3:10, and often)." (P. 369)1671Swete comments, "The Lord, in sympathy with their growing perplexity, adopts atone of unusual tenderness. Yet He repeats His hard saying...and this time removes thequalifying reference to the rich..." (P. 228)France points out that Jesus’ address to his disciples as te,kna, tekna, “children,” isfound only here in Mark (and not in the other Gospels), “and is best understood as acolloquial and affectionate epithet for his close companions, ‘lads.’” (P. 404) Weoftentimes assume that the close associates of Jesus were grown men, adults. But it maywell be that they were much younger than Jesus, perhaps only teen-agers, for whom suchlanguage would be especially fitting.1672The phrase tou.j pepoiqo,taj evpi, tous pepoithotas epi (+ toi/j, tois, read by Bezae,Theta, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 28, 565 and some other Greekmanuscripts) crh,masin, chremasin, “those having placed confidence upon (the)possessions,” is interpolated at this point in the text by Alexandrinus, EphraemiRescriptus, Bezae, Theta, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscule 2427, the “MajorityText,” the Latin Vulgate, a few of the Old Latin witnesses, the Bohairic Coptic (in part) andby Clement of Alexandria (who died before 215 A.D.). The text without this interpolation isread by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, W (see–it adds the accusative noun plou,sion, plousion, “awealthy person,” after the verb eivseleu,sontai, eiseleusontai, “they will enter in”), Delta,Psi, the Old Latin Manuscript k, the Sahidic Coptic and the Bohairic Coptic (in part).Obviously, the statement, as originally given in Mark, was considered too sweepingan indictment, one with which the later Church felt uncomfortable, and which was thereforemade more specific. Instead of letting this deeply challenging statement stand as it is, andspeak to all disciples of Jesus, the copyists felt it necessary to make it speak only to "thoserich folks." This later addition to the text is retained by King James and New King James,but not by New American Standard, New Revised Standard and others. The fact is thatJesus' statement, as originally given in Mark, includes all people, not just the wealthy. It isnot “easy” for anyone to enter into the Kingdom!France states: “The shorter reading has the effect of universalizing the difficulty ofentering the kingdom of God, though the specification of oi`ta. crh,mata ev,contej, hoi tachremata echontes, literally ‘the ones the wealth having’ in verse 23 and plou,sioj,plousios, ‘rich’ in verse 25 restricts it contextually. It is possible that tou.j pepoiqo,taj evpi.crh,masin, tous pepoithotas epi chremasin, ‘those having placed confidence uponpossessions’ was a later addition from the context to avoid this universal sense...But the(continued...)946

1674 1675 1676 1677 1678easier (for) a camel to go through [the] eye of [the] needle than (for) a rich person1672(...continued)substitution of trust in wealth for wealth itself looks suspiciously like a convenient softeningof Jesus’ harsh verdict on the affluent, hence the preference for the shorter reading.” (P.398)1673As Swete notes, here the "hard saying" concerning the difficulty for the wealthy toenter into the Kingdom is broadened to include everyone. Entering the Kingdom is notsomething easy for anyone. It is very difficult for people with wealth, because their wealtheasily hinders them from entrance. But it is also very difficult for all people, because eventhough their "great possessions" may not hinder them, there are all sorts of otherhindrances which hold them back from entrance.1674France notes that the form of speech, “it is easier for...than...” is found elsewhere atLuke 16:17 and at Mark 2:9. Ben Sirach 22:15 has a similar form of speech, only using“easy” instead of “easier.” (P. 404)1675France comments that “The substitution of ka,milon, kamilon, ‘rope’ for ka,mhlon,kamelon, ‘camel,’ in a few minuscules is an obvious attempt to ‘improve’ Jesus’ bizarrecomparison.” (P. 398) He later states that “The grotesque idea of a camel going throughthe eye of a needle is a proverbial way of stating the impossible: a rabbinic saying(Babylonian Talmud Bereshith 55b; compare also Babylonian Talmud Baba Metszia 38b,Babylonian Talmud Erubin 53a) uses an elephant going through the eye of a needle...asan image of the impossible...“The manifest impossibility of this feat which so scandalized the disciples hasworried biblical interpreters ever since...The reading...rope...for...camel...found in a fewminuscules and translated in the Georgian version, though the sort of ship’s hawserapparently denoted by this very rare and late word is no more likely than a camel to gothrough the eye of a needle...“Another modification, repeated by preachers until it has popularly acquired thethstatus of an established datum, is the suggestion popularized in the 19 century that ‘theeye of the needle’ was a term for a small gate within the large double gate in the city wall,through which pedestrians could enter without opening the large gates as would benecessary for a camel train. The resultant image of a camel stripped of its load andbending its knees and neck to get through the pedestrian gate offers rich homileticalpossibilities, but sadly it remains an unsupported guess. ‘There is not the slightest shredof evidence for this identification. This door has not in any language been called theneedle’s eye, and is not so called today.’ (Quoting G. N. Scherer)...“But worse than the lack of evidence for this conjecture is its effect in actuallyundermining the point of the proverb. That which Jesus presented as ludicrouslyimpossible is turned into a remote possibility: the rich person, given sufficient unloadingand humility, might just possibly be able to squeeze in. That was not what Jesus’ proverb(continued...)947

1679 1680to enter into the Kingdom of the God!" 10.26 So then they were being astounded1675(...continued)meant, and it was not how the disciples understood it (verse 26).” (P. 405)1676The genitive singular definite article th/j, tes, “of the,” is omitted both here and in itsnext occurrence in this sentence by Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus,Bezae (see), K, N, W, Delta, Theta, Psi, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 579,700, 892, 1241, 1424, 2542 and many other Greek manuscripts. Gamma, Minuscules 28,565 and some other Greek manuscripts omit only the first occurrence. The article is readin both of these places by Vaticanus, E, Minuscule 2427, a large number of other Greekmanuscripts and Clement of Alexandria (who died before 215 A.D.). Whether read or notmakes no difference for the meaning, and may only be a reflection of the differingconvictions among Greek writers across the centuries as to the use of the article withnouns and names.1677The genitive noun trumalia/j, trumalias, “of an eye,” is changed to read inaccordance with the parallel Gospels (Matthew 19:24 and Luke 18:25) trh,matoj,trematos, “of a hole,” (as in Luke, by the first writer of Alexandrinus) or truph,matoj,trupematos, “of that which is bored,” “of a hole,” (as in Matthew, by Family 13 ofMinuscules and a few other Greek manuscripts). These two variants do not change themeaning of Mark, but demonstrate the freedom felt by copyists to begin the process thatwould later result in the formation of a “Four-fold Gospel.”1678The genitive noun r`afi,doj, hraphidos, “of a needle,” is changed to read belo,nhj,belones, “of a needle” by Family 13 of Minuscules and Clement of Alexandria (who diedbefore 215 A.D.). The variant demonstrates the freedom felt by copyists to substitute asynonym for the original language, without changing Mark’s meaning.1679 The entirety of verse 25, euvkopw,tero,n evstin ka,mhlon dia. Îth/jÐ trumalia/j Îth/jÐr`afi,doj dielqei/n h' plou,sion eivj th.n basilei,an tou/ qeou/ eivselqei/n, eukopoteron estinkamelon dia [tes] trumalias [tes] hraphidos dielthein e plousion eis ten basileian toutheou eiselthein, literally “Easier it is a camel through [the] eye of [the] needle to passthrough than a wealthy person into the Kingdom of the God to enter into,” is omitted byBezae, the Old Latin Manuscripts a, b and ff2.Maclaren comments, "Wealth possessed, and not trusted in, but used aright, maybecome a help towards eternal life; but wealth as commonly regarded and employed by itspossessors, and as looked longingly after by others, is a real, and in many cases aninsuperable, obstacle to entering the strait gate. As soon drive a camel, humps and loadand all, through 'a needle's eye,' as get a man who trusts in the uncertainty of richessqueezed through that portal. No communities need this lesson more than our greatcities." (P. 79) What about Frisco, Texas?948(continued...)

1681 1682 1683greatly, saying to one another, "And who is able to be saved?!" 10.27 The Jesus,1679(...continued)Swete aptly comments, "The attempts to soften the proverb which Christ uses,either by taking ka,milon, kamilon] a ship's cable as a variant reading for ka,mhlon,kamelon, ‘camel,’...or explaining r`afi,j, hraphis as a narrow wadi, or gate through which acamel can scarcely pass, misses the point of the simile, which is intended to place theimpossibility in the strongest light...To contrast the largest beast of burden known inPalestine with the smallest of artificial apertures is quite in the manner of Christ's proverbialsayings..." (P. 229)However, instead of calling this saying of Jesus a "simile," it would be better in ouropinion to call it an “epigram,” or better still, a “shocking hyperbole"--an exaggeration orextravagant statement, used as a figure of speech, intended purposely to shock itshearers. It recalls the similar hyperboles used by Jesus in Matthew 23:24, "straining out agnat, and swallowing a camel," or "the log in an eye" in Matthew 7:4.Such statements are not meant to be taken literally, or woodenly; but they are meantto shock the hearers, and force them to take the matter seriously. In this vein, Luccockcomments, "The image of a big, gangling, shaggy, awkward camel trying to poke his nose,to say nothing of his shoulders and mountainous hump, through the tiny eye of a needlewould cause a smile to pass over the face..." (P. 807)1680France comments on verses 26-27 that “The escalation from dusko,lwj, duskolos,‘hardly,’ ‘with difficulty,’ to impossibility is matched by a corresponding increase in thedisciples’ astonishment, from evqambou/nto, ethambounto, ‘they were being astounded’(verse 24) to perissw/j evxeplh,ssonto, perissos ekseplessonto, ‘they were beingoverwhelmed exceedingly’ (verse 26). In a culture which interpreted wealth as a sign ofGod’s blessing, if the rich cannot be saved, who can be?” (P. 405)1681The intended "shock" of the hyperbole has been achieved by Jesus; his hearers areled into a serious examination of the matter. Once again they are led to recognize thedivine demand confronting them.1682The phrase pro.j e`autou,j, pros heautous, “to one another,” is read by Alexandrinus,Bezae, W, Theta, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, the “Majority Text,” the Latin Vulgate, afew of the Old Latin witnesses and the Harclean Syriac. It is changed to read pro.j auvto,n,pros auton, “to him,” by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Delta, Psi,Minuscules 892, 2427 and the Coptic tradition. It is changed to read pro.j avllh,louj, prosallelous, a synonymous phrase, “to one another,” by the first writer of M, the Old LatinManuscript k and the Peshitta Syriac. The phrase is omitted by Minuscule 579, a fewother Greek manuscripts, a few manuscripts of the Bohairic Coptic and by Clement ofAlexandria (probably; who died before 215 A.D.) The variant readings do not change themeaning of Mark; but they once again demonstrate the freedom felt by copyists andtranslators to make such minor changes to the text being copied.949

1684 1685looking at them closely, says, "For people (it is) impossible, but rather, not for God; for all1683It seems obvious from this entire passage that "to inherit eternal life," "to enter intothe Kingdom of God," and "to be saved," are all synonyms; it also seems obvious that theyall have the same basic meaning. Instead of losing eternal life, or failing to enter into theKingdom of God, the person is "saved," that is, rescued from long-lasting destruction, andfrom failure to enter into God's eternal Kingdom.We wonder why legalistic interpreters of the New Testament have not taken thispassage into serious consideration, and made the giving away of possessions to the poora requirement, or one of the “steps” to salvation. But it is in fact obvious why it hasn’t beenso taken–legalism is interested in simple, easily taken “steps” that can be legislated andfulfilled, “marked off” as having been achieved. This matter of dealing with one’s wealth insuch a radical manner simply won’t fit nicely into legalistic schemes.The shocked question of the disciples of Jesus is understandable. They believedthat wealth and possessions were a sure sign of divine blessing. If then, the wealthy couldnot inherit the Kingdom, who could? If those people most blessed by God could not enter,what chance would anyone else have? Schweizer comments, "The disciples understoodJesus correctly. The application of this saying of Jesus is not limited to the particular caseof this rich man but is relevant for everyone, and what applies to everyone in general canbe seen in the rich man in a concrete way." (P. 214)1684The aorist participle evmble,yaj, empblepsas, “looking closely,” is followed by theinterpolated word de, de, “but then,” by Alexandrinus, a corrector of Ephraemi Rescriptus,Bezae, W, Theta (see), Family 13 of Minuscules, the “Majority Text,” the Old LatinManuscript k, the Peshitta Syriac, the Harclean Syriac and the Sahidic Coptic. The textwithout this interpolated word is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, the first writer of EphraemiRescriptus, Delta, Psi, Family 1 of Minuscules, Minuscule 2427, a few other Greekmanuscripts, the Sinaitic Syriac and the Bohairic Coptic. The interpolation does notchange the meaning of Mark, but is an example of copyists feeling the freedom to“enhance” the original text by such slight additions.France comments that “evmble,yaj, emblepsas (compare verse 21 [footnote 1658]),like peribleya,menoj, periblepsamenos in verse 23, suggests Jesus’ awareness of theirthoughts, spoken to one another but perhaps not to him.” (P. 406)1685These words of Jesus demonstrate how false are the attempts to make his wordsmean a narrow pedestrian door in the gate of the temple, or some other attempt to makethe matter "difficult, but not impossible." Jesus says that as far as human beings areconcerned, the matter is impossible. He means that camels cannot possibly go through theeye of a needle. As France notes, “His reply accepts the logic of their deduction: it isimpossible.” (P. 406)950

things (are) possible for the God!" 16861686The last half of verse 27, avllV ouv para. qew/|\ pa,nta ga.r dunata. para. tw/| qew/|, all’ou para theo; panta gar dunata para to theo, “but rather, not for God; for all things (are)possible for the God” has the second para, para, “for” omitted by Vaticanus, Theta,Minuscule 892 and a few other Greek manuscripts. Both the first and the second para,para, “for” are omitted by W (see), and Minuscule 579, including omission of the definitearticle with the second para, para. It is changed to read avll’ ouv para. qew/|, all’ ou paratheo, “but rather not for God,” by Delta, Psi, Family 1 of Minuscules, some other Greekmanuscripts, Minuscule 1 and a few manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate. It is changed toread, in conformity with the parallel Gospels (Matthew 19:26 and Luke 18:27) ev ,stin, para.de. tw|/ qew|/ du,naton, estin, para de to theo dunaton, literally, “(for human beings,impossible) it is; but then for the God, possible,” by Bezae and a majority of the Old Latinwitnesses (see). The variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, but show thefreedom felt by the copyists and translators to shorten the original text, or to say the samething in a slightly different way.France comments that while it is impossible for human beings to accomplish, “thatimpossibility is...placed on the debit side of the human / divine balance. What humanbeings cannot do, God can. They have considered the criteria for entering God’s kingdomfrom a human perspective, and from that perspective those criteria, as Jesus has now setthem out, cannot be met. But if it is God’s kingdom, we are not limited to humancalculation. The salvation of the rich is always a miracle, but miracles are God’s specialty.”(P. 406)Mark depicts Jesus as teaching that the only possible hope for a wealthy person toenter into the Kingdom of God is with divine help. Only if God is willing, and enables it tohappen, can it ever happen. But, we may well note, according to this text, this is not trueonly of the wealthy, but is also true of everyone of us.This teaching reminds us of the basic theology of Exodus 32-34, which is that theonly way Israel can go up out of the wilderness into the Promised Land is through YHWH’sgrace and forgiveness of sinners / apostates, since in spite of their proud claims, theycannot fulfill the demands of the Torah, and the first thing they have done following theirhearing of the divine law at Sinai is to build a golden calf to worship–something in directdisobedience to the Commandments.What Jesus' teaching does is to throw all of us human beings upon the grace andpower of God, rather than trusting to our own goodness or abilities, or achievements. Butthe God of Jesus is the loving Father, the gracious and merciful God who is not willing thatone of his children should perish, but rather, that they should enter into eternal life. Inother words, this is not "bad news," but the very best of good news!Luccock comments on this, "The answer Jesus gave to the disciples' question ‘Whocan be saved?' was simply, 'No one without the grace of God.’ This is true both for the richand for everyone else." (P. 807)951(continued...)

1687 168810.28 The Peter began to say to him, "Look--we, we have left everything, and we1686(...continued)Taylor comments, "Nothing is said concerning 'works' or faith, but Lagrange...isjustified in saying that the reply contains in germ the teaching of Paul." (P. 432)It is true that these words of Jesus easily lead to the teaching of Paul concerningworks and faith; but looking backward into the Jewish Bible, it is also true that thisteaching of Jesus is a fulfillment of one of the basic teachings given there. For example, inthe tiny Book of Jonah, the ship-captain's statement, together with the similar statement ofthe King of Nineveh later in the same book, are closely related to this teaching of Jesus--see 1:6 and 3:9--"Perhaps the gods will give a thought to us, and we will not perish!" "Whoknows--the God may turn and may have compassion; and he may turn back from the heatof his anger--and we will not perish!" Here is an appeal to the grace and mercy of God thatgoes far beyond legalistic requirements or fulfillment of ritual demands.Jonah thought he knew the dogmatic answer to both of these questions--it is "No!Absolutely not! YHWH God will not have mercy on these pagans, with all their idolatries,with their total lack of knowledge of the divine Torah, and with their destruction of NorthernIsrael!" Jonah is deeply convinced that the people of Nineveh deserve nothing less thandestruction; and he hates to imagine that YHWH God, the God of justice, equity, and rightwould do anything less than destroy them. But, says this ancient book, this is a veryterrible thing for the people of God to conclude. How dare the people who serve Godplace limitations on his divine mercy and forgiveness, or dogmatically expect Almighty Godto respect their demands for vengeance?The King of Nineveh, as depicted in this biblical book, is far more correct on thispoint than is the orthodox Jewish Spokesperson. God's grace and forgiveness andacceptance are far greater than Jonah, or for that matter, many an "orthodox Christian"have ever conceived.What Jesus here proposes is that the wealthy, and all others seeking to enter intothe Kingdom, be cast upon the God of infinite possibilities, with whom "all things arepossible"! It may well be, from a human point of view, an impossibility that they could everbe saved; but from the divine point of view, it is a very real possibility. Who knows whatour God can or will do? Swete referrs to the teaching in such passages as Genesis 18:14;Job 42:2, and Zechariah 8:6, holding that "The power of God converts impossibilities intofacts." (P. 230)France states that “As so often Jesus’ sovereign pronouncement provides deep foodfor thought, but not a cut-and-dried answer. It reminds us that it is only from the divineperspective that the divine kingdom can be understood, but it does not offer us a tidytheology.” (P. 406)1687France notes concerning verses 28-31 that there is a “continuity of this [passage]with the last [verses 17-27]. The same themes recur: the radical demands of followingJesus, the contrast between the true disciples and the one who failed to make the grade,(continued...)952

1689 1690 1691 1692have followed you!" (29) The Jesus said, "Truly I say to you people, 'There is no1687(...continued)the giving up of possessions, treasure in heaven, eternal life. But there is a change offocus...Praise for [Peter’s] whole-hearted discipleship and the promise of a hundredfoldreward are balanced by the threat of persecutions to come and by a double-edged sayingabout priorities in the kingdom of God...” (Pp. 406-07)1688As often, Peter speaks for the other disciples of Jesus--compare 8:29, 32; 9:5; 11:21.France notes that “There is perhaps a touch of smugness in [Peter’s] observation thatwhere the rich man has fallen short they have come up to Jesus’ stringent expectations...“It implies that the warnings which the rich man’s example has led Jesus to utteragainst affluence cannot apply to them–and thus perhaps that their place in the kingdom ofGod is assured.” (P. 407)1689 stThe 1 person plural perfect verb hvkolouqh,kamen, ekolouthekamen, “we havefollowed,” is changed (in conformity to the parallel Gospels–Matthew 19:27 and Luke18:28) to the aorist verb, hvkolouqh,samen, ekolouthesamen, “we followed,” by Sinaiticus,Alexandrinus, Theta, Psi, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, the “Majority Text” andClement of Alexandria (who died before 215 A.D.). The perfect verb is read by Vaticanus,Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, W, Minuscule 2427 and a few other Greek manuscripts.Whether the perfect or the aorist verb is read makes little difference for the meaning ofMark. However, the variant reading demonstrates once again the freedom felt by copyiststo change verb tenses as they copied the original, while not changing its meaning.1690Swete comments, "It was Peter who characteristically broke in with this freshquestion...The call [‘Come! Follow me!’] reminded him that the sacrifice required from therich man and withheld had been actually made by himself and his brother." (P. 230)Compare Mark 1:18, 20; 2:14.Lane observes that "There appears to be a note of self-congratulation in thisannouncement." (P. 371) Indeed there is; and those who criticize the man in our text for acertain "pride" in his keeping the commandments need to remember this element of "pride"in Peter's statement.1691The phrase ev,fh o` vIhsou/j, ephe ho Iesous, literally “he said, the Jesus,” is read byVaticanus, Delta, Minuscules 892, 2427, a few other Greek manuscripts (see) and theBohairic Coptic.It is changed to read ev,fh auvtw|/ o` vIhsou/j, ephe auto ho Iesous, “he said to him, theJesus,” by Sinaiticus and a few other Greek manuscripts.It is changed to read ev,fh auvtoi/j, ephe autois, “he said to them,” by Psi andMinuscule 579 (see).(continued...)953

1693 1694 1695one who has left house, or brothers, or sisters, or mother, or father, or children, or fields,1691(...continued)It is changed to read kai, kai (omitted by Alexandrinus, W and many other Greekmanuscripts) avpokriqei.j o` vIhsou/j e=ipen, apokritheis ho Iesous eipen, “and answering theJesus said,” by Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, W, Theta, Families 1 and 13 ofMinuscules, Minuscules 565, 700, 2542, many other Greek manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate,a few of the Old Latin witnesses and the Harclean Syriac.It is changed to read avpokriqei.j de. o` vIhsou/j e=ipen, apokritheis de ho Iesous(Gamma omits the last two words) eipen, “answering them the Jesus, said,” by Bezae(see), K, Gamma, Minuscules 28, 1241, 1424, many other Greek manuscripts, a majorityof the Old Latin witnesses and Clement of Alexandria (who died before 215 A.D.; see).Because of this wide array of variant readings, we suspect that there has been aproblem in the primitive text, and that the later copyists and translators have had to resolvethe problem in their own ways. However, none of the variant readings changes themeaning of Mark.1692See the footnote on Mark 3:28, for a discussion of this originally Hebrew word, !ma,)amen, transliterated into Greek by avmh.n, amen, which implies that the speaker's personalbacking and confirmation is being given to what is being said.1693Jesus' language makes the statement universal in nature; he means anyone whochooses to leave worldly possessions and follow him--it is not something limited to thetwelve closest of his disciples.1694The phrase h. v gunai/ka, e gunaika, “or wife,” is interpolated into the text byAlexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Psi, Family 13 of Minuscules, the “Majority Text,” theOld Latin Manuscripts f, q, the Peshitta Syriac, the Harclean Syriac and a few manuscriptsof the Bohairic Coptic. The text without this interpolated phrase is read by Sinaiticus,Vaticanus, Bezae, W, Delta, Theta, Family 1 of Minuscules, Minuscules 565, 700, 892, afew other Greek manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate, a few of the Old Latin witnesses, theSinaitic Syriac and the Coptic tradition. In this listing of family members that are left for thesake of Jesus and the Good News, it seems strange that “wife” is not mentioned, and thisinterpolation makes up for its lack. However, the weight of the textual witnesses seems toindicate that the leaving of wives was not included in this statement in its original form. Wethink that the later history of the text, with many copyists being celibate monks or nuns,would tend toward interpolating the phrase, rather than toward omitting it.Compare Luke 18:29, where the leaving of “wife” is certainly included in the originaltext. While Jesus places great emphasis on the home, and insists on preserving its sexualintegrity, he does not make the home an "idol." Following him, and entering into theKingdom of God take even higher precedence according to his teaching.954

1696 1697 1698because of me, and because of the Good News, (30) except he should receive a1699 1700hundred times (in return) now, in this present time --houses and brothers and sisters and1695Swete comments that "The sacrifices contemplated embrace all the materialpossessions included under the three heads of home, relatives, and property." (P. 231)1696The second occurrence of the preposition e` ,neken, heneken, “because of,” is omittedby Alexandrinus, the first writer of Vaticanus, Minuscules 700, 1424, some other Greekmanuscripts, the Old Latin Manuscripts aur, c, k, and Basil of Caesarea (who died 379A.D.). In fact, the repetition of the preposition is unnecessary, and we can understand whythese copyists and translators would omit it. The omission does not change the meaningof Mark.1697It could well be that the latter phrase, "and because of the Good News," is anaddition made by the later Church, applying the statement of Jesus to a later time, whenhis physical presence was no longer with them. This addition would make the word ofJesus all the more applicable to the suffering disciples of Jesus living in Rome during thetime of intense persecution under the Emperor Nero, 54-78 A.D.. However, the fourGospels all describe Jesus as, from the very beginning of his public ministry, announcing“the Good News” of the Kingdom of God, and calling disciples to share in thatannouncement.1698Literally, "...if he shall not receive..."1699The adverbial adjective nu/n, nun, “now,” is omitted by Bezae, Minuscule 2542, a fewother Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin Manuscripts a, q and the Sinaitic Syriac. The wordis superfluous, and nothing is lost by its omission.France comments that “Such renunciation finds a hundredfold recompense even[now, in this age]...Quite apart from the dubious desirability of a hundred mothers orchildren, there is little in the story of the early church or in subsequent history to suggestthat Mark could have taken this promise literally; disciples and missionaries have notgenerally been conspicuous for their material gain. We should think of the less tangiblerewards of discipleship, and of the extended family of the followers of Jesus (see 3:34-35).These far outweigh the security and enjoyment of possessions and family to which the richman had returned.” (P. 408)1700Swete notes that both Matthew and Luke soften this "hundred times" down to "manytimes," and then states that "['The present age'] seems to be the present season, the era ofthe Advent, the opportunity of sacrifice, beyond which spreads the yet limitless age of therealized Kingdom." (P. 232)955

1701 1702mothers and children and fields --with persecutions --and in the age, the coming one, long-1701Swete comments, "Without doubt the relations which the Lord offers 'now in this time'in place of those which have been abandoned for his sake are the spiritual affinities whichbind the members of the family of God." (P. 232) Compare Mark 3:34-35; John 19:26-27;Romans 16:13; Galatians 4:19; 1 Timothy 5:1-2; Philemon 10.Taylor holds that Jesus "...Could well have promised personal relationships richer ahundred-fold than those renounced." Indeed, many a follower of Jesus in the present agewho has renounced possessions and previous relationships can confess the truth that infollowing Jesus life has been enriched a hundred-times over in relationships andpossessions that would never have been theirs apart from that obedience of faith.Luccock states concerning this promise of Jesus: "The recorded details of hisanswer are not to be taken literally any more than is the description of the camel goingthrough the eye of a needle. That historic sneer of Julian the Apostate [Roman Emperor,361-63 A.D.] about this passage, 'So you will each have a hundred wives,' shows how aliteral acceptance of the words leads to nonsense...It is enough to find in them Christ's emphatic declaration that there arecompensations in discipleship, both in this world, and in the next, which far outweigh all therenunciations that are necessary--a promise which in lives without number has beenvalidated and translated into actual experience...The reward is a new dimension whichcomes into life through relationship to God, the new status of sonship, the new meaningthat illuminates the dark mysteries of the world. The reward is 'a new creation'; the greatexperience of becoming; the larger world into which the disciple is led, with its expandingboundaries; the exhilaration of belonging to the greatest of all fraternal orders, the Friendsof Jesus. Surely a hundredfold is not exaggeration." (P. 808)Luccock reminded his readers, "The disciple who accepted the faith, and became afollower of Jesus, did become a member of a close and warm fellowship, where there wereindeed compensations for all that had been forsaken. The picture which is painted here isnot a fanciful picture; it is the emergence of a great reality...We should never forget thatChristianity made its way in the Greek and Roman world not only through its message andideas, but also through the demonstration of its fellowship, an utterly new thing; and thatmany were attracted to the fellowship before they understood the message or fullyaccepted it." (Pp. 808-09)Schweizer comments, "Jesus' demand, therefore, is actually an invitation to find theGift of Life in the giving of self. Discipleship to Jesus does not lead to poverty anddeprivation, but to wholeness--to the experience of real life. This promise is fulfilledwherever there is genuine, joyous abandonment motivated by the gift of God. (P. 214)1702This phrase "...Adds an element which was to temper the compensations of thepresent, and warns against dreams of unbroken peace." (Swete, p. 232) Schweizer statesthat "...The other side of discipleship is affirmed realistically and without any illusions:Discipleship is accompanied by 'persecutions as well.'" (P. 214-15) Lane notes, "This has(continued...)956

1703 1704 1705lasting life! (31) But then many first ones will be last ones, and [the] last ones first1702(...continued)pointed relevance to the church in Rome..." (P. 372) But let us never forget that it hasrelevance to our own lives and experiences. Don't make the mistake of thinking everythingis going to be "sweetness and light" as we give our all to follow Jesus as Lord.1703 The lengthy phrase oivki,aj kai. avdelfou.j kai. avdelfa.j kai. mhte,raj kai. te,kna kai.avgrou.j meta. diwgmw/n( kai. evn tw/| aivw/ni tw/| evrcome,nw| zwh.n aivw,nion, oikias kaiadelphous kai adelphas kai meteras kai tekna kai agrous meta diogmon, kai en to aionito erchomeno zoen aionion, “houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and childrenand fields, with persecutions, and in the age, the coming one, long-lasting life,” is read byVaticanus, Psi, the “Majority Text,” the Latin Vulgate and the first writer of Sinaiticus (thislatter witness omits the words oivki,aj kai. avdelfou.j kai. avdelfa.j kai. mhte,raj kai. te,knakai. avgrou.j meta. diwgmw/n).It is changed to read the singular mhte,ra, metera instead of the plural mhte,raj, by acorrector of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, W, Theta, Family 13 ofMinuscules, Minuscules 565, 700, some other Greek manuscripts, the Sinaitic Syriac (see)and the Harclean Syriac.It is changed to read the singular nouns pate,ra kai. mhte,ra, patera kai metera,“father and mother,” adding the noun “father,” and changing the plural “mothers” to“mother,” by a later corrector of Sinaiticus, K, Family 1 of Minuscules, Minuscules 579,892, 1241, 1424, 2542, some other Greek manuscripts and the Old Latin manuscript l.It is changed to read o`j de. avfh,ken oivki,an kai. avdelfa.j kai. avdelfou.j kai. mhte,rajkai. te,kna kai. avgrou.j meta. diwgmou/ evn tw|/ aivw,ni tw| / evrcome,nw| zwh.n aivw,niwnlh,myetai, hos de apheken oikian kai adelphas kai adelphous kai meteras kai tekna kaiagrous meta diogmou, en to aioni to erchomeno zoen aionion lempsetai, “whoever thenleft house and sisters and brothers and mothers and children and fields with persecution,in the age, the coming one, life, long-lasting, will receive,” by Bezae and a majority of theOld Latin Manuscripts (see). This latter variant changes the teaching of Mark, leaving offthe many specific earthly rewards of the original statement, and making the only reward“long-lasting life.”What we take to be original text, has Jesus promising great rewards to be enjoyedalready in this life, in sharing in the new "Family of God," and in the enjoyment of God'sprovisions which include "inheriting the earth"--but he also promises eternal life as the giftof God in the future, in the "age to come." In this great promise, both present and futurerewards are combined as the legitimate gift of God to his disciples.Lane sums up verses 29-30 by saying, "Jesus' response defines Christian existencein terms of promise and persecution, and history as the interplay of blessedness andsuffering. The contrast between the present age and the age to come is thoroughlyPalestinian in character [compare Mishnah Aboth v. 19] and expresses the tension(continued...)957

ones!" 17061703(...continued)between promise and fulfillment in the life of faith. The frank recognition of the loss thatallegiance to Jesus and the gospel may entail (compare 13:12-13) is conditioned by thepromise that all that is lost in one society (verse 29) will be regained a hundredfold in thenew society created by the dynamic of the gospel (verse 30)." (P. 372)1704France calls verse 31 an “epigram” (compare footnote 1664, where we have definedepigram as meaning ‘a concise, clever, and often paradoxical statement.’) He states that“This epigram functions as a sort of slogan for the revolutionary values of the kingdom ofGod...It serves as a fitting summary of the teaching which Jesus has given since thesecond prediction of the passion in 9:31.” (Pp. 408-09)1705The nominative plural definite article, oi`, hoi, “the,” is omitted (in conformity with theparallel Matthew 19:30) by Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Bezae, K, L, W, Delta, Theta, Psi,Family 1 of Minuscules, Minuscules 28, 565, 579, 700, 1241, 1424, 2542, many otherGreek manuscripts and the Bohairic Coptic. The article is read by Vaticanus, EphraemiRescriptus, N, Gamma, Family 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 892, 2427, many otherGreek manuscripts, the Sahidic Coptic (?) and Clement of Alexandria (who died before 215A.D.). Whether read or not makes little difference for the meaning of this somewhatpuzzling statement of Mark.It certainly means that temporal, earthly values are reversed in heavenly, eternalreality.1706Lane comments that "This final statement, with its antithetic parallelism obtainedthrough the inversion of its clauses, is a piece of 'floating tradition' which occurs in othercontexts as well (Matthew 20:16; Luke 13:30)." (P. 372)Jesus' enigmatic, proverbial statement warns against making judgments basedsimply on present distinctions. There are those who appear to be "last ones" at thepresent, who in the long-run will turn out to be "first ones." There are also those whoappear to be "first ones" at the present, but who in the long-run will turn out to be "lastones." Present experience and distinctions are no guarantee of what the future holds. Thedivine judgment may completely reverse our present judgments!Grant holds that this saying is "A word addressed to the later church, Mark'spersecuted readers; some of them, though among the last to be called, might be first in thekingdom..." (P. 809)Luccock, however, takes it in a different sense: "Those who have made therenunciations necessary for the kingdom, who 'have left all, and have followed,' willprecede the great in the only judgment of worth that really counts, the eyes of God...History has given something of a picture of the reverses of God's kingdom. Lo, all thepomp of yesterday, or much of it, has gone into a fog. One generation or century cries to(continued...)958

1706(...continued)some pompous figure, 'Hail to the chief!' Other centuries come along and look at theobject with a blank stare, unrecognizing. The first has become last, and the last hasbecome first. Sometimes it happens within a single lifetime. Across the years it is aninfallible process. Paul takes precedence over Nero. Martin Luther over the pope at Romeand the emperor at Worms." (P. 809)In the pictures of the fallen rulers of Babylon and Assyria (and other nations) foundin the writings of Israel’s great Spokespersons, we see this reversal of values alreadypictured in the Jewish Bible.But the real question is, "How will it be for you and me, in the eternal judgment ofAlmighty God?" Will our affluence and wealth have blinded us to God and his Kingdom,and have held us back from eternal life?Or, will we have had the wisdom and the courage to hear the words of Jesusconcerning our lack, and respond by selling, and giving, and coming, and following? It isour decision to make!Related Illustrations:In 1923 at the Edgewater Beach Hotel in Chicago, Illinois, eight of the most powerfulfinanciers in the world gathered for a meeting. These eight, if they combined theirresources and their assets, controlled more money than the U. S. Treasury. In that groupwere such men as Charles Schwab. He was the president of a steel company. RichardWhitney was the president of the New York Stock Exchange, and Arthur Cutton was awheat speculator. Albert Fall was a presidential cabinet member, personally a verywealthy man. Jesse Livermore was the greatest investor on Wall Street in his generation.Leo Fraser was the president of the International Bank of Settlements. Ivan Kruegerheaded the largest monopoly in the nation. Quite an impressive group!Later, in life, however, Charles Schwab died penniless. Richard Whitney spent therest of his life serving a sentence in Sing Sing Prison. Arthur Cutton, that great wheatspeculator, became insolvent. Albert Fall was pardoned from a federal prison so he mightdie at home. Leon Fraser, the president of that big international bank committed suicide.Jesse Livermore committed suicide. Ivan Krueger committed suicide. Seven of thoseeight great financiers had lives that were disasters before they left planet Earth. Whatmistake did they make? They thought that what they had and what they controlledbelonged to them, to do with as they pleased.Then there's the story told by the Russian author, Leo Tolstoy, about a rich man whowas never satisfied. He always wanted more and more. He heard of a wonderful chanceto get more land. For only a thousand rubles he could have all the land that he could walkaround in a day. The only condition was that he had to make it back to the starting pointby sundown or else lose it all.He arose early and set out at dawn. He walked on and on, thinking that he could get(continued...)959

1706(...continued)just a little more land if he kept going on. But he went so far that he realized he must walkvery fast if he was to get back in time to claim the land. As the sun got lower in the sky, hequickened his pace. He began to run. As he came within sight of the starting place, heexerted his last energies, plunged over the finish line, fell to the ground, and collapsed. Astream of blood poured out of his mouth and he lay dead. His servant took a spade anddug a grave. He made it just long enough and just wide enough and buried him. The titleof Tolstoy's story is "How Much Land Does a Man Need?" He concludes by saying, 'Sixfeet from his head to his heels was all he needed."960

THE GIFT AND THE LAW OF THE KINGDOM:WILLING SELF-SACRIFICEVERSUS SELF-SERVING AMBITIONMark 10:32-4510.32 +Hsan de. evn th/| o`dw/| avnabai,nontej eivj ~Ieroso,luma( kai. h=n proa,gwn auvtou.j o`VIhsou/j( kai. evqambou/nto( oi` de. avkolouqou/ntej evfobou/ntoÅ kai. paralabw.n pa,lin tou.jdw,deka h;rxato auvtoi/j le,gein ta. me,llonta auvtw/| sumbai,nein 10.33 o[ti ivdou. avnabai,nomeneivj ~Ieroso,luma( kai. o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou paradoqh,setai toi/j avrciereu/sin kai. toi/jgrammateu/sin( kai. katakrinou/sin auvto.n qana,tw| kai. paradw,sousin auvto.n toi/j e;qnesin10.34 kai. evmpai,xousin auvtw/ | kai. evmptu,sousin auvtw/ | kai. mastigw,sousin auvto.n kai.avpoktenou/sin( kai. meta. trei/j h`me,raj avnasth,setaiÅ10.32 Then they were on the road, going up into Jerusalem; and Jesus was leading them;and they were being amazed. Then they, following, were being afraid. And again taking thetwelve aside, he began to tell them the things about to happen to him–10.33 (saying) that, "Look--we are going up into Jerusalem; and the Son of the Person will be handed over to the RulingPriests and to the Religious Experts; and they will condemn him to death; and they will hand himover to the non-Jews; 10.34 and they will make fun of him, and will spit on him, and will beat himwith whips, and will kill (him); and after three days, he will rise again!"10.35 Kai. prosporeu,ontai auvtw/| VIa,kwboj kai. VIwa,nnhj oi` uiòi. Zebedai,ou le,gontejauvtw/|\ dida,skale( qe,lomen i[na o] eva.n aivth,swme,n se poih,sh|j h`mi/nÅ 10.36 o` de. ei=penauvtoi/j\ ti, qe,lete, ÎmeÐ poih,sw u`mi/nÈ 10.37 oi` de. ei=pan auvtw/|\ do.j h`mi/n i[na ei-j sou evkdexiw/n kai. ei-j evx avristerw/n kaqi,swmen evn th/| do,xh| souÅ10.35 And they come to him–Jacob and John, the sons of Zebedee--saying to him,"Teacher, we wish that, whatever we may ask you, you should do for us!" 10.36 So then he saidto them, "What do you wish (from) [me] (that) I should do for you?" 10.37 So then they said tohim, "Grant to us that we may sit, one at your right, and one at your left, in your gloriousradiance!"10.38 o` de. VIhsou/j ei=pen auvtoi/j\ ouvk oi;date ti, aivtei/sqeÅ du,nasqe piei/n to. poth,rion9o] evgw. pi,nw h' to. ba,ptisma o] evgw. bapti,zomai baptisqh/naiÈ 10.39 oi` de. ei=pan auvtw/|\duna,meqaÅ o` de. VIhsou/j ei=pen auvtoi/j\ to. poth,rion o] evgw. pi,nw pi,esqe kai. to. ba,ptisma o]evgw. bapti,zomai baptisqh,sesqe( 10.40 to. de. kaqi,sai evk dexiw/n mou h' evx euvwnu,mwn ouvke;stin evmo.n dou/nai( avllV oi-j h`toi,mastaiÅ10.38 But then the Jesus said to them, "You don't know what you are asking. Are youable to drink the cup which I am drinking, or to be immersed with the immersion with which I ambeing immersed?" 10.39 So then they said to him, "We are able!" But then the Jesus said tothem, "The cup which I am drinking, you will drink; and the immersion with which I am beingimmersed, you will be immersed; 10.40 but then the sitting at my right, or at (my) left, is not mineto grant–but rather, (it belongs) to those (for whom) it has been prepared!"10.41 Kai. avkou,santej oi` de,ka h;rxanto avganaktei/n peri. VIakw,bou kai. VIwa,nnouÅ961

10.41 kai. proskalesa,menoj auvtou.j o` VIhsou/j le,gei auvtoi/j\ oi;date o[ti oi` dokou/ntej a;rceintw/n evqnw/n katakurieu,ousin auvtw/n kai. oi` mega,loi auvtw/n katexousia,zousin auvtw/nÅ 10.43ouvc ou[twj de, evstin evn u`mi/n( avllV o]j a'n qe,lh| me,gaj gene,sqai evn u`mi/n e;stai u`mw/ndia,konoj( 10.44 kai. o]j a'n qe,lh| evn u`mi/n ei=nai prw/toj e;stai pa,ntwn dou/loj\ 10.45 kai.ga.r o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou ouvk h=lqen diakonhqh/nai avlla. diakonh/sai kai. dou/nai th.n yuch.nauvtou/ lu,tron avnti. pollw/nÅ10.41 And the ten, hearing, began to be indignant about Jacob and John. 10.42 Andsummoning them, the Jesus says to them, "You know that those who have a reputation for rulingthe non-Jews lord it over them; and their ‘great ones’ exercise authority over them. 10.43 Butthen it is not this way among you. But rather, whoever may wish to become great among you, willbe your minister; 10.44 and whoever may wish to be first among you, will be slave of all! 10.45For even the Son of the Person did not come to be ministered to, but rather to minister, and togive the life of his a ransom on behalf of many!"Text with Footnotes: 17071707Before beginning your study of these notes, please read the entire text carefully in atleast two different translations. Then, ask yourself the following questions:1. When Mark describes Jesus as "going up into Jerusalem," what is implied in thisstatement? Why were his disciples "amazed"?2. It is obvious that Mark has repeated Jesus' prediction of his "passion" twicebefore (8:31 and 9:31), and now repeats it for the third time. Why this emphasis? Wouldyou have followed Jesus on this journey?3. While Jesus was intent on giving himself up to death on behalf of all people, whatwas on the mind of Jacob and John? What does this tell you about the disciples of Jesus?Are we much different from them today?4. What did Jesus mean by "the cup" which he was drinking, and "the immersion"with which he was being immersed? What about you? Are you able to share in that "cup,"and are you willing to be "immersed" with that immersion? Taking the communion cup,and being immersed in water, are not very difficult in our time–especially with sanitizedindividual plastic cups to use, and with in-door warmed immersion pools. But is this thekind of “cup” and “immersion” that Jesus was talking about?5. What did Jesus mean when he said that he could not assign "seats" of honor inthe Kingdom of God--but rather, those places of honor belong "to those for whom it hasbeen prepared"? What does this have to do with the teaching of "predestination" as taughtby Augustinians and Calvinists?6. What does Jesus teach concerning the difference between earthly governmentsand the Kingdom of God, with regards to honor and precedence? What constitutes true"greatness" in the Kingdom of God? Who is “first” in the Kingdom of God?962(continued...)

1708 1709 171010.32 Then they were on the road, going up into Jerusalem; and Jesus was1707(...continued)7. What was Jesus' highest goal in life?8. It is oftentimes claimed that Jesus' words concerning giving his life a ransom "formany" reflects a passage from the Jewish Bible--what passage is it? Do you agree withthis claim?9. What would you say is the primary law, or binding example, in the Kingdom ofGod? Why haven’t legalistic interpreters of the New Testament made much of this law?France comments on this passage that here “The journey towards Jerusalem andthe cross comes to its climax with the third and most detailed passion prediction, followedby the most emphatic of all Jesus’ reversals of accepted values in the call to serve ratherthan be served. This searching challenge culminates in verse 45 with the first and cleareststatement of the purpose of his own coming death. Hitherto Jesus has spoken of itsnecessity, but now he offers a new perspective on the concept of messianic sufferingwhich sets what might otherwise have been seen as a meaningless tragedy in the contextof the redemptive purposes of God. This is not a setback to Jesus’ mission, a victory forhis opponents; it is what he came for.” (P. 409)1708France comments that “a further mention of the o`do,j, hodos, ‘road,’ (compare 9:33,34; 10:17) brings us back to the journey motif which undergirds Act Two of the gospel[8:22-10:52], but now that motif is heavily underscored.” (P. 411)1709Jesus and his disciples are moving from the area of "Transjordan," on the easternside of the Jordan River (see Mark 10:1, with its footnote 1583), "going up" to Jerusalem.This involved crossing over the Jordan River at a point almost 1,200 feet below sea level,and then ascending on the Roman road that climbed upward through the desolate Judeanmountains from Jericho to Jerusalem, at an elevation of 2,724 feet above sea-level. Theclimb from Jericho to Jerusalem was a climb of some 3,900 feet, a very significant climb!The Empire State Building in New York City is 1,472 feet high (including its TV Antennas);the climb from Jericho to Jerusalem would be equal to climbing to the top of the EmpireState Building slightly more than two and one half times.So the present participle avnabai,nontej, anabainontes, “going up,” both can andshould be understood literally. However, this verb is also commonly used by pilgrims goingup to Festivals in Jerusalem–compare Psalms 24:3; 122:4; Isaiah 2:2-3, etc., and thus canbe understood in terms of a spiritual pilgrimage to the holy city. As France notes, “Thearrival in Jerusalem will be in time for the Passover festival, and Jesus and his group wouldnot be the only pilgrims on the way [up] to the festival.” (P. 411)1710This is the first time in the three predictions of the passion that Jerusalem is namedas the specific destination of Jesus’ journey. Anderson notes that "Since the city is for(continued...)963

1711 1712 1713leading them; and they were being amazed. Then they, following, were being afraid.1710(...continued)Mark the seat and center of bitterest hostility to Jesus (compare 3:22), its mentionsymbolizes the inevitability of Jesus' coming death, and the alarm and fear that occur hereare at their sharpest." (P. 253)Luccock allegorized as follows: "Going [up] to Jerusalem, in the sense that Jesusfaced it, means going from the place of comparative safety to the place of danger, from theplace of comparatively little cost to the place of tremendous cost. Many never cross thatfrontier. They stay in quiet Galilee. They tour the safe, pleasant places, keeping out offorthright witness on dangerous questions, where such witness would bring loss and pain...The borderline between Galilee and Jerusalem is the most important borderline in any life.It tests the reality of our profession. When we cross it in our lives and actions, we go fromcomfort into pain, from ease into jeopardy, as Jesus did. But if we do not cross it, we leavethe road which leads to fullness of life, and to power." (P. 810) Is Luccock guilty ofimproperly "allegorizing" the text? We think that Luccock is "on target"!1711Taylor comments, "The conscious acceptance of His Messianic destiny is depicted."(P. 437) Compare Luke 9:51, with its statement kai. auvto.j to. pro,swpon evsth,risen tou/poreu,esqai eivj VIerousalh,m, “and He, he fixed firmly the face to go into Jerusalem.”Lane states that "There is a note of solemnity in the vivid picture of Jesus walkingbefore his frightened disciples, inflexible in his determination to do the will of God (compareIsaiah 50:7-8, ‘I set my face like a flint...’)...The description anticipates the action of theRisen Lord promised in 14:28; 16:7 [‘I will go before you into Galilee’], and evokes theimage of the powerful Savior who leads his people with purpose and direction." (P. 374)Luccock states that "There is in the words ‘Jesus was walking ahead of them’ arichness of suggestion, both historical and contemporary, which is quite inexhaustible.That is where Jesus has always been--ahead. Ahead of the customs of every age, aheadof its dulled conscience, ahead of its blindness to human and spiritual values and needs...the divine trail breaker, pushing out first into new, unexplored, unoccupied territories ofhuman life and social achievement. Into the tangled areas of sex and slavery andslaughter and exploitation, Jesus the pioneer has gone, and often, as in the beginning, withsuch a laggard company of disciples trudging along so far behind him..." (Pp. 810-11)Compare the use of the noun avrchgo,j, archegos, as a description of Jesus inHebrews 2:10; he is the one who goes first on the path, the leader, the pioneer.1712The phrase oi` de. avkolouqou/ntej evfobou/nto, hoi de akolouthountes ephobounto,literally “the ones, then, who are following were being afraid,” is omitted by Bezae, K,Family 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 28, 700, some other Greek manuscripts and the OldLatin Manuscripts q and b. We think the eye of the copyists may well have skipped fromthe imperfect verb evqambou/nto, ethambounto, “they were being astounded,” to the similarlyending imperfect verb evfobou/nto, ephobounto, “they were being afraid,” leaving out the(continued...)964

1712(...continued)intervening words as a result. The omission of this phrase scarcely changes the meaningof Mark, although it may minimize Mark’s rather disparaging portrait of the disciples.The phrase can be translated, "they were being astounded"--that is, at the courageof Jesus, or, as they may have thought, at his "foolhardiness."Maclaren comments, "...Full of calm resolve, He came forth to die. This is the crisisin our Lord's history...The graphic narrative of this Evangelist sets before us the littlecompany on the steep rocky road that leads up from Jericho to Jerusalem; our Lord, far inadvance of His disciples, with a fixed purpose stamped upon His face, and something ofhaste in His stride, and that in His whole demeanor which shed a strange astonishmentand awe over the group of silent and uncomprehending disciples." (P. 81)He goes on to comment on the "Iron will, incapable of deflection by anyantagonism," which marks Jesus in this story. "He did not come to do certain work, and,finding that He could not do it, accepted the martyr's role; but He came for the twofoldpurpose of serving by His life, and of redeeming by His death. 'He came not to beministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for the many.' And thispurpose stood clear before Him, drawing Him to itself all through His career." (P. 83)Maclaren also spoke of the "Self-Sacrificing Christ." "The very fact of our Lord'sgoing back to Jerusalem...was tantamount to His surrender of Himself to death...Why?Was He flinging away His life in mere despair? Was He sinfully neglecting precautions?Was the same fanaticism of martyrdom which has often told upon men, acting upon Him?Were these His reasons? No, but He recognized that now that 'hour' of which He spoke somuch had come, and of His own loving will offered Himself as our Sacrifice." (P. 84) All ofthis, we conclude, lay behind the astonishment of those who followed him.1713Taylor notes that "With added solemnity, as compared with 8:31 and 9:31, this vividpassage describes the circumstances in which the third prophecy was uttered." (P. 437)Obviously, the disciples of Jesus did not know what to make of his "fool-hardy" insistenceon going up to Jerusalem. It was against their better judgment, but he seemed possessedwith the desire to go on with this "march towards death." Their hearts were filled with fear,but there was also an element of awe and wonder, a recognition that something far morethan simply human stubbornness was involved here.It is easy to identify with that fear. Perhaps even today we can hear their argumentsrising in our own minds."Why go on? Why not turn back now, before it is too late, before the die is cast?Why force the hand of the Jewish authorities? Why make them, or why allow them, tocommit such a senseless murder? Is not the continuance of this journey to Jerusalem littlemore than suicide on the part of Jesus? Why not turn back towards the north, towards(continued...)965

1714 1715And again taking the twelve aside, he began to tell them the things about to happen to him–1713(...continued)Galilee, and Phoenicia, and Asia Minor, or even Europe? Why not (Jonah-like) take shipfor Egypt, or for Greece, or for Spain? Why walk straight forward into a death-trap, intocertain rejection and death? Why end such a dynamic young life long before its time?Why bring to a tragic end such a wonderful ministry of loving service to the needy andneglected peoples of Israel?"No doubt such thoughts as these troubled the minds of the disciples of Jesus--andwell they might have!Swete holds that Mark has in mind two different groups of disciples of Jesus: "Hismanner struck awe into the minds of the Twelve, who were beginning at length toanticipate an impending disaster...whilst the rest of the company ['those following'], thecrowd who usually hung upon the Lord's footsteps...or His fellow-travelers on their way tothe Passover, were conscious of a vague fear..." (P. 233) Taylor agreed with this (p. 437),as does Schweizer, who comments that "Both groups suspect something of the specialsignificance of this road. For the disciples who have heard what Jesus said previously thissuspicion takes the form of fear. Both reactions show to what a great extent thisprocession bears the characteristics of an act of divine revelation." (P. 217)But Lane rejects this view of two different groups, stating that "Considerations ofcontext and Marcan usage tend to indicate that only one group of disciples is indicated, theTwelve, who show amazement and fear in Jesus' presence." (P. 373)We think that the text is ambiguous at this point and can be interpreted in either waywith equal probability.1714Swete comments that "The subject was not a new one, but it had been dropped for awhile, and it was in sharp contrast to the hopes of reward which were uppermost in theminds of the Twelve..." (P. 234)Already at 8:31 Mark has stated, "And he began to teach them that it is necessaryfor the Son of Humanity to suffer many things..."; and then again at 9:31 Mark has statedthat "...He was teaching his disciples, and he was saying to them that 'The Son ofHumanity is handed over into human hands...'"1715Swete comments that this third and last prediction of his passion is far more detailedand explicit than the first two predictions in chapters 8 and 9; here Jesus names sixspecific elements in the passion:(1) handing over to Jewish authorities;(2) legal condemnation;(3) handing over to non-Jews;(4) the threefold details of mockery;(5) death;(continued...)966

1716 171710.33 (saying) that, "Look--we are going up into Jerusalem; and the Son of the Person will1718 1719be handed over to the Ruling Priests and to the Religious Experts; and they will condemn1720 1721him to death; and they will hand him over to the non-Jews; 10.34 and they will make fun of1715(...continued)(6) the raising up.Because of its fullness, it has sometimes been held that this is a prediction that wasmade after the event had already occurred. Later Greek manuscripts corrected thestatement "after three days" to "on the third day" in the light of what actually happened (seefootnote 1725) Would not a "prediction after the facts" have avoided this difficulty in thefirst place?Luccock comments that Jesus "...Was not surprised or overwhelmed when theblows were struck. He knew they would come." (P. 811) According to the picture drawnby Mark, Jesus knew perfectly well what was happening to him as he went up toJerusalem. He did not go up blindly, with visions of taking the city by storm, or of beingmiraculously welcomed and proclaimed King by the official leaders of Israel. Instead, hewent up, knowing that he was going there to die. He knew beforehand the betrayal, thecondemnation, the rejection, the suffering, and the death that awaited him at the end of hisjourney. Still he went on--consciously, intentionally. Mark wants its readers to know thathis death was not something that “just happened" to him. He willingly, knowingly, went upto Jerusalem to die, believing that this was God's will for him. He wasn't an unsuspecting"victim." Rather, he went up to Jerusalem in the full knowledge that he was making asacrifice of himself, offered up in obedience to the divine will.1716Anderson notes that "In view of his special interest in the close association of Jesus'destiny of suffering and death with the way of the disciple, the Evangelist may have seen aspecial significance in the first person plural, 'we are going up to Jerusalem.'" (P. 253)1717Swete notes that Jerusalem stood "...Near the highest point of the back-bone ofPalestine, and cannot be approached from any quarter without an ascent." (P. 233)Compare footnote 1704.1718See footnote 1309 on Mark 8:31 for a discussion of the "Ruling Priests."1719Or, "the Scribes," "the Writers." See Mark 1:22 with its footnote 122.1720Ordinarily translated "the Gentiles," the word is used to describe "foreigners," and inthis case means the Roman soldiers of occupation who were in control of Jerusalem andIsrael in the time of Jesus. The Greek noun ev,qnoj, ethnos means literally "people," or(continued...)967

1722 1723him, and will spit on him, and will beat him with whips, and will kill (him); and after three1724 1725days, he will rise again!"1720(...continued)"nation." Used in its dative plural form, toi/j ev ,qnesin, tois ethnesin, “to the nations,” or “tothe non-Jews,” it corresponds to the Hebrew ~yIAGh;, haggoyiym, “the nations,” and iscommonly used in Greek to describe "foreigners." It was an expression used by Appian inRome for the foreign people in contrast to the Italians. Here, this same word is applied tothe Romans themselves, who were "foreigners" in Israel.France comments that “The Jewish phase of the passion is thus presented by twoverbs, first katakrinou/sin, katakrinousin, ‘they will condemn,’ then paradw,sousin,paradosousin, ‘they will hand over.’ This corresponds to what we know of the competenceof the Jewish authorities at that time: condemnation could not lead directly to death, butmust be implemented by handing over to the Romans who had that power.” (P. 413)1721The first of Mark’s four future plural verbs, evmpai,xousin, empaiksousin, means "theywill make fun of," "they will ridicule," "they will mock [whether by word or deed]”; the verb isalso used to mean "deceive," "trick," "make a fool of."1722The second of Mark’s future plural verbs, mastigw,sousin, mastigosousin, is usedliterally for "they will whip," "they will scourge," "they will flog" as a punishment decreed bythe synagogue (see Deuteronomy 25:2-3, along with the Mishnah tractates Sanhedrinand Makkoth). Here it refers to the common punishment of “flogging” inflicted by theRoman soldiers on prisoners condemned to execution.1723The phrase mastigw,sousin auvto.n kai. avpoktenou/sin, mastigosousin auton kaiapoktenousin, “they will beat him with whips and they will kill,” has the third and fourth ofMark’s future plural verbs. This phrase is omitted by Bezae, a few other Greekmanuscripts and the Old Latin Manuscripts ff2 (see) and k (see). Here again, we suspectthat the eye of the copyist has skipped from the preceding kai, kai, “and,” to its nextoccurrence, leaving out the intervening words. The sentence does not make sense withoutthe statement concerning the Son of the Person’s being murdered.France notes concerning these four plural verbs that “Even though the terms do notcorrespond directly to the LXX [Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible], each of these fourelements is included in the ‘blueprint’ for the suffering of the Isaianic servant (mockery andspitting, Isaiah 50:6; 53:3; compare also Psalm 22:7; scourging, Isaiah 50:6; 53:5; death,53:8-9, 12).”1724The phrase meta. trei/j h`me,raj, meta treis hemeras, “after three days,” is read bySinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, L, Delta, Psi, Minuscules 579, 892,2427, a few other Greek manuscripts, a majority of the Old Latin witnesses, the Harclean(continued...)968

1724(...continued)Syriac margin and the Coptic tradition. It is changed to read as do the parallel Gospels(Matthew 20:19 and Luke 18:33 [slightly different]), th/| tri,th| h`me,ra|, te trite hemera, “onthe third day,” by the first writer of Alexandrinus (see), W, Theta, Families 1 and 13 ofMinuscules, the “Majority Text,” the Old Latin Manuscripts aur, f, l, the Latin Vulgate, theSyriac tradition and Origen of Alexandria (who died 254 A.D.).We think there are two reasons for this variant–the desire to make the Gospelsconform to one another (in what we are calling the early beginnings of the formation of a“four-fold Gospel”) and the desire to make the language attributed to Jesus conform to thehistorical fact of his resurrection “on the third day” instead of “after three days.” Comparethe earlier variant reading at 9:31. The textual witnesses there are almost identical tothese here. At Mark 8:31, where almost the same statement is made, there are no textualvariants such as are found here and at 9:31.France comments that “A ‘correction’ of [after three days] to [on the third day] wasalmost inevitable, both to assimilate to the phrase consistently used by Matthew and Lukeand to avoid the embarrassment of a phrase which appears to predict a longer period inthe tomb than was in fact the case.” (P. 410)1725This final phrase concerning resurrection is the same as is found in 8:31 and 9:31.Many scholars have held that the close correspondence between this thirdprediction of the passion and the passion-narrative itself proves that this so-called"prediction" has been shaped by the actual events of the history of Jesus.But we should compare Plato's Republic II, 5, 361e, where Plato (427-347 B.C.)states that "The just man will be scourged, tortured, bound, blinded with fire, and when hehas endured every kind of suffering will at last be impaled on the wooden post." The pointis that society's rejection of social-reformers was well known and took a very similar formwherever it occurred. Thus Jesus would have well known the nature his approachingdeath would take at the hands of the Jewish and Roman leaders. He was not by anymeans the only Jew ever to suffer in such a manner.France notes that it is at the end of verse 34 that the major additional section quotedby Clement of Alexandria from the “Secret Gospel of Mark” was located, a supposedly“more spiritual gospel.” France translates this additional material as follows:“And they come into Bethany; and there was there a certain woman whose brotherhad died. And she came and knelt before Jesus and says to him, ‘Son of David, havemercy on me.’ But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus was angry, and went away withher into the garden where the tomb was. And immediately a loud voice was heard fromthe tomb. And Jesus came near and rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb; andhe went in immediately where the young man was, and stretched out his hand and raisedhim up, taking hold of his hand. But the young man, looking at him, loved him, and beganto entreat that he might be with him. And they came out of the tomb, and came to the(continued...)969

1726 1727 172810.35 And they come to him--Jacob and John, the sons of Zebedee --saying to1725(...continued)young man’s house, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus gave him instructions, andin the evening the young man comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body.And he stayed with him that night, for Jesus was teaching him the mystery of the kingdomof God. And he arose from there and returned to the other side of the Jordan.”Then, after the statement that Jesus came to Jericho in 10:46, there is another shortaddition to the text of Mark. France translates:“And the sister of the young man whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salomewere there, and Jesus did not receive them.”France comments that “the longer extract looks like a version of the story of Lazarus(John 11), woven together with the young man in the garden (Mark 14:41-52), withprobable echoes also of the ‘beloved disciple’ of John and the rich man whom Jesus loved(Mark 10:21). There are a number of stylistic features which resemble Mark’s writing, butthe influence of the Fourth Gospel is much stronger. It is the sort of pastiche [imitativehodge-podge] of gospel data with additional second-century features (the loud voice fromthe tomb; the hint of initiation rites with a sexual dimension) such as we find in otherapocryphal gospels. As evidence for second-century developments it is interesting andimportant, but it is unlikely to contribute anything to our understanding of Mark.” (Pp. 410-11)1726France notes that “The previous passion predictions have each been followed by anexample of the disciples’ failure to grasp Jesus’ new scale of values and by consequentremedial teaching. Here the pattern is repeated even more strongly...and Jesus respondswith the most thoroughgoing statement yet of the revolutionary values of the kingdom ofGod.” (P. 414)1727The plural nominative definite article oi`, hoi, is read by Sinaiticus, Bezae, L, W,Gamma, Delta, Psi, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 892, 1241, 1424, manyother Greek manuscripts and Origen (who died 254 A.D.). It is changed to read oi` du,o, hoiduo, “the two”, by Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Minuscules 579, 2427, a few otherGreek manuscripts and the Coptic tradition. It is omitted by Alexandrinus, K, N, Theta,Minuscules 28, 565, 700, 2542 and many other Greek manuscripts. These variantreadings do not change the meaning of Mark, but demonstrate once again the freedom feltby copyists to eliminate what they took to be unnecessary words, or to add in additionalwords in the form of early “commentary.”Anderson holds that these two disciples of Jesus "...Are stamped out here as(continued...)970

1729 1730him, "Teacher, we wish that, whatever we may ask you, you should do for us!" 10.36 So1731then he said to them, "What do you wish (from) [me] that I should do for you?" 10.37 So then1727(...continued)representatives of those who cannot understand God's will and way. They still reckon bypurely human norms and standards and are preoccupied with the question of who shall befirst in rank and dignity rather than who shall be first in suffering and service." (P. 254)1728See Mark 1:19 with its footnotes.1729The aorist subjunctive, first person plural verb aivth,swme,n, aitesomen, “we may ask,”is changed to read the synonymous subjunctive verb evrwth,swmen, erotesomen, “we mayrequest,” by Bezae, Theta (see), Minuscules 1 (see), 565 and a few other Greekmanuscripts. The variant reading does not change the meaning of Mark, but againdemonstrates the freedom felt by copyists to substitute synonyms for words in the original.1730France notes that the two disciples take a “roundabout approach”to Jesus,suggesting “some delicacy in broaching such a self-centered request. The requested carteblance [originally, a blank paper, with a person’s signature at the bottom, given to anotherperson, with permission to write in whatever conditions he pleases, i.e., with unlimitedauthority, or full discretionary power] draws from Jesus a suitably cautious reply.”Maclaren comments, "While He strode before the Twelve, absorbed in thoughts ofthe Cross to which He was pressing, they, as they followed, 'amazed' and 'afraid,' werethinking not of what He would suffer, but of what they might gain...What a contrast betweenJesus, striding on ahead with 'set' face, and the Twelve unsympathetic and self-seeking,lagging behind to squabble about preeminence!" (P. 90)Maclaren also notes that "The attempt to get Jesus' promise without telling what wasdesired betrayed the consciousness that the wish was wrong. His guarded counterquestionwould chill them and make their disclosure somewhat hesitating." (P. 91)Swete comments that "Both the homage offered and the terms of the petition...suggest that the Lord is approached in the character of a King, who can gratify the desiresof His subjects without limitation..." (P. 235)We are reminded of Gibbon’s story of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, inwhich the emperors of Rome were constantly surrounded by self-seeking flatterers,wanting a place of ease and power, and eventually contributing to the weakness and fall ofthe Empire. The followers of Jesus are not far removed from that same inclination–as wasproven by the similarity of the Church in the Roman Empire, with its Pope, surrounded byself-seeking aspirants to power.1731The phrase ti, qe,lete, ÎmeÐ poih,sw, ti thelete [me] poieso, literally, “What do you(continued...)971

1732 1733 1734they said to him, "Grant to us that we may sit, one at your right, and one at your left, in1731(...continued)people wish me, I should do?” is read by a corrector of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Psi andMinuscule 2427 (a corrector, or possibly the original copyist). France calls this a“syntactically impossible reading” (p. 414).It is changed to read ti, qe,lete, poih,sw, ti thelete poieso, “What do you people wishI should do?” by Ephraemi Rescriptus, Theta, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules,Minuscules 565, 1241 (see), 1424 and a few other Greek manuscripts.It is changed to read ti, poih,sw, ti poieso, “What should I do?” by the Old LatinManuscripts a, b and I.It is changed to read only poih,sw, poieso, “I should do,” by Bezae.It is changed to read ti, qe,lete, poih/sai me, ti thelete poiesai me, “What do youpeople wish me to do?” by a corrector of Sinaiticus (see), Alexandrinus, L (see), W (see),the first writer of Minuscule 2427 (see) and the “Majority Text.” We suspect a problem inthe primitive text at this point, which has been resolved in these differing ways by latercopyists and translators–none of which change the meaning of Mark. France holds thatthe second of these readings, ti, qe,lete, poih,sw, ti thelete poieso, “What do you peoplewish I should do?” best explains the other variants, and should therefore be consideredoriginal.1732The lengthy phrase beginning with the seventh from the last word in verse 35 to theseventh word in verse 37, i`,na o] eva.n aivth,swme,n se poih,sh|j h`mi/nÅ o` de. ei=pen auvtoi/j\ ti,qe,lete, ÎmeÐ poih,sw u`mi/nÈ oi` de. ei=pan auvtw/|\ do.j h`mi/n...hina ho ean aitesomen sepoieses hemin. ho de eipen autois, ti thelete [me] poieso humin; hoi de eipan auto, doshemin, “that whatever we may ask you, you may do for us. Then he said to them, ‘what doyou people wish [me] I should do for you?’ Then they said to him, ‘Give to us...’” is omittedby the first writer of Sinaiticus.This is a classic case of the eye of the copyist skipping from the first occurrence ofi`,na, hina to its second occurrence, and leaving out the intervening words–a mistake that isvery easy to make when copying another writing, and the copyist becomes slightlyinattentive and weary.1733The phrase sou evk dexiw/n, sou ek deksion, literally “of you out of rights,” is read bySinaiticus, Vaticanus, the first writer of Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, Delta, Psi, the first writerof Minuscule 892, Minuscules 1241, 2427 and a few other Greek manuscripts. It ischanged to the reverse word-order by Alexandrinus, a corrector of Ephraemi Rescriptus,Bezae, W, Theta, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules and the “Majority Text.” The change inword-order does not change the meaning of Mark, but probably indicates a difficulty foundby copyists in reading the text in its original order.(continued...)972

your glorious radiance!" 17351733(...continued)1734The phrase evx avristerw/n, eks aristeron, literally “out of lefts,” is read by Vaticanus,Delta, Minuscules 892 (variant reading) and 2427.It is changed to read evx euvwnu,mwn, eks euonumon, “out of lefts,” by Bezae, W,Theta, Minuscules 1, 565, 1424 and a few other Greek manuscripts.It is changed to read evx euvwnu,mwn sou, eks euonumon sou, literally “out of lefts ofyours,” by Sinaiticus (in a different word-order), Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus,Uncial Manuscript 0146, Family 13 of Minuscules, Minuscule 1241 (in a different wordorder)and the “Majority Text.”It is changed to read sou evx avristerw/n, sou eks aristeron, literally “yours out oflefts,” by L, Psi and the first writer of Minuscule 892. We think that it is obvious that latercopyists had trouble understanding the original language of Mark, and made thesedifferent attempts at translating its language–but without changing its meaning.1735France comments that “The request, precipitated perhaps by the excitement ofcoming near Jerusalem, the ‘royal’ city, assumes that Jesus, as ‘king,’ has positions ofhonor and influence [within his ability to give]...To speak of sitting (rather than reclining, asat a banquet) on the right (or left) of someone implies a royal throne with the places ofhighest honor on either side; there are of course only two such places, leaving no room forPeter.” (P. 415)Lane asks the question, "Were [Jacob] and John asking for a confirmation that theplaces they occupied in the fellowship meals which the Twelve shared with Jesus would betheir seats when his glory was openly unveiled?" (P. 379) What Jacob and John mean is"in your glorious kingdom," when Jesus comes in God's mighty power to bring divinevictory to the people of God. As Swete comments, "The petition was a bold attempt toraise afresh the question [‘Who is greatest?’]...which the Lord had already dismissed." (P.236) Compare Mark 9:34. Taylor states, "They had entirely failed to apprehend theteaching concerning Messianic suffering; their minds still moved in the circle ofcontemporary beliefs." (P. 441)France comments that “The setting of their request, with its presumption that Jesusis on the way to ‘glory,’ is remarkable, following immediately after the most ominous anddetailed of Jesus’ passion predictions...Jesus’ response accepts their desire to share hisdestiny, but offers a more realistic view of what that will mean. But in the end verse 40undermines the whole premise on which their request was based, that status in thekingdom of God can be bestowed as a favor, or even earned by loyalty and self-sacrifice.”(P. 414)973(continued...)

173610.38 But then the Jesus said to them, "You don't know what you are asking. Are you1737able to drink the cup which I am drinking, or to be immersed with the immersion with which I1738 1739 1740am being immersed?" 10.39 So then they said to him, "We are able!" But then the1735(...continued)Luccock notes that "This is the final form of unacceptable prayer. It was sincere; itwas earnest; it was wrong. [Jacob] and John were asking Jesus to fit into their plans.They had no concern at the moment over fitting into his plans. Prayer is alwaysunacceptable when it says to God, 'You do whatever I want'...When our prayer makes ademand on God to adjust himself to our desires, when it does not test desires by his natureand purposes, when the loud strident 'I' drowns out the 'thou,' we do not pray in Jesus'name or spirit." (P. 812)1736Swete notes, "The petition displayed ignorance." (P. 236) Anderson comments thatall of this "...underscores for Mark the disciples' blindness. They are as yet bound bytraditional ideas and expectations out of the Jewish past and so are unprepared tocomprehend the new and unexpected element in the strange good news of the Son ofMan's suffering." (P. 255)1737As Swete remarks, "The cup belongs to the royal banquet at which the King sitsbetween His most honored guests...But by an easy transition the Lord passes in thought toanother set of associations which connects the wine-cup with the allotted share of joy orsuffering which is the portion of men and of nations in the course of their life...What thiscup was in the present case both the [disciples] afterwards learned in Gethsemane(14:36)." (P. 236)See Psalm 16:5; 23:5; 116:13 (the "cup of salvation"); then Psalm 11:6; 75:8; Isaiah51:17-23; Jeremiah 25:15-38; Lamentations 4:21-22; Ezekiel 23:31-4; Habakkuk 2:15-17,and Zechariah 12:2; (all concerning the "cup of divine wrath"). Compare also thePseudepigraphical Martyrdom of Isaiah 5:13 and Psalms of Solomon 8:14-15.The present tense of the verb indicates that Jesus is "in the act" of drinking the cup.This two-fold, ambiguous sense of the "cup" is intentional. The "cup of suffering" whichJesus drinks is to become the "cup of salvation" for his disciples. Luccock notes that "Thecup which he drank and the baptism with which he was baptized involved the actualoffering of life. His question, then, was literally this: 'Can you, too, offer your lives?'" (P.813)1738France comments that “For Jesus the route to glory is clear; it is by way of the [cup]and the [immersion] which await him...and anyone who wishes to share the glory must firstalso share these experiences.” (P. 416)Swete comments that "The royal baths in which the Herods delighted may possiblybe in view...Of a 'baptism' which awaited Him He had already spoken to the Twelve (Luke(continued...)974

1738(...continued)12:50), and He now reminds the two of it...The metaphor itself is among the most usual inthe Old Testament [we think this is overstatement]; the sufferer is regarded as plungedand half-drowned in his grief or loss." (P. 237) See Psalm 42:7; 69:1-2, 14-15; 124:3-4;Isaiah 43:2, and Jonah 2.Here again, just as with the "cup," there is a two-fold, ambiguous meaning involved.The "immersion" of suffering and death into which Jesus is entering is to become the joyful"immersion into his death," followed by resurrection to new life experienced by the futuredisciples of Jesus, who drink of the “cup of salvation.” Taylor notes that "The relevancy ofthe sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist may have been in the mind of Mark." (P.441) But these are only allusions, while the central focus of both the cup and theimmersion are upon the imminent suffering and death of Jesus.Luccock notes that "The baptism with which Jesus was baptized will mean puttingourselves into conflict with evil and dangerous powers. Jesus probably could have avoidedthat by staying in Galilee. He was not brought to trial for saying, 'Consider the lilies...howthey grow' (Matthew 6:28). It was for saying, 'Consider the thieves in the temple, how theysteal.' That is what brought on the crisis." (P. 814) Luccock also comments at this pointon how inadequate the view is that religion is nothing more than an "escape" from life andits demands. Obviously, Jesus means acceptance of life and its demands, even to thepoint of full self-sacrifice in service.1739The dative singular pronoun auvtw|/, auto, “to him,” is omitted by Bezae, W, Theta,Uncial Manuscript 0146, Family 1 of Minuscules, Minuscules 565, 700, 892, 1424, 2542, afew other Greek manuscripts and a majority of the Old Latin witnesses. In fact the pronounis not necessary for Mark’s meaning, and its omission does not change the meaning at all.1740Swete comments that this was "A lighthearted and eager reply, which reveals theabsence even in a disciple like John of any clear understanding of the Master's repeatedwarnings, and at the same time the loyalty of the men who were ready to share theMaster's lot, whatever it might be." (P. 237) Lane states, "Their naive reply only serves toindicate that they were as incapable of understanding the full import of Jesus' reference tohis cup and baptism as they were of grasping the real significance of his prophecy of thepassion." (P. 381)France likewise comments that “For James and John [the cup and the immersion]represent a regrettable but necessary hurdle on the way to [glory], and as such thesuffering must be faced: [‘we are able!’]. They may lack understanding, but not loyalty orcourage.” (P 417)Luccock preached on this text as follows: "We say, 'We are able,' thinking of a life ofstalwart discipleship. Yet so often we are not ready to meet the unexpected gnawing ofattrition, the wearing down of dedication. The repetition of tiresome small demands isharder to resist than the big frontal attack. We say, 'We are able,' thinking of the future,(continued...)975

Jesus said to them, "The cup which I am drinking, you will drink; and the immersion with which I1741am being immersed, you will be immersed; 10.40 but then the sitting at my right, or at (my) left,1742 1743 1744is not mine to grant –but rather, (it belongs) to those (for whom) it has been prepared!"1740(...continued)when our hour of destiny and the great opportunity will meet. We are not so 'able' for thebothersome present, for the immediate thing: that has no glamour of greatness about it..."(P. 815) Compare the Nation of Israel’s claim at Mount Sinai–Exodus 19:8.1741Swete comments, "This then they shall do, since they have strength for it [but didthey? How many of the immediate disciples, especially the men, ran away when the crisiscame?]; they shall share the Master's cup and baptism..." Then Swete notes that "It wasnatural that in an age of persecution the words should be felt to be peculiarly applicable tomartyrdom strictly so called, and this application is early and widespread." (P. 237) Sweteis referring to such passages as Polycarp's Martyrdom, 14.1742Swete comments, "The Lord disclaims the right to dispose in an arbitrary manner ofthe higher rewards of the Kingdom." He quotes Theophylact as stating, "It is not mine togive, but if anyone struggles and conquers, for that person the crown has been madeready." (P. 238) Taylor notes that this saying has every mark of authenticity: "Thedeclaration of Jesus that it is not for Him to assign precedence in the Kingdom of God(10:40) places this saying in the same category as 13:32 [in which Jesus states that Hedoes not know the day or the hour] which it is impossible to attribute to the creativeness ofthe Christian community." (P. 439)1743The phrase all’ oi-j, all’ hois, literally “, but rather for those,” is read by a corrector ofVaticanus, Theta, Psi, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscule 2427, the “MajorityText,” the Latin Vulgate, a few of the Old Latin witnesses, the Peshitta Syriac, the HarcleanSyriac and the Bohairic (?).It is changed to read ; av,lloij, ? allois,“ ”? for others” by Minuscule 22, a majority ofthe Old Latin witnesses, and a few manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic. This confusionwould be especially easy when manuscripts were written in all capital letters, joined closelyto one another, and without punctuation--in which case the two words all’ oi-j, all' hois,"but rather for those," can be easily read as one word allois ("for others"), i.e., with thefollowing verb, "...It has been prepared for others."It is changed to ; allois de, “? Then for others...” by the Sinaitic Syriac. It seemsapparent that there has been a problem in the primitive text at this point, and later copyistshave had to resolve it in their own individual ways, leaving a great deal of uncertainty as tothe exact meaning of Jesus’ statement, and reading the earlier part of the statement as a(continued...)976

1743(...continued)question rather than as an affirmation.1744The perfect passive verb h`toi,mastai, hetoimastai, “it has been prepared,” has aninterpolated statement following it, u`po. tou/ patro,j mou, hupo tou patros mou, literally “bythe father of mine,” which is found in the parallel Gospel (Matthew 20:23), and is read bythe first writer of Sinaiticus and then by a later corrector; Theta (see), Family 1 ofMinuscules, Minuscule 1241, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin Manuscripts a,r (a corrector, probably), the Harclean Syriac margin and a few manuscripts of the BohairicCoptic. We think this interpolation is correct, since the use of passive verbs quite oftenpoints to divine influence (compare France, p. 417).Taylor comments that "'Prepared' does not necessarily carry with it the idea of'predestination'; it means no more than that places of honor are of the Father's appointingaccording to His counsels." (P. 442) Compare such passages as Exodus 23:20 (in itsGreek translation); Matthew 25:34; John 14:1-4; 1 Corinthians 2:9 and Hebrews 11:16.France comments that “In the light of the preceding [passages], we may be fairlycertain that [those for whom it has been prepared] will not be those who would have beenexpected, or who would expect themselves, to take precedence, but rather those who arelike the child, the little ones...The well-informed reader might reflect that those who weresoon to be on Jesus’ right and left were to be not honored disciples but [thieves], and thesetting not a throne but a gibbet [i.e., a ‘hanging-post’] (15:27).” (P. 418)Luccock notes that "Taken literally, without giving due weight to the context andhistorical situation, [these words of Jesus] can be made, and have been made, the basis ofquite a towering structure of foreordination and predestination; but to do so is to lay handsviolently on Jesus' mind and shape it into another mold, to read into his words ideas of alater time...“[What these words] proclaim is that there is nothing arbitrary about rank in thekingdom. It cannot be assigned through favoritism, as a king appoints his ministers.Precedence in that realm is 'a question of being first and not of standing first...not ofappointment, but of achievement.' [Quoting E. P. Gould] It is in God's hands. But it is alsoin man's hands as he fulfills the requirements of God--there are many such things in thespiritual life that are not alone God's to give, but man's to fashion." (P. 815)Schweizer adds that "The fact that Jesus has left open the question for whom theseplaces of honor have been prepared (by God) makes it very clear that to Jesus,discipleship does not allow one to claim any special reward. In a very pointed mannerJesus rejects the idea that suffering is meritorious. The fact that one suffers in somespecific way as a part of sharing in the pathway of Jesus does not qualify him to receive areward, neither does it allow him to make any special demand." (P. 222)But is not Schweizer also reading a great deal into the text of Mark? We think thatthe interpretation given by Taylor, Luccock, and Gould, is much more appropriate–the(continued...)977

1745 1746 1747 174810.41 And the ten, hearing, began to be indignant about Jacob and John.1749 1750 175110.42 And summoning them, the Jesus says to them, "You know that those who have a1744(...continued)arbitrary assignment of rewards and honors beforehand is not for Jesus to do–as if hewere creating a new “Roman Empire” with its arbitrarily assigned places of honor besidethe Emperor! No–the Kingdom of God is not at all like that.1745France comments that this section (verses 41-45) “picks up the theme of 9:35 andagain subverts the whole notion of leadership and importance which human society takesfor granted...The ‘natural’ assumptions and valuations by which people operate no longerapply in the kingdom of God. It is a genuinely alternative society. His own loss of his lifefor the sake of others not only embodies this new scale of values but also offers thedisciples a model to follow.” (Pp. 414-15)1746Mark means the ten remaining members of the inner circle of Jesus' most intimatedisciples--normally described as "the twelve," but now with Jacob and John not beingincluded.1747This is the same verb avganaktei/n, aganaktein that is used of Jesus earlier at 10:14.Luccock notes that "The drive for preferment might be called a number one enemyof the Christian church." (P. 816) He also goes on to note that "...Part, at least, of thedisciple's resentment over the private reach James and John made for high places wasdue to the fact that they wanted the high places for themselves. Their feeling was nopurely moral disapproval of such self-promotion; they were angry because they were afraidof being maneuvered out of something they coveted for their own possession." (P. 816)1748Swete comments that all of this "...at once revived the spirit of jealousy which hadbeen checked by the teaching of 9:35ff... It threatened the harmony and spiritual life of theApostolate, and called for immediate correction." (Pp. 238-39)Lane notes that this "...Also indicates the degree to which selfish ambition andrivalry were the raw material from which Jesus had to fashion the leadership for theincipient Church." (P. 382)1749France notes that “Proskalesa,menoj, proskalesamenos, “summoning,” “indicatesthe reintegration of the group of twelve as Jesus summons the grumbling ten (auvtou,j,autous, ‘them’) back together with them.” (P. 418)1750Mark again uses the present tense here, indicating that Jesus' following words have(continued...)978

1752 1753reputation for ruling the non-Jews lord it over them; and their 'great ones' exercise1754 1755 1756 1757authority over them. 10.43 But then it is not this way among you. But rather,1750(...continued)continuing application for its readers. Swete remarks that "The tone of His words issingularly gentle; the occasion (for there had been great provocation) called for definiteteaching rather than for censure." (P. 239)1751France notes that “The rebuke which follows in verses 42-44 is apparently addressednot to James and John but to them all. This suggests that their annoyance is not over theambition of the two brothers as such, but, over the fact that they have got in first and triedto gain an unfair advantage over their colleagues in the competition for the highest places.On this issue they are all equally at fault.” (P. 418) Compare footnote 1743.1752Swete comments that Jesus only speaks of this kind of rulership as a "supposed"rulership: "The Master recognized the Empire and other institutions of society as factsbelonging to the Divine order of things (12:17), but He did not admit that the power of sucha ruler as Tiberius was a substantial dignity; it rested on a reputation which might besuddenly wrecked, as indeed the later history of the Empire clearly proved." (P. 239)1753The phrase mega,loi auvtw/n, megaloi auton, literally “great ones of theirs,” ischanged to read basilei/j auvtw/n, basileis auton, “kings of theirs,” by Sinaiticus (whichmay have omitted the pronoun), the first writer of Ephraemi Rescriptus (probably), theLatin Vulgate (see) and a few of the Old Latin witnesses (see). The variant reading doesnot change the meaning of Mark, but makes it more specific–i.e., not just “great ones,” but“kings.”1754France notes that “The two kata-, kata- compounds [katakurieu,ousin,katakurieuousin, ‘lord over,’ and katexousia,zousin, kateksoursiazousin, ‘exerciseauthority over’]...convey the oppressive and uncontrolled exploitation of power, theflaunting of authority rather than its benevolent exercise.” (P. 419)1755Swete comments that "They knew enough of the Gentile world to be aware that thesort of greatness which they desired was just that which the Gentiles sought." (P. 239)Grant notes that this verse "...Pictures vividly the manners and morals of earthly rulers; oneis reminded of the frequent mention by Tacitus and other historians of the investigation andtrial by law of provincial governors for their deeds of extortion and oppression of subjectpeople, among them the Jews. Mark had certainly seen the seamy side of Romanadministration under Nero; and the same conditions had prevailed in Palestine underPontius Pilate (A.D. 26-36), and therefore during the public ministry of Jesus." (Pp. 816-17)979(continued...)

1755(...continued)Luccock comments that "There is a definite note of scorn for the great men andrulers who lord it over their people. There is a swagger in that phrase. We can see theirgestures of pride and arrogance. In Jesus' condemnation is his verdict on a whole politicalorder. He who never took up any questions of political theory here sweepingly indicts thewhole Roman and Oriental system of government, and by implication every governmentwhich preserves the lord-it-over-them quality, and fails to justify itself in service to itscitizens and humanity. His words reject not only Rome with its exploitation, but allimperialism, all colonialism, which seeks advantage rather than service...Jesus finds thatthere is nothing in the business of lording it over peoples which deserves the name ofleadership at all." (P. 817)We must ask ourselves whether there is any teaching of Jesus more necessary forhis disciples in our own time and place than this. In terms of over-all Biblical Theology, thepeople of God who are bearers of the promise are not called so much to "be blessed," butto "become a blessing," so that through them all the nations of the earth may be blessed.We are not called to "get," but rather "to serve.”1756The present indicative active verb ev ,stin, estin, “it is,” is read by Sinaiticus,Vaticanus, the first writer of Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, L, W, Delta, Theta, Psi,Minuscules 700, 2427, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate, a few of the OldLatin witnesses and the Coptic tradition. It is changed to the future indicative ev ,stai, estai,“it will be,” by Alexandrinus, a corrector of Ephraemi Rescriptus, Families 1 and 13 ofMinuscules, the “Majority Text,” the Old Latin Manuscript q and a few manuscripts of theBohairic Coptic. The change in tense is understandable, as these copyists and translatorsattempted to apply the teaching to later generations; but it does not change the meaning ofthe teaching, that it is not this way now, and it should not be this way in the future (how wewish that this would have always been true in Christian history!).1757France comments that the phrase ouvc ou[twj evstin evn u`mi/n, ouch houtos estin enhumin, ‘not in this way is (it) among you people,’ “sums up the revolutionary ethics of thekingdom of God. The natural expectations of society are reversed, and leadership ischaracterized by service, by being under the authority of others, like a dia,konoj, diakonos,‘minister,’ ‘servant,’ or dou/loj, doulos, ‘slave’...It is to everyone (pa,ntwn, panton, ‘all’) thatprecedence must be given...The only new term introduced here is dou/loj, doulos, ‘slave,’a further extension of the idea of subjection, since a [slave] had far less self-determinationeven than a dia,konoj, diakonos, ‘minister,’ ‘servant’...This [is] the most powerful statementyet of the alternative value scale of the kingdom of God.” (P. 419).As Swete notes, "Another order prevails in...the new Israel, whose standards ofgreatness are wholly unlike those of the Gentile world. Jesus had already inauguratedthese new conditions of social life..." (P. 239) As noted in the previous footnote, somelater witnesses replace the present tense with the future tense, making the statement ofJesus mean "In the coming kingdom it will not be like this!" But the original text of Markuses the present tense, making Jesus say "Here and now, in My kingdom, it is not like(continued...)980

1758 1759 1760whoever may wish to become great among you, will be your minister; 10.44 and whoever1761 1762 1763 1764may wish to be first among you, will be slave of all! 10.45 For even the Son of the1757(...continued)this!"Luccock comments, "This reversal of the world's measurements is hard to accept;but until we do accept it we are far from the kingdom. Suppose our lives were to bemeasured only by the amount of real service we have rendered to people. How greatwould they be? Jesus is here telling us that this is precisely how they are measured." (P.817)1758The aorist infinitive verb gene,sqai, genesthai, “to become,” is changed to read ei=nai,einai, “to be,” by Bezae (see), Theta (see), Uncial Manuscript 0146, Minuscule 700 (see),a few other Greek manuscripts and a majority of the Old Latin witnesses. This variantreading does not change the meaning of Mark, but simply substitutes a synonym for theword found in the original being copied.1759The future indicative verb ev ,stai, estai, “he / she will be,” is changed to the imperativeverb ev ,stw, esto, “let him / her be,” by Sinaiticus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Delta, Minuscules565, 2542 and some other Greek manuscripts. The change in the verb is understandable,as it does improve the sense of the passage–but probably thereby testifies to its later originon the part of these copyists. It does not change the meaning of Mark.1760The Greek text is u`mw/n dia,konoj, humon diakonos, literally, "of you people, aminister (or, ‘deacon’).”1761The phrase evn u`mi/n ei=nai, en humin einai, literally “in you people to be,” is read bySinaiticus, Vaticanus, the first writer of Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, Delta (see), Theta, Psi,Uncial Manuscript 0146 (probably), Minuscules 28, 579, 700, 892, 1241, 1424, 2427, a fewother Greek manuscripts and the Old Latin Manuscripts c and ff2. It is changed to readu`mw/n ei=nai, humon einai, “of you people to be,” by Bezae, W, Family 1 of Minuscules,Minuscules 565, 2542 and a few other Greek manuscripts. It is changed to read u`mw/ngene,sqai, humon genesthai, “of you people to become,” by Alexandrinus, a corrector ofEphraemi Rescriptus, Family 13 of Minuscules and the “Majority Text.” These variantreadings do not change the meaning of Mark, but say the same thing in slightly differentways.1762The noun is dou/loj, doulos, literally, "slave..." In the words of Lane, "Jesusconsciously opposes to the order of earthly rule the vocation of the servant." (P. 382)1763We may well ask, "How many people are included in the phrase "...servant of all"?(continued...)981

1765 1766 1767 1768Person did not come not to be ministered to, but rather to minister, and to give the life1763(...continued)Does that mean "...servant of everyone within our group"? Or, does it not mean "servant ofall people, regardless of who or where they are"? Swete comments that "Service ishenceforth to precede greatness, preeminence can only be secured by a true [service ofthe servants of God]." (P. 240) Taylor aptly called attention to 1 Corinthians 9:19, 2Corinthians 4:5, and Galatians 5:13, as illustrations of how deeply this idea of service"penetrated into primitive Christianity." (P. 444)Paul's interpretation of this "all" included people of every race and nationality in thefirst century world. Was Jesus' vision any less than that? Compare footnote 1619 on Mark10:13.Luccock comments that "It is a complete revolution, the inauguration of an upsidedownworld. The whole social pyramid is inverted." (P. 812)1764France comments that verse 45 “gives at least the beginning of an answer to thequestion which must have been growing in the mind of any reader who has felt the fullforce of the three passion predictions: Why must he die? The ransom saying thus bringsthe central section of the gospel to an appropriate conclusion, and one which prepares thereader for the arrival in Jerusalem and the beginning of the fulfillment of Jesus’ warnings.”(P. 415)1765France comments that “The [Son of the Person] provides the supreme model ofstatus reversal in that he whose destiny it was [to be served] (Daniel 7:14 in its Greektranslation)...was instead to become [a servant or minister of all]...[This noun, servant orminister] does not denote a particular role, but rather the paradoxically subordinate statusof the one who should have enjoyed the service of others.” (P. 419)1766Johannes Weiss holds that the past tense of the verb here indicates that the entirelife and ministry of Jesus are being viewed in retrospect, and that therefore this sayingcannot be an original saying of Jesus, but is instead a later saying formulated by an earlytheologian, attempting to describe the life and work of Jesus in Pauline terms. (SeeTaylor's detached note on pp. 445-46.)This is a possibility; however, it would be entirely possible for Jesus, viewing himselfas the "Son of the Person," to look back at his original purpose in "coming," and speak of itin the past tense.1767The passive infinitive diakonhqh/nai, diakonethenai, means literally, "(not) to beministered (or, ‘deaconed’) to..."982

1769 1770of his a ransom on behalf of many!"1768Literally, when transliterated into English, "to deacon,” or “to minister.”Luccock comments, "The highest achievement in life is to get out of the passivevoice into the active [from ‘being served’ to ‘serving’]. It is the 'great divide' which somepeople never cross...By how many are we ministered to, all the way from astronomers andpoets to bus operators and garbage collectors! Yet a life's most significant graduation daycomes when we graduate into the active voice. And so few ever do; ever really come tomoral maturity. The aim of 'the great ones' whom Jesus repudiated was to keepthemselves in the passive voice, to be waited upon, ministered to, forever on the receivingend, never on the giving end. That is the surest way to miss life in its largest possibilities.Only when we get life across this 'great divide' do we touch its highest glory or its deepestjoy." (P. 818)1769The accusative neuter singular noun lu,tron, lutron is used as the price paid for therelease of a captive, or of the purchase-price paid for the freeing of a slave. As Taylornotes, "The prevailing notion behind the word is that of deliverance by purchase." He alsoholds that while in this saying of Jesus the word is used metaphorically, it is meant toforcibly describe an act of "redemption," an act of "paying the price necessary to impartfreedom." (P. 444)He states, "It is wise never to forget that lu,tron, lutron is used metaphorically, butit is equally wise to remember that a metaphor is used to convey an arresting thought.Jesus died to fulfil the Servant's destiny and His service is that of vicarious andrepresentative suffering. We are ill-advised if we seek to erect a theory upon 10:45 alone,but equally so if we dismiss it as a product of later theological construction." (P. 446)Hugh Anderson observes, however, that "...The verb 'redeem' and the noun'redemption', from the same root as the Greek word for 'ransom', are quite widely usedalso in the [Greek translation of the Jewish Bible, the 'Septuagint'] and the NewTestament in reference to God's deliverance of his people without any notion of a ransompricepaid, and in the light of this more general usage it is unwise to import back into theransom-saying of Mark 10:45 later dogmatic theories of substitutionary atonement." (P.257)Anderson is referring primarily to Anselm of Canterbury, who interpreted God as"paying" Jesus to the devil as a "divine ransom-price" to secure human redemption.France notes that the occurrence of this noun lu,tron, lutron, “ransom,” occurs onlyhere and in its parallel Gospel, Matthew 20:28, in the Greek New Testament . “In secularGreek [this noun] was used mainly for a payment to secure release, whether from slaveryor from capture. The verb [‘to ransom’] occurs frequently in the LXX [Greek translation ofthe Jewish Bible] for God’s ‘redemption’ of his people, not only from slavery in Egypt butalso from spiritual oppression, and lu,tron, lutron, ‘ransom’ (normally in the plural) is usedfor payments to preserve a life which is legally forfeit...The essential meaning isdeliverance by the payment of an ‘equivalent.’” (P. 420)983

1770Many commentators note the possible relationship of this use of "for many" to thepassage concerning the "Suffering Servant of YHWH' in Isaiah 53:11-12 (YHWH’s “rightlyrelatedone, my servant, shall make many rightly-related...he bore the missings-of-themarkfor many...”).Schweizer comments that "The expression 'for many'...is typically Jewish andactually means 'for the sake of all' (not 'instead of'). 'Many' merely designates the vastmultitude in contrast to the individual, without intending to indicate that some might not beincluded (of course, that remains a possibility)." (P. 222)France comments that “There has been intense debate over the scripturalbackground of the clause [to give the innermost being of his a ransom on behalf of many],and in particular over whether these words are intended to recall the language of Isaiah 53,and thus to delineate Jesus in terms of the figure of the [‘servant of YHWH’].” He notesthat “to give his innermost being” is closely similar to Isaiah 53:12, Avêp.n: ‘tw

1770(...continued)[many], are for all disciples. They, too, must serve rather than be served, and it may bethat some of them will be called upon, like James and John, to give up their lives. There isno room for quarrels about [who is greater].” (Pp. 420-21)Anderson shares this view, stating that "There is no warrant here for the idea thatChrist died only for the elect." He had earlier stated that "The phrase ‘for many’...does notdenote the majority as opposed to the minority (who are not 'ransomed'), but all others, the‘many’ over against 'the one' (compare 1 Timothy 2:6, ‘who gave himself a ransom(avnti,lutron) for all’)." (P. 257)Swete comments that "The law of service is recommended by the example of theHead of the race; even the Son of God made its fulfillment the purpose of His life." (P.240) The entire purpose of his going up to Jerusalem to suffer and die was in order to beof service to many people. If that is the way of King Jesus, what should be the way of hisdisciples?Grant says concerning verse 45 that "It is one of the few theological statements inMark, and it helps us to understand his whole Christology...The verse states the ultimateobject of the Son of man's earthly life of service and his death was a 'ransom for many,'somewhat as the Jewish martyrs died for the redemption of their people (2 Maccabees7:37-38 (‘I, like my brothers, give up my body and life for the laws of our ancestors,appealing to God to show mercy soon to our nation and by trials and plagues to make youconfess that he alone is God, and through me and my brothers to bring to an end the wrathof the Almighty that has justly fallen on our whole nation.’); 4 Maccabees 17:22)." (P. 818)Luccock states, "Without being pressed into a theological dogma, it means that toJesus his death was not an accident, not a tragedy, but an offering from which [humanity]would receive great blessing." (P. 818)Grant also states that "So primitive, so Jewish, so scriptural (compare Isaiah 53), sonon- (if not pre-) Pauline a phrase is likely to be pre-Marcan as well, and should beunderstood in as simple and figurative, i.e., poetic and dramatic, a sense as possible,rather than with a fully developed theological meaning...Jesus is aware of his impendingdestiny. A divine necessity confronts him ['It is necessary to suffer many things'--8:31], andhe is prepared to accept it. But his destiny, since it is no decree of blind fate, but the will ofGod, has a meaning; that meaning is one which stands in closest relation to the purposesof God for his people--the 'many' were the nation, then the world, then the church of Godcalled out of many races and tongues. This saying does not formulate a theology of theAtonement, but is one of the data upon which any theology of the Atonement mustinevitably rest." (P. 819)Anderson closes his commentary on this passage by stating that "For the Evangelistthe ransom-saying admirably rounds off the section 10:35-45. For him the truth enshrinedin it is not merely something to be confessed or preached or even believed in, but theactual way laid down for all subsequent disciples and the divine justification for the new(continued...)985

1770(...continued)economy of sacrificial self-giving (described in 10:43-44) that must operate among them."(P. 258)This passage sets before our minds, in a very powerful way, the "law" that must guideand direct the disciples of King Jesus in their pilgrimage through this life. We may well ask,"What is THE LAW that holds true in every culture, in every age, in every place, regardless ofchanging circumstances and conditions? What is THE BINDING EXAMPLE that places itsinescapable demand upon the life and action and self-understanding of every follower ofJesus throughout the centuries of Christian history?Is it a code of laws culled out of the collection of twenty-seven separate writings that wetoday call the New Testament? For example, as this author’s earliest religious teacherstaught him, does it consist of every commandment, every example, every necessary inferencecontained in those books, with every one of them being of equal importance to the others?Is it the biblical picture of the earliest churches, in their organization, worship, andpersonal manner of life?Is it the teaching of the "Apostles" in their letters to those earliest churches after theDay of Pentecost, and the coming of the Holy Spirit?Or is it the system of canonical laws developed by the universal Church over thecenturies?The answer which we must give is no--none of the above. It is none of these, in spite ofthe importance that each one of them may hold. THE LAW of the disciples of Jesus is noneother than the example of Jesus, in his self-giving ministry, and in his willingness to die forothers. His life, and death, and resurrection are both his gift and his law (the “Word of God”).His life and death unite infinite grace with infinite demand. In his life and in his death, Jesusgave us our forgiveness and our law at the same time--his self-sacrifice both sets us free, andguides our footsteps. In his death, grace and law are combined as one.Here, in this picture of Jesus' self-centered disciples, we are to see ourselves. WhileJesus was on the road to Jerusalem, to drink the cup of suffering, as he was preparing toenter into an "immersion" of agony and death, his disciples were selfishly seeking their ownglory, asking for positions of prominence and authority for themselves. They were doinganything they could to enhance their own prestige, to gain positions of power and authority forthemselves, from which they would be able to "lord it over" others, and exercise authority overthose under them. Nothing could be more opposed to Jesus' own way of life. Yet that is theway it was--and the way it is, all too often, with far too many of us.Jesus speaks to us, and says, our aim in life must be ministry--self-giving ministry andservice to others. Therein alone lies greatness. Whoever among us wishes to become great,whoever among us wishes to be "first," let them become the willing servants of all. That's THELAW of the Kingdom of Jesus. Humbly stooping to serve, in selfless ministry to others, is thechosen life-style of our King and Leader; and it is the life-style that he exemplifies and(continued...)986

1770(...continued)commands for everyone of his disciples. It's the life-style that everyone of us both can andmust follow, whoever we are, wherever we are. It is just because this demand is so tough tofollow, so contrary to our normal life-styles, that we have attempted to substitute for it thekeeping of "codes of rules" that we have found and patched together from throughout theBible, or that we ourselves have formulated and put in the place of this demand.Jesus not only gave the law of self-sacrificial service--he lived it, he embodied it. Thisgreat Son of the Person had not come to be ministered to, but had come to minister to others.How he had come to minister! From the time of his coming to John the Immerser, and hissubsequent 40-day period of testing, Jesus had entered into a life of strenuous, self-givingministry to others. Mark has pictured that ministry in a long series of vignettes--little thumbnailsketches of daily ministry. His was a life of serving--of preaching the good news of God'scoming kingdom that was already present; of teaching the common people, whenever andwherever they were found; a ministry of reaching out to the untouchables, of forgiving thosewho had gone astray, of healing the sick, of reproving the proud, of giving sight to the blind, ofenabling the deaf to hear, of feeding the hungry, of bringing hope to the distressed, of actingas a shepherd to the crowds of people who were scattered like sheep without a shepherd. Hecame "not to be ministered to, but to minister." He himself was committed to just such a life ofministry, and it was to that same manner of life that he was calling and sending out hisdisciples, to follow his example. "For the Son of the Person came not to be ministered to, butto minister, and to give his life a ransom on behalf of the many.""To give his life as a ransom on behalf of the many." Why was Jesus going up toJerusalem to die? Why was he letting his great life of ministry end in such a tragic, seeminglysenseless way? The answer is that his death would accomplish a work which he could notachieve in any other way.This is the language of sacrifice: "To give his life...on behalf of the many." Thereligious leaders of his day dealt with the exclusive "few"--with the religious, with the "purified"people, who were found to be good enough, and worthy of membership in the religiouscommunity. Jesus, on the other hand, was dealing with the "many"--with the masses ofpeople, the impure, the uneducated, those who had gone astray, the wretched #r

1770(...continued)payment of that debt. His sacrifice of himself would constitute a "ransom on behalf of themany." It would set them free from their indebtedness, from their bondage.A "ransom" is that which sets free, which rescues, which redeems. Somehow, in thecounsels of God, the death of Jesus was "on our behalf." His death has freeing, redeeming,rescuing power. Somehow, in ways that we cannot fully understand or explain, Jesusbelieved, and Mark proclaims it as good news, that God himself was at work in Jesus, in hislife, death, and resurrection, doing for sinful, weak humanity what we could not and cannot dofor ourselves.His going up to Jerusalem, there to suffer and to die, and then to be raised up on thethird day, was not some "chance occurrence," not just another example of humanity'sinhumanity–although it certainly was that, a terribly wicked, unjust sentence of suffering anddeath on a genuinely innocent sufferer. But it was far more than that--God was there, inJesus, and through Jesus, working redemption and salvation and genuine freedom forever forthe "many"--including those proud disciples of his, who never could and still cannot fulfill ourproud claims of being able to follow him. His death is the one great sacrifice that makes allother sacrifices forever unnecessary. His death on our behalf has, in the power of God,opened up the way for us to genuine freedom. He "gave his life a ransom on behalf of many."Not for the "few," not for the select, narrowly defined, exclusive little group, but for many, foryou and me, and for all who wish to claim that sacrifice as their own. It is, at one and thesame time, God's great gift to us, and his law for us. Thanks be to God for his unspeakablegift.Illustrations:When the great world champion heavyweight boxer Muhammad Ali was in his prime,and was about to take off on an airplane flight, he was told by the stewardess to fasten hisseat-belt. He responded brashly, "Superman don't need no seat-belt!" The stewardessquickly came back by saying, "Superman don't need no airplane, either!" Ali fastened hisseat-belt.W. E. McCumber told the ministers of the Holiness Church that "We need to arrangea servanthood conference, with workshops in love, forgiveness, feet-washing, crossbearing--in short, workshops on Christ-likeness. God is not waiting for people to get bigenough to use, but rather is waiting for people to get small enough in their own eyes forHim to entrust them with His mission and Spirit. Christ cannot be represented byswaggering leaders who want to 'lord it over' the flock of God. He cannot be representedby puffed-up people who nominate themselves as church bosses. He can be honestlymanifested only in the lives of those who feel, as did Paul, that they are 'less than the leastof all the saints.'"988(continued...)

NEW SIGHT FOR BLIND EYESMark 10:46-5210.46 Êá ñ÷ïíôáé åò Éåñé÷þ. êá êðïñåõïìÝíïõ áôï ð Éåñé÷ êá ôí ìáèçôíáôï êá ÷ëïõ êáíï õò Ôéìáßïõ Âáñôéìáïò, ôõöëò ðñïóáßôçò, êÜèçôï ðáñ ôí äüí.10.47 êá êïýóáò ôé Éçóïò Íáæáñçíüò óôéí ñîáôï êñÜæåéí êá ëÝãåéí, õ Äáõä Éçóï,ëÝçóüí ìå. 10.48 êá ðåôßìùí áô ðïëëï íá óéùðÞó ä ðïëë ìëëïí êñáæåí, õÄáõßä, ëÝçóüí ìå.10.46 And they are coming into Jericho. And as he is going out from Jericho--also thedisciples of his, and a large crowd--the son of Timaios, Bartimaios, a blind beggar, was sittingbeside the road. 10.47 And, hearing that "It is Jesus the Nazarene!", he began to cry out and tosay, "O Son of David, Jesus, have mercy on me!" 19.48 And many were rebuking him, that heshould be silent. But then he was crying out much more, "O Son of David, have mercy on me!"10.49 êá óôò Éçóïò åðåí, ÖùíÞóáôå áôüí. êá öùíïóéí ôí ôõöëí ëÝãïíôåòáô, ÈÜñóåé, ãåéñå, öùíå óå. 10.50 ä ðïâáëí ô ìÜôéïí áôï íáðçäÞóáò ëèåíðñò ôí Éçóïí. 10.51 êá ðïêñéèåò áô Éçóïò åðåí, Ôß óïé èÝëåéò ðïéÞóù äôõöëò åðåí áô, ´Ñáââïõíé, íá íáâëÝøù. 10.52 êá Éçóïò åðåí áô, õðáãå, ðßóôéòóïõ óÝóùêÝí óå. êá åèò íÝâëåøåí êá êïëïýèåé áô í ô ä.10.49 And stopping, the Jesus said, "You people, call him!" And they call the blindperson, saying to him, "Take courage! Rise up! He is calling you!" 10.50 But then he, throwingoff the robe of his, jumping up, came to the Jesus. 10.51 And answering him, the Jesus said,"What do you wish I should do for you?" But then the blind person said to him, "Rabbouni, that Imight see again!" 10.52 And the Jesus said to him, "Go away–the faith of yours has made youwhole!" And immediately he saw again! And he was following him on the road.1770(...continued)989

Text with Footnotes 17711771There is more than one way to be blind. Many years ago, at the same time thatJesus and Paul lived, there was a Roman philosopher and author by the name of Seneca,who observed that "Eyes will not see when the heart wishes them to be blind. Desireconceals truth, as darkness does the earth." How right he was. When the heart sowishes, our eyes can easily become blind.When I was serving an inter-racial church in Fayetteville, North Carolina, I wasinvited by a dear friend and fellow minister to come down to a country church in EasternNorth Carolina to preach a revival. We had both been together in a meeting of Discipleministers at Camp Caroline, and had joined in signing a document in which all of theministers vowed to never practice racial prejudice, but rather, to work with all the people inour communities, no matter their color of skin. He was the first signer of that document,and I had signed it too. It was his plan that he and I would visit the many farm homes andcountry stores surrounding that country church, inviting all the people we met to come andshare in the revival. I asked him, "Do you mean everyone we meet?" His answer was,"Yes, of course." And so we went visiting.We came to a cross-roads service station and grocery store, and went inside, whereobviously he was well known. The store-owner greeted him by name, and we invited firsthim, and then the other people in the store to come to the revival. There was a family inthe back of the store, standing at the meat counter, and my friend put his arm around meas we walked right past them, and invited the others in the store--then went out the frontdoor and got into our car. I asked him why we hadn't invited that family--who happened tobe black. He looked at me and said there wasn't anyone there--we had invited everyperson in the store! I told him that no, we had walked right by that family at the meatcounter--and he heatedly denied that we had done any such thing.It is like Seneca observed. "Eyes will not see when the heart wishes them to beblind. Desire conceals truth, as darkness does the earth." Have you ever noticed how inthe eyes of some confirmed Republicans, Senator John Kerry can do no good? Have youalso noticed how in the eyes of some confirmed Democrats, President Bush can do nogood? Why is that? Why do we see things so differently? "Eyes will not see when theheart wishes them to be blind. Desire conceals truth, as darkness does the earth." Thereis more than one way to be blind! Think about that, as you study this passage concerning"New Sight for Blind Eyes."Very significantly, we think, this section of Mark, 8:22-10:52, which depicts Jesus onhis final trip to Jerusalem to face death there, both begins with the story of the healing of ablind man, and ends with the story of the healing of a blind man. And throughout thissection, one of the major emphases has been on the “blindness” of Jesus’ immediatedisciples, who are “blind” to what is happening. Jesus predicts his coming passion anddeath on three occasions in this section (8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34), and immediately followingeach of these predictions, Mark describes the failure of the disciples to understand, andtheir continuing to center their thoughts on their personal gain–a sort of “spiritualblindness.”(continued...)990

1772 1773 177410.46 And they are coming into Jericho. And as he is going out from Jericho--1771(...continued)Before we begin our study of this story, please ask yourself the following questions,and see if you can give a good answer to them.1. What do you know about Jericho? Where is it? What is its elevation? How oldis the City of Jericho?2. In Mark, Jesus' healing of this blind man occurs as he is leaving Jericho; in Luke(see 18:35-19:1), Jesus' healing of the blind man occurs before he enters Jericho. InMatthew (20:29-34), there are two blind persons who are healed, not just one, as Jesusleaves Jericho. How do you explain these differences?3. Why do you think many people tried to silence the blind man? How do you feelwhen people in deep need come into the church, crying out for help, and disturb us by theirpresence? Do you want them to keep quiet, insisting that they go elsewhere for help?4. Where was Jesus' emphasis placed--on the great crowd surrounding him, or onthe lone individual in his desperate cry for help? What do you think this should say to thechurch in our time and place? Should we make ourselves open to the pleas of individualsin need?5. If Jesus should suddenly call your name, and ask you the question, "What do youwish that I should do for you?", what would your answer be? Does this story imply thatJesus wants us to state our needs, openly and honestly, if we want his divine help? Whatare you asking Jesus for?6. What happened when blind Bartimaios became able to see? How far did hefollow Jesus?7. Do you think that Mark has given this, its last story of Jesus' miraculous healingpower, for a particular reason? He has emphasized the "spiritual blindness" of thedisciples of Jesus. Will we modern "Disciples" ever truly come to Jesus and receive hisgifts, until we recognize our spiritual blindness? Do you think there is really more than oneway to be blind?1772Mark once again uses the present tense verb ev ,rcontai, erchontai, “they come,”“they are coming,” in this story of the past--thereby making of his readers a sort of "presentobservers" of the action.1773The opening phrase of verse 46, Kai. e;rcontai eivj VIericw, Kai erchontai eisIericho, “And they are coming into Jericho,” is omitted by the first writer of Vaticanus and afew manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic. We think this is another example of the eye of thenormally very accurate copyist skipping from the first kai, kai, “and,” to its secondoccurrence, and as a result, omitting the intervening words.(continued...)991

1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780also his disciples, and a large crowd --the son of Timaios, Bartimaios, a blind1773(...continued)Jericho is the lowest city on the face of the earth (820 feet below sea level); it is alsoone of the oldest continuously occupied cities in the entire world. It has a very mild andwarm climate in the winter, and very little rain-fall; nonetheless, it has an abundance offresh water, pouring forth from the Spring of Elisha, and as a result is a wondrously fertileoasis in the midst of the barren Judean Wilderness. Because of this, Jericho became thefavorite site for winter palaces for King Herod and for his son Archelaus, as well as for laterArab rulers.Jericho is directly to the north northeast of Jerusalem, a distance of some 15 miles;it is situated just north of the Dead Sea, on the western side of the Jordan River. On theeast is the present Allenby Bridge, the site that for centuries has been a much-used fordingplace of the Jordan River. This incident is the only place in the Gospels where Jericho ismentioned, other than in the Parable of the Good Samaritan at Luke 10:30. See Matthew20:29, and Luke 18:35, 19:1 (Luke adds the story of the tax-collector, Zaccheus, whomJesus visited while passing through Jericho).Swete comments that "His arrival there marks another distinct stage in the journeyto the Cross; by publicly entering Jericho He places Himself in the power of the Procuratorand the Great Sanhedrin." (P. 242)1774Mark uses the present participle, evkporeuome,nou, ekporeuomenou, “while leaving,” or“while going out.” Luke differs from Mark in placing the story of the healing as Jesus wasentering into Jericho--see Luke 18:35-19:1--while Matthew tells the story of two blindbeggars instead of only one--see Matthew 20:29-34--and says that the healing took placeas Jesus and his disciples were leaving Jericho, agreeing with Mark at this point.France notes that “Mark is quite specific about the location of Bartimaeus’ healing,mentioning both the arrival in Jericho and the fact that the healing took place on the wayout. Luke, on the other hand, locates it on the approach to Jericho...The discrepancy isnot significant, and scarcely justifies the suggestion that Bartimaeus was convenientlysituated somewhere between the two contemporary sites of ‘Jericho’ [Herodian Jerichowas in fact located on the Wadi Qelt, about a mile from the site of the Old Testament city,which was probably also still occupied].”This type of difference in the narratives is completely understandable in documentswritten by human beings, with all the weaknesses and fallibilities to which human beingsand traditional stories are subject; but such differences are scarcely conceivable in adivinely dictated message that has come directly from the mind and pen of God! This is, ofcourse, only one of hundreds of similar differences to be found in the parallel stories in theGospels--and has given rise to what is known as the "Synoptic Problem," the problem ofhow to understand the relationship of the first three Gospels (which is only compounded,and made much more difficult, when John, the Fourth Gospel, is included). We think thatall of these differences (sometimes irreconcilable) are indications of the human element inthe Gospels, completely eliminating the possibility of an “infallible,” “verbally inspired” text.992

1775The phrase avpo. VIericw. kai, apo Iericho kai, “from Jericho and (or, ‘also’)...” ischanged to read evkei/qen meta, ekeithen meta, “from there with...” by Bezae, Theta (see),Minuscule 700 (see), a majority of the Old Latin witnesses and Origin of Alexandria (whodied 254 A.D.). The variant does not change the meaning of Mark, but says the samething in a slightly different way. These copyists and translators obviously did not feelthemselves bound to an exact, word-for-word repetition of the original text, but felt thefreedom to translate the basic meaning, even if in slightly different words.1776The words "--also his disciples, and a large crowd--" read as if they were a lateraddition to the original sentence of Mark. Perhaps the author added these words in orderto make the traditional story more appropriate for his editorial purpose--thereby supplyingwitnesses, and implying that what happened there on the outskirts of Jericho is of lastingimportance both for the disciples of Jesus and indeed, for all people. Schweizer agreedwith this, stating that "The words 'with his disciples and a large crowd' (verse 46) are a lateraddition which Mark uses as another reference to discipleship." (P. 224)Taylor comments that "He enters with a crowd of disciples (Luke 18:36), as a greatRabbi on His way to the Passover...The crowd...consisted of people from Jericho orpilgrims on their way to the Feast, perhaps both." (P. 447)France translates “a good crowd,” and notes that “This is no longer a small privateparty. Compare 10:1, 32 for indication of a larger pilgrim group than the Twelve as thejourney nears its end...This wider company will feature in this [passage] as first thediscouragers and then the encouragers of Bartimaeus, and will then furnish the supportersneeded for the crowd scene in 11:8-9.” (Pp. 422-23)1777Swete reminded his readers that "Timaios, familiar as that of the interlocutor in theTimaeus of Plato, probably covers an Aramaic name, which also underlies the patronymicBartimaios." (P. 242) France thinks it somewhat surprising that Mark translates thename, thinking that the meaning of the name would be unimportant to the readers(nowhere else in Mark is the personal name of a healed person given). He thinks thisindicates that either the former blind man or his father would have been known in thechurch of Mark, for whom this Gospel was written (p. 423).1778The name Bartimai/oj, Bartimaios, is changed to Bartimi,aj, Bartimias by Bezaeand a majority of the Old Latin witnesses. It is omitted by W. The omission does notchange the meaning of Mark, as the name of the blind man has just been given in Greektranslation, and the copyist may well have felt that giving the name in its original form wasunnecessary. The change of the omicron to an alpha may simply be mistake in spelling,but such changes in the spelling of names (especially from a “foreign” language) arecommon in the manuscript tradition.The order of the words is somewhat strange. Ordinarily, we would expect"...Bartimaios, which means 'Son of Timaios.'" See Mark 3:17; 7:11, 34; 14:36. Taylor(continued...)993

1778(...continued)concluded from this that "The phrase may be a scribal gloss...The use of the name pointsto special information, and perhaps to the fact that Bartimaeus was known in the Church atJerusalem." (P. 448) Schweizer holds that "...This may indicate that the story was toldfirst in Aramaic, and then was taken over by a Greek-speaking church which added thetranslation of the foreign-sounding name." (P. 224)Bartimai/oj, Bartimaios is Aramaic, and means "Son of Timaios." The nameTimaios is obscure. If it has a Semitic origin, the name Bartimai/oj, Bartimaios maymean "Son of Uncleanness." But it is more likely that this is a combination of Aramaic andGreek, which would mean "Son of Timothy," "Son of Honorer of God." Taylor notes that"Only here and in the case of Jairus (5:22) is a name given in Mark earlier than thePassion Narrative and apart from the disciples." (P. 447) This may well be an indicationthat the story reflects an eye-witness account. Jairus is the name of the father of theperson healed, not the name of his daughter who was healed. In Aramaic, her namewould have been “Bath-Jairus.”1779The definite article o`, ho (i.e., “the blind man,”) is interpolated into the text byAlexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Theta, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, the “MajorityText” and the Harclean Syriac. The text without the definite article is read by Sinaiticus,Vaticanus, Bezae, L, W, Delta, Psi, Minuscules 579, the first writer of 892, 1241, 1424,2427, 2542, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Coptic tradition, and Origen of Alexandria(who died 254 A.D.). Whether read or not makes no difference for the meaning of Mark.1780The adjective tuflo,j, tuphlos is used 34 times in the Gospels to indicate physicalinability to see, "blindness." But the word is also used symbolically and figuratively formental and spiritual blindness--see Isaiah 6:10; 42:7, 19; 61:1 [LXX]; Psalm 146:8;Matthew 15:14; 23:16, 17, 19, 24 (all of these statements in this chapter referring to the“blind” Jewish leaders); John 9:39-41; 12:40; Romans 2:19; 2 Corinthians 4:4 (“the god ofthis age has blinded the minds of unbelievers”); 2 Peter 1:9 (anyone who lacks Peter’s listof Christian characteristics is “near-sighted and blind”); 1 John 2:11 (whoever hates hisbrother is blinded by the darkness) and Revelation 3:17 (the church at Laodicea is blindand naked).Many students of Mark have sensed that one of this Gospel's major themes is thatof the "spiritual blindness" of the disciples of Jesus, especially in chapters 8, 9 and 10, inconnection with the three predictions of the passion by Jesus--in each of which Jesuscenters his thoughts and teaching on the divine necessity for suffering and death, while hisdisciples center their thoughts and interests on their own position and greatness. It maywell be that Mark has introduced this tiny story ("vignette," "thumb-nail sketch") at this pointin order to say something very important concerning this spiritual blindness of the disciplesof Jesus.France comments that “The last potential recruit we met was an admirable,(continued...)994

1781 1782 1783 1784beggar, was sitting beside the road. 10.47 And, hearing that "It is Jesus the1780(...continued)respectable, and wealthy man (10:17-22), but to the disciples’ consternation he has notbeen welcomed into Jesus’ entourage. Now we meet a man at quite the other end of thescale of social acceptability, a blind beggar. And it is he, rather than the rich man, who willend up following Jesus [on the road]...[He represents] the recruitment of the least likelydisciple, the ‘little one’ who is welcomed, the last who becomes first. As Bartimaeus joinsJesus [on the road] he functions as an example of discipleship, with whom ‘Markencourages the reader to identify’.” (P. 422; France is quoting J. F. Williams)1781The noun prosai,hj, prosaites has been taken from the verb prosaite,w, prosaiteo,which means "to beg," "to continue asking." It means "one who continually asks," "abeggar." This person has absolutely no credentials to offer; he cannot see, and he iscompletely dependent upon the free gifts of others. Because of this, he becomes anexcellent symbol of all those who are dependent upon the grace and mercy of God, andwho cannot earn or deserve the divine gift of salvation, but who nonetheless receive thatdivine gift simply by insistently asking!1782The verb evka,qhto, ekatheto is in the imperfect tense, implying that this blind personhadn't just sat down, but that it was his accustomed position, where he sat again andagain, always asking, always begging for help. Swete conjectured that "ProbablyBartimaeus had his seat on the high road just outside the wall, so as to attract the attentionof all who passed in and out of the gate." (P. 243)1783The phrase prosai,thj( evka,qhto para. th.n o`do,n, prosaites, ekatheto para tenhodon, “a beggar, was sitting beside the road,” is read by Sinaiticus (see), Vaticanus, L,Delta, Psi, Minuscules 892 (see), 2427, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Old LatinManuscript k and the Bohairic Coptic.The first writer of Ephraemi Rescriptus and Minuscule 579 omit the nounprosai,thj, prosaites, “a beggar.” The phrase is changed to read evka,qhto para. th.n o`do.nprosaitw/n, ekatheto para ten hodon prosaiton (the participle is changed to evpaitw/n,epaiton, a synonym, by Bezae, Theta and Minuscule 565), “he was sitting beside the roadbegging,” by Alexandrinus, a corrector of Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, W, Theta,Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, the “Majority Text,” the Latin Vulgate, a few of the OldLatin witnesses, the Syriac tradition and the Sahidic Coptic. None of these variants makeany real difference for understanding of the text. Taylor comments that "A blind man sittingbegging by the way side is a common sight in the east." (P. 447)Luccock comments that there is a striking contrast in this story between the largecrowd and the lone individual: "On the one hand, a great multitude; on the other, one lowlyindividual, as low in the social scale as a person could get, as near to a social cipher aspossible, a blind beggar. It is tremendously impressive to see Jesus turn his attention fromthe many to the one. No crowd was ever big enough to blind him or render him deaf...His(continued...)995

1785 1786 1787Nazarene", he began to cry out and to say, "O Son of David, Jesus, have mercy on1783(...continued)was not only an amazingly sensitive ear and eye; there is evidence of something deeper:the priority he gave to persons, to any person, at the point of need. On his agenda onebeggar, single-handed, could put a thousand to flight." (P. 819)Luccock went on to preach: "...The valuation which Jesus set on one person inneed is itself one of the greatest needs of our time. All the more because so many of uslive in overcrowded cities that multiply the number of the sick and the lonely and thedestitute, and increase the intensity of their wretchedness." (P. 819) What do peopleknow concerning this, who live in the large cities of various nations, such as Rio deJaneiro, or Miami, or San Diego–or some other of the great metropolitan centers of themodern world? Do they speed by poverty-infested neighborhoods on the free-ways,refusing to even drive through and witness the conditions of the people living there? Whentourists go on trips to exotic places, do they get behind the facade erected for tourists, toobserve the hurting people whose labor is exploited to make those vacations possible–workers without health care, with salaries far below the minimum wage? Would Jesusspeed on by, refusing to hear, failing to stop, not caring enough to be bothered in the midstof his pleasant companionship?1784Again Mark uses the present tense in this quotation, evsti,n, estin, ‘it is,” enabling itsreaders to be "present," hearing the actual voice of those who speak to the blind beggar.1785The adjective Nazarhno,j, Nazarenos, “Nazarene,” is read by Vaticanus (see),Minuscules 579 (see), 2427 (see–these three witnesses read , evsti,n o` Nazarhno,j, estinho Nazarenos, “it is the Nazarene”), L, W, Delta, Theta, Psi, Family 1 of Minuscules,Minuscule 892, the Latin Vulgate, a few of the Old Latin witnesses and Origen ofAlexandria (who died 254 A.D.).It is changed to the form of the word found in the parallel Gospel, Luke 18:37,Nazorai/oj, Nazoraios, by Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Family 13 ofMinuscules, the “Majority Text” and the Old Latin Manuscript ff2.It is changed to the spelling Nazorhno,j, Nazorenos by Bezae, Minuscule 28, thefirst writer of the Old Latin Manuscript l and by a corrector of the Old Latin Manuscript c.This same kind of variant is found constantly in the manuscript tradition withreference to Jesus’ being called “a Nazarene,” and it quickly become obvious that thename was a problem for the early Christians. We think that the earliest of these forms isNazorai/oj, Nazoraios, and that it originated as a slur spoken by Aramaic-speakingopponents of Jesus and the Christian movement in Israel, while the other forms are simplyattempts by Greek copyists to spell a very difficult, unknown name.France notes that “‘Jesus’ was one of the commonest names in first-centuryPalestine, so that the identification of [‘the Nazarene’] (compare 1:24) is natural in this(continued...)996

1785(...continued)foreign territory.” (P. 423)1786The vocative uiè, huie, “O son...,” is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, EphraemiRescriptus, L, Delta, Theta, Psi, Minuscules 579, 892, 1241, 1424, 2427, some otherGreek manuscripts and Origen of Alexandria (in part; he died 254 A.D.).It is changed to the nominative form of the noun ui`o,j, huios, “son,” as is found in theparallel Gospel, Matthew 20:30, by Bezae, K, Family 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 565,2542, a few other Greek manuscripts and Origen of Alexandria (in part; he died 254 A.D.).It is changed to this same nominative form but with the definite article, o` ui`o,j, hohuios, “the son,” by Alexandrinus, W, Family 1 of Minuscules and the “Majority Text.”28.It is changed to the phrase ku,rie ui`o,j, kurie huios, “O Lord, son...” by MinusculeThe variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, but are typical of the waydivine names and titles are expanded on and changed in the textual tradition.1787The implication of the blind beggar's address of Jesus as "Son of David" is thatJesus is the long-expected Anointed King of Israel (i.e., King David's successor).France comments that “This is the only time in Mark when Jesus is addressed as[‘Son of David’], and nothing in this gospel (unlike Matthew 1:1-17, 20) has prepared us forthis specific title. For Jewish people it would be functionally equivalent to [Cristo,j,Christos, ‘Christ’], but the voicing of David’s name increases the loading of royal andnationalistic ideology which it carries...Its first use now by an outsider ir remarkable. Noother onlooker has interpreted Jesus in messianic...terms in this gospel...His words openup a new phase in the gradual disclosure of Jesus in Mark. For it is now time, as Jesusapproaches Jerusalem, for the messianic aspect of his ministry to become more public,and in the next [passage] this language will be on everybody’s lips (11:9)...The secrecyenjoined at Caesarea Philippi is beginning to weaken, and the way is being prepared forJesus’ eventual open declaration of his Messiahship in 14:62.” (Pp. 423-24)Maclaren states, "The name [‘Jesus the Nazarene’] awakens strange hopes in him,which can only be accounted for by his knowledge of Christ's miracles done elsewhere."(P. 96) It is obvious that Jesus' reputation has traveled ahead of him.As Swete notes, "The use of the term [‘Son of David’] reminds the reader that theLord is now on Judaean soil." (P. 243) This is the only place in Mark in which Jesus isaddressed as "O Son of David," although Jesus mentions "the Son of David" in Mark12:35. As Taylor notes, "The title is Messianic and implies the nationalistic hopes whichcentered on a Davidic king; compare Psalm of Solomon 17:21." (P. 448)997(continued...)

1788 1789 1790me!" 10.48 And many were rebuking him, that he should be silent. Then he was1787(...continued)See such passages in the Jewish Bible as Isaiah 11:1-10; Jeremiah 23:5-6; Ezekiel34:23-24; and see footnote 1301 on Mark 8:29 for other related passages.Lane comments that "Presumably, Jesus did not silence the beggar (in contrast to8:30) because he is at the threshold of Jerusalem where his messianic vocation must befulfilled. The 'messianic secret' is relaxed because it must be made clear to all the peoplethat Jesus goes to Jerusalem as the Messiah, and that he dies as the Messiah." (P. 387)1788The blind beggar cannot help himself; he has no power to restore his power of eyesight;he is left helpless, at the mercy of benefactors. His only hope for the restoration ofhis sight is the mercy, the grace of this famous "healer" who is walking past him.In the liturgies of the Orthodox Churches, this cry "Have mercy" has played a centralrole across the centuries. Swete holds, however, that "The Kyrie eleison of both East andWest is due to the Psalter of the LXX...and not directly to the present context." (P. 244)Compare such passages as Psalm 4:1; 6:2; 41:4, 10; 51:1; 109:26, and 123:3.Maclaren, in preaching on this story, holds that "It is a mirror in which we may seeourselves, our necessities, and the example of what our desire ought to be. Ah! Brethren,the deep consciousness of impotence, need, emptiness, blindness, lies at the bottom of alltrue crying to Jesus Christ. If you have never gone to Him, knowing yourself to be a sinful[person], in peril, present and future, from your sin, and stained and marred by reason of it,you never have gone to Him in any deep and adequate sense at all." (Pp. 97-98)1789 rdThe 3 person plural, imperfect indicative tense of the verb evpeti,mwn, epetimon,implies that many people were rebuking the blind beggar, again and again. We arereminded of the disciples of Jesus who "rebuked" the parents who were bringing their littlechildren to Jesus in 10:13. For the use of this verb "rebuke" in Mark, see 1:25; 3:12; 4:39;8:30, 32, 33; 9:25; 10:13, and here, 10:48. Perhaps we can hear the words of their rebukeeven now: "Shut up, you blind fool! It isn't every day that someone as important as Jesuspasses through Jericho. We've heard your cries for help day in and day out for years--can't you keep quiet just this once?"1790Once again we may ask the question, "Why were many people rebuking this blindbeggar, calling for him to be silent?" Compare Mark 10:13 with its lengthy footnotes 1619and 1620. These people undoubtedly thought that such a blind beggar had no right tobother such a busy and important person as Jesus; but in so thinking, they completelymisunderstood his ministry and its purpose.Swete comments that "The cry spoiled the harmony of the triumph. Why should thisbeggar force his misery on the attention of the great Prophet?" (P. 244)Luccock preached, "Their rebuke has echoed through the archways of the years.(continued...)998

1791 1792 1793crying out much more, "O Son of David, have mercy on me!"1790(...continued)We can hear it sounding in the world now, and that without listening too intently. Thecrowd at Jericho chided the beggar for bringing his troubles to Jesus. To their massiveignorance such things as poverty and affliction had nothing to do with the Master. Crowdsin New York, Chicago, London, Moscow, utter the same rebuff, when poverty stalks theland, when unemployment goes up and human life goes down, and men cry out, 'Theseare religious problems; it is the responsibility of the church of Christ to do something aboutthem.' The swift rebuke still comes: 'Be quiet. There is no use to cry to Jesus. Povertyand need are not his business. Let the church keep out of economic questions. Keep still.'"...Sometimes it is the very disciples of Jesus, met for worship in a church, who bytheir manner and lack of concern rebuke the lonely soul that cries out for spiritual healing.They like to have all things decorous and orderly, and in the best of taste. They really wantno miracles of conversion, of restoration. That might be 'raw emotionalism, you know,'something that would disturb the stately flow from introit to recessional. And so suchmiracles do not happen! What does our whole manner say most clearly? What the crowdsaid, 'Keep still'? Or what Christ said, 'Come'?" (P. 821)1791 rdOr, "...He was crying out..." The 3 person singular imperfect indicative active verbev ,krazen, ekrazen can also be read as the simple past tense (aorist).1792Again the vocative noun uiè, huie, “O son...” is changed to ui`o,j, huios, thenominative form by Bezae and a few other Greek manuscripts. It is changed to the phraseo` ui`o,j, ho huios, “the son,” by Family 1 of Minuscules.It is changed to the phrase ku,rie ui`o,j, kurie huios, “O Lord, son...” by Minuscule28. It is changed to the phrase vIhsou/j uiè, Iesous huie, “Jesus, O son...” by Family 13 ofMinuscules and a few other Greek manuscripts. The variant readings do not change themeaning of Mark. Compare footnote 1782.1793The entirety of verse 48, kai. evpeti,mwn auvtw/| polloi. i[na siwph,sh|\ o` de. pollw/|ma/llon e;krazen\ uiè. Daui,d( evle,hso,n me, kai epetimon auto polloi hina siopese; ho depollo mallon ekrazen, huie Dauid, eleeson me, “And many were rebuking him that heshould be silent; then he much more was crying out, ‘O Son of David, have mercy (on)me!”, is omitted by W, Minuscules 1241, 2542 and a few other Greek manuscripts. Hereagain we find a classic case of the eye of the copyist skipping from the first occurrence ofthe words uiè. Daui,d( evle,hso,n me, huie Dauid, eleeson me to its second occurrence,leaving out the intervening words. The accidental omission does not change the meaningof Mark.Here, the blind beggar omits the personal name "Jesus," using only the royal title,"O Son of David." As Taylor notes, "Undeterred, the man resolutely repeats his cry." (P.448) France comments that “The effect of their attempt to silence Bartimaeus is of course(continued...)999

1794 179510.49 And stopping, Jesus said, "You people, call him!" And they call the blind1793(...continued)that the title [‘Son of David’] is further emphasized by repetition in the narrative.” (P. 424)1794Literally, "And standing,” or “And having stood," the nominative masculine singularaorist active participle sta.j, stas. France comments that “Given Jesus’ urgency in 10:32,his stopping (and presumably bringing the whole crowd to a halt) for a beggar isremarkable.” (P. 424)Luccock comments, "There is an everlasting eloquence in this verb 'stopped.' HereJesus pays the ultimate tribute to a person in need. He stops the parade and stands atattention before him...He stopped and gave the whole of his attention, his mind and heart,to a blind beggar. His stopping said clearly, 'You count.' And that is one of the deep,permanent needs of humanity--the need of respect, the assurance that one 'counts,' thathe is not merely an item in some total, one of so many million Negroes, one of so manyunits in the labor reservoir, or one of so many in any mass." (P. 821)Maclaren preached on this, stating that "That pause of the King is repeated now,and the quick ear which discerned the difference between the unreal shouts of the crowd,and the agony of sincerity in the cry of the beggar, is still open...The living Christ is astender a friend, has as quick an ear, is as ready to help at once, to-day, as He was whenoutside the gate of Jericho; and every one of us may lift his or her poor, thin voice, and itwill go straight up to the throne, and not be lost in the clamor of the hallelujahs that echoround His seat. Christ still hears and answers the cry of need..." (P. 101)In the Hebrew Bible, compare (for just one example) the story of Hagar and Ishmaelin Genesis 21–where the cast off woman and her son are in desperate straits, and Godhears the cry of the boy.1795The phrase fwnh,sate auvto,n, phonesate auton, “You people call him!” is read bySinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, Delta, Psi, Minuscules 579, 892, 1241,1424, 2427, some other Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin Manuscript k, the HarcleanSyriac margin and the Bohairic Coptic.It is changed to read auvto.n fonhqh/nai, auton phonethenai, “him to be called,” byAlexandrinus, Bezae, W, Theta, Families 1 (see) and 13 of Minuscules, the “Majority Text,”the Latin Vulgate, a few of the Old Latin witnesses, the Harclean Syriac and the SahidicCoptic. The variant reading does not change the meaning of Mark, but demonstrates thefreedom of these writers to say the same thing in a different way.The imperative verb "call him!" is in the second person plural, implying that morethan one person is commanded to call the blind beggar. We may ask, "Why didn't Jesuscall him himself?" The answer that comes from the text may be that Jesus chooses to usehis disciples to issue his "call."1000

1796 1797 1798person, saying to him, "Take courage! Rise up! He is calling you!" 10.50 Then he,1796See the earlier use of this same verb qa,rsei, tharsei, in Mark 6:50, where Jesusspeaks to his troubled disciples the words, "Take courage! I, I am! Don't be afraid!" Itmay well be the implication of this verb here that the blind beggar's attitude and languageindicated that he was desperate, perhaps suicidal, if he couldn't get a hearing from Jesus.Compare similar statements at Genesis 35:17; Exodus 14:13; 20:20 and 1 Kings17:13. Lane suggests that "Mark may have been thinking of Isaiah 35:4-5: 'Say to themthat are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold your God...will come and save you.Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened.'" (P. 386)1797Again Mark uses the present tense, fwnei/, phonei, “he is calling (you)” in thisdescription of an historical event.1798The excitement and encouragement involved in this statement are obvious. Whatthe many people are saying is not true! This important royal person has not refused tolisten to your petition; instead, he has heard, and is calling for you, yes, you! As Swetenotes, "Reproofs were at once changed into words of encouragement, which Mark alonehas preserved..." (P. 244)1001

1799 1800 1801throwing off his robe, jumping up, came to Jesus. 10.51 And answering him, Jesus1802said, "What do you wish that I should do for you?" Then the blind person said to him,1799France comments that “The throwing off of the [robe] serves no purpose in the storyexcept to make it more vivid.” (P. 424)We are probably to think of the blind beggar's dirty, worn out robe or cloak, in whichhe had slept for days, or even for weeks. Symbolically, as this story was told in the earlychurches, this throwing off the old robe would be taken in terms of putting off the old way oflife--see the use of the verb avpoti,qhmi, apotithemi in Romans 13:12; Ephesians 4:22, 25;Colossians 3:8; Jacob ("James") 1:21, and 1 Peter 2:1.Maclaren preached, "Brethren, 'casting aside every weight and the sin that doth soeasily beset us, let us run' to the same Refuge. You have to abandon something if you areto go to Christ to be healed." (P. 102)1800France comments that this aorist participle, avnaphdh,saj, anapedesas, “springing up,”is “another graphic touch, contrasting the man’s purposeful activity now with his previouspathetic ‘sitting by the roadside.’” (P. 424)There is no hesitation on the blind beggar's part; he immediately responds to thegood news that Jesus is calling for him to come. This immediacy of response on the blindbeggar's part would also take on symbolic meaning in the life of the early churches,showing those hearing the good news how they ought to quickly respond to the divineinvitation to "come to Jesus."1801Taylor notes that "The fact that he is able to approach Jesus unaided suggests thathis blindness is not total." (P. 449)Luccock comments that "The very words seem to spring and jump. They areviolently active. Bartimaeus did not fold his garment carefully and neatly, and then say to abystander, 'Please look after this a minute. I'll be back.' He threw it away and leaped tohis feet. Such headlong response to the words 'he is calling you' is something we greatlyneed. We are so careful about 'springing,' so cautious about going 'all out.' We like to lookbefore we leap. And so frequently, after a look, we do not leap at all." (P. 822)1802Compare the earlier question of Jesus at 10:36. Swete notes that "Obvious as wasthe meaning of the [cry, ‘Have mercy!’], the Lord will have the want specified." (P. 245)Grant states, "This is more than a simple device of the tradition, or of Mark, toconvey vividness by dialogue; such a characteristic, quasi-Socratic style must go back toJesus himself. As a good teacher and pastor he encouraged others to express theirwishes, hopes, aspirations, and gave opportunity to them to express their faith, upon whichhe could then act and build." (P. 822)1002(continued...)

1803 1804 1805"Rabbouni, that I might see again!" 10.52 And Jesus said to him, "Go away--your1806 1807 1808 1809 1810faith has made you whole!" And immediately he saw again! And he was following1802(...continued)Maclaren notes that with this question, Jesus "...Was putting the key to the treasurehouseinto the beggar's hand. It was the implicit pledge that whatever he desired heshould receive...If we knew ourselves as well as Bartimaeus knew his blindness, we shouldhave as little doubt what it is that we need most. Suppose you had this wishing-cap thatChrist put on Bartimaeus' head put on yours: what would you ask?" (Pp. 102-03) Headded, "Now, all this story should be the story of each one of us...He knew what heneeded, and some of you do not. But Christ is calling us all, and my business now is tosay to each of you what the crowd said to the beggar, 'Rise! be of good cheer; He calleththee'...Jesus Christ was passing by. He was never to be in Jericho any more. IfBartimaeus did not get His sight then, he would be blind all his days." (P. 105)1803The title ràbbouni, hrabbouni, the Aramaic way of saying the Hebrew title "Rabbi,”is changed to the reading ku,rie ràbbi, kurie rabbi, “O Lord, my teacher,” by Bezae and amajority of the Old Latin witnesses. See BAGD for the different ways the Aramaic word isspelled in different manuscripts, including ràbbouni, hrabbouni, ràbbounei, hrabbounei,ràbboni, hrabboni, ràbbonei, hrabbonei. It is probably a diminutive form of the normal"Rabbi," and means "My dear (or, ‘little’) master."1804What other answer could have been expected? For the average blind person, thereis no deeper longing or need than just that--recovery of sight! The blind beggar's answermay be understood to mean, "What else, dear master? Of course, I want my eye-sightrestored!" Swete notes that "To give [recovery of sight] to the blind was a prerogative ofthe Son of David (Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:18; 7:22)." (P. 245)1805The phrase kai. o`, kai ho, “and the (Jesus)” with which this verse begins is read by acorrector of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, L, Delta, Psi, Minuscules 579, 892, 141, 1424, 2427, afew other Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin Manuscript q, the Peshitta Syriac, a fewmanuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic and the Bohairic Coptic (in part).It is changed to o` de, ho de, “he then,” by the first writer of Sinaiticus, EphraemiRescriptus, Bezae, W, Theta, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, the “Majority Text,” theLatin Vulgate, a few of the Old Latin witnesses, the Harclean Syriac and some manuscriptsof the Sahidic Coptic. This variant reading, which may well have been original, does notchange the meaning of Mark.1806The noun pi,stij, pistis, normally translated "belief" or "faith," with its roots in theJewish Bible implies confident trust.1807Or, "...Your confidence ‘has saved’ you!" Compare Mark 5:34. The immediate(continued...)1003

1811 1812him on the road.1807(...continued)rdmeaning of this 3 person singular perfect indicative active verb se,swken, sesoken, fromsw,zein, sozein is obviously "your sight has been restored, and your physical eye-sight hasbeen returned to normal." But just as we have observed on a number of occasions, thereare manifold implications for the spiritual understanding of this story in terms of the "blind"disciples of Jesus, and the power of placing confidence in the word of King Jesus to bring"salvation” from missing of the mark and eternal death.Taylor notes that "It is remarkable that no action or healing word of Jesus ismentioned in Mark." (P. 449)1808This phrase, "And immediately...", is a characteristic phrase for Mark, one thatoccurs some 25 times, along with the use of "immediately" by itself some 15 times. Thereare some seven uses of the phrase in Matthew, only one in Luke, and three uses in John.See Mark 1:10 for the first occurrence.1809The blind beggar's sight was restored, just as he had requested of Jesus. Howmany times has this story been told in the churches to emphasize that the spiritually blind,by simply placing confidence in the risen Lord Jesus, and asking sincerely for restoration ofspiritual sight, have had their spiritual eyes opened! Is all of this meant seriously, "forreal"? Yes, indeed. To get in touch with Jesus, and feel his touch, is to gain new spiritualsight in the midst of our blindness. Millions of believers across the centuries, in all sorts ofdifferent cultures and nationalities, have experienced just this kind of healing.1810Once again Mark uses the imperfect tense of the verb, hvkolou,qei, ekolouthei, “hewas following,” implying that his following Jesus was not just a one-time, momentary affair,but that it had abiding consequences for the blind beggar's future life. He has truly becomea "follower of Jesus," and what happened to him is paradigmatic for future generationsthroughout history.1811The dative singular pronoun auvtw/|, auto, “to (or ‘with’) him,” is read by Sinaiticus,Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, L, W, Delta, Psi, Families 1 and13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 28, 565, 579, 700, 892, 1241, 1424, 2427, 2542, some otherGreek manuscripts, the entire Latin tradition, the Sinaitic Syriac, the Harclean Syriacmargin and the Coptic tradition.It is changed to the phrase tw/| vIhsou/, to Iesou, “with the Jesus,” by Theta, the“Majority Text” and the Harclean Syriac. The variant reading simply makes explicit what isalready implicit in the text, and does not change the meaning of Mark.1812How far did Bartimaios go in following Jesus? Are we to think of his following all theway to Jerusalem and of his being a witness of the suffering and death of Jesus? Mark(continued...)1004

1812(...continued)doesn't say. But the formerly blind beggar now has his sight restored, and begins to followJesus on the road that leads to suffering and death in Jerusalem.Taylor comments that "A literal following may be meant, but it is highly probable thatMark has in mind the personal attachment to Jesus described in 1:18 and 2:14." (P. 449)France comments that the words, “he was following him on the road” “occupies sucha prominent place at the end of the [passage] and of the whole section of the gospel whichleads up to the arrival in Jerusalem that it seems clear that Mark intended more than amere circumstantial note...Bartimaeus, now set free from his blindness, represents allthose who have found enlightenment and follow the Master.” (P. 425)Anderson entitled this entire section (10:46-52) "Sight Bestowed and DiscipleshipMade Possible." He notes that there is only one other miracle story in Mark 8:27-10:52[this story is also the last of the healing miracles in Mark], and that "We may thereforesuppose that Mark has a quite special purpose in view in introducing the story of blindBartimaeus' healing here at the close...The story functions as an example of how the veil isremoved from the blind eyes only through the miracle of faith, by which Jesus is bothunderstood and trusted." (P. 259)Lane concludes that "The healing of Bartimaeus displays, without any concealment,the messianic dignity of Jesus and his compassion on those who believe in him, andthrows in bold relief the blindness of the leaders of Israel, whose eyes remained closed tohis glory." (P. 389)Yes, there is more than one way of being "blind"! Even those who are closest toJesus are oftentimes spiritually "blind"--as are many of us still today who are countedamong his “disciples.” This modern world in which we live has a powerful way of "blinding"us to spiritual reality. It tells us that this physical universe is all that there is to reality; thatwhat cannot be seen and touched and investigated in the physics and chemistry laboratorycannot be real; that there is nothing more to life than the enjoyment of pleasures, theamassing of things, and as painless a death as possible; that when death comes to us,that is all there is, there simply is no more. We can easily become blinded by all of this; wecan be "brain-washed" to such an extent that we are blind to spiritual reality, to thekingdom of God. But if we are willing to place our confidence in Jesus--to take this great"leap of faith"--to let him teach us and give us a new "world-view"--all of this will bechanged. He will enable our blind eyes to see anew.It is only as we recognize our blindness, and throw ourselves upon the mercy andhealing power of this great Son of David, that we can hear his words, "Your faith has madeyou whole," and as a result begin experiencing the opening of our spiritual eyes, enablingus to see and recognize the good news that is ours, and our world's, through this sufferingSavior, who goes up to Jerusalem to die, but who thereby becomes the risen Lord andKing of all God's people.1005(continued...)

1812(...continued)1006