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