MARK 10

This passage contains three stories, somewhat interrelated, each of which contains a “hard saying of Jesus” according to F.F. Bruce's book of the same name. The first twelve verses find their parallel in Matthew 19:1-12.

Mark 10:1

Chapter 9 ends Jesus' Galilean ministry in Capernaum (9:33). This chapter begins with a summary of a six-month teaching period described more fully in the other gospels. Jesus went from Galilee to Judea (3-month stay) and then spent three months in Perea (the following events are at end of this latter ministry). Remember that this was the territory of Herod Antipas near where John the Baptist was martyred.

Mark 10:2-9

In this passage it is the Pharisees who are featured as opponents of Jesus. The history of this group dates back to the Hasidim (God's loyal ones) around the 2^nd century BC. They attempted to carry out the law of Moses in every detail. The Essenes later split off from this group because they had lost faith in the current line of priesthood. They might be looked on as the prototype of some fundamentalist Christian groups who feel superior to the rest of the world and withdraw totally from society. The Essenes went into the desert and were probably closely associated with the Dead Sea community and its writings. Some even feel that John the Baptist joined that group for a while, but that has not been proven.

Getting back to the Pharisees: They first tried to be the controlling force in the state religion since they came from the common people and had widespread support among them. However, they argued with King Herod and he made sure that they would no longer be in the majority in the Sanhedrin. Thus, the Pharisees turned toward non-political ways to gain influence, and by 200 AD the other religious groups were no longer in existence. By default, the Pharisaical viewpoint basically became the mainstream of Jewish religion.

Some of their beliefs are given below:

1. They believed in the importance of formal worship, but felt that living according to God's laws for the individuals was to be equally stressed.

2. The Torah was treated as more than just an historical document. Therefore its teachings had to be adapted to modern conditions. Thus, oral traditions and commentaries on the Bible began to take their place alongside the Bible itself to define Jewish beliefs and practice.

3. They believed in the resurrection.

4. Their beliefs were ultimately Scripture-centered.

5. They stressed the importance of tithing.

6. They believed in God's direct, supernatural intervention in people's lives.

7. They had a profound concern for personal holiness, doing God's will.

From the above, one might wonder why they were so much odds with Jesus and his ministry. But there were still major issues dividing their teachings from those of Jesus. And actually, there were divisions among themselves as well. There were two basic groups of Pharisees depending on whether they were in the camp of Shemmai (the strict school) or Hillel (the more liberal teacher). In Mark 10:2-9, both groups tried to get Jesus in the middle of their legalistic debates, but Jesus (in v. 5) cut through their arguments by labeling the issue one of the heart, not the law. It was not what one could get by with, but what God desired, that should count. Of course, the most famous Pharisee in the Bible was Paul.

v. 2. The test was (a) to see if he would refute the Mosaic Law or (b) say something that would bring him into conflict with Herod Antipas (like John the Baptist).

vv. 3-4. He starts where we should when questioned – with God's word. Deuteronomy 24:1 allowed divorce if a man discovered “the nakedness of a thing” in his wife. It is not clear what that phrase means, but it was probably something other than adultery since that was punishable by death. (Even there, a close reading shows that Moses did not institute laws of divorce but only commented on customs already present and limited their abuse.) This law did not say that divorce was right, but it did give some protection to the woman by demanding some sort of proof before divorce was possible. This provided the wife with a legal certificate showing that she was free from the marriage bonds and could marry again.

There were two schools of thought here: (a) Shammai taught that divorce was permitted in case of a wife's sexual misconduct, including adultery, or by her failure to observe the Jewish law which commanded a reserved attitude in a wife. (b) Hillel said that anything annoying or embarrassing for a husband was cause for divorce.

v. 5. Jesus bypasses any discussion of Deuteronomy 24:1 entirely by abrogating it.

vv. 6-8. This argument is taken from Genesis 1:27 and 2:24. God's original purpose for marriage is Jesus' thrust, not any later accommodations to man's sinfulness. The Pharisees had been more concerned with what they could get away with and still stay within the law, than with God's will for them.

v. 9. “Let no man” refers to the husband, not some outside authority or third party since at that time the matter was strictly in the control of the husband. Hugh Anderson: “Jesus is not absolutely prohibiting divorce by way of a binding legal enactment, but is absolutely elevating marriage (as an indissoluble union) by way of leading men to understand it, not as a remote ideal, but as a gift of God's creation, to be received gladly." Victor Hamilton: “The concern of the inquisitors is how and why to terminate a marriage. Jesus' answer emphasizes why a marriage should be initiated and perpetuated.”

F.F. Bruce: “Every marriage is not made in heaven, but marriage itself was made in heaven...Legislation has to make provision for the hardness of men's hearts, but Jesus showed a more excellent way than the way of legislation and supplies the power to change the human heart and make his ideal a practical possibility.” “One thing to be kept in the foreground of thought, large and clear, is that Jesus was not establishing another legalism....We do violence to the whole spirit and mind of Jesus if we conceive him to be a newer and greater Pharisee, the enactor of further ironclad codes”: The Interpreters Bible

Mark 10:10-12

Verse 11 goes well beyond any Jewish laws of the time: a woman could commit adultery against her husband, and a man could commit adultery against another man by having relations with his wife, but not as Jesus pronounced. This elevates the status of woman to that of a man. However interpreted, Jesus cannot be made to side with the more liberal Hillel school. Some feel that Jesus sanctioned separation but not divorce. This is unlikely since there was no such concept in Judaism, and he would have had to explain himself. Taking the saying in an absolute sense must, however, be qualified since (a) although Mark and Luke (16:18) have the absolute condemnation, Matthew has the teaching twice (19:9 and 5:32) with an exception clause and (b) Paul also recognized an exception (see I Corinthians 7:10-15 where Paul quotes this saying of Jesus). Note that the setting for this stricter law is in a community of believers.

v. 12. It is interesting that Jesus mentions a woman divorcing her husband. This was not allowed in Jewish law. Possibilities: (a) pagan customs were in mind, i.e., the case of Herodias or (b) it refers to the case where a woman simply deserts her husband and remarries.

Mark 10:13-16 These verses are paralleled in Matthew 19:13-15 and Luke 18:15-17.

v. 13. “Children” means anyone up to 12 years of age. Question: Who is bringing the children? “They” is actually masculine, not feminine as popularly imagined. The best explanation is that older children were bringing the younger ones, otherwise the apostles would have rebuked the fathers.

What was the apostles' motive? (a) to protect Jesus from constant attention, (b) feeling that children were beneath Jesus to notice (this would be in keeping with their idea of status) or (c) the belief that children were not mature enough to respond to Jesus' love.

vv. 14-15. Jesus replies in “anger,” the only time this word is applied to Jesus. “If we wish to know what things Jesus cared deeply about, one sure clue is to be found in the things that roused his indignation”: The Interpreters Bible The rebuke is identical to that in 9:38 where the apostles were likewise exceeding their authority. Lesson to us – don't go ahead of, or beyond, God. This response is also similar to the previous one about a leader being servant to all.

Discussion – In what ways can we hinder children from coming to him?

Possible interpretations of the saying: children receive a gift as completely unearned, they are receptive, adults tend to be too proud to accept a gift, (see the parallel in Matthew 18:1-4 where the humbleness of children is noted by Jesus.). The innocence or purity of children is not in mind here. Also, infant baptism is not the issue here although it has been used as a proof text by some denominations.

v. 16. Jesus honors children (very unusual in that society) just as he honored women in the previous story. This changes our perceptions about who is important from the perspective of God's Kingdom.

Mark 10:17-31 This story has parallels in Matthew 19:16-30 and Luke 18:18-30.

The common title “rich young ruler” is actually not found in Mark's version; “young” comes from Matthew and “(synagogue) ruler” comes from Luke.

vv. 17-18. “Good” is a very unusual description for those times since it was usually reserved for God and His creation. Later Judaism could talk of good men. The man was probably trying to flatter Jesus, causing the rebuke he received. “I do” gives the clear implication in the question that salvation is earned. “Inherit eternal life” = receive the Kingdom (see v. 15). Jesus' comment anticipates his later answer to the question: Only God is good; man can never be good no matter how many commandments he keeps. Matthew's version says, “Why do you question me about what is good?”, which implies the same thing: only God can distinguish. Jesus was not implying that he was himself sinful; he is only stressing his earthly role in distinction to that of the Father (see 9:37). This is a good example of the lack of security a life built on salvation by works can bring.

v.19. Knowing the commandments is part of Jesus' answer. The first commandments concerning God are missing. Could v. 18 be an allusion to them?

vv. 20-21. It is obvious that Jesus perceived the man was genuinely searching for the truth. “Jesus became fond of him” or “embraced him” or “had profound sympathy for him” are all possible translations. The operative verb in the second part of verse is “come and follow,” not “sell.” Brevard Childs: “What the questioner lacked was everything because he had not loved the Lord his God with complete abandonment.”

v. 22. This is the only occasion in the Gospel where a direct call of Jesus is refused. Lane: “The conclusion to the interview with Jesus indicates that in the case of this man the Law had not yet fulfilled its function, for its historical task is to bring man's satisfaction with this world to an end and to quicken within him a thirst for righteousness and life.” Another quote by Lane: “Keeping the individual commandments is no substitute for the readiness for self-surrender to the absolute claim of God imposed through the call of the gospel. Jesus' summons in this context means that true obedience to the Law is rendered ultimately in discipleship. This man will achieve the perfect observance of the Law when he surrenders himself and follows Jesus.”

Speculation by some: the man later returned and followed Jesus and that his name was Barnabas.

v. 23. “Riches” is literally “things that one possesses.” This is a much broader concept.

v. 24. Their amazement was due to the popular belief that riches were a sign of blessing from God for a righteous life. It is interesting that the tender word “children” is used for the disciples, in place of the harsh words he used in the previous story (It is nowhere else used in the Synoptic Gospels). This reminds us also of the previous story. Keep it in mind when reading the following verses.

v. 25. “A camel (or elephant) going through the eye of needle” was a common image of that time expressing an impossibility or absurdity (not just something that was very difficult).

v. 26. Their concept may have been that a life of leisure is needed to appropriately devote oneself to prayer, study of the Word and good works.

v. 27. Only God saves, not anything we can do.

Discuss the contrast between rich man and children entering the Kingdom.

v. 28. Peter exaggerated somewhat. The indications are that he still had a boat and home. However, they had done what the young man had not – followed Jesus.

v. 29. Matthew has “for my name's sake” and Luke has “for the sake of the Reign of God.” Putting the three together, Jesus is identified with both the proclamation and the reign.

v. 30. Textual variants within the manuscripts include “seven-fold “ and “many fold.” Jesus focuses on what disciples have gained, not what they lose. Nothing in this teaching implies that earthly riches are a sign of God's blessing; if anything, the opposite is true. Discuss the strange appearance of the phrase “and persecutions.” The goodness of God can be experienced through persecutions, not in spite of them.

vv. 30-31. This summary of the whole section brings together the thoughts of wives, children, rich men and obscure disciples. It contains an implied warning to the disciples that they are not guaranteed the top spots in the coming kingdom just because they are favored now.