{"id":24576,"date":"2022-09-24T10:38:56","date_gmt":"2022-09-24T15:38:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-mark-101\/"},"modified":"2022-09-24T10:38:56","modified_gmt":"2022-09-24T15:38:56","slug":"exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-mark-101","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-mark-101\/","title":{"rendered":"Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 10:1"},"content":{"rendered":"

And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again. <\/i><\/b><\/h3>\n

Ch. Mar 10:1-12<\/span>. Marriage Legislation of the Pharisees<\/p>\n

1. And<\/em> ] Between the events just recorded and those of which the Evangelist now proceeds to treat, many others had occurred, which he has passed over. The most important of these were<\/p>\n

( ) The visit of our Lord to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles<\/em> (Joh 7:8-10<\/span>), which was marked by<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

(a) The rebuke of the “Sons of Thunder” at the churlish conduct of the inhabitants of a Samaritan village on their way to the Holy City<\/em> (Luk 9:51-56<\/span>);<\/p>\n

(b) Solemn discourses during the Feast, and an attempt of the Sanhedrim to apprehend Him<\/em> (Joh 7:11-51<\/span>; Joh 8:12-59<\/span>);<\/p>\n

(c) The opening of the eyes of one born blind<\/em> (Joh 9:1-41<\/span>), the revelation of Himself as the Good Shepherd<\/em> (Joh 10:1-18<\/span>);<\/p>\n

( ) Ministrations in Juda and Mission of the Seventy<\/em> (Luk 10:1<\/span> to Luk 13:17<\/span>.);<\/p>\n

( ) Visit to Jerusalem at the Feast of Dedication<\/em> (Joh 10:22-39<\/span>);<\/p>\n

( ) Tour in Pera<\/em> (Luk 13:22<\/span> to Luk 17:10<\/span>);<\/p>\n

( ) The raising of Lazarus<\/em> (Joh 11:1-46<\/span>);<\/p>\n

( ) Resolve of the Sanhedrim to put Him to death, and His retirement to Ephraim<\/em> (Joh 11:47-54<\/span>).<\/p>\n

he arose<\/em> ] The place, whither He now retired, has been identified with Ophrah, and was situated in the wide desert country north-east of Jerusalem, not far from Bethel, and on the confines of Samaria. Caspari would identify it with a place now called El-Faria, or El-Farah, about 2 hours N. E. of Nablous. Chron. and Geog. Introd<\/em>. p. 185. Here in quiet and seclusion He remained till the approach of the last Passover, and then commenced a farewell journey along the border-line of Samaria and Galilee (Luk 17:11<\/span>) and so by the further side of Jordan<\/em> towards Juda (Mar 10:1<\/span>).<\/p>\n

he taught them again<\/em> ] Portions of His teaching are recorded by St Luke, and include the Parables of ( a<\/em>) the Unjust Judge<\/em>, and ( b<\/em>) the<\/em> Pharisee and the Publican<\/em> (Luk 18:1-14<\/span>). On the frontier of the region now traversed occurred in all probability the Healing of the ten lepers (Luk 17:12-19<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

See this question about divorce explained in the notes at Mat 19:1-12<\/span>.<\/P>

Mar 10:12<\/B><\/span><\/P>

And if a woman shall put away her husband – <\/B>It would seem, from this, that a woman, among the Jews, had the power of separating herself from her husband, yet this right is not given her by the law of Moses. There is not, however, any positive evidence that females often claimed or exercised this right. Cases had occurred, indeed, in which it had been done. The wife of Herod had rejected her former husband and married Herod. And though instances of this kind might have been attempted to be defended by the example of Pagans, yet our Saviour was desirous of showing them that it did not free them from the charge of adultery. The apostles were going forth to teach Pagan nations, and it was proper for Christ to teach them how to act in such cases, and to show them that they were cases of real adultery.<\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Mar 10:1<\/span><\/p>\n

He taught them again.<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

He taught them again<\/strong><\/p>\n

How <\/em>thick and close does this Heavenly Sower scatter His seed! Every line is a new lesson, and every lessen a rule of perfection. Oh, the magnificent bounty of our God! He gives not barely the measure we give others; but pressed down, and shaken together, and running over into our bosoms. Why are we then so slow and dull to learn these Divine instructions? Why so remiss to practise them? Are they not sweet and excellent in themselves? Are they not infinitely profitable to us? Oh, make us greedy to learn what Thy love makes Thee so eager to teach! <\/em>(W. Austin.<\/em>)<\/p>\n

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

CHAPTER X. <\/P>

The Pharisees question our Lord concerning divorce<\/I>, 1-12.<\/P>

Little children are brought to him<\/I>, 13-16.<\/P>

The person who inquired how he might inherit eternal life<\/I>,<\/P>

17-22.<\/P>

How difficult it is for a rich man to be saved<\/I>, 23-27.<\/P>

What they shall receive who have left all for Christ and his<\/I><\/P>

Gospel<\/I>, 28-31.<\/P>

He foretells his death<\/I>, 32-34.<\/P>

James and John desire places of pre-eminence in Christ’s<\/I><\/P>

kingdom<\/I>, 35-41.<\/P>

Christ shows them the necessity of humility<\/I>, 42-46.<\/P>

Blind Bartimeus healed<\/I>, 46-52.<\/P>

<\/P>

NOTES ON CHAP. X. <\/P>

Verse 1<\/span>. He arose<\/B><\/I>] may be translated, he<\/I> departed thence<\/I>. The verb has this sense in some of the purest Greek writers. See Kypke<\/I>. Many transactions took place between those mentioned in the preceding chapter, and these that follow, which are omitted by Matthew and Mark; but they are related both by Luke and John. See Lightfoot<\/I>, and Bishop Newcome<\/I>.<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

We have nothing in this whole chapter but what we found before in Mat 19:1-20:34<\/span>. When Christ had the discourses mentioned in the former chapter, he was in Galilee; now he departeth from Galilee, passes through Samaria, and comes into the province of Judea, which being the chiefest, and that in which Jerusalem was, he was there more than before troubled with the scribes and Pharisees; who were now watching him in all his words and actions, that they might have somewhat whereof to accuse him. <\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

And he arose from thence<\/strong>,…. From Galilee, and particularly from Capernaum:<\/p>\n

and cometh into the coasts of Judea<\/strong>; into those places, which bordered on that part of the land of Israel, called Judea, as distinct from Galilee:<\/p>\n

by<\/strong>, or rather “to”<\/p>\n

the further side of Jordan<\/strong>; which he crossed at the bridge of Chammath: the particular place he came to was Bethabara; see Joh 10:40<\/span>: where John formerly preached, and baptized:<\/p>\n

and the people resorted unto him again<\/strong>; great multitudes followed him out of Galilee, and more doubtless flocked to him from the adjacent parts, when they heard of his coming again to them.<\/p>\n

And, as he was wont, he taught them again<\/strong>: it had been his custom before, and so it was wherever he went, to preach the word of God, and teach men what was profitable to them, and useful for the good of their immortal souls; and so he did now, and here: and not only so, but healed many of them of their bodily disorders, as Matthew relates, Mt 19:2<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The Doctrine of Divorce.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR>


<\/P>


<\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE>

      1 And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Juda by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.   2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his<\/I> wife? tempting him.   3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?   4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her<\/I> away.   5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.   6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.   7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;   8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.   9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.   10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.<\/I>   11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.   12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.<\/P>

      Our Lord Jesus was an itinerant Preacher, did not continue long in a place, for the whole land of Canaan was his parish, or diocese, and therefore he would visit every part of it, and give instructions to those in the remotest corners of it. Here we have him in the coasts<\/I> of Judea, by the further side of Jordan eastward, as we found him, not long since, in the utmost borders westward, near Tyre and Sidon. Thus was his circuit like that of the sun, from whose light and heat nothing is hid. Now here we have him,<\/P>

      I. Resorted to<\/I> by the people,<\/I> v.<\/span> 1<\/span><\/U><\/I><\/span>. Wherever he was, they flocked after him in crowds; they came to him again,<\/I> as they had done when he had formerly been in these parts, and, as he was wont, he taught them again.<\/I> Note, Preaching was Christ’s constant practice; it was what he was used to, and, wherever he came, he did as he was wont.<\/I> In Matthew it is said, He healed them;<\/I> here it is said, He taught them:<\/I> his cures were to confirm his doctrine, and to recommend it, and his doctrine was to explain his cures, and illustrate them. He taught them again.<\/I> Note, Even those whom Christ hath taught, have need to be taught again.<\/I> Such is the fulness of the Christian doctrine, that there is still more to be learned; and such our forgetfulness, that we need to be reminded of what we do know.<\/P>

      II. We have him disputed with<\/I> by the Pharisees, who envied the progress of his spiritual arms, and did all they could to obstruct and oppose it; to divert him, to perplex him, and to prejudice the people against him.<\/P>

      Here is, 1. A question they started concerning divorce (v.<\/I><\/span> 2<\/span>); Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?<\/I> This was a good question, if it had been well put, and with a humble desire to know the mind of God in this matter; but they proposed it, tempting him,<\/I> seeking an occasion against him, and an opportunity to expose him, which side soever he should take of the question. Ministers must stand upon their guard, lest, under pretence of being advised with, they be ensnared.<\/P>

      2. Christ’s reply to them with a question (v.<\/I><\/span> 3<\/span>); What did Moses command you?<\/I> This he asked them, to testify his respect to the law of Moses, and to show that he came not to destroy it; and to engage them to a universal impartial respect for Moses’s writings and to compare one part of them with another.<\/P>

      3. The fair account they gave of what they found in the law of Moses, expressly concerning divorce, v.<\/I><\/span> 4<\/span>. Christ asked, What did Moses command you?<\/I> They own that Moses only suffered,<\/I> or permitted,<\/I> a man to write his wife a bill of divorce,<\/I> and to put her away,<\/I> Deut. xxiv. 1<\/I><\/span>. “If you will<\/I> do it, you must do it in writing,<\/I> delivered into her own hand, and so put her away, and never return to her again.”<\/P>

      4. The answer that Christ gave to their question, in which he abides by the doctrine he had formerly laid down in this case (Matt. v. 32<\/span>), That whosoever puts away his wife, except for fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.<\/I> And to clear this he here shows,<\/P>

      (1.) That the reason why Moses, in his law,<\/I> permitted divorce, was such, as that they ought not to make use of that permission; for it was only for the hardness of their hearts<\/I> (v.<\/I><\/span> 5<\/span>), lest, if they were not permitted to divorce their wives, they should murder them; so that none must put away their wives but such as are willing to own that their hearts were so hard as to need this permission.<\/P>

      (2.) That the account which Moses, in this history, gives<\/I> of the institution of marriage, affords such a reason against divorce, as amounts to a prohibition of it. So that if the question be, What did Moses command?<\/I> (v.<\/I><\/span> 3<\/span>), it must be answered, “Though by a temporary proviso he allowed divorce to the Jews, yet by an eternal reason he forbade it to all the children of Adam and Eve, and that is it which we must abide by.”<\/P>

      Moses tells us, [1.] That God made man male and female, one<\/I> male, and one<\/I> female; so that Adam could not<\/I> put away his wife and take another, for there was no other to take, which was an intimation to all his sons, that they must not.<\/I> [2.] When this male and this female were, by the ordinance of God, joined together in holy marriage, the law was, That a man must leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife<\/I> (v.<\/I><\/span> 7<\/span>); which intimates not only the nearness of the relation, but the perpetuity of it; he shall so cleave to his wife as not to be separated from her. [3.] The result of the relation is, That, though they are two,<\/I> yet they are one,<\/I> they are one flesh,<\/I> v.<\/span> 8<\/span><\/U><\/I><\/span>. The union between them is the most intimate that can be, and, as Dr. Hammond expresses it, a sacred thing that must not be violated. [4.] God himself was joined them together;<\/I> he has not only, as Creator, fitted them to be comforts and helps meet for each other, but he has, in wisdom and goodness, appointed them who are thus joined together, to live together in love till death parts them. Marriage is not an invention of men, but a divine institution, and therefore is to be religiously observed, and the more, because it is a figure of the mystical inseparable union between Christ and his church.<\/P>

      Now from all this he infers, that men ought not to put<\/I> their wives asunder<\/I> from them, whom God has put so near them. The bond which God himself has tied, is not to be lightly untied. They who are divorcing their wives for every offence, would do well to consider what would become of them, if God should in like manner deal with them. See Isa 50:1<\/span>; Jer 3:1<\/span>.<\/P>

      5. Christ’s discourse with his disciples, in private, about this matter, v.<\/I><\/span> 10-12<\/span>. It was an advantage to them, that they had opportunity of personal converse with Christ, not only about gospel mysteries, but about moral duties, for further satisfaction. No more is here related of this private conference, that the law Christ laid down in this case–That it is adultery for a man to put away his wife, and marry another; it is adultery against the wife<\/I> he puts away, it is a wrong to her, a breach of his contract with her, v.<\/I><\/span> 11<\/span>. He adds, If a woman shall put away her husband,<\/I> that is, elope from him, leave him by consent, and be married to another,<\/I> she commits adultery<\/I> (v.<\/I><\/span> 12<\/span>), and it will be no excuse at all for her to say that it was with the consent of her husband. Wisdom and grace, holiness and love, reigning in the heart, will make those commands easy which to the carnal mind may be as a heavy yoke.<\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Into the border of Judea and beyond Jordan <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). See on Mt 19:1<\/span> for discussion of this curious expression. Matthew adds “from Galilee” and Lu 17:11<\/span> says that Jesus “was passing through the midst of Samaria and Galilee” after leaving Ephraim (Joh 11:54<\/span>). A great deal has intervened between the events at the close of Mark 9 and those in the beginning of Mark 10. For these events see Mark 10:18<\/span>; Mark 10:7-11<\/span>; Luke 9:57<\/span> (one-third of Luke’s Gospel comes in here). It was a little over six months to the end at the close of Mark 9. It is just a few weeks now in Mark 10. Jesus has begun his last journey to Jerusalem going north through Samaria, Galilee, across the Jordan into Perea, and back into Judea near Jericho to go up with the passover pilgrims from Galilee.<\/P>

Multitudes <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Caravans and caravans journeying to Jerusalem. Many of them are followers of Jesus from Galilee or at least kindly disposed towards him. They go together (<\/SPAN><\/span>) with Jesus. Note dramatic historical present.<\/P>

As he was wont <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Second past perfect used like an imperfect from <\/SPAN><\/span>, second perfect active. Jesus<\/P>

was teaching <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>, imperfect, no longer present tense) this moving caravan. <\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

JESUS ON THE MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE QUESTION V. 1-12<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

1)“And He arose from thence,” <\/strong>(kai ekeothen anastas) “And rising up He went out from that area,” of upper Galilee, near Capernaum, Mar 9:33<\/span>. The next six chapters describe the manner, deeds, and words of Jesus as He faced death.<\/p>\n

2) “And cometh unto the coasts of Judea,<\/strong>” (erchetai eis to horia tes loudaias) “And came (because He chose to) into the borders or territory of Judea,” and Perea South of Galilee, East of the Jordan, leaving Galilee for His last time, before His death, Joh 10:40<\/span>.<\/p>\n

3) “By the<\/strong> farther side of Jordan. <\/strong>(kai peran tou lordanou) ”Even beyond, (on the east side) of the Jordan,” the Jordan River and Valley from Jerusalem, Mat 19:1-2<\/span>, He went back to the area, near where He was baptized, Mat 3:13<\/span>; Mat 3:17<\/span>.<\/p>\n

4) ”And the people resort unto Him,”<\/strong> (kai sumporeuontai palin ochloi pros auton) ”And the crowds again go in close proximity with Him,” crowding near and following Him, as they had formerly done, Joh 10:40-41<\/span>.<\/p>\n

5) ”And as He<\/strong> was wont, He taught them again.” <\/strong>(kai hos eiothei palin edidaskin autos) “And as He was wont, accustomed, inclined, or disposed, He again taught them,” or continued teaching as in Mar 6:34<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES<\/em><\/p>\n

Mar. 10:1<\/span>. He arose from thence<\/strong>.Between the events just recorded and those of which the Evangelist now proceeds to treat many others had occurred, which he passes over. The most important of these were: <\/p>\n

1. The visit of Christ to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles (Joh. 7:8-10<\/span>), which was marked by<\/p>\n

(1) The rebuke to the Sons of Thunder at the churlish conduct of the inhabitants of a Samaritan village on their way to the Holy City (Luk. 9:51-56<\/span>); <\/p>\n

(2) Solemn discourses during the feast, and an attempt of the Sanhedrin to apprehend Him (Joh. 7:11-52<\/span>; Joh. 8:12-59<\/span>); <\/p>\n

(3) The opening of the eyes of one born blind (Joh. 9:1-41<\/span>), the revelation of Himself as the Good Shepherd (Joh. 10:1-18<\/span>). <\/p>\n

2. Ministrations in Judea and mission of the seventy (Luk. 10:13-17<\/span>). <\/p>\n

3. Visit to Jerusalem at the Feast of Dedication (Joh. 10:22-39<\/span>). <\/p>\n

4. Tour in Pera (Luk. 13:22<\/span> to Luk. 17:10<\/span>). <\/p>\n

5. The raising of Lazarus (Joh. 11:1-46<\/span>). <\/p>\n

6. Resolve of the Sanhedrin to put Him to death, and His retirement to Ephraim (Joh. 11:47-54<\/span>). The coasts of Judea<\/strong>.The place whither He now retired has been identified with Ophrah, and was situated in the wide desert country north-east of Jerusalem, not far from Bethel, and on the confines of Samaria. Caspari would identify it with a place now called El-Faria, or El-Farrah, about two hours north-east of Nablous.G. F. Maclear, D.D.<\/em><\/p>\n

Mar. 10:5<\/span>. For the hardness<\/strong>.To meet<\/em>in the way of concession or compromise.<\/p>\n

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.<\/em>Mar. 10:1-12<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

(PARALLEL: Mat. 19:1-12<\/span>.)<\/p>\n

Lessons for preachers<\/em>.This passage, which will hardly ever be required for public use, suggests some points which ought not to be neglected by the preacher.<\/p>\n

I. Jesus Christ taught<\/strong>.Ignorance was never approved by the Saviour. He saved through light<\/em>, never through darkness<\/em>. He conducted specific intellectual processes as well as processes distinctively moral. It was His delight to simplify<\/em> truth.<\/p>\n

II. Jesus Christ taught the people<\/strong>.Not a particular class, but the people as a whole. His teaching was as impartial as the sunshine. This is the glory of Christian truth. It challenges all hearts in all ages and in all lands. It is a heavenly rain, not a local fountain.<\/p>\n

III. Jesus Christ honoured the holy teachers who had gone before Him<\/strong> (Mar. 10:3<\/span>).Truth is one. We find new phases, new applications, and the like; but truth is one, because God<\/em> is one. This is our security amid all changes of ministers and teachers. In so far as the men have been true to God each can say, What did my predecessor<\/em> tell you?<\/p>\n

IV. Jesus Christ honoured the tenderest relations of the present life<\/strong> (Mar. 10:7-9<\/span>).He did not ignore the present because of the future. He treated no vow with levity. He taught the whole lawthe law of home, the law of society, the law of the Church: There is one Lawgiver.J. Parker, D.D.<\/em><\/p>\n

Marriage<\/em>.<\/p>\n

1. That society is necessary to the happiness of human nature, that the gloom of solitude and the stillness of retirement, however they may flatter at a distance with pleasing views of independence and serenity, neither extinguish the passions nor enlighten the understanding, that discontent will intrude upon privacy and temptations follow us to the desert, every one may be easily convinced, either by his own experience or that of others.
2. It is a proof of the regard of God for the happiness of mankind that the means by which it must be attained are obvious and evident; that we are not left to discover them by difficult speculations, intricate disquisitions, or long experience, but are led to them equally by our passions and our reason, in prosperity and distress.
3. As a general relation to the rest of the species is not sufficient to procure gratifications for the private desires of particular persons, as closer ties of union are necessary to promote the separate interests of individuals, the great society of the world is divided into different communities, which are again subdivided into smaller bodies and more contracted associations, which pursue, or ought to pursue, a particular interest, in subordination to the public good, and consistently with the general happiness of mankind.
4. The lowest subdivision of society is that by which it is broken into private families; nor do any duties demand more to be explained and enforced than those which this relation produces, because none is more universally obligatory, and perhaps very few are more frequently neglected.
5. That marriage itself, an institution designed only for the promotion of happiness, and for the relief of the disappointments, anxieties, and distresses, to which we are subject in our present state, does not always produce the effects for which it was appointed, that it sometimes condenses the gloom which it was intended to dispel, and increases the weight which was expected to be made lighter by it, must, however unwillingly, be yet acknowledged.
6. It is to be considered to what causes effects so unexpected and unpleasing, so contrary to the end of the institution, and so unlikely to arise from it, are to be attributed; it is necessary to inquire whether those that are thus unhappy are to impute their misery to any other cause than their own folly, and to the neglect of those duties which prudence and religion equally require.<\/p>\n

I. The nature and end of marriage<\/strong>.The vow of marriage, which the wisdom of most civilised nations has enjoined, and which the rules of the Christian Church enjoin, may be properly considered as a vow of perpetual and indissoluble friendshipfriendship which no change of fortune nor any alteration of external circumstances can be allowed to interrupt or weaken. After the commencement of this state there remain no longer any separate interests; the two individuals become united, and are therefore to enjoy the same felicity and suffer the same misfortunesto have the same friends and the same enemies, the same success and the same disappointments. <\/p>\n

1. It is remarked that friendship amongst equals is the most lasting, and perhaps there are few causes to which more unhappy marriages are to be ascribed than a disproportion between the original condition of the two persons. Difference of condition makes difference of education, and difference of education produces differences of habits, sentiments, and inclinations.
2. Strict friendship is to have the same desires and the same aversions. Whoever is to choose a friend is to consider first the resemblance or the dissimilitude of tempers. How necessary this caution is to be urged as preparatory to marriage the misery of those who neglect it sufficiently evinces. To enumerate all the varieties of disposition to which it may on this occasion be convenient to attend would be a tedious task; but it is at least proper to enforce one precept on this heada precept which was never yet broken without fatal consequences: Let the religion of the man and woman be the same.
3. Friends, says the proverbial observation, have everything in common. This is likewise implied in the marriage covenant. Matrimony admits of no separate possessions, no incommunicable interests.
4. There is yet another precept equally relating to friendship and to marriagea precept which in either case can never be too strongly inculcated or too scrupulously observed: Contract friendship only with the good. Virtue is the first quality to be considered in the choice of a friend, and yet more in a fixed and irrevocable choice. This maxim surely requires no comment nor any vindication; it is equally clear and certain, obvious to the superficial, and incontestable by the most accurate examiner. To dwell upon it is therefore superfluous; for though often neglected, it never was denied.<\/p>\n

II. By what means the end of marriage is to be attained<\/strong>.As it appears by examining the natural system of the universe that the greatest and smallest bodies are invested with the same properties and moved by the same laws, so a survey of the moral world will inform us that greater or less societies are to be made happy by the same means, and that, however relations may be varied or circumstances changed, virtue, and virtue alone, is the parent of felicity. If passion be suffered to prevail over right, and the duties of our state be broken through or neglected for the sake of gratifying our anger, our pride, or our revenge, the union of hearts will quickly be dissolved, and kindness will give way to resentment and aversion. <\/p>\n

1. The duties by the practice of which a married life is to be made happy are the same with those of friendship, but exalted to higher perfection. Love must be more ardent, and confidence without limits. It is therefore necessary on each part to deserve that confidence by the most unshaken fidelity, and to preserve their love unextinguished by continual acts of tenderness, not only to detest all real but seeming offences, and to avoid suspicion and guilt with almost equal solicitude.
2. But since the frailty of our nature is such that we cannot hope from each other an unvaried rectitude of conduct or an uninterrupted course of wisdom or virtue, as folly will sometimes intrude upon an unguarded hour, and temptations by frequent attacks will sometimes prevail, one of the chief acts of love is readily to forgive errors and overlook defects. Neglect is to be reclaimed by kindness, and perverseness softened by complaisance.
3. Marriage, however in general it resembles friendship, differs from it in this: that all its duties are not reciprocal. Friends are equal in every respect, but the relation of marriage produces authority on one side and exacts obedience on the other. But though obedience may be justly required, servility is not to be exacted; and though it may be lawful to exert authority, it must be remembered that to govern and to tyrannise are very different, and that oppression will naturally provoke rebellion.
4. The great rule both of authority and obedience is the law of Goda law which is not to be broken for the promotion of any ends or in compliance with any commands, and which indeed never can be violated without destroying that confidence which is the great source of mutual happiness: for how can that person be trusted whom no principle obliges to fidelity?S. Johnson, LL.D<\/em>.<\/p>\n

OUTLINES AND COMMENTS ON THE VERSES<\/em><\/p>\n

Mar. 10:1<\/span>. A true pastor is never weary of instructing his people<\/em>.He is always ready to communicate himself, because the treasure of his heart is always full of the truths of salvation. His known charity causes people to seek and apply themselves to him, and this search and concourse invite and solicit his charity. Kindle, O Lord, this double zeal, both in the pastors and in the sheep!P. Quesnel<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Mar. 10:4<\/span>. A loose casuist generally wants either knowledge or sincerity<\/em>.This conduct of the Pharisees is but too frequently imitated, who, being called upon to produce the primitive law published by Moses, He shall cleave to his wife, suppress it, to insist upon a doctrine which was only tolerated, and to fix upon a dispensation of this law which had been extorted, as it were, by force. Men often substitute, in the room of the holy law of the gospel, a toleration of some things which corruption of manners has introduced contrary to the gospel itself.Ibid<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Mar. 10:5-9<\/span>. The doctrine of Christ concerning marriage<\/em>.<\/p>\n

1.Its binding character as instituted by God.
2. Its decay in the progress of history.
3. Its prepared restoration under the law.
4. Its transformation by the gospel.J. P. Lange, D.D.<\/em><\/p>\n

Mar. 10:5<\/span>. God does by no means authorise everything which He tolerates;<\/em> and He frequently permits a less evil that a greater may be avoided. It is absolutely necessary to distinguish in the Scripture that which God commands, that which He counsels, that which He expressly permits, and that which, out of His infinite patience, He only tolerates or suffers.P. Quesnel<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Mar. 10:7-8<\/span>. Marriage<\/em> may be regarded in three lights. <\/p>\n

1. It is a natural<\/em> contract, designed for the propagation and perpetuation of the human race. <\/p>\n

2. It is a civil<\/em> contract, entered into according to the laws of the state, for the preservation of peace and prosperity in the kingdom. <\/p>\n

3. It is a sacred<\/em> contract, raised by the new law of Christ into something higher than the natural spherea rite through which grace is conferred upon two human beings for the fulfilment of the duties of the married state, an image of the union between Christ and His Church.<\/p>\n

Mar. 10:7<\/span>. Husband and wife<\/em> complete and strengthen each other. A husbands love will not deaden but develop what is strong and individual in a wifes character; and a wifes love will give edge to her husbands individuality and heighten the worth of his work. This is not bondage, unless it be bondage for a child to be moulded by a mothers love, or for a friend to be influenced by the nobler character of his friend. That is the true freedom when what is best in me is free to grow because it is surrounded by the conditions of growth. And that is the freedom of marriage where two souls are joined in a life-union by love and reverence, and help each other to be their true selves, enhance each others moral influence, and heighten each others joys.D. M. Ross<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Mar. 10:9<\/span>. Marriage in the time of Christ<\/em>.If we bear in mind that great laxity existed with regard to marriage even amongst the Jews in the time of our Lord, we shall see that His purpose was to bring marriage back to its original foundation, and so give perpetual security to His followers for the sanctity of home. There were two schools amongst the Jews, those of Hillel and Shammai; the former allowed divorce for slight reasons, the latter only for grave offences. Both, though in very different degrees, fell short of the doctrine of the permanency which, according to Divine appointment, belonged to the marriage bond. When the Pharisees twitted Christ with the Mosaic command to give a writing of divorcement, He reminded them that it was not a a command, but a matter of sufferance, because the standard of their fathers was so low; and that it was not so from the beginning, but that He came to restore the institution of marriage to its original condition, and to add to it new grace.<\/p>\n

The marriage bond<\/em>.Not only our religious but our social and national well-being demands the permanency of the marriage bond. Without it, marriage degenerates into a form of selfish and sensual gratification; with it, it is a state of complete and unreserved mutual self-surrender. Without it, home rests upon the sands; with it, it is founded on a rock. If marriages and homes are to be ruled by mere selfishness, and not by pure love, we know from history that national greatness is too closely bound up with home life to continue when domestic happiness is gone.<\/p>\n

ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 10<\/p>\n

Mar. 10:1<\/span>. As He was wont<\/em>.Wondrously expressive words. Like a tiny straw, they shew the steady movement of a mighty current. Constancy is there, never-failing and inseparably allied to the good. Christs whole being was but one great undivided habit of holiness. We have to grow<\/em> up unto Him in all things. In this upward growth we are forming habits which make for righteousness and holiness with increasing certainty. They have a mutual influence. Habits make acts surer. Acts confirm habit. Our Christlikeness is not to be measured by the goodness of a particular act; neither by that of a series fitfully performed. It is rather to be gauged by such a steady trend of spirit and deed toward all goodness as will lead men abidingly to expect and confidently to affirm that we are acting thus and so wherever we are. A young man was leaving for a distant part of the country. A friend in bidding him good-bye remarked, We need not tell you to work for God wherever your lot may be. We know you will. A mother was being told of a certain notable example of resistance to temptation on the part of a young officer in the army. While expressing her admiration thereat, she was informed that he who thus nobly lived was her boy. Amid grateful tears she exclaimed, Is that my boy? Is that my Will? Its just like him. I knew he would do soas he was wont.<\/p>\n

Mar. 10:8<\/span>. They twain shall he one flesh<\/em>.The parting of man and wife in the sight of God is like the rending of limb from limb. Imagine some dungeon: the smoking torch gives a fitful flame; the air is foul; the prisoner is brought. Tie his feet and hands; stretch him on the rack. Turn your wheels, ye unfeeling executioners, until the great beads stand on his forehead, until the eyeballs seem ready to start from their sockets; turn them; what matter though he yell and scream; turn them; turn them till the cracking bones and quivering sinews can hold no longer! Turn them till limb from limb the poor, quivering, feeling mass settles still in death. Horrible! Yet it is only rending one flesh. That ghastly, terrible, soul-revolting tragedy is a parable. It, in the physical world, is like divorce in the spiritual. Some sickening accident, when groans and shrieks and cries tell of anguish, shadows forth for us what divorce is like in Gods sight. Gods Word thus likens divorce and murdermurder cruel and barbarous.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

III. THE PEREAN MINISTRY 10:1-52<\/strong><\/p>\n

Jesus Leaves Galilee. 10:1 (on His way to Jerusalem)<\/p>\n

TEXT 10:1<\/strong><\/p>\n

And he arose from thence, and cometh into the borders of Judea and beyond Jordan: and multitudes come together unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.<\/p>\n

THOUGHT QUESTIONS 10:1<\/strong><\/p>\n

495.<\/p>\n

Please note the expression: he arose from thence has more meaning than just a move from one place to another. What significance is there here?<\/p>\n

496.<\/p>\n

Please locate this move on the mapjust what is involved in the borders of Judea? Where is beyond the Jordan?<\/p>\n

497.<\/p>\n

Refer to the parallel passage in Luke. Explain the harmonyor lack of it.<\/p>\n

498.<\/p>\n

What was the purpose in the gathering of the multitude?<\/p>\n

499.<\/p>\n

Do the gospel writers indicate that teaching was the major work of Christ? Discuss.<\/p>\n

EXPLANATORY NOTES<\/strong><\/p>\n

1, And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judea by the farther, etc. It will be necessary to say a word or two respecting the sequence of events. Gresswell, with whose Harmony most commentators substantially agree, having inserted as the continuation of this discourse, as given in Mat. 18:10-35<\/span>, the dealing with an offending brother, and St. Peters question respecting how often he ought to forgive, and the parable of the Unmerciful Servant, then puts down the events from Jesus going up to Jerusalem at the Feast of the Tabernacles in Joh. 7:2<\/span>, to the departure of the Lord, after His discourse respecting the Good Shepherd, to Bethany, beyond Jordan, where John first baptized (Joh. 10:40<\/span>). Either during this stay at Jerusalem, or at its conclusion, the Lord enters into a certain village, no doubt Bethany, near Jerusalem, where He is entertained by the sisters Martha and Mary (Luk. 10:38<\/span>). After this when in Bethany, beyond Jordan, he hears of the sickness of Lazarus, and returns to Jerusalem and raises him from the dead, then He again retires, but now into the city called Ephraim (Joh. 11:54<\/span>). Between this retirement and the final entry into Jerusalem occur most of the events recorded between Luk. 10:1<\/span> and Luk. 18:14<\/span>, and at the account of the Lords taking up and blessing the little children the three Synoptics again coincide (Mat. 19:13<\/span>; Mar. 10:13<\/span>; Luk. 18:15<\/span>) and substantially continue to do so to the end.<\/p>\n

We cannot then understand the word thence as referring to the place where the Lord had been speaking of the salt losing its savour, and was urging the Apostles to have salt in themselves. It is quite necessary to understand it, so far as we are concerned, indeterminedly as referring to some place in Galilee not mentioned.
Cometh into the coast of Judea by the farther side of Jordan, i.e., by Peraea. This was the second residence in Peraea, and so the Evangelist intimates, by twice making use of the word again.
And the people resort unto him again; and as he was wont he taught them again.<\/p>\n

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

SUMMARY 10:1-52<\/strong><\/p>\n

In this section Jesus is exhibited as a teacher, a prophet, and a worker of miracles. His instruction on the subject of divorce (Mar. 10:1-12<\/span>), 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.<\/p>\n

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 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; 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. (McGarvey)<\/p>\n

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

X.<\/strong><\/p>\n

(1) And he arose from thence.<\/strong>We may note, as some help to a right study of the Gospel narrative, that the best harmonists place Mat. 18:15-35<\/span>, Luk. 10:1<\/span> to Luk. 17:10<\/span> (with the exception of Mar. 15:3-7<\/span>), and Joh. 7:1<\/span> to Joh. 11:54<\/span>, between the 9th and 10th chapters of this Gospel. The farther side of Jordan implies what is known as the Peran ministry of our Lord, and which is related only by St. Luke.<\/p>\n

Resort unto him.<\/strong>Literally, come together,<\/em> or journey together.
<\/em><\/p>\n

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Chapter 10<\/p>\n

FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE (<\/strong> Mar 10:1-12<\/span> )<\/p>\n

<\/strong> 10:1-12 Leaving there, Jesus came into the hill-country of Judaea and to the district across the Jordan, and once again crowds came together to him. As his custom was, he again continued to teach them. Some Pharisees came to him and asked him if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife. They asked this question to test him. He asked them, “What commandment did Moses lay down for you?” They answered, “Moses allowed a man to write a bill of divorcement and then to put her away.” Jesus said to them, “It was to meet the hardness of your heart that he wrote this commandment for you. From the beginning of creation male and female he created them. For this cause a man will leave his father and his mother and will cleave to his wife. And the two will become one flesh, so that they are no longer two but one flesh. So then what God has joined together let not man separate.” In the house his disciples again asked him about this. He said to them, “Whoever puts away his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” <\/p>\n

<\/em> <\/p>\n

Jesus was pursuing his way south. He had left Galilee and had come into Judaea. He had not yet entered Jerusalem, but step by step and stage by stage he was approaching the final scene. <\/p>\n

Certain Pharisees came with a question about divorce, by which they hoped to test him. There may have been more than one motive behind their question. Divorce was a burning question, a crux of rabbinic discussion, and it may well be that they honestly wished for Jesus’ opinion on it. They may have wished to test his orthodoxy. It may well be that Jesus had already had something to say on this matter. Mat 5:31-32<\/span>, shows us Jesus speaking about marriage and re-marriage, and it may be that these Pharisees had the hope that he might contradict himself and entangle himself in his own words. It may be that they knew what he would answer and wished to involve him in enmity with Herod who had in fact divorced his wife and married another. It may well be that they wished to hear Jesus contradict the law of Moses, as indeed he did, and thereby to formulate a charge of heresy against him. One thing is certain–the question they asked Jesus was no academic one of interest only to the rabbinic schools. It was a question which dealt with one of the acutest issues of the time. <\/p>\n

In theory nothing could be higher than the Jewish ideal of marriage. Chastity was held to be the greatest of all the virtues. “We find that God is long-suffering to every sin except the sin of unchastity.” “Unchastity causes the glory of God to depart.” “Every Jew must surrender his life rather than commit idolatry, murder or adultery.” “The very altar sheds tears when a man divorces the wife of his youth.” The ideal was there but practice fell very far short. <\/p>\n

The basic fact that vitiated the whole situation was that in Jewish law a woman was regarded as a thing. She had no legal rights whatever but was at the complete disposal of the male head of the family. The result was that a man could divorce his wife on almost any grounds, while there were very few on which a woman could seek divorce. At best she could only ask her husband to divorce her. “A woman may be divorced with or without her will, but a man only with his will.” The only grounds on which a woman could claim a divorce were if her husband became a leper, if he engaged in a disgusting trade such as that of a tanner, if he ravished a virgin, or if he falsely accused her of prenuptial sin. <\/p>\n

The law of Jewish divorce goes back to Deu 24:1<\/span>. That passage was the foundation of the whole matter. It runs thus: “When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favour in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house.” <\/p>\n

At first the bill of divorcement was very simple. It read like this: “Let this be from me thy writ of divorce and letter of dismissal and deed of liberation, that thou mayest marry whatsoever man thou wilt.” In later days the bill became more elaborate: “On the …….. day, of the …….. week, of the …….. month, year …….. of the world, according to the calculation in use in the town of ……… situated by the river …….. I, A.B., son of C.D., and by whatsoever name I am called here, present this day ……… native of the town of …….. I acting of my free-will, and without any coercion, do repudiate, send back, and put away thee E.F., daughter of G.H., and by whatsoever name thou art called, and until this present time my wife. I send thee away now E.F., daughter of G.H., so that thou art free and thou canst at thy pleasure marry whom thou wilt and no one will hinder thee. This is thy letter of divorce, act of repudiation, certificate of separation, according to the law of Moses and of Israel.” In New Testament times this document took a skilled Rabbi to draw it up. It was afterwards proved by a court of three rabbis, and then lodged with the Sanhedrin. But the process of divorce remained on the whole exceedingly easy, and at the entire discretion of the man. <\/p>\n

But the real crux of the problem was the interpretation of the law as it is in Deu 24:1<\/span>. There it is laid down that a man can divorce his wife if he finds in her some indecency. How was that phrase to be interpreted? There were in this matter two schools of thought. <\/p>\n

There was the school of Shammai. They interpreted the matter with utter strictness. A matter of indecency was adultery and adultery alone. Let a woman be as bad as Jezebel, unless she was guilty of adultery there could be no divorce. <\/p>\n

The other school was the school of Hillel. They interpreted that crucial phrase as widely as possible. They said that it could mean if the wife spoiled a dish of food, if she spun in the streets, if she talked to a strange man, if she spoke disrespectfully of her husband’s relations in his hearing, if she was a brawling woman, (who was defined as a woman whose voice could be heard in the next house). Rabbi Akiba even went the length of saying that it meant if a man found a woman who was fairer in his eyes than his wife was. <\/p>\n

Human nature being as it is, it was the laxer view which prevailed. The result was that divorce for the most trivial reasons, or for no reason at all, was tragically common. To such a pass had things come that, in the time of Jesus, women hesitated to marry at all because marriage was so insecure. When Jesus spoke as he did he was speaking on a subject which was a burning issue, and he was striking a blow for women by seeking to restore marriage to the position it ought to have. <\/p>\n

Certain things are to be noted. Jesus quoted the Mosaic regulation, and then he said that Moses laid that down only “to meet the hardness of your hearts.” That may mean one of two things. It may mean that Moses laid it down because it was the best that could be expected from people such as those for whom he was legislating. Or, it may mean that Moses laid it down in order to try to control a situation which even then was degenerating, that in fact it was not so much a permission to divorce as it was in the beginning an attempt to control divorce, to reduce it to some kind of law, and to make it more difficult. <\/p>\n

In any event Jesus made it quite clear that he regarded Deu 24:1<\/span>, as being laid down for a definite situation and being in no sense permanently binding. The authorities which he quoted went much further back. For his authorities he went right back to the Creation story and quoted Gen 1:27<\/span> and Gen 2:24<\/span>. It was his view that in the very nature of things marriage was a permanency which indissolubly united two people in such a way that the bond could never be broken by any human laws and regulations. It was his belief that in the very constitution of the universe marriage is meant to be an absolute permanency and unity, and no Mosaic regulation dealing with a temporary situation could alter that. <\/p>\n

The difficulty is that in the parallel account in Matthew there is a difference. In Mark, Jesus’ prohibition of divorce and remarriage is absolute. In Mat 19:3-9<\/span>, he is shown as absolutely forbidding remarriage, but as permitting divorce on one ground–adultery. Almost certainly the Matthew version is correct, and it is indeed implied in Mark. It was Jewish law that adultery did in fact compulsorily dissolve any marriage. And the truth is that infidelity does in fact dissolve the bond of marriage. Once adultery has been committed the unity is in any case destroyed and divorce merely attests the fact. <\/p>\n

The real essence of the passage is that Jesus insisted that the loose sexual morality of his day must be mended. Those who sought marriage only for pleasure must be reminded that marriage is also for responsibility. Those who regarded marriage simply as a means of gratifying their physical passions must be reminded that it was also a spiritual unity. Jesus was building a rampart round the home. <\/p>\n

OF SUCH IS THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN (<\/strong> Mar 10:13-16<\/span> )<\/p>\n

<\/strong> 10:13-16 They brought little children to Jesus that he might touch them. But the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw what they were doing he was vexed and said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and don’t try to stop them for of such is the Kingdom of God. This is the truth I tell you, whoever does not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child will not enter into it.” And he took them up in the crook of his arm and blessed them and laid his hands upon them. <\/p>\n

<\/em> <\/p>\n

It was natural that Jewish mothers should wish their children to be blessed by a great and distinguished Rabbi. Especially they brought their children to such a person on their first birthday. It was in this way that they brought the children to Jesus on this day. <\/p>\n

We will fully understand the almost poignant beauty of this passage only if we remember when it happened. Jesus was on the way to the Cross–and he knew it. Its cruel shadow can never have been far from his mind. It was at such a time that he had time for the children. Even with such a tension in his mind as that he had time to take them in his arms and he had the heart to smile into their faces and maybe to play with them awhile. <\/p>\n

The disciples were not boorish and ungracious men. They simply wanted to protect Jesus. They did not quite know what was going on, but they knew quite clearly that tragedy lay ahead and they could see the tension under which Jesus laboured. They did not want him to be bothered. They could not conceive that he could want the children about him at such a time as that. But Jesus said, “Let the children come to me.” <\/p>\n

Incidentally, this tells us a great deal about Jesus. It tells us that he was the kind of person who cared for children and for whom children cared. He could not have been a stern and gloomy and joyless person. There must have been a kindly sunshine on him. He must have smiled easily and laughed joyously. Somewhere George Macdonald says that he does not believe in a man’s Christianity if the children are never to be found playing around his door. This little, precious incident throws a flood of light on the human kind of person Jesus was. <\/p>\n

“Of such,” said Jesus “is the Kingdom of God.” What is it about the child that Jesus liked and valued so much? <\/p>\n

(i) There is the child’s humility. There is the child who is an exhibitionist, but such a child is rare and almost always the product of misguided adult treatment. Ordinarily the child is embarrassed by prominence and publicity. He has not yet learned to think in terms of place and pride and prestige. He has not yet learned to discover the importance of himself. <\/p>\n

(ii) There is the child’s obedience. True, a child is often disobedient, but, paradox though it may seem, his natural instinct is to obey. He has not yet learned the pride and the false independence which separate a man from his fellow-men and from God. <\/p>\n

(iii) There is the child’s trust. That is seen in two things. <\/p>\n

(a) It is seen in the child’s acceptance of authority. There is a time when he thinks his father knows everything and that his father is always right. To our shame, he soon grows out of that. But instinctively the child realizes his own ignorance and his own helplessness and trusts the one who, as he thinks, knows. <\/p>\n

(b) It is seen in the child’s confidence in other people. He does not expect any person to be bad. He will make friends with a perfect stranger. A great man once said that the greatest compliment ever paid him was when a little boy came up to him, a complete stranger, and asked him to tie his shoelace. The child has not yet learned to suspect the world. He still believes the best about others. Sometimes that very trust leads him into danger for there are those who are totally unworthy of it and who abuse it, but that trust is a lovely thing. <\/p>\n

(iv) The child has a short memory. He has not yet learned to bear grudges and nourish bitterness. Even when he is unjustly treated–and who among us is not sometimes unjust to his children?–he forgets, and forgets so completely that he does not even need to forgive. <\/p>\n

Indeed, of such is the Kingdom of God. <\/p>\n

HOW MUCH DO YOU WANT GOODNESS? (<\/strong> Mar 10:17-22<\/span> )<\/p>\n

<\/strong> 10:17-22 As Jesus was going along the road, a man came running to him and threw himself at his feet and asked him, “Good teacher, what am I to do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? There is no one who is good, except one–God. You know the commandments. You must not kin, you must not commit adultery, you must not steal, you must not bear false witness, you must not defraud anyone, you must honour your father and mother.” He said to him, “Teacher, I have kept all these from my youth.” When Jesus looked at him he loved him, and he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Go, sell all that you have, and give it to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven. And come! Follow me!” But he was grieved at this saying, and he went away in sadness, for he had many possessions. <\/p>\n

<\/em> <\/p>\n

Here is one of the most vivid stories in the gospels. <\/p>\n

(i) We must note how the man came and how Jesus met him. He came running. He flung himself at Jesus’ feet. There is something amazing in the sight of this rich, young aristocrat falling at the feet of the penniless prophet from Nazareth, who was on the way to being an outlaw. “Good teacher!” he began. And straight away Jesus answered back, “No flattery! Don’t call me good! Keep that word for God!” It looks almost as if Jesus was trying to freeze him and to pour cold water on that young enthusiasm. <\/p>\n

There is a lesson here. It is clear that this man came to Jesus in a moment of overflowing emotion. It is also clear that Jesus exercised a personal fascination over him. Jesus did two things that every evangelist and every preacher and every teacher ought to remember and to copy. <\/p>\n

First, he said in effect, “Stop and think! You are all wrought up and palpitating with emotion! I don’t want you swept to me by a moment of emotion. Think calmly what you are doing.” Jesus was not freezing the man. He was telling him even at the very outset to count the cost. <\/p>\n

Second, he said in effect, “You cannot become a Christian by a sentimental passion for me. you must look at God.” Preaching and teaching always mean the conveying of truth through personality, and thereby lies the greatest danger of the greatest teachers. The danger is that the pupil, the scholar, the young person may form a personal attachment to the teacher or the preacher and think that it is an attachment to God. The teacher and preacher must never point to himself. He must always point to God. There is in all true teaching a certain self-obliteration. True, we cannot keep personality and warm personal loyalty out of it altogether, and we would not if we could. But the matter must not stop there. The teacher and the preacher are in the last analysis only finger-posts to God. <\/p>\n

(ii) Never did any story so lay down the essential Christian truth that respectability is not enough. Jesus quoted the commandments which were the basis of the decent life. Without hesitation the man said he had kept them all. Note one thing–with one exception they were all negative commandments, and that one exception operated only in the family circle. In effect the man was saying, “I never in my life did anyone any harm.” That was perfectly true. But the real question is, “What good have you done?” And the question to this man was even more pointed, “With all your possessions, with your wealth, with all that you could give away, what positive good have you done to others? How much have you gone out of your way to help and comfort and strengthen others as you might have done?” Respectability, on the whole, consists in not doing things; Christianity consists in doing things. That was precisely where this man–like so many of us–fell down. <\/p>\n

(iii) So Jesus confronted him with a challenge. In effect he said, “Get out of this moral respectability. Stop looking at goodness as consisting in not doing things. Take yourself and all that you have, and spend everything on others. Then you will find true happiness in time and in eternity.” The man could not do it. He had great possessions, which it had never entered his head to give away and when it was suggested to him he could not. True, he had never stolen, and he had never defrauded anyone–but neither had he ever been, nor could he compel himself to be, positively and sacrificially generous. <\/p>\n

It may be respectable never to take away from anyone. It is Christian to give to someone. In reality Jesus was confronting this man with a basic and essential question–“How much do you want real Christianity? Do you want it enough to give your possessions away?” And the man had to answer in effect, “I want it–but I don’t want it as much as all that.” <\/p>\n

Robert Louis Stevenson in The Master of Ballantrae draws a picture of the master leaving the ancestral home of Durrisdeer for the last time. Even he is sad. He is talking to the faithful family steward. “Ah! M’Kellar,” he said, “Do you think I have never a regret.” “I do not think,” said M’Kellar, “that you could be so bad a man unless you had all the machinery for being a good one.” “Not all,” said the master, “not all. It is there you are in error. The malady of not wanting.” <\/p>\n

It was the malady of not wanting enough which meant tragedy for the man who came running to Jesus. It is the malady from which most of us suffer. We all want goodness, but so few of us want it enough to pay the price. <\/p>\n

Jesus, looking at him, loved him. There were many things in that look of Jesus. <\/p>\n

(a) There was the appeal of love. Jesus was not angry with him. He loved him too much for that. It was not the look of anger but the appeal of love. <\/p>\n

(b) There was the challenge to chivalry. It was a look which sought to pull the man out of his comfortable, respectable, settled life into the adventure of being a real Christian. <\/p>\n

(c) It was the look of grief. And that grief was the sorest grief of all–the grief of seeing a man deliberately choose not to be what he might have been and had it in him to be. <\/p>\n

Jesus looks at us with the appeal of love and with the challenge to the knightliness of the Christian way. God grant that he may never have to look at us with sorrow for a loved one who refuser to be what he might have been and could have been. <\/p>\n

THE PERIL OF RICHES (<\/strong> Mar 10:23-27<\/span> )<\/p>\n

<\/strong> 10:23-27 Jesus looked round and said to his disciples, “With what difficulty will those who have money enter into the Kingdom of God!” His disciples were amazed at his words. Jesus repeated, “Children, how difficult it is for those who trust in money to enter into the Kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.” They were exceedingly astonished. “Who then,” they said to him, “can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. All things are possible with God.” <\/p>\n

<\/em> <\/p>\n

The ruler who had refused the challenge of Jesus had walked sorrowfully away, and, no doubt the eyes of Jesus and the company of the apostles followed him until his figure receded into the distance. Then Jesus turned and looked round his own men. “How very difficult it is,” he said, “for a man who has money to enter into the Kingdom of God.” The word used for money is chremata ( G5536<\/span>) , which is defined by Aristotle as, “All those things of which the value is measured by coinage.” <\/p>\n

We may perhaps wonder why this saying so astonished the disciples. Twice their amazement is stressed. The reason for their amazement was that Jesus was turning accepted Jewish standards completely upside down. Popular Jewish morality was simple. It believed that prosperity was the sign of a good man. If a man was rich, God must have honoured and blessed him. Wealth was proof of excellence of character and of favour with God. The Psalmist sums it up, “I have been young and now am old, yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken or his children begging bread.” ( Psa 37:25<\/span>.) <\/p>\n

No wonder the disciples were surprised! They would have argued that the more prosperous a man was the more certain he was of entry into the Kingdom. So Jesus repeated his saying in a slightly different way to make clearer what he meant. “How difficult it is,” he said, “for those who have put their trust in riches to enter the Kingdom.” <\/p>\n

No one ever saw the dangers of prosperity and of material things more clearly than Jesus did. What are these dangers? <\/p>\n

(i) Material possessions tend to fix a man’s heart to this world. He has so large a stake in it, he has so great an interest in it, that it is difficult for him to think beyond it, and it is specially difficult for him to contemplate leaving it. Dr. Johnson was once shown round a famous castle and its lovely grounds. After he had seen it all, he turned to his friends and said, “These are the things that make it difficult to die.” The danger of possessions is that they fix a man’s thoughts and interests to this world. <\/p>\n

(ii) If a man’s main interest is in material possessions it tends to make him think of everything in terms of price. A hill shepherd’s wife wrote a most interesting letter to a newspaper. Her children had been brought up in the loneliness of the hills. They were simple and unsophisticated. Then her husband got a position in a town and the children were introduced to the town. They changed very considerably–and they changed for the worse. The last paragraph of her letter read–“Which is preferable for a child’s upbringing–a lack of worldliness, but with better manners and sincere and simple thoughts, or worldliness and its present-day habit of knowing the price of everything and the true value of nothing?” <\/p>\n

If a man’s main interest is in material things, he will think in terms, of price and not in terms of value. He will think in terms of what money can get. And he may well forget that there are values in this world far beyond money, that there are things which have no price, and that there are precious things that money cannot buy. It is fatal when a man begins to think that everything worth having has a money price. <\/p>\n

(iii) Jesus would have said that the possession of material things is two things. <\/p>\n

(a) It is an acid test of a man. For a hundred men who can stand adversity only one can stand prosperity. Prosperity can so very easily make a man arrogant, proud, self-satisfied, worldly. It takes a really big and good man to bear it worthily. <\/p>\n

(b) It is a responsibility. A man will always be judged by two standards how he got his possessions and how he uses them. The more he has, the greater the responsibility that rests upon him. Will he use what he has selfishly or generously? Will he use it as if he had undisputed possession of it, or remembering that he holds it in stewardship from God. <\/p>\n

The reaction of the disciples was that, if what Jesus was saying was true, to be saved at all was well-nigh impossible. Then Jesus stated the whole doctrine of salvation in a nutshell. “If,” he said, “salvation depended on a man’s own efforts it would be impossible for anyone. But salvation is the gift of God and all things are possible to him.” The man who trusts in himself and in his possessions can never be saved. The man who trusts in the saving power and the redeeming love of God can enter freely into salvation. This is the thought that Jesus stated. This is the thought that Paul wrote in letter after letter. And this is the thought which is still for us the very foundation of the Christian faith. <\/p>\n

CHRIST IS NO MAN’S DEBTOR (<\/strong> Mar 10:28-31<\/span> )<\/p>\n

<\/strong> 10:28-31 Peter began to say to him, “Look now! We have left everything and have become your followers.” Jesus said, “This is the truth I tell you–there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands for my sake and for the sake of the good news who will not get it back a hundred times over in this present time–homes and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands–with persecutions, and in the world to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.” <\/p>\n

<\/em> <\/p>\n

Peter’s mind had been working, and, characteristically, his tongue could not stay still. He had just seen a man deliberately refuse Jesus’ “Follow me!” He had just heard Jesus say in effect that that man by his action had shut himself out from the Kingdom of God. Peter could not help drawing the contrast between that man and himself and his friends. Just as the man had refused Jesus’ “Follow me!” he and his friends had accepted it, and Peter with that almost crude honesty of his wanted to know what he and his friends were to get out of it. Jesus’ answer falls into three sections. <\/p>\n

(i) He said that no man ever gave up anything for the sake of himself and of his good news without getting it back a hundredfold. It so happened that in the early Church that was literally true. A man’s Christianity might involve the loss of home and friends and loved ones, but his entry into the Christian Church brought him into a far greater and wider family than ever he had left, a family who were all spiritually kin to him. <\/p>\n

We see the thing actually happening in the life of Paul. No doubt, when Paul became a Christian the door of his home slammed in his face and his family disowned him. But equally without doubt there was city upon city, town upon town, village upon village in Europe and in Asia Minor where he could find a home waiting for him and a family in Christ to welcome him. It is strange how he uses the very family terms. In Rom 16:13<\/span>, he tells how the mother of Rufus was as good as a mother to him. In Phm 1:10<\/span>, he speaks of Onesimus as the son whom he had begotten in his bonds. <\/p>\n

It would be so of every Christian in the early days. When his own family rejected him he entered into the wider family of Christ. <\/p>\n

When Egerton Young first preached the gospel to the Red Indians in Saskatchewan the idea of the fatherhood of God fascinated men who had hitherto seen God only in the thunder and the lightning and the storm blast. An old chief said to Egerton Young, “Did I hear you say to God ‘Our Father’?” “I did,” said Egerton Young. “God is your Father?” asked the chief. “Yes,” said Egerton Young. “And,” went on the chief, “He is also my Father?” “He certainly is,” said Egerton Young. Suddenly the chief’s face lit up with a new radiance. His hand went out. “Then,” he said like a man making a dazzling discovery, “you and I are brothers.” <\/p>\n

A man may have to sacrifice ties that are very dear in order to become a Christian, but when he does he becomes a member of a family and a brotherhood as wide as earth and heaven. <\/p>\n

(ii) Jesus added two things. First, he added the simple words and persecutions. Straightaway these words remove the whole matter from the world of quid pro quo. They take away the idea of a material reward for a material sacrifice. They tell us of two things. They speak of the utter honesty of Jesus. He never offered an easy way. He told men straight that to be a Christian is a costly thing. Second, they tell us that Jesus never used a bribe to make men follow him. He used a challenge. It is as if he said, “Certainly you will get your reward, but you will have to show yourself a big enough man and a gallant enough adventurer to get it.” The second thing that Jesus added was the idea of the world to come. He never promised that within this world of space and time there would be a kind of squaring up of the balance sheet and settlement of accounts. He did not call men to win the rewards of time. He called men to earn the blessings of eternity. God has not only this world in which to repay. <\/p>\n

(iii) Then Jesus added one warning epigram–“Many who are first shall be last, and the last first.” This was in reality a warning to Peter. It may well be that by this time Peter was estimating his own worth and his own reward and assessing them high. What Jesus was saying was, “The final standard of judgment is with God. Many a man may stand well in the judgment of the world, but the judgment of God may upset the world’s judgment. Still more many a man may stand well in his own judgment, and find that God’s evaluation of him is very different.” It is a warning against all pride. It is a warning that the ultimate judgments belong to God who alone knows the motives of men’s hearts. It is a warning that the judgments of heaven may well upset the reputations of earth. <\/p>\n

THE APPROACHING END (<\/strong> Mar 10:32-34<\/span> )<\/p>\n

<\/strong> 10:32-34 They were on the road, on their way up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them. They were in a state of astonished bewilderment, and, as they followed him, they were afraid. Once again he took the Twelve to him, and began to tell them what was going to happen to him. “Look you!” He said, “We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and experts in the law, and they will condemn him to death, and they will hand him over to the Gentiles, and they will make a jest of him, and they will spit on him, and they will scourge him and they will kill him. And after three days he will rise again.” <\/p>\n

<\/em> <\/p>\n

Here is a vivid picture, all the more vivid because of the stark economy of words with which it is painted. Jesus and his men were entering upon the last scene. Jesus had set his course definitely and irrevocably to Jerusalem and the Cross. Mark marks the stages very definitely. There had been the withdrawal to the north, to the territory round Caesarea Phillipi. there had been the journey south, and the brief halt in Galilee. There had been the way to Judaea and the time in the hill-country and beyond Jordan. And now there is the final stage, the road to Jerusalem. <\/p>\n

This picture tells us something about Jesus. <\/p>\n

(i) It tells us of the loneliness of Jesus. They were going along the road and he was out ahead of them–alone. And they were so amazed and bewildered, so conscious of the sense of impending tragedy, that they were afraid to go up to him. There are certain decisions which a man must take alone. Had Jesus tried to share this decision with the Twelve their only contribution would have been to try to stop him. There are certain things which a man must face alone. Matthew Arnold, in his poem Isolation, speaks of, <\/p>\n

“This truth–to prove and make thine own: <\/p>\n

‘Thou hast been, shalt be, art alone’.” <\/p>\n

There are certain decisions which must be taken and certain roads that must be walked in the awful loneliness of a man’s own soul. And yet, in the deepest sense of all, even in these times a man is not alone, for never is God nearer to him. Whittier writes of such a time, <\/p>\n

“Nothing before, nothing behind. <\/p>\n

The steps of faith <\/p>\n

Fall on the seeming void, and find <\/p>\n

The rock beneath.” <\/p>\n

Here we see the essential loneliness of Jesus, a loneliness that was comforted by God. <\/p>\n

(ii) It tells us of the courage of Jesus. Three times Jesus foretold the things that were to happen to him in Jerusalem, and as Mark tells of these warnings, each time they grow grimmer and some further detail of horror is included. At first ( Mar 8:31<\/span>) it is the bare announcement. At the second time the hint of betrayal is there ( Mar 9:31<\/span>). And now at the third time the jesting, the mocking and the scourging appear. It would seem as if the picture became ever clearer in the mind of Jesus as he became more and more aware of the cost of redemption. <\/p>\n

There are two kinds of courage. There is the courage which is a kind of instinctive reaction, almost a reflex action, the courage of the man confronted out of the blue with a crisis to which he instinctively reacts with gallantry, scarcely having time to think. Many a man has become a hero in the heat of the moment. There is also the courage of the man who sees the grim thing approaching far ahead, who has plenty of time to turn back, who could, if he chose, evade the issue, and who yet goes on. There is no doubt which is the higher courage–this known deliberate facing of the future. That is the courage Jesus showed. If no higher verdict was possible, it would still be true to say of Jesus that he ranks with the heroes of the world. <\/p>\n

(iii) It tells us of the personal magnetism of Jesus. It is quite clear that by this time the disciples did not know what was going on. They were sure that Jesus was the Messiah. They were equally sure that he was going to die. To them these two facts did not make sense when put together. They were completely bewildered, and yet they followed To them everything was dark except one thing–they loved Jesus, and, however much they wished to, they could not leave him. They had learned something which is of the very essence of life and faith–they loved so much that they were compelled to accept what they could not understand. <\/p>\n

THE REQUEST OF AMBITION (<\/strong> Mar 10:35-40<\/span> )<\/p>\n

<\/strong> 10:35-40 James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to Jesus. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask you.” “What do you want me to do for you?” he said to them. They said to him, “Grant to us that, in your glory, we may sit one on your right hand and one on your left.” “You do not know what you ask,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup which I am drinking? Or, can you go through the experience through which I am going?” “We can,” they said to him. Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup which I am drinking. You will go through the experience through which I am going. But to sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give you. That place belongs to those for whom it has been prepared.” <\/p>\n

<\/em> <\/p>\n

This is a very revealing story. <\/p>\n

(i) It tells us something about Mark. Matthew retells this story ( Mat 20:20-23<\/span>), but in his version the request for the first places is made not by James and John, but by their mother Salome. Matthew must have felt that such a request was unworthy of an apostle, and, to save the reputation of James and John, he attributed it to the natural ambition of their mother. This story shows us the honesty of Mark. It is told that a court painter painted the portrait of Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell was afflicted with warts on the face. Thinking to please him, the painter omitted the warts in the painting. When Cromwell saw it, he said, “Take it away! and paint me warts and all!” Mark’s aim is to show us the disciples, warts and all. And Mark was right, because the Twelve were not a company of saints. They were ordinary men. It was with people like ourselves Jesus set out to change the world–and did it. <\/p>\n

(ii) It tells us something about James and John. <\/p>\n

(a) It tells us that they were ambitious. When the victory was won and the triumph was complete, they aimed at being Jesus? chief ministers of state. Maybe their ambition was kindled because more than once Jesus had made them part of his inner circle, the chosen three. Maybe they were a little better off than the others. Their father was well enough off to employ hired servants ( Mar 1:20<\/span>), and it may be that they rather snobbishly thought that their social superiority entitled them to the first place. In any event they show themselves as men in whose hearts there was ambition for the first place in an earthly kingdom. <\/p>\n

(b) It tells us that they had completely failed to understand Jesus. The amazing thing is not the fact that this incident happened, but the time at which it happened. It is the juxtaposition of Jesus’ most definite and detailed forecast of his death and this request that is staggering. It shows, as nothing else could, how little they understood what Jesus was saying to them. Words were powerless to rid them of the idea of a Messiah of earthly power and glory. Only the Cross could do that. <\/p>\n

(c) But when we have said all that is to be said against James and John, this story tells us one shining thing about them–bewildered as they might be, they still believed in Jesus. It is amazing that they could still connect glory with a Galilaean carpenter who had incurred the enmity and the bitter opposition of the orthodox religious leaders and who was apparently heading for a cross. There is amazing confidence and amazing loyalty there. Misguided James and John might be but their hearts were in the right place. They never doubted Jesus’ ultimate triumph. <\/p>\n

(iii) It tells us something of Jesus’ standard of greatness. The Revised Standard Version gives a literally accurate reading of what Jesus said–“Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” Jesus uses two Jewish metaphors here. <\/p>\n

It was the custom at a royal banquet for the king to hand the cup to his guests. The cup therefore became a metaphor for the life and experience that God handed out to men. “My cup overflows,” said the Psalmist ( Psa 23:5<\/span>), when he spoke of a life and experience of happiness given to him by God. “In the hand of the Lord there is a cup,” said the Psalmist ( Psa 75:8<\/span>), when he was thinking of the fate in store for the wicked and the disobedient. Isaiah, thinking of the disasters which had come upon the people of Israel, describes them as having drunk “at the hand of the Lord the cup of his wrath.” ( Isa 51:17<\/span>.) The cup speaks of the experience allotted to men by God. <\/p>\n

The other phrase which Jesus uses is actually misleading in the literal English version. He speaks of the baptism with which he was baptized. The Greek verb baptizein ( G907<\/span>) means to dip. Its past participle (bebaptismenos, G907<\/span>) means submerged, and it is regularly used of being submerged in any experience. For instance, a spendthrift is said to be submerged in debt. A drunk man is said to be submerged in drink. A grief-stricken person is said to be submerged in sorrow. A lad before a cross-examining teacher is said to be submerged in questions. The word is regularly used for a ship that has been wrecked and submerged beneath the waves. The metaphor is very closely related to a metaphor which the Psalmist often uses. In Psa 42:7<\/span> we read, “All thy waves and thy billows have gone over me.” In Psa 124:4<\/span> we read, “Then the flood would have swept us away, the torrent would have gone over us.” The expression, as Jesus used it here, had nothing to do with technical baptism. What he is saying is, “Can you bear to go through the terrible experience which I have to go through? Can you face being submerged in hatred and pain and death, as I have to be?” He was telling these two disciples that without a cross there can never be a crown. The standard of greatness in the Kingdom is the standard of the Cross. It was true that in the days to come they did go through the experience of their Master, for James was beheaded by Herod Agrippa ( Act 12:2<\/span>), and, though John was probably not martyred, he suffered much for Christ. They accepted the challenge of their Master–even if they did so blindly. <\/p>\n

(iv) Jesus told them that the ultimate issue of things belonged to God. The final assignment of destiny was his prerogative. Jesus never usurped the place of God. His own whole life was one long act of submission to his will and he knew that in the end that will was supreme. <\/p>\n

THE PRICE OF MAN’S SALVATION (<\/strong> Mar 10:41-45<\/span> )<\/p>\n

<\/strong> 10:41-45 When the ten heard about this, they began to be vexed about the action of James and John. Jesus called them to him. “You are well aware,” he said, “that those who are esteemed good enough to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It is not so amongst you, but, amongst you, whoever wishes to be great will be your servant, and amongst you, whoever wishes to be first will be the slave of all. For the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” <\/p>\n

<\/em> <\/p>\n

Inevitably the action of James and John aroused deep resentment amongst the other ten. It seemed to them that they had tried to steal a march and to take an unfair advantage. Immediately the old controversy about who was to be greatest began to rage again. <\/p>\n

This was a serious situation. The fellowship of the apostolic band might well have been wrecked, had Jesus not taken immediate action. He called them to him, and made quite clear the different standards of greatness in his Kingdom and in the kingdoms of the world. In the kingdoms of the world the standard of greatness was power. The test was: How many people does a man control? How great an army of servants has he at his beck and call? On how many people can he impose his will? Not very much later than this, Galba was to sum up the heathen idea of kingship and greatness when he said that now he was emperor he could do what he liked and do it to anyone. In the Kingdom of Jesus the standard was that of service. Greatness consisted, not in reducing other men to one’s service, but in reducing oneself to their service. The test was not, What service can I extract?, but, What service can I give? <\/p>\n

We tend to think this is an ideal state of affairs, but, in point of fact, it is the soundest common sense. It is in fact the first principle of ordinary everyday business life. Bruce Barton points out that the basis on which a motor company will claim the patronage of prospective customers is that they will crawl under your car oftener and get themselves dirtier than any of their competitors. They are in other words prepared to give more service. He points out that although the ordinary clerk may go home at 5.30 p.m., the light will be seen burning in the office of the chief executive long into the night. It is his willingness to give the extra service that makes him head of the firm. <\/p>\n

The basic trouble in the human situation is that men wish to do as little as possible and to get as much as possible. It is only when they are filled with the desire to put into life more than they take out, that life for themselves and for others will be happy and prosperous. Kipling has a poem called Mary’s Son which is advice on the spirit in which a man must work: <\/p>\n

“If you stop to find out what your wages will be <\/p>\n

And how they will clothe and feed you, <\/p>\n

Willie, my son, don’t you go to the Sea, <\/p>\n

For the Sea will never need you. <\/p>\n

“If you ask for the reason of every command, <\/p>\n

And argue with people about you, <\/p>\n

Willie, my son, don’t you go on the Land, <\/p>\n

For the Land will do better without you. <\/p>\n

If you stop to consider the work that you’ve done <\/p>\n

And to boast what your labour is worth, dear, <\/p>\n

Angels may come for you, Willie, my son, <\/p>\n

But you’ll never be wanted on earth dear!” <\/p>\n

The world needs people whose ideal is service–that is to say it needs people who have realized what sound sense Jesus spoke. <\/p>\n

To clinch his words Jesus pointed to his own example. With such powers as he had, he could have arranged life entirely to suit himself, but he had spent himself and all his powers in the service of others. He had come, he said, to give his life a ransom for many. This is one of the great phrases of the gospel, and yet it has been sadly mishandled and maltreated. People have tried to erect a theory of the atonement on what is a saying of love. <\/p>\n

It was not long until people were asking to whom this ransom of the life of Christ had been paid? Origen asked the question. “To whom did he give his life a ransom for many? It was not to God. Was it not then to the Evil One? For the devil was holding us fast until the ransom should be given to him, even the life of Jesus, for he was deceived with the idea that he could have dominion over it and did not see that he could not bear the torture involved in retaining it.” It is an odd conception that the life of Jesus was paid as a ransom to the devil so that he should release men from the bondage in which he held them, but that the devil found that in demanding and accepting that ransom, he had, so to speak, bitten off more than he could chew. <\/p>\n

Gregory of Nyssa saw the flaw in that theory, namely that it really puts the devil on an equality with God. It allows him to make a bargain with God on equal terms. So Gregory of Nyssa conceived of the extraordinary idea of a trick played by God. The devil was tricked by the seeming weakness of the incarnation. He mistook Jesus for a mere man. He tried to exert his authority over him and, by trying to do so, lost it. Again it is an odd idea–that God should conquer the devil by a trick. <\/p>\n

Another two hundred years passed and Gregory the Great took up the idea. He used a fantastic metaphor. The incarnation was a divine stratagem to catch the great leviathan. The deity of Christ was the hook, his flesh was the bait. When the bait was dangled before Leviathan, the devil, he swallowed it, and tried to swallow the hook, too, and so was overcome forever. <\/p>\n

Finally Peter the Lombard brings this idea to its most grotesque and repulsive. “The Cross,” he said, “was a mouse-trap to catch the devil, baited with the blood of Christ.” All this simply shows what happens when men take a lovely and precious picture and try to make a cold theology out of it. <\/p>\n

Suppose we say, “Sorrow is the price of love,” we mean that love cannot exist without the possibility of sorrow, but we never even think of trying to explain to whom that price is paid. Suppose we say that freedom can be obtained only at the price of blood, toil, tears and sweat, we never think of investigating to whom that price is paid. This saying of Jesus is a simple and pictorial way of saying that it cost the life of Jesus to bring men back from their sin into the love of God. It means that the cost of our salvation was the Cross of Christ. Beyond that we cannot go, and beyond that we do not need to go. We know only that something happened on the Cross which opened for us the way to God. <\/p>\n

A MIRACLE BY THE WAYSIDE (<\/strong> Mar 10:46-52<\/span> )<\/p>\n

<\/strong> 10:46-52 They went to Jericho. As Jesus was passing through Jericho, on his way out of the city–his disciples and a great crowd were with him–Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the roadside. When he heard that Jesus of Nazareth was there he began to shout. “Son of David!” he cried, “Jesus! Have pity on me!” Many rebuked him and told him to be quiet. But he shouted all the more, “Son of David! Have pity on me!” Jesus came to a stop. “Call him here!” he said. They called the blind man. “Courage!” they said to him. “Get up! He is calling you!” He threw off his cloak and leapt up and came to Jesus. Jesus said to him, “What do you want me to do for you?” The blind man said to him, “Master teacher! My prayer is that I might see again.” Jesus said to him, “Go! Your faith has cured you.” Immediately he saw again, and he followed him upon the road. <\/p>\n

<\/em> <\/p>\n

For Jesus the end of the road was not far away. Jericho was only about 15 miles from Jerusalem. We must try to visualize the scene. The main road ran right through Jericho. Jesus was on his way to the Passover. When a distinguished Rabbi or teacher was on such a journey it was the custom that he was surrounded by a crowd of people, disciples and learners, who listened to him as he discoursed while he walked. That was one of the commonest ways of teaching. <\/p>\n

It was the law that every male Jew over twelve years of age who lived within 15 miles of Jerusalem must attend the Passover. It was clearly impossible that such a law should be fulfilled and that everyone should go. Those who were unable to go were in the habit of lining the streets of towns and villages through which groups of Passover pilgrims must pass to bid them godspeed on their way. So then the streets of Jericho would be lined with people, and there would be even more than usual, for there would be many eager and curious to catch a glimpse of this audacious young Galilaean who had pitted himself against the assembled might of orthodoxy. <\/p>\n

Jericho had one special characteristic. There were attached to the Temple over 20,000 priests and as many levites. Obviously they could not all serve at the one time. They were therefore divided into twenty-six courses which served in rotation. Very many of these priests and levites resided in Jericho when they were not on actual temple duty. There must have been many of them in the crowd that day. At the Passover all were on duty for all were needed. It was one of the rare occasions when all did serve. But many would not have started yet. They would be doubly eager to see this rebel who was about to invade Jerusalem. There would be many cold and bleak and hostile eyes in the crowd that day, because it was clear that if Jesus was right, the whole Temple worship was one vast irrelevancy. <\/p>\n

At the northern gate sat a beggar, Bartimaeus by name. He heard the tramp of feet. He asked what was happening and who was passing. He was told that it was Jesus. There and then he set up an uproar to attract Jesus’ attention to him. To those listening to Jesus’ teaching as he walked the uproar was an offence. They tried to silence Bartimaeus, but no one was going to take from him his chance to escape from his world of darkness, and he cried with such violence and importunity that the procession stopped, and he was brought to Jesus. <\/p>\n

This is a most illuminating story. In it we can see many of the things which we might call the conditions of miracle. <\/p>\n

(i) There is the sheer persistence of Bartimaeus. Nothing would stop his clamour to come face to face with Jesus. He was utterly determined to meet the one person whom he longed to confront with his trouble. In the mind of Bartimaeus there was not just a nebulous, wistful, sentimental wish to see Jesus. It was a desperate desire, and it is that desperate desire that gets things done. <\/p>\n

(ii) His response to the call of Jesus was immediate and eager, so eager that he cast off his hindering cloak to run to Jesus the more quickly. Many a man hears the call of Jesus, but says in effect, “Wait until I have done this,” or “Wait until I have finished that.” Bartimaeus came like a shot when Jesus called. Certain chances happen only once. Bartimaeus instinctively knew that. Sometimes we have a wave of longing to abandon some habit, to purify life of some wrong thing, to give ourselves more completely to Jesus. So very often we do not act on it on the moment–and the chance is gone, perhaps never to come back. <\/p>\n

(iii) He knew precisely what he wanted–his sight. Too often our admiration for Jesus is a vague attraction. When we go to the doctor we want him to deal with some definite situation. When we go to the dentist we do not ask him to extract any tooth, but the one that is diseased. It should be so with us and Jesus. And that involves the one thing that so few people wish to face–self-examination. When we go to Jesus, if we are as desperately definite as Bartimaeus, things will happen. <\/p>\n

(iv) Bartimaeus had a quite inadequate conception of Jesus. Son of David he insisted on calling him. Now that was a Messianic title, but it has in it all the thought of a conquering Messiah, a king of David’s line who would lead Israel to national greatness. That was a very inadequate idea of Jesus. But, in spite of that, Bartimaeus had faith, and faith made up a hundredfold for the inadequacy of his theology. The demand is not that we should fully understand Jesus. That, in any event, we can never do. The demand is for faith. A wise writer has said, “We must ask people to think, but we should not expect them to become theologians before they are Christians.” Christianity begins with a personal reaction to Jesus, a reaction of love, feeling that here is the one person who can meet our need. Even if we are never able to think things out theologically, that response of the human heart is enough. <\/p>\n

(v) In the end there is a precious touch. Bartimaeus may have been a beggar by the wayside but he was a man of gratitude. Having received his sight, he followed Jesus. He did not selfishly go on his way when his need was met. He began with need, went on to gratitude, and finished with loyalty–and that is a perfect summary of the stages of discipleship. <\/p>\n

-Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)<\/p>\n

Fuente: Barclay Daily Study Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The Mission In Judaea and Beyond Jordan (10:1).<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Having stressed the importance of what is done in His Name, bringing out the supreme importance of His Name, Jesus commences His journey to Jerusalem by moving down into Judaea and Beyond Jordan.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

‘And he arose from there and comes into the borders of Judaea and beyond Jordan. And great crowds come together to him again, and as he was usually accustomed to do he taught them again.’<\/p>\n

The last journey to Jerusalem was now under way, although there was at this stage no sense of urgency, and Jesus therefore commenced a ministry in Northern Judaea and in Beyond Jordan where great crowds gathered. The plural ‘crowds’ suggests a continuing ministry. We know from John’s Gospel that He had preached and wrought miracles in Judaea and Beyond Jordan before (Joh 2:23<\/span>; Joh 3:22<\/span>; Joh 4:1<\/span>). Judaea may be mentioned first because it was reached first through Samaria, or simply because it had precedence in Mark’s mind. By Beyond Jordan Mark may be indicating Peraea which was across the Jordan, but in the Old Testament both sides of the Jordan River could be named Beyond Jordan, thus He may be referring to the area on the west bank of the Jordan in the Jordan rift valley and its surrounds.<\/p>\n

‘And as He was usually accustomed to do He taught them.’ This indicates that He continued His ministry as He usually did. It reminds us that we should recognise that His ministry has been continual, even when not mentioned. So satisfied that His ministry in Galilee over a number of years was complete He had now returned South again. This small note emphasises that Jesus preaching ministry continued in progress even while He was teaching His disciples.<\/p>\n

In the example of His ministry that now follows Jesus not only gives important teaching on marriage and divorce, but also stresses His position as One Who can speak with unique authority on the significance of God’s word. Indeed it cannot be overemphasised what a totally different view of life Jesus introduces as obligatory on all, the kind of life only liveable by those who come under the Kingly Rule of God.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The Mission in Judaea – Jesus Pronounces on Divorce, On Entry Under the Kingly Rule of God, on The Dangers of Riches and on the Requirement of Becoming a Servant As He Has Done (10:1-45).<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Jesus now begins His ministry in Judaea. Each of the pronouncements that follow continue the theme of the teaching of Jesus, and bring out more about Jesus and His Lordship. His pronouncement on divorce overturned the teaching of the Rabbis and stressed the permanence of marriage and His call to a new beginning, His pronouncement on little children and on the Kingly Rule of God excluded wide numbers who thought themselves candidates for that Kingly Rule, for it demonstrated that their attitude of heart was wrong, His pronouncement on riches turned men’s thinking upside down, making following Him more important than riches and prestige, and His call to servanthood demonstrated a wholly new way of thinking. Only One Who was unique could have made such demands.<\/p>\n

Analysis.<\/p>\n

a <\/strong> Jesus declares that under the Kingly Rule of God there will be a new beginning. Man must turn back from his old ways to how things were before the fall and recognise the total commitment and indissolubility of marriage. Anything less is contrary to God’s will and is an act of disobedience, thus divorce is forbidden (Mar 10:1-12<\/span>).<\/p>\n

b <\/strong> Children must not be turned away because those who do not receive the Kingly Rule of God like a little child will not enter it (Mar 10:13-16<\/span>).<\/p>\n

c <\/strong> A rich man approaches Jesus seeking eternal life, and learns that in order to receive it he must sell all his possessions and follow Jesus. This is the new way of the Kingly Rule of God (Mar 10:17-22<\/span>).<\/p>\n

d <\/strong> Jesus declares the impossibility of men entering the Kingly Rule of God and being saved by their own actions (Mar 10:23-27<\/span>).<\/p>\n

c <\/strong> Jesus declares that all who have truly followed Him and ‘for His sake and the Gospel’s’ (that is for His sake and for the sake of the Kingly Rule of God – see Mar 1:14-15<\/span>) have eschewed home, family will inherit a hundred times as much in this life and eternal life in the next (Mar 10:28-31<\/span>)<\/p>\n

b <\/strong> Jesus Himself will be turned away and will be rejected, arrested, sentenced and executed by those who will not receive the Kingly Rule of God, but He will rise again (Mar 10:32-34<\/span>).<\/p>\n

a <\/strong> The disciples reveal that they are still operating under the old ways, and are shown that honour cannot be obtained by seeking it in false ways, but is totally dependent on the will of God, and are shown their need of redemption to a new sense of service and obedience in accordance with the principles of the Kingly Rule of God, because the Son of Man will give His life instead of many (Mar 10:35-45<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Note that in ‘a’ the call is to return under the Kingly Rule of God to man’s state of innocence as in ‘the beginning’ before the fall, and in the parallel the same call demands that they take the position of servant’s as He has, as they experience His redemptive work under the Kingly Rule of God. In ‘b’ not even the least is to be rejected, for the Kingly Rule of God is made up of those who seek it like little children, and in the parallel we have the picture of those who do reject it because, being as little like little children as it is possible to be, they reject Him and seek His death. In ‘c’ a rich man refuses eternal life because he will not forsake all and follow Jesus, and in the parallel those who do so reveal themselves as inheritors of eternal life. Centrally in ‘d’ is the impossibility of men entering the Kingly Rule of God through their own actions.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Jesus Reveals The Things That Are Pleasing and Displeasing to God (9:33-10:45).<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

In this next subsection Jesus reveals the things that are pleasing and displeasing to God. Seeking greatness displeases Him (Mar 9:33-35<\/span>; Mar 10:35-45<\/span>), while seeking to do things for Jesus’ sake pleases Him (Mar 9:36-41<\/span>; Mar 10:28-31<\/span>). Causing those who believe in Him to sin displeases Him (Mar 9:42-49<\/span>; Mar 10:1-12<\/span>), while being true salt pleases Him (Mar 9:50<\/span>).<\/p>\n

So having begun the process of changing His disciple’s thinking about the kind of Messiah He had come to be, and having given a revelation of His glory to the chosen three, we now come to a series of incidents through which He will begin to prepare the disciples for the future, interspersed with examples of His teaching. Thus Mark will now tell us of teaching concerning the danger of seeking greatness, and on the need to be ready to engage in humble ministry such as the receiving of little children (Mar 9:33-37<\/span>); of teaching concerning a readiness to receive others whose successful ministry shows them to be of God (Mar 9:39<\/span>), of teaching concerning those who cause others to stumble and what the awful consequences will be (Mar 9:38-50<\/span>); of teaching concerning marriage which will seek to re-establish things as they were at the beginning (Mar 10:1-12<\/span>); of teaching concerning the need to receive little children with a reminder that the openness of children to receive truth is the pattern for all who would receive the Kingly Rule of God (Mar 10:13-16<\/span>); of teaching concerning the need to give up everything for Him, which will include the lesson of the rich young ruler who could not do so (Mar 10:17-31<\/span>); of how John and James will seek the highest place and will learn that such is for those whom God selects, which will result in teaching concerning the need to seek to serve rather than to seek to be great (Mar 10:32-45<\/span>). But it all begins here with a revelation of how weak they still were.<\/p>\n

And as we are considering these examples of His teaching to the disciples we would also note that each implies in one way or another His uniqueness. Some have tried to say that Jesus was but a great teacher and that it was His disciples Who exalted Him. But this, as we have already seen, and as can be seen from His teaching, is clearly untrue. In all His teaching He quietly and humbly assumed His right that men should accept His greatness and unique rights. He made what on any other man’s lips would have been the most outlandish statements and he did it without any hint of arrogance or megalomania. In the release of the boy from the evil spirit He had assumed that He alone was in a state to cast it out, and had basically rebuked the father for not accepting the fact (Mar 9:23<\/span>). In His prophecy concerning His death He has stated that He will rise again on the third day, an assumption of uniqueness and special privilege before God (Mar 9:31<\/span>). In taking the little child in His arms He claims that to receive such a little child is to receive Him, and that to receive Him is to receive Him Who sent Him. He thus puts Himself in an equation that no other teacher would have done (Mar 9:37<\/span>). In the case of the man who cast out evil spirits in His name, it is the fact that the man is thereby speaking well of Jesus that makes him of God (Mar 9:39<\/span>), and Jesus considers that for him to be ‘for Him’ is crucial (Mar 9:40<\/span>). And that indeed all who do good things in His name as Messiah will be rewarded by God (Mar 9:41<\/span>). Furthermore those who face judgment are those who cause children who believe  in Him<\/em>  to stumble. Jesus is not just speaking as an important teacher here, He is confirming that response  to Him<\/em>  in His uniqueness is paramount and crucial, and that attitude towards Him is at the very centre of things (Mar 9:42<\/span>). All must be done ‘in His Name’ (Mar 9:37-39<\/span>; Mar 9:41<\/span>). In the matter of divorce He will give His verdict categorically, sweeping to one side the verdicts of the great Rabbis (Mar 10:7-12<\/span>). When the little children are prevented from coming to Him, He points out their right to come  to Him<\/em>  because they are under the Kingly Rule of God (Mar 10:14<\/span>). When the young man seeks eternal life (Mar 10:17<\/span>) his way to life is by ridding himself of his riches and following Jesus (Mar 10:21<\/span>). And all men who do the same will receive eternal life (Mar 10:29-30<\/span>). In the approach of John and James the whole basis of their plea is that Jesus will be enthroned as the Messiah, even though they see it from their own point of view. And He accepts that it will be so (Mar 10:40<\/span>). Whereas other teachers pointed men to God, Jesus, while He did most specifically point them to God, also pointed them to Himself on similar terms. To suggest then that Jesus was only presenting Himself as a godly teacher is just not true. He unquestionably saw Himself as the centre, along with God, of His own teaching.<\/p>\n

This subsection can be analysed as follows:<\/p>\n

Analysis of 9:36-10:45.<\/p>\n

a <\/strong> The disciples are caught out considering who among them will be greatest, and learn that they must be the servants of all (Mar 9:33-35<\/span>).<\/p>\n

b <\/strong> A child is set in the midst as an example of one who is to be received ‘in His Name’ by those who are truly His humble servants, for greatness lies in receiving children in His Name (Mar 9:36-37<\/span>)<\/p>\n

c <\/strong> John admits that they have forbidden a man to cast out demons in Jesus Name because he did not follow with them and Jesus says ‘forbid him not’, and they learn that ‘he who is not against us, is for us, and that even one who gives a cup of cold water to them for His sake will not lose their reward (Mar 9:38-41<\/span>).<\/p>\n

d <\/strong> Those who cause His ‘little ones’ to stumble are in danger of Gehenna and extreme measures are to be taken in order to prevent it (Mar 9:42-49<\/span>).<\/p>\n

e <\/strong> Salt that has lost its saltness is useless, therefore they are to be sure that they have salt in themselves an are at peace with one another. (Mar 9:50<\/span>).<\/p>\n

d <\/strong> Men who divorce a woman cause her to sin, and the Pharisees by their teaching are thus causing others to sin, and it must be prevented by observance of God’s ‘extreme’ commandment (Mar 10:1-12<\/span>).<\/p>\n

c <\/strong> The disciples rebuke the bringing of young children to Jesus and He says ‘forbid them not’, and one who appears to be for them turns out to be as one who is against them and is allowed to go away, while those who have given up things for His sake will not lose their reward (Mar 10:13-31<\/span>).<\/p>\n

b <\/strong> He Himself will not be received by those who should have received Him and must therefore face suffering and death followed by resurrection (Mar 10:32-34<\/span>).<\/p>\n

a <\/strong> James and John illustrate the desire of the disciples to be the greatest and again learn that they must be the servants of all (Mar 10:35-45<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Note that in ‘a’ the disciples are concerned as to who will be the greatest, and in the parallel this is illustrated, and in both they learn that true greatness lies in being the servant of all. In ‘b’ greatness lies in receiving children in His Name, while in the parallel those who should have received Him will not do so. In ‘c’ those who do things in His Name or for His sake do well and in the parallel they receive eternal life. Examples are given of those who must nor be ‘forbidden’. And the example of one who is not with them but is for them is compared with the example of one who is not with them and therefore is not for them. In ‘d’ there is a warning against those who cause others who believe in Him to sin, and in the parallel a specific example is described in the form of the consequences of a wife being divorced. Centrally in ‘e’ we have God’s desire that we be seasoned salt in the world.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Jesus Begins His Final Journey to Jerusalem On The Road To The Cross and Spends Much Time in Teaching His Disciples And Disputing With His Enemies In Readiness For That Event, For He Is Giving His Life As A Ransom For Many (9:33-12:44).<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Having returned to Capernaum Jesus now has His face set towards Jerusalem, and in Mar 9:33-50<\/span> He will lay the foundation by pointing out the fact that all must look to and respond to His Name, and the dangers inherent in not doing so. Then He will advance into Judaea, and by Mar 10:32<\/span> His journey to Jerusalem is clearly well under way. He will, of course, continue to prepare His disciples for what lies ahead, but it does not mean that He will neglect seekers. Crowds will still gather to hear Him and He will minister to them (Mar 10:1<\/span>). And then once He reaches Jerusalem and enters in triumph (Mar 11:1-17<\/span>) the opposition will become loud and clear as He refutes and puts to flight His opponents (Mar 11:27<\/span> to Mar 12:44<\/span>). But He is well aware that their rejection of Him can only mean one thing. They will determine to put Him to death (Mar 11:18<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Analysis of 9:33-12:44. Jesus’ Ministry from Capernaum to Jerusalem.<\/p>\n

a <\/strong> The disciples are caught out discussing which of them is the greatest, and learn that those who would be greatest must be the servant of all, being receptive even of little children  in His Name<\/em>  (Mar 9:33-37<\/span>).<\/p>\n

b <\/strong> They must receive those whose successful activity  in His Name<\/em>  proves their genuineness even though they do not directly follow them (Mar 9:38-40<\/span>).<\/p>\n

c <\/strong> One who gives a cup of cold water to a disciple because he bears  the Name of the Messiah<\/em>  will not lose his reward (Mar 9:41<\/span>).<\/p>\n

d <\/strong> Jesus describes those who are especially displeasing to God. It is those who cause others who  believe in Jesus<\/em>  to sin, and He emphasises the necessity of avoiding such behaviour at whatever cost, for such people are bound for Gehenna (Mar 9:42-50<\/span>).<\/p>\n

e <\/strong> Jesus speaks about marriage and divorce. Faithfulness in marriage is a creation ordinance binding in this world and must be restored (Mar 10:1-12<\/span>).<\/p>\n

f <\/strong> Those who do not receive the Kingly Rule of God like a little child will not enter it. The example is given of the rich young man, and the danger of riches, which must be put completely at God’s service, is emphasised (Mar 10:13-31<\/span>).<\/p>\n

g <\/strong> Jesus will be rejected, arrested, sentenced and executed, but will rise again (Mar 10:32-34<\/span>).<\/p>\n

h <\/strong> God’s servants prove to be self-seeking. First James and John, and then all the disciples, reveal that their motives concerning the Kingly Rule of God are wrong, and learn that they should be true servants like the Son of Man Who came to give His life a ransom for many (Mar 9:35-45<\/span>).<\/p>\n

i <\/strong> Jesus heals a blind man who recognises Him as the son of David and reveals His authority by entering Jerusalem on an asses’ colt, where the crowds also hail Him as the son of David, but Jerusalem is blind to His true worth (Mar 10:46<\/span> to Mar 11:10<\/span>).<\/p>\n

j <\/strong> Jesus looks round the Temple, and then looks at the fig tree (a symbol of the Temple) and declares it fruitless. No one will ever eat fruit of it again (Mar 11:11-14<\/span>).<\/p>\n

k <\/strong> Jesus cleanses the Temple because it is meant to be a House of Prayer for all nations, and arouses the hostility of the Chief Priests (Mar 11:15-19<\/span>).<\/p>\n

j <\/strong> The fig tree is found to be withered and Jesus speaks of casting a mountain into the sea, symbolic of judgment on Jerusalem which has ceased to fulfil its purpose (Mar 11:20-26<\/span>).<\/p>\n

i <\/strong> Jesus is asked concerning His authority and demonstrates the hypocrisy of the question by demonstrating the blindness of the Sanhedrin concerning John the Baptiser (Mar 11:27-33<\/span>).<\/p>\n

h <\/strong> The parable concerning the false servants who are blind to the truth and who fail to render their due and therefore kill the son because they do not want to submit to him (Mar 12:1-11<\/span>).<\/p>\n

g <\/strong> The stone which the builders rejected will be made the chief cornerstone. They try to arrest Jesus, but fail (Mar 12:12<\/span>).<\/p>\n

f <\/strong> The question of payment of tribute raises the question of the need to give to God what is His and of the right use of riches (Mar 12:13-17<\/span>).<\/p>\n

e <\/strong> Jesus is challenged on a matter concerning marriage. In the resurrection world there is no marriage (Mar 12:18-27<\/span>).<\/p>\n

d <\/strong> Jesus describes those who are totally pleasing to God because they love God and their neighbour. People who see and respond to this enter the Kingly Rule of God (Mar 12:28-34<\/span>).<\/p>\n

c <\/strong> Jesus cites a Psalm of David in order to demonstrate that the Messiah is David’s lord (Mar 12:35-37<\/span>).<\/p>\n

b <\/strong> They are to beware of those who make much of themselves and put on a pretence of piety (Mar 12:38-40<\/span>).<\/p>\n

a <\/strong> The widow who gives her all, even though it be a pittance, gives more than all who give bountifully from their riches (Mar 12:41-44<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Note that in ‘a’ it is those who are humble in His Name who are the greatest, and in the parallel the widow who gives two small coins is the greatest giver. In ‘b’ they must receive all who genuinely operate in His Name and in the parallel they are to beware of those who instead make much of themselves. In ‘c’ even to give a cup of cold water in the Name of the Messiah will be rewarded, and in the parallel the Messiah is seen to be David’s Lord. In ‘d’ those who cause little ones who believe in Him to sin will receive the greatest condemnation and enter Gehenna, while in the parallel those who truly love God and their neighbour will enter the Kingly Rule of Heaven. In ‘e’ marriage is reinstated on earth, and in the parallel it does not take place in Heaven. In ‘f’ response to God must come before wealth, and in the parallel men must give what is due to God. In ‘g’ Jesus declares that He will be rejected, arrested, sentenced and executed, but will rise again, and in the parallel the stone which the builders rejected is to be made the chief cornerstone and an attempt is made to arrest Him which fails. But their intent is clear. In ‘h’ the eyes of the disciples need to be opened to what their true responsibilities are and to Who He is, and in the parable the wicked tenants also fail to recognise their responsibilities and are blind to Who He is. In ‘i’ Jesus reveals His authority by riding into Jerusalem on an asses’ colt, and in the parallel He is questioned concerning that authority and rebuts His questioners. In ‘j’ Jesus looks round the Temple, and then at the fig tree, and recognises that both are fruitless, and in the parallel the fruitless fig tree has withered and the mountain will be cast into the sea. Centrally in ‘k’ the Lord suddenly comes to His Temple. He cleanses the Temple in order that it might be a house of prayer.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Jesus Teaches on Marriage and Divorce in the Kingdom of God ( Mat 19:1-12<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> ) <\/strong> Mar 10:1-12<\/span> gives us the account of Jesus teaching on marriage and divorce in the Kingdom of God. John Nolland explains that many Jews of the first century were loose in their practice of divorce according to Deu 24:1<\/span>, while some devout Jews were more rigid by limiting divorce only on the grounds of adultery. Although a Jewish man was allowed to divorce his wife under the Law with a bill of divorcement (Deu 24:1<\/span>), Nolland says the Jewish woman could not legally initiate a divorce. [118] In the Kingdom of Heaven the rules are not as flexible as they were in this first century Jewish society. Jesus clarifies the rules of adultery in the Kingdom for the Pharisees following the stricter view, stating that putting away one’s wife and remarrying another, or marrying a wife who has been divorced, constituted adultery. In other words, Jesus made it clear to the Pharisees that the Law was still of utmost importance in the Kingdom of Heaven. However, it is important to note that in the Sermon on the Mount, when addressing the multitudes, Jesus allowed divorce on the unique grounds of adultery (Mat 5:31-32<\/span>).<\/p>\n

[118] John Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:34<\/em><\/span> , <\/em> in Word Biblical Commentary, <\/em> vol. 35B (Dallas, Texas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System<\/em>, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), explanation on Luke 16:18<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Deu 24:1<\/span>, “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.”<\/p>\n

Mat 5:31-32<\/span>, “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”<\/p>\n

Mar 10:1<\/strong><\/span>  And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again. <\/p>\n

Mar 10:1<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> <\/strong> Comments <\/em><\/strong> Jesus had moved from the regions of Galilee to Judaea, so the crowds were new. The phrase “he taught them again” means that when He moved to a new region, He began to repeat what He taught in other regions of Palestine.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:5<\/strong><\/span> <\/strong> Comments <\/em><\/strong> Jesus makes it clear that any marriage can be successful. It is the hardness of the heart that makes a marriage fail.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:6<\/strong><\/span> <\/strong> Comments <\/em><\/strong> In the phrase “from the beginning,” we find a clear refutation of the theory of evolution, which states that man evolved from monkeys.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:8<\/strong><\/span> <\/strong> Comments <\/em><\/strong> Marriage was never ordained to be polygamous. Such arrangements are destined to fail as far as God’s intended purpose is concerned.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:6-9<\/strong><\/span> <\/strong> Comments God Hates Divorce – <\/em><\/strong> The point is that God desires that a divorce never take place once a man and a woman marry.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:6-9<\/strong><\/span> <\/strong> Comments – The Creation of Woman <\/em><\/strong> <\/strong> In Mar 10:7-8<\/span> Jesus quotes Gen 2:23-24<\/span>, which is found in the passage on the creation of woman. God created the woman in a unique way, different from any beast or even Adam. He did this in order to establish the institution of marriage. While the animals and beasts mated indiscriminately among the herds, Adam recognized that the woman was a part of himself because God took her from his rib, someone to be cherished; thus, her name became woman. The manner in which God created the woman caused the man to see themselves as one, one flesh in union with one another. In this way, intimacy was formed between the man and the woman. Had the woman been created separate from Adam, he might have viewed his relationship with her casually, as the beasts did with one another. Instead, they became united in heart and mind as well as the physical union used to create the woman, creating the institution of marriage that is held sacred between a man and a woman. <\/p>\n

Mar 10:10-12<\/strong><\/span> <\/strong> Comments Jesus Explains His Comments to His Disciples <\/em><\/strong> Such marriages are viewed as adulterous because God has not honored their separation and second marriage.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Jesus in Judea <\/strong> In Mar 10:1-52<\/span> Jesus leaves Galilee and travels into Judea prior to His Triumphant entry into Jerusalem. In light of His impending death and resurrection Jesus teaches about the principles of marriage and divorce and entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven (Mar 10:1-31<\/span>), His death and resurrection (Mar 10:32-34<\/span>), and glorification in the Kingdom (Mar 10:35-45<\/span>). This passage ends with the healing of blind Bartimaeus in the city of Jericho (Mar 10:46-52<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Outline <\/em> Here is a proposed outline:<\/p>\n

1. Jesus Teaches on Marriage and Divorce Mar 10:1-12<\/span><\/p>\n

2. Jesus Blesses the Little Children Mar 10:13-16<\/span><\/p>\n

3. The Story of the Rich Young Ruler Mar 10:17-31<\/span><\/p>\n

4. Jesus’ 3 rd Prediction of His Death Mar 10:32-34<\/span><\/p>\n

5. Jesus Teaches on Greatness Mar 10:35-45<\/span><\/p>\n

6. Jesus Heals Blind Bartimaeus Mar 10:46-52<\/span><\/p>\n

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The Preaching Ministry of Jesus Christ <\/strong> Mar 1:14<\/span> to Mar 13:37<\/span> describes the preaching ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ as well as the miracles that accompanying the proclamation of the Gospel. His public ministry can be divided into sections that reflect God’s divine plan of redemption being fulfilled in Jesus’s life. <\/p>\n

Outline <\/em> Here is a proposed outline:<\/p>\n

1. Indoctrination – The Preaching of Jesus Christ in Galilee Mar 1:14<\/span> to Mar 4:34<\/span><\/p>\n

2. Divine Service Training the Twelve in Galilee Mar 4:35<\/span> to Mar 6:13<\/span><\/p>\n

3. Perseverance: Preaching against Man’s Traditions Mar 6:14<\/span> to Mar 7:23<\/span><\/p>\n

4. Perseverance – Beyond Galilee Mar 7:24<\/span> to Mar 9:50<\/span><\/p>\n

5. Glorification – In Route to and in Jerusalem Mar 10:1<\/span> to Mar 13:37<\/span><\/p>\n

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Narrative <\/strong> When we examine Jesus’ ministry to His disciples in Mar 10:1<\/span> to Mar 12:44<\/span>, we find Him teaching them how to enter into the Kingdom of God. He warns them on the dangers of adultery (Mar 10:1-12<\/span>) and on covetousness towards riches for those who desire to inherit eternal life (Mar 10:17-31<\/span>) as hindrances to entering Heaven. Jesus teaches on humility by explaining that a person must become as a little child in order to enter Heaven (Mar 10:12-16<\/span>). Because the disciples thought that Jesus was about to be immediately glorified as king in Jerusalem, James and John asked for a share of this glorification (Mar 10:35-45<\/span>). He also replies to the request of James and John to be seated at His right and left hand in the Kingdom. In His Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, the people praise Jesus as their king (Mar 11:1-11<\/span>). However, Jesus has tried to prepare His disciples for his Crucifixion by telling them the third time that He would not be crowned, but rather be killed and rise the third day (Mar 10:32-34<\/span>).<\/p>\n

The narrative material in Mar 10:1<\/span> to Mar 12:44<\/span> contains only one miraculous healing, when Jesus heals blind Bartimaeus (Mar 10:46-52<\/span>), and the miracle of the withered fig tree (Mar 11:20-26<\/span>). When Jesus cleanses the Temple, He calls to a house of prayer for all nations, which refers to the time during the Millennial Reign of Christ on earth when all nations will come and worship Him in Jerusalem (Mar 11:15-19<\/span>). He tells the people of the Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers, which refers to His rejecting and crucifixion at the hand of the Jews and His Second Coming (Mar 12:1-12<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Outline: <\/em> Here is a proposed outline:<\/p>\n

1. Jesus In Judea Mar 10:1-52<\/span><\/p>\n

2. Jesus In Jerusalem Mar 11:1<\/span> to Mar 12:44<\/span><\/p>\n

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Glorification <\/strong> In Mar 10:1<\/span> to Mar 13:37<\/span> the emphasis moves from perseverance to glorification, where Jesus makes many references to His Second Coming.<\/p>\n

Outline <\/em> Here is a proposed outline:<\/p>\n

1. Narrative Mar 10:1<\/span> to Mar 12:44<\/span> <\/p>\n

2. Sermon: Jesus Preaches on Eschatology Mar 13:1-37<\/span><\/p>\n

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

A Question concerning Divorce.<\/p>\n

<\/strong> The journey to Judea:<\/p>\n

v. 1<\/strong>. And He arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judea by the farther side of Jordan; and the people resort unto Him again; and, as He was wont, He taught them again.<\/p>\n

<\/strong> Jesus now, definitely and finally, left Galilee. He went out from Capernaum, after the last discourse to His disciples, journeyed southward along the shores of the Sea of Galilee, and then crossed the Jordan into Perea, on the far side of the Jordan, on His way into Judea. But as He went along His way, probably even in Galilee, but especially in Perea, people crowded about Him, His identity being known, and they went with Him, they accompanied Him. With His usual Savior’s mercy, He saw these people in their great spiritual need, and therefore He again followed His custom of teaching them the one thing needful.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

EXPOSITION<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mar 10:1<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Instead of the words, into the coasts of Judea by the farther side of Jordan<\/strong>, the passage, by a change of reading from to . He will run thus: into the coasts <\/em>(borders<\/em>) of Judaea and beyond Jordan. Our <\/em>Lord was now on his last progress towards Jerusalem. It would appear from St. Luke (Luk 9:51<\/span>) that in the earlier part of his journey he touched the frontier of Samaria. Putting the accounts together, we conclude that, being refused by the Samaritans, he passed eastwards along their frontier, having Galilee on his left, and Samaria on his right; and then crossed the Jordan, perhaps at Scythopolis, where was a bridge, and so entered Peraea. As Judaea and Galilee both lay west of the Jordan, this route above described would be literally coming “to the borders of Judaea and beyond Jordan.” Again multitudes flocked together to him, and again he taught them. St. Matthew (Mat 21:1<\/span>) says that “he healed them.” His miracles of healing and his teaching went hand in hand.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:2<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

And there came unto him Pharisees<\/strong>the article should be omittedand asked him<\/strong>they came forward before the people, and publicly questioned himIs it lawful for a man to put away his wife?<\/strong> St. Matthew (Mat 21:3<\/span>) adds to the question the words, “for every cause.” There were causes for which it was lawful. They put this question to our Lord, tempting him<\/strong>; of course with an evil intent. This question about divorce was one which was much agitated in the time of our Lord. In the century before Christ, a learned rabbi, named Hillel, a native of Babylon, who afterwards came to Jerusalem, studied the Law with great success, and became the head of the chief school in that city. One of his disciples, named Shammai, separated from his master, and set up another school; so that in the time of our Lord the scribes and doctors of the Law were ranged in two parties, namely, the followers of Hillel, the most influential; and the followers of Shammai. These two schools differed widely on the subject of divorce. The followers of Shammai only permitted divorce in the case of moral defilement, while the followers of Hillel placed the matter entirely in the power of the husband. The object, therefore, of this artful question was to entrap our Lord, and to bring him into collision with one or other of these two opposing parties. For if he had said that it was not lawful for a man to put away his wife, he would have exposed himself to the hostility of many of the wealthy classes, who put away their wives for any cause. But if he had allowed the lawfulness of divorce at all, they would have found fault with his doctrine as imperfect and carnal, although he professed to be a spiritual Teacher of a perfect system, sent down from heaven.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:3<\/span><\/strong>, <\/strong>Mar 10:4<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?<\/strong> They professed much reverence for Moses; he therefore appeals to their great lawgiver. And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.<\/strong> If we now turn to St. Matthew (Mat 21:4<\/span>, Mat 21:5<\/span>). He we shall find that our Lord then appeals to the original institution of marriage. “Have ye not read, that he which made them from the beginning, made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the twain shall become one flesh? So that they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” He thus reminds them that marriage is a Divine institution; that as Adam and Eve were united by him in a union which was indissoluble, therefore he intended that the marriage bond should remain ever, so that the wife ought never to be separated from her husband, since she becomes by marriage a very part of her husband. To this purpose St. Augustine says (‘City of God,’ bk. Mat 14:22<\/span>). He “It was not of the spirit which commands and the body which obeys, nor of the rational soul which rules and the irrational desire which is ruled, nor of the contemplative virtue which is supreme, and the active which is subject, nor of the understanding of the mind and the sense of the body; but plainly of the matrimonial union, by which the sexes are mutually bound together, that our Lord, when asked whether it were lawful for any cause to put away one’s wife, answered as in St. Matthew (Mat 21:4<\/span>, Mat 21:5<\/span>). It is certain, then, that from the first men were created as we see and know them to be now, of two sexesmale and femaleand that they are called one, either on account of the matrimonial union, or on account of the origin of the woman, who was created from out of the side of the man.”<\/p>\n

Mar 10:5<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

St. Matthew appears to give the more full account, of which St. Mark’s is an abbreviation. If we suppose the scribes here to interpose their question, “Why then did Moses permit a bill of divorcement?” t he two narratives fit exactly. Our Lord here answers their question, For your<\/strong> hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. <\/strong>He <\/strong>permitted (not commanded) them to put away their wives, lest dislike might turn to hatred. From the beginning God joined them in one indissoluble bend; but man’s nature having become corrupt through sin, that sin changed and corrupted the institution, and so was the occasion of bills of divorcement, and polygamy. The Law of Moses put some restraint upon the freedom with which men had till then put away their wives; for thenceforth, a divorce could not take place until some legal steps had been taken, and a regular instrument had been drawn up; and this delay might often be the means of preventing a divorce which might otherwise have been effected in a moment of passion. Thus this legislation was adapted to the imperfect moral condition of the people, who were as yet quite unprepared for a higher moral code.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:10<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The discussion with the Pharisees, related in the previous verses, had taken place in public. But now in the house, and in private, the disciples asked him again of this matter<\/strong>; so that what follows seems here to have been said to them privately. But it would appear from St. Matthew (Mat 21:8<\/span>) that our Lord had already said this in public; so that here he proclaims a new law, or rather affirms the sanctions of the primitive institution, abrogating the “bill of divorcement” excepting in the one case of fornication, and restoring the rite of marriage to its primaeval and indissoluble character.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:11<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Committeth adultery against<\/strong> her <\/strong>( ). <\/em>This must surely mean the wife that has been put away. The adultery is against her, against her rights and interests.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:12<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

This verse should be read thus: And if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery<\/strong> . <\/em>This reading is well supported. These words indicate that, according to our blessed Lord’s teaching, wives and husbands have equal rights in reference to divorce; and so the Greek, according to the best authorities, is () “shall marry,” not () “shall be married.” Josephus, however, makes it evident that in his time husband and wife had by no means equal rights in these matters.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:13<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

It is worthy of notice that this touching incident follows here, as well as in the parallel passage in St. Matthew (Mat 21:13<\/span>). He immediately after the discourse about the marriage bond. And they brought unto him<\/strong> ()literally, were bringing<\/em>little children<\/strong> ()St. Luke (Luk 18:15<\/span>) calls them “babes” ()that<\/strong> he should touch them<\/strong> ( ). St. Luke has the same word ( ); but St. Matthew (Mat 21:13<\/span>) says “that he should lay his hands on them and pray.” The imposition of hands implies a formal benediction; the invoking of Divine grace upon them, that they might grow up into wise and holy men and women. Why did the disciples rebuke them? Perhaps because they thought it unworthy of so great a Prophet, whose business was rather that of instructing those of full age, to be spending his time upon little children.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:14<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

But<\/strong> when Jesus saw <\/strong>it ( ). The Greek shows that there was no interval between the acts of the parents and the disciples, and our Lord’s seeing it. The parents were bringing the children, the disciples were rebuking them, Jesus was perceiving. He was much displeased<\/strong> (); literally, he was moved with indignation<\/em>. His words imply eagerness and earnestness: Suffer the little children to come unto me; forbid them not<\/strong>. The copulative is not to be found in the best authorities. The omission adds force and vividness to the words. The simplicity, candour, and innocence of little children are very attractive. This narrative shows with what care children should be educated. For of such is the kingdom<\/strong> of God; <\/strong>that is, of such little children as these. The kingdom of heaven belongs in a peculiar manner to little children. We know for certain that little children who have been brought to Christ in Holy Baptism, if they die before they are old enough for moral accountableness, are undoubtedly saved. They pass at once into a nearer position to the throne. “They are without fault before the throne of God.”<\/p>\n

Mar 10:15<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein<\/strong>. Observe the “verily” with which our Lord introduces these words. He here adds something which extends what he has just said to those who are, not literally, but figuratively, little children. We must first receive the kingdom into our affections before we can really enter into it. It is as though Christ said, “It is not unworthy of my dignity to take little children into my arms and bless them, because by my benediction they become fit for the kingdom of heaven. And if you full-grown men would become fit for my kingdom, you must give up your ambitious aims and earthly contests, and imitate the simple unworldly ways of little children. The simplicity of the little child is the model and the rule for every one who desires, by the grace of Christ, to obtain the kingdom of heaven. Our Lord’s whole action here is a great encouragement to the receiving of little children by Holy Baptism into covenant with him.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:16<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

And he took them in his arms, and<\/strong> blessed them, laying his<\/strong> hands<\/strong> upon them. <\/strong>This is considered the true order of the words, according to the best authorities. The word rendered “taking in the <\/strong>arms” () has already occurred in this Gospel at Mar 9:36<\/span> (where see the note). The description here is very graphic. Our Savior would first embrace the little child,. He folding it in his arms; then he would lay his right hand upon the child’s head, and bless it.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:17<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

This verse should be rendered, And as he was going forth <\/strong>( )that is, just as he was leaving the housethere ran one to him, and kneeled to him, and asked him.<\/strong> St. Matthew (Mat 21:20<\/span>) says that he was “a young man.” St. Luke (Luk 18:18<\/span>) that he was “a ruler.” He had apparently been waiting for our Lord, waylaying him, though with a good intention. He showed zealas soon as he saw Jesus he ran to him; and he showed reverence, for he kneeled down to him. He wanted advice from one whom he must have heard of as a celebrated Teacher; and he wanted this counsel as a matter of great interest to himself. Good Master<\/strong>. This would be the ordinary and courteous mode of accosting a person professing to be a teacher, so as to conciliate his attention and interest. What shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?<\/strong> It is as though he said, “Rabbi, I know thee to be good, both as a man and as a teacher, and a prophet, well able to teach me perfectly those things which are really good, and which lead to blessedness hereafter. Tell me, therefore, What shall I do?” St. Matthew (Mat 21:17<\/span>) says, “What good thing ( ) shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?”<\/p>\n

Mar 10:18<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Why callest<\/strong> thou me good<\/strong>? <\/strong>According to the best authorities, the words in St. Matthew (Mat 21:17<\/span>) run thus: “Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good.” The word “good” is the pivot on which our Lord’s answer turns, both in St. Matthew and here. The question is doubtless put to test the young ruler’s faith. If, as may be supposed, the young man used the term, “good Master,” as a mere conventional expression, it was not the proper epithet to apply to our Lord, who at once transfers the praise and the goodness to God, that he might teach us to do the same. This ruler, by his mode of accosting our Lord, showed that he had not as yet a right faith in himthat he did not believe in his Godhead. Our Lord, therefore, desired to rouse him and lift him up to a higher faith. He seems to say to him, “If you call me good, believe that I am God; for no one is good, intrinsically good, but God. God alone is essentially good, and wise, and powerful, and holy. It is from him that angels and men derive a few drops, or rather some faint adumbration, of his goodness. There is none essentially, entirely, absolutely good but one, that is, God. Therefore seek after him, love him, imitate him. He alone can satisfy your longing desires, as in this life with his grace, so in the life to come with his glory; yea, with himself. For in heaven he manifested himself as the supreme good, to be tasted and enjoyed by the blessed for ever.”<\/p>\n

Mar 10:19<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

In St. Matthew (Mat 21:17<\/span>, etc.) the record of our Lord’s conversation with the young ruler is more full; and it should be read side by side with the more condensed narrative of St. Mark. It will be observed that it is upon the commandments of the second table that our Lord here lays stress. For the love of God produces the love of our neighbor; and he who loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?<\/p>\n

Mar 10:20<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Master, all those things have I observed from my youth <\/strong>() literally, I<\/em> kept<\/em>, I guarded. <\/em>St. Matthew adds here (Mat 19:20<\/span>). He “What lack I yet?””What is still wanting in me, that I may inherit the life to come in its fullness of glory and bliss? You seem, good Master, as a heavenly Teacher, to set forth a higher and more excellent way than that pointed out by our scribes and Pharisees. Tell me what that way is. Tell me what! still lack; for I earnestly desire to go forward in the right way that leadeth to everlasting life.”<\/p>\n

Mar 10:21<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

And Jesus looking upon him loved him<\/strong>. ( ) This is another of St. Mark’s graphic touchesan exquisite piece of word-painting, probably supplied to him by St. Peter. The words express most vividly an earnest, tender, searching look. They seem, if it may be said reverently, to combine the Divine penetration with human sympathy and compassion. The counsel of our Lord which follows was not a general command, but a particular precept, which the young ruler specially needed. One thing thou<\/strong> lackest<\/strong>. In St. Matthew (Mat 19:21<\/span>) the words are, “If thou wouldest be perfect.” But our Lord’s words here, “One thing thou lackest,” fit in excellently with the young ruler’s question given just before in St. Matthew, “What lack I yet?” showing a substantial unity in the narrative, with just that variety which we should expect in the account of the same incident given by two independent but equally trustworthy witnesses. The “one thing thou lackest” of St. Mark, and “if thou writ be perfect of St. Matthew, both point to the same conclusionthat our Lord’s object was to reveal this young man to himself. His stumbling-block was his wealth; and so our Savior at once pierces his besetting sin of covetousness. The precept was a special counsel to him; it directed him to do something which, as our Lord saw, was in his case necessary to his salvation. He could not follow Christ without parting with this sin, and with that which ministered to it. This was his particular spiritual difficulty.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:22<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

But his countenance fell at the saying<\/strong> ( ). The same word is used in St. Matthew (Mat 16:3<\/span>) for a “lowering,” “frowning sky” ( ). <\/em><\/strong>And he went away sorrowful <\/strong>( )literally, for he was one that had <\/em>( )<\/em>great possessions.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mar 10:23<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples <\/strong>( ). St. Mark frequently uses this word . Our Lord turned from the young man, who was now going away, and looked round about, no doubt with a sad and disappointed look, and said to his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into<\/strong> the kingdom of God! <\/strong>Why is this? Partly because the love of riches tempts men to heap them up, whether lawfully or unlawfully. Partly because the love of riches binds the soul to earth, so that it is less likely to think of Partly because riches are an incentive to pride and luxury and other sins. The heathen poet Ovid could speak of riches “irritamenta malorum.” Poverty and contempt of riches often open that heaven which wealth and covetousness close.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:24<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

And the disciples were astonished<\/strong> ()literally, were amazed <\/em>at his<\/strong> <\/em><\/strong>words<\/strong>. The Greek word here implies wilderment. It is used again below at Mar 10:32<\/span>. We find it also at Mar 1:27<\/span>. This doctrine of our Lord was so new and strange to them. They had been accustomed to think little of the danger, and much of the advances of wealth. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children how hard is it for them that trust in riches<\/strong> enter into the kingdom of God! <\/strong>He <\/strong>the enduring expression of “children” (). He and takes off somewhat of the edge of the seventy of the expression, by changing the form of it into the words,” how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!” There is some authority for omitting the words. “for them that trot in riches;” so to reduce the sentence to the simple form, “How hard is it to enter into the kingdom of God!” Such is the reading in the two great uncial manuscripts, the Sinaitic and the Vatican. But on the whole the balance of evidence is in favor of that which was adopted in the Authorized Version, and has been retained by the Revisers of 1881; and it is reasonable to believe that our Lord qualified the former expression, in order to relieve the minds of his amazed disciples.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:25<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

It is easier for a camel to go<\/strong> through a needle’s eye, <\/strong>etc. <\/strong>This is a <\/strong>strong hyperbolic proverbial expression to represent anything that is very difficult to do. Dr. John Lightfoot, in his Hebrew exercitations upon St. Matthew’s Gospel. He quotes instances from the binical writings of a very similar phrase intended to represent something that is possible. For example, he quotes one rabbi disputing with another, who says, “Perhaps thou art one of those who can make an elephant pass through the eye of a needle; that is, “who speak things that are impossible.’ St. Jerome says,” It is not the absolute impossibility of the thing which is set forth, but the infrequency of it.”<\/p>\n

Mar 10:26<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

And they were astonished exceedingly <\/strong>( ). saying among themselves<\/strong>according to the best reading the words are, saying unto him ( )Then who can be saved?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mar 10:27<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Jesus looking upon them <\/strong>( ). The Greek verb implies an earnest, intense looking upon them; evidently narrated by one who, like Peter, had watched his countenance. St. Chrysostom says that he looked on them in this way that he might mitigate and soothe the timid and anxious minds of his disciples. It is as though our Lord said, “It is impossible for a rich man, embarrassed and entangled with his wealth, by his own natural strength to obtain salvation; because this is a supernatural blessing, which we cannot obtain without the like supernatural aids of grace. But with God all things are possible, because God is the Author and Source, as of nature, so of grace and glory. And he enables us, by his grace, to triumph over all the difficulties and hindrances of nature; so that rich men shall not be hindered by their riches; but, by being faithful in the unrighteous mammon, shall make it the means of their being received unto ‘the eternal tabernacle.'”<\/p>\n

Mar 10:28<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Peter began to say unto him,<\/strong> Lo, we have left all, and have<\/strong> followed thee. <\/strong>Peter began<\/em> to say unto him. He had been thinking of himself and his companions, the other disciples.. He in reference to these last words of our Lord. It is probable that the sacrifice which Peter and the rest of the disciples had made when they became his followers, was small, compared with the sacrifice which our Lord demanded of the rich young ruler. Nevertheless they forsook their all, whatever it was. They had forsaken their boats and their nets. They had forsaken their means of subsistence. They had forsaken things which, though they were not much in themselves, were nevertheless such things as they would have desired to keep. Cornelins a Lapide says, “Such things are forsaken by those who follow Christ, as are capable of being desired by those who do not follow him.” St. Augustine says, “St. Peter not only forsook what he had, but also what he desired to have. But who does not desire daily to increase what he has? That desire is cut off. Peter forsook the whole world, and he received in return the whole world. They were as those who had nothing, and yet were possessing all things.”<\/p>\n

Mar 10:29<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

St. Matthew (Mat 19:28<\/span>) here introduces the great promise, to be fulfilled in the regeneration, that is, at the second coming of Christat the second birth of the world to a new and glorious state. It may be that St. Matthew was guided to record it, inasmuch as his Gospel was written for Jews. Its omission by St. Mark and St. Luke may be explained by the fact that they were writing, the one to Romans, and the other to Gentiles generally. Omitting further notice here of this great promise recorded only by St. Matthew, St. Mark’s words seem general, common to all faithful Christians. This leaving, of house, or brethren<\/strong>, or sisters<\/strong>, etc., might be rendered necessary from various causes. But they are all covered by that one expression, for my sake, and for the gospel’s<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:30<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

But he shall receive a hundredfold now in this time <\/strong>(). <\/strong>St. Luke (Luk 18:30<\/span>) says () “manifold more”an indefinite increase, to show the greatness and multitude of the recompense. He who forsakes his own for the sake of Christ will find others, many in number, who will give him the love of brethren and sisters, with even greater affection; so that he will seem not to have lost or forsaken his own, but to have received them again with interest. For spiritual affections are far deeper than natural; and his love is stronger who burns with heavenly love which God has kindled, than he who is influenced by earthly love only, which only nature has planted. But in the fullest sense, he who forsakes these earthly things for the sake of Christ, receives instead, God himself. For to those who forsake all for him, he is himself father, brother, sister, and all things. So that he will have possessions far richer than what earth can supply; only with<\/strong> persecutions<\/strong> ( ). This is a very striking addition. Our Lord here includes “persecutions” in the number of the Christian’s blessings. And no doubt there is a noble sense in which persecutions are really amongst the blessings of the believer. “If ye be reproached for the Name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you” (1Pe 4:14<\/span>). St. Peter, who must have had in his mind the “with persecutions” of our Lord when he wrote these words, here shows that the blessedness of the Christian when suffering persecution is this, that he has a special sense of the <\/strong>abiding presence of the Spirit of God, bringing with it the assurance of future glory. “Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: far great is your reward in heaven.” The <\/strong>words are also, of course, a warning to the disciples as to the persecutions that awaited them. And in the world to come eternal life. This is that splendid inheritance in which the blessed shall be heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ; and so shall possess not only the heaven and the earth, and all things that are in them, hut even God himself, and all honor, all glory, all joy, not merely as occupiers, but as heirs for ever; as long as God himself shall be, who is himself “the eternal God.”<\/p>\n

Mar 10:31<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

But many that are first shall be last; and the last first<\/strong>. Most fitly does our Lord add this weighty sentence to what has just gone before. For thus he places himself, his grace, and his gospel in direct opposition to the corrupt teaching of the scribes and Pharisees. Perhaps the disciples thought within themselves, “How can it come to pass that we, the poor, the unlearned, the despised, are to sit upon thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel, amongst whom are men far our superiors in station, in learning, and in authority, such as are the scribes and Pharisees, and that rich young ruler just mentioned.” Our Lord here teaches them that the future will reveal great changesthat some who are first here will be last there, and some who seem last here will be first there. The disciples, and others like them, who, having forsaken all and followed Christ, seemed to be last in this world, will be first in the world to comemost dear to Christ, the King of Heaven, in their lives; most like to him in their zeal for his cause.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:32<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

They were now going up from Jericho to Jerusalem, going up with Christ to his cross and his death. He went before them, eagerly leading the way for his timid disciples, who were now beginning to realize what was about to happen, and that he would be condemned and crucified. Therefore the evangelist adds, they were amazed<\/strong> (Greek, ); <\/em>the same word which is used at Mar 10:24<\/span>. The words in the original, according to the best reading, make a distinction between the utter amazement of the disciples and the fear of the others who followed ( ). <\/em>St. Mark draws a distinction between the disciples, who would be following him, though at a little distance, and the mixed company, who were also following him, though at a greater distance. The whole scene is before us. Our blessed Lord, with an awful majesty on his countenance, and eager resolution in his manner, is pressing forwards to his cross. “How am I straitened until it be accomplished!” His disciples follow him, amazed and bewildered; and even the miscellaneous crowd, who no doubt gazed upon him with keen interest as the great “Prophet that should come into the world,” felt that something was going to happen, though they knew not whatsome-thing very dreadful; and they too were afraid. In the case of the disciples, Bede says that the chief cause of their amazement was their own imminent fear of death. They were amazed that their Master should hasten forward with such alacrity to his cross, and they feared lest they too should have to suffer with him. He took<\/strong> again<\/strong> the twelve<\/strong>; and once more impressed upon them the dread realities which were awaiting him. They were still slow of apprehension; they required to be told again and again.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:35<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

And there come near unto him James and John, the sons of Zebedee, saying unto him, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall ask of thee.<\/strong> St. Matthew (Luk 20:20<\/span>) informs us that this request was made by Salome, “the mother of Zebedee’s children.” The two accounts are readily reconciled if we consider that the request was made by Salome and her sons, and by her in their behalf. This request was made by them not long after they had heard our Lord’s great promise that his apostles “in the regeneration” should “sit upon thrones,” judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Mat 19:28<\/span>). He and very soon after they had heard his repeated announcement of his sufferings and death. But the thought of the glory which was to follow swallowed up the thought of the suffering that was to precede it; and so these two disciples were emboldened at once to ask for prominent positions amongst the thrones. St. Chrysostom finds an excuse for the imperfection of their faith. He says, “The mystery of the cross was not yet accomplished; nor yet was the grace of the Holy Spirit poured into their hearts. Wherefore, if you desire to know the strength of their faith, consider what they became after they had been endued with power from on high.”<\/p>\n

Mar 10:38<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

It will be observed that in St. Matthew (Luk 20:20<\/span>). He while Salome is represented as the person who makes the request, the answer is given, not to her, but to her sons. Ye know not what ye ask<\/strong>. Our Lord knew that the sons had spoken in the mother and by the mother. They knew not what they asked<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> because his kingdom was spiritual and heavenly, not carnal and earthly, as they supposed;<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> because they sought the glory before they had gained the victory;<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> because perhaps they thought that this kingdom was given in right of natural relationship (they were his cousins); whereas it is not given save to those who deserve it and take it by force.<\/p>\n

Are ye able to drink the cup that I drink? or to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?<\/strong> It is as though he said, “It is by my cross and passion that I am to attain to the kingdom; therefore the same way must be trodden by you who seek the same end.” Our Lord here describes his passion as his cup. The “cup” everywhere in Holy Scripture, as well as in profane writers, signifies a man’s portion, which is determined for him by God, and sent to him. The figure is derived from the ancient custom at feasts, by which the ruler of the feast tempered the wine according to his own will, and appointed to each guest his own portion, which it was his duty to drink. Our Lord then proceeds to describe his passion, which he had already spoken of as his cup, as his baptism. He uses this image because he would be totally buried, immersed, so to speak, in <\/strong>his passion. But it seems probable that the idea of purification <\/em>entered into this image. It was a baptism of fire into which he was plunged, and out of which he came forth victorious. The fire of his bitter passion and death tried him. It was his “salting with fire.” It pleased God thus to “make the Captain of our salvation perfect through sufferings.” Our Lord asks these ambitious disciples whether they could drink his cup of suffering, and be baptized with his fiery baptism.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:39<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

James and John seem to have understood the meaning of the cup; and perhaps also of the baptism. They both of them drank the cup, though in different ways. St. James, preaching Christ more boldly and fervently, became an early martyr, having been slain by the sword of Herod (Act 12:2<\/span>). St. John also drank of this cup, and was baptized with this baptism, when, if we may trust the authority of Tertullian (‘De Praescript.’ c. 36.). He he was cast by order of Domitian into a caldron of boiling oil, before the Porta Latina at Rome, although the oil had no power to hurt him. Another legend states that he drank a cup of poison, and took no harm. On this account he is frequently represented with a cup in his hand.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:40<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

But to sit on my right hand or on my left hand is not mine to give; but it is for them for whom it hath been prepared<\/strong>. The Arians gathered from this that our Lord was not of one substance with the Father. But this arose from a misunderstanding of the words. For the antithesis is not here between Christ and the Father; but between James and John on the one side ambitiously seeking the pre-eminence, and those on the ether side to whom it ought of right to be given. St. Jerome wisely says, “Our Lord does not say, ‘Ye shall not sit,’ lest he should put to shame these two. Neither does he say, ‘Ye shall sit,’ lest the others should be envious. But by holding out the prize to all, he animates all to contend for it.” Our Lord is also careful to point out that he who humbles himself shall be exalted. But Christ is the Giver, not indeed by way of favor to any one who asks, but according to the eternal and unalterable principles laid down by the Father. That Christ is the Giver is plain from St. Luke (Luk 22:29<\/span>). “I appoint unto you a kingdom, even as my Father appointed unto me.”<\/p>\n

Mar 10:41<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

And when the ten heard it, they began to be moved with indignation concerning James<\/strong> and John. <\/strong>How did they hear it? It is most likely that Salome and her two sons sought this favor secretly from Christ, lest they should excite the envy of the ethers. But they, the ten, must have noticed the approach of James and John with their mother to our Lord. They came in a formal manner, worshipping him first, and then making their request (see Mat 20:20<\/span>). The ten would naturally be desirous to know the nature of this interview; and when it was explained to them, they began to show indignation. Our Lord perceived that they were disputing; and he then called them and addressed the whole body. For he saw that they were all laboring under this disease of ambition; and he wished to apply the remedy at once to all, as we see in the words which follow.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:42<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

In these words our Lord does not find fault with that power or authority, whether civil or ecclesiastical, which is exercised by princes or bishops; for this is necessary in every state, and so is sanctioned by Divine and human law. What he condemns is the arbitrary and tyrannical exercise of such power, which the princes of the Gentiles were accustomed to.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:43<\/span><\/strong>, <\/strong>Mar 10:44<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

In these words our Lord enjoins him who is raised above others to conduct himself modestly and humbly; so as not to lord it over those beneath him, but to consider for them and to consult their security and happiness, and so to conduct himself that he may appear to be rather their minister and servant than their lord; ever remembering the golden rule, “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, even so do to them.” At the same time, our Lord here teaches all alike, whether superiors or inferiors, by what way we should strive to reach heaven, so as to sit at the right or left hand of Christ in his kingdom, namely, by the way of humility. For those who are the lowliest and most humble here will be the greatest and most exalted there.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:45<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

A ransom for many <\/strong>( ; from . to loose, or set free). Not that Christ died only for the elect. For Christ died for all; and has obtained for all the means necessary and sufficient for their salvation. Yet the fruit of his death and his full salvation comes only to those who persevere to the end. When our Lord says that he came “to give his life a ransom for many,” he regards the vast multitude of those who are included within his purposes of mercy. He “is the Savior of all men, specially of them that believe.”<\/p>\n

Mar 10:46<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

And they come to Jericho<\/strong>. Jericho, situated in the midst of a fertile, well-watered country, celebrated for its palm trees, was situated about seventeen English miles east-north-east of Jerusalem, and about six miles from the nearest bend of the river Jordan. In the time of our Lord it was one of the most important cities next to Jerusalem. It is now known by the name of Richa or Ericha, and is almost deserted. The journey from the Jordan to Jericho is through a fiat country; but that from Jericho to Jerusalem is very hilly. It is supposed that it was upon the rocky heights overhanging this city that our Lord’s temptation took place. Jericho derives its name, either from “the moon,” or from the fragrant edours of the “balsam” plant, which was extensively cultivated in the neighborhood. Its palm groves and balsam gardens were bestowed by Anthony upon Cleopatra, from whom Herod the Great purchased them. It was here that Herod the Great died. It is now one of the most filthy and neglected places in Palestine. To this place our Lord came; and St. Luke (18 and 19.) gives a full account of his reception there. St. Matthew speaks of two blind men; but he agrees with St. Mark in saying that the cure took place as he went out from Jericho. St. Luke mentions only one; but he places the cure at the time of our Lord’s entrance into Jericho. How do we reconcile St. Mark’s account of one only, specially named, Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus? St. Augustine says that there were two blind men; but that the one, better known, overshadowed the other. He also says that Bartimaeus was a well-known character, and that he was accustomed to sit by the wayside, not only blind, but as a beggar. It is of course possible that St. Luke may refer to another ease altogether. But on the other hand, with the exception that he mentions only one, and that he places the cure at the time of the entrance into Jericho, and not at the time of the departure, all the other circumstances are identical. May not this latter discrepancy be reconciled thus?the blind man may have sought a cure from Christ at his first entrance into the city; but he may not have been able to be heard on account of the crowd. Or our Lord may have passed him by at first, in order to stimulate his faith and hope. So the day after, he may have placed himself at the gate of the city, close by where Christ would pass through; and there again he may have urged his request, and so obtained healing. Dr. John Lightfoot says that the careful description of Bartimaeus would seem to imply that his father may have been a person of some note. Dr. Lightfoot adds that it is possible that Timaeus, or “Thimai,” may be the same with Simais<\/em>, <\/em>blind, from the use of the letter thau <\/em>from samech<\/em>, <\/em>common amongst the Chaldaeans; so that Bartimaeus might mean nothing more than “blind son of a blind father.”<\/p>\n

Mar 10:48<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Many rebuked him, that he should hold his<\/strong> peace. <\/strong>They rebuked him, perhaps, out of reverence and regard for Christ, who might perhaps at that moment have been preaching to the people, and so might be disturbed by the blind man’s loud and noisy appeal. But the rebuke of the crowd gave additional energy to his entreaties; and<\/strong> he cried out the more a great deal<\/strong>, that his voice might be heard above them all. He was in good earnest, and would not be restrained. A useful lesson is hem suggested to all. He who desires to serve God must overcome all earthly shame and fear; for, indeed, this unworthy feeling keeps back many from Christ.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:49<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

And Jesus stood still<\/strong> ( )literally, Jesus stood<\/em>and said, Call ye him<\/strong>. St. Jerome says that our Lord stood still on account of the man’s infirmity. There were many walls in Jericho; there were rough places; there were rocks and precipices over which he might stumble. Therefore the Lord stood, where there was a plain path by which the blind man might approach him. The crowd show their, sympathy. There is something very genuine as well as touching in their words, Be of good cheer: rise, he calleth<\/strong> thee.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mar 10:50<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

And he, casting away his garment, rose<\/strong>the word in the Greek is . literally, sprang to his feet<\/em>and came to Jesus<\/strong>. He cast away his “garment,” that is, the loose outer robe which covered his tunic. He was in haste, and desired to disengage himself from every ira-pediment, in his eagerness to approach Jesus. We seem here to have the description of a keen eye-witness, such as St. Peter would be.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:51<\/span><\/strong>, <\/strong>Mar 10:52<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Our Lord well knew what he wanted; but it was necessary that he and those around him should hear from the lips of the blind man the confession of his need, and of his faith in the power that was present to heal him. And the blind man said<\/strong> unto him, Rabboni, that I may receive my sight<\/strong>. “Rabboni,” or “Rabbuni,” means literally, my Master<\/em>. It was a more respectful mode of address than the more simple form “Rabbi.” This expression shows that Bartimaeus had yet much to learn as to the Divine character of our Lord. But his faith is accepted; and he showed that it was genuine as far as it went, by forthwith following Jesus in the way. There were six occasions on which our Lord is recorded to have healed the blind: St. Matthew (Mat 9:27<\/span>; Mat 12:22<\/span>; Mat 21:14<\/span>); St. Mark; St. John (Joh 9:1<\/span>). St. Chrysostom says of Bartimaeus, that as before this gift of healing he showed perseverance, so after it he shewed gratitude.<\/p>\n

HOMILETICS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mar 10:1-12<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Marriage and divorce.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Our Lord Jesus is the great moral Legislator of humanity. His authoritative teaching applies to all classes and to all relationships of mankind. And it is to be noticed that he bases his commands and counsels both upon grounds of natural right and reason, and also upon the revealed Mosaic Law. With regard to the latter, it is observable that he professes not to destroy it, but to fulfill itto inspire it with a new motive, and to give it a wider range; whilst he allows no authority to mere traditions and usages, but treats them simply upon their own merits.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> UPON<\/strong> WHAT<\/strong> OUR<\/strong> LORD<\/strong> BASES<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SANCTITY<\/strong> OF<\/strong> MARRIAGE<\/strong>. It is to be observed that Jesus goes back behind the old Mosaic Law, which was universally accepted among the Jews as the authoritative standard of conduct.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. There is reference to what we should call natural adaptation. <\/em>If there is design in any arrangement or provision of nature, there is certainly design in the division of mankind (as, indeed, of other races of living beings)into two corresponding and complementary sexes. Man was made for woman, and woman for man; and the equality in numbers of male and female is evidently a natural reason both for marriage and for monogamy.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. There is reference to the creative<\/em>, historical basis <\/em>of marriage. The record of Genesis is adduced, and Jesus reminds the Pharisees that marriage dated, as a matter of fact, from the beginning of the creationthat our first parents lived together in this relationship from their first introduction to each other until the close of life.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. Jesus asserts marriage to be a Divine ordinance. <\/em>“God hath joined together” husband and wife. The Law of Moses came in with its additional provisions and sanctions; but it presumed the existence of the marriage state. God, who orders all things well, had seen that it would not be good for the man to be alone; accordingly he instituted wedded life, and hallowed it.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> WHAT<\/strong> OUR<\/strong> LORD<\/strong> DEDUCES<\/strong> FROM<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SANCTITY<\/strong> OF<\/strong> MARRIAGE<\/strong>,<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. A condemnation of the custom of facile divorce. It was a common practice for the Jews, when dissatisfied with their wives, to put them away for very trivial reasonseven because they were not pleased with them, without any offense having been committed. They were wont to appeal to a permissive provision in their law as a warrant for acting thus. In our own times, in many countries even professedly Christian, it is too common for regulations of great laxity to be made regarding divorce. In some countries even incompatibility of temper is a sufficient ground for permanent separation. Such practices are condemned by Jesus as contrary to the Divine intention regarding marriage, and as subversive of all sound morality. As the family is the unit and the basis of all communities, and of all moral unity and welfare, it is of the highest importance that the sacredness of this Divine institution should be upheld, and that all practices and sentiments which undermine it should be discountenanced and opposed. Lax views upon divorce are to be repressed, as inimical to all social welfare as well as to domestic concord.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. A declaration that such divorce is conducive to adultery. Our Lord does not say that the remarriage of divorced persons is in all cases adulterous; but, speaking of these who are separated for trivial offenses, and for any offense short of the most serious, he declares that for such persons to marry again is nothing less than adultery. They are not really and in God’s sight released from one another, and a second union is therefore unlawful. “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”<\/p>\n

APPLICATION.
1<\/strong>. Learn our Lord’s independence as an ethical and spiritual Teacher, and his superiority to traditional and even Mosaic authority.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. Learn his interest in all our human relationships; he consecrates them by the regard of his grace and by the imposition of his Law.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. Let Christians discountenance lax opinions and practices upon a question so vital to social and national well-being as the ordinance of marriage.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:13-16<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Christ and the children.<\/strong><\/p>\n

That three of the evangelists should have recorded this incident is proof of the impression it made upon the early Christians, and of the importance they attached to it. The Son of man interested himself in all classes and conditions of humanity; and it is not strange that he should have come into direct and tender relations with the very young.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> CHILDREN<\/strong> who were brought to Jesus. They were very young, for they are called “little children,” and they were so small as to be taken up in the arms. Jesus had himself been a child, and had passed through the stages of infancy and boyhood, so that from his own experience he could sympathize with this age and condition of human life. These children may have been children of the house where Jesus had been staying, and of the neighbors. It should be remembered that, not long before, Jesus had taken a little child and used him as an example of simplicity and humility. We may certainly learn from this incident that no child, however young or feeble, is disregarded by our Lord Jesus. In every one he sees an immortal, God-given nature, capable of fellowship with the Creator’s mind, and of obedience to his commands.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> PARENTS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> CHILDREN<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. They revered and honored Jesus themselves, or they would not have acted thus. They would not have treated another rabbi thus. There must have been something in our Lord which attracted them and induced them to believe that he would not repel them should they ask a favor on behalf of their little ones.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. They brought their children to Jesus. The babes had neither knowledge nor strength to come of themselves; but their parents acted for them. Parents should regard it as their duty and privilege to bring their offspring to the Savior. This they may do by instructing them as to who and what Jesus is, by leading them into the society of Christ’s people.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. They had a definite purpose in bringing the children to Jesus, viz. that he should touch them and should pray for them. To tell our children of Christ is, or should be, with a view to their personal spiritual contact with him, and with a view to their enjoying both the regard of his friendship and the benefit of his intercession:<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> TWELVE<\/strong>, AND<\/strong> THEIR<\/strong> TREATMENT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> CHILDREN<\/strong>. It is instructive to observe that the very persons whose office it was to make Jesus known to men, and to introduce all the needy to his notice, and to commend them to his aid, should have on this occasion interfered with the approach of those whom Jesus would have welcomed. The twelve rebuked the parents, and forbade the children to be brought to Jesus, probably from a mistaken idea that the Lord would not care to be troubled with those so young and so helpless. How important that Christians should not interpose to prevent children from seeking Christ and the fellowship of his people!<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> JESUS<\/strong>, AND<\/strong> HIS<\/strong> TREATMENT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> CHILDREN<\/strong>. The narrative gives us a delightful view of the Savior’s character, as the children’s Friend.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. What he felt. <\/em>A very strong expression is used to denote our Lord’s disapproval of his disciples’ conduct. He was “moved with indignation” by their demeanour. They were both misrepresenting him and inflicting a wrong upon the applicants for blessing.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. What he said. <\/em>His language includes a special reference to the occasion, and a general statement of a Divine principle. “Suffer the children to come!” “Forbid them not!” How gracious a revelation of the Savior’s mind and disposition, and how instructive a lesson for his people! The general principle he enunciates is even more valuable: “Of such is the kingdom of heaven.” The reference is doubtless to the dependence and teachableness of little children. God’s kingdom is composed of childlike natures. The proud, self-sufficient, and self-confident are out of harmony with a spiritual society which recognizes a Divine Head and is governed by Divine laws.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. What he did. <\/em>Doubtless, in these actions, Jesus was obeying the impulse of his affectionate nature. Yet he intended to teach the world how gracious is his heart, how compassionate are his purposes, how vast and widely extended are the arms of his love. He took them in his arms, verifying the prediction concerning him as the Good Shepherd. He laid his hands upon them, signifying his tender interest. He blessed them, praying for them, and pronouncing over them words of Divine benediction. <\/p>\n

APPLICATION.
1<\/strong>. An encouragement to Christian parents to bring their children to the Savior.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. An inducement to the young to look to Jesus as the Giver of true blessing.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. An example to the Church of Christ as to the spirit in which the Lord’s people should deal with the youngwith inexperienced and immature natures. impatience or contempt, but rather gentleness and consideration, should distinguish the attitude of Christ’s people towards the lambs of the flock.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:17-22<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Loved, yet lacking.<\/strong><\/p>\n

An interesting character this, coming in the Gospel history like a meteor out of the darkness for a brief moment, and then vanishing again, to be no more seen. An interesting conversation this, casting valuable light upon the character and the demands, of Christ, and upon the aspirations and virtues, the tests and the deficiencies, of human nature. Strange that Jesus should love one who came before him in this one short interview; stranger still that, in this loved one, he should find a lack so serious and even fatal, that such promise should issue in such disappointment! In this young ruler we have a type of a class of applicants to Christ.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> HE POSSESSED MANY THINGS. How much was in this young man’s favor!<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. His worldly position. <\/em>Though young, he was a ruler, and the possessor of great riches. It was to his credit that, when his worldly condition and circumstances were such, he yet acted as he did, evincing a mind set upon higher blessings than this world can give.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. His character. <\/em>There is no reason to disbelieve his assertion that he had in his outward life kept the Law of the Decalogue. Christ did not charge him with hypocrisy in this profession; he rather admitted its truth in requiring more than compliance with. the rules of morality.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. His reverence for Jesus. <\/em>This is apparent in his action and attitude: “he came kneeling down on the road before Jesus;” and in his address, “Good Master,” as well as in the fact that he reverently asked the judgment of the prophet of Nazareth upon a most important question.<\/p>\n

4<\/strong>. His aspiration after eternal life. <\/em>This was a proof of a noble dissatisfaction and a noble desire; this question which the young ruler addressed to the one Being who was able to answer and resolve it.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> HE WAS LOVED AND TESTED BY CHRIST.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. Jesus loved <\/em>him, doubtless seeing in him an ingenuous disposition, a thirst for truth, a reverence for goodness; doubtless looking back upon a pure and honorable life in the past, and forward to the bright possibilities of the future. What an insight we thus gain into the truly human nature of the Savior! And are there not now <\/em>those whom he looks upon and loves, beholding in them so much that is congenial to his heart?<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. Jesus tested <\/em>him. He did this in love, yet in faithfulness. And in three ways.<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> His faith in Himself. Why call him “good”? The epithet was too honorable if he were man. Was his disciple prepared to apply it to him with the clear understanding that it involved his Deity?<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> His character. This test the young ruler stood; he had “a conscience void of offense.”<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> His love and devotion. Was the young ruler prepared to give up all at the Master’s bidding? This leads to the observation that<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> HE<\/strong> LACKED<\/strong> ONE THING. Consider:<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. Christ<\/em>‘s demand.<\/em><\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> It was that he should part with his wealth, and bestow all upon the poor. Not that this is universally obligatory or desirable. It was the form of complete surrender <\/em>which in this case was most appropriate. A hard test, a stern requirement; yet most necessary “to prove the sincerity of his love.”<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> The promise. There was an inducement held out, of “treasure in heaven,” which should more than compensate his loss. Our Lord shows his compassion upon our human nature in thus alluring to his side.<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> The call. It was to discipleship: “Follow reef What an opportunity was, in these words, opened up before this ardent, aspiring mind! Who can say what position he might have held in the circle of the apostles, in the memory of Christendom, had he responded to this heavenly summons?<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. The young ruler<\/em>‘s failure under trial. <\/em>The saying was too hard; the test was too severe; the world was too strong! His heart sank within him, and his countenance fell. And then he went away sorrowful, grieving to leave Christ, yet feeling that the grief would be greater of leaving the riches in which he delighted and trusted. Had he given, not his admiration, his respect, only, to Christ, but his very heart, then it would have been possible to him to have “left all, and followed him.” But one thing he lackedthe surrender of self, of the spiritual nature, which would have involved the surrender of all. <\/p>\n

APPLICATION<\/strong>, Christ will be satisfied with nothing less than our heart, our all. We may have many things, and yet lack the spirit of perfect surrender and consecration. The test is certain to be applied; how shall we endure it?<\/p>\n

Mar 10:23-31<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Christ must be all.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Sometimes our Lord gave utterance to paradox. Certainly it was so on this occasion. Any ordinary observer would have pronounced the rich young ruler blessed, and would have pitied the poor fishermen who neglected their petty craft and followed the homeless and penniless Rabbi of Nazareth. But God’s ways are not our ways. Jesus looked below the surface. To him the case of the favored of fortune and the admired of society was a sad case, and the choice of the twelve was the choice of the good part, which none can take away.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SPIRITUAL<\/strong> DISADVANTAGES<\/strong> AND<\/strong> PERILS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> WEALTH<\/strong>. This is not a popular or acceptable lesson; and most people would be willing to accept, without a murmur, the position of danger and temptation occupied by the affluent. However, the warnings of the Master are fully borne out by the experience of those who have watched the working of human nature under the influence of riches.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. To have wealth is to be in danger of trusting in wealth.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. To trust in wealth is not conducive to humility, penitence, and faiththe dispositions peculiarly suitable to those who would be saved.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. To lack these dispositions is to be disqualified for the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n

4<\/strong>. Yet the grace of God, with whom all things are pOssible, is able to overcome difficulties and temptations great as these.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> BLESSEDNESS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> GIVING<\/strong> UP<\/strong> ALL<\/strong> FOR<\/strong> CHRIST<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. Really and truly the Christian surrenders all he has to his Lord. <\/em>That Lord may give him back, as it were, of what was his own, but even when used for himself, it is consecrated, and is still the Lord’s.<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> Christians may be called upon to give up earthly possessions. This the rich young ruler should have done, but did not; this Peter and the rest of the twelve actually did. It has often been remarked that the apostles did not give up much in order to become disciples of Jesus. But the answer is fairWhat they had they gave up; it was their all. When plainly called upon to part with property, as<\/em>, e.g. <\/em>in <\/em>times of persecution, or for the sake of charity, Christ’s people willingly make the sacrifice required. Property so lost is truly gained.<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> Christians may have to renounce earthly aims and prospects. How Often does this happen still! The convert feels constrained to break away from old associations, which might well be the stepping-stone to honor, station, emolument; and in sacrificing what the world would give, he reaps a rich reward in the approval of his conscience, the progress he makes in the Divine life, the increased opportunities of usefulness he enjoys. Such are foremost in inviting their fellow-men to the better path<\/p>\n

“Come, learn, your follies quitting,<\/p>\n

That this world’s gain is loss;<\/p>\n

To his mild rule submitting<\/p>\n

Who bare for you! the cross.”<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> They renounce the pleasures and the applause of the world. The pleasures of sin it is their aim to relinquish; the praise of men they regard with indifference; for they “have left all.”<\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> All this renunciation is spiritually valuable just so far as, it expresses the renunciation of self-will, and the acceptance of the will of Christ. I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus the Lord.”<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. In so doing the Christian reaps a rich reward. <\/em>This is twofold.<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> There is recompense in this life. To follow Jesus is in itself an honor and happiness. Who that loves him would not willingly share his lot? Surrender all you have to Christ, and Christ will bestow all he has on you. He not only confers upon his people the favor of his heart, he gives them to enjoy the approbation of a good conscience. And Jesus points out the provision made by God’s goodness for many of his faithful followers. It happened, as he foretold, that many of the persecuted disciples experienced marvellous interpositions and unexpected relief; that their confession of Christ was the occasion of the attachment and affection, the ministrations and gifts, of those who witnessed and admired their fidelity.<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> There is a yet richer recompense hereafter. Simply and grandly does Jesus assure his people that they shall have “in the world to come eternal life.” It was an assurance which was repeated by Christ’s inspired apostles, which was addressed from the throne of his glory by the triumphant Redeemer to his struggling soldiers upon earth. “Be thou faithful unto death, and! will give thee a crown of life.” Many a faithful witness and warrior has been animated by the glorious prospect, and has learned joyfully to toil and patiently to endure, with the blessed hope of the future before his eyes. The light afflictions are light, because they introduce the exceeding and eternal weight of glory.<\/p>\n

“When the shore is won at last,
Who will count the billows past?”<\/p>\n

Mar 10:32-34<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The reiterated prediction.<\/strong><\/p>\n

This was the third occasion upon which Jesus expressly and formally intimated to his followers the approaching close of his ministry and life. The occasion was the last great journey up to Jerusalem. He wished the disciples to understand what their discipleship involved, into what scenes they were now about to follow him; that, forewarned, they might be forearmed. Observe.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> PREPARATION<\/strong> FOR<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> COMMUNICATION<\/strong>. Mark, in a few words, graphically and vividly portrays the scene. An unusual state of excitement pervades the company. The attitude of the Master, and the expression of the disciples’ countenances, display the prevalence of common emotion. Jesus goes before, absorbed in contemplation of his approaching sufferings; the group of disciples are amazed at the prospect opened up to them in the words of warning they have just heard; and the people around are silent with dread and awe!<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> JESUS<\/strong> PREDICTS<\/strong> THE<\/strong> PLACE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> HIS<\/strong> SUFFERINGS<\/strong>. They are going up to Jerusalem. The city, in which he has often preached and wrought his mighty works, is about to reject him. The metropolis is in this act to fulfill the counsels of the nation. “He came to his own, and his own received him not.” “It cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.”<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> IT<\/strong> IS<\/strong> FORETOLD<\/strong> WHO<\/strong> SHALL<\/strong>, BE<\/strong> THE<\/strong> INSTIGATORS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> MARTYRDOM<\/strong>. The chief priests and the scribes have opposed him at every point; have disputed with him, calumniated him, stirred up the people against him. And now it is into their hands that he is to be delivered, and they are to take the initiative in his destruction. The leaders of his own nation are to compass the violent end of him who is that nation’s Glory and Redeemer.<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> IT<\/strong> IS<\/strong> FORETOLD<\/strong> WHO<\/strong> SHALL<\/strong> BE<\/strong> THE<\/strong> AGENTS<\/strong> IN<\/strong> HIS<\/strong> MARTYRDOM<\/strong>. It is a proof of our Lord’s prophetic foresight, that he predicts that the instrumentality by which the leaders of the Jews shall effect their purpose is not a native but a foreign agency. He came “a Light to lighten the Gentiles, and the Glory of God’s people Israel;” and it was permitted that he should be “despised and rejected of men,” and that both sections of the human race should conspire and concur in his martyrdom.<\/p>\n

V.<\/strong> JESUS<\/strong> FORETELLS<\/strong> THE<\/strong> INSULTS<\/strong> AND<\/strong> INDIGNITIES<\/strong> WHICH<\/strong> SHALL<\/strong> PRECEDE<\/strong> HIS<\/strong> DEATH<\/strong>. The circumstantial manner in which the great Sufferer describes beforehand the cruel and inhuman treatment with which he shall meet, is pathetic and instructive. He reads the very hearts of his foes, and marks their malignity and baseness, their hostility to himself and to all that is good. Death is formidable, but the prospect of such a death as this awakens horror.<\/p>\n

VI.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> RESURRECTION<\/strong> IS<\/strong> FORETOLD<\/strong> AS<\/strong> THE<\/strong> COMPLETION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> MARTYRDOM<\/strong>. Christ’s death was not merely a martyrdom; it was a sacrifice. Its purpose would not have been answered had it not been shown that it was impossible that he should be holden of death. Thus was there given to the world an assurance from Heaven that this was indeed the Christ, declared to be the Son of God with power. And for the sake of the disciples themselves, the Lord Jesus foretells his approaching victory over the grave, that their hearts may be cheered and their hopes inspired, that they may learn the more truly to reverence him and the more ardently to trust him.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:35-45<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

True ministry is true dignity.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Some of the most sacred and precious lessons which the Lord Jesus has taught mankind were suggested by incidents which occurred in his own ministry. This is true, both of lessons regarding his own grace and of lessons regarding our duty and life. His hand turns all that he touches into gold. Who would have thought that the selfish and thoughtless request of a mother and her sons could have led to one of the profoundest statements concerning the Saviours mission, and to the publication of one of the most novel and powerful laws that were to govern the subjects of the Savior’s kingdom? Yet so it is.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> REQUEST<\/strong> OF<\/strong> AMBITION<\/strong>. There is scope in every position of human life for the display of this principle of human nature. The desire to be wiser and better and more influential for good than we are is to be commended; but the desire to have more power and honor than our fellow-men is bad, unless it be cherished with a view to their advantage. There is such a thing as religious ambition, as the history of the Church in all ages abundantly shows. And the passage in the Gospel history now before us exhibits the working of this principle in the breasts of some of our Lord’s first followers and apostles. Observe:<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. By whom <\/em>this request was preferred. Salome was the wife of Zebedee, the owner of fishing-boats upon the Galilean lake. As the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, she may naturally have thought she and hers had some claim upon the Founder of the new kingdom. Her sons, James and John, joined with her in this petition for pre-eminence, so that it was in all likelihood discussed and arranged beforehand. It is remarkable that these ambitious followers of Jesus, who herein showed so little of the Master’s spirit, were, with Peter, his most intimate and trusted friends, who might have been supposed the most to resemble him in disposition and character. A warning which none should neglect, as to the possibility of even eminent Christians falling into this snare.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. On what occasion <\/em>was this petition presented? It is observable that, shortly before, Jesus had promised his disciples honor and dignities; in fact, thrones of dominion and judgment in the kingdom that was to be. Yet more recently, however, he had amazed his disciples by informing them of events which he plainly foresawhis own approaching persecution, sufferings, and death. The end was indeed near, and Jesus seems to have foretold its accompaniments the more clearly the nearer the time approached. It is singular that the ambition of the brothers, instead of being subdued by the mournful prospect, was inflamed by the glorious promise. They thought of their thrones more than of his cross.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. There was some good <\/em>in this request. It recognized Christ’s authority, for the petition was urged upon him as upon a King who was able to grant it. It evinced faith in his character and in his future; for unless the kingdom had been a real thing to them they would not have sought participation in its glories. Not only did they refer the appointment to him; they evidently desired above all things to rule, not only under him, but with him.<\/p>\n

4<\/strong>. Yet there was still more manifestly what was bad <\/em>in the request. Their great error was that they overlooked the sublime truth, that fellowship is spiritual and not circumstantial. To be Christ’s, whether upon a throne, or in a hovel, or a dungeonthat is the aspiration of the true Christian’s heart; the aspiration to share in his outward glory (as if that were the best) is mean and contemptible. What a carnal conception was theirs of the kingdom! They laid hold of the emblem, but the underlying truth and reality escaped them altogether. And yet, again, we discern in the request a selfish desire for personal aggrandizement. They were thinking of themselves when they should have been thinking of their Lord. They ought to have asked, “How<\/em>, <\/em>Lord, can we serve thee, or suffer with thee, and so please and glorify thee?” Instead of which they were scheming what they might get from Christ, and how a connection with him might be turned best to their own advantage.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> REBUKE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> AMBITION<\/strong>. Our Lord had on several occasions to rebuke the pride, vain-glory, and strife for pre-eminence which broke forth now and again even in the chosen band of the twelve. This he did by symbolical acts, as when he set the little child in the midst and exhorted them to a childlike spirit; and again when he washed their feet, bidding them follow his example of condescension and humility. On the occasion before us our Lord censured the conduct of the brothers with a peculiar and memorable solemnity.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. Remark what he refused. <\/em>The places asked for he would not grant them. He gave them to understand that the bestowment of honors in Christ’s kingdom is not a matter, so to speak, of favouritism, of private and personal feeling. It is governed by great moral laws. It is the result of their operation in the heart and in society. There is nothing arbitrary or capricious in it. It is the expression of the Father’s wisdom. The future shall reveal what for the present lies hid from all.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. Remark what Jesus promised. <\/em>He first puts it to them in the form of a question; but he very graciously passes from interrogation to assurance and promise. These two men who asked for thrones were promisedwhat? The cup of sorrow and the baptism of suffering. But it was to be his cup, his baptism. What Jesus meant we are at no loss to decide. The cup he drank in the garden of Gethsemane; the baptism all but overwhelmed him upon the cross of Calvary. Of all this they should know something by bitter, yet blessed, experience. They had some foretaste of their portion when they saw their Master in his humiliation and in his death. After years enlarged their experience. James fell a victim to the sword of the persecutor; John lived a long life of witness, both by work for Christ and by steadfastness in suffering for Christ. Both were faithful unto death. Both lost all taint of earthly ambition, and knew the fellowship of their Lord’s cross and passion.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. Consider how contrary to their expectations was this revelation of the mode in which Christ’s disciples should share with him. The manner in which the Lord dealt with them showed alike his knowledge of human nature and his habitual power of spiritual sympathy. How fitted was his treatment of them to draw out and encourage their better feelings! How much higher and nobler a view of human nature and its possibilities and destinies was this which Jesus presented! And he did it in such a way as not to discourage those whom yet he felt it needful to rebuke; in such a way as to prepare his friends to give, in due time, the convincing proof that their friendship was genuine, sympathetic, and unselfish.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> REMEDY<\/strong> FOR<\/strong> AMBITION<\/strong>. Here, as everywhere, Christianity is Christ. Jesus never merely tells us what he would have us be; he first shows us this in his own Person, and then he supplies us with the Divine and all-sufficient motive in his own ministry and sacrifice. “For verily the Son of man came not to be,” etc.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. Not that Jesus absolutely and always refused to be ministered unto. In his infancy his mother nurtured him; during his ministry his friends supplied his wants, and welcomed him to their homes. Gracefully and graciously he accepted their kind and affectionate service.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. But that his chief purpose in his earthly life was to minister to men. He observed and pitied those whom he came to save and bless, for their wants were many and their woes were great. He supplied their bodily necessities, he relieved their bodily privations, he healed their bodily maladies; he sympathized with them in their griefs, and brought both health and consolation to their hearts. Their spiritual wants aroused his deepest commiseration. He taught the ignorant, aroused in the sinful the conscience of sin, brought pardon to the penitent, hope to the downcast, and salvation to all prepared to receive it. His career on earth was one long ministry of wisdom, faithfulness, love, and power.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. And his death was voluntary sacrifice and service, in the highest form. The purpose of our Lord’s coming was a purpose of” obedience unto death, even the death of the cross.” There was nothing accidental or unforeseen in the close of our Lord’s earthly career. He consciously and voluntarily gave his <\/em>life. What others prized, he surrendered; what others strove to save, he was content to lose. A sublime spectacle of self-abnegation! But there was a purpose in this act of Jesus. It was that he might pay a ransom that he deigned to die. He is the Redeemer, and redemption was his great work. From the bondage and power, from the penalty and curse of sin, he died to set us free. Ann observe the expansive benevolence that characterized his redemptive work. It was to ransom many <\/em>that he died. Not to exalt himself merely, as was the carnal aim of his half-trained followers, but to save multitudes, to redeem mankind.<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> CURE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> AMBITION<\/strong>. We must not lose sight of the close connection between our Savior’s statement regarding himself, his ministry, and death, and his language to the twelve, especially to the ambitious brothers. Observe:<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. How the remedy works. <\/em>Difficult as it is to explain the bearing of our Savior’s redemption upon the Divine character and government, there is little difficulty in explaining its bearing upon human character and life. The soul that ,by faith lays hold upon the Redeemer, and accepts the redemption as the provision of God’s free grace, comes under a new impulse and motive. Gratitude and love towards him who gave himself for us lead, both naturally and of purpose, to devotion, obedience, and assimilation of character. Such motives the Holy Spirit applies to the nature, and thus overcomes the native tendency to selfishness and sinful pride. The Christian feels that Jesus lived and died to redeem from all evil, and certainly from this prevailing fault and folly. Our Savior is both the Model <\/em>and the Motive <\/em>of our new service. Himself the highest example of humility and benevolence, he furnishes in his cross the power which inspires us to conflict with sin, and encourages us to hope for victory. It is Divine wisdom which has devised the plan, and Divine grace which has executed it, and the results are worthy of him to whom we owe them.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. By what signs the efficacy of the remedy is made apparent. Our Lord clearly saw how contrary is the law of his kingdom to that which prevails in earthly society. He observed how men aim at pre-eminence and dominion; and, instead of qualifying this practice, he condemns it; instead of lopping the boughs, he strikes at the root of the tree. “It is not so among you.” On the contrary, he unfolds the new law: “Foremost in service, foremost in kingdom, in houour.” Accordingly, if you would know whether an individual, a community, is truly Christ’s, apply this test. Do not askIs the creed orthodox? Are the devotions splendid or fervent? Is profession loud and ample? But askIs the Spirit of Jesus manifest? Is the law of Jesus observed? For “if a man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” They are truly Christians who, instead of askingHow can we enjoy ourselves? how can we raise ourselves? ask, on the contraryHow can we live as ministers of one another, and as servants of all? In the family, in the Church, in the world, we have ever-widening circles within which our influence may extend. To promote the bodily, the social, the educational, the moral, and spiritual welfare of our fellow-creaturesthis is an aim worthy of all adoption, and an aim which will supply a sufficient and conclusive answer to the somewhat foolish question of the day, “Is life worth living?” To work for others and to work for Christ,this is what the Lord expects from his people. And this is the manner of moral life which leads to his approval; this is the pathway to the stars.<\/p>\n

APPLICATION.
1<\/strong>. Adore the compassion and humility of the Redeemer.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. Accept the deliverance which he has wrought in the payment of your ransom.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. Check the rising spirit of self-seeking and ambition.<\/p>\n

4<\/strong>. Live as ministers of blessing to those around you. “Freely ye have received, freely give.”<\/p>\n

Mar 10:46-52<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Blind Bartimaeus.<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is not without a purpose that the evangelists have put upon record so many of our Lord’s miracles wrought on behalf of the blind. In all such miracles the “sign” is prominent, the moral lesson is instructive, impressive, and encouraging.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> We recognize, in the privation of Bartimaeus, AN<\/strong> EMBLEM<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SINNER<\/strong>‘S STATE<\/strong>. For:<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. The sinner is without spiritual knowledge. The blind are necessarily, by their deprivation of the highest of the senses, cut off from much knowledge of the outer world, and of the properties of matter, and consequently of the appeals of the Creator to the mind and heart of man.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. The sinner is a stranger to many pure and elevating pleasures. The enjoyments of the sightless are grievously curtailed. The votary of sin has indeed his pleasures, but they are impure, debasing, and unsatisfying.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. The sinner lacks true guidance. Just as the blind man depends upon others to lead him, and unless so assisted goes astray, so the unenlightened are doomed to wander in the mazes of error and of sin.<\/p>\n

4<\/strong>. The sinner has no assurance, for he has no means of safety. As the blind fall into dangers for want of sight, so those whose minds are dark know nothing of true spiritual security, and have no well-founded hope.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> Here we have an EXAMPLE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> CRY<\/strong> OF<\/strong> DAWNING<\/strong> FAITH<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. There is presumed a sense of privation, of misery, of need. This expresses itself when opportunity invites the expression.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. We observe a recognition of Christ’s power and willingness to help and save. When Bartimaeus heard that it was Jesus who drew near, he cried aloud for help, having no doubt heard from some credible quarter of the customary compassion and the miraculous powers of the Prophet of Nazareth.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. This shapes itself into a definite appeal for mercy.<\/p>\n

4<\/strong>. And this appeal is distinguished by perseverance and persistency. Hindrances and dissuasions are of no avail; they only incite the applicant to more earnest supplications. The soul that truly feels its need, and has caught a true glimpse of Jesus, is not to be deterred from entreaties for grace and help. Obstacles may hinder the indifferent; they quicken the zeal of those who are earnest.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> AN<\/strong> INSTANCE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> CHRIST<\/strong>‘S COMPASSIONATE<\/strong> INTEREST<\/strong>. When the blind beggar cries aloud, Jesus hears; he pauses to allow an interview; he bids that the suppliant be brought to him. It is ever so. Nothing is so welcome to the Savior as the entreaty and appeal of the penitent and believing sinner. No voice is unheard, no wretchedness unfelt, no applicant rejected, by him. The sinner’s need is his concern; the sinner’s cry prompts his interposition.<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> AN<\/strong> INDICATION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> CHURCH<\/strong>‘S PROPER<\/strong> MISSION<\/strong> The people, attentive to Christ and friendly to the sufferer, call the blind man, raise his hopes, encourage his approach. This conduct is exactly that of our Lord’s faithful ministers and of all his true disciples. The Church cannot save, but its privilege and its duty is to point to him who can save. The vocation of the Church is to tell of Jesus, to point to Jesus, to lead to Jesus. This is the true ministry, at once humbling and ennobling; for whilst it presumes the spiritual powerlessness of man, it affords to human benevolence an abundant scope, and assimilates it to the pity of the Savior’s gracious heart.<\/p>\n

V.<\/strong> AN<\/strong> ILLUSTRATION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> EARNESTNESS<\/strong> RESPONDING<\/strong> TO<\/strong> THE<\/strong> INVITATION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> CHRIST<\/strong>. How picturesquely does Mark tell us that this blind man, casting away his garment, “sprang up, and came to Christ”! A suggestion that he who hears the gospel should fling from him all his doubts, should abandon his evil companions and the sin that doth so easily beset him, should forsake his evil ways and thoughts, and so should draw near to Christ.<\/p>\n

VI.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> CHARACTERISTIC<\/strong> MANNER<\/strong> IN<\/strong> WHICH<\/strong> CHRIST<\/strong> IMPARTED<\/strong> THE<\/strong> BLESSING<\/strong> SOUGHT<\/strong>. The dialogue between Jesus and Bartimaeus was brief, and it was “to the point.” Question, answer, and final assurance were all satisfactory. The point upon which stress is chiefly laid is the faith <\/em>which makes whole. It is the one condition. When this is complied with, all things are possible; the blind see, the prayer is granted, the soul is saved.<\/p>\n

VII.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> GRATEFUL<\/strong> RECOGNITION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> BOON<\/strong> CONFERRED<\/strong> IS<\/strong> A LESSON<\/strong> TO<\/strong> ALL<\/strong> WHO<\/strong> ARE<\/strong> BLESSED<\/strong> BY<\/strong> CHRIST<\/strong>. As Bartimaeus followed Jesus in the way, doubtless to testify to the pity and the power of the Redeemer, to glorify his Deliverer, and to invite others to extol and praise him; so does it become all those whose eyes Christ has opened to witness to the Divine Healer, and to say fearlessly in the presence of all men, “He hath opened mine eyes;” “Whereas I was blind, now I see.”<\/p>\n

HOMILIES BY A.F. MUIR<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mar 10:1-12<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Christ’s statement of the Divine law of marriage.<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is well to note <\/strong>his locality at this time. He was approaching the center of the Judaean party, outlying members of which encountered him as he was entering Judaea from beyond Jordan. Nevertheless he no longer observes “counsels <\/em>of prudence.” He freely addresses the crowds that throng to his ministry, and confronts the attempts of his enemies to catch him in his words. This Divine abandonment is very noble and beautiful, and argues that he now clearly foresaw all that was to take place. There are two intentions in the reply of Jesus which it is necessary to distinguish, viz. that of defense, and that of teaching. His words are to be studied, therefore, as<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> A MEASURE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> DEFENCE<\/strong>. That his questioners meant him mischief there can be no doubt. The word “tempting” is used for “trying,” “proving,” and that in an evil sense.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. What<\/em>, then<\/em>, was the danger that lay in such a question<\/em>? <\/em>According to his reply they hoped:<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> To discredit him with the respectable classes, and to found a charge against him of overturning the social and religious institutions of the land. It is the reproach and shame of nearly all “heresies” in religion that they sooner or later attempt to abolish the safeguards of society, and the time-honored customs of the social order. Marriage is a touchstone that betrays the inherent unrighteousness and impracticability of a large proportion of them. His enemies hoped on this point to array him against Moses.<\/p>\n

(2) <\/strong>To discredit him with the common people. It was a vexed question at the time in the rival schools of Hillel and Shammai, the latter being stricter, the former laxer, in their view of the lawfulness of divorce. Probably convinced of their own view of the case, they relied upon easily confuting his arguments, and thereby “showing him up” as a pretender and imposter.<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>But in this twofold scheme they were defeated, <\/em>Jesus making his interroggators themselves the declarers of the Law which he accepted and simply interpreted. He appeared, therefore, as a defender and not an assailant of the Law. And then he showed how deep the basis of obligation really was, and how much less strict the “precept” of Moses was than it might have been, and the cause of this.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> A PERMANENT<\/strong> DOCTRINE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> RIGHTEOUSNESS<\/strong>. The historical circumstances of the time when the precept was formulated were probably considered at greater length than could be represented in Mark’s account, and the position justified that it was a compromise or provisional measure necessitated by “the hardness of heart” of the Jews the drawing up of a formal document being a check upon hasty and passionate ruptures of the marriage tie. He thus proved that moral obligation is deeper and more permanent than convention or external law. <\/em>He next considered marriage as a law of nature anterior to the social sanction, which does not therefore create the institution, but ought only to recognize and enforce it. To this end he traces it to the original purpose of God in creation<\/em>, <\/em>quoting Gen 1:27<\/span>; and strengthening the inference from this by the positive command of Gen 2:24<\/span>, long anterior to the time of Moses. It is not for man to interfere with or modify an arrangement so manifestly Divine. The only ground upon which marriage can be set aside is therefore that of one or other party to the marriage bond having already broken it by sinful action<\/em>, and thus destroyed it as an actual thing. <\/em>The Law then simply steps in to defend the rights of the party who has been injured, setting that party free from further possibility of like injury. This transgression of the marriage bond which amounts to its annulment is not stated, but is clearly implied, viz. adultery. The Savior thereby proves his teaching in harmony with the teaching of nature and previous revelation. But the gospel which is proclaimed in his Name does more than this. It seeks to fit man for the highest social and religious duties, by purifying and strengthening his moral being.M.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:13-16<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Jesus blessing the little children: a children’s sermon.<\/strong><\/p>\n

One of the scenes in the life of the Savior which illustrate most strongly and beautifully the genius of the gospel. The imagination loves to dwell upon it, and the heart is its best interpreter. There is, so to speak, a climax in the action.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> LITTLE<\/strong> CHILDREN<\/strong> ARE<\/strong> ATTRACTED<\/strong> TO<\/strong> JESUS<\/strong>. There must have been something in the aspect, etc.. He of the Savior which drew the little ones and their mothers to his side. Christianity differs from the systems of idolatry in presenting us with One whom we instinctively can love. A little girl, when asked why she thought Jesus must have smiled, said, “He must have smiled when he said, ‘Suffer little children,’ etc.. He else they would never have come!” A chief object of preaching and living the gospel is to exhibit this charm.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> LITTLE<\/strong> CHILDREN<\/strong> ARE<\/strong> INVITED<\/strong> TO<\/strong> JESUS<\/strong>. HOW<\/strong> many people won’t come to a place unless they think they are welcome, and therefore they expect an invitation. Now, when the disciples thought that their Master was too engrossed with high thoughts and important affairs to attend to the children, they took it upon themselves to send them away. This was not done through unkindness, but simply through a mistake. Christ corrected the mistake, and deliberately invited the little children. That proves-does it not?in the strongest way that he intends them to come to him. But Jesus does more than invite.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> LITTLE<\/strong> CHILDREN<\/strong> ARE<\/strong> CLAIMED<\/strong> BY<\/strong> JESUS<\/strong>. “For of such is the kingdom of heaven.” That means that little children are very near to him already. They are really in his kingdom, and he is their King. He has a greater right, therefore, to their obedience and service and society, than father or mother, or brother or sister. When little children are good and loving they are with <\/em>Jesus, and it is only when they do or think what is wrong that they go away from him. And all who come into his kingdom have to come in as little children, i.e. <\/em>they are to be childlikesimple, loving, trustful, and obedient.<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> LITTLE<\/strong> CHILDREN<\/strong> ARE<\/strong> BLESSED<\/strong> BY<\/strong> JESUS<\/strong>. He took them in his arms and embraced them. But he also put his hands on them, and gave them his Father’s blessing. How great a thing did the Jews think a blessing was! Let us try and live so that we shall at last get the blessing Christ has in store for us. Do you love to be with Jesus? Do you do whatever he commands you? Then you are a subject of his kingdom, and a child of grace; and hereafter you will share his glory.M. <\/p>\n

Mar 10:17-22<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The great inquiry.<\/strong><\/p>\n

This seems a better title for the subject than “The Great Decision,” as we have no reason to believe that the decision come to was a final one. But the reference to “eternal life” proves how momentous the occasion was to him who inquired. Such a time comes but seldom yet it comes to every man, when he feels that everything else dwindles into insignificance in comparison with “life.” As to this inquiry, notice.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> HOW<\/strong> IT<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> MADE<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. Earnestly. <\/em>The manner of the man is vividly portrayed by St. Mark: “running, and kneeled to him.” This spirit is a primary requisite. Seek first <\/em>the kingdom of God, and his righteousness, tie seized the passing opportunity and despised the judgment of onlookers.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. Intelligently. <\/em>What he was seeking was definitely before his mind. His previous training had prepared him to think of the object he sought more or less correctly. He used the word “inherit,” which implied something different from “have,” or “possess” (Matthew).<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. With real but defectively justified acknowledgment of Christ’s character. <\/em>This vague instinct which he expressed in the title “Good,” had to be grounded in some true apprehension of the nature and character of Jesus ere it could be accepted as satisfactory. How radical this misconception was appears as he answers the question regarding the commandments.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> HOW IT<\/strong> WAS ANSWERED<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. With the needful correction to the question. <\/em>It is of the utmost importance that we clearly perceive what real “goodness” is, and to whom alone it can belong, ere we seek it.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. With a provisional test. <\/em>The commandments; perhaps those emphasized which bore most directly upon his position and circumstances. Self-restraint <\/em>is a first requisite, and that is witnessed to by the Law. But he still stands outside the true conception of “goodness,” for he answers from the conventional and not from the absolute and spiritual standpoint. “The Law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ,” by showing us our imperfection and need of a Saviour.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. With a final test. “<\/em>One <\/em>thing thou lackest: go, sell whatsoever thou hast etc. Self-restraint being insufficient, self-denial<\/em> and that specially corresponding with his circumstances, is invited. This was the crucial<\/em> test. It has to be varied according to the difference in individual tastes, ideals, circumstances, etc., of different people.<\/p>\n

4<\/strong>. By a look of love. <\/em>It was spontaneous, full of attraction, and, up to a certain degree, of approval; then of yearning sorrow and concern. Such questions and such a disposition can never be received by Christ with indifference.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> IN<\/strong> WHAT<\/strong> IT<\/strong> RESULTED<\/strong>. “His countenance fell,” etc. There was grief, disappointment, perhaps even a little resentment, and also inward shame. Not decision; rather indecision. Tested by highest test and found wanting. Drawn by tenderest love of the Son of God, yet unwilling to yield. The grieved heart may yet return: its sad disconsolateness is its most hopeful attribute.M.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:23-27<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Riches a spiritual drawback.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Valuable to the moral as to the scientific or artistic teacher to have a real instancea study from the life. Yet it is not given to many to seize the salient points and analyze the character as Christ did. He did it, too, in a manner the most natural.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SAYING<\/strong> OF<\/strong> CHRIST<\/strong>. “How hardly shah they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!” It is no proverb culled, from the pages of the past. but evidently his own instinctive, penetrating moral from what the had just seen was self-evident to him “how hardly,” i.e.<\/em> with what difficulty, such a thing could take place. He knew by personal experience the price that was to be paid for the realization of that kingdom, and what its nature would be when realized; but he alone. As fruit of his own inward experience it was a distinct discovery in morals. The disciples, not so conversant with the inner nature of the kingdom, were amazed. It was the exact opposite of their own idea. They thought that it would be absolutely necessary to gain such disciples if the kingdom was ever to be realized. It was impossible for them to conceive of spiritual power apart from material means and influence. They could not get rid, moreover, of the dream that a political shape would sooner or later habit of thought of the ancient world. The well-to-do had not only the material advantage of their riches, but a certain rejected honor as enjoying the theocratic blessing upon the keeping of the commandments. And in the case of the ruler this moral excellence was not only an ancestral trait but a personal characteristic. The Greek who styled the rich and powerful of his nation , or , and the poor , <\/em>was representative of his age; cf. the Latin optimates<\/em>, <\/em>the Saxon good men (opposed to lewd people, base hinds<\/em>). <\/em>the French prudhommes. <\/em>And the modern mind has not yet got rid of the twist. There is a superficial gentleness of manners, refinement, and honor, identified, by long association, with the “better classes,” that is easily mistaken for a deeper moral principle. Nor can we ignore the “minor moralities,” the conventional proprieties and respectabilities which wealth generally brings in its train. It is only when the emphasis <\/em>is laid on character that these are estimated at their proper worth. Therefore the necessity for<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> JUSTIFICATION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SAYING<\/strong>. It is done in a spirit of tender, condescending sympathy”children.”<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. The general difficulty attending entrance into the<\/em> <\/em><\/strong>kingdom is declared <\/em>(the clause, “for them that trust in riches,” being probably not genuine). The reason for this difficulty is not, however, stated. It ought to have been remembered. “Taking up his cross” was the condition imposed upon every would-be “disciple.”<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. A figure of speech is employed in relation to the rich. <\/em>The tradition identifying the “needle’s eye” with a certain gate of Jerusalem is hardly well enough supported to be reliable. It was probably but an impromptu hyperbole that flashed from the mind of Christ. But it would recall the teaching of the “strait gate.” , a rope, may, however, be the true reading. Everything that exaggerates and pampers “self” hinders from the better life. The disciples had learnt that lesson in part (Mar 10:28<\/span>). but its absolute import and spiritual realization they were not to arrive at until their Master had gone away. Their astonishment is not, therefore, lessened, but rather increased, by the repeated statement; and they said, “Then who can be saved?” A question which seemed to imply, “If the rich cannot be saved without difficulty, the poor will have still less chance.” The temptations of poverty were probably prominent in their minds. From the human point of view this would seem to be a just observation; therefore he qualified his statement, and under certain conditions declared<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SAYING<\/strong> SUPERSEDED<\/strong>. “With<\/em> men it is impossible<\/em>, but not with God: for all things are possible with God.<\/em>“ <\/em>There is here a double hint, viz. as to the objective work which he himself was to do for men, and the spiritual aid which would be experienced in men by the advent of the Holy Ghost. The difficulty is wholly on the human side. Salvation is thus vindicated as a supernatural achievementa Divine grace, and not a human virtue.M.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:28-31<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The hundredfold.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> IS<\/strong> CHRISTIAN<\/strong> SELF<\/strong>–SACRIFICE<\/strong> WORTH<\/strong> WHILE<\/strong>?<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. A question relocatedly asked<\/em>, <\/em>by worldlings and by Christians themselves: by the former because they do not comprehend or perceive the things of God, and by the latter from an imperfect experience and an imperfectly matured spiritual consciousness.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. Reasonably enough. <\/em>The privation to which Christianity exposes men is sometimes extreme. They are called upon virtually or actually to renounce all things. Peter not to be accused of sordidness-of a desire to “make the best of both worlds.” Life and the things of life are precious gifts with which we should not lightly or aimlessly part; and the neophyte in Christian life cannot be expected to have all his aims perfectly spiritual. Christianity is a means of raising men from the carnal to the spiritual, and it does so by gradually spiritualizing the desires and interests of the soul. It is an instinct of our being not to part with a real, tangible good unless in exchange for another of equal or higher value, although not necessarily estimated from a selfish or self-regarding point of view.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. It is only from the highest point of view and he most advanced experience that this question can be properly and adequately answered. <\/em>There is, therefore, a Divine fitness in Jesus, our Example, being the Answerer and Judge. Yet out of the most imperfect experience of the Divine life, if that experience be properly interpreted, the answer would still be satisfying and justifying.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> CONSIDERATIONS<\/strong> BY<\/strong> WHICH<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> QUESTION<\/strong> IS<\/strong> DECIDED<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. The measure of recompense. <\/em>“A <\/em>hundredfold:” an estimate not to be literally construed. It is intended to express “overwhelmingly <\/em>more.” “In <\/em>the preceding verse the connective between the items is or; here it is and. There is great propriety in the exchange, for here the Savior is giving, as it were, an inventory of the Divine fullness of blessing<\/em>, so <\/em>far as it is available for the most ample compensation of those who have suffered loss. And there is, besides, in the spiritual sphere of things a kind of mutual involution of blessed relationships; the sum total of them all belongs to every true disciple” (Morison).<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. The manner of it. <\/em>It is to be correspondent to the things renounced<\/em>, <\/em>although not necessarily similar in kind. “With persecutions:<\/em>“ <\/em>an addition that seems strange, but is justified in the experience of the Christian; as that which is lost <\/em>is gain <\/em>(cf. Mat 5:10<\/span>; Php 1:29<\/span>; 1Pe 3:14<\/span>). He so that which is endured for Christ’s sake is a new occasion and factor of blessedness. Suited to the differing conditions of this life and that which is to come. <\/em>Here there is variety, objectiveness, material embodiment; there there is one grand reward, subjective, spiritual, viz. eternal life. And the relative position of Christians wilt be wry much altered from that which they occupy here. <\/em>The honor and blessedness conferred will depend, not upon accident of birth or fortune, but upon intrinsic worth and direct Divine appointment.M.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:31<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The kingdom of God a revolution of the world-order.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. BECAUSE<\/strong> REWARD<\/strong> WILL<\/strong> BE<\/strong> ACCORDING<\/strong> TO<\/strong> CHARACTER<\/strong> AND<\/strong> WORK<\/strong>,<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> IT<\/strong> WILL<\/strong> NOT<\/strong> BE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> DESERT<\/strong>, BUT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> GRACE<\/strong>,<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> EVERY<\/strong> SAINT<\/strong> WILL<\/strong> RECEIVE<\/strong> WHAT<\/strong> IS<\/strong> ESSENTIAL<\/strong> TO<\/strong> HIS<\/strong> HAPPINESS<\/strong>, USEFULNESS<\/strong>, AND<\/strong> SPIRITUAL<\/strong> ADVANCEMENT<\/strong>,<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> BUT<\/strong> THERE<\/strong> WILL<\/strong> BE<\/strong> DEGREES<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> GLORY<\/strong> AND<\/strong> BLESSEDNESS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> REDEEMED<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Reflecting the manifold glory of God<\/em>. <\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. Correcting and compensating the inequalities of time<\/em>. <\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. Stimulating to nobler attainment<\/em>.M.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:32-34<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

M.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:35-45<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

M.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:45<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The greatness of the Son of man.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. HOW<\/strong> IT<\/strong> DISPLAYED<\/strong> ITSELF<\/strong>. In a quasi-concealment: reversal of order and method of worldly greatness. The great of this world exercise authority for the most part and generally to their own advantage, and the loss and denudation of others. This precedent is only mentioned that it may be condemned. The greatness of the Son of man showed itself in:<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. Service<\/em>. Typically set forth in the washing of the disciples’ feet (Joh 13:4<\/span>). Realized:<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> In his position. Incarnate: born into the pain and shame of sinful humanity. In humble social circumstances; accustomed to labor and obedience to authority.<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> In his work. His whole life, in its example, teaching, and miracles, was a ministry. What men needed was help, and he rendered it. And that his doing so might not be regarded as accidental, he declares it as the purpose of his coming into the world. And in relation to God, in the demands of his Law, he was obedient,” fulfilling all righteousness.”<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. Sacrifice. <\/em>The culmination and seal of service. “To <\/em>give his life” “indicates the climax <\/em>of the service in which he was engaged (comp. Php 2:6<\/span> : obedientobedient unto death on the cross). The term ministering <\/em>expresses the spirit of the life of Christ. His sufferings and death illustrated and displayed the submission of his whole course; they shed the fullest light on the object of his life” (Lange).<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> WHAT<\/strong> IT<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> TO<\/strong> ACHIEVE<\/strong>. It was to be no barren spectacle, or merely personal glory, but was to exert a practical influence upon the condition of those amongst whom he came. The kind of work it had to do corresponded to the needs of man. It was for men the Son of man lived. And as they were in a state of wretchedness and danger, he undertook to save them. In respect of this purpose the death of Christ availed for:<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. Redemption. <\/em>His life was given as the ransom. <\/em>“It is the first distinct utterance, we may note, of the plan and method of his work. He had spoken before of ‘saving’ the lost (Mat 18:11<\/span>); now he declares that the work of ‘ salvation’ was to be also one of redemption.’ It could only be accomplished by the payment of a price, and that price was his own life” (Plumptre). The natural state of men is one of bondage to sin. A “ransom” is an equivalent for a man’s life or service (cf. Exo 21:30<\/span>; Le 25:50<\/span>; Pro 13:8<\/span>). This price our Savior gave “instead of” (“for”) men, as their Representative before Godin a certain sense as their Substitute (cf. Mat 17:27<\/span>; Heb 12:16<\/span>; Rom 3:24<\/span>; 1Co 6:20<\/span>; 1Pe 1:19<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. The redemption of many. <\/em>“The expression ‘many’ is not intended to indicate an exclusive minority, or a smaller number as compared with all<\/em>, <\/em>for the latter expression occurs in Rom 5:18<\/span>; 1Ti 2:4<\/span>. The term is intended rather by way of antithesis to the one <\/em>whose life was the ransom of the many<\/em>“ <\/em>(Lange). Its efficacy was to be felt far beyond the personality in which it first took place. We are invited to take wide, comprehensive views of the work of Christ. And there is nothing in the language of Scripture to lead to the supposition that only some may be saved. That which avails for one will avail for all who choose to comply with the condition of salvation, viz. faith in the Lord Jesus Christ’s death as an atoning sacrifice for sin. The sinlessness and perfect obedience of Christ are his qualification for this work.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> IN<\/strong> WHAT<\/strong> WAY<\/strong> IT<\/strong> SHOULD<\/strong> BE<\/strong> ACKNOWLEDGED<\/strong>. The verse commences with “for”a word connecting it with the previous verses, to which it is appended as a reason <\/em>for what is there enjoined. Our duty, therefore, with respect to the service and sacrifice he has rendered is:<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. To accept them for ourselves. <\/em>By believing in the redemptive work of Christ we honor him, and the Father by whom he was sent.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. To imitate his spirit. <\/em>His kingdom is based upon service, and its dignities and authorities are the result of the spontaneous affection thereby secured. Service and self-humiliation are not only means toward the attainment of future greatness; they are that greatness already. Offices in the Church are not thereby abolished; they are only interpreted as functions of love: all dignity and authority otherwise derived are discountenanced, and convicted as usurpations.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. To declare his work amongst men. <\/em>In so doing we shall truly glorify him, and extend his kingdom to the ends of the earth.M.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:46-52<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Blind Bartimaeus.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. THE<\/strong> BEHAVIOUR<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THOSE<\/strong> WHO<\/strong> ARE<\/strong> IN<\/strong> EARNEST<\/strong> ABOUT<\/strong> BEING<\/strong> SAVED<\/strong>. They will:<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. Seize every opportunity that presents itself.<\/em><\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. Make the most of it<\/em>, <\/em>by<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> putting all their knowledge to the proof, and <\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> exerting all their powers to attract attention and help.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. Not be easily discouraged.<\/em><\/p>\n

4<\/strong>. Hasten to do what Jesus commands.<\/em><\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SPIRIT<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> OUGHT<\/strong> TO<\/strong> BE<\/strong> SHOWN<\/strong> BY<\/strong> CHRIST<\/strong>‘S SERVANTS<\/strong> TOWARDS<\/strong> THOSE<\/strong> SEEKING<\/strong> SALVATION<\/strong>. TWO<\/strong> standards of conduct observed by them, viz. the dignity and glory of their Master, and the good of men. The mistake has been in overemphasizing the one or the other of these, or in divorcing them. They are really but the two sides of one thing. The glory of Christ is that of a Savior, i.e. <\/em>in saving from misery and sin.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. Christ corrects what is faulty in their attitude.<\/em><\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. Employs them to further his purpose of mercy.<\/em><\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. Infuses his own spirit of gentleness and love. <\/em>“Be of good cheer: rise, he calleth thee,” is the expression of the spirit of the gospel as it ought to be proclaimed to the world.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> CHRIST<\/strong> PROVING<\/strong> HIMSELF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SAVIOUR<\/strong> OF<\/strong> MEN<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. By his sympathy for distress. <\/em>He heard the cry of the beggar notwithstanding the tumult, and the thoughts which agitated his mind. It was natural for him to postpone everything to attend to such a cry.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. My inspiring others with his own spirit<\/em>, and employing them to further his purpose.<\/em><\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. By calling forth and exercising the principle of faith in the subjects of his mercy.<\/em><\/p>\n

4<\/strong>. By freely and completely delivering from distress<\/em>, pain, and sin.<\/em>M.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:52<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

“Saving faith.”<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. NOT<\/strong> ONE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> SEVERAL<\/strong> KINDS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> FAITH<\/strong>, BUT<\/strong> SIMPLY<\/strong> FAITH<\/strong> PROPERLY<\/strong> DIRECTED<\/strong>, AND<\/strong> PRACTICALLY<\/strong> TAKING<\/strong> ADVANTAGE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> CHRIST<\/strong>‘S POWER<\/strong>. Much confusion on this subject. Theologians have spoken of different sorts of faith, as speculative, practical, historical, realizing, and saving. There is but one faith, a faculty of the soul. What is needed is not the faculty, which already exists, but the proper direction or destination of it. That is a true faith <\/em>by which I see and appropriate the truth; that a saving faith <\/em>by which salvation is seen and received.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> FAITH<\/strong> DOES<\/strong> NOT<\/strong> SAVE<\/strong> THROUGH<\/strong> ITS<\/strong> OWN<\/strong> VIRTUE<\/strong> OR<\/strong> POWER<\/strong>, BUT<\/strong> BY<\/strong> BRINGING<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SOUL<\/strong> INTO<\/strong> CONTACT<\/strong> WITH<\/strong> THE<\/strong> VIRTUE<\/strong> AND<\/strong> POWER<\/strong>THE<\/strong> SALVATION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> CHRIST<\/strong>. It is not the cause <\/em>of salvation, but the condition. <\/em>The only Savior is Christ, but he saves us through our having faith towards him. By our having faith towards Christ what is his becomes ours; we enter into union and fellowship with him. His life, righteousness, spirit, become ours; and we are identified with him in his sacrifice for sin.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> SO<\/strong> ALSO<\/strong> OUR<\/strong> FAITH<\/strong> IS<\/strong> THE<\/strong> MEASURE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SAYING<\/strong> GRACE<\/strong> WE<\/strong> RECEIVE<\/strong>. St. Matthew puts it thus: “According to your faith be it unto you.” Bartimaeus’s faith was strong and practical, and it saved him, by uniting him to the power and holiness of Christ. A weak faith will ever entail spiritual weakness. To be “made whole” we must believe with our whole heart.M.<\/p>\n

HOMILIES BY A. ROWLAND<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mar 10:17-21<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The excellences of the young ruler.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Too often religious teachers have attempted to classify all who are mentioned in the Bible as being either definitely good or utterly bad. If the latter exhibit any excellency it is depreciated, or explained away; and if the former have faults, they are carefully concealed. But the Bible gives no such definite decision respecting them. It mentions the faults of the saints, and exhibits the excellences of those whose character and destiny are left doubtful. Here, for example, one is mentioned who was not what he ought to have been, of whom it is boldly said, “Jesus beholding him loved him.” The feeling with which our Lord regarded him was not the result of regard for his social position<\/em>, <\/em>which led to a discreet hiding of his faults. Amongst us too often one of dubious character, because he has wealth or brilliant prospects, is admitted to circles from which he ought to be excluded; and a rich man is not told of his sins as a poorer man would be, so that it is the more hard for him to enter into the kingdom. But with our Lord esteem was won not by what a man had, but by what he was. Nor was our Lord influenced by the young man<\/em>‘s religious knowledge<\/em>, <\/em>for he made small account of theological lore, such as was possessed by lawyers and Pharisees. And as knowledge would not win his love, neither did ignorance and error prevent it. There was evidently much in this young ruler that was commendable and lovable, all of which found its source in God; for even those who are not decided followers of Christ have in them gleams of heavenly light, and must beware of quenching the Spirit.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> YOUNG<\/strong> RULER<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> GENUINE<\/strong> AND<\/strong> SIMPLE<\/strong>. Christ rebuked nothing so severely as unreality. He exposed the Pharisees mercilessly, because they pretended to be what they were not. He declared that if a man’s eye was “single” his whole body would be full of light; that he who was of the truth (who was a true man) would hear his voice. Such was this man. He expressed his real want. He felt that he had obeyed the commandments, and frankly said so; and when told to go and sell all that he had, he made no fallacious promise to do so. We should cultivate the grace of truthfulness in all the relations of life. If we are engaged in a common occupation, we should be true enough not to be ashamed of it; if in Church relationships, we should never ignore them; if we have done a wrong, we should candidly confess it either to God or man. In proportion as we are true we are nearer to the kingdom of truth.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> HE<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> SINGULARLY<\/strong> COURTEOUS<\/strong>. He kneeled before the peasant Teacher of Galilee, and addressed him reverently. Courtesy is a small thing if it be identical with outward mannerism, which observes a suitable deportment, and carefully discriminates between those in different social ranks. But true courtesy is consideration for others, thoughtfulness for their feelings, respect for their age and experience and character; and this was exhibited by the young ruler whom Jesus loved. There was no rudeness like that of the Sadducees and Herodians, nor any outburst of hot temper at the sacrifice demanded of him.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> HE<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> IRREPROACHABLE<\/strong> LIFE<\/strong>. So far, at least, as human judgment could determine. A young man whose passions had not misled him; rich enough to indulge evil propensity, yet outwardly pure and without reproach. The morality of the noblest does not win heaven, but it is good in itself and in its source. The idea that a profligate is the happier after his conversion because of his sinful experience, is utterly false. His experience is more remarkable, but he is not so blessed, nor so strong for Christian service; for if evil thoughts stain the mind, and sinful habits are indulged, these have their effects.<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> HE<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> NOT<\/strong> SELF<\/strong>–SATISFIED<\/strong>. Self-satisfaction is one of the greatest preventives of good: e.g. <\/em>the lad who can do without his father’s counsel; the girl who scorns her mother’s advice; the children who drift away from Sunday schools, to live without God and without hope in the world. This is most perilous in spiritual things. No condemnation is more severe than that of the Church which says, “I have need of nothing;” no welcome is more loving than that given by our Lord to the children, who could give him nothing but love, or to the young ruler who wistfully asked, “What lack I yet?” “He fills the hungry with good things, but the rich he sends empty away.” If your heart is hungry for the love of God, our heavenly Father is pleased, just as an earthly father is when he knows his child wants him. If your son had run away and been hidden for years, and at last was found abroad, what would you wish to hear? Not that he was doing well, and had lost all care for you; but that, although he had everything to make him happy, he was sad because he wished to see his father, and obtain the assurance of his forgiveness.<\/p>\n

V.<\/strong> HE<\/strong> CAME<\/strong> TO<\/strong> CHRIST<\/strong> WITH<\/strong> AN<\/strong> EARNEST<\/strong> QUESTION<\/strong>. What shall I do, not to gain wealth or fame, but eternal life? In the New Testament life is not spoken of as equivalent to existence, but it means life coupled with conditions which make it blessed, and therefore desirable. Life and holiness are correlatives, as are death and sin. So a man may be dead in part, and alive in part. A person struck with paralysis may lie for months in a living death, unable to reason, to speak, or to move a limb. Sin does that to our moral being. It paralyzes sensitiveness to God’s presence, the power of speaking to him with naturalness and the capacity for hearing his voice. It is an endless existence, with the full enjoyment of these attributes (the exercise of which constitute the joys of heaven). He which is involved in the phrase “eternal life.”<\/p>\n

VI.<\/strong> HE<\/strong> BROUGHT<\/strong> HIS<\/strong> EARNEST<\/strong> QUESTION<\/strong> TO<\/strong> THE<\/strong> LORD<\/strong> JESUS<\/strong>. It was a great thing for a man in his position to do. He faced the scorn of his friends when he ran eagerly to Christ and humbly knelt before him, beseeching him to teach and guide him. “And Jesus beholding him loved him,” as he loves all who in this spirit fall at his feet.A.R.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:21<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

“One thing thou lackest.”<\/strong><\/p>\n

This incident occurred on a journey to Jerusalem, which our Lord undertook between the Feast of Dedication, at which the Jews sought to stone him, and the Passover, during which he was crucified. Hostility, therefore, was both before him and behind him, but his serenity was not ruffled, nor his willingness to bless impaired. There was never in him a sign of the indiscriminate judgment <\/em>which leads us to condemn a whole nation or sect as being outside the bounds of Christian charity. He was, and still is, gracious to one seeker, even though he dwells among the heathen; and hears any prayer, though it rises from a godless home. We notice here also our Lord’s freedom from the pandering to popular passion<\/em>, <\/em>which has often been the snare of statecraft, and sometimes of the Christian Church. We naturally bend before an adverse current of opinion, and count it good policy to withhold the advocacy of our opinions for a season. But here was a crisis in Christ’s ministry which would lead to his reception or rejection, when the decision of each one would make a weight in the scale of popular judgment. Judicious hedging just then might avert hatred or win a convert. Here was a ruler of the synagoguea man of wealth, position, and good reputewho was willing to become a disciple; but he was met with words of discouragement, and the great Teacher put his claims before him in the strongest form. The fact is, that he thought more of the suppliant than of himself. He would rather bring him to deep repentance than have his showy following. With all his estimable qualities, the young ruler had spiritual deficiencies, which were seen by the Searcher of hearts, and revealed to himself by the test applied to him. What were these?<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> HE<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> MISTAKEN<\/strong> AS<\/strong> TO<\/strong> THE<\/strong> NATURE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> “GOODNESS<\/strong>.” “Good Master, what good thing shall I do?” asked he. Christ at once put him in the way of discovering his mistake by answering, “Why <\/em>callest thou me good?” etc. He did not decline the appellation, but repelled it when used in this superficial sense. He wanted him to weigh his words, to know what they implied, to say exactly what he meant; and this he requires of us. He reminded him that God was the Source of all goodness, because he would not have him regard any good act or good person as isolated or independent, but in connection with the God of goodness. He was himself “good;” but why? Because he was one with God. The young man might do a “good thing; “but how? Not as an isolated acts but by loving God supremely, and living in him. He enumerated the commandments as declarations of the will and character of the good One, which could only be obeyed in fullness When supreme love to God was the master passion of the soul; the duties to his fellows being mentioned because these constituted the easiest test of obedience.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> HIS<\/strong> GREAT<\/strong> DEFICIENCY<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> AN<\/strong> ABSENCE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> COMPLETE<\/strong> SELF<\/strong>–SURRENDER<\/strong>. When told to sell all that he had, this was not the special “good thing” which would gain eternal life; but the command was given because the attempt to obey it would reveal the fact that he did not love the Lord with all his heart and soul and strength. This is the one important thing so often lacking, short of which so many halt, but which is essential to the righting of life. If we set clown a series of noughts we may say they only want one figure to make them millions; but that one figure is all-important. So is it with “the one thing” lacking to many a moral life, namely, the consecration to God, of which prayer is the natural expression.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> HE<\/strong> BROKE<\/strong> DOWN<\/strong> UNDER<\/strong> THE<\/strong> TEST<\/strong> APPLIED<\/strong>. The command, “Sell whatsoever thou hast,” was to be obeyed literally by him, but not by all. Christ came in contact with other rich men, and did not call upon them to do this. But it was the best thing to teach this man the special lesson he needed. The test our Lord applies to those who come to him varies greatly, but in some form it comes to all such. It may appear to be so trifling <\/em>a thing as the giving up of an amusement or pursuit, or so peculiar a <\/em>thing that no one has previously been asked to do it. But it is the test of character to that one, and the trifle is fraught with future destiny. That which is not a source of peril to some may be disastrous to others. A blessing in some circumstances may prove a curse in others. The lighted candle, which is useful in the home, may be a destroyer in a mine. Anything which seems a source of danger must be abjured for Christ’s sake. The young ruler did not make the required sacrifice when it was called for. He went away sad; and if he went away for ever, it was to far deeper sadness, for he left the Savior of the worldthe King of heaven. Dante says that in his journey through hell he saw him “who with ignoble spirit made the great refusal.” But was the refusal final? We hesitate to believe it. We hope that this inquirer, who was so sincere, earnest, and humble, only went away to consider the question, not in the excitement of the moment, but alone, on his knees, and that then and there he gave himself up, to be Christ’s consecrated servant for evermore.A.R.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:35-45<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The request of the sons of Zebedee.<\/strong><\/p>\n

As we read the history of our Lord’s dealings with his disciples, we are amazed at his unfaltering patience. They had preconceived theories about his kingdom which, in spite of his teaching, they held fast till after his death and resurrection. They constantly expected him to assume temporal power. Why he delayed they did not know; the reason for his present obscurity they could not conceive; but to all his allusions to suffering they gave, and <\/strong>were resolved to give, a figurative interpretation. With all this persistent misconception our Lord was patient. In this he has left us an example of the patience we should cherish towards those who, as we think, misunderstand the truth. James and John, the sons of Zebedee, were two of the favored triumvirate, and their mother, Salome, was a near relation of the Virgin Mary. It was she who expressed the request of her sons<\/em>, <\/em>first asking for an unconditional promisesuch as a Herod might give, but our Lord never. The Old Testament counterpart of this scene is the coming of Rebekah, with her son Jacob, to win the blessing of the firstborn.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> REQUEST<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> DISCIPLES<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. It was<\/em> the offspring of ignorance. <\/em>They littleknew what it would be to stand on the right hand and on the left of their Lord in the day when the word would be fulfilled, “I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me.” Well might he say, “Ye know not what ye ask.” We often set our desires on some object which is vain or wrong. “We know not what we should pray for as we ought;” and sometimes we learn by a bitter experience that it is best to put ourselves trustfully in God’s hands. Lot found it so. Of the Israelites, too, it is said, “God gave them their request, but sent leanness into their soul.”<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. It was the dictate of ambition. <\/em>Ambition is a wholesome stimulus, if only it is free from selfishness. A teacher can do little with a child who is always satisfied with the lowest position in the class. If your ambition be a lawful one it will not allow you to shirk difficulties, or to get over an obstacle by a doubtful expedient, but it will lead you to a patient and faithful doing of what your hand finds to do. You will go higher, as you faithfully fulfill the duties of the lower sphere. Ask yourself whether the object you are aiming at is worthy of a Christian man; whether the time spent in its pursuit could be better employed; whether God or self is supreme in the motives which are prompting effort, etc. Ambition can be and ought to be tested. Some people are like precious stones, glittering, but non-productive; others are like the plainer millstones, which, by steadfast work, minister food to the hungry and wealth to the nation.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. It was the outcome of selfishness. <\/em>One of the best tests we have of the lawfulness of ambition is this questionHow does it affect my feelings towards others? There is reason to fear that the idea of these disciples was that the chief places in the kingdom should be allotted to them, regardless of the claims of their brethren. No wonder, then, that they were rebuked by their Lord, and that when the ten heard it they had great indignation. Self-seeking ever tends to separate friends, and to arouse discord in the Christian Church. Selfishness is the root of the indolence that dishonors the disciples of Christ; it is the cause of civil dissensions; it is the spring of the bloody wars that desolate the world; and when it asserts itself in sectarianism it checks the advance of Christ’s kingdom, and brings upon the Church paralysis and death. Against it Christ Jesus declared ruthless war. He declared that men must deny themselves if they would follow him; he taught us to love our enemies, and still more our neighbors, and said that if a man would be really great, he must minister to others for his sake.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> REPLY<\/strong> OF<\/strong> OUR<\/strong> LORD<\/strong>. He pointed out the distinction between real greatness and seeming greatness, and declared that dignity in his kingdom was bestowed according to a certain lawthe law of moral fitness. A similar law asserts itself everywhere in God’s economy. Each plant and animal have their own habitat, and for their well-being we are compelled to study those conditions which the Creator designed for them. The disciples supposed that honor was at the arbitrary disposal of the Lord on the ground of personal favor. It was so with the positions held under the Roman government. The favor of an emperor might appoint a Pontius Pilate Procurator of Judaea, in complete disregard of character and suitability. It was not to be so in Christ’s Church, whether on earth or in heaven. There would be distinctions of rank and honor, but they would be given by God to those worthy of dignity, and fit for it. In the kingdom of righteousness nothing would be arbitrary, or dependent upon caprice. To some extent this is so in the attainment of knowledge. Knowledge cannot be given by a teacher because a pupil is a favourite, or because a pupil wishes to be first among competitors; but it is the reward of individual work and consequent fitness. And greatness in heaven will not consist in so many pleasures or dignities, but in the enjoyment of so much life, in the developments of power and in the possibilities of service. These, then, are some of the principles laid down in our Lord’s reply:<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. Prepared places are for prepared people<\/em>. (Verse 40.) <\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. Humble ministry is the source of highest exaltation<\/em>. (Verses 43, 44.) <\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. Christ’s mission is the pattern of Christian service.<\/em> (Verse 45.)A.R.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:46-52<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Blind Bartimaeus: the publicity of Christ’s miracles.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Our Lord stood face to face with men. He said with truth, “I spake openly to the world, and in secret have! said nothing.” His life was spent in the glare of publicity. His miracles were not performed among chosen witnesses, who might be interested in the propagation of what was false; nor in the secrecy of some convent or retreat. They were wrought on the mountain-side, in full view of five thousand men, besides women and children; in a synagogue full of worshippers hostile to his claims; or on a public road, crowded with pilgrims going to the Passover. This not only strengthened the evidence of the supernatural, but it was a sign that the blessings signified by such wonders were not intended for a class but for a race. Therefore we must beware lest we, by act or word, should be saying to any earnest seeker, what the crowd said to Bartimaeus, “Hold thy peace!” By our coldness we may tacitly rebuke enthusiasm, and by our inconsistencies we may destroy the desires of the contrite. Christ can save us from this. He can by a word transform us, as he transformed that crowd, so that those who had just been saying, “Hold thy peace,” became ready to say, “Be of good comfort, rise; he calleth thee.” SubjectIn this miracle we have reminders of some characteristics of our Lord.<\/em><\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> POWER<\/strong> OF<\/strong> JESUS<\/strong>. Its exemplification outside Jericho was appropriate both to the beauty of the city and to its memories. Jericho was an oasis in the desert. There palms flourished and roses grew. Whether approaching it from the robber-haunted road from Jerusalem, or from the Dead Sea valley, it was significant of the Paradise Christ came to restore, which would be beautiful with the flowers of his grace and fragrant with the sweetness of his love. And here Joshua, the Jesus of the Old Testament, had proved the power that was his because the Lord was with him. The angel of the covenant which appeared to him was a precursor of the mighty Conqueror who came now. As the giant walls of the city had fallen by the simplest means, so now the darkness was conquered by light through a single word.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. This power is manifest if you consider the condition of the sufferer. <\/em>Blindness then was common, unalleviated, incurable. No wonder that it was used as an emblem of insensibility to spiritual facts and things. There is a sphere of thought, hope, and desire which many never know. Intelligent and active, they ask, “Are we blind also?” and the Lord says, “Because being blind you say, We see, therefore your sin remaineth.” Because there is no sense of want there is no cry for a blessing, and because there is no such cry the light is not given. “The god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not.” Tests may be applied to the spiritual condition as to the physical malady which represents it. An oculist is not satisfied with a casual question; he patiently and variously tests the organ, by presenting objects and asking respecting one after another, “Can you see this?” So we may test ourselves by seeing what sin is, and what God is to us.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. This power appears greater as you contrast it with the weakness of men. <\/em>Like those in the crowd, we can see the Lord and hear his voice, and as far as sympathy and prayer go may lead others to him. But after all the main issue rests between each man and Christ. If there is no spiritual contact he is left in darkness. Sometimes the most unlikely are chosen. A publican like Zacchaeus is visited in a city of priests, and a blind beggar on the road is invited to join the festal procession.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. This power appears in the exercise of its Divine freedom. <\/em>Bartimaeus was not dealt with as were those of whom he had heard. The man born blind had been told to wash in the pool of Siloam, and he of Bethsaida was led out of the town uncured. Yet no one would question the reality of the change in the other. Each could say, “Whereas I was blind, now I see.” Let us not expect the same experiences, but only the same effects of Divine contact with Christ. He is willing to lead us into light, but each one of us in his own way.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> PITY<\/strong> OF<\/strong> JESUS<\/strong>. Describe the pitiable condition of Bartimaeus. It is sad enough for a rich man to be blind, but it is a terrible aggravation of the privation when he who endures it has to beg his daily bread. Nor did Bartimaeus know, as we do, God’s love in Christ. He had not the assurance that “all things work together for good.” He had not seen the cross which sanctifies sadness to each believer. In his darkness he cried to the Light of the world, and not in vain. The pity of the Lord always surpassed infinitely that of those around him. The disciples rebuked the children, but Jesus said, “Suffer them to come.” Simon the Pharisee condemned the sinful woman, but Jesus let her bathe his feet with her tears. Judas blamed the waste of the ointment, but the Lord said, “She hath wrought a good work on me.” The crowd said, “Hold thy peace,” but the Lord said, “What <\/em>wilt thou that I should do unto thee?”<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> PRESENCE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> JESUS<\/strong>. A crisis had come in the life of Bartimaeus, when a single resolve would make all the difference to his future. Jesus was “passing,” <\/em>and therefore was within reach; but he was “passing by,” and therefore would soon be beyond reach. Such crises appear unexpected to us; but he who knows the heart sees that they are not really so. Bartimaeus had heard of the words and works of Jesus before this, and, shut up to his own thoughts, he had pondered them in the dark; so he was ready now to salute Jesus as “the Son of David.” Similar preparation has been going on in your heart. A trouble has solemnized your thoughts; a tender touch at home has aroused new sensibility; a word has startled you to consideration; and now you are nearer Christ than before. “Jesus is passing by.” Unseen, as by Bartimaeus, yet able to hear the believing prayer for mercy. See to it that the world’s “Hold thy peace!” does not stifle the cry for help.A.R.<\/p>\n

HOMILIES BY R. GREEN<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mar 10:1-12<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Divorce.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Again with low motives, “tempting him,” the Pharisees propound a question as to whether it was “lawful for a man to put away his wife.” Opinions were divided, and the Teacher was in danger of offending one or other party by his reply. This was the trap “to involve him with the adulterous tetrarch, in whose territory he was.” But he wisely referred them to Moses, and their thought, which was for evil, he tamed to good; for he took occasion by it to show the grounds of Moses’ “commandment” to have been to their condemnation, their “hardness of heart;” and he further took occasion to lay down for all Christian times, for the blessedness of the Christian home and for the preservation of Christian morals, the true, the wise, the beneficial law of marriage, founded upon the conditions of the original creation; and he defined with authority and precision what constituted “adultery.” These words remained to condemn the disobedient, and will remain to “judge him in the last day.<\/em>“ <\/em>The indissoluble bond of the marriage relation Jesus here affirms, and in the old words, spoken at “the beginning,” “the twain shall become one flesh.” To the propriety, the goodness, the blessedness of this law many Christian centuries bear their unequivocal testimony. The purest institution and the best, so hallowed, so beneficent, promoting in the highest degree individual happiness, the peace and sanctity of family life, the purity of public morals; preserving national health, stability, and greatness; guarding against wild lust, and a long train of envy, jealousy, revenge, and other passionate crimes; preserving the honor and dignity of women, the love and careful training of children; imposing responsibilities, but cherishing virtue and peace and joy. The family life is the symbol of the heavenly community; the marriage bond the type of the Redeemer’s relation to his people, who are “the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” It is God’s ordination, and is very sacred; nor may it be set aside, but “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake;” nor may its bond be broken, but for the one cause of fornication, from which it is the most efficient guard. Its rites were honored by Jesus, and its “holy estate adorned and beautified with his presence and first miracle.” The wisest legislation tends to the conservation of the family, whose multiplied relations, whose sweet fellowship, whose united interest, and whose common possessions give rise to the lofty idea of the home. Conjugal, parental, filial, fraternal affection are cherished. Obedience on the one hand, care and providence on the other; discipline and wise authority; the sense of dependence arising from want; responsibility arising from the power to meet that want; common interests and common aims, go to make each home a miniature kingdom. Teaching to those in authority the beneficence of rule, and to those under authority the lessons of submission, the home lays the foundation for stable national life; while mutual interests and obligations teach all to respect the rights and just claims of the entire community; whilst each learns his responsibility to the whole, and his deep interest in the general welfare. The nation that honors the home and the sanctities of family life is honored of God. The Christian teaching, reverting to the condition of things as it was “from the beginning of the creation,” shows how truly it is in harmony with natural law, which is the expression of the Divine will.G.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:13-16<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Little children.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Parental anxiety led thoughtful women to bring “unto him little children, that he should touch them,” according to a custom which has its approval in the hearts of all races and all times, of presenting young children to persons of sanctity and age that they may invoke a blessing upon their young life. Such are brought to Jesus, “that he should lay his hands on them and pray.” Touched, perchance, by a remembrance of the humiliating lessons which the presence of a child must now have suggested, “the <\/em>disciples rebuked them.” Why obtrude children on the attention of One who is so competent to deal with adult wisdom? But he who came to correct error and false views, who had redeemed and established the essential marriage laws, now raises child-life to its rightful place. “Moved with indignation” at the indiscretion of the disciples, he said, “Suffer the little children to come unto me; forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God”words which<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> are inscribed as on a banner of defense, that has floated from that hour over the heads of “little children;” words which<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> have been an admonitory corrective of personal vanity and assumption;<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> have expounded the spirit of the heavenly kingdom;<\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> have expressed the qualification needed by all who would enter within its gates;<\/p>\n

(5)<\/strong> have been seized upon as affording a justification for the admission of children into the visible community of the Church by the sacrament of baptism; and<\/p>\n

(6)<\/strong> have, especially in these later days, become the stimulus to diligent endeavor to bring the young under religious training and to give them the benefits of religious instruction. By so much did the Master’s words of truth rebut the disciples’ error, and found upon it a teaching of unlimited benefit. Thus did Christ pay his tribute to the preciousness of life, even in its infancy and imperfectness, and throw the shield of his protection around it. Thus did he compel the attention and effort of his Church in all ages to be paid to young life, knowing its susceptibility and the important bearing of its right treatment on the general condition of human society. “Forbid them not” transforms itself into a command to the heart of the Church, ever attentive to catch the Lord’s will, to remove every hindrance from the way of a child’s participation in spiritual benefits. And “suffer them to come unto me” becomes an equally authoritative command to bring them unto him; to place them in close alliance wish him, and, if with him, then with his kingdom. For if he, the Head of the house, receive them, they of the household may not reject them; and if he take them up in his arms, surely they may come within the embrace of his Church. If they lie in his bosom at the head of the table, they may not be denied a place in the house, or be denied a portion of its bread or a measure of its care; while their purity, helplessness, trustful dependence, and tractableness form the typical example of that spirit which he desires shall characterize all the subjects of his kingdom, all the members of his household, in every age.G.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:17-22<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The rich young ruler.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Never did a more becoming question escape from human lips than when “there ran one””a certain ruler””to him,” and, kneeling at his feet, “asked him, Good Master, what [what good thing] shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” With characteristic calmness Jesus drew him away from the thought of his ability to do any “good thing,” and from his question concerning that which is good. Only the good can do good things, and “none is good save One, even God.” Therefore thou art not good; therefore thou canst not do anythat is, everygood thing. But there is a way unto life, even that of the commandments. “If,” therefore, “thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments.” They lead unto eternal life. Along that path, he replied, I have ever walked. “All these things have I observed from my youth.” And this was no vain boast, for” Jesus looking upon him loved him.” But the thought of doing good things, and of establishing a claim to eternal life as to an inheritance, still fills the young ruler’s thoughts, and the bold demand is pressed to the utmost”What lack I yet ?” Alas! “one thing thou”even thou”lackest.” Then, hesitatingly, knowing so well” what was in man,” Jesus offers to this loved one the higher attainment: “If <\/em>thou wouldest be perfect,” if thou wouldest lack nothingIf!ah, if<\/em>! <\/em>Jesus was neither unkind nor severe in his demand. The young man pressed him for a reply, and the prize was with his reach. Whether he could pay the price, whether he really was prepared to do any <\/em>good thing, as the “what good thing” implied, whether he valued the eternal life so highly as his words seemed to indicate, must be proved. “Go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.” Alas! “his countenance fell, and he went away sorrowful: for he was one that had great possessions.” He was not the only sorrowful one. A lowering cloud must have passed over the brow of the Rabbi himself. It is not out of place to inquireWhat did Jesus offer him for his riches; and what did he lose by retaining them? The offer embraced<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> PERFECTNESS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> CHARACTER<\/strong>that which can be gained only by great sacrifice and effort, by withdrawment from the world, by such apprehension of the spiritual as to lead to the surrender of the material; that faith in God which lifts the trusting heart from its confidence in the “possessions” which the eye can see and the hands handle, and which promise “much goods” for “many years,” to that “treasure in heaven “which fadeth not. For imperfect man there is a perfectness, to which he shall be led if he forsake all and follow Jesus. From that path the young ruler at this time turns away, perhaps to reflect, to repent, to turn again to the Master who was patient, and finally, afar earnest struggles to join the company of those who made the sacrifice of all things for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. Again be it said that he who forsakes all for Christ’s “sake and the gospel’s” sake <\/em>enters upon a path that leads to perfection.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> A second part of the offer made to the young man was “TREASURE<\/strong> IN<\/strong> HEAVEN<\/strong>“”in <\/em>the world to come eternal life.” It was this the young man desired; but he knew not that the heart could find its “treasure in heaven” only by consenting to have it there alone. He who would really have” eternal life” must be content to be freed from anything and erecting that withdraws the heart from that life. The living unto this present world does so withdraw the heart. Therefore the earthly possessions must be sacrificed. That many rich men enter, though “hardly,” into the kingdom of heaven, and retain their place therein, is a sign of the prevalence of Christ’s grace. Yet these cease to “trust in riches,” or the “deceitfulness of riches” would choke in them the seeds of eternal life. For the present, at least, the rich, eager, honored young ruler cannot say his whole treasure is in heaven.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> But Jesus further offered him A PLACE<\/strong> AMONGST<\/strong> THE<\/strong> MOST<\/strong> HONOURED<\/strong> BAND<\/strong> OF<\/strong> MEN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> WORLD<\/strong> HAS<\/strong> KNOWN<\/strong>, AND<\/strong> A SHARE<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> MOST<\/strong> HONOURABLE<\/strong> WORK<\/strong>. “Come, follow me.” Who can tell what might have been the effect of his sacrifice? His example might have saved Judas. He might have enriched the world with a fifth Gospel. He might have drawn many of the rulers to believe. But for the time he lost his chance, and the world is the worse for his decision, as it is the worse for every error of men. What did he gain? His “great possessions.” But only for a timeit may have been a very brief time. And, when enjoying the fruits of his wealth, would the thought ever spring unbidden to his mind, “I purchased this with the price of eternal life; for this I gave up the hope of being perfect; this I chose rather than follow the good Master'”? He who forsakes all for Christ finds all in Christ; but he who has any possession which he would not forego, even for eternal life, loses both the life and the possession. Well may the hope be cherished that this one on whom the loving look, if not the loving kiss, of Christ rested, turned again, and laid all at his feet, yea, “and his own life also,” or joined those who “were possessors of lands or houses,” and who “sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet.” Gently did Jesus thus teach the rich ruler that with all his wealth he lacked at least “one thing.” He that would have eternal life as an inheritance must establish his claim, and that claim must be faultless. One flaw is sufficient to invalidate that claim. Further, the Lord taught that eternal life is ours, not by this title of inheritance, but is a gift of God.G.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:23-31<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The entry of the rich into the kingdom of heaven.<\/strong><\/p>\n

So impressive a scene as that which had just been witnessed needed some explanation, and was well suited to be the basis of important teaching. With much meaning, therefore, “Jesus looked round about,” and, arresting the attention of his disciples, taught them further concerning the entry of the rich into the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> IT<\/strong> IS<\/strong> DIFFICULT<\/strong>. It is difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom! But that difficulty lies, not as the disciples thought, simply in the possession of riches, but in the proneness of men to love riches. And how short is the step from having riches to loving them! Only by exertion, only by the painfulness of self-denial, by giving up trust in riches and fondness for them, can the rich enter the kingdom of heaven. How hard is this to them who have abundance! How easy it seems to them who possess little! So difficult did this appear to him who knew all men, that the parabolic illustration has no extravagance, though to the disciples it shut out all hope, and rightly so from their point of view, as was confirmed by the Master’s word, made the more impressive by his tender look”With men it is impossible.” Happily, however, there are springs of hope for men other than those which rise from among themselves. “The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.” So it comes to pass that, concerning the entry of rich men into the kingdom of heaven, it may be proclaimed<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> IT<\/strong> IS<\/strong> POSSIBLE<\/strong>. Yes, it is “possible with God,” without whom, indeed, nothing is possible. The human inability to effect salvation stands in direct contrast to the efficiency of Divine grace. Many things hinder the salvation of men; but few have more power than “the deceitfulness of riches,” which lure to self-security and self-indulgence, which lead men to think they are better than other men, and are not in the same danger or need. The voice of riches is a syren voice; the hold of riches on the heart is firm as a death-grip. Riches prevent the lowliness, the childlike feeling of utter nothingness, of trustful timidity, of tractable weakness. They inspire a false sense of strength, and security, and abundance, and superiority. Often are they the devil’s counters with which he buys men’s souls. But “with God” the mighty may be made to feel themselves feeble, the wealthy to be truly poor. Great is the trust reposed; great the difficulty of fidelity. But “with God” even this may be done. And in our days, as has been happily in all the days of Christ’s Church, men have learned to forsake alleven when that all was muchto follow Christ in lowly humility, in the poverty of self-abasement. Let the poor know that if they lack the hindrance which riches throw in the way, they also need the help of God; if they will rise and accept it, that help shall be freely given. And let the rich know that help awaits them; if they will stoop lowly and ask, it shall not be withheld from them. Then shall “the brother of low degree glory in his high estate: and the rich in that he is made low.” All of us are poor before God; all by him, and by him alone, may be made rich. In proportion as the rich become poor shall they be truly enriched; and it shall be proved that they who press through difficulties hard as the passing of a camel through a needle’s eye, are not left unrequited. Of the entry of the rich into the kingdom of heaven it may further be said<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> IT<\/strong> IS<\/strong> REWARDED<\/strong>. How gently did the Lord of all warn his disciples of days of poverty and loss which were coming upon them apace, when both voluntarily, in the fullness of their love, they would sell “their possessions and goods, and part them to all according as any had need,” and when with ruthless hands all would be tern from them; when “houses” and “lands” would be confiscated; when from the fellowship of brethren and sisters, of mother and father, and even from their own children, they would be separated “for the gospel’s sake”! But how graciously did he assure them of the “hundredfold” which should be repaid them “now in this time,” though “with persecutions;” and the great reward which should be theirs in the hereafter”in the world to come eternal life.” Who of the many disciples of those early times of suffering and persecutions was not rich in “house, or brethren, or sisters, or mother, or father, or children, or lands”? And who that “left” these for his “sake and for the gospel’s sake” did notdoes not and will not everfind, in the undying love and fellowship of the great spiritual community, and in the eternal riches of the heavenly inheritance, more than the “hundredfold”? Yet shall there be no pre-eminence, but a true equality; for the “first shall be last, and the last first.”G.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:35-45<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post of honor.<\/strong><\/p>\n

How soon are the Master’s words misapprehended! James and John, concerning whom it is recorded that on the call of Jesus “they straightway left the boat and their father, and followed him,” come now apparently to secure the promised reward. With cautious words, and by the aid of their mother, the demand is urged upon that good Master on whose lips are ever the gracious words, “What would ye that I should do for you?” We would fain “sit, one on thy right hand, and one on thy left hand, in thy glory.” Ah! the old leaven is not yet wholly purged out. The self-seeking, the love of supremacy, place, and honor still lurk within. The chaff mingles with the pure grain. He who holds the winnowing fan is at hand; and with decisive though gentle words, heavily weighted with their sad import, corrects their error. He had but recently “in the way” told them “the things that were to happen unto him.” Direful were the words, “The Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles: and they shall mock him, and shall spit upon him, and shall scourge him, and shall kill him; and after three days he shall rise again.” But these words could have had little influence, for “they understood none of these things.” Perchance then they understood not “the cup that I drink,” or “the baptism that I am baptized with,” or there had not been so ready a response, “We are able.” With prophetic eyes the Master sees the future of these brethren, and declares, “The cup that I drink ye shall drink; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized. Doubtless “this saying” also “was <\/em>hid from them” until the very hour when that cup touched their lips, or the waters of that baptism fell upon them. But even this could not entitle them to the high place they desired; certainly not on the grounds they desired itthat of arbitrary selection. It is given to them “for whom it hath been prepared.” Out of all this the lesson arises<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> POSTS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> REAL<\/strong> HONOUR<\/strong> ARE<\/strong> NOT<\/strong> ATTAINED<\/strong> BY<\/strong> MERE<\/strong> FAVOUR<\/strong> OR BY<\/strong> ARBITRARY<\/strong> ALLOTMENT<\/strong>. All such endowment, either in the kingdom of heaven or among men, would instantly rob the distinction of all worthiness and make it a sham. The incident presents an example of that kind of false estimate of honor which supposes that it can be conferred without regard to the fitness of him who seeks it. It is true medals may be placed on the breast of him who has never fought, and the ribbon may adorn him who never did one deed of distinction; but such a decoration is a deceit or an empty titlea mere ribbon which a child might wear. No mere will of the ruler can make a life honorable and worthy. Signs of a sovereign beneficence may be heaped upon favourites, but they add no lustre to the character of him who is adorned or enriched. And the posts of honor in the highest of all kingdoms are not assigned arbitrarily to favored ones. As the kingdom is open to all, so are its seats of honor. Each receives according to his deserts”according as his work shall be.”<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> So is learnt a second lesson like unto the first: ALL<\/strong> TRUE<\/strong> HONOUR<\/strong> LIES<\/strong> IN<\/strong> SERVICE<\/strong> AND<\/strong> MERIT<\/strong>, NOT<\/strong> IN<\/strong> ITS<\/strong> RECOGNITION<\/strong>. HOW<\/strong> often are men attracted by the reward! They esteem the honor which attaches to attainments, to position, to wealth, to learning, or brave deeds. The eye is on the medal. Such seldom do much that is worthy, or make themselves really great. The man who works for praise and prizes is selfish and little, and the world in its deep heart hates both. He has his reward. Others steadily do their duty, undiverted by anxiety respecting honor; these finally achieve true distinction. So is it in all kingdoms.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SPIRITUAL<\/strong> KINGDOM<\/strong> HONOUR<\/strong> COMES<\/strong> TO<\/strong> HIM<\/strong> WHO<\/strong> IS<\/strong> MEET<\/strong> FOR<\/strong> IT<\/strong>. Christ has no favourites to lift to emolument and dignity. He who would reach the highest place must climb up to it. But how many truly and wisely desire to stand well in the heavenly kingdom? They desire a happy freedom from evil, a lot among the sanctified! It is well. Yet the words, of the great Lord come back to such, “Ye know not what ye ask.” Would you be spiritually great? Would you make high attainments in spiritual knowledge? Would you do good works in the spiritual kingdom? How much of self-denial, of patient labor, of disciplinary correction”the chastening of the Lord,” which we should “regard not lightly”how much of sacrificial endurance is needed! How many hours of quiet communion must be passed with the Redeemer if we would catch his spirit! How much of fasting and prayer, and diligent self-culture, and patient self, denial! How many strong acts of faith! What baptism of fire, what bitterness of the cup, is needed to make the disciple like his Master! But after all another spirit is to prevail. Christ’s disciples are exhorted not to aim at superiority of position, at rank and order. Let the Gentiles “lord it over” one another. “It is not so among you.” The greatest is the least truly. The minister, the servant of all, is chief and first. The true lesson being, “In my kingdom there is neither first nor last, highest nor lowest, near and afar off. Dismiss the thought of primacy. Look not for high places. Such there are not in my kingdom. Look for posts of service. Fix your eye on your ministering, and remember that the Lord of all came to give alleven ‘his life a ransom for many'”<\/em>G.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:46-52<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Bartimaeus.<\/strong><\/p>\n

On the roadside near Jericho sat a blind beggar, making his appeals to the pilgrims that passed up to Jerusalem to attend the feast. “A great multitude” accompanied Jesus on his leaving Jericho on his way to the holy city. The tramp of many feet and the hum of many voices caught the quick ear of the sufferer, and “he inquired what this meant.” Learning it was “Jesus of Nazareth,” he, having evidently some knowledge of the great Healer, cried aloud, “Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me!” Thus did the blind sufferer of that day formulate a crya prayer for all sufferers and sinners in all subsequent ages; a cry which will ascend to heaven as long as suffering saddens the history of our race. The hindering, self-occupied crowd strove to silence the cry. But the very impediment to his earnestness only gave greater intensity to it, and “he cried out the more a great deal” the same pitiful words. As every earnest, fervent prayer, this entered the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, without whom not one sparrow falleth, and who again and again had laid an emphasis of attention on individual sufferers and sinners. Standing still, for a cry of need arrests him, he silenced their rude, unfriendly words by, “Call ye him.” Then the same selfish spirit veers round to the favourite, and they cheer him and bid him rise. Casting aside his loosely flowing garment, he sprang to his feet and came to Jesus.” Brief and beautiful is the colloquy, in its sweet and simple haste. “What wilt thou?” “My sight.” “Go… thy faith” hath brought it thee. Straightway he receives his sight, and follows in the way. Brief as this narrative is, it holds much teaching.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> ON<\/strong> THE<\/strong> TRUE<\/strong> METHOD<\/strong> OF<\/strong> PRAYER<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> OH<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SPIRIT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> HIM<\/strong> TO<\/strong> WHOM<\/strong> PRAYER<\/strong> IS<\/strong> ADDRESSED<\/strong>. Prayer springs from a sense of need, and it must express the sincere desire of him who prays. Words thrown into the form of a petition do not of themselves constitute prayer; without the heart of him who utters them they are dead, being alone. He who asks with his lips only cannot expect him in hear who looketh on the heart. Prayer must needs be offered to One who it is believed is able to answer. Jesus laid down the clear and definite rule in his demand,” Believe ye that I am able to do this?” “The prayer of faith” is the true prayer, though the patient Lord will “forgive” even the “unbelief” of timidity. Nevertheless, the Lord declares the immediate cause of the answering cure in this case: “Thy faith hath made thee whole.” Prayer must be prepared to push its way through surrounding discouragements and opposition; nor will it exceed propriety if it the more fervently plead by how much it is hindered and impeded. Prayer must, moreover, have respect to proper objects. Here one imperfectness in the life called forth the one petition when the “What wilt thou that I should do?” opened wide the permission to ask many things. Surely to him who came to redeem life, it was a perfectly right subject of petition: “That I may receive my sight.” Thus we learn that for the freeing of the life from its incumbent evils, and for whatever will lead that life on to perfectness, we may ask, and ask in the full assurance of faith, in the readiness and ability of the Lord of life to hear and to answer. Happy the man who has learned thus to pray.G.<\/p>\n

HOMILIES BY E. JOHNSON<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mar 10:1-12<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The law of marriage.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. THE<\/strong> DIRECTIONS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> SCRIPTURE<\/strong> FOLLOW<\/strong> THE<\/strong> OLDER<\/strong> LAW<\/strong> OF<\/strong> NATURE<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SANCTITY<\/strong> OF<\/strong> MARRIAGE<\/strong> IS<\/strong> FOUNDED<\/strong> ON<\/strong> NATURE<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> IN<\/strong> ITS<\/strong> IDEAL<\/strong>, MARRIAGE<\/strong> IS<\/strong> FOR<\/strong> LIFE<\/strong>, AND<\/strong> INDISSOLUBLE<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> YET<\/strong> THE<\/strong> ACTUAL<\/strong> CONDITION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> HUMAN<\/strong> NATURE<\/strong> COMPELS<\/strong> SOME<\/strong> RELAXATION<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

V.<\/strong> BUT<\/strong> WHAT<\/strong> IS<\/strong> PERMITTED<\/strong> IS<\/strong> NOT<\/strong>, THEREFORE<\/strong>, TO<\/strong> BE<\/strong> APPROVED<\/strong> OR<\/strong> FOLLOWED<\/strong> PRACTICALLY<\/strong>. Christianity is throughout ideal. It makes appeal to our higher nature. At the same time, it admits the difficulty of carrying our ideals unexceptionably into practice.J.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:13-16<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The blessing of the children.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. THE<\/strong> CONTRAST<\/strong>: WHAT<\/strong> MEN<\/strong> THINK<\/strong> IMPORTANT<\/strong>, AND<\/strong> WHAT<\/strong> GOD<\/strong> RECOGNIZES<\/strong> AS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> WORTH<\/strong>. Children am “only children.” They are often “in the way.” They are “out of place.” They are to be “sent out of the way.” But Divine intelligence and love shed a bright light upon the little ones. They are living parables of the Christian spirit. Ever are they to be associated with Christ. Learning, wealth, rank,all draw away from our true attitude, nay, tend to falsify our spirit. ‘Tis the sight of the children that must win us back.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> CHRISTIANITY<\/strong> THE<\/strong> RELIGION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> REVERENCE<\/strong> FOR<\/strong> THOSE<\/strong> BELOW<\/strong> US<\/strong>. In them God is found. “The religion of reverence for what is above us is ethnic religion. This delivers from degrading fear. The religion of reverence for what is around us is the philosophical. The philosopher stations himself in the middle, and must draw up to him all that is lower, and down to him all that is higher. This is the religion of wisdom. Reverence for what is under us,this is Christian, and is the last step mankind was fitted and destined to attain” (Goethe). The lowly, the hated, the despised, the contradictory, are glorified by the insight and the sympathy of Christ.J.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:17-23<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The rich man’s temptation.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. THE<\/strong> RICH<\/strong> MAN<\/strong> FEELS<\/strong> THE<\/strong> NEED<\/strong> OF<\/strong> SALVATION<\/strong>. “Money answereth all things,” but only in a limited sphere after all. Riches bind as well as set free; close certain doors to the spirit, as well as open them to others. The poor man knows “straitness” of one kind, the wealthy man another. Could he but unite the advantages of wealth with freedom and joy of spirit!<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> SALVATION<\/strong> IS<\/strong> POSSIBLE<\/strong> TO<\/strong> THE<\/strong> RICH<\/strong> MAN<\/strong>. But the practical conditions may be different from those in other cases. It is some idea, some phantasy, a pride, or a dread, or a lust, that every man needs to expel from his mind in order to salvation. In some way the idea of his riches stood in the way of this man’s bliss. But the way to salvation was pointed out to him. It would be wrong to generalize the direction of the Savior. All that can be said is that there doubtless are cases where entire renunciation may be indispensable to salvation. The principle is: the false opinion of ourselves must be given up, and our being must be grounded on the truth, if we would “enter into life.”<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> IT<\/strong> IS<\/strong> ONE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> HARDEST<\/strong> THINGS<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> WORLD<\/strong> TO<\/strong> RENOUNCE<\/strong> RICHES<\/strong>. How very rare are the cases where this is done! For money represents our root in earth. Let us, without affectation or hypocrisy, confess that it is so. Power, service, and estimation of others, a flattering self-representation,this is what riches mean. To have grown into this circle of ideas, and to be asked suddenly to break them up, ’tis a wrench, like parting with life itself. But let us not exaggerate in any particular. Renunciation of any object with which the imagination in its dearest play is interwoven, is hard. It may be as hard for some to give up the retirement of a humble home for Christ’s sake, as for others to renounce station and splendor.J.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:24-27<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Moral impossibilities<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. <\/strong>“MORAL<\/strong> IMPOSSIBILITIES<\/strong>” IS<\/strong> A PHRASE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> HUMAN<\/strong> EXPERIENCE<\/strong>. Like all such phrases, saws, and proverbs, it represents the side of truth that is obvious and turned to general view. Men being what they arc, certain changes in the character and conduct are not likely, are scarcely probable or possible. So we argue, and justly. So Jesus speaks, using a very strong figure of speech.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> “MORAL<\/strong> IMPOSSIBILITIES<\/strong>” MAY<\/strong> NEVERTHELESS<\/strong> BE<\/strong> OVERCOME<\/strong>. AS<\/strong> Napoleon, in the physical sphere, blotted the word “impossible” from his dictionary, so is the Christian taught to do in the moral sphere. In one light, it looks unlikely that anybody can be saved, considering the power of sin, the “weight,” and the “besetment,” <\/em>and the apparent lack of moral energy. But nothing that is conceivable is impossible. Nothing that is morally desirable may not be expected to come to pass.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. We are prone to a scepticism about our own nature, which we ought to overcome. It is not justifiable, in the light of the facts of history, of personal experience, of the might and love of God.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. A deep faith in the possibilities of human nature is inspired by the love of God. Love is the spring of the human mechanism, the leaven that works in its lump, the struggling force contending against immense disadvantages, but destined to final victory. “All things are possible with God!”J.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:28-31<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Compensation.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. TO<\/strong> EXPECT<\/strong> COMPENSATION<\/strong> FOR<\/strong> WORTHY<\/strong> LOSS<\/strong> IS<\/strong> NATURAL<\/strong> AND<\/strong> RIGHT<\/strong>. The gospel encourages this. Compensation is founded on the law of things. God hath set the one over against the other. The conservation of energy is a law that applies to the life of the soul. “It will be made good to us.” We cannot help feeling that the integrity of our being has a worth which must be preserved.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> CHRIST<\/strong> ENCOURAGES<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> EXPECTATION<\/strong> TO<\/strong> THE<\/strong> HIGHEST<\/strong> DEGREE<\/strong>. Self-abandonment to the good cause will bring its reward. God pays a high rate of interest.<\/p>\n

“Fear not, then, thou child infirm;
There’s no God that will wrong a worm.
Laurel crowns cleave to deserts,
And power to him who power exerts.
Hast not thy share? On winged feet,
Lo! it rushes thee to meet;
And all that Nature made thy own,
Floating in air, or pent in stone,
Will rive the hills and swim the sea,
And, like thy shadow, follow thee.”<\/p>\n

“Every stroke shall be repaid. The longer the payment is withholden, the better for you; for compound interest on compound interest is the rate and usage of this exchequer.” “The martyr cannot be dishonored. Every lash inflicted is a tongue of fame; every prison a more illustrious abode; every burned book enlightens the world; every suppressed or expunged word reverberates through the earth from side to side.”<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> PRINCIPLE<\/strong> HAS<\/strong> UNEXPECTED<\/strong> APPLICATIONS<\/strong>. Success is not always what it seems; nor apparent failure. There will be great “reversals of human judgment” (see Mozley’s fine sermon on this). “Those who begin early and do much are not always preferred.” Some show in the front early in life’s race, but fail of the goal. Others lag at first, and come out first in the end. Gain in power may be loss in time; or self-extension involve loss of intensity. The great lesson is to live for the soul, for the inner and spiritual world. Everything gained then is gained for ever; and seeming loss and failure are converted into means of progress.J. <\/p>\n

Mar 10:32-34<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The coincidence of opposites.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Once more the forecast of shame and death.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> MEN<\/strong> FLY<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> FACE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THEIR<\/strong> INTEREST<\/strong>, AND<\/strong> TREAT<\/strong> THEIR<\/strong> BENEFACTORS<\/strong> AS<\/strong> ENEMIES<\/strong>. Christ foresaw that the ruling party would be angry with him “because <\/em>he told them the truth.” And we partake of this guilt. We are blind to love in its disguise. We hate that which reproaches us. It is an error of the understanding and of the heart.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> PROVIDENCE<\/strong> BRINGS<\/strong> GOOD<\/strong> OUT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> OUR<\/strong> EVIL<\/strong>, AND<\/strong> FURTHERS<\/strong> OUR<\/strong> SALVATION<\/strong> IN<\/strong> SPITE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> OURSELVES<\/strong>. So limited is the power of passion, it gains but a momentary end. The patriot or the traitor falls by the hand of the assassin or the judicial murderer; and his principle takes the deeper root, watered by his blood. Christ’s resurrection is the eternal type of all moral victories.J.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:35-45<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Ambition.<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is ambition for place and power that is here illustrated.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> IT<\/strong> IS<\/strong> NATURAL<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SENSE<\/strong> IN<\/strong> WHICH<\/strong> ALL<\/strong> HUMAN<\/strong> INSTINCTS<\/strong> ARE<\/strong> NATURAL<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. To be without ambition of some kind is a defect of organization; a negative, not a positive; a weakness, not a virtue. Man is man because he aspires. He ceases from his worth when he becomes content to remain what he is. Milton speaks of the last “infirmity of noble minds.” It is an infirmity of which a man will be ashamed to be ashamed, though he will try to conceal it under that name from others. Shakespeare makes one of his characters exclaim, “If it be a sin to covet honor, I am the most offending soul alive.”<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. This passion reveals our social nature. We delight in the picture of others’ respect, love, obedience, esteem. Such pictures goad us to our noblest actions.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. Vice lies not in the passion itself, but in the wrong direction of the will, the mistake of our proper objects. We are ambitious to govern when we are only fit to serve; to teach when we should still be learning; to act when we have need to be acted upon; to be artists when we are only fit for clay, to be moulded by the Divine Artist; to be assessors of Christ when our initiation into the ways of the kingdom has only just begun.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> CHRIST<\/strong>‘S CORRECTION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> AMBITION<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. By showing its ignorance of its proper objects. There is a condition attached to every distinction. The price must be paid. Have we counted the cost? One illusion is that we separate the pleasure from the means to it in our thought. Another is that we represent to ourselves incompatible things, e.g. a high place with a satisfaction only to be obtained by working up from a low place. Crabb Robinson said that having read, as a young man, Mrs. Barbauld’s essay on the vanity of inconsistent expectations, it had cured him for life of idle wishes.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. By showing its impossibility. Places are reserved in Providence for those fit to fill them. In the kingdom of God there is no putting of wrong men into wrong places. The principle of spiritual selection unerringly prevails in the kingdom, and “the fittest survive.” The path of self-denial and suffering is open to all. It coincides at many points with that of duty for all; and it may be throughout coincident for some. It leads to blessing, but that blessing is internal. If we confound the inward blessing with the outward place, we deceive ourselves. If God gives us the higher, let us not envy those to whom he is pleased to allot the lower.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> CHRIST<\/strong>‘S EXPOSURE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> UNSOCIAL<\/strong> CHARACTER<\/strong> OF<\/strong> AMBITION<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. The other disciples were indignant when the failings of the brethren were brought to light. Our secret vices never look so hideous as when we see them mirrored in another. For then the illusion of self-love has vanished, and we stand before the naked and ugly fact.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. To desire to be above others is not Christian. To dominate and exact is the reverse of the Christian temper. It makes self the center the world revolves around. To serve, to be useful, is the Christian temper; this makes human good the center of every sphere of lifethe family, the Church, the nation.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. The example of Christ is the eternal light for conduct. His glory arises out of service, as in an immortal passage St. Paul teaches (Php 2:1-30<\/span>.). Without method there is nothing sound. We need a method of thought and lifeto put the first before the second. The whole is before the part, humanity more than the individual; there must be giving in order to receiving; and for the highest possible objects of our aspiration nothing less than the whole life must be paid.J. <\/p>\n

Mar 10:46-52<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Blind Bartimaeus.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Viewed from the side of Christ, the incident may teach<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> OPENING<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> EYES<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> BLIND<\/strong> IS<\/strong> THE<\/strong> MISSION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> CHRISTIANITY<\/strong>. If the physical boon be great, let it express for us the far greater spiritual boon. Ignorance is painfully felt by large numbers. Few who have not received a good education but bitterly feel the lack at some period or other of their life. In spreading knowledge freely we follow the example of Christ.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> MISSION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> CHRISTIANITY<\/strong> IS<\/strong> PECULIARLY<\/strong> TO<\/strong> THE<\/strong> LOWLY<\/strong> AND<\/strong> THE<\/strong> MEAN<\/strong>. It is easier to be kind to our inferiors than to avoid jealousy among our equals. The gifts that bless beth giver and receiver the most are worth much, though they cost little. From the side of Bartimaeus we may reflect<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> LONG<\/strong> SITTING<\/strong> IN<\/strong> DARKNESS<\/strong> MAY<\/strong> PREPARE<\/strong> FOR<\/strong> THE<\/strong> WELCOMING<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> LIGHT<\/strong>. Yet in the darkness the lamp of hope may be kept burning, as did Bartimaeus. “In our griefs we find reliefs.” As every night gives place to morning, so the very constitution of nature prophesies the deliverance of mankind and of the individual. The memories of the dark hours of life mingle with attained joys. Life would not have its full significance without these mingled threads in the texture.<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> PERSEVERANCE<\/strong> IS<\/strong> EVER<\/strong> REWARDED<\/strong>. Faith proves itself by constancy, and is in fact the perseverance of the whole man towards his hope, the realization of his life in God. In the change of events, things will change for the better to him who endures. “All things come round to him who waits.” “Yet a little while, and he who is on the way shall come.” The tarrying of God is in our imagination. To gain one sight, to see God and the world in God,this compensates for an age of waiting and watching, suffering and toil of the spirit.J.<\/p>\n

HOMILIES BY J.J. GIVEN<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mar 10:2-12<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Parallel passage: Mat 19:3-12<\/span>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Doctrine of divorce.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. EVENTS<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> INTERVAL<\/strong>. There is a gap in the narrative of St. Mark between the events of the preceding and present chapter. We need not do more than intimate them, and that for the continuity of the history. They are the following:<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. His journey to Jerusalem on the occasion of the Feast of Tabernacles.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. Occurrences by the way:<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> Inhospitality of certain Samaritan villages; <\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> rebuke of the “Sons of Thunder” by the Savior; <\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> journey continued through Samaria rather than Peraea; <\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> cleansing of the ten lepers as he passed through Samaria.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. The sending out of the seventy, and its similarity to the previous mission of the twelve.<\/p>\n

4<\/strong>. <\/em>Presence and preaching at the Feast of Tabernacles.<\/p>\n

5<\/strong>. Various discourses during that feast, as recorded in the eighth chapter of St. John’s Gospel, and escape from a murderous assault.<\/p>\n

6<\/strong>. Ministrations in Judaea, recorded in part by St. Luke (10-13.) and partly by St. John (9-11.), including the following:<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> Instruction of a lawyer, explanation of “neighborhood,” <\/em>and parable of the good Samaritan;<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> hospitality of the family of Bethany, disciples taught to pray, and return of the seventy;<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> cure of a man bern blind, our Lord’s comparison of himself to the Good Shepherd, celebration of the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem, retirement to Bethabara beyond Jordan, and subsequent raising of Lazarus at Bethany; also his retirement to Ephraim.<\/p>\n

7<\/strong>. His tour through Peroea, referred to in Mat 19:1<\/span>, Mat 19:2<\/span>, and Mar 10:1<\/span>; his teaching during that tour, recorded by St. Luke (Lu 13:22-18:10<\/span>), including, among other things,<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> the multitudes from all quarters in the kingdom of God, the great feast and generous invitation, also true discipleship;<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> parables of the lost sheep, lost coin, and prodigal son;<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> parables of the unjust steward, Dives and Lazarus, importunate widow, the Pharisee and publican.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> A NEW<\/strong> DEPARTURE<\/strong>. The Pharisees now Change their tactics, and adopt a new mode of opposition. They, in fact, make new departure. The old hostility remains bitter as ever, or perhaps is increasing in intensity, but the manner of its manifestation is new. Up till this period their method of attack consisted in fault-findingobjecting to the conduct of our Lord and his apostles, or taxing them with violations of the Law; henceforth it consists in questioningcaptious questioningfor the purpose of eliciting his opinion on doubtful or debatable matters in order to entangle him. The subjects on which his views were sought were those keenly discussed by the Jews of that day, and an answer could scarcely fail to give offense to some party or expose him to peril on some side. The present question was eminently one of this class. It was likely to entrap him into the charge of lax morality on the one hand, or of want of respect for the authority of Moses on the other; perhaps to embroil him with the tetrarch Herod Antipas, in whose dominions he now was.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> ORIGINAL<\/strong> MARRIAGE<\/strong> LAW<\/strong>. In the days of our Lord one of the burning questions was the law of divorce. The school of Shammai limited the law of divorce, and allowed it only in the case of adultery; that of Hillel affirmed its legitimacy in case of dislike, or disobedience, or incompatibility in general, thus granting an arbitrary or discretionary power in the matter. The ground of the controversy is found in a difficult or obscure expression in Deu 24:1<\/span>, Deu 24:2<\/span>, where we read, “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness <\/em>in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.” The difficulty or obscurity of this passage arises from the original words ervath davar, rendered “some uncleanness” in the text of our version, and in the margin, “matter of nakedness,” or more exactly still, “nakedness of word or matter.” The important point to be determined, and that which produced such diversity of opinion in its determination, was whether the expression referred to meant lewdness or merely something disagreeable.<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> NATURE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> BILL<\/strong> OF<\/strong> DIVORCEMENT<\/strong>. The bill of divorcement was called “a writing of cutting off” (sepher kerithuth<\/em>). <\/em>This bill or writing of divorcement implied, not only a mere separation from bed and board, as some restrict it, but a complete severance of the marriage tie. It was a certificate of repudiation, and either stated or omitted the cause of such repudiation. If the cause was adultery or a suspicion of adultery, the husband might prove himself () just <\/em>(vide <\/em>Mat 1:19<\/span>), that is, a strict observer of the Law in dismissing the guilty wife with a bill of divorcement; and yet, not wishing to expose her, he might send her away privately. If, however, the guilty person or the suspected person were brought openly to justice, and the crime proved, certain death was the penalty, as is distinctly stated in Le Deu 20:10<\/span>, “The man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” Most commonly, therefore, when a bill of divorcement was resorted to in accordance with the Mosaic permission, it was for some less cause or minor offense than conjugal infidelity; and in such cases it served the wife as a certificate of character.<\/p>\n

V.<\/strong> REASON<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> WRITING<\/strong>. Our Lord, in his reply, proceeds to the original marriage law; first, however, accounting for the Mosaic regulation referred to. That regulation is regarded by many as a relaxation of the Law; but it can scarcely be viewed in that light, because it would thus appear to be a lowering of the standard in favor of wrong-doing. It was rather a remedy <\/em>for harsh treatment of wives, resulting from violations of the Law; it was rather a relief bill for wives who suffered from the unkindness of cruel husbands acting in defiance of the Law. It was a remedial measure to check the bad effects of their hardness of heart; it was to () this the lawgiver had respect. It was, in fact, to minimize the evil results that proceeded from their transgression of the Law rather than any relaxation of the Law itself. Of two evils it was the less, and even the less owed its existence to their hardness of heart. Besides, it was not an express command, as the Pharisees appear to make it from the word <\/em>in <\/em>Matthew, but a permissory injunction (), as subsequently acknowledged by the Pharisees themselves.<\/p>\n

VI.<\/strong> ORIGINAL<\/strong> MARRIAGE<\/strong> LAW<\/strong>. The Savior argues the indissoluble nature of the marriage law from the original unity of male and female, from the extreme closeness of the marriage bond taking precedence of every other union even parental and filial; above all, from its Divine origin. Marriage was thus an ordinance of God; it was instituted in Paradise in those bright and sunny bowers before sin had marred the freshness and the loveliness of the new-created world. Even then God saw that it was not good for man to be alone, and accordingly he gave him a help meet for himone that was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto [literally, be glued <\/em>unto] his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” It was an ordinance of God himself, an ordinance nearly coeval with the creation, an ordinance made for man even in his unfallen state of innocence, an ordinance which our blessed Redeemer himself, when in sinless humanity he trod our earth and tabernacled among our race, honored with his presence, and at the celebration of which he was graciously pleased to work his first miracle. In Cana of Galilee, at the marriage at which Jesus and his disciples and his mother were present, Jesus made the beginning of his miracles by turning water into wine, manifesting forth his glory, “and his disciples believed on him.”<\/p>\n

“Living, he own’d no nuptial vow,<\/p>\n

No bower to Fancy dear:<\/p>\n

Love’s very selffor him no need
To nurse, on earth, the heavenly seed:
Yet comfort in his eye we read<\/p>\n

For bridal joy and fear.”<\/p>\n

The conclusion at which he arrives is in keeping with all thisthat an institution created by God at first, coeval with our race, and confirmed by so many sanctions, can neither be nullified nor modified by any human enactment, nor set aside by any authority other than his who created it. “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”<\/p>\n

VII.<\/strong> ONE<\/strong> EXCEPTION<\/strong> TAKEN<\/strong> FOR<\/strong> GRANTED<\/strong>. Conjugal infidelity, as it is a violation of the marriage vow, is a virtual dissolution of the marriage relation. This is implied or taken for granted in the passage before us, though it is expressly stated, in the parallel passage of St. Matthew, where it is written, “Whosoever <\/em>shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.” With respect to marriage with the divorced wife, there is a great and important diversity of sentiment. This diversity is in a certain way and to some extent connected with the right rendering of the word <\/em>in Mat 19:9<\/span>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. Some translate it as if it were preceded by , and so equivalent to “her <\/em>which is put away,” or “the divorced woman.” Thus it stands in the common English Version, and reference to the woman lawfully divorced, that is, for fornication, is presumed.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. Others, more accurately, render it “her when she is put away,” as it is translated in the Revised Version, the reference being thus to her who is unlawfully divorced, that is, divorced not on the ground of adultery. This view is maintained by Stier and Meyer, the latter confirming it by the fact that “under the Law the punishment of death was attached to adultery, and consequently, under the Law, the marrying of a woman divorced for adultery could never happen.”<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. There is, however, another rendering, namely, “a divorced woman,” that is, any divorced woman. This is the rendering advocated by Wordsworth, who says, “In no case does our Lord permit a person to marry a woman who has been divorced.” This is the view of the matter taken by the Latin Church, which declares marriage with a divorced woman under any circumstances unlawful. The Oriental and most Reformed Churches, on the contrary, hold that, in the excepted case, both husband and wife may contract a fresh marriage. These are the two extreme views; but what of the ease of unlawful divorce, that is to say, where the wife has been divorced for some other and less offense than that of adultery, or , <\/em>which is of widest extent, comprehending ante-nuptial as well as post-nuptial unchastity ()? <\/em>This is the case to which the guilt of subsequent marriage attaches, for it is that in <\/strong>which the marriage bond has not been really ruptured. The delay connected with getting a divorce or after its being granted might give time for better counsels to prevail; second thoughts might be found preferable; angry passion might in the mean time cool down, and reconciliation and reunion be effected.J.J.G.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:13-16<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Parallel passages: Mat 19:13-15<\/span>; Luk 18:15-17<\/span>.<\/p>\n

I. CHILDREN<\/strong> BROUGHT<\/strong> AND<\/strong> BLESSED<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. Our Lord<\/em>‘s love of children. <\/em>Our Lord, when on earth, had no greater favourites than children. He set them in the midst; he laid his hands on them; he blessed them; he invited them to his presence; he welcomed them to his person; he folded them lovingly in his arms. He calls them the lambs of his flock; he provides them suitable spiritual food, and with it he bids us feed them. He represents by them his faithful followers; he reproves his disciples when they would have prevented their access to him. He reminds us all that they are precious in our heavenly Father’s sight, preserved by his providence and protected by his power. He assures us, as we have seen, that “their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.”<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. Individual features of the three narratives. <\/em>The request of those who brought the little children, as reported by St. Matthew, is not only that the Savior should touch them, as in St. Mark and St. Luke; but “put his hands on them, and pray.<\/em>“ <\/em>In St. Mark, we are told that Jesus not only touched the little children, as requested, but “took them up in his arms.” They thus got more than they asked. This is usually the way with Christ; he does more for us than we ask or think. An additional feature of the narrative, as supplied by St. Luke, is that some of these children were of very tender agemere infants<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> CHANGE<\/strong> BY<\/strong> WHICH<\/strong> WE<\/strong> BECOME<\/strong> AS<\/strong> LITTLE<\/strong> CHILDREN<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. A parallel passage. <\/em>In St. Matthew’s Gospel (Mat 18:3<\/span>) we have a statement exactly corresponding to the fifteenth verse of this tenth chapter of St. Mark, with this difference, however, that the former passage goes further back, bringing us up to the turning-point at which we become as little children. The verse referred to reads thus, “Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of God;” the Revised Version has, “Except ye turn<\/em>, <\/em>and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into <\/em>the kingdom of heaven.” This rendering of in the last clause brings out the meaning with due emphasis, and is thus more accurate than that of the common version; the substitution of turn <\/em>for be converted <\/em>in the first clause is intended to divest the term of the technical theological sense which some attach to it. The word (second aorist passive) may be translated as a passive, or as a middle, since the aorists passive have often a middle meaning, equivalent to turn yourselves<\/em>, <\/em>or simply turn <\/em>intransitively, as we have it in the Revised Version. In its application, as shown by the context, it urged those addressed to turn away from their ambitious notions, self-seeking eagerness, and fondness for precedence. The term is general, we readily acknowledge, and denotes a change such as that referred to; hut before men are capable of turning from the courses indicated, and of exhibiting the characteristics of little children, they must have become the subjects of a special and greater change, of which that immediately referred to is a manifestation. We may read the statement of St. Mark, that “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein,” or, as it is more accurately rendered in the Revised Version, “he shall in no wise enter <\/em>therein,” in the light which St. Matthew’s statement sheds on it.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. Divine agency. <\/em>We have seen that the word in the closely corresponding text is limited by some, and may indeed be limited, to its literal sense, and understood of a turning away from such high-mindedness as the disciples had displayed on that occasiona turning away from such haughtiness of spirit as led to the question asked by them, “Who <\/em>is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Others may be disposed to take it in the sense of recovery from backsliding, of a return to the Lord after some wrong step, as a compound form of the same verb is employed () in the words addressed to Peter, “When thou art converted, strengthen the brethren; or, as we read it in the Revised Version, “And do thou, when once thou hast turned again, stablish thy brethren.” Others may prefer the wider and more technical sense of conversion. But whatever sense be attached to the one particular term, a change effected by Divine agency must be presupposed; otherwise the changes implied in the lower sense cannot be rightly accomplished, nor the characteristics of childhood fully attained. “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall in no wise enter therein,” is the statement of St. Mark, and suggests the inquiryWhat is it to receive the kingdom of God? Now, to take the simplest and plainest view of this matter, to receive the kingdom of God is to receive the gospel of the kingdom; and to receive the gospel of the kingdom is to receive him who is the Subject of that gospel, and the Sovereign of that kingdomthe Christian’s King and Head; and to receive him, again, is the turning-point in a man’s spiritual history, the greatest and most important event of his whole life. This reception of the Savior implies faith of the operation of Godfaith, which is God’s gift and the Spirit’s work in the heart. Wherever faith exists, even as a grain of mustard seed, Christ is formed in the heart. It matters little what name is given to this change, whether we call it “the new birth,” or “regeneration,” or “conversion;” to be subjects of it is the great thing, for it is the principle of all right action, and the prolific source of all Christian graces and of all truly virtuous conduct.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. Statement of a difference. <\/em>We may notice a difference which will help to a clearer apprehension of the change in question. Conversion is akin to regeneration; it is most nearly similar, and cannot be separated from it, and yet it is not quite the same thing. Regeneration implants a new principle in the soul; conversion is the practical putting forth of that principle. Regeneration imparts new life to the soul; conversion is the exercise of that life. Regeneration bestows new power; conversion is the manifestation of that power. For sake of illustration, let us suppose a man dead and buried. Regeneration may be compared to life entering into the sepulcher, opening the eyes that death had scaled, giving back the healthy color to the cheeks and causing the vital fluid once more to circulate through all the frame; conversion may be represented by the same man, after being thus reanimated, exerting the power of life which he has just received, rising up from among the dead, coming forth from the tomb, and entering on the various duties and activities of life. Conversion and regeneration are thus so closely linked together as cause and effect that they often stand for one another.<\/p>\n

4<\/strong>. Human instrumentality. <\/em>Here, too, the power of God and the work of man unite; Divine agency and human instrumentality combine. The hand of man may roll away the stone and remove the grave-clothes, as in the case of Lazarus; but nothing short of the power of God can resuscitate the buried corpse, or speak the dead to life. So, also, it is when the dead in trespasses and sins are quickened. By the instrumentality of man, the stone that stops the mouth of the sepulcher may be taken away and the grave-clothes unbound; but nothing less than “the working of God’s mighty power which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead,” can make any one of us alive through Christ Jesus. We may preach and pray, and it is our duty to combine both, and our privilege to engage in either; but the power that raises the dead to life is the power, and not only the power, but the mighty power of God. The prophet of old acknowledged this, for after he had prophesied to the dry bones in the valley of vision, he followed up his prophesying by prayer, saying, “Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live.” The psalmist felt the same when he said, “Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.” The apostle was of the same mind when he wrote, “But God<\/em>, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, quickened us together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved).”<\/p>\n

5<\/strong>. The<\/em> means employed<\/em>, and the manner in which the change is effected. <\/em>God treats us as reasonable beings; he makes his appeal to the faculties with which he has endowed us. He addresses us as his intelligent creatures, and challenges us to inquiry, saying, “Judge <\/em>ye what I say.” He speaks to us in his Word and by his ambassadors, and even entreats us to be reconciled to God. He bestows his Spirit, for without the agency of that Spirit all the rest would be but as the rolling away of the stone and the unbinding of the grave-clothes already spoken of.<\/p>\n

6<\/strong>. The<\/em> nature of the change. <\/em>After the creation of the heavens and the earth, the first work of God was light. God said, “Let there be light.” In the change in question, which, for convenience’ sake, we may call conversion, the first work is also light<\/em>; <\/em>he enlightens our understanding in the knowledge of Christ. God’s Word, indeed, is light, “a light to our feet;” but while we are unconverted there are scales on our eyes, and if we see at all, it is only “men like trees, walking.” The Spirit takes away the scales; and we see the suitability and sufficiency of the Savior, the completeness of his work, the fullness of his offices, the freeness of his mercy, the riches of his grace, the length and breadth and depth and height of his love; we see also our sins in the light of his sufferings, and his sufferings endured for and expiating our sins. This is not all; it is not enough to have light in the head. There is often natural light, intellectual light, the light of science, even the light of theological speculation or doctrine or controversy; but such light by itself never brought any soul to the Savior. Of such light we may say, it is the light of the moon shining on an iceberg away in a frozen sea; it is the nocturnal light of twinkling stars, as they sparkle in the firmament, and shed their flickering radiance on some far-off mountain capped with snow. In this gracious change there is an additional element. With light in the head it combines love in the heart. Like light and heat from the same fire, they go hand in hand. The heart follows the head, and they act and react upon each other. The will obeys the understanding, and the affections go along with both. The subject of this blessed change can say with one of old, “Whereas I was blind, now I see;” but he goes further, and can say with the apostle, “The love of God has been shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Ghost which was given unto us.<\/em>“ <\/em>The regenerate soul can say, “I know whom I have believed;” but it stops not there; it adds, “Whom having not seen, I love.” Conversion, if we may use the term in its popular sense, is the love of Christ constraining us; it is the Word of Christ instructing us; it is “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ;” it is the work of Christ renewing us; it is the Spirit of Christ enlightening us; it is the life of Christ imparted to us”because I live, ye shall live also;” it is the love of him “who <\/em>first loved us, and gave himself for us.” This love expels the enmity of the carnal mind, gives a new bent to the will and a new bias to the feelings; it lays hold of the affections, and influences all the energies of our being, operating at once on the faculties of the mind and the members of the body. It is God making us willing, as well as welcome, to be his people in the day of his power.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> CHARACTERISTICS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> CHILDHOOD<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. Infant salvation. <\/em>When it is said that “of such [that is, children] is the kingdom of God,” it may mean children literally<\/em>; <\/em>and so many understand it, and refer kingdom to the state of future blessedness, maintaining that, as the majority of mankind die in infancy, and as they are redeemed, children will constitute the majority of the saved. But there is another interpretation, which understands children spiritually<\/em>, <\/em>that is, those who resemble children in character; thus St. Paul says, “Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.” While we are fully persuaded that all children dying in infancy are saved because of the superabundant grace of God in Christ Jesus, we are far from supposing that regeneration is not necessary in case of children as well as of others. Indeed, the Word of God proves it indispensable; for thus says the psalmist, “I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me;” and again, “We <\/em>go astray as soon as we be born, speaking lies;” and further, the Prophet Isaiah says,” All we like sheep have gone astray.” It thus becomes our duty to seek, by all available means, to bring children to Christ the Good Shepherd, who carries the lambs in his besom, that he may bless them and make them members of his flock. There are, however, several characteristics of children which serve well to illustrate the character and conduct of God’s spiritual children.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. The first characteristic is humility. <\/em>When converted to God, we become like little children in humility. Pride is the ruin of our race; we trace it back to Paradise. Satan introduced it there. It was the great inducement with our first parents that they should be “as Gods, knowing good and evil.” We mark its dark waters along the stream of time from then till now. It was a fruitful source of disaster to King David. In the pride of his heart he numbered the people, and the dreadfully calamitous choice was allowed him to elect between seven years’ famine, three months’ war, or three days’ pestilence. Another instance occurs in the case of Naaman, commander-in-chief of the host of Syria. Leprous as he was, and consequently miserable as he must have been, he felt his pride wounded when the prophet directed him to wash seven times in Jordan; he turned away in a rage, saying, “Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel?” Come we to New Testament times, we have another still more awful instance of pride and its punishment. Herod sat upon his kingly throne; he made an orationa king’s speech, and more eloquent, no doubt, than royal speeches generally are; at all events, the people were in raptures with him and it, so that they shouted, “It is the voice of a God, and not of a man.” He was arrayed in royal robes; he was proud of his pomp, of his power, and of his popularity. But the angel of the Lord smote him; “he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.” The same evil propensity of fallen humanity finds thousands and tens of thousands of living exemplifications in those whom the Scripture calls “proud boasters,” “heady, high-minded,” and classes with the vilest and the worst. On the contrary, the first evidence of conversion to God is humility. The child of a prince will, if permitted, amuse itself with the child of a peasant. As they sport together there is no distinction of riches or of rank; they meet together on the same common level; they stand on the same footing of equality. We are not universal levellers; we would not do away with the distinctions of rank that exist, and perhaps must exist. We find in the membership of the human body some members discharging honorable functions, others functions less so. We find in the heavenly hierarchy various gradesthrones, and dominions, and principalities, and powers. But we would willingly do away with, and Christianity tends to do away with, that proud spirit that sets up castes and opposes class to class, preventing that cordial sympathy that should ever bind together all the many members in the great family of man. Why should we be proud? What are we proud of? Is it of our bodies? They are “fearfully and wonderfully made,” yet dust they are, and unto dust they must return. Is it of our souls? God” breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life, and he became a living soul.” Is it of what we are? We are only creatures of a day, and our foundation is in the dust. Is it of what we have? We have nothing, be it worldly wealth, or intellectual endowment, or physical superiority, or spiritual grace,nothing that we have not received. We are pensioners on the Divine bounty, daily recipients of the Divine favor, almoners on the liberality of God. Most of us have read the Revelation Legh Richmond’s little book entitled ‘ The Dairyman’s Daughter,’ and the text which by the blessing of God became the means of converting that once poor, proud girl. That text was, “Be ye clothed with humility” (: literally, “wrap tight round you your humility,” in allusion to Christ girding himself with a towel to wash his disciples’ feet), and by its application to her heart she was led to feel her own emptiness and Christ’s fullness. Next to the robe of Christ’s righteousness, and inseparably connected with it, is this garment of humility which distinguishes every converted soul, which every child of God puts on, and which every Christian wears. Of all the many promises of Scripture, not one is made to the proud. “God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble;” “The humble and the contrite heart the Lord will not despise.”<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. A second characteristic is teachableness <\/em>Christ was meek and lowly in heart.” He invites us to learn of him. Most children are docile; at all events, childhood and youth are the seasons for learning. Though there is no age however advanced at which we should not be learners, and no stage o! progress at which we shall not have still much to learnfor here “we only see through a glass, darkly”yet there is truth in the trite old proverb, “Learn young, learn well.” The Christian, by his very profession and by his practice, when truly converted to God, is a disciple; and what is that but a learner, a scholar in the school of Christ? There are three teachers in this schoolthe Word of God, the providence of God, and the Spirit or God. The entrance in of that Word <\/em>giveth light; it makes “wise unto salvation.” Every time we hear it preached, or peruse it prayerfully and thoughtfully, the light is brightened and increased. It is our privilege, and should be our pleasure, to study that Word daily and diligently, dutifully and devoutly. If it were only a single text meditated on each day, it would result in spiritual blessing. We are to search this Word. There is a treasure in it, and we are to dig for that treasurea pearl of great price, and we are to seek for that pearl, and, if needs be, part with everything else rather than miss it. That treasure is Christ, “in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” That pearl is Christa pearl of exceeding price. There are shallows in this Word where a child may wade, and depths which no human line can fathom. “Search the Scriptures,.” said our Lord; “for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” The providence <\/em>of God teaches us in many ways and furnishes many lessons. We need grace to mark those lessons and follow the leadings of that providence, and in this way the most afflictive dispensations are productive of good, so that there is occasion to say, “It is good for me that I have been afflicted.” The Spirit <\/em>of God is the great Teacher, he leads us into all truth, he takes of the things of Christ and shows them to us, he convinces us of sin, of righteousness, and of judgement. Let us pray for childlike docility of spirit; let us come to the three teachers we have named, and hear what God the Lord will say to our souls.<\/p>\n

4<\/strong>. A third characteristic is trustfulness. <\/em>Children are proverbially confiding. When we pass from the years of childhood we become warytoo wary; cautiousoften far too cautious, though never too circumspect. Let a parent make a promise to his child; that child never questions his father’s word, he never doubts his father’s ability to perform his promise, he never suspects his father’s willingness to make good what he has said. Would that we all acted thus towards our heavenly Father! Would that we all took him in this childlike manner and with this childlike trustfulness at his word! Would that we all sought the Spirit of adoption, by which we could look up and say, “Our Father in heaven,” and inward and say, “Abba, Father,” and outward and around saying, “All things work together for good to them that love God,”the beautiful things of earth and sea and sky are mine, for my Father made them all. In the ‘Life of Sir Henry Havelock,’ one is amused with a remarkable example of childlike confidence on the part of his son which is recorded therein. Sir Henry had had occasion to call at a public office on business. He left his son at the door to wait for him outside. The father, after despatching the business in band, passed out of the office by another way, in total forgetfulness of his son and of the appointment made with him. The boy, however, had such perfect confidence in his father’s promise and usual punctuality, that he waited, and waited, and continued waiting all the day long, till the shades of evening were gathering. By that time something had occurred to remind Sir Henry of his son, when, going immediately to the place, he found him on the spot where he had left him in the morning. God has given us his sure Word of prophecy and promise; he bids us wait, and that prophecy will be fulfilled and that promise performed. An earthly parent may fail or forget; God never forgets his promise, nor fails to perform it to his people. He is never slack concerning his promise; at the time appointed it shall come, and not tarry. It is ours to wait and watch and work, “for the day of redemption draweth nigh.” It is ours to exercise filial trust and childlike confidence in our heavenly Father, who “is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent.”<\/p>\n

5<\/strong>. A fourth characteristic. <\/em>Another characteristic is simplicity. We do not mean that a child of God must be a simpleton; quite the opposite. We are to be “wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” Now, by Christian simplicity we understand guilelessness and harmlessness. We take it to denote singleness of heart, of tongue, and of eye; it becomes the Christian, it glorifies God and impresses man. “Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings God hath ordained strength.” The children in the temple proclaimed, “Hosanna in the highest!” Once in a stagecoach, as we have read, a little interesting girl five years old was sitting beside her mother. A gentleman was paying attention to the child. After a time, turning her full blue eyes upon him, with childlike lovingness and in her own simple accents, she said,” You love God?” The gentleman passed the child’s question off as best he could. The coach reached the place of destination,, the journey ended. But still the words of that child haunted him. The question she asked was new to him; he had never thought of it before. He never rested till, by the grace of God, he was able to answer it by felt experience. Time rolled on. A few years after, as he passed through the streets of a town, he saw the mother of that little child at a window, in weeds of mourning. He called to inquire for his favourite, but she was gone; God had taken her home to glory, and to be for ever with himself.<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> CONSEQUENCES<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. Contrast. <\/em>Over the entrance to Plato’s famous academy at Athens was written the sentence, “Let no one enter here who does not possess a knowledge of geometry.” Over the gate of heaven is written, not the proud maxim of the philosopher, but this plain statement, “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein.”<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. What is implied in exclusion. <\/em>Not to enter heaven, in other words, exclusion from heaven, implies the absence of holiness, of hope, and of happiness. It is never to see the King in his beauty, never to see the land that is afar off, never to enjoy peace, never to enter into rest, never to meet God in mercy, never to sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and never to join the general assembly and Church of the Firstborn which are written in heaven. Still more, exclusion shuts out from wearing the crown and occupying the throne, from tenanting the mansion, and tuning the harp, and swelling the anthem of “Worthy is the Lamb that hath been slain to receive the power, and riches, and wisdom, and might, and honor, and glory, and blessing.” Not to enter heaven is to be excluded from the holy presence, from the blessed fellowship of patriarchs and prophets and apostles and martyrs and confessors; to be shut out from the life and light and love of the upper sanctuary; to be shut up with the devil and the damned, with lost spirits, with devouring fire and everlasting burnings; to be doomed to “weening, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth,” and to dwell for ever in that prison-house of hell, “where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”J.J.G.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:17-31<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Parallel passages: Mat 19:16-30<\/span>; Luk 18:18-30<\/span>.<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>The<\/em> rich young ruler<\/em>‘s great refusal.<\/em><\/p>\n

I. HIS<\/strong> APPLICATION<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. The position of this man. <\/em>We have in this section a most interesting narrative. The subject of it was a young <\/em>man, in the bright and beautiful prime of life, as St. Matthew tells us; a ruler<\/em> of the synagogue, as St. Luke informs us; an exceedingly rich man, as all three synoptists relate; for St. Luke tells us he was very rich<\/em>, <\/em>and St. Matthew and St. Mark that he had great <\/em>possessions. Besides this, he was an exceedingly interesting personfrank, sincere, amiable; he thus possessed many winning and endearing qualities. Nor was this all; he was outwardly moral, outwardly observant of God’s Law, and so not far from the kingdom of heaven.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. His mode of approaching the Savior. <\/em>His approach was all that could be desired. It was marked by thorough earnestness and sincerity. Our Lord was going forth into the way, or on his waystarting, it would seem, on his last journey from Peraea beyond Jordan to Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha and Lazarus. This young ruler, in breathless haste, lest he should miss his opportunity before the Savior departed, came running up and fell on his knees before him. The manner, too, in which he put his question was highly respectful, and even reverential, as appears from the words with which he addressed him. By the title “Good Master” he acknowledged his authority as a teacher, and his kindness of heart, having just witnessed the graciousness and benevolence with which he had received the little children and folded them in his arms. Our Lord appears to reprove him in a gentle way on the ground of this title, and especially to reject the term “good,” thus applied to him; he apparently refuses to accept it as a mere conventional expression, flippantly and thoughtlessly applied. But, on examining the subject more closely, it will be evident that our Lord wished to elevate the young rulers notion about himself as the Messiah, and raise his thoughts to God. He wished to give this young man a hint that he was mere than an ordinary teacher in Israel, that he was more than a mere teacher possessing great excellence of character and goodness of heart; that he was a Teacher sent from God, and therefore invested with highest authority, and holding a Divine commissionyea, and himself Divine. To this end he requires the ruler to reflect on what ground he applied the term “good,” reminding him that there was no one absolutely good save God, and implying the inconsistency of his position, and the unwarrantableness of his calling him “good” when he did not regard him as Divine. Our Lord intimates, obscurely indeed, that, while rejecting the term in the sense in which the ruler meant it, as a mere complimentary one paid to a rabbi of eminence, and regarding it as inapplicable from that standpoint, he can only accept it in conjunction with the One alone who is good, that is, God. But, as the ruler did not apply it in that sense, our Lord takes occasion to lift up his thoughts to the only One absolutely good; as though he said, “Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good;” and, “Why callest thou me good?” and, Why inquirest about the good from any mere human teacher whose goodness of head and heart, however great, is necessarily defective? Why not go at once to the One who is alone truly and absolutely good, and the Fountain-head of all goodness, and whose will is the rule and standard of what is good; while the revelation of his mind on the subject is made known in the commandments?<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. His<\/em> motive in coming<\/em>. With all this young man’s advantages he felt his need of something better; he had cravings for something higher. His wealth, with all the facilities it afforded, and all the profits it implied, and all the pleasures it procured, did not satisfy his desires or supply his spiritual needs. His longings for something better than earth or sense could furnish remained unappeased; there was still a void within which the world could not fill; he felt irrepressible yearnings for immortality. He had heard the promise of a kingdom made to the little children who believed, or rather to all who possessed their childlike spirit. He had himself come recently into the inheritance of much wealth and great possessions, and thus he is prompted to ask the question very natural under the circumstances, “What shall I do that I may inherit eternal life’?” He was alive to the worth of his soul; he felt the paramount importance of eternal life. His question, therefore, was not prompted by mere curiosity, neither was it a cold or careless inquiry; it was a downright earnest one; it was a matter of life or death with him.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> HIS<\/strong> SELF<\/strong>–SUFFICIENT<\/strong> INQUIRY<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. Nature of the inquiry. <\/em>The inquiry is that recorded by St. Matthew, “What <\/em>lack I yet?” to which the answer of our Lord is that recorded by St. Mark in the words, “One <\/em>thing thou lackest.” We must first consider the question itself. This was a second question; the first was, “What shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” and contained the very essence of Pharisaism, which made religion consist in doing<\/em>scrupulously <\/em>adhering to outward rules of conduct. This young man’s error was that of the better part of his nation; for “Israel, which followed after the Law of righteousness, did not attain to the Law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the Law.”<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. His Pharisaism. <\/em>This young man’s first inquiry shows that he expected to entitle himself to eternal life by doing many great things, or some special good thing, as the question in St. Matthew’s Gospel is, “What good thing shall i do, that I may inherit eternal life?” To this our Lord replied, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” By this reply he meant to convince him<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> that “by the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified in his (God’s) sight: for by the Law is the knowledge of sin;” and<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> to bring him to the conclusion that “the righteousness of God without the Law is manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe.”<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. His surprise. <\/em>The young ruler was somewhat surprised at the common* place nature of the answer, and, lest he had misheard or misapprehended it, he proceeds to inquire further, “Which” or, more accurately, “What kind of commandments?” He evidently expected that some new commandment would be announced by the great Teacher, or that some recondite rule of the oral Law would be set forth, or that certain minute ceremonial regulations would be made known to him. But no; the plainest, simplest, broadest commandments of the Decalogue were repeated in his hearing. The thing appears at first sight so plain, the direction so very trite, and the answers so commonplace, that the ruler, half puzzled by this very plainness, and surprised at the simplicity of the instruction of One whom he regarded as a distinguished public teacher, if not something more, exclaims in amazement,Of what kind? Which commandments do you mean? Is it those ten uttered in an audible voice on Sinai, amid thunderings and lightnings, and other circumstances of splendor and solemnity? Is it those ten that were delivered to our nation amid scenes of such unparalleled publicity as well as grandeur? Is it those ten words<\/em>, <\/em>as they are beautifully called in the original, which are now hoary with the antiquity of long years gone by, which claim the respect of the whole Hebrew commonwealth, and to which every respectable member of the community renders an outward obedience? Is it those ten commandments to which your direction referscommandments with which compliance is enforced even by an earthly judge, and transgression of which is visited with penalties by the common law?<\/p>\n

4<\/strong>. Our Lord<\/em>‘s repetition of the commandments. <\/em>In reply to this further inquiry of the young ruler, our Lord specifies the commandments of the second table in the following order, according to St. Mark:the seventh, sixth, eighth, ninth, tenth, and fifth. The expression “Defraud not” is taken by some<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> as a repetition of the eighth;<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> by others as a summary of the four commandments that preceded, or of the fifth that succeeded and that by way of anticipation; or<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> it is a peculiar form of the tenth, which we regard as the most natural and correct opinion. These commandments he quoted from the second table as the most obvious; appending a general principle which embraced all these commandments, and summarily comprehended the whole of the second table of the Law. That principle was lovelove to brother man, and a love required to be equal in intensity and extent to the love of self, as it is added, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”<\/p>\n

5<\/strong>. Our Lord<\/em>‘s object in this. <\/em>He saw that this in many respects estimable young man depended on his works for eternal life, and he reminded him that he must in that case keep the commandments, and keep them perfectly. The Savior meant to show him that such had not been the case. He meant to show him that he was a sinner, and as such needed a Savior; he meant to show him that, as far as the Law is concerned, every mouth must be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God. Even if a man from a certain pointan early period in lifekept all the requirements of God’s Law at all times and in all ways, what would atone for previous sins or remove original guilt?<\/p>\n

6<\/strong>. The Law a schoolmaster. <\/em>He meant to show him that he had “sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” that, as a matter of fact, he had been very far from attaining to universal, perfect, and constant obedience; that, in the absence of such obedience, all were concluded under sin, and that there was no exception. In this manner usually the way is prepared: the filthy rags of self-righteousness are torn off; men are led to abandon their own righteousness as a ground of pardon and acceptance before God, and to rest upon a better righteousness, even that “everlasting righteousness,” which Daniel and others of the prophets long years before had predicted as to be wrought out and brought in by Messiah, Such was probably the import of that instructive symbolic transaction, of which we read in the third chapter of Zechariah, when the filthy garments were taken away from Joshua the high priest; and when a fair mitre was set upon his head, and he was clothed with change of garments, as it is there written: “Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will Clothe thee with change of raiment.” Such is the significance of the contrast between the righteousness of the Law and the righteousness of faith in the tenth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans: “For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the Law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them .. If thou shalt confess with thy month the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised: him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”<\/p>\n

7<\/strong>. True obedience inward and spiritual. <\/em>When the young man had heard our Lord’s answer he looked upon the whole matter as a very simple thing, and possibly stood higher in his own estimation than he had done before, if that were possible. He seemed to say, If these be the commandments which you include in your direction, and if these be all, then have I obeyed themevery one of themfrom my youth up, nay, from childhood till the present hour; they have been the rule of my life. Is there anything still wanting? Have you any new commandment to add? Is there anything needed to supplement those which I long since learnt from the Law, and to which I have duly conformed from the earliest dawn of reason? And though you have overlooked the traditions of the elders, I have neither forgotten them nor neglected them, but observed them most punctiliously. What then remains? What lack I yet? Ah, how little this young man knew of his own heart! how little of the spirituality of God’s Law! how little of the exceeding broadness of the commandment! In the Law of God, as in the love of God, there are a length and breadth and depth and height to which this ruler was entirely a stranger, he had not, we are sure, been one of the audience when our Lord preached his sermon on the mount; or, if he had, he must have failed entirely to comprehend the explanation of the Law as contained in that sermon. At all events, he remained apparently ignorant that the Law in its requirements extends to the heart as well as to the life; to the principles as well as to the practice; to the feelings as well as to the facts; to the internal passions as well as to the external acts; to the inmost thoughts as well as the outward deeds. This young man had, we doubt not, maintained an unblemished character before the eyes of men; he had been guiltless of such sins as are public and common in the world, and free from all notorious vices; he had kept the Law in the letter and as prohibiting outward acts of sin; for the Savior does not call his assertion in question. Besides, had he not been a young man of blameless conduct as well as of promising talents, he could not have attained, and at an early age, his honorable position as one of the rulers of a local synagogue, or perhaps a member of the Sanhedrin, or great council of the nation.<\/p>\n

8<\/strong>. The young man<\/em>‘s deficiency in his own department of morals. <\/em>“What lack I yet?” may be taken as a boast rather than a question for information or an inquiry about future duty. He lacked much, we are sure, even on the low ground of morality; for taking the Law in its spiritual sense, and as Christ expounded it, he had no doubt offended at many times and in many ways; “for in many things we offend all.” Instead of the self-righteous, self-sufficient assertion, “all these have I kept from my youth up,” had he looked inward he might, nay, he would, have found reason to say, “All these have I broken;” for we have it on the authority of God’s own Word, that “every imagination of the thoughts of man’s heart is only evil continually.” The first commandment which our Lord specified, according to the common order as given by St. Matthew, is, “Thou shalt do no murder.” The young ruler judged himself guiltless of any breach of this commandment, because his hands had been free from blood, lie forgot that blood-guiltiness attaches to the heart as well as to the hand, to the tongue as well as to the arm that wields the deadly weapon. The teeth, as we learn from the fifty-seventh psalm, may be murderous as “spears and arrows;” and the tongue may wound as mortally as “a sharp sword;” while “out of the heart,” as our Lord himself has declared, “proceed murders.” “All these have I kept from my youth up.” And hast thou never, O young man, been angry with thy brother without a causewhen no real offense was offered and no insult intended? Hast thou never indulged the angry feeling till it formed itself in the contemptuous expression? Hast thou never said to thy brother, “Raca?” Hast thou never permitted thine anger to proceed still further, till it vented itself in terms of deepest guilt? Hast thou never said to thy brother, “Thou fool”? If soif thy heart be thus pure, thy tongue innocent, and thy hand without stain of thy brother’s bloodthen in regard to this commandment thou mayest say, “What lack I yet?” But we may take one other example. “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” This is another requirement of God’s Law, and another branch of duty towards man. Here the young ruler again declares his innocence: “This also have I kept.” Here again we must take him to task and catechize him. Is it, O young man, the external act merely of which you plead not guilty, or do you include what God’s Law includes, the impure thought and the wanton imagination? Do you include the secret desire of the heart, the lascivious look of the eye, and the indelicate utterance of the lips? Or have you never read of “eyes full of adultery,” of evil concupiscence, and of filthy communication proceeding out of the mouth? Have you never listened to or taken part in the lewd song, or the foul anecdote, or the equivocal innuendo, or the expression of double meaning? Have you ever regarded the vengeance of Heaven as due to every wanton affection, and every unchaste desire, and every roving glance, and every lustful look, and every lascivious gesture, and every impure word? Has your observance of this requirement always been thus severe, strict, and spiritual? If so, then mayest thou say with regard to this commandment also, “What lack I yet?”<\/p>\n

9<\/strong>. The Scripture standard of morality. <\/em>Oh, how exceeding broad and deep, pure and spiritual, are the commandments of an infinitely pure and holy God! In his sight the bright and beautiful sky above us is not pure, and in his presence the angels themselvesthose pure spirits whose nature is like fiery flame, and who minister the high behests of the Eternalare not unimpeachable with folly. Morality of outward action is highly commendable, and may pass current in sight of men like ourselves; but who can boast of his obedience, inward as well as outward, to all God’s commandments, in the sight of that God whom the prophet in vision saw sitting on a throne high and lifted up, before whom holy seraphic intelligences veiled their faces in deepest homage and holiest reverence, while the burden of those seraphim’s song was a just acknowledgment of his infinite holiness, saying, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory”? Who, in the sight of that God who “searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts,” can, like this young ruler, ask proudly, or even boastfully, “What lack I yet?”<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> HIS<\/strong> IMPERFECTION<\/strong> PROVED<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. The great defect. <\/em>“One thing thou lackest” was our Lord’s declaration. But that one thing was the most important, the most needful, and the most indispensable of all. He was outwardly moral, but a stranger to spiritual religion; he had a form of Godliness, but wanted the power. The one thing he lacked was love, and love which manifests itself in entire self-surrender to God and in self-denial for man. After our Lord had reminded him of the commandments and of the duties required by God’s Law, he stated a general principle that included them all, saying, as St. Matthew records it, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” In fact, the whole Law, including the commandments of both tables, is fulfilled in that one word “love”love to God and love to man; for “love <\/em>is the fulfilling of the Law.” And now he brings the principle just stated to a practical test, and puts the young ruler to the proof. “One thing thou lackest”one thing, without which no obedience can be really beautiful before men or truly acceptable to God; one thing, without which obedience is neither real nor reliable, neither permanent nor performed consistently and efficiently; one thing, without which obedience is merely mechanical, and nothing more than a whitening of the outside of the sepulcher, while the inside is dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. That one thing was the principle of love, which is the moving spring of all gospel obedience. This principle of love is the great impulse to all genuine morality; it is the essential element in all holiness. By this principle our Lord tested the young ruler, and in this practical way,You profess entire obedience to God’s Law; now, the sum and substance of that law is lovelove to God and love to man, and this love must be supreme. You must love the Lord your God with all your mind, and soul, and strength, and heart; and your fellow-man as yourself. Go, then, and act out that great principle by selling all that you have, and distributing it to relieve the necessities of your poorer brethren of mankind, and to maintain and promote the service of God. The test was found too severe for the young man’s morality; his love was more of outward observance than of spiritual obedience, more of profession than of practice, more of the lip than of the life. He was not prepared to subordinate all, to surrender all, to sacrifice all, and to suffer all, if necessary, in fulfillment of that Law, the whole of which is contained in that one word “love.” This one thing he lacked; weighed in the balance, he was found wanting. He needed another to fulfill the Law in his stead; he required a better righteousness than his own.<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> APPLICATION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SUBJECT<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. In relation to the irreligious. <\/em>Men may have fame and fortune; they may have intellectual endowments and worldly wealth; they may have every earthly comfort and convenience; they may have kind friends, happy homes, and pleasant family relations; they may have all that heart can wish. But, if they want religion, then they lack the one thing that can make men truly prosperousblessed in time and happy through eternity.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. With respect to the amiable<\/em>, and persons possessing certain good qualities. <\/em>Persons may be amiable; they may be frank and affable and obliging; they may be generous and liberal, hospitable and kindhearted; they may be upright in their dealings, and honorable in all the business of life; they may have strong natural affection in their various relationships, as sons or husbands or parents;they may be all this, and have all these good natural qualities, without either possessing or professing religion. We may admire and even love them for their amiability and other natural excellenecs, for men differ widely by nature as well as by grace; but, wanting religion, one thing they lack, and that one thing is the one thing needful.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. In regard to professors of religion. <\/em>Men may profess themselves to be on the Lord’s side; they may be hearers and readers and students of God’s Word; they may by study make themselves acquainted with its precious truthsits doctrines and duties, its precepts and promises, its entreaties and exhortations, its warnings and reproofs; they may have respect for the Scriptures, for the sabbath, for the sanctuary, and its services; they may unite with God’s people in prayer, in praise, in the sacraments, and in other exercises of religion;and after all this, and notwithstanding all this, their heart may not be right toward God; one thing they lack, and, continuing to lack it, they must perish in the end. Oh, how dreadful to think of such having their lot at last with the openly irreligious, the profligate, and the profane! And how such will gloat over those professors of religion when they descend to the abode of the lost, and exultingly say, “Are you also become as we? Are you become like unto us?” You, who professed religion, who offered prayers, and sang praises, and piqued yourselves on your superiority to profligates like us; you, who did so much and went so far,are you become cur comrades in misery, our companions in distress? Oh, we may imagine the fiendish glee with which false or fallen professors shall be jeered, when they sink down into partnership with the utterly abandoned in the place of destruction and the region of despair!<\/p>\n

4<\/strong>. With reference to ourselves<\/em>, and to avoid self-deception. <\/em>The young ruler was practising self-deception, without knowing it. He did not know his deficiency till the Savior brought him to the severe practical proof before us. Here is a salutary lesson and a solemn warning to beware of deception in our estimate of ourselves. We too, even we, may be resting on a morality that is hollow and defective; we may fancy ourselves religious, while our heart is not right toward God, and has no real love to man. We may mistake enthusiasm, or the excitement of the occasion, or the power of sympathy, especially in times of revival, for love to Christ and his cause. We may enrol our names among the followers of the Lamb, and profess our readiness to follow him whithersoever he leadeth, through evil report and good report; we may worship with a degree of devoutness in the sanctuary, partake of the sacraments, wear the so-called “livery of religion,” and practice strict outward morality. All this is right and proper, all this we should do; and yet, notwithstanding all this, we may not possess supreme love of the Savior; and so this one thing we lack, and thus are destitute of the chief thing, the main thing, the one thing most essentially needful, and absolutely indispensable to our present and everlasting well-being.<\/p>\n

5<\/strong>. How we are undeceived. <\/em>We may be ignorant of our deficiency till the Savior calls us to self-renunciation in some form or other; till he summons us to surrender some besetting sin or mortify some beloved lustto cut off a right hand or a right foot or pluck out a right eye; to take up our cross in some way and follow him. He may require us to contribute more liberally to the claims of his religion, to give more largely to his cause, to work more vigorously as well as pray more earnestly for the extension of his kingdom; or, it may be, he demands a more unreserved consecration of our time, or talents, or influence, or example, or eloquence, or wealth, or whatever else we have to give and can give. Our refusal or reluctance to comply in any of the cases supposed, proves that one thing we lack, and the lack of it proves the entire absence or imperfection of that love which is the basis of duty and the principle of religion.<\/p>\n

6<\/strong>. Evidence<\/em> of our possessing that love which works by faith. <\/em>If we have true love to the Lord Jesus, our surrender to his service will be complete; we shall give on all proper occasions and in due proportion to his cause; we shall, in a word, do and dare, and even die, if needs be, for his sake. We shall put in practice that principle of self-sacrificing love which our Lord requires, and which is ready to give all and do all and suffer all for him who loved us and gave himself for us. Wherever there is real affection, whether it be to friend or fellow-man or fatherland, that affection may be modified by national character or natural temperament, but it will be sure to manifest itself in some shape and develop itself in some way; it will unfetter the feet, it will untie the hands and set them to work, it will give utterance to the tongue, and impart activity to the life. We find an illustration of this in that remarkable military enterprise, “The Retreat of the Ten Thousand Greeks” out of the heart of the Persian empire. They had crossed deep rivers and climbed high mountains; they had overcome difficulties almost incredible, and encountered dangers of every kind; they made good their retreat in the face and in spite of all the artifice and arms of Persia. At length they reached the summit of a hill called Theches (now Tekeh), between Erzeroum and Trebisond; and when, from the top of that high hill, those gallant Greeks, many of whom were islanders and all of them accustomed to the sea, descried in the distance the dark waters of the Euxine, they raised a loud and long-continued cheer. “The sea! the sea!” was the shout of every tongue. The sea reminded them of their native waters, and of their island homes; and the tide of affection rose in their bosoms, high as the laughing tides that “lave those Edens of the Eastern wave.” So, wherever true affection exists, it needs but the occasion to call it forthsomething to move the memory, and it vents itself spontaneously with overflowing fullness.J.J.G.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:22-31<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Parallel passages: Mat 19:22-30<\/span>; Luk 18:23-30<\/span>.<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>Riches and their relation to the kingdom.<\/em><\/p>\n

I. REFLECTIONS<\/strong> TO<\/strong> WHICH<\/strong> THE<\/strong> INCIDENT<\/strong> GAVE<\/strong> RISE<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> <\/em><\/strong>Effect on the young ruler. <\/em>He went away grieved. He is now brought to see that he cannot obey two masters; he cannot serve God and mammon. “He was sad at that saying.” The word here used is peculiar. In one other place it is applied to the appearance of the sky, and translated lowering<\/em>; <\/em>and so a cloud came over the young man’s brow. Our Lord esteemed him (), for he undoubtedly manifested several endearing traits of characterhe was sincere, ardent, and evidently aspiring to something heroical in religion. For the present, however, he went away.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. Question about his return. <\/em>Whether this young man was Lazarus, as some have conjectured from a certain similarity of incidents, such as “One <\/em>thing is needful,” compared with “One thing thou lackest,” is of course uncertain, as is also the probability of his afterwards returning to the Savior. “He was having <\/em>( ) <\/em>great possessions,” is a somewhat striking, phrase, and denotes habitual as well as actual possession, His preference was given to worldly things for the present, and was called. by Dante “the great refusal.” One thing is certain, that those possessions soon reverted to others; and whether it was force, or fraud, or casuality, or death that at last deprived him of them, they were taken away; and if he continued to cling to them, and to prefer them to the heavenly inheritance, then he could reckon on no reversion in the skiesno portion of which it could be said, “it shall not be taken away from” him.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. The rich man<\/em>‘s difficulty. <\/em>“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” The difficulty of his entrance into the kingdom of heaven is stated<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> proverbially. <\/em>This proverb is quite in keeping with the Oriental style of exaggeration, or hyperbolical expression. Some have read<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> , a rope<\/em>, <\/em>instead of , a camel, but without adequate authority. Some, again, understand it to mean<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> the narrow side-gate <\/em>for foot-passengers beside the large gates of Eastern cities. This, however, is rather a modern conception to explain an ancient idea. The difficulty is connected with trusting <\/em>in riches, and arises from the temptations to which riches expose their possessors. The love of riches is the root of the evil. A rich man may sit loose to the riches he possesses, while a poor man may set his heart upon the wealth to which he aspires. The astonishment of the apostles was occasioned partly by the extreme difficulties placed in the way of the rich by the temptations inseparably connected with riches; and partly by temptations of other kinds which they felt as placing difficulties in the way of salvation, specially, perhaps, among these the need of that inward subjective righteousness which is to be wrought out, and which, though it is not the title to, is the meetness for, the heavenly inheritance. The universal desire for wealth, and their own secret expectations of the rich rewards of an earthly kingdom, all of which were reprobated by the words of our Lord, increased the anticipated difficulty and intensified their amazement.<\/p>\n

4<\/strong>. The claim preferred by Peter on behalf of himself and fellow-disciples. <\/em>The refusal of the ruler to take up his cross and follow Christ suggests a comparison. Peter is the mouthpiece, as usual, and gives utterance to his own and the unspoken thoughts of his fellow-apostles. “Lo,” he says, “we <\/em>have left all, and have followed thee;” he draws special attention to the fact by a “Lo,” or “Behold.” Others soon after did the same, and literally acted out the requirement which our Lord proposed to the ruler as the practical test of that principle of self-denying, self-sacrificing love which is the spring of true obedience; for in Act 4:34<\/span>, Act 4:35<\/span>, we read, “As <\/em>many as were possessed of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.” Peter, however, supplements his statement of fact by the inquiry, “What shall we have therefore?” as St. Matthew informs us. Peter reckons on a rewardhe calculates on a quid pro quo<\/em>; <\/em>and so far forth he shows that he has failed in the spirit of the requirement, though he has fulfilled it in the letter. An earthly kingdom with its attractive rewards was still looming before the eyes of these partially enlightened men.<\/p>\n

5<\/strong>. The promised compensation. <\/em>In the componsatory reward the equivalents for “father” and “wife” are omitted. The reason is not far to seek; we have not many fathers in Christ. As the apostle writes to the Corinthians, “Though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers;” but contrariwise we may have many spiritual mothers, as well as brothers and sisters. Thus Paul reckons among his spiritual mothers the mother of Rufus, when he says (Rom 16:13<\/span>), “his mother and mine.” The jeer of Julian, with respect to a multiplicity of wives, is referred to by Theophylact in the following terms:”Shall he then also have a hundred wives? Yes. Though the cursed Julian mocked this.” Theophylact then proceeds to explain it of the ministry of holy women supplying food and raiment, and relieving the disciples of care about all such things. The compensation of a hundredfold for all we abandon or lose for Christ’s sake must be understood figuratively and spirituallyfiguratively as to the quantitative proportion, spiritually with regard to quality or kind. The apostles enjoyed the fulfillment of this promise to the utmost in the presence and companionship of their Lord and Master, his instructions, his guidance, and his grace. There is no one who will make a similar sacrifice for his name<\/em>‘s <\/em>sake, according to St. Matthewthat is, as read in the light of the other evangelists, for sake of Christ and his cause, or Christ and his kingdom, not by reason of a calculation of rewardthat will not gain what is a hundred times more valuable than all they sacrifice: Divine favor, pardon of sin, purity of heart, peace of conscience, spiritual consolations, friends in Jesus; and all these not only in the present dispensation, but at the present season (); while in the coming dispensation we shall have eternal life; that is to say, every blessing we need in this world, and eternal blessedness in the world to come. One of the items here enumerated is generally understood as a limitation; but does not denote<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> after <\/em>persecutions, which would require the accusative, nor <\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> amidst <\/em>persecutions, but <\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> with <\/em>persecutions,<\/p>\n

implying that persecutions have a place among the enumerated blessings, just as in the sermon on the mount we read, “Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” We should also compare with this promise of the Savior the inventory of the Christian’s possessions, as reckoned up by the apostle in 1Co 3:22<\/span>, 1Co 3:23<\/span>. Further, strictly temporal blessings are not excluded, but either directly or indirectly included. Godliness enables us in a certain sense to make the best of both worlds, being profitable for all things, and “having the promise of the life that now is, as well as of that which is to come.” The blessing of the Lord maketh rich; for with ‘his blessing and the enjoyment of his favor men cultivate those virtues and habits that tend to temporal as well as spiritual well-being, such as industry, thrift, temperance, health, purity, prudent management, proper economy, and consequent credit, all of which bear directly on worldly wealth and present happiness.J.J.G.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:32-34<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Parallel passages: Mat 20:17-19<\/span>; Luk 18:31-34<\/span>.<\/p>\n

A third prediction by our Lord of his passion and resurrection.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. REPEATED<\/strong> PREDICTIONS<\/strong> ON<\/strong> THESE<\/strong> SUBJECTS<\/strong>. The disciples required line upon line on this subject; they were so slow to grasp it and so loth to entertain it. It appeared to them inconceivable and incredible. When it was first directly and definitely announced, Peter deprecated it in the strongest terms, and so far forgot himself that he presumed to rebuke his Master, which drew down on him in turn that severe and sharp reproof, “Get thee behind me, Satan,” as though Satan had employed Peter as his emissary, and to do his work on that occasion by tempting our Lord to shrink from the sufferings he foretold. Instead of affording our Lord that support and sympathy, that strength and encouragement which, in view of the approaching ordeal, his human nature craved, his servants whom he loved and who loved him so well, though not always wisely, fell in with Satan’s own suggestion at the temptation to the Savior, to seek the crown without the cross. Why not prove his Messiahship and assume his Kingship over the nations with out such suffering and sorrow, without the sharpness of death and shade of the sepulcher?<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> PREVIOUS<\/strong> PREPARATION<\/strong>. The previous training which the disciples had received from the Lord would, one might think, be sufficient to have disabused their minds of the prejudices of their race and nation to which they were so prone. Even after they had been convinced of his Messiahship, and after Peter’s notable and noble confession of it, they needed to be repeatedly reminded of the necessity of his suffering and death to the completion of his work, and to be instructed once and again about the needfulness of his resurrection to demonstrate the divinity of his mission, and that he had power to lay down his life and power to take it again, as also that, delivered for our offenses, he was to be raised for our justification. The notion of a temporal kingdom was so firmly fixed in their minds, and intertwined with all their Messianic hopes and expectations, that it was next to impossible to eradicate it. And yet, at an early period of his ministry, and almost immediately after his proclaiming the near approach of the kingdom of heaven, he expounded the principles, laws, and spiritual nature of that kingdom. Thus, in the sermon on the mount, he explained the object and elucidated the rules <\/em>of that kingdom in the fifth chapter of St. Matthew; he then interpreted, according to the rules of the kingdom, those religious exercises <\/em>in which the subjects of the kingdom engage, in the sixth chapter of the same Gospel; while in the seventh he lays down the mutual duties <\/em>of the members, with other duties of a more general but practical kind. In his seaside parables, again, as recorded in the thirteenth chapter of the same Gospel, he traces the gradual progress, steady development in spite of all obstacles, and ultimate success of that kingdom. When thus prepared for it, he proclaimed to them once and again, and now the third time, in distinct, definite, and decided terms, his passion, death, and resurrection.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> AN<\/strong> ADDITIONAL<\/strong> FEATURE<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> PREDICTION<\/strong>. In this third direct prediction a new element is introduced, the Gentiles are mentioned for the first time in connection with our Lord’s death. “The Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles.<\/em>“ <\/em>And yet, strange, yea, passing strange, “they understood,” as St. Luke tells us, “none of these things.” It is probable that they understood his Language as figurative, and expressive of the great difficulties to be overcome, and the formidable obstacles he would have to encounter in making his way to his Messianic throne. Hence it was that they were amazed at his alacrity, as he went before them and led the way as they were going up to the capital. This much, at the least, they must have known, that he was soon to face his bitterest foes; they must have had some foreboding of the risk he was about to run, and the perils to which he was going to expose himself. Consequently they were amazed at the more than wonted energy with which he pressed forward to the place of danger and the scene of suffering; and though, like a dauntless leader, and fearless hut faithful general, he marched at their head, preceding them and leading them forward, they fell timorously behind, afraid to follow him in the perilous path he was pursuing. We may here recall to mind that the first direct prediction of his death was in the neighborhood of Caesarea Philippi, soon after Peter’s confession; the second shortly after, as they were returning to Capernaum; and now, on their way up to Jerusalem, he states the particulars more fully and clearly than ever before. The “spitting” is here mentioned by both St. Mark and St. Luke, the condemnation of the Jewish Sanhedrim is referred to by St. Matthew and St. Mark; the execution by the Gentiles is recorded by all three synoptists; while the mode of death by crucifixion is mentioned by St. Matthew alone.J.J.G.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:35-45<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Parallel passage: Mat 20:20-28<\/span>.<\/p>\n

The ambition of the apostles: the sons of Zebedee.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. PROBABLE<\/strong>. ORIGIN<\/strong>. Peter and James and John certainly enjoyed a sort of precedence over the other apostles; they were primi inter pares <\/em>at least, and constituted an inner circle among the members of the apostolic office. They were not only the first called to follow Christ, and to undertake special service in his cause; they had been privileged with his closest confidence; and they were admitted as his sole attendants, as we have already seen, on three most remarkable occasions. It was soon after one of these occasions, that of the Transfiguration, that the dispute about precedence occurred, on their journey to Capernaum. The natural inference seems to be that the prominence assigned to these three favourite apostles excited the jealousy of the rest, and occasioned the dispute referred to. And now again two of these aspiring men, having their heart still fixed on an earthly and secular kingdom, had their ambition fired by our Lord’s mention of twelve thrones, as recorded by St. Matthew, and the apostles seated on them, in the regeneration, that second birthday of our world, in which the present sufferings and sorrows of earth’s travail-throes shall at length issue. Accordingly, ashamed perhaps to present the petition themselves, they induce their mother Salome, according to St. Matthew’s record, to present it for them, “desiring a certain thing of him;” and according to the principle, Quod facit per alterum facit per se. <\/em>They thus try by a sort of trick, if we may so say, to make sure of our Lord’s consent before specifying the nature of this unreasonable petition.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> CUP<\/strong> AND<\/strong> THE<\/strong> BAPTISM<\/strong>. By “cup” is meant one’s lot or destiny, be it good or bad, especially the latter. Thus, “Thou makest my cup run over,” where the lot is plenty; and the words, divested of the figure, are nearly equivalent to, Thou givest me a plentiful supply as my lot. Again, it stands for vengeance allotted to the wicked, as is said of Jerusalem, “Thou hast drunk at the hand of the Lord the cup of his fury; thou hast drunken the dregs of the cup of trembling, and wrung them out;” and in Psa 75:8<\/span>, it is the cup of wroth, or the portion of Divine and deserved indignation apportioned to the wicked, for it is there written, “In the hand of the Lord there is a cup, and the wine is red; it is full of mixture; and he poureth out of the same: but the dregs thereof, all the wicked of the earth shall wring them out, and drink them.” Baptism, again, has three different meanings, or rather applications, in Scripture. There is baptism with water, a Christian sacrament; there is baptism by the Holy Spirit, or regeneration, which is that change by which we become truly Christians; and there is baptism in the sense of suffering, which is its meaning here.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> A MISRENDERING<\/strong>. “But to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them <\/em>for whom it is prepared of my Father.” This verse, as it stands in our version, seems to limit the power of the Savior, and to be at variance with his own statement in Luk 22:29<\/span>, where he says, “I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” It also appears flatly to contradict that! promise of our Lord recorded in Rev 2:21<\/span>, “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne.” Various methods of rectification have been resorted to. The Latin Vulgate cuts the knot by inserting, vobis, to you, and so rendering the clause in question, “It is not mine to give to you<\/em>, <\/em>but to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.” But as this addition is not supported by any manuscript authority, it must be rejected as arbitrary. Still more unwarrantable is the explanation of some, who understand the answer of our Lord as having reference only to the time previous to his sufferings, as though it meant, “It is not mine to give till after I shall have suffered; then all power will be vested in my hands.” Now, the difficulty is in a great measure created by the words supplied in our version, and therefore marked in italics as above. The ellipsis thus indicated is either too little or too large. It must either be extended or eliminated altogether. We might enlarge the ellipsis, and take the clause to signify, “It is not mine to give (as a matter of favouritism), but it is mine to give (on the ground of fitness) to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.” It is much better, however, to omit entirely the words supplied. This at once does away with the difficulty, and removes the seeming contradiction, while the sense of the original thus becomes plain and clear. Accordingly, we would read the last part of the verse thus, “Is not mine to give, but [save] to them for whom it is prepared.” The preparedness of the recipients, not the power of the Savior, is the only limitation of the bestowment in question. This power, again, is exercised in accordance with the Divine purpose, while in Rom 8:29<\/span>, Rom 8:30<\/span> we have a full declaration of such purpose: “Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” The view which we thus adopt corresponds with the rendering of the old Syriac, which translates the portion of the verse before us without supplying any words. It is confirmed by Luther’s German translation. It has the sanction of several other important versions, both ancient and modern. The only objection to this, namely, that has thereby the sense of , is set aside by comparing Mat 17:8<\/span> with Mar 9:8<\/span>, Where, in recording the same fact, in nearly the same words, St. Matthew uses , while St. Mark expresses the same sense by . Even in the chapter immediately foregoing (Mat 19:1-30<\/span>.), is employed in nearly the same signification at the eleventh verse: “All men cannot receive this saying, save () they to whom it is given.” Though not identical, they closely approximate, for “res eodem recidit sire oppositione sive exceptione” If an ellipsis be at all admissible in the verse we are considering, then the words suggested by Alford, “Is not mine to give, but it shall be given by <\/em>me,” or those supplied by De Wette, “Sondern denen wird es verhehen,” or even those supplied in the Revised Version, “Is not mine to give: but it is for them <\/em>for whom it hath been prepared, are undoubtedly preferable to those supplied in our common version, and express the sense much better. Still, even the words thus introduced to eke out the meaning of the origininal seem awkward and unnecessary.J.J.G.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:46-52<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Parallel passages: Mat 20:29-34<\/span>; Luk 18:35-43<\/span><\/p>\n

The cure of two blind men at Jericho.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. BLIND<\/strong> BARTIMAEUS<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. His condition was<\/em> blind<\/em>; <\/em>he was deprived of that most valuable sense of sight. He was a stranger to the beauties of nature. “The light is sweet, and a plant thing it is for the eyes to see the sun;” but that sun, that light, those beauties, those bright colors of sky or earth or sea; those lovely forms that appear in the heaven above, the earth beneath, and the waters round the earthall, all were to him a blank. We know nothing of this blind man’s family or friends, but from the patronymic, “Son of Timaeus,” we may infer that his father or family had been of some note; but the former had gone the way of all the earth and the latter had fallen into decay. That morning, however, whether by relative or friend or neighbourly hand, he was led forth to his accustomed seat by the Wayside. He could hear the sound of the voices round him, but he could not see the persons who spoke; he could feel them if they came in contact with him, but could not behold them. Of all that passed by that way he could only judge by the voice or sound. The expression of their countenance, their form or figure, theie smiles or tears, their bright eyes or sad looks, their sweet or sullen, were to him unknown and by him unseen. Our Lord, having continued his journey through Peraea, crossed the Jordan opposite Jericho, and arrived at that once famous city, upwards of five or six miles to the west of the river, and miles in a direct line eastward of Jerusalem. This ancient place, round which so many associations gathersuch as its conquest by Joshua, its rebuilding by Hiel the Bethelite in the reign of Ahab, notwithstanding the curse; its mention in the history of the <\/strong>prophets Elijah and Elisha, its close connection at an early period with our Lord’s own ancestrywas celebrated for its palms and balsams. Its fertilizing spring contributed to its wealth and importance. It was beautified by Herod the Great; subsequently destroyed, but rebuilt by Archelaus; celebrated by the historian Josephus as a populous and prosperous place in his day. But its glory long ago passed away. It is now a miserable hamlet called Riha. <\/em>At the time of our Lord’s visit, however, it was a flourishing town, and entitled to its ancient designation of the “city of palm trees,” or “city <\/em>of fragrance,” as the name derived from the verb ruach<\/em> imports. Fragrant flowers and aromatic shrubs perfumed the air; the scenery around was fresh and lovely; while every prospect was pleasing, and “man alone was vile.” On the morning of the day that our Lord arrived at Jericho the gardens round the town bloomed in beauty, as usual, and charmed the eye of the beholder; the feathery palm lifted high its head in air or waved in the morning breeze; the Jordan valley stretched away into the distance. It was springtime, moreover, for multitudes were on their way to the great spring festival of the Passover at Jerusalem, and spring had clothed the landscape with vernal beauties. Over all the loveliness of earth was spread the clear blue of a Judaean sky, while down on all the glorious sun was shedding his bright beams, lighting up the whole with brilliancy and beauty. But what were all these beautiful sights and bright scenes to the blind Bartimaeus? As far as he was concerned, they might as well have been dark and dismal, blank and black, like a moonless, starless night, with its darkness thick as in the land of Egypt, even “darkness that might be felt.”<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. His circumstances. <\/em>He was poor. Incapable of any worldly calling, he was a dependant on the charity of others; he was reduced to solicit alms of the passing traveler. Thus he was not only blind, but a beggar. Troubles love a train: one trouble seldom comes alone. The blindness of Bartimaeus was aggravated by his poverty, and his poverty had no relief nor remedy but begging. His blindness had been the visitation of God; his poverty and beggary were misfortunes consequent thereon. For both he was to be pitied, for neither to be blamed. There was no special sin in his blindness, and therefore none in his begging. What a complication of misery had fallen to this poor man’s lot in life! One almost fancies he sees Bartimaeus as he sat that day by the wayside, with face pale, his head bare, perhaps bald from age; while those placid featuresas the features of the blind always areand those sightless eyes might well move the hardest heart to pity. The blind man hears the footsteps of travelers going on their way; he hears the earnest conversation of passers-by, eagerly bent on business or pleasure. Many a time the proud priest has gone that way, but ever passed by on the other side; or the haughty Levite has only cast a glance of curiosity at the blind man; sanctimonious Pharisees, with broad phylacteries, have looked with scorn on the poor mendicant. Many a time the cheerful voices of men and women have sounded in his ears, and many a time he has listened to the sound of childhood’s fun and frolic. Day by day, as such sounds were repeated in his hearing and close at hand, all must have seemed to him lively, all cheerful, and all happy save himself, the poor blind beggar, doomed to melancholy darkness. This day, however, he hears the rush of many feet, the tread as of a numerous crowd, the shouts as of a mighty multitude. He wonders what the sound of those many footsteps means, what the swell of those voices can be. He listens till the crowd comes nearer, and he hears them speak in praise, a few, perhaps, in blame, of the Prophet of Nazareth.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. The corresponding state of the unconverted. <\/em>Many in the state of their soul resemble that poor blind beggar. The Scriptures speak of blind <\/em>people that have eyes”they have eyes, but see not;” their understanding is darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them because of the blindness of their heart. Satan, the prince of darkness, blinds the minds of them that believe not. His followers are of the night and of darkness, and at last, if they follow him to the end, they shall be east into outer darkness. By nature men are spiritually blind. They are face to face with great realitiesGod and heaven and eternitybut they do not see them. They are on the brink of a great precipice, they are close to great peril, but they do not see it. Like a blind man on the edge of a frightful abyss, and yet seemingly secure just because he is blind to the danger. They are side by side with great truths, but, not seeing them, they deny their existence, as if a blind man denied the existence of mountains and rivers, the great sea and the bright sun, because he does not see them. There are great beauties just beside thembeauties of holiness, of grace, of glory, of Christ, and God; but they are as blind to spiritual beauties as a blind man to all the multiform beauties of this lovely worlda world so lovely notwithstanding the blight of sin. The spiritually blind see no comeliness in Christ that they should desire him, no glory in the gospel that they should embrace it, no preciousness in salvation that they should seek it, no beauty in holiness that they should practice it. Neither do they see any terror in the threatenings of God, nor much, if any, sinfulness in sin; nothing to attract in the promises of the gospel, and nothing to terrify in the curses of a broken Law. Sinner, you are blind, though you know it not! The sinner is poor <\/em>as well as blind. He has no peace in this world, no prospect for the next; he has no real satisfaction on earth, and no sure hope of heaven. He has no shelter from the storm of Divine wrath, and no refuge in the day of danger. He has neither part nor lot with the people of God, no interest in the covenant of promise, no title to the heavenly inheritance, and no meetness for it. He is without the only blood that can cleanse from sin, the only righteousness that can justify a sinner, the only Spirit that can sanctify the soul. In a word, he is without Christ, and without God, and without hope. This surely is povertyspiritual poverty, the deepest and the worst. This is the sad state of all unregenerate persons. They are, in the words of Scripture, “wretched<\/em>, <\/em>and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” They are blind in soul as Bartimaeus in body, poor in spiritual things as he was in temporal. And yet to such the advice is addressed, “I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve,<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> APPLICATION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> BARTIMAEUS<\/strong> TO<\/strong> JESUS<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. His inquiry. <\/em>The first step here was inquiry. Hearing the noise of the on-coming crowd and the voices of the multitude passing by, he asked what it meant, and the answer returned to his inquiry was “that Jesus of Nazareth passeth by.” This was good news for the poor blind beggar. Bartimaeus had no doubt heard of Jesus, of his works of wonder and miracles of mercy. Some report may, nay, must, have reached him about the lepers cleansed, the demoniacs cured, the sick restored to health, the deaf whose ears were opened, the dumb whose tongues were loosed, even the dead raised to life, and, what came more closely home to himself, the blind whose eyes were opened. Bartimaeus might, most probably did, hear all this; but how was he to reach the Prophet? Where could he find him? How could he, a poor, blind beggar, make such a long and weary way? Unless Jesus came into the neighborhood of Jericho, he could not expect to be blessed and benefited. Now, however, what he never expected has come to pass. Jesus is at his sidehe is passing by; and now Bartimaeus feels that it is his opportunity, a most precious opportunity, far too precious to be lost. When his condition had rendered it impossible for him to go to the Savior, the Savior has come to him. Instantly and energetically he avails himself of this blessed opportunity. Now or never, he thinks with himself. He does not lose a moment; he cannot afford it, for he knows not but that the chance may be lost for ever. Bartimaeus bethinks himself of all this, reasoning thus:He is come to me; I could not go to him; and it is do or die now. If I lose this opportunity I may never have another. The tide will soon ebb; I must take it at the flow. The steamer will soon start; I must enter it or it will go without me. The bell is ringing and the train will soon be off; if I do not take my place at once I am left behind, and perhaps for ever. Somehow thus reasoned the poor, blind beggarif we may be permitted to translate his words, or rather express his thoughts, in modern parlance.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. His earnest appeal. And so “he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me.” Previous occurrences had prepared for this: Christ was passing by that way; Bartimaeus was informed of his approach; he felt his need, and the Friend of sinners was near. Thus the Various stages were inquiry, information, felt necessity, and the Savior’s presence. His appeal was earnest as well as instant. He cried out, and it was a strong and loud cry. Many things might have prevented his appeal, but they did not; many impediments lay in the way, but he did not allow them to keep him back. The crowd did not deter him, for he was in earnest, and cared not what the crowd either said or thought. The fact of so many strangers being round him did not stop him, for their presence was nothing to him, and he was too anxious for relief to feel false shame. The circumstance of his poverty did not prevent him; on the contrary, it prompted him all the more. True, he had no introduction to the Prophet from Galileeno one to make known his situation or explain his unhappy circumstances, and bespeak the Savior’s favor on his behalf. Still he hoped his earnest appeal would find an echo in the bosom of the illustrious Stranger. He had no merit, he knew, to recommend him, and no particular claim on that Stranger’s clemency; yet he was resolved to try whether his misfortune might not awaken his sympathy.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. A lesson for ourselves. Jesus passeth by; he is near to us, and his presence is close at hand. In this sense he passeth by every time a sabbath dawns upon us, and every time we see the light of the sabbath sun? He passeth by, that is, is present, every time we enter the sanctuary and assemble ourselves with the people of God. He passeth by, and we are apprised of his presence, every time we are privileged to listen to a gospel sermon. He passeth by us every time we read his Word, or sing his praise, or call on God’s name in prayer. He passeth by us every time we partake of the sacrament of the Supper, and he maketh himself known to us in the breaking of bread. Oh, how often on such occasions has “our heart burned within us as he talked to us by the way, and opened to us the Scriptures”! He passeth by us every time his Holy Spirit strives with us or exercises his gracious influences upon us. He passeth by and makes us feel his presence times and ways past specifying or reckoning. He assures us of this; for has he not said, “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me”? Jesus has come near and close to each of us. He assumed our nature and became our Kinsman. He saw us in our blood, cast out into the open field on the day in which we were born; he pitied us and passed us by, and his time was a time of love. He has come to us, or we should never have gone to him; he has sought us, or we should never have sought him. He has passed us by and made his mercy known to us. He has made good his word, “I bring near my righteousness; it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not tarry.” Nor is it a mere hasty and passing visit he pays us. He has stood at the door of our heart until his head has become wet with dew and his locks with the drops of the night. But he will not stand always. He passeth by; and while we understand this statement of his presence, and of that presence manifested to our souls, of his gracious presence in his ordinances, and of his Holy Spirit stirring in our hearts, yet we must not make the fatal mistake of supposing that this will last always. In the very nature of things it cannot continue. Life itself is uncertain, and time is short. Besides, the day of grace will not always tarry; like the Savior himself, it passeth by. Jesus never visited Jericho again, nor did he ever pass by that way again. So with ourselves. He has visited us often; who can say when or which shall be his last visit? Oh, then, for such earnestness and eagerness as Bartimaeus showed, on the part of all that hear the gospel! Jesus has passed near us many a time, and yet some of us, up to the present moment, care for none of these things. We have never cried for help as we ought, or sued for mercy as we should; we have never eagerly sought his grace, or earnestly supplicated forgiveness. We have been lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot. If so, let us beware lest, like the Laodiceans, we are spued out of his mouth. We may have been at ease in Zion, and like wine settled on the lees, forgetful of the woes pronounced on such. How little of the earnestness of this blind beggar do we show in the things of God! And yet, if like him we felt our need, we could not but be earnest and energetic. The hungry man will beg for bread; the thirsty man will repair to the clear cool spring; the starving babe, by the very instinct of its nature, will cry for nurture; even the dumb animals have ways of making known their wants and of seeking a supply: and shall we be so indifferent to spiritual necessities and eternal interests?<\/p>\n

4<\/strong>. Characteristic of discipleship. <\/em>Bartimaeus exhibited several characteristics of true discipleshipcharacteristics Which all should seek to possess. He was prompt. <\/em>There is need for promptness, for God’s long-suffering has its limits. He may wait long, but will not wait always. He passeth by, vouchsafing his presence for a time, but withdrawing it when he sees fit so to do. He was humble<\/em>, <\/em>for his plea was for mercy: “Have mercy on me.” He was conscious of the entire absence of all merit. He came at once, and came as he wasin his blindness, in his poverty, and in his beggary. So should it be with ourselves. We must come according to the spirit of the simple lines<\/p>\n

“Just as I amwithout one plea<\/p>\n

But that thy blood was shed for me,<\/p>\n

And that thou bidd’st me come to thee,<\/p>\n

O Lamb of God, I come!<\/p>\n

“Just as I ampoor, wretched, blind<\/p>\n

Sight, riches, healing of the mind,<\/p>\n

Yea, all I need, in thee to find,<\/p>\n

O Lamb of God, I come!”<\/p>\n

His faith was remarkable; he was fully abreast of his times in theological knowledge; he was fairly ahead of the crowd in his knowledge of the Savior. They informed him that it was Jesus of Nazareth that was passing by. They represented him correctly, as far as they went; but their representation was sadly imperfect and shamefully incomplete. They regarded him as a prophet, but a prophet of a despised place and of a despised province. His native town and native province were both of little, or rather of ill repute. “Can any good thing,” asked Nathanael, “come out of Nazareth?” The Pharisees said scornfully to Nicodemus, “Search and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.” Bartimaeus knew better. Blind as he was, and so shut out from books as the source of knowledge; poor as he was, and so deprived of the means of acquiring information, he had made himself in some way or by some means acquainted with the descent and dignity of Messiah. Hence he accosted him, not as Jesus of Nazareth, but addressed him, “Jesus, thou Son of David.” In any case the Spirit of God had been his instructor. Thus, too, we must come to Jesus with a proper apprehension of his character and claims, of his mercy and his might, as well as of our own worthlessness and helplessness. Feeling ourselves sinners, our individual inquiry must be, “What must I do to be saved?” Accepting the answer furnished by God’s Word, we must “believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and we shall be saved.” Feeling ourselves lost, we are encouraged by the Savior’s own gracious assurance, that He “came to seek and save that which was lost.” Feeling ourselves deep down in the pit of sin, in this low and lost condition, we are cheered by the declaration that his errand into our world was to save sinners, even the chief. However blind the eyes, Christ can open them; however hard the heart, he can soften it; however dark the stain of our sin, his blood can wash it out; however desperate our case, his grace can meet it; however sorrowful and forlorn our spirits, he can soothe and comfort them. His perseverance was also remarkable<\/em>. His ardor was not to be repressed, his earnestness was not to be checked. Having found the long-expected Deliverer, he was determined not to be parted from him; having attained a convictiona rapidly growing and speedily maturing convictionthat he was now within reach of One who could convert the soul as well as cure the body, he continued to cry to him, and ceased not till his cry was heard and answered. The crowd wished to impose silence on him, yet he persevered; the multitude rebuked him, that he should hold his peace, yet he “cried the more,” says St. Matthew; “the more a great deal,” says St. Mark; “so much the more,” says St. Luke. They protested against his appeal, and manynot one, or two, or three, but many of themcharged him to hold his peace. His outcry appeared to them, no doubt, so loud, so boisterous, so rude, that they did their best to suppress it; but he refused to desist. Some thought him too contemptible to deserve notice, or to delay the procession; felt or feigned concern for the Master, as have too many objects of others, perhaps, solicitude on his spirit, and too many and too heavy burdens on his shoulders already; but in spite of all these obstacles, and in face of all this opposition, Bartimaeus persisted, and in the end succeeded. Such was this poor beggarthis brave, blind man! When sinners set about seeking God, they may expect similar obstruction, and rebukes equally heartless and cruel. Satan will be sure to rouse opposition from some quarter. The world will flatter them or force them to desist; friends will speak words of pity or persuade them to abandon their self-imposed task; formalists may shake the head and speak of fanaticism, enthusiasm, or unwisdom. But earnest souls, like Bartimaeus, will not, must not, give up or give over. Once they have put their hand to the plough, they may not turn back; once they have set their face Zionward, they must not turn away or turn aside. The language of the twenty-seventh Psalm will be on their lips, and acted out in their life, as the psalmist says, “Though an host should encamp against me, my heart shall not fear: though war should rise against me, in this will I be confident. One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after .. Hear, O Lord, when I cry with my voice: have mercy also upon me, and answer me.” Thus waiting on the Lord, they shall be enabled to hold on their way; waiting on the Lord, they shall be strengthened; waiting on the Lord, they shall experience that merciful support, of which mention is interjected six and twenty times in the psalm which records Israel’s trials and triumphs”for his mercy endureth for ever.”<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SUCCESS<\/strong> WHICH<\/strong> CROWNED<\/strong> THE<\/strong> APPLICATION<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. “Jesus<\/em> stood still.<\/em>“ So <\/em>says St. Matthew, so says St. Mark, so says St. Luke; all three evangelists agree in recording this fact. He was on his last journey to Jerusalem; he was hurrying on to drink and drain the cup of bitterness, and be baptized with the baptism of blood; he was hastening forward with eager steps to bear his people’s sins in his own body on the tree, to satisfy Divine justice by the sacrifice of himself, to vindicate God’s truth, express God’s love, and magnify God’s Law, to maintain the glory of the Divine attributes, and secure the salvation of countless human souls. Never was there a journey so important, never was errand so deeply interesting, and never was there another embassy involving such weighty consequences and vast concernments. Heaven and earth and hell were all affected by that journey; the glory of God was connected with it; and the redemption of man depended on it. And yet, notwithstanding all the urgencies of that journey, and all the ardor, even bordering on impatience, with which our Lord was speeding forward on that journey, the cry of distress arrested him; the prayer of a blind beggar stopped him! And so it is still, for the prayer of the penitent has a potency that Divine mercy never resists, and will not repel. The waves of the sea stood still, and the waters of the river stood still, in the interests of God’s people, and in order that they might pass over; the sun and moon stood still at the cry of Joshua, and that the hosts of Israel might prolong their victory; the shadow stood still, or rather went back, on the dial-plate of time at the prayers of good King Hezekiah, and to assure him of an addition of fifteen years to his limit of life. But what are the waters of the sea, or the luminaries of the sky, or the element of time to him who furrowed the channel for the one and fixed the place of the other, and who himself fills all space with his presence and all time with his fullness? And yet he stood still when that crisis, the greatest in all this world’s history, was fast approachingfor Messiah to be cut off, sin to be made an end of, and everlasting righteousness brought in; and all this in answer to Bartimaeus’s earnest entreaties, and to restore sight to his blind eyes and impart life to his dead soul.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. What he did on standing still. <\/em>We have three accounts of this also, but, while identical in the main, they exhibit the same thing under different aspects. “He called” is the statement of St. Matthew; “he commanded him to be called” is the version of St. Mark; “he commanded him to be brought” in the addition of St. Luke. In the first we have the sovereignty of God, who calls us by his gracecalm us out of darkness into marvellous light. In the second we have the ministry of man. “The Lord gave the Word,” we read: “great was the company of those that published it.” In the third we have the agency of the Holy Spirit. God, of his sovereign grace and mere good pleasure, calls uscalls us, as St. Peter assures us, “unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus;” and so, as stated in other Scriptures, it is a “high calling,” a “holy calling,” and a “heavenly calling.” To men, as his ambassadors, is committed the ministry of reconciliation; they are employed to explain the Divine call, to enforce it and repeat it. The Holy Spirit’s agency must accompany the minister’s message, to bring it home in power and demonstration and assurance, convincing of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. Thus we are made willing in the day of his power; and thus at his own command we are brought unto him. The lessons of his Word, the dispensations of his providence, the ordinances of religion, the movements of his Holy Spirit on our hearts, are all employed in drawing us to Christ for the salvation of our souls.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. A strange question. <\/em>We almost see the blind man rise in haste at the word of command, which is now repeated to him by the crowd, with the encouraging “Be of good comfort,” and, in obedience to the Savior’s call, rush forward, “casting aside his garment,” in his eager, earnest haste. We almost hear the Savior answer the unspoken thought of the blind man’s heart, as he said unto him, “What wilt thou that I should do unto thee?” There was little need for such an inquiry, one would think, on the part of our Lord. There was not one in all that crowd that could not guess, and guess correctly, the answer; the Savior knew the thought that was uppermost in the blind man’s heart, for he knew what was in man. Why, then, does he ask the question? Just in order to give him an opportunity of presenting his petition and making known his wants in his own words.<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> So in our own case we come to Jesus by his command and gracious invitation; that command is expressed in many forms, such as “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden;” “Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.” His invitations are multiplied.<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> In coming we must lay aside every weight, and the sin that would most easily beset us, just as Bartimseus cast aside his outer garment, to be free from every entanglement that might retard or altogether prevent our reaching him. The young ruler, as we have seen, came to Jesus; he longed for Jesus, and Jesus esteemed him; he panted for life eternal, but could not bring himself to part with the things of this present life; he did not cast aside his garment.<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> We are to come with prayer. Once the gracious desire is formed in our heart by the Spirit of grace, it will soon shape itself in prayer, for the spirit of grace is also the spirit of supplication. Though he knows our wants better than we ourselves, and before we ask him, and even our ignorance in asking; yet he will hays us express them in prayer, so that “Behold, he prayeth!” indicates the first outgoing of spiritual life. God grants to our feeblest petitions what he will not give without them. Prayer fits us for receiving the blessing; it puts us into the proper positionthat of humble dependence; it exalts the Giver without in any way degrading the receiver; it brings us into conformity with God’s own plan. Fixed, as the alternation of day and night, or as the succession of the seasons, or as the order of the universe itself, is God’s purpose that we must ask in order to receive, seek in order to find, and knock in order that it may be opened. When our necessity is greatest, let us go to him by prayer, and he will supply it; when the trial is sorest, let us go to him in prayer, and he will alleviate it or entirely remove it; when the burden is heaviest, let us go to him in prayer, and he will lift it entirely off our shoulders or at least enable us to bear it.<\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> Another reason for the question was to suggest the large liberality and great generosity of the Savior; there is a glorious fullness in the inquiry, “What wilt thou?” There is a gracious freeness in it at the same time. There is a royal ring in the question; there is a kingly munificence. It reminds us of, though it surpasses, both in reality and richness, the question of King Ahasuerus to his queen, “What is thy petition? and it shall be granted thee: and what is thy request? even to the half of the kingdom it shall be performed.” So to Bartimaeus the Savior said, What wilt thou that I should do unto thee?” and it shall be done; you have only to make your choice; you have only to mention what you want. I do not limit you; if straitened, it is in and through yourself. So to the suppliant still Christ says, “What wilt thou that I should do unto thee?”The wealth of worlds is mine; the power of omnipotence is mine; the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are mine; ask, and you shall receive what you want, as much as you want, yea, all you want, provided it be really expedient for you, conducive to the Divine glory, and consistent with the welfare of your fellow-man.<\/p>\n

4<\/strong>. The<\/em> blind man<\/em>‘s direct reply. <\/em>Bartimaeus, we are sure from all the known circumstances of the case, wanted many thingsbetter clothing, more wholesome food, a more comfortable place of abode, more of the necessaries of life in general; some even of its simple comforts would not be likely to spoil this poor mendicant, who had suffered so long from privation, pining in poverty, and pinched with want. Bartimaeus refers to none of these things, or such things as these; he comes directly to the point; he names at once the thing which he needs most; he mentions the one thing needful for the relief of his direst necessity. “Lord,” he said, “that I might receive my sight.” In like manner, whether we engage in public supplication, or family worship, or private devotions, we should have before our mind our most urgent necessities, rightly discriminate them, really feel them, and with pointed earnestness and plain directness of speech express them; we should have some felt want, some real necessity, an actual petition to prevent or hearty thanksgiving to render.<\/p>\n

5<\/strong>. The cure<\/em>. It was immediate: “immediately he received his sight.” It was a wonderful change for this poor, blind man; it was a new and blessed experience; it was like a transference into a new and beautiful world; in fact, we cannot realize, and words fail to express it. Equally new, and gracious, and wonderful, and blessed is the translation out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light, out of the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of God, which takes place in regeneration, when the eyes of the understanding are opened and the light of the knowledge of the glory of God flashes in upon the soul.<\/p>\n

6<\/strong>. The means<\/em> employed. <\/em>The gentle touch of Jesus’ hand was the outward <\/em>instrumentality. Lovingly, tenderly, he passed his hand over the sightless eyeballs. What a thrilling touch that was! What condescension withal! How it helped the sufferer to hope for the best, and to have faith in the Savior’s power! The inward means was faith: <\/em>“Thy <\/em>faith hath saved thee.” Nor is it said, “Thy promptness hath saved thee,” though his promptness was laudable; nor “Thy humility,” though that was most becoming; nor “Thy perseverance,” though that was commendable; nor “Thy Scriptural knowledge in relation to the Messianic hopes of the nation,” though that was of a superior kind; but “Thy faith.” Faith and salvation go hand in hand together; God has joined them; let not man separate them: God has wed them, and let not man divorce them.<\/p>\n

7<\/strong>. How<\/em> faith saves<\/em>. It saves, not by any merit in itself, not by any virtue of its own; it saves by bringing us into contact with Christ. It is the instrument that extracts virtue from the grace of Christ; it is the link of gold that unites with and binds us to Christ; it is the arm that puts on the robe of Christ’s righteousness, and that is the robe of salvation; it is the hand stretched out to receive the gifts that grace bestows. “He <\/em>that believeth shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be damned.”<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> HOW<\/strong> BARTIMAEUS<\/strong> PROVED<\/strong> HIS<\/strong> GRATITUDE<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. He followed Christ<\/em>. His faith, as usual, wrought by love; and love keeps near, and delights in, the presence of the beloved object. So with all who love the Lord; they follow him. Soon as the eyes are enlightened to see his beauty and his excellence, we follow him; soon as the heart begins to burn within us by his teaching, we follow him; if true disciples, we follow him; if sheep of the Good Shepherd, we follow him. “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” In Old Testament as well as in New Testament times, it was so with all who loved the Lord. Thus it is recorded to the honor, and redounded to the salvation, of Caleb and Joshua that they” wholly followed the Lord.” The psalmist speaks his personal experience in the words, “My soul followeth hard after thee.” The children of God in both Testaments followed the Lord as monuments of his mercy, as trophies of his grace, as living witnesses of the power of his love, and as witness-bearers to his truth. Bartimaeus followed him “in the way.” We read of the Israelites, in their journeyings, being on one occasion sorely “discouraged because of the way.” It may be so with ourselves, yet we must follow the Savior whithersoever he leads; whether it be up the hill of difficulty, or down the hill into the valley of humiliation; whether it be a way of toil and trial, of danger and distress, or in green pastures and by still waters; taking up our cross, we shall, by his gracious help, follow him; through evil report and good report we shall follow him. Even when his way, as often, is in the sea, and his path in the great waters, and his footsteps are not known, we will follow him. But how do we make sure that it is the waythe right way? He has himself marked out the way in his Word, and said to us, “This is the way, walk ye in it;” his providence has erected signposts along the way, so that a “wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein” or wander therefrom; his Spirit guides us in the way and comforts us by the way. Thus instructed in his Word, led by his providence, and guided by his Spirit, we shall follow him in the way which, rough though it be at times, and painful, and even distressing, leads in the end to glory, honor, and immortality.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. He glorified God<\/em>. “Glorifying God,” says St. Luke. So, too, shall we. We have always admired that opening statement in one of the Westminster standards, which says, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him for ever;” it contains at once the whole duty of man, and the chief blessedness of man. We glorify God by deep and heartfelt gratitude; we glorify him when we praise his name and defend his cause; we glorify him by the devotedness of our life and our consecration to his service. Thus by the homage of the heart, by the fruit of the lips, and by the sinlessness and faithfulness of the life, we glorify him. We have good cause to glorify God for his unspeakable giftthe Son of his love and our beloved Savior. We glorify God for raising up “a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;” for the perfection of his person, the purity of his life, the suitability of his offices, the efficacy of his death, the prevalence of his intercession; for “his agony and bloody sweat, for his cross and passion, for his precious death and burial, for his glorious resurrection and ascension, and for the coming of the Holy Ghost;” for all he has done for us, for all he is doing, and for all he has promised to do.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. The happy<\/em> influence exerted on others<\/em>. “All the people,” says St. Luke, “when they saw it, gave praise unto God.<\/em>“ <\/em>There is a holy contagiousness in this work. When one gets good for his own soul, he cannot keep it to himself, he cannot hide it; the gratitude is so deep, the joy is so great, that he must declare it aloud and to all around, just as the psalmist, saying<\/p>\n

“All that fear God, come, hear; I’ll tell<\/p>\n

What he did for my soul.”<\/p>\n

Or again<\/p>\n

“God will I bless all times; his praise<\/p>\n

My mouth shall still express.<\/p>\n

Extol the Lord with me, let us<\/p>\n

Exalt his name together.”<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> Conclusion. <\/em>We would sum up our study of the case of this poor, blind beggar in the now somewhat trite, but still touching and tender verses of a poet lately departed<\/p>\n

“Blind Bartimaeus at the gates
Of Jericho in darkness waits;
He hears the crowd;he hears a breath
Say, ‘It is Christ of Nazareth!’
And calls, in tones of agony,<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The thronging multitudes increase;<\/p>\n

‘Blind Bartimaeus, hold thy peace!’
But still, above the noisy crowd,
The beggar’s cry is shrill and loud;
Until they say, ‘He calleth thee!’<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Then saith the Christ, as silent stands
The crowd, ‘What wilt thou at my hands?’
And he replies, ‘Oh, give me light!
Rabbi, restore the blind man’s sight!
And Jesus answers,<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

“Ye that have eyes, yet cannot see,
In darkness and in misery,
Recall those mighty voices three,<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

We may here add, in a very few words, the common solution of two seeming discrepancies of the evangelists’ narrative: viz. our Lord cured two <\/em>blind men together on this occasion; but Bartimaeus was better known, either previously, as already hinted, in reference to the patronymic, or subsequently as a “monument of the Lord’s miracle;” while in reference to the place<\/em> or time <\/em>of cure, one of the two had made his application to our Lord as he approached or entered Jericho, yet was not cured at that time, but in company with the second, as our Lord left the city.J.J.G.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Mar 10:1<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>By the farther side of Jordan<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> Through the country upon the Jordan.<\/em> Campbell. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Mar 10:1-9<\/span> . See on Mat 19:1-8<\/span> .<\/p>\n

] points back to Mar 9:33<\/span> .<\/p>\n

] see the critical remarks. He came to the borders of Judaea, and that<\/em> (see Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc.<\/em> p. 9 ff.; Hartung, Partikell.<\/em> I. p. 145) on the further side of Jordan<\/em> , “ipsa Samaria ad dextram relicta” (Beza). At Jericho He came again to this side, Mar 10:46<\/span> . See, moreover, on Mat 19:1<\/span> .<\/p>\n

. . . .] And there gather together to Him again crowds of people<\/em> . , for previously, at Mar 9:30<\/span> ff., He had withdrawn Himself from the people.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:2<\/span> . Mark has not the properly tempting element<\/em> in the question, but it is found in Matt.: (see on Mat 19:3<\/span> ). That this element was not also preserved in the<\/em> tradition which Mark here follows, may very naturally be explained from the reply<\/em> of Jesus, which ran unconditionally<\/em> (even according to Matt. Mar 10:4-6<\/span> ). Mark therefore has not the original<\/em> form of the question (Bleek, Weiss, Holtzmann, Schenkel, Harless, Ehescheid.<\/em> p. 30), nor does he make the question be put more captiously<\/em> (Fritzsche), nor has he made use of Matthew incorrectly, or with alterations consonant to his own reflection (Saunier, Baur), because the Jewish points of dispute as to divorce were to him indifferent (Kstlin); but he follows a defective tradition, which in this particular is completed and corrected in Matthew. De Wette’s conjecture is arbitrary, that Mark presupposes that the Pharisees had already heard of the view of Jesus on divorce, and wished to induce Him to a renewed<\/em> declaration on the subject. The perilous element of the question does not turn on the divorce of Herod<\/em> (Ewald, Lange). See on Matthew.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:3<\/span> . Here also the tradition, which Mark follows, deviates from Matthew, who represents that the commandment of Moses is brought into question not by Jesus, but by the Pharisees, and that as an objection against the answer of Jesus. But it is more natural and more forcible that the reply of Jesus should start immediately from Deu 24:1<\/span> , and should first elicit this Mosaic on the right estimation of which depended the point at issue from the mouth of the questioners themselves, in order thereupon to attach to it what follows.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:4<\/span> . ] emphatically prefixed (see the critical remarks): Moses permitted<\/em> , in saying which their , Mar 10:2<\/span> , is present to their minds. See, moreover, on Mat 5:31<\/span> . They prudently refrain from saying .<\/p>\n

Mar 10:5<\/span> . . .] the commandment of the putting forth a writing of divorcement.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:6<\/span> . The subject<\/em> (as is not genuine) is to be taken out of ( ). See Khner, II. p. 36, 4.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:7<\/span> . Christ makes Adam’s words at Gen 2:24<\/span> His own<\/em> . It is otherwise, but less directly and concisely, given in Matthew.<\/p>\n

] because God created men as male and female in order to correspond with this arrangement of the Creator.<\/p>\n

The futures<\/em> indicate what will happen<\/em> in cases of marrying according to God’s ordinance.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

PART THIRD<\/p>\n

The Lords Conflicts and Victories in Pera. Transition from the Old Church to the New. The Disciples gathered together for the Passion<\/p>\n

________
FIRST SECTION<\/p>\n

CARNAL MARRIAGE LEGISLATION OF THE PHARISEES, AND THE SPIRITUAL MARRIAGE LEGISLATION OF THE LORD<\/p>\n

Mar 10:1-12<\/span><\/p>\n

(Parallel: Mat 19:1-12<\/span>.)<\/p>\n

1And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judea, by [through]1<\/span> the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again. 2And the Pharisees came to him,2<\/span> and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his<\/em> wife? tempting him. 3And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her<\/em> away. 5And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept:3<\/span> 6But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8And they twain shall be one flesh:4<\/span> so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 10And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.<\/em> 11And he saith unto them,5<\/span> Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.<\/p>\n

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

See<\/em> the notes on the parallel in Matthew , 19<\/em>Christs abode in Pera embraces three occurrences: the treatment of the subject of divorce, the bringing of the little children to Jesus, and the rich young man. These transactions all belong, doubtless, to the second abode of Christ in Pera. We must, according to the connection of the evangelical narratives, assume two residences in Pera; for we know that Jesus, after the Feast of Tabernacles in the year of persecution 782, returning into Galilee, assembled His disciples there; that with them He journeyed through the boundaries of Galilee and Samaria to Pera (see<\/em> Luk 9:51-52<\/span>; Luk 17:11-19<\/span>; comp. Leben Jesu,<\/em> ii. 2, 1058), appeared then in Jerusalem at the Feast of the dedication, and afterwards returned back to Pera, Joh 10:42<\/span>. That the circumstances related by the Evangelists Matthew and Mark belong to the close of the second abode in Pera, is manifest from the intimation that the rich young man came to Him as He was on the point of journeying; and the same applies to Matthews account of the mothers bringing their children. But with this last transaction that concerning divorce was closely connected.Concerning Pera, see<\/em> the Critical Notes<\/em> on Matthew,<\/em> as also concerning the double<\/em> residence in Pera, and the significance of the Peran narrative in relation to the founding and preparation of the new congregation, the Christian Church.Christian ecclesiastical regulations begin with regulations for the house: with the Christian legislation, 1. for marriage; 2. for children; 3. for property.<\/p>\n

As to the relation of Mark to the Synoptists in the Peran sections, he and Matthew alone record the matter concerning divorce. Mark states more precisely than Matthew that Jesus penetrated through Pera to the borders of the land, Mar 10:1<\/span>. In Matthew, on the other hand, there is a more definite account given of the first journey of Jesus to Pera, accompanied by a great train. Matthew says that great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there. Mark says that the people resorted to Him again (, again in Pera), and that, as He was wont, He taught them again. In the Lords answer to the tempting question concerning divorce, Mark places first the reference to the Mosaic law of marriage, and brings in the paradisaical law afterwards: Matthew inverts that order. But it is in harmony with the character of Mark, that he introduces all by the piercing word of decision. The rebuke of the Pharisees is, moreover, made more keen by the fact that he assigns the saying concerning the Christian marriage law (Mar 10:10-12<\/span>, compare Matthew Mar 10:9<\/span>, Mar 5:32<\/span>) to the house<\/em> in which Jesus continued His discourse with the disciples on this question. Here also, as often elsewhere, Mark shows that the Lord, after His intercourse with the people, retreated to the house, that is, the inn, where He had been received, for the sake of confidentially continuing His words to the disciples. These are the lesser images of the Lords greater retreats.The words that follow were not for the Pharisees. Mark gives the addition, If a woman shall put away her husband; but then he omits the conversation between the disciples and the Lord concerning the difficulty of true marriage, If the case of the man, etc. (Mat 19:10-12<\/span>). In the section about the children (which Luke also has), Mark alone makes it prominent that Jesus was displeased with the disciples. He records, in common with Luke, the saying about not receiving the kingdom of God as a little child. That Jesus here again took the children in His arms and embraced them, as He had done the child in Capernaum, Mark alone mentions. He also makes it more distinctly prominent than Mathew does, Mar 10:15<\/span>, that the rich young man came to the Lord on the occasion of His leaving Pera. Luke alone tells us that the young man was a ruler, probably a ruler of the synagogue. But Mark alone records that, after the declaration All these have I kept from my youth up, Jesus looked upon him and loved him; as he also later inserts the Lords approbation of the questioning scribe, Mar 12:28<\/span> seq.<\/em> To him also we owe the striking and vivid trait, that the rich young man put on a gloomy and fallen countenance () after the Lords answer. The amazement of the disciples at the word, How hardly shall the rich, etc., Mark exhibits as continued and increased, even after the Lords explanation, How hard is it for them that trust in riches. In the transaction that followed, between Peter and the Lord, Mark is more express than Luke in recording that Peter only began<\/em> in his confusion to inquire about the reward, and that he did not give full expression to his words. He omits the clause, What shall we have therefore? which Matthew inserts. It is very remarkable that Mark omits here again the saying of Jesus concerning the twelve thrones of the Apostles (Matt. Mar 10:28<\/span>), even as he had omitted the special prerogatives of Peter. It is obvious to suggest on this point, that the saying about judging the twelve tribes of Israel was not so easily intelligible to Gentile Christians (although Luke also has it, Luk 22:30<\/span>). On the other hand, Mark gives the broad and comprehensive promise of the Lord to the disciples who renounce all, and in the most full detail: Mar 10:30<\/span>, there is the hundred-fold compensation, houses, and brethren, etc., already in the present life, although amidst persecutions.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:1<\/span>. And He arose from thence.<\/strong>In the wider sense, from Galilee; in the narrower sense, from Capernaum, where He gathered together His disciples.By the farther side of Jordan.<\/strong>That Jesus did not merely come to Persia, but travelled through Pera to the borders of Juda, that is, to the most eastern limits of Pera, is plain even from the words of Matthew; but is still more plainly declared in the expression here used by Mark. For the whole of Pera could hardly be described as the borders of Juda in the wider sense. A whole province of a land can never be merely regarded as its border. On the immediate occasion of this journey to Pera, see<\/em> on Matthew, Critical Notes.<\/em>Again.<\/strong>The repeated seems to have been employed in consequence of the distinct remembrance of a double abode of Jesus in Pera. At any rate, the events that follow belong to the second residence.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:2<\/span>. Asked Him.<\/strong>Meyer: Mark omits, what Matthew gives, the properly tempting element in the question, . But, according to the explanation of Ewald (see Critical Notes<\/em> on Matthew<\/em>), the question was a critical and tempting one, even without that addition, because it was dangerous in the territory of Herod Antipas to say anything against divorce. De Wette supposes that the Pharisees may have been aware of the Saviours earlier declaration concerning divorce. That may be true; in any case they might very well guess that, on this question, His utterance would perfectly coincide with that of the Baptist. Either, thought they, He must in His answer touch Herod too closely, or the Baptist; that is, He must fall under the condemnation either of worldly power, or of the pious.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:3<\/span>. What did Moses command you?<\/strong>The order of the main points is not the same in Mark as in Matthew. Matthew comes down from the paradisaical institute to the Mosaic; Mark, on the contrary, rises from the latter to the former, and moreover makes Jesus Himself put the question concerning the law of Moses, and the tempter give the reply. This seems to have been the natural order. Elsewhere we have it as the first counter-question of Jesus: What is written in the law? (See<\/em> Mar 10:19<\/span>, and Luk 10:26<\/span>.)<\/p>\n

Mar 10:4<\/span>. Moses suffered to write<\/strong> (see<\/em> Deu 24:1<\/span>).In Matthew we read, Why then did Moses command<\/em> to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? and the answer of Jesus: Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered<\/em> you to put away your wives. And in Marks account of the Pharisees words, they give, as in Matthew, a distorted view of the Mosaic law. Moses had suffered<\/em> to divorce, and restrictingly commanded<\/em> that a letter of divorce be given in addition. In Matthew, it is true, the opposition between the design of the Pharisees and the mind of Moses is made more expressly prominent. But in Mark, the opposition is found in the emphatic statement, that Moses wrote this commandment on account of the hardness of their hearts; that is, not in order to divorce, but, with the divorce, to give a bill<\/em> of divorce therewith. The two accounts, in fact, are, as to their results, one and the same. The bill of divorce found divorce existing; it was intended to limit and restrain it, and make it more moral. The man who put away his wife, required the services of a learned scribe in order to construct the bill of divorce; it was necessary that he should give the grounds of the separation, and the ordinance of the lawgiver required those grounds never to be light or trivial. Moreover, there were two cases in which the marriage was indissoluble,viz., when a man dishonored a virgin, and when he slanderously denied the virginity of his young wife (Deu 22:19<\/span>; Deu 22:29<\/span>). In Mark, also, more weight is attached to the other point of opposition which our Lord brings out: His appealing to the paradisaical ordinance. We must also notice the expression, wrote this precept.<\/em> It refers to a written, restricting law for hardness of heart, in contradistinction to the everlasting and original commandments of paradise: hence the written word is to be interpreted in harmony with these last.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:7<\/span>. For this cause shall a man.<\/strong>The words of Adam (Gen 2:24<\/span>) are in Matthew words of God; in Mark, words of Christ. It is all the same; for Adam uttered those words prophetically as a paradisaical, divine, fundamental ordinance. They are words of God, as being eternally valid; and words of Christ, as rules for life to be restablished and sanctified. The Futures indicate the necessary realization of the original relation and condition of the sexes in marriage. As it is<\/em> in reality and principle, it must be<\/em> in development. See Critical Notes<\/em> on Matthew.<\/em><\/p>\n

Mar 10:10<\/span>. And in the house His disciples asked Him.<\/strong>Here, as often elsewhere, our Lord, according to Marks account, retreated, after a public transaction with the people, into the house, where He followed up His public teaching by more confidential instruction. Meyer: The two Evangelists here differ, as it respects the place, the persons to whom our Lord speaks, and the substance of what He says. He then gives the account of Matthew the preference. But the thought of Mar 10:11<\/span> is already found in the words of Mar 10:9<\/span> : What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Divorce was by that word forbidden. It is an error to speak of any difference here; all we can say is, that Mark gave a more specific account. And this is strictly in harmony with the circumstances of the case; it was fit that Christ should give His fullest utterance concerning the New Testament law of marriage within the more confidential circle of His disciples.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:11<\/span>. Committeth adultery<\/strong>.The marriage contracted with the one is adultery towards the other. Meyer supposes that must mean, in reference to her, that is, the forsaken woman. But, literally, refers back to the last mentioned. The great point is, that the adultery against the first woman is consummated by marriage with the second, and thus the second marriage is made into adultery. The (Matthew) is omitted by Mark. But it makes no difference, as this reason for divorce is self-understood. (Meyer.)<\/p>\n

Mar 10:12<\/span>. And if a woman.<\/strong>Meyer denies the genuineness of this added clause. Among the Greeks and Romans it certainly was customary for the woman to be the abandoned party; but not among the Jews, since the examples they furnishMichal (1Sa 25:44<\/span>), Herodias (Mat 14:4<\/span>), Salome (Joseph. Antiq.<\/em> 15, 7, 10)were preminent enormities. But he overlooks the fact, that Jesus, according to Mark, here gives His disciples a confidential decree for His new Church, and appoints a new custom which, as did the primitive paradisaical ordinance, goes far beyond the good and ill customs of the Greeks and Romans. It is to be observed that the Herodians introduced amongst the Jewish people laxer customs as it respects woman.<\/p>\n

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. See<\/em> on Matthew.<\/em><\/p>\n

2. For the hardness of your heart.<\/em>This word is in sharp contrast with the sentimental excuses made for breaches of the marriage-vowsuch as rest upon the softness<\/em> of the heart, the overpowering emotions of love, etc.<\/p>\n

3. And in the house.<\/em>Confidential household words of Jesus to His disciples, according to Mark: concerning the power of casting out demons, Mar 9:28<\/span>; the great in the kingdom of heaven, Mar 9:33<\/span>; and here concerning New Testament marriage. In other passages it is solitude generally, or solitude on a mountain, in which Jesus imparts to His disciples the confidential utterances that belong to the future of His new Church, Mar 4:10<\/span>, etc. On the other hand, the house of Jesus is often the centre of great assemblages of the people, Mar 2:1<\/span>; Mar 3:20<\/span>; even the house which Jesus chose for His rest and retirement cannot continue hidden, Mar 7:24<\/span>. In the most important crises of His conflict, Jesus turns from official encounters with His opponents to a free exposition of His doctrine to the whole people. So in Mar 7:14<\/span>; Mar 12:36<\/span> seq.<\/em> Thus the house of the Redeemer is, on the one hand, the most private, and on the other, the most public, place; always, however, in its most hidden privacy opened and known. And as the Lord, in His method of teaching, passes over from the general announcement of the word into confidential communications to His chosen disciples, so also we perceive that He passes over from dealing with the priests and the officials to a freer application of His words to all the people. In the former case He regulates His teaching according to their being able to hear<\/em> His words; in the latter, according to their being willing.<\/em> The doctrine of Christ is the most secret and the most public: the great and utterable mystery.<\/p>\n

4. Not only does monogamy generally lie at the foundation of this passage, but also the idea of the true ideal monogamy, which is constituted not so much by the union of two human exemplars as rather by the blending of two human personalities ( ), which are to each other similar to what (we do not say the same that) Adam and Eve were created to be to each other.<\/p>\n

5. 1 Corinthians 7<\/span> : The Pauline development of the Christian marriage-law with reference to mixed marriages.<\/p>\n

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

See<\/em> on Matthew.<\/em>Jesus pressed on all sides to the limits of His land; or, Jesus within the limitations of His earthly vocation: 1. Sacredly observing the legal restrictions; 2. extending to them, touching them; 3. going beyond them in His spiritual life and work (endlessly towards north, east, south, west).The Lord in Pera provides beforehand for His Church: 1. He confirms and establishes that which is the fundamental condition of its establishment (the Christian household); 2. in this place He prepares a refuge and hiding-place for the future of His persecuted people.Pera the last refuge of the Redeemer; the first refuge of His Church.The pilgrimages of Christians to Christ: 1. As they spring from impulse of heart, not human traditions; 2. the life of the Spirit, and not spiritual chains; 3. movements towards the true rest, and the true rest in movement (that is, on the one hand, not the running without an object, and, on the other hand, not frigid form).How the Lord for ever refers the tempters to the word of God:How He glorifies Moses: 1. As an expositor of the creation; 2. as a prophet of redemption.How Christ confirms the unison between the old and the new covenants.Moses wrote his law for sinners; or, the finite side of the written law of God in its changeableness, explained by the finite nature of the fallen child of God.God, even in the external changeableness of His revelations, confirms His own unchangeable character.The dignity of marriage measured by the dignity of filial piety (of the relation to father and mother).In order to true marriage according to the mind of Christ, more than a man and a woman is wanting.From the right of the husband follows necessarily the right of the wife; as from the obligation of the one follows the obligation of the other.Concerning the contrast and the reconciliation between the laws of the State and the eternal, fundamental laws of the Church of Christ.The reciprocal influence of the punishment of death and the divorce appointed in the Jewish law: 1. Ecclesiastically: an actual adultery is spiritual death, and death as to moral fellowship; 2. an inexorable prohibition of all divorce, on civil or ecclesiastical grounds, leads to death in many ways, even to the death of the higher moral family life (see<\/em> the South American and other Catholic states); 3. the reference to spiritual death in adulterous sin must remove and heal the deadly influences of both lax and over-severe marriage ordinances.<\/p>\n

The three sections together.<\/em>The Christian household 1. in relation to marriage, 2. the children, 3. the property, 4. the vocation of the members to walk according to Gods will, and to deny themselves.<\/p>\n

Starke:Nova Bibl. Tub.<\/em>:Envy is soon found in the track of a teacher who has a large body of dependants.Quesnel:A true preacher is not soon weary.Every age has its Pharisees, whom the devil often uses for the temptation of pastors, and whom God permits to test His people.Osiander:We must take care what answers we make when questions are put to us on doubtful matters; for many ask questions, not that they may learn, but that they may have something to blaspheme or except against.Quesnel:The bond of marriage is a figure of the union of Christ with His bride, the Church; which He will never renounce, even as she will never be separated from Christ, Eph 5:32<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Schleiermacher:And thus we have here an example of the manner in which the Lord administered discipline in relation to the high and mighty ones of the earth. He was not moved by the fact that Herod was an example of the sin; nor did He present the matter in the slightest degree otherwise than it was, because a person was affected in whose land and in whose power He Himself then stood.It was of the essence of the old covenant, if we go back to the legislation and lawgiver of the Jewish Church, that the divine law and the civil law were one and the same. The civil and political ordinances must be regulated by the condition of men at the time.The civil law in relation to the actions of men, and the divine law, which utters the laws of conscience (in Christendom), distinguished.The levity and impure motives which too often enter into marriage contracts.Therefore we should regard it as a public evil, that such marriages are often contracted as should never be contracted.Marriages are matters of public concernment.<\/p>\n

Brieger:Man must take his right place in the sight of God before he can take his right place in respect to his fellow-men, whether as husband, father, etc.Gossner:Alas! when we look round upon the condition of Christendom, and observe all the laws, usages, and customs which prevail, touching how many things must we say, In the beginning it was not so<\/em>!Bauer:We may here again see how surely the man who stands firm to Gods word shall escape the most cunning snares that his most cunning enemies may lay for him.<\/p>\n

Footnotes:<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]<\/span>Mar 10:1<\/span>.The reading of Cod. A. ( &c.) must not be given up, with Lachmann and Tischendorf (who read ), on account of B., C.*, L.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/span>Mar 10:2<\/span>.Elzevir reads ; but the article is not supported.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/span>Mar 10:6<\/span>.The is wanting in B., C., L., ., &c., and omitted by Tischendorf [and Meyer, and bracketed by Lachmann].<\/p>\n

[4]<\/span>Mar 10:10<\/span>. . Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, following A., B., C.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/span>Mar 10:12<\/span>.Lachmann and Tischendorf read instead of , following B., C., D., L., .<\/p>\n

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

CONTENTS.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Our Lord is here discoursing on the subject of divorcement. Little Children are brought to<\/em> CHRIST. The LORD again speaks of his approaching Sufferings.<\/em> Jesus passeth through Jericho.<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

AND he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again. (2) And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his<\/em> wife tempting him. (3) And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? (4) And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her<\/em> away. (5) And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. (6) But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. (7) For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; (8) And they twain shall be one flesh; so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. (9) What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (10) And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.<\/em> (11) And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committed adultery against her. (12) And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Our LORD’s circuit in his ministry would lead, in the contemplation of it, to a most profitable subject. Unwearied in all his services, with zeal to his Father’s glory, and his people’s happiness, the sun watched his path by day, and the stars witnessed to his communion by night. It was no small distance Jesus had advanced in a little space. In the 8th Chapter we find him on the borders of Tyre<\/em> and Sidon<\/em> westward, and now he is arrived eastward on the coasts of Judea<\/em> by Jordan.<\/em> Precious LORD! what a lesson, and what an example, to thy ministers and people! Joh 9:4<\/span> .<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

We have the Pharisees, the sworn foes to CHRIST, in this paragraph at their own trade again; not to receive instruction, but to entangle Jesus in his talk. They brought forward for his decision, that popular question already decided in their mind, but wishing to entrap CHRIST: the subject concerning Divorces. But how unworthy soever their designs were, the Church of CHRIST find cause to bless GOD that the question was put to CHRIST, since it gave occasion for his very sweet and gracious answer; by which the doctrine respecting divorces is put upon its just and unalterable foundation. If the reader will once more read over this paragraph, from the 2nd to the 12th verse inclusive, I will then request his attention to the subject, according to our LORD’s own statement.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

And first;<\/em> Our LORD most decidedly proves, that even in the cases where Moses<\/em> permitted a divorcement, he allowed it not, without compelling the husband to write the bill with his own hand, before be put her away. As if to shew, that it should not be the hasty impulse of the moment, but the solemn and serious result of proper deliberation; thereby allowing an harsh and angry husband the time to relent. And even here, it was to be done with such coolness, turning over all the consequences, that the husband by the same law, however afterwards he might repent, was not by any means allowed to take her again. See Deu 24:1-4<\/span> . And the LORD JESUS added that this law, which seemed rather to wink at such conduct than justify it, would never have been given by Moses<\/em> but for the hardness of their hearts. So decidedly against all divorces was the tender and compassionate Jesus.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

But, secondly:<\/em> The LORD JESUS doth not stop here. His decision against all divorce’s arose from an higher authority still; for saith Jesus, from the beginning of the creation, GOD made them male and female; and declared that when joined in marriage, they were no longer twain, but one flesh: that GOD himself joined them together; and man dared not put them asunder. Here is an uncommonly strong, argument in this statement by CHRIST: not only because marriage was of divine institution, and the separating man and wife solemnly prohibited by their Maker; but because in the first instance of wedlock, which ever took place in the creation of GOD, there was no possibility of the man’s putting away his wife and taking another; for no other woman existed. One man, and one woman, the LORD had made, and no more: and from those two, made one by marriage, the race was to follow. So that here in the first marriage of our first parents, the LORD ‘s holy will and pleasure concerning marriage was fully given, as a pattern to all their children. I think this is so unalterably strong and conclusive, that no appeal can be made against it. The popular wish, and too general conduct of the Jews, in putting away their wives, received our LORD’s decided condemnation.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

But we must not stop here. Divorcement received another decided reproof from the very design of marriage: which was altogether with a mystical allusion to CHRIST, and his Church. We have an authority which cannot be questioned, that the marriage of our first parents, Adam<\/em> and Eve,<\/em> in the garden of Eden,<\/em> was altogether a type, or more properly speaking, the shadow and representation of CHRIST’s marriage with his Church. A type,<\/em> it might be said, because it set forth what would be accomplished when the fulness of time was come, and GOD sent forth his SON, made of a Woman, in marrying our nature. And yet a shadow<\/em> also, because it became the shade of a prior substance, when before all worlds the SON of GOD did as the Prophet described him, betroth his Church to himself forever, Hos 2:18-19<\/span> . It was not good<\/em> that the GOD-Man CHRIST JESUS should be alone;<\/em> no more than Adam, in the Adam nature, in which he was created: for then how would CHRIST have been the Bridegroom of his Church without a Bride? JEHOVAH therefore said, I will make him an helpmate for him.<\/em> Hence therefore of the Church to CHRIST, as well as of Eve to her husband; it is said, therefore shall a man leave is father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be one flesh,<\/em> Gen 2:18<\/span> to the end. See. Eph 5:23<\/span> to the end.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

If the reader be not tired with the length of these observations on this passage, I would wish to detain him, one moment longer, on the subject of divorcement. You have seen the LORD JESUS decidedly giving his disapprobation to all divorcement. Perhaps it will be asked, yea it should be asked, as the most interesting question of all others: Did ever JESUS put away his wife? To which venture most humbly to say; I trow not. Let the reader look over the word of GOD for himself, (and never never can he be engaged in a question of higher consequence,) and I persuade myself he will conclude with me, that no bill of divorcement was ever given by JESUS to his Church. He who by his servant Paul<\/em> hath said; husbands love your wives, and be not bitter against them,<\/em> would I not be himself bitter against his, Col 3:19<\/span> . Nay, the Apostle elsewhere saith, when speaking of men’s loving their wives as their own bodies, and he that loveth his wife loveth himself, makes this blessed addition, No man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as CHRIST the Church.<\/em> Eph 5:2<\/span>Eph 5:2<\/span> . Here’s a beautiful scripture in point. As no man ever hated his own flesh; even though covered with sores and wounds, so JESUS loved his Church, though leprous and unclean: Oh! precious, precious LORD JESUS! Surely it becometh thee in all things to have the pre-eminence!<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

And now, if the Reader feels interested (as well he may; LORD let it engage my unceasing attention!) to look into the word of GOD in the enquiry; whether JESUS ever put away his Wife; let him diligently search the whole Bible. The most striking passages, which seem to lean this way, are Jer 3:8<\/span> ; Isa 50:1<\/span> ; Hos 2:2<\/span> . But the smallest attention, and especially when connected with the whole body of scripture on the subject, very plainly (according to my view,) declare the contrary, Let the Reader take with the 8th verse of Jeremiah,<\/em> the 3rd, the 1st and 14th verses of the same chapter. Let him attend also to the manner of expression in the 50th chapter of Isaiah,<\/em> and 1st verse, and he will perhaps be inclined to think with me, that the LORD challengeth any one to show the bill of divorcement; knowing there was none. And as for the passage in Hosea,<\/em> chapter 2: and 2nd verse; the whole chapter and the following are most decided in proof, that JESUS never did, as the Apostle Paul speaks elsewhere, cast away his people which he foreknew.<\/em> Rom 11:1-2<\/span> . Our LORD’s manner of speaking on this subject; where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement, and the like; is not un-similar to what he used to his disciples on another occasion. At that day ye shall ask in my name; and I say not unto you that I will pray for you.<\/em> Joh 16:26<\/span> . Now one might be led to think, in the first view of these words, as if Jesus meant to decline praying for them whereas it is evident JESUS meant thereby to say more fully that he would.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The Reader will I hope forgive the length to which I have extended the subject, from the importance of it; and I shall now leave him to his own conclusions, under the pleasing assurance, that the Almighty SPIRIT of truth will guide both Writer and Reader into all truth, on this most sweet and interesting subject. Indeed, indeed it is blessed to hear the LORD, the GOD of Israel, say that he hateth putting away.<\/em> Mal 2:14-16<\/span> . And oh! what blessedness will in the end appear, when after all the treacherous departures of JESUS’s Church, in all her spiritual adulteries, JESUS must, he will, yea, he cannot rest until he hath brought her home to his FATHER’s house, and presented her to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she shall be holy and without blemish.<\/em> Eph 5:27<\/span> ; Rev 19:5-9<\/span> .<\/p>\n

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The Directing of the Early Mind<\/p>\n

Mar 10:13<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. ‘That He should touch them’ not simply ‘that they should touch Him’. This latter was quite unnecessary. Touching is the metaphor for influence. There was no difficulty in the heart of Jesus being touched by the children; but it was extremely difficult to arrange that the heart of the children should be touched by Jesus.<\/p>\n

II. It is easy for the developed mind to understand the child the developed mind has itself been a child and retains a memoir of its beginning. But it is not at all easy for the child to understand the developed mind that is a stage still in its future. Yet it is by higher models that the child must be touched if it is to have any mental growth. It is not enough that it should be thrown into the company of its equals. Two children of equal age and capacity might play for ever in the Garden of Eden without rising a step higher, if there were not heard betimes a more mature voice walking through the garden in the cool of the day. And I would add that, the more mature the new voice is, the better will it be for the child. A boy’s best chance of growth is in associating with people already grown. If you want to make him a poet, do not point him to the model of the village rhymster. Point him to the greatest It is always the voice of the Lord God that develops young Adam.<\/p>\n

III. The element of childhood remains in the greatest The perfected soul gathers up its past. It has many mansions in its nature and it prepares a place for all surmounted stages. It can understand the child better than the youth can, for it has a mansion for childhood which the youth has not. The youth is ever pressing onward and upward; he fain would forget But the mature soul goes back. It lives in sympathy with the things beneath it There is no model so fitted to the heart of the child as that which is planted at the summit of the hill.<\/p>\n

G. Matheson, Messages of Hope,<\/em> p. 181.<\/p>\n

References. X. 13, 14. ‘Plain Sermons’ by contributors to the Tracts for the Times,<\/em> vol. iii. p. 241. X. 13-15. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture<\/em> St. Mark IX.-XVI.<\/em> p. 70. X. 13-16. C. Holland, Gleanings from a Ministry of Fifty Years,<\/em> p. 60. Spurgeon, Sermons,<\/em> vol. x. No. 581; vol. xxxii. No. 1925.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:14<\/span><\/p>\n

Tenderness is as necessary as courage if a life of sorrow is to be made wholly heroic. The very unselfishness of such a man’s work for others is in danger of bringing with it something of isolation as well as of sympathy. Against his will a certain sternness and aridity will infuse itself into his manner and his style….<\/p>\n

It is against such an impression of Mazzini as this that his friends are at most pains to guard. They wish us to imagine him as a man kept in deep peace by aspiration only, and by such simple pleasures as are inseparable from the childlike heart They tell us of his playful humour, of the mild brightness of his friendly eyes, of his delight in birds, in flowers, in children.<\/p>\n

F. W. H. Myers, Modern Essays.<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

Luther is said to have remarked upon this text: ‘We must not look at this text with the eyes of a calf or of a cow vaguely gaping at a new gate, but do with it as at court, we do with the prince’s letters, read it and weigh it again and again, with our most earnest attention’. He particularly refers to its sanction of infant baptism.<\/p>\n

Goethe once gave the amazing dictum to Eckermann that if Christ were painted suffering the little children to come unto Him, it would be a picture that expressed nothing at any rate nothing of importance’. Much truer is the remark of Maeterlinck in Wisdom and Destiny:<\/em> ‘When Christ Jesus met the Samaritan woman, met a few children, and the woman who had been an adulteress, then did humanity rise three times in succession to the level of God’.<\/p>\n

The Children’s Friend<\/p>\n

Mar 10:14<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

As we read the narrative of Christ’s life, you will find that not many miracles are recorded to us in anything like fullness of detail, and yet of those miracles you will find that four are given to the children. In four of those miracles do we have a child brought in the arms of faith to a loving Saviour. You will find that they occupy different social stations, from a nobleman’s son to an outcast’s daughter, and yet each one can claim the loving sympathy and ready help of the Children’s Friend.<\/p>\n

What then more appropriate sequel to all this interest and kindness could you have than that, on His last journey, His tragical journey to death, there should be a troop of these little children brought to the Children’s Friend? His disciples rebuked those that brought them. ‘But when Jesus saw it, He was much displeased.’ This is a very strong word used of Jesus Christ. In fact it is the only time in the whole of the Gospel narrative that such a strong word is ever used of Him. ‘Much displeased;’ you will find the same Greek word used in the Gospel narrative of the ten disciples when they heard that James and John had tried to secure the best places in the coming kingdom, and there it is translated ‘Moved with indignation’. We can therefore quite consistently translate our passage, ‘When Jesus saw it, He was moved with indignation’.<\/p>\n

I. Take Heed lest you Stand in the Way of a Little One Coming to Jesus,<\/strong> or He will be moved with indignation. Through three long years He had borne with them with infinite patience; misunderstandings He had tolerated, ignorance He had enlightened, jealousy He had put on one side; but when at last they would stand in the way of the children and keep the children from Him, then He seemed to be overpowered with a sense of the injustice and the wrong, and He was moved with indignation. In the light of this narrative let us be careful what we do in the interests of the children. For if this patient Christ could be moved with indignation at the men who would keep the children back from Him, I pity the men Today who are doing the like thing. I pity the man who has first polluted the childlike innocence.<\/p>\n

II. What Is the Reason for this Sympathy? <\/strong> We have it in the words, ‘Of such is the kingdom of God’. A traveller in a far-off country comes across a piece of scenery that is just like that to which he is familiar in his homeland. Among strangers, speaking an unknown tongue, he one day comes across one with whom he can hold converse, and he says,’ How refreshing this is. It reminds me of home.’ And so it was with Jesus Christ. Moving along this earth of ours, desolated through sin, where He was indeed a lonely stranger, ever and again He came across these fragrant little flowers, which reminded Him of those which grow on the mossy banks of the heavenly kingdom, and when He saw their innocence and guilelessness and purity, He felt, ‘That is like home,’ and He grasped the treasure in His embrace. ‘Of such is the kingdom of God.’ And so we thank those disciples for their interruption and their action, if only for the gracious response which it drew out from the Saviour.<\/p>\n

References. X. 14. W. C. E. Newbolt, Counsels of Faith and Practice,<\/em> p. 104. X. 14-16. R. E. Hutton, The Crown of Christ,<\/em> vol. ii. p. 357. X. 15. H. J. Wilmot-Buxton, Holy-Tide Teaching,<\/em> p. 35. X. 15, 16. ‘Plain Sermons’ by contributors to the Tracts for the Times,<\/em> vol. x. p. 275.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:16<\/span><\/p>\n

‘Artists,’ says Dostoieffsky in one of his novels, ‘always draw the Saviour as one who is acting in some story related in the Gospels. I should do differently. I should represent Christ alone the disciples did leave Him alone occasionally. I should paint one little child left with Him; this child had been playing about with Him, and had probably just been telling the Saviour something in its pretty, baby prattle. Christ had listened to it, but was now musing one hand rested on the child’s bright head; His eyes gazing out with a far-off expression. Thought great as the universe was in His eyes. His face was sad. The little one leant its elbow on Christ’s knee, and with its cheek resting on its hand, gazed up at Him as only children gaze. The sun was setting. And there you have my picture.’<\/p>\n

References. X. 16. H. Jones, Christian World Pulpit,<\/em> vol. xxxvii. 1890, p. 86. R. Collyer, Where the Light Dwelleth,<\/em> p. 105.<\/p>\n

‘Then Jesus, Beholding Him, Loved Him’<\/p>\n

Mar 10:17<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Let us consider the subject of the young man of great possessions coming to our Lord, and the wonderful fact that is recorded of him, that Jesus beholding him, loved him.<\/p>\n

I. What was There that Attracted this Divine Love<\/strong> in this young man? Was it not that every word of the young man was verily and indeed true? But there was in his heart a feeling of insufficiency. There was something more to be done, to be learned. He had tried to keep his life pure, he had tried to keep away from the allurements of wealth, and he had done well, but somehow there was something lacking. He felt that his character was not yet formed, that there was some trial, some treatment from on high, that was necessary to perfect his character, and a perfect character he would have. So he comes to our Lord with that desire in his heart, and our Lord gives him the answer, and his heart leaps. ‘One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor.’<\/p>\n

II. A Tremendous Charge. <\/strong> This young man wanted an answer to his question, and expected a hard one, but not so hard, and he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. Tradition tells us that this young man was Lazarus, of whom it is said again that the Lord loved Lazarus and his sisters, and we can see how his heart was touched. ‘And the Lord, beholding him, loved him,’ and that love would not let him go. It followed him even through death, and coming back from death it caught him, and Lazarus in the end gave up all. Not for reward. We never hear of him again. He disappears from our sight after the wonder of his recall from the dead. No, no great reward, but only the fact that he did give up all and followed Jesus.<\/p>\n

III. Self-sacrifice must Mark the Life of Every Christian. <\/strong> The life that is not marked by self-sacrifice is not the life of a true disciple of the Lord. To some the call comes Today just as it did to that young man, but this is not the case with everybody. The call comes in different ways to every person, and it i 3 for every soul to realize the voice of Jesus in guiding his life.<\/p>\n

a. Sometimes the command will come to us at a crisis in our life.<\/em> <\/p>\n

b. Sometimes in the most sacred moments of our Eucharistic Feast.<\/em> <\/p>\n

c. Sometimes in the still, small, persistent voice of our conscience.<\/em> <\/p>\n

Then somehow we get to know that our Lord would have us give up something for His sake and we must be ready.<\/p>\n

They who learn the power of giving up for the Master and giving up for others learn indeed the secret of true joy.<\/p>\n

References. X. 17. C. Stanford, Expository Sermons on the New Testament,<\/em> p. 57. T. Sadler, Sunday Thoughts,<\/em> pp. 201, 250. W. Webb-Peploe, Christian World Pulpit,<\/em> vol. liii. 1898, p. 368. R. Duckworth, ibid.<\/em> vol. xliv. 1893, p. 267. X. 17-21. J. B. M. Grimes, ibid.<\/em> vol. lxxii. 1907, p. 346. X. 17-22. A. B. Davidson, The Called of God,<\/em> p. 301. Richard Glover, British Weekly Pulpit,<\/em> vol. ii. p. 350. J. McNeill, Regent Square Pulpit,<\/em> vol. ii. p. 49; see also Christian World Pulpit,<\/em> vol. lxv. 1904, p. 131. X. 17-27. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture<\/em> St. Mark IX.-XVI.<\/em> p. 74. X. 17-45. Spurgeon, Sermons,<\/em> vol. li. No. 2946. X. 18. A. B. Bruce, Christian World Pulpit,<\/em> vol. xxxvii. 1890, p. 219.<\/p>\n

The Distinctiveness of Christian Morality<\/p>\n

Mar 10:20-21<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

These are the words of that young man who won the love of Jesus before he had embraced the cause of Jesus. It is something to know that one can win the love of Christ before he calls himself a Christian that the Divine eye recognizes a virtue conferred by nature as well as a virtue derived from grace.<\/p>\n

I. The question the young man asked was really this: In what respect does Christianity differ from the Ten Commandments? What is there in your doctrine that can give it a more permanent life than can be claimed by these precepts of Moses? He tells Jesus that, so far as his consciousness goes, he has kept undeviatingly the law of these commandments. He asks what more can be wanted to make him a Christian.<\/p>\n

II. The answer of Christ is striking: ‘Go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor’. If we would see its significance, we must look at the Spirit, and not the mere form of the words. Let me try to paraphrase what our Lord means: ‘You say you have given to every one his due. It is well; I admit your integrity in this respect. But is this the measure of all possible integrity? Is it the climax of goodness when a man can say that he has rendered to every one his due? It is the climax of justice;<\/em> but is justice the highest step on the ladder of goodness? No; there is a step beyond justice generosity. It is not enough that you give to your brother what he has a legal right to; you must impart to him that to which he has no legal right. You have done well to respect his person, to keep your hands from his property, to abstain from calumniating his name. But after all, that is only a refraining<\/em> of the hand. Is there to be no outstretching of the hand?<\/p>\n

III. Are you content with doing your brother no wrong? Is there no good that you can do him? You have not killed your brother; but have you enlarged his life? You have not stolen; but have you added to his store? You have not defamed; but have you spread his virtues? You have brought him no domestic dispeace; but have you brought him domestic joy? You have refused to covet his possessions; but have you ever coveted possessions for him?<\/em> If not, there remaineth for you a rest that is still unachieved.<\/p>\n

G. Matheson, Messages of Hope,<\/em> p. 185.<\/p>\n

Reference. X. 20-22. James Martineau, Endeavours After the Christian Life<\/em> (2nd Series), p. 13.<\/p>\n

Jesus’ Appreciation of Morality<\/p>\n

Mar 10:21<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

When it is recorded in this vivid Gospel, as by one who had seen the affection in the Master’s eye, that Jesus loved the young ruler, we ought to allow their full meaning to the words.<\/p>\n

I. Upon the face of it Jesus did not regard a person who is moral, but not religious, as utterly depraved.<\/p>\n

To say that people who are not pious are depraved is an absurdity, for we know that many persons who are not religious practise higher morals, in business especially, than some who are. When Jesus considered this young man’s life the Master loved him, and He did not love what was not good.<\/p>\n

II. Jesus’ appreciation of the young ruler also reminds us that the more morality there is in the community, the better both for Church and State.<\/p>\n

III. And Jesus’ treatment of this excellent young man suggests that one object of Jesus’ mission is to raise morality into spirituality. Morality is like the clean and well-chiselled marble of the ancient story, beautiful, but cold. When the Spirit of Jesus touches it the stone reddens and lives. Religion is morality touched with emotion, till, instead of duty we speak of love, and to the treasure of a good conscience and an honourable life are added the peace which passeth all understanding, the joy unspeakable and full of glory and that vision of God which in itself is life everlasting.<\/p>\n

It was not in vain that the young ruler kept the commandments; it was because he kept them that Jesus loved him. It is not in vain that any man has lived bravely outside religion, it is because he has done so well that Jesus desires to have him for a disciple. Our Lord has a welcome for all men who will come to Him, even the thief upon the cross; but of only one seeker in the Gospels is it written that Jesus loved him. He was not a reprobate, nor was he a Pharisee, he was a well-living and high-minded man. When, therefore, one like the young ruler approaches Jesus, the Master sees a man after His own heart When such a man refuses the cross which alone can raise him to his full manhood the Master is bitterly disappointed. And that man suffers the chief loss of life.<\/p>\n

J. Watson (Ian Maclaren), The Inspiration of Our Faith,<\/em> p. 98.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:21<\/span><\/p>\n

In the morning my servant brought me word that Levett was called to another state, a state for which, I think, he was not unprepared, for he was very useful to the poor.<\/p>\n

Dr. Johnson’s Letters.<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

The purest forms of our own religion have always consisted in sacrificing less things to win greater; time, to win eternity; the world, to win the skies. The order, sell that thou hast,<\/em> is not given without the promise thou shalt have treasure in heaven:<\/em> and well for the modern Christian if he accepts the alternative as his Master left it and does not practically read the command and promise thus: Sell that thou hast in the best market, and thou shalt have treasure in eternity also.<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

Ruskin’s Queen of the Air,<\/em> sec. 50.<\/p>\n

References. X. 21. Spurgeon, Sermons,<\/em> vol. li. No. 2946. J. Clifford, The Dawn of Manhood,<\/em> p. 1. Caroline Fry, Christ Our Example,<\/em> p. 102. R. W. Church, The Gifts of Civilization,<\/em> p. 27. David Ross, Christian World Pulpit,<\/em> vol. li. 1897, p. 42. A. Balmain Bruce, ibid.<\/em> vol. liv. 1898, p. 359. George Tyrrell, Oil and Wine,<\/em> p. 246. X. 21, 22. J. H. Gurney, Plain Preaching to Poor People<\/em> (5th Series), p. 13. X. 21, 28-30. Stopford A. Brooke, The Fight of Fate,<\/em> p. 254. X. 22. C. A. Berry, Vision and Duty,<\/em> p. 217; see also Christian World Pulpit,<\/em> vol. xli. 1892, p. 264. X. 23. W. Hudson Shaw, Christian World Pulpit,<\/em> vol. lxxii. 1907, p. 131. X. 23-26. C. Gore, The New Theology and the Old Religion,<\/em> p. 274; see also Church Times,<\/em> vol. lvi. 1906, p. 398, and Christian World Pulpit,<\/em> vol. lxx. 1906, p. 209. X. 23-27. J. S. Swan, Short Sermons,<\/em> p. 55.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:25<\/span><\/p>\n

Even a desirable mansion may come in useful for some purpose. But you, if any way possible, clear out of it, your place is not there, and between these walls, built on the despair and degradation of others, you will find it as hard to lead a pure life as is it for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.<\/em> The evil base of our society eats right through. That our wealthy homes are founded on the spoliation of the poor vitiates all the life that goes on within them.<\/p>\n

From Edward Carpenter, England’s Ideal.<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

Of riches, in particular, as of all the grossest species of prosperity, the perils are recorded by all moralists; and ever, as of old, must the sad observation from time to time occur: Easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle! Riches in a cultured community… are the readiest to become a great blessing or a great curse. ‘Beneath gold thrones and mountains,’ says Jean Paul, ‘who knows how many giant spirits lie entombed?’ The first fruit of riches, especially for the man born rich, is to teach him faith in them, and all but hide from him that there is any other faith.<\/p>\n

Carlyle on Goethe’s Works.<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

Avarice is rarely the vice of a young man: it is rarely the vice of a great man: but Marlborough was one of the few who have, in the bloom of youth, loved lucre more than wine or women, and who have, at the height of greatness, loved lucre more than power or fame. All the precious gifts which nature had lavished on him he valued chiefly for what they would fetch. At twenty he made money of his beauty and vigour. At sixty he made money of his genius and glory.<\/p>\n

Macaulay’s History of England,<\/em> xiv.<\/p>\n

The Omnipotence of Faith<\/p>\n

Mar 10:27<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. Man with God. <\/strong> Perhaps in no passage has a preposition been more persistently misread than in this saying of Christ. It is usually interpreted as if ‘with’ were the equivalent of ‘to’. Jesus did not say ‘to’ but ‘with’; and the distinction is important. One sets forth the contrast between man’s impotence and God’s power. The other links the impotent man with the omnipotent God, and makes him strong in the strength of God.<\/p>\n

The subject under discussion is salvation. All the resources of humanity at its best are inadequate for salvation; but in salvation we are dealing not with the resources of man but of God, and all things are possible with God.<\/p>\n

II. The Only Condition of this Fellowship is Power in Faith. <\/strong> The promise is to him that believes. The Scriptures attribute to faith the power: of the Infinite. This is not true of all faith, for all faith is not all-powerful. There are some who trust; God whom God cannot trust. It is the faith that commands confidence to which all things are possible. There are three stages of faith. There is the faith that receives, the faith that reckons, and the faith that risks. By the first we are justified. By the second we are sanctified. By the third we are endued with the gift of power. Faith that goes forward triumphs. The man of faith is omnipotent. Being with God, he becomes as God.<\/p>\n

III. What do we Mean by Omnipotence? <\/strong> The explanation of this power in man must be the same; as that given to the attribute of omnipotence in God. When we say all things are possible to God, we mean all things consistent with Himself and with the nature of that on which He works. There is nothing of the magician in God. He does not work by magic, but by law.<\/p>\n

So with man. When Jesus assures men that all things are possible through faith, because faith links man with God, He does not mean that there is given him unlimited power for capricious use. Power is subject to law, and is to be exercised according to the will of God.<\/p>\n

With God, all man ought to be he can be, and. with God, all man ought to do he can do.<\/p>\n

IV. The Impossible Demands of the Kingdom. <\/strong> The kingdom makes impossible demands of all men. Every man finds in his life that which corresponds! to the young ruler’s possessions. The last conflict is over some possession whose roots are buried in our hearts, or some call for which we have no strength. Take hold of God, and nothing shall be impossible to you.<\/p>\n

The kingdom demands the impossible in character as well as in its conditions of entrance.<\/p>\n

The fig-tree that Jesus cursed is a parable. The kingdom of Christ demands that every false and unholy thing shall be destroyed from the root. He did not come to regulate sin, but to destroy it.<\/p>\n

God’s call is always to the impossible, but He blots the word out of the Christian’s vocabulary by making all things possible with him.<\/p>\n

S. Chadwick, Humanity and God,<\/em> p. 157.<\/p>\n

References. X. 28-30. Eugene Bersier, Sermons,<\/em> p. 311. X. 29. E. H. Bickersteth, Thoughts in Past Years,<\/em> p. 261. X. 30. B. Wilberforce, Christian World Pulpit,<\/em> vol. xlvi. 1894, p. 291. X. 32. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Mark IX.-XVl.<\/em> p. 81. X. 32-52. W. H Bennett, The Life of Christ According to St. Mark,<\/em> p. 157. X. 33. A. Baker, Addresses and Sermons,<\/em> p. 66.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:35<\/span><\/p>\n

In society and politics we call those great who have devoted their energies to some noble course, or haves influenced the course of things in some extraordinary way. But in every instance, whether in art, science, or religion, or public life, there is an universal condition, that a man shall have forgotten himself in his work. If any fraction of his attention is given to the honours or rewards which success will bring him, there will be a taint of weakness in what he does.<\/p>\n

Froude’s Beaconsfield,<\/em> p. 259.<\/p>\n

References. X. 35. E. E. Cleal, Christian World Pulpit,<\/em> vol. lxxiii. 1908, p. 295. X. 35-45. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Mark IX.-XVI.<\/em> p. 90.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:39<\/span><\/p>\n

‘I bless my God,’ Samuel Rutherford once wrote, ‘that there is a death and a heaven. I would weary to begin again to be a Christian, so bitter is it to drink of the cup that Christ drank of, if I knew not that there is no poison in it.’<\/p>\n

And again: ‘There is no question but that our King and Lord shall be master of the fields at length. And we would all be glad to divide the spoil with Christ, and to ride in triumph with Him; but, oh, how few will take a cold bed of straw in the camp with Him!’<\/p>\n

References. X. 42-45. H. C. Beeching, The Grace of Episcopacy,<\/em> p. 1. X. 43, 44. N. Boynton, Christian World Pulpit,<\/em> vol. lxxii. 1907, p. 136. X. 43-45. A. Pearson, Sermons for the People<\/em> (2nd Series), vol. ii. p. 198.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:44<\/span><\/p>\n

With Hildebrand… the action of the Church as a party or a power came before all thoughts of its higher duties.<\/p>\n

Freeman, William, the Conqueror,<\/em> vi.<\/p>\n

References. X. 44. G. Campbell Morgan, The Missionary Manifesto,<\/em> p. 143. X. 45. J. E. Carpenter, Christian World Pulpit,<\/em> vol. lxi. 1902, p. 346. H. Hensley Henson, ibid.<\/em> vol. lxv. 1904, p. 177. X. 46. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Mark IX.-XVI.<\/em> p. 95. X. 46-48. H. Scott Holland, Christian World Pulpit,<\/em> vol. lvii. 1900, p. 344. X. 46-52. J. Laidlaw, The Miracles of Our Lord,<\/em> p. 323. W. M. Taylor, The Miracles of Our Saviour,<\/em> p. 400. B. D. Johns, Pulpit Notes,<\/em> p. 24. Archbishop Trench, Notes on the Miracles of Our Lord,<\/em> p. 351. R. Higinbotham, Sermons,<\/em> p. 122. Spurgeon, Sermons,<\/em> vol. li. No. 2955; vol. v. No. 266. X. 47. M. Guy Pearse, Jesus Christ and the People,<\/em> p. 177. X. 47, 48. Spurgeon, Sermons,<\/em> vol. xi. No. 645.<\/p>\n

The Principle of Christ’s Selection<\/p>\n

Mar 10:49<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

You will observe Jesus called the blind man while he was yet in his blindness. This is the most significant and the most suggestive feature of the narrative.<\/p>\n

I. We all feel the value and the glory of religious light; but it is a great mistake to imagine that religious light is essential to a man’s call. We have come to look upon the intellectual perplexities of a human soul as a sign that this soul is unconverted. They are no such sign. This man in the streets of Jericho is a typical case. The typical thing about him is not that he regains his sight, but that he comes to Christ before<\/em> he has regained his sight. The thing that makes him spiritually fit for the kingdom of God is not his vision of the light but his contact with Jesus.<\/p>\n

II. The moral would to my mind have been equally effective without<\/em> the cure. All the men in the streets of Jericho were saying, ‘This man’s darkness proves him to be outside the kingdom of God’. Jesus says, ‘I will refute that belief; bring the man to Me in his present state of dilapidation; bring him with the burden unrelieved and the night unbroken, and even thus I will let him in’.<\/p>\n

III. Christ is the only Master that has membership for the benighted.<\/em> All others cry, ‘Get your sight and come’. He says, ‘Come and get your sight’. Moses asks cleansing; Socrates desires knowledge; Plato needs philosophy; Buddha seeks worldly renunciation; Confucius demands orderly life; John Baptist requires the fruits of repentance. But Christ will accept the hearing of a voice in the night. He does not ask preliminary morning. He does not ask antecedent vision. He does not ask, for the opening miles, a knowledge of the way. He only appeals to the ear; He says, ‘Come’.<\/p>\n

G. Matheson, Messages of Hope,<\/em> p. 89.<\/p>\n

References. X. 49. Spurgeon, Sermons,<\/em> vol. xxiii. No. 1389; vol. xxvii. No. 1587. X. 50. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Mark IX.-XVI.<\/em> p. 106.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:51<\/span><\/p>\n

Compare Longfellow’s lines on Bartimus. Also George Macdonald’s saying about prayer: ‘Him’ at gangs to God wi’ a sair heid ‘ill the suner gang til ‘im wi’ a sair hert’.<\/p>\n

References. X. 51. Spurgeon, Sermons,<\/em> vol. xlii. No. 2458. H. J. Wilmot-Buxton, Plain Preaching to Poor People<\/em> (9th Series), p. 102. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Mark IX.-XVI.<\/em> p. 107. XI. 1; XII. 44. W. H. Bennett, The Life of Christ According to St. Mark,<\/em> p. 169. XI. 2. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture<\/em> St. Mark IX.-XVI.<\/em> p. 109. XI. 2-6. Father Benson, Eight Sermons and Addresses,<\/em> p. 11. XI. 3. S. Baring-Gould, Plain Preaching for a Year,<\/em> vol. i. p. 314. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture<\/em> St. Mark IX.-XVI.<\/em> p. 119.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Ambition Rebuked<\/p>\n

[An Analysis]<\/p>\n

Mar 10<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

This passage, which will hardly ever be required for public use, suggests some points which ought not to be neglected by the preacher.<\/p>\n

(1) Jesus Christ taught. The word is very significant. Ignorance was never approved by the Saviour. He saved through light, never through darkness. He conducted specific intellectual processes, as well as processes distinctively moral. It was his delight to simplify truth.<\/p>\n

(2) Jesus Christ taught the people. Not a particular class, but the people as a whole. His appeal was to humanity. His teaching was as impartial as the sunshine. This is the glory of Christian truth. It challenges all hearts, in all ages, and in all lands. It is a heavenly rain, not a local fountain.<\/p>\n

(3) Jesus Christ honoured the holy teachers who had gone before him: “What did Moses command you?” Truth is one. We are not to go to new teachers for new truths. We find new phases, new applications, and the like, but Truth is one, because God is one. This is our security amid all changes of ministers and teachers. In so far as the men have been true to God, each can say, What did my predecessor tell you?<\/p>\n

(4) Jesus Christ honoured the tenderest relations of the present life ( Mar 10:7-9 ). He did not ignore the present because of the future. He treated no vow with levity. There is a spurious spirituality which overrides social bonds and human compacts, but Jesus Christ never gave his sanction to such blasphemy. Without a home himself, he yet guarded the home-life of the world; able to live alone, he yet upheld the sacredness of social institutions. He taught the whole law the law of home, the law of society, the law of the Church: “There is one lawgiver.”<\/p>\n

This profound exposition was given in reply to men who tempted him. Even the enemy may occasion some truths to be more fully revealed. The lawyer tempted Christ, and behold the picture of the Good Samaritan was painted! We are indebted to the darkness for the stars.<\/p>\n

13. And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.<\/p>\n

14. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n

15. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.<\/p>\n

16. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.<\/p>\n

Even the disciples did not know their Lord. The persons who are nearest to us may actually know nothing of our character. The disciples had mistaken ideas of greatness: to them the greatness was not in life, but in circumstances. Jesus reversed this idea: the tree is in the seed: he cared for children, and so he profoundly cared for men. Jesus “was much displeased;” this displeasure enhanced the value of the benediction. The blessing was thus shown to be no cold compliment, nor a merely social courtesy; it was an act of the heart. The displeasure would be as memorable as the blessing. The disciples measured themselves by their manliness; Jesus taught them to measure themselves by their childlikeness. Notice three remarkable things: <\/p>\n

(1) The power of parental instinct. The mothers knew, without having received any formal intimation, that a man like Jesus Christ must love little children. They did not wonder whether he did or not, they knew that he must The heart soon finds out the quality and purpose of Christ. Let thy heart speak, O man, and it will tell thee that the Saviour is thy friend, and that he will hail thee as a suppliant.<\/p>\n

(2) Parents may be interested in the Christian welfare of their children without being much concerned for their own. This is a startling possibility. There are men who seldom open their Bibles who rejoice in the Biblical knowledge of their children: so with Sabbath-keeping, church-attendance, and the choice of companions. They have more than a merely outward respect for religion, yet its redeeming mystery has no place in their hearts! They admire, but they do not repent.<\/p>\n

(3) Jesus gives more than even parental love expected. The parents wished that Jesus would touch their children. They would have been pleased had he taken the children’s hands into his own. What did Jesus do? “He took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.” See what he was asked to do, and see what he did! “He is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think.” The children were almost in heaven! A practical question may be asked here: Are our lives worthy of the advantages we enjoy in childhood? Some of us were brought to Christ, and were given to him in many a fervent prayer: have we gone upwards or downwards since?<\/p>\n

17. And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?<\/p>\n

18. And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.<\/p>\n

19. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.<\/p>\n

20. And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.<\/p>\n

21. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.<\/p>\n

22. And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.<\/p>\n

The young man was farther from Christ than was the young child. The child was brought: the young man came, but he was farther away. His earnestness was good, for he “came running,” as one in great urgency; his attitude was good, for he “kneeled” to the Saviour, as one who is humble-minded; his inquiry was good, for he asked, “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” Men are not saved by good points, but by a good spirit. Men who ask great questions should expect great answers. Was the demand excessive? Manifestly not; it cannot be excessive to give up time for eternity, to forfeit a troubled hour for a happy immortality, to give up a speck of dust for an infinite inheritance. In his treatment of this young man, Jesus Christ showed (1) That he was not anxious to add to the mere number or respectability of his followers. What an opportunity of doing so was here! A man with a carriage! A man who could make money questions quite easy! Some of us would have smoothed the way for his entrance into the Church we should have talked about culture, refinement, speciality of sensibility, and the like. Jesus Christ showed (2) that outward amiability is not to be mistaken for spiritual character. “Jesus beholding him loved him.” There was charm of countenance: there were remnants of a beautiful child-life; there was a struggle with the spirit of worldliness. Every man is more or less beautiful as he knocks at the gate of the kingdom: he stands between two worlds: the far-off light flushes his face with peculiar glory. (3) That the wisest and the best, as well as the dullest and the worst, must bear the same cross. “Take up the cross and follow me.” What, the cross in youth? Yes. What, the cross where there is so much morality? Yes. Will it not be enough to lighten the crosses of other people? No! A requirement like this, made under such circumstances, ought to secure for Jesus Christ, viewed as a merely human teacher, the confidence and veneration of mankind.<\/p>\n

23. And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!<\/p>\n

24. And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!<\/p>\n

25. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n

26. And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves Who then can be saved?<\/p>\n

27. And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.<\/p>\n

How hard it is to give up one world for another! Wherein lies the difficulty? (1) This world is seen, the higher world is invisible; (2) this world gives immediate pleasure, the expectation of the higher world is often associated with sacrifice, self-mortification, and pain; (3) it seems so easy to work for both worlds, as the division between them is so marked. What has business to do with theology? How can money interfere with prayer? Can stocks, funds, investments, speculations, become as a cloud between a man and his Maker? See how Jesus Christ puts the matter: “How hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!” The emphasis is upon the word “trust.” There are rich men who are poor in spirit. We should rejoice when the riches of the world fall into the hands of good men, because it is better for all great forces to be under Christian than under unchristian control. There is no merit in poverty. There is no wickedness in wealth. The one question relates to the spirit, not to the circumstances. The 25th verse must be read in the light of the 24th: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man who trusts in his riches to enter into the kingdom of God!” The confidence that is put in riches is so much confidence subtracted from the honour of the Father.<\/p>\n

28. Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.<\/p>\n

29. And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s,<\/p>\n

30. But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.<\/p>\n

31. But many that are first shall be last; and the last first.<\/p>\n

Peter’s all! What a tone of self-compliment there is in Peter’s statement! “We are the right men: we have done the right thing: we are comfortably off; let the rich young man do what he may.” Is there anything more deadly in its effect upon the spirit than religious self-satisfaction? The piety that gathers its skirts up, and avoids the mud of common life, is the most diseased and intolerable of all respectability. How pathetic was the reply of Jesus! No man serves him for nought! He who loses his life for Christ’s sake, finds it, finds it immortalised and glorified. “Seek ye first the kingdom of God,” etc.<\/p>\n

32. And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus went before them: and they were amazed; and as they followed, they were afraid. And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what things should happen unto him,<\/p>\n

33. Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles:<\/p>\n

34. And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.<\/p>\n

Jesus went before: went alone: separated himself from the people and from his disciples. There was something in the action which filled the observers with painful amazement. His own thoughts were society enough for him meanwhile. He had seen the end. He had come to a turn on the life-road from which he could point out the Cross to others; as for himself, he had always seen it seen it from unbeginning time, but now he had to point out to others that grim, dread object. No wonder he wished to be alone for a time. It is not easy to find the beginning of a sentence which is to convey tidings so startling and so terrible, so Jesus goes alone to prepare himself to tell of the sacrifice. Observe (1) Jesus knew all that was coming upon him, so he was not surprised into suffering and death; (2) Jesus himself told the disciples, so he showed his perfect knowledge of the future; (3) Jesus said he would rise again, so his death was a sacrifice, not a martyrdom. He who had power to rise i had power to prevent the taking of his life. The resurrection showed that the crucifixion was not a necessity arising out of Christ’s weakness.<\/p>\n

35. And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire.<\/p>\n

36. And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?<\/p>\n

37. They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.<\/p>\n

(1) The natural result of extreme ambition is selfishness. What did the sons of Zebedee care for other people? (2) Ambition may not be the less criminal for being associated with religious position and influence. The feeling shown by these men should always be discouraged. There is an earnestness that is fanaticism. The ambition that is unholy is always also unreasonable.<\/p>\n

“That the sons of Zebedee wished for ecclesiastical, rather than secular honours, may be thought probable from the allusion that is made here to the supreme dignities in the great Sanhedrin. The prince of the Sanhedrin ( hanasi<\/em> ) sat in the midst of two rows of senators or elders; on his right hand sat the person termed Ab<\/em> (the father of the Sanhedrin); and on the left the Chacham<\/em> or sage. These persons transacted all business in the absence of the president.” ( Adam Clarke.<\/em> )<\/p>\n

The sons of Zebedee asked for honour in the kingdom, they did not ask for fellowship in the preliminary suffering. Bengel well remarks: “Very different were those whom our Lord was first to have on his right hand and on his left.”<\/p>\n

38. But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?<\/p>\n

39. And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:<\/p>\n

40. But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared.<\/p>\n

Lange says: “Different views are entertained of this reply.” De Wette explains it: “Your request arises from an incorrect view of the character of my kingdom, which is spiritual.” Meyer paraphrases: “Ye know not that the highest posts in my kingdom cannot be obtained without sufferings such as I have to endure.” Luther says: “The flesh ever seeks to be glorified before it is crucified, exalted before it is abased.” Referring to the latter part of Mar 10:40<\/span> , Adam Clarke says: “The true construction of the words is this: To sit on my right hand and on my left, is not mine to give, except to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.” Dr. Clarke argues that the words “it shall be given to them,” “are interpolated by our translators.” Bishop Horsley says the meaning is, “I cannot arbitrarily give happiness, but must bestow it on those alone for whom, in reward of holiness and obedience, it is prepared, according to God’s just decrees.”<\/p>\n

The practical ideas of the passage might be homiletically expressed thus: (1) Human ignorance should restrain human ambition, “ye know not what ye ask;” (2) human weakness should modify the expression of human confidence, “are ye able? they say, we are able;” (3) human history should be left to the development which God has purposed for it, “ye shall drink; ye shall be baptised; but ;” (4) human position will be determined by human character.<\/p>\n

41. And when the ten heard it, they began to be much displeased with James and John.<\/p>\n

The primary conditions of brotherhood had been violated by the two brethren and their mother, and the ten had a right to be angry. All men who wish to outreach their brethren deserve indignation. Religion does not annihilate anger, it regulates its expressions and penalties. The incident may be homiletically used, as (1) A warning against an unbrotherly disposition; and (2) an example of Christ’s method of treating unbrotherly men. Jesus Christ does not expel them; he declares their ignorance, he points out their weakness, he shows that suffering is the portion of those who follow him, and that such suffering is to be endured, apart from promised official position in his kingdom.<\/p>\n

42. But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.<\/p>\n

43. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:<\/p>\n

44. And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.<\/p>\n

45. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.<\/p>\n

This exhortation shows that the spirit of self-abasement is to distinguish the entire course of the Christian life. The Church is not to look to secular governments for precedents or patterns, but to the Son of man alone. The were proud, domineering, fond of power, and self-sufficient; nothing could be more foreign to the spirit of Christianity, and this was emphatically the time to say so. Jesus Christ adapted his teaching to the varying phases of human nature; at this time the phase of ambition was uppermost, and the exhortation took its course and tone accordingly. Adaptation is the secret of successful teaching. The teacher who speaks to the line of actual experience will never want a theme, and if his teaching be wise he will never speak without profit to his hearers. (1) Christian influence is not official; (2) Christian influence is spiritual; (3) Christian influence can be legitimately attained only by the Christian spirit, “whosoever will be great among you let him be your minister ( ), and whosoever will be chief among you let him be your servant ( ).” It has often been explained that means a servant of a superior order, always near his master’s person and admitted to a certain degree of his confidence, whereas means a slave, one who may be employed in the most menial service. The distinction, however, is not always maintained in the Christian writings. For example, in Mat 18:23<\/span> , we have a king “which would take an account of his servants ( );” all the officers of Oriental courts were regarded as slaves, but the servants here referred to are the provincial officers employed to collect the revenue for government; in the Persian court they were called satraps<\/em> . In Mat 25:21<\/span> , the word is used, “Well done, good and faithful servant ( ).” Without insisting upon any fanciful or even real distinctions between these words, the spirit of the exhortation is perfectly intelligible; abasement is the condition of true and permanent eminence. The simplicity of the condition is not without its dangers, for is it not possible to simulate humility? Is there not a stooping to conquer, which is merely an attitude of the body, not a gesture of the soul? There is an amiability which covers a hard and relentless heart; there is an outward austerity which may conceal the tenderest geniality of spirit.<\/p>\n

The expression, “to give his life a ransom for many,” is not to be taken as limiting Jesus Christ’s atonement The atonement is not the subject of discourse; Jesus Christ is speaking of himself simply as an example of service, a service so profound and so pure as to include even the surrender of life itself.<\/p>\n

The whole address bears upon Christian position, the spirit by which it is to be attained, and in which it is to be held. Jesus Christ is not speaking against secular authority, civil magistracy, and the like; his remarks are exclusively confined to the affairs of his own kingdom. There must be rulership in civil society, and in religious society as well. Rulership is by no means arbitrary; it is founded upon the instincts and necessities of human nature. In civil society sovereignty may descend from generation to generation without regard to the fitness of the sovereign; in Christian society true rulership is a question of character and capacity. The modest, cultivated, intellectual Christian will, in time, attain his proper position. Zealous and foolish mothers may secure for their children an external position of authority, but the real authority will always be held by men who have drunk most deeply into the spirit of Jesus Christ. Such men care nothing for authority for its own sake; they are not the slaves of officialism; yet even in the absence of nominal status they wield the profoundest and most durable influence over the thought and sentiment of the Church.<\/p>\n

46. And they came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho with his disciples and a great number of people, blind Bartimus, the son of Timus, sat by the highway side begging.<\/p>\n

47. And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me.<\/p>\n

48. And many charged him that he should hold his peace: but he cried the more a great deal, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me.<\/p>\n

49. And Jesus stood still, and commanded him to be called. And they call the blind man, saying unto him, Be of good comfort, rise: he calleth thee.<\/p>\n

50. And he, casting away his garment, rose, and came to Jesus.<\/p>\n

51. And Jesus answered and said unto him, What wilt thou that I should do unto thee? The blind man said unto him, Lord, that I might receive my sight.<\/p>\n

52. And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole. And immediately he received his sight, and followed Jesus in the way.<\/p>\n

(1) A man representing the side of human life which is marked by deprivation, no sight, no bread. (2) A man seizing a great opportunity, “when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth.” (3) A man resisting the most obstinate difficulties, “many charged him that he should hold his peace.” (4) A man repeating his prayer until the answer came, “Jesus commanded him to be called.” (5) A man stating his own case in his own words, “Lord, that I might receive my sight.” (6) A man turning to a right use the gifts of God, “he received his sight, and followed Jesus in the way.” Application (1) You are needy; (2) you have heard that Jesus passeth by; (3) you have sight; how are you using it?<\/p>\n

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

XIII<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

PARABLE OF THE PHARISEE AND THE PUBLICAN; THE LAW OF MARRIAGE, AND DIVORCE; THE CASE OF THE LITTLE CHILDREN<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Harmony, pages 129-131 and Luk 18:9-17<\/span><\/strong> ; Mat 19:1-15<\/span><\/strong> ; Mar 10:1-16<\/span><\/strong> .<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Our last section closed with the prayer for vengeance or justice, called the prayer of the importunate widow. Over against that we have a prayer for mercy, not for justice. Nothing in any language, in so short a space, conveys such clear ideas of prayer as this parable, both negatively and positively negatively, in that the prayer offered by the Pharisee is not prayer at all. Let us see if we can find any petition in it: “The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.” No petition there. “I fast twice in the week.” No prayer there. Neither in form nor in spirit is that a petition. Truly does the text say, “And prayed thus with himself.” He is simply congratulating himself upon his superiority over other people and his absolute need of nothing.<\/p>\n

The other prayer, how different! “Standing afar off”; he does not feel that he can come close to God. “Would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven.” There is utter absence of presumption, “but smote his breast,” as if there in his heart was the seat of his trouble, “saying [now we come to the prayer], God, be merciful to me the sinner.” How few the words, how expressive each word and how more expressive the conjunction of the words! “Ho theos, hilastheti mm toi hamartolm,” <\/em> “God, be propitious to me the sinner.” Mark the elements of this great prayer:<\/p>\n

First, there is an evidence of contrition for sin. The Holy Spirit had convicted him of sin, and now he exercises contrition. In receiving members into the church I often put this question to them, “Did you ever realize that you were a sinner?” I had one man to answer me by saying he never did feel like he was a sinner. Then I asked him what need he had for a Saviour.<\/p>\n

The second element is humility. The parable has this application: “Every one that exalteth himself [as that Pharisee did], shall be humbled, but he that humbleth himself [as that publican], shall be exalted.” So that the second element of power in this prayer is the deep humility. He did not trust in himself that he was righteous. He did not despise others.<\/p>\n

The third element is the sense of helplessness. He comes for something that he can’t secure by tithing or fasting. He stands there contrite, humble, helpless.<\/p>\n

The fourth element of his prayer is the earnestness manifested in going right to the heart of the matter in the fewest words. There is not only the absence of anything perfunctory in this petition, but there is directness and earnestness. When I was studying Latin my teacher called my attention to this distinction between the Latin language and the English, viz., that the Latin language always puts the main word first, and the illustration used was this: We say in English, “Give me fruit,” and the Latin says, “Fructum do mihi,” <\/em> “Fruit give to me.” So this prayer gets at the very heart of the matter with a directness and simplicity that has never been surpassed and seldom, if ever, equalled.<\/p>\n

The fifth element that we note is that it is a prayer of faith, evidenced by the word employed, hilastheti<\/em> in the Greek. The hilasterion<\/em> is the mercy seat where the atonement is made and hence asking God to be propitious is exactly the same as saying, “God be merciful to me through a sacrifice; be propitious to me through the atonement.” That shows it to be a clear case of faith, which is further evidenced by the result: This man went down to his house justified and not the other. We are justified by faith. We do not get to justification except through faith. God’s mercy has appointed a propitiation for sin and with that propitiatory sacrifice atonement was made on the mercy seat. So the one word hilastheti<\/em> expresses every thought in the “be propitious to me through the atonement,” and hence it is the prayer of faith, and justification follows it.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

THE LAW OF DIVORCE AND CELIBACY <\/strong> The next section of this discussion gives us Christ’s teaching concerning divorce, and also concerning the expediency of not marrying. There are two elements in the discussion: The lesson on divorce, if one be married, and the lesson on the expediency of not getting married if one be single.<\/p>\n

The heart of the lesson is presented in the following language: “Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the twain shall become one flesh?” (Mat 19:4<\/span> f). Now, that is the great law of marriage as instituted by the Father himself when he created the world, when he first made man, when he himself performed the first marriage ceremony. That constitutes the law of marriage. “They twain, saith he, shall become one flesh” (1Co 6:16<\/span> ). It contemplates such a complete unity that there is in it no idea even of separation. That being the law in the beginning, the question comes up, Why did Moses, an inspired man, allow in his legislation divorce for a number of causes? Jesus says that on account of their hardness of heart Moses did that. In other words, they had been slaves for a long time, just as the Negroes have been here in the South. What low ideas of marriage those slaves had and have yet! These Israelites were but little prepared for the enforcement of a high moral standard. The original law was not changed nor its high ideal standard withdrawn. Whatever evil custom his people had adopted from heathen nations, such as divorce, polygamy and slavery, which were rooted too deep for immediate and complete eradication, these he modifies in his practical legislation, softening their asperities, restricting their evil, while always upholding in theory a pure, ideal standard, whose principles ever tend to eliminate the evil altogether. Moses prescribed no law on divorce, slavery, or polygamy that did not ameliorate the evils of these deep-rooted customs. And we must distinquish between the moral law inculcated by Moses and his civic regulations. The moral law standard was never lowered. It was absolutely perfect. But he was also the head of a nation, a political entity, and must needs legislate on civil, criminal, sanitary, and other matters.<\/p>\n

This legislation was as high in its moral tone as they were able to bear. He did not proscribe divorce, but mitigated its existing evils. Men already were putting away their wives. He regulated the evil by requiring a bill of divorcement, which was some protection to the divorced and their children. On account of their hardness of heart and unpreparedness for better things he suffered them to retain the custom of divorce for the time being, while all the time teaching moral principles that tended to the utter eradication of the evil. A critical examination of the Mosaic civil and criminal law makes evident to an unprejudiced mind that all his statutes on existing social evils elevated the standard far above the prevalent custom, and never lowered it. If he suffered divorce while hedging against its evils, he did not approve it. But when the question was put to our Lord, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause” he promptly set forth the primal law of marriage for all men; for man, as man, in the creation, long anterior to Moses and the civil law of the Jews. Instead of its being lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause, be acknowledged only one justifiable cause, viz., infidelity to the marriage vow. The husband alone had title to the body of the wife and the wife alone to the body of the husband. An offense against this authority justified absolute divorce, for thereby was the unity of “one flesh” broken. But even this did not operate ipso facto<\/em> . The one wronged might forgive and not legally plead the offense. It is always lawful to forgive, as God, married to his people, oftentimes does forgive spiritual adultery.<\/p>\n

These two spheres of law, civil and moral, together with the prevalence of social customs, cause, for Christian people, many vexations and hard problems. Our missionaries today in heathen lands confront these problems, in dealing with new converts. Paul confronted them in the heathen city of Corinth in his day. Many slaves, many from the dregs of society, many polygamists, many liars, thieves, and murderers were converted, many with loose ideas of purity and of family sanctity. He could not regulate the state, but what should the church do? What must be the stand of preachers and churches in relation to members of the church in matters of discipline? On these problems the letters to the Corinthians constitute a mine of instruction. It was there that a new question came to the front, a question not of absolute divorce, but of legal separation. Suppose a heathen man becomes a Christian and his wife on that account leaves him? Or, because the wife becomes a Christian her husband abandons her? Paul’s reply is: “If the unbelieving departeth, let him depart: the brother or sister is not in bondage [rather, enslaved] in such cases” (1Co 7:15<\/span> ).<\/p>\n

Here arises a question of interpretation upon which Christian theologians differ, and even the discipline of churches differ. The question is, Do Paul’s words fairly teach that abandonment of the other, by husband or wife, justifies absolute divorce or merely separation a mensa et toro?<\/em> And if it justifies absolute divorce, then since abandonment may be “for every cause,” does not this interpretation put Paul in direct conflict with our Lord,, who justifies divorce for only one cause? Even if one insists on limiting Paul’s words to the one course of abandonment on religious grounds, it yet makes two justifiable grounds of absolute divorce, whereas our Lord taught but one.<\/p>\n

The author believes that Paul’s words, “is not in bondage in such case,” mean only, “is not in bondage” to so much of the marriage bond as the abandonment necessarily renders impracticable. That is, is not in bondage to live with, to provide for, and like things. But in 1Co 7:11<\/span> Paul settles the question by quoting our Lord to the effect that cases of abandonment do not permit remarriage. This seems further evident from Paul’s later statement in the same connection: “A wife is bound for so long a time as her husband liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord” (1Co 7:39<\/span> ). This reaffirms the primal law limited only by our Lord’s one exception (see Mat 19<\/span> ). We must also note the difference in Paul’s words. In 1Co 7:15<\/span> the word is “enslaved,” but in 1Co 7:30<\/span> the word is “bound.” To sum up:<\/p>\n

1. Death breaks the marriage bond and leaves the survivor free to marry.<\/p>\n

2. Divorce on the ground of adultery leaves the innocent party free to marry.<\/p>\n

3. Abandonment frees the abandoned one from so many of the marital duties as it necessarily renders impracticable, but confers no privileges. Therefore, there may be separation a mensa et thora<\/em> on other grounds than adultery, but no privilege of remarriage.<\/p>\n

I urge, with insistent emphasis, on the reader, particularly the preacher, to immediately supply himself with Dr. Alvah Hovey’s little book, The Law of Divorce<\/em><\/strong> , because the divorce question is much to the front. When I conducted the “Query Column” of the Baptist Standard, <\/em><\/strong> more queries on divorce came to me than on all other matters put together. It is so now in letters asking for advice.<\/p>\n

The civil divorce mill is grinding day and night. Divorces are granted by the courts for almost every cause. The sanctity of the family is continually violated and children put to open shame by their parents and by the law. The public conscience on marriage and purity in this country is debauched to the ancient heathen level, and in some respects below it, and even below the mating of the brutes which perish.<\/p>\n

The churches all over the land are staggered with the perplexing problems of discipline and in fear of libel laws. Three imperative duties devolve upon us:<\/p>\n

1. We must as citizens seek to reform the civil divorce laws.<\/p>\n

2. We must as churches maintain a Christ standard on the reception of members and on discipline. No matter what the complications or hardships in a given case, the church suffers more in receiving or retaining them than it gains by their membership. Their membership gags the pulpit, and commends the example of sin to the young.<\/p>\n

3. We must as preachers refuse to officiate at marriages which violate divine law.<\/p>\n

In addition to the more vital matters just considered it may not be amiss before we leave the subject of marriage to call your attention to the import of these words of our Lord: “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife.” We generally construe it the other way: The bride must leave her father and mother and cleave unto her husband. If we put emphasis upon the “his” it would mean that it is better for the groom to live with his father-in-law than to take his bride to his father’s home. The reasons would be obvious. The wife’s life being indoors and the husband’s outdoors, it would entail greater hardship on her to live with his mother than for him to live with her mother. He would not be, in his outdoor field, subordinate to her mother; but her sphere, being indoors, would make her subordinate to his mother.<\/p>\n

But doubtless the meaning is that both bridegroom and bride, having now become a family unit, should each leave the old home and strike out together for themselves. Neither marries the family of the other. Both want a home of their own in which no outsider is boss. They must be free to live their own life, unhampered by each other’s relatives. Living with her father reflects on his manhood. Living with his mother breaks her heart. If marriage means to her only subordination to somebody’s mother, naturally she would prefer her own. Let them visit occasionally each other’s family, but not dwell; and let not the parents of either side interfere.<\/p>\n

Let the reader particularly note that while nearly all the scriptures on this subject speak of the man’s putting away his wife, yet Mar 10:12<\/span> expressly applies the law to a woman’s putting away her husband. So Paul, in 1Co 7<\/span> , applies it to both parties. Because of the importance of the subject, we must take time to expound one other word, “fornication.” Some expositors contend that this term can refer only to unchastity before marriage, therefore no offense after marriage justifies divorce. The position is wholly untenable on three grounds:<\/p>\n

1. The Greek word porneia<\/em> is a general term, not limited to unchastity before marriage. This is the verdict of most scholars. This abundantly appears from classical, biblical, and later usage by great scholars. The term is applied to married people in the noted case in-1Co 5:1<\/span> ff. The corresponding Hebrew word is always employed figuratively to denote Israel’s unfaithfulness to Jehovah, her husband. Dr. John A. Broadus, one of the greatest Greek scholars in American history, cites Amo 7:17<\/span> ; Eze 23:5<\/span> ; Num 5:19<\/span> f; Hos 3:3<\/span> , and many passages from great Greek scholars and theologians, including Dion, Cassius, Chrysostom, Origen, and notes that the Peshito Syriac translates this very passage by “adultery.” The reason for the general term is to include un chastity during betrothal, as well as adultery after marriage is consummated. (See supposed case in Mat 1:18-19<\/span> .)<\/p>\n

2. The limitation of the meaning to unchastity before marriage would give most married women and multitudes of married men a scriptural ground for divorce. Divorces would be disastrously multiplied.<\/p>\n

3. The limitation is absurd, opposed to sound principles of common sense and law. Nations hold each other responsible for violations of treaties after they are made, not before. Married people cannot reasonably dissolve the bonds of marriage for offenses before the marriage or the engagement to marry. Contracts do not bind before made or the pledge to make.<\/p>\n

Here it is important to note what the disciples said: “If the case of a man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” What does this mean? It means, if marriage is so binding as our Lord had just stated, if only one extreme offense justifies divorce, then it is not expedient to marry at all. The “so” refers directly back to Christ’s statement of the binding power of marriage on both man and wife. Many commentators attach a delicate meaning to the word “so” and interpret it as if it read: “If the case be so with a single man, it is not expedient for him to marry.” But there is nothing in their statement touching single men. They say, rather: “If the case of the man is so with his wife [i.e., as Christ has just declared], then marriage at all is inexpedient.” To them this was one of Christ’s “hard sayings.” In other words, they thought his teaching here, as at other times, put a man in too tight a place. This shows that the disciples shared the general Jewish view that a man might put away his wife for every cause, otherwise marriage was not desirable; concubinage would be preferable. That this is the meaning of their statement further appears from the “but” with which Jesus commences to refute their statements. “But” indicates opposition to the preceding clause. Instead of citing instances of inexpediency to confirm and illustrate their general statement, he cites certain exceptional cases to which alone their inexpediency would apply. In effect affirming that in all ordinary cases men and women ought to marry, notwithstanding the stringency of the marriage bond. We come then to these exceptional cases where marriage is inexpedient:<\/p>\n

1. Natural disqualifications, whether congenital or from violence or from accident. This would include physical and mental cases, or those subject to grave hereditary diseases.<\/p>\n

2. Voluntary, but temporary, abstinence from marriage in view of “a present distress” of any great character, as that of which Paul speaks.<\/p>\n

3. Certain widows and widowers might find it inexpedient to remarry (others had better remarry).<\/p>\n

4. Voluntary and permanent abstinence from marriage on the part of certain people in order to special concentration in the service in the kingdom of God. But, as our Lord declares, this saying is only for those who are able to receive it. The cases are rare, special, exceptional. The rule is the other way. Man’s original commission required marriage. “Marriage is honorable in all” and “Forbidding to marry” a mark of the great apostasy.<\/p>\n

Any church law forbidding the marriage of its preachers outrages both the precept and example of the New Testament. All of the apostles, except Paul, were married men, and it is quite probable from a passage in 1Co 7<\/span> that he was a widower, not choosing to remarry. The law concerning church officers contemplates the bishop or pastor as a married man and father of a family. An unmarried pastor is greatly handicapped, and, indeed, only very prudent bachelors or widowers can safely be pastors.<\/p>\n

We now pass from celibacy to consider one of the most touching and instructive incidents in the life of our Lord, the case of his praying for<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

LITTLE CHILDREN <\/strong> What a pity that this impressive, heart-moving story was ever wrested from its truly great lessons and marred by being irreverently dragged into the baptismal controversy. It has nothing whatever to say or suggest about baptism.<\/p>\n

These children were certainly not brought to our Lord that he might baptize them, for our Lord himself personally baptized nobody. Nor, that being the purpose of their being brought, would the disciples have forbidden their coming if they had been accustomed to baptize children. The purpose of being brought is expressly stated: That he should touch them, lay his hands on them, and pray. What he did is expressly stated: He called them unto him, took them in his arms, blessed them, laying his hands upon them.<\/p>\n

But the defenders of infant baptism who employ this passage in defense of their view, say our Lord said, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven,” and quote his words on another occasion: “Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.” They interpret these passages to mean that little children, in their natural state, are free from sin, equal to converted adults and therefore possess the spiritual qualifications for baptism. But this denies their own doctrine of depravity, as set forth in their confessions, and denies their avowed purpose for baptizing infants, namely, to cleanse them from sin, regenerate them, and make them children of God and members of the kingdom. Their prescribed rituals for baptizing infants makes this very clear. Indeed, church history abundantly shows that it was the doctrine of baptismal regeneration that led to infant baptism. If until today there had been no infant baptism, and tomorrow for the first time baptismal regeneration should be widely received, then inevitably would follow infant baptism.<\/p>\n

“Such” in the passage, “Of such,” expresses likeness rather than identity. Here it cannot mean identity. It would be absurd to say, “Of little children is the kingdom of heaven.” The true lesson of the touching passage is that the imperfectly developed disciples considered those children too young and too unimportant to be thrust upon the attention of the Saviour engaged in great matters about grown people. Our Saviour promptly rebuked their error. Children, because more docile, more trustful, less bound by evil habits, less absorbed in business or other cares are more susceptible to religious impressions than adults. Prayer takes hold on them more powerfully. We should pray for them before born and when in their cradles, as well as later. We should welcome, not distrust, their interest in the Lord. The mothers did well to bring them in touch with Christ and seek his prayers in their behalf. No one of the little ones could ever forget, “The Lord noticed me. He called me to him. He took me in his arms. He prayed for me. He laid his hands on me and blessed me.”<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

QUESTIONS<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. What contrast in the parable of the Pharisee and publican and the parable of the importunate widow?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

2. To whom was the parable of the Pharisee and publican addressed?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

3. What do the Pharisee and the publican each illustrate respectively concerning prayer?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

4. What was the petition of the Pharisee?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

5. What was the petition of the publican?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

6. What was the contrast between it and the prayer of the Pharisee?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

7. What are the elements of this prayer?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

8. What is the literal translation of this prayer?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

9. What is the bearing on justification?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

10. What are the two elements in the discussion on marriage and divorce?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

11. What is the primal law of marriage?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

12. Then why did Moses allow divorce for a number of causes? <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

13. How did Moses adapt his law to the social evils of his time, and which of the elements of the Sinaitic covenant was thus adapted to their conditions?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

14. What one cause alone for divorce did Christ recognize?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

15. Did this law operate ipso factor Why?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

16. What are the perplexing problems relative to this question?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

17. What letters furnish much light on these questions?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

18. What new question arises in these letters?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

19. What was Paul’s reply to this question?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

20. What question of interpretation arises here?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

21. What is the author’s interpretation of Paul’s language on this point and what is his proof?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

22. Give a summary of this teaching.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

23. What book is commended on this subject?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

24. What is the present status of things relating to marriage and divorce?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

25. What three imperative duties devolve upon us?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

26. What is the import of Christ’s words in Mat 19:4-5<\/span> ?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

27. What one scripture applies to the law of the woman’s putting away her husband?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

28. What is the meaning of “fornication”?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

29. What false theory is mentioned and what are the three arguments against it?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

30. What is the meaning of the language of the disciples in Mat 19:10<\/span> ?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

31. What was Christ’s reply and what did he mean?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

32. What are the exceptional cases where marriage is inexpedient?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

33. What was the original commission of man and under what limitation was he placed with respect to it?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

34. What do you think of the doctrine of celibacy for the ministry?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

35. Did Jesus baptize the children and why your answer?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

36. What is the argument of the defenders of infant baptism and what is the reply?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

37. What is the relation of infant baptism to baptismal regeneration?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

38. What is the meaning of the phrase, “Of such”?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

39. What is the true lesson of this touching passage?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

40. Why are children more susceptible to religious impressions than adults?<\/p>\n

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

1 And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ver. 1. And as he was wont, he taught<\/strong> ] Praedicationis officium suscipit quisquis ad sacerdotium accedit.<\/em> (Greg. in Pastoral.) It was death for the high priest to enter the holy place, or to come abroad, without his bells and pomegranates. St Mark is much in setting forth Christ’s forwardness to teach. <\/p>\n

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Mar 10:1-12<\/span> .<\/strong> ] REPLY TO THE PHARISEES’ QUESTION CONCERNING DIVORCE. Mat 19:1-12<\/span> .<\/p>\n

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

1. <\/strong> <\/strong> ] Our Lord retired, after His discourses to the Jews in Joh 10<\/span> and before the raising of Lazarus, to Bethany (Joh 1:28<\/span> ; Joh 10:40 ) beyond Jordan, and thence made his last journey to Jerusalem; so that in the strictest sense of the words He did come into the borders of Juda and beyond Jordan.<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Matt. has . . without the copula. See Luk 17:11<\/span> . Here a large portion of the sayings and doings of Jesus is omitted: cf. Mat 18:10<\/span> ; Mat 19:3<\/span> ; Luk 9:51 to Luk 18:15<\/span> ; Joh 7:1<\/span> ff.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Mar 10:1<\/span> . The departure from Galilee<\/em> (Mat 19:1<\/span> ). , as in Mar 7:24<\/span> , q.v.<\/em> ; there, of a departure from Galilee which was followed by a return (Mar 9:33<\/span> ), here, of a final departure, so far as we know. Beza finds in the expression a Hebraism to sit is to remain in a place, to rise is to depart from it. Kypke renders, et inde discedens<\/em> , and gives classic examples of the usage. . . , etc., into the borders of Judaea and of Peraea; how reached not indicated. The reading of T. R. . . gives the route. Vide<\/em> on Mt., ad loc.<\/em> , where the (of [85] [86] [87] [88] ) is omitted. , crowds again gather. , plural; here only, with reference to the different places passed through. , as He was wont; remarked on, because the habit had been suspended for a season during which the whole attention of Jesus had been devoted to the Twelve. That continues to be the case mainly<\/em> still. In every incident the Master has an eye to the lesson for the disciples. And the evangelist takes pains to make the lesson prominent. Possibly his incidents are selected and grouped with that in view: marriage, children, money, etc. (so Weiss in Meyer). , He continued teaching<\/em> , so also in Mar 6:34<\/span> . In both places Mt. (Mat 14:14<\/span> , Mat 19:2<\/span> ) speaks of healing<\/em> . Yet Mk.’s Gospel is a gospel of acts<\/em> , Mt.’s of words<\/em> . Each is careful to make prominent, in general notices, what he comparatively neglects in detail.<\/p>\n

[85] Codex Sinaiticus (sc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.<\/p>\n

[86] Codex Vaticanus (sc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.<\/p>\n

[87] Codex Ephraemi<\/p>\n

[88] Codex Regius–eighth century, represents an ancient text, and is often in agreement with and B.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Mark Chapter 10<\/p>\n

Mar 10:1-12<\/span><\/strong> .<\/p>\n

Mat 19:1-9<\/span> .<\/p>\n

Our Lord now starts on His last journey, leaving Galilee for the borders of Judea and the other side* of the Jordan.tid=39#bkm102-<\/span> When crowds resort to Him, He, as He was wont, again taught. And full of moral value and Divine light His teaching is. May our souls weigh it well! We are apt to be one-sided. If we seize the special manifestation of God’s grace, we are apt to over look, neglect, or enfeeble the great and unchanging principles of good and evil; if we keep hold of that which abides from first to last, the danger is that we leave not adequate room for His sovereign action at particular times. In Christ, the truth, this was never so. All the ways of God had their place: no one thing was sacrificed to another, yet this, too, without a levelling sameness, for even in God, while all is perfect and all harmonious, each attribute has not equal place, but there is that which is pre-eminent. Jesus, the Son and Servant of God, maintains on every side the truth of God in the face of sin and confusion.<\/p>\n

*”And the other side of (beyond)”: so Edd., with ABC, Memph. D, etc., 1, 13, 69, with Amiat., omit “and”; whilst AE, etc., and 33 have “by the other side,” which is T.R.<\/p>\n

First, He vindicates, according to the unstained light and tender goodness of God, the marriage relation. It is the most momentous step of human life, and the pillar of the social fabric. How thankful should we be to have the Lord of glory pronouncing on it in His passage through this world! The need was great. For even in the Holy Land, and among those who stood high for their sanctity, with the law of God before their eyes and its precepts, rightly or wrongly interpreted, continually on their tongues, how low and loose was the theory! how basely selfish the practice! He was here on His errand of love with its eternal issues, yet would He stop in His course, and cause the light of heaven to shine even across the path of dark, designing men, recalling them to hear how God made man to live, as well as removing the veil which hindered disciples from seeing how He who was God would die.<\/p>\n

“And Pharisees* came to Him, and asked Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away [his] wife? tempting Him. But He answered and said to them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorce, and to put away. And Jesus answered and said to them, In view of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this commandment. But from [the] beginning of [the] creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be united to his wife; and the two shall be one flesh: so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (verses 2-9). It is only the facts recorded by historians or the researches of men of learning into the Rabbinical remains which betray the excessive levity of the Jews as to marriage.tid=39#bkm103-<\/span> The true obligations of the tie were unknown, and a wife’s place had no more stability than a servant’s – if so much, indeed. He asks what Moses commanded: they answer what Moses allowed; whereas our Lord shows how evidently it was in respect of their hard-heartedness he so wrote. In truth, the law made nothing perfect. Not the Gospel only, but the beginning of creation, bore its witness to the true thought of God, who made them male and female. How admirably the Lord applies, not only the fact of Gen 1<\/span> , but the words of Gen 2:24<\/span> ! All other obligations of nature, even the filial, must give place, as their own Pentateuch proved in principle as well as history; and the new relationship from the first was abstractedly indissoluble. They were no longer two, but one flesh, even if not kindred in spirit. This was not merely Adam’s language, but God’s deed; and if He united, let not man put asunder. Such was the Lord’s bright and beautiful unfolding of the law to those who took advantage of what was permitted for a season. Grace and truth ever adorn what the legal spirit perverts to self-righteousness on the one hand or self-indulgence on the other.<\/p>\n

*C, etc., 1, 33, have “the” before “Pharisees,” which Edd. omit, with ABL, etc., 69, Memph.<\/p>\n

“God”: so AD, etc., 1, 69, Jerome’s Vulg. Syr. Arm. Goth. AEth. Edd. adopt “He,” with BCL, Memph.<\/p>\n

“And shall be united to his wife”: so (AC)D, etc., nearly all cursives, Lat. Syrpesch hcl Memph. AEth. Edd. omit, with B, etc., Syrsin Goth.<\/p>\n

To the disciples (in the house, as only Mark here tells us) the Lord gives the stringent reply that, “Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her; and if a woman put away her husband and marry another, she committeth adultery.”tid=39#bkm104-<\/span> Here is the dark converse of sin in this relationship: no licence of man can consecrate the annulling that tie while in the flesh.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:13-16<\/span> . <\/p>\n

Mat 19:13-15<\/span> ; Luk 18:15-17<\/span> .<\/p>\n

The next incident is equally full of moral loveliness and Divine grace – full of instruction too, as here we have, not Pharisees, but disciples in painful collision with the mind of the Master. “And they brought little children to Him, that He might touch them. But the disciples rebuked those that brought [them]. But when Jesus saw [it], he was indignant, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto Me; forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receivetid=39#bkm105-<\/span> the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein. And He took them up in His arms, put His hands upon them, and blessed them.” Our Evangelist specially marks the deep displeasure of the Lord. And no wonder! Indeed, it was part of His perfectness. For it was not only that they betrayed their own Rabbi-like self-importance, which makes much of ceremony, much also of knowledge, and overlooks the power of grace and the manifestation of Divine affections; but, besides, they took His place, falsified Him and the God of all grace that sent Him, and the essential character of that kingdom which He was about to establish. Suffer not little children, babes, to come to Him! Hinder them! Why, not only of such is the kingdom of God, but whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a babe shall not enter therein. Such is the Lord’s solemn sentence. To be nothing for Jesus to receive is just the condition of entrance. May we too have faith to put our babes with ourselves before Him, and count on His sure blessing!<\/p>\n

Mar 10:17-22<\/span> .<\/p>\n

Mat 9:16-22<\/span> : Luk 18:18-23<\/span> .<\/p>\n

The Lord had vindicated marriage according to its beginning from God against the Pharisees. He had blessed babes in spite of rebuking, but now rebuked disciples. We have Him next eagerly sought out by the rich young ruler. “And as He went forth into the way, one ran up and kneeled to him, and asked Him, Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit life eternal?”tid=39#bkm106-<\/span> There was no lack of moral integrity here, no failure in reverence to One who was instinctively felt to be superior, no indolence that avoided trouble; but earnestness was there, honest respect for that righteous man, and a sincere desire to learn a new lesson and take a fresh step in well-doing. It was nature doing its best, yet fundamentally at fault; for his question assumed that man was good and could do good – man as he is. His very salutation of honour to Jesus proved that His person was unknown, and therefore the truth unknown both as to God and man. Had the young ruler believed Him to be the Son of the living God, he would not have accosted Him with “Good Teacher” – a style suitable enough to a respected and honoured teacher, but both needless and improper in addressing One who was equal with God and was God. But the evil of man he had never realised – the total, hopeless sin and ruin of the heart in God’s sight. Hence the need of such a One as Jesus was unfelt – of One who, God and man, came down to the depths of sin in Divine love, and is raised up to the throne of God in Divine righteousness; who suffered all on earth from God on behalf of guilty man, that He might have man redeemed, reconciled, justified, glorified, by and with Himself in heaven, and in both, as in all things, God glorified through Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n

Our Blessed Lord therefore refuses the honour which ignored the only just foundation for it, jealous for the truth as well as for God’s glory, as, indeed, it is the only real love to man. If not God, Christ was not good; if good, He is God.tid=39#bkm107-<\/span> “And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but one [that is], God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. And he answered and said to Him, Teacher, all these have I observed from my youth. And Jesus beholding him loved him.” It is striking to observe these two things following – the comparative severity of our Lord’s answer, and the express assertion that He looked upon him and loved him. The one showed how He dealt with amiable nature, intruding into what it knows not; the other, how no curtness of rebuke for spiritual blindness, no consciousness that the young man was faithless and would depart sorrowful at His word, hindered the Saviour’s love for that which was sweet and attractive in human nature. Our Lord gave its full value to his honouring of the commandments, which He does not contradict; but He meets him on the ground he had chosen, not of a broken-hearted, convicted sinner asking what he must do to be saved, but of a blameless man who was conscious of nothing wrong in his life, but who felt desires after a more excellent way from One so pre-eminently excellent in his eyes as Jesus, who accordingly “said to him, One thing thou lackest: go, sell whatever thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow Me, [taking up the cross].”* Jesus had done infinitely more; for, “though He was rich, yet for our sakes He became poor, that we through His poverty might be rich.” But this ruler knew not the grace of our Lord, though he could not but see His ineffable moral beauty; he knew not His grace, for His glory was unknown to him. Little did he think even when he kneeled to Jesus that there stood before him One who, “subsisting in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be on equality with God, but emptied Himself and took upon Him the form of a bondman, and was made in the likeness of men; and having been found in fashion as a man, humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” It was not, then, that He who repudiated all good save in One, save God, shrank from that test which He represented to the good-seeking ruler; yet the one thing the young and ardent Jew lacked was, oh! how incomparably short of the path of Jesus both in life and death. Still, it was far too great a demand on the loveliest sample of humanity which, as far as we read, crossed the path of the Lord; and it made plain in his sad, departing footsteps to others, if it did not discover to his own conscience, the covetousness of his heart, the value he set upon his possessions the trust he had in riches, the little heart he had for treasure in heaven, care for himself rather than for others, even for the poor, of whom the Lord ever thought much, and, above all, that so taking up the cross and following Christ was harder measure than he was prepared for. What is man? Wherein is he to be accounted of? Well may we worship God in the spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. “There is none good but One [that is], God.” How true, and how blessed for us that so it is! “Verily every man, [even] the high placed is altogether vanity” (Psa 39:5<\/span> ). Jesus had but disclosed the shadow, and not the very image, of Divine goodness in Himself; yet did the beauty of the amiable devotee consume away like a moth. “But he, sad at the word, went away grieved: for he had large possessions.”tid=39#bkm108-<\/span> Surely every man is vanity.<\/p>\n

*The words bracketed are found in A(G)N, etc., 1, 13, 69, and Syrsin pesch AEth., Iren. Edd. omit, after BCD and Old Latin.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:23-27<\/span> .<\/p>\n

Mat 9:23-26<\/span> ; Luk 18:24-27<\/span> .<\/p>\n

The great Prophet, the perfect Minister of grace and truth, turns the incident to the good of His own. “And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto His disciples, With what difficulty shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!” Even the disciples understood not, but were astonished at His words. They, too, knew not there is no good thing in man, or in the advantages of the world, for the kingdom of God. “And Jesus answers again, and says to them, Children, how difficult it is for those who trust in riches* to enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. And they were exceedingly astonished, saying to one another, And who can be saved? But Jesus looking on them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.” Thus Jesus softens in no respect the rigour of the truth. The very blessings, as men speak, of the flesh and of the world turn out hindrances in Divine things. With men, then, salvation is impossible. It is a question here, too, of God; but, blessed be His name, all things are possible with Him.<\/p>\n

*”For those who trust in riches”: so ACDN, later uncials, all cursives, most Old Latin, Syr. (including sin.), Arm. Edd. omit, as B.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:28-31<\/span> . <\/p>\n

Mat 9:27-30<\/span> ; Luk 18:28-30<\/span> .<\/p>\n

What hearts are ours that even the solemn circumstance of the ruler, and the still more solemn sentence of the Lord which fell upon the amazed ears of the disciples, drew forth a self-complacent inquiry from him who seemed to be somewhat – yea, a pillar among those nearest to Jesus! “Peter began to say to Him, Lo, it is we who have left all, and have followed Thee. Jesus answered* and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man who hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother [or wife], or children, or lands, for My sake, and the Gospel’s,tid=39#bkm109-<\/span> that shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the coming age life eternal.tid=39#bkm110-<\/span> But many first shall be last; and the last first.” It is much to be noted that the Lord speaks but of abandoning nature for His own sake (and the Gospel’s, as is added most appropriately in this Gospel only), even as Peter speaks of their leaving all and following Him. To leave for the reward would be worthless, and, moreover, never stands. Christ is the only efficacious attraction, the motive that governs a renewed heart. There is pasture for the sheep, there is the flock also; but the sheep follow Christ, for they know His voice. Rewards will follow by-and-by, but saints follow not the rewards, but the Lord. As our Evangelist speaks of the Gospel’s sake, so he shows that the faithful sufferer receives a hundredfold now in this time for what he has left, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. “But,” says the Lord (and if it was a significant word to Peter, is it not for us all?), “many first shall be last, and the last first.” Righteous judgment will in the long-run reverse many a thought founded on that which meets the eye. It is the end of the race that tells, not the start, though God is unrighteous to no person and to no act. It is well, therefore, here, as before, to trust in God and His grace. “There is none good but One [that is], God.”<\/p>\n

*”Answered (answering)”: so A, etc., Syrsin pesch, Arm, Goth. Edd. omit, with BD, Memph.<\/p>\n

[“Or wife”]: as AC and later uncials, 69, most Syrr. Goth. AEth., but omitted by Edd., after BD, I, Syrsin Memph.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:32-34<\/span> .<\/p>\n

Mat 20:17-19<\/span> ; Luk 18:31-34<\/span> ; Joh 11:16-55<\/span> .<\/p>\n

They were now on the road to Jerusalem, where the disciples well knew enmity to their Master was most deadly. Hence, when Jesus went before them, “they were amazed; and as they followed, they were afraid.” They were not more astonished at His calm facing the danger than they shrank from their own exposure to it. They were still attached to earthly life, though they would have liked to have spent it under Messiah’s reign, sitting every man under his vine and under his fig-tree, with none to make them afraid. But to follow the path which led through persecution to death was far as yet from being a privilege and honour in their eyes. Even Christ they knew after the flesh: the glory of His death and resurrection was wholly unfelt as yet. Hence the Lord Jesus “took again the Twelve, and began to tell them what was going to happen to Him, saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered up to the chief priests, and to the scribes; and they shall condemn Him to death, and shall deliver Him up to the nations, and they shall mock Him, and shall scourge Him, and shall spit upon Him, and shall kill Him; and after three days* He shall rise again.” Thus the fullest testimony was given, not indiscriminately, but to chosen witnesses, though complete for the purposes of God among men. Matthew alone singles out, as was suitable, that form of death, the cross, which stumbled the natural mind of the Jew, while Luke, as his manner is, draws attention to the accomplishment of the Scriptures, not in specific detail like Matthew, but as a whole, adding to it the non-intelligence of the disciples.<\/p>\n

*”After three days”: so Edd., following BCDL, Syrhcl mg, Memph. “The third day” is the reading of AN, etc., all cursives, Jerome’s Vulg., Syr sin pesch hcl (t) Arm. AEth., Origen.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:35-45<\/span> . <\/p>\n

Mat 20:20-28<\/span> ; Luk 22:24-28<\/span> .<\/p>\n

Then come the sons of Zebedee, James, and John” (with their mother, as we know from Matthew), “saying [to him],* Teacher, we would that Thou shouldst do for us whatsoever we may ask Thee. And He said to them, What would ye that I should do for you? And they said unto Him, Grant us that we may sit, one on Thy right hand and one on Thy left hand, in thy glory.” How often the carnal mind betrays itself in the faithful, even in the domain of faith! How weak as yet were those destined to be pillars! How the Master shines in presence even of the most blessed among His servants! They knew not what they asked. This was no question for the suffering Son of man on His way to the cross; but, rather, Could they drink of what it was His to drink? could they be baptized with the baptism that was before Him? Alas! ambition even in the things of the kingdom is soon followed by confidence in self: “We are able.” What an answer! Need we wonder that these two also forsook Jesus and fled in the hour of the cross? Nevertheless, the Lord seals their answer with His promise of His own bitter portion, inward and outward; but lets them know that those high places around Himself in glory were not His to give, but for those for whom it is prepared. He refuses to depart from that morally highest place in such a world as this – God’s servant among men. But if the two sons of Zebedee thus betrayed their ignorance of Christ’s moral glory, how did the rest carry themselves? Not with sorrow of heart for their brethren. “When the ten heard it, they began to be indignant about James, and John.” How often our fleshly resentment at the pride of another makes manifest the pride which dwells in our own hearts, and breaks out in an indignation as unseemly as the evil which provokes it! “But Jesus called them unto Him, and saith unto them, Ye know that those who are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not so among you: but whosoever would be great among you, shall be your minister: and whosoever would be first of you, shall be bondman of all. For also the Son of man did not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many.”<\/p>\n

*[“To him”]: so Edd., as BCL, Memph. The words are not found in AE, etc., 1, 69, and Amiatine.<\/p>\n

So Edd., with ABC, etc., 1, 69, Memph.; whilst and others omit.<\/p>\n

“Is”: so Edd., after BCpmD, etc., Old Latin. The T.R. “shall be” is in ACcorrN, later uncials, most cursives, Arm. Memph. Goth.<\/p>\n

This is love which serves, not flesh which seeks to be served. It is the animating motive and spirit, and not a question of position, ecclesiastic or ministerial; for I doubt not he who was not a whit behind the very chiefest of the Apostles was the one who was most of all imbued with the mind which was in Christ Jesus, and this not only in his own soul, but also in his service. Paul was bondsman of all. “His grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain, but I laboured more abundantly than they all; yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.” “Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren in weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not?” (2Co 11:23-29<\/span> ). It was for the Son of man alone not only to minister, but to give His life a ransom for many.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:46-52<\/span> . <\/p>\n

Mat 20:29-34<\/span> ; Luk 18:35-43<\/span> .<\/p>\n

A new division of our Gospel here opens. It is the Lord’s final presentation of Himself to the nation as Messiah. His ministerial work was closed. Here He is viewed as Son of David.<\/p>\n

“And they came to Jericho.” That city which first opposed itself to the entrance of Israel into the land of promise, but fell by the mighty power of God, when His people submitted themselves to, His word by Joshua; that city which brought the predicted curse on him and his sons who reared it again; that city whose waters were healed, and from whose land barrenness was taken away in grace by the prophet, is the scene of a remarkable display of beneficent power, in answer to the faith that owned the promised Seed and King.<\/p>\n

“And as He went out of Jericho, with His disciples and a great number of people, blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the wayside begging.” I do not doubt that it is the same incident which is recorded in Mat 20<\/span> and in Luk 18<\/span> . But the differences are so great as to have occasioned doubts of this in some.tid=39#bkm111-<\/span> The truth is that each is perfect. Matthew gives the double cure – true to his habit (see Mat 8<\/span> ) and the exigency of Jewish witness. Luke so states it that the careless might infer that the cure took place as the Lord went into (instead of as He came out of) Jericho. His moral order required the juxtaposition of the tale of Zacchaeus and the parable of the nobleman, as illustrating the scope of the two advents, and hence displaced of necessity the story of the blind man. But Luke takes care to say, not “as he was come nigh unto Jericho” (as the English Bible and others), but “as He was nigh to Jericho,” , without saying whether it was His coming or His going.”‘ He was in that neighbourhood. Some manuscripts give “the son of Timeus, Bartimaeus, a blind beggar, sat,” etc. The Sinai copy has “blind and a beggar.”* As usual, our Evangelist relates the facts and even names with characteristic precision. “And when he heard that it was Jesus the Nazaraean, he began to cry out, and say, Son of David, Jesus, have mercy on me.” No expression of unbelief on the part of others could stifle his own cry of faith. It was, no doubt, in keeping with his wants to call on Him to whom Isaiah of old testified, “Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened” (Isa 35:5<\/span> ). Others knew this Scripture as well as Bartimaeus, but he claimed the blessing from the despised Nazarene. They said they saw, and therefore their sin remained. As for him, he was confessedly miserable, poor, and blind; naked, too, he was content to be, if he might the more readily cast himself on the Lord. The multitude, not feeling their own need, had no sympathy with one who felt his, and sought to drown his importunity. But it was God who had laid it on the heart of the blind beggar – God who, in his appeal to the rejected Messiah, rebuked the incredulity of His people, as miserable and poor and blind as he – yea, more so, incomparably more, because they felt it not, and owned not their King. For them He was but Jesus of Nazareth. “And many charged him that he should hold his peace: but he cried out the more a great deal, Son of David, have mercy on me.<\/p>\n

*BDL and , as stated above; the T.R. follows A, etc.<\/p>\n

“Nazaraean”: so AC, etc. Edd. adopt “Nazarene,” after BL, I, with most Old Latin and Amiatine. See note tid=39#bkm112-<\/span> .<\/p>\n

The application of this title is the more strikingly in place and season here, because it is the first occurrence and, one may say, the only instance in Mark, common as it is from the first to the corresponding chapter of Matthew. The nearest approach is in the Lord’s reference to Psa 110<\/span> in chapter 12. This, as well as Mar 11:9<\/span> , Mar 11:10<\/span> , may show how truly guided of God Bartimaeus was – the type, doubtless, of the remnant of the latter day, whose eyes will be opened of the Messiah before He is in publicly recognised relationship with Jerusalem.<\/p>\n

But let us turn to the foreshadowing of the “mercy that endureth for ever.” No rebuke came from Jesus. On the contrary, He stood still and said, “Call him.*<\/p>\n

*This is, I doubt not, the true reading (BCL, a few cursives, Memph.; followed by Edd.), which bears the graphic stamp of Mark’s style. The vulgar text (D, etc., most cursives, Syrpesch AEth, etc.) is here, as elsewhere, due to that love of assimilating the Gospels which in the copyists answers to the love of harmonies among divines, both to the no small marring of the Divine perfection of the Gospels. Compare Luk 18:40<\/span> , where “He commanded,” etc., is right (B.T.).<\/p>\n

“And they call the blind man, saying to him, Be of good comfort, rise , He calls for thee. And he, casting away his garment, rose and came to Jesus.” Mark, not Matthew, mentions the cloak cast off in the alacrity* that hastened at the invitation of Jesus, yet Matthew, not Mark, was an eyewitness.<\/p>\n

*”Started [sprang] up”: so Edd., after BDL, etc., Memph. Goth.; whilst “rose up” is supported by AC, etc., most cursives, Syr. (including sin.), and other versions. The word is used only here in the New Testament.<\/p>\n

“And Jesus answered and said to him, What wilt thou that I should do for thee? The blind man said to Him, Rabboni [My Master], that I may recover sight. And Jesus answered and said to him, Go, thy faith hath healed thee. And immediately he recovered sight, and was following Jesus in the way.” Luke alone adds the expressed moral effect on the part both of the blind man and of all the people that saw the miracle: he glorified God, as they gave Him praise. But this is thoroughly the province of Luke, as must have been observed, in fact, by every reader of ordinary attention.<\/p>\n

NOTES ON Mar 10<\/span><\/strong> .<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/strong> 102<\/strong> Mar 10:1<\/span> . – As to the route taken, see Burkitt, p. 96, note.<\/p>\n

<\/span> 103<\/strong> Mar 10:2<\/span> . – Bennett on the Mishna (p. 72 1.) refers to the Talmudical treatise Gittin (4: 8, 8: 5, 8), for loose views of the Rabbins on the subject of divorce, akin to those prevalent in some American States.<\/p>\n

<\/span> 104 Mar 10:11<\/span><\/strong> , Mar 10:12<\/span> . – Wellhausen, following D and Syrsin, would read “put away by,” as the common reading would violate the Jewish, but be in keeping with Greek and Roman law, conceived to be familiar to Mark’s first readers (cf. Wernle, p. 47; Bousset, p. 39). But Burkitt (p. 100 f.) is surely right in seeing a reference to the wanton ways of Salome (Josephus “Antiquities,” xv. 7, 10) and Herodias. Greenleaf, too, supposes a natural allusion to an existing legal custom. Cf. 1Co 7:13<\/span> for the effect of adoption of Christianity on marital relations.<\/p>\n

<\/span> 105<\/strong> Mar 10:15<\/span> . – “Receive the kingdom.” See Dalman, p. 91; and note above On 9: 47. Cf. Mat 10:30<\/span> , and next note, besides that on verse 30.<\/p>\n

<\/span> 106 Mar 10:17<\/span> . “Inherit life eternal.” Inherit stands for “take possession of,” as in Mat 25:34<\/span> (Dalman). So in Luk 18:18<\/span> . In the Synoptic Gospels it is regarded as in reserve; so in Paul’s Epistles. Luk 18:22<\/span> tells us that the young man was to have treasure in heaven. Cf. Col 3:3<\/span> .<\/p>\n

Some have supposed that there is a difference between “life” and “life eternal,” but this is a mistake. See Mat 19:16<\/span> , Mat 19:17<\/span> , and Dalman, who shows that in the early and in part contemporary Jewish literature “life” without qualification stands for “life eternal.” Outside the Bible (Psa 133:3<\/span> and Dan 12:2<\/span> ) we meet with the expression in the apocryphal Psalm of Solomon (3: 16), 2 Maccabees (vii. 9), and the Book of Enoch (xxxvii. 4), as also in the Aramaic paraphrases (“Targums”) used in the synagogues, as at Lev 18:5<\/span> , Deu 33:6<\/span> . See, further, note 110.<\/p>\n

<\/span> 107<\/strong> Mar 10:18<\/span> . – Much use has been made of this verse by those interested in obtaining evidence for the notion that, in respect of the Deity of the Saviour, as of much else, there are layers of narrative, in the earliest of which there is no recognition of aught beyond simple humanity. Christ here seems to be taking the position predicted of Him in Psa 16:2<\/span> . The emphasis is not on “Me,” but on “good” (Swete). Nothing further need be added to the words of the lecturer here, although reference may be made to his “Lectures on Matthew” (p. 415 f.) for remarks on “goodness” in the parallel passage there; also to “Introductory Lectures,” p. 358 f. One may readily see in either passage an intended appeal to the man’s sanctified reason. It was a question to be answered by himself. For the use made by Bishop Chase, after Germans (cf. Wernle, p. 42; Bousset, p. 202, E.T.), of the Matthew passage, as if it betrayed the moulding influence of the editor’s hand, see Burkitt, p. 17 f., and cf. notes 57, 59 above.<\/p>\n

<\/span> 108<\/strong> Mar 10:22<\/span> . – Wellhausen criticizes Mark’s , …, as “scarcely Greek.” It is, of course, for , …, (“he was in possession of many estates”). This use of with the participle is very frequent in the best Greek writers (see Blass, 62), and is often noticeable in the sections of Luke’s Gospel peculiar to that Evangelist. See, again, note 1.<\/p>\n

<\/span> 109<\/strong> Mar 10:29<\/span> . – Cf. Mar 8:35<\/span> .<\/p>\n

<\/span> 110<\/strong> Mar 10:30<\/span> . – “In the coming age life eternal.” For the Jew all blessing is connected with this earth, and expressly in connection with Messiah’s reign. The Synoptic Gospels do not go beyond the Old Testament use of the phrase “life eternal” (note 106). In general, says Dalman, “the life of the world to come took the place of eternal life” (cf. Nicene Creed). It is nowhere, however, regarded as lapsing when the eternal state sets in, as some in recent years have supposed. The fourth Gospel regards the title to it as indefeasible (Mar 10:28<\/span> f.).<\/p>\n

<\/span> 111<\/strong> Mar 10:46-52<\/span> . – Matthew speaks of two blind men relieved by JESUS as He went out of Jericho; Mark of one only, healed as He was going out from the town; Luke also of one only, healed as the Lord was near to the place (so Kelly – cf. “Lectures on Matthew,” p. 440 – after Grotius). Greswell supposed that one was healed as Jesus entered the town (Luke); the other as He left it (Mark). See his “Dissertations,” vol. ii., p. 569. Greenleaf says that the Lord may be regarded as “occasionally going out of Jericho, in which city He had made some abode” (cf. 6: 1-8, 22: 10, 40, with 11: 19), and that it was as He thus was returning into the town (Luk 18:35<\/span> ) that the miracle as described by Luke was wrought. He again refers to Le Clerc’s maxim, quoted above at v. 2. Gloag thinks that the miracle was performed on the two simultaneously.<\/p>\n

<\/span> 112<\/strong> Mar 10:47<\/span> . – As to the form “Nazarean,” see “Exposition of John,” p. 375, note.<\/p>\n

Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mar 10:1<\/p>\n

1Getting up, He went from there to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan; crowds gathered around Him again, and, according to His custom, He once more began to teach them.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:1 “went from there to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan” The RSV and the ASV have “came into territories of Judea and trans-Jordan.” The context implies that Jesus was on His final journey to Jerusalem. Apparently He went north through Samaria, crossed over into Galilee, and joined the crowds of pilgrims heading for Jerusalem. Most Jews refused to pass through Samaria on their way to Jerusalem, so they crossed to the eastern side of the Jordan (i.e., through Perea) and then crossed back to the western side at Jericho. If this is what happened then it explains this confusing verse (cf. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 1, p. 348, asserts that over one-third of Luke’s Gospel occurs between Mark 9, 10 [i.e., Luk 9:57 to Luk 18:14]; as well as Matthew 18 and John 7-11).<\/p>\n

“crowds gathered around Him again” This may refer to (1) pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem for the feast or (2) the sick, the curious, the Jewish leaders, and disciples. Jesus always drew a crowd.<\/p>\n

“according to His custom” Whenever Jesus had opportunity to teach, He did (cf. Mar 1:21; Mar 2:13; Mar 4:2; Mar 6:2; Mar 6:6; Mar 6:34; Mar 12:35; Mar 14:49). The content of His message was<\/p>\n

1. repent and believe (like John the Baptist’s message)<\/p>\n

2. the Kingdom of God is entered by faith in Him<\/p>\n

3. the Kingdom of God radically changes the way one thinks and lives.<\/p>\n

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

into. Greek. eis. App-104. <\/p>\n

coasts = confines, or borders. <\/p>\n

by. Greek. dia. App-104. <\/p>\n

farther aide = other side<\/p>\n

people = crowds. <\/p>\n

unto. Greek. pros. App-104. <\/p>\n

taught = began teaching. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Mar 10:1-12.] REPLY TO THE PHARISEES QUESTION CONCERNING DIVORCE. Mat 19:1-12.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Mark’s gospel chapter 10:<\/p>\n

And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he wont [was accustomed], he taught them again ( Mar 10:1 ).<\/p>\n

Now, Jesus is leaving the area of the Galilee for the last time. He is on His way to Jerusalem to be crucified. He knows this. He presently will be telling the disciples this. They still do not understand; it’s still, to them, a mystery. But yet, it’s very clear in the mind of Christ, and so you have to realize that He is now knowingly on His way to Jerusalem to be crucified and, of course, to rise again. So, He leaves the area of the Galilee. He arose from there, the area of Galilee, and He came to the area of Judea. So, He’s moving south towards Jerusalem. He’s on the far side of the Jordan River, so He’s coming down in the area of the Ammonites and the Moabites. And the people were still gathering to Him and as was His custom, He was just teaching them.<\/p>\n

And the Pharisees came to him, and [they] asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? [And notice, they were] tempting him ( Mar 10:2 ).<\/p>\n

This was a lead kind of a question. Obviously they were seeking to trap Him in the answer that He gave. They felt that His answers were contrary to the law given through Moses. And they were hoping to trap Him, to show to the people that were gathered there that He was a heretic, that He was teaching something other than the law of Moses. And so, they asked Him the question, “Is it right for a man to divorce his wife?” Now, in the law, in the book of Deuteronomy, God did say through Moses that if a man married a woman and found some uncleanness in her, he should give her a writing of a bill of divorcement. Now, that is a little vague, not much, but a little. But there are always people who are trying to jump into any little area of controversy, or any area where there might be an excuse for what they want to do.<\/p>\n

There were two basic schools of thought taught by the Jews that were headed under famous rabbis. There was a rabbi by the name of Shami. Shami taught that uncleanness meant only that when he married her, he discovered on the marriage night that she was not a virgin, she was not clean; she was not a virgin. And thus, if he discovered that, he had the right to divorce her. And Shami took that very narrow, limited viewpoint that the uncleanness would be adultery on the part of the wife either before or after marriage and that constituted the only grounds for divorce. Now, there was another school headed by the Rabbi Hallel, which took a very liberal interpretation of finding an uncleanness in her. If she didn’t dress the way he liked her to, if she was a brawling woman . . . and they interpreted that if you could hear her voice next door, she was counted a brawling woman. Or if she didn’t fix the meals to please him, that this constituted an uncleanness in her, and thus he had the right to divorce her for these grounds.<\/p>\n

Now, the Jews were quite divided, but naturally, the Hallel side was of greater popularity among the men. And there was one rabbi by the name of Ocabe, and he said that if he found another woman that pleased him more, that constituted an uncleanness in his wife, and so he could divorce her just because he found another woman that pleased him more. Now, naturally, by these liberal interpretations, they made the law totally meaningless. But still, they were divided quite sharply on this particular issue. And so, they brought the issue to Jesus. “Can a man divorce his wife for any cause?”<\/p>\n

And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered [allowed] to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain [two] shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain [two], but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder ( Mar 10:3-9 ).<\/p>\n

So, Jesus, in answering their question, asked them the question, “What did Moses command?” They said, “Moses said we could give her a writing of divorcement and put her away.” And they had two different bills of divorcement. The second one became quite technical and had to be written up by a rabbi and then approved by three rabbis, and you could give it to your wife and she officially was put away. But because of the liberal views that they had taken, there was social chaos: children who really were almost orphaned in the sense that they did not have a solid type of a home environment to grow up in. And so Jesus, in talking about marriage and divorce, rather than going to the precept of Moses, He said, “Moses gave you that because of the hardness of your hearts. But in the beginning and from the beginning it was not so.” Now we are dealing with God’s divine ideal. “From the beginning…” What was God’s ideal? What was God’s intention?<\/p>\n

First of all, there is the recognition that man by himself is not complete. Woman by herself is not complete. God made them male and female, and the two become one. And there’s only a wholeness as the two become one. The wife is to compliment the husband and make a completeness, as the husband is to compliment the wife and make a completeness. But neither are complete in themselves. “And in the beginning, God made them male and female. And for this cause a man leaves his mother and father, cleaves to his wife and the two of them become one, one whole, one total. Therefore, those whom God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” And He is dealing now with the basic divine ideal established by God for marriage. And so we must note that Jesus is going back and dealing with the basic ideal and intention of God in the beginning. But man did not live up to God’s divine ideal because of the hardness of man’s heart, so many times the unwillingness to bend, the unwillingness to forgive, or the unwillingness just to give. For marriage is surely a giving proposition. And the hardness of a man’s heart in his unwillingness to bend or to give created intolerable situations. And so, because of the hardness of their hearts towards God’s divine ideal, Moses in the law declared, “Let him give her a writing of a bill of divorcement.” So Jesus declares the divine ideal of God, recognizing man did not come to it; and thus, God’s accommodation through the law to make that separation binding and legal, to go through the writing of divorcement. Today we are faced still with the hardness of heart.<\/p>\n

Now, God’s divine ideal still stands. It is still the divine ideal that there be one marriage for life. That’s God’s divine ideal. That’s what God would have. But today, there are still those who have hard hearts to God’s divine ideal. They will not bend, they will not yield, they will not give, they will not forgive. And when that condition does exist, marriage can be a hell. And it is extremely unfortunate when two persons set about, consciously or unconsciously, to destroy each other. That surely is not God’s divine ideal either. “And I’m going to hang on until I kill her.” God’s divine ideal is that the two be one, that they be brought together in a harmony through love and a true oneness in love.<\/p>\n

It’s difficult to deal with this subject inasmuch as, number one, we do not want to broaden the issue to make divorce and remarriage a very simple go-for-it kind of a thing. “If she doesn’t please you, if you’ve found someone else, divorce her.” Surely, God does not intend that. In fact, God declared in Malachi He hated divorces. Yet, He also hates those intolerable conditions that sometimes exist when you get a hard-hearted person in a marriage relationship.<\/p>\n

So, we just can’t say, “Oh, well, it doesn’t matter. Do what you want. Whatever pleases you.” Our desire should be to please God. If we are in a bad marriage, we should seek to make it a good marriage. We should do our best to make a go of the marriage, to forgive, to give, to love, to have understanding and to come to an agreement, to come to a oneness.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, in dealing with the subject, we do not want to create condemnation for those who have had that bitter experience of being married to someone by paper, but not by reality, where there never was a true oneness brought together by God’s Spirit. And because of intolerable situations, to save themselves, found it necessary to get a divorce, less the marriage totally destroy them.<\/p>\n

It is unfortunate, that many times in the folly of youth, young couples believed themselves to be madly in love and insist on getting married because they can’t wait. And soon after the infatuation has worn off, they realized the total incompatibility. Someone has said that a decision as important as marriage should never be left up to the judgment of a child. And that’s why they had marriage by arrangement. But that had its flaws too.<\/p>\n

Now, if a person, while a teenager, gets married and it is soon obvious that it was a tragic mistake, and it’s impossible to live with that person and they then get a divorce. I speak now for myself, as Paul the apostle said. Paul is speaking now, I don’t have any commandment of the Lord of this, but this is Paul speaking. And so, this is Chuck speaking now. I do not believe that God says to that person, “Alright, you made your bed, lie in it.” Or, “You made a mistake, now you can just suffer the rest of your life for the mistake that you made as a silly child. And you can never marry again.” I really do not believe that God says that. But that’s me; that is my conviction.<\/p>\n

So, Jesus sought to bring back the realization of the sacredness of marriage. The Catholic Church says it is a sacrament, and I think that they are probably correct. It is an outward sign of a spiritual work, and there is that spiritual union that is created by God as the two become one. Marriage to the right person can be heaven on earth. Marriage to the wrong person can be hell on earth, and I speak especially now to young people who are not yet married, who are perhaps contemplating it. Spend much time in prayer over your decision. Before I married my wife, I went off and spent time fasting and praying. I’m glad. I’m glad I made the right decision. I’m glad the Lord led me to that decision through prayer and through fasting. And I mean, that is a matter that you should not leave to your heart or to your emotions. It is something that you need to prayerfully consider. Much better that you not make a mistake than you try to later on correct the mistake.<\/p>\n

I do not believe that God condemns that person to hell who has divorced and remarried. I believe that if you find yourself in a remarriage, that you need to make the best of it. Just let your marriage become all that God wants it to be. I don’t think that you should go out and say, “Well, I was married before, now I better divorce you too.” I believe that you should stay in the condition where you are. The Bible tells us that a man should abide in the calling wherewith he was called; when you were called by Christ and you accepted the Lord, what your condition was there. Maybe you’ve been married, divorced, remarried. Work it out now in this relationship that you have. Let it bring honor and glory to God.<\/p>\n

But we remember David who became involved with Bathsheba and later married her. And God was merciful, and God was gracious, and God was forgiving to David. The prophet said unto him, “Thy sin is forgiven.” He did pay a price; they lost their first child. And yet, God granted to David that forgiveness of sin. And you may have sort of a sordid past as far as marriage is concerned. I don’t know if some people are just really hard to get along with, or just don’t have good judgment in picking out a partner. But you may be a loser in marriage, but yet God is able, I know, to help you. And God is glorified and honored when couples are able to resolve their differences in Christ and come to a loving relationship through Him.<\/p>\n

And [when they came] in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter ( Mar 10:10 ).<\/p>\n

They did not fully understand what He was declaring in His answer to the Pharisees. And so,<\/p>\n

And he [Jesus] saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband ( Mar 10:11-12 ),<\/p>\n

Now, there were only a few grounds upon which a woman could put away a husband. If he falsely accused her of not being a virgin when they got married, that gave her the right to divorce him. Or if he committed adultery, she had the right to divorce him.<\/p>\n

And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery ( Mar 10:12 ).<\/p>\n

It doesn’t say anything about the innocent party here. But as I say, people are always looking for loopholes.<\/p>\n

Now, as they are continuing on the way towards the cross,<\/p>\n

And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them; and his disciples rebuked those that brought them ( Mar 10:13 ).<\/p>\n

Now there is, even to the present day, this custom of going up to a rabbi to receive a blessing. And there is a very colorful little rabbi in Jerusalem today; he’s a Yemonite, a short little fellow with a long gray beard, and he reads his prayers quite loudly as he walks back and forth, not directly in front of the wailing wall, but sort of out in the court, the large courtyard where both men and women can gather. And you’ll hear him as he’s really sort of yelling out his prayers, walking along. This little rabbi is respected by many of the young men studying to become rabbis. And they will go up to him, and he will put his hand on their head and touch them and give them a blessing. And it’s interesting to watch him and to watch these young fellows go up and to receive their blessings from him, as he touches them bestowing a blessing upon him.<\/p>\n

Now, this was what was taking place, the children were being brought to Jesus. And it was a custom in those days to usually bring the child when they were about one year old to the rabbi to be blessed. And so the parents were bringing their little children to Jesus that He might touch them. And the disciples began to rebuke the parents saying, “Oh, don’t bother the Lord. He’s too busy.” And they started hindering those parents who desired to bring their children to Jesus.<\/p>\n

But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased ( Mar 10:14 ),<\/p>\n

He was angry, angry at His own disciples acting on their own part and not for His part.<\/p>\n

And [he] said unto them, Suffer [allow] the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God [heaven] ( Mar 10:14 ).<\/p>\n

Now remember, Jesus is on His way to the cross. This is weighing heavy on Him, and yet, the disciples felt that He didn’t have time for children. He shouldn’t be bothered with children. But Jesus said, “No, you’re wrong. Let the little children come to Me. Don’t forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God.”<\/p>\n

Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein ( Mar 10:15 ).<\/p>\n

Don’t stop the children from coming. You know, there is something beautiful in a child. I believe that it is natural for a child to believe in God. I think that they have to learn atheism. I think that instinctively, naturally, a child believes in God. There is that simplicity of faith there within the child, a beautiful faith in the child, a natural faith in the child. Whenever I’m not feeling good, I like my grandkids to pray for me. Such faith, it’s beautiful. And Jesus said, “Unless you become as a little child, you won’t enter in.” That’s the way to enter in, to become as a little child.<\/p>\n

“Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will not make it.”<\/p>\n

[And he] put his hands upon them, and blessed them ( Mar 10:16 ).<\/p>\n

I love this picture of Jesus holding the children. And I’m certain that they were just naturally drawn to Him.<\/p>\n

When he was gone forth into the way, [from the area of Jordan, on His way towards Jerusalem in the area of Judea, when He was gone from there, and He was back on the path again,] there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God ( Mar 10:17-18 ).<\/p>\n

Now, so many commentators say that Jesus was rebuking him for calling Him good. I do not believe that. I believe that Jesus was trying to awaken his consciousness. Jesus is either saying to this young man, “I am no good,” or He is saying to him, “I am God.” And I believe He is saying the latter. And He’s trying to awaken his consciousness, “Why did you call Me good? Think about that a minute. There’s only one good and that is God. Why did you call Me good? Because I am God.” And that is in harmony with what the rest of what Jesus said to him. In fact, the rest of what Jesus said would be blasphemy if Jesus was not declaring to him, “I am God.” Because Jesus is saying to him in the remainder of the story, “You have a need to have God at the center of your life; follow Me. You’ve got the wrong center to your life; you’ve got money as the center of your life. You need to have a new center to your life if you’re going to come into the kingdom of God; you follow Me. You need God at the center of your life; follow Me.” And so, Jesus awakening his consciousness, said, “Why did you call Me good? There’s only one good and that is God.<\/p>\n

Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honor thy father and mother. And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. Then Jesus beholding him loved him ( Mar 10:19-21 ),<\/p>\n

He looked at this young fellow He had just flashed before him the second table of the law. He said, “I kept them all from my youth.” And Jesus looked at him and He loved him, and said, “Alright!”<\/p>\n

And [he] said unto him, One thing thou lackest ( Mar 10:21 ):<\/p>\n

Now, Matthew tells us that he had said to Jesus, “What lack I yet?” So Jesus is answering and He said, “There’s one thing you lack:”<\/p>\n

go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. And he was sad at that saying, and [he] went away grieved: for he had great possessions ( Mar 10:21-22 ).<\/p>\n

Now, as I pointed out, Jesus’ central word to this young man wasn’t, “Go and sell everything and give to the poor.” That was incidental. The central thing that Jesus said was, “Take up your cross, follow Me.” Now with him, his great riches were keeping him from coming and taking up his cross and following Jesus. I don’t know what it is in your life that is keeping you from coming, taking up your cross and following Jesus. Maybe it’s a relationship that you have. Maybe it’s a job. Maybe it’s an ambition, a goal. Whatever it is that is keeping you from coming, taking up your cross and following Jesus, get rid of it. That’s what Jesus is saying. With this young man, He just named what it was. This young man had as his god, money. Jesus said, “You can’t serve God and mammon. So get rid of your false god, and come, follow Me. Know the true God. Let God be the center of your life; follow Me.”<\/p>\n

Now, the word of Christ is the same to us today as far as letting God become the center of your life; follow Jesus Christ. That’s the way to enter the kingdom of God; that’s the way to eternal life. That’s the only way to eternal life, is that the center of your life is in God. So whatever it is that is keeping that from becoming the central aspect of your life, get rid of it. “Now, this young man went away sad. He was grieved, for he had great possessions.” Isn’t that a paradox? Because so many of you think, “That’s all I need to be happy, is great possessions.” Here’s a man the Bible tells us was sad, because he had great possessions. Now, do not assume that this young man was lost. We don’t know. He may have thought over what Jesus said and called in his servant and said, “Sell everything and give it away. I’ll see ya later. I’m going to follow Jesus.” Or, he could have just gone back to his misery and lived out his life with money as his god.<\/p>\n

And Jesus looked round about, and [he] saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they [it is for those] that have riches [to] enter into the kingdom of God! And the disciples were astonished at his words ( Mar 10:23-24 ).<\/p>\n

Because in the Hebrew mind, they thought that riches were a sign of God’s blessing upon a person. That if a person was prosperous, it was because God favored him and he was blessed with prosperity, that it was a sign of a man’s faith and closeness to God. And they were astonished when Jesus said, “How hard it is for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven!” “What do you mean, Lord? I thought that was a sign that he was holy and righteous. You were able to trust him with those riches.” Jesus is blowing that philosophy right out of the water. There are those today who had that same feeling, that riches, prosperity, is a sign of spirituality. And they even preach that godliness is a way to prosper. Paul tells Timothy, “From such turn away.”<\/p>\n

And so the disciples were astonished. So Jesus qualified a little bit what He said.<\/p>\n

[He] saith unto them, Children, how hard it is for them that trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God ( Mar 10:24-25 ).<\/p>\n

Now, as I pointed out, there are those who say the eye of the needle was a subgate in the main gate of the city, when after the gates were closed at night and a person would arrive at the city, they would not open the main gate, lest there be enemy troops that would come pouring in. So, there was this subgate that a person could dismount and come crawling through the subgate into the city. And at the subgate they say was called “the eye of the needle.” So when Jesus said, “It is easier for a camel to get through an eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven,” Jesus was referring to this little subgate; how that they’d have to unload the camel and then guys would be pulling and guys would be pushing and squeezing and shoving and get that ornery beast through this little opening in the gate. But with a lot of sweat and effort, you could make it. No, that’s not what Jesus is talking about. Whatever Jesus is talking about, it’s an impossibility. There are always those men who would try to make salvation within the reach and grasp of struggling man; work hard enough, try hard enough, be sincere enough. Surely you can save yourself. No. Jesus is talking about an impossibility. For the disciples were astounded above measure. They were totally blown out at this point,<\/p>\n

And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved? ( Mar 10:26 )<\/p>\n

You know, the rich aren’t going to make it. Who in the world can be saved?<\/p>\n

And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible ( Mar 10:27 ),<\/p>\n

God help us to realize that. Salvation with man is impossible. There is no way man can save himself. No matter how noble your efforts, how righteous your deeds, how faithful your walk; no man can save himself. With man, it is impossible. Jesus in the garden said, “Father, if it’s possible, let this cup pass from Me, if man can be saved by some other means.” But with man it is impossible. But Jesus said,<\/p>\n

but not with God: for with God all things are possible ( Mar 10:27 ).<\/p>\n

As bad as you are, it’s possible that God can save you. You’re not beyond God’s reach. You’re beyond your own abilities, beyond other man’s abilities, but not beyond God’s abilities. And haven’t we seen God work where men have given up? You know, there are some people that I have looked at and said, “It’s impossible that they could ever be saved; they are so lost.” And I’ve really given up on certain people, absolutely given up. “No way are they ever going to be saved.” But God saved them anyhow, in spite of the fact that I had really committed them and condemned them as impossibilites. God has so many glorious trophies of grace.<\/p>\n

Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all [everything], and have followed thee ( Mar 10:28 ).<\/p>\n

This rich young ruler was seemingly unwilling to pay that price. But, Peter said, “We did it. We left all to follow You.”<\/p>\n

And Jesus answered and said, Verily [assuredly], I say unto you, There is no man that hath left [his] house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake and the gospel’s ( Mar 10:29 ),<\/p>\n

Now it would appear that many of them, because of the Jewish culture being so strong, their seeing and believing and receiving Christ as their Messiah, caused them to lose their inheritance, houses, homes. Caused them to lose their family relationship as they were ostracized as heretics. And in many of the Jewish homes, they would hold a funeral service and consider that child or that person as dead who had received Jesus Christ as their savior. And it would appear that with Paul the apostle, it cost him his wife. And Jesus said, “No man has left house or brothers or sisters, father, mother, wife or children, or lands, for My sake and the gospel’s, “<\/p>\n

but he shall receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life ( Mar 10:30 ).<\/p>\n

You may be persecuted, but you may have lost your brother, your sister, your mother, but you’re going to gain in the family of God a hundredfold. Now, there are some of you who your faith in Jesus Christ has caused a breach in your family. I had a wedding yesterday, and the young man who was getting married, in the back room said, “Preach the gospel.” He said, “My mother told me if I ever mentioned Jesus Christ again, I wasn’t welcomed at home anymore.” And he said, “She’s here, so preach the gospel.” But it cost that young man. And yet, in the family of God, that love, that bond, that relationship that we are brought into as we are made one in Christ within the family of God, I look around at all the brothers and sisters and all that we have here and it’s just glorious to realize that we are all just one big family of God. And though there may have been an alienation from our natural blood relatives as the result of our commitment to Jesus Christ, yet we’ve come into such a broader family. I feel extremely fortunate that all of my immediate family love the Lord and serve Him. That’s a blessing. I have cousins, though, that don’t know the Lord, aunts and uncles that don’t know the Lord. You know, I’m much much closer to all of you than I am to them. There is this gap between us. So many of them are in that social set, and…I’ve got to be careful, because they do listen to my tapes. They’re wonderful people, but they just need Jesus. Until there is that bond in the faith of Christ, there is a division; there can’t be that total unity. And so Jesus said, “Look, no one has left these things but what they’re going to receive a hundredfold. You’re going to get persecution, persecution from the family, yes. But in the world to come, eternal life.<\/p>\n

But many that are first shall be last; and the last first ( Mar 10:31 ).<\/p>\n

Why He threw that in here, I don’t know.<\/p>\n

And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem ( Mar 10:32 );<\/p>\n

Now, He’s on the way. This young guy comes and kneels at Him. They’re still on the path; they’re on their way towards Jerusalem.<\/p>\n

and Jesus went before them: and they were amazed; and as they followed, they were afraid. And he took again the twelve, and [he] began to tell them what things should [were going to] happen to him ( Mar 10:32 ),<\/p>\n

Now, they can see that He’s more contemplative at this point, getting alone. It’s obvious that there is this heaviness, and so they are frightened when they see the moves. And so He gathered them and He began to tell them,<\/p>\n

Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem [Now look, we’re going up to Jerusalem]; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles: and they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him; and the third day he shall rise again ( Mar 10:33-34 ).<\/p>\n

Now notice He says that the scribes and the priests are going to condemn Him to death, but deliver Him to the Gentiles to do the job. The Gentiles will mock Him; it was the Roman soldiers who put on the purple robe and mocked Him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews.” They will scourge Him; it was the Roman soldiers that laid the thirty-nine stripes on Him. They shall spit upon Him; which is, of course, recorded also. And they shall kill Him; that is the Gentiles, the Roman soldiers. “But the third day, He will rise again.”<\/p>\n

And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire [would you do us a favor?]. And he [Jesus] said unto them , What would ye that I should do for you [what do you want]? They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory. But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask [you don’t really know what you’re asking]: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? And they said unto him, [Oh,] we can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of ( Mar 10:35-39 );<\/p>\n

Herod stretched forth his hand against the church, and he had James beheaded; he was one of the early martyrs.<\/p>\n

and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized: But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared ( Mar 10:39-40 ).<\/p>\n

God has already foreordained; God has already predestined. And so it will be given to those for whom it has been predestined. Now you remember just a couple of chapters ago, the disciples were arguing when they were on the path coming down from Caesarea Philippi as to who would be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And when they came in the house, Jesus said, “What were you guys arguing about back there on the path?” “Um, nothing.” They were afraid to tell Him; they were silent, they held their peace. Because they were afraid to tell Him, “We’ve been arguing about who was going to be the greatest in the kingdom.” But here old James and John, they come up to the Lord now, and said, “Lord, would you do us a favor? We want to be one on Your right hand and the other on the left.” So, they’re still seeking that prominence, that position of prominence. Jesus said, “Look, you’re going to go through the fire. You’re going to drink the cup. You will be baptized of the baptism whereof I am baptized, but to grant this favor is something that has already been granted. The foreordained plan of God shall stand.”<\/p>\n

And when the [other] ten heard it, they began to be much displeased with James and John ( Mar 10:41 ).<\/p>\n

Oh, so typical. This righteous indignation, and yet all of them were thinking the same thing.<\/p>\n

But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you ( Mar 10:42-43 ):<\/p>\n

Now, the Gentiles, the heathen, they loved the position of authority and power and ruling over people. Jesus said, “It shall not be among you. The kingdom of God is different from the kingdom of man. For in the kingdom of God . . . “<\/p>\n

but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto [served], but to minister [serve], and to give his life a ransom for many ( Mar 10:43-45 ).<\/p>\n

And so again, Jesus is teaching the importance, if you want to be a ruler, if you want to be chief, if you want to be the head, then learn to be the servant. The path of greatness is through service. It is important that I realize that as I am serving man, I am actually serving God. I do it in the name of the Lord; I do it as unto the Lord. Whatsoever you do in word or deed, do all to the glory of God. And you need to realize that in serving the Lord, that constitutes serving man, because that’s what the Lord requires you to do as His servant. And so the path of greatness is the path of humility, learning to be the servant.<\/p>\n

And they came to Jericho ( Mar 10:46 ):<\/p>\n

And of course, He is now crossed over Jordan, come into Jericho, and He’s on the last hitch, the last twenty miles up to Jerusalem.<\/p>\n

They came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho with his disciples and a great number of people [with them], blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timeus, sat by the highway side begging. And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth ( Mar 10:46-47 ),<\/p>\n

No doubt he could hear the crowds going by. You know, the blind people are very perceptive; their auditory, sensory perception is extremely high. Because they can’t see, they’ve developed capacities of listening and discerning by listening. And hearing all the people, he probably said, “What’s happening? Who’s going by? What’s going on?” And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth is going by.” And old Bartimaeus thought, “Man, this is my chance.”<\/p>\n

he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me. And many [that were around him] charged him that he should hold his peace [They said, “Shut up!” But he thought, “This is my only chance,” and he cried even louder.]: but he cried the more a great deal, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me. And Jesus stood still, and commanded him to be called [he said, Call him to Me]. And they call the blind man, saying unto him, Be of good comfort, rise; [for] he calleth thee. And he, casting away his garment ( Mar 10:47-50 ),<\/p>\n

Some say that this garment was the typical garment of the beggar. It was sort of the badge of the beggar. But he threw it away because he knew that he wouldn’t have to be begging any more. In faith, he knew once he got to Jesus, it was going to all be over; he’d be able to see. His life would be changed. And so,<\/p>\n

casting away his garment, [he] rose, and came to Jesus. And Jesus answered and said unto him, What wilt thou that I should do unto thee [what would you like Me to do for you]? The blind man said unto him, Lord, that I might receive my sight [I would like to receive my sight]. And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole ( Mar 10:50-52 ).<\/p>\n

Maybe He saw him throw the garment away, saw the faith of this man, saw the faith in his heart. He said, “Go your way; your faith has made you whole.”<\/p>\n

And immediately he received his sight [was able to see], and [he] followed Jesus in the way [along the path] ( Mar 10:52 ).<\/p>\n

Beautiful, beautiful story! So much can be drawn from it as far as spiritual allegories, but that isn’t really my bag. <\/p>\n

“<\/p>\n

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Mar 10:1. , and having arisen from thence) The antithesis is not so much to Capernaum, where He had taught sitting, ch. Mar 9:33; Mar 9:35, as to Galilee, Mar 9:30.- ) See App. Crit. Ed. ii. on this passage.[10]- , as He had been wont) The habitual acts of Jesus are well worthy of observation: Luk 4:16.<\/p>\n

[10] is the reading of BC corrected later, L, Memph. But DG bc Vulg. omit the . Rec. Text with A reads, .-ED. and TRANSL.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Mar 10:1-12<\/p>\n

PART SECOND<\/p>\n

FROM THE DEPARTURE OUT OF<\/p>\n

GALILEE TO THE ASCENSION<\/p>\n

Mark 10:1 to 16:20<\/p>\n

SECTION ONE<\/p>\n

EVENTS IN PEREA<\/p>\n

Mar 10:1-52<\/p>\n

1. QUESTION ABOUT DIVORCE<\/p>\n

Mar 10:1-12<\/p>\n

(Mat 19:1-12)<\/p>\n

1 And he arose from thence, and cometh into the borders of Judaea and beyond the Jordan:–This is the final departure of Jesus from Galilee. He returned thither no more until after his resurrection from the dead, when he suddenly appeared to his disciples there on two occasions. (Mat 28:16-17; Joh 21:1.) He had labored in Galilee about twenty-two months.<\/p>\n

and multitudes come together unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.–Some came for one cause and some for another–and, as usual, he taught them and healed the afflicted.<\/p>\n

2 And there came unto him Pharisees, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?–Matthew (Mat 19:3) adds, “For every cause?” That is, every cause satisfactory to her husband. They had found fault with him for violating the law (Mar 2:24);and transgressing the tradition of the elders (Mar 7:5);had referred his power to Beelzebub (Mar 3:22);and had demanded a sign from heaven (Mar 8:11; Mat 12:38). But now they seek to entangle him in existing controversies, which, they thought, would be impossible to answer without displeasing one or another of the Jewish parties.<\/p>\n

trying him.–the Pharisees asked the question, not for information, but with wrong motives, “trying him.” If he answered in the affirmative, they would accuse him with moral laxity; if in the negative, with disregarding the authority of Moses. Probably they wished to call forth a condemnation of Herod Antipas in his adulterous relationship with his brother’s wife, and thus insure to Jesus an end similar to that of John the Baptist.<\/p>\n

3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?–He does not discuss their distinctions, but appeals to their own law. The wisdom of Christ is seen in his reply. In it he sanctions the law of Moses. (Luk 10:26.)<\/p>\n

4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.–This reply of the Pharisees is found in Deu 24:1-3.<\/p>\n

5 But Jesus said unto them, For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.–He did not command to give a writing of divorcement, and then to put her away: he only suffered them to do so, and suffered it on account of the hardness of their hearts, though it had not been so from the beginning. The Mosaic law was not intended as a code of perpetual obligation, but was preparatory to something better and higher, when the people were able to bear it. (Gal 3:19-25.)<\/p>\n

6 But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them.–God made Adam and Eve. They were designed one for the other. Thus God shows that man and woman should live together in the marriage state, and that polygamy be excluded. Jesus excluded polygamy in the Christian law.<\/p>\n

7 For this cause–Because Eve was taken out of Adam, and was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. (Gen 2:21-24.)<\/p>\n

shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife;–Shall be joined unto and adhere. The relation between husband and wife is stronger than that between parent and child.<\/p>\n

8 and the two shall become one flesh:–They shall be united in the flesh–one being the part of the other. Jesus quotes the language of Adam, showing the strong and close relation of husband and wife. (Gen 2:24.)<\/p>\n

so that they are no more two, but one flesh.–Having a oneness in all their interests and relations pertaining to this life.<\/p>\n

9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.–Man is here used in the broad sense–including all men. Let no human authority, civil or otherwise, in any way annul the ordinance of God. That relation between husband and wife authorized by God, and to which all other relations, even that of parent and child, must yield, can he severed only by God himself. The marriage relation, however, ceases at the death of either partner for the reason the unity is based on one flesh. (Verse 7.) The union in the flesh is for this world. (Mar 12:25; Rom 7:2.) This is the law of Christ. There was never a time when there was greater need for the discussion of this subject than there is in this “evil and adulterous generation.” Christ’s law of marriage has been set aside by the civil authorities of many countries by granting divorces for almost any cause. By many, the marriage vow and relationship are no longer held sacred, and husband and wife separate on an impulse to cohabit with someone else. All Christians should earnestly teach against this widespreading evil. God is the author of the marriage; he joins husband and wife, and no civil court can divorce them. Man cannot put asunder what God has joined together. Godmade ties cannot be broken by human laws. He who marries a woman that has been divorced for some other cause than fornication commits adultery because he is thus joined to another man’s wife; she commits adultery because she is living with another than her husband. (Mat 19:1-8; Rom 7:1-3; 1Co 7:10-16; 1Co 7:19.) Fornicators and adulterers cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. (1Co 6:9-10.)<\/p>\n

10 And in the house the disciples asked him again of this matter.–They did not fully understand the teaching of Jesus on marriage and divorce, so they asked him again of this matter. “Again” refers to the question asked by the Pharisees in verse 2.<\/p>\n

11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife,–“Saving for the cause of fornication.” (Mat 19:9.)<\/p>\n

and marry another, committeth adultery against her :–Should husband and wife separate for some other cause than fornication, neither is at liberty to marry another. In some cases when a separation occurs in the absence of fornication, one party waits for the other party to marry another, thinking when he or she does, that this frees the other party and that that party is at liberty to marry again. But this is net true, for the adultery occurred after the second marriage, and therefore, was not the cause of the separation. For one party to be free to marry again after a separation, the adultery must have been committed before the separation and be the grounds of the separation. In this case, the innocent party is, in my judgment, at liberty to marry again.<\/p>\n

12 and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery.–That which is implied in other passages is here directly stated–that this law applies to both wife and husband. Christians should regard no one as really divorced except for the one cause–fornication.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The Pharisees raised a question concerning the marriage relation. The Master went to the root of all things in the words, “From the beginning of the creation.” The supreme and final authority is not the permission of a human lawgiver, but the will and intention of God.<\/p>\n

It was in this connection that Jesus took the children in His arms and blessed them, laying His hands on them. The story of the rich young ruler reveals the need of control. The way to find it is to follow the Master. The Master told His disciples that riches were always a snare. It is ever hard for a rich man to enter, but with God the impossible is possible.<\/p>\n

“Jesus was going before.” The disciples followed with an unnamable and awful dread upon them. Jesus was interrupted by James and John. With what tender patience He talked to them. The ten were indignant with James and John. This indignation of the ten is no more worthy of imitation than is the ambition of the two. Indignation and ambition were alike based on selfishness and desire for greatness.<\/p>\n

The story of Bartimaeus reveals anew the readiness and power of Christ to aid.<\/p>\n

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

JUDA. MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE<\/p>\n

10:1-12. Jesus departs from Galilee, and comes to Juda and Pera. The Pharisees try him with one of their test-questions, in regard to divorce. Jesus answer.<\/p>\n

Jesus ministry in Galilee is at an end, and he goes into the region of Southern Palestine. Between this beginning and the controversy about divorce which Mk. introduces immediately, there is a gap, which Lk. fills in with his most characteristic matter. This question of divorce was one of the puzzles of the schools, arising from the ambiguity of the law. Jesus, in his answer, interprets the law in accordance with the liberal school, which allowed laxness of divorce; but says that this license was due to their spiritual dulness. From the beginning, i.e., originally and essentially, marriage, being based on the sexual distinction and act, and therefore a Divine institution, is indissoluble, and divorce involves adultery.<\/p>\n

1. -And from this place. The place meant is Capernaum. See 9:33. . -and across the Jordan. The general district, , into which he came was Southern Palestine, including the region on both sides of the river. -multitudes again. During the last part of the time in Galilee, he was alone with his disciples. See 9:30-32 But now, in Juda, he is entering on a new phase of his general mission, the multitudes gather around him again, and he is teaching them as usual. The Impf. denotes not a single act, but a course of action, and should be translated, was teaching.<\/p>\n

, instead of , before , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BC* L Memph.<\/p>\n

2. -And Pharisees came to him and asked him. -testing him. This was a test, not a temptation. He claimed to be a Rabbi, and they proposed to put him to a test by propounding to him one of their puzzles. The law of divorce itself allowed it in case of the wifes coming into disfavor with her husband because of his finding something unseemly in her. The school of Shammai, which was in general the stricter school, interpreted this to apply only to cases of adultery, while the opposite school of Hillel licensed divorce under it for any cause. See Deu 24:1. The ambiguity of the passage, and the disputes of the Rabbis, made it a cause clbre, fitted to test, and possibly to discredit, the superior wisdom claimed by Jesus.<\/p>\n

Omit , the, before , Treg. WH. RV. ABL , two mss. Lat. Vet. , instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCDLM .<\/p>\n

3. ;-What did Moses command you? Jesus recognizes that this is to them primarily a question of the Mosaic Law, and so, in order to get the matter properly before them, he asks for the law.<\/p>\n

4. 1-means a roll, the form in which all written documents were prepared at the time. 2-of divorce. This reply does not contain the condition of the divorce in the original, which made the subject of dispute between the two schools, viz., that the wife had come into disfavor because the husband found something unseemly in her (Deu 24:1). This is an indication that Jesus questioners belonged to the school of Hillel, which found in it practically no barrier to absolute freedom of divorce, so that in citing the law, they would ignore this as having no bearing on the case. Mat 19:3-7 gives a different version of the affair, which, however, defines their position still more distinctly as the liberal position. According to that, their question is, whether it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife for every cause. Jesus answers this by defining his own position forbidding divorce, when they ask, why Moses allowed it then. The order is unimportant, and there is nothing to choose between the two accounts.<\/p>\n

5. , . -And Jesus said to them out of regard to the hardness of your heart,1 he wrote you this command. 2-coarseness of spirit. means hard, in the sense of rough or coarse, rather than unimpressible. is the common word for the inner man generally, in the N.T. The whole word denotes the rude nature which belongs to a primitive civilization. This principle of accommodation to the time in Scripture is of inestimable importance, and of course limits finally the absoluteness of its authority. We find that the writers were subject to this limitation, as well as their readers. See also J. 16:12. This answer of Jesus admits the correctness of the interpretation of Hillel and his school, as far as it was a matter of interpretation.<\/p>\n

, instead of , And answering, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCL Memph.<\/p>\n

6. -But from the beginning of creation. Jesus goes back from the Mosaic Law to the original constitution of things, for which he cites Gen 1:27, in connection with 2:24. This connection, instead of basing marriage on the taking of woman from man, puts it on the much broader and more rational ground of their sexual relation.<\/p>\n

-male and female he made them.3<\/p>\n

Omit , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCL two mss. Lat. Vet. Memph. This conforms to the original, in which belongs to the preceding part of the statement, and is omitted here.<\/p>\n

7. -on this account, viz., because of the physical relation, pointing to an even closer union than that between parent and child. Both belong to the perpetuity of the family, but the relation of husband and wife is, in the nature of things, more intimate and compelling. With the omission of the last clause, and shall cleave to his wife, stress is laid on the separation from father and mother, and so on the superiority of the other union.<\/p>\n

Omit , Tisch. (Treg. marg.) WH. RV.marg. B.<\/p>\n

8. . -and the two shall become one flesh.1 is not found in the Heb., but was introduced into the Sept. It adds nothing to the meaning, though it strengthens the expression of it. is a Hebraism, denoting the coming into a state.2 The union pointed out is a physical one, being that to which the sexual relation points-they shall become one flesh. The sexual act unites them, makes them one, the same as the junction of two streams make one river, the union of hydrogen and oxygen in certain proportions makes one substance, water, the mechanical joining of different parts fitted to each other makes the one structure. , -so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. This is our Lords inference from the preceding quotation. The duality no longer exists; it has been replaced by this structural unity. Before, there had been two beings structurally fitted for each other; now, their union makes this new structural unity. If they had remained two, they would be separate; but being now structurally one, they belong together.<\/p>\n

9. , -what therefore God joined together, let not man separate. The act of joining together is Gods, since the constitution that underlies it is His; divorce, on the other hand, is a matter of human legislation; and the human is not to set aside the divine. God has not only created this structural unity in the original creation of man; he has made man himself to recognize this purpose of his structure, and has written this law of his physical being in his spiritual nature, so that what tends in brutes to indiscriminate intercourse, tends in man to the indissoluble and sacred bond of marriage. Jesus nowhere shows the absolute rationality and verity of his thought more than here. Spirituality is the very core of that thought, but it never misleads him so that he misses the material facts. And it is the insistence on these here, that saves him from an immoral sentimentality. Whatever may underlie marriage in the realm of the feelings, it is itself physical, and produces structural unity. And about that, for the profoundest reasons, God gathers all the holiest feelings, and by solemn sanctions, confines them within that circle. Except for that confinement, the feelings themselves lose their sacredness, and become unhallowed and profane.<\/p>\n

10. 1 , -And (having come) into the house again, the disciples asked him about this.<\/p>\n

, instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BDL . Omit , his, after , the disciples, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCL 28. , this, instead of , the same, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. ABCLMNX mss. Lat. Vet. Memph. Pesh. , instead of , Tisch. Treg. marg. WH. RV. BCL .<\/p>\n

11. -Whosoever puts away his wife.<\/p>\n

, instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCDL .<\/p>\n

Jesus states now what takes place in case of a second marriage following a mere formal divorce. It is to be inferred from the previous statement of the indissolubility of the marriage bond. Any formal sundering of the tie leaves it really whole; the union being of this natural, physical kind, not accomplished by any formal procedure, but in the sexual act uniting man and woman, no formal procedure can break it, but simply leaves it as it was. And so, if any man divorces his wife and marries another, the second marriage goes for naught and the connection is an adulterous one, simply because the divorce is nil; it does nothing towards dissolving the marriage.<\/p>\n

12. . . -and if she, having put away her husband, marries another. Under the Jewish law, the wife could not put away her husband, and while Jesus goes outside of Jewish law and develops general principles in his teaching, he does not travel outside of Jewish custom in finding the occasion of that teaching. This is one of the things that point to the Gentile surroundings and destination of this Gospel. Though evidently written by a Jew, it grew up in Gentile soil, and there this appendix to Jesus own teaching became perfectly natural. The exception to this prohibition of divorce-except for the cause of adultery-stated in Mat 19:9 is really implied in our Lords statement of principles as recounted in our Gospel, because adultery is the real dissolution of the marriage tie, as distinguished from the formal divorce. Precisely as divorce does not break the marriage tie, adultery does break it. But the statement is not full and clear without this, and in this respect the account of Mt. is to be followed.<\/p>\n

, instead of , a woman puts away and, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCL Memph. , instead of , is married to another, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BC* DL 1, 13, 28, 69, 124, 346, Latt. Memph.<\/p>\n

LITTLE CHILDREN BLESSED<\/p>\n

13-16. Jesus blesses little children, and rebukes his disciples for repelling those bringing them.<\/p>\n

Jesus meets with opposition here, but also with trust. They bring to him little children, that they may receive that wonderful touch which has healed so many. The disciples, whose thoughts are busy now with the important affairs of the kingdom, which seemed to them so near, rebuke them for intruding so slight matters on the Messiah. But Jesus became very angry, and bade the children to be brought to him, as representing the very spirit to which the kingdom belongs.<\/p>\n

Mt. and Mk. are parallel in their account from the close of the Galilean ministry to the final entry into Jerusalem. Lk. introduces, between the departure from Galilee and this point, much of his most characteristic matter. But beginning here, with the events immediately preceding the entry into Jerusalem, the three accounts become parallel. The following is a synopsis of these events:<\/p>\n

matthew. mark. luke. <\/p>\n

Question of Divorce. Same. <\/p>\n

Blessing of Children. Same. Same. <\/p>\n

Rich Young Man. Same. Same. <\/p>\n

Parable of Householder. <\/p>\n

Prophecy of Death. Same. Same. <\/p>\n

Petition of James and John. Same. <\/p>\n

Blind Men at Jericho. Same. Same. <\/p>\n

13. -that he may touch them. The symbolic action accompanying the blessing was the laying on of hands. See v. 16. Touch gives the rationale of that conventional form. The mere touch of that wonderful being had cured, restored, raised. His method in conveying these blessings had been the laying on of hands, and they saw in this the effect of contact with so marvellous a man. -rebuked them. This rebuke was directed against the presumption of those persons in bringing mere children to the attention of so great and busy a person as Jesus.<\/p>\n

, instead of , those bringing them, Treg. marg. WH. RV. BCL two mss. Lat. Vet. It is against this, that is the reading of Mt. and Lk.<\/p>\n

14. -was indignant. Or rather, in accordance with the use of aor. to denote the entering on a state denoted by the verb, became indignant.1 The composition with makes this a strong word.<\/p>\n

-Suffer the little children to come to me; forbid them not. The omission of the conjunction between the two clauses gives abruptness and force.<\/p>\n

Omit , and, before Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BM* NX Memph.<\/p>\n

, etc.-for to such belongs the kingdom of God. The gen. is possessive, which is not denoted by of such is, AV. and RV. denotes those possessing the childlike spirit of docility and humility. Cf. Mat 18:4. The spirit is one that belongs to them as children, and is the result of their position of dependence and subordination, the same as the discipline which belongs to the condition of a soldier. But those who show that disposition, when it is no longer the effect of position, but a manifestation of character, belong to the kingdom of God. In children therefore, as children, appears the very quality of the kingdom, and this gives them a special distinction in the eyes of its members. They are not to be turned away as unworthy the attention of its king. The kingdom of God in the world consists of those who substitute for self-will and independence the will of God, and trust in his wisdom and goodness. And this is the attitude of childhood. What children feel towards their parents man should feel towards God.<\/p>\n

15. . . -whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall not enter into it. The kingdom of God is in its idea, its essence, the rule and the authority of God, and then the sphere in which he bears rule, either the spirit of the individual man, or the assemblage of its subjects, the society constituted by them. When Jesus speaks of its acceptance, it is the rule itself which is meant; that is to be accepted with unquestioning obedience, as the child accepts the parental rule. And on the other hand, when he speaks of entrance into it, he means the society of its subjects, the perfect state and order which results from doing the will of God.<\/p>\n

, instead of , after Tisch. Treg. WH. BCDL 1.<\/p>\n

16. 1 , 2 -And having taken them in his arms, he blessed them, putting his hands on them.<\/p>\n

, instead of , , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCL Memph.<\/p>\n

THE STUMBLING BLOCK OF WEALTH<\/p>\n

17-31. Jesus is asked the way to obtain life by a rich young man, and points him the way of the commandments. The young man professes to have kept these, and then Jesus shows him the way of self-renunciation. His disappointment leads Jesus to speak of the danger of wealth, and of the reward of renunciation.<\/p>\n

The young man addresses Jesus as Good Teacher, and asks what he shall do to inherit eternal life. Jesus takes up this address first, and asks why he calls him good, when only God is good. And he points him to the commands of God for the answer to his question. The young man claims to have kept these, and as Jesus looks at him, he loves the evident feeling for righteousness that leads a man of manifestly moral life to dissatisfaction with himself, and seeing that it is his wealth that stands in the way, he bids him sell out, give to the poor, and follow him. It is evident that he has probed the difficulty, for the man has too much to give up and sadly turns away. Jesus then turns to his disciples, and shows them that riches are a stumbling block in the way of life. This excites their astonishment, as wealth and respectability go together. Whereupon, Jesus tells them that it is no easy thing to enter into the kingdom of God anyway, and for a rich man next to impossible; in fact, impossible with men, and only possible with God. Peter, conscious (perhaps a little too conscious) that this demand of self-renunciation has been complied with by the disciples, asks what their reward will be. Jesus answers, rewards in kind here, with persecution; and in the future eternal life. But, lest they should think of themselves as having any exclusive right, or even necessary preminence in the kingdom, he warns them that many first shall be last, and last first.<\/p>\n

17. 1 -And as he went forth into the road. See v.10, where he is said to have gone into the house. -The numeral is used sometimes, especially in late writers, in the sense of the indef. . The usage is so rare, however, as to warrant its rejection, except in sure cases. Here, it means that one man came by himself to consult Christ.1 2-having kneeled to him. -to inherit eternal life.3 Eternal life was the term in common use among the Jews to denote the blessings of the Messianic kingdom, both here and hereafter.<\/p>\n

18. ;-Why do you call me good? is not emphatic, as is shown by the use of the enclitic form. The reason of this question, and of the denial of goodness to any one but God which follows it, is that God alone possesses the absolute good. He is what others become. Human goodness is a growth, even when there is no imperfection. It develops, like wisdom, from childhood to youth, and then to manhood. And it was this human goodness which was possessed by Jesus. See Luk 2:52, Heb 2:10, Heb 5:8. This has a bearing, too, on the question propounded by the young man, since it was not to the good teacher as such, but to the absolutely good God, that questions in regard to the real good that brings the promised reward should be addressed. And this is the form in which question and answer are put in Mat 19:17 as follows: What good thing shall I do to inherit eternal life? Why do you ask me concerning the good thing? One is good, God.<\/p>\n

19. -You know the commandments. This is connected immediately with the preceding statement about God. These commands belong to the law of the one only absolutely good Being, and it is therefore in these commands that the young man is bidden to look for the answer to his question. Moreover, he is familiar with these commands, and why therefore seek any further for his answer. There is, however, an answer to this seemingly unanswerable question of Jesus. Though the commands are divine, and as divine would be a ne plus ultra, they were revealed through men, and this human element in them makes it possible for men belonging to a more spiritual time, or themselves more spiritual, to go further in revealing the ways of God to men. That is what Jesus himself did in the Sermon on the Mount, setting in contrast the imperfect commands of the ancients and his own perfect injunctions. This is one of the cases therefore, in which Jesus suggests more than appears on the surface, viz., that there is a chance that even so-called divine commands may not be ultimate. The suggestion itself is pertinent to a time of transition from one era of divine revelation to another, and the method of suggestion is not absent from the teaching of Jesus, who frequently gave men something to think of, some riddle to solve, instead of always throwing so much light himself as to save them all trouble. In this very case, Jesus proceeds to add something to what he has cited as the divine commands, showing that these do not contain the last words in the matter. The commands cited by him are those of the second table of the law, except the tenth, and with the command defraud not, added. This addition is not to be referred to a single passage like Deu 24:14, but is a reminiscence of many such passages, besides being a self-evident part of the law of righteousness.1<\/p>\n

20. , -And he said, all these I kept. This claim of innocence on the part of the young man was evidently not intended to be absolute, but was simply that this had been the general course of his life, viz., a course of observance of the divine law. The cause of his dissatisfaction with himself was not that his obedience to these commands was not perfect, a perfection which was not expected by Judaism, as their system of sacrifices showed, but a secret feeling that this was not enough. -I kept.2<\/p>\n

Omit , answering, Tisch. (Treg. marg.) WH. RV. B Memph. , instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BC Memph.<\/p>\n

21. , -the look was evidently to confirm the impression made by the words of the young man. Here was a constant observer of the law, who yet was not satisfied with himself. Would his looks bear out the impression created by this? Would sincerity, purity, and thoughtfulness appear in his face and bearing? Yes, for Jesus having looked on him, loved him. -One thing you lack.<\/p>\n

, instead of , Tisch. Treg. marg. WH. RV. BCM * 28.<\/p>\n

The commands of the law which had been cited were mostly negative; they forbade a mans doing any harm to his neighbor, and in the matter of his goods, they forbade stealing and defrauding. And so far in the path of righteousness the young man had gone. The thing which was lacking in him was the positive side, to contribute to his neighbors good, and for this purpose, to sacrifice his own. This was not enjoined by Jesus as an extraordinary goodness, not required of other men (supererogation, counsels of perfection), nor was it intended to apply a test to him, which should reveal to him an entirely different righteousness (Pauline doctrine of faith); but it was just what it purported to be, the discovery to him of a serious defect in an otherwise lovable character. Jesus saw that he clung to his wealth in a way quite incompatible with any just estimate of the higher good; that there was hidden in that love of riches a luxurious self-love and a lack of sympathy with the want of men, that made it endanger the very roots of character. The counsel that he gives him, therefore, is adapted to his individual case. There are evidently two grounds for it: one the need of the man himself, and the other the desire of Jesus to attach this choice spirit to himself, to have him in the inner circle of his disciples attending immediately upon himself. He needed to cut away all his attachments to the world, all his temptations to luxurious, self-indulgent living, for his own good, but specially in order to follow the hard and self-denying life of Jesus. This requirement of personal discipleship was what the first disciples had met themselves of their own motion, but they did not have the temptation of wealth to overcome. See 1:16-20, 2:14. (-) -Without the art. it means, give to poor people, individualizing it. This meets another side of the young mans lack, his want of sympathy with the poor. -This is related, first, to the question, what he should do to inherit eternal life, with which he approached Jesus; and secondly, to Jesus requirement; he should sell earthly possessions in order to obtain treasure in heaven. , -and come, follow me. This means in this case, evidently, become my personal follower, attached to my person. Here was a lovely but weak character, not inured to self-sacrifice nor heroic living; and it needed, on the one hand, to be initiated into such living, and on the other, the companionship of the strong and sympathetic Master.<\/p>\n

Omit before , Treg. (WH.) RV. ABNX . Omit , having taken up the cross, after , follow me, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCD 406, mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph. edd.<\/p>\n

22. 1-And his countenance fell, RV. The word denotes the outward sign of sorrow, gloom.<\/p>\n

-for he had great wealth. The grief was caused by his having to go away without obtaining his object; the going away was caused by what seemed to him the impossibility of Jesus conditions. It might be comparatively easy for a man having only small or moderate possessions to give them up, but it involved too great a sacrifice in his case.<\/p>\n

23. . ;-With what difficulty will those having wealth enter into the kingdom of God? Jesus generalizes here, and the case in hand goes far to confirm what he says, because there is nothing to complicate the conditions; we can see the working of wealth by itself. Here is a lovely character, with no other adverse conditions, and yet just the possession of wealth is enough to undermine it. He had gone along through life, choosing purity instead of lust, honesty instead of fraud, truth instead of falsehood, but in all this he had not been called upon to make the supreme choice, his wealth had not stood in the way. But now, he is confronted with a wisdom that is able to show him what is for him the supreme good, and there wealth gets in its deadly work. The lower good proves to be stronger than the higher, and the latter is set aside. There is the difficulty; the kingdom of God does not consist in the practice of this or that separate virtue, but in the choice of the highest good, which regulates individual acts; and wealth has the power, beyond most other things, of making itself appear the greatest good.<\/p>\n

24. 1-And the disciples were astonished at his words. The disciples were amazed at these words, the same as every one is amazed now; or rather, their amazement then corresponds to the entire disuse into which sayings of this class have fallen now. Then, as now, there was an established religion, in which wealth enabled its possessor to come to the front, and occupy the most prominent positions. So far from disqualifying them, it gave its possessors prestige, and always wealth leads to culture and respectability, while poverty is the parent of vice and crime. The ordinary condition of the world is that of routine morals, and it has no ear for revolutionary words like these.<\/p>\n

25. . -how difficult it is to enter into the kingdom of God. The internal evidence is quite in favor of the shorter reading, because it is short, and because it is one of those cases in which a brief and somewhat puzzling saying is a constant temptation to copyists and commentators to introduce something explanatory and alleviating. The longer reading would be intended to modify the preceding statement by showing that it was not the possession of wealth, but the trust in it, confidence in its power to procure all the necessary satisfactions and goods of life, that prevented entrance into the kingdom. The shorter reading generalizes still more the preceding statement, making the difficulty of entering the kingdom to be inherent in its nature, and so universal, instead of locating it in the class, rich men. It involves the choice of the highest good, which in various ways, and not merely on the side of wealth, interferes with what men consider the more immediate and practical good.<\/p>\n

Omit , those who trust in riches, Tisch. Treg. marg. WH. RV.marg. B one ms. Lat. Vet. Memph. ed.<\/p>\n

2-It is easier for a camel to go through a needles eye. The proverb is an exaggerated rhetorical statement of the difficulty. In the parallel accounts in Mt. and Lk., some mss. have the reading , meaning a cable, which is much more apposite. Using the shorter reading in v.24, as on the whole more probable, the whole would mean, it is hard for any man to get into the kingdom of God, and for a rich man next to impossible. He is in the position of having the lower good which other men want, and this is more of an obstacle to the perception and choice of the higher good.<\/p>\n

Omit before Treg. WH. RV. ACDFKMNU . Before Treg. WH. RV. ACDGKMNU Memph. , instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BC(D)K , 1, 13, 124, 346, mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. Syrr.<\/p>\n

26. -before, they had been astonished; now, they were excessively beside themselves with amazement. This making the difficulty of entering the kingdom universal, and increasing it in the case of rich men to almost an impossibility, fairly took away their breath. For one of the promises in regard to that kingdom had been, that prosperity and righteousness were to become common in Israel, and even to be extended to the Gentiles. And Jesus seemed to be making it more and more inaccessible than ever.<\/p>\n

()-saying to themselves (him).<\/p>\n

, instead of , Treg. marg. WH. RV. BCD Memph. Tisch. urges against this the usage of Mk., who never says , except with or .<\/p>\n

;-Who then (And who) can be saved? , with interrogatives, makes an abrupt rejoinder to what has been said.1<\/p>\n

27. -With men it is impossible. Salvation is impossible with men; but in salvation, we are dealing not with men, but with God. The incarnation and the Holy Spirit are not within the category of human agencies, but of the Divine, and given these, even the impossibilities of human nature have to give way. . is emphatic. All things are possible with God, not because he can travel outside the ordinary agencies, and bring things to pass by a simple fiat, but because he has limitless command of all the forces in any department. In the moral and spiritual sphere, he brings things to pass, not by recourse to other than moral and spiritual agencies, but by the word, the Spirit, and the Christ, all of them agencies charged with spiritual power.<\/p>\n

Omit , and, after , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BC* 1, Memph. Omit before Tisch. Treg. WH. BCNX . Omit after Tisch. Treg. (Treg. marg.) WH. BC.<\/p>\n

28. 1 , , 2 , 2 -Peter began to say to him, Lo, we left all, and have followed thee.<\/p>\n

Omit , And, before , began, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCX . , instead of -, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCD.<\/p>\n

-we is emphatic, contrasting their conduct with that of the rich young man. Mt. adds what is implied in the other accounts, ; what shall we have therefore? This seems to be a most incongruous and unspiritual question to ask in the religious and moral sphere. What we shall get for our self-denial, is a question which shows that the disciples were entirely unable to understand their leaders ruling ideas. And yet from their position, the question was inevitable. Because their Scriptures and ecclesiastical writings, which they regarded as authoritative in these matters, are full of descriptions of the prosperity and bliss of the Messianic kingdom, of the temporal and material rewards of the faithful. And so far they had met with nothing in their association with the man whom they believed to be the Messianic king, but privation; instead of adding to their worldly good, this association had diminished, if not destroyed it. They had borne everything for him; what return would he, in his greatness, make them?<\/p>\n

29. , , , , , , , , , -Jesus said, Verily I say to you, there is no one who has left house, or brothers, or sisters, or mother, or father, or children, or fields, for my sake, and for the sake of the glad-tidings (of the kingdom).<\/p>\n

, instead of , and Jesus answering said, Tisch. Treg. marg. WH. RV. B Memph. , instead of the reverse order, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BC 106, mss. Lat. Vet. one ms. Vulg. Memph. Omit , or wife, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BD 1, 66, 209, mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph. Insert before Tisch. Treg. (WH.) RV. B2 or 3 CDNS2 X mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph. Syrr.<\/p>\n

It is misleading, here as most everywhere, to translate , gospel. It means glad-tidings, and the special message intended is that of the kingdom of God. Men who make sacrifices for the benefit of the Messianic king, and of the news of the kingdom, will receive the blessings of the kingdom. -a hundredfold; there is a reminiscence in this word of the apocalyptic character of the familiar descriptions of the blessings of the Messianic kingdom. But Jesus uses such language from the religious idiom of this time only to idealize it. To be sure, his words imply that the reward will be in kind; they will give up these things only to receive a hundredfold of the same. But, evidently, hundreds of brothers and sisters and mothers is meant to be taken ideally, and means that he will receive what will replace the lost relatives in that degree. The relationships of the kingdom take the place of natural kindred.1 And the member of the kingdom is an heir not only of heaven, but of earth.2 Jesus had nowhere to lay his head, and yet he was conscious of a lordship and possession of the earth, into which every true follower of his can enter. They have nothing, and yet possess all things.3 -with persecutions. These, Jesus had already predicted in his talks with his disciples previous to leaving Galilee. The new element introduced by him here is the other side belonging to this ideal life, the compensations and rewards even in this life, belonging to the Christian. -in the coming age. There is only one passage, Heb 1:2, where is used by metonymy, of space, instead of time. The reference is to the future life, in which the world, as well as the time, is new, but there is no reason why the meaning of should be changed, any more than that of , time, in the corresponding clause. -on the use of this term among the Jews, see on v. 17. But it is evident that Jesus, in adopting, spiritualized it. Only, in this case, he found the word made ready to his use which expressed in itself just the state intended by him, though encumbered with alien meanings in common use. It is characteristic of his method, that he used the word without any explanation, leaving it to clarify itself as men got into the drift of his teaching.<\/p>\n

31. -but many first shall be last. This is a warning to the disciples that the mere fact, that they were the earliest disciples and nearest his person, does not necessarily give them preminence, nor any exclusive right to the blessings promised by him. The parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard, each of whom received his shilling without regard to the time that he had worked, is inserted by Mt. to enforce this saying.<\/p>\n

THIRD PREDICTION OF DEATH<\/p>\n

32-34. On the journey to Jerusalem, Jesus again foretells his death and resurrection.<\/p>\n

They are now on their way to Jerusalem. And there is evidently some feeling of fate overhanging them. It is evident enough that they had not understood Jesus predictions of the violent death awaiting him in the city. But on their own construction of events, the approach to Jerusalem meant the crisis in their fate, the decision of the Messianic claim. They were a mere handful, and the authorities were against them. Would the people be with them? And if they were, what of the Roman power? It is no wonder that they were astonished as Jesus put himself at their head, and that some turned back, while others followed with fear. Then Jesus takes the twelve aside, and repeats, with some additional details, the prophecy of his death and resurrection. The prophecy is given here with clearness and particularity, describing the whole course of events. And then follows the clearly impossible request of James and John for the first places in the Messianic kingdom. It is evident that the subsequent history has been read into what must have been at the time distinctly veiled prophecy.<\/p>\n

32. -was preceding them. The introduction of this apparently commonplace item shows that attention is drawn to it as something out of the common. And in connection with , in the following clause, it evidently means that Jesus was not mingling with his disciples as usual, but was going before them. -and they were amazed. We are not told by what, but the very simple is evidently put forth by the writer as containing the key of the situation. Something in the manner of that invested the whole proceeding with mystery, and brought to their minds the fateful character of this progress to Jerusalem, the tremendous issues to be decided, and the odds against them. And somehow, with all their confidence in Jesus, the question might arise, whether it was confidence for such a crisis.<\/p>\n

-and those following. Without the art., this would refer to the disciples. But with the art., it picks out some from among them, who followed Jesus, while the rest were left behind, too much perplexed to follow him. The statement is, that those who followed him did it with fear. -and having taken to himself again. This is opposed to (v. 32), which represents him as separating himself from them. But it is only the twelve, not the multitude generally, to whom he joins himself, as the teaching that follows is esoteric. He joins himself to them again, after he sees the effect produced on them by his going on before them, and explains to them what it is that has produced the strangeness of his manner.<\/p>\n

, instead of , before Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BC* L 1, Memph.<\/p>\n

33. -we are going up to Jerusalem. This is what makes this journey so fateful. In Jerusalem, they will be confronted with the authorities, both Jewish and Roman. -the chief priests and the scribes. These two classes represented the Sanhedrim, the Great Council among the Jews, before which were tried all the more important cases coming under their own law, though the Roman government reserved to itself the right of capital punishment. . -This delivering him over to the Gentiles, i.e. the Roman government, has not been mentioned in the account of the preceding predictions of his death. It was rendered necessary by the determination to put him to death, a power which the Roman government reserved to itself. They could not execute him, they had to procure his execution.<\/p>\n

. -the nations. The term by which the Jews designated all foreign nations. They were the nation; all others were just the nations.<\/p>\n

34. -they will mock spit upon scourge. These details correspond exactly to what we are told of the event. The scourging was an invariable accompaniment of crucifixion. The general fact of mocking was to be expected, since his supposed claim to be a king would naturally excite the ridicule of Roman soldiers. Jesus might easily, therefore, have put these into his prophecy in a general way; but the exact form which the prophecy takes, and which is reproduced for substance by the other accounts, is in all probability a reflection of the event, put in by the original narrator. . -and after three days he will rise. The prediction of the crucifixion would rest on something more than ordinary foresight, since the action of the Roman governor must have remained an incalculable element in any such forecast. And the resurrection, in the form in which it actually took place, and on a set day, was necessarily a revelation. This precise prediction, moreover, makes the total want of preparation for the event on the part of the disciples a curious psychological problem.<\/p>\n

, , instead of the reverse order, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCL 237, 259, 406, mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph. Harcl. Omit after Tisch. (Treg.) WH. RV. BL 1, 209, two mss. Lat. Vet. , instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCDL most mss. Lat. Vet. Memph. Harcl. marg.<\/p>\n

GODS IDEA OF GREATNESS<\/p>\n

35-45. James and John ask for first and second places in his kingdom. Jesus assures them that they will share his lot, but that the decision of precedence does not rest with him, but with the Father. He shows that the conditions and nature of greatness in the kingdom are exactly the reverse of the earthly conditions.<\/p>\n

The noticeable thing about this event is not only the generally extraordinary character of the request, coming from the disciples of Jesus and just after his prediction of his death, but its ignoring of the claims of Peter, who was given the precedence, so far as there was any, by Jesus himself and by the disciples. This shows a painful state of things among the disciples, who exhibit not merely a desire for the material rewards of discipleship, such as was exhibited in Peters question-what shall we have? but the rivalries and jealousies that spring up as the natural fruit of such desire. Our Lords method, on the other hand, is conspicuous, not only for the careful and consistent elimination of any such unspiritual element from his kingdom, but equally for the patience with which he dealt with the unspirituality of his disciples, until he had refined it into something like his own spirituality. In this case, he asks them first, if they know what they are asking, and shows them that to be next to him means to share the conspicuous dangers and sacrifices of his position. Then he shows them again, as in their previous dispute over the same matter, that greatness in the kingdom of God is the reverse of earthly greatness, the great one being he who serves, just as the Messianic king serves and is sacrificed.<\/p>\n

35. , , .1-Saying to him, Teacher, we wish that you do for us whatever we ask you.<\/p>\n

Insert after Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCDL one ms. Lat. Vet. Memph. Pesh. Insert after Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. c ABCL mss. Lat. Vet. Memph. Harcl.<\/p>\n

36. ;-What do you wish me to do for you? Literally, what do you wish, shall I do for you?1<\/p>\n

, instead of , Treg. WH. CD, 1, 13, 69, 209. Add Tisch. WH. marg. c B. Versions also favor the subj.<\/p>\n

37. , 2 3 4-and they said to him, give us to sit, one on thy right hand, and one on thy left hand, in thy glory.<\/p>\n

, instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. BL . Omit in this place, Treg. WH. RV. BD 1, mss. Lat. Vet.<\/p>\n

-these are the positions of honor next to the throne itself, the right hand having the precedence. This leaves Peter out. -in thy glory. The glory, that is, of the Messianic king.<\/p>\n

38. -You know not what you ask. They did not know how absolutely this is a question of being first, and not of standing first, which makes it a question, not of appointment, but of achievement. Nor did they know that it meant suffering, instead of honor, and that this would increase with the advanced position attained. -drink the cup. The figurative use of the phrase to denote a mans portion in life, his hard or easy lot, belongs to other languages than the Greek. See Isa 51:17, Jer 49:12, Psa 16:5, Psa 23:5. Christ means to ask them if they are able, if they have the necessary fortitude and proper appreciation of values, to share the sacrifices of his position. Being baptized with his baptism is another figurative expression of the same thought, coming from the power of calamity to overwhelm. Can you, he asks, be immersed in that which has overwhelmed me? They have looked at only the glory of the coming kingdom. Jesus directs their attention to the sacrifices incurred in establishing that kingdom.<\/p>\n

, or, instead of , and, before , the baptism, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BC* DLN 1, 13, 28, 69, 124, 346, Latt. Memph. Harcl. marg.<\/p>\n

39. -The cup you will drink; and with the baptism you will be baptized. Of this Jesus can assure them, that they will share his sufferings.<\/p>\n

Omit before Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BC* L mss. Vulg. Memph. Pesh.<\/p>\n

40. 1 -But to sit on my right hand, or left hand, is not mine to give.<\/p>\n

, instead of , before Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BDL 73. Lat. Vet. Memph. Omit after . Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. and almost everything.<\/p>\n

This statement of Jesus it is very easy to interpret superficially, as if it meant simply that the bestowment belonged not to one person, but to another-not to himself, but to the Father. But there is little doubt that Mk. has preserved for us the true form of statement in omitting mention of the Father, and so the contrast between persons. They cannot have position in his kingdom by applying to either, as if it were a matter of personal preference. Position, it is not in his power to bestow; it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared. The meaning is, that this is a matter already disposed of, and so no longer in his power. The verb expresses nearly the idea of ordained. But it adds to this the thought of the preparation of the place. Each one is to have a place prepared and adapted for him. It is not therefore a question that can be settled as they were trying to settle it, by influence used with him personally. Fitness, and not influence, decides it. This becomes especially clear, when we consider the definition of greatness that follows. It consists in service, and he who serves most is greatest, a greatness already determined by the service, and not to be changed by any personal equation.<\/p>\n

41. 2-the ten began to be indignant. There was reason for this strong feeling on the part of the other disciples. The condition seems to have been, that Peter, James, and John were singled out by Jesus himself for such eminence among the twelve, as the twelve had among the other disciples. If there was any jealousy caused by this, it would be allayed by the fact that the Master selected those manifestly fit, and that it was unaccompanied by any outward advantage. But, now, there was an attempt to secure places in the coming kingdom and its glory, and Peter, the real leader of the twelve, was left out of the scheme. It was the introduction of political methods, such as invariably go with the materializing of ideas, the use of principles to secure power, and of power to advance principles in the world.<\/p>\n

42. -And Jesus having called them.<\/p>\n

This reading, instead of . , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. * et c. BCDL mss. Lat. Vet. Memph. Pesh.<\/p>\n

-those who seem to be chief. Jesus has in mind evidently the difference between their primacy and the ideal. is a word that lends itself to such ideal treatment, as it contains in itself the notion of leadership, which is the only proper basis of rule. Men rule by force, by heredity, by fickle choice, by flattery, but how few are real leaders, ruling because possessing the qualities of leadership. -lord it over them (RV.). They become , lords or masters, and the people become their servants, doing their will, and ministering to their pleasure. 1-exercise authority over them.<\/p>\n

43, 44. , , -But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you, shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you, shall be bond-servant of all.<\/p>\n

, is, instead of , shall be, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BC* DL most mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. , instead of , after first Tisch. Treg. WH. BDL 33, 69, 299. , instead of , before Treg. marg. WH. RV. BC* L Latt. Memph. , instead of ., Treg. WH. RV. BC* L Latt. Memph.<\/p>\n

-but so it is not. This is not the state of things that obtains, as a matter of fact, among you as members of the kingdom of God. The ideal is the essential principle of that kingdom. -to become great. There is such a thing as ambition, the desire for greatness, in the kingdom of God, but it is the exact opposite of what goes by that name. -servant. The word denotes the performer of services, without indicating his exact relation to the person served. -bond-servant. There is a climax in the statement. To be great requires service, to be first requires bond-service, and this is to , all. Here is the paradox of the kingdom of God. Instead of being lords, its great ones become servants, and its chiefs the bond-servants of all. One has only to watch the progress and present condition of things, to see that this state of things is coming to pass, but that it is yet far from accomplishment; and furthermore, that in this respect at least, the field is the world, and not the church.<\/p>\n

45. -for also. The Son of Man himself is not exempt from this rule. His kingship is also that of service, and not that of lordship. He is the Head of humanity, and yet he serves men, and not men him. , -not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom in exchange for many. The vicarious idea is expressed here, but it is not strictly that his life takes the place of other lives that would have to be sacrificed otherwise in expiation of their sins. All that is required by the statement, not in the way of minimizing it, but to fill out its meaning, is that his life becomes the price by which men are freed from their bondage. The soldiers in the American civil war gave their lives as a for the slaves, and every martyrs death is a . There may be more than this involved in the death of the Redeemer, but more than this is not involved in his words here. In this, he carries his service of men to the utmost, and becomes their Head.<\/p>\n

HEALING OF A BLIND MAN NEAR JERICHO<\/p>\n

46-52. In the course of his journeys in Juda, Jesus comes to Jericho, and Bartimus, a blind man, asks him to take pity on him. The crowd around Jesus seek to repel him, but Jesus calls him and heals him. The blind man follows him.<\/p>\n

This is the only visit of Jesus to Jericho. The connection of the narrative makes this a stage in the journey to Jerusalem, begun v. 32, and ended in the next chapter. The cry of the blind man, Jesus, Son of David, is the first note of the Messianic acclaim with which Jesus enters the city. And his healing at this crisis brings Jesus as the wonder-worker freshly before the minds of the multitude, and raises still higher their excited Messianic hopes.<\/p>\n

46. -and as he was coming out from Jericho. Lk. says, as he was approaching Jericho, and in the account of Zacchus which follows, that he entered, and passed through Jericho. Mk. says that they come to Jericho, and that this happened as he was coming out from Jericho. It breaks up the continuity of both accounts to try to reconcile them in this trivial detail. -and a considerable crowd. There is, probably, this deviation from the meaning great given to it in the EV.1 , , ,2 -the Son of Timus, Bartimus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the side of the road. , the Son of Timus, is a translation of Bartimus = ; but it is evidently not introduced here for that reason. Bartimus is the name, and Son of Timus denotes the relation. There was probably some reason for noting this relation, as that Timus was a disciple.<\/p>\n

Insert before Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCDLS . Omit before Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BDL 124, Memph. after , instead of after , a blind beggar, instead of a blind man begging, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. B2L one ms. Lat. Vet. Memph.<\/p>\n

47. , , , , -And having heard that it is Jesus the Nazarene, he began to cry, and to say, thou Son of David, Jesus, have mercy on me.<\/p>\n

, instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BL 1, 118, 209, most mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. , instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. BCLM marg. .<\/p>\n

Jesus of Nazareth, and Son of David are both unfamiliar titles, the former occurring now for the first time since 1:24, and the latter only here. Jesus of Nazareth is intended by the multitude to identify him. Son of David is a distinctly Messianic title, the use of which here, however, we must not suppose is individual and peculiar. It reflects the sentiment of the multitude, who mean to make this a triumphal progress to Jerusalem, though as yet they are preserving a policy of silence.1<\/p>\n

48. -that he keep silent. It does not seem probable that they would want to prevent the miracle. Rather, they wanted to enforce silence about this premature Son of David, which they meant to reserve for the entry into Jerusalem.<\/p>\n

49. -call him.<\/p>\n

, instead of , that he be called, BCL 7, 209, one ms. Lat. Vet. Memph. Harcl. marg.<\/p>\n

-rise.<\/p>\n

, instead of , ABCDLX .<\/p>\n

50. -having thrown off his garment. The outer garment, or robe, is meant. -having leaped up.2 Both these acts are introduced to show the mans eagerness.<\/p>\n

, instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BDLM marg. Latt. Memph. Harcl. marg.<\/p>\n

51. , ;-And Jesus answering said to him, What do you wish me to do for you?3<\/p>\n

, instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCDL 115, mss. Lat. Vet. one ms. Vulg. Memph.<\/p>\n

,1 2-Rabboni, that I may recover my sight. Rabboni is apparently a more dignified title than Rabbi.<\/p>\n

52. , 3-And immediately he recovered his sight, and followed him in the way.<\/p>\n

, instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. ABCDLM marg. Latt. Memph. Harcl. marg.<\/p>\n

Tisch. Tischendorf.<\/p>\n

Treg. Tregelles.<\/p>\n

WH. Westcott and Hort.<\/p>\n

RV. Revised Version.<\/p>\n

Codex Sinaiticus.<\/p>\n

B Codex Vaticanus.<\/p>\n

C Codex Bezae.<\/p>\n

L Codex Regius.<\/p>\n

Memph. Memphitic.<\/p>\n

A Codex Alexandrinus.<\/p>\n

Codex Tischendorfianus <\/p>\n

Codex Sangallensis <\/p>\n

Codex Petropolitianus <\/p>\n

Lat. Vet. Vetus Latina.<\/p>\n

D Codex Ephraemi.<\/p>\n

M Codex Campianus.<\/p>\n

1 is a diminutive from , which denotes primarily the papyrus plant, the bark of which was prepared for writing.<\/p>\n

2 This word is rare, and in the sense of divorce it is peculiar to the Bible.<\/p>\n

1 On this meaning of , see Win. 49 h, c). It is not common Greek usage.<\/p>\n

2 is a Biblical word.<\/p>\n

3 Gen 1:27.<\/p>\n

marg. Revided Version marg.<\/p>\n

1 Gen 2:24.<\/p>\n

2 Heb. .<\/p>\n

1 This use of without even any verb like sit or stand, implying previous action, or motion to a place, is to be noticed. The return to the house is implied without any verb to suggest it.<\/p>\n

28 Codex Regius.<\/p>\n

N Codex Purpureus.<\/p>\n

X Codex Wolfi A.<\/p>\n

Pesh. Peshito.<\/p>\n

1 .Codex Basiliensis<\/p>\n

13 Codex Regius.<\/p>\n

69 Codex Leicestrensis.<\/p>\n

346 Codex Ambrosianus.<\/p>\n

Latt. Latin Versions.<\/p>\n

1 Burton, 41.<\/p>\n

AV. Authorised Version.<\/p>\n

1 See on 9:36. The word occurs only in these two passages, and in the Sept.<\/p>\n

2 is a compound found only here in the Bible, and not at all outside. On the Hebraistic meaning of , to invoke blessings on, see on 6:41. On the augment of verbs beginning with , see Win. 12, 3.<\/p>\n

1 On this use of the gen. abs., where the noun or pronoun belongs to the structure of the sentence, see Win. 30, 11, Note.<\/p>\n

1 Win. 18, 9.<\/p>\n

2 is a later Greek word.<\/p>\n

3 In classical Greek, this verb is restricted to the meaning, to obtain by inheritance, and it governs the gen.<\/p>\n

1 See Mal 3:5, Exo 21:10 LXX.<\/p>\n

2 This sense of keeping, by way of observing, is in classical Greek confined to the active, and is attached to the middle only in Biblical Greek.<\/p>\n

Vulg. Vulgate.<\/p>\n

1 is a rare word, even in the Bible, and is found outside only in Polybius, 120 b.c.<\/p>\n

1 On the use of to denote the cause of emotion, see Win. 48 c, c).<\/p>\n

2 and are both Biblical words.<\/p>\n

K Codex Cyprius.<\/p>\n

U Codex Nanianus.<\/p>\n

Syrr. Syriac Versions.<\/p>\n

1 Win. 53, 3 a. Thay.-Grm. Lex. I. 2g<\/p>\n

1 Began to say, instead of merely said, is best explained here as a mere fashion of speech, into which the writer falls, without any special reason for it.<\/p>\n

2 The aor. and perf. are here to be distinguished from each other, the aor., we left, as denoting simple past action, the perf., we have followed, as denoting action continuing into the present.<\/p>\n

2 The aor. and perf. are here to be distinguished from each other, the aor., we left, as denoting simple past action, the perf., we have followed, as denoting action continuing into the present.<\/p>\n

209 An unnamed, valuable manuscript.<\/p>\n

S Codex Vaticanus.<\/p>\n

1 See 3:35.<\/p>\n

2 See Mat 5:5.<\/p>\n

3 See 2Co 6:10.<\/p>\n

Harcl. Harclean.<\/p>\n

1 This use of with the subj., instead of the inf., after verbs of desire and command, is common in Hellenistic Greek, but not in the classical writers. See Win. 44, 8. Burton, 304.<\/p>\n

1 Here, we have the subj. without , which is still more anomalous, being an elliptical combination of two constructions. See Win. 41 a, 4 b. Burton, 171. The subj. is probably in this case the deliberative subj.<\/p>\n

2 See note 1, p. 199.<\/p>\n

3 The Greeks use , , to express this correlation. Win. 26, 2 a.<\/p>\n

4 is confined in Greek writers to its proper subjective meaning, opinion, praise. The meaning, glory, majesty, as an objective state, comes from the Heb.<\/p>\n

1 is used in the taking of auguries to denote euphemistically those of evil origin, the word itself meaning just the opposite. And so it comes to denote the left hand, that being the hand of evil omen, the sinister hand.<\/p>\n

2 See on v. 14.<\/p>\n

1 This is a Biblical word, and is not found in the N.T. outside of this and the parallel passage in Mt., making another strong proof of the interdependence of the written accounts.<\/p>\n

33 Codex Regius.<\/p>\n

1 This use of in the sense of great, rather than sufficient, is characteristic of Lk. (Lk. and Acts). The only other instance 1Co 11:30. Mat 28:12 is at least doubtful.<\/p>\n

2 belongs to later Greek. Plutarch, Lucian.<\/p>\n

1 See 12:35.<\/p>\n

2 A common Greek word, but not found elsewhere in N.T.<\/p>\n

3 See on v. 35, 36.<\/p>\n

1 Apparently, there is a confusion of two Chaldee words in this title, and , both of them meaning about the same, lord or chief.<\/p>\n

2 – in composition has the sense of the Latin re.<\/p>\n

3 The distinction between the momentary action of the aor. and the continued action of the impf. is preserved in these verbs.<\/p>\n

Fuente: International Critical Commentary New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

the Divine Law of Marriage <\/p>\n

Mar 10:1-22<\/p>\n

God made one man for one woman; therefore divorce is not permissible, unless the one act be committed which severs the nuptial tie. Then only is the bond broken by which husband and wife are one. There should be no compulsory celibacy. Some can live the single life; others cannot. Each must work out his own possibilities, and none may judge another.<\/p>\n

It would appear that the fathers brought the little ones. They had a truer perception of the heart of Jesus than the disciples. All through the ages men have supposed that strength, wisdom, and wealth have the greatest attractions for our Lord, whereas it is precisely the reverse. Of such is His Kingdom.<\/p>\n

Youth, with all its fervor and impetuosity, is very beautiful to the Lord Jesus. In this case it was combined with station, high standing, and wealth. It is not necessary that all should sell their goods, and give away the proceeds; indeed, it is often harder to retain and administer them rightly for God. But it was necessary for Christ to prove to this young man that he was not living the life of love, as he seemed to suppose. That alone can fulfill the law, and secure the highest and most perfect blessedness of which we are capable. It was a severe but necessary test for this young man.<\/p>\n

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Jesus Answers Question on Divorce (Mar 10:1-12)<\/p>\n

Passing down through Perea on the east of the Jordan, Jesus and His disciples came to the ford of Bethabara and crossed over into Judea. They were on the way to Jerusalem, where Christ was to fulfill His mission by dying as the great sin offering on a cross of shame. Although Jesus had been absent from Judea for some time, His fame preceded Him. Multitudes of the people resorted to Him. They were ready to hear what He had to say and according to His custom He took the opportunity to teach them.<\/p>\n

Some of the sect of the Pharisees came to Him and questioned Him regarding divorce. They asked, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? The inquiry was not made sincerely. They were not looking for instruction, but rather for an opportunity to bring a formal accusation against Him. If possible they desired to expose Him as an unsafe and heretical teacher who taught contrary to the law of Moses.<\/p>\n

He foiled them by asking them, What did Moses command you? They replied that Moses had permitted a bill of divorcement to be given and an unwanted or unloved wife to be put away. Jesus declared that this had been allowed because of the hardness of mens hearts, in order that a wife who had no favor in her husbands eyes might not have to endure even greater indignities than being divorced. But this was not Gods highest thought as to the marriage relationship.<\/p>\n

From the beginning when God made our first parents male and female, He intended one woman to marry one man. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain [not they three, or more] shall be one flesh (Mar 10:7-8). Therefore when two are united in wedlock they are no more to be considered as independent personalities free to go or stay as they please; they are one flesh.<\/p>\n

Jesus added, What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Men may make laws that violate this divine order, but no human decree can nullify Gods Word. Marriage is a life partnership. Elsewhere Jesus showed that if one of the contracting persons proves unfaithful and breaks the tie by cohabiting with another, the innocent one is free (Mat 19:9). But apart from such a breach the tie is indissoluble save by death, as He made clear to His disciples when they were in the house again, away from the multitude. To divorce ones wife and marry another is to commit adultery. Likewise if a wife divorces her husband and marries another man, she becomes an adulteress.<\/p>\n

Jesus Blesses the Children (Mar 10:13-16)<\/p>\n

In these verses Jesus expressed His loving concern for little children. Parents who felt that the Lord would be interested in their little ones brought them to Him that He might lay His hands on them in blessing. Not understanding the heart of the Lord Jesus Christ, the disciples tried to restrain the parents, as though Jesus could not be troubled with children. They considered this an imposition, regarding it as below the dignity of their Master to be occupied with the little ones.<\/p>\n

The Savior was displeased with the attitude of the disciples and He immediately revealed that He is the friend of children. He invited the parents to bring the children, assuring them that the little ones were typical members of the kingdom, because of their implicit faith in Him. Children are the ideal converts. When old enough to understand the story of the Lord Jesus, they are old enough to come to Him in trustful confidence. They enter into the kingdom of God when people considered older and wiser by human standards refuse to enter. When our Lord said of the little ones, Of such is the kingdom of God, He was not implying that the children do not need to be regenerated in order to enter truly into that kingdom. They come from a lost race and are by nature children of wrath. But their simple faith makes them subjects of the kingdom, and in this they are examples to us all. Only as we manifest the same childlike faith do we enter into the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n

He took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them. Parents may be assured today that, though unseen by mortal eye, He takes our children in His loving arms and gives them His blessing as we bring them to Him in faith.<\/p>\n

There are many today who, like the disciples, imagine that little children are too young to be brought to the Lord Jesus Christ. But His words are too clear to be misunderstood. He invites children to come to Him, and encourages parents to bring them. Elsewhere He speaks of these little ones which believe in me (Mat 18:6), and He gives a solemn warning to any who put stumbling blocks before their inexperienced feet. We are right when we sing of Him, Theres a friend for little children. He is their friend, and He delights in their love and confidence and esteems them as His friends. It is a well-known fact that by far the greatest number of those who are now earnest Christians came to the Savior before they were twelve years of age.<\/p>\n

Jesus Defines the Cost of Discipleship (Mar 10:17-31)<\/p>\n

The incident with the rich young man has been appropriately designated, the great refusal. Unlike many who questioned Jesus in order that they might trap Him in His words, this young man seems to have been, up to a point at least, intensely earnest. We are told that he came running and then, doing homage to Him, he fell upon his knees before Jesus as he inquired, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?<\/p>\n

Jesus took him up on his own legal ground. He first asked him why he used the term good in speaking to Him. Scripture says, There is none that doeth good, no, not one (Psa 14:3). Why then address Jesus as good, unless indeed one recognized in Him the divine Son of God, for God alone is good? To this the young man made no reply.<\/p>\n

Jesus then quoted the six commandments that summarize our responsibilities to our neighbors, including that which calls on us to honor our parents, who stand in the place of God to children in the home. The law said, Keep my statutes which if a man do, he shall live in them (Lev 18:5).<\/p>\n

Without a moments hesitation the young man replied, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. Outwardly he, like Saul of Tarsus before his conversion, was blameless concerning the righteousness of the law. What he did not realize was that all human righteousness is but as filthy rags in the sight of God, because of the corruption of the heart (Isa 64:6).<\/p>\n

To test him and expose the hidden evil of his heart Jesus said, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. It was a call to receive Christ as Savior and acknowledge Him as Lord. But he who seemed so earnest at first could not rise to the opportunity put before him. He professed to love his neighbor as himself but was not prepared to give up his wealth for the good of others. He was not ready to yield control of his life to Jesus. So he went away sorrowful, because his great wealth stood between him and allegiance to Christ. Did he ever repent? We do not know. So far as Holy Writ is concerned we know only that he went away in natures darkness, because he turned from the light of life.<\/p>\n

We can sense the pain in the heart of the Lord as He musingly said to His disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! They were astonished to hear this, for undoubtedly they thought, as many do today, that poverty rather than wealth would be the greatest impediment to entrance into the kingdom. But Jesus explained the danger: putting ones trust in wealth can keep him from taking his rightful place before God as a needy sinner who can be saved only through grace. A camel could more readily pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man enter into the kingdom of God. Only those who judge themselves and come to God-only those who acknowledge their lost estate and spiritual poverty-find entrance there.<\/p>\n

Amazed, the disciples asked, Who then can be saved? In reply Jesus told them that all things are possible with God. Even the rich may be brought to the place where they no longer trust in their wealth but in the living God.<\/p>\n

The question naturally arises in our minds as to what prompted Peter to say, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee. Was he concerned as to the future of himself and his fellow disciples if the rich were not going to rally to the side of Jesus and assist Him in establishing the expected Messianic kingdom? Possibly so. His words seem to imply that he wondered whether they had risked all on a forlorn hope.<\/p>\n

Jesus replied with words of assurance, though not at this time fully correcting His followers carnal ideas of the coming kingdom. He gave the definite promise that no one would lose, but rather gain by sharing His path of rejection. But He warned them, Many that are first shall be last; and the last first. That is, not everyone who gave promise of being a faithful and devoted follower would continue in the path of self-denial for Christs names sake, and some whose devotion seemed questionable, would prove genuine in the hour of trial.<\/p>\n

To follow Christ means to share His cup of sorrow, to be misunderstood, and even hated and maligned by the world that lies in the hand of the wicked one. But the follower of Christ finds a joy, unknown to the world, in fellowship with the rejected King and in communion with fellow sufferers. He looks forward with assured hope to entering eternal life in the age to come. All believers now have eternal life abiding in them but in a decaying body. In the age to come we shall enter into life in all its fullness when the body as well as the soul is fully redeemed from the bondage of corruption.<\/p>\n

Jesus Deals with Worldly Ambition (Mar 10:32-45)<\/p>\n

As the little band moved on toward Jerusalem there was something in the bearing and appearance of Jesus that moved His disciples to fear and concern. In Luk 9:51 we read, He stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem. He knew exactly what awaited Him there, and He went forward unflinchingly with a serious determination that evidently was expressed in His countenance, and caused the twelve to have a feeling of uneasiness. Were all their dreams of a coming glorious kingdom, in which He would declare Himself Messiah and deliver Israel from the Roman yoke, to be dissipated? Had they, after all, left everything they possessed and ventured all on a baseless hope?<\/p>\n

Jesus sought to make them understand just what was before Him. He told them that when they reached Jerusalem the Son of man would be delivered to the religious leaders, who were ever His enemies and who would condemn Him to death. These leaders would turn Him over to their Gentile rulers who would mock and scourge Him, even spit in His blessed face, and finally put Him to death. But again He gave the promise, The third day he shall rise again. But still they failed to comprehend His words, so obsessed were they with the thought that the kingdom should be set up immediately.<\/p>\n

Giving evidence of how little they understood the mind of Christ, James and John said, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. Their request was based on selfishness and worldly ambition, but the two brothers were doubtless unaware of the true condition of their hearts. The Lord Jesus desired to bring to the surface what was in their thoughts; so He pressed them to put the request in their own words.<\/p>\n

Grant that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory. When James and John sought exalted positions in the coming kingdom, they showed how little they understood its true nature. They little realized how obnoxious to the Lord Jesus Christ were their ambitions. It is quite true that our Lord will bestow special honors on certain of His followers when He returns to set up His kingdom. He made this clear in several of His utterances (Mat 19:28; Luk 19:17). But those who will occupy the highest places then will be those who were content to take the lowly places in the Kings absence, and who were willing to suffer uncomplainingly for His sake.<\/p>\n

Ye know not what ye ask. The rebuke of the Lord Jesus was spoken not in anger but in love. Jesus wanted the disciples to learn the meaning of participation in His sufferings so they could share in the glories to follow. He wanted them to realize how little they understood what was about to take place. He asked them, Can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? He was referring to the cup of rejection and judgment soon to be pressed to His lips, and to the baptism of death He was to endure on the cross.<\/p>\n

Not knowing what they said, James and John declared, We can. Their loyalty was evident, but the full nature of that cup and baptism was hidden from them. Jesus replied that they would indeed drink of His cup and be baptized with His baptism (for all who follow Him have to taste the cup of rejection by the world and some are even delivered unto death for His sake). However, Jesus went on to say that no man can choose His own place in the kingdom that will be displayed in power and glory. Each one will have the place for which his life and service on earth have fitted him.<\/p>\n

The other disciples also had desires for the highest offices, and were indignant that John and James had forestalled them. It was very difficult for the disciples to dissociate the thought of a kingdom from dreams of positions of prominence for themselves. In the kingdoms of the nations the great lord it over those of lesser degree. But in the kingdom of God the very opposite rule prevails. The kingdom of which Jesus Christ is Lord is a kingdom of love. There all are to seek the blessing of others, and lowly service takes the place of haughty authority. In the kingdom of Heaven those who labor for the blessing of their fellows are recognized as great.<\/p>\n

Whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. Our Lord Himself is the pre-eminent example here. He who was Lord of all became servant of all, that men might be brought to God. We are called to follow in His steps. He left the glory of the Fathers side and came into this world. He became man in order that He might die. Never once did He seek recognition from men. He was content to be despised and rejected so that He might accomplish His great mission of redemption. Dare we, who owe everything for eternity to His humiliation, aspire to worldly honor and seek the approbation of our fellow men rather than the approval of God?<\/p>\n

Humility is one of the loveliest flowers that springs up in the garden of the regenerated heart. We are all inclined to pride and vanity by nature. When the Spirit of Christ possesses us, we exhibit that lowliness and meekness which ever characterized our blessed Lord. Where this lowly spirit prevails, it is easy to extend forgiveness to those who have offended us. To many this seems like slavish servility, but it is the very opposite. Greatness is evidenced by ones readiness to deny self and to serve others for Christs sake, who came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. We cannot share in His atoning or redemptive work, but we can and should follow Him in His life of patient service for the blessing of a needy world.<\/p>\n

Jesus Heals Blind Bartimaeus (Mar 10:46-52)<\/p>\n

To this poor sightless beggar the coming of the Lord Jesus was to mean the opening of his eyes, both physically and spiritually. He did not wait for Jesus to call him first, but when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out.. Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me. Surely, such faith must have gratified the heart of the Lord.<\/p>\n

Many of those who were in the crowd that followed Jesus as He passed through the city tried to silence Bartimaeus, but his faith refused to be deterred by their objection, and he continued to cry out. Assured in his soul that Jesus was the predicted Messiah, the offspring of David, Bartimaeus knew that Jesus could open his eyes if he could attract the Lords attention. Faith like his never pleads in vain.<\/p>\n

Jesus stopped and commanded the beggar to be called. It must have brought joy to the poor mans heart when they said, Be of good comfort, rise; he calleth thee. Casting away his outer garment in his haste, he arose and came to Jesus. Doubtless he was guided by some kindly person in the crowd.<\/p>\n

The Lord inquired tenderly, What wilt thou that I should do unto thee? Jesus knew well the desire of his heart, but He desired him to make a public confession of his need. Lord, cried Bartimaeus, that I might receive my sight.<\/p>\n

His faith was at once rewarded. Jesus granted his request and gave him the additional assurance, Thy faith hath made thee whole. In his exuberance and gratitude Bartimaeus followed Jesus as He went along the way. Though there is no evidence that he was called to give all his time to witnessing for Christ, what a testimony he had to give to the compassion and healing power of Him whom he had acclaimed as the Son of David!<\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Mar 10:13-16<\/p>\n

Children welcomed to Christ.<\/p>\n

You will observe, that the attitude and the act were at one and the same moment, paternal and priestly. He took the children up in His arms as a father; while, as a high priest, “He put His hands upon them and blessed them.” And so, we may say, is every act of Christ. There is a human affection and sympathy, a fondness as a man; and there is a grace, an actual grace imparted, by virtue of His divine and holy office.<\/p>\n

Note:-<\/p>\n

I. The danger of sin standing in the way of children coming to Christ. Is not much that calls itself “religious education” really an imbuing a child’s mind with a dislike and dread of the whole subject? Look well to it, lest you be found with one hand to have brought your children to baptism, and with the other really to have frightened them away from that very Christ, with whom you think you have left them.<\/p>\n

II. The duty of bringing children to Christ. It is an oft told tale, how the impressions made in childhood are sure to creep out in after-life. How the ship, which would ride well upon the waves, must have the ballast laid in before she is launched upon the deep waters, and how a useful manhood, and a happy old age, are almost always the sequence of a pious childhood.<\/p>\n

III. The necessity laid upon us all, of ourselves becoming like little children. If it were only that we might influence children, we should cultivate a childlike spirit, for none can do good, especially to the young, but those who are very simple in their thoughts, and very lowly in their ways. But in what are we to become like a little child? In many things; but I will just mention one or two. (1) When those little children lay in Jesus’ arms, His act came before any of their acts. Freely as He bestowed the grace, so freely the little children took it. This is just the way to get to the Kingdom. (2) The credulity of the child is the faith of the Christian. My Saviour, my Lord has said it. He has said it, and I will believe it; and I will ask no questions. (3) And a very little child is necessarily led. So we must be content to be borne and carried every step.<\/p>\n

J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 1874, p. 271.<\/p>\n

The Children’s Charter.<\/p>\n

I. It throws the tender lovingkindness of Jesus into bold relief if we compare it with the unloving, inconsiderate behaviour of His disciples. For they rebuked the women, and even laid their strong hands on the little ones who came running round Christ, and pushed them back. They seem, indeed, to have been quite unusually rude and rough in their bearing. For when we read that they rebuked the women, we are not to understand that they used dignified and polite language. What the word means is that they chid, that they scolded them, rating them for their forwardness and presumption in intruding themselves upon the Master’s notice. The disciples only made a mistake such as we all make sometimes. It was love, rising to zeal, for their Lord which led them to push back the children, though it was not a zeal according to knowledge. They meant no harm, and yet they might have done great harm. They might not only have robbed you of your charter, and the women and children of the blessing they craved; they might also have deprived themselves and the Pharisees of the lesson they both so much needed to learn: viz., “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall not enter therein.”<\/p>\n

II. Even the best men, then, even those who stand nearest Christ, sin against Him and provoke Him to anger if they treat children as though they did not belong to Him, and had no right to come to Him. And yet this is just what many good men are doing unto this day. But never mind them. Look to Christ; listen to what He says. He says that you children, and those who resemble you, are in His kingdom; and that, therefore, you may go to Him when you will, sure that He loves you, and that He will bless you.<\/p>\n

S. Cox, The Bird’s Nest, p. 83.<\/p>\n

The passage which I have taken as a text has a meaning as regards the spiritual influence attaching to infant baptism, beyond that which the exhortation in the Baptismal Service seems to assign to it. If we find it necessary to admit that infants were benefited by being brought to Christ, and that every difficulty which belongs to infant baptism belongs in an equal degree to the case of the infants received and blessed by Christ, then we shall feel that it is far from incredible, rather that it is in the highest degree probable, that infants brought into Christ’s spiritual presence in His ordinance do receive a real spiritual benefit thereby.<\/p>\n

I. In the first place, then, did the children who were brought to Christ receive any benefit? It is clear that the parents thought they would; and when we read that “He took them up in His arms, put His hands upon them, and blessed them,” I should deem it impiety to suppose that they received no benefit. Let us admit then, that through the faith of their parents or friends these children received an advantage which other children, not blessed by Christ, did not receive; so much, I think, it is easy to grant, but when we come to inquire what this advantage was, the answer is not so easy.<\/p>\n

II. Was it, for instance, a certainty of salvation that these infants received? Surely not; it would be impiety to imagine it even for a moment. Adam and Eve were blessed by God, and pronounced very good; yet Adam and Eve fell: and Judas must, I suppose, have often received the blessing of his Master, although he turned out a traitor. Again, was it security from temptation? Surely not; in this world of trial and temptation it has never been granted to any to have exemption; on the other hand, those have usually been the best and holiest, who have been most subject to temptations.<\/p>\n

III. The blessing was, after all, a blessing without price, one which these children doubtless felt themselves in after years that they would not exchange for the wealth of worlds. And if this be so, then we come to this important result, that it is possible to predicate of children that they have received a great spiritual benefit, a benefit which no human words can exaggerate, and yet not to assert anything absurd or anything dangerous. Now let us see how this bears upon the Sacrament of Baptism; in this case we have children presented to Christ, and if the sacrament be of His own appointment, and the children come to it by His own invitation, then it seems quite necessary to believe that they receive a blessing from the Lord, a blessing which we need not fear to exaggerate by any such language as we can frame.<\/p>\n

Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons, 2nd series, p. 116.<\/p>\n

References: Mar 10:13-16.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. x., No. 581; vol. xxxii., No. 1925; H. M. Luckock, Footprints of the Son of Man, p. 216; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 50; H.W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxv., p. 344; J. Sherman, Thursday Penny Pulpit, vol. iii., p. 325. Mar 10:14.-C. Girdlestone, Twenty Parochial Sermons, 3rd series, p. 187; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. iii., p. 130; J. Aldis, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxiv., p. 154; W. C. E. Newbolt, Counsels of Faith and Practice, p. 97.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:16<\/p>\n

The Child-like Mind.<\/p>\n

I. The childlike temper is nowise inconsistent with true manliness-manliness both of the intellect and of the will and feelings. Well-meaning persons sometimes fall into the mistake of contrasting the heroic with the Christian character, as if the highest heroism were not that which is distinctly Christian. The difference between mere heathen or worldly manliness and the manliness of the Christian is, that the first is entirely self-dependent, while the other ever numbly depends on God. The Christian martyr, as much as the hero of this world, has overcome the natural weakness which would make us always to be timidly looking out for support from our fellow-men; he has learned, in one sense, to stand alone; but then, in another sense, he knows that he is not alone. The humility of the childlike character, given by the Holy Spirit of God to Christians, makes them more, instead of less, brave in all dangers.<\/p>\n

II. Again, the childlike temper of the Christian has nothing in it of the folly of childhood. As a general statement every one assents to this. No one maintains directly that a humble and simple mind, wrought in us by the Spirit of God, will attach us to trivial matters, or incapacitate us for feeling an interest in all events of really deep moment. Sometimes well-meaning men mistake in this-teaching that a humble, simple-minded Christian takes no interest in public matters. What ought to be said is, that his interest in these will be purified, and that he will estimate them at their real value.<\/p>\n

III. Again, it is a mistake to suppose that the childlike mind does not appreciate the great worth of human learning. Human learning, it is true, is but foolishness compared with the wisdom of the all-knowing God. But to cultivate our intellects is a duty which He has laid upon us. Indeed, there is nothing more characteristic of the simplicity of the child, than its desire to acquire knowledge; the simple child is always learning; only observe, that he learns the more because he is so fully aware of his own ignorance. And thus the Christian childlike temper in mature years will be quite opposed to that conceit of knowledge which genders pride.<\/p>\n

IV. Our religion is not to be childish because Christians must be childlike. The true Christian is ever growing in the knowledge and love of God in Christ. The very test to which we are required to bring the reality of our Christianity is this: whether we be growing-whether we be becoming more able to restrain ourselves, more devout, more able to realise the presence of Christ and hold communion with Him, as years advance.<\/p>\n

A. C. Tait, Lessons for School Life, p. 283.<\/p>\n

References: Mar 10:15.-B. Jowett, Church Sermons, vol. ii., p. 193; Homilist, vol. v., p. 198.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:15-16<\/p>\n

I. The Holy Spirit, in this well-known passage of St. Mark’s Gospel, offers to the minds of serious persons a very affecting instance of the Divine love and condescension. We are here taught, among other things, that our gracious Master regards with approbation any attempts, made in faith and humility, to bring the young ones of His flock to the privileges and knowledge of His Gospel. He wishes children to be brought to Him from their earliest infancy. As they grow older, He would have them taught to worship the God of their fathers, not as fulfilling a questionable or irksome obligation, but with a perfect heart and with a willing mind.<\/p>\n

II. When in former days, in the spirit of true devotion, the Jewish mothers brought their children to the holy Jesus, that He might lay His hands on their heads and bless them, some who were present were greatly offended at this, which they at once condemned as a vain, idle, and useless superstition. But the Lord seeth not as man seeth. What man pronounces to be weakness and folly, or even worse, the Lord Jesus Christ took even pains to show His approbation of. What man, in the confidence of carnal wisdom, pronounces to be mere superstition and formality; that, when practised by a heart filled with penitence, lowliness and obedience, and a mere desire to do only what God commands, and to love only what He promises,-that, however meanly thought of in this miserable world, He, the Great Almighty Father will, we doubt not, pour down His choicest blessings on. To seek God in the way of His ordinances, and not in ways of our own choosing, must always be the safest course. To do this can never be dangerous; to do other than this, can never be safe.<\/p>\n

Plain Sermons by Contributors to “Tracts for the Times,” vol. x., p. 275.<\/p>\n

Reference: Mar 10:16.-Outline Sermons to Children, p. 149.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:17-18<\/p>\n

Supremacy of Goodness.<\/p>\n

I. Consider the thought suggested by our Lord’s remarkable address in the text. To the courteous and reverential words of the inquirer, His rejoinder sounds at once harsh and paradoxical. “Good Master”-“Why callest thou Me good?” But it is only at first sight that there is anything difficult or surprising in the answer, “Why callest thou Me good?” We need not think of an impossible disclaimer of goodness in Himself, of an inconceivable denial of goodness, in some sense and measure, to men. Our Lord saw before Him one who had lightly and with a thin share of thought and self-knowledge asked his momentous question, and whose good intentions far outran his grasp of its meaning, and his power to face the answer. Our Lord did what we have often seen done. “Good Master,-do you know what you are speaking about? have you thought of the meaning of your words? Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but one, that is God. You, who use the word so freely, you are wasting, as a mere title of courtesy, what is the highest attribute of God.” The answer was addressed to two great deficiencies in the inquirer’s character and mind. (1) His standard and level of goodness was too low and too conventional-of what was good in himself, of the good to be aimed at, of the distance at which he stood from the fountain and model of goodness. And (2) his sluggishness of will and effort was unequal to the task on which he had entered, and the race which he professed to be running; and his mind and conscience had to be disturbed and alarmed by presenting before it the call that a real estimate and sense of what goodness means, would make upon it. To be what he proposed to be, to be what he asked about, to have that which he supposed he saw in our Lord, was nothing less than to aim at being perfect, as the Father in heaven is perfect.<\/p>\n

II. But the Lord’s words have a more general interest, and it lies, I suppose in this: that they are one of the numberless ways in which he enforced the same great lesson, of the supreme value in His eyes, of goodness, above everything else that man can aim at, or know, or have; above every other principle or endowment of our human nature. We see in these words the characteristic of his teaching, the broad, unqualified, unvarying assumption, that the measure and standard of everything in man’s life and actions is that goodness by which, at however great a distance, he approaches the moral nature, his God and Father in heaven. And as with our Lord’s own teaching, so with those great ideas and ruling principles which He implanted in the society which He set up to carry on His work in the world, and which that society was to develop and apply. As far as they relate to the estimate and conduct of human life, they revolve, so to say, about the idea of goodness, of sanctity. The idea of goodness had in Christianity a clear, sharp, decisive primacy, which it never had in any other system, and which surprised and perplexed the world. It had a very strongly marked pattern and standard, the life and mind and self-sacrificing love of the Son of God.<\/p>\n

III. “Why callest thou Me good?” is the strange word by which our Lord awakens our attention to what we are too ready to think a truism. He who-amid all that He was not of what men admire in this world-was the unique and unapproachable example of goodness, speaks to us in it still, amid the absorbing interests of our busy and eager times. Our safeguard in the dazzling and amazing world of discovery in which we live is loyalty to goodness, loyalty to its supreme claims, loyalty to its Lord. Never let us allow ourselves in the thought that being clever and having knowledge makes up for not caring to be good. And let us remember, too, that the pursuit of goodness, the building up of character and life in that goodness which our Master meant, is as hard a thing as true intellectual discipline. It is as much a thing of patience and time. It is as much a thing which costs trouble and tries resolution. If goodness were merely the qualities which men are born with, brilliant and lovely, the qualities which each man without trouble and with pleasure exercises-gentleness, love of truth, courage-goodness would not be a thing which rises, by mistakes and falls and painful self-correction, to whatever may be its degree of attainment. But if it be the direction of the will to whatever we are sure is right and good, whether congenial or not, whether we like it or no, the student who means to be a master of knowledge may as well take his task easy, as the servant and soldier of the Crucified, in following his Master.<\/p>\n

R. W. Church, Human Life and its Conditions, p. 1.<\/p>\n

References: Mar 10:17.-Expository Sermons on the New Testament, p. 57; J. H. Thom, Laws of Life after the Mind of Christ, p. 164. Mar 10:17-22.-Homiletic Quarterly, vol. ii., p. 558. Mar 10:17-25.-Good Words, vol. i., p. 92. Mar 10:17-27.-H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xvii., p. 124. Mar 10:17-31.-H. M. Luckock, Footprints of the Son of Man, p. 220. Mar 10:20-22.-J. Martineau, Endeavours after the Christian Life, p. 265.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:21<\/p>\n

The text teaches:<\/p>\n

I. How important one thing may be. It not unfrequently happens that the want of one thing vitiates and makes void the presence of all things else. Lacking its main-spring-which is but one thing-a watch with its jewels, wheels, pinions and beautiful mechanism, the finest watch that was ever made, is of no more use than a dead stone. A ship may be built of the stoutest oak, and manned by the ablest officers and stoutest crew, but I sail not in her if she lacks one thing, that trembling needle which a child might mistake for a toy, but on which, insignificant as it seems, the safety of all depends-lacking that one thing the ship shall be their coffin, and the deep sea their grave. It is thus with true piety, living faith-that one thing wanting, the greatest works, the costliest sacrifices and the purest life, are of no value in the sight of God, are null and void.<\/p>\n

II. That we may be amiable without being truly religious. It is sad to find the grace of God associated in some people with an unkindly, uncharitable, sour, severe, stern, sullen temper. It should not be so. It is a most incongruous conjunction. On the other hand, let it not be forgotten that natural graces have adorned many who were entire strangers to the grace of God. They are not to be confounded with one another; nor is it to be imagined that natural graces ever can compensate for the grace that is to salvation. There may be much that is beautiful in us, without anything holy-presenting circumstances more or less analogous to those in nature. Uncultivated wilds have beautiful flowers, and our unsanctified nature has beautiful specimens of humanity.<\/p>\n

III. There may be much moral correctness without true religion. Much of our morality-of that unblemished character and decent life in which many trust, who say to some poor guilty thing, “Stand aside, I am holier than thou,” and plume themselves on this, that they have not sinned as others have done-is due, not to their superior virtue, but more favourable circumstances. Therefore let us be clothed with humility, and ever praying, “Lead us not into temptation”; “let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall.”<\/p>\n

IV. We may feel some interest and anxiety about good things without true religion. I look upon this as one of the most alarming cases in the sacred record. It calls on the best of men to try the foundations on which their hopes are resting. If this man did not get to heaven, how are they to get there? If the righteous, the really righteous, those who have been washed in the blood of the Son, and sanctified by the Spirit of God, are scarcely saved, where shall the wicked and the ungodly appear? If a man, clinging to the world, will stay in it, he shall go down with it, sink with the sinking ship. But accept the offer Christ makes of peace by the blood of His Cross, and you are saved-saved in spite of your riches as well as of your sins.<\/p>\n

T. Guthrie, Family Treasury, July, 1861.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:21<\/p>\n

The Power of Life.<\/p>\n

Few can have lived long without feeling that solemn blank which is left at times by one whom, perchance, they little thought filled so large a space, in so powerful a way, by his or her great goodness; what a great emptiness there can be when the presence is no more-the presence which, when it is gone, seems to have been everywhere about us in its silent strength. So living is the power of life.<\/p>\n

I. And this is true of Christ’s life. It is the truth of truths, whether we speak of His life as narrated in the Gospels, or of His life as it may be seen working in the world now. Jesus Christ came with nothing but His life into the world. He came into the midst of the greatest empire that the earth had ever known, into the midst of its force, its armies, its wealth, its learning, its splendour, and brought with Him nothing, nothing but His life. And He left behind Him as a man nothing but the record of that life, written by others, and as God His Holy Spirit working in the world. Jesus Christ brought His own life as His only power, and we are to follow Him. Life alone deals with life. Life alone unlocks the secrets of life.<\/p>\n

II. Everywhere Jesus made His own life go in amongst the living men, walking on crowded highways, living in public, in the midst of the people, with multitudes pressing on Him, sought out by publicans and sinners, known in cottages and poor men’s homes. There is nothing second-hand in Christ’s work. He gave Himself, He Himself and His own life act are all in all. The Incarnation itself is nothing else but this-Immanuel, God with us. Christ on earth is nothing else but a continual putting of Divine life into human life. To follow Christ then in any true sense must be the doing this, whatever else it may be. No man follows Christ who leads a separate life. No worker from above, no giver of gifts from above, no sender down of bounty follows Christ. Mind, power, rank, writing, however freely showered down, are mere machine-work, dead, and not the following of Christ, not life moving amongst the living, learning to feel with them and being felt by them as one who can feel, because one of themselves. Christ moved amongst men in this way, life to life, and none follow Him who do not do so likewise.<\/p>\n

E. Thring, Christian World Pulpit, vol. i., p. 137.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:21<\/p>\n

The dawn of manhood.<\/p>\n

I. The facts which form the historical setting of the text are, the birth of hope and the guarantee of a large expectation of success, since they prove that Jesus has a kind and throbbing interest in, and a quick enduring sympathy with, men in the dawning of their manhood. “Jesus, looking upon the young man, loved him.” That graphic touch of the artist biographer is a revelation. Jesus loves this young man. It was likely that He should. (1) He Himself is young; in the very fulness and freshness of His force, rejoicing in the unimpaired vigour of His life. Young souls are always social, averse to solitude, fresh in their sympathies, and intense in their zest of life. Christ and young manhood are as magnet and steel. They come together like drops of water that touch and hasten to coalesce. (2) Again, a common conflict knits heart to heart, quickens mutual interest and fosters brotherhood amongst the young. Our Master was in all points tempted as young men are. (3) His purpose and methods, too, fed His interest in, and increased His regard for young men. Jesus Christ came to create a new world, and therefore, as soon as He had given Himself to His transcendent task in that baptismal act in the river Jordan, He drew young men to Him by the magnetism of His own nature and sympathies, made them the recipients of His spirit, the exponents of His thoughts, and the messengers of His redeeming Gospel to the world.<\/p>\n

II. Jesus demonstrates the old-world fact that a manhood, self-centred and self-contented, is a poor, withered, shrunken, and miserable thing. It is this patent fact that imparts such pungency to the direction Christ gives to this wealthy young ruler.<\/p>\n

III. The Lord Jesus reveals the fact that the one infallible requisite for making the right start for a true manhood is the definite and thorough acceptance of the one perfect ideal of the manly life. “One thing thou lackest.” What is the one lacking thing is revealed in the words, “follow Me.” The supreme need of the soul is the Christ of God.<\/p>\n

J. Clifford, The Dawn of Manhood, p. 1.<\/p>\n

This young man presented some of the best and some of the. worst aspects of human nature; he may be regarded, therefore, as a representative man. (1) He displayed a degree of moral earnestness; (2) he employed the language of veneration; (3) he was well-instructed in Biblical ethics; (4) he was inordinately attached to worldly possessions. Christ’s conduct in the case showed, (1) that He compels men to look at the logical consequences of their own admissions. (2) That personal regard may be entertained where full moral approbation cannot be expressed. Looked at as a whole the text shows:-<\/p>\n

I. The necessary limitations of the most careful religious training. The young man was no barbarian; the voices of the lawgivers and the prophets had resounded in his hearing, and he was familiar with the harp of the holy minstrels who had turned duty and sorrow, victory and defeat, into music; with practical theology, as pronounced in statutes and commandments, he was perfectly familiar, and even to practical religion in the life he declared himself no stranger. “All these have I observed from my youth.” There may be the most careful training of the memory and most jealous watchfulness over the conduct among men, and yet the heart may not be the temple of God.<\/p>\n

II. That the final attainment of education is the conquest of the heart. The young man knew enough; he was not perishing for lack of knowledge; light shone upon his intelligence; but his affections were self-enclosed and self-encoiled. There was one cross he could not lift, one surrender he could not make. Only one, but that was all. The conditions which Christ thus imposed show: (1) that Christ-following involves self-abnegation. Men cannot have a little of Christ and a little of self-in other words, true men cannot combine public profession and private self-gratification. (2) That Christ-following must be the expression of the soul’s supreme love. Men are not permitted to make a mere convenience of Christ. The young man loved his possessions more than Christ’s word. There are men who are prepared to observe any number of commandments provided they can also hoard wealth and indulge passion. (3) That Christ-following means self-giving. Christ was the Giver, and men are like Him in proportion as they give. Giving is not yet understood as a test of discipleship. Giving is understood as a patronage, but not as a self-sacrifice.<\/p>\n

III. That lack of one thing may be lack of everything. Conduct may be regulated in two ways: (1) by the brain; (2) by the heart. As with a watch so with the life. The face of the watch may be made to represent the truth by simply altering the hands, or it may be corrected by touching the interior works. So it is with human life: many seek to correct it by the outside; they seek for models, they inquire for footprints; but they neglect the life and spring within, and consequently never get beyond the affectation and artificialism, or the stiffness of Pharisaic conceit. These reflections may serve to show the tremendous danger of the fallacy, that if a man is right in the main he will be admitted into heaven.<\/p>\n

IV. That the sincerity of men must be tested according to their peculiar circumstances. The young man had great possessions; consequently the test had relation to the worldliness of his spirit. What is a test to one man may be no test to another; hence the difficulty of one man appreciating the “cross” of another, and expressing intelligent sympathy. No other test would have met the peculiarity of this young man’s case; he might have fasted long and prayed much, or even given liberally to the poor, but to sell all that he had was a test that shook his soul. The personal cross must be determined by the personal constitution. To one man it is no cross whatever to address a thousand hearers, yet to that very man it may be a heavy cross to speak a word for Christ to one individual. He is not, then, taking up a cross in addressing a multitude; his cross lies in another direction, and Christ points him to it.<\/p>\n

Parker, Pulpit Analyst, vol. i., p. 181.<\/p>\n

References: Mar 10:21.-J. Keble, Sermons from Septuagesima to Ash Wednesday, pp. 293, 303; E. Thring, Christian World Pulpit, vol. i., p. 137; H. Burrows, Church of England Pulpit, vol. ii., p. 353; Homilist, vol. vi., p. 333; Spurgeon, Evening by Evening, p. 54; Homiletic Magazine, vol. xiii., p. 341; New Manual of Sunday School Addresses, p. 181; J. Vaughan, Sermons, 10th series, p. 69.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:21-22<\/p>\n

One thing thou lackest.<\/p>\n

I. This young man, immortalised in the everlasting word, was not a phenomenon, he was a type. We see him so distinctly in his own question, “What shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” Yes, here is enquiry,-anxiety therefore, desire to be right, admission that there may be a higher height, a loftier attainment, than the life has yet reached; respect too, and reverence for one who is neither priest nor Rabbi nor ruler, who has neither rank, nor office, nor philosophy, nor oratory, but only the two things, sincerity and sanctity, to recommend him. This there is in the young man, and it brings him where all are welcome who would know and do; brings him running, brings him worshipping, and sets him face to face with Jesus Christ. Besides the spirit of enquiry and the spirit of reverence, there was a third thing in that character; a memory of morality, a habit of virtue. At the very moment that he is asking, What shall I do? his heart is saying within him, What lack I yet? He thinks, perhaps, when he asks that question, of some little finishing stroke, some last ornament and embellishment of perfectness, which may cost him an effort, but which at least need not undo nor unmake anything.<\/p>\n

II. When Christ says to this moral young man, “Yet lackest thou one thing,” we understand Him to say, “And that one thing is needful.” He who puts it away from him, as either unnecessary for him or unattainable, counts himself unworthy of everlasting life. That which was lacking in the young man was, in one word, devotion; not devotion in the sense of devoutness, but devotion in the sense of self-surrender. The love of Christ stops not with gilding or refurbishing men, it sets open eternity. One thing thou lackest-thy soul must be athirst till she has it-union with the alone good One, the having Him in thee, the being at one with Him now and world without end. To have this thou must part with all else: in act, if Christ bids thee; in will, at all events, because Christ calls thee. The young ruler went away sorrowful. The love of Jesus was wasted upon him for this time, and the Gospels which tell of the going tell of no return. The moral, at all events, is thus written. It is not the second chance, it is not the late hope, it is not the last first, which is here recorded for our learning; it is the peril of refusing Christ’s call, of saying to Him, “I will not,” when He bids us follow, of preferring earth when He offers heaven.<\/p>\n

C. J. Vaughan, University Sermons, p. 354.<\/p>\n

I. The one thing which Christ sees wanting in so many of us is expressed clearly in the latter part of His words to the young man in the Gospel. He tells us, “Come, take up the cross, and follow Me.” The words are figurative, we see, when He says, Take up the cross, and we may ask what the figure means. But we know that in the Latin language, the term crux or cross had been long used to express generally any great pain or evil; and the words crucio and cruciatus derived from it are yet used only generally; they do not express literally the pain or suffering of crucifixion, but pain and torment simply. And this manner of speaking has come into use, because the Romans used the punishment of crucifixion commonly, not only towards slaves, but towards criminals generally of the subject nations, unless they were persons of high condition. So that when our Lord tells the young man to take up his cross, it means exactly, “Bear thy pain or thy suffering, whatever it may be, and follow Me.”<\/p>\n

II. Christ calls us to take up our cross and follow Him. We were following Him, not taking up our cross; we were following Him where to follow Him was easy, and it is many times very easy. Do not go away grieving, when you hear Christ’s call, because you are young, and faithful steady service of Christ will cost you many a sacrifice. Turn not from Him, but to Him much rather, with earnest prayer that He who bore His most painful cross for you, will enable you to bear your light one for His love; that He will help you daily, as your trial will come daily; that His strength may be made perfect in your weakness. And then, though the thing be harder than that a camel should pass through a needle’s eye, yet it shall be done. The young, with all their carelessness, with all their difficulties from without as well as from within, shall enter into the kingdom of God; for so some have entered, and so shall some enter again, and so may all enter who do not turn away from the cross, but ask Christ’s grace to help them to bear it.<\/p>\n

T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. v., p. 246.<\/p>\n

References: Mar 10:21, Mar 10:22.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 50; R. Duckworth, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxii., p. 168. Mar 10:23-G. Huntington, Sermons for Holy Seasons, 1st series, p. 237.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:23-27<\/p>\n

The Perils of Wealth.<\/p>\n

I. Note the hardness of Christian self-denial to the rich. Self-denial lies at the foundation of the Christian character. The influence of great possessions unfits men for any self-denial whatever. Few can resist the temptation of wealth to luxurious habits, modes of life that become more and more exacting. Pleasure is a tyrannous master; indolence is begotten of easy circumstances; reflection languishes while desire is nursed. It is so easy, too, to purchase Christian labour: “We will give and others will work;” thus many men seek relief from the call of Christian duty. This is the reason why many a man trained up in a godly home, and familiar with Christ’s teaching, is yet not one of Christ’s followers. He knows the Christian life to be a self-denying life, and he has wholly unfitted himself for self-denial; sadly, drearily, hopelessly he turns away. He cannot follow Christ; he cannot enter the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n

II. Self-knowledge, again, is especially hard to the rich. The question of the disciples, “Who then can be saved?” expresses the common wonder. The glamour of wealth is upon us all, and we cannot see eternal truth. So easily do we flatter ourselves that where there is no uncomeliness of manners the heart must be right; and the rich are surrounded by flatterers. A man may go through life never knowing what is in him, if all his desires are gratified, and every one about him echoes his fond self-complacency. “Who then can be saved?” Well may the disciples wonder. Christ’s latter words have only enlarged the circle of those who find it hard to enter the kingdom of God. Trust in riches is not confined to the rich. “If only I had a little more,” say one and another, say almost all, “If I had a little more, what a different man I should be. My piety would so gain if I were delivered from my cares, I could serve God so fully if I had but a competency.” It is the common feeling, the almost universal search. Since all are seeking to be wealthy, since all are showing their trust in riches, who then can be saved? Men are seeking possessions as if these could ensure everything; as if possessions were the highest end of life. And Christ looks round with tender, awful eyes and says, “How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God.”<\/p>\n

A. Mackennal, The Life of Christian Consecration, p. 212.<\/p>\n

References: Mar 10:24.-G. Macdonald, Unspoken Sermons, 2nd series, p. 26. Mar 10:26.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. vii., p. 129; G. Brooks, Five Hundred Outlines, p. 302. Mar 10:28-30.-A. B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, p. 262.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:29-30<\/p>\n

I. A reflection upon the terrible danger of riches is the first moral of this incident. The disciples, indeed, more experienced some of them in the opposite perils of poverty, with its mean, foils and down-dragging cares and ready envyings, exclaim in astonishment, “Who then can be saved?” If the rich, with their tranquil days and easy fortunes, with every facility for the two virtues of honesty and of thankfulness, can hardly enter God’s kingdom, how much less, surely, they whose whole life is trial-trial of patience, trial of rectitude, trial of faith. Thus it is that each rank and each age and each character regards its own as the very chief of all difficulties and all hindrances, thinks any other class or condition better off for salvation, and asks in despondency, if not in recrimination, If that other, that opposite, can scarcely be saved, how can I?<\/p>\n

II. But there was one disciple who, in those days of his ignorance and self-reliance, was ever ready to compare himself advantageously with other men, and who saw, in the example of this young ruler going away sorrowful, an opportunity of vaunting the opposite conduct of those who, like himself, had counted all things loss for Christ. “Peter began to say unto Him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed Thee.” Our Lord begins His reply to this boast by a warm and generous recognition of the greatness and blessedness of their self-sacrifice. There is no man who has done what he has done, who shall not here and hereafter have his reward. “Now in this time a hundredfold-in the world to come eternal life.” We have here then, before us, as the principal subject, a magnificent view of the compensation of discipleship. Work done for Jesus Christ-done in sincerity, done in simplicity, done in love-shall not lack its reward. “A hundredfold now in this life, and in the world to come”-who shall speak it?<\/p>\n

C. J. Vaughan, Oxford Undergraduates’ Journal, Nov. 1st, 1877.<\/p>\n

An Hundredfold now in this time. We have here, as the principal subject, a magnificent view of the compensations of discipleship.<\/p>\n

I. Some have talked slightingly of the sacrifices made by Peter and his companions. They are supposed to have had little to give up. A crazy boat or two, a few tattered nets-that was their all. On the other hand, it does not appear that, at the time of this occurrence, their abandonment of home or employment was either final or absolute. After the resurrection the disciples are found in Galilee, resuming, at least occasionally, their old occupations. Nevertheless, they rightly regarded the call to follow Jesus as a call to give up everything for it. Never, again, would they be their own for a single hour. It was a true instinct which made Peter combine, in consecutive clauses and as equivalent phrases, the “left all,” and the “followed Thee.” An entire detachment from all that had made and been the old life was the very condition and meaning of the new.<\/p>\n

II. This is the discipleship. Now for its compensations our Lord divides them. There is a compensation in the present, “now in this time.” The nature of it is remarkable, “He shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands.” The very language shows the promise figurative. We have read it, perhaps, as quite vague-“Shall receive something instead, something which shall reconcile him to the loss of all these.” An inward peace, suppose-a sense of God reconciled-an appreciation of the littleness of things temporal-a growing, deepening apprehension of things invisible and eternal. Is there not something besides-something more precise and more peculiar-in this promise? Brothers, sisters, mothers, children-an hundredfold each and all of these, now, in this time-no mere equivalent, in the dim shadowy future, for the sacrifice of them here. There is a family-no man can number it-in earth and heaven, of which a man becomes a member when he becomes a Christian. God is its Father, Christ is its Head; holy angels are its elder brothers; saints, martyrs and apostles, all good men, dead or living, are its intimates and its kinsfolk; earth is its compass, heaven is its home; and whosoever believes in Christ, whosoever has the Holy Spirit in him, enters at once upon the affections and the sympathies of all these; extend, expand this kinsmanship through all time and all space, and you will see why Jesus Christ should say that the man who gives up, or is willing to give up, the natural wins a hundredfold in the spiritual.<\/p>\n

C. J. Vaughan, University Sermons, p. 371.<\/p>\n

References: Mar 10:29, Mar 10:30.-Homilist, 3rd series, vol. i., p. 321; Expositor, 1st series, vol. ii., p. 245. Mar 10:30.-Ibid., vol. iv., p. 256.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:31<\/p>\n

The Great Refusal.<\/p>\n

I. The gracious Lord loved the young man, but was not met with trustful, entire response. Why did He love him? Because He saw him as he was-pure, enthusiastic, unspoiled, though unproved. It is a false and forlorn view to take of man, that there is nothing beautiful in him before he becomes saintly. The very attractiveness of an unredeemed soul makes us the more keenly desirous to redeem it. God may love a man whom He cannot yet trust; He may love a man who does not yet truly know, and cannot yet deeply love, Himself.<\/p>\n

II. This rich young ruler was no selfish, corrupt worldling. He sought to have, perhaps to merit, eternal life. If we cannot merit heaven we cannot have heaven without merit. The youth would like to do something gloriously good, which he might wear as a rose at his breast, or carry as a heavenly decoration granted to him, an honourable courtier of the King of kings. He knew not that he lacked more than he had to give. He lacked the giving heart. He sincerely sought to be good; he admired, he revered goodness; but he thought to be good in a brilliant, easy manner. He had not strength to be good at the proposed cost.<\/p>\n

III. Was he, therefore, excluded from the kingdom of heaven? It is sufficient to say that he was unable to follow Christ fully. Goodness has work to do, quite necessary, for which he was quite incompetent. But God does not reject what we can do because of what we cannot. Only, in the gradations of the spiritual realm, they who have borne the most, and been the bravest, will hold the highest places.<\/p>\n

IV. As the test may not come to us, being rulers and being rich, so neither may it come in one hour, but may rather be applied through many a weary day. “Wilt thou be perfect?” is the question put to us. Having been invited by thy God, by His word that speaketh day by day, by thine own soul that has listened with delighted awe, to give thyself wholly to what will cost thee friends, and fame, and ease, and gain thee only an honoured grave and a heavenly home-hast thou refused “Him that speaketh”? It is the Great Refusal.<\/p>\n

T. T. Lynch, Sermons for my Curates, p. 175.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:32<\/p>\n

Christ on the Road to the Cross.<\/p>\n

We learn from John’s Gospel that the resurrection of Lazarus precipitated the determination of the Jewish authorities to put Christ to death; and that immediately thereafter there was held the council, at which, by the advice of Caiaphas, the formal decision was come to. Thereupon our Lord withdrew himself into the wilderness which stretches south and east of Jerusalem, and remained there for an unknown period, preparing Himself for the cross. Then, full of calm resolve, He came forth to die. This is the crisis in our Lord’s history to which my text refers. The picture has not attracted the attention that it deserves. I think, if we ponder it with sympathetic imagination helping us, we may get from it some very great lessons and glimpses of our Lord’s inmost heart in the prospect of His cross.<\/p>\n

I. We have here what, for the want of a better name, I would call the heroic Christ. I use the word to express simply strength of will brought to bear in the resistance of antagonism; and although that be a side of the Lord’s character which is not often made prominent, it is there and ought to have its due importance. We speak of Him, and delight to think of Him, as the embodiment of all loving, gracious, gentle virtues, but Jesus Christ as the ideal man unites in Himself what men are in the habit, somewhat superciliously, of calling the masculine virtues, as well as those which they somewhat contemptuously designate the feminine. We are to look to Jesus Christ as presenting before us the very type of all which which men call heroism, in the sense of an iron will, incapable of deflection by any antagonism, and which coerces the whole nature to obedience to its behests. Christ is the pattern of heroic endurance, and reads to us the lesson, resist and persist, whatever stands between us and our goal,<\/p>\n

II. We see here not only the heroic, but what I may call the self-sacrificing Christ. We have not only to consider the fixed will which this incident reveals, but to remember the purpose on which it was fixed, and that He was hastening to His cross. The very fact of our Lord’s going back to Jerusalem with that decree of the Sanhedrim still in force was tantamount to His surrender of Himself to death. He recognised that now that hour of which He spoke so much had come, and of His own loving will offered Himself as our Sacrifice.<\/p>\n

III. This incident gives us a glimpse of what I may call the shrinking Christ. Do we not see here a trace of something that we all know? May not part of the reason for Christ’s haste have been that desire which we all have, when some inevitable grief or pain lies before us, to get it over soon and to abbreviate the moments that lie between us and it. Was there not something of that feeling in our Lord’s sensitive nature when He said, for instance, “I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened until it be accomplished”? And may we not see in that swift advance in front of the lagging disciples, some trace of the same feeling which we recognise to be so truly human? Christ did shrink from His cross. There was shrinking which was instinctive and human, but it never disturbed the fixed purpose to die. It had so much power over Him as to make Him march a little faster to the cross, but it never made Him turn from it. And so He stands before us the Conqueror in a real conflict, as having yielded Himself up by a real surrender, as overcoming a real difficulty, “for the joy that was set before Him, having endured the cross, despising the shame.”<\/p>\n

IV. So, lastly, I would see here the lonely Christ. In front of His followers, absorbed in the thought of what was drawing so near, gathering together His powers in order to be ready for the struggle, with His heart full of the love and the pity which impelled Him, He is surrounded as with a cloud which shuts Him out of their sight as afterwards the cloud of glory received Him. There never was such a lonely man in the world as Jesus Christ. Never one that carried so deep in His heart so great a purpose and so great a love which nobody cared a rush about. And those that were nearest Him and loved Him best, loved Him so blunderingly and so blindly that their love must have been often quite as much of a pain as of a joy. And all this solitude, the solitude of unappreciated aims, and unshared purposes, and misunderstood sorrow during life, and the solitude of death with all its elements ineffable of atonement, all this solitude was borne that no human soul, living or dying, might ever be lonely any more. “Lo I,” whom you all left alone, “am with you,” who left Me alone, “even till the end of the world.”<\/p>\n

A. Maclaren, Christian Commonwealth, Nov. 11th, 1886.<\/p>\n

I. There was something in the aspect of Christ, in the emanation of His spirit, which struck His disciples with a great awe. He had not yet spoken to them, but they felt what He had to say. But they were less than ever able to leave Him. Such awe was a magnetic spell which kept them within His circle. As they followed Him they were afraid, but if they forsook Him they were dead. “Lord, to whom shall we go but unto Thee? Thou hast the words of eternal life.” Awful as the words sometimes seem, fearful as is the vision they open, let us hear them, let us enter into life by them. To turn from them is to enter into death-the death which is eternal.<\/p>\n

II. There are moments when we are amazed as we listen to Jesus, and as we follow we are afraid. I think that it is with us in our Christian lives much as it was with Christ; there are great broad tracts of serenity and sunlight, crossed by shadows of awe and dread. Remember, the life of Jesus Christ must have presented the reverse of a gloomy or repellant aspect. The Shepherd is His chosen character. “I am the Good Shepherd”-uttered perhaps the deepest thought of His heart as to His relations to mankind. His words, His work, the spirit He breathed, were sweet and fresh as the fragrant meadows to the hot and dusty wayfarer of life. The main experience of a true Christian life should be joyful and hopeful, as things are glad that live in the sun. The elements of joy in our lot are abounding. The certainty of blessing is absolute. Nothing can harm us, nothing can daunt us, nothing can drive us to despair. But there are moments when thoughts and visions rise from deep springs within us and chase the joys. They may bury us in a gloom which yet is not chill and drear; which has a golden gleam of sunlight through it, chasing all its terrors away. There are moments when life in any form seems very solemn, very terrible, when we tremble before the vision of an undying existence, an infinite capacity of suffering or of being blessed; while we are conscious inwardly of fatal weakness, a deadly proneness to sin. Blessed, thrice blessed they, who in this dread crisis see the form and clasp the hand of Him who has trodden the path before them, and trodden it till it issued in glory.<\/p>\n

J. Baldwin Brown, The Sunday Afternoon, p. 53.<\/p>\n

I. Notice here the singular combination of the compatibility and the union of two apparently contradictory things; though they feared they followed, and though they followed they feared. The fear was not enough to stop the following, nor the following sufficient to arrest the fear. There was a love in the fear which kept them following, and yet a nature in the following which still left them fearing. It was the fact of the following which originated the fear. And fear is the strongest fascination. There is always a tendency to go to what we greatly fear. It is a principle true in love. There is fear in all true love. And the fear in the love makes a part of the fascination of the love. So the following led up to the fear, and the fear led up to the following.<\/p>\n

II. That walk to Jerusalem appears to me strangely illustrative of the path by which many of you are going to heaven; Going to heaven!-yes, you are going to heaven, but not enjoying all you might, or glorifying all you ought by the way. We come to the question, How is it that a real follower may be a real fearer? And I will find the answer on that road up to Jerusalem. Why did the disciples fear? (1) They had not adequate ideas of Him whom they followed. They did not know-what they learnt afterwards-what exceeding care He takes of His own, how by His suffering He was going to prevent their suffering, and by His own death to prevent their dying; they had not read the full character of Christ, therefore they misread their own future. (2) Though the disciples loved Christ, they did not love Him as He deserved. If they had done so, the love would have absorbed the fear; they would have rejoiced to endure with Him, even to the death. (3) They had not what their Master had-one great, fixed, sustaining aim. It was that which bore Him so bravely, and that would have borne them. (4) The disciples had their fears undefined. It was the indefinite which terrified them. Take, then, four rules. (1) You that follow and are afraid, fortify yourself in the thought of what Christ is-His person, His work, His covenant, and what He is to you. (2) Love Him very much, and realize your union with Him. (3) Set a high mark, and carry your life in your hand, so you may reach that mark, and do something for God. (4)<\/p>\n

Often stop and say deliberately to yourself, “Why art thou cast down, O my soul?” and do not go on till you have got an answer.<\/p>\n

J. Vaughan, Sermons, 1867, p. 53.<\/p>\n

References: Mar 10:32-45.-A. H. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, p. 282; H. M. Luckock, Footprints of the Son of Man, p. 225. Mar 10:33, Mar 10:34.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 52. Mar 10:35-38.-Homilist, 3rd series, vol. i., p. 177. Mar 10:35-40.-W. Romanis, Church of England Pulpit, vol. xiii., p. 111. Mar 10:36.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. iii., p. 12.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:38<\/p>\n

Prayers offered in Ignorance answered in Love.<\/p>\n

I. Let it be admitted that the prayer of James and John was rooted in ambition, still we may not forget that their ambition was to be nearest Christ; nor can we fail to observe that there are some things in their conduct which are worthy of our praise, and may be imitated by us with advantage. (1) In the first place they did ask. Now that was a great thing. How many are there from whose lips no prayer ever ascends into the ear of God! It is a great matter when one goes to Jesus for anything, since, by and by, no matter what he begins with, he will be found going to Him for everything. Whatever be thy desire, therefore, go to Him. (2) These brothers had a definite purpose in coming to Him. When He said to them, “What would ye that I should do for you?” they were not taken aback, but they set before Him a distinct request. Herein, again, they were greatly in advance of multitudes who presume to be their censors; for is it not too true that our prayers are frequently most vague and indefinite? Men confess sins of which they do not feel the guilt, utter adorations which they cannot appropriate, and offer prayers so general that they may mean anything or nothing. We ask things which we do not want, and omit many which we really do desire. (3) These brothers were honest and sincere in their request? (4) They did not pretend to ask this in order to keep up the appearance of faith in Jesus and attachment to Him. They actually desired to have the positions for which they made request. It is a thousand times better to pray sincerely about matters which, though they be secular and small, are real to us, than to pretend to pray about spiritual things, which are at the time no better to us than myths; and it would be a good rule to lay down for our observance, never to ask for anything unless we feel that we truly need it.<\/p>\n

II. But we are ready to ask, If all this be true, what was there to be blamed in the petition? And to this I answer that, apart from the earthly ambition to be above the other disciples, I cannot find much that was wrong about their prayer. (1) They wished to be beside Him in His glory, but they had a very false conception of what that glory was. (2) They did not understand what was involved in the granting of their request. If we will but remember these two particulars, we shall begin to comprehend why so many of our prayers are apparently unanswered, and why so frequently we fail to recognise answers to our prayers when they do come.<\/p>\n

W. M. Taylor, Limitations of Life, p. 160.<\/p>\n

References: Mar 10:38.-H. N. Grimley, Temple of Humanity, p. 30. Mar 10:39.-Christian World Pulpit, vol. ix., p. 93.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:40<\/p>\n

We learn from the text two great and important truths:-<\/p>\n

I. That the followers of Christ are not necessarily His friends or true disciples. In the multitudes who accompanied Jesus out of Jericho: (1) Some, doubtless, followed Him out of mere curiosity. (2) Some followed because it was just then somewhat fashionable to do so. (3) Some followed with a view to worldly advantage. (4) Such following of Christ is of no real or lasting advantage to these followers themselves.<\/p>\n

II. The text suggests to us that among a multitude of Christ’s followers you may generally expect to find some friends. Jesus went out of Jericho with His disciples and a great number of people. (1) This should encourage us to persevere in our own following. (2) It should encourage us in relation to other followers as well as ourselves, and lead us to do and say all we can to encourage them.<\/p>\n

J. Morgan, Christian World Pulpit, vol. x., p. 389.<\/p>\n

References: Mar 10:40.-Church of England Pulpit, vol. xviii., p. 145. Mar 10:46.-Homilist, vol. v., p. 52. Mar 10:46-52.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. v., No. 266; H. W. Beecher, Sermons, 1870, p. 172; G. Macdonald, Miracles of our Lord, p. 103; H. M. Luckock, Footprints of the Son of Man, p. 230. Mar 10:46-52.-Christian World Pulpit, vol. iv., p. 364. Mar 10:47.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 53. Mar 10:47, Mar 10:48.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xi., No. 645. Mar 10:49.-T. Keane, Christian World Pulpit, vol. iii., p. 81; Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxiii., No. 1389; R. W. Evans, Parochial Sermons, vol. i., p. 172. Mar 10:49-50.-Spurgeon, My Sermon Notes: Gospels and Acts, p. 74. Mar 10:51.-Ibid., Three Hundred Outlines on the New Testament, p. 38; A. Murray, With Christ in the School of Prayer, p. 71.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:52<\/p>\n

I. To see spiritually is to see Christ, the light of the world, and to be penetrated with the sense of the beauty and fulness which are in Him.<\/p>\n

II. A soul enlightened sees in Jesus that which is all its salvation and all its hope.<\/p>\n

J. Baldwin Brown, The Sunday Afternoon, p. 79.<\/p>\n

References: Mar 10:52.-Homiletic Quarterly, vol. ii., p. 415; B. F. Westcott, Expositor, 3rd series, vol. v., p. 456. Mar 11:1.-Homiletic Quarterly, vol. iii., p. 136. Mar 11:1-11.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. i., p. 26; H. M. Luckock, Footprints of the Son of Man, p. 235; W. Hanna, Our Lord’s Life on Earth, p. 372. Mar 11:3.-J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 10th series, p. 82. Mar 11:4-6.-S. Baring-Gould, One Hundred Sermon Sketches, p. 146. Mar 11:6.-A. Scott, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xx., p. 322. Mar 11:8-10.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ix., p. 177.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Sermon Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Chapter 10.<\/p>\n

In Judea<\/p>\n

1. The question concerning Divorce. (Mar 10:1-12. Mat 19:1-9.<\/p>\n

2. Children are blessed by Him. (Mar 10:13-16. Mat 19:13-15; Luk 18:15-17.<\/p>\n

3. The rich young Ruler and Warning against Riches. (Mar 10:17-27. Mat 19:16-26; Luk 18:18-27.<\/p>\n

4. Concerning Rewards. (Mar 10:28-31. Mat 19:27-30; Luk 18:28-30.<\/p>\n

5. On to Jerusalem. The third announcement of His death and Resurrection. (Mar 10:32-34. Mat 20:17-19; Luk 18:31-34.<\/p>\n

6. The Desire of James and John. (Mar 10:35-45. Mat 20:20-28; Luk 22:24-27.<\/p>\n

7. At Jericho. The Healing of Bartimaeus. (Mar 10:46-52. Mat 20:29-34; Luk 18:35-43.<\/p>\n

1. The Question concerning Divorce. Mar 10:1-12<\/p>\n

The Lord restores in teaching the original meaning of marriage and speaks against divorce Moses had permitted on account of the hardness of their hearts. Thus He restored the original institution of marriage. His ministry is now almost ended and He is on His way to Jerusalem to go to the cross.<\/p>\n

2. Children are blest by Him. Mar 10:13-16<\/p>\n

Again the disciples failed. They showed a kind of self-importance and dignity in rebuking those who brought the little children. He was indignant. They had no right whatever to rebuke and to shut out from His presence. They usurped His place and by their domineering attitude misrepresented Him. And priestcraft has brought this to perfection. But oh! the contrast. He received them and tenderly took them into His arms to bless them. Such is the Kingdom of God. Sin is in them. But the little children present some characteristics of uncorrupted nature. The way into the Kingdom is the new birth; and that must be received as a little child.<\/p>\n

3. The rich young ruler and warnings against Riches. Mar 10:17-27<\/p>\n

Here is one, who would inherit eternal life by doing. He kneeled (mentioned only by Mark) and showed reverence, and yet he called Him only Good Master. He was a moral Young man but unsaved. The reply of the Lord is significant, He refuses the address Good Master. The young man did not believe on Him as Son of God. The logic is perfect. If He is not God, He could not be good, and if He is good, then He is God. Yet Jesus, beholding him, loved him; a statement found only in Mark. He did not see the truth that man is not good, but a sinner, and salvation cannot be by works but is by Grace. Note the beautiful answer the Lord gave to His disciples. Who then can be saved? And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible. Man cannot be saved by what he is or does. Blessed truth. But God has accomplished salvation by the gift of His Son and this salvation is received by faith in Him.<\/p>\n

4. Concerning Rewards. Mar 10:28-31<\/p>\n

It was a selfish question, which Peter asked. Somehow he would remind the Lord that while the young man refused to part with his riches, they had left all. And the meek and lowly One answers graciously and gives the promise of reward in this life and in the age to come. But it is reward only if it is done for His sake and the Gospels. It is a blessed thing to leave the rewards with Him.<\/p>\n

5. On to Jerusalem. Third announcement of His death and Resurrection. Mar 10:32-34<\/p>\n

But were they willing to leave all for His sake? As the Servant now at the close of His ministry went up to Jerusalem they were amazed at His calmness and determination to go to the place, where death awaited Him, according to His own predictions. They were afraid of their own lives as they followed Him. The Servant went before them in the lead; the frightened group came behind. The third prediction of His death is the completest.<\/p>\n

6. The Desire of James and John. Mar 10:35-45<\/p>\n

Their fear was short-lived. They did not grasp the solemn announcement that the Son of Man would have to die and did not understand that all the promised blessings could only be realized through His death on the cross. They had faith in a coming Kingdom of Glory, faith in the Servant so lowly to be the King and that they were to reign with Him. The request is stated and answered graciously by the Lord. And the two who were afraid when He turned towards Jerusalem now say that they are able to drink the cup with Him and be baptized with the baptism, which awaited Him, the inward and outward sufferings of the cross. But these two forsook Him a few days later and fled. The others were much displeased, no doubt for selfish reasons, and then still other words of instruction came from His lips.<\/p>\n

7. At Jericho. The Healing of Bartimaeus. Mar 10:46-52<\/p>\n

This healing stands at the beginning of the end of that blessed life lived on the earth. Up to Mar 10:45 He speaks of Himself as Son of Man. The phrase Son of David appears only once in Marks Gospel. Bartimaeus calls upon Him by that name and is healed. It is the prelude to the great events in Jerusalem, His presentation as King, rejection, suffering and death. The miracle of Jericho holds the same place in the three Gospels. Israel s condition is easily seen in Bartimaeus blindness. The Son of David had come to give sight to the blind and in Jericho (the place of curse) He shows His gracious Power. Bartimaeus followed Him as the blessed witness of His power.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

CHAPTER 42<\/p>\n

The Master Teaches<\/p>\n

About Marriage and Children<\/p>\n

And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again. And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.<\/p>\n

(Mar 10:1-16)<\/p>\n

It is ever the ploy of unregenerate religious men to attempt to trick Gods servants and his people into saying things they can use against them. Crafty followers of the Serpent, in a pretense of sincerity, try to ask leading questions, which will cause us to give answers they can turn against us. You do not have to experience their craftiness many times before you are able to hear the hiss of the Serpent in their speech. When we meet with such people, the best way to send them slithering back into their own slime is simply not to answer them. I learned long ago that if you get into a spitting contest with a skunk, though you may win the contest, you are sure to come away smelling like a skunk.<\/p>\n

Here in Mark 10 our Savior had just such an experience with the Pharisees. They posed their question about divorce in such a way as to try to get him to speak against Moses and the law so that they might pretend to have a basis upon which to accuse him of being an antinomian, against the law. Our Master was too wise for them. Rather than answer in his own words, he answered them from the Word of God. The things taught in these verses are of utmost importance. May God the Holy Spirit teach us that which he inspired Mark to record in this passage.<\/p>\n

Christs Example<\/p>\n

And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again (Mar 10:1). Our Lord Jesus Christ was an exemplary, faithful, fervent preacher of the gospel. How faithful, patient, and persevering our Lord Jesus was as a preacher. Unwearied in all his services, wrote Robert Hawker, with zeal to his Fathers glory, and his peoples happiness, the sun watched his path by day, and the stars witnessed to his communion by night. In all things he was the example of what we ought to be. But his exemplary conduct as a preacher and the demands it places upon those who follow him in the work of the ministry are often overlooked. <\/p>\n

Wherever our Savior went, he was always about his Fathers business. From the opening day of his public ministry, to his last breath upon the cross, our Lord Jesus Christ labored for the good of mens souls for the glory of God. He threw away no opportunity. We do not read in the entire history of his earthly ministry that he spent a solitary day in idleness. He sowed beside all waters (Isa 32:20). In the morning he sowed his seed, and in the evening withheld not his hand (Ecc 11:6). What an example to preachers he was. He was untiringly, unceasingly fervent and faithful. When he came to the farther side of Jordan and the people gathered around him, he did as he was wont. He taught them.<\/p>\n

Those men who conscientiously devote their lives to the labor of the gospel ministry are often urged, by well meaning friends and people who love them, to slow down, not to take the work so seriously, and to preserve their energies. Let none heed such counsel. When we open the Book of God and see the kind of preacher the Son of God was, we should pray, Savior, give grace to your servant to follow your example. It is far better to burn out than to rust out!<\/p>\n

I am sure one reason why our Master was always wont to preach and teach the gospel was the fact that he knew the urgency of his work. No one else understood this. His mother didnt. His friends didnt. His disciples didnt. His apostles didnt. No one understood the urgency of his mission but him. He knew that the time was short. Therefore, he redeemed the time.<\/p>\n

The Lord Jesus was faithful, fervent, and zealous in his work, always ready to preach the gospel, even though the vast majority of those to whom he preached refused to believe his message. His miracles were popular, but not his doctrine. For the most part, his words fell upon deaf ears, unheeded and ignored. Those who did not ignore him despised him.<\/p>\n

Once in John 6 he preached to the great multitude who saw the miracle of the loaves and fishes, many of whom ate the bread and the fish. But when he preached to them the message of Gods free and sovereign grace, they were offended and walked away. In that passage our Lord Jesus proclaimed that the only way a sinner can please God is by faith in his Son (Joh 6:29), That Moses spoke of him (Joh 6:32-35), That the only way any sinner would ever believe on him unto life everlasting is by the effectual work of Gods irresistible grace (Joh 6:36-40; Joh 6:44-45; Joh 6:63-65), That the singular object of faith is his obedience and death as the sinners Substitute (Joh 6:53-58), and That salvation is according to Gods sovereign election (Joh 6:64; Joh 6:70). When they heard these things, the multitude turned and walked away.<\/p>\n

That which is required of all who would, like the Lord Jesus Christ, serve God is faithfulness (1Co 4:1-2). We are not to give up our labors because we do not see the results we desire. We are not to relax our efforts because we see no fruit from them. Let us always labor fervently, understanding that it is our duty to do what we have opportunity and ability to do. The results are totally up to our Master. It is not to the good and successful servant that the Master will say, well done, but to the good and faithful servant (Mat 25:21). Not all of Gods servants are reapers. Some plow, some sow, some water, and some reap; but it is God who gives the increase. In this, as in all other spiritual matters, we must judge nothing by what we see. Every faithful servant of God is a successful servant of God.<\/p>\n

Marriage and Divorce<\/p>\n

And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery (Mar 10:2-12).<\/p>\n

Our Lords teaching with regard to the dignity and permanence of marriage is crystal clear. In these verses our Lord Jesus Christ answers the question put to him by the Pharisees publicly and then answers the question put to him by his disciples privately. This is our Masters teaching about marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Two other passages that are very important in understanding what our Savior taught on this subject are Mat 5:31-32 and Mat 19:3-9.<\/p>\n

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. (Mat 5:31-32)<\/p>\n

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and 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 hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (Mat 19:3-9)<\/p>\n

These three passages of Scripture show us what the Lord Jesus Christ taught about the dignity and permanence of marriage. Other aspects of the privileges and responsibilities of men and women in marriage are found in Rom 7:1-4, 1 Corinthians 7, and Ephesians 5. I have no interest in debating with anyone about these issues. I do not, for a moment, think that I am going to change the thinking of godless people about the dignity, importance, and permanence of marriage. I am addressing myself to you who reverence God and his Word, to you who seek to honor him and do his will. The things I have to say are for you. I hope you will all read these lines with careful attention.<\/p>\n

In these verses our Lord teaches us that marriage is for life. The marriage union of a husband and wife is never to be dissolved. It cannot be broken, except for very specific and very serious reasons. The importance of our Lords teaching cannot be overstated. The well-being of nations, the happiness of men and women, the moral strength of society, and the welfare of Gods church in this world greatly depends upon the strength of families. And family strength, family values, and family wholeness depend upon a proper understanding of and respect for the teaching of Gods Word about marriage.<\/p>\n

During the days of our Lords earthly ministry, when the Roman Empire was at its zenith, moral decadence was much the same as it is in western society today. Divorces were almost as common as marriage. Marriages were dissolved at the drop of a hat, even among the Jews, for the most frivolous and trifling reasons.<\/p>\n

Mark did not record the Pharisees question quite the same way Matthew did. In Mat 19:3 Matthew tells us that the Pharisees asked the Lord Jesus, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?<\/p>\n

It is true, because of the hardness of mens hearts, to prevent them from abusing and even killing their wives, Moses did permit them to divorce their wives, but not for every cause (Deu 24:1-4). Yet, by long tradition and laxity, that which Moses permitted, men and women commonly practiced. Marriage had become, as it is today, a whimsical thing, regarded by most as a bothersome burden. The disciples comment in Mat 19:10 will give us some idea of just how bad things were. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. When they heard the Lord Jesus say, No you cannot put away your wives for every cause, they as good as said, If a man cannot get rid of his wife whenever he wants to, he would be better off not to marry. When men and women abandon Gods law and look contemptuously upon marriage, they produce a generation of children who are utterly without conscience (Mal 2:14-16). <\/p>\n

Marriage is a relationship of greater importance and greater influence than any other earthly relationship. It was established by God in the garden for the happiness and well being of man before sin entered into the world (Gen 2:18-25). Marriage was chosen by God to be typical of the relationship which exists between Christ and his church (Eph 5:25-33). Marriage is a relationship superior even to the relationship of parents and children (Eph 5:31).<\/p>\n

Marriage involves commitment devotion. A man ought to be committed to his wife, like Christ is committed to his church. A woman ought to be committed to her husband, like true believers are to Christ.<\/p>\n

Marriage involves sacrifice self-denial. Husbands are to sacrifice themselves to their wives and families, just as Christ sacrificed himself for us. Wives are to sacrifice themselves to their husbands, just as believers sacrifice themselves to Christ.<\/p>\n

Marriage involves love. Husband are to love their wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it. Wives are to reverence and obey their husbands, as the church reverences and obeys Christ in love. Love is giving, never taking. Love is yielding, not demanding. Love is unconditional, not qualified.<\/p>\n

Marriage necessarily involves the dissolution of all other relationships and a blessed isolation to and with one another. Again, it is a blessed isolation to and with one another, like the isolation of Christ to and with his church. It is a growing isolation, like the isolation of the church to Christ.<\/p>\n

In a word, our Lord Jesus teaches us that this blessed relationship of marriage is a life long union. J. C. Ryle wrote<\/p>\n

He refers to the original institution of marriage at the creation, as the union of one man and one woman. He quotes and endorses the solemn words used at the marriage of Adam and Eve, as words of perpetual significance: A man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh. He adds a solemn comment to these words: What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And, finally, in reply to the inquiry of his disciples, He declares that divorce followed by remarriage, except for the cause of unfaithfulness, is a breach of the seventh commandment.<\/p>\n

These days, very few people enter into marriage with the determination This is forever, no matter what. Multitudes write out prenuptial agreements in anticipation of divorce. Many do not even bother with having a wedding ceremony. They just shack up like wild animals until someone more attractive comes along. From the beginning it was not so. What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. All who violate Gods Word in this matter are guilty of adultery and cause those who are recklessly abandoned to do the same.<\/p>\n

This lifelong marriage union can be dissolved lawfully, biblically, only for extreme reasons. Though Mark omits it, in Mat 5:32 and in Mat 19:9 our Lord cites fornication as the singular basis for divorce. The word fornication is the word from which we get our word pornography. It refers to all sexual perversion. As used in relation to marriage, it speaks of any form of sexual infidelity. Our Lord does not teach that men and women ought to get a divorce if one or the other commits an act of sexual infidelity. We ought to forgive! However, he does teach us that in such cases the marriage union may be dissolved. It is permitted because of the hardness of mens hearts. The apostle Paul, writing by divine inspiration, also allows that abandonment also dissolves the marriage union (1Co 7:15). In such cases the person abandoned, or the person against whom the infidelity was committed is free to marry again in the Lord (Deu 24:1-4).<\/p>\n

What about those who have already experienced divorce and remarriage? How do we deal with those believers, or those who are converted by the grace of God, who are already divorced, or who are already divorced and remarried? We are to deal with them as we are to deal with any other redeemed, forgiven sinner, as redeemed, forgiven sinners, just like the rest of us. If they are believers, if they are washed in the blood of the Lamb, they are forgiven of all sin, free from all condemnation, and are new creatures in Christ (Rom 8:1).[6] Here are three words of instruction that will benefit all who heed them:<\/p>\n

[6] 1Ti 3:2 has nothing to do with divorce and remarriage. In that passage Paul is dealing with the matter of polygamy, which had to be dealt with in receiving Gentile converts into the churches. It would be insanely ludicrous to tell a converted man who had many wives and children by them before God saved him (as do many of our African brethren) that he must choose one woman and her children and throw out the rest. That would be barbaric. However, a man with more than one wife cannot be pastor of a church. That is the teaching of 1Ti 3:2.<\/p>\n

1.When you marry, marry only in the Lord.<\/p>\n

2.Do not expect too much from your husband or wife. Marriage is the union of two sinners who need constant forgiveness, not the union of two angels.<\/p>\n

3.Seek, with constant earnestness, one anothers spiritual good.<\/p>\n

Our Example<\/p>\n

As in all things, the example to be followed is Christ himself. Our blessed Savior refuses to put away his wife, the church. He who inspired the Apostle Paul to write, Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them (Col 3:19), has never been and can never be bitter against his wife. He who teaches every husband to love his wife as his own body, ever nourishing and cherishing her (Eph 5:28-29), so loves, nourishes, and cherishes his wife as his own body. Robert Hawker, commenting on this passage, wrote, As no man ever hated his own flesh; even though covered with sores and wounds, so Jesus loved his Church, though leprous and unclean. Oh, precious, precious Lord Jesus!<\/p>\n

How blessed it is to hear the Lord God of Israel say that, he hateth putting away (Mal 2:14-16). Let all who worship and serve him hate it as well. How we will praise and give thanks to him in eternity when, after all the treacherous departures of his church, in all her spiritual adulteries, the Lord Jesus presents her to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish (Eph 5:27; Rev 19:5-9).<\/p>\n

Little Children<\/p>\n

And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them (Mar 10:13-16).<\/p>\n

These little children were brought to our Lord just like other sick and diseased, that he might lay his hands on them and bless them. There is no more and no less in the text than that. It is ludicrous beyond imagination to suggest as J.C. Ryle and many others have, to teach how much encouragement there is to bring young children to be baptized. That is just nuts! There is not a word in this passage about whose children these were. There is not a word in these verses about baptism, much less sprinkling! And there is not a word here about baby dedication services. Here our Savior teaches us that all who enter into his kingdom must do so as little children. These verses of Holy Scripture are given to us by the Spirit of God to teach us three things.<\/p>\n

1.If we would do our children good, we must bring them to Christ. The text simply tells us that these people brought their children to the Savior, just as they did their sick, that he might lay his hands upon them. Let us do that for our children, and we have done the very best we can for them. Bring them to Christ in prayer. Ask that he may lay his hand upon them, the hand of his saving grace. And leave them in his hands.<\/p>\n

2.The Lord Jesus humbled himself to serve the needs of little children. What a tender hearted man he is! How accessible he was and is to needy sinners!<\/p>\n

3.If we would be saved, we must come to the Lord Jesus Christ, our God and King, as little children. Like little children, we must be brought to the Savior by someone stronger than ourselves, by God the Holy Spirit. We must be humbled as little children. We must be made like little children, inoffensive and totally dependent upon him.<\/p>\n

When we think of what a preacher should be, let us look to Christ. He is the pattern. When we think of marriage, let our hearts be drawn first and foremost to Christ. Be married to him! Those who are first married to him make the best husbands and wives. When you see a child, embrace it, care for it, take a little time for it, and ask God to make you as a little child before him.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

am 4033, ad 29 <\/p>\n

he arose: Mat 19:1-12 <\/p>\n

by: Joh 10:40, Joh 11:7 <\/p>\n

he taught: Ecc 12:9, Jer 32:33, Joh 18:20<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

THE OPENING of this chapter brings us near to the closing scenes of the Lords life. He was on the farther side of Jordan but near the borders of Judaea, and the Pharisees appeared, opposing Him by tempting Him. By raising questions as to marriage and divorce, they expected to entangle Him in some contradiction of the things that Moses had commanded, and so find a point of attack. The Lord did not contradict Moses, but He went behind him to Gods original thought in the creation of man and woman. The Pharisees were great sticklers for the law of Moses, but He showed them that in this instance the law did not enforce Gods original thought. It is important to notice this, for it supplies us with one reason why the law is not made the rule of life for the Christian. <\/p>\n

The law fell below the height of Gods thought, but Christ did not: He fully maintained it. Verse Mar 10:9 lifts the whole matter of marriage from the level of man and human expediency to the level of God and His action. It is a divine institution and not a human arrangement, and therefore is not to be tampered with by men. If God joins, man is not to put asunder. <\/p>\n

This verse states a great principle which is true universally. The converse also would be true-man is not to join what God has put asunder. It is a sad fact that ever since sin came in man has been consumed with a desire to undo what God has done. It is so in natural things, and many of the ills we suffer come from our tampering with things given of God, even in matters of food, etc., and generally upsetting the balance of things which He established. It certainly is so in things spiritual. Many a difficulty and much needless soul trouble springs from misunderstanding as to things which God has joined together in His Word, or things which He has sundered. <\/p>\n

Having set marriage before them in the right light, the Lord deals, in verses Mar 10:13-16, with children. As to these, the disciples share the ordinary thoughts of the world, which fall far below the thoughts of God. The disciples judged them to be too insignificant for the Masters attention, but He thought far otherwise. He received them gladly, took them up in His arms, put His hands upon them and blessed them. He also showed that the only way of entrance into the kingdom of God is by having the spirit and mind of the little child. If anyone approaches that kingdom as a significant somebody he finds the entrance barred. If he comes as an insignificant nobody he may enter. <\/p>\n

Then, verses Mar 10:17-27, we get the Lords teaching in regard to possessions. It is striking how marriage, children and possessions follow one another in this chapter, for so much of our lives in this world is occupied with these three things. All three are perverted and abused in the hands of sinful men; and all three are put in their right place in the teachings of our Lord. <\/p>\n

The one who came running to Jesus exhibited many commendable features. Matthew tells us he was young, and Luke that he was a ruler. He was earnest and reverent and recognized in Him a great Rabbi, who could direct men to eternal life. He took it for granted that the life was to be obtained by human doings, according to the law. Evidently he had no idea of the Deity of Jesus, and hence the Lords words in verse 18. He repudiated goodness apart from His being God, saying in effect, If I am not God, I am not good. <\/p>\n

As the young man asked his question with the law in his mind, the Lord referred him to the law, particularly to the commandments dealing with mans duty to his neighbour. He could claim to have observed these, at least as regards his acts, and Jesus beholding him loved him. This shows that his claim to correct observance of these things which the law enjoined was a true one. He was an exceptionally fine character, with features which in themselves were pleasing to God. The Lord did not belittle these pleasing features. He admitted them, and looked upon him with eyes of love. <\/p>\n

Yet He tested him. One thing he lacked, and that was the God-given faith, which would have seized who Jesus was, and led him to take up the cross and follow Him; the faith which would have made treasure in heaven preferable to treasure on earth. He expected the Lord to direct him to some work of the law by which life should be reached; instead he was directed to a work of faith. Sad at heart he went away. He did not possess the faith, so it was impossible for him to show his faith by his works. The same test comes to us. How have we answered to it? <\/p>\n

This is a tremendous question. How slow we all are to give up law-keeping for Christ and earth for heaven! No wonder the Lord speaks of the difficulty with which the rich enter the kingdom. Verse Mar 10:23 speaks of them that have riches, and verse Mar 10:24 of them that trust in riches. The fact is, of course, that it is very difficult to have them without trusting in them. We naturally cling to riches and earth. Christ offers the Cross and heaven. <\/p>\n

The disciples, accustomed to regard riches as a sign of Gods favour, were very astonished at these words; they felt that they cut the ground away completely from under our feet. So, indeed, they do. Who then can be saved? is a momentous question. Verse Mar 10:27 gives a definite answer. Salvation is impossible with men, though possible with God. In other words it was as though the Lord said, If it is a question of what man can do, nobody can be saved: but if a question of what God can do, anybody can be saved. <\/p>\n

We emphasize that word. Salvation with men is not improbable, but IMPOSSIBLE. The door, as regards our own efforts is barred against us. God has opened another door however, but that is by death and resurrection, to which the Lord was now turning the thoughts of His disciples. <\/p>\n

Though death and resurrection were before the mind of the Lord, earthly glory was still before the mind of Peter, and he betrayed it by his remark recorded in verse 28. He referred of course to the test which the Lord had just presented to the rich young ruler. Peter felt that, though the ruler had failed before the test, he and his fellow-disciples had not: indeed, he actually added, as Matthew records, What shall we have therefore? His mind, enquiring and impetuous, wished to anticipate the good things to come. The Lords answer indicated that in the present age there should be great gain, though with persecutions, and in the coming age eternal life. <\/p>\n

This saying of our Lord is illustrated by Pauls life of service, as seen in such scriptures as, Act 16:15; Act 18:3; Act 21:8; Rom 16:3, Rom 16:4, Rom 16:23; 1Co 16:17; Php 4:18; Phm 1:22. Houses were at his disposal in many a city, and many counted it an honour to fulfil the part of brother, sister, mother or child toward him. Persecutions certainly were his. Eternal life in the world to come lies before him. Such is the lot of those who follow and serve this perfect Servant of God. <\/p>\n

Verse Mar 10:31 was evidently uttered as a warning and corrective to Peter. Forwardness here may not mean the first place there. All depends upon the motive underlying the service. If Peter wished to drive a bargain-so much following for so much reward-that alone would show defective motive. Still it does not say that all that are first shall be last, and all last first. Paul went ahead of all in his day, and who can challenge the purity of his motive, or the reality of his devotion to his Lord? <\/p>\n

The thing that Peter and the rest greatly needed was to realize and understand the fast approaching death and resurrection of their Master. There is nothing that we today, nineteen centuries after the event, more deeply need to realise and understand. Not only is it the basis of all our blessing but it imparts its own character to all Christian life and service. No intelligent service can be rendered save in the light of it. <\/p>\n

Verses Mar 10:32-34 give us the fourth occasion on which the Lord instructed His disciples in regard to it; and the request of James and John, recorded in verse Mar 10:37, furnished the Lord with a fifth occasion. Their minds were still filled with expectations concerning a glorious kingdom on earth, and they wished to advance their own interests in that kingdom. Now the Lord Jesus was here as the perfect Servant of the will of God, and this involved for Him the cup of suffering and the baptism of death. Places of honour in the coming kingdom will be apportioned to those who have served this wonderful Servant, according to the measure in which they had accepted suffering and death on His behalf. Yet, even so, He does not apportion these places of distinction. All that is at the discretion of the Father, for He remains true to the place of Servant which He has taken. Except we remain true to the place in which we are set, the place of identification with our rejected Lord, we cannot expect any place of special recognition in the glory of the kingdom. <\/p>\n

This unblushing place-hunting on the part of James and John might incline us to blame them above the rest, were it not for verse Mar 10:41, which shows that the same selfish desires were entertained by all, and that they objected, not because of the request the two had made, but because they had been forestalled in the way the two made it. Their annoyance however only gave further occasion for the display of the perfect grace of their Lord. <\/p>\n

How easy it was, and is, for the disciples of Jesus to accept and adopt the standards and customs of the world that surrounds them, to take for granted that, because everybody seems to be doing it, it is the right thing to do. Again and again our Lord would say to us, But so shall it not be among you. The nations have their great men, who exercise their authority in a lordly way. Amongst disciples of the Lord greatness is manifested in an entirely different way. There true greatness is displayed in taking the lowly place of service to others-serving the Lord in serving them. <\/p>\n

The Son of Man Himself is the shining example of service of this kind. Who so great as He in His original estate? Then thousand thousands ministered unto Him (Dan 7:10). Who took so lowly a place, ministering to others? Who carried service to such a length as to give His life a ransom for many? For this reason alone, apart from other considerations, the place of pre-eminence must be His. They, who follow Him most closely in lowly service in this day, will be chiefest in that day. <\/p>\n

In verse Mar 10:45, the Lord not only brings His death before His disciples for the fifth time, but He explains its significance. Previously He had emphasized the fact of His death, so that the minds of the disciples might no longer be obsessed by expectations of a coming visible kingdom. Now the meaning of the fact appears. He would die to pay the ransom price for many. Here then we have a plain statement as to the substitutionary and atoning character of His death from His own lips. It is many here, for the actual, realized effect of His ransoming death is the point. In 1Ti 2:6, where the bearing and scope of it is in question, the word is all. <\/p>\n

These dealings with His disciples took place in the way going up to Jerusalem (verse Mar 10:32). In verse Mar 10:46 they arrive in Jericho, and the closing scenes of His life begin. Bartimaeus, the blind beggar, furnished Him with a striking opportunity of setting forth the mercy of God. Mercy was what the blind man craved, though the people, who did not understand mercy of a divine sort, would have silenced him. Mercy however he got, and it went beyond his thoughts, for it not only gave him sight but enlisted him as a follower of the One who extended the mercy. The faith of Bartimaeus was shown in that he addressed Jesus as the Son of David though others spoke of Him only as Jesus of Nazareth. His may only have been little faith, for he did not rise to the height of calling Him Son of God; yet little faith receives an abundant answer as surely as great faith does. Let us be thankful for that. <\/p>\n

Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Chapter 24.<\/p>\n

Divorce<\/p>\n

“And He arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Juda by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto Him again; and, as He was wont, He taught them again. And the Pharisees came to Him, and asked Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting Him. And He answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house His disciples asked Him again of the same matter. And He saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”-Mar 10:1-12.<\/p>\n

Bridging a Gap.<\/p>\n

Some interval of time elapsed between the conversation recorded in the last chapter and the conversation we are now to consider. During that interval many things had happened. If we want to “fill in” this gap which Mark leaves in his story, we must turn to Luke and John. From a comparison of these other Gospels we find that in the meantime Jesus had sent out the seventy disciples; He had gone up to Jerusalem to the feast of Pentecost; He had retired from Jerusalem to Perea; He had again gone up to Jerusalem to the feast of Dedication; and once again, to avoid the murderous plots of the Jews, had gone away beyond Jordan, to the place where John was at the first baptising. It is probably just at this point that the question as to divorce is to be placed.<\/p>\n

The Causes of the Question.<\/p>\n

From John’s account it is clear that the preaching of Jesus beyond Jordan was attended by more than ordinary success. It was probably, as Mr. David Smith suggests, the results of our Lord’s preaching that stirred His enemies once again to activity. Perhaps they had flattered themselves that, when they had driven Him out of Jerusalem, they were finally rid of Him. But when they heard that the crowds were resorting to Him beyond Jordan, and that people in numbers were believing on Him, they were greatly perturbed, and it was not long before certain emissaries of the Pharisees appeared on the scene, with the deliberate object of thwarting Him in His work. The method they adopted was that of bringing to Christ a captious question, a question which would put Him on the horns of a dilemma, and, however He might answer it, might impair and imperil His authority. The question chosen dealt with divorce. “Is it lawful for a man,” they asked, “to put away his wife?” i.e. at his pleasure, or, as it is expressed in so many words in Matthew’s account, “for any cause?” And this they said “tempting”<\/p>\n

Him; not because they really wanted guidance or instruction, but because they wanted to ensnare and trap Him in His speech.<\/p>\n

The Conditions as to Divorce.<\/p>\n

Now, to understand the special difficulties connected with a question like this, we must know something about the position of marriage and divorce in our Lord’s time. The Mosaic Law had allowed divorce in case a husband found any “unseemly thing” in his wife. The phrase “unseemly thing” was ambiguous, and the Rabbis quarrelled violently amongst themselves as to its true interpretation. One school took the stricter and nobler view, that what the Law meant was that a wife could only be put away for unfaithfulness. Another held the meaning of the phrase to be that, if for any reason the wife had become distasteful to the husband, he could put her away, “for any cause.” And so, as Mr. David Smith says in his Life of Christ, Rabbis had arisen who taught the people that if a husband for any reason conceived a dislike to his wife, or if he saw any other woman who seemed fairer in his eyes, or even if her cooking did not quite please him, for these and other reasons, equally trumpery, he was at liberty to send his wife away. Now, a lax doctrine of morals is always agreeable to the natural man, and the second was the interpretation currently received. Jewish society was accordingly disgraced by an appalling laxity in this matter of divorce. Family life was imperilled by it, and an intolerable wrong was done to womankind. It made woman the slave of man, putting the wife at the husband’s mercy. For while she could not for any cause divorce him, he might for no cause at all divorce her, and cast her upon the world.<\/p>\n

The Question Put.<\/p>\n

This, then, was the question the Pharisees brought to Jesus. “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?” i.e. for any cause, as popular custom allowed. They made quite sure that whether Jesus said “Yes” or “No,” He would lay Himself open to attack. For if He said “Yes,” they could at once represent Him to the people as sanctioning a low morality, and holding baser views about marriage than some of their own teachers; and that would have been the end of our Lord’s moral authority. On the other hand, if He said “No,” they could represent Him as repudiating the authority of their own sacred Law, by which divorce was expressly allowed, and as thus in violent opposition to the popular sentiment. For the Jews cherished this facility of divorce as a signal privilege, accounting it a singular grace vouchsafed to Israel, and withheld from the Gentiles. Perhaps, too, they also hoped that, if He said “No,” it would stir Herod to enmity. For Herod had put away his own wife, and married Herodias, his brother’s wife, while that brother was still alive. They remembered that Christ’s Forerunner had come to the dungeon and the block because of his plain and faithful speech on this very question. And they doubtless hoped that a plain answer from Christ might arouse Herodias again to fury, and so bring Christ to share in the Baptist’s doom. All these calculations and hopes were in the minds of these Pharisees. They asked their question “tempting Him.”<\/p>\n

The Reply Given.<\/p>\n

Our Lord in His answer first refers these plotting Pharisees to the authority they themselves recognised. “What did Moses command you?” He asks. They reply, “Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.” They take care to say nothing about the causes and reasons for which divorce was permitted. “For your hardness of heart,” returns our Lord, “he wrote you this commandment.” That is to say, Moses could go no further than he did in the way of regulating and restraining divorce, because the moral condition of the people would not allow it. All that Moses did was by way of putting a check upon divorce. He made summary dismissal impossible; he secured delay, by making a formal bill of divorcement necessary, and so gained time for reflection. It was a vast improvement over the laxity common before his day. But it was not a perfect law. It did not accomplish all Moses himself desired; but it was the best possible under the circumstances. Solon, the great Athenian law-giver, once said that his laws were not the best that could have been devised, but they were the best the Athenians could receive. And so Moses was compelled to adapt his marriage legislation to the moral condition of the Israelites.<\/p>\n

The True Ideal of Marriage.<\/p>\n

And then Christ proceeds to set forth the true ideal of marriage-the Divine intention of the marriage relation. No consideration of popularity or of personal safety weighs with Him. Boldly, frankly, plainly, He declares what the relations between man and woman were meant to be. “From the beginning of the creation,” He said (quoting the very words of Scripture), “male and female made He them.” That is to say, God made man and woman complementary to each other, so that only in union with its opposite does either find its true perfection. There may be special reasons calling certain men and certain women to celibacy. But celibacy is not, as the Roman Church seems to hold, a higher state than marriage. Our Lord’s plain teaching here is that God’s plan and ideal was that man should find his perfection in a holy union with woman, and woman similarly in a holy union with man. “From the beginning of the creation, male and female made He them.” “For this cause,” Jesus says, “shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the twain shall become one flesh: so that they are no more twain, but one flesh” (Mar 10:6-8). The union of man and woman in marriage is so profound and vital, that husband and wife cease, as it were, to be two separate and distinct individualities, and become so merged together that they constitute one unit of being. Each becomes part of the very existence of the other, “so that they are no longer twain, but one flesh,” “the two-celled heart beating with one full stroke.” This union, down to the very foundations of being, and instituted by God, is not to be at the mercy of man’s whims and caprices. Ideally and essentially, marriage is a permanent and indissoluble relation. “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mar 10:9).<\/p>\n

-Reaffirmed.<\/p>\n

To those who heard it, this was a staggering reply. What, no relief from the marriage bond, even in case of insupportable incompatibilities? The disciples themselves were bewildered, and, when they got into the house, pressed Jesus further upon the point. They said (as Matthew tells us) that if the bond of marriage was an indissoluble bond, then it were better not to marry at all. But their questions and protests only evoke from our Lord another affirmation of the essential permanence and indissolubleness of the marriage relation. “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her; and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery” (Mar 10:11-12). The wanton breach of this holy bond, the putting away of wife or husband for this and that reason, was, our Lord said, a violation of the seventh commandment. No “incompatibilities” suffice to dissolve this union. There ought to be no “incompatibilities.” For marriage is not to be engaged in rashly, thoughtlessly or lightly, but advisedly, reverently, and in the fear of God. There is only one thing, according to our Lord’s teaching, that can break the marriage bond, and that is the awful sin that poisons married life at its source. Short of that, marriage is indissoluble. “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”<\/p>\n

Christ as Defender of the Weak.<\/p>\n

Here, apart from the main issue, let us remark how our Lord appears here as the defender of the weak. In the ancient world, no one suffered crueller wrong and indignity than woman. And here our Lord appears as the defender of woman and the lifter up of her head. Woman, according to our Lord’s teaching, is not man’s slave or toy, to be dismissed and cast off at the merest whim and caprice; she is man’s complement and counterpart; and matrimony is a holy estate, in which woman has equal rights with man. The emancipation of womankind began with a declaration like that which is contained in these verses. The honour, respect, and chivalrous deference paid to woman to-day she owes chiefly if not entirely to the influence of Jesus.<\/p>\n

-And of the Family.<\/p>\n

Our Lord appears here also as the defender of the family. In the long run the life of the nation, yes, and the prosperity of the kingdom, depend upon the life of the family. And the life of the family, again, depends upon the sacredness and sanctity of marriage. It needs no pointing out from me that laxity of marriage law inflicts irreparable injury upon family life. I think sometimes of what happens to the children when fathers and mothers divorce one another, as they do in some civilised countries to-day, for all sorts of flimsy and ridiculous reasons. What becomes of the children? And with what kind of a conception of morality are they likely to grow up? In speaking as He did, our Lord was safeguarding the interests of the children, defending the family, preserving the home, and so securing the very foundations on which the fabric of society rests.<\/p>\n

A Present-day Need.<\/p>\n

No subject needs to be more plainly and emphatically spoken about in our day than that of marriage. There is a growing tendency towards laxity in views about it. Divorces become ever more and more numerous. Legislatures are inclined to multiply the reasons for which relief from the marriage-bond can be obtained. Writers are busy making attacks upon the whole system of marriage. Novelists-and women novelists amongst the most prominent-advocate temporary alliances, or sing the praises of a promiscuous love which is nothing but gross and naked animalism. A certain school of social reformers repudiate marriage altogether. These are serious and menacing signs. You threaten the very life of the state when you relax the ties of marriage and weaken the family bond. There is nothing we want more than a new grasp of our Lord’s teaching-that there is but one moral law, and that law the same for man and woman. The sacredness of marriage ought to be a subject upon which we have no doubts. On this point it is well not to have an open, but a closed and settled, mind. Let no specious and plausible talk about “unhappy marriages” unsettle that conviction. The remedy for “unhappy marriage” is not greater facility of divorce, but increased thought and seriousness in the contraction of marriage. Laxity in this will mean rottenness sweeping in like a flood. It is ours to maintain and assert the more austere and exacting view of Christ. Marriage is an ordinance of God. It is meant for the perfecting of character. It is essentially and ideally permanent and indissoluble. “What… God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Gospel According to St. Mark: A Devotional Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

1<\/p>\n

Arose from, thence refers to Capernaum where Jesus had been teaching, and started on the journey toward Jerusalem. By the farther side is the same as saying by way of that region; the route traveled was along the eastern side of the Jordan. As usual, the crowds gathered about Jesus and he taught them.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again. <\/p>\n

[Cometh into the coasts of Judea by the further side of Jordan.] Here is need of a discerning eye to distinguish of the true time and method of this story, and of Christ’s journey. If you make use of such an eye, you will find half a year, or thereabouts, to come between the uttering of the words immediately before-going, and this travel of our Saviour; however it seems to be intimated by our evangelist, and likewise by Matthew, that when he had finished those words, forthwith he entered upon his journey: when, in truth, he went before to Jerusalem, through the midst of Samaria, to the feast of Tabernacles, Luk 9:51; etc. John_7. And again, from Galilee, after he had returned thither, through the cities and towns to Jerusalem, Luk 13:22; to the feast of Dedication, Joh 10:22; and again, “beyond Jordan” indeed, Joh 10:40; but first taking his way into Galilee, and thence beyond Jordan, according to that story which is before us. The studious reader, and that in good earnest employeth his labour upon this business, has not need of further proof; his own eyes will witness this sufficiently. Thus, the wisdom and Spirit of God directed the pens of these holy writers, that some omitted some things to be supplied by others; and others supplied those things which they had omitted: and so a full and complete history was not composed but of all joined and compared together.<\/p>\n

I wish the reverend Beza had sufficiently considered this, who rendereth not beyond; but by Jordan, and corrects the Vulgar interpreter and Erasmus, who render it ‘beyond Jordan,’ properly and most truly: “As if, by Perea (saith he), or the country beyond Jordan, Christ, passing over Jordan or the lake of Tiberias, came into Judea out of Galilee; which is not true.” But take heed you do not mistake, reverend old man. For he went over Jordan from Capernaum, as it is very probable, by the bridge built over Jordan between Chammath, near to Tiberias, at the Gadarene country: he betook himself to Bethabara, and stayed some time there, Joh 10:40; thence he went along Perea to the bank over against Jericho. While he tarrieth there, a messenger, sent from Mary, comes to him concerning the death of Lazarus, John 11; and thence, after two days, he passeth Jordan in Judea.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

THE opening verse of this passage shows us the patient perseverance of our Lord Jesus Christ as a teacher. We are told that He came “into the coasts of Juda by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto Him again; and, as He was wont, He taught them again.”<\/p>\n

Wherever our Lord went, He was always about His Father’s business, preaching, teaching, and laboring to do good to souls. He threw away no opportunity. In the whole history of His earthly ministry, we never read of an idle day. Of Him it may be truly said, that He “sowed beside all waters,” and that “in the morning He sowed his seed, and in the evening withheld not His hand.” (Isa 32:20. Ecc 11:6.)<\/p>\n

And yet our Lord knew the hearts of all men. He knew perfectly well that the great proportion of His hearers were hardened and unbelieving. He knew, as He spoke, that most of His words fell to the ground uncared for and unheeded, and that so far as concerned the salvation of souls, most of His labor was in vain. He knew all this, and yet He labored on.<\/p>\n

Let us see in this fact a standing pattern to all who try to do good to others, whatever their office may be. Let it be remembered by every minister and every missionary-by every schoolmaster and every Sunday-school teacher-by every district visitor and every lay agent-by every head of a house who has family prayers-and by every nurse who has the charge of children. Let all such remember Christ’s example, and resolve to do likewise. We are not to give up teaching, because we see no good done. We are not to relax our exertions, because we see no fruit of our toil. We are to work on steadily, keeping before us the great principle, that duty is ours, and results are God’s. There must be ploughmen and sowers as well as reapers and binders of sheaves. The honest master pays his laborers according to the work they do, and not according to the crops that grow on his land. Our Master in heaven will deal with all His servants at the last day in like manner. He knows that success is not in their hands. He knows that they cannot change hearts. He will reward them according to their labor, and not according to the fruits which have resulted from their labor. It is not “the good and successful servant,” but “the good and faithful servant,” to whom He will say, “Enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.” (Mat 25:21.) [Footnote: Some remarks of Bishop Latimer on this point are well worth reading. They occur in a passage in one of his sermons on the parable of the wedding garment. He says, “the man who had not the wedding garment was blamed because he professed one thing, and was indeed another. Why did not the king blame the preachers? There was no fault in them, they did their duties: they had no further commandment but to call men to the marriage. The garment he should have provided himself. Therefore he quarrelleth not with the preachers, ‘What doth this fellow here? why suffered ye him to enter?’ For their commission extended no further but only to call him. Many are grieved that there is so little fruit of their preaching. And when they are asked, ‘Why do you not preach, having so great gifts given you of God?’ ‘I would preach,’ say they, ‘but I see so little fruit, so little amendment of life, that it maketh me weary:’ a naughty answer: a very naughty answer. Thou art troubled with that which God gave thee no charge of: and leavest undone that which thou art charged with.”-Latimer’s Works. Parker Society. Vol. I. p. 286.]<\/p>\n

The greater portion of this passage is meant to show us the dignity and importance of the relation of marriage. It is plain that the prevailing opinions of the Jews upon this subject, when our Lord was upon earth, were lax and low in the extreme. The binding character of the marriage tie was not recognized. Divorce for slight and trivial causes was allowable and common. [Footnote: The extent to which the Jews allowed divorce for absurd and frivolous causes, would be almost incredible, if we had not the evidence of their own Rabbinical writings on the subject. A full account of the matter will be found in Lightfoot’s Hor Hebraic on Mat 5:31. One passage quoted by him will be sufficient to give the reader an idea of Jewish customs about divorce: “The school of Hilleth saith, If the wife cooks her husband’s food ill by over-salting it, or over-roasting it, she is to be put away.”] The duties of husbands towards wives, and of wives towards husbands, as a natural consequence, were little understood. To correct this state of things, our Lord sets up a high and holy standard of principles. He refers to the original institution of marriage at the creation, as the union of one man and one woman. He quotes and endorses the solemn words used at the marriage of Adam and Eve, as words of perpetual significance, “a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh.” He adds a solemn comment to these words-“What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” And finally, in reply to the inquiry of His disciples, he declares that divorce followed by re-marriage, except for the cause of unfaithfulness, is a breach of the seventh commandment. [Footnote: I am aware that the opinions I have expressed at the close of this paragraph are contrary to that of some learned divines. I can only say that I have arrived at them deliberately, after calm investigation of the parallel passage in Mat 19:9, and of the words of our Lord in Mat 5:32. I decidedly believe that the re-marriage forbidden by Christ, is re-marriage after a divorce for trivial and frivolous causes, and that His words do not apply to re-marriage after divorce on account of unfaithfulness. Re-marriage after divorce for frivolous causes is clearly adultery, for one simple reason-the divorce never ought to have taken place, and the divorced party is still a married person in the sight of God.-Re-marriage after divorce for unfaithfulness, by the same process of reasoning, is not adultery. Unfaithfulness dissolves the marriage tie altogether, and places the husband and wife once more in the position of unmarried people, or of a widower or widow.]<\/p>\n

The importance of the whole subject, on which our Lord here pronounces judgment, can hardly be over-rated. We ought to be very thankful that we have so clear and full an exposition of His mind upon it. The marriage relation lies at the very root of the social system of nations. The public morality of a people, and the private happiness of the families which compose a people, are deeply involved in the whole question of the law of marriage. The experience of all nations confirms the wisdom of our Lord’s decision in this passage in the most striking manner. It is a fact clearly ascertained, that polygamy, and permission to obtain divorce on slight grounds, have a direct tendency to promote immorality. In short, the nearer a nation’s laws about marriage approach to the law of Christ, the higher has the moral tone of that nation always proved to be.<\/p>\n

It becomes all those who are married, or purpose marriage, to ponder well the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ in this passage. Of all relations of life, none ought to be regarded with such reverence, and none taken in hand so cautiously as the relation of husband and wife. In no relation is so much earthly happiness to be found, if it be entered upon discreetly, advisedly, and in the fear of God. In none is so much misery seen to follow, if it be taken in hand unadvisedly, lightly, wantonly, and without thought. From no step in life does so much benefit come to the soul, if people marry “in the Lord.” From none does the soul take so much harm, if fancy, passion, or any mere worldly motive is the only cause which produce the union. Solomon was the wisest of men. “Nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin.” (Neh 13:26.)<\/p>\n

There is, unhappily, only too much necessity for impressing these truths upon people. It is a mournful fact, that few steps in life are generally taken with so much levity, self-will, and forgetfulness of God as marriage. Few are the young couples who think of inviting Christ to their wedding! It is a mournful fact that unhappy marriages are one great cause of the misery and sorrow of which there is so much in the world. People find out too late that they have made a mistake, and go in bitterness all their days. Happy are they, who in the matter of marriage observe three rules. The first is to marry only in the Lord, and after prayer for God’s approval and blessing. The second is not to expect too much from their partners, and to remember that marriage is, after all, the union of two sinners, and not of two angels. The third rule is to strive first and foremost for one another’s sanctification. The more holy married people are, the happier they are. “Christ loved the church, and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify it.” (Eph 5:25-26.) [Footnote: There is an expression in this passage which claims special observation. The Pharisees told our Lord, that “Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement and to put her away.” The answer of our Lord is very remarkable. He says, “For the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this precept.” And He then goes on to show that this permission to divorce was a proof that their forefathers had fallen below the original standard of marriage, and were dealt with as being in a weak and diseased state of soul. For He says, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”<\/p>\n

The expression throws much light on some portions of the civil law of Moses. It shows us that it was an institution which in some of its requirements was specially adapted to the state of mind in which the Israelites were, on first leaving the land of Egypt. It was not intended in all its minute particulars to be a code of perpetual obligation. It was meant to lead on to something better and higher, when the people were able to bear it. The possession of it was undoubtedly a great privilege, and one of which the Jews might justly glory. Yet in glorying they were to remember also, that their law contained some grounds for humiliation. Its very permission to obtain divorce on light grounds, was a standing witness of the hardness and cruelty of the people. It was thought better to tolerate such divorces, than to have the nation filled with murder, adultery, cruelty, and desertion. In short, the very law of which the Jew boasted, was shown by our Lord to contain permissive statutes, which were in reality written to his shame.<\/p>\n

The expression throws light on the position of God’s people in this world of sin. It shows us that there may be things tolerated and permitted by God, both in churches and states, not because they are the best things, but because they are the things best suited to the church or state in which they are found. It is vain to expect perfection in any government or in any church. If we have the essentials of justice in the one, and of truth in the other, we may be content. God tolerated many things in the government of Israel, until the time of reformation. Surely we may tolerate many things too. To spend our lives in searching after an imaginary state of perfection, either civil or ecclesiastical, is, at best, a waste of time. If God was pleased to suffer some things in Israel “for the hardness of their hearts,” we may well endure some things in churches and states which we do not quite like. There is a balance of evil in every position in the world. There are imperfections everywhere. The state of perfection is yet to come.]<\/p>\n

Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Mar 10:1. From thence. From Capernaum, the final departure from Galilee.<\/p>\n

And beyond the Jordan (Perea). The common reading is through the farther side of (beyond) the Jordan. Johns narrative shows that he visited Jerusalem at least twice in the interval, and hence this account is literally correct. He had already been in Perea, or at least on the borders (Joh 10:40), after the feast of dedication and before the raising of Lazarus.<\/p>\n

Come together unto him again. As they had done on the previous visit (John 16:41, 42), or as occurred in Galilee (Mar 10:2-9). The accounts of Mark and Matthew agree closely, but the former puts the law of Moses first, and then that of Paradise.<\/p>\n

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Subdivision 5. (Mar 10:1-45.)<\/p>\n

Results: Nature in its relation to God.<\/p>\n

We have now, as again in Matthew, nature in its relation to God, a matter of great moment in the path of service: the institution of marriage, the relationship to Him of children, the state of man in his best naturally, sin having thrown its dark shadow over all; finally, we see nature thus deformed working in the servant of God himself and tending to destroy the whole character of service; but then the victory of God over it, and the perfect Servant setting the pattern for His people and moulding them after His own likeness.<\/p>\n

As we have gone through this in Matthew, we shall add but little to it here; seeking mainly to note any points of difference, with a conviction at the same time of how slight and superficial our knowledge of these differences is, and how the word of God must suffer from our scanty knowledge of it.<\/p>\n

1. In the question as to marriage we are taught by Christ to respect absolutely the Creator’s ordinance at the beginning. According to that, man and wife are one flesh, and this is founded on the creative work itself which made them male and female, one man and one woman. God has joined them together: man must not put them asunder. Mark does not even notice the exceptional allowance of divorce, when the marriage tie has in fact been broken through.<\/p>\n

2. As to the children, Mark notices the Lord’s displeasure at the disciples’ conduct, and gives here substantially what in Matthew is found elsewhere, that only those who received the Kingdom of God as a little child could enter therein (Mat 18:3). Mark also shows a fuller answer on the Lord’s part to a slighter request. He is asked to “touch” them; He takes them up in His arms, puts His hands on them, and blesses them.<\/p>\n

3. In the ruler’s case which follows, we find the heart manifested of one who is, as Paul says of himself when unconverted, “touching the righteousness which is of the law, blameless.” There is really that on account of which it is said, (and in direct connection with his “Teacher, all these things have I kept from my youth,”) that “Jesus looking upon him, loved him.” There was that in him which was lovable. What he says of himself, he says with an honest conscience and conviction of its truth. Nor is he, as his question shows, merely engrossed with the present and without thought of God. He desires and seeks eternal life; and, attracted by what he hears or sees in Jesus, he comes to Him to learn the way to find this.<\/p>\n

Mark emphasizes his running and kneeling to the Lord, his “Good Teacher,” which from that mere human standpoint the Lord cannot accept. Goodness is in God alone: would that he had sought it only there! Nature is fully judged in the sweep of that assertion; and presently in his aching heart, as he turns, alas, from the One in whom his hope had been, he has to realize at least the bond that (one would fain hope, only for the present) holds him from the blessing that he seeks. But this bond a more than human power must sever. Nature in its fairest form is fallen away from God. Man’s need is of a Saviour.<\/p>\n

4. This is what the Lord now affirms. To the amazement of His disciples, He declares that it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God. Those who, to make this less absolute than it seems, would apply it to an eastern city gate, should remember that the Lord affirms directly that that of which He is speaking is “to man impossible.” On the other hand, Mark records for us the explanation that a rich man stands here for one that trusts in riches, which at the same time prevents the obvious mistake of a gross literalism, and extends the principle to the poorest in actual possessions. Really he only is in the sense intended “rich,” who trusts in riches: and he may do that who never acquires them. In the divinely wrought hunger of soul, the things to which the worldling turns for help become as little valuable as gold to meet desert-thirst.<\/p>\n

The disciples in their astonishment say one to another, “Who then can be saved?” But salvation is of God wholly. When men have learned their need of this, there is then no difficulty.<\/p>\n

5. Nature in itself is then hopeless; and in the child of God still there abides that which because of its tendencies Scripture calls the flesh. “In me, that is in my flesh,” says the man in the experience of the seventh of Romans, “dwelleth no good thing,” Of the flesh self is the centre; and into the sphere of spiritual things the flesh will intrude, how easily. Self may claim that in which (in the sense in which we are speaking) it can have no part, and take pleasure in the thought of a foremost place there. Peter’s “We have left all and followed Thee,” is just such a claim, which the Lord meets in grace with a full assurance that nothing can be left for His sake without abundant recompense, both here and hereafter. But He guards this doubly from abuse such as the carnal mind might make of it: first, by the reminder that it must be done for His sake to be rewarded: not for self, to gain the reward. Secondly, and springing out of this, “many first shall be last, and the last first,” which effectually forbids self-placing anywhere.<\/p>\n

6. But we go on beyond this, to see the victory of God over all this spirit of strife and emulation. Again He begins to warn them of His coming death and comfort them with the thought of His speedy resurrection. There is no response: fear has already fallen upon them. But presently it is seen of how contrary a spirit they are by the request of the sons of Zebedee for the two places nearest Himself in the coming Kingdom. The Lord points out to them the way by which He reaches this. Can they drink of His cup and be baptized with His baptism? And immediately they assure Him that they can. He tells them that in these they shall in fact partake; but the places that they seek are only His to give to those for whom it is prepared of His Father.<\/p>\n

This awakes the indignation of the other disciples, and shows a similar spirit to be in them all. And now He shows them their great and fundamental mistake. Heaven is to be no place for the ambition of men. The Son of man came not to be ministered to but to minister: love’s mission among them sought only what love alone could count a recompense. And if, “beyond all controversy, the less is blessed of the better,” our dependence on Him insures that this ministry of His to us will go on for ever. If love made Him take it up, love will make Him keep it too, as surely as He is Son of man for ever, although the toil and sorrow of His work be past.<\/p>\n

If then with Him service is but the sign of a love unending, and so can never cease, can it be different with those whom He is bringing into the glory of likeness to Himself? Can they take up service to win lordship by it, and state and authority? That were surely impossible: nay, the greatest in heaven’s Kingdom is he that humbleth himself as a little child (Mat 18:4). In heaven’s rule, Love rules; and therefore rule is service still, most valued because it is so.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

NEARING THE END<\/p>\n

In these chapters we have:<\/p>\n

Teaching about Divorce (Mar 10:1-12) Blessing little Children (Mar 10:13-16) The Story of the Rich Young Man and its Lessons (Mar 10:17-31) Christs Second Prediction of His Death (Mar 10:32-34) The Ambitious Request of James and John (Mar 10:35-45) The Healing of Bartimeus (Mar 10:46-52) The Formal Entry into Jerusalem (Mar 11:1-11) The Cursing of the Fig Tree (Mar 11:12-14) The Cleansing of the Temple (Mar 11:15-21) Teaching about Prayer (Mar 11:22-26) Discussion with the Rulers (Mar 11:27-33). <\/p>\n

It will be worthwhile to compare the teaching about divorce with Mat 19:1-9, for the points of difference between them. Both the evangelists record the same incident, but reading of the two together throws light upon it. This does not mean that one contradicts the other, but that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit one describes the event as he saw it, and the other does the same. Again, one lays emphasis on this feature of the dialogue between Christ and the Pharisees, and the other on that. <\/p>\n

But note Marks particularities about the next event as compared with Matthew. Jesus was much displeased, he says, moved with indignation (margin). Mar 11:15 is original with Mark, and so is the record that Jesus took the little children up in His arms and blessed them.<\/p>\n

In the same way observe the details in the story of the rich young man. His running and kneeling. Jesus beholding him, loved him. Jesus looked round about. The astonishment of the disciples and Jesus explanation (Mar 11:24). <\/p>\n

The second prediction of Christs death has similar features. Mark says they were amazed, doubtless at His calmness in walking into the face of death, when even they were afraid. He took again the twelve. And shall spit upon Him. Mark alone mentions this in Christs prophecy. <\/p>\n

There is no contradiction between Mar 10:35 and Mat 20:20, for if their mother spake for them it were really James and John who were speaking. All the disciples recognized this, for it was the sons they rebuked and not the mother. <\/p>\n

The healing of Bartimeus as we noted in Matthew, stands at the beginning of the end of Christs earthly life, and is the prelude to the great events following in Jerusalem. It holds the same place in the three Gospels. The apparent contradiction as to whether one or two men were healed, is treated in our notes on Matthew. But note the details in Mark (Mark 11:49-50, 52). <\/p>\n

The entry into Jerusalem is equally graphic. A colt tied, whereon never man sat. Note the details also in 11:5-6 and 11. <\/p>\n

We cannot pursue these comparisons, but trust interest has been awakened to lead the reader to do so for himself. <\/p>\n

QUESTIONS <\/p>\n

1. Give the details of these two chapters. <\/p>\n

2. What is the most important difficulty you note in Christs teaching on divorce as between Mark and Matthew? <\/p>\n

3. Have you reviewed our notes on Matthew with reference to Bartimeus? <\/p>\n

4. What are the details peculiar to Mark in 11:5-6 and 11? <\/p>\n

5. Have you pursued the comparisons throughout this chapter? <\/p>\n

Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The first verse of this chapter acquaints us with the great labour and pains our Saviour took in the exercise of his ministry, traveling from place to place, in an hot country, and on foot, to preach the gospel, when he was here upon earth; Teaching all persons, but especially ministers, by his example, to be willing to undergo pains and labour, even unto much weariness, in the service of God, and in the duties of their calling. For this is God’s ordinance, that everyone should feel the burden of his calling, and painfulness of it. <\/p>\n

But, Lord, how nice and delicate are some labourers in thy vineyard, who are willing to do nothing but what they can do with ease; they cannot endure to think of labouring unto weariness, but are sparing of their pains, for fear of shortening their days and hastening their ends! Whereas the lamp of our lives can never be better spent, or burnt out, than by the lighting others to heaven.<\/p>\n

The following verses acquaints us with and ensnaring question which the Pharisees put to our Saviour concerning the matter of divorce; concluding, that they should entrap him in his answer, whatever it was; if he denied the lawfulness of divorce, then they would charge him with contradicting Moses who allowed it. If he affirmed it, then they would condemn him for contradicting his own doctrine Mat 5:32 for favouring men’s lusts, and complying with the Jews, who, upon every slight and frivolous occasion, put away their wives from them. But such was the wisdom of our Saviour in all his answers to the ensnaring Pharisees: that neither their wit nor malice could lay hold on anything to entangle him in his talk.<\/p>\n

Observe therefore, the piety and prudence of our Saviour’s answer to the Pharisees; he refers them to the first institution of marriage, when God made husband and wife one flesh to the intent that matrimonial love might be both incommunicable and indissoluble; and accordingly asks them, What did Moses command you?<\/p>\n

Thereby teaching us, That the best means for deciding all doubts, and resolving all controversies, about matters of religion, is to have recourse unto the scripture, or the written word of God: What did Moses command you?<\/p>\n

Observe farther, How our Saviour, to confute the Pharisees and convince them of the unlawfulness of divorce, used by the Jews, lays down the first institution of marriage, and shews them, first the author, next the time, then the end of the institution. The author, God, What God has joined together &c.<\/p>\n

Marriage is an ordinance of God’s own appointment, as the ground and foundation of all sacred and civil society. The time of the institution was, in the beginning.<\/p>\n

Marriage is almost as old as the world, as old as nature itself; there was no sooner one person, but God divided him into two; and no sooner were there two, but he united them in one. And the end of the institution of marriage, Christ declares was this, That there might be not only an intimacy and nearness, but also an inseparable union and oneness, by means of this endearing relation: the conjugal knot is tied so close, that the bonds of matrimonial love are stronger than those of nature. Stricter is the tie betwixt husband and wife, than that betwixt parent and child, according to God’s own appointment. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh. And whereas our Saviour adds, what God hath joined together let no man put asunder.<\/p>\n

Two things are hereby intimated to us,<\/p>\n

1. That God is the author of the close and intimate union which is betwixt man and wife in the married condition.<\/p>\n

2. That it is not in the power of man to untie or dissolve the union which God has mad betwixt man and his wife in the married state; yea, it is a great sin to advise unto, or endeavour after, the separation of them.<\/p>\n

Observe, lastly, Our Saviour’s private conference with the disciples, after his public disputation with the Pharisees, about this matter of divorce. He tells his disciples, and in them he tells all Christians to the end of the world, that it is utterly unlawful for man and wife to be separated by divorcement one from another, for any cause whatsoever, except only for the sin of adultery committed by either of them after the marriage.<\/p>\n

Learn hence, That according to the word and will of God, nothing can violate the bonds of marriage, and justify a divorce betwixt man and wife, save only the defiling of the marriage-bed, by adultery and uncleanness. This is the only case in which man and wife may lawfully part; and being for this cause parted, whether they may afterwards marry again to other persons has been much disputed; but that the innocent and injured person, whether man or woman (for there is an equal right on both sides) may not marry again seems very unreasonable; for why should one suffer for another’s fault?<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Mar 10:1-12. He cometh into the coasts of Judea, &c. This paragraph is explained at large in the notes on Mat 19:1-11. From the beginning of the creation Therefore Moses, in the first chapter of Genesis, gives us an account of things from the beginning of the creation of this lower world. Does it not clearly follow from hence, that there was no creation here below, previous to that which Moses describes? Whosoever shall put away his wife, &c. Though this discourse of Christ be originally about divorce, yet all polygamy is also condemned by it, as the reader may see in the note on Mat 19:4-6. And if a woman shall put away her husband, &c. This practice of divorcing the husband, unwarranted by the law, had been (as Josephus informs us) introduced by Salome, sister of Herod the Great, who sent a bill of divorce to her husband Costobarus; which bad example was afterward followed by Herodias and others. By law, it was the husbands prerogative to dissolve the marriage. The wife could do nothing by herself. When he thought fit to dissolve it, her consent was not necessary. The bill of divorce which she received was to serve as evidence for her, that she had not deserted her husband, but was dismissed by him, and consequently free. Campbell. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

XCVIII. <\/p>\n

JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM. CONCERNING DIVORCE. <\/p>\n

aMATT. XIX. 1-12; bMARK X. 1-12. <\/p>\n

a1 And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these words [the words contained in Mat 18:15-35., which are the last teachings in Galilee recorded by any of the Evangelists, Mat 28:16, Mat 28:17, Joh 21:1], b1 And he arose from thence, and cometh {acame} binto the borders of Juda and beyond the Jordan [The land beyond the Jordan was called Pera. See Mat 5:32), they hoped to make it appear that he despised the authority of Moses. But if he ratified the law of Moses, then they would show that he was contradicting his former teaching, and hence too inconsistent to be worthy of credit. For the Lord’s teaching concerning divorce see Act 13:2, 1Co 9:4, 1Co 9:5), they are permitted to abstain from marriage; and when seasons of persecution seriously interfere with the regular order and course of life among Christians, they may find it expedient to live as eunuchs ( 1Co 7:25-34). But in no case must celibacy be practiced unless it can be done so without the sin of incontinency ( 1Co 7:1-9). The Bible nowhere countenances any celibate vow, for it teaches that celibacy is to be continued only so long as it is expedient. Much less does it give countenance to the doctrine that a church can pass laws enforcing celibacy on the whole class of clergy, without any regard for their natural constitution, their spiritual powers, or their faithful continuance.–P. Y. P. [542] <\/p>\n

[FFG 537-542]<\/p>\n

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Mark Chapter 10<\/p>\n

It is a striking principle which meets us here-the relationships of nature (as God has Himself created them at the beginning) re-established in their original authority, while the heart is judged, and the cross the sole means of drawing nigh to the God who was their creative source. On earth Christ could offer nothing but the cross to those who followed Him. The glory to which the cross would lead has been shewn to some of them; but as to Himself He took the place of servant. It was the knowledge of God by Him that should form them for this glory and lead them to it; for in fact that was life eternal. All other intermediate ways had, in the hands of men, become hostile to the God who had granted them, and therefore to His manifestation in the Person of Christ. <\/p>\n

We find then (Mar 10:1-12), the original relationship of man and wife as formed by the creative hand of God; in Mar 10:13-16 the interest which Jesus took in young children, their place in the compassionate eye of God, the moral value of that which they represented before men. In Mar 10:17 we come to the law, to the world, and to the heart of man in presence of the two. But at the same time we see that Jesus takes pleasure in that which is amiable in the creature as a creature-a principle of deep interest unfolded in this chapter-while still applying the touchstone morally to his heart. With respect to the law, as the natural heart can see it (that is, the outward action it requires), the young man had kept it; and with a natural sincerity, and uprightness, that Jesus could appreciate as a creature quality, and which we ought always to recognise where it exists. It is important to remember, that He who as man was perfectly separated unto God-and that, because He had the thoughts of God-could recognise the unchangeable obligations of the relationships established by God Himself; and also, whatever there was amiable and attractive in the creature of God as such. Having the thoughts of God-being God manifest in the flesh, how could He but recognise that which was of God in His creature? And while doing this, He must establish the obligations of the relationships in which He has placed him, and exhibit the tenderness He felt for the infant representatives of the spirit which He prized. He must love the natural uprightness that may be developed in the creature. But He must judge the true condition of man fully brought out, and the affections that rested on objects raised up by Satan, and the will that rejected and turned away from the manifestation of God that called him to forsake these vanities and follow Him, thus putting his heart morally to the proof. <\/p>\n

Jesus exhibits the absolute perfection of God in yet another manner. The young man saw the exterior of Christs perfection, and, trusting to the power of man to perform that which is good, and seeing its practical fulfilment in Jesus, applies to Him-and, humanly speaking, with sincerity-to learn, from One in whom he saw so much perfection, though viewing Him merely as a Rabbi, the rule of eternal life. This thought is expressed in his sincere and cordial salutation. He runs, he kneels, to the Teacher who, morally, stood so high in his estimation, saying, Good Master. The human limit of his ideas of this goodness, and his confidence in the powers of man, are manifested by the words, What shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? The Lord, taking up the whole import of his word, replies, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God. What God has created he who knows God will respect, when it presents itself as such in its true place. But God alone is good. Man, if intelligent, will not make himself out good before God, nor dream of human goodness. This young man had at least the hope of becoming good by the law, [11] and he believed that Jesus was so as a man. But the greatest advantages which the flesh could recognise, and which answered to its nature, did but the more effectually shut the door of life and heaven to man. The flesh used the law for self-righteousness, man being not good but a sinner. And, in fact, if we have to seek for righteousness, it is because we have it not (that is to say, because we are sinners and cannot attain this righteousness in ourselves). Moreover worldly advantages, which appeared to render man more capable of doing good, bound his heart to perishing things, and strengthened selfishness, and made him attach little value to the image of God. <\/p>\n

But the instructions of this chapter carry on still farther the subject of mans condition before God. The ideas of the flesh accompany and give their form to the hearts affections, in one who is already quickened by the Spirit of grace acting through the attraction of Christ, until the Holy Ghost Himself communicates to those affections the strength of His presence, by giving them the glory of Christ in heaven for their object; and at the same time causing the light of that glory to shine (for the believers heart) upon the cross, investing it with all the value of the redemption it accomplished, and of the divine grace that was its source, and producing conformity to Christ in every one that bears it with Him. Peter did not understand how any one could be saved, if such advantages as the Jews possessed in their relationship to God (and which were specially present in the case of this young man) only barred up the way to the kingdom of God. The Lord meets him upon this very ground; for man in the presence of God was now the question As far as man was concerned, it was impossible-a second profound truth-with respect to his condition. Not only was there none good excepting God, but no one could be saved, according to what man was. Whatever advantages he might have as means, they would avail him nothing in his state of sin. But the Lord introduces another source of hope-with God all things are possible. The whole of this, indeed all this part of the Gospel, while it sets aside the Jewish system, does so, because, while that was founded on testing the possibility by the possession of divinely given ordinances of acquiring righteousness, and a standing before God as yet unrevealed, this revealed God and brought man and mans heart face to face, as a present thing, with Him; in grace, but still face to face as he was. The disciples, not having yet received the Holy Ghost, are still under the influence of the old system, and only see men as trees walking; and this is fully developed in this chapter. The kingdom indeed they could think of, but still with fleshly thoughts. <\/p>\n

But the flesh, the carnal mind, enters yet farther into the career of the life of grace. Peter reminds the Lord that the disciples had forsaken all to follow Him. The Lord replies, that every one [12] who had done so should have everything that would make him happy in his social affections, as God had formed him, and all this world could give as to the real enjoyment of it and a hundredfold, together with the opposition that He Himself met with in this world; but in the world to come (Peter was not thinking of that) not some private individual advantage, but everlasting life. He went beyond the sphere of promise connected with the Messiah on earth, to enter, and to make others enter, into that which was eternal. As to individual reward, that could not be judged of according to appearances. <\/p>\n

We have seen what the flesh was in an upright young man whom Jesus loved, and in His disciples who knew not how to take the true position of Christ. The contrast of this with the full triumph of the Holy Ghost is remarkable, as we find it in the comparison of this chapter with Php 3:1-21. <\/p>\n

We have in Saul a man outwardly blameless, according to the law, like the young man in the gospel; but he has seen Christ in glory, and, by the teaching of the Holy Ghost, the righteousness according to which Christ entered into the glory in which He revealed Himself to Saul. All that had been gain to him was loss for Christ. Would he have a carnal righteousness, a human righteousness, even if he could have accomplished it, when he had seen a righteousness bright with the glory of Christ? He possessed the righteousness which was of God by faith. What was that righteousness worth for which he had laboured, now that he possessed the all-perfect righteousness which God gave by faith? Not sins alone were put away: human righteousness was made worthless by it. But his eyes had been opened to this by the Holy Ghost, and by seeing Christ. The things that engaged the heart of the young man and retained him in the world which Christ forsook, and which in Him had rejected God-could these things retain one who had seen Christ in the other world? They were but as dung to him. He had forsaken everything in order to possess this Christ. He considered them as utterly worthless. The Holy Ghost, in revealing Christ, had completely delivered him. <\/p>\n

But this manifestation to the heart of Christ glorified goes yet farther. He who thus breaks with the world must follow the One whose glory he would reach; and this is to put himself under the cross. The disciples had forsaken all to follow Him. Grace had attached them to Christ that they might follow Him. The Holy Ghost had not yet linked them with His glory. He goes up to Jerusalem. They are amazed at it; and, in following Him (although He goes before them, and they have His guidance and His presence), they are afraid. Paul seeks to know the power of His resurrection: he desires to have fellowship with His sufferings, and to be conformed unto His death. Instead of amazement and fear, there is full spiritual intelligence and the desire of conformity to that death which the disciples feared; because he found Christ morally in it, and it was the pathway to the glory he had seen. <\/p>\n

Moreover this sight of Christ purifies the desires of the heart with respect even to the glory. John and James desire for themselves the best place in the kingdom-a desire that availed itself (with a carnal and selfish object) of the intelligence of faith-a half-sighted intelligence that sought the kingdom at once, and not the glory and the world to come. Paul had seen Christ: his only desire in the glory was to possess Him-that I may win Christ, and a new state conformed to it; not a good place near Him in the kingdom, but Himself. This is deliverance-the effect of the presence of the Holy Ghost revealing a glorified Christ. <\/p>\n

We may remark, that in every case the Lord brings in the cross. It was the only passage from this world of nature, to the world of glory and of eternal life. [13] To the young man He exhibits the cross; to the disciples that follow Him He exhibits the cross; to John and James, who sought a good place in the kingdom, He exhibits the cup they would have to drink in following Him. Eternal life, although received now, was, in possession and enjoyment according to Gods purpose, on the other side of the cross. <\/p>\n

Observe also, that the Lord was so perfectly, divinely, above the sin in which nature lay, that He could recognise all that was of God in nature, and shew at the same time the impossibility of any relation between God and man on the ground of what man is. Advantages were but hindrances. That which is death to the flesh must be gone through: we must have divine righteousness, and enter in spirit (hereafter in fact) into another world, in order to follow Him and to be with Him-to win Christ. Solemn lesson! <\/p>\n

In result, God alone is good, and-sin having come in-it is impossible, if He be manifested, that man can be in relationship with God; but with Him all is possible. The cross is the only path to God. Christ leads to it, and we must follow Him in this path, which is that of eternal life. A child-like spirit enters into it by grace; the spirit of service and of self-renunciation walks in it. Christ walked in it, giving His life a ransom for many. This part of the Lords instruction ends here. Lowliness of service is the place into which Christ brings us; in such He had walked. This chapter is worthy of all the attention which the Christian through grace can devote to it. It speaks of the ground man can stand upon, how far God owns what is natural, and the disciples path down here. <\/p>\n

At Mar 10:46 another subject begins. The Lord enters on the path of His final relationship with Israel, presenting Himself as King, Emmanuel, rather than as the prophet who was to be sent. As the Prophet, His ministry had been accomplished. He had been sent (He told His disciples) to preach. This had led Him to the cross, as we have seen. He must needs announce it as the result to those that followed Him. He now resumes His connection with Israel, but as the Son of David. He draws near to Jerusalem, from which He had departed and where He was to be rejected, and the power of God manifests itself in Him. By the way of Jericho, the city of the curse, enters the One who brings blessing at the price of the gift of Himself. The poor blind man [14] (and such indeed was the nation of itself) acknowledges Jesus of Nazareth to be the Son of David. The grace of Jesus replies in power to the need of His people, that expressed itself by faith, and that persevered in, in spite of the obstacles put in its way by the multitude who did not feel this need, and who followed Jesus, attracted by the manifestation of His power, without being attached to Him by the faith of the heart. That faith has the sense of need. Jesus stands still and calls him, and before all the people manifests the divine power which responded in the midst of Israel to the faith that recognised in Jesus of Nazareth the true Son of David, the Messiah. The poor mans faith had healed him, and he followed Jesus in the way without dissimulation or fear. For the faith which then confessed Jesus to be the Christ was divine faith, although it might perhaps know nothing of the cross which He had just announced to His disciples as the result of His faithfulness and service, and in which faith must follow when genuine. <\/p>\n

Footnotes for Mark Chapter 10<\/p>\n

11: He does not ask, What must I do to be saved? He assumed that by the law he was to get life. <\/p>\n

12: This went beyond even the disciples connection with the Jews, and in principle admitted the Gentiles. <\/p>\n

13: From the transfiguration until His rights as Son of David are in question, it is the cross that is presented. Prophet and preacher until then, that ministry ended with the transfiguration, in which His future glory shone in this world upon the cross that was to close His service here below. But before He reached the cross, He presented Himself as King. Matthew begins with the King, but Mark is essentially the Prophet. <\/p>\n

14: I have already noticed that the blind man of Jericho is, in all the first three Gospels, the point where the history of the last dealings of Christ with the Jews and His final sufferings begin, His general ministry and service being closed. <\/p>\n

Fuente: John Darby’s Synopsis of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

CHAPTER 10<\/p>\n

JESUS IN PEREA<\/p>\n

Mat 19:1-2, and Mar 10:1. Rising up from thence, He comes into the boundaries of Judea, through the country which is beyond the Jordan and again multitudes come to Him, and, as was His custom, He again taught them. Matthew says, Many multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there. As above specified, when, in consequence of the tremendous popular sensation arising from the resurrection of Lazarus, the Sanhedrin had passed the condemnatory verdict against Him, unanimously assigning His death-warrant, in order to prolong His life and finish His work, He goes away to the city of Ephraim, about forty miles north of Jerusalem; thence: after a short interval, journeying on toward the northeast, crossing the Jordan over into Perea, the land which had been given to Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh for their inheritance, at their own request, when Joshua divided the land of Canaan among the twelve tribes. Now He spends perhaps a dozen days in that country east of the Jordan, in the days of Joshua ruled by Og, the king of Bashan, and Sihon, the king of Heshbon; but in the days of our Savior known as Perea. It is superfluous to say that Jesus utilized all of His opportunities while in that country, as everywhere else, teaching the people the wonderful truths of the kingdom and healing the sick.<\/p>\n

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Mar 10:2. The pharisees came and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? This was a net artfully spread, to entangle the Saviours feet. Had he said no, they would have accused him of teaching doctrines contrary to the law of Moses. Had he said yea, they would then have charged him as guilty of cruelty. Thus, like Ezekiel, the Saviour exercised his ministry among scorpions.<\/p>\n

A woman repudiated for mere dislike, groans beneath a load of wrongs. She went to the altar in innocence, with all the hopes and joys of life. Now her joys wither, her bread fails, her friends recede. The tyranny of men over women in Asia, is extensive and grievous; and the infidels of Europe have made strong efforts to enforce it among christians.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:5. Jesus answered for the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. Moses, in the political law, suffered you to divorce and repudiate your wives; but the marriage in paradise, in which God made the man and his wife one flesh, is the model of all other marriages. No man can repudiate his wife, except for adultery, and that adultery lawfully proved: while, on the contrary, your divorces, for mere dislike, drive people to adultery, and by consequence to perdition. Oh glorious teacher, covered with honour and majesty, while all thine enemies are clothed with shame. What God hath joined, let not man put asunder.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:12. If a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. This was then the case with Herodias, whom Herod took from Philip. John had said, it is not lawful for thee to have her; and this decision was according to the law of Moses. Lev 18:16; Lev 20:21. The case of incest augmented the sin, but did not interfere with the law of adultery. If Herodias pleaded polygamy against Philip, which might be the case, still it follows, that persons thus separated should continue in a state of continence, which leaves the door open for repentance. In addition to what is related in Matthew 19., Mark observes that the Lord spoke those last words in private conversation, being less fit for the public ear. When the disciples heard those expositions of superior morality, they said, if a mans happiness thus depend on the fidelity of his wife, it is not good to marry. Mat 19:10. <\/p>\n

Mar 10:13. They brought young children to him. It was the method of the holy patriarchs and prophets to bless the children. We have a remarkable instance of this in Jacobs blessing the two sons of Joseph, who had brought them to his father for that purpose. But Christ is here regarded as the greatest of prophets, and the highest estimation is set on his benedictions. The grace of Christ accompanied the words of Christ, for ordinances are seals of covenant blessings. And if these children received good from the blessing of the Saviour, other children may receive the same good. If they are members of the kingdom of heaven, the initiatory rite of baptism fully belongs to them, as has been the constant practice of the church of God.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:17. There came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? The other evangelists read, what good thing shall I do? Mat 19:16. Luk 18:18. The applicant is understood to be rather young in years, and was a ruler in the city where he lived.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:18. Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God. Original sin is the birth-fault of man; the disease for which all the remedies of the gospel are prescribed. Seneca confesses, that every vice is in all men, though every vice in each be not apparent. Omnia in omnibus vitia sunt; sed non in singulis extant. De benefac. 50, 4. c. 7. On this head the christian doctrine taught by the Greek and Latin fathers is, that men do not sin by imitation, but by real propagation, our will and consent being collocated in the one will of Adam. TIRINUS.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:19. Thou knowest the commandments. If thou wouldst be perfect, keep them. By asking which, he might think that our Saviour referred to some particular precepts. Jesus said, Do not commit adultery, a prohibition of all impurity. This is named first, because of the great licentiousness of some young men of fortune. Our great Master here stooped to this rulers ideas and habits of education, that he might the more successfully illuminate his mind, and gradually lead him to the knowledge of the truth.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:20. All these have I observed from my youth. How many are the barriers against ruin: how many are the advantages of a religious education. Wisdom is more precious than rubies.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:21. Then Jesus beholding his open countenance and ingenuous speech, loved him, and said, one thing thou lackest sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor and take up the cross of reproach and follow me, and be in training for this ministry of the kingdom of God. Peter Valdo of Lyons did this, and became a great minister, and father of the Waldenses. See on Mat 19:23-26.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:25. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. See on Mat 19:24.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:28-30. Lo, we have left all, and followed thee. Small as was the sacrifice, home and parentage are dear to all men. The answer is repeated from chap. Mar 3:34; but was given there when the relatives of Christ wanted to speak with him. The reply here is to Peter, with a promise of a hundredfold reward in this world, and in the world to come life everlasting.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:37. That we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left. The mother, it would seem, had urged this request before. Mat 20:21.<\/p>\n

Mar 10:46. Blind Bartimeus. There were two blind men, and our Saviour healed one as he went into Jericho, and the other as he went out. In addition to the reflections on the man born blind, John 9., which occurred previous to this, I would here add, that seeking to be saved from the blindness and misery of sin, we must address the Lord by his proper title as Messiah and God. And whenever we may be rebuked for our importunity, let us pray so much the more. Jesus still passes by; and Jesus stops, as Luke says; for prayer arrests him in his course. Jesus stops that we may ask whatever we want. Let us have a ready petition, and we shall have as ready an answer. Receive thy sight, said Jesus, and vision opened on the blind; for it was the same voice which once said, Let there be light, and there was light. Then Bartimeus followed, glorifying God, and all the multitude joined him in his praise.<\/p>\n

REFLECTIONS.<\/p>\n

The young ruler asking the way to eternal life, presents an interesting case, recorded in the three first gospels, and no doubt in others, not accounted canonical. From this we may learn <\/p>\n

That a religious education is founded on an acquaintance with sacred truth, as milk fit for babes, and stronger meat for riper years. All these, said the ruler, have I known. He could also add, as to the letter, all these have I observed from my youth. What moral excellence of character, what filial obedience, divine prudence, and unspotted purity. Thy word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against thee. The elements of sacred knowledge, and the chaste and spotless habits of piety, being invaluable, teach us to cherish due respect for ministers. The young ruler came kneeling; he regarded the Lord Jesus as a Moses, or an Elijah, the prince of prophets. And in return, Jesus loved him, and said, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. Ministers delight in the instruction of youth as the hope of the church, and the joy of a future age.<\/p>\n

Religion teaches young people to be free and open with ministers, to ask the way to eternal life: for though the law was full of temporal promises, it had figures of eternal bliss. It says that man should not live by bread alone, but by the word of God, which is incorruptible, and lives and abides for ever. It writes the law on our hearts, and the divine nature lives, like its source, a spiritual life.<\/p>\n

Ministers will point out the defects of youth, and show them the way to the kingdom. One thing thou lackest; a clear work of grace, regenerating the heart, and illuminating the life. The synagogue had failed in this duty, but the gospel perfects the saints. Regeneration is the first and great doctrine of the kingdom.<\/p>\n

In fine, true religion will cost young people some severe sacrifices, especially in the higher walks of life, to part with sin, and buy the truth. The young man went away sorrowful. Nature shrunk at the cross. Sighs and tears in search of truth, are good frames on retiring from sermons. They that sow in tears shall reap in joy; they find the kingdom at length opened in their hearts. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Mar 10:1-12 The Question of Divorce.Mk. represents Jesus as travelling up to Jerusalem through Pera (p. 33) and not through Samaria. Leaving Capernaum, He crosses the Jordan and resumes His public ministry. Under these circumstances some Pharisees come to Him with their question as to the lawfulness of divorce. They tempt Him by their question, seeking either to bring Him into conflict with the Law or to embroil Him with Herod, whose conduct He must condemn as John did. The former reason is more probable. When Jesus asks His questioners for the verdict of Moses, they naturally appeal to Deu 24:1 f. This law Jesus sets aside, by laying down a far-reaching principle of interpretation which suggests that the Mosaic Law was in certain cases a kind of second best, and by citing from Gen. (Mar 1:27) a passage emphasizing the Divine purpose of marriage. Wellhausen would interpret Mar 10:6 thus: But in Genesis Moses wrote Male and female created He them. Jesus does not overthrow Moses with the higher authority of God, but Deuteronomy with Genesis (HNT). He corrects Moses by Moses. Nowhere does Jesus go nearer to denying the absolute divinity, permanence, and perfection of the Law. Yet one can see that he was not himself conscious of doing so (Montefiore, i. 238). Paul seems to be thinking of Mar 10:9 in 1Co 7:10. In this discussion Jesus condemned the dominant Jewish law of divorce. The case of the breaking of marriage by adultery is not directly considered. The exception introduced in Mat 19:9 probably interprets the teaching of Jesus aright. This passage does not establish the absolute indissolubility of marriage. There is no reason to suppose that Jesus differed from Shammai in regarding adultery as justifying divorce. The additional answer given to the disciples places man and woman on an equality of right and responsibility. Loisy supposes Mar 10:12 to be due to Mk., who is thinking of Roman society. But the saying may be uttered with the case of Herodias in view. (See Allens defence of the passage, summarised in Montefiore, i. 241f.)<\/p>\n

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Verse 1 <\/p>\n

This was on his way to Jerusalem by a retired and circuitous route.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

(Mar 10:1-45) SUFFERING AND GLORY<\/p>\n

In this portion of the gospel three important principles are brought before us:- First, we learn that the Lord owns natural relationships as originally established by God, and creature goodness. Marriage is respected (2-12); children are recognised (13-16); and natural uprightness and amiability are acknowledged (17-22). Secondly, we see that the natural relationships that have been established and owned by God, have become corrupted by man. The marriage relationship has been marred by the hardness of man’s heart (5); children are despised as of small account (13), and natural integrity and earthly possessions are used to separate the soul from God, and hinder men from entering into the Kingdom of God (22, 23). Thirdly, such being the failure of the natural man, those that follow Christ into the kingdom, must, in this present world, be prepared for suffering. However great the earthly riches, the one that follows Christ must take up the cross (21); face persecution (30), and be prepared to take a lowly place in this world, in view of the world to come (44). Of such a path, Christ, as the lowly Servant, is the perfect example (33, 34, 45).<\/p>\n

(Vv. 1-12). The relationship of marriage is introduced by the Pharisees coming to the Lord with the question, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?” Evidently they had no real desire to learn the truth, for we read, they were “tempting Him.” Apparently they hoped that by the Lord’s answer they would be able either to accuse Him of ignoring what Moses said, or else sanctioning the loose customs that prevailed amongst the people. As usual, when men in their folly seek to tempt the Lord they themselves are thoroughly exposed.<\/p>\n

The Lord meets the question, “Is it lawful?” by appealing to the law. “What did Moses command you?” In their reply they sought to turn aside the Lord’s question by speaking, not of what Moses commanded, but of what Moses allowed (N. Tr.). So doing they unwittingly exposed the hardness of their hearts. They neglected the positive commands of Moses, and speak only of special precepts instituted to meet their own hardness. The commands met God’s heart for man; the precepts as to divorce were to meet their hearts.<\/p>\n

Having exposed the hardness of man’s heart the Lord presents the truth of the marriage relationship according to the creation order established by God from the beginning. Thus the Lord puts His sanction upon the marriage tie, and enables the Christian to take up the relationship according to the order of creation and not according to the precepts of men.<\/p>\n

In the house the Lord further instructs His disciples as to the solemnity of annulling the marriage tie in order to indulge the desires of the flesh towards another woman. In God’s sight this is to fall into the most degrading sin.<\/p>\n

(Vv. 13-16). In the next incident we see that even the disciples were strangers to the mind of the Lord as to little children. Apparently they thought the Lord was too great to notice these little ones, and they too insignificant to attract His attention. In rebuking those who brought their young children to be blessed by the Lord they entirely misrepresented their Master, failed to see what is beautiful in a child, and denied the principles of the Kingdom that they professed to preach.<\/p>\n

The action of the disciples arouses the righteous indignation of the Lord. He meets their poor thoughts by saying, “Suffer the little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.” There is a welcome in His heart for the weak and simple. Even though the root of sin be in them, yet their simplicity and confidence are the outstanding marks of those who enter the Kingdom of God. And even as He took these little ones into His arms and blessed them, so will the everlasting arms be under all those who in simplicity and confidence put their trust in Him, and His hands be lifted up to bless them (Deu 33:2; Deu 33:7 : Luk 24:50).<\/p>\n

(Vv. 17-22). In the incident that follows we learn that creature excellence, and earthly possessions, however right in their place, not only can give no entrance into the Kingdom of God, but may be a real barrier to blessing. Nature at its best has no sense of its need of Christ, and no true apprehension of the glory of Christ.<\/p>\n

There was much that was excellent in this rich man. He was full of youthful ardour for he came “running.” He was ready to admit the superiority of Christ for he reverently “kneeled” to Him. He was desirous to do right, for he asks, “What shall I do?” Outwardly his character was excellent. He had not been depraved by the indulgence of sin. He had kept the outward law. There was much that was lovely in his character – the fruit of creation – that called forth the Lord’s esteem and love. As one has said, “He was amiable and well disposed and ready to learn that which is good; he had witnessed the excellence of the life and works of Jesus and his heart was touched at what he had seen” (J.N.D.).<\/p>\n

Yet all this natural excellence left him without any true appreciation of the Person and glory of Christ, or any true sense of the state and need of his own heart. He could discern the pre-eminent excellence of Christ as a Man, but he could not discern the glory of His Person as the Son of God. Nature, however excellent, cannot discern God is Christ. So the Lord can say to Peter, on another occasion, “Blessed art thou . . . for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” The Lord, taking the young man up on his own ground, will not admit that man is good, “There is none good but one, that is, God.” Christ, indeed, was good, out He was God. He was always God, and God became man without ceasing to be, or being able to cease being, God” (J.N.D.).<\/p>\n

Moreover, having no sense of his need, the young man does not ask “What must I do to be saved?” but “What shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” His fine natural disposition blinded him to the fact that, in spite of all his good qualities he was a lost sinner in need of salvation. The Lord draws aside the veil and exposes the true state of his heart, by telling him to “Go, sell that thou hast, and come and follow Me.” This brings to light the solemn fact that in spite of his amiable and excellent character, he had a heart that prefers money to Christ; thus we read, “He was sad and went away grieved.” How entirely this proves there is no good in man for God. An excellent character is no indication of the moral state of the heart. Truly one has written, “The thing that governs the heart, its motive, is the true measure of man’s moral state, and not the qualities which he possesses by birth, however pleasing these may be. Good qualities are to be found even in animals; they are to be esteemed, but they do not at all reveal the moral state of the heart.” (J.N.D.)<\/p>\n

Christ, Himself was the perfect example of the course that He proposed for the young Man. “Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that ye through His poverty might be rich.” (2Co 8:9). Not discerning the glory of the Lord, this young man failed to see His grace. We never see His grace until we have seen His glory. <\/p>\n

(Vv. 23-27). Knowing the effect of His words upon the disciples, the Lord, as He looks upon them, presses home the lesson we are to learn from this young man, by saying, “How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!” These words were an astonishment to the disciples, who, with their Jewish thoughts of earthly blessing looked upon riches and possessions as a mark of God’s favour. Moreover the thought in their heart, as with ourselves too often, was possibly, if only we had riches how much good we might be able to do. To meet these difficulties the Lord shows that the great danger of riches lies in the fact that men think they can secure salvation and the blessings of the Kingdom by means of riches, and thus put their trust in riches. Let us note that the Lord does not speak of a literally rich man, but of one that trusts in riches. This is a danger to which the poorest in actual possessions is exposed equally with the one who possesses most. The Lord uses a figure to show how difficult it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. With astonishment the disciples ask, “Who then can be saved?” In reply the Lord tells us, “With men it is impossible, but not with God.” Their question would indicate that the thought lingered in their minds that in some measure at least their salvation depended upon themselves. They had to learn, as we all have to learn, that our salvation is wholly the work of God, and not of man at all. Neither law nor nature, riches or poverty have any part in the saving of the soul. Salvation rests wholly in the power of God’s grace, and what is impossible for man is possible with God. Thus we read, “By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Eph 2:4-9).<\/p>\n

(Vv. 28-31). Peter suggests that the twelve had taken the course that the Lord had set before the young man, and asks, as it were, what they should have? The Lord replies that they would gain a hundredfold now in this time, with persecutions, and in the coming age eternal life. If we leave the circle of our unconverted and natural relations, we shall find we are in the far larger circle of the family of God. This may result in a measure of persecution from the world circle that we have left, but it is the pathway into life. The Lord’s words, however, indicate that it is not the mere fact of leaving all that will be rewarded, but doing so from a right motive. It must lot be done to exalt self, or even gain a reward but as the Lord says, “For my sake and the gospel’s.”<\/p>\n

The Lord adds a searching word, “But many that are first shall be last; and the last first.” This would surely be a warning word against the self-complacency to which we are all so prone, and which apparently marked the words of Peter when he said, “Lo, we have left all.” What, indeed, lad he left, but a few old nets that wanted mending! Let us beware of boasting in what we have given up for Christ. It has been well said, “It is not the beginning of the race that decides the contest; the end of it is necessarily the great point. In that race there are many changes, and withal not a few slips, falls and reverses.” The real question is not what we have left in the past, but what are we doing today?<\/p>\n

(Vv. 32-34) The twelve had left all to follow Christ; but so little had they counted the cost, that at once they find themselves in a path that fills them with fear. “They were amazed” as they see the Lord deliberately taking a path that will involve trial and persecution, and they were afraid for themselves. The Lord does not hide from them the sufferings He was bout to face. He tells them that as the Son of Man he was about to be delivered up to the leaders of the Nation and of the Gentiles, who would heap every insult upon Him, and kill Him, but after three days He would rise again.<\/p>\n

(Vv. 35-45) At that time the Lord could not find one amongst the twelve who could enter into His mind, feel with Him, or understand the need of His sufferings. Possessed with the thought of a kingdom on earth James and John come forward with a desire for a high position, close to the Lord’s Person, in the kingdom. There was true faith that the kingdom was going to be established, but, as so often with ourselves, there was a good deal of unjudged flesh intruding into the realm of faith. They viewed the kingdom as an opportunity for their own advancement, rather than as the sphere for the display of the glory of Christ. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh,” whether it be in obscure saints or leading apostles; and how often since that time has the ugliness of the flesh especially betrayed itself in those that seem to be somewhat.<\/p>\n

The Lord turns this fleshly question into an occasion for instruction. He presses that the path to the glory of the kingdom is through suffering. He alone could accomplish redemption by the sufferings of the cross when forsaken by God. But the disciples should have the privilege of drinking the cup of suffering from the hands of men. Moreover if He could assure to them the privilege of suffering for His Name’s sake, He could not give them a place at His right hand in the kingdom. He had taken the place of the Servant, and He leaves to the Father to say who shall have a place of special privilege in the day of glory.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the flesh betrays itself in the ten whose indignation with James and John proved that jealousy was at work in their own hearts. One has said, “It is not alone by the fault of one or another that the flesh becomes apparent, but how do we behave ourselves in the presence of the displayed faults of others? The indignation that broke out in the ten shewed the pride of their own hearts, just as much as the two desiring the best place.”<\/p>\n

Jesus calls them to Himself and corrects the fleshly thoughts of the two disciples and the ten, by setting before them the path of true greatness. If He cannot give them the chief place in glory, He can shew them the path that leads there. The One who takes the lowest place on earth as the bondman of all, will have the highest place in glory. Of such a path the Son of Man was the perfect pattern.<\/p>\n

(Mar 10:4-52; Mar 11:1-26) REJECTION OF THE KING<\/p>\n

In each of the first three Gospels the Lord’s entry into Jerusalem, and the miracle by which sight is given to the blind man, introduces the closing events that lead to His death and resurrection. His life upon earth as the Son of Man who came to minister in lowly grace is finished. Now He presents Himself to Jerusalem as the Son of David – the promised Messiah. His rejection as the perfect Servant of Jehovah is followed by His rejection as the Son of David, and both prepare the way for His yet greater service of giving His life as a ransom for many as the Son of Man.<\/p>\n

(Mar 10:45-52) The Lord enters Jericho – the city of the curse – not in judgment to execute the curse, but in lowly grace that was about to bear the curse. Passing out of the city we hear of a blind man sitting by the wayside begging. May we not say that the physical condition of the blind man sets forth the moral condition of the nation? The Messiah was present with grace and power to bless, but the nation, as such, was blind both to the glory of His Person, and to its own deep need. All they could see in Jesus was a despised Nazarene.<\/p>\n

In contrast to the crowd, Bartimaeus was conscious of his need, and his own helplessness to meet his need. As ever it is the needy soul that is attracted to Jesus, and that discerns His glory. The people may speak of Jesus as a Nazarene, but faith can discern in that lowly Man the Son of David, the One of whom it is written that He would “open the blind eyes” (Isa 42:7). Thus the blind man can “cry out, and say, Jesus, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me.”<\/p>\n

As ever, when a soul is seeking Jesus there will be hindrances to overcome. Many would have the blind man hold his peace, and not have the Lord disturbed by a beggar. But faith rising above every hindrance, cried out the more a great deal, and grace on the part of the Lord “stood still” and commanded him to be called. Casting away his garment, he rose and came to Jesus. Good, indeed, when conscious of our need, and discerning something of the glory of Jesus, we cast away the garment of any righteousness of our own in which we might trust, and come to Jesus just as we are, in all our need and helplessness. Very blessedly, when the Lord asks, “What wilt thou that I should do unto thee?” the blind man replies, “That I might receive my sight.” The Lord takes the place of the doer, and the blind man accepts the place of the receiver. At once the Lord acknowledges this simple faith. The blind man receives his sight and “followed Jesus in the way,” from henceforth to be His disciple. He did not attempt to follow Jesus in order to receive his sight; but having received the blessing he became a follower. We must first receive the blessings of salvation and forgiveness through what Christ has done before we can follow Him as an object for our soul’s delight.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Smith’s Writings on 24 Books of the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

CHAPTER 10<\/p>\n

2<\/span> Christ disputeth with the Pharisees touching divorcement: 13<\/span> blesseth the children that are brought unto him: 17<\/span> resolveth a rich man how he may inherit life everlasting: 23<\/span> telleth his disciples of the danger of riches: 28 <\/span>promiseth rewards to them that forsake anything for the gospel: 32<\/span> foretelleth his death and resurrection: 35<\/span> biddeth the two ambitious suitors to think rather of suffering with him: 46 <\/big>and restoreth to Bartimus his sight.<\/big> <\/p>\n

Ver. 21<\/span>. And Jesus regarding him, with a benignant and pleasant countenance, loved him, showed him marks of His love, taking his hand and smiling upon him, embracing and kissing him. <\/p>\n

One thing is wanting unto thee, namely, for the perfection of a holy and evangelical life. <\/p>\n

Follow Me. The Greek adds, Taking up thy cross. The Syriac has, Take thy cross, and come after Me. <\/p>\n

Ver. 24.<\/span> Little children (Vulg.); the Syriac, My sons. By His bland address He softens the hardness of the matter. He is like one who loves his children most dearly; and as such He would tell them the truth in sincerity, and persuade them to renounce riches as a bar to salvation. <\/p>\n

That trust in riches. For rich men trust in their riches rather than in God, according to the saying in Proverbs (Pro 10:15), “The substance of a rich man is the city of his strength” (Vulg.). With difficulty, therefore, are they saved, because salvation cometh only from God. Wherefore those who wish to be saved must put their trust in God, and must ask and wait for salvation from Him, as the poor do. For inasmuch as they have no riches in which to trust, they are obliged to place all their hopes in God, according to the words (Psa 14:6), “Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the Lord is his hope.” Therefore if rich men wish to be saved, let them turn their hope, their heart, their love from riches, and fix them upon God. <\/p>\n

Ver. 30.<\/span> Who shall not receive an hundred times as much, now in this time; houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions: and in the world to come life everlasting. I have explained this hundredfold in S. Mat 19:29. Mark here adds, with persecutions. The Arabic has, in tribulations. “Let him who has relinquished his possessions and friends for the love of Christ, and is set in the midst of persecutions, and is encompassed by them on every side, be faithful. For there will not be wanting a hundred, that is, very many, who will succour and cherish him, as brothers, fathers, and mothers.” So Jerome, Bede, &c. <\/p>\n

This is added because in persecutions the believer especially needs the help and assistance of others. Also, because this is a rare and marvellous thing, that in persecution, when a man is wont to be left destitute of help and friends, and when all, through fear of danger, withdraw themselves from him, those who follow Christ experience the exact contrary, and find a hundred, i.e., very many to succour them. <\/p>\n

Again, with persecutions may be taken thus-that persecutions and tribulations undergone for Christ’s sake reward which shall be given, together with the hundredfold, to those who follow Christ. For to suffer for Christ is a great gift of God, as the Apostle teaches (Phi 2:19). <\/p>\n

Ver. 32.<\/span> They were in the way, from Jericho, . . . and Jesus went before them, as with alacrity, affording himself as a guide in the way to the frightened Apostles, who shrank from Jerusalem, because they knew that Jesus was there sought for by the princes to be put to death. Yea, a decree had been made to that effect by their great council, the Sanhedrin (Joh 11:52). Whence it follows- <\/p>\n

They were astonished, and following, were afraid. Gr. , i.e., they were astonished with great fear and dread. The imminent peril of death, says Bede, was the cause of their fear. They were amazed that Christ with so prompt and resolute a mind should bring Himself and His disciples into such open peril of death. They were afraid lest they might suffer and be put to death with Christ. <\/p>\n

Ver. 38.<\/span> Or be baptised with the baptism wherewith I am baptized. Christ calls His Passion a baptism, because He was to be evidently immersed and drowned in it, according to what David says of himself, but much more of Christ (Psa 69:12), “Save me, 0 God; for the waters are come in unto my soul. I sink in deep mire, where there is no standing: I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me.” <\/p>\n

Ver. 42.<\/span> Ye know that they who seem to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them. Gr. , i.e, dominate over them, or against them. For who seem, the Gr. is , i.e., who please themselves, and rejoice in ruling. For none rule more imperiously and harshly than those who are delighted with ruling and commanding. Whence the Arabic translates, they who think themselves princes of the people are their lords, i.e., they exercise, as it were, a tyrannical domination over them. <\/p>\n

Ver. 46.<\/span> Bartimus, the son of Timus. This blind man, then, was called by a proper name, Bartimus, i.e., the son of Timus, as Bartholomew is the same as son of Ptolemy. The same was called also by the same name as his father Timus. Timus was the name of that Pythagorean philosopher who wrote the life of Pythagoras. <\/p>\n

Moreover, Bartimus is interpreted by Pagnini in three ways (in Nom. Hebraicis). The first is from S. Jerome, to the effect that Bartimus means the blind son, or the son of blindness. He says that it is a Syriac name, but corrupted from Barsemia, or Barsamus. Bar is son, semaia, blindness. <\/p>\n

The second opinion is, that it means the son of honour; as if compounded of the Syriac bar, a son, and the Gr. , honour. <\/p>\n

The third is, that it means the son of the admirer, or admirable corn, or admirable purity. For this was what the blind man received from Christ. For being illuminated in body, he was far more illuminated in his soul. For bar means meal, or wheat, or purity, as well as son. Tamah is to admire. <\/p>\n

And followed Him in the way. Moraliter: Says the Gloss, Let us consider the way in which He goeth, and follow Him by humility and labours. The way is that of which He saith, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” This is “the narrow way,” which leads to the heights of Jerusalem and Bethany, to the Mount of Olives, which is the mount of light and consolation; yea, which leads to Zion and the heavenly Jerusalem. The blind man therefore sees and follows, for he who rightly understands the life of Christ ought to follow and imitate it by his works. (Top )<\/p>\n

Fuente: Cornelius Lapide Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

MARK Chapter 10<\/p>\n

Mar 10:1 And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again. 2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. <\/p>\n

Observation one, is that they were tempting him, thus they knew the answer to their question and that answer was no otherwise it would not be a temptation. They knew the Law that required one man and one woman, leaving and cleaving to one another for life. Yes, there is a reference in Deuteronomy that speaks to a letter of divorcement but it must be taken in the context of the whole Bible which also says that God hates divorce. It is also in the context of the Lord saying divorce was not the plan in the beginning.<\/p>\n

To allow for divorce today you must find a passage and turn it to make your interpretation. There is a more complete work on divorce and remarriage in my notes online if you want further information.<\/p>\n

Let it suffice to say that the Bible seems to give one exception and that in the Gospels which mentions divorce in the context of marital unfaithfulness; however that thought needs to be understood in the context of Christ, living the Law and Christ fulfilling the law so this breaking of the marital bond is over adultery. Adultery, by the way, was punishable by death so the bond is broken by death as it is to be – a lifelong commitment to one another.<\/p>\n

I have seen so much twisting and turning of the Word on this subject. Years ago I had a teacher that I really appreciated. His dealings with Scripture were very detailed and accurate. His position on divorce was the same as mine, that there is no basis for divorce for the New Testament believer. That is until he found a girl friend and his hermeneutics underwent a drastic transformation. His church had been nearly divorce free until he remarried and then his churchs divorce rate shot through the roof.<\/p>\n

I always try to tell anyone going through marital issues to look at each and every text on the subject in Scripture and then come to conclusions under the all-important umbrella of the fact that God hates divorce. That is the context, not our culture of over 50% divorce rate.<\/p>\n

Now let us look at their location. They have come to Judea via the far side of Jordan. Lightfoot mentions “it seems to be intimated by our evangelist, and likewise by Matthew, that when he had finished those words[the final words of chapter nine], forthwith he entered upon his journey: when, in truth, he went before to Jerusalem, through the midst of Samaria, to the feast of Tabernacles, Luk 9:51; etc. Joh 7:1-53.”<\/p>\n

There probably is about a year of time in between chapter nine and chapter ten. This is not uncommon in Scripture so one must be careful to look at all the information given to find out what really is. For example in the book of Daniel there are large gaps of time between chapters and they are not always chronological. Lightfoot goes on to delineate the Lords travels during this period if you are interested in further information.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

10:1 And he {a} arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.<\/p>\n

(a) That is to say, departed and went from there: for in the Hebrew language sitting and dwelling are the same thing, and so are rising and going forth.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

3. Lessons concerning self-sacrifice 10:1-31<\/span><\/p>\n

Jesus gave this series of lessons south of Galilee in Perea and Judea, not in Galilee. Another contrast is the audience. He gave the preceding instruction to the disciples in a house, but He gave this teaching to the multitudes and the disciples in the open air.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The transition from Galilee to Judea 10:1 (cf. Matthew 19:1-2)<\/span><\/p>\n

Though Mark did not record it, Jesus gave His disciples much additional instruction as they traveled from Capernaum in Galilee toward Jerusalem (cf. Mat 8:19-22; Mat 18:15-35; Luk_9:51 to Luk_18:14<\/span>; Joh_7:2 to Joh_11:54<\/span>). Evidently Jesus departed from Capernaum and journeyed through Samaria to Jerusalem. Then He proceeded east across the Jordan River into Perea, which lay east and north of the Dead Sea. From there He returned to Jerusalem again. Leaving Jerusalem Jesus visited the tribal territory of Ephraim, traveled farther north into Samaria, headed east into Perea, and returned to Jerusalem a third time. The following ministry took place during this last loop in Perea and Judea. [Note: Hoehner, Chronological Aspects . . ., pp. 62-63.] <\/span><\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Chapter 10<\/p>\n

CHAPTER 10:1-12 (Mar 10:1-12)<\/p>\n

DIVORCE<\/p>\n

“And He arose from thence, and cometh into the borders of Judea and beyond Jordan: and multitudes come together unto Him again; and, as He was wont, He taught them again. And there came unto Him Pharisees, and asked Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting Him. And He answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. But Jesus said unto them, For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made He them. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the twain shall become one flesh: so that they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. And in the house the disciples asked Him again of this matter. And He saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her: and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery.” Mar 10:1-12 (R.V.).<\/p>\n

IT is easy to read without emotion that Jesus arose from the scene of His last discourse, and came into the borders of Judea beyond Jordan. But not without emotion did Jesus bid farewell to Galilee, to the home of His childhood and sequestered youth, the cradle of His Church, the center of nearly all the love and faith He had awakened. When closer still to death, His heart reverted to Galilee, and He promised that when He was risen He would go thither before His disciples. Now He had to leave it. And we must not forget that every step He took towards Jerusalem was a deliberate approach to His assured and anticipated cross. He was not like other brave men, who endure death when it arrives, but are sustained until the crisis by a thousand flattering hopes and undefined possibilities. Jesus knew precisely where and how He should suffer. And now, as He arose from Galilee, every step said, Lo, I come to do Thy will, O God.<\/p>\n

As soon as He entered Perea beyond Jordan, multitudes came to Him again. Nor did His burdened heart repress His zeal: rather He found relief in their importunity and in His Father’s business, and so, “as He was wont, He taught them again.” These simple words express the rule He lived by, the patient continuance in well-doing which neither hostilities nor anxieties could chill.<\/p>\n

Not long was He left undisturbed. The Pharisees come to Him with a question dangerous in itself, because there is no conceivable answer which will not estrange many, and especially dangerous for Jesus, because already, on the Mount, He has spoken upon this subject words at seeming variance with His free views concerning sabbath observance, fasting, and ceremonial purity. Most perilous of all was the decision they expected when given by a teacher already under suspicion, and now within reach of that Herod who had, during the lifetime of his first wife, married the wife of a living man. “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” It was a decision upon this very subject which had proved fatal to the forerunner.<\/p>\n

But Jesus spoke out plainly. In a question and answer which are variously reported, what is clear is that He carefully distinguished between a command and a permission of Moses. Divorce had been allowed; yes, but some reason had been exacted, whatever disputes might exist about its needful gravity, and deliberation had been enforced by demanding a legal document, a writing of divorcement. Thus conscience was bidden to examine its motives, and time was gained for natural relentings. But after all, Jesus declared that divorce was only a concession to their hardness of heart. Thus we learn that Old Testament institutions were not all and of necessity an expression of the Divine ideal. They were sometimes a temporary concession, meant to lead to better things; and expedient rather than a revelation.<\/p>\n

These words contain the germ of St. Paul’s doctrine that the law itself was a schoolmaster, and its function temporary.<\/p>\n

To whatever concessions Moses had been driven, the original and unshaken design of God was that man and woman should find the permanent completion of their lives each in the other. And this is shown by three separate considerations. The first is the plan of the creation, making them male and female, and such that body and soul alike are only perfect when to each its complement is added, when the masculine element and the feminine “each fulfills defect in each . . . the two-celled heart beating with one full stroke life.” Thus by anticipation Jesus condemned the tame-spirited verdict of His disciples, that since a man cannot relieve himself from a union when it proves galling, “it is not good” to marry at all. To this He distinctly answered that such an inference could not prove even tolerable, except when nature itself, or else come social wrong, or else absorbing devotion to the cause of God, virtually canceled the original design. But already He had here shown that such prudential calculation degrades man, leaves him incomplete, traverses the design of God Who from the beginning of the creation made them male and female. In our own days, the relation between the sexes is undergoing a social and legislative revolution. Now Christ says not a word against the equal rights of the sexes, and in more than one passage St. Paul goes near to assert it. But equality is not identity, either of vocation or capacity. This text asserts the separate and reciprocal vocation of each, and it is worthy of consideration, how far the special vocation of womanhood is consistent with loud assertion of her “separate rights.”<\/p>\n

Christ’s second proof that marriage cannot be dissolved without sin is that glow of heart, that noble abandonment, in which a man leaves even father and mother for the joy of his youth and the love of his espousals. In that sacred hour, how hideous and base a wanton divorce would be felt to be. Now man is not free to live by the mean, calculating, selfish afterthought, which breathes like a frost on the bloom of his noblest impulses and aspirations. He should guide himself by the light of his highest and most generous intuitions.<\/p>\n

And the third reason is that no man, by any possibility, can undo what marriage does. They two are one flesh; each has become part of the existence of the other; and it is simply incredible that a union so profound, so interwoven with the very tissue of their being, should lie at the mercy of the caprice or the calculations of one or other, or of both. Such a union arises from the profoundest depths of the nature God created, not from mean cravings of that nature in its degradation; and like waters springing up from the granite underneath the soil, it may suffer stain, but it is in itself free from the contamination of the fall. Despite of monkish and of Manichean slanders, impure dreams pretending to especial purity, God is He Who joins together man and woman in a bond which “no man,” king or prelate, may without guilt dissolve.<\/p>\n

Of what followed, St. Mark is content to tell us that in the house, the disciples pressed the question further. How far did the relaxation which Moses granted over-rule the original design? To what extent was every individual bound in actual life? And the answer, given by Jesus to guide His own people through all time, is clear and unmistakable. The tie cannot be torn asunder without sin. The first marriage holds, until actual adultery poisons the pure life in it, and man or woman who breaks through its barriers commits adultery. The Baptist’s judgment of Herod was confirmed.<\/p>\n

So Jesus taught. Ponder well that honest unshrinking grasp of solid detail, which did not overlook the physical union whereof is one flesh, that sympathy with high and chivalrous devotion forsaking all else for its beloved one, that still more spiritual penetration which discerned a Divine purpose and a destiny in the correlation of masculine and feminine gifts, of strength and grace, of energy and gentleness, of courage and longsuffering — observe with how easy and yet firm a grasp He combines all these into one overmastering argument — remember that when He spoke, the marriage tie was being relaxed all over the ancient world, even as godless legislation is today relaxing it — reflect that with such relaxation came inevitably a blight upon the family, resulting in degeneracy and ruin for the nation, while every race which learned the lesson of Jesus grew strong and pure and happy — and then say whether this was only a Judean peasant, or the Light of the World indeed.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again. Ch. Mar 10:1-12. Marriage Legislation of the Pharisees 1. And ] Between the events just recorded and those of which the … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 10:1”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-24576","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24576","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24576"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24576\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24576"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24576"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24576"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}