Mark 10 begins with Jesus’ teaching on divorce and adultery. Jesus then repeats His teaching about having a childlike faith. Mark next recounts Jesus’ famous encounter with the self-righteous rich man who refuses to sell his many possessions in order to inherit eternal life and enter the kingdom of God. This teaching leaves the disciples baffled, so Jesus encourages them with additional instruction on the challenge of being rich and going to heaven. Next Mark notes Jesus’ continued teaching on His impending death and resurrection. James and John ask a favor of Jesus, which He cannot grant, and demands that all of His disciples count the cost of following Him and reminds them of what true greatness is – no to be served by all but rather to be the servant of all. Finally, the chapter concludes with Mark’s account of Jesus healing the blind man, who then follows Him in gratitude. Let’s take a look:
Divorce
1Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.
2Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
3"What did Moses command you?" he replied.
4They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
5"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[1] 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[2] 8and the two will become one flesh.'[3] So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
10When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
The teaching that Jesus provides here about divorce seems like an important lesson to digest considering pathetic statistics from the second half of 20th century America regarding the subject. I haven’t particularly noticed 21st century details, but whereas, sadly, about half of all marriages end in divorce, it should be especially heartbreaking that so-called Christian marriages experience the same result. While Mark’s record of Jesus’ instruction isn’t exhaustive, it gives us plenty to discuss, and the passage can pretty easily break into 4 distinct parts: v1-3 reveal the questions in play, v4-5 reveal the initial response, v6-9 detail the full Scriptural answer, and v10-12 show the extended explanation to the disciples.
First, Jesus left Capernaum (Mark 9:33) after passing through Galilee (Mark 9:30) and He came with His disciples to Judea across the Jordan River. While not specific, we can infer that Jesus would have taken the common route for Jews at the time, leaving Galilee and immediately crossing the Jordan River in order to bypass Samaria before crossing the Jordan again in order to enter the region of Judea. There was at least one time when Jesus went through Samaria on the reverse of this route (John 4:3-4), but it was more commonplace, due to the sour relations between Jews and Samaritans, to travel the path alluded to here.
Jesus taught the crowds, “as was His custom” (v1), and some Pharisees came to test Him (v2). Immediately, before we even learn how they will go about testing Jesus, we are clued in to their motive in appearing. Their purpose during Jesus’ earthly ministry was to test Him, and this may not at first sound like a bad thing. Paul says that we should “test everything, hold on to the good” in 1 Thessalonians 5:21. So we shouldn’t – in fact, we mustn’t – blindly run after those whose first impression is noteworthy. Rather, we should put everything to the test, that is, the test of Scripture, to ensure that it is right and good. Time will tell whether the seed is truly grass or if it results in weeds. But the word here for “test” may also be rendered as “tempt,” as it is when Jesus is led by the Holy Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil (Mark 1:13). So rather than jump to the conclusion that the Pharisees are doing a good thing, we should more critically wonder if they have ulterior motives, namely to trap Jesus in something He says in order to bring Him down and ensure that they remain in control in the area. Of course, we know that by now, the Pharisees have seen and heard enough about Jesus to come to the proper conclusion; but they reject Him and His righteous authority for the sake of maintaining their own façade of self-righteous authority. And so their question to Jesus is both simple and vague: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”
The question is simple, in the sense that it’s a “Yes” or “No” question; it doesn’t require further explanation, at least on the surface. And a “Yes” from Jesus would divide the crowds and belittle Him in the eyes of many, especially women, who were tormented by the tradition of the day, which not only permitted a man to divorce his wife for any reason and prohibited a woman from divorcing her husband for any reason, but also granted such freedom in this procedure that it could have repeatedly occurred between spouses, all at the man’s prerogative, leaving women extremely vulnerable to loss of reputation and forced to the lowest levels of society. A “No” from Jesus would likewise cause an outcry among some devotees for prohibiting what had been at least a tradition for a dozen centuries or more. So that’s where the simplicity of the question ends and the vagary begins. The question is vague, because it doesn’t elaborate enough to automatically understand the context or circumstances for the question. In the parallel account from Matthew 19:3, the question at least includes a qualifier, “for any reason at all?” In other words, the question is not really a “Yes” or “No” question; rather, it’s a question that begs for an explanation of the qualifiers for divorce. “Is it really allowed under any instance? Are there times when it shouldn’t be granted? It’s a bit of a mocking question, as there was little agreement throughout Judaism on the nuances of the right answer. So it’s as if the Pharisees are mocking Jesus by asking Him, a fraud in their eyes, to pontificate with unsurpassed authority, on a question which brilliant minds hadn’t reached consensus over in a millennium or more. To their shame, they just didn’t believe that He was the only Person with unsurpassed authority who could rightly answer this question.
Jesus begins His answer in v3 with a question, “What did Moses command you?” Jesus invites them to answer their own question by recounting Scripture, and specifically the law of Moses. But there’s irony here, as the reality, which Jesus knew full well, was that Moses didn’t issue a command on divorce. He made, by God’s decree, a concession due to human sinfulness. I think Jesus uses the word “command” to “trap” the Pharisees in a similar way to how they were trying to trap Him. But to their credit, they don’t fall for it. They reply, rightly, that Moses permitted, or allowed, a man to divorce His wife “and send her away” (v4). So on one hand, the Pharisees already had the answer to their question, and they proudly proclaim it here, but on the other hand, they know it’s only an allowance, and not a command. And Jesus picks right up on that by elaborating on the Mosaic motive for such permission. He says in v5 that Moses only granted such opportunity due to the hardness of the hearts of mankind. It was man’s sinfulness that led to a concession by Moses for divorce. It wasn’t a command, and as Jesus shows by driving the conversation back to the beginning, the question about divorce was the wrong question to be asking in the first place.
In v6-7, Jesus says the right question is not about divorce, the absolution of marriage, but rather about marriage itself. For the real command, you must look at Jesus’ quote of and subsequent commentary on Genesis 1:27 and 2:24. “God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.” That’s the command on divorce, to honor marriage as it was originally intended: no one should separate what God has joined together.
Mark doesn’t record a response to this instruction from the Pharisees. They, as usual when failing to entrap Jesus, were dumbfounded. His wisdom proved them incompetent to buffet Him. What about divorce? Rethink it in terms of marriage! At this point I always start pondering if all unions are joined by God. Certainly the intention of a Christian marriage is to stake that claim before witnesses, and rightly so. And heartbreakingly as certain, there are many so-called Christian marriages that make a mockery of those vows and that ceremony in their efforts, whether sincere or not, to honor the covenant made on that day. But just as surely, there are “civil unions” that are established without any intention of honoring God with the promises of traditional Christian marriage. Did God join those unions? Does He join them? Of course, God is sovereign over all individuals in all places and at all times, so in a sense, He does indeed ordain and establish whatever union may be recognized; but in another sense, how could we dare to blame God for creating a union that was never meant to exist, that was never intended to honor Him, that was never planned on lasting “til death do us part”? I don’t think I can answer this here, but RC Sproul helps by reminding me that the institution of marriage was not a law for Jews or instruction for Christians; rather, marriage is an ordinance at the time of creation that is intended to govern all humanity. Therefore, let’s acknowledge that Christian marriages in 21st century America ought to endure the test of time, and say with great regret that way too many fail to do that, to the mockery of Christianity by the rest of the world.
In v10, after the dust settled when, presumably, the Pharisees walked away defeated, Jesus returns to the house where they were staying, and the disciples ask Him to elaborate on the teaching they just heard. Jesus answered His disciples plainly in v11-12, with no rebuttal, apparently eliciting their complete submission, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” There’s no wiggle room for divorce in this teaching. But as I noted at the very beginning of the commentary on this passage, this teaching isn’t exhaustive on the topic. We have Matthew 19:9, and we have 1 Corinthians 7.
Let me simply post here my comments from those passages: First from Matthew 19:1-12 – John Calvin explains their efforts, saying, “If Christ reply in the negative, they will exclaim that He wickedly abolishes the Law; and if in the affirmative, they will give out that He is not a prophet of God, but rather a pander, who lends such countenance to the lust of men. Such were the calculations which they had made in their own minds; but the Son of God, who knew how to ‘take the wise in their own craftiness’ (Job 5:13), disappointed them, sternly opposing unlawful divorces, and at the same time showing that He brings forward nothing which is inconsistent with the Law. For He includes the whole question under two heads: that the order of creation ought to serve for a law, that the husband should maintain conjugal fidelity during the whole of life; and that divorces were permitted, not because they were lawful, but because Moses had to deal with a rebellious and intractable nation.” Matthew Henry’s words are helpful as well: “Jesus replied by asking whether they had not read the account of the creation, and the first example of marriage; thus pointing out that every departure therefrom was wrong. That condition is best for us, and to be chosen and kept to accordingly, which is best for our souls, and tends most to prepare us for, and preserve us to, the kingdom of heaven. When the gospel is really embraced, it makes men kind relatives and faithful friends; it teaches them to bear the burdens, and to bear with the infirmities of those with whom they are connected, to consider their peace and happiness more than their own. As to ungodly persons, it is proper that they should be restrained by laws, from breaking the peace of society. And we learn that the married state should be entered upon with great seriousness and earnest prayer.” The law of that day allowed a man to divorce his wife for any reason, and many men, even among the religious leaders, took advantage of this manmade rule to do significant harm to women. So if Jesus says divorce is not permitted for any and every reason, then the Pharisees, along with many other men in that culture, will accuse Him of voiding the rule of their ways, which seemed to have Mosaic approval, as they will later appeal, and which would cause Jesus to seem intolerable to those who seemingly mattered most in the eyes of the Pharisees – the men who held the power. But if Jesus affirms the traditional law of the land, the Pharisees would hypocritically declare Him to be encouraging such morally distasteful behavior, because they knew in their hearts that divorce was sinful, though many of them may have engaged in its practice. Calvin comments, “[Jesus] declares that it is not in the power of the husband to dissolve the marriage; likewise He forbids all others to confirm by their authority unlawful divorces; for the magistrate abuses his power when he grants permission to the husband to divorce his wife. But the object which Christ had directly in view was,that every man should sacredly observe the promise which he has given, and that those who are tempted, by wantonness, wicked dispositions, to divorce, may reflect [on God’s sovereignty in creating humanity and the institution of marriage].” Calvin said so long ago what our nation only in modernity fails to consider, “If the institution of marriage is to be reckoned an inviolable law, it follows that whatever swerves from it does not arise from its pure nature, but from the depravity of men.” Divorce is never good and right, but certainly permissible in the case of unfaithfulness (adultery); beyond that reason, does Jesus leave an open door for other reasons? What about abuse? How should abuse be defined? Neglect? Abandonment? We should consider the safety of the individuals involved, as that appears to be a concern of the Lord in this instance. Likewise, in all that we do, think, and say, we should seek God’s Kingdom and His glory. What circumstances within a marriage relationship would bring God glory? Repentance and reunification and restoration to faithfulness are certainly correct, but sometimes, especially when one partner is an unbeliever, as Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians 7, abandonment effectively forces divorce and frees the believer from that difficult circumstance, enabling him or her to bring God glory in a new way.
And finally from 1 Corinthians 7:1-16 – The Greco-Roman culture was saturated with sexual immorality, meaningless marriages, and the commonality of multiple divorces, so it comes as no surprise that the Corinthians wanted to know the proper stance for Christians on marriage and sex. The word translated “marry” by the NIV in v1 is a Jewish euphemism for sexual relations. Technically, and your footnote may point this out, they asked Paul, “Is it good to abstain from sex?” And it appears that they’re already thinking that the answer is, “Yes.” Perhaps this came from some ascetic Christians seeking to avoid promiscuity, but they, unlike the Corinthian believers who arrogantly overlooked sexual sin in chapter 5, went too far, likely seeing sex as completely negative, even in the bounds of a Biblical marriage. Culture, at different times and places, has wavered back and forth from mandating to mocking marriage, and worldly people have gone along with their secular society. Biblically speaking, celibacy must never be commanded, though a person may rightly choose it. Likewise for abstinence in marriage, though even then only by mutual consent and for a short time for the sake of prayer. There were likely unequally yoked better halves wondering if they should become celibate rather than copulate with their unbelieving spouses. Thus Paul, who is way ahead of the culture in seeing sex as beneficial for both man and woman within the marriage relationship, answers carefully (v2-6), “as a concession, not as a command,” agreeing that there are occasions where celibacy and abstinence is best, but also acknowledging that sex is good in the marriage relationship (one man for one woman (v2)), especially since there is so much infidelity and lust and fornication in the world. One commentator concludes his thoughts here, saying, “God sees marriage as sacred, He sees the sexual union as sacred, He sees it as pure, proper; but He also sees it, Paul is saying, as obligatory – it’s a privilege, it’s a pleasure, but it is also a responsibility in the marriage bond!” In v6-9, I think Paul wishes that sex wasn’t an issue; it would be best if all would abstain, like him, for the sake of gospel ministry. But he knows that’s not what God intended. He also sees other reasons for marrying besides controlling lust that do not apply specifically to the Corinthians questions (Ephesians 5:22-33; 1 Timothy 3:2; 4:3). Down in v26, Paul speaks of “the present crisis,” and many scholars think there were some series complications to these instructions for the Corinthians that, if we knew about them, might change our perspective on what Paul is saying (Jeremiah 16:1-4). For example, if Christians were being fed to the lions, then it might be better for you not to seek a marriage partner at the moment. In v10, Paul appeals directly to the command of Jesus from Mark 10:1-12. But then he goes on in v12-16 to discuss more difficult circumstances that Jesus never specifically addressed. Thus we read his parenthetical distinctions, “not I, but the Lord,” and “I, not the Lord.” Nevertheless, we shouldn’t conclude that Paul’s instructions are not authoritative (1 Corinthians 14:37); he simply speaks for the Lord where the Lord had not spoken previously. Having skipped v11 for a moment, we come back to it: Spousal desertion (the Greek word in v10-11a is “separation,” which is permitted in dire circumstances, but in v11b, it’s “divorce,” which is not allowed) does not mean that a person can remarry. The covenant is until death; but there is an exception explained in v12-16 – unequally yoked marriages. If the unbelieving spouse is the deserter, then the marriage may be considered dissolved, and the believer may remarry (though Paul would recommend celibacy), for God grants peace (v15). And considering v14, even if only one spouse is a believer, the children of that mixed household are set apart as holy, to be considered as believers. It doesn’t mean they are certainly saved, but there is a distinction in their lives, for they are associated with a believer, and that association is important (Exodus 29:37). This verse is used to support infant baptism. The bottom line for Paul is what he told the Thessalonians: “It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong or take advantage of a brother or sister. The Lord will punish all those who commit such sins, as we told you and warned you before. For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, anyone who rejects this instruction does not reject a human being but God, the very God who gives you His Holy Spirit” (1 Thessalonians 4:3-8).
The Little Children and Jesus
13People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." 16And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.
In this short passage, we get a glimpse of specifically what Jesus thinks of children. As John Kimbell notes in his sermon on this passage, children are neither obstacles nor idols; rather, they are welcomed and loved. The word for “children” or “little children” here conveys a very broad range from pre-born child up to age 12. And there’s good reason to think that children throughout this age range are in view here. Parents and caregivers were bringing these children to Jesus, hoping that He would merely bless them, and the disciples rebuked them. The disciples were of the opinion that children were a waste of Jesus’ time, that they were of little value to the bigger picture of what Jesus should be doing. And Jesus was indignant, or very angry. It’s easy to see how our progressive culture is thinking the same way that the disciples thought. In the 1960s, the American birthrate was 3.7 children per mother, and in 2020, that figure was down to 1.6. That doesn’t include the 60 million plus abortions that have occurred in that same timeframe. Culture demands productivity, and that’s why the government wants control of the children – both to indoctrinate for their liberal / radical causes, and to ensure that the mother can continue in the workplace, rather than stopping “work” to be a stay-at-home mom (where it is presumed that no valuable “work” is done).
This visual picture of what Jesus’ ministry is all about shows that He desires to give Himself to the service of the needy and vulnerable. He did not come to be served, but to serve, and no one needs His care more than the least of these, the vulnerable, the dependent. The lesson for us might be to see that the unseen, daily tasks of raising a child (thank you moms!) do not go unnoticed by the Lord. So children are not to be obstacles. However, neither are they to be idols, and many in our world err on that side of the road, living vicariously through their child(ren). That puts way too much pressure on the child(ren)! The goal of the Christian life, while to be fruitful and multiply, is also to make disciples of Jesus, and so there’s a balance between to find between seeing children as obstacles and as idols.
In v14, Jesus says, “The kingdom of God belongs to such as these” children. As John Kimbell noted, Jesus is not referring to the innocence of children, or even to their relative innocence, but rather to their dependence. The kingdom of God belongs to those who depend on God, which is by faith in Jesus. And Jesus is not saying here that all children (under some arbitrary age of accountability) will be in heaven if they die while children, although there is reason to think that could be true (consider David’s acknowledgement that he will be reunited in heaven with his infant son who died). I love what RC Sproul says regarding receiving the kingdom of God like a child (v15). We are to be childlike, not childish.
So because God delights in providing for the needy, we can conclude that what is inherent in children before parents and the culture at large (their dependence) is inherent in all mankind before God. Therefore, humanity should and, in fact, must depend on God for all provision. To try to escape the discipline we deserve for our sin is impossible, so humbly turn in repentance to Christ for forgiveness (Isaiah 46:3-4).
The Rich Young Man
17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. 19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'[4] "
20"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."
21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"
24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is[5] to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
26The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?"
27Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."
28Peter said to him, "We have left everything to follow you!"
29"I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields--and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life. 31But many who are first will be last, and the last first."
This passage represents a clear contrast with and confirms the teaching from the previous passage. In v10-13, Jesus says one must receive the kingdom of God with the dependence of a child. Here, a man asks what he must do to receive eternal life. The answer is the same as v10-13, and yet no one gets it.
The man in v13 runs up to Jesus to catch Him with a sincere question, unlike the questions posed by the Pharisees. The man falls on his knees, showing genuine respect for Jesus, and even refers to Him as “Good teacher.” This is a man who cares about what is good, and as we see by his question in v17 and initial response to Jesus in v20, he also cares about eternal life and obedience. That’s why he asks, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” The first thing I like to point out is the inconsistency between “doing” and “inheriting.” If I inherit something from my parents, it has nothing to do with what I do and everything to do with who I am, specifically my identity as their child. That’s why Paul says in Romans 6:23 that “the wages of sin is death.” What we earn for sinning is death. And Paul explains in that same verse that “the gift of God is eternal life.” Some versions even add that the gift is free! And the verse concludes with “through Jesus Christ our Lord.” So the means by which we earn death is sin, and the means by which we receive (or obtain) eternal life is the free gift of God, Jesus Christ. This man meant to ask, “What must I do to earn eternal life?” But he should have asked, “Who must I be to inherit eternal life?” Or even better, “To whom must I belong to inherit eternal life?” But his first mistake isn’t grammar in the question. Rather, his first error is found in the first word out of his mouth, “Good.”
Jesus calls out the man due to his referring to Jesus as a “good” teacher. Jesus wants the man to look at what, or more appropriately who, is truly good. Of course, Jesus is! And technically the man is correct to call Him that, but that’s not what Jesus is worried about here. Jesus wants this man to recognize that only God is good. This man should not be thinking of his own goodness, because it’s woefully inadequate, like filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6). Instead, he should see God’s goodness, as that would help him better understand the answer to the question he asks (cf. Matt 23:8-12). Jesus goes on, after correcting the man’s understanding of goodness, to answer his question by stating what the man already knows – the commandments of God as revealed in the law (cf. Matt 19:17). Jesus lists a number of the “second tablet” commands, which deal with a person’s relationship to others. (First tablet laws cover one’s relationship to God.)
It is interesting that Mark’s account lists a handful of commands, whereas Matthew’s does not. Here, Jesus seems to add the command in v19, “You shall not defraud.” But it appears to be more of a blending of the commands not to steal and not to give false testimony. Maybe Jesus knew that was a gray area for this man, but he seems to see it clearly in black and white. Regardless, the man says that he has kept all of the commands for as long as he can remember, since his boyhood. Jesus simply looked at him and loved him, a sentiment which is also only found in Mark’s account. But that serves well as the motive for Jesus’ next statement. God’s love for His people is the motive for His commands! Let that sink in for a moment, as He doesn’t want anyone to miss out on fun or be less successful in their life by obeying Him. Rather, it is for our good to obey God and seek His kingdom and His righteousness first. Then all these other things, which God knows we want and need, will be added as well.
So motivated by His love for the man known fondly as the rich young ruler, Jesus says in v21, “One thing you lack.” Pastor John Kimbell points out that Jesus is not saying that this man has 99 of the 100 things needed to gain eternal life; rather Jesus is saying that this man is missing the only thing that matters. So he’s close to the kingdom of God, in the sense that he cares about goodness and eternal life and obedience, his own morality and ethics, and maintaining a loving relationship with all those around him. But he is infinitely far from the kingdom of God, because he lacks the key, the one thing needed to enter!
Jesus tells the rich young ruler that he lacks one thing, and then He goes on to give a list of three things for the man to do: go and sell everything, give the proceeds to the poor, and come follow Him. Jesus is not saying that if this man was to do those three things, he would have it all figured out. Rather, Jesus is giving the man the things He knew he couldn’t do, because he lacked the one thing that really mattered. The rich young ruler lacked Jesus Christ. He needed to let go of his possessions in order to grab on to Jesus. Some of us need to let go of pride, humble ourselves to submit to Jesus. Others of us need to let go of self-reliance and recognize that Jesus paid it all and trust in Him alone for salvation from sin. But as v23-27 show, only God can make this happen in our individual lives.
Quickly, note that in v22, the man goes away sad, because he’s unwilling to part with his wealth. So Jesus repeats the truth in v23 and v24 and v25 that it is hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God. This truth is striking, surprisingly just as much back then in Biblical times as it is today. The disciples couldn’t fathom this to be true, because they understand wealth as the greatest blessing of God. And for some people it is indeed a great blessing. Consider Abraham and Job and David and Solomon. These heroes of the Scriptures were blessed tremendously by God with wealth, so it must be that they, as His most favored, will be in heaven. And surely all of them will be. But wealth for them, in looking at their lives, may not have always been the blessing that the disciples thought. All of them suffered greatly, surely in part due to their wealth. Surely all of them struggled to trust God exclusively and completely at times, either due to the ability they had to provide for themselves at their leisure, or due to their wealth being lost. Wealth is a challenge for mankind, as it prevents them from trusting Christ supremely and exclusively.
The third time is the charm here for this instruction. In v25, Jesus says, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” That’s meant to be a literal visual image that no one can forget. Some suggest there was a place where a camel had to scoot on its knees in order to get through a particularly tight spot, but there’s no evidence of such a place. Furthermore, if that was true it would defeat the purpose of Jesus’ analogy, which is to point out that it is impossible! And yet it’s easier for that to happen than for a rich person to gain eternal life. In v26, the disciples rightly ask an immediate follow up question: “Who then can be saved?” Jesus says it’s impossible with man, but not for God. “All things are possible with God (v27).” He’s not talking about pushing a camel through a tight spot or conquering your fear or resting peacefully at night. Jesus is referring to salvation. It is impossible for man to do anything to inherit eternal life, just as the rich young ruler couldn’t forgo his wealth (v22). But God… Those two great words, “but God.” God works in us by grace through faith in Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 4:4-6) to grant those who trust in Him the gift of eternal life.
The final segment of this passage (v28-31) reveal the disciples understanding that they, in fact, have given up their wealth in order to follow Jesus. They aren’t like the rich young ruler. And Jesus honors that truth. Again, that’s not a call for everyone to literally sell everything. It’s a call to entrust everything to God; it’s a call to stewardship, whereby you acknowledge everything belongs to God and He provides for you to enjoy and to bless others. But Jesus says that no sacrifice will fail to be worthwhile. The followers of Jesus will never give up more than they gain. In fact, there is immediate return on the investment, as even in this life the one who gives up everything (as a steward or otherwise) will receive more, and then eternal life thrown in at the end. Jesus even acknowledges that there is a cost – persecutions come with such a sacrifice; but it’s all worth it. Paul understood this well:
“7But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For His sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith – 10that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and may share His sufferings, becoming like Him in his death, 11that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. 12Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me His own. 13Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. 16Only let us hold true to what we have attained.” (Philippians 3:7-16).
So the answer to the right question, “To whom must I belong to inherit eternal life?”, is found there in Philippians 3:12 – “Christ Jesus has made me His own.” Praise God for that!
Jesus Again Predicts His Death
32They were on their way up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid. Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him. 33"We are going up to Jerusalem," he said, "and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, 34who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise."
In v32-34, we see Jesus leading the way toward Jerusalem, and there was astonishment and fear from those who followed Him. The astonishment, perhaps, came from those who knew that He was marching with determination and purpose toward what He had previously told them twice and was just about to reveal a third time – His incredible suffering and death (v33-34). The fear, perhaps, came from those who were afraid to be considered part of what they expected to be a revolution of sorts. What if this mission failed? Would those who followed along be considered accomplices and face severe punishment if the effort proved fruitless? Of course, the astonishment is merited, because Jesus, like no other, faced what He knew was coming with a driven passion. What love is displayed in this work! Consider Hebrews 12:2, “For the joy set before Him, He endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of God the Father.” As for the fear, it’s probably not sinful to be hesitant of walking into the unknown specifics; but there was no possibility of failure for this mission. Jesus even told them, “Three days later, He will rise” (v34). But the reality is that none of us want to suffer, so heading into what Jesus said would be condemnation, mocking, spitting, flogging, and death, is no journey to endure without a measure of fear.
The Request of James and John
35Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. "Teacher," they said, "we want you to do for us whatever we ask."
36"What do you want me to do for you?" he asked.
37They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory."
38"You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?"
39"We can," they answered. Jesus said to them, "You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, 40but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared."
41When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. 42Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
In v35-37, we see James and John reveal their foolish pride and selfish ambition at precisely the wrong time to be considering such vainglory. They ask to be seated at Jesus’ right and left in His forthcoming kingdom. They want to be the most prominent individuals in the new government, other than Jesus Himself. They should have displayed humility, sorrow, concern, and awe with the news that Jesus just shared, but their desires for glory remove all thought of the suffering. And Jesus reminds them in v38 of the suffering that must come first. They had a distorted notion of glory and, clearly from their response in v39, a distorted notion of suffering as well. To think that they could drink the cup of God’s wrath and bear the sin burden of all humanity in perfect innocence was foolhardy to say the least. Nevertheless, Jesus says they would, indeed, endure a suffering – not in an atoning way, but in an identifying measure that links them to Jesus. Consider other passages: Romans 8:16-17; 1 Peter 4:12-13; Psalm 88:7.
V40 is an acknowledgement of God’s sovereignty while at the same time a reminder of Jesus’ humanity. While He exhibited plenty of knowledge regarding future specifics (perhaps from Holy Spirit revelation or perhaps from studying the Old Testament – consider the specifics of Isaiah 53), He didn’t exercise that to complete perfection. Jesus isn’t going to commit to reserving positions of honor for His followers; that is for the Father to decide, and He has already done it, and we’ll rightly honor that decision when the time comes.
V41-44 reconvene a discussion among the disciples that’s already occurred. What does it mean to be great? And who is the greatest among you? Jesus reminds them that service is the appropriate measure of greatness. The pursuit of power, position, and self-promotion is fruitless for eternal glory. Serving the least of these and bearing others’ burdens is what counts toward true greatness. Once you become “the slave of all,” you can start to measure your greatness. Applying this truth to our own lives and culture almost certainly touches a nerve. Do you rejoice when God works mightily through others? Are you glad for your friends who get raises and promotions when you don’t? Are you generous with the provision God has granted you to steward? May we all recognize our haughtiness!
Finally, in v45, we hear a beautifully simple gospel declaration: Jesus is the substitutionary atonement for sinners. Specifically, Jesus reveals His most singular purpose: “not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.” Jesus was innocent, and He died for the guilty. Jesus owed no one anything, and He paid the full price of what every elect sinner owes to the creator God. There was no obligation for Jesus to purchase people with His blood, especially when those people, who were totally obligated to honor Him, spit in His face and drove nails into His hands and feet with each sin against His absolute authority. It’s worth focusing on these six words:
HE CAME TO GIVE HIS LIFE. First, He… Jesus is the only one who could do this task. Second, came… Jesus wasn’t obligated but chose to set aside His glory to make this happen. Third, to… Jesus had a purpose. Fourth, give… God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, and Jesus came to give His life as a ransom for many. Fifth, His… Jesus laid down His life; no one took it from Him. Death couldn’t hold Him, because His life is His. Sixth and finally, life… We think we know what life is, but Jesus came that we might have life to abundance. What we will be hasn’t yet been made known, but it will be life, and eternal life is the only description we have.
Blind Bartimaeus Receives His Sight
46Then they came to Jericho. As Jesus and his disciples, together with a large crowd, were leaving the city, a blind man, Bartimaeus (that is, the Son of Timaeus), was sitting by the roadside begging. 47When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"
48Many rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, "Son of David, have mercy on me!"
49Jesus stopped and said, "Call him." So they called to the blind man, "Cheer up! On your feet! He's calling you." 50Throwing his cloak aside, he jumped to his feet and came to Jesus.
51"What do you want me to do for you?" Jesus asked him.
The blind man said, "Rabbi, I want to see."
52"Go," said Jesus, "your faith has healed you." Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road.
Mark 10 concludes with the important restoration of sight for blind Bartimaeus. He is the only healed individual named by the gospel writer, and that is thought to be on account of the familiarity of the original audience with this man. This blind man saw Jesus for who He really is; and notice that it doesn’t take literal physical sight to see Jesus. In fact, faith comes by hearing, Paul says in Romans 10. In this case, faith and sight are linked together; in John 3, Jesus says that seeing and entering the kingdom of God are one and the same. As the saying goes, seeing is believing.
First, Jesus is heading toward Jerusalem for the Passion week, the finale of His 30 plus year (the final 3 of which were considered “public”) earthly ministry, and He comes with His disciples to Jericho, the final town before a day’s walk up to the City of David in time for the massive Passover celebration. Jesus and His disciples depart Jericho in the very same verse, and with them “a large crowd” was traveling. The crowd rebukes the blind man for crying out to Jesus for mercy, thereby showing their own blindness in evaluating what really matters. It was just a few verses before when Jesus noted that He came not to be served, but to serve (and give His life as a ransom for many) – v45. The disciples and crowd still didn’t get it. They, like we so often, fail to see and feel with their hearts their constant need for Jesus. But the blind man sees it! Bartimaeus, no doubt, had merely heard about Jesus and His deeds and had come to believe in Him as the Christ, the Messiah, the promised King, the Son of David (Isaiah 11:1-3). This man was so easily overlooked by the world; he surely had no social standing. But his perseverance in the face of the rebuking crowd is remarkable. He continues crying out despite the ridicule. And Jesus calls him to come!
Bartimaeus comes to Jesus with a great need and a simple faith. Without recognizing the need, there’s no reason to come to Jesus. Consider the Church at Laodicea in Revelation 3. If we don’t see our need, then we are blind. Of course, this is talk about spiritual reality, and that’s the most important thing! Now the crowd is fickle, flip-flopping in their opinion of this man. At first, they ridicule and rebuke him, but now that Jesus wants to see him, they encourage him to cheer up and go see Jesus. When Bartimaeus comes to Jesus, Jesus asks him in v51, “What do you want Me to do for you?” The answer is obvious, but it’s Jesus’ way of interacting in a meaningful way, much like He did in Mark 8, when He spit and rubbed the blind man’s eyes before healing him in stages. Here, the blind man simply says, “I want to see.”
Can you relate? Is there something you want from Jesus? Then ask! And be perseverant, like the nagging woman before the judge (Luke 18:1-8). Jesus responds quickly to the man, telling him to “go” because his faith had healed him. Of course, Jesus, the object of his faith, had healed him, and so the now-seeing former blind man doesn’t “go” away; rather, he goes and becomes a follower of Jesus, who, as noted above, may have still been around or at least known in the Church at the time of this writing. This model faith is good for us to see. When we recognize that Jesus has freed us from our sin, we should go, not to continue in our sin but to follow Him. And taking this even further, when we go to follow Him, we go to suffer. Jesus was leaving Jericho for Jerusalem, where the fickle crowd would cheer Him as Hosanna their King in one afternoon and cry out to crucify Him just a couple days later. Will we go and follow Him there? Bartimaeus apparently did. He knew that not only had he been made able to see, but also that this gift of sight demanded the appropriate response of gratitude, allegiance, and worship (2 Cor 4:4-6; Gal 5).
Footnotes
- 10:6 Gen. 1:27
- 10:7 Some early manuscripts do not have and be united to his wife.
- 10:8 Gen. 2:24
- 10:19 Exodus 20:12-16; Deut. 5:16-20
- 10:24 Some manuscripts is for those who trust in riches
Bible text from
Gospelcom.net. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by
International Bible Society.