10. The Question of Divorce. Ch. 10:1–12
1And he arose from thence, and cometh into the borders of Judaea and beyond the Jordan:1 and the multitudes2 come together unto him again; and as he was wont, he taught them again.
2And there came unto him Pharisees,3 and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? trying 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 away.
5But Jesus said unto them, For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
6But from the beginning of the creation, male and female made he them.
7For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife;4
8and the two shall become one flesh: so that they are no more two, but one flesh.
9What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
10And in the house the disciples asked him again of this matter.
11And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her:
12and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery.5
1 Mark’s account of the Galilean ministry is terminated with Ch. 9. From this point forward the narrative moves swiftly and relentlessly toward its inevitable climax in Jerusalem. Verse 1 is a summary passage, reporting a further stage in the journey toward the Judean capital and the resumption of a public ministry. From Capernaum (Ch. 9:33) Jesus came into southern Palestine. The order in which the provinces are listed (Judea and Perea) suggests that he went south across the mountains of Samaria into Judea, following the ordinary route for pilgrims on their way to the Holy City (cf. Lk. 9:51–53).6 At some point he crossed over the Jordan into Perea, which was part of the territory of Herod Antipas. The itinerary marks a return to the Jordan region where John the Baptist had conducted his ministry and had suffered imprisonment and martyrdom. If Jesus had been associated with John for any length of time it is possible that in coming to southern Judea and Perea he was returning to an area and people he knew well. His reputation in these areas is attested by Ch. 3:8, although it is not clear whether it was established by direct knowledge or report. In both Judea and Perea Jesus began teaching crowds of people once more, resuming a public ministry which had been discontinued some time before he left Galilee (Ch. 9:30). This aspect of his ministry was concluded when Jesus went up to Jerusalem, by way of Jericho, for the Passover, or perhaps the Feast of Tabernacles (see Ch. 10:46–11:10).
2 On the question of the lawfulness of divorce the Pharisees and their scribes (and perhaps the majority of the Jewish people) were agreed: divorce was permitted in accordance with the provisions of Deut. 24:1. The only point of real dispute concerned the interpretation of the phrase “something shameful” in Deut. 24:1, which constituted the grounds upon which divorce was to be permitted. From the beginning of the first century variant opinions had polarized into two camps. The followers of Shammai argued that something morally shameful was in view, particularly adultery, but also a failure to observe the Jewish law which prescribed great reserve for a wife. The followers of Hillel argued that in addition to any moral fault, anything which caused annoyance or embarrassment to a husband was a legitimate ground for a divorce suit.7 It seems likely, however, that far more than this rabbinic dispute was in the background of the question posed in verse 2. The question was hostile in its intention, as Mark indicates by the qualifying phrase “tempting him,” and this larger context of temptation is very important to the passage as a whole. The question of the lawfulness of divorce and remarriage had been the immediate occasion for John the Baptist’s denunciation of the conduct of Herod Antipas and Herodias (Ch. 6:17f.) and had led to his violent death. In Perea Jesus was within the tetrarch’s jurisdiction. The intention behind the question, apparently, was to compromise Jesus in Herod’s eyes, perhaps in the expectation that the tetrarch would seize him even as he had John. The cooperation between the Herodians and the Pharisees, first mentioned in ominous terms in Ch. 3:6 and reiterated in Ch. 12:13, may be a part of the historical situation presupposed in the narrative.
3–4 Jesus cut across the casuistry of the Jewish legal tradition with a direct appeal to the Law (cf. Ch. 7:1–23; 10:17–20). In asking what Moses commanded it is evident that Jesus was calling for positive instruction (perhaps specifically the instruction of Gen. 2:24). His questioners answered with an exception and a permission, summarizing Deut. 24:1: Moses permitted divorce providing a certificate of divorce was given to the wife. This provision assumes the practice of divorce and describes a right to which a wife is entitled: she is to be given a bill of divorce which authenticates her release from the marriage contract and affirms her right to remarry.8 The Mosaic provision was made for the contingency of divorce, but did not in itself determine whether that contingency was right or wrong. Its primary function was to provide a degree of protection for the woman who had been repudiated by her husband.9
5 Jesus’ forceful retort is a denunciation of human sinfulness which serves to clarify the intention of the Mosaic provision. In Deut. 24:1 divorce is tolerated, but not authorized or sanctioned. When Jesus affirmed that Moses framed the provision concerning the letter of dismissal out of regard to the people’s hardness of heart, he was using an established legal category of actions allowed out of consideration for wickedness or weakness. What is involved is the lesser of two evils, and, in this instance, a merciful concession for the sake of the woman.10 Jesus’ purpose is to make clear that the intention of Deut. 24:1 was not to make divorce acceptable but to limit sinfulness and to control its consequences. This had direct bearing on the question of the lawfulness of divorce posed in verse 2. The Mosaic provision in Deut. 24:1–4 was in reality a witness to the gross evil which arose from, or even consisted in, a disregard of the creation ordinance of marriage as set forth in Gen. 1:27; 2:24. The situation that provided the occasion for the permission of divorce was one of moral perversity which consisted in a deliberate determination not to abide by the will of God. Such stubborn rebellion against the divine ordinance is the essence of hard-heartedness. The calloused attitude which could be taken in regard to divorce is well illustrated by the counsel of a respected teacher, Joshua ben Sira (ca. 200 B.C.): “If she go not as you would have her go, cut her off and give her a bill of divorce” (literally “cut her off from your flesh,” a reflection on the phrase “they shall be one flesh” in Gen. 2:24) (Ecclus. 25:26). Jesus’ judgment regarding hard-heartedness presupposes the abiding validity and obligation of the original divine institution of marriage, and the force of his pronouncement here, and in the following verses, is to obliterate the Mosaic tolerance. In this abrogation of the divorce tolerated under Moses there is applied a stringency which raises jurisprudence to the level of the intrinsic requirement of the Law of God.11
6–8 The appeal to the creation narrative lifts the discussion to a higher plane by relating it to the purpose of God with regard to marriage. The citation of Gen. 1:27 and 2:24 does not reflect an arbitrary decision as to God’s will but entails an appeal over against legislation based upon fallen history to the true nature of human existence as it was revealed from the beginning of the creation.12 The Mosaic permission was a departure from the creation ordinance and from the practice to which it obligated men. The original constitution of the race as male and female is the basis of marriage.13 The creation of the two sexes is resolved in unity through marriage, as instituted by God. It was recognized in certain strands of the scribal tradition that Gen. 2:24 commits both husband and wife to mutual fidelity and forbids adultery.14 The deduction drawn by Jesus in verse 8b (“so then they are no longer two, but one flesh”) affirms the indissolubility of marriage against a husband’s repudiation of his wife. The significant aspect of Jesus’ teaching at this point is that the interdiction of divorce is subservient to the proclamation of the unity of marriage, expressing a reaction against the frequently low esteem of women, even in Judaism.
9 Jesus’ final pronouncement grounds the sanctity of marriage in the authority of God himself. This is consistent with the biblical perspective, which never considers husband and wife alone but always in the presence of God, subject to his commands and aided by his grace. God intended that the purpose of marriage should be unity and that the obligations of marriage should be taken seriously. The decisive “No” to divorce provides the required safeguard against human selfishness which always threatens to destroy marriage.15 It also warns that the man who dissolves a union sanctioned by God inevitably stands under the divine judgment. This warning has in view the husband, rather than a judicial authority, since in Jewish practice divorce was effected by the husband himself. Behind this solemn prohibition there is a deep concern for personal relationships. Jesus does not envisage marriage as it is at times but as it can and should be—a call to fidelity, peace and love.16 The conclusion to the public discussion shows that this has not been a rabbinic discussion concerning the interpretation of the Law, but an authoritative teaching, astonishingly different from that of the scribes (cf. Ch. 1:22). The prophetic character of the teaching implies a veiled, messianic proclamation of the Kingdom drawn near in the person of Jesus himself. The disciples are shown that even the ordinances of the Law are not to be followed blindly but are to be carefully considered in the light of the highest standards which Scripture exemplifies. In this historical and geographical context, Jesus’ pronouncement confirms the bold testimony of John and condemns equally Antipas and Herodias.
10–11 In the subsequent discussion with the disciples Jesus declared without qualification that a man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.17 The use of the word “adultery” directs the disciples back to the absolute command of God (Ex. 20:14) and clarifies the seriousness of the issue. The new element in this teaching, which was totally unrecognized in the rabbinic courts, was the concept of a husband committing adultery against his former wife. According to rabbinic law a man could commit adultery against another married man by seducing his wife (Deut. 22:13–29) and a wife could commit adultery against her husband by infidelity, but a husband could not be said to commit adultery against his wife.18 The unconditional form of Jesus’ statement served to reinforce the abrogation of the Mosaic permission in Deut. 24:1. This sharp intensifying of the concept of adultery had the effect of elevating the status of the wife to the same dignity as her husband and placed the husband under an obligation of fidelity.
12 The right of a wife to divorce her husband was not recognized by Jewish law19 and even in Roman law was a relatively recent development near the end of the Republic (ca. 50–40 B.C.). If the reading supported by the Western and Caesarean families of texts is correct,20 Jesus did not speak of divorce in verse 12, but of desertion and remarriage. The woman who deserts her husband to marry another man is as guilty of the sin of adultery as the man who divorces his wife and remarries. This was a pointed judgment upon the conduct of Herodias, who had deserted her husband Philip to marry Antipas. The fact that she had sent her former husband a letter of separation21 did not alter the sinful, adulterous character of her action. The historical context of Jesus’ statement and its vindication of the Baptist’s denunciation of this adulterous union (Ch. 6:17f.) was apparently lost to view in later strands of the textual tradition. The form of the text found in the ASV, RSV, which presupposes that a wife possesses the ability to divorce her husband, may represent an adaptation of Jesus’ statement to the legal situation which prevailed in Rome and elsewhere in the Empire. This was a logical extension of the principle set forth in Ch. 10:11–12. The change brought verse 12 into parallel structurally with verse 11 and had immediate relevance for the Gentile churches.
11. The Blessing of the Children. Ch. 10:13–16
13And they were bringing unto him little children, that he should touch them: and the disciples rebuked them.22
14But when Jesus saw it, he was moved with indignation, and said unto them, Suffer little children to come unto me; forbid them not: for to such belongeth the kingdom of God.
15Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein.
16And he took them in his arms, and blessed them, laying his hands upon them.
13 The account of Jesus blessing the children furnishes an appropriate sequel to the pronouncements on the sanctity of marriage in Ch. 10:2–12. Although the circumstances are sketched in the barest possible manner and all references to time and place are absent, the situation is clear: children were brought to the Master in order to request his blessing for their future life.23 Jesus’ subsequent action in taking the children into his arms suggests that quite young children were involved. The terms employed by Mark in describing the initial action, however, are ambiguous: the verb may mean “bring” without implying the idea of carrying (cf. Ch. 7:32; 11:2, 7), while in Ch. 5:39–42 the same descriptive term, a young child, is used of a girl of twelve years. Although it is natural to think that the children were brought by their mothers, the masculine gender of the pronoun in the statement that the disciples rebuked them points rather in the direction of their fathers, or even to children themselves, the older ones bringing the younger ones to Jesus. This latter idea tends to be confirmed by verse 14, where the prohibition “Do not forbid them” has clear reference to the children. It is not said why the disciples sought to interfere and considered children unimportant to him. Their action was actually an abuse of their authority and stems from that same lack of perception which had led them to interfere with an unknown exorcist who was exercising the power of Jesus’ name effectively (see on Ch. 9:38). And, significantly, it called forth the same solemn prohibition: “Do not forbid” (Ch. 9:39).
14 The reference to Jesus’ indignation at the disciples’ rebuff of the children is confined to Mark’s account alone.24 The suggestion of impatience and irritation is strengthened by the sharp staccato effect of the positive and negative commands regarding the children, achieved by asyndeton: “Let the children approach me; do not prevent them” (without an intervening connective).25 The disciples’ attempt to turn the children aside because they were unimportant is one more instance of a persistent tendency to think in wholly human, fallen categories which Jesus had rebuked on earlier occasions (Chs. 8:33; 9:33–37). The Kingdom of God belongs to children, and to others like them who are of no apparent importance, because God has willed to give it to them. That is why these children are to be given access to Jesus, in whom the Kingdom has drawn near (see on Ch. 1:15). Unlike adults, who do not want anything to be given to them, children are comparatively modest and unspoiled. The Kingdom belongs to such as these because they receive it as a gift. The ground of Jesus’ surprising statement is not to be found in any subjective quality possessed by children but rather in their objective humbleness and in the startling character of the grace of God who wills to give the Kingdom to those who have no claim upon it.
15 This solemn pronouncement is directed to the disciples, but has pertinence for all men confronted by the gospel because it speaks of the condition for entrance into the Kingdom of God.26 The demand that a man become as a little child calls for a fresh realization that he is utterly helpless in his relationship to the Kingdom. The Kingdom is that which God gives and that which a man receives. Essential to the comparison developed in verse 15 is the objective littleness and helplessness of the child, which is presupposed in verse 14 as well. The Kingdom may be entered only by one who knows he is helpless and small, without claim or merit. The comparison “receive … as a little child” draws its force from the nature of the child to take openly and confidently what is given.27 The unchildlike piety of achievement must be abandoned in the recognition that to receive the Kingdom is to allow oneself to be given it.28 Jesus is emphatic that the man who does not receive the Kingdom now, simply and naturally as the children received him, will not enter into it when it is finally established in the consummation. What is specifically in view is the reception of the gospel and of Jesus himself as the one in whom the Kingdom has come near (see on Chs. 8:35, 38; 9:1).
16 Jesus’ final action was as significant as his words. His genuine love of children, and the tenderness expressed in taking them into his arms and blessing them through prayer and laying on of hands, can only be properly appreciated within the context of the calloused attitudes toward children that still prevailed within Hellenistic society in the first century. A papyrus dated Alexandria, June 17, 1 B.C., contains a letter of instruction from a husband to his expectant wife, who he supposes may have had her child: “if it was a male child, let it live; if it was a female, cast it out.”29 Jesus’ action in honoring the children offered concrete illustration that the blessings of the Kingdom are freely given. In context, the bestowing of the blessing constituted a fresh reiteration of the call to true discipleship and obedience to the intention of God.
12. Riches and the Kingdom of God. Ch. 10:17–27
17And as he was going forth into the way, there ran one to him, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good save one, even God.
19Thou knowest the commandments, Do not kill, Do not commit adultery,30 Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud,31 Honor thy father and mother.
20And he said unto him, Teacher, all these things have I observed from my youth.
21And Jesus looking upon him loved him,32 and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
22But his countenance fell at the saying, and he went away sorrowful: for he was one that had great possessions.33
23And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly34 shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
24And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches35 to enter into the kingdom of God!36
25It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
26And they were astonished exceedingly, saying unto him,37 Then who can be saved?
27Jesus looking upon them, saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for all things are possible with God.
Mark appears to regard Ch. 10:17–31 as a single unit expressing the essence of Jesus’ teaching concerning entrance into the Kingdom of God. This unit occupies a crucial position in the Marcan outline. It follows Ch. 10:13–16, where entrance into the Kingdom is defined as the gift of God bestowed upon those who acknowledge their helplessness in relationship to the Kingdom. It precedes the third major prophecy of the passion, which sharpens the demand to follow Jesus on the way to the cross. Within this context the major emphases of Ch. 10:17–31 are brought into focus. The call to self-denial in order to follow Jesus, sounded earlier in Ch. 8:34–38 and Ch. 9:33–37, is repeated in verse 21. The demand imposed upon the man who wishes to enter the Kingdom (cf. Ch. 9:42–50) is heightened, and the utter impossibility of attaining the Kingdom through human achievement is underscored in verse 27. The incident of the wealthy man who sought out Jesus in order to learn the requirements for securing eternal life provides the setting for a startling proclamation of the demands and the nature of the Kingdom.
It is customary to subdivide the unit between verses 22 and 23, and this paragraphing is reflected in most editions and translations of the text. It is clear, however, that Jesus’ statement regarding the danger of riches is a direct comment on the rejection of the call given in verse 21 and furnishes the necessary sequel to the encounter of verses 17–22. An attractive proposal is that the incident should be regarded as extending through verse 24a, the comment of Jesus in verse 23 together with the note of astonishment in verse 24a terminating the report. The subsequent section, verses 24b–27, would be in the nature of an appendix joined to the incident because of its appropriateness to the situation.38 This would explain the essential repetition of verse 23 in verse 24b and the repeated statement that the disciples were amazed (verse 24a, verse 26a). While the question regarding the rewards of discipleship is appropriate to this context and may have been prompted historically by the refusal of Jesus’ call, verses 28–31 are easily detachable from verses 22–27 and may be considered independently.39
17 Behind this recorded incident, with its vivid details, there stands the remembrance of a concrete encounter with Jesus which has left its mark on the tradition. The eager approach of a man while Jesus was setting out on his way, his kneeling posture, the formal address together with the weighty character of his question—all suggest deep respect for Jesus and genuine earnestness on the part of the man himself. He came to consult Jesus as a distinguished rabbi and showed him the deference reserved for revered teachers of the Law.40 In the OT and subsequent Judaism only God is characteristically called “good,” although it was possible to speak in a derived sense of “the good man” (e.g. Prov. 12:2; 14:14; Eccl. 9:2; Mt. 12:35). The designation of Jesus as “good teacher,” however, is virtually without parallel in Jewish sources41 and should be regarded as a sincere tribute to the impression he had made upon the man, whether “good” be understood to signify “kind,” “generous,” or some other quality of goodness. The question concerning the inheritance of eternal life, which has formal parallels in early Jewish material,42 places the discussion which follows in an eschatological perspective. The form of the question (“What must I do to inherit eternal life?”) implies a piety of achievement which stands in contrast to Jesus’ teaching that a man must receive the Kingdom (or life) as a gift from God in his helplessness (Ch. 10:15). In the light of verse 20, the man evidently thought that there were conditions to be fulfilled beyond those set forth in the Law.
18–19 Jesus responded by directing attention away from himself to God, who alone is the source and norm of essential goodness. The apparent repudiation of the epithet “good” only serves to radicalize the issue posed by the question of verse 17. The inquirer’s idea of goodness was defined by human achievement. He undoubtedly regarded himself as “good” in the sense that he was confident that he had fulfilled the commandments from the time he first assumed their yoke as a very young man; now he hopes to discover from another “good” man what he can do to assure eternal life. Jesus’ answer forces him to recognize that his only hope is an utter reliance upon God, who alone can bestow eternal life. The referral of the question to God, bowing before the Father and giving him the glory, places Jesus’ response within the context of the lordship of God. In calling in question the man’s use of “good,” Jesus’ intention is not to pose the question of his own sinlessness or oneness with the Father, but to set in correct perspective the honor of God.43 He took seriously the concept of the envoy which stands behind the formulation of Ch. 9:37, and desires to be known only in terms of his mission and the one who sent him.
The appeal to the commandments serves to reinforce this emphasis and responds more directly to the question, What must I do? Jesus’ response echoes the OT teaching that the man who obeys the Law will live (e.g. Deut. 30:15f.; Ezek. 33:15 and often). With the exception of the prohibition of fraud, which appears to be an application of the eighth and ninth commandments, the requirements cited are drawn from the Decalogue (Ex. 20:12–16; Deut. 5:16–20). They clearly and incisively focus upon relationships with others as the discernible measure of a man’s reverence for God and obedience to his mandates.44 Jesus does not accept as good any other will than the will of God revealed in the Law. His affirmation of the commandments is a demand for obedient action which recognizes both the sovereignty of God and the existence of the neighbor.
20–21 The impulsive reply of the man indicates that he had made the Law the norm of his life and that he was confident that he had fulfilled its demands perfectly.45 “From a youth” has reference to a boy’s twelfth year when he assumed the yoke of the commandments and was held responsible for their performance (cf. M. Berachoth II. 2; Lk. 2:42). From that time forth he had observed “all these.” Yet his question to Jesus suggests that behind a façade of security there was a heart which had lost much of its security. Concerned with the dimensions of his own piety, he had lost his delight in God with the result that he lacked the approval of God. Nevertheless, there was an earnestness in the man which Jesus recognized. The response of verse 21 is not intended to shame him by exposing the real depth of the commandments but is an expression of genuine love for him. The one thing he lacks is the self-sacrificing devotion which characterizes every true follower of Jesus. For this reason Jesus invites him to follow him now and to experience the demands of life and the Kingdom with the Twelve. Keeping the individual commandments is no substitute for the readiness for self-surrender to the absolute claim of God imposed through the call of the gospel. Jesus’ summons in this context means that true obedience to the Law is rendered ultimately in discipleship. This man will achieve the perfect observance of the Law when he surrenders himself and follows Jesus. Self-surrender implies a renunciation of his own achievement and the reception of messianic forgiveness through which a man is released to stand under the Law and to offer the obedience of love.
The specific form of the sacrifice Jesus demanded of this man is not to be regarded as a general prescription to be applied to all men, nor yet as a demand for an expression of piety that goes beyond the requirements of the Law. The command to sell his property and to distribute the proceeds to the poor was appropriate to this particular situation. The subsequent reduction to poverty and helplessness would dramatize the fact that man is helpless in his quest for eternal life, which must be bestowed as the gift of God. Scribal legislation prohibited the giving away of all one’s possessions precisely because it would reduce a man to poverty.46 Nevertheless, Jesus’ call for resolute sacrifice in order to do the will of God does not exceed that which the Law requires nor that which he himself had voluntarily assumed. The assurance of “treasure in heaven” reflects an idiom that was current in Judaism,47 which allowed Jesus to enter the thought-world of his contemporaries. Here, however, it is stripped of its customary associations of merit (as if selling one’s property and giving the money received to the poor will earn a significant reward), since the promised treasure signifies the gift of eternal life or salvation at the revelation of the Kingdom of God.
The deepest answer to the question of verse 17, however, lies not in the command to sell all but in the call to follow Jesus.48 Jesus separated persons from their normal historical existence (cf. Chs. 1:16–20; 2:14; 3:13f.) in order to introduce them to a new quality of existence based upon fellowship with himself. This means that the command to follow Jesus is an invitation to lay hold of authentic life offered as a gift in his own person.49 Jesus’ demand is radical in character. He claims the man utterly and completely, and orders the removal of every other support which could interfere with an unconditional obedience. The terms defined by Jesus clarify what following signifies (cf. Ch. 10:28),50 and indicate that Jesus himself is the one answer to the man’s quest for life.
22 The response to Jesus’ call is vividly described: the man’s face fell, etched with disappointment and sorrow because he possessed great estates.51 For the first time Mark indicates that the man was rich. His tragic decision to turn away reflects a greater love for his possessions than for life (cf. Ch. 4:19). What accounts for the rich man’s failure is the call of the Kingdom of God with its demand for resolute self-denial (cf. Ch. 8:34). The refusal of the call only serves to accentuate the greatness of the renunciation demanded and the uniqueness of the Twelve as those who had abandoned everything in order to follow Jesus. The conclusion to the interview with Jesus indicates that in the case of this man the Law had not yet fulfilled its function, for its historical task is to bring man’s satisfaction with this world to an end and to quicken within him a thirst for righteousness and life.
23–25 Jesus’ comment on the difficulty encountered by the rich in entering the Kingdom of God draws its force from the refusal of this particular rich man to abandon everything and to follow him. This action demonstrated how easy it was to become so attached to wealth that even an earnest man forgets what is infinitely more important. Jesus’ warning implies that only in meeting the demand for radical sacrifice and following is entrance into the Kingdom secured, reinforcing the specific instruction of verse 21. In Judaism it was inconceivable that riches should be a barrier to the Kingdom, since a significant strand of OT teaching regarded wealth and substance as marks of God’s favor (e.g. Job 1:10; 42:10; Ps. 128:1–2; Isa. 3:10 and often). If a related strand of the tradition recognized the poor as the special objects of God’s protection (e.g. Deut. 15:7–11; Prov. 22:22f.), the possession of wealth permitted generous gifts to those in need. This aspect of personal and public concern was one of the three major pillars of Jewish piety (almsgiving, fasting and prayer). The affirmation of verse 23 was shocking precisely because it entails the rejection of the concept of merit accumulated through the good works accomplished by the rich, which was presupposed in contemporary Judaism. There is no mark of God’s special favor in possessions, nor in the lack of them. The peculiar danger confronting the rich, however, lies in the false sense of security which wealth creates and in the temptation to trust in material resources and personal power when what is demanded by the Law and the gospel is a whole-hearted reliance upon God.
When the disciples expressed their surprise, Jesus repeated his solemn warning in an absolute form: how hard it is to enter the Kingdom of God. The repetition of this sober affirmation is calculated to provoke careful reflection on the part of every man confronted with the call of the gospel. In verse 25, however, Jesus states that it is impossible for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. The reference to the camel and the needle are to be taken literally, for the disciples’ reaction in verse 26 stems from a statement of real impossibility. The camel was the largest animal found on Palestinian soil. The violent contrast between the largest animal and the smallest opening expresses what, humanly speaking, is impossible or absurd.52
26–27 The disciples were more bewildered than before. They understood that the manner in which Jesus spoke of the rich in fact blocks the way for any man to achieve entrance into the Kingdom, and they were frightened by this implication. Their anxious question is eschatological in nature: Who will be found in the Kingdom?53 Jesus’ response in verse 27 provides the key to the sober declarations in the immediate context and to the gospel he proclaimed. Salvation is completely beyond the sphere of human possibilities; every attempt to enter the Kingdom on the basis of achievement or merit is futile. Yet even the rule of the impossibility of entrance into the Kingdom for the rich is limited by the sovereign action of God himself. The ability and the power to effect deliverance reside in God alone (cf. Rom. 8:7). “Eternal life,” “salvation,” or “entrance into the Kingdom” describe a single reality which must be bestowed as his gift to men. The conclusion to the account rejoins the beginning in directing attention to the ability and goodness of God, and constitutes the basis for the renewal of a theology of hope.
13. The Rewards of Discipleship. Ch. 10:28–31
28Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.
29Jesus said, Verily I say unto you,54 There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or mother, or father,55 or children, or lands, for my sake, and for the gospel’s sake,
30but 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.56
31But many that are first shall be last; and the last first.
28 Peter often acted as the spokesman for the Twelve and he did so on this occasion (cf. Chs. 8:29, 32; 9:5; 11:21). His affirmation recalls the invitation extended in verse 21 and was perhaps prompted by it. In contrast to the refusal of Jesus’ call by a man who valued his wealth above eternal life, they had abandoned everything in order to follow Jesus (Ch. 1:16–20; 2:14). There appears to be a note of self-congratulation in this announcement. It reflects the same tendency to think of the honors that will be received in the Kingdom before the nature of the mission has been understood that was encountered in Ch. 9:33 (cf. Ch. 10:35–37). Nevertheless, Peter’s declaration shows that he has understood Jesus’ words in the absolute sense they bear in verse 21.
29–30 Jesus’ response defines Christian existence in terms of promise and persecution, and history as the interplay of blessedness and suffering. The contrast between the present age and the age to come is thoroughly Palestinian in character57 and expresses the tension between promise and fulfilment in the life of faith. The frank recognition of the loss that allegiance to Jesus and the gospel may entail (cf. Ch. 13:12f.)58 is conditioned by the promise that all that is lost in one society (verse 29) will be regained a hundredfold in the new society created by the dynamic of the gospel (verse 30). This reassurance is addressed to any man who suffers loss for Jesus and the gospel. God takes nothing away from a man without restoring it to him in a new and glorious form. Jesus’ reference to the new family which will compensate for the loss sustained in one’s own family finds its preparation in Ch. 3:31–35. The omission of a reference to the father in verse 30 is undoubtedly intentional since God himself is the head of the new spiritual family (cf. Ch. 11:25, “Your Father in heaven”). Over against the blessings of the new society stands the sharp realism in the reference to persecution, which clarifies what identification with Jesus and the gospel entails (Ch. 8:34f.; cf. Ch. 4:17).59 This has pointed relevance to the church in Rome where suffering for the name of Christ became the reality and norm of Christian experience (cf. 1 Peter 4:14, 16). Paradoxically, the first part of Jesus’ promise (fellowship with other believers) found its deepest realization within the context of the persecution through which the Church became identified as the suffering people of God. The promise of eternal life in the age to come looks beyond the conflicts of history to the triumph assured through radical obedience to the will of God.
31 The final statement, with its antithetic parallelism obtained through the inversion of its clauses, is a piece of “floating tradition” which occurs in other contexts as well (Mt. 20:16; Lk. 13:30). In the Marcan context it is clearly eschatological and speaks of the reversal of every earthly gradation of rank in the age to come. It is difficult, however, to determine whether it is intended to confirm the promise which Jesus has just given to the Twelve (verse 30), or as a warning against the presumption voiced in the outburst of verse 28. It is perhaps better to regard it as a powerful summation of Jesus’ teaching concerning the nature of discipleship as service, on the analogy of Ch. 9:35. If the disciples thought that they would enter the Kingdom because they had left everything behind, or considered discipleship a matter of giving up possessions now in order to receive a reward later, Jesus shattered these false conceptions. What he demanded was a total, radical commitment to himself, sustained in the act of following him faithfully. In return he gave the Twelve the responsibility to accept the consequences of commitment, supported by his presence and the promise of God.
14. The Third Major Prophecy of the Passion. Ch. 10:32–34
32And they were on the way, going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus was going before them: and they were amazed; and they that followed were afraid.60 And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them the things that were to happen unto him,
33saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and 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:
34and 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.
32 Each of the three major prophecies of the passion is set within the context of the journey, but now for the first time Jerusalem is named as the destination where Jesus will accomplish his mission. Jerusalem was the holy city set upon a hill, and it was normal to speak of “going up” to Jerusalem and the Temple.61 There is a note of solemnity in the vivid picture of Jesus walking before his frightened disciples, inflexible in his determination to do the will of God (cf. Isa. 50:7f.). The action of Jesus walking ahead of the Twelve corresponds to rabbinic custom,62 but far more than this is involved. The description anticipates the action of the Risen Lord promised in Chs. 14:28; 16:7, and evokes the image of the powerful Savior who leads his people with purpose and direction. The person of Jesus is central in the scene sketched in verse 32a. What awakens amazement and terror in the disciples who follow is not the recognition that the road leads to Jerusalem nor an awareness of what will be accomplished there, but Jesus himself. The power of the Lord, who holds in his hands his own destiny as well as that of the people of God, is manifested for Mark and his readers in the awe and dread which characterize those around him (cf. Ch. 9:32).63
The solemn announcement concerning Jerusalem, and the suffering and vindication to be experienced there, is elaborately introduced. The notice that Jesus “took again the Twelve” simply means that he gathered the disciples around him to make precise the purpose of the journey, which had been disclosed earlier in less specific terms (Chs. 8:31; 9:12, 31). On each occasion the Twelve alone were the recipients of this prophetic instruction.
33–34 Of Jesus’ three prophecies of his suffering and death, the third is the most precise.64 Its relationship to the earlier utterances and to the course of events reported in the Passion Narrative may be seen in the following table:65
|
Ch. |
Ch. |
Ch. |
|
|
|
(1) Delivered to the chief priests and scribes |
— |
(X) |
X |
Ch. 14:53 |
|
(2) Sentenced to death |
(X) |
— |
X |
Ch. 14:64 |
|
(3) Delivered to the Romans |
— |
— |
X |
Ch. 15:1, 10 |
|
(4) Mocked, spit upon, scourged |
— |
— |
X |
(Ch. 14:65); Ch. 15:15–20 |
|
(5) Executed |
X |
X |
X |
Ch. 15:20–39, 44 |
|
(6) Resurrected |
X |
X |
X |
Ch. 16:1–8 |
The greater detail in the third prophecy and its close correspondence with Jesus’ subsequent experience have led many commentators to affirm that the formulation has been shaped by the Passion Narrative itself.66 This judgment is by no means necessary. Jesus was aware of the balance of power among the various authorities in Palestine and could calculate precisely the procedure which would be followed in carrying out a sentence of death. The more precise details in verse 34 are actually enumerated in the inverse order in which they occur in Ch. 15:15–20; moreover, there has been no attempt to conform the vocabulary of the prophecy to the fulfilment (see Ch. 15:15). It is far more likely that the form of the prophecy indicates Jesus’ reflection on such OT texts as Ps. 22:6–8, where the righteous Sufferer is cruelly mocked, and Isa. 50:6, which speaks of scourging and spitting as the tokens of contempt to which the righteous Servant is exposed. It is appropriate to see in verses 33–34 a further revelation of sufferings which Jesus will assume in fulfilment of his messianic vocation.
The new element in the prophecy is the sharp distinction between Jesus’ condemnation by the Jewish authorities and the execution of the sentence of death by the Gentiles, who are mentioned for the first time in the context of the passion (cf. Acts 3:13). Delivery to the Gentiles reveals that Jesus will be held in contempt by his own countrymen, for the Gentiles are the last people to whom the Messiah of the people of God should be handed over. The actions defining his humiliation are carried out by the Gentiles. Mockery (cf. Ch. 15:20) and spitting (cf. Ch. 15:19) are forms of derision to which Jesus will be exposed, while the scourging (cf. Ch. 15:15; cf. Jn. 19:1) is more closely related to his violent death, in accordance with the Roman law that scourging always accompanied a capital sentence.67 Nothing is said of crucifixion, but this could be presupposed under the circumstances of Roman jurisdiction.68 In Jerusalem, as nowhere else, Jesus will fulfill his mission. Beyond the abject humiliation disclosed in the sober terms of verse 34 lies the assurance of vindication through resurrection.
15. Rank, Precedence and Service. Ch. 10:35–45
35And there came near unto him James and John, the sons of Zebedee,69 saying unto him, Teacher, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall ask of thee.
36And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?70
37And they said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and one on thy left hand, in thy glory.
38But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink the cup that I drink?71 or to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?
39And they said unto him, We are able. And Jesus said unto them, The cup that I drink ye shall drink; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:
40but to sit on my right hand or on my left hand is not mine to give; but it is for them for whom72 it hath been prepared.73
41And when the ten heard it, they began to be moved with indignation concerning James and John.
42And Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they who are accounted to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great ones exercise authority over them.
43But it is not so among you: but whosoever would become great among you, shall be your minister;
44and whosoever would be first among you, shall be servant of all.
45For the Son of man also came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom74 for many.75
Ch. 10:32–45 is structurally parallel with Ch. 9:30–37. The second and third major prophecies of the passion (Ch. 9:30–32; Ch. 10:32–34) are both followed by an exposure of the presumption of the disciples (Ch. 9:33f.; Ch. 10:35–37) and by Jesus’ instruction concerning humility and service (Ch. 9:35–37; Ch. 10:42–45). This incident reveals that in spite of Jesus’ repeated efforts since Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi to inculcate in his disciples the spirit of self-renunciation demanded by the cross, the sons of Zebedee have understood his intention very superficially. Their ambitious request brings discredit upon them, while the indignation of the other ten disciples reflects a similar preoccupation with their own dignity. The pronouncement of Jesus concerning the servant vocation of the Son of Man, who seals his service with the sacrifice of his life for the many, goes beyond the instruction given to the disciples in Ch. 9:35–37, and brings the question of rank, precedence and service into profound pastoral and theological perspective.
35–37 In the request of James and John the misunderstanding which attended each of the previous prophecies of Jesus’ suffering asserted itself in a blatant form. The disciples had failed completely to grasp the significance of Jesus’ teaching that he would be treated with contempt and be put to death. The request of the sons of Zebedee for places of honor in the glory of the Son of Man immediately follows Jesus’ announcement that they were going to Jerusalem and after three days the Son of Man will rise. The enthusiasm reflected in the sweeping terms of verse 35, and the form of the petition in verse 37, in the context of approaching the royal city, show that the brothers regard Jesus as the eschatological Lord who goes to Jerusalem to restore the glory of the fallen throne of David. The question of rank, involving an inflated understanding of their own position, is best explained in the context of royal messiahship.76 The request may be for the places of honor at the messianic banquet77 or for the positions of eminence and authority at the parousia, when Jesus is enthroned as the eschatological judge (see Chs. 8:38; 13:26). The place of honor is the seat on the right, and next to it, the seat on the left (cf. 1 Kings 2:19; Ps. 110:1; 1 Esdras 4:29; Ecclus. 12:12; Josephus, Antiquities VI. xi. 9). The announcement of Jerusalem as the goal of the journey suggested that Jesus’ glory was imminent (cf. Ch. 9:1).
38–39 Jesus’ response is as sharp as the probing questions in Ch. 7:17 or Ch. 8:20. Taking account of what immediately follows, the sense appears to be as follows; you do not know that in requesting to participate in my glory you ask at the same time to share my painful destiny, an indispensable condition of my glorification.78 It must be stressed that the question of verse 38 calls for a negative reply. The sufferings and death which await Jesus, expressed by the two images of the cup and baptism, belong to the unique messianic mission of the Son of Man. Verse 38 expresses an impossibility, and not the requisite condition for association with Jesus’ glory. Jesus’ pointed question contains at least an implied condemnation of the proud pretensions of James and John. Their desire to share the messianic glory of Jesus, without taking account of the distance which separates them from their Master, is insensitive that this would entail participation in his sufferings and in his messianic death for the salvation of men.
In interpreting the enigmatic language of the cup and baptism it is crucial to recognize that these images do not bear the same significance when applied to Jesus and when applied to the disciples. The cup and baptism signify that Jesus in his passion will be the voluntary sacrifice for the sins of men; when applied to the disciples in verse 39 these images suggest their moral participation in Jesus’ passion.79
To share someone’s cup was a recognized expression for sharing his fate.80 In the OT the cup of wine is a common metaphor for the wrath of God’s judgment upon human sin and rebellion,81 and this understanding was kept alive into the first century.82 The total ruin which the cup represents is willed by God and constitutes a divine judgment. In interpreting verse 38 it is necessary to see the cup as a designation of judgment. Jesus boldly applied to himself the image of the cup used by the prophets to threaten the enemies of God with his divine vengeance. The cup which Jesus must drink has reference to divine punishment of sins which he bears in place of the guilty (cf. Chs. 10:45; 14:24). The reality which the image represents is expressed in Isa. 53:5: “he was wounded because of our sins, bruised because of our iniquities; the chastisement which gives us peace has been upon him, and it is by his sufferings that we are healed.”83
The image of baptism is parallel to that of the cup.84 In popular Greek usage the vocabulary of baptism was used to speak of being overwhelmed by disaster or danger, and a similar metaphorical use of submersion is present in Scripture.85 The texts of the OT, however, do not demonstrate that to be submerged signified submission to a fearful death, and it is this which is required in the context. Apparently Jesus called his passion a baptism (cf. Lk. 12:50) because he and the disciples were familiar with John’s rite of repentance, which he called “baptism” and set in an explicit context of God’s judgment upon human sin. Jesus understood that his baptism expressed his solidarity with sinful men and signified his willingness to assume the burden of the judgment of God (see on Ch. 1:2–11). The baptism which he anticipates is his death upon the cross in fulfilment of his messianic vocation.86 Applied to Jesus, the images of the cup and baptism signify that he bears the judgment merited by the sins of men (cf. Ch. 14:36; 15:34). While informed by the OT motifs, the primary key for interpreting the parabolic language of verse 38 is Jesus’ messianic task.
In verse 39 the two images are paradoxically applied to James and John. They indicate that the brothers will participate in the sufferings of Jesus (cf. 1 Peter 4:13). There must be a solidarity between the Son of Man and his disciples, and this is expressed not only by their grateful acceptance of his protection and favor, but also by their following his example of humility and service, if necessary to the extent of death. The description of discipleship implied conforms to Ch. 8:34–38. The reference, however, is neither exclusively nor necessarily to martyrdom, for the image of baptism is not found in this sense in Christian literature until the turn of the second century.87 Rather Jesus prophesies that the sons of Zebedee, like himself, will endure great tribulation and suffering for the gospel (cf. Acts 12:2; Rev. 1:9).
The two brothers are confident that they are prepared to share Jesus’ destiny, even in reference to suffering if this is the necessary prelude to glory. Their naïve reply only serves to indicate that they were as incapable of understanding the full import of Jesus’ reference to his cup and baptism as they were of grasping the real significance of his prophecy of the passion.
40 Jesus’ denial of the right to set men on his right or left hand is consistent with his refusal to accept even the appearance of an arbitrary authority. His prerogatives are limited by his submission to the Father, and Jesus frankly admitted this (cf. Ch. 13:32; Acts 1:7). The appointment of the places of honor is the Father’s prerogative, and James and John are only given the assurance that these will be assigned to those who have been prepared by him.
41–44 The other ten disciples were indignant because they were jealous of their own dignity and fearful lest the two brothers should secure some advantage over them. Their insensitivity to the seriousness of the moment links them with James and John, and suggests the cruel loneliness with which Jesus faced the journey to Jerusalem. It also indicates the degree to which selfish ambition and rivalry were the raw material from which Jesus had to fashion the leadership for the incipient Church.
In seeking to impress the truth of Ch. 9:35 on the Twelve, Jesus contrasted the conduct of Gentile rulers with the submission to service and sacrifice which is appropriate to discipleship. It is probable that his most direct contact with the expression of power and authority by the petty rulers of Palestine and Syria and the great lords of Rome was through the coins which circulated in the land. To cite only two examples, the denarius that was used for paying taxes (cf. Ch. 12:16) portrayed Tiberius as the semi-divine son of the god Augustus and the goddess Livia; the copper coins struck by Herod Philip at Caesarea Philippi showed the head of the reigning emperor (Augustus, then Tiberius) with the emperor’s name and the inscription: “He who deserves adoration.”88 There is biting irony in the reference to those who give the illusion of ruling (cf. Jn. 19:11) but simply exploit the people over whom they exercise dominion. In their struggle for rank and precedence, and the desire to exercise authority for their own advantage, the disciples were actually imitating those whom they undoubtedly despised.
Jesus consciously opposes to the order of earthly rule the vocation of the servant. The synonymous parallelism between verses 43 and 44 identifies the household servant and the slave as men whose activities are not directed toward their own interests but to those of another. The order of life for the common dealings of the disciples is to be love expressed in the form of service. This transforms the question of rank and greatness into the task of service: only by service does one become great. On the other hand, high rank (“first,” “greatest”) deserves recognition in the community when it is rooted in the service which Jesus commands (cf. Ch. 9:35). The Twelve are summoned to become the compassionate community and to recognize that the performance of an act of compassion as an expression of pure devotion to Jesus is at one and the same time worship and service (cf. 1 Cor. 9:19; 2 Cor. 4:5; Gal. 5:13; 1 Peter 5:3).89
45 The reversal of all human ideas of greatness and rank was achieved when Jesus came, not to be served, but to serve. He voluntarily veiled his glory as the Son of Man (cf. Chs. 8:38; 13:26; 14:62) and assumed the form of a slave who performed his service unto death because this was the will of God (cf. Phil. 2:6–8). In verse 45, which subsumes verses 43–44, the death of Jesus is presented as his service to God and as a vicarious death for many in virtue of which they find release from sin. Each of the components of this highly compressed saying is significant. The formulation “The Son of man came …” places the entire statement in the context of Jesus’ messianic mission (cf. Ch. 2:17). The service in which the royal will of the Son of Man is displayed is fulfilled in his giving of himself. In a Jewish frame of reference this expression was characteristically used of the death of the martyrs (e.g. 1 Macc. 2:50; 6:44; Mekilta to Ex. 12:1). In this context it expresses the element of voluntariness or self-sacrifice in the death of Jesus who offers himself in obedience to the will of God. His death has infinite value because he dies not as a mere martyr but as the transcendent Son of Man.
The ransom metaphor sums up the purpose for which Jesus gave his life and defines the complete expression of his service. The prevailing notion behind the metaphor is that of deliverance by purchase, whether a prisoner of war, a slave, or a forfeited life is the object to be delivered. Because the idea of equivalence, or substitution, was proper to the concept of a ransom, it became an integral element in the vocabulary of redemption in the OT.90 It speaks of a liberation which connotes a servitude or an imprisonment from which man cannot free himself. In the context of verse 45a, with its reference to the service of the Son of Man, it is appropriate to find an allusion to the Servant of the Lord in Isa. 53, who vicariously and voluntarily suffered and gave his life for the sins of others. The specific thought underlying the reference to the ransom is expressed in Isa. 53:10 which speaks of “making his life an offering for sin.”91 Jesus, as the messianic Servant, offers himself as a guilt-offering (Lev. 5:14–6:7; 7:1–7; Num. 5:5–8) in compensation for the sins of the people. The release effected by this offering overcomes man’s alienation from God, his subjection to death, and his bondage to sin. Jesus’ service is offered to God to release men from their indebtedness to God.92
The thought of substitution is reinforced by the qualifying phrase “a ransom for the many.” The Son of Man takes the place of the many and there happens to him what would have happened to them (cf. Ch. 8:37: what no man can do, Jesus, as the unique Son of Man, achieves). The many had forfeited their lives, and what Jesus gives in their place is his life. In his death, Jesus pays the price that sets men free. The sacrifice of the one is contrasted with those for whom it is made, in allusion to Isa. 53:11f. In rabbinic literature, and even more strikingly at Qumran, “the many” is a technical term for the elect community, the eschatological people of God.93 The majestic figure of the Son of Man is linked here with the community which will be vindicated and saved in the eschatological judgment because Jesus goes to his death innocently, voluntarily and in accordance with the will of God. This corresponds perfectly with the main thought of Isa. 53. The ultimate meaning of Jesus’ vicarious suffering and his giving himself as a ransom, however, can be understood only from the reality of his life, death and resurrection as narrated in the Gospel. In Mark there is complete correspondence between the ransom saying and the death of Jesus. Because Jesus’ will is synchronous with the will of God he must die in the place of guilty men (Ch. 8:31, 33). This is what it means for him to offer his life as a ransom for the many.
This painful and glorious destiny of the Son of Man is something unique to his mission and in a definite sense is incommunicable: only he can accomplish this service. Nevertheless, his submission to the servant’s vocation is here proposed as an example to the Twelve, who are summoned to pattern their lives after the humility of the Son of Man. Jesus’ sacrifice of his own glory is the ground of a renewal of life to self-sacrificial obedience. The disciples were to experience this power of his death in themselves. That John, the son of Zebedee, ultimately understood Jesus’ intention is clear from 1 John 3:16: “He laid down his life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.”
16. The Faith of Blind Bartimaeus. Ch. 10:46–52
46And they came94 to Jericho: and as he went out from Jericho, with his disciples and a great multitude, the son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus,95 a blind beggar, was sitting by the way side.
47And when he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene,96 he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me.
48And many rebuked him, that he should hold his peace: but he cried out the more a great deal, Thou son of David, have mercy on me.
49And Jesus stood still, and said, Call ye him. And they call the blind man, saying unto him, Be of good cheer:97 rise, he calleth thee.
50And he, casting away his garment,98 sprang up, and came to Jesus.
51And Jesus answered him, and said, What wilt thou that I should do unto thee? And the blind man said unto him, Rabboni,99 that I may receive my sight.
52And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole. And straightway he received his sight, and followed him in the way.
46 The incident involving the blind beggar, Bartimaeus, is the last of the healing miracles recorded by Mark. The vividness with which the story is told as well as the precision with which it is located at Jericho on the final stage of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem is apparently due to eyewitness report. Jericho was located about five miles west of the Jordan and eighteen miles northeast of Jerusalem. The old city had badly deteriorated by the first century, but extending southward the new city built by Herod as the site for his magnificent winter palace was renowned for its singular beauty and fertility.100 The crowd which came out of the city with Jesus and his disciples plays almost no role in the ensuing drama; it most likely consisted of pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem for the feast (cf. Ps. 42:4). Though the road which led from Jericho to the capital passed through desolate mountainous country and was notoriously unsafe, it was much travelled. The presence of a blind beggar just outside the city gates, on the pilgrimage way, was a common sight in the Near East. The preservation of his name is unusual, and is limited to the Marcan account. Mark so rarely records names in connection with incidents of healing (only Ch. 5:22) that it is probable that the Son of Timai was known in the later Church.
47–48 It is evident that Bartimaeus has heard about Jesus of Nazareth and that his relentless crying of “Son of David, have mercy upon me” reflects a conviction, formed on the basis of what he had heard, that Jesus could restore his sight. Nevertheless, it is difficult to be certain of the significance of the component parts in his appeal for help. “Have mercy upon me” is a cry directed to God by the afflicted in the Psalter (e.g. Ps. 4:1; 6:2; 41:4, 10; 51:1; 109:26; 123:3). In this context it may be a general plea for God’s goodness and mercy which is channeled through his servant, Jesus. The nuance in “Son of David” is more difficult to determine. Unlike Matthew and Luke, Mark had made little of this theme. Jesus is addressed as Son of David only here (cf. Chs. 11:9–10; 12:35–37). There is no indication in the text that he rejected the title. The command that the blind man be called (verse 49) rather implies that he paid it particular attention. If it is proper to understand the designation in its messianic context (cf. Isa. 11:1ff.; Jer. 23:5 f.; Ezek. 34:23 f.; 4QPatriarchal Blessings i. 3–4, “the righteous Messiah, the branch of David”), the epithet is closely related to the confession of Ch. 8:29 (cf. Ch. 15:32). Presumably, Jesus did not silence the beggar (in contrast to Ch. 8:30) because he is at the threshold of Jerusalem where his messianic vocation must be fulfilled. The “messianic secret” is relaxed because it must be made clear to all the people that Jesus goes to Jerusalem as the Messiah, and that he dies as the Messiah.101 This may be the natural way to interpret the designation, and it is probable that Mark’s readers understood the epithet in this messianic context (cf. Rom. 1:3). The problem is that Bartimaeus’ use of “Son of David” is confined to his period of blindness before he has gained Jesus’ attention. When he stands in the presence of Jesus he addresses him respectfully as “my master,” but there is no suggestion of messianism in this title of honor. If the request to see reflects a messianic conviction that Jesus is the one through whom the promises of Isa. 35:4–5; 61:1 are fulfilled, this is not made explicit in the text (in contrast to Ch. 7:37). For these reasons it is, perhaps, better to find in “Son of David” a respectful form of address colored by the vivid Davidic associations of Jerusalem but informed by the conviction that Jesus was the instrument of God for bringing healing and blessing to the land. It is not necessary to conclude that Bartimaeus knew of Jesus’ Davidic lineage or recognized that he was the Messiah. It is evident from Ch. 11:10 (cf. Acts 4:25) that those who had no direct Davidic descent could speak of “our father David” (with the implication that they were the sons of David). All that is required by the ensuing narrative is that the blind man recognized Jesus as the one from whom he could expect the gracious mercy of God. The ambiguity in “Son of David” permitted Mark’s readers to hear his cry as an acknowledgment of Jesus’ messianic dignity.102
Those in the crowd who rebuked the beggar undoubtedly regarded his shouting as a nuisance and resented the thought of any possible delay. They had probably become quite hardened to seeing beggars along the roadside, and especially at the city gates, crying for alms. Undeterred, the man resolutely continued his chant until he succeeded in drawing Jesus’ attention to himself.
49–50 Jesus took the initiative in directing that the blind man should be called. The rebuke of those who had attempted to silence the beggar was not allowed to stand (cf. Ch. 10:13f.), for even on the way to Jerusalem Jesus had time for a man who appealed for his help in faith. The encouragement offered to Bartimaeus assured him that Jesus was concerned with his plight and relieved the anxiety and distress expressed in his cry. His response was dramatic and decisive. He cast aside his outer garment, which he had spread on the ground in front of him to receive alms, sprang up, and came, apparently unaided, to Jesus.
51–52 Jesus did not exercise his power arbitrarily or impersonally but in the context of a genuine involvement which established the existence of faith sufficient to receive the gift of healing from God. For this purpose questions or brief conversations are frequently an element in the healing narratives of the Gospel (e.g. Chs. 2:5–11; 5:30–34; 7:27–29; 9:21–24). The cause of Bartimaeus’ distress was clear, but Jesus’ question is designed to strengthen his faith by encouraging him to express it forthrightly. The response, “Master, let me receive my sight,” acknowledged Jesus as the one who can make the blind to see (Ch. 8:22–26; Isa. 35:5). It was recognized by the Lord as an affirmation of confident trust in the gracious mercy of God and his power to heal (cf. Ch. 5:34). The healing was immediate: “he received his sight and followed him in the way.” That Bartimaeus followed Jesus does not mean that he became a disciple, like one of the Twelve, but that he joined the crowd of pilgrims who were accompanying the Master.103 It would undoubtedly be his intention to go up to the Temple in order to offer the sacrifice of thanksgiving for his sight. The following “on the way” contrasts dramatically with his former sitting “along the way” and anticipates Ch. 11:1–11 when the pilgrims enter Jerusalem with the ancient songs of praise. Mark may have had in mind the contrast between the Son of David, who has in his company the former blind man, and the warrior king, who had recognized in the blind and the lame only an obstacle to be destroyed in the taking of Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5:6–8). Jesus had fulfilled the condition for entrance into Jerusalem (taking away the blind, 2 Sam. 6:5) by restoring sight to the blind beggar in the way. The healing of Bartimaeus displays, without any concealment, the messianic dignity of Jesus and his compassion on those who believe in him, and throws in bold relief the blindness of the leaders of Israel, whose eyes remained closed to his glory.