Marcos 10
John MacArthur · Citado em PreceptAustin
Marcos 10
MacArthur has a different interpretation - This statement means that everyone ends up the same, a truth that is explained by the parable ...Believers will share equally in the blessings of heaven—a truth illustrated by the parable of Mt 19:30-20:16...(MacArthur Study Bible) Daniel Hill - The verb used in this verse is middle voice, adding to the benefit the Lord has for us when we are willing to set self aside, to leave the old baggage, to dispel the things upon which we rely for dependence and serve Jesus Christ. This sets up what the Lord will be saying to James and John about being servants. A wise man once said: Do not ever stoop to be a king if God has called you to be a servant. So now for a moment, in something or relationship, we may be last, but God's plan in time and eternity is for us to be first. Nathan Schaeffer said: At the close of life the question will not be, how much have you got, but how much have you given? Not how much have you won, but how much have you done? Not how much have you saved, but how much have you sacrificed? It will be how much have you served, not how much have you been honored? In this passage we are going to see our Lord talk about being the greatest, being first, by being a servant. A T
Marcos 10
MacArthur - "The road to that greatness in the kingdom lies in selfless service. The Lord’s point is that believers are to consider everyone their master, and themselves slaves to serve all." (See Mark Commentary) Hiebert - “Whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all”—there is a threefold advance here. The chiefest, or “first,” contemplates the individual who has the holy ambition of attaining to the highest position even among those who are “great.” Servant, literally, “slave,” denotes a lower position than minister, implying that such a one foregoes his own rights in order to serve others for Christ’s sake. Of all enlarges the scope of service to all to whom he may be helpful. Preeminence in Christ’s kingdom is attained through primacy in self-sacrificing services voluntarily rendered. “The test was not, What service can I extract? but, What service can I give?” (The Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary) NET Note - Though doulos is normally translated "servant," the word does not bear the connotation of a free individual serving another. BDAG notes that "'servant' for 'slave' is largely confined to Biblical translations and early American times…in normal usage at the present time the two words are carefully distinguished" (BDAG 260 s.v. 1). The most accurate translation is "bondservant" (sometimes found in the ASV for doulos), in that it often indicates one who sells himself into slavery to another. But as this is archaic, few today understand its force. First (4413) protos has several nuances - first in time or place 1a) in any succession of things or persons 2) first in rank 2a) influence, honour 2b) chief 2c) principal 3) first, at the first. Classical usage of prōtos is very diverse. It can mean “first” in rank; “first” in order; “first” in quality, i.e., “best”; “first” in the temporal sense. Friberg adds protos is "I. adjectivally first of several; (1) of time; (a) in comparison of past and present earlier, first, former (Rev 2:5); (b) in antithesis between the beginning and the end first, before anything else (Rev 1:17), opposite ἔσχατος (last, final); (2) of rank and value first (of all), foremost, chief, most important of all; (a) of things (Mt 22:38); (b) substantivally, of persons οἱ πρῶτοι the leading men, the most important persons (Mk 6:21); (3) of number or sequence first (Mt 21:28; HE 10:9); (4) spatially front; substantivally ἡ πρώτη the outer (tent) (Heb 9:2, 6, 8); II. substantivally, neuter singular πρῶτον as an adverb; (1) of time at first, to begin with, (for) the first time (Ro 1:16); before, earlier (Jn 15:18); (2) of priority or value first of all (Mt 5:24); of degree above all, especially, in the first place (Mt 6:33) (Borrow Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament) PROTOS IN MATTHEW - Matt. 5:24; Matt. 6:33; Matt. 7:5; Matt. 8:21; Matt. 10:2; Matt. 12:29; Matt. 12:45; Matt. 13:30; Matt. 17:10; Matt. 17:27; Matt. 19:30; Matt. 20:8; Matt. 20:10; Matt. 20:16; Matt. 20:27; Matt. 21:28; Matt. 21:31; Matt. 21:36; Matt. 22:25; Matt. 22:38; Matt. 23:26; Matt. 26:17; Matt. 27:64 Slave (bondservant) (1401)(doulos from deo = to bind; cf additional note on doulos) was an individual bound to another in servitude and conveys the idea of the slave's close, binding ties with his master, belonging to him, obligated to and desiring to do his will and in a permanent relation of servitude. In sum, the will of the doulos is consumed in the will of the master. A bondservant is one who surrendered wholly to another’s will and thus is devoted to another to the disregard of his own interest. Paul and Timothy were not their own but had been bought with the price of the blood of Christ. They were now the property of our Lord Jesus Christ and were His slaves exclusively. No man can serve two masters (Mt 6:24+). Related Resources: Spiritual Paradox in the Christian Life What is a bondservant / bond-servant? | GotQuestions.org What does the Bible say about being a servant / servanthood? | GotQuestions.org What was the significance of Jesus washing the feet of the disciples? Why should I want to serve God? What does it mean to be a servant of Christ? Why is serving God important? Mark 10:45 "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." did not come: Mt 20:28 Lu 22:26,27 Joh 13:14 Php 2:5-8 Heb 5:8 and to: Isa 53:10-12 Da 9:24,26 2Co 5:21 Ga 3:13 1Ti 3:4-6 Tit 2:14 1Pe 1:19 Mark 10 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Related Passage: Matthew 20:27 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” THE KEY VERSE OF THE GOSPEL OF MARK
Marcos 10
MacArthur writes that didasko "refers to the passing on of information-often, but not necessarily, in a formal setting. It focused on content, with the purpose of discovering the truth-contrary to the forums so popular among Greeks, where discussion and the bantering about of various ideas and opinions was the primary concern (see Acts 17:21). Synagogue teaching, as illustrated by that of Jesus, was basically expository. Scripture was read and explained section by section, often verse by verse. (See Matthew 1-7 Commentary - Page 124) SELF-SACRIFICE—Mark 10:1–31 - Croft Pentz I. DIVORCE—Mark 10:1–12 A. Master—Mark 10:1. Everywhere Christ went, He taught people. B. Marriage—Mark 10:2–9 1. Divorce—Mark 10:3–4. Jesus is asked if He would permit divorce. 2. Degradation—Mark 10:5. Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of the hearts. He permitted it but did not approve. 3. Design—Mark 10:6–8. God’s plan for marriages is a lifetime relationship. Two people become one! 4. Demand—Mark 10:9. What God joins together, no man should separate. C. Manner—Mark 10:10–12. Jesus says if a person is married and then divorces and remarries, he commits adultery. II. DISPLEASURE—Mark 10:13–16 A. Complaint—Mark 10:13. Children are forbidden to come unto Jesus. B. Christ—Mark 10:14. Christ told children to come unto Him because the kingdom of heaven is like children. C. Comparison—Mark 10:15. All men must become as children, or they cannot enter the kingdom of God. D. Concern—Mark 10:16. Jesus blesses the children. III. DESIRE—Mark 10:17–22 A young man desires to know the way to heaven. A. Person—Mark 10:17–18. A young man seeks the way to heaven. B. Plan—Mark 10:19–20. He said he kept the Ten Commandments. He lived a good moral life but morality and character are not enough! C. Price—Mark 10:21. Note three things: (1) sell possessions, (2) give to the poor, and (3) take up cross daily and follow Christ. D. Problem—Mark 10:22. He went away sad—not willing to pay the price! IV. DEMANDS—Mark 10:23–27 A. Problems—Mark 10:23–25. Riches separate men from God. Riches and the desire for material gain separate many from God. B. Plan—Mark 10:26–27. It is hard for rich people to know Christ. However, there are rich Christians. They must repent and follow Christ. V. DENIAL—Mark 10:28–31 A. Sacrifice—Mark 10:28. Peter says he gave all and left all for Christ. B. Saviour—Mark 10:29–30. The Saviour will reward those who suffer for Him. They will be rewarded 100 fold (100 times greater). C. Surprise—Mark 10:31. “But many people who seem to be important now will be the least important then; and many who are considered least here shall be greatest there” (LB). Mark 10:2 Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. Wuest And having come to Him, Pharisees kept on asking Him whether it is lawful for a man to repudiate a wife, putting Him to the test. NET Mark 10:2 Then some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" NLT Mark 10:2 Some Pharisees came and tried to trap him with this question: "Should a man be allowed to divorce his wife?" ESV Mark 10:2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" NIV Mark 10:2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" GNT Mark 10:2 καὶ προσελθόντες Φαρισαῖοι ἐπηρώτων αὐτὸν εἰ ἔξεστιν ἀνδρὶ γυναῖκα ἀπολῦσαι, πειράζοντες αὐτόν. KJV Mark 10:2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. YLT Mark 10:2 And the Pharisees, having come near, questioned him, if it is lawful for a husband to put away a wife, tempting him, ASV Mark 10:2 And there came unto him Pharisees, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? trying him. CSB Mark 10:2 Some Pharisees approached Him to test Him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" NKJ Mark 10:2 The Pharisees came and asked Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" testing Him. NRS Mark 10:2 Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" NAB Mark 10:2 The Pharisees approached and asked, "Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?" They were testing him. NJB Mark 10:2 Some Pharisees approached him and asked, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?' They were putting him to the test. Pharisees: Mk 8:15 Mt 9:34 15:12 23:13 Lu 5:30 6:7 7:30 11:39,53,54 16:14 Joh 7:32,48 11:47,57 whether it was lawful: Mal 2:16 Mt 5:31,32 19:3 1Co 7:10,11 testing: Mk 8:11 Mt 16:1 22:35 Joh 8:6 1Co 10:9 Mark 10 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Related Passages: Matthew 19:3+ Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” TESTING THE TEACHER Hiebert - Then, as now, divorce was a prevailing evil, and it was inevitable that Jesus would be confronted with the problem....As soon as Jesus resumed His public teaching, they renewed their attacks on Him. Just where in Perea the encounter took place is not indicated. (The Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary) R C H
Marcos 10
MacArthur adds that the Pharisees "were not seeking truth. They were well aware of His teaching on the subject, since He had stated it publicly (cf. Mt. 5:31–32+). Instead, they were testing Him, hoping to discredit Him in the eyes of the people. Like their postexilic ancestors, the leaders and people of Jesus’ day also viewed divorce and remarriage as acceptable. The Old Testament standard had long since been abandoned. In its place an accommodating view, championed by the prominent rabbi Hillel (110 B.C.–A.D. 10), had made divorce easy. According to that view, a man was permitted to divorce his wife for anything she did that displeased him, even such trivial matters as burning his dinner, allowing someone to see her ankles, letting her hair down, making a negative comment about her mother-in-law, or if all else failed, because he found someone else that he preferred to her. The Pharisees planned to portray Jesus as an intolerant hardliner, who identified both the people and their leaders as adulterers and adulteresses. That, they hoped, would turn the populace against Him." (MNTC-Mark)
Marcos 10
MacArthur adds that while they did not mention indecency in their reply, the Pharisees did elaborate on "the word indecency (in Dt 24:1) and...expanded it to mean virtually anything they desired. There is, however, no command or explicit permission given to divorce anywhere in this passage; it merely describes a situation in which a man gets married, decides he does not like his wife, divorces her, and she marries someone else. The sole command is in Dt 24:4: In such cases “her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife.” Far from commanding or even permitting divorce, this injunction merely forbids a man to remarry a woman that he has divorced who has then been married to someone else. The passage recognizes and regulates the reality of divorce without condoning or condemning it. The Hebrew word translated “indecency” literally means “nakedness,” not in a physical sense but in the sense of something shameful. The same word is used in Deuteronomy 23:14 to describe things in the camp of Israel that the holy God must not see. The term does not refer to adultery, the only biblical grounds for divorce, but to sinful behavior short of adultery. It describes things that violate normal social responsibility and behavior in a civilized culture and hence are disrespectful of others. The word certainly cannot be extrapolated to mean anything that a man disliked about his wife, as the Pharisees were doing. (See Mark Commentary) R C H Lenski (borrow) - In Matthew’s account the Pharisees say that Moses commanded this procedure. He commanded by permitting and permitted by thus commanding. The great mistake of the Pharisees was that they imagined that the dissolution of marriage for some cause or other was originally contemplated in the will of God concerning marriage. Hence they thought that for this reason Moses wrote that permission in Deut. 24:1 and commanded only that a written certificate be given the wife. These Pharisees could and should have seen their shallow error. It was easy enough to see why Moses gave this permission. Even this permission of Moses dealt only with the legal procedure in the release of a wife—a divorce-certificate had to be given her. It makes no difference whether certificate (biblion) is added to apostasion or not, it is omitted in Matt. 5:31. Ἀπολύειν is the regular term for the act of dismissing a wife so that her marriage is disrupted. No legal proceedings were necessary but only the husband’s order for her to leave, he handed her a paper to that effect. The permission granted by Moses the Jews made a command and their regular rule of practice by interpreting it after Hillel’s fashion. D Edmond Hiebert comments that the Pharisees "pointed out the law’s procedure for divorce: that if they wanted to put away a wife, repudiate her, and terminate the marriage, they were to write a bill of divorcement, prepare a written divorce certificate as the formal instrument for her dismissal. Their statement emphasized the privilege of divorce but did not mention the legal restrictions Moses had stipulated. They were interested in the legal aspect of the issue—the law’s provision for the practice of divorce—but not in its deeper moral aspect. They were more concerned with their own rights within the limits of the law than with the matter of God’s will when facing the problem of divorce. The Mosaic legislation did not establish or sanction divorce but simply recognized the husband’s right to put away his wife under certain conditions. It was intended to put a restraint upon an evil practice to prevent worse situations from arising. The requirement to write a bill of divorce made it necessary for the husband to state a formal reason for the action. Matthew noted that he had “to give” the wife the written divorce. For a valid divorce, the bill of divorcement must be written and delivered to the repudiated wife. The requirement restrained the rash and heartless dismissal of a wife and served to give the wife so treated at least some character and protection." (The Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary) PROOF TEXT - A proof text is a passage of Scripture presented as proof for a theological doctrine, belief, or principle. Proof-texting is the practice of using isolated, out-of-context quotations to establish a proposition in eisegesis (introducing one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases). Such quotes may not accurately reflect the original intent of the author. Permit (give permission)(2010)(epitrepo from epi = upon + trepo = to turn) means to turn to, entrust, hence to permit. In Mark 5:13, John 19:38, and Acts 21:39 it carries the sense of release from restraint in order to have freedom of choice. For example, in Mark 5:13 Legion gained freedom from being sent away, and instead was permitted to enter a herd of swine (see Mark 5:8-13). Gilbrant - Epitrepō differs from aphiemi which is occasionally translated “allow” or “permit” in that aphiēmi lacks the sense of release from restraint. For example, in Matthew 7:4, “Allow me to remove the speck . . . ,” aphiēmi suggests a request that would meet no resistance. Epitrepō, on the other hand, carries the sense of release from a restraining activity to freedom or permission to engage in a preferred activity. Paul’s request in Acts 21:39 to preach the gospel in the face of a restraining order best illustrates this nuance In classical Greek epitrepō means “to allow or grant permission.” In the Septuagint (Genesis 39:6) Joseph is said to have certain responsibilities “entrusted” or “committed” to his care (see also Job 32:14). The Septuagint adds the meaning of “commission with duty or responsibility.” It is related to the primary meaning in that one is “permitted” to assume certain responsibilities. Divorce (647)(apostasion from aphistemi = lead away, to depart from) a forsaking, a legal technical term, the act of putting away a wife, by metonymy certificate of divorce. 3x in the NT - certificate of divorce(1), divorce(2). Matt. 5:31; Matt. 19:7; Mk. 10:4 Uses in the Septuagint - Deut. 24:1; Deut. 24:3; Isa. 50:1; Jer. 3:8; Spiros Zodhiates has a lengthy note on apostasion - A departure, a divorce or dismissal of a woman from her husband, the deed or instrument of such divorce (Matt. 5:31; see also 19:7). In Mark 10:4, biblíon, a book or document, apostasíou, of dismissal. This is a reference to the document spoken about in Deut. 24:1-4 which the dismissing husband was required to give to an innocent, dismissed wife in whom the husband was finding a pretext for dismissal. It is equivalent to a certificate of innocence because the husband who was instructed to issue it in divorcing his guiltless wife and sending her away from his house was, in fact, the guilty person. If the woman had committed fornication, she would have been dismissed and never permitted to remarry as this woman was: "And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife" (Deut. 24:2). In fact, the guilty dismissed spouse (see Deut. 22:21) was to be stoned to death which was rarely, if ever, practiced. The teaching of our Lord was that, although contrary to God's will and purpose, if a man decided to put away his wife or a wife her husband (Mark 10:12), the innocent spouse was to be given a bill of divorcement or a certificate of innocence which would free him or her of the stigma of being considered as having committed adultery. The word "divorce" as understood in our modern society and which is issued by a judge without reference to the guilt or innocence of either party, does not have its real equivalent in the OT or NT. The apostásion, then, was supposed to be given by a guilty husband to an innocent wife, or vice versa (Mark 10:12), whom he or she wanted to dismiss, since it was through such a certificate of innocence that the dismissed one had the possibility of remarrying. The teaching of our Lord in Matt. 5:32; 19:3-12; Mark 10:2-12, is that a woman dismissed without a bill of divorcement carries the stigma of adultery, and if someone marries her, that stigma passes on to him. This is conveyed by the mid. / pass. verb moichátai (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:12). (Borrow The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament) Mark 10:5 But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. NET Mark 10:5 But Jesus said to them, "He wrote this commandment for you because of your hard hearts. NLT Mark 10:5 But Jesus responded, "He wrote this commandment only as a concession to your hard hearts. ESV Mark 10:5 And Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. NIV Mark 10:5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. GNT Mark 10:5 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Πρὸς τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν τὴν ἐντολὴν ταύτην. KJV Mark 10:5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. YLT Mark 10:5 And Jesus answering said to them, 'For the stiffness of your heart he wrote you this command, ASV Mark 10:5 But Jesus said unto them, For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. CSB Mark 10:5 But Jesus told them, "He wrote this command for you because of the hardness of your hearts. NKJ Mark 10:5 And Jesus answered and said to them, "Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. NRS Mark 10:5 But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. Because: De 9:6 31:27 Ne 9:16,17,26 Mt 19:8 Ac 7:51 Heb 3:7-10 Mark 10 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Related Passages: Matthew 19:8+ He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart (sklerokardia) Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning (IN GENESIS) it has not been this way. Acts 7:51+ (STEPHEN'S SERMON TO JEWS THAT GOT HIM STONED TO DEATH) “You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did (THE UNSAVED JEWS IN THE OT RESISTED THE HOLY SPIRIT!) THE HEART OF THE DIVORCE PROBLEM WAS THE HARDNESS OF THEIR HEARTS But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart (sklerokardia) he wrote you this commandment - As noted below this same Greek word sklerokardia is used in Dt 10:16 and Jer 4:4 where it is equated with an "uncircumcised heart," that is an unbelieving heart which has never wholly submitted to God's Word and thus was never genuinely "saved" (as we would call it today). (See Excursus on Circumcision) MacArthur - The only command in the passage relates to the issue of remarriage, not divorce. The command is simply that, if a divorced woman remarries and that husband divorces her or dies, her first “former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled” (v. 4). It is to that commandment regarding remarriage, not a commandment to divorce, as some have supposed, that Jesus refers here and in Mark 10:5. (See Matthew Commentary) Swete says: “The Lord does not deny that Moses permitted divorce; command it he did not. The commandment consisted of ‘regulations tending to limit it and preclude its abuse’ (Driver). No such regulations would have been necessary but for the hardness which had been innate in the Hebrew people from the first (ED: SEE SAME WORD SKLEROKARDIA USED BELOW IN Dt 10:16 and Jer 4:4). The purpose of the legislation of Deuteronomy was to check this disposition, not to give it head; and for the Pharisees to shelter themselves under the temporary recognition of a necessary evil was to confess that they had not outgrown the moral stature of their fathers (AKA THEY WERE UNSAVED!).” Hardness of heart (4641)(sklerokardia from skleros = hard + kardia = heart) is a stubborn attitude toward changing one's behavior, a hardness of heart, stubbornness, insensitivity, an unyielding frame of mind, hardness of heart, obstinacy, perverseness, coldness, stubbornness Matt. 19:8; Mk. 10:5; Mk. 16:14. There are two very interesting uses in the Septuagint - it is notable that the book of Deuteronomy was written to the generation of Israel that entered the promised land and Jeremiah was written to Judah at the time of the destruction of the Temple and exile to Babylon. Here is the implied point - Israel (not every Jewish person of course - there was always a believing remnant) for the most part was characterized by sklerokardia or "hardness of heart" from the beginning of the nation until the exile and now Jesus says even to the first century! Deuteronomy 10:16 “So circumcise your heart of your heart (Lxx = circumcise the hardness of your heart), and stiffen your neck no longer. Jeremiah 4:4 “Circumcise yourselves to the LORD And remove the foreskins (Lxx = circumcise the hardness of your heart), Men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, Or else My wrath will go forth like fire And burn with none to quench it, Because of the evil of your deeds.” Commandment (instruction, order, requirement)(1785)(entole from en = in, upon + téllo = accomplish, charge, command) - Entole refers to some type of demand or requirement. A general injunction, charge, precept of moral and religious nature. Of the 67 uses, all but three (Lk 15:29; Col 4:10; Titus 1:14) refer specifically to divine commandments. Entole in the plural usually refers to God's commandments (Mt 5:19 and most of the uses in the Gospels - see below) but, as determined by the context, singular usages can also refer to a divine directive. Keeping God's commandments is the way we show that we love Him (we can say it, but our actions need to authenticate our words. (Jn 14:15, 21, 1Jn 2:3). Entole is found 14x in the same passage as agape, love. (e.g., love one another is a repeated commandment - Jn 13:34 = described as a "new commandment", Jn 15:12, 1Jn 3:23, 2Jn 1:5). God's commandments "flush out" sin so to speak, showing the heinous, destructive nature of sin (See Ro 7:8, 9, 11, 13) Entole sometimes refers to commandments from men (not God) (Titus 1:14) Entole can sometimes mean an order authorizing a specific action (Jn 11:57). Uses in Mark - Mk. 7:8; Mk. 7:9; Mk. 10:5; Mk. 10:19; Mk. 12:28; Mk. 12:31 Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. NET Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of creation he made them male and female. NLT Mark 10:6 But 'God made them male and female' from the beginning of creation. ESV Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' NIV Mark 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' GNT Mark 10:6 ἀπὸ δὲ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς· KJV Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. YLT Mark 10:6 but from the beginning of the creation, a male and a female God did make them; ASV Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them. CSB Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female. NKJ Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation, God`made them male and female.' NRS Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' NAB Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female. NJB Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of creation he made them male and female. the beginning: Ge 1:1 2Pe 3:4 God: Ge 1:27 2:20-23 Ge 5:2 Mal 2:14-16 Mark 10 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Related Passages: Matthew 19:4+ And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, Genesis 1:27+ God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Genesis 5:2+ He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created. JESUS GOES BACK TO THE BEGINNING But - Term of contrast. What is Jesus contrasting in context? Man's view of marriage and God's view of marriage are now contrasted. Swete comments that "From the temporary permission of divorce under the Deuteronomic law the Lord appeals to the principle enunciated in the original constitution of man (QUOTING FROM GENESIS)." Jesus follows this condemnation of the Pharisees by showing that God intended for a man and woman to marry, leave their parents, become one, and discipline themselves to live together for life. Hiebert - the divine intention in marriage, dating back to the beginning of the human race, was not being carried out because of the presence of sin....The distinction of the sexes, established at creation, underlies the institution of marriage and is the foundation of the human family....Their distinctive physical constitution made each the complement of the other, fitted for each other. Our Lord’s quotation assumes the historical truth of the first two chapters of Genesis. (The Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary) From the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE - From the beginning speaks of the creation of the universe followed by the creation of mankind. Notice from the beginning implies there has been no alteration in this truth up to the time of Jesus and by application/extension up to our day. This is one of those passages which is "politically incorrect" in America in 2020! The clear implication of the Word of God, the Word of Truth is that God made a man to be a male and woman to be a female. There is no ambiguity in God's Word. When a society loses its moral moorings as has sadly occurred in America, then the Word of Truth is no longer taken as the standard of truth. Man's "truth" becomes the standard, and the natural consequences of rejection of the Word of God are unavoidable. "Anything goes!" (cf the time of Judges - Jdg 21:25+) Beginning (746)(arche) refers to the commencement of something as an action, process, or state of being. Here arché refers to first in relation to time (priority in time, the beginning of anything, the origin and by far the most common use in the NT) Uses in Mark - k. 1:1; Mk. 10:6; Mk. 13:8; Mk. 13:19; Creation (2937)(ktisis refers to bringing something into existence which has not existed before. The act of causing to exist that which did not exist before, especially God's act of bringing the universe into existence (cp He 11:3+). It is notable that ktisis always occurs in the New Testament in connection with God’s creative activities (see note below regarding use in 1Pe 2:13). Uses in Mark - Mk. 10:6; Mk. 13:19; Mk. 16:15 Mark 10:7 "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, (Many late mss add "and shall cling to his wife") NET Mark 10:7 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother, NLT Mark 10:7 'This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, ESV Mark 10:7 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, NIV Mark 10:7 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, GNT Mark 10:7 ἕνεκεν τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν μητέρα [καὶ προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ], KJV Mark 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; YLT Mark 10:7 on this account shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, ASV Mark 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; CSB Mark 10:7 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother [and be joined to his wife], NKJ Mark 10:7 `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, NRS Mark 10:7 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, NAB Mark 10:7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife), NJB Mark 10:7 This is why a man leaves his father and mother, Ge 2:24 Mt 19:5,6 Eph 5:31 Mark 10 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Related Passages: Matthew 19:5+ and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? Genesis 2:24+ For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. LEAVE AND CLEAVE FOR THIS REASON - Term of conclusion. This phrase (or the related word "therefore") should always prompt the question "For what reason?" In this case Jesus is explaining the marriage of a man to a woman.
Marcos 10
MacArthur - The New Testament also affirms that adultery is grounds for divorce. Although Mark does not mention the so-called exception clause, Matthew does (Mt 19:9; cf. Mt 5:32). Adultery does not have to end a marriage (cf. the story of Hosea and his adulterous wife, Gomer, in the book of Hosea). But God’s sparing the life of an unrepentant adulterer is not meant to penalize that person’s innocent spouse. The New Testament also reveals that if an unbeliever divorces a believer, the latter is free to remarry (1 Cor. 7:15). Divorces (sends away) (630) see note above on apoluo Marries (1060)(gameo) means to take another person as spouse, marry; enter matrimony of both men and women. Gameo - 28x in NT - get married(2), marriage(1), married(7), marries(7), marry(9), marrying(2) Matt. 5:32; Matt. 19:9; Matt. 19:10; Matt. 22:25; Matt. 22:30; Matt. 24:38; Mk. 6:17; Mk. 10:11; Mk. 10:12; Mk. 12:25; Lk. 14:20; Lk. 16:18; Lk. 17:27; Lk. 20:34; Lk. 20:35; 1 Co. 7:9; 1 Co. 7:10; 1 Co. 7:28; 1 Co. 7:33; 1 Co. 7:34; 1 Co. 7:36; 1 Co. 7:39; 1 Tim. 4:3; 1 Tim. 5:11; 1 Tim. 5:14. Only once in Septuagint - Esther 10:3 QUESTION - What is the exception clause? ANSWER - The "exception clause" is Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:32 and Mt 19:9 "except for marital unfaithfulness." It gives an "exception" for remarriage after a divorce being considered adultery. Matthew 5:32 reads, "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery." Similarly, Matthew 19:9 reads, "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." So, what precisely is "marital unfaithfulness," and why is it an exception to Jesus’ statement that remarriage after a divorce is adultery? The meaning of Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 is clear. If a person gets a divorce and then remarries, it is considered adultery unless the exception clause is in effect. The phrase "marital unfaithfulness" is a translation of the Greek word porneia, the word from which we get our modern word "pornography." The essential meaning of porneia is "sexual perversion." In Greek literature around the same time as the New Testament, porneia was used to refer to adultery, fornication, prostitution, incest, and idolatry. It is used 25 times in the New Testament, most often translated "fornication." The meaning of porneia in the New Testament seems to be the general concept of sexual perversion. Other Greek words are used to refer to specific forms of sexual perversion, such as adultery. With this meaning in mind, according to the exception clause, any participation in sexual perversion/misconduct is an exception to Jesus’ statement that remarriage after a divorce is adultery. If one spouse commits adultery, or any act of sexual perversion, and a divorce results, the "innocent" spouse is free to remarry without it being considered adulterous. Please understand, though, that the exception clause is not a command for divorce and/or remarriage. Jesus is not saying that if marital unfaithfulness occurs a couple should divorce. Jesus is not saying that if a divorce occurs due to marital unfaithfulness, the innocent spouse should remarry. At most, Jesus is giving allowance for divorce and remarriage to occur. In no sense is Jesus declaring divorce and remarriage to be the best or only option. Repentance, forgiveness, counseling, and restoration are God’s desire for marriages damaged by unfaithfulness. God can and will heal any marriage in which both spouses are committed to Him and willing to follow His Word. Walter Kaiser - See Hard Sayings of the Bible - Mark 10:11–12 No Divorce and Remarriage? This was felt to be a hard saying by the disciples who first heard it; it is no less a hard saying for many of their present-day successors. Jesus was asked to give a ruling on a point of law which was debated in the Jewish schools. In Deuteronomy 24:1–4 there is a law which says in effect, “When a man divorces his wife because he has found ‘some indecency’ in her, and she is then married to someone else who divorces her in his turn, her former husband may not take her back to be his wife again.” This, forbidding a man who has divorced his wife to marry her again after she has lived with a second husband, does not lay down the procedure for divorce; it assumes this procedure as already in being. Nowhere in the Old Testament law is there an explicit command about the divorce procedure, but in this context it is implied that to divorce a woman a man had to make a written declaration that she was no longer his wife: “he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house” (Deut 24:1). Elsewhere in the Old Testament divorce is disparaged as something unworthy: “ ‘I hate divorce,’ says the LORD God of Israel,” according to the prophet Malachi (Mal 2:16). But in Deuteronomy 24 it is assumed that a man may divorce his wife, and that he may do so on account of “something indecent” or “something shameful” (NEB) that he has found in her. The interpreters of the law around the time of our Lord, who were concerned not only with deciding what it meant but with applying it to contemporary life, paid special attention to this phrase. What, they asked, might be indicated by this indecency or unseemliness which justified a man in divorcing his wife? There were two main schools of thought: one which interpreted it stringently, another which interpreted it more broadly. The former school, which followed the direction of Shammai, a leading rabbi who lived a generation or so before Jesus, said that a man was authorized to divorce his wife if he married her on the understanding that she was a virgin and then discovered that she was not. There was, in fact, an enactment covering this eventuality in the law of Deuteronomy (Deut 22:13–21), and the consequences could be very serious for the bride if the evidence was interpreted to mean that she had had illicit sexual relations before marriage. This, then, was one school’s understanding of “some indecency.” The other school, following the lead of Shammai’s contemporary Hillel, held that “something indecent” might include more or less anything which her husband found offensive. She could cease to “find favor in his eyes” for a variety of reasons—if she served up badly cooked food, for example, or even (one rabbi said) because he found her less beautiful than some other woman. It should be emphasized that the rabbis who gave these literal interpretations were not moved by a desire to make divorce easy; they were concerned to state what they believed to be the meaning of a particular Scripture. It was against this background that Jesus was invited to say what he thought. The Pharisees who put the question to him were themselves divided over the matter. In Matthew’s account of the incident, they asked him, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” (Mt 19:3 RSV). If his answer was yes, they would want to know for what cause or causes, in his judgment, divorce was permissible. He gave them his answer and then, in private, expanded it for the benefit of his disciples who had heard it. As usual, he bypassed the traditional interpretation of the rabbinical schools and appealed to the Scriptures. “What did Moses command you?” he asked. “Moses,” they replied (referring to Deut 24:1 RSV), “allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away.” They rightly said “Moses allowed,” not “Moses commanded”; the enactment to which they referred, as we have seen, took for granted the existing divorce procedure and wove it into a commandment relating to a further contingency. But Jesus told them that it was “because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law.” Then, as with the sabbath law, so with the marriage law, he went back to first principles. “At the beginning of creation,” he said, “God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will 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. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Mk 10:2–9). Jesus reminds them of the biblical account of the institution of marriage. The marriage law must conform with the purpose for which marriage was instituted by God. It was instituted to create a new unity of two persons, and no provision was made for the dissolving of that unity. Jesus does not idealize marriage. He does not say that every marriage is made in heaven; he says that marriage itself is made in heaven—that is, instituted by God. To the question “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” his answer, in effect, is “No; not for any cause.” There is a feature of Jesus’ answer to the Pharisees that could easily be overlooked. The stringent interpretation of the school of Shammai and the “liberal” interpretation of the school of Hillel were both given from the husband’s point of view. In the stringent interpretation it was the bride’s virginity that had to be above suspicion; the bridegroom’s chastity before marriage did not enter into the picture. As for the “liberal” interpretation, it was liberal in the husband’s interest, in that it permitted him to divorce his wife for a variety of reasons; so far as the wife’s interest was concerned, it was most illiberal, for she had little opportunity of redress if her husband decided to divorce her within the meaning of the law as “liberally” interpreted. What was true of these interpretations was true of the original legislation which they undertook to expound: it was because of the hardness of men’s hearts that divorce was conceded. The law was unequally balanced to the disadvantage of women, and Jesus’ ruling, with its appeal to the Creator’s intention, had the effect of redressing this unequal balance. It is not surprising that women regularly recognized in Jesus one who was their friend and champion. We may observe in passing that, in referring to the creation ordinance, Jesus combined a text from the creation narrative of Genesis 1 with one from the narrative of Genesis 2. In Genesis 1:27, when “God created man in his own image,” the “man” whom he so created was humanity, comprising both sexes: “male and female he created them.” And in Genesis 2:24, after the story of the formation of Eve from Adam’s side, the narrator adds: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” That may be the narrator’s comment on the story, but Jesus quotes it as the word of God. It is by God’s ordinance that the two become one; men are given no authority to modify that ordinance. When the disciples asked Jesus to clarify his ruling, he reworded it in the two statements quoted at the head of this section. The second of the two statements refers to a situation not contemplated in the Old Testament law, which made no provision for a wife to divorce her husband and marry another man. It has therefore been thought that this second statement is a corollary added to Jesus’ original ruling when Christianity had made its way into the Gentile world. In a number of Gentile law codes it was possible for a wife to initiate divorce proceedings, as it was not under Jewish law. But at the time when Jesus spoke there was a recent cause ceélébre in his own country, to which he could well have referred. Less than ten years before, Herodias, a granddaughter of Herod the Great, who had been married to her uncle Herod Philip and lived with him in Rome, fell in love with another uncle, Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, when he paid a visit to Rome. In order to marry Antipas (as Antipas also desired), she divorced her first husband. She did so under Roman law, since she was a Roman citizen (like all members of the Herod family). For a woman to marry her uncle was not a breach of Jewish law, as it was commonly interpreted at that time, but it was certainly a breach of Jewish law for her to marry her husband’s brother. John the Baptist was imprisoned by Herod Antipas for insisting that it was unlawful for him to be married to his brother’s wife. Jesus named no names, but any reference at that time, either in Galilee or in Perea, to a woman divorcing her husband and marrying someone else was bound to make hearers think of Herodias. If the suggestion that she was living in adultery came to her ears, Jesus would incur her mortal resentment as surely as John the Baptist had done. But it was his words about divorce and remarriage on a man’s part that his disciples found hard to take. Could a man not get rid of his wife for any cause? It seemed not, according to the plain understanding of what Jesus said. No wonder then that in the course of time the hardness of men’s hearts modified his ruling, as earlier it had modified the Creator’s original intention. In Matthew’s version of this interchange, Jesus’ ruling is amplified by the addition of a few words: “anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery” (Mt 19:9). The same exception appears in another occurrence of his ruling in this Gospel, in the Sermon on the Mount: “Anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery” (Mt 5:32). The ruling in this latter form appears also in Luke 16:18, but without the exceptive clause; the exceptive clause is found in Matthew’s Gospel only, and found twice over. What is to be made of the exceptive clause? Is it an addition reflecting the hardness of men’s hearts? Or is it an expansion stating the obvious—that if something is done which by its very nature dissolves the marriage bond, then the bond is dissolved? Is it an attempt to conform Jesus’ ruling to Shammai’s interpretation—that if the bride is found to have had an illicit sexual relation before her marriage, her husband is entitled to put her away? All these suggestions have been ventilated. Most probable is the view that the exceptive clause is designed to adapt the ruling to the circumstances of the Gentile mission. If this is so, the term “marital unfaithfulness” or “unchastity” (RSV) has a technical sense, referring to sexual unions that, while they might be sanctioned by use and wont in some parts of the Gentile world, were forbidden by the marriage law of Israel. It is a matter of history that the church’s traditional marriage law, with its list of relationships within which marriage might not take place, was based on that of Israel. What was to be done if two people, married within such forbidden degrees, were converted from paganism to Christianity? In this situation the marriage might be dissolved. Certainly the Gentile mission introduced problems that were not present in the context of Jesus’ ministry. One of these problems cropped up in Paul’s mission field, and Paul introduced his own “exceptive clause” to take care of it, although in general he took over Jesus’ prohibition of divorce among his followers. Some of Paul’s converts put to him the case of a man or woman, converted from paganism to Christianity, whose wife or husband walked out because of the partner’s conversion and refused to continue the marriage relationship. In such a situation, said Paul, let the non-Christian partner go; do not have recourse to law or any other means to compel him or her to return. The deserted spouse is no longer bound by the marriage tie which has been broken in this way. Otherwise, he said, “To the married I give this command (not I but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife” (1 Cor 7:10–11). Plainly Paul, a considerable time before Mark’s Gospel was written, knew what Jesus had laid down on the subject of marriage and divorce, and knew it in the same sense as Mark’s account. Like his Master, Paul treated women as persons and not as part of their husbands’ property. But the disciples who first heard Jesus’ ruling on the subject found it revolutionary, and not altogether welcome; it took them some time to reconcile themselves to it. Is it wise to take Jesus’ rulings on this or other practical issues and give them legislative force? Perhaps not. The trouble is that, if they are given legislative force, exceptive clauses are bound to be added to cover special cases, and arguments will be prolonged about the various situations which are, or are not, included in the terms of those exceptive clauses. It is better, probably, to let his words stand in their uncompromising rigor as the ideal at which his followers ought to aim. Legislation has to make provision for the hardness of men’s hearts, but Jesus showed a more excellent way than the way of legislation and supplies the power to change the human heart and make his ideal a practical possibility. Mark 10:12 and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery." NET Mark 10:12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." NLT Mark 10:12 And if a woman divorces her husband and marries someone else, she commits adultery." ESV Mark 10:12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." NIV Mark 10:12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." GNT Mark 10:12 καὶ ἐὰν αὐτὴ ἀπολύσασα τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς γαμήσῃ ἄλλον μοιχᾶται. KJV Mark 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. YLT Mark 10:12 and if a woman may put away her husband, and is married to another, she committeth adultery.' ASV Mark 10:12 and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery. CSB Mark 10:12 Also, if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." NKJ Mark 10:12 "And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." NRS Mark 10:12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." NAB Mark 10:12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." NJB Mark 10:12 And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another she is guilty of adultery too.' GWN Mark 10:12 If a wife divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery." Mark 10 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Related Passages: Matthew 19:9+ “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” And if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery - In short in verses 11 and 12 Jesus tells His disciples pointedly that remarriage after divorce was adultery, whether the man or the woman got the divorce. He does not give the exception clause found in Mt 19:9 (see Kent Hughes' comment on that difference above). Clearly the disciples "got it!" They understood how serious it was for someone to divorce their mate without a clear grounds of unfaithfulness (a truth not in Mark but which Jesus had declared to them in Matthew 19). If the only ground for divorce was unfaithfulness, if none of the exceptions suggested by Hillel and Shammai were valid, it was better to stay single! As a result of their comprehension (and remember they were often slow to understand certain things, but apparently not this time!) and their shock (because they had been taught all their life about "easy divorce") they remarked and Jesus replied... The disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” 11 But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 “For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” (Mt 19:10-12+) Kent Hughes summary of Biblical teaching on divorce - So we see that the Bible allows for divorce for two reasons: marital unfaithfulness and the desertion of a believer by an unbelieving spouse. The Scriptures allow for remarriage in three instances. First, when one’s mate is guilty of sexual immorality and is unwilling to repent and live faithfully with the marriage partner, divorce and remarriage are permissible. Second, when a believer is deserted by an unbelieving spouse, divorce and remarriage are again permitted. And third, as an extension of the allowance for divorce and remarriage when deserted by an unbeliever, I personally believe that remarriage is permissible for those who have been married and divorced before coming to Christ. (See Mark: Jesus, Servant and Savior
Marcos 10
MacArthur - No one better illustrates the reality that only the lowly who have achieved nothing of merit enter the kingdom than infants. No one has achieved less morally and religiously than them; no one has less knowledge of or obedience to the law, or less devotion to God. Thus, infants perfectly illustrate the principle that God saves sinners apart from their achievements. While the proud and self-righteous are excluded from the kingdom, infants—and those who approach the kingdom like infants—are included. (See Luke Commentary) D. L. Moody once returned from a meeting and reported two and a half conversions. “Two adults and a child, I suppose?” asked his host. “No,” said Moody, “two children and an adult. The children gave their whole lives. The adult had only half of his left to give.” (from Kent Hughes in Preaching the Word - Luke)
Marcos 10
MacArthur says He was "going willingly to His death. With resolute conviction, He walked ahead of everyone, pulling His anxious, confused, hopeless followers along with Him by the sheer force of His presence." (See Mark Commentary) And they were amazed (thambeo in imperfect tense over and over) - The 12 were at the demeanor and submission of Jesus to be so determined to head to Jerusalem where He knew awful suffering awaited Him there. "The Lord walked in advance of the Twelve with a solemnity and determination which foreboded danger.… His manner struck awe into the minds of the Twelve, who were beginning at length to anticipate an impending disaster.” (Swete) Hiebert - The cause of the amazement of the Twelve is not stated, but clearly it was the unusual action of Jesus. In verse 24 the disciples were amazed at Jesus’ words; here they are amazed at His action. John’s Gospel makes it clear that the raising of Lazarus had brought the hostility of the religious leaders at Jerusalem to a head, and Jesus, to escape their wrath, had withdrawn to Ephraim (John 11:47–57). But now, He was resolutely and energetically leading the way back to Jerusalem; with solemn determination, He was pushing forward in the face of the obvious danger involved. Knowing the danger and struck by their Master’s silent preoccupation with His own thoughts as He was walking ahead alone, the Twelve were gripped with a sense of amazement. The nervous disciples apparently were reluctant to follow the lead of Jesus. Manson comments: “They are baffled and bewildered by Him, and yet they cannot desert. There is something touching about this stubborn blind devotion to a leader whom they love but cannot understand.” (The Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary) and those who followed (akoloutheo in the present tense) were fearful (phobeo in imperfect tense - over and over) - Note that those does not refer to the disciples but the crowds going in caravans to Jerusalem. MacArthur on those who followed were fearful - The word “fearful” is basically a word that refers to a kind of fear that is a baffling kind of fear. There was some confusion with them. They’re still sort of caught up in the Messianic idea of Judaism, that He’s going to set up His Kingdom, and yet they’ve heard about the things that He said with regard to His death. Their hope is very low and they’re baffled and they’re confused, and it’s that kind of fear. Why is He doing this? Why is He walking in to this deadly danger? . . . He not only knew what was coming by prophetic Scripture and a perfect knowledge of its interpretation, but He knew what was coming by personal omniscience. (A Preview of Messianic Suffering) Swete adds that "The crowd who usually hung upon the Lord’s footsteps, or His fellow-travellers on their way to the Passover, were conscious of a vague fear.” Kenneth
Marcos 10
MacArthur summarizes some of the many OT predictions His triumphal entry (Zech. 9:9; Matt. 21:4–5) His enemies’ rage against Him (Ps. 2:1–3; Acts 4:25–28) His desertion by His friends (Zech. 13:7; Matt. 26:31) His betrayal for thirty pieces of silver (Zech. 11:12; Matt. 26:15) His being lifted up (a reference to His death by crucifixion [Num. 21:8–9; John 3:14]) That none of His bones would be broken (Ex. 12:46; Ps. 34:20; John 19:31–37) That He would be given vinegar to drink (Ps. 69:21; Matt. 27:34) That His side would be pierced (Zech. 12:10; John 19:34, 37) That though His grave would be assigned to be with wicked men (as was common with crucified criminals), He would actually be buried in a rich man’s tomb (Isa. 53:9; Matt. 27:57–60) That He would rise victorious over death (Ps. 16:10; Acts 2:25–31) That He would ascend to the place of honor at the Father’s right hand (Ps. 110:1; Acts 2:34–35) And the Son of Man will be delivered (paradidomi) to the chief priests (archiereus) and the scribes (grammateus) - Delivered conveys the basic meaning of to give over from one's hand to someone or something, especially to give over to the power of another. "These coming events Jesus delineated in a series of eight future verbs, implying their certainty and nearness." (Hiebert) This is the third and last explicit announcement to the Twelve of His coming Passion and is the fullest account (Mk 8:31+; Mk 9:31+). For completeness recall that Jesus had referred to His death while descending from the transfiguration (Mk 9:12+) This (chief priests and the scribes ) was a descriptive phrase for the Sanhedrin (cf. Mark 14:43ff) which was the supreme court for the Jews, although in the first century it had only limited authority.
Marcos 10
MacArthur points out that "Their request reflects the common practice of ancient rulers to elevate their highest ranking, most intimate family members and associates to the places of honor on either side of them. This shockingly prideful request showed that, for all the time they had been with Him, the two had not learned humility, even after observing Jesus, the flawless model of it. James and John also deliberately depreciated the other apostles as being beneath them and unworthy of the honor they deserved. They were manipulative, consumed by a strong, self-promoting ambition, the expression of which revealed the ugly condition of their hearts (cf. Mark 7:21–22)."
Marcos 10
MacArthur - Christ’s point is that reward and honor in the kingdom are relative to the degree of earthly suffering endured. Hiebert - Cranfield holds that Jesus was “apparently thinking of the cup of God’s wrath against sin” which He would drink during the coming Passion. According to this view, the tense is a futuristic present, denoting its future certainty. The use of the present also in the next questions seems to make the futuristic present more probable here. (The Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary) Our Lord asks, “Are ye able to be drinking the cup which I am drinking?” The personal pronoun occurs with the verb, showing emphasis. It particularizes the cup which our Lord is drinking, from all other cups, and makes it stand out as a special one, an unusual one. The futuristic present is used here, denoting an event which has not yet occurred, but which is regarded as so certain that in thought it may be contemplated as already coming to pass. The cup is the one to which our Lord refers in His Gethsemane prayer (Matt. 26:39), its ingredients, our Lord being made sin (II Cor. 5:21), and being abandoned for the time being by God the Father and God the Spirit (Matt. 27:46). Or to be baptized (baptizo) with the baptism (baptisma) with which I am baptized (baptizo)? - This question is a rhetorical, metaphorical question, because of course they could not follow Jesus in these ways. Jesus' three mentions of baptism have nothing to do with a literal water baptism. Our Lord used the rite of baptism as a metaphor to speak of His coming sufferings. Just as a convert was plunged into the baptismal waters, He was about to be plunged into His sufferings. Just as the person would be immersed in the water, so He would be overwhelmed by His sufferings. Just as the person would come up out of the water, so He would be freed from His sufferings and arise from the dead. Kenneth
Marcos 10
MacArthur - "Their answer revealed that they did not understand the ramifications of what they were asking. When the moment of crisis came, their overconfidence was exposed, and they fled along with the rest of the apostles (Matt. 26:56+)" And Jesus said to them, "The cup that I drink you shall drink - This speaks of the future sufferings of all the apostles and as church history reveals all but John were martyred. James was the first of the Twelve to be martyred by Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:2) and John would be the last (exiled on Patmos circa 90 AD) during the reign of Emperor Trajan and tradition says, he died at hard labor. . and you shall be baptized (baptizo) with the baptism (baptisma) with which I am baptized (baptizo) - Not literally but figuratively be baptized and like the cup above refers to the prophecy of their future sufferings and death. D Edmond Hiebert - "The verb baptized, which has the basic meaning “to dip, immerse,” was commonly used in a metaphorical sense of being flooded or overwhelmed with calamities. In the first question, to drink is active (active voice), questioning their willingness to drink voluntarily the cup of suffering; here, to be baptized is passive, pointing to the fact that these sufferings come from without, are imposed upon Him. He too is thus being baptized. The passive points to God as the agent laying the sufferings upon Him. Jesus was thinking of His coming sufferings at Jerusalem which would overwhelm His soul and culminate in His death. He was voluntarily facing the sufferings incurred in the establishment of the kingdom." (Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary) Mark 10:40 "But to sit on My right or on My left, this is not Mine to give; but it is for those for whom it has been prepared." Mt 20:23 25:34 Joh 17:2,24 Heb 11:16 Mark 10 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Related Passage: Matthew 20:23 He *said to them, “My cup you shall drink; but to sit on My right and on My left, this is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by My Father.” PLACES OF HONOR FATHER'S SOVEREIGN CHOICE But - Term of contrast. He had just spoken of the suffering, of the cross that must precede the crown so to speak. And now He explains the "crown." To sit on My right or on My left, this is not Mine to give - This answer affirms Jesus' submission to the Father. "Jesus replied that He had no positions to give as a mere personal favor. Their request asked Him to act as an earthly monarch, bestowing personal favors on His favorites according to His own caprice." (Hiebert) SEE subordination/hierarchy in the Trinity. Swete says: “Christ is indeed the appointed distributor of all eternal rewards (II Tim. 4:8, Rev. 22:12), but He will distribute them in accordance with the Father’s dispositions.” NET Note - After the first passion prediction in Mark 8:31 Jesus rebuked Peter as having been used by Satan. After the second passion prediction in Mark 9:31 the disciples were concerned about who would be the greatest in the kingdom. After the third passion prediction in Mark 10:33 James and John asked for positions of honor and rulership in the kingdom, revealing their complete misunderstanding of the nature of the kingdom and exposing their inadequacy as true disciples of Jesus. Jesus replied that such positions were for those for whom it has been prepared. “He who goes nearest in time to Christ the crucified shall get nearest in eternity to Christ the glorified.”" -- Morison But it is for those for whom it has been prepared (hetoimazo) - Matthew's version adds "but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by My Father.” Prepared is in the perfect tense which means that the matter has already been settled and will remain settled. This speaks of the Father's foreknowledge, His divine foreordination—God has a perfect plan for those who are faithful, and He will reward accordingly. The thrones are reserved not for the presumptuous, but for those who walk the path of humble obedience, even unto suffering (like the cross). True honor will come not by grabbing glory, but by imitating Christ’s humility. 🙏 THOUGHT - Jesus' words to the disciples remind us that in God's Kingdom, positions of honor aren't requested—they're prepared for those who live with humble faithfulness, embracing suffering and service for the sake of Christ. God prepares blessings (Eph 1:3+), people, places, and purposes ahead of time (Eph 2:10+). Believers are called to prepare their hearts for Christ's return and to serve. As Hiebert says "Those for whom the positions have been prepared will themselves be prepared for them. They will have a fitness of character to occupy them, achieved through sacrificial service." (The Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary)
Marcos 10
MacArthur - The rest of the apostles were furious, not because James’s and John’s blatant manifestation of pride offended their spiritual sensibilities but because the two approached Jesus first. The Twelve’s selfish competitiveness survived until the very end; even on the solemn occasion of the Last Supper, “there arose also a dispute among them as to which one of them was regarded to be greatest” (Luke 22:24). (See Mark Commentary) Swete says: “If the rest of the Twelve were not present, the report naturally reached them and it at once revived the spirit of jealousy which had been checked by the teaching of 9:35, and went far to create a new group in the Apostolate. Hitherto Peter, James, and John had formed a recognized triumvirate; now Peter joins and probably leads the other nine in their indignation. The bitter feeling was perhaps not expressed in the presence of the two, … but it threatened the harmony and spiritual life of the Apostolate, and called for immediate correction.”
Marcos 10
MacArthur - The world has always been filled with ambitious, overconfident, competitive self-promoters, who know no limits to their ambition. Many reach the heights of power. Driven by corrupt, proud hearts, they seek power at the expense of others. Ambition, overconfidence, and competitiveness mark the worldly pursuit of greatness by self-promotion. Mark 10:43 "But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; so: Joh 18:36 Ro 12:2 who ever: Mk 9:35 Mt 20:26,27 23:8-12 Lu 9:48 14:11 18:14 Joh 13:13-18 1Co 9:19-23 Ga 5:13 1Pe 5:5,6 Mark 10 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Related Passage: Matthew 20:26 “It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” THE WAY UP IS DOWN! But - This term of contrast which brings out the strong contrast between worldly greatness and greatness in the eyes of God. It is ot this way among you - "Is (present tense - continually) asserts present reality; the spiritual principle for attaining greatness is already operative “among you,” in the sphere of Christ’s followers. But it is obvious that they had not yet grasped the principle." But - This term of contrast explains the way to true godly greatness.
Marcos 10
MacArthur - The desire to be honored in the kingdom is a noble desire. Paul wrote, “Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him” (2 Cor. 5:9+). To that end he “discipline[d his] body and [made] it [his] slave, so that, after [he had] preached to others, [he would] not be disqualified” (1 Cor. 9:27+). Nearing the end of his life, he penned,"I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing." (2 Tim. 4:7-8+) We see similar thoughts in the following passages... (2 John 8) Watch (present imperative see need to depend on the Holy Spirit to obey) yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. (Rev 22:12+) “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. Whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant (diakonos) - Whoever leaves this open to all while wishes leaves it to the desire of each individual. Note carefully that Jesus does not condemn this desire. What is condemned in the previous passages is a desire from selfish motives and not a desire to glorify and honor the Father in Heaven.
Marcos 10
MacArthur - Blindness, common in the ancient world (cf. Matt. 11:5; 15:30; 21:14), as always was caused by birth defects, injury, or disease. The malady was so familiar to His hearers that Jesus used it to illustrate spiritual ignorance (e.g., Matt. 15:14; Luke 4:18; 14:13). Beggars also were numerous in Israel (cf. Luke 16:3; Acts 3:2, 10). The blind, like all those with disabilities, were despised and reduced to begging (cf. John 9:8), since they were considered to be sinners under God’s judgment (John 9:1–2). Jesus’ reference to the Pharisees as blind leaders of the blind (Matt. 15:14; 23:16–24) was thus an extremely severe rebuke of those who despised the blind as cursed.
Marcos 10
MacArthur - Incredibly, the high King of heaven, the sovereign, creator God of the universe, offered to be the servant of this lowly outcast. Here is an amazing example of God’s mercy and grace. (Ibid)