x. 1-12. Departure from Galilee. Questions of Divorce: cf. Matt. xix. 1 9. Partial parallels also in Matt. v. 31, 32 ; Luke xvi. 18. Mark omits (as also does Matthew) a number of events for our knowledge of which we are dependent on John. These include two visits to Jerusalem, at the time of the Feast of Tabernacles, and again at the time of the Feast of Dedication (John vii. 14; x. 22); the retreat beyond Jordan ‘into the place where John was at the first baptizing’ (John x. 40); the visit to Bethany and the raising of Lazarus (John xi. 1-46); the counsel of Caiaphas and the withdrawal to Ephraim (John xi. 47-54).

1. arose from thence. It was the Lord’s final departure from Galilee. Jerusalem was now his goal, but his way took him first to the borders of Judaea and into Perea. The Fourth Gospel, as we have seen, indicates that before the raising of Lazarus and his final journey to Jerusalem he went into the parts beyond Jordan and did miracles there (John x. 40-42). Multitudes still kept by him, and he taught them. [Salmond, 1906]

came unto him Pharisees. That is, certain members of that class, quick to try him again with entangling questions as he began again to teach publicly.

put away his wife. Jesus had already declared himself on the subject of divorce, but before a different audience (Matt. v. 31, 32). These Pharisees put their question; ‘tempting him,’ for a negative reply might bring him into conflict with the Mosaic Law, and might also be turned to account against him with Antipas. [Salmond, 1906]

What did Moses command you? Jesus turns the point of their question by appealing at once to the authority which they recognized. [Salmond, 1906]

bill of divorcement: see Deut. xxiv. 1-4. The Deuteronomic statement of the grounds on which an act of divorce might proceed was differently interpreted by the Rabbis, the school of Shammai and the school of Hillel being sharply divided on the subject. The Pharisees here say nothing of the reasons to justify an act of divorcement, but refer only to the clause in the Law allowing it. [Salmond, 1906]

For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. It is not meant that the Mosaic Law enjoined divorce or encouraged it, but only that it permitted it and controlled it. The ‘commandment’ here is the regulation referred to, and its object was to check abuse and protect the wife. The Deuteronomic Law did no more than permit divorce, and that for a particular reason—the moral condition of the people it had to deal with—the ‘hardness of their hearts.’ [Salmond, 1906]

But from the beginning of the creation. The permissive ordinance of the Mosaic Law was also only provisional and temporary. Divorce was not contemplated in the original relation of man and woman. [Salmond, 1906]

the twain shall become one flesh. The creation of man, male and female, is the ground for the common life of the marriage union, and that life makes husband and wife in such sense one that every other relation, even the filial, must yield to it. The words attributed to the first man in the O. T. record of creation (Gen. ii. 24) are here made his own by the Son of man. In Matthew they are given to the Creator himself (xix. 4-6). Cf. also 1 Cor. vi. 16; Eph. v. 31. [Salmond, 1906]

in the house. The house which was the home of the disciples for the time. Where it was is not stated. Some take them to have been at this time at Ephraim, the city mentioned by John (xi. 54), which is thought by some to have been near Ophrah, not far from Bethel, and to be the same as the modern Taiyibeh, some twenty Roman miles north-east of Jerusalem. Others suppose them to have been somewhere in Peraea. Matthew continues the statement of divorce as the whole had been addressed to the Pharisees. Mark gives the particulars more fully, and records the fact that Jesus was again interrogated on the subject not now by the Pharisees themselves when they had returned their course. [Salmond, 1906]

Whosoever shall put away. The statement is given absolutely here, as if divorce could in no case be followed lawfully for any reason. But in Matt. v. 32 and again in xix. 9 the important qualification of the absoluteness of the declarations given. One offence, but only one, is mentioned as justifying divorce, and when divorce proceeds on that ground the marriage of the man who puts away his wife is not unlawful. That is the natural inference from the words. Yet many Roman Catholic divines and not a few Anglicans affirm that, so long as the divorced wife is alive, however guilty she may have been, the husband cannot marry again. [Salmond, 1906]

if she herself shall put away her husband. The wife’s right to divorce the husband was not recognized among the Jews. Cases like those of Michal (1 Sam. xxv. 44) and Herodias (Matt. xiv. 3, &c.) were exceptional. Josephus states that while the husband might put away the wife and give her a bill of divorcement, it was not lawful for a wife who voluntarily departed from her husband to be married to another, unless her former husband renounced her (Antiq. xv. vii. 10). But among the Greeks and Romans the wife had the right of divorce, and Jesus concludes his statement by a reference to the heathen custom. This was the more appropriate because the disciples had been so recently in heathen circles. [Salmond, 1906]

x. 13-16. Incident of the blessing of children: cf. Matt. xix. 13-15; Luke xviii. 15-17. Each of the three narratives has something distinctive.

13. little children. The word used by Mark is applicable to children of twelve years of age (Mark v. 39, 42) and to infants eight days old (Gen. xxi. 12). Luke uses a word more definitely applicable to babes and very young children (Luke xviii. 15; cf. Luke ii. 12, 16; 2 Tim. iii. 15). The children, therefore, were of different ages, babes in arms and little ones somewhat grown, but yet young enough to need the mother’s care.

touch them. Matthew puts it ‘that he should lay his hands on them, and pray’ (xix. 13). The touch, with reference to the power believed to lie in him (cf. the case of the woman with the issue of blood); the laying on of hands, with reference to the benediction which the ruler of a synagogue was wont to pronounce, in imitation of Israel blessing Ephraim and Manasseh (Gen. xlviii. 14).

rebuked them: in mistaken concern for the Master’s dignity or ease. [Salmond, 1906]

moved with indignation. Wrath together with grief is ascribed to Jesus in Mark x. 15. This is the only occasion on which the expressive word selected here for indignation is used of him. It is the word that describes the indignation or sore displeasure of the chief priests and scribes when the children in the Temple cried, Hosanna to the son of David (Matt. xxi. 15). It was a disappointment that kindled strong feeling to see his mind misunderstood and his gracious work hindered, and that by the very men he had been instructing so patiently.

suffer…forbid them not. The charter of the children’s rights. Words of infinite grace to all parents, but spoken to the mistaken disciples in tones that at once arrested them. ‘We hear the Lord’s indignant call, as it startles the disciples in the act of dismissing the party’ (Swete).

of such is the kingdom of God. The graces of innocence, simplicity, trustfulness, tenderness, docility, affection seen in children are the very qualities that make the moral condition for entrance into the kingdom. They that have them cannot be forbidden, for they belong to the kingdom. [Salmond, 1906]

Verily. With these great words regarding children and the children’s spirit Jesus concludes the instructions which had begun with the question of the sacredness of the wedded life. He sets his seal on them by his solemn formula—‘Verily I say unto you.’ But he has one thing yet to do before he lets these little ones go. [Salmond, 1906]

he took them in his arms. This is noticed only by Mark. Already Jesus had selected one little child and had taken him up in his arms (ix. 36). Now at the end of this discourse he repeats the act on a larger scale, lifting each of these little ones (we may infer), as they were brought one after another to him, up into his arms. He brings the incident to an end by pronouncing over them his benediction with the laying on of hands. Luke omits this. Matthew records the laying on of hands, but not the loving embrace. [Salmond, 1906]

x. 17-22. The incident of the Rich Young Man. Cf. Matt. xix. 16-22; Luke xviii. 18-23.

17. into the way; or, as in margin, ‘on his way.’ This striking incident took place just as Jesus was resuming his journey.

ran one to him. From Matthew we learn that he was young, the term ‘young man’ being one, however, that might cover any age from earliest manhood to middle life (xix. 22); and from Luke that he was a ‘ruler,’ a person of position, perhaps one of the rulers of the synagogue (xviii. 18). All three Gospels notice his wealth. Mark alone mentions that he ‘ran’ to Jesus, so eager was he.

kneeled to him: another fact shewing his earnestness and his sense of the dignity of this new teacher, noticed only by Mark.

Good Master: that is, ‘Teacher.’ The young man recognized Jesus as a great Rabbi, one of eminent character, and he saluted him reverently as such, as pupils were accustomed to do homage to distinguished teachers. But he had no higher idea of what Jesus was.

inherit eternal life: this great phrase ‘eternal life’ occurs first in Daniel (xii. 2), and there as a contrast to ‘eternal’ or ‘everlasting’ contempt. It was familiar to the Jews, especially to the scribes and Pharisees. It had become a frequent subject of discussion, and in connexion with it many questions, some of them serious and others more theoretical, had arisen. In Luke (x. 25) we have the question which is put here by an earnest inquirer put in a very different spirit by a lawyer. The question and the answer are given in substantially the same form in Mark and in Luke. They appear somewhat differently in Matthew. There, according to the best reading, the question is, ‘What good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?’ and the answer is—‘Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good’ (xix. 17). [Salmond, 1906]

Why callest thou me good? The young man’s sincerity and earnestness we have no reason to doubt. But his ideas were superficial. It is correct theology to disclaim his own moral perfection or to make himself simply a man, one of the ordinary, erring children of humanity, that Jesus replies in these terms. The ruler had no proper conception of what ‘eternal life,’ as Jesus viewed it, was; and his notion of goodness was inadequate. Jesus throws the inquirer back upon himself by apparently disowning the title ‘good’ as it was thus easily applied, and directing the speaker to goodness as seen in God, and bringing him into the light of the Divine law. [Salmond, 1906]

Thou knowest the commandments. As he is referred, with a view to a worthier conception of goodness, to God in whom alone it exists in its perfection, so he is referred further to the commandments, in which, and most especially according to the ideas of a Jew, the mind of God is seen. The order in which the commandments are cited, according to Mark and Luke, is this—the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth; according to Matthew, it is the seventh, sixth, eighth, ninth, fifth. The question is what is meant by the one in the series which is expressed as ‘do not defraud,’ that is, ‘do not take from others what is theirs.’ It may sum up the four precepts mentioned before it, as some suppose; but it is rather a form of the ninth commandment. Some think it is a free quotation from Exod. xxi. 10; Deut. xxiv. 14. The mention of the commandments would come as a welcome surprise to the young man. He had thought probably that something more was needed than that observance of the Law which he had studied, and which he could say he had fulfilled in his own literal and formal way. [Salmond, 1906]

all these things have I observed from my youth. Jesus recites only the commandments dealing with our relations to our fellow men. Our fulfilment of the open and unmistakable duties to which these have regard is the test of the sincerity and reality of our observance of those duties toward God which lie more within the cover of our own hearts and are open to mistake by ourselves as well as by others. In naming those precepts of the second table Jesus takes the suitable way of approach to a mind which, while open and honest, does not rise beyond the external aspects of things. [Salmond, 1906]

looking upon him loved him. Compare the look turned upon (John i. 42), and on Peter in his denial (Luke xxii. 61). These particulars are recorded only by Mark, but they are true to the manner of the Master. Jesus, turning his searching look on the young man, saw in his frank and sincere face the witness to the fact that he was honest and earnest, and not far from the kingdom; and, while he regarded him with affectionate, yearning interest, he probed the weak point in his character. Rabbinic writers are said to have one word for the kiss of greeting and the kiss of pupils of brilliant parts.

One thing thou lackest. The young man had now beyond the ordinary Jewish ideas of an external, circumstantial observance of the Law. The requirement now made of him brought him face to face with the question of self-denial, and so with the inwardness of the Law, the deeper meaning of ‘eternal life’ and the ‘good,’ and what it cost to win the former and achieve the latter.

follow me: this is the final test, and one that would make him know himself better. [Salmond, 1906]

his countenance fell. The word rendered ‘fell’ is one that means ‘clouded over.’ It is used of the lowering sky (Matt. xvi. 3). It expresses the darkening or saddening of the face under the influence of gloomy thoughts, and in particular under the sense of grief or sudden disappointment.

went away sorrowful. He had thought of securing eternal life by doing, and had thought less of being. He discovered that there was a doing that was far beyond him, a fulfilment of the Law that meant inward conditions of the spirit, not outward conditions of the letter, and had its evidence in readiness to give up what was dear. His easy notions of righteousness and goodness, of eternal life, and the keeping of the commandments, were dissipated, his hopes were shattered, and he turned away not angry, but grieved and disappointed. He was unable then to pay the price of true discipleship, and of his future course nothing is told us. We are left to surmise that one whom Jesus loved while he tested him may have afterwards entered the Kingdom. [Salmond, 1906]

x. 23-27. Discourse on Riches and the Kingdom of God. Cf. Matt. xix. 23-26; Luke xviii. 24-27.

23. looked round about. This is noticed only by Mark. The look which had been turned lovingly and searchingly on the young man is now cast round about the circle of the Twelve. Cf. iii. 5.

riches. The word used here is one of wider scope than that in verse 22, and includes all kinds of possessions, in money, goods, or anything else. [Salmond, 1906]

amazed. This, too, is given only by Mark. It is a strong term expressing the consternation with which these words of Jesus threw his most select followers. The rich! Were not they the privileged? How different this Kingdom must be from what they anticipated—a Kingdom open to men who were like little children, and not to the great and wealthy!

Jesus answereth again. He repeats his staggering declaration, notwithstanding their amazement. But in doing so he qualifies its hardness somewhat both by the terms of his address and by a distinction which he now makes. ‘Children,’ he says, an affectionate and considerate designation, used with direct reference to the Twelve only in this passage, and indicating his sympathy with them and his regard for them in their present perplexity. So in the solemn words uttered later, when the traitor had gone out, he addresses them as ‘little children’ (John xiii. 33). And instead of the hardness of an entrance into the Kingdom of God for those who ‘have riches,’ he now speaks of the hardness besetting those who ‘trust in riches.’ So far the saying is softened and simplified. Yet in the next breath he gives it again in the most absolute form. [Salmond, 1906]

for a camel to go through a needle’s eye. A strong hyperbolical expression, which is to be taken precisely as it is. Some have thought it necessary to reduce its seeming exaggeration by turning the camel into a cable (these two words being somewhat similar in the Greek), or by taking the needle’s eye to be the name of a small side-gate near the great gate at Jerusalem. This is wholly to miss the point of the statement. The Jewish Rabbis were accustomed to use such extreme, paradoxical comparisons. This one is meant to express in the strongest possible form the incongruity of placing wealth or position on the same plane with the Kingdom of God, the utter impossibility of having riches recognized as a qualification for that Kingdom, and the difficulties which the rich have beyond others in entering it. [Salmond, 1906]

astonished exceedingly. Their amazement is intensified by these further words of Jesus, which seem to raise the difficulty of an entrance into the Kingdom, even in the case of the disciples, to the height of impossibility. They were quite beside themselves in their wonderment. No doubt their Jewish ideas clung to wealth, which connected prosperity with righteousness, and made it natural for them to think of those who may have been favoured by God in outward things as meant by Him to have His Kingdom. [Salmond, 1906]

all things are possible with God. Jesus accepts the construction put upon his words by the disciples in their consternation, but at the same time provides the needed relief. Impossible it indeed is to establish a claim to the Kingdom of God. But the impossibility is only on man’s side. With God it is otherwise. He can make the impossible actual, and accomplish by grace what rank or privilege or human effort cannot effect. In the Divine power which He gives in lieu of human incapacity is the ground of man’s hope of a place in the Kingdom. [Salmond, 1906]

x. 28–31. The Reward of Discipleship. Cf. Matt. xix. 27–30; Luke xviii. 28–30.

28. Peter began to say unto him. All three Synoptists agree in naming Peter as the spokesman here. He breaks in and utters, as was his wont, what was in his mind. But our Lord’s reply shews that the rest of the Twelve had the same thoughts.

we have left all. The emphasis is on the ‘we’—we your Apostles here. Peter’s interruption was suggested no doubt by the case of the rich young man. ‘We at least have done,’ he meant to say, ‘what the ruler has not done. And what is to come to us for so doing?’ It is only Matthew who records the blunt claim for tangible reward—‘what then shall we have?’ [Salmond, 1906]

Verily I say unto you. The reply of Jesus is directed not to Peter in particular, but to all the Twelve. Matthew gives it more fully than Mark or Luke. These two record only what applies to all followers of the Lord. Matthew reports first what was meant specially for the Twelve themselves—the promise of a share in the prerogative of judgment in ‘the regeneration’ when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of his glory.’

left house, or brethren. The instances of renunciation mentioned by Jesus are suggested by the case immediately before him. These Apostles for whom Peter spoke had indeed left home and relations (as was the case, e.g. by James and John), and possessions (some leaving their boats and nets, others, e.g. Levi, their occupations of a different kind but not the kind that made them rich). Luke omits the ‘lands,’ and inserts ‘wife.’ At this time anyhow, for wider exert, we see no reason why St. Peter had not already made this last sacrifice. It is to be noticed that nothing is said of giving up life. [Salmond, 1906]

he shall receive a hundredfold. So also in Matthew, but in Luke it is ‘manifold more.’ In its terms this promise resembles the descriptions of the blessings of the Messianic kingdom which were familiar to the Jews of our Lord’s time, and are found in their non-canonical literature. It is expressed as if the reward was to be given in kind—houses for houses, relations for relations, possessions for possessions, but in more liberal measure. It is expressed at the same time in terms so large as at once to suggest something beyond that—a return in kind and yet different, inward good for outward, spiritual relationships and possessions for natural connexions and material substance, rewards, in short, in the form of the blessings belonging to the new Messianic kingdom.

now in this time. He who gives up other things in order to follow Christ has his reward even here and now—a present reward which brings a gain not to be put in comparison with what is surrendered; though it is qualified now by ‘persecutions’ as Mark, and only he, is careful to add.

and in the world to come. That is, in the age that follows Christ’s Second Advent, the new condition of things which is to be inaugurated by that decisive event and in which the kingdom is to have its consummation. In that age there is a further reward for the follower of Jesus, and one no more qualified by ‘persecutions.’ That final reward is ‘eternal life’—a phrase conveying the Israelite’s hope from the time of the prophecy of Daniel onwards, and into which Jesus infused a higher and more spiritual meaning. [Salmond, 1906]

first shall be last. This closing declaration is omitted by Luke on the present occasion. He gives it, however, in his account of our Lord’s reply to the question ‘Are there few that be saved?’ (xiii. 30). Matthew gives it again in his report of the parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard (xx. 16), which he introduces immediately after the present incident. That parable enlarges the declaration on the subject of the ‘first’ and the ‘last’ conveyed to the lesson that the rewards of the kingdom of the Messiah and of Christian discipleship are not given on the ground of priority in time, or calculable service, or man’s ideas of merit, but on the ground of inward conditions, and the wise and just counsel of God to whom all hearts are open. [Salmond, 1906]

they were in the way. It was when he ‘was going forth into the way’ that Jesus was arrested by the ruler’s question. With the Twelve he is now ‘in the way,’ his journey being resumed and his course directed to Jerusalem. The ‘way’ no doubt was the open highway that was followed by the usual bands of pilgrims at the stated seasons of ascent to the Holy City.

going up. Jerusalem was so placed that to reach it from any point meant literally a ‘going up.’

going before them. Only Mark notices this, and he evidently attaches exceptional significance to it. Jesus parted for a time from the immediate companionship of the Twelve, and contrary to his habit moved on before them.

they were amazed. The action was unusual. But there was not enough in that to account for this amazement. There must have been something in the way in which Jesus went before them, in the solemn deliberateness of his action, the resolved attitude he assumed, the impression of brooding thoughts conveyed by his demeanour, that awed the Twelve with the sense of the fatefulness of this movement towards Jerusalem. Cf. Luke ix. 51.

they that followed were afraid. Others also who were in the company, the people who were accustomed to keep by him, were affected as the Twelve themselves were. Forebodings of evil smote them and filled them with vague terrors.

took again the twelve. This is noticed by each of the three Synoptists. Matthew states explicitly that Jesus took them aside. Seeing how the Twelve were moved by the change in his manner, he pauses and takes them by themselves in order to explain his action and declare to them what was in his mind. [Salmond, 1906]

the Son of man shall be delivered. This is the third announcement of his Passion that he makes to the unwilling ears of the Twelve, and it is remarkable for its distinct and rather detailed character. It makes mention of the betrayal into the hands of the Jewish authorities, the members of the Sanhedrin or Council, who dealt with cases coming under the Jewish law; the condemnation by that court; the subsequent delivery to the Gentiles, that is, to the Roman authorities, who reserved to themselves the right of ordering the penalty of death; and the circumstances attending the sentence and the punishment—the mockery, the contumelious spitting, the scourging (which always accompanied crucifixion), and the death itself. The betrayal to the chief priests and scribes is noticed by Matthew and Mark; the delivery to the Gentiles, which was not referred to in the former announcements, the mocking, and the scourging, are recorded by all three; the spitting is mentioned only by Mark and Luke. Matthew alone specifies crucifixion as the mode of death. All three give the intimation of the Resurrection. Luke introduces a reference to O.T. prophecy—‘All the things that are written by the prophets shall be accomplished unto the Son of man.’ From Luke we also gather that, notwithstanding its definiteness and the remarkable circumstances in which it was spoken, this third prediction of the Passion and Resurrection of their Master was as little understood by the Twelve as were the former two. The ‘saying was hid from them, and they perceived not the things that were said’ (xviii. 34). [Salmond, 1906]

x. 35–45. The Ambitious Request of the Sons of Zebedee. Cf. Matt. xx. 20–28. This incident is omitted by Luke, who gives, however, in a later chapter, the story of the contention among the disciples as to who should be greatest (xxii. 25–28). There is this difference also between the narratives of Matthew and Mark here, that in the former the petitioner is the mother (whom we learn to be Salome by comparing Mark xv. 40 with Matt. xxvii. 56), while in the latter the sons themselves make the request. The mother’s solicitude for the welfare of her sons may have led her to speak here, although the request was her thought, but she joined in and expressed their own sense of what they considered themselves entitled to look for.

35. the sons of Zebedee. The only occasion on which Zebedee is brought very directly before us in the Gospels is when his sons were called by Jesus. Thereafter the Gospels are silent regarding him, or refer to him only as here. It is possible that he may not have lived long after James and John left him to become followers of Jesus. It has been suggested that, unlike Salome, he had taken no interest in the claims and the ministry of Jesus, and for that reason is little noticed in the Gospels. Whatever is the matter of conjecture, it is more reasonable to suppose that, like his sons, he had been a disciple of the Baptist and had recognized Jesus as the Messiah. The fact that nothing is said as to his opposing the departure of James and John when they were called so far favours this supposition. But all is left uncertain by the Gospels themselves.

we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall ask of thee. A large, bold, inconsiderate demand, that comes so strangely after Jesus has spoken of scourging and death as his own lot, and betrays how little the Twelve, and even the select three, yet understood what it meant to be followers of Jesus, or what his kingdom was. [Salmond, 1906]

What would ye that I should do for you? He will have them first state distinctly what is in their hearts before he will commit himself to their large request. [Salmond, 1906]

Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and one on thy left hand, in thy glory. They think only of grandeur and glory as associated with his kingdom, and will have the places of highest honour in it, the right hand of the host or the monarch being the position reserved for ‘the most distinguished guest or dignitary,’ and the ‘left hand’ the position next in honour; cf. 2 Sam. xvi. 6; 1 Kings ii. 19; Acts vii. 55, 56; Rom. viii. 34. The presenting of such a request may have been suggested by the words of Jesus on the subject of reward—the hundredfold that was to be received now by any one who had left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or children, or lands, for his sake and the gospel’s (x. 30). [Salmond, 1906]

Jesus said unto them. In Matthew’s Gospel the petitioner is the mother. If there were four women at the cross, and if Salome, the mother of James and John, is the person mentioned as ‘his mother’s sister’ in John’s narrative of the crucifixion (xix. 25), she was connected by blood with Jesus, and it may be found in that her encouragement to take her sons with her to him and make her application in their interest. But even in Matthew’s Gospel it is to the sons themselves, not simply to the mother who spoke for them, that Jesus addresses his reply.

Ye know not what ye ask: the reply touched first their lack of understanding.

Are ye able to drink the cup that I drink? It then brought them to the question of their capacity for fellowship with him in suffering. The term ‘cup’ is a frequent figure both in the O. T. and in the N. T., and is used in different applications. It occurs as a figure of speech: (1) for the happy lot or experience of the godly, the idea being that that comes from God as the wine-cup at table comes from the host (e.g. Ps. xvi. 5, xxiii. 5, lxxiii. 10); (2) for the unhappy lot of the wicked (e.g. Ps. xi. 6); (3) for the Divine wrath (e.g. Jer. xxv. 15; Ezek. xxiii. 32–34; Isa. li. 17; Zech. xii. 2; Rev. xiv. 10); (4) for the experience of salvation, the reference being to the wine of the thank-offering (Ps. cxvi. 13); (5) for consolation, the wine offered for refreshment to the mourner probably being in view (Jer. xvi. 7).

or to be baptized with the baptism. Another figure for suffering, overwhelming suffering in which one is immersed or submerged. Jesus uses it again of his sufferings when he speaks of being come to ‘cast fire upon the earth’ (Luke xii. 49). It is akin to one of the most frequent figures of the O. T., especially of the Book of Psalms—that which speaks of one who is in dire peril or affliction as being in deep waters (Ps. xviii. 16, xlii. 7, lxix. 1, cxxiv. 4, cxxx. 1). [Salmond, 1906]

We are able. Their answer betrayed again their lack of discernment. They were capable as much as their eager and loyal natures could be courageous. But as yet they had not that superiority to unscriptural and confused ideas that did not, even in sincerity, mix up spiritual conditions with those of worldly-mindedness. But they were to learn it by the surest of all teachers—sharp experience. [Salmond, 1906]

is not mine to give. There was a difference between drinking of the cup and sitting on the right hand or left of the Great King. Fellowship with Jesus in the former they were to have, and it needed not to be given them. It would come of itself in their conflict with an evil world. But fellowship with him in glory demanded conditions of which they had no understanding, and was not a thing to be given by disposition simply, not even at the bidding of the Son of man. Throughout the N.T. Jesus is declared by himself, as well as by his Apostles, to be the final Arbiter who is to give to every man his due (Matt. xxv. 31–46; 2 Tim. iv. 8; Rev. xxii. 12). But in this he acts not arbitrarily or without regard to the Father’s will. It is the Father who has committed to him the power of judgement, and it is the Father’s will that he fulfils in that as in everything else (John v. 22, 27).

for whom it hath been prepared. That is, by God. In Matthew it is expressly put so—‘for whom it hath been prepared of my Father’ (xx. 23). Here our Lord brings us within sight of the great principle of a Divine election or predestination, which is expressed at length in the Epistles to the Romans (viii. 33–39, ix. 6–33) and Ephesians (i. 4–12), in 1 Peter (i. 2), and elsewhere. As Christ’s word here indicates, this ‘preparation’ and the choice or determination which it implies are not arbitrary decisions, but the wise and gracious dispositions of the Father. And they for whom the things here in view are prepared are themselves also prepared for them. For the use of the term in its various applications see such passages as Matt. xxv. 34, 41; Luke ii. 31; Rom. ix. 23; 1 Cor. ii. 9; Eph. ii. 10; 2 Tim. ii. 21; Heb. xi. 16. [Salmond, 1906]

when the ten heard it. The ‘ten,’ it is to be observed, not the ‘nine.’ In this matter Peter went not with his comrades in the select band of the three, but with the other members of the Apostolate. Whether the ten knew of the selfish and exclusive request of James and John by hearing it at second hand or by having it reported to them, is not told. In any case, when it came to their knowledge their indignation was roused, and with it doubtless those evil feelings of jealousy and self-assertion which Jesus had already had to check and correct (ix. 33–37). [Salmond, 1906]

called them to him. He had again to deal with the whole company of the Apostles, and not merely with two individuals. He does so deliberately and pointedly, summoning them to him for the purpose. Bent on putting them right he takes the wise and considerate way of calling their attention to the facts and principles at issue, and makes no reference to the fault of James and John. [Salmond, 1906]

it is not so among you. If they were to be in his kingdom, their ideas must be different from those that prevailed in heathen society and characterized heathen ways of life. Among the Gentiles it was the accepted order of things that those in power should rule according to their will, and dispense their good things and their evil things arbitrarily. But in him they had a Master of another kind, and in his kingdom a society of a radically different order—a society to which ambition, and honours arbitrarily bestowed, dignities won by competition and self-assertion, were entirely strange, and in which only one pre-eminence was known—that of humility and service. [Salmond, 1906]

For verily the Son of man came not to be ministered unto (or, served), but to minister (or, serve). That greatness in his kingdom was so unlike what it was in the Gentile world, and that the thoughts of his disciples must be so essentially different from those of others, is made clearer and more certain by an appeal to his own example, and to that as the highest possible enforcement. The Son of man himself, who was of men and yet more than they, had come for a great purpose. But that was to serve, not to be served.

and to give his life. Not only to serve, but to do so to the last degree of self-sacrifice.

a ransom. The word expresses deliverance by paying a price, or the price paid for deliverance. It is used, e.g. for the price paid for the redemption of a slave (Lev. xix. 20) or a captive (Isa. xli. 13); the ransom paid for a life (Exod. xxi. 30, xxx. 12; Num. xxxv. 31). The word occurs frequently in the O.T. In the N.T. this is the only instance of it in this particular form. But we find it again in a compound form in 1 Tim. ii. 6, where also it is applied to Christ himself as the sacrifice.

for many. One life for the lives of many, and ‘for’ them in the sense of ‘instead of them.’ The preposition used by our Lord is one that in its most proper sense conveys the idea of exchange or substitution. It means ‘in place of,’ and occurs in such sentences as ‘an eye for an eye,’ ‘a tooth for a tooth’ (Matt. v. 38). ‘for a fish . . . a serpent’ (Luke xi. 11); ‘Archelaus was reigning over Judæa in the room of his father Herod’ (Matt. ii. 22); ‘render to no man evil for evil’ (Rom. xii. 17); ‘Esau, who for one mess of meat sold his own birthright’ (Heb. xii. 16). The life that is spoken of here, therefore, is a life which was Christ’s to give, and he was to give it, he tells us, in the character of a ransom for the lives of many—a ransom, further, which was to take the place of or to be given instead of those others. The word ‘for,’ following on the word ‘ransom’ here, ‘can only be understood,’ says Meyer, ‘in the sense of substitution in the act of which the ransom is presented as an equivalent to secure the deliverance of those on whose behalf it is paid—a view which is only confirmed by the fact that in other parts of the N. T. this ransom is usually spoken of as an expiatory sacrifice,’ Matt. xxvi. 28; John i. 29; 1 John iv. 10; Rom. iii. 25; Isa. liii. 10; 1 Pet. i. 18 ff., ii. 18.’

This great declaration was made incidentally, not for doctrinal or dogmatic purposes, but with a purely practical object—the checking of unworthy, selfish feeling in the disciples and the illustration of what greatness is in the kingdom of God. Yet it is impossible to over-estimate its importance or to fathom all that it means with regard to the nature and scope of Christ’s mission. It is one of the select number of sayings which give us an insight into his own view of his life and death. It is fundamental to any just conception of the purpose and the efficacy of his death. It contains the principles of that doctrine of sacrifice and atonement which is taught in the Epistles of the N. T., and which has been stated and developed in the Creeds of the Church. [Salmond, 1906]

And they come to Jericho. It is not stated when they came. It may have been the ‘city called Ephraim’ (John xi. 54), the secluded place about sixteen miles from Jerusalem, to which Jesus retired after the raising of Lazarus and the council of the chief priests and Pharisees consequent on that great work. ‘By publicly entering Jericho, he places himself in full view of his enemies going to the great Sanhedrin’ (Swete). On previous occasions, in going up to Jerusalem or returning from it, Jesus must have passed by or through this. But there is no record of it in earlier journeys. With the present occasion it is different; for it marks an important stage in his ministry. With the exception of the reference to it in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke x. 30 f.), it is only in connexion with this narrative that mention is made of Jericho in the Gospels. It is noticed also in Heb. xi. 30.

and as he went out from Jericho. Both Matthew and Mark report the miracle as if it was done as Jesus left the city. Luke gives it as if it was done when he drew near to the city. If Jesus came by the direct road from Ephraim he would ‘enter through a gate on the north side of the city, and in order to proceed to Jerusalem he would cross to the west gate’ (Swete).

The ancient Jericho, the famous ‘city of palm-trees’ (Deut. xxxiv. 3), in the Jordan valley, over against Nebo (Deut. xxxii. 49), lay some sixty stadia or furlongs west of the river, and about 150 from Jerusalem. It is represented by the modern er-Riha, a cluster of wretched hovels containing about 300 inhabitants, and lying some 900 feet below the level of the Mediterranean. Its glory is utterly gone, and of its great palm-groves there remains only a tree here and there—perhaps a dozen in all. The old Canaanitish city seems to have occupied a site about a mile and a half or two miles from er-Riha, at Tell-es-Sultan, above Elisha’s fountain. That it was a rich town in ancient times appears from the story of Achan (Josh. vii. 21). It is associated with many notable passages in the story of Israel, e.g. the first observance of the Passover after the crossing of the Jordan (Josh. v. 10); the vision of the captain of the Lord’s host (Josh. v. 13–15); the first stand made against the children of Israel; the siege, the destruction of the city, and the saving of Rahab for the spies’ sake (Josh. vi); and later, the translation of Elijah (2 Kings ii. 4); the capture of Zedekiah when he fled from Jerusalem and the forces of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings xxv. 5; Jer. xxxix. 5), &c. A solemn curse was uttered by Joshua on the man who should rebuild it (Josh. vi. 28), which was fulfilled in the case of Hiel the Bethelite in Ahab’s time (1 Kings xvi. 34). In our Lord’s time it had again an important place, largely in the favour of the Herodian family. The fact that it lay on the caravan route from Damascus, and occupied a strong military position, made it a place of great consequence. It was also one of the chief residences of priests. After the siege of Jerusalem by Pompey, it was made one of the seats of assembly by Gabinius, the Roman general (Joseph. Wars, i. viii. 5). Herod the Great fortified a citadel above the town, and built to the north of it a palace which the Pharisees failed to enter (Joseph. Wars, i. xxi. 9). In Jericho also Herod died. The royal palace, according to Josephus, was situated ‘about a furlong from the river Arnon.’ Our Lord’s baptism took place not far from it, and Quarantania, the probable scene of his temptation, was also near it. Josephus speaks in glowing terms of its climate, its fountain, its well-watered and fertile plains, its gardens full of trees, yielding balsam and myrobalansam, its palms of different kinds, its luxuriant vegetation (Wars, iv. viii. 2–3).

with his disciples and a great multitude. Jesus entered the city and left it not now as an unknown visitor, but in the style of a great Rabbi attended by his pupils, and followed by a crowd of curious spectators made larger than usual by the number of pilgrims from many different quarters who met here on their way to Jerusalem.

the son of Timæus. This is a translation for the sake of Gentile readers of the Aramaic name Bartimæus.

a blind beggar. Two blind men were there, according to Matthew (xx. 30). Mark and Luke, for some reason left unexplained, refer only to one, the former by name, the latter in general terms. Beggars abounded in the ancient East, and gathered in large numbers at the times of the great feasts at the chief points along the pilgrimage routes. In many cases blindness, that fell and frequent malady of the East, added to the misery of utter poverty. [Salmond, 1906]

when he heard that it was Jesus. Luke tells us that the blind man heard the noise of the multitude passing and inquired what it meant (xviii. 36). Thus he learned from others what he could not discover for himself, that it was Jesus passing by, and instantly he besought his mercy. Perhaps he had heard of the cure of the blind man at Jerusalem (John ix.), or of some similar case among the healing deeds of Jesus.

son of David. A Judean title of Messiah, found already on the lips of the multitude who witnessed the miracle on the blind man, and hailed him as David’s son (Matt. xxi. 9). The present is its only occurrence in Mark’s Gospel, and in Luke also appears only in the narrative of this miracle. [Salmond, 1906]

rebuked him. Many would have had him silenced. But he became only the more urgent as the opportunity seemed to be slipping. [Salmond, 1906]

Jesus stood still. The piteous appeal could not be withstood. There is a pause in the movement; the suppliant is called by the command of Jesus, and the word of encouragement, ‘Be of good cheer,’ is spoken to him by those who knew what the Master’s call meant. [Salmond, 1906]

he, casting away his garment, sprang up. This is noticed only by Mark. How it adds to the impressiveness of the scene, and to the picture of an insistent, anxious eagerness that could not tarry! [Salmond, 1906]

What wilt thou that I should do unto thee. All three Evangelists notice the question with which Jesus prefaced the healing act.

Rabboni. An Aramaic word for Master or Lord; which came also to the lips of Mary when in her dead sorrow she suddenly recognized her risen Lord (John xx. 16). [Salmond, 1906]

Jesus said unto him. According to Matthew Jesus touched the eyes of the two blind men. But according to Mark and Luke the restoration of the one sufferer whose case they notice was effected simply by the sovereign word. All three Evangelists notice that this miracle, one of the last done by Jesus, was wrought on the ground of faith in the subject.

followed him in the way. The healed man at once joined the company and went with them on their way to Jerusalem. [Salmond, 1906]