From: Over 50 Interpreters Explain the Gospel of Mark Return to Home
By Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2013
All reproduction of text in paper, electronic, or computer
form both permitted and encouraged so long as authorial
and compiler credit is given and the text is not altered.
Weymouth: Soon on His feet once more, He enters the district of Judaea and crosses the Jordan: again the people flock to Him, and ere long, as was usual with Him, He was teaching them once more.
WEB: He arose
from there and came into the borders of
Young’s: And having risen thence, he doth come to the coasts of Judea, through the other side of the Jordan, and again do multitudes come together unto him, and, as he had been accustomed, again he was teaching them.
Conte (RC): And rising
up, he went from there into the area of
10:1 And He arose from thence. Many transactions took place between those mentioned in the preceding chapter, and these that follow, which are omitted by Matthew and Mark but they are related by both Luke and John. 
and cometh into the coasts [region, NKJV] of
and the people resort [gathered, NKJV] unto Him again. The "again" seems to imply a previous visit to Peraea. 
Portions of His teaching
are recorded by Luke, and include the parables of (1) the unjust judge, and (2)
the Pharisee and the publican (Luke 18:1-14).
In the region now traversed probably occurred the healing of the ten
lepers (Luke -19),
according to some scholars, but Robinson places it in
And as He was wont [accustomed, NKJV], He taught them again. His role in traveling about was for the purpose of teaching and educating others more deeply into the will of God. It wasn’t an occasional purpose; it was the customary goal, typical of His travels. [rw]
In depth: Jesus' itinerary in the period Mark omits . Between the events just recorded [chapter 9] and those the Evangelist now proceeds to treat, many others had occurred, which he passes over. The most important of these were:
1. The visit of Christ to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:8-10), which was marked by (1) the rebuke to the "Sons of Thunder" at the churlish conduct of the inhabitants of a Samaritan village on their way to the Holy City (Luke 9:51-56); (2) Solemn discourses during the feast, and an attempt of the Sanhedrin to apprehend Him (John 7:11-52; 8:12-59); (3) the opening of the eyes of one born blind (John 9:1-4), the revelation of Himself as the Good Shepherd (John 10:1-18).
2. Ministrations in
3. Visit to
4. Tour in Peraea (Luke ).
5. The raising of Lazarus (John 11:1-46).
6. Resolve of the Sanhedrin to put Him to death, and His retirement to Ephraim (John -54).
WEB: Pharisees came to him testing him, and asked him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
Young’s: And the Pharisees, having come near, questioned him, if it is lawful for a husband to put away a wife, tempting him,
Conte (RC): And approaching, the Pharisees questioned him, testing him: "Is it lawful for a man to dismiss his wife?"
10:2 And the Pharisees came to Him, and asked Him. The Pharisees proposed this question to our Lord in the same spirit shown on other occasions, not for instruction, but in the hope of entrapping Him. These enemies, the history of whose systematic opposition Mark keeps up, now change their mode of assault from charges of violating the law and tradition to demanding His opinion on vexed questions of controversy. The fact that this was kept up to the last, shows that it was not accidental but the result of deliberate counsel and agreement on the part of the leaders of the opposition. 
Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? Matthew adds, “for every cause” and this is the meaning of the question as reported by Mark, seeing that if it is “lawful to put away a wife” this privilege unqualified makes the husband the judge of the cause. 
There was a question among the Pharisees themselves as to the meaning of the ground of divorce given in Deuteronomy 24:1, the school of Shammael limiting it to conjugal unfaithfulness, whilst that of Hillel extended it to the most trifling causes, even the wife's burning the food she was cooking for her husband. 
Even without this other known data, the fact that they thought this might get Him to say something that could be used against Him (1) proves this was not just “a friendly disagreement” but a vigorously (bitterly?) controversial question even in His day—not merely in the twentieth century, (2) argues that the religious leaders themselves gave sharply conflicting answers, and (3) raises an issue where there was major Jewish versus Roman difference in practice as well—a woman being able to initiate divorce among Romans (raising the possibility for a split in opinion between traditional Jews and hellenized Jews), that they could exploit among local Jewish listeners.
It is fascinating that their mindframe was that either a man could put away his wife for all reasons or none at all, ignoring both the causative reason mentioned in Deuteronomy 24:1 (“uncleanness”) and the fact that even under the best of circumstances God was only willing to tolerate rather than be enthusiastic about the practice (Malachi 2:16: “For the Lord God of Israel says that He hates divorce.”) [rw]
tempting [testing, NKJV] Him. How could this be [testing or] tempting Jesus? It was a very plain and Scriptural question and the answer, one would suppose, must be free from risk and a very easy one. The secret of the difficulty in answering was this: Jesus was still in the dominion of Herod Antipas, who had put away his wife, and was living with a woman who was not his wife, and therefore, they thought that Jesus would be put in a great dilemma and either way get into trouble. If He had said it was lawful, He would have been sanctioning sin, and if He said it was not lawful, He would be put in prison for offending Herod, as John was. 
WEB: He answered, "What did Moses command you?"
Young’s: and he answering said to them, 'What did Moses command you?'
Conte (RC): But in response, he said to them, "What did Moses instruct you?"
10:3 And He answered and said unto them. The order of the questions and answers in this conversation seems at first glance to be inconsistently reported by out two evangelists. Matthew represents the Pharisees as making the reference to what Moses had commanded, and as making it in the form of an objection to what Jesus had said; while Mark represents Jesus as making it in the form of a question for the Pharisees to answer.
If, according to our rule in such cases, we suppose both accounts to be true but elliptical, the entire conversation arranges itself most naturally in the following order: As reported by both evangelists, the Pharisees began the conversation by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" Jesus answered, as reported by Mark (vs. 3), “What did Moses command you?" They replied, as also reported by Mark (vs. 4), “Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement and put her away."
He then responded, as reported in substance by both, "Have ye not read that He who made them at the beginning, made them a male and a female, and said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh. Therefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."
At this point the Pharisees make their appeal to Moses, as reported by Matthew (vs. 7), saying, and “Why then did Moses command to give a writing of divorcement and put her away?" Jesus answered, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so." This last remark is quoted out of its original connection by Mark (vs. 5), because he condenses the entire conversation. 
What did Moses command you? In Deuteronomy 24:1. 
Instead of giving the direct answer they expected, Jesus referred them to Moses, through whom God gave His law. 
They professed much reverence for Moses; He therefore appeals to their great lawgiver. 
WEB: They said, "Moses allowed a certificate of divorce to be written, and to divorce her."
Young’s: and they said, 'Moses suffered to write a bill of divorce, and to put away.'
Conte (RC): And they said, "Moses gave permission to write a bill of divorce and to dismiss her."
10:4 And they said, Moses suffered [permitted, NKJV]. This answer implies the purely permissive character of the Mosaic provision (Deuteronomy 24:1-4), since the "bill of divorcement" was not designed to encourage divorce but to render it more difficult; being in effect a protection of the repudiated wife. 
to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. A precept which might give at least time to consider more calmly of it. 
WEB: But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart, he wrote you this commandment.
Young’s: And Jesus answering said to them, 'For the stiffness of your heart he wrote you this command,
Conte (RC): But Jesus responded by saying: "It was due to the hardness of your heart that he wrote that precept for you.
10:5 And Jesus answered and said unto them. Having drawn out a statement the law, Jesus does not question that it permitted divorce (and that, indeed, without limitation to cases of adultery), but declares that this permission was a concession to the hardness of men's hearts, of which concession they ought not to avail themselves. Not all that the law permits is for that reason right to do. 
For the [because of, NKJV]. God does by no means authorize everything which He tolerates; and He frequently permits a less evil that a greater may be avoided. It is absolutely necessary to distinguish in the Scripture that which God commands, that which He counsels, that which He expressly permits, and that which, out of His infinite patience, He only tolerates or suffers. 
hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. It was a fault in them and not out of any love of divorce that this was permitted. The fact that it was permitted at all argues that God recognized that the desired total prohibition was simply too high a standard for the human race to rise to. It could overcome many internal obstacles, but not on this topic—and therefore He, unhappily, permits them to have their own way. [rw]
WEB: But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.
Young’s: but from the beginning of the creation, a male and a female God did make them;
Conte (RC): But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.
10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. Jesus appeals to the fundamental fact of human nature, itself evidently of Divine appointment, that human beings are of two sexes, having distinct and reciprocal functions and responsibilities. In this fundamental fact, involving, as it does, the relations of husband and wife, parents and children, Jesus finds a divine sanction of marriage, and from it He draws the conclusion (vs. 9)--which, like the fact itself, He states in Old Testament language--that marriage should never be broken. 
Weymouth: For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cling to his wife,
WEB: For this cause a man will leave his father and mother, and will join to his wife,
Young’s: on this account shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife,
Conte (RC): Because of this, a man shall leave behind his father and mother, and he shall cling to his wife.
10:7 For this cause [reason, NKJV] a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife. Verse 7 and half of verse 8 are exactly quoted from Genesis 2:24, Septuagint. 
WEB: and the two will become one flesh, so that they are no longer two, but one flesh.
Young’s: and they shall be -- the two -- for one flesh; so that they are no more two, but one flesh;
Conte (RC): And these two shall be one in flesh. And so, they are now, not two, but one flesh.
10:8 And they twain [two, NKJV] shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. These words indicate the closest and most indissoluble union; and not only exclude divorce on any other ground than that allowed in our Saviour's teachings, but clearly prohibit polygamy. 
The “male” and “female” of verse 6. The institution was never intended for two of the same gender. Unless one is going to reject God as homophobic—and even if He were, the Biblical record is that rejecting God’s will is ultimately a loser’s game—then His counsel should be heeded and respected rather than have the terminology of marriage bent to describe that which it was never intended to cover. [rw]
Weymouth: What, therefore, God has joined together let not man separate."
WEB: What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
Young’s: what therefore God did join together, let not man put asunder.'
Conte (RC): Therefore, what God has joined together, let no man separate."
10:9 What therefore God has joined together. The union is God's; man may not therefore break it either by personal act of legal enactment. Jesus had previously given His law on the subject of divorce in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew ). We must here supply from Matthew's narrative, "except it be for fornication." 
let not man put asunder. Which was surely intended not only the avoiding of the act of divorce but also the provocations that can lead to it—on the part of both individuals. [rw]
WEB: In the house, his disciples asked him again about the same matter.
Young’s: And in the house again his disciples of the same thing questioned him,
Conte (RC): And again, in the house, his disciples questioned him about the same thing.
And in the house. Jesus and the disciples have now left the Pharisees with whom He had been conversing. The question and answer which follow were not heard by the Pharisees, and the same is true of the parallel in Matthew 19:10-12. 
His disciples asked Him again on the same matter. Mark records several confidential household words of our Lord to His disciples; e.g., concerning (1) the power of casting out demons (-29); (2) the great in the kingdom of heaven (-37); and (3) here, the Christian law of marriage. 
WEB: He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife, and marries another, commits adultery against her.
Young’s: and he saith to them, 'Whoever may put away his wife, and may marry another, doth commit adultery against her;
Conte (RC): And he said to them: "Whoever dismisses his wife, and marries another, commits adultery against her.
And He saith unto them. Verses 11 and 12 reaffirm to His disciples in other language the teaching already expressed to the Pharisees in verses 5-9. 
Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another commiteth adultery against her. He is still before God the husband of the woman whom he first married; his living with another is therefore itself grievous. 
discourse be originally about divorce, yet it seems plainly to evince that polygamy
must be unlawful under the Christian economy.
For, from Christ's saying, ‘He that putteth
away his wife, and married another, committeth
adultery against her;' it clearly
follows, that he who having not put her away, marries another, must be
guilty of the same crime..." (
His critics wanted to speak in terms of a blanket, unlimited right to divorce. Jesus responds, in effect: If you must speak in terms of absolutes at all on this matter, shouldn’t it be in terms of divorce being absolutely wrong? [rw]
Weymouth: and if a woman puts away her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
WEB: If a woman herself divorces her husband, and marries another, she commits adultery."
Young’s: and if a woman may put away her husband, and is married to another, she committeth adultery.'
Conte (RC): And if a wife dismisses her husband, and is married to another, she commits adultery."
And if a woman. The law is stated alike for husband and wife, placing them in this matter on the same footing. Under the Mosaic law no permission was given to the wife to divorce her husband; but it was now coming into use among the Jews. 
shall put away [divorces, NKJV] her husband and be married to another. Mark's account is peculiar in representing the woman as seeking the divorce. This was unusual among the Jews (exceptional cases: Michael, 1 Samuel 25:44; Herodias, Matthew 14:4), though it occurred among the Greeks and Romans. Probably in this confidential interview the delicate subject was discussed in all its bearings (Matthew preserves particulars omitted here), and Mark preserves a specification more applicable to Gentile readers. 
she commiteth adultery. In this verse Mark makes an addition to the report as given by Matthew, showing by express statement what is only implied in Matthew's report, that a woman who puts away her husband and marries another is equally guilty of adultery as the man who puts away his wife and marries another. 
WEB: They were bringing to him little children, that he should touch them, but the disciples rebuked those who were bringing them.
Young’s: And they were bringing to him children, that he might touch them, and the disciples were rebuking those bringing them,
Conte (RC): And they brought to him the little children, so that he might touch them. But the disciples admonished those who brought them.
And they brought young children. The little children are called by Luke "infants." We are left to conjecture as to their number--which probably was not large--and to infer that they were brought by their parents. The motive may not have been the most intelligent; possibly there was some idea of a magical value in His touch. 
that He should touch them. Or, as Matthew adds, "that He should lay His hands upon them and pray" for them (). Hebrew mothers were accustomed in this manner to seek a blessing for their children from rabbis of special holiness. "After the father of the child," says the Talmud, "had laid his hands on his child's head, he led him to the elders, one by one, and they also blessed him, and prayed that he might grow up famous in the law, faithful in marriage, and abundant in good works." 
and His disciples rebuked those who brought them. They seem to feel that children are too insignificant to be allowed to interfere with the Master's work or to demand the Master's care. 
They did not wish Jesus to be interrupted in His important work of teaching by the obtrusion of women and children for what to them seemed of little or no importance. Neither women nor children had then the place of honor and affection to which the Christian religion has since raised them. 
WEB: But when
Jesus saw it, he was moved with indignation, and said to them, "Allow the
little children to come to me! Don't forbid them, for the
Young’s: and Jesus having seen, was much displeased, and he said to them, 'Suffer the children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the reign of God;
Conte (RC): But when
Jesus saw this, he took offense, and he said to them: "Allow the little
ones to come to me, and do not prohibit them. For of such as these is the
But when Jesus saw it, He was much displeased. (1) They lacked the natural affection you would expect any adult to have toward small children. (2) They were treating them as if Jesus’ work were so all consuming, that He couldn’t take a few minutes out for them. (3) They were the ones who would make up the next generation of disciples—do you leave them memories of affection or rejection in childhood? (4) The action would inevitably annoy (and alienate?) the parents. [rw]
Suffer the little children to come unto Me,
and forbid them not: for of such is the
It's impossible to see how He could have spoken so freely and joyfully over the little ones if He had been hampered by some theories about elect and non-elect infants that have burdened many of His followers. 
certainly I tell you, whoever will not receive the
Young’s: verily I say to you, whoever may not receive the reign of God, as a child -- he may not enter into it;
Conte (RC): Amen I say
to you, whoever will not accept the
Verily [Assuredly]. Stressing the absolute certainty and reliability of what He is about to say. [rw]
I say unto you, Whosoever shall not
He shall not enter
therein. To receive the
WEB: He took them in his arms, and blessed them, laying his hands on them.
Young’s: and having taken them in his arms, having put his hands upon them, he was blessing them.
Conte (RC): And embracing them, and laying his hands upon them, he blessed them.
And He took them up in His arms. Verse 16 is peculiar to Mark. 
Twice we read of our Lord taking persons into His arms, and both times they were children, and both times the scenes are recorded only by Mark (; ). 
The tenderness which He manifested toward the little children should cause parents to more highly appreciate them. 
put His hands upon them, and blessed them. The imposition of hands implies a formal benediction, the invoking of Divine grace upon them, that they might grow up into wise and holy men and women. 
Weymouth: As He went out to resume His journey, there came a man running up to Him, who knelt at His feet and asked, "Good Rabbi, what am I to do in order to inherit the Life of the Ages?"
WEB: As he was going out into the way, one ran to him, knelt before him, and asked him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?"
Young’s: And as he is going forth into the way, one having run and having kneeled to him, was questioning him, 'Good teacher, what may I do, that life age-during I may inherit?'
Conte (RC): And when he had departed on the way, a certain one, running up and kneeling before him, asked him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do, so that I may secure eternal life?"
He was gone forth into the way[out
on the road, NKJV]. He
was just starting, it would seem, on His last journey
there came one. He was a “young man” (Matthew and a “ruler” (Luke ). His conduct indicates earnestness about the matter that moved him and reverence for Jesus as a teacher. 
The authorities were now in such avowed opposition to Jesus that to be Christ's disciple was disgraceful if not dangerous to a man of mark. Yet no fear withheld this young ruler who had so much to lose; he would not come by night, like Nicodemus before the storm had gathered which was now so dark; he openly vowed his belief in the goodness of the Master and his own ignorance of some great secret which Jesus could reveal. 
running. To meet or overtake Jesus. 
and kneeled to Him, and asked Him, Good Master [Teacher, NKJV]. This would be the ordinary and courteous mode of accosting a person professing to be a teacher, so as to conciliate his attention and interest. 
What shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? In Matthew, “What good thing shall I do?" What act of sacrifice or heroism, what generous action, what penance or suffering? He has the idea of purchasing, of deserving, eternal life. 
WEB: Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except one--God.
Young’s: And Jesus said to him, 'Why me dost thou call good? no one is good except One -- God;
Conte (RC): But Jesus said to him, "Why call me good? No one is good except the one God.
And Jesus said unto him, Why. If it should be asked for what reason Christ put this question, we answer, for the same reason that He asked the Pharisees, why "David, in Spirit, called him Lord?" (Matthew 22:43) and that was to try, if they were able to account for it. 
callest thou Me good? The term good which the man applied to Jesus, saying, "Good Master,” and the simultaneous act of kneeling to Him, were both suggestive of the Divine Being. Jesus catches the word for the purpose of directing attention to its real force when applied understandingly to Himself. 
The Socinian urges that by these words Jesus denied His Deity. There is none good but one, that is God, was a reason why He should not be called so. The Socinian who appeals to this text grasps a sword by the blade. For if it denied Christ's divinity it must exactly to the same extent deny also Christ's goodness, which he admits. 
There is none good. The remark was indeed, a two-edged sword, for it cut away, on the one hand, all subsequent objections which the man might make to the divinity of Jesus, and, on the other, it cut away all just ground for the man's conceit concerning his own goodness. Jesus did not dwell on the thought; He merely dropped it in the man's ear as a seed which should grow in after-time; for though the man paused not to consider it at the moment, it was so singular a part of a conversation which was destined to be a memorable event in his personal history, that in after years he could not fail to think on it solemnly. 
"Either: 'There is none good, but God: Christ is good; therefore Christ is God'--or, ‘there is none good, but God: Christ is not God; therefore Christ is not good" (Stier). 
but One, that is, God. By this answer Jesus did not mean to reprove him for applying the epithet good to Himself or to prohibit its application to man; for the inspired scriptures authorize this. Yet there is but One that is “good” in the full meaning of the term. And He would direct the thoughts of the young man upward, aw though He had said, “In what sense do you call me good? Just as God is good?" Thus understood, a high claim to equality with the Father lies back of the question. 
In depth: the other "good" involved in the conversation . While Mark reports the answer just considered, Matthew reports Jesus as answering (according to the corrected text), “Why do you ask me about the good?" And "the good” referred to in the question is “the good thing” which he supposed he was to do in order to inherit eternal life (cf. Matthew ). No doubt Jesus propounded both questions, putting the one quoted by Matthew first. Matthew, although he does not quote the second question of Jesus, shows that he was not ignorant of it, by adding the remark, "The Good Being is one," which is equivalent to Mark's words, "There is none good but one, that is, God."
WEB: You know the commandments: 'Do not murder,' 'Do not commit adultery,' 'Do not steal,' 'Do not give false testimony,' 'Do not defraud,' 'Honor your father and mother.'"
Young’s: the commands thou hast known: Thou mayest not commit adultery, Thou mayest do no murder, Thou mayest not steal, Thou mayest not bear false witness, Thou mayest not defraud, Honour thy father and mother.'
Conte (RC): You know the precepts: "Do not commit adultery. Do not kill. Do not steal. Do not speak false testimony. Do not deceive. Honor your father and mother."
Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, do ot kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, defraud not, honour thy father and mother. By these, as the standard of goodness best known to the young Jew, Jesus first of all tries the man. 
Defraud not. Instead of “covet not,” which is not, like the other commands, in the Decalogue. Perhaps it may have been meant as a special application, in a rich man's case, of the tenth commandment, “Thou shalt not covet;” as if Jesus would lead Him to inquire whether all His wealth had been acquired without defrauding. 
WEB: He said to him, "Teacher, I have observed all these things from my youth."
Young’s: And he answering said to him, 'Teacher, all these did I keep from my youth.'
Conte (RC): But in response, he said to him, "Teacher, all these I have observed from my youth."
And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed. Evidently the claim of the young man to have kept the commandments was no hypocritical boast, though it would be too much to say that he had lived a life faultless in deed and thought (cf. vs. 21). 
from my youth. He had not yet found his answer; he was still perplexed at being told to do what he supposed he had always been doing. 
WEB: Jesus looking at him loved him, and said to him, "One thing you lack. Go, sell whatever you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me, taking up the cross."
Young’s: And Jesus having looked upon him, did love him, and said to him, 'One thing thou dost lack; go away, whatever thou hast -- sell, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come, be following me, having taken up the cross.'
Conte (RC): Then Jesus, gazing at him, loved him, and he said to him: "One thing is lacking to you. Go, sell whatever you have, and give to the poor, and then you will have treasure in heaven. And come, follow me."
Then Jesus, beholding him, loved him. There is emphasis on the word "beholding" [KJV; "looking at him," NKJV]. He looked at him intently, searching into he truthfulness of his declaration and seeing in the young man's heart and life that which awakened a personal attachment for Him: for the statement that “He loved him," expresses a personal attachment, and not that general love which Jesus bears to all men. How interesting the character which thus excited the affections of Jesus, and how sad that this character was still without a well grounded hope of salvation! Yet many similar cases are constantly occurring and our own experiences are often like this of Jesus: we are constrained to love most tenderly persons whose waywardness gives us constant pain and from whom we must anticipate an eternal separation. 
and said unto him, One thing thou lackest. This was love. He had kept the individual commandments, but he had not yielded his heart to the one great commandment that is underneath them all. Cf. Jesus' words in 12:28-31. 
In his case wealth was the hindrance; in another case it might be something else. All we have belongs to Christ, and we hold it aright only when it is subordinate to Him. 
No man is obliged to sell all that he has because Christ gave such a command to one person, any more than he is obliged to sacrifice his son, because God commanded Abraham to do so, and yet, doubtless, these were written for our instruction, that we might be ready always to obey the severest calls of Providence. 
sell whatsoever thou hast. The
socialist would justify by this verse a universal confiscation. But he forgets that the spirit which seizes
is widely different from that which gives all freely: that Zacchaeus
retained half his goods; that Joseph of Arimathea was
rich; that the property of Ananias was his own, and
when he sold lit the price was in his own power; that St. James warned the rich
in this world only against trusting in riches instead of trusting
God. Soon after this, Jesus accepted a
feast from His friends in
This literal command is not given by Jesus to every one but He requires every one so in heart to lay his all upon God's altar as to be ready to obey the command to whatever extent it may be given. He says for all, “Whosoever forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple." 
and give to the poor. Not to the government to give to the poor or to some charitable effort to do so, but as if he personally is going to oversee its distribution. We sometimes speak of “the deserving poor” (as in contrast to those who make no real effort at self-betterment) but there are always those who instinctively tend to lump all of the poor into that narrower category. Personal involvement would go far to remove that illusion today. In addition, personally helping those genuinely struggling would encourage treating those with greater respect and courtesy. [rw]
and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. Besides the sacrifices demanded, positive service was also required. 
Giving up his excess would be a one time event; discipleship, in contrast, would be a lifetime one. [rw]
WEB: But his face fell at that saying, and he went away sorrowful, for he was one who had great possessions.
Young’s: And he -- gloomy at the word -- went away sorrowing, for he was having many possessions.
Conte (RC): But he went away grieving, having been greatly saddened by the word. For he had many possessions.
And He was sad at that saying. "Sorrowful," says Matthew (); "very sorrowful," says Luke (). 
and went away grieved. This has been termed “the great refusal." And how quietly it was made! He simply turned away with a sad countenance and a troubled heart. How often since this has been repeated! The sinner having come to the critical point in his soul's history, when he must decide between the gospel offer and the world, turns away to his doom, if with less conscious sorrow or less definiteness of decision, with the same fatal consequences. 
for he had great possessions. "Great," or literally, "many" possessions may refer to various kinds of property, or a large amount of property. The former is the strict meaning of the Greek. 
looked around, and said to his disciples, "How difficult it is for those
who have riches to enter into the
Young’s: And Jesus having looked round, saith to his disciples, 'How hardly shall they who have riches enter into the reign of God!'
Conte (RC): And Jesus,
looking around, said to his disciples, "How difficult it is for those who
have riches to enter into the
And Jesus looked round about. Presumably to see that He has their full attention. [rw]
and saith unto His disciples. Verses 23-31 are evidently suggested by the case of this young man, and deal with the possession of riches as a hindrance to entering the kingdom. 
How hardly [hard, NKJV] shall that have riches enter into the
how hardly . . . [to] enter into the
disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus answered again, "Children,
how hard is it for those who trust in riches to enter into the
Young’s: And the disciples were astonished at his words, and Jesus again answering saith to them, 'Children, how hard is it to those trusting on the riches to enter into the reign of God!
Conte (RC): And the disciples
were astonished at his words. But Jesus, answering again, said to them:
"Little sons, how difficult it is for those who trust in money to enter
And the disciples were astonished at His words. This teaching was so contrary to all former teaching and the whole trend of thought and desire among the people. "Like all Jews, they had been accustomed to regard worldly prosperity as a special mark of the favor of God, for their ancient Scripture seemed always to connect the enjoyment of temporal blessings with obedience to the divine law"--Beikie. Jesus Himself had said that “all these things should be added unto them” if they sought first the kingdom of heaven. And doubtless among the glowing visions of the new kingdom and the splendors they hoped for was an abundance of riches. 
But Jesus answered again, and saith unto them, Children. Children in their short-sightedness, their emphasis on the present. 
Or: A title intended to soften the sadness and sternness of His words. 
how hard is it
for them that trust in riches to enter
WEB: It is
easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter
Young’s: It is easier for a camel through the eye of the needle to enter, than for a rich man to enter into the reign of God.'
Conte (RC): It is easier
for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for the rich to enter
It is easier. St. Jerome says, "It is not the absolute impossibility of the thing which is set forth, but the infrequency of it." 
Or: The proverb used by our Lord is intended to express not the difficulty, but the impossibility of entering the kingdom of heaven by human power or skill. So long as he trusts in riches, to enter the kingdom is impossible from the very nature of the kingdom. 
for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. This comparison may have been proverbial, as the Talmud contains, at a later date, a closely similar saying. The Koran exactly reproduces it from the New Testament. 
The eye of a needle is either the small door sometimes made in the city gates, called the needle's eye by the Arabs--large enough for a man, but too small for a camel--or, rather, the oriental needle, of burnished iron, from two to five inches long, or their large ivory tape-needle. But it is now generally thought that the calling this small gate “the needle's eye” is a modern custom, and not in use in the time of Christ. 
than for a rich man to enter into the
What is it so difficult
for the rich to enter into the
Weymouth: They were astonished beyond measure, and said to one another, "Who then *can* be saved?"
WEB: They were exceedingly astonished, saying to him, "Then who can be saved?"
Young’s: And they were astonished beyond measure, saying unto themselves, 'And who is able to be saved?'
Conte (RC): And they wondered even more, saying among themselves, "Who, then, can be saved?"
And they were astonished out of measure. You might say many bad things about the rich, but that they would be at their own peculiar disadvantage in regard to gaining salvation was nothing less than astounding and shocking. [rw]
saying among themselves, Who then can be saved? With such a standard, how would the kingdom receive any one? For was not the love of money everywhere? and how could the kingdom live, with a law so strict? 
WEB: Jesus, looking at them, said, "With men it is impossible, but not with God, for all things are possible with God."
Young’s: And Jesus, having looked upon them, saith, 'With men it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.'
Conte (RC): And Jesus, gazing at them, said: "With men it is impossible; but not with God. For with God all things are possible."
And Jesus looking upon them. Intently looking at them and, no doubt, the intensity (and, in their case, apprehension as well) being equally returned. [rw]
saith, With men it is impossible. There is no worldly principle known to men, no human power that can so dislodge riches from the heart--where they have possession--as to admit therein the love of God. 
but not with God: for with God all things are possible. He can make new creatures of men. The implication is that, even though this case looks so hopeless, God can yet find means of bringing the unwilling rich man to a better mind. In His hands are even life and death. 
There is no limit to God's power, within the compass of what is morally right. 
WEB: Peter began to tell him, "Behold, we have left all, and have followed you."
Young’s: And Peter began to say to him, 'Lo, we left all, and we followed thee.'
Conte (RC): And Peter began to say to him, "Behold, we have left all things and have followed you."
Then Peter began to say unto him. Peter, as usual, speaks for them all. 
Lo, we have left all and have followed Thee. As Jesus did not reprove the Twelve for this, and as they were speaking about salvation, and heavenly rewards, we have no right to assume, as some do, that a mercenary spirit prompted them to make the statement here given. 
It is probable that the sacrifice which Peter and the rest of the disciples had made when they became His followers was small compared with the sacrifice which our Lord demanded of the rich young ruler. Nevertheless, they forsook their all, whatever it was. They had forsaken their boast and their nets. They had forsaken their means of subsistence. They had forsaken things which, though they were not much in themselves, were nevertheless such things as they would have desired to keep. 
Weymouth: "In solemn truth I tell you," replied Jesus, "that there is no one who has forsaken house or brothers or sisters, or mother or father, or children or lands, for my sake and for the sake of the Good News,
WEB: Jesus said, "Most certainly I tell you, there is no one who has left house, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or land, for my sake, and for the sake of the Good News,
Young’s: And Jesus answering said, 'Verily I say to you, there is no one who left house, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or fields, for my sake, and for the good news',
Conte (RC): In response, Jesus said: "Amen I say to you, There is no one who has left behind house, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or land, for my sake and for the Gospel,
And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, there is no man that hath left. The meaning is that he who gives up any of these things for Christ shall have spiritual blessings in this life a hundredfold more valuable than what he relinquishes. Yet temporal blessings are not altogether ignored and we know that “godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come” (1 Timothy 4:8). 
house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children. No man, no one, no person, nobody--without regard to difference of age or sex. The list is not exhaustive but illustrative. 
or lands. Literally, fields, i.e., cultivated ground. 
for My sake, and the gospel's. Jesus wishes not to be regarded apart from the gospel, nor can the gospel be regarded as a true object of sacrifice apart from Jesus. So in chapter 8:35. 
WEB: but he will receive one hundred times more now in this time, houses, brothers, sisters, mothers, children, and land, with persecutions; and in the age to come eternal life.
Young’s: who may not receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brothers, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and fields, with persecutions, and in the age that is coming, life age-during;
Conte (RC): who will not receive one hundred times as much, now in this time: houses, and brothers, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and land, with persecutions, and in the future age eternal life.
But he shall receive. Our sacrifices do not go unrewarded or unnoticed. [rw]
an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands. Not arithmetically, but in real value to the man. 
It is often the case, however, that a person who loses one friend for Christ actually gains a hundred and that he who loses his home actually gains a hundred in the welcome which he finds to the homes of his brethren. 
with persecutions. The “hundred-fold" will not prevent the persecutions; but neither will the persecutions interfere with the coming of the hundred-fold. 
and in the world to come eternal life. The rewards come both immediately and in the long term—but come, they will, He assures us. [rw]
WEB: But many who are first will be last; and the last first."
Young’s: and many first shall be last, and the last first.'
Conte (RC): But many of the first shall be last, and the last shall be first."
But many that are first shall be last; and the last first. This is a proverb employed by our Lord on several occasions. Here it is connected immediately with the bestowment of blessings in lieu of temporal goods sacrificed, as stated in the last verse. In other words, though the promise is “a hundred-fold” to all, yet it must not be supposed that the degree of blessedness promised shall be in the exact ratio of the amounts given. There must be many reverses in the order of men's spiritual standing. 
Or: God is judge and rewarder and His judgments are not always in agreement with those of men. Peter felt that he and his fellow-apostles had made great sacrifices (vs. 28). Jesus assures him that no one shall lose his reward, but adds that others who seem to him to have given up less may in fact receive more. 
Weymouth: They were still on the road going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them; they were full of wonder, and some, though they followed, did so with fear. Then, once more calling to Him the Twelve, He began to tell them what was about to happen to Him.
WEB: They were
on the way, going up to
Young’s: And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was going before them, and they were amazed, and following they were afraid. And having again taken the twelve, he began to tell them the things about to happen to him,
Conte (RC): Now they
were on the way ascending to
And they were in the way going up to
and Jesus went
before them; they were amazed; and as they followed, they were afraid. They
were amazed that he would go to
Alternative interpretation: No hint is given of the reason for this; the portrait is not drawn, after all, but only suggested. Yet we cannot be in doubt: it was something in the appearance and manner of Jesus that filled friends and strangers with this solemnity. It must have been the preoccupied, solemn, and determined look with which He was silently pressing on to death. 
And He took again the
twelve, and began to tell them what things should happen unto him. For the third time He tells them privately of
His coming suffering. The two previous
occasions are described in (1) Mark 8:31, in the neighborhood of Caesarea
Philippi, just after Peter's confession, and (2) Mark -32, shortly afterward, during the return
we are going up to
Young’s: -- 'Lo, we
go up to
Conte (RC): "For
behold, we are going up to
Behold, we go up to
and the Son of Man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes. Put here for the Sanhedrim, composed largely of these two classes. 
and they shall condemn him to death. Which indicates it won’t be pure mob justice; it will be a “legally” sanctioned killing. But since there is nothing legitimate for which to carry it out, it will have to be a case in which the evidence is either twisted or made up. It was not the first nor the last time in history that the power brokers used the formalities of justice in a thoroughly dishonorable manner. [rw]
and shall deliver Him
to the Gentiles. This
statement Jesus had not made before when He had spoken of His death. The Jewish court was not allowed to put a man
to death. This power belonged to the
Roman procurator, an officer appointed by the emperor at
Roman legal authority aside, to the extent that they could drag the Romans into the mire, the better it was for them. If there were a catastrophic reaction against the execution and the Romans had their seal of approval on it, any retribution from the masses would automatically be rebellion against them as well and they would have to come to the assistance and protection of the Sanhedrin. [rw]
WEB: They will mock him, spit on him, scourge him, and kill him. On the third day he will rise again."
Young’s: and they shall mock him, and scourge him, and spit on him, and kill him, and the third day he shall rise again.'
Conte (RC): And they will mock him, and spit on him, and scourge him, and put him to death. And on the third day, he will rise again."
And they shall mock him. Singularly explicit as this announcement was, Luke says, “they understood none of these things, and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken” ()--i.e., not in their literal sense, but in their Messianic bearing; the whole prediction being right in the teeth of their preconceived notions. That they should have slung so tenaciously to the popular notion of an unsuffering Messiah, may surprise us; but it gives inexpressible weight to their after-testimony to a suffering and dying Saviour. 
and shall scourge Him. See [Mark] 15:15. 
and shall spit on Him. See [Mark] 15:19. 
and shall kill Him. Or, as Matthew adds, "crucify Him" (Matthew ). 
and the third day He shall rise again. What His enemies had expected to bring to an end by judicial murder, would not work out that way after all. Through the resurrection, He would escape the victory of their intentions and bring to fruition His own. [rw]
WEB: James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came near to him, saying, "Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we will ask."
Young’s: And there come near to him James and John, the sons of Zebedee, saying, 'Teacher, we wish that whatever we may ask for ourselves, thou mayest do for us;'
Conte (RC): And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, drew near to him, saying, "Teacher, we wish that whatever we will ask, you would do for us."
And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto Him, saying. Matthew states that “the mother of Zebedee's children came to Him with her sons” and preferred the request about to be named; while Mark, saying nothing of the mother, simply states that the two sons came. The omission does not detract from the truthfulness of the narrative; for although the request was proffered through the lips of the other, it was really the request of the sons. So Matthew represents it; for He quotes Jesus as replying not to the mother, but to the sons, saying, "ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink” etc. (Matthew 20:22). The difference, then arises from an unimportant omission in Mark's account. 
Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. My generation called this kind of ambiguity—covering anything, everything, and nothing in particular--“wanting a blank check.” Many a child tried such calculated rhetoric with their parents for something they already knew their parents would be extremely reluctant to grant. Having to put up with such behavior from adults, however, had to have been extremely annoying for Jesus. [rw]
WEB: He said to them, "What do you want me to do for you?"
Young’s: and he said to them, 'What do ye wish me to do for you?'
Conte (RC): But he said to them, "What do you want me to do for you?"
And He said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you? He gave no pledge, but asked for their request. 
Like a wary parent, He commits to nothing. [rw]
WEB: They said to him, "Grant to us that we may sit, one at your right hand, and one at your left hand, in your glory."
Young’s: and they said to him, 'Grant to us that, one on thy right hand and one on thy left, we may sit in thy glory;'
Conte (RC): And they said, "Grant to us that we may sit, one at your right and the other at your left, in your glory."
They said unto Him, Grant unto us. A request which shows both that the disciples still looked for a political kingdom and that these two at least still cherished a selfish ambition to outrank their fellow-apostles--the first an intellectual error, the second a grave moral fault. 
that we may sit, one on Thy right hand and the other on Thy left, in thy glory. The two places on the right and left hand of a king or other person of dignity have ever been recognized, East and West, as the positions of honor. 
It is a remarkable fact that each revelation of His approaching death was followed by exhibitions of a worldly spirit and a desire for pre-eminence. Peter began to rebuke his Lord after the first, but received a rebuke himself for his worldly spirit (-33). After the second, they had a dispute on the way as to which should be the greatest (-34). And now on this third occasion two of them go a step farther and make a definite application for the first places. Their expectations may have been awakened afresh by giving a temporal application to blessing promised for sacrifices (verse 30) and by the promise made at the same time, not recorded in this gospel, that they should sit upon thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28). 
WEB: But Jesus said to them, "You don't know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?"
Young’s: and Jesus said to them, 'Ye have not known what ye ask; are ye able to drink of the cup that I drink of, and with the baptism that I am baptized with -- to be baptized?'
Conte (RC): But Jesus said to them: "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink from the chalice from which I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am to be baptized?"
But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask. They knew not what they asked: (1) because His kingdom was spiritual and heavenly, not carnal and earthly, as they supposed; (2) because they sought the glory before they had gained the victory; (3) because perhaps they thought that this kingdom was given in right of natural relationship (they were His cousins); whereas it is not given save to those who deserve it. 
can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? Compare John 18:11, "The cup which My Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" and Mark , "Take away this cup from Me." 
and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? Both cup and baptism are figurative expressions for the painful experiences through which Jesus foresaw that He must pass. 
There can be no doubt that Jesus here refers to His last sufferings, of which He had just given a brief prophetic description (verses 32-34). They are called a baptism, because, while enduring them, His soul was sunk in sorrow as the body when buried in baptism. It is impossible to think of baptism in the light of this metaphor as anything else than immersion. Sprinkling, if used metaphorically for suffering, could represent only a slight degree of it. 
WEB: They said to him, "We are able." Jesus said to them, "You shall indeed drink the cup that I drink, and you shall be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with;
Young’s: And they said to him, 'We are able;' and Jesus said to them, 'Of the cup indeed that I drink of, ye shall drink, and with the baptism that I am baptized with, ye shall be baptized;
Conte (RC): But Jesus said to them: "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink from the chalice from which I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am to be baptized?"
And they said unto Him, We can. Doubtless they were perfectly sincere in professing their willingness to follow their Master to any suffering He might have to endure. 
And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of, and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized. They should also endure suffering, although it might not be the same or so severe. 
"The one of them was the first of the Apostles to drink the cup of suffering and be baptized with the baptism of blood (Acts 12:1-2); the other had the longest experience among them of a life of trouble and persecution” (Alford). For all this unworthy ambition they were blessed men, and their Lord new it; and perhaps the foresight of what they would have to pass through, and the courageous testimony He would yet receive from them, was the cause of that gentleness which we cannot but wonder at in His reproof. 
WEB: but to sit at my right hand and at my left hand is not mine to give, but for whom it has been prepared."
Young’s: but to sit on my right and on my left, is not mine to give, but -- to those for whom it hath been prepared.'
Conte (RC): But to sit at my right, or at my left, is not mine to give to you, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared."
But to sit on my right hand and on My left hand. It is not within my freedom of action to grant your wish. An aside: If, as many think, Peter was already assured the “primacy” over the church, would there not be an additional remark: “One of these I can not give for it is already assigned to Peter”? [rw]
is not Mine to give. As a matter of private friendship or of present favor, apart from the Divine plan of human redemption. 
but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared. But who are they for whom the highest rank has been prepared by the Father? See verses 42-44. They are the disciples who are most like the Master. The nearest thrones are prepared for the truest followers, just as the crown is prepared for the successful contestant (1 Corinthians ). 
In depth: Does the verse put a limitation on Jesus' right as Deity ? This verse has along been used in the argument against the Deity of Christ, since it seems to imply a limitation to His power or right. But a fair interpretation gives it no such force. It may mean: It is no part of my present commission, whilest suffering to redeem the kingdom, to distribute its honours; but they shall in due time be given to those for whom the Father (Matthew ) has prepared them. Or the meaning may be, that it was not His, not the principle that guided Him, to distribute the high places in His kingdom, as men do, and as these disciples expected, to His favorites. It is, however, allowable to translate the conjunction (alla) “except;” and this gives the most natural interpretation of the passage: "It is not mine to give, except to them for whom it is prepared." For a like meaning of the particle (alla) see 9:8. This interpretation makes the reply not a rejection of the petition of the sons of Zebedee, but a veiling of His purpose with regard to it.
Weymouth: The other ten, hearing of it, were at first highly indignant with James and John.
WEB: When the ten heard it, they began to be indignant towards James and John.
Young’s: And the ten having heard, began to be much displeased at James and John,
Conte (RC): And the ten, upon hearing this, began to be indignant toward James and John.
And when the ten heard it. Whether they heard the request when it was first given or whether it had been done “behind their back” and only came to their attention afterward, the result would have been exactly the same. But verse 42’s “Jesus called them to Himself” argues that the confrontation with each other began—regardless of when the request was made—only after the two apostles had left from Jesus and the apostles were alone. [rw]
They began to be greatly displeased with James and John. “Were moved with indignation,” as the same word is rendered in Matthew 20:24. And can we blame them? 
It was human nature: they thought it very wrong when two petitioned for what all would gladly have claimed. 
WEB: Jesus summoned them, and said to them, "You know that they who are recognized as rulers over the nations lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.
Young’s: but Jesus having called them near, saith to them, 'Ye have known that they who are considered to rule the nations do exercise lordship over them, and their great ones do exercise authority upon them;
Conte (RC): But Jesus, calling them, said to them: "You know that those who seem to be leaders among the Gentiles dominate them, and their leaders exercise authority over them.
But Jesus called them to Himself. O admirable wisdom!--checking the hot quarrel, which doubtless would have broken out at this moment by calling them all equally around Him and opening to them calmly the relation in which they were to stand, and the spirit they were to cherish, to each other in the future work of His kingdom. 
and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to ruler over the Gentiles. Officials, governors, etc. 
exercise lordship over them. Domineer, rule according to their own pleasure. 
Peter, in his first epistle (5:3), warns the elders of the church against "being lords over God's heritage." 
and their great ones exercise authority over them. Presumably those of even higher rank than provincial ones or those who held de facto rather than de jure status over them: for example, those sent out on behalf of the emperor to deal with or investigate a matter held vast inherent prestige and clout regardless of whether formally appointed to a position in the place they were sent. [rw]
In these words our Lord does not find fault with power or authority for this is necessary in every state and so is sanctioned by Divine and human law. What He condemns is the arbitrary and tyrannical exercise of such power, which the princes of the Gentiles were accustomed to. 
WEB: But it shall not be so among you, but whoever wants to become great among you shall be your servant.
Young’s: but not so shall it be among you; but whoever may will to become great among you, he shall be your minister,
Conte (RC): But it is not to be this way among you. Instead, whoever would become greater shall be your minister;
But so it shall not be so among you. The principles which control men in seeking and exercising secular power must be excluded from His church. 
but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your servant. Diakonos, attendant or assistant, i.e., he will make himself a helper to his brethren. 
Jesus reverses wholly the common conception of the business of a ruler. The ruler is to serve the ruled: eminence is to be attained by service. 
WEB: Whoever of you wants to become first among you, shall be bondservant of all.
Young’s: Whoever of you wants to become first among you, shall be bondservant of all.
Conte (RC): and whoever will be first among you shall be the servant of all.
And whosoever of you will be the chiefest [desires to be first, NKJV]. The desire for greatness is represented in two degrees, "whoever wishes to become great among you" [verse 43], telling of the general desire for eminence, and "whoever of you wishes to become first" [verse 44], expressing the still higher desire. It is not "the first" [in an absolute sense but] that of a person of first rank, one of the highest. Observe particularly that our Lord does not forbid or discourage such desires; He does not say that there are no honors in His kingdom or bid us look for a dead-level of spiritual equality; and He does not hint that it is wrong to desire to have a place among the "first." But He proceeds to tell how a Christian will act on such a desire. 
shall be servant. A slave (doulos). 
[A] servant of the lowest grade. 
of all. Not merely below some, but below everyone—as humble and restrained as he wished to be prideful in having the top position. [rw]
WEB: For the Son of Man also came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
Young’s: for even the Son of Man came not to be ministered to, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.'
Conte (RC): So, too, the Son of man has not come so that they would minister to him, but so that he would minister and would give his life as a redemption for many."
For even the Son of Man came not come to be ministered unto [served, NKJV], but to minister. One of the paradoxes of the kingdom is that true authority, prestige, and position grows out of service rather than out of the position one officially holds. Power grows “from the bottom” (through service) rather than being imposed “downward” through the title one officially holds. [rw]
and to give His life a ransom. “Ransom” may mean only the payment for a life destroyed (Exodus ), the price paid for the redemption of a slave (Leviticus ). As however it also means "propitiation" (Proverbs 13:8) and the word translated "for" means "in place of," this passage affirms that our Lord's death was vicarious; by His death as a ransom-price the "many" are to be redeemed from the guilt and power of sin. 
The sacrificial and vicarious nature of Christ's death is here expressed by Himself as plainly as the manner of His death is foretold a few verses before. And to say that this was merely in accommodation to Jewish ideas, is to dishonour the teaching of our Lord and degrade Judaism to a level with the rites of Paganism. 
for many. “Many” is here to be taken, not in contrast with “few” or with "all,” but in opposition to “one"--the one Son of Man for the many sinners. 
WEB: They came
Young’s: And they come to Jericho, and as he is going forth from Jericho, with his disciples and a great multitude, a son of Timaeus -- Bartimaeus the blind -- was sitting beside the way begging,
Conte (RC): And they
And they came to
and as He went
blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus. This blind beggar is introduced as a well-known character. Mark does not introduce him as a certain blind man, whose name was Bartimaeus, the usual manner of introducing a stranger, but simply as “blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus." He had probably become well known by his zeal and activity in the cause of Christ subsequent to the recovery of his eye-sight. His notoriety accounts for the fact that Mark describes his restoration to sight without saying anything of the other who sat with him and was healed at the same time. 
sat by the highway side, begging. How else was he to earn any money to pay for food to survive? [rw]
In depth: Differences in chronology and details between Mark's account of the healing and that found in Matthew (-34) and Luke (-43) . The account of the healing of the blind men is differently related by the Synoptists, both as to the place and the number of persons. Matthew and Mark make it to have taken place as Jesus was leaving Jericho; Luke, as He was entering it. Matthew mentions two blind men; Mark and Luke mention but one. Of these discrepancies there are several solutions:
1st: That three blind men were healed; one mentioned by Luke, as He approached the city; two mentioned by Matthew (Mark speaks only of one) as He was leaving the city. Some, as Osiander, make four to have been healed.
2d: That the cases of healing were two, and distinct; one being on His entry into the city, the other on His departure. According to this solution, Matthew combines the two in one, and deeming the exact time and place unimportant, represents them as both occurring at the departure of the Lord from the city.
3d: That two were healed, and both at His entry; but one being better known that the other, he only is mentioned by Mark and Luke.
4th: That one of the blind men sought to be healed as the Lord approached the city, but was not; that the next morning, joining himself to another, they waited for Him by the gate, as He was leaving the city, and were both healed together. Luke, in order to preserve the unity of his narrative, relates the healing of the former, as if it had taken place on the afternoon of the entry.
5th: That only one was healed, and he when the Lord left the city. Matthew, according to his custom, uses the plural where the other Evangelists use the singular.
6th: That Luke's variance with Matthew and Mark, in regard to place, may be removed by interpreting "as He was come nigh to Jericho" (18:35) in the general sense of being near to Jericho, but without defining whether He was approaching to it or departing from it. Its meaning here is determined by Matthew and Mark: He was leaving the city, but still near to it.
Other solutions of the discrepancy in regard to place have been given, as by Newcome, that Jesus spent several days at Jericho, that He went out of the city, as mentioned by Matthew and Mark, for a temporary purpose, and that on His return He healed the blind men; by McKnight, that there were two Jerichos, old and new; and the blind men, sitting on the road between them, were healed as the Lord was departing from one and entering the other.
WEB: When he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene, he began to cry out, and say, "Jesus, you son of David, have mercy on me!"
Young’s: and having heard that it is Jesus the Nazarene, he began to cry out, and to say, 'The Son of David -- Jesus! deal kindly with me;'
Conte (RC): And when he
had heard that it was Jesus of
And when he heard
that it was Jesus of
he began to cry out. Immediately, as soon as he had heard this, and continued to do so until he gained his end. 
and say, Jesus, thou Son of David. This is the first instance in the gospel of Mark or of Luke in which anyone (other than a demoniac) has publicly addressed Jesus by a Messianic title. 
have mercy on me. An acknowledgment of misery, unworthiness, and helplessness, as well as strong confidence in Christ's ability and willingness to help him. 
WEB: Many rebuked him, that he should be quiet, but he cried out much more, "You son of David, have mercy on me!"
Young’s: and many were rebuking him, that he might keep silent, but the more abundantly he cried out, 'Son of David, deal kindly with me.'
Conte (RC): And many admonished him to be quiet. But he cried out all the more, "Son of David, take pity on me."
And many charged [warned, NKJV] him that he should hold his
peace [be quiet, NKJV]. Why? (1) From a contempt of a poor beggar who
“presumed to intrude a private grief upon the King of
but he cried the more a great deal. He was in good earnest and would not be restrained. A useful lesson is here suggested to all. 
Thou Son of David, have mercy on me. He couldn’t make Jesus heal him, but he could assure that Jesus could not avoid knowing he was present! [rw]
WEB: Jesus stood still, and said, "Call him." They called the blind man, saying to him, "Cheer up! Get up. He is calling you!"
Young’s: And Jesus having stood, he commanded him to be called, and they call the blind man, saying to him, 'Take courage, rise, he doth call thee;'
Conte (RC): And Jesus, standing still, instructed him to be called. And they called the blind man, saying to him: "Be at peace. Arise. He is calling you."
And Jesus stood still, and commanded him to be called. Implying that he was at such a distance that, though he could be heard, one couldn’t either see him at all or clearly see him. Furthermore, because of his blindness he was going to need assistance in making his way through the crowd—to avoid stumbling over people and to locate the Lord. [rw]
And they call the blind man. Doubtless they were new voices, not the same: friends of Jesus now called. 
Saying unto him, Be of good comfort [cheer, NKJV]. If he had gotten Jesus’ attention, how could anything but good possibly come out of it! [rw]
rise, He calleth thee. This is evidently spoken of as something strange and unexpected to themselves, if not to Bartimeus. 
Weymouth: The man flung away his outer garment, sprang to his feet, and came to Jesus.
WEB: He, casting away his cloak, sprang up, and came to Jesus.
Young’s: and he, having cast away his garment, having risen, did come unto Jesus.
Conte (RC): And casting aside his garment, he leapt up and went to him.
And he, casting away [aside, NKJV] his garment. The outside garment hindered his speed; could be spared; and is therefore thrown aside. In dead earnest is he and can brook no delay. 
He cast off his outward covering: a blanket or loose piece of cloth, the usual upper garment of an Asiatic mendicant, which kept him from the inclemency of the weather, that he might have nothing to hinder him from getting speedily to Christ. 
rose, and came to Jesus. Having sought this opportunity, he wasn’t about to pass it by. [rw]
WEB: Jesus asked him, "What do you want me to do for you?" The blind man said to him, "Rabboni, that I may see again."
Young’s: And answering, Jesus saith to him, 'What wilt thou I may do to thee?' and the blind man said to him, 'Rabboni, that I may see again;
Conte (RC): And in response, Jesus said to him, "What do you want, that I should do for you?" And the blind man said to him, "Master, that I may see."
And Jesus answered and said unto him, What wilt thou that I should do unto thee? It was self-evident what the question should be, but sometimes humans—for whatever strange internal reason--don’t ask for the obvious! Also this way those who did not know the man would learn what his problem was and the healing would be clearly linked to the power of Jesus. [rw]
The blind man said unto him, Lord [Rabboni, NKJV]. [It] is used only here and at John 20:16. It is an intensified form of "Rabbi." 
Lord, that I might receive my sight. The [Greek] word translated "receive my sight" strictly means to see again, or to recover sight; and it has sometimes been inferred that Bartimaeus had not always been blind. But the same word is used in John of the man who was blind from his birth. There, however, the use of it seems to rest upon the fact that sight is a natural endowment of man, and that he who receives it receives his own, even though he may never had had it before. 
WEB: Jesus said to him, "Go your way. Your faith has made you well." Immediately he received his sight, and followed Jesus in the way.
Young’s: and Jesus said to him, 'Go, thy faith hath saved thee:' and immediately he saw again, and was following Jesus in the way.
Conte (RC): Then Jesus said to him, "Go, your faith has made you whole." And immediately he saw, and he followed him on the way.
And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way. Depart, begone, implying that his prayer was already granted, and his further presence no more needed. 
thy faith hath made thee whole. His faith saved him by causing him to employ the means necessary to arrest the attention of Jesus and to secure the coveted blessing. Faith without action could not have made the blind man whole nor can it bring the sinner out of darkness into light. 
And immediately he received his sight. Matthew says (not Mark or Luke) that the act was performed by a touch. All record that the man followed Jesus. 
And followed Jesus. As Jesus healed the man, he said to him, “Go thy way;" and this gave him liberty to go in any way that he might choose; but he chose to "follow Jesus in the way." "glorifying God” (Luke ). Such a beginning was doubtless followed by a life-time of devotion to Jesus, and though we meet not his name again in the sacred record, the familiar manner in which Mark introduces his name is more than a hint of his high distinction among the disciples at a later period. 
in the way [on the road, NKJV].
Along the road to