This week the published studies gained 24 notes across 2 chapters in Mark. Each entry links to the chapter page, where the note sits beside the text and the commentaries.
Mark 10
Once again, the Pharisees try to trap Jesus, this time with a question they cannot answer themselves. Notice that the text mentions they were “beyond the Jordan,” an area known as Perea, which was under Herod Antipas’s control. Herod had recently executed John the Baptist after John criticized his divorce and marriage to Herodias. The Pharisees might have been hoping that Jesus would respond in a way that would give them a reason to bring him before Herod for punishment.
Generally, Jews accepted that divorce was permitted, but opinions varied on what constituted legal grounds for a divorce. It came down to how Deuteronomy 24:1 was interpreted, which allows divorce if the husband finds “something indecent” about the wife. One interpretation was that this referred to adultery, while more lenient views considered almost any offense sufficient, including minor faults like burning food during cooking.
The Pharisees’ response is vague and fails to address the confusion they had about what legally justified a divorce.
Jesus’ statement is a the heart of how God feels about divorce. God’s judgment isn’t based on a point system, so getting divorced doesn’t automatically condemn you to hell. It’s not a simple yes/no situation. However, it does displease God who intends the marital union to be permenant. As Jesus explained to the Pharisees, Moses permitted divorce because it is a reality of life and reflects human fragility, acknowledging our sinful nature. However, this doesn’t mean God approves of divorce. Clearly, divorce causes disappointment for God.
The Pharisees cite Deuteronomy, but Jesus dismisses it completely, addressing the core matter — marriage as a union that should not be broken.
Verses 11-12 highlight two key points. First, Jesus applies the same conditions to both husband and wife. Either one can commit adultery by divorcing the other (Roman law permitted divorce at the time whereas Jewish law only permitted the husband to divorce). In effect, he is raising the status of women compared to contemporary Jewish views. Second, Jesus equates divorce with adultery, emphasizing the serious offense it constitutes against God. While divorce is not directly punishable by hell, it represents a disappointment to God, who intends marriage to be permanent.
Jesus tells the disciples that heaven belongs to “such as these,” referring to the children. He might be highlighting their innocence and purity or possibly their social status. In ancient Israel, children may have been thought of as lower status than adults (be seen and not heard. Jesus could be extending compassion to those of lower social status.
Jesus may have been modest, which was typical for teachers of the day to deflect praise. Alternatively, he could have been emphasizing a clear distinction between himself and God.
The disciples were surprised because the Israelites’ view of wealth, which saw it as a blessing from God, conflicted with Jesus’ teaching. In Jesus’ time, wealth was considered a divine reward. His statement that a wealthy person would struggle to enter heaven was completely opposite of what was generally believed in those days.
There have been many attempts to soften Jesus’ message about the challenge rich people face in entering heaven. A few manuscripts have been found that substitiuted “rope” for “camel” in an attempt to dilute his message. Others suggest that “camel” refers to a gate in Jerusalem, but there is no evidence to support this. Jesus’ message remains clear: the love of money is the root of all evil.
Note that it is impossible to earn your way into heaven. There is no points system for good deeds that guarantees you a place in heaven. Instead, you must rely solely on God – period. That trust and reliance will naturally lead you down the path to salvation.
Ultimately, the things we acquire in life are left behind when we die, as everyone becomes equal in heaven, regardless of their earthly status. Therefore, it is wiser to pursue eternal life rather than worldly possessions and social standing.
Imagine a caravan of people, including disciples and followers, traveling to Jerusalem for Passover. They are approaching a Roman stronghold, aware that a man leading them is destined to stir trouble and ultimately would die for his actions. The disciples have seen Jesus in action and thus are still stunned. The followers are worried about what might happen to all of them when they arrive.
Jesus says that the chief priests and scribes will condemn him and hand him over to the Gentiles (Romans), who will crucify him. This is historically accurate. Jewish leadership had the authority to condemn someone, but only Roman authorities could carry out an execution.
Did Jesus predict this level of detail, or did Mark add the details afterward? This is a common question with all gospel predictions, but often the events did not happen in the order described. This suggests that Jesus made very accurate predictions about his fate. Regardless, there would be nothing wrong with Mark summarized using his own words.
Matthew says James and John’s request was made indirectly by Salome, their mother.
In the end, James (and possibly John) will face the same fate as Jesus, “drinking the cup” and being executed for their faith.
Jesus clearly denotes a distinction between himself and God, saying only God can grant authority to man.
It is rather sad that while on Jesus’ death march, James and John are more concerned with who will be on Jesus’ right-hand side in heaven.
Essentially, Jesus is telling them, “You’ve seen how authority normally works — those at the top use their position to dominate the people beneath them. That’s the pattern you’re reaching for, and it’s the wrong one.”
The message is clear – Christians are to serve. Our objective is to help others, not to become leaders, get rich, or seek status. Even Jesus came to serve, not to be served.
Note that the words slave and servant are somewhat difficult to translate because they carry different meanings for us today. We consider a servant to be a paid worker and a slave to be an enslaved person with no choice. A closer term in Jesus’ day would be bondservant, a slave who has sold himself into slavery to another, typically for a specific length of time.
What was the man’s “faith”? He calls Jesus “Son of David,” which is what people of that day would call the Messiah. That, along with his persistent calling out even while the crowd tries to quiet him.
Read Mark 10 with all its notes → · open in the full reader
Mark 11
The significance of a young donkey (the colt was a donkey) that had never been ridden is lost on modern readers. Mosaic Law dictated that only an animal that had not been used for ordinary tasks could be used for a sacred purpose. Remember, this is essentially Jesus’ death march into the city.
Read Mark 11 with all its notes → · open in the full reader