Mark 10 - My Thoughts

 Although Chapter 10 looks like a random collection of stories, I would argue that there’s actually an overarching theme holding it all together. In a variety of ways, all of the stories deal with issues of status and privilege in society, and they all make the point that, as always, Jesus challenges the prevailing norms of his culture and the traditions of his faith community.

 

One interesting thing that happens as Chapter 10 opens that could be easily missed is the note from Mark that Jesus taught the crowds, “as was his custom.” I’m not suggesting that Jesus never taught the crowds before, but I think you could argue that teaching the crowds wasn’t customary for him. His teachings generally had been directed to his disciples. What the crowds tended to see had been miracles and exorcisms. Now Mark seems to be widening the scope of Jesus’ teaching ministry to the wider community. And perhaps it’s no coincidence that the first subject Jesus teaches about as he opens what you could call this new phase of his ministry is divorce.

 

Divorce is a contentious issue. It is today and it was in Jesus’ day. There are churches today that don’t allow or recognize divorce. The best known is the Roman Catholic Church, but many evangelical churches also take a very hard line on the subject of divorce and remarriage. And his viewpoint is completely uncompromising: divorce followed by remarriage is adultery. That’s a very tough teaching. Like today, divorce and remarriage were fairly common in the 1^st century, in both the Greco-Roman and Jewish cultures. In fact the Jewish law, as the Pharisees note, recognized divorce and provided a procedure for it – a man could divorce his wife by writing a certificate. The rules are found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and they’re a bit more confusing than Mark 10 suggests. A man could divorce his wife only if he found something “indecent” about her. The “indecency” isn’t defined. There were, broadly speaking, two competing schools of thought in Judaism – one that the “indecency” meant specifically sexual infidelity, and the other suggesting that it could be anything that the husband disliked. The second viewpoint had become the dominant viewpoint. Deuteronomy 24 seems to allow the woman to remarry, but if her second husband divorces her she isn’t allowed to remarry her first husband because the second marriage has “defiled” her. Deuteronomy 24 and how it came to be interpreted left the wife with little protection. Divorce was easy and it came with little cost to the man. There was no spousal support or child support in this society.

 

Jesus’ position is that the law on divorce in Deuteronomy 24 is a concession. He stated that God’s intent for marriage was that it should be permanent. So Deuteronomy 24 contradicts God’s original purpose for creation and was included in the law only grudgingly (“because of your hardness of heart”.) The most obvious thing we might say about how Jesus deals with the question is that he gives much more power to wives. Deuteronomy 24 had only allowed husbands to divorce wives; v.4 implies that Jesus believes wives could divorce husbands. So there is a bit of an egalitarian streak in Jesus’ teaching on the subject. Matthew’s Gospel puts a slightly different spin on the issue in its version. In Matthew, divorce is allowed in cases of “marital unfaithfulness,” but Jesus does not imply, according to Matthew, that wives have a right to divorce their husbands.

 

It’s difficult to translate this teaching into today’s world. We have a tendency to go to extremes: either we elevate divorce into a sort of unforgivable sin for which there is no grace possible, or we take it for granted and pretend that it’s not a big deal. Jesus takes neither approach. He seems to be primarily making the point that marriage was a part of God’s design for creation, and that anything that distorts God’s design for creation needs to be approached both seriously and soberly. Divorce is not unforgivable; but neither should it ever be seen as an easy solution to problems.

 

After Jesus’ teaching on divorce there is a short description of him blessing little children, which the disciples object to. Jesus rebukes them. There are echoes here, perhaps, of Jesus using a little child to illustrate his response about their argument over who was the greatest in Chapter 9. Perhaps the disciples remain a little bit sensitive about the place of children. This also, however, expands on a point Jesus was making when he discussed divorce. Just as Jesus elevated the place of women, so does he now elevate the place of children. Jesus is establishing himself as someone who defies the societal norms and hierarchy. This story then leads in to Jesus’ encounter with the rich man (often referred to as “the rich young ruler.”

 

Many people get hung up on the rich man calling Jesus “Good teacher,” with Jesus replying “Why do you call me good? Only God is good.” That’s often used to suggest that Jesus denied his divinity. The other possible interpretation of Jesus’ words, though, is that Jesus is asking a leading question. So – “if you call me good, what are you saying about me?” But to focus on that one verse is, I think, the miss the more important part of the story, which includes questions about wealth and what a person must “do” to gain eternal life.

 

Again, the general theme running through all of these stories is that Jesus is challenging societal norms. Being rich was seen in that society (and by certain segments of our own society) as a sign of being blessed by God. That being the case, one thing that is described here that’s a bit surprising is that the rich man comes to Jesus to ask “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” When that question is discussed it’s usually done so as a way of countering the ideas that works can lead to salvation – so it become a critique of the man asking what he has to “do” as opposed to what he has to believe. I think that’s a part of what’s happening here. But I want to suggest that just the very question itself is surprising. In this society where wealth is seen as a divine blessing, the rich man still had no assurance. Even combined with his self assessment that he has kept all of God’s commands he still has no assurance. Even more interesting is that nothing Jesus does gives the man assurance. “Go, sell your possessions and give the money to the poor” is an extreme demand and actually isn’t a command found in the law. So God doesn’t require this. What Jesus seems to be doing is pointing out the inadequacy of our deeds to gain us assurance. If we depend on what we do to gain eternal life then we’re always going to be faced with the question of whether we’ve done enough, and there will never be any real assurance. Jesus “loved” this man – v.21 leaves no doubt about that – but Jesus can’t give the man any way to gain assurance based on his actions or deeds.

 

Frankly, it’s troubling to me that Jesus lets the man leave without any follow up. We never find out what happens to the man. I’ve often paraphrased what Jesus says to the man in this way: “what you do can’t save you, but what I’m going to do will save you.” The problem with that is that Jesus doesn’t hold that up to the rich man. All he does is point out the inadequacy of wealth and deeds. This even confuses the disciples. They find it impossible to believe that the rich aren’t, by nature of their wealth, saved. Jesus then offers the famous words that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” Many have suggested that “the eye of a needle” was a reference to a low gate into the city of Jerusalem that was difficult for camels to get through. That’s a way of softening Jesus’ teaching – but it’s wrong. That interpretation of the story only arises about 900 years later, and there is no evidence that a gate like this ever existed. The point isn’t that it’s really tough for the rich to get into the kingdom of God – Jesus’ point is that just as big animals can’t get through the eye of a needle, neither can the rich get into God’s kingdom. That doesn’t render the plight of the rich hopeless. Jesus immediately conditions his remark with the reminder that “for God all things are possible.” So, if God wants you to enter the kingdom of God then you will enter the kingdom of God. This is a reference to divine grace. Your money won’t gain you eternal life; neither will your works gain you eternal life. Only God can do that. Jesus doesn’t spell this out any more fully at this point – but that’s the clear message he gives to the disciples. Even the wealthiest and best people among us are totally dependent upon God for eternal life. Peter as this story ends comes across to me as a little bit puffed up – “Look, Jesus – we gave up everything. We’re not like that rich man.” Jesus both commends him and warns him. Basically – “what you’ve done is great and you’ll be rewarded for it, but you’re no better or more important than anyone else.”

 

Jesus then explains (again!) that he’s going to die and be raised. Nothing much is made of this teaching now. The response of the disciples isn’t described. Perhaps given their previous inability to understand what Jesus meant when he referred to his ultimate fate it’s just that Jesus is going to keep pushing the issue, so to speak. Since the theme of the chapter seems to be challenging the traditional ideas of status, this might also be Jesus’ way of reminding his disciples to be humble, since there’s so much they still don’t understand. But if that was a part of his thinking, it clearly failed.

 

I find it both fascinating and sad (not to mention an interesting commentary on human nature) that not long after Jesus humbled his disciples Chapter 9 in response to them arguing about which of them was the greatest, he’s now challenged by this request from James and John to be allowed to sit next to him in his glory. I find myself wondering what part of humility they didn’t understand. The clear implication of the story is that James and John thought that they were asking for a position of power and authority. Jesus, given what happened in the previous chapter, must be irritated at the very least. Instead of dealing right away with their request, he speaks to them about whether they are able to drink the cup that he drinks from and share in his baptism. That seems to be a reference to his crucifixion, but Mark has established repeatedly that the disciples don’t understand that. I wonder if the account of this exchange isn’t Mark making a point by presaging a scene that will come up in Chapter 15 – when Jesus is actually crucified those places of honour (on his right and on his left) will be filled by what Mark describes as two bandits. Again there’s a question of status. Being at Jesus’ side is not a position of glory as we would usually think of the term. Jesus even makes a reference to what we might think of as predestination: “… to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.” The end result of the exchange is more tension among the disciples as the other 10 become angry with James and John. Jesus once again reminds them that being his disciples means being called to service and not power.

 

Finally the chapter ends with an account of a healing miracle. In this case a blind man begs Jesus for help and is rebuked by the crowd, who apparently don’t like him asking Jesus for help. There’s nothing particularly shocking about the miracle (we’ve seen Jesus do many miracles before this) but it is, again, an issue of status. The crowds thought the blind man unworthy of asking Jesus for healing – but Jesus sets aside their objections.

 

The entire chapter seem to me to be a commentary on the social structure of Jesus’ society. Who’s important and who isn’t – and how does Jesus turn that on its head and confound the expectations of others.