A verse by verse commentary on the Gospel of Mark chapter 10 dealing with Jesus and the Pharisees on the issue of divorce. Jesus holds the little child and teaches that we must receive the kingdom of God as a child to enter in. Jesus then deals with the rich young man. He again predicts His death, and heals blind Bartimaeus. Jesus teaches, in response to the request of James and John, that the way to greatness is to be a servant.

1. MARK 10 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Divorce
1 Jesus then left that place and went into the
region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again
crowds of people came to him, and as was his
custom, he taught them.
BARNES, "See this question about divorce explained in the notes at Mat_19:1-12.
Mar_10:12
And if a woman shall put away her husband - It would seem, from this, that
a woman, among the Jews, had the power of separating herself from her husband,
yet this right is not given her by the law of Moses. There is not, however, any positive
evidence that females often claimed or exercised this right. Cases had occurred,
indeed, in which it had been done. The wife of Herod had rejected her former
husband and married Herod. And though instances of this kind “might” have been
attempted to be defended by the example of Pagans, yet our Saviour was desirous of
showing them that it did not free them from the charge of adultery. The apostles
were going forth to teach Pagan nations, and it was proper for Christ to teach them
how to act in such cases, and to show them that they were cases of real adultery.
CLARKE, "He arose - Κακειθεν ανα̣ας may be translated, he departed thence.
The verb ανι̣ηµι has this sense in some of the purest Greek writers. See Kypke. 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 both by
Luke and John. See Lightfoot, and Bishop Newcome.
GILL, "And he arose from thence,.... From Galilee, and particularly from
Capernaum:
and cometh into the coasts of Judea; into those places, which bordered on that
part of the land of Israel, called Judea, as distinct from Galilee:
by, or rather "to"
the further side of Jordan; which he crossed at the bridge of Chammath: the
1

2. particular place he came to was Bethabara; see Joh_10:40, where John formerly
preached, and baptized:
and the people resorted unto him again; great multitudes followed him out of
Galilee, and more doubtless flocked to him from the adjacent parts, when they heard
of his coming again to them.
And, as he was wont, he taught them again: it had been his custom before, and
so it was wherever he went, to preach the word of God, and teach men what was
profitable to them, and useful for the good of their immortal souls; and so he did
now, and here: and not only so, but healed many of them of their bodily disorders, as
Matthew relates, Mat_19:2.
HENRY, "Our Lord Jesus was an itinerant Preacher, did not continue long in a
place, for the whole land of Canaan was his parish, or diocese, and therefore he
would visit every part of it, and give instructions to those in the remotest corners of
it. Here we have him in the coasts of Judea, by the further side of Jordan eastward,
as we found him, not long since, in the utmost borders westward, near Tyre and
Sidon. Thus was his circuit like that of the sun, from whose light and heat nothing is
hid. Now here we have him,
I. Resorted to by the people, Mar_10:1. Wherever he was, they flocked after him in
crowds; they came to him again, as they had done when he had formerly been in
these parts, and, as he was wont, he taught them again. Note, Preaching was
Christ's constant practice; it was what he was used to, and, wherever he came, he did
as he was wont. In Matthew it is said, He healed them; here it is said, He taught
them: his cures were to confirm his doctrine, and to recommend it, and his doctrine
was to explain his cures, and illustrate them. He taught them again. Note, Even
those whom Christ hath taught, have need to be taught again. Such is the fulness of
the Christian doctrine, that there is still more to be learned; and such our
forgetfulness, that we need to be reminded of what we do know.
JAMIESON, "
Mar_10:1-12. Final departure from Galilee - Divorce. ( = Mat_19:1-12; Luk_9:51).
See on Mat_19:1-12.
LIGHTFOOT, "[Cometh into the coasts of Judea by the further side of Jordan.]
Here is need of a discerning eye to distinguish of the true time and method of this
story, and of Christ's journey. If you make use of such an eye, you will find half
a year, or thereabouts, to come between the uttering of the words immediately
before-going, and this travel of our Saviour; however it seems to be intimated by
our evangelist, and likewise by Matthew, that when he had finished those words,
forthwith he entered upon his journey: when, in truth, he went before to
Jerusalem, through the midst of Samaria, to the feast of Tabernacles, Luke 9:51,
&c. John 7. And again, from Galilee, after he had returned thither, through the
cities and towns to Jerusalem, Luke 13:22; to the feast of Dedication, John 10:22:
and again, "beyond Jordan" indeed, John 10:40; but first taking his way into
Galilee, and thence beyond Jordan, according to that story which is before us.
The studious reader, and that in good earnest employeth his labour upon this
business, has not need of further proof; his own eyes will witness this sufficiently.
Thus, the wisdom and Spirit of God directed the pens of these holy writers, that
some omitted some things to be supplied by others; and others supplied those
2

3. things which they had omitted: and so a full and complete history was not
composed but of all joined and compared together.
I wish the reverend Beza had sufficiently considered this, who rendereth not
beyond, but by Jordan, and corrects the Vulgar interpreter and Erasmus, who
render it 'beyond Jordan,' properly and most truly: "As if, by Perea (saith he),
or the country beyond Jordan, Christ, passing over Jordan or the lake of
Tiberias, came into Judea out of Galilee; which is not true." But take heed you
do not mistake, reverend old man. For he went over Jordan from Capernaum, as
it is very probable, by the bridge built over Jordan between Chammath, near to
Tiberias, at the Gadarene country: he betook himself to Bethabara, and stayed
some time there, John 10:40 thence he went along Perea to the bank over against
Jericho. While he tarrieth there, a messenger, sent from Mary, comes to him
concerning the death of Lazarus, John 11; and thence, after two days, he passeth
Jordan in Judea
BARCLAY, "FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE (Mark 10:1-12)
10:1-12 Leaving there, Jesus came into the hill-country of Judaea and to the
district across the Jordan, and once again crowds came together to him. As his
custom was, he again continued to teach them. Some Pharisees came to him and
asked him if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife. They asked this
question to test him. He asked them, "What commandment did Moses lay down
for you?" They answered, "Moses allowed a man to write a bill of divorcement
and then to put her away." Jesus said to them, "It was to meet the hardness of
your heart that he wrote this commandment for you. From the beginning of
creation male and female he created them. For this cause a man will leave his
father and his mother and will cleave to his wife. And the two will become one
flesh, so that they are no longer two but one flesh. So then what God has joined
together let not man separate." In the house his disciples again asked him about
this. He said to them, "Whoever puts away his wife and marries another woman
commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and
marries another man, she commits adultery."
Jesus was pursuing his way south. He had left Galilee and had come into Judaea.
He had not yet entered Jerusalem, but step by step and stage by stage he was
approaching the final scene.
Certain Pharisees came with a question about divorce, by which they hoped to
test him. There may have been more than one motive behind their question.
Divorce was a burning question, a crux of rabbinic discussion, and it may well be
that they honestly wished for Jesus' opinion on it. They may have wished to test
his orthodoxy. It may well be that Jesus had already had something to say on this
matter. Matthew 5:31-32, shows us Jesus speaking about marriage and re-
marriage, and it may be that these Pharisees had the hope that he might
contradict himself and entangle himself in his own words. It may be that they
knew what he would answer and wished to involve him in enmity with Herod
who had in fact divorced his wife and married another. It may well be that they
wished to hear Jesus contradict the law of Moses, as indeed he did, and thereby
to formulate a charge of heresy against him. One thing is certain--the question
3

4. they asked Jesus was no academic one of interest only to the rabbinic schools. It
was a question which dealt with one of the acutest issues of the time.
In theory nothing could be higher than the Jewish ideal of marriage. Chastity
was held to be the greatest of all the virtues. "We find that God is long-suffering
to every sin except the sin of unchastity." "Unchastity causes the glory of God to
depart." "Every Jew must surrender his life rather than commit idolatry,
murder or adultery." "The very altar sheds tears when a man divorces the wife
of his youth." The ideal was there but practice fell very far short.
The basic fact that vitiated the whole situation was that in Jewish law a woman
was regarded as a thing. She had no legal rights whatever but was at the
complete disposal of the male head of the family. The result was that a man could
divorce his wife on almost any grounds, while there were very few on which a
woman could seek divorce. At best she could only ask her husband to divorce
her. "A woman may be divorced with or without her will, but a man only with
his will." The only grounds on which a woman could claim a divorce were if her
husband became a leper, if he engaged in a disgusting trade such as that of a
tanner, if he ravished a virgin, or if he falsely accused her of prenuptial sin.
The law of Jewish divorce goes back to Deuteronomy 24:1. That passage was the
foundation of the whole matter. It runs thus: "When a man takes a wife and
marries her, if then she finds no favour in his eyes because he has found some
indecency in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and
sends her out of his house."
At first the bill of divorcement was very simple. It read like this: "Let this be
from me thy writ of divorce and letter of dismissal and deed of liberation, that
thou mayest marry whatsoever man thou wilt." In later days the bill became
more elaborate: "On the ........ day, of the ........ week, of the ........ month,
year ........ of the world, according to the calculation in use in the town of .........
situated by the river ........ I, A.B., son of C.D., and by whatsoever name I am
called here, present this day ......... native of the town of ........ I acting of my free-
will, and without any coercion, do repudiate, send back, and put away thee E.F.,
daughter of G.H., and by whatsoever name thou art called, and until this present
time my wife. I send thee away now E.F., daughter of G.H., so that thou art free
and thou canst at thy pleasure marry whom thou wilt and no one will hinder
thee. This is thy letter of divorce, act of repudiation, certificate of separation,
according to the law of Moses and of Israel." In New Testament times this
document took a skilled Rabbi to draw it up. It was afterwards proved by a
court of three rabbis, and then lodged with the Sanhedrin. But the process of
divorce remained on the whole exceedingly easy, and at the entire discretion of
the man.
But the real crux of the problem was the interpretation of the law as it is in
Deuteronomy 24:1. There it is laid down that a man can divorce his wife if he
finds in her some indecency. How was that phrase to be interpreted? There were
in this matter two schools of thought.
4

5. There was the school of Shammai. They interpreted the matter with utter
strictness. A matter of indecency was adultery and adultery alone. Let a woman
be as bad as Jezebel, unless she was guilty of adultery there could be no divorce.
The other school was the school of Hillel. They interpreted that crucial phrase as
widely as possible. They said that it could mean if the wife spoiled a dish of food,
if she spun in the streets, if she talked to a strange man, if she spoke
disrespectfully of her husband's relations in his hearing, if she was a brawling
woman, (who was defined as a woman whose voice could be heard in the next
house). Rabbi Akiba even went the length of saying that it meant if a man found
a woman who was fairer in his eyes than his wife was.
Human nature being as it is, it was the laxer view which prevailed. The result
was that divorce for the most trivial reasons, or for no reason at all, was
tragically common. To such a pass had things come that, in the time of Jesus,
women hesitated to marry at all because marriage was so insecure. When Jesus
spoke as he did he was speaking on a subject which was a burning issue, and he
was striking a blow for women by seeking to restore marriage to the position it
ought to have.
Certain things are to be noted. Jesus quoted the Mosaic regulation, and then he
said that Moses laid that down only "to meet the hardness of your hearts." That
may mean one of two things. It may mean that Moses laid it down because it was
the best that could be expected from people such as those for whom he was
legislating. Or, it may mean that Moses laid it down in order to try to control a
situation which even then was degenerating, that in fact it was not so much a
permission to divorce as it was in the beginning an attempt to control divorce, to
reduce it to some kind of law, and to make it more difficult.
In any event Jesus made it quite clear that he regarded Deuteronomy 24:1, as
being laid down for a definite situation and being in no sense permanently
binding. The authorities which he quoted went much further back. For his
authorities he went right back to the Creation story and quoted Genesis 1:27 and
Genesis 2:24. It was his view that in the very nature of things marriage was a
permanency which indissolubly united two people in such a way that the bond
could never be broken by any human laws and regulations. It was his belief that
in the very constitution of the universe marriage is meant to be an absolute
permanency and unity, and no Mosaic regulation dealing with a temporary
situation could alter that.
The difficulty is that in the parallel account in Matthew there is a difference. In
Mark, Jesus' prohibition of divorce and remarriage is absolute. In Matthew
19:3-9, he is shown as absolutely forbidding remarriage, but as permitting
divorce on one ground--adultery. Almost certainly the Matthew version is
correct, and it is indeed implied in Mark. It was Jewish law that adultery did in
fact compulsorily dissolve any marriage. And the truth is that infidelity does in
fact dissolve the bond of marriage. Once adultery has been committed the unity
is in any case destroyed and divorce merely attests the fact.
5

6. The real essence of the passage is that Jesus insisted that the loose sexual
morality of his day must be mended. Those who sought marriage only for
pleasure must be reminded that marriage is also for responsibility. Those who
regarded marriage simply as a means of gratifying their physical passions must
be reminded that it was also a spiritual unity. Jesus was building a rampart
round the home.
COFFMAN, "This chapter records a few of the events of Jesus' Perean ministry,
recorded much more fully by Luke, but here comprising only this single chapter.
It is nevertheless a kind of dividing line between the first nine chapters devoted
to the public ministry of our Lord and the last six outlining the events of the
Passion and subsequent resurrection.
The following sections make up Mark 10: Christ's teaching on marriage and
divorce (Mark 10:1-12), the Saviour's blessing little children (Mark 10:13-15),
the interview with the rich young ruler (Mark 10:16-22), the Lord's teaching on
riches (Mark 10:23-31), further prophecies of the Passion (Mark 10:32-34), the
request of the sons of Zebedee (Mark 10:35-45), and the healing of blind
Bartimaeus between the two Jericho's (Mark 10:46-52).
And he arose from thence, and cometh into the borders of Judaea and beyond
the Jordan; and multitudes came together unto him again; and, as he was wont,
he taught them again. (Mark 10:1)
This is a transitional statement setting off Mark 10 from events previously
recorded. The Lord is here leaving Galilee for the last time and turning his face
toward Jerusalem and the cross. The days of seeking privacy and seclusion have
ended. Some scholars believe that "what is indicated here is not a journey from
Galilee to Jerusalem, but rather a ministry in Judea and Perea."[1] The sacred
authors have not provided sufficient details for the resolution of all such
questions; but this should not be viewed in any manner as a fault on their part.
ENDNOTE:
[1] C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to Saint Mark (Cambridge: The
University Press, 1966), p. 318.
BENSON, "Mark 10:1-12. He cometh into the coasts of Judea, &c. — This
paragraph is explained at large in the notes on Matthew 19:1-11. From the
beginning of the creation — Therefore Moses, in the first chapter of Genesis,
gives us an account of things from the beginning of the creation of this lower
world. Does it not clearly follow from hence, that there was no creation here
below, previous to that which Moses describes? Whosoever shall put away his
wife, &c. — Though this discourse of Christ be originally about divorce, yet all
polygamy is also condemned by it, as the reader may see in the note on Matthew
19:4-6. And if a woman shall put away her husband, &c. — “This practice of
divorcing the husband, unwarranted by the law, had been (as Josephus informs
us) introduced by Salome, sister of Herod the Great, who sent a bill of divorce to
her husband Costobarus; which bad example was afterward followed by
6

7. Herodias and others. By law, it was the husband’s prerogative to dissolve the
marriage. The wife could do nothing by herself. When he thought fit to dissolve
it, her consent was not necessary. The bill of divorce which she received was to
serve as evidence for her, that she had not deserted her husband, but was
dismissed by him, and consequently free.” — Campbell.
BURKITT, "The first verse of this chapter acquaints us with the great labour
and pains our Saviour took in the exercise of his ministry, traveling from place to
place, in an hot country, and on foot, to preach the gospel, when he was here
upon earth; Teaching all persons, but especially ministers, by his example, to be
willing to undergo pains and labour, even unto much weariness, in the service of
God, and in the duties of their calling. For this is God's ordinance, that everyone
should feel the burden of his calling, and painfulness of it.
But, Lord, how nice and delicate are some labourers in thy vineyard, who are
willing to do nothing but what they can do with ease; they cannot endure to
think of labouring unto weariness, but are sparing of their pains, for fear of
shortening their days and hastening their ends! Whereas the lamp of our lives
can never be better spent, or burnt out, than by the lighting others to heaven.
The following verses acquaints us with and ensnaring question which the
Pharisees put to our Saviour concerning the matter of divorce; concluding, that
they should entrap him in his answer, whatever it was; if he denied the
lawfulness of divorce, then they would charge him with contradicting Moses who
allowed it. If he affirmed it, then they would condemn him for contradicting his
own doctrine Matthew 5:32 for favouring men's lusts, and complying with the
Jews, who, upon every slight and frivolous occasion, put away their wives from
them. But such was the wisdom of our Saviour in all his answers to the ensnaring
Pharisees: that neither their wit nor malice could lay hold on anything to
entangle him in his talk.
Observe therefore, the piety and prudence of our Saviour's answer to the
Pharisees; he refers them to the first institution of marriage, when God made
husband and wife one flesh to the intent that matrimonial love might be both
incommunicable and indissoluble; and accordingly asks them, What did Moses
command you?
Thereby teaching us, That the best means for deciding all doubts, and resolving
all controversies, about matters of religion, is to have recourse unto the scripture,
or the written word of God: What did Moses command you?
Observe farther, How our Saviour, to confute the Pharisees and convince them
of the unlawfulness of divorce, used by the Jews, lays down the first institution of
marriage, and shews them, first the author, next the time, then the end of the
institution. The author, God, What God has joined together &c.
Marriage is an ordinance of God's own appointment, as the ground and
foundation of all sacred and civil society. The time of the institution was, in the
beginning.
7

8. Marriage is almost as old as the world, as old as nature itself; there was no
sooner one person, but God divided him into two; and no sooner were there two,
but he united them in one. And the end of the institution of marriage, Christ
declares was this, That there might be not only an intimacy and nearness, but
also an inseparable union and oneness, by means of this endearing relation: the
conjugal knot is tied so close, that the bonds of matrimonial love are stronger
than those of nature. Stricter is the tie betwixt husband and wife, than that
betwixt parent and child, according to God's own appointment. For this cause
shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they twain
shall be one flesh. And whereas our Saviour adds, what God hath joined together
let no man put asunder.
Two things are hereby intimated to us,
1. That God is the author of the close and intimate union which is betwixt man
and wife in the married condition.
2. That it is not in the power of man to untie or dissolve the union which God has
mad betwixt man and his wife in the married state; yea, it is a great sin to advise
unto, or endeavour after, the separation of them.
Observe, lastly, Our Saviour's private conference with the disciples, after his
public disputation with the Pharisees, about this matter of divorce. He tells his
disciples, and in them he tells all Christians to the end of the world, that it is
utterly unlawful for man and wife to be separated by divorcement one from
another, for any cause whatsoever, except only for the sin of adultery committed
by either of them after the marriage.
Learn hence, That according to the word and will of God, nothing can violate the
bonds of marriage, and justify a divorce betwixt man and wife, save only the
defiling of the marriage-bed, by adultery and uncleanness. This is the only case
in which man and wife may lawfully part; and being for this cause parted,
whether they may afterwards marry again to other persons has been much
disputed; but that the innocent and injured person, whether man or woman (for
there is an equal right on both sides) may not marry again seems very
unreasonable; for why should one suffer for another's fault?
BI, "He taught them again.
He taught them again
How thick and close does this Heavenly Sower scatter His seed! Every line is a new
lesson, and every lessen a rule of perfection. Oh, the magnificent bounty of our God!
He gives not barely the measure we give others; but “pressed down, and shaken
together, and running over into our bosoms.” Why are we then so slow and dull to
learn these Divine instructions? Why so remiss to practise them? Are they not sweet
and excellent in themselves? Are they not infinitely profitable to us? Oh, make us
greedy to learn what Thy love makes Thee so eager to teach! (W. Austin.)
8

9. 2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by
asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his
wife?”
CLARKE, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? - See this question
about divorce largely explained on Mat_19:3-12 (note).
GILL, "And the: Pharisees came unto him,.... As they every where did; not to
be instructed by him, but to ensnare him;
and asked him, is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? that is, as
Matthew adds, "for every cause"; see Gill on Mat_19:3, for, a divorce might be
lawfully made for a cause, or reason, namely, adultery, but not for any, or every
cause; which is the sense of this question of the Pharisees; and, which they put, not
for information, but
tempting him; trying to entangle him by opposing the authority of Moses, should
he deny the lawfulness of divorces, or by objecting his former doctrine, Mat_5:32,
and so expose him as an inconsistent preacher, should he allow them to be lawful for
every reason. This clause is placed in the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions before
the question.
HENRY, "And the: Pharisees came unto him,.... As they every where did; not
to be instructed by him, but to ensnare him;
and asked him, is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? that is, as
Matthew adds, "for every cause"; see Gill on Mat_19:3, for, a divorce might be
lawfully made for a cause, or reason, namely, adultery, but not for any, or every
cause; which is the sense of this question of the Pharisees; and, which they put, not
for information, but
tempting him; trying to entangle him by opposing the authority of Moses, should
he deny the lawfulness of divorces, or by objecting his former doctrine, Mat_5:32,
and so expose him as an inconsistent preacher, should he allow them to be lawful for
every reason. This clause is placed in the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions before
the question.
COFFMAN, "REGARDING MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE
Mark's account here is briefer than Matthew who gave the true form of the
question as "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?"
(Matthew 19:3). We have no patience with scholars who insist that Mark's
account of the question is true and that Matthew has "glossed" him, or that
9

10. Matthew "represents a later modification of the teachings of Jesus."[2] Such
allegations are not merely inaccurate, but they are contrary to the plain
indications in Mark that Jesus' answer had regard to the very limitation of the
question as it appears in Matthew. William Barclay pointed out that:
The exception noted in Matthew is implied in Mark's version. It was Jewish law
that adultery did in fact compulsorily dissolve any marriage.[3]
W. N. Clarke also pointed out that Mark's account presupposes the statement of
the question exactly as it is found in Matthew:
In Mark, "except for fornication" is omitted; but it is sufficiently implied ...
Indeed, Mark 10:12 distinctly enforces the principle of equal responsibility (of
the sexes) regarding the matter of fornication (the exception noted by
Matthew).[4]
Thus, here is another instance of falsely interpreting the gospels resulting from
acceptance of the Markan theory of viewing that gospel as the "original" and
most dependable gospel. This is not true at all; in fact, Mark, shorter than the
others, is actually the most limited of them all.
Trying him ... This indicates the true reason for the Pharisees' question. It was
not for the procurement of information but only for the purpose of seeking some
charge against Jesus. They might have had in mind opening up a conflict
between Christ and Moses, instinctively recognizing that Christ's teachings
would be superior to those of Moses; or they might have had in mind the Lord's
entrapment with regard to the marital status of Herod, who had already
beheaded John the Baptist for his comment on Herod's incestuous marriage.
[2] Ibid., p. 318.
[3] William Barclay. The Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,
1956), p. 248.
[4] W. N. Clarke, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (Valley Forge,
Pennsylvania: The Judson Press. 1881), Vol. II, p. 145.
CONSTABLE, "This teaching grew out of the Pharisees' attempt to trap Jesus.
The incident occurred in Perea, Herod Antipas' territory. Perhaps the Pharisees
wanted to get Jesus to explain His view of divorce because they suspected it was
the same as John the Baptist's. John had lost his head literally because of his
views on marriage. Probably Jesus' critics hoped that He would also antagonize
the Roman ruler with His views. The form of their question implied they thought
that Jesus was against divorce for any reason.
The Pharisees all believed that the Old Testament permitted Jewish men to
divorce their wives and to remarry (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). They disagreed
among themselves on the grounds for divorce. Followers of Rabbi Shammai
believed Moses meant the only ground was fornication, sexual sin. Rabbi Hillel's
disciples held that anything a wife did that displeased her husband constituted
legitimate grounds for divorce.
10

11. BI, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?
The family relation
One of the most pathetic incidents found in the narrative of one of the arctic
explorations, is that of the attempt made to induce a native of that terribly
inhospitable region to journey away with the returning navigators to a more sunny
clime. Won by the enthusiastic descriptions of a land of orchards and meadows, of
purling brooks and singing birds, he did indeed surrender himself to go. But hardly
were they on the way out from among those mountain bergs of ice and dismal fields
of snow, directing their course towards the latitudes where the blue tops of distant
hills told of freshening verdure, before they missed their simple-hearted comrade. He
had gone back clandestinely to the cheerless scenes of his former life. Cold and
uninviting to a stranger, those northern solitudes were welcome to him because they
had been his home ever since he was born. We smile at his simplicity, but how
quickly, after all, do we give him our sympathy in the feeling! We love our homes
unaffectedly and almost illogically at times; not because they in every case are better
than others, but because they are ours.
I. The family is a Divine institution. We are not left to look upon it as a chance
arrangement of individuals of the human species; it is a definitely fixed form of
association.
1. It was ordained by the Creator himself when the race began (see Mar_10:6;
Gen_2:18-25). This order therefore cannot be changed irreverently, nor
disturbed without peril.
2. It has been recognized all along the ages by the providence of God. When
David (Psa_68:6) says: “God setteth the solitary in families,” a more literal and
more pertinent translation would give us this: “God maketh the lonely to dwell in
a home.” The all-wise Creator has provided in the wide adaptations of nature for
an abode of its own sort for every creature of His hand. He has set the coney in
the rock, the ant in the sand, the fish in the river, and the whale in the sea; but to
no one of them all has He given a home but to man.
3. It has been sanctioned by God in His Word (see Mar_10:7-9).
4. It has been symbolized and spiritualized in the Church (see Eph_3:15). And
the relation between Christ and His people is like that between a husband and
wife (see Eph_5:22-32). John saw the Church, “the bride, the Lamb’s wife,”
descending out of heaven, “having the glory of God” (Rev_21:9-10).
II. The family is a religious institution. That is to say, it has a distinct and valuable
purpose to serve in aiding men to glorify God and enjoy Him forever as their chief
end.
1. It is designed to perfect Christian character. The relations of a believer to his
Saviour are essentially filial. The saints are the children of God. The Almighty
Father, taking upon Himself the three obligations of a parent-government,
education, and support-calls upon each Christian for the three duties of a son-
subordination, studiousness, and grateful love. Hence, all our celestial
connections with God are most perfectly and easily taught through our earthly
connections with each other in a well-ordered home.
2. Again: the family relation is designed to concentrate Christian power. For it is
the earliest outflow into practical use of the principle that in union there is
strength.
11

12. 3. In the third place, the family relation is designed to cultivate the Christian
spirit. There ought to be in all organizations which are worth anything what the
French people call esprit de corps; a peculiar, pervading tone of public sentiment
and opinion, full of a generous confidence and pride, running through all its
members. Each soldier feels his connection with the company to which he owes
allegiance, thence with the regiment, and so with the entire corps. He is jealous of
its honour, he is zealous for its name.
4. Once more: the family relation is designed to increase the Christian census.
Children belong to the kingdom of God (see Mar_10:14). (C. S. Robinson, D. D.)
The law of marriage
I. The nature of this contract. It is for life, and dissoluble only for one sin. It is
subject to Divine laws. It is mutual. It must be based upon affection. It implies the
surrender of various rights, but not of all, i.e. conscience. In case of difference of
opinion, and within proper limits, the authority is with the husband.
II. The duties imposed by this relation upon both is imposed chastity. Likewise
mutual affection. Also the duty of mutual assistance. The husband made by Scripture
and by law the head of the domestic society; hence the duty of submission. Virtue
and dignity of submission. (Dr. Wayland.)
God’s law greater than man’s
We are here taught that marriage, being an institution of God, is subject to His laws
alone, and not to the laws of man. Hence the civil law is binding upon the conscience
only in so far as it corresponds to the law of God. (Dr. Wayland.)
Influence of a Christian wife
There was a company of rough men together at one o’clock one night, and a man
says: “My wife is a Christian, and if I should go home at this hour, and order her to
get us an entertainment, she would get it with good cheer, and without one word of
censure.” They laughed at him, and said she would not. They laid a wager, and
started for his home, and they knocked at one or two o’clock in the morning. The
Christian wife came to the door, and her husband said: “Get us something to eat! get
it right away!” She said: “What shall I get?” And he ordered the bill of fare, and it was
provided without one word of censure. After his roystering companions had gone out
of the house, he knelt down and said: “Oh! forgive me! I am wicked! I am most
wicked! Get down and pray for me!” and before the morning dawned on the earth,
the pardon of Christ had dawned on that man. Why? His wife was a thorough
Christian. He could not resist the power of her Christian influence. (Dr. Talmage.)
Marriage
The special duties belonging to marriage are love and affection. Love is the marriage
of the affections. There is, as it were, but one heart in two bodies. Love lines the yoke
and makes it easy; it perfumes the marriage relation. Like two poisons in one
stomach, one is ever sick of the other. In marriage there is mutual promise of living
together faithfully according to God’s holy ordinance. Among the Romans, on the day
12

13. of marriage, the woman presented to her husband fire and water: signifying, that as
fire refines, and water cleanses, she would live with her husband in chastity and
sincerity. (Thomas Watson.)
A cure for divorces
A gentlemen who did not live very happily with his wife decided to procure a divorce,
and took advice on the subject from an intimate friend-a man of high social standing.
“Go home and court your wife for a year,” said this wise adviser, “and then tell me the
result.” They bowed in prayer, and separated. When a year passed away, the once-
complaining husband called again to see his friend, and said: “I have called to thank
you for the good advice you gave me, and to tell you that my wife and I are as happy
as when first we were married. I cannot be grateful enough for your good counsel.” “I
am glad to hear it, dear sir,” said the other, “and I hope you will continue to court
your wife as long as you live.”
The marriage tie and the married life
The sacred institution of marriage has been fiercely assailed. The attempt is to shake
off the authority of the great God who made and rules all things. Thus with regard to
marriage, men tell us it is simply an agreement between two persons, which the State
takes notice of only for the sake of public convenience, like it does of the lease of a
house. This leaves out of view the most powerful part of matrimony-the religious.
True, it is a legal engagement; but it is also a solemn engagement before God. “Whom
God hath joined together,” etc. See, the golden links of matrimony are of heavenly
temper. What hand can be so impious as to try to burst them asunder? The law of
God has been transgressed of late years by the doctrine of polygamy as boldly
proclaimed by the Mormon blasphemy. Everywhere Christ and His apostles speak of
one wife; as the great God only created one man and one woman. It is a solemn
moment when two immortal beings venture out on life’s stormy sea in the bark of
matrimony, with no aid but their own to help them. A mistake in matrimony is a
mistake for life. Do not Christians find it important to avoid the friendship of the
irreligious; what then is likely to be the effect of marriage with the ungodly? Married
life is a detector of the real character. After marriage, faults are discovered, perhaps,
to be greater than was expected, and excellences less. Disappointment springs up;
contempt follows. Do you find much you did not expect? Remember you also are
showing much that was not expected, and as you do not like in consequence of your
faults to cease to be loved, so also do not let the faults you see kill your own love. Do
not gloomily meditate on each other’s failings, for that will make them seem greater
than they are. If you would see your life partner’s faults amended, you should set the
example by amending your own. Gentleness, firmness, forbearance, cheerfulness,
openness, must be the chains with which husband and wife try to keep marriage love
from escaping.
1. The want of experience is often a great hindrance to the happiness of married
life; hence it frequently happens that the first years of married life are not the
happiest.
2. The married life is often disturbed by the extravagance and folly of the
husband or wife; for difficulties arise therefrom, and much bitterness is likely to
spring up. Love is the universal law of marriage. Love will not easily find fault or
rashly give offence. Poverty cannot quench it. The Christian rule for all applies
doubly to man and wife-“weep with them that weep, and rejoice with them that
rejoice.” Different dispositions and tastes may sometimes make mutual sympathy
difficult. The sympathy of love and the sympathy of taste are distinct things. A
13

14. source of unhappiness in married life is the habit of dwelling on individual right
instead of remembering that love should not measure the service it bestows, nor
that it receives. If difference of opinion does arise, the Christian duty is for the
wife to yield. The marriage life was intended to promote human happiness; but it
brings with it peculiar duties, and the happiness marriage was intended to impart
will be wanting, if the duties of the married life are neglected. (A. Bibby, M. A.)
3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.
GILL, "And he answered and said unto them,.... Very prudently and wisely,
what did Moses command you? according to Matthew, he put another question
to them; see Mat_19:4; no doubt but both were put, and this after they had urged the
authority and law of Moses: and therefore be very pertinently asks them, what Moses
had said about divorces, what law he had left; and puts them upon producing and
repeating it, that the sense of it might be examined, and it be considered, upon what
account it was given.
HENRY, "2. Christ's reply to them with a question (Mar_10:3); What did Moses
command you? This he asked them, to testify his respect to the law of Moses, and to
show that he came not to destroy it; and to engage them to a universal impartial
respect for Moses's writings and to compare one part of them with another.
4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a
certificate of divorce and send her away.”
GILL, "And they said,.... By way of reply,
Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away, Moses
did not command them to divorce their wives, only suffered them to do so: and gave
orders that if they could not bear that they should live with them, but would divorce
them, that they should give them a bill, which should certify, they were so divorced,
and then send them out of their houses, free to marry other men; this law, or
permission, is in Deu_24:1, of the form of a bill of divorcement, See Gill on Mat_
5:31.
HENRY, "And they said,.... By way of reply,
Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away, Moses
did not command them to divorce their wives, only suffered them to do so: and gave
14

15. orders that if they could not bear that they should live with them, but would divorce
them, that they should give them a bill, which should certify, they were so divorced,
and then send them out of their houses, free to marry other men; this law, or
permission, is in Deu_24:1, of the form of a bill of divorcement, See Gill on Mat_
5:31.
COFFMAN, "The duplicity and deceit of the Pharisees appear in this answer
which quoted Moses inaccurately and without regard to the circumstance under
which in some cases, he permitted divorce. The Mosaic regulation regarding
divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1) was definitely not a blanket permission of divorce
for any cause, but only in cases where the husband had found something
"unseemly" in his wife. To be sure, the Pharisees, following the most liberal
interpretation, allowed "divorce for the most trivial of reasons."[5] The great
Jewish authorities held divergent views:
Shammai was extremely strict, allowing divorce only for unchastity; but Hillel
allowed it for many trivial reasons, including even the burning of bread in
preparation of a meal.[6]
[5] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 24.
[6] Henry E. Turlington, Broadman Bible Commentary (Nashville: Broadman
Press, 1946), p. 346.
CONSTABLE, "The Pharisees viewed Moses' permission as God's desire, but
Jesus viewed it as a divine concession.
"A distinction has to be made between that which sets forth the absolute will of
God, and those provisions which take account of men's actual sinfulness and are
designed to limit and control its consequences. Whereas the Ten Commandments
(in this connection Exod. xx. 14) and such passages as the verses quoted in Mark
10:6-8 represent God's absolute command, Deut. xxiv. 1 is a divine provision to
deal with situations brought about by men's sklerokardia [hardness of heart]
and to protect from its worst effects those who would suffer as a result of it.
(Much that is contained in the O.T. falls within the category of such provisions.)"
[Note: Cranfield, p. 319.]
5 “It was because your hearts were hard that
Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied.
GILL, "And Jesus answered and said unto them,.... With respect to this
command, or sufferance of Moses, which they urged:
for the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept; it was, not because
it was right in its own nature, or according to the original will of God; but, because
15

16. the Jews were such cruel, and hard hearted men, that if this had not been permitted,
some of them, that had wives not so agreeable to them, would have used them in a
very inhuman manner, if not murdered them; and therefore to prevent further, and
greater mischief, Moses indulged them with such a precept; See Gill on Mat_19:8.
HENRY, "4. The answer that Christ gave to their question, in which he abides by
the doctrine he had formerly laid down in this case (Mat_5:32), That whosoever puts
away his wife, except for fornication, causeth her to commit adultery. And to clear
this he here shows,
(1.) That the reason why Moses, in his law, permitted divorce, was such, as that
they ought not to make use of that permission; for it was only for the hardness of
their hearts (Mar_10:5), lest, if they were not permitted to divorce their wives, they
should murder them; so that none must put away their wives but such as are willing
to own that their hearts were so hard as to need this permission.
COFFMAN, "In this, Jesus took account of the principle that earthly laws must
sometimes take account of situations arising out of human perfidy and depravity.
There seems to be here a differentiation on Jesus' part between the true law of
God and the legal regulations delivered by Moses and made necessary by the
problems of governing Israel. As Cranfield noted:
A distinction has to be made between that which sets forth the absolute will of
God, and those provisions which take account of men's actual sinfulness and are
designed to limit and control its consequences.[7]
Christ here was not critical of Moses, nor was he setting the commandment of
God over against Moses. Furthermore, he was not brushing aside the Scriptures.
Moses' permission, under certain circumstances of divorce could not mean, nor
did it ever mean, that God approved of divorce, except in the very limited context
of its being, under some conditions, the lesser of two evils. The same is true of
divorce in all generations. It must never be viewed as something God approved;
because from the beginning it was not so.
When our sinfulness traps us in a position in which all the choices still open to us
are sinful, we are to choose that which is least evil, asking for God's forgiveness
and comforted by it, but not pretending that the evil is good.[8]
Marriages indeed may fail for reasons of human sin; but there can never be any
way to make the failures a good thing, nor change the ideal of marriage as God
intended and purposed from the beginning of creation. Jesus stated at once the
sacred ideal.
[7] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 319.
[8] Ibid., p. 320.
6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made
them male and female.’[a]
16

17. GILL, "But from the beginning of the creation,.... Of the world, or of man:
‫עולם‬ ‫של‬ ‫ברייתו‬ ‫,מתחלת‬ "from the beginning of the creation of the world", is a way of
speaking often used by the Jews (r): the phrase "of the creation" is left out in the
Syriac and Persic versions; and so it was in Beza's most ancient copy, and it is only
read, "from the beginning", as in Mat_19:4,8; see Gill on Mat_19:4, See Gill on Mat_
19:8.
God made them male and female; the first that were created, Adam and Eve, the
first parents of mankind, the first couple that came together were one male and one
female; so that there could be no polygamy or divorce: Adam could not have more
wives than one: nor could he put away Eve, and marry another; no provision was
made for any such usages and practices; See Gill on Mat_19:4. In the Complutensian
edition, it is added, "and said", the following words.
HENRY, "(2.) That the account which Moses, in this history, gives of the
institution of marriage, affords such a reason against divorce, as amounts to a
prohibition of it. So that if the question be, What did Moses command? (Mar_10:3),
it must be answered, “Though by a temporary proviso he allowed divorce to the Jews,
yet by an eternal reason he forbade it to all the children of Adam and Eve, and that is
it which we must abide by.”
Moses tells us, [1.] That God made man male and female, one male, and one female;
so that Adam could not put away his wife and take another, for there was no other to
take, which was an intimation to all his sons, that they must not.
COFFMAN, "Thus, God's ideal for humanity is "monogamy, which rules out
both polygamy and divorce."[9] People have no problem at all in knowing what
is the will of God; their problems stem from efforts to make what they do bear
the light of it! There is an extreme view, however, which should be avoided, and
that is making a violation in this sector to be the unpardonable sin. As Taylor
said, "The seventh commandment has no uncommon sanctity; and the guilt of
the transgression does not surpass the provisions of grace."[10]
One flesh ... "This is Semitic, or Biblical, idiom for `one,' as in RSV; and thus not
only rules out polygamy but divorce also."[11] God's purpose, from the
beginning, was clearly that of making the home a permanent institution; and, in
keeping with that purpose, marriage is final and permanent.
Without that finality, the security of the home is gone, the social fabric is torn,
and the finest school on earth for the discipline and growth of character is on the
way out.[12]
By this appeal to Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 5:2, Christ bypassed Moses
altogether, founding his teaching on this subject in the eternal and invariable
purpose of the Almighty, and not upon the accommodative regulations which
had been laid down out of considerations of man's sin. Thus, our Lord
triumphed over his enemies. He had not condoned divorce; and, at the same
time, he had not contradicted Moses. For further comment regarding the
questions raised by these verses, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 19.
17

18. [9] A. Elwood Sanner, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill
Press, 1964), p. 354.
[10] J. J. Taylor, The Gospel according to Mark (Nashville: Southern Baptist
Convention, 1911), p. 132.
[11] Frederick C. Grant, Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1951),
p. 796.
[12] Halford E. Luccock, Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1951),
p. 796.
CONSTABLE, "Jesus contrasted the Pharisee's view of marriage with God's
view of it. God instituted marriage. It involves the union of a male and a female
that results in a uniquely close relationship, a "one flesh" relationship. "One
flesh" is a Semitic expression that means "one." [Note: Wessel, p. 711.] This
relationship is closer than even the parent child relationship. Furthermore it
continues throughout the rest of the husband and wife's lives.
"The import of all this is that marriage from its very nature and from the divine
institution by which it is constituted is ideally indissoluble. It is not a contract of
temporary convenience and not a union that may be dissolved at will." [Note:
John Murray, Divorce, p. 29.]
"While the spiritual element is vitally important in marriage, the emphasis here
is that marriage is a physical union: the two become one flesh, not one spirit.
Since marriage is a physical union, only a physical cause can break it-either
death (Romans 7:1-3) or fornication (Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9)." [Note:
Wiersbe,
7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father
and mother and be united to his wife,[b]
GILL, "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother,.... The
Persic version adds, "and brethren and sisters", though without any foundation in
the original text, in Gen_2:24, from whence this passage is cited; or in any copy of
the evangelist:
and cleave to his wife; See Gill on Mat_19:5.
HENRY, " When this male and this female were, by the ordinance of God, joined
together in holy marriage, the law was, That a man must leave his father and mother,
and cleave to his wife (Mar_10:7); which intimates not only the nearness of the
relation, but the perpetuity of it; he shall so cleave to his wife as not to be separated
18

19. from her.
8 and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they
are no longer two, but one flesh.
GILL, "And the twain shall be one flesh,.... This is the remaining part of the
citation out of Gen_2:24; See Gill on Mat_19:5;
so then they are no more twain; but one flesh; as Adam and Eve were both by
creation and marriage: and so two persons, a man and woman, being lawfully
married together, become one flesh, or "one body", as the Arabic and Persic versions
render the phrase; and therefore the wife is to be loved by the husband as his own
body, and from whom there should be no separation, until death, but in case of
adultery; See Gill on Mat_19:6.
HENRY, "The result of the relation is, That, though they are two, yet they are one,
they are one flesh, Mar_10:8. The union between them is the most intimate that can
be, and, as Dr. Hammond expresses it, a sacred thing that must not be violated. [4.]
God himself was joined them together; he has not only, as Creator, fitted them to be
comforts and helps meet for each other, but he has, in wisdom and goodness,
appointed them who are thus joined together, to live together in love till death parts
them. Marriage is not an invention of men, but a divine institution, and therefore is
to be religiously observed, and the more, because it is a figure of the mystical
inseparable union between Christ and his church.
9 Therefore what God has joined together, let
no one separate.”
GILL, "What therefore God hath joined together,.... See Gill on Mat_19:6.
HENRY, "Now from all this he infers, that men ought not to put their wives
asunder from them, whom God has put so near them. The bond which God himself
has tied, is not to be lightly untied. They who are divorcing their wives for every
offence, would do well to consider what would become of them, if God should in like
manner deal with them. See Isa_50:1; Jer_3:1.
COFFMAN, "Like many of the magnificent pronouncements of Jesus, this one is
19

20. true both in context and intrinsically. God hath joined a man and his wife in
marriage; and men are not allowed the authority to dissolve it. Appropriately,
these words are used in the marriage ceremony. Christ did not, by these words,
prohibit states from making laws in this sector which are required by the sinful
conduct of people, the same being implicit in the fact of his not condemning
Moses for doing so. Of course, Christ was not dealing with the problem of
governing earthly states, but with that of revealing tht true will of Almighty God
to his human creation.
Intrinsically, these words apply to anything and everything that God has joined
together. Thus, faith and baptism are joined as preconditions of salvation (Mark
16:16): glorifying God is to be "in the church and in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians
3:21), thus joining Jesus and his spiritual body the church.
10 When they were in the house again, the
disciples asked Jesus about this.
GILL, "And in the house,.... To which Christ retired, after he had put the
Pharisees to silence, and dismissed the multitude:
his disciples asked him again of the same matter; concerning the affair of
divorces, be bad been discoursing with the Pharisees about; some things being said,
they had not been used to, and which they did not thoroughly understand; and
therefore chose privately to converse with him on this subject, for their further
information.
COFFMAN, "To divorce one's wife and marry another is to break the seventh
commandment; and the rule applies with equal force to putting away one's
husband and marrying another. This pronouncement of Jesus went far beyond
anything the Jews taught.
According to Rabbinic law, a husband could not be said to commit adultery
against his wife. So Jesus goes beyond Rabbinic teaching by speaking of a
husband's committing adultery against his wife.[13]
Mark's record of Jesus' application of the rule on adultery to both sexes is
thought to have been prompted by Gentile readers to whom this gospel is
supposed to have been directed. The view here is that Christ spoke all that is
recorded of him, both here and in the other gospels; and the fact of one writer's
having recorded one thing and another's having recorded different things
(though not contradictory) is due to the difference of intention and purpose that
each had. This means that the total of Jesus' teaching must be determined by the
composite record of all the gospels. Such a view is in line with what Jesus himself
20

21. said regarding the belief of "all that the prophets have spoken" (Luke 24:25).
ENDNOTE:
[13] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 321.
CONSTABLE, "The disciples wanted clarification of Jesus' view, so they asked
Him for it in private. Mark recorded His straightforward reply. Neither husband
nor wife should divorce their partner and remarry someone else. To do so
constitutes committing adultery against the spouse.
Mark 10:12 is unique in Mark. Under Roman law a wife could divorce her
husband, but under Jewish law she could not. [Note: Nineham, p. 266, footnote.]
There were exceptions, however, as in the case of Herodias who had divorced
Philip to marry Antipas (Mark 6:17-18). Herod the Great's sister also divorced
her husband. [Note: Josephus, Antiquities of . . ., 15:7:10.] Jesus viewed all
divorce followed by remarriage as constituting adultery no matter who initiated
it. Divorce is wrong, but divorce followed by remarriage is worse.
"The new element in this teaching, which was totally unrecognized in the
rabbinic courts, was the concept of a husband committing adultery against his
former wife. According to rabbinic law a man could commit adultery against
another married man by seducing his wife (Deuteronomy 22:13-29) and a wife
could commit adultery against her husband by infidelity, but a husband could
not be said to commit adultery against his wife. ... This sharp intensifying of the
concept of adultery had the effect of elevating the status of the wife to the same
dignity as her husband and placed the husband under an obligation of fidelity."
[Note: Lane, p. 357.]
Mark's omission of the exception clause that Matthew included was also due to
his audience (cf. Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9). He did not want to draw
attention to the exceptional case because to do so would weaken the main point,
namely, that people should not divorce. Divorce was very common in the Greco-
Roman world. Apparently Matthew included Jesus' permission to divorce for
fornication because the subject of how to deal with divorce cases involving
marital unfaithfulness was of particular interest to the Jews, his primary
audience.
11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife
and marries another woman commits adultery
against her.
GILL, "And he saith unto them,.... The same things as in Mat_5:32, 19:9; See
Gill on Mat_5:32, See Gill on Mat_19:9,
21

22. whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another; when there is no
uncleanness in the case; when his former wile has not injured him by violating the
marriage bed:
committeth adultery against her; to the injury of his lawful wife; or "upon her",
or "with her", with the person he marries. The Syriac and Persic versions leave out
the phrase, "against her".
HENRY, " Christ's discourse with his disciples, in private, about this matter,
Mar_10:10-12. It was an advantage to them, that they had opportunity of personal
converse with Christ, not only about gospel mysteries, but about moral duties, for
further satisfaction. No more is here related of this private conference, that the law
Christ laid down in this case - That it is adultery for a man to put away his wife, and
marry another; it is adultery against the wife he puts away, it is a wrong to her, a
breach of his contract with her, Mar_10:11. He adds, If a woman shall put away her
husband, that is, elope from him, leave him by consent, and be married to another,
she commits adultery (Mar_10:12), and it will be no excuse at all for her to say that it
was with the consent of her husband. Wisdom and grace, holiness and love, reigning
in the heart, will make those commands easy which to the carnal mind may be as a
heavy yoke.
12 And if she divorces her husband and marries
another man, she commits adultery.”
CLARKE, "And if a woman shall put away her husband - From this it
appears that in some cases, the wife assumed the very same right of divorcing her
husband that the husband had of divorcing his wife; and yet this is not recorded any
where in the Jewish laws, as far as I can find, that the women had such a right.
Indeed, were the law which gives the permission all on one side, it would be unjust
and oppressive; but where it is equally balanced, the right being the same on each
side, it must serve as a mutual check, and prevent those evils it is intended to cure.
Among the Jews there are several instances of the women having taken other men,
even during the life of their own husbands. Nor do we find any law by which they
were punished. Divorce never should be permitted but on this ground - “The parties
are miserable together, and they are both perfectly willing to be separated.” Then, if
every thing else be proper, let them go different ways, that they may not ruin both
themselves and their hapless offspring.
GILL, "And if a woman shall put away her husband,.... Not that there was the
same law, or the same sufferance by the law of Moses, for a woman to put away her
husband, as for the husband to put away the wife; nor was it practised among the
Jews, unless it came to be in use about this time, in their declining state, having
22

23. taken it from the Gentiles; of whom they say (s), that
"they divorce one another: says R. Jochanan, ‫מגרשתו‬ ‫,אשתו‬ "his wife divorces him", and
gives him the dowry.''
So Salome, the sister of Herod the Great, sent a bill of divorce to her husband
Costobarus; and in this she was followed by Herodias, the daughter of Aristobulus, as
Josephus (t) relates; and which his own wife also did. And by such examples the
practice might prevail among the Jews: and we have a story told (u) us of a holy man,
and a holy yeoman, who were married, and had no children, ‫זה‬ ‫את‬ ‫זה‬ ‫,וגרשו‬ "and they
divorced one another"; and the one went and married a wicked woman, and she
made him wicked; and the other went and married a wicked man, and she made him
righteous but I do not find that this practice was approved, or established by any
rule, or canon. They allow (w) indeed a woman to write her husband's divorce of her,
with proper witnesses; and they also oblige one, that was espoused in her minority,
and refuses her husband, when adult, to write a bill of refusal; the form of that, and
the rules about it, take as follow (x):
"they do not allow one to marry a minor; he that marries a minor that is fatherless,
and she is not pleased with her husband, lo! she may refuse, and go away, and she
has no need of a divorce from him, because the espousals of a minor are not perfect
espousals, as we have explained: and so a minor, whom her father marries, and she
becomes a widow, or is divorced whilst she is a minor, lo! she is as one fatherless, in,
her father's life time; and if she marries whilst she is a minor, she may refuse--how
does she refuse? she says before two witnesses, I do not like such an one my
husband; or I do not like the espousals with which my father, or my brother,
espoused me; and such like words.--The two, before whom the minor refuses, write
for her; on such a day, such an one, the daughter of such an one, refused, before us,
such an one her husband; and they seal, and give it to her: and this is the body, or
substance of a bill of refusal--in such a week, on such a day of the month, in such a
year, such an one, the daughter of such an one, refused before us, and said, that my
mother, or my brother, forced me, and married me, or espoused me, and I, a minor,
to such an one, the son of such an one; and now I reveal my mind before you, that I
do not like him, and I will not abide with him: and we have searched such an one;
and this is manifest to us, that she is yet a minor, and we have written, and sealed,
and have given this to her, for her justification, and a clear proof;''
"Such an one, the son of such an one, witness. Such an one, the son of such an one,
witness.''
And such a writing was called, ‫מיאון‬ ‫,גט‬ "a bill of refusal", and sometimes ‫מיאונין‬ ‫,שטרי‬
"letters of refusal" (y), but a bill of divorcement given by a married woman to her
husband, I have not met with. Justin Martyr speaks (z) of a Christian woman that,
ρεπουδιον, δουσα, "gave a bill of divorce" to her husband: such things, therefore, have
been done, and might be done in Christ's time, to which he refers; and concerning
which he says, that if a woman do so,
and be married to another, she committeth adultery; with the man she
marries, and against, and to the injury of her former husband, unjustly left by her.
HENRY, "He adds, If a woman shall put away her husband, that is, elope from
23

24. him, leave him by consent, and be married to another, she commits adultery (Mar_
10:12), and it will be no excuse at all for her to say that it was with the consent of her
husband. Wisdom and grace, holiness and love, reigning in the heart, will make those
commands easy which to the carnal mind may be as a heavy yoke.
COKE, "Mark 10:12. And if a woman shall put away her husband,— Though it
is certain that the Jewish law did not put it in a woman's power to divorce her
husband; yet it is plain from Josephus, that it was done, not only by several
ladies of distinguished rank, but even that his own wife did it, having probably
learned of the Roman women, who, in this age, are known to have practised it in
the most scandalous manner. See Juv. Sat. 6. ver. 222, &c. Compare 1 Samuel
25:44. 1 Corinthians 7:13 and Lardner's Credibility, part 1: vol. 2 p. 890.
The Little Children and Jesus
13 People were bringing little children to Jesus
for him to place his hands on them, but the
disciples rebuked them.
BARNES, "Should touch them - That is, should lay his hands on them, and
pray for them, and bless them. Compare Mat_19:13. It was common to lay the hands
on the head of a person for whom a blessing was asked. See the case of Jacob, Gen_
48:14.
GILL, "And they brought young children to him,.... The parents, or friends, or
nurses of the children in those parts, having heard of the fame of Jesus; and having
entertained an high opinion of him, as a great prophet, and a holy, good man,
brought their children in their arms, or hands,
that he should touch them; as he did when he healed diseased persons, as these
might be, though not expressed:
and his disciples rebuked those that brought them; See Gill on Mat_19:13.
HENRY, "It is looked upon as the indication of a kind and tender disposition to
take notice of little children, and this was remarkable in our Lord Jesus, which is an
encouragement not only to little children to apply themselves to Christ when they are
very young, but to grown people, who are conscious to themselves of weakness and
childishness, and of being, through manifold infirmities, helpless and useless, like
little children. Here we have,
I. Little children brought to Christ, Mar_10:13. Their parents, or whoever they
were that had the nursing of them, brought them to him, that he should touch them,
24

25. in token of his commanding and conferring a blessing on them. It doth not appear
that they needed any bodily cure, nor were they capable of being taught: but it
seems, 1. That they had the care of them were mostly concerned about their souls,
their better part, which ought to be the principal care of all parents for their children;
for that is the principal part, and it is well with them, it if be well with their souls. 2.
They believed that Christ's blessing would do their souls good; and therefore to him
they brought them, that he might touch them, knowing that he could reach their
hearts, when nothing their parents could say to them, or do for them, would reach
them. We may present our children to Christ, now that he is in heaven, for from
thence he can reach them with his blessing, and therein we may act faith upon the
fulness and extent of his grace, the kind intimations he hath always given of favour to
the seed of the faithful, the tenour of the covenant with Abraham, and the promise to
us and to our children, especially that great promise of pouring his Spirit upon our
seed, and his blessing upon our offspring, Isa_44:3.
BARCLAY, "OF SUCH IS THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN (Mark 10:13-16)
10:13-16 They brought little children to Jesus that he might touch them. But the
disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw what they were doing he was vexed and
said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and don't try to stop them for of
such is the Kingdom of God. This is the truth I tell you, whoever does not receive
the Kingdom of God as a little child will not enter into it." And he took them up
in the crook of his arm and blessed them and laid his hands upon them.
It was natural that Jewish mothers should wish their children to be blessed by a
great and distinguished Rabbi. Especially they brought their children to such a
person on their first birthday. It was in this way that they brought the children
to Jesus on this day.
We will fully understand the almost poignant beauty of this passage only if we
remember when it happened. Jesus was on the way to the Cross--and he knew it.
Its cruel shadow can never have been far from his mind. It was at such a time
that he had time for the children. Even with such a tension in his mind as that he
had time to take them in his arms and he had the heart to smile into their faces
and maybe to play with them awhile.
The disciples were not boorish and ungracious men. They simply wanted to
protect Jesus. They did not quite know what was going on, but they knew quite
clearly that tragedy lay ahead and they could see the tension under which Jesus
laboured. They did not want him to be bothered. They could not conceive that he
could want the children about him at such a time as that. But Jesus said, "Let
the children come to me."
Incidentally, this tells us a great deal about Jesus. It tells us that he was the kind
of person who cared for children and for whom children cared. He could not
have been a stern and gloomy and joyless person. There must have been a kindly
sunshine on him. He must have smiled easily and laughed joyously. Somewhere
George Macdonald says that he does not believe in a man's Christianity if the
children are never to be found playing around his door. This little, precious
incident throws a flood of light on the human kind of person Jesus was.
25

26. "Of such," said Jesus "is the Kingdom of God." What is it about the child that
Jesus liked and valued so much?
(i) There is the child's humility. There is the child who is an exhibitionist, but
such a child is rare and almost always the product of misguided adult treatment.
Ordinarily the child is embarrassed by prominence and publicity. He has not yet
learned to think in terms of place and pride and prestige. He has not yet learned
to discover the importance of himself.
(ii) There is the child's obedience. True, a child is often disobedient, but, paradox
though it may seem, his natural instinct is to obey. He has not yet learned the
pride and the false independence which separate a man from his fellow-men and
from God.
(iii) There is the child's trust. That is seen in two things.
(a) It is seen in the child's acceptance of authority. There is a time when he
thinks his father knows everything and that his father is always right. To our
shame, he soon grows out of that. But instinctively the child realizes his own
ignorance and his own helplessness and trusts the one who, as he thinks, knows.
(b) It is seen in the child's confidence in other people. He does not expect any
person to be bad. He will make friends with a perfect stranger. A great man once
said that the greatest compliment ever paid him was when a little boy came up to
him, a complete stranger, and asked him to tie his shoelace. The child has not yet
learned to suspect the world. He still believes the best about others. Sometimes
that very trust leads him into danger for there are those who are totally
unworthy of it and who abuse it, but that trust is a lovely thing.
(iv) The child has a short memory. He has not yet learned to bear grudges and
nourish bitterness. Even when he is unjustly treated--and who among us is not
sometimes unjust to his children?--he forgets, and forgets so completely that he
does not even need to forgive.
Indeed, of such is the Kingdom of God.
BENSON, "Mark 10:13-16. They brought little children to him — See the note
on Matthew 19:13-15. Jesus was much displeased — At their blaming those who
were not blameworthy, and endeavouring to hinder the children from receiving a
blessing. And said, Suffer little children to come unto me — Now, and at other
convenient times, for I am pleased, rather than offended, to see them brought to
me: for of such is the kingdom of God — The members of the kingdom which I
am come to set up in the world are such as these, as well as grown persons of a
child-like temper. Verily, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a
little child — Divesting himself of those prejudices and those secular views which
men contract in their riper years, that he may come, as it were, to the humility
and meekness, the simplicity and teachableness, of a little child, (see Psalms
131:2.) He shall not enter therein — He shall not be a member of my kingdom,
be his genius ever so sublime, or his circumstances in life ever so considerable.
26

27. And he took them up in his arms, &c. — He tenderly embraced them with
complacency and love, and as a further token of the overflowing kindness of his
heart toward them; he put his hands upon them, and blessed them —
Recommending them in a solemn manner to the blessing and favour of his
heavenly Father; which no doubt descended upon them, and attended them in
their future life. “Let ministers view this compassionate Shepherd of Israel, thus
gathering the lambs in his arms with all the tokens of tender affection; and let
the sight teach them a becoming regard for the lambs of their flock, who should
early be taken notice of and instructed; and for and with whom they should
frequently pray, remembering how often divine grace takes possession of the
heart in the years of infancy, and sanctifies the children of God almost from the
womb. Let every first impression, made upon their tender minds, be cherished;
and let not those whom Christ himself is ready to receive, be disregarded by his
servants, who upon all occasions should be gentle unto all, and apt to teach. Let
parents view this sight with pleasure and thankfulness; let it encourage them to
bring their children to Christ by faith, and to commit them to him in baptism
and by prayer. And if he who has the keys of death and the unseen world, see fit
to remove these dear creatures from us in their early days, let the remembrance
of this story comfort us; and teach us to hope, that he who so graciously received
these children, has not forgotten ours; but that they are sweetly fallen asleep in
him, and will be the everlasting objects of his care and love; for of such is the
kingdom of God. And let us all commit ourselves to him; and let us be disposed
to become as little children, if we desire to enter into his kingdom. Let us not
govern ourselves by the vain maxims of a corrupt and degenerate age. Let not
pride, ambition, lust, or avarice possess, torment, and enslave our minds; but,
with the amiable simplicity of children, let us put ourselves into the wise and
kind hands of Jesus, as our guardian, and refer ourselves to his pastoral and
parental care; to be clothed and fed, to be guided and disposed of, as he shall see
fit. For this purpose, O God, may we be born again by thy Spirit, and formed
anew by thy grace! Since by this method alone we can be made meet to be
partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light, and be so the children of God
as to be at length the children of the resurrection.” — Doddridge.
BURKITT, "Observe here, A solemn action performed: children are brought to
Christ to be blessed by him.
Where note, 1. The persons brought: children, young children, sucking children,
as the word imports, They brought them in their arms Luke 18:15, not led them
by the hands.
2. The Person they are brought unto: Jesus Christ. But for what end? Not to
baptize them, but to bless them: the parents looking upon Christ as a prophet, a
great Prophet, the great Prophet, do bring their infants to him, that they might
receive the benefit of his blessing and prayers.
Whence learn, 1. The infants are capable of benefit by Jesus Christ.
2. That it is the best office that parents can perform unto their children to bring
them unto Christ, that they may be made partakers of that benefit.
27

28. 3. If infants be capable of benefit by Christ, if capable of his blessings on earth
and presence in heaven, if they be subjects of his kingdom of grace, and heirs of
his kingdom of glory, then they may be baptized; for they that are in covenant,
have a right to the seal of the covenant. If Christ denies not infants the kingdom
of heaven, which is the greater, what reason have ministers to deny them the
benefit of baptism, which is the less?
SIMEON, "CHRIST BLESSES LITTLE CHILDREN
Mark 10:13-16. And they brought young children to him, that he should touch
them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it,
he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come
unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say
unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he
shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon
them, and blessed them.
IT is common with men to shew partiality to the failings of their friends, at the
time that they are leaning rather to the side of severity in their judgment of
others. But our blessed Lord shewed no favour to his Disciples in that respect;
but was as observant of smaller errors in them, as of the more flagrant
transgressions of his enemies. He ever proceeded upon that principle, “You only
have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for your
iniquities.” His Disciples had interposed to prevent him from being troubled with
a multitude of children, whom their fond parents foolishly, as the Disciples
thought, were bringing to him: but he was very angry with them, and gave them
a severe rebuke: for however they might take credit to themselves for meaning
well, their conduct in this matter was highly reprehensible.
The text presents two things to our view:
I. His rebuke to them—
Some parents were bringing their children to Christ—
[To this they had probably been induced by the discourse which had recently
passed between our Lord and his Disciples. On their inquiring, Who should be
the greatest in his kingdom? he had set a little child before them, and declared
that a conformity to it in humility constituted the most exalted character of his
subjects; and that whosoever should receive one such little child in his name,
would receive him; whilst those who should offend one, would involve themselves
in the most tremendous guilt and misery [Note: Matthew 18:1-6.]. Hence it would
naturally be supposed that Jesus had a peculiar love for little children; and that
as he required others to receive them, he himself would certainly receive, and
bless them too. Hence many believing parents sought to avail themselves of the
opportunity of obtaining a blessing for their children; and brought them to him,
that he might “put his hands upon them and bless them.” It was not bodily, but
spiritual, health, which the parents sought for their children: and we cannot but
28

29. highly applaud their zeal in such a cause.]
But the Disciples interposed to prevent it—
[They doubtless thought that they were doing right, in not suffering their Lord to
be so troubled. His time, they thought, was too precious to be so occupied; his
work too important to be so interrupted; his engagements too numerous to admit
of such intrusions; his fatigues too great to be so needlessly increased. Besides, to
the children, they supposed, it could be of little use: and to the parents, only a
momentary gratification: and if the precedent were once admitted, it would be
followed to an unknown extent. Hence they would not suffer their Lord to be so
distracted.
But, whilst they imagined that their conduct was precisely such as it ought to be,
they were really acting a very unbecoming part. It is not every one who means
well, that acts well: there is “a zeal that is not according to knowledge;” and such
was theirs on the present occasion. Their conduct was indeed very criminal in
many respects: It argued low thoughts of their Divine Master, whose
condescension they limited; whilst, in truth, it is infinite. It argued an ignorance
of his office, which is peculiarly designated by the prophet, as that of “a
Shepherd, who carries the lambs in his bosom [Note: Isaiah 40:11.].” It argued
an unmindfulness of the Father’s grace, who had promised, in a peculiar
manner, to pour out his Spirit upon his people’s seed, and his blessing upon their
offspring [Note: Isaiah 44:3-4. compared with Acts 2:39.].” It argued unkindness
to the parents, whose feelings they should have more affectionately consulted;
and indifference to the children, whose benefit they should have been studious to
promote. It argued also an unbelief of its efficacy: they had often seen people
obtaining health to their bodies by a mere touch of their Master’s garment, and
yet they could not conceive that any benefit should accrue to the children’s souls
by an authoritative imposition of his hands, and an immediate communication of
his blessing. All this was exceedingly sinful. But they erred also in the manner as
well as in the matter, of their conduct; for they “rebuked” these pious women.
Alas! even good men, if unreasonably interrupted, are but too apt to shew an
unhallowed temper, instead of exercising that meekness and gentleness which
become their profession.]
Our Lord, however, deservedly and severely rebuked them—
[In St. Matthew’s account there is a little change in the collocation of the words,
which makes his address to them more emphatical [Note: Matthew 19:14.]; “Let
the little children alone, and hinder them not from coming to me.” But our Lord
assigns as the reason of this reproof, (for he never would administer reproof
without evincing the justice of it,) that “of such persons was the kingdom of
God;” of such in age, and of such in character. Some confine this expression to
the character of the persons who compose his kingdom: but, in so doing, they
destroy all the force of his reasoning. If our Lord had meant only to say, that
children were fit emblems of his subjects, it would have been no reason for his
reproof; since they would be neither more so by being brought to him, nor less so
by being kept away. But, if we understand that children are still, as under the
29

30. Jewish dispensation, to be regarded as in covenant with God, and subjects of his
kingdom, then the reason is clear and strong: for to keep children from him,
would be to deprive them of privileges to which they were as much entitled as
adults. Our Church lays peculiar stress upon this point in her baptismal service
[Note: See the Address to the parents, after the passage recording St. Mark’s
words in the Baptismal service.]; and shews with great clearness, that it is a
complete justification of those who maintain the propriety of infant baptism: for,
if infants are capable of receiving Christ’s blessing, are we not to bring them to
him that they may obtain it? If they are capable of receiving the thing signified,
are they not fit subjects to receive the sign? And if Christ was so angry with his
Disciples for keeping them from him, can he be pleased with us, if we keep them
from him? In a word, Christ has shewn us, by this act, that children are as much
the subjects of his kingdom now, as ever they were under the Jewish
dispensation; and every member of our Church has reason to rejoice, that the
sentiments of our Reformers on this disputed subject were in such perfect unison
with the word of God.
If it be objected, that Christ did not baptize the children; we answer, His
baptism was not yet instituted: the only baptism that was now observed, was that
of John. The question is, Are children to be regarded as subjects of Christ’s
kingdom? and are they entitled to the privileges of that kingdom? Christ
expressly says, they are: and so say we: and therefore according to his command
we bring them to him, that they may be admitted to a participation of those
blessings, precisely as the Jews by God’s command brought their children to be
admitted into covenant with him.]
In perfect agreement with these sentiments is,
II. His instruction to us—
Our Lord uniformly engrafted some general instruction on the passing
occurrences of every day. He here instructs us,
1. By precept—
[Whilst children are to be received into the Church of Christ, they are to be
regarded also as emblems of those moral qualities, which all the subjects of his
kingdom must possess. There is in children a simplicity of mind, a teachableness
of spirit, a consciousness of weakness, a dependence on their parents’ care, an
obedience to their commands, and a submission to their will. Now these must be
the dispositions of all who would be numbered with Christ’s people here, or be
partakers with them in a better world: nor can any thing but a resemblance to
children in these respects warrant any person to believe himself in a state of
favour with God. The declaration in our text is as strong and clear as words can
make it. The very entrance into Christ’s kingdom is by this door: it is low, and
we must stoop; it is narrow, and we must be little in in our own estimation,
before we can by any means find admission within it: there is no space allowed
for the cumbrous ornaments of worldly wisdom, of moral goodness, of human
power; we must enter naked and divested of them all— divested, I mean, in our
30

31. own apprehension and conceit; and must be willing to take “Christ as our
wisdom, our righteousness, our sanctification, and redemption.” This is
humiliating, it is true; but it must be done; and, if we will not submit to it, we can
never enter into the kingdom of heaven: “the wise must become fools [Note: 1
Corinthians 4:10.],” the pure polluted [Note: Job 9:20-21; Job 9:30-31.], the
righteous guilty [Note: Romans 3:19.] in their own estimation, before Christ can
be valued, or his salvation desired. We say not that a person must commit
wickedness in order to fit himself for Christ’s kingdom; God forbid: but he must
renounce every degree of self-conceit, self-dependence, self-seeking, and self-
applause; and, “whatever he had which once he accounted gain, must now be
considered by him as loss for Christ.”
O that all were thus divested of self, and made willing to seek their all in Christ!
Let parents condescend to learn from their little children what dispositions they
themselves should cultivate towards their heavenly Father; and bear in mind,
that their highest perfection is, to be brought to a willing and habitual
resemblance to that instructive emblem.]
2. By example—
[“He took the little children up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and
blessed them.” What amazing condescension! How amiable in itself, so to notice
those, who could be so little conscious of his love. How conciliatory to the
parents, whose hearts were more open to impression from the kindness shewn to
their offspring, than from any favour that could be conferred upon themselves!
How encouraging to the children, whose parents would not fail to remind them
often that they had been thus highly honoured, to be embraced in the Saviour’s
bosom, and to receive his heavenly blessing! Methinks, this very circumstance
would operate upon them through life to devote themselves unto the Lord Jesus
Christ, and to “cleave unto him with full purpose of heart.” In a word, how
edifying to all! To parents, it shewed what their chief desire for their children
should be, namely, to bring them to the knowledge of him, and to the enjoyment
of his salvation. To ministers, it spoke with peculiar emphasis, that they should
attend to the lambs of their flock, and consider neither the meanest nor the
weakest of the people as beneath their notice: however laborious their
occupations might be, they should reserve some portion of their time for the
instruction of babes. To all his believing people also, whether men or women, it
shewed how acceptable a service they would perform, if they laboured to instruct
the rising generation. If he himself did not overlook the existence of little faith, or
“despise the day of small things,” or disdain to sow what could not be reaped for
many years, well may his people cultivate the same benevolence, and exert
themselves according to their measure in the same glorious cause.]
From this subject we may see,
1. How thankful ought children to be to their instructors [Note: This is
proper to be noticed especially where there are Sunday Schools. This is also a fit
subject for a Baptism]!
31

32. [To you who are instructed from Sabbath to Sabbath it appears, that the
teaching of you to read is the great object which your instructors have in view:
but this is by no means the case: they desire to perform the same kind office for
you which the parents in our text performed for their children; they would bring
you to Christ, that you may be received into his bosom, and be made partakers of
his blessing. For this end they pray for you in secret, that God may render their
labours effectual for your eternal good: and whilst they are instructing you, they
often put up a silent prayer to Him who seeth the desire of their hearts; and they
actually put you, as it were, into the Saviour’s hands, saying, ‘Lord, give thy
blessing to this dear child!’ Let me then entreat you to have the same end in view,
and to seek for yourselves his blessing upon your souls.]
2. What reason have they to be ashamed who would keep men from Christ!
[The Disciples had some reason for discouraging the bringing of infants to
Christ; but what reason have they who would deter grown persons from coming
to him! Shall it be thought that there are few, if any, who would act so wicked a
part? Alas! there are many: for, what is the tendency of that derision with which
religion is treated, and of that opposition which is almost universally made to
those who are zealous in its cause? Surely, if our Lord was “much displeased”
with his Disciples, who really meant well, it is no little displeasure that he will
manifest against the wilful despisers of his Gospel — — — We commend to their
attention a fore-cited passage [Note: Matthew 18:6.], and pray God that they
may never know the force of it by their own experience.]
3. What encouragement have we all to apply to Christ for ourselves!
[If our blessed Lord was so condescending unto infants, what will he not be to
those who come to him with understanding. hearts? Will he put any obstacles in
their way? Has he not said, that “those who come unto him he will in no wise cast
out?” Let not any then dishonour him by doubts and fears, as though he would
not be gracious unto them: let not any sense of their own unworthiness
discourage them: but let them rather remember, that the more lowly they are in
their own eyes, the more amiable they will be in his; and the more empty they are
in themselves, the more certainly shall they be “filled out of his fulness.”]
COFFMAN, "JESUS BLESSES THE LITTLE CHILDREN
Evidently, the disciples thought that Jesus would not have the time to bless little
children, and their efforts would appear to have been due to misguided efforts to
protect Jesus from such an encroachment upon his time and strength. How
wrong they were!
Moved with indignation ... Some translate this, "was sore displeased with them."
They had totally misunderstood the Master's mind. As Clarke noted, the words
here are the same as in Matthew 21:15, "where the chief priests were `sore
displeased' at the children in the temple who were crying, `Hosanna to the Son of
David.'"[14]
32

33. Suffer the little children to come unto me ... Christ loved little children, and the
scene here is one of beauty, love, and concern.
To such belongeth the kingdom of God ... They are wrong who read this as if it
said that the kingdom belongs to little children. Again from Clarke:
He does not say that children are in his kingdom. Membership (in that kingdom)
as Christ was preaching it, and as we must preach it, implies intelligence and
personal faith. Here is no allusion to baptism; and here was his golden
opportunity if he had ever wished baptism to be associated with infants. This is a
place where we are justified in drawing a negative conclusion from the silence of
the Scriptures.[15]
Regarding the qualities Jesus might have had in mind by his statement that those
who are "like" children possess the kingdom, there are three schools of thought.
Some, like Barclay, thought Jesus had in mind such subjective qualities as
humility, obedience, trust, and shortness of memory (not holding grudges,
etc.).[16] Erdman rejected such subjective qualities as those cited by Barclay but
accepted their trustfulness (a subjective quality), and the objective facts of their
helplessness and dependence, as qualities in those receiving the kingdom.[17]
Still others, like Turlington, see only the objective qualities as applicable. Thus:
"The kingdom does not belong to the mighty, the strong, the influential; it
belongs to the weak, the insignificant, and the unimportant.[18]
While not denying that the objective qualities of little children are included, this
student cannot exclude the subjective qualities as also having a place in Jesus'
thoughts. It was clearly the subjective qualities of "spoiled children" that he
made the basis of a comparison in Matthew 11:16,17; and that forbids ruling out
the subjective qualities here.
[14] W. N. Clarke, op. cit.. p. 146.
[15] Ibid.
[16] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 250.
[17] Charles R. Erdman, The Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: The Westminster
Press, 1966), p. 153.
[18] Henry E. Turlington, op. cit., p. 348.
CONSTABLE, "Mark's account of this incident is very similar to Matthew's.
However, Mark alone noted that Jesus became indignant when He learned that
the disciples were discouraging those who were bringing the children (Gr.
paidia) to Him. This is another indication of the evangelist's interest in Jesus'
humanity (cf. Mark 1:25; Mark 1:41; Mark 1:43; Mark 3:5; Mark 7:34; Mark
8:12; Mark 9:19). Jesus had formerly commanded His disciples not to forbid the
exorcist who cast out demons in Jesus' name (Mark 9:39). The disciples were
abusing their authority by excluding some people from coming to Jesus: those
33

34. outside their circle, and those regarded generally as unimportant.
SBC, "Children welcomed to Christ.
You will observe, that the attitude and the act were at one and the same moment,
paternal and priestly. He took the children up in His arms as a father; while, as a high
priest, "He put His hands upon them and blessed them." And so, we may say, is every
act of Christ. There is a human affection and sympathy, a fondness as a man; and
there is a grace, an actual grace imparted, by virtue of His divine and holy office.
Note:—
I. The danger of sin standing in the way of children coming to Christ. Is not much
that calls itself "religious education" really an imbuing a child’s mind with a dislike
and dread of the whole subject? Look well to it, lest you be found with one hand to
have brought your children to baptism, and with the other really to have frightened
them away from that very Christ, with whom you think you have left them.
II. The duty of bringing children to Christ. It is an oft told tale, how the impressions
made in childhood are sure to creep out in after-life. How the ship, which would ride
well upon the waves, must have the ballast laid in before she is launched upon the
deep waters, and how a useful manhood, and a happy old age, are almost always the
sequence of a pious childhood.
III. The necessity laid upon us all, of ourselves becoming like little children. If it were
only that we might influence children, we should cultivate a childlike spirit, for none
can do good, especially to the young, but those who are very simple in their thoughts,
and very lowly in their ways. But in what are we to become like a little child? In many
things; but I will just mention one or two. (1) When those little children lay in Jesus’
arms, His act came before any of their acts. Freely as He bestowed the grace, so freely
the little children took it. This is just the way to get to the Kingdom. (2) The credulity
of the child is the faith of the Christian. My Saviour, my Lord has said it. He has said
it, and I will believe it; and I will ask no questions. (3) And a very little child is
necessarily led. So we must be content to be borne and carried every step.
J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 1874, p. 271.
The Children’s Charter.
I. It throws the tender lovingkindness of Jesus into bold relief if we compare it with
the unloving, inconsiderate behaviour of His disciples. For they rebuked the women,
and even laid their strong hands on the little ones who came running round Christ,
and pushed them back. They seem, indeed, to have been quite unusually rude and
rough in their bearing. For when we read that they rebuked the women, we are not to
understand that they used dignified and polite language. What the word means is
that they chid, that they scolded them, rating them for their forwardness and
presumption in intruding themselves upon the Master’s notice. The disciples only
made a mistake such as we all make sometimes. It was love, rising to zeal, for their
Lord which led them to push back the children, though it was not a zeal according to
knowledge. They meant no harm, and yet they might have done great harm. They
might not only have robbed you of your charter, and the women and children of the
blessing they craved; they might also have deprived themselves and the Pharisees of
the lesson they both so much needed to learn: viz., "Whosoever shall not receive the
kingdom of God as a little child, shall not enter therein."
II. Even the best men, then, even those who stand nearest Christ, sin against Him
34