^{page 302 note 1} Explicitly “his disciples” only in Mark and Matt.

^{page 302 note 2} Matt, also includes in this part some extra material, which occurs also in Luke, but in a different context.

^{page 302 note 3} Cf. Lohmeyer, E., Das Evangelium des Markus, 1937, p. 21 f.Google Scholar

^{page 303 note 1} Cf. ibid., p. 216, note I.

^{page 303 note 2} Cf. ibid., p. 215.

^{page 303 note 3} With regard to context it is perhaps worth adding the following. Matt, and Luke follow Mark in placing this section immediately after the pericope of Jesus and the children. Mark's introduction to the section (“And as he was going forth into the way”) might suggest that the blessing of the children had taken place indoors and that it was as Jesus emerged into the street that the rich man ran up to Him; but it would be unwise to press an historical connexion here. It is possible that Mark placed this section immediately after the pericope of the children, in order to provide an illustration of the solemn warning about those who do not receive the kingdom of God like children (cf. C. E. Robinson, The Gospel according to St. Mark, 1931, p. 138). The rich man is such an example. Wellhausen commends Shakespeare (King Richard II, Act V, scene 5, lines 11–17) for having noticed the contrast between the gracious invitation in the pericope of the children and the sternness of the passage that follows. (But one should note the sternness in the Markan form of the pericope of the children in v. 15!) One other point about the context may be mentioned. Luke places soon, though not immediately, after this section the story of Zacchaeus. Was that with the intention of providing an illustration of the fact that with God a rich man can be saved (cf. H. B. Swete, The Gospel according to St. Mark, 3rd ed., 1909, p. 230, as from Plummer?

^{page 303 note 4} Rawlinson, A. E. J., The Gospel according to St. Mark, 1925, p. 138.Google Scholar

^{page 303 note 5} I. Abrahams apud Rawlinson.

^{page 303 note 6} Blunt, A. W. F., The Gospel according to St. Mark, 1929, p. 217.Google Scholar

^{page 303 note 7} G. E. Robinson, op. cit., p. 138.

^{page 304 note 1} For the Rabbinic expressions for “eternal life” (i.e. life in the age to come), (eternal life), (life of the age to come), see Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum NT aus Talmud und Midrasch, 1.808 f. In Mark the phrase only occurs here. For “inherit” in Mark and Luke see A., Richardson, A Theological Word Book to the Bible, pp. 112 ff.; Lohmeyer, op. cit. p. 208. In later Jewish thought the age to come or the life of the age to come has replaced the land of Canaan as the inheritance of the saints. To inherit eternal life, the age to come, or the life of the age to come, are frequently recurring phrases in later Jewish writings. For reff. see Kittel's T.W.z.N.T., III.780. For ζω⋯ ai′ω´vios in the LXX see Dan. 12.2; cf. 2 Mace. 7.9.

^{page 304 note 2} Aristotle, at any rate, considered the slow step a mark of his μεγalambda;óψμχoς (Eth. Nicom., 1125a)!

^{page 304 note 3} Maclear, G. F., The Gospel according to St. Mark (C.B.S.), 1893, p. 112Google Scholar, says happily: “Knelt before Him, as was usual before a venerated Rabbi.” At the other extreme Lohmeyer maintains that it was not Jewish custom to kneel to a Rabbi, that it was not only the mark of urgent supplication, but was something that a Jew only accorded to God. So here he says that the kneeling originates in the knowledge that his question is being addressed to the unique divine Teacher. See Lohmeyer, op. cit., pp. 46, 104 f., 207 f. (on Mark 1.40, 5.22, and this verse respectively). But see also Schlier, H. in T.W.z-N.T., I, pp. 783 ff.Google Scholar While it is true that among the Hebrews kneeling is characteristically the mark of man's humility before God (both OT and NT), yet it is also used in OT of homage to a king, so too in NT of gentile homage to a king, and it is used in supplication to a man of God in 2 Kings 1.13. Among gentiles it was of course much more frequent—e.g. by slaves to masters, and by suppliants. So we may conclude that the rich man intended only respect or specially earnest entreaty, though Mark and his readers would no doubt see a special appropriateness—kneeling before the Messianic King and divine Lord.

^{page 304 note 4} Cf. Chadwick, G. A., The Gospel according to St. Mark (Expositor's Bible), p. 274.Google Scholar

^{page 305 note 1} For Jesus' sinlessness vide Jn. 8.46, 2 Cor. 5.21, 1 Pet. 2.22, etc.

^{page 305 note 2} “Atque ipse non in se requiescebat, sed se penitus ad Patrem referebat. Viatorem ac peregrinum agebat in mundo, et in eo statu, in quo Psalmi eum ut miserum et inopem describunt, contendebat at aeternum illud bonum et gaudium, de quo hicjuvenis quaerebat” (Gnomon Novi Testamenti). J. Schniewind rightly connects Jesus' answer with the Messianic secret, which, understood as governing Jesus' words and works and not as something read back into the material by Mark, is the clue to the exposition of the Gospel (Das Evangeliwn nach Markus, 5th imp., 1949, p. 137: this is quite the best commentary on St. Mark known to the present writer). Reference should also be made to the interesting article on a′γaθóς in T.W.Z.N.T., Vol. I, pp. 10 ff., by W. Grundmann.

^{page 306 note 1} John 5.19; cf. 5.30, 8.28, etc. Cf. G. A. Chadwick, op. cit., p. 276.

^{page 306 note 2} Only Commandments of the Second Table are mentioned. Cf. Matt. 7.12, Gal. 5.14, Rom. 13.8 ff. This does not deny the prior importance of the First Table. The Second Table, however, provides the outward and visible test of obedience to the First (cf. Calvin, Institutio, 2.8.52, 53).

^{page 306 note 3} Cf. Schlatter, A., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, reprinted 1947, p. 296Google Scholar; Bonhoeffer, D., The Cost of Discipleship, 1948, p. 64 f.Google Scholar, in the course of a discussion of the Matt, parallel. On the other hand, Lohmeyer defends the legitimacy of the rich man's question (op. cit., pp. 208, 210).

^{page 306 note 4} 2 Kings 5.

^{page 307 note 1} Maclaren, A., Expositions of Holy Scripture, Matthew xviii-xxviii, 2nd ed., p. 51Google Scholar. Cf. Calvin, Institutio, 4.13.13, on this and on the whole pericope.

^{page 307 note 2} Job 31.35–37. Cf. Expository Times, August 1943, p. 297.

^{page 307 note 3} Phil. 3.6.

^{page 307 note 4} Cf. vv. 23 and 27, and 3.5, 34, 5.32, 8.33, 11.11, Luke 22.61, John 1.42.

^{page 308 note 1} Pace Lohmeyer, op. cit., p. 211, note 2. Robinson, op. cit., p. 139, suggests that η′γáπησεν “may mean ‘kissed’—a sign of affectionate approval sometimes bestowed by Rabbis on their pupils”. Lohmeyer reluctantly resists the temptation to render “kissed”, as there is no evidence for this meaning at this time; but renders “herzte” and explains that it means “eine liebkosende Gebärde”. Bengel treated ⋯μβλ⋯ψαs … ⋯λ⋯πησεν as an example of hendiadys and rendered “amanter aspexit”. Both Matt, and Luke omit ⋯μβλ⋯ψαs … ⋯λ⋯πησεν.

^{page 308 note 2} It is suggestive to compare Jesus' handling of this man with God's wrestling with Jacob (Gen. 32.22 ff.) seen in the light of C. Wesley's hymn, “Come, O Thou Traveller unknown” or Calvin's Commentary on Hosea, 12.3 f.

^{page 308 note 3} Luke emphasises the completeness of the surrender by inserting the word π⋯vτα, as J. M. Creed notes ad. loc.

^{page 308 note 4} στγ v ⋯σαν Lohmeyer (p. 212, note 5) compares Isaiah 57.17, Dan. 2.12 in LXX, and also Ezek. 27.35, 28.19 (in Cod. Alex.), 32.10, Wisdom 17.5, and Matt. 16.3.

^{page 309 note 1} So Luther comments on “One thing thou lackest”: “Eines: Das ist, es fehlet dir ganz und gar; denn du willst fromm sein und doch dein Gut nicht lassen um meinetwillen, noch mit mir leiden. Darum ist Mammon gewisslich dein Gott, und hast ihn lieber denn mich” (apud Schniewind ad loc.). This is surely to be preferred to Lohmeyer's interpretation, according to which Jesus is now asking the man to take a last step that leads beyond the Commandments (“über dieses Gesetz hinaus …ein Anderes und Höheres …”—p. 211). So too in the Matt, parallel εὶ θέλειs τέλειos είναι does not imply that this selling all is a supererogatory extra. (Lohmeyer seems inclined to agree as far as the Matt, parallel is concerned, but to think that this has changed the significance of the Markan story—p. 218.)

^{page 309 note 2} Cf. Mark 4.19, Luke 12.13–21, 16.19–31, etc.

^{page 309 note 3} Quoted in Huck's Synopsis, 9th ed. (Engl.), p. 145Google Scholar, and also in James, M. R., The Apocryphal New Testament, 1924, p. 6Google Scholar. I think that a careful consideration this fragment will confirm my suspicion, though I am not quite sure. It is true that in Mark, when Jesus refers the man to the Law, it is only the Second Table which He quotes (see footnote 2, p. 306 above); but my impression is that there is a movement on from the Second Table to the First (to the First Commandment), and this the Gospel according to the Hebrews has missed.

^{page 309 note 4} For Jewish ideas about laying up treasure in heaven by good works and particularly alms-giving cf. Lohmeyer, p. 212, and Strack-Billerbeck, 1.429 ff. Jesus uses the Jewish figure, without intending its “work-righteousness”.

^{page 310 note 1} Cf. D. Bonhoeffer, op. cit.,passim, for a suggestive treatment of what he calls “costly grace”, and in the Gospels such references as Mark 8.34, Matt. 8.18–22.

^{page 310 note 2} The Codex Bezae and some Old Latin MSS. invert the order of verses 24 and 25—presumably with the intention of improving the sense. It is unlikely that they preserve the true order.

^{page 311 note 1} In the OT there are two main attitudes toward riches—one regarding them as the sign of God's favour, a reward for goodness, the other (later) identifying the poor with the pious, the rich with the ungodly.

^{page 311 note 2} A. Maclaren, op. cit., p. 55.

^{page 311 note 3} The addition of the Lake and Ferrar groups, the Byzantine text generally, the Old Latin and Vulgate Latin, the Sinaitic and Peshitta Syriac, and the Bohairic Egyptian looks very much like an attempt to make the saying less drastic.

^{page 311 note 4} What we have here is a humorous instance of the impossible. Cf. Strack and Billerbeck, II.828, and also Matt. 23.24. We need not take seriously the Procrustean efforts of some interpreters either to reduce the camel to a rope (reading κάμιλoν for κάμιλoν—a conjecture going back as far as Theophylact) to enlarge the needle's eye into a postern gate!

^{page 311 note 5} There is a variation in the MSS. between πρὸs αὐτόν and πρὸs ἑαντoὐs in v. a6. Westcott and Hort favour the former, Nestle and Huck the latter.

^{page 311 note 6} Schniewind (op. cit., p. 138) calls it “ein Schliisselwort fiir samtliche sittlichen Weisungen Jesu”.

^{page 312 note 1} Cf. 8.29 and 32, 9.5, 11.21, 13.3.

^{page 312 note 2} emphasises the contrast.

^{page 312 note 3} Cf. Acts 2.44 f., 4.32 ff., 1 Tim. 5.2, Rom. 16.13, Gal. 4.19.

^{page 312 note 4} The addition of πo λλo ísoftens the statement.

^{page 312 note 4} Cf. Luke 6.20–26.

^{page 312 note 6} So in 6.21 means “the chief men of Galilee”.

^{page 312 note 7} This is suggested by the context in which Luke places this saying (Luke 13.22–30).

^{page 312 note 8} Cf. Matt. 21.28–32.

^{page 313 note 1} The present writer is inclined to think that the use of Dante's phrase, “the great refusal”, in connexion with Mark 10.17–22 (e.g. Maclear, op. cit., p. 113; Chadwick, op. cit., p. 281; Rawlinson, op. cit., p. 137; A. M. Hunter, The Gospel according to Saint Mark, 1948, p. 103) may tend to obscure the relevance of the passage to us by removing the rich man into a class by himself as the great refuser. Incidentally it may be noted that “him who through cowardice made the great refusal” (“colui Che fece per vilta lo gran rifiuto”) in Inferno III.59–60 has for centuries been generally identified with Celestine V, the aged hermit who abdicated within a few months of becoming Pope. Other suggestions are Esau and Pilate. But the words “vidi e conobbi” in line 59 would seem to indicate a contemporary of Dante's.

^{page 313 note 2} Judas was one of the Twelve, Paul was not! And Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaea came out into the open in the end.