มาระโก 10:18 วิจารณ์

In this chapter, we have, I. Christ's dispute with the Pharisees concerning divorce (Mar 10:1-12). II. The kind entertainment he gave to the little children that were brought to him to be blessed (Mar 10:13-16). III. His trial of the rich man that enquired what he must do to get to heaven (Mar 10:17-22). IV. His discourse with his disciples, upon that occasion, concerning the peril of riches (Mar 10:23-27), and the advantage of being impoverished for his sake (Mar 10:28-31). V. The repeated notice he gave his disciples of his sufferings and death approaching (Mar 10:32-34). VI. The counsel he gave to James and John, to think of suffering with him, rather than of reigning with him (v. 15-45). VII. The cure of Bartimeus, a poor blind man (Mar 10:46-52). All which passages of story we had the substance of before, Mt. 19 and 20.

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 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.

Thou knowest the commandments,.... Which God gave to Moses on Mount Sinai; these the Jews taught their children; so that this young man might reasonably be thought to know what, and how many they were, though he was ignorant of the extent and spirituality of them; do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, defraud not, honour thy father and mother. In which may be observed, that the strict order in which the commandments stood is not kept; the seventh commandment, "thou shalt not commit adultery", is set before the sixth, "thou shalt not kill"; though the Arabic version places them in their order; and the fifth command, "honour thy father and thy mother", is placed last of all: but a Jew has no reason to object to this, when it is a rule with them, that (c), there is no first nor last in the law; that is, order is not strictly attended to; but sometimes, that which is first is mentioned last, and the last first. There is one precept, "defraud not", wrong no man of his property, either by force or fraud, which none of the other evangelists have. Dr. Hammond, and others, think, that it is an explanation of the tenth command, "thou shalt not covet"; signifying, that a man should be so satisfied with his own condition, as not to desire another's goods, or, by any means, seek to lessen them to enlarge his own. A certain Jew (d) objects against our Lord Jesus, that he did not mention the other precepts in Exo 20:3, by which he seems to mean the precepts of the first table, which respect the unity of God, and his worship, which are of greater moment; to which may be replied, that our Lord does suggest the unity of the Divine Being, and his essential, infinite, and independent goodness, which are the ground and foundation of his fear and worship in the preceding verse; and besides, as Bishop Kidder observes (e), nothing is more common than to put some precepts for the whole; see Mic 6:8; yea, that Jesus may be justified from the Old Testament in this method, as from Psa 15:1, where a question, very like this of the young man, is put; and yet in answer to it we find nothing mentioned but obedience to the second table: to which reply of the learned prelate, may be added, that Christ instances in the commandments of the second table, as being more known, and better understood by this young man; "thou knowest the commandments"; that is, the following ones he mentions: and besides the argument runs strong from the lesser to the greater, which is implied, that if the commands of the second table, which respect the neighbour, are necessary to be observed, then much more those which concern God himself; and if men fail short in keeping the lesser commands, it can hardly be thought they should be perfect in the observance of greater ones; and so consequently, and which is our Lord's drift, eternal life is never to be obtained by the works of the law. (c) T. Bab. Yesachim, fol. 6. 2. (d) R. Jacob Aben Amram, Porta Verit. num. 1026. Apud Kidder's Demonstr. of the Messiah, par. 3. p. 50. (e) Demonstrat. ib. p. 50, 51.

"But," say they, "God is `good, 'and `most good, ' and `pitiful-hearted, 'and `a pitier, 'and `abundant in pitiful-heartedness, ' which He holds `dearer than all sacrifice, ' `not thinking the sinner's death of so much worth as his repentance', `a Saviour of all men, most of all of believers.

They affirm, then, concerning the substance of the seed which is a cause of all existent things, that it is none of these, but that it produces and forms all things that are made, expressing themselves thus: "I become what I wish, and I am what I am: on account of this I say, that what puts all things in motion is itself unmoved. For what exists remains forming all things, and nought of existing things is made." He says that this (one) alone is good, and that what is spoken by the Saviour is declared concerning this (one): "Why do you say that am good? One is good, my Father which is in the heavens, who causeth His sun to rise upon the just and unjust, and sendeth rain upon saints and sinners." But who the saintly ones are on whom He sends the rain, and the sinners on whom the same sends the rain, this likewise we shall afterwards declare with the rest. And this is the great and secret and unknown mystery of the universe, concealed and revealed among the Egyptians. For Osiris, (the Naassene) says, is in temples in front of Isis; and his pudendum stands exposed, looking downwards, and crowned with all its own fruits of things that are made. And (he affirms) that such stands not only in the most hallowed temples chief of idols, but that also, for the information of all, it is as it were a light not set under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, proclaiming its message upon the housetops, in all byways, and all streets, and near the actual dwellings, placed in front as a certain appointed limit and termination of the dwelling, and that this is denominated the good (entity) by all. For they style this good-producing, not knowing what they say. And the Greeks, deriving this mystical (expression) from the Egyptians, preserve it until this day. For we behold, says (the Naassene), statues of Mercury, of such a figure honoured among them.

Marcion, adopting these sentiments, rejected altogether the generation of our Saviour. He considered it to be absurd that tinder the (category of a) creature fashioned by destructive Discord should have been the Logos that was an auxiliary to Friendship-that is, the Good Deity. (His doctrine,) however, was that, independent of birth, (the Logos) Himself descended from above in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and that, as being intermediate between the good and bad Deity, He proceeded to give instruction in the synagogues. For if He is a Mediator, He has been, he says, liberated from the entire nature of the Evil Deity. Now, as he affirms, the Demiurge is evil, and his works. For this reason, he affirms, Jesus came down unbegotten, in order that He might be liberated from all (admixture of) evil. And He has, he says, been liberated from the nature of the Good One likewise, in order that He may be a Mediator, as Paul states, and as Himself acknowledges: "Why call ye me good? there is one good," These, then, are the opinions of Marcion, by means of which he made many his dupes, employing the conclusions of Empedocles. And he transferred the philosophy invented by that (ancient speculator) into his own system of thought, and (out of Empedocles) constructed his (own) impious heresy. But I consider that this has been sufficiently refuted by us, and that I have not omitted any opinion of those who purloin their opinions from the Greeks, and act despitefully towards the disciples of Christ, as if they had become teachers to them of these (tenets). But since it seems that we have sufficiently explained the doctrines of this (heretic), let us see what Carpocrates says.

There is no other secondary goodness existing in the Son than that which is in the Father. So the Savior himself rightly says in the Gospel that “none is good save one, God the Father.” The purpose of this statement is to make it understood that the Son is not of some other ancillary “goodness,” but of that alone which is in the Father; whose image he is rightly called. For he neither springs from any other source than from original goodness itself (if that were so, there would seem to be a different goodness in the Son from that which is in the Father), nor has the goodness that is in him any dissimilarity or divergence from that of the Father. Accordingly we ought not to imagine that there is some kind of blasphemy in the saying that “none is good save one, God the Father.” These words are not to be taken as a denial that either Christ or the Holy Spirit is good. But, as we said before, the original goodness must be believed to reside in God the Father, and from him both the Son and Holy Spirit undoubtedly draw into themselves the nature of that goodness existing in the font from which the one is born and the other proceeds. If then there are any other things called good in the Scriptures such as an angel, or a man, or a servant, or a treasure, or a good heart, or a good tree, all these are so called by an inexact use of the word, since the goodness contained in them is accidental and not essential.

The good, then, is the same as the one who incomparably is. Over against good is evil or wickedness. Over against the one who incomparably is, is merely that which is not. So it follows that evil and corruption are, finally, that which becomes nothing. This, perhaps, is what has led some to affirm that the devil is not created by God. In respect that he is the devil he is not the work of God, but he who is the devil is a created being, and as a creature nonetheless remains a work of God, since there is nothing created that is not created by God. Think of it this way: A murderer is not a work of God insofar as he murders, while we may still say that insofar as he is a human being, God made him.

The rich man called Jesus “good,” as if he were offering him a favor, just as some favor others with honorary titles. [The Lord] fled from that by which people favored him, so that he might show that he had received this goodness from the Father through nature and generation, and not [merely] in name. “Only one is good,” [he said], and did not remain silent, but added, “the Father,” so that he might show that the Son is good in just the way that the Father is good.

He who is by nature God of God must possess the nature of his origin, which God possesses. The indistinguishable unity of a living nature cannot be divided by the birth of a living nature. But the troublers of church unity, under cover of the saving confession of the gospel faith, are subversively trying to take captive the truth by undermining it. By forcing their own interpretations on words spoken with other meanings and intentions, they are robbing the Son of his distinctive unity [with the Father].

A complete understanding of the reply must come from the reason that prompted the question, for the answer will be directed to the matter that led to the inquiry.… He voiced his objection to the title of “good master” in such a way as to challenge the faith of the questioner rather than the designation of himself as a master or as good.

The words, “None is good” are a reply to the young ruler who was testing him and had borne witness to his goodness as a human being. Consummate goodness, he meant, belongs to God alone, though the word “good” can be derivatively applied to human beings.

The question is something like a priest who, while inwardly despising his bishop, yet continues to address him openly as “bishop.” Whereupon the bishop answers, “To you I am not the bishop; you may leave my presence.”

God, therefore, is uniquely good, and this he cannot lose. He is good. He is not good by sharing in any other good, because the good by which he is good is himself. But, when a finite human being is good, his goodness derives from God, because he cannot be his own good. All who become good do so through his Spirit. Our nature has been created to attain to him through acts of its own will. If we are to become good, it is important for us to receive and hold what he gives, who is good in himself.

But Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." Because he had called the teacher good and had not confessed him as God or the Son of God, he learned that, although a holy man, in comparison to God, no one is good, about whom it is said, "Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good" (Psalm 106). However, the one God who is good is not to be understood as the Father alone, but also the Son who says, "I am the good shepherd" (John 10); and also the Holy Spirit, because the Father will give the good Spirit from heaven to those asking him (Luke 11), that is, the one and indivisible Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is the only and one God, who is good. Therefore, the Lord does not deny that he is good, but signifies that he is God; he does not deny that he is a good teacher, but testifies that no teacher is good except God. This is the chastity of youthful innocence, which is set before us to be imitated if we want to enter the kingdom of God. It should indeed be noted that justice, kept to the time of the law, not only conferred the good things of the earth but also eternal life to its practitioners.

(ubi sup.) But by this one God, who is good, we must not only understand the Father, but also the Son, who says, I am the good Shepherd; (John 10:11) and also the Holy Ghost, because it is said, The Father which is in heaven will give the good Spirit to them that ask him. (Luke 2:15. Vulg.) For the One and Undivided Trinity itself, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is the Only and One good God. The Lord, therefore, does not deny Himself to be good, but implies that He is God; He does not deny that He is good Master, but He declares that no master is good but God.

And why did Christ answer him thus: "No one is good"? Because he approached Christ as a mere man and as one of many teachers. Christ speaks as if to say: "If you consider Me good as a mere teacher, then in comparison with God no man is good; if you acknowledge Me as good as God, then why do you call Me merely a teacher?" By such words Christ wishes to convey a higher understanding of Himself, so that the man might recognize Him as God. Moreover, for the correction of the young man, the Lord also gives him another lesson: if he wishes to converse with someone, he should speak without flattery, and should know the one root and source of goodness to be God alone, and render Him due honor.

Therefore the Lord intended by these words to raise the mind of the young man, so that he might know Him to be God. But He also implies another thing by these words, that when you have to converse with a man, you should not flatter him in your conversation, but look back upon God, the root and fount of goodness, and do honour to Him.

The Pharisees question our Lord concerning divorce, Mar 10:1-12. Little children are brought to him, Mar 10:13-16. The person who inquired how he might inherit eternal life, Mar 10:17-22. How difficult it is for a rich man to be saved, Mar 10:23-27. What they shall receive who have left all for Christ and his Gospel, Mar 10:28-31. He foretells his death, Mar 10:32-34. James and John desire places of pre-eminence in Christ's kingdom, Mar 10:35-41. Christ shows them the necessity of humility, Mar 10:42-46. Blind Bartimeus healed, Mar 10:46-52.

THE BARREN FIG TREE CURSED WITH LESSONS FROM IT--SECOND CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE, ON THE SECOND AND THIRD DAYS OF THE WEEK. ( = Mat 21:12-22; Luk 19:45-48). (Mark 11:11-26) And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon--surveyed. all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out into Bethany with the twelve--Thus briefly does our Evangelist dispose of this His first day in Jerusalem, after the triumphal entry. Nor do the Third and Fourth Gospels give us more light. But from Matthew (Mat 21:10-11, Mat 21:14-16) we learn some additional and precious particulars, for which see on Luk 19:45-48. It was not now safe for the Lord to sleep in the city, nor, from the day of His Triumphal Entry, did He pass one night in it, save the last fatal one. The Barren Fig Tree Cursed (Mar 11:12-14).