The Petition of James and John

St Mark Chapter X : Verses 35-45

[35] And James and John the sons of Zebedee, come to him, saying: Master, we desire that whatsoever we shall ask, thou wouldst do it for us:

[36] But he said to them: What would you that I should do for you? 

[37] And they said: Grant to us, that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory. 

[38] And Jesus said to them: You know not what you ask. Can you drink of the chalice that I drink of: or be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized? 

[39] But they said to him: We can. And Jesus saith to them: You shall indeed drink of the chalice that I drink of: and with the baptism wherewith I am baptized, you shall be baptized.

[40] But to sit on my right hand, or on my left, is not mine to give to you, but to them for whom it is prepared.

[41] And the ten hearing it, began to be much displeased at James and John. 

[42] But Jesus calling them, saith to them: You know that they who seem to rule over the Gentiles, lord it over them: and their princes have power over them. 

[43] But it is not so among you: but whosoever will be greater, shall be your minister. 

[44] And whosoever will be first among you, shall be the servant of all. 

[45] For the Son of man also is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many.

[35] Et accedunt ad eum Jacobus et Joannes filii Zebedaei, dicentes : Magister, volumus ut quodcumque petierimus, facias nobis. [36] At ille dixit eis : Quid vultis ut faciam vobis? [37] Et dixerunt : Da nobis ut unus ad dexteram tuam, et alius ad sinistram tuam sedeamus in gloria tua. [38] Jesus autem ait eis : Nescitis quid petatis : potestis bibere calicem, quem ego bibo, aut baptismo, quo ego baptizor, baptizari? [39] At illi dixerunt ei : Possumus. Jesus autem ait eis : Calicem quidem, quem ego bibo, bibetis; et baptismo, quo ego baptizor, baptizabimini : [40] sedere autem ad dexteram meam, vel ad sinistram, non est meum dare vobis, sed quibus paratum est. [41] Et audientes decem, coeperunt indignari de Jacobo et Joanne. [42] Jesus autem vocans eos, ait illis : Scitis quia hi, qui videntur principari gentibus, dominantur eis : et principes eorum potestatem habent ipsorum. [43] Non ita est autem in vobis, sed quicumque voluerit fieri major, erit vester minister : [44] et quicumque voluerit in vobis primus esse, erit omnium servus. [45] Nam et Filius hominis non venit ut ministraretur ei, sed ut ministraret, et daret animam suam redemptionem pro multis.

Notes

Family tree showing St James and St John.

    35. James and John .... come to him. St Matthew adds, “ Then came to him the mother of the sons of Zebedee with her sons ” (xx. 20). Her name was Salome, as we see from two parallel passages of the gospels.

    Among whom was Mary Magdalene , and Mary the mother of James and Joseph , and the mother of the sons of Zebedee (St Matt, xxvii. 56).

    And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene , and Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, and Salome (St Mark xv. 40). Salome is here clearly identified with the mother of the sons of Zebedee. She was one of the band of devoted women who followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto Him. When she stood afar off gazing on our Lord on the cross, she must have realized the folly of her petition. As she is generally referred to as the mother of the sons of Zebedee, we may conclude that Zebedee was dead. St Matthew adds that she “ came adoring and asking something of him.” The word “ adoring ” signifies the act of homage used by Orientals when addressing a king.

    Master = rabbi.

    we desire, etc. They dare not immediately present their request, but wish to obtain a formal promise of compliance first.

    37. one on thy right hand, etc. In these words they ask for the highest places of honour in Christ’s Messianic kingdom. Christ had promised that the Twelve should sit “ on twelve thrones,” and these two disciples in their ambition, ask that their thrones or seats may be nearest to His. Possibly they were jealous of St Peter.

    38. You know not what you ask. They knew not what suffering this would entail. There is an accent of tenderness in our Lord’s answer. He foresaw the “ cup ” of which these two disciples would drink.

    Can you drink of the chalice, etc. Our Lord speaks figuratively. The disciples would, from their familiarity with the Old Testament, know that the “ chalice ” was a symbol either of good or evil fortune, but He evidently refers here to His sufferings, since in His agony in Gethsemani He speaks of His Passion as the chalice presented to Him by His Father. The “chalice ” was also an allusion to the Hebrew feasts, where the father of the family filled with wine the cup of each one present.

    the baptism. This word expresses much the same thought. It represents the afflictions which were to overwhelm our Lord. It especially referred to His Crucifixion, by which Jesus was to pass to His glorious life.

    39. We can. The promise was a rash one, as their conduct proved at the time of the Passion, when his disciples , leaving him , all fled away (St Mark xiv. 50). Still it shewed a certain devotedness and willingness on their part. “It is the first expression on the part of the Apostles that they are prepared to suffer with Christ.”

    You shall indeed, etc. In the case of St James this prediction was fulfilled when Herod the king stretched forth his hands to afflict some of the church , and he killed James , the brother of John with the sword (Acts xii. 1, 2). He was the first apostle who shed his blood for Christ. As regards St John, the prediction was accomplished when he was scourged (see Acts v. 40), and when, as St Jerome relates, he was, by order of Domitian, plunged into a cauldron of boiling oil, from which he emerged uninjured. Afterwards St John was banished to Patmos, where he remained until the accession of Nerva. He closed his days at Ephesus. (See Biog. Notes, p. 72.) St John was “a martyr in will but not in deed,” owing to a miraculous interposition of Divine power.

    40. is not mine to give, etc. These words mean that Jesus could not give places of honour arbitrarily like an Eastern monarch : the place in His kingdom would be given by His Father, to those for whom they were destined, i.e. who had merited them. These places of honour, He goes on to explain, are reserved for those who humble themselves ; for him who shall be the servant of all. On another occasion Christ also refers to the place, on the right hand, as being the reward of acts of charity and humble service performed for His sake. Then shall the King say to them that be on his right hand ; Come ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat : I was thirsty , and you gave me to drink : I was a stranger, and you took me in (St Matt. xxv. 34, 35, etc.).

    not mine. Might also mean not mine as man, without reference to my Father’s providence and ordination ( MacEvilly ).

    to you. These words are not found in the original text.

    41. the ten hearing it. Some commentators are of opinion that St James and St John proffered their request in the presence of the Ten. Others think that they came secretly to our Lord, and that the Ten came to hear of it. The two opinions may be reconciled by supposing that the other apostles were at some little distance when Salome with her sons approached our Lord, that they saw by their attitude that she was asking some favour. When they learned what she had requested they were moved with indignation against the two brethren (St Matt. xx. 24).

    began to be much displeased. Evidently they were reproaching James and John for their ambitious request.

    42. Jesus calling them , saith. Our Lord stopped the strife by calling them all to Him. The Ten had by their anger shewn their own ambition, hence all were guilty of the same fault.

    they who seem to rule. Those who profess to exercise authority.

    lord it over them. Tyrannise over their inferiors.

    43. it is not so among you. Christ’s kingdom does not resemble the court of an Eastern potentate, where each seeks to advance himself.

    44. whosoever will be first, etc. Once more Jesus repeats the lesson of humility which His disciples were so slow to learn.

    45. the Son of man also is not come, etc. Jesus refers to His own example.

    a redemption : a ransom, the price paid to redeem a captive.

    for many, — i.e. for all those who shall be saved, and thus profit by our Lord’s Redemption. Christ indeed died for all, as is clear from the following text : — And He is the propitiation for our sins ; and not for ours only , but also for those of the whole world (1 St John ii. 2). Many other passages might be cited to prove the universality of the Redemption (cf. 1 Tim. ii. 6 ; St John i. 29), but all will not accept the ransom offered for them.

Additional Notes

    The petitioners. St Mark tells us that St James and St John addressed the petition to our Lord. St Matthew says it was made by Salome. Jesus answered the sons, who made the preliminary request — “ Master, we desire,” etc. Possibly “the mother expressed the silent wish of the sons, or the two sons expressly deputed their mother to intercede for them” (Maas, S.J.). Perhaps they imagined that the petition, if presented by Salome, would be less likely to arouse the anger and indignation of the Ten, and there was, doubtless, a certain jealousy of St Peter, in their souls.

    Previous favours conferred on St James and St John. Both had, with St Peter, been singled out as witnesses of the raising of Jairus’ daughter and of the Transfiguration. St John was known as “ the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Jesus had given them the name “Sons of Thunder,” and He had promised to them, as to the other Apostles, “ when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (St Matt. xix. 28).

    37. in thy glory. It is doubtful what the Apostles meant by this expression, but since our Lord had just spoken of His death, and prophesied that after three days He should rise again, they may have imagined that His Resurrection would be followed by a reign of temporal greatness and magnificence, and in this earthly kingdom of the Messias, they desired to have the first places. That the Apostles, up to the last moment that Christ remained on earth, had this mistaken idea, may be seen from their question on Ascension day as they journeyed to Bethania: ‘‘Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel ? ” (Acts i. 6).

    38. The Chalice; the Baptism. The Apostles were familiar with the Old Testament, where the expression ‘‘ chalice ” or ‘‘ cup ” is frequently employed, both in a good and in a bad sense. Thus the Psalmist, speaking in the fulness of his soul, cries out, “my chalice which inebriateth me, how goodly is it !” (Ps. xxii. 5). And again, “I will take the chalice of salvation : and I will call upon the name of the Lord” (Ps. cxv. 13). On the other hand, the expression is oftener employed as signifying misfortune ; thus we read of “the cup of his wrath” (Is. li. 17). “The cup of dead sleep,” “the cup of my indignation” (ver. 22).

    Evidently the Apostles realized that our Lord was using the word in the latter sense, since it would have required no effort on their part to have shared Christ’s triumph. The word “ baptism ” used thus figuratively, would be less familiar to them, yet Jesus had often employed the word. Those who had been disciples of St John the Baptist had often seen their master baptize (or “ plunge in the deep,” as the word signifies) those who came out to him confessing their sins. Although the two so readily agreed to accept the conditions, on which the first place in the kingdom of God was promised, yet their subsequent behaviour shewed that their good will exceeded their courage. St John shewed himself the bravest of all the Apostles on the day of the Crucifixion. The learned John Lightfoot, speaking on this verse, says: “So cruel a thing was the baptism of the Jews, being a plunging of the whole body into water, when it was never so much chilled with ice and snow, that not without cause, partly by reason of the burying under water (as I may call it) and partly by reason of the cold, it used to signify the most cruel kind of death” (Exercitations on St Matt., p. 269).

Totus tuus ego sum

Et omnia mea tua sunt;

Tecum semper tutus sum:

Ad Jesum per Mariam.

Christ's prediction of His Passion

St Mark Chapter X : Verses 32-34

The Crucifixion. J-J Tissot.

[32] And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem: and Jesus went before them, and they were astonished; and following were afraid. And taking again the twelve, he began to tell them the things that should befall him. 

[33] Saying: Behold we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be betrayed to the chief priests, and to the scribes and ancients, and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles. 

[34] And they shall mock him, and spit on him, and scourge him, and kill him: and the third day he shall rise again. 

[32] Erant autem in via ascendentes Jerosolymam : et praecedebat illos Jesus, et stupebant : et sequentes timebant. Et assumens iterum duodecim, coepit illis dicere quae essent ei eventura. [33] Quia ecce ascendimus Jerosolymam, et Filius hominis tradetur principibus sacerdotum, et scribis, et senioribus, et damnabunt eum morte, et tradent eum gentibus : [34] et illudent ei, et conspuent eum, et flagellabunt eum, et interficient eum : et tertia die resurget.

Notes

    32. they were in the way going up to Jerusalem. Since we read in verse 17 of Jesus having gone forth into the way, we may conclude that He and His disciples had descended the road that led from Ephrem (whither He had retired after the resurrection of Lazarus), and that they were now on the highway which led to Jerusalem, and must needs pass Jericho on their way. Our Lord may have gone direct to Jericho from Ephraim, or He may have returned to Perea and then re-crossed the Jordan at the Fords, just opposite Jericho, and so joined the caravan of pilgrims on their journey to Jerusalem.

    Jesus went before them. He led them, contrary to His usual custom of sending some of the Apostles to prepare the people for His coming. He was urged on by His desire to redeem mankind. I have a baptism, wherewith I am to be baptized : and how am I straitened until it be accomplished ? (St Luke xii. 50).

    they were astonished. Possibly our Lord’s majesty of demeanour and His saddened countenance awed them. They were also astonished to see our Lord thus boldly going up to Jerusalem, since a short time before the Sanhedrin had devised to put him to death. Wherefore Jesus walked no more openly among the Jews, but he went into a country near the desert, unto a city that is. called Ephrem , and there he abode with his disciples (St John xi. 53, 54). The Apostles knew also that the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment that if any man knew where he was, he should tell, that they might apprehend him (xi. 56). As they did not realize that the sufferings of which Christ spoke were literally to be undergone, they wondered that He should go so openly to Jerusalem, when the high priests had formally excommunicated Him.

    following were afraid: better, those that followed were afraid. It would seem as though there were others besides the Twelve ; for example, some of the seventy disciples and the holy women who ministered to Jesus and His Apostles. Hence we may represent Jesus walking alone, along the highway that led through the valley, the Apostles astonished follow Him at a distance, and behind them the disciples, who following were afraid. As when He left Galilee, “ he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, ” so He performed the last stage of the journey, “ for the days of his assumption ” were now very close at hand.

    taking again : calling them up to Him, after He had walked on for some time in silence.

    the twelve. They alone were privileged to hear our Lord’s predictions.

    the things that should befall him : as He had previously done on three other occasions —

    (1) After St Peter’s Confession of Faith (viii. 31).

    (2) After the Transfiguration (ix. 11).

    (3) When passing through Galilee (ix. 30).

    The disciples, however, understood none of these things and this word was hid from them (St Luke xviii. 34) once again. This time our Lord speaks more plainly, and reveals the time, place, and circumstances.

    33. Behold. Jesus calls attention to what is shortly to take place.

    we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man. The Crucifixion is to take place at the end of their journey and in Jerusalem, and it is to take place in fulfilment of the prophecies, in order that all things shall be accomplished which were written (St Luke xviii. 31).

    shall be betrayed: by one of His own Apostles, but Jesus does not reveal the name.

    to the chief priests .... scribes and ancients : to the Sanhedrin, the ecclesiastical court.

    they shall condemn him to death. The Jews, His own people, will deem Him worthy of death. How this prophecy should have come back to the memory of St Peter and St John when in the hall of Caiphas they heard the cry He is guilty of death (St Matt. xxvi. 66).

    shall deliver him, to the gentiles , — i.e. to the Romans, The sceptre had passed away from Judah. The Israelites were no longer free to execute the death sentence. Pilate himself said to our Lord, Thy own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee up to me (St John xviii. 35).

    34. mock him , spit on him , and scourge him. Jesus gives all the details of His Passion. St Mark gives the fulfilment of each prophecy.

    And after they had mocked him they took off the purple from him (xv. 20).

    And they did spit on him (19).

    Pilate .... delivered up Jesus when he had scourged him , to be crucified ( 1 5).

    kill him. St Matthew has, they .... shall deliver him to the gentiles . ... to be crucified (xx. 19). The awful mode of death is at last revealed.

    the third day he shall rise again. Another clear prediction concerning the Resurrection. “As the sun breaks through dark clouds, so does this promise here shed its blessed light.”

Totus tuus ego sum

Et omnia mea tua sunt;

Tecum semper tutus sum:

Ad Jesum per Mariam.

The rich young ruler; discourse concerning riches

St Mark Chapter X : Verses 17-31

The rich man ... went away sorrowful. J-J Tissot.

[17] And when he was gone forth into the way, a certain man running up and kneeling before him, asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may receive life everlasting? 

[18] And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God. 

[19] Thou knowest the commandments: Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, bear not false witness, do no fraud, honour thy father and mother. 

[20] But he answering, said to him: Master, all these things I have observed from my youth.

[21] And Jesus looking on him, loved him, and said to him: One thing is wanting unto thee: go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me. 

[22] Who being struck sad at that saying, went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 

[23] And Jesus looking round about, saith to his disciples: How hardly shall they that have riches, enter into the kingdom of God! 

[24] And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus again answering, saith to them: Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches, to enter into the kingdom of God? 

[25] It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

[26] Who wondered the more, saying among themselves: Who then can be saved? 

[27] And Jesus looking on them, saith: With men it is impossible; but not with God: for all things are possible with God. 

[28] And Peter began to say unto him: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed thee. 

[29] Jesus answering, said: Amen I say to you, there is no man who hath left house or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, [30] Who shall not receive an hundred times as much, now in this time; houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions: and in the world to come life everlasting.

[31] But many that are first, shall be last: and the last, first.

[17] Et cum egressus esset in viam, procurrens quidam genu flexo ante eum, rogabat eum : Magister bone, quid faciam ut vitam aeternam percipiam? [18] Jesus autem dixit ei : Quid me dicis bonum? nemo bonus, nisi unus Deus. [19] Praecepta nosti : ne adulteres, ne occidas, ne fureris, ne falsum testimonium dixeris, ne fraudum feceris, honora patrem tuum et matrem. [20] At ille respondens, ait illi : Magister, haec omnia observavi a juventute mea. [21] Jesus autem intuitus eum, dilexit eum, et dixit ei : Unum tibi deest : vade, quaecumque habes vende, et da pauperibus, et habebis thesaurum in caelo : et veni, sequere me. [22] Qui contristatus in verbo, abiit moerens : erat enim habens multas possessiones. [23] Et circumspiciens Jesus, ait discipulis suis : Quam difficile qui pecunias habent, in regnum Dei introibunt! [24] Discipuli autem obstupescebant in verbis ejus. At Jesus rursus respondens ait illis : Filioli, quam difficile est, confidentes in pecuniis, in regnum Dei introire! [25] Facilius est camelum per foramen acus transire, quam divitem intrare in regnum Dei. [26] Qui magis admirabantur, dicentes ad semetipsos : Et quis potest salvus fieri? [27] Et intuens illos Jesus, ait : Apud homines impossibile est, sed non apud Deum : omnia enim possibilia sunt apud Deum. [28] Et coepit ei Petrus dicere : Ecce nos dimisimus omnia, et secuti sumus te. [29] Respondens Jesus, ait : Amen dico vobis : Nemo est qui reliquerit domum, aut fratres, aut sorores, aut patrem, aut matrem, aut filios, aut agros propter me et propter Evangelium, [30] qui non accipiat centies tantum, nunc in tempore hoc : domos, et fratres, et sorores, et matres, et filios, et agros, cum persecutionibus, et in saeculo futuro vitam aeternam. [31] Multi autem erunt primi novissimi, et novissimi primi.

'

Notes

    17. forth into the way. Jesus went forth from the house in which He had blessed the children, and apparently set forth on his last journey towards Bethania.

    a certain man. St Luke tells us he was a ruler, and St Matthew calls him a young man. He was therefore either one of the heads of the synagogue or a member of the Sanhedrin. As the “ Rulers ” were mostly men of a certain age, though not necessarily “ old men,” it is more likely that he belonged to the Sanhedrin. Only men of irreproachable morals and of personal wealth and influence were elected to this office.

    running up : in his eagerness not to miss meeting our Lord.

    kneeling before him. Literally, falling at his knees ; possibly the young man kissed our Lord’s feet. This was a usual mark of honour among the Jews. Thus in 4 Kings (iv. 27) we are told that when the Sunamitess came to the man of God, Eliseus , to the mount, she caught hold on his feet.

    Good Master , what shall I do, etc. St Matthew has “ what good should I do” The ruler, accustomed to the minute observances and rigid formality of the Pharisees, probably expected our Lord to impose some such practice. On a previous occasion, a certain lawyer stood up tempting him , and saying , Master , what must I do to possess eternal life ?                     (St Luke x. 25), but this scribe had very imperfect dispositions.

    18. Why callest thou me good ? etc. Jesus answers as though He would lead the ruler to think further. Since he called Jesus good, and “ only one is good, God ” (St Matt. xix. 17), it looks as though our Lord would have the young man recognize Him as God, or else omit the superficial use of the word “ good ” This reply of our Lord is not discouraging, since He immediately answers the question.

    19. Thou knowest the commandments. The Jews were taught that the keeping of the commandments was the means of salvation. Jesus Himself, speaking of the first and great commandment, said to the scribe, this do and thou shalt live (St Luke x. 28) ; and to the young ruler he repeats the same truth, if thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments (St Matt. xix. 17). The ruler, in reply, asked, which ? Jesus pointed out that not one, but all were to be observed.

    Do not commit adultery, etc. Our Lord only quotes the commandments concerning our duty towards our neighbour. He omits to mention the ninth and tenth, since these are respectively included in the sixth and seventh.

    20. Master: literally Rabbi or Teacher. The man omits the adjective “ good ” now.

    all these things I have observed, etc. Evidently the young man merely intended to state that he had always endeavoured to keep the Law, although his refusal to follow Christ and to give up his possessions shewed that he was far from keeping the first and greatest commandment, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart (St Luke x. 27). Had he been inordinately self-righteous, Jesus would not have looked on him with so much love. Had the young man not felt dissatisfied with his spiritual state he would not have asked, What is yet wanting to one ? (St Matt. xix. 20).

    21. Jesus looking on him, loved him. Our dear Lord seems to have gazed intently on the young man, as though He would win him by that look of love. As perfect man, Jesus had human sympathies ; thus St John was the beloved disciple, and our Lord “ loved ” Lazarus and his sisters. As God He has, over and above, an infinite love for all His creatures. St Mark alone records this look of love ; possibly Jesus showed His love by some exterior mark of affection, such as the kiss on the forehead which Rabbis were accustomed to give to those pupils whom they especially favoured. Thus Simeon the Just kissed one of his pupils who had greatly pleased him and said, “ O son, may such as you be multiplied in Israel.”

    One thing is wanting, etc. This was a crucial test, which revealed to the young man how imperfectly he had kept the commandments. In St Matthew we read that Jesus prefaced those words with, If thou wilt be perfect. It was a counsel, not a precept. The ruler willed the end, but had not the courage to take the means. Possibly our Lord saw that his attachment to worldly possessions was endangering his salvation. Riches are not an evil to those who use them well, but they are a terrible temptation to those who abuse them.

    sell whatsoever thou hast ; in order not to be involved in worldly matters, Which are incompatible with apostolic life. In like manner monks and nuns, when they take a vow of poverty, give up the power of disposing of their goods except with the permission of their legitimate superiors, but in view of the difficulties which have arisen with the different Governments where the property of religious has been confiscated, in most religious houses the members no longer renounce their rights as proprietors. Many of the primitive Christians took these words of our Lord literally, as we learn from Acts iv. 34, 35. They did this in the generosity of their hearts and the glow of their first fervour. That this was not exacted of them, we gather from St Peter’s words to Ananias, Whilst it remained , did it not remain to thee ? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power ? (Acts v. 4).

    give to the poor. Not necessarily distributing it freely and indiscriminately, but devoting it in some way to their use.

    thou shalt have treasure in heaven. A repetition of the beatitude, Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (St Matt, v. 3). Jesus here promises a rich reward to those who renounce all, but the ruler was unwilling “ to give earth to purchase heaven.”

    come, follow me. This was an invitation to an apostolic life, a special call to a life of poverty and obedience to Christ, and a call which necessarily included celibacy. This verse, if it did not persuade the rich young ruler to follow Christ, has been the means of peopling numerous religious houses with consecrated souls. Far down the ages, Jesus must have seen in spirit, Francis of Assisi hearing these words read in church and obeying them to the letter.

    22. struck sad : literally “ with a clouded visage.” Our Lord’s words were a revelation to him. lie had not the courage to follow, but made what Dante calls “ the great refusal.”

    went away sorrowful. We are not told if he ever repented of his refusal, but we have no right to infer that he did not obtain eternal life, since many who are capable of observing the commandments cannot rise to the counsels. Most certainly it was cowardly and possibly dangerous on his part to refuse our Lord’s invitation. He had Christ’s assurance that by keeping the commandments he could enter into life, but the question is, could he with his love of wealth continue to use without abusing it ?

    for: this gives the grounds of his refusal, because he had great possessions, which he preferred to treasure in heaven .

    Note I.— St Mark alone gives the following details of this incident—

        (a) The young ruler came running up, and kneeling (verse 17).

        (b) Do no fraud (verse 19).

        (c) Jesus “ looked” on him and “loved ” him.

    Note II. — From this narrative we should learn —

        (1) To give up all for Christ, if we feel ourselves called to religious life.

        (2) To sacrifice whatever is a hindrance to our eternal salvation.

    23. Jesus looking round about. Three times, in relating this one

incident, St Mark records a “ look ” of our Lord —

    (а) Jesus looking on him loved him (verse 21).

    (b) Jesus looking round about saith to his disciples (verse 23).

    (c) Jestus looking on them saith, “ with men," etc. (verse 27).

    The first betokened love, the second sadness, the third encouragement. The “look” of Jesus, like His every word, had a deep meaning, and generally signified a strong affection for the one on whom He thus gazed. Thus we read that when He appointed St Peter to be the Head of the Church, Jesus looking upon him said: — Thou art Simon the son of Jona, thou shalt be called Cephas (St John i. 42); and again, when Peter had denied his Master, the Lord turning looked on Peter (St Luke xxii. 61).

    How hardly : with what difficulty.

    shall they that have riches, etc. : not because riches are sinful in themselves, but because they are often a very great temptation to many, since —

    (a) With them are procured so many pleasures and comforts which attach the soul to earth.

    (b) Men are apt to trust in riches rather than in God.

    (c) They foster pride, laziness, and other vices.

    (d) Those who possess them are often unjust stewards, and thereby incur condemnation.

    (e) To acquire or keep them, men frequently commit great sins; thus when men lose their wealth, they often give way to despair.

    It is the love of riches that ruins souls ; hence the poorest miser, whose only ambition it is to amass money, is in danger of losing heaven, as well as the man who clings to his millions.

    kingdom of God : the heavenly kingdom.

    24. the disciples were astonished at his words: because they were so contrary to their ideas. Possibly they were accustomed to hear the Rabbinical teaching on poverty. According to their doctrine, it was worse than all the plagues of Egypt collectively, the greatest misfortune that could befall a man, it was an affliction which rendered life intolerable, and he who was poor ought to be numbered among the dead (Edersheim ). Possibly, too, the disciples had little hopes that a kingdom founded on poverty, such as their Master taught and practised, could ever succeed.

    Jesus again answering. Our Lord replied to the question which was implied in their astonishment. Before formally asking the question, Who then can be saved ? (St Matt. xix. 25), they wondered very much.

    Children : words full of love and tenderness. Jesus realised how much His disciples had to learn, and how repugnant these doctrines were to their previous instructions and preconceptions. Jesus softens the hard saying by His tenderness, but He does not retract it.

    for them that trust in riches. In the two most important MSS., the Sinaitic and the Vatican, these words are not found, and the text runs, How hard is it to enter into the kingdom of God. It is very probable, considering how many MSS. omit these words, that they have crept into the text from some marginal annotation. The other Synoptists do not give this modification. The sense, however, is quite in accordance with Scripture, since both for those who trust in riches and for all others the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence , and the violent bear it away (St Matt. xi. 12).

    25. It is easier for a camel, etc. These words were doubtless familiar to the Jews. They shew how impossible it is for a man who loves riches inordinately, to save his soul. A like proverb is found in the Talmud concerning an elephant. Thus two Rabbis were disputing, and one of them asserted “ something that was incongruous, ” to which the other replied, “ Perhaps thou art one of those .... who can make an elephant pass through the eye of a needle, “ that is ... . who speak things that are impossible (Lightfoot’s Horcæ Hebraiccæ).

    Some commentators have understood “ camel ” to stand in the original for “ camilon,” an anclior-rope ; others take “ needle ” as a side gate for foot passengers, which in the East generally stands close to the principal entrance to a city ; but there is no good authority for such interpretations, especially as many such proverbs are found in the Talmud, and also in Holy Scripture, e.g. Sand and salt and a mass of iron is easier to bear than a man without sense , that is both foolish and wicked (Eccles. xxii. 18).

    26. Who wondered the more. Like the words of our Lord concerning His Passion, the disciples could not grasp this truth at once. False preconceptions are difficult to remove, and they cause dulness of apprehension.

    saying among themselves : but in our Lord’s hearing, as we learn from St Luke xviii. 26.

    Who then can be saved ? The disciples’ thoughts seem to pass from the one case under consideration, i.e. that of a rich man, to the difficulty of salvation for all men.

    27. With men it is impossible, etc. God can give the necessary graces to surmount the many obstacles that impede our journey along “ the narrow road.”

    28. Peter began to say. As usual, St Peter is spokesman for the rest.

we have left all things : tlie Apostles had done what the young man had refused to do ; although their all merely consisted of their nets and poor homes, yet these were as dear to them as the palace is to the rich man.

and have followed thee. St Peter goes on to ask, “ What therefore shall we have ? ” Evidently he is comparing their case with that of the rich young ruler, who was promised treasure in heaven if he complied with our Lord’s invitation. In answer to this question, St Matt, quotes a fuller answer of our Lord than the other Apostles. Amen I say to you , that you who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty , you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel (St Matt. xix. 28). These words are addressed to all the Apostles.

    29. there is no man, etc. Our Lord passes now to a general case, the reward of one, not necessarily an apostle, who had left all for Christ’s sake, and for the Gospel.

    brethren, sisters , etc. St Matthew and St Luke add “ or wife”

    30. an hundred times as much, now in this time : . brethren, etc.

This is to be understood as spiritual blessings ; — interior peace and joy. In the same way, the terms brethren, sisters, father, mother, children, refer to those spiritual relationships which exist between the members of a religious community, their relations with their spiritual superiors and the tie that binds the convert to his spiritual father in Christ. All the Apostles had given up their relations to follow Christ. St Peter left his wife, St James and St John left their parents, etc.

    with persecutions. Jesus does not conceal the hardships that awaited them. Persecution must come from the world, whose teaching and principles are utterly repudiated by him who renounces all for Christ. Our Lord would have us look on persecutions as a blessing, since He says, Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice sake : for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you untruly, for my sake ; Be glad, and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven (St Matt. v. 10,

11,12).

    in the world to come life everlasting : the eternal reward.

    31. Many that are first, etc. This text has been variously interpreted —

    (1) Many who are first on earth will be last in heaven.

    (2) Some who were first called will fail to persevere, while others who enter Christ’s service later will receive the eternal reward. Thus Judas forfeited his crown, and Saul the persecutor became a devoted apostle.

    (3) Our salvation depends not only on our obeying the call of God, but on our perseverance in so doing.

    Note. — St Mark omits the Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard, by which (v. 31) many that are first, etc. is illustrated.

Additional Notes

The rich young ruler

    19. Thou knowest the commandments. We notice that our Lord, in answer to the ruler, quotes only the commandments of the 2nd Table, which concern our duty to our neighbour. Possibly He did this because —

    (a) The love of our neighbour is the crucial test of our love of God.

    (b) No man can observe the commandments respecting his neighbour from a proper motive, without observing the commandments of the 1st Table, for, as St John says, “If any man say, I love God, and hateth his brother : he is a liar. For he that loveth not his brother whom he seeth, how can he love God, whom he seeth not” (1 St John iv. 20).

    21. sell whatsoever thou hast , and give to the poor. The Pharisees were very strict theoretically as regards almsgiving. They taught that, according to the Law, all Jews were bound to shew mercy. As regards personal help ( i.e . “ bodily labour ”) no special measure was prescribed, but as regards money we find it stated in the Talmud that a man was bound to give one-fifth of his income to the poor. If he did more it was done “ out of extraordinary devotion.” It is not probable that many Jews observed this rule, since the Pharisee in the Temple boasted that he gave one-tenth of his income, and evidently considered this great generosity. The law of Moses does not specify any particular portion to be given in alms. In the “ Gemara,” a certain Rabbi Ishbab is mentioned as having distributed all his worldly possessions to the poor (see Lightfoot, Iloroe Hebraicoe, p. 264).

    On the Evangelical Counsels.

    We notice in the conversation between our Lord and the ruler that two distinct questions were asked and answered.

                            Questions.

        1. “ Good master, what shall I do that I may receive life everlasting ?” (St Mark x. 17).

        2. “ What is yet wanting to me ? ” (St Matt. xix. 20).

                            Answers.

        1. “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments” (St Matt. xix. 17).

        2. “ If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell what thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven ; and come follow me ” (St Matt. xix. 21).

    Here we see two goals indicated, and two rewards specified. To the simple observance of the commandments is awarded “ eternal life,” to that of the counsels is promised “ treasure in heaven.” There is a distinct line drawn between commandments and counsels. The former are binding for all, under pain of sin and loss of heaven, whereas the latter do not bind under pain of sin, and are only for those who “ can take ” them. The object of the Evangelical Counsels is to detach those who follow them, from the things of earth, that they may the more easily secure eternal life and spiritual “ treasures in heaven.” The practising of these, is eminently fitted to this end, since they are opposed to the triple concupiscence which endangers our salvation. Thus we see that —

    Poverty , by delivering us from earth’s riches, helps us to resist “ the concupiscence of the eyes” (1 St John ii. 16).

    Chastity, by the renunciation of sensual pleasures, delivers us from “ the concupiscence of the flesh.”

    Obedience, by binding us to a life of humble submission to our lawful superiors, frees us from “ the pride of life.” 

The order in which these counsels are placed, is an ascending scale, since the religious by his —

    (a) vow of Poverty, sacrifices earthly possessions.

    (b) vow of Chastity, he sacrifices bodily pleasures.

    (c) vow of Obedience, he sacrifices his will and intellect.

    

The Church approves of Religious Orders. From the earliest ages it was customary to dedicate virgins to God, and the life of the hermit was the first form of religious life. No Catholic can condemn the establishment of Religious Orders without condemning the practice of the Infallible Church, that is guided by the Holy Ghost. Two objections are frequently brought against Religious Orders and Congregations by non-Catholics : —

    (1) Since we cannot even keep the commandments perfectly, is it not folly to aim at anything higher ? No, because by aiming at what is more perfect, i.e. the Counsels, we are the better enabled to observe the less perfect — the Commandments. Again, just as for many a man, total abstinence from intoxicating liquors is the only safeguard from drunkenness, so practising the counsels is for many the only means of salvation. Lastly, certain apostolic labours can only be successfully accomplished, by those who have left all for Christ, since they involve a mode of life, which is impracticable for those who have social ties.

    (2) It is further objected that if all Christians followed the “counsels” the whole human race would speedily die out. This is self-evident, but all are not called to do so, just as all soldiers are not called to heroic deeds and posts of danger. The counsels are for those who feel themselves specially inspired by God to embrace them, or who do so in order the better to ensure their eternal salvation.

Note. — The three first incidents which St Mark gives in this tenth chapter all bear on “ the Evangelical Counsels.”

(a) In the discourse on divorce, Jesus recommended virginity.

(b) When blessing little children, He promised heaven to those who, like them, lived in humble submission.

(c) When conversing with the rich young man, and in the discourse with His disciples on “ riches,” our Lord recommends voluntary poverty.

Discourse cconcerning riches

On voluntary poverty. This consists in a free renunciation of earthly possessions (or, at least, of the free disposal of them). This sacrifice, in order to be meritorious, must be made for the love of God, since St Paul tells us, “And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing” (1 Cor. xiii. 3). This practice is based on —

    (a) The example of Christ: “being rich, he became poor for your sakes, that through his poverty you might be rich ” (2 Cor. viii. 9).

    (b) The teaching of holy Scripture :

        (1) “ Blessed are the poor.”

        (2) “ If thou wilt be perfect, sell all,” etc.

(c) The examples of fervent Christians in all ages who have renounced all for Christ, notably of the Apostles.

(d) The rewards promised to those who make this renunciation : “ a hundred times as much now in this time .... in the world to come life everlasting.”

    29. who hath left brethren , sisters, etc. A Christian is only allowed to give up his family — parents, brethren, etc. — provided he is not necessary for their support, since no counsel can ever take precedence of a precept. As regards renouncing a wife, this of course does not mean that the marriage tie may be annulled, or that the husband may leave his wife without her consent. There have been cases where husband and wife have agreed to separate and to consecrate themselves to God, but such cases are rare exceptions, and need a special permission from ecclesiastical superiors. As regards mothers or fathers leaving their children to enter religion, they can do so if these children are grown up and do not need their care. When parents oppose their child’s vocation either to the priesthood or to religious life, that child, if of age, is not bound to obey. If the parents do not need assistance, the child should obey the call of God, subject to the approval of his confessor, since our Lord says, “ he that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me.” There may be times when a Christian is bound to renounce brethren, parents, etc., for God ; for example, when intercourse with them exposes him to deny his faith, or is a proximate occasion of any other sin, and this imperils his eternal salvation.

Totus tuus ego sum

Et omnia mea tua sunt;

Tecum semper tutus sum:

Ad Jesum per Mariam.

Christ blesses little children

St Mark Chapter X : Verses 13-16

Suffer the little children to come unto me... J-J Tissot

[13] And they brought to him young children, that he might touch them. And the disciples rebuked them that brought them. 

[14] Whom when Jesus saw, he was much displeased, and saith to them: Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God. 

[15] Amen I say to you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall not enter into it. 

[16] And embracing them, and laying his hands upon them, he blessed them.

 

[13] Et offerebant illi parvulos ut tangeret illos. Discipuli autem comminabantur offerentibus. [14] Quos cum videret Jesus, indigne tulit, et ait illis : Sinite parvulos venire ad me, et ne prohibueritis eos : talium enim est regnum Dei. [15] Amen dico vobis : Quisquis non receperit regnum Dei velut parvulus, non intrabit in illud. [16] Et complexans eos, et imponens manus super illos, benedicebat eos.

Notes

    13. they brought. Probably parents and nurses.

    young children. Perhaps under seven, and also infants would doubtless be included. The original Hebrew word used by St Matt, and the Greek word used by St Mark have both been rendered by “ parvulos ” in the Vulgate. St Luke alone employs the word “infantes,” i.e. “infants.” [Not yet able to speak, young, little, infant]  Nicephorus relates that St Ignatius, the martyred bishop of Antioch (who died circa 107), was one of those children whom Jesus blessed.

    that he might touch them. St Luke uses the same words. St Matt, has, that he should impose hands upon them and pray (xix. 13). This shews the faith of those who brought the children. Evidently they believed in the power and goodness of Jesus.

    the disciples rebuked those that brought them. Possibly they deemed it —

    (a) derogatory to their Master’s honour to occupy Himself with children,

    (b) or they were annoyed at their conversation on matrimony being interrupted.

    14. much displeased. The disciples had evidently forgotten the lesson our Lord had inculcated such a short time before, when He had taken a child and set him in the midst of them. Christ would have these little ones treated with kindness and love, and may we not fear that He is much displeased now with those who carelessly defer or knowingly neglect to have the little ones brought to Him by Holy Baptism ? The Church wills that infants should be baptized as soon as possible. The bishops have a right to fix a limit, as regards the time within which a child should be baptized. Those who do not present their children within the prescribed time are guilty of sin. It is always a mortal sin to defer baptism when the child is in danger of death.

    Suffer: do not “hinder.” Most probably the disciples were preventing those who could walk from approaching, while they were forbidding those who brought them to come near.

    Suffer the little children, etc. On these words and on those of our Lord to Nicodemus, Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God (St John iii. 5), the Church grounds her teaching concerning the necessity of “ Infant Baptism.” It has always been practised widely in the Church, for we read in the Acts, of whole families being baptized, and we may reasonably conclude that young children were included in these families.

    of such, — i.e. the kingdom of heaven is for children and for those who resemble them by their innocence, simplicity and humility. In other respects the adult is not expected to resemble a child, since as we advance in age, to the simplicity of the dove we must join the wisdom of the serpent. Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves (St Matt. x. 16).

    15. Amen I say to you, whosoever, etc. Here again we have a solemn declaration made by our Lord : — he who will save his soul must receive the kingdom of God (i.e. the doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles, and which are handed down to us by the Church) with the simple faith and unquestioning obedience of a little child.

    16. embracing them. This is the second time we are told Jesus embraced children, and each time it is St Mark who records the fact —

    (a) When Jesus set a child in the midst of His disciples (ix. 35).

    (b) When mothers brought their children to Christ (x. 16).

    laying his hands upon them. It was customary for Jewish parents to bring their children to be blessed by the elders and also by any person whom they considered particularly holy. We read in the Talmud (in Part II., the Gemara or Commentary on the Law), “ After the father of the child had laid his hands on his child’s head, he led him to the elders one by one, and they also blessed him, and prayed that he might grow up famous in the Law, faithful in marriage and abundant in good works.”

    Note. — St Mark alone gives the following details —

    (a) Jesus was much displeased with His disciples.

    (b) He embraced the children.

    (c) He blessed them.

    he blessed them. These words prove conclusively that children are capable of receiving spiritual graces, though they cannot understand anything about the graces that are conferred on them, and are unconscious of the obligations which the reception of the sacrament of regeneration involves.

Additional Notes

16. he blessed them. In so doing our Lord did not merely perform a symbolical action, but He actually conferred a spiritual blessing on these little ones, which we may be sure had its influence on their after life. The act of laying on of hands was expressive —

    (a) of blessing ( i.e. invoking God’s favour on the recipient). Thus Jacob blessed Joseph’s children, “he set Ephraim on his right hand .... but Manasses on his left .... stretching forth his right hand, put it upon the head of Ephraim .... and the left upon the head of Manasses .... and Jacob blessed the sons of Joseph” (Gen. xlviii, 13, 14, 15). _

    (b) as a sign of consecration. In the rite for the consecration of the Jewish priests God enjoined that “Aaron and his sons” should “lay their hands” upon the heads of those who were to be consecrated. “ Thou shalt present also the calf, before the tabernacle of the testimony. And Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands upon his head ” ( Exod. xxix. 10).

    (c) as a sign of healing. It was thus that Eliseus laid his hands on the dead child of the Sunamitess and restored him to life. “And he went up ... . and laid his hands upon his hands,” etc. (4 Kings iv. 34).

    The Church wills that her children should be solemnly blessed by the hands of her ministers. Thus priests give their blessing privately at discretion, at the end of Mass, in Confession, etc. Bishops bless the people solemnly, and are allowed to use the triple sign of the cross. The Pope gives his solemn benediction to the people at Easter, on the Feast of St Peter and St Paul, and on other occasions.

    Infant Baptism. Parents and guardians are strictly bound to present for Baptism, children who have not yet come to the use of reason. This is a solemn precept of the Church. In the Middle Ages the Anabaptists, and in modern days the Baptists, have repudiated Infant baptism. “ It is difficult to give strict proof from Scripture in favour of it, nor can it be denied that in the early ages people often deferred their own baptism and that of their children (except in danger of death), from the dread of incurring the responsibilities of the Christian life ” ( Catholic Dictionary ), yet the practice of Infant baptism is amply justified —

    (a) by inference from Scripture,

    (b) by tradition,

    (c) by the testimony of the Fathers.

    (a) Scriptural inference. Our Lord said, “ Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not,” etc. (St Mark x. 14). Again we read : “Unless a man be born again of water,” etc. (St John iii. 5). Further, the Apostles frequently baptized whole families, in which children must have been included.

    (b) Tradition. The Church has always held that infants are capable of receiving spiritual graces, although they are unconscious of the reception of the same, and for a time incapable of fulfilling the obligations entailed by baptism.

    (c) The testimony of the Fathers. To quote only two :

        (1) St Irenaeus (Bishop of Lyons, circa 178) writes, “Christ came to save all — all, I say, who through Him are born again to God, infants and little ones, and boys and young men and the aged.”

        (2) In answer to a question as to whether, on the analogy of circumcision, baptism should not be deferred till the eighth day, St Cyprian (Bishop of Carthage, 248-258), in council with sixty-four bishops, replies in the negative, on the ground that “ if adults are admitted to the font, how much more should those be baptized at once who have not sinned, except so far as by natural descent from Adam they have contracted the infection of ancient death.” He then goes on to prove that “infants should come more easily to the remission of sins, since it is the sin of another, not their own, which is remitted to them.”

    Note. — The Anabaptists refuse baptism to infants on the ground that they cannot receive spiritual graces, since they are not capable of understanding them. To this we can reply that our Lord, who never performed a meaningless action, blessed little children, and declared the kingdom of heaven to be for them and those who resembled them. Now, since they are born in original sin, which in their case, baptism alone can remove, it is evident that they should be baptized, lest they should die before they come to the use of reason, and thus lose heaven.

    Another objection put forth against infant baptism is that we have no right to impose on the child obligations which he, when grown up, may repudiate ; that by so doing we are hampering his personal liberty. The answer to this specious objection is easy to find. Parents do not hesitate to remedy any physical defect in their children. They do not wait till the child is old enough to wish for it himself. Nor, if it is a question of their child inheriting a fortune, do they hesitate to accept the inheritance, and to accomplish the necessary formalities in the name of their child, though the possession of this wealth involves certain grave responsibilities. All human beings, by the very fact of their existence, have responsibilities to face ; they have duties to God, their neighbour and themselves, which they cannot repudiate except at the risk of their eternal happiness. The grace of baptism enables the child, as he attains the age of reason, to accomplish these duties, and if the child dies before he attains the use of reason, it opens heaven to him.

Care the Church has of the “ little ones.”

    The Church takes the children especially under her maternal care. Thus she provides by imposing on parents and guardians these solemn duties. They are bound under pain of sin —

    (1) To have children and wards baptized without delay.

    (2) To see that these children are taught their prayers and catechism.

    (3) To send them to Catholic schools, or if this be impossible, to withdraw them from non-Catholic religious instructions, and to supply the deficiency at home.

    (4) To prepare the children for Confession as soon as they reach the use of reason.

    (5) To exact (health permitting) that from the age of seven the children abstain from meat on Fridays and other days of abstinence.

    (6) To send them to Mass on Sundays and days of obligation from the age of seven.

    (7) To present them to the parish priest for first Communion and Confession “ as soon as they are capable of being instructed in these sacred mysteries.”

    (8) To watch over the morals of their children, and by their precepts and examples to train them to lead a Christian life.

Totus tuus ego sum

Et omnia mea tua sunt;

Tecum semper tutus sum:

Ad Jesum per Mariam.

Divorce forbidden

St Mark Chapter X : Verses 1-12

God made them male and female.J-J Tissot. Morgan Museum, New York.

[1] And rising up from thence, he cometh into the coasts of Judea beyond the Jordan: and the multitudes flock to him again. And as he was accustomed, he taught them again. 

[2] And the Pharisees coming to him asked him: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

[3] But he answering, saith to them: What did Moses command you? 

[4] Who said: Moses permitted to write a bill of divorce, and to put her away. 

[5] To whom Jesus answering, said: Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you that precept.

[6] But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. 

[7] For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife. 

[8] And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. 

[9] What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 

[10] And in the house again his disciples asked him concerning the same thing.

[11] And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 

[12] And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

[1] Et inde exsurgens venit in fines Judaeae ultra Jordanem : et conveniunt iterum turbae ad eum : et sicut consueverat, iterum docebat illos. [2] Et accedentes pharisaei interrogabant eum : Si licet vero uxorem dimittere : tentantes eum. [3] At ille respondens, dixit eis : Quid vobis praecepit Moyses? [4] Qui dixerunt : Moyses permisit libellum repudii scribere, et dimittere. [5] Quibus respondens Jesus, ait : Ad duritiam cordis vestri scripsit vobis praeceptum istud : [6] ab initio autem creaturae masculum et feminam fecit eos Deus. [7] Propter hoc relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem, et adhaerebit ad uxorem suam : [8] et erunt duo in carne una. Itaque jam non sunt duo, sed una caro. [9] Quod ergo Deus conjunxit, homo non separet. [10] Et in domo iterum discipuli ejus de eodem interrogaverunt eum. [11] Et ait illis : Quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam, et aliam duxerit, adulterium committit super eam. [12] Et si uxor dimiserit virum suum, et alii nupserit, moechatur.

Notes

Perea

    1. rising up from thence,— i.e. from Capharnaum, which He left, as St Matthew tells us, when he had ended these words (x ix. 1). He never returned to Galilee again during His mortal life, but after the Resurrection Lie appeared to His disciples there. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee (St Mark xvi. 7). After this Jesus showed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias (St John xxi. 1).

    the coasts of Judea. In Perea, where Jesus could teach publicly with less danger of opposition from the Jews.

    multitudes flock, to him again. St Matthew gives further details : the multitudes were great, they followed him, and he healed them there (xix. 2).

    multitudes, literally “ crowds.” Our Lord was not necessarily teaching the same people again.

    as he was accustomed, he taught them again. St Luke supplies certain omissions of St Mark, and relates that it was on this occasion that Jesus related the parables of

    (a) The Unjust Judge (St Luke xviiii. 1-14)

    (b) The Pharisee and the Publican (St Luke xviiii. 1-14)

    It was probably about this time that Jesus healed the ten lepers. as he was accustomed, may signify that He resumed the practice of instructing, which had been interrupted ; or, He taught in His accustomed manner — by parables. The miracles of healing would, as usual, give greater weight to His doctrine.

    2. the Pharisees coming : not to be healed or instructed, but tempting him. The Pharisees tempted (i.e. “ tried ”) our Lord, inasmuch as they possibly hoped to make Him contradict Moses, and to forbid what the prophet had permitted.

    Is it lawful for a man, etc. St Matthew adds, “for every cause.” By their question they wished to place our Lord in a dilemma. If He answered in the affirmative, they would probably have accused Him of contradicting Himself, since He had said previously, But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery : and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery (St Matt. v. 32). If He replied negatively, they would have accused Him of condemning the law of Moses and the practice in common usage. They based their sanction for divorce on, If a man take a wife , and, have her, and she find not favour in his eyes, for some uncleanness ; he shall write a bill of divorce, and shall give it in her hand, and send her out of his house (Deut. xxiv. 1). The followers of Hillel held that a woman could be divorced for every cause, i.e. the slightest cause, e.g. if she happened not to please her husband. If the husband chanced to meet a more attractive partner, or if the wife burnt or oversalted a meal, the separation might take place. Josephus tells us that he divorced two wives, and explains that he divorced the second “as being not pleased with her behaviour.” The Rabbis founded their opinion on the words, “ if she hath not found favour in his eyes.” Shammai taught that a woman could only be divorced for a grave cause, such as adultery. It is probable that as Jesus was now in Perea, in the Tetrarchy of Herod Antipas, the Pharisees wished to accuse Him to Herod, should He forbid divorce, and that Herod might then rid them of our Lord as he had murdered St John the Baptist. The question put by the Pharisees hinged on the cause for which a woman might be divorced. They did not doubt the legality of the practice of divorce, since, by the law of Moses, it was tolerated.

    3. What did Moses command you ? It was our Lord’s method frequently to ask a counter-question, and to make the answer the base of His instruction. Cf. Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath days ? (iii. 4). Whose image and superscription is this ? (St Matt. xxii. 20).

    4. Moses permitted to write, etc. This permission was based on Deut. xxiv. 1, quoted above. Both our Lord and the Pharisees (in the account as given by St Matthew and St Mark) use the words permit and command. MacEvilly says, “ In the questions on both sides command is used. In the answers on both sides ‘ permit ’ is used. . . . The ordi¬ nance relating to divorce contained a command (or precept) and a permission. It permitted the husbands to divorce their wives on certain conditions ; but it commanded them, in case they availed themselves of the permission, to grant a bill of divorce.”

    a bill of divorce. Custom had established a regular legal form for this bill, which was generally drawn up by a scribe. As certain formalities had to be gone through in order to get this “ bill,” its use was a check on divorce, and thus trivial and hasty breaches of the bond of matrimony were prevented.

    5. Because of the hardness, etc. : literally “ having regard to the hardness of your hearts.” The law which tolerated divorce among the Jews was not absolutely good, but only relatively so, as being adapted to their imperfect dispositions. This concession which tolerated divorce was doubtless made by the Mosaic Law in view of the low state of morals among the Jews in consequence of their mingling with heathen nations where polygamy and slavery were customary. A general principle is here laid down : it is better to observe a less perfect law (per se ) than to fail completely in the observance of a more perfect one. Thus the Church tolerates mixed marriages for grave reasons and under certain conditions. Were the strict law enforced, that Catholics can only wed one of their own faith, many grievous breaches might follow.

    6. the beginning of the creation, etc. : from the time God created man. Our Lord answers the Pharisees’ question by referring to the original institution of marriage, and bases the indissolubility of marriage on three grounds —

    (a) God created one man and one woman , and thus showed that plurality of wives was not His design.

    (b) The intimate union which exists between man and wife, they two shall be one flesh.

    (c) What God hath joined together, no man can put asunder.

    7. For this cause a man shall leave, etc. Words of Adam quoted from (Gen. ii. 24). Our Lord in quoting them attributes them to God, and He said, For this cause, etc. (St Matt. xix. 5). The explanation is, that Adam said them by the inspiration of God.

    10. in the house. Five times St Mark relates that the disciples questioned Jesus privately concerning His public teaching —

(a) the meaning of the parable of the sower (iv. 10).

(b) what defiles a man (vii. 17).

(c) concerning their inability to cast out a devil (ix. 28-29).

(d) concerning the causes which justified divorce (x. 10-12).

(e) the signs of the end (xiii. 3).

    again. The Pharisees had first questioned our Lord, now the disciples ask explanations on the same subject.

    11. he saith to them, etc. Jesus here repeats what He had previously said to the Pharisees, as we see from St Matt. xix. 9, And 1 say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife , except it be for fornication , and shall marry another , committeth adultery ; and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. Our Lord’s doctrine evidently seemed severe even to the Apostles, since they say unto Him : If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry (xix. 10). Though our Lord does not name Herod Antipas, the case He cites manifestly applied to that monarch. From St Matthew we learn that in His private explanation to His disciples He went on to praise voluntary virginity “ for the kingdom of Heaven.” This is a counsel of perfection ; therefore Jesus added, He that can take, let him take it (St Matt. xix. 12). This verse furnishes an answer to those non-Catholics who disapprove of the vow of chastity, as taken by monks and nuns, on the ground that marriage is a divine institution. It is most certainly a holy state, but virginity is still holier for those who are called to it.

    12. if the wife shall put away her husband. This was a much rarer case, since Josephus says, “while according to the Jewish laws it is lawful for a husband to dissolve his marriage by giving a bill of divorce to his wife, yet it is not lawful for a wife who voluntarily departs from her husband to be married to another, unless her former husband renounces her” (Josephus, Antiq., xv. 7, 10). The text concerning the bill of divorce quoted above from Deut. (xxiv. 1) merely says the husband was able to ask for a bill of divorce, but it does not deny equal rights to the wife. Among the Greeks and Romans, in the time of our Lord, the wife’s right to free herself was recognised, but among the Jews there was far less freedom on this point ; for though the right was undoubtedly hers, she was often powerless to enforce it.

Additional Notes

    Christ’s ministry in Perea and Judea. St Mark has passed over many important events of this ministry, so that between the ix. and x. chapters we must supply the following principal events. (For a complete account of this journey a Synopsis of Gospel History must be consulted.)

    (1) Our Lord’s visit to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles (St John vii. 8-10), during which —

        (a) St James and St John ask permission to bring down fire from heaven on the Samaritans (St Luke ix. 51-56).

        (b) Jesus teaches the people during the feast (St John vii. 14-51, viii. 12-59).

        (c) The Sanhedrin seek to apprehend Him (St John vii. 44).

        (d) Jesus cures the man who was born blind (St John ix. 1-41).

        (e) He speaks of Himself as the Good Shepherd (St John x. 1-18).

    (2) Ministry in Judea and mission of the Seventy disciples (St Luke x. 1-6).

    (3) Jesus goes to the Temple for the Feast of the Dedication (St John x. 22-39).

    (4) Journey in Perea (St Luke xiii. 22, xvii. 11).

    (5) He raises Lazarus to life (St John xi. 1-46).

    (6) The Sanhedrin are more determined than ever to put Him to death, and He retires to Ephrem (St John xi. 47-54).

    (7) The healing of the ten lepers (St Luke xvii. 11-19).

    1. the coasts of Judea , beyond the Jordan. This does not mean that any part of Judea lay beyond the Jordan. The Jews had a few cities on the other side of the river, but these were beyond the confines of Judea proper. Judea and Galilee both lay west of the Jordan. Our Lord seems to have partly traversed Samaria, but being inhospitably received there, He then turned and crossed to the eastern bank of the Jordan; thence He would have travelled southward to Judea. He left Galilee in order to go to Jerusalem. St Mark mentions that Christ “ cometh into the coasts of Judea” (x. 1). St Luke tells us, “when the days of his assumption were accomplishing, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem” (ix. 51). ‘‘According to St John our Redeemer privately ascended to Jerusalem, at the Feast of the Tabernacles (in September). He afterwards remained in Judea and proceeded to the parts ‘‘ beyond the Jordan ” as St Matthew and St Mark relate, and finally, six months after, in the month of March, He entered Jerusalem in triumph, immediately before His Passion ” (MacEvilly’s Commentary on St Mark , p. 337).

    Probable sequence of facts concerning Christ’s discourse on divorce as related by St Matthew and St Mark.

    (1) The Pharisees came to meet Jesus, “beyond the Jordan”; “ tempting him,” they propose the question : “ Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause ? ” (St Matt. xix. 3).

    (2) Our Lord replies by a counter-question : “ What did Moses command you ? ”

    (3) The Pharises reply : “ Moses permitted to write a bill of divorce and to put her away ” (St Mark x. 4).

    (4) Jesus answers : “Because of the hardness of your heart, he wrote you that precept ” (ver. 5) ; and, “ Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female ? ” (St Matt. xix. 4).

    Note. — Both Evangelists give our Lord’s emphatic denunciation of divorce in the same words : “ And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder ” (St Mark x. 8, 9 ; St Matt. xix. 6).

    (5) The Pharisees understanding that Jesus forbids divorce ask : “ Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put her away?” (St Matt. xix. 7).

    (6) Jesus replies that Moses permitted it on account of the hardness of their hearts, but “ from the beginning it was not so.”

    (7) Jesus goes on to affirm that if a husband and wife are divorced, either party marrying again, while the other still lives, is guilty of adultery. (These words had a direct application to Herod Antipas.) (St Matt. xix. 9.) .

    (8) The disciples gather round our Lord and question Him again on the matter. Jesus repeats His previous instructions.

    (9) The disciples evidently find Christ’s teaching severe, since they say unto Him, “ If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry” (St Matt. xix. 10).

    (10) Jesus takes occasion to speak of virginity, and to praise it as the holier state, to be embraced only by him “that can take it,” i.e. who feels that he is able or called to embrace it.

    Note. — In speaking of virginity, Jesus refers to three classes of persons —

    (a) Those who embrace it from natural inclination.

    (b) Those who, from a variety of circumstances, have no choice in the matter.

    (c) Those who voluntarily embrace it for “ the kingdom of God,” i.e. that they may be free to work for souls, or to consecrate themselves to God’s service.

    There is an admirable fitness and harmony in St Mark’s Gospel in the two narratives which follow the discourse on divorce. Jesus blesses little children, the offspring of the married state, and He invites the rich young man to give up all his possessions and to follow Him, which involved the state of virginity.

    Teaching of the Church on divorce.

    The Church has always taught, in accordance with holy Scripture, that marriage is indissoluble except by the death of one of the contracting parties. In spite of the divine prohibition, divorce is permitted by the law in many countries. By “divorce ” is understood, a legal dissolution of the marriage contract, and full permission to marry again. This the Church can never sanction, as her teaching is based on the formal prohibition of Christ : “ What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.” Apart from the sin incurred by the practice of divorce, it should be most strenuously opposed, since the evils to which it leads are so numerous, e.g. —

    (a) It tends to encourage evil passions and leads to crime.

    (b) It often ruins tire happiness of the children.

    (c) It leads to disorder and feuds in families and in society in general.

    Note. — For grave reasons the Church tolerates separation of husband and wife, but this differs from divorce, inasmuch as neither party is free to re-marry during the lifetime of the other.

Note.  — However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they "take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples." [Familiaris Consortio, 22 November 1981]

Totus tuus ego sum

Et omnia mea tua sunt;

Tecum semper tutus sum:

Ad Jesum per Mariam.