The Great Refusal, and the Obstacle of Riches. The contrast between this incident and that which precedes it is caught by Shakespeare, Richard II, V. Mark 10:10 f. That Mk. designed the contrast is improbable. The incident in Mark 10:17-22 is clearly historic. The unwillingness of Jesus to be addressed as good, His referring the seeker after eternal life back to the commandments, and the keen personal interest which the questioner aroused in Jesus (Jesus looking on form loved him, a phrase peculiar to Mk.) all these traits guarantee the historicity and originality of the story. Mark 10:18 cannot be intended to lead on to a confession of Divinity; it is rather the expression of that humility which was part of the moral perfection of Jesus. The insertion of the words Defraud not is peculiar to Mk., and perhaps it was thought to be appropriate to a rich man (cf. James 5:4). The counsel of perfection (Mark 10:21) which the rich man rejects must not be generalised. It is a test of obedience and faith which the Lord saw to be necessary in this particular case (Swete). However, this man was not to be an isolated case. The influence of the passage on St. Antony and St. Francis of Assisi is well known. The addition to the story in the Gospel of the Hebrews, in which Jesus upbraids the man for neglecting the poor, is not in harmony with the rest of the story. In Mark 10:23-31 Jesus enforces the lesson of the man's sorrowful departure. Wellhausen adopts mg. in Mark 10:24 and would transpose Mark 10:24 and Mark 10:25. This is attractive, as it explains the growing astonishment of the disciples, if Jesus first declared it to be difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom, and then difficult for anyone to enter.
The paradox of the camel and the needle's eye must not be weakened by supposing the camel to be a rope or the needle's eye to be a gate. Jesus regards the obstacles between men and the kingdom as almost insurmountable, but He knows that with God's help they may be surmounted. Peter then says the disciples have carried out the demand made by Jesus on the rich man. The saying is prompted perhaps not by complacency, but by the desire to know whether this sacrifice gives them the hope of eternal life. In reply, Jesus assures them of their reward. Perhaps with Wellhausen we should put a full-stop at hundredfold in Mark 10:30. This may end the original utterance, and, in any case, the exceeding greatness of the reward is to be realised both now and hereafter. The present reward is the fellowship of the Christian Church only to be enjoyed by sharing persecution. If Peter's remark were self-congratulatory, Mark 10:31 might be construed as a rebuke, but more probably it means that many who are now rich and prominent shall in the life to come be last, i.e. excluded, while. the disciples who have - lost-' all on earth, shall be foremost in the Kingdom of God (Montefiore). Cf. p. 665 and Matthew 5:11 f.*