Mark 10:17
And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
Jump to: AlfordBarnesBengelBensonBICalvinCambridgeClarkeDarbyEllicottExpositor'sExp DctExp GrkGaebeleinGSBGillGrayGuzikHaydockHastingsHomileticsICCJFBKellyKingLangeMacLarenMHCMHCWMeyerParkerPNTPoolePulpitSermonSCOTTBVWSWESTSK
(17-27) And when he was gone forth.—Better, as He was going forth. (See Notes on Matthew 19:16-26.)

Running, and kneeled to him.—Another of St. Mark’s vividly descriptive touches. The adjective “good,” which is wanting in the better MSS. of St. Matthew, is the true reading here. St. Mark and St. Luke give the word “inherit,” instead of St. Matthew’s “have,” or “possess.”



Mark 10:17 - Mark 10:27

There were courage, earnestness, and humility in this young ruler’s impulsive casting of himself at Christ’s feet in the way, with such a question. He was not afraid to recognise a teacher in Him whom his class scorned and hated; he was deeply sincere in his wish to possess eternal life, and in his belief that he was ready to do whatever was necessary for that end; he bowed himself as truly as he bent his knees before Jesus, and the noble enthusiasm of youth breathed in his desires, his words, and his gesture.

But his question betrayed the defect which poisoned the much that was right and lovable in him. He had but a shallow notion of what was ‘good,’ as is indicated by his careless ascription of goodness to one of whom he knew so little as he did of Jesus, and by his conception that it was a matter of deeds. He is too sure of himself; for he thinks that he is ready and able to do all good deeds, if only they are pointed out to him.

How little he understood the resistance of ‘the mind of the flesh’ to discerned duty! Probably he had had no very strong inclinations to contend against, in living the respectable life that had been his. It is only when we row against the stream that we find out how fast it runs. He was wrong about the connection of good deeds and eternal life, for he thought of them as done by himself, and so of buying it by his own efforts. Fatal errors could not have been condensed in briefer compass, or presented in conjunction with more that is admirable, than in his eager question, asked so modestly and yet so presumptuously.

Our Lord answers with a coldness which startles; but it was meant to rouse, like a dash of icy water flung in the face. ‘Why callest thou Me good?’ is more than a waving aside of a compliment, or a lesson in accuracy of speech. It rebukes the young man’s shallow conception of goodness, as shown by the facility with which he bestowed the epithet. ‘None is good save one, even God,’ cuts up by the roots his notion of the possibility of self-achieved goodness, since it traces all human goodness to its source in God. If He is the only good, then we cannot perform good acts by our own power, but must receive power from Him. How, then, can any man ‘inherit eternal life’ by good deeds, which he is only able to do because God has poured some of His own goodness into him? Jesus shatters the young man’s whole theory, as expressed in his question, at one stroke.

But while His reply bears directly on the errors in the question, it has a wider significance. Either Jesus is here repudiating the notion of His own sinlessness, and acknowledging, in contradiction to every other disclosure of His self-consciousness, that He too was not through and through good, or else He is claiming to be filled with God, the source of all goodness, in a wholly unique manner. It is a tremendous alternative, but one which has to be faced. While one is thankful if men even imperfectly apprehend the character and nature of Jesus, one cannot but feel that the question may fairly be put to the many who extol the beauty of His life, and deny His divinity, ‘Why callest thou Me good?’ Either He is ‘God manifest in the flesh,’ or He is not ‘good.’

The remainder of Christ’s answer tends to deepen the dawning conviction of the impossibility of meriting eternal life by acts of goodness, apart from dependence on God. He refers to the second half of the Decalogue only, not as if the first were less important, but because the breaches of the second are more easily brought to consciousness. In thus answering, Jesus takes the standpoint of the law, but for the purpose of bringing to the very opposite conviction from that which the young ruler expresses in reply. He declares that he has kept them all from his youth. Jesus would have had him confess that in them was a code too high to be fully obeyed. ‘By the law is the knowledge of sin,’ but it had not done its work in this young man. His shallow notion of goodness besets and blinds him still. He is evidently thinking about external deeds, and is an utter stranger to the depths of his own heart. It was an answer betraying great shallowness in his conception of duty and in his self-knowledge.

It is one which is often repeated still. How many of us are there who, if ever we cast a careless glance over our lives, are quite satisfied with their external respectability! As long as the chambers that look to the street are fairly clean, many think that all is right. But what is there rotting and festering down in the cellars? Do we ever go down there with the ‘candle of the Lord’ in our hands? If we do, the ruler’s boast, ‘All these have I kept,’ will falter into ‘All these have I broken.’

But let us be thankful for the love that shone in Christ’s eyes as He looked on him. We may blame; He loved. Jesus saw the fault, but He saw the longing to be better. The dim sense of insufficiency which had driven this questioner to Him was clear to that all-knowing and all-loving heart. Do not let us harshly judge the mistakes of those who would fain be taught, nor regard the professions of innocence, which come from defective perception, as if they were the proud utterances of a Pharisee.

But Christ’s love is firm, and can be severe. It never pares down His requirements to make discipleship easier. Rather it attracts by heightening them, and insisting most strenuously on the most difficult surrender. That is the explanation of the stringent demand next made by Him. He touched the poisonous swelling as with a sharp lancet when He called for surrender of wealth. We may be sure that it was this man’s money which stood between him and eternal life. If something else had been his chief temptation, that something would have been signalised as needful to be given up. There is no general principle of conduct laid down here, but a specific injunction determined by the individual’s character. All diseases are not treated with the same medicines. The command is but Christ’s application of His broad requirement, ‘If thine eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out.’ The principle involved is, surrender what hinders entire following of Jesus. When that sacrifice is made, we shall be in contact with the fountain of goodness, and have eternal life, not as payment, but as a gift.

‘His countenance fell,’ or, according to Mark’s picturesque word, ‘became lowering,’ like a summer sky when thunder-clouds gather. The hope went out of his heart, and the light faded from his eager face. The prick of the sharp spear had burst the bubble of his superficial earnestness. He had probably never had anything like so repugnant a duty forced upon him, and he cannot bring himself to yield. Like so many of us, he says, ‘I desire eternal life,’ but when it comes to giving up the dearest thing he recoils. ‘Anything else, Lord, thou shalt have, and welcome, but not that.’ And Christ says, ‘That, and nothing else, I must have, if thou art to have Me.’ So this man ‘went away sorrowful.’ His earnestness evaporated; he kept his possessions, and he lost Christ. A prudent bargain! But we may hope that, since ‘he went away sorrowful,’ he felt the ache of something lacking, that the old longings came back, and that he screwed up his resolution to make ‘the great surrender,’ and counted his wealth ‘but dung, that he might win Christ.’

What a world of sad and disappointed love there would be in that look of Jesus to the disciples, as the young ruler went away with bowed head! How graciously He anticipates their probable censure, and turns their thoughts rather on themselves, by the acknowledgment that the failure was intelligible, since the condition was hard! How pityingly His thoughts go after the retreating figure! How universal the application of His words! Riches may become a hindrance to entering the kingdom. They do so when they take the first place in the affections and in the estimates of good. That danger besets those who have them and those who have them not. Many a poor man is as much caught in the toils of the love of money as the rich are. Jesus modifies the form of His saying when He repeats it in the shape of ‘How hardly shall they that trust in riches,’ etc. It is difficult to have, and not to trust in them. Rich men’s disadvantages as to living a self-sacrificing Christian life are great. To Christ’s eyes, their position was one to be dreaded rather than to be envied.

So opposed to current ideas was such a thought, that the disciples, accustomed to think that wealth meant happiness, were amazed. If the same doctrine were proclaimed in any great commercial centre to-day, it would excite no less astonishment. At least, many Christians and others live as if the opposite were true. Wealth possessed, and not trusted in, but used aright, may become a help towards eternal life; but wealth as commonly regarded and employed by its possessors, and as looked longingly after by others, is a real, and in many cases an insuperable, obstacle to entering the strait gate. As soon drive a camel, humps and load and all, through ‘a needle’s eye,’ as get a man who trusts in the uncertainty of riches squeezed through that portal. No communities need this lesson more than our great cities.

No wonder that the disciples thought that, if the road was so difficult for rich men, it must be hard indeed. Christ goes even farther. He declares that it is not only hard, but ‘impossible,’ for a man by his own power to tread it. That was exactly what the young man had thought that he could do, if only he were directed.

So our Lord’s closing words in this context apply, not only to the immediately preceding question by the disciples, but may be taken as the great truth conveyed by the whole incident, Man’s efforts can never put him in possession of eternal life. He must have God’s power flowing into him if he is to be such as can enter the kingdom. It is the germ of the subsequent teaching of Paul; ‘The gift of God is eternal life.’ What we cannot do, Christ has done for us, and does in us. We must yield ourselves to Him, and surrender ourselves, and abandon what stands between us and Him, and then eternal life will enter into us here, and we shall enter into its perfect possession hereafter.

Mark 10:17-22. There came one running, &c. — See notes an Matthew 19:16-22. And he answered, Master, &c. — He stands reproved now, and drops the epithet, Good. Jesus, beholding him — And looking into his heart; loved him — Doubtless for the dawnings of good which he saw in him; and said to him — Out of tender love, One thing thou lackest — The love of God, without which all religion is a dead carcass. In order to this, throw away what is the grand hinderance of it. Give up thy great idol, riches! Go, sell whatsoever thou hast.

10:17-22 This young ruler showed great earnestness. He asked what he should do now, that he might be happy for ever. Most ask for good to be had in this world; any good, Ps 4:6; he asks for good to be done in this world, in order to enjoy the greatest good in the other world. Christ encouraged this address by assisting his faith, and by directing his practice. But here is a sorrowful parting between Jesus and this young man. He asks Christ what he shall do more than he has done, to obtain eternal life; and Christ puts it to him, whether he has indeed that firm belief of, and that high value for eternal life which he seems to have. Is he willing to bear a present cross, in expectation of future crown? The young man was sorry he could not be a follower of Christ upon easier terms; that he could not lay hold on eternal life, and keep hold of his worldly possessions too. He went away grieved. See Mt 6:24, Ye cannot serve God and mammon.See this passage illustrated in the notes at Matthew 19:16-30.

Mark 10:17

Gone forth - From the place where he had been teaching.

Into the way - Into the road or path on his journey.

Running - Thus showing the intensity with which he desired to know the way of life. Zeal to know the way to be saved is proper, nor is it possible that it should be too intense if well directed. Nothing else is so important, and nothing demands, therefore, so much effort and haste.

Mr 10:17-31. The Rich Young Ruler. ( = Mt 19:16-30; Lu 18:18-30).

See on [1473]Lu 18:18-30.

Luke saith he was a ruler. His question signified, that he believed such a thing as a happy eternal existence of good souls, and that he desired it, and that he was willing to do something in order to the obtaining a share and portion in it.

And when he was gone forth into the way,.... For when he had blessed the children he departed from the coasts of Judea, on the further side of Jordan, and steered his course towards Jerusalem, Mark 10:32, and as he was on the road thitherwards,

there came one running; a young man, a ruler among the Jews, and very rich, a person of great dignity, and large substance; he hearing that Christ was going from those parts, ran in great haste to him, to have some conversation with him, before he was entirely gone;

and kneeled to him; as a token of great respect and civility: some versions, as the Persic and Ethiopic, render it, "and worshipped him"; which must be understood not in a religious, but in a civil way: the words might be literally rendered, "and kneeled him"; and Dr. Lightfoot suspects, that more is meant than bending his knees to Christ; that he also might take hold of the knees of Christ, and kiss them, as was usual with the Jewish Rabbins, and which he illustrates by several instances:

and asked him, good master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? This man, though a young man, and also a rich man, was thoughtful of the world to come, and the life of it: he believed there was an eternal life after this state of things, and so was no Sadducee; but he had wrong notions about the way and manner of attaining it: he thought it was to be had by the works of the law, which shows him to be a Pharisee; whereas eternal life is the gift of God, through the Messiah, the person he now applied to, and who had the words of eternal life; and to a more proper person he could not have put the question, he being himself the way, the truth, and the life, or the true way to eternal life: and had he attended to his own words, which suggest, that eternal life is an inheritance, he might have learned, that it is not to be acquired by the industry and works of men; but, that it is the bequest of our heavenly Father to his children, and comes by will, by promise, and as a free gift; so that it is not of the law; nor are they that are of the law heirs of it, Romans 4:14; See Gill on Matthew 19:16.

{4} And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

(4) Two things are to be greatly avoided by those who earnestly seek eternal life: the first is an opinion of their merits or deservings, which is not only understood, but condemned by the due consideration of the law: and the second is the love of riches, which turns aside many from that race in which they ran with a good courage.

Mark 10:17-27. See on Matthew 19:16-26. Comp. Luke 18:18-27. As well in the question at Mark 10:17, and in the answer of Jesus Mark 10:18-19, as also in the account of the address to the disciples Mark 10:23 f., and in several little peculiar traits, the narrative of Mark is more concrete and more direct.

εἰς ὁδόν] out of the house, Mark 10:10, in order to prosecute His journey, Mark 10:32.

γονυπετ.] not inappropriate (de Wette), but, in connection with προσδραμών, representing the earnestness of the inquiry; both words are peculiar to the graphic Mark. With an accusative, as at Mark 1:40. See on Matthew 17:14.

Mark 10:18. The variation from Matthew is so far unessential, as in the latter also the predicate ἀγαθός is attributed to God only. But in Matthew it has become necessary to give to it, in the relation to the question, a turn which betrays more a later moulding under reflection[134] than the simple and direct primitive form, which we still find in Mark and Luke.

ΤΊ ΜΕ ΛΈΓΕΙς ἈΓΑΘΌΝ; ΟὐΔΕῚς Κ.Τ.Λ.] Ingeniously and clearly Jesus makes use of the address ΔΙΔΆΣΚΑΛΕ ἈΓΑΘΈ, in order to direct the questioner to the highest moral Ideal, in whose commands is given the solution of the question (Mark 10:19). He did this in such a manner as to turn aside from Himself and to ascribe to God only the predicate ἀγαθός, which had been used by the young man in the customary meaning of holding one in esteem (excellent teacher, Plat. Men. p. 93 C; comp. the familiar Attic ὦ ἀγαθέ or Ὦ ʼΓΑΘΈ; and see Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 642), but is taken up by Jesus in the eminent and absolute sense. “Thou art wrong in calling me good; this predicate, in its complete conception, belongs to none save One,—that is, God.” Comp. Ch. F. Fritzsche in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 78 ff. This declaration, however, is no evidence against the sinlessness of Jesus; rather it is the true expression of the necessary moral distance, which the human consciousness—even the sinless consciousness, as being human—recognises between itself and the absolute perfection of God.[135] For the human sinlessness is of necessity relative, and even in the case of Jesus was conditioned by the divine-human development that was subject to growth (Luke 2:52; Hebrews 5:8; Luke 4:13; Luke 22:28; comp. Ullmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1842, p. 700); the absolute being-good, that excludes all having become and becoming so, pertains only to God, who is “verae bonitatis canon et archetypus” (Beza). Even the man Jesus had to wrestle until He attained the victory and peace of the cross.[136] This is overlooked from dogmatic misunderstanding in the often attempted (see as early as Augustine, c. Maxim, iii. 23; Ambros. de fide, ii. 1) and variously-turned makeshift (see Theophylact, Erasmus, Bengel, Olshausen, Ebrard; comp. also Lange, II. 2, p. 1106 f.), that Jesus rejected that predicate only from the standpoint of the questioner (if thou regardest me as only a human teacher, then thou art wrong in calling me good, etc.). Wimmer (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1845, p. 115 ff.) thinks that the young man had been ambitious, had said διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ as captatio benevolentiae, and presupposed the existence of ambition also in Jesus; that, therefore, Jesus wished to point his attention by the τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν to his fault, and by the ΟὐΔΕῚς ἈΓΑΘῸς Κ.Τ.Λ. to bring to his knowledge the unique condition of all being-good, in the sense: “Nobody is to be called good, if the only God be not called good, i.e. if He be not assumed and posited as the only condition of all goodness.” In this explanation the premisses are imported, and the interpretation itself is incorrect; since with οὐδεὶς κ.τ.λ., λέγεται cannot be supplied, but only ἘΣΤΊ, as it so frequently is in general propositions (Kühner, II. p. 40), and since ΟὐΔΕῚς ΕἸ ΜΉ means nothing else than nemo nisi, i.e. according to the sense, no one except (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 524).

Mark 10:19. The certainly original position of the μὴ φονεύσ. is to be regarded as having at that time become traditional. Comp. Weizsäcker, p. 356.

ΜῊ ἈΠΟΣΤΕΡ.] is not a renewed expression of the seventh commandment (Heupel, Fritzsche), against which may be urged its position, as well as the unsuitableness of adducing it twice; neither is it an expression of the tenth commandment, as far as the coveting applies to the plundering another of his property (Bengel, Wetstein, Olshausen, de Wette), against which may be urged the meaning of the word, which, moreover, does not permit us to think of a comprehension of all the previous commands (Beza, Lange); but it applies to Deuteronomy 24:14 (οὐκ ἀποστερήσεις μισθὸν πένητος, where the Roman edition has ΟὐΚ ἈΠΑΔΙΚΉΣΕΙς Μ. Π.), to which also Malachi 3:3, Sir 4:1, refer. Comp. also LXX. Exodus 21:10. Jesus, however, quotes the originally special command according to its moral universality: thou shalt not withhold. According to Kuinoel, He is thinking of Leviticus 19:13 (οὐκ ἀδικήσεις κ.τ.λ.), with which, however, the characteristic ἈΠΟΣΤΕΡΉΣῌς is not in accordance. Least of all can it be taken together with ΤΊΜΑ Κ.Τ.Λ., so that it would be the prohibitory aspect of the commanding ΤΊΜΑ Κ.Τ.Λ. (so Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 391), against which may be decisively urged the similarity of form to the preceding independent commands, as well as the hallowed and just as independent τίμα κ.τ.λ.; moreover, Mark must have written ΜῊ ἈΠΟΣΤΕΡ. ΤΙΜῊΝ ΤῸΝ ΠΑΤΈΡΑ Κ.Τ.Λ., in order to be understood. In Matthew this command does not appear; while, on the other hand, he has the ἈΓΑΠΉΣΕΙς ΤῸΝ ΠΛΗΣΊΟΝ Κ.Τ.Λ., which is wanting in Mark and Luke. These are various forms of the tradition. But since ἈΓΑΠΉΣΕΙς Κ.Τ.Λ. (which also occurred in the Gospel of the Hebrews) is most appropriate and characteristic, and the ΜῊ ἈΠΟΣΤΕΡΉΣῌς is so peculiar that it could hardly have been added as an appendix to the tradition, Ewald’s conjecture (Jahrb. I. p. 132) that the original number of these commandments was seven is not improbable. That which did not occur in the Decalogue was more easily omitted than (in opposition to Weizsäcker) added.

Mark 10:20. διδάσκαλε] not ἈΓΑΘΈ again.

Mark 10:21. ἨΓΆΠΗΣΕΝ ΑὐΤΌΝ] means nothing else than: He loved him, felt a love of esteem (dilectio) for him, conceived an affection for him, which impression He derived from the ἐμβλέπειν αὐτῷ. He read at once in his countenance genuine anxiety and effort for everlasting salvation, and at the same time fervid confidence in Himself. The conception of meritum de congruo is altogether foreign to the passage. Grotius appropriately remarks: “amat Christus non virtutes tantum, sed et semina virtutum, suo tamen gradu.” The explanation: blandis eum compellavit verbis (Casaubon, Wolf, Grotius, Wetstein, Kuinoel, Vater, Fritzsche, and others), is founded merely on the passage in Homer, Od. xxiii. 214, where, nevertheless, it is to be explained likewise as to love.[137]

ἕν σοι ὑστερεῖ] see on John 2:2. Yet, instead of σοι, according to B C M D א, min., σε is, with Tischendorf, to be read. Comp. Psalm 23:1. The σοι occurred more readily (comp. Luke) to the transcribers.

ἄρας τ. σταυρ.] Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34. It completes the weighty demand of that which he still lacks for the attainment of salvation; which demand, however, instead of bringing salutarily to his knowledge the relation of his own inward life to the divine law, was the rock on which he made shipwreck.

Mark 10:22. ΣΤΥΓΝΆΣΑς] having become sullen, out of humour. Except in the Schol. Aesch. Pers. 470, and Matthew 16:3, the verb only occurs again in the LXX. at Ezekiel 27:35; Ezekiel 28:19; Ezekiel 32:10.

ἮΝ ΓᾺΡ ἜΧΩΝ] for he was in possession of much wealth.

Mark 10:23. On the significant and solemn περιβλέπειν, comp. Mark 3:5; Mark 3:34; Luke 6:10. Comp. also ἐμβλέψας, Mark 10:21; Mark 10:27.

οἱ τὰ χρήματα ἔχοντες] The article τά is to be explained summarily. The possessions are regarded as an existing whole, which is possessed by the class of the wealthy.

Mark 10:24. The repetition of the utterance of Jesus is touched with emotion (ΤΈΚΝΑ) and milder (ΤΟῪς ΠΕΠΟΙΘΌΤΑς Κ.Τ.Λ.), but then, at ver, 25, again declaring the state of the case with decision and with enhanced energy,—an alternation of feeling, which is to be acknowledged (in opposition to Fritzsche), and which involves so much of what is peculiar and psychologically true, that even in ΤΟῪς ΠΕΠΟΙΘΌΤΑς Κ.Τ.Λ. there is not to be found a modification by tradition interpreting the matter in an anti-Ebionitic sense, or a mitigation found to be necessary in a subsequent age (Baur, Köstlin, p. 329, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann). These words, which are intended to disclose the moral ground of the case as it stands, belong, in fact, essentially to the scene preserved by Mark in its original form.

Mark 10:25. ΔΙᾺ Τῆς ΤΡΥΜΑΛ. Κ.Τ.Λ.] through the eye of the needle. The two articles are generic; see Bernhardy, p. 315. Observe also the vivid change: to go through … to enter into.

Mark 10:26. καί] at the beginning of the question: “cum vi auctiva ita ponitur, ut is, qui interrogat, cum admiratione quadam alterius orationem excipere ex eaque conclusionem ducere significetur, qua alterius sententia confutetur.” Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 3. 10; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 146 f. Comp. John 9:36Mark 10:17-27. Quest after eternal life (Matthew 19:16-30, Luke 18:18-30).

17–31. The Rich Young Ruler

17. when he was gone forth] Literally, when He was going forth. He was just starting, it would seem, on His last journey towards Bethany.

one] He was young (Matthew 19:22), of great wealth, and a ruler of a local synagogue (Luke 18:18).

running] Running up to Him, apparently from behind, eager and breathless. Then he knelt before Him, as was usual before a venerated Rabbi.

what shall I do] He had probably observed our Lord’s gracious reception of little children, and he desired to have part in the Kingdom promised to them. But his question betrays his fundamental error. Not by doing, but by being, was an entrance into it to be obtained.

Mark 10:17. Ἐκπορευομένου αὐτοῦ, as He was going forth) from the house, Mark 10:10.—προσδραμὼν) The Vulg. has procurrens, as if it had the reading προδραμὼν.[11] This man was at all events impelled by a remarkable degree of earnestness. He seems to have been eagerly waiting for the Saviour’s coming. [Sadden impulses of this kind oftentimes by and by grow languid.—V. g.]—γονυπετήσας, falling at His knees) He must therefore have felt great ardour.—ποιήσω, shall I do) Those who are in spirit little children, receive not the kingdom of heaven by doing: Mark 10:15.

[11] So also a: ‘præcurrens’ in b: ‘adcurrit,’ d. A has ἰδού τις πλούσιος προσδραμὼν.—ED. and TRANSL.

Verse 17. - This verse should be rendered, And as he was going forth (ἐκπορευομένου αὐτοῦ) - that is, just as he was leaving the house - there ran one to him, and kneeled to him, and asked him. St. Matthew (Matthew 21:20) says that he was "a young man." St. Luke (Luke 18:18) that he was "a ruler." He had apparently been waiting for our Lord, waylaying him, though with a good intention. He showed zeal - as soon as he saw Jesus he ran to him; and he showed reverence, for he kneeled down to him. He wanted advice from one whom he must have heard of as a celebrated Teacher; and he wanted this counsel as a matter of great interest to himself. Good Master. This would be the ordinary and courteous mode of accosting a person professing to be a teacher, so as to conciliate his attention and interest. What shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? It is as though he said, "Rabbi, I know thee to be good, both as a man and as a teacher, and a prophet, well able to teach me perfectly those things which are really good, and which lead to blessedness hereafter. Tell me, therefore, What shall I do?" St. Matthew (Matthew 21:17) says, "What good thing (τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω) shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" Mark 10:17Running and kneeled

Two details peculiar to Mark.

Mark 10:17 Interlinear
Mark 10:17 Parallel Texts

Mark 10:17 NIV
Mark 10:17 NLT
Mark 10:17 ESV
Mark 10:17 NASB
Mark 10:17 KJV

Mark 10:17 Bible Apps
Mark 10:17 Parallel
Mark 10:17 Biblia Paralela
Mark 10:17 Chinese Bible
Mark 10:17 French Bible
Mark 10:17 German Bible

Bible Hub

Mark 10:16
Top of Page
Top of Page