Legal, Intended, and Permitted

Below is my rough translation and some comments regarding Mark 10:1-16, the lectionary gospel reading for the 20th Sunday after Pentecost. I did not originally include vv. 13-16, but based on your responses I have decided to do so. Let me speak to what seems to be at stake. I view the conversation in vv. 1-12 between Jesus and the Pharisees as arguments over the nature of interpreting Scripture, namely Deuteronomy 24:1-4. I view vv. 13-16 as a repetition of Jesus’ teaching in Mk. 9:33ff. The challenge for me is to see how the conversation with the Pharisees about divorce and the conversation with the disciples on children relate.  

1 Καὶ ἐκεῖθεν ἀναστὰς ἔρχεται εἰς τὰ ὅρια τῆς Ἰουδαίας [καὶ] πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, καὶ συμπορεύονται πάλιν ὄχλοι πρὸς αὐτόν, καὶ ὡς εἰώθει πάλιν ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς. 

And having gone up from there he entered into the region of the Judeans [and] beyond the Jordan, and again crowds gathered to him, and as he had been accustomed again he was teaching them. 

ἀναστὰς: AAPart, nms, ἀνίστημι,1) to cause to rise up, raise up  1a) raise up from laying down  1b) to raise up from the dead

ἔρχεται: PMI 3s, ἔρχομαι, 1) to come  1a) of persons  1a1) to come from one place to another, and used both of  persons arriving and of those returning

συμπορεύονται: PMI 3p, συμπορεύομαι, 1) to go or journey together  2) to come together, to assemble

εἰώθει : PluperfectAI 3s, to be accustomed, to be wont

ἐδίδασκεν: IAI 3s, διδάσκω, 1) to teach

1. We note that this is Jesus first entry into Judea as part of his journey to Jerusalem, where he will die and be raised. Jesus is from Nazareth in Mark, with no mention of Bethlehem, which is in Judea. He might have been in Judea to be baptized by John and to undergo the subsequent temptations in the wilderness, but it’s hard to pin down precisely where those events take place in Mark and many of the alleged sites are depending on John 1:28 for guidance. 

2 καὶ προσελθόντες Φαρισαῖοι ἐπηρώτων αὐτὸν εἰ ἔξεστιν ἀνδρὶ γυναῖκα ἀπολῦσαι, πειράζοντες αὐτόν. 

And Pharisees having approached were interrogating him if it is lawful a man to divorce a woman, while testing him. 

προσελθόντες: AAPart npm, προσέρχομαι, 1) to come to, approach  2) draw near to  3) to assent to

ἐπηρώτων: IAI 3p, ἐπερωτάω, 1) to accost one with an enquiry, put a question to, enquiry of,  ask, interrogate  2) to address one with a request or demand  2a) to ask of or demand of one 

ἔξεστιν: PAI 3s, ἔξεστι, 1) it is lawful

ἀπολῦσαι: AAInf, ἀπολύω, 1) to set free  2) to let go, dismiss, (to detain no longer)  … 4) used of divorce, to dismiss from the house, to repudiate.

πειράζοντες: PAPart npm, πειράζω, 1) to try whether a thing can be done  1a) to attempt, endeavor  2) to try, make trial of, test: for the purpose of ascertaining  his quantity, or what he thinks, or how he will behave himself 

1. For the last few weeks I have been interpreting the verb ἐπερωτάω as “interrogate,” rather than as “ask,” in Mark’s gospel, when it is used it often seems to have an edge to it. See below for more information.

2. πειράζω (test) is the verb used to describe the temptations and this comment in 8:11, “The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, asking him for a sign from heaven, to test him.” 

3. The matter of lawfulness, ἔξεστι, really ought to be the Pharisee’s bailiwick, but Mark has already said that this question is entrapment of a sort. At the same time, it is a real issue and Jesus is not against questions of lawfulness in themselves. In c. 2 he speaks of David doing what was not lawful, because he and his men were hungry. In c.3 he asks if it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath or harm, before healing someone. In c.6 it was John the Baptist accusing Herod of doing what which was not lawful by taking his brother’s wife. And in c.12, in another attempt to trap Jesus, he will be asked if it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not. 

4. AND we notice that the question has to do with a MAN divorcing a woman, not the other way around

3 ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς,Τί ὑμῖν ἐνετείλατο Μωϋσῆς; 

Yet having answered he said to them, “What did Moses command to you?”

ἀποκριθεὶς: APPart nsm, ἀποκρίνομαι, 1) to give an answer to a question proposed, to answer 

εἶπεν: AAI 3s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak  1a) affirm over, maintain

ἐνετείλατο: AMI 3s, ἐντέλλομαι,1) to order, command to be done, enjoin

1. Jesus does not “interrogate” these Pharisees, but also does not simply submit to their interrogation. The old saying that Jesus answers a question with a question is in full bloom here. We might see this as a way of restructuring the question so that it starts on the right foundation. We might see it as an extension of the question, which is premised on what the law says. Or, we might see it as Jesus challenging the balance of power, by turning the interrogation into a debate.  

2. www.thebible.org lexicon has this at the very end of its submission on ἐντέλλομαι: [Syn. see κελεύω, fin.] κελεύω shows up in Mk. 9:38, 39 and 10:14. 

4 οἱ δὲ εἶπαν, Ἐπέτρεψεν Μωϋσῆς βιβλίον ἀποστασίου γράψαι καὶ ἀπολῦσαι. 

Yet they said, “Moses permitted to write a writ of divorce and to divorce.” 

εἶπαν: AAI 3p, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak  1a) affirm over, maintain

Ἐπέτρεψεν: AAI 3s, ἐπιτρέπω, 1) to turn to, transfer, commit, instruct  2) to permit, allow, give leave

γράψαι: AAInf, γράφω, 1) to write, with reference to the form of the letters  … write down, record 

ἀπολῦσαι: AAInf, ἀπολύω, 1) to set free  2) to let go, dismiss, (to detain no longer)  … 4) used of divorce, to dismiss from the house, to repudiate.

1. At this point, the original question posed by the Pharisees has been answered and it is the answer that they knew all along. However, the story continues, indicating that there is a greater point to this story than what the law actually says. 

2. The translation here is a bit tricky. The original question in v.2 is about divorce – at least that’s how most modern translations translate ἀπολύω in that verse. Here, there is the rare term ἀποστασίου that is usually translated “divorce” with the “βιβλίον ἀποστασίου” becoming “writ/certificate of divorce.” Then, when the verb ἀπολύω (“divorce in v.2) reappears, the NIV and ESV choose “send her away.” YLT says, “put her away.” The NRSV is more consistent, translating βιβλίον ἀποστασίου as a “certificate of dismissal” and ἀπολύω as “divorce” in both v.2 and v.4. 

3. The term ἀποστασίου is closely related to ἀποστασία, from which we get our term “apostasy.” 

4. The reference here is to Deuteronomy 24:1-4: Suppose a man enters into marriage with a woman, but she does not please him because he finds something objectionable about her, and so he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; she then leaves his house and goes off to become another man’s wife. Then suppose the second man dislikes her, writes her a bill of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house (or the second man who married her dies); her first husband, who sent her away, is not permitted to take her again to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that would be abhorrent to the LORD, and you shall not bring guilt on the land that the LORD your God is giving you as a possession.

As one can see, the point of this law is not whether or not one can get a divorce. The point is that one cannot re-marry a former spouse who has been married and divorced by someone else along the way. While the passage does not suggest that she – by virtue of having been through a first marriage and divorce – is ‘defiled’ to her second husband, it does suggest that by going through the second marriage and divorce she is now defiled for a repeat marriage to her first husband. The matter of “writing a bill of divorce” is taken for granted here as a practice. Perhaps it is this status of “things taken for granted” that the word “permit” signifies. 

5. I like how the ‘olde English’ versions translate Ἐπέτρεψεν as “suffer” – as in “Suffer the little children to come unto me” (below) or “Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement.” This is not the same word as παθεῖν , as in Mark 8:31 “the Son of Man must suffer.” It raises, not a biblical question, but an interesting question of whether this older usage of the English language displays some relationship between ‘permitting’ and ‘suffering.’ Does is suggest that granting permission exacts a cost of some sort by the one permitting? 

6. I thinks a large point, not to be missed here, is that the Pharisees are asking a question and basing their own answer on a text that is actually addressing a different matter. The Deuteronomy text is not addressing divorce per se, just as this Markan pericope does not address sexual or gender identification per se. 

5 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Πρὸς τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν τὴν 

ἐντολὴν ταύτην. 

Yet Jesus said to them, “To your hardened heart he wrote to you this law.” 

εἶπεν: AAI 3s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak  1a) affirm over, maintain

ἔγραψεν: AAI 3s,  γράφω, 1) to write, with reference to the form of the letters  … write down, record 

STOP and WONDER [a note to myself]: Jesus has just relativized the law FAR MORE than any liberal, progressive, or skeptical biblical commentator. “It is Scripture, but it’s not the Word of God.” STOP AND WONDER.

1. For the Pharisees to recognize that divorce is “permitted” and for Jesus to show that there is context for this permission, suggests that this conversation is about how to interpret Scripture, and not just about whether the law says this or that. This is a much more sophisticated approach to reading Scripture than to repeat II Timothy 3:16 (“All Scripture is inspired by God) as some kind of mechanical event, whereby God dictates every word of Scripture as equally inspired. Jesus suggests a keen interdependence behind this law. The law not only reflects God’s way to God’s people, but it was shaped with at least some human influence – in this case, hard-heartedness. This law is not the apodictic law that simply expresses a God-given requirement or prohibition; it is the conditional law that is given ‘by Moses’ in a way that befits and reflects human experience, limitations, and sinfulness. 

2. The word for “hard hearted,” σκληροκαρδίαν (sclero-cardia), is familiar to the medical profession, which continue to use these Greek words to describe calcification of the heart. It is not the phrase that I have translated ‘callousness of heart’ describing the disciples in earlier chapters. 

3. In the end, the “permission” of Deuteronomy 24 is not a reflection of what God wills as much as it is a concession by Moses to human failings. Is it lawful? Yes, but not in the same way that “Love your neighbor as yourself” is lawful. 

4. I suggest that God’s concessions make up a huge part of the story of the Scriptures. Among the things that God may not have ‘willed’ but conceded because of human need might be the temple, the monarchy, and the sacrificial system. 

6 ἀπὸ δὲ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς: 

Yet from the beginning of creation male and female he made them; 

ἐποίησεν: AAI 3s, ποιέω, 1) to make  1a) with the names of things made, to produce, construct,  form, fashion, etc

1. Jesus moves to the language of the creation story in Genesis 2 as a way of reaching for something more fundamental than a proviso that is rooted in Moses’ concession human hard-heartedness. 

7 ἕνεκεν τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν μητέρα 

[καὶ προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ], 

For this a man will leave behind his father and the mother [and will hold fast to his woman,]

καταλείψει: FAI 3s, καταλείπω, 1) to leave behind  1a) to depart from, leave 

προσκολληθήσεται: FPI 3s, cleave, hold fast 

1. The latter [bracketed] portion of this verse is not in many of the earliest manuscripts. 

2. It is interesting, isn’t it, that the model for a man leaving his parents to be joined to a woman is Adam and Eve, who had no parents. Hmm… 

3. Would it be appropriate to issue a Jesus-like response to this part of the story and to say, “Out of the hardness of your patriarchy did Moses say that a man will leave behind his father and mother”? Would this be an appropriate time to note that in their history and customs it always seems to be the woman who would leave behind her parents and be joined to the man’s household? Ched Myers says that “because there was no recognition of reciprocal right s for women in Jewish family law at the time, this issue was limited among the rabbis to determine sufficient reason for a man to “dismiss” his wife. 

8 καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν: ὥστε οὐκέτι εἰσὶν δύο ἀλλὰ μία σάρξ. 

and the two will be into one flesh; so they are no longer two but one flesh. 

ἔσονται: FMI 3p, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present 

εἰσὶν: PAI 3p, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present 

1. This verse is about sex, right? The word “flesh” is used twice, two fleshes becoming one flesh and, in the first half of this statement, two will be into one flesh. My sense is that the preposition into indicates that this is talking about copulation. The only reason I find this important to note is that we often romanticize this text to make it “two hearts that beat as one,” or something like. What is at stake in Deut.24 is whether a woman who has been married and divorced, then married and divorced to a second husband, can be re-married to the first husband. The permission to divorce in Deut.24 is based on human failure, not what God wills. What I don’t know is whether the proviso “she does not please him” in Deut. 24 is an explicit reference to sexual pleasure. If that is the case, the whole notion of desire, boredom, then desire to re-conquer the same woman who has been another man’s woman means that this a law concedes to some forms of human vagary, but not to all of them. 

9 ὃ οὖν ὁ θεὸς συνέζευξεν ἄνθρωπος μὴ χωριζέτω. 

Therefore whom God has joined together no person may separate. 

συνέζευξεν: AAI 3s, συζεύγνυμι, 1) to fasten to one yoke, yoke together  2) to join together unite  2a) of the marriage tie

χωριζέτω: PAImpv 3s, χωρίζω, 1) to separate, divide, part, put asunder, to separate one's self from,  to depart  1a) to leave a husband or wife  1a) of divorce  1b) to depart, go away 

1. I wonder what people hear whenever a pastor says these words at a wedding. This verse – if I am reading the context of Deut.24 correctly – suggests that this is a 3rd person imperative saying that nobody is allowed to pursue either of the married couple any more as a sexual partner and that neither of the couple is allowed to pursue others as sexual partners, even if they grow bored with one another. 

2. Myers points out, citing Bultmann, that while Rabbis often would argue over apparent contradictions of Scripture, it was a matter of coming to a resolution of the apparent conflict. In MARK, Jesus does not resolve it, he simply lets the creation story take precedence over Deuteronomy 24. Matthew tries to resolve it in a more traditional way in Mt. 19:1-12. 

10 Καὶ εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν πάλιν οἱ μαθηταὶ περὶ τούτου ἐπηρώτων αὐτόν. 

And in the house again the disciples interrogated him about this. 

ἐπηρώτων: IAI 3p, ἐπερωτάω, 1) to accost one with an enquiry, put a question to, enquiry of,  ask, interrogate

1. When the Pharisees interrogated Jesus (for “interrogate,” again, see below) they did so in order to test him. Does the word “again” indicate that the disciples, likewise, are testing Jesus in some way? Or, is this a location matter – some things are said among the crowd; some things are said ‘along the way’; and some things are said ‘in the house.’ 

2. BTW, we’re not in Jesus’ family home (in Nazareth, where things ended badly); we’re not in Capernaum where some of the 12 lived and perhaps Jesus adopted as his home. We’re in Judea. What house, we wonder, and Mark doesn’t answer.

11 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην 

μοιχᾶται ἐπ' αὐτήν, 

And he says to them, “Whoever might divorce his woman and might marry another is adulterated by/against her.” [ or: … adulterates against her]

λέγει: PAI 3s, , λέγω, 1) to say, to speak  1a) affirm over, maintain

ἀπολύσῃ: AASubj 3s, ἀπολύω, 1) to set free  2) to let go, dismiss, (to detain no longer)  … 4) used of divorce, to dismiss from the house, to repudiate.

γαμήσῃ: AASubj 3s, γαμέω, 1) to lead in marriage, take to wife  1a) to get married, to marry  1b) to give one's self in marriage  2) to give a daughter in marriage

μοιχᾶται: PPI 3s, μοιχάω to have unlawful intercourse with another's wife, to commit adultery with

1. The verb “adulterate” is in the passive voice. Most translations make it an active – indeed a very strongly active – voice, “commits adultery.” But to say, “commits adultery” makes adultery the object of a verb (commits) that is not actually here. I am trying to retain the passive voice, but there is very little company here among other translations. Some lexicons list μοιχάω as a ‘deponent’ verb, which is often taken to mean that the verb appears in the passive or middle voice but translates into the active voice. I have long wondered if there is more to deponent verbs than that. Anyone out there have opinions on this matter?   

2. What is the antecedent to the pronoun ‘her’? Is it ‘his woman’ or ‘another’? Both potential antecedents and the pronoun are feminine singular. Thayer’s lexicon – for unexplained reasons – asserts: that against her refers to the one “that has been put away.” 

3. The preposition ἐπ' can mean a variety of things, depending on the context. If one chooses ‘by’ or ‘against’ that would sway the meaning of the verse and create its own context. This is a really fine area for translators. 

4. It is interesting to compare these verses with Matthew, because Matthew has Jesus making this argument twice – 5:31-32 and 19:1-12. Matthew adds a provision that one can divorce if there is unfaithfulness involved. If we combine Mark’s attention, Matthew’s provision, and Paul’s arguments over divorce because of one’s spouse not being a believer, it seems to me that the question of divorce was a live one among the early church, not a settled matter. 

12 καὶ ἐὰν αὐτὴ ἀπολύσασα τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς γαμήσῃ ἄλλον μοιχᾶται.

And if she having divorced her man might marry another she is adulterated. 

ἀπολύσασα: AAPart nsf, ἀπολύω, 1) to set free  2) to let go, dismiss, (to detain no longer)  … 4) used of divorce, to dismiss from the house, to repudiate. 

γαμήσῃ: AASubj 3s, γαμέω, 1) to lead in marriage, take to wife  1a) to get married, to marry  1b) to give one's self in marriage  2) to give a daughter in marriage

μοιχᾶται: PPI 3s, μοιχάω to have unlawful intercourse with another's wife, to commit adultery with

1. The question arises whether it was even a real option for a woman to divorce a man legally. Part of the answer would like in whether by ‘legal’ one is referring to the Law of Moses or to the Romanic law in force in 1st century Judea. 

13 Καὶ προσέφερον αὐτῷ παιδία ἵνα αὐτῶν ἅψηται: οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ ἐπετίμησαν αὐτοῖς.

And they were bringing to him children in order that he might touch; yet the disciples rebuked them. 

προσέφερον: IAI 3p, προσφέρω, 1) to bring to, lead to

ἅψηται: AMSubj 3s, ἅπτω, 1) to fasten to, adhere to  1a) to fasten fire to a thing, kindle, set of fire

ἐπετίμησαν: AAI 3p, ἐπιτιμάω, 1) to show honor to, to honor … 4) to tax with fault, rate, chide, rebuke, reprove, censure severely  4a) to admonish or charge sharply 

1. This is a little awkward because of the necessary emphasis that we teach children on “good touch, bad touch.” For Jesus, “touch” has been a means of healing in Mark. 1:41; 3:10; 5:27-28; 5:31; 6:56 (2x); 7:33; 8:22. This is the last mention of the word. What were people asking of Jesus by bringing children to him that he might touch them? I need a good reference for how children were typically understood in first century Judea. Were they romanticized as innocents? Were they to be seen and not heard? Was one to be unsparing with the rod, so they would not be spoiled? Were they hope for the future? Objects of affection? Brats? Mini-me? Tax deductions? All of the above? I don’t want to miss the power of this action.  

2. Rebuke - ἐπιτιμάω, could be “honor” but obviously is not in Mark’s story. 1:25 (Jesus contra an unclean spirit); 3:12 (Jesus contra many spirits); 4:39 (Jesus contra wind); 8:30 (Jesus contra disciples); 8:32 (Peter contra Jesus); 8:33 (Jesus contra Peter); 9:25 (Jesus contra foul spirit); HERE (disciples contra parents); 10:48 (Crowd contra Bartimaeus). 

 14 ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἠγανάκτησεν καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Ἄφετετὰ παιδία 

ἔρχεσθαι πρός με, μὴ κωλύετε αὐτά, τῶν γὰρ τοιούτων ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ. 

Yet having seen Jesus was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me, do not prevent them, for of such ones is the Reign of God.” 

ἰδὼν: AAPart nsm, ὁράω, 1) to see with the eyes  2) to see with the mind, to perceive, know 

ἠγανάκτησεν: AAI 3s, ἀγανακτέω, 1) to be indignant, moved with indignation, be very displeased

εἶπεν: AAI 3s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak  1a) affirm over, maintain

Ἄφετετὰ: AAImpv 2p, ἀφίημι, 1) to send away  1a) to bid going away or depart  1a1) of a husband divorcing his wife …  to let go from one's further notice, care, etc., to leave, let alone.

ἔρχεσθαι: PMInf, ἔρχομαι, 1) to come  1a) of persons  1a1) to come from one place to another, and used both of  persons arriving and of those returning

κωλύετε: PAImpv 2p, κωλύω, 1) to hinder, prevent forbid  2) to withhold a thing from anyone  3) to deny or refuse one a thing

ἐστὶν: PAI 3s, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

1. This is the first we’ve seen of the word ἀγανακτέω, “to be indignant.” We’ll see it again in 10:41, when James and John try to secure chief seats in Jesus court and the other ten get indignant. And we’ll see it in 14:4 when a woman breaks open a jar of expensive ointment to wash Jesus’ feet and others get indignant about it. 

2. The definition of the word ἀφίημι is rather flexible, meaning anything from forgive, to divorce (but not the word, ἀπολύω, used in the previous conversation above), to send away, to allow (but not the word ἐπιτρέπω, used in the previous conversation about what Moses permitted). 

3. This is the second occasion when Jesus tells the 12 not to forbid someone. The first was in 9:39 when James informed Jesus that they saw someone who is not following them casting out demons in Jesus’ name and they tried to stop him. I thought then that the overlaying sitz im leben was the Disciples’ community trying to deny the legitimacy of the Markan community. I think that may be an overlaying story here as well. 

4. In answer to my impertinent question of v.13, at least one person in first century Judea saw children as the embodiment of the Reign of God. 

15 ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὃς ἂν μὴ δέξηται τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ὡς παιδίον, οὐ 

μὴ εἰσέλθῃ εἰς αὐτήν.

Amen I say to you, whoever may not hold the Reign of God as a child, may not enter into it. 

λέγω: PAI 1s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak  1a) affirm over, maintain

δέξηται: AMSubj 3s, δέχομαι, 1) to take with the hand  1a) to take hold of, take up  2) to take up, receive  2a) used of a place receiving one 

εἰσέλθῃ: AASubj 3s, εἰσέρχομαι, 1) to go out or come in: to enter

1. I have written ‘may not hold’ and ‘may not enter’ to show that the verbs are in the subjunctive voice. It could easily be translated ‘does not hold’ and ‘will not enter’ because the conditionality expressed by the subjunctive voice is in both the “whoever” and that “entering” is dependent on “holding.”  

2. This verse is quite similar to 9:37: Ὃς ἂν ἓν τῶν τοιούτων παιδίων δέξηται ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου, ἐμὲ δέχεται: καὶ ὃς ἂν ἐμὲ δέχηται, οὐκ ἐμὲ δέχεται ἀλλὰ τὸν ἀποστείλαντά με. “Whoever would hold one of these children in my name holds me; and whoever holds me, does not hold me but the one who sent me.”  

 16 καὶ ἐναγκαλισάμενος αὐτὰ κατευλόγει τιθεὶς τὰς χεῖρας ἐπ' αὐτά. 

And having taken them in his arms he was blessing them placing his hands on them.

ἐναγκαλισάμενος: AMPart nsm, ἐναγκαλίζομαι, 1) to take into one's arms, embrace 

κατευλόγει IAI 3s,  to call down blessings on

τιθεὶς: PAPart nsm, τίθημι, 1) to set, put, place  1a) to place or lay  1b) to put down, lay down  1b1) to bend down 

1. “Taking them in his arms” and “placing his hands on them” seem to be what was intended by those who brought the children for Jesus to “touch” them and what it means to “hold” them as one holds the Reign of God.

2. This is the second time Mark has used ἐναγκαλίζομαι. The first was in 9:36, when Jesus spoke of being “great” by taking a child, centering it among them, and then taking it into his arms. Those are the only two uses in the NT of this verb. 

As I mentioned in my introductory remarks, one is challenged to see what the relationship is between vv. 1-12, on divorce and adulteration, and vv. 13-16, on children as embodiments of the Reign of God. I am not ready to speak to that issue, but I do appreciate Russell Meyer’s comment from 2021 that pushes me to consider it more deeply: “Mark, I wish you had pushed through all of the assigned reading. The issue of children is core to the concern about remarriage in Deut 24 as it relates to the heritage of the land. To whom does the inheritance of the gift of the land go, the children of the first or the children of the second husband? Sure we can trace DNA now, but not then. Our romanticized culture around pairing devoid of the context of the progeny concerns in the Torah warps our interpretations.” Thanks, Russell.

……………..

Looking at how Mark uses the verb ἐπερωτάω, which could simply mean “to ask” but also carries the connotation of a challenge, I have translated it as “interrogate.” Because it is Mark’s word for confrontational conversations – Jesus and demons, Pharisees and Scribe and Jesus, etc. – I translate it confrontationally – at least in the rough translation. 

Mar 5:9 And he asked him, What is...

Mar 7:5 ...Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk...

Mar 7:17 ...people, his disciples asked him concerning the...

Mar 8:5 And he asked them, How many...

Mar 8:23 ...hands upon him, he asked him if he...

Mar 8:27 ...by the way he asked his disciples, saying...

Mar 8:29 And he saith unto them, But...

Mar 9:11 And they asked him, saying, Why...

Mar 9:16 And he asked the scribes, What...

Mar 9:21 And he asked his father, How...

Mar 9:28 ...house, his disciples asked him privately, Why...

Mar 9:32 ...and were afraid to ask him.

Mar 9:33 ...in the house he asked them, What was...

Mar 10:2 ...to him, and asked him, Is it...

Mar 10:10 ...house his disciples asked him again of...

Mar 10:17 ...to him, and asked him, Good Master...

Mar 11:29 ...unto them, I will also ask of you one...

Mar 12:18 ...no resurrection; and they asked him, saying,

Mar 12:28 ...answered them well, asked him, Which is...

Mar 12:34 ...after that durst ask him any question...

Mar 13:3 ...John and Andrew asked him privately,

Mar 14:60 ...the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest...

Mar 14:61 ...the high priest asked him, and said...

Mar 15:2 And Pilate asked him, Art thou...

Mar 15:4 And Pilate asked him again, saying...

Mar 15:44 ...him the centurion, he asked him whether he...

What I don’t and cannot know is whether the “answers” that emerge from an interrogation are different in kind than an answer that might emerge from a question that is genuinely curious or spiritually thirsty. I often see biblical scholars analyze Jesus’ conversations with fencing terms, as a “parry and riposte.” I wonder if those terms are always appropriate or if we should stipulate certain types of terms for certain types of questionings. Then we could explore, for example, whether the import of an answer to an “interrogation” carries different weight than an answer to a genuine question. After all, this text has been about how to read the Scriptures, and not confusing a ‘permission’ or ‘concession’ with God’s will.