Church Fathers Commentary Mark 10

The Venerable Bede: Until now, Mark has related what our Lord said and did in Galilee. Here he begins to relate what He did, taught, or suffered in Judea, beginning first across the Jordan to the east. This is what is said in these words: And He arose from there and came into the region of Judea by the other side of the Jordan. He then continues on this side of the Jordan when He came to Jericho, Bethany, and Jerusalem.¹

Although the entire province of the Jews is generally called Judea to distinguish it from other nations, its southern portion was more specifically called Judea to distinguish it from Samaria, Galilee, Decapolis, and the other regions in the same province.

Theophylact of Ohrid: He enters the region of Judea, which the envy of the Jews had often caused Him to leave, because His Passion was to take place there. He did not, however, go up to Jerusalem at that time, but to the borders of Judea, so that He might do good to the multitudes, who were not evil; for Jerusalem, due to the malice of the Jews, was the source of all wickedness.

Therefore, it continues: And the people gathered to Him again; and, as was His custom, He taught them again.

The Venerable Bede: Mark the difference in temperament between the multitude and the Pharisees. The former gather to be taught and to have their sick healed, as Matthew relates (Matthew 19:2); the latter come to Him to try to deceive their Savior by testing Him.

Therefore, the text continues: And the Pharisees came to Him and asked Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” testing Him.

Theophylact of Ohrid: They came to Him and did not leave Him, so that the multitudes would not believe in Him. By continually coming to Him, they thought they could ensnare Him and confuse Him with their questions. They proposed a question that presented a dilemma, so that whether He said it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife or that it was not lawful, they could accuse Him and contradict Him using the doctrines of Moses. Christ, therefore, being Wisdom itself, avoids their snares in answering their question.

St. John Chrysostomⁱ: When asked whether it is lawful, He does not immediately reply, “It is not lawful,” lest they raise an outcry. Instead, He first wanted them to answer Him regarding the sentence of the law, so that by their answer they might provide Him with the grounds for His own reply.²

Therefore, it continues: And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?”

And afterwards, And they said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her.”

They brought up what Moses had said either because of our Savior’s question or because they wished to incite the crowds against Him. For divorce was a matter of indifference among the Jews, and everyone practiced it, as if it were permitted by the law.

St. Augustine of Hippo: It does not affect the truth of the matter, however, whether, as Matthew says, they themselves asked the Lord about the bill of divorcement after our Lord forbade separation, or whether, as Mark says, they said this in answer to His own question. For Christ’s intention was not to give the reason for Moses’s permission until they had mentioned the fact themselves. Since the intention of the speakers—which is what the words ought to express—is shown in either account, there is no discrepancy, even if there is a difference in the telling.³

It may also be that, as Mark relates, the Lord's question, What did Moses command you?, was a response to their initial question about divorce. After they replied that Moses permitted a bill of divorcement, Christ then answered concerning the original law of marriage that God instituted, saying what Matthew relates (Matthew 19:4). Upon hearing this, they would have repeated their earlier point in a new question: “Why then did Moses command this?”

Moses, however, was actually against a man dismissing his wife. He imposed the delay of writing a bill of divorcement so that a person intent on separation might be deterred and reconsider. This was especially true since, as it is told, only scribes were allowed to write Hebrew characters. The law, therefore, intended to send the man who was ordered to provide a bill of divorcement to these scribes before he dismissed his wife. These scribes were meant to be wise interpreters of the law and just mediators in quarrels.⁴

A bill could only be written for him by men who might overrule him with good advice, since his situation had placed him in their hands. By mediating between the husband and wife, they might persuade them to love and concord.

But if a hatred so great had arisen that it could not be extinguished and corrected, then a bill was to be written. This was so that he might not lightly divorce the wife he hated and thus prevent him from being recalled to the love he owed her by marriage through the persuasion of the wise. For this reason it is added, “For your hardness of heart he wrote you this precept.” For great was the hardness of heart that could not be melted or bent to take back and restore the love of marriage, even with the intervention of the bill, which created an opportunity for the just and wise to offer counsel.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Or else, it is said, “For the hardness of your hearts,” because it is possible for a soul purged of sinful desires and anger to bear the worst of women; but if those passions have a powerful hold over the mind, many evils will arise from hatred in marriage.⁵

St. John Chrysostom: In this way, He saves Moses, who had given the law, from their accusation and turns the charge back on them. But since what He had said was difficult for them to accept, He at once returns the discussion to the original law, saying, “But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.”

The Venerable Bede: He does not say “male and females,” which the sense would have required if it referred to the divorce of former wives, but male and female, so that they would be bound to one wife.

St. John Chrysostom: If, however, God had wished one wife to be divorced and another to be taken, He would have created several women. Nor did God only join one woman to one man, but He also commanded a man to leave his parents and cleave to his wife.

Therefore, it continues: “And he said,” (that is, God, speaking through Adam) “‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife.’”

From the very choice of words, He shows the impossibility of breaking the marriage bond, because He said, “He shall cleave.”

The Venerable Bede: And similarly, because He says, he shall cleave to his wife, not wives.

It goes on: “And the two shall become one flesh.”

St. John Chrysostom: Being formed from one root, they will join into one body.

It goes on: “So then they are no longer two, but one flesh.”

The Venerable Bede: The reward of marriage, then, is for two to become one flesh. Virginity, being joined to the Spirit, becomes one spirit.

St. John Chrysostom: After this, bringing forward a solemn argument, He did not say, “Do not divide,” but He concluded, “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

St. Augustine of Hippo: See how the Jews are convicted by the books of Moses that a wife should not be divorced, while they thought that in divorcing her, they were doing the will of Moses. Similarly, from this passage, from the witness of Christ Himself, we know that God made and joined male and female. The Manichees are condemned for denying this truth, and in doing so they resist not the books of Moses, but the Gospel of Christ itself.⁶

The Venerable Bede: What God has joined by making one flesh of a man and a woman, man cannot separate, but God alone. Man separates when we divorce the first wife because we desire a second; but it is God who separates when, by common consent (1 Corinthians 7:5), for the sake of serving God, we have wives as though we had none (1 Corinthians 7:29).

St. John Chrysostom: But if two persons, whom God has joined together, are not to be separated, much more is it wrong to separate from Christ the Church, which God has joined to Him.

Theophylact of Ohrid: But the disciples were troubled, because they were not fully satisfied with what had been said; for this reason they question Him again.

Therefore, there follows: And in the house His disciples asked Him again about the same matter.

Pseudo-Jerome: This second question is said to be asked “again” by the Apostles because it is on the same subject that the Pharisees had asked Him, that is, concerning the state of marriage; and this is said by Mark in his own voice.

Glossa Ordinaria: For repeating a saying of the Word does not produce weariness, but rather thirst and hunger.

Therefore it is said, “Those who eat me shall yet be hungry, and those who drink me shall yet be thirsty”; for tasting the honeyed words of wisdom yields every kind of flavor to those who love her.

Therefore the Lord instructs His disciples again, for it goes on, And He says to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.”

Pseudo-Chrysostom: The Lord calls cohabitation with a woman who is not a man’s wife “adultery.” A woman whom a man has taken after leaving the first is not his wife, and for this reason he commits adultery against her—that is, against the second wife whom he takes. The same thing is true for the woman.⁷

Therefore, it goes on, “And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” For she cannot be joined to another as her own husband if she leaves him who is really her own husband. The law indeed forbade obvious adultery, but the Savior forbids this form of it, which was not obvious or known to all, though it was contrary to nature.

The Venerable Bede: In Matthew it is more fully expressed, “Whoever shall put away his wife, except for sexual immorality” (Matthew 19:9). The only carnal cause, then, is sexual immorality; the only spiritual cause is the fear of God, that a person should put away his or her spouse to enter a religious order, as we read that many have done. But there is no cause allowed by the law of God for marrying another during the lifetime of the one who was left.ⁱ

Pseudo-Chrysostom: There is no contradiction in Matthew’s relating that He spoke these words to the Pharisees, though Mark says that they were spoken to the disciples, for it is possible that He may have spoken them to both.⁸

Theophylact of Ohrid: The wickedness of the Pharisees in tempting Christ was related previously, and now the great faith of the multitude is shown. They believed that Christ conferred a blessing on the children they brought to Him by the mere laying on of His hands.

Therefore, it is said, And they brought young children to Him, that He might touch them.

St. John Chrysostom: But the disciples, out of respect for Christ's dignity, forbade those who brought the children. This is why the text adds, And His disciples rebuked those who brought them. But our Savior, in order to teach His disciples to be humble in their thinking and to trample worldly pride, takes the children to Himself and assigns the kingdom of God to them.

Therefore, it continues, And He said to them, Suffer the little children to come to Me, and forbid them not.

Origen of Alexandria: If any of those who claim to be teachers in the Church should see someone bringing them the foolish, the humble, and the weak of this world—who for this reason are called children and infants—they should not forbid that person from offering them to the Savior, as if they were acting without judgment.

After this, He exhorts His disciples who are already mature to humbly serve children, so that they may become like children to children in order to win them over (compare 1 Corinthians 9:22). For Christ Himself, when He was in the form of God, humbled Himself and became a child.¹

He also adds, For of such is the kingdom of heaven.

St. John Chrysostom: Indeed, the mind of a child is pure from all passions. For this reason, we ought, by our own free choice, to practice those virtues which children have by nature.

Theophylact of Ohrid: Therefore, He does not say "of these," but of such is the kingdom of God. This means it belongs to people who, in both their intentions and their actions, have the same harmlessness and simplicity that children have by nature.

A child does not hate, does nothing with evil intent, and even if beaten, does not leave his mother. Though she may dress him in plain clothing, he prefers it to a king's attire. Similarly, the one who lives according to the good ways of his mother, the Church, honors nothing above her—not even pleasure, which rules over so many.

For this reason, the Lord also adds, Verily I say to you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

The Venerable Bede: That is, if you do not have an innocence and purity of mind like that of children, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

Alternatively, we are commanded to receive the kingdom of God—that is, the teaching of the Gospel—as a little child. A child, when taught, does not contradict his teachers or argue against them. Instead, he receives what they teach with faith and obeys them with reverence. In the same way, we are to receive the word of the Lord with simple obedience and without any contradiction.

The passage continues, And He took them up in His arms, put His hands upon them, and blessed them.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: He fittingly takes them up in His arms to bless them, as if lifting His creation—which in the beginning fell and was separated from Him—into His own heart and reconciling it to Himself.

Again, He lays His hands on the children to teach us the working of His divine power. He does this as others are accustomed to do, although His work is not like that of others. For even though He was God, He adhered to human ways of acting, since He was truly man.²

The Venerable Bede: By embracing and blessing the children, He implied that the lowly in spirit are worthy of His blessing, grace, and love.

The Venerable Bede: A certain man had heard from the Lord that only those who are willing to be like little children are worthy to enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, he desires to have it explained to him, not in parables but openly, by what works a man may attain everlasting life.

Therefore, it is said: 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?

Theophylact of Ohrid: I wonder at this young man. While all others come to Christ to be healed of their infirmities, he begs from Him the possession of everlasting life, despite his love of money—the malignant passion that afterwards caused his sorrow.

St. John Chrysostom: However, because he had come to Christ as he would to a mere man, and to one of the Jewish teachers, Christ answered him as a man.¹

Therefore, the account continues: And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but the One God.

In saying this, He does not exclude humanity from goodness, but from a comparison with the goodness of God.

The Venerable Bede: By this one God who is good, we must understand not only the Father, but also the Son, who says, I am the good Shepherd (John 10:11), and also the Holy Spirit, because it is said, The Father which is in heaven will give the good Spirit to them that ask him (Luke 11:13). For the one and undivided Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—is the only and one good God.

The Lord, therefore, does not deny that He is good, but implies that He is God. He does not deny that He is a good Master, but He declares that no master is good except God.

Theophylact of Ohrid: Therefore, the Lord intended by these words to raise the young man’s mind, so that he might know Him to be God. But He also implies something else: that when you have to converse with someone, you should not flatter them, but look to God, the root and fountain of all goodness, and honor Him.

The Venerable Bede: But observe that the righteousness of the law, when kept in its proper time, conferred not only earthly goods but also eternal life on those who chose it. Therefore, the Lord’s answer to one who inquires about everlasting life is, Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill. For this is the childlike blamelessness that is set before us if we would enter the kingdom of heaven.

Then follows his reply: And he answered and said unto Him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.

We must not suppose that this man asked the Lord with a desire to test Him, as some have imagined, or that he lied about his life. Rather, we must believe that he confessed with sincerity how he had lived. This is evident from what follows: Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him.

If, however, he had been guilty of lying or deception, Jesus, after looking into the secrets of his heart, would by no means have been said to love him.

Origen of Alexandria: For in that He loved him (or kissed himⁱ), He seems to affirm the truth of his profession that he had fulfilled all those things. For when He considered him, He saw that the man answered with a good conscience.²

Pseudo-Chrysostom: It is worth asking, however, how He could love a man whom He knew would not follow Him. The answer is this: since the man was worthy of love in the first place for observing the law from his youth, he did not, in the end, suffer a loss of that initial love, even though he did not take on perfection.

For although he did not go beyond the bounds of human righteousness or follow the perfection of Christ, he was still not guilty of any sin, since he kept the law to the best of a man’s ability. It was in this manner of keeping the law that Christ loved himⁱ.³

The Venerable Bede: For God loves those who keep the commandments of the law, even if they are at a lower stage of righteousness. Nevertheless, He shows to those who would be perfect the deficiency of the law, for He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it (Matthew 5:17).

Therefore, what follows is: And said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. For whoever would be perfect ought to sell all that he has—not just a part, like Ananias and Sapphira, but the whole.

Theophylact of Ohrid: And when he has sold it, he is to give it to the poor, not to entertainers and self-indulgent people.

St. John Chrysostom: He also did well to say not "eternal life" but "treasure," saying, And thou shalt have treasure in heaven. Since the question concerned wealth and the renunciation of all things, He shows that He gives back far more than He has commanded us to leave, in proportion as heaven is greater than earth.

Theophylact of Ohrid: But because there are many poor people who are not humble, but are drunkards or have some other vice, He adds, And come, follow me.

The Venerable Bede: For a person follows the Lord who imitates Him and walks in His footsteps.

The account continues: And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved.

St. John Chrysostom: The Evangelist adds the cause of his grief, saying, For he had great possession. The feelings of those who have little and those who have much are not the same, for the increase of acquired wealth ignites a greater flame of covetousness.

Then follows: And Jesus looked round about, and said unto His disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God.

Theophylact of Ohrid: He does not say here that riches are bad, but that those who possess them only to guard them carefully are at fault. For He teaches us not to hoard them—that is, not to keep or preserve them—but to use them for necessary things.

St. John Chrysostom: But the Lord said this to His disciples, who were poor and possessed nothing, in order to teach them not to be ashamed of their poverty. It was, as it were, an explanation to them, giving them a reason why He had not allowed them to possess anything.

The account continues: And the disciples were astonished at His words. It is plain that, since they themselves were poor, they were anxious for the salvation of others.

The Venerable Bede: But there is a great difference between having riches and loving them. Therefore, Solomon also says not, 'He that has silver,' but, He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver (Ecclesiastes 5:10). The Lord thus clarifies His previous statement to His astonished disciples, as follows: But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard it is for them that trust in their riches to enter the kingdom of God.

Here we must observe that He says not 'how impossible,' but how hard. For what is impossible can in no way come to pass, whereas what is difficult can be accomplished, though with great effort.

St. John Chrysostom: Alternatively, after saying it is 'difficult,' He then shows that it is impossible—and not simply so, but with a certain vehemence. He demonstrates this with an example, saying, It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Theophylact of Ohrid: It may be that by 'camel,' we should understand the animal itself, or else the thick cable used for large ships.

The Venerable Bede: How then could Matthew and Joseph in the Gospel, or the many rich persons in the Old Testament, enter the kingdom of God? It must be that they learned through the inspiration of God either to count their riches as nothing or to give them up altogether.

Or, in a higher sense, it is easier for Christ to suffer for those who love Him than for lovers of this world to turn to Christ. For by the 'camel,' He wished Himself to be understood, because He bore the burden of our weakness. By the 'needle,' He means the sharp pains of His Passion. By the 'eye of a needle,' therefore, He signifies the narrow passage of His suffering, through which He deigned, as it were, to mend the torn garments of our nature.

The account continues: And they were astonished above measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?

Since the number of poor people is immeasurably greater, and they could be saved even if the rich perished, the disciples must have understood Him to mean that all who love riches—even if they cannot obtain them—are counted among the rich.

The account continues: And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God. We must not take this to mean that covetous and proud people can enter the kingdom of heaven with their covetousness and pride. Rather, it means that it is possible with God for them to be converted from covetousness and pride to charity and humility.

St. John Chrysostom: The reason He says this is the work of God is to show that a person who is put on this path by God has great need of grace. From this it is proved that the reward is great for those rich men who are willing to follow the disciplineⁱ of Christ.

Theophylact of Ohrid: Alternatively, we must understand that by with men it is impossible, but not with God, He means that when we listen to God, it becomes possible; but as long as we hold to our human notions, it is impossible. Then follows: For all things are possible with God. When He says “all things,” you must understand this to mean all things that have being, which sin does not, for sin is a thing without being or substanceⁱ.

Furthermore, sin does not fall under the concept of strength, but of weakness; therefore sin, like weakness, is impossible for God. But can God cause something that has been done to have not been done? To this we answer that God is Truth, but to cause what has been done to not have been done is falsehood. How then can Truth do what is false?

For God to do so, He would first have to abandon His own nature. Therefore, those who ask such a question are really asking, “Can God cease to be God?”—which is absurd.

Glossa Ordinaria: Because the young man had gone away sorrowful after hearing our Savior's advice about casting away his goods, the disciples of Christ, who had already fulfilled the previous command, began to question Him about their reward.

They thought they had done a great thing, since the young man, who had fulfilled the commandments of the law, had not been able to hear this advice without sadness.

Therefore, Peter questioned the Lord for himself and the others with these words: Then Peter began to say unto Him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.

Theophylact of Ohrid: Although Peter had left only a few things, he still calls them his "all." For even a few things can hold us by a bond of affection, so that he who leaves even a few things will be blessed.

The Venerable Bede: And because it is not enough to have left all, he adds that which constitutes perfection: and have followed thee. It is as if he said, "We have done what you have commanded. What reward, therefore, will you give us?"

Theophylact of Ohrid: But while Peter asks only about the disciples, our Lord gives a general answer. Therefore, the text continues: Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands.

In saying this, however, He does not mean that we should leave our fathers without helping them, or that we should separate from our wives; rather, He instructs us to prefer the glory of God to the things of this world.

St. John Chrysostom: It seems to me that by these words He intended to subtly proclaim that there would be persecutions, as it would come to pass that many fathers would lure their sons into impiety, and many wives their husbands.¹

Again, He does not hesitate to say, for my name's sake and the Gospel's, as Mark says, or for the kingdom of God, as Luke says. The name of Christ is the power of the Gospel and of His kingdom, for the Gospel is received in the name of Jesus Christ, and the kingdom is made known and comes by His name.²

The Venerable Bede: Some, however, taking opportunity from this saying, where it is announced that one shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, teach that Jewish fable of a thousand years after the resurrection of the just. They claim that during this time, all that we have left for the Lord's sake is to be restored with a manifold return, in addition to which we are to receive the crown of everlasting life.

These people do not perceive that although the promise is honorable in other respects, its foulness is made manifest in the "hundred wives" which the other Evangelists mention. This is particularly true since the Lord testifies that there will be no marriage in the resurrection, and asserts that the things we put away for His sake are to be received again in this life with persecutions—which, they affirm, will not take place in their thousand-year reign.ⁱ

Pseudo-Chrysostom: This hundredfold reward, therefore, must be in participation, not in possession, for the Lord fulfilled this for them not carnally, but spiritually.

Theophylact of Ohrid: For a wife is occupied in a house with her husband's food and clothing. See also how this was the case with the Apostles, for many women concerned themselves with their food and clothing and ministered to them. In the same way, the Apostles had many fathers and mothers—that is, people who loved them. Peter, for instance, leaving one house, afterward had the houses of all the disciples.

And what is more wonderful, they are to be persecuted and oppressed, for it is with persecutions that the Saints are to possess all things. For this reason, what follows is, But many that are first shall be last, and the last first. The Pharisees who were first became the last, but those who left all and followed Christ were last in this world through tribulation and persecution, yet they will be first through the hope that is in God.

The Venerable Bede: What is said here, shall receive an hundredfold, can be understood in a higher sense. [see note, p. 78] The number one hundred, which is counted by switching from the left hand to the right, has the same appearance in the bending of the fingers as the number ten on the left, yet it is a much greater quantity. This means that all who have despised temporal things for the sake of the kingdom of heaven through unwavering faith may taste the joy of that same kingdom in this life, which is full of persecutions. In their expectation of the heavenly country, signified by the right hand, they share in the happiness of all the elect.

But because not all people complete a virtuous course of life with the same ardor with which they began it, it is immediately added, But many that are first shall be last, and the last first. For we daily see many people who, while remaining in a secular life, are eminent for their virtuous conduct. Conversely, we see others who, though ardent in their spiritual profession from their youth, at last wither away in the sloth of ease. With a lazy folly, they finish in the flesh what they had begun in the Spirit.

The Venerable Bede: The disciples remembered the discourse in which the Lord had foretold that He was about to suffer many things from the chief priests and scribes, and therefore, as they were going up to Jerusalem, they were amazed. This is what is meant when it says, And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus went before them.

Theophylact of Ohrid: This was to show that He runs to meet His Passion and does not refuse death for the sake of our salvation. And they were amazed, and as they followed, they were afraid.

The Venerable Bede: They were afraid either for fear that they themselves would perish with Him, or at least that He, whose life and ministry was their joy, would fall into the hands of His enemies. But the Lord, foreseeing that His disciples' minds would be troubled by His Passion, foretold to them both the pain of His Passion and the glory of His Resurrection.

Therefore, it says next: And He took again the twelve, and began to tell them what things would happen to Him.

Theophylact of Ohrid: He did this to strengthen the hearts of the disciples, so that by hearing these things beforehand, they might better bear them afterward and not be alarmed by their suddenness. It was also to show them that He suffered voluntarily, for anyone who foresees a danger and does not flee—though he has the power to—evidently gives himself up to suffering of his own will.

He takes His disciples apart because it was fitting that He should reveal the mystery of His Passion to those who were more closely connected with Him.

St. John Chrysostom: And He lists everything that was to happen to Him, so that if He were to overlook anything, they would not be troubled later by suddenly seeing it.¹

Therefore, He adds, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man...

Glossa Ordinaria: This means He to whom suffering belongs, for the Godhead cannot suffer. ...shall be delivered—that is, by Judas—to the Chief Priests and to the Scribes, and they shall condemn Him to death, judging Him to be guilty of death; and shall deliver Him to the Gentiles—that is, to Pilate the Gentile and his soldiers. And they shall mock Him, and shall spit upon Him, and scourge Him, and put Him to death.

St. John Chrysostom: But so that when they were saddened by His Passion and death they would also look for His Resurrection, He adds, And the third day He shall rise again. For since He had not hidden from them the sorrows and insults that were to happen, it was fitting that they should believe Him on other points.²