Mark 10:29 mentions father, but Mark 10:30 doesn't.

Mat 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

Mar 10:29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,

Mar 10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

  • 1
    I don't understand why you added Mat 23:9. Maybe that's why he didn't say FATHERS? Jan 19, 2012 at 1:45
  • Probably better on Biblical Hermeneutics. Jan 19, 2012 at 14:33
  • @DJClayworth and anyone else who might be interested, this question was asked on BH.SE. I edited the question there to be a bit more clear. I'm less confident editing it here, since I'm not completely sure I know what the asker is trying to communicate. Jan 23, 2012 at 18:46

2 Answers 2


At the risk of sounding sexist, a young person would probably have been quite happy to have multiple mothers (they dote on you, they feed you), but to replace your father would be to replace your own identity.

Having a new father means you are totally different person, and to include the father would be to confuse the point that Jesus is trying to make - namely that every thing that gives you comfort which you forsake is nothing in comparison to what you will receive in heaven as a reward.

As Paul would say in Romans 8: 18

I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.


This is a very intriguing question. It appears that these particular conversations (Matthew 19 and Mark 10) are between Jesus and the 12 disciples. So, they were all specifically men. In the Matthew passage, he specifically precedes this teaching with a reference to the twelve disciples.

In both passages, this is in direct response to Peter's statement that "we have left everything to follow you." It seems that Peter is referring to the 12 disciples in that statment, who literally had, indeed, left everything to follow Him.

Then Peter said in reply, “See, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?” 28 Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold[c] and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and the last first. Matthew 19:27-30 ESV

Peter began to say to him, “See, we have left everything and followed you.” 29 Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, 30 who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. 31 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.” Mark 10:28-31

So, had the audience been a mixture of both men and women who were His devoted followers, He certainly may have said "husbands or wives" rather than just "wives". In the context of all men, though, including husbands would seem odd--just as it would be to refer to wives when speaking to an audience of all women.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .