Bible Commentaries

Matthew 19:1-12). Little children were brought

to Him, whom He blessed (Matthew 19:13-15). When a rich young ruler questioned Him

concerning eternal life (Matthew 19:16-22), Jesus used the occasion to teach His

disciples about possessions in relation to the kingdom of God (Matthew 19:23-30).

POINTS TO PONDER

* Jesus' teachings related to marriage, divorce, and celibacy

* Possessions and rewards in reference to the kingdom of God

REVIEW QUESTIONS

1) What are the main points of this chapter?

- Marriage, divorce and celibacy - Matthew 19:1-12

- Jesus blesses the little children - Matthew 19:13-15

- The rich young ruler - Matthew 19:16-22

- Possessions and the kingdom - Matthew 19:23-30

2) Who is it that joins a man and woman in marriage? Matthew 19:1-30 :(6)

- God, not the state (government)

3) What exception does Jesus allow for divorce? Otherwise, what occurs?

(Matthew 19:9)

- Sexual immorality; adultery, cf. Matthew 5:32

4) What price might be necessary for some to enter the kingdom of

heaven? (Matthew 19:12)

- To make themselves eunuchs (i.e., to remain in an unmarried state)

5) What did Jesus say about little children? (Matthew 19:14)

- "Let the little children come to Me . . .for of such is the kingdom

of heaven."

6) What did Jesus counsel the rich young ruler? (Matthew 19:17; Matthew 19:21)

- For eternal life, to keep the commandments (of Moses, still in

force at that time)

- To be perfect, sell all and give to the poor, and follow Him

7) What did Jesus say about being rich and the kingdom of heaven?

(Matthew 19:23-24)

- It is hard for the rich to enter the kingdom

- It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle

8) What did Jesus promise to His apostles who left all to follow Him?

(Matthew 19:27-28)

- To sit on thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel in the

regeneration

9) What did Jesus promise to all willing to leave much to follow Him

(Matthew 19:29-30)

- A hundredfold blessings in this life; in the life to come eternal

life, cf. Mark 10:29-30

Matthew 19:1-30

Matthew 19:1-30

QUESTIONS ABOUT DIVORCE JESUS RECEIVING LITTLE CHILDREN THE RICH YOUNG RULER JESUS" TEACHING CONCERNING RICHES

And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these words, he departed from Galilee, and came into the borders of Judaea beyond the Jordan; and great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there. (Matthew 19:1-2)

This verse marks the end of the Galilean ministry and the beginning of the Perean ministry, according to Robertson, who placed the time interval between these two chapters at about six months, Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 5:2.

Verse5
And said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh? So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Jesus" answer was plain, even blunt. God does not allow divorce. There's really no problem at all about knowing God's will. To be sure, problems and difficulties occur, but from what sinful men do, not from any ambiguity regarding what God commanded! "What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Divorce is man's will, not God's will. How shocking this truth must have been to the Pharisees who not only allowed, but also practiced, divorce on a colossal scale. How shocking it is for many today! People have no trouble knowing the truth on this question, but they do have quite a problem trying to make what they do bear the light of this truth! See under Matthew 19:9.

Verse7
They say unto him, Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away?

Convicted as they were by Jesus" words, nevertheless they strove to place Christ in conflict with Moses. They should have known from the Sermon on the Mount that Christ claimed greater authority than Moses, but what they were seeking in this instance was a cause celebre to aid their campaign against Jesus" popularity with the people.

Verse8
He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so.

There was, in the case before them, no conflict with Moses. Christ set the record straight, correcting their false statement that Moses had "commanded" divorce. On the contrary, he only permitted it, or "suffered it," as an unwelcome choice between two evils. This is still the only possible justification of divorce, there being cases in which it must appear as the lesser of two evils but still wrong, permitted and yet not in harmony with the Father's perfect will.

Verse9
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.

Christ's exception does no violence to God's word. Divorce is still an evil; but, in the case of adultery of one of the partners, it is a lesser evil than living with an unfaithful spouse. Permitted in such a case? Yes, but the dissolution of marriage is contrary to God's law. Paul's exception in 1 Corinthians 7:15 is not an addition to the one given by Christ in this place but should be viewed as presumptive evidence of the condition named in Jesus" exception. Desertion by one of the marriage partners affords the strongest presumption of adultery also.

The law of God is easy to understand. Problems arise only from the complications that set in when people sin, giving rise to all kinds of fantastic situations. For those who find themselves entangled in such frustrations and contradictions rising out of violations of God's basic law, it is not recommended that they "solve" their problems in the dim light of human legislation, but rather by casting themselves upon the mercy of God. Vast numbers of situations exist today for which no proper or truly adequate solution is possible. Human laws, the opinions of ecclesiastics, the canon law of churches, the judgments of preachers, bishops, or popes, are all valueless in this area where only God has the right to legislate.

Verse10
The disciples say unto him, If the case of the man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.

The Pharisees were not the only ones shaken up by the Lord's teaching. The disciples too were surprised and even intimidated at the sanctity and inviolate nature of the marriage tie as expounded by Christ.

Verse11
But he said unto them, Not all men can receive this saying, but they to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Eunuchs in ancient times were considered unworthy of being received in the work of God, but Christ opened the kingdom to eunuchs also, and allowed in this place, but did not command, celibacy. This was in answer to the disciples" suggestion that it was not expedient to marry. Christ sanctified and blessed the marriage covenant by being present and performing his first wonder at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. This passage shows that eunuchs were also to be admitted to the kingdom of heaven. The conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:1-40 is significant in this context.

Verse13
Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should lay his hands on them and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.

We agree with J. W. McGarvey that "The fortuitous coincidence of these two conversations is a happy one." As he said,

The little children, the offspring of happy wedlock, and a source of constant happiness to faithful husbands and wives, were brought into notice at the close of a conversation about divorce and about the supposed inconvenience of an indissoluble marriage bond. The pleasant incident served as a comment on the discussion, and left a better impression in reference to married life. Mark 10:16). The conduct of the disciples in this instance of rebuking the people who wanted to bring their children to Christ may be explained by their desire to shield the Master from what they considered to be a waste of his time or unnecessary tax on his strength. Jesus had already made little children the models of faith, trust, humility, teachableness, and freedom from malice; and in this case he declared that to such as these belongs the kingdom of God.

ENDNOTE:

Jeremiah 31:31 which is emphatically identified with the current dispensation in Hebrews 10:16, makes infant membership in the kingdom impossible. Jeremiah taught that no untaught person shall be in God's kingdom. It will not be necessary (in the days of the new covenant) for people to say "know the Lord," for ALL know him already. Why? Because they must know him BEFORE they can enter that new relationship. Infants cannot and do not know the Lord in the manner required of all who truly accept Christ.

The baptism of infants is neither commanded nor allowed in the New Testament, a truth which was remarkably emphasized by events in the Anglican church in1964 , and published in the New York Times (Dec16 ,1964 , p16) where it was reported that many distinguished vicars of that faith would no longer baptize infants, affirming that to do so was contrary to Scripture. The report quoted the clergymen as saying, "We are denying adults the right of baptism" by baptizing infants. Of course, they were correct in that allegation. To baptize infants does "deny" baptism to adults. Peter commanded people to repent and "have yourselves baptized" (see Vine's Greek Dictionary), and people cannot do this if the church recognizes a ceremony practiced upon them in infancy, contrary to their will, or at least without their consent, and makes that imposition the true baptism. Such is only another instance in which people have made the word of God of none effect by their tradition (see on Matthew 15:9 ff).

If an infant is "saved" by baptism (so-called) in infancy, such a person is saved without repentance, without confession, without knowledge of the Lord, without consciousness of sin, and without any intention of living right. There cannot be anything "from within" in infant baptism. This is contrary to the Lord's statement that a man "must be born again" before he can see the kingdom of heaven (John 3:3-5). The baptism and acceptance of infants into the church constitutes the open gate through which all manner of evil and unrepentant people are associated with the church as members. It is precisely this that has destroyed, in large degree, the very character of the church.

Verse16
And behold one came to him and said, Teacher what good thing shall I do, that I may inherit eternal life? And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good: but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments.

THE RICH YOUNG RULER

The model character of this rich young man, his high social position, the love which he inspired in the Master, and the supremely important question upon his lips, all arouse special interest in this incident. Mark's account of Jesus" words sheds light upon their true meaning. He asked, "Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, even God" (Mark 10:18). This, to be sure, is one of the passages seized upon by Arians in an effort to show that Christ did not claim to be God in the flesh. Their argument, however, is false. "The Good was one of the many Judaic titles of God. The point of our Lord's remark is that a word with such hallowed association should not be used in a merely conventional manner." Psalm 145:9). In fact, it is easy to detect in this conversation a definite leading on the part of Christ to elicit an acknowledgment from that young man that Christ is God. It is as though the Lord had said, "I see you recognize me as Good; since only God is Good, do you thus receive me?" This thought appears plausible in the light of what immediately ensued when Jesus would have enlisted him as a disciple, perhaps even as an apostle.

Christ's declaration, "If thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments," shows that salvation is conditional upon respect and obedience of God's word.

ENDNOTE:

Mark 10:21). He was a model of moral excellence and integrity. If human righteousness could have saved anyone, this young man was already saved. Like Cornelius (Acts 10:1-6), he manifested virtue in a dissolute age, faith in an age of infidelity, and deep spirituality in an age of materialism. Most important of all, he recognized the void in his soul, that he was yet unsaved, saying, "What lack I yet?" Many in all ages, having the possessions of this young man, would have felt that they needed nothing. It is, therefore, a credit to his perception that he recognized the deep and vital lack within his heart and brought the problem to the Master.

Verse21
Jesus said unto him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

For all his youth and beauty, a cancer was eating away at his heart; and Christ made a move to eradicate it. "Sell all that thou hast!" How shocking is that command! What did it mean? What it meant for him we know; but what does it mean for us? Are Christians now commanded to sell all that they have and give it to the poor? For many, these are hard questions. Nevertheless, in the New Testament it is abundantly clear that selling all one's possessions was never made a universal condition of discipleship. Mary's house in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12), Philip's great house in Caesarea Palestina (Acts 21:8), and the statement of the apostle Peter that Ananias and Sapphira were not under compulsion either to sell their property or give the money when they did (Acts 5:4) make it very clear that ownership of property was not proscribed in the early church. Furthermore, the Lord's teaching in the parable of the pounds, the parable of the talents, and many other passages suggest and even demand that ownership of property was not condemned by Jesus nor forbidden to members of his kingdom. Why, then, did Jesus thus command the subject of this interview? Two possible reasons appear: (1) Covetousness had reached such a degree in the young man's heart that only by divesting himself of his wealth could he truly turn to Christ. (2) Christ, in all probability, was calling him to a place in the apostleship, an office that did require forsaking all that one had, just as Peter and the others among the Twelve had forsaken all that they had to follow Jesus. The fact that Jesus said, "Come, follow me!" shows that at least he was invited to accompany the Twelve, who themselves had forsaken all, and where his presence would have been an embarrassment to all concerned if he had been exempted from the requirement they had fulfilled.

Verse22
But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sorrowful; for he was one that had great possessions.

This is an unhappy ending of a very interesting and exciting story, especially if it is supposed that the young man continued in his rejection of the Christ. The sorrowful countenance indicated the struggle going on in his heart; his going away from the Lord shows what his final decision was. Projecting the life of this young man, as it probably developed, into the historical period following his interview with Jesus, reveals some intriguing possibilities. If he continued in covetous rejection of Jesus, and if he lived to the destruction of Jerusalem in70 A.D. by the soldiers of Titus and Vespasian, there is every possibility that his wealth and all his posterity perished in that awful siege, described in such horrible detail by Josephus (see on Matthew 24:21). Whether such was true or not, it would have been far better for that young man to have sold all, given it to the poor, and followed Jesus. Christ knew literally what was best for him. It will be recalled that no Christian lost his life in the siege. It is also true that Christ knows what is best for every man, for you and for me, and that one stands against his own temporal and eternal interests when he departs from following Jesus.

Verse23
And Jesus said unto his disciples, Verily, I say unto you, it is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Why, then, do we all strive to be rich? Is it that we desire to impede our soul's entry into the kingdom of God? Do people really wish to do it the hard way? Then let them get rich. That will provide an acid test that most people cannot pass. No wonder an apostle warned against ambition in that quarter (1 Timothy 6:9-10), and that Jesus taught people to seek his kingdom "first"! (Matthew 6:33). The rich are not hopeless. Christ did not say they cannot be saved, only that it is "hard" for them to enter.

Verse24
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

All attempts to make such a thing possible must appear ridiculous in the light of Christ's statement, a moment later, that such is "impossible" for human beings. Only the power of God can bring a man of wealth to quit trusting in his riches and to place his hope in God through Christ, or to possess his possessions instead of being possessed by them. People of affluence should always remember that only the power of the Eternal can empower them to force their wealth to subserve the purposes of God and His kingdom.

Verse25
And when the disciples heard it, they were astonished exceedingly, saying, Who then can be saved?

McGarvey very properly pointed out that the amazement of the disciples was intensified, not so much by the statement about a rich man's chances of being saved, as by the evident application of this principle to such an honorable and altogether lovable rich man as the one who had just appeared before the Lord. It is amazing even yet, that all personal excellence cannot avail anything unless there is a total surrender to the will of Jesus. The truth is clear. Christ will be ALL or NOTHING in the lives of people.

Verse26
And Jesus looking upon them said to them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

The difficulty, not the impossibility, of salvation for the rich is what Jesus taught. Added to the teaching on the marriage bond which came a little earlier, these strict words of Christ must have appeared as "hard sayings," even to the Twelve.

Verse27
Then answered Peter and said unto him, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee; what then shall we have?

Barker suggested that Peter was here suggesting preferential treatment for himself and others of the Twelve who had "left all" to follow Christ; and, in view of the parable with which Jesus followed this question, the view seems tenable. He said, "Peter self-righteously reminded Jesus of the sacrifices the disciples had made, then hinted for preferential treatment, asking, `What then shall we have?"" Romans 9:6; Galatians 3:29). Note that no preference was given Peter. There was not to be one throne, occupied by Peter and his successors, but twelve thrones, implying the equality of the Twelve. The word of the apostles, that is, the New Testament, is the instrument through which they exercise the authority that Jesus granted them in this promise. "Times of the regeneration" refers to the times of the new birth, namely, the time of the present dispensation when men are hearing the gospel, obeying it, and being born again. Efforts to apply this passage to some kind of literal return of Jesus to the earth and which envisions Christ and the apostles actually occupying literal earthly thrones must surely be rejected in the light of the truth that Christ and the Twelve are NOW reigning in his kingdom. The reign will continue until all enemies have been put under foot (1 Corinthians 15:24-28). When death, the last enemy, is destroyed, Christ will not initiate a reign but will end it, delivering up the kingdom to the Father.

Verse29
And every one that hath left houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit eternal life.

What a promise of blessing for God's children is this! Two things, yea three, are promised here: (1) First, there is the multiplication, on a vast scale, of the wealth that people may forsake to follow Christ. (2) Second, there is the multiplication, on the same vast scale, of loved ones, however near and dear, who may be forsaken for his name's sake. (3) Third, there is the promise of eternal life. But, looking beyond this magnificent triple promise, WHO is he that made it, and how shall he fulfill it? The answer is GOD, and God is able to do all things. Here then is another passage that must be placed in the category of teaching that Christ is God. Words like these must be counted sheer nonsense if spoken by a mere man; but, when spoken by Christ, they warm the hearts of men in all generations. Spoken by any other, such words would only evoke scorn and laughter; but, spoken by Christ, they strengthen the faithful in all ages. And the testimony is this: NO MAN EVER TRIED THE PROMISE BUT FOUND IT TRUE!

Verse30
But many shall be last that are first; and first that are last.

The application of these words to Peter's question is thus: God does not allow any system of seniority to determine ultimate rewards in his kingdom. The seeming implication of Peter's words to the effect that some preferential treatment might be in order for the earliest disciples who had given up so much to follow Christ finds its emphatic answer in this, that it is not how long, but how faithfully, men have served that determines destiny. Again, to quote Barker:

How often do we think that because we are "old timers" in a congregation we have proprietary rights over the program and property! Everyone has met the superchurchman who lets it be known that "I"ve been coming to this church for years," meaning that he has been promoted to Senior Vice President to God, Inc.! 1 Corinthians 7:7). Outside of these three classes of eunuchs the only divine safeguard against un-chastity is the institution of marriage, and the proper exercise of the function in that relationship of husband and wife. (See 1 Corinthians 7:5.)

Little children is not figurative but means literally a small child. The parents recognized Jesus as an individual who could bestow a blessing according to his own wisdom on these helpless creatures. The disciples were still somewhat confused as to the nature of the work that Jesus intended to accomplish. With this erroneous view of it, they considered this act on the part of the people as an interruption and rebuked them in the hearing of Jesus.

The key word in this passage is such, and if the disciples had recalled the lessons of chapter18:1-5 they would not have uttered their rebuke. Jesus did not say that the kingdom of heaven would contain little children, but it was to have men and women who had become such persons by repentance and humility.

The Son of God would not have to make a physical contact with a person in order to bestow a blessing. The act of putting his hands on the little children was a form of caress or endearment.

The man who came to Jesus was evidently a Jew in good standing and understood what the law required of its followers. But he also must have learned something about Jesus and his teaching (Master is from a word that also means teacher), and had the idea that something very different would have to be done to obtain what he was offering to the world, hence the question stated in this verse.

None good but God. Jesus did not deny being a good person, for in John 10:11 he even affirmed that he was the good shepherd. Since he was a member of the Godhead, he wished this man to know that in calling him good it was equivalent to calling him God, since all goodness comes from Him. He then gave the young man an answer to his question which was doubtless different from what he expected. When he told him to keep the commandments he did not understand to what he could have reference since the regular commandments of the law had already been his rule of life.

He asked Jesus to specify the commands that were meant and he repeated the six of the deca-logue that pertained to dealings between man and man.

Jesus did not question the statement of the young man that he had kept all of those laws, hence we may conclude that this claim was true. But Jesus was here to set up another kingdom with other• laws, and perhaps something would need to be added to the life of this young man who had lived up to the letter of the law. He doubtless asked confidently what lack yet?

We need not think this man was merely pretending to be interested, for there is nothing in the conversation of Jesus that indicated that he had an unfavorable feeling toward him; instead; as Mark's account gives it (Matthew 10:21) he loved the young man. But he could read the minds of men and he knew this man was a rich Jew and that he was devoted to his wealth. It is not necessarily wrong to be wealthy, but it is so when one is attached to his riches as this man was. That would constitute an "emergency" that required special legislation, hence Jesus told him the thing he lacked was the separation of his wealth from personal use and devotion of it to others.

This shaft "hit its mark" for the young man went away sorrowing because of his great possessions. What he ever did about it we are not told.

Hardly is from DUSKOLOS which Thayer defines, "with difficulty." The sacrifices that a rich man is called upon to make enter so deeply into his devotion to the business of getting more money, that it is difficult for him to bring about that change in his manner of life.

Verse24. Needle is from RHAPHIS which Thayer defines, "a needle," and he shows that the word comes from BHAPTO which means, "to sew." Donne-gan defines rhaphis, "a needle, awl, or other instrument for sewing." The Authorized version renders this verse correctly, for the words are so defined in the lexicon of the Greek language.

The disciples knew that a camel could not naturally go through the eye of a needle, and they took the comparison to mean that few if any persons could be saved.

Jesus supplied the point the disciples overlooked, namely, that a thing impossible with men does not have to be so with God. He could actually take a camel through the eye of a needle, but in doing so there would be some kind of change made in the camel's body that its earthly master could not cause it to make. A rich man can be saved, but it cannot be if he continues in his devotion and trust in his riches.

The apostles then saw the point and understood that the illustration of the camel and needle meant that one must go to the utmost in sacrificing his personal interests in order to secure the favors that the kingdom of heaven offers to the world. Peter spoke to Jesus on behalf of the other apostles as he was generally the spokesman for them. He stated that they had forsaken all to follow Jesus and asked what it would bring to them. We should bear in mind that following Jesus as he meant it was to leave their homes bodily so as to travel over the country with him. (See Mark 3:14 on being "with him.")

9:28.

Regeneration is from PALIG-GENESIA which has a very extensive meaning in Greek literature, but its proper definition is, "new birth, reproduction, r e n e w a1 , recreation."--Thayer. It occurs only twice in the New Testament and the other place is Titus 3:5 where it is used in connection with "washing." Hebrews 10:22 says that it is our bodies that are washed and the connection there also shows that it applies to persons who have been regenerated by obedience to the Gospel. Hence it is clear that Jesus was speaking of the Christian Dispensation, after the kingdom of heaven was set up and he would be its king, sitting in glory at his Father's right hand. But he arranged his rule of government by delegating the writing of the law to his twelve apostles. That law was to be in force unto the end of the world (chapter28:20), and in that figurative way they would be occupying the twelve thrones. Twelve tribes of Israel is a figure of speech based on the fact that under the Jewish system God's people were grouped into that many tribes. Under the Gospel system there is only one tribe but the law is administered by the twelve apostles, hence Christians are referred to as twelve tribes. (See Acts 26:7; James 1:1.)

These apostles had forsaken all of their earthly interests for the time being that they might be with Jesus literally in his journeys among the people. But it was not to be permanent, for, when the personal ministry of Christ was completed, they could resume their former manner of life, at least to some extent. But even that temporary self-denial was to be rewarded with such good things (Mark 10:30 adds "now in this time"), and after the judgment it was to bring eternal life.

This verse is a statement of general principles. The words first and last do not always mean chronologically but sometimes are used with reference to importance. If any specific sense is to be attached to them in any case, the connection will have to be considered in determining the meaning. But the words usually mean that persons who are expected to be foremost in accepting the truth are often the least concerned, and vice versa.