Matthew 19

CHAPTER XIX

XV

Christ Beyond Jordan. Chapter 19:1–20:16

Matthew 19:1

1 All that Matthew reports in the preceding section took place in Capernaum in less than one day. Jesus made only a brief visit to this city and then left it never to return. Now his destination is Jerusalem, but he proceeds slowly, spending some time on the way. And it came to pass when Jesus finished these sayings he departed from Galilee and went to the boundaries of Judea, beyond the Jordan. And great multitudes followed him, and he healed them there. The formula regarding the finishing of his sayings is used repeatedly when transition is made to a new section (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 26:1).

Jesus left Galilee, and his destination is Judea. The phrase introduced with πέραν does not modify “Judea” but the verb ἦλθεν and states that Jesus took this road “beyond the Jordan” in order to reach the boundaries of Judea instead of following the road through Samaria. At no time did the borders of Judea extend eastward beyond the Jordan; our versions read as though they did and should be corrected. Matthew writes for former Jews who knew the geography of their land and also knew that the Jews of Galilee preferred the road “beyond the Jordan” when going to Judea and Jerusalem because it avoided Samaria with its hostile population, which was especially hostile to Jews who were going to the festivals at Jerusalem.

Perea was new territory for Jesus, and so he travelled slowly. Matthew does not intend to record the details, so he summarizes: crowds followed Jesus, and he healed many of their sick ἐκεῖ, there “beyond the Jordan.” What Matthew does record has scarcely any reference to the inhabitants of Perea but centers chiefly in the instruction of the Twelve.

Matthew 19:3

3 This is true with regard to the question of the Twelve (v. 10). And there came to him the Pharisees, tempting him and saying, If it is lawful to release one’s wife for every charge, (let us know). The Pharisees found in Perea (we retain οἱ) were of the same temper and type as those residing in Galilee and in Jerusalem. They were entirely hostile to Jesus and bent on ruining him. So here their object is to tempt Jesus to make a pronouncement that will discredit him.

The question raised was one on which the schools of Shammai and of Hillel differed. Shammai interpreted Deut. 24:1 as follow: “The man is not to release his wife unless he have found something indecent in her.” He reverses the two Hebrew nouns ‘erwath dabar and their grammatical relation and thus himself needs interpretation. The LXX translate: ὅτιεὕρηκενἐναὐψῇἄσχημονπράγμα. Hillel allowed as a charge the fact that in cooking the wife had burnt her husband’s food; and Rabbi Akiba, referring especially to the expression, “that she find no favor in his eyes,” permitted her release when the husband found a better-looking woman. Shammai was stricter, Hillel utterly lax.

The Pharisees lay Hillel’s teaching before Jesus with the phrase “for every αἰτία,” i.e., accusation that in some way charges guilt; κατά contains the idea of cause, R. 609. Since it is easier to be lax than to be strict, to go down hill than to go up, Hillel’s views were followed by the Jews; and Josephus, Antiquities, 4, 8, 23 writes: “He that desires to be divorced from his wife for any cause whatsoever—and many such causes happen among men—let him in writing give assurance that he never will use her as his wife any more, for by these means she may be at liberty to marry another husband, although before this bill of deliverance be given she is not to be permitted to do so.”

So the question before Jesus is, whether he agrees with Hillel’s exposition of Deut. 24:1. “Tempting him” means that they tried to make him compromise himself in some way. If, for instance, he should agree with Hillel and the common Jewish practice, the Pharisees could side with Shammai and charge Jesus with moral laxity. If he sided with Shammai who held that only actual shameful conduct could be a cause for divorce, Jesus could be reproached for his own friendly treatment of sinners. The choice of either view would involve Jesus in the Jewish party disputes. If, however, as the Pharisees most likely expected, Jesus should reject both Hillel and Shammai and declare himself against all divorce, they could charge him with contradicting even the law stated in Deut. 24:1. The Pharisees felt quite certain that they had asked a question which Jesus could not answer without great harm to himself. See 12:10 on εἰ in a direct question, and R. 916; B.-D. 440, 3.

Matthew 19:4

4 But he, answering, said: Did you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female and said, On this account shall a man leave his father and his mother and be glued to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no longer two but one flesh. What, therefore, God yoked together, let man not divide apart.

The way in which the Pharisees propounded their question by asking, “Is it lawful (ἔξεστιν)?” revealed that they considered marriage and its dissolution a matter of legislation. They expected Jesus to enter into a discussion of Deut. 24:1. Marriage is bound up with the very creation of man. It is not a product of some progress or development that came about later. Therefore Jesus starts with a rebuke to these Pharisees who would raise a tricky discussion of Deuteronomy. He brushes aside their cunning temptation by asking them whether they have never read Gen. 1:27, “He, who made them from the beginning made them male and female,” using the two adjectives as nouns.

The object of ὁποιήσας is understood, and the best texts have this participle and not ὁκτίσας. Although Eve was created after Adam, the latter was at once created male, and thus, by that creative act, marriage was instituted by God. It was a one-sided reading of the Scriptures when the Pharisees wrangled about Deut. 24:1, and overlooked Gen. 1:27.

Matthew 19:5

5 On top of that God stated what marriage really is. Because he created them male and female, “on this account shall a man leave his father and his mother (the articles have the force of possessives) and shall be glued (passive, R. 819) to his wife.” Nor is the verb προσκολλᾶν too strong, for the marital union is closer than one’s connection with father or mother; “and the two shall be one flesh.” Jesus quotes Gen. 2:24, using the LXX which reproduces the Hebrew exactly save that οἱδύο, “the two,” is added in order to bring out the sense of the original, an addition that is retained whenever the New Testament quotes this passage. Although Adam spoke Gen. 2:24, he voiced only God’s thought regarding what marriage really is; hence Jesus and the New Testament regard this as a word of God. On the use of εἰς after the copula instead of a predicate nominative see R. 458 and 595.

Matthew 19:6

6 In order still more to impress the point regarding what God made of marriage at the time of creation Jesus adds: “Wherefore they are no longer two (like father and son, mother and son) but one flesh.” The physical sexual union consummated in marriage actually makes “one flesh” of the two. And it ought to be self-evident that, therefore, this union is to be permanent. But since this is vital for the question brought up by the Pharisees, Jesus states this deduction (οὖν) in so many words: “What, therefore, God yoked together, let man not divide apart.” When persons are involved, a neuter such as ὅ makes the reference abstract and general and thus stronger: “anything” joined together by God. The aorist is generally considered timeless, yet here it marks time antecedent to the main verb and is thus in place for this reason. In connections such as this the English prefers the perfect, “has yoked together.” The implication is that any man who divides what God has thus by his own creation united into one, flies into the face of God and his will—a serious opposition, indeed. How indissoluble marriage is according to God’s own creation is thus made clear. Did these Pharisees never read these words of Scripture and think on what they obviously declare?

Matthew 19:7

7 Without attempting to contradict Jesus these men cling to their view of Deut. 24:1 and the dissolution of marriage which it seems to permit. They say to him, Why, then, did Moses command to give her a divorce certificate and to release her? The whole question rests on a false supposition. They present it as though Moses “did command” this in an absolute way, and as though dissolution of marriage for sufficient cause was originally contemplated in the will of God concerning marriage. These Pharisees could and should have seen their shallow error. It was an easy matter to see why Moses gave the command mentioned.

Even its substance dealt only with the legal procedure followed in the release of a wife? a divorce certificate had to be given. It is immaterial whether βιβλίον is added to ἀποστάσιον or is omitted as in 5:31.

Matthew 19:8

8 Jesus corrects this false supposition. He says to them, Moses, for your hardness of heart, permitted you to release your wives; but from the beginning it has not been thus. We regard ὅτι as recitative and not as matching the τί of the question: “why … because,” for Jesus does not state the cause alone, which would be only, “Because of the hardness of your hearts.” This brief reply would not be enough. What Jesus says is that the command of Moses was only a permission and nothing more. Something had intervened since God, by creating man as he did, created marriage, namely sin, which wrought havoc also in the marriage relation. It produced the hardness of the heart which at times made marriage a bond that people wanted to dissolve; πρός states the cause, R. 626.

The regulation of Moses was nothing more than a concession to this evil condition and never went beyond this. It thus consisted of nothing but a legal form for dissolving marriage. It thus also bore testimony only to the hardness of so many hearts, and no man in his senses could conclude that by this Mosaic regulation God had altered his original intention concerning the permanency of marriage. Any man who wanted to know God’s will concerning marriage would not, therefore, examine only Deut. 24:1; he would go back to Gen. 1:27 and 2:24, as Jesus had just done. He would have to see how it “has been in the beginning.”

Note also “your” hardness of heart, and again, permitted “to you,” both pronouns referring only to the Jews and the Pharisees. Godly Jews themselves made no use of the Mosaic permission but kept their marriages inviolate as God had intended. These pronouns read as though Jesus disavows the permission of Moses as far as his disciples are concerned. As true followers of Jesus no hardness of heart will develop in them that requires such a humiliating concession.

Matthew 19:9

9 And I say to you, that he who releases his wife, excepts for fornication, and marries another, is made adulterous. The main variant readings, as also the addition of a second sentence are textual insertions from 5:32; and thus nothing is gained by repeating them. From Mark 10:10, 11 one might conclude that Jesus spoke this word only to the disciples after they and Jesus had gone into the house; but this is not necessary. We may assume that Jesus concluded his answer to the Pharisees with this final statement and then repeated it in the house during the discussion with the disciples, of whom Matthew also speaks in v. 10.

“And I say to you,” here without the emphatic ἐγώ, does not intend to contradict what Moses wrote in Deut. 24:1; Jesus has already explained how this Mosaic regulation had been arranged because of the hardness of heart of the Jews. With “I say to you” Jesus contradicts the Pharisaic perversion of Deut. 24:1, and goes back to Gen. 1:27 and 2:24 by which he has made the correction. The statement itself differs only slightly from 5:32. There Jesus brings out the thought that the man who rids himself of his wife (save for fornication) commits a grave sin against her and thus also against any man who may later on marry her. In 5:32 it is enough to say, “Every man releasing his wife,” for already that, without his marrying another, constitutes the terrible wrong against her. In Mark 10:11 this wronging of the wife is retained in the phrase ἐπʼ αὐτήν, “in regard to her.” Matthew’s simple μοιχᾶται without this phrase in no way says that the wife is not wronged, for it is self-evident that she is; the unmodified verb stresses the wrong act committed by the man.

In 5:32, ὁἀπολύων characterizes the man by means of the substantivized present participle: he is one who, by the very act of releasing his wife by a writ, inflicts the grave wrong on her. But now Jesus uses a relative clause (with the ἄν of expectancy) and the aorist of the completed act. Moreover, two verbs are used: “he that releases his wife and marries another.” We cannot agree that Jesus says nothing here about a man who releases his wife and then does not marry another. The real sin is beyond question the disruption of the marriage, which is caused by sending away the wife. The man’s marrying another is only the aggravating circumstance. It is here added on this account and because the Jews rid themselves of their wives for the very purpose of marrying another.

As in 5:32, μοιχᾶται is passive but with a decided difference. In 5:32 we have two passives μοιχευθῆναι and μοιχᾶται, and the agent with these passives is the wicked husband who does all the damage to the innocent victims by sending away his wife and disrupting her marriage. Hence the translation of these passives offered in 5:32. Here the passive μοιχᾶται stands alone, and not only its agent but its very subject is the wicked husband, and this passive deals only with this wicked husband’s action as affecting himself. This makes the transaction easier: “He is made adulterous” by his own act. We could even admit that this is a middle (which is impossible in 5:32): “he becomes adulterous” or “makes himself so.” This would not alter the sense, the effect of this man’s act upon others being left out of consideration.

“Except for fornication” is explained in 5:32. The wording is different, but the sense is quite the same. The claim that nothing can be determined from these words regarding the man who releases his fornicatious wife and then marries another, is unwarranted. The implication is too plain that if he marries again he is not rendered adulterous. Jesus spoke to Jews whose law gave the right of divorce only to the husband and not to the wife. When Mark in 10:11, 12, writes for former Gentiles he places husband and wife on the same level; for the sense of Jesus is that neither is to get rid of the other. Since fornication, by itself disrupting the marriage, forms the exception, this, like any exception, may or may not be added when the principle is stated; thus in 5:32 and in 19:9 it is added, while in Mark 10:11, 12 it is not.

In all his utterances Jesus treats only the immorality involved in the disruption of marriage, whether this immorality emanates from the husband or from the wife, and not the legal actions of a court of law. Even when he refers to Deut. 24:1 and what was considered legal among the Jews (among whom, however, no court action took place in dissolving a husband’s marriage) Jesus treats only the moral side, namely the hardness of the heart and the consequent defection from God’s original intention. It leads only to confusion when we speak of “divorce,” and think of a court action and apply the utterances of Jesus to that. The sin of destroying a marriage is in the heart and the action of the husband or of the wife (possibly in both); this is what destroys the marriage. Going to the court for a legal edict is only a subsequent result and not the main point. A disrupted marriage is a disrupted marriage and thus a vicious sin against the will, Word, and command of God, whether some court action is added, as in our day, or is not needed, as in Jesus’ day.

In the case of a disruption by fornication only the Roman Catholic Church and a few others deny remarriage to the innocent party. In the case of a disruption from other causes many more deny remarriage to the innocent. This denial cannot be based on 5:32 and its insertion into 19:9, by the translation: “causeth her to commit adultery” (i.e., by her marrying again). The A. V. makes also the man she marries “commit adultery,” the R. V. has about the same meaning.

The point of the utterances of Jesus is his condemnation of the disruption no matter what the cause may have been. The point should not be shifted to the cause of the disruption, whether this be grave or light. Whatever the cause, a disrupted marriage is a disrupted marriage. So Paul treats the class of disruptions that came within his experience, 1 Cor. 7:15, and permits the innocent to remarry. As regards the guilty one who causes the disruption, the way of repentance is surely open also for such a sinner as it is for any other who has caused an irreparable wrong to another.

Matthew 19:10

10 The disciples say to him, If the charge of the man in association with (μετά) the wife is thus, it is not expedient to marry. The disciples are now alone with Jesus (Mark 10:10 “in the house”). What they say to Jesus is this: “If the only charge a man can bring against his wife is that of fornication in order to get rid of her after he is once married to her, it would be better not to have married at all.” The difficulty regarding αἰτία disappears when we note that τοῦἀνθρώπου is the subjective genitive: “the charge which the man raises against his wife,” and not objective: “the charge that lies against him when he sends away his wife for any reason except fornication.” Αἰτία is to be understood in the same sense as in v. 3, “an indictment.” It never means “relation” or Verhaeltnis or causa in the sense of res. As far as μετά is concerned, this modifies “the man”; the man who is still with his wife raises the charge and, according to Jesus, this is the only charge he can bring. By drawing the conclusion that it would then not be expedient for a man to marry, the disciples reveal that they are still under the influence of Jewish ideals. To be so tied to a wife that only her fornication—a remote contingency that was also freighted with severe penalty—would ever release the husband from her and thus to be compelled to put up with her faults for a whole lifetime seemed an intolerable yoke, to which remaining unmarried would be preferable.

Matthew 19:11

11 The disciples show, not that they are in favor of the asceticism of celibacy, but are reluctant to give up the Jewish ease of getting rid of a wife. As Peter advanced from three to seven in 18:21, they would be willing to reduce the number of the charges for releasing wives but feel that Jesus goes too far in this reduction. But he said to them: Not all have room for this saying, only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs, such as were born thus from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs, such as were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs, such as made themselves eunuchs on account of the kingdom of the heavens. He that is able to have room, let him have room.

The verb χωρεῖν means “to have room or space for something” as a vessel holds a certain quantity; thus metaphorically it means to embrace in the mind or heart. Here the word goes beyond mere intellectual apprehension and evidently includes the moral will that leads to the corresponding action.

The main question is, “What is understood by ‘this word’ or ‘saying’?” Furthermore, are the two classes here indicated by οὐπάντες the unbelievers (like the Pharisees in v. 3) and the believers or two types of the latter, one not having and the other having the gift of celibacy? In regard to the latter question some are misled by an apparent correspondence with 1 Cor. 7:7, against which 1 Cor. 6:12 and especially 1 Cor. 7:29–31 should guard them. Since an explanatory γάρ (R. 1190) introduces v. 12, “this saying” does not refer to the contents of v. 12. But some think that “this saying” refers to v. 10. This is untenable, for v. 10 is an objection to what Jesus has just said and one that voices ideas similar to those expressed by the Pharisees concerning marriage. The fact is rather obvious that by nature all men have only too much room in their hearts for lax ideas regarding the permanency of the marriage relation.

How, then, could Jesus say that “only those to whom it has been given” of God have room for this word of the disciples? Since this, too, is rather obvious, v. 10 is divided, and only its last half, “it is not expedient to marry,” is referred to “this saying” of which Jesus says that not all have room for it. But an apodosis is not true when it is cut off from its protasis; without the condition the conclusion has no validity. This saying of the disciples was all that they said and not only a part of it. Moreover, Jesus most emphatically declared that marriage was a creation of God in the very beginning, created in man who was made male and female. If Jesus should now say that “it is not expedient to marry” he would contradict himself and cast reproach upon God’s creative act of making man as he did.

This exegesis is the result of the secret influence of Roman Catholicism which finds a higher sanctity in celibacy than in marriage. Moreover, this exegesis affords modernism an opportunity for charging Matthew with introducing into the mouth of Jesus “the opinion of the early church.… as the epitome of what they believed his will to be.”

“This saying” is Jesus’ own word spoken in v. 4–9. The fact that “not all” have room for it the Pharisees amply demonstrate. In v. 10 even the Twelve show that they do not yet have room in their hearts to submit to this saying and to carry it out in their lives. But this had been their trouble before this time (15:16; 16:8, 23; 17:17–20). That is why Jesus elucidates what he has said and admonishes the Twelve (v. 12, last sentence) to make room for what he tells them. To men such as the Pharisees it was not given to know the things of the kingdom, but it certainly was given to the disciples (13:11); hence Jesus expects them to measure up to this gift; δέδοται with a present implied, “has been given so that they now have.”

Matthew 19:12

12 When this verse is thought to say that it is expedient not to marry at all but to make oneself a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of God, it would regard Jesus as contradicting all that he has said concerning the divine creation of marriage. In order to avoid this contradiction a limitation is introduced into the phrase “on account of the kingdom of the heavens.” This is taken to mean: “on account of their special calling in the kingdom.” But in the discussion from v. 3 onward nothing is said about special calling, work, or position in the kingdom. Even the last word of the disciples concerns “the man (τοῦἀνθρώπου) in association with the wife” and not an apostle or a pastor in the church. Regarding the latter 1 Tim. 3:2, “husband of one wife,” and Titus 1:6 are plain. Jesus is not speaking of a charism which only a few receive from God. In the consideration of a charism the idea of expediency (συμφέρειν) would be out of place; the charisms are not matters of expediency. “On account of the kingdom,” etc., applies to all believers and to their relation to the kingdom. Only in the papacy could celibacy be called a charism; the Scriptures speak of it otherwise, 1 Tim. 4:3.

Jesus is speaking of the believer’s ἐγκράτεια, his self-mastery, self-control as far as sexual desires are concerned. Some men, he says, are born eunuchs, are physically so constituted that they are free from sexual appetite. Others have been made eunuchs by men (τῶν is the generic article), have been castrated; in ancient Oriental lands they constituted a special class (see the Concordance on eunuchs in the Old Testament, also Deut. 23:1). These two classes are the exceptions. Since they are devoid of sexual desires, Jesus says nothing about the moral side of their condition. He mentions them only in order to cast light on another class, because he intends to call also this class “eunuchs,” namely in a spiritual sense.

These last are the believers, and “they made themselves eunuchs on account of the kingdom of the heavens.” As they have done with regard to other natural desires, so they have put also the desire of sex under complete subjection because of their spiritual life in the kingdom. They deal with their physical nature as they do with father and mother, with life itself (10:37–39), with the whole world, if they had it (16:25, 26), with any property or possession (13:44–46; 19:21). They will not let anything earthly stand in the way of their life in the kingdom. How some fail in regard to this vital matter we see in Luke 14:18–20; Matt. 22:5; 2 Tim. 4:10 (Demas); and in admonitions such as 1 John 2:15, etc. One should not overlook these analogous cases and view the sex life apart from them. Paul combines matters in the right way, including sex, in 1 Cor. 7:29–31.

The chief feature of this self-mastery is inward, is found in the heart itself. As far as the outward action is concerned, we may have cases such as those of the Twelve, 19:27–30, who left home, property, and all; such as that of Paul who accepted no support and had no wife that the churches needed to support (1 Cor. 9:4, etc.). The married believers are to practice sexual self-control be refraining “with consent for a time” in order to practice fasting and prayer (1 Cor. 7:5). Each in his place, as his connection with the kingdom may require, is to keep himself free from anything worldly that would hurt his spiritual life. Thus fornication will be abhorrent to the believers because it disrupts even marriage itself (v. 9). The permanency and the sanctity of marriage will be beyond question for him as Jesus has taught so thoroughly (v. 4–6).

In marriage the believer will remain master of his sexual life, submitting this, too, completely to the Lord and to the kingdom. In οἴτινες we have equality, R. 727. The final admonition is addressed to all believers and not to a separate, superior class selected by God. This command is similar to all other commands concerning earthly matters that play a part in the believer’s life.

It is well known that young Origen castrated himself. He sought to follow this word of Jesus’ in a mechanical and literal way. Others did likewise, and writings were issued to promote such practice. Priestly celibacy is demanded by the Roman Catholic Church today, and the celibate state for monks and for nuns is regarded as being more holy than the married state of the rank and file of the church. Thus it is also thought that celibacy acquires merit with God; yet Jesus knows only about the gift of grace (“to whom it has been given”), and this gift is not celibacy but self-control for spiritual ends.

Matthew 19:13

13 Then there were brought to him little children in order that he might put his hands upon them and might pray; and the disciples rebuked them. First marriage, then children, a sequence that is eminently fitting. The Pharisees mentioned in v. 3 are absent, have been since v. 10. This scene is often placed out-of-doors, but Mark 10:10 places it in a house, which fact also explains how the disciples could rebuke those bringing the children. They did this outside of the house, not in Jesus’ presence, and thus, as Mark says, he finally saw it. Matthew has the historical aorist passive “there were brought,” which states only the fact; likewise the active aorist: the disciples “rebuked.” Mark (10:13) has two imperfects which picture the actions in progress: certain persons “were bringing,” and the disciples “were rebuking,” and both tenses hold our attention to see what would eventuate.

It seems as though these persons started to bring their children of their own accord. Somebody conceived the thought, and others followed in a little procession. The masculine αὐτοῖς would be used although most of the persons bringing children were mothers, sisters, or nurses. Most of them were evidently parents, fathers and mothers. The disciples started to interfere and probably succeeded until Jesus, looking out, saw what they were doing and stopped them. All three evangelists use the strong verb ἐπιτιμᾶν, “to rebuke,” “to threaten.”

The scene loses a good deal of its beauty when it is supposed that superstition prompted these parents to bring their children, and that they supposed that the touch of Jesus’ hands had magical power. We may be sure that, if this had been the case, Jesus would himself have rebuked these people and would not have touched a single child. To place the hand upon someone in connection with prayer is a symbolical act, it is an invoking of the divine blessing upon the person touched. We still use this act in this sense. Matthew writes παιδία, “little children,” for which Luke 18:15 has τὰβρέφη, “their babes” or sucklings, the word that is used in 1 Pet. 2:2; it is used to designate even an unborn babe in Luke 1:44. Because they were so tiny, it was, of course, impossible for them to understand what Jesus was doing for them. The only intimation we have regarding the reason that the disciples stopped these babes from being brought to Jesus is found in the word of Jesus, other reasons may also have been present, such as that the disciples did not want Jesus to be troubled by having all these babes brought to him, that they considered his time too valuable to be wasted on infants, and that they desired his time for themselves and for further discussions.

Matthew 19:14

14 But Jesus said, Suffer the little children and stop restraining them from coming to me; for of such is the kingdom of the heavens. And having put his hands on them, he went from there. Mark contributes the detail that, when Jesus saw what the disciples were doing, he was indignant, and Luke adds that he called the babes to him (into the house). Here Jesus appears as the great Advocate of babes by opening his mouth for the dumb, out of whose mouth, by his grace, he perfects praise. It has been well said that without these words of Jesus and the attitude here expressed toward infants the Christian Church would have been far different from what it is.

With shamed faces the disciples stood before their Master. The two imperatives ἄφετε and κωλύετε are present and thus durative; the second is negative and thus means to stop something already begun (R. 851, etc.). The first is well rendered, “suffer the little children,” lasset sie gewaehren; and Mark and Luke have the accusative with the infinitive, “suffer them to come to me.” This positive command is enhanced by the negative; the disciples are to stop restraining them; and here Matthew has the accusative with the infinitive just mentioned, “from coming to me.” But Matthew has the effective aorist infinitive ἐλθεῖν, which means coming and actually getting to Jesus; while Mark and Luke have the present infinitive which describes only the action of coming.

The implication is that children, and this includes babes (βρέφη), are ready to come to Jesus and need only that men let them do so. And this coming has the same purpose as the coming to Jesus of any adult, namely to receive of him the Messianic salvation. Their affinity for Jesus lies in their need of him which is due to their inborn sin. Pank writes: “As the flower in the garden stretches toward the light of the sun, so there is in the child a mysterious inclination toward the eternal light. Have you never noticed this mysterious thing that, when you tell the smallest child about God, it never asks with strangeness and wonder, ‘What or who is God? I have never seen him!’—but listens with shining face to the words as though they were soft, loving sounds from the land of home? or when you teach a child to fold its little hands in prayer, that it does this as though it were a matter of course, as though there were opening for it that world of which it had been dreaming with longing and anticipation? or tell them, these little ones, the stories of the Savior, show them the pictures with scenes and personages of the Bible—how their pure eyes shine, how their little hearts beat!”

The coming of these babes is not accomplished without means, for v. 13 has already stated that it was done by their being brought. Not to come means not to be brought. These were Jewish children who were already in the old covenant of grace; yet Jesus lays no stress on this but speaks of children in general, even as the church has applied his words to all children. Indeed, if Jewish children who were already in the covenant and the kingdom needed to be brought to Jesus in order to be blessed by him as the Messiah, how much more is this the case with regard to all other children to whom no grace has been applied. Jesus once for all forbids every obstacle which our blind reasoning about babes may raise against their coming to him.

This double command itself would be enough, but Jesus goes much farther, he adds his reason for this command: “for of such is the kingdom of the heavens.” He does not say τούτων, “of these,” the ones now being brought to him, but τῶντοιούτων, “of such,” which says far more, namely the great class of beings to which babes as such belong. Bengel says that if the kingdom is “of such,” then with a special right the children must be included. They are the model examples of the whole class. If we want to know the character of the class we must study the children (18:3). It is their receptivity to which Jesus refers. In them sin has not yet developed so as to produce conscious resistance to the power of divine grace, which necessitates the convicting power of the law.

What children are in their condition of infancy, ready and willing to accept the gift of grace, adults must become by the operation of the Spirit and the Word. The moment this receptiveness is produced in us, regeneration and justification follow, and we, too, are saved.

On “the kingdom of the heavens” see 3:2; it is where Jesus, the King, is found with the rule and the work of his grace. To be “of” this kingdom is to have his grace operative in us. If Jesus had intended to say that all children, merely as children, had already experienced this operation, were already saved, then children would not need to come to him, they would be already his. But Jesus says nothing of the kind. What is born of the flesh is flesh, John 3:6 (Gen. 5:3; Ps. 51:5). It is in vain to deny original or inborn sin, the total depravity of our race, and to call babes “innocent and pure” in the sense of “sinless.” Every babe that dies contradicts this claim.

It is also no more than an assumption that at birth (or already at the time of conception) all children are made partakers of Christ’s atonement without any means whatever the Scriptures contain no word to this effect. Because men have been misled by such thoughts the little ones have been left outside of the kingdom until receptiveness for grace has passed away and their salvation became jeopardized. Baptism, in particular, was denied them, and this sacrament itself was considered a symbol that did not give or convey anything but only pictured something. Baptism was regarded as an act of obedience (a law) that was possible only to an adult and not longer an act of the Triune God by which he adopted us as his children, deeded to us a place in heaven, gave us the new birth of the Spirit. Who can estimate the wrong thus done to helpless babes, even in the name of Christ, by denying them the one divine means by which they can be brought (v. 13) and can come to their glorified Lord?

Matthew 19:15

15 Mark and Luke add another statement here that recalls 18:3. The fact that Matthew aims to be quite terse we see also from the way in which he concludes his account of this incident. Whereas Mark tells us that Jesus took the children up into his arms, blessed them, and laid his hands upon them, Matthew records only the latter, “and having put his hands on them.” The fact that this was done in connection with a prayer (and thus with a blessing) v. 13 shows. These are the essentials; taking the babes into his own arms is a beautiful addition. The conclusion is justified that, like the other synoptists, Matthew records this incident as the answer to the question whether infants are to receive baptism. The use which Tertullian (born about 160) makes of this account as a substantiation of infant baptism is evidence that long prior to his time the church so understood the words and the actions of Jesus. “He went from thence” means that Jesus left not merely the house but the place itself.

Matthew 19:16

16 We must place v. 3–15 somewhere in Perea. What is now described, occurred later “while he was going forth on the way” (Mark 10:17, i.e., on the road to the next village or town). First marriage, then children, now earthly possessions—the inner connection seems evident. And lo, one, having come to him, said, Teacher, what good thing shall I do in order to have life eternal? The interjection “lo” points to the man’s action as being remarkable; and, indeed, he was a ruler (Luke), and he came running and then kneeling (Mark). Here is a young man of prominence, eager in regard to the highest question, and full of the expectation of obtaining the true answer from Jesus.

Matthew records only the word “teacher” as the address to Jesus; he omits “good” because he intends to omit also that part of the reply of Jesus which deals with this adjective as applied to himself. The attitude of the young man and the great question he asks of Jesus indicate that he regarded Jesus as a teacher and expected the great answer he had hitherto failed to secure. By saying, “Teacher,” he puts himself into the position of a pupil.

The question this man asks is not how he may obtain life eternal as though he were entirely at a loss as to the way and the means to obtain it. On the contrary, he thinks he knows quite well how to obtain this life, namely by doing some “good thing,” ἀγαθόν, “good” in the sense of bringing him “life eternal,” heilbringend, C.-K. 5. He is not thinking of something that is merely “morally good,” for he knows that obedience to the divine commandments is morally good, and yet in spite of all this obedience on his part he still lacks this life and knows it. He asks Jesus this question because he thinks that Jesus has managed to discover this “good thing” and by it has acquired life eternal. This man would like to do the same thing. In this sense he calls Jesus “good Teacher” (Mark and Luke).

His conception of Jesus is thus much like that of the modernists. Jesus is a man who has discovered this good thing and by it won eternal life. His essential Sonship as also his atonement are set aside. The only question is: “Lord, how didst thou do it? tell us so that we may do likewise.”

In the question, “What shall I do?” lies, of course, the assumption that the questioner has the necessary ability and may easily reach the goal Jesus has reached. He feels that all he needs to know is the thing that is to be done. This is Pelagianism in its worst form. The ποιήσω, “shall I do,” suggests the willingness to do what may be required. He is not thinking of a divine command; he does not ask what he “must” do, δεῖποιεῖν (ποιῆσαι). The best feature about this wrong and twisted question is the fact that the man wants “life eternal.”

John uses ζωή thirty-four times, and the word always means the life principle itself which makes us spiritually alive. The reception of this “life” is the regeneration of which Jesus spoke to Nicodemus at length. This life is αἰώνιος, “eternal,” going on through the eons unaffected by temporal death which only transfers this life into the heavenly world. It may be lost and cease in us when we wickedly and wilfully cut ourselves off from its divine source, Christ, the Life. Just what conception the man had of this life which he so much desired we are able to guess only from the way in which he imagined it could be acquired: by himself doing something heilbringend he supposed it would be given him. For “have” life eternal Mark and Luke write “inherit.” Often the latter is stressed as though it made the ruler’s question self-contradictory: doing in order to inherit.

Yet Matthew’s “have” interprets the others’ “inherit”; κληρονομεῖν is often used in the sense of to obtain or to have a portion in something. Moreover, inheriting often rests on merit as many last wills and testaments show, when a larger portion is bequeathed to a more faithful child, or when a friend, a benefactor, or a person who has rendered some valuable service is remembered. Jesus, too, says nothing and intimates nothing regarding a contradiction in the question.

The picture thus drawn of the young ruler is really pathetic: so eager to do the good thing, so desirous of life eternal (whereas so many young men are carried away by the world), so strongly attracted to Jesus—and yet so far from the right road to eternal life!

Matthew 19:17

17 And he said to him: Why inquirest thou of me concerning the good thing? One is The Good. If thou hast the will to enter into the life, guard his biddings. The entire answer must be considered together in order to understand its three parts. Jesus refers this man to God and to God’s Word. Not for one moment will Jesus allow this man to speak as though God had failed to reveal what “good” he must do if by doing he would have life eternal.

Does this man presume to ask Jesus and thus to ignore God? Does he think that Jesus has certain secret information that has not been revealed by God? Is this why he calls Jesus “good” (Mark and Luke, “good Teacher”), a man who has done that thing and thus gained life for himself, found and done it apart from God’s Word? With one stroke Jesus corrects all these wrong ideas: “One is The Good,” der Gute, the very embodiment and source of all that is heilbringend and “good” in this sense; and Mark and Luke add that this is “God.” If this man has the will to enter into life (and by the condition of reality Jesus implies that the man has) by way of his own doing, then what good thing he must do has long been set down in God’s Word, let him guard and keep inviolate his biddings (the article has the force of the possessive), τὰςἐντολάς, what he has told and ordered men to do. On that point Jesus has no more to say.

The phrase περὶτοῦἀγαθοῦ is not masculine, to be explained by the following περὶτοῦἀγαθοῦ; it is neuter and takes up the preceding τίἀγαθόν. He who is himself “The Good” must be asked what is to be done by us that he would consider “good.” And ὁἀγαθός with its article makes this predicate identical with and interchangeable with the subject, R. 768. Moreover, here is a case where the positive “good” and “The Good” are more absolute than the comparative or the superlative, R. 661. This is “good” in the absolute sense.

Rationalism and Unitarianism regard Mark and Luke as saying that Jesus does not claim goodness for himself but attributes perfect moral goodness only to God. Their object is to reduce Jesus to a man who at most was only relatively good morally. This is to think and to speak of Jesus as the young ruler did who regarded Jesus as a mere man, as one who had acquired life by doing this unknown good thing and might likewise show others how to do it. No wonder Jesus declines to be called “good” in this sense! The question (Mark and Luke): “Why callest thou me good?” is not a pronouncement of any kind in regard to Jesus’ moral quality. Nor does ἀγαθός mean “kind” when it is used in the address to Jesus and something else in the three following instances.

Jesus uses “good” in the sense indicated above. Let the man stop and think. Jesus is not a Teacher who instructs men as to how to obtain salvation by their own efforts. If that is what this man wants, God has already told him what to do.

Matthew 19:18

18 After Jesus said, “Just guard his biddings!” he says to him, Which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt not murder (5:21); Thou shalt not commit adultery; Thou shalt not steal; Thou shalt not testify falsely; Honor thy father and thy mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Mark and Luke abbreviate by omitting the last, and Mark inserts, “Thou shalt not defraud.” The neuter article τό before these commandments merely marks the quotation, R. 766. The future tense is commonly used in laws and is thus imperative, R. 874. The intent of Jesus seems to be to pile one commandment upon another. Matthew has the regular order from the fifth to the eighth, to which Mark adds the ninth and the tenth in the form: “Thou shalt not defraud.”

Matthew 19:19

19 Then comes the fourth, and after that the sum of the entire second table of the law. By placing the fourth thus Jesus shows that he does not feel bound by the order found in the decalog. By using only the second table which demands that we love our neighbor as we do ourselves Jesus takes this ruler to a place where he felt surest of himself; for these are the commandments which most men imagine they are able to obey with little effort—but see 5:21, etc.

Matthew 19:20

20 And sure enough, this ruler, too, is convinced that he has fulfilled them. The young man says to him: All these I did watch. As to what am I yet behind? He says this without blinking an eye. The divine law has no terrors for him; he has kept it all. The verbs τηρεῖν and φυλάσσειν are synonyms, like bewahren and bewachen, to guard and keep inviolate and to watch over and keep safe.

Here is a sample of Pharisaic training which nullifies the very effect God intends the law to produce, namely contrite knowledge of sin and the terrores conscientiae. This young man, νεανίσκος (between the ages of 24 and 40), is altogether self-righteous in the face of the law. Perhaps he was disappointed in hearing Jesus recite nothing but the old commandments that he had kept “from his youth up” (Mark and Luke). Is this all “the good” this “good” Teacher could hold up to him?

He had lived an outwardly exemplary life, he had shunned grave outward transgressions, being aided and protected, no doubt, by both his training and his environment. Many would today be only too well satisfied with themselves if they were like him, and others would praise and perhaps envy him if they saw him in modern form. Picture him: an exemplary young man in early manhood, fine and clean morally, as the phrase now goes, the son of wealthy parents but not spoiled by wealth, with a strong religious bent, an esteemed member of the church, in fact, one of its pillars, a ruler of the local synagogue who was more important than a member of the church council in our present congregations is. Where are the parents that would not be proud of such a son? Where the church that would not give him a prominent place? Where the maid that would not be attracted by his position and his personal excellence?

Yet all this is worthless in the eyes of Jesus. In fact, the man himself is not satisfied. If Jesus thought that he had trouble in regard to the old commandments, this, he assures Jesus, is not the case. Somehow he has come to feel that he lacks something. What can it be? He puts the question to Jesus; he thinks that Jesus must now be able to tell him in what he still falls behind.

Matthew 19:21

21 Mark inserts the remark that Jesus looked earnestly upon the rich young ruler and loved him: this man who is dissatisfied with his Pharisaic self-righteousness, is groping in the dark and unable to get beyond it, and now appeals to Jesus. Jesus spoke to him (ἔφη is a mere variation of εἶπε): If thou hast the will to be perfect, go sell thy possessions and give to the poor and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and hither, be following me! Jesus agrees that he still lacks one thing (Mark and Luke). Because of his love for him he tells him what this really is. The answer is surprising, and this surprise has lasted these 1900 years. The condition is one of reality, which implies that Jesus assumes that the young man has the will.

With εἶναι we have the nominative as the predicate; and τέλειος is explained in 5:48. It does not mean perfect or sinless morally but complete as having reached the τέλος or goal. Here it is easy to understand this word; it means possessing the one thing he yet lacked, needing nothing more. We must regard all that Jesus says as “one thing,” but not as one that is to be ranged alongside of others but as one that is totally different from all others. Thus far the man has attained only an outward obedience to the law and has not even discovered that this is utterly useless for salvation. The thing he lacks begins with this discovery and thus with the realization that what he needs is a complete inward change.

This change Jesus describes to him in detail. The present imperative ὕπαγε is used without a connecting word when it occurs with other imperatives: ὕπαγεπώλησονκαὶδός. When he tells this man to go and sell his possessions and to give them to the poor Jesus is laying his finger on the chief sin in this man’s heart, the love of his earthly possessions. Jesus is demanding no mere outward act which would be as valueless as the other acts of this man have been. The outward act is to be merely the evidence of the inner change. This change is to be, first of all, the true sorrow of contrition. Heretofore he has clung to his earthly wealth with his heart. What a sin against God’s law! By selling and giving away everything this inward sin is to be swept out by true contrition, μετάνοια.

Abandoning what was hitherto his heart’s treasure is only the negative side; the positive side is that now he has “treasure in heaven” with his whole heart fixed on that. The future “shall have” means from that moment onward when his heart is separated from his earthly treasure. It is a serious misunderstanding of this word of Jesus when it is thought to mean that by selling and giving away his earthly wealth this man would receive this treasure in heaven as a reward. This treasure is the unmerited grace and pardon of God. For the other side of the one thing this man yet lacked is the true and saving faith in Christ. Δεῦρο, “hither,” is used with or without an imperative. It is apparently always a singular, as δεῦτε is the plural; and the present imperative ἀκολούθει denotes continuous following. To follow Jesus thus is the evidence of true faith in him.

When Jesus demands true repentance and faith he does not always ask us to give up our earthly possessions. This passage cannot be referred to as proof for the abolition of personal ownership of wealth. Zacchæus was not required to give all his possession to the poor; Joseph of Arimathaea was a disciple and rich; Ananias was free to do with his own what he would as long as he did not practice hypocrisy or tried to deceive the Holy Ghost; St. James warns the rich only against trusting in riches instead of trusting in God. Luther is, therefore, right when he draws attention to the domestic state and its requirement of certain possessions such as house and home, food, clothing, etc., for wife and children. The case of this young man is a special one and comes under the statements made in 18:8, 9.

We are not certain either that this young man was asked to assume voluntary poverty in order to follow Jesus and to take part in the work of the gospel. This is often assumed, but we have no intimation as to how Jesus intended to use this new follower. Others besides the Twelve were in his following for their own persons only and certainly did not divest themselves of their possessions.

Roman Catholicism considers voluntary poverty a work that merits salvation; it calls this command to give all to the poor a consilium evangelicum that goes beyond the decalog, and the observance of such counsel an opus supererogativum. The rationalistic view is that the one thing the young ruler lacked was moral power, the energy of the moral will. Others think of the ability to sacrifice all for the sake of reaching the highest moral goal; or of the ability really to fulfill the second table, the law of loving one’s neighbor as one-self, by which eternal life would be gained. But such views are legalistic and not evangelical.

Matthew 19:22

22 But the young man, having heard the word, went away, being aggrieved; for he had much property. The result shows that Jesus had struck home, had bared the man’s most vulnerable spot, the love of his great wealth. First, such enthusiasm; now, such sorrowful going away! Mark says that the man’s face grew “lowering”; it is the same word that was used regarding the dark weather mentioned in 16:3. He, indeed, left Jesus, but Jesus’ words went with him. The fact that he was not changed on the instant need not cause surprise. It would cost him a struggle, perhaps one that was severe and prolonged. The synoptists do not record the outcome, for their interest lies, not in this case, but in the words of Jesus which go far beyond one case.

Matthew 19:23

23 And Jesus said to his disciples: Amen, I say to you, that with difficulty a rich man shall enter into the kingdom of the heavens. And again I say to you, easier it is that a camel go through a needle’s eye than that a rich man go into the kingdom of the heavens. And when the disciples heard it they were shocked exceedingly, saying, Who, then, is able to be saved? But, having looked at them, Jesus said to them, With men this is impossible, yet with God all things are possible.

These utterances of Jesus are not to be separated from the preceding narrative. Both treat of the way to salvation, and both deal with one great obstacle to salvation, the love of riches. What appears in the narrative is more fully elucidated in the words addressed to the disciples. God’s grace alone is able to save the rich man. A comparison with Mark shows that Matthew mentions the emotions displayed at the end of his narrative, Luke omits them altogether. Matthew preserves the solemn formula of verity and authority (see 5:18); on the kingdom compare 3:2.

The emphasis is on the adverb δυσκόλως; only “with difficulty” will a rich man ever enter into the kingdom, i.e., receive the gifts and the blessings that are bestowed by the rule of the King’s grace. The fact that Jesus has in mind a man who trusts in riches is emphasized by Mark. He may or may not have wealth; its deceptive power is always present.

Matthew 19:24

24 How great the difficulty is, is illustrated by a remarkable comparison, that of the impossibility of a camel passing through an orifice as tiny as a needle’s eye. The Talmud uses the elephant in the same illustration; elephants were not known in Palestine. The Koran has the same illustration that Jesus employs. Not until the fifth century was κάμελος, “camel,” changed to κάμιλος, the heavy “rope” or cable attached to the anchor of a ship (R. 192). This change was no gain for a cable cannot be threaded through a needle’s eye.

In the fifteenth century the opposite was tried, the needle’s eye was enlarged by reference to a small portal that was used by footpassengers when entering a walled city, through which a camel might pass on its knees after its load had been removed. This changed the impossible into the possible and became attractive because it suggested that, as the camel had to leave its load and crawl on its knees, so the rich man had to shed his riches or his love for them and humble himself on his knees. But as in 23:24 Jesus had an actual gnat and an actual camel in mind, so here camel and needle’s eye are actual. The impossibility thus illustrated is without a single exception. Abraham, David, Zacchæus, Joseph of Arimathaea are not exceptions in any sense; for how the impossible becomes possible Jesus explains in v. 26.

Matthew 19:25

25 At this point Matthew, too, notes the emotion of the disciples. The disciples were shocked “exceedingly,” ἐξεπλήσσοντο, the imperfect picturing their condition, and the verb itself, plus its adverb, are very strong: “were utterly dumbfounded.” Their question reveals what so upset them: “Who, then, is able to be saved?” meaning that, if these statements of Jesus are true, no man can be saved. Their emotion is not concerned with the few who are rich and thus seem to be utterly shut out but with themselves, including all men generally. For τίς cannot be restricted. All men have a secret longing for riches. The question is thus a confession of sin on the part of the disciples.

This is excellent. It is well that they do not try to shield themselves by a reference to what Jesus once said about “the poor,” 5:3.

But another thing is not so excellent, namely the confession that the disciples believed that a man can and should do something on his part toward being saved. They really say: “If the illustration of the camel is true regarding a rich man’s entering the kingdom, then the rich man can do nothing toward being saved, nor can we who, like the rich, are afflicted with the desire for riches.” In the verb σώζειν lies the idea of rescue from mortal danger and of a condition of safety produced by the rescue. The passive σωθῆσαι leaves God as the agent, but δύναται betrays the synergistic suggestion in the disciples’ minds.

Matthew 19:26

26 The fact that Jesus, too, speaks with feeling is betrayed by his earnestly looking at the disciples. He has elicited from the disciples the very thought he wishes to correct once for all. The illustration of the camel is abolutely true: “With men this (to be saved) is impossible.” The last door of hope on that side is shut and sealed forever. Here perishes all Pelagianism, moralism, synergism; man himself can do absolutely nothing toward his salvation by natural powers of his own. The Concordia Triglotta, 785, etc., and 881, etc., is most certainly right. But the more all hope of our own activity dies, whether we are rich or poor, the more our hope in God and his grace rises like the morning sun with healing in his wings: “yet with God all things are possible,” even the saving of the rich.

Who will measure the ability of his grace? Who will describe the miracles it is able to work?

We might here think of God’s omnipotence as it is revealed in the physical creation by applying our abstract mode of reasoning; but Jesus is here speaking of the kingdom of the heavens which is not of this world, and of the great work of saving men, including the rich, which is entirely a spiritual work. We are here not in the First Article of the Creed but in the Second and the Third. Christ “is able to save them to the uttermost,” Heb. 7:25.

Matthew 19:27

27 From one extreme the apostles go to the other. First they fear that on the basis of what Jesus said none of them can be saved; now, with their fears allayed in that direction, they want assurance that they will not only be saved but will be rewarded according to the sacrifices they have hade. Then Peter spoke up and said to him: Lo, we on our part did forsake all things and followed thee. What, then, shall be ours? Ἀποκριθείς is often used in a wider sense; it is so here. It occurs to Peter that he and the Twelve had done exactly what Jesus required of the rich young ruler and so he speaks up and says so. It strikes Peter that they have done this, hence the interjection “lo.” The emphasis is on ἡμεῖς, which contrasts the Twelve with the ruler who went away aggrieved.

Peter, too, does not forget to add that the Twelve followed Jesus even as Jesus had just bidden the ruler to follow him. The aorists are here to the point, they present the two undeniable facts: we did this.

But already this preamble has a suspicious ring with its emphasis on what “we on our part” have done. It does not intend to proceed, “and we have found more than satisfaction in thee”; for that first “we” would not harmonize with that thought. To express this acknowledgment Peter should have begun, “Thou thyself hast drawn us to forsake all and to follow thee.” What Peter’s ear had caught was the word to the ruler, “and thou shalt have treasure in heaven.” But he had not caught Jesus’ meaning that this would be a treasure of pure grace and not a merited reward earned by the ruler in giving away his possessions and then following Jesus. He regards the word as a reference to a profitable trade to which the ruler was invited. And thus Peter asks, “What, then, shall be ours” (“to us”)? i.e., “What are we going to get?” Here the old spirit of work-righteousness, of human claims and merit crops out. The more we do, the more we earn, and the more God owes us.

Matthew 19:28

28 And Jesus said to them: Amen I say to you (see 5:18), that you that did follow me, in the regeneration when the Son of man (see 8:20) shall seat himself on his throne of glory, you, too, shall seat yourselves on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. What Jesus said was intended for the Twelve, all of whom had heard Peter’s statement and question. First, a great promise; then, in v. 30 and the following parable, a necessary warning, both being sealed with the solemn formula of verity and authority. The generosity and the magnanimity of God are so great that he accepts nothing from us without rewarding it beyond all computation (25:21, 23; Luke 19:17, 19). The vast disproportion existing between our work and God’s reward of it already displays his boundless grace, to say nothing of the gift of salvation which is made before we have even begun to do any work. The first part of Jesus’ promise is intended for the apostles alone but only in a pre-eminent way (Dan. 7:22; 1 Cor. 6:2, 3; Rev. 2:26; 3:21; 20:4). Hence also they are called only “you that did follow me,” which indicates that also others follow him.

The ἐν phrase states when the promise here made shall be fulfilled; hence it is modified by the temporal ὅταν clause. “In the regeneration” or “rebirth” is thus dated at the time “when the Son of man shall seat himself on his throne of glory,” namely visibly before the whole world, which he will do on the great day of judgment. This “rebirth” thus refers to the rebirth of the world (Isa. 65:17; 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1, 5). The term παλινγενεσία is abstract, but, like many abstracts, is used for the concrete and denotes, not the act of rebirth, but the reborn world. In Titus 3:5 it is used to designate the rebirth wrought in the individual by baptism. The use of this word as a technical term by the mystery cults and among the Pythagoreans and the Stoics has been extensively investigated and has produced much of interest but nothing that is of value for the interpretation of the New Testament. Philo and Josephus also use the word in their way.

The great act that distinguishes the time indicated is that the Son of man “shall seat himself on his throne of glory.” The two forms of καθίζειν are middle: “seat himself,” “seat yourselves,” B.-P. 608, and should not be translated “sit.” This seating is done for the performance of a judicial act and does not refer to an indefinite enthronement; compare 25:31. The omission of the articles in the expression ἐπὶθρόνουδόξηςαὐτοῦ is scarcely a case of imitating the Hebrew status constructus, for the addition of the articles would refer to the specific throne in heaven, while all that is had in mind here is a glorious throne for judgment.

On that great day the apostles shall also seat themselves on twelve thrones and for the same purpose, to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. The place of Judas is thus to be filled. We see the correspondence between Israel’s twelve tribes and Jesus’ twelve apostles. But there is no indication that each apostle is to judge one tribe, nor that Peter’s throne will be higher than those of the rest. The present participle κρίνοντες presents the action in its progress; the aorist would be constative and would present the act in its completeness.

The opinion that the rebirth is to be dated after the ascension of Jesus involves the idea that the apostles would judge only mediately through their preached word, would spiritualize their twelve thrones as the pulpits they occupied, and would expand the twelve tribes of Israel so as to include all men or at least Christians in general. The latter would be the case if κρίνειν is thought to mean “rule” and not “judge.” The verb always has the latter meaning. It has this meaning also in Luke 22:30, where the promise is repeated, and where the sense of κρίνοντες must be the same as it is in Matthew. Weiss writes: “As they were the nearest to Jesus in his earthly activity, so they will have the closest portion in the dignity of the exalted Messiah; and as they proclaimed salvation to the twelve tribes (10:5, 6), so they will also pronounce the verdict upon all and not only on the unbelieving Israel, according as they accepted or declined this offer of salvation.” This judgment, however, will not be restricted to the generation of the Jews that actually heard the apostles but will take in the entire nation from the days of the patriarchs down to the last day, the lost ten tribes of the past era as well as all Israelites of future ages. From the way in which Jesus here speaks it is possible to conclude that the Jews will be the first to receive their judgment at the last day.

Matthew 19:29

29 Now Jesus adds the promise he gives to all believers, individualizing where a moment ago he combined. And everyone that left houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or fields, for the sake of my name, a hundredfold shall he receive, and life eternal shall he inherit. Not one will miss his due reward. “Or wife” has the superior textual support and should not be dropped, being genuine also in Luke 18:29. This list has no exceptions. In 10:37, “loveth more than me,” and in Luke 14:26, “hate,” help to explain the meaning of “leaving” which Jesus has in mind. It may include outward separation, but often the inward act of the soul is enough. “For the sake of my name” is explained by “for the sake of the gospel” in Mark 10:29, and by “for the sake of the kingdom of God” in Luke 18:29. Here ὄνομα again means “name” in the sense of “my revelation,” “gospel” and “the kingdom.”

“A hundredfold” has been called hyperbolical. In order to avoid this hyperbole some transfer the entire reward into the other world by resorting to allegory. But in Mark νῦνἐντῷκαιρῷτούτῳ states that this reward is given here in time and is distinguished from the life eternal ἐντῷαἰῶνιτῷἐρχομένῳ, “in the eon to come”; so also Luke 18:30. “A hundredfold,” the neuter plural, is like the same proportion in 13:8, and raises the replacement to the highest degree. On the new spiritual relationships compare 12:48–50; Rom. 16:13 (John 19:27); 1 Tim. 1:2; 5:2; 2 Tim. 2:1; Philemon 10; 1 Pet. 5:3, and other passages; on other possessions Ps. 37:16; Prov. 15:16; 16:8; 1 Tim. 6:6. The new riches are the divine blessings which substitute thankfulness for worldly anxiety (6:25, etc.) and delight in imperishable treasures (6:19, etc.). Mark 10:30 has the significant addition “with persecutions,” as though this were the butter on the bread. Persecutions are, indeed, a constant assurance that we truly belong to the Lord, more than the asurance that lies in other blessings.

“And life eternal (see v. 16) shall he inherit” has both a markedly different verb and an object so great that it cannot be classed with any blessing bestowed in this life. This alone is enough to indicate that life eternal is not a reward for forsaking relatives, property, or for enduring other afflictions for Christ’s sake. In fact, before we are able to perform a single good work, namely the moment faith is kindled in the heart, the inheritance is ours, and that out of pure grace for Christ’s sake alone. The analogy of the entire Scripture is solid on this point. Mark 10:30, as well as Luke 18:30, make it certain that the inheriting here referred to is the reception of our heritage in the other world; but this changes nothing in regard to the way in which the inheritance first becomes ours. Here the entrance into the heavenly life is mentioned to impress upon the disciples what an infinite blessing awaits those who are here called upon to forsake this or that temporality.

What is any loss compared with this gain? While inheriting does not always exclude merit on the part of an heir (see v. 19:16), inheriting eternal life most certainly does. For no sinner can by his own will or strength produce any merit that would in the least move God to make him an heir of life eternal.

Matthew 19:30

30 At this point the warning begins. The fact that it was needed even for the Twelve the case of Judas shows, thief that he was, traitor that he became. Nevertheless, many first shall be last, and last first. In 20:16 Jesus repeats this warning, but there he does it by means of οὕτως, “thus,” which indicates that the intervening parable reveals just how it comes about that so many that are first in the end are last, and others who are last finally become first. In view of 20:31, 32 and Luke 13:24–30, “last” cannot mean “last in the kingdom.” “Last” means outside of the kingdom; and hence “first” means inside the kingdom. Jesus is not saying that many who for a time were in the front ranks in the kingdom shall eventually find themselves in the rear ranks, and vice versa.

What he says is that many who at first were in the kingdom will finally be out of it; while many who at first were out of it will at last be in it. But the wording “first—last” and “last—first” is so general that it includes also all cases where men think themselves “first” or in the kingdom and then, too late, find that they are “last,” not in it at all.

The proper understanding of this pointed saying is of vital importance for the correct interpretation of the parable that follows. Its very purpose is to show how so many first will be last, and last first. If the “last” are conceived as still being in the kingdom, the parable will not be properly interpreted.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

Concordia Triglotta Triglot Concordia. The Symbolical Books of the Ev. Lutheran Church.

B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handworterbuch, etc.