Matthew 19

OGC

‹ Chapter 18 Matthew — All Chapters Chapter 20 ›

CHAPTER NINETEEN OUTLINES

Section 47. In Perea Jesus Teaches on Marriage, Divorce and Celibacy (Matthew 19:1-12)

Section 48: Jesus Blesses Little Children (Matthew 19:13-15)

Section 49. Jesus Tests Rich Young Ruler and Encourages Apostles (Matthew 19:16-30)

STUDY OUTLINE CHAPTER THEME: THE LORDSHIP OF GOD IN HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS

MALE-FEMALE RELATIONSHIPS (Marriage, Divorce, the Single Life: Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12)

GENERAL SITUATION: Great popularity of Jesus in Herod’s territory, Perea. (Matthew 19:1-2)

IMMEDIATE SITUATION: Pharisees endeavor to embroil Jesus in controversy that would destroy His credibility and bring Him into conflict with the adulterer-divorcees, Herod and Herodias. (Matthew 19:3) For what reasons may we get rid of our wife?

JESUS-’ RESPONSE: (Matthew 19:4-12) Start looking for reasons to keep your wife!

Adopt God’s original intention which was marriage, not divorce. (Matthew 19:4-6) God, not man, is the Lord of marriage.

Mosaic legislation on divorce was permissive because of the inhumanity of unregenerate men, but does not reflect God’s original design for the family. (Matthew 19:7-8)

Any divorce for any reason other than unchastity encourages adultery through marriage of divorced persons. (Matthew 19:9)

THE DISCIPLES-’ STUNNED OBJECTION: Better never to marry! (Matthew 19:10)

JESUS-’ REACTION: Only those who have the gift to live the single life are able to accept your conclusion; otherwise, no. Celibacy should be a personal choice based upon one’s gifts and how one can serve God in the Kingdom. (Matthew 19:11-12)

II.

ADULT-CHILD RELATIONSHIPS (Matthew 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17)

SITUATION: Parents bring children to Jesus for blessing.

DISCIPLES-’ REACTION: They hinder the parents, rebuking them for the nuisance. Children do not count, are not important to progress of the Kingdom!

JESUS-’ ANGRY REACTION: Children are so important to the Kingdom that they are the only sort of folks of which the Kingdom is made!

God’s Kingdom belongs to such humble, trusting, teachable people, and to NO ONE ELSE!

Permit the children to come to me and He took them into His arms and blessed them.

III.

RICH-POOR RELATIONSHIPS (Matthew 19:16-30; Mark 10:17-31; Luke 18:18-30)

SITUATION: Rich young ruler questions Jesus on the one, all-essential good deed to inherit eternal life. (Matthew 19:16)

JESUS-’ RESPONSE (Matthew 19:17-19)

He challenged the young man’s understanding of Jesus-’ position and his own comprehension of what is really good: On what basis do you call me what is true absolutely only of God, and desire to know-’ from me what only God can know?

He furnished the commandments God had already revealed.

THE YOUNG MAN INSISTS ON PERFECTION (Matthew 19:20)

JESUS OFFERED PERFECTION THROUGH ABSOLUTE CONSECRATION (Matthew 19:21)

THE YOUNG MAN, HOWEVER, BALKED (Matthew 19:22)

JÉSUS-’ COMMENT ON THE INCIDENT AND TEACHING ON WEALTH (Matthew 19:23-30)

Entrance into God’s Kingdom is difficult for those who have wealth. (Matthew 19:23)

Apostles are staggered, but Jesus repeats Himself even more emphatically (Matthew 19:24)

Dumbfounded (Mark 10:24), the disciples ask, If a rich man cannot be saved, who can?! (Matthew 19:25)

Jesus answered: God is Lord of all possibilities.

PETER’S WRONG-HEADED QUESTION ANSWERED (Matthew 19:27-30)

We have done what the rich young ruler would not, i.e. we have left everything: what shall be ours?

Jesus-’ answers:

PROMISE: In the new world, you will reign with me, judging all Israel. (Matthew 19:28)

ENCOURAGEMENT: All who have sacrificed for my sake now will receive in this time a hundred times what they give up, and eternal life in the time to come. (Matthew 19:29)

WARNING: Watch for a reversal of earth’s value systems: positions of relative importance will be reversed. Many big names will become nobodies, whereas the nobodies will then be important. (Matthew 19:30)

CHAPTER NINETEEN AND TWENTY: ILLUSTRATIONS OF CHAPTER EIGHTEEN?

In Matthew 18 Jesus presented a marvelous discourse on human relationships among disciples in the Messianic Community, the Church of Christ. While treating the Twelve’s question about relative greatness in the Kingdom, He touched themes such as mercifulness, humility, self-sacrifice, self-discipline, concern about the weak, the children, and stumbling-blocks. It would appear that this discourse was, for Matthew, as significant in the revelation of Jesus as the Sermon on the Mount. In fact, much as he did for the Sermon on the Mount in the Chapter s that follow it (Matthew 8, 9), Matthew seems to spend the two Chapter s following the Sermon on Human Relationships (Matthew 19, 20) to illustrate this sermon’s great themes, by selecting out of Jesus-’ encounters in Perea those events which illuminate them, Consider the following illustrations:

Male-female relationships, or the divorce versus marriage question. Do we not have here the larger question of male superiority versus tender concern for one’s mate? What about reconciliation after offences? (Matthew 18:15-20)

Adult-child relationships: how should children be treated? Jesus answers: Blessed! Apostles had treated them as if they did not count. (Cf. Matthew 18:5)

Rich-poor relationships: the rich young ruler, an ideal disciple who refused to sacrifice his own stumbling block for the Kingdom’s sake, and so was lost. (Matthew 18:6-9) Disciples, aghast that rich men hardly enter the Kingdom, ask, Who then can be saved? Jesus answers that salvation is by grace. (Cf. Matthew 18:23-35) Peter responds, We sacrificed everything: what will that get us? Jesus answers, Much, however, all the present values and proud pretensions will be overturned. (Cf. notes on Matthew 18:1-14)

Grace-merit relationships: the eleventh-hour servants equal to all-day workers by a gift of grace. Our standing before God is not a question of strict, legal accounting but the gift of undeserved favor. (Cf. Matthew 18:23-35)

Passion Prediction: the Messiah will serve others even to the point of death at the hands of highest authorities in the land. (See note on Mark 9:35 after Matthew 18:1.)

Refusal to establish a power structure: greatness is measured by service (Matthew 20:20-28; cf. Matthew 18:1-5)

Jesus is not too busy to heal two blind men who desperately appeal to Him for help (Matthew 20:29 ff; cf. Matthew 18:10-14)

Matthew 19:1-12

**Section 47

JESUS TEACHES IN PEREA ON MARRIAGE, DIVORCE AND CELIBACY (Parallel: Mark 10:1-12)**

TEXT: 19:1-12

1 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; 2 and great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there. 3 And there came unto him Pharisees, trying him, and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said, Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh? 6 So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 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. 9 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. 10 The disciples say unto him, If the case of the man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry. 11 But he said unto them, Not all men can receive this saying, but they to whom it is given, 12 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 for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Why is Jesus operating now beyond the Jordan during this period of His ministry? What brings Him here, or, perhaps, drives Him here?

Why would the Pharisees raise the particular question they did? Whereas they could possibly have asked so many others, why would this question be so important?

Before dealing directly with the Pharisees-’ question about His own position, Jesus cited the Old Testament Law (according to Matthew) and asked His hecklers What did Moses command you? (according to Mark). Why did He bring out the Old Testament Law first?

What does Jesus mean when He explains that the Mosaic divorce law was given because of your hardness of heart and therefore not in contradiction with His stated principle based upon God’s original intentions for marriage?

How, or in what sense, can the two become one flesh? What did God mean by this phrase in Genesis?

In what sense does God join the two together?

Jesus quotes from Genesis 2:24, but attributes these words to God: … He. made them male and female, and said, -For this reason a man shall leave his father. -’ A close reading of Genesis 2 will not show that God actually said these words, yet Jesus affirms that the words quoted are of God. In what sense does He mean this?

On the basis of what you answered in the previous question you should be able to tell what His affirmation has to say on the question of the authority and inspiration of the first two Chapter s of Genesis. Is Jesus merely condescending to the mistaken view, commonly held by His people, or is He revealing the true paternity of that text?

Why did Jesus make the exception to the general no-divorce rule, i.e. what is there about fornication that makes divorce a conceivable option for Jesus-’ disciple whose mate commits it?

Mark reports that Jesus-’ repetition of His rule applies it to the wife who divorces her husband. Why would the Lord have repeated His rule for His hearers: did women have such rights in those days? Do women need to hear His rule? If so, why?

Why do you think the Apostles objected to Jesus-’ solemn declaration on marriage, divorce and adultery? What is the basis of their objection? Is it a valid one? How are modern objections to Jesus-’ teaching on this subject based on the principle the disciples implied in their objection?

Why do you suppose Jesus brought up eunuchs as a proverbial basis for His answer to the objection that If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry?

To what does Jesus refer when He says, He who is able to receive this, let him receive it? Receive this what? Then, what must one possess or be to be able to receive this?

Can you name some who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven? There are some very famous ones in the New Testament.

How does this selection contribute to the larger question of male-female relationships? What principles in Jesus-’ doctrine have wider application than to the questions of marriage, divorce, adultery and the single life, as these are discussed by the Lord in our text?

Of what principles in Jesus-’ Sermon on Personal Relationships (Matthew 18) is this section an illustration?

Explain Matthew 19:3-12, Jesus-’ teaching on divorce and marriage, as well as you can to indicate what is positively and what is probably His will for us today.

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

At the conclusion of His message on personal relations, Jesus arose to leave the area where He was. In fact, since the days were approaching for His death and ascension, He resolutely set His face to go up to Jerusalem. So He left Galilee and went beyond the Jordan River to Perea which borders on Judea. There too large crowds followed Him, thronging around Him. And again, as usual, He taught them and healed them there. Presently, some Pharisees came up to Him with a test question: Has a man the right to divorce his wife for just any and every reason? He parried their question with another: What did Moses command you? Moses allowed a man, they began, to provide her a written statement of separation, and so divorce her. But, Jesus countered, it was because of your gross inhumanity that Moses wrote that precept for you. Have you never read in Genesis where the God who created man from the beginning, from the time of creation, made them a male and a female? This same God said, -This is why a man must leave the home of his father and mother and become united to his wife: the two must become one family.-’ It follows that the man and woman are no longer two individuals, but one indivisible unit. Consequently, what God, in His original project for man, has united, let no man separate. But why, then, they objected, did Moses lay down the law that one must give a notice of separation and so divorce his wife? Jesus lodged a counter objection: Moses PERMITTED (not ordered) you to divorce your wives, because you were so unwilling to do what God wanted. This, however, has never been God’s original plan! Later, when they were indoors, the disciples again brought up the subject to ask Him about it. His response to them was: I can assure you that whoever divorces his wife on any ground other than her unfaithfulness, and marries another women, becomes an adulterer in relation to his former wife. Similarly, if a woman divorces her husband to marry another man, she too commits adultery. His disciples took issue with this, Well, if that is how things are between husband and wife, then it is better not to get married! But Jesus qualified their statement, It is not everyone who can accept your conclusion that remaining unmarried is better. Only those to whom God concedes the ability can remain happily single. For there are some people incapable of consummating marriage, who were born that way, the congenitally deformed. Then, again, there are others made incapable of marriage they were emasculated by others. And then there are those individuals who abstain from marriage voluntarily in order to promote the interests of the Kingdom of God. Let anyone accept celibacy who is able to.

SUMMARY

During Jesus-’ Perean ministry some Pharisees sounded Jesus out on the rigor or leniency with which He regarded the divorce question. He drove them back to God’s original plan for man based on the indissolubility of marriage. Any post-creation, Mosaic precept was not an eternal principle but a provisional, temporary concession to alleviate the worst features of a sinful situation. Divorce by either party on any excuse, other than sexual immorality, is itself legalized adultery. The disciples, unready for the thorough-going rigidity of Jesus-’ position, rapidly surmised that celibacy would be better than the risks of marriage. Jesus, however, stuck to His guns on the original plan of God which included marriage between the sexes, while admitting celibacy as a proper exception in the case of those gifted with the proper temperament to make proper use of the single life for the sake of God’s Kingdom.

NOTES I. THE LORDSHIP OF GOD IN MALE-FEMALE REALTIONSHIPS (19:1-12) A. GENERAL SITUATION: GREAT POPULARITY OF JESUS IN HEROD’S TERRITORY, PEREA (19:1, 2)

Matthew 19:1 **And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these words, he departed from Galilee. **This formal conclusion to the Sermon on Personal Relationship (chap. 18) is no mere literary device. Events had kept Jesus and His group in a state of tension ever since Peter’s confession. Note these connections:

Peter confessed Jesus as the Christ, then Jesus prophesied His death and resurrection to occur at Jerusalem. Peter rebuked Jesus for this defeatism and had to be sternly corrected, since the cross lay at the center of all of God’s plans. (Matthew 16:13-28)

As further corrective to their mistaken notions of earthly glory and materialistic messianism, Jesus showed Peter, James and John His heavenly glory. (Matthew 17:1-13)

Contemporaneous with the Transfiguration, the failure of the nine Apostles to cast out a demon required private teaching, but Jesus-’ signal success produced popular enthusiasm again. (Matthew 17:14-22) THIS IS THE STAGING AREA IN GALILEE FROM WHICH JESUS WILL MARCH ON JERUSALEM TO DIE. Amidst popular acclaim and precisely because of it, Jesus repeated His prediction of sufferings, thus stating His battle plan and purpose of the successive campaign. (Matthew 17:22 f)

Upon their return to Capernaum, the disciples are involved in two events that require His special instruction:

Peter’s presumptuous answer to the temple tax-collectors that Jesus pays the tax. (Matthew 17:24-27)

The disciples-’ private debate about relative status in the Kingdom. (Matthew 18:1-35)

These events are all reasonably closely connected, not only by chronological connections, but especially by logical necessity. Thus, when Jesus began to regroup His men in Galilee for the final long march to Jerusalem (Matthew 17:22), chapter Matthew 19:1 was already a certainty that, to set it in motion, required only the completion of the intervening teaching.

He departed from Galilee never to return until after His resurrection. (Cf. Matthew 26:32 and parallel; Matthew 28:7; Matthew 28:10; Matthew 28:16 ff and par.; John 21:1 ff) He came into the borders of Judaea beyond the Jordan. Is Matthew speaking here of a precise period and geographic location or only summarizing a general period and speaking loosely?

If he is speaking precisely with regard to the geography, we have a problem, since Perea (the land beyond the Jordan, the Greek equivalent of Transjordania) is not politically Judea. Further, Mark’s language, region of Judea AND beyond the Jordan (Mark 10:1) seems to separate the two areas.

But what if Matthew is ignoring boundaries established by Roman political divisions and is regarding Perea as really part of Judea? That is, by the expression Judea does he mean all of Palestine in the wider sense of the land of the Jews, rather than a precise provincial designation? This would mean that Matthew included Perea as Judea, or Jewish territory. Then, if Matthew and Mark are strictly parallel, Mark’s and in the expression region of Judea AND beyond the Jordan should be thought of as explicative even, namely and rendered the region of Judea, namely beyond the Jordan.

It may be that Matthew means nothing more than that Jesus operated in that part of Perea along the border of Judea, i.e. mainly in the Jordan Valley and not farther east, deeper into Perea. This would facilitate the quick trips into Judea implied by John and Luke.

If Matthew is speaking only generally, the problem fades even more. It is easier to think of both Matthew and Mark as summarizing the later Judean Ministry which is narrated by John (John 7:1 to John 10:39). Perhaps the events that Luke collects together in his Chapter s Matthew 10:1 to Matthew 13:21 are to be thought of as occurring during this period. Then John (John 10:40-42) indicates the actual passage of Jesus into Perea, which Matthew and Mark point to here by their expression, **beyond the Jordan. **If we should then follow Luke’s chronology (Matthew 13:22 to Matthew 18:14) from that point forward, with the single insertion of John’s account of Jesus-’ quick trip to Jerusalem-Bethany for the raising of Lazarus (John 11:1-54), located perhaps between Luke 17:10-11, then Matthew and Mark’s material begin to parallel that of Luke after Luke 18:14. The net result of all this is the conclusion that Matthew 19:1 f merely summarizes the events from the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:2 ff) until just shortly before the last journey to Jerusalem for the last Passover. The specific events are recorded in Luke 10:1 to Luke 18:14 and John 7:2 to John 11:54.

Another, simpler solution might be that Matthew and Mark refer to the end of Jesus-’ concluding ministry, hence He is actually passing between Samaria and Galilee after His retreat from Bethany to Ephraim (John 11:54; Luke 17:11), hence is beginning the last trip to Jerusalem. This would mean that Jesus came into Perea bordering on Judea and there encountered the multitudes of pilgrims en route to the Passover. These people begin to attach themselves to His group, so He teaches and heals them.

Matthew 19:2 **Great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there. **Mark (Mark 10:1 b) notes that crowds gathered to him again. Why again? The possibilities are two:

If the Lord is thought of as just entering Perea from Galilee, then again means that, although Jesus-’ popularity had collapsed in Galilee (John 6:66), these fresh crowds swell His sagging popular following once more as He now enters a virgin territory where He had not evangelized extensively before.

On the other hand, if this is the last trip, these crowds are bound for the Passover. So, again would signal the end of the preceding, relative isolation that characterized His withdrawals from public attention. Rather than indicate the beginning of a popular ministry, these are people who will travel with Jesus to Jerusalem for His last Passover.

In addition to His healing ministry, as his custom was, he taught them there, (Mark 10:1 b) Why Matthew focuses on Jesus-’ healing, whereas Mark underlines His teaching is not clear. However Matthew implies the latter too, by recording two full Chapter s of situations in which Jesus is constantly teaching, especially in small situations.

B. IMMEDIATE SITUATION: INSIDIOUS PHARISEAN ATTEMPT TO EMBROIL JESUS IN CONTROVERSY OVER DIVORCE. (19:3)

Matthew 19:3 **And there came unto him Pharisees, trying him. **Because He is travelling through Perea, a territory under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas, some see this Pharisean trap as doubly treacherous:

Since John the Baptist had been beheaded for open condemnation of the adulterous union between Herod Antipas and Herodias (see notes on Matthew 14:3-12), these Pharisees hope to get Jesus to commit Himself openly on the divorce question and thus expose Himself to the wrath of that consciousless king and his cruel consort. Having crossed into Herod’s jurisdiction, Jesus could more easily be arrested, if He made any self-incriminating declarations that might be employed to incite those authorities against Him.

If Jesus answered wrongly to the test question, He would lose credibility with whatever group He antagonized, even before beginning any serious ministry in Perea. Perhaps He had taught hard line on divorce many times in other areas (cf. Matthew 5:27-32), especially in contexts where it appeared that He intended to rise above the authority of the Mosaic Law. Thus, these Pharisees may hope to hook Him on the horns of a dilemma connected with His own well-known doctrine. If He repeated His hardline position on divorce, they would show that He rejected Mosaic authority. But if He upheld Mosaic Law which permits divorce, then they could expose Him as contradicting His earlier stand, and therefore as a teacher too inconsistent to be taken seriously.

**Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? **Had the Pharisees stopped with this much of a question, Jesus could have answered a qualified yes, as He does in Matthew 19:9, and there would have been no contest. The controversy turns, however, on their final words: for every cause.

Because Hillel’s school interpreted Deuteronomy 24:1 (some indecency) in the widest and most lax manner possible, the Pharisees-’ expression, **for every cause, **adequately states the position of Hillel and asks Jesus to verify or deny Hillel’s decision and take the

consequences.

See how Josephus, also a Pharisee, states his interpretation in Antiquities IV, 8, 23. Josephus himself divorced twice and married a third wife: the first because she was a captive and he a priest ordered by the emperor to marry her; the second, because he was not pleased with her behavior. (Life of Flavius Josephus, §75)

Did the Pharisees hope Jesus-’ disciples shared the liberal view too? (Cf. Matthew 19:10) Compare also the brutal language of Sir. 25:26 which reflects this liberal thinking.

The contrary opinion, expressed by the rabbi Shammai, interpreted Deuteronomy 24:1 as referring to something indecent, libidinous or lascivious in the wife’s conduct, as cause for divorcing her, a position morally closer to that of Christ. (See on Matthew 19:9.)

So, if Jesus opposed Hillel, He would lose disciples who sympathized with that great rabbi on this issue. But if He took Hillel’s view, the stricter conscience of others would condemn His laxity. From the Pharisees-’ standpoint, He lost either way.

Notice the emphasis: **is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause? **These are the Pharisean terms of the debate, based on the unconfessed premise of male supremacy and the woman’s inferiority. Her rights or feelings or needs are not problems that seriously disturb the debators, a fact that reduced her to the level of a thing to kick around at the caprice of her Lord and master, the husband. The general tenor of Mosaic legislation tended to protect the weaker members of the Hebrew society against the abusive treatment of the strong. But, as usual, men sought the loopholes in order to elude their obligation to a spouse for whom they no longer felt any affection. The inhumanity of these scholars is evident in the fact that THESE are the terms of their debate. They did not interest themselves in solving the profound menace to society created by broken homes, children cast adrift and former wives left to shift for themselves. They assumed that THEIR rights and personal feelings were of first importance and their own masculine superiority remained unquestioned and unquestionable. So this test question which sees woman as naturally inferior to man becomes an instant illustration of how to apply Jesus-’ teaching on attitudes towards little ones. (See on Matthew 18:1-14.)

Rather than permit Himself to be embroiled in the Jewish controversy to become the target for whichever side He opposed, while talking directly with the Pharisees, He aimed straight at the heart of the problem, the heartlessness of men who refused to understand God’s original intention for marriage. Later, when talking privately with the disciples (Mark 10:10), He could give the kind of answer the Pharisees expected, but did not need. (Matthew 19:9) However, since the disciples had heard the former, they could also learn the latter.

According to Mark (Mark 10:3-4) Jesus rebounded the Pharisees-’ loaded question by putting them to the test. It is significant that Mark writes: He answered them, -What did Moses command you?-’ For Jews, this is the proper approach: it is an answer in itself, because it draws immediate attention to the Word of God relevant to the subject. The Pharisees had approached Jesus with the intention of drawing Him into partisan debate on a hotly contested issue based on popular opinions. But, before presenting what will be His own definitive, divine revelation on the subject, our Lord took them straight to the Word of God which would be authoritative and final in the solution of the question at hand.

It is interesting to observe that they did not cite the law specifically, for to have done so would have required that they mention the bone of contention, the phrase, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her. He could then have pointed instantly to adultery or fornication as the proper exception. Their indefinite quotation leaves the responsibility for any decision squarely upon Him. They said, Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away. (Mark 10:4) This is a practical summary of Deu 24:1 ff. Moses allowed, they say, thus underlining his prophetic permission. However, these Jews have side-stepped Jesus-’ question, because He is calling for the divine standard, not the concession they cite here. It is not unlikely that they sense that His demand for a citation of Moses-’ Law is anticipating a hard-line approach. In order to forestall an unyielding position against divorce, they trundle out a Scriptural exception which they suppose will automatically compromise any rigid interpretation He could make.

He waved their obstructionism aside, For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. (Mark 10:5) The word commandment here does not stand in antithesis to allowed in the preceding verse, as if Jesus had called for a commandment (Mark 10:3), then they cite Him a concession (Matthew 10:4) and He now admits it to be a commandment (Matthew 10:5). He only calls the concession a commandment in the sense that divorce per se is the concession, but the method whereby divorce is regulated is by commandment. The word commandment here stands in antithesis, rather, to no commandment, i.e. no regulation of divorce whatever. Rather than leave Israel to govern its divorce practice by individual caprice, leading to worse consequences, God gave commandments to regulate what must be considered at best as only a concession in a bad situation which did not at all reflect God’s original design for marriage.

Therefore, since they failed to cite the divine standard of Moses, He now cites it for them. (Matthew 19:4 f)

C. JESUS-’ RESPONSE: START LOOKING FOR REASONS TO KEEP YOUR WIFE! (19:4-12)

Adopt God’s original intention which was marriage, not divorce. (19:4-6) a. God’s ideal is one man for one woman. (19:4)

Matthew 19:4. Avoiding their superficial cavils and human interpreters, Jesus drove them directly to the highest possible Mosaic principle of marriage: God’s foundational principle behind marriage. God, not man, is the Lord of marriage. **Have you not read? **(ouk anégnote) The answer expected is: Yes, we have. They had indeed read, but never understood, the impact of the familiar words. As we have seen, Jesus countered their original question with: What did Moses command you? (Mark 10:3) But since these opponents failed to quote the most significant texts of Moses on the issue, He now appeals to the principle texts, Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2:24. THESE represent the genuinely prophetic, Mosaic thinking on the question of marriage, not Deuteronomy 24:1 ff. It should be instantly obvious to the impartial reader that these quoted texts, which are the hotly contested battleground between belief and unbelief today, are, for Jesus the revealer of the mind of God, products of the pen of Moses. Jesus-’ words represent a verbatim quotation of the LXX translation of Gen 1:27 and a practically verbatim citation of Gen 2:24. (See on Matthew 19:5.)

**He who made them **follows many ancient manuscripts, but another series of ancient textual witnesses has the Creator or He who created them from the beginning (ho ktísas, rather than ho poiésas).That this latter is the better reading is argued by Metzger (Textual Commentary, 47) as follows:

It is easier to suppose that copyists changed the word ktísas (which is supported by several excellent witnesses) to poiésas, thus harmonizing it with the Septuagint text of Gen 1:27 (which is quoted in the immediate context), than to suppose that poiésas was altered to suit the Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:27 (bara-’ which means created).

Arndt-Gingrich (456) render ho ktísas the Creator in our text, because, although it is an aorist participle, with the definite article it becomes a substantive. These data lead to an important observation: in these simple words Jesus deals a mortal blow to any developmental theory of human evolution. He does this in several ways:

He implies that the record of their creation is a trustworthy, authentic record. **Have you not read? **Otherwise, why bother? The fundamental point of Jesus-’ argument against the Jewish looseness of marriage relationships through divorce and multiple marriages, is that, in the text cited, God indicated His original design for man. If this text represents nothing better than the solidification of an ancient mythology, His argument falls, because it is neither Mosaic (as His argument implies) nor of God (as His argument demands)

By saying **from the beginning, **He assumes as proved that Adam and Eve are connected with the true beginning of human history, and that what He will affirm about them in the following verses is to be considered true and binding for the entire human race descended from them.

Jesus implies that the moral responsibility implicit in the relation of a heterosexual pair, i.e. **male and female, **proves that God did not create them as amoral animals by a process of successive genetic changes from other species, who could mate according to sub-human, non-moral instinctive urges. Rather, He created the species MAN in two heterosexual types, first the male and then the female. (Genesis 5:2)

This means that Jesus, in considering Adam and Eve the true progenitors of the human family, so that what is affirmed of them is valid for their children, therefore sees Adam and Eve, not as animal-like protohumans, but fully possessing every essential characteristic shared by their children, and in whose steps the latter must walk especially in the marriage relationship. In the same vein, just as Adam and Eve are not the invented names of sub-human prototypes of our race, neither are they the mythical designations of legendary figures invented by ancient philosophers and poets to explain the misty beginning of man. Otherwise, how could he appeal to this **male and female **as the standard by which God would judge all men, if in fact there really existed no original **male and female **created by the hand of God?

On the contrary, this human pair, standing side by side at the beginning of the world, represents God’s original project, a fundamental element in the ordering of all future society. How many times had every Hebrew male heard those lovely words from Genesis 2:18-24 that picture woman, in contrast to all animals, as a helping being, in which, as soon as he sees it, he may recognize himself? (Keil and Delitzsch, Pentateuch, I, 86) Although the order of creation established male priority and leadership and female dependence (1 Timothy 2:13; 1 Corinthians 11:8 f), a fact made painfully clear after the fall (Genesis 3:16), man’s position could never be thought of as one of absolute independence. (1 Corinthians 11:11 f) He was created **male **in view of his **female **whom God would create later. With the woman, man is completed. She is not merely his property, but an absolutely essential ingredient in his full humanness. According to God’s original design, as **male and female, **they each contribute to the enrichment of the other and to the fullness of them both. It would be sacrilege for men to interpose a counterproposal of separation and divorce. By saying **and female, **Christ has restored woman to her true position and glory, not in the sense of conferring upon her a new, modern role, but rather by re-establishing her in that ancient glory appointed for her at the creation.

In effect, Jesus is saying that **male and female, **as an expression of God’s will, does not mean male and females, either by outright polygamy or by that virtual polygamy produced by successive marriages interrupted by easy divorces. Although it was not His topic, Jesus-’ logic touches other areas. By saying **He made them male and female, **He eliminated homosexuality and other abuses.

God eliminated lesbianism, female and female.

God condemned sodomy, male and male.

By creating two free, unrelated individuals, He laid the groundwork for legislation against marriage with next of kin and incest. (However, this principle did not seem to be important during the early years of the race when the early descendants of Adam and Eve necessarily married their sisters.)

It is the **male and female **view of human union that God pronounced very good along with everything else that He had made. (Genesis 1:31; Genesis 1:27 f; 1 Timothy 4:4; 1 Timothy 4:3) Any other judgment is arrogant, open rebellion against the will and judgment of the King.

b. The parent-child relationship is subordinate to the marriage relation. (19:5)

Matthew 19:5 **And said. **The most interesting question to ask about this verse is: WHO said what Jesus quotes? It is practically a verbatim rendering of the LXX version of Gen 2:24. As a perusal of the Genesis text will reveal, the quoted words cannot be the words of Adam (Matthew 2:23), because, without revelation, he knows nothing of mother or father, but must be the inspired comment of Moses, the author of Genesis. And yet, in Jesus-’ sentence, the only possible subject of the verb (he) said is that mentioned in the previous phrase, the Creator, He who created. The sentence structure, simply, is this: He who created. made them. and said. So it is God who is thought of as saying what is recorded in Genesis 2:24, For this cause a man shall leave. The only rational explanation that justifies Jesus-’ attributing to God Moses-’ words is the assumption that Jesus considered Genesis to be the inspired Word of God. For Jesus, God is real author back of Moses!

Now, if this be true, those who attack the inspiration or authority of Genesis 1, 2, attack not men or traditions, but Jesus Christ who convincingly sets His own stamp of approval upon the Genesis text. This is further evident from Jesus-’ argument with the Pharisees. He will conclude that this verse means that God has hereby joined two people of opposite sex into an indissoluble union, (Matthew 19:6) However, if His proof-text is faulty, i.e. not really God’s Word on the subject, so is His conclusion. Monogamous marriage (Jesus-’ conclusion), if it is to be substantiated at all, must be justified on some other basis, because Jesus-’ citation of a text that does not really substantiate His argument not only weakens His own argument, but also undermines our confidence in any other conclusion He offers on the basis of OT Scriptures. His word in that case would have only relative, fallible, human authority. The only tenable basis upon which we may have our Christ now is to let Him tell us what we should believe about the OT texts, because, since we are unable to arrive at mathematical certainty about them on any other basis, His authoritative word becomes the revelation that must guide all our thinking about this subject.

**For this cause, **in Genesis 2:24, refers to man’s reaction to his wife: This at last (in contrast to the animals he had observed) is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man. God says that it is **for this reason, **i.e. because the one woman is so ideally suited to the one man, that **a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. **In creating woman, God had taken her out of man. In marrying her, man cooperates with God in making her part of himself again. Thus, a union in which the two lives are joined into one is more solid that that of blood ties. To break such a union should be as unthinkable as hacking off the members of one’s own physical body. (And yet, men thought it! Sir. 25:26) This is what it means to believe in the indissoluble and monogamous character of marriage.

**A man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. **This is the truly definitive law published by Moses: **A man shall. cleave to his wife! **Note the future tense: is God merely saying that marriage is the usual expectation when a boy leaves home? What reader of Genesis did not already know that? God is saying something far more significant. Since the Hebrew future is often used for commands (witness the Ten Commandments almost all stated in the future indicative.), is He not, rather, establishing an ordinance?

Jerusalem Bible boldly renders Matthew 19:5 and Mark 10:7 as follows: This is why a man must leave father and mother, and cling to his wife, and the two become one body, although they do not consistently render Genesis 2:24 this way.

From this standpoint, then, Jesus sees in the Hebrew future verb-forms of Gen 2:24 the command of Moses that He sought. (Mark 10:3, What did Moses command you?) This permanent uniting of two lives into one is the real Mosaic command, the divine Law, as if God had said to man, Leave your parents, and become as united to your wife as Adam’s rib was physically and permanently part of his own body before Eve was created. Hendriksen (Matthew. 715) urges the conclusion that Jesus sees the divine command in this text, because

Otherwise his argument would lose its force; b. the audience hardly needed to be told that it is customary for men to get married; and c. this is in line with the words immediately following (Matthew 19:6).

Therefore, if the parental relation, which is itself a fleshly relationship, is subordinate to this marriage relationship, then to believe Jesus means that neither spouse in a battle between them may run home to mother, because their tie to each other must be considered a stronger bond, hence they must settle their row and live unitedly in peace.

c. Jesus-’ conclusion: God’s plans must not be destroyed by divorce. (19:6)

Matthew 19:6 **So that they are no more two, but one flesh. **From the foregoing premises Jesus concludes that marriage leave man and woman no longer independent, autonomous individuals. They may no longer act as if they had separate interests and goals. They are to move as if they had one common soul. If God formed the original woman with something taken from the first man, He planned that the male and female, now two distinct persons, must be united in marriage as indivisibly as the original man had been when he was alone. From this standpoint, divorce amounts to amputation! (Study the diabolical combination of this concept with divorce in the brutal language of Sir. 25:26 LXX: If she does not live according to your leadership, cut her off from your flesh!) And if death is the only means whereby a man can be separated from his own body (a unity created by God), the only means whereby the marriage unity (another union established by God) can be dissolved is by death. Or, to put it differently, marriage is **what God hath joined together. **If God is the Lord of marriage, they who enter into it may not act as if THEY were its lord either singly or together, in contradiction of His design for the institution He has established. **What God hath joined together, **as an expression, leads us to conclude that, whereas people usually think of themselves as consummating marriage in the sexual union, it is really God who **joins together. **Any married couple, therefore, is making use of an institution that belongs to God and must do so in the full awareness of His ethical principles that govern their proper stewardship of what belongs to Him. Otherwise, their mishandling of marriage becomes just another sin of misappropriation and abuse of His property.

Let **no man put asunder. **Jesus concludes that no single individual, no human ordinance and no group of men has the right to effect a divorce without the consent of Him Who is the Lord of marriage, God. No man may excuse his illegitimate divorce by appeal to the law of the land, because neither the legislature nor the courts of any country have the right to contradict Jesus! Were all the legal systems of the entire world to permit murder or theft, these crimes would never become legal before God on such a basis. Despite all human lawbooks to the contrary, God would still hold the guilty responsible for murder or theft. Any country may pass laws that permit divorce for every reason, but no one who cares about what Jesus thinks will avail himself of any of these legal means, except in the case of un-chastity. (Matthew 19:9)

Lest modern disciples bent on divorce for the shallow selfishness of incompatibility discount the Lord’s sublime statement on the high sanctity of marriage as anachronistic and impractical, because it fails to take into account the personality dissimilarities to which moderns are sensitive, they must be quietly reminded that Jesus pronounced this sentence in the full light of no less than 4000 years of bad examples! He is no mere social commentator with fallible judgment, but the Word of God revealing the mind of God on this as much as on any other subject about which He speaks. (John 1:1-18) He does not need to be told by enlightened moderns what is in man, since He knows man inside and out. (John 2:25) His words are spoken in the full light of the judgment whereby the fate of every single and married person will be weighed on the Last Day.

It is interesting to note that Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20also based on Genesis 2:24is founded on the intimate relationship of the believer to the body of Christ. (Cf. Ephesians 5:28-31) That is, in the same way that sexual union creates a real, physical-spiritual relationship, so also the Christian’s union with the Lord creates a spiritual union. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 6:17) However, sexual immorality, by establishing with a prostitute a union parallel to that pre-existing between the believer and Christ, desecrates the latter unity. This too argues the theological reality and unquestioned permanence of marriage created by such a union.

Mosaic divorce legislation reflects inhumanity, not God’s original family design. (19:7,8)

Matthew 19:7 **They say unto him, Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement and to put her away? **Notice the emphasis of this rabbinic objection: **Why did Moses **COMMAND. ? Jesus had countered their first question by asking, What did Moses command you? (Mark 10:3) They answered by citing a concession (Mark 10:4), Jesus waved it aside as a situational permission that did not really represent God’s purpose for marriage and was intended as but a regulation to eliminate the worst features of masculine inhumanity. (Mark 10:5) Perhaps because He referred to this regulation as a commandment (entolèn) and certainly because He has solidly established His anti-divorce position on unquestionable Scriptural premises, they attempt once more to seize the advantage by reminding Him that Deuteronomy 24:1 ff is, after all, divine legislation, an insinuation that He has made Moses contradict himself by giving commands which contradict the original commandment concerning marriage in Genesis 2:24. Notice the shift in their argument: earlier they had argued against Jesus-’ intended hard-line stand by asserting that Moses PERMITTED. Here, against His citation of the original family design of God, they argue that Moses COMMANDED.

Study this Pharisean reaction carefully: even the Lord’s correct exposition of Genesis cannot break their deeply ingrained habit of ignoring God’s original design for marriage during their conventional debates on divorce. Their corrupt heart is exposed by their over-attention to a concession justifiable only to eliminate grosser inhumanity. They are not moved by any deep-running concern to seek to know the principle institution in the mind of God and obey Him.

Note that these Jews reveal their settled conviction that Deuteronomy 24:1 ff as well as Genesis 2:24; Genesis 1:27 are of Mosaic authorship. Even if they ignore the weight and proper understanding of these texts, they do not debate the authorship with Him.

Matthew 19:8 **Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives. **Since they had mistaken a situation concession for the original, divine standard, He must correct them by reminding them that they had rightly termed it a concession earlier. (Mark 10:4) They had made the exegetical mistake of assuming that Moses-’ legislation commanded divorce. Moses did not order divorce as a right solution to anything. He ordered only one thing in Deuteronomy 24:1 ff: that in case a divorce had already taken place, reunion with the divorced wife is forbidden if she had married another man in the meantime. The portion cited by the Pharisees regarding the divorce certificate (Matthew 19:7) is not a law at all. (To appreciate this it is necessary to notice carefully all the ifs and whens in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. They all serve to describe the kind of situation in which the prohibition in Deuteronomy 24:4 is valid. The only real precept in that entire text is found in Deuteronomy 24:4.) Deuteronomy 24:1-3 is but the description of a situation assumed as customary and founded upon a tradition which left it completely in the hands of the husband to initiate a divorce. In such a situation Moses could not entirely abolish the tradition without requiring by law the kind of regeneration in husbands that such new marriage laws would actually require. But even so, a correct exegesis of Deu 24:1-4 would show that Moses actually discouraged an easy divorce, because he clearly points out the negative implications involved. Jesus-’ peculiar wording rumbles with judgment: **For YOUR hardness of heart Moses permitted YOU to put away YOUR wives. **Not only does He recognize that His questioners are Jews and so under the Mosaic system, but He intentionally underlines their spiritual kinship to the hard-hearted, unconverted, inhumane men back in Moses-’ time who retained their selfish grip on the total disposition of a marriage, claiming the right to dispose of wives who were no longer pleasing. So saying, He declared, in effect, Hillel to be exegetically right and Shammai wrong, because, whatever might be the interpretation of some indecency, Moses never tolerated unlimited divorce.

How could God, or Moses, tolerate such **hardness of heart? **On the basis of genuine compassion for the women, the true victims of that bad situation. An entire nation cannot instantly be raised from moral vileness to Christian standards merely by enacting better laws. In fact, without deep conversion of the men that would put a new spirit in them to treat their wives with respect, the permanent, monogamic marriage ideal seen at creation, if welded into iron-fisted legislation, would have tempted men to choose sexual promiscuity or other illegitimate means to avoid the bondage of permanent marriage under a rigid legal system. Or, forced by law to keep an unloved, unwanted wife, the brutal husband could abuse her with beatings, starvation, humiliations and overwork. Thus, even permitting her to be sent away with the formal protection of the divorce certificate would have been a real kindness to her. God had faced the choice of two evils with no real, immediately available third alternative except repentance and conversion, but He was already working on that too.

**But from the beginning it hath not been so. From the beginning **monogamy was the rule. **The beginning **was a paradise when everything functioned harmoniously according to God’s original plan, where the Kingdom of God was absolute. Now, Jesus-’ disciples have voluntarily surrendered to God’s rule. This is why the only rule for them must be the plan God indicated in the creation of men before sin marred the picture, Since divorce expresses the discord, rebellion and failure that come from rejecting God’s Lordship over marriage, there can be no place for divorce in the Kingdom of God. In fact, it was a Cainite who began to pollute the race with the multiple marriages that divorce seems to legitimize. (Cf. Genesis 4:19)

If the validity and importance of a tradition is judged by its antiquity and origin, then Jesus has just beat the Pharisees hands down at their own game. If it be admitted that when treating divorce Moses only acceded to custom, then the Jews could claim only a tradition incorporated in the Mosaic Law, but had no authority whereby they could document this custom as much older or authoritative than that, and they certainly could not produce any divine authority for it. But Jesus, on the other hand, could not only cite a view of the human family that was as old as creation, but could point to one that enjoyed the authority of God Himself! This latter argument apparently silenced the Pharisees, because not only do they fade away, but Mark specifically affirms (Mark 10:10) that the remainder of this conversion occurred in the house where His disciples quizzed Him further on the question. Matthew did not consider this break in the conversation important for his purpose, so omitted it.

Any divorce for any reason other than unchastity encourages adultery through marriage of divorced persons. (19:9)

Matthew 19:9 **And I say unto you. **This teaching is directed, not to the Pharisees who have apparently retreated in frustration, but to the disciples who, in the house. asked him again about this matter. (Mark 10:10) **I say unto you. **The time has arrived for the Son of God, with His power to convert hard hearts, to bring an end to the nefarious tradition upon which the imperfect concession in the Mosaic system was based. Jesus can create the situation where God’s original ideal for marriage is a working reality. Whereinsofar men continue to insist on divorcing for any other reason than that indicated by the Lord of marriage, they usurp His divine prerogatives. Only the Gospel, not ideal divorce legislation, can bring about the ideal God had in mind at the creation.

**Whosoever shall put away his wife. and shall marry another, committeth adultery. **See notes on Matthew 5:27-32. Although Jesus-’ words deal specifically with the case of the man who divorces with the purpose of remarrying, the spirit of His thinking condemns also that heartless individual who divorces his wife with no intention whatever of remarrying. He is condemned because of what the divorce does to the wife. (Cf. Malachi 2:13-16)

**Except for fornication **is the only concession Jesus admits to His hard line on divorce. So saying, Jesus showed Shammai to have been morally closer to the truth and Hillel morally mistaken. But what reason validates this exception? By nature, **fornication, **or adultery, destroys the monogamic family life in the sense that, by that act, the guilty person separates what God has joined and takes another mate into the family relation. This is why marital unfaithfulness constitutes an assault upon the monogamic marital union: it is de facto polygamy. Were there absolutely no divorce permitted, the innocent married partner would thus be forced to live in a polygamous situation.

But the man who divorces a faithful wife, however imperfect she may be on other counts, and compounds his guilt by remarriage, thus slamming the door to reconciliation, is an adulterer. This is because marriage creates a unity divisible only by death. (Romans 7:2-3-’; 1 Corinthians 7:39) Thus, any divorce before death would not be recognized by God, and remarriage under these circumstances must be judged adultery, because this de facto bigamy violates God’s monogamic ideal in Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2:24. (Hebrews 13:4) Under these circumstances even rabbinic law would have condemned such a union. (Edersheim, Life, II, 335) Marriage to another’s divorced mate is adultery, because they are still married, notwithstanding the divorce granted by the laws of their society. Therefore, the society that legalizes divorce for any other reason than the only one that severes the monogamic union, is merely becoming accomplice to consecutive, if not contemporaneous, polygamy. On what grounds, then, can it be asserted that divorce can be the sign of repentance of two human beings who recognize their guilt of having failed to make use of the gift of God to live according to His will, and can in this case free them for another manifestation of divine mercy? (Edward Schweizer quoted with approval by Gonzàlez-Ruiz, Marco, 177) But the gift of God is not the supposed freedom to think otherwise than Jesus, but REPENTANCE of all that made that marriage fail! The guilt of marital failure is never absolved by superimposing upon it the additional guilt of a sinful divorce!

However, should the sin of fornication be the cause of a given divorce, then Jesus-’ rule would read: Whoever divorces his wife due to her unfaithfulness and shall marry another, does not commit adultery. This is because, when the only exception that Jesus admits, is the case, then the condemnation attached to divorce for all other excuses, is absent. The guilty party destroyed the marriage unity by fornication. No longer married, the divorced innocent party is therefore a proper candidate to marry another unmarried person. Although God recognizes divorce in no other case, for Him divorce is real in this one. And if divorce is real at this point, there is no marriage between the couple involved, hence the innocent husband or wife would be free to remarry without committing adultery by so doing.

D. THE DISCIPLES-’ STUNNED OBJECTION: BETTER NEVER TO MARRY THEN! (19:10)

Matthew 19:10 **The disciples say unto him, If the case of the man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry. **They reason that if marriage is indissoluble, then a life-long marriage failure would be an intolerable prison sentence and therefore ought not to be begun in the first place. Two negative observations grow out of this:

Some commentators believe that Jesus could not have pronounced the unchastity exception to His no-divorce rule, since Mark does not record it, hence the reader of Mark would never know about such an exception, and thus the disciples-’ reaction here is far more understandable if Matthew be blamed for having invented it. To this it must be replied:

Neither Mark nor Luke needed to record the exception, since Jesus-’ well-known teaching with the exception included (as documented by Matthew) was already sufficiently well-known. (Matthew 5:32: how often had Jesus repeated this in popular preaching?)

Further, for the disciples, the problem is not whether there could be any unchastity exception or not, because the logic of Jesus had already established one single, life-long, monogamous marriage as the standard, which, if taken to its proper conclusion, must recognize that adultery is in itself destructive of that relation. Thus, even without Matthew’s record, they could have arrived at the exception made due to unfaithfulness. And, if we may judge from the mood evident in every position repreented in both Judaism and especially in the NT, every Jew would have so readily admitted fornication as a suitable ground for divorce that it needed not to have been stated by any of the Synoptics. However, Jesus deemed it essential, so He said, and Matthew documented it.

What shocks the disciples is not the presence or absence of any exceptions as serious as fornication. Rather, their reaction here registers their shock that absolutely all other motives for divorce, some of which they would have personally accepted as justifiable, are deliberately swept aside by Christ.

Others cannot believe that the disciples, so long in Jesus-’ fellowship, could be capable of such moral laxness: They would not hold that what even the Jews of the stricter school of Shammai maintained respecting the marriage-tie was an intolerable obligation. (Plummer, Matthew, 260) From this conclusion it is argued that Jesus could not have given the adultery exception (Matthew 19:9), since the disciples-’ reaction is explicable only on the assumption that He forbade all divorce, even in the case of the wife’s unfaithfulness. This distortion of the picture is corrected by the following considerations:

It is based on the false assumption that the disciples COULD NOT have held so low a view of marriage after so long a discipleship under Jesus. This assumption is groundless, because they proved again and again that they did not share the Lord’s mentality on many subjects, and frankly told Him so, even though they had listened personally to His instruction:

(1)

They signally failed to understand Matthew 18:1-14 by hindering others-’ bringing little children to Jesus. (Matthew 19:13-15)

(2)

They shamefully failed to grasp Matthew 18:1-14 by continuing to ask for positions of personal prestige in Jesus-’ hierarchy. (Matthew 20:20-28)

(3)

They miserably failed to understand Matthew 18:6-9 by being shocked that anyone would miss the Kingdom of God simply by refusing to eliminate his own stumbling blocks. (Matthew 19:25)

(4)

They were in danger of misunderstanding that one’s standing before God is not a question of religious status or strict legal accounting, but a gift of undeserved favor. (Matthew 18:23-35; Matthew 19:29 to Matthew 20:16)

The disciples-’ exclamation is perfectly understandable on quite other grounds. They could imagine the life-long human tragedies that mar the joy of marriages, that moderns put forward as excuses for divorces on terms unadmitted by the Lord. It seemed to them that Jesus was taking no account of clashing temperaments, in-law troubles, conflicting habits and religious differences. They saw clearly the suffering on both sides of such a union that must last until death. What they did not see, of course, was that repentance and reconciliation and regeneration, not divorce and division, are the answer to this suffering.

In other words, the disciples were floating on this theologico-sociological sea somewhere between Hillel and Shammai. So, the attacking Pharisees had correctly predicted the trouble they could cause for Jesus when luring Him into debate on this subject, because even His closer understudies leap to this extreme conclusion: It is not expedient to marry.

So saying, the disciples gave voice to that same obtuse, moral mentality that unhappily illustrated the hardness of heart and vindicated the rightness of the Mosaic legislation. And if THEY think this way, how much more so would anyone else do so who is less willing to seek God’s ideal?! Their deduction, however, is but a calculating, selfish view of marriage. It seeks only what profit will accrue to the individual, not what this splendid opportunity affords us to bless our husband or wife, our future family, our society and the Church. The disciples were voicing the typically diabolical demand: What am I going to get out of marriage?, not the Christian problem: What can I bring to marriage that would make it a paradise on earth for my mate? They just do not yet see that the self-giving Kingdom ethic, which motivated Jesus (Matthew 20:28) and must motivate every citizen of the Kingdom (Matthew 18:1-14), has ample ramifications that reach into every aspect of life. Marriage is affected by it too. (Cf. Ephesians 5:22-33; 1 Peter 3:1-7) On the spur of the moment they can not envision a life-long, imperfect marriage being made perfect with the passage of the years. This leads us to see, with Barclay (Matthew, II, 227f), that Jesus-’ teaching about marriage means that

… only the Christian can accept the Christian ethic. Only the man who has the continual help of Jesus Christ and the continual guidance of the Holy Spirit can build up the personal relationship which the ideal marriage demands. The Christian ideal of marriage involves the prerequisite that the partners of marriage are Christian. So we have to face the fact that Christian marriage is only possible for Christians.

The Apostles-’ Jewish reaction, **it is not expedient to marry, **is based on Jesus-’ statement of **the case of the man. with his wife, **and so differs radically in orientation from the Corinthians-’ position: It is well for a man not to touch a woman (1 Corinthians 7:1). It is nevertheless interesting to notice that the conclusion of both the Jewish disciples and of the Greek Corinthians, that normal physical marriage is or would be wrong or at best problematic, is itself wrong-headed. This is because it ignores our proper human nature and our temptations to immorality (1 Corinthians 7:2). It fails to see that any no-marriage rule takes no account of normal people, and is valid only for physical eunuchs and those with God’s gift of the single life. (Matthew 19:11 f; 1 Corinthians 7:7-8) While attempting to avoid possible failure or spiritual undoing in marriage, this ignoring one’s own humanness forgets that the option of celibacy is not trouble-free either.

E. JESUS-’ REACTION: THE SINGLE LIFE IS AN EXCEPTIONAL GIFT, NOT THE RULE. (19:11,12)

Matthew 19:11 **But he said unto them, Not all men can receive this saying, but they to whom it is given. **What is **this saying **(tòn lógon [toûton]): the deduction made by the disciples (Matthew 19:10) or the preceding exposition of Jesus (Matthew 19:4-9)?

It refers to Jesus-’ own doctrine.

No significant weight can be placed on the demonstrative pro noun, THIS **saying **(tòn lógon [toûton]) as pointing to the nearer context, because it is not absolutely certain that Matthew wrote it, as Metzger (Textual Commentary, 48f) notes:

On the one hand, since the general tendency of scribes is to make the text more explicit, e.g. by adding the demonstrative pronoun, the shorter reading supported by B, f1 and several early versions, has a certain presumption in its favor. On the other hand, however, the ambiguity of the reference of toûton in the context. may have prompted some scribes to delete the word. In order to reflect the balance of possibilities, the Committee decided to retain the word, enclosed within square brackets.

It is as if Jesus were saying, Not everyone has the godly concern for their mate that is required to receive (accept, comprehend) my doctrine of permanent marriage and rigidly limited divorce. Only those who accept me as revealer of God can understand it, because such a revelation is comprehensible only to those who have their eyes open to the will of God anyway. (Cf. Matthew 11:25 f; Matthew 13:11) To my disciples **it is given **to understand, but to those uninterested in doing things God’s way, it is not given. Accordingly, Jesus-’ concluding exhortation (Matthew 19:12 d) would mean, Let him who by his discipleship is able to comprehend my doctrine, do so!

It refers to the saying of the disciples: It is not good to marry.

If a choice must be made, this is the better interpretation, because Jesus-’ logic is tightly connected with the proof He adduces for His present affirmation. (See on Matthew 19:12.) To ignore this connection leaves one at sea to interpret it.

Jesus is not necessarily scolding the disciples for their extreme position. Rather, He shows them those to whom their statement rightly applies. (Matthew 19:12) They are not totally mistaken, for there really are some who should rightly decide: It is not good to marry. In fact, **Not all can **implies Some can. Jesus warns that only disaster can result from making such a universal rule as the disciples propose, because men cannot be bound by rules never intended for them, any more than they can or will be governed by laws that require them to be what they cannot. The result would be only the destruction of the very principle the rule-makers hoped to express in their rule.

Celibacy for everyone means increased temptation for all those who are not gifted with the ability to abstain from a fully sexual relationship. (1 Corinthians 7:2; 1 Corinthians 7:5; 1 Timothy 5:11)

The key to the Lord’s meaning is the expression **they to whom it is given. **The Giver is God who gives men the ability to marry or live the single life acceptably. (1 Corinthians 7:7; 1 Timothy 4:3-5; Genesis 1:27-31; Genesis 2:24)

Hence, the Apostles-’ reaction that, whatever the reason, marriage is unacceptable, is itself unacceptable, because God gives the grace to be blessed in marriage to many people. In fact, marriage is the norm, not the exception. (Genesis 2:18) The disciples-’ expedient (Matthew 19:10) would only be valid for those exceptional individuals to whom God gives the grace to live well the single life. (1 Corinthians 7:7 f) However, He, apparently does not give this grace to many. (Cf. 1 Timothy 5:11-14; 1 Corinthians 7:36-38)

In the following verse (Matthew 19:12) Jesus will indicate only three classes for whom the disciples-’ exceptional expedient of not marrying would actually make sense. For the rest, however, His rule on marriage is the standard, because properly directed sexual expression is the norm and that on which the continuation of the race is based. (Genesis 1:27 f; 1 Corinthians 7:2-5; 1 Corinthians 7:9; Hebrews 13:4)

God gives the grace for a permanent, happy marriage by helping people to be firmly resolute about fulfilling their marriage promises, by helping them to be graciously unselfish, to be generously ready to make sacrifices out of love for their mate, to discover true happiness in sharing one’s self, and by giving them the experience of a unity of mind that, because based on a valid principle, really affects their everyday life.

Although some doubt this evaluation of 1 Corinthians 7:7 on the thinking that Paul sees only celibacy as a definite charisma from God, it should be remembered that the last phrase of that text (ho mèn hoútos, ho dé hoútos) leaves the door open for marriage as a possible charisma from God: Each has his own special gift (chárisma) from God, one of one kind and one of another.

For Jesus, there can be no condemnation for those who cannot accept the disciples-’ condemnation of marriage, because, according to the Lord’s standard, these would be in the majority. (Matthew 19:4-6) For Him, there is absolutely no opposition between the single life and marriage, because the ability to marry well or live the single life well, is a gift from God. hence there can be no suspicion that celibacy should be thought of as a choice superior to matrimony, because the Lord the Giver does not so propose it. Rather, if there is any preference shown, His citation on Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2:24 would rate marriage as the norm to which the single life forms the exception. (See also Genesis 2:18.)

**Not all men can receive this saying, but they to whom it is given. **If we think of Paul’s handling of the celibacy question in 1Corinthians 7 as normative for our understanding of Jesus-’ words here, then it is important to understand what Paul indicated as clues whereby people may decide whether they have the charisma of celibacy or not. Note his observations:

If they cannot exercize self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. (1 Corinthians 7:9). If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marryit is no sin. But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. (1 Corinthians 7:36-37)

From these expressions it could be concluded that the possession of the gift of the single life is closely related to, if not strictly to be identified with, the power and demands of one’s own sexuality. That is, if sexual self-control and the celibacy determination is relatively easy, one has the gift. But if not, one does not possess it. In no case is there any blame attached to not possessing it any more than there is any special merit attached to possessing it. Paul argues in 1Corinthians 7 that sexual asceticism must be based on good theology and practical considerations, and that anything that ignored either must be corrected, and that a fully sexual marriage was recommended for anyone that had not received from God the charisma of celibacy. (1 Corinthians 7:2; 1 Corinthians 7:5; 1 Corinthians 7:8; 1 Corinthians 7:36)

It is also imperative that Paul’s reasons for the advantage of celibacy be rightly understood. He never argues that celibacy is a state theologically superior to matrimony. His arguments for his preference for the single life proceed along pragmatic lines, but it is never ordered for anyone. (1 Corinthians 7:7 f, 1 Corinthians 7:25; 1 Corinthians 7:32; 1 Corinthians 7:40)

Sexual asceticism within marriage attempts to exalt a sexual contradiction, since it ignores one’s own proper sexuality. (1 Corinthians 7:2-6) Mutual concern and proper self-knowledge demand limitations to any sexual abstinence within marriage. But this mutual concern does not permit undivided devotion to the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:32-35)

Celibacy has the advantage over marriage in view of the impending distress (1 Corinthians 7:26) when conditions for Christians would become so bad that, even for married people, practical or virtual celibacy could well become the condition or state in which they must live. (1 Corinthians 7:29)

Celibacy permits undivided devotion to the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:35) which married life tends to compromise. (1 Corinthians 7:32-34)

The single life is not a question of spiritual or theological superiority, but of pragmatic advantage over marriage. (1 Corinthians 7:38) There is no sin in marriage where it is especially appropriate. (1 Corinthians 7:36; 1 Corinthians 7:38 a) There is no question that marriage is good; rather, under the stated circumstances, the single life is better.

Although quite free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord, the Christian widow would, in Paul’s judgment, be happier in her unmarried state. (1 Corinthians 7:39-40) Happier does not mean more highly spiritual.

It should also be noticed in this connection that Paul claimed his right to be accompanied by a Christian wife(adelfèn gunaîka) as the other Apostles and brothers of the Lord and Cephas. (1 Corinthians 9:5) Genuine Christianity does not find its validation in sexual asceticism exampled in Paul, because he himself cited other equally authoritative examples to undermine such a conclusion.

To remain unmarried for the sake of freedom to work in the service of God and humanity, unencumbered by family cares and responsibilities, is one thing, while to refuse marriage out of suspicion that there is something contaminating or impure about marriage is quite another. (Marshal, Challenge of New Testament Ethics, 176)

Matthew 19:12 For: what follows is intended to furnish a rationale for Jesus-’ previous statement that not everyone can accept the Apostles-’ extreme deduction that marriage is unprofitable. The single life to which the Apostles-’ conclusion points, says Jesus, is like that of the eunuch, of which He notes three types:

**eunuchs that were so born from their mother’s womb, **i.e. those born with defective genitals and would not be capable of consummating a fully sexual marriage.

**eunuchs that were made eunuchs by men, **i.e. those who are castrated face the same problem. (Cf. 2 Kings 20:18 = Isaiah 39:7; Isaiah 56:3-5; the two Ethiopian eunuchs; Jeremiah 38:7 ff; Acts 8:27 ff)

**and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, **These are those normal people who, while sexually perfectly capable of consummating marriage, have the gift to live the single life happily in special service to God, and choose to do so. Paul had the gift and used it for more effective service in the Kingdom by leaving himself free to carry on a wide-ranging evangelistic ministry. (See 1 Corinthians 7:7 f, 1 Corinthians 7:32-35; 1 Corinthians 9:5) This principle describes and justifies the celibacy of John the Baptist and of Jesus Himself. Others, because of severe hardship and persecutions, might voluntarily decide not to marry. (1 Corinthians 7:25-35; 1 Corinthians 7:37 f)

There are really only two options whereby people make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven:

Literal self-emasculation, while actually performed by a few misguided souls (cf. Origen, according to Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History. Bk. VI, chap. 8), violates the principles laid down by Paul against the uselessness of such rigor. (Colossians 2:20-23; see notes on Matthew 5:29-30) For the Christian, then, this is not a live option.

Those who are unmarried may choose not to marry, in order to be more effective in their service for the Kingdom. However, the motivation and one’s moral capacity is important: Jesus is not interested in a mere abstinence from marriage or a superficial continence. He is rather discussing the person whose intellect and desires are so actively engrossed in the advancement of the Kingdom that he has no desire or impelling reason for marrying. This is non-ascetic celibacy for the sake of one’s work. Again, any consideration of the single life for its own sake is also to be rejected, because the only question important to the Lord is whether His disciples are living lives that reflect their dedication to God, i.e. **for the kingdom of heaven. **If their celibacy does not actually promote this, He is not interested.

Those who are married, but whose unbelieving partner refuses to live with a Christian, when forced to let the unbeliever depart, find themselves, for the sake of Christ, in the situation of a virtual **eunuch for the kingdom of heaven. **They are not obligated (bound) to maintain a marriage for sake of the marriage to the detriment and disadvantage of their confession of Christ and their belonging to Him. (1 Corinthians 7:12-16) So, in principle, Jesus-’ expression, **eunuchs for the Kingdom, **does leave the door open for separation from an unbelieving spouse, but, even so, it is not a divorce initiated by the Christian in order to remarry (as in Matthew 19:9 or Mark 10:11 f), but a bowing to the choice of the unbelieving spouse, in order to follow God’s call to peace in the Kingdom. (1 Corinthians 7:15 c; Romans 14:17) It is the choice to remain unmarried for Christ’s sake, hence **a eunuch for the Kingdom’s sake. **In a sense, this forced dissolution of a marriage is forced upon the believer. It is a condition over which he has no control, much like becoming a physical eunuch is beyond the decision of the person involved.

There are two senses in which every Christian must consider himself a **eunuch for the Kingdom, **even if he does not possess that gift of celibacy that expresses itself in a personal choice not to marry;

The Lord has declared that we, His disciples, must be willing, should the situation arise that requires it, to surrender everything we possess, even life itself, for His sake. (Matthew 10:37-39; Matthew 16:24-27; Matthew 18:6-9; Matthew 19:29; Luke 14:26-33) This may include one’s wife. (Luke 18:29)

Even though Matthew does not include or wife in Matthew 19:19, as Luke does in Luke 18:29, it is mistaken to believe that he saw some contradiction between Jesus-’ strong, hard-line stand on the permanence of marriage (Matthew 19:3-12) and the loss of one’s wife for Jesus-’ sake (Matthew 19:29), and that for ascetic considerations, deliberately sidestepped the issue by omitting it.

So the call to great sacrifice of every relationship for Christ’s sake, even marriage if need be, may reduce one to the level of a virtual eunuch, even though already married. (See above at Matthew 19:11.)

Was this kind of sacrifice temporarily required of Moses? He started out from Midian to begin his mission in Egypt, taking his Midianite wife and sons with him. But after the crisis over the son’s circumcision at which time Moses-’ life was endangered and his wife reacted negatively (?), rather than take her and the boys with him to Egypt, Moses sent them back to Jethro, while he pressed on toward his great mission. Did Zipporah’s attitude have anything to do with his decision? At least, it was not until his return to Sinai with the freed people that he was able to embrace them once again. (Cf. Exodus 4:18-29; Exodus 18:1-6)

There is another sense in which every Christian must consider himself **a eunuch for the Kingdom of God. **Every Christian must, for Christ’s sake, treat everyone of the opposite sex, who is not his or her mate, as if he or she could not consummate physical sexual relations with them because of a physical defect. The real hindrance is of course not physical but moral. (See notes on Matthew 5:27-30)

These are important, however secondary, senses and do not nullify the truth that some have the gift to live the single life in God’s Kingdom and for His service.

**He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. **(ho dunámenos choreîn, choreíto) The main problem of interpretation here is the decision whether Jesus is giving a command or making a concession, since the Greek imperative may be understood either way. Blass-Debrunner (§§387, 384) note:

The imperative in the NT keeps for the most part within the same limits as in classical usage. As in the latter it is by no means confined to commands, but also expresses a request or a concession. In the latter case the imperative can simply be the equivalent of a concessive clause. There is, however, a strong tendency to use the imperative instead of the optative, not only in requests, for which the imperative has a place in classical too, but also in imprecations which in classical take the optative.

Also, as in our case with the third person imperative (choreíto), the imperative can be equivalent to the hortatory subjunctive, i.e. as an exhortation. (Cf. Robertson-Davis, Grammar, 164, §308; 312, §407) There is practically no way of rendering the third person imperative in English, except as an exhortation: Let him accept it! On the basis of the foregoing, then, Jesus-’ exhortation is no ground for a church law that legally demands celibacy of an entire class of people (i.e. clergymen or any other group). Forced celibacy does not share Jesus-’ viewpoint and certainly is not commanded. Considered as an exhortation, this expression reflects the proper use of Christian liberty to marry or not as one’s individual situation, gifts, opportunities, etc., permit. There can be no unanimity of application among Christians, since these factors all differ from person to person and from century to century as well as from country to country. Since the disciples had categorically excluded marriage, Jesus urges them to reconsider their rash proposal. Let them take individual differences into considerations. Four classes of people have been discussed: three classes for whom the single life is quite properly indicated, and one classby far the largestfor whom only marriage is the solution. Now Jesus exhorts them: Let each person decide what is best for himself.

See Special Study: Money and Marriage: Manacles of the Mundane? after Matthew 19:30.

FACT QUESTIONS

In what part of Palestine was Jesus operating when He was questioned about His position on divorce? Is it possible to pinpoint this place with precision?

Had Jesus ministered in this section before?

How does Matthew’s account harmonize with that of Luke and John regarding any extended ministry of Jesus in this area? Is the period represented in Chapter s 19 and 20 another of Matthew’s collections of events together (as he does in Chapter s 8 and 9), of is there objective evidence that the events narrated occurred in the order indicated by Matthew?

Explain the significance of the peculiar question placed before Jesus by the Pharisees. What was there about the divorce issue that served the critic’s purpose to trap Him?

List the points Jesus made in His reply.

What Bible texts did Jesus quote to the Pharisees in support of His argument? Explain how Jesus could affirm that these texts represent the words of God.

What did hardness of heart have to do with divorce? How would hardness of heart require a bad law on divorce?

What exception did Jesus make to His universal prohibition of divorce? In what does this exception consist? Explain why only this exception is justifiable.

How much of Jesus-’ discourse on marriage, divorce and the single life was publicly presented to the Pharisees and how much was stated privately to His disciples? How do you know?

What was the disciples-’ objection and what provoked it? That is, what were they objecting to, AND what in them caused them to do so?

What is a eunuch and why could Jesus use such a person as an illustrative basis for His discussion?

Who or what is a person who has made himself a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven?

What is the major lesson on marriage and the single life that Jesus taught at the conclusion of this section?

List the texts in Matthew 18 that find practical application in this section and show their connection.

Matthew 19:13-15

**Section 48

JESUS BLESSES THE LITTLE CHILDREN (Parallels: Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17)

TEXT: 19:13-15**

13 Then were there brought to him little children, that he should lay his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, Suffer the little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven. 15 And he laid his hands on them and departed hence.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Do you think that Jesus had ever blessed little children before? If so, why do the disciples object only here? If not, is there anything indicated here about the nature of the people in Perea who would desire this for their children, something that people elsewhere did not feel?

Why would these parents have brought their children to Jesus to be blessed? What, do you suppose, was in their minds as they did so? That is, what positive good did they imagine such a blessing would bring their children?

In what sense is it true that the Kingdom of God belongs to such? If the Kingdom really belongs to God, how is it also true that it can belong to such as those who are like children? Explain the meaning of belong in each case.

Jesus said, Let the children come to me, and yet it was their parents who brought them, i.e. they did not necessarily COME on their own without their parents. So, what does the Lord expect us to understand about HOW the children are to come?

Mark and Luke add here the warning: Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein. What is there in common between receiving and being like a child?

List several possible reasons why the disciples rebuked the parents for bringing their children to Jesus.

Of what principles in Jesus-’ Sermon on Personal Relationships in Matthew 18 is this section an illustration?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

Now there were some people who were bringing their childrenyes, even babiesto Jesus, so He could lay His hands on their heads and pray. But when His disciples saw their intentions, they criticized and scolded the parents who brought them. Jesus was furious when He saw what was going on, and called them all back to Him. Let the children come to me! Do not stop them from doing it, because the Kingdom of God belongs to people like this! I can guarantee you that unless a person has the humility of a child enough to let God give him the Kingdom, he will not enter the Kingdom at all! Thereupon He put His arms around the little tots and, laying His hands on each one, gave them His blessing. Then He resumed His journey.

SUMMARY

Parents, anxious for their children to have the blessing of the young rabbi, Jesus of Nazareth, brought them to Him. His disciples, however, concerned about this interruption of Jesus-’ precious time, rebuffed them brusquely. But the Lord, deeply angry at this misunderstanding of His concerns and mission, called them all to Him, arguing that children have their proper place in God’s plans. He further threatened that entrance into the Kingdom would be refused to any who do not do so with that humble submission characteristic of a child. Not only did Jesus formally lay His hands upon the children and pray for them, but took them up to hug them. He had time even for little kids!

NOTES II. THE LORDSHIP OF GOD IN CHILD-ADULT RELATIONSHIPS (19:13-15) A. SITUATION: PARENTS BRING CHILDREN TO JESUS FOR BLESSING. (19:13a)

Matthew 19:13 **Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should lay his hands on them and pray. **Although Matthew and Mark consistently call them little children (paidía), Luke (Luke 18:15) says infants. Luke’s expression recalls Jesus-’ healing ministry which was continuing during this period. (Matthew 19:1-2) This, because not only were many sick people brought to Him for healing, but, as Luke has it, even infants, that he might touch them. That these were not merely larger children in whom one might suspect the presence of a seed-germ of faith, is shown by the usual translation of Luke’s word bréfos, babe.

See Luke 1:41; Luke 1:44; Luke 2:12; Luke 2:16; note Luke 2:27 paidíon 40 days old; Acts 7:19; 1 Peter 2:2. 2 Timothy 3:15 from childhood is not necessarily counterevidence, since it may mean You have known the Scriptures all your life! Timothy’s faith in God’s Word could hyperbolically be said to have begun almost before he was born, because of the faith of his devout grandmother Lois and his godly mother Eunice.

There was likely a mixed group of children and babies brought to Jesus. Some think that the Jews customarily brought their children to the synagogue on their first birthday for a blessing from the rabbi. The special interest in Jesus shown by the folks who brought these children to Him certainly underlines their appreciation of His goodness. It is not unlikely that the parents, having observed Him lay His hands on the people He healed, blessing them with complete healing, would naturally consider it a special privilege for their children to be blessed by this great Rabbi.

B. THE DISCIPLES-’ REACTION: THEY REBUKED THE PARENTS WHO BROUGHT THEM.

The disciples-’ behavior recorded here is another indication of the Gospel writers-’ straightforwardness and impartiality. Although they must report what is embarrassing to the disciples themselves, this candor confirms our confidence in the reliability of their narration.

**The disciples rebuked them. **Note that these men scolded the adults, not the infants. Their reaction is not totally blameworthy, inasmuch as Jesus had established no Sunday Schools, no Daily Vacation Bible Schools or Christian Service Camps. Without being against such methods, He dealt with the decision-makers at the head of the house. The Apostles could cite no example where Christ worked first with children. And yet, here they are mistaken! What went wrong?

If, as suggested above, Jesus-’ time for teaching them was constantly invaded by demands for healing people of their sicknesses, in this case, however, parents had brought to Him their little ones who were quite healthy, begging to let Him touch them. The Apostles deemed this unreasonable request intolerable.

It may well be that some of them were thinking, Children do not count in the adult business of the Kingdom. They are not important to its progress. So they begin hindering the parents, rebuking them for the nuisance. Theologically, this reaction is inexcusable and shocking, since these disciples had personally heard Jesus-’ teaching on the little people’s importance for the Kingdom. (Matthew 18:1-14) But it is psychologically understandable on the basis of the disciples-’ other inconsistencies and inability to connect Jesus-’ concepts with practical situations they faced. Nevertheless, these disciples represent stumbling blocks for these parents on the road to God, just as they had been a hindrance to the isolated worker of miracles. (Mark 9:38-41; Luke 9:49 f; see on Matthew 18:5-6)

A corollary of their devaluation of the children was their misplaced emphasis on the importance of adults. According to them, the Kingdom of God is the prize and possession of qualified, worthy people who have merited it by doing the right deeds. Once more His followers show their inability to understand Jesus and the nature of the Kingdom.

Theirs might be the common human reaction to an embarrassing situation where, when people do not know how to handle it, they try to make it go away. On another occasion they had planned to send the people away without needed help. (Matthew 14:15 f)

Were the disciples, in their rebuke of the parents who brought the children, partly moved by a misconstruction of His words concerning celibacy for the Kingdom? Did they suppose that an Essene-like celibacy was to become the Kingdom ideal? Did they suppose that in the renewed universe (= in the Messianic Kingdom) people would be as the angels, neither marrying nor being given in marriage, hence would have no children? What place would children have in such a scheme? From this standpoint, it was providential that the mothers brought their little ones to Jesus for His blessing not long after He had spoken words which might have been misinterpreted as a criticism of sex and family relations. Certainly, the Son of God intended no ascetic view of sexuality by His lesson on eunuchs for the Kingdom. Because children are the living reminder that a fully sexual marriage is real, because they are its natural product, the blessing of the children furnished Jesus the providential opportunity to protest strenuously against any such misreading of His words.

C. JESUS-’ ANGRY REACTION: CHILDREN ARE SO IMPORTANT TO THE KINGDOM THAT THEY ARE THE ONLY SORT OF PEOPLE OF WHICH THE KINGDOM IS MADE! (19:14f)

Matthew 19:14 **But Jesus said, Suffer the little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven. **Far from being soft, mushy sentiment, these words snap with Jesus-’ anger. (Mark 10:14) Why should he NOT burn at the injustice shown these God-fearing caring parents who bring their dearest possessions, their children, seeking His blessing? How could anyone, much less His own disciples, who had heard the mighty Sermon on Personal Relations and the importance of little ones (Matthew 18), slam the gates of the Kingdom of God in the face of the very persons most qualified for entrance into it? To suppose Him, the Messianic King, to be unwilling to welcome a child is to misunderstand and misrepresent Him to the worldand should He not be angry?

**Suffer the little children **(áfete tà paidía) Permit them: do not hinder them! **Forbid them not. **See note on Mark 9:39 after Matthew 18:5. People who desire to come to Jesus to labor in His service and receive His blessing must not be hindered but encouraged to do so, regardless of what we think about their qualifications, importance to us or their merits. **For to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven. **According to Mark (Mark 10:15) and Luke (Luke 18:17), Jesus repeated here a line out of His Sermon on Personal Relations (Matthew 18:13): Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it at all. The Kingdom of God is not something that can be bought or earned by self-complacent people certain of their own importance and worth to God. It must be received as a gift from God as the result of His divine initiative. (Cf. Luke 12:32) This is a gift of grace, not founded upon the supposed greatness and worthiness of its recipients. The only worthy attitude in which to receive the Kingdom, therefore, must be that of the children who cannot earn it and to whom it must be given, if they are to have it. Like these children brought to Jesus, those who enter God’s Kingdom do not march in and take over. They are carried in by the grace of Christ. Their only sufficiency is of God. (2 Corinthians 3:5)

On the question of infant baptism it is worthy of notice that Jesus did not regard children as little pagans, but as people to whom the Kingdom lightly belongs. It is a false dichotomy that emphasizes of such (toioúton) against of these (toúton), as if Jesus meant, Not these particular children, nor all children, but those who are childlike in character, are possessors of the Kingdom. (Plummer, Matthew, 262) This distinction is manifestly false

because of its bad logic: how could these very children be thought unqualified for the blessings intended for those of whom they themselves are the standard?!

and because Jesus had already clarified it that children per se enter the Kingdom. (Matthew 18:2 ff)

Their real innocence of any personal sin is a proper condition for their entrance. Only sin excludes. If the Kingdom rightly belongs to them, His reason is that He does not believe the doctrine of inheritable sin, but rather its antithesis, the natural innocence of children. The purpose for which these parents brought their children to Jesus was for His blessing, not for soul salvation or circumcision or any other purpose. It is a distortion of this event to see in it a justification of infant sprinkling or baptism which the child-baptizers think took the place of circumcision.

Children have an unconditional right to be admitted into the Kingdom of God because of their innocence. No baby baptism is necessary to remove non-existent inherited sin. They would not be thought of, however, as members of the Church of the redeemed, because they are not even qualified to be redeemed, since they have no sin from which to be saved. Until the child sins, he is like Jesus, mortal but sinless. However, they are positively members of God’s Kingdom and may live with Him and His people forever, should they die in their infantile innocence, because they have never sinned. They cannot partake of Christ’s atonement for sinners any more than He Himself needed atonement. The tragedy Jesus sees ahead for children is a diabolically inevitable future bristling with temptations to sin. (Matthew 18:6 f)

Here we may notice that sinlessness in children is part of the standard they represent for the adult disciple. This is because the self-humiliation and repentance, the tender consideration of others, the long-suffering and forgiveness, the spirit of unity in seeking God’s will, the altruistic service Jesus required in Matthew 18:1-35, must inevitably eliminate sin. And yet this is the spirit of the child, dependent upon others, in need of guidance and help. By inculcating receptive-ness, humility and childlikeness, Jesus eliminates the selfishness and pride that lies at the root of sin. This is the practical side of love that makes a man perfect. (See notes on Matthew 5:7; Matthew 5:43-48; Matthew 7:12.) In a positive way He requires here what sounded so negative in self-denial and cross-bearing. (Mí. Matthew 16:24 ff) The result, however, is the same.

So, as long as children are children, their innocence or sinlessness is the standard and goal for every disciple. The perfect absence of rebellion against God (= sin) is, on the negative side, what the Kingdom is all about. Sadly, when they grow to the age of awareness and become conscious of the appeal of temptations, wittingly or not, they join the ranks of those who rebel against God and turn against His beneficent rule and leave their natural place in God’s Kingdom. Then they too must become like children to recover what they have lost.

Although on this occasion the parents brought the children to Jesus, hence His words must mean that the disciples are to let the parents of the children bring them to Him, nevertheless **Let the children come to me and do not hinder them **may well look forward to a time when the children, on the basis of their personal love for Jesus and desire to be with Him, would want to come to Him on their own. They must therefore not be hindered but encouraged. Do we not see here His exhortation to the entire adult community of disciples to encourage the personal decision and individual responsibility of children who are maturing decisions about Jesus? Thus, the accusation of some that we baptize more babes, even though they are seven or eight years old, is false. These children who grew up in Christian families with proper teaching and so have had excellent opportunities to know the Lord, must not be hindered from obeying Him. But, it is objected, if these understand their need of a Savior from their personal sins, they would not therefore be such as those to whom the Kingdom of God belongs, because they would not be innocent, as argued earlier. This would overturn the decision that they were really innocent of inherited sin, hence proper candidates for the Kingdom. But this is false, because, whereas before their arrival at awareness they were innocents, hence candidates for the Kingdom and the sinless standard for everyone else, now, even as they are becoming more and more aware of their present imperfectness, they are still humble, trusting, teachable people, the very kind of people Jesus can work with most easily. Hence, even here, they are the standard for adults, and Jesus can still say, **Of such is the kingdom of heaven. **Let them come, then, while their heart is tender, their mind impressionable, their will pliable and their conscience sensitive to Jesus! God’s Kingdom rightly belongs to such people, and to NO ONE ELSE!

Some commentators note that the Evangelists locate this event logically right after the major discussion on marriage because of the appropriateness of discussing the importance of and concern for children. Here, then, is another corrective for the mistaken notion that a permanent marriage union is undesirable and inconvenient: what of the children?

Matthew 19:15 **And he laid his hands on them. **Mark underlines the Lord’s tenderness with these little ones, both in the Sermon on Personal Relations (Mark 9:36) and here, however with the added significance of this occasion, He took the children in His arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them. (Mark 10:16) What a contrast there is between His welcoming, embracing and blessing the weak, needy children, and the bumptiousness of the officious disciples who presume to form an isolating cordon around the Master to intercept these troublesome interruptions of His important work! Jesus would have them learn that to be kind and considerate to sincere, needy people and seek God’s blessing upon them, especially where they are trying to do their best, is His work and theirs too!

Very likely He placed His hands on the head of each child and called down the blessing of God upon each. (Mark 10:16, kateulógei: to praise highly, bless, Rocci, 1017; to call down blessings upon, Thayer, 339) Thus, He prayed for the children as the parents had requested. (Matthew 19:13) Remember how Jacob took Joseph’s sons in his arms, kissed them and blessed them (Genesis 48:8-16), or how the old Simeon took the Baby Jesus in his arms and prayed, then blessed His parents (Luke 2:25-35)

The Church of Jesus Christ today can measure her faithfulness to her Lord by the degree to which her program deals with the needs and growth of the children. How deep, then, must be the concern of all parents, that their children be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord and that from a child they have the blessed opportunity to know the sacred writings which are able to instruct them for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. If the Lord of glory turned aside from what others thought was the main thrust of His busy ministry, to defend these defenceless children and bless them, dare any man or woman who shares His attitude turn their care and development over to others less able or less concerned to give them such blessings as God has commissioned us as parents to give them?

FACT QUESTIONS

Explain what the parents desired for their children when they brought them to Jesus. That is, what does it mean to them for Him to lay His hands on them and pray?

What was the attitude of the Apostles toward the children and those who brought them?

What was the attitude of Jesus toward the children and those who brought them?

Explain: To such belongs the Kingdom of God.

What phase, or expression, of the Kingdom of God belongs to them?

In what sense does it belong to such?

Who are the people intended by the expression to such?

What additional teaching do Mark and Luke include that further clarifies Jesus-’ meaning? Where in Matthew have we already encountered this?

What is the total impact of this vignette in the life of our Lord? There may be several points to notice.

List the texts in Matthew 18 that find practical application in this section.

Matthew 19:16-30

**Section 49

JESUS TESTS RICH YOUNG RULER AND ENCOURAGES DISCIPLES (Parallels: Mark 10:17-31; Luke 18:18-30)**

TEXT: 19:16-30

A. The Demands of Discipleship

16 And behold, one came to him and said, Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 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. 18 He saith unto Him, Which? And Jesus said, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honor thy father and thy mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I observed: what lack I yet? 21 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. 22 But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sorrowful; for he was one that had great possessions.

B. The Dangers of Possessions

23 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. 24 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. 25 And when the disciples heard it, they were astonished exceedingly, saying, Who then can be saved? 26 And Jesus looking upon them said to them, With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible.

C. The Dividends of Faithfulness

27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee; what shall we have? 28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 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. 30 But many shall be last **that are **first; and first **that are **last.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

What do you think is the motive(s) behind the rich young ruler’s request?

Why did this Jew make this particular request, i.e. what point of view is back of the wording of his question?

Why did Jesus hold him off at arm’s length at first, quibbling over the word good, or would you consider this a quibble? If not, what is the point of Jesus-’ shifting the emphasis from the deed to do, to the good that would qualify such a deed to inherit eternal life?

Do you think Jesus meant to deny His own essential goodness by asking: Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good, i.e., God?

Since Mark and Luke both report Jesus as saying: Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone, do you think Jesus meant to deny or affirm anything about His own essential deity and goodness? What would be the point of making these remarks before getting down to the young man’s initial question?

If selling all that the young man possessed was the one thing he lacked to inherit eternal life, as Jesus later shows, what could have prompted Jesus to cite the commandments first? Was this a mere diversion, or an essential part of the total answer? If you think it was essential, explain why you think so.

Do you think the young man was sincere when he affirmed: All these I have observed from my youth? What makes you think this?

How would the sale of his possessions, alms and discipleship to Jesus make the young man perfect? What does this teach us about our own road to perfection?

Jesus said, If you would be perfect. in answer to the young man’s assertion, All these (commandments) I have observed; what do I still lack? Do you feel a touch of irony in His words? Why?

As the price of our eternal life must we sell all we possess in order to have treasure in heaven? Is there no lesson or principle in this incident for us? If so, what? If not, why not?

The young man went away sorrowful, but not angry. Why?

What kind of discipleship do you think Jesus was offering him? Was it eventual apostleship or some other function? On what basis would you decide this?

While the Scripture says he went away sorrowful for he had great possessions, is it not also correct to say that he went away sorrowful for great possessions had him? Of what fundamental sin is he guilty?

Why do you suppose it is so difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom? To what phase or expression of the Kingdom is Jesus referring here? How does one’s understanding of the Kingdom help to see why wealth makes entrance hard?

What picturesque figure of speech did Jesus use to illustrate the rich man’s difficulty of entering the Kingdom? Did Jesus mean difficulty or impossibility? How do you know?

Why were the disciples so stunned to hear Jesus-’ pronouncements about the hindrances blocking the entrance of wealthy people into the Kingdom? Name some wealthy AND godly people whom the disciples could have cited as certainly in the Kingdom. What is the point of view behind their astonishment?

What motivation prompted Peter’s reaction to Jesus-’ surprising pronouncements on wealth, Lo, we have left everything and followed you. What then shall we have?? Is it selfish calculation? Genuine curiosity motivated by interest in spiritual rewards? Are there any clues in the text that would help you decide whether his is a wrong-headed question or else perfectly proper?

Some teachers of ethics and moral philosophers insist that good deeds based upon hope of reward are thereby vitiated. To what extent does Jesus-’ answer prove that rewards for Christian service are not ethically wrong?

How could the future, glorious, messianic age be referred to as the regeneration? Do you think Jesus means the Christian age on earth., or the post-judgment new world of eternity? On what basis do you decide this?

Does not Jesus-’ promise of a hundredfold actually promote the kind of materialistic calculation for selfish ends, that He had so obviously denounced in affirming the impossibility of rich men to enter the Kingdom? In what sense, then, does He promise a hundredfold what had been surrendered for His sake?

Why did Jesus sound the warning that many that are first will be last, and the last first? Why is this aphorism appropriate at precisely this point?

How does the section on the rich young ruler speak to the larger human problem of the relations between rich and poor, or does it? If so, what is the message?

What else did Jesus teach about money, the desire for it and the use of it? What did He say about how to have treasure in heaven, and about why we should have it there?

Have you noticed the connections between the latter part of this section (Matthew 19:27-30) and the parable which immediately follows in chapter Matthew 20:1-16? What are the points of connection which illuminate Jesus-’ thinking even in our present section? How would this present section tend to mold our conclusions as. we proceed to interpret the next?

Of what principles in Jesus-’ Sermon on Personal Relationships in Matthew 18 is this section an illustration?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

Jesus was resuming His journey when something remarkable happened; a certain ruler came running up to Him and, kneeling before Him, requested: Good Teacher, what good deed should I do to guarantee myself eternal life? Jesus pulled him up short, Do you realize what you are saying when you refer to me as -good-’? Why ask me about what is absolutely good? After all, nobody is perfectly good, but God alone. You already know the commandments, so if you really desire to enter life, keep them! Which? he asked, What kind of commandments do you mean? These: Jesus replied, You must not kill. You must not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not cheat, Honor your parents, and, You must love your neighbor as you would yourself. The young man objected, But, Teacher, I have kept all these rules ever since I was a boy! What do I still need? As Jesus looked at him, He loved him. Hearing his reaction, He told him, There is just one thing you still need. If you really want to go all the way to perfection, go sell everything you own and distribute the proceeds among the needy, thus transforming your earthly wealth into spiritual riches. Then come back and follow me. But when the young man heard that, he was appalled. Visibly shaken, he went away grieved, because he was very wealthy, since he owned a great deal of property. When the Lord saw the man’s reaction, He looked around at His disciples, and commented, Believe me, it will be extremely difficult for men of wealth to enter God’s Kingdom! The disciples were amazed to hear this. Nevertheless Jesus insisted: Boys, how tough it is for ANYONE to get into the Kingdom of God! 1 repeat: a camel could more easily squeeze through a needle’s eye than a monied man make it into God’s Kingdom! When the disciples heard this, they were even more dumbfounded, and exclaimed to each other, In that case, who can possibly be saved, if a wealthy man cannot? But Jesus looked them in the face when He declared, Men just cannot save themselves, but God can save them. This is because anything is a possibility for God. Relieved, Peter began to say in reply to this, Look, Lord, we, in contrast to the rich, have left everything we could call our own, to follow you. Uh, what are we going to get out of it? Jesus answered them, Truthfully I can guarantee you that in the Kingdom of God when all is made new, during the glorious reign of the Messiah, you Twelve Apostles who have been my followers will also rule with me over the true Israel of God. Further, ANYONE who has given up house, or wife, or brothers or sisters or parents, children or farms on my account, for the gospel and the Kingdom of God will be repaid a hundred times whatever he gave up. He will receive it even now in this present time: houses, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and lands,though not without persecutionsand in the coming age, eternal life will be his inheritance too! Many people who are so important here and now will be put in last place. Others who count for nothing here and now will be considered great then and there.

SUMMARY

A ruler requested of Jesus the one magic deed that would guarantee him eternal life. Jesus turned him toward God and His Word, but the young man considered that all a past accomplishment and demanded more. Jesus demanded that he dismantle his central idol, wealth, distribute his wealth and disciple his heart, but he balked and left in disappointment. The Lord commented that earthly wealth makes salvation difficult. The disciples, aware of everyone’s desire for possessions, wonder who can be saved. Self-earned salvation is impossible for men, but God makes things possible. Peter asked what the disciples-’ sacrifices for Christ deserved in payment. Jesus announced high, glorious rewards for everyone, especially the Twelve, but earthly value systems will be overturned.

NOTES III. THE LORDSHIP OF GOD IN RICH-POOR RELATIONSHIPS (19:16-30) A. SITUATION: RICH MAN ASKS ABOUT THE ONE GOOD DEED ALL-ESSENTIAL TO BUY ETERNAL LIFE. (19:16)

Note the theological connections that link the instruction about children (Matthew 19:13-15) with the teaching regarding wealth (Matthew 19:16 to Matthew 20:16):

Each supplements the other. Like the tax collector confessing his sins to God (Luke 18:13 f), the children were closer to the Kingdom than each could have dared dream himself to be. But the rich young ruler, like the Pharisees congratulating God on His good fortune to have such a worthy citizen as he, was miles farther from entering it than he imagined. When Jesus preferred the children, He honored those who could not be ruined by such glory. When he humbled the rich man, He abased one who should have been helped by his humiliation.

Each contrasts with the other. Jesus had insisted that God’s Kingdom must be received humbly as an unpurchased, unearned gift of God. (Matthew 10:15 = Luke 18:17) The Kingdom belongs to children only on this basis. But the rich man showed by his question how little he understood the essential basis on which eternal life in the Kingdom is to be enjoyed, since he thought the blessings of grace could be bought and sold for one nobly heroic deed unthinkable for little children.

Whatever the rich young ruler thought he wanted, his question carries forward another theme seen in Jesus-’ comments on the children’s possession of the Kingdom of God: eternal life. The Kingdom and eternal life are coextensive. (Cf. Matthew 18:8-9 with Mark 9:42; Mark 9:47, as well as the basic presupposition underlying the Matthew 18 discourse.) In fact, Jesus-’ final answer on inheriting eternal life or being perfect requires total surrender to the will of God, and this is the Kingdom. (Matthew 19:16; Matthew 19:21) And when the young ruler turned it down, he turned down the Kingdom. (Matthew 19:23)

Matthew 19:16 **And behold one came to him. **Mark (Mark 10:17) and Luke (Luke 18:18) fill in graphic details of his approach:

As He was setting out on his journeyis this the departure for Jerusalem? (See on Matthew 20:17.) Not too many more events are going to occur before Jesus arrives in Jericho for the final ascent to the bittersweet Last Week. (Matthew 19, 20; Mark 10; Luke 18, 19)

The man, whom Luke identifies as a ruler, ran up and respectfully knelt before the Lord. These are not merely signs of youthful vigor (Matthew 19:20), but especially of earnestness: did he sense that with Jesus-’ departure he was about to lose the invaluable opportunity to learn the secret of life? No Nicodemus this man, heedless of others-’ bad opinion of him, he publicly appealed to Jesus for answers in the daylight.

His wealth, surprisingly mentioned last by all three Evangelists even, though it is really the turning point of the story, may well explain his position as ruler at his unusually early age. (See on Matthew 19:20.)

**Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? **On the form of his question, see Matthew 19:17. What, exactly, is this person really seeking?

Is he offering himself for discipleship? By seeking this kind of information from Him whom he designates Teacher, it would certainly lead to virtual discipleship, if he accepted even the answer he expected. If so, what kind of discipleship would he have expected? (Study Jesus-’ treatment of another, a rabbi. Matthew 8:19 f notes) Is this his way of offering himself and his power and influence to enhance the public image of Jesus-’ cause? Does he suppose that the intrinsic worth of Jesus-’ program surpasses the superficial impression one might get of it by estimating it on the basis of His ragged, rough-hewn followers? Does he conclude that the cause needs more substantial window-dressing such as he has to offer? If so, he may be hoping to keep his wealth and power and have the Kingdom too.

This rich man, who had grown accustomed to use his wealth to secure and guarantee himself everything, perhaps very sincerely believed that even the inheritance of eternal life could be assured only by means of the scrupulous fulfilment of certain special rules or the mathematical result of doing certain, unusually pious deeds, in short, paying the price. At any rate, the outcome was always in his own hands, something he could control, something over which he would always be master, never servant, never dependent, never needy. But the Kingdom belongs to God who is a King who royally dispenses His gracious favors, not a merchant haggling over prices with those who think they can buy His priceless wares!

Did he recognize that the standard righteousness of rabbinism (Matthew 19:20) and his own unusual wealth were inadequate to satisfy life’s deepest longings? Had this person who enjoyed the energy and enthusiasm of youth, a lovable personality, wealth and social status and an exemplary life, felt dissatisfaction in it all? Had he been superficially satisfied with life in general until he came into contact with the personality and teaching of the Master? Did that message give him self-knowledge that spurred him to higher thingsyes, even the enthusiasm to attempt something really worthwhile, even heroic, for God? If so, his insight into the insufficiency of those mainstays of Jewish society should warn Jesus-’ disciples against any ideological dependence upon earthly power (wealth or any other) or upon any human, self-authenticating aristocracy (religious or philosophical or other).

Does his question request some special, meritorious deed that would guarantee him what he presumptuously supposes cannot be had in normal obedience to God in all that He requires? If so, his supercilious attitude toward common faith and obedience to the revelations of God applicable to his life MUST be called to his attention. (Matthew 19:17) It is important to notice, however, that Jesus assigns him something to DO which, of course, will help him to BE what he must BECOME. (Cf. Jesus-’ approach in Luke 10:25; Luke 10:28; Luke 10:37) This is not merely a Jewish approach to his goal that equates righteousness with deeds rather than character, since what Jesus requires would be no merely mechanical, esoteric, meritorious deed whereby he could earn the Kingdom, but a practical act of faith that left the outcome entirely in God’s hands. (See on Matthew 19:21.)

B. JESUS-’ RESPONSE (19:17-19)

Jesus challenges his understanding of Jesus-’ position and his own comprehension of what is really good: On what basis do you call me what is absolutely true only of God, and desire to know from me what only God can know?

Matthew 19:17 **Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? **As reproduced in the Paraphrase and Harmony, the rich man’s question may have actually used good twice, once to distinguish Jesus as Good Master (according to Mark and Luke), and once to ask what good deed must be done (according to Matthew). Then, in Jesus-’ reaction there were two rapid questions, not just one: Why do you call me good? Why do you ask me about what is good? This is the simplest, least problematic harmonization of the seemingly contradictory, even confusing, wording which scribes and scholars of Matthew’s Gospel have attempted to eliminate by assimilating Matthew’s original text to that of Mark and Luke. The scholars who see the Synoptics-’ reporting as bristling with difficulties need to see that Jesus-’ two questions are both valid and important.

Why do you call me good? (Mark 10:17-18; Luke 18:19)

That the title good teacher was utterly unknown to the Jews, as some affirm because it does not occur even once in the Talmud, proves nothing about what this young man could have thought, because the so-called un-Jewishness of such a title is but a generalization about what Jews generally think and do, not an inflexible, intellectual straitjacket that invariably governed their every thought. In fact, Jesus-’ answer does not condemn the un-Jewishness of his flattering title, but the thoughtless-ness of it.

Some take the skeptical view of these words that Jesus, embarrassed by the ruler’s over complimentary title which appropriately referred only to God, intended to deny any pretense of absolute goodness. This view is so far out of harmony with Jesus-’ own self-understanding (John 8:46) and other Scriptural declarations (e.g. 1 John 3:5; 1 Peter 1:19; 1 Peter 2:22 f; 1 Peter 3:18; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; Hebrews 7:26-28; Hebrews 9:14), that it cannot be taken seriously. Although it is true that Jesus is not affirming anything about His own character or identity and is merely reproving the ruler’s flattery that could not seriously intend what is implied by his terms, the following syllogisms illustrate how Jesus could not be rejecting His own goodness:

EITHER:

There is none absolutely good but what shares in deity.

Jesus Christ is absolutely good.

Therefore, Jesus Christ shares in deity.

OR:

There is none absolutely good but God.

Jesus Christ is not divine.

Therefore, Jesus Christ is not absolutely good.

But can we so lightly reject the absolute sinlessness of our Lord, without, at the same time, jeopardizing our own salvation that depends upon what, in such a case, would be His no longer perfect sacrifice?

Jesus-’ challenge has been expressed syllogistically like this:

EITHER:

God alone is good,

OR:

God alone is good. You do not believe me to be God You call me good. So, do not call me good. So, call me God, and be prepared to take the consequences.

Jesus-’ method of dealing with the young man is immediately to draw his attention to his own superficial use of words: On what basis do you call me what upon reflection you would admit is true absolutely only of God, You throw that word -good-’ around so loosely, that you need to examine your idea of good ness. Do you really care about goodness? If there is none good but God, to apply that term to me with this understanding is to affirm that I am Godbut do you believe this? The objection of some that the ruler could not have understood this kind of reasoning fails to nullify Jesus-’ right to argue this way and lead the man to think along lines he had never before considered. It is not unlikely that the self-righteous ruler considered Jesus to have arrived at His goodness in the same way he had merited HIS. Thus, he is complimenting himself in conceiving of the Son of God as a man very much like himself, even if possessed of a far higher degree of the same kind of goodness. Jesus could no more tolerate the title good in this sense, than He could permit others to call Him Christ, when intended in a mistaken sense. He refused to be accepted on the level of a merely good teacher. In fact, since He was not just a good teacher, but the Word of God incarnate, for anyone to refer to Him as an especially holy sage and then to seek from such a man only God could be trusted to know for certain, is all a terrible error. In this sense, the rich young ruler is turning aside from the true, divine foundation of Moses and the prophets to what he supposes, without any reasoned basis, is but an admirable, quite human rabbi renowned for his unusual wisdom. AND NO MAN, ANCIENT OR MODERN, CAN HAVE JESUS OF NAZARETH ON THESE TERMS! SO, while Jesus-’ instant rebuttal points the rich man to God alone who is good, this is His deliberate thrust to prod this ruler’s conscience to reflect upon what basis he addresses Him with a title that unquestionably belongs to God. He is scolding His careless use of titles.

**Why do you ask me about what is good? **(Matthew 19:17)

Since the ruler thinks of Jesus as only a man, he is asking Jesus to play God for him. This, because his inconsiderate question demands that Jesus be wiser than God by proposing a step the merit of which would surpass all preceding divine revelations. Now, whatever else may be said about the specific wording of the Evangelists-’ reports, if Jesus goes along with the game and furnishes ANY answer in harmony with this kind of request, He automatically exposes Himself to the accusation of having given information on a problem that only God could be competent to decide. But this is precisely what He did! (See on Matthew 19:21.) Thus, even if Jesus-’ deity and goodness are not clearly expressed, but rather seemed to be denied in His opening words, they are definitely not absent from the ultimatum He handed the young man, since He acts like God by requiring of him what only God could require.

The point is: would the man really depend upon God to furnish him the true answer to his question? If so, why come to Jesus? By coming to Him, does he hope to circumvent the undoubted revelations of God or obviate obedience to them? If so, the only possible answer of a prophet faithful to God is: Go back to what God has already said in the commandments. (Cf. Isaiah 8:20 ASV)

Thus, on the ruler’s assumption that Jesus is a mere human, Jesus MUST refuse both to be called good teacher and hand out private nostrums supposedly leading to eternal life. The only right answer to Jesus-’ question is: I call you -Good Teacher-’ and ask you about the good, because I know you are a teacher come from God, since no man can do these miracles you do, unless God be with him. But the ruler gave no such answer at this point in our text. The dull silence of the young man serves to underline his shallowness. Jesus had proven that his complimentary title good teacher was mere flattery and his interest in the good an attempted side-stepping of God’s will. Whether you are asking for the source of human goodness or for the one good thing essential to have eternal life, **One there; is who is good. **Will you trust him to tell you? Observe how carefully, almost meticulously Jesus worked with him. He is in no hurry to make a glib convert who can repeat all the correct phrases but with no real understanding of what is involved in his statements. Although this meditation is the slower route, nevertheless to arrive at correct concepts of what is involved in goodness, eternal life, God and commandments is the essential task of true discipleship.

**But if you would enter life, keep the commandments. **To the modern Christian accustomed to the NT doctrine of the inadequacy and imperfections of the Mosaic Law with its inability to give life or make anyone perfect, this command of Jesus must sound little short of unbelievable. In fact, how can ANYONE **enter into life **by **keeping the commandments **He means? (Galatians 3:21; Galatians 5:4; Hebrews 7:18 f; Hebrews 10:1) Yet, when the young man asked for illustrations, Jesus cited some typical, Mosaic legislation. Good stuff, of course, but why that?!

Because this demand is the all-essential first step to the conversion of anyone. Everyone must come face to face with the divine standard to see his sinfulness and be led by this realization to confess his need of divine grace. **Keep the commandments **demands perfection, not just relative goodness, because any admission of failure is enough to damn the person who depends upon perfect performance of law for salvation. (Romans 2:13; James 1:22-25; James 2:8-11) **Keep the comments **means: Do not just listen to them or play at observing them! This should drive the man to his knees before God in the painful awareness of his own sins, in desperate need of a Savior. In fact, had the young man been more severely honest with himself, he need not have gone any further than this answer, because it was God’s answer for him. Sincerity would have compelled him to cry out with Peter, concerning Moses-’ law, Neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear it. (Acts 15:10) His answer should have been, NONE of these things have I kept from my youth up: God, be merciful to me a sinner! The critical importance of this part of Jesus-’ strategy will be vindicated later. Since the ruler so easily breezed past the Law with its stern demand of perfection, his failure to admit his need for a Redeemer may well explain his failure to accept Christ’s invitation. Not having really faced the. Law, he was not really ready for the Gospel.

Another reason why Jesus referred him to **the commandments **might be that these commands find their origin in a divine initiative. They are no merely human codification. Jesus turns his attention to the **One there is who is good **who is, at the same time, Author of **the commandments, **hence Author of that which by doing a man shall live (Leviticus 18:5). Since the young man had asked for something based on deeds that would lead to life, Jesus is perfectly in order to point him to God and His Law. (Cf. Galatians 3:11-12) But even this points him to Him who alone is Judge and Standard and who alone can enable him to live by such a standard. But to admit this turns one’s attention beyond mere deeds of law to see Him who alone can make him good enough **to inherit eternal life. **In fact, by saying that **only God is good, **He warns that no man can observe the Law absolutely perfectly, because to be good one must be perfect. If the young man were really thinking now, he must see that his own imperfection damns him and he must cry out for grace. If he is to have this kind of goodness, he must receive it from God as a gift of grace.

Another reason Jesus can safely point this Jew to **the commandments **is that the overconfident young man might manage to claim perfect observance of some of the Decalogue, but would eventually hang himself on Thou shalt not covet! And, worse, he would prove that he really knew nothing about the First Commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me!

So this is the only route, **if you would enter life. **Nor is this somehow a different route than that which leads to perfection, indicated later. (See Matthew 19:21.) On the assumption that life and perfection represent the same thing in Jesus-’ mind, we may safely conclude that the commandments (v. 17) and the demand of absolute consecration (v. 21) are closely related too. Otherwise, we would have the false dichotomy that common, ordinary people can squeeze into **life **by keeping ordinary commandments, whereas special **perfection **is only available for informed insiders who can make extravagant sacrifices in response to personally tailored asceticism. Jesus-’ preliminary answer, then, means that the way to eternal life is not based on the extraordinary or something not already widely known, but rather on the obedience to well-established commands of God.

Whereas Jesus is dealing with one man’s personal problem, He nevertheless furnishes him the proper sort of credentials proper for a true prophet. He urges obedience to other well-authenticated revelations, **the commandments. **This very step is essential for Jesus as much as for the man himself. (Study How to Avoid Becoming a Pharisee after Matthew 15:20, where prophetic credentials are discussed more fully.) From this standpoint, Jesus-’ appeal to the Law as a true beginning point was but one more evidence to the ruler why He should be believed. The Nazarene had not laid another foundation, had not pointed him to other gods or other laws, but significantly directed him to the undoubted Word of God.

Jesus furnished him commandments God had already revealed. (19:18, 19)

Matthew 19:18 **He saith unto him, Which? **Because the man asked, **What kind of **(poías) **commandments?, **it may be that he anticipated some mysterious precept with such an esoteric excellence that it differed radically in kind from the usual sort of thing ordinary people could learn in the Law. **And Jesus said, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honor thy father and thy mother; and Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. **The Evangelists-’ listings furnish no secure basis for critical conclusions about liturgical order of the commandments in the early Church. The order of the commandments here is probably unimportant to Jesus, since He is only furnishing the rich young ruler a handful of typical commandments of God’S, extraneous to the Ten Commandments. Attempts to see special significance in the choice of the commandments cited note the following points:

Placing the Fifth Commandment to **honor thy father and thy mother **after VI-IX does call some attention to it, especially where the Jewish mind would have expected Him to cite the Tenth. Was there some shortcoming in the young man’s life with respect to his parents that Jesus could see? Had he dedicated his goods to the temple by the diabolical Corban formula? (See on Matthew 15:3-6.)

**Do not defraud **(Mark 10:19) This is found in Leviticus 19:13, although the Greek wording is not that of the LXX for this Hebrew text, but of two manuscripts of the LXX of Deu 24:14, followed by Sir. 4:1: mè aposteréses. Defrauding would be the standard businessman’s temptation to shrewdness in his transactions, hence quite appropriate to cite for the rich young ruler. However, some see this commandment as a summary reminiscence of Exo 20:17, the Tenth Commandment, since defrauding presupposes a covetous desire that would do anything to gain what belongs to another.

**You shall love your neighbor as yourself. (Leviticus 19:18) **Plummer (Matthew, 266) decides that Jesus could not have cited Leviticus 19:18 on this occasion, because, had He done so, the rich man could not so easily have affirmed, All these have I observed. But this fails to grasp just how shallow the human heart can be, especially if its attention is fixed on some supremely excellent deed and the person’s mind is already impatient with familiar precepts like Leviticus 19:18! In fact, it is easy to affirm that we have always done this from childhood, until we crash head-on into some unpleasant, uncomfortable or unwanted duty, as this young ruler so abruptly discovered. In fact, it was precisely this commandment that Jesus later chose to test the sincerity of his affirmed desire to be perfect. (Matthew 19:21) Despite all the poverty and suffering all around him, he could still justify piling up wealth. He apparently loved his poor neighbor in the abstract, but not in the concrete, because, when faced with the practical opportunity to meet the immediate needs of some poor people and enlist himself in the service of Christ, which often involves going out of one’s way to be of service to others, he balked.

Just because Jesus did not refer here to any particular command related to his relationship to God, we may not assume that Jesus considered the man to have properly ordered his religious life. In fact, by emphasizing his duty in the field of human relations where only truth in the heart can satisfy the conscience, He would show that he was not really in harmony with God either, because failure in human relations deeply affects one’s relation to God. (1 John 3:14-18; 1 John 4:20 f) The Lord did not cite anything from the law of worship or ceremonies, because He knew how relatively easy it is to absolve oneself on the basis of perfect performance of rituals, justifying oneself by saying, If God be appeased by the religious ritual, it does not matter greatly about my personal relationships. After all, my fellows are not going to be my final judge. Rather, with Lenski (Matthew, 750), we may think that Jesus cited these commandments, because they would be the ones of which the rich man might feel surest of his own perfect compliance. Ironically for this way of thinking, God judges us not so much on how orthodox is our ritual (The right mode of baptism is immersion, the Lord’s Supper every Lord’s Day, and nothing but Welch’s grape juice and Mandelbaum’s matzos on the communion table, please!), as on how truly seriously we take our relationship to other people. This is the old problem of not just right ritual, but right relations too! (See notes on Matthew 9:13 and Matthew 12:7.) Unconfused by his assertions of his own goodness, Jesus will place before him a simple order that will unmask the legalism of all his previous care for others, And because he will turn down that requirement, this orthodox Jew will prove once more just how difficult it is for Jesus to do anything with the righteous, In fact, Jesus came to call sinners to repentance, not the self-satisfied, self-justifying righteous,

C. THE YOUNG MAN INSISTS ON PERFECTION (19:20)

Matthew 19:20 **The young man **(neanískos) was not necessarily a mere boy, since a person was considered a youth from about the 24th to the 40th year. (Arndt-Gingrich, 536; cf. neaníou of Acts 7:58) **All these things have I observed. **Attitudes of commentators tend to range themselves into two positions regarding this young businessman’s assertions: charity and realism.

With charity we might say that he had observed the Mosaic Law, to the extent that he understood its meaning and to the extent he had fathomed himself. As Staton (Servant’s Call, 9f) points out, so many religious homes are without real love for God and one’s fellows, where its members live by regulations and judge their happiness by their ability to follow certain rules, without ever bothering to wonder to what purpose the rules were given in the first place. So they tell themselves and others that they have performed God’s will merely because they have punctiliously kept a set of memorized rules.

The tragic reality represented by this young man is his unfeigned sincerity in affirming his faithful observance of the Law. His is a position actually possible for the person who accepts the presupposition upon which his statement is based, i.e. eternal life and righteousness can actually be attained by perfect observance of divine law. (Study Paul’s own position as a Pharisee: as to righteousness under the lawblameless! Philippians 3:6) It just never occurred to such people that the revelation of God to Moses at Sinai depended entirely upon the gracious discretion and enterprise of God, not upon man. And if the Law itself did not depend upon human legislation, neither did the life it offered to those subject to it. Everything depended upon God from start to finish. (Isaiah 26:12; 1 Chronicles 29:10-16) And it is still that way. (Hebrews 13:21; Philippians 2:13; Philippians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; John 15:4 f; Romans 7:18; 2 Peter 1:3-11)

Charitably, we may see his declaration, not so much conceited as disappointed that Jesus had nothing more stimulating to tell him than what he had heard all his life. He had expected to be shown something heroic and inspiring and is reminded of mundane responsibilities on which he had been busy since he was a boy. 2. More realistically we may note that he had punctiliously performed all those commandments in harmony with the way they had been understood in Pharisean circles. His answer smacks of Little Jack Horner’s attitude: What a good boy am I! How could anyone, who knows the holy God of heaven, have the gall to assert, as this man does in all seriousness, I have put into practice everything that Moses required, and am now ready to move on to bigger things!?! This young chap actually took the Love your neighbor as yourself in stride! His is the pride of accomplishment, the certainty that absolutely everything in his past is pleasing to God: there have been no mistakes, no slipups, no blunders, no bungling of any human relation.

Whichever view is taken of his first statement, by his own self-evaluation he should not have made the second one. That is, if God’s will had been faithfully and perfectly observed, as he affirmed, how could such a good man say: What lack I yet?

Did this young fellow really desire an answer to his question? Does not his question sound like the game played by the thousands? These wring their hands in false despair, precisely because they are perfectly sure that they have lived up to the standard, they have always paid their bills, and yet, despite all their rule-keeping, their conscience does not let them rest. Nervously they ask, What’s wrong with me? What have I not done? They expect no real answer from the person asked. They expect rather the soothing confirmation of their own goodness. Should the other person fail to play the game, and, instead of saying, What more do you want? You are already the finest person we know!, he tells them the unwelcome news that they are imperfect in a deliberately ignored area, they are shattered. His statement about his faithful observance of the law exhibits great ignorance of its duties and of himself, but it is sincere. However, is his question as equally sincere?

He is really one step better than the Pharisee praying in the temple (Luke 18:9-12) who is absolutely certain he had no need for improvement, whereas this young man at least admits the possibility that he lacks something. Hendriksen (Matthew, 726) solves it best:

Here superficial smugness is struggling with deep discontent, This young man tries to make himself believe that -all is well; yet on the inside he is pathetically perturbed. though he tried hard to believe in his own virtue and respectability, he was actually feeling ill at ease.

Mark (Mark 10:21) registers here one beautifully tender reaction of the Master: And Jesus looking upon him loved him, Why? Because He could look beyond his shallow self-complacency to see that this promising young person had been victimized by the formalism and legalism so characteristic of a religion of superficial observance of law. He could love him for the lost sheep that he was. (Matthew 18:11-13; Matthew 9:36)

D. JESUS OFFERS PERFECTION THROUGH ABSOLUTE CONSECRATION (19:21)

Matthew 19:21 **If you would be perfect **means One thing you still lack. (Mark 10:21; Luke 18:22) It is not unlikely that, by divine insight, the Lord could have furnished him a rather substantial list of his shortcomings. Such humiliating perhaps would not have accomplished as much as the generous condescension He actually showed. With His usual tenderness He answered the ruler’s question exactly as asked, You ask, -What do I still lack?-’ Just one thing, which, if you desire to be perfect, will make all the difference in the world. (1 John 2:15-17; see notes on Matthew 13:7; Matthew 13:22.) It is the step whereby he would really come to know the true God and eternal life. (John 17:3; 1 John 5:20 f) This would be no mere perfection in keeping the commandments as such, but perfection in arriving at the heart of ethical conduct and a right understanding of his relation to God and to the neighbor he had claimed to love as himself, which is the basis of all commandments. (See notes on Matthew 5:48.)

**If you would be perfect **has a touch of irony in it for the man who had just claimed to have kept the commandments, especially the love your neighbor as yourself, a command that perfectly summarizes all that is really involved in moral perfection. But the young man hardly understood all this. There is special irony in Jesus-’ sending him back to this very commandment he had so flippantly claimed to have already kept as much as necessary. Despite the irony, Jesus-’ demand is seriously meant, because He is really testing him on these main points: love and trust in God with all his heart, soul, mind and strength; love and service to his neighbor as himself; and his willingness to follow Jesus-’ leadership. (Matthew 22:36-40 = Mark 12:28-34; Matthew 16:24 ff)

LOVE FOR GOD ABOVE ALL: Sell all you have. and you will have treasure in heaven.

Furnishing this formula to the ruler, Jesus is not thereby subscribing to a doctrine of good works, as if giving away so much wealth could guarantee him so much eternal life. Rather He exacts of him an act of faith in the grace of God and a self-surrender so complete that, without faith, he could never make the leap. So far from depending upon works and leaving out faith, there is almost NOTHING BUT FAITH here. (Colossians 3:1-5) In fact, the promise of **treasure in heaven **guaranteed by God as a result of this major sacrifice is realistic only for the person who believes Him. (Hebrews 13:5 f; see notes on Matthew 6:19-34) So far from being a superhuman, esoteric act which would merit eternal life, Jesus-’ command was the simplest, most practical, most immediately verifiable way for him to take hold of God’s grace by faith. But, as proven by the outcome, he did not believe, did not obey Jesus and so could not be saved. Thus, Jesus actually explores his real reverence for God, and so pushes him back to the First, Great Commandment of the Law, summary of the first table of the Decalogue. (Matthew 22:37 f; Exodus 20:1-8; Deuteronomy 6:5; cf. Proverbs 19:17; Proverbs 14:31; Proverbs 28:27; Deuteronomy 15:7-11) The Lord aims at breaking his dependence upon his wealth, so he could learn that he could not do without God. So long as he was well supplied with this world’s goods, he could buy his way out of trouble with out God’s help, and even arrive at the point where he had eliminated all need for the constant, daily provision of the Heavenly Father.

**Sell all you have and give it **away is an incredibly radical demand for the person who believes wealth to be essential to expansion and influence of the Messianic Kingdom. Jesus therefore asking him completely to disavow an essential article in his credo: no wonder he stumbles at it! But how many thousands of relatively. rich Christians over the centuries have hallowed that article in their practice and thinking? With half-hearted confidence in spiritual power, they substitute a show of wealth in great, barn-like edifices to the glory of God and so that the world will sit up and take notice! They form denominations and interdenominational power structures to ram needed legislation through Congress and lobby at the U.N. and smuggle military weapons to people’s movements struggling for their share in the control of the world. Power in this world is based on wealth, but Jesus shocks everyone by saying to His most promising contact in the wealthy community, Get rid of it! Unbelievable doctrine, but solidly based on God’s usual way of doing things. (Cf. Jeremiah 9:23-24; 1 Corinthians 1:26 in its context of Mat 1:18 to Matthew 2:18) Everyone needs to understand that God does not need our wealth and influence, our importance and social position to make His Kingdom function or succeed!

The rich young ruler’s biographical by-line, he had great possessions, means that he had exceptional means at his disposal, and, whether he was a wise investor or the heir of a billionaire, his millions were locked safely away from the disturbing problems of needy people, as if the care and maintaining of possessions were the destined end-all of God’s intended blessing. As it was, he was but the slave of as many masters as he had possessions, furnishing janitorial service to polish sources of pleasure he rarely if ever used or enjoyed. This is because the, more things one possesses, the more he is obligated to protect, maintain and increase them, leaving him less and less time for the simple enjoyment of any one of them. Worse, because he must realize a wealth-oriented dream in his mind, the mammon-worshipper must turn down what comes to him unmanipulated in life. If God brings him something in life that does not fit his own preordered plans, he must ruthlessly thrust it aside, if his own scheme is to be realized. And yet, this young man had asked Jesus for something that did not fit preordered schemes! From this standpoint, his original question was destined to bring him to choose whether he would leave his own wealth-oriented dreams in order to accept the unforeseen in God’s will that risked his wealth, or hold tenaciously to his dreams and risk losing God too. So, he cannot really enjoy reality as it is, even if God Himself made it that way. Instead, he tries to force reality to conform to his limited preconceptions and dreams born of what money can buy. Thus, he misses all the interesting, richly exciting, genuinely satisfying experiences of adjusting himself to new, spiritual realities that could bless his life beyond his happiest imagining.

II.

LOVE AND SERVICE FOR HIS NEIGHBOR AS HIMSELF: **Give it to the poor. **How could he so carelessly pretend to love his neighbor as himself (Matthew 19:19 b), when he hoarded, despite the poor all around him? (Matthew 19:22; cf. James 1:27; James 2:14-16; James 5:1-6; 1 John 3:15-18) Wealth tends to develop in the possessor the impulse to cling to possessions in order to retain them. Thus, selfishness develops, growing out of the struggle to hold what is in constant danger of slipping away through one’s own neglect or through the greed of others. So Jesus strikes at the heart of his problemselfishness, not merely the abundant possessions he had. Note that not even here do we find asceticism or self-privation ordered as an end in itself. This is not poverty for poverty’s sake, but the ideal of brotherhood and sharing. It is rather the intelligent distribution of his goods made available to the poor, his brethren. (Cf. Luke’s word, diàdos, distribute, Luke 18:22. See also Acts 2:44 f; Acts 4:34 f.) Genuine love must be the motive. (1 Corinthians 13:3)

III.

WILLINGNESS TO FOLLOW JESUS-’ LEADERSHIP: and come, follow me.

The severity of Jesus-’ demand is softened into a sincere, affectionate invitation. Jesus actually wanted him in His service, because He could envision what this young man could become under his tutelage.

The remedy for addiction to possessions does not lie in the communistic equalization of wealth or in divorcing our day-to-day existence from dependence upon some form of economic system. God knows that no man can live in a utopia where the necessities of life should not have to be paid for, because man is a sinner who has already destroyed the one utopia for which he was created, and he will not have another until he faces squarely the problem of His own sinfulness. (Study Genesis 3:16-19; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-13; 1 Thessalonians 2:9; 1 Thessalonians 4:11 f; Ephesians 4:28.) Rather, the cure for wealth addiction (= covetousness = idolatry, Colossians 3:5) is to be found in discipleship to Jesus. Only He can restore us to sanity by helping us to see the true value of what He calls treasure in heaven and by devaluating all our temporal value systems, all our earthly treasures. Because our treasure takes our heart with it (Matthew 6:21), earthly riches tend to shackle our hearts, our interests, efforts and hopes to this earth, causing us to lose sight of, and finally interest in, the things of God and eternity. This is worldliness. (1 John 2:15 ff) His discipleship, then, is not an extra without which we could get along quite satisfactorily, because if we did not take His word for the reality of our true treasures in heaven, we would not take the steps He indicates to make it ours! Unless we follow Him, finding our true security in our trust in His leadership, our dependence upon His evaluations and His advice for our investments, we are at the mercy of every other temptation floating through our consciousness.

If we interpret Jesus-’ demands as terms on which the ruler could have become an intimate follower at the level of the others, then Jesus-’ strict impartiality becomes evident, since He subjects him to the same sacrifices the other more intimate followers had made in order to enter His service. (See on Matthew 19:27.)

The young man had supposed that he could keep his wealth and inherit eternal life too by means of some magic formula he hoped to learn from Jesus. But Jesus, acting like God, demanded that he do something that did not fit an already established moral scheme. He suddenly overturned the calculating reasoning of the man and handed him what appears to be the special, tailor-made formula he had requested. And yet it was not a formula that he had expected, because it required no monumental use of his wealth, nor did it depend upon his past deeds or goodness. Rather, it stripped him of his usual supports and economic strength, leaving him practically naked before God and the world, and enrolled by faith in the discipleship of an itinerate rabbi whose future was not yet all that clear. The ironic thing about this whole situation is that he had asked for some nearly superhuman deed whereby he could inherit eternal life, and when, in form, Jesus furnished him precisely what he had requestedalthough the substance totally overturned his own concept of ithe turned it down. He had practically asked Jesus to play God for him by furnishing an arbitrary task that did not fit the usual scheme of things (such as the commandments in the law), and Jesus gave it to Him. Yet, in essence, He demanded that the ruler simply repent of his addiction to wealth which is nothing more than the idolatry of covetousness. The specific form his repentance was to take must not obscure the fact that he was ordered to repent.

But is there nothing for the modern Christian in this special demand? Certainly, the surprising thing about Jesus-’ stringent demand made of the rich young ruler is that it is not just a tailor-made ultimatum specially designed for that man’s special situation and personal need. It is the kind of dictate that Jesus could hand ANYONE! (See notes on Matthew 13:44-46; cf. esp. Matthew 19:29. Cf. Luke 12:33 in its total context of Jesus-’ message on trusting God completely, Luke 12.) The concept of heavenly wealth, as opposed to earthly riches, is not new for Jesus. (See notes on Matthew 6:20 in its context of Mat 6:19-34!)In fact, Jesus-’ demand of the rich young ruler was nothing less than the rule that governed and explains His own matchless life in the fruitful service of God. In order to reign, He too sold all that He had and gave it to the poor! (2 Corinthians 8:9; Romans 5:6 ff) He too had to conquer by dying to all that was dear to Him. This is the pathway to eternal life for every disciple. (See Special Study: The Cost of Our Salvation after Matthew 16:28.)

In fact, the difference between Jesus-’ requirement of the rich young ruler and what He demands of everyone is only a question of details: what specifically must we do with our possessions? The ruler must sell everything and distribute it and we must turn over to Christ all claimed right to our possessions and then utilize them as His administrators, i.e. considering them a stewardship for His use. On 1 Corinthians 7:29-31, Bartchy (First-Century Slavery, 152) is correct to notice that Paul’s insistence that whereas the various earthly activities and relationships in which Christians were involved were not rejected, their definitive character for Christian existence had been negated, was founded not merely upon the passing of the present world scheme or upon the shortness of the time, but upon the call of God. (1 Corinthians 7:15 c, 1 Corinthians 7:17-24) It is not buying as such that is called in question but rather the keeping, the seizing, the possessing. Also, Paul did not criticize in principle either crying or rejoicing. (See Romans 12:15.) That is, we are to fix our attention on what God wants to do in our lives where we are with what little or much We have, rather than concern ourselves over much with the superficial, often accidental, circumstances that characterize our existence on earth, e.g. marriage, slavery, wealth, commercial activities, former religious status, etc. Accordingly, the determining attitude for Jesus-’ disciple is a refusal to set one’s heart on earth and its transient treasures, for the schema of this world is on the way out! (1 Corinthians 7:31 b) Can you imagine the revolution in rich-poor relations that such insights must bring to people who accept them?

With insight Tolbert (Good News From Matthew, 165f) notes how Jesus-’ statement to Nicodemus, You must be born again, has been turned into a cliché to repeat to everyone who wants to become a Christian. What would be the result in our twentieth century affluent world, were we to hammer out the demand Jesus laid before the rich young ruler? How many so-called Christians on the rolls today would have ever become a Christian, if they had been required to repent of their covetousness before being baptized? How many are unquestionably rich rulers with more real concern for their possessions than for God? Since when has this idolatry become fashionably Christian? Rather than be owned by their possessions, people must be free to be able for Christ’s sake to utilize or dispose of them as the situation demands. The man that allows possessions to govern his thinking and activity cannot allow God to do so. (Matthew 6:24)

E BUT THE YOUNG MAN BALKED (19:22)

Matthew 19:22 But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sorrowful; for he was one that had great possessions. The rich young ruler is not like the happy farmer or the pearl merchant (see notes on Matthew 13:44-46), because, although he was faced with the supreme cost and value of the Kingdom (eternal life or perfection), he would not buy. He turned it all down and walked away, and Jesus let him go! Of what use to the Kingdom of God were his talents, his youth, his management ability, his uprightness, etc., if his claim to love his neighbor as himself (Matthew 19:19) is false? Loving one’s God enough to make this kind of sacrifice for the Kingdom is what the Kingdom is all about! However, everyone’s will to accept must be left free to refuse, so Jesus did not detain him. If he did not really love God or his neighbor more than his gold, what kind of a disciple would he really have made? Although Jesus loved him (Mark 10:21), He did not compromise His principle a hair’s breadth to attain an influential addition to His cause. Staton (Servant’s Call, 10) wisely counsels:

Jesus was not just concerned about the quantity of His disciples but also about their quality. When we go about making disciples, we must not overlook the kinds of people Jesus discipled and the kinds He allowed to walk away.

Why was he sorrowful?

Is he shocked, hurt and grieved that for the strength of His Kingdom the Master can so easily do without the success symbols, means, power and influence that he, as a wealthy person has to offer? He had undoubtedly envisioned a situation where he could keep his wealth, respectability, power and influence, and have his eternal life too. And, if he resembles the other disciples, he was probably convinced that the Kingdom of God was going to need his very gifts and possessions to make its influence felt in the world, for are not these the indicators of success in our world? This would have let him nourish his addiction to wealth and guarantee him a slice of eternal life too!

Is it merely because he loved his possessions too much to part with them? If so, although Matthew says, he had great possessions, it is also true to say, Great possessions had him! He was accustomed to the sway over others that wealth can buy. He had heard his money talk and enjoyed its commanding voice. But what would be left of him, if he lost his voice?

Or is it because he could see that Jesus had just unmasked him for the moral pauper he really was, and that, stripped of. his pseudo-respectability, he could perceive that there was nothing left inside? Could he see that, unless he made the demanded sacrifice of total consecration, he would have wasted all his other efforts at goodness? Was he shaken to see that the pain of withdrawal from his addiction only underlined that much more clearly how thoroughly he depended on wealth to provide him his sources of happiness and security? Because he dreaded to take the risk and make the plunge Jesus indicated, he was not unlikely aghast at his own cowardice, at how needy he was and how very insecure without that crutch that gave him identity and apparent importance. His sorrowfulness is a plain symptom of his addiction, because a person who is not addicted is able to do with less, or at times even without, painlessly. He probably had thought himself equal to anything the Master could demand of him, only to find himself dangling helplessly from his own money tree.

He was sorrowful, because he felt deeply the rightness and reasonableness of Jesus-’ answer. Otherwise, he would likely have scorned it as extravagant or insulting. His grief is the product of his struggle to choose between giving up his purpose to have eternal life and giving up his possessions.

He had great possessions. Why mention this so late in the incident? Up to this point his major failing seemed to have been his self-righteousness, but here he chokes on the demand to liquidate everything and make practical use of it as gifts to the poor and take up personal discipleship to Jesus. Very possibly his addiction to wealth is mentioned last, after his standard Jewish morality is made abundantly clear, so that the reader may be psychologically satisfied that his wealth is not necessarily ill-gotten gain, and perhaps actually led to the (typically Jewish) conclusion that his wealth is but the normal pay-off for his orthodox goodness. (See on Matthew 19:25.) This, then, would be for the purpose of showing that even the undoubted blessing of wealth from God can become the most exacting slavery and the most unquestionable idolatry, and although justifiable within limits, must be unmercifully sacrificed when it becomes the cause of one’s own spiritual loss. (Study Matthew 18:6-9.)

**F. JESUS-’ COMMENT ON THE INCIDENT AND TEACHING ON WEALTH (19:23-30)

Entrance into God’s Kingdom is difficult for the wealthy. **(19:23)

Matthew 19:23 Verily I say unto you, It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. The young man went away sorrowful, but he left Jesus sorrowing too. The Lord’s quiet observation is the reaction of One who fully understands the demand He has just made and is grieved that such a fine, potential disciple could not break himself free from the one slavery, the one idolatry, that held him bound.

But why should it be so tough for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God? Two reasons suggest themselves:

Simply because his unwillingness to admit that, despite all the tangible evidences to the contrary, he has not really arrived in the Kingdom. He must begin all over, as a little child. (See notes on Matthew 18:3-4; John 3:3-5.) The trauma for so many self-made men would be so great that the necessary self-humiliation would always elude them. In fact, to admit as final the value system of the Kingdom of God means that they must reject the finality and the this-worldly goals of the often unethical economic systems upon which so much of their wealth is founded. But the habits of mind and practice developed to gain, maintain and increase their wealth will have become so ingrained that to admit that they are totally mistaken means literally that anyone whose whole life has been immersed in that way of life must completely start over. Nicodemus-’ question (John 3:4) is really pathetic, really pained, because it hurts deeply to admit that most, if not everything one is or has, at best, is wrongly oriented, and, at worst, is a deliberate exploitation and an abuse of others. (James 2:6-7; James 4:1-6; James 4:13 to James 5:6) The deep chagrin felt by every driver who learns that he has gone miles out of his way and yet is nowhere near his destination and must lose further time and spend extra money and effort to arrive at the proper end of his journey only faintly illustrates that inner self-accusation and humiliating disappointment burning in the soul of the man who suddenly discovers that almost everything he represented in the past was foolish and wicked in the balance of eternity. (Luke 12:13-21; see fuller notes on Matthew 6:19-34.) Poor rich man! is no idle comment!

Although God had said, You shall remember the Lord your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, that he may confirm his covenant which he swore to your fathers, as at this day. (Deuteronomy 8:18), this precept is easily forgotten in the temptation to bow to economic power as a supreme being in itself. Very few people are capable of keeping their head all the time in the fast-moving rush to hold and increase one’s wealth. (Study 1 Timothy 6:9 f, 1 Timothy 6:17-19, notes on Matthew 13:7; Matthew 13:22; as also Wilson, Learning From Jesus, 273-296.)

In short, the reason wealth blocks its possessor’s access to the Kingdom lies, not so much in the possession itself, as if wealth per se contaminated like nuclear radiation, as in the attitude of the possessor toward what he thinks wealth is and what wealth can do. The difficulty, therefore, lies primarily in what wealth does to the possessor. (See full notes on Matthew 6:19-34.) In fact, this may explain the low-profile discipleship of Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea. (Cf. John 19:38 f; Matthew 27:57; Mark 15:43; Luke 23:50) Vested interests make even good men cowardly lest they lose their grip on their investments in position, wealth; power, etc.

Enter the kingdom of heaven, in this context, means be saved (Matthew 19:25) or be perfect (Matthew 19:21) or inherit eternal life (Matthew 19:16). The Kingdom, here, means that life lived under the rule of God which begins in this life with one’s salvation from sin and proceeds through his perfection in the character of Christ and culminates in life lived with God for eternity. (See notes on the Kingdom after Matthew 13:53.) It is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven means that the man addicted to wealth is an idolater who has too much at stake in his possessions to let God be the Ruler of his life, because this rule is the Kingdom.

Mark (Mark 10:24) reports that the disciples were amazed at his words, a foretaste of their mounting astonishment that breaks out in Matthew 19:25 with their Who then can be saved? This close quizzing of the Lord by the disciples that we see taking place in this subsection (Matthew 19:23-26) is precisely what Jesus intended should happen on other occasions, when, as in the Sermon on the Mount for example, He overturned everyone’s expectations about the position and importance that wealth and power structures represented for the Kingdom of God. (Study note on Matthew 5:3 ff; cf. Luke 6:20; Luke 6:24.) Disciples are driven to decide once again whether they think Jesus-’ view is the only tenable position, or whether their own is real. Is it really true that the blessing of the Kingdom is the possession of the poor in spirit?

2. Apostles are staggered, (Mark 10:24), but Jesus repeats His dictum even more emphatically. (Matthew 19:24)

Matthew 19:24 Again I say to you means that Jesus is coming at His previous statement from another angle, because the hard (Matthew 19:23) is not illustrated by the camel going through the needle’s eye. In Mark (Mark 10:24), Jesus actually repeated His former exclamation: How hard it is to enter the Kingdom of God! Although even in Mark Jesus stays on the subject of the perils of wealth as an obstacle to entrance into the Kingdom, it would seem that Jesus means: You are astonished that I say that it is difficult for men of means to get into the Kingdom? Let me remind you that it is difficult for ANYONE to enter the Kingdom!

On Mark 10:24 it should be noticed that the better manuscripts do not have the expression, for those who trust in riches, a rich man, nor those who have possessions. As Metzger (Textual Commentary, 106) points out, The rigor of Jesus-’ saying was softened by the insertion of one or another qualification that limited its generality and brought it into close connection with the context.

But Jesus meant to leave it general, because He must also deal specifically with this generality later. (Matthew 19:26) Thus, in Mark He means: No ONE can claim prior right to entrance into the Kingdom on the basis of accidental distinctions such as race, wealth and social position, or cultural acquisitions such as the external performance of a legal code.

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. We need not waste pages deciding whether the camel was really a camel and the needle’s eye really a needle’s eye. These expressions need no further comment than Jesus-’ word: impossible! (Matthew 19:26) If it be urged that Jesus did not say that it is impossible for a rich man to enter the Kingdom, then it must be answered that the term rich man is ambiguous. Does rich man mean owner, or rather steward of great wealth that really belongs to God? The monied man who answers, That wealth is MINE, cannot enter the Kingdom. The even wealthier magnate who exclaims, Why, it is only God’S: I am just His responsible administrator with no proprietary rights over these vast holdings!, understands Jesus and can enter the Kingdom. The first thinks HE is a rich man; the latter knows he owns nothing and that God is the wealthy One.

The disciples-’ reaction (Matthew 19:25) is understandable only if we see them reacting to a paradoxical declaration that pictures a proverbial impossibility. It is a useless exercize to point to any of these words as special Biblical Greek capable of special renderings, when every one of these words (kámelon, trématos, rhafídos, trumaliâs, betónes) is known to classical Greek. (Rocci, 384, 963, 1638, 1853, 1862) The explanation that camel (kámelon) should be cable (kámilon). is but a feeble human attempt to attenuate the rigor of Jesus-’ hard saying. It does not represent the correct textual rendering of Matthew, Mark or Luke (See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 50, 106, 169.), and should be forgotten by serious NT scholarship, except as a lesson on what not to do with NT words.

3. Dumbfounded, the disciples ask: If a rich man cannot be saved, who can? (19:25)

Matthew 19:25 And when the disciples heard it, they were astonishingly exceedingly, saying, Who then can be saved? What does their question mean?

Is this the anguished outcry of a pilfering Judas? (Remember John 12:4-6.) Some believe Jesus-’ unrelenting rejection of a rich man as a proper candidate for the Kingdom was not only to correct the disciples-’ understanding about the rich young ruler, but also, even primarily, to bring Judas back to reality. In the same way other Apostles were dreaming of thrones and honors, was Judas imagining the wealth that would be his? But Matthew’s words is disciples (plural), because there were more than Judas who were stunned by Jesus-’ incomprehensible rejection of the wealthy.

It is not unlikely that the disciples-’ underlying presupposition was a typically Hebrew argument: Does not God furnish man the power to get wealth? (Deuteronomy 8:18) But would He have blessed the wicked in his greedy grasping? (Psalms 1; Proverbs 3:9 f, Proverbs 3:16; Proverbs 10:22; Proverbs 11:24 f; Proverbs 15:6; Proverbs 22:4; Proverbs 24:3 f) Therefore, whatever other faults the rich may have, they must have some hidden merits which the all-seeing God chooses to reward. Is not wealth, then, evidence of one’s righteousness? But if a rich man cannot be saved, who can?! Such an argument assumes, of course, that any amount of goodness, merits or future obedience can make up for past sins and failures. Had they been considering the licentious rich who cruelly grind the poor under their heel (cf. James 2:6 f; James 5:1-6), they could have more readily agreed with Jesus. But Jesus was discussing a wealthy person who was but one step away from perfection! If those whom we deem particularly qualified for the Kingdom cannot enter, then who can?

The disciples-’ question, Who then can be saved?, means: Then, no one can be saved! They rightly sense that Jesus refers to a situation possible for anyone. Their question has its proper answer: Zacchaeus can be saved in identically the same way Jesus-’ indicates here. (Luke 19:9 f) But this they do not see. They only guess that all people are attracted to wealth and are driven by it, whether rich or poor. Therefore, since all have the virus, all must be damned.

Does their question mean that they too are secret addicts of wealth, shocked that Jesus had just wiped out their covertly admired heroes? To admire or indulge the practices and philosophy of the wealthy because of the quantity of comforts their wealth can provide them is-’ riot merely to acknowledge the addict in us, but also to become their accomplice by tacit or even unwitting secret agreement with them. Idolizing the money-grabber is already a latent commitment to the same paralyzing idolatry that will manifest itself when the first opportunity presents itself. Are the disciples dupes of the propaganda circulated by monied people to ease their own conscience about their own enslaving habit? Unfortunately, those accustomed to wealth often have society’s communications media working full-time not only to perpetuate the concept that life is linked with wealth’s purchases (contrast Luke 12:15), but also to make this the official ideology of the world. Those who are relatively poor or really so, then, when confronted with this philosophy, have the choice of rejecting the popular dogma by accepting or rationalizing their poverty and being thought fools, or of becoming Mammon-worshippers too. After all, wealth is relative: one can be as dependent upon wealth with little as with much. Trusting in riches is a question of attitude toward it, not how much one actually possesses of it. There is, of course, Jesus-’ third alternative: that of relativizing wealth by reassigning to the means of material wealth its true economic function, by subordinating it to the things of the spirit, which, in His view, is the true treasure. As we saw taught in Matthew 18 and as this section illustrates, the present age of the world is structured in such a way as to draw exaggerated attention to the powerful and the wealthy, who are, from Jesus-’ standpoint, the less secure, the more infantile, less scrupulous and more bulldozing members of the race.

Nevertheless, Jesus will answer the Twelve’s pessimistic question by showing that not everyone will be so selfish. Rather, everyone who is motivated to make the sacrifice will be saved, and at the same time, will be amply repaid all that this cost him, even in this life. (Matthew 19:29)

In this particular case, the disciples ask, If a rich man cannot be saved, who can? But other disciples with other orientations would just as easily ask: If an ecstatic charismatic cannot be saved, who can? or If an ascetic holy man cannot, who can? Or it might be a philosopher as opposed to the man on the street, or just any man as opposed to a woman, or a free man as opposed to a slave, a Jew as opposed to a Gentile, a powerful king as opposed to a lowly commonerand the list is endless. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 1:26-31; 1 Corinthians 2:6; 1 Corinthians 3:18-23; 1 Corinthians 4:8-18; 1 Corinthians, 7; Galatians 3:28) The reason for this is that, according to each one’s orientation, these various groups, due to their inherent merits, are thought to have automatically attained or earned the goal coveted by all. Nevertheless, a Christian’s salvation and self-identity does not depend upon his earthly status, but upon what God makes possible for him to become in Christ and in accepting the challenge to be a Christian right where he is with what he has. Christ’s invitation to discipleship is not based on the disciple’s earthly situation, race, sex or social condition, but upon His own graciousness. Paul had learned this, and so could almost turn eloquent prose into poetry describing the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord! (Philippians 3:8-11)

4. Jesus answers: God is lord of all possibilities. (19:26)

Matthew 19:26 With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. Whatever else the details of this wonderful declaration may mean, Jesus proclaims in dramatic terms the absolute Lordship of God: God is in absolute control of everything: with God all things are possible. This declaration has soul-stirring significance for the original hearers and readers of this Gospel, especially because they faced earth-shaking sociological, economic, philosophical and theological upheavals that threatened to leave them adrift on a chart-less sea. But to know that God is at the helm of the universe is security. But this fact also had immediate, personal ramifications for those disciples who were not a little perplexed when their Master took a hard line on divorce. (Matthew 19:10) And just now He has all but damned society’s greatest, most influential citizens. (Matthew 19:23-25) Their emotions and readiness to believe are being strained to the limit, as if everything they had nailed down was coming loose. With these words Jesus anchors their souls to something solid that counts, something that is eternal, unaffected by time and change, to a God with whom all things are possible. (Cf. Luke 1:37; Genesis 18:14; Jeremiah 32:17; Jeremiah 32:27; Zechariah 8:6)

But the very proposition, with God all things are possible, may very well mean that, for the disciples as for anyone else, God may well have to take some unpredictable steps, unforeseeable by limited human conceptions. While God may be counted upon to be perfectly wise, holy and loving, He may talk and act in ways that no one on earth could have foreseen or predicted with certainty. This is because God cannot be shut in by human categories or definitions. In fact, Jesus-’ parable of the Eleventh-Hour Laborers (Matthew 20:1-16) explicitly teaches the unexpected truth that, in contrast to the usual, human notion that recompense should be measured on the basis of work quotas met, everything depends upon the free will and mercy of God.

What is it that with men is impossible, but easily falls within the province of God with whom all things are possible? Two answers are possible, depending on what is meant by this or on what is meant by **with men, with God.

This** refers to the disciples-’ question, Who then can be, saved?

Basically, their question meant, Who can be saved from the addiction of wealth so as to be admitted to the Kingdom? They implied that none could be saved, because all normal people are involved, in one way or another, in the preoccupation with the gaining and maintaining of possessions.

Further, if those who seem to be gifted, particularly qualified personalities cannot be saved, who can?

Jesus answers either standpoint.

With men, with God means in the judgment of men or God about what each can do.

It is a mistake to understand the preposition with in either phrase as referring to accompaniment. With (parà with the dative in both cases) does not mean to indicate the person with whom one cooperates, i.e. God or men, as determining the possibilities of the case, as if Jesus had said, If being saved depended upon other men, men cannot be saved. When men take God’s hand, they can do the impossible and be saved. Jesus did not say this.

Rather, parà with the dative points to the judgment seat before whom one stands figuratively: in the sight, or judgment, of someone. This meaning passes over into the simpler with and becomes almost equivalent to the dative, possible or impossible for someone. (Arndt-Gingrich, 615) He means, therefore, that what in human judgment is impossible, God judges perfectly possible. Since we cannot live with wealth and we cannot live without some possessions, we must judge salvation, perfection and eternal life to be unobtainable. But God alone can work the necessary transformation of our vision of wealth.

so that we no longer depend upon it, but upon Him.

Men just cannot merit salvation, no matter how rich or righteous they are, because no amount of human qualifications can remove sin. (Hebrews 9:22; Ephesians 1:7) Only a perfect sacrifice can effect that. (John 1:29; 1 Peter 1:18-21; Romans 3:21-26; Romans 5:6-11; Hebrews 7:26-28; Hebrews 9:11-14; Hebrews 9:23-26; Hebrews 10:10; Hebrews 10:26) And only God can furnish a sacrifice like that, for with God all things are possible, and, as Jesus will say later, He Himself is that sacrifice, a ransom for many. (Matthew 20:28) Salvation is in the hands, not of self-congratulating men, but of a God who, seeing the human mediocrity and incapacity to be perfect, can do precisely what Jesus did with the rich young ruler, i.e. provide an arbitrary path to eternal life. This arbitrariness, however, is apparent only to people who have carefully amassed their fortune in moral merit badges and brownie points with a view to cashing them in on eternal life at the end. But because they are sinners, they must not suppose that any quantity of merit can pay for one sin. This must be atoned for on quite another basis, because any goodness they may have expressed was totally their duty. (Luke 17:7-10) The arbitrariness of God consists in His choice to save, not those who have carefully earned their salvation, but those who never earned it at all, but rather trusted Him to be generous and did what He asked. (See notes on Matthew 20:1-16; cf. Romans 4:4-5.) This is but the Pauline doctrine of justification by the obedience of faith. (Cf. Romans 1:5; Romans 16:26; Romans 3:25; Romans 4:24; Romans 5:1; Romans 6:17 f, etc.)

The. reason wealth and religious merit may be connected in this context is that wealth is but coined life, i.e. time and energy used to produce a certain result, hence that for which a man spends his lifetime must be considered his wealth, because he considered it worth his effort to produce or pursue it. This is why excessive well-being, too many worries, any earth-bound work carried on unlimitedly, all hinder the individual from possessing the Kingdom, because these leave no space, no time, no energy, no spiritual freedom to dedicate himself to the things of God in the common things of life. Anything that occupies our whole life and leaves no time for the Kingdom of God, anything that leaves us insensitive to Christian concerns or does not permit us to feel the need of God’s salvation, is dangerous wealth. This includes that wealth that consists in religious practices punctually observed and carefully registered which salve the conscience that one’s duty is done, but at the price of true love for God. (Cf. Maggioni, Luca, 237) So, even if a man spends a lifetime hoarding up a treasure of merit wherewith he may buy his soul out of hell and pay for his right to enter God’s eternal rest, his pursuit of this wealth is a striving after wind and vanity too.

The rich young ruler was a man who, by almost anyone’s standards, deserved to be ushered into the Kingdom on a red carpet, but, staggered by the unexpectedly high price of the Kingdom, judged it impossible for him to pay, and walked away. In glorious contrast to him; however; there is Zacchaeus, the filthy rich chief tax collector. There hardly lived a man more camelly to go through the needle’s eye of the Kingdom than he! And yet, during a visit with Jesus Christ, by the grace of God IN HE WENT! (Luke 19:9) Not because rich, but because repentant.

If the Apostles-’ question means, Who can break the spell that wealth holds over its possessors?, Jesus-’ later answer to Peter (Matthew 19:29) will show that God had already begun to succeed in liberating the Twelve (with the possible exception of Judas) and many others from the fascination of possessions.

G. PETER’S WRONG-HEADED QUESTION ANSWERED (19:27-30)

We have sacrificed what the rich young ruler would not: what is our reward?

Matthew 19:27 Lo, we have left all. Objectively, they had sacrificed little more than a few boats and nets and the simple fisherfolk that made up their families, hardly a treasure to compare with the ruler’s millions. But it was their entire life: their livelihood, their loved ones. So when they turned away from these things to follow Jesus, they demonstrated as truly their dedication to Jesus as if they had renounced all the finest gold in the world or forsaken the treasured company of kings. What then shall we have? Is Peter’s reaction to the foregoing statements of Jesus positive or negative?

Positive. Peter sees that the Twelve disciples had actually made great sacrifices to be in His personal service. They had willingly done what the rich young ruler had not, although the objective quantity was not near as great. If, then, the road of the wealthy is a dead-end street, what lies ahead on the road of sacrifice? Because the Lord does not seem to scold Peter’s abrupt question, it may be that He interprets Peter as asking, Lord, since we have sacrificed for the Kingdom, does this mean that we are among the recipients of God’s grace for whom He facilitates entrance into the Kingdom? What has God made possible for us? Since Jesus had pointed out the impossibility to be saved (With men this is impossible), Peter may be uncertain about whether they, in their sacrificing, were laying up heavenly, treasure. But the fact that Jesus is not openly scolding in His answer is not decisive, because even His slightest warning (Matthew 19:30; Matthew 20:16) may be thought to contain a criticism of Peter’s question.

Negative. The rich young ruler had just been turned away because of the hold earthly possessions had on him, and now poor, grasping Peter commits the same basic error! What shall we have? means that what the Apostles even then possessed in the Person of Jesus Christ was to be judged meager in comparison with what they considered missing, and undoubtedly less than what they. expected to come.

Peter and anyone who agreed with him was still addicted to wealth, because he just cannot quite stop thinking about what has been surrendered to be in Jesus-’ service. Worse, he values too lowly the beauty and preciousness of all the compensations with which he was even then surrounded. (Cf. Matthew 13:16 f; Luke 10:23 f; Hebrews 11:13; 1 Peter 1:10-12)

Further, Peter’s observation has the flavor of self-righteousness, because we have left all reminds the Lord of the greatness of their self-denial. So his question is colored by covetousness. Perhaps he thought, Our rare success in doing what the most amply qualified citizens find impossible to do must be a very meritorious accomplishment indeed, What shall we have?, then, hints for V.I.P. positions and preferential treatment.

In the larger context, it may be that Jesus-’ remarks on the dangerous temptations of riches had a discouraging effect on Peter, leaving him uneasy about prospects of immediate reward on earth in the Kingdom of a King who inexplicably refused to be crowned (John 6:15) and steadily predicted His own judicial murder (Matthew 16:21; Matthew 17:22 f).

Though charity requires that we not condemn Peter without solid proof of his guilt, the latter interpretation seems more correctly to explain his motivation, since the warning Jesus gives in Matthew 19:30 and more especially the point of the Parable of the Eleventh Hour Laborers (Matthew 20:1-16) grows directly out of this question. Over-concern about contracts with God and the What is there in it for me? spirit endangers those who react and reason this way, because of its legalistic calculation, its putting self-interest first in priorities, and its expecting preferential treatment.

2. Jesus-’ answers: You will be rewarded, but not on the basis you think. (19:28-20:16)

a. PROMISE: In the new world, you will reign with me, judging all Israel.

Matthew 19:28 Although His further remarks will leave the merit-counting self-seekers scratching their heads and frustrated, the interesting thing about Jesus-’ answer here is the gentleness of His reproof of Peter’s self-interested question. Instead of criticizing his question, He answered it! There is a striking similarity between this reaction and His promises given in Luke 22:28-30, despite the self-seeking dispute among the Twelve about relative rank and importance at the Last Supper (Luke 22:24-27). A closer look at the answer in each context, however, may convince us that His promise of their future greatness intends to destroy any hope of personal gain or superiority over others. He disappoints every aspiration of personal distinction in a graduated hierarchical scale by seating them on twelve equal thrones. No one is worthy to be seated higher than another. This implies that no merit is accumulated even on the basis of the relatively differing sacrifices made by each one. (See on Matthew 20:1-16.)

You who have followed me means you who have continued with me in my trials. (Cf. Luke 22:28) The disciples deserved high positions in the Kingdom, not because they had sacrificed so much (Matthew 19:27), but because they had been willing to be His disciples despite all the common-sense rationalizations that told them to drop Him. They would be rewarded on the basis of their well-tested but victorious faith. They had seen in Him absolutely nothing that would concretely sustain any real hope of earthly security or power. Their faith is not perfect: they would misunderstand Him and they would yet express some ambitious hopes. (Matthew 20:20-28) But these failings, in His view, were but ripples on an otherwise calm sea of deep trust in Him. He did not despise the generosity of their self-denial, however often it might misunderstand Him. Their general humility and willingness to be led was worth everything to Him: why should He fail to reward them? Only an uninformed, greedy jealousy could raise an eyebrow at the idea of rewarding them for following Him, because, as He has intimated time without number, the rewards of the Kingdom are not the sort of thing that would attract the greedy or arouse the materialistic anyway. (See The Reasonableness of the Redeemer’s Rewarding Righteousness, Vol. I, 198-201; cf. notes on Matthew 10:41 f and Matthew 20:20-28,) And, because eleven-twelfths of their number would finally learn the critical route to true greatness (Matthew 18:1-4), He now replies to their original question in language more nearly resembling what they hoped He would use. But even then, the nearness of terminology must not be mistaken for nearness in thought!

In the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. As suggested above, regardless of what attraction the Apostles thought they saw in these words as they heard them the first time, they did not receive what they anticipated. And yet the Lord did not deceive them, because it was something similar, but something which their later, maturer Christian judgment would decide far superior and far more gratifying than all their earlier, paltry dreams. But to what does Jesus refer here? Note the two possible time elements and their relative applications:

The regeneration:
The Apostles-’ judging the 12 tribes of Israel:

a. The Christian age

a. By means of their teaching

b. The renovation of the universe

b. By decisions at the great judgment

It may well be that such neat outlining is far more precise than the Lord Himself, especially if we must make either/or choices between what in the Lord’s thinking may have been one continuous process that would include all of the above elements as progressive phases in the process. The details of that process, examined individually, then in harmony with each other, illustrate this.

Because Jesus says in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, the time element is contemporaneous with the glorious reigning of the Messiah. Elsewhere, instead of saying in the regeneration, Jesus said in my Kingdom. (Luke 22:30) His reign was announced as an accomplished fact the first Pentecost after His ascension. (Acts 2:33-36) His Kingdom is a present reality. (Colossians 1:13; 1 Corinthians 15:24 f; Hebrews 1:8; Ephesians 5:5; 2 Timothy 4:1; Revelation 1:9)

Regeneration (palingenesía), as the Greek word suggests, refers simply to that long-awaited era when everything would begin to be made new. This would begin with the rebirth of men on the present earth. (2 Corinthians 5:17; John 3:3-5; Titus 3:5; Romans 6:4; Romans 8:10; Romans 12:2) But the process would not be completed until this transformation of the present scheme of things affected every part of the total universe itself. (Romans 8:18-25; 2 Peter 3:7-13; Revelation 21:1; Revelation 21:5)

It is to be a time when the Twelve would sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Note the kind of action represented by that present participle, judging (krínontes): it is durative, representing an action as in progress and continuing during the time when the Twelve would be seated on their thrones with Jesus. If we may presume that, following the great, final judgment, the twelve tribes of Israel would have already been finally judged and their fate no longer in question, then with that act also the Apostles-’ function as judges would come to an end. Thus, their judging must have been something in progress prior to the final judgment. Two problems should be noticed:

The thrones are twelve, because Judas would be replaced by Matthias (Acts 1:15-26) and, for the time being, Jesus is not taking Paul and the Gentiles into consideration, so He does not mention thirteen thrones. But if there are at least twelve, there is not to be just one throne in the Vatican, the cathedra of Peter. We see here something far more wonderful: the college of Apostles gathered around Jesus Christ, ruling. God’s people.

Should we think of the judging in modern termsonly as a strictly judicial function? Plummer (Matthew, 270; see also, Barnes, Matthew-Mark, 201) raises the interesting question whether the Apostles-’ specific function should be thought of as reminiscent of the position and activity of the Judges in ancient Israel, who not only gave sentence in legal cases, but positively governed the nation. (Cf. Judges 3:10; Judges 10:2 f; Judges 12:8 f, Judges 8:11; Judges 8:13 f; etc. See Keil and Delitzsch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 241.) Contrary to the Jewish expectation that the tribes of Israel would be ruled by the Twelve Patriarchs, the sons of Jacob (Cf. Testament of Judah Matthew 25:1), Jesus the Messiah elevates His own Apostles to that office.

The twelve tribes of Israel, considered as an expression in the ears of a Jewish disciple, could have meant nothing but the ideal people of God. Certainly it may have been badly interpreted as referring only to fleshly descendants of Abraham, thus eliminating the Gentiles, as it often was. But this abuse does not deny the propriety of Jesus-’ using it in a perfectly Jewish context. (Cf. Acts 26:6-7) It meant the ideal Israel. (Cf. Revelation 21:12) But the true Israel of God (Galatians 6:16) includes believers of every sex, race and condition (Galatians 3:28). Thus, Jesus-’ expression is symbolic for the people of God redeemed by the Messiah. (Cf. James 1:1; James 2:1 shows that these are Christian.) But is there no sense in which the Apostles ever dealt with the literal tribes of Israel? Certainly, but hear their preaching as they go to the Jew first and also to the Greek. (Acts 13:46; Acts 18:6; Acts 26:6-7; Acts 28:20; Acts 28:28; Romans 1:16) The sentencing of the Jews will depend on whether they accepted the inspired preaching of the Apostles or not. But reference to fleshly Israel must not overweigh His reference to the true Israel of God. (Cf. Romans 9:6-8) It is mistaken to believe that the reference is not intended in any sense to include Pentecost and the Church’s establishment, a conclusion undoubtedly founded on the unwarranted identification of the twelve tribes of Israel with unbelieving Jews only, and on the too strict identification of the Church and the Kingdom. It should be noted that Jesus did not say Church in our text, but alluded to thrones suggesting regal judgment and, in the later comment of Luk 22:28-30, said Kingdom. His reference is not exclusively to the Apostles-’ judgment of the Messianic Community, but rather to the total rule of the King, beginning from His accession to the throne and continuing until the end of time. Thus, the Apostles could actually begin their judging of the believing and unbelieving Israel even at Pentecost, and not merely with the beginning of eternity at judgment day.

These data, taken together, lead to the conclusion that Jesus-’ words contain no mysterious, eschatological pronouncement, but simply declare what even the youngest Christian already knows by heart:

By their personal example of willing obedience to Him in whom they saw the works of God and from whose lips they heard the voice of God, these Twelve, more than any other disciple, rightly judge all Israel. They did the homework assigned to the entire nation, thus proving that it could and should have been done. (Cf. the example of Noah, Hebrews 11:7 b) Their example of successful discipleship should stand for all ages as a living monument and worthy of imitation, because even without their saying one further word of condemnation, their faithfulness to Jesus in His lowest humiliation will damn the wise and understanding who thought they knew too much to believe the impossible, unreasonable claims of that eccentric Nazarene! 2. The Apostles-’ inspired doctrine is the official standard by which not only the new Israel of God (Galatians 6:16; Galatians 3:7-9; Galatians 3:26-29) is to be judged, but the proclamation of a Gospel by which the Jew first would be justified or condemned. (Romans 1:16) Today, in the Kingdom of God it is the Apostles-’ doctrine (Acts 2:42) that is the standard by which everyone is to be judged faithful to God and members of the Church of the Messiah. (See notes on Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18 and all notes on Matthew 10.) This prophecy was already being fulfilled in the Apostolic era. In fact, Matthew’s book itself judges us!

In short, what Jesus promised in Matthew 16:18 f; Matthew 18:18, that the Apostles-’ legislative and judicial voice would be considered as final, is going to be realized in all questions of faith and practice in the earthly expression of the Kingdom of God. As McGarvey (Fourfold Gospel, 548) said it:

During their personal ministry, they judged in person; and since then they judge through their writings. True, we have written communications from only a part of them, but judgments pronounced by one of a bench of judges with the known approval of all, are the judgments of the entire bench.

In the imagery, Jesus pictures the Twelve as ruling when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne. Some might object that Jesus-’ presence in the scene would preclude as superfluous any legislative jurisdiction on the part of the Twelve. However, neither Jesus thought so, nor did they themselves. Undoubtedly every Apostle, during his earthly ministry, could say with Paul: It is in the sight of God that we have been speaking in Christ, and all for your upbuilding, beloved. (2 Corinthians 12:19 b; cf. Matthew 2:17; Matthew 4:2; Matthew 5:11; 1 Timothy 6:13) Like the Thessalonians, believers embrace the Apostles-’ words as God’s word. (1 Thessalonians 2:13) Bruce (Training, 258f) exclaims:

Surely here is power and authority nothing short of regal! The reality of sovereignty is here, though the trappings of royalty, which strike the vulgar eye, are wanting. The apostles of Jesus were princes indeed, though they wore no princely robes; and they were destined to exercise a more extensive sway than ever fell to the lot of any monarch in Israel, not to speak of governors of single tribes.

ENCOURAGEMENT: Sacrifice for the Kingdom is a profitable investment.

Matthew 19:29 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. Not only are the Apostles in line for exalted blessings as they follow Christ, but EVERYONE who has sacrificed for Jesus-’ sake will be rewarded even in this life with hundreds of times more than what they give up, and eternal life in the age to come. (Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30) Giving away, letting go, liberating oneself of possessions is the only way of keeping and multiplying them! This is incredible doctrine, if not Utopian nonsense, to our hard-nosed, business-is-business, practical-minded world, but no more so for ours than for that of Jesus-’ original hearers. And yet, the Lord knows that this is the only way to free us from the nearly uncontrollable slavery to things and security-building relationships that distract men from the innumerable possibilities in life that do not involve possessions at all.

Everyone who has made the sacrifice, taken the risk, let go of his earthly securities, kicked the habit of addiction to possessions, says. Jesus, will receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit eternal life! Mark and Luke emphasize the this-worldly character of Jesus-’ promise: … now in this time, houses, and brothers, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life, In terms of sheer reward, faith in Jesus pays far more than it requires of us, compensating for anything surrendered with 100-fold returns! (Cf. 1 Corinthians 3:21-23; 2 Corinthians 6:10)

Inherit eternal life is the language used by the rich young ruler (Mark 10:17 = Matthew 19:16). What the Lord required of that potential disciple was not hopeless, profitless sacrifice, but an investment paying off handsome dividends!

If inherit eternal life sounds like a merited payoff for people whose sacrifices earn their reward, Hendriksen (Matthew, 731) shows how these who are saved by grace may truly inherit such blessings: a. They are freely given to them, not earned by them; b. the gift is based upon justice: they were earned for them and are therefore theirs by right; and c. they are theirs forever.

Why should the Lord be so lavish? Why should He NOT bless the man who loves the Kingdom so much that to gain it he would sell everything he has, and then, deciding such sacrifices inadequate, give himself? Should the Lord not give the man what he gave himself for? However, the sacrifice Jesus rewards is not the calculating self-concern of the ascetic, but the willing surrender of one who loves Jesus. We must not forget that Jesus is answering the disciples-’ question: Who then can be saved? To this Jesus answers, in effect, EVERYONEeveryone who sacrifices whatever hinders his loyalty tome, For my name’s sake means for my sake and for the gospel (Mark 10:29) and for the sake of the kingdom of God (Luke 18:29). For other notes on suffering for Christ, see on Matthew 5:10-12; Matthew 10:16-39.

Jesus Christ puts such a high premium on sacrificing everything for Him, because He knows what earth-bound value systems do to people. He knows that riches have a shriveling effect on our spirit because they supercharge the ego with a false sense of power. This is because, when we have unlimited resources to mold our own fate, we limit our future to the low goals which we can consciously conceive, rather than take life as it comes, a day at a time, with its unforeseeables, its risks. Here is where faith is made real for the believer. But because of these risks, doubts can constrict our souls by tempting us to struggle to make life safe for ourselves, so we can, continue to enjoy our wealth unendingly. But in this very safety there is psychological stagnation, and faith in God dies, because it is in the unknowns, the risks, that real life takes on the excitement and zest that makes it worthwhile. Thus, security symbolseven the security of safe family patterns **(houses, brothers, sisters, parents, children, real estate)**may have to be risked in order to be able to grow into the kind of life Jesus offers. Who would have thought that in our old security systems whereby we guaranteed ourselves a constant supply of whatever houses, lands and kinfolk gave us, were already planted the seeds of our own stagnation and spiritual poverty?

Ironically, but truly, the chief symptom that we are addicted to our possessions (all that we think is ours and is of value to us) is the sensation that we are unable to meet our world without the reassurance that they are there. Our security symbol may be a well-padded bank account, a martini, a shot of a narcotic, modish clothes, business as usual, kinfolks all in their places, eating well, pleasant family surroundings, whatever. A person is hooked if he has the uneasy sensation that, IF HE SURRENDER ANYTHING HE POSSESSES TODAY, HE WILL BE INADEQUATE OR NAKED WITHOUT IT, for that it might not come back tomorrow. Notice, then, how Jesus even condescends to our all-too-human uncertainty by assuring us, on His honor as a Gentleman and a Teacher come from God, that not, only will we have a constant supply of what we really need for our real security and happiness, but it will be supplied in greatly multiplied-’ abundance. Nor will it be merely pie in the sky by-and-by, but in this time. There is also the soul-shrinking reality that, in inverse proportion. as our wealth grows and our interest grows in those pleasures wealth can assure us, our interest decreases in those innumerable options in the realm of the spirit that have nothing to do with wealth or possessions. In fact, it may well be that Jesus-’ hundredfold here has only partial reference to expanded material riches or multiplied physical kinfolk. (Otherwise, He would be stimulating the very greed He has just been condemning.) Rather, He guarantees the gain of what would be valued at a hundred times the price of what was given up: the multiplied fellowship of brotherhood in Christ, righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, and much more besides that would far exceed the mundane values abandoned for Christ’s sake., (See Wilson, Learning From Jesus, Treasures of the Kingdom, 228ff.) Ponder Bruce’s further explanation (Training, 262):

Still it must be confessed that, taken strictly and literally, the promise of Christ does not hold good in every instance. Multitudes of God’s servants have had what the world would account a miserable lot. Does the promise, then, simply and absolutely fail in their case? No, for. there are more ways than one in which it can be fulfilled. Blessings, for example, may be multiplied a hundred-fold without their external bulk being altered, simply by the act of renouncing them. Whatever is sacrificed for truth, whatever we are willing to part with for Christ’s sake, be comes from that moment immeasurably increased in value.

Jesus is convinced that He is ordering us what seems like poverty, which, in reality, is itself wealth. It is a measure that is not intended to limit man’s maturing, but the condition that will make maturity authentic and actually possible. This is because the man who, out of love for Jesus and the Kingdom, reverses the whole mechanism of covetousness in his life, finds that he has time for God and people like never before. Although he is money-poorer, he is rich in freedom from the cares brought by the economic struggle for just a little bit more. (Proverbs 15:16; Proverbs 16:8; 1 Timothy 6:9) He is rich in serenity, because he has learned in whatever state he finds himself to be content with it, because his mind is fixed on God (Isaiah 26:3; 2 Corinthians 6:10; Philippians 4:4-7; Philippians 4:11-13; Hebrews 13:5 f; 1 Thessalonians 5:18; 1 Timothy 6:6-8) And, because he is now deeply involved in helping others arrive at the only authentic humanity there is that which is available only in Christ,he is rich in brotherhood. (Cf. Romans 1:6-13; Matthew 12:48-50)

Hundredfold: where is all this going to come from? Is God going to rain down manna from heaven on His beleaguered saints? More likely He is counting on that marvelous hospitality whereby His people take care of each other. (Study Acts 2:44 f, Acts 4:34 f; -Hebrews 13:1-3; 1 Peter 4:9; 3 John 1:5-8; Romans 12:8; Romans 12:13; Ephesians 4:28; Philippians 4:14; 1 Timothy 3:2; 1 Timothy 5:10; Titus 1:8; Titus 3:14) More would come from a new work ethic that would create financial independence. (Ephesians 4:28; 1 Thessalonians 4:11 f; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-13; Titus 3:14) Above and beyond these human endeavors and resources there is the vast treasury of heaven at our disposal! (Matthew 6:33; Philippians 4:19; Colossians 2:2 f; 2 Corinthians 9:8-11; Ephesians 3:20)

That no easy life is indicated here is clear from Mark’s addition: hundredfold. with persecutions. (Mark 10:30; cf. Acts 14:22) That persecution is not merely an accompanying phenomena of the Christian life or even a hindrance, but really part of our profit, is illustrated by Bruce (Training, 263):

We see further why persecutions are thrown into the account, as if they were not drawbacks, but part of the gain. The truth is, the hundredfold, is realized, not in spite of persecutions, but to a great extent because of them. Persecutions are the salt with which things sacrificed are salted, the condiment that enhances their relish. Or, to put the matter arithmetically, persecutions are the factor by which earthly blessings given up to God are multiplied an hundred-fold, if not in quantity, at least in virtue.

The fact that it is for Jesus-’ sake that we are persecuted, is a blessing in itself, because it furnishes additional proof that we are really faithful to Him, hence assures us of our belonging to Him and eventual redemption by Him. (1 Peter 1:6-9; 1 Peter 2:12; 1 Peter 2:15; 1 Peter 2:19-25; 1 Peter 3:13-18; 1 Peter 4:1 f, 1 Peter 4:12-19; 1 Peter 5:9) This is no idle promise, either for the early Christians who, in order to share in the Gospel and be in the Kingdom of God for Jesus-’ sake, actually abandoned family, field and fireside, or for the modern saint who is called upon to sacrifice the companionship of those nearest and dearest to him, because they refuse him for his commitment to Jesus. How many have experienced the literal truth of the Lord’s word, in the actual multiplication of dear ones closer than one’s own ungodly kin who cast them out? How many have found in the warmth of the Christian congregation strength to accept the inevitable persecutions (Mark 10:30; 2 Timothy 3:12), and the incredible joy that comes from accepting the plundering of their property, knowing they have a better, permanent possession that enemies cannot touch? (Hebrews 10:34; 1 Timothy 6:17-19; Matthew 6:19-21)

The fact that Matthew and Mark omit wife in the list of things abandoned for Christ’s sake must not be interpreted as an antiascetic reaction on their part, any more than its inclusion by Luke (Luke 18:29) indicates the contrary tendency on Luke’s part. It may only indicate that the former Evangelists dealt with the problem of man-woman relationships in the context of Jesus-’ teaching on marriage, divorce and celibacy (Matthew 19:3-12 = Mark 10:2-12) hence omit wife here to eliminate any suspicion of contradiction, whereas Luke, who will treat the divorce problem alone and in a quite different context (Luke 16:18), could include wife. In fact, as illustrated at Matthew 19:12, Matthew, in principle, does leave the door open for separation from an unbelieving spouse.

The current Gemeindetheologie school that believes that the Gospel writers wrote primarily for their own congregations (Gemeinden) and so reflected live needs and problems in their own special areas, do not hesitate to date Matthew’s Gospel in the 80’S and 90’S, long after the fall of Jerusalem. However, the heavy insistence that the rich young ruler be immediately ready to sacrifice every item of value for the sake of Christian discipleship and the promise made to any disciple of a hundred times what would be sacrificed, quite easily point to an earlier period. We must not think that such problems arose exclusively at a later age of the Church. In fact, much earlier, people already had begun to experience the suffering of loss of all things for Christ. (Philippians 3:8; 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16; 1 Thessalonians 3:3 f; 2 Thessalonians 1:4 ff) Rather, if Matthew’s pastoral concern is to prepare his congregation for what it must faceand on the basis of what theory of pastoral theology can such a concern be denied?then the early testimonies to joyful acceptance of the plundering of Christians-’ property because of their confidence in a better, abiding one (Hebrews 10:32-36), tend to indicate a date prior to the Jewish war when the unbelievers of Judaism persecuted the Christian disciples, i.e. a date when Judaism, not yet preoccupied with war with Rome, could turn its persecuting attention upon the upstart sect of the Nazarenes.

THE REWARDS OF SELF-SACRIFICE

Meditate these lovely lines by Bruce (Training, 255ff):

The first thing which strikes one in reference to these rewards, is the utter disproportion between them and the sacrifices made. The twelve had forsaken fishing-boats and nets, and they were to be rewarded with thrones; and every one that forsakes anything for the kingdom, no matter what it may be, is promised an hundred-fold in return, in this present life, of the very thing he has renounced, and in the world to come life everlasting. These promises strikingly illustrate the generosity of the Master whom Christians serve. He rather loved to make Himself a debtor to His servants, by generously exaggerating the value of their good deeds, and promising to them, as their fit recompense, rewards immeasurably exceeding their claims. So He acted in the present instance. Though the all of the disciples was a very little one, He still remembered that it was their all; and with impassioned earnestness, with a verily full of tender grateful feeling, He promised them thrones as if they had been fairly earned!

These great and precious promises, if believed, would make sacrifices easy. Who would not part with a fishing-boat for a throne? and what merchant would stick at an investment which would bring a return, not of five percent, or even of a hundred percent, but of a hundred to one? The promises made by Jesus have one other excellent effect when duly considered. They tend to humble. Their very magnitude has a sobering effect on the mind. Not even the vainest can pretend that their good deeds deserve to be rewarded with thrones, and their sacrifices to be recompensed an hundredfold. At this rate, all must be content to be debtors of God’s grace, and all talk of merit is out of the question. That is one reason why the rewards of the kingdom of heaven are so great. God bestows His gifts so as at once to glorify the Giver and to humble the receiver.

c. WARNING: Watch for a reversal of earth’s value systems. (19:30)

Matthew 19:30 But many shall be last that are first; and first that are last. This paradox is true, because the logic of the Kingdom overturns the whole merit-counting methodology of those people believed to be first. Earthly estimates and evaluations, based upon mistaken premises, however popular and widely believed, cannot but be reversed by God who judges everything according to reality. To worldlings, this must appear to contradict all sense of appropriateness and right, simply because the presuppositions, on which this sense is based, are themselves false. Imagine the world’s surprise as all the most glorious prizes go to those to whom everyone would have assigned last place, the also-rans, the etceteras. But the big eye-opener will come when those judged most likely to succeed finish last! (See notes on Matthew 13:25; Matthew 13:30; Matthew 13:43.)

The Apostles had just witnessed a man, who by all counts, should have been first in the Kingdom, walk away from it to a destiny of last importance. Jesus-’ betrayer, too, was in line for greatness among the first, but Judas would be substituted by a disciple whose name never appears among the first disciples in the Gospels, but who would move straight to the top at the beginning of the Church. (Acts 1:15-26) To reject the rich young ruler and Judas as not involved in Jesus-’ thought is to fail to look at Jesus-’ point from the disciples-’ standpoint, since they would certainly have considered Judas among the elite, and, as their own reactions showed, they had been staggered at the idea that an almost perfect rich man could not enter the Kingdom. Hendriksen (Matthew, 732) agrees:

There will be surprises however, Not only will many of those who are not regarded as the very pillars of the church be last, but also many who never made the headlinesthink of the poor widow who contributed two mites (Mark 12:42), and Mary of Bethany whose act of loving lavishness was roundly criticized by the disciples (Matthew 26:8)shall be first on the day of judgment (Mark 12:43 f; Matthew 26:10-13). The disciples who were constantly quarreling about rank (Matthew 18:1; Matthew 20:20; Luke 22:24) better take note!

There is presumption in Peter’s self assurance that takes it for granted that sacrifices should be rewarded and that the only problem is WHICH reward, He must understand that there is no sense in calculating rewards in a Kingdom in which no one deserves even to serve! Because this maxim connects the Parable of the Eleventh-Hour Laborers with Peter’s question (Matthew 19:27), it very likely rebukes that self-complacency and pride that haggles with God over what He can or should give us. There could be a real situation in which those who considered themselves first because of their own self-sacrifice, would find it all vitiated by pride, and actually be surpassed by those who in genuine humility had equaled them in devoted, self-giving service to the Lord, even if not as fortunate to get in on the ground floor as the early disciples. Further, if Jesus-’ talk about handsome rewards for service might tempt some to serve merely for the prizes and not because they love the King, the Lord deflates such hopes by this prophetic epigram and the parable which follows as its illustration.

Note Jesus-’ terminology: MANY shall be last that are first, and first that are last. This means that not everyone who labors long, faithfully and efficiently in God’s Kingdom will be contaminated with the mercenary, self-righteous spirit that congratulates itself on what it calculates as a reward for its arduous labor. God has ever had humble, unassuming, self-forgetful, generously trusting workers in His service. Many does not mean that all will be calculating and selfish. And, as Bruce (Training, 268f) astutely sees.

If there be some first who shall not be last, there are doubtless also some last who shall not be first. If it were otherwise,if to be last in length of service, in zeal and devotion, gave a man an advantage,it would be ruinous to the interest of the kingdom of God. It would, in fact, be in effect putting a premium on indolence.

For further notes, study the following parable which illustrates this point: Matthew 20:1-16.

FACT QUESTIONS

Describe the man who came to Jesus. What was his character and position in society? What do his questions and answers reveal about him? What does his manner of approach to Jesus reveal about him?

What question did he place before Jesus? How does the wording of Matthew differ from that of Mark and Luke? Interpret and harmonize these differences.

What concept of how to obtain eternal life did he have?

What preliminary response did Jesus make to the man’s request? How does the wording of Matthew differ from that of Mark and Luke? Harmonize and interpret these differences.

List and locate by chapter and verse the commandments Jesus cited to the man.

What was the man’s reaction to this repetition of the commandments?

What addition does Mark make that could aid in our interpretation of this text?

What did the man lack to be perfect?

Explain what was really required of him, i.e. show how total liquidation of his assets, giving alms and discipleship under Jesus would have led the man to perfection. What principle(s) behind these requirements apply to everyone?

Did Jesus say that rich men per se cannot enter the Kingdom, i.e. because they have the misfortune to have riches, or did He imply that those who trust in riches cannot enter? What is the evidence for the former conclusion? What is the evidence for the latter?

What is meant by the figure of the camel and the needle’s eye?

How did the disciples react to Jesus-’ closing the Kingdom to wealthy people?

How did Jesus react to their reaction?

How did the disciples react to Jesus-’ further reaction?

What does Jesus mean when He says, With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible?

What question did Peter ask as a general reaction to Jesus-’ firm stand on wealth and its relation to the Kingdom? What did the Apostle mean by his query?

What did Jesus refer to in His promise of twelve thrones for the Apostles? When and/or how would they judge the twelve tribes of Israel?

According to Jesus, what are the rewards of Christian service?

With what pithy principle did Jesus punctuate His remarks? What did He mean by it?

List the texts in Matthew 18 which find practical application in this section.

SPECIAL STUDY MONEY AND MARRIAGE: MANACLES OF THE MUNDANE?

Modern apostles of the single life and semi-bohemian pushers of poverty even in the Church of Jesus Christ are making their voices heard to justify their less conventional life-styles. While each one must decide how best to react to the station in life in which he has been called by God, the disciples of Jesus Christ must see the options clearly, not being misled by popular talk that at times sounds like something straight out of the Gospels. In our present sections we have examined Jesus-’ reference to those who would be natural and proper exceptions to marriage: the eunuchs for the Kingdom of God, those who remain virgins in order to pursue specific goals for the advancement of God’s rule. Further, we heard Jesus urge the rich young ruler to distribute his wealth among the poor to be perfect. Now, if celibacy is to be received by those rare souls to whom it is given, and if voluntary poverty is required to be perfect, then a life-style that reflects these characteristics most nearly would have an intrinsic superiority over the married person who possesses property, would it not? And would not the freedom from these manacles permit a higher spirituality? It is to Bruce (Training, 245-254) that we are indebted for the following salient points that analyze this problem:

**ASCETICISM, AS A THEORY OF CHRISTIAN VIRTUE, IS FALSE FOR THESE REASONS:

IT IS BASED ON A FALSE ASSUMPTION.**

Asceticism assumes that abstinence from lawful things is intrinsically a virtue superior to moderation in using them.

This assumption is false:

Because abstinence is actually the virtue of the weak, because it is the safer way for anyone given to an uncontrollable love of a thing. Abstinence gains this safety at the expense of that disciple that develops character and strength. A self-controlled moderation is the virtue of the strong. (Cf. Romans 14:1 to Romans 15:7)

Because abstinence is inferior to moderation for its psychological sanity.

Asceticism tends to exaggerate the evil of the things avoided, developing a morbidness about contamination and a deliberate distortion of reality to justify its abstinences.

Abstinence, while necessary in special circumstances, is really unnatural and inhuman, a forced withdrawal from what God created to be received with thanks giving. (1 Timothy 4:3-5)

Asceticism is surprisingly inferior to moderation even in the element that constitutes its character: self-denial.

To eliminate at the outset everything that could ever be a source of human joy so that it could never be a temptation sounds very impressive.

But to live with and fully use everything that could always be a temptation, while, at the same time, maintaining one’s own spiritual freedom untrammeled is real spiritual power and character. This self-sacrifice is actually the greater, because it is ready to move, not from the sterile wilderness of empty asceticism, but from the midst of life’s dearest enjoyments, and not merely once for all, but many times and at any time. These, not the ascetics, are the greater heroes.

II. THE ASCETIC THEORY IS BASED ON ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATIONS OF CHRIST’S WORDS

Jesus does not state or even suggest that the single life and total self-privation of goods are essentially superior to marriage and proprietorship rightly understood and used.

He teaches, rather, that, under special circumstances, the unmarried or the penniless condition offered certain advantages which facilitate a single-minded pursuing the interest of the Kingdom.

Danger and hard times underline this advantage most clearly.

But this forced unnaturalness is a real hindrance in the absence of such crises. (See notes on Paul’s view of celibacy at Matthew 19:11.)

The Christian ideal is consuming devotion to the Kingdom, regardless of what it costs or when it costs, so that everything else is placed subordinate to it.

It is this sense in which all of Jesus-’ demands of self-sacrifice must be interpreted.

Any overtime duty is not asceticism for its own sake, but extraordinary demands in usual emergencies to get a job done.

The reader is referred to the notes on Matthew 19:3-12 and Matthew 19:16 to Matthew 20:16.

III. OPTIONAL ASCETICISM AS AN IDEAL OF VIRTUE IS A LOGICAL CONTRADICTION:

If asceticism or abstinence be a virtue essentially and unavoidably superior to moderation and self-control in the use of lawful things, then with what logic can asceticism be thought of as optional?

If godliness and perfection are inexorably linked only to poverty or celibacy, then to arrive at perfect godliness there can be no thought of free options.

Are we really free to choose whether we will be a perfect Christian as opposed to a more common good Christian?

May we be excused from developing a given character quality merely because it is too demanding, if it be really true that that very virtue is essential to a supposedly superior Christianity?

In short, if it is a virtue, it. is required: if it is optional, it is not a virtue!

Were asceticism a virtue, then Jesus made a mistake not to command literal poverty and enforced celibacy for everyone. But that He did not, in fact, do so is everywhere evident in Scripture where Apostles continue to hold out perfection for everyone regardless of the condition he was in when he was called to be a Christian.

Ascetic poverty necessitates, for its continued existence, that the superior ascetics depend upon those inferior Christians who still possess enough-’ capital to support the mendicant ascetics also, or worse, it must depend upon charity from non-Christians, or else, by personal industry, compromise its absolute poverty enough to possess the tools necessary for gaining its own living.

IV. ASCETICISM, AS A THEORY OF CHRISTIAN VIRTUE, IS ABSURD, BECAUSE IT ENTAILS THE DISINTEGRATION OF THE HUMAN COMMUNITY.

Even if family and possessions are not everything, man’s earthly life is profoundly concerned with both.

Enforced celibacy leads to disintegration of the Christian ideal.

Because celibates who remain faithful to Christ and their ascetic ideal are themselves but one generation from extinction or must resort to adoption of others-’ children to keep the community going. (Cf. the Essenes-’ approach to this problem.)

Because celibates who abandon their virginity but remain celibates, leave also their virtue and sink into a degeneracy and corruption through sensuality that destroys everything for which they had become ascetics in the first place.

Enforced poverty lasts until the end of the groceries in the larder, then it falls into the logical contradiction of de pending upon those of inferior virtue to sustain it either by charity or commerce.

Service to God and human life lived to the full are not mutually exclusive. Rather, it is in the crucible of true humanness that God’s original design for man is to be perfected, where every relationship, every natural ability, every desire, every earthly possession is to be turned to usefulness in Christ’s service and made to contribute to our maturity in the character of Christ. We must live in the earthly condition in which God has called us, resisting its temptations and overcoming by His grace. We must mingle in the world’s crowd, expose our selves to its temptations, venture within the magic circle of its attractions, but show by the power of Christ at work in us that we are men of another world, hence superior to this world’s allurements. We must dispassionately compare this world’s pleasures and prizes with those God offers, and prefer these latter out of genuine conviction of their surpassing worth. (Cf. P.H.C., XXIII, 366)

CONCLUSION: Christ’s stern words on marriage and possessions, poverty and celibacy anyone with family responsibilities or preoccupied with wealth. Then, shaken by his own vulnerability, he can turn to God for power to do the difficult, not impossible, task of concerning himself single-mindedly with the things of the Lord, as if he were unmarried, although he is married, and although responsible for many possessions, he may be free from the love of money, rich in heavenly treasures, humble-minded and generously devoted to Christ’s service.

Old Green Commentaries

The College Press Bible Study Textbook Series — 59 volumes by 25 authors, published between 1961 and 1992 and affectionately known as the 'old green' commentaries for their green hardback bindings. Each volume is a commentary, workbook and teaching manual in one, written by Restoration Movement …

View all chapters →

Old Testament

GEN EXO LEV NUM DEU JOS JDG RUT 1SA 2SA 1KI 2KI 1CH 2CH EZR NEH EST JOB PSA PRO ECC SOS ISA JER LAM EZK DAN HOS JOL AMO OBA JON MIC NAH HAB ZEP HAG ZEC MAL

New Testament

MAT MRK LUK JHN ACT ROM 1CO 2CO GAL EPH PHP COL 1TH 2TH 1TI 2TI TIT PHM HEB JAS 1PE 2PE 1JN 2JN 3JN JUD REV

‹ Chapter 18 Matthew — All Chapters Chapter 20 ›